Jeff Id writes a good post about the hilarious “climate experts” who are still, STILL, trying to play the AGW game:
Gawd it’s funny to see grown men caught red handed with their mits in the cookie jar of fraud, claiming vindication and seeing them be supported by the media, government and industrial institutions. All these reviews taught us was that the corruption of reality extends much farther than a few people.
Again — we already knew that.
But the lies will continue as Mann publises one politically laced self-exonerating editorial after another. Like a pile of four year olds, climate scientists haven’t learned anything from climategate other than the obvious — don’t get caught!!
I have news for everyone though, climategate was the tip of the iceberg and climategate II is coming soon. I don’t have any information different from anyone else on where, when or whom, what I have is a brain smart enough to openly analyze the evidence and the evidence says that climate science is far more corrupted than we have seen yet. We aren’t done with this trip. Cuccinelli’s suit against Mann to reveal the 12,000 emails he’s written are a perfect example. Everyone paying attention knows that Mann is 100% in for AGW at any cost. He would sell his grandma for a hockey stick (think tiljander), and he’s not alone!! That just makes it more entertaining. Those emails are probably so full of corrupt commentary that it would make cliamtegate look like a kid spilling his milk. Of course without the emails, there is no proof so it’s just one man’s opinion.
Damn these guys make it fun.
The truth is out where even the rock dumb extremist AGWer’s can figure it out now though, Mann’s Nature trick to hide the decline pretty well cleared it all up. This post should serve as a warning/reminder to you all in the media and in the less informed public, we ‘skeptics’ of AGW extremism are well enough versed in climate science to know fully that there is a lot more than you saw from Climategate and ‘hide the decline’ going on behind the scenes, and it is even worse than you think.
Just wait till those 12,000 emails see the light of day. I’m guessing we will see some like this one exposed by Jeff:
From: Mick Kelly
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300
Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.
Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.
Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.
Eh….whats shaving off a few points here, a few points there…no big deal. It’s just science dude.
Steve Goddard today:
During October, RSS showed a large drop of 0.232 from September. It appeared that the battle for 2010 as hottest year ever was doomed. 2010 is turning out much cooler than 1998, with no hope of catching up.
But just when the battle appeared lost, the fighters at GISS got their second wind. Instead of a large drop in October temperature anomalies, they found a 0.08 rise! This keeps 2010 well ahead of their hottest year ever – 2005.
GISS is winning this battle by
making upextrapolating temperatures across vast regions where they have no data (pink below) and then reporting global temperatures to within one one-hundredth of a degree.
It’s just science bro!
Climategate taught different people different lessons though. Instead of journals opening up and allowing the reasonable moderate AGW science to be published, they tightened their unofficial policies forcing the non-anointed to go through endless reviews before rejection. Countless hours are spent by those who would publish moderate work in the face of extremist AGW claims. But it is funny!! Apparently climate science believes humans can control not only the planetary temperature but the laws of physics as well!
Dude, it’s only science:
For every one ton of coal burned, 2.86 tons of carbon dioxide is produced.
Wait a minute. How can one ton of hard coal produce nearly triple that weight of a gas (in this case, CO2)?
Those pushing this climate change argument ask us to accept some of the most complex science that very few understand, and to accept that science on faith.
Yet this coal-to-CO2 thing is not complex science. It’s basic first-year high school science that we all learned.~~~
The now-failed American Power Act legislation proposed placing a cost on CO2 in the amount of $25 per ton.
Now, the total amount in dollar terms for the money to be raised from this cost on CO2 comes in at $88 billion per year.
Electrical Power generation produces one third of all CO2 emissions, so if that legislation was passed, government would be looking at raising around $260 billion each and every year.
That cost would have been passed down to every one of us in everything we do in the form of higher charges for the electricity we use at home, and in higher prices for everything else as other sectors pass on their increased charges for the electricity they use.
Can you see now why climate change legislation really was really just about the money?
This money part of that legislation was not rocket science.
And it all hinged on high school science that most of us have forgotten.
All of this was for a trace gas in the amount of 390 parts per million, which is 0.039% of the total atmosphere — and that’s high school math.
Also, if you read the legislation (and that’s high school English), you’ll see that they didn’t stop at CO2, but instead proposed also to place a cost on a number of other emissions as well.
It really was just all about the money.
And it gets better :
The European Commission is planning to clamp down on a €2 billion ($2.8 billion) carbon trading scam involving the deliberate production of greenhouse gases which the fraudulent manufacturers are then paid to destroy.
The Climate Change Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, says the use of these carbon permits, from industrial gas projects in China, could be banned because of their ‘’total lack of environmental integrity’’.
Billions of euros worth of the controversial permits were used between 2008-09 in the European Union’s emission trading scheme, in which companies must exchange pollution permits for emissions produced.
The scheme allows some of those permits to be bought in from developing countries.
The most popular of these so-called offsets come from projects that destroy the greenhouse gas HFC-23, a byproduct of the manufacture of the refrigerant gas HCFC-22.
The Environmental Investigation Agency said in June that many Chinese chemical companies were manufacturing HCFC-22 primarily to earn money from destroying HFC-23, which can be five times the value of the refrigerant gas the plants are ostensibly set up to create.
What it all comes down to is no idealistic love for the environment. It comes down to money and power and the ringleaders/gatekeepers of the past have been shown to be frauds.