13 Nov

The ClimateGate Comedy….It’s Just Science Dude!

                                       

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.

Mick

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 up extrapolating 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.

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in ClimateGate, Environment, Global Warming. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, November 13th, 2010 at 10:55 am
| 1,062 views

66 Responses to The ClimateGate Comedy….It’s Just Science Dude!

  1. Randy says: 51

    Colder winters possible due to climate change-study 16 Nov 2010 14:52:16 GMT
    Source: Reuters
    * Colder winters possible in northern regions

    * Shrinking sea ice causes airstream anomalies

    * Finding does not conflict with global warming

    BERLIN, Nov 16 (Reuters) – Climate change could lead to colder winters in northern regions, according to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research on Tuesday.

    Vladimir Petoukhov, lead author of the study, said a shrinking of sea ice in the eastern Arctic causes some regional warming of lower air levels and may lead to anomalies in atmospheric airstreams, triggering an overall cooling of the northern continents.

    “These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and northern Asia,” he said. “Recent severe winters like last year’s or the one of 2005/06 do not conflict with the global warming picture but rather supplement it.”

    Petoukhov, whose study is entitled “A link between reduced Barents-Kara sea ice and cold winter extremes over northern continents”, said in a statement a warming of the air over the Barents-Kara Sea appeared to bring cold winter winds to Europe.

    “This is not what one would expect,” Petoukhov said. “Whoever thinks that the shrinking of some far away sea ice won’t bother him could be wrong.”

    The U.N. panel of climate scientists say a creeping rise in global temperatures will bring ever more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.

    Almost 200 nations meet in Mexico from Nov. 29 to Dec. 10 to try to agree a “green fund” to help poor countries deal with climate change and other steps towards an elusive treaty to tackle global warming. [ID:nLDE6AF0FB] (Reporting by Erik Kirschbaum; editing by Janet Lawrence)

    I don’t expect that colder winters would creat more sea ice and then reduce this estimated effect? I think global warming is causing a rash on my back side, too!

    ReplyReply
  2. anticsrocks says: 52

    @Silly Bob: Did you say something?

    No?

    I didn’t think so…

    ReplyReply
  3. B-Rob says: 53

    auntiesrocks —

    Yes, I did say something. I tried to use small words so you could understand it, but that obviously did not work. But I refuse to dumb it down any further just for your indulgence, since everyone else here comprehends it perfectly fine.

    ReplyReply
  4. Randy says: 54

    Anticsrocks: I was going to provide a profound answer about how Spain has gone bankrupt subsidizing alternative energy with tax dollars to B-Rob, but your description of silly Bob was much better.

    ReplyReply
  5. Randy says: 55

    Just for B-Rob who can not understand that a fiscally responsible congress man can not require utility companies to use renewable but highly inefficient energy!

    Romina Boccia

    The High Cost of Renewable Energy Coercion

    http://townhall.com/columnists/RominaBoccia/2010/11/16/the_high_cost_of_renewable_energy_coercion/page/full/

    This midterm election sent a clear message to Washington: “Listen to the people, or you’re out.” While the dire state of the economy and out-of-control public spending were certainly the frontrunners in motivating voters to make their voices heard, the Democrats’ push for “cap-and-trade” legislation followed closely behind.

    Voters know that cap-and-trade legislation would lead to increased energy costs, which would negatively affect businesses’ and consumers’ bottom line. Making it harder for consumers and businesses to survive in a tough economy with high unemployment is understandably unpopular.
    About two dozen Democrats who had voted in favor of cap-and-trade legislation, or the Waxman-Markey bill as it is officially known, lost their seats in the House of Representatives this midterm election. Compare that to the fate of West Virginia’s Joe Manchin who actually fired a shot through a piece of paper marked “cap-and-trade” during a campaign ad. Manchin wanted to make it perfectly clear that he wouldn’t follow his party leadership in pushing for this job-killing legislation, and he won handily.

    Yet, voters should be warned. Although cap-and-trade may be off the table during the next Congress, another costly energy bill is pending, which might be able to garner more bipartisan support. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D.-N.M.) and Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.) introduced the Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010 in the Senate this fall, and several other Republican senators have already expressed their support.

    The Act would mandate that 15 percent of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2021, thereby increasing the cost of electricity for businesses and consumers. Electricity generated from the wind and sun costs more than extracting energy from coal, oil, natural gas, or atoms. Since the broad majority of U.S. utility companies are regulated, the higher costs of renewable energy would be directly passed on to consumers in the form of rate increases.
    The Heritage Foundation estimates that renewable energy standards would raise electricity prices by 36% for households and 60% for businesses. Additionally, the standards are expected to reduce our national income by $2,400 per family of four, and add $10,000 per family to the national debt by 2035.

    Proponents of the Act argue that it would increase jobs in the green energy sector, which would help get the economy back on its feet. A study by the German Institute of Energy Research refutes that argument, showing that green energy job subsidies by far exceed average wages, at a per-worker cost of $240,000. This is a waste of resources. Those workers would be better off in more productive positions, which actually help the economy grow rather than in jobs that can exist only with massive government support.

    Not surprisingly, the biggest winners from the legislation are wind and solar power industries which have been lobbying heavily to use the coercive power of the state to force U.S. businesses and consumers to buy their products. We’ve seen how this works in Germany, where the electricity market is largely deregulated and whose renewable energy consumption was at 16 percent in 2009. In Germany, it took a legislative Act in 2000, obliging electricity companies to buy renewable energy at a government set fixed rate, referred to as feed-in-tariff, to get to those levels. The Act has increased German consumers’ energy bills by close to 10 percent of which only 35 percent are reflected in energy bills and the rest is taken in taxes. The FAZ, a leading German newspaper, paints a glum picture, suggesting that there are no signs that renewable energy will get any cheaper in the foreseeable future.

    Most U.S. states have already implemented renewable energy standards, often times in order to prop up green energy businesses in their state. California’s recent ballot decision on Prop 23 is a perfect example of the process that supports these mandates. Venture capitalists invested in green energy technology financed opposition to Prop 23, because a reduction in green energy subsidies and renewable energy standards would hurt their investments. Those in the green energy business won the day in California, and California consumers will be paying the price. The Senate’s new legislation aims to force those 15 states that have so far resisted the push for higher-cost energy to jump on the bandwagon.

    Americans know that the term cap-and-trade is synonymous with high energy prices. The term “renewable energy standards” isn’t yet political poison, but it is the same kind of coercive government policy that would force American consumers and businesses to pay higher prices for energy and subsidize less efficient energy sources. Voters are bound to learn the truth, which is something for the new Congress to consider as the new campaign for 2012 gets underway.

    ReplyReply
  6. B-Rob says: 56

    Randy —

    I am sure back in the days of buggy whips and whale oil, there were those, like you here, who decried the destruction of the American way of life if their particular industries declined. We somehow figured out how to manage, didn’t we? Likewise, for all the gnashing of teeth connected with the very concept of renewable energy and its astronomical cost, you sound like a bunch of nervous nellies.

    My post mentioned wind turbines, nukes, clean coal, and solar technologies — all of which our competitors are exploiting at a much greater rate and a greater degree than the US. Cons consistently have opposed any tax subsidies to cleaner technologies, while screaming “drill, baby, drill” and decrying coal mining regulations — boosting the dirtiest fuel sources at the expense of cleaner methods. Polluters ALWAYS oppose any limits on their ability to freely pollute and thereby socialize their noxious byproducts while privatizing the resulting profits. Polluters always scream about how the added costs will really hurt the little guy and “make our industries less competitive.” Boo friggin hoo. If cons and polluters had had their way, garbage would still be dumped in random landfills, chemical waste would still be dumped into our still-burning rivers, and our air would be thick enough to chew. Likewise, if you have your way here, Germany, China, Japan and France will LAP US on cleaner energy technologies. Is that what you want, for the US 10 years from now to be buying all our clean technologies from abroad?

    By the way — California just had an election where out of state pollution promoters proposed turning Cali into Texas. The voters, off course, rejected that proposal, because they remember what the air was like and what the waters were like before California took control of its own environmental destiny.

    ReplyReply
  7. anticsrocks says: 57

    Hey Silly Bob: Two Points

    1. Each time you post here at FA, you prove the old adage correct –

    It is much better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

    2. Why do you INSIST that the government must mandate that America switch to renewable, “clean” energy?

    You said:

    I am sure back in the days of buggy whips and whale oil, there were those, like you here, who decried the destruction of the American way of life if their particular industries declined. We somehow figured out how to manage, didn’t we?

    So you used an example of how America converted from horse drawn carriages and whale oil to automobiles and electricity.

    Refresh our memory here at FA – was the United States Federal Government MANDATING that we make that switch?

    They didn’t? The free enterprise, Adam Smith approach carried us from the horse and buggy to the car and oil lamps to electricity??

    So you used a free market example to prop up your top down, socialistic, totalitarian approach to renewable energies?

    *chortle*

    At this time, please refer to number one above…

    ReplyReply
  8. anticsrock; hi, you caught B- Rob , right on the nose, HE still haven’t figure up
    that people of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, don’t want rules and regulations ,
    thrown at them, this is an AMERICA THAT ALWAYS NURTURE THEIR FREEDOM,
    AND CAN THINK BY THEMSELF, THE GOVERNMENT, FORGET THAT THEY LIVE IN AMERICA,
    UNDER A CONSTITUTION THAT PEOPLE DONT WANT TO HAVE ANYONE IN LEADERSHIP CHANGE,
    BECAUSE IT WORKED FOR CENTURYS WITH WISE MEN TO PROTECT IT. BYE

    ReplyReply
  9. Randy says: 59

    anticsrocks: Iwas out today, but love your response. Silly Rob does think that nothing can change unless the government subsidizes it. Pennsylvania crude was much cheaper than whale oil and we switched. When solar and wind become viable, we will switch. As far aas polution, Silly Rob believes that CO2 is a polutant instead of a gas necessary for life on Earth.

    ReplyReply
  10. JVerive says: 60

    @ilovebeeswarzone,

    Sadly, we haven’t had centuries of Americans nurturing freedom without excessive goverment meddling, corruption, and waste. When the Progressive movement gained traction in the US (beginnng around 1900, give or take a dozen years,) we have seen a sizeable increase in experimenting by social engineers, always with the American citizens as the lab rats. Some good has come from social programs, but bureaucracy, waste, corruption, and influence peddling have increased along the way. Too many “temporary” programs became permanent once politicians saw how they themselves benefitted from throwing a bone to special interest groups. It’s a rule in politics that it’s always easier to spend than to cut. The 2010 midterm election has started to question that rule, and I hope it’s not too little, too late.

    I support a goverment that protects the rights and liberties of ALL of its citizens, not just one group at the expense of others. If there are real barriers preventing any persons from improving their lives and socioeconomic standing through education and effort, those barriers should be eliminated. People make it out of poverty every day by ignoring artificial (and often cultural) barriers, and it’s not always easy. Entitlement programs have helped many people, but they’ve also had the unintentional side-effect of reinforcing the attitude that the poor have no other options.

    Jeff

    ReplyReply
  11. Old Trooper 2 says: 61

    @ JVerive, Excellent commentary, Line Drive Out of the Ballpark as a matter of fact. Thanks!

    ReplyReply
  12. JVerive; hi, yes ,IT’S too bad that they try to impose their belief and views
    according to what other COUNTRYS OWN GOVERNING, WHEN THE LAWS OF THIS LAND PROVIDE THE BEST SECURITY AND FREEDOM FOR IT’S CITIZENS IF BEING FOLLOWED;
    AS THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THEM WANT IT; AND WITH GOOD REASON, BECAUSE THEY ARE MORE AT THE LEVEL TO OBSERVE THE NEGATIVE CHANGE IN THIS AMERICA THE MOST
    FREEDOM LOVING COUNTRY OF THE WORLD BY HIS CITIZENS, THE TRUE AMERICANS.

    ReplyReply
  13. anticsrocks says: 63

    @ilovebees & Randy – Thank you. :-D

    ReplyReply
  14. JVerive says: 64

    And then there’s this:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy

    A few snippets are here:

    (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

    and here:

    (NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

    (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.[my emphasis]

    For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear – as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years – that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

    Jeff

    ReplyReply
  15. Pingback: The ClimateGate Comedy….It's Just Science Dude! | Flopping Aces — Themia

  16. Pingback: Al Gore – You Man-Made Global Warming Skeptics Are Racists! | Flopping Aces

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>