Calling Bob Inglis – If Climatologists Were Doctors They’d Be Quacks

Defeated Republican has blasted GOP right-wing pundits for denying global warming science.  Rep. Bob Inglis (S.C.) threw sour grapes at his fellow party members and elevated junk climate scientists to the status of qualified medical doctors. In the wake of his election failure Inglis whined:

 

“They slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and they’re experts on climate change.”

 

Irrepressible Inglis had served six terms in the House but lost to a more conservative republican opponent and blames defeat on his belief in climate science and picking the wrong side in this latest battle. Indeed, global warming skeptics now fill most Republican seats in Congress.

 

 No Consensus on Climate

The bitter ex-Representative is now reduced to pitching the lame ‘most doctors’ analogy suggesting voters must be dumb for voting for climate skeptics. Inglis argues if climatologists were 100 doctors and 98 said the ‘patient’ was sick then it was foolish to listen to the two whose advice was to do nothing (clearly, inferring that 98% of climate experts have diagnosed a ‘sick’ climate).

Sadly, Inglis hasn’t checked the numbers lately. But voters have. They’ve learned that the ‘98% meme is pure myth and doomsaying scientists have been fiddling the figures. The so-called scientific ‘consensus’  is exposed as boiling down to the opinions of only 75 climatologists from over 19,000 of such experts worldwide. While the “evidence” that proves that the sun wasn’t responsible late 20^th century warming came from just one expert.

 

Doctor Analogy is Quackers

 

Inglis has since repeated his lame ‘doctor’ analogy to become the unexpected darling of climate alarmists.  ThinkProgress first ran  the story.  But even a cursory analysis proves the Inglis analogy doesn’t hold water. Here’s why:

 

Medical professionals are required to undertake many years of training while most climatologists aren’t even qualified. Indeed, no climate scientist ever passed a basic degree in climatology.

 

Too many third raters weak in physics and higher math hide themselves in this infant, generalist-filled science; proof of this came from the official Climategate inquiries.

 

Lord Oxburgh, who chaired the 2010 independent British report into the Climategate scandal found that innumerate, cherry-picking climate scientists hyped up their global warming theory with unsubstantiated "subjective" claims. He officially recommended that skilled statisticians be brought in to hold their hand.

 

So when we switch the analogy to that of ‘statistician’ rather than ‘doctor’ we see how poorly Inglis has thought this through. Who in their right mind would want one of those charlatans calculating their tax accounts?

 

But it’s not just the climate doomsayers at CRU who can’t count; alarmists at the Royal Academy were exposed as innumerate, too. They somehow managed to miscalculate the duration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by several orders of magnitude! And so embarrassed was the New Zealand government by the number-crunching calamities of its climate scientists its now abandoned all pretense to possessing a valid climate temperature record. This is so important because the Australian/New Zealand data constitutes the foundation of one quarter of the planet’s climate record.

But let’s get to the real reason why the ‘doctor’ analogy fails: the ‘patient’ isn’t ‘sick’ – not even showing a rising temperature. Professor Phil Jones, head of the world’s pre-eminent climate data handling establishment the UK’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) admits there’s been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures since 1995.

 

But worse, solar scientists (not to be confused with climate scientists) say soon we may be entering a new ice age. So if Mr. Inglis insists on proffering a medical analogy, the facts suggest he’d be better advised to refer to those discredited climatologists as quacks and the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as snake oil peddlers.

 
The embittered former Representative hasn’t kept up with the science. Otherwise he’d know that the laws of physics ably defeat the global warming theory. What Mr. Inglis ought to do is use all that extra free time the voters gave him and take a good hard look again at the science. Then he’ll learn: “it’s the sun stupid!”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climategate One Year on – the Curious Case of a Lost Police Report

One year on and still British police do not report on their Climategate investigations. But with private police investigating the crime are we right to suspect a government cover up?

 

Skeptics refuse to let Climategate go away quietly. As we shall see below – even 12 months on – legal analysts show how climate criminals can still be put behind bars. If only UK police applied a more powerful legal instrument: the Fraud Act (2006) discredited government scientists could be prosecuted today.

 

Those of us with a modicum of legal training have been saying it all along; with the expertise of the Serious Fraud Office instead of those dawdling backwoods country bobbies, Professor Phil Jones and other accomplices linked with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia, England could all be put behind bars serving a ten-year stretch.

 

A Little Back Story to Refresh the Jaded Mind

 

A year ago this week over a thousand damning emails were leaked (or hacked). Independent scientists who studied them in detail affirm unlawful conduct by government paid scientists at the CRU, the world’s leading center for “climate data homogenization.”

 

The CRU’s “homogenization” process itself became the subject of much suspicion insofar as it was always known to be a gray area in science where unscrupulous characters could easily interpose personal bias and cherry-pick the data to make it say whatever they wanted.

 

So dubious and discredited is the climatologists’ homogenization technique that the New Zealand government recently abandoned their nation’s “official” record that employed it.

 

As history now shows an indelible stain is left on Britain’s credibility. Professor Jones, who ran CRU’s illicit operation, was allowed to get away with the crime destroying key climate data in blatant contempt of a lawful freedom of information (FOIA) requirement.  Thereafter, a weak self-serving British government ensured that three subsequent “inquiries” whitewashed all involved. Never once did any of these apologists for fraud address the fakery in the science nor hear witness testimony against the accused.

 

Despite tens of thousands of scientists condemning CRU’s junk science they were all ignored.

 

Pointedly, no one was ever arrested for the alleged “hacking” and the neat way the files in those emails were collated and carefully itemized suggested that a whistleblower’s hand had been at work.

 

The Key Conspirator Admitted his Criminal Intent

 

Any Crown prosecutor would slaver over the evidence against Jones. The leaked emails conclusively proved Jones admitted his criminal intent. Not only did he implicate himself he asked his colleagues to conspire with him to destroy key data because he said he would destroy everything in his possession rather than comply with the law.

 

Indeed, when the police went in they found that Jones had carried out his threat – all the metadata – the calculations used to dishonestly ‘homogenize’ cooler raw temperatures into warmer ‘official’ data were gone. The ‘Jones dog ate it.’ What more proof does it take to get the British government to admit that climate crimes were committed?

 

And no one involved, from the government to the police to the UK Information Commissioners’ Office has ever had the cahones to deny that CRU acted unlawfully – except, of course, the scum that run the University of East Anglia (UEA). At the very earliest opportunity they patted their man on the back and welcomed him back into that corrupt fold with the royal blessing of eco-fascist, Prince Charles.

 

You have to feel sorry for a whole crop of honest hard-working UEA graduates now forever tarnished by this scandal and ashamed to admit they studied under such a degenerate regime.

 

And still the apologists for eco-fraud will try to tell you that the police was not entrusted with investigating Jones, just the “hacking” incident – but they’d be wrong. That’s how willfully ignorant of the law those cynics are.

 

Private Police Unit Ensures No Public Accountability in Cover Up

 

Some of us with legal training smelt a rat when the investigation was first entrusted to Norfolk Constabulary. Why was this case, potentially the biggest international criminal fraud of all time palmed off onto plodding country constables?

 

But then it got worse! Almost immediately it was announced that ‘aiding’ Norfolk’s ‘finest’ was a secretive private police unit, the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET). Yes, you read that right – a private police unit was in on the act. Now why would this be, we may wonder? Perhaps it may have to do with their pension fund?

 

And where the hell was the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) when required? The SFO are mandated under law to take over any fraud case where more than £500,000 is involved and/or there’s an international dimension. Moreover, unlike the SFO the NDET were under no obligation to abide by the Freedom of Information (FOIA) Act. Like Jones, they got a green light from the authorities to play fast and loose with the evidence and then get away with it.

 

So throughout the coldest winter for 30 years progress in the investigations froze as completely as the weather. With no SFO in the picture (publicly accountable) and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and NDET not accountable, being totally exempt from freedom of information laws (FOIA) this investigation went nowhere fast.

 

Norfolk’s plodders and the secretive NDET, maintaining a clandestine line of communication with ACPO, that other private and unaccountable clique, had a clear run to implement the cover up. It’s lasted a year so far – can they go the full distance? Such is the woeful state of British justice today.

 

Let’s Nail the Climate Fraudsters

 

Today we see the same navel-gazing mainstream media not telling you the truth about how Jones and his accomplices can still be arrested, tried and jailed under the Fraud Act. Unlike that lesser toothless statute there is no time bar at all under the tougher Fraud Act when hunting down such complex international criminal conspiracies.

 

But why in a recession, should a cash-strapped government or their buddies in the media let you know you’ve been conned about climate in so many different ways?

 

Britain’s political masters deigned to give you three whitewash inquiries and one sham police investigation – what else do you Briton’s want? The clowns in charge have a recession to beat (you know, the one they dragged you all into!) and they must protect at all costs the needless tens of billions a year they want from you in crippling green taxes imposed under their foolish Climate Change Act (2007). Under that travesty Britain is legally mandated to cut is carbon dioxide emissions by a ridiculous 80% during a period when our planet is cooling!

 

Thus duped by a willfully self-serving and morally corrupt British government its public apathy that lets the corrupt get away with stealing the shirts off your backs. But nonetheless, many of us are still determined to ‘crack the climate fraud wide open.’

 

 

Global Warming Biologist Suspected of Fraud in Suspicious Study

Angry pro-green biologist suspected of fraud ejects TV producer from university interview to evade probing questions over hidden data.

 

 Australian biologist, Roslyn Gleadow of Monash University, Melbourne raised eyebrows recently in her much trumpeted alarmist paper, ‘Growth and nutritive value of cassava are reduced when grown in elevated CO2‘. Now she deepens suspicions of wrongdoing by storming out of a media interview.

Science of Carbon Dioxide Effects on Plant Growth Re-written?

 

These new “findings” widely hyped on pro-green news outlets have come under closer scrutiny since discredited Climategate crank, Kevin Trenberth (see video here) rushed to the authors’ defense. Bizarrely the controversial study totally contradicts the findings of a large body of science that has told us for years that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an essential plant food and adding more of it increases organic growth.

Moreover, it is established practice in agriculture that enclosures using increased CO2 promote crop yields, is good for both agro-business and consumers in that it leads to increased cost efficiency and thus cheaper food prices.

 

But, as we shall see below, when the Aussie biologist was asked during an interview to explain why her conclusions contradicted the findings of such eminent scientists such as Katsu Imai (1984) and others, she dramatically ended proceedings.

 

Gleadow’s freakish behavior is set to fuel further speculation that she and the paper’s co-authors, John R. Evans, Stephanie McCaffery and Timothy R. Cavagnaro are complicit in another high-profile eco-fraud.

 

Angry Green Researcher Refuses to Explain Anomalies

 

Key to this issue is the very crop this latest study examined: cassava. It has long been held that the original 1984 peer-reviewed evidence proved conclusively that CO2 increases cassava root yields. However, this latest alarmist study somehow inexplicably points to a decrease in such yields.

 

But when Timothy Wells, a free-lance TV producer and interviewer sought to persuade Gleadow to answer detailed questions on this headline-grabbing story she turned nasty. Gleadow became edgy and evasive and just wouldn’t give a straight answer to explain her extraordinary conclusions; thus clearly failing to demonstrate the accepted standards of transparency and integrity expected in the wider scientific community.

 

From the moment it was published independent experts have questioned how this Aussie paper could so dramatically contradict Kimball (1983) and other earlier results.

 

Kimball had analyzed 430 prior observations on the effects of CO2 enrichment and have demonstrated a consistent average increase of yield to 33% from a doubling of CO2 – a startling contrast to the 80% DECREASE claimed by Gleadow et al.

Security Called to Eject Interviewer From University

 

Upon a wave of pro-green media interest and eager to further ramp up the hype on her study, Gleadow agreed to be interviewed by Wells. The interview took place on November 12, 2010 at Monash University, Melbourne. Upon their meeting Wells found Gleadow’s zealotry typifying all that the public has grown to expect from pro-green activists. She was soon into her stride emphasizing that "unless Co2 emissions are dramatically reduced…there could be severe food shortages.”

 

But when Gleadows realized Wells wasn’t one of the usual servile mainstream news media journalists that pander to such greenwash things then turned ugly. Wells reports, “When I mentioned ‘yield’ [she] promptly said that permission for the interview was now withdrawn and that I was to leave the office.”

 

Wells adds, “Many excuses were offered” which he wasn’t buying. Gleadows became irate and Wells recalls, “security was then called but I left before any problem arose.” The episode left a bitter taste in the mouth with Wells pondering the question: “What does this scientist have to hide?”

 

Well-funded Greenwash Conspiracy Uncovered?

Not to be outdone, Wells looked again at her paper that’s supposedly about plant growth and noted that the researchers mention the phrase ‘climate change‘ no less than 14 times. It was at this point he began to ponder whether there may be a deeper unseen motive and perhaps a criminal fraud. 

 

Digging deeper, Wells then discovered that the source for the paper’s funding had been the Finkel Foundation. This organization is the brainchild of Dr. Alan Finkel who also finances a far left environmentalist magazine called “G.” Sat on the advisory board of "G" is Tim Flannery, Sir Richard Branson and several other staunch climate doomsaying activists with deep pockets.

 

But even more pointedly, Dr. Finkel was the Chancellor of Monash University at the time this “research” was done. We may not have a full-blown ‘Cassava-gate’  just yet but readers will no doubt draw their own conclusions; so expect to see more on this story as the plot thickens.

 

Reference:

 

Gleadow, R., Evans J. R., McCaffery S., & Cavagnaro, T. R., ‘Growth and nutritive value of cassava (Manihot esculenta Cranz.) are reduced when grown in elevated CO2’, (June 22, 2009), German Botanical Society and The Royal Botanical Society of the Netherlands.

 

 

 

 

Global Warming Loses Public Interest and Scientific Confidence

Despite greater scientific doubt and falling public interest the mainstream media is still avidly trumpeting the doomsaying clamor to bored viewers.

Australia’s ABC is the latest mainstream media outlet accused of failing to be objective in how it presents key environmental issues. ABC’s “favorite psychologist” Stephan Lewandowsky now claims man-made global warming is as real as the theory of gravity.

Disgruntled Aussie geologist Marc Hendrickx has blasted back at Lewandowsky, as reported on Greenie Watch (November 11, 2010) and Hendrickx is not alone. Recently Professor Hal Lewis famously resigned from the American Physical Society rejecting the “global warming scam” and was roundly applauded by many of his peers. But as more scientists and voters reject the green hype most of the mainstream media are just not presenting both sides of the story.

Hendrickx pulls apart Lewandowsky’s piece titled “Climate change: are you willing to take the risk?” The geologist accuses Lewandowsky of vastly exaggerating the level of certainty in climate science. He says “ if we apply the same level of uncertainty inherent in climate science concepts to other disciplines it seems there is little to justify Lewandowsky’s level of confidence.” Recent evidence shows Hendrickx has a valid point.

Read more here.

New Retreat from Global Warming Data by Australian Gov Bureau

 Article by John O’Sullivan and Val Majkus

 

Global warmers in full retreat as Aussie experts admit growing doubts about their own methods as new study shows one third of temperatures not reliable.

 

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) admits it was wrong about urban heating effects as a professional statistical analysis by Andrew Barnham exposes a BOM claim that “since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C”; the BOM assertion has no empirical scientific basis.

 

Barnham, who spent 8 years working in emerging South Asian economies building high volume transaction processing systems, applied a high-tech statistical technique very different from an earlier well-publicized probe by fellow Aussie, Ken Stewart on his blog, Ken’s Kingdom.

 

Stewart grabbed headlines in what became known as the Australiagate controversy after his findings were featured on popular science blog, Watts Up With That. Stewart exposed dubious BOM adjustments to temperature data that bore little or no resemblance to actual or raw past temperatures.

 

Like Stewart, Barnham paid particular attention to BOM’s methodology in addressing what is known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI), a proven phenomenon whereby thermometers measuring temperatures in towns and cities become unduly influenced by extra ‘background’ heating from buildings, road surfaces, machinery, etc. It’s in the UHI adjustments that the greatest discrepancies appear to lie.

 

BOM Errors in the Urban Heat Island (UHI) Effect

 

A chastened BOM is now starting to questions its own UHI adjustments. A recent BOM media release referring to a paper presented at the Australia – New Zealand Climate Forum in Hobart (October 14, 2010) admits it formulated its calculations incorrectly.

 

BOM concedes that daytime temperatures in Aussie cities are warming more rapidly than those of the surrounding countryside and that this is due to the cities themselves. In effect, the admission undermines all prior claims that such warming is principally due to man-made emissions trumpeted in the similarly discredited “greenhouse gas theory.”

 

Skeptical researchers have long argued that little or no weighting has properly been ascribed to the UHI phenomenon; this apparent U-turn may signal the demise of the now discredited official adjusted Australian temperature record.

 

Bureau climate scientist, Belinda Campbell, admits "we’ve known for a while that city night time temperatures have been warmer because the heat’s retained after sunset just that much longer than the countryside, and that city daytime temperatures have been warming too. But what we didn’t know was whether city daytime temperatures were also warmer because of the urbanisation or whether it was due to the overall warming of the planet associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect. We can now confidently say that the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation, the fact that all those offices, houses and factories absorb the heat and retain it a little bit longer."

 

 See the full discussion on BOM’s belated discovery on the excellent WUWT blog.

 

‘Homogenization’ – that Euphemism for Data Fudge

 

 In February 2010 John O’Sullivan published an article, ‘Australiagate: NASA Caught in Trick over Aussie Climate Data’  that drew attention to the fact that spuriously warmed Aussie climate data was being trumpeted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With these latest findings Barnham says, “My results raise a number of issues with the quality of the data and supporting analysis provided by BOM.” Readers are encouraged to compare Barnham’s findings published on joannenova.com.au with those of Stewart.

read more here

Skeptics Demand Live TV Debate in Global Warming Showdown

In response to calls for a media “rapid response” to sort out the climate change row once and for all, skeptic scientists respond with live TV challenge.

 

Dr John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota is claiming hundreds of climate scientists are gearing up to fight back against climate change skeptics after the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tanks, claimed that 50% of the more than 100 new Republican members of Congress are climate-change skeptics.

 

So will skeptics form a science squad to face Abraham and his climate cohort in a public face off? Yes, say one group of experts.

 

Will Warmists Brave a Hot TV Debate?

 

A team of international scientists and writers has been quick to accept the challenge lay down by doomsaying Dr Abraham. The authors of a new book “Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,”  to be launched later this month see Abraham’s belligerent call to battle as a challenge too good to let slip.

 

 They say they Abraham has presented them with the perfect opportunity to make or break trumped up climate claims at a time when international scientific institutes such as Britain’s Royal Society have been exposed for incompetence and/or outright fraud.

 

Among a long list of highly qualified luminaries willing to face up to the Abraham’s challenge are Drs. Tim Ball, Martin Hertzberg, Claes Johnson and Oliver Manuel. As part of a newly formed association of self-funding scientists prepared to publicly refute the so-called greenhouse effect of global warming they claim they are up for a humdinger of showdown.

 

Hertzberg referred to Abraham’s claims as “fear mongering hysteria.” While leading skeptic climate researcher, Hans Schreuder dismissed the science Abraham extols as “fallacious when considered in light of real natural processes.”

 

Alarmism in Full Retreat after Crop of Climate Calamities

 

Ever since the Climategate scandal (November 2009) a growing worldwide crop of government agencies has refused to disclose their calculations that they say proves man-made global warming. Time after time official temperature records have been “lost” declared not so “official “ after all. Last month, when faced with a court challenge the New Zealand government gave up all pretense of having a bona fide national temperature record rather than be exposed as frauds before a jury.

Now the ‘Slayers’ want to bring the climate controversy to a head with their own counter offer of a live television debate opposite Dr. Abraham and anyone else still willing to stand up and defend the discredited man-made global warming meme.

 

The ‘Slayers’ group, an international association not linked to any political party or business or financial corporation, typifies the groundswell among scientists in the blogosphere actively prepared to oppose alarmist junk science propaganda.

 

These ‘greenhouse gas deniers’ recently scored a political and media success (October 27, 2010) with their ‘Climate Fools Day’ event in London at the Houses of Parliament at which they successfully lobbied for parliamentarians to examine their arguments that carbon dioxide (CO2) plays no part whatsoever in changing the climate.

 

Greenhouse Gas Equations “Falsified”

 

Pointedly opposing Abraham’s "climate rapid-response team" is Dr Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. He has confirmed that equations put forward by NASA and government climatologists have been falsified.

 

Johnson, a peerless mathematician with a long career with groundbreaking research in computational fluid dynamics painstakingly details, along with his ‘Slayers’ coauthors, how junk science became criminal fraud. The controversial book major claimed by many to be a game-changer in climate science has already caused a stir with a flood of requests for pre-publication orders just at the time when the top tier of leading scientists are no longer prepared to keep silent.

Gleefully Picking Up the Global Warming Gauntlet

 

Retired chemist and science writer, Hans Schreuder summed up the thrust of the ‘Slayer’s’ argument against Abraham and his collective of climate crass, “There is not one single piece of evidence that supports the notion that carbon dioxide causes warming… the "well established physics" of greenhouse theory must be confined to the dustbin."”

Will the government’s climate doomsayers take on the skeptics’ challenge for a televised debate in a "media rapid response" – we shall soon see.