Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (13966)	11/20/2009 7:31:00 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86355

No Consensus Posted by Jeff Id on November 20, 2009 Now again, this was spread on multiple sites before it could be contained. I took the link down the moment it became apparent what it was. In the meantime, it spread like CO2 spewing from an evil IC engine’s exhaust. Now that it’s everywhere, there are some incredible quotes and emails which should be and will be addressed. Below is one, allegedly from someone called Phil. Presumably that would be Phil Jones, head honcho at CRU. cru.uea.ac.uk; Now I started this blog venting about the obvious politics of the IPCC and the control that scientists apparently had over skeptic publications. These emails have been incredibly revealing. We who are skeptical will hear no more criticism of our points that top quality skeptical papers cannot pass through review after these emails. There is widespread evidence here of active collusion to prevent papers which could be interpreted as skeptical from being published. In the alleged email below, a world famous “scientist” (a very loose interpretation of his job) apparently colludes with a bunch of others to refute a publication which does not conform to the ‘consensus’. He takes it to the point where he intends to put pressure on the Journal to remove the editor that allowed publication. You instantly realize the power these people have over the outcome of science. Dear All, Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning in response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom’s old address. Tom is busy though with another offspring ! I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling – worst word I can think of today without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to read more at the weekend as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and Keith A. onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so much else on at the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what to do there. The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn’t the warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being 1300-1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes. Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something – even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will usethis paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch. Cheers Phil Just what the hell does it matter that CRU has a person on the board, it’s science right?!!! Is the CRU guy a mole set to block any unwelcome publication? And is it a friggin coincidence that CRU has the highest warming of any of the primary temperature measures. This is a scandal with proportions that reach past all of the imaginations of a skeptics mind. Now I’ve never claimed global warming to be false here at tAV, and this provides absolutely zero evidence either way. However, regardless as to whether the “scientists” or polyscienticians are right or wrong about global warming, the disservice they have done to humanity through this collusion and manipulation approaches criminal. It will be impossible to convince people that this globalization effort is about warming. These many emails demonstrate that climate science is absolutely not a natural consensus but a forced one with leftist governmental goals, manipulated from the IPCC on downward to give the impression of certainty of knowledge. As I’ve said before, you can’t put 10 people in a room and get agreement on the color of the walls – unless you incarcerate them Jury style. NoConsensus noconsensus.wordpress.com