Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Toto deVeer

Climategate 1 Year On....

Recommended Posts

Keep your eyes on academia, especially on this subject...

Good, unbiased academic research is priceless, but politically motivated research is amongst the most dangerous of perversions. The following video is an eye opener, and well worth a watch. We should not forget the agendas that lay behind this movement.

The agenda is going to be expressed in some other way, I fear, via anti-terrorism or austerity, for example. No doubt it will raise it's ugly head above the parapet again.

The people who are behind these movements want nothing less than a war on humanity. As for ClimateGate, it has been swept quietly under the rug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep your eyes on academia, especially on this subject...

Good, unbiased academic research is priceless, but politically motivated research is amongst the most dangerous of perversions. The following video is an eye opener, and well worth a watch. We should not forget the agendas that lay behind this movement.

The agenda is going to be expressed in some other way, I fear, via anti-terrorism or austerity, for example. No doubt it will raise it's ugly head above the parapet again.

The people who are behind these movements want nothing less than a war on humanity. As for ClimateGate, it has been swept quietly under the rug.

Dissent is verboten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we're on the subject again, could you just outline the 15 year research project you headed which ultimately led to great benefit, but which was at first evilly suppressed by one individual with a vested interest despite the other two referees declaring that it desered a prize!?

That sounds like an interesting tale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting/illuminating video. I don't think any agreement on carbon will be possible - China, Brazil, Russia etc etc will hold their ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we're on the subject again, could you just outline the 15 year research project you headed which ultimately led to great benefit, but which was at first evilly suppressed by one individual with a vested interest despite the other two referees declaring that it desered a prize!?

That sounds like an interesting tale.

I'm an engineer. The project spanned from 1982 to 2002 and I took charge of it and extended it from 1993 onwards. It was a national government programme and involved an international group of researchers and test sites from Japan across to the UK, involving a team of PhD researchers, several Universities and roughly 120,000 data elements. The data has resulted in about 60 publications overall and some data has also been incorporated within PhD thesis studies at Imperial College. No I am not a physicist and I am sure you know this by now. I certainly will admit it.

This work was very much data driven and was a bottom up process. Everything that I was involved in was done with the view that it had to be reproducible on an industrial scale. This is really the opposite of the type of research that a brilliant Physicist like Paul Dirac might undertake, which is a top down type of approach. I am currently involved in numerical analysis work that will be utilizing Dirac's delta function, so I have studied his work briefly.

I really do not wish to reveal more but if you are interested you can look up the Brite Euram research which was sponsored by European agencies.

We have now applied these techniques to projects around the middle east and far east and have achieved some startling successes. I managed to cut the materials cost on one project by $1 million and complete the work 6 months early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep your eyes on academia, especially on this subject...

Good, unbiased academic research is priceless, but politically motivated research is amongst the most dangerous of perversions. The following video is an eye opener, and well worth a watch. We should not forget the agendas that lay behind this movement.

The agenda is going to be expressed in some other way, I fear, via anti-terrorism or austerity, for example. No doubt it will raise it's ugly head above the parapet again.

The people who are behind these movements want nothing less than a war on humanity. As for ClimateGate, it has been swept quietly under the rug.

It makes you wonder how much other scientific fraud has taken place on other things over the years just to provide a veneer to justify the social engineering - especially in recent years when there have dramatic "discoveries" leading to equally dramatic "conclusions".

Then there's the rewriting of history which is often just another fraud used to justify this that and the other policy.

On the news a few days ago they were saying the latest flu jab included for bird flu resistance. Before long they'll be saying we would have had a pandemic of bird flu if it hadn't been for the jabs. Someone saved the world again, report any dead birds lying in the street, yeah right :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an engineer. The project spanned from 1982 to 2002 and I took charge of it and extended it from 1993 onwards. It was a national government programme and involved an international group of researchers and test sites from Japan across to the UK, involving a team of PhD researchers, several Universities and roughly 120,000 data elements. The data has resulted in about 60 publications overall and some data has also been incorporated within PhD thesis studies at Imperial College. No I am not a physicist and I am sure you know this by now. I certainly will admit it.

This work was very much data driven and was a bottom up process. Everything that I was involved in was done with the view that it had to be reproducible on an industrial scale. This is really the opposite of the type of research that a brilliant Physicist like Paul Dirac might undertake, which is a top down type of approach. I am currently involved in numerical analysis work that will be utilizing Dirac's delta function, so I have studied his work briefly.

I really do not wish to reveal more but if you are interested you can look up the Brite Euram research which was sponsored by European agencies.

We have now applied these techniques to projects around the middle east and far east and have achieved some startling successes. I managed to cut the materials cost on one project by $1 million and complete the work 6 months early.

Well thanks, that does sound interesting. I appreciate you revealing as much as you have.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often read/watch the Corbett Report but he's wrong on this.

There was a political agenda on the part of critics of AGW to get this dodgy, spinned information out before the Copenhagen gig.

Meanwhile, global temperatures continue their upward march, despite the sun's activity being at a low.

I woke up on Tuesday, 17 Nov 2009 completely unaware of what was about to unfold. I tried to log in to RealClimate, but for some reason my login did not work. Neither did the admin login. I logged in to the back-end via ssh, only to be inexplicably logged out again. I did it again. No dice. I then called the hosting company and told them to take us offline until I could see what was going on. When I did get control back from the hacker (and hacker it was), there was a large uploaded file on our server, and a draft post ready to go announcing the theft of the CRU emails. And so it began.

From that Friday, and for about 3 weeks afterward, we were drafted into the biggest context setting exercise we’d ever been involved in. What was the story with Soon and Baliunas? What is the difference between tree ring density and tree ring width? What papers were being discussed in email X? What was Trenberth talking about? Or Wigley? Or Briffa or Jones? Who were any of this people anyway? The very specificity of the emails meant that it was hard for the broader scientific community to add informed comment, and so the burden on the people directly involved was high.

The posts we put up initially are still valid today – and the 1000’s of comment stand as testimony to the contemporary fervour of the conversation:

•The CRU Hack

•The CRU Hack: Context

•Where’s the Data?

•The CRU Hack: More Context

I think we did pretty well considering – no other site, nor set of scientists (not even at UEA) provided so much of the background to counter the inevitable misinterpretations that starting immediately spreading. While some commentators were predicting resignations, retractions and criminal charges, we noted that there had not been any scientific misconduct, and predicted that this is what the inquiries would find and that the science would not be affected. (Note, the most thorough inquiry, and one that will have to withstand judicial review, is the one by EPA which, strangely enough, has barely been discussed in the blogosphere).

Overall, reactions have seemed to follow predictable lines. The Yale Forum has some interesting discussions from scientists, and there are a couple of good overviews available. Inevitably perhaps, the emails have been used to support and reinforce all sorts of existing narratives – right across the spectrum (from ‘GW hoaxers’ to Mike Hulme to UCS to open source advocates).

Things have clearly calmed down over the last year (despite a bit of a media meltdown in February), but as we predicted, no inquiries found anyone guilty of misconduct, no science was changed and no papers retracted. In the meantime we’ve had one of the hottest years on record, scientists continue to do science, and politicians

http://www.realclimate.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope i speak for many of the electorate when is say i'm really realy bored of this climate stuff. Theres nothing we can do about any of it anyway, and science is boring. Rioting is more fun to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often read/watch the Corbett Report but he's wrong on this.

There was a political agenda on the part of critics of AGW to get this dodgy, spinned information out before the Copenhagen gig.

Meanwhile, global temperatures continue their upward march, despite the sun's activity being at a low.

http://www.realclimate.org

Famous last words :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety

Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.