More climategate fun

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, December 1. 2009

Tierney in the NYT says:

Dr. Mann now tells me that he was unaware, when he wrote the response, that such grafting had in fact been done in the earlier cover chart, and I take him at his word. But I don�t see why the question was dismissed so readily, with the implication that only a tool of the fossil-fuel industry would raise it.

If Mann is telling the truth, he is utterly incompetent. I suspect he is lying, but a gullible Tierney appears to buy it. How would you not know how your cover graph was constructed?

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 11:15 | Comments (15) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Mann did what most people would do when paid to do so - find a reason to advance an agenda. The problem is he cheated by slicing and dicing data to produce one result and when it snowballed, much like Madoff I might add, he couldn't stop it and went with the flow.

When the final histories of this debacle are written many years from now, the two main villians, Michael Mann and Jim Hansen of NASA will be regarded in the same light as Flat Earthers.

The real shame is that our vaunted "scientific" leaders and political masters don't have the cojones to step up and say "we've been had". Of course the reason is money - most of the scientific and political elite have investment interests in ensuring that carbon credit scam succeeds.

It's going to be a very interesting decade from here on out.

#1 Tom Francis on 2009-12-01 11:51 (Reply)

I can't quite understand why, in this man's mind, "the fossil fuel Industry" would want to promote the global warming scam, as this so-called scientist implies. My husband worked in the oil and gas industry all of his working life, and the AGW guys want to demonize fossil fuel producers, rather than praise them. The sympathy tie here is between the AGW believers and the biofuel/wind power/solar power people who, altogether, represent considerably less than 10% of energy produced in this country, and whose power production depends on whether the sun shines, the wind blows or the farmers grow enough crops to spare to energy production.

I do agree, however, that Mann seems to be utterly incompetent. So is James Hansen, Gore's captive so-called scientist.

Marianne

#2 Marianne Matthews on 2009-12-01 12:10 (Reply)

I can't quite understand why, in this man's mind, "the fossil fuel Industry" would want to promote the global warming scam, as this so-called scientist implies.

It's called projection.

#2.1 Bird Dog on 2009-12-01 12:17 (Reply)

The left is the left, they haven't really moved much in a hundred years. I would be very surprised if Mann and Hansen aren't members of the loony left. I also have the impression that Mann is an unpleasant and arrogant fellow. Such a man is bound to have made enemies along the way and it is possible that they now see an opportunity for a bit of revenge. Could be fun.

#2.2 chuck on 2009-12-01 12:38 (Reply)

As I understand it, BP has been a rather large contributor to the Warmists. If you are not aware, BP (chaired by T. Boone Pickens last time I checked) is very invested in solar panels. The have a plant on I-70 on the outskirts of Frederick, Maryland, that always seems to have a parking lot full of cars (must admit I have not been by there since the end of June though I doubt that would be a unit that would be laying off right now).

I think Chevron is also invested in some green production.

Of course, Pickens has been trying to work all ends against the middle. He'll be happy whether we go green or natural gas/propane. I think he has also been buying up land anywhere that windmills might work.

Personally, I am glad all of this is finally coming to light. I am especially enjoying reading people's comments on various articles and blogs across the internet as they come to grips with the fraud that has been perpetrated. The Aussies have elected a new Opposition party leader who is against the EST (their version of Cap & Tax) and it is now predicted that EST will be defeated. Hurrah for the folks down under!

I think the Brits may be closer to true revolution than we are here. They are suddenly realizing they have lost sovereignty by signing onto the whole EU scam and these leaked emails and info files have put the cherry on the parfait of pompousity.

BTW, I read this blog quite a bit and really enjoy it -- hope it was ok to post. :)

#2.3 Barbara York on 2009-12-01 12:45 (Reply)

The folks here are very forgiving and appreciative of newbies - after all, they allow me to comment. :>)

#2.3.1 Tom Francis on 2009-12-01 15:37 (Reply)

I think this can be true. Take the case of Brazil. The oil is reactivating the entire industry. Ranging from steel to textiles and communications, from seismic studies to the storage of crude, the gas processing and the production of fertilizers. "The report in Spanish newspaper said that Brazil's Lula wants to follow the example of Denmark, that "turned into a peculiar and discrete power oil administered with care by the state." However, the report notes that Brazil "is not Norway, with its population of nearly 190 million people, 25% poor, high rates of violence and "bad levels of infrastructure and education. I live in a state of Brazil, far from the place of discovery, and yet, as a Lawyer I understand that our politicians differ on the formation of the law that would distribute oil wealth extracted. Among the challenges confronting Brazil, the paper lists "excessive bureaucracy and corruption. Serious environmental problems in the Amazon. Territorial imbalances between the impoverished north and the sunny south. And the great and historic inequity of the division of wealth." The ideology of bread and circus continues in force in all countries of the world. The world needs a universal law, with rights and obligations universal.

#2.3.2 Wesley on 2009-12-01 19:56 (Reply)

You're partially right Marianne, but it extents beyond BP, EXXON/Mobil right to the very core of the energy industry. Jim Rogers of Duke Energy, one of the largest producers of coal fired electrical energy is one of the biggest ringleaders - he, and Duke Energy, stand to make billions off of carbon credits if C&P can be passed. It's embarrassing how much money GE will make off of producing the scrubbers, wind mills, catalysts and trading carbon credits - I saw an estimate of GE's potential monetary gain - a trillion dollars over the first fifteen years almost all pure profit because carbon credits will cost them nothing.

The sad thing is that we're going to get a version of C&P anyway because the EPA, under Carol Browner. Browner has a huge stake in carbon credit trading as does her husband - she is a founding member of the Albright Capital Group which assists businesses with the challenges of complying with environmental regulations and climate change and her husband, Tom Downey runs the Downey/McGrath Group - which, you guessed it, is big into "green" investments and carbon trading. Browner also is a member of other investment and trading groups.

And Browner now has the authority to establish through policy what can't be passed through legislation.

So that's what the average American has to deal with - entrenched elitists with an agenda. Unfortunately, it's a collusion between government and business not seen since the days of the Robber Barons.

And if I sound like an conspiracy theorist, I apologize - I'm not, but there are just too many danged coincidences between these people not to notice - if you're paying attention.

Stick 'em up has a whole new meaning.

#2.4 Tom Francis on 2009-12-01 15:35 (Reply)

There is an interesting logic flaw in this article. Tierney easily glosses over the grafting issue by implying that it's OK to have done so since the temperature readings supported what the scientists wanted to show, while the other proxy measures did not.

Sadly, HARRY points out the temperature readings are not uniform. In other emails (which I've gleaned from reading elsewhere) the scientists lament the sad state of the temperature readings, but use them ANYWAY.

Why? Because it supports their story.

Is Tierney this vapid that he's unwilling to see the logic flaw? Is he this tied to the lie? Is the religion THAT IMPORTANT?

#3 Rick on 2009-12-01 12:42 (Reply)

Rick, these people have taken us back to the time when the Church of Rome considered it heresy for anyone to say the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe.

Yes, unfortunately, the religion IS THAT IMPORTANT to them. Many would tell you outright they are lapsed members of this or that religion or agnostics or atheists; however, most are worshippers of Gaia/nature/earth religion and don't even realize it.

Global warming and imminent catastrophe must be true or their whole world view will fail. What will hold all the new citizens of the Universe together if we don't have a shared catastrophe just around the corner which we must share our wealth to defeat?

Of course, all those lovely gobs of money make for real incentive to keep the faith in climate change. Money for all the corporations, money for all the politicians, and money for all the scientists who don't mind bending the curve a little (or the hockey stick).

#3.1 Barbara York on 2009-12-01 12:57 (Reply)

As I said before, the politicization of atmospheric science really took root in the early 1970s with the "ozone hole" and CFCs. As soon as the Montreal Protocol was ratified, CFCs regulated, and CFC replacements developed, the environmental/atmospheric science establishment began a movement advancing global warming theories in the hopes of regulating "global warming" gases. I'm sure if you looked at the cast of characters, you will find alot of overlap.

Alot of companies have been forced -- both via regulatory and pubic relations issues -- into building business models and public PR positions based on these politics, including the oil and coal industries.

The tower of fraud here, built up over about 40 years, is astounding.

#4 D on 2009-12-01 12:56 (Reply)

I once heard a story from a friend who worked at DuPont, regarding CFCs. I don't know the veracity of it, but it seems plausible.

It appears that DuPont had a patent on one of the primary CFCs in use back in the 1970s, and that patent was ending. They had a new product that was "greener", but were having a hard time pushing it due to the cost of CFCs, which were very efficient.

The solution? Promote the concept of the Ozone Hole, even as you are denying you are causing it. Offer up new product (larger margin) as a solution, and offer to provide remediation (at a cost).

I have no idea if this is true, but it makes an amazing amount of sense. The Greens are a very gullible group. I know this because when I was younger I attended several Greenpeace meetings. Intelligent group they are not. Caring, emotional, sweet, and very, very gullible.

#4.1 Rick on 2009-12-01 14:29 (Reply)

Well, it is true that DuPont invented both the CFCs and the replacements. The "greener" products, however, were deemed to have "global warming" potential, thus the shift from ozone depletion to global warming. And that impetus came from the scientists and Greenpeace, who arguably came from the same place. Whether DuPont made that much money from the whole issue longer term and in terms of margins -- I don't think so.

#4.1.1 D on 2009-12-01 15:06 (Reply)

How would you not know how your cover graph was constructed?

That's what grad students are for.

I don't believe him anyway.

#5 obladioblada on 2009-12-01 13:32 (Reply)

Barbara York.... Stop and think here. Any well-run and profitable business hedges its bets on what it invests in. It owes that to its stockholders, that it remain diverse and protected in its business outreach, so it doesn't have to take bankruptcy as GM should have when it got over-extended. So of course, energy companies have been investing for years in a variety of energy-producing directions. That doesn't mean that they dedicate their major efforts to what may seem wacky and non-profitable technology. Oil and gas companies know very well that our oil and gas reserves are increasing yearly, due to new discoveries and new techniques for production. The two major things which hold them back are whether producing these reserves is economically viable, and how much our government is going to try to restrict production. You can count on the present government trying to restrict production, because an energy-strapped economy gives government more control over the economy and the citizens in many ways. That's why they want to pass the cap&tax-tax-tax bill.

Marianne

#6 Marianne Matthews on 2009-12-01 17:02 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, December 1. 2009

More climategate fun