The Hook

Pro-AGW "protesting" Copenhagen like Seattle?

Now. Let me get this straight. Copenhagen is supposed to be about regulating carbon emissions. And Pro-AGW activists are going to be protesting?

Aww Man! They are eating their own now!

It's all getting quite surreal now.

Climate justice??

I take it Colleen that you are now working on an article on Climategate in order to offer Tyee readers a truly balanced investigation of this "new globalization."

Certainly von smartt's link is a good place to start and then you can go on to here, where as you can Climategate is a huge alt news story:

Nov 30, 2009:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Janie, It is huge alt news, but not huge lefty-news

It seems to me that lefty-news is burying ClimateGate.

From my point of view, like everything else in life, The Tyee is a good source of info for about 50 percent of what interests me, and too-biased for the other 50 percent. A read of Tyee/TorStar/WRH/Guardian/Frankfurter Allgemeine/Russia Today pretty well covers anything serious regard local to global news in a way that gives me a chance to filter/weed/compare stories.

The Sun and Province are strictly for the birdcage and 'NW is for a laugh when I turn on the radio.

At any rate, ClimateGate has legs and it looks like the Aussies are the first ones to respond to the games being played at Hadley.

Janie, I suspect that it won't be long before lefty-news has to start covering it lest it starts losing its own relevance to people who were/are looking for an oasis of fair and accurate reporting and non-censorship of the news. Or, they have become the Beast that they intended to slay. That would be regrettable to us as engaged individuals and to democracy as a whole.

At any rate, should somebody give me the Climate Denier crap again, I have only one thing to say:

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
f n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’

Environmental Movement

Sadly, many of the people who state that they are environmentalists, are actually just anti globalization anti industry, not pro environment.

The real test of an environmentalist is how they react when they learn that the earth is not warming, and CO2 is a nutrient, not a disease. If they are thrilled, then they may actually be an environmentalist. If they are horrified, then they are not. If they pretend that the biggest environmental fraud in the history of the planet did not happen then they are reality deniers.

Colleen Kimmett has no interest in reporting on the global warming scam, nor on the corruption of Climategate. She will never write an article on it.

J'accuse! Did you actually ask for iced water?

Condemn that man. I'll bet he owns a car too! It doesn't matter if the scam-scientists are right or wrong, the western world has to stop everything! That's the point. Shock doctrine sifted and filtered into scary 'peer reviewed papers' from profs. Tack on a couple of trendy movie heart-throbs, get the children out to demonstrate and voila, you've got a new engine for world socialism. Green-light this puppy baby and that was no pun.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574569922635570260.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

r'man

Glad to hear you've seen the light and now oppose "so-called carbon taxes.

Frank

Yes Frank, I do accept it when convinced that I was previously wrong. Although I must say that if the CO2 tax does cause people to drive more efficient vehicles that seems like a good idea to me as well as the benefit that I can see from a lessening of atmospheric pollutants from industry if more efficient exhaust and venting systems are employed. So, maybe it's a good idea after all.

I was pleased to see that the NDP has seen the light too and now warmly embraces that ugly monster, 'business'. I guess Sinclair and gang have to suck it since there's nowhere else to go.

r'man

"I do accept it when convinced that I was previously wrong. "

What a great thing to hear from you, you may be human after all. And in the spirit of reconciliation I too have been questioning my previous unqualified support of the IPCC after reading all I can on the climate-gate thingy.

And of course in spite of being against the carbon tax I whole-heartedly support a reduction in emissions because no matter how we slice it, that can't be good for us. But, in keeping with my principles I want those who can most afford to make changes to make them which will in the long run make it easier for those at the bottom as the price of technology falls.

As for the NDP, I think you'll find that Sinclair said no such thing.

Code quote mining.

Dr Alexander and others: Deltoid.

If you care.

-Travis

Travis. Very Interesting and Informative

I can see the argument on how innocuous the code may be and it does temper my level of consternation and repugnance directed at Jones et al for their professional misconduct. Somewhat.

I'm sure Jones had no reason to want to deny an established rightful request to have the code examined by another party. Even to the point of risking criminal prosecution for destruction of FOI-requested data.

To put a perverted twist to our surveillance-addicted society: "If you don't have something to hide, then why are you working so hard to hide it?"

It is now up to Jones et al to demonstrate how the code works, what data it was applied to and what publications and reports it was applied to.

Their professional misconduct has completely reversed the onus. We no longer are obliged to prove them wrong, they are obliged to prove themselves right.

This time, under a microscope.

Travis. Taken from your Deltoid site

Sod

You asked, "here is my question again: where is the smoking gun?"

Here it is:

From: Tom Wigley

To: Phil Jones

Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer

Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Posted by: swindeled | November 22, 2009 9:05 AM

On blips.

The issue is discussed here.

As I understand it, he's attempting to correct for a measurement problem (the one described in the link). According to the guy at Realclimate.org (here, comment 20), the corrected data has not yet been released, so he's making an educated guess at to what that correction will show.

-Travis