T W A W K I

The world as we know it

New climategate research tools available online

Some new tools up online for people to use;

Growing list of climate skeptic blogs accessible here. If you know of any blogs to add to the list send me a comment below or email me – twawki1 at gmail dot com and put ‘additional blogs’ in the header

Growing list of liberty and freedom blogs accessible here. If you know of any blogs to add to the list email me – twawki1 at gmail dot com and put additional blogs on the page.

New database of Climategate 1 and 2 emails accessible here

Online tool to see whether an image is Photoshopped or not accessible her

And for the general things in life;

Daily link page where you can find a growing list of links for easy access.

Also a how to do page with links to all manner of things to let you know how to do something.

Also pages with links to survival blogs and self sufficiency blogs

TWAWKI This is the world as we know it

Filed under: Governance, , , , , ,

The subterfuge of controlling the global warming narrative

This is not science the way we were told it works. This is not independent scientists working without conflicts of interest focusing on the data, submitting their results for independent assessment, being at arms length to the assessors and publishers. No this is real life story of the control of the press (Nature, Science and others), control of the editors and attacks on the non compliant ones, control of peer review, vilification of opponents work, manipulating political processes and controlling the narrative. This is a process where more of the ‘scientists’ energy is put into controlling their positions than seems is ever put into the science. And keep in mind these guys are on the government payroll and should be open and transparent in all their dealings.

This is also a story of a select group of individuals in positions of power paid for by the taxpayers, believing they are above reproach and cannot be wrong. This is about the religious fervor with which these global warming scientists banded together on group think to meet, plot and enact compliant acts of vilification against scientists whose studies threatened their work. There are few degrees of separation, if any between these so called scientists and the highest powers in many of the worlds nations. Additionally there is the menace of those in global governance aiding and abetting them. The following emails are almost a script for a movie on global warming eco elite’s subterfuge.

Bold mine, comments in red mine

Formatting removed to make it easier to read. You can read the original file here

Phil Jones, Mike Hulme, Keith Briffa, James Hansen, Danny Harvey, Ben Santer, Kevin Trenberth, Robert wilby, Tom Karl , Steve Schneider, Tom Crowley, jto , “simon.shackley” , “tim.carter”, “p.martens”, “peter.whetton”, “c.goodess” , “a.minns” , Wolfgang Cramer , “j.salinger” , “simon.torok” , Scott Rutherford, Neville Nicholls, Ray Bradley, Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock, Ellen Mosley-Thompson, “Greg.Ayers”

date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:39:14 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: My turn
to:

HI Mark,

Thanks for your comments, and sorry to any of you who don’t wish to receive these correspondances…

Indeed, I have provided David Halpern with a written set of comments on the offending paper(s) for internal use, so that he was armed w/ specifics as he confronts the issue within OSTP. He may have gotten additional comments from other individuals as well–I’m not sure. I believe that the matter is in good hands with Dave, but we have to wait and see what happens. In any case, I’d be happy to provide my comments to anyone who is interested.

I think that a response to “Climate Research” is not a good idea. Phil and I discussed this, and agreed that it would be largely unread, and would tend to legitimize a paper which many of us don’t view as having passed peer review in a legitimate manner. On the other hand, the in prep. review articles by Jones and Mann (Rev. Geophys.), and Bradley/Hughes/Diaz (Science) should go along way towards clarification of the issues (and, at least tangentially, refutation of the worst of the claims of Baliunas and co). Both should be good resources for the FAR as well…

cheers,

mike

p.s. note the corrections to some of the emails in the original distribution list.

At 09:27 AM 4/24/Mark Eakin wrote: At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas
paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be best to direct such a response. Some options are:

1) A rebuttal in Climate Research
2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation
3) A letter to OSTP

The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of the current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon and Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but it is not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the attention to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better science out in a widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. are preparing for Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate Research as the best published approach.

A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured, critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’ methods. I agree with Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a letter. Many others of us could sign on in support. This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.

I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.

Cheers,
Mark

Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear Tom et al,

Thanks for comments–I see we’ve built up an impressive distribution list here!

This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in large, I agree w/ Tom’s comments (and those of Barrie’s as well). A number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during the past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific process in this area (both with regard to empirical “climate reconstruction” and in the area of model/data comparison), including, in fact, detection studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock asked about in a previous email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley’s Science article from 2000). Phil Jones and I are in the process of writing a review article for /Reviews of Geophysics/ which will, among other things, dispel the most severe of the myths that some of these folks are perpetuating regarding past climate change in past centuries. My understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Henry Diaz are working, independently, on a solicited piece for /Science/ on the “Medieval Warm Period”. Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a scientific point of view, they are awful–that is certainly true. For example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the standard they applied for finding “a Medieval Warm Period” was that a particular proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to the “20th century” (many of the proxy records don’t really even resolve the late 20th century!) could be used to define an “MWP” anywhere one might like to find one. This was the basis for their press release arguing for a “MWP” that was “warmer than the 20th century” (a non-sequitur even from their awful paper!) (it is worth noting that …) and for their bashing of IPCC and scientists who contributed to IPCC (which, I understand, has been particularly viscious and ad hominem inside closed rooms in Washington DC where their words don’t make it into the public record). This might all seem laughable, it weren’t the case that they’ve gotten the (Bush) White House Office of Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this appropriately, but without some external pressure).

So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in fighting the disinformation campaign that is already underway in Washington DC. Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim Salinger, that other approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific disinformation campaign (often viscious and ad hominem) under the guise of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of the “Harvard” moniker in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by Murdoch and his crowd (the demonising of Murdoch begins, which is still being pursued by Gillard) , and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer viruses, I fear that “Climate Research” has become a hopelessly compromised vehicle in the skeptics’ (can we find a better word?) (yes denier was what they chose). disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I’ve seen (e.g. a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of the CR editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.

This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by Tom and Danny Harvey and I’m sure there is much more) that a legitimate peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different nature–there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/ appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn’t see the light of the day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL–there is probably little that can be done here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.

best regards,

Mike

At 11:53 PM 4/23/Tom Wigley wrote:

Dear friends,

[Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email exchange — although they may be glad to have been missed]

I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea — although there are some unique things about this situation. Barrie says ….

(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a ‘rebuttal’

to which I add ….

(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.

____________________

Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, ppREDACTED 1997) that was nothing more than a direct and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me — yet neither of us was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) we wrote a response (GRLREDACTEDREDACTEDHowever, our response was more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation).

Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added — as we did in the above example — then this is an advantage.

_____________________________

There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut. Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on this?

_______________________________

There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be involved in writing a response.

The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, 10.1029/2002GLREDACTED). I refereed a virtually identical paper for J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended rejection too. The paper is truly appalling — but somehow it must have been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no
reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless, my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary.

The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research (vol. 23, ppREDACTED Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he responded saying …

The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.

On the surface this looks to be above board — although, as referees who advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.

It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper — deFreitas has offered us this possibility.

______________________________

This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
Soon, and so on).

The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.

The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that does get through.

_______________________________

Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.

If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.

In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’ PhD is at the same level).
______________________________

Best wishes to all,
Tom.
______________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________
e-mail:  Phone:770 FAX:137
http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D.
Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and
Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

NOAA/National Climatic Data Center
325 Broadway E/CC23
_______________________________________________________________________
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
_______________________________________________________________________

It is worth noting on the science that far from being bad science

Who is who in the above emails – a cast of ….

Michael Mann – inventor or should one say the fabricator of the discredited hockey stick. Previously employed by Penn State. Currently under investigation for use of grants.

Mark Eakin – Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

Phil Jones – UAE chief concedes “all our models are wrong“, refuses FOI requests, and has acknowledged there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

Mike Hulme – Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA)

Keith Briffa, Professor at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia asks colleagues to delete emails, discusses manipulating the data,

James Hansen, NASA astronomer turned climate ‘guru’ who is current financial scandal is how he is making over $1.5 million dollars of undeclared income on top of his government paid position,

Danny Harvey,

Ben Santer, Research scientist on climate models angry that climate skeptics arnt silenced, keeps moving the climate goalposts to suit his failed theories,

Kevin Trenberth, Senior Scientist NCAR. who said in October 2009 ” The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Robert Wilby, Professor of Hydroclimatic Modelling

Tom Karl ,

Steve Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University

Tom Crowley, Simon Shackley,  Tim Carter,  P Marten,  Peter Whetton,  C Goodes,  A Minn,  Wolfgang Crame,  Jim Salinger CRSNZ NIWA,  Simon Toro,  Scott Rutherfor,  Neville Nicholl,  Ray Bradle,  Mike MacCracke,  Barrie Pittoc,  Ellen Mosley-Thompso,  Greg Ayers

Climategate ; Biased BBC ;

CSIRO clanger – “which representation of the results is appropriate to giving the best advice on what changes to expect”

Filed under: Governance, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A climate of corruption

The last 24 hours has seen the second leaking of emails of ‘scientists’ from the ‘hallowed halls’ of governments (state, federal and global) and it is much more of the same as climategate 1. Corruption, lies, fraud, deception, unaccountability, refusal of transparency etc You would have thought those in power learnt their lesson after climategate pt 1 but no there were the repeated whitewashes, repeated cover ups, repeated spin, repeated attacks on and vilification of skeptics and the hellish push to get the climate cash through via a massive social re-engineering trojan carbon tax.

An example of how those in government positions and in the UN refuse to be accountable to the public;

<2440> Jones: “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

And;

<2884> Wigley: Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

Says it all doesn’t it. Don’t forget the UN is non democratic and now we learn they are also above the law. Is this the sort of global government you want our UN puppet governments to parrot! Or how about this one of Mann’s hockey stick that Al Gore paraded to the world;

<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.

Or if you want to follow the money;

<1577> Jones: [FOI, temperature data] Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Or this one which is actually close to the truth especially as we are over a decade now into a cooling trend;

Wils: What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably […]

And this one hits the nail on the head;

<5131> Shukla/IGES: [“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.

Well they did, and that knowingly!

Should we expect the climate communists at the ALP, Gillard, Brown and their comrades to put the brakes on a carbon tax now the whole global warming fraud has been blown to bits – again! Nup, Gillard will continue to trample Australia’s democracy till it’s totally dead in the mud. Socialist Gillard wants her way and nothing not even the sacred will of the Australian people wont stop her let alone exposure of fraudulent global warming climate change junk science (Gillard has refused to listen so far).

How about this clanger from today’s paper;

SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year“.

Gillard’s carbon tax will do the same. We already know that with Gillard’s carbon tax Australia wont reduce global temps, wont reduce emissions, will fund the UN’s opulence, will impoverish Australians, will cause fuel poverty and cold related deaths to skyrocket. Unabated Gillard’s Gulag against Australia continues. The ALP definitely are the most un Australian party ever. Just like the socialists ruined Spain look at how the socialist ALP are ruining Australia.

As one of the emails warn;

<3066> Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

He guessed right. The guillotine is about to fall. The climate criminals have deceived and robbed the world and now deserve to be jailed. Oh and it’s a bit late for this;

Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open. <2095> Steig:

The Global Warming loons ; Worse than we thought ; The Eurorich are still spending big ; How politics manufactured the man made global warming agenda ;

Pic via Soylent Green – a parody of the typical leftist abuse

Oh and the Church has well and truly been deceived;

My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of God’s planet into research and action. <3653> Hulme:

Oh and dont forget;

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming

And finally some common sense;

No one can really forecast weather, much less climate, at this point’

Warm has always been better than Cold for humanity. Think about it.

Filed under: Governance, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Giving the earth and humanity the benefit of the doubt

ETS dead, Update on Australian politics. Abbott – Rudds worst nightmare, ETS a slush fund with bureaucrats handing out billions of dollars to sectional interests, ETS bipartisanship destroyed, Rudd unbankable, Barnaby Joyce speech,

In recent days “giving the earth the benefit of the doubt”  has been the mantra in a certain Liberal sector of Australian politics. Not only has my local parliamentarian (Scott Morrison) repeatedly reiterated this in his recent speeches, but Joe Hockey, Ian McFarlane, Malcolm Turnbull and the other warmist faithful have all uttered this phrase as though somehow it gives them a mandate for their behavior and stance on climate change.

So what does giving the earth the benefit of the doubt mean? What I understand they are saying is we really aren’t that sure about global warming so its better to err on the side of caution. In other words they are following what is recently called the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle in terms of the environment was defined at the Rio Declaration (1992) and says “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.” It is now enshrined in law in Australia.

There are however key words here – 1. threats of damage (in terms of the environment), 2. full scientific certainty and 3.measures to prevent environmental degradation. Lets look at them each;

1. Threats of damage. When the environment is an evolutionary system that is based on adaption and survival of the fittest them how do you define damage? In terms of toxins/poisons its easy to do but in terms of temperature change then life has always adapted to it and either survived or perished depending depending on the ability to relocate. There is also the argument that if you help a species, make it easier then, like man you make them weaker. We are much less physiologically able to adapt than we have ever been because the comforts of our technologies have meant many of our evolutionary traits for survival are not being used. A variation in temperature could cause a change in habitats for many species. For some it will be a reduction of habitat and others an increase in habitat. Historically speaking there is no evidence that any warm period wiped out the earth or life on it. Rather the warm periods of the earth are when life has flourished on earth, vegetation has proliferated and habitats have increased. Whilst much has been made in global warming alarmism about cuddly polar bears becoming extinct (in fact polar bear numbers have increased fivefold), there has been little mention of all the species that would extend and increase their habits further poleward as the earth warmed and thus proliferate. Man likewise has been called a child of the tropics, look at how all our houses are heated to tropical temperatures and again history shows us during the warm periods civilizations flourish as does food supply.

However when we look at the cold this is quite a different story. The cold decimates nearly all life on earth as habitats are restricted, growing seasons reduce, vegetation is covered in snow and civilisations perish – history has given us ample examples of this. If we simply look at a microcosm of nature we see that animals living in cold areas often have to hibernate, their bodies adapted to the lack of food for a large part of the year. This is what the cold is all about.

2. Full scientific certainty. In terms of the climate there has been considerable debate going on for years about what the climate is actually doing and we have an establishment of scientists, media and politicians who are now advocates of the warming view. The theory that man is causing the climate to warm has been pushed but as yet never proven. Whilst much attention has been focused on mans emissions of CO2 the salient point is that  CO2 is a trace gas that historically follows temperatures and not precedes them. Increased CO2 also increases plant production and not reduces it. Scientists who have disputed the man made warming claims have been derided by this new establishment, stonewalled and discriminated against. Yet actual temperature records as has recently been exposed by climategate have been shown to have been doctored to make it look like there is a warming when none has really existed. The reality is the world is not warming but cooling.

This would fit in with established science that precedes the warming claims. Natural cycles of the environment support a cooling world. For example around the turn of the century (2000) the earth entered a cooling PDO which lasts 20-30 years which is a cooling signal where we will see prevalent La Ninas (cold wet) instead of El Ninos. We are also historically overdue for an ice age. Additionally the sun is inactive, solar cycle 24 has gone into hibernation with few if any sunspots for extended periods. Low sunspot activity historically correlates with a cooling world – for example the little ice age in the middle ages. Whilst the mechanisms for this are still being understood the correlation is there nontheless.

3. Measures to prevent environmental degradation. So if we consider the above that 1. threats of damage to both man and the environment are more serious during cold periods, 2. That scientific evidence supports future cooling rather than warming then the conclusion we must reach is that we should be taking measures to prevent environmental degradation from the cold and not the warmth.

Under the precautionary principle then, legally we have an obligation to ensure humanity and the environment is prevented from damage from the cold. The reality is our governments aren’t doing anything about this. As we are experiencing record cold around the world with it likely to deepen year by year the precautionary principle in terms of the earth and humanity is being ignored.  I have written to the Department of Climate Change in Australia over six months ago asking what measures are they taking to prepare the populace and the environment for the deepening cold – to date I have not received a response. I doubt also whether you would find any policy on it also. I wonder as we had a cold winter in the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere faces a brutal one, how many of the homeless and poor are unnecessarily dying from the cold. And all because of Government’s and green groups gravy train that ignores their plight focusing instead on their rabid push of global warming alarmism.

To answer the question how can we in this current time give the earth the benefit of the doubt we find the answer is to not to prepare for warming – but to prepare for the cold. Humanity (we are part of the environment) and the earth will face serious challenges as the world cools – most notably countries like Canada – which once was under a 2km thick ice sheet and Russia/Northern Europe which have historically seen large areas of habitation previously buried under snow and civilisations wiped out from the cold. The longer we prepare for a warming world whilst the world cools, the less prepared we will be and the more likely we will stand accused of not giving the earth (and humanity) the benefit of the doubt.

Criminal charges against alarmist scientists filed, Alarmist scientist steps down, Alarmist fraud exposed yet again, Climategate continues, being green gives you a licence to lie, making money out of a corrupt premise, copenhagen corruption.

Global warming science fiction not in the Public interest, Disastrous snow in Mexico, Snowing in Texas, Whistler smashes November snowfall record, Antarctica sea ice continues above average, Floods, rain and now snow.

If you would like to email these politicians and talk to them about giving the earth and humanity the benefit of the doubt you can do so here;

Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au, Ian.Macfarlane.MP@aph.gov.au, J.Hockey.MP@aph.gov.au,

Filed under: Nature, , , , , , ,

Real green

As the saying goes you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.

Just think if the trillions being wasted on global warming alarmism was spent on worthwhile achievable environmental causes imagine what a better place this world would be. Rather than the trillions being squandered on green bureaucracies and profiteered by big green business if the little people in the small grass roots campaigns were financially empowered to help their immediate communities the impact could be enormous. As examples property could be purchased in city locations for community gardens, clean technologies could be advanced, reafforestation could happen in marginal areas etc

Science. We are over the politicisiation of science, all we simply want are the facts, not the lies, not the alarmism and not the agendas. In a progressive step UAE are saying they will make all of their data available. Calls are being made for NASA to do the same. The IPCC should likewise follow suit as should the BOM and the CSIRO.

BOM Contact David Jones head of BOM David Jones Ph: (03) 9669 4085,   E-mail: d.jones@bom.gov.au Call & Email demanding all the original unadjusted data files for Australia be released as a matter of public record

CSIRO contacts Call & Email demanding all the original unadjusted data files for Australia be released as a matter of public record

In the USA there is a grassroots movement to have publicly funded research made public and freely accessible online – what a great suggestion – we pay for it already! In Australia emails sent months ago to Universities have so far resulted in no response.

Media; Assoc. Prof. Chris Nash says “In short, the Australian constitutional framework for freedom of the press is weaker than in other liberal democracies” In looking at the behavior in the press these last few weeks this is really evident as vested interests attempt to sway public opinion. Will the cover up continue?

Politics; Likewise transparency in politics is needed. What is happening in Australia where the opposition party is being reformed based on principle rather than policy is a microcosm of what is needed all over the world. Where we have politicians who embrace small government, and government by the people and for the people. Why is Government policy NOT changing over these CLIMATEGATE revelations of data doctoring – should not all policy based on the fraudulent data immediately be put on hold – as should the ETS and Copenhagen. What we are getting with and under Labor is big government, big bureacracy and world government. Of note the Australian Government transferred FOI from the more independant Attorney Generals Department and moved the portfolio to the office of the Prime Minister & Cabinet 3rd Dec. 2007 immediately after being elected on Friday 24th November 2007. Labor net censorship is also still being pushed.

Climate; UNIPCC says glaciers shrinking, India’s Ministry of Environment says NOT TRUE.

Filed under: Nature, , , ,

Work from home

Join 3,410 other followers

TWAWKI Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

RSS TWAWKI RSS

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Story archives

Categories

%d bloggers like this: