Rudd brooks no denial

Rudd Somehow Kevin Rudd’s climate change speech to the Lowry Institute earlier this month escaped my detection systems and it took Joseph Romm’s Climate Progress post today to draw it to my attention. New Zealanders, whose political leaders avoid big statements on the issue, can welcome its unequivocal tone. There seems an air of unreality to me in the emphasis our government places on catching up with Australia economically, with never a mention of the environmental challenges faced by that country.  But Rudd meets them full on:

As one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia’s environment and economy will be among the hardest and fastest hit by climate change if we do not act now. The scientific evidence from the CSIRO and other expert bodies have outlined the implications for Australia, in the absence of national and global action on climate change:

  • Temperatures in Australia rising by around five degrees by the end of the century.
  • By 2070, up to 40 per cent more drought months are projected in eastern Australia and up to 80 per cent more in south-western Australia.
  • A fall in irrigated agricultural production in the Murray Darling Basin of over 90 per cent by 2100.
  • Storm surges and rising sea levels – putting at risk over 700,000 homes and businesses around our coastlines, with insurance companies warning that preliminary estimates of the value of property in Australia exposed to the risk of land being inundated or eroded by rising sea levels range from $50 billion to $150 billion.
  • Our Gross National Product dropping by nearly two and a half per cent through the course of this century from the devastation climate change would wreak on our infrastructure alone.

He then goes on to outline the government’s plan to tackle the issue by measures which on the domestic front include renewable energy development, a large investment in energy efficiency, and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (their ETS) which has not yet been passed by the Senate.  Internationally he speaks of participating in global technology transfers and particularly offering leadership in developing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) as well as engaging strongly towards a new post-Kyoto agreement.  There is plenty to criticise regarding the adequacy of what is proposed, and feasibility of CCS remains open to question though obviously of enormous importance to coal-exporting Australia.  But the acceptance of the seriousness of the impact of climate change is the most important aspect of what he has to say, for it provides a basis from which mitigation measures can be further tightened.

A striking feature of the speech was the assertion he went on to make about the difficulties in building international momentum and overcoming domestic political constraints.  It is made hard by the reality that

…the climate change skeptics, the climate change deniers, the opponents of climate change action are active in every country.

They are a minority. They are powerful. And invariably they are driven by vested interests.

Powerful enough to so far block domestic legislation in Australia, powerful enough to so far slow down the passage of legislation through the US Congress. And ultimately – by limiting the ambition of national climate change commitments – they are powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond.

He didn’t leave it at that, but went on to analyse the opposition.  The third bullet point might make uncomfortable reading for some of our politicians and economists and business leaders.

The opponents of action on climate change fall into one of three categories.

  • First, the climate science deniers.
  • Second, those that pay lip service to the science and the need to act on climate change but oppose every practicable mechanism being proposed to bring about that action.
  • Third, those in each country that believe their country should wait for others to act first.

Each of these groups in turn received close and lengthy examination in the speech. There was often a political edge to what he had to say, but since most denialism seems to be allied with right-wing politics that is perhaps understandable.

On the science deniers he goes through the history of the development of the science and concludes:

Attempts by politicians in this country and others to present what is an overwhelming global scientific consensus as little more than an unfolding debate, with two sides evenly represented in a legitimate scientific argument, are nothing short of intellectually dishonest. They are a political attempt to subvert what is now a longstanding scientific consensus, an attempt to twist the agreed science in the direction of a predetermined political agenda to kill climate change action.

After referring to the efforts of the smoking lobby decades ago to deny the link between smoking and lung cancer he has one final sentence on the sceptics:

Put more simply: these climate change sceptics around the world would be laughable if they were not so politically powerful – particularly in the ranks of conservative parties.

The second group are those who

…when push comes to shove refuse to support climate change action. In Australia, these naysayers have successfully blocked the development of an emissions trading scheme for more than a decade.

  •  Some argue that the cost is too high in terms of its impact on our economy.
  • Others argue that the cost is too high in terms of its impact on households.
  • And others object to the system of global emissions trading because they believe it will unjustifiably transfer money and power from rich countries to poor countries.

 Rudd offers a vigorous refutation of each of these points, and under the third offers comment on the “world government” conspiracy theorists like Monckton (and Ian Wishart in NZ, we might add).  

This gaggle of world government conspiracy theorists are so far out there on the far right, that they rub up next to the global anarchists of the far left. 

Finally, the delayers, the “wait for others to act first” group.  Those in New Zealand who argue so strongly that we should be followers not leaders seem to me to come perilously close to this category.  Rudd is quite clear about its result.

The inescapable logic of this approach is that if every nation makes the decision not to act until others have done so, then no nation will ever act.

The immediate and inevitable consequence of this logic – if echoed in other countries – is that there will be no global deal as each nation says to its domestic constituencies that they cannot act because others have not acted.

The result is a negotiating stalemate. A permanent standoff.

And this of course is the consistent ambition of all three groups of do-nothing climate change deniers.

I was greatly cheered by Rudd’s forthrightness.  I acknowledge that words are not deeds, but they can open the way for deeds. When the political leader of a country shows such nuanced awareness of both the scientific reality and the dangerous attempts to blunt it in the public perception one feels the battle is at least half won.  Debate can then centre where it should – on the best ways to overcome the threat. 

 Step up, John Key.

99 thoughts on “Rudd brooks no denial”

  1. I wouldn’t get to excited Bryan, Rud is mostly just piss and wind and in reality is not doing a whole lot more the Key. The mining lobby have him firmly by the short and curly and he is not really going to do anything to upset them in the short term. That little effort had more to do with kicking the Coalition than climate change policy. The greens are the only ones over here with a realistic set of solutions to that problem.

    Some discussion on that here.
    Apart from all that at least the weather is nice here at the moment

  2. Yes, Kevin Rudd’s rhetoric was excellent in that speech.

    Pity his action (in the form of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) is so completely divergent from his rhetoric. A measly 5% target by 2020, tens of billions of dollars in “compensation” for big polluters, an insanely complex piece of legislation… so much for “evidence based policy”.

    It’s so inadequate that it’s been estimated that the effective carbon price signal that big polluters face is a measly 50 cents per tonne (as compared to the $40 per tonne or so required to bring about really substantial shifts to low-carbon sources).

    He has caved in completely to the big fossil companies. At this point, given that the CPRS locks in climate failure for at least 5 years, many (myself included) think it would be worse than no legislation at all, in the short term.

  3. Rhetoric or not I tend to agree with Matt in that any ETS is effectively institutionalised failure.
    Also unfortunately, in the process, proving that big business is more powerful than government.

  4. The blogosphere is in an uproar re the hacking into Hadley CRU.

    On the face of it, this looks seriosly big news.

    “This is the biggest news ever broken here. The first thing I have to say is that I have no connection to the source of these files. It was left as a link on my blog… These files are real IMO but they cannot be one hundred percent verified as such. How can we be certain but IMO, real. They were potentially scraped from multiple computers in my opinion by a hacker or an insider involved in some of the endless FOIA requests…”

  5. Mikh, the only seriously big news that I’m aware of is the state of the arctic sea ice, the loss of ice mass on Greenland, the threats to the west Antarctic, shifting habitats, droughts, floods – and on it goes. Personal exchanges between a few scientists are bric-a-brac by comparison. But no doubt the denialist community will seize on them with fevered delight and milk them for everything they can get. They prefer small points.

  6. I don’t know what hidden data might turn back the processes I referred to in my previous comment, or what fraud might persuade the processes to get under way in the first place. Are you unaware of the evidence that presses in from the work of numerous scientists in many fields that climate change is upon us? Do you really think this is a hoax accomplished knowingly by a small handful of people, and that this will be revealed by some hacked emails?

  7. Bryan, it seems that the integrity of the scientific process at Hadley, and Dr Phil Jones in particular will come under intensive international media investigation.

    And this is not just some hacked emails, it’s a large data file, 1079 emails and 72 documents, and some of the quotes look very significant indeed…

    ” I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline…”

    Very inconvenient, with Copenhagen looming.

  8. …and this too…Jones wrote…

    I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
    Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
    this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is
    trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
    there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than
    send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
    20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
    We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
    email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He
    has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. ”

    And Bryan, this came from the US Hannity blog. Very widely read. I’m very concerned.

  9. From RealClimate:

    “As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here.”

    Oh boohoo. What is interesting is that RealClimate are not claiming it is a hoax. When I first saw this I didn’t immediately believe it was real because it just seamed to surreal.

  10. Mikh, I’m not sure what it is that you’re concerned about. Is it that this might divert attention from the pressing reality of anthropogenic climate change? If so I share your concern. I have no doubt that denialists will do their very best to see that it does. Meanwhile what about allowing Phil Jones time to explain? Style and substance may be somewhat at variance here.

  11. What about your confidence in ‘Peer Review’ Bryan. Like I have said before, climate science is reverse science, the conclusion is written before ALL of the data is analysed. It looks like there was a concerted effort to stack Peer Review in their favour, not how science is done.

    BTW, glaciers are retreating etc, but this has happened before. Greenland was occupied in the MWP etc.

    You climafundamentilists do not want to engage in the debate when more debate is needed as the science is not settled. These leaked emails surely must even devotees to the religion to question processes & methods. If not you are in denial.

  12. Quite right Bryan. Cool heads needed here. This is a hot topic indeed.

    My concern is for the integrity of science. Certainly after this and the Keith Briffa episode, I don’t think the “science is settled” line will carry much weight any more.

    And with the present day headless chook attitude the politicians are taking to Copenhagen, it worries me that the whole issue will be shelved. Put into the too hard basket with a bad smell attached, and then the feeling that the urgency is behind us (that many people seem to imagine) it’s getting very difficult to see any progressive movement here at all.

    1. Nope. RealClimate is the place to go. By all means discuss here, but (as Bryan has said), the illegal hacking of a bunch of private emails has zero/zip/nada to do with the evidence that climate change is a serious problem. God’s gift to the cranks, of course, who are already out in force trying to blow this into a major story. Forgive me if I don’t play along.

      I’m sure that if person or persons unknown hacked the last ten years of my email correspondence, something could be found that — taken out of context — might make me look bad. At the very least it would find that, in private communications, I have been very rude about some people! Given that Mann and others are routinely accused of fraud by cranks, and have been for years, you might expect them to be a little sharp in private correspondence.

      1. So if it came out that de Freitas etc had been attempting to change the peer review process to ensure certain articles that didn’t support their own work were not published, you would not think it was a story?

        These emails include some of the most important scientists in establishing the current orthodox of paleo-climate history. Is a story of there credibility not important?

        There are dozens examples of you covering any story that may cast doubt on the morals or motive of sceptics. Surely you will defend the motives and morals of these prominent alarmists?

        1. R2, my wife will kill me if I spend all afternoon commenting here — we’re having “a bit of a do” at the farm tonight, and I have lawns to mow, but you might want to reflect on the fact that CdeF is on record as having fiddled with the peer review process when he was an editor at a journal in order to get a Soon-Baliunas paper published. Six other editors resigned in protest. Google is your friend…

            1. Re De Freitas and fiddling with peer review: there might be something in the hacked mails (and I don’t feel inclined to check), but here’s an article by one of the editors at Climate Research who resigned over de Freitas’ approach to getting articles into journals. A sample:

              The review process had apparently been correct, but a fundamentally flawed paper had been published. These flaws are described in an extended rebuttal to both Soon and Baliunas (2003) and Soon et al. (2003) published by Mike Mann and 11 other eminent climate scientists in July (Mann et al., 2003). Hans von Storch and I were also aware of three earlier Climate Research papers about which people had raised concerns over the review process. In all these cases, de Freitas had had editorial responsibility.

      2. When the emails tend to confirm that Mann and Briffa fiddled the data, and noting that their papers provide much of the foundation for the AGW shroud waving, you should be concerned. You may like to brush it off as an irritant but it may be just what is needed to keep a few stupid politicians from poking their heads too far above the parapet in Kobenhavn. I am sure that you will steadfastly refuse to read what is in those emails just as Carol Stewart refuses. Indeed that I have pointed her to the relevant URLs has incensed her to the point that she bins my emails before reading them! I do not know if you read Gerrit van der Lingen’s open letter to Nick Smith. It was, for a while, the most read article in Scoop. The politicians will know that, at least the ones with the wits to keep a finger on the pulse. The politicians will know about these emails as extracts are all over the internet and even, it is hard to believe, in the Guardian newspaper and the BBC, two sources which can normally be guaranteed to keep a lid on embarrassing stuff. So you had better look and see what ammunition the opposition have!

  13. In the spirit of true science, perhaps a post from Ian Wishart…debate maybe, and let’s air all the facts.

    And, maybe Nick Smith and Chris de Freitas should be approached for comment.

    Science has to be the winner here, and this site would be a good forum to air all opinions.

    1. I am sure the red faced loon will be as embarrassed as Mann, Briffa, the CRU and all the other data fiddlers. However I am sure de Freitas will be very polite about this, resisting all temptation. After all he is a proper scientist.

      1. Exactly. And it’s “proper science” and those who practice it who must make themselves heard. There is enough pseudoscientific mumbojumbo BS around right now, and crackpots will see this apparent scandal as more and more reason to put their trust in psychics, quacks and flat earthers.

        Maybe after all this, a little bit more respect for dissident “denialists” wouldn’t go amiss either.

        1. There is enough pseudoscientific mumbojumbo BS around right now, and crackpots will see this apparent scandal as more and more reason to put their trust in psychics, quacks and flat earthers.

          How very true, but perhaps not in the sense you mean it.

          Maybe after all this, a little bit more respect for dissident “denialists” wouldn’t go amiss either.

          If those cranks would confine themselves to making scientific arguments in scientific forums, then I might accord them respect. Sadly, most prefer to expound nonsense in other forums…

  14. A comment from a poster elsewhere seems very pertinent…

    “The most significant (statement) scientifically is the one which says “we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going”. This blasts a big hole in any statement that CO2 is CAUSING anything, and leaves the alarmists with mere correlation at best. Without a causal relationship they have proven nothing other than a need for more research. ”

    In the big battle for hearts and minds this material is huge. And, of course the future ramifications re scientific funding and debate will be massive.

    What’s that spinning noise I can hear ?

      1. From UK D/K…is this fair comment, or a bit extreme ?

        “The thing is that the only people who have been proven to be correct so far are the sceptics: the world has resolutely failed to warm as much as the climate scientists have predicted—the world is nowhere near what Hansen predicted twenty years ago, for instance.

        In the old days, if the outcomes of a scientific theory were proved to be wrong time and time and time again—as AGW has—the scientists might reassess whether their theory was right, people would laugh them out of sight.”

  15. Without a causal relationship they have proven nothing other than a need for more research. ”

    Sorry, but the evidence for causation is solid. Wanna rewrite physics?

    1. “…we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going”.

      Not my words Gareth. Kevin Trenberth’s.

      “Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth is Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From New Zealand, he obtained his Sc. D. in meteorology in 1972 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC…”

      Kevin doesn’t seem to know “where the energy is going”. Do you think he wants to rewrite physics ?

    2. Physics has determined that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That does not mean the majority of 20th century warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2, that is a big leap to make.

  16. There is a bit more to it than that. If that is all there is to it temperature would have increased in lockstep with carbon dioxide. It has not. Ipso facto your evidence is not so solid.

    1. This is an interesting exchange between 2 IPPC idols…

      From: Tom Wigley

      To: Kevin Trenberth

      Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

      Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:09:35 -0600

      Cc: Michael Mann , Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

      Kevin, I didn’t mean to offend you. But what you said was ”we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”. Now you say “we are no where close to knowing where energy is going”. In my eyes these are two different things—the second relates to our level of understanding, and I agree that this is still lacking.


      Kevin Trenberth wrote:

      Hi Tom

      How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. 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!


      …but at this time Al Gore alleged “the science was settled” !

      1. “From: Tom Wigley To: Kevin Trenberth……..blah,blah,blah” – Mikh.

        Yup, and hackers are to be trusted why exactly?.

        I imagine all the worlds ice is going to magically stop melting because of the latest denier hoax. Or maybe not.

  17. Ho hum – these deniers are as excited as little boys who have just discovered masturbation.

    Fact 1. The climate is a “complex system”. “Complex” means changes on short space/time scales are difficult to understand. These emails show scientists displaying intellectual honesty, a foreign concept to most deniers.

    Fact 2. Temperature is not the same as heat; go read a high school science text before prattling on any further, Roger.

    1. Nothing has happened except someone has stolen some emails in which the the robust debate which constitutes all real science is represented. The supposed “scandal” is that some scientists argue with or have a low opinion of others – big deal!
      The “revelation” that some data has been “hidden” and that “tricks” have been used in analysis is just a complete and deliberate misinterpretation of what was actually being communicated in the cherry picked emails. None of the emails actually support any of the contentions of the denialist camp.

  18. So Rob, I see you are saying the science is not settled then, finally we are getting thru to the climafundamentalists. You contradicted yourself there pal.
    I see Dapple man is dribbling his usual low IQ statements. These emails were hacked but they seem to be genuine, but is not really the story ah. The content is much more interesting than the source.

  19. Peter, if you are expecting omniscience and infallibility then you are talking religion, not science. To educate yourself, you could read an introductory popular book on chaos and complexity such as Gleick’s.

    In brief, the behaviour of even simple classical systems such as three gravitationally interacting bodies or coupled pendula, whose equations of motion are completely known and well-behaved, is impossible to predict in detail. The best we can do is identify the “basins of attraction” or “quasi-stable states” they tend to fall into over time.
    This is because such systems are highly sensitive to “boundary conditions” that can only be measured to a given level of accuracy.

    Similarly, whilst the science of AGW has been established for more than a century (basic thermodynamics and radiative physics), the accuracy of detailed predictions is limited, which is why a range of forecasts are always given.

    What climate history tells us, though, is that the Earth’s climate can quickly (in decades) move from one quasistable state to another that is quite different. Such climate flips appear to have resulted in mass extinctions in the past, and can / will do so again.

    In atmospheric terms, the human race is the equivalent of a major volcanic eruption – our current emissions are 2000 times greater than all the world’s volcanoes, and increasing. We know where this leads – again, for a popular paleoclimate account, read “Under A Green Sky” by Peter Ward.

    BTW, re emails, I expect those between Terry Dunleavy, Chris de Frietas, the Heartland Institute and Exxon Mobil would make most interesting reading…

  20. All the leading scientists in climaterelated research are roughly saying the same thing. We don’t know where the climate is headed, because the causes are for the better part unknown or not jet understood . Anyone who says otherwise, always check the moneyflow.

  21. Back to the post.

    I had the opportunity to watch the Australian Parliament in session the other day and was impressed with the rhetoric of Rudd and his Cabinet in question time. I find it difficult to reconcile the rhetoric however with the proposal of the Australian Government for a “Plan B” for Copenhagen! Surely this is naive on their part. As Rudd points out Australia has much to loose with a warming world. We here in NZ are already seeing climate refugees from across the ditch – giving up farming in the outback and buying farms here!
    There is a much better Plan B already out there and something all governments need to adopt. It will require shifting investment from traditional infrastructure but unless we mobilise now it will be too late.

  22. “Nothing has happened except someone has stolen some emails in which the the robust debate which constitutes all real science is represented. The supposed “scandal” is that some scientists argue with or have a low opinion of others – big deal!”

    Macro and Rob T…stop pretending.

    What has happened is that your house of cards, built upon sand is collapsing as you twitter…this troll is leaving now. His work is done.

    1. “What has happened is that your house of cards, built upon sand is collapsing as you twitter…this troll is leaving now. His work is done.” – Mikh.

      Reading some of those e-mails is hilarious. And the deniers cream their panties over that?.

        1. “Your problem is that you think it is funny. The reputations of these people are shot to bits, thankfully” -RogerD

          Their reputations will no doubt survive the collective wet dream fantasies of deniers the world over. Still funny some of those comments. I like the one about Pat Michaels.

  23. Mikh, I respectfully suggest you holiday in one of the lovely bush-clad regions of southern Australia this summer, where you may personally observe global warming in action…

    1. Haha ha ha haha.

      Maybe you should walk outside in your own country? It was beautiful November day in Wellington yesterday (not). But I wont argue it has anything to do with global cooling because…. its not global! And, I don’t know what the long term variability in Wellington’s weather is, how many similar cold spells has Wellington had over the last 14,000 years?? Who really knows.

      Please, if you want to get into a petty argument about current weather in different regions of the globe there are plenty of examples of cold spells in the last 36 months. But what would we prove? Other than weather is variable?

      “To find a corn harvest as late as this year’s, you need to go back to the 1967 corn crop and then back to 1946. By the end of the first week in November, 20% of the 1967 crop was harvested.”

      “The National Weather Service has announced that the contiguous United States just experienced its wettest and third-coldest October on record.”

      “According to New Zealand climate experts, the month of October was the coldest the country has had since the end of World War II.”,hong-kong-shivers-through-coldest-november-in-a-decade.html

      “As heavy snow fell in parts of China, Hong Kong temperatures fell below 10 degrees Celsius Tuesday as the sub-tropical city shivered through its coldest November in 10 years.”

      1. “The National Weather Service has announced that the contiguous United States just experienced its wettest and third-coldest October on record.” -R2.

        Yup, it’s not called US warming either, it’s GLOBAL warming. And we see that October 2009 was the 6th warmest global temp on record.

        Hot on the heels of September 2009. The 2nd warmest global temp on record.

        August 2009. 2nd warmest global temp on record. Warmest global ocean temp recorded.

        July 2009. 5th global temp warmest on record. With warmest global ocean temp recorded.

        That would be my royal flush, against your pair of deuces R2.

        Speaking of the US temp records though:

        And you’ve got what?. E-mails?.


    General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.
    In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files.

    [Snipped: Roger, link and taster only – you know my rules. Note to other posters: I will not allow this discussion to descend to name-calling and defamation.]

      1. R2D2 – this has been canvassed many many times. Scientists must release their methods. Its hard to get published unless you do and it often creates hassles when there a commercial stake in the method. Not a problem for climate science on the whole. Publishing code is different. A method disclosure should be enough for a competent practitioner to reproduce by writing their own code – which is what usually happens. Its the INCOMPETENT that are asking for code on the whole. Someone checking a method or data with their own code is a far better check than trawling through other peoples code. The other issue is that science code is not at all like say linux source code. It is often hacks in various tools strung together with one-off scripts. Nonetheless, reproducibility and checks are important and this produces a lot of debate. Its becoming increasingly common for code to be released in supplementary material. The people screaming for code though should take the same data and do the analysis themselves. If they get a different result then its time to start investigating why. That is how the UAH mistake was found. Now I am also aware you cant do this when the data isnt public – a problem for Hadley. However, if you get the same trends with Hadley, GISSTemp (which is public), UAH and RSS, then I think its pretty unlikely you are going to find something extraordinarily wrong.

        I think this debate on the inbox material though is futile. For deniers, it is fitted nicely into their narrative about climate scientists and from a glance at the stuff posted here and elsewhere, they will not invest any time at all in finding out the context and reality behind it. Shrug. If the inbox was say Heartland Institute instead, then I doubt I would be investing much in it either. Nothing in the science or the real world has changed though.

      2. “What reason do these scientists have to not want to release codes and methods? Surely if it is honest science they should have nothing to hide?” -R2

        Hmmmm, let’s see…….. trial by denier blog perhaps?. Of course some of the comments are sarcastic, but I wouldn’t expect a denier to understand that though.

  25. Rob Taylor: So now you’re reduced to cherry picking currently warm spots, while your idols admit:

    “there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong” (Kevin Trenbeth)

    Catastrophe cancelled

    If they do insist on wasting taxpayers’ money on the worthless Copenhagen junket, Tim Groser would be fully justified in doing a Hone.

  26. Roger, do these emails mean that the Earth’s energy budget will now balance and the ice caps cease to melt?
    That the fossil fuel industry can cease buying astroturf and fake “Climate Science Coalitions”?
    That my children and their descendants can lead happy and prosperous lives instead of battling never-ending disease, misery and want?

    Get real, you corporate spinmeisters. Physical reality is the final arbiter of truth and you have no answer to the AGW evidence but to try to sow doubt and confusion.

    1. Just consider reality. The ice is not melting any more than it has done in the past. The oceans are cooling. The atmosphere is cooling. There are very few sunspots and it appears that we are facing twenty to thirty years of cool climate. Your icons/gurus, Piltdown Mann, Briffa et al., have been cooking the books and are now disgraced. Your ‘evidence’, such as it is, is now shown to be fiddled.


      1. The ice is not melting any more than it has done in the past.

        False (Arctic sea ice, Greenland, Antartica). Score: 0 out of 1.

        The oceans are cooling.

        False. Score: 0 out of 2.

        The atmosphere is cooling.

        False. Score: 0 out of 3.

        Your icons/gurus, Piltdown Mann, Briffa et al., have been cooking the books and are now disgraced.

        Unclear what you’re referring to, and you provide no supporting references. If you’re referring to the Yamal tree ring record hoo-haa, your claim is false. If you’re making some kind of claim based on the CRU stolen files, you’ll need to spell it out, because there’s no evidence so far of anything that could be described as scientifically “cooking the books”.
        In the absence of any supporting evidence, your claim fails. Score: 0 out of 4.

        Final score: 0 out of 4. Please revise the material before you attempt this again, and don’t embarrass yourself by presenting claims without source references.

  27. Sad trolls, are these pathetic old lies all you have? Where is your research, your data, your peer-reviewed models?
    Who do you prefer to risk your children’s future on – uneducated fundamentalist fools like Wishart, or the IPCC?

    Let me guess – for you, faith-based pseudoscience and demagoguery beats scientific investigation and thought every time doesn’t it? Its just so much easier, after all…

  28. Rob – are you a [mind your language, Peter] or something. Peer review is not worth a pinch of shit in the GW scam as the peer reviewers are an old boys club who decide what will be peer reviewed based on their agenda, not science. If it does not meet the requirements of the climafundamentilists agenda it will not grt through even if it is scientific. Have you not read any of the leaked emails pertaining to this fact?

  29. Peter your obscenities do not help your absurd argument.
    You argue that some papers from the “denialist” camp are not admitted to peer review and what is, is decided by an elite. Well yes that is the case! That is the case in all science! There is just too much out there for rubbish to be published. Are you then arguing that all science is a sham? If someone can come up with convincing evidence to the contrary regarding human induced global warming I’m sure the WHOLE WORLD would love to hear it.

  30. Peter, seeing as we’re being so polite, I predict that this summer’s El Nino will prove most embarrassing for climate whores like yourselves… no doubt you will seek solace with more grubby fantasies of “smoking gun” emails as you hide under your bed.

    Meanwhile, in the real world, we need to set a price on carbon and get on with saving what we can of our collective future.

  31. You would not recognise an El Nino if it bit you on the bum.

    Putting a price on carbon does nothing except put money in the pockets of lawyers, speculators, and sundry shysters. As for saving the future , forget it. If you want to do that put stilboestrol in the water supplies of the third world.


  32. Gareth, you cal me a denier, [snip] is more than fair enough as we all know this has affiliations to the Nazi genocide.
    Peer review is [snip] with the alarmists as it is an old boys club, bit like the gardiner palagarism issue at Auckland uni. Deny the real issuees.
    You warmers are just pawns in the game, dooped idiots used as carriers of false information for the likes of Al ‘fat’ Gore et al.
    Your warming graph is bollocks as it uses fudged information & uses data from a cold era in the past 100 years.

    [Peter, if you can’t control your language, I will edit your posts. It’s my pub, I choose the beer and set the standards.]

  33. Well stick to Waikato Draught then you censorist.
    Peer review is still stuffed anyway. Defend this bollocks all you like but your lot still look like idiots. I bet even your good self does not believe what was stated in these emails. It must be like the Japanese in 1945 finding out that Horohito was not a real ‘god’.

  34. The words of an AGW shroud waver:

    “As a long time AGW supporter I must say I found the emails very disturbing.

    I spent hours reading them myself. I don’t know if they qualify as “smoking
    gun” that the AGW science is bust, but I just cannot ignore it.

    I feel ashamed for the behavior of our leading scientists. Even more than
    feeling ashamed – I feel betrayed.

    For years I trusted that science will prevail over the unsubstantiated
    skeptic view. These emails reveal a very disturbing picture of ideology
    overriding science. Science being bent out of shape to support a hypothesis.

    They reveal unbelievable arrogance. These people whom I trusted so much
    think they are
    – above the law (destroying email, refusing FOIA, tax evasion)
    – above the data (“hide the decline”, remove the cooling blimp)
    – above their peers (get uncomforting journal editors fired, block skeptic
    – above the rest of us (manipulate the message, presentation and media)

    I am sick to my stomach. I know there are so many other hard working
    scientists that have not tainted themselves. But this group – Phil Jones,
    Ken Briffa, Mike Man, Gavin Schmidt have cast a huge shadow of doubt over
    the entire field and caused a huge damage to the green movement.

    I talked with many of my friends who, like most of us, continue to believe
    in AGW, and we think that as long as these guys continue to lead the science
    and the IPCC assessments they will continue to taint all of the good work
    done by thousands of other scientists.

    We need to acknowledge that wrong was done. We need to replace the tainted
    leadership and continue the research without the air of doubt.”



    1. Good to see Roger relying on… what? Ah yes, Google shows that these exact words have been posted as comments on three web sites, once by “John S” at The Telegraph (6:19am), and by “Ron” here and here. So who do we believe, Roger? Someone’s obviously guilty of plagiarism, or perhaps more obviously, trolling…

    2. This unethical contribution to the deniolosphere’s braying is well answered on RealClimate, and while some commentators may call it “the death of Peer Review”, the “Biggest Scandal in the History of Science” etc … there’s not much to see there really. Just a bunch of comments taken out of the context they were written in. Wishart thinks he has found more eg evidence of corruption, but if it’s based on as shaky misinterpretations as most of his writings I wouldn’t believe it.

      1. Real Climate is of course Piltdown Mann’s blog! Denialosphere, it is indeed. You cannot explain it away. Note the words of the AGW shroudwaver quoted above.

        1. Nothing can be explained away to you Roger, because you refuse to listen or even engage in argument rationally. Even now you’re resorting to ad homineum attack – saying that whatever appears on the RC site does not cut it because of who said it.

  35. So Piltdown Mann and some others did not like the Soons and Baliunas paper? No surprise there. But Piltdown Mann, Briffa, Jones and a few others now have less credibility than a woodlouse!


Leave a Reply