More emails, more bitchy scientific gossip, and more white labcoat backstabbing:
You know what you get when you mix science and politics? You get politics, period. Hockey Stick Charlatan Michael Mann gets the worst of it from this batch of emails (but a lot more are coming).
<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”.
<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
I love it when highly-credentialed scientists use scare quotes. And triple question marks. The only thing separating these emails from notes passed in junior high is little hearts over the i’s and talking about how much they hate that new cheerleader who transferred in from Central.
But don’t worry, Bobby. Teacher can’t collect our IPCC class notes!
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
Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.
P.S. And NASA’s James Hansen has a financial scandal. He’s taken over $1 million in outside money to promote global warming theory and failed to disclose it as required by his government contracts. Because all scientists are exactly like Mr. Spock on Star Trek in that they’re above petty jealousies and the quest for material gain and personal glory.
RSS Posts Feed
Pingback: SayUncle » NTSA
Apparently this is emails from the original THEFT of private email correspondence. The stuff that wasn’t as juicy.
So far very little grist for the mill. You denialists really are getting desperate aren’t you?
Right. They’re just trying to hide the correspondence related to a government project that will affect trillions of dollars of the global economy from freedom of information act requests. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Trillions? You arrived at that figure how?
The denialist hacks know that you can tie up and stymie someone with endless FOIA requests; the scientists in question don’t have the staffing to handle the spurious, groundless requests that they were being flooded with.
The information sought in the FOIA requests was available elsewhere. The FOIA requests weren’t about science (they weren’t even coming from scientists)–they were about harassing and frustrating a few high profile scientists and keeping them from their work.
If you read a little about the backstory and get a little context, yeah…there really isn’t much to see.
Even if we assume the worst about Phil Jones and Mike Mann…really…so fucking what? The body of work produced by thousands and thousands of scientists doesn’t rise and fall on a handful of people.
“Trillions? You arrived at that figure how?”
Show me how you can have any impact on global warming with budget that doesn’t quickly start using the T word.
“Even if we assume the worst about Phil Jones and Mike Mann…really…so fucking what? The body of work produced by thousands and thousands of scientists doesn’t rise and fall on a handful of people.”
These are the rock stars, baby. That’s why they’re working on the IPCC committee. Michael Mann is Meester Hockey Stick Graph. And I think scientific circles are more cliquish than you’d like to believe, as these emails show.
It’s your claim, so I’d argue the onus is on you to defend it–but considering that the costs of doing nothing are likely far outstrip whatever the costs of doing something are likely to be, my guess is you’re chasing a pretty moot point here.
Rock stars might make for attractive targets, but that’s not how science works. You’re pursuing a classic ad hominem fallacy here and it just isn’t compelling. You can’t dismiss the work of thousands and thousands of science based on the emails of a couple guys taken out of context. Sure they sound cliquish, their work is being mischaracterized and attacked by people not even qualified to participate in it.
Global warming sounds like a religion … based on the comments above.
1. It is absolutely correct, no debate needed – “the costs of doing nothing are [sic] likely far outstrip whatever the costs of doing something”
2. Drink the cool-aid, everyone agrees – “You can’t dismiss the work of thousands and thousands of science”
3. You must not question. Only the elders may question – “their work is being mischaracterized and attacked by people not even qualified to participate in it”
Where is the separation of church and state when we need it most?
Ah yes, when all else fails, break out the old “science is a religion too” canard, right? Reminds me of my favorite t-shirt, ATHEISM IS A RELIGION LIKE “OFF” IS A TV CHANNEL.
1) It was his claim, not mine–but even if correct, it’s also utterly irrelevant. If science tells us something, it tells us something, and what it costs is irrelevant. You can’t tell your doctor you deny heart disease because losing weight, quitting smoking, and maybe having a bypass is a pain in the ass.
2) Well, if you dispense with the scientific process for this, why not get rid of gravity and evolution and atomic theory and germ theory of disease while we’re at it? Oh wait…you probably would.
3) Question all you like. You’re entitled to your opinion. The problem is you denialists also want to be entitled to your own facts.
“It’s your claim, so I’d argue the onus is on you to defend it”
Well, if global warming can be solved for $20 I’ll fund the foundation myself. If global warming could be stopped for millions or billions of dollars it seems reasonable to believe someone would have ponied up the money already. How much do you think it would cost to replace all of our fossil fuel-based energy resources?
If you want numbers, here’s one from the UN. $20 trillion over two decades. Since it’s a government number double it then double it again. Then ask yourself who’s going to pay for it and who’s going to decide who’s going to pay for it.
http://csis.org/blog/un-secretary-general-warns-global-warming-may-cost-20-trillion
“Rock stars might make for attractive targets, but that’s not how science works.”
OK, how does science work? Is there a set of rules? If someone breaks the rules is there a court of arbitration or do they settle disputes with a hot chili eating contest? I have a bachelor’s in science. I used to be a lot more dreamy-eyed about science. It’s still the best thing we’ve got, but there’s nothing to be gained by being naive about its flaws or the flaws of the people who practice it. They’re people with petty jealousies and political desires like everyone else.
“You’re pursuing a classic ad hominem fallacy here and it just isn’t compelling. You can’t dismiss the work of thousands and thousands of science based on the emails of a couple guys taken out of context.”
Thousands and thousand of scientists didn’t write they IPCC report. They may have written papers that were cited, but they weren’t the authors. The authors were a small committee. That’s how science sometimes gets done. By a small clique with power.
What’s significant about the emails is that we’re seeing the unguarded, uncensored thoughts of that small clique.
“How much do you think it would cost to replace all of our fossil fuel-based energy resources?”
Probably less than not doing it. And unless you think the USGS is totally full of shit too, it’s something we’re going to have to do anyway someday. But the single largest source of CO2 emissions isn’t fossil fuels at all–but rather deforestation.
What price would you put on dead oceans, huge swaths of arable land being lost, and most coastal cities under water?
Costs aren’t necessarily net losses. The DOD costs a lot of money, but that money changing hands creates a lot of jobs and opportunity. A lot of those costs are going to go into cleaner energy that doesn’t come from people who want to kill us and more energy efficient, cleaner means of moving ourselves round and round and feeding ourselves. The next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs is somebody working on a liquid thorium reactor or a cheaper solar panel.
“OK, how does science work? Is there a set of rules? If someone breaks the rules is there a court of arbitration or do they settle disputes with a hot chili eating contest?”
It works just as it has–lots of people collaborate and compare data. If people break the rules, they’re exposed for doing so. Mann and Jones were investigated ad naseum after the last climate-not-a-gate go around and were found to not have done anything wrong beyond speaking poorly of their detractors.
Sure these people are capable of the same flaws as the rest of us, but it’s not being dreamy eyed to point back at the science–and nothing in Climate-not-a-gate 1 or 2 has shown that the tidal shift that flushing AGW would represent is warranted.
In short…it’s just not there. CO2 is an infrared active gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere means the atmosphere retains more kinetic energy.
That’s it.
Thousand and thousands of scientists DID in fact review the IPCC report and collaborate on it, and thousands more have signed onto it. The list of physical sciences bodies that accept its conclusions is pretty exhaustive. You really think Anthony Watts and Steve Milloy have it right, and NASA and NAS and AIP and AGU and RAS etc all have it wrong?
What we’re seeing is STOLEN emails by a hacker who probably should see the inside of a jail cell that represent the private thoughts of people who just want to do science who are being viciously attacked because they’re telling you what you don’t wanna hear.
“It works just as it has–lots of people collaborate and compare data. If people break the rules, they’re exposed for doing so. Mann and Jones were investigated ad naseum after the last climate-not-a-gate go around and were found to not have done anything wrong beyond speaking poorly of their detractors.”
Right. And Congressmen are investigated all the time and routinely found not to have broken ethics rules. Is that because they haven’t broken ethics rules or because of a gentleman’s agreement that they police themselves and only punish the most egregious violations? Why did it take so long to catch the recent social science researcher who faked so many of his studies? If Bradley thinks “the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published” do you think he’ll go public and refute it?
“The DOD costs a lot of money, but that money changing hands creates a lot of jobs and opportunity.”
That’s just the broken window fallacy. You’re seeing the money spent on those jobs. You aren’t seeing the money that could have been spent by the people who originally had the money but who had it taken away by their own government in the name of saving the environment. Politicians love creating jobs with other people’s money.
“In short…it’s just not there. CO2 is an infrared active gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere means the atmosphere retains more kinetic energy.”
And the atmosphere is as simple as that? If so, then why have global temperatures essentially hit a standstill for the past decade or more. That isn’t according to me. That’s according to the scientific consensus, including IPCC author Phil Jones.
http://www.lesjones.com/2010/02/14/climategates-phil-jones-publicly-admits-no-statistically-significant-warming-for-past-15-years/
And why didn’t the warmists predict long pause in rising temperature? Instead, most of them were ramping up their hysteria during that timeframe, claiming that instead temperatures would begin going up at an accelerating rate.
Sebastian, on the other hand, probably thinks Wiki-leaks are heroes. And since his favorite shirt is a sophomore’s comment on atheism, you know you cann’t argue with him because there are no limits on his actions – when everything is just taste, all things including lying are permitted. Remember Mao’s dictum. Or Tweedledum’s…. Power is all.
And global warming need for a super government to enforce the “cure” fits that perfectly.
>>What we’re seeing is STOLEN emails by a hacker
Yes, indeed! That EVIL hacker should be arrested and hanged, IMMEDIATELY. Let’s all focus our attention on him and his heinous crimes, and not read the incriminating documents he’s publishing. There’s nothing good in those, you’d only be wasting your time. Besides the consensus is in so stop arguing.
When it’s Bradley Manning and Wikipedia leaking emails, then it’s called by the much nobler-sounding “whistleblowing”.
After spending a few hours with the original release of emails it became quit obvious that they were not stolen. They were leaked.
“What we’re seeing is STOLEN emails by a hacker who probably should see the inside of a jail cell that represent the private thoughts of people who just want to do science who are being viciously attacked because they’re telling you what you don’t wanna hear.”
Actually they are telling me something I am glad to hear. These emails are telling me the idea that it is proved that human released CO2 causes global warming is a fraud. And really who could care if the emails are stolen when they reveal the far more vast crimes of Hansen and Mann?
You could also be humble enough to admit that if they are subject to a FOIA request, the felony is on the part of the fraudsters not to release them.
“Ah yes, when all else fails, break out the old “science is a religion too” canard, right? ”
Or, when all else fails break out the old “equate the AGW hoax with actual science.”
Nobody stated or even implied that science is a religion, just that Global Warming sure seems to resemble a religion.
Some odd trees not necessarily equaling a forest, don’t you see…
Actually, the chances that this was the work of a “hacker” are vanishingly small.
The information disclosed in the two data dumps (11/09 and 11/11) have been very carefully compiled. The easiest way to snarf the email is to pull down everything from the email server in one big blob. That’s not at all what was here. Rather, you have a very carefully selected – you might even say targeted – set of emails relating to the FOIA requests.
Could a hacker have done this? Yes, but only after (a) hacking the UEA network, (b) hacking the UEA email servers, (c) downloading a truly massive amount of data, some of which is probably only in backups who knows where, and (d) avoiding being detected either at the time or by reconstructing his activity from logs. The UK Police have all but closed their investigation, with no named suspects.
The most likely source is someone who was somehow involved with gathering the data in case the University had to comply with the FOIA request. When UEA decided not to, that’s when this person likely leaked the information.
In other words, the Wikileaks scenario is the most likely. There have also been persistent rumors of a “mole” inside the CRU for at least 6 months before the first data dump in 2009.
Yes, I work in Internet Security.
Good point by VDM.
Or, to paraphrase, it’s always wrong to release information that makes your side look like hypocrites, but it’s never wrong to release information that makes the other side look like hypocrites.
At least, that seems to be the stance taken by an awful lot of people.
As long as the general public is going to be footing the bill for something like this, they have every right to see the full and unaltered data and communications underlying it (I’ll make an exception for cases where secrecy is necessary to directly and unambiguously protect lives).
And, it is possible to state that there can be some human effect on the climate (simple thermodynamics, any activity within a system will affect that system), without buying into all of the doomsday scenarios (or believing that human activity has to be the preponderant cause of any effects that we might see).
It’s also possible to posit that the vast majority of the proposed solutions are either:
(a) technologically unworkable (i.e., quit using fossil fuels right now).
(b) prohibitively expensive (i.e., the cure does far more damage than the disease, we must kill society to save it).
(c) just plain old Malthusian apocrypha, recycled to suit another generation of control freaks, or
(d) the usual political maneuvering for money and power, usually the perennial desire to move money around for the benefit of the ‘ruling class.’
Mostly, it’s the last one. Pretty much every proposed solution involves giving money to some favored group without any assurance (or any actual evidence whatsoever) that it would achieve the desired effect (or any actual effect at all).
Ultimately, a free market and continually improving technology will do a vastly better job of addressing any man made contributions to our climate than will the entire catalog of government solutions.
The belief of AGW is based on a climate model built on some facts but finished with assumptions that are yet to be proven. Therefore, AGW is not a fact. This was something I learned in high school. Apparently the vast majority of people in the country did not, therefore we have models being depicted as fact.
I’m just a stupid attorney who did ok in geology courses in college, but let me get this straight. Scientists are attempting to hide their communications and thwart FOI requests. CO2 emissiona have increased markedly, but it’s not getting Warner, a contrary to the “settled science,” and now settled science 2.0 says that warming won’t happen for decades. That pristine organization, the UN sponsored the original report that settled the science. It used to be called global warming but now it’s climate change.
I am not a moron. CO2 is not a pollutant. You will not take any more of my tax money to ruin civilization. Thank you, fake science jerks
And to Sebastian, the FOIA requests almost all had a single goal: to get the scientists to release their data and computer code so that people could check their work. Post this on the Internet, and all the FOIA requests go away, as well as all the time the scientists have had to spend chasing the requests.
You’d think that this would be a pretty strong motivation to release the data.
Of course, the UEA’s “the dog ate my data” excuse, along with the quite frankly shocking contents of the HARRY_READ_ME.TXT file in 2009 gives another explanation: the data is lousy, the code is filled with bugs, and the scientists know this.
In any case, I’m quite unimpressed by FOIA complaints from people taking public money for their work. You want the cash, we want to see your code and data. If the code and data are solid, you don’t need to worry for your reputation. And that’s really the crux of the matter, isn’t it?
Well, I am a scientist (er, was… I’m retired now) and believe me, the practice of science is as political and nasty as it can get…especially in academia where one’s future is tethered to an ability to ingratiate yourself with the funding agencies.
Then, there’s this comment from Les Jones:
I’d like to extend Mr. Jones’s comment: the IPCC report was written by political representatives of the participating governments, each of whom reflect their county’s specific geo-political agenda. It is a mistake of the highest order to view the IPCC report in the same way as one might view an actual peer-reviewed article.
Cheers,
Michael
They even use scare quotes for “science”. From Mike Hulme in 3765.txt apparently quoting Mark New:
it is interesting to see in the various emails where they use “science” and where they use science, often in the same emails.
And the all important SUMMARY of the IPCC reports are written by full time UN staff bureaucrats who synthesize the commentary of scientists and craft what they lift into a statement of formal political position in support of policy agendas. Few ever read the science, and the political media drones on about the SUMMARY without either caveat or inquiry.
As for Mann and Jones, none dare call it racketeering. If they did (and if it was) you’d need to haul most of postmodern academia and their administrations to the federal penitentiary.
Mann and Jones. This is not a computer model driven derivate of the Sandusky-Paterno scandal? Are we not talking about molestation, violation and abuse where there was to be professional trustee duty?
Postmodern Academics. Failed trustees for the great greater good.
“We are State Pen”.
Karl Popper has to be rolling in his grave. He was right. The greatest threat to the scientific method is Scientism.
There is a torrent of scandal ready to unleash from the modern academy. The fetid sepsis of the superior institutional culture dominating academe has produced fountain of corruption and insider dealing.
Mann and Jones were merely mimicking what they say the Romans do; i.e., law schools lying to students for their admissions; education departments turning child and adolescent schooling in to day prison; medical schools practicing phrenology and advocating Hegelian eugenic sanitation under the guise of medical ethics.
Fly the hockey stick flag upside down and at half-mast. This is the creed of the postmodern university nation.
I’m amazed that there is still warmists running around spouting the “thousands of scientists of the IPCC” meme. Especially since a member of the UEA, Mike Hulme (and one of the Climategate addressees), has blown that one apart:
http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG1.pdf
Pingback: Climategate II – Longer, Harder, Uncut Emails « A Moral Outrage
If I may pipe in here regarding an astounding assertion by Sebastian that hasn’t been adequately squashed yet, regarding the cost of replacing our fossil fuel infrastructure.
“Probably less than not doing it. And unless you think the USGS is totally full of shit too, it’s something we’re going to have to do anyway someday. But the single largest source of CO2 emissions isn’t fossil fuels at all–but rather deforestation.”
First of all, there may very well come a day when we’ve actually got in hand a better alternative to our fossil fuel infrastructure. That day is not today and it might not be for some time. Doing a changeover like this when it’s too early is not without cost.
The man running the UK grid has publicly stated that 24 hour electricity availability will end given the green energy direction that the UK has decided to take. “We’re going to have to change our own behavior and consume it when it’s available and available cheaply”. That’s a horrible choice that I thought no responsible government would make. I was wrong.
Shivering and in the dark is a real choice. It is a choice that the UK elite seems to be making for the entire population. It is a criminal choice which will lead to increased misery and death and one which is not properly accounted for in any economic analysis to date.
Yes, I want power to be available when I want it. No, I don’t want manufacturing plants to have to lay off and call back shift workers based on wind forecasts. I don’t want hospitals to have to dump precious health funds into beefing up their expensive backup power solutions because of reduced reliability of the grid. I don’t want the air conditioners to go out during a heat wave and the bodies of the sick and elderly stacking up like cord wood because there’s no space in the morgue.
The propensity to accept high costs and sure deaths now to handle a problem that might come to pass decades from now when technological advances will have made solutions practical and much less expensive.
The IPCC has recently changed its tune and now says that for the next few decades climate signals are likely to be of small magnitude. It hasn’t changed its tune that we need to create massive disruption to the world economy right now, create an international governance body that will be able to reach into our communities and regulate how we live right now. This isn’t science and it’s not good economics.
How can anyone who has spent a few minutes researching “climate change” still believe it is anything but a con job? Yeah, my exhaling is pollution….talk about just plain stupid.
Hockey stick graph? Thats a joke. Its like taking the temperature at 6am and then at 2pm, then using that data to run around scream the earth is warming and we are all going to die.
Liberals make me laugh. A couple decades ago they were screaming global cooling and ice ages.
Dont bother arguing with them, its not worth it. If the current state of the country and the world doesnt show them the complete failure of liberalism, multiculturalism, and left wing economic policy, they will never get it. Never mind the tens of millions killed because of left wing politics and leaders.
SKEPTICISM IS A CLIMATE BELIEF LIKE “OFF” IS A TV CHANNEL.
“Apparently this is emails from the original THEFT of private email correspondence. The stuff that wasn’t as juicy.”
The emails aren’t private – they are the property of the tax payers who fund the “research”.
“The denialist hacks know that you can tie up and stymie someone with endless FOIA requests; the scientists in question don’t have the staffing to handle the spurious, groundless requests that they were being flooded with. ”
Oh you mean like releasing the original temp. data – yeah I see your point – Oh wait if you don’t release the original data so your work can be recreated then what you are doing isn’t science at all. The scientists (term used loosely) wasted an enormous amount of time trying to avoid complying with the FOIA request, then admitted they had “lost” all the original data. At least the level of competency we’re dealing with is revealed.
They have time to hide, delete or alter information that taxpayers have a right to – they just don’t have time to comply with the law. Your opinion of other people’s intelligence is an indictment of your own.
I work for the US government and we have FOIA requests all the time. We get emails from US attorneys warning of us failure to comply with these requests and especially to be sure to preserve all records and working files. The suggestion here shows that government employees were conspiring to delete records, which is a felony under US law. I don’t know about the law in the UK, but merely hinting at getting rid of evidence often leads to conspiracy indictments in the US. If the research done was above reproof, the scientists would have been more than willing to publish any and all documents without concern. But clearly they are concerned about how they appear and it is hard to avoid the suspicion that they are covering their tracks.
What about the science?
Darth Helvetica nailed it. Game, set, match. Wish I could have put it so succinctly.
It’s beyond me why anyone listens to the global warming media hysteria once they announced that they conveniently “lost” the original data that this hoax is founded on.
Seriously, how much less scientific can this charade get?
Scientists are like anyone else: They said whatever puts more taxpayer money in their pocket.
Pingback: #climategate 2.0…continued mirth | pindanpost
James Hanson said that my house in Lodi would be beach front property by 2008. I’m glad I didn’t pay attention to him and sold in 2006.
Knowing who is full of crap is helpful.
More damned denialism! “Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008.” Wha?
It’s the first sentence of the abstract of a paper called “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008″ by some denializer outfit called the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the US.
Its denializing authors, just so you can spit at them if you ever meet them, are “Robert K. Kaufmann, Heikki Kauppi, Michael L. Mann, and James H. Stock”
Remember the emails from Climategate in 2010? http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/5398-wikileaks-reveals-us-a-eu-climate-bullying-bribery-espionage
Here is what the MSM and the climate fear mongerers did not want you to know about back then and now:
AP refuses to explain how it could have given readers across the planet such a distorted view of Climategate http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-climategate/?feat=article_top10_read
After Atkins’ April 11 report, news outlets around the world began to pick up the story. And the UN responded immediately with a half-baked attempt at damage control. But instead of admitting its predictions were way off the mark, the organization tried to take down all evidence that it had ever made them. Now it claims the 50 million “environmental refugees” will materialize by 2020. http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/
U.S. Cooling, Not Warming, Over Past Decade, Govt. Data Shows
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/9707-us-cooling-not-warming-over-past-decade-govt-data-shows
The most important point regarding the B.E.S.T. study is one that Muller dismissively mentions at the end of his WSJ article: “How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.” But, he pontificates, “Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”
His comments are deceptive. Few scientists deny global warming, and most are very glad Earth has thawed from the Little Ice Age of the early 19th century. What they deny is anthropogenic global warming — the idea that human activities are driving catastrophic climate change. Since Muller admits his team “made no independent assessment of that,” it seems his case against global warming skepticism has gone cold.
http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/9474-has-climate-change-skepticism-been-debunked
The Link Between Eugenics & Global Warming Hype
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/6987-the-link-between-eugenics-a-global-warming-hype
Rockefellers Fund Global-warming Protests as Earth Cools.
Rockefeller’s money is never in the best interests of people or the earth,” explained a blogger at Aletho News. “Do these tens of thousands participating in the ’350′ social engineering ‘events’ really understand the background of their financial leaders or are they, as Rockefeller’s buddy Kissinger might say, ‘useful idiots?’“ The writer also points to a myriad of global-warming propaganda grants — each over $200,000 — made by the Rockefeller Fund.
So why is the link troubling?
“For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will,” wrote David Rockefeller in his autobiography. “If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” He also promotes draconian “population control” via global governance, among other highly controversial ideas. http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2173-rockefeller-brothers-fund-global-warming-protests-as-earth-cools
People like Sebastion sadden me. To these people scepticism is abhorent. Think about that. Scepticism is wrong. Scepticism is evil. Scepticism is ignorance. Really? Scepticism is the bedrock of science. You can never be sure that you are right. In fact absolute certainty is non-scientific and absolute certainty is a vice.
Wish I could have put it so succinctly. You’d think that this would be a pretty strong motivation to release the data. Jones’s comment: the IPCC report was written by political representatives of the participating governments, each of whom reflect their county’s specific geo-political agenda.