H1N1 and Climate Change

[Keepitsimple]

Well, we now know that H1N1 was to say the least, hugely overblown. But there are blatant similarities between the H1N1 hype and Climate Change - at least how it pertains to the UN, politics, lobbying, and the media. The power that lurks behind the scenes of "righteous" causes is incredible. Because the H1N1 hysteria ran its course in less than a year, we have been able to see the folly of the entire undertaking and as usual "following the money" leads to the source of corruption. Unfortunately, it has taken years to begin to crack the shell of the Climate Change game - but it's the same players - the UN, the media, and of course a myriad of people who stand to make money. It's healthy to be skeptical in today's world.

The Council of Europe is set to investigate the World Health Organization’s swine flu campaign this month over allegations of improper influence from pharmaceutical companies in declaring the H1N1 “pandemic” and the promotion of “inefficient” and potentially dangerous vaccination strategies.

The resolution to launch the emergency inquiry was approved by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and passed through the health committee unanimously. It states in part that “in order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies influenced scientists and official agencies responsible for public health standards to alarm governments worldwide and make them squander tight health resources for inefficient vaccine strategies, and needlessly expose millions of healthy people to the risk of an unknown amount of side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.”

Wodarg called the “false pandemic” one of the greatest medical scandals of the last century and said that pharmaceutical companies influenced the whole process and needed to be held accountable. They were willing to "inflict bodily harm in their pursuit of profits," he said. Articles in the European press, starting in Denmark and spreading, have repeatedly called into question the myriad ties between vaccine manufacturers and decision makers in the United Nations' global health body.

Earlier this year the WHO redefined the term pandemic, lowering the threshold for an emergency declaration by removing the requirement of an “enormous” number of deaths. The WHO estimated that by the end of 2009, around 10,000 people had died from swine flu-linked complications. Seasonal influenza kills between 250,000 and 500,000 per year on average, according to the organization.

News reports earlier this year, citing the UN, warned of millions of deaths around the world unless nations promptly proceeded with the controversial vaccination schemes being promoted by the WHO — along with forking over billions of dollars. Since then, the disease has proved relatively mild despite the wild fearmongering campaigns waged by governments, such as the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology that warned that 90,000 Americans could die from the H1N1 virus.

Link: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/2697-eu-to-investigate-who-false-pandemic-scandal

Edited January 14, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

hey Simple, in your trivial skeptical association pursuit do the pharmaceutical companies play the role of "Big Oil"?

[Michael Hardner]

Well, we now know that H1N1 was to say the least, hugely overblown. But there are blatant similarities between the H1N1 hype and Climate Change - at least how it pertains to the UN, politics, lobbying, and the media. The power that lurks behind the scenes of "righteous" causes is incredible. Because the H1N1 hysteria ran its course in less than a year, we have been able to see the folly of the entire undertaking and as usual "following the money" leads to the source of corruption. Unfortunately, it has taken years to begin to crack the shell of the Climate Change game - but it's the same players - the UN, the media, and of course a myriad of people who stand to make money. It's healthy to be skeptical in today's world.

Climage Change hasn't gone anywhere. If you think it has, let's check in a year or two and see if it's still a concern or not.

As for H1N1 - hindsight is 20/20. If H1N1 had been deadly, all the same pundits would have been saying "we knew it was coming and we didn't do ENOUGH".

[waldo]

As for H1N1 - hindsight is 20/20. If H1N1 had been deadly, all the same pundits would have been saying "we knew it was coming and we didn't do ENOUGH".

notwithstanding the absurdness of Simple's Skeptics"R"Us stand, what about the actual unprecedented response by countries around the world, those that responded to WHO warnings... I guess that response in helping to offset impact gets shuffled aside as inconsequential in Simple's skeptic world. Apparently, Simple also wants to extend judgment over something that is only alleged at this time... how skeptical of him!

WHO official: H1N1 threat not exaggerated

Fukuda disputed charges that the WHO had "overplayed the pandemic," arguing that the agency had repeatedly said the pandemic could be mild or severe.

"From the very beginning, WHO has gone out of its way to let everyone know that the future course of the pandemic was uncertain, that we did not have a crystal ball and we could not tell you which way it was going to go," he said. "WHO has always been very balanced and sober in providing its assessment. We have tried very hard to neither overplay or underplay the situation."

He also said part of the reason for the relative mildness of the pandemic has been the unprecedented response by countries around the world that were prompted by the WHO's warnings.

"We don't know how many deaths and infections have been averted or prevented by some of the actions of these countries," he said. "We firmly believe these actions shouldn't be discounted."

Finally, Fukuda said the agency has strict rules in place requiring anyone who provides advice to the WHO to disclose any financial conflicts of interest, including any ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

"Has the WHO been influenced by industry? The answer is, 'No,' " he said. "To protect the integrity of the advice given to WHO and remain free from undue influence WHO has had in place routine protections against conflict of interest. This is true for a long time but also during this particular pandemic."

[bjre]

I said it long before: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15225&view=findpost&p=478742

Everything in western world is controlled by big business because they have money. They control the media, so they can fool people so that control votes. In this way they control governments. The goal is for them to take more money. They are going to control media not only in the western world, but also the whole world. United States are expert of that. They created one non-stable area after another. The only thing they want is they want to put their man in every government to make laws so that they can always earn money and define everything that not help their money-earning purpose as crime.

Twitter vs. Terror

In Pakistan, the State Department paid for 24 million text messages as a way to help support a new mobile-phone-based social network, Humari Awaz, or "Our Voice." The gesture helps increase U.S. government engagement with the Pakistani people, strengthens communities, and can assist small businesses in gaining better market information.

VOA Uses Social Media, New Technologies

The Voice of America (VOA) (www.voanews.com), the largest U.S. international broadcaster reaching 125 million people in 45 languages, is actively engaged in using new media technologies -- along with radio and television -- to reach its worldwide audience. VOA has YouTube channels, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, RSS news feeds, blogs, mobile headlines and Podcasts.

In Iran, for instance, VOA's Persian News Network -- which reaches about one-in-four adult Iranians -- has embraced new media, but is careful to ensure traditional values of journalism are not sacrified. VOA has received thousands of videos from Iranians, and is planning to add an application to the iPhone and Android which will allow Iranians to download Farsi broadcasts.

Elsewhere, VOA has teamed up with mobile phone providers to allow SMS news and information in Nigeria, Kenya, China, Pakistan, Indonesia and Ghana, among other places.

[wyly]

how convenient to ignore the change in how Canadians have changed their response to a pandemic may have a had a significant effect on the the spread and control of H1N1...simple things like hand sanitizing stations, not shaking hands, staying home when sick, coughing and sneezing into sleeves, plus a massive inoculation response would've reduced the number of cases by half probably much, much more as those vaccinated no longer incubate and spread the disease...

[Bugs]

Climage Change hasn't gone anywhere. If you think it has, let's check in a year or two and see if it's still a concern or not.

As for H1N1 - hindsight is 20/20. If H1N1 had been deadly, all the same pundits would have been saying "we knew it was coming and we didn't do ENOUGH".

Why wait? Don't we already know global warming was a pack of lies, packaged into a movie, and used to create an irrational panic?

I heard on the radio yesterday that the temperature on Jan 13, 2005 was 17ºC! Yesterday had a high of slightly over freezing. If the global warming thesis is right, this dramatically cooler weather would have to be off-set somewhere else on the planet having correspondingly high temperatures.

Climate change snake-oil seems salable then, but now that normality has returned, it seems dubious.

[wyly]

Why wait? Don't we already know global warming was a pack of lies, packaged into a movie, and used to create an irrational panic?

I heard on the radio yesterday that the temperature on Jan 13, 2005 was 17ºC! Yesterday had a high of slightly over freezing. If the global warming thesis is right, this dramatically cooler weather would have to be off-set somewhere else on the planet having correspondingly high temperatures.

Climate change snake-oil seems salable then, but now that normality has returned, it seems dubious.

hmmm, the other day while it was freezing in Florida here it was 12C... no big mystery here, it's weather,...

[Michael Hardner]

Why wait? Don't we already know global warming was a pack of lies, packaged into a movie, and used to create an irrational panic?

Who is "we" ? I sure don't believe that. We'll see what comes of the investigation, though. If it doesn't produce the smoking gun that all climate science has been a pack-of-lies for years now, whatever will happen ?

I heard on the radio yesterday that the temperature on Jan 13, 2005 was 17ºC! Yesterday had a high of slightly over freezing. If the global warming thesis is right, this dramatically cooler weather would have to be off-set somewhere else on the planet having correspondingly high temperatures.

Climate change snake-oil seems salable then, but now that normality has returned, it seems dubious.

Yes, the "it was gold today therefore global warming is false" thing is not subscribed to by anybody who discusses the topic seriously, including posters here whom Waldo/Wyly debate with.

I'm not sure but it just MAY be warm in Australia this time of year.

[Riverwind]

Climage Change hasn't gone anywhere. If you think it has, let's check in a year or two and see if it's still a concern or not.

I would give it 5-7 years to wait and see. If current trends continue we would have 15 years of non-warming and even the alarmists agree that period is long enough to demonstrate that the models are crap. 8 years of non-warming is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt about the model reliability and to justify a delay before implementing an expensive CO2 mitigation policies.

It will also take about 3 years to rebuild the temperature indicies from scratch since the indicies we have now cannot be trusted since the current custodians have been exposed as untrustworthy zealots on a crusade. That said, I don't expect to find huge discrepencies in the datasets but I would not be surprised to find the the warming has been overstated by as much as 20% through the use of biased algorithms and careful selection of the stations included in the index.

As for H1N1 - hindsight is 20/20. If H1N1 had been deadly, all the same pundits would have been saying "we knew it was coming and we didn't do ENOUGH".

Does not make it any less absurd. The attitude that all possible risks much be prevented without any thought to the costs of prevention is a cancer in our society today. My recent trip to the US was a nightmare of pointless security checks that would not have actually stopped underpants bomber.

[Riverwind]

Who is "we" ? I sure don't believe that. We'll see what comes of the investigation, though. If it doesn't produce the smoking gun that all climate science has been a pack-of-lies for years now, whatever will happen?

People on both sides of the debate are not capable of understanding the nuance of the scientific issues. For example, an alarmist that to points to melting glaciers as 'evidence' of catatrophic AGW is just as wrong since evidence of warming is not evidence that the warming was caused mainly by CO2 and nor is it evidence that the warming is likely to cause a catastrophe in the future.

I'm not sure but it just MAY be warm in Australia this time of year.

There are scientists which specialize in the analysis of chaotic systems that reject the claim that climate is predictable. They argue that climate is chaotic like weather and that means it is not possible to predict the future path of climate. The climate science industry only insists that climate is predictable because if they didn't they would not have jobs.

Here is a post by one of those scientists that makes the case that climate cannot be predicted any more reliably than weather.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

I would give it 5-7 years to wait and see. If current trends continue we would have 15 years of non-warming and even the alarmists agree that period is long enough to demonstrate that the models are crap. 8 years of non-warming is more than enough to raise reasonable doubt about the model reliability and to justify a delay before implementing an expensive CO2 mitigation policies.

feel free to offer up your citations that speak to your so-called non-warming trend.

It will also take about 3 years to rebuild the temperature indicies from scratch since the indicies we have now cannot be trusted since the current custodians have been exposed as untrustworthy zealots on a crusade. That said, I don't expect to find huge discrepencies in the datasets but I would not be surprised to find the the warming has been overstated by as much as 20% through the use of biased algorithms and careful selection of the stations included in the index.

feel free to offer up your citations that challenge the trustworthiness of surface and satellite temperature records

Does not make it any less absurd. The attitude that all possible risks much be prevented without any thought to the costs of prevention is a cancer in our society today. My recent trip to the US was a nightmare of pointless security checks that would not have actually stopped underpants bomber.

of course, your go-to sit back, wait and watch approach would certainly have helped reduce potential impacts of H1N1... no problem, it's not like we're talking about people's lives or something!

[Riverwind]

feel free to offer up your citations that speak to your so-called non-warming trend.

I have many times. You simply pretend they don't exist.

feel free to offer up your citations that challenge the trustworthiness of surface and satellite temperature records

The UAH satellite record shows a warming trend over the last 30 years that is about 20% less than the trend shown by the RSS record. That is why I said I would be surpised if the error in the records exceeds 20%. The custodians of the surface records are simply not trustworthy scientists in the opinion of of many people so the surface records have no credibility until then have been redone. The MetOffice in the UK has acknowledged this and has agreed to rebuild the records but it will take 3 years.

of course, your go-to sit back, wait and watch approach would certainly have helped reduce potential impacts of H1N1... no problem, it's not like we're talking about people's lives or something!

It is possible to take rational precautions without resorting to panic. IMO, the H1N1 response by officials was not that out of line but the media played it up too much. The response of officials to the underpants bomber was way out of line. Edited January 15, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

I have many times. You simply pretend they don't exist.

humour me... just one... put up a citation that speaks to a global cooling trend.

The UAH satellite record shows a warming trend over the last 30 years that is about 20% less than the trend shown by the RSS record. That is why I said I would be surpised if the error in the records exceeds 20%. The custodians of the surface records are simply not trustworthy scientists in the opinion of of many people so the surface records have no credibility until then have been redone. The MetOffice in the UK has acknowledged this and has agreed to rebuild the records but it will take 3 years.

simply a due diligence matter that speaks to the fabricated hysteria brought upon by hackergate. By the way, how many other surface records are there... and you want to throw those out... because??? Of course, you do realize the CRU data showed the least warming... right?

as to satellite, your 30 year trending discrepancy reference is incorrect... in any case, my latest understanding has Christy acknowledging a problem with UAH... but we've seen problems with UAH before... in the past, right? But that/this problem certainly won't bring forward your credibility concerns... no, of course not, since Christy/Spencer play for your team!

It is possible to take rational precautions without resorting to panic. IMO, the H1N1 response by officials was not that out of line but the media played it up too much. The response of officials to the underpants bomber was way out of line.

well then, we can agree that Simple's thread is a foolish & simplistic attempt to score points over an analogy that carries no weight.

[Riverwind]

humour me... just one... put up a citation that speaks to a global cooling trend.

Why? We have already covered this. I have provided the links in the past and you demonstrated that you have no interest in facts or data when it comes to this point.

By the way, how many other surface records are there... and you want to throw those out... because???

They are all managed by custodians that cannot be trusted. I am surprised that someone who relies so much on 'appeal to authority' cannot understand that your entire argument falls apart if the 'authorities' are found to be acting in ways that calls their scientific judgment into question.

The bottom line is there is nothing to lose by re-doing these analyses in a open forum where temperature reconstructions can be replicated and analyzed by others - vague descriptions in peer reviewed journals do not provide enough information to replicate the work which means the work is automatically suspect.

as to satellite, your 30 year trending discrepancy reference is incorrect.

I am not wrong. The diurnal correction is old news and has no relevance today. The alarmists don't like UAH because its 30 year trend is lower than the others. Incidentally, since 2003 UAH and RSS use different satellites. UAH uses a satellite that does not need diurnal correction that caused problems in the past and actually shows less cooling than RSS over the period. Edited January 15, 2010 by Riverwind

[Shwa]

hey Simple, in your trivial skeptical association pursuit do the pharmaceutical companies play the role of "Big Oil"?

That is a very interesting thought. :

E. Richard Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine and Capitalism in America, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1979, xii + 283 pp., Cloth $12.95.

This book represents a fresh attempt to prove that medicine has been used for profiteering,

power, greed, and exploitation. As if expressly interested in raising hackles, Brown argues

that these crass, but true dynamics of medical history are best discovered not through the

serf-interested strategies of the AMA (James G. Burrows and Jeffery L. Berlant) but through

a critical dissection of the profession's surviving sacred cows - the Rockefeller Institute

for Medical Research, the Rockefeller public health programs at home and abroad, the

medical school and school of public health at Johns Hopkins, and the Carnegie Foundation,

including the Flexner Report, which this foundation funded. Brown seeks to explore the

character and development of modern medicine by focusing on the self-interests of and

interconnections between the leaders of modern scientific medicine and those who chose

to advance and support this medicine with their fortunes - chiefly Andrew Carnegie, John

D. Rockefeller, Sr. and Jr., and such individuals as Frederick T. Gates

No doubt about the Rockefeller's and "big oil" in their day and Carnegie had his steel industry, but made a ton of money in oil. And of course Gates was Rockefeller's right hand man. All three had a profound influence on the American Medical Association and I read something about Rockefeller looking for pharmaceutical uses for his petrochemicals.

So big pharma and big oil might not have too great a degree of separation.

[waldo]

humour me... just one... put up a citation that speaks to a global cooling trend.

Why? We have already covered this. I have provided the links in the past and you demonstrated that you have no interest in facts or data when it comes to this point.

the only link/post that comes to mind is your misguided attempt to challenge IPCC model projections… where you cherry pick start years and use minimal (7 years) data… where you also incorrectly pegged the start for IPCC TAR scenarios/projections as 2001 (rather than 1990). Again, you continue to have difficulty grasping the non-relevance of attempting to short-term trend… as I said, this responds to the only link/post of yours that comes to mind… perhaps you could bring forward your other hold-back citations that show the cooling trend you speak to.

In any case others have also shown that the

Rahmstorf study findings

– the “smoothed temperature curves” clearly lie within the IPCC TAR model projection area for any of the smoothing periods (11, 14 or 15 years), regardless of whether roughness minimization is used – emphasizing that endpoint artifacts are of no consequence.

as an aside, I’m sure you’ve read from the concurrently running thread where I’ve just responded to Pliny/Simple over their same “global cooling” nonsense… where I linked to this previous MLW post that most assuredly speaks to a continued global warming trend.

By the way, how many other surface records are there... and you want to throw those out... because???

They are all managed by custodians that cannot be trusted. I am surprised that someone who relies so much on 'appeal to authority' cannot understand that your entire argument falls apart if the 'authorities' are found to be acting in ways that calls their scientific judgment into question.

which continues your global conspiracy/untrustworthiness meme by including all those other custodians in your trumped up nonsensical conspiracy/untrustworthiness bleat… you want to exclude NASA datasets, NOAA datasets, JMA datasets, etc… yes, for sure, they’re all in on your denier’s world conspiracy… certainly, no deniers would/could trust them!

The diurnal correction is old news and has no relevance today. The alarmists don't like UAH because its 30 year trend is lower than the others. Incidentally, since 2003 UAH and RSS use different satellites. UAH uses a satellite that does not need diurnal correction that caused problems in the past and actually shows less cooling than RSS over the period.

the relevance you don’t want to speak to is that the past problems with the Christy/Spencer UAH data certainly spoke to their credibility… which didn’t factor in time to prevent their unsuccessful folly using their incorrect UAH data before the U.S. Congress. There certainly are differences between RSS and UAH today… I provided you a link to Christy’s own words where he acknowledges an issue – a problem… one that is described to reflect upon their UAH data’s annual cycle and their extraction processing. Oh my… is there another UAH credibility problem? You’re quick to pump up the UAH data showing less warming than RSS… note “less warming”… not cooling – which seems to completely contradict your own global cooling premise. Oh my! Wonder why you won’t bite on Christy’s own words… interesting. (as for the satellite change… so what? RSS makes adjustments for their satellite decay. Are you stating UAH makes no adjustments… of any kind... none whatsoever? )

[waldo]

That is a very interesting thought. :

No doubt about the Rockefeller's and "big oil" in their day and Carnegie had his steel industry, but made a ton of money in oil. And of course Gates was Rockefeller's right hand man. All three had a profound influence on the American Medical Association and I read something about Rockefeller looking for pharmaceutical uses for his petrochemicals.

So big pharma and big oil might not have too great a degree of separation.

yes... very astute... significant outside influences in both cases - plus I'll never pass up a chance to play on Simple's nonsense in making his analogy in the first place. The other link I posted, the response from WHO's Fukuda, has Fukuda highlighting conflict of interest oversight protections they utilize. I expect the Council of Europe investigation will test the veracity of that WHO oversight...

[Riverwind]

which continues your global conspiracy/untrustworthiness meme by including all those other custodians in your trumped up nonsensical conspiracy/untrustworthiness bleat

There is enough evidence out the to demonstrate that these people are not worthy of trust. That is the opinion of many people and if these so called scientists wish to change that the opinion they are going have to stop acting like arrogant prima donnas that have something to hide. Re-doing the datasets using algorithms that can be replicated by people who are not part of the old boys club is a good start.

the relevance you don’t want to speak to is that the past problems with the Christy/Spencer UAH data certainly spoke to their credibility

The entire incident over the diurnal drift is one of the reasons why I think Christy and Spencer have a lot of credibility as scientists. In this case they missed something in their analysis and when someone pointed it out they accepted the criticism and fixed the data. IOW - they acted like scientists are supposed to act.

Compare that to Jones, Mann and the rest of the climategate yahoos who refuse to accept any criticism and engage in all sorts of unethical and unprofessional behavior in order to cover up their mistakes and smear their critics.

If the climate science community really believes that climate change is a serious problem that needs people to act then then there should a long line of prominent climate scientists denouncing Mann and Jones for their behavior and calling for changes that would help ensure other scientists don't get away with that kind of crap in the future. The fact that they are mostly silent tells me that they are 1) concerned more about protecting their old boys network than AGW or 2) are just as slimy as Jones and Mann. Neither option gives me any reason to trust their scientific judgement.

In fact, here is the latest example of unprofessional behavior from climate scientists and the journal editors that they collude with:

The Editor who oversaw this paper is also to blame for the early appearance of this article. I was quite surprised to learn that despite the central role of Anthony Watt’s analysis in the paper, he was not asked to be a referee of the paper. This is inappropriate and suggests the Editor did not provide a balanced review process.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

There is enough evidence out the to demonstrate that these people are not worthy of trust. That is the opinion of many people and if these so called scientists wish to change that the opinion they are going have to stop acting like arrogant prima donnas that have something to hide. Re-doing the datasets using algorithms that can be replicated by others is a good start.

Riverwind.....I was wondering if you could lead me to some information that explains why there were 6000 thermometers (monitoring stations) before 1990 but less than 1500 afterwards. In order to "compare" to pre-1990, my understanding is that they take another thermometer that may be far away and make "adjustments"...always seeming to err on the side of the theory. Is there any rational paper that explains what has been done but more importantly - why it was done?

I saw a video with John Coleman that indicated that many of the "missing" thermometers still provide the data but it is not used in its raw format, if not totally ignored. Here's a link - it's one of 5 videos but if true, or even mostly true, it's worse than we thought:

Link: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

Edited January 15, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Riverwind]

Riverwind.....I was wondering if you could lead me to some information that explains why there were 6000 thermometers (monitoring stations) before 1990 but less than 1500 afterwards.

The best place for a sceptical analyses of the temperature sets is here. Here is what he has to say on the great thermometer dying (it sounds like they had some psuedo-scientific rational). Edited January 15, 2010 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Riverwind.....I was wondering if you could lead me to some information that explains why there were 6000 thermometers (monitoring stations) before 1990 but less than 1500 afterwards. In order to "compare" to pre-1990, my understanding is that they take another thermometer that may be far away and make "adjustments"...always seeming to err on the side of the theory. Is there any rational paper that explains what has been done but more importantly - why it was done?

I saw a video with John Coleman that indicated that many of the "missing" thermometers still provide the data but it is not used in its raw format, if not totally ignored. Here's a link - it's one of 5 videos but if true, or even mostly true, it's worse than we thought:

Link: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

the way you keep coming back to it, you're certainly determined to attempt to make something over your favoured "urban heat island" effect... is Anthony Watts your hero? C'mon Simple - you're simply recycling... how soon you (purposely) forget

[waldo]

There is enough evidence out the to demonstrate that these people are not worthy of trust. That is the opinion of many people and if these so called scientists wish to change that the opinion they are going have to stop acting like arrogant prima donnas that have something to hide. Re-doing the datasets using algorithms that can be replicated by people who are not part of the old boys club is a good start.

whatever points you think you can make over hackergate and CRU data, per your typical standard all-inclusive approach, you extend to include NASA, NOAA, JAM, etc., in your fabricated whack-job global conspiracy.

The entire incident over the diurnal drift is one of the reasons why I think Christy and Spencer have a lot of credibility as scientists. In this case they missed something in their analysis and when someone pointed it out they accepted the criticism and fixed the data. IOW - they acted like scientists are supposed to act.

really... how courteous of you to extend that consideration to them over their actual documented data failings... particularly given what they attempted to use that data for in U.S. Congressional hearings. And yet, even though you can't point to, or haven't pointed to, any actual problems with the CRU data, you have difficulty extending that same courtesy, even though (as you pointed out), on their own volition they've started an initiative to redo their own HadCru dataset. I note you continue to avoid my pointing out the latest Christy acknowledged problem/issue with the UAH data - how equally convenient, for you.

I also note you aren't willing to offer up citation support for your cooling trend position... is there a problem?

[Riverwind]

whatever points you think you can make over hackergate and CRU data, per your typical standard all-inclusive approach, you extend to include NASA, NOAA, JAM, etc., in your fabricated whack-job global conspiracy.

Yada yada yada. I guess in your world scientists can't possibly be vain humans who put career and funding ahead of the truth and the public interest. If they are not acting the way the should then it must be a "conspiracy". It is nonsense and you know it.

I see this scenario a lot like the situation we had with the RCMP tasering at YVR. When it first happened I was willing to give the RCMP the benefit of the doubt but as the inquiry progressed I was appalled at how the RCMP brass seemed to go out of their way to help the cops involved whitewash the incident. If fact, we would probably never have the information we have today if there was not a bystander with a camera. Because of this I no longer trust the RCMP to investigate themselves if someone dies at their hands. I really don't care if 99% of RCMP officiers are upstanding individuals - it is the system that is supposed to catch the wrong doers which is broken and that means none of them can be trusted.

That is the problem we have in climate science. The wrong doers were exposed by citizens and now all of the 'climate science brass' are lining up to help the guilty whitewash events. My position is I am not going to accept a whitewash and until I see serious changes in the scientific institutions that have failed us I will suspect all results that cannot be independently replicited by people who are not part of the old boys network.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Riverwind

[Keepitsimple]

Yada yada yada. I guess in your world scientists can't possibly be vain humans who put career and funding ahead of the truth and the public interest. If they are not acting the way the should then it must be a "conspiracy". It is nonsense and you know it.

I see this scenario a lot like the situation we had with the RCMP tasering at YVR. When it first happened I was willing to give the RCMP the benefit of the doubt but as the inquiry progressed I was appalled at how the RCMP brass seemed to go out of their way to help the cops involved whitewash the incident. If fact, we would probably never have the information we have today if there was not a bystander with a camera. Because of this I no longer trust the RCMP to investigate themselves if someone dies at their hands. I really don't care if 99% of RCMP officiers are upstanding individuals - it is the system that is supposed to catch the wrong doers which is broken and that means none of them can be trusted.

That is the problem we have in climate science. The wrong doers were exposed by citizens and now all of the 'climate science brass' are lining up to help the guilty whitewash events. My position is I am not going to accept a whitewash and until I see serious changes in the scientific institutions that have failed us I will suspect all results that cannot be independently replicited by people who are not part of the old boys network.

You speak for many of us.....skeptics - not deniers. It's unfortunate that Waldo has been so utterly duped by the CC establishment. Shame really....putting aside his (or her) narcissistic attitude, he seems to have a passion for the subject matter.... and to continually turn a blind eye to valid questions and observations does science an injustice. Any sort of "balance" would make Waldo a much more effective debater. For Waldo's sake, he'd better hope that the IPCC and their entire theory is correct.....when a narcissist who has been duped finds out that indeed they HAVE been duped, the results are not pretty.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Keepitsimple