Albert Einstein :- “The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”

I posted this on The Guardian site at 11.47 this morning and then it was gone… I must have touched a nerve. I wonder which brave little poster felt which part to be too strong to stomach?

So much for the vaunted freedom of the press lol.

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Though often proved right by the passage of time I seldom gloat.

I am making an exception for a couple of reasons, not least of which is the amount of and the particularly spiteful mindedness of some of the denizens herein.

Who, exactly, is in denial now? The disgusting behavior of a vocal minority of “believers” who have too much time on their hands or are morally or fiscally invested in the, now fast unraveling, hypothesis that the very gas that allows life to flourish will kill us all soon if we continue to increase its levels to those it has resided at often in times past.
Or we release it too fast.
Or its increasing level in atmosphere will change the pH of the oceans as it approaches levels attained many times before.
Or global temps will rise to previous levels and, miraculously, this time methane release in the Arctic will spell doom.
Or something else invented by rent seeking cheats that will remain unfounded and un-falsifiable, yet profitable for an elite few.

You never did have any evidence that CO2 caused the warming at the end of the 20th century but that didn’t curb your enthusiasm for control, your attacks on progress and your endless malice toward unbelievers.

Sure, there were those thousands of papers by thousands of scientists, supported by all the major scientific institutions, that showed some warming in their chosen fields. We never denied those. All we asked for was real world evidence that our small contribution to the carbon cycle had some effect upon that, now a decade distant, warming.
We were denigrated for asking and denied a platform for debate. One should be extremely careful when witnessing such. One day the boot and foot will switch sides. That is the nature of politicized science.

Meanwhile the very companies/corporations that pollute the biosphere, fish the oceans to extinction, devise new weapons, splice genes and keep billions of your fellow humans in poverty whilst working them into an early gave are laughing at you and pocketing your taxes.
All that effort invested in a weak and sickly hypothesis when it could have done some real good.
All that lack of protest about truly devastating environmental impacts while throwing yourselves, unthinking, against the relentless inertia of the current necessities of modern life such as coal and oil powered energy generation that allows us to progress as all our discovered sources of energy have done previously.
All that spleen vented at entities that provide true benefits in your lives, such as well lit hospitals and libraries, that could have been reserved for government insistence on massive intrusion into your privacy, drug company insistence that herbal cures and organic food are a waste of your money or the dogmatic insistence that war is a necessary evil.

At least the energy companies have to provide tangible goods and services for your hard earned, unlike the carbon trading companies who merely need to purchase ink and paper to “produce” their certificates and will turn over, in the coming decade alone, more cash than all the oil companies throughout all their history. Without a commodity, or a benefit to humanity in sight.

Never mind, big business has many more specters lined up to divert you from true husbandry of the planet, only desirable and possible above a certain level of wealth – a level that we no longer enjoy. They will continue to use the very vessels you admire to do so. Greenpeace, WWF and Friends of the Earth have become grasping arms of the uncaring corporate machine and it happened on your watch. You have helped to build the brave new world our children will inherit. It will not be warm or cozy.

I hope you are proud of yourselves, but I guess you will just continue down the easy path and blame someone else, pick fights with your brothers and wallow, luxuriously, in your guilt. Exactly as “the man” would want.

declaration
I have no financial interest and have no expectation of financial or material reward from the energy industry..

… but I cannot fail to see that the, previously considered obscene, profits of ExxonMobil will be utterly dwarfed by Goldman Sachs, Blood and Gore in the carbon exchanges of the free world and I have far more to be grateful for from fossil fuels than I ever have, or will, from elitist control freaks.

H.L. Mencken :- “All professional politicians are dedicated wholeheartedly to waste and corruption. They are the enemies of every decent man.”

So, now, the UK Government’s chief scientific adviser John Beddington says it’s OK for me to claim the world is flat. Less than a year after he declared that cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from climate change, all before 2030 by the way, were certain. This “scientist” now says “There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed” and “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism”. So, I ask, what has changed to change his point of view on the settled science of climate change?

Oh yes, LOTS of the protagonists got caught with their hands in the till, cookie jar, nurse’s bra. I have tried to refrain from gloating over the climategate stuff. I have avoided taking pot-shots at the more obvious sitting ducks but this cannot pass without some questions.

The entire environmental movement has been hacked by agenda pushers. Would those who have fallen for the “CO2 caused the tiny warming at the end of last century” prevarication now become the most loudly vociferous in denouncing the climate fraternity as they are the most grievously wounded and monstrously deceived?

No, the people who have been happily and continuously vilifying anyone who questioned their dogma can only fall back on the precautionary principle. Do they not understand that to make progress it may be in the biosphere’s best interest for us to go about “business as usual” which, so far, has not come close to dragging the global temperature anywhere near even the least worst of the doom-laden predictions of a corrupt division of a corrupt organization or, for that matter, the global economy into convulsions, as the belief in the efficacy of models did to the banking fraternity’s playing fast and loose with everyone’s money.

Will they excuse the lies, fraud and obfuscation as “necessary evils” on the path to global emissions reduction, even if this would appear to be an utterly useless course both for humanity’s betterment and the very real greening of the planet that NASA has observed?

The people who support the CRU and the UN in these matters have shown a herd mentality of epic proportion. They have allowed a fictional threat to divert much needed funds, media focus and public attention away from real and pressing problems such as deforestation, overfishing, chemical pollution, water mismanagement and other truly egregious assaults on Mother Earth.

The supposed defenders of the environment, such as WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace have colluded with, nay empowered, this cabal of anti-progress, anti-science and anti-human liars. They and their supporters should now be the loudest of voices shouting for reinvestigation of the records, a new broom to sweep the self-seeking from their offices and a fresh look at the science.

Yet most of the betrayed have meekly rolled over, turned their blind eye and maintained their belief, for it is now very evident that that is all it is, a belief in the “thousands of papers” by “thousands of scientists” supported by “the majority of scientific institutions” that merely show the warming and have comprehensibly failed to provide a single jot of repeatable, real world evidence that humanity’s additional CO2 caused that very beneficial 0.7C increase in delta T over the last 30 years of the 20th century.

That, it has become increasingly clear, is the only question “the powers that be” ever intended to address. They will now use every compliant tentacle to show ocean acidification, methane, speed of release and other “virtual certainties” of our continued liberation of CO2 warrant further deep intrusion into individual lifestyles and more yet taxation to cure the problems they hype. But this time they will be a little more circumspect and will attempt to shut down the blogosphere that has been the sole organ that exposed them as loons prancing around without any clothes.

Freeman Dyson :- “When I make predictions, I am not speaking as a scientist. I am speaking as a story-teller, and my predictions are science-fiction rather than science.”

This just in from Piers Corbyn -

twitter.com/Piers_Corbyn
Delta House, 175-177 Borough High Street.London SE1 1HR Tel +44(0)20 7939 9946
From Piers Corbyn +44(0)7958713320 or office above, piers@WeatherAction.com

17th Jan 2010

Roger,

You write in the article
Met Office’s debate over longer-term forecasts
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News

= news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8462890.stm

….And many other meteorologists mistrust Mr Corbyn himself because he refuses to publish his scientific methods. I have been asking him for several months to offer independent corroboration of his forecasting successes but none has been supplied. …..

I find that what you write is a LIE.

I have referred you to plenty of independent corroboration* of our forecast accuracy and successes – sources and documents available via the public link:
www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5&fsize=0
The link refers to published independent peer-reviewed verification of the significant skill of our gale (eg) forecasts, weather bets where we consistently won money and have as a consequence had that arrangement terminated by the bookmakers, and independent assessment by a loss-adjusters of our extreme events forecasts showing high skill around the world.

I demand that you forthwith publicly apologise for, compensate for, and retract your false and gratuitously damaging claims which are directed against me personally (you say: mistrust Mr Corbyn himself) as well as our forecasting technique or I may have to take the matter further.

I demand you also NAME many names referred to in ‘the many meteorologists’……….. in your claim:
………And many other meteorologists mistrust Mr Corbyn himself because he refuses to publish his scientific methods

The facts are
(i) a number of important aspects of our SWT have been published and/or presented at conferences in the UK, USA and Russia
(ii) All known assessments (public, published or private) of any statistically significant size and scope of WeatherAction long range forecasts show they have significant SKILL and there are no such honest robust assessments which show they are not skilled in the parameters and periods and stages models where we and forecast users have claimed skill.
(iii) Meteorologists/physicists who said they wanted to know more about our forecasting technique failed to attend – despite invitation – our public conference on 28th Oct at Imperial College where I explained some important matters concerning our forecasting technique. You were there.
(iv) The proof of reliability is nothing to do with publication or not of part or all of material which may have a privileged status (and received no state funding); any more than the fact you cannot find out published material on how your mobile phone, Ipod or Coca Cola is made stops you trusting them.

I haven’t noticed a statements from you on the lines:

‘Roger Harrabin says he doesn’t trust Coca Cola, mobile phones or Ipods because the makers have refused to publish how they are made’.
‘Roger Harrabin doesn’t trust Bill Gates himself because he hasn’t published the Microsoft computer code or the microprocessor production techniques which makes his Ipod work’

When will you announce these things?

Your claim on this point is also gratuitously damaging. I require you to

1) name MANY such meteorologist who hold with your statement including that they do not trust Piers Corbyn himself. I remind you that refusal to divulge such sources of libel is itself something which may have to be taken further.

2) justify the assertion that it is valid to not trust something because how it is made is not known to you or been published.

Do you know that most of the science and technology in most hi-tech stuff and military equipment is NOT PUBLISHED. Do you know that a large number of physicists work for the military and their work is never published, yet it is applied in many things on which daily life depends.

Ah yes I forgot
Roger Harrabin refuses to fly in an Airbus 360 because the software running the take-off process hasn’t been published
Roger Harrabin doesn’t support the Army in Afghanistan because they haven’t published the names of Intelligence sources..

Let’s get real. When you Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News make claims people expect them to have weight and believe in your assertion in (2) above. The world of travel, machines, communications and high technology will stop if people believe in this principle. What works is what works independently of whether how it works is known to you or anyone.

Are you a public service broadcaster or what?

I had thought you were more honest than David Shukman. Was I wrong?

* Note. Your request in November for companies especially large corporations who use(d) our forecasts to be put in touch with you with a view to (ongoing) assessment – has had some consideration but it depends on
a) whether they are willing to be divulged on any basis – and the largest ones or NOT
b) whether we AND they can trust you
c) whether such an exercise and the interference it involves with our commercial operation will prove anything more than the INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION already made available to you and the public (which includes peer reviewed work and scientific betting records ).

So far I have had conflicting advice on this project and now wonder what is its true purpose from your point of view.

We do have a system whereby some farmers communicate with each other on forecast applications and potential usage but I have no intention of involving you in that.

Quotes from some of our users (which we do circulate anyway at times) although very positive are not really independent corroboration in the scientific sense and could be attacked as such – because proper assessment requires a look at full data sets preferably defined in advance – eg ALL our published extreme events forecasts in defined categories over a reasonably long defined period of time. Those are on the web and have been verified by insurance company based loss adjusters and you have been directed there and know of there existence. Why didn’t you cite these?

Piers Corbyn
MSc (astrophysics), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS
WeatherAction