A Letter to the Editor Share

A man is wise with the wisdom of his time only, and ignorant with its ignorance. - Henry David Thoreau

There is nothing worse than a bully-except perhap a bully that cloaks themselve in some high minded elitism. This bully doesnt take on a public figure like Donald Trump even though he insinuated that Al Gore should return his Nobel peace prize or right wing skeptics such as John stossel,Rush ,Hannity,etc. It doesnt take issue with criticism from such left wing publications like Der Spiegel or the Guardian who wrote " It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them."( George Monbiot, UK Guardian columnist, environmental activist). Nooo my friends ,when they come .....they will come for the weatherman. Especially those to have the Audacity of Nope :a seemingly innocous view that the Catastrophic Global warming - Al Gore's apocolyptical version of our future, a vision that the producers of Mad Max would be proud of ,might not be in the cards .

The New Yorker's Elizabeth Colbert ,the prestigous socialite magazine's writer penned a scathing attack on Joe Bastardi, who goes by the title “expert senior forecaster” at AccuWeather, . Bastardi, who holds a bachelor’s degree in meteorology, disagrees with the theory that the worls is warming propelled by greenhouse gas emissions. His theory...... is that the earth is actually cooling. Why don’t we just wait twenty or thirty years, he proposes, and see who’s right? This is “the greatest lab experiment ever,” he said recently on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show. Kolbert concludes that Bastardi’s position is ridiculous (which is no doubt why he’s often asked to air it on Fox News). Yet there it was on the front page of the Times last week. Among weathermen, it turns out, views like Bastardi’s are typical. A survey released by researchers at George Mason University found that more than a quarter of television weathercasters agree with the statement “Global warming is a scam,” and nearly two-thirds believe that, if warming is occurring, it is caused “mostly by natural changes."

Ok clearly implication : Bastardi is a right wing goon who is barely educated and appears on a network that would find such "ridiculous "views credible. Unsaid is how the other meteorologists came to their "natural changes" views but really should anyone be concerned what a weathercaster thinks ? I think not .....

"Virtually every major scientific body in the world has concluded that the planet is warming, and that greenhouse-gas emissions are the main cause".....Bastardi and his ilk can spout their dubious theories but REAL scientists disagree

Actually..... thats not entirely accurate as the head of this unit , CRU director Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview that in the last 15 years the earth had not warmed substantially and had probably cooled. Tim Flannery, Australian environmental and global warming activist added: "When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate… We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.

Kolbert continues:

."In the e-mails, C.R.U. researchers often express irritation with their critics—the death of one detractor is described as “cheering news”—and discuss ways to dodge a slew of what they consider to be nuisance Freedom of Information requests."

However upon investigation there exists a couple of issues raised in the ACTUAL EMAILS
that might strike one more damning and explosive to the global warming posse put
together by James Delingpole
1>Manipulation of evidence:

[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.]

2>Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

[The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.]

3>Suppression of evidence:

[Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. ]

These emails are clearly damning in that they go to show manipulation of data to achieve a result . THIS ISNT SCIENCE - its advocacy with a scientific veneer but with outcomes only Vince Mcmahon would be proud of . In that same BBC interview ,Phil Jones still cant explain what he meant by " hide the decline",acknowledges that the middle age period might have been warmer which is suprising because try as i might i cant find any historical accounts of Henry V tooling around Agincourt in a tricket out BMW We are only mere mortals and not "climate scientists" BUT it seems clear what is actually being attempted when someone uses a "trick" in interpreting data. I believe in financial world it is referred to as "cooking the books " . The fact the scientists themselves are humiliated by the fact they cant account for lack of warming shows that "the debate is over " nonsense didnt even exist in the hallowed halls of the East Anglia Institute. Finally it is common sense that if you feel the need to delete emails and block simple "freedom of information " requests one gets the feeling that someone is trying to hide something .

The New Yorker acknowledges that 2007 IPCC report, which won the Man-Maders a Nobel Peace Prize, said the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high” as a result of man-made global warming was recently forced to retract its disappearing-glacier claim, which had been made on the basis of a non-scientific magazine article. Implied in the article is that in a 671 page paper a paragraph or two that isnt true really isnt anything to get worked up over . I guess to paraphrase : "you need to break a few eggs to make a comprehensive climate accord "

"No one has ever offered a plausible account of why thousands of scientists at hundreds of universities in dozens of countries would bother to engineer a climate hoax".

In response to this let me offer up this thought by John Coleman, the senior meteorologist who had the courage to expose the repeated manipulations of data by some relevant climate institutions, wrote: “Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist-journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.”

"Goofball weathermen, Climategate, conspiracy theories—these are all a distraction from what’s really happening. Which, apparently, is what we’re looking for. "

Finally Ms Kolbert returns her fire onto the dreaded Bastardi + his supposedly ill equipped meteorologists who apparently are serving as a distraction from the "new era " of global climate change policy. Im sure Mr Bastardi can defend himself but could i offer that what we are actually
looking for is the truth and we might even accept a real debate on how "settled " the science actually is?

Tim Dennehy