Vaclav Klaus on AGWHomeGlobal Warming Lunacy by ATWadmin December 1, 2009 23 1 min 13 yrs AGW — a politician’s dream come true. Click to rate this post![Total: 0 Average: 0] Global Warming Lunacy Post navigation Previous postNext post 23 thoughts on “Vaclav Klaus on AGW” An admirable man. I do wonder why some are wasting their time looking at cases for and against AGW. The only science that backs up AGW is junk science. We’ve had one peek behind the curtain and the stage collapsed. The CRU is a priciple node in a pretty small AGW nexus and we know it’s a factory for destroying raw data, making up data where the record is inconvenient, where data is substituted to hide inconvenient declines, where code is programmed to give desired outcomes and where the FOI and Data Protection laws are in the minds of the principle characters even when no-one has asked for information. We know these characters blacken the names of opponents, hatch plans to ignore the work of scientists who do not conforn to their orthodoxy and who connive with online and magazine publications to close down debate. These are authoritarian advocates of a closed society who have grown wealthy on the back of junk science. Even now, the CRU has failed to refute even slightly what their words betray, yet the fence-sitters are still fence-sitting. When the facts changed, the idiot Keynes changed his mind, so he said. What are the fence-sitters waiting for? The only science that backs up AGW is junk science. How do you know? Have you actually read anything on AGW, I mean apart from right-wing blogs? The rest of your comment is the usual right-wing garbage – do you cut and paste it from an archive file? No Peter, I followed the example of a climate scientist and typed out the first thing that came to mind. By the way, I see a lesson in life is going unheeded lately. That is, when your credibility’s gone, it’s gone. Peter: it’s junk science because the raw data was destroyed, the modeling didn’t predict accurately and peer review was stymied. Real science posits a hypothesis (eg. the globe is warming) and then tests the hypothesis by looking and explaining any exceptions. Junk Science: AGW posits the hypothesis that the globe is warming and then points to melting ice caps, and other examples of "globe warming" to prove their case. This is junk science. Real Science: AGW would posit that the globe is warming and then scientists would hunt for exceptions to this hypothesis; if any were found, they would try to explain the exceptions. If they can’t explain, they assume their original hypothesis was incorrect. This is real science. The CRU is a priciple node in a pretty small AGW nexus Nonsense. The CRU is part of a department at a provincial UK university. It is a very insignificant part of the AGW nexus. For example the current revision of the Global warming article at wikipedia lists 132 footnotes and 28 links for Further Reading. Out of those 160 links there is one to the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Pete Moore I should have added that I’m an admirer of Klaus. But this does not mean that I agree 100% with his every utterance. The link I posted earlier is a balanced assessment of the weaknesses in the AGW theory. Contrast this with the screaming "told you so!" taunts from Rightworld bloggers who freely admit they have no interest in science generally and have never bothered to find out about AGW in particular. The leaks from Climategate do not change that scientific assessment, but they do show Jones and Mann in a very poor light. Their reputations are shot and their careers should be over. In fairness, the GW guys have been yelling " told you so " for a decade or more. It was bound to happen Peter. So believing that the death of a scientist who happens to be a sceptic is ‘cheering news’ is good science is it? Peter. Denying numerous requests under FOI proves that the science is correct does it? Peter. Completing ignoring known warm periods in history is good science is it? Peter. Continuing with the proven lies of the ‘hockey stick’ to justify your case is good science is it? Peter. Refusing to publish sceptical science papers is good science is it? Peter. Making a billion from ‘global warming/climate change’ is good science is it? Peter. Influencing the whole world with proven lies and making people pay extortionate taxes is good science is it? Oh and now we hear…..Prof Jones has ‘temporarily’ stepped down as head of the CRU. Why only temporary? Because it is likely that the so-called independent inquiry will be a whitewash like the inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly was. FewsOrange – The CRU is part of a department at a provincial UK university. It is a very insignificant part of the AGW nexus. Poppycock. Phil Jones holds two sets of data on which the IPCC relies. His records are the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and government base their claims that our wealth must be plundered for decades. Phil Jones and the CRU are at the very heart of the scam. Peter – Contrast this with the screaming "told you so!" taunts from Rightworld bloggers who freely admit they have no interest in science generally and have never bothered to find out about AGW in particular. How can an intelligent chap like you repeatedly and completely miss the point? This is not about science. It’s never been about science. It’s junk science as a vehicle for totalitarians. For goodness sake, you keep on about "science" and yet you keep on ignoring the plain evidence in front of your nose. Look at it man. How much more evidence do you need? Apply the evidence to the hypothesis and consider it sound. "Specialone" Try writing English and I’ll try reading it. This is not about science. It’s never been about science. It’s junk science as a vehicle for totalitarians. Sez you. Try some reading and you will see that there is a lively and interesting SCIENTIFIC debate going on. You Rightworlders see political conspiracies everywhere, and every issue is black and white. It’s a kindergarten view of the world. Phil Jones holds two sets of data on which the IPCC relies. Phil Jones holds copies of data on which the IPCC relies. The data comes from various National Meteorological Services around the world as well as NOAA, NASA and the Met Office. Good, fewsorange, very good. Can we expect Jones to release the data under the FOI request on which he said that he would prefer to destroy said data and the processing code than have it subjected to review by somebody who would only be "wanting to find something wrong with it"? It’s called ‘replication’: a vital component of the process of verification on which real science is based. FewsOrange – The data comes from various National Meteorological Services around the world as well as NOAA, NASA and the Met Office. Aye, and who partners the Met Office Hadley Centre? The CRU partners the Met Office Hadley Centre. It’s through this partnership that Phil Jones held the primary datasets on which the IPCC relied. Forget it, the data on which the IPCC relied (including that which went into the hockey stick) is corrupt. The debate is settled I tell ye! Don’t make me come down there! Pete Moore I’ve just checked out the temperature data for Central England. As you are no doubt aware, this is the longest running monthly temperature data in the world and goes back as far as 1659. I have it on a spreadsheet if you or anyone else are interested. I just calculated the thirty year rolling average annual temperatures from 1978 – 2008. They increased from 9.5 degrees celsius to 9.95 degrees. But the trend accelerates notably in the last ten years from 1998 -2008 when it increases from 9.67 to 9.95. Kinda hard to square with "ten years of global cooling" eh? It’s quite easy to square if the numbers are diddled. Did you buy the spreadsheet on ebay from P Jones Ltd? Pete Cheap and unworthy response. Educate yourself some and get back to me. Peter 1659 upto 1970’s im sure there was hardly any urban warming.Exactly where does your data come from? Birmingham? Central England is quite a diverse region. garman "The Central England Temperature (CET) is a series of average temperatures representative of a triangular central area of the United Kingdom enclosed by Bristol, Manchester and London. The monthly series began in 1659 and daily figures were added from 1772 to date. The CET is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. The CET series was originally constructed by the late Professor Gordon Manley in 1973, and is now routinely updated by the Hadley Centre. Since 1974 the data have been adjusted by 1-2 tenths °C to allow for urban warming. details here "Global warming is a myth, and every serious scientist says so." This is Klaus’ central statement, it was quoted at him in this interview, and he didn’t deny it. Yet it is total, and immediately provable, nonsense. It could not be correct, and still the usual mob here rushes to believe him. Comments are closed.