Climategate Investigation Off To A Rocky Start

|

Climategate scrutiny

Yesterday, Muir Russell, the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Glasgow, who was appointed to head up th investigation into the Unversity of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit which is at the center of the Climategate email affair, announced his six member panel. One member, Philip Campbell, editor of the science journal Nature, has already stepped down due to questions about his impartiality. According to report by U.K.'s Channel 4 News, Campbell apparently told Chinese State Radio in December:

The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the e-mails there are one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact, the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data. Otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.

The impartiality of another member, Geoffrey Boulton, a distinguished glaciologist who is a member of the Prime Minister's Council for Science and Technology, is also being questioned. Among other things, Boulton signed a statement in December from the U.K.'s Met Office which declared:

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.

The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that 'Warming of the climate system is unequivocal' and that 'Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations'.

Oddly, Boulton's bio at the independent commission website fails to mention that he was employed for 18 years at the University of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences. The UEA's School of Environmental Sciences houses the CRU. In any case, Boulton might argue that his views on the certainty of man-made climate change are irrelevant and that he is capable of dispassionately evaluating the scientific failings (if any) of the CRU.

Another panel member is David Eyton, the Group Head of Research and Technology at the oil and gas company BP. BP has been actively funding climate change research at major universities around the world for many years. Such support is to be commended since climate information, such as projected changes in Arctic Sea ice, would be valuable in devising BP's future resource exploration plans. However in the context of his membership on the independent panel, it is perhaps noteworthy that Eyton made the following statement of company policy when announcing a $20 million grant to Princeton University in 2008:

"The challenge of climate change requires policy development at all levels: global, national and local. Our work with Princeton is an example of BP's commitment to collaborative research, and has already provided a vital contribution to the pace of policy development. We trust that governments will be successful in reaching a consensus for significant action, and we are working to inform their actions based on our experience of low-carbon technologies and businesses."

With regard to the panel's membership, climate change skeptic Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and who now heads up the Global Warming Policy Foundation in Britain, issued this statement:

As the first person to call for an independent inquiry into 'climategate', I regret that what has been announced today is defective in a number of ways. The inquiry will wholly lack transparency, with the hearings held in private, and no transcripts to be published.

The terms of reference, while better than nothing, are inadequate in a number of ways, not least the failure to include the question of the efforts made by CRU scientists to prevent the publication of papers by dissenting scientists and others, contrary to the canons of scientific integrity. And the objectivity and independence of the inquiry is seriously called into question by the composition of Sir Muir Russell's team, in particular the Editor in Chief of Nature, who has already published an editorial on the matter strongly supportive of the CRU scientists and accusing their critics of being 'paranoid' 

We will, of course, suspend final judgment until we see the report of the inquiry.

Indeed, we should all suspend judgment until the independent commission's report is issued sometime this spring, but this beginning is somewhat less than promising. Not to be "paranoid" or anything.

NEXT: I'm Rich Uncle Pennybags, and I Approved this Message

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. richard feynman would have been great running something like this

    they need hard-nosed scientists not tainted by climate money to review the scientific process which was (perhaps not) followed

    1. richard feynman would have been great running something like this

      Exactly. While not a climatologist, he was a mind of the highest order and had a bullshit detector as robust as exists on Earth. I would trust him implicitly. Even dead, he’s probably more reliable than 90% of the hacks out there.

    2. I have often wished that Dr. Feynman were still around to take an honest look at this whole climate change issue. Now, if Dick Feynman told me that man made global warming were real and was a threat to our existence I would believe him. I can’t say that about hardly anyone else.

  2. Do they even have enough impartial people in the UK with academic credentials to staff a six member panel? The global warming hysteria took a toll on science in general. Almost every academic who is not an outcast is tainted. And the outcasts are not impartial either.

    1. Yes they do, they just need to get scientists outside the climate field, as meerdahl suggested.

      Put a physicist, a chemist, a biologist, a geologist, etc etc on the panel. Also a computer scientists for mocking the poor programming skills of the modelers.

      1. I concur, this should be a “process” review, and not a review on the content. Any credentialed scientist outside the climate research complex would be desireable.

      2. And a statistician. Or two.

        1. PUT STEVE SMITH ON PANEL. STEVE SMITH ENJOY NATURE. GLOBE WARMING BAD. FIRE BURN! GRR!

      3. Well, good luck with that since those who consider themselves “real” scientists (Physicists, Chemists and Biologists) generally hold computer science in disdain.

        An actual IT professional who was conversant with the technologies used by CRU would be an even better panelist – computer scientists are often more academic/research oriented; IT people are the ones in the trenches who make stuff work.

        1. I’m of two minds on this one (BA CompSci/Physics).

          Of course, we call look down upon those with MIS degrees.

  3. “But Mr Figgis Boulton is no ordinary idiot. He is a lecturer in idiocy at the University of East Anglia. Here he is taking a class of third-year students. After three years of study these apprentice idiots receive a diploma of idiocy, a handful of mud and a kick on the head.”

  4. We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity.

    This is the sort of declaration I would expect from a man soon to be found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

    1. And they end up discovering the gun is in the wrong hand.

    2. Back in the old days when there were actual english gentlemen, this would have been expected. Hmmm, what’s changed in dear old blighty in the past hundred or so years?

  5. They need to find people who are familiar with the scientific establishment – people that publish in journals, participate in peer review, compete for grants, and are familiar with statistics – but that are in fields completely unrelated to any of the fields in question – meteorology, paleoclimate, climate modeling, even astrophysics.

    This should be doable – psychiatrists, cancer researchers, and academic engineers all come to mind.

    The fact that they didn’t do this obvious bit of conflict-of-interest prevention speaks volumes.

  6. richard feynman would have been great running something like this

    Actually, Feynman is the exact kind of guy none of the Warmers wants poking around their data and processes!

    Its all a wash anyways. It seems pretty obvious to me at this point the Warmers don’t want to really figure out who stole the data. An inside job isn’t going to look good to the press, (and all the second-rate security and network admin slop they’d have to disclose in explaining the theft).

    Much better to keep it ambiguous, and therefore “plausibly blamable” on Exxon-funded-Russian-narco-trafficker-pedophiles or whatever stereotypes the Warmers wish the hackers to be.

  7. Personnel is policy, a lesson apparently not lost on Mr. Russell.

  8. I am very skeptical that this review will be unbiased. What we have here is an unholy alliance between government and science with huge international financial projects and personal egos on the line.

    The world needs to have an unbiassed review of this entire man-made global- warming issue from a purely scientific point of view. There is so very much at stake that we should accept nothing less!!!

  9. Only those in the consensus about climate change are real scientists. How can you have a panel of inquiry about this so-called controversy if it isn’t staffed by real scientists?

    Stupid Republicans.

    1. That was a terrible performance of Tony’s character, Tony.

      1. LM, I think it was parody, not satire.

        1. God, this is why I love this board.

          Here, you can get someone who parodies a sockpuppet, whose sockpuppeting is liberal satire written for the purpose of getting libertarian undies in a wad.

          1. Our sockpuppet artists are truly superior to other blogs’. We take pride in that.

            1. “Every Reason sockpuppeting sockpuppet has 15% more love than the other leading brands.”

      2. Agreed. I’ve seen better sock puppeting at a noon day fair.

        1. What we have here is a sockpuppet pretending to be another sockpuppet.

      3. Tony is, after all, the best one at parodying Tony.

    2. Re: Tony,

      Only those in the consensus about climate change are real scientists.

      And thus anybody that’s NOT in the consensus is NOT a real scientist. Right?

      How can you have a panel of inquiry about this so-called controversy if it isn’t staffed by real scientists?

      Indeed, you are absolutely right. Considering that they are reviewing the work of hacks and flim-flam artists, the inquiry panel SHOULD BE populated with REAL scientists, for a change.

      1. AAANNNNDDDD OM fell for it.

        Oh Well

        1. Hey, cut me some slack – things have been slow in here!

  10. Next you’ll tell me MNG is on the committee.

  11. So, they’re having a difficult time finding scientists who aren’t “biased” in favor of anthropogenic global warming. Why, it’s almost as if there’s a scientific consensus or something.

    Here’s hoping they eventually find some unbiased deniers.

    1. See, Fake Tony… This is how you really play the clueless idiot ideologue. More “[word]” next time.

    2. If you are going to have an objective analysis of anything, you don’t pick people that have pre-conceived notions either for or against the topic at hand.

      And the topic at hand is not AGW. It is whether certain scientists involved in AGW research perverted the scientific method to enhance their position, damage others, or gain political advantage.

      But then again, your use of the word “deniers” shows that you would be unable to talk about this topic objectively, anyway.

      1. The pre-conceived notions in question here only have to do with AGW. They have nothing to do with pre-conceived notions about research ethics. So, to accuse them of a disqualifying bias because of their stated opinions about AGW shows only that those who make that accusation aren’t interested in a real investigation at all. They’re only looking for confirmation of their own anti-AGW bias. Which seems an awful lot like ideological idiocy.

        1. No.

          The guy who resigned, Philip Campbell, did so because it was uncovered that he said this:

          “The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the emails there is one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong.”

          He went on: “In fact the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”

          (this is from a BBC 4 story)

          1. His isn’t the only name mentioned up there, is it?

            1. The other is Geoffrey Boulton, for very similar reasons.

              1. That’s where we disagree. Boulton and Eyton are being targeted for their views on AGW, not their statements on this particular scandal.

                1. Makes sense. It’s like if we had Nuremberg trials and had to ask two of the judges to step down because they indulged in apologetics – I mean, that is just so unfair!

                2. And those views give them a clear conflict of interest.

                  Given the intertwined nature of all the participants doing climate studies, they need to pull in experts from other fields.

                  1. That’s fair. My point is that if you’re going to use climate scientists at all, the vast majority of them are agreed on AGW. But it’s disingenuous to cry foul on them for believing in AGW while also claiming your accusation of bias has nothing to do with their views on AGW.

                    If you’re just investigating the research methods, there shouldn’t be a problem with scientists from other fields conducting the investigation. But if the reality or myth of AGW truly isn’t the issue here, then it should also be acceptable for scientists who weren’t directly involved in this particular research to conduct the investigation, despite what they think about AGW.

                    And it’s also worth considering the implications of this fact: the majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Even those who have nothing to do with “Climategate”.

                    Similarly, the majority of biologists agree that evolution is real, and this opinion isn’t based on one or even a handful of studies. There’s a body of research. Just as there’s a body of research on AGW.

                    1. Climate researchers are clearly grouped into believers and deniers. I don’t trust either side.

                    2. Re: AmSci,

                      My point is that if you’re going to use climate scientists at all, the vast majority of them are agreed on AGW.

                      So lets use real scientists, for a change, like those that are agnostic about the subject. Shall we?

                      And I am using the word agnostic in a non-obamanesque way; meaning, correctly.

                      But it’s disingenuous to cry foul on them for believing in AGW

                      I thought AGW is a scientific theory purported to explain a phenomenon – why would one believe in it?

                      If you’re just investigating the research methods, there shouldn’t be a problem with scientists from other fields conducting the investigation.

                      Indeed. So, is there a problem?

                      But if the reality or myth of AGW truly isn’t the issue here, then it should also be acceptable for scientists who weren’t directly involved in this particular research to conduct the investigation, despite what they think about AGW.

                      You missed the point entirely. Those scientists do not simply hold that AGW may be real, but were apologetic of the way the scientists ar East Anglia conducted themselves EVEN BEFORE the investigation has started; they already made their mind up about the issue at hand, not just AGW. They acted like true believers rather than scientists.

                      Similarly, the majority of biologists agree that evolution is real, and this opinion isn’t based on one or even a handful of studies.

                      You miss the point. Biologists considered evolution as fact even before Darwin precisely because of the obvious similarities between animals and because of fossils – Darwin simply found a theory that explained how evolution works (there were other competing theories that purported to explain evolution and NONE were shut out of publication or discussion). What’s being discussed is not the validity of Global Warming per se, but of AGW as sole explanation for GW.

                    3. What’s being discussed is not the validity of Global Warming per se, but of AGW as sole explanation for GW.

                      No, it’s really not.

                      This is exactly like IDers saying microevolution is possible but not macroevolution. As their feeble minds begin to grasp that they can no longer deny certain facts, they move the goalpost and create a controversy somewhere else, which really isn’t a controversy to people who know what they’re talking about.

                    4. No, it’s really not.

                      It’s like atomic scientists in 1948 stating that, based upon 3 years of data, atomic-produced electric power in 1998 will be too cheap to meter.

                      It’s not all black vs. white, for us or agin’ us. There are a significant number of people who acknowledge that the earth is in a warming period during this inter-glacial that is probably not affected much by the human-sourced 4% of a gas that makes up 0.01% of the atmosphere.

                      … Hobbit

        2. Re: AmSci,

          So, to accuse them of a disqualifying bias because of their stated opinions about AGW shows only that those who make that accusation aren’t interested in a real investigation at all.

          Same thing said the defense attorney for the accused West Kentuckian mountain dweller when the prosecutor pointed out the jury pool was made of family members of the accused: “You are not interested in a fair trial for my client!”

    3. AmSci, are you a lecturer in idiocy at the University of East Anglia too?

      From the link in your handle, I’d guess you are a completely self-taught idiot. I mean, ooh arh, nob arhh, nob arhh…nobody does that anymore. Anybody who did that round here would be laughed off the street. No, nowadays people want something wittier.

        1. Oh, I know it.

        2. Our trolls’ blogs tend to be pretty shitty, but yours may take the cake. DURR HURR HURR SINCE 1847 LOLOLOL

          1. Your name links to a site with a rainbow-colored partition, right? Or did clicking it just send me back to 1996?

            1. I’ll forward your complaints to the guy whose bandwidth I steal. You’re adorable.

              1. Stealing bandwidth AND quips?

          2. The sheep with the serenely smiling human face is oddly compelling in a OH FUCK, GAH sort of way.

            1. I was only able to link there for a second, but was that a picture of two pandas humping? If so, WIN. BIGTIME.

              1. You’re going to use it as a pick-up line, aren’t you?

                “Hey, baby. You wanna do it panda-style? We could fuck like were on the edge of extinction.”

                1. Add apostrophes where you think they’d be the sexiest…

                2. “And we’ll do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files.”

              2. Yes, that was the preview image for the latest episode of my podcast. It includes a story about a man who was sodomized by a panda.

                1. It ain’t sodomy if there’s love behind it.

    4. I like to see a litmus test for climate ‘scientist’.

      Do you believe the world is over populated?

      1. Yes, and I wrote a 1,000 page out-of-print tome all about the topic. In addition to creating the global warming hoax, I’m also looking into forcing down the world population through mass sterilization plans. I tried to keep the conspiracy secret, but I just couldn’t say no to that book advance. Got to feed the kids!

        Before I kill them, of course.

        1. Oh, so you must be connected to a corporation. Because in every movie I’ve ever seen, mass evil like that only comes from corporations, who manage to profit from the deaths of millions … ah … somehow.

          1) Corporation kills millions with no government involvement
          2)?????
          3) Profit!

          Let me know if you need a henchman.

          1. So, you’re saying it’s equally as ridiculous to believe in a mass conspiracy of evil businessmen as it is to believe in a mass conspiracy of evil scientists? I think we’re on the same page.

            1. Nice. We were lamenting the lack of good trolls around here lately. And now you show up with style, wit, and that wonderful ability to twist words and phrases.

              “A” level, definitely…

              1. Thanks for the kind words. I’m not sure if I’m a troll, though. I’m a regular reader of Reason. I like the writing, and I mostly agree with the opinions. Sometimes not. Just thought I’d chime in on this particular post, because I think it’s illustrative of the kind of “I’m just asking questions” posturing from global warming deniers/skeptics/whatever that you normally hear from 9/11 truthers.

                Also, snow’s kept most everyone out of the office today. I’m bored.

                1. Yes, I was afraid of that. You weren’t nasty enough, but I was hoping you were waiting for an opportunity to pounce. Well, if you’re just an intelligent commenter, (who disagrees on some issues) we can use those, too.

          2. I’m not loaning you out. And you exhausted all your personal days for this quarter sewing a new cosplay outfit for OtakuCon.

            1. Pfft. That took a day and a half. The rest of the time was spent making Gothic Lolita and

            2. Those should all be SFW, by the way.

        2. “Yes, and I wrote a 1,000 page out-of-print tome all about the topic. In addition to creating the global warming hoax, I’m also looking into forcing down the world population through mass sterilization plans. I tried to keep the conspiracy secret, but I just couldn’t say no to that book advance. Got to feed the kids!

          Before I kill them, of course.”

          Funny stuff! Did I hit on a nerve? I mean is that why you didn’t answer the question?

      2. What’s a litmus test?

        1. Well…”have you stopped beating your wife yet?” would be a fine example. According to AmSci that is.

    5. No, “deniers” are just as biased as the warmists. What you need are actual skeptics.

      But thanks for being on the show, and enjoy your consolation prize…

      Next.

  12. As long as the panel’s findings are peer reviewed, how can any of us doubt them?

  13. AGW hypothesis is one giant cluster-fucked conflict of interest.

    AGW hypothesis should be scrapped for that reason alone. Mankind will adapt to what ever nature throws at us, see NorLeans.

    Applying AGW logic as analogous to Katrina why the Hell are we rebuilding in a soup bowl?

  14. This will be the typical statement which could be released from time to time throught these trying times for the flim-flam artists at East Anglia:

    The fact that an investigation on apparent ethical or unscientific malfeasances perpetrated by prominent climate research scientists is being conducted does not mean there are serious questions about the validity of the research on Global Warming, which has been conducted with the highest scientific and ethical standards.

    Or words to that effect. Nobody said that scientists cannot be poor logicians… or liars.

  15. The scientists have not hidden the data.

    Well, except for when they submarined FOIA requests and deleted it, that is.

    The one thing that is perfectly clear is that the data was, in fact, hidden.

    The interesting question is what other sins they committed.

  16. I still am curious about who stole what when? Why is there no interest – especially in the Warmer crowd-chamber – about who actually compiled and released the problematic files in question?

    That’s the big-money question that no one even wants to ask at this point.

    1. Plenty of people have asked. The problem is no one has found an answer. To dwell on it would simply be repeating the same question over and over again.

      1. Where is the “official” effort to find out the hackers? I don’t see a Commission for the Truth or some such thing. Definitely no info from any British law enforcement agency claiming to take even an interest in the subject. Just all quiet on the Establishment front from that perspective.

        I find that official silence odd given the hornet’s nest that erupts any time someone in this cottage industry feels intellectually threatened in any way, from anybody, anywhere.

  17. So MNG is busy pissing all over another thread, but won’t come play in the AGW thread.

    1. What is the blessing count up to now?

    2. The way this whole climategate shit all over MNG (followed by a failed attempt at saving face in a recent AGW thread), I doubt he’s got the stomach to post on the subject again.

  18. The effect of cliamtegate and the dozen other scandals involved will probably not be reflected in this investigations. For the most part they will be whitewashes that hand out a wrist slap or two.

    The effect will (and already is) be found in the ability of skeptics to get published.

    The skeptic blockade has been severely damaged from these scandals. Mann can no longer email his buddies in the cartel to stop critical work from seeing the light of day.

  19. The stupid it hurts. You guys are just a bunch of McCarthyists who know evidently nothing about science.

    Why don’t you use the time you spend studying the details of various conspiracy theories actually reading a book on science. They have them for 5th graders. You can start there.

    1. Even I can tell that’s a spoof. Funny, even better than Friday Funnies this morning.

      I know, not setting the limbo bar too low there.

    2. Still not Tony.

  20. These threads were fun when Neu Mejican still had the guts to pipe in. Today, not so much.

    1. Yeah, Neu Mejican was a thinking Warmer…always had good info, rational.

      Maybe that’s why he’s absent from these proceedings more and more. With recent events, its probably become too much of an politicized, sloppy, and ethical disaster to keep defending, even if you still buy into the Cult al Carbon scientifically.

  21. All panel members should be required to declare any interests such as greentech stocks and carbon credit derivatives, which might colour their view.

    1. Along with submitting a notarized “Six Degrees of Separation from Al Gore” flow chart before they’re allowed onto the panel.

      Anyone with less than four steps of separation should automatically be rejected from the panel.

  22. These investigations are nothing but Kabuki, and frankly, are a waste of time. Crackpots, by definition, will just consider their findings as part of the conspiracy.

    You guys got any new DATA to share? Probably not.

    1. Yes, starting over would be nice.

      And can we keep the temperature monitors off of hot tarred rooftops, away from the exhaust of air conditioners, away from jet planes roaring up their engines and such… this time!

      1. Yes, let’s start over. And start over again. And start over again.

        Anyone got a broken record anywhere?

        How about we DO something instead of let the country go to hell, for a change?

  23. To paraphrase an old movie quote in relation to Piltdown Mann made global warming: Don’t you just love the smell of DDT in the morning?

  24. At some point some poor academic sitting on one of these blue ribbon panels tasked with reviewing this web of lies and half-truths is going to have a few too many drinks and think “fuck it, what the hell”, and just for laffs pretend for a minute this conspiracy bullshit is for real and try to see what’s “really going on”.

    And then, days later, sifting through the data, his reality will fracture. He’ll get a funny sensation – the hairs on the back of his neck will stand on end, and he’ll get a chill. “No. It cannot be… All my friends in the department. The Dean. The Director. The members of the Review board. My Editors. They’re all, they’re all in on it … They’re all … replicants.”

    “How can this be? I should have known. How could I have missed it? No, it’s not my fault. They’re cover is so, perfect. Almost too perfect. It’s almost as though – almost as though they don’t even know it themselves. They must think they’re real.”

    And then, he’ll suspect the worst. “What if… what if I…

    “No, it can’t be. I have a PhD. I can prove I’m real. I have peer reviewed articles! Reviewed by…”

    “Oh God, what have I done… What am I?”

    – end scene –

  25. Catastrophe Denied
    http://www.vimeo.com/8865909

    This video is a critique of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, based on presentation slides used in a series of public presentations and debates in late 2009 and early 2010. The author is Warren Meyer, author of the web site climate-skeptic.com.

    While the world has almost certainly warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age in the early 19th century, and while it is fairly clear that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses may be responsible for some of this warming, climate alarmists are grossly overestimating the sensitivity of climate to CO2, and thus overestimating future man-made warming.

    While the theory of greenhouse gas warming is fairly well understood, most of the warming, and all of the catastrophe, in future forecasts actually comes from a second theory that the Earth’s climate system is dominated by strong positive feedbacks. This second theory is not at all settled and is at the heart of why climate models are greatly over-estimating future warming.

    Note: Charts last updated Jan 2010.

  26. This is a Northern Hemisphere view.

    In the next few weeks farmers are going to be making decisions about what crops to plant for the year. It is looking possible, or even likely that the ground may not be workable until later than usual this spring, and if the arctic oscillation index keeps diving down and staying low for prolonged periods like has been for the past few months, there could be some very late hard frosts.

    Farmers in North America, Europe and Asia really need some honest guidance about the real expected length of the coming growing season.

    If the season is going to be short farmers need to be ordering and preparing to plant short season crops and food for food and not food for ethanol. Since the food to ethanol is a government sponsored or in some cases a legislated initiative; governments must speak up, loud and clear.

    If farmers get bad information, they may well bring in a short or damaged crop. If they do, based on the current world grain reserves, about 250 million people could be starving to death come this time next year.
    .
    If elected leaders continue to insist that the planet is getting warmer, and it does not; then people, lots and lots of people will starve to death during the spring of 2011, not some time in 2035 or 2050, but next year; and there will be nothing anyone will be able to do about it. The food will not be in the bins and humans can not survive by eating money.

    1. As difficult as it may be to eat money, I think you underestimate just how much money the government can print. If it is at all edible, we may just get by.

  27. I truly believe there are many real scientists out there, who do not want to be embroiled in politics. Who have tried and had their papers rejected, so that we do not have empirical evidence, as presented by them, of their research, in peer reviewed journals. I reckon there are sufficient of them to ‘staff’ this REVIEW and do it RIGHT… read the following article and see what he says about the Peer Review Process…..

    This one is to be highly commended?? join me please in applauding HENKE TENNEKES.

    Read the article, then read the paper…….. and keep applauding please.
    http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.c…..chive.html

  28. This link should have been shown in the previous post – sorry folks!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201…..hat-badly/

  29. Climate Change is REAL! Shut up and act now! We need abortions and sterilizations (a global zero child policy), an increase in assisted suicide, carbon trading and rationing, cap & trade, heavy taxes on luxuries, climate cops, codex alimentarius, fuel and food rations, etc.

    If you can’t help the Earth, please kill yourself now. Don’t be selfish and let us all die in a ball of fire.

    If not for yourself, do it for our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ.

  30. Thanks to the revelations of ClimateGate the rest of the climate science community can now speak without overt and covert government, media and academic censorship. We now know without doubt Climate Change “science” is a complete fraud. It is as we suspected. Clearly we cannot trust Obama and the Democratic Party to tell the true. There is no integrity there. None. What do you think the chances are their pronouncements concerning National Health Care legislation are anywhere near the truth? Pay a tax, change the climate? Pay a tax, get government provided health care? Fraud and more fraud. Like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, it’s just another Ponzi scheme. Bring in more unwilling players to keep the game going.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.