DIuQOt0 | test …

If you have a Facebook page post the two links.

Will

http://www.heartland.org/full/26365/Galileo_Sil...

Note the date is Nov 13, prior to the Climategate revelation. Does anyone doubt there was collusion to prevent Soon et al from proceeding? The air wreaks with the stench of AGW thuggery.

At least from Down Under the catastrophist AGW movement appears to be working itself up into a 'Copenhagen Frenzy'. Their desperation for the 'new world order' is getting almost palpable.

I sure hope it burns itself out post-Copenhagen, otherwise 2010 could turn into a really nasty year.

Like you, I have been pouring over this CRU stuff. A very interesting archive!

Following up on Alex's point re Pierrehumbert's attitude to GCMs it is also clear that this year even Kevin Trenberth himself has been getting rather worried about the models/reality. In some ways this seems to be a reprise of Jones' own paranoia back in 2004 about the Kalnay and Cai paper. I note that Evgenia Kalnay is still publishing heavily on what appear to be, in effect, statistical tests of the faithfulness of GCMs to observed non-equilibrium effects..

It is interesting to note that even Trenberth himself now seem to be having doubts about the key issues of evaporation, clouds and albedo in the models. For those interested in this albedo/non-equilibrium thermodynamic effects stuff it is worthwhile revisiting Glassman's 'IPCC's Fatal Errors' on Rocket Scientist's Journal. Pity Glassman is a prickly loner – he is pretty smart IMHO and would make a great contributor to Niche Modeling.

On a lighter note, there is no doubt the revelations and ramifications of this CRU stuff is exacerbating a already widespread pre-Copenhagen angst amongst the Left 'warmerati'.

In the last few days I 'made the mistake' of quoting just a few of these CRU emails to illustrate certain points in blog threads of the Aussie online journal 'New Matilda'. This afternoon I had the honour of being 'phoned by its editor. She advised me in a dissembling and obnoxiously anal manner that I was henceforth banned from the journal. Given that the few sceptics (usual range extreme to mild) still persevering with blogging in Matilda had been struggling along under her 'moderation' in recent weeks, I informed her I was more than happy to 'high tail it outta there' (;-).

There is a doomsday message that is swiftly gaining global acceptance. The new wave is clothed in acceptable clichés and has won over the support of many of the respected scientific communities.

Unlike most other doomsday messages, this one is supposedly based upon scientific evidence. The scientific “doomsdayers” wear masks and pretend that they are predicting calamities based on hard evidence. This lulls the unsuspecting public into absolute belief and acceptance of the doomsdayers’ ravings.

If the same message were given in a spiritual setting, the adherents would probably be encouraged to turn to God in preparation for the final days. Generally, scientists have sneered at and mocked spiritual predictions regarding the end times, and the same scientists have convinced the general public to do likewise. Further, governments of the world use their police powers to suppress, restrict, or even eliminate these spiritual-based groups. Scientists have now one-upped the spiritual believers by supporting their dire predictions of calamity with supposed scientific evidence. Using their scientific clout, they have now convinced most of the world leaders to meet in Copenhagen. The stated agenda of the gathering is to halt global warming with a unified and urgent approach.

People may remember that there have been similar gatherings to solve the global economic crisis. In those meetings, every leader attending was told to boost their economies by stimulus spending. By and large, the world leaders have dutifully followed those dictates. One might ask: Is the global recession over due to this unified approach – or is it deepening? Many thinking economists have finally realized the latter to be the case.