8

Bomber's Challenge

by Whaleoil on April 7, 2010

Bomber has a challenge, and he is worried because we “denialists” are supposedly very, very quiet on the issue of the “exoneration of the CRU” in the wake of the British Parliamentary Enquiry.

Bomber is actually a smart guy and I wonder why he isn’t more widely read, but I’ll accept his challenge.

Exhibit A: Singer on Climategate Parliamentary Inquiry

The latest report is by the British House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, which largely absolved Philip Jones, head of UEA’s Climate Research Unit and author of most of the e-mails.  How can we tell that it’s a whitewash?  Here are some telltale signs:

  • It refers to the e-mails as “stolen”
  • It did not take direct testimony from scientifically competent skeptics
  • Yet it derives the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the basic science and that warming is human caused – essentially endorsing the IPCC

None of the investigations have gone into any detail on how the data might have been manipulated.

Exhibit B: Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support

Climate Scientists shills for big oil?

Climate Scientists shills for big oil?

Exhibit C: Climate money: Big government outspends big oil

Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified1 for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.

Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)

As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project2 to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output3 of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign4 , “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).

Exhibit D: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – Trillions to come

The Summary

  • The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
  • Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
  • Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
  • Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
  • The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Have I missed anything Bomber? No? Didn’t think so.

Meanwhile our idiot Climate Change Minister has managed to convince Key that we still need to wreck our economy as they have planned on 1 July and be the only country in the world to implement a Carbon Trading Scheme for a product that is simply hot air for a market that no longer exists. To go ahead as planned is a foolhardy endeavour that will huge increased costs upon New Zealand that will be passed on to the consumers. Labour campaigned and is still campaigning against the rise in GST but they fully support the much larger increases in effective taxation by the implementation of the ETS, especially upon the poor.

The ETS will seriously affect our ability to compete on the world stage, and ultimately cost jobs, all to solve a problem that demonstrably does not exist.

Lest anyone call me a climate change denier, I am not. Our climate changes all the time, but I do not believe that mankind is causing this. We should be worried if the climate stops changing.

Tagged:

Related posts

  • mikej

    The UK politicians arrived at a fully predictable and predicted result. Which is precisely why the judicial system is kept entirely separate from parliament – politicians are far too scared of rocking the political boat to adequately judge a situation without bias. Unfortunately, in this case the Police could not lay FOIA charges against Jones because of the 6-month use-by date. Lucky him.

    In any case, the silence that Bradbury perceives is because the Climategate episode is so last year in most blogger’s minds. The narrative has moved on (although Steve McIntyre still pursues it relentlessly for what it’s worth).

    The narrative is now more about the new cost of carbon to Joe Public and the resulting (lack of) measurable effect upon the climate. How much will the New Zealand ETS cost me, and how will that cost directly affect global Co2? And how will that directly affect global temperature? And how will that directly affect my life for the better? Or my children’s lives, or their children’s? Those are the sorts of questions being asked by a sceptical public, especially when times are tough enough anyway.

    Who cares any more about some toffy-nosed damn climate scientologist on the other side of the world?

    Prove the cost, the causative links between rising Co2 and rising temperature, and then prove that the thousands of dollars in increased costs that I will somehow have to find to pay for this mad scheme will make one iota of difference. Prove it, Mister Bradbury.

  • axeman

    It is no use holding your breath waiting for a reply from the Blomber. Why should he engage with ‘right wing hate groups’ is his usual cop out. Mind you he will absolutely hate you for bringing up ‘Watts Up With That’ as a reference as he despises that with a passion.

  • billhicks

    No doubt bomber has solar panels on his roof,and on the rims of his glasses but that is not my point.When so many company’s have a self interest and have invested billions of dollars in green technology,as in google,bbc ,most major tv company’s, newspaper company’s ,ponzi scheme’s carbon traders,banks,delusional world government’s etc,only the few have a voice to manipulate and force opinion onto fools who believe the sky is falling…………….

  • axeman

    And here’s another review.
    ‘Climategate Investigation A Monumental Whitewash.’
    The STC investigation into climategate is farcical on its face. The Committee itself admits that it’s report is insufficient and does not cover all the issues. Phil Willis, the committee’s chairman, noted that it had to produce something quickly before the British general election, and a possible change of government, in May.
    “Clearly we would have liked to spend more time on this,” Willis said, adding “We had to get something out before we were sent packing.”
    Though the Committee condemned the CRU for withholding information requested by outsiders under Britain’s freedom of information laws, it failed to determine whether Professor Jones had actively deleted information to prevent requests to publish it, as indicated by requests made by Jones in emails to his colleagues.
    “The culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics, we felt was reprehensible,” Willis told a news conference.
    However, the report does not indict Jones on these charges, perhaps because, as revealed by one of the MP on the committee in comments to The Times of London, all members had agreed not to question Professor Jones too closely because of his “fragile condition” – now that’s what I call getting to the bottom of the matter.
    Phil Willis also said that the further two pending inquiries into the e-mail scandal would provide a more in depth review. However, as we have previously reported, we can hardly expect the so called “independent” investigation led by Sir Muir Russell to be in any form impartial, given that Russell himself vehemently supports the notion of anthropogenic global warming and has constructed a panel of “experts” that share the same views.
    Those views clearly contradict the founding principle of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.
    Thus, any notion that this investigation might shake the foundations of the perceived “consensus” on climate science, by being anything other than favourable to Phil Jones and the CRU, is highly unlikely.
    Once again it will be left to the alternative media and the blogs to expose these whitewash reports for what they are, given that the vast majority of the corporate mainstream media will undoubtedly run with headlines such as “Investigation Clears Climate Scientists” and “Warming Science Vindicated”, headlines that will be repeated ad infinitum by warmists, carbon trading scam artists and eco-fascists everywhere.

  • billhicks

  • Pingback: New Source of Global Warming | MacDoctor

  • http://www.blairmulholland.co.nz BlairM

    Of course they got cleared – when you destroy all the original data there’s no way of proving you fudged it.

  • oldtimer

    well seeing key reckons hes a big time money trader then we give him a decent amount of seed money and his job is to trade the country into utopia on the carbon market while the rest of us fuck off to the beach.