[Andre Jute[_2_]]

Ben Weinter wrote:
Can it with the conspiracy theories.

Well, let's see a few actions of The Team of paleoclimatologists, led
my Michael Mann and Phil Jones, first identified as a clique by
Wegman
and now exposed by Climategate as a conspiracy against the public
interest. Then Weiner can tell us which of these actions is *not*
conspiratorial. The list is adapted from one by Christopher Monckton,
lately science advisor to the British government.

1. A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific
politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked,
were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures
from
the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called
themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a
nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial
to
the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all
scientific research.

COMMENT: The Climategate e-mails, documents and programming proves
that The Team conspired to tell a consistent story without regard for
the scientific truth. This is clearly a conspiratorial action.

2. The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia profited to the tune of
at
least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
The
American end of The Team raked in even larger sums. The prestige and
advancement of these academics were clearly enhanced by their ability
raise grants.

COMMENT: Financial gain, advancement and prestige are common motives
for conspiracies.

3. The Team tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the
UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient
scientific
results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the
panel’s
conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers clearly show members of The Team
conspiring to have editors fired, to exclude dissenting scientists
from the peer reviewed journals, to keep papers out of the IPCC
assessments, to interfere in the careers of dissenters.

4. The Team conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not
peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not
fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked
wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

COMMENT: Clearly a conspiracy against the interest of free speech and
scientific enquiry.

5. They tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies
and errors. They knew about dishonesty -- inventing data -- in their
own ranks and covered up for the crooks.

COMMENT: Conspiracy, what else?

6. They emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of
concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

COMMENT: Conspiring to lie to the public, who are their paymasters.
(No conspiracy without arrogance!)

7. They privately expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all
of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any
statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling
for
nine years. They privately admitted that their inability to explain
it
was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public
lies that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global
warming” science is settled.

COMMENT: How can a group decision, carried on in writing (!), to hide
the truth in so serious a matter not be a conspiracy?

8. They interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning
on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists
to
review their papers.

COMMENT: Conspiracy to entrench their lies.

9. They successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject
papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

COMMENT: Conspiracy against open, transparent, falsifiable science.
This should by itself be enough to run them out of the profession.

10. They campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor,
solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and
corrupt science for political purposes.

COMMENT: The planning phase of this, revealled in the Climategate
emails, is clearly a conspiracy against free speech and scientific
principles.

11. They mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and
denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had
expensively created.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers make clear that this too was
orchestrated behind the scenes. Conspiracy. (Businessmen who even
*met* for this purpose would be liable to go to jail for conspiracy,
even without the further proof of executing the plan.)

12. Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team
committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to
destroy computer codes and data that was legitimately requested by an
external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their
“research” was either honest or competent.

COMMENT: Open and shut case: method, mechanism, confession in the
Climategate e-mails.

****
So, tell us, Weiner, which of these actions is not conspiratorial?
Let's see you "hide the decline", indeed the utter dissolution, of
scientific ethics in an entire branch of science, paleoclimatology.
This scum of paleoclimatologists lied and lied and lied about global
warming for entirely personal and political reasons, They conspired
against the principles of science. They confessed to these
conspiracies in the e-mails setting up the conspiracies. What more is
required to consign them and their meretricious works to jail?

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

[Phil H]

On Dec 9, 7:02*am, Andre Jute wrote:
Ben Weinter wrote:
Can it with the conspiracy theories.

Well, let's see a few actions of The Team of paleoclimatologists, led
my Michael Mann and Phil Jones, first identified as a clique by
Wegman
and now exposed by Climategate as a conspiracy against the public
interest. Then Weiner can tell us which of these actions is *not*
conspiratorial. The list is adapted from one by Christopher Monckton,
lately science advisor to the British government.

1. A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific
politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked,
were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures
from
the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called
themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a
nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial
to
the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all
scientific research.

COMMENT: The Climategate e-mails, documents and programming proves
that The Team conspired to tell a consistent story without regard for
the scientific truth. This is clearly a conspiratorial action.

2. The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia profited to the tune of
at
least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
The
American end of The Team raked in even larger sums. The prestige and
advancement of these academics were clearly enhanced by their ability
raise grants.

COMMENT: Financial gain, advancement and prestige are common motives
for conspiracies.

3. The Team tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the
UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient
scientific
results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the
panel’s
conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers clearly show members of The Team
conspiring to have editors fired, to exclude dissenting scientists
from the peer reviewed journals, to keep papers out of the IPCC
assessments, to interfere in the careers of dissenters.

4. The Team conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not
peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not
fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked
wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

COMMENT: Clearly a conspiracy against the interest of free speech and
scientific enquiry.

5. They tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies
and errors. They knew about dishonesty -- inventing data -- in their
own ranks and covered up for the crooks.

COMMENT: Conspiracy, what else?

6. They emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of
concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

COMMENT: Conspiring to lie to the public, who are their paymasters.
(No conspiracy without arrogance!)

7. They privately expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all
of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any
statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling
for
nine years. They privately admitted that their inability to explain
it
was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public
lies that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global
warming” science is settled.

COMMENT: How can a group decision, carried on in writing (!), to hide
the truth in so serious a matter not be a conspiracy?

8. They interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning
on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists
to
review their papers.

COMMENT: Conspiracy to entrench their lies.

9. They successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject
papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

COMMENT: Conspiracy against open, transparent, falsifiable science.
This should by itself be enough to run them out of the profession.

10. They campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor,
solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and
corrupt science for political purposes.

COMMENT: The planning phase of this, revealled in the Climategate
emails, is clearly a conspiracy against free speech and scientific
principles.

11. They mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and
denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had
expensively created.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers make clear that this too was
orchestrated behind the scenes. Conspiracy. (Businessmen who even
*met* for this purpose would be liable to go to jail for conspiracy,
even without the further proof of executing the plan.)

12. Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team
committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to
destroy computer codes and data that was legitimately requested by an
external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their
“research” was either honest or competent.

COMMENT: Open and shut case: method, mechanism, confession in the
Climategate e-mails.

****
So, tell us, Weiner, which of these actions is not conspiratorial?
Let's see you "hide the decline", indeed the utter dissolution, of
scientific ethics in an entire branch of science, paleoclimatology.
This scum of paleoclimatologists lied and lied and lied about global
warming for entirely personal and political reasons, They conspired
against the principles of science. They confessed to these
conspiracies in the e-mails setting up the conspiracies. What more is
required to consign them and their meretricious works to jail?

Andre Jute
*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

No surprises here but..............just because Mark Fuhrman messed up
the evidence (chain of custody) doesn't mean that OJ didn't commit
murder. He got away with it that's all. Its a good idea to stick to
the actual (reliable) data (GLWT) and do not be misled by the fudge
makers or even use what they did as evidence against GW. Conspiracies
happen in complete isolation of the facts, sometimes agreeing and
sometimes not. I'm a skeptic of knowing for sure what will really
happen in the short term to Global Climate (next century).

Phil H

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 10, 11:33*pm, Phil H wrote:
On Dec 9, 7:02*am, Andre Jute wrote:





Ben Weinter wrote:
Can it with the conspiracy theories.

Well, let's see a few actions of The Team of paleoclimatologists, led
my Michael Mann and Phil Jones, first identified as a clique by
Wegman
and now exposed by Climategate as a conspiracy against the public
interest. Then Weiner can tell us which of these actions is *not*
conspiratorial. The list is adapted from one by Christopher Monckton,
lately science advisor to the British government.

1. A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific
politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked,
were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures
from
the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called
themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a
nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial
to
the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all
scientific research.

COMMENT: The Climategate e-mails, documents and programming proves
that The Team conspired to tell a consistent story without regard for
the scientific truth. This is clearly a conspiratorial action.

2. The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia profited to the tune of
at
least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities..
The
American end of The Team raked in even larger sums. The prestige and
advancement of these academics were clearly enhanced by their ability
raise grants.

COMMENT: Financial gain, advancement and prestige are common motives
for conspiracies.

3. The Team tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the
UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient
scientific
results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the
panel’s
conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers clearly show members of The Team
conspiring to have editors fired, to exclude dissenting scientists
from the peer reviewed journals, to keep papers out of the IPCC
assessments, to interfere in the careers of dissenters.

4. The Team conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not
peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not
fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked
wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

COMMENT: Clearly a conspiracy against the interest of free speech and
scientific enquiry.

5. They tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies
and errors. They knew about dishonesty -- inventing data -- in their
own ranks and covered up for the crooks.

COMMENT: Conspiracy, what else?

6. They emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of
concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

COMMENT: Conspiring to lie to the public, who are their paymasters.
(No conspiracy without arrogance!)

7. They privately expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all
of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any
statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling
for
nine years. They privately admitted that their inability to explain
it
was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public
lies that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global
warming” science is settled.

COMMENT: How can a group decision, carried on in writing (!), to hide
the truth in so serious a matter not be a conspiracy?

8. They interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning
on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists
to
review their papers.

COMMENT: Conspiracy to entrench their lies.

9. They successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject
papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

COMMENT: Conspiracy against open, transparent, falsifiable science.
This should by itself be enough to run them out of the profession.

10. They campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor,
solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and
corrupt science for political purposes.

COMMENT: The planning phase of this, revealled in the Climategate
emails, is clearly a conspiracy against free speech and scientific
principles.

11. They mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and
denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had
expensively created.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers make clear that this too was
orchestrated behind the scenes. Conspiracy. (Businessmen who even
*met* for this purpose would be liable to go to jail for conspiracy,
even without the further proof of executing the plan.)

12. Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team
committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to
destroy computer codes and data that was legitimately requested by an
external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their
“research” was either honest or competent.

COMMENT: Open and shut case: method, mechanism, confession in the
Climategate e-mails.

****
So, tell us, Weiner, which of these actions is not conspiratorial?
Let's see you "hide the decline", indeed the utter dissolution, of
scientific ethics in an entire branch of science, paleoclimatology.
This scum of paleoclimatologists lied and lied and lied about global
warming for entirely personal and political reasons, They conspired
against the principles of science. They confessed to these
conspiracies in the e-mails setting up the conspiracies. What more is
required to consign them and their meretricious works to jail?

Andre Jute
*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

No surprises here but..............just because Mark Fuhrman messed up
the evidence (chain of custody) doesn't mean that OJ didn't commit
murder. He got away with it that's all. Its a good idea to stick to
the actual (reliable) data (GLWT) and do not be misled by the fudge
makers or even use what they did as evidence against GW. Conspiracies
happen in complete isolation of the facts, sometimes agreeing and
sometimes not. I'm a skeptic of knowing for sure what will really
happen in the short term to Global Climate (next century).

Phil H

There should, generally speaking, be modest global warming, with
variations around the gently rising trend line, because we are coming
out of the Little Ice Age and still have some ways to go before the
global temperature will be fully recovered to some higher previous
state.

What makes these confessed liars so important is that the whole
manmade global warming scam rests on their "science" of
paleoclimatology. They performed the Orwellian trick of removing the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age with the fraudulent,
politically-inspired hockey stick. The Medieval Warm Period, as you no
doubt know, comprised several centuries during which the planet was
warmer than today. The Little Ice |Age coincided with all those
coalstacks of the Industrial Revolution.

Together these two events, now reinstated despite the best efforts of
the Climategate liars to disappear them, prove there was no abnormal
global warming. If the event didn't happen, we don't have to look for
the cause. Man is not guilty, because nothing happened. CO2 doesn't
need to be scapegoated, because nothing happened, nor is it likely to.

Andre Jute
"I wasn't even there when it didn't happen, sergeant."

[Neil Brooks]

You seem like a quintessential cross-posting, gas-bag sort of idiot.

I presume you've met Sornson??

Good. Then you'll have LOTS to talk about!

[Dan O]

On Dec 10, 3:33 pm, Phil H wrote:
On Dec 9, 7:02 am, Andre Jute wrote:



Ben Weinter wrote:
Can it with the conspiracy theories.

Well, let's see a few actions of The Team of paleoclimatologists, led
my Michael Mann and Phil Jones, first identified as a clique by
Wegman
and now exposed by Climategate as a conspiracy against the public
interest. Then Weiner can tell us which of these actions is *not*
conspiratorial. The list is adapted from one by Christopher Monckton,
lately science advisor to the British government.

1. A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific
politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked,
were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures
from
the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called
themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a
nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial
to
the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all
scientific research.

COMMENT: The Climategate e-mails, documents and programming proves
that The Team conspired to tell a consistent story without regard for
the scientific truth. This is clearly a conspiratorial action.

2. The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia profited to the tune of
at
least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities..
The
American end of The Team raked in even larger sums. The prestige and
advancement of these academics were clearly enhanced by their ability
raise grants.

COMMENT: Financial gain, advancement and prestige are common motives
for conspiracies.

3. The Team tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the
UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient
scientific
results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the
panel’s
conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers clearly show members of The Team
conspiring to have editors fired, to exclude dissenting scientists
from the peer reviewed journals, to keep papers out of the IPCC
assessments, to interfere in the careers of dissenters.

4. The Team conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not
peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not
fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked
wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

COMMENT: Clearly a conspiracy against the interest of free speech and
scientific enquiry.

5. They tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies
and errors. They knew about dishonesty -- inventing data -- in their
own ranks and covered up for the crooks.

COMMENT: Conspiracy, what else?

6. They emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of
concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

COMMENT: Conspiring to lie to the public, who are their paymasters.
(No conspiracy without arrogance!)

7. They privately expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all
of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any
statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling
for
nine years. They privately admitted that their inability to explain
it
was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public
lies that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global
warming” science is settled.

COMMENT: How can a group decision, carried on in writing (!), to hide
the truth in so serious a matter not be a conspiracy?

8. They interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning
on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists
to
review their papers.

COMMENT: Conspiracy to entrench their lies.

9. They successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject
papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

COMMENT: Conspiracy against open, transparent, falsifiable science.
This should by itself be enough to run them out of the profession.

10. They campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor,
solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and
corrupt science for political purposes.

COMMENT: The planning phase of this, revealled in the Climategate
emails, is clearly a conspiracy against free speech and scientific
principles.

11. They mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and
denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had
expensively created.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers make clear that this too was
orchestrated behind the scenes. Conspiracy. (Businessmen who even
*met* for this purpose would be liable to go to jail for conspiracy,
even without the further proof of executing the plan.)

12. Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team
committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to
destroy computer codes and data that was legitimately requested by an
external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their
“research” was either honest or competent.

COMMENT: Open and shut case: method, mechanism, confession in the
Climategate e-mails.

****
So, tell us, Weiner, which of these actions is not conspiratorial?
Let's see you "hide the decline", indeed the utter dissolution, of
scientific ethics in an entire branch of science, paleoclimatology.
This scum of paleoclimatologists lied and lied and lied about global
warming for entirely personal and political reasons, They conspired
against the principles of science. They confessed to these
conspiracies in the e-mails setting up the conspiracies. What more is
required to consign them and their meretricious works to jail?

Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

No surprises here but..............just because Mark Fuhrman messed up
the evidence (chain of custody) doesn't mean that OJ didn't commit
murder. He got away with it that's all. Its a good idea to stick to
the actual (reliable) data (GLWT) and do not be misled by the fudge
makers or even use what they did as evidence against GW. Conspiracies
happen in complete isolation of the facts, sometimes agreeing and
sometimes not. I'm a skeptic of knowing for sure what will really
happen in the short term to Global Climate (next century).


I guess this is why Andre thinks he can pull off this anal-expulsive
ranting here (where it obviously belongs) in the land of bicycles and
amplifiers: Because the ecosystem is not likely to melt down
completely in his lifetime.

(He makes it abundantly clear every day that he's too loopy to give a
**** how stupid his legacy looks on the stone sober objective internet
archives.)

[Phil H]

On Dec 10, 11:07*pm, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:33 pm, Phil H wrote:





On Dec 9, 7:02 am, Andre Jute wrote:

Ben Weinter wrote:
Can it with the conspiracy theories.

Well, let's see a few actions of The Team of paleoclimatologists, led
my Michael Mann and Phil Jones, first identified as a clique by
Wegman
and now exposed by Climategate as a conspiracy against the public
interest. Then Weiner can tell us which of these actions is *not*
conspiratorial. The list is adapted from one by Christopher Monckton,
lately science advisor to the British government.

1. A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific
politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked,
were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures
from
the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called
themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a
nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial
to
the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all
scientific research.

COMMENT: The Climategate e-mails, documents and programming proves
that The Team conspired to tell a consistent story without regard for
the scientific truth. This is clearly a conspiratorial action.

2. The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia profited to the tune of
at
least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
The
American end of The Team raked in even larger sums. The prestige and
advancement of these academics were clearly enhanced by their ability
raise grants.

COMMENT: Financial gain, advancement and prestige are common motives
for conspiracies.

3. The Team tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the
UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient
scientific
results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the
panel’s
conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers clearly show members of The Team
conspiring to have editors fired, to exclude dissenting scientists
from the peer reviewed journals, to keep papers out of the IPCC
assessments, to interfere in the careers of dissenters.

4. The Team conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not
peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not
fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked
wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

COMMENT: Clearly a conspiracy against the interest of free speech and
scientific enquiry.

5. They tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies
and errors. They knew about dishonesty -- inventing data -- in their
own ranks and covered up for the crooks.

COMMENT: Conspiracy, what else?

6. They emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of
concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

COMMENT: Conspiring to lie to the public, who are their paymasters.
(No conspiracy without arrogance!)

7. They privately expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all
of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any
statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling
for
nine years. They privately admitted that their inability to explain
it
was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public
lies that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global
warming” science is settled.

COMMENT: How can a group decision, carried on in writing (!), to hide
the truth in so serious a matter not be a conspiracy?

8. They interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning
on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists
to
review their papers.

COMMENT: Conspiracy to entrench their lies.

9. They successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject
papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

COMMENT: Conspiracy against open, transparent, falsifiable science.
This should by itself be enough to run them out of the profession.

10. They campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor,
solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and
corrupt science for political purposes.

COMMENT: The planning phase of this, revealled in the Climategate
emails, is clearly a conspiracy against free speech and scientific
principles.

11. They mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and
denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had
expensively created.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers make clear that this too was
orchestrated behind the scenes. Conspiracy. (Businessmen who even
*met* for this purpose would be liable to go to jail for conspiracy,
even without the further proof of executing the plan.)

12. Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team
committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to
destroy computer codes and data that was legitimately requested by an
external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their
“research” was either honest or competent.

COMMENT: Open and shut case: method, mechanism, confession in the
Climategate e-mails.

****
So, tell us, Weiner, which of these actions is not conspiratorial?
Let's see you "hide the decline", indeed the utter dissolution, of
scientific ethics in an entire branch of science, paleoclimatology.
This scum of paleoclimatologists lied and lied and lied about global
warming for entirely personal and political reasons, They conspired
against the principles of science. They confessed to these
conspiracies in the e-mails setting up the conspiracies. What more is
required to consign them and their meretricious works to jail?

Andre Jute
*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

No surprises here but..............just because Mark Fuhrman messed up
the evidence (chain of custody) doesn't mean that OJ didn't commit
murder. He got away with it that's all. Its a good idea to stick to
the actual (reliable) data (GLWT) and do not be misled by the fudge
makers or even use what they did as evidence against GW. Conspiracies
happen in complete isolation of the facts, sometimes agreeing and
sometimes not. I'm a skeptic of knowing for sure what will really
happen in the short term to Global Climate (next century).

I guess this is why Andre thinks he can pull off this anal-expulsive
ranting here (where it obviously belongs) in the land of bicycles and
amplifiers: *Because the ecosystem is not likely to melt down
completely in his lifetime.

(He makes it abundantly clear every day that he's too loopy to give a
**** how stupid his legacy looks on the stone sober objective internet
archives.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Posting this here will probably not get a lot of attention but today
at school my colleague and I did a simple random measurement of the
same temperature with a small standard deviation (stats model). Over a
time period of 40 years, a significant sloping trend line appeared
quite frequently.

Phil H

[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 11, 7:07*am, Dan O wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:33 pm, Phil H wrote:





On Dec 9, 7:02 am, Andre Jute wrote:

Ben Weinter wrote:
Can it with the conspiracy theories.

Well, let's see a few actions of The Team of paleoclimatologists, led
my Michael Mann and Phil Jones, first identified as a clique by
Wegman
and now exposed by Climategate as a conspiracy against the public
interest. Then Weiner can tell us which of these actions is *not*
conspiratorial. The list is adapted from one by Christopher Monckton,
lately science advisor to the British government.

1. A tiny clique of politicized scientists, paid by unscientific
politicians with whom they were financially and politically linked,
were responsible for gathering and reporting data on temperatures
from
the palaeoclimate to today’s climate. The “Team”, as they called
themselves, were bending and distorting scientific data to fit a
nakedly political story-line profitable to themselves and congenial
to
the governments that, these days, pay the bills for 99% of all
scientific research.

COMMENT: The Climategate e-mails, documents and programming proves
that The Team conspired to tell a consistent story without regard for
the scientific truth. This is clearly a conspiratorial action.

2. The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia profited to the tune of
at
least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.
The
American end of The Team raked in even larger sums. The prestige and
advancement of these academics were clearly enhanced by their ability
raise grants.

COMMENT: Financial gain, advancement and prestige are common motives
for conspiracies.

3. The Team tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the
UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient
scientific
results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the
panel’s
conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers clearly show members of The Team
conspiring to have editors fired, to exclude dissenting scientists
from the peer reviewed journals, to keep papers out of the IPCC
assessments, to interfere in the careers of dissenters.

4. The Team conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not
peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not
fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked
wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.

COMMENT: Clearly a conspiracy against the interest of free speech and
scientific enquiry.

5. They tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies
and errors. They knew about dishonesty -- inventing data -- in their
own ranks and covered up for the crooks.

COMMENT: Conspiracy, what else?

6. They emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of
concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.

COMMENT: Conspiring to lie to the public, who are their paymasters.
(No conspiracy without arrogance!)

7. They privately expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all
of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any
statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling
for
nine years. They privately admitted that their inability to explain
it
was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public
lies that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global
warming” science is settled.

COMMENT: How can a group decision, carried on in writing (!), to hide
the truth in so serious a matter not be a conspiracy?

8. They interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning
on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists
to
review their papers.

COMMENT: Conspiracy to entrench their lies.

9. They successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject
papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.

COMMENT: Conspiracy against open, transparent, falsifiable science.
This should by itself be enough to run them out of the profession.

10. They campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor,
solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and
corrupt science for political purposes.

COMMENT: The planning phase of this, revealled in the Climategate
emails, is clearly a conspiracy against free speech and scientific
principles.

11. They mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and
denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had
expensively created.

COMMENT: The Climategate Papers make clear that this too was
orchestrated behind the scenes. Conspiracy. (Businessmen who even
*met* for this purpose would be liable to go to jail for conspiracy,
even without the further proof of executing the plan.)

12. Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team
committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to
destroy computer codes and data that was legitimately requested by an
external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their
“research” was either honest or competent.

COMMENT: Open and shut case: method, mechanism, confession in the
Climategate e-mails.

****
So, tell us, Weiner, which of these actions is not conspiratorial?
Let's see you "hide the decline", indeed the utter dissolution, of
scientific ethics in an entire branch of science, paleoclimatology.
This scum of paleoclimatologists lied and lied and lied about global
warming for entirely personal and political reasons, They conspired
against the principles of science. They confessed to these
conspiracies in the e-mails setting up the conspiracies. What more is
required to consign them and their meretricious works to jail?

Andre Jute
*Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar

No surprises here but..............just because Mark Fuhrman messed up
the evidence (chain of custody) doesn't mean that OJ didn't commit
murder. He got away with it that's all. Its a good idea to stick to
the actual (reliable) data (GLWT) and do not be misled by the fudge
makers or even use what they did as evidence against GW. Conspiracies
happen in complete isolation of the facts, sometimes agreeing and
sometimes not. I'm a skeptic of knowing for sure what will really
happen in the short term to Global Climate (next century).

I guess this is why Andre thinks he can pull off this anal-expulsive
ranting here (where it obviously belongs) in the land of bicycles and
amplifiers: *Because the ecosystem is not likely to melt down
completely in his lifetime.


Nope. Because manmade global warming is an artificial, man-made panic,
like the hole in the ozone layer, the banning of DDT, and the freezing
scare of the 1970s, all of them manmade panics. I can go up on the
hill and look down on an abbey my family sacked three times during the
Medieval Warm Period, which by itself gives global warming the lie.
I'm not planning on doing anything to shorten my family's future.

(He makes it abundantly clear every day that he's too loopy to give a
**** how stupid his legacy looks on the stone sober objective internet
archives.)

Eh? Poor Dan seems to assume that everyone wants to be a "good fellow"
and be seen to belong to the majority on the net, even if they're
wrong. Put your mind in gear, Danno, and open your eyes and ears; not
every cyclist is as impressionable as the RBT global warmies.

I'm a professional intellectual. Speaking hard truths comes with the
territory. I don't need to be popular, only to be both true and right.
i have decades of experience of being right and seeing the climate
catatrophists proved wrong and disgraced. Global warming is just
another in a long, long, depressing line of touted catastrophes that
didn't arrive and that the public gradually came to disbelieve. Global
warming was once a clever scam, but that was all it ever was.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

[Tim McNamara]

"Selection" is exactly the right word.