[Andre Jute[_2_]]

On Dec 1, 4:59*am, "
wrote:

There's a lot of people who work on
atmospheric science, ocean temperatures, so on and so forth.
There are probably a significantly smaller number of
people who work on historical reconstructions of the
long term climate record of the specific type that
Michael Mann and this CRU did (honestly, before this
scandal, I had never heard of the CRU, which suggests they
are not as central as it is now fashionable to say, but I am not
in the field). *

It is precisely the centrality of the work of Mann, Jones, Wang and
the other historical climate statisticians that makes their crooked
methods so controversial. You see, Ben, this is what I've been trying
to explain to you, that in the presence of the Medieval Warming Period
and the Little Ice Age in the earth's recent history there can be no
global warming, just a normal uptrend from the LIA with normal
variability around a rising trendline, probably for another century or
two. Until temperatures rise well above those in the MWP -- and we're
a long, long way from there -- there is no cause for alarm.

Global warming only exists because of lies like Michael Mann's hockey
stick, which with statistical dishonesties flattened the Medieval Warm
Period and Little Ice Age out of existence and thus made the decade of
the 1990s look like a sudden uptrend whereas in the historical
perspective it is just another unremarkable variation around a slight
upward slope.

That is why these scientists are so important: because they are the
only ones who can make global warming possible.

You are also wrong about their importance being only recently noticed.
Many of us who object to this sort of statistical crookery have been
saying so for decades. The lie that the MWP and LIA were euro-centric,
which you too told, perhaps because you were misinformed, is given the
lie in every other science. It is only in climatology that Mann and
Jones and the others, with their long-since discredited hockey stick,
find any acceptance at all. And Mann was described as incompetent
before the US Senate under oath by both Wegman and North, who
respectively led two panels of the NAS. (That would have been enough
in any other profession to get him thrown out. But not in
climatology...)

Of course Wegman and even McIntyre only pointed to incompetence but
many of us have long suspected, from the surrounding unscientific
practices and public persecutions, that a conspiracy to cook the
figures was at work behind the scenes. The Climategate e-mails prove
that the crucial hockey stick was not the result of mere statistical
incompetence but something worse: deliberate scientific fraud for a
political cause. More, it proves that the fraud was not confined to
one or two individuals but was endemic in this branch of climatology.
Even worse, it wasn't just endemic, it was the result of a conspiracy.
(Wegman, in his report, already hinted at conspiracy when he discussed
the collusionist "peer review" procedures of this clique. He
identified them by name. We've known all along who the plotters were.
Climategate isn't a revelation, it is merely proof by confession.)

I repeat the point: Without Jones and Mann by statistical tricks
flattening the MWP and the LIA, *there not only is no global warming,
there cannot be global warming for a very long time*.

Without the presumption of global warming, there is no need to look
for a cause for a non-existent problem. Thus there is no need for
policy to control the scapegoat CO2.

This whole charade only works in the presence of a whole raft of
special pleadings for climatology which every other science would and
has rejected with contempt (see Wegman before the Senate, supported by
North). There's the precautionary principle which demands action on
assumptions not subject to proof, there is the rejection of cost-
benefit analysis which allows all kinds of hysterical pressures to
direct policy, there's the continued reliance on totally discredited
work (Jones, Mann, Wang, etc, etc, etc, nauseatingly -- for small
branch of a small science, it sometimes seems as if everyone in it is
a crook) which actually removes the entire basis of the "science" of
global warming for the reasons given above, there is the withholding
of data, the persecution of critics, the bullying false claims of
"consensus" (as if science is decided by vote!), etc, etc, etc --
excuse me while I vomit in disgust. In no real science would this
hysterical crap be permitted.

However, I don't work on any of this stuff,
and I do understand some of the physics involved
(radiative transfer in stratified atmospheres, infrared
radiation and so on), and so do about a jillion other
physicists.

Well, of course you do. But if there is no global warming because we
actually live in a cool period (including the 1990s and specifically
including 1998), then the work is of merely academic interest.

I'm not qualified to write or review
articles on historical reconstruction of temperatures,

Statistical procedures are common across the sciences. That's how we
caught out Mann, Jones, Wang and other crooks.

but I can understand the parts of climate science that
have to do with anthropogenic radiative forcing, and
it is not going to go away no matter how many pies
they take in the face in East Anglia.

Once more, unless you can first prove that there is global warming --
and there is prima facie evidence easily understood by the man in the
street that there is none -- you can make all kinds of contortions
about CO2 and it will still be of only academic interest. (There is
also the small problem of CO2 emissions throughout history lagging
temperature rise, not leading it.)

*If I and all the other
scientists are wrong, it will be quite obvious of order
40 years from now, manifesting itself in things like
changing growing seasons, plant and animal ranges,
glacier disappearance, and so on. *

Oh, crap. These things have changed radically through history, even in
recent history. Human agriculture in the modern form wasn't even
established until the opportunity of the last "global warming" of the
Medieval Warm Period. Perhaps they should give you guys a compulsory
course in economic history before they let you loose on science.

All of these are happening
now, I just picked 40 years because there are fluctuations
on decade-long timescales to average over.

Of course they're happening. They happen all the time. They're
entirely natural. It is hubris of the highest order to attempt to fix
the planet in your image, Ben.

The fact that Clive Crook is full of doubt now
reflects the success of climate change skeptics in
laying down a base of mistrust. *

Actually, the big success in turning misinformation into a religion --
witness the agony of the committed like Max Otter who writes here as
Landotter -- was the IPCC's when they made a beneficial gas (CO2) that
is food for plants the bogeyman in an event that didn't even happen
(global warming) and persuaded a frightened populace to spend
trillions on combating it.

Honestly, it's way too
hard to organize scientists to do anything even when
justified, let alone organize a conspiracy of deception.

That bandwagon had powerful incentives, like not being published, like
being seen to buck a much-touted "consensus", like being seen to be a
reactionary, and much more.

More from Ben snipped; he's either got the point by now or he hasn't.

Hope this clarifies the matter for you, Ben.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html