Just thought I'd post one of the "innocent" CRU emails; this time its not about faking data its about getting money from Big Oil.

From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o'riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the agenda,but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
etc. By email? In person?

I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!

I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's within the remit.
Regards
Mick
______________________________________________
Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/

I don't know how many people are aware of this, but submissions to the next IPCC report from Australian scientists have to be approved by the Australian government. I seriously doubt any submission by Ian Plimer would get a look in. This is supposed to be a transparent process? What a joke. Any submissions to a supposedly "scientific" organisation are vetted by a lefty government.

viking13 has a point, though he has it ass backwards.

look at the governments involved. you honestly think these governments WANT to believe in AGW? you think they WANT to respond to it? don't be ridiculous! in the short term it's hugely politically difficult. they've clearly been doing all they could to AVOID admitting the obvious, to avoid doing anything of substance.

the idea that the world's governments are now part of some global lefty conspiracy or delusion is insane, even beyond the standard level of OLO denialist insanity. if there was ANY substantial scientific doubt, they'd be grabbing at it with both hands. the world's governments are convinced because they have no choice, because there is no reasonable scientific doubt.

but, i don't expect a single one of you morons to take note. you have no clue and you don't want to have a clue. you cherrypick this, cherrypick that, and it all amounts to smelling your own farts.

the fact of the matter is the scientific method works, the climatologist community has more integrity than the groups lined up in opposition, and MUCH more integrity than the pompous pseudoscientists some of you drag out. and the fact of the matter is, these climatologists, through THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed papers, are sure as they can be that AGW is real, and a real, huge problem.

and what do you have in response to this overwhelming scientific opinion? garbage. cherrypicked garbage. give it up. go back to moonlanding conspiracies or 9/11 conspiracies, but give this up. you're not galileos, you're not poppers, you're just dumb twats ignoring the obvious.

The key question is not whether;

1. Some denialists are fraudulently fabricating data and numbers (some of them do, some do not), or
2. Some climate scientists panick and wish to prevent publications by denialists (perhaps similar to the way medical doctors object to publications which suggest "smoking is good for your health".

THE KEY QUESTION IS WHETHER DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING OR NOT.

There are too many who do not understand atmospheric physics and chemistry which underlie climate change. There are also those who do not wish to understand or care.

Those who care should:

1. Perhaps even read basic text books in climatology.
2. Try and understand climate reports such as the IPCC AR4-2007 and by the Department of Climate Change.
3. Watch the BBC program/video http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/757.html
demonstrating the impasse caused by the combination of emitted sulphur aerosols and carbon particulates, causing "global dimming", and the emitted greenhouse heat-trapping gases.

Cheap ad-hominem abuse of environmentalists and scientists is hardly a substitute to an intelligent debate.

Cheap ad-hominem abuse of environmentalists and scientists is hardly a substitute to an intelligent debate.

Tell that to your bushie mate above, who has a backwards looking donkey.

viking13

1) i'm not answerable for andrew and andrew is not answerable for me.

2) i said in a previous thread that what andrew was trying to do here was pointless. it is well-intentioned, but it is pointless. it is pointless because one doesn't argue difficult science in 300 word grabs. but more importantly it is pointless because there is absolutely nothing andrew can say which will convince you guys. nothing.

3) and you damn well know it. you all know it. NONE of you are in the business of good faith arguing, of honest weighing of the evidence. you are nothing more than anti-science conspiratorial loons.

4) ad hominem? if i were arguing the science then it would be ad hominem. but i'm not.
my argument is that you guys are anti-science conspiratorial loons. the evidence is this thread, and every other OLO thread on AGW. the evidence is the continual denigration of a whole scientific community, the continual cherrypicking of data, the continual absence of anything even remotely related to a substantive argument.

my argument is about you and your crazy mates. to harp on your craziness is not ad hominem: it's the central point.