Examinator,

For the umpteenth time – whatever umpteen is – this is NOT, repeat NOT, one more time, NOT, primarily about anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Get that?

This is NOT about AGW.

There is a mountain of evidence supporting AGW.

This is about the INTEGRITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROCESS. The emails indicate that some scientists, at times, fudged their results and tried to suppress data.

No there is no smoking gun. But there is plenty of smoke. To put it another way, there is a prima facie case for some fudging. Anyone who pretends it ain't so does science a disservice.

That is why an enquiry is needed. If some scientists did fudge their results, did deny access to data, then we need to know about it and the scientists concerned need to be sacked.

I repeat, this is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT about AGW.

Get that?

NOT about AGW.

It is about preserving the credibility of science. It is about demonstrating to the world that cases of fudging, of denying access to data, of trying to bully publication into refusing papers, will not be tolerated.

I do not know how to make that clearer examinator. If you won’t see it, then you won't.

As it happens I have been corresponding with two Australian climate scientists. Both have argued for an open and transparent enquiry. Both agree that evidence for fudging needs to be taken seriously.

Bronwyn,

In the article you quoted, George Monbiot called for Phil Jones of the CRU to step down. I endorse that sentiment

extracted
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=5431

Pascal Lamy..admits that global governance..is an abstract and distant idea...Historically,especially with the United States and its libertarian roots,..governance is local and familiar with the people and their needs.

He states,..“In sum,..the specific challenge of legitimacy in global governance..is to deal with the perceived too-distant,..non-accountable..and non-directly challengeable...lol..decision-making at the international level.”

Ultimately,..Lamy sees the United Nations..playing a central role in global governance,..with the G20 and other international groups reporting...directly to the “parliament”..of the UN.

This beginning stage,..according to Lamy,..will eventually condense into a solid..world government.

via..“Menace/of a new war”

Global and regional governance..faces another problem,..specifically the fact that without the perception of an outside threat..the coherence of the system falls apart...Lamy states,

“The anthropological dimension of supranationality..has probably been underestimated...Once the imminence of the menace..of a new war/read threat..has disappeared from our horizon,..it is as if the glue that holds Europe together/as a community will also disappear...As if there were..no common myths,..delusions/dreams and aspirations.”

Lamy goes on..to admit that,..“…We are witnessing a growing distance between European public opinions..and the European project.”

Despite popular resistance,..the establishment is continuing its agenda...Outside of war,..global warming hysteria is,..as the 1991 Club of Rome report/..The First Global Revolution proposed,

a unifying threat – or perhaps more appropriately a unifying myth,..as Lamy stated – that..the global government..needs to maintain any veil of legitimacy.

The Club of Rome report states,

“In searching for a new enemy..to unite us,..we came up with the idea that pollution,..the threat of global warming,..water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….

All these dangers are..able to be/caused..by human intervention…

The real enemy,..then,..is humanity itself.”

Herman Van Rompuy has stated..that the upcoming Copenhagen climate change treaty “…is another step towards the global management..of our planet.”..Additionally,..the anthropogenic global warming theory will give the global government a taxing mechanism..on a world-wide scale.

http://oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/wto_director_general.htm

noted the next...combo..sars/birdflueplague...attempt to genocide the people..has surfaced in the field test..''worse than birdflue''..just in time to redirect the sheeple

http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=5306

More from George Monbiot:

"...But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

"Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed."

Later in the comments he writes:

"I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely."

contrarian2 makes the following comment:

"But if the science is that "settled," why refuse to disclose the data? If global warming so obvious and incontrovertible, why be in such a panic about FOI, why talk openly about re-defining "peer review", why threaten to (or actually) delete data?"

Monbiot's reply:

"I agree. It is exactly for those reasons that Phil Jones should resign. There's a word for his lack of openness and control of the data: unscientific".

Real scientist simply do not behave like Phil Jones.

I wholeheartedly endorse Monbiot's stance on this matter.

Examinator,

So should you.

The Penny Wong/Kerry O’Brien Double Act? Watching the 7:30 Report with baited breath for the last two nights for some recognition that even last weeks big news actually existed, we were rewarded in the dying seconds of the interview with a “Dorothy” question from Kerry to Penny asking for comment on the publication of emails from the CRU? To paraphrase the response, “well Kerry, we rely upon our own scientists and especially the CSRIO”

Really? So is this tacit recognition by Penny that the CRU and IPCC scientists no longer merit support from the Australian Government? Does this ignore the fact that the emails indicate collusion between the CRU and the CSIRO as indicated by Australia’s WWF request to provide “beefed up” reports with copies to the CSIRO so they could provide supporting public comment?

One has to question why a publicly funded broadcaster is choking on significant aspects of the news and seeking to trivialize content. Is this not precisely one of the crimes leveled at the CRU?

Perhaps we can look to the BBC in the UK for an answer? Under an FOIA request, investigators have discovered policy that facilitates coverage of the “crime” aspect of the email hacking story whilst allowing discretion to censor that which they perceive to be lack of balance.

There are many intuitors and pragmatists within our society, such people have built in “bulldustometers”. It is not the content of topics that triggers scepticism; it is the way it is “sold”. This is a classic example of how destructive proponents of “the great causes” can be.

Sadly, such “causes” do merit public concern and sometimes action. The evangelical, in your face, fervor and manipulation that drives the “protest industry” is, for many, a skeptic generator.

When will emotively driven proponents realize, “that which they seek to avoid, they create”

What a sad, lost soul you are Kerry

Bazz: "What disappoints me is that those that believe in AGW are so set in their beliefs they are not concerned about the emails."

The answer has been given in other threads, and I am sure you have read it.

I personally find it hard to be excited by this is there is going to be a long wait see the effect they have on the science - if any. Short of one of the authors of published papers coming out and saying "I made it all up" the steps are roughly:

- The raw data still has to be prised out of them.
- Someone has to analyse it.
- They then have to write up their results and get them published.
- Some consensus has to develop over the conflicting interpretations so we plebs can see what the end effect is.

That will take literally years. This of course assumes they haven't given other independent groups access to their data. I know they didn't make it publicly available, but if others have had a poke at it and said nothing, then odds are very high the published papers based on the data are sound.

And just to repeat what was said elsewhere: the IPCC bases its conclusions on the published scientific papers, not emails. The talking air-heads will of course have fun with the emails, as that is the level they operate at. But it is not the level people who intend their work to last lifetimes, such as science and engineering, operate at. The hot air created by the talking heads will dissipate within a couple of months.

Steven,
I accept your point but I doubt that many others are seeing it that way, my last couple of posts were to you as a neutral party (a vector). I was focused on the feeding the deniers reason to continue their blind ally reasoning. sorry.

To your point: *On the surface* it does have merit.

But in the absence of full evidence and context, I reserve my opinion.

Clearly you and I differ (in nuance) on issues of 'right (?)' to know, 'absolute' freedom of speech, 'public interests' and where they intersect with society's needs.

We appear to differ is the concept of 'absolutes'...I simply don't believe they are any more than theoretical constructs, aspirational goals. You don't.

IMHO The world would dissolve into anarchy without some sense of WIP secrecy.

I suggest (contextual) perspective should be be a factor in considering guilt and opprobrium. Which appears to be neglected in this topic.

*NB That doesn't mean I am either condoning or excusing unethical behaviour.*

There are two issues of which I need some convincing in this case.

- That any 'action' has actually taken place. Suggesting, something is hardly a crime except in national terrorism. i.e. My views on people with cats near wildlife areas and what I'd like to do to them is hardly a secret but to this date, I haven't done any of them.

As I understand the the IPCC report it is a synthesis an executive summary including overall conclusions if you like, of published information at that date.
Therefore, is there any proof that the separate behaviour of Mr Jones actually attempting to compromise the IPCC report? If not these emails are totally irrelevant and any breach of ethics could be better handled by peer judgement/academia.

I also have difficulty of the absurd notion that (mass) opinions without effort, context and all the information is any more than titivated prejudice and mob rule. To me all rights come with equal an opposite responsibility to be as fully informed as possible. Something sadly missing in most public debates. Pax?