"Deliverables"

[GreyGeek]

A year ago a whistle blower at the Center for Climate Research in Britain released a 75MB zip file, FOIA.ZIP, which contained 1,072 emails over a 10 year period, right up to a week before the file was posted anonymously on line. Those files were incriminating, to say the least.

Also included in the file were the contracts the CCR signed with the UN. In them the CCR promised certain "Deliverables" by certain dates (milestones). The "deliverables" were to be the "proofs" of anthropomorphic global warming. That any scientist could guarantee the delivery of proofs of a scientific hypothesis is wrong on so many levels it speaks of hubris and arrogance in previously unheard proportions. Why? We assume an hypothesis to be right, otherwise why test it with an experiment? But, a million experiments cannot prove an hypothesis right, but it takes only one to prove it wrong. In fact, in good science, an operational definition while include an experiment designed to prove an hypothesis wrong, NOT right. In fact, the null hypothesis can never be proven. The data collected from an experiment can only reject a null hypothesis or not. So, you can understand my surprise that the CCR would guarantee the delivery of AGW proofs at all, to say nothing of delivering those "proofs" by a certain date.

That brings me to the topic of this post.
Someone posted a document online: http://t.co/tQqg9erW
It is a document which outlines a pitch to the American Bankers Association, a front group, to counter the Democrats use of the Occupy Wall Street protesters as political pawns to help re-elect Pres. Obama. Notice the FIVE "Deliverables" mentioned, and what these hucksters are promising to deliver. Three of them promise to produce results which no one could guarantee would be favorable to the hucksters unless rigged.

Claiming that the OWS protesters should be treated as "very nimble, capable of working the media, coordinating 3rd party support, and engaging office holders to do their bidding." their first "deliverable" proposes to counter them by "doing the same". Just like the CCR, they plan to "deliver" a 1,000 voter survey to serve as a benchmark. Not that delivering pre-determined polls results is something new. Microsoft and other corporations do it all the time. So do politicians. However, there is always the hint of deniability. The linked document is a smoking gun.

[eggbert]

Re: &quoteliverables"

The linked document is a smoking gun.

Errm, I would not say that quite yet. I seem to remember another "smoking gun" document during the 2004 election that turned out to be a complete fraud.

[woodsmoke]

Re: &quoteliverables"

GG

The "deliverables" on AGW is just stunning, but then considering that Phil Jones ADMITTED that he "lost the AGW data" and that there has been no warming since 1995 this is just a reinforcement of the great scam that it all was.

One question might be why he gave the interview to the Mail in Britain and not a single media outlet in the U.S. asked for an interview. hmmm

I may be including this in my lecture on AGW in a few weeks. As you know GG, I provide BOTH sides of the situation and let the students decide. And, as opposed to other teachers I do NOT provide a bunch of multiple choice questions in which the students have to "choose a side", of course, for the other teachers there is only one, correct, side.

I merely have one question on my exam about it:

14) Are you aware that there are two sides to the discussion about AGW? (note, the correct answer is "yes")
a) yes b) no

I look forward to a FULL INVESTIGATION as to whether the above "deliverables" information on the OWS is a) "real" b) reported on the national news. BUT I am not going to hold my breath about it.

woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

Re: &quoteliverables"

Woodsmoke,
The whistleblower who released the FOIA.ZIP file in 2009 has released another one. This one contains 5,000 emails and has another 220,000 emails behind a password. It includes a "Readme.txt" file which I posted in another msg. Amazing.

[de_koraco]

Re: &quoteliverables"

Woodsmoke,
The whistleblower who released the FOIA.ZIP file in 2009 has released another one. This one contains 5,000 emails and has another 220,000 emails behind a password. It includes a "Readme.txt" file which I posted in another msg. Amazing.

Remember the chair of the Climate Report faking his stats about glacier melting in order to get additional millions for research? I loled so hard, and still do any time a global warming freak starts reciting grants that the "skeptics" get from Big Oil. As for this thread, I do hope (for you guys and the rest of the world) that His Presidential Highness doesn't get another term. the GOPhers have their problems, especially with rampant cronyism, but nothing tends to bring the US, and the rest of the world by extension, to the brink of default as the So... Democrat Party.

[bsniadajewski]

Re: &quoteliverables"

I wanna ask something.

Do you guy think global warming/climate change is happening? ( is real?)

If so, how much is anthropogenic ( man-made)?

Disclaimer: I accept GW reality, and human have something to do with it in this round, but not all (climate change has happened before.)

[woodsmoke]

Re: &quoteliverables"

bsniadajewski

I commend to your consideration several items.

a) the man at the center of AGW stated in an interview in Britain, not the U.S.( I wonder why) that there is not global warming and that he.... was messy with his data(he either LOST or FORMATTED the ONLY hard drive with the data on it...I guess he is so smart that he never heard of a USB stick or a cdrw)

AGAIN I must ask, why was this man interviewed in Britain by the Mail and not the BBC and why has the man not been interviewed in the U.S. by even ONE station.

I would AT LEAST think that PBS ....the people who SAY they are SO....fair and impartial....would at least ask the man ONE question... but no.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...organised.html

b) Please consider the following graphical representation and note that it was produced BY the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: IPCC.

[img width=400 height=270]http://www.iceagenow.com/Medieval%20Warm%20Period1.jpg[/img]

Please consider this painting from the book "Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates". It was written about what happened in 1880, the river Thames frozen over, in the upper half of the temps of the "little ice age".



Please consider this painting by the Flemish artist van Heil...it is called THE PLEASURES of winter and was painted in the beginning of the little ice age.

[img width=400 height=284]http://france.intofineart.com/upload1/file-admin/images/new3/Daniel%20van%20Heil2.jpg[/img]

Notice that when KING ARTHUR was jousting in all that HEAVY ARMOUR....that he was doing it in temperatures that were almost TWO degrees higher than now and we are supposed to DESTROY THE U.S. economy over a half degree rise?

Now, I would like for you to sit and try to remember something.

How many times have you heard a PRO GW person say ON TELEVISION.. that the temperature this year is the highest in recorded history?

It has been said hundreds of times on all of the main television stations, including PBS.

And the person is correct.

"This year" IS the highest temperature recoreded.

Because it is certainly about two degrees higher than the temperature when they started recording temperatures....at the end of the little ice age.

The people lie in their teeth and the reporters know it, and the pro global warming scientists know it, and everybody who has actually LOOKED at Flemish art and the graph knows it.

This knowledge has been around since AT LEAST the fifties because I TAUGHT it in the sixties...

There was not a lot of carbon dioxide being put into the air by humans in the 1700s.

The IPCC people KNOW this and they thought that they could somehow get this huge scam past an uneducated, and unthinking and

ILL EDUCATED U.S. public.

They did it for a while but the tide is changing and it is all because they think that they are smarter than you, and me and all the rest of the people. The "smarter than thous" may have more "book learning" but they are not smarter than anybody else.

Pride goeth before a fall.

The only problem is that they are not going to "fall" in the U.S. because the media in the U.S. are going to just make all of this go away .

woodsmoke

[woodsmoke]

Re: &quoteliverables"

Please, AFTER you read my above post go to this video at YouTube and watch it, it is not what you think, and it is fun.

And then think about what I said about the scientists and politicians who say regularly that "this year is the highest temperature in recorded history".

Again, it is ok and fun.

http://youtu.be/Ahg6qcgoay4

think about it.

woodsmoke

[de_koraco]

Re: &quoteliverables"

Disclaimer: I accept GW reality,

The only reality is that there has been an increase in temperature readings in the last 50 years or so. Even the readings can be put into question, due to measurement methodology, but nevermind. The rest is just money. I forget what the asking price for "combating climate change" nowadays is, 40 trillion in the next 20 years?

[bsniadajewski]

Re: &quoteliverables"

True, money will find its way into anything, even to foul up scientific research to make as complicated as the BCS system in college football. But, I trust scientists a hell of a lot more than politicians from either side of the aisle, and a great majority scientists around the world say there is GW; the question becomes how much are we (humans) to do with it, and how do we fix it up, if possible? Now, it's also good to have skeptics too to question the research. it's how science is able to advance. (darn, it's hard to type fast and think at the same time) AS to the asking price, I'm not qualified to answer since I am not an expert on that stuff. Granted, some of recommended actions like moving to renewable energies like solar is still prohibitively expensive for most of us, it is still good to go those energies if only to lessen out dependence on fossil fuels, which in turn, may lessen FF's impact on out environment. It is said that we are stewards of the Earth, here to take care of it.

IF we could keep all the corruption and what-not out of climate science as has been written about, we can get a much clearer picture of what is really going on and we can do, if anything, to help fix our part of it.

[de_koraco]

Re: &quoteliverables"

But, I trust scientists a hell of a lot more than politicians from either side of the aisle, and a great majority scientists around the world say there is GW;

A great majority of scientists in the climatology field, ie the ones who stand to gain most if ever increasing funds are funneled into more research. I mean, it's not like there's a global pow-wow of all scientists in the world, who sit down and come to a consensus. What's been pretty obvious is that the "scientific approach" in the last 15 years or so has been tainted to the core. It's the Hegelian method - we agree that there is a "phenomenon" of global warming (or climate change as is hip these days), and all the data is meant to solidify that idea.

[dibl]

Re: &quoteliverables"

Please, AFTER you read my above post go to this video at YouTube and watch it, it is not what you think, and it is fun.

Heh heh heh -- cute, woody, very cute!

[woodsmoke]

Re: &quoteliverables"

Hi bsniadajewski

Please let me ask a couple of questions.

You wrote:
*****************
and a great majority scientists around the world say there is GW.
*****************

We have all heard the sentence that goes something like this:

The majority of scientists believe in global warming.

So the couple of questions.

a) For a scientist to "accept as a theory" he or she really has to have done actual research on it.

i) There is little "data" to support global warming, it is a MODEL. and there are quite a few models.

There are, at present, at least 7 (seven) workable models of weather. The one use to promote AGW DISCOUNTS solar activity as if it were almost not there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model

Please see also GGs post on the leaked e-mails in which a person says that they NEED to disciount solar activity.

A MODEL produces a graph. The part of the graph which is based on real data is the only part that is "known" the rest is a "prediction" and what is never talked about is that there are ALWAYS three predictions, upward, level off, and down.

The e-mails, again, reveal that they always chose the upward trend and ignored the other two.

So.....to get to the question. Since there are only a FEW climate scientists, all of the other scientists that SAY, or BELIEVE in AGW must necessarily.....

be doing what?

accepting the word of another person or an article in a magazine or a video etc.

in other words they do not KNOW there is AGW.......they BELIEVE in it.

b) Ok so next question.

How does a scientist move from BELIEVING in AGW, or anything else?

waiting....

The answer is to SEE THE DATA.

Unfortunately.....the fellow that started it all.. Phil Jones....entered into CONFIDIENTALITY AGREEMENTS that did not ALLOW HIM ....to SHOW THE DATA.

Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into.

Ok so.... we live in a leagalistic world, at least let the scientists see the AGREEMENTS....

Unfortunately no.....he can't produce a copy of the agreement....

so...if there is no document.....how do we even know he "entered into an agreement"...

Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:

"Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept."

WHAT!!!

Scientific data cannot be publicly released? WHAT!!!?

In FACT.....as stated in a previous post....

Jones ADMITS.......that he has LOST ALL OF THE DATA.....

So third question.

c) yes....we should be able to trust scientists more than politicians.

But.....would YOU trust a doctor that told you that you should have your left hand removed if he did not show you the data that indicated why he should do so?

I think not.

d) ok what about the actual data that we CAN get at.

The e-mails indicate that the people at CRU(formerly HADCRUT) in Britain, this is Phil Jones, "massaged" the data to produce "value added data".

WHAT? WHAT? Data is Data..... if I working on disturbed forest area ...MASSAGED my data I would have been laughed out of the presentation.

Since Phil Jones....LOST his data...

Here is the data from Australia.

Here is what the "massaged" data looked like in a graph.

[img width=400 height=180]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2009/11/Kiwigraph1.jpg[/img]

Here is "just the data" graphed.

[img width=400 height=258]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2009/11/Kiwigraph2.jpg[/img]

Now the question.....

Do you think that it is ok for a scientist to form an opinion about something when they see the "raw data"?

Of course you do.

But....can a scientist really form a valid opinion when someone else has CHANGED the presentation of the data?

Let me restate that.

If you as a scientist cannot actually SEE the data that made a graph, then you have to accept what the graph says on FAITH that the maker of the graph just did a graph of the data...right?

I think we can all agree on that.

Well, apparently, from the two graphs, the scientists who SAY that they BELIEVE in AGW were presented with GRAPHS that had been made from data that was "massaged".

As to "most scientists" saying AGW is correct, here is a site hosting the petition by over 31,000 scientists that say they do NOT believe in AGW.

And that was in 2008.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Here is a list, at Wikipedia, of mainstream scientists who object to AGW AND their particular objection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

Now, according to some sources there are, supposedly, about 6 billion scientists in the world.

But MOST of them do not work in "climate work"...

They have to accept the word of another scientists, or read a report or look at a graph.

For 3000 scientists to go on record with a petition and for major scientists to go on record at Wikipedia and show why they do not accept AGW,....

I leave it to the reader as to whether "most" scientists accept AGW as a real theory that they KNOW and work with or whether they are accepting the word of someone else, or a graph.

woodsmoke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p344.htm
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...shame-deepens/
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...g-east-anglia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

[bsniadajewski]

Re: &quoteliverables"

Hence I only think we are only partly to "blame" for any change that is happening. Looking at the page for Global Climate Model (which I have currently on another FF tab, I can see that one of the models (HadCM3 ) shows that if greenhouse gas emissions and economic growth patterns continue, the avg. temperature would go up ~3C (5.4F). But then again, anything can, well, change. We are quite an unpredictable species.

@de_koraco

Yes we do agree that GW "phenomenon" exists, but the big question that is (still) being asked is how much are we to do with the phenomenon. I think one of the best ways to deal with it is to move to cleaner energy sources, but I fear that all the best methods to access them are being locked up by the big energy, who make plenty of money from fossil fuels, in patents to prevent those alternative energy sources from being used and cut into their bottom line by making then more affordable to use by regular folk.

BTW to all ... Dzień Szczęśliwy Dziękczynienia ( Happy Thanksgiving Day)

[GreyGeek]

Re: &quoteliverables"

...
I trust scientists a hell of a lot more than politicians from either side of the aisle, and a great majority scientists around the world say there is GW;
.....

I don't. There is as much self-serving in science as there is in politics. For example, most new technology was/is discovered or fleshed out on university research grants. When the scientist being paid by public tax money to do the research makes a key break-through, they often conceal that break-through, resign from university or government research, start a corporation and then get a patent or license on the technology for pennies on the dollar. Then, using information they learned on the tax-payer's dime, they complete the research, bring the product to market, and charge a ransom for the license fees. This is especially true in biological research.

There is a NOVA film called "Do Scientists Cheat?" Watch it you will see just how much they cheat. It cited figures produced by two researchers who reviewed the PhD work and publications of over 2,000 scientists and also those reported by whistle blowers. Their conclusion: 48% of all scientific research involves cooking, trimming, or actual falsifying of data.

Walter Stewart and Ned Feder, two scientists from the NIH who did the study, and many others and became experts on fraud and plagiarism, were transferred to isolated government offices as "program analysts", working on various "science-writing projects". for the NIDDK. Of the several people who were documented whistle blowers,many later said they wouldn't say anything if they saw cheating again because their career was punished more than the cheaters careers were.


Part of the FOIA.ZIP file released in 2009 was a text file called HARRY_README.txt". You can download it from here. Search through it for the common cuss words, and the "F" word, which are liberally sprinkled in regions of that file where the dismal state of the data used to generate the "proofs" are. It even documents the complete fabrication of temperature data between 1960 & 1990 because the data they had didn't perform the way they wanted it to.
That text file is an eye opener. So are many of the 1,072 emails in the 2009 release. I haven't looked at the 2011 file, but the Readme.txt file has lots of head shakers in it.