Thanks for sharing Wendy. I have a feeling
@T J is going to take issue with some of it lol.
Such propaganda bull-oney regarding the climate situation, which is loaded with misdirection, misrepresentation and outright falsehoods. But that is what propagandists do... they mislead the ignorant.
Note that the propagandists use the false term "denier." It's an anti-science propaganda term used to trigger their ignorant followers to stop thinking. That's not science, it is political propaganda. It and other propaganda terms are focus grouped and selected as terms that can mislead, emotionally inflame and falsely misrepresent the high road of honest scientific reviews.
Science is based upon rational, logical, independent review of claims via the Scientific Method. That is the basis for Skeptical review of alarmist and unsupportable climate claims. Skeptical review of claims is the high road and the Solid foundation of science, against those with anti-science agendas.
Ironically the chief "denier" was Michael Mann and a web of about 43 "climate scientists."
They were the ones saying via the debunked Hockey Stick Graph, that climate didn't change for a thousand years, until humans intervened. Rational Skeptical Scientists dragged them kicking and screaming toward the fact that Climate is always changing. Research has been presented that most of the last 10,000 years were warmer than some of our recent temps.
Mann and his climate cabal of some 43 key climateeers were outed as using the same bad data and the same debunked, fabricated statistical techniques that were laughably wrong. They "pal reviewed" each other's studies in inbred fashion, when they were all using the same unsupportable claims. The former statistical head of the National Academy of Sciences (whatever the proper title would be), headed a review committee that agreed with professional statistical analysis debunking Mann's claims.
This propaganda piece is full of falsehoods.
One may be that the PSU professor is a Nobel Prize winner. The corrupt "climate scientists" were spreading so much false info, the Nobel Prize committee itself issued an international "slap-down" of the "climate scientists'" false claims, documenting that their claims (like Michael Mann's claim) of winning a Nobel Prize, were false.
=========
Regarding data integrity problems within the climate cabal... from a review of the "climate scientists" ClimateGate Scam information...
Can anyone recall any climate skeptic, anywhere, ever demanding the deletion of climate data?
Much of the battle between skeptics and climate organisations has been about compelling reluctant climate researchers to release data which they wanted to hide. Skeptics have consistently demanded more access to data, not less.
For example, consider Climategate email 1106338806.txt from Professor
Phil Jones, former head of the prestigious UK based
Climatic Research Unit.
From: Phil Jones
To: Tom Wigley
Subject: Re: FOIA
Date: Fri Jan 21 15:20:06 2005
Cc: Ben Santer
Tom,
I’ll look at what you’ve said over the weekend re CCSP.
I don’t know the other panel members. I’ve not heard any
more about it since agreeing a week ago.
As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she
will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University.
I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get
used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well.
Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people,
so I will be hiding behind them.
I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.
Cheers
Phil
Plenty more where that email came from – lots of discussions in the Climategate archive
of legal tricks to avoid
Freedom of Information requests,
use of UN mandates to avoid national law based FOIA requests,
Climate scientists' requests to delete emails and files,
and what appear to be deliberate attempts to conceal and perhaps even to delete important material.
In January 2010,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi
