Climate Audit

Michal Gancarski

Congratulations, Steve.

John Baltutis

Well done!

Bob Koss

Good article.

Your perseverance in discovering and highlighting deficiencies in so many shoddily reviewed but widely touted papers is amazing.

Peter Stroud

Well done Steve. Just keep at it please.

Dishman

Rob Wilson said:

However, can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the laymen—and would they want to know?

I think it has been fairly clearly expressed that we want to know.

• Don B
  Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

  Re: Dishman (#10),
  Now that serious questions have been raised about the science, serious climate scientists should realise that it is now more necessary than ever for communication and transparency.

• Hmmm
  Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

  Re: Dishman (#10), We could at least understand realistic error ranges (if they would just calculate them realistically and print them)

dearieme

Oh dear, I’m talking rubbish. The apostrophe is OK; though the “s” after it is unnecessary, it’s not wrong.

On this blog, errors are owned up to.

Martin Brumby

@BarryW:
November 18th, 2009 at 5:38 am

Of course, the warmists are always very keen to set Steve tasks from their agenda.
But I don’t recall Steve ever suggesting that he could predict what the Climate was going to do. Or that his researches justified spending Billions and closing down the economy. That’s their game.
The fact that he politely points out that the Emperor is walking out undressed doesn’t mean that he has to decide whether the Emperor would look more fetching in a pinstripe suit or perhaps a nice purple robe. That’s their job, for which they get paid handsomely, not to mention the index-linked pensions and the all expenses paid jollies all around the globe.
It is just a pity that they don’t do what they’re paid for with even reasonable competence. And a little less arrogance.

TAG

James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute, has dismissed him as a “court jester.” Mr. Mann replied to an emailed query about Mr. McIntyre by decrying “every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself.”

Others are more thick-skinned: “You mention his name in my community, people just smile. It’s a one-liner to get a laugh out of a group of climate scientists,” affirms Stanford University’s Stephen Schneider.

One can examine Schneider’s condescending comment in the second paragraph with Mann’s fulminations in the first. There is a distinct contrast between them that cannot be reconciled with Schneider observation. According to Schneider, McIntyre is inconsequential and his work amusing. Mann and Hansen seem to have a contrary view. Climate scientists may say the science on AGW is settled but the science on McIntyre is still the subject of major controversy.

Stacey

Well done Mr McIntyre.

As an engineer I have always appreciated your approach: due diligence.

If my client wants to have my structural calculations checked on one of their projects, no problem, if a tenant occupying a building structure designed by me wants their structural engineer to check/review the design no problem. The checking authorities get them as a matter of course. Why would any professional object to providing their calculations?

A main stream architectural magazine in the uk has joined the debate. The writer Amanda Baillieu has been subjected already to the sarcastic nastiness that you have been subjected to afor many years and good for her she seems to be standing up to it.
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=427&storycode=3153086&channel=783&c=2&encCode=0000000001a74cb7

For what it is worth I dread to think where we would have been without the world wide web and your efforts.

What is 2×2

The physicist consults his computer and says it lies between 3.98 and 4.02.

The hockey stick climate scientist says what do you want it to be?

The engineer calculates on his slide rule 3.9 and says may as well call it four.

Given your young age you probably won’t appreciate the above 🙂

Gary

A mention of the Steve’s field work to test the Starbucks Hypothesis and the BCP stripbark bias should have been made in the article as evidence of him being more than just a picture of the stereotypical blogger critic that opponents like to paint. As regular CA readers know, he doesn’t do a reconstruction of his own because he sees no value in it; however, he doesn’t shy away from doing the hard work of testing source data reliability, even if it means a hike in the mountains. Overall, though, the article is accurate, understandable, and well-deserved.

• PhilH
  Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

  Re: Gary (#20), I have read hundreds of posts on this site in which Steve has taken data he has wormed out of these guys, and posted his “reconstruction” of what the data actually shows. In that regard, I don’t really understand the point about him not being taken seriously until he does his own “reconstruction.”

  • Gary
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    Re: PhilH (#37),
    The issue of SteveM not doing a reconstruction himself is a red herring. It wouldn’t be accepted for a variety of excuses (although it would be mildly interesting hear them and count how many other reconstructions failed in the same way). Anybody can do a reconstruction; the trick is to show that it means what you say it means.

  • bender
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

    Re: PhilH (#38),

    I don’t really understand the point about him not being taken seriously until he does his own “reconstruction.”

    It goes like this. “Anyone can pick holes and discredit a body of work. Sure, it takes some skill. But it takes *real* skill – real innovative ability – to build something better, something that is more bullet-proof. Only after attempting to do this will Steve really appreciate our hard-earned gains. Until such time, we will continue to assume that his motive is to discredit honest, hard-working people earnestly trying to save the planet.”
    .
    So they are basically phrasing the debate in terms of personal credibility and motive. They can’t constrain themselves to discussing fact because it would admit Steve as an equal competitor – something elitists are loathe to do. They need to keep the playing field as uneven as possible to maintain a semblance of authority. They simply refuse to accept the argument that the methods currently available are incapable of resolving the question to the degree advertised. They want you to accept their approximation as “accurate enough.”
    .
    Is that clearer?

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

      Re: bender (#71),

      I don’t really understand the point about him not being taken seriously until he does his own “reconstruction.”

      I commented on this Team meme in response to a question from Andy Revkin at his blog as follows:

      The underlying problem with trying to make reconstructions with finite confidence intervals from the present roster of proxies is the inconsistency of the “proxies,” a point noted in McIntyre and McKitrick (PNAS 2009) in connection with Mann et al 2008 (but applies to other studies as well) as follows:

      Paleoclimate reconstructions are an application of multivariate calibration, which provides a theoretical basis for confidence interval calculation (e.g., refs. 2 and 3). Inconsistency among proxies sharply inflates confidence intervals (3). Applying the inconsistency test of ref. 3 to Mann et al. A.D. 1000 proxy data shows that finite confidence intervals cannot be defined before ~1800

      Until this problem is resolved, I don’t see what purpose is served by proposing another reconstruction.

      Crowley interprets the inconsistency as evidence of past “regional” climate, but offers no support for this interpretation other than the inconsistency itself –- which could equally be due to the “proxies” not being temperature proxies. There are fundamental inconsistencies at the regional level as well, including key locations of California (bristlecones) and Siberia (Yamal), where other evidence is contradictory t.o Mann-Briffa approachs (e.g. Millar et al 2006 re California; Naurzbaev et al 2004 and Polar Urals re Siberia,) These were noted up in the N.A.S. panel report, but Briffa refused to include the references in I.P.C.C. AR4. Without such detailed regional reconciliations, it cannot be concluded that inconsistency is evidence of “regional” climate as opposed to inherent defects in the “proxies” themselves.

      The fundamental requirement in this field is not the need for a fancier multivariate method to extract a “faint signal” from noise – such efforts are all too often plagued with unawareness of data mining and data snooping. These problems are all too common in this field (e.g. the repetitive use of the bristlecones and Yamal series). I think that I’ve made climate scientists far more aware of these and other statistical problems than previously, whether they are willing to acknowledge this in public or not, and that this is highly “constructive” for the field.

      As I mentioned to you, at least some prominent scientists in the field accept (though not for public attribution) the validity of our criticisms of the Mann-Briffa style reconstruction and now view such efforts as a dead end until better quality data is developed. If this view is correct, and I believe it is, then criticizing oversold reconstructions is surely “constructive” as it forces people to face up to the need for such better data.

      Estimates provided to me (again without the scientists being prepared to do so in public) were that the development of such data may take 10-20 years and may involve totally different proxies than the ones presently in use. If I were to speculate on what sort of proxies had a chance of succeeding, it would be ones that were based on isotope fractionation or other physical processes with a known monotonic relationship to temperature and away from things like tree ring widths and varve thicknesses. In “deep time,” ice core O18 and foraminifera Mg/Ca in ocean sediments are examples of proxies that provide consistent or at least relatively consistent information. The prominent oceanographer Lowell Stott asked to meet with me at AGU 2007 to discuss long tree ring chronologies for O18 sampling. I sent all the Almagre cores to Lowell Stott’s lab, where Max Berkelhammer is analyzing delO18 values.

      Underlying my articles and commentary is the effort to frame reconstructions in a broader statistical framework (multivariate calibration) where there is available theory, a project that seems to be ignored both by applied statisticians and climate scientists. At a 2007 conference of the American Statistical Association to which Caspar Ammann (but not me) was invited, it was concluded:

      While there is undoubtedly scope for statisticians to play a larger role in paleoclimate research, the large investment of time needed to become familiar with the scientific background is likely to deter most statisticians from entering this field. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2280

      I’ve been working on this from time to time over the past few years and this too seems “highly constructive” to me and far more relevant to my interests and skills than adding to the population of poorly constrained “reconstructions,” as Crowley proposes.

      In the meantime, studies using recycled proxies and problematic statistical methods continue to be widely publicized. Given my present familiarity with the methods and proxies used in the field, I believe that there is a useful role for timely analysis of the type that I do at Climate Audit. It would be even more constructive if the authors rose to the challenge of defending their studies.

      Given the importance of climate change as an issue, it remains disappointing that prompt archiving of data remains an issue with many authors and that funding agencies and journals are not more effective in enforcing existing policies or establishing such policies if existing policies are insufficient. It would be desirable as well if journals publishing statistical paleoclimate articles followed econometric journal practices by requiring the archiving of working code as a condition of review. While progress has been slow, I think that my efforts on these fronts, both data and code, have been constructive. It is disappointing that Crowley likens the archiving of data to doing a tax return. It’s not that hard. Even in blog posts (e.g. the Briffa post in question), I frequently provide turnkey code enabling readers to download all relevant data from original sources and to see all statistical calculations and figures for themselves. This is the way that things are going to go – not Crowley’s way.

    • Lucy Skywalker
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#73), thank you for this statement at this point, Steve, I’ve bookmarked it as it is crucial IMO to show others your answer to the key Team objection “do your own recon – then we can take you seriously”. It also complements Ms Jollis’ (IMO excellent) article with the extra level Kenneth Fritsch felt was missing.

      It would be nice to use the Team objection as a reason to press for disclosure of CRU data, as Juraj V suggests.

      Right now I’m working on the ice core CO2 material and story, and the parallels of behaviour with the dendro Team are interesting. I think that there too there may be a hockey stick to deconstruct – an Ice Hockey stick.

    • Kenneth Fritsch
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

      Re: Steve McIntyre (#73),

      Ok read what Steve M says here and then look at the WSJ article and tell me if even an inkling of the essence of that post gets into the article. It is what frustrates me with what I see in the present day media. Could the author of the article have condensed those thoughts and found room for them by excluding the dumb remarks some climate scientists are wont to make? I say yes.

Pascvaks

So very well deserved!

snip – too much venting

bender

Climate researchers know their prescriptions don’t carry the certainty laymen assume from that which is labeled “science,” yet most shy from a straightforward account of this uncertainty.

“Methods certainly need to be continually refined and improved. I doubt that anyone in the paleoclimate community would disagree with that,” says Rob Wilson of the University of St. Andrews’s School of Geography and Geosciences. “However, can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the laymen—and would they want to know? I do not think this would help.”

Maybe not, but letting people feel duped by hyperbole is proving even more harmful to the warmers’ cause.

Well, well, Dr. Wilson. Maybe I’m an anomaly, but this laymen DOES WANT TO KNOW. And thank you for asking. But I resent your elitist attitude whereupon you reserve the right to decide what to tell me. Your job is to give us the facts, and we’ll decide for ourselves which ones to act on, thanks very much, emperor sir.

• ianl8888
  Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

  Re: bender (#27),
  C’mon Bender, they’re almost all like that. Populist fear is best engendered that way

• Jed Tyrrell
  Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 5:20 AM | Permalink

  Re: bender (#27),
  Hear, hear

Mike Smith

Steve,

Great article, congratulations.

Mike

Hu McCulloch

It’s a shame this wasn’t in the US edition!

Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review.

That’s their loss.

Meanwhile, the educated public will not take climatologists seriously until they start paying attention to Steve’s critiques, whether published or online.

Mike L

Congratulations, Steve! (First post from an avid reader 🙂

Tim Channon

Nice article and amusingly with an apt if subtle cartoon by WSJ in Opinions today, perhaps chance

Two angels standing on the clouds, the one holding unused bolts of lightning is saying “I think they’ve been hit with enough already”

I leave it to the reader to work that out as desired.

And yes indeed you have the thanks of many Steve.

R Taylor

It’s great to see recognition of your years of disciplined work and commentary. You won’t be an overnight success, however, until you’re on Oprah.

Matthew W

Fantastic !!!!

Calvin Ball

BTW, can we spot the logical fallacy in this statement?

Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review.

I’m not talking about anything like access to the journals, I’m talking about a very basic logical flaw that’s built in to the question itself.

Mrjthomas

I think the article gives a good flavour of the Steve’s work and this site. It is difficult to capture the depth and breadth of what is discussed here and the technical expertise that is demonstrated in a single article, but the key messages are that (a) Steve is QA’ing some of the “settled science”, (b) he is qualified to do so, and (c) the response from “climate science” as a whole is not what you would expect from a group of scientists with the requisite balance of confidence in what they are doing and humility to admit that they may make errors.

Paul Dennis

I’ve just read the comments on the WSJ site and was so angered by the ignorance, the ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority and the hiding behind anonymity (‘By the way have leading and respected climate change scientist advising me’. Barry Harrop, WSJ comments) that I tried to register and respond but have yet to receive my registration email from the WSJ.

Well Barry Harrop, just in case you are reading, I am a scientist active in climate change research (published in Nature, GRL, GCA, plus many other journals). Your comments tell us more about you and your ignorance of the scientific process. It matters not a jot where science is published. You seem to think the imprimatur of ‘Science’ or ‘Nature’ lends credibility to a study. Neither are ‘climate change’ journals. Science is about the search for understanding and truth and not concensus.

• Ryan Maue
  Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

  Re: Paul Dennis (#57), try to login and it will send an additional confirmation email. The first-one never came for me either, but the second did right away.

  • Paul Dennis
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

    Re: Ryan Maue (#60), Thank you Ryan. I’ve managed to post a response at the WSJ site now.

• John Roberts
  Posted Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

  I decided to take a look at Barrie’s LinkedIn profile, since he is always referring to them as though they were some paragon arbiter of professional qualifications, rather than Facebook for Self-Proclaimed Movers and Shakers. In other words, just another website, albeit one specializing in ‘social networking’ for elite statists.

  I was hoping to find something there showing his educational background, but alas, I was to be disappointed. So, we must just accept, on faith, that Barrie is a graduate in good standing of East Overshoe Middle School, located, paradoxically, in West Overshoe, Australia. (See the HEMA Australia Touring Guide, page 83. It’s located about 35 KM west of the Connie Sue Highway, between Premier Downs and Neale Junction.)

  So, on to his occupational record, where, amongst the self-promoting puffery to be expected from a site of this sort, we see listed the following:

  Environmental Services industry
  Retail industry (2 entries)
  Consumer Goods industry
  Government Administration industry
  Entertainment industry
  Real Estate industry (4 entries)
  Food & Beverages industry

  Seems to have moved about a good bit, wouldn’t you say? Oh well, when you can’t make a go of one thing, just move on to something else.

  But, folks… We all owe Barrie a apology. As we can see, he’s at least as well qualified as the hair dressers and landscapers listed among the oft-cited ‘2000 scientists’.

  After all, his current position in snake oil… errrrrrrrr.. lightning rod… ummmmmm I mean windmill sales places him at the very apex of the scientific community, and his proclamations should be given the weight to which they are entitled.

Tony Hansen

re Rob Wilson..‘can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the layman’
How could it be possible for anyone to know all the nuances?

‘would they want to know’
Until one makes a concerted effort one may not know either way (but bender and myself will do for starters)

‘I do not think this would help’
Help in what way?
My experience has been that those who are unwilling to try are usually unable to – but still seem to be driven to make grand pronouncements.
Some seem to be aware that what we don’t know is much greater than what we think we know.

L Nettles

Beer money for the tip jar!!! Good Job!

Alexej Buergin

I used to read a newspaper that had 3 editions per day. I read it when it had 2. Then it had 1. And then I decided not to read news on paper anymore. (I must confess that I read the “Daily Mail” when in England or Spain).
If Ms Anne Jolis continues like that I might change my mind.

Anthony Watts

Just went to the hotel lobby and scored two copies of the Euro edition of WSJ for you. The story is on page 15.

3AM here, can’t sleep. Time zone whacky with body clock. 6PM in California.

This is what I was doing today, speaking at EU Parliament in Brussels:

http://www.rogerhelmer.com/conferenceprogramme.asp

MattN

Thank you, Steve….

Jeff Alberts

Thank you for your work.Although you have said that your work by itself does not invalidate the global warming alarmist perspective,

To me it’s more that Steve is showing that the climate science community has made a poor effort at making their case, and don’t like being called out. It’s that simple. I don’t know if AGW is happening. To me it seems like it isn’t, mainly because of the responses by climate scientists to serious questions about their work.

John G. Bell

Steve M,
I know you don’t care, but some day people will look back and see what a great debt we all owe you for your devotion to science. I’d like to thank you now.

Without sound science, public policy has little chance and the ardor of the confused and conflicted wins out. A better future awaits us because of your efforts.

Juraj V.

“Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review.”

I think this is direct challenge for replicating the HadCRUT dataset from obtained raw data. Can´t wait!

Mike Lorrey

I love the claim that they want you to produce your own reconstructions. That is essentially what you do here all the time. If they want you go go out and do your own tree ring cores, thats laughable, its not like Briffa has personally gone out and drilled any, he’s just taking others work and reprocessing it.

KnockJohn

Great to see that Steve is beginning to enter the more Main Stream Media, and good to see a pretty open article.

I am often shocked by the closed minded nature of many that work in research associated ultimately with climate change. Even the other day a colleague dismissed Steve as “a skeptic – well that says it all”.

Here in the UK we need to see a greater balance to the whole story. Unfortunately the BBC is ubiquitous, here, and their attributions of all unusual weather events to climate change (see todays rain & flooding in Cumbria) is widely swallowed by the masses.

Shallow Climate

Re Rob Wilson: I know that Steve M. extols said Rob Wilson as a person of “unimpeachable character”. If Steve M. says that, it must have great merit, IMO. But now comes the “however”: However, I don’t take to Wilson’s point about explaining details to the layman (who might not want to know anyway). Feynman once said that if a scientist can’t explain his work in an intelligible way to a first-grader, then he doesn’t really understand it himself. So, Mr. Wilson, please go ahead and explain away. We, The Great Unbathed Masses, are listening.

Hu McCulloch

RE Shallow Climate #93,

Feynman once said that if a scientist can’t explain his work in an intelligible way to a first-grader, then he doesn’t really understand it himself.

Actually, Feynman was referring to [Caltech] undergraduates, not to first graders, whence his undergrad-level Lectures on Physics.

But still your point is well-taken — he always insisted that mere authority never determines truth.

• Calvin Ball
  Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

  Re: Hu McCulloch (#95),

  In my experience, if you have someone who gets flustered trying to explain the broad conceptual outline of something, that person doesn’t really understand it himself, but doesn’t even realize it. That’s why you sometimes get a very aggressive and emotional response to that kind of a question.

  I think the reason why Feynman excelled at explaining very complex and counterintuitive ideas to the lay public is that he had actually given the subject some serious thought, and was able to crystallize things in his own mind in a way that lesser minds couldn’t.

  If you get an angry response to a question, it tells you all you need to know about the level of deep understanding the person has, and probably also about how secure he is in his knowledge.

  • Craig Loehle
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    Re: Calvin Ball (#96), An angry response to a question can also indicate that you are not being sufficiently respectful of the grand poobah hot-shot scientist. You are dissing him, you lowlife peasant.

keith frost

well deserved. We are all benefiting by your hard work and due diligence.

THANK YOU!

Robinson

I would be careful about posting up this correspondence so fast. I don’t know why, but it’s making me feel a little uneasy.

buppity

Feynman is good but maybe you should be looking at the work of Taleb and Gell-Mann. These two are still alive and contributing much to the statistics and science (respectively) surrounding uncertainty.

Richard

Here is an email dated 1998 to k.briffa from that lot:
Tree-ring widths (TRW) chronology:

A whole lot of data followed by:

Draft manuscript
VARIABILITY OF LARCH RADIAL GROWTH IN THE EAST OF TAYMIR AND PUTORAN FOR THE LAST 2000 YEARS

M.M.Naurzbaev, E.A.Vaganov
Taymir Biospheric Reserve, Khatanga
Institute of Forest, Krasnoyarsk

Abstract:
Regional tree-ring chronology with extension 2209 years (since 212 B.C. till 1996 A.D.) was built for the east of Taymir according to wood of living trees, well preserved residues of dead trees and semi-fossil wood from alluvial bank deposits by the cross-dating method. In addition the “floading” tree-ring width chronology for the period of Holocene Optimum (3300-2600 B.C.) was built with extention 685 years and supported by several rdiocarbon dates……… Temperature dynamics in the eastern part of Taymir for the last two millenia agrees well with temperature variations in the northern hemisphere obtained according to other indirect sources. The warming of the middle of the 20-th century is not extraordinary. The more long in time, and close in amplitude the warming at the border of the first and the second millennia was.

Any comments?

• bender
  Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:41 AM | Permalink

  Re: Richard (#106),
  Is this from the paper where they used the corridor method of standardization? If so, there’s your answer. This paper has been discussed here before.

BDJ

Found the 62 MB file (virus free) on Pirate Bay. Search for: “Hadley CRU Files (FOI2009.zip)”

Matthew

It’s worth noting that Steve McIntyre is mentioned in no less than 45 of the documents in the Hadley CRU file set.

bender

1133366680.txt
Mann accuses Esper et al 2005 of “shoddy” work, but Osborn defends it as merely “flimsy”. Mann gives in, was alerted to the paper by Revkin. Mann is more concerned about the publicization of the result than its publication.
.
And there you have it: Michael McCarthy … on the hunt. Little wonder Rob is afraid to post here. It’s MM decides who has the cooties. And if you have the cooties your publishing career is over.

bender

mike suspicious of new recruit Juckes:

Martin Juckes has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because he was working w/ Stott et al, and so I assume he was legit, and not associated with the contrarians. But if he’s associated w/ the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have additional information about him and what he has been up to?

Robert Beck

As Wikileaks is currently down, the 61MB file is also available on http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T .

If you have Vuze, you can also download it using magnet:FOI2009.zip and see for yourselves.

poopypants

$latex Should they be posted @ scribd.com ? It maybe helpful. Perhaps, a sweet-tasty effort in sharing the information to/at ALL the various Skeptic websites will aid in thought generation too! When your heads in the sand, something else is exposed! Go forth and kick’um in that rear-end or hind-quarter!
Be well,
Re: Robert E. Phelan (#1),

Sean

I really don’t want to be a egotistical arse, but I’ve been saying this for years! The sun isn’t a light bulb in space, it’s a constant explosive reaction which by it’s very nature doesn’t have a consistant output. Solar flares reach out from the sun, I’m sure that fact isn’t in question, so how hard is it to conceive that larger flares may carry the explosion out a little bit more than normal. We know that the temperature of this planet isn’t constant – can anybody say ice age? – this climate change thing is either a hidious over reaction to some potentially flawed science, or more concerningly a big old lie to drain money from the world and line the pockets of a few. The world at large has been lied to before for monetary gain, it’s not outside the realms of posibility that this is just a really successful scam.

UK-Analyst, a stocks and shares tips company, today sent an email to all subscribers urging them to sell any stocks they have in any of these carbon trading companies titled “A Book Review, 3 stocks to short to zippo and the political scandal of the decade”. The email encourages people to either short sell the life out of these companies in order to grab some cash from the sinking ship or to simply sell up before the shares are worth nothing. The email provides the following link as interesting reading:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

The website has many links to sub pages of this site: http://www.anelegantchaos.org/ – which seemingly contains a catalogue of the leeked emails. Please do read up, and if you find the information plausable then do spread the word.

This recent hack may be a massive hoax and I may be very very wrong. Climate change may be real, but we owe it to ourselves and everyone else to draw attention to this information so that it may either be discreditied or affirmed.

EngestReeks

I really enjoyed reading your post, keep up creating such interesting posts.