“I am Spartacus!”: Stand up and be counted for science

Posted: January 5, 2012 by tallbloke in flames, Incompetence, Philosophy, Politics

Strong words softly spoken. This morning, I noticed someone had visited and commented on an old thread from last year about the Republican vote to defund the IPCC. The comment showed a strong belief in science, and condemnation of the way politics and other non-scientific forces have tried to turn science into a tool of propaganda. What impressed me the most was that this is a person of good standing in the science community, who was prepared to put his full name and list his qualifications and institutional affiliation at the bottom of his comment.

IPCC should not only be defunded, it should be deleted as an agency. The reason is its misuse of the concept of science. It has never been meant to rely on correct science and uses science for one simple reason. People believe in science, since people have seen the result of powerful applications of it during 100 years. IPCC uses this fact to “sell” its political message to get support from ordinary people. Science is a “brand” for selling propaganda. The only way to keep the IPCC is for it to skip any claim of being scientific at all and clearly declare what it really is: a political organization.

My tutor when writing my exam paper in meteorology was Bert Bolin, the founder of IPCC. He was for sure a screwed influential politician and a dishonest and ordinary scientist.

Hans Jelbring, BSc, meteorologist, Stockholm University, Civil engineer, electronics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, PhD, institution of Paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University.

We have been through a dark time when blacklists of scientists who disagree with the IPCC climate orthodoxy have been drawn up, editors have been threatened with being forced out of their jobs for allowing dissenting papers to be published in journals, correct science which disproves the orthodoxy position has been ignored and witch hunts on skeptical scientists and bloggers have been promoted.

The way the IPCC pursues its objectives is for me summed up by this quote from Sir Robert Watson  who instructed the IPCC lead authors and core team to supply him with the material he needed for the Summary for Policy makers :

The key to success for the Synthesis Report and the SPMwill be punchy take home messages, and thoughtful tables and figures.

Would you please send me comments by Friday, February 2. I think that the key

to success will be a few well-crafted tables and figures. As soon as I receive

your comments, I will write a 5-7 page SPM.

If you believe as we do, that science must be defended for its universality, honesty and open-ness, and those who misuse and subvert it as a tool to promote a narrow agenda must be prevented from calling themselves a scientific organisation, don’t be afraid to say who you are and what you believe. Even if you can’t reveal your identity, you can step forward shoulder to shoulder with Dr Hans Jelbring and myself, Roger Tattersall BA(hons) Hist/Phil Sci, and shout:


  1. adolfogiurfa says:

    I do not doubt of the good intentions of Mr. Hans Jelbring, but being that “The devil knows more for being old than for being a devil”and as your “I am Spartacus” insinuates…..In plain terms it would mean. “Let´s forget the IPCC”, a kind of “amnesty” (from “amnesia”, lost of memory). Does the IPCC deserve such forgetfulness for free?

    [Reply] Nothing is being forgotten. It’s all over the internet.

  2. Ahem…he didn’t actually get anywhere did he?

  3. Such a good point, you pasted it in twice!

    [Reply] The dangers of blogging from a mobile phone…Fixed.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Thanks for proving the point Maurizio

  5. Stephen Wilde says:

    Should that be ‘shrewd’ influential politician rather than ‘screwed’ or maybe a Freudian slip ?

    I agree that the IPCC seems to be more political than scientific and so it should follow that it should neither receive nor have influence over scientific funding.

  6. Are you planning to be crucified? I’m definitely NOT! 🙂

  7. tallbloke says:

    Stephen: Although English is not Hans’ first language, I think the sense of what he is saying shines through bright and strong.

  8. tallbloke says:

    Maurizio: climates of opinion change. Things never happen the same way twice!

  9. colliemum says:

    I’m retired, most certainly have never been a prominent scientist, and am a lowly zoologist at that, but while we can’t all be chiefs, some foot soldiers are also useful.

    So I’ll be proud to be Spartacus, or should that be ‘Spartaca’ …?

    Dr V.G.Evans FLS

  10. pgosselin says:

    Hi Tallbloke,
    I agree with you 100% here. The science has gone renegade.

    On another point, I have to say that the comment above:
    “”My tutor when writing my exam paper in meteorology was Bert Bolin, the founder of IPCC. He was for sure a screwed influential politician and a dishonest and ordinary scientist.”

    Not sure about the circumstances here – but that could get you into trouble and so you might want to snip a few of them words out. Just saying.

    Best of luck and we are keeping a close eye out for you.

    P Gosselin

    [Reply] It’s not possible to libel the dead. Live wires like me however…

    Thanks for watching the corner for us 🙂

    [co-mod, info, Bolin, 15 March 1925 – 30 December 2007 — Tim]

  11. p.g.sharrow says:

    Some of us have been hammering at that dam for a long time and it is beginning to leak. Now many are taking up mallets. Soon the leakage will be a torrent as those on the fence will claim they were against this human caused global climate change idea all the time. Oh well, it is easier to get something done if you are not concerned about who gets the credit. 😎 pg

  12. Tenuc says:

    Fortunately there are lots of ‘Spartici’ here in cyberspace. I lost count of the number of ‘IPCC-Gates’ published on WUWT, but I do know that many people have now had their eyes opened to what the IPCC’s real agenda is. CAGW is just one tactic of many. We all need to stay vigilant if we are going to retain our national heritage and freedom.

    Keep up the good work, Rog, as it’s people like yourself and other bloggers who are taking on the MSM full frontal and making a big difference.

    So come on everyone, lets hear a big round of applause for Roger Tattersall et al… 😎

    [Reply] Tenuc, thanks for the props, but I’m not looking for applause, I’m wanting people to stand up for themselves and for science. Together we can make a difference.

  13. adolfogiurfa says:

    @ Tenuc: CAGW is just one tactic of many.….but God is the ultimate conspirer, some of us just try to help Him when asked for .. in His las post in Heavens´s Blog, at the center of the Galaxy-Press, just spoke out his last recommendation: Buy more popcorn! 🙂

  14. I’m not a scientist, but I love and trust the Scientific Method. Ever since I learned, at school, back in the 1970s, how the Scientific Method works; that the Scientist – although attached to his theory – does his best to prove himself wrong, and encourages others to do so, I was impressed by the purity and honesty of this approach.

    When, in the late 80s/early 90s I was introduced to formal technical review as a method for detecting errors in software (I’m a computer programmer by trade and vocation) I saw the similarities, and once again fell in love. I could not, today, do my job properly without the criticism of my peers; without them finding my mistakes and wrong assumptions my code would be – well, just ok.

    Climate “Science”, it seems to me, is the antithesis of the Scientific Method, and this is most readily seen in the now famous quote by Phil Jones: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

    Phil, that’s the whole point. Weren’t you listening in O-Level science classes?

    So yes, I admit it.

    I’m Spartacus.

  15. Stephen Brown BA (Psychology); earned longer ago that I want to remember. But I do remember having to explain and justify my experimental techniques, reveal not only my data but ALL of my lab notes and to go through every line of my statistical analysis, defending my decisions the whole way through before I even got to the dissertation of my thesis.
    The IPCC and those who provide it with their false assertions are NOT scientists, they are political propagandists.
    I, too, am Spartacus!

  16. Deadman says:

    My BA (Hons) was in Latin so, according to many who deride the utility of arts degrees, I’m qualified to ask, “fricta eo cupisne?”
    Spartacus quoque sum.

    [Reply] My family motto is “Legere sapere aude” – “fricta eo cupisne?” is a lot less pretentious, and yes please, got any oleum olivia to go with? 🙂

  17. Anything is possible says:

    I have an MSc in Climate Change, and the knowledge of “pure science” required to achieve this could be written on the back of a postage stamp. As for knowing how to apply the science correctly, don’t even go there!

    Good to see physicists (finally) start to get involved in Climatology, it can only help to advance the subject out of the Dark Ages.

  18. “Anything is possible” says “I have an MSc in Climate Change, and the knowledge of “pure science” required to achieve this could be written on the back of a postage stamp. As for knowing how to apply the science correctly, don’t even go there!” Good to see that admission. I have been thinking that so-called Climate scientistis lack understanding of technology.
    However, I do not agree about physicists. Thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid dynamics and reaction kinetics are some of the disciplines necessary for climate assessment. These are engineering subjects. In the previous post William Gilbert has mentioned the dynamics part of thermodynamics. Dynamics is what engineering is about. Physicists hypothisise about static situations. These have some meaning but when there is interferences disturbing the static state then everything changes. In continuous (as oppsed to batch) chemical reactions for example the buildup of contaminants can cause all sorts of problems including reversals of reactions. Only measurement and experimentation can sort out chemical reaction problems. Lab. experiments have to be taken to a pilot plant stage but then some full scale plants still do not work. BHP lost billions on a briquetted iron plant in Western Australia.
    I find the theme about the effects of the sun (solar flares, sun spots, magnetic fluxes etc) interesting and encourage Tallbloke to keep up the good work.
    Sorry about the pseudonom but I have family researchers to protect.

  19. phantomsby says:

    Humbly, I carried the message of Climategate 2.0 from here to Delingpole.

    Apologies that I cannot name myself other than…

    Spartacus quoque sum.

  20. Enginear says:

    I’m just a lowly Mechanical engineer with no climate science bonifides but even engineers are taught that the best way to find out if your work correct is to have it checked by someone anxious to prove you wrong. The first time I heard the phrase “The science is settled” about climate change I wanted to puke. It actually got me searching for information on the whole concept of CO2 driving temperature and at first, it seemed the scientists involved were mostly correct until I saw the way sensitivity was set. They used a climate model to backcast recent temperatures and the only way it replicate recent warming was to use a high value for CO2 sensitivity? WTF?

    How could anybody be so arrogant to assert that you could prove scientific theory with only deduction? That’s Sherlock Holmes’ process: to remove all other possibilities and what you are left with no matter how unlikely must be the answer. In the real world it is quite hard to even know the majority of possible affectors let alone all of them so you can logically conclude which is the guilty party.

    After that revelation, every thing I saw in the science had at least some circular reasoning used to support the conclusions. And this “science” was to inform the political process on what if anything should be done. It’s not likely any with this process that any real problem could be tackled.

    The IPCC was created as a political and quasi scientific organization to compile the science into a format that would be useful for political decision making. The problem was the political decisions were already made (taxes) but needed a stamp of approval from the science of climate change. Only opinions that supported the decisions could be accepted even the idea that those opinions might not be correct could not be included. This was way too big to show any doubt.

    Defund the IPCC and then reorganize or eliminate the UN the world will be much better off.

    This rant is a lot longer than I originally intended and I only just touched the surface.

    Best wishes Tallbloke,

    Barry Strayer

  21. […] Posted: January 5, 2012 by tallbloke in flames, Incompetence, Philosophy, Politics 20 […]

  22. gallopingcamel says:

    I am still looking for people to review the leaked IPCC AR5 papers.

    I am beginning to feel like Diogenes looking for an honest man in a naughty world. My public email is: info@gallopingcamel.info

    How about it? P.G. Sharrow, adolfogiurfa and Stephen Wilde? Don’t make me beg!

  23. Troy Armstrong says:

    I’ll stand and be counted.
    Troy Armstrong, BSME 1985 Purdue University

  24. Aussie says:

    I have a degree in Economics and Commerce. There is very little science involved in my particular degree. My husband is a Bachelor of Aeronautical Engineering, Master of Applied Science in Logistics Management. To get his degree my husband had ot be strong in physics as well as science and maths.

    Engineers are in fact very well rounded when it comes to the physics etc and this should not be disregarded.

    Maggie aka Aussie

  25. Steve C says:

    I’ll join the Spartaci and welcome, Roger. Family name Cook (you can see why I don’t shout about that in climate circles!), with an aging hons BA in Philosophy (incl. a history of science component) and a life working and playing with science – including a while in a school lab, where you often have to -make- the science work properly in the face of remarkably inventive youthful enthusiasm!

    I’ll also happily echo the call to defund and defang the entire UN, along with the EU and every unelected, unrepresentative think-tank, pressure group, NGO, lobby, etc. which presumes, without our authority, to tell us what to do. OK, the Augean stables that is modern global politics probably requires more than just a few of us Spartacus look-a-likes to clean it up, but we need to keep mentioning the stink until some passing Hercules hears about it.

    Happy New Year – after last year, you have one owing.

  26. Rog
    The way you’ve laid this out, it is, for me, an emotional moment rather than the most useful proof of committment. Sure, that’s where we start. I woke up this morning thinking of the lies a generation of children have been taught in school, about CO2 being a “dangerous GHG” rather than “precious, attenuated plant food” which, incidentally, is turned over at many times the rate of our measly emissions – (so one day I expect MLO to finally start to drop but it’s been slow with the up-to-800-year-delay of the thermohaline post MWP.)

    Yes I am Spartacus. But, what next?

    I still think we sceptics need to channel that energy into the creation of a skeptics’ climate wiki – and this time made only by proven skeptics – since we know we examine the warmists’ science and acknowledge what is worthy of acknowledgement, a compliment they do not return.

    I’ve actually got a domain for this, and a MediaWiki upload. I started this months ago but for many reasons had to put it on back burner. One reason for this delay is that I need a techie who can set up a filtering system that either allows all to comment but only trusted skeptics to change the front pages; or allows only trusted skeptics to both comment and change the front page (my preferred format, since there is always room to discuss such apparently draconian censorship rules, and serious issues arising, on blogs like this one. Personally, I think the trolls have the room they need already, both on our blogs, in the MSM, and in Wikipedia. We’ve done that, got the t-shirt. And Connolley is simply too dangerous and fast-shooting, even in legacy.

    The other reasons for delay are that I have other things to deal with in life, and cannot possibly do such a wiki singlehanded. Nor am I a good enough scientist in all details. It needs a team – all of us Spartacuses – the whole climate skeptics community. It needs to counter each commonly-encountered strawman argument, as seen at SkSci for instance. And it needs to rehabilitate folk like Soon and Baliunas. Tim Ball’s very bio was deleted from Wikipedia – the only way of ensuring it’s unavailable to recovery. Clever Connolley.

    If this speaks, I could write up a blog piece for you.

    [Reply] Lucy, please do write a piece for a guest post here. I also have a project in mind, which we could discuss at the same time.

  27. Don keiller says:

    I am Spartacus!

    I am currently working, within the Law, to bring respectability back to science.

    Don Keiller (MA, PhD, Cantab)

  28. Roger, I forgot the declaration: “I am Spartacus”.

    No big secret about my identity. Degrees in Physics and Electrical Engineering, Pembroke College, Cambridge:

    Please note that I stopped hanging out on Brave New Climate when Barry Brook posted some embarrassingly retro garbage.

  29. sepepper says:

    Amen to that.

  30. Deadman says:

    Just a note; please delete when read:

    olivum = olive oil.

  31. Chris says:

    It is perfectly obvious to me that the IPCC, under the original auspices of the UN is a politically motivated group of people.
    However, the phrase ‘politically motivated’ today has more sinister connotations than a decade or so ago. It is now known who started this scam, that is affecting the entire western world through huge energy bills, both for transport fuel and electricity, and it is he that should be brought to justice (not for the first time), except for C.Huhne, (UK minister of climate change, inter alia), whose idiotic contempt for realistic electrical power generation would be risible, were it not so important.

  32. Chris says:

    I do not think that Faraday, Einstein or Newton, amongst others belong to ‘ Physicists hypothisise about static situations.’

  33. Chris says:

    I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly.
    Another way, maybe, is to do the same as WUWT.
    Grab a load of friends to act as mediators, and let everyone comment, as long as you have the wherewithal to strike out what is offensive.
    Good luck!

  34. Aussie says:

    I forgot to add: “I am Spartacus”

  35. Stephen Richards says:

    I with you Roger. I have been getting more and more agitated on the bishop’s thread with contributions by scientist saying ‘it is 90% likely that humans are affecting the climate’ hidden words for AGW. This is what I call sloppy science and is what the vast majority of the IPCC work ,seems to consist of.

    So I am with you. Stephen Richards electronic, radio, telecomms and electrical technician, BSc Physics MSc Solid State Physics. retired.

  36. Stephen Richards says:

    Don Keiller has been hinting at something which may be extremely important.

    Don we wait anxiously.

  37. Go get ’em SPARTACUS!

    How can I help?

  38. […] climate scientist speaks out Jan 7th, 2012 by CountingCats. IPCC should not only be defunded, it should be deleted as an agency. The reason is its misuse of the concept of science. It has never been meant to rely on correct […]

  39. Denis Ables says:

    I wouldn’t qualify as Spartacus. I’m retired, and independent of any outside influence (except perhaps by my spouse and children). I have a BS from Tulane, (1960), math major, physics minor, and considerable extra hours at the graduate level, mostly via The Courant Institute of Mathematics (NYU).

    Some time ago this all started for me when I tried to get an answer to the question “But, what about the Medieval Warming Period?”. Numerous new questions were raised as I tried to resolve the first one. Then came ClimateGate I.

    I got so frustrated that I began drafting a “google-doc” in hopes of helping friends get up to speed on enough science to decide for themselves. A really good public website with this kind of information could help spread the word. There’s plenty more information that could be incorporated since I last edited it, and, for that matter, no doubt plenty of older information that I overlooked


    H/T to websites such as Joanne Nova, WattsUpWithThat along with the many others I’ve come across and the many individual skeptics out there. .

  40. Æthelwold of Wessex says:

    I am Spartacus.
    Having a mere 3rd Class Honours in Chemistry, but I remember that even A Level maths’ exams, always said ” …. and show your working”!
    Adam Gallon

  41. Lawrie Ayres says:

    A farmer, a soldier, a writer of letters to the editor and mightily pissed off with how a fine organisation that had my greatest respect, the CSIRO, has become an advocate for a corrupt government and it’s corrupt policies. The idiocy of a CO2 tax to “stop” dangerous climate change has made me despair that common sense has all but evaporated. The MSM here simply reprint environmentalist PR garbage and take umbrage at one’s attempt to ask for evidence or to make corrections.

    I have about the same qualifications as Spartacus and like him have not much to lose; but lose he did. Unlike Spartacus we can’t afford to lose. China’s decision to “put a price on carbon” has our PM Gillard weeing herself with excitment although she overlooks the rate of one fourteenth of our tax; $1.55 to $23per tonne. China’s action is not helpful although I think they are being very shrewd and are encouraging fools like Gillard to commit economic suicide while they benefit.

    I always use my real name because I am proud of my statements and contribution, small though it may be, to this battle. Our enemies have all the advantages but we will defeat them on the science. Our real war is with the establishment and the political class who will eventually concede defeat because they will lose the confidence of the person they most fear, the voter. Our job is to educate the voter. Let them know what green policies are costing them in these toughening economic times. Electricity supply and price are the government’s achilles heel so we need more exposes (I don’t know how to make an e acute) of the inefficencies of wind and solar and the job losses associated with green schemes. The MSM are not interested in the science but they do notice energy price rises and the effect on consumers.

    Lawrie Ayres of Wingham and damn proud to be a climate realist. Farmers have no choice.

  42. C Matumbeya. says:

    The climate playbook has been used in many other areas of the UN to drive Policy. I was shocked to see it equally heavily abused in their anti-lead agenda, for example.

    The replacement for science seems to have been all to heavily centred on the use of the term ‘it is reasonable to assume’ – even when there is a complete absence of data to support the assumption!

    Assumptions, are not ‘science’, of course. No matter how they are dressed up.

    Something else that needs to be SERIOUSLY looked into, are human population numbers.

    What body gathers these numbers?

    Why the UN, of course.

  43. bluejohnmarshall says:

    If anyone thinks that the IPCC is a scientific organization then read ‘The Delinquent Teenager’.

  44. Don Keiller says:

    Richard, I am indeed hoping to be able to reveal something important soon.
    The action in question happened late last year and I am (still) awaiting formal notification.

  45. tallbloke says:

    Don, please keep us informed and we’ll feature the outcome.

    Good luck.


  46. Andy says:

    I’ll stand up and be counted.
    I’ve always thought AGW was a scientific fraud of astronomical proportions.

    Andy Wilkins BSc (Comb Hons) Mathematics and Business Administration
    Senior School Maths Teacher, London, UK

  47. p.g.sharrow says:

    I have been fighting the evil empire since 1970, welcome to the battle Spartacus! 😎 pg

  48. Orson says:

    “I am Spartacus” – Lucy skywalker and Rog, and I – so say all of us.

    Onward to reclaim skeptical science from the calumnists.

  49. Zeke says:

    More people need to be aware of the prevalence of computer models and their use in supplanting observation and experiment. The centrality of GCMs in “climate science” is contrary to the spirit, methodology, and goals of genuine empirical science.

    I am a former slave as well, but freed by much gentler means.
    (“receive him as you would me. But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account.” Paul and the escaped slave Onesimus)

  50. thojak says:

    Great post L! 😀
    Hopefully. Hans’ statement collects joins with numbers of scientiests around this Globe!

    Brgds from Sweden

  51. Aussie says:

    taking Zeke’s point a bit further, as a non-scientist I see observation as something that is quite important. I also see experience to be equally important.

    Whilst there is a difference between the macro or global climate and the micro climate, I find myself getting very frustrated at the watermelons because of the constant claims and hype regarding what is now considered extreme weather events.

    I grew up in Melbourne, Australia and I must add here that having grown up in Australia the one thing that I am very aware of is the extremes that Australia constantly experiences every summer. Melbourne in the 1960s had drought, and we had to use buckets to water the garden, but Melbourne in the 1970s was a lot cooler. I have experienced several real heatwaves, or at least heat over 40C. The first time was late January 1959, and typical of a woman that event was related to a family event – a car accident that nearly claimed the life of my oldest sister. This heatwave came in mid to late January 1959. There have been other extremely hot days since then around the end of January and early February such as we experienced in 2009. It must be pointed out that the even the 2009 heatwave was not as hot as the 1939 heatwave, and the bushfire was not the most tragic in recorded history in Australia. It should also be pointed out that bushfires are often started by firebugs, and not because of any weather events!!!

    I have experienced floods, cyclones, and came close with a tornado, as well as a blizzard. The last two events happened in Ohio, USA. In January 1985 Fairborn Ohio had a record low of -28F. The blizzard came about 1 month later. In the same year Fairborn experienced a mini tornado that ripped out 1 tree!! The cyclone was experienced in Townsville, Australia.

    The CSIRO has become infested with individuals carrying on the watermelon agenda. Clive Hamilton is one of those individuals. Like Holdren he is extreme in his pov and he favours ZPG. Other than such individuals I have the highest regard for the scientists at the CSIRO.

  52. Steve E says:

    I don’t have the bona fides to say “I am Spartacus,” though, if I had them, I would truly stand with him. I did read this thread to January 7th 8:49 p.m. It inspired to me to see that so many commenters are “elders” (please accept this description as sincere and not negative) who are standing forth and calling “bullshit.”

    I had just read this thread http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/01/05/what-financial-meltdowns-teach-us-about-the-ipcc/ from Donna Laframboise where she draws parallels to the recent financial meltdowns in Iceland and Ireland. In each case, her source material from Michael Lewis suggests that part of the reason for failure was the old–without questioning–deferring to the young and their unsupportable “bullshit” ideas.

    Read the link. I think you’ll see what I’m saying.


  53. Hans says:

    Steve E says:
    January 8, 2012 at 1:11 am
    “To an outsider it’s perfectly clear that years of bad decision-making led inevitably to what has since happened in Iceland, Greece, and Ireland. It’s perfectly clear that, rather than applying the brakes, the educated classes took part in these mass delusions.” Very true and thanks for pointing to an excellent article.

    Power games and greed will always be most intensive at the top of an organization or nation. To fool the masses is part of the game. The Swedish king Gustav III (18th century) wanted to gain power from the aristocracy and avoid economic collaps. He started a war with Russia on false accusations of Russian aggression. New laws were needed which made him a dictator. He got murdered by a noble man who he had ruined. He was (wrongly) supported by the masses since he had already ruined the country as such. Many casles were built among other a (smaller ) copy of Versaille were our King and Queen live today.

    Any building of a utopia will end in disaster when it cannot meet the basic needs in a society. Think of the 1000 year third Reich or the Sovjet Union. UN can be exploited for power grab on a world wide level and that seems to be happening, at least partially and CAGW is a vehicle. Corruption is mostly a major reason for collapse. It seems that it can develop since politicians avoid learning from history and make being in power the goal and not the tool of forming a decent society.

  54. […] I am not kidding. From Hans Jelbring, BSc, meteorologist, Stockholm University, Civil engineer, electronics, Royal Institut…: […]

  55. […] Swedish Scientist Dr. Hans Jelbring: ‘The UN IPCC should not only be defunded, it should be deleted as an agency’: […]

  56. Hillbilly33 says:

    Many years ago on behalf of a friend, I had occasion to investigate a firm of lawyers who were denying responsibility for the loss of her late husbands’ superannuation money which had been properly received and receipted into their Trust account and was later embezzled by a partner. For years they denied having any knowledge or documentation and although I’d come on the scene late and others had been unsuccessful, it all “smelt” very wrong to me. At first I could not believe the evidence I was finding, wrongly assuming lawyers would not be so foolish or so dishonest as to be party to such blatant concealment and outright fraud. When I accepted the fact that they were actually crooks in this instance, the whole sordid back trail of falsified bank statements, altered and/or unrevealed documents and other dodgy dealings opened up to me. My friend was able to then successfully sue them.

    The same applies here in the AGW fraud. With the Rio + 20 Earth Summit coming up in June this year, it is appropriate to go back to the early history and identities such as Maurice Strong involved in the 1992 Earth Summit which kicked off the UNFCCC, their Agenda 21 and their annual COP junkets to exotic destinations. One can again check the setting up of the political pseudoscientific vehicle overseen by government bureaucrats to be used to implement their aims, the UNIPCC, and the specific task given to them to find – “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” . This blatantly political single issue instruction upon which UN and government grants were to be lavished backed by Hollywood productions and other propaganda financed by those who could see the huge money-making potential, fatally corrupted the whole process from the start!

    Unlike the lawyers mentioned above, there’s actually been no real attempt to hide their ultimate objectives but neither have they been really public about them and the MSM have dutifully played their part by keeping gullible Joe Public in the dark as much as possible. Most posters here would be aware but still may consider it wouldn’t hurt to track it back again after all this time and see how the whole scenario opens up like a book. Certainly it is the direction to steer any enquirers searching for the facts. A good site which has many links to follow if desired by a first-timer is: The Green Agenda – Agenda 21


    I too am Spartacus, but a relatively old and somewhat war-weary warrior with no great credentials except a deep love for my country and fellow-man, a dogged persistence and a supersensitive nose for BS!

  57. […] I am not kidding. From Hans Jelbring, BSc, meteorologist, Stockholm University, Civil engineer, electronics, Royal Institut…: […]

  58. erl happ says:

    Lucy and Roger,
    There is no doubt that we are at war. The opposition believes that the end justifies the means and they have no intention of playing by the Queensberry rules. It is not about the science.

    Let’s hear about the means that you would pursue.

    When I began to think about this problem I assumed that one might get involved in a forum for civilized and respectful discussion. I looked in vain. Competing egos just get in the way. There is too much combat and point scoring on the blogs. One needs a forum where the nitty- gritty of natural climate change is the focus of the discussion. There are other things that might be done, for instance critiquing the greenhouse theory, and also perhaps dealing with the problem of efficient energy generation. it seems that Anthony Watts envisages a process of more open peer review. That too would be good if one could keep it dispassionate and respectful.

    I always use my own name when I comment or write. If I am wrong, so be it. I can learn. I have the luxury of being self employed. Others will have to be more circumspect, until they retire.

    As for qualifications, they mean little. A university education teaches you to observe and how to find information and hopefully to discriminate but the best stimulus to learning is curiosity and humility. The best approach to problem solving is to keep an open mind to embrace a great many possible processes that could be influential.

  59. Filbert Cobb says:

    From the Grauniad online 15 Jan 2012

    The article was focused on UK on faith schools and the teaching of creationism

    “The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are “evidence-based views or theories” that run “contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations”.

    Legislation is often hijacked for uses other than the original intent – why do I get a bad feeling about this …

  60. tallbloke says:

    Good spot. Diversity of views is important in a free society. This looks like suppression by the back door.