The Email Of Settled Science

172 Replies to “The Email Of Settled Science”

1. ET: kevinb – do you use your bicycle to take your kids to their games and meetings, to do the family shopping and so on? Who lugs home all the groceries by hand?
   Actually, in the Netherlands as elsewhere, people do it all the time. For example, check out bakfiets.nl. It’s inspiring how normal and widespread cycling as an efficient and safe mode of transportation is here. Everyone, from students to construction workers to bankers in suits to pregnant women to politicians bike to work. They do it all-year-round, in the rain and in the snow. So before you dismiss it as impractical, consider that fact that it’s done.
   Why are fresh strawberries better for the env’t than packaged ones? Is it the shipping? Can you get local corn in winter or do you just go without all vegetables and fruit in the winter? What about oranges, which we can’t grow here in our climate?
   You’re missing the point, ET. Why would you discourage someone like KevinB, who is making small but laudable steps to curb his and his family’s energy consumption? Are you opposed in principle to his strategy, which is essentially to do what you can given your own circumstances? What is your logic here? That if you can’t buy locally-grown produce in the winter, then you shouldn’t bother to do so in the summer? Reducing energy consumption is not the same as eliminating energy consumption. Nobody is calling for the latter; are you actually rejecting the former?
   But the real change must come, not from reverting to the 18th century, but from moving into the 22nd century, and changing our technology.
   Supporting technological innovation is indeed important, but it’s not, nor can it be, the only answer. Combining these initiatives with energy use reduction initiatives can only be for the better. Unwavering faith in technological progress is as dubious as unwavering faith in any particular ideology.

2. adam – Ball has published both in scientific and popular press. And, he has debated with others – for example, on the thread that john cross was posting on. Ball was very active on that site. He’s apparently made over 600 public presentations on climate themes in the past decade. So, what’s your point?
   Could you explain how he could be defined as an activist?
   adam, I’m well aware how people in the netherlands use their bicycles – on a flat terrain and with all types of shops and all amenities very close by – rather than having to travel anywhere from 5 to 20 km to the shops, to schools, to hospitals, to work, etc. I’m aware of their tram and train travel and the ease of getting from one place to another by these systems – exactly the opposite of travel in N. America where the car is a requirement because of the terrain, the weather, the amenities and the lack of public transport. So?
   adam – most people purchase local produce in the summer, because of the much cheaper cost and fresher and better taste. That’s not in the least an action done to ‘save the environment’.
   And don’t pontificate ‘ unwavering faith in technological progres..blah blah’..

3. Eckhart e-mailed me a PR response. In case no one else got one= here it is……….
   To all those who have written to me about the CEI leaked email:
   I have received your email, read it, and understand your point of view – no different than mine would have been. Your comments have impacted me greatly. I have prepared a response, shown below, and will respond to any additional comments you may have. I expect that they will not be complimentary, but I feel I owe you my reply. Please consider my statement below.
   Thank you for your consideration.
   Mike
   Michael T. Eckhart
   President
   To All:
   The Competitive Enterprise Institute has made public a July 13, 2007 email that I sent to Dr. Marlo Lewis, CEI’s chief analyst on climate change. This private communication to Dr. Lewis was part of a two-year series of communications between us about CEI’s campaign to stop public policy on global warming. The campaign is led by Fred Smith, CEI’s President, and Dr. Lewis.
   I apologize to all in the public who were offended by the email, because it was not intended for public display. You could not be aware of the two-year context of it, nor the choice of words in it – words that were only significant to Dr. Lewis and myself. Now that it is in the public, however, everyone deserves to understand the context.
   Summary
   I believe that global warming is occurring. The evidence is overwhelming and persuasive both from a statistical as well as anecdotal basis. Last year, the President of the National Wildlife Federation told the story about how a multi-billion dollar duck hunting industry in Arkansas has disappeared – the ducks only fly south to Illinois any more.
   Recently, we have learned about the acidification of the oceans and the attendant accelerated loss of coral and other marine life.
   This week, credible scientific organizations will predict that the North Pole will no longer have ice in the summer, beginning just ten years from now. Glaciers are melting. If the ice bank on Greenland melts, the seas could rise as much as 20 feet. This is serious business, affecting all.
   In my opinion, CEI, and especially Dr. Lewis, has been presenting a false prosecution — a knowingly false prosecution — of the global warming issue, to the detriment of society and the billions of people who will be affected by climate change. This should offend all who believe in integrity and honesty in public affairs.
   Dr. Lewis admitted to me two years ago that he does not necessarily believe that global warming is not happening – he is pursuing it for another reason: his philosophical opposition to big government. He has hijacked our issue to further his philosophical ideas about government. I respectfully object.
   My email to Dr. Lewis was in the context of personal combat and jousting that has been going on in the background — using his own words, as described below, to prod him out this false prosecution of global warming.
   Background
   The interchange and jousting began two years ago when Dr. Lewis and I were invited to debate the issue on E&E TV, and we had 20 minutes to talk beforehand in the green room. It was a 20-minute monologue by Dr. Lewis.
   He informed us that he is a trained professional debater from Harvard University with a PhD in Philosophy, but that he came out of the experience with the opposite philosophy of most Harvard graduates who believe that government is the solution to society’s problems. He said that he believes that it is excessive government that is the root of most problems in modern society, and that big government must be stopped. He said that one of his life’s goals is to show the Harvard crowd that they are wrong.
   He went on the say that environmentalists are, in his view, “just full of cr*p” and that they are falsely using the threat of climate change to gain control of the power of government. He said that he has a permanent dedication to destroy their careers, hence my use of the same phrases. His method, based on his training in philosophical argument, is not to attack them, but to attack their underlying assumptions, in this case the technical arguments that global warming is happening.
   I asked him, then: “so your argument against global warming is just a tactic in a larger battle you are waging against big government?” He said: “Yes, correct.”
   Dr. Lewis went on to say that he might just as easily make the argument that global warming IS happening, and that, actually, he is a bit concerned about it, but he could not let that sidetrack him from his life’s work to stop big government.
   I then asked if there was any possibility that we could talk him into joining the climate change movement and take the lead on developing non-government solutions, since he is against government solutions. He said that this was an intriguing idea, but, no, he couldn’t do it. He said that his job is not to be a consultant on solutions; his mission is to stop big government.
   We were called into the studio and I concluded by saying that I had never met such a brilliant mind that was, in my opinion, so off track on intellectual honesty, and asked if he thought it would consider it fair play if I tried to stop him as much as he is trying to stop us. He said: “fair is fair” and we went into the televised debate.
   A member of my staff was with us in the Green Room. You will see Dr. Lewis’ own words in my July 13 email.
   Subsequent Communications
   Since that first event, Dr. Lewis and Fred Smith and I have discussed on several occasions the honesty or dishonesty of hijacking the global warming issue to further their philosophy about making government smaller. I confronted Fred Smith on this in May 2006. There have been several exchanges. For example:
   On September 22, 2006, Dr. Lewis sent a campaign email saying: “I attach for your reading pleasure the latest version of my Skeptic’s Guide to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.”
   In reply, on September 25, I wrote to Fred Smith and Marlo Lewis: “I am writing to say that I am very unhappy to see this continuing false analysis coming out of CEI, seeking to refute the issue of global warming. What concerns me is that you are credible and persuasive, hence your voice and that of CEI are having the effect of delaying a US response to the crisis. The only explanation that I can see is that you are doing this because you are paid by ExxonMobil and other clients to do so. I find this outrageous, that my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story.”
   On September 26, Dr. Lewis wrote back to me: “Talk about an inconvenient truth! How inconvenient for some people that fossil fuels played an indispensable role in ending slavery and serfdom, extending human lifespan, etc.”
   This was clearly going no where, and it rested for a while.
   Turning the Corner on the Acceptance of Global Warming
   Coincidently, however, I was informed that ExxonMobil ended its many years of funding CEI’s anti-climate campaign the following month, at the time of a speech by ExxonMobil’s CEO Rex W. Tillerson to the Boston CEO Club on November 30, 2006, in which he said:
   “While the scientific community continues this study, we should pursue public policies that start gradually and learn along the way with full recognition of the economic consequences of certain actions and we should bring all countries into the effort…We should start on a path to reduce the likelihood of the worst outcomes… and understand the context of managing carbon emissions among other developing world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health. Consistent with this approach, we should take steps now to reduce emissions in effective and meaningful ways.”
   The most conservative companies in the oil industry are turning the corner on the global warming issue in a thoughtful and honest way. We also are seeing the electric utility industry study the matter carefully, recognizing that the future is a carbon-constrained world and they must find practical ways of working in it. And many serious people from industry, finance, the professions, academia, commerce, the nonprofit sector and government have looked at this and concluded that we as a society must take action now, for the sake of society as we know it, and for the sake of the generations who come after us.
   The Issue Today
   In the face of this came another analysis by Dr. Lewis this past week on July 12, undermining the inconvenient and now compelling truth about global warming, and I said: ‘enough is enough.” I challenged Dr. Lewis using his own words from that Green Room conversation two years ago, and challenged him to take me on, to resolve this issue. I have challenged him to debate this out, but he refuses, instead leaking my jousting email to him.
   As to the email, there can be no excuse for it in the public’s eye, or out of the context of years of communications in the background. I apologize to all who have read it.
   To CEI, however, there can be no apology. Quite the opposite. It is time to end CEI’s disingenuous undermining of worldwide concern about global warming. To resolve this, I again challenge Dr. Lewis to a series of personal debates on global warming that would go on for a month, with daily exchanges. There would be a running public vote. We would agree to accept the vote of the American people on the debate.
   We must begin a nonpartisan, bi-partisan, and universal move forward to manage carbon in society and implement solutions in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, other non/low-carbon energy, and the management of oceans, biodiversity and forestation.
   I believe that a cleaner world will be a more productive world with more security, longer lives, broader equity, more peace, more prosperity, and greater freedom than the status quo can possibly offer. It will not be big government delivering a solution, but the entire complex of government, the private sector and civil society adapting to a better path.
   I believe that an open debate on these issues will reveal the truth of the matter. I call Dr. Lewis out of his analytic hideaway at CEI.
   I will be happy to debate this out with Dr. Lewis and seek an answer, and again apologize to everyone for having the private email communication leaked to the press, distracting everyone from the serious matters at hand.
   Respectfully submitted,
   Michael T. Eckhart
   July 15, 2007
   My response to the response was…” You are still gonna drown him in bucket of his own blood, Right?”

4. Combining these initiatives with energy use reduction initiatives can only be for the better.
   I don’t know, is it possible for for socialists to be less productive?

5. A lot of wind there, Eckhart.
   But our free and democratic countries will look after our own polution standards — thank you.
   We do not need Maurice Strong and the UN preaching to us.
   Remember, Eckhart, communism/big govmit faied big time awhile back. Freedom won. Get over it.

6. ET: “kevinb – do you use your bicycle to take your kids to their games and meetings, to do the family shopping and so on? Who lugs home all the groceries by hand?
   Why are fresh strawberries better for the env’t than packaged ones? Is it the shipping? Can you get local corn in winter or do you just go without all vegetables and fruit in the winter? What about oranges, which we can’t grow here in our climate?”
   Let me address your points as you made them. First, with a backpack and carrier, I can lug home 50-60 lbs of groceries at a time. Diet Coke was on sale at my local drugstore last week – 3 12-packs for $10. Two cases fit in my backpack, and I balanced the other one on my carrier. No problem. I shop 2-3 times a week, and the only thing I’ve ever had trouble transporting was a 30-pack of water bottles.
   This year my daughter is on an out-of-district rep team, so yes, cycling is not usually an option. On the other hand, in Toronto, the usual estimate is that 80% of automobile trips are made with a single person in the car. I’m not suggesting that cycling is applicable to all those single-person trips; I hope you’re not suggesting that cycling is never applicable to those single-person trips.
   Why are fresh local strawberries better? First, they just taste better (I think those California ones taste like cardboard, no matter how handsome they look), and second, they don’t require 3,500 miles of shipping and the concomitant energy use to arrive at my grocery. Same thing with the corn.
   Do I go without fruits and vegetables in the winter? Hardly. Visit any of the Italian grocery chains in southern York region any fall, and you will see people buying bushel baskets of tomatoes, peppers, etc. It’s not at all difficult to sterlize some Mason jars, and fill them with vegetables to keep for the winter. We have a “cold room” in our house, and each fall, it gets filled with potatoes, turnips, garlic, onions, etc. I have a special loathing for what I call “February tomatoes”, which are the hard, tasteless imitations put out as “fresh” during the winter months.
   Does this mean I never buy produce from other countries? Not at all; my wife likes Chilean grapes in winter, my daughter likes mangos all year round, etc. However, I can make an effort to buy locally when possible, and with just a little extra effort, end up with healthier and tastier food that also happens to lessen my impact. For example, to bring up corn again (and peas, broccoli, cauliflower, carrots, etc.), you can choose to buy frozen brands such as Green Giant, which is almost always a US product, or you can buy President’s Choice or no-name, which is almost always a Canadian product. The point is I don’t think my family gets shorted in any way on fresh and tasty food, and we don’t need to import most of it from California or Florida.
   Finally, oranges. I used to love orange juice, but during a family trip to Walt Disney World, we rented a house on the west side of the park and had to pass a dozen orange stands each day. So we bought a juicer and made fresh squeezed juice every morning. After that, oranges bought in Canada – whole or juice, whether we squeezed it ourselves or bought Tropicana or any of the name brands, just seemed bitter and tasteless. So I eat good ol’ Ontario apples instead. Nothing like the crisp snap of a Macintosh or Spy (and bag those tasteless Red Delicious from Washington!)
   Now, this is a lifestyle I’ve chosen for myself; I’m not trying to push it on anyone else. I only wanted to point out that individuals can make choices that don’t impact their lives too much, if at all, that can lessen their energy usage.
   And, just in the interest of full disclosure, I gave up my car, but my wife (who works for an auto dealer) kept hers. I’m not holding myself up as some paragon of virtue; I’m just saying we can all make simple changes, if we want to.

7. Michael T. Eckhart “… There would be a running public vote … ”
   It’s all clear now … that’s why there was no global cooling in the 70’s – not enough people voted for it.

8. [I will be happy to debate this out with Dr. Lewis and seek an answer, and again apologize to everyone for having the private email communication leaked to the press, distracting everyone from the serious matters at hand.] Eckhart
   Distracting ?? He still doesn’t get it.
   The errant electronmail just confirmed what many here at sda already knew.
   The Kyoto Kult is a fanatical-religious movement. No scientific content. Let the real debate begin.
   One hell of a post and great commenters from both sides, Kate. We’re the Olivers and Galloways and Boags able to keep up ?? No dumbing down here 🙂

9. ET: Dr. Ball was not discussing ice cores with you in particular Sorry, I don’t understand why he then addressed his comment to John. Of course he could have been talking about another John, but then referencing #20 is kind of a giveaway.
   You don’t inform us of these details Yup, it was sneaky of me to put that link in plain view.
   You also put a great deal of focus on whether or not a scientist is willing to debate the issues with you. Drat, you found your secret decoder ring and figured out that what I mean when I say that “not debating me does not weaken their argument” is actually the opposite.

10. kevinb- great, you can cart your family groceries home via your bicycle. A lot of people can’t do that. That includes the little old lady and little old man, and the mom with two children in tow.
    And yes, in many cases, cycling is not viable for single person trips – the individual is too old, or the trip is too far etc.
    Ahh, so you recommend going back to the canning of one’s own vegetables and fruit. Very ideal, but not all people have the time to do so, or the storage room.
    And I doubt whether any of these choices really affected the ‘co2’ output of the planet.
    I acknowledge and appreciate that you’ve made your choices – and they remain yours.
    John Cross – kindly note that you said that Tim Ball introduced the topic of ice cores with you at 1:14 pm. He didn’t; it was the topic of the thread and was discussed by him #7 as well as others long before his comment in #23.
    His comment in #23 was both an answer to your specific and trivial remark in #20 which was only on ‘hearing’ vs’ written submission’ AND a comment to the thread on the previously discussed (not by you) ice cores. Remember, you hadn’t said a word about ice cores, but others, including Ball, had already done so quite a bit. Therefore, you can’t say that he ‘introduced’ it in his answer to you. Nor did he discuss it with you; you hadn’t said a word on it.
    Most people don’t go to links, so there’s little self-praise due to you for posting it, especially when you deny that Ball was both answering you and others in that section and when you tell us that he introduced the topic of ice cores – when he didn’t.
    You also mention to us that the site owner, Steve, didn’t want ice cores discussed, but it was co2 in ice cores that he didn’t want discussed. And it wasn’t you who brought that topic up either, it was Bender in #13.
    My point is that your comments distort, bend, muddy, twist – all in an almost invisible manner – what really has been said and above all, what was intended in an interchange.
    Including your informing us that you and Ball have the same number of publications on ice cores. Basically – that was an intention to deceive us on your part. Why?
    Your statement that refusal to debate says nothing about the validity of either argument – of course, includes your own! But maybe, in actuality, it does say something about yours.

11. ET: “kevinb- great, you can cart your family groceries home via your bicycle. A lot of people can’t do that. That includes the little old lady and little old man, and the mom with two children in tow.
    And yes, in many cases, cycling is not viable for single person trips – the individual is too old, or the trip is too far etc.
    Ahh, so you recommend going back to the canning of one’s own vegetables and fruit. Very ideal, but not all people have the time to do so, or the storage room. ”
    First off, I’m a 51-year old diabetic and I don’t consider myself in great shape. So, yes, if I can lug home some groceries, so can most of the people I see in my neighbourhood grocery stores, the vast majority of which are 1) quite clearly younger than I am, and 2) not encumbered by young kids.
    As I said, cycling is not viable for all single person trips, but my own experience has shown me that many trips that I used to make by car just for the sheer convenience are just as easily made by bike, for the cost of an extra three or four minutes each way. I hope to start a new job this week some 6-7 miles away from home. Sure, if I had a car, I could probably drive it in 20 minutes. If I took the bus, it would probably take about 30 minutes. Riding the bike will take me about 40 minutes. On the other hand, riding the bike will help keep my weight under control and my heart healthy, save me money, and lessen road congestion, besides saving energy. Will I take the bus in rain or snow? Of course; I’m not a masochist.
    And please – canning vegetables takes too long? Cripes, you can easily do an entire bushel of tomatoes while watching an NFL game on a Sunday afternoon.
    As you said, these are my choices, not yours. But please stop throwing up straw (wo)men like “little old ladies” – the vast majority of people I see driving their cars are perfectly healthy people in their 20’s, 30’s, or 40’s who choose a lifestyle that emphasises lack of physical effort and convenience over a little sweat. It’s a free country, so it’s their right to do so; just please have the cojones to admit it, instead of throwing up spurious arguments that just don’t match the facts.

12. ET: Ball has published both in scientific and popular press. And, he has debated with others – for example, on the thread that john cross was posting on. Ball was very active on that site. He’s apparently made over 600 public presentations on climate themes in the past decade. So, what’s your point?
    My point is that in your July 15, 11:43 AM post, you identified specific arenas of legitimate scientific debate: “Scientists debate at conferences, in private communications and above all, in publications, where they can post their databases.” Well, Dr. Ball does not debate in conferences, nor does he debate in (peer-reviewed) publications (neither you nor I are privy to his private communications).
    But he is “active” on the ClimateAudit site, you say? Well, so is John Cross, but you dismiss him as a non-expert. But Dr. Ball is active there and also has the professional credentials, you say? Well, again, four peer-reviewed publications is hardly a distinguished academic record. But Dr. Ball is active there and also has the professional credentials and publishes primarily in the popular press, you say? Well, these are primarily opinion pieces rather than reports of original research. You are an academic researcher yourself. Surely you recognize the importance of peer-review within the scientific process.
    Could you explain how he could be defined as an activist?
    OED: “activism” — (noun) the use of vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.
    Dr. Ball makes many presentations (a vigorous amount, you might say) of others’ scientific research to select audiences, putting forward a controversial and contrarian position on an issue that has direct political and social consequences. Sounds like an activist to me.
    adam, I’m well aware how people in the netherlands use their bicycles…So?
    We built the N. American suburbs; we can unbuild them. Obviously, over long stretches of time, in which we focus on “densification” rather than sprawl. Also, your specific point that I was addressing was that one cannot conveniently transport children or daily household purchases by bike. I provided a link to technology enabling this.
    Yes, the Netherlands’ terrain is especially amenable to cycling, but they are not unique in the world. Evidence is available in the city you live in, I’m sure. As KevinB said, it’s not for everyone, but it can be for many. The Dutch are not forced by state decree to bike; I’m not advocating this either. But as KevinB said, it’s a choice that many can make. That you yourself choose not to cycle is perfectly fine. What is more disagreeable is that you also feel the need to derive KevinB for choosing to do so.

13. Wow, ET. Why do you have such a problem with KevinB’s attempts to reduce his energy footprint? I mean, if YOU don’t cycle, buy local veggies, etc., that’s totally YOUR choice, but why do you feel the need to also undercut HIS efforts?

14. ET: Your arguments have moved truly into the realm of the bizarre. You are now saying that you can read Dr. Ball’s mind and know that he was not including me when he discussed ice cores and CO2 even though he started his post with “John”.
    “Most people don’t go to links” I don’t know about most people. I do think your posts here say something about you going to links.
    You also say “Nor did he discuss it with you; you hadn’t said a word on it.” Humm you got me there, of course following this logic discussions can never start since someone must say something about the topic first.

15. ET: Look – let me summarize. Dr. Ball made an incorrect statement. I pointed it out to him. He responded (with my name at the top of the reply) and introduced (into his discussion with me) the topic of CO2 in ice cores. Steve did not want that topic discussed so I responded to take that discussion over to another site.
    I agree that others were reading the thread but if he didn’t want to discuss it with me why did he not include it in a new post.
    Anyway, perhaps Ron can ask him in his next e-mail. This discussion has moved so far from the initial point that I am surprised that Kate has not shut it down.

16. Shamrock, Daverbonz and others: Thanks, I am willing to discuss CO2 and ice cores with Dr. Ball but I say again that because he chooses not to or in fact is not even aware of this post (because I am too insignificant in the issue – there, happy ET) it says nothing. However I will state that I don’t think that you need extensive publications (or at least 4) to discuss the topic, or that a PhD automatically makes you correct!
    A’dam: I wasn’t going to bring it up but I believe your are correct when you say 4 published papers. At least that is what ISI lists. My only comment is that none of them looks at ice cores ;}

17. John Cross: A’dam: I wasn’t going to bring it up but I believe your are correct when you say 4 published papers. At least that is what ISI lists. My only comment is that none of them looks at ice cores ;}
    And I agree with you that an extensive publication record isn’t required to debate intelligently about climate change topics, or that holding a PhD automatically makes one correct.
    My point in bringing up Dr. Ball’s academic output was to illustrate that folks here can’t have it both ways. If, as Skip argued (yesterday, 9:31 AM), Dr. Suzuki isn’t a real climate change scientist because he trained in genetics and hasn’t done original research in a long while, then I can’t see how Dr. Ball, with his thin and aging scholarly record, can be considered any more qualified by contrast. And if, as ET argued (yesterday, 7:20 PM), that Dr. Ball is still qualified to speak on climate change because, well, he’s already spoken a lot in the popular press and in public presentations, then why aren’t Dr. Suzuki and Al Gore, who have also spoken a lot in the popular press and in public presentations. It’s these sorts of double-standards that I bristle at.
    Frankly, I think the whole lot of them are just doing their jobs, which is advocacy for their respective policy agendas. Once you look at them through that lens, both their collective lack of credentials and their ongoing popularity in their respective circles make perfect sense.

18. They used to be called “Absent-Minded Professors”. They were more or less harmless.
    Today, too many of them are fanatics, as witness Kate’s original post here.
    Same with “peer reviewed”. It the past it might have meant something.
    In this day and age a lot of peer reviewing is a joke at best — criminal at worsed.
    John Cross, was Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ peer reviewed ?? Is that why it is flawless ?? Did the peer reviewing process allow it through because of threatening emails ??
    Tim Ball researched The Hudson Bay Company’s climate data. Hundreds of years of it. Very significant Earth data. It proves the climate was changing before the automobile.
    Does it matter if Gore or Suzuki had a look at it or not ?? — at 36,000 feet, in a Gulfstream IV ??
    I would bet Dr. Tim Ball has also received threatening(even death) emails.
    Oh, and John, Tim said again, he does not recall a JC. Please name someone who does. (Maurice Strong does not count.)

19. The piece below was written in 1994 by one of the founders of Greenpeace. His website also explains what happen to the Environmental movement and how the birth of Kyoto came about. I challange anyone, after reading his articles at his site, to still claim Kyoto is not a fraud.
    [Now this broad-based vision is challenged by a new philosophy of radical environmentalism. In the name of “deep ecology” many environmentalists have taken a sharp turn to the ultra-left, ushering in a mood of extremism and intolerance. As a clear signal of this new agenda, in 1990 Greenpeace called for a “grassroots revolution against pragmatism and compromise”.
    As an environmentalist in the political center I now find myself branded a traitor and a sellout by this new breed of saviors. My name appears in Greenpeace’s “Guide to Anti-Environmental Organizations”. Even fellow Greenpeace founder and campaign comrade, Bob Hunter, refers to me as the “eco-Judas”. ]Patrick Moore
    http://greenspirit.com/key_issues.cfm?msid=34
    greenspirit.com
    If ya think that ‘neat gal’ demolished Avi Lewis, which she did, Patrick Moore would bury ANY Kyoto Kult member. But the media simply will not let it happen to their so-called jurnos. It is called ‘stage-managing’.

20. Hi Ron: You don’t understand what peer-reviewed means. It is not a stamp of “correctness” but rather that a paper has been deemed worthy of being put before the scientific community. This gets it out where anyone can assess it. Thus in the case of Dr. Mann’s paper I see peer review operating as it should. Others looked at it and made improvements. That is the way science works.
    In regards to Dr. Ball, I never claimed that he knew me, but are you saying that he is now denying that it was him posting on Climate Audit?
    Oh, and only because you took me to task for something similar, you said The Hudson Bay Company’s climate data. Hundreds of years of it. Can you show that the time span was over 200 years instead of say 136 years?
    Regards,
    John

21. Oh, Ron, I forgot to ask. Since you are so scornful of the peer review process, could please explain to ET that a lack of publications does not mean that you cannot discuss the issue.
    Thanks,
    John

22. [ Thus in the case of Dr. Mann’s paper I see peer review operating as it should. Others looked at it and made improvements.]JC
    Improvements ?? Are you suggesting the hookey stick graph should have got past the first waste basket ?? It was so pathetic even the corrupt UN IPCC has now droped it.
    Just as I and many others thought. The Kyoto Kult will believe anything — ANYTHING to further their religion. Even junk peer reviews.
    [As a result of affiliation between the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Royal Society a relatively large number of instrumental temperature records are available from York Factory and Churchill Factory on the southwest of Hudson Bay beginning in 1768. The nature of these records, details of the instruments and information about the observers are presented. The major difficulty with the records is that the number of observations and the time of observation varied considerably. Adjustment factors were calculated for all of the combinations using a modern record maintained at the Churchill airport. By combining the Hudson’s Bay Company record with data recorded by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police after 1852, and up to 1910, a long and relatively continuous record of daily and monthly average temperatures has been created for Central Canada.]
    Weather records available, starting in 1768. Many, many decades. More than a couple of decades. Gore and Suzuki go ballistic because of one or two warm decades.
    And now the Russians, among others, are quite sure the Earth’s climate will begin cooling in a few years.
    It’s called climate cycles — always has, is, and always will.
    The earth is travelling around the sun at a horrific speed. There are dust clouds, cosmic rays in the milky way. One theory is that as the Earth periodically passes though them it alters our climate. Ice ages, medieval warm periods and all that.
    Because it is all very complicated the media ignors the real explanations, possibilities and ‘dumbs-down’ the “news” instead. Hence, Gore and Suzuki. The sky-is-falling-makes a better story. STORY all right 🙂