An interesting new idea… A Crime Against Science. I’ve never been fond of the fuzzy notion of a “Crime against humanity” as there really ought to be someone, something real, that can be shown to have suffered a harm. How can one be confronted by their accuser when their accuser is “humanity”? Just saying hello to each one would consume the rest of your life…
But it is now law in many places. So perhaps a ‘Crime Against Science” is no worse.
http://www.thegwpf.org/editor-accuses-met-office-crime-science-public/
has an interesting, if short, article. It quotes part of an editorial with a one line intro, quoted here:
Editor Accuses Met Office Of ‘Crime Against Science And The Public’
Date: 10/01/13
Editorial, Daily MailTo put it mildly, it is a matter of enormous public interest that the Met Office has revised its predictions of global warming, whispering that new data suggest there will be none for the next five years.
After all, the projection implies that by 2017, despite a colossal increase in carbon emissions, there will have been no rise in the planet’s surface temperature for almost two decades.
Why, then, did the Met Office choose to sneak out this intriguing information on Christmas Eve, knowing there would be no newspapers the next day?
Isn’t the inescapable suspicion that our national forecaster was anxious not to shake confidence in its Messianic belief that we are destroying our own planet?
This paper keeps an open mind on climate change – and accepts that the Met Office’s revised prediction doesn’t prove the scientific establishment and its staunch disciples at the BBC wrong.
At the very least, however, it adds to the debate, lending support to those who argue that the threat to the environment has been greatly exaggerated.
Meanwhile, ministers stake gargantuan sums of public money on their faith in the alarmists, scarring the landscape with wind farms, forcing up energy bills and threatening to shut down almost all our fossil fuel-dependent economy.
This is why it is so vital that every scrap of scientific data is fully debated and dispassionately analysed.
The Met Office’s clumsy attempt to hush up an inconvenient truth was a crime against science and the public.
It then points to an editorial at the Daily Mail where there is yet more:
[…]
It’s anybody’s guess whether David Cameron and Nick Clegg would have been damaged or enhanced if they’d included their well-known failures in their mid-term review on Monday.
What is certain is that their reputation has taken another knock since a careless aide was caught carrying a restricted document, agonising over the pros and cons of coming clean with the public.
So much for the Coalition’s pledge that it would have no truck with Labour-style spin. The only difference is that this lot are so bad at it.
That point, of putting that prediction of 5 more years onto the end of the present non-rise period, is an interesting one.
Here we have one of the big “pushers” (and they ARE pushers, just like pushers of any drug) of Global Warming admitting that it will be at least 5 more years of cold. Now the present ‘no warming’ period is variously anywhere from 15 to 20 years depending on which cooked temperature data you look at and what is used for the significance test.
So we’re looking not just at 20 years ( 15 + 5 ) but in some cases 25 years of “no warming” being accepted by a key pusher.
A Fifth to a Quarter Century.
Golly.
It must be a bit disheartening to the True Believers in Global Warming that not only has it not gotten warm for a decade and a half, and not only are we having the worst, coldest, most frozen weather since the ’50s and ’60s; but now they are being told to cool their heels for another half decade until they are at quarter century scale “no warming” markers. THEN the warming will return, you betcha! ( It will likely be highly welcomed by then, I’m sure…)
So not a lot of ‘depth’ to this posting. But just take a moment to ponder:
1) How long we’ve been “at this”.
2) How much data diddling and history cooking / rewriting the Warmers have done.
3) How vast the money spent against a few quiet voices “speaking truth to power” and privilege and NGO slush funds and…
4) How long the temperatures have failed to warm.
5) How quiet the sun, and this at the TOP of this solar cycle.
6) There are at least 5 to 6 more years to go in the downside of this cycle.
7) The Met Office and all their ‘hangers on’ know this.
It’s gotta give them a burn… especially freezer burn if they step outside…
Musings from the Chiefio 
Sixty-seven years ago a crime was committed against science that was also was a crime against humanity.
For reasons that are not yet completely clear, a British author of science fiction (Eric Blair alias George Orwell, 1904-1950) realized by 1946 that society faced an impending disaster when a tyrannical government would manipulate information to control the public – a situation that is remarkably similar to the one which grips society today.
For some strange reason, in 1946 George Orwell went from a writer of the history on the rise of communism under Stalin prior to WWII (Animal Farm), to a fortune-teller of the return of a tyrannical government by 1984.
Why? I do not know, but I suspect another British author of science fiction, Fred Hoyle – perhaps compelled to write misinformation about the composition and operation of stars [1] in 1946 – contacted George Orwell.
Although Orwell was dying from tuberculosis, he moved from London in 1946 “to the sodden, remote, windswept Scottish island of Jura” [2], was admitted to Hairmyres Hospital on Christmas Eve 1946, according to an unconfirmed report in Wikipedia [3], where the hospital staff “confiscated his typewriter” he was using to warn society about a tyrannical government that would appear by “Nineteen-Eighty Four” [4].
You can help unravel this mystery if you have any information of communications between George Orwell and Fred Hoyle around 1946.
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
1. Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-259 (1946); “The synthesis of elements from hydrogen,” ibid., 343-383 (1946)
2. John J. Ross, “Tuberculosis, bronchiectasis, and infertility: What Ailed George Orwell?” Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol. 41, No. 11, 2005, pp. 1599-1603
Click to access 1599.full.pdf
3. Hairmyres Hospital, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairmyres_Hospital
4. George Owrell (Eric Arthur Blair), “Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)” Secker and Warburg, 1949:
http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eighty-Four-Centennial-Edition-George/dp/0452284236 http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
This image shows mankind’s proper place in the universe, not as the ruler, but as one of many who are aware of their size and importance as part of this vibrant, benevolent universe:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=sun+worshippers&qpvt=sun+worshippers&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=317DC2F3826AAC01016C2B8B5E39A6898528C7ED&selectedIndex=7
Ego-centric leaders tend to be Godless, unable to accept a Higher Power
I dislike being combative but considering the sources, this latest prognostication implies that it will warm substantively over the next five years. The projections from the Met and other computer jockies have been significantly INCORRECT (105% level – ;<P) the last fifteen years, why should that glowing track record be in dispute? Particularly so when you concede the current temperature is indisputably lower than the cooked books output.
If there is indeed no warming in the next 5 years, even at the conservative period of 20 years, that means there will have been no warming for 20 of the 37 years of the hysteria. A majority of the time. I know that will not eliminate the disinformation and obfuscation. But one wonders how so many will continue to buy into a premise the is more wrong than it could possibly be right.
I’d rather they’d forecast the weather properly for more then 12 hours. Somehow that is beyond the capacity of my countries metoffice, where you can have revised weather forecasts every few hours. And by revised i mean rain or sunshine revised. Today was supposed to be sunny, which turned out to be overcast in the morning, when the revised meteo said it would be overcast and the sun appeared. Not a joke. And that’s not an exceptional case, that’s the norm in the winter.
The only time when they are right is from spring to summer since it’s always sunny. I guess that doesn’t count as forecasts go.
But forecasting 30 years seems to be no problem. Nobody is ever going to convince me that whichever way it’s forecast it’s anything but pure chance how it turns out and that the one that got it ‘right’ did so by pure accident.
The only thing that doesn’t make this a dog-bites-man story is that the fellow-traveling press actually wrote the article. The whole history of governments is commission of crimes — many slight but many horrendous — against its citizens. As for crimes against Science, well, much (most?) research does that daily. We’re so used to it all we don’t even notice…
If our host will let me emphasize a point, I need your help. Many pieces of the puzzle fit together.
You can help unravel this mystery if you have any information on communications between George Orwell and Fred Hoyle around 1946 or Fred Hoyle being compromised or blackmailed, perhaps by travel to the USSR.
Drones included?
Reblogged this on Standard Climate.
Tim Clark says: “I dislike being combative but considering the sources, this latest prognostication implies that it will warm substantively over the next five years.”
That was funny – I took you to mean that given the success of the forecasts, this latest one must also mean the opposite will happen in the temperatures.
However, as ElChiefio pointed out, five years is roughly the same as the remaining quiet sun cycle.
Now, I appreciate that “crimes against science” is not exactly an actionable term. But these sustainability/climate soothsayers certainly do suck up all of the oxygen out of the science;
How is science supposed to advance when all players are either perpetrating a false prediction of the future, or being forced to focus constantly on defending against the false predictions of future events by scientists? While “crime against science” does seem more like a flourish of speech, there certainly is a very serious abuse of science occurring.
More figure-fiddling from the UK Met Office. Check the graphs, especially the white line.
Check out the change in Sunspots over the last 100 years I can see a pattern https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200292689336743&set=a.1432449328103.2061423.1139002243&type=1&theater
The global temperatue was,according to the cli-myth models supposed to rise by some 4C by the end of this century. With no warming for the first 20 years I do not see how there can be any siignificant warming by 2100 especilly with the sun in the doldrums most probably for the rest of the century.
The white curve is for immediate loading and unloading only. If you must load or unload, go to the white curve.
1. Since the 1980’s but most people only started to hear about it in the 1990’s.
2. A lot and it continues. NCDC changes their historic database each month to make the past prior to 1940 a little colder and the recent past warmer.
3. It is all about creating fear in order to get your children to part with their money to give to their children.
4. Since 1998.
5. Yeah. And you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Wait till NEXT cycle. We have have one that has barely any observable spots at all.
6. Yep. And when the 10.7 gets below about 100, watch out. The more time it spends below 100, the more I worry about temperature.
7. Yeah, which is why they have to go back and re-write history. I am not worried about the person who created this graphic. I am worried about the person who approved it for release. That person should be immediately SACKED.
These people are ultimately politicians as all bureaucrats really are. Milton Friedman once said that we don’t really need to worry too muck about having “the right people” in these positions. They will do whatever is politically profitable for them to do. So we just need to make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing and they will. Right now in the UK you get more votes by going along with the AGW charade so they do. The second that changes and someone is put at risk of losing an election for supporting AGW, the tone of the entire government will change.
Here is a link on a physics topic. Scroll down and read pages 14 and 15. The idea of Jupiter affecting the weather is talked about. It makes as much sense as anything else.
I think we have reached a point in History where politics dictates the science agenda – very sad.
E.M If you binned my first comment leave it binned, was poorly done.
Lying for personal gain is already a crime.
What I need and am trying to complete, is a timeline and a shape.
The key names, and the evidence that they knew they were lying.
The major money starts flowing in Clintons terms, lots of key bureaucrats get appointed.
Maurice Strong is apparently the uncle of Bob Rae, a powerful Liberal in Canada.
During the Liberal reign, same thing, key bureaucrats appointed and money flows to UN weather scam.
Then the govt rushed through all kinds of, unsupportable by the science,policies to reduce our freedom in the name of co2 emissions.
The cover for the phoney science, continues to this day, by our bureaucrats.
To me its clear, if these expensive watchdogs had done or would do their jobs, this weather hysteria would have never got started.
Climate Gate provided the first clear distinctions between incompetence and malice, malice it is.
Donna LaFramboise, showed us what fraud the IPCC spouts.
WUWT el al, demonstrate the false science, false precision, deliberate inflation of certainty.
Ma Nature has been sanities best friend.
Social Hysteria seems to cycle, weather cycles but they do not sync .
Time is on our side, as the team splinters more information will spew out.
Strikes me the Leaker of East Anglia knows human nature well.
Most important we take note of the incompetent and evil before they try to slither on.
I need the shape, the time line of these machinations, the names of those who personally benefited, those who enabled them and a broad description of the public wealth wasted by this power grab.
I can feel the shape forming but I am not there yet. Sometimes too much information hurts.
This is a political problem, it was always a political attack on free society for our own good of course. I will shape what I find to use as a club on my politicians and local enablers.
I keep thinking its time for a what do we know for sure..
No warming up for a while, and as we know CO2 has very little to do with global warming. Are the Western governments going to roll back the laws enacted because of this stupidity? If they do not surely that is a crime against the developed world.
We should seek reparations from the UN?
“Ego-centric leaders tend to be Godless, unable to accept a Higher Power”
I consider being “godless” a badge of honor.
@John Robertson:
I didn’t bin it, but the software did. Key words and all. I’ll leave it there at your request (or clean it up if I’m bored ;-)
To find out where it starts, look at the history of The Club Of Rome and the book “Limits To Growth” by Meadows et. al. (It started the ‘catastrophe running out doom!’ model of computer projections back in the ’70s.) The same folks started pushing Global Warming.
For more recent mechanism and folks track back the Agenda 21 root:
E.M trash it its rubbish, finger ahead of brain, rushing 1/2 formed idea into print,was late for supper.
Another thread is the consolidation of ownership of the press. Investigative journalism would be pulling in the readers and advertisers on this scam, yet the press are willing propagandists.
Fortunate coincidence?
I sound more like a conspiracy nut every year, reading the CRU emails pulled me from a vague feeling of sloppy work, wilful ignorance of history and just dumb govt staffers, over into a state of rage.
I don’t enrage easily, but I stay mad for as long as it takes. So I an overjoyed to see the cracks growing bigger each year. But I will do what I can to bring down anyone who enabled this attack.
I believe sanity has an ally in Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister, he is an incrementalist and wants reelected, current handicaps are the entrenched bureaucrats from the Liberal Era, an insanely hostile press (to both PM and climate reality) and a noisy concerned public.
Now I think the concerned “public” is a creation of the MSM, cause their web comments sections are getting hammered by cynics.But a provincial election was just lost, according to CBC, cause the losers said CAGW was rubbish.
If enough canadians start agitating for an explanation, why are we in debt due to this public hysteria over co2? Why has Environment Canada, a govt agency rewritten history? Why are our weather stations junk? Where are the station data as recorded?What is CBC lying for?Why did govt fail to protect?
Thats where I see the quickest strike to the throat.
Just one credible royal commission of inquiry into billions of wasted tax dollars and its over, a few prison sentences, lots of early retirement, for health reasons and more govt depts disbanded.
UN declared a terrorist organization by Canada?
For the conservatives, an incredible discrediting of the left is possible here. Its not hard to equate the past behaviour of our government to treason by intent or stupidity.
Politically treason thro stupidity is the best conclusion, damns the followers too.
If we can pull the strands together, verify the evidence, compact the message and show the ruling politicians an advantage in acting against this scheme we win a breathing space for truth, lifestyle and the scientific method.
Hmmm I think I just explained why my local member of parliament will do anything to prolong this scam, an honest examination would take his party down.Thats why he do not want to know.
Now I may be engaged in wishful thinking but hope is a necessary option.
Ryan Maue twitters that some really serious cold is forecasted for Canada and northern US states: https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/289606764503117824 – and large swaths of the oceans are really cold now: http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom_new.gif
@BobN : Quoting that article you have approached the very fundamental laws of the universe. It is evident that symbols are the blue prints of the functioning of the cosmos. Please see my approach, as a two dimensional “cut” of these at:
Click to access unified_field.pdf
@adolfogiurfa – thanks for sharing your ideas, very interesting. The duality of wave and particle physics is most interesting if not confusing.
@BobN; the duality of physics is due to two different interpretations of the same test device results.Consider a ringing force field that travels. The resonate frequency creates a standing field that appears to be a surface but is just a point that all wave energies reinforce each other. Remember this is a wave form of energy, 3 dimensions, increased density, decreased density,
not a 2 dimension wave form. A standing, 3 dimension, wave in a medium. A rubber ball with pressure on the outside as well as inside that rings like a bell. In electric/electronic science we are taught that every electron in the universe can, to some degree, feel every other electron. Electrons, photons and neutrinos are the same thing with different EMF signatures due to the internal angular momentum that generates their signature EMF field. pg
@P.G. Sharrow – Thanks for sharing your insights. I am an EE and still find some of these issues very hard to visualize. Maybe that’s why I spent my career in Logic design. Much of the physics seems like magic that needs to be accepted and used.
How a radio wave travels through space has always bothered me. Whats funny, a lot of these type of things make a lot more sense now that I am restudying them anew. I hated Physics in college, just learn the formulas, pass the test and move on. I now find much of these things fascinating and fun to think about. Yes, youth does not appreciate the whys.
@BobN; I generally find EEs easily grasp physics once they think in electrics and not in particle physics math. GOD is not a mathematician. GOD is an Engineer and works in applied science. pg
@P.G., BobN, Adolfo:
IMHO it works a LOT better once you toss out the particle view of things. More stuff works right…
For example, the atom. In theory, a P orbital pokes out each side and is pictured as a bow tie shaped barbel of roundness. That’s the “surface” point of view. In reality, the “electron”: can be anywhere on either side of the atom and that ’round bow tie’ is just showing a relative isoprobability surface. There are a series of such ‘shells’ each representing a different probability that the ‘electron’ will be at that particular point. OK, that’s the solid ball electron and surface of a bow tie POV.
Really, the electron is a ‘wave function’. It isn’t a hard little ball of fluff. It is just the probability that you can interact with that wave function at any given point that is being measured. The wave function extends to infinity in all directions. The really “odd” bit being that the electron ‘exists’ on each side of the nucleus, yet AT the exact mid-line there is an exactly zero probability of the electron ‘being there’. THAT is the point where the ball and surface model goes POOF! and the mind rejects.
How? (it asks) How can the ball electron be on both sides of the nucleus but NEVER be in the middle? How can it react on both sides equally, but somehow be bouncing around between sides? While never crossing the middle?
The correct view is, as P.G. pointed out, to see it as a standing wave of energy that just happens to have a zero nodal point in the middle and decreasing force with distance out to infinity…
That you can pop that packet of energy off and send it zipping along with some other mode of oscillation that is more spherical in manifestation doesn’t really seem all that unlikely now, does it?
So, IMHO, “it’s all about the wave function”. Particles not so much…
Furthermore, when we have atomic decay or whack particles in colliders, we get various ‘stuff’ out. Some we call electrons. Some protons or positrons. Some gama rays and photons. I tend to think P.G. is right that many of these are really the same energy packets, just ringing in different ways. (We already know that light has more energy when it rings faster and UV vs IR vs Radio Waves vs X-Rays vs… are all seen as ‘the same thing’. Is it really that big a leap to ‘and electrons too’? Especially given that we turn photons into electron flow in PV panels and back to photons in hot wires in a glass bulb. Packaging, moving, and reforming those energy packets / wave functions.)
The only thing that is still a bit murky to me is just how different units of these packets of energy get stuck together and change form. We know that an electron and positron mixed will turn 100% to photons. My thesis is just that there is a momentum consideration. Momentum is a conserved property. IF (and it is a very speculative if…) matter comes about when momentum is angular and photons when it is linear, then the annihilation of the e- / e+ makes sense as a cancellation of two different angular momentum packages. Those two wave function merge, and what is left is the energy and the linear momentum. ZING! off go a load of photons (that had been in very tight angular momentum rich rotation…) So, IMHO, you ought to be able to calculate how many / what size photons add up to make any given unit of mass.
At that point, the whole system “fits”. The reason we have all that zoo of particles and interactions. Just various mixes of linear and angular momentum with total energy. (When in very tight rotation – lots of angular momentum – the energy packets start causing ‘frame dragging’ and other relativistic effects and [ at this point I am waving hands furiously ;-) ] that is the ultimate source of gravity. It is just the manifestation of the basic energy packets when loaded with so much angular momentum that spinning in such a small area at the ‘speed of light’ causes ‘mass’ to appear. That is why we can convert mass to energy. They are the same thing, just with different momenta…
This is my own private theory. Call it “Smith’s Momentum Hypothesis” if you like. But it does help me accept the otherwise incompatible things said by ‘particle physics’ and quantum mechanics…
Chemistry then just becomes “applied quantum mechanics” inside complex mixtures of these energetic wave functions acting at a modest distance (atomic radius or so).
No, not done the math to see if it all works out or not. But I think it will…
Then things like radio also make sense. An “electron” running up and down a wire is a wave function being distorted by the mass (other wave functions) of the particles in that wire. Some conditions (resonance) let that wave function couple out into free space and a ‘radio wave’ is emitted ( a wave function / photon of very very low energy in radio frequencies, of linear momentum, and no angular momentum.) Somewhere in the wire, some collective of wave functions (‘particles’) has picked up a bit of angular momentum and let the photon take flight…
That’s my working hypothesis, any way…
Sometimes “hand waving” and word pictures work better then semi-correct mathematical formula to discern the truth. :-)
Now add Dark matter/ Dark energy, or Aether and AM (Angular Momentum) to create a real singularity from the chaos, a Proton of organized Aether, and you have matter. A proton inside an electronic standing wave shell. The hydrogen atom/Neutron, a WAG of about 1280 units of Aether to comprise one nucleon. The EMF (Electro-Motive Force) of the nucleon on the surrounding Aether create the effects of mass/inertia. The warpage caused by the matter field in the overall Aether field gives the effect we see as gravity.
Too bad Einstein was a mathematician and not an Electrical Engineer. He could have created a real unified field theory. ;-) at least this is the way I see it. 8-) pg
@Jeff Alberts, 11 Jan 2013 at 3:05 am
“I consider being “godless” a badge of honor.
You may be right. I had the same belief, too, for many years. Probably because of the image I was taught of “God” in my childhood.
Now I see Reality, Truth and God as synonyms, and “godless” as an indication of unwillingness to accept that I am simply a small but important part of the great reality. I am controlled by cause-and-effect, like the rest of the cosmos, powerless over everything except my response to reality.