There was an error in this gadget

Saturday, 20 October 2012

Keeping the Cash Flowing ...

Every once in a while I stumble across a blog, paper or news report which catches my attention. One such is this lengthy, but very well researched treatise on the Blog Anthropogenic Global Bias. I found it fascinating, I have never before come across such a clearly assembled collection of evidence to support the argument that the AGW debate is being steered and controlled in the interests of protecting a very large 'industry.'

Rather than try and summarise it, I'm posting the direct links to the sections of his paper. I think many will find it as enlightening as I did. It also says a great deal about my topic for yesterday and the feeding of people's fear of the future, the present and anything related to change ...


CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION – THE $300 TRILLION QUESTION
2. OUR LEADERS
     2.1. Want to do something constructive? Blow up a dam – James Hansen
     2.2. If science fails, ideology should do it – Mike Hulme
3. WE REALLY MUST FIND SUITABLE DATA
     3.1. Baseline à la carte – Tom Wigley
4. TAKE AWAY THE NUMBER YOU FIRST THOUGHT OF
     4.1. So exactly what is your process, Professor?
          4.1.1. I’ll delete the file – Phil Jones
          4.1.2. Avoid litigation, you may lose – Ben Santer
     4.2. Death of a hockey-stick – D’Arrigo et al
     4.3. A load of garbage – ‘Harry’ Harris
     4.4. The truth can be so confusing – IPCC
     4.5. Hide the incline – Michael Mann
     4.6. Important to choose the right assumption – Phil Jones
5. REPORT PREPARATION
     5.1. Perjured conclusion – IPCC 2
6. POLITICAL SHENANIGANS
     6.1. We’ll keep the red flag flying here – Czarina Browner
     6.2. Given that AGW exists… – the IPCC’s neutral brief
     6.3. Our policy is clear, we just don’t adhere to it – EPA
          6.3.1. Underwhelming transparency – Ms Lisa Jackson
          6.3.2. So how does one get to be a scientist? – EPA
7. MEDIA SCHMEDIA
     7.1. The Biased Broadcasting Corporation
          7.1.1. Socialists triumph, Hurrah! – Jane Garvey
          7.1.2. Alarming revelation: science not settled – Peter Sissons
          7.1.3. Balance inappropriate, at last it’s official – BBC Trust
          7.1.4. Hide the stasis – D’Aleo and Watts
          7.1.5. Synthesis? Leave it to the NGOs – Roger Harrabin
     7.2. More honoured in the breach – Journalists’ Code of Ethics
     7.3. Rice production increase ‘overlooked’ – ‘Guardian’
     7.4. Denialists needn’t apply – ‘Nature’
     7.5. Keep your friends close – IPCC’s expert reviewers
8. EVIDENCE UNNECESSARY, HYSTERIA ESSENTIAL
9. CONCLUSION

No comments:

Post a Comment