Climate change conspiracy went further

Someone just replied to a comment I made on another blog over two years ago. That generated an email to inform me of the reply, so I went and looked. The blog author had expressed scepticism of the idea that there was a conspiracy at the heart of the global-climate-change industry.

I am quite pleased with my judgement. This was before even the original “Climategate” release.

But there is a conspiracy in Global Warming (sorry, it’s called climate change isn’t it, now the globe has stopped warming?). Those in the conspiracy have all but admitted that there is a conspiracy to keep the data on which the scare is based away from researchers who might challenge their interpretation of it.

…

As for undisclosed affiliation, what about the people who favour climate change panic? Well the scientists need to ensure their funding. There is far more money, by orders of magnitude, in claiming AGW than in refuting it.

So with the 2009 release of emails and data, and the 2011 release of emails from the CRU, further evidence of these conspiracies emerged, exactly along the lines I had stated, but also far further. What I commented on was only one of a web of conspiracies.

Did I underestimate the scope of conspiracy, or was I just commenting on those parts for which there was, at the time, evidence? I think a little of both. I certainly would not have guessed that the World Bank would be at the centre of things, but the involvement of a BBC reporter and at least some BBC management is not quite so unexpected.

[Update: edited to add extra hyperlinks]

More Climate Politics

It is difficult to decide what the UK Meteorological Office hopes to achieve in predicting future climate. What seems certain is that they have politicised their science.

Christopher Booker writes in the Daily Telegraph about the refusal of the Met Office to release the data on which its climate predictions are based. I have talked before about the conspiracy to withhold those data. However the Met Office appears to have given an even more bizarre and telling excuse than Professor Jones’s.

To release that information might

"damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector"

As Mr Booker explains that trust is already damaged. However I think there is far more to this statement than that. If releasing the data might damage trust in the scientists then there is something in that data set that runs against the conclusions the scientists are reaching.

Trust will not, as they suggest, be damaged because the scientists “…happen to be employed in the public sector” but because of their conclusions and the unstated problem in the data. This statement implies that other scientists would disagree with the conclusions reached by the public-sector scientists. This is in effect an admission that those scientists in the public sector are reaching a conclusion because they are in the public sector.

It is widely known that even though scientists are not, senior politicians are all but unanimous in believing in man-made climate catastrophe (with a glorious exception). Therefore employment in the public sector depends on reaching conclusions in line with this view.

To sum up, that one statement suggests both that the conclusions reached by the UK Met Office, one of the major contributors to the IPCC, are not in line with the data and that those conclusions are influenced by politics.

The Most Important Video

This might be the most important video you ever watch.

Rather the historical detail it gives on Critical Theory, with the perspective that shows on the links between ‘liberal’ socialism, communism and political correctness, could be the most important fact to spread. Certainly those of you concerned about the ‘New World Order’, the EU and bias in the news media will learn about your fears.

The most important thing I took from it is that these things are not vast conspiracies with tentacles in all walks of life. They are emergent patterns, coming from socialist dogma of Critical Theory just as an efficient, structured economy emerges from the free market or organisms emerge from evolution. Structures that look a lot like a conspiracy, behave a lot like that and could have the same end results. However the apparent tentacles are not willing, aware parts of some plot, they are ordinary people with incorrect or more often incomplete information – the narrative mentioned in the video.

That is the reason that no conspiracy has become obvious (I wrote before about the reasons most conspiracy theories don't add up). However it is also the great weakness of Critical Theory, and if it remains free the internet is likely to kill it. Knowledge is key to stopping its spread.

Since this is mentioned on Instapundit and is a PJTV video it will have a wide audience.

Conspiracy: The Exception Proves The Rule

Most conspiracy theories don’t hold up well to scrutiny for very simple reasons. People are not that efficient, and it is not that easy to persuade all the people who have to know into silence. Some either want no part in a conspiracy of silence or are arrogant enough to be unaware that what they are saying exposes them. The conspiracy would become obvious.

To prove that rule there is a genuine conspiracy, and it is becoming ever more obvious as inefficiency causes leaks and as some of those in the conspiracy tell all.

Last week The Register published an article about the refusal of various organisations involved in climate research to release their raw data and data processing information. The excuses given beggar belief from confidentiality clauses (why are the UK and Danish Met Office keeping data secret?) to losing data, some of which might have been made verbally and not written down. So a research organisation is seriously suggesting we forego tens of trillions of dollars, yet they cannot be bothered to write the numbers down.

The worst excuse might be,

“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Well maybe because that is science, Professor Jones. Interesting that The Register considers him an “activist-scientist”. The two terms are mutually exclusive; I know which I think he is.

In any other field a scientific paper with a novel conclusion is an invitation for others to try to replicate the results. Until someone can do so then the original paper is considered highly speculative. If other groups are not able to do so then it is generally concluded that the original research was flawed in some way. So if the data are not available then the science can never be judged to have solid grounding, let alone settled beyond all debate.

It is clear from the article that there is a conspiracy to keep the raw data from being studied by scientists who might challenge the conclusion that human activity is changing the climate in a predictable way. This seems to be part of a wider conspiracy. Notice how difficult it is to conceal such a conspiracy, even with the collusion of the UN, of most of the news media and of almost all politicians in the democratic nations? Professor Jones did not remain silent, and the CRU made an error, leaving information on a server, that makes the conspiracy obvious.

Hat tip Small Dead Animals.