Climategate by Brian Sussman (WND Books, 2010)

"Author and meteorologist" eh? Is this the same Brian Sussman who is a morning host on KSFO Radio, and who says Earth Day is a socialist plot and that DDT is harmless?
Quote: "Lenin's core political philosophy was linked at the hip with these newly fangled environmentalists who maintained that America's government must be altered, its economy planned and regulated, and its citizens better controlled..."
A conspiracy theorist for our times?

Yeah, that Sussman was paid by some giant corp (or a group of corps). We may only guess what corps. The list is not so big.
In 80-s were published several books with similar agenda 'smoking is not so bad for your health & health of your children, science didn't get any direct connection between smoking & health problems'. So when milions of people are influenced by global warming, to tell ppl they are not influenced by it (because some corps want you to believe it) is the height of impudence.
Oh, i forgot, corps don't care about morality, they care about profits, as fast as possible.
Greed rules the world, unfortunately.

@ LD: Great share, thanks!

@ Litelode: DDT IS completely harmless. When the UN stupidly banned it all those years ago, it was followed by the deaths of millions of malaria. Later studies found NO evidence of harmful effects of DDT - except to insects. It is now used worldwide. This is old news - I can't believe there are STILL people out there today pedalling Rachel Carson's crap after all this time.

@ Da Cast: You clearly illustrate with your comments that Greens are just Reds. And haven't you heard? We don't call it 'global warming' anymore - because the world hasn't warmed in the last 12 years. We call it "Climate Change". Although I don't know why because there has been no change in the number of hurricanes or tornadoes in the last century, and no change in the rate of sea level rise in the last 150 years. And polar bears are thriving. Did you know that climate has ALWAYS changed? Have you heard of the MWP - when it was WARMER than today? Or do you still believe in Michael Mann's thoroughly discredited hockey schtick which removed the warm periods and little ice age? Did you know that there are fossilised trees and coal in the Antarctic? How did they get there if today is warmer than ever before? I will NOT allow myself to be manipulated by the likes of Gore, Mann, Briffa and Jones. These people have been discredited beyond doubt. My eyes are OPEN.

@ LL: thanks again for your PM :)

@ Da Cast: "Yeah, that Sussman was paid by some giant corp (or a group of corps). We may only guess what corps."
Unless you can back that statement up with some facts, I guess we may only assume you're a troll.

Great share, thx

@ Lilywhite Lilith - thanks, you just confirmed your acceptance of junk science. Do a search on atsdr.cdc.gov (toxic substances and disease registry) for DDT to see just how broad a carcinogen DDT really is. Or don't you accept any scientific data unless it came through your pseudo-sources of climate change deniers? For your information, Rachael Carson predicted the resurgence of diseases like malaria, which rely on insects to carry them for part of their lifecycles, after the banning of DDT. She rightly saw that allowing DDT in the environment was the greater risk.

So, let's hear it: DDT is good for you; glaciers are growing; volcanoes release more CO2 than humans; it's all a conspiracy to enslave us under a world government anyway.

Litelode: Grow up. DDT is absolutely safe and has been deemed so by the U.N. now. And no one here has "denied" climate change. The only deniers here are the greens, who can't accept that climate has always changed (that one always stumps you lot!). It has been warmer before. We're heading into the next 30 year cooling cycle, right on schedule (it's a cycle).

As for accepting scientific data - speaking personally, I accept science that is correctly subjected to the rigours of the scientific process. That means applying scepticism (in the scientific sense) and testing it until it either fails the test or passes every test that can be thrown at it. AGW has failed miserably. Why do you think Jones and Mann and all the other crooks refused to share their data? What do you think they had to hide? Well, since the climategate emails we all KNOW what they were hiding don't we! Now we know about Mann's Nature trick (the trick was to delete the inconvenient proxy data where he saw fit, and splice in observational data - but not tell anyone! And he called that science!) We know about Phil Jones refusing to release his data because he had 25 years invested in it and didn't want anyone to find anything wrong with it! If it weren't so serious it would be laughable! These people are living off the taxpayer commiting these crimes against science. They should be locked up. So if there's any "denying" being done here, it's by you filthy Greens.

Oh, here are some facts for you. Percentage of CO2 in the air: 38 THOUSANDTHS. Percentage of that CO2 added by humans: THREE. Now, do you still want to seriously imply that humans produce more CO2 than volcanoes? Really? You have no idea! And do you think people have never fallen to corrupt governments before? You not heard of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, to name but a few? (Funny how they're always socialists too, isn't it). Why are you so confident that it's not happening again? Stalin had a word for people like you: Useful Idiots.

LezDawson, I'm delighted you fell for the volcano bait. It further demonstrates how readily you'll swallow junk science, which is clearly all that comprises the arguments in Professor (author, meteorologist and right-wing radio shock jock) Brian Sussman's text.

The US Geological Survey provides rigorously-tested data showing that human beings produce 130 times more CO2 than volcanoes - this includes submarine volcanoes (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/). Read that figure and remember it - 130 times!. This is an old argument, one of many such wearily regurgitated by climate change deniers. Many similar climate change myths are debunked here: http://tinyurl.com/5rn2e8

Can you really fool yourself that if 97.4% of climatologists actively engaged in research answer yes to the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" there is a conspiracy?

No, the issue boils down to why - given the evidence - climate change deniers have retreated from the truth to support their ignorant denial with half-baked arguments. Some are clearly paid lobbyists, supported by Big Oil and fossil-fuel concerns. But I suspect for LezDawson (a useful poster on Avax, who's given us such gems as the The Apu Trilogy) and his ilk, it's because they don't want to change, don't want to give up their flights for foreign holidays in the sun each year, don't want to cycle or take public transport to work instead of driving. They actually live in fear and anger (just read the invective in LezDawson's response above - "idiots, grow up, filthy Greens...") about the changes which are coming to the rich world (those in poor countries have no dispute with the effects of anthropogenic global warming - just ask any resident of Tuvalu) and whine like little kids not wanting to let go of their toys.

LezDawson: "I accept science that is correctly subjected to the rigours of the scientific process"

So you presumably accept the theory of evolution, and allow for the fact that gaps within the fossil record (not yet proven links between species' development) can exist without demolishing its overall explanation of the origins of life? Likewise, the emails scandal with Phil Jones - which is rightly seen as shameful - does not detract from the massive amount of data demonstrating the link between human activity and climate change. To say otherwise is to contort yourself into impossible twists and kinks. This is the text of what Jones said in the email at the centre of the controversy:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith [Briffa]'s, to hide the decline."

What was this "Nature trick"? It was a way of incorporating one data set from tree rings, which showed an apparent decline in temperature, into the larger body of data which showed an increase in temperature. It was a trick only in the sense of a being a piece of mathematical conjuring, not of manipulation to falsify results. The bulk of Jones' data showed an increase in temperature. I can't stress this enough. The entire "climategate" scandal is entirely bogus, taking the misdeeds of a few protective scientists and trying to construct evidence of a conspiracy around them.
http://www.youtube.com/v/7nnVQ2fROOg

If we really want to see a conspiracy in action, it's to search for who was behind the hacking of the emails and peddling of untruths such as the "volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans" confabulation. What is the agenda of these people, who claim to be rooting out corrupt scientists and spurious research? Where does their money come from? Are you sure there is no parallel between them and the endorsement of smoking that happened after a link between tobacco and cancer was first mooted in the 1960s?

Climate crock of the week: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=029130BFDC78FA33

@ Litelode: The evolution example is another classic example of poor science. It is a poor theory - it should really have never been accepted as 'theory' and should have remained as a 'hypothesis' (i.e. has not passed enough tests to reasonably be called 'theory' - as you rightly say, there are serious holes in the 'theory' and in the fossil record).

The massive amount of data does NOT demonstrate any link between human-produced CO2 (a tiny tiny tiny tiny amount compared to what nature produces - did you know humans produce 3% of CO2 in the atmosphere?).

You clearly do not understand what Mikes Nature Trick was. Michael Mann selectively (based on nothing more than what was convenient and what was not) DELETED proxy data from his graph, and REPLACED it with observed data ONLY where it suited him. This was not based on any scientific principle, it was based on his desire to show warming. He did not 'incorporate tree ring data into the larger body of data. We're not talking about a 'body' of data - we're talking about a single graph purporting to show warming through the tree ring proxy. What he DID NOT TELL US was that part of the proxy was not showing any warming (it was showing cooling, which diverged from the observed data). So what did he do? Did he conclude that the proxy record is therefore void because it does not reflect observed temps? NO! He selectively deleted the inconvenient data, and KEPT the data which suited his purpose (i.e. got rid of the MWP) and replaced only the inconvenient deleted data with observed temps. AND DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS WHEN SUBMITTING THE GRAPH (if he had he would have been laughed at). Please research and understand this, don't take my word, it's all on record, and I don't just mean accusations, I mean verifiable facts gleaned from the data). This is fraud, but even if you don't want to prosecute the man, it is NON-SCIENCE! It is complete bunkum!

I can't stress enough, of COURSE the bulk of Jones' data shows an increase, he threw out the inconvenient data (and instructed others to do the same - he called it "dirty laundry). The fact is, he couldn't show recent warming, and it's a TRAVESTY (his word) that he couldn't. The CRU are claiming now that they have - ahem - "lost" the raw data, and only have the value added data.
And you expect us to trust these people?
And don't even get me started on NASA and Hansen. But hey, it's all in the book.

"But hey, it's all in the book" This is just the problem, isn't it, LezDawson? - that you're so buried in your Archdeacon Sussman's comic book that you haven't read anything from the real world. Especially not anything from peer-reviewed scientific journals such as Nature, New Scientist or The Lancet. But, like a big, slobbery-mouthed teddy bear, you carry on making more "foot-in-mouth" statements that it's probably time we had a round-up of what we've learned so far.

1) "DDT has been deemed safe by the UN" (Utterly wrong - show me where they deem it safe);

2) "Volcanos produce more CO2 than humans" (Wrong again, they produce 130 times LESS, as demonstrated by the link I gave to the USGS);

3) "Evolutionary theory should have remained a hypothesis" (Sorry, if you believe that you'll probably also believe that the world was created in 7 days and is no more than 4000 years old);

4) "Phil Jones did not incorporate tree ring data into the larger body of data" (Oh yes, he did: the tree ring proxy data shows an apparent decline in temperature only from the 1960; the bulk of the data sets derived from observations which went back hundreds of years - in the case of the bubbles in Antarctic ice 800,000 years. Some sets of tree-ring data can be compared with the direct records of local temperature for the past century. Up until the 1960s, there is a very close correlation between the density of growth rings in trees in northern latitudes and summer temperatures - the question is what other factors causes the tree ring proxy correlation to break down. It could be that whenever it gets too hot the correlation is lost, in which case reconstructions of past temperature that rely heavily on tree-ring data will give a misleading picture. Or it might be due to some factor unique to the 20th century, such as changes in the timing of the snow melt. You won't find any of this in Bishop Sussman's trash science book);

5) "Human-produced CO2 is a tiny tiny tiny tiny amount compared to what nature produces" (This is such an old chestnut, I'm surprised even Cardinal Brian Sussman has you believing it. It's all to do with isotopes of carbon. As fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago, they contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope - formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere - has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954 (unfortunately atmospheric atomic tests render the method invalid after this time, but there are other methods). Human activity is adding CO2 to the system faster than natural carbon sinks (oceans, photosynthesis) can remove it. Volcanoes have influenced the climate since our Earth was formed. Current human economic activity - with CO2 releases more than a hundred times that of all volcanoes - is changing the climate much more profoundly).

Now, just for the record, what's your position on torture (supported by Brian Sussman) and Muslims (deplored by Brian Sussman), LezDawson?

"don't even get me started on NASA and Hansen..." No, please carry on. Big, slobbery-mouthed teddy bears are amusing when they dance on the head of a pin.

litelode: Look, you go on believing ANYTHING you want! It's a free country (where I live)! If you want to believe humans are giving the earth a fever, you go on believing it.
I refuse to believe these crooks and their bent, manipulated, fudged data. I look at the geological record, and see nothing unusual in today's temps. I see articles about coal in the Antarctic, which tells me trees grew there before. I know about Viking burials in Greenland, which tells me that if Greenland warms again, it is not unprecedented. I see statistics about Polar bear populations being bigger than they were 50 years ago - not remotely endangered. I see emails where scientists are encouraging each other to delete data rather than release it, and to keep papers out "even if it means redefining what the peer review process means." I see scientists cherry picking single trees in order to bolster the hockey shtick claim. I see scientists refusing to release data because "we have 20 years invested in this data, why should we share it when your motive is to find something wrong with it?" I read quotes of scientists saying "we must make no mention of any doubts we have, we must offer up scary scenarios."
I refuse to trust these dirty little corrupt government whores. I put my faith in good, honest people like McIntyre, McKitrick and Watts, and many others.
But you believe what, and who, you like.
As for torture - I love it - but only in small doses, on Sundays after dinner. I love Muslims too - but couldn't eat a whole one.

Thank you very much from Spain.
Muchas gracias !!!

And yes, LezDawson, "The Global Warming" is one of the more big lies of our times.

I ran the 111MB file through Abbyy FineReader and converted it from images to text. If you want a 1.16MB version, download it here:

http://www7.zippyshare.com/v/3376291/file.html

Enjoy!