the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

The Consensus Authority

Posted by Jeff Id on November 24, 2009

You have to love the determination.

In the business world, some of the biggest players in the fossil fuel economy – such as Rio Tinto, Shell and General Motors – have joined USCAP, the business partnership that is supporting efforts to get a legislation through Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

I can say conclusively that the hacked emails are just blips of information that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the push to get policymakers to back the science,” said Anne Kelly, the policy director at Ceres, a sustainable business network whose members include PepsiCo, American Airlines and Bloomberg. “One can’t help but think of the reaction of buggy whip manufacturers in the early part of the 20th century when the horseless carriage was created. The consensus has transcended political boundaries. It has transcended sectors. It is not an environmental movement anymore – it’s smart business and investors agree.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/voices-of-climate-change-denial

Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Does anyone really think she read the emails, looked at the code or has checked even a single climate paper?

Here’s another quote thanks to WUWT link here.

Statement from Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research

The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity. The interactions of the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice mean that the strongly-increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do not produce a uniform year-on-year increase in global temperature. On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future. It is important, for all countries, that this warming is slowed down, through substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the most dangerous impacts of climate change. Respected international research groups, using other data sets, have come to the same conclusion.


17 Responses to “The Consensus Authority”

  1. Jeff Id said

    I just can’t help but disagree.

  2. Alberto said

    Funny: Nothing to see here

    Also interesting: Email deletion

  3. Jeff Id said

    On time-scales of 5-10 years, however, there is a broad scientific consensus that the Earth will continue to warm, with attendant changes in the climate, for the foreseeable future.

    Well since it’s been cooling for the last 12 years, I wonder where he gets that.

  4. Brian B said

    –I can say conclusively that the hacked emails are just blips of information that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the push to get policymakers to back the science,” said Anne Kelly, the policy director at Ceres, a sustainable business network whose members include PepsiCo, American Airlines and Bloomberg.–

    Of course they’ll have no impact on Pepsico etal. There is nothing a large company likes better than welfare from the Federal government. Rent seeking and gaming the system are highly profitable and seldom subject to competition.

  5. JAE said

    THE MSM AND THEIR SPINDOCTORS WILL SURELY DIE OF SUFFOCATION IF THEY DON’T GET THEIR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND. IT IS INDEED THE BEST OF COMEDY!

  6. De Vivar. said

    @JAE

    “THE MSM AND THEIR SPINDOCTORS WILL SURELY DIE OF SUFFOCATION IF THEY DON’T GET THEIR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND”
    I’m left wondering if they know the difference between their a**es and a hole in the ground:)
    This saga of ‘warmergate’ is only just the start.

  7. Jim Owen said

    Jeff –
    Here’s a trail that someone might want to follow re: peer review:

    http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2008/06/climate-fraud-allegations.html

    http://freebornjohn.blogspot.com/2009/03/kafka-at-albany.html

    http://www.informath.org/

  8. I think that what Science has just discovered is the Slow Breeder Reactor. Or, for those who prefer good ole-fashioned Bible and apple pie language, Those who sow the winds reap the whirlwinds. I find it an extraordinary phenomenon that, now CRU have shot themselves in one foot, the UEA is busy shooting them in the other foot.

    Or again, remember the Berlin Wall coming down? There was a space of time between Gorbachev’s initiating moves, signalling the opening-up of Soviet Russia, and all the subjugated states peeling off to claim independence, but my God, didn’t they peel off fast in the end?

    Hey Jeff, what a place in history… “the leak was first discovered on a little-known blog with the strange name of the Air Vent”

    But we are not there yet. And we have still to help folk understand that caring about Science having integrity not only matters to us but also works, given time, patience, and, well, some might call it pesky persistence, others might call it prayer.

  9. Now everyone say together, lest we forget:

    Free the data! Free the metadata! Free the codes! Free the debate!

  10. Hans K Johnsen said

    Paul Hudson at BBC claims to have received the CRU-mails on October 12 , before he wrote his story : What happened to global warming. If correct, there must have been an effort to get the mails out to the public in October and when not obtaining publicity, again in November. NB – the mails to BBC following Paul Hudsons story are included in the package received at Air Vent – so at least two versions must be around.
    Check out:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/

  11. timetochooseagain said

    3-Well, that consensus must be wrong since it needs to be more like 5 PLUS 10 years both to comport with reality and to get full backing from (nearly) everyone. It is NOT true that everyone thinks it will warm in the next decade, many are now saying that it will warm in the next two decades, but not ten to five years.

    When coporations have to compete with each other in pleasing the customer so they can make money, that’s capitalism. When corporations cooperate with each other, it’s monopolistic, and when the act to get the government to do things for their benefit, that’s fascism. USCAP is a fascist organization, plain and simple.

  12. BraudRP said

    Game the system to create the consensus in large part.

    When caught, use the consensus to defend your gaming.

    Neat trick that!

  13. timetochooseagain said

    United
    Stupid
    Corpratists
    Against
    Petroleum

  14. Mad Hominem said

    Slightly off topic, I admit, but what is going on here:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    And here:

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo694.html

    Or here:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5955/984

    I suggest that they are ALL in on the scandal…

  15. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I think TTCA has pointed to an issue that many otherwise seemingly intelligent people either do not comprehend or prefer to ignore to keep the bogeyman of the big business and big oil campaign of disinformation alive. Listen to Dr. Curry spout this nonsense over CA and in plain sight of many of these large corporations supporting immediate and drastic AGW mitigation measures. I guess the counter conspiracy, for those into that kind of mushy thinking and I am not one of them, we are to believe would then be that the consensus on AGW is really supported by big business.

    I truly believe that some of these climate scientists/advocates do not know how to address the apparent hesitancy of some politicians and particularly their voting constituencies to embrace their belief in the immediacy of AGW mitigation and thus they needed the bogeymen that those looking for more government control are prone to invoke.

    Why do these climate scientists, as noted in these emails, have a major dislike of Steve M (who has always proclaimed a rather neutral position on AGW mitigation). I think like the big business/oil bogeyman they need a real live bogeyman like Steve M to personify the “disinformation campaign” and it matters not where he stands on the advocacy issue. A general reference to being a former businessman, connections to mineral companies and purported working relations with oil companies is all that is needed as red meat for this tribe.

  16. Jeff Id said

    #15, Especially by big business. Nice.

  17. Adam Gallon said

    The “Bishop” has got a nice post up.
    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/25/whos-been-spinning-in-my-newspaper.html?lastPage=true#comment6426330
    Another piece in The Guardian and another case of follow the money!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: