Bernier, uncut - Macleans.ca
 

Bernier, uncut


 

CBC has the unedited version of the letter Maxime Bernier sent to La Presse.

Data from tree rings in the forests even show some cooling; that’s why they were replaced by temperatures considered more accurate from meteorological stations in the IPCC graphs. This is what the famous quote about the trick “to hide the decline” by British researcher Phil Jones, which created such controversy during the “Climategate” episode, refers to.

For whatever it is worth, here is Time magazine’s primer on the so-called Climategate emails.


 

Bernier, uncut

  1. He must read Colby's old blogs.

  2. Is he really planning to debate with scientists about climate change?Maybe Bernier is reinventing himself as the MGD Nothing to Hide Guy.

    Or maybe he was the original inspiration with his secret documents and lack of sophistication right out there in the open with his stack of Busty Babes Magazines.

  3. I can't beleve this guy was in cabinet.

    • Would you believe he dated a buxom biker moll?

      • Can't believe she dated him.

  4. This , is a far more accurate "primer" .

  5. Australian Clive Hamilton…… gets his ass handed to him by Joanne , lotsa cool links and stuff about the vested interests , as well .

      • You joke , no ?

        • Ben Santer wound up with a dead rat on his step. Delingpole has sicked his mob on letter writers to the local newspapers, if he didn;t like their views. Published their address and phone and everything. The deniers are bringing the terror, BillD.

          • The deniers are bringing the terror, BillD.

            That has got to be the funniest thing you have ever typed . Please , take a moment and savour the irony .

          • No joking, BillD, got to the link I posted about the death threats. Be sure to read the one that threaten to gang-rape and torture someone's children.

            This is what you lying hysterical denialists have come to. Scum.

          • I hope they catch that guy putting a dead rat at that guys door,
            or is it possible the rat died of natural causes?

            As for the other tactics, I don't agree with that when unions do it (to scabs), and I don't like it any better here.

            Privacy is precious, and in short supply in this day and age.

  6. Is anybody going to tell me why the tree rings before 1950 are included, and after 1950 were excluded?

    I'm guessing no, as even scientists don't have a satisfactory answer, as far as I can tell.

    That doesn't disprove AGW by any stretch, but should give any proper skeptic pause as to the methods that are being used.

    That is far from the only problem at the IPCC.
    Real science has to overcome the activists.

      • Hahaha, that was funny, referring to the widely discredited East Anglia gang as "real scientists". Even Monbiot admits that's not the case:

        "I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging…I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific."http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbi

        • Monbiot is a journalist, and was writing before anybody had explained what the stolen emails were actually talking about. He jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.

          You are not capable of judging who is a real scientist or not. You just repeat denialist lies, because no one else is calling them "widely discredited".

      • Those were interesting graphs.

        Have you read that article?

        If you have, then you probably already know that it doesn't address my question.

        So again,

        Why is tree ring data a good proxy for global (or N.A.) temperature before 1960, but not afterwards?

        It's a simple question, try a simple answer.

        Brushing it off with article about how the data was used does not address the validity of the underlying data.

        Also, I've noticed you haven't labeled me a "denier".
        Kudos to you for that. I mean it.

        • Why don't you go figure it out yourself? Surely it's no big deal for you to dive into millions of pages of documentation and prove the world's climate scientists wrong.

          • Or I could just mindlessly, and unquestioningly accept everything, without any concern for the validity of the science, or the activist corruption.

            Then I'd be a smart Lib, like you.

      • Actually I remember that Yamal Siberian tree thing now.

        That article is yesterdays news (and debunk).

        Get with the times Holly Stick.

        • "After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government's official Meteorological Office has decided to give its modern climate data a do-over.

          At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again on a "grand challenge" to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data that is open to public scrutiny and "rigorous" peer review."

          http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/23/britain

          Don't show him/her this article then. Nothing to see hear folks, move along. We have to start again but the science is settled!

        • Go play with this. http://www.woodfortrees.org/

          AJ, if you want an answer to a scientific question, ask a specific question with links to back up your claims, not just vague BS that you picked up from some denialist website.

          • Holly, seriously, you have to get off the Yamal debunking.

            I'm asking a basic question about the "hide the decline" thing.

            The "decline" refering to the reliability of tree-ring data as a proxy for global temperature.

            The fact that you can't give me a simple answer to a simple question, plus how you keep sending me to articles the Yamal series, speaks volumes about your knowledge of the subject .

          • The fact that you are too lazy to find the explanation for yourself tells me that you do not honestly want an explanation of what the phrase "hide the decline" was really referring to. Go to Realclimate and look it up. Go to Desmogblog and look it up. Go to Climate Progress and look it up. Go to Deep Climate and look it up. Go to Deltoid and look it up.

          • I just told you what "hide the decline" refers to.

            You just don't know, and can't find, an answer to a simple question about it.

            That should make you a littlt less strident in your certainty, but I doubt it will.

            At least "Thwim" made a good try (one of the best I've seen) in the next article.

            You should go and memorize it, so that you can be a little more prepared for something like that next time, instead of throwing out last years debunk (Yamal tree-ring series data), like it is some great, relevant piece of information.

            As I said "Get with the times Holly Stick"

    • I was under the impression that the tree ring data was replaced by more accurate and reliable data from actual temperature measurements where available. So, for the period SINCE 1960, there is actual temperature data which is considered more accurate and reliable (in a statistically significant way) than the tree ring data, which isn't an actual measurement of the temperature, but an an analysis of what the temperature must have been given the relative growth of the trees. Before 1960, the tree ring data is considered to diverge much less from actual temperature findings and so the data is left in.

      Am I wrong?

      • I don't think you're wrong in the way you put that.

        Do you find that a satisfactory answer?

        Do you see any reason to not exclude all tree-ring data?

        I'm no scientist, but this one bothers the lay skeptic in me.

  7. Bernier, uncut

    Ahem, how would you know, Wherry?

    • Yeah, for a split second I nearly lost my breakfast until I realized he meant "unedited"…

  8. I have complete confidence that scientists and statisticians outside the Climate community can offer a lot of insight into the whole mess by sifting through the data….but I have a lot less confidence that a career business/law/politics guy can do the same.

  9. Australian Clive Hamilton has written some excellent articles about denialists and cyber-bullies attacking climate scientists; links are at the bottom to articles dated Feb 22 to 25; and more promised to follow.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2487265….

  10. As I said, you are too lazy.

    • Translation: I'm going to call you names until you quit asking difficult questions that I can't find answers to (or possibly don't understand).

      Intellectually lazy people will just suck up whatever pap is fed to them, and never question it.