We-Don't-Want-To-Talk-About-It-Gate

Why won't more politicians talk about Climategate?

Americans honor the courageous informant, the gutsy citizen who stands against the savagery of the profit-mongering conglomerate. Well, sometimes. It appears, believe it or not, that there are those who aren't religiously tethered to this sacred obligation.

For now—because of revelations of the ClimateGate scandal, in which hacked e-mails revealed discussions among top climate scientists about the manipulation of evidence—Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in Britain, has stepped down from his position. Michael Mann, architect of the famous "hockey stick" graph, is now under investigation by Pennsylvania State University. Similar inquiries should follow.

Yet Barbara Boxer, the Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is off hunting bigger game.

"You call it 'ClimateGate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'" Boxer clarified during a committee shindig. "We may well have a hearing on this; we may not. We may have a briefing for senators; we may not." Boxer, as steady as they come, went on to put the focus where it belongs: on hackers. She warned: "Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated. ... This is a crime."

If this hacker(s) is unearthed on U.S. soil (or anywhere in the Middle East, actually), Boxer can jettison the guilty party to Gitmo for some well-deserved sleep deprivation.

But surely there is time for some sort of investigation? This is, after all, the senator who ran a vital committee hearing in 2008 so that an Environmental Protection Agency whistle-blower, who accused the Bush administration of failing to address greenhouse gas emissions appropriately, could have his say.

Boxer's rigid devotion to rule of law is also admirable. But this is the senator who championed the Military Whistleblower Protection Act and fought for whistle-blowing rights for defense contractor employees (to ferret out bureaucratic waste) and for nurses (to protect patients' rights).

All of which sound like sensible protections for the truth-seeking citizen. Because taxpayers matter.

So take Kevin Trenberth, who was caught claiming it was a "travesty" that climate scientists could not "account for the lack of warming at the moment"—though such anxiety never slowed him from weaving unnerving tales of calamity. Trenberth runs the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., which obtains 95 percent of its funding from taxpayers.

Take the taxpayer-funded EPA, which was handed the incredible power to arbitrarily (and without Congress) regulate all carbon dioxide, through the Clean Air Act, in part because of the science in question.

Take NASA, which—despite a 2-year-old Freedom of Information Act request asking for research detailing its historical data—continues to ignore taxpayers.

Are these state secrets?

Surely this insularity is one reason 59 percent of Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, believe it is "somewhat likely" that some scientists falsified research data to support their own global warming theories. (Thirty-five percent of Americans believe it's "very likely.")

Fortunately, President Barack Obama has an unwavering admiration of truth tellers, asserting during his campaign that their "acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled."

Well, we don't need acts of courage and patriotism. Not yet. Just start with a committee hearing, and work your way up. Because the real crime here would be to continue to irresponsibly pass more experimental legislation that fundamentally undermines our affluent economy and free society on the word of those whom we might not be able to trust.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ed||

    Take NASA, which—despite a 2-year-old Freedom of Information Act request asking for research detailing its historical data—continues to ignore taxpayers. Are these state secrets?

    NASA, regrettably but inevitably, is a member of the Global-Warming Priesthood. ClimateGate "whistleblowers" (or hackers) are modern-day Galileos (in spirit, at least.) The Priesthood must protect its scam, whatever the cost, and imbeciles like Barbara Boxer and Al Gore are heavily invested in the enterprise. If a few "deniers" must be sacrificed, so be it.

  • Suki||

    Great comment, ed.

    Don't the citizens have a right to this data no matter if they paid taxes or not? I think yes.

  • mw||

    Now that Phil Jones stepped down as Director High Priest of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit pending an investigation, acolyte Michael Mann is under investigation from UPENN, and the Met office has decided to take heretical step of pulling AGW conclusions pending a projected 3 year review of the source data (against IPCC pressure) there is hope we may back to science.
    If Jones AGW projections don't hold up, at least he knows that his legacy will live on with his groundbreaking New & Improved CRU Scientific Method. I was able to reverse engineer the East Anglia CRU Scientific Methodology from the procedures documented in the purloined e-mails and code. It is clear to me that they have built on the work of maverick chemist Theodore Hapner, who revolutionized thinking about the scientific method in 2006. Godspeed Phil Jones.

  • Nitpicker||

    It's not UPENN (University of Pennsylvania) but Penn State that's doing the investigation.

  • mw||

    Thanks Nit. I stand corrected. And let me nitpick myself on another point. It is not the IPCC that was applying political pressure to the Met Office, but the UK government. Another reason why politics and science don't mix.

  • Eric Dondero||

    I wonder how this otherwise most excellent piece got passed the hopelessly in-the-bag for the Democrat Party screeners in the higher-ups at Reason?

    Gillespie, Doherty & Crew must have been hungover from a boys-night-out, to allow Harysani to sneak this through.

  • ||

    DOOONDEROOOOOOO

  • Suki||

    So this is who y'all have been talking about all these weeks?

  • VM||

    the anticipation live up to the actual experience? just wait til he starts talking about the Welfare Queen Gov of Alaska being a "libertarian".

    He is someone who actually DOES eat the fruitcake he receives from the Reason staff every festivus time

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Donderrrrroooooooooo!

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Oh, wait, that can only be done once, right?

  • ||

    Do it all you want, Art. But all caps, please.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Sincerest apologies. I'll try to remember the CAPS LOCK.

  • ||

    DONDEROOOOOOOO!!!!11! is an exception to the YFCLO (Your Fucking Caps Lock is On) rule.

  • ||

    It's never wrong to DOOONDERROOO. But if you do it lower case, it means you secretly want to get caught by DOOONDERROO in the shower bending over for the soap.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    That's probably why the suicide rate was so high on Dondero's aircraft carrier.

  • juris imprudent||

    I think given the length of his absence, a little over-indulgence can be forgiven.

  • ||

    DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
    DONDEREEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
    DONDERIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!
    DONDERAH-AH-AH-AH-AH!!!

  • ||

    'Torso for the win!

  • Anonymous||

    past

  • VM||

    oh hay hai awik. Edweirdoooo says hi and asks if he can have the rubber hose back, cuz he's considering dating again

    DUM(B)DEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  • jk||

    Just like the Big Lie can become the truth if you repeat it often enough, the truth can become the Big Lie if you never mention it.

    Obama, Algore and the other statists want the issue to go away as fast as possible so they can go back to trying to control your life to match their desires.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Squak Squak

    Peer Review Peer Review Peer Review

    Ima Genius Ima Genius

    Denier Denier Denier

  • Sean W. Malone||

    +1

  • jk||

    Must have eaten some bad seed.

  • MJ||

    Whistleblowers are valued by the Left for what institutions they undermine. The Left despises the military, so people who undermine it are good. The Left loves excuse for micromanaging all aspects of human existance that AGW theories provide so those who undermine it are badly motivated. Protecting whistleblowers was never a principle to people like Boxer, it was always a means to an end.

  • Robert||

    Even the ACLU got started with similar motiv'n -- to help organized labor & reds.

  • ||

    *Some* scientists falsifying data does not debunk the theory. As a scientist (biology), I see the emails damaging a few people's careers, and that's it. However, the suppression of real data is a scary thing, and I definitely want to continue hearing data for and against the theory (I'm still on the fence myself).

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Well said, Jeff.

  • Some dude||

    What theory? At this stage in the game, climate science is only at the hypothesis stage.

  • Chad||

    Jeff, what "data" was suppressed?

    The article at Climate Progress was a review article, not original research. It was accepted for publication despite scatching reviews by a lone editor with known skeptic tendancies. This was indeed a scandal, and in this case, the scientists at HADCRU were right, and the deniers behaved shamefully.

    There were some further emails that talked about keeping this paper (and another, again published with sketchy peer review and then slammed in the literature) out of the IPCC report, but they were not followed up upon. So despite searing reviews, broken peer review, and their clearly politically-motivated origins...the IPCC authors STILL addressed this garbage in the report. How on God's green earth is this "suppression"?

    Skeptic researchers that do good work and real science (Lindzen, Christie and Landsea come to mind) have as much funding as anybody (if not more), publish frequently, and actually get fifty times the voice in the media that an equally competent researcher with mainstream views would get.

  • juris imprudent||

    Chad, won't you please consider changing your handle to "Torquemada" - it would be so much more appropriate. Then you could sign off each post (a la LW) with a "heretics must confess, then DIE!".

  • Hanging||

    Jeff, what "data" was suppressed?

    The original undoctored data. They threw it away (they said) because they had run out of storage space. Now all that's left (most conveniently) is their fanciful "enhanced" data, for which they have yet to run out of space.

  • Chad||

    Specifically, what data?

    And yes, people throw away 30 year old magnetic tapes that have been sitting in closets untouched for decades. Was this loss of data regrettable? Yes, because it fed the trolls....not because of any scientific value.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Denier Denier Denier

  • pmains||

    Any number of errors or amount of fraud can occur between the taking of the measurements and the interpretation of data. Without the original measurements, there is no way to verify or debunk conclusions drawn from said data because it is not reproducible. This is the core of the scientific method.

    I don't know the specifics of this, to be honest, but I don't have to in this case, because what you're saying is self-evidently false.

  • JB||

    So are you now admitting that any piece of climate data from CRU is completely and totally worthless?

    Because if not, then your statement "not because of any scientific value" is a complete and total lie.

    There is now zero way to look at the data and verify what they did to it.

    So which is it?

    1. You are a liar.

    2. The data from CRU is now worthless (and that data is the backbone behind a huge percentage of Warmist research).

    I want an answer.

  • misanthropy today||

    Let me get this straight Chad, the study of global warming/climate change is to track change in global temperature over time-- long periods of time-- and they found it too burdensome to focus on their core task-- save and study the data later?

    What went in the closet instead?

    These tapes comprised what, a few gigs? No room for a memory card.

    Do you even think about what you're saying?

  • PR||

    with 4GB sandisks available for $5, that data had become too expensive to store. besides, it's not like anyone ever said the fate of the planet was riding on it.

  • ||

    The article at Climate Progress was a review article, not original research. It was accepted for publication despite scatching reviews by a lone editor with known skeptic tendancies.

    What are you talking about?

    What is Climate Progress? you mean this web site? http://climateprogress.org/

    Anyway their were tone of instances in which Jones and Mann and Briffa refused to release data to critics of their work. The emails are FILLED with instances of these three people refusing to give out information. Want me to start quoting from them?

    I don't see how you can possible ask "what "data" was suppressed?" with a straight face

  • Chad||

    I doubt you have read anything in the emails other than the selective quotes from denier sites.

    Do your homework then get back to me.

  • ||

    Chad,

    I've downloaded the entire zip file of emails and data, and have read many of them first hand (not just a few selections).

    It's slow going because the emails aren't formatted for convenient reading, but are saved as text strings.

    From what I've read so far, I can support joshua corning's assertion that many of the emails relate to deleting emails or withholding data which were requested under FOIA.

    Homework done... your response? (Bet there won't be one... easier to ignore those comments against which you can't argue.)

  • ||

    I doubt you have read anything in the emails other than the selective quotes from denier sites.

    I have a copy of the hacked files on my desk top. Which i downloaded Nov 19 at 2:50pm.

    here is what i posted at reason:

    joshua corning|11.19.09 @ 11:01PM|#

    Off-topic:

    The Global warming skeptic blogosphere just blew up.

    I guess a bunch of e-mails from prominent climate scientists where hacked and put up on the internet.

    Might be a hox. Still if it is not you will probably be reading about it over the next few days.

    http://reason.com/blog/2009/11.....x#comments

    I did start to go through the emails and i might have been one of the first who found this one:

    I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
    legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
    research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
    need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
    sit on the editorial board...
    What do others think?
    mike
    At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

    And in fact i posted that here at reason:

    http://reason.com/blog/2009/11.....d#comments

    You can probably also go through the comments in that link and find me telling John that he should download the hacked files and go through them like i was doing at the time.

    You are just writing whatever comes into your head now Chad.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    What an elitist attitude you have, Chad.

  • ||

    How much of it have you read, Chad? Got any "context" that can compensate for the smoking guns like stating the intention to destroy data rather than turn it over as required by law?

    -jcr

  • Neu Mejican||

    Climate Progress?
    Do you mean Climate Research?

    http://web.archive.org/web/200.....r.2003.pdf

    The publisher's take on it

    http://www.int-res.com/article.....torial.pdf

    "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."

  • ||

    Chad, I wasn't talking about specific data. I was talking about the efforts to alienate a journal that's willing to publish unpopular results. That's why I said "suppression" instead of "hiding" the data. They're trying to suppress the data that goes into that journal.

  • Chad||

    You mean "publish unpopular results AFTER RECEIVING SCATHING COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEWERS".

    What the heck do you think peer review is?

  • ||

    Wow, Chad. If I did something to offend you, please let me know. If you're 12 years old and can't control your emotions yet, then I understand. In any case, stop jumping to conclusions. I'm talking about scientists colluding to not acknowledge publications coming from a journal:

    "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

    Science works because each study summarizes other studies that agree and disagree with your work. If scientists collude to ignore all the publications coming form a journal, that's a form of data suppression, and it's bad for science.

  • ||

    What "scathing comments from reviewers"? The four reviewers all recommended that the Soon paper be published.

  • Neu Mejican||

    This is correct.
    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ws.....rticle.txt

    Has good information for those interested.

    Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas defined evidence for a Medieval Warm Period: as any 50-year period of warmth, wetness, or drought between the years 800 and 1300....Under their method, warmth in China in 850, drought in Africa in 1000, and wet conditions in England in 1200 all would qualify as part of the Medieval Warm Period, even though they happened centuries apart....David E. Black, an assistant professor of geology at the University of Akron, says Mr. Soon's group did not use his data properly in concluding that the Middle Ages were warm and the 20th century ordinary. Mr. Black's record of plankton in ocean sediment collected off Venezuela provides a proxy record of the strength of trade winds from 1150 to 1989. But "winds don't meet their definition of warm, wet, or dry," he points out.


    It goes on and on. That was why the 3 editors resigned. They felt the review process had failed.
  • Chad's Parrot||

    Peer Review Peer Review Peer Review

  • EJ||

    and thats where I am too on this issue...

  • hmm||

    The emails are just academics thumping their chests and maybe doing something illegal. The part that needs the most attention is data, data loss, and what appears to be a model coded by a monkey. I wish people would get off the emails and down to the science and get some information out about exactly how robust the model is.

    I still question the regressions on tree-ring data correlating to temperature.

  • TP||

    My question is, the melting ice in Iceland. What significance does that have on the atmosphere? Iceland's climate is dependent on geothermal activity.

    Regarding tree-rings: I thought tree rings were an indicator of precipitation.

  • hmm||

    Trees are tricksy things.

  • ||

    Yeah when Mann uses his "trick" trees magically become perfect thermometers of the past.

    But when Soon uses them they are always and forever indicators of precipitation.

    We should not talk about this though...according to Chad and Neu millions of people killed themselves over this very debate.

  • Suki||

    Don't forget about the ice "rings" that Al Gore "saw" with his own eyes. They are the perfect greenhouse gas wayback machine.

  • Neu Mejican||

    ????

  • Suki||

    Gore once claimed to be able to see climate changes in polar ice core samples. You can't. You have to do a G-MAS analysis on each segment to find out the CO2/Oxygen ratio. I think he compared them to tree core samples of their rings.

  • ||

    "You have to do a G-MAS analysis on each segment to find out the CO2/Oxygen ratio".

    False. You have to compare the ratio of oxygen isotopes O-16 and O-18 to develop a proxy for temperature when the ice formed.

    The measure of CO2 in gas bubbles measures... well... CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere when the gas bubbles were trapped.

    Al Gore's famous graph compared the oxygen isotope ratio temperature proxy to the measured CO2 concentrations.

  • ||

    according to Chad and Neu millions of people killed themselves over this very debate.

    I was referring to the 4 or 5 people who left Climate review.

  • Neu Mejican||

    That would be 3 by my count. Who else?

  • Neu Mejican||

  • Neu Mejican||

    More on tree rings.

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~.....o_etal.pdf

    Several possible explanations for the divergence problem have been reviewed herein. There is valid evidence for both local to regional causes (e.g., drought stress, physiological threshold effects) as well as potential hemispheric to global scale environmental causes. These include changing stratospheric ozone levels, which have thus far only been investigated in a preliminary manner and only for density, not ring width data (Briffa et al., 2004). Another potential large-scale factor that merits further investigation is global dimming (Liepert, 2002; Liepert et al., 2004), as we have noted herein, but which needs to be investigated in much more detail. These large-scale factors may be distinct from more localized pollution effects (e.g. Wilson and Elling, 2004; Yonenobu and Eckstein, 2006).

    This review did not yield any consistent pattern that could shed light on whether one possible cause of divergence might be more likely than others. We conclude that a combination of reasons may be involved that vary with location, species or other factors, and that clear identification of a sole cause for the divergence is probably unlikely...
  • Langston Huge||

    But for a few outlier rings in Yamal,
    Lives in the millions, dollars in the billions will fall.

  • hmm||

    I know both sides of the tree-ring discussion. I've been hugging trees for a long time. I still question the regression and correlation to temperature. I know more than one forester, biologist, horticulturalist who also questions this portion of the argument.

  • ||

    This review did not yield any consistent pattern that could shed light on whether one possible cause of divergence might be more likely than others.

    Briffa et al. (1998b) discuss various causes for this decline in tree growth parameters, and Vaganov et al. (1999) suggest a role for increasing winter snowfall. We have considered the latter mechanism in the earlier section on chronology climate signals, but it appears likely to be limited to a small part of northern Siberia. In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.

    Don't forget that this same proxy is used to prove that temperatures were much colder 1000 years go. So the Proxy is not measuring current temp correctly but we are to assume that it measured past temperature correctly before we had a global network of thermometers.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Joshua,

    I find it ironic that after all the venom you have spewed over the "hide the decline trick" that you "blend" two sources together to make it look like the review I linked to includes the sentence you put in all bold. You need to be more precise in your citations unless you are intentionally trying to mislead people. This single incident calls into question all the work you've done for your position on these topics over the last few days. It will all have to be carefully reviewed by an independent panel...

    ;^)

  • PR||

    Mel Brooks should make a movie called The Twelve Trees

  • Banana-eating Jungle Monkey||

    what appears to be a model coded by a monkey

    I'm offended.

  • ||

    Watch it!

  • Banana-eating Jungle Monkey||

    I'm offended.

  • hmm||

    stupid monkey.

  • monkeys||

    We not involved!

  • kinnath||

    We have some of the finest code-monkeys in the world where I work. The CRU work does not qualify as being coded by a monkey -- the work looks like it was written in the dark by deaf and dumb sloths.

  • Suki||

    That's why it took so long.

  • juris imprudent||

    Well, it wouldn't be so bad if they had stuck with the tree rings throughout the entire span - it was the switch to a different data source when it was convenient (and because the later tree rings didn't accord with expectations).

  • ||

    Well, it wouldn't be so bad if they had stuck with the tree rings throughout the entire span

    huh?

    If they did that then they would be claiming that the world is the coldest it has been in 10 trillion years.

    But seriously do you even know what the "trick" and "hide the decline" is?

  • Neu Mejican||

    it was the switch to a different data source when it was convenient (and because the later tree rings didn't accord with expectations).

    See above for a discussion of this issue. They never relied solely on the tree-ring data. It was one of many proxies that all converged on the same conclusion. They cross validate the proxies against each other. Once you are into the instrumental period, their importance is much less important because we have direct measurements to use instead.

  • ||

    Neu Mexican’s comment is interesting in that it is a perfect example of a really unscientific meme that seems to abound in with these guys.

    We start with a bunch of temperature proxies. We present plausible reasons that these proxies represent temperature and go data mining looking for curves. We don’t need any dishonesty here, just a bit of confirmation bias. We generate our best guess of a temperature record.

    Now comes our collision with the real world. We come to the modern era where we can really check the proxies against temperature. Guess what ? Do we throw out the tree ring calculations when they “diverge” ? Nope, something (we can’t demonstrate what) happened in the modern age and our proxies are no longer tracking, but they are obviously great before 1960 so we will just leave them in. Can we insure that they were not effected by this mystery force before that point ? Well they track the prior correlation really well ! They must be right !

    Now comes the really evil part. Because we correlated a bunch of proxies that may be good or bad, our final answer is dependent on all of them, but not dependent on any single one. I can remove any one of them without huge effect if I have correlated enough elements. Thus I will tell you “It doesn’t matter, I have other proxies!”

    Yes, yes you do and all of these went into the huge curve mining melting pot. However, the exact opposite of what is being stated is true. If even one proxy you are correlating against does not hold up in the modern era, then your study is in big trouble. The correlation is not necessarily temperature.

    Another big no-no going on here is when we question any given proxy they are going to take it out of their data mining functions only momentarily. If for instance we point out the tree rings don’t hold up, they are going to show the correlation without tree rings, but use the other proxies. If we later have physical problems with say the coral growth, guess what, the trees are put back into the mix reinforcing the correlation so they can once again say “It doesn’t matter”.

    Heck, they do (and have) put proxies into their Magic Pot upside down. Once again, guess what. It doesn’t matter.

    In short when you hear “ We have other proxies, the error you have found doesn’t matter”. Be very afraid.

  • pmains||

    And what is amazing to me is this. You are beating them over the head with, "this is what constitutes a coherent argument. To think logically about an issue, these are the steps one must take" You are completely correct. Yet, you won't be able to convince one damn person. They will continue to spin and distract themselves so that they may have the joy of remaining in their idiot bubble.

  • JB||

    Great comment. These people are not scientists.

    They can call themselves that, but I can call myself Tom Brady.

  • Chad||

    Artifex, I largely agree with you. I do not put a lot of faith in the proxies. All we can really conclude is that it was probably cooler in the middle of the last milennium (with big error bars), and somewhat warmer than that, probably a bit cooler than now 1000 years ago (with huge error bars).

    But SO WHAT? The temperature 1000 or 2000 or 4000 years ago matter? None of them would change the facts on the ground today.

    The skeptic argument seems to be "If there was more natural variability in the past, it is more likely that the observed warming today is natural. Therefore, we should do less in response".

    This is wrong for three reasons.

    1: It doesn't matter if the warming is natural or man-made. If it is bad, it is bad. This is actually fun to point out to hard-core environmentalists: if AGW is found to be "natural", should we still try to stop it. The answer of course, is yes, as the cost-benefit does not hinge on the cause (though the solutions would).

    2: Yes, finding that there is more "natural" variation in the past does increase the odds that the current warming is also "natural"...but not by much. This is because you are still missing the data that you really need, which is data that CO2 can't significantly change the climate, and that (this is super-critical) SOME OTHER NATURAL PHENOMENON IS. Until you find this mysterious "natural" cause, you have nothing. So while increased "natural" variation in the past does increase the odds, it only increases them from, say, 5% to 8%. This hardly affects the appropriate response.

    3: Arguing that the past climate had more "natural" variation is implicitly arguing that it is less stable and more prone to positive feedback. This means that any forcing, man-made or otherwise, will cause large changes, and in particular, any CO2 forcing will probably have large effects. This justifies a LARGER response, and easily offsets the slightly smaller response justified by point #2.

    Therefore, arguing that there is more natural variation DOES NOT imply a smaller response to AGW, but a LARGER one, because the danger is amplified. I don't think this is what you intended.

  • juris imprudent||

    But SO WHAT? The temperature 1000 or 2000 or 4000 years ago matter?

    Hey Torquemada, if you don't what the temp was then (admittedly via proxy), then you have no idea what the long term trends are - and it seems that climate has some pretty long cycles. You don't account for that, then all the hue and cry about our coming catastrophe has all the depth and scientific validity of the smelly freak on the corner with his sign "The End is Near".

    But again, I like that you are admitting that the science doesn't really matter. Another nice shift, like on the FOIA point.

  • mr simple||

    Bravo, this is some of the best performance art I've seen. You've really captured the religious fervor of the believers: whatever is happening right now is bad and must be stopped. Disproving the theory only proves it further. Any evidence, real or fake, only supports the claims of the believers, no matter what it is. Hilarious.

  • ||

    They cross validate the proxies against each other. Once you are into the instrumental period, their importance is much less important because we have direct measurements to use instead.

    So the proxies are cross validated for the past temperatures but when these proxies are cross validated with actual instrument temperature reading they invalidate. But we should trust them because they did cross validate with each other.

    I can now see why you think AGW is real.

    It is because you are a complete idiot.

  • Neu Mejican||

    You need to get out more Joshua.
    It is clear to me that you read a lot about this subject, but you don't seem to understand it very well.

    As is mentioned above, proxy measures are imperfect and have significant uncertainty. They are not, however, just free-floating variables and random correlations. They are chosen as proxies because the physical or biological processes that produce them are understood well enough that they can be validated against each other based on understood principles. You can predict how one will react based on changes in another and then verify that it is behaving as expected (with large error bars).

    This isn't social science. These guys don't do simple data mining to find correlations (ala artifax's Turkish winds). But if you are uncomfortable with the tree-ring data, fine. Throw it out (ignore the green line in the Nature graph) and tell me what the temperature trends are.

    If you want to know the temperature trends since 1850, why would you use the proxy measures as your primary tool?

    Jones and Mann and Briffa are the only science that clams that it is currently the warmest period in 1000 years. Without unprecedented warming there is no proof that current temperatures are man made.

    Most of what I have read on it indicates that the medieval warming period was a regional thing.

  • ||

    f you want to know the temperature trends since 1850, why would you use the proxy measures as your primary tool?

    I most certainly wouldn't, but how would I check my assumptions about my proxies otherwise ? I guess I could simply ignore the modern information and just assume. This is probably the best bet if the assumption governing the proxies fail to hold and I have a political point I am trying to make or a funding source that I need positive results for.

    Personally, my first test would be to take the modern era over which I have temperature data, then divide the era into two parts. I would then run my recon and calibration over the first half. I could then blindly use (no peeking) the second half to see how well my correlations hold up. If they fail to correlate, I am force to throw the proxy away and assume it is worthless.

    Think that's what happened ?

  • Neu Mejican||

    See the link above which discusses how these are validated and how they concluded that the divergence was unusual. The did some split set stuff, but split them based on region and the northern tree sets worked at all points except post 1960. Possible explanations are being investigated to validate. This is an active area of research, but the divergence seems likely to be the result of a local effect.

  • ||

    I did. Do you see any error calculations in that paper ? I didn't see anything concrete at all. I saw a bunch of speculation, but few real results. I saw some statements that may be verified by the references or maybe they are more handwaving.

    This leads to one of my pet peeves and one of the reasons that I have little to no trust in the climate science. It seems that most arguments by the AGW supporters revolve around a link to some other data set that really doesn't show what they are claiming. This is just another form of argument by authority. I would at the very least expect your link to formulate an argument that I can explore to make up my own mind. I have an allergy to faith based science.

    How about this: if you are going to pawn off a link as being an answer to these questions I would expect a quick summery of some form of argument. Maybe I don't have the right religious genes, but the argument "its's caused by human influence because we say so" is not an argument I buy.

  • Neu Mejican||

    The link is to a recent review article. It gives the broad strokes for why they believe the divergence is actually a divergence. It references the source articles for those who want to look at the calculations. You are welcome to follow the references if you want more details.

    How about this? I would expect you to preface a claim like "Think that's what happened?" with a lit review that explains the steps taken to validate the proxy. If you are going to assume the scientists who work with these proxies aren't aware of the basic scientific issues you raise (and yes, they are basic scientific issues and valid concerns, but your method is hardly the only valid approach), then it seems you should be the one doing the leg work.

    Or you can form your opinion of their methods based on how you read the comments of laymen in blog postings. Cause it sounds like your pet peeve is that laymen talking about the issue don't do your homework for you.

  • Neu Mejican||

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann.....ones03.pdf

    If you want more from the men at the heart of this...

  • Neu Mejican||

    An example of how this discussion is carried out in the scientific journals.

    http://icecap.us/images/upload.....nce_CC.pdf

    One of the many citations Artifex is welcome to follow up on from the review article.

  • hmm||

    Per the article. I'm not surprised. I think the party in power has a lot more tied to climate change than they are willing to admit.

  • jk||

    "Some" scientists who delete and manipulate raw data or won't supply that data to others for verification are the basis for onerous cap-and-trade type regulation.

    Yes there is climate change - has been for millions of years. Is it man-made? That is still to be determined using data that “some” scientists’ dogs appear to have eaten. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant or harmful substance? Can billions of plants be wrong?

  • jpocali||

    I understand why those involved in this scam will not change course, and I understand that the royalty won't do anything, but where are the scientists on this?!? All the data that this place touched is compromised. Decades of data now tainted and irrelevant. I would be pissed if I spent 20 years freezing my ass off in the Arctic studying seals or something just to have these bozos muddy it all up.

  • TP||

  • Rich||

    Draw your own conclusions with a little help from the NBC Nightly News.

  • Colon Bowell||

    The article was good until I noticed NBC couldn't help but insert some bias into the story: "...Some think the emails will have the greatest impact in Washington, giving politicians for coal and oil producing states another reason to delay taking action to reduce emissions."

    Does NBC still really cling to the notion that the only source of skepticism finds its nefarious roots in the oil industry? Are you kidding me? Are they not embarrassed by their own bias? Are there NO OTHER reasons to be skeptical?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Surprisingly balanced for NBC.

    However, NOAA Administrator Lubchenco's conclusion was intentionally deceptive when she resolutely stated, "I emphasize that climate change is not a theory. It is a documented set of observations about the real world." This has all the veracity of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

    Nobody disagrees that climate change occurs. While there may be some debate about the accuracy of measurement of climate change, there's no agrument about whether it can be observed and measured.

    But, just like the particulars of Clinton's sexual dalliances with interns, that's not the topic of contention. The contention is about AGW. She is literally correct: AGW is not a theory. AGW is in fact a pretty weak hypothesis based upon tenuous data and incomplete physical science. The contention is over whether forecasts of continued global warming will materialize, whether climate change observed in the recent past is anthropogenic and, if so, whether such change is adverse to humans and, if so, whether any particular course of action could avert its deleterious consequences.

    There are a quite few hypotheses regarding the real topics of contentions. When "scientists" fraudulently manipulate their data and intimidate and slander their critics, it tends to discredit their hypotheses.

  • JB||

    Lubchenco = retarded fetus.

    No fucking shit the climate changes, you stupid retarded cunt.

  • ||

    Nobody disagrees that climate change occurs. While there may be some debate about the accuracy of measurement of climate change, there's no agrument about whether it can be observed and measured.

    This is standard procedure for the AGW crowd. But what i think it is starting to back fire. I think just as people saw blow job = sexual relations they are now seeing Climate Change = AGW.

    So instead of viewing Lubchenco's statement as a nuanced fact they simply see her as a liar.

  • Anonymous||

    If you're going to use that handle, you are hereby ordered to finish every post with "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam."

  • Hoaxbuster||

    The "experts" have quite a long history of blatantly and fraudently doctoring evidence to advance leftist/athiest notions masked as science:

    http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered

    People are starting to see though that the Emperor is naked as a jaybird dancing down the interstection of Fraud St. and Deception Drive!

  • ||

    You are the lamest troll ever. Please just stop. It's getting sad.

  • Hoaxbuster||

    I'm curious as to why this charge of troll is tossed at me. It reminds me of how the Climate Czars seek to silence dissent. Surely questioning of (Climate/Evolution "science") is "beyond the pale" and must be the work of a nut or troll!

    Of course the same evidence which is rightly pointed to here of exposing Climate Flim-Flam can be found, but in greater number and force, in relation to the Darwin Hoax. Collusion to advance the "science" politically, bullying of peer review, manufacturing of evidence, leftist political agendas intertwined with the "science." Do you dispute this? You cannot. And so I cannot see how you can with a straight face rightly point out the fraud of one "consensus" while protecting another on grounds in which similar evidence of fraud exists.

  • Chad||

    They label you as a troll because you make them look bad. They do not like to admit that they have devolved to the point of using the same arguments and tactics and ID believers.

  • ||

    Stop talking to yourself Chad, people are watching.

  • ||

    Thank you for handling the sockpuppet, Pain.

  • Chad||

    Naah, I only wish I was that cool. I do love this guy, though. He makes a total mockery of you guys, and your anger is just oozing out your pores. I love it!

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Denier Denier Denier

  • Suki||

    Pain,

    Love that handle!

  • TP||

    My bad.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    STFU MNG

  • Hoaxbuster||

    Wow, you have to love the irony of being accused of sockpuppetry by Agent Proveacateur, who used to be "SIV" the guy who pretended to be a libertarian single issue voter hung up on chicken fighting but was exposed as a GOP shill....

  • Agent "SIV" Provocateur||

    STFU MNG

  • TP||

    Nice. I've always tried to dismiss alegations of correllation between flat earthers and AGW deniers. Perhaps, I was wrong.

  • Kryton||

    What does The Evil Atheist Conspiracy (TM) have to do with this?

  • juris imprudent||

    Dammit, was there a coded message I missed?

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Let's play a little game called "switch the tables" and see what happens.

    Suppose some unnamed "hackers" had found a bunch of e-mails and other files at the CIA where the spooks openly talked about how they couldn't get the reports of WMD in Iraq to jibe with each other. In fact they discuss how they could spin bad news for the WMD theory into good news. Oh, and they also burned all the case files that contained the raw data from the intel sources.

    Do you think Boxer would be sniffing about any legality? I think the Nobel committee would be telling Obama better luck next year, but the hackers are getting it this year.

    And, the GOP would be sniffing about the irreparable harm done to the country by leaking these documents. (Remember how urinated off they were by the revelation of the illegal wire tapping?)

    For most of the country, I do think the facts matter. They are mad that it appears that AGW data was rigged. They would be mad if similar documents were found about WMD. The two extremes, the party hacks though only care about whether this helps or hurts their side.

  • Chad||

    Your analogy is flawed for one major reason: There is no smoking-gun in the HADCRU hack emails.

    What you found was:

    1: Talk of discussions of how to present data. You usually cannot present data in a meaningful way without "manipulating" it. The question is whether the manipulations are transparent...which they were. Indeed, the Mann98 Nature paper is probably the most nit-picked paper in the history of mankind. The "decline" was "hidden" in plain sight in another paper, and cited.

    2: Emails concerning the breakdown of peer review at a couple of journals. In this case, the HADCRU scientists were absolutely right to go after (or at least consider going after) editors who were allowing politically-motivated papers through without the proper checks. Ironically, this set of emails should only remind you how low you guys have to sink.

    3: Emails discussing keeping the above papers out of the IPCC report. This didn't end up happening, even though it really should have.

    4: Emails concerning dithering as long as possible on FOIA requests (and emails arguing that this shouldn't be done). These are regrettable, but easily understandable. If you had dishonest trolls peppering you with such requests (which are a major pain in the rear), you would be inclined to do the same thing.

    5: One single email by Phil Jones concerning the deletion of emails, which was not followed up on by anyone. This is probably actionable, and will result in some sort of mild punishment.

    What you do NOT have is any indication of any conspiracy or any indication that any data anywhere is flawed. In any case, even if you threw out EVERYTHING these researchers at HADCRU has ever done, it wouldn't change a damned thing.

    You are desparately trying to make mountains out of molehills as the real scientific data just keeps piling up against you.

    Deal with it.

  • Brian Trust||

    1: Talk of discussions of how to present data in such a way as to support a conclusion the scientists may have been predisposed to.

    Fixed.

    "2: Emails concerning the breakdown of peer review at a couple of journals."

    And how to ensure that only those individuals whose work agreed with theirs would be considered "peer reviewed."

    "3: Emails discussing keeping the above papers out of the IPCC report. This didn't end up happening, even though it really should have."

    I agree that no 'politically-motivated papers' should be let through, but if that were the case, the IPCC would have nothing to read. (Not that that would be a bad thing, mind you.)

    "4: Emails concerning dithering as long as possible on FOIA requests (and emails arguing that this shouldn't be done). These are regrettable, but easily understandable."

    Easily understandable? Bullshit. If you're an objective, impartial scientist and your data is as ironclad as you claim, no amount of trollishness should concern you.

    "5: One single email by Phil Jones concerning the deletion of emails, which was not followed up on by anyone. This is probably actionable, and will result in some sort of mild punishment."

    Like total discreditation and the abrupt and shameful end of his career?

    Climategate: Michael 'Piltdown' Mann throws Phil Jones out of the sleigh as panic grows

    "What you do NOT have is any indication of any conspiracy or any indication that any data anywhere is flawed. In any case, even if you threw out EVERYTHING these researchers at HADCRU has ever done, it wouldn't change a damned thing."

    What I think more people would like is to see the data that the Hadley CRU DID throw out, and start over with that.

  • ||

    Talk of discussions of how to present data.

    Mann's "trick" was not a novel way to present data.

    He blended in Instrument data with Proxy data in order to hide the fact that the two data sets sharply diverged. Then after McIntyre and others discovered he did this Mann lied about it and said he never did such a thing.

    By the way the use of the "trick" disproves the bulk of the evidence that current warming is unprecedented and caused by humans.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Joshua,

    This has been explained to you numerous times already, but you continue to repeat this false claim.

    Your own link to the quote in question in a previous post shows how you are distorting the information. It is like you have some sort of cortical blindness on this one.

  • ||

    Neu

    Mann said he didn't blend his proxies with temperature data. He did.

    Joshua's quotes show Mann claiming both. Which one of those two sentences is false ?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Look at it again.

  • ||

    Answer the question. Did Mann blend proxies with instrument data or not?

    You haven't proven me wrong at all. you have not discussed the issue and you have not even pointed to how I am wrong.

    Mann mixed the proxy data with the instrument data. Then he lied about it.

    Michael Mann, Dec 2004

    No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. [realclimate].

    http://www.realclimate.org/ind.....omment-345

    Phil Jones, Nov 1999

    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)

    http://www.eastangliaemails.co.....777075.txt

  • Neu Mejican||

    And once again you show you don't know what you are talking about.

    The "trick" as described DOES NOT EQUAL grafting the thermometer record onto any reconstruction.

    His quote in realclimate in context says that to his knowledge no one has tried to pass thermometer records off as part of a proxy reconstruction.

    The Nature trick passed through peer review out in the open and never represented thermometer data as something other than thermometer data.

  • Neu Mejican||

    That said. It seems pointless to not present all of the data, because with or without the divergence in the tree-ring data the graph shows a clear warming trend. Climate Audit, which does some good stuff, is off the rails on this one. The instrumental record tracks closely with the other records for a full hundred years before the tree-ring line ends. There is no sense in which including the "decline" changes the interpretation of the graph.

  • ||

    There is no sense in which including the "decline" changes the interpretation of the graph.

    You think something in particular is wrong with Steve's graft that shows the hiding of the decline ? I am completely willing to listen to argument, but they need to be better than "nuhhh-uhhh it's not true". Care to provide some specifics ?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Steve's graph is fine. It is his interpretation of it that matters. He acts as if the graph as presented in the article with the one line diverging from the rest would lead policy makers to say...
    "Why there's no warming at all. Look at that one little green line there."

  • ||

    Steve's graph is fine. It is his interpretation of it that matters. He acts as if the graph as presented in the article with the one line diverging from the rest would lead policy makers to say...

    Well, the simple counter argument to this is:

    If it was completely meaningless why do we need "tricks" to hide this feature of the data ? Obviously the person presenting the data thought it was important enough that they decided to hide it. They obviously went to the trouble of spinning it. I don't think this effects much of the results, but it certainly shows a decidedly unobjective viewpoint by the author

  • Neu Mejican||

    I agree.
    There seems no point.
    It hardly implies scientific malfeasance, however.

  • ||

    I guess I don't see the hair you are splitting

    If you look back at the original realclimate article, Mann is calling someone a oil company shill for suggesting that there was temperature data grafted to the end of his proxy record and angrily claiming he would never do such a thing.

    I read the Phil Jones quote as doing the same thing Mike did and grafting temperature data to the ends of the proxies.

    I honestly don't see how both can be true. Please explain.

  • Neu Mejican||

    The implication is that he used thermometer data to doctor the proxy data. He didn't "blend" them. They are represented together on the same graph and are clearly and distinctly labeled.

    He was being accused of doctoring data. But no doctoring was done. The "trick" is a data presentation trick not a data manipulation trick. They are distinct. Joshua is accusing him of data manipulation for making decisions about how to present the data.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Ima Genius Usuk

    Ima Genius Usuk

  • ||

    There is no smoking-gun in the HADCRU hack emails.

    HAH! And you have the chutzpah to call anyone else a "denier"?

    They aren't just smoking guns, Chad. They're the mushroom clouds from a salvo of tac-nukes.

    -jcr

  • Hoaxbuster||

    Fraudelent science (Pilt-down man, Haeckel's embryos, etc), bullying of peer review process (the Sternberg affair), silencing of dissent with the label of denialism, left wing radicals posing as scientists (Stephen Gould), this has been going on longer with the hoax of Darwinian evolution than Climate Flim-Flam, but even in that case only a handful of politicians have had the courage to stand up to the leftist media manufactured ridicule and point out the Emperor's nakedness. Even among the GOP candidates in last years primary only Mike Huckabee, Rep. Tancredo and Sen. Brownback had such courage and insight.

    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....-evolution

    On climate Flim-Flam only a handful have had the same courage (notably Sen. Inhoufe, a very patriotic and Godly man btw), but they are being vindicated now. What we need are more politicians, and citizens, with this kind of courage and insight.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    STFU MNG

  • Suki||

    What he said.

  • Kryton||

    Ditto. I'm ashamed that turdpiles like this are on our side.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Why are we calling this Hoaxbuster moron "MNG", now? Did someone look up IPs?

  • Hugh Akston||

    I, for one, sincerely hope to see hoaxbuster stick around. The place has been awash in efete, condescending lefty trolls since Obama took office. It's about damn time we some fresh blood from the loony right to put the fear of zog into the perpetrators of the heliocentric conspiracy.

  • ||

    I have heard from a number of places that the data was on a public server. So in fact there was no "hacking" of data. They basically just copied them off of the server.

    Anyone know if there is any truth to this?

  • Hoaxbuster||

    It's irrelevant: the CRU was trying to advance an athiest/socialist agenda on the rest of us, they recieved public funds, they were illegally sabotaging FOIA requests that would have yeilded the evidence. It's irrelevant for them to claim it was "stolen." It was public property to begin with.

  • Chad||

    Actually, a full reading of the emails makes it clear to anyone that they were particularly concerned with following the letter of the law on FOIA requests.

    However, when the requests came from spamming dishonest trolls, they decided to be as big of dicks as they possibly could. This is regrettable but understandable. The sole actionable email is the one by Phil Jones regarding the deletion of emails, which as apparently followed up on by no one. This will probably result in a censure of some time, perhaps a fine as well.

  • Suki||

    Can someone hang Chad?

    (I am sure that is not original)

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Denier Denier Denier

  • ||

    Chad is hanging somewhere in sunny Florida.

  • juris imprudent||

    Actually, a full reading of the emails makes it clear to anyone that they were particularly concerned with following the letter of the law on FOIA requests.

    Oh, su-weeet, chad. Nice change of pace. Big improvement on your standard fare.

  • ||

    Actually, a full reading of the emails makes it clear to anyone that they were particularly concerned with following the letter of the law on FOIA requests.

    ....at the expense of breaking the scientific method and the spirit of the law.

  • ||

    oh wait i forgot to mention they actually broke the letter of the law as well. They were concerned about the letter of the law so they could break it.

  • ||

    "spamming dishonest trolls"

    Were they really "spamming dishonest trolls", or are they merely people asking questions the CRU didn't want to answer?

  • Kryton||

    To hoaxbuster: where does the Evil Atheist Conspiracy (TM) come into this? You claimed that the EAC (TM) is behind the AGW (TM) scam twice now. Please do explain it.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Is anyone else who's an atheist and not a socialist getting annoyed by this douche?

  • Hoaxbuster||

  • Hoaxbuster||

    Bullying of the peer review process:
    http://creation.com/the-smiths.....ontroversy

  • Bouncer||

    The Sternberg fiasco should be under your heading "Manufacturing of Data"

    You crdesignproponentists should really be thankful for this scandal. It proves at least one group of scientists are behaving the way you guys claim Biologists are behaving. You can't buy that kind of credibility. Not even if collections, sales of crdesignproponentist material and donations are coming in at a record pace.

  • Hoaxbuster||

  • Hoaxbuster||

    Reliance on claims of "consensus" to silence critics:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2......html#more

  • TP||

    WTF?

  • Hoaxbuster||

    My apologies, but since I started to post here I've been met with abuse and trollery accusations for pointing out that the same kind of collusion, fraud and bullying that Reason readers rightly point to as exposing the nakedness of the Climate Flim-Flam exists in greater force for the Darwinian Hoax. People here seem to say "Well Climate Science is a hoax, it's been exposed" but when faced with the same or greater evidence of such activity by Darwinians they recoil from the obvious conclusions. I understand: just as in Climate debates the media has worked hard to portray evolution dissenters as "nutjob denialists" and so noone wants to put themselves out for such ridicule. But bravery is needed. It took bravery to see Climate Science as Flim-Flam; the same courage will find the hoax in Darwin as the evidence is greater there.

  • juris imprudent||

    Whacknuts, even if evolution were disproved BY A BETTER SCIENTIFIC THEORY, I still wouldn't think Genesis was anything but some nice poetry. So STFU.

  • Suki||

    Well stated. I am using that one.

  • ||

    Nice poetry? I think you need to broaden your horizons a bit. If you want to see some really epic religious literature, the Hindus put the Jews to shame.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Hoaxbuster, what you are doing is called "threadjacking," and it's rude. People are talking about Climategate, not evolution. Just because both are related to science doesn't mean you can charge in with dozens of canned comments about the Evil Darwinists. Go away and wait for a thread on evolution.

  • TP||

  • TP||

  • ||

    Hey Hoaxbuster, you should consider getting a woman.

  • Suki||

    Can you send him the other way please?

  • Ted S.||

    How do you know Hoaxbuster is a man?

    (I couldn't be bothered to read any of its abstruse posts, so if it actually mentioned its gender, I apologize.)

  • juris imprudent||

    It's an internet default - women usually aren't as susceptible to this form of social attention seeking. It's a guy thang.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Babs is only upset because THIS particular leak doesn't benefit her or her party.

    Gore is so distraught, he canceled a paying speaking gig, another chance to get his brainwashing propaganda out and into the minds of the gullible. That, alone, should tell us something's not quite kosher in It's-All-Mankind's-Faultland.

  • ||

    But the science is settled! These emails mean nothing. The science is settled.

    After all, fraud, pencil whipping, and the like are a science in themselves.

  • Hoaxbuster||

    It is funny to see people keeping to that mantra. Settled science on a shaky foundation of proven fraud is hardly settled. I have people tell me this when debating Darwinism: "but it's all settled, look at all the peer review articles, etc". Of course if we have proof, as we do, that the peer review process is rigged and full of fraud then it is a meaningless foundation for that conclusion.

    "The peer-review process in evolutionary biology is at least as compromised as the peer-review process in climate science. There is no "consensus" when the deliberations are rigged. No scientific conclusion is valid unless the raw data on which it is based is available to all for inspection and replication, and no scientific conclusion is valid unless the peer-review process is free of coersion and of ideological bias. Is there ideological bias in evolutionary biology, as there obviously is in climate science? Perhaps we should ask the 98.7% of evolutionary biologists who don't believe in a personal God that question."

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2......html#more

  • Langston Huge||

    Too much work to be MNG,
    That lazy motherfucker, it couldn't be.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    STFU MNG

  • ||

    Sorry but that dude is just a wee bit full of himself!

    RT
    www.be-invisible.ua.tc

  • ||

    Sorry but that dude is just a wee bit full of himself!

    RT
    www.be-invisible.ua.tc

  • ||

    Referring to Barbara Boxer as a man is just uncalled for, no matter how thick her moustache is.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I think anonymity-bot is referring to hoaxbuster, Tulpa.

  • Nipplemancer||

    no, i believe anon-guy is referring to Boxer's fine stache and not the troll

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Peer Review Peer Review Peer Review

  • Chad||

    Man, I just gotta love you, Hoaxbuster. You make it so clear as to how you and the libertarians are of the same mold.

    Ironically, the peer-review scandal at Climate Progress was almost an exact clone of the scam that ID supporters pulled at Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington

    Ahh, what strange bedfellows bad arguments make.

  • ||

    Choad, talking to the sockpuppet just makes you look--and I know this is unbelievable--more stupid. Who do you think you're dealing with? Oh wait, you probably just looked in the mirror.

  • Marc||

    Epi, let them duke it out. Retard boxing may be illegal, but at least we can have this.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    I like that Chad is making a caricature of himself by hilariously failing to recognize that none of us actually think Hoaxbuster is anything but an idiot... No points awarded though.

  • ||

    Hate to be the one to break it to you Chad but intelligent design crowd believes in AGW.

    Of course you are the same lunatic that thinks that if Greenland melts sea level will rise 20 meters.

    So we have two crazies here, you and Hoaxbusters...of course Hoaxbusters at least has some integrity as he has gone against the wisdom of his own fringe politics when confronted with overwhelming evidence. You on the other hand keep digging in your heels against the facts.

  • ||

    Hate to be the one to break it to you Chad but intelligent design crowd believes in AGW.

    Do they? I've never cared enough about what they have to say to find out what their stand was on anything besides claiming that the planet is only six thousand years old.

    -jcr

  • Chris||

    The question is which one of the whackos fights like this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-eOsUxC144

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    We have some of the finest code-monkeys in the world where I work. The CRU work does not qualify as being coded by a monkey -- the work looks like it was written in the dark by deaf and dumb sloths.

    To my embarrassment, it looks a lot like the first version of my dissertation analysis code. The version that was cobbled together from on-line quick-checks, one off scripts to build graphs for an internal presentation, half-assed pre- and post-processors, several data file reformatters, and a bajillion intermediate data files. Mind you, mine was fortran (using CERNLIB) and COMIS and awk and /bin/sh, but it was still the same shit.

    The sense of deja vu I got when looking at the README_HARRY file was scary.

    So I know how it happened: you write a little snippet to achieve some small goal. Then you expand it to get incremental progress. And modify it to write out some intermediate results so you can post-process them in a quick little script to make another little step. And so on. And instead of source control, you just copy these files to new names when you want to experiment, which leaves your working space full of confusing duplicates.

    I also know what has to be done to fix it: a complete rewrite from the ground up. With a test suite for the core processing routines. And that takes time: it put my thesis back by at least three months. But by the time you're done (1) you'll have found a fixed a few bugs (2) it will be possible for someone else to understand it (3) it will actually work and (4) due to the test suite you'll actually know that it works.

  • Chad||

    Ahh, the "But your code is UGLY" argument.

    How about showing it is WRONG?

  • ||

    How about showing you can reproduce your results w/ it?

  • Chad||

    What do you mean by that? You can only make temperature measurements once.

    >95% of HADCRU's data, and all of NASA's data, is publically avaiable. So is their climate modelling program and every nook and cranny of their code. Buy a super-computer and run it yourself.

  • Suki||

    So take the measurements from 1900 - 1980 and predict the climate from 1981 - 2008 with your perfect model.

    Then hang yourself.

  • Chad||

    Actually, it is not a problem. The range of radiative forcing predicted by these simple greenhouse gas models easily contains the observed excess heat budget of the planet (atmospheric, land, and ocean heating + ice melt).

    What we CAN'T yet predict is the short-term fluctations between these.

  • juris imprudent||

    Oh Chad, that's precious. Almost as good as you trotting out information asymmetry... incorrectly.

  • ||

    Don't count me out.

  • Langston Huge||

    His parents are to be blamed for this,
    His beautiful little mind turned to bupkis.

    They sent him off to get an advanced degree.

    Oh, the things done to that little lad,
    No worse they could have done for the little cad

    If they had left him at the steps of the Church of Scientology.

    That is if you believe what he assertively claims to be,
    A man of Science! hugging the dead pulp of a tree.

    But please forgive us if we have our doubts,
    For his outrageous claims never do pan out.

    His statements and logic are always muddled,
    Like the man with the hole that can't produce a piddle,
    and though that rhyme was too cutely slant,
    Never so much as our fair Chad's mind is bent.

  • kinnath||

    From a guy that used to write code for a living:

    Clean code has a high probability of being bug free.

    Ugly code has a high probability of being laced with bugs.

    So yeah, it really does matter.

  • josey||

    From a guy who does write code for a living:

    If I treated data with the blatant disregard that these guys have, I'd be fired yesterday.

    If, in addition to that, I happened to work in a mission-critical field (think medical, engineering; my nerves are thankful that I do not), I'd have a good chance of ending up in prison.

    Why is it that researchers insist on writing their own code? Is this not the height of arrogance? Why do their institutions even allow them to do so? I am aware of no other discipline in which this is considered to be an acceptable practice - find me a hospital that allows its doctors to code their own patient-management software. I guarantee, you won't find one. Hell, I doubt you could even find me a doctor who's delusional enough to want to try.

    You just have to love the consistency of a legal system. Some researcher who has a leaky faucet in his lab must call a licensed plumber to come fix it, and yet is free to hack together code which he is completely unqualified to write, the result of which may reach even to the point of influencing the nature of law on a global scale.

    It's amazing, really.

  • Tony||

    Teach the controversy!

  • ||

    Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil” for support
    ...From: "Mick Kelly"
    To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Shell
    Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
    Reply-to: m.kelly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Cc: t.oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.o'riordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    Mike
    Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
    agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic
    partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain
    conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end
    after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss
    asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc,
    etc. By email? In person?
    I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim
    who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to
    make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me!
    I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach
    will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off
    Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and
    what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the
    new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's
    within the remit.
    Regards
    Mick ...

  • Pedantula||

    I believe in intelligent design, to the extent that Chad created Hoaxbuster out of straw, and brought him into being as a perfectly obliging foil.

  • Chad||

    I could only wish I was that clever.

    Good idea, though.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Ima Genius Usuk
    Ima Genius Usuk

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Ahh, the "But your code is UGLY" argument.

    How about showing it is WRONG?

    Touchy much?

    The core of my comment was intended to be "I know how it happens." which is to say there is nothing malicious in the mess that is the code.

    Mind you, my similar mess was totally unmaintainable, made it very easy to bugger up what you meant to do, and eventually collapse under its own weight.

    There is a reason that README file is 700kb.

  • juris imprudent||

    Doesn't matter to Chad/Torquemada - once you torture the data into confession, all is forgiven.

  • ||

    David Wrote:
    "So take Kevin Trenberth, who was caught claiming it was a "travesty" that climate scientists could not "account for the lack of warming at the moment"—though such anxiety never slowed him from weaving unnerving tales of calamity. Trenberth runs the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., which obtains 95 percent of its funding from taxpayers."

    Perhaps you missed Trenberths openly published paper where he expressed these very doubts. Perhaps you missed followup emails ..also part of the stolen set of emails...where his co-climateers expressed doubts about his opinion on the matter.

    Or...

    Perhaps you are just another stupid media talking head.

  • Chad||

    You do not seem to grasp why he considers it a travesty.

    We cannot yet fully predict medium term temperature fluctuations, because the ocean's heat capacity is much larger than that of that of the atmosphere, causing slight changes in ocean behavior to have significant impacts on air temperatures.

    The "travesty" is that every time there is an ocean-induced short-term temperature decline (a La Nina event, for example), deniers can start spouting their "global warming has stopped" crap.

    Take a quick look at the NASA GISS record. Despite the obvious warming from 1970 to today, only about a third of the time is the current temperature higher than any in the past. There are many multi-year stretches following each successive temperature peak where temperatures are slightly lower than the peak. And you can safely bet deniers were babbling about "cooling" in each one of them.

  • ||

    I/you/we already won that bet. Often.

    But I was simply commenting on the lack of homework on the part of the OP. Or he's just a another tool among many. There's over Nine THOUSAND!

  • Chad||

    9000 whats? 9000 unvetted PhDs, who could be Mickey Mouse in disguise for all we know? And exactly how many PhDs are there to draw from? 9000 out of a few million isn't very impressive, especially when many of those are probably either fake or on the list without knowing.

    Also, these lists are deceptive. The statements these people support don't say AGW is wrong, only that it is there isn't convincing evidence that it "will be...catastrophic". This is actually TRUE. There is only convincing evidence that it MIGHT BE catastrophic and WILL BE bad. The other half of the statement is about economics, which would not be these peoples' area of expertise.

    So not only is the petition an unvetted peice of grap, the people signing it (if real) are not even saying very much.

  • ||

    9000 whats? 9000 unvetted PhDs, who could be Mickey Mouse in disguise for all we know?

    sigh..

    This over 9000!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17zNW-wz35E

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI

    It is a joke about the use of an arbitrary high number.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Peer Review Peer Review

  • Mike M.||

    All of the top con artists involved in this fraud will be investigated sooner or later, if not now, then when the Republicans retake control of the Senate. The lefties can't cover this up any more than they could cover up Van Jones or the criminality of ACORN. Pandora's Box has been opened for good.

    On a side note, I sure enjoyed our little rare early snowfall here in the urban heat island of greater Washington D.C.!

  • TP||

    I wouldn't be so bold as to mock AGW because of a little early snow. This is the 5th Nor'easter of the season and it's not even officially Winter yet.

  • cmace||

    Ok, the climate research article maybe wasn't the best, I haven't seen it.

    How does that excuse this:
    "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith to hide the decline [of temperatures],"

    Or this:
    "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone… " [This would be a felony]

    Maybe nothing illegal was done, but its obvious the data these people have been spewing is at best flim flam. Nothing you want to base national policy on.

  • cmace||

    Ok, Lets say that evolutions a crock.

    Does that automatically prove your bible crap is true?

  • Solanum||

    Jesse, if you're reading this thread, please do everyone a favor and out 'Hoaxbuster.' It's really become tiresome. I'm guessing he shares the same IP addy as Chad.

  • ||

    Solanum, there are those of us who suspect he may even be joe. Now that would be hilarious.

  • juris imprudent||

    Well on an overall quality scale, that IS plausible.

  • Solanum||

    Although that would be hilarious, Mighty joe Young's immense ego wouldn't allow that. I don't think he could take off the gorilla suit even if he wanted to.

  • cmace||

    Hoaxbuster is a DOS attack. They're admitting they're out of ammo.

  • ||

    Hoaxbuster is a pathetic attempt to equate "denialists" to creationists. It's a particularly stupid idea and I'd love to know who is that fucking dumb to try it. I second the call to Jesse to "out" the retard behind it.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    It's a particularly stupid idea
    That narrows it down to MNG.

  • Warty||

    I AM HOAXBUSTER

  • ||

    Just because I said Hoaxbuster was retarded doesn't automatically mean you, Warty. You do want cake, though, right? They all want cake.

  • ||

    NO, I AM HOAXBUSTER!

    (and yes I'd like some cake)

  • MJ||

    This is not a "Spartacus" moment.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Or maybe it is! (Think about it...)

  • ||

    Hoaxbuster is England, and England is Hoaxbuster.

  • ||

    Am I the only one here who doesn't believe we should be praising the hacker? Shouldn't libertarians be against what the hacker did? Yes Climate-Gate is a bigger issue, but no one should be praising the hacker for tampering with the property or privacy of others. If the CRU was a government institution like the CIA, then this would be a different story. But it isn't.

  • juris imprudent||

    What if rather than hacker, this was a whistle-blower? Does that change your opinion?

  • ||

    No, if no crime is committed then I don't care.

  • ||

    Government workers sending emails stored on government servers that are related to the work they're doing with taxpayer money have no goddam right to privacy. The hackers committed a crime against the government, not any individual.

  • ||

    That should be "government-funded", my brain was momentarily disengaged.

  • ||

    If that is in fact true, then yes I would agree with you. But there is some dispute about whether or not the emails are private property. Whatever is government funded should be transparent, but the emails are in a gray area.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    If they don't want their emails cracked, then they shouldn't get their paycheck from the government (or through an organization that receives government funding). All government funded work is public property and should be viewable by anyone, even top secret military shit.

    True story, there is some county-owned land near where I live that has signs- "PUBLIC PROPERTY- NO TRESSPASSING".

  • ||

    But I'm saying that just because you are funded by the government doesn't necessarily mean that everything you create under the funded project is public property. I don't think there is a clear answer to this problem, which is yet another reason why the government shouldn't be funding any special interest groups.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I think the most convenient default is: MY TAXES PAY YOUR SALARY = I OWN YOUR EMAILS. I just want to make extra sure no one is fucking with me at my expense.

    You found the best way to avoid this problem for sure.

  • ||

    IF you have ever had a job and bothered to read the contract you sign. About 99% of them say ANY intellectual property created while in their employ is the property of your employer.

    Are we to hold people being paid through government funding more rights then those in the private sector? Is that your contention?

    If so, you aren't doing well posting on a "libertarian" site.

    Also, if you read their outgoing e-mail tag to most corporations, it clearly states that any e-mails into or out of tier server are considered property of the company.

    Once again why should government funded work have a higher right to privacy then corporate work?

  • ||

    Until I see that contract with the CRU names on it, then I'm withholding my judgement on what kind of property the emails are.

    "Are we to hold people being paid through government funding more rights then those in the private sector? Is that your contention?"

    No that is not my contention, nor does it follow from anything I have said. Hope that answers those questions...

  • MNG||

    Don't confuse the folks here with reasoned principle, the two minute rage is going on...

  • Agent Provacateur||

    STFU MNG

  • MNG||

    One day SIV will break through the one sentence barrier, one day! He'll strain really hard, and blood will come out his nose like Jessica Alba in the ferris wheel scene from FF2, but it'll happen...

  • Langston Huge||

    Oh, MNG you have come to play,

    But it is snowy outside, the playground is in sludgy dismay,

    So how 'bout giving that 'tard strength a rest, just for one day.

    'K?

  • Suki||

    He's been here the whole time. Using his other handles.

  • juris imprudent||

    Gads, I actually thought better of him than that.

  • ||

    The hacker went after a non-military government agency.

    The crap in there should all be open to the public all the time, and in fact the point of FOIA was to make such places open to the public.

    The hacker simply exposed what not only should morally always be open to the public but that which in fact is legally open to the public.

    So yeah the hacker happens to be a hero of mine. And all he did was open a door to a public meeting.

  • ||

    It's a government agency as much as any research project that receives funding from the government (basically all of them)is a "government agency." Yes, I agree that any government funded project should be transparent, but the emails are in a gray area: private property connected to the project but not "funded."

  • ||

    If the CRU was a government institution like the CIA, then this would be a different story. But it isn't.

    FUCK YOU!!!

    The CIA has to keep its information secret or its agents will be killed you fucking moron.

  • Chris||

    *Sigh*

    That is what he is saying. A compromise of CIA source information would be more damaging (and actually illegal, depending on how it was leaked), but the leftists would applaud it. Whereas in this case, information that should be open to the public is leaked and they scream like little girls.

  • ||

    I agree with you Chris but that is not what he is saying.

    heller|12.5.09 @ 2:03PM|#

    Am I the only one here who doesn't believe we should be praising the hacker?

  • ||

    I think you both misunderstood what I was saying. First of all, you have to understand the difference between a government agency and a government-funded research project. Most research projects in the U.S. are funded by the government (even those in private universities). Does this mean the public has a right to view any work related email between researchers? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.

    Second of all, this:
    "FUCK YOU!!!

    The CIA has to keep its information secret or its agents will be killed you fucking moron."
    was unnecessary. I was not saying that the CIA and CRU are similar and therefore should enjoy the same protections. If you actually read my statement carefully instead of reacting to it, I was pointing out that they were NOT alike.

    Third of all, the issue I have here is not with the climatological information leaked (that should have already been released along with the raw data), it is with the act of revealing certain missives that may or may not be considered private property. That is why I said we should not necessarily be praising the hacker.

  • ||

    Actual libertarians would praise any individual that puts their neck on the line to expose corruption and graft.

    If the government made a law that killing and eating babies was legal, would you be first in line for a 9 month old rump roast?

    If the best you have as a morality compass is what our current rulers push on us ass "legal" or "not legal" then you are definitely on the wrong site.

    If you think questionable property rights trump fraud on a grand scale, you are in the wrong place.

    Sometimes you have to commit a lesser wrong to right a greater wrong, that is why the Non Aggression Principle makes an exception for self defense.

    Killing is wrong, no matter what, but even the extreme libertarian states you have the right of self protection, which would still be killing. Hence a lesser wrong of killing to protect yourself vs. the greater wrong of someone killing you to remove your "property" (life).

  • ||

    Well this "actual libertarian" is principled enough not to praise anyone whose means are not known to be justified, no matter how good the end is.

    "If the government made a law that killing and eating babies was legal, would you be first in line for a 9 month old rump roast?"

    Yes, delicious!

    No of course not, killing babies would violate their rights.

    "If the best you have as a morality compass is what our current rulers push on us ass "legal" or "not legal" then you are definitely on the wrong site."

    If property rights weren't basic human rights and were arbitrarily mandated by our rulers, then you would have a point. But they are and you don't.

    "Sometimes you have to commit a lesser wrong to right a greater wrong, that is why the Non Aggression Principle makes an exception for self defense."

    You're only allowed to defend yourself because the attacker is about to violate your rights and has forfeited his own. In the case of self defense, the means are justified. This does not apply to Climategate because the hacker is not necessarily justified by any actions on the part of CRU. Can I steal your flat screen TV because you stole someone else's flat screen TV? No, in that case my means are not justified by yours.

    If you think the hacker was justified in taking what could be private property because the CRU was committing fraud (if that is indeed what they were doing, and if what they were doing actually violated anyone's rights), then you should check your premises.

  • Beelzebud||

    Yeah that's why the leftists all cheered when the Bush administration leaked the identity of a covert agent to enact political revenge against her husband.

    Oh wait...

  • JB||

    Very simple for you slow people...

    Government property is not private property.

  • ||

    But how do you know that this is all government property?

  • ||

    Unless the scientists owned the e-mail server, then it wasn't their property, that we can be sure of.

    So, if you don't know whose property it is, how do you have an argument.

    You don't even know!!! Yet you are ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    Your argument is weak, because, just like counter arguments on who owns the e-mails, neither party in the argument knows.

    You are wasting time trolling on an issue you don't even know the answer to.

  • ||

    "Unless the scientists owned the e-mail server, then it wasn't their property, that we can be sure of."

    Then you should be OK if I hacked all your emails. Because, according to you at least, they aren't your property. Who do these emails belong to? The hacker? I don't think so.

    "So, if you don't know whose property it is, how do you have an argument."

    Well that is my argument; that we do not know whether or not the hacker committed a crime, so we shouldn't be automatically praising him.

    You are the one who is assuming that you know the emails are public property, and that we should be praising the hacker. I find it laughable that you are trying to argue this about me when it is you who are making baseless assumptions. Now that you have admitted that we do not know what kind of property the emails are, you should be happy in ceasing praise of the hacker hero.

  • ||

    I'm curious as to why this charge of troll is tossed at me. It reminds me of how the Climate Czars seek to silence dissent. Surely questioning of (Climate/Evolution "science") is "beyond the pale" and must be the work of a nut or troll!

    This linking of AGW and evolution and their respective intellectual opponents in some perverse metaphor does the climate skeptics no good. It also polishes up the very weak AGW supercomputer-run video-game "science" by associating it with a brilliant insight that has been reinforced with evidence from every other scientific discipline for 150 years.

    If it ever comes down to such a dark choice, I'll be an AGW fanboy trading carbon baseball cards before I'm a "Creationer" or whatever. At least the AGW crowd pretends to science while they build their myth.

  • ||

    So you'd rather be at home with the liars than have integrity. Good to know that you're a craven pussy. Enjoy your pathetic life, and Warty will be along shortly to rape you.

  • Chad||

    It isn't "super-computer" run. More like "pocket calculator". AGW was was first understood in the late 1800's, and the first realistic calculations were done on the early proto-computers of the 1950's. The answer has not changed since, but only gotten more detailed. It is nothing a good college senior in chemistry or physics couldn't calculate as a nice mid-term project.

  • ||

    Choad reached down and pawed at his limp penis. He hadn't been able to get even a semi-erection since his religion was shown to be a hoax. He desperately wanted to get off, but even his pathetic evasions and attempts to paint the lies as nothing weren't working.

    Then he hit upon an idea: create a sockpuppet and pretend to be a Creationist who was also a climate change skeptic.

    His incredibly short (though wider than it was long) pecker suddenly twitched with life. He was ecstatic; this idea might actually let him dribble his micro-load into a tissue for the first time since the scandal had broken.

    He began to type and "stroke" (he didn't know a better term for pulsating his member with two fingers than that, and that's all he could fit on his--for a better term--macroclitoris) frenetically. This was going to work. It had to.

  • ||

    macroclitoris

    Yuck, flashback to The Wasp Factory.

  • ||

    Earth's atmosphere is not warmer then vacuum because of greenhouse gases.

    It is warmer because we have an atmosphere and gravity that puts that atmosphere under pressure.

    The "green house effect" (which actually is not the reason greenhouses are warm so should not be called the greenhouse effect) is a far smaller warmer then the above described effect of pressure on gasses.

    Venus is in fact not hot become of trapped heat from greenhouse gases but in fact hot because of its thicker atmosphere and larger mass (greater gravitational pull) Again, on Venus like on earth, the heat trapping effects of "greenhouse gases" are a small factor.

  • Chad||

    Why do you think greenhouses are warm, then? Please teach me, oh great Josh, how it has nothing to do with glass and some plastics being transparent to visible light, but not long-wave infrared. Then please send your revolutionary theory the the Geophysical Institute at UA-Fairbanks, because they have it wrong.

    http://www.gi.alaska.edu/Scien.....8/817.html

    Oh, and you better tell JPL that they are completely wrong about Venus...

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/...../crisp.pdf

    Do you really believe the crap you spew? Where do you even find it?

  • ||

    Why do you think greenhouses are warm, then?

    Because the the windows prevent convection. It works the same way your house keeps its heat inside. ie the insulation and walls prevent heat from escaping.

    In the atmosphere it is kind of hard for free floating CO2 to avoid convection.

    Do you really believe the crap you spew? Where do you even find it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_lapse_rate

    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/t.....ode56.html

  • ||

    how it has nothing to do with glass and some plastics being transparent to visible light, but not long-wave infrared.

    If you use Sodium Chloride for the windows rather then plastic or glass there is no difference in the temperature of the inside of the greenhouse then if you use glass or plastic. Sodium Chloride is transparent to infrared. This was proven in 1909.

  • Chad||

    Josh, I again invite you to read the link I cited. The "greenhouse" effect does indeed occur in greenhouses. Convection (or lack thereof) is dominant, however.

  • ||

    I have a friend that has a physics degree (quantum mechanics) and he specializes in computer modeling.

    I asked him about using computer models for tracking and predicting climate change, and after he was done laughing, he stated that it is not possible.

    Unequivocally, IT. CAN. NOT. BE. DONE.

    The only way to make ANY climate model run is to base the model on so many assumptions and constants that are not provable or do not exist, that it completely invalidates the modeling.

    It is obvious by your argument that you do not understand computers, or math, or the limitations of both.

    I could write a model now to measure your intelligence and demonstrate.

    We will say that average intelligence is (i).

    And we will say the length of posts = the average intelligence P(i).

    My intelligence is therefore higher then yours, as my posts are longer.

    P(i) > P(i)

    Hence everything I say has more authority then what you say.

    Would anyone here like to peer review my findings so I can publish this and shut Chad up forever?

  • ||

    That was P(i) sub1 > P(i) sub2

  • MP||

    @Hoaxbuster - Evolutionary theorists aren't predicting global chaos and suggesting that the entire world population reduce their standard of living in order to avert catastrophe. The only people threatened by the evolution vs. creation debate are people whose fragile grip on reality would be shattered if it turned out their worldview was not what they thought it was.

  • ||

    There's also the minor fact that evolutionary theory is backed up by a century and a half of independent observations and natural selection experiments, rather than three buggy computer models managed by climatology high priests who refuse to release their code or the data it uses.

  • MNG||

    Tulpa
    Are you either stupid enough or guillible enough to think that all those major scientific professional organizations that passed on the IPCC's conclusions did so knowing the only evidence was "three buggy computer models managed by climatology high priests who refuse to release their code or the data it uses?" I mean, use yoour brain and read less right wing blogs for a change...There's the ice drill stuff, the core drill stuff, the tree ring stuff, and all kinds of different versions of temperature data analysis out there. Get a grip.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Denier Denier

  • ||

    I didn't use my brain, I actually asked a Ph.D. in computer modeling.

    You fail, he laughs at you.

    Do better.

  • Chad||

    Reduced standard of living? Even Lomborg's silly analysis usually come up with the cost-benefit being positive. His argument is only that we would be better off helping AIDS babies in Africa (which confuses responsibility with charity...and anyway, cost-benefit is bunk on this time scale).

  • juris imprudent||

    which confuses responsibility with charity

    Only for you Torquemada.

  • ||

    anyway, cost-benefit is bunk on this time scale

    What does time scale have to do with cost-benefit analysis?

  • Senor Duck||

    Nothing, a few synapses connected in the moron's head, and he thought he had a point. Happens a lot with that guy.

  • Hoaxbuster 2 Electric Boogaloo||

    Anyone ever see a cat evolving into a dog?

    No?

    Game, set and match, bitches.

  • ||

    OMG! you're right!

  • ||

    While we're at it, has anyone ever seen a creationist evolve into a rational, thinking person?

    -jcr

  • MNG||

    Ok, ok, fun's fun, I'm Hoaxbuster. Let Chad and NM off the hook.

    It was delicious fun I must say...The Creationism-Climate Denial parallels were just too obvious to, well, "deny."

  • ||

    "It was delicious fun I must say...The Creationism-Climate Denial parallels were just too obvious to, well, "deny."

    Only if you are stupid. Climate science is not any near as mature as evolutionary science. And none of the hoaxes claiming to find the missing link did anything approaching the damage to evolution as this is doing to AGW.

  • MNG||

    But to most scientists this has done pretty much nil damage. The "damage" is in the eyes of uninformed ideologically driven people. The same is, and was the case with the evolution fabrications I linked to as Hoaxbuster.

  • ||

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....945445.ece

    No damage at all MNG. That is why they are going to redo the science. And also see the link that REason did this week from the climate scientist who is demanding this crap stop.

    Everyone who is either not religious in their belief or stands to make billions is appalled by this. Unless you stand to make money, I guess I know which side you are on. Leave the cult.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Peer Review Peer Review

  • Chad||

    Exactly. I have not seen one scientist anywhere who said this was at all a signficant damage to the science of AGW, except those who were already skeptics anyway.

    Bad PR? Yes. Bad science? No.

  • JB||

    Bullshit.

    No scientists I know think it is a good idea to destroy data and the work used on altering that data.

    So STFU.

  • juris imprudent||

    No. That was actually quite lame trolling. You go back to Trolling 1a for some remedial work.

  • ||

    Chad of course is a complete idiot. Despite his claims AGW, is a very new science. Evolution in contrast is a very established science. It is also a very dispersed science. There is no CRU for evolutionary science. None of the scandals and hoaxes he cites are anywhere near the importance of the CRU e-mails.

    Put in the context of evolution, the CRU emails would be like finding out in 1880 that Darwin's voyage on the Begal and findings that went into On the Origin of Species to be completely fabricated. That would have been a big deal. Now, later on science would have proven evolution in other ways. But, in 1880, there would have been good reason to doubt evolution and certainly no reason to re-organize society based on the science to that date if Darwin had been a fraud.

    That is where we are now with AGW. AGW may be true. Good science may re-establish it as truth. But the CRU emails mean we know much less than we thought we did. Chad congentially stupid and a hack, so he can't see the difference. But, anyone else can.

  • Chad||

    It's about thirty years younger than evolution, John. That's not "very new" by any stretch. Do your homework. Additionally, the calculations that confirm that a doubling of CO2 will cause approximately a 3C temperature increase can be done in an excel spreadsheet, at a level of complexity consistent with a college senior thesis. This was first done in the fifties, and the answer has not changed substantially since.

    Put in the context of evolution, the CRU emails would be like finding out in 1880 that Darwin's voyage on the Begal and findings that went into On the Origin of Species to be completely fabricated.

    What data did the emails indicate was "fabricated". Be specific. You made the claim. Now back it up.

    Hint: The answer is "none".

  • ||

    Chad, I have posted the e-mails and the incriminating nature of hiding the decline and throwing away the source data numerous times. Further, read below the idea that man is causing warming dates only to the mid 50s.

    So do yourself and everyone a favor and shut up. You are an idiot and a troll. You don't change anyone's opinion. You just embarass yourself.

    Hint, Chad. You are stupid and do nothing but waste people's time on here.

  • Chad||

    Further, read below the idea that man is causing warming dates only to the mid 50s.

    http://www.lenntech.com/greenh.....istory.htm

    So the (19)50's happened in...1896.

    If we liberals are so bleeping smart that we started this conspiracy 113 years ago, we DESERVE to be your overlords.

    Just bow down and grovel now, slave dog!

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "...but don't you dare call us elitists!"

    Fucking pathetic, Chad.

  • juris imprudent||

    From Arrhenius's bio page on the Nobel website:

    In 1900 Arrhenius published his Lärobok i teoretisk elektrokemi (Textbook of theoretical electrochemistry), in 1906 followed Theorien der Chemie (Theories of Chemistry) and Immunochemistry and in 1918 the Silliman lectures Theories of solutions. He took a lively interest in various branches of physics, as illustrated by his theory of the importance of the CO2-content of the atmosphere for the climate, his discussion of the possibility that radiation pressure might enable the spreading of living spores through the universe (panspermy) and by his various contributions to our knowledge of the northern lights. In 1903 appeared his Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (Textbook of cosmic physics).

    First it was not 1896, but that is a nit. Second, he was a chemist dabbling outside his field - nothing wrong with that either, except that you see how weak his scientific credibility in those fields becomes when you consider his point on panspermy. Torquemada will of course ignore that heresy and only talk about his faithful friend's commitment to orthodoxy.

  • ||

    You can do the calculations to show that the sun goes around the earth in an Excel spreadsheet, too.

    The point being, if the real world doesn't actually behave as the spreadsheet assumes, its conclusions are worthless. And that question is far beyond your garden variety senior thesis.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Ima Genius Usuk
    Denier
    Denier

  • ||

    the calculations that confirm that a doubling of CO2 will cause approximately a 3C temperature increase can be done in an excel spreadsheet,

    actually the math comes out to be 0.5C from a doubling of CO2...the other 2.5C comes from modeled effects of cloud cover and water vapor. The infamous feed back that is not substantiated in real world observations.

    You are a terrible liar Chad.

  • ||

    it should further be noted that CO2s effect on trapping heat has a ceiling. in other words after we double it it stops having an effect. So the next time we double it will not cause an additional 0.5C increase. In fact you could replace all the nitrogen in our atmosphere with CO2 (by mass not one for one) and it will not be any warmer then current temperatures plus 0.5C

  • Chad||

    Citation, please. Peer-reviewed only.

  • ||

    Citation, please. Peer-reviewed only.

    Additionally, the calculations that confirm that a doubling of CO2 will cause approximately a 3C temperature increase can be done in an excel spreadsheet

    Which one is it Chad? Spreadsheet or peer-reviewed?

    You are such a fucking hack it is sickening.

  • juris imprudent||

    Chad, bitch-slapped into the next year!

  • Chad||

    Josh, water vapor feedback is inevitable. It is high-school chemistry, for Christ's sake. Please provide your data revolutionizing 300 year old science, please.

    And then, explain to the authors of this Science paper why they are wrong.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....152132.htm

    On the other hand, cloud feedback is more complicated. The newest (and scariest) data...

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....CIT,HWELTR

    Yes, POSITIVE. How is another positive feedback going to save us from the other positive feedbacks?

  • ||

    That is, if you start off with the assumption that the ONLY and MOST MAJOR factor in climate change is CO2.

    There is no proof it is the only factor.

    Period.

    You make a gigantic assumption and assert it is fact, and base your conclusions off of it.

    I think any idiot who ignores the way real science has been done, and distorts modeling and disregards the idea of complex systems in favor of simplified models to try to prove a point are brain dead idiots.

    I could do that on a simple spreadsheet if you like.

  • MNG||

    John
    AGW is supported by work done by a diverse set of scientists, many of which are "older" than evolutionary biology (geology for example).

    The only thing that can be concluded about this CRU mess is that research based on the dumped data is unverifiable now and research done by these guys is very open to question now. To the extent that is the basis for AGW then it is in trouble, to the extent it is not then AGW is not very hurt.

  • ||

    "AGW is supported by work done by a diverse set of scientists, many of which are "older" than evolutionary biology (geology for example). "

    Geology does not support AGW per say. It is interpreted by AGW believers to support it. Further, the work supporting AGW and the interpretations are very new. And the real computer modeling is even newer. The idea that man is changing climate didn't even start until the 1950s, although the idea that there could be a greenhouse effect dates back to the 19th century
    http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx

    To claim that AGW science is in anyway as old or as established as evolutionary science is just insulting people's intelligence, which is not surprising coming from you and chad.

  • MNG||

    Earth to John: not only does the work of geologists provide support for AGW, but the major geological professional association plainly finds AGW to be correct.
    http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/

  • MNG||

    But what do geologists know, it's not a "mature" science...

  • Chad||

    Of course, MNG, a lot of climate data is unverifiable, because you can't reproduce the measurement, particularly for temperature. This is far more fundamental than not being able to reproduce some thirty-year-old data processing when the data was offloaded from one format to another.

    Reproducibility is not binary, but analog. I could not "reproduce" exactly any of the data in my thesis. I would have to use different raw material batches from different suppliers (and every chemist knows that THIS can make a huge difference), and use different models of equipment from different manufacturers running different software. Does this make my dissertation and the papers that sprung from it "irreproducible"? Only to a minor degree, and a degree to which does not invalidate my conclusions in any way. This is the same for the loss of some old data at HADCRU.

  • juris imprudent||

    Wrong. Climate change is supported by geology among other disciplines. I don't know anyone that doesn't accept that the climate on this planet changes over time.

    What is NOT supported is AGW.

  • MNG||

    From the AGU statement linked above:
    "With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society."

    But what do those geologists know? It's not a "mature" science...

  • juris imprudent||

    They know about geology, and very long time frames. That isn't what AGW is talking about, is it?

    Tell me MNG, do you go to a psychiatrist to have your heart checked? After all, a shrink is an MD.

  • Agent "SIV" Provocateur||

    MNG goes to a proctologist for his neurological issues.

  • MNG||

    The claim is that the geological record is effected by the climate of the times the record was laid down, and so through drills into the core estimates about the climate can be made from examining the rock. But how can you not know this unless you get all of your info concerning AGW from blogs and sites hostile to AGW?

  • g4m3th3ory||

    Actually MNG - I think he has a point. Core samples show changes over thousands of years whereas AGW is supposed to be unprecedented in its speed - hence has to be man made...

    Isn't that outside geology? What do they know about time in 50 year intervals?

  • juris imprudent||

    It is kind of you to explain it to him, but he still won't get it. His cognitive capability stalls at "a [real] scientist said".

  • MNG||

    Geology certainly isn't prevented from commenting on things within 100-200 years ago (think erosion). Geologists study glacier movement and size, which certainly can vary within the time periods you are thinking of.

    Examinations of drilled cores seem to be used to better understand climate change historically. Of course this would be important understanding present phenomena (Uniformitarianism being a staple of geology).

  • ||

    Humans being responsible for the "hole in the ozone" was disproved before the turn of the millennium bud.

    The even had a Discovery hannel special on how it is cyclical and grows and shrinks based on solar cycles and has nothing to do with human activity......

    Wow a lot like "climate change"...

    Man, the SUN having more effect on the planet then people? How is that possible???? Aren't humans the center of every and all things!?!?!?!

    You need to get current on the old arguments, cause you are way out of line in using that old claptrap, and you have shown exactly how much research you actually do with your science there bud.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    kinnath said

    Clean code has a high probability of being bug free.

    Ugly code has a high probability of being laced with bugs.

    Preach it, brother!

    The utter failure of that first, disastrous bunch of crap I wrote was the nucleus around which my interest in programming process and methodology condensed.

    Not that I'm a pro, but I don't turn out anything that bad anymore.

  • MNG||

    The reasoning has been laughable: "Some researchers whose work showed AGW have been found to be engaged in questionable practices, therefore AGW is false!"

    WTF? By that reason since John Lott "lost" any evidence of doing this survey all research suggesting guns decrease crime is false.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.....ted_survey

    Of course, all it means is that any claims based on that survey are unverifiable.

  • ||

    MNG.

    STOP FUCKING LYING. No one is claiming that AGW is false. They could have lied for a truthful cause. What the scandal does mean, is that we just don't know. And people like you need to shut up and stop claiming there is a consensus and the science is settled. Indeed, the Brits are going to take three years and reexamin all of the climate records as a result of this scandal and do so in a more open way. They admit the science on this issue is mortally wounded. You should to.

    Do everyone a favor and stop lying and mischaracterizing your opponents. And finally admit the obvious that there are some real problems with AGW science.

  • Chad||

    Again, John, you are being binary. Knowing is analog. Are we less certain than three weeks ago? No, actually. Any uncertainty gain from the hacks (which is small) was more than offset by the confirmation of the Antarctic melting. The certainty is still well above 90%.

  • ||

    And artic remelting I guess means nothing. The fact that the temps haven't risen in 10 years and they cant' account for it means nothing.

    You people are worse than moonies. At least the Moonies are not destroying science.

  • Moonie||

    Hey, fuck you.

  • jester||

    We are discussing AGW not GW. Antarctic melting pointing to GW is different from pointing to AGW. That's what the whole debate is about.

    You're probably right. Mankind is causing this whole thing. But before we press ahead with 'solutions' let's make sure they are the right ones.

    Remember the Hubble? Sometimes it would be better to calm down, spend some more money now and avoid paying more later.

  • MNG||

    "Mankind is causing this whole thing. But before we press ahead with 'solutions' let's make sure they are the right ones."

    I actually agree with this idea. If most scientists from varied fields say the earth is warming and it is caused by human activity, then they are probably right. To think otherwise is serious armchair quaterbacking. However from what I've read there is no reason to think science has hit on the correct "solutions" to the problem, both because any solution will involve political value decisions which they have no expertise and because as an empirical matter there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement about what exactly to do. The Cap and Trade bill in front of Congress for example strikes me as a disaster.

  • MNG||

    "What the scandal does mean, is that we just don't know."

    It does not. It simply means that the research based on the dumped data is unverifiable and the researchers in question are unreliable. That's it. To the extent that other research makes a convincing case it does. Do you submit that research based on this data and by these researchers is all, or even a majority, of the evidence for AGW? It's simply not either.

  • juris imprudent||

    So are you bidding on being Torquemada's number one goon?

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure what in the world is this supposed to mean. Is it some argument about the points I just made above that the only conclusion that can be drawn from this mess is 1. any studies based on the dumped data are unverifiable and 2. any research done by these researchers is questionable now. Again, to the extent the evidence for AGW rests on research using the dumped data or research done by these researchers, then to that extent, and that extent alone, is AGW undermined. I ask you, is that incorrect?

  • juris imprudent||

    Once the data has been tortured into the "correct" response, you discard it. Just like heretics who recanted their heresies were then sent on to God.

    So, for your (and Chad's) simple mind(s):

    1) the climate on this planet has been changing, long before man burned his first lump of coal. Do we understand the processes in that yet?

    2) given that we don't have a great understanding of the climate without man, it is a bit premature to make claims about man's impact on that climate, no?

    3) there is a long line of doomsayers that all claim, in one form or another, that man is a plague upon the earth, and that catastrophe will come if man does not abandon his wanton ways. Failure of any individual prophesy does not invalidate this belief system, it simply re-attaches to a new prophesy.

    Climatology would be a nice, boring area of science and this kerfluffle would've never raised an eyebrow outside a faculty lounge, had it NOT been for welding an immature scientific "conclusion" onto a political agenda. I say, please continue the science and FUCK the politicians.

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure wtf you are talking about. Again, do you think any conclusion stronger than the following are justified:
    1. any studies based on the dumped data are now unverifiable
    2. any research by those involved in the CRU mess is unreliable

    Is that correct or not?

  • juris imprudent||

    I'm sorry I didn't make it clear enough for you. I thought I had simplified it down, but alas...

    Yes, the CRU results are suspect since they themselves cannot recreate those results. Anything relying on the CRU data is ALSO questionable. That means (and this is good for scientists in the field) there is a whole lot of science to do here. So by all means, let's do the science. Until the science is reasonably well done (and this is more than just cleaning up the CRU mess - this includes coming up with models that don't have anomalous results for the past 10 years), please hold all political actions and stop screaming that the sky is falling. In short, anyone who really thinks climate may be an issue, should stop acting like a doomsday cultist.

  • JoshInHb||

    "there is a long line of doomsayers that all claim, in one form or another, that man is a plague upon the earth, and that catastrophe will come if man does not abandon his wanton ways."

    Enviros are just the heirs of apocalyptic christianity.

    They both believe in original sin, ie mankind is inherently evil and must atone for being born.

    And that anihilation is man's ultimate distiny if we don't change our sinful ways.

    The only difference is the name of god - Gaia instead of Yawhew

  • ||

  • MM||

    Sorry kids, but the evidence is overwhelming: Man-made global warming is actually happening, and the results could be catastrophic. "Climategate" is nothing more than proof that scientists have poor social skills, which shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

    Stick your head in the sand if you like, but it's gonna get hot there, too!

  • PicassoIII||

    AGW as a factor in earths climate can be taken as a known.
    The 'catastrophic' is an unknown.
    And these revalations only strengthen the argument that it's true net effect is pretty much uncertain.

    Oh, and NO argument that our government NEEDS to get involved will resonate here ... period. Even if there are SOME negative externalities.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Denier
    Denier

  • juris imprudent||

    Okay genius, why don't you tell us what the optimum average global temperature is? If you can't say what it is, how do you know we are headed for catastrophe?

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure how anyone could pick an "optimum" temperature. All I've heard people saying are things like this: if the earth temp increases by x, then y events (coastal cities flooding, polar bears losing environments favorable to their survival, etc) will occur. I've heard AGW proponents even point to some "advantages" from increased temps (easier travel through arctic seas).

  • Colonel_Angus||

    More lands inhabitable, increased viability for agriculture, growth of wetlands and rain forests, possible increased precipitation in areas with dry climates...

    And fuck polar bears, I'm not giving up a damn thing for those viscous motherfuckers, not to mention their populations are stable and growing. I ever encounter a polar bear, I'm not taking any chances, its me or him, and fuck poaching/cruelty laws.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Polar bears are made of thick liquid. I meant vicious.

    Did I mention biodiversity might increase, as it has in other warm periods?

  • ||

    Chad/MNG

    Let’s play the following game.

    I have a bunch of proxies that I think predict the stock market. I have derived these proxies from various sources which I correlated together to match the stock. Some of them are pretty surprising (heh, you would never guess how well the wind speed in Istanbul predicts market fluctuations), but hey, they correlate.

    Yes, some have called my methods fraudulent, and point out that the price of noodles on a specific corner in Hong Kong diverges from the stock market over the last couple of years, but I have clearly demonstrated to the Stock denialists that if I leave out that data, it doesn’t matter and I get the same results.

    My results diverge a bit of the last year or two, but we can all agree that these are extraordinary times, so I have been utilizing the actual market values when my proxies fail to predict.

    Care to invest ? My past results are excellent !

  • Neu Mejican||

    This analogy is not strictly apt. Climate models are not done in the same way that market models are done.

    They use actually physical models whose principle of operation is known. As a result there is more to them than a bunch of correlations.

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-8.1.html

  • PicassoIII||

    Oh and for those going
    AGW skeptic -> denialist -> creationist.

    F off.
    No really, i've got Dawkins "Selfish Gene" on my nightstand and read Gould in college for both credit AND fun.

    Oh and i gotta funny feeling i'm probably as 'green' as any warmist troll here. (for someone who has a 40 mile/day commute and boss's who don't do tele-).
    I've never bought a new car, never will. Switched to a gas grill. Stopped using my fireplace. Bought my last major appliance used. Try to buy US or NorthAm when possible.

    One doesn't have to manufacture a crisis to understand air pollution is still a problem.

  • ||

    No really, i've got Dawkins "Selfish Gene" on my nightstand and read Gould in college for both credit AND fun.

    yeah I have read "Selfish Gene" 4 times. 3 Times for fun and once for credit.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Gas grills are dope but every once in a while I'm in the mood for some Kingsford or the smoker. Never done a fryer and George Foreman cooked meat tastes like shit.

  • Langston Huge||

    What do you expect from rat's like these?
    MNG, Chad, and Tony are down on their knees,
    To Gavin's ass they press their liar's lips,
    In quarters sunken too low to leave that sunken ship.

  • PicassoIII||

    Hell i'm not even an AGW skeptic, and not even ACC.
    Let's call it ACCC*, (anthro CATOSTROPHIC clim change) skeptic.

  • PicassoIII||

    Warmists throw around 'anti-science' like someone takes Genesis literally.
    LOL
    All while buying Revalation.
    *smirk*

  • hmm||

    This is like watching a troll cage match. Or like watching two gangs from the special needs district go at it.

    Two Troll enter one Troll leave!!
    It' a troll off.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    It's good that the honest scientists who actually believe in global warming are starting to speak out against these activist/scientists' massaging of the data, peer-review manipulation and dishonesty. They are real scientists. They believe that facts are to be scrutinized, not dressed up.

    Chad, MNG and Tony,

    I became an atheist (and I used to be a pretty hard-core christian) because I studied clear, open scienctific debate on the subject of evolution. It was sort of painful but I had no choice, I love science and the facts are the facts. There is no reason I would be able to face down my fear of Hell and God's wrath because I was challenged by the the facts, only to be blinded by my libertarian views. If the science was convincing I WOULD BE CONVINCED and if convincing data is gathered later I WILL BE CONVINCED. Chad, it is immoral for scientists to massage data and hide or exaggerate trends, and the fact that you say it happens all the time and that it's a part of the process doesn't make it better, it makes it worse. You idiots are sticking up for hack scientists who are corrupting the integrity of science.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Denier
    Denier
    Denier

  • PicassoIII||

    revalationist?

    rapturist?

    nope doesn't roll off the t...

    i got nothin

  • ||

    i'm not sure how accepting evolution = atheist... but what do i know?

  • Tony||

    Congratulations. I get the feeling you're defining "honest scientists" as those you can find who agree with you.

  • Chris||

    Wait, isn't the consensus the core of your argument for AWG? So... what then, your consensus is self-evidently more "honest" due to their volume?

  • Tony||

    The consensus is simply more likely to be right. I'm not the one assuming good or bad faith on the part of scientists.

  • g4m3th3ory||

    Just wow - umm... just a few things to think about when saying the "consensus is more likely to be right"

    First - it's an appeal to majority/authority and is meaningless.

    Second - the general consensus has be wrong a number of times in the past. It seems a reading of history could dispel you of the idea that it's meaningful or could be used as proof of something.

    Third - any understanding of group think would stop you from ever saying anything so ridiculous again.

  • MNG||

    Sigh.

    When people take an intro to Logic class they get told "Appeals to Authority are fallacies." For many people that's all they get and it becomes a mantra for them without them understanding what's going on there. The "fallacy" of appeal to authority states that once cannot draw 100% conclusions based merely on an assertion of someone's expertise. However, concluding that an expert in his relevant field is more likely to be correct than a non-expert is a well accepted conclusion in the field of informal logic and is indeed quite rational. In fact to find otherwise is quite irrational.

  • Chad||

    Really? Show me one "real scientist" whose mind changed concerning AGW because the hack. Just one. Good luck.

  • ||

    Really? Show me one "real scientist" whose mind changed concerning AGW because the hack. Just one. Good luck.

    If i was a "real scientist" i would not change my mind either, but this is not over. And like how my imagined "real scientist" self would i am sure many are looking much closer at the evidence then they did in the past.

    The met 3 year review of hardcut3 should be really really interesting.

  • Chad||

    The 3 year review will just re-re-re-re-re check the data, and nothing of substance will change.

    If you read commentary by real scientists and scientific organizations, you find NOTHING but affirmation that AGW is real and a problem. There is disappointment in the behavior of the researchers, and the delays this will cause as we again quadruple check everything, but no one is concerned that there could be any substantial changes to scientific results.

  • ||

    Any "real scientists" never thought the debate was over in the first place.

    Your own argument invalidates your appeal to authority.

  • ||

    Any "real scientists" never thought the debate was over in the first place.

    Your own argument invalidates your appeal to authority.

  • MNG||

    In all seriousness and intending no offense, I think complicated scientific matters are best understood by people with education, training, and experience in the relevant areas, and not by people like you and I who lack that. It's not irrational (or illogical so please junior logicians, give the "TEH ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY!" cries a rest) to defer to someone who has far more of those things in a complicated area. Some people with those creds say there is no AGW, but many more say there is. So I believe it is more likely that the larger number of scientists are correct, and the minority and loud, admittedly ideologically interested amateurs are wrong.

  • g4m3th3ory||

    Rerpint:

    g4m3th3ory|12.6.09 @ 12:56PM|#
    Just wow - umm... just a few things to think about when saying the "consensus is more likely to be right"

    First - it's an appeal to majority/authority and is meaningless.

    Second - the general consensus has be wrong a number of times in the past. It seems a reading of history could dispel you of the idea that it's meaningful or could be used as proof of something.

    Third - any understanding of group think would stop you from ever saying anything so ridiculous again.

  • Chad||

    No, any appeal to authority is not meaningless. Or do you pay just anyone $50/h to fix your toilet?

  • Agent "SIV" Provocateur||

    What's that PhD in MNG? Special Needs?

  • ||

    You are making up statistics. You would fit well into the group you are defending.

    Show me the statistic that states more qualified scientists believe in AGW that don't.

    Please produce this imaginary peer reviewed study that you seem to have in your back pocket that proves that.

    Without it, your appeal to authority is moot.

  • PicassoIII||

    Best way to put it is that some of us feel that this isn't the government lying about WMDs or the tobacco companies lying about the effects of smoking.
    This is like government telling us that ETS is as bad as smoking.
    Warmalarmists are telling us the planet is smoking 3 packs a day, while it may be occasional social exposure to ETS.

  • ||

    actually, smoking is cool. so it doesn't add up.

  • PicassoIII||

    Unintended consequence.
    I have gotten laid by someone i bummed a light off of.

    Cost benefit up to the individual, YMMV, etc, etc.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Excellent way to initiate conversation. If I decide I don't like them, or if they are female and it becomes apparent they are not likely to put out, I steal their Bic.

  • Adderall Apocalypse||

    hey. I'd like to thank all you non-scientists for so graciously bestowing your knowledge on all us unwashed philistines... Could You Please Watch This Video!? (like "with sugar on top" or w/e) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

  • ||

    People are saying the raw data is available. According to a commenter at Volokh that is not true and the CRU work can't be replicated because of it.

    CRU data is not available

    A dataset like HADCRUT3 will have thousands of value added changes to the original data to reflect things like stations that moved, adjusting for seasonal changes like El Nino, all sorts of things.

    Just what was done to the raw data and why is absolutely crucial. And apparently, that information no longer exists (at least not in any format that is reproducible).

    CRU data is not available

    We’ve been all over this– none of the intermediate data and metacode is available, and I know because that was what the FOIA request asked for. It was like pulling teeth just to get the station list out of CRU, and they refused to release the data associated with each.

    If you can show me where i can find a way to relate HADCRUT3 back to the GISS raw data, congrats, because nobody else on the planet has been able to find that info including CRU.
  • BOLSHEVIK||

    You guys don't know anything about the scientific world or the real world for that matter. You live in your bourgeoisie fairy tale land while millions starve in the third world. You pillage the proletarians resources then you whine when the government tries to control your savagery. You make me sick!!!! Power to the people!!!!!!!!

  • ||

    fuck off trotsky.

  • BOLSHEVIK||

    Is that you have to say you nazi fascist capitalist swine?

  • juris imprudent||

    STFU MNG

  • ||

    ooh!

    yes that i have to say? dumbass.

  • BOLSHEVIK||

    You stupid capitalist scum!!! All you do is mock those who aren't up to your level of materialistic trash because you are insecure.You will never know true happiness like the proletariat does. Your souls is filled with greed and hate while our souls are filled nothing but love and compassion for the proletarian. The end is near for scum like you.

  • ||

    how many souls am i alloted?

  • ||

    Whose more materialist commie ass wipe? Wanting to spread wealth because its "not fair" to people who haven't earned it? Is it that kind of materialist? Isn't your whole philosophy based on materialism? As usual, the commie has no idea what he's talking about.

  • ||

    all our souls are base!

  • BOLSHEVIK||

    We communist are above all materialism and so is the proletarian. It is only the bourgeoisie or middle class who is stuck in a world of materialism(a world full of insecurity and contradictions). Only until we rid the world of this parasitic class can we truly be free.

  • ||

    you keep mentioning "the proletarian". is there only one left? what did you bastards do to all the proles?

  • ||

    There is only one prole here ... perhaps that is what he's referring to?

  • ||

    the TROLLSHEVIK didn't stick around long enough to say...

  • ||

    +1

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    BOLSHEVIK = Howard Dean

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Yeah Rocky-IV, I have say that too!

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I've noticed people using the term "denialists". Is that intended to sound like "denial" with a dash of "nihilists" or is it my imagination?

  • ||

    that's giving a bit to much credit probably...

  • ||

    *too

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    It's similar to the term "outliers", which to those not savvy enough to know its meaning sounds like "out" and "liar", phonetically-speaking.

  • smartass sob||

    I've noticed people using the term "denialists".

    It's meant to make people conflate them with neo-nazis, who "deny" the Holocaust ever happened.

  • JoshInHb||

    I think its a throwback to midevel Catholic thought. Deniers are those who refuse to acknowledge the divinit of Christ(or Gaia now).
    Of course those people (deniers) should be tortured even to death, in order to save their souls.
    It's the humane thing to do.

  • ||

    Kick the bootch out. Boxer is the biggest power hungry, hypocritical, arrogant, egomaniac only Frisco bay voters could elect because she is like them. Lie and control people at any costs is these envi-moron-mentalist's game. They could care less about the truth if it undermines their Green Nazi agenda.

  • ||

    don't forget patronizing!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FoekBjhtWE

  • JB||

    Boxer = retarded fetus.

  • ||

    Episiarch|12.5.09 @ 1:57PM|#

    Just because I said Hoaxbuster was retarded doesn't automatically mean you, Warty. You do want cake, though, right? They all want cake.

    Was this a Portal reference, Epi?

  • BakedPenguin||

    The first episode of Strangers With Candy.

  • ||

    Venus is in fact not hot become of trapped heat from greenhouse gases but in fact hot because of its thicker atmosphere and larger mass (greater gravitational pull) Again, on Venus like on earth, the heat trapping effects of "greenhouse gases" are a small factor.

    Venus is hot because it is closer to the sun than the Earth, just as Mercury is also hotter than the Earth, and all the outer planets from Mars on are colder.

    Stuff like atmosphere tweaks the effect of the sun, but the atmospheric effect is mainly a function of planetary mass. The more massive the planet, the higher the escape velocity is for atmospheric particles.

    The obvious thing that AGWers have missed is that the fluctuations in solar radiance are far more likely to affect global temperatures than tiny changes in the level of a nearly trace element in the atmosphere (i.e. CO2).

  • TP||

    What is the temperature on the Moon, where there is no atmosphere? Absolute zero? What is the temperature of the Moon's core? What is the temperature of the Earth's core? Have there been any fluctuations in temperature in the Earth's core? What about the hole in the Earth's magnetic field? With more cosmic/solar radiation penetrating into the Earth's atmosphere, wouldn't that have some effect on temperature?

  • ||

    what is your point?

  • TP||

    My point? Must I make a point? I'm just posing questions as a curious observer. Perhaps, trying to formulate a hypothesis. To be followed by observations, measurements, experimentation, and mathematical calculations. Then, perhaps, offer a conclusion.

  • juris imprudent||

    Hey, hey, hey, get that shit out of here. This is no place for scientific curiousity. This is all about SETTLED SCIENCE (tm).

  • JoshInHb||

    The esteemed scientist Algore says its several million degrees.

  • ||

    While Venus is closer to the Sun, there are other factors involved. Venus is less massive than Earth to start with. Secondly, planetary rotation influences wind speed and since Venus rotates far slower than Earth the exposure to solar radiation on a given surface area is much greater.

    Atmosphere does more than "tweak", too. It retains the heat and distributes it through convection (helped along by the winds generated by the Earths rotation). If there were no atmosphere on Earth the night side would be around -200 degrees with the dayside would be +200.

    I'm just an astronomy buff so I won't go into all the details. But the last point you make is also true. It would take a few centuries of heavy volcanic activity for CO2 levels to affect planetary temperatures.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I made an over-arching statement on another thread about applying data adjustments to portions of a dataset. Neu Mejican pointed out (correctly) that my comment was too broad. There are valid reasons for applying adjustments to parts of a dataset. (Seasonal adjustments to economic data being one). My mistake.

    Having said that, I cannot believe the people who are "denying" that the CRU goons did anything wrong. Fucking "hide the decline"? Here is a clue: when someone wants to hide something, what they are doing is not science.

    AGW proponents, if they had any fucking honesty, should be pissed as hell at these assholes, because if AGW is real, they set back the science for years.

    And a better comparison than '"denier" = creationist' is 'CRU defenders = Paultards'.

    "Oh, those newsletters / emails weren't really that bad. And even though they contradict the basic philosophy / scientific method, we shouldn't have any doubts, because our cause is just and righteous."

  • jester||

    'Hide the salami' is a scientific method...in this case.

  • Chad||

    Penguin, how is "hiding" something in a different peer-reviewed paper which your citing dishonest? They were simply not including spurious data on a graph. Big bleeping whoopdie do. This is done every day a zillion times, and perfectly fine, normal, and not worth a second thought as long as it is transparent.

    The fact that you guys keep trying to make a mountain out of something that doesn't even qualify as a molehill, however, IS dishonest.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Can you stop being a dumbass about this point, Chad?

    Please?

    "Hide the decline"

    THE FUCKING DECLINE!!! Not the paper. No one was hiding the paper. No one was hiding the information that was available. But that they were using a method of mixing data sets that made their graphs look like no temperature decline has happened.

    When you continually talk about "hiding something in a different peer-reviewed paper", you're side-stepping the whole issue.

    It's not about what papers it was in, but the decline in temperature that was being hidden.

    The fact that you keep failing to recognize the distinction makes you dishonest. Or retarded.

  • jester||

    Some years ago a certain well-respected journalist named Dan Rather produced a document that proved George W. Bush had been excepted from the Viet Nam draft by special privelege.

    Later that document was shown to be fake by pointing out the anachronistic font used in the 'smoking gun'.

    Nevertheless, well-respected journalist Dan Rather insisted the story was true nonetheless and the vetting of the document was not relevant.

    I think I understand the mind of a dedicated progressive: the stakes are so high for improving the world, that evidence can be manufactured for illustrative purposes when there just isn't enough time.

    Call it, artistic courtesy or art for con-artist's sake.

  • TP||

    Your example reminds me of the forged Italian documents used in the "yellow cake" justification for weapons of mass destruction. Only in that case, it was, fire the whistle blower's wife and nobody will notice. Or blow the whistle wife's fire. Or wife the fire whistle's blow.

  • g4m3th3ory||

    I seem to recall an international consensus of most of the world's intelligence agencies agreeing that Iraq still has WMD.

    They are smarter, have more access to hidden data, and there was certainly a consensus.

  • Chad||

    I seem to remember an international consensus that CFC's deplete ozone. They were right.

    Now, what fraction of "international consensuses" are wrong?

  • g4m3th3ory||

    I think historically, more wrong that right.

  • EJ||

    and in 2005 the international consensus amongst professional economists (another field that tries to create predictive statistical models to describe an extremly complex system) was that there was nothing to worry about via a bubble and we would see modest growth fow the next few years... i guess then the appropriate thing for someone to do back then when a given economist or analyst made an argument as to why there is a housing bubble was to just say "shut the fuck up... your a denier... the consensus says we're fine"

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Yeahhhhhh.... And the great thing is that a couple guys with a better understanding of cause and effect simply through good historical knowledge & consistent logic actually did predict it all quite well - even when they tend to be opposed to making predictions period.

    Funny how that works.

  • ||

    You are WRONG WRONG WRONG. Brush up on your CFC ozone hole theory.

    Most people stopped following it in the early 90s.

    Being that my first job was in refrigeration/air conditioning, I never did.

    The "science" behind that grand hoax was overturned almost a decade ago.

    Your refusal to accept any proof that comes up against your beliefs "proves" that you are a worshiper, a believer, a lay brother, but not at all a fact based individual.

    the fact that you stopped following a science when they started overturning your beliefs is showing too.

    At one point the majority of educated people believed that the world was flat and that the universe revolved around the earth.

    This scientific debate was so "settled" that they burned people for arguing against it.

    The reality is, science is never settled, and is an always evolving field.

    Anyone that ever declares a scientific argument is settled knows little to nothing about science.

  • Chad||

    No. Your analogy to the stock market is fundamentally flawed, because unlike climate (or any physical process), the use your models THEMSELVES affect what they are modelling. This creates a mathematically-intractable infinite loop.

    Sorry, try again.

  • hmm||

    Only if used or believed, the effect is essential priced into the market and the market. This won't change most of the underlying variables.

    The perfect example is the use of certain strategies. As they become popular they become less effective and the market returns to a normal* state. So I agree there is an effect, but the effect is not permanent.

    *for lack of a better word and a case of the retard

  • jester||

    Silly hmm, markets are magical. We're talking science here.

  • Chad||

    Any model which predicts the market even for a little while BECOMES believed, and I seriously doubt whoever was in control of it would refrain from using it. As soon as they did, they have changed the system, and spawn a thousand copycats which magnify the change.

  • hmm||

    First, no models predict the market. Models predict nothing, not even the end of the world due to global warming. Markets adjust to new strategies as more participants use them. The price effect of the new strategy is then priced into the equity and your ability to arbitrage is gone. Your argument was that the analogy of market models and global warming was flawed because of the markets initial reaction. I don't argue that the comparison is not perfect. I will argue that modeling something that reacts to observation is infinitely harder than even modeling something with as many variables as weather.

    Personally I don't see any model about either generating results I'd be willing to bet an economy on anytime soon.

  • Chad||

    You are right...modeling something that reacts to the models is incredibly hard, if not impossible. That is why stock markets will remain unpredictable.

    You are wrong, however, in claiming that climate "has lots of variables". This is true in a strict sense, but it really DOESN'T have a lot that seem to matter. As I have noted many times, the radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases can be computed very easily. The big "X factor" is clouds, which ARE hard to mdel. However, the actual data concerning clouds indicates they are largely a wash, meaning their influence is unlikely to be huge either way....and certainly not large enough to offset the positive feedback loop of temperature/greenhouse-gas/ice-melt.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    A model is not an experiment or test. A model does nothing but demonstrate a hypothesis, and often the predictions derived from the simulations have failed to correlate with actual, LONG TERM trends.

  • Chad||

    And we have been TESTING both water feedback and clouds. Some recent highlights.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossr.....5333.shtml

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3784

    The second link (to an external newsite, as the Science paper is subcription only) is the utterly scary one. Cloud cover was supposed to be the Holy Grail of negative feedbacks, the thing that was going to save us from all the well-known positive feedbacks. What did the biggest study of cloud cover yet discover? THAT THE FEEDBACK WAS SLIGHTLY POSITIVE.

    This was one of the two worst pieces of news we learned this year (the other being the Antarctic melt). Both of these are terrible for humanity, and blow up some of the denier's already-weak arguments. You guys seem to not even have noticed.

  • ||

    Holy JESUS!!! (form an atheist)

    You think that you know so much about the earth and climate, that you can categorically say it is a SIMPLE system.

    YOU ARE OFF YOUR ROCKER.

    GOOD CHRIST ALMIGHTY YOU HAVE WALKED OFF THE EVER LOVING DEEPEND.

    If it was so simple, why is it so hard to explain. Why does data have ot be "adjusted"? Why are they still testing for more factors (like clouds and water vapor as you cited) if it is so simple, why are the climate models WRONG.

    Why is it not +2C warmer now then it was 10 years ago as predicted?

    WHY WHY WHY WHY?!?!?!

    Because the models were fundamentally flawed, period.

    Get over it you pseudo science, talking point spewing, rhetoric filled, gaia worshiping farce!!!!!

    How many hurricanes were we supposed to have last yer?
    The year before that?

    If it was so simple, why did the numbers not match?

    Genius....

  • ||

    Are you honestly suggesting that the wind in Istanbul controls the stock market or at least has a significant effect?

    Or are you somehow claiming that other factors that correlate to tree rings like CO2 and precipitation are some how independent of climate ?

    Or perhaps you are suggesting that I cannot mathematically model a recursive model or ones that have a number of linked dependent variables ?

    Your thinking seems more than a little disjoint and you are difficult to understand. If you really mean the third option, I would humbly suggest that you convince your paleoclimate friends that their life's work is in vain because that is exactly what they are doing

  • hmm||

    Unless I missed something, and god knows I probably did, I thought he was trying to argue the fact that any model of a market will have an effect on that market because humans can control the variables of the market, and apply the model. Where nature is not so easily controlled by a model. This leads to the obvious, "Then why in the fuck are we wasting billions hole in his argument, but I find the model comparison more interesting."

  • jester||

    We humans all get together and collude all the time. Hence we control the variables. Interesting.

  • ||

    I see. Ok.

    My point was that via curve fitting, I can easily model past market behavior by variables that in fact have absolutely nothing to do with the market. I simply take a known curve and fit another set of known curves to the the original curve. Of course I tend to think my model will have no predictive power for future events, but it is entirely possible that Chad believes differently.

  • Chad||

    Yes, that is essentially what I am saying. Any time that anyone develops a model which consistently beats random chance, it quickly gets copied, neutralizing the strategy. Any model that came even close to being fully accurate would have to include its own existence in the model, and then include the existence of the meta-model, and then the meta-meta-model, etc. With the chaos that is the human psyche and the markets, I see no hope that this series of meta-models would converge.

  • hmm||

    The market is not random. Collusion is by no means a guarantee against volatility on the market. It does increase prediction as control increases, but more than one person has tried to corner a market through collusion and failed spectacularly. It's nearly impossible today.

  • Chad||

    I don't think we are on the same wavelength. What I am saying is that any even remotely successful model with be copied by many people, both sucking the profits out of the model AND fundamentally changing the market...making the model incorrect. Creating a new model that accounts for the old one will just lead to the same phenomenon. It is a never-ending processs that, due to the positive feedbacks of successful model adoption, is highly chaotic.

  • ||

    Your premise is garbage.

    The model for running a successful company of any stripe has already been invented and followed by successful companies, yet all companies are not successful.

    The model for how to get good grades in school has been successfully tested and implemented, yet not everyone gets good grades.

    You have no proof to back up you "everyone always picks the best way to do things once discovered" theory and I can name markets all day in which your theory fails spectacularly.

    Try again.

  • ||

    No. Your analogy to the stock market is fundamentally flawed, because unlike climate (or any physical process), the use your models THEMSELVES affect what they are modelling. This creates a mathematically-intractable infinite loop.

    It will be funny as hell if Al Gore over extended his investments into green technologies and carbon trading schemes.

    wait a min...

    OH FUCK!!! I am an idiot!!

    Why oh why did i not come up with a fake green scheme?!?!

    It would have been so perfect and so easy to do. I would not have to find the suckers ....By believing in AGW the suckers readily identify themselves as imbeciles.

    Crap! Maybe next time.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Venus is in fact not hot become of trapped heat from greenhouse gases but in fact hot because of its thicker atmosphere and larger mass (greater gravitational pull)

    Er...Venus is less massive than the Earth, less dense than the Earth, has a lower surface gravity than Earth, and has a lower escape velocity than Earth.

    I find my self wonder about the veracity of your other claims.

  • jester||

    but some of its women have massive breasts. Massive green breasts.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Well, that's good enough for me. When does the ship leave?

  • jester||

    No, sir. They are coming here. They heard Tiger might be single. But hey, I'll settle for leftovers.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Good... He can have the venus women.... I'll take his (soon-to-be) ex-wife.

  • James Tiberius Kirk||

    Green-skinned women? I'm all for that!

  • ||

    Me too!

  • ||

    Hmm...could have sworn Venus was bigger.

    But i am wrong. Back to investigation.

  • ||

    Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The atmospheric mass is 93 times that of Earth's atmosphere while the pressure at the planet's surface is about 92 times that at Earth's surface—a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of nearly 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans.

    Well not entirely wrong. The atmo is far larger in all respects. Which means higher pressures and higher temperatures.

  • ||

    The surface of Venus is effectively isothermal; it retains a constant temperature between day and night and between the equator and the poles.[1][39] The planet's minute axial tilt (less than three degrees, compared with 23 degrees for Earth), also minimizes seasonal temperature variation.[40] The only appreciable variation in temperature occurs with altitude.

    This is interesting.

  • ||

    However, there have been recent speculations about the possibility of developing extensive "floating cities" in the atmosphere of Venus in the future.[122] This concept is based on the atmospheric conditions approximately fifty kilometres above the surface of the planet, where atmospheric pressures and temperatures are thought to be similar to those of Earth.

    Even more interesting. If Venus is run away "greenhouse" warming why would the altitude that has similar pressure as earth have the same temperature? With all those green house gases (the atmo is mainly CO2) shouldn't the temperature be much hotter?

  • Chad||

    Not nessarily. Atmospheres get cooler as you go up (ours certainly does), and greenhouse gases actually make this stronger, not weaker. Indeed, the fact that the stratosphere (the upper atmosphere) is cooling while the troposphere (the lower atmosphere) is warming is solid evidence that greenhouse gases are the cause. If it had anything to do with increased sunlight, both would be warming.

    It is perfectly plausible that the layer of Venus's atmosphere with approximately 1 atm pressure also happens to have temperatures similar to ours. I have no idea why we would ever try to live there, though...the atmosphere is CO2 and sulfurous gases...yikes!

  • PicassoIII||

    Dudes, seriously...
    PV = NRT
    Venus' atmospheric pressure is multiple times greater that ours.
    Those that try to draw parallels to Vennus are asking us to accept tons of assumptions about what actually happens at those pressures.

    Yes climate science apoclyptics (like Hanson) had nightmares about landing on Venus.

  • ||

    Those that try to draw parallels to Vennus are asking us to accept tons of assumptions about what actually happens at those pressures.

    At the altitude at which Venus's air pressure is the same as earth's surface air pressure the temperatures are the same.

    If this is true then why isn't the high concentration of Venus's CO2 causing a greenhouse effect?

  • Chad||

    If that is true, Josh (citation please), it is simply coincidence. Temperature has a very complex relationship with altitude here on earth (and Venus as well, likely). See slide 18.

    http://scipp.ucsc.edu/outreach.....ss_alt.pdf

    However, pressure follows a simple exponential model.

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox......d_462.html

  • ||

    Even more interesting. If Venus is run away "greenhouse" warming why would the altitude that has similar pressure as earth have the same temperature?

    you missed that part about pressure. So an atmosphere consisting mostly of CO2 at the same air pressure as earths surface has the same temperature.

    Same pressure, different concentration of "greenhouse" gasses same temperature.

    I wonder if a light will ever go off in Chad's head? I think I would have to have a Phd after my name and even then he would just remember what I wrote by route memory and not actually understand it.

  • Chad||

    Josh, I just convincingly demonstrated that there is no direct or simple relationship between pressure and temperature as a function of altitude. It will vary wildly based on numerous factors. Finding two points which line up doesn't mean they all do.

  • ||

    I love how you use the "climate is so simple you can model on an excel spreadsheet" argument earlier.

    But now it is "vary widely based on numerous factors".

    You can't even hold onto a coherent argument through an entire comment thread.

  • Brian Trust||

    Don't forget that Venus is about 25 million miles closer to the Sun than the Earth is, yet the temperature at Earth's pressure on Venus is the same.

  • ||

    You people really are just Republicans who smoke pot.

  • TP||

    Well, duh.

  • jester||

    A lot of us stopped voting Republican several cycles ago. A lot of us don't smoke pot but don't have any sort of problem with anyone that does.

    But we are pretty much all deniers. We deny that Tony or Chad could be anything but hamster dingleberries.

  • PicassoIII||

    Eh, pragmatist that accepts that whatever the consequences are, both the severity and moreso proper governmental responses are both crap shoots at this point.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    FORMER Republicans, perhaps, though I have at least a dozen colleagues who were former Democrats.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Woah there... I have never been a republican. Or a democrat.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    When I was twelve or so, I was a communist.

    Twenty years later, I was a Republican.

    And, though I didn't vote for Perot, he did open my eyes enough to stop (with very few exceptions) voting for Republicans OR Democrats.

    But that's just me.

  • jester||

    "You call it 'ClimateGate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'"

    Good God this debate got off on the usual tangent. My bad, as well.

    Boxer wants to potentially prosecute the hackers.

    Question: does this approach help AGW theory? Or does it exhibit an approach that will further alienate AGW-deniers?

    My answer: She is so steeped in the I-hate-my-enemies shtick that she can't think straight. ot even for causes she might believe in. Essentially, a women blinded by hate.

    What a freak.

  • g4m3th3ory||

    I'd submit that she is rational in that she is paying lip service to the constituents that continue to elect her.

    In a gerrymandered district where she wins by 20%, I would say she's doing exactly what she needs to do to continue to keep her power.

  • g4m3th3ory||

    Which doesn't mean that I agree with her BTW - just that she's not crazy so long as you understand that she is responding to incentives.

  • ||

    Boxer's a Senator, so gerrymandering doesn't explain her. Pelosi's district used to be insanely gerrymandered, now not so much, but she still coasts to reelection every time.

  • Chad||

    Btw, more evidence that it was a hack, not a whistleblower...

    http://climateprogress.org/200.....more-15073

    Break-ins, hacks...you guys are really desperate, aren't you?

  • ||

    Climate Progress?

    Really?

    Romm's climate progress is the worse propagandist in all of the globe of global warming.

    Here is Romm coaching a scientist on what to say.

    The chain begins with Joseph Romm telling Caldeira that he had read SuperFreakonomics and “I want to trash them for this insanity and ignorance.” Romm adds that “my blog is read by everyone in this area, including the media” and tells Caldeira that “I’d like a quote like ‘The authors of SuperFreakonomics have utterly misrepresented my work,’ plus whatever else you want to say.”

    http://ncwatch.typepad.com/med.....posed.html

  • Chad||

    Ahh, but anything posted at WUWT or ClimateAudit is gospel, right?

    If you can cite any evidence that this post is a fake, and there were no break-ins or hacks, I would be amazed.

  • jester||

    Focus on motives is not relevant. Either the hacking exposed unknown information or not. Whether it was niggers or cunts who did the exposing is immaterial.

  • ||

    Still i am interested. But anyone trying to get reliable information about the hacker from climate progress is deluding themselves.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    No, Chad, it's your side which is desperate - you're THIS close to getting what you've wanted all along... the destruction of capitalism and individual liberty... and now that's all in jeopardy. All that hard work, over the long decades, may be for naught.

    If we're lucky, that is.

  • juris imprudent||

    "For thirty years, defenders of a pollution-based economy..."

    No, no bias in that write-up. Not one little, tiny bit.

    Too bad you're falling back on your old style there Torquemada; I was appreciating the new style of trolling you've been trying.

  • PicassoIII||

    Hack, whistle blower.
    Thief, hero ... it doesn't matter.
    Some independent thought may be thrown at the issue, the tenuousness of the PREDICTIONS is exposed.

    I'm hopefull.

  • ||

    Boxer is blinded by hate, but I think Pelosi has her beat.
    Protesting massive changes to health care makes you a Nazi? Really Nancy?

    Boxer, Pelosi and Olbermann are perfect examples of left wing haters. All three of these assholes just drive me nuts...

    Ah, but I digress...

  • ||

    I'm just a layperson business owner with a BS in soil science. I've read many completely bogus, biased papers from both industry and environmental groups with agendas regarding my field of study. I also studied Environmental History and Geology in college in the late 80's to 1994. It's amazing how little is known and how much the data changed. Some of my textbooks had completely obsolete information, and they were only 1-2 year old books.
    I've been skeptical of the idea of man-made global warming being a major concern since the early 90's. There were glaciers in Kansas just 10,000 years ago. Of course the Earth has been warming.
    Climate Science is in it's infancy. How do we know the "average" global temperature? 70% of the Earth is ocean, another big chunk is at the poles with very little human habitation, and another big chuck is mountains and uninhabited areas. Where I live in Wisconsin there can be 10-20 degree temperature variations in the same day, within a 20 mile area.
    The idea that we can predict the future is preposterous. Climate scientists can't predict next week, let alone 30 years from now. Where I live, we have received 30 inches of rain in less than 7 days, and 40 inches of snow in 3 days, and neither were predicted. There are so many variables involved that we have no idea what is happening.
    These e-mail leaks are very damaging. It shows the folly of predicting the future or saying what happened in the past. This is a very scary scenario if the mainstream media does not expose this issue. "The debate is over". I constantly hear this line from environmentalists, politicians, and "scientists". Any "scientist" who would say that is a complete fraud. Now the debate can START!
    I am more scared about the future now than I have been in a long time - since the Patriot Act.
    George Orwell is coming true.

  • Chad Unleashed||

    COREY,
    CAREFUL, THE INQUISITION MAY HAVE TO VISIT YOU NEXT!!! DENIERS MUST BE DESTROYED. THEY ARE TRAITORS TO THE WORLD!

  • Chav's other gay bestial pet||

    *squawk* WEATHER N CLIMATE WEATHER N CLIMATE *shriek*

  • BakedPenguin||

    Penguin, how is "hiding" something in a different peer-reviewed paper which [you're] citing dishonest?

    Linky?

  • ||

    linky? it's a consensus you heathen!

  • jester||

    How is searching for multiple examples of quasi-rejected inputs into ephemeral...

    sorry, i fell asleep.

  • Chad||

    I shouldn't have to cite the world's most disputed paper (Mann's 1998 Nature paper) for you. Go find it yourself.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I wasn't asking for "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries" douchebag. I was asking for the specific citation with the temperature data. That's the paper I'd like to see. Or know the title of.

    I already went through most of the citations, and didn't see any data that showed a decline in temperatures in the last ten years. I did see a few showing a rising trend, though, which makes me think you're full of shit.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    People throw away important data on old mediums... after backing it up on something better, Choad. If the data shows what you claim it does, then how does it "feed the trolls"?

    Furthermore, how do you and Stephen D. clean each others shit out the slit of your dicks?

  • Chad||

    They did. Unfortunately, it had a minimal amount of processing. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is a .1.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Poor fucking excuse.

  • ||

    Is it just me or does this guy come off as a majorTOOL.

    R
    www.be-invisible.ua.tc

  • ||

    who Chad? can't even get respect from the spam bot...

  • juris imprudent||

    A bot that even semi-imitates LoneWacko. Ouch!

  • MNG||

    As far as whether AGW is occurring or not the wrongness of what the CRU researchers did can actually be conceded and I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

    Does anyone deny that nothing more can be concluded from this mess than:

    1. All research which relied on the data which has been dumped is now unverifiable
    2. All research done by the researchers in question is now unreliable

    Is anyone claiming anything bigger than this can be concluded? I don't see how that could be supported.

    Any research concluding there is AGW that is not based on the data in question or done by the researchers in question is not affected by any of this, in the same way that Pilt-down man being a fraud does not undermine any finds/claims/research that did not rest on Pilt-down man.

    Right?

  • ||

    i get what yer saying, nice guy. but i disagree. guilt by association goes a long way...

  • MNG||

    Well, then that would apply to a lot of things. I mean, like my puppet pointed out, many evolutionary scientists performed fraudelent practices and had ideological goals, but you would'nt toss all evolutionary research aside, would you?

  • ||

    nah... but i don't really give a rat's ass about creationism or evolution. discussing religion and science at the same time is about as sensible as arguing about AGW; but i repeat myself...

  • juris imprudent||

    Your "puppet" was even more stupid than your normal persona. Don't stake any great claims based on that. Hell, even Lott didn't go that far.

  • ||

    1. All research which relied on the data which has been dumped is now unverifiable

    2. All research done by the researchers in question is now unreliable

    Is anyone claiming anything bigger than this can be concluded? I don't see how that could be supported.

    Largely true, but it seems like the CRU/Mann/etc. gang has been hugely influential in the whole debate, guiding the IPCC reports, etc. There can be a herd mentality about hot scientific/political topics, so even "independent" researchers could have been influenced. Thus it's not unreasonable that, seeing this degree of data fudging in the work of the leading lights of the field, we should give extra scrutiny to others in the field as well.

    Also note that there have been years of controversy about some of the basic temperature data of recent decades: fewer weather stations in cold areas, stations in parking lots and near other heat sources, stations in formerly rural but now suburban areas, etc. The skeptics who have been pointing this out for years deserve a thorough hearing.

  • MNG||

    I will say the opening paragraph of Dave's post is delicious irony: he tries to accuse the left of being unprincipled because usually they celebrate whistleblowers but in this case they are angry at the whistleblower. Of course the irony of libertarians celebrating a person who violated property rights (hacking into someone's email) "for the greater good" (hey, no utilitarians here, right?) seems lost on him...

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    How do we know this wasn't an inside job, MNG?

    Besides, in this case, the ends DO justify the means. A massive, expensive fraud is/was/may still be in the works, and exposing it is a GOOD thing.

  • MNG||

    OK, glad to accept you to the utilitarian fold my friend! Property rights can be violated for the greater good. I'll remember that in later debates brother utilitarian...

  • ||

    Not being a purist libertarian, I'll bite: it's a matter of degree. The property rights violation of leaking/stealing these emails is minor compared to the trillions of dollars in the balance.

  • ||

    If you believe in self-defense, as most libertarians do as part of the NAP, then you understand that there is no moral ambiguity or utilitarian ideals in this decision.

    Sometimes you have to fight to be free, and sometimes when you fight, you have to do bad things. There is no such thing as a fair fight.

    That means, that sometimes a small misdeed (in comparison) occurs to defend an overlying principle.

    If you don't understand this, then you are over your paygrade in this debate, which makes me suspect you aren't intelligent enough to discuss AGW anyway.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    If it was an inside job - and I suspect it is - it would be one of the owners "stealing" shared property - in this case, data.

    If it was taken by an outsider, you'd have a point. However, this is such a serious danger (the destruction of free markets, not the climate) that anything that dilutes that argument is a necessary evil.

  • Chad||

    Because several other organizations have been attacked by hackers recently, and one broken in to?

    Must be a coincidence...

    Oh, and the "whistleblower" also attempted to hack into realclimate.org that same day.

  • ||

    don't say that TLG! it's a happy consequence, not a justification.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Oh, yeah. Gotcha. *wink* *nudge*

  • Chad Unleashed||

    WE DO NOT NEED HERETICS SUCH AS THESE IN OUR UTILITARIAN FOLD!!! I SHALL SMITE THEM PERSONALLY IN THE NAME OF AL GORE (PRAISES AND BLESSINGS BE UPON HIS NAME).

  • g4m3th3ory||

    I, and I would think most others here, disagree that government property is the same as private property.

    The rest of your contention fails so long as that holds true, but tit for tat is certainly a valid debate strategy...

  • MNG||

    You mean it is not a crime to tresspass on government property, or should not be? Even in Libertopia the government willown property. People could walk in and take stuff from the police department?

  • ||

    There's also this thing called pubic property...

  • ||

    FUCK, public property

  • ||

    You obviously have not studied this part of libertarian philosophy at all, or you are trying to see if we have.

    Please read Rothbards "For A New Liberty" and get back to us, or your just vomiting up your own sorry excuses for an opinion.

    I find that most people that don't know shit about anything usually spend a LOT of time in debates going over shit that has been discussed by hundreds of smarter people for centuries, if one would only open a book on the subject.

    You are one of these people sir.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    In Liberaltopia, all property is owned by the government.

    In a libertarian world, government would own very, very little property.

  • ||

    I also pointed this out, but I'll say again that it is unclear whether or not the emails are public or private property. The libertarians here are obviously taking for granted that the emails are public because they are part of a government funded project, so really it is not hypocritical or about "the greater good." Nice try though.

  • ||

    Chad says,

    They did. Unfortunately, it had a minimal amount of processing. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is a .1.

    Let me translate that for you.

    The original data is not available.

    Which means the existing data set can't be replicated and is therfore worthless.

    Which means all of the follow on data sets can't be replicated and are therefore worthless.

    No amount of enthusiastic hand waving by chad is going to change that.

  • MNG||

    Yes. It means that any research based on that data set is now unverifiable.

    To the extent AGW rests on such research AGW is undercut. To the extent it does not, it is not affected.

  • Chad||

    Wrong. SOOOO wrong.

    Your first mistake is to treat "reproducible" as binary. It is not. You can never reproduce anything exactly. It is only a matter of how close you can come.

    When it comes to past temperature measurements, you cannot reproduce them by definition. The inability to reproduce some trivial data compression step is meaningless in comparison.

    MNG: Any research based on ANY past temperature measurement is unverifiable. You can't repeat the measurement. This is true of any science which deals with the world outside of the laboratory.

  • juris imprudent||

    Careful MNG, Torquemada may turn his gaze upon thee if thou do persist in dabbling with heresy.

  • ||

    YOUR F-IN CRAZY DIPSHIT.

    If you have charts full of measurements, you don't have to reproduce a goddamn thing.

    You just open the spreadsheets back up.

    Are you seriously asserting that once you close a computer file, you can't reopen it and view the data without necessitating a change in the data?

    You are becoming more unhinged the farther I read.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    "1: It doesn't matter if the warming is natural or man-made."

    Now THIS is interesting, Chad. Your side has been saying "global warming is mankind's fault", and yet here you are indulging in some heresy by using the word "if".

    Expect a visit from the Grand Inquisitors. Pope Albert will NOT be amused by your indolence.

  • Chad||

    When have I ever said we were 100% certain? I agree with the IPCC..."very likely", which means >90%.

    Science is never certain, and both individuals and governments often act in response to threats with much lower probabilities.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Moving goalposts already.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    So, Chav is moving goalposts already...

  • ||

    Please cite the scientific definition of the term "very likely" and where it means to all scientists and people alike > 90%.

    Otherwise it is just another blathering talking point.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Good luck. Idiots like Chad cling to the "it's all mankind's fault" template because it's the best and easiest way for them to destroy the free market they simultaneously loathe and depend upon.

  • ||

    Chad says,

    When it comes to past temperature measurements, you cannot reproduce them by definition.

    The inability to reproduce some trivial data compression step is meaningless in comparison.

    Nice hand waving but it sound like you are arguing that the data is no good and can't be replicated.

    The real question is can the CRU manipulation of the historical temperature data be replicated.

    Without the raw data and the cookbook CRU used to manipulate the data they can't.

    Also do you have a cite that the only manipulation of the data was compression?

    I don't recall ever hearing that.

  • Chad||

    Here is some chatter from one of your avorite deniers. Note that this has nothing to do with the hacks, btw. It was in the media months ago.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot......-data.html

    "We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data."

    Yes, CRU did not have the ability to store the raw data easily back when a 1mb chip was considered huge. The physical records were discarded at some point when the lab was moved. This is clearly not some conspiracy, but simply a matter of lack of funds and technology. It happens all the time in science, though with modern storage, it becomes less of an issue. I am sure big chunks of the raw data for any paper I wrote more than ten years ago are now missing, and only exist in some compressed form.

    The loss of this data is a minor setback to science, but is hardly evidence of anything nefarious. It has essentially zero impact on the whole of climate science, because the homogenization techniques used were unlikely to be wrong in any systematic manner, and if they were, the data should have conflicted with data from other sources, which it did not.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "quality controlled and homogenized" sounds a little suspicious. You would probably want to keep all the data just in case. They could have even just printed it out, and just ask for more fucking grant increases to hire a few extra grad bitches later. But it sounds like they're not keeping anything.

  • Chad||

    Actually, the DID store it on magnetic tapes. Years later, it was tossed during a move to a different facility.

    In any case, the data is perfectly safe. HADCRU, after all, gets its data from external sources...who still have it.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

  • Chad Unleashed||

    THE HERETICS MUST DIE!!!

    I CALL UPON THE ALMIGHTY POWER OF AL GORE TO SMITE THE INFIDELS!!!

    ALL WHO DENY GLOBAL WARMING ARE ENEMIES OF MANKIND!

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    WRONG, UNLEASHED. THE HERETICS MUST SERVICE MR. STEVEN CRANE AT HIS EVERY BIDDING. AND ALGORE IS HELPLESS IN THE FACE OF THE BELOVED, DREADED URKOBOLD!

    BUT FOR YOUR EFFORTS, WE SHALL GIVE BAKED PENGUIN A COOKIE

  • Chad Unleashed||

    MINION OF URKOBOLD,
    MY MASTER, AL GORE, SHALL CRUSH YOUR PUNY RESISTANCE! WE WILL DEFEAT YOU ALL AND CAP-AND-TRADE SHALL BE IMPOSED FOREVERMORE.

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    WRONG, UNLEASHED! IT IS NOT CAP AND TRADE. IT IS "CAPS AND LOCK".

    IN FACT YOUR ENTIRE REBEL ALLIANCE SUCKS

    *STRIKES DRAMATIC, YET EMO POSE*

  • Chad's Parrot||

    Denier
    Denier
    Denier

  • VM||

    How about, "look - snow in DC! Howz that now, global warmingsocialistmanbearpigs?"

    That would be a nice addition to this thread.

    If the seas rise, it might flood the island where Lobster Girl lives. She'd be homeless! mein gott. Where's the compassion, man? THE COMPASSION???

  • ||

    VM if Lobstergirl Girl needs a place to stay, I've got an extra bedroom at my place.

  • juris imprudent||

    Wow, what's going on today. It took 37 minutes for this response? What - are you all outside feeding the pigeons?

  • ||

    Lobstergirl is designed for one thing and it is not to be hanging out alone in your spare bedroom while you pray for a catastrophe in which your knowledge of Star Trek will somehow save her and therefor woe her heart.

  • ||

    Lobstergirl can take the train for days...surly she has the ability and endurance to swim.

  • Chad Unleashed||

    By the way, you libertards are all a bunch of intolerant dogmatists who aren't willing to listen to ideas that contradict your worldviews. I know this because I'm so intelligent and open-minded.

  • Chad||

    I supported action on AGW when I considered myself a Republican. I supported action on AGW when I considered myself a libertarian. I support action on AGW now that I am a liberal.

    Facts > ideology.

  • JB||

    You sound like a little bitch who can't ever make up her mind and just follows the latest trendy fad.

    Why don't you learn how to think instead of being a parrot?

  • Chad||

    First you guys accuse me of being a "dogmatist", then complain that I can't make up my mind. Which is it?

    My mind changes as my experiences expand and the facts change. When does yours change? If you are a libertarian, probably never.

  • Chad Unleashed||

    YOU LIBERTARDS ARE ALL A BUNCH OF DOGMATISTS! GLOBAL WARMING IS A FACT! NOW, WE NEED TO IMPOSE CAP AND TRADE AND A CARBON TAX, OTHERWISE RAGNAROK WILL OCCUR!BUT DON'T WORRY, I'M SURE THAT IF WE SET AN EXAMPLE, CHINA AND INDIA WILL JOIN US IN OUR EFFORT RATHER THAN LAUGHING AT US BEHIND OUR BACKS AND BUYING UP THE OIL WE AREN'T USING!

  • ||

    who's going around changing facts?

  • JB||

    You have ZERO principles.

    You just find the latest fad and parrot their talking points.

    Answer my question from above:

    So are you now admitting that any piece of climate data from CRU is completely and totally worthless?

    Because if not, then your statement "not because of any scientific value" is a complete and total lie.

    There is now zero way to look at the data and verify what they did to it.

    So which is it?

    1. You are a liar.

    2. The data from CRU is now worthless (and that data is the backbone behind a huge percentage of Warmist research).

    I want an answer.

  • Chad Unleashed||

    JB,
    DO NOT TEMPT THE PROPHET OF AL GORE!

  • g4m3th3ory||

    When you supported action, you were always a liberal... it just took you a while to get there.

    Facts about AGW have absolutely nothing to do with policy actions.

    In case you are unaware, policies by necessity contain value statements and therefore have little to do with facts.

  • Chad||

    I am quite well aware of the difference between normative and positive statements.

    It is possible (but ludicrous) to argue that we should continue business-as-usual despite any facts concerning AGW.

  • MNG||

    Policies should be made without reference to facts? Well, I've always thought libertarians secretly harbored that notion, but it is nice to see one be so open about it...

  • Colonel_Angus||

    You don't have the devotion to individual and economic freedom to call yourself a liberal. You are a paternalist and a socialist plain and simple.

  • VM||

    actually, Unleashed, I am an intolerant, smarmy dogmatist.

    *sticks hands over ears*
    I'M NOT LISTENING
    I'M NOT LISTENING
    I'M NOT SHOUTING

  • Chad Unleashed||

    Seriously, guys, just because some guys falsified their data, blackballed people who disagreed with them, and refused for a long time to release records that they were legally obligated to release doesn't mean that they were hiding anything that would contradict their pet theory. You're all just a bunch of paranoid dogmatists who hate children and polar bears.

  • ||

    Actually, I'd like to feed children to polar bears and vice verse.

  • Chad Unleashed||

    Global warming causes cancer.

  • Chad's Dildo||

    And Penile Shrinkage

  • VM||

    and you're someone who wants Lobster Girl drowned out of her home!

    MEIN GOTT!!! could we at least get someone compassionate to give poor Lobster Girl a place to live?

    No, not you. someone else.

  • Chad Unleashed||

    I will be happy to give Lobster Girl a home. I'm really desperate to get some.

  • ||

    Will you settle for Lobster Transgender?

  • VM||

    ooh, too late. Stevo has volunteered his bunk for her.

    However, you can get Mr. Steven Crane.

  • Chad Unleashed||

    Fine, but can I be the man this time?

  • Chad Unleashed||

    And he won't get pissy if I scream "DEATH TO INFIDELS" at climax, will he?

  • VM||

    just not in the ear.

    for the yelling, and that other stuff.

  • Chad's Parrot||

    No Warty, In my Ass
    No Warty, In my Ass
    No Wargggggl, gurgggle pssttthhh

  • JB||

    Here is the latest from these crazy fuckers:

    Top UN climate official Yvo de Boer on IPCC climate report:
    "I think this is about the most credible piece of science that there is out there."
    http://apnews.myway.com/articl.....QI000.html

    If that's true, then all of science is fucked.

  • Chad Unleashed||

    I DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH YOU LIBERTARDIANS ANYMORE! MY TEAM RULES THE COUNTRY NOW, SO BEND OVER AND TAKE IT!

  • Chad Unleashed||

    By the way, you're all a bunch of Bush-lovers.

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    That's a lie! I like it shaven as well.

  • juris imprudent||

    Or if you are somewhere in between - bonsai!

  • VM||

    @ 2:12
    Absolutely.
    particularly if it's Lobster Girl's.

    (that was probably unnecessary)

  • ||

    The moose is loose!

  • VM||

    don't you and NutraSweet have some pseudo erotic games you two should be playing?

    [ducks. runs off]

  • MNG||

    Dudes, as to the Inquisition stuff, it strikes me that if anyone is ideologically driven to stamp out a belief system it is you guys. Most of you are quite plain that what riles you about the notion of AGW is that it might be used to justify policies you find abhorrent. Seemingly few of you are experts on the relevant science (look, neither am I, but then again I'm the one arguing for deference to those who are, you're arguing they are wrong "on the science"), so a rational third party observer would guess you find AGW more objectionable than false.

    I mean, look at the sheer exuberance displayed in the wake of this mess. At best all your "side" can claim is that all of the research based on the dumped data and all of the research done by the researchers in question are now unreliable. That's it. To the extent research based on different data and by different researchers says you guys are wrong there is still good reason to suppose that is the case (am I supposed to believe you or experts in the field?).

    But you guys are rejoicing like fundies in Church. So the "Inquisition" stuff is a bit ironic at best...

  • ||

    If a competent person stumbles upon an error in data or in computer code, they don't just fix the one thing that was found and call it good -- they assume all the data or all the code may be filled with similar errors, and start a serious debugging search.

    It's irresponsible to assume that all the problems are confined to the CRU, and everyone else's work and data is not similarly corrupted.

    It's irresponsible to start implementing policy decisions such as cap and trade before a thorough and rigorous search for other such malfeasance has been conducted.

  • MNG||

    That's a great principle prole. So since we have obvious frauds in evolutionary biology (Pilt-down man, Haeckel's embryos, etc) then all of evolutionary biology is now in question, right?

    This is one of the dumber limbs you've gone out on. Look at the gigantic fallacy (here you go fallacy invokers, which Logic 101 fallacy is this?) you are committing: since some research is bad we should assume it all is. WTF? You're normally a little brigher than that...

  • ||

    When you find a piece of fruit in a cup of yogurt, do you assume you found all the fruit, or that there is more in there? Shouldn't we be looking for more fruit? No one is assuming that all the research is wrong (nice strawman btw), just that similar errors might exist elsewhere.

  • JoshInHB||

    If you got a drop of dog shit in you icecream would you pick the dog shit out and eat your IC?

    Or dump it and get a new bowl?

  • smartass sob||

    How big a drop? What kind of ice cream? How long has it been since I had ice cream? ;-)

  • ||

    No, I would assume that the ice cream is still tainted by dog shit particles, and I would also realize that it would be futile for me to try to separate the dog shit from the ice cream. Therefore I would throw it out. Biased climate research is not analogous to this, because the bad research can be identified and separated from the good research. Why would you assume that all of it is bad research?

    Also, why did you reply to my reply of MNG only to confirm the exact fallacy that he was trying to pin on all of us? Thank you for validating his idiotic strawman.

  • JB||

    Many of these 'scientists' don't even seem to have a clue what the scientific method is.

    Since their understanding of those basics is in question, everything built upon those basics is in question.

    I realize that is hard to understand for someone who thinks it's fair to punch him in the face.

  • Tony||

    You would never hold any of your pet anti-GW crackpots up to the standard you are requiring of real scientists

  • MNG||

    Yeah JB, PhDs with years of experience working in the best labs in the world don'e know what the scientific method is: nutjob rightist crank on libertarian blog does.

  • MNG||

    joes law!

  • ||

    Now, now play nice. He is not a nutjob or rightist crank.

  • JB||

    The stupid trolls know I am right.

    So lying and destroying data is now part of the scientific method?

    Stick to eating cocks, trolls.

  • juris imprudent||

    First off, I was the one making the allusion to the Inquisition - because Chad supports the CRU torturing of the data (a process even THEY can't reproduce) until it "confesses" (i.e. accords with the dogma). Second, you are the asshole that trolled the irrelevant fundamentalist objection to Darwinian theory - which garnered exactly ZERO concurrence (nice try). Third, I have said - let the science proceed, just stop being a fucking doomsday cultist (which has ZERO connection to science).

    Is that all just too complicated and/or nuanced for our resident liberal?

  • MNG||

    Take me for example. Am I supposed to be ideologically driven to support AGW? As a union supporter I know that if AGW is true then some pretty terrible consequences flow. Energy producing and consuming industries have many strong and large unions. They would be hit incredibly hard by any restrictions aimed at fighting AGW. I certainly don't want that if there is no good reason to believe it.

    Also, despite the caricatures some of you have of liberals, I can say this liberal hates taxes. I want that money to buy hamburgers and porn. And AGW, if true, will certainly be used to raise taxes.

    So I feel thus about AGW: t'would be nice if it were not true. The reason I think it's probably true is that most people I know who study the relevant areas seem convinced. That certainly is not going to be shaken by amateur scientists with admitted ideological reasons to doubt AGW blogging on a libertarian website. I mean, how irrational would it be of me to be convinced by that?

  • ||

    As a union supporter I know that if AGW is true then some pretty terrible consequences flow.

    I don't think the school janitors union will be much effected by Cap and Trade.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    What about the school budget that keeps their boiler room apartments nice and toasty?

  • VM||

    I'm sorry, MNG - I tried reading your post, but i saw the word, "porn", and well, it was all downhill from there.

    BATIN!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Energy producing and consuming industries have many strong and large unions. They would be hit incredibly hard by any restrictions aimed at fighting AGW.


    Then maybe a different approach is needed.

    Did not Carl Sagan and four other scientists come up with a solution back in 1983?

  • ||

    I know a nuclear physicist, two particle physicists and a physicist that specializes in quantum mechanics and computer modeling.

    None of them believe in AGW.

    So, by your same logic, it isn't real, cause the scientists I know, and the ones that they know (from what they told me) don't believe in it.

  • ||

    I mean, look at the sheer exuberance displayed in the wake of this mess. At best all your "side" can claim is that all of the research based on the dumped data and all of the research done by the researchers in question are now unreliable. That's it. To the extent research based on different data and by different researchers says you guys are wrong there is still good reason to suppose that is the case (am I supposed to believe you or experts in the field?).

    Wrong. Mann's Trick and Briffa's "hide the decline" specifically target the medieval warming period. The Midieval warming period was a period of much warmer temperature change then we have seen currently and the rise and fall of global temperatures are no more extraordinary then today's rise. Jones and Mann and Briffa are the only science that clams that it is currently the warmest period in 1000 years. Without unprecedented warming there is no proof that current temperatures are man made.

    Smoking Guns all over the place.

  • MNG||

    Jones and Mann and Briffa are the only science that clams that it is currently the warmest period in 1000 years.

    Linky?

  • juris imprudent||

    Interesting page of data that indicates that we've been in not just a relatively warm period the last 10 to 12 thousand years, but a remarkably stable phase against the longer run climate.

    Oh, and here is another interesting bit:

    The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.

    Again, do the science, just drop the doomsday crap.

  • MNG||

    Are these links demonstrating "Jones and Mann and Briffa are the only science that clams that it is currently the warmest period in 1000 years?" They don't seem like that to me.

    So, to review: if Jones et al are the only ones who have claimed this then yes that claim is worth as much as one cent note right now. But if they are not then the other evidence stands or falls on its own.

    Or is that too nuanced for ya juris?

  • Chad||

    Joshua, you don't even seem to realize what they were "hiding" (in another paper, which they cited). They were merely leaving out of a graph some spurious data.

    HERE IS YOUR "HIDDEN" DATA.

    http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/con.....t/12/6/737

    Where is your data that the MWP was warmer than now? Despite all the critisism, the debate revolves around the size of the error bars and nothing more.

    In any case, if it were hotter then, or at any other time since the last ice age...so what? What was the cause? Where is the evidence that it is happening now?

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Again... They weren't hiding the work you fucktard, they were hiding the decline in temperature. Your meme of "in another paper, which they cited" is asinine and off point.

  • Chad||

    There was no "decline in temperature". Instead, there was a divergance of the tree-ring proxy and the temperature record post 1960. THAT was what they were "hiding" in the paper that they cited.

    You don't even seem to know what you are accusing them of, let alone being right about it. Just keep bleating the party line.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Also... It's just a parroting of what Gavin at RealClimate said the other day.

  • EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy||

    Yes, CRU did not have the ability to store the raw data easily back when a 1mb chip was considered huge.

    Tape, Chad. In that era people used tape for bulk storage. Hell, you still use tape if you need to store a substantial fraction of an exobyte (only now you put it in a robotic silo with a multi TB raid for the cache). And while it was expensive enough to get it's own line item in grant requests, it was cheep enough that you could (and can) afford to store inconveniently large data sets.

    That said, everyone should be careful about what they mean by "raw data". There are legitimate reasons and methods for keeping a reduced or summarized data set, and that data can still be reasonable called "raw".[1] However, once you start adding "corrections" it ceases to be "raw"

    If, for instance, we a complete list of the daily highs and lows at each station, this data would be reasonable called "raw", even though we'd have thrown away of the details of how the temperature varied over the day, and can't construct a proper mean for the daily temperatures anymore. It would be better, of course, to have an hourly sampling, or a timewise average, or, or, or...

    Likewise, take care about how you think of "reproducable" in the context of an observational science. You can redo the analysis (as long as you still have the data, but you can't rerun the experiment. If the original data collection was screwed up (or the data has been lost or thrown away), you're stuck and just have to start over.

    [1] In my business, we often use fast electronics to sort the data into interesting events which are expected to be mostly data, and another set we expect to be mostly noise. Then we store all the "data", and only a small, random sampling of the "noise". We keep that sample so we can measure the properties of the stuff threw away. This is a huge win in both data storage and the number of real events we can accept, process and store.

  • Chad||

    I agree, and storing the raw data on magnetic tapes is what they did. Unfortunately, these decades-old tapes were discarded at some point when the laboratory moved. Is this a loss to science? Yes, but a pretty minor one. It is in no way an indication of any malfeasance.

    We clearly can't "redo" the calculations. But there is no reason to suspect there was any substantial or systematic error, let alone assume which way such an error would point. However, this is very trivial compared to being able to "re-run" the experiment. THAT is the issue that makes climate science so challenging.

  • Chad||

    Actually, the data apparently still exists. Read on.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

  • Mike Laursen||

    Yup, it looks like the raw data might all still be available. However, can anyone at CRU explain how that raw data was processed to create their "enhanced" data sets?

  • ||

    As a union supporter I know that if AGW is true then some pretty terrible consequences flow.

    Most union workers are public sector, not private sector. And it is in the (short- to mid-term) interest of unionized public sector workers to grow government as big as possible, so they can grab as much of the money flowing in as possible. So, it's in their vested interest to support a theory that would result in the massive new taxes of cap and trade, and the government takeover or heavy regulation of industry.

    Long-term, of course, constantly growing government is a disaster for everyone, but that is an epiphany that liberals tend to not have.

  • MNG||

    http://www.workinglife.org/wik.....st+Unions+(2003)

    7 of the top 10 unions in this nation are not public sector unions.

    Additionally I have a hard time thinking of NEA and ATF as unions. In many states they are no more unions than the FOP is.

    Besides your theory is only correct to the extent that for every union job killed in the private sector a unionied job in the government will be created. That's nutty.

  • JoshInHB||

    "Additionally I have a hard time thinking of NEA and ATF as unions."

    Ha ha ha hahahahaahahahhahah

    thats the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.
    You should start doing "Union Comedy"
    Think of the possiblities.

  • ||

    Chad said,

    Here is some chatter from one of your avorite deniers. Note that this has nothing to do with the hacks, btw. It was in the media months ago.

    Glad to see you are now going to listen to what those folks you call "deniers" have to say instead of justifying ignoring their opinions with a rhetorical insult.

    Here is part of what was said at the link you provided.

    CRU has lost track of the original data that it uses to create its global temperature record!? Can this be serious?

    So not only is it now impossible to replicate or reevaluate homogeneity adjustments made in the past -- which might be important to do as new information is learned about the spatial representativeness of siting, land use effects, and so on --

    but it is now also impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch.

    CRU is basically saying, "trust us." So much for settling questions and resolving debates with empirical information (i.e., science).
  • VM||

    what's wrong with that? "Evidence based medicine" jackasses have been doing that for years.

    at least they're medical. unlike the fucking anti vaccine crazies!

  • ||

    URKOBOLD?

  • VM||

    DO NOT SPEAK THE NAME SO LOUDLY!!!!!

  • ||

    On my way back from watching Bama kick Florida's ass, I had the chance to discuss AGW with my government trusting brother-in-law. He claims his opinion remains unchanged despite the "scandal". However he was unwilling to make any wagers on future warming.
    By the way, thank you reason for the great new tool for avoiding trolls and the people that feed them, threaded comments. I'd put Neu into that category, but I don't think he counts because he's a true believer.

  • Chad||

    You are wagering?

    Well, since the climate is cooling, there is almost no chance 2010 will be the warmest on record, right? Since there are about 150 years in the instrumental record, the odds that 2010 will be #1 is only 1/150. Being generous, I'll give you 25 to 1. You should be willing to jump at that chance.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Yes, I truly believe that James Ard an idiot.

  • JoshInHB||

    Chad,

    You're not only much smarter than I am.
    You're also up to date on the AGW peer reviewed literature and a scientist in you own right. You can argue down the deniers point by point.
    The AGW theory is absolutely correct as you argue so effectively.
    Which is why I am so perplexed by the fact that

    YOU HAVE NEVER MADE ANY ACCURATE CLIMATE PREDICTIONS.

    Since the models can't predict what will happen in the next 10 years, Hell they can't even postdict what has happened in the last 10 years, ALL OF YOUR ARGUEMENTS ARE SPECIOUS.

  • Chad||

    Really? I predicted 2000-2009 would be warmer than the 90's...and I was right. I predict the next decade will be even warmer. Additionally, I predict that 2010 or 2011 will be the warmest year on record according to NASA GISS.

    Btw, Hansen did an extremely accurate prediction of the 90's, including the Pinatubo blip (he simulated a big volcano, only getting the year of the explosion wrong).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

  • economist||

    "Many unions are in energy-consuming industries"
    Hmm. Maybe carbon taxation isn't such a bad idea. Give those fuckers what-for.

  • ||

    I seem to recall reading a charge that global warming was pushed at some point by Margaret Thatcher as some kind of swipe at British coal miners. Anyone have the details of that?

    -jcr

  • ||

    jcr

    Re: M Thatcher and Global Warming - here.

    For more google "thatcher, global warming".

    The article makes it sound like a much bigger grand conspiracy than it was, or, at least, than I think it was.

    On the other hand, there's little doubt that Thatcher and the Tory government exploited the idea of AGW to hurt the miners union as well as to promote the development of nuclear power, especially to garner support for the subsidies necessary for nuclear power.

  • Chad||

    http://ipccinfo.com/

    That was easy. Next?

  • Chad||

    Yet more very bad news regarding climate change...and bad news for the deniers.

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou.....eo706.html

    This definitely ranks in the top five important climate change papers of the year. All have been bad.

  • ||

    The pols are not saying much because unlike the Idiotsphere on the Right, there is little to comment on.

    SO: What is your take on the non-partisan group FactCheck.org defending the CRU folks in that all this is vastly overblown, and that in full context first of all, all the data is still available and nothing was really "dumped" and also that the emails present little more than very human emotions and consternation over what the CRU researchers felt was substandard work in the deniers, etc.

    Also, regarding the "trick" stuff, that kind of talk and the "fixing" of data was explained by New Scientist as necessary and dumb NOT to do given that this is very common in certain kinds of measurements, like temperature data (adjusting to account for anomalies like heat island effect, etc)?

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog

  • CJ||

    This article might have more credibility if it didn't put whistle-blowers and thieves in the same category. There is a big difference between a whistle blower who has inside information and feels compelled to share it with the public and a thief who illegally hacks into a computer and steals information that was not leaked. Big difference! The author of this article makes no distinction about this, and I think it is necessary.

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets.

  • nike shox||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement