It's Not Exactly "Climategate" But ....

The email revelations from the British Climate Research Unit sure have provoked a lot embarrassed spinning by proponents of impending catastrophic climate change. For example, Australian Broadcasting Online offers these choice observations from global warming activist, Australian of the Year (2007) and Copenhagen Climate Council chairman Tim Flannery:

A few days ago computer hackers stole private emails and research documents from the University of East Anglia.

In one of the leaked emails, respected US climatologist Kevin Trenberth admits that scientists cannot account for the lack of global warming to date.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate," the email says.

Climate change sceptics are hailing the emails as proof the research data has been skewed and suppressed.

But Dr Flannery says the scientific community knows enough to say greenhouse gases cause global warming, and that humans are responsible.

"The thing is we deal with an incomplete understanding of the way the Earth's system works, we know enough to say as the IPCC said that greenhouse gases cause warming," he said.

"They are 90 per cent-plus sure that it's caused by humans, we can go that far.

"In the last few years, where there hasn't been a continuation of that warming trend, we don't understand all of the factors that creates Earth's climate, so there are some things we don't understand, that's what the scientists were emailing about."

Dr Flannery says scientists are working to find out how the whole system works.

"These people (scientists) work with models, computer modelling. When the computer modelling and the real world data disagrees you have a problem. That's when science gets engaged.

"What Kevin Trenberth, one of the most respected climate scientist in the world, is saying is, 'We have to get on our horses and find out what we don't know about the system, we have to understand why the cooling is occurring, because the current modelling doesn't reflect it'.

"And that's the way science progresses, we can't pretend to have perfect knowledge, we don't."

He says science works through a robust interchange and testing of ideas that can look messy when you are in the middle of it.

Hmmm. Data not agreeing with model predictions. Very interesting. And of course, Flannery is right, science does work through "a robust interchange and testing of ideas." But interchanging ideas about how to hijack some aspects of peer review and by trying to suppress the work of researchers with whom one disagrees? Messy indeed.

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.

  • ||

    The email revelations from the British Climate Research Unit sure have provoked a lot embarrassed spinning by proponents of impending catastrophic climate change.

    FINALLY!

  • ||

    The logic would seem to be:
    "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" -- Okay.
    "Human activity produces CO2" -- Okay.
    "Humans are THE CAUSE of GLOBAL WARMING!" -- Now wait a minute...

  • Tony||

    You forgot "greenhouse gases cause global warming," conveniently.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Yeah, yeah, it's all mankind's fault. Nothing else plays into it. We get it already. Down with mankind. We suck.

  • Tony||

    We do suck. We are capable of destroying our own environment because we couldn't act fast enough. It's happened many times locally, now it's happening globally. No, science has not been beaten into submission by some global conspiracy of misanthropists.

  • JB||

    Tony, take strong action and kill yourself.

    Remove your carbon-spewing filth from the planet.

  • ||

    I thought that was implied by "greenhouse gas", but feel free to add it. The logical leap is still there.

  • Tony||

    Actually it completes the logical continuum that wasn't there with your omission.

    Human activity produces CO2.
    CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    Greenhouse gases cause global warming.
    Humans are THE CAUSE of GLOBAL WARMING!

  • ||

    Human activity produces some of the CO2 in the atmosphere
    CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases
    Greenhouse Gas is proposed to be partially the cause of global warming
    The earth has warmed (and cooled) going back before humans
    ????

  • Tony||

    Human activity produces the excess CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing warming. CO2 is indeed one of the greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are the major cause of global warming. The earth has changed climate many times, yes, but we're talking about preserving the climate that best suits human civilization as we know it, which we are altering more radically than it ever has in the period civilization has existed.

    Why do you guys so often get the purpose here wrong... it's not to "save the planet" it's to save people. Saving the planet in an arbitrary climate state is easy. Just prevent it from exploding.

  • ||

    No, Tony, that's not true. CO2 adds an input, a "forcing". It's not the only input, and it's not clear that CO2 is even the dominant forcing.

    What this email dump has shown us, though, is that the research of people who see other inputs as important, like Roger Pielke Sr, was actively suppressed, by collusion.

  • FermatsLastFlameWar||

    Come on now, don't ruin Tony's simple undamped harmonic oscillator view of the world.

  • Dave||

    One of the things that environmentalists almost always conveniently leave out is that there is much reason to think that it is a social and/or international impossibility to use the power of governments to reduce CO2 emissions by humans. The reason they will not explore this line of reasoning is because those governments have an interest in convincing all of us that they can control of the planet's weather (by controlling humans), and so governments buy off the environmentalists to support this theory. It isn't a conspiracy, it's just the corruption that is inevitable when there are billions and billions and billions of dollars on the table.

  • ||

    Just who has decided that "this" climate is better for people than the Sumerian Warm Period, the Classical Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period? And is it better or worse than the Little Ice Age?

  • ||

    Uh, no, Tony.

    WATER VAPOR is the biggest greenhouse gas, by an order og magnitude, both in terms of quantity in the atmosphere and the broader -- and *overlapping* -- swathe of IR wavelengths it absorbs.

    H2O is somehow always conveniently left off the list.

  • megapotamus||

    There is no global warming. There is global cooling. All promulgators of this fraud have done more harm to humanity than any other event outside of war yet and they promise much, much more. As such, these vermin should be dragged from their beds and gutted like fish, Al Gore first.

  • Neal||

    Your argument contains an undistributed middle. You'd get a C in my logic class.

  • anonymous||

    The point is that "greenhouse" itself is a reference to their role in warming the earth. If he called them "global-warming-causing gases" would he still need an extra step?

  • huh||

    Tony, why are they called "greenhouse" gases? Brevity is the soul of wit, Umbriel had it right.

  • huh||

    By the way, I am like totally in favor of preventing the planet from exploding and stuff.

  • *||

    Brevity is the soul of wit.

    Does that mean that Tony has only half a soul?

  • Roga||

    Yet another good theory, as yet unproven. By a long shot. CO2 concentrations tend to lag temperature rises in the geological record by quite some time. The record is either not fine-grained enough to pick up the massive temperature-escalating effects of massive GHG emissions in the past from volcanoes, or else those effects don't exist. Inconveniently.

  • ||

    But Dr Flannery says the scientific community knows enough to say greenhouse gases cause global warming, and that humans are responsible.

    The "scientific community" being me and a few guys that agree with me, of course.

    (One has to read between the lines of what these Lysenkoists write)

  • ||

    Lysenkoists were deniers of Mendelian genetics. So in there mind you are of that ilk. Of course they are in the sense of mandating there position through politics. I have no dog in this fight.

  • ||

    *their

  • ||

    Re: Paul,

    Lysenkoists were deniers of Mendelian genetics.

    And they were advocates of adquired traits. In this case, the AGW adocates deny the influence of such trivial things like THE SUN or CLOUDS in the Climate in order to make their case of man-made CO2 be the only and only reason for GW. Plus, AGW has full support from State apparatchiks and politicians, just like Lysenko in his time.

  • ||

    I have read were climatologist have accounted for the sun and have data were clouds in the alps had no effect. I do not know I am not a qualified to know.

  • ||

    I do not know I am not a qualified to know.

    No one here is. But that isn't the point of the article. You see a group of scientists got together and ran a dirty tricks campaign to make sure poeple who do know would not be able to get published in peer reviewed literature. That is the point of the article.

  • Chad||

    Or every significant scientific organization on earth. Here is just the US. There is a comparible list signed by the leader of every major nation's primary scientific organization.

    http://portal.acs.org/portal/P.....NBP_023229

    So a "few" is a lie. An outright 100% lie. Why do you say such things?

  • Chris||

    You're right, it's not a few. But I wonder how many people signed because they are convinced, or because they are just going with the flow? How much grant money would they get if they didn't sign? Their careers would more or less be ruined.
    There's this line by Franklin that goes, "He that spits against the wind spits in his own face." How many people are willing to spit in their own face?
    I'm not saying every signature is a product of ideological momentum, but given the dangers of even slightly straying from the fold, I'd bet the ratio ain't bad.

  • ||

    There's this line by Franklin that goes, "He that spits against the wind spits in his own face." How many people are willing to spit in their own face?

    More than you think.

  • Chad||

    You have ZERO knowledge of how science works. This is probably because you get your talking points from Rush and Hannity, who have no idea either.

    The people signing that document have no concerns about grant money, let me assure you. They are at the top of the food chain. Not that it matters. You aren't awarded grant money based on politics, and the day such ever happened, it would be a major scandal. Grants are based on the quality of your prior work, the novelty of what you proposed, and its likelyhood of success. Anyone with a personal connection to the applicant will step aside for the decision.

    Seriously, there is no system on earth less political than science.

  • ||

    Seriously, there is no system on earth less political than science.

    Where do you get your crack? Sounds like it is the good stuff.

  • JB||

    I think he is too used to his lovers telling him it's chocolate when it's shit.

  • jester||

    'Seriously, there is no system on earth less political than science.'

    Uh, no. You've probably never run into one of those 'debates' about the collecting of biological specimens. They are very political.

  • Tony||

    Scientists make up the community with the most highly refined set of checks on itself of all communities. Doesn't mean it can't be political as any other community can, but it's definitely the least. When 90% of scientists are 90% certain something is true, you'd be a fool not to at least assume it's most likely true.

  • jester||

    I disagree. See the woodpecker posting I just added at the bottom. Sure the Ivory-bill Woodpecker is not the same as AGW, but the same principles apply. Especially when as in the woodpecker case, it lead to Federal action with real money and affected real careers and reputations.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Tony, just want to ask. Are you aware that multiplies out to 81% certainty? That's the same level of certainty of "4 out of 5 dentists" in the TV commercials.

  • ||

    Chad is right -- in theory but just like in real science theory bears little resemblance to reality.

    It is somewhat funny because one on the defenses the AGW's are using on the emails is this is how science is really done and so there is nothing to see here.

  • Chad||

    Really? Have you ever peer reviewed something? Been peer reviewed? Applied for a grant? Judged a grant proposal?

    I have, but I seriously doubt you have.

  • DE||

    I have. And it comes as little surprise to me that scientists are catty and petty and small, especially in presumably private conversations. I am one. We talk smack.

    I don't know climate science, though. But some of the banter about deleting stuff that was subject to FOIA requests (acknowledging the difference in UK and US laws) is pretty creepy. And some of the talk about getting editors replaced, and keeping some peer-reviewed literature out of the IPCC report is creepy, too. Is it scandalous? Who knows?

    These guys are among the inner circle of peers that determine what the science is. They are going to attract scrutiny. They don't deserve to be pilloried, but they won't get a pass, either.

  • Chad||

    You would be pretty petty, too, if you had some assholes hounding you constantly and griefing you to no end.

    One point of contention relates to McIntyre's requests for Mann to provide him with the data, methods and source code McIntyre needed to "audit" MBH98.[20] Mann provided some data and then stopped. After a long process - in which the National Science Foundation supported Mann - the code was made publicly available [21]. It happened because Congress investigated after an article in the Wall Street Journal [22] detailed criticisms raised by McIntyre.[23] Congress was especially concerned about Mann’s reported refusal to provide data. In June 2005, Congress asked Mann to testify before a special subcommittee. The chairman of the committee (Joe Barton, a prominent global warming skeptic) wrote a letter to Mann requesting he provide his data, including his source code, archives of all data for all of Mann's scientific publications, identities of his present and past scientific collaborators, and details of all funding for any of Mann's ongoing or prior research, including all of the supporting forms and agreements.[22] The American Association for the Advancement of Science viewed this as "a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."[24] When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre.

    And in the end, all this debate is about is the proper size of the error bars on the left hand side of the hockey stick graph....which don't matter. Even if it were hotter 1000 years ago, or 2000, or 5000, it wouldn't mean a damned thing. If it WAS hotter back then, there was a reason. "Natural variability" is not magic or voodoo. There is nothing "naturally varying" that we know of that can explain the current changes in climate, and it isn't because people haven't been looking.

    The entire debate between McInyre and Mann is over whether we are 90% sure it is hotter now than a 1000 years ago, or only 50% sure.

  • Chad||

    Here is an article about the editorial scandal at the journal Climate Research.

    http://www.csicop.org/speciala.....ver_again/

    Mann et al actually have valid complaints. It was clear that the editor and the skeptic authors conspired to slip a paper into a low-ranked journal with low standards...which then got trumpeted by Inhofe and the gain. Not suprisingly, this upset a lot of people. Also note that the article was a review, not original research.

    This is one of the two papers that Mann was trying to keep out of the IPCC report...as well he should have, as it was later torn apart in other papers.

  • Mike Laursen||

    Why would they be afraid of a lousy paper being published in a low-ranked journal with low standards? Seems like they would welcome the global warming denier's paper being published, and the subsequent opportunity to decimate it with their superior knowledge.

  • ||

    Link to something you did peer reviewed. If the logic you display here, hemmed in by your arrogance, is any indication, you're lying through your teeth.

    At the very least, your idea that peer review, et.al. is some kind of arbiter of altruism and that "science" embodies it, you're a fool.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    You get your talking points from Al Gore.

    I'd call that a stalemate, Chad.

  • Chad||

    No, I get my talking points from the same place he does...scientists.

  • ||

    so claims rush limbaugh, at least your claims are equivalent.

  • JB||

    "A scientician says something it must be true!!1!"

  • ||

    Seriously, there is no system on earth less political than science.

    You are either profoundly ignorant or a very earnest liar to even make such a suggestion.

    I have a news flash for you Chad: scientists are humans, just like you and me, governed by the same emotions and passions, driven by the same flawed egos and human failings as in any other field. They aren't gods above us mere mortals.

  • robert||

    but they get to wear white robes, uhr, coats

  • *||

    They aren't gods above us mere mortals.

    But Chad thinks he is; that's why he thinks he should be able to dictate how much money others can make and keep...or how they can spend it...or how large a home they can live in...what kind of vehicle they can drive...etc., etc. ad infinitum.

  • Neal||

    If you think scientists routinely massage their field observations to comply with a hypothesis, conspire against the careers of fellow scientists who may disagree with one’s methods or interpretation, or collude to corrupt the peer review process then I suggest you don’t know much about the philosophy and ethics of science.

    For a proposition to be scientific it must be falsifiable. A researcher who deliberately creates obstacles against those whose review of data and methods may falsify the researcher’s proposition cannot be considered a good scientist nor is his intellectual product good science. The CRU e-mails (yes, I have read and disseminated them) demonstrate the erection and defense of such obstacles.

    Considered individually, the ethical affronts are similar to the kind of squabbles that get people fired from research projects, cause grant money to dry up, or wreck hopes of tenure. Considered as a whole we are looking at the corruption of an entire field of study as well as possible criminal evasion of the Freedom of Information Act.

    The scope of possible damage to the economies of the industrialized West and the wholesale corruption of the scientific method constitutes the greatest harm done to Science as an institution since the trial of Galileo.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, it's not a rarity to see researchers doing what you mention here.

    Scientist 1: Hey, can you send me a couple lines of cells you used for that paper you published last year?

    Scientist 2: SURE! HAPPY to! LOVE YOU!

    Weeks later...

    Scientist 1: Just got your package...is it normal for these cells to be dried up on a paper towel instead of in a sterile cryotube?

    Scientist 2: whoops! Sorry!

    This is an exaggeration, but things like this happen more than they should. I do know of one researcher whose reactions consistently failed because one of his critics sneaked into his lab regularly to add salt to the solutions for him. Fortunately, truth stands alone, and often survives attempts to keep it squelched.

  • ||

    You have ZERO knowledge of how science works. This is probably because you get your talking points from Rush and Hannity, who have no idea either.

    What do you say to all the people who get their talking points from Al Gore?

    -jcr

  • ||

    I have worked in research in academia and the private sector and I can tell you that you are full of crap.

  • ||

    Bah, this threaded stuff is confusing. I am saying that Chad is full of crap.

  • Kevin||

    That is why Dr. William Gray, the well regarded climatoligist from CSU, had is funding dry when Al Gore took over environmental matters during the Clinton administration?

  • Chris||

    You're right, I don't know how the science community works (except from what I've read). But I do know people pretty well, and I know that politics enters into every group dynamic. Regardless of what a group says they stand for, ultimately these ideals bend to the true master: emotion (as the tone of your response illustrates). Now, if scientists lived alone in seclusion, perhaps they really would behave as you claim. But they go home at night. They exist in the world and draw their own opinions and beliefs therefrom like everyone else. Regardless of what either one of us believes about global warming (and I think we'd agree more than you think), it should be clear to anyone that is paying attention that there is a sort of irrational dogmatic fervor atached to the whole concept. People's careers HAVE been ruined. In the end, though, the same data set may give rise to two opposing interpretations. Both can be scientific. The scientific method begins with a hypothesis. This hypothesis is formulated before the experiments, and so it derives from a preconceived notion as to how things are going to work. It is only natural that people would interpret results and data more in line with their hypothesis than not, and if the wind's blowing one way, it's clearly going to influence interpretations of data.

    And I've never watched Hannity or listened to Limbaugh. Neither do I care for Al Gore, for that matter.

  • ||

    The hacked emails agree with you. Look at how they treat Baliunas and Soon...

  • ||

    Yes, how dare you exaggerate and call them a "few" - that is a dastardly lie! Falsehood! Untruth!

    Jeeze - take a pill, Chad.

  • ||

    Or every significant scientific organization on earth. Here is just the US. There is a comparible list signed by the leader of every major nation's primary scientific organization.

    Yes, organizations making a political endoresement. That is the managament talking, not the scientists who make them up.

  • anonymous||

    Unless they've actually checked the research themselves, all those signatures suggest is that they trust those who did the work and the processes that should keep scientists honest (aside from the technocrats, who would agreed regardless).

    These emails should dampen that trust somewhat, both in the intellectual honesty of the scientists (if you need to withhold your evidence from the defense, an impartial observer should regard that rather skeptically) and in the robustness of the peer review process (given the allegations of trying to boycott journals into submission).

  • Kroneborge||

    hmm, from some other sites, I heard that the e-mails have been edited/taken out of context.

    But why would they do that?

  • ||

    Re: Kroneborge,

    But why would they do that?

    Indeed - I mean, what would be the context when saying "The data does not support our models", "Let's not let them publish anything", or "I will pound that so and so to a bloody pulp" ?

  • hmm||

    hmm,
    That's nice.

    I heard that Bush caused 9/11, Obama was born in Kenya, and Dick Cheney is actually Darth Vader.

    But why would they do that?

    Or maybe some employee got a case of the responsible and decided to do the right thing and expose a fraud wrapped in scientific clothing.

  • dfd||

    Kroneborge raises the game for the catastrophists from "embarrassed spinning" to "desperate flailing" with that one.

  • Tony||

    Yeah global warming skeptics never take anything out of context or hysterically jump to conclusions.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Neither do those who worship at the feet of Pope Albert.

  • ||

    Flannerty says:

    "What Kevin Trenberth, one of the most respected climate scientist in the world, is saying is, 'We have to get on our horses and find out what we don't know about the system, we have to understand why the cooling is occurring, because the current modelling doesn't reflect it'."

    Yet he asserts with such authority:

    But Dr Flannery says the scientific community knows enough to say greenhouse gases cause global warming, and that humans are responsible.

    I read a contradiction here - is Dr. Flannerty really a leftist? Leftists, by the way, revel in irrationality and contradiction, like a happy pig in the muck, the same as this guy, sooooo....

  • Attorney||

    You make such a good point here that I will repeat it.

  • Chad||

    Actually, OM, we DO partially understand the "cooling". First, I am sure you know that water as a much higher heat capacity than air, which is why you can stick your hand inside a 450 degree oven but can't touch 212 degree water. The oceans are heating up, and lots of ice is melting. Both of those require large amounts of energy. What we cannot predict over the short-to-medium term is the interaction of these three. Since the atmosphere is the smallest of the group in terms of heat capacity, changes in the other two can overwhelm any change that the atmosphere might otherwise have. The last few years have been a strong La Nina cycle, which puts cold water on top of much of the Pacific. This sucks heat out of the air. We are now switching to the reverse El Nino system, which means 2010 or 2011 will probably be a record breaker. Indeed, the last few months have all been very close to record-setting.

    Additionally, we are also stuck in a prolonged solar minimum. There has been less sunlight the last few years than normal. The solar cycle is fairly periodic but not perfectly so.

    And this is a vast conspiracy by leftists, it is one hell of a conspriacy. Every major scientific organization in the country is in on it.

    http://portal.acs.org/portal/P.....NBP_023229

    Not only that, but we are so damned smart we started the conspiracy over a hundred years ago just to fool you.

    If we are really that smart, we DESERVE to be your overlord! Muhahahahahahahaha!

  • ||

    Not only that, but we are so damned smart we started the conspiracy over a hundred years ago just to fool you.

    Ah so you are looking at the warming trend of the last 100 years.

    The proof of which relies on the work of one Phil Jones.

    You know the same guy who deleted files while under an FOI request and was one of the pin leaders of a conspiracy to run a dirty tricks campaign to prevent criticism of his work in the peer reviewed literature.

    Sorry to be the one breaking this to you Chad but without reexamining the evidence of 100 years of warming produced by one Phil Jones you cannot say with any authority that there was a 100 years of warming.

  • ap||

    you use "we" like you did anything. you are the same thing as every other commenter here whose intelligence you seem to take delight in insulting.

  • Chad||

    Oh, if there WERE a conspiracy, I would be soooooo in on it.

  • DE||

    Well, yeah. I'm a little miffed that I haven't been invited into any conspiracies. Chemists are always the last to know.

    OTOH, I've considered the upside of denialism. Society's collapse is likely the best way for scientists to take over as a wizard's guild.

  • Attorney||

    Dr Flannery says the scientific community knows enough to say greenhouse gases cause global warming, and that humans are responsible.

    If the data don't support this, then the scientific community knows it how, exactly?

  • Scientists||

    We just know, okay? We're scientists. Are you a scientist? No? That's what I thought.

  • ||

    Kroneborge: Edited? Hadn't heard that. Of course, anyone whose private emails had been revealed would feel that they would be "taken out of context."

  • ||

    "These people (scientists) work with models, computer modelling. When the computer modelling and the real world data disagrees you have a problem. That's when science gets engaged."

    Uh, science wasn't engaged before?

    What was engaged then? Hopeful imagination? Trial-and-error?

  • Attorney||

    Before that, it was propaganda.

  • ||

    Isn't "taken out of context" usually code for "I got caught and now I'm having trouble lying my way out of it?"

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Top Secret Climate Model Revealed
    //
    // release date 12/01/1990
    // Update history
    // Whenever we need to tweak the numbers
    var iLoopIndex = 0;
    var aTempArray = [];
    var oDBConnect = new DataBaseConnection;
    var sSql = '';
    var ForecastCounter = 0;
    var randTemp = 0;

    sSql = " SELECT HistTemp FROm HistTempTab WHERE HistDate > to_date('01/01/1900','MM/DD/YYYY')";

    oDBConnect.executeSql(sSql);
    // get Historic Temperature
    while (oDDBConnect.GetRow) {
    aTempArray[aTempArray.length].Temp = oDBConnect.HISTTEMP;
    }

    while (ForecastCounter < 100) {
    randTemp = getRand(0.025,0.1);
    aTempArray[aTempArray.length].Temp = aTempArray[aTempArray.length - 1].Temp + randTemp;

    ForecastCounter++;
    }

    ForecastCounter=0;

    // output model
    writeln('Model Predictions from 1900 through 99 years from now');
    writeln('yr from 1900 temp');
    while (ForecastCounter < aTempArray.length) {
    writeln(ForecastCounter + ' ' +aTempArray[ForecastCounter].Temp);
    ForecastCounter++;
    }

    writeln('Congratulations your model predicts global warming over the next 100 years.')

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    Dang it last line wasn't included

    writeln('Your model also accurately predicted all yearly temperatures since 1900');

  • The Man||

    There is a commonly held, but mistaken, notion that models somehow constitute "Science." I find this error being made not only in the media but also among some segments of the scientific community. Models, usually mathematical, represent only a partial understanding of the physics of natural phenomena. They are all, in a word, flawed. They are useful when the basic physics is not fully understood, or when a full computational assault on the problem is theoretically impossible, or just too expensive to perform. Models are simpler and therefore easier to understand and to calculate. But they only consitute "part" of the scientific solution to a problem or answer to a question.

    Climate models can be flawed in several ways:

    1.) Important physical processes (like for example, precipitation) enter the models simply as parameters without any internal dynamical structure. Parameterizing physical processes this way ignores dynamical behavior that could have an enormous impact on the final output behavior of the model.

    2.) The simplified dynamics of the models means that we can never hope to fit the models to reality because year over year "natural variability" of the real climate overwhelms the models' predictive capabilities. Instead, we compare the models to one another using so called "Monte Carlo" techniques to develop statistical distributions in order to derive confidence intervals for model outputs. Given the uniquely complex character of the real climatic system (i.e. non-linear, non-stationary, and probably non-ergodic) these confidence intervals are highly suspect.

    3.) More generally, the current decadal temperature stagnation was not predicted and is not yet accounted for. This has been dismissed by some as a data collection problem or a "natural variation" that will in any case be soon resolved.

    It is at this point that the alarmists leave science behind. The models are wrong, and wrong over a significant interval of a century. It might be the case that just another iteration will get them back on track, but bolting another epicycle onto the ptolomaic machinery of global warming models may not do the trick. They may have to go back and re-think, learn some new physics and build a better class of models. They do not, at this time, appear so inclined.

  • robert||

    yeah, what he said

  • Chad||

    First, "natural variability" is not magic or voodoo. If something is "varying naturally", what is it? We have explored all the plausible options we can think of, and none pan out. Indeed, the "natural variability" that we know of right now is largly in a cooling phase, not a hot one...yet we are still at near-record temps.

    Second, the "basic physics" is well understood. The very first estimate concerning this problem, based on freshman-level first-principle chemistry and physics and first performed in the 1800s, gave quite similar answers to what the very sophisticated models of today give. When your models keep including more and more factors while looking at every finer granularity, yet keep giving about the same answer, it is pretty unlikely that your answer is wrong. It is even less likely to be wrong when your model pans out, which they have. No, they do not predict medium-term cycles. They are not capable of this yet.

    Interestingly, first principle calculations of CO2 heating plus water vapor feedback actually predicts MORE warming than the current models. So if you want to go back that far, let's do it. It only means an even larger response is warranted...unless you are going to argue with Chemistry and Physics 101.

  • The Man||

    That's just utter BS Chad. I don't even know how to respond to this kind of innumeracy, responding on a point by point basis to your several claims always leads down the rabbit hole. But I will avoid the ad homs and say this:

    I think my parenthetical remarks about linearity, stationarity and ergodicity pretty much sum up the source of "natural variability." They also go a long way to describing the failure of the models to predict the current warming (or lack of it)---if you can't understand why that's true I could recommend a reading list Or you could just read wikipedia. The issue here is not basic physics, or basic chemistry, or basic anything. It's a tough problem and requires all the sophistication we can bring to bear.

    It isn't enough to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and global temperatures have risen along with CO2 concentration. Correlation is not causation.

    Neither is it enough to say we've explored everything we can think of right now so what else could it be. That might just mean we're not clever enough.

    You say the physics is well known. Well, here's a phrase from academic science that might stand you in good stead one day. The physics for a "toy problem" is understood. The world is a whole lot more complicated than freshman physics---ask a sophomore.

    Including more variables in any model must be done judiciously, avoiding problems with collinearity or over-specified constraints. The idea that "more variables = better fit means good model" is just flat out wrong. Consult a statistician.

    And I don't see how reasoning from first principles and getting the wrong answer shows that the current models are good.

    Science is about what we can prove, not about what's plausible, not about what makes sense. The goal of a scientist qua practitioner of the scientific method is to avoid error. This might mean (and usually does) making small statement that you would bet you life on, not sweeping claims that are merely plausible.

    And I will repeat: I am not a denier. I think that anthropogenic global warming is plausible. But I don't think it's proven. And when we're talking about the kind of costs prevention or mitigation might incur, I want to be a lot more certain.

  • ||

    Look 'The Man' or should I say Repugli'Man'. Hehe.

    I spent the last hour reading Wikipedia and I could not find any of those words you just used so I know you just made all that up.

    What oil company is paying for you to troll here anyway?
    Is this your night job from Haliburton?
    Did you father Trig?

    Look some important guy at the IPCC was told by this other guy that the Guy in the emails was really really telling the truth even if he didn't want to show his work.

    I believe him. That you don't just proves how unscientific you are.

    Well, I'm off to my Klingon lessons now, goblat'j Kaa!

  • Chad||

    It isn't enough to say that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and global temperatures have risen along with CO2 concentration. Correlation is not causation.

    Neither is it enough to say we've explored everything we can think of right now so what else could it be. That might just mean we're not clever enough.

    In both these statements, you seem to be searching for proof that cannot exist. You are right, I cannot prove there are no unicorns. But if we look everywhere and don't find one, its damned good evidence. Of course, perhaps there are invisible unicorns, or maybe they are just really sneaky, so I can't rule it out. But I sure wouldn't bet on it. Likewise, correlation isn't causation. But long-running correlations, backed by solid theoretical reasoning, are about as good as evidence as you can get.

    What evidence are you looking for? Millions of thermometers (both man-made and natural) agree that is getting warmer. Every model at every level of theory predicts this. Every other plausible explanation has been found to be a non-factor or only a minor contributer. What is left to prove?

    Worse yet, the data is only getting worse. I can't recall an important finding this year that indicates things aren't going to be as bad as we thought. I can think of plenty of the reverse, including the new Nat. Geoscience paper that indicates (again) that East Antarctica is melting.

  • ||

    Your responses remind me construction of geocentric model of the world. With arrival of new, more exact data, it become more and more sophisticated, and indeed was explaining the existing data... until new data arrived.

    The reason "we cannot think of another factor" is ridiculous. But, even assuming you know it all, I think that the model taking into account everything you already know, is not computable even theoretically: too computationally complicated and too chaotic to be predictable. You have to simplify it to get computability and predictability, and this can be done in many ways. You cannot be sure you did not throw away some compensating mechanism during simplification (i.e. simplified model is computable and predictable because it is simple and has nothing to do with reality). You automatically throw away simplified models not correlating with common opinion, and voila, you get good publishable result.

    Your models failed to predict real world cooling. I do not know their intrinsic mechanism, but this proves beyond doubt they cannot predict. I do not exclude that GW, or even AGW exists, but current climatology is too young to trust its claims about their existence (or anything, for this matter).

  • Chad||

    You guys who keep claiming it is complicated seem to be confusing weather and climate. Climate is about energy in, energy out. It isn't complicated at all. If we don't let the heat out, it builds up somewhere. Duh.

    Now WHERE it builds up in the short term is tricky, because the heat could be melting ice or heating the oceans (which it IS), and these are much larger in heat capacity than the air. In the long term, they will tend towards equilibrium.

    The "cooling" has been refuted again and again. Statistical noise. Get over it.

  • ben tej||

    Chad, you exhibit what may be called the arrogance of ignorance. You should start booking talk shows with Jenny McCarthy.

  • Dmitry||

    You do not know if there is a mechanism blocking "energy in" when temperature is rising (e.g. clouds?)
    It is not static, it is dynamical.

    And "Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. "

    What we see is natural. And cooling last 10 years.

  • Dmitry||

    You do not know if there is a mechanism blocking "energy in" when temperature is rising (e.g. clouds?)
    It is not static, it is dynamical.

    And "Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. "

    What we see is natural. And cooling last 10 years.

  • Sam Grove||

    yet we are still at near-record temps.

    Ever? Or for a specific period?

    How extensive/comprhensive/accurate is the record for the rest of the world?

  • Chad||

    Since the invention of thermometers. Before that, things are pretty speculative. It has certainly been hotter in the deep past, but the geography, biology, and chemistry of the planet was vastly different in those times.

  • Dmitry||

    Since putting a chain of meteorologic stations densely around the globe, you want to say (and keeping an eye on unchanging of their local conditions).
    And this happened when?

  • Dmitry||

    Since putting a chain of meteorologic stations densely around the globe, you want to say (and keeping an eye on unchanging of their local conditions).
    And this happened when?

  • FermatsLastFlameWar||

    Chemistry 101 or whatever is largely a bunch of neat sounding but ultimately mostly made up fairy tales that they teach people who aren't going to be doing much further study in chem. Everyone who has gone much further in chemistry realizes this.

  • Chad||

    Have fun doing whatever chemistry you are doing without using concepts like acids, bases, equilibria, kinetics, thermo, absorption spectra, gas laws, etc.

    When I neutralized a few moles of NaOH with some acetic acid this afternoon, I am sure glad I knew that acids react with bases, that this happens quickly, that this releases a lot of heat, which increases the pressure in the vessel unless I have a relief...

    I suppose you just blow up your fume hood every few days.

  • FermatsLastFlameWar||

    I do have fun doing chemistry, thank you. My gosh, Tony, sodium hydroxide and acetic acid! You're truly working on some ground breaking stuff there! Let me know how that turns out.
    As for your examples, you listed the common stuff pretty thoroughly. I would agree with some of the acid-base stuff, but that and the rest of it doesn't really get more than cursory coverage until you get to o-chem for the acid-base stuff and p-chem for the thermo/kinetics (real chemistry) stuff. How are those chem 101 electron orbitals looking? Like fucking fabrications. Until you learn the math, you don't know shit about orbitals, hybridization, probabilities, etc. If you're a chemist (which I strongly doubt), I hope you blow your meth lab up.

  • FermatsLastFlameWar||

    Also, the IGL is great for high school problems, but is limited as shit in most practical applications. See instead: SRK, Peng-Robinson.

  • Roga||

    Three words. Non-linear differential equations. Having worked with these beasts on engineering problems that were much better constrained and defined than our model of the Earth's climate, I find it extremely fanciful to believe we are anywhere close to getting the right solutions out of these things. I am not saying AGW is false, in fact I am of the belief that it is quite inevitable as humanity's heat output rises, and it is a landmark event on the way to K1-level civilization to be able to affect the weather. I am saying that the fidelity of the data currently available absolutely does not warrant the measures being proposed and implemented to fight it, which may very well do more harm than good. We. Don't. Know. Enough.

  • ||

    "Trial-and-error?"

    lol. Trial-and-terror sounds more like it.:)

  • ||

    Ron,

    I have seen that assertion being made by advocates and leftist bloggers, but not by the actual scientists. Some have implicitly or explicitly inidcated they are genuine - they feel outraged by how they were obtained, not by what they say (!!!!GvMAFkngBrk!!!!)

  • ||

    "They are 90 percent plus sure..."

    That sounds pretty subjective to me. Trying to consensus in there again.

    "These people (scientists) work with models, computer modelling. When the computer modelling and the real world data disagrees you have a problem. That's when science gets engaged."

    I would hope that science is engaged long before that. That statement is basically implying that the models are built with no science involved at all (to result in a predetermined outcome), and then when reality doesn't agree, then they decide they're scientists and try to tweak things.

  • ||

    Furthermore, I'd like to point out that scientists don't deal with reality very well. Scientists theorize and then leave it to engineers to do something productive with the theory.

  • ||

    James, you have made a fine statement prior to this one, and overstepped here.

    Scientists, if they are in fact practicing science, must look at contradictory data and refine their hypothesis accordingly. If they ignore or otherwise dry-lab the data away, they've left the realm of science and are off in the land of politicized grant-securing.

    Engineers must deal with the entire range of data, or bridges collapse and jet engines start failing in spectacular unconfined ways.

    Know your Taxonomy of Professions: scientists who do not practice science in order to further political goals == scumbag rent-seekers.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    What was engaged then? Hopeful imagination? Trial-and-error?

    Fraud?

  • Dr. Trenberth||

    "Fraud" is such an ugly word. We prefer "projection."

  • creech||

    More like, "How do we get on the grant gravy train?"

  • Wicks Cherrycoke||

    "And of course, Flannery is right, science does work through "a robust interchange and testing of ideas.""

    And of course, these would be the same scientists who wanted to bar from polite society any one of their colleagues who questioned the existence of global warming. "Robust interchange" was not so welcome then, was it?

  • PR||

    Is Dr. Flannery a climatologist or is it a case of Sudden Expertism Syndrome?

  • TP||

    He stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

  • ||

    thread winner!!!!

  • hmm||

    The damage control on this is interesting. As in there doesn't seem to be a lot of it.

  • Kyle Jordan||

    Many of the opinions on Climate Change are fairly entrenched from what I've seen. I'm willing to bet that once the new year is here, this won't be an issue any longer.

    I would love for it to snowball in to something much bigger though. The dogmatic approach taken by many of the supposed "scientific community" on this issue has been very damaging to their credibility in my eyes.

    I do think Global Warming is real.

    I do think it's happening.

    And I do think that mankind has played a part in it.

    I have not been presented enough evidence that we are the chief factor in causing it. And I feel very strongly that most of, if not all of the "serious" courses of actions that the "scientific community" and politicians wish to take are EXTREMELY idiotic and detrimental to us all.

    I also hate the faux chivalrous notion that they're trying to "save the planet".

    THIS PLANET DOES NOT NEED US TO SAVE IT! IT WILL BE PERFECTLY FINE LONG AFTER WE'RE A DEAD SPECIES YOU FUCKING MORONS!

  • MNG||

    Kyle
    I actually agree with you more than you might think, except I think you may be misreading the "save the planet" line. Every environmentalists I know who uses that term is thinking about preventing harm to humans and/or animal species on our planet. None of them really think the planet is going to blow up or something over this, or all life on earth will end.

    If that kind of threat ever appears I think you would agree with me that the Green Lantern Corps is the only thing that could save us...

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And I feel very strongly that most of, if not all of the "serious" courses of actions that the "scientific community" and politicians wish to take are EXTREMELY idiotic and detrimental to us all.


    Indeed.

    The debate would be entirely different were it not for these proposed serious courses of action.

  • ||

    My take on this issue is that whether or not the planet is warming up, it's obvious that forking over more power and money to governments will not, and can not help.

    If Al Gore's doomsday scenario with Florida being inundated actually happens, the last thing we need is FEMA trying to hand out houseboats.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Re: hmm,

    The damage control on this is interesting. As in there doesn't seem to be a lot of it.

    That's because they got their hands caught in the cookie jar - and it is very difficult to extricate themselves from the situation without looking even more foolish.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Also because they don't really need to do damage control, as this story will probably be swept quietly under the rug, plus the Senate is about to debate the health care thing, and no one will care about this once the media picks up on that.

  • ||

    No you are wrong. Every time one of these guys stick their head out with a press release or a conressional hearing they will get slapped with this.

    Plus the emails are not the whole story (and have not been fully explored yet) There is also a huge amount of Code and data that is relatively unexamined.

    This stuff will be regurgitated for months if not years to come.

  • Tony||

    No doubt, mostly by people who have an interest in distorting reality. Whatever these emails expose, it is not "global warming is a hoax." But you damn well know that's what anyone going hysterical over these emails wants you to believe.

  • ||

    What it exposes is that the science is not "settled" as the AGW proponents claim, and that there has been deliberate collusion to discredit the skeptics. It leaves the "hot or not" question still open.

    -jcr

  • Chad||

    It does no such thing. Indeed, the emails have introduced no new science whatsoever.

    If you disagree, please tell me exactly what line of what paper has been revealed false by these emails. Don't say Mann's 1998 paper, as that has been revised and strutinized more heavily than any paper in the history of mankind. These emails revealed nothing new about the science in it.

  • DJF||

    Yes they have, they have shown that these “scientists” have engaged in practices that distort the scientific process. When you subvert the peer review process then its hard to argue that your peer reviewed science is correct. When you submit your paper and the people chosen to review it are guaranteed to approve then you can call anything science.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    New Science Logic
    "They are 90 per cent-plus sure that it's caused by humans, we can go that far." ~= "Global warming caused by humans is beyond debate"

    "In the last few years, where there hasn't been a continuation of that warming trend, we don't understand all of the factors that creates Earth's climate" ... "when the computer modelling and the real world data disagrees you have a problem." ~= "Trust Us, we have complicated computer models that told us so."

  • Tony||

    That's perfectly sound science logic. If you were 90% sure that a hurricane was coming, would you prepare for it?

    This ad nauseum bullshit against computer modeling deliberately ignores what they're saying. If the modeling and real world data disagree, figuring out why improves future modeling.

  • kinnath||

    You are truly a worthless sack of shit. Your analogy could hardly be more off point.

  • robert||

    i live on the outer banks of NC, very hurricane prone part of the country. When we have 90% certainty a hurricane is coming we prepare for it in a realistic manner. We don't catch our heads on fire and do evrything the Weather Channel or Fox News fearmongering of the moment tell us to do.

    Now I know that nobody has experience with what the AGW "hurricane" is going to do, but when these are the same people giving me the same panicked threats, I have learned to tone it down by about 80%. Ever hear of a kid who cried wolf.

    Not everything is WWI, Nagasaki and Katrina all wrapped into one.

  • Tony||

    Unfortunately this is worse than all of those things wrapped into one.

  • ||

    You continually insist that you are arguing the side of scientific consensus.

    Then you say something unbelievably ridiculous and completely unfounded such as this.

    Please pick one or the other.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How so?

  • robert||

    I so totally knew you were gonna say that

  • Chad||

    Who is saying we should panic or "catch our heads on fire"? Rather, the debate is between the do-nothings and the do-somethings. Note that you DID prepare in a "realistic" manner, which means you played the odds. You didn't sit back and scream "There isn't any proof, so let's go play on the beach, kids!".

  • robert||

    "realistic" is the key word.

    now were just negotiating price

  • ||

    Who is saying we should panic or "catch our heads on fire"?

    Hundreds of thousands of snotty little hippies. You know, the ones who sneer at you if you drive a car instead of an electric moped fueled by unicorn farts.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Chad, do you reconize that your heros actively shut off debate by 'outlawing' what the 'deniers' tried to publish, and the were actively not compli=ying with legal FOI requests, which as public employees where legally bond to response to. I in my job get legal notices to search my files, data and emails, and to produce them in compliance with a legal search request, and if I do not, that I am liable for civil and criminal sanctions. These people are legally liable to response to all FOI requests.

  • smartass sob||

    It's Not Exactly "Climategate" But ....

    That depends on how much spin the Left can get away with.

  • ||

    "Really what's happened here is that some criminals [sic] have hacked their way into a university database, taken these emails, for all we know selectively distributed ones that look incriminating or look like they put the scientists in a bad light just two or three weeks before Copenhagen," he [Flannery} said.

    Yeah, so, since the e-mails were "criminally" obtained, they should not be believed, and since they were published "selectively" (without providing any proof of that), they should not be believed.

    It's like in "Liar Liar", after the recordings made of the cheating wife:

    - Your Honor, I object!
    - Why?
    - Because it is devastating to my case!

  • ||

    So, when is the time to shout "tar and feather"?

  • ||

    When someone one files a ethics complaint over this group of scientists blocking research from entering the peer review literature and/or when a prosecutor goes after them for obstructing an FOI request.

    The compalints about bad science are not a tar and feathering offense. Scientists have the right to be wrong...it is sort of the nature of the beast. A good one in my opinion.

  • Chad||

    The FOI stuff would merit a small fine and censure. Much ado about nothing, really.

    From the other side of the coin, how can we address the griefing via FOI issue? Spam requests can easily be used to waste a lot of the time of someone you do not like. It's not like these guys have a big file named "AllTheData" they can just upload for you.

    If I were given the same request at my job, it would literally take me a week to gather together all the data I have from the past year, and put it into any sort of comprehensible format. And you know what? If the guy who asked for it was a dishonest dick, I would take my sweet time. Hell, I'd probably put it into some random code, print it out, and send it by snail mail along with a decoder ring.

  • ||

    If I were given the same request at my job

    Is your job about telling millions upon millions how they need to get on with their lives while hiding your methods and data?

  • Chad||

    If it were just my data that confirmed this, I would be a bit more sharing. When it is one part in ten thousand, you can wait. Especially if you are a jackass.

  • *||

    Aw geez, I smell a government employee - or at least, an employee of a taxpayer-supported institution.

  • ||

    But...but you said earlier "there is no system on earth less political than science"? And here you are describing a typical POLITICAL ploy and thinking nothing of it. I've seen and heard of similar ploys in dozens of industries. I guess your profession is not quite as unique as you claim.

  • ||

    If I were given the same request at my job, it would literally take me a week to gather together all the data I have from the past year, and put it into any sort of comprehensible format. And you know what? If the guy who asked for it was a dishonest dick, I would take my sweet time. Hell, I'd probably put it into some random code, print it out, and send it by snail mail along with a decoder ring.

    Good thing Chode is "objective," "not political" and "scientific" in all aspects of his work.

  • ||

    As I previously wrote, when I get a legal sanctioned data request it is to be complied with within a specific time frame, and ther are civil and criminal sanction =that I are personly liable for, If i am found to have not complied with the legal search request, my company can not pay to defend me or pay my fine, and I could go to jail and most likelly would be terminated from my job as part the legal settlement my company made.

  • ||

    As I previously wrote, when I get a legal sanctioned data request it is to be complied with within a specific time frame, and ther are civil and criminal sanction =that I are personly liable for, If i am found to have not complied with the legal search request, my company can not pay to defend me or pay my fine, and I could go to jail and most likelly would be terminated from my job as part the legal settlement my company made.

  • anonymous||

    By "dishonest", you mean "thinks you are wrong and wants to prove it", right?

  • ||

    Let me just tackle this "private emails" thing.

    These emails were on the company computer, using the company account, written during working hours, relevant to employment, yes?

    Then they weren't "private". So lets not play along when people claim they were.

    I tell everyone, and I do it myself:

    The First Law of Emailing:

    Never send an email that you don't want published on the front page of the paper. Because once you send it, you have no control over where it goes or who sees it.

  • Chad||

    RC, not that I disagree with what you say, but these guys are working in academics, where the boundries between public and private, work and free time, etc are a lot smaller than the corporate world.

    Also, many of the dispute emails are pretty old, back from days when people were more free-wheeling with their emails.

  • ||

    So?

  • ||

    RC, not that I disagree with what you say, but these guys are working in academics, where the boundries between public and private, work and free time, etc are a lot smaller than the corporate world.

    I really really want to a hold of your crack dealer. That shit must be amazing.

  • ||

    Another Iron Law moment:

    I believe it is, "That which can be used for you today, can be used against you tomorrow"? Or, "Me today, you tomorrow".

    RC?

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Since when did the left care about documents being stolen or laws being broken?

  • ||

    Re: Johnyy,

    Since when did the left care about documents being stolen or laws being broken?

    When it puts THEM in a spot. Only then.

  • Chris||

    I'd like to hear the left's reaction if any of the three letter agencies, or any element of DOD for that matter, got caught disposing of material that was requested in a FOIA request.

  • ||

    "These people (scientists) work with models, computer modelling. When the computer modelling and the real world data disagrees you have a problem.

    Maybe the models are.... inadequate.

    I have speculated for many years that the so-called "butterfly's wing" effect has a lot more to do with the crudity of the models than the delicacy of the earth's actual weather patterns.

  • Warty||

    A dirty secret about science is that models are always wrong to some degree. The degree in this case seems rather high. And that's about all I know about global warming.

  • Chad||

    If that's a dirty secret, why is it taught in every high school chemistry class? The basic format of chemistry classes at that level is to walk through several different models of atoms and molecules, each successively more complicated and accurate than the last.

  • ||

    But in most classes, the models work. For instance, Newton's laws aren't perfect but they are close enough for the purpose at hand if one is talking about an apple dropping ten feet. Also, we don't need to do the full set of statistical thermodynamics to figure out how long it takes to hard boil an egg. This isn't really the case with "climate science." While the full set of stat. thermo. might not be necessary, it is going to take a fairly large subset to even come close.

    Oh about that model of atoms you mention. To say each is "successively more complicated and accurate than the last" is a bit of an understatement. Each successive model mostly trashes the preceding one, to the point where the last is nothing like the first. The reason is the kids don't have the math skills to work with the real model and "close enough for now" is the prevailing educational model for teaching chitlins.

  • Chad||

    Wrong. The energy balance of the earth is actually very simple, and can be computed with equations and knowledge well over a hundred years old. Indeed, AGW was first predicted and calculated in the 1800s...and relatively accurately, honestly. Arrhenius predicted a 6C rise for a doubling of CO2. It will probably be closer to 4-5C.

    I am not sure which chemical model you find "real", but as a practicing chemist, I can assure you that I spend very little of my time thinking of atoms any more deeply than the basic orbital theories we learned in 10th grade. They are "good enough" for what I need to do.

  • mark||

    Dude, it's not a simple chemical equation. You haven't even taken into account feedback effects.

  • hmm||

    Or better yet that models are not predictions, but a base from which to draw assumptions and test theories.

  • ||

    "Test theories" - as in, plug in actual temperature data along with allegedly known values for forcing constants, etc in this model? If the test fails, is the model called into question or is the result dry-labbed away?

    How far does the vaunted model need to diverge from reality before we can tell these lying rent-seekers to go find real jobs?

  • hmm||

    Whoa there skippy. That was my point. Models are just models. They are not real life. The data may be wrong or the model may be off. You play with both and treat both accordingly as time goes on. Either way models do not predict the future, especially the long run future.

  • Anonymous||

    All of the blogs seem to be focusing on the emails where the scientists discuss sexing up the data. That's not really that big a deal, though, it's something almost all scientists do even though many won't admit it and few would talk about it on the record.

    The HUGE stuff is the emails about keeping skeptics off peer review committees and coordinating a refusal to submit papers to any journal that accepts a skeptical article. That's pretty damningly unscientific and part of the reason the science is so whacked (essentially journals have to make a political decision which side to support in advance of publishing).

  • Ska||

    That's how I look at it as well. Forget that the data doesn't fit your hypothesis as perfectly as you'd like it to. Why are you deleting files that might be requested under FOIA? Why are you so afraid of other scientists that are skeptical of your work? Is it really peer review when you select reviewers who will agree with you?

    It's like a nine year old trying to convince me that the dog was rummaging through my sock drawer.

  • Attorney||

    Good point.

  • smartass sob||

    I heard something very late last night about various people being exhorted to delete other existing emails that haven't been made public yet. That might be against the law, if I'm not mistaken.

  • Tony||

    Skeptics, not surprisingly, have much more political power than is warranted by their proportion in the scientific community. The skeptical interests also have had a lot of money backing them up. The issue is quite evidently massively confused in the public sphere. Giving affirmative action to skeptics when the science clearly must advocate for action given the catastrophic possibilities is dangerous. The central facts are simply not enough in dispute to ignore their implications.

  • ||

    In other words, skeptics are really mean and malicious so it's fine to lie to shut them up. Good to know.

    And maybe the central facts aren't in dispute, but you certainly wouldn't know it by reading these emails. Zealously guarding raw data as if it would be a disaster to let it into the open is strange behaviour for someone in the right. So is warning against sharing data with so-and-so because he's "unpredictable", or conspiring to subvert the fact-checking processes of science.

    Seriously, you should take your reassurances and give them to actual climate scientists. Most people don't understand the science. They do understand something of human behaviour. A mess like this could be avoided if Phil Jones was truly, deep-down convinced of the truth of the position he'd held - or could fake sincere conviction.

  • anonymous||

    You're right, no one with power wants to believe that AGW is happening. I mean, except the UN and most governments that think they can get some additional money or authority from the cause.

  • ||

    Agreed. Massaging data to make it interesting and selective is something that happens, but it's limited by the fact that you can't push it too far - otherwise someone comes along and shoots holes in it and you look stupid. Except that these guys (if the emails are genuine) are trying everything possible to ensure that no-one's allowed to shoot holes in it later - no hostile peer review, and a pervasive terror of the raw data being leaked to Steve McIntyre or someone like him. That's a far worse thing than fiddling the odd result.

    Honestly, the fact there's a field of science where big league experts keep their data under wraps and potential critics have to wring it out of them or hunt for stuff laying around on exposed FTP sites is really, really messed up.

  • TP||

    Hackers, huh? Are these the same hackers that put a virus in my computer so deep that even the experts at Geeks-To-Go couldn't find it? Yeah, I just finished doing a complete reinstall of Windows XP. I'm still in the process of reloading all of my software and files.

    Or, are they the East European bastards that hacked into my bank's (TD Bank) computer system causing it to crash in September, and I couldn't access any of my account information for 3 days?

    Or, are they the Nigerian hackers that keep sending me emails saying I won the British Lottery, or some shit.

    You'll forgive me if I don't believe a Mother Fucking thing any piece of shit hacker has say, unless he's willing to put his name on it.

  • smartass sob||

    They're "hackers" when it's someone who is disapproved of. Maybe, instead of hackers, it's an inside job.

  • TP||

    I guess we'll never know, unless someone gets the balls to put their name on it.

  • ||

    Most of the recent speculation I have seen seems to be on an inside job, not a hacker. They base this on the sporadic nature of the emails, i.e. not having every email. The emails look like they have been sorted and the Happy Birthday emails have been removed.

  • ||

    Read this for the most plausible scenario.

    The hacker is probably someone who simply knows how to search a public website/ftp server.

    And probably did not break any laws.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....pe-letters®-an-alternate-explanation/

  • DJF||

    There is a good chance that this is not a hacker but an inside job. The file that was copied seems to have been one created by insiders to comply with a FOI request and its doubtful that a hacker would just grab one file or even know where to find it

  • ||

    Re Anonymous,

    All of the blogs seem to be focusing on the emails where the scientists discuss sexing up the data. That's not really that big a deal, though, it's something almost all scientists do even though many won't admit it and few would talk about it on the record.

    Let me tell you that if this was an e-mail discussion about sexing data for an Annual Balance Report for my company, me along with the CFO and CEO would have our asses thrown in jail. This IS a big deal.

  • Chad||

    It wasn't even "sexing" data. The full data was published and cited. They were simply trying to figure out how to blend two datasets. The portion of the data they were "hiding" (in a cited, peer reviewed journal) was inaccurate, why is why they excluded it on this particular graph.

    It is little different than the thouand and two footnotes most corporate reports include...and not surprisingly, where a disproportionate share of the ugly data shows up.

  • ||

    "They were simply trying to figure out how to blend two datasets. "

    And, of course, conspiring to make sure that no one who might be critical of their data would be invited to the party. But that's hardly a big deal, is it?

  • anonymous||

    "The portion of the data they were "hiding" (in a cited, peer reviewed journal) was inaccurate, why is why they excluded it on this particular graph."

    If tree ring temperature data is inaccurate there, how can they be sure it's accurate elsewhere? I mean, aside from the fact that it makes the graph look the way they want.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Let me tell you that if this was an e-mail discussion about sexing data for an Annual Balance Report for my company, me along with the CFO and CEO would have our asses thrown in jail

    And you'd deserve it, being in the eeeviiilll corporate world and all.

  • ||

    Top Gear did a segment in which Clarkson spent a few days honing his skills on some (Play Station?) video game; he was running an Acura NSX at Laguna Seca. Then, he jumped on a plane to California, where he attempted to duplicate his lap times in meatspace, driving a real NSX at Laguna.

    He couldn't get close to the simulation; not just because there is a *real* risk of serious injury, but because the simulation cannot account for all the weird stuff like tire wear, brake fade, track temp, wind, sandy apexes, et c.

  • ||

    Your point being?????

  • ||

    That Jeremy Clarkson is awesome and lives our dreams as part of his day job.

  • ||

    The difference between a mathmatical model and the real world.

  • Attorney||

    Yeah, so, since the e-mails were "criminally" obtained, they should not be believed, and since they were published "selectively" (without providing any proof of that), they should not be believed.

    Wife: "I just called the credit-card company about these charges. They said they're from an adult website."

    Husband: "Umm... Look over there!"

  • Chad||

    Oh, and case you "skeptics" might have missed it, here is the latest major climate change news. I am sure you have already noticed, as you carefully read Nature Geoscience every day, right?

    http://climateprogress.org/200.....sing-mass/

    I hope you comprehend the following:

    1: This paper all but lays to rest one of our hobby horse arguments.

    2: This is really, really bad news

    3: It is a strong argument that we need to act sooner than later

  • Chad||

    Whoops, I mean "your" arguments. Funny typo, eh?

  • *||

    It doesn't matter, commie. You and your friends have just developed a serious public relations problem over the weekend - people think you are dishonest. Hm, dishonest? Who would have guessed?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    It's not about saving the planet... it's about shoving a huge cock up the ass of liberty.

  • Chad||

    Yeah, because everyone should have the freedom to dump their garbage on their neighbors lawn.

    As a chemist, I have access to lots of toxic nastiness. My employer sure would appreciate it if I could get rid of it on the cheap. What's your address? I am in the mood to exercise the "freedom" you so strongly believe in.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Yeah, because everyone should have the freedom to dump their garbage on their neighbors lawn.


    Nobody is proposing that.

  • Chad||

    Really? Yet you oppose a carbon tax. You seem to live in a world of contradictions.

  • Chad||

    And btw, the civil legitation standard is "preponderance of evidence", so you will lose handily.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    We don't NEED a carbon tax, Chad.

  • ||

    Are you seriously calling CO2 "toxic nastiness"?

    Because the stuff that plants need to breathe, the equivalent of oxygen to humans, is in your mind the equivalent of radioactive waste?

  • anonymous||

    The equivalent to oxygen for plants is oxygen, actually.

  • jester||

    True that. O2 is an input to the photosynthetic process.

    Not saying that 02 doesn't come out as well.

  • smartass sob||

    That's right. Plants need oxygen just as animals do. But they take in carbon dioxide for photosynthetic production of food and end up releasing more oxygen than they use from their surroundings.

  • jester||

    Chad, Chad,

    Wake up. Bad dream. Calm down. You were the dictator of your own country.

    Yes, yes,

    very scary. very scary

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    *yawn*

  • ||

    The Emperor Penguins may have to move! Oh, the humanity!

  • ||

    Ever since they learned how to tap dance, they think they have rights....

  • Chris||

    +1

  • ||

    Now that I know how these scientists gather their data, I take everything they say or publish with a grain of salt.

    By the way, I found the disclaimer at the end very funny: "This entry was posted by Joe on Monday, November 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm and is filed under Science."

  • Chad||

    Now, if you were one quarter of one percent intellectually honest, you would have to take everything the denialists say with a literal mountain of salt.

    The problem is not that you doubt science, it is that you doubt don't partisan crackpots infinitely more. That is why you are a denier, not a skeptic.

  • ||

    Now, if you were one quarter of one percent intellectually honest, you would have to take everything the denialists say with a literal mountain of salt.

    Why? He who asserts must prove. It is not up to the so-called "denialists" to prove THEIR case, since what they are doing is simply disputing the data. It is the AGW advocates who must provide their evidence unadulterated. They seem to have NOT, just by looking at these e-mails.

  • Chad||

    OK, how about "If you passed third grade science, you would know science can't prove things, ever"?

    There are thousands of papers backing up AGW theory. A small fraction of that many are ambiguous and contain conflicting data, and only a handful contradict it. Most of the latter have later been partially or completely refuted.

    It is clear that you neither understand what the emails were about, nor how tiny of a thing they were about, nor do you seem to care to. You could educate yourself in five minutes if you ever bothered to leave the crackpot zone.

  • ||

    One of the arguments the non-AGW's have made -- and this is backed up by the hacked emails -- is the gatekeepers are keeping papers critical of AGW from being published or peer reviewed.

    Kind of neat racket isn't it -- demand peer review papers on one had but make sure the only papers reviewed agree with you.

  • Chad||

    No, they were "gate-keeping" mediocre papers with wild speculative conclusions, and the editors that let them through. Big claims require big evidence.

  • ||

    As I recall, there was also a thread in those emails that called for a boycott of those journals that dared to publish papers that would attempt to refute the religous orthodoxy that is AGW through CO2.

    That is a good bit more than "gatekeeper" - and it what world is it a good ideas for those with a heavily vested interests in the orthodoxy to be in charge of any kind of gatekeeping?

    Next thing you know, they'll translate the litergy from the proper Latin, and then the Reformation will have to countered all over again.

  • robert||

    maybe congress should set up a committee to determine what qualifies as "peer reviewed" papers

  • ||

    So you have read all these papers and agree they were mediocre? Or is it possible the "gate-keepers" were less than scrupulous? If I remember right, didn't a couple of these non-scientist yahoos find some problems with some of the evidence?

  • WOW||

    Self deception or Sociopathology? Either way, it is truly pathetic.

  • WOW||

    In response to this gem:

    No, they were "gate-keeping" mediocre papers with wild speculative conclusions, and the editors that let them through. Big claims require big evidence.

  • Chad||

    Here is a good account of what really happened. I doubt you have ever bothered to look.

    http://www.csicop.org/speciala.....ver_again/

  • WOW||

    From that link:

    Chris Mooney is a visiting associate in the Center for Collaborative History at Princeton University and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America.

    Why would you link to the opinions of a hack instead of the refuting papers, and the counter refutation? That may be satisfying to a sociopath but not to a human being with a natural bent towards curiosity.

    You can find out what the AGW scientist really thought of this matter in the e-mails.


    • Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

  • ||

    That's a real nice "Kent" from Real Genius vibe you've got going their Chad.

    Chad, Kent, both one syllable WASP-y names that both sound like concussive noises. Go figure.

  • ||

    Re: Chad,

    The problem is not that you doubt science, it is that you [don't doubt] partisan crackpots infinitely more.

    I do doubt partisan crackpots - which is why I doubt what YOU say. You speak of GW with such zeal as if your very world view depended on it. I am not that religious.

  • Chad||

    First, calling me partisan is laughable. You really don't know me. The treehuggers all think I am a raving conservative.

    Second, if you doubt me, you can always read the links I forward you.

  • jester||

    Partisan? Parisian? Parmesan? Permian?

    You don't have to prove anything. What's wrong with tree-huggers. Trees need hugs.

    Splinters fortunately keep action to the hugging level.

  • *||

    it is that you doubt don't partisan crackpots infinitely more.

    Oh, but we do doubt "partisan crackpots," commie boy - yourself being one of the more blatant of them on these boards.

  • *||

    Old Mexican beat me to it, I see. ;-)

  • Chad||

    Challenge:

    List three issues one which you disagree with the Libertarian platform (and lie closer to the political center...not an issue where you are even more wing-batty than the party).

    I will, in return, list five with the same restrictions, for whichever party you think I support.

  • *||

    Oh, hey! Look over there!

  • Chad||

    The classic reponse of a party-liner. So much for my hopes that you had a drop of ability to think independantly. You do seem a whee bit smarter than the average around here.

  • *||

    The classic reponse of a party-liner. So much for my hopes that you had a drop of ability to think independantly. You do seem a whee bit smarter than the average around here.

    No, so much for your hopes to change the subject or to go off on a tangent. BTW, I'm a small L libertarian, if I'm anything other than an Independent.

  • ||

    I think a more relevant list from you would be a list of the things on the Libertarian platform that you AGREE with.

  • Chad||

    I have substantial (but not necessarily 100% complete) agreement with libertarians on:

    The legalization of drugs

    Anti-unionism

    School vouchers

    Free trade

    Civil liberties

    Free speech

    Tort reform

    Gun rights/self defense

    That should be enough for now...

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    That's nice, Chad. But why can't you take the final baby steps and leave behind your liberal tendencies?

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Chad, during my brief stint haunting liberals on the Ed Schultz message boards, one of them - straight-faced - said that my mere vocal denial of manmade global warming would, quote, leave me with the blood of millions on my hands, unquote.

    Add that to the nimrods who equated AGW denial with Holocaust denial, and it's pretty simple:

    Those who are so invested in "we blame mankind completely"ism are willing to go to great lengths to brainwash the public.

    Like kids, for instance.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Google "climate Nuremberg"

  • jester||

    In the case of drownings (rising oceans, tsunamis, etc.), little blood is spilled. Similarly, heat stroke literally turns you into hardened blood sausage. It won't spill on your bib, maybe some residue water though.

  • ||

    I thought we were deniers cuz instead of actually doing science some climatologists along with their publicist like ClimateProgress thought it would be a good idea to compare use with Holocaust deniers.

    Oh wait...i don't just think that is why...it is the actual reason why.

    Chad all you have is spin....and you are bad it and your are against the wall.

    Give it up.

    What you need to do is point your finger at Phil Jones, Mike Mann, Keith Briffa, and others and say damn you fuckers!!

    Then you need to reassess what you know about climate change and start from zero.

  • Chad||

    All I have is thousands, THOUSANDS of journal papers, by TENS OF THOUSANDS of researchers, TENS OF THOUSANDS of observations, argreement from every major scientific organization on earth, and every level of theory from high school chemistry to the world's most sophisticated models.

    What do you have? A few cherry picked data points, and a few people that you can point fingers at who behaved less than ideally.

    Umm...I win. In a landslide.

  • kinnath||

    And when other people with PhD's attempted to replicate the results of the proponents of AGW, they were denied access to the raw data which was actually destroyed.

    This means that your THOUSANDS of observations are worth jack shit.

  • Chad||

    You mean .01% of the data that backs AGW. Where did you get the utterly and completely false idea that this FOIA request involves anything other than a trivial amount of data, that even if completely proven false, would have no impact on the total?

  • ||

    A few cherry picked data points, and a few people that you can point fingers at who behaved less than ideally.

    Phil Jones, Mike Mann, and Keith Briffa and three of the most prominent Climatologists in the field. In fact they invented the field and are the most cited scientists in the field.

    Furthermore the real world evidence of Climate Change is based on their pioneering work.

    Sorry Chad you are going to have to do better then that.

    The only landslide I see is the falling house of cards that occurs when the work of these three men are pulled from the base of peer reviewed literature.

  • Chad||

    Three out of thousands. The person who "invented" AGW theory died a century ago. Are you that clueless?

  • ||

    If you don't know who Jones, Briffa and Mann are and how they fit into climate change science then you are clueless.

    But I doubt that. All you are doing is trying to do damage control.

    The simple fact is that you cannot cite any evidence of AGW without using the peer reviewed literature either produced by these 3 people or work that relies on their peer reviewed literature.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The person who "invented" AGW theory died a century ago.


    According to Svante Arrhenius, an increase in the amount of carbonic acid in the atmosphere will lead to better and more equable climates.

  • ||

    Gosh! There! Certainly! Was! A! High! Degree! Of! Very! Excited! Speculation! In! That! Article!

  • T||

    "Using a simple linear projection for the period 2006–2009"

    I call bullshit right there, Choad. There isn't any real-world multivariate phenomenon that can be modeled using simple linear projection. Not one, not anywhere. So anybody throwing out a linear projection for anything is full of shit. Especially a bunch of guy who say things like

    "With nearly seven years of data, interannual variability is far more apparent"

    and then turn around and throw out a simple linear projection like it's supposed to mean something? Hmm. Interannual variability and simple linear projection. Yeah, that makes sense.

  • jdd||

    The most amusing part of all of this is that these self-proclaimed smart guys don't understand the first principles of statistics. Models demonstrate correlation. That can help one understand history but it can never "prove" anything. Inference is not proof of causation. Most statistics books even provide the suggestion that when a model doesn't fit intuition that the model is probably wrong.

    To think of the staggering waste of resources that have been invested in an almost completely worthless branch of inquiry. Let's assume global warming. It is still a "who cares" because there is nothing that we could possibly want government to do about that would be, net net, better for anyone.

    If the seas rise then move inland. That's really the best advice I can give. Purchase real estate in the Sierra Foothills on the cheap so that your great, great grandkids can get paid.

  • Chad||

    I have never met a scientist who thinks science "proves" things. I have met plenty of crackpot libertarians, however, who keep clamoring for "proof" of AGW.

  • anonymous||

    It's usually helpful to be able to reliably predict the future within some decent margin of error, at least if you want to get to play prophet of doom.

  • jester||

    Doom is doom. You're gone.

    Although all players will deny this, they understand that this is the mechanism.

    And I am NOT saying that they don't believe they are doing the right thing.

    I am saying that I disagree with their conclusions and hence what they're doing.

    I also accept that if Iam wrong no one will be around to tell me so.

    But fuck you if you think that I think life is about being the last man standing. Seriously, Fuck you, if you believe that.

  • Chad||

    You keep saying the models were wrong. Prove it. Which model predicted what, when? What did the model include. What didn't it?

    I don't suppose you all thought deeply enough yesterday to realize that the big news that east Antarctica is melting just made any model that includes ice melt more accurate. Some of the "missing" atmospheric heat is instead melting the biggest block of ice on earth.

    What we cannot model accurately is the movement and transfer of heat throughout the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere, water, and ice. Since the atmosphere contains a lot less heat than the other two, changes in their behavior can overwhelm any trend in atmospheric temperatures.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Well, Chad, it's apparent that you'll swallow anything that concludes "it's all mankind's fault, every bit of it, no question". Long as it fucks capitalism, you're gonna cheerlead for it.

  • robert||

    the only comment to the article:

    One Response to “Satellite data stunner: “Our data suggest that EAST Antarctica is losing mass…. Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea-level rise.””

    1.
    Steve Bloom says:
    November 23, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Minor nit: I don’t think there was a general view that Pfeffer et al was definitive even when it was first published.

  • robert||

    nice backswing Chad, you have a problem with your follow through

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    He can pitch, but can he catch?

  • Barney Frank||

    I can give him some pointers.

  • ||

    Whats to worry. A 7 meter rise in sea level means those annoying Obama voting twits will lose their malibu beach houses and I have nice ocean front property here on the cliff.

  • ||

    Point being: models are wrong.

  • ||

    Yes, in a philosophical sense. But in the world of models that are actually expected to work (ie, not climatology), the designer is expected to quantify how much error is present in the model under various circumstances, and usually those errors are negligible (otherwise the aircraft or auto parts manufacturer isn't going to pay for them).

    Whereas in the field of climatology, the paradigm seems to be "if at first you don't succeed, try try again."

  • PantsFan||

    Even Chris Martin new about this:
    I was just guessing at numbers and figures
    Pulling the puzzles apart
    Questions of science, science and progress
    Do not speak as loud as my heart"
    - Coldplay, _The Scientist_, 2002

  • jester||

    Read the rest of the lyrics. The guy is breaking up and he's just buttering her up with the 'I am just a nerdy scientist'-meme.

    Beautiful melody accompanies it, I admit.

  • ||

    "We are 90 percent sure..." Always use 88 rather than 90 in this context. It is much less painful to pull out of your ass.

  • MNG||

    The actions of the two researchers trying to pressure editors of peer reviewed journals is pretty stinky. Luckily there are many peer reviewed journals in that field and it would be pretty hard to pressure them all to report things that scientists on average thought was not in line with the data.

    It's a little surprising that more libertarians here aren't outraged by what was also clearly an intrusion onto and theft of other people's property (the hackers). I guess the stakes are too high for some to keep principles honest.

  • ||

    Re: MNG,

    Luckily there are many peer reviewed journals in that field and it would be pretty hard to pressure them all to report things that scientists on average thought was not in line with the data.

    That could be the case - could you allow the possibility that these so-called "harder-to-pressure" journals were already committed to the AGW worldview to need any pressuring at all?

    It's a little surprising that more libertarians here aren't outraged by what was also clearly an intrusion onto and theft of other people's property [????]

    Ohhhh, wrong argument, MNG - IP is NOT property.

  • MNG||

    The stuff on an organization's server is not their property? WTF?

    And has it ever occurred to you that other journals may be "committed" to AGW in the sense of "convinced by the evidence?"

  • ||

    Re: MNG,

    The stuff on an organization's server is not their property? WTF?

    Words placed in a certain pattern is NOT property, MNG. That is why in provate companies we're told to always be careful what we write.

    And has it ever occurred to you that other journals may be "committed" to AGW in the sense of "convinced by the evidence?"

    You mean the same journalists that did not have the years of experience and expertise you tout later?

    Am I to conclude they are not too stupid to understand, but the rest of us are?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Was the organization government supported or private? Because if it was government supported, all the "hacker" did was release information that belonged to the public anyway.

  • alan||

    No more outraged than I was at the release of the Pentagon Papers. Well, then I was an itty bitty baby, but my diaper was red.

  • ||

    1: This paper all but lays to rest one of our hobby horse arguments.

    It's about fekkin' time.

  • MNG||

    I see we have the usual litany of dozens of posters who have a fraction of the education, experience and access to data/equipment that would enable them to give an informed opinion on climate change opining away none the less.

    Yea guys, despite your lack of relevant training, ability and years examining this subject you know what thousands of better trained, educated, situated and more experienced somehow missed...

    Sheesh.

  • ||

    Re: MNG,

    Appeals to Authority are not arguments. Calling people "too stupid to understand" is not the way to make a case in favor of the AGW theory.

    Also, you are flying off a tangent - the discussion is about allegation of misconduct from a panel of purportedly very distinguished scientists. You don't seem to find anything the e-mails say outrageous - is that the case?

  • MNG||

    Ah, someone has had a Logic 101 class.

    So they don't understand the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Sigh.

    An appeal to authority, by itself, does not justify a conclusion that the argument is 100% correct.

    However, arguments from authority are totally acceptable parts of informal logic and utilized as the basis of action quite rationally every day by every one.

    Please go here and begin to understand what the hell you are talking about:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....._authority

  • ||

    Re: MNG,

    However, arguments from authority are totally acceptable parts of informal logic and utilized as the basis of action quite rationally every day by every one.

    Not if the argument is taken as valid by virtue of the proposers' purported expertise, MNG. That is stupid.

    I can say that priests are experts in the afterlife, yet should I take your prescription at face value and accept that, if I jump from a tall building, I can (with the assurance from these "experts") arrive at Paradise?

  • MNG||

    You really have no idea what you are talking about. A little bit of knowledge is sometimes worse than none at all.

  • Tony||

    There's a reason we don't have priests do our science.

  • *||

    Yeah? And what would that be - 'cuz they don't agree that Al Gore is divine?

  • anonymous||

    True, but in the case of science, "authority" requires not just intelligence and experience, but intellectual integrity. People are too prone to bias, so any number of measures are taken to act against it (e.g. double-blind trials in medicine). These emails do suggest a lack of professionalism that may undermine the authority of these researchers and their followers.

    This being science, all that really means is that people who are on the fence will need to learn enough to replicate the results from the beginning -- but that will be hard without the original data and access to the models being used.

    Frankly, as someone who's proofread a lot of review work in a different (and less political) field, I know firsthand that if a few bad papers written by professional academics up their own ass with theory make it to print, the next generation of researchers just builds on it rather than actually questioning the assumptions inherent in the foundation they're building on.

  • MNG||

    "You don't seem to find anything the e-mails say outrageous - is that the case?"

    Read the FIRST line in my FIRST comment in this thread Sherlock.

    And you're the detail oriented scientist whom we're supposed to believe has discovered what thousands of experts have missed...Sheesh.

  • ||

    Re: MNG,

    Read the FIRST line in my FIRST comment in this thread Sherlock.

    You mean the one where you DOWNPLAYED the matter by stating that there are "plenty" of journals that would not allow themselves to be pressured?

    My head was spinning with such display of furious outrage, MNG. Gosh.

  • MNG||

    You really are pathetic with details, are'nt you? Here is the first sentence:

    The actions of the two researchers trying to pressure editors of peer reviewed journals is pretty stinky.

    Downplayed, eh?

    Again, we are supposed to trust your judgment over thousands of experts and you can't even find the first sentence of a post?

  • robert||

    is "pretty stinky" the new STFU?

  • MNG||

    I mean, you'd have to think all of the dozens of professional science organizations that have endorsed the idea that global warming is occuring and is man made are A. having some kind of collective bout of insanity/gross negligence or B. are part of some NewWorldOrder Conspiracy.

    What's more likely, that they are right and you are wrong, or you are right and one of the two alternatives I just mentioned is the case?

  • ||

    Re: MNG,

    I mean, you'd have to think all of the dozens of professional science organizations that have endorsed the idea that global warming is occuring and is man made are A. having some kind of collective bout of insanity/gross negligence or B. are part of some NewWorldOrder Conspiracy.

    Or C. Rolling on the free Government-Grant dough.

    I'll take "C" for $2000.00, Alex.

  • MNG||

    There's plenty of "grant dough" for anyone on each side of this (hello, heard of energy companies lately? They fund research on this topic and would love to find convincing research on these topics)

  • ||

    Re: MNG,

    Gods.

    There's plenty of "grant dough" for anyone on each side of this

    That's your counteragument? "Everybody does it"?

    Disclaimer: I am NOT taking ANY money from ANY Energy producer or Energy company to espouse the idea that AGW is a crass scam.

  • MNG||

    Chad's already spanked this argument, but specifically I was mentioning that it would be odd for the consensus on AGW among most experts to be attributable to grant money when one can make a great deal of grant money with research refuting that consensus. There must be some other variable then to explain why most experts disagree with you.

  • Chad||

    I don't think the deniars understand that the absolute easiest journal paper to write is one that proves someone else made a mistake. They have already provided the data for you and screwed up the analysis! Such a paper wins you a lot of respect, too.

    If there are faults in these papers, there are plenty of people that have plenty of motivation to point them out.

  • ||

    I guess that explains why Mann gave up so easily on his initial calculations on the "hockey stick" when M&M found the mistake.

  • jester||

    'Chad's already spanked this argument'

    Bad argument! Bad argument!

  • Tony||

    That's just what you'd say if you were taking their dirty money to be a douchebag propagandist for them.

    Who has more money to throw around, Al Gore and assorted liberty-castrating treehuggers, or the oil industry? Given the difference in material influence on this debate which side do you suppose gets the outsize attention?

  • ||

    Um... The media darling with the Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize and the pat argument that he's not profiting from the environmental destruction of mother earth.

    What do I win?

  • Tony||

    Al Gore has more money than the oil industry. Heard it here first, folks!

  • ||

    Media, not money, wins the battle for public opinion and political debate.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    He doesn't, Tony, but he's a damned good huckster. He reeled you in, after all.

    Then again, you're just a gullible shit who will believe anything a liberal says.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Who has more money to throw around, Al Gore and assorted liberty-castrating treehuggers, or the oil industry? Given the difference in material influence on this debate which side do you suppose gets the outsize attention?


    Now we get to the crux of the problem.

    You think that burning fossil fuels is a "sin".

  • Tony||

    No, it just has an unfortunate effect on climate.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How is a warmer Earth necessarily unfortunate?

  • jester||

    Don't go there with religious talk on statists.

    It's freaky libtards that hold markets as a religion. Statists know that eventually they can coerce the rebel out of us with a coupla time-outs.

    Corporal punishment? Never, unless preceeding sodomy.

  • jester||

    The oil industry provides more jobs than Al Gore and his posse.

    In 1992, a certain Clinton ran on a campaign distilled thus: "It's the economy, stupid: it's about jobs, jobs, jobs"

    insert joke about Clinton and jobs (clue: snow, blow, hand, rim, etc.)

    or

    admit that governments job is to give jobs.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    Tony, you should know a "douchebag propagandist" when you see one.

    I won't use the standard "look in the mirror" line, though, as it's evident without resorting to cliches.

  • Chad||

    This new hobby horse argument of "it's about the grant money" really drives me nuts. It has ZERO basis in fact, and they damned well know it.

    1: If someone obtained serious data REFUTING AGW, they would get MORE grant money. The more unique and interesting your data, the MORE money and the MORE respect you get. And yes, I am talking about money from the standard granting agencies, such as NSF, not money from Exxon-sponsored think tanks. Indeed, if someone ever refuted AGW with hard facts, it would launch them into the upper pantheon of scientists.

    2: Scientists regularly change what they are working on. If one thing isn't panning out, we just move on. We don't lie in order to keep doing the same old thing. In practice, we are working on several things at once and constantly adding, dropping, and collaborating.

    3: We have zero incentive to lie, because we WILL get caught and it would absolutely ruin our career.

  • jdd||

    Have you ever studied the history of science? That's a rhetorical question because you'd realize how silly you sound if you had.

    What scientific revolutions, pray tell, were the offshoot of scientific consensus?

  • Chad||

    In modern history? Almost all of them, actually.

    Take the discovery of DNA, for example. The work was funded just like any other research at the time, and it Watson and Crick hadn't discovered it, any number of research groups would have within months. Linus Pauling was only weeks away, actually. DNA didn't really surprise the people who found it....rather, they were looking for something of that nature. W&C just happened to be the one group that looked at the right thing first.

    Or would you like to go back to the earlier part of the century, when atomic and molecular theory were worked out? Again, it was a process of increments, and none of it individually was revolutionary. The funding for the research came from the standard methods of the time.

    Evolution was surely revolutionary, but again, was funded in a very standard manner.

  • ||

    Wasn't the consensus a couple of decades ago that stress caused most ulcer's? And weren't the researchers who proposed a bacterial origin so ridiculed that one of them drank a solution containing said bacteria to prove it. And didn't said scientists win the Nobel prize for it?

  • Chad||

    No, the consensus was that they were guessing about pretty much anything to do with medicine back then, and still are now to a large degree. Find me one scientist who claimed he was 90% sure stress caused most ulcers and I would be surprised.

    Science can be wrong, but it would be dumb to bet against it.

  • jester||

    Marshall B.J., Warren J.R. (1984). "Unidentified curved bacilli in the stomach patients with gastritis and peptic ulceration". Lancet 1 (8390): 1311–5.

  • Dmitry||

    you mean the story about W&C stealing the crucial picture from this women?
    Nice example

  • Dmitry||

    you mean the story about W&C stealing the crucial picture from this women?
    Nice example

  • Dmitry||

    you mean the story about W&C stealing the crucial picture from this women?
    Nice example

  • jester||

    Windmill companies especially, funded by bazillionaires who read your posts and others like you and work it both ways.

  • robert||

    I think the rational point being, the plea that "a consesus of leading scientists" just lost alot of its authority for alot of uneducated people due to the apparent misbehavior of a few.
    This is a problem the scientific community needs to deal with in a "transparent" manner rather than having a bunch of other uninitiated running around saying the rest of us are just to ignorant to understand. The Curtain has been pulled back on the Wizard here.

  • alan||

    It is the 'Best Defense is to be Offensive' strategy. Sort of the go to strategy for Chad and MNG. Who is coaching those guys?

  • jester||

    Endorsing global warming as a Rolling Stone 'Band to Watch' is different from declaring them the new 'Bay City Rollers.' Er, I mean Rolling Stones.

  • Kroneborge||

    @Ska

    One reason some scientists might try and prevent other articles from appearing in scientific review journals is because theya are so convinced that they are right, and so afraid of the consequnces of inaction, that they don't want to confuse, the already confused public with any more conflicting opionins.

    Is that what happened here, we will probably never know.

    But I figured I would throw that out there since you asked.

  • dfd||

    If that's the case then it's not science but politics and intimidation. Many people throughout history have been so absolutely convinced of the righteous nature of their cause that it justified silencing anyone who disagreed. I don't think that is a path anyone who calls himself a scientist should want to go down.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    One reason some scientists might try and prevent other articles from appearing in scientific review journals is because theya are so convinced that they are right, and so afraid of the consequnces of inaction, that they don't want to confuse, the already confused public with any more conflicting opionins.


    What are the consequences of inaction?

  • MNG||

  • PantsFan||

    WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE

  • Chad||

  • MNG||

    It's a list of the organizations that have issued statements agreeing with the IPCC, it's plenty credible for that. You can go to each orgs website if you don't believe it.

  • Tony||

    More so than your ass.

  • jester||

    Wikipedia is not a citable source since itself is made of citations and should be neutral. It is effective for grasping a topic along with all of its controversial aspects. Citing controversial aspects from Wikipedia as direct citation is simply lazy.

  • ||

    It's a little surprising that more libertarians here aren't outraged by what was also clearly an intrusion onto and theft of other people's property (the hackers).

    First, I think the smart money is that this was an inside job, that is, a whistleblower, not third-party hackers.

    Second, these emails were certainly not the private property of their authors. At best, they are the property of the CRU. As a publicly funded institution, I'm not sure CRU has any "property" right in keeping these emails secret anyway.

    Third, evidence of wrongdoing is generally not the sort of "property" that libertarians get all exercised about. And these emails lay out a pretty convincing case that, at a minimum, a great deal of grant and tax money has been misappropriated.

    So, no, as a libertarian, my boxers aren't in a knot over this.

    And pretending to be all exercised about "privacy" and "property" in this context is a good example of the "Umm, look over there!" school of argument.

  • ||

    And fourth, the other side set the legal precedent for breaking the law in the name of climate change activism.

    THE INDEPENDENT -- Thursday, 11 September 2008

    Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

    By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

    The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.

    Jurors accepted defence arguments that the six had a "lawful excuse" to damage property at Kingsnorth power station in Kent to prevent even greater damage caused by climate change. The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire. [...]

    During the eight-day trial, the world's leading climate scientist, Professor James Hansen of Nasa, who had flown from America to give evidence, appealed to the Prime Minister personally to "take a leadership role" in cancelling the plan and scrapping the idea of a coal-fired future for Britain. Last December he wrote to Mr Brown with a similar appeal. At the trial, he called for an moratorium on all coal-fired power stations, and his hour-long testimony about the gravity of the climate danger, which painted a bleak picture, was listened to intently by the jury of nine women and three men.

    Professor Hansen, who first alerted the world to the global warming threat in June 1988 with testimony to a US senate committee in Washington, and who last year said the earth was in "imminent peril" from the warming atmosphere, asserted that emissions of CO2 from Kings-north would damage property through the effects of the climate change they would help to cause.

    So don't put on this big show of outrage, OK?

  • jester||

    Civil disobedience in modern England. Quite different from what John Wilkes was being disobedient about, but given what the modern England stands for, it is what it is, civil disobedience in modern England.

  • MNG||

    "As a publicly funded institution, I'm not sure CRU has any "property" right in keeping these emails secret anyway."

    So emails between police officers,or any other government employees are not property the agencies have a right too? That's nuts.

    And libertarians don't care about, say having your phone wiretapped or your email hacked? Interesting RC

    But then, you're not much of a libertarian anyways imo. Conservative in a libertarian dress is more appropriate.

  • nicole||

    So emails between police officers,or any other government employees are not property the agencies have a right too? That's nuts.

    Why is that nuts? All this stuff would have been subject to FOI requests anyway. Except then they would have been able to deny or delete them.

    The concept of "property the agencies have a right to" doesn't make sense in terms of a way to deny access by the public anyway. Everything the government creates is in the public domain and I definitely think that should go for on-the-job emails as well.

  • MNG||

    "Everything the government creates is in the public domain and I definitely think that should go for on-the-job emails as well."

    That is flatly wrong. You know that, right? Did you mean that this should be the case, because there is a crapload of government information that you cannot get access to as a citizen.

  • ||

    Actually, in the US that is flat out right. There are some exceptions (seven I think) that are fairly broad (personal information, work product, on-going criminal investigations, national security), but you have to actively make the arguments to deny the information. You can't just say no.

  • ap||

    it actually is not wrong. if you FOIA it and its not marked "secret" you can get it. there was a whole hullabaloo about this recently, using "states secretes doctrine" to keep people from getting public records. i am sure you were on the governments side on that one too...and would be screaming about property rights if someone hacked the NSA or CIA's computers and laid bare the nastiness that was going on there. no, ok, stfu.

  • Ex-Abu Ghraib Worker||

    You're right, the US public shouldn't have access to anything, buncha jerks.

    Who's up for a cheerleader pyramid?!

  • ||

    So emails between police officers,or any other government employees are not property the agencies have a right too? That's nuts.

    it is the government you stupid shew...what the hell?!?! you are supposed to be a liberal. If the public does not have access to public information what is public about it?

    The fact that the public paid for it?

    If i write emails at a computer at work while at work using my works email then my boss can do what he wasn't with that email....i can't say shit about it.

    Why should the government/public as a boss be any different?

  • ||

    shew

    Haha
    I meant to type shrew.

  • ||

    what he wasn't with that email

    Ok I am calling "reason internet squirrels" there is no way in hell i wrote "wasn't" when i meant to type "wants"

  • ||

    Re: MNG,

    So emails between police officers,or any other government employees are not property the agencies have a right too? That's nuts.

    They are not supposed to have any secrets anyway. Not from their employers (i.e. the American Public.)

  • ||

    I find it interesting that the statist don't respect their own laws?

    FOI justice is being actively obstructed. They collude in destroying information that the public has right to see.

    The real "denialist" are the political and economic reality denialist. These people have no understanding of basic public choice theory or economics. ANY CO2 tax scheme that passes through the political proccess will favor the political elite(including big energy companies) and those who wish to lord power over the masses while making life more difficult for the poor and middle classes.

  • jester||

    I think everyone will find the following helpful to this debate:

    http://www.sciencecases.org/wo.....pecker.asp

    It is a case study drawn up from the real life Ivory-billed Woodpecker 'rediscovery' that some skeptics (deniers) call Peckergate.

    In the end there were plenty of scientists upset about grant money usage (a scarce resource) and conservation priorities.

    This case study visits these trade-offs without naming the actual players in the controversy. I think it is timely as pertains to this 'hacker' case.

  • jester||

  • jester||

    okay, it works anyway.

  • Tony||

    "I have to go study for my bird class final"??? What the fuck is this bullshit? An SAT question?

  • jester||

    No, it's a case study. If you bother to look at it, you might see why there are other perspectives.

  • Tony||

    Actually it's a work of fiction, as is noted in a footnote.

  • jester||

    SugarFree|11.22.09 @ 1:58PM|#
    I will never see the attraction some of you have for letting Chad jack off in your mouth.

    Tony, sorry, I thought you were interested in having debate. By all means, ignore the link. It'll get in the way.

    My bad, SugarFree.

  • Tony||

    I read the whole thing, and I have no idea what it has to do with anything. One guy is overzealous about one bird? Yeah, then other guys come along and prove him wrong and disgrace him. And?

  • jester||

    'I read the whole thing, and I have no idea what it has to do with anything.'

    Sucks to be you. You possess a sharp mind that can comprehend AGW better than anyone here so you say, but you cannot comprehend a case study that fully explains how it was constructed.

    You're just dishonest. No wonder most posters lose patience with you. Not because of any acumen you possess but because your willful disdain of anything anyone else has to say. Keep showing off...what an asshole you are.

  • Tony||

    It's a fucking woodpecker. It doesn't fully explain anything, and it has fuck all to do with climate science.

  • Argosy Jones||

    That's a pretty interesting case study. The point, I guess is that our priorities and prior intellectual commitments inevitably color our evaluations of evidence for or against any proposition.

    We usually have no problem seeing this in the statements and actions of people we don't like or agree with. Unfortunately, the more sure we are of our prior intellectual commitments and beliefs, the less fairly we are able to evaluate the arguments of those with whom we disagree. Of course since we're right, this is no problem;)

    In the case of the CRUhack, this probably applies to all parties involved, especially us internet trolls.

    The emails paint a pretty clear picture of a group of scientists circling the wagons against critics and trying to defend both their own status and their theory, plus what they believe to be the fate of planet Earth. Where this seriously goes off the rails is their obstruction of critics. Deleted emails, FOIA evasion and blatant conspiracy to deny critics access to publication in scientific journals by various means, all the while insisting that the debate be carried on in the same scientific journals.

    I'm in no position to evaluate the statistical arguments that are at the center of this intellectual war, but what I see what seems to be the scientists hiding something. I'm going to assume that whatever they're hiding, they're not too proud of.

    Technically this doesn't prove anything, but it certainly doesn't look good.

    The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie. - Joseph A. Schumpeter

  • jester||

    keeps messing up. /woodpecker.asp

  • TP||

    WTF was that? That Quicktime video froze my computer. I just did a complete reinstall of Windows yesterday because of bullshit links. No I have to scan everything. Thanks.

  • jester||

    sorry. you don't even have to look at the video. let's just say it's one of those fuzzy sasquatchean videos.

  • ||

    Tony|11.23.09 @ 7:26PM|#

    That's perfectly sound science logic. If you were 90% sure that a hurricane was coming, would you prepare for it?

    If my neighbor was 90% sure that a hurricane was coming, or more precisely was making public utterances to that effect, and his job and salary was contingent upon making said utterances, and his proposal to prepare was to let the government confiscate my house, and he had made previous statements that had not come true, and had some emails unearthed showing that he had lied about the alleged upcoming hurricane, and it was clear weather outside ...

    I might, in that situation, be a bit skeptical of those statements and do a bit more research before succumbing to panic and handing my house over to the government.

    Or something.

  • jester||

    Preparing for a hurricane can involve different levels of preparation.

    1)30 ft. surge and I live on the coast: evacuate

    2)80 mph winds and I live inland: board up and ride it out.

    Hurricane is a bad bad example for Goreans to cite. Most hurricane tracking programs can't really guess the landfall point until a day before it actually happens. I've dealt with Ike last year and before that Rita, etc.

    So dealing with a model that predicts catastrophic disaster for the world decades from now, one should be careful with the remedies. Don't board up for a storm surge, evacuate. Don't evacuate for 80 mph winds, board up.

  • robert||

    actually it is more like, what washes away, washes away. What stays, stays. Wait and see what comes back.

    Makes for an interesting life.

  • Chad||

    If you think their salaries are dependant on their findings, you are utterly ignorant of how science works.

  • jester||

    Anyway, to paraphrase the case study, some of us are doubting Thomases that in this case need a dead Ivory-billed Woodpecker in our hands as proof of it's existence. Only then would we sign up for the proposed protection measures.

    Others would be convinced by the sheer credibility of those involved in the Ivory-bill rediscovery and would accept their imperfect proofs as 90% credible, thinking that any wait longer for 100% proof might lead to delays in securing its habitat and hence instead insuring its extinction.

    The doubters or skeptics point out that by going ahead with the assumption that Ivory-bills live in an area and this habitat must be secured, that superior habitats that maybe haven't been as studied and may well harbor Ivory-bills will be on the losing end as well as those who wish to study them. Or if the bird is extinct and extinction is bad, the money should be spent on a species that is 100% verified.

    But calling a doubter a denier? A Denying Thomas?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    The real issue is not whether or not global warming is occurring. The real goal is to destroy Western industrial civilization.

    Five scientists- Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, and Sagan- came up with a solution to this hypothetical problem back in 1983. And yet their solution, based upon the soundest of sciences, is flatly ignored.

    James Hansen predicts that global warming will lead to a runaway greenhouse effect, destroying all life on Earth. He also stated that oil company executives should be tried for crimes against humanity and nature.

  • jester||

    'I have never met a scientist who thinks science "proves" things.'

    Science is the process of testing a hypothesis by running an experiment. The result supports or rejects the hypothesis.

    The only experiment run in this case was to see if intimidation would keep the skeptics at bay. Oh yeah and a few models were built that sometimes did or didn't achieve the wished for results. Experimenting? Not so much. Tinkering. Maybe.

  • ||

    Assuming human activity does have a warming effect and the earth is in a cooling phase....

    Don't we WANT warming?

  • Chad||

    That would be a good assumption, if the earth was either in a cool phase or heading into one. Instead, its hot and getting hotter.

  • ||

    Not if the emails disclosed last week are any indication. They don't know why the earth hasn't warmed according to their models in the last 10 years, because they don't fully understand the climate.

  • jester||

    Q: What scientific revolutions, pray tell, were the offshoot of scientific consensus? [from earlier]

    "Not that the experts always get it right. Possibly the most famous fraud in scientific history was perpetrated upon the Geology Department of the [British] Natural History Museum: Piltdown Man. Between 1908 and 1913 a series of discoveries of fossil bones around the little village of Piltdown in the rural county of Sussex allowed the identification of the 'missing link' between apes and humans...Here was a discovery devoutly to be wished by the scientific community, and the find of Eoanthropus dawsoni fitted the bill."

    -from "Dry Storeroom No. 1" by Richard Fortey

  • ||

    The warmists are watermelons.

    Green on the outside, red on the inside.

  • Mike M.||

    Some members of the Senate are already calling for an investigation.

    It won't happen with the current Congress, but it's only a matter of time: sooner or later these fraudulent criminals are going to be investigated, and this gravy train is going to be shut down.

  • ||

    "Human activity produces the excess CO2 in the atmosphere that is causing warming."

    No. It does not.

  • ||

    I think Chad, like Thomas Dolby, has been blinded by SCIENCE!

  • ||

    anyone care to comment on the veracity of this info:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss....._data.html

  • kinnath||

    As an engineer, I can see how I could write an email in haste that says how to use a "trick" to "hide" some data that I thought was flawed. So without knowing the full context, I could actually let that one pass -- mostly because I don't actually think that is the most damaging disclosure.

    But the hacked data indicate these scientists committed three mortal sins for which there can be no explaining away:

    1) refusal to turn over data to an accredited researcher that wants to recreate your work

    2) refusal to comply with a legal order (an FOI) to disclose data exacerbated by the destruction of the data that was subject to the FOI

    3) Campaigning to suppress the work of other researchers that disagree with you

    There is no legitimate argument to be made to justify this behavior. These sins totally discredit the integrity of the researchers themselves. Their results are now moot -- gone forever.

  • Chad||

    Kinnath, the data they were "hiding" was in another paper, which they cited, and was known to be flawed. Tree ring data post 1960 goes haywire, because humans are changing a dozen things at once.

    Frankly, I think that tree ring data is pretty speculative at any point. If it were the only piece of data, poking holes at tree ring data might be a useful thing for deniers to go after. Unfortunately for them, it is one brick in a pyramid.

    Btw, where does a researcher get "accredited"?

    I agree, they should not be deleting emails, and they should turn over the data asked for. They will and should receive mild censure and possibly a fine for this. Though if I were them, when I turned over the data, I would do a complete, 100% core dump - no annotation, no helpful notes, no organization - just raw data files.

  • ||

    BS on that last comment.

    Any scientist worthy of the name would hand over 'value added' data, raw data, AND (this is key) and very detailed explanations of any adjustments that were made.

    Tht last wouldn't be too hard if they'd been keeping proper records all along and weren't just winging it as they went.

    The passive-aggressive crap you suggest won't cut it.

  • jester||

    "In 1960, [Harry] Hess made his single most important contribution, which is regarded as part of the major advance in geologic science of the 20th century. In a widely circulated report to the Office of Naval Research, he advanced the theory, now generally accepted, that the Earth's crust moved laterally away from long, volcanically active oceanic ridges. Seafloor spreading, as the process was later named, helped establish Alfred Wegener's, earlier (but generally dismissed at the time) concept of continental drift as scientifically respectable."-Wikipedia (citing by a lazy jester)

    Continental Drift was generally dismissed in Wegener's day. Sounds like the consensus rejected his theory.

  • jester||

    [E O] Wilson experienced significant criticism for his sociobiological views from several different communities. The scientific response included several of Wilson's colleagues at Harvard, such as Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, who were strongly opposed to his ideas regarding sociobiology. Marshall Sahlins's work 'The Use and Abuse of Biology' was a direct criticism of Wilson's theories.

    Politically, Wilson's sociobiological ideas have offended some liberals and conservatives who favored the idea that human behavior was culturally based. Sociobiology re-ignited the nature-versus-nurture debate, and Wilson's scientific perspective on human nature led to public debate. He was accused of racism, misogyny, and eugenics. In one incident, a female member of the International Committee Against Racism poured a pitcher of water on Wilson's head and chanted "Wilson, you're all wet" at a AAAS conference in November 1978. Wilson later spoke of the incident as a source of pride: "I believe...I was the only scientist in modern times to be physically attacked for an idea."-Wikipedia (again, lazy jester)

    Yes, the consensus. the consensus.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Twenty years ago 90% of the physicists thought that string theory. Today, there are few to be found. Scientific theory, if the scientists are honest, changes as more data are gathered and models modified. I'll bet the AGW folks couldn't get 90% today.

    .. Hobbit

  • ||

    These quacks got caught with their hands in the cookie jar! First they hide all their data from public review and comment. Don't release their computer codes that they use to manipulate their data to falsely demonstrate their case. They blackball anyone who disagrees, disputes, or points out obvious fatal flaws in their bogus theory (remember the hockey stick). Call all of us real scientists "Holocaust Deniers" or "Flat Earthers". Their trying to squeeze all of their models (contort them) to fit the observed data that grossly doesn't match reminds me of the stories of all of the concentric circles pre-Kepler that were contorted to try to explain the motion of the planets with the earth always at the center. You guys haven't had much credibility with us real practicing scientists for a while and now what little you had just went out with the incriminating e-mails.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Perhaps the AGW crowd is guilty of poor marketing. This is the way that I hear their argument:

    “Here we were with this planet where every day was a nice balmy 72 degrees and then, BAM!, these nasty humans showed up and turned up the thermostat!”

    Excuse me, but are they blaming the glacial retreat and the start of the Holocene on a bunch of paleolithic creatures squatting around a campfire? If that’s the case then we really are fucked because if we can’t even cook our dinner then we probably can’t build an industry.

    Of course the argument from the other side is pretty lame, too.

    “The earth isn’t warming! In fact, it’s even cooling! Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

    Fact is, the earth has been warming for quite some time. Face it, with or without humans the snows of Kilimanjaro are going to disappear. The sea levels will rise. Then it will start cooling again. The snows will return, the icecaps will reappear and, who knows, maybe even the land bridge to Russia will come back.

    .. Hobbit

  • Chris||

    Would Alaska face an illegal immigration problem then?

  • HARRY_READ_ME.txt ||

    So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

  • ||

    I'm of an opinion similar to yours Hobbit!

  • ||

    As an MD , I have no extensive knowledge of climatology but have some observations to make that are taught as the basis of evidence based medicine to all new MD's:
    Anecdote is not evidence (this is why the "expert opinion" argument is usually blatant bullshit)
    Correlation is not causation (your risk of being hit by a bus is increased if you smoke outdoors does not mean that all bus accidents are caused by smoking)
    We must be scientists that operate and medicate using evidence as our guide ("I'm a doctor and just know better" does not cut it!)
    I have no dog in this fight , but if thse emails are real , these guys have committed severe misconduct , even by the most partisan standards. If they were in business they would be whining about illegal hacking from their jail cells whilst fighting off the amorous advances of their cellmate!
    In closing , some good weblore:
    "In god we trust , everyone else bring data"
    Good arguments , guys.
    Reason can be a vicious bitch , can't she?

  • smartass sob||

    Drink?

  • ||

    There are some many problems with the theory of man made global warming that you don't need a climatologist to refute it, in my opinion. A mathematician could refute it based upon the faulty mathematics. A computer scientist could refute it based upon it's faulty programming that went into making the computer software model. A logician could refute it based upon the faulty logic. Other scientific disciplines could join in and show that without a doubt that the computer models are bunk. What this controversy shows, if it shows anything, is the length to which people will go to propagate a falsehood and try to defend it against a good faith attempt at learning the truth.

  • JB||

    Fuck the Global Warmist religion.

    Fuck it hard.

  • ||

    if I might for a minute.

    Chad of course has a point when he says science can never prove, it can only disprove. Reasonoids in plenty of other contexts know this.

    Leadership sometimes requires action without knowing all the facts. All the facts can sometimes never be known.

    In another context, Prez Obama is criticized for not acting fast enough, and trying to see six sides to every problem.

    Having said all that, AGW is huge in its predictions, huge in its proposed solutions. The revelations over this past weekend do not look good for AGW scientists. They have acted in bad faith and hurt their credibility, and this may be far worse to their cause then just going public.

    AGW scientists cannot bitch about people wanting to know and see all the data and pick at it from a million directions. What the IPCC recommends is enormous. People have every right to know.

    But remember, Reasonoids, to do nothing is still a choice. Sometimes it is the best one, sometimes not. As you rightfully heap scorn and derision on these CRU scientists, I hope you are prepared to accept the consequences of your own actions if they turn out to be negative.

  • Mike M.||

    Chad of course has a point when he says science can never prove, it can only disprove.

    You mean it hasn't really been proven that the earth is (more or less) round and that it orbits the sun? The Church will be relieved to hear that one.

  • ||

    We cannot prove it will always stay in that orbit. But it is, I think you'll agree, highly likely based on past trends.

  • Hobo Chang Ba||

    Scientists were totally right when we had that ice age in the 1970s, the oil supply ran out in 1992 and the earth ran out of food due to overpopulation back in the 1980s. These things were facts and dire threats to our existence, not mere theories.

  • ||

    Nice reminder Hobo Chang Ba. I forgot about the population explosion and great coming world starvation and disappearance of all resources that Paul Ehrlich wrote about in the 70s. Isn't he part of this Global Warming scam too? Like our esteemed "real" scientist Chad said - don't bet against science. Especially partisan / politicized science dominated by left wing hacks supported financially by socialist leaning governments.

  • TallDave||

    Most anyone who looks at the data agrees that:

    1) CO2 levels are going up due to man's emmisions.
    2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    3) It's been getting warmer from 1850-present.

    The unproven claims are:

    1) The current warming is unusual (this only began to be claimed in the mid-1990s, when Mann and others used flawed data to claim the MWP didn't happen)
    2) CO2 has caused the current unusual warming (very dubious; CO2 levels generally trail warming historically)
    3) CO2 levels will cause unprecedented warming in the future (even more dubious; CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, even during Ice Ages, and the climate has increasingly strong negative feedbacks at higher temps, as evidenced by the small range of temperatures over the last billion or so years)
    4) This unpredecented warming will have large net negative consequences (possible, but historically warmth has been a net benefit)
    5) Emissions controls will have an effect on #4 greater than their economic cost (very, very unlikely)

    The problem is that even if SOME of the above are true, it is very unlikely ALL of those things are true, and they all have to be true for the solutions they are proposing to make sense.

    Now, you'll notice 3,4,5 are all predictions about the future. As it happens, there is a scientific field devoted to future predictions, the science of forecasting. Forecasting scientists looked at the IPCC predictions and said they had, quote, "no scientific basis" and that they violated 72 essential principles of scientific forecasting in a situation where zero violations are acceptable.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....g-climate/

  • ||

    I'd amend your first #3 about warming since 1850:
    by hiding the Little Ice Age as well as the earlier MWP, they hid the fact that the current 'warming' started wll BEFORE the industrial-related CO2 rise.

    The other elephant in the room is that, barring the fudged hockey stick data, they have not proven that the CO2 tail wags the water vapor dog of greenhouse gasses. (If CO2 sensitive models replicate the hockey stick, which has a phony CO2 corelation baked in, they prove nothing -- circular reasoning.)

  • jester||

    Tony|11.24.09 @ 11:20AM|#
    It's a fucking woodpecker. It doesn't fully explain anything, and it has fuck all to do with climate science.

    vs.

    http://www.sciencecases.org/wo.....pecker.asp

    (ps don't need to look at video)

    Is it Literal Day for the the second day in a row? A case study is designed to introduce a problem or set of problems brought up by a particular case and discuss possible solutions NOT to obsess over one of its inputs.

    Do we read novels only on the level of plot? Apparently some do.

  • ||

    Tall Dave, be careful. The "real" scientists will have you decertified / delicensed / heckled / scorned if you dare critique their "true science". Remember when the airhead on the weather channel wanted to decertify all weather persons who didn't adopt the global warming religion in total. I remember leftist arguing for public trials / tribunals for deniers (like the Nurenburg trials - post WWII). Heck, I thought we'd be bringing back the Inquisition, they seemed so hell bent on stifling even the slightest bit of peer review / criticism of their religion.

  • ||

    Nobody Expects the Algore Inquisition! Go and fetch...the flatulent cow!!!!

  • ||

    CRU "Scientists" = Mike Nifong.
    Whether or not AGW is true, none of their so-called "work" can be trusted. Their educational institutions should consider revoking their degrees. The associated governments should prosecute. If AGW is true, (and I remain skeptical), then the AGW proponents who assert it have to prove it and show that it true the same as a prosecuting attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. They must show that there is no other reasonable explanation for the data. Conduct of the AGW proponents, practiced by an officer of a court, would get them disbarred. Lose chain of custody of some core samples? Sorry, all you have is some quaint pieces of wood. Means nothing.
    If AGW is real, then the CRU scientists' behavior has done more to bolster the opposite argument. One might accuse them of being in the pay of "Big Oil".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement