Global Warming

The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate

Can climate change science recover from the damage done by leaked emails?

|

Climategate. What a hot mess. Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and their colleagues around the globe may have fiddled with historical climate data and possibly the peer review process to ensure that publicized temperature trends fit the narrative of man-made global warming—then they emailed each other about it. Now those emails and other documents have been splashed all over the Web. Revelations contained in the leaked emails are roiling the scientific community and the researchers may be in pretty serious trouble. But the real tragedy of the Climategate scandal is that a lack of confidence in climate data will seriously impair mankind's ability to assess and react properly to a potentially huge problem.

Consider researcher Tom Wigley's email describing his adjustments to mid-20th century global temperature data in order to lower an inconvenient warming "blip." According to the global warming hypothesis, late 20th century man-made warming was supposed to be faster than earlier natural warming. But the data show rapid "natural" warming in the 1930s. Adjusting the 1940 temperature blip downward makes a better-looking trend line in support of the notion of rapidly accelerating man-made warming. Collecting and evaluating temperature data requires the exercise of scientific judgment, but Wigley's emails suggest a convenient correction of 0.15 degree Celsius that fits the man-made global warming hypothesis. The adjustment may be reasonable—changes in instrumentation might need to be accounted for—but all raw data and the methodologies used to adjust them should be publicly available so others can check them to make sure. 

In another set of troubling emails, the CRU crew and associates discussed how to freeze out researchers and editors who expressed doubts about the man-made climate change. For example, an email from CRU's leader Phil Jones saying that he and Kevin Trenberth would keep two dissenting scientific articles out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's next report "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" In addition, the CRU crew evidently plotted to remove journal editors with whom they disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked. If they actually succeeded, this compounds the tragedy. Eliminating dissenting voices distorts the peer review process and the resulting scientific literature. The world's policymakers rarely enjoy access to complete information, but the Climategate emails suggest they have been robbed of the chance to get the best information available.

In the wake of the Climategate leaks, some researchers are openly decrying the scientific censorship exercised by powerful gatekeepers associated with the CRU. Climatologist Eduardo Zorita at the German Institute for Coastal Research has publicly declared that "editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed." Zorita adds, "In this atmosphere, PhD students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'." Zorita evidently believes even after the email scandal that he will be punished by editors and reviewers for denouncing the CRU crew: "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication."

Now under pressure, the CRU has finally agreed to publicly release all of its temperature data. Just how valuable this will be has been thrown into doubt, however, since the CRU has admitted, "We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data." This raises legitimate scientific questions about how the lost original data were manipulated to produce the "value-added." The Times (London) reported that Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. "The CRU is basically saying, 'Trust us'. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science," he said.

Phil Jones, the embattled head of the CRU tried to put to rest concerns about the integrity of his center's data by issuing this statement:

Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

It is reassuring to think that even if the CRU data are shown to be distorted (either wittingly or unwittingly) other independent sources of data are at hand. But that belief may not be entirely accurate. Besides the CRU temperature data, there are two other leading sources used by the IPCC, one created by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and the other by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).

While it is true that the scientific groups are independent, as University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. (father of Pielke Jr.) observes, the temperature data sets are not all that independent. Pielke cites the 2006 U.S. Climate Change Science Program report, which noted, "Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence." The report further observed, "While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results." In 2007, Pielke and his colleagues reported, "The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95 percent of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003). That the analyses produce similar trends should therefore come as no surprise."

One of the leaked emails from CRU's Phil Jones appears to confirm this data interdependence: "Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center." Given this interdependence, Jones' appeal to correlation with other data sets to support the validity of the CRU data is less convincing than one would hope. To the contrary, the fact that the three data sets correlate so well may instead provoke concerns about the validity of all three.

In an email to University of Alabama climatologist John Christy I asked, "Is there a possibility that the teams that compile temperature data could all be making the same set of errors which would result in them finding similar (and perhaps) spurious trends?" Christy replied that he believed this was possible and cited some recent work he had done on temperature trends in East Africa as evidence. In that article he found that using both the maximum and minimum temperature rather than the mean temperature (TMean) used by the three official data sets gives a better indication of actual temperature trends in the region.

Christy found that the maximum temperature (TMax) trend has been essentially zero since 1900 while the minimum temperature (TMin) trend has been increasing. In his email to me, Christy explained, "As it turns out, TMin warms significantly due to factors other than the greenhouse effect, so TMean, because it is affected by TMin, is a poor proxy for understanding the greenhouse effect of 'global warming'." Or as his journal article puts it, "There appears to be little change in East Africa's TMax, and if TMax is a suitable proxy for climate changes affecting the deep atmosphere, there has been little impact in the past half-century." So if Christy's analysis is correct, much of the global warming in East Africa reported by the three official data sets is exaggerated. Christy has found similar effects on temperature trend reporting for other regions of the world.

Roger Pielke Jr. notes, "If it turns out that the choices made by CRU, GISS, NOAA fall on the 'maximize historical trends' end of the scale that will not help their perceived credibility for obvious reasons." On the other hand, Pielke Jr. adds that Climategate could dissipate if probing by outside researchers finds that CRU, GISS, and NOAA researchers made temperature data adjustments "in the middle of the range or even low end, then this will enhance their credibility." The good news is that a truly independent set of temperature data has been produced over the past thirty years by NOAA satellites. In general, the global satellite temperature trends tend to be on the low end of the climate computer model projections.

The more benign interpretation of what has been going on in climate change science is that as the man-made global warming narrative took hold among climatologists, research that confirmed the dominant paradigm had a much easier time getting through the peer review process. Meanwhile research that contradicted the paradigm was subject to much greater scrutiny and thus had a harder time making it through the peer review sieve. Scientists are human too and not free from confirmation bias.

But for now, regardless of the motivations of the researchers, damage has been done. How can the world of climate science recover? First, carry out independent investigations of the activities of the researchers involved. Pennsylvania State University has announced that it will investigate the activities of researcher Michael Mann, who worked closely with the CRU and several times expressed in the leaked emails his desire to stifle the scientific work of researchers with whom he disagreed. In Britain, Nigel Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer, has called for an independent investigation of the CRU. Tireless journalistic global warming scold George Monbiot has declared, "It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow….I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign."

Another important step to recovering from the tragedy of Climategate is to institute the kind of research transparency that should have been happening in the first place. "Climate data needs to be publicly available and well documented," argues Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry. "This includes metadata that explains how the data were treated and manipulated, what assumptions were made in assembling the data sets, and what data was omitted and why."

In a BBC News article, Michael Hulme, a climatologist at the University of East Anglia, and Jerome Ravetz, who is associated with an institute at Oxford University, warn that the tribalism revealed in the leaked CRU emails is damaging public trust in climate science. In addition, they believe that the usefulness of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which relied heavily on the work of CRU scientists, may have run its course. Hulme and Ravetz worry that the IPCC's "structural tendency to politicize climate change science…has helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production—just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive."

And greater transparency should not be limited to just temperature data, but to all aspects of climate science. In an email response to me, climatologist Pielke Sr. argues, "I completely support the view that the computer software [of climate models] must be available for scrutiny by independent scientists. Otherwise these models should not be used in climate assessment reports." Only through such transparency can other researchers determine whether or not climate models are adequate forecasters of future climate change or are merely prejudices made plausible.

One thing more transparency won't fix: the complications and uncertainty inherent in the policy debate about global warming. "In the end, I would hypothesize that the result of the freeing of data and code will necessarily lead to a more robust understanding of scientific uncertainties, [and] that may have the perverse effect of making the future less clear," emails Pielke Jr. "The inability to tolerate dissent has unfortunately destroyed the credibility of climate change science and I don't know how it's going to come back," laments climatologist and free-market Cato Institute fellow Patrick Michaels, who was frequently reviled in the CRU emails. "I don't know how the public and policymakers will ever trust what climate scientists say in the future."

In their zeal to marginalize and stifle their critics, this insular band of climate researchers has damaged the very science they sought to defend. We all now are the losers. That's the true tragedy of Climategate.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is available from Prometheus Books.

NEXT: How About Efficiencyarchy in the U.K.?

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.

  1. Ron Bailey on the Tragedy of Climategate

    What’s so tragic about it? Is it because R.B. thinks this is like the eco-fascists’ Gotterdammergun?

    1. I think it’s a tragedy that someone at a prominent libertarian journal thinks that Climategate is a tragedy.

      1. Tragedy? Yeah like 9/11 was a “tragedy”
        right?

      2. The real tragedy is attempting to scare the crap out of children by telling them the earth is doomed because Mommy and Daddy drive an SUV.

        1. The real tragedy is that Mommy and Daddy slavishly believe, without the slightest analytic thought, that the earth is doomed because they drive an SUV, and they drive it anyway, and they think it’s a great idea to give the government the power to tell everyone not to drive an SUV.

          It must be true. Teri Gross said so.

      3. It’s tragic that Ron wasted so many words. Demonstrating his ignorance could have been accomplished in a line or two.

    2. Macbeth and King Lear are both tragedies…

      They portray assholes who deserved their fall…still they are tragedies.

    3. Everybody run!

      The soprano’s got a Gotter dammer gun!

    4. It’s Gotterdammerung. Unless you meant otter gamma gun.

      Both work in this case.

      1. “Unless you meant otter gamma gun.”

        KILL THE TABLE-EATERS! We will never understand why they go around chopping down trees for tables when they have perfectly good tummies to eat on!

        Love, Blavius

  2. This is one danger inherent in scientists’ massaging data to better support a hypothesis they honestly believe is true. It can expose the hypothesis itself to risk.

    1. Rather, this is one danger inherent in scientists’ massaging of data to better support a hypothesis they KNOW IS TOTAL BUNK, but needs to be supported in order to access the cushy government jobs derived from their research, especially those that dictate human behavior.

      1. Very good Old Mexican.

        1. Amen Old Mexican. It’s a tragedy that those “scientists” and “global warming peer reviewers” are seeing the gravy train drying up right before their eyes. I live in N. Texas and it SNOWED this morning! How’s that global warming working out? It’s as my computer professor used to always say “garbage in, garbage out”. The “data” was never that it’s “propaganda”. Hey Chicken Littles the sky ain’t falling and global warming is just another boogeyman story told to scare up money for research.

    2. … to better support a hypothesis they honestly KNOW IS NOT TRUE.

      Fixed it for you.

  3. […}{T]he CRU has admitted, “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added [quality controlled and homogenised] data.”

    Or, “Value added” as in “tweaked”, as in “flim-flam.”

    1. flim-flam. god, that made my day.

      Seriously. VALUE ADDED?! The “quality control and homogenization” is a subtractive process.

      “value-revealed”, “value-sifted”, “value-screened”, “value-highlighted”, or even the marketing friendly “value-enhanced” would be more accurate. Provided they did a proper job in their “value-enhancement”…..

      You can’t add value to data, only extract/expose the value in that data.

      How’s that Scientific Consensus doin these days?

      1. How’s that Scientific Consensus doin these days?

        “Peer review is the key! Peer review is the key! Don’t take it from me!”

        Ed Begley, Jr. on Fox News.

        1. What if your peers are corrupt or stupid?

          1. Er….. em…… What if they are BOTH!

            I haven’t stopped laughing at these DORKS yet!

            1. Who peers the peer reviewers?

              1. “Who peers the peer reviewers?”

                Anyone who reads the scientific journals. In other words, the entire climatological community.

                1. In theory, that’s true. Part of the problem here, though, is that there may be some gatekeepers that aren’t allowing dissident voices to be fully heard. That shouldn’t be the case, but the problem with science is the problem with most human endeavors–the people.

                  1. Thanks for the clarification, PL. I thought it too obvious to mention the GIGO angle there and it certainly would have killed the brevity to add ‘Who peers the peer reviewers when the peer reviewers control what gets reviewed and block dissenting voices’, but Jeremy proved you can never add too many fail-safe(s) when discoursing with the temporariness inclined.

                  2. Not may be…there were gatekeepers.

      2. Funny, commenters on Reason’s site don’t understand that a subtractive process can add value.

        Imagine a pinto bean plant worker removing tiny rocks from a conveyor belt of pinto beans…wouldn’t call that value subtracted now, would you?

        1. Remove the hyphen and you’d be slicker.

        2. I think the “value-added” is the research money in their pockets.
          If you look at the leaked code that came with the emails you see that they were just adding raw values to make it look warmer. There is a lot of evidence for this http://blogs.news.com.au/heral…..and_warmer

    2. Bernie Madoff just took the raw data contained in his books and “value added” the data. What is the big deal?

  4. “a potentially huge problem”

    The root word here is potentially. I have the ability to potentially be a world-class pianist.

    But in reality, it ain’t happening.

    If the earth were warming up it could be a potentially huge problem.

    But in reality, it ain’t happening.

    1. Has anyone really shown that global warming would be a net negative? If we are going to do something for future generations wouldn’t some man made warming be good, considering the planetary cycle of glaciation?

      This doesn’t even count the longer growing seasons and all of that permafrost area that would become usable for agriculture, or the reduction in the need for heating.

      1. And polar sea routes, which would save fuel.

      2. Has anyone really shown that global warming would be a net negative? If we are going to do something for future generations wouldn’t some man made warming be good, considering the planetary cycle of glaciation?

        2005 was cited as the warmest year of this decade; it was also the wettest year for North America’s Pacific coast, a region currently facing drought.

        Another Ice Age, which will almost certainly happen within the next ten millenia, will certainly destroy civilization throughout most of the world.

      3. Why do you hate polar bears? They’ll DROWN!! They said so!!

    2. Oh, bullshit. None of us knows with any certainty what is or is not happening with climate. A lot of the problem here is that people insist on acting like they do know anything for certain when the evidence is not really sufficient to make such a claim. Your insistence that you know the real answer is just as stupid as the so called scientists who try to freeze out anyone who disagrees with them.

      1. Oh, bullshit. None of us knows with any certainty what is or is not happening with climate. A lot of the problem here is that people insist on acting like they do know anything for certain when the evidence is not really sufficient to make such a claim. Your insistence that you know the real answer is just as stupid as the so called scientists who try to freeze out anyone who disagrees with them.

        QFT

      2. I base it on the incontrovertable fact that for the last 10 years, the earth has been cooling. There’s really no dispute about that.

        1. incontrovertible

          damn.

          1. The measurements show a cooling trend.

            But do the measurements show us everything? Remember that the temperature within a single square mile at a fixed altitude can and does vary by up to eight degrees Celsius. Altitude is another obvious factor affecting temperature at a given point.

            Combine that with a paucity of global weather stations and the poor siting quality of the stations we do have, and you’re left with a shitty record that doesn’t tell you much.

            It would take a vast improvement in our ability to measure, much less understand, climate to change me from my position as a very interested climate agnostic.

      3. Wait a minute. The onus is on those who contrived the hypothesis that man made CO2 is a significant driver of global temperature and that man is altering the climate in a dangerous way and not on the rest of us who are skeptical.

    3. Temperatures were warmer during the Medieval Warm Period and life flourished. They dropped during the Little Ice Age and many perished as a direct result.

      On what evidence are you basing your statement suggesting warming could be a serious problem?

      The earth has been warming since the end of the last glacial period and has been warmer in the past. Is there reason to assume it shouldn’t be warming now?

  5. The real tragedy of Climategate is that it impairs humanity’s ability to assess and react properly to a potentially huge problem.

    I think what Ron meant to say is that Climategate impairs the scientific community from manufacturing and marketing huge problems under the guise of selfless factfinders.

    1. I’m pretty sure he meant exactly what he said. Projection is fun though, isn’t it?

      1. Maybe he’s so mentally impaired he has no idea what he meant to say. Speculation is also fun, isn’t it?

      2. It seems like missing the point is fun for some.

  6. Does this mean Ann-Margret isn’t coming?

    Would Global Warming create more Morning Dew?

    1. “Ann-Margret”

      You know she’s still out there doing it every night. Casinos, conferences, etc.

      1. Ann is a goddess. They don’t make women like that anymore. And to think the poor woman had to have half her face rebuilt and she still looks good.

        1. My boss saw her perform at a convention about a year ago. He said she still puts on a helluva show.

          1. My sister worked for years at private airport in Colorado she used to fly into. Met her several times. Said she was one of the nicest people that ever came through.

            1. In the world of Reason, “I’d believe that.” is considered not English.

              And even if it was, can you guys just shut off the “SPEAK ENGLISH, BOY” function.

  7. Another important step to recovering from the tragedy of Climategate is to institute the kind of research transparency that should have been happening in the first place.

    Ron, that’s not going to happen – policies have been chiseled in stone, whole industries have their plans in place, monies are being allocated to well-connected individuals… There is too much at stake for an insignificant thing such as THE TRUTH to be considered.

    1. an insignificant thing such as THE TRUTH

      Don’cha mean inconvenient? ;p

    2. The CRU just released all its data…

      How does it-is-happening-right-now-in-real-time-become “not going to happen”.

      You fuckers are so pessimistic. Lots of people have been fighting to get this data for years. They have finally got it and you guys are all poopy about it.

      1. They released their “value-added data,” aka the numbers they tweaked. They shit-canned their raw data, so no comparisons are possible.

        1. Bingo. What better way to prevent anyone from checking your work? Since the science had been settled, there was no need to hang on to that nasty old raw data. I mean really, we’re talking GIGABYTES of data here. Imagine the storage issues!

          1. And, very obviously, why would they do this? What possible reason could there be for “shit-canning” the raw data except to hide the fact that it does not support their hypothesis?

    3. Since when have policies and plans ever depended upon data or fact?

      1. They haven’t – BUT… They often have depended on presenting people a series of lies presented as “facts” to get them on board with some scheme to rob them of their liberty & property.

    4. The real conspiracy was not the researchers fudging the data to get funding, but in the “One World Order/Green Movement/Eugenisists” conspiracy to control the entire world and all of it’s people. They were/are the ones funding this conspiracy. The “climategate” scandal is just one glimpse of this globalist/satanist conspiracy.

  8. RB seems to approach as if he has already reached a conclusion.

    The real tragedy is the amount of angst and resources spent on countering global warming.

    There are quite a few hypothesis that must be true to make this all worth while

    1. Global warming is indeed happening.
    2. Global warming is happening at a significant rate
    3. Global warming on net will be detrimental to the world
    4. CO2 causes global warming
    5. Mankind can reduce the CO2 levels.

    Clearly there are large possibilities that any one of these is false. And it’s as if we all are already at #5.

    1. Re: Ed,

      Clearly there are large possibilities that any one of these is false. And it’s as if we all are already at #5.

      The scientists at the Flim-Flam factory in East Anglia wanted to justify point #5 at any price.

    2. Re: Ed,

      3. Global warming on net will be detrimental to the world

      The problem is that the climate models coming from the Flim-Flam factory do not state this as fact, they could only say that temperatures are going to rise. Point 3 has been assumed by other flim-flam artists without any proof of any kind – it is taken as a given that “higher temperatures = bad” in an example of question begging.

  9. I prefer skepticism to economic stagnation. Hobble the American economy and we’ll have much more to worry about than warm weather.

    1. Skepticism is better than alot of stuff.

      1. yeah – skepticism does not kill. Blind belief in pseudo-scientifc flim-flam can.

        1. See McCarthy, Jenny and vaccines.

          1. Vaccines save lives, dumbass. Put away the tinfoil, please.

            1. That was the point dumbass. McCarthy is a bond bimbo who campaings against vaccines. That is an example of blind belief in pseudo-scientific flim flam.

              Read the posts and pay attention before you throw out insults.

              1. bond bimbo

                Citation needed. I have seen every Bond movie made, and she is not in any of them as far as I can tell.

              2. I don’t believe Jenny McCarthy ever appeared in a Bond movie 😉

        2. I propose that flim-flam be nominated the Word of the Month for December.

          1. I’ll second that…all in favor say aye.

    2. My personal feeling is that climate hysteria and those who thrive and prosper from it are symptomatic of the poison that runs through our society in almost all aspects of public life. I view this as a cancer and I am at the point where I feel that we need to eradicate it even at significant risk to the patient because it is only going to get worse and will finally be the death of us.

  10. This is very damaging to science as a whole. First, AGW believers have gotten into a terrible habit of appealing to authority. When they say it is settled science, they mean that it is generally settled science among climatologists. There is nothing to say that experts from other fields might not have something valuable to say about a field. This is all about computer modeling. Mathematicians, computer programmers and physicists might have lots of relevant and interesting things to say and do in this field. In fact, most of the skeptics are experts from other fields. There may be good reasons to ignore them. Perhaps they don’t understand climate. But there may be good reasons to listen to them as well. The answer lies in the substance of what they have to say, not in their academic pedigree. But instead of refuting their arguments, AGW proponents just point to fact that most climatologists believe. Well so what? What if they are wrong?

    Second and most importantly, the whole debate is an illustration of the terrible tendency towards ad homonym attacks. AGW believers attack skeptics because they are funded by this or that industry. This is a horribly dangerous way of looking at science. The quality of a particular scientists’ work is related to and only related to the quality of that work. It has nothing to do with who funded the work. If someone is doing bad work to please their funding masters, the evidence of that is in the bad work not in the fact that they got the funding from this or that evil corporation or interest group. Had Heisenberg been funded by the Nazis, would quantum mechanics not be true? If Pasteur had discovered germs as part of a study in white supremacist eugenics, would we stop pasteurizing milk? This is have a real corrosive effect on people’s view of science and understanding of the world. You want to know why more and more nitwits are refusing to have their children vaccinated? Because other nitwits have told them not to believe the science that says the vaccines are safe because that science is funded by the pharmaceutical industry. It is madness. And the AGW believers are at the cutting edge of this sort of ad homonym madness.

    At this point I think it is incumbent upon scientists to step forward and try to put a stop to this nonsense. To come forward and honestly tell the public the limits of our current knowledge regarding AGW and the need for more study. And to point out these limitations to climatolgists. The last twenty years must have been high times for them. But the party is over. If they don’t do that, the entire credibility of science is going to come into question. In one sense the stakes for this are small in some ways. AGW is really not a particularly interesting or ground breaking theory. It doesn’t call into question other more established laws of nature. But it is an enormously public theory. If it turns out to be wrong or the claims wildly exaggerated, the public, whom were almost duped out of a few trillion dollars, will not soon forget. And the next time they are told the science is settled on a particular issue, they are more likely to be skeptical and less likely to act rationally upon the information. And worse still, they will be more apt to believe the cranks and distrust real science. If you don’t believe me, look at vaccinations. Ten years ago I would never have thought or believed that large numbers of people would refuse vaccinations. Yet, that is exactly what is happening now.

    1. As posted on another thread:

      Climategate claims its first big political scalp:

      Australian conservatives have shown the way by dumping the party leader who was in favour of massive carbon taxes and replacing him with one who stated last month that AGW is “crap.”
      This makes Malcolm Turnbull, the suddenly-ex-leader of Australia’s Liberal party, the first major political victim of the Climategate furore. And his replacement Tony Abbott, the first politician to reap the benefits of the world’s growing scepticism towards ManBearPig. Of the three candidates, he was the only one committed to delaying the Australian government’s proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n…..arbon-tax/

      My thinking is that I could give two shits what people think of science now. Very good things are happening now because this scandle broke.

      1. Yes they are. This is the best and most entertaining story in years. As I said below, sometimes justice is served.

        1. Except for the fact that the media is breathlessly running the latest “White House party crashers ate crackers without a plate in the Oval Office” stories on page A1 and relegating this story to page E54.

          1. Look! Tiger Woods!

    2. While generally fears of vaccination are silly, it is quite true that pharma companies influence politicians (eg Rick Perry) into adding unnecessary vaccines to the list that kids have to have in order to attend school.

      1. Fear of coerced vaccination is healthy. Fear of outraged citizens ready, willing and able to whack supporters of compulsory vaccination is even healthier.

        1. Your right to be an incubator for measles, mumps, and rubella virus ends at my nose.

          1. all the more reason to stay away from vaccinations and thereby compromise your imuune system.

            1. [citation needed]

              and by that, I mean

              [non-quack citation needed]

          2. Shouldn’t be an issue if you’re vaccinated.

            1. Except not everyone can get vaccinated (Babies and some with certain medical conditions). And vaccinations don’t work 100% of the time.

              The most effective way of preventing these deadly diseases for these people is to vaccinate as many people as possible so they can benefit from herd immunity.

              You don’t hate babies, do you?

      2. When congress gives one company a special grant of immunity from being sued for their vaccine product, damn right I’m going to be skeptical.

        1. Caveat emptor, it is not just some fancy Latin, it is a way of life for non fools.

          1. Caveat emptor only works if you’re allowed to decide on what to buy and what not to buy.
            not to get off on a tangent here but both sides of the vaccine argument are making factual errors, most vaccines, after all, seem to work well, but I wouldn’t want to be the first one to try a new one that had been rushed through the process…

    3. “The last twenty years must have been high times for them. But the party is over. If they don’t do that, the entire credibility of science is going to come into question. ”

      This language seems vaguely familiar.

      Bailout anyone?

    4. “If Pasteur had discovered germs as part of a study in white supremacist eugenics, would we stop pasteurizing milk?”

      But, Lysenko worked for Stalin and we reject his “science” for very good reason.

      1. Most reject his science because the results did not play out as his hypotheses predicted.

    5. “Perhaps they don’t understand climate.” No one understands climate.

  11. Wasn’t the satellite data also conveniently manipulated? Supposedly this was done to account for orbital decay. After this ‘Fix’, the temperature trend went from flat to upwardly sloping.

    1. yes…and it was appropriate to fix it.

      Lots of independent work has been done on the satellite data and the whole process has been done in the open. The data is available and there are two major teams that work on it and all their analysis and metadata is available for download.

      The satellite “fix” is the in other words the exact opposite of the “hide the decline”

  12. Worst pseudo-science ever.

    At least phrenologists could measure heads.

    1. Where do the ghost hunting teams from TV rank? Above or below the head-bump guys?

      1. Above – they have more instruments. And TV shows.

        1. Well, phrenology has an album by The Roots named after it, so it’s got that.

      2. Those guys on TV are a lot more entertaining than Al Gore. Come one, life would be so much more interesting if ghosts actually existed. That ought to be worth something.

      3. At least those ghost hunters keep recordings of their work.

      4. Ghost Hunters: the fucking gayest show ever!”

        1. More gay than Glee or So You Think You Can Dance?

          1. It’s a South Park quote, John. From a recent episode. They dog on Ghost Hunters pretty hard. It’s the Chipotlaway episode.

            1. I missed that one. I haven’t watched it much in the last few years. Although I did see the Dances With Smurfs one where Cartman turns into Glenn Beck. That was in the top 10 South Parks of all time.

          2. For gayest show ever, I think it’s hard to beat Ugly Betty.

          3. If glee is gay, then I don’t want to be straight anymore..

        2. I’m partial to The Soup’s name for this show: “Scooby Douche”

    2. Even Pons and Fleischmann described their apparatus, procedures, and findings for independent review…

      The climatologists are criminals by comparison…

      1. A professor of mine spent the weekend after the P&F announcement replicating and debunking it. It was Easter weekend, IIRC, and his wife wasnt too happy with the 72 straight hours in the lab. On Monday, when some other scientists “verified” similar results, he immediately was able to call them, discuss their procedure and suggest what they had done wrong. My favorite was when one physicist said they had used device X, he told them to take it out to the parking lot and point it at the hot pavement. They called back and said, huh, we got neutrons there too.

        Those that confirmed then immediately retracted were mostly due to him.

        1. And the secret to my large body of asphalt cold fusion device remains hidden in plain site. Bwahahaha!

    3. What about the science of predicting weather using Bear Grease?

      http://www.mountainmonthly.com/beargrease.html

  13. The Goreans have never given two shits about science, they hate people and want to end civilization. Climategate isn’t going to slow them down any.

    1. Goreans? They are a little out there. But they don’t seem that bad.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gor

      To each his own preversion.

      As far as the followers of Al Gore. Yeah, once AGW has be debunked, they will just pretend it didn’t happen and find a new scam. As Russell Kirk said, no cause is ever lost because no cause is ever won.

      1. don’t bring the Tarnsmen into this…

      2. Also, leave Russell Kirk outta this. I don’t want another conservative numbnut mentioned.

        1. And you are . . .?

      3. from the Wikipedia article cited by John above:

        The Gorean humans are permitted advanced architectural and medical skills (including life extension), but are forced to remain primitive in the fields of transportation and weaponry (at approximately the level of Classical Mediterranean civilization) due to restrictions on technology imposed by the Priest-Kings. This limitation is imposed in order to ensure the safety of both the Priest-Kings as well as the other indigenous and transplanted beings on Gor, who would otherwise possibly come to harm due to humans’ belligerent tendencies.

  14. Questions three:

    Firstly: prior to these disclosures, what had the justification/reasoning been for keeping the models’ designs under wraps? How was that ever acceptable to anyone?

    2ndly) Is there some meaningful sense in which even direct temperature measurements might turn out to themselves be flawed “proxies” for real world conditions? Seems like questions of Tmin vs Tmax vs Tmean can get sliced down ad infinitum: maybe morning Tmin means one thing at some altitude, but wintertime mid-day Tmax means something else… at some point aren’t they really quibbling about the very meaning of what it means to measure temperature?

    And, finally, query C: will any of this fiasco cause Ed Begley to stop yelling/whistling through his teeth at us?

    And, lastly, question 5: who was the inspiration for the Hollywood actor that gets eaten in Crichton’s “State of Fear”?

    Query VII) Too bad Michael Crichton is not around to see this…

    1. Firstly: prior to these disclosures, what had the justification/reasoning been for keeping the models’ designs under wraps? How was that ever acceptable to anyone?

      Good question.

    2. I’m not sure what actor is especially obnoxious on the subject of climate change, but I’m liking Richard Gere or Alec Baldwin for cannibal bait.

    3. And, lastly, question 5: who was the inspiration for the Hollywood actor that gets eaten in Crichton’s “State of Fear”?

      I think Chrichton was making a dig at his buddy George Clooney there.

    4. Martin Sheen. Don’t you remember that the actor had famously played a president for several years on a popular TV show, and so thought of himself as a kind of president?

      1. I pictured some one more handsome and viral getting his cheek sliced and munched on. I pictured George Clooney, but you are right about that being a telling detail that I had forgotten.

      2. Ahh, that must be it. I don’t know why Marty never clicked for me as I was reading, but it must be him. Fucker got served

    5. If the infinite choices/infinite universes idea is correct, then Mr. Crichton is still alive to see this in one of them, and perhaps in another the story broke before the age he was when he died in this universe. For the holidays, I will take some small comfort in that.

  15. Ron Bailey took a lot of abuse on this site three or four years ago for not buying into global warming. Around the same time as George W (funny how you never see those two together…)he decided that global warming was real but the jury was still out on AGW. He’s now taking more abuse, undeservedly, only becasue he’s trying to keep an open mind.

    Rumors he was in the pocket of Big Oil neglected to say it was Olive Oil.

    1. He’s been hammered for too long by both friends and enemies. No more; let’s put these childish things aside and ease up on Bailey.

      1. Please list all your political, financial, and personal ties to “Big Bailey”.

        1. None. Absolutely none. Just a reader.

    2. > Around the same time as George W

      There’s nothing that can’t be blamed on GW, whether it’s George W, Global Warming, or God’s Will.

  16. My concern is what would we be hearing today if ten years ago, we’d implemented policy that would reduce CO2. I suspect that instead of hiding the decline, they’d be magnifying it and taking credit for proving their theory. I am so glad we did nothing of substance to reduce CO2 emissions. The media gave these guys a ton of rope and they AGW scientists have just hung themselves.

    1. Sometimes justice is served.

      http://www.google.com/hostedne…..AD9CAM0VG0

      1. What??? I don’t get to save the world???

        1. Nope. Gavin is still on the case though with those RealClimateers pressing their Ja Warrior Superman* onward and upward.

          *Really, you have got to read the New Age shit they write.

  17. But the data show rapid “natural” warming in the 1930s. Adjusting the 1940 temperature blip downward makes a better-looking trend line in support of the notion of rapidly accelerating man-made warming.

    And especially with climate science, aesthetics are more important than facts.

  18. Breaking News: Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), has stepped down temporarily while an independent review takes place.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear…..arily.html

    1. Suspended w/ pay until cleared by an ‘independent’ investigation, just like a cop, eh?

    2. What review…he fudged data…shoot him!

  19. It’s a good think for joe that he left when he did, because if he hadn’t, this would have driven him out for sure. I don’t think joe’s having a very good year. And to think of how ecstatic he was when Obama won.

    I feel terrible for him.

    1. Yeah. Joe would have been better off if McCAin would have won. He could have just lived in the fantasy world of what might have been had Obama won. As it is, he has to live in the reality of finally getting everything he wanted and watching turn to crap.

      My favorite quote from any Saint is from St. Theresa of Lisieux and it goes something like this.

      “There are more tears shed over answered prayers than over unanswered prayers”

      Joe is living that quote these days.

      1. Oscar Wilde said somehting similar along the lines of gods punishing people by granting them their wishes. I forget the exact text.

        1. May you get what you want and want what you get.

          Probably not Wilde and more like David Mamet.

          1. David Mamet?

            Wouldn’t that be,

            Get the fuck you want and get it hard, cocksucker?

            if he wrote it?

        2. God chastises us out of love, and gratifies us out of wrath.

      2. Cursed gift is a redundancy.

  20. Is the NASA satellite data that supposedly backs all this up the data Hansen generated sometime in between being caught being dead wrong (mistaking Sept for Oct numbers, misadjusting satellite data) and getting arrested protesting outside a coal mine w/ some other Greens?

  21. Maybe I just have a sick sense of humor. But I read this and laughed out loud.

    STUDY FINDS THAT OZONE HOLE REPAIR CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING AND SEA LEVEL RISE

    http://www.popsci.com/environm…..level-rise

    1. lol.

      I need funding for a study showing that Gaia cheers when you kill a Global Warmist.

    2. Just, please, shoot me.

  22. this is like the eco-fascists’ Gotterdammergun?

    Wouldn’t that be a smoking Gotterdammergun?

    1. Actually, it’s gotterdammerung.
      -5 sp

  23. STUDY FINDS THAT OZONE HOLE REPAIR CONTRIBUTES TO GLOBAL WARMING AND SEA LEVEL RISE

    This will be investigated on the new TLC reality show about the little people couple w/ 27 kids who all have tatoos, bake, and are looking for love. May as well put all of pop culture in one 30 min black hole of reality hell.

    1. If you are a midget and don’t have a reality show on TLC, you must be feel pretty damned pathetic. If you are a midget and have 8 kids and don’t have a reality show, they just must not know about you yet.

      1. I left off that they’re ghost-hunting midgets.

  24. I feel terrible for him.

    Then go give him a shoulder massage or play with his balls or something. My only regret is that he’s not around for us to constantly be rubbing his nose in the failures of everything he stood up for around here. Not that he was ever capable of feeling shame, of course.

    1. Dude, watching the contortions he would go through over everything that’s happened would be better entertainment than seeing Michael Bay eaten alive by Uwe Boll who is then eaten alive by Jared from Subway thereby returning him to his former fat weight. He has aides, you know.

      It’s just a shame we don’t have that entertainment, is all.

      1. Don’t worry. After 2012 and he can blame the world’s problems on the other side, Joe will crawl out of his whole and reappear. I give it no more than 30 days after 2012 election day.

  25. I mostly just want to know what Tony thinks about all this.

  26. Come on X, just because Global Warming has been shown to be a fraud, ACORN shown to be a fraud, Obama’s promises to end the wars and only tax the rich to be lies, and the stimulus only succeeding in generating record profits for Goldman Sachs doesn’t make this a bad year for Joe.

    He only watches MSNBC and hasn’t learned of any of this.

      1. I can post +1, but if I post +100, it’s spam. WTF?

        1. Hit & Run only allows you to award so many points at a time. It’s in the bylaws.

        2. +1 times a hundred?

        3. Plus one hundred

        4. +100

  27. I think you might be able to get a pretty good deal on a hair shirt, these days.

  28. Fuck Ron, how can we be losers when a tool of government expansion (doomsday science) is proven to be a fraud? Jesus Christ, do you really believe these academic pursuits are anything but efforts to assert more control over us. Do you have even a hint of libertarianism blood in your gullable ass?

  29. I think the real tragedy here is that we no longer talk of real, tangible things like pollution, conservation, foreign dependence on oil, strip mining, dwindling supplies of fossil fuels, etc. You don’t need to be an enviro-fascist to see all of the damage done on a trip down the NJ Turnpike from the GWB to the Newark Airport. You also don’t need to be an accountant to realize how many millions of dollars are being spent, both public and private, to clean it up. You don’t need to have a very active imagination to realize the rest of the world is destined to follow if ideas, habits and sources are not changed.

    1. The air and water in this country are cleaner than they were 40 years ago so STFU.

      1. Don’t tell me to shut the fuck up, asshole. Is the water in Kingston Tennessee cleaner than it was 40 years ago? How many millions of taxpayer dollars went into Superfund? Do you think maybe, just maybe, it would have been cheaper to dispose of all of that toxic waste properly in the first place?

        1. Go to Pittsburg or Los Angeles sometime or Detroit. You will find that they are much cleaner than they were 40 years ago.

          1. Detroit is cleaner due totally to liberalism. Liberals destroyed the city and it is going back to nature, thus it is cleaner due totally to liberals.

            1. I think you mean progressivism. True liberalism is libertarianism.

              1. Yeah too bad liberals don’t know that.

          2. Better yet, go to Donora, PA.

            1. Wouldnt it suck to be the 4th best outfielder born in Dornora PA?

              You play 3 years in the majors and you arent 1st team for your small town.

        2. Feel free to call me asshole.

          Maybe the water in Kingston Tennesee wouldn’t be poluted with spilled coal fly ash if you fucking enviors hadn’t forced a moritorium on nuke plants.

          Overall, both the water and air in the US are cleaner than they were in 1970.

          You hear about acid rain much anymore?

          1. I meant enviros.

            damn.

            1. You don’t realize the reason the air and water are cleaner is because of all the money spent to clean it up, and the Draconian regulations that have in place since the 70s. I hate the NJ-DEP. They are vicious bastards. But, my artesian well water is clean and safe because of them. It would have been nice to have avoided all of that, but nobody wanted to listen to… the scientists, until it was too late. Look, do what the fuck you want, but don’t come crying to me, and ask the scientists to fix it.

              1. I’m not asking scientists to fix a goddamn thing. I just want them to quit lying to us proles in order to secure more grant money.

              2. I thougt it was due to offshoring all the plastic factories to China so they could get polluted and not the US.

              3. “dwindling fossil fuels?”

                Are you a deluded devotee of Kuntslerian krackpotism?

        3. “Disposed of properly” by what standard? Today’s standards or those of 40 years ago? It’s quite possible that the producers of the toxic materials were fully in compliance with the laws and regulations of the time when they disposed of the materials. Yet our laws punish them anyway. That’s one of my biggest problems with environmental law. We supposedly have a clause in the Constitution prohibiting “ex post facto” laws, yet laws like Superfund are exactly that.

    2. Re: TP,

      Let’s talk about them, first:

      pollution,

      Just need well defined property rights. Done.

      [C]onservation,

      If you want something conserved, do it with YOUR money. Done.

      [F}oreign dependence on oil,

      Free up nuclear power and allow people to exploit their PRIVATE property for oil. Done.

      [S]trip mining,

      A red herring – what do you mean by “strip” and why would that a bad thing? If I mine MY mountain away, it’s MY damned mountain, not yours. You want to “conserve it”? Make me an offer or get the hell out of my face. Done.

      [D]windling supplies of fossil fuels,

      Why is this a BAD thing if you’re so worried about POLLUTION? Done.

      See how easy that was?

      1. Well defined property rights don’t mean shit when you share trillions of gallons of aqueduct with 7,000,000 other people.

        1. Well defined property rights don’t mean shit when you share trillions of gallons of aqueduct with 7,000,000 other people.

          Don’t share. The aqueduct can go to hell as far as I am concerned. I rather it becomes dust in the wind rather than a tool of the State to extort support from the people that are pusillanimously dependent on it.

          1. Now you are just being ridiculous. Get a grip. I pump my own drinking water from the water table, as does my neighbor. If my neighbor dumps arsenic in the ground, he violates my property rights because he is polluting my water supply. So what? Take him to court? Is that before or after I die?

            1. Re: TP,

              If my neighbor dumps arsenic in the ground, he violates my property rights because he is polluting my water supply. So what? Take him to court? Is that before or after I die?

              A better question to ask is: Would he put arsenic in the water knowing that he also draws water from that water table?

              I use a reverse-osmosis filter, by the way – I don’t drink the water straight.

              1. Who knows why, but it happened twice in the past 20 years in my locale, and it wasn’t from an individual, it was from a private company that really didn’t care about the drinking water, just profits.

                We really don’t need those filters here, or shouldn’t, because we have a true artesian aqueduct. Meaning the water is literally forced up through the sandy soil, which acts as a natural filter.

                1. Did you file attempted murder charges?

                  1. On who? A company? The CEO? The shareholders? The employees? The accountant? The attorney?

                    1. If there was a free market, there would be no such a thing as a corporate shield and thus the individuals involved would be accountable.

                    2. Whoever made the decision to dump arsenic into the water supply and all responsible for doing it.

        2. Bullshit, it would be co-owned like public grounds in an HoA. Everyone with access to it votes on the rules.

        3. trillions of gallons of aqueduct with 7,000,000 other people.

          I think you mean aquifer. An Aqueduct is something the Romans made.

          1. OK. how’s water table? That’s how we locals refer to it. We go swimmin’ in the sandwash. Know what a sandwash is?

      2. The bad thing about the dwindling supply is, with no back up plan, prices will go through the roof. If alternatives are phased in over time, there won’t as big of a shock. I find it interesting that the DoD has a backup plan for jet fuel. You know, just in case of war and our supplies get cut off. Defense spending has always been the best way to develop technology in this country. How do you think those fiber optic lines you are using were developed?

        Free up nuclear, I’d love to see that as an interim. But what do you say to the people of Yucca mountain?

        1. “The bad thing about the dwindling supply is, with no back up plan”

          Fucking MOVE.

          1. I don’t need to move. My state has 1500 Mega Watts of offshore wind in development using your tax dollars. Why would I want to move? It seems like you are the one that needs to move.

            1. My state has 1500 Mega Watts of offshore wind in development using your tax dollars.

              So not only do you freely admit that you are a thief, you are proud of it?

            2. What a fucking leach.

            3. Hahaha. Just fuckin with ya. Can’t you take a joke?

        2. Re: TP,

          The bad thing about the dwindling supply is, with no back up plan, prices will go through the roof.

          Do not underestimate the power of people’s profit-seeking to solve that problem.

          Remember that oil was exploited because of the dwindling supply of whale oil… And the world indeed did not go to hell because of a dwindling supply of whale oil. Same with petroleum – alternatives WILL become profitable enough to substitute or at least complement the “dwindling” supplies of oil.

          I DON’T CARE about the people at Yucca Mountain – that project was obsolete since its inception. Breeder-type reactors do away with encasing nuclear waste that way.

          1. Do not underestimate the power of people’s profit-seeking to solve that problem.

            Sure, that’s what I’m hoping for. Believe it or not, I was involved in designing a system to grow algae to convert to biodiesel. It can be done, fairly easily, but competing with cheap oil prices, and making it profitable is the difficult thing. A tax on oil, hell, eliminating the tax cuts given to the oil companies, would help to phase in the use of biodiesel from algae over time.

            1. Re: TP,

              It can be done, fairly easily, but competing with cheap oil prices, and making it profitable is the difficult thing. A tax on oil, hell, eliminating the tax cuts given to the oil companies, would help to phase in the use of biodiesel from algae over time.

              In that case you are not really worried about “dwindling oil” but about making your project profitable. The bottom line is that what I said is correct: when and if the oil starts to become more expensive due to scarcity, your project (if a viable alternative to oil) will become profitable and you can reap the billions.

              If you’re impatient and want to play the fascism game, then you can always lobby your representative to impose a tax on oil, make the REST OF US POORER in the process, just so you can reap the billions.

              1. That’s not necessarily true. Real improvements can only really be made on large scale photobioreactors. Improvements, or refinements to the system will cause prices to drop. If we can phase in a few large-scale reactors now, later, when it’s needed, the refinements will have already been made, resulting in a less drastic change in price both in construction of the facilities and production methods.

              2. No, I’m not trying to play the fascism game. I’m trying to play the mixed economy game because unfortunately, that’s what we have. If we had a free market economy, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. And if shit tasted like butter, you could spread it on your toast. But we can’t even get an audit of the Fed’s balance sheet. So, until that happens, we must play within the rules of the game; the way they are, not the way we wish them to be.

            2. Do you have a brother named Shaun?

          2. And yes, the French have designed systems that contain waste on site. Just how many breeder reactors are operating in the US? 2 or 3? Not many from what I understand. Most of my electricity comes from nukes, but we are still working on phasing in solar and wind over the next 40 or 50 years.

            1. Re: TP,

              how many breeder reactors are operating in the US?

              Actually, I think none, but that is not the fault of the technology nor is it unwillingness to invest in them – as always, it is the State tha places the restrictions.

              1. Carter got rid of the reprocessing plants because they were a security threat.

                1. Carter got rid of the reprocessing plants because they were a security threat he was sucking envirocock to get votes.

                  FIFY

        3. The bad thing about the dwindling supply is, with no back up plan, prices will go through the roof. If alternatives are phased in over time, there won’t as big of a shock.

          Actually, there’s no evidence of this claim. For this sort of price behavior, you’d need to find that the supply itself moves in the sort of binary manner you suggest. But this isn’t the case. Prices rise as supply dwindles in a fairly linear fashion.

          Of course, I can’t blame you for trying to suggest otherwise in order to push your proprietary technology.

    3. The fact that our air and water are cleaner than they were 30 years ago, while quite true, does not mean that we no longer need to worry about pollution anymore. That is just fucking stupid. The problem with all of the hype about global warming is that it distracts attention from problems like actual pollution which cause actual harm and which we can actually do something about.

      1. I don’t see anyone here advocating pollution.

  30. Scientific American sez you deniers all wrong, and its title has ‘Scientific’ in it, so eat it.

    http://www.scientificamerican……R_20091201

    http://www.scientificamerican……ate-change

    1. Just so that people do not lose sight of the underlying creepiness of the magazine that dares to call itself “Scientific”, look at this blog title:

      Is birth control the answer to environmental ills?
      The biodiversity crisis. The water crisis. The climate crisis. Lurking behind all these crises is at least one shared factor: human population

      1. How many times do the Ehrlich minions need to be proven wrong before they STFU?

  31. It’s just a shame we don’t have that entertainment, is all.

    Oh, i agree totally. It’s just, i wouldn’t feel even the slightest twinge of pity, you know?

    1. Dude, when I said I felt terrible for him, there wasn’t an iota of that which wasn’t sarcasm. It’s just that over the internet you can’t see the vicious sneer on my face as I say it.

  32. Pollution is PEOPLE!!!

  33. I work at a company which over the course of the past two or three years had put nearly all of its eggs in the “green” basket. If AGW or climate change or whatever name it’s being referred to by this week proves to be founded on shoddy and deceptive research, or worse yet proves to be a non-event, I venture that the subsequent fallout will be nothing short of disastrous for the firm. Considering how many others have moved the same direction recently, finding a multiplier by which to assess the impending damage to various economies is practically impossible. I just felt the urge to bring this up for whatever reason. Please carry on.

    1. Same here, Michael. My company has been doing lots of projects to purportedly lower their carbon footprint and get more credits in favor. The investments are quite unproductive, to put it mildly – I would certainly urge management to consider lawsuits against not only the CRU but also the EPA, whose Climate Change regulations are based on what these flim-flam artists spewed over the years.

    2. Maybe you could suggest to your bosses that they go into oil drilling.

    3. Hah! My company was wise enough to skip junk science like AGW and go for serious stuff. By which I mean helping restaurants get rid of transfat oils. That’s science you can bank on.

      Well, at least it is science where you can get legislation passed more easily.

    4. I guess life sucks when you make poor decisions. Buy a gold mine, it just hit $1200/tr oz.

  34. Where’s Chad?

    1. Hiding under links to FTP files that were just loaded back on SATURDAY that purportedly had the “raw data”.

  35. Scientific tragedy? Read the emails. It’s not scientific, it’s political; it’s not a tragedy, it’s farce. An expensive and disruptive farce, but a farce nonetheless.

  36. I find all this interesting. We seem to be running into some brick walls in areas that are massively complex–certain areas of physics, psychology, AI research, climatology, etc. It’ll be fascinating to see how we get past these walls. Until then, we’re going to learn more about how humans work in groups than we are about the respective disciplines. Groupthink seems to be a big problem in these areas, at least once funding gets attached to a research trend.

    1. It’s time traveleres from the future coming back to mess things up.

      1. That goes without saying.

    2. AI research

      I don’t think so.

      1. You’re just kissing the ass of the robot overlords.

    3. The most interesting thing in this scandal is that it seems to me that yet another old model is being upset by the way that the internet allows people to connect in ways that never were possible before.

      The biggest thing that I have seen as a software developer in the last 10 years is how the open source software movement has taken off. It is amazing to me that people who never meet in person can somehow create very good, very complex software by collaborating online.

      One of the things that open source movement has done is to create the expectation that all data should be free and open. I think that is where the CRU really ran aground here. In the old days the big folks thought they could own the data and hide it away from others. That attitude doesn’t fly anymore (especially with younger programmers). To them the data is the fuel the drives new stuff and if you hold out you are screwing everyone.

      I also think that the solutions to the complex problems you are looking for are going to be the result of crowd sourcing. Instead of one really smart guy like Newton, Einstein or Tesla figuring out something, you will see a problem solved by thousands of people.

      For example, if you decided to crowd source the AGW stuff you might find that everyone and their brother would install a temp sensor and register it online. All of this additional data could play an important role in figuring out what is going on. Again more data would be good.

      I could be completely wrong, but I still think that the internet is turning us into a hive mind that will end up being smarter than the best Ivy league cabinet member ever.

      1. You’re completely wrong 😉

        1. You sound just like my wife. The sad part is that she is always right.

      2. To be fair, you are “completely wrong”, in that spontaneous order & hive-minds aren’t the same thing. Hive minds have some overlord/queen bee controlling everything through her singular, unified master plan and the drones merely do her bidding.

        Spontaneous order is what happens when humans are free to interact with each other without the state getting in the way – and it’s worked wonders for society & markets within the internet.

  37. I wouldn’t count on this changing a damn thing. It’ll be forgotten in a few weeks. I think we’re forgetting just how many people have their egos entwined in this whole moevement. Hell, it’s a religion after all.

    1. Hell, it’s a [peer reviewed] religion after all.

      There. Fixed it.

      1. Someone used the term Climate Scientologists. I liked that.

  38. Speaking of obnoxious trolls who are no longer here, has Lonewacko been around lately? I haven’t seen him in weeks.

    1. Speaking of obnoxious trolls

      When I first read that I thought you were talking about yourself. Then when you added the who are no longer here, I assumed you meant Xeones. Because I think he’s left for the day.

      1. Epi, it’s really too bad that Lonewacko raped all the goodness out of you.

        1. And he did it when Epi was just a little boy.

  39. Michael, big oil is still running ads bragging about their climate related investments. They are going to be pretty angry if the bottom keeps falling out of the scam. I don’t see how lawsuits don’t eventually start breaking out everywhere.

    1. True, but I’d be fairly confident in guessing that “big oil” hasn’t allocated much more than, say, .001% of its total resources to promoting its “sustainability” measures. I’m talking about entire companies basing their existence on the principle.

      1. Well, if you’re thinking GE, I’d say that isn’t entirely true. They’ve also banked heavily on government assistance. My impression is that many of the other companies going “green” have done so, as well.

    2. nah…90% of it was simply good will damage control.

      They will be happy that they don’t have to waste that money anymore.

  40. I mostly just want to know what Tony thinks about all this.

    I’ll take a whack at it:

    Extremism in the Defense of Liberty Eco-Alarmism Is No Vice

  41. Dude, when I said I felt terrible for him, there wasn’t an iota of that which wasn’t sarcasm. It’s just that over the internet you can’t see the vicious sneer on my face as I say it.

    I’m normally better at online sarcasm detection, but it’s been a long week.

  42. Speaking of obnoxious trolls who are no longer here, has Lonewacko been around lately?

    Hmm, that is a ToughQuestion. And you know what to do with ToughQuestions, right?

  43. But James, I thought Big Oil and its millions were 100% against AGW research, thus proving any doubts are capitalist lies.

  44. Speaking of obnoxious trolls who are no longer here, has Lonewacko been around lately?

    He was deported.

  45. X, the last I saw of him was when I called him a child molester. He threatened legal action against me and then the thread mysteriously vanished. A mystery, indeed.

    1. The thread vanished? Really?

      1. The subthread of me replying to Lonewacko.

  46. Can someone answer these questions for me?

    1. The data in question, is it records of temperatures taken from space or temperatures taken from surface stations? The latter is collected by a large number of folks right?

    2. The temperature data is, both kinds, are not the only evidences of AGW people point to, correct?

    3. The post mentions two other “sources” of data and that they may have made the same mistakes. Mistakes in collecting the observations or recording them?

    1. Re: MNG,

      1. The data in question, is it records of temperatures taken from space or temperatures taken from surface stations?

      BOTH.

      The latter is collected by a large number of folks[,] right?

      HAS TO BE.

      2. The temperature data is, both kinds, are not the only evidences of AGW people point to, correct?

      YES, THAT’S CORRECT. THEY ALSO POINT TO MADE-UP (i.e. invented) DATA TO MODEL CLIMATE IN THE RECENT PAST.

      3. The post mentions two other “sources” of data and that they may have made the same mistakes. Mistakes in collecting the observations or recording them?

      NO, WITH THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS DONE TO “NORMALIZE” THE DATA.

      1. So is the claim that all three have made the same mistakes in “normalizing” the data?

        1. Not mistakes. There are no errors – all the data was manipulated on purpose by the flim-flam artists that some people keep labeling (with a sick sense of humor, I might add) as “scientists”.

      2. As to number 2 I was thinking of stuff like the drilled out portions of ice and sea floor that geologists use to estimate past temperatures, pollen analysis, dendroclimatology, geological measurements of glacial coverage and movements, etc.

        1. As to number 2 I was thinking of stuff like the drilled out portions of ice and sea floor that geologists use to estimate past temperatures, pollen analysis, dendroclimatology, geological measurements of glacial coverage and movements, etc.

          Yeah . . . I was thinking of that, too, until I found out THE FUCKING DATA WAS ERASED BY THESE FLIM-FLAM ARTISTS!!!

    2. MNG, here’s a good overview of some of the problems involved in taking the Earth’s temperature. Sample quote:

      Since about 1990, there has been a reduction in thermometer counts globally. In the USA, the number has dropped from 1850 at peak (in the year 1968) to 136 now (in the year 2009). As you might guess, this has presented some “issues” for our thermal quilt. But do not fear, GIStemp will fill in what it needs, guessing as needed, stretching and fabricating until it has a result.

      In Japan, no thermometers now record above 300 meters. Japan has no mountains now. For California, where we once had thermometers in the mountain snow and in the far north near Oregon; there are now 4 surviving thermometers near the beach and in the warm south. But GIStemp is sure we can use them as a fine proxy for Mount Shasta with it’s glaciers and for the snows and ice of Yosemite winters.

  47. “The best estimate that has been reported is that 90?95 percent of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same”

    I’m guessing this is because the raw data are shitloads of recorded temperature readings at various points around the globe, done by literally hundreds of different people over space and time, right?

    So, wtf is the data in question?

    1. My friend, for years, IIRC, you have bought the Goring of the truth by the Global Warming Crowd. You fell for the “scientific consensus” crapola notwithstanding a veritable plethora of contrary FACT presented to you.

      Obviously, we do not see eye to eye on everything, but I have always respected your willingness to fully examine an issue and not accept what the “experts” have to say. On this issue, not so much.

    2. My understanding is that at least some of the questions revolve around the normalization of all of that raw data to process into a global temperature index. Now, my understanding is that, in theory normalization is perfectly reasonable. Different locations use different instruments, take observations at different times of day, etc. Moreover, any given location may change over time. However, while they’ve made the normalized data available, they haven’t made the raw data they used to generate these normalized series available. As a result, even if one could aggregate all of this raw data (a very lengthy and laborious process), it would be impossible to replicate their series because of calibration questions.

  48. Warty, i was trying to imply that you should make a video inquiring as to the whereabouts of our xenophobic friend, and then upload said video to YouTube.

    But now that you mention it, yeah, weird. He seems awful sensitive about allegations of child abuse…

    1. I knowed wat you ment. I’m not as dumb as I am, Xeones.

    2. Show me on the doll where the IllegalImmigrant touched you, Lonewacko.

  49. The Great and Powerful Climate Oz
    By JOHN FUND

    ClimateGate — the controversy surrounding the leaked e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia — means not only a credibility problem for some of the world’s leading climate researchers. It also means a credibility problem for the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose latest influential report, known as the AR-4, calls evidence of global warming “unequivocal.”

    These IPCC findings are largely based on the work of CRU, whose scientists are shown in the leaked emails to have suppressed “inconvenient” data, ruthlessly excluded some scientists from peer-reviewed journals and flouted Freedom of Information laws governing public documents,

    All this might seem alarming to someone who relied on CRU studies, but not to Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC. “This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings,” he told Reuters. “The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments.”

    Never mind, too, that the University of East Anglia has admitted to discarding much of the raw temperature data on which its heavily massaged “proofs” of global warming are based. Mr. Pachauri has good reason to want to gloss over inconvenient facts. The man who joined Al Gore in sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize is too busy calling for an end to the Western lifestyle. “Today we have reached the point where consumption and people’s desire to consume has grown out of proportion,” he tells The Observer, a British newspaper.

    In the near future, he explains, car use will have to be “curbed,” hotels and restaurants will stop serving ice water, and guests will have their energy use monitored. Heavy taxes will also have to discourage people from flying and force them to take the train. Last year, he called for sharp cutbacks in meat consumption because of the greenhouse emissions livestock are responsible for.

    Mr. Pachauri says the key to realizing his ascetic vision is mobilizing young people, who “will be far more sensitive than adults, who have been corrupted by the ways we have been following for years now.” Hmm, hundreds of emails showing scientists working together to distort their findings obviously isn’t the kind of “corruption” Mr. Pachauri worries about. The real scandal is that burger and iced tea you’re about to consume.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..70260.html

    1. The man who joined Al Gore in sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize[, Rajendra Pachauri,] is too busy calling for an end to the Western lifestyle.

      If ANYBODY was asking “what was in it for the scientists”, the answer is above – they get to play the ultimate game: playing with OUR lives.

      1. Exactly. Didn’t Stalin try that?

  50. My question is what are the conditions necessary for Earth to turn into another Venus? Does anybody even have an idea where that tipping point is?

    1. We just need to move the earth 26,000,000 miles closer to the sun. Got a plan for that, chicken little?

    2. Earth has had 4 billion years to do that trick and you are worried about what we might do in the next 10 or 20?

      Oh, or were you asking about a tippling point?

  51. Does anybody even have an idea where that tipping point is?

    Well, first we have to move several million miles closer to the Sun…

    1. Damn your fast. That’s what I get for wasting time googling “the distance of Venus from the Sun (67.2M miles) recalling that the Earth is 93M miles from the Sun and then doing the math.

      1. Which gets to the heart of my question. The climate change chicken littles ,as the turkey calls them, are claiming dire results without reasonably explaining how those results can even come about, especially as noted given current solar output.

        1. I’m not a turkey. I gobble up resources as fast as I can, ergo, the name.

    2. Venus is like Venus for more reasons then simply it is closer to the sun.

      The answer could also be the earth would have to grow in mass by 20%.

      1. Venus is actually slightly less massive than Earth.

        1. And slighly less massive than her younger sister.

    3. The best argument against there being any nearby tipping point is that if there were one, we’d have gone past it during the Medieval Climate Optimum or some other period in the past that was hotter than it is now (or is projected to be in the next century).

    4. Venus’ atmosphere is also 93 times more dense than Earth’s. (And is also 95% CO2)

      How many tons of CO2 we need to dump to reach those conditions?

  52. I didn’t read every comment here, but I’d like to clear the air and interject my opinion.

    I think that those who are angry are not putting things in perspective. The idea that millions of climate scientists around the world agreed to push a theory they all knew was fake seems…unrealistic. Forget Hanlon’s Razor anyone? “Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”

    Here’s a more realistic scenario: a group of scientists react too quickly to some data that supports the warming hypothesis. Other scientists react, and quickly it embeds itself as an unassailable truth. Groupthink and confirmation bias takes over from there; thus the appearance of machination from mere human frailty. Cock-up before conspiracy folks. (I apply the same logic to the Fed’s actions, but that’s a topic for another day).

    The real losers is, as John says, us. it is mankind as a whole that suffers from dishonesty on this scale. But, let’s not complicate things here; this whole fiasco is the product, not of human deviousness, but of human weakness and bias. It is just one big cock-up. We libertarians need to drop the conspiracy mindset like a bad habit; all these screw-ups are based in sheer stupidity, not evil.

    1. Re: Tristan,

      Totally agree with you that confirmation bias got to play a big role. The anger comes from the fact that our Sage Overseers were prescribing a set of horrifying, poverty-inducing policies based on the research spewed by these flim-flam artists.

      I don’t care about some scientists screwing up. When you screw up, you say so and do it again. These flim-flam artists, these shysters, were trying to make us all poorer based on their pet project!

    2. That’s what they want you to believe.

      But no, seriously, good post. I agree with you, Band.

    3. You can call it confirmation bias. It was worse than that though. If there is one thing that comes accross in those e-mails, it is that they honestly believe in AGW and will do anything to prove it. Yes, that is confirmation bias. But it is confirmation bias on a really big scale.

      And while I might forgive the scientists involved, I don’t forget the politicians and the scientists who got involved in the political process. To wit

      “All this might seem alarming to someone who relied on CRU studies, but not to Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC. “This private communication in no way damages the credibility of the AR4 findings,” he told Reuters. “The entire report writing process of the IPCC is subjected to extensive and repeated review by experts as well as governments.” …

      “In the near future, he explains, car use will have to be “curbed,” hotels and restaurants will stop serving ice water, and guests will have their energy use monitored. Heavy taxes will also have to discourage people from flying and force them to take the train. Last year, he called for sharp cutbacks in meat consumption because of the greenhouse emissions livestock are responsible for.”

      http://online.wsj.com/article/…..70260.html

      That is not confirmation bias. That is just some authoritarian fuck head latching onto any excuse he can to control people’s lives.

      1. “In the near future, he explains, car use will have to be “curbed,” hotels and restaurants will stop serving ice water, and guests will have their energy use monitored. Heavy taxes will also have to discourage people from flying and force them to take the train. Last year, he called for sharp cutbacks in meat consumption because of the greenhouse emissions livestock are responsible for.”

        Actually, if all the politician would just STFU, that would get rid of a lot hot air.

        1. *politicians

          Ack. And I even used “preview.”

          Time to lay off the cold medicine.

    4. Greed.

  53. The idea that millions of climate scientists around the world

    There aren’t ‘millions’ of them; just a handful (the Wegman report says around 40 or so if I remember correctly).

  54. It’s no so much that we couldn’t possibly be affecting the environment detrimentally–I think we do in any number of respects–but it’s all this “consensus”, “certainty”, and faith-based science that has had my hackles up. Climatology deals with such a complex area and is so dependent on modeling that we should be hearing much more debate about what is really happening. I mean among scientists, not everyone else.

    The fact that there isn’t so much debate within the field points to something other than science going on, because the evidence–the actual, tangible, no-way-this-is-wrong evidence–simply isn’t that definitive. Especially when you focus on the scope and global effect of whatever AGW there is.

    Part of this isn’t on the science itself as much as it is on the media and those in government that have an obvious axe to grind. Follow the funding.

    I recall seeing something about how much more researcher bias can affect studies where the underlying facts are hard to understand. Maybe back when I took one of my Statistics classes in the Before Time.

    1. I recall seeing something about how much more researcher bias can affect studies where the underlying facts are hard to understand. Maybe back when I took one of my Statistics classes in the Before Time.

      This seems an intuitive observations.

      1. Please drop that last ess.

        1. Agreed, but I remember reading it or hearing it somewhere as a caution about studies that deal with hard to quantify subjects. I know I read something along those lines in a critique of research into paranormal claims.

    2. Eventually facts get settled. Some people want scientists to go on debating the central facts because some people have an agenda to slow down political progress on climate change mitigation. But scientists stopped debating the central facts decades ago because nobody could refute them. This is exactly like intelligent designers wanting the so-called debate on evolution to continue. They dress up their agenda in what sounds like nice, robustly scientific language of “continuing the debate” or “teaching the controversy,” but it’s still an agenda and not the pursuit of scientific truth.

      1. Shut the fucking god damn hell up.

      2. “But scientists stopped debating the central facts decades ago because nobody could refute them.”

        First of all, decades is a hyperbole. Second, there have been plenty of nay-sayers, meaning the debate could have continued. But it didn’t because of the momentum of the ideology. When people think everyone believes something, few people will speak up.

      3. Re: Tony,

        Some people want scientists to go on debating the central facts because some people have an agenda to slow down [the imposition of a Centrally Managed bureaucracy accountable to NO ONE, to control our very lives for] climate change mitigation.

        There. Fixed.

        This is exactly like intelligent designers wanting the so-called debate on evolution to continue.

        I have yet to find evidence of POLICY being drafted to strip away the productive results of billions of people to dole out to well-connected individuals under the guise of mitigating a crisis, done in the name of Natural Selection. Care to tell me how your nalogy works here??

        1. Um, my point was that there was definitely a religious agenda in the “intelligent design” circus and there is also one behind climate change denialism.

          Oh, and there is a crisis. It’s fascinating the lengths you will go to deny what science says is happening in favor of a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

          1. However, what’s fucking stupid about the whole thing is that the actual agenda has subsided to a degree–there are still commercial interests working here, but they can no longer with a straight face deny the central facts of the crisis. And there are bogus “green” commercial interests trying to influence the debate in their favor. But not even oil companies deny climate change is happening, after decades of acting like tobacco companies with regard to lung cancer.

            So denialism doesn’t even have enough credibility to sustain itself in the fucking oil industry. Yet you still hang on. When even the industries that used to support the crackpottery you believe have packed up yet you still believe the nonsense they used to sell, that just makes you a tool.

            1. But not even oil companies deny climate change is happening

              It is always happening.

              It just happens to be cooling right now, in spite of increasing CO2.

              In defiance of Warmist religious dogma.

              It’s been warmer when there was less CO2.

              It’s been cooler when there was 7 times as much CO2.

              Those are the facts.

              Your religion is falsified.

    3. Pro
      With all due respect, what the fuckity fuck do you know about climatology?

      It kills me when people say this “well, you know, climatology is not a mature science” or “you know it’s dependent on modelling.” I guess I “don’t know” that, and I just doubt the person making that comment does either. I mean, everyone here with an advanced degree in any science please raise your hand.

      Everyone else really has no fucking clue what they are talking about, or at least nothing convincing that anyone here should believe you know what the hell you are talking about…

      1. I just googled “Global warming is bullshit.” There are 1,590,000.00 entries. How about that consensus?

        1. I got “7,770,000 for palin stupid”

          1. “2,200,000 for global warming denial”

            1. I see your 2.2 million and raise you 12.4

              Results 1 – 10 of about 12,400,000

              http://www.google.com/search?q…..=firefox-a

      2. Ah, appeals to authority. You don’t know because you can’t know!

        I can reason. I’m also aware of the many things I don’t know. I don’t think wisdom or truth comes from simply accepting things that come out of a black box. That’s one of the reasons this scandal is problematic for the field. “Just trust us” isn’t going to fly so well.

        Psychology has some of the same problems. As do narrower areas like string theory.

        1. No, you’ve provided no evidence that there is more money given to “pro-AGW research.” As I note upthread I would have no idea what this would even mean, and neither do you I suspect. Citing the budget for green tech R&D or for government agencies which study climate is, for the reasons I pointed out, insane measures for “$ for proAGW research.”

        2. Ok, this is my latest pet peeve. Pro, do you know what the “appeal to authority fallacy” means? It means that you cannot conclude, as a matter of logic, that something is correct SOLELY because of an expert’s authority.

          However it is totally appropriate to give more weight to an expert opinion over a non-expert’s opinion.

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

          1. 1. That shifts the debate to the credibility of the supposed expert’s expertise. Which is exactly what this scandal is impugning. Ad hominem attacks ARE valid when countering appeals to authority.

            2. What AGW supporters are doing is trying to shut down debate by appealing to authority, not balancing that claim against others. Indeed, the entirety of the pro-AGW argument is based on appeals to authority. Note that opponents of intelligent design do not appeal to authority, they point to evidence and experiments where natural selection has occurred. So this really isn’t comparable.

          2. I’ve seen good science, bad science, and half-assed science. I’ve also seen appropriate and inappropriate conclusions derived from all of the above. Again, I don’t necessarily object to all of the conclusions, just the process.

            It’s like with economics–if your assumptions are flawed or biased, the whole foundation is weakened. There are definite cracks in the “Consensus” showing up. That doesn’t necessarily mean that AGW is not a problem, but it does mean that there’s a whole lot more work that needs to be done.

            If you think skepticism is inappropriate at this point of the game, let me just suggest that reasonable skepticism–which is where I’m sitting–is more akin to good science than its opposite.

            I have no dog in this fight. Even if AGW ends up being a critical problem for us to overcome, I think market-based solutions will be vastly superior to anything the government(s) will try to impose on us. In other words, it doesn’t hurt my political position or my view of economics regardless of how the science comes out.

            1. Ha! As if anyone expected you to give up your economic puritanism.

              I wish we could get beyond “is it even happening?” and talk about how the free market can fix it. Because that’s a debate I’d love to have.

              Or maybe you guys just realize that a global crisis can’t be solved by free market magic so you don’t want to have that debate.

              1. But it can be solved by a bunch of halfwit bureaucrats.

                So, I can understand why those would seem so authoritative to Tony…

                1. Because government bureaucrats are always half-witted, like a law of nature. Why do you hate the troops?

                  1. troops=/=bureaucrats (except S-1, and fuck S-1).

                  2. Troops aren’t elected.

                    1. Neither are the vast majority of government bureaucrats.

          3. that something is correct SOLELY because of an expert’s authority

            That’s true but that’s what warmist arguments amount to. They hide from debate. They declare the debate is over to avoid actual debate.

            Here’s the truth. CO2, regardless of source, might slightly increase warm trends. Sometimes. But only slightly and only sometimes. We know we’ve had more CO2 when it was cooler.

            CO2 if it plays a role at all can only possibly have a negative temperature feedback.

            Each increment of CO2 increases the T infinitesimally and each subsequent increase increases it less than the last.

            The entire warmist argument hinges on an assumption, a counter intuitive assumption, CO2 causes warming rather than vice versa.

            The entire warmist argument depends on revising data that shows CO2 deltas lag T deltas, getting rid of the dust bowl, getting rid of the MWP, and every era where it was warmer with less CO2 or cooler with more CO2.

            And there are lots.

            CO2 may have a tiny aggregate effect. May. That’s arguable. And worth study.

            But the rest? Please.

            And PLEASE ffs stop claiming this crap is science, it’s not, and it gives real science a black eye. You know where you’re right or wrong based on the data and reproducibility and experimental verification and predictive ability regardless of ‘consensus’.

            Science works. Or it doesn’t. That’s it. When you claim it does, when it doesn’t that’s religion.

      3. I can tell that quantum electro-dynamics is pretty fucking complex, and I don’t need to have a degree in it in order to say so.

        1. Er, yeah, and if it is so complex, wouldn’t you do best to take the word over experts in that field over non-experts?

          1. The problem with complex fields (especially those which do not lend themselves to testing predictions) is that it’s hard to evaluate expertise in them. The medieval astronomers who believed in the Ptolemaic system must have seemed like experts to the average person at that time — the amount of learning and memorization that was needed to understand the model was formidable, and they would have had all the right credentials from all the right universities — but the reality is they were utterly wrong about how objects in the solar system were moving.

            1. But able to make reliable predictions even though they were almost completely ignorant.

              For good enough values of reliable to keep everyone happy. So how wrong were they for the purposes at hand?

          2. Naturally. My point was that it doesn’t take knowledge in a field to recognize that it is complex, as you suggested. But to address your current point, I do take the word of climatologists; ALL of them, and there seems to be a bit of disagreement. Besides, science advances by questioning what is taken as true.

            1. Yes, a bit. A small proportion of the total of relevant scientists. That they’re in the minority is a reason to be skeptical of them, not the majority. They may be right, but most likely the majority is. Surely you proportion your belief in the matter to the evidence available to you–namely, expert opinion. Or do you take the view of the minority because… it sounds better to you? Or what?

              1. The fact that there is a dissenting opinion from the majority means the issue isn’t settled. Further, the belief that these dissenters must have in order to stand up against the majority is necessarily immense. I wonder what the ratio would be if there wasn’t such a social stigma on not believing in AGW. In response to your last question, the mind naturally believes what ‘sounds the best’. The criteria may differ from person to person. Some might think that if everybody believes something, it’s probably true (and we all do this to some degree). Others might go the opposite way for some reason. Even when strange discoveries are made (like wave-particle duality), the discoverers are usually quoted as saying something like, “I couldn’t believe it. It didn’t make any sense.” This is because their experience before the discovery would have made such a result “sound wrong”. But eventually their results convince them. I have yet to be convinced by anything I’ve read that humans are responsible for the majority of global warming. Presently, I tend to side with the minority because it fits in well with the rest of what I believe. It sounds better. We all do it. Even scientists. That’s just how things work. That said, there is no reason to have any sort of certainty about anything, and part of what puts me off AGW is the absolute certainty its followers have, and the moral smugness that follows. Not that that’s the entirety of why I don’t buy into it, but it’s disgusting enough to keep me doubting.

                1. So do we have to wait to do anything policy-wise until there’s not a single dissenter left? Would that work in any other field?

                  You can’t rely on heart-warming stories of lone dissenters discovering something that bucks the consensus. Of course that happens, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily happening here. If all you have to rely on to form an opinion is what the experts are saying, then it’s illogical to trust the dissenters over the (large) majority of experts. Even if they are smug or mean.

                  1. True, but this changes the discussion a little. If we waited around for certainty before we did anything, nothing would ever happen. I agree. Personally, I do believe in global warming, but not that humans are responsible for the majority of it. This is FAR from being proved satifactorily, from what I’ve read, and should have little place in policy. The problem is that this is what the policy debate seems to be primarily based on. Look at what happened to the Superfreakonomics guys when they suggested that we actively try to counter the effects of global warming instead of basing all policy on the notion that it is all our fault, and thus we must limit our ‘carbon footprint’ or whatever. The policy debate seems to have been highjacked by the same ideology that the majority of climate science has. This is how it appears to me, however, and I’m far from an expert on anything. But to support something simply because most people do is cowardice. You seem to suggest this is what I should do:
                    “If all you have to rely on to form an opinion is what the experts are saying, then it’s illogical to trust the dissenters over the (large) majority of experts. Even if they are smug or mean. ”
                    Expert opinion is never at the base of one’s beliefs. It would be nice, but that’s just not how the mind works. It grows and makes assumptions, conclusions, etc, all the while staying somewhat consistent with itself. Expert opinion might sway a belief, however. But approaching the topic from my particular perspective, what I see is a bunch of lemmings jumping off the same cliff. In more than just this are of my life, when I see religious fervor and absolute dogma I tend to turn the other way, or at least shy-off for a time until I can be convinced. I’m not convinced yet. Lots of people are, sure, but this proves nothing but the same observation that sheep love to be surrounded by wool.

          3. Which experts?

            The ones we know use fraudulent research, fudge data, and toss out data that doesn’t fit their prejudice? The ones whose budgets depend on them claiming what the government pays them to claim?

            Or the other ones?

  55. No mention of the, arguably much more damning, finds in the source code?

  56. I damn the source code, too.

  57. Next, we’ll probably find out that the thermometers used by these AGW clowns were the rectal type.

  58. It’s not like the 1940’s blip wasn’t already adjusted downward once before. I superimposed the global surface temperature from the IPCC 2000 and 2007 reports for your viewing pleasure:

    http://i116.photobucket.com/al…..urface.jpg

  59. Please, everyone knows programmers always litter their code with comments like “this code sucks”, “this data sucks”, “I’m just making data up”, and “I sure hope nobody ever sees these comments or we will all go to jail for lying”. Check the source code for TurboTax sometime and see the programmer laugh at what he’s doing to your tax return.

    Not.

    1. The programmer isn’t doing half of what I’D like to do to my tax return. But if I got my own ‘druthers, I’d only keep my own money. The programmer gets some of mine! So I have to give respect where due.

  60. I’ve always thought it strange that just as technology advanced to give us satellite readings on global temperatures, we discovered the globe is heating up and it’s, oh my god, unprecedented!

  61. “Follow the funding.”

    It’s just madness to think the global warming consensus is some product of lopsided funding. Think about all of the major industries who are against anything like cap and trade or a carbon tax etc., These companies fund assloads of studies. You don’t think there is a financial incentive to discover and report credible evidence the consensus is wrong? That’s crazy.

    1. Where do most of the dollars for scientific research come from? Especially in areas without direct technical applications?

      1. I mean, shit, it’s this little fact that keeps getting thrown in the face of libertarians when we advocate taking government out of research. I think that conflates what is happening with what could (and should) be happening, but that’s another argument.

        1. What fucking motive does government have to promote false science in this matter? Because it’s irrepressibly prone to evil conspiracies and expanding its own power? Sheesh if the way to do that was promoting fake climate change science why didn’t the Bush administration think of it? They tried everything else.

          If you’re so fucking cynical with regard to government yet can’t even articulate a coherent motive other than a nefarious need to seize more power, then how can you ignore the very obvious motives of the world’s biggest industries whose central products are being threatened with extinction?

          1. Are you really serious? I mean, you can’t be serious???

            1. Read his “why do you hate the troops?” argument above.

              He’s *that* fucking stupid.

              1. At least I’m not so stupid I take it on faith that “government bureaucrats” en masse are totally incompetent. (Except a few selected ones of course like the troops.)

                1. It’s not that government bureaucrats are incompetent en masse. I once worked for the Federal government, and my wife still does.

                  The issue is, the bureaucrat is subject to the same human strivings as anyone else. He wants to succeed, get paid more, have his organization be respected, and all the rest.

                  Integrated over all the bureaucrats in the government, this striving automatically results in the increase in government power.

                  Two things cause this to be dangerous WRT government. One, the funding keeps coming in regardless of performance (generally). Two, every government endeavor eventually has a gun at its disposal to implement its agenda.

          2. Why can’t people get it through their heads that BOTH kinds of funding (government/corporate) can cause serious conflict of interest problems, and that while that does not automatically discredit the work produced by said funding, it should cause a very careful scrutiny of it.

            Both kinds of funding are the same: a certain preferred outcome increases the funders’ power/prestige/reputation/opportunity for growth.

            Government tyranny doesn’t come about because some technocrat is sitting at his desk plotting how to become our overlord. But, he certainly is plotting how to advance his career, make his division get more projects/funding etc. In the process he gets more power.

            That’s why I fear government funding more than corporate funding. The government will eventually use a gun to “improve” my behavior for the benefit of my “children”. Corporations, no matter how big, just don’t have that power.

          3. Power corrupts. That’s not some mere truism. Our government and other governments have entirely too much power. In our system, political motives drive the vast majority of decision making.

            Did you say the same thing when the GOP was calling the shots?

            Do you think hyperbole adds or subtracts from your argument? Frankly, I don’t get why people who make the extraordinary claims that you do–the apocalyptic stuff has virtually no actual science behind it, incidentally–don’t understand the need for extraordinary evidence.

  62. Totally agreeded that data and models should be open to public inspection.

    That being said, I very much doubt that we will have certainty either way. So people will still have to accept the fact that we must make decisions in the face of uncerainty.

    Thus common sense steps to reduce the risks associated with the possiblity of climate change will still most likely be necessary.

    1. Kroneborge: But isn’t the best way to reduce risks to create more wealth and better technologies as fast as possible instead of slowing the global economy down with higher energy prices? Just asking.

      1. Yes and no. I think creating more wealth and better technology is for sure the way to go. But I also think that it’s important to send the long term singals in regards to energy prices.

        For example, our economy is very much exposed to high oil prices. The era of cheap oil is over, and as global growth resumes oil is heading back way up. Therefore phasing in a higher (net zero) gas tax would provide the market and consumers the right singnals to prepare for much higher fuel costs.

        Other gains would be made from less money on healthcare costs like asthma etc.

        So yes keep the overal tax burden low, but shift taxes from labor to carbon. Also keep investing in tech.

      2. From another perspective, aren’t slightly higher energy prices a small price to pay to protect coastal cities from going underwater? Just asking.

        1. Again, are you serious???

          1. When someone like Tony says “slightly higher”, they mean “it’s gonna fuck the poor with prices and taxes that they can’t ever hope to pay”.

            Then, just pass the hat to “the wealthy”, and make THEM pay all the bills.

            AGW is just another way to destroy capitalism. Period.

            1. You don’t give a fuck about poor people you’re just using them as props.

              Poor people will suffer the most IF what climate change science says is happening is happening and nothing is done to mitigate it.

              What evidence do we have that balancing the market in favor of green energy (put another way, making polluting energy industries pay for the damage they’ve done to our collective environment) will cause the sky to fall and everyone to be poor?

              Who’s the fucking alarmist now. You could get your stupid talking points directly from Exxon and nobody could tell the difference.

        2. That is the most asinine result of global warming possible, though Tony. None of our goddamn cities are going to be underwater.

          It sometimes seems like you want people to take you seriously, but you make wild assertions with absolutely dick-all for support behind them!

          And the answer anyway, is NO!

          Because we’re not talking about “slightly higher” energy prices, we’re talking about “significantly higher” prices of energy – which will result in significantly higher prices of ALL goods, you fucking twat!

          EVERY good uses energy to produce, so even if it was only a few cents more, that magnified across the global economy is ENORMOUS. And as a result, prices for food, clothing, housing, computers, cars, trains… YOU NAME IT… Will go up.

          And exactly how do you expect people to pay for all this? Do you think that somehow, people around the world who are truly poor now (i.e. *not* Americans) and for whom high local energy prices are already a severe problem are going to just magically be able to afford higher costs?

          I’ll clue you in on the answer Tony… It’s NO. They won’t, they will instead starve to death.

          You selfish mother fucker.

  63. It’s just madness to think the global warming consensus is some product of lopsided funding. Think about all of the major industries who are against anything like cap and trade or a carbon tax etc., These companies fund assloads of studies. You don’t think there is a financial incentive to discover and report credible evidence the consensus is wrong? That’s crazy.

    We’ve already posted articles from the WSJ talking about how much actual $$ goes to pro-AGW research vs. anti. The financial questions are settled. Quit being a denier.

    1. Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called?without irony?the climate change “consensus.”

      To read some of the press accounts of these gifts?amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon’s 2008 profits of $45 billion?you might think you’d hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

      Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data?facts that were laid bare by last week’s disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

      But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists’ follow-the-money methods right back at them.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/…..05490.html

      1. Scientists everywhere all the time try to “massage” the peer reviewed process. Luckily there are numerous peer reviewed outlets and it would be pretty impossible to “manipulate” them all.

        Everyone here who has been part of the peer review process for anything raise your hand?

        Everyone else, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, right?

        1. My hand is up.

          1. Ok, so you’ve been part of the process. As a reviewer? Editor? Submitter?

            I’ve been a reviewer and a submitter of research, social science for the record, so I might not know about how it works in the hard sciences. But it’s common for co-authors to discuss how to “massage” their data so it looks more impressive for reviewers and editors. Of course, reviewers and editors know these tricks and try to be wary of them. It’s a back and forth thing, and it involves dozens of people usually.

            Is your experience different?

            1. But it’s common for co-authors to discuss how to “massage” their data so it looks more impressive for reviewers and editors.

              Noooo, not the Climate Change priests! That is calumny! They are above reproach, they are more than mere mortals – they hold the Truth in their hands, not to be questioned by the ignorant masses! How DARE you incinuate they could “massage” the data so it looks good?

            2. Social Science is not science. It is conjecture.

            3. I agree. People “massage” data all the time in order to produce clear results. If you have ever made a graph, you have “massaged” data.

              I have been both a reviewer and a submitter, many times. Some close colleagues of mine are editors, and I know what they go through.

              Peer review only gets stronger as you move up the scientific food chain. The process of getting a paper into Nature or Science is as demanding as anything on earth. The whole Climate Progress scandal only proves that peer review can fail, especially in crappy low-ranked journals.

        2. Loving the continued appeals to authority, MNG. As a submitter of research in the semi-hard science of math, not a referee (yet), I may be allowed to have an opinion. First, I will mention that a not insignificant amount of bullshit gets published, even in real, refereed journals. It’s generally minor mistakes, but just as in other areas of life, you can’t count on the right people being in charge.

          Also, how many reputable journals of climatology are there? I don’t think it would take that many people to corrupt the peer-review process at most of them. The problem conspiracy theories usually run aground on is that you’d expect any sizable conspiracy to have trouble keeping secrets — but here it looks like this group of folks couldn’t keep their secret.

        3. Hey, I’ve done that. As some here are aware, I was an academic in a past life. NSF-funded, research foundation-owned, the whole business.

          1. I was a speaker at a ACS conference in Las Vegas some time ago. I should’ve warned them about mixing their politics with their science.

        4. MNG! We are going to go skip in some dandelion patches and then jump from the cliffs of Dover. Come on, join us! Everybody is doing it!

  64. I mean, do you mean there are more funding opportunities for research with pro vs.anti GW findings? I doubt that because any proper funding should not establish the findings as a prereq of funding (you know, like the AEI grants a year or two back for anti GW research). So do you mean that pro GW research recieved more funding than anti? More overall, well duh there is a lot more research finding pro results. Or more “per study?” What would that even mean?

    1. From the WSJ article:

      Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.

      1. More:

        Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

        Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California?apparently not feeling bankrupt enough?devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

        And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”?largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes?of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

        1. NINETY-FOUR FUCKING BILLION JUST THIS YEAR.

          pwnd

        2. It’s insane to lump in all research on “green technology/energy” as “funding for pro-AGW” research. That’s like saying that I can include the R&D budgets of every fossil fuel selling, refining, etc., company as evidence of “funding for anti-GW” research.

          1. And what drives the money to “green technology/energy”? Altruism?

            1. I dunno, what drives the money to fossil fuel R&D? What in the world is your point?

            2. Record oil prices are also a factor. There was a ton of spending on most of what we now call “green energy” back in the 70s, before the global warming moment took hold.

              1. Stop praying to your market gods. High prices affecting people seeking alternatives–wherever do you get such ideas?

              2. Er, exactly. People poor money into “greentech” R&D for the same reason they poor money into fossil fuel R&D: they hope to make money on their investment.

                So we are clear now that the amount of money invested into greentech does not equal “$ for pro-AGW research.”

          2. Similarly, listing something like the NOAA’s budget for “climate research” is no evidence that this is funding “for pro-AGW” research. Research is usually not tied to the results of the freaking research.

            Sheesh.

            1. Well it sure was at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

              1. Well, you don’t even know this. The facts are consistent with this going doing like this: researchers are convinced in AGW BECAUSE of their research and expertise, and then they try to have as much research as possible come out to reflect that. In other words their bias towards AGW probably did not originate from SocialistFantasies but from their expertise, and then their confirmation bias went to work on later stuff.

                1. How many non-socialists are biased towards AGW?

                  1. Hilarious. Look, it’s hardly suprising that people opposed to government intervention are’nt happy about the prospect that there is a natural phenomena that may induce people to want the government to intervene. What IS remarkable is that so many scientists from so many varied organizations, disciplines and backgrounds AGREE on AGW.

            2. Now you’re on drugs. Virtually ever dollar that comes out of the government is spent with some sort of political purpose in mind. Whether it’s spent on roads, art, research, porn, space exploration, whatever.

              1. MNG doesn’t understand that government should and MUST have limits. His kind believes government should be able to do anything they want… especially when there’s a “crisis”.

  65. This just goes to show that faith in “science” is unreasonable and not the product of rational thought.

    1. +1

    2. Nothing in human life is the product of rational thought. Can you rationally justify your decision to eat and drink during the past few weeks? I know I sure as hell can’t.

      1. Maybe I’m not getting your point. Eating and drinking maintains my body — my property. How is deciding to maintain one’s property so it can provide ongoing value irrational?

  66. My usual public service when these discussions come up: the following professional scientific organizations have issued statements agreeing with AGW along the lines of the IPCC:

    International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
    American Geophysical Union
    European Federation of Geologists
    Geological Society of America
    American Meteorological Society
    Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
    American Quaternary Association
    International Union for Quaternary Research
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American Statistical Association

    Yeah guys, the collective memberships of the major professional organizations of geologists, statiticians, atronomers, etc., are all just involved in a SocialistHoax or don’t know what they are talking about. I mean, geology isn’t a mature science, right? Astronomers, what do they know, it’s all modelling, right?

    1. ibid.

    2. What the hell is the American Quarterly Association?

      And why would anybody care that an association of geologists agree? Didn’t the AGW defenders say many times that only CLIMATE scientists could even dare to talk about the science?

      1. What MNG fails to state is that just because the organization accepts the junk science does not mean that all, or most, of its members do.

        How about this from S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist:

        Despite its flamboyant title, The Great Global Warming Swindle is based on sound science and interviews with real climate scientists, including me. An Inconvenient Truth, on the ohter hand, is mostly an emotional presentation from one politician.”

        1. No, it just means that the issuing bodies of all of these organizations, which are elected by the members, accept it.

          1. I once heard of an organization with millions of members across the world that accepted the theory, espoused by their elected members, on immaculate conception. Since the argument is the same, then I guess that theory was true as well – fact by popularity, or Ad Populum argument.

            1. Except for this analogy to work you’d have to think that the expertise of any practicing Catholic=the expertise of the members of the leading professional science organizations of pretty much every hard science in the nation.

              Fail.

      2. It’s American Quaternary Association. You can’t spell, or spot this little detail, yet we should think you got the science on this correct when all these experts got it wrong?

        Sheesh.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..ssociation

        “Didn’t the AGW defenders say many times that only CLIMATE scientists could even dare to talk about the science?

        Er, no I’ve never heard that. I mean, why would they say that when every major scientific organization agrees with them anyways?

        1. Re: MNG,

          Maybe you have not realized it, but I don’t really give a rat’s ass which associations agree with the flim-flam artists, especially since embarrasment would be too much to bear right now for all these gullible dolts. So no, I did not care to spell it correctly.

          Er, no I’ve never heard that.

          I have never say YOU did. I said the AGW defenders.

          I mean, why would they say that when every major scientific organization agrees with them anyways?

          Because when the skeptics allude to rebuttals from PHYSICISTS, GEOLOGISTS, CHEMISTS, they (the AGW affirmers) alwayds counterted with “Are they CLIMATE scientists? No? Then shut the f… up! The science is settled!.”

          Or words to that effect.

          1. But all of the major professional organizations of PHYSICISTS, GEOLOGISTS, CHEMISTS etc., AGREE with them.

            I mean, just for common sense’s sake, knowing that, why in the world would they give the response you quote?

            I think that shit is in your head dude.

            As to your first point, yea, all of these thousands of scientists represented by these groups are “guillible idiots” but you are not. Now wtf is more likely?

            1. Re: MNG,

              But all of the major professional organizations of PHYSICISTS, GEOLOGISTS, CHEMISTS etc., AGREE with them.

              And? Argumentum Ad Populum?

              I mean, just for common sense’s sake, knowing that, why in the world would they give the response you quote?

              I have no idea, MNG. I can ask Ed Begley, Jr. when I see him.

              As to your first point, yea, all of these thousands of scientists represented by these groups are “guillible idiots” but you are not. Now wtf is more likely?

              It is more likely these guys were taken to the back seat by a highly attractive theory with many social engineering possibilities, and now that the shit hit the fan, will not have the guts now to say “we were wrong.”

              1. You don’t understand what an Argument Ad Pop is. That gen ed course at don’t cut it I’m afraid.

                That something is generally popular does not make it true. And that a majority of people with legitimate expertise in a field think x about a subject within their expertise does not in itself make it conclusively true, but as a matter of informal logic it is an acceptable and VERY powerful argument that x is true.

            2. My brother is a post-doc chemist. He doesn’t know shit about the climate beyond whether or not to put on a sweater.

    3. Then again, you have the over 31,000 American scientists, including over 9000 PHDs who signed the petition stating that AGW was CRAP.

      http://www.oism.org/pproject/

      1. Just use your common sense: these people must represent a rather small or at least minority position if they could not sway the major professional organizations of their field.

        1. Yep – since Climategate clearly reveals that the fix was in.

          Why did UEA just suspend the head of CRU – pending investigation>

          Why is Penn State investigating this Mann guy?

          Why did one of the other climate scientists at UEA just say : “It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”?

          http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes……more-11377

          1. But, if the “fix is in” then how come this climate scientist you quote made this critical remark based on this new evidence? Maybe it was never much of a “fix”, eh?

        2. First, appeals to authority.

          Now, appeals to common sense.

          You do know these are contradictory?

      2. 31000 out of how many?

        How were they vetted?

        What are their credentials?

        Thanks for your time,

        Chad

        Btw, the term “scientist” is normally reserved for people with PhDs, and occasionally people with only BS or MS degrees, but with exceptional track records.

        1. That’s horseshit, Chad, there are thousands of researchers all over the world with MS’ who would legitimately be called scientists. Not everyone has an interest in getting a Ph.D you understand, many people like to just leave the lab and go out and do field research.

          Regardless – one of the cool things about science is that it’s just a process. One which is relatively easy to understand and which is not out of reach for anyone with decent reasoning skills and the ability to gather information. Formal education helps – or can help – like it does in most fields, but that doesn’t mean that people who weren’t formally educated in the topic are incapable of doing the work.

    4. You know how many psychological organizations issued statements saying that homosexuality is a form of mental illness back in the day?

      Oh yeah — NOW, in 2009, we have finally come to the point where herd mentality and cultural bias doesn’t affect the opinions of scientists and groups thereof.

      1. Yes, it’s much like the “new professionalism” among law enforcement personnel. Professionals and experts of all stripes just keep getting better and more ethical as time goes on. Exponentially, even.

  67. But the real tragedy of the Climategate scandal is that a lack of confidence in climate data will seriously impair mankind’s ability to assess and react properly to a potentially huge problem.

    How do you know it is a potentially huge problem when the data used to label it a problem are fake?

  68. The “raw data” are craploads of temperature measurements made over space and time for decades. I think the question is did the three organizations mentioned above “normalize” that data using faulty assumptions. Is that right?

    And as I’ve noted above I’ve heard of many points of data referred to in support of AGW other than surface (weather station and ship) and satellite temperature measurements.

  69. As far as I’m aware Exxon etc are no longer climate change deniers (although they were big funders in the past).

    Whether that’s because they have changed their minds, or just don’t want to look bad I can’t say.

    1. It’s the latter. I work in the energy indudtry.

    2. It could be the Exxon has done their business calcuations and figured that they stand to make even more money if the Warmists have their way.

      I understand there was a boardroom fight at DuPont over whether to fight the banning of Freon. The Dupont scientists said the science behind the ban was bad, however the bean counters figured that Dupont stood to make more money the ban was put in place. It does not make a difference to DuPont what refrigerant they sell.

      1. actually, if the conspiracy theory is to be believed, since Dupont’s patent on Freon had run out banning it would be a splendid idea, since then everyone would have to pay Dupont to use whatever new refrigerant Dupont was selling.

  70. Nice backflip MNG. You first assert that there’s so much more money available to anti-AGW research, then when we point out the facts that say otherwise, you immediately switch to saying that’s proof you’re right (since nobody would fund flat-earth research).

    Nicely done. Lets hear from the judges:

    The Russian Judge: 9.5
    The French Judge: 9.5
    The American Judge: 9.0
    The Canadian Judge: 9.0

    Congrats MNG, you’ve gotten a combined score of 9.25. Awesome gymnastics.

    1. I haven’t seen you produce any evidence that “pro-AGW” research gets “more funding”, or any evidence that you have a coherent idea of what in the world that would mean.

      1. Someone else already linked the WSJ article I mentioned just below your earlier post. Go have someone read it to you.

    2. I’m really impressed with his flat pad shuffle maneuver, ‘how much rhetoric can I spew before I have to address an actual fact, or look something up’, it is a lazy number he has concocted to be sure, but look how he works it!

      Something to mull over, Mr MNG, what do you make of this?

      ;
      ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
      ;
      yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
      valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
      2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
      if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
      ;
      yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

      In your world judging from your dodges, I believe it is called SCIENCE!

  71. So if Christy’s analysis is correct, much of the global warming in East Africa reported by the three official data sets is exaggerated.

    No, he’s not saying it’s exaggerated, he’s saying it’s not due to carbon dioxide at all, but rather urbanization, farms replacing forests, and whatnot — things that aren’t a crisis at all.

    1. Deforestation is not a good thing…

      1. Deforesting land to make farms is not a runaway process, it is a reversible process, as the reforestation of the U.S. has shown.

        And it is a good thing for the people who get food from the farms who would otherwise starve.

  72. It’s funny how few people in the libertarian community understand how science works. It works almost exactly like the idealized free market.

    Scientists compete with each other all the time. This competition drives forward knowledge (just as competition in the market drives forward both the quality of the product and the quality of life for the consumer). It also helps to KEEP AWAY the fraud. Just imagine how much clout in the scientific community a scientist would have if she could disprove (with real evidence, not just mindless denial) human-influenced climate change. She would be a rock star (to other climatologists). Sure, there would be a few die hards holding on to their ideology, which is a danger in any science. It’s not a danger that’s as frequent as many lay people believe it to be though. Most scientists are willing to give up their cherished hypotheses if they see strong evidence for a different one!

    It always disappoints me though when I see people deny some scientific theory just because it doesn’t mesh with their ideology (be it political, religious, philosophical, etc.). I would also like to stress that just because a person accepts the evidence for human-influenced climate change, it DOES NOT mean that he supports the political and economic decisions most commonly proposed to lower such influence.

    I think carbon taxes and cap and trade are incredibly ridiculous, but that’s no reason to ignore the scientific process and the results of it.

    1. Re: Jeremy,

      Massaging inconvenient data, systematically denying skeptics the opportunity to publish, destruction of raw data – those are NOT examples of competition in the sciences, but of bullshit artists trying to sell snake oil to gullible audiences.

      1. Anyone who has been involved in the peer review process knows these are fairly common things.

        They’re not defensible, but they are so not catastrophic frauds or something. Editors and reviewers know about such shenanigans.

        1. Re: MNG,

          They’re not defensible, but they are so not catastrophic frauds or something. Editors and reviewers know about such shenanigans.

          Sure. I mean, they were the ones that broke the story . . . Oh, no, they didn’t.

          When will you accept that the reviewers and editors were in cahoots with the flim-flam artists?

        2. “common things”? Involved in peer review from the submitting and reviewing side – those are most certainly not common. Destruction of raw data? No way. Massaging data? Depends on the definition of massaging – emphasizing certain aspects of a data set that support your result and/or positing errors or alternative explanations for data that don’t – sure; Making shit up? No way. Systematically denying skeptics… that one is a bit more likely to happen, both in the allocation of resources and in whether they get published or not.
          -K

        3. It’s common to say things like this?

          “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

          I sure hope this isn’t “a fairly common thing”!

          1. How the hell can that be “taken out of context” as the AGW supporters say it was?

  73. Actually, replacing a tax on labor with a tax on carbon sounds like a GREAT idea to me.

    If for no other reason then it will get our economy ready for $200 a barrel oil. Plus clean help clean up our air etc saving billions on healthcare costs.

  74. Ah, the National Center for Policy Analysis, one kick ass organization that should have gotten my hundred bucks instead of Ron Bailey’s employer. Nice that Exxon sent them some scraps, but their capitulation to the greens has me searching for smaller corporations to buy my gas from.

    1. Searching? Any luck? I think there are only five companies that operate refineries in this country. That’s part of the problem, there are no smaller companies. Where’s anarcho-capitalism when you need it?

  75. I think the scientific process does work, even in climatology. The cracks in the process caused by certain biases and by the politicized funding of certain positions are beginning to show up. That’s good.

    I’m hardly taking a position on whether AGW is a real issue or not. I’m just concerned about the current process. I don’t know how many times we have to witness the abuse of the scientific process over the short term (I think it tends to wash out over time) before we maybe are entitled to some skepticism.

  76. Pro, are they fucking with my protest with that time stamp?

    1. Why yes, yes they are.

      I wouldn’t take that sort of oppression if I were you.

  77. Yeah, big boys with reason should buy the proposition that scientists are less likely to engage in fraud. deceit and rent seeking.

    What a crock of defecation!

    Are we forgetting the institutional propensity for fraud by the global warming crowd? The IPCC? Remember 1996? The IPCC’s deliberate exclusion of the concerns expressed by hundreds of scientists who did not buy the global warming non-sense and who contended that there was not a shred of evidence to support the proposition that there is such a thing as man made global warming? Read James M. Sheehan’s July, 1996 article regarding the “editing” by favored IPCC “scientists” the results of which were to delete the objections of scientists who did not accept the man made global warming myth.

    1. Even one of the scientists at CRU agrees with you – Mike Hulme – climate scientist at EAU

      “The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.”

      http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes……more-11377
      NOTE – scroll to bottom of page

      1. johnboy: Did you notice I quoted the same statement by Hulme? But thanks for the link.

  78. Free up nuclear, I’d love to see that as an interim. But what do you say to the people of Yucca mountain?

    Offer them so much money to dispose of waste there that if they turn it down, someone else will take your offer.

    That might make nuclear less competitive, but if it can’t compete after accounting for waste disposal, then we shouldn’t do nuclear.

    1. Interesting. Sort of like how residents of Alaska get money from the oil companies? But then there’s complaints (not that I agree with them) about transporting the waste to Yucca Mountain. Everyone within 20 miles of the train tracks is going to have something to say, and have.

      I remember people in Chicago that were worried about exactly that. All railroads go through Chicago. How about using some of that stimlus (not a typo) money to build new tracks? The gov. can use eminent domain to seize the land necessary.

      Don’t ask me where I’m going with this. Just babbling.

      1. Y’ever see the Penn & Teller: Bullshit episode on the “Energy Crisis”?

        You should…

  79. If threaded comments are so freaking great, why do so many major websites refuse to use them? I miss you J sub D.

    1. That sounds a lot like the whiners who proclaim that if national health care is so bad, then why does every other civilized nation have it?

  80. The worst part of this scandal is that it makes me confront the sad fact that we have not been visited by aliens.

    I sure wish they had, but I have to admit that if they had the documents/e-mails related to their visit would have been leaked onto the internet.

    I don’t think you can really have any decent secret anymore given the fact that you can simply upload data to a public ftp server and within seconds about a bazillion people have downloaded it to their computers.

    You can’t get piss out of the pool.

    The next time you see Mulder running around with a thumb drive with evidence that Cancer Man is behind the alien/human hybrids you should just start chanting “CRU, CRU, CRU” because in reality there is no need for the thumb drive. All he needs to do is pop into the nearest coffee shop and upload the file.

  81. Re: MNG,

    My usual public service when these discussions come up: the following professional scientific organizations have issued statements agreeing with AGW along the lines of the IPCC

    It is plausible that these associations accept the findings of the CRU and the IPCC reports because they trust their colleagues were acting in an objective, unpassionate manner. In other words, scientists are susceptible to be fooled just like everybody else.

    1. Just for the record, organizations of scientists making statements is not science.

      1. Thread fucking winner, Pro.

      2. I think as to what better constitutes science I trust the pronouncements of major professional organizations of scientists over the pronouncements of posters on a libertarian blog or libertarian think tanks…

      3. I think as to what better constitutes science I trust the pronouncements of major professional organizations of scientists over the pronouncements of posters on a libertarian blog or libertarian think tanks…

        1. Aren’t you, in fact, a commenter on a libertarian blog?

  82. My prediction:
    They will turn over the “raw data”, and nobody will be able to duplicate their adjustments, figure out what in the raw data was used and what wasn’t etc. This failure will be spun as “we gave them the raw data and they were unable to prove us wrong”. Bloggers will accept that to avoid the public shame of being associated with Glen Beck, since AGW is believed by “all the right people”, and this scandal will disappear.

    1. I don’t think it will disappear that easily – if scientists that trusted these flim-flam artists but still ahve a shred of ethical and scientific standards find out their were suckered into beieving their research, they will show no mercy.

      The true believers will be relegated to the pages of Cold Fusion magazine, where I am sure MNG will be blogging.

      1. Wait a second. Why is Cold Fusion being maligned like this?

        I love writing code for Adobe’s Cold Fusion server. It is a great platform to develop web applications on.

        There is absolutely no reason to conflate AGW with a great product like Cold Fusion.

    2. Don’t know about that. These AGW clowns have made a lot of enemies and they’ll smell blood in the water.

  83. This could be solved easily, by thoroughly reviewing the data and the models, using the recommendations drawn from critics and skeptics, and try to come up with objective results. If it happens that the newly analysed data does NOT show AGW, then it should be said and move on to better things.

    The fact is that the AGW proponents have staked too much with their support, and will not simply accept (being the human beings they are) that what they held as reality is not so. This is why not one, not ONE of the true believers has had the guts to say “We need to review this”. The urgnt calls to do this has come mainly from the skeptic side and from the few scientists that were convinced but are ethical enough and love science enough to find the scandal very troubling. The Climate Change believers are simply dismissing the scandal as a fabrication, an exaggeration, or simply a “misunderstanding” of how science works. Indeed, some scientists with high credentials have gone to say that “this is how science works”(!!). The thought that what they believed is wrong is so frightful for them, that they will go to the extreme of defending the undefendible, defaming the skeptical and negating reality.

  84. In an email response to me, climatologist Pielke Sr., argues, “I completely support the view that the computer software [of climate models] must be available for scrutiny by independent scientists. Otherwise these models should not be used in climate assessment reports.” Only through such transparency can other researchers determine whether or not climate models are adequate forecasters of future climate change or are merely prejudices made plausible.

    This has been one of my primary issues all along. If the main argument for a position is “we have sophisticated computer models that show…..”, then that code better be open to review by others. I think too many people still look at computers the way they did in “War Games” (old movie reference), and believe that computers come to conclusions all on their own. When in reality the climate models predict warming because they were told to predict warming. The basic fact is no matter how complicated the software may be, in the end, computers simply do what they are told.

    1. Damn submit buttong next to the preview button.

      Continuing

      This in and of itself does not mean that the predictions of warming are fraudulent or inaccurate. But without the ability of others to see and review what they were to told to do, then the results should be treated with a high degree of skepticism. Which after 30 years of working with computers and the crap people have told computer to do, I can guarantee you I have in spades.

    2. The vast majority of this data IS available…and despite lots of you crackpots looking at it, you have turned up pretty much nothing.

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

      1. I was discussing source code for the climate models not data. If you fail to understand the difference then it makes any further discussion pointless.

  85. This could be solved easily, by thoroughly reviewing the data and the models

    WE DON’T HAVE TIME!!! THE WORLD IS ABOUT TO END!!!! EEEEEKKKKK!!!!

  86. AGW = Flat Earthers

  87. “The more benign interpretation of what has been going on in climate change science is that as the man-made global warming narrative took hold among climatologists, research that confirmed the dominant paradigm had a much easier time getting through the peer review process. Meanwhile research that contradicted the paradigm was subject to much greater scrutiny and thus had a harder time making it through the peer review sieve. Scientists are human too and not free from confirmation bias.”

    We knew that already, but having to admit it makes the people who were using “scientific consensus” as a killer argument in the debates about global warming look awfully shabby.

  88. The difference between me and the Consensusers is that I can be persuaded to alter my position, based on good science. Nothing will change their position. Well, nothing but global ridicule if it turns out they’re completely and obviously wrong. Which I don’t think is the case, but who knows?

    1. Pro
      You’re usually reasonable but this is nuts. By definition the Consensusers can easily have their opinions changed: when the consensus changes. It’s reasonable for people to rely on the consensus of experts in a field they are not themselves expert in. For myself I defer to these scientific organizations. I trust that if the truth is otherwise they will eventually go there, and if they do I say great. As a union supporter it would be fantastic if there is no AGW.

      On the other hand libertarians admittedly start with not wanting there to be anything the government needs to intervene on, so they are the ones whose minds you are not going to change.

      1. By definition the Consensusers can easily have their opinions changed: when the consensus changes.

        What about the Consensusers who are part of the consensus?

      2. Hey, I want the government to intervene when it has to. For instance, when Canada invades, I’d like the U.S. military to stop the tundric menace.

        There is nothing–nothing!–showing that acting before we have real proof of anything catastrophic is necessary. It’s easy to say this is too important not to act on, but don’t you think some real proof of that is needed before we take draconian measures? What’s the difference between what you’re advocating and, say, invading Iraq on questionable evidence?

  89. A balanced article – I would have gone harder at the CRU – but what really intrigues me is how long it has taken for Reason to get on this story. It’s a website…you could have been all over this days ago. Why?

    1. Bailey has had several post up on Climategate over the past two weeks. I don’t agree with his conclusions in this article (this scandal has made me look further into the science than I ever had before, and what I took for granted as correct on the AGW side seems to be falling apart — just one intriguing instance, The March of the Thermometers

      http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2…..arm-globe/), but Bailey hasn’t been derelict in his scientific duty, nor has he ignored the issue.

    2. James, they were all over this days ago — at least from the standpoint of H&R posts.

    3. JamesF: Well, there have been quite a few blogposts by me on the site about Climategate. And two, I was waiting to see what else might turn up; not just cite the same nasty emails that everyone else was citing. And third, I needed time to do some reporting rather than jumping to conclusions. And fourth, it was over freaking Thanksgiving! 🙂

  90. Ron: A challenge.

    Please tell me what SCIENCE you learned from these e-mails.

    The honest answer is none, and you know it. Indeed, the actual science we learned that weekend was devastating to the deniers, as a new paper confirmed that the GRACE satellites are measuring accelerating ice loss in West Antarctica, and even more worrysome, significant ice loss in the much larger East Anarctica.

    So while you guys are whining in minor political responses to the hardcore political attacks of the skeptics, or the loss of 30 year old strip recorder charts, the whole darned planet is melting. This whole issue is a tempest in a teacup, and only the whackjobs that wouldn’t believe in AGW if God himself came down and commanded them to even noticed.

    1. Re: Chad,

      So while you guys are whining in minor political responses to the hardcore political attacks of the skeptics, or the loss of 30 year old strip recorder charts, the whole darned planet is melting.

      Indeed – I mean, the CRU said it is so, it must be true… what if they were lying about their models and data? They are to be trusted.

      Really, Chad along with the FTP “raw data” files that were uploaded just last Saturday, what you said here takes the cake.

      1. Data. What about those four letters exceeds your ability to comprehend.

        There is a mountain of data out there..virtually everything from CRU, and everything from NASA, for example. You nutjobs have been digging through it for years and have found nothing of consequence. Now you all believe that the secret magic nugget you were looking for just MUST have been hidden in some 30 year old magnetic tapes that got tossed after sitting for decades in a closet somewhere.

        What new DATA was revealed? DATA. DATA. DATA.

        1. Gee, Chad, look here unless you don’t find NASA to be a credible source:

          http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear…..71001.html

          I remember the alarmist screaming that accompanied this event, and they blamed it on global warming. NASA, whom you indicate to be a credible source, said other wise:


          The scientists observed less perennial ice cover in March 2007 than ever before, with the thick ice confined to the Arctic Ocean north of Canada. Consequently, the Arctic Ocean was dominated by thinner seasonal ice that melts faster. This ice is more easily compressed and responds more quickly to being pushed out of the Arctic by winds. Those thinner seasonal ice conditions facilitated the ice loss, leading to this year’s record low amount of total Arctic sea ice.

          Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

          “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.

          Wind and unusual atmospheric positions not attributed to warming. NASA, that hotbed of skepticism.

          Oh, and that story does have a happy ending brought to you once more by NASA!

          http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a…..20×240.mpg

          1. You nutjobs have been digging through it for years and have found nothing of consequence. Now you all believe that the secret magic nugget you were looking for just MUST have been hidden in some 30 year old magnetic tapes that got tossed after sitting for decades in a closet somewhere.

            What new DATA was revealed? DATA. DATA. DATA.

            Got a little foam around the edges of your mouth, uhm, rational, reality based person. avoid full moons, okay?

            1. 99% of the data is out there, not that you would know, because you have never looked.

    2. Thanks for bringing that matter up, Chad.

      http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282549

      The significance of this information is that it comes from the GRACE satellites, gravity measuring satellites. Mass movements affect gravity, which they can measure to quantify ice loss.
      This study by professor Jianli Chen of the University of Texas also found that in a previous inter-glacial period called the Eemian, global temperatures were 6C higher than today, with CO2 levels roughly the same. The Eemian temperature was also 3C above previous estimates.
      The glacial/interglacial periods are regular events, occurring every 100,000 years in recent history. The inference from studies is that the current period is the beginning of the end of an interglacial period.
      The problem is that at the end of the Eemian, sea levels were 5 metres higher than they are now.

      So, pray-tell, if correct, what will cutting back carbon emissions do to avert this naturally occurring problem?

      1. Yep, a 100,000 year cycle just happend to start up three years ago…Must be a coincidence.

        1. And btw, what PHYSICAL PHENOMENON does this cycle represent. Natural variation is not magic.

          1. Yep, a 100,000 year cycle just happend to start up three years ago…Must be a coincidence.

            Take it up with the team doing the study you were so breathlessly alarmed about if you don’t like their conclusions.

            And btw, what PHYSICAL PHENOMENON does this cycle represent. Natural variation is not magic.

            Ha! ha! ha! I see, skeptics believe in magic. Funny, I don’t think the world is ending tomorrow or the phenomenon reported here will be significant for some time, but I’m the nutjog because I don’t accept some alternative Book of Revelations.

            From the work they are doing, and the fact warming wasn’t mentioned (note ‘since the beginning of the century’ where there is a lack of a warming trend), I would suspect it something of which the scientist are not sure, but the satellites may help in defining (I know, that answer is obvious, but you asked the question). Look in to that acronym and what do you see? Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment.

            Here is some info to help you:

            http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grac…..ary07.html

            Orbiting 310 miles above Earth, the tandem satellites take advantage of Newton’s law that objects receive a stronger gravitational tug from more massive objects. The satellites sense the slightest changes in gravitational pull from different planetary features, including craters deep below the Antarctic ice or the seafloor displacement that activated the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004.

            Bet you thought its only purpose was to be a big totem in the sky warning of global warming.

  91. Everyone here who has been part of the peer review process for anything raise your hand?

    ::thrusts whole arm in the air:: Ooh! Ooh! Ooh!

    * Submitter in my own right and as part of half a dozen large collaborations.

    * Internal reviewer on most of those before we sent the paper to the journal.

    Does that mean I get to play?

    1. So you’ve submitted. Good. When you did, did you accentuate the “stronger” points of your findings (that which made it seem more of a finding, as opposed to non-finding?). If you did you should know everyone does this. And as someone who has been a reviewer and knows some editors (mind you in a different field) I can say you can trust that they know about such things, and how to address it. And if they don’t and it sneaks by and gets published, no big deal as there are literally hundreds of papers published on any given topic before something becomes a consensus and only a fool would base their views on one or two studies…

  92. Apropo of my perception of a degree of wide ranging attack on “science” rather than some very bad behavior and consequently very suspect “results”.

    Something that I think has gotten lost in the (deserved) excitement here is that all[*] cutting edge science is complicated and hard—if it wasn’t someone would already have done it.

    [*] Except when a new field is just opening up, which is a special moment in time when you can get good papers on the cheap. See all the excitement about chaos in the 80s. Folks from damn near every discipline were getting in on the act. Grand fun.

    Climatology done right would also have a slew of mysterious seeming correction and subtle selection procedures to be applied. Because the data is complicated. One difference is that these things would be explained, and the detractors would
    know those explanations and would have to use considerable technical verbiage to explain why they think this approach was not as good as their approach. Another is that it wouldn’t take years to get a promise to make the data available—though the original collectors might want to hold onto it until they publish—because access to the data is assumed. Still another is that most scientific debate doesn’t take place on the political stage or in section A of the paper; it happens in the pages of journals, on the floors of conferences and especially at the cocktail parties and receptions after the talks.

    So how can you, as an interested layman, tell the difference? Good question. If you figure it out, you should tell someone.

  93. I take it hard when a position I support loses credibility due to evidence of extraordinary bias, fraud, etc. in something that supports my position. It’s certainly happened to me before. Yet here we see people with strong political positions ignoring this because it doesn’t support what they want to believe. You can say “Yes, but” and maintain credibility, but to deny the problem and the implications that stem from it, well, you’re selling some of your credibility, too.

  94. I can tell that quantum electro-dynamics is pretty fucking complex, and I don’t need to have a degree in it in order to say so.

    Sure.

    But it is the most precisely tested, most perfectly consistent, and always supported piece of fuckwittery every to grace this sorry globe.

    I triumph of the highest order, and absolutely the most correct scientific theory going.

    1. Hell.

      …A triumph of the highest order…

  95. Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia and their colleagues around the globe may have fiddled with historical climate data and possibly the peer review process to ensure that publicized temperature trends fit the narrative of man-made global warming?then they emailed each other about it.

    I can’t tell which part you think is worse.

  96. Re: MNG,

    I think as to what better constitutes science I trust the pronouncements of major professional organizations of scientists over the pronouncements of posters on a libertarian blog or libertarian think tanks…

    I wholeheartedly agree – I mean, when it comes to immaculate conception, I take the word of the true experts over a skeptics blog. Same logic, same argument. Right on, bro.

  97. Lemme see if I can put this thing in a nutshell:

    Jones, Mann, et al., practice paleoclimatology; that is, the statistical reconstruction of historic climate records. Their approach works something like this —

    let y = a time series of observed global temperature records. Unfortunately this time series only goes back 100-150 years or so, a blip on geological time scale. To figure out if there is any sort of significant millenial trend, the series needs to go much farther back, to 1000 years or so. Great grampa Ogg was too busy avoiding plague infested rats to write down the temperature, so we need to figure it out from “proxy variables,” like measurements on annually striated phenomena like tree rings, ice core samples and so on. so…

    let x = a time series array of proxy variables.

    Great! Now the proxy variable records will get us back 1000 years… but they are expressed in measures of tree ring width, band coloration, ice density, etc., not in temperature. And contrary to popular belief there isn’t a physical law or textbook formula that converts these proxy measures into temperature. To do this Mann, et al., use a statistical approach —

    1. perform a Principle Components Analysis (PCA) of the proxy variables. PCA is a standard statistical technique for linearly transforming/ reducing a set of raw correlated variables (X1-Xn) into a set of variables called Principle Components (PC1-PCn) which retain the information in the original data. The PCs are orthogonal (uncorrelated) with one another.

    2. Next, Mann et al. regressed the 100 years or so of observed temperatures against the proxy variable principle components:

    y = b0 + b1*PC1 + b2*PC2 + … + e

    the regression coefficients estimated from recent data were then applied to the older proxy PCs to obtain retrospective “backcasts” or “hindcasts” of the temperatures in 1015, 1016,… 1850.

    Voila! The Mann et al. statistical model resulted in the now infamous hockey stick, showing a radical increase in global temperatures in recent years versus the relatively flat milenial variation. This was in large part the basis for the IPCC report.

    The initial controversy about this result was raised by MacIntyre and McKittrick (MM) who noted the backcasts of Mann’s reconstructed temperatures didn’t reproduce the amplitude of the Medieval “warm period” or the subsequent “little ice age” that previous research had estimated. That previous work suggested that the recent uptick in temperatures in no big whoop compare to previous decades in the past 1000 years, but Mann’s result showed it off the charts. They published a couple papers suggesting the result was an artifact of Mann’s selection of a time frame for extracting principle components (see step 1 above), which artificially suppressed the variation in the temperature backcasts. This is likely what the CRU emails were talking about when they referred to “Michael’s Nature trick.” This artifact explanation was largely confirmed by George Mason U statistician EJ Wegman (methods editor for JASA), who blistered Mann’s model in a 2006 report commissioned by the Congressional Energy & Commerce committee. Amusingly, Wegman showed that replacing Mann’s principle components estimates with repeated samples of random white noise continued to produce the same hockey stick shape.

    Now here’s where the fun begins. MacIntyre and McKittrick wanted to follow up on their research, and asked Mann and Jones for their source data. This is where M&J started stonewalling to the point where M&M made FOIA requests, which were ignored. The emails give some sense of how desperately the CRU group wanted to avoid providing it. Why? Because, I suspect (and seems obvious from the “harry_read_me.txt” programmer’s notes), the basic observed temperature variables — the linchpin of truth in Mann’s model — are hopelessly, utterly corrupted.

    Now, if you’ve been following this, Mann’s entire reconstruction method rests on knowing (observing) recent periodic global temperatures, y. Quibbling about principle components aside, that’s the dependent variable in the backcasts. But as is now becoming increasingly plain, y was constructed from an undocumented process that took raw ground station data and ran it through a black box that included smoothing, filtering, inference, manipulation, baling wire, glue and the juice of one whole lemon. This is what the CRU people are calling “valued added homogenized data.” Or what normal people call “made up horseshit.” It’s also the temperature data that dozens, if not hundreds of AGW studies are based on.

    In the last few days, the ECU has cynically offered to “share the data,” but what they are offering to share is this numerical sausage. What they won’t share is the source code for their computational raw data meatgrinder, which I suspect is a treasure trove of numerical shenanigans.

    1. Thanks for the summary

    2. The funny thing, these temperature reconstructions are IRRELEVANT.

      Let’s say that tomorrow, convincing evidence is brought forth proving that it was hotter in the Medivial Warming Period, or some other time since the last ice age (of course, no such evidence exists…multiple lines of data indicate that it was warm but not as warm as today).

      SO WHAT?

      What can we conclude from this? That “natural variablity” exists? We already know that. However, “natural variability” is not magic, and not voodoo. If it was warmer in the past, there was a reason…a real physical change in the world. What was it? In principle, we would eventually be able to figure this out. But what relevance would it have today?

      If this mysterious “natural” cause is happening today, where is it? Why can no one find it, despite lots of people looking. Lots of “natural” hypothesis have been proposed, but none pan out. Now, it is POSSIBLE some hidden “natural” cause exists, just like it is possible that there is a unicorn in my closet. But that doesn’t imply it is likely, let alone likely enough to bet my only planet on.

      Indeed, one could argue just the opposite of the deniers intent: Stronger “natural” variability implies that AGW is more dangerous, because “natural” varibility could compound the problem. Additionally, stronger “natural” varibility implies that the climate is less stable and that positive feedbacks are powerful. In contrast, a highly stable past climate would indicate that negative feedbacks dominate and could handle the pertubation due to AGW.

      1. Let’s say that tomorrow, convincing evidence is brought forth proving that it was hotter in the Medivial Warming Period, or some other time since the last ice age (of course, no such evidence exists…multiple lines of data indicate that it was warm but not as warm as today).

        SO WHAT?

        No tipping point. Yayyyy!!!!

        1. Not at all. The natural variation plus AGW could possibly reach a tipping point that natural variation alone could not.

          1. And I could possibly go to Hell if I don’t pay the priest an indulgence. In either case it is theory based on nothing that has ever been observed.

            Just a little thought exercise. Tiny tiny, probably not even fit for your brain, but indulge me:

            What analogy better describes the Earth’s natural cycles?

            A) Earth has been placed in a freezer for a few millennium. She is taken out of the freezer, and then put in a stove to heat up.

            B)Earth has been placed in a freezer for a few millennium. She is taken out of the freezer and placed on the kitchen counter to thaw.

            How you interpret those feedbacks effecting the natural cycle depend greatly on the underlying concept. Given there is only one heat constant in this scenario, I would go with the one that squares with the laws of physics.

            Also, to those of you who know Chad better than I do, if you took a look at the post that preceded this one, with the hedges and hypotheticals, is this the first time Chad has expressed uncertainty on a matter pertaining to global warming?

            Congrats, Chad, you are now a skeptic!

            1. Neither of your analogies is remotely correct.

              This is certainly not the first time I have expressed uncertainty. That is why I can claim the moniker of “skeptic”, unlike the deniers, who are utterly unskeptical about the thin crackpot data that supports their arguments. If they applied one billionth the skepticism they are applying to HADCRU to the crap they get from WUWW or climateaudit, they would be alarmists in an instant.

              1. Wasn’t asking about accuracy, Chad, and you know it.

                1. But good to know you don’t think factories belching out CO2 are the equivalent of warming the earth up, since you did just state you reject both models.

                  This is certainly not the first time I have expressed uncertainty.

                  I know you think you are winsome and wonderful in all things, I was asking them who are familiar with you.

                  1. I have made that uncertainty argument here at least fifty times over the last few years…because it is right.

                    You just hate that because it knocks down one of your straw men.

                    1. (With a deep Gore-esque presidential debate sigh) Once again, I was asking others for an assessment of how you deal with uncertainty in the science.

                      Perhaps, MNG is the only one dumb enough to be absolutely certain of the science being settled by a consensus of authoritative opinion, and you are much more open minded than that, indeed, I have seen some evidence to support that in some of your post.

      2. Chad,
        If the CRU people did what it appears that they did, then eveything they every touched (just touched) is forever tainted and has to be done over before any conclusions can be drawn.

        That is the real tragedy here: all the wasted effort, time, money, and intellectual effort. All the lost credibility for the honest toiler in the field of discovery.

        They’ve stolen that from the rest of us. Bastards.

        And if you’ve been on their side and still feel that their position is justified you have exactly two choices: 1) buckle down and get to work transparently repeating their efforts or 2) STFU and wait.

        Really. That is the cost of a scientific fraud: when it is discovered (and it will be) it’ll put you position back by decades or more.

        1. And it WILL be done over, and nothing of consequence will change. This data has been analyzed, re-analyzed, and analyzed again repeatedly. Indeed, I don’t think any paper in the history of mankind has been over-analyzed as much as Mann98…only to find that is more or less right but maybe the error bars are a bit bigger.

          And yes, some 30 year old strip recordings are long gone. Get over it. That is true of most of the data from those types of formats, collected by anyone anywhere. Is it theoretically possible that there was some systematic error in transfering that data to modern formats? Yes. Is it at all likely? Not even remotely.

          Let’s ignore CRU data. The alternative, NASA GISS, is even worse for you guys. Is that really what you want?

            1. The only “problem” I see is a lack of thermometers…nothing a few nice grants couldn’t solve.

              1. But if thermometers disappear from colder areas, you can’t really rely on the “global” “warming” reported by the remaining ones, can you?

                1. Umm, I think NASA is smart enough to realize that if at first you had one thermometer in Germany, and later you had one in Germany and one in say, Iraq, that the world did not magically get a lot warmer the day the second thermometer was installed.

                  1. I would certainly hope so, but the data shows this phenomonen to be an unaccounted factor:

                    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2…..arm-globe/

                    The March of the Thermometers

                    Year, and 20 degree latitude bands, south to north. Thermometer years.
                    SP ? South Pole
                    SC ? Southern Cold
                    ST ? Southern Temperate
                    SW ? Southern Warm
                    EQ ? Equator
                    NW ? Northern Warm
                    NT ? Northern Temperate
                    NC ? Northern Cold
                    NP ? North Pole

                    SP SC ST SW EQ NW NT NC NP
                    DecadeLat: 1709 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
                    DecadeLat: 1719 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
                    DecadeLat: 1729 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
                    DecadeLat: 1739 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
                    DecadeLat: 1749 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
                    DecadeLat: 1759 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0
                    DecadeLat: 1769 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 10 0
                    DecadeLat: 1779 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 14 0
                    DecadeLat: 1789 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 0
                    DecadeLat: 1799 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 16 0
                    DecadeLat: 1809 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 20 0
                    DecadeLat: 1819 0 0 0 0 0 1 32 28 0
                    DecadeLat: 1829 0 0 0 0 0 2 54 48 0
                    DecadeLat: 1839 0 0 0 0 0 4 74 72 0
                    DecadeLat: 1849 0 0 1 0 2 6 93 82 1
                    DecadeLat: 1859 0 0 3 0 2 11 137 92 2
                    DecadeLat: 1869 0 0 15 0 3 7 173 103 1
                    DecadeLat: 1879 0 0 27 2 15 20 336 110 2
                    DecadeLat: 1889 0 0 44 10 18 48 624 184 3
                    DecadeLat: 1899 0 2 57 26 31 87 1175 309 3
                    DecadeLat: 1909 0 9 111 61 44 133 1510 382 5
                    DecadeLat: 1919 0 11 174 124 57 160 1789 479 8
                    DecadeLat: 1929 0 11 187 145 66 212 1961 545 16
                    DecadeLat: 1939 0 13 220 180 91 304 2156 713 26
                    DecadeLat: 1949 0 20 261 259 116 407 2412 887 37
                    DecadeLat: 1959 9 43 347 453 421 1010 3417 1249 80
                    DecadeLat: 1969 32 68 466 650 729 1310 4121 1511 105
                    DecadeLat: 1979 34 85 580 747 661 1269 4204 1511 103
                    DecadeLat: 1989 25 68 495 605 452 916 3805 1307 82
                    DecadeLat: 1999 9 32 212 250 224 429 2128 314 27
                    DecadeLat: 2009 7 20 102 132 159 316 1339 241 17

                    Fascinating little chart, isn’t it? AGW proceeds at a pace directly correlated with the southern march of the thermometers?

                    Now the later steps of GIStemp may try valiantly to remove this fundamental bias in the recorded history of thermometers, but it’s just going to get swamped. Yeah, I need to prove it in annoying detail, and I will, but this is just amazing to see. Especially when you remember that we showed that the stable thermometer records show NO warming?
                    (I’ve already demonstrated that the ‘temperature steps’ of GIStemp are an amplifier, so they will make this worse, not better)

                    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2…..s-of-heat/

                    Now, you must not believe everything you read on the web, a lot of things you have stated tonight sure are doozies, for instance, but the data is there to recreate if you so choose to rebut it.

                    1. No, the data only shows they are installing more thermometers in the south, and losing some in the north. It doesn’t show that this is not accounted for in their grid-based model.

                      Most of the old thermometers were in the middle northern latitudes…where the rich people were. Hardly a surprise.

                    2. Yeah! Fuck the rich people!

                      You are so predictable, Comrade Chad.

                  2. Umm, I think NASA is smart enough to realize

                    In the past I’d have said that the world’s preeminent climate scientists would be too smart to throw away raw data, fudge computer models, and try to subvert the peer review process.

          1. And it WILL be done over, and nothing of consequence will change.

            You are way too confident. There is not a chance in hell that they will be able to reproduce their results unless they bring in Michael Bellisiles to work on the plumbing.

          2. Let’s ignore CRU data. The alternative, NASA GISS, is even worse for you guys. Is that really what you want?

            The ‘esteemed’ Phil Jones was not impressed.

            http://www.eastangliaemails.co…..850534.txt

            Tom,
            Agreed that NCDC must have some data gaps – but this isn’t very clear from the web
            site.
            GISS is inferior – not just because it doesn’t use back data. They also impose some
            urbanization adjustment which is based on population/night lights which I don’t think is
            very good. Their gridding also smooths things out. Plotting all three together for land
            only though they look similar at decadal timescales. GISS does have less year-to-year
            variability – when I last looked.
            I assume NCDC should add the back data in – although there isn’t the need if infilling
            is going on OK.
            I’ve never looked to see if NCDC changes from year to year.
            I think you can say that GISS is inferior to CRUTEM3. In Ch 3 of AR4 I put the station
            number counts in.
            GISS and NCDC have more, but almost all of this is more data in the US. Their non-use of a
            base period (GISS using something very odd and NCDC first differences) means they can use
            very short series that we can’t (as they don’t have base periods) but with short series it
            is impossible to assess for homogeneity. So some of their extra series may be very short ones as well.

            1. Minor quibbles. There are good arguments for either data set over the other, but the differences are trivial. Yes, Jones is aware of them.

      3. of course, no such evidence exists…multiple lines of data indicate that it was warm but not as warm as today

        It’s in the historical record, Chad: they were growing grapes in Scotland, for example. And it was accepted wisdom in the climate community before the CRU folks started rewriting the past. See this graph from the first IPCC report in 1990.

        what relevance would it have today?

        Not just no (nearby) tipping point, as pointed out above, but it casts doubt on the predictions of doom: if it was several degrees warmer than now a thousand years ago, and Florida/Manhattan/Bangladesh/etc. weren’t under water, why expect them to be under water if the temperature gets a few degrees hotter than it is now?

        Finally, your worries are based on the assumption that human-caused increases in CO2 are going to cause a dangerous amount of warming. As it turns out, there’s much more controversy about that assumption than the AGW camp has let on. Even the founder of the CRU had doubts about it.

        It also seems inarguable that projected increases in CO2 alone won’t cause a catastrophe. The predictions of doom are based on computer models of CO2 interaction with other factors. But how much faith are you willing to put, right now, on the AGW computer models of Mann and the CRU and company? Me: not much.

        I’m not saying do nothing, but it is amusing (as pointed out elsewhere) that environmentalists have been claiming we need to abandon fossil fuels because greenhouse gases will inevitably cause a global catastrophe, but when anyone brings up nuclear power, they claim it’s “too dangerous.” More dangerous than an inevitable global catastrophe?

        1. It’s in the historical record, Chad: they were growing grapes in Scotland, for example.

          People are growing grapes in Scotland NOW, silly goose.

          Not just no (nearby) tipping point, as pointed out above

          Not at all. We don’t know for sure (indeed, it is likely not to be the case) that it was warmer any time in the recent past. And if “natural” warming and AGW can compound, we could reach a tipping point that natural variability could not reach on its own.

          but it casts doubt on the predictions of doom: if it was several degrees warmer than now a thousand years ago, and Florida/Manhattan/Bangladesh/etc. weren’t under water

          That’s a tremendously big “if”. There is little evidence of such. Rather, the evidence indicates that it was probably slightly cooler, and even if it were warmer, only marginally so.

          why expect them to be under water if the temperature gets a few degrees hotter than it is now?

          The fact that some of the ice that is melting now is as old as the last ice age is pretty good evidence that it HASN’T been hotter since.

          As it turns out, there’s much more controversy about that assumption than the AGW camp has let on.

          Really? This argument was laid to rest in the 50’s. Even Lindzen conceded it today in his WSJ article. CO2 absords IR light, and is not saturated at all points at its current concentrations. It IS saturated at the center of its main absorption peak, but the sides of this peak, as well as other minor peaks, continue to absorb as concentration rises.

          It also seems inarguable that projected increases in CO2 alone won’t cause a catastrophe.

          Agreed. However, unless you can stop ice from melting and water from evaporating when temperatures rise, you have two positive feedbacks which are inevitable.

          The predictions of doom are based on computer models of CO2 interaction with other factors.

          Actually, the water vapor feedback was calculated by hand back in the 1800s. It is pretty basic stuff.

          But how much faith are you willing to put, right now, on the AGW computer models of Mann and the CRU and company? Me: not much.

          If there weren’t dozens of other models saying the same thing, your argument might have a tiny bit of validity.

          environmentalists have been claiming we need to abandon fossil fuels because greenhouse gases will inevitably cause a global catastrophe

          Citation, please. You are straw-manning. We claim there is potential for catastrophe, but it will likely just be really bad. It might even turn out to be much ado about nothing. Given the odds, you act.

          but when anyone brings up nuclear power, they claim it’s “too dangerous.

          You are stuck in the 60s, dude. Most environmentalists (and virtually all the smart ones) moved on ages ago. I am all for (subsidy-free) nukes.

          1. The most recent pro-AGW report (that I’m aware of) is predicting a 6C temperature increase this century, causing a sea level rise of up to six meters. You’re saying that environmentalists consider that scenario just “really bad” but not a “catastrophe”? I thought they considered that much sea level rise a catastrophe.

            As for nukes, please point me to the official pro-nuke statements from Greenpeace and the other big environmentalist groups. Or would you say they are out of sync with their members on this issue?

            1. I don’t bank on the worst report. The average prediction is still more like 3-4C, which would indeed be “just really bad”. 6C would probably qualify as a catastrophe, and the paper which you cite does indicate that catastrophe is becoming more likely. So is an all out apocalypse, for that matter.

  98. There are a number of reponses to the Climategate documents that imply that there is no issue – i.e. “move along people, there’s nothing to see here”.

    However, what these apologists don’t answer is this question:

    If the Climate Science is “unequivocal” in nature and there is a huge consensus supporting it, then why did the East Anglia CRU spend so much effort on:

    a) data and email deletion
    b) avoiding the UK Freedom of Information Act
    c) intimidating science journal editors
    d) persecuting dissenting scientists
    e) subverting the peer review process
    f) instructing programmers to build models with a forgone conclusion

    The only explanation for these actions are that these influential scientists did not feel secure enough about the pure models and data.

    Instead, they used “strong arm” tactics to manufacture a consensus.

    Climate Science – definitely not your father’s science!

    p.s. – BTW, what really happened to the original raw data CRU?

    1. a) data and email deletion

      A vain attempt to avoid feeding trolls like you.

      b) avoiding the UK Freedom of Information Act

      See above.

      c) intimidating science journal editors

      The editor (not editors) who was “intimidated” clearly violated any scientific ethics whatsoever when he sheparded a politically-motivated paper through peer review. What happened at Climate Progress was a scientific travesty. The response was completely appropriate.

      d) persecuting dissenting scientists

      Persecution? Examples, please? Smacking down their arguments is not a form of persecution.

      e) subverting the peer review process

      Umm, that would be you guys…the whole “Climate Progress” debacle was created when denialists conspired to get a garbage argument published. It is not the first time crackpots of various flavors have attempted this tactic.

      f) instructing programmers to build models with a forgone conclusion

      Citation, please.

      And the “orginal raw data” was a bunch of 30+ year old strip chart recordings, magnetic tapes, etc. Yes, people throw this crap out after it sits in a back closet untouched for decades.

      1. a) data and email deletion

        A vain attempt to avoid feeding trolls like you.

        And a criminal act, but hey, what does that matter when you’re sure you’re saving the planet?

        1. Yeah, it’s right up there with jaywalking and speeding. They might even get a petty fine.

          1. And I’m sure you’ll apply the same standard the next time some lefties pester a corporation or government agency with an FOIA request.

            1. To my knowledge, Bush et al didn’t even get a jaywalking level citation.

      2. Fuck off and die, Chad, you disingenuous little shit. These fucks were trying to squash dissent, stifle contrary opinions, and they were using billions in state-funded grants to help them do so. And you haven’t been reading if you haven’t seen the computer programmers attempts to massage their bullshit data into more “acceptable” results.

        Real scientists have the courage to keep their data open, to deal with those who disagree – if for no other reason than the dissenters may point out a slightly different path. Darwin used to take notes of any fact that seemed to militate against evolution – because he was concerned about science, not forcing his opinion (and any policy implications) on others.

        These assholes were frauds. If a health insurance agency did this kind of shit, I can’t imagine the fucking whining that would belch forth from you, so shut the fuck up until you get the balls to admit that their fraud was wrong.

        1. The ends justify the means when it comes to spoon-feeding the public with verbal lobotomy material.

        2. Nice rant, saved me the effort.

          The hubris of these ‘scientists’ is staggering.
          Destruction of raw data is criminal in environmental testing, and i mean JAIL TIME.
          How ironic that our laboratory just had it’s data integrity training yesterday.
          Unfortunately these punks will at worst get the proverbial ‘slap on the wrist’.

  99. And it WILL be done over, and nothing of consequence will change.

    Really?

    Then why the elaborate attempts to hide their process, methods, and underling data (or lack there of)?

    I have been involved in projectes that that published results based on non-standard analysis, Chad. If you are confident of your work you explain it in detail; with extra figures, extra text, extra tables. You choose a journal that will let you go over length, or negotiate with the editors for an exemption to the usual length requirements. Sometimes you go so far as to publish one of more separate papers explaining the method first.

    Because, if you are right you will be able to convince your colleagues.

    What you don’t do, is hide the work.

    Because, Chad, scientists don’t attempt to avoid criticism. They confront it head on, and show that it is wrong, or go down fighting, or concede gracefully once they are convinced.

    In politics, the cover up is the scandal. In science it is the whole game. Engage in a cover up, Chad, and it is all over.

    Don’t you understand what has happened here?

    I believed the data were there. Because I expect my fellow scientist to report the basics truthfully even though I know that analysis is hard and interpretations can vary.

    Now, I don’t trust the data reported by and relied on by these people. And if I can’t trust the data, then I can’t trust whatever “results” are “derived” from it.

    Go back and read my previous entries on the subject on this site—I’ve written extensively at times—I figured that there was a long term upward trend in global temperatures, and that people were responsible for a measurable part of it.

    Now I am back to square one. Blank slate time. You have to convince me from the beginning.

    1. There is a veritable mountain of detail out there concerning these papers…indeed, as much or more than any papers published anywhere. I doubt you have ever looked to find out. Mann’s latest paper has incredible amounts of supporting info that can be downloaded.

      If you had actually read the emails beyond the few wildly quoted by crackpots, you would have seen the scientists pointing out the very things you are claiming, and arguing about what should be provided when to whom. I find it odd that none of you crackpots are willing to admit that spam FOIA requests were being used to harass HADCRU.

      Ignore their data. Use any other data set you want. They all give the same answer.

      1. They all give the same answer.

        That’s true, the answer that we’ve been cooling since 1998.

  100. If you had actually read the emails beyond the few wildly quoted by crackpots, you would have seen the scientists pointing out the very things you are claiming, and arguing about what should be provided when to whom.

    People doing real science don’t have to debate whether or not to release the data, and they don’t pick and choose to whom. The question isn’t “Who do we give the data to?”, it’s “How soon can we release without endangering our priority?”.

    They have exactly two modes for release of the data:

    1) Still working on the paper: only people in the group get it.
    2) Paper has been published: anyone can have it. (‘Course, if its a lot of data, you make them bring their own tapes…)

    Deciding not to give a copy to Dr. Smith because he’s “not on our side” just isn’t in the cards. If you have to resort to those tactics, you’ve already lost.

  101. Ignore their data. Use any other data set you want. They all give the same answer.

    Gee, I wonder why that is?


    (from file 1255298593.txt)

    Rick, What you’ve put together seems fine from a quick read. I’m in Lecce inthe heal of Italy till Tuesday. I should be back in the UK byWednesday. The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what wehad from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would startwith the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete wate oftime though. I may get around to it some time.

    So the problems in the GHCN data set spill over into the Hadley / CRU and GIStemp data sets.

    Big surprise there.

    1. Oh, and least read Bailey the honor of reading his article, he covers more of that ground on the interdependence of those ‘independent’ sources.

  102. If the wizards at the CRU really had a control on their methodology, they could derive the original data from the “value-added” data. Fact that they can’t suggests to me they don’t have complete control over their processes. Not good.

    More and more though I am thinking the biggest “thermal forcing” done by people is through jet planes. Those things spew vapor trails of water for thousands of miles at altitudes where there is very little water. Thousands and thousands of those giant machines are doing that right as we speak; millions of tons and thousands of square miles of clouds artificially seeded in the atmosphere 24/7.

    There was a very interesting decline in temperature delta (not min or max temps, but the difference between them) recorded during the days following September 11th when all the jets were grounded. Very interesting piece of empirical evidence there for what I’m saying.

  103. The real tragedy is that Ronny can’t see that the global warming fraud is designed so government and Wall Street can rape the little people on Main Street yet again.

    Ronny, get a clue, you brain dead sheeple!

  104. Frankly, this is one of the few straight-up positive things I’ve seen in the past few years.

    Tragedy?

    Hah. BRING ON THE PAIN.

  105. MNG, Tony and Chad would say that because I’m not a scientist, I cannot have a meaningful opinion on the subject, but I don’t see why I should accept that this stuff is just too scientific for me. Any other time I’ve been curious to understand the science behind something, I just read about it and(though much smarter than me, the scientists are eager to find ways to dumb it down for the likes of me) until I understand it. With this stuff, the majority group of scientists seem have taken a very “HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME YOU NON-SCIENTIST!” stance, while these minority “Crackpots” Chad keeps talking about just keep addressing the facts.
    The first group sounds like a bunch of paternalistic politicians to me. The second group sounds like scientists.

    1. Amusingly enough, the Chads and Tonys of the world abandon their argumentum ad veracundiam when the scientist in question is Lindzen, or Plimer, or any of the climatoligists who’ve been dissenting from the orthodoxy all along.

      -jcr

  106. CRU, GISS, and NOAA..Well we know CRU is a flawed mess. GISS? Home of James Hansen. Yeah, he’s a real piece of work. Then there’s NOAA. Turns out they’ve trying to hide/deflect/obsfucate locations of weather monitoring stations around the US. Seems like they knew there were problems with site placement and equipment but were reluctant to deal with the problem. It would seem, Mr. Bailey that the cancer has spread too far. Better to cut it out everywhere and start from scratch.

    1. Yep. All the data is a lie.

      But WUWW and CA….they ain’t got no agenda and there is not a whit of a drop of an iota of a reason to suspect anything they say.

      The problem is not that you take the published data with a grain of salt…it’s that you don’t take the crackpot data with a mountain of it.

      1. You guys keep saying things like “all of the data”, “consensus”, and “Gaea told me” while also acting like you’re on the side of science. And non-climatologists telling me that I can’t have an opinion on the science and can’t demand stronger proof of the extraordinary claims being made. . .well, I think there may be a problem with that.

        If you strip out opinion and the political noise, what do you have? A short period of time showing a warming trend, which likely has some human-caused component (of an uncertain level of significance). Everything else is unsettled, unproven, and, apparently, sometimes fraudulent.

  107. This whole thing simply illustrates why scientists didn’t want conspiracy theorists combing through their emails in the first place. The whole idea behind “peer review” is that peers review scientific work, sometimes harshly. So you take an email where they’re discussing some bad science that snuck through at one journal, where half the editors subsequently resigned over the violation of standards, and turn it into an international New World Order socialist fascist Kenyan-born hoax. The fact is that the IPCC process is the most transparent and open process in the history of science. We’re talking about a handful of emails from a handful of researchers. Do you really think that thousands of scientists that reviewed or authored portions of the IPCC report are in on some vast conspiracy? Give me a break. Reason is supposed to be a break from the “paranoid style” of the wingnut right, not another World Nuts Daily.

  108. “the real tragedy of the Climategate scandal is that a lack of confidence in climate data will seriously impair mankind’s ability to assess and react properly to a potentially huge problem.”

    There is no problem, huge or otherwise. It’s a fraud. You’re like the victim of a fake fortune teller who, as she is being dragged off to prison, is moaning, “But I didn’t give her the other $10,000 she said she needed to ward off the evil eye!”

    Or rather, you’re moaning that someone else’s $10,000 was not given to the con artist.

  109. How much longer will people keep pretending that there ever has been any evidence for CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming? There never was any, even in the most tendentiously distorted papers from the Hockey Team. Twenty years and a hundred billion dollars later there still is no confirming evidence, and in fact the fancy satellites and buoys some of our tax money has bought provides more disconfirmation with every telemetric download.

    Has anyone ever actually read, for example, Chapter 9 of WG 1 of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment? It pretends to provide “attribution” for the 1975?1998 temperature rise (if any), but if you study it carefully you find exactly the same evasion used in 1988 ? “We can’t account for the warming in our computer models, you see, unless we stuff in something about CO2.” This is idiotic; I’ve been writing computer programs for forty years and could write a financial model ? “I can’t account for the Crash of 08, you see, unless I include the parameter for elephant flatulence.”

    Jim Hansen is an astronomer who was badly traumatized by studies of Venus early in his career. The trauma obviously unbalanced his mind. All of the IPCC’s “climate models” are hackings of his original model designed to simulate Venus, observed from a hundred million miles away, and to get some idea of the probable quality of the hacking, see HARRY_READ_ME.txt in the FOIA archive.

    This whole mess is a fraud, based on a wildly improbable theory that would have seemed silly to anyone who had passed 7th grade Earth Science back when our schools still actually taught anything. And we are still squandering billions on this nonsense while turning precious wilderness and countryside into wind wastelands in some feckless search for perpetual motion.

    Scotty, beam me up…

  110. No tragedy! Vindication!

    In fact, the Climategate scandal casts doubt on all areas of speculative “science” including evolution theory.

    1. If you have a scientific theory against evolution, present it…the key word being SCIENTIFIC.

      1. Paul,
        The problem, the real tragedy, the fucking sin of any kind of high visibility scientific fraud, is that in the aftermath these kinds of statements lose their punch.

        The fact that you are right simple pales in comparison to the fact that last year the CRU people were saying the same thing while they apparently lied, cheated, and bluffed they way through new conferences and the corridors of power.

        We’re going to be a decade or more cleaning up this mess, whether or not there is any AGW.

      2. That’s the point…”science” can’t be trusted. Too much agenda-driven speculation.

  111. Interesting article however when the author stated “may have fiddled with historical climate data and possibly the peer review process” to describe events that have been essencially proven, I wonder whether the author is really trying to do some emergency damage control.
    I would think the first step for all is to agree that a number of these scientists/researchers are flat out fraud artists who manipulated the data and the process for material gain in the form of grants and fees not to mention to very strong possibility of huge windfalls in the carbon trading schemes being built.

  112. To think I used to subscribe to Reason.. Any person or organization that presents AGW as a fact rather than a poorly supported theory is either on the take or just plain ignorant.

  113. We’ve been covering Climagegate in depth at Common Cents:

    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

  114. The salient point to note is why this is such a problem for the Church of Warmism.

    Their argument’s foundation is an appeal to authority fallacy.

    Climategate eviscerates the authority. They know it. This is why their panties are in a bunch.

    They have nothing if not appeal to authority. Now they might actually have to debate someone on the ‘science’ and they know they are screwed if that happens.

  115. When I was raised as a young libertarian my father taught me to respect the scientific endeavor. Its generally the most honest and open institution human society has come up with. Its sad to see how close libertarian/objectivist types have come to right-wing xtians and creationists, using a few emails to support a conspiratorial theory that the majority of the worlds scientists are engaged in some kind of systematic fraud. The people with axes to grind are right here, people who oppose gov’t regulation on ideological grounds and are endlessly skeptical of any thing that might lead to more regulation. Thats the real impetus here, or, is it just some sort of coincidence? Libertarians reason from this ideological place.

    1. Thing is though, Mash;

      I believe the globe is probably warming, I believe that humanity has some role in that (though I’ve always suspected natural factors like the Sun have a lot more to do with it), and I will go with which-ever scientist has the best quality of data and the best conclusions.

      That has no bearing on the “solutions” being proposed. Even if the problem was the most catastrophic of all time, an open market would remain the best way to tackle the challenges. But there are a dozen assumptions that have to be true before we could get to a point where I’d agree to any kind of massive regulation scheme and the one that will never be true is the idea that governments or any central authorities are more successful at solving problems than millions of individuals working on their own solutions and competing with each other in an open market setting.

      Individual liberty is good for economic reasons, and for humanitarian ones, and global warming – severe or non-existent – won’t change that fact.

    2. respect the scientific endeavor

      You respect the endeavor, in fact support the endeavor, by outing bad science. Science advances thereby. Science only works via skepticism.

      ‘Science’ is the method. The method is skeptical by nature. Science is not a guy in a labcoat with a jacobs ladder some test tubes and a van de graffe generator.

      The science is bunk because the science is bunk. The science isn’t bunk because of emails.

      The science wasn’t not bunk because they said ‘the debate is over’.

      The emails just exemplify the fact that even they know its bunk.

      It’s not a popularity contest. Science works or it doesn’t. Warmism doesn’t work. It’s not science to keep asserting it does work despite the facts.

      1. I’m in no way opposed to skepticism, but that label isn’t appropriate to someone simply because they disagree. For this reason many pro-science skeptics refer rather to GW “denialism”.

        “even they know its bunk”. this is just the kind of very general, all encompassing, conspiratorial statement that I find so tiring.

        the science is so bunk that virtually every climate scientist, and every paper penned supports the general conclusion. I’m not suprised therefore, that a conspiracy theory is used here, its the only way to go.

        1. the science is so bunk that virtually every climate scientist, and every paper penned supports the general conclusion

          This assertion is laughably false. Lots of papers and lots of scientists can see, and are not afraid to voice, the obvious problems with warmism.

          Can warmists even think without appeal to authority?

        2. Also, the “general conclusion” is that the earth is warming and that human beings play some role in that – no one disagrees with this. The issue is whether or not humans play the “dominant” role, and whether or not warming is a life-ending disaster.

  116. Thats a very idealistic response. I think the past polluting behavior engaged in by major corporations demonstrates how they would respond much better than an ideological assumption. I think libertarians don’t possess the proper equipment to think this one through, sadly…

    Self-interested corporations will do what they have always done in these scenarios, drag their feet and protest till they are forced to. Free market incentives are too short term, and small scale to work in this situation. Incentives are great when something is for profit… but how would that help us in this scenario?

    As a committed individualist it pains me to say it, but something of this magnitude will probably need a high level, far reaching, collective action based on shared values, not the profit motive.

    Thank you for your honest response, but its difficult to buy.

    1. As a committed individualist it pains me to say it, but something of this magnitude will probably need a high level, far reaching, collective action based on shared values, not the profit motive.

      WTF is up with some people. You don’t sound like much of a committed individualist at all.

  117. Who exactly is it that is running Reason these days? Is some liberal cum libertarian apologist actually pulling the levers from behind the curtain? Do you bother to read the comments that articles like this solicit and can you not deduce that you are fast losing the libertarian audience that built the magazine? America hardly needs another mainstream neocon rag, but even so, do you really think you could compete? Better to stick with what you know — and get back to using real libertarians for writers.

    1. That’s music, Chilli, but nobody around here knows the difference between a staff note and a staff member.

  118. Ronald, are you sure you are for freedom and libertarianism? This article makes you sound as if you don’t think their should be open debate and transparency in scientific issues that affect public policies and legislation. Maybe you should consider a job with the government.

  119. The CRU correspondents whose e-mails, data files, and computer code make up the Climategate information dump have demonstrated that they are NOT interested in the welfare of “the very science they sought to defend.”

    It is confirmed in these communications (and in the code used to create their computer models) that Dr. Jones, Dr. Mann, Dr. Trenberth, and their co-conspirators had a political agenda to push, and they were hacking, clawing, and covering-up like cats on Ex-Lax to do it.

    Christopher Monckton’s 30 November summary on Climategate is worth examining (at http://tinyurl.com/yj3bjhm ), and I recommend it to Mr. Bailey as well as other readers of these comments.

  120. Looks to me like you are misunderstanding the interdependence claims of Pielke. The raw data came from independent sources. The techniques applied to them give the same result. This confirms that the CRU data agrees with the data from the other sources, and the techniques are more-or-less equivalent. It is nonsensical to suggest that the other data must be manipulated too just because the results match the CRU data. Really, you’re hanging out on a far limb to make such a claim.

  121. ClimateGate Denier

  122. 1. Government funds corrupt, even science. Time to cut off government funding for any type of scientific research. Let science get back to science instead of political science.
    2. Real science is open. Open data, open methods open programing code. It is time to demand all government funded research be completely open, including no more patents to Universities.

  123. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets.

    1. And everyone knows you write mo’ better naked.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.