Global Warming

A Reason To Be Skeptical

The lessons of Climategate

|

Who knows? In the long run, global warming skeptics may be wrong, but the importance of healthy skepticism in the face of conventional thinking is, once again, validated.

What we know now is that someone hacked into the e-mails of leading climate researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and others, including noted alarmists Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University and Kevin Trenberth of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

We found out that respected men discussed the manipulation of science, the blocking of Freedom of Information requests, the exclusion of dissenting scientists from debate, the removal of dissent from the peer-reviewed publications, and the discarding of historical temperature data and e-mail evidence.

You may suppose that those with resilient faith in end-of-days global warming would be more distraught than anyone over these actions. You'd be wrong. In the wake of the scandal, we are told there is nothing to see. The administration, the United Nations, and most of the left-wing punditry and political establishment have shrugged it off. What else can they do?

To many of these folks, the science of global warming is only a tool of ideology. To step back and re-examine their thinking would also mean—at least temporarily—ceding a foothold on policy that allows government to control behavior. It would mean putting the brakes on the billions of dollars allocated to force fundamental economic and societal manipulations through cap-and-trade schemes and fabricated "new energy economies," among many other intrusive policies.

We have little choice but to place a certain level of trust in scientists—even when it comes to the model-driven speculative discipline of climate change. And, need it be said, most scientists take great care in being honest, principled and precise.

In the same way, a conscientious citizen has little choice but to be uneasy when those with financial, ideological, and political interest in peddling the most over-the-top ecological doomsday scenarios also become the most zealous evangelizers.

As President Barack Obama heads to Copenhagen to work on an international deal that surrenders even more of our unsightly carbon-driven prosperity to the now-somewhat-less-than-irrefutable science of climate change, shouldn't he offer more than a flippant statement through a spokesman on the scandal?

The talks, after all, will be based on the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report, which partially was put together by the very same scandal-ridden scientists.

Now, I do not, on any level, possess the expertise to argue about the science of anthropological global warming. Nor do you, most likely. This certainly doesn't mean an average citizen has the duty to do the lock step.

Yes, you apostates will be tagged "denialists"—because skepticism is synonymous with the Holocaust denial, don't you know—or some other equally unfriendly moniker.

Don't worry; you won't be alone. Gallup recently found that 41 percent of Americans now believe global warming news reports are exaggerated—the highest number in more than a decade despite the fact that this time frame has coincided with concentrated and highly funded scaremongering. That number is sure to rise as soon as word of this scandal spreads.

The uglier the names get, the more anger you see, the more that science-challenged politicians push invasive legislation, the more skeptics will join you. True believers will question your intelligence, your sanity and your intentions.

But as ClimateGate proves, a bit of skepticism rarely steers you wrong. In fact, it's one of the key elements of rational thinking.

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

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

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

377 responses to “A Reason To Be Skeptical

  1. MNG: Piss off.

    Okay, I’m done.

    P.S. The damned server won’t let me post a smiley face! How else can I subtly weaken the rudeness of my remark? I’m in the Hell of Ten Thousand Threaded Comments!

    1. Look Pro, I like you and all, I just pointed out that you are no expert in climate science and thus its likely don’t know what you are talking about. Look, I’m no expert and I don’t either. Of course I have the benefit of arguing deference to those who do…

      1. Now, now, I was kidding. It was Hit & Run that denied me my smiley face.

        I have opinions on any number of things that I’m only a well-read layman on–especially things that can affect my life. If mankind is about to slowly cook himself to death, I’d like to know it, believe me. I’m just not yet convinced. In fact, I’m getting less convinced as time goes by.

      2. Re: MNG,

        Look Pro, I like you and all, I just pointed out that you are no expert in climate science and thus its likely don’t know what you are talking about.

        It became clear the flim-flam artists at the CRU are no experts themselves either, except of cooking up frauds. Yet you keep defending their “findings” just because they jive with your ideal for a Perfect Human Society (which gives me the heave-jeeves.)

        1. Old Mexican
          Where in the hell do you get the idea that I like implications of AGW? If you spend any time around here you would know I am an ardent union supporter. If AGW is true then measures proposed to stop it are going to really hurt unionized sectors of the economy. Also, despite your fevered fantasies about liberals I hate paying taxes and having my purchase choices restricted, and these measures are almost for certain going to mean that.

          There is only one reason why I defend the findings of scientists who claim AGW is happening: I am no scientist and I defer to them. They are more likely to know than me, or you or most other posters on a libertarian board…

          1. “There is only one reason why I defend the findings of scientists who claim AGW is happening: I am no scientist and I defer to them. They are more likely to know than me, or you or most other posters on a libertarian board… “

            By that argument, you must also support scientists who claim AGW is not happening, because they are more likely to know than you. Thus, to reconcile these opposing schools of thought, you must therefore be keeping an open mind and considering it an open question.

            1. Yeah, I agree with MNG: I defer to scientists who agree with me. Also I defer to politicians, prienst and Indian Chiefs who agree with me as well.

            2. Some people just love the taste of AlGore’s cock.

          2. I think that AGW advocates know that global warming won’t be really all that bad, so they have no problem exaggerating it for political ends. Nobody is saying that you want the world to get warmer, we’re simply saying that it’s the perfect excuse to do what you’ve been wanting to do all along. Control the economy. Kinda like how the great depression and keynesian theories allowed governments to rationalize spending the money they always wanted to spend in the first place. I have no problem investing in solar panels and wind mills on a small experimental scale for the time being, but I have no interest in giving up my freedom or enriching corporate and government interests in the name of climate change.

      3. “Look, I’m no expert and I don’t either”

        THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP TALKING?

        1. Because I need something to do while your momma rests up for the next fun session…She’s sore you know…

          1. Jesus what a cunt.

            1. You will burn in hell for calling me that!

  2. Pro Lib – you forgot Choad, who can fuck off and die.

    And the server is not the reason there is no smiley face on the end of my message.

  3. And Tony as well. And I swear the next dumb motherfucker who gets on here and says with a straight face “well that is just how science is done” or “scientists are human to” needs to be shot.

    1. It isn’t so much “this is how science gets done.” It’s of course not ideal for it to occur this way. But it is pretty common at least from my perspective of having submitted and having published peer reviewed work in the social sciences, and as a reviewer in that process. I think a person’s horror about this is inversely related to how much experience they have with that process.

      1. So it is common to destroy data, conspire to avoid FOIA requests and keep your ideoligical opponents out of the peer reviewed literature? Maybe in the social sciences I guess. They are snake pits.

        1. John
          What’s your experience with the peer review process?

          1. As I said before. Post your credentials or shut the fuck up.

            1. kinnath
              I’ve told my credentials dozens of times here. I’m a doctorate in Political Science. I work for a firm that does demography and commuter research. There are plenty of posters on H&R with terminal degrees, it’s really no big deal.

              1. Political Science ain’t science.

                I have a degree in Physics and a career building safety critical systems.

                So stop your fucking lectures on the “scientific method”.

                There is no rational argument that can be made to justify the behavior of the CRU.

                1. Boy, I’m going to rile the anti-elitist brigade with this one, but I have to ask: Do you mean a Bachelors degree?

                  1. Yes, and a bachelor of arts no less.

                    Do you work on systems that kill people when they fail?

                    By the way PhD of PolySci means as much to me a Doctor of VooDoo.

                    1. Oh lord, then you really do need to stfu. I mean, 33% of the US public has a bachelors degree. Why don’t you just say you had a class in chemistry in high school?

                    2. I mean getting a bachelors degree gives one usually no training and exposure at the level of producing original peer reviewed research. People get that in grad school.

                    3. Assuming this is a spoof, very clever.

                    4. Look, it’s just the truth, you’re not going to get a lot of advanced research education at the bachelors level.

                      I mean, would you grant that someone with a PhD in physics and as much on the job experience as you would probably know more than you?

                    5. MNG,

                      He also said he has been working for 25 years in his field. There’s his training.

                      As an engineer myself, I have to say that I have to make sure MY numbers are correct, no fudging, no masking, no “tinkering to look pretty”, like these flim-flam artists did, because my wrong numbers could kill someone.

                    6. Which is why you accept all sorts of deliberately un-calibrated data riddled with errors given to you by WUWW and CA as gospel truth?

                      Huh?

                    7. producing original peer reviewed research.

                      ‘Peer review’ < > science. I know as a political ‘scientist’ you wouldn’t have any way of knowing that, but it’s a fact.

                      Science is predicting the Higgs then trying to find it. Science is predicting that gravity bends light then proving it. Science is observing a protein reaction, hypothesizing a salutary medical use, then showing the drug works.

                      Or doesn’t work.

                      Peer review is not science. Peer review is for padding resume’s and getting your next grant or gig.

                    8. Do you work on systems that kill people when they fail?

                      Duh. Political science is about working on systems that kill people when they fail.

                    9. war does that I suppose

                    10. They kill people when they work.

                    11. And when they work as planned

                2. kinnath said “I have a degree in Physics and a career building safety critical systems.”

                  Ah, a practical physicist. I see now why your comments make more sense to me. You’ve added to my mental database of anecdotal evidence that the more technical applied-science type thinkers tend to be more self governing, self confident, and self reliant than the more socially-oriented types I have met in my life. I’m speaking generally of course. I know statist engineers and libertarian college professors who are outliers.

              2. Doctorate in Political Science.

                Well, that finally explains to me why nothing you say tends to make any sense to me–a fellow PoliSci major until I woke the fuck up.

              3. I’m a doctorate in Political Science.

                So, you know how to argue, dissemble, connive and distract?

                Good to know.

                -jcr

          2. I have published several law review articles. And they actually looked up and fact checked every site in the article. I had to produce the original of everything in them, including any websites or web based work sited in them.

            Come on MNG. Read the damn e-mails. Jones and Mann were fucking snakes. the things leave the impression of what awful kniving people they are if nothing else. Stop defending the indefensible. AGW may or may not be true. But whatever the truth is, you can no longer trust anything that came out of the CRU.

            1. Congrats on the pubs. Again, I don’t know about the hard sciences, but in the social sciences when we present results it’s certainly not some horrorshow to use a “trick” to make the results look better (and that is the exact term that I and other people I know always use; “here’s a little trick that will make it come out….”

              I’m not sure how your law review editors and reviewers were, but in our field they know about all of these tricks and try to police them. I’m sure some get by, some don’t. It’s really no horrorshow…

              1. Re: MNG,

                Again, I don’t know about the hard sciences, but in the social sciences when we present results it’s certainly not some horrorshow to use a “trick” to make the results look better

                I don’t think you understand at all, MNG. The issue here is not a simple study on urban development or human interaction. The supposedly- scientific results being spewed were being used by States to impose a MASSIVE REGULATORY scheme and a potentially impoverishing juggernaut that can still cripple the economies of many nations. All of that for a lie.

                So understand, the outrage is not just because of some peccadilloes, it is because of the terrible power being unleashed agaist our very LIVES in the name of “saving the planet.”

                Do you get it NOW???

                1. Yes, yes, you fear and abhor the policy implications of findings of AGW, I get it. I mean, that’s partly why I don’t take your assertions about the science seriously. No one has a bigger ideological axe to grind here than the hard core libertarian. I get that.

                  1. “Yes, yes, you fear and abhor the policy implications of findings of AGW, I get it. I mean, that’s partly why I don’t take your assertions about the science seriously. No one has a bigger ideological axe to grind here than the hard core libertarian. I get that.”

                    So, you don’t get it.

                    //sigh//

              2. That is pretty much what happens is Economics as well, and yes, we do call them tricks.

                But you’re still not addressing the points about destruction of data, evading FOI requests and suborning peer review.

              3. “Again, I don’t know about the hard sciences”

                Then STFU.

              4. If that is true, then, that is more evidence that social sciences have nothing to do with science. I have a Ph.D. in Computer Science (since we are bragging) and if I become aware of some data fudging done by the authors of a paper I’m reviewing, I will fight very hard to make sure that paper never gets published. That is science for you MNG.

                BTW, I have no dog in this fight, but data fudging is a big no no in scientific papers.

              5. Duhhh, I don’t understand all that hard science stuff so you can’t possibly understand it neither. It wouldn’t do me a bit of good to actually look into e-mails or try to understand the science because it is just so darn hard, and you shouldn’t try to either because you are no better than I am. You should leave it to the experts.

                In ten seconds I’m going to pull out a list of associations that support global warming, and ask what do you have to say to that, and you gonna try to explain science which you obviously don’t understand because I can’t make heads or tails of it so you shouldn’t be able to neither.

                You know you are all just a bunch of losers. I’m going to go back to my burrow in the sylvan hills and diddle sheep. Go barefoot, and lessen my carbon footprint.

          3. You did not answer John’s question.

            “So it is common to destroy data, conspire to avoid FOIA requests and keep your ideoligical opponents out of the peer reviewed literature?”

            1. I imagine every government agency conspires to avoid FOIA requests. They must be a royal pain in the ass (and I say that as a BIG supporter of the FOIA). That anyone conspired to avoid themis hardly remarkable to me, especially considering these guys were convinced that people with dishonest motives were making the requests.

              As for “keeping ideological opponents out of the peer review literature” I would point to this story about how Freud, worried that psychoanalysis would look bad by the work of some other psychologists, worked hard with those under his spell to minimize the publications, conferences, etc., those psychologists did. Again, I imagine people who have a pet theory talk about and to some extent try that, but as I’ve said it’s bound to be unsuccessful: there are just too many journals, editors, reviewers, etc. You can’t bully them all.

              1. Re: MNG,

                I imagine every government agency conspires to avoid FOIA requests.

                Irrelevant. The CRU is a scientific organization, not supposed to be a bureaucratic monastery.

                1. Scientific organizations are usually also bureaucracies Sherlock. What do you think they are like Tesla in the Prestige?

                  1. Re: MNG,

                    Scientific organizations are usually also bureaucracies Sherlock.

                    A bureaucratic monastery, Watson*. The CRU is not the CIA – not complying with FOIA requests indicates the CRU was being handled like a criminal cartel, managed by snake-oil manufacturers, and not like a scientific organization.

                    *Watson was the not-as-smart-as-Sherlock guy, by the way. FYI.

              2. “especially considering these guys were convinced that people with dishonest motives were making the requests”

                Their fatal flaw.

              3. Great, so you acknowledge that pollitical tinkering is common in the publication of all peer reviewed articles.

                This make the situation better!?!?

              4. “I would point to this story about how Freud, worried that psychoanalysis would look bad by the work of some other psychologists, worked hard with those under his spell to minimize the publications, conferences, etc., those psychologists did.”

                The CRU inherited this mess.

              5. And this was FOIA at its worst – repeated spam requests by people with no intention to do anything useful with the data, but rather with the explicit intent of gumming up the works and wasting the researchers time.

                1. It’s only a waste of time to you because you are a lying fraud who likes to support his co-religionists in their lying fraud.

        2. I remember several projects that ended in publications where me and my co-researchers at the firm would run data, say a regression analysis, and come up with less than spectacular results. Then we’d sit around and someone would say “hey, let’s run a stepwise regression” and we would and the results would come out much nicer. Then someone would say “so can we justify using a stepwise?” And we’d all go rummaging through research to find a hook to hang the justification on, finding it we would submit and have the work published.

          There was no “hoax” or anything. We stated our justification. A person could quarrel with the results, and probably did.

          And yes I probably have been involved in three or four peer review publications where after a while we “dumped” or lost/threw away the original data…Again, this kind of thing is very common. Especially as Ron argued the other day the base data is the same at NOAA and other places I’m not sure what that is supposed to prove…

          1. Stop insulting people’s intelligence. They threw away the climate data relating to the entire planet. That is a pretty big deal. That is a bigger deal that whatever project you worked on.

            You committing a massive logical fallacy and you know it. Just because it is appropriate to throw away the data in some cases, doesn’t mean it is appropriate in other cases. Clearly in this case, throwing away the source data is a huge deal.

            1. Oh no, it was totally contrary to the “by the book” procedure when we lost our data or threw it away. If the results were ever challenged there would be no way to back them up. But again, I’m not sure that is a horrorshow. I mean, whatever reports the CRU has contributed to the evidence on this subject that relied on this data are cannot now be backed up. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to get so excited about that.

              1. “But again, I’m not sure that is a horrorshow. I mean, whatever reports the CRU has contributed to the evidence on this subject that relied on this data are cannot now be backed up. I’m not sure why I’m supposed to get so excited about that.”

                They were given a huge set of raw temperature readings. They took those readings and amalgamated them to come up with an overall global temperature. Now, understand, we don’t know what the real global temp is. So, it is pretty hard to tell how accurate our answer is. So, they took their answer, which after they were done doing their calculations just happened to support their theory, and foisted it on the world as evidence of AGW and justification for massive action.

                Now they have thrown away the original temperature readings. They only have their processed data. Without the original data, there is no way to check their work. How do we know it warmed over the last 100 years? Mostly because they told us it did. But without anyway to check their work, that assertion is meaningless.

                That is a big deal.

                1. John, I’m not trying to be smart here, but I’m not sure you know what you are talking about. “They were given a huge set of raw temperature readings.” Indeed. Who gave it to them? THAT’S the original data. Is that gone? Or is their copy gone?

                  1. NASA gave it to them. Here you go

                    Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

                    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

                    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

                    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals ? stored on paper and magnetic tape ? were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

                    The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

                    In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

                    The CRU is the world’s leading center for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

                    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…..936328.ece

                    1. So NASA has the data, right? What is the big deal?

                      I mean, they gave the data to CRU. CRU “normalized” it. Then they dumped it. They just use the normalized data in their current research.

                      I’m still not so sure what the hyperventilating is about.

                    2. No. Nasa does’nt have the data. It is gone. The data exists only insofar as the original sources spread out all over the world might still have it. They had the only copy and they destroyed it. I am not kidding. It is just unbelievable. You couldn’t make this shit up.

                    3. Let me get this straight. Hundreds of temperature readings from hundreds of stations over decades were collected by data and compiled. They only made x copies, they gave some to CRU and then they destroyed them. Later CRU destroyed all their copies. Is that true? I’m going to have a link for that. But hey, if you are right, then it is pretty unbelievable (hence my request for a link).

                    4. No.

                      The argument is that we cannot reproduce which data they used, and how they used it.
                      The significance of this is when the expereiment is replicated, and the results are different, we wont know if we made a mistake in our process or if the original expereiment was flawed.

                    5. Read the London Times Article I linked to. The data is gone. Note, they don’t say “will have to now be gotten from somewhere else”. It is gone. Run a google search for lost climate data CRU and you will see lots of other stories about this. The data is gone.

                    6. I just read it for the second time. It simply says the data the CRU used is gone. It says nothing about the originals. As you noted the CRU did not collect all of these readings. At the most they threw away a compilation they either made or were given. Again, what is the big deal?

                    7. Failure 1) the data CRU worked with was somehow corrupt. Since it can’t be compared to the NASA data, it can’t be verified.

                      Failure 2) 20 years of undocumented “normalization” can’t applied to a copy of the data from NASA.

                      Therefore, the “value added” data from CRU is utterly, hopelessly, unverifiable.

                    8. Failure 1) there is always the possiblity that the data CRU worked with was somehow corrupted during transmission or storage . . .

                    9. “Therefore, the “value added” data from CRU is utterly, hopelessly, unverifiable.”

                      Uh, no shit, I said that like half an hour ago on this thread. Of course I’m not sure why that is supposed to be a big deal. Any CRU research based ont the dumped data is now ultimately unverifiable.

                      So what?

                    10. “Any CRU research based ont the dumped data is now ultimately unverifiable.

                      So what?”

                      So what? WTF are you talking about? All of their work now has to be thrown out and done again along with any work that was based on it. That is the so what.

                  2. John, I’m not trying to be smart here

                    Don’t worry, MNG, you haven’t done it before, you won’t do it now.

              2. I was sorely disappointed long ago when the good Dr T. explained how limited the value of “peer review” was in publishing articles.

                You have pretty much destroyed any value I can ever attribute at a “peer reviewed” public policy document.

                1. I imagine you have as idealized notion of the peer review process as you do of economic markets.

                  How cute 🙂

                  1. I was under the misunderstanding that you actually had a real education that resulted in something like a law degree.

                  2. So basically you’re saying that everyone cooks the books to support a preconcieved idea.

                    Thay may be cool for Poly Sci bullshit
                    but it is the exact opposite of real science.

              3. Take the politics out of it for a second. To me them throwing away the raw temp data is a bigger scandal than the e-mails. They were given hugely valuable and unrecraetable data. And they threw it away. If I were a climate scientist, I would want to shoot them.

                There are entire careers that could have been made analyzing that data and argueing over CRU’s interpetation of it. And God only knows what kind of information could have been gleened from it, if other people had been given a shot at it. And now it is gone. And all we have is their “value added” data, whatever the hell that is.

                1. John
                  Look, I agree, if they dumped the only copy of this data source, then that was like an act of massive negligence.

                  1. If they had dumped the information on accident it was negligence. They dumped the information on purpose and tha makes it was FRAUD.

              4. Some of these emails go back to the mid-90s. They can keep those around, but couldn’t be bothered to keep the data underpinning their theory? WTF?

                1. +1

                  1. The three-letter troll often seems super stupid, but he tops himself here.

                    I’m not sure it’s as bad as when it said that it was fair to punch it in the face, but it’s close.

          2. Gee, I work in an industry where we keep data for decades. It’s not that hard to do.

          3. I hear what you’re saying MNG, but fudging data is moral turpitude and is a tenure-killing offense in academia. Whether people get away with doing it doesn’t change the fact that it’s inappropriate and is not proper science.

            My big problem in this field is how much the raw data gets salted away into some corner. Why? If the danger is real, shouldn’t this be as open as possible? If we were to take draconian steps to alter our behavior or to change the climate in the other direction and we were wrong, wouldn’t that be horrifically bad? Shouldn’t we make absolutely sure?

            Frankly, I think some gatekeepers in this field (and in government), believe intuitively that AGW is real, significant, and serious. Because of that, they want all of their evidence to look perfect and not like the real world. Because of that, they may very well be suppressing data that is contrary to their positions.

            1. Yes, that is called confirmation bias if I am not mistaken. In addition to revealing what awful people they are, the emails, I think, show a group of people who honestly believe that they are doing great work and saving mankind from this horrible problem and will do anything to succeed. That may be noble, but it is not science. And none of their work can be trusted.

            2. I’m not sure its “fudging” Pro. If you look at my example above, did we “fudge” the data by going with the stepwise analysis? I don’t think so. Besides, any good editor should wonder “why are they using a step-wise analysis?” And if they and the reviewers don’t catch that, then anyone reading the subsequent journal article is going to ask the same thing…

              I agree that flat out fudging and such is certainly less than the ideal of the scientific method! To the extent these guys were trying to benefit from the rightful prestige of that method, they’ve forfeited quite a bit I would say…

              1. MNG, great job admitting you threw away your raw data and therefore suck at science and do research that probably is of zero consequence.

                I’ll be sure to ignore whatever you say regarding scientific matters in the future.

                1. That’s exactly what I was thinking. Hubris puts out some damn fine karma.

              2. Running a stepwise regression on a set of data is a lot different from tweaking the data themselves, tossing the original data set and then running the regression. The former is a standard statistical method, open to any who are skilled in statistical procedures, the latter an exercise in potential fraud since non-standard techniques were used on the data.

                1. How did they “tweak” the data.
                  Really, I’m not being smart here, what was it they supposedly did?

                  1. Er, I asked this question fifteen minutes ago and I would have thought all the Junior Science Heroes/Hoax Debunkers could easily have answered this as the “tweaking” is kind of crucial to the outrage we are all supposed to be feeling here…Again, how did these researchers tweak or manipulate the data? Does anyone know?

                    1. Unfortunately, nobody knows how CRU tweaked or manipulated the data. Not even CRU knows. The code they used is apparently incomprehensible. One guy spent years trying to decipher and failed (his notes are some of the leaked documents.)

                  2. We’ll never know because they threw the original data away. Now get the dick out of your mouth/ass and start thinking.

                    You really get paid to do analysis. Real money?

                2. The former is a standard but totally dangerous statistical method

                  FTFY

              3. What you referenced was an example where you actually mentioned what you did. These guys “black boxed” it (lord knows how), lost / threw away the data and said “trust us”. I work in hard research, heads would roll if my industry did something like this. Stop parsing and massaging this BS and just say they are dishonest and have discredited their in entire field like a normal, reasonable person would.

            3. “I hear what you’re saying MNG, but fudging data is moral turpitude and is a tenure-killing offense in academia.”

              Not if you are a faux indian.

              1. or Mike Davis

              2. My favorite line on Ward Churchill was from Dennis Miller

                “What’s this guys Indian name ‘Dances with Facts'”?

                Lmao

            4. Over the past twenty years, my career has largely involved analysis of engineering and economic data. Quite often it is necessary to toss out bad data known to be bad or massage it for a known bias. (Instrumentation doesn’t give a reliable reading 100% of the time and periodic calibration is required.) But I have ALWAYS retained the original dataset and documented (or at leasted noted for posterity) the basis for tossing or adjusting.

              Depending upon your definition of “fudge”, it may or may not be moral torpitude. But destroying the original dataset used for such a controversial and important analysis is incomprehensible to me. It stinks. The destruction of the original datasets does reflect either moral torpitude or incredible stupidity.

          4. Great, another “scientist” using econometrics to make nonsense more palatable. Who are your clients? My guess is local and state governments, universities, think tanks and other non-profit entities. Any private businesses?

            1. Most of them are private industries. For example a company will be interested in commuter patterns when they are thinking of locating a branch or franchise in certain locations. It’s good to be located where the traffic is.

              That’s just one example. But since people here are so interested in me let me go ahead and get to what’s really on people like joe’s mind: yes I have a really big dick.

              1. In your mouth or ass?

                And your firm hired a Poly Sci PhD? Couldn’t they have found someone with more analytical ability, say like someone with a BS in Interior Design or a high school drop-out. Seriously, how did you get the job? Family business?

              2. What was the subject matter of your of peer reviewed articles. Any links? I’d love to read them. I bet they were cutting edge.

                1. Look, I told you how big my dick was, and you still are crying?

                  I’m not going to show it to you so you can give up on that now…

                  1. MNG,

                    After your attitude and commentary on this thread–your intentional feigned ignorance and your selective logic and your outright slurs to others–I’ve decided that for all intents and purposes, you are intellectually dead to me.

                    That you are a Doctorate of Anything is a hot stream of piss in the face of Doctorates of all kinds.

                    Good luck, good bye, and good riddance.

                    Sincerely,

                    briareus

      2. You mention this last night. You said it was in the social sciences. Social science isn’t science no matter how many times you say it is with closed eyes and ruby slipper heals clicking. Anything you have to say regarding science is meaningless.

        1. The part where we take data, like from the Census, and analyze it statistically seems like science to me.

          I’m betting though that anyone with a post like yours is probably no science hero in the first place. That Chem class in community college don’t count now…

          1. Yes, and to some, alchemy seemed like a science too.

          2. Projecting a little bit are we now . . . .

        2. From what I gather, just about anyone who describes his profession with two words, one of which is “scientist”, has not studied a real science.

          Real scientist: physicist, chemist, biologist, astronomer, geologist, mathematician, physician.

          Fake scientist: climate scientist, political scientist, social scientist, Christian Scientist.

          1. But my hat’s off the computer scientists who hacked (or leaked) the UEA CCU e-mail and programs!

          2. I like this.

      3. Yo bub…I have published peer reviewed papers and acted as a reviewer for journals dealing with satellite imaging for environmental applications. If anything, my experience with the process leads me to find the actions of the CRU scientists even more reprehensible than I might have otherwise. I can’t imagine how you could think otherwise.

        Reviewers are trusted to provide objective evaluations based on the merit of the work. Letting political considerations trump that is the worst kind of perversion of the peer review process. These guys should have their academic credentials revoked. And their defenders should be next in line.

    2. scientists are human

    3. “well that is just how science is done” or “scientists are human to”

  4. I’m a kinder, gentler skeptic.

    1. Compassionate Skepticism?

      1. Yes, more of a dadfly than a gadfly.

        1. hee hee

  5. What we know now is that someone hacked into the e-mails

    That isn’t known, and it isn’t likely. The data was selected and packaged as if in response to a FOIA request. What was released is so consistently damning, it’s probably what was going to be taken out of a FOIA data-dump. Some lone non-conspirator inside seems to have leaked it, or at least put it up for public leeching, before it reached the memory hole.

    Swell guy, whoever he is. We do know who he wasn’t.

    1. Hero of the age. I think about that guy. I bet he is a disgruntled employee. I bet Mann and company were complete assholes to work for. I bet they pissed on some poor “little person”. And that little person happened to work in IT. Man, I bet that guy is laughing his ass off. Wow. We should all be so lucky as to ever have one episode of revenge 1/1000th as good as what he or she got.

      1. Yep, you are right about that. If you really have the need to screw with someone and you have lots to hide that can be tracked electronically, better avoid that person in IT. The last bozo that I recall who decided to piss on some IT guys was a CFO who got fired for surfing porn several hours a day on company time. That was quite amusing. But no way near as funny as this video:

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

      2. Hear, hear!

    2. cent sign’s comment @1:15PM needs to be tattooed on the ass of everyone who trots out the “Hey, look over there!” defense that the CRU leak was the result of theft.

  6. Actually, I agree. Fudging is a part of the scientific process. It’s kind of like how perjury and attorney misconduct are part of the legal process.

    1. Oh bullshit.

      When I design circuits–circuits that have to perform within certain parameters–it takes a scientific process to make that happen, especially when I am working in new areas.

      A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation, experimentation, and the subsequent formulation and testing of hypotheses. I perform all these steps, and NONE of them are truly fungible if I am going to create a system that works. Rounding something from the 5th decimal place to the 4th is NOT the sort of fudging you toss off as akin to perjury and misconduct.

      The ‘scientific process’ you are talking about is a politicized version of witchsmelling, updated for the times. To wit: If they are not effecting a scientific process, they are scientists.

      1. briareus–Turn on your sarcasm detector.

        1. JW, I’m giving the sarcasm detector a break because my bullshit detector is overheating on this thread today.

          //rolls eyes at Tony and MNG//

      2. Well, my point was that it exists and creates flaws in the results (like in the law), not that it was the goal or even excusable. Cutting down to the chase, science is useful only if it tells us something about the universe or provides us with something with functional utility (e.g., technological applications).

        My problem here is that fudging the data and not making the data universally available cannot ever be science. As I post way below. . . .

        The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of scientists to:

        1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials.
        2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.

        1. Agreed. Your two points speak directly to my comment way below that the open sourcing of data is vastly superior to the black box approach, and yes I agree that socio-political artifacts come from scientific research (or scientific strawmen, as is the case).

        2. Agreed. Your two points speak directly to my comment way below that the open sourcing of data is vastly superior to the black box approach, and yes I agree that socio-political artifacts come from scientific research (or scientific strawmen, as is the case).

  7. Caption:

    Guess where my thumb has been.

  8. With apologies to Thoreau for quoting him (potentially out of context). He really nails the extent of the “value” provided by peer review.

    https://reason.com/blog/2007/09…..ck-of-lies

    thoreau|9.17.07 @ 9:05PM|#

    Yep. Peer review is a low hurdle. It’s a check to see whether the paper gives a clear description of a well-designed and well-executed study. The ultimate check is replication by independent investigators. Since replication is only possible when people know what they’re supposed to be replicating, the goal of peer review is to make sure that the methods, analysis, and results are clearly described, and that any point not explained in the text is explained in the cited references.

    And, it’s a little hard for indpendent researchers to check your work when you intentionally destroy your source data.

    1. You highlight the important point, and yet you missed it. Replication requires independent investigators. That means independently collected data. You replicate results. You don’t just check people’s math.

      1. Independence is both things.

        When you analyze what they did and it doesn’t make sense, then you go look and the raw data and the recipe for creating the value-added data.

        When they tell you the didn’t write down the recipe and they destroyed the raw data, then you call foul.

        1. Another reason for the open-source approach to any scientific question that has policy implications.

    2. That’s idiotic. A peer reviewed study has been reviewed an enormous number of times. Typically:

      1: At the grant application level. If the study isn’t “well designed”, it won’t receive any funds in the first place.

      2: While the study is proceeding, the student(s) working on it regularly give departmental seminars, dissertation defenses, and conference papers or posters, all of which put the paper under the scrutiny of lots of people with no skin in the game and every incentive to fix problems.

      3: The data in the paper is also presented at numerous conferences by the professors or researchers in charge of the research, again, with many watchful eyes.

      Only then is the paper put up for peer review. It has passed a lot of hurdles and undergone a lot of scrutiny before it gets that far. Peer review isn’t the final step (replication is), but it is far from the first.

      1. Sorry dude but Dr T >> Chad

      2. Peer review is not science.

        If they had a working model with any predictive value we wouldn’t be having this conversation. AGW models fail. It’s that simple. You can ‘peer review’ it until you squirt your boxers it doesn’t change the reality.

        It wasn’t peer review that blew up Dr. Hathoway’s house.

  9. Lies! Calumny! The science is settled! Peer review, peer review! Lotsa associations agree with us! The good data is infinitely more numerous than the made-up data! You are all going to die if you do not heed our warnings! The policies that will save us have been chiseled and brought down from the Mountain! Bushes have bursted into flames! The signs are there! Cats and Dogs are going to end up living together! The science is settled!

    [All this while they are dragged to the cozy, padded room…]

  10. What’s frustrating for me about all of this is that there is good science under all of this chaff, but it’s being corrupted by people with an axe to grind. There’s an assumed and unproven leap from warming trend with some anthropogenic component to certain mass extinction. Even when proponents hedge the extinction part, they are often going far beyond what the evidence shows. Speculation alone isn’t science.

    One thing to note: From my limited experience in academic science (primarily with chemists, computational scientists, and physicists), it seems to me that data is usually made public with public statements or publications unless questions of priority are involved. That doesn’t seem to be the issue in today’s climate-change research, so I find it disheartening that so many laymen are willing to accept the black box that some of these opinions are coming from.

    1. The black box problem is very distrubing. From what I have read, the source code for these models isn’t even reviewed in the peer review process. How can you evaluate a model if you can’t evaluate the code running it? And of course, all of these guys are cliamtologists not computer programers. Yet, they constantly crow about how “they have settled the science”. How is that when you are not competant enough to right decent code?

    2. What’s frustrating for me about all of this is that there is good science under all of this chaff, but it’s being corrupted by people with an axe to grind.

      Therefore, all of their conclusions should be suspect, if not outright discarded, until their data and models can be examined and validated (or not) by other scientists, regardless of any agenda, real or otherwise.

      To the apocolyptics: If you don’t like this notion, too fucking bad. Show your work for credit.

    3. The whole thing has been absurd from the start, since, as the quote from Dr. T above says, replication is the only validation.

      To replicate you need to run the exact same experiment/models/source data. That wasn’t being done, and the fact that people who supposedly have been trained in science let it slide was a huge, HUGE, indicator that the whole thing was shady.

      The instant something like this becomes so politicized is the instant you know there’s a problem.

      1. This is EXACTLY wrong. You need INDEPENDENTLY run experiments. If you have their model. Their data and their code you will get their exact results.

        They can do this themselves at the push of a button. It does not further science.

        1. In other words, science is about the watchers watching the watchers.

          I think it’s interesting that the scientific method is based on inherent distrust of people. We’re after truth, after all. Of course, nothing like that is perfect.

    4. “but it’s being corrupted by people with an axe to grind”

      Yes, no axe to grind on the anti-GW side…

      1. Not to restart this argument, but whether there are people funding or sponsoring an anti-AGW position doesn’t change the fact that people making extraordinary claims, most of which are not backed up by adequate proof, have the burden of providing extraordinary evidence. Not the people who are skeptical about such claims.

        There is a massive amount of funding for AGW research. Think about what that means: Not research into climatology or even just climate change, but research into man-caused global warming. There’s a conclusion there that any grant seeker can focus his research on. How is that not a problem, particularly with a highly politicized area of research?

        1. Pro
          First, I guess I’ve never seen the claim as so extraordinary. I mean, as any good libertarian should acknowledge, human productive power when unleashed is pretty amazing. It’s not hard to believe that it could have profound effects on our world. Maybe that’s me.

          Second, to the extent there are funding opportunities into the realm of “man-made global warming” I’m betting that it’s 1. because of earlier work that suggests AGW is a reality, and now the work to be done is asking why, how, etc and 2. this research funding is almost surely not conditioned on a certain result of the research being guaranteed…

          1. I think you suck. I think you are a pig-headed, arrogant prick. As you read this, MNG, I have no doubt whatsoever that you have a top-shelf punchable face. Ever work law enforcment in AZ?

            1. AZ, is that where you are from? That would explain it, you’ve got sand in your pussy.

            2. I completely agree with your assessment, Gobbler. Today I have seen the fully-realized strutting runt peacock that is MNG. I’m all for opposing arguments, I welcome them and its why I maintain a diverse set of friends and acquaintances–we learn from others around us.

              But this guy, this Doctorate of Political Science, is the sort of Champion of Dickdom that back in my competitive days would be the guy you would see talking shit outside the ring and then coming up with excuses when he gets his ass royally kicked, and all you can do is smile at the justice. MNG has been smashed in logic circles by just about everyone he has tussled with.

              MNG, insert your excuse here _______.

          2. I guess I’ve never seen the claim as so extraordinary.

            The oceans will rise and swallow us all! The polar bears will have to get their asses waxed and bathe in sunblock! We’ll all die from malaria and sunburn at the same time!

            But nothing extraordinary.

      2. So what? At best you are left with a draw. An entire area of science polluted by political agendas on both sides. If that is the case, the answer is to start over and wait to act until the whole thing is sorted out.

        You are moving the goal posts. This scandal is a big deal not because it “disproves” AGW. It is a big deal because it ends the conceit that the science is in anyway settled or that only a crank can be skeptical. Without that conceit the entire justification for drastic action goes out the window.

        It is game set and match for things like cap and trade and all other assorted crap.

        1. They get it in Australia.

          1. They sure got it today didn’t they?

      3. Re: MNG,

        Yes, no axe to grind on the anti-GW side…

        That sums up your arguments in a nutshell – “Everybody does it.”

    5. If I remember the story correctly, Chicken Little argued that the sky was falling all the way until the Fox ate her for dinner.

      The problem that, in this more recent telling, Chicken Little discovered a trend and made a hypothesis that, if correct, would persuade the masses that they had surrender their liberty and their wealth to the political elite. The political elite rather liked this hypothesis and showered Chicken Little with lots of fame and research money. Unfortunately, the trend abated and Chicken Little had to fudge the data.

  11. It’s all just headology.

  12. To many of these folks, the science of global warming is only a tool of ideology. To step back and re-examine their thinking would also mean ? at least temporarily ? ceding a foothold on policy that allows government to control behavior. It would mean putting the brakes on the billions of dollars allocated to force fundamental economic and societal manipulations through cap-and-trade schemes and fabricated “new energy economies,” among many other intrusive policies.

    Lies! All Lies! The scientists are not self-serving! They are objective, selfless heroes that simply want to prove we need more government, and we need it: We’re too mediocre to make it in the market, so anything that destroys the market MUST be a good thing! We don’t want to make an effort, we want to be taken care of! We need Climate Change to be true in order to achieve Nirvana!

    [All that said INSIDE the cozy, padded room]

    1. If I remember correctly, Al Gore put it as follows:

      “humanity [must] adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living.”

    2. All peer reviewed data is a lie!

      Anything from http://www.crackpot.com is gospel truth!

  13. I’m a kinder, gentler skeptic.

    Part of the reason my reaction is so vehement is that I was agnostic toward AGW. If you go back on all the threads, I rarely posted. This is because I didn’t feel qualified to comment on something beyond my knowledge. The constant repitition that the temperatures had shown warming trends had me starting to believe there might be some veracity to AGW.

    However, whenever data is deliberately manipulated, pressure is put on to silence critics, and all this is done in favor of political processes, that pisses me off. And anyone who defends those actions – for whatever reason – is a worthless piece of shit.

    When it came out that that gun researcher had been sockpuppeting arguments, I was pissed as hell. I still never want to hear anything from that asshole ever again. (And that was a much more minor infraction that what happened at CRU). Idiots like that undercut the arguments they would support. If you are right, there is no need to lie. If you’re wrong, “massaging” data isn’t going to give you a happy ending.

    1. Well put, BP. That was my reaction as well.

    2. “If you are right, there is no need to lie. If you’re wrong, “massaging” data isn’t going to give you a happy ending.”

      That is exactly how I feel.

      1. they charge extra for “happy endings” down at the massage parlor.

        1. Maybe that is the problem here. The data, despite getting a massage, never had a release.

      2. BP & J

        “If you are right, there is no need to lie. If you’re wrong, “massaging” data isn’t going to give you a happy ending.”

        That is exactly how I feel.

        Agreed, and one of the reasons is that I too was basically agnostic until i learned months ago that they were denying skeptics the access to any of their data. I work with a lot of open source software and hardware and I have contributed to open source projects. I’ve seen it’s benefits outweigh it’s downsides over and over. I’ve seen it work in the fields of legal research (example: groklaw) and in community supported agriculture, even seed exchanges. When all the data is available to everyone, and you are able to mutually prove or disprove approaches by testing that data, advances can move swiftly.

        There was nothing open about CRU and now we know why.

    3. I’m actually still somewhat agnostic, only because whether what we’re hearing about the climate is accurate may have little bearing on what’s actually occurring–either way. I rather doubt anything cataclysmic is on the way, but I’ve been wrong before and am hardly an expert.

      I saw another interesting bit on the consensus question–it’s purported to be a (PDF! Danger!) list of peer-reviewed publications that take a skeptical view of AGW. I have no idea about the quality or credibility of the list, but given the hundreds of published works, it’s an interesting piece of information, if accurate.

      1. I don’t know if I would call myself agnostic or not. I’m too much of a cynic to say that I’m on the fence. I’m a layman. I have no formal training in the climatology or any other physical science, but I’m not an idiot.

        The bottom line for me is looking at the behavior and actions of the people in the apocalyptic camp. They are not and have not been the actions of honest people with unattackable conclusions to their research. The hyperbole form the pro-AGW camp has kept rising, by leaps and bounds, as skepticism increases (tipping points, speculative statements on impact from warming, etc.).

        Well publicized predictions come and pass, without coming true of course, and no one is called on the carpet to explain their erronious prediction. The calls for what amounts to the purging and punishment of non-believers is the most abhorrent action of all.

        ALL of the solutions to this supposed problem are calls to coercion. None stop at education and persuasion, in fact, few ever start there.

        People whose science is sound and whose conclusions are indisputable, who have the truth on their side, don’t act like this. They don’t need to act like this. That guides my skepticism more than anything else.

        1. Glad you posted this. Here is the American Physical Society reaffirmation of their pro-AGW statement from a few years ago:

          http://www.aps.org/units/fps/n…..nckton.cfm

          1. “At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

            I couldn’t agree more.

            1. Haha, fucking AWESOME. I think MNG posted that before he even read it.

              Well done, Doctorate of Political Science, here’s what you missed:

              In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

              MNG said: “I’ve told my credentials dozens of times here. I’m a doctorate in Political Science.”

              quack
              /kw?k/ ?noun
              2. a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan.

          2. As I said yesterday, “Just for the record, organizations of scientists making statements is not science.”

            If it weren’t for multiple questions arising in the last decade about the credibility of the modeling and the underlying data, not to mention the hefty ante the left has thrown into the kitty on this issue, I might be impressed by the fact that a number of scientists seem to have at least an intuitive feel that AGW is a big problem. But bias, bad data, and bad science seem to be a serious issue here and are undoubtedly skewing some opinions.

          3. Any organization that is not explicitly organized with a contrary political objective will eventually become co-opted by the Left.

            Examples are numerous, e.g. NEA, AFT, PTA, AMA, ABA, ACLU, AFL-CIO, UAW, APA, Democratic Party, Republican Party, APS.

    4. You should continue doing the noble thing and shut up about a subject you don’t understand.

      Massaging or manipulating data in the way the emails were talking about happens all the time and is not a scandal.

      It is troubling to a minor degree that they were conspiring to silence climate change skeptics. But it’s not because the research was damning–it was first because the research was bad science (in the conspirators’ opinion). They didn’t want bad science published.

      How it normally works is published bad science is quickly forgotten and rejected. But on this particular topic, which is so political, they knew that getting denialism published would inflame the denial movement including most of the hacks who post at Reason, who never EVER believe things in proportion to evidence but cherry pick things that support their preconceived bias. It’s a sad thing that these scientists felt they had to be political. But the issue is political. If you guys would stop promoting junk science in favor of an economic ideology, thus making the lives of actual scientists much harder, they wouldn’t have to get into politics at all.

      1. How it normally works is

        Oh joy, a breath of hot air.

      2. It is troubling to a minor degree that they were conspiring to silence climate change skeptics. But it’s not because the research was damning–it was first because the research was bad science (in the conspirators’ opinion). They didn’t want bad science published.

        Holy shit Chony. Thanks for the tip to take you even less seriously than I already don’t.

        1. I know, right? His reasoning demonstrates either the most artful of trolling or a laughably embarrassing excess of idealism.

      3. And you’re an expert, Tony? If not, maybe you should shut the fuck up.

        Massaging or manipulating data in the way the emails were talking about happens all the time and is not a scandal.

        And you know this… how? I know if Merck were to “massage” some data that showed that people don’t get seizures on one of their medicines, and it was later found out that they did and Merck hid it, that would be a fucking scandal. And you would be among those shouting the loudest for their blood. So save your voice now.

        One thing that is known is that the AGW models the CRU was promoting had to totally ignore the medieval mini-Ice age and warming periods. We know those events happen, there is plenty of written (and geologic) record of them. That is not even “massaging” or even “manipulating” data. That is fucking cutting it out and tossing it away.

        You know what else I know? I know some database programming – enough to know that when a programmer writes things to the effect that “this data is fucked” and “we can’t make this data fit the models”, some real squirrely shit is going on. Because you don’t have to be an actuary to make data fit trend lines, all you need is college algebra and some trigonometry.

      4. “It is troubling to a minor degree that they were conspiring to silence climate change skeptics.”

        Tony, you simply aren’t worth the calories it takes to to read your words anymore.

      5. Massaging or manipulating data in the way the emails were talking about happens all the time and is not a scandal.

        Whatever became of that Bancroft Prize that Michael Bellesiles won?

      6. You should continue doing the noble thing and shut up about a subject you don’t understand.

        Then Tony, why do you not do the noble thing and stop posting about this?

      7. Tony “Massaging or manipulating data in the way the emails were talking about happens all the time (with those on the left) and is not a scandal(for those on the left).” There I massaged your sentence for you and with my value added data it makes more sense.

  14. Here’s a very cool (IMO) graphical representation of Climategate. (Found it via The Corner at NRO.)

  15. I can’t wait for the Law & Order episode where the Gore character gets tried for murder.

    1. Has anyone been killed building a wind farm? If so, can he be charged with negligent homicide?

    2. Except he won’t be Al Gore, he’ll be a rich kid at a prep school.

      80% of all murders committed on Law and Order are perpetrated by rich prep school students. That’s slightly above the real life national average.

      1. Well, the ones that go to trial in Law and Order. The poor chumps that get caught spill the beans quite rapidly and end up making plea bargains. That may not stray too much away from reality, but it does frustrate me that not a single so-called “criminal” (even the inocents!) rely on their Constitutionally-protected rights and keep their mouths shut!

        [By the way, the worst is Cold Case – EVERYBODY spills the beans in that show, even for “crimes” committed decades ago! It’s nuts! Don’t people know about their 5th Amendment right?]

        1. A few do… and everyone sneers, “he lawyered up” or “he’s waiting for his attorney.”

          I point to that show when people need an example of liberal(ish) authoritaianism.

        2. What always gets me is how frequently an episode starts with a murder and the victim still has his wallet or the valuable painting is still on the wall. “So we know it wasn’t just a robbery.” Lesson: When you murder someone, always steal something to make it look like a robbery.

          And it always cracks me up when they identify an unknown corpse via dental records, as if there’s some vast dental records database they can consult.

        3. My wife watches a lot of those “true crime” shows like “The First 48”, so I’ve seen a few episodes. It amazes me how the people spill the beans. My wife laughs at me when I yell at the screen, “Just shut up and ask for a lawyer!”

  16. Just for discussion purposes, I repost a bit on the scientific method I saw over at Transterrestrial Musings (from the American Physical Society (motto: “Let’s Get Physical!”)):

    Science extends and enriches our lives, expands our imagination and liberates us from the bonds of ignorance and superstition. The American Physical Society affirms the precepts of modern science that are responsible for its success.

    Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.

    The success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of scientists to:

    1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials.
    2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.

    Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that is the foundation of the credibility of science.

    I’m totally sympathetic to the challenges of a complex field of study like climatology, and I don’t entirely pooh-pooh everything that comes out of it. They’re doing some good work and will undoubtedly get better at it. There may prove to be significant anthropogenic components to climate change–if not now, perhaps in the future–and I’m perfectly willing to deal with those findings if and when they come. Personally, I think we’ll leave this particular issue behind as we move on to other energy sources in the coming decades, but that’s just a hopeful guess.

    1. If you are taking on an enormous problem involving modeling a complex problem, why wouldn’t you want an interdiciplinary team of computer programers, meoterologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians and the like? Why wouldn’t you run your source code by programers and get their help? Why wouldn’t you listen when a statician like McIntyre points out problems with your calculations?

      They did none of that. They just talked to each other and told everyone the science was settled.

      1. “why wouldn’t you want an interdiciplinary team of computer programers, meoterologists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians and the like”

        Like the IPCC?

        1. That relied on data put out by CRU that has been revealed to have been fraudulent. The CRU wouldn’t share its source code or its source data. It just produced doctored data which the IPCC relied on.

          Come on MNG. You are turning into Joe.

          1. You mean this IPCC?

            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. Funny that the MNG didn’t respond to this.

              1. MNG’s responses are now demonstrably worthless anyway.

        2. Re: MNG,

          Like the IPCC?

          No, like ANYONE but the IPCC. You know, someone who’s not in the racket.

          1. I can recall very clearly a lot of talk out of the UN in the late 80’s, early 90’s about now that the Cold War has ended, the UN was in need of a focus to drive and justify their existence and activities. “Overpopulation” didn’t have the legs for that sort of scope.

            Looks like they found it.

            1. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ? H.L. Mencken

  17. Many responsible researchers did follow-on work using CRU’s “value-added” data. They all got fucked in the ass the moment CRU deleted the source data.

  18. Not trying to make a youtube dump out of this thead, but, is there just something really creepy and disturbing about the Goracle in the first part of this video as he rushes off to save a whale, or is it just me? This really creeps me out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkR3uuZMIM

    And what is happening here? What are these youth activist types doing shouting down the Goracle? Aren’t they supposed to be his chosen sheeple? Makes me believe this AGW religion is falling apart. So what if they may be conspiracy theorist, this is still fun to watch. The Boracle looks a little uncomfy here.

  19. But as ClimateGate proves, a bit of skepticism rarely steers you wrong. In fact, it’s one of the key elements of rational thinking.

    Not when the science is settled, it is not! You cannot be skeptical when that amount of evidence is in your face! You just become a *denier*! Yeah, a Denier! Someone who “DENIES”! Someone who does not bow to the perr reviewed reality! Someone who does not see the bushes bursting into flames! Someone who does not hear the Booming Voice in the Sky saying that the science is settled!

    [All that said while they were taking their medication inside their cozy, padded room]

    1. I just believe in the old adage that you should keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out.

      You can’t just say skepticism is always a net good thing. If you’re skeptical that the earth is round you should be monitored for psychosis.

      What probably everyone posting here has access to as evidence in this matter is expert opinion. Unless you’ve actually engaged the research and are an expert yourself, expert consensus is the most likely source of truth in the matter you can have access to. So as good logical people we proportion our belief to the evidence available. The evidence available is expert opinion. The overwhelming majority of relevant experts believe that climate change is happening, in large part caused by humans, and will have catastrophic consequences if unabated. You have absolutely no rational reason to reject the overwhelming majority of experts on this subject unless you’re one yourself.

      1. You have absolutely no rational reason to reject the overwhelming majority of experts on this subject unless you’re one yourself.

        The “experts” threw away their original data set. And even their “massaged” data didn’t match their models, unless known events (the medieval Ice Age and warming period were ignored.

        The experts were lying, attempting to suppress dissent, throwing away data, and ignoring known historical events that didn’t fit their models. Fuck them, and fuck you.

        1. Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Even if the guys in question were total hacks, there’s still the little problem of the rest of the worldwide scientific community.

      2. I just believe in the old adage that you should keep an open mind ass, but not so open that your brain falls out.

        FIFY

      3. Hey retard, you realize that there was expert consensus that the earth was flat, right?

        1. You mean in the days before the concept of modern science even existed?

      4. You can’t just say skepticism is always a net good thing.

        It’s always a good thing.

        If you’re skeptical that the earth is round you should be monitored for psychosis.

        That’s not skepticism. That’s denying demonstrable reality.

        AGW is not demonstrable reality.

        AGW models do not work.

        AGW models predict warming and it’s cooling.

        The emails in question complain of this very fact

        Show me a working model or you’re spouting woo.

  20. Funds that go to climate science need to be redirected to sciences that are less dangerous to mankind. Any and all discoveries, real or imagined will be used to further control us. Better to not spend a penny on it, lest we eventually do get something like Cap and Trade. Don’t you people realize how close they came to succeeding?

    1. They haven’t been stopped yet. I have a feeling they will be because this story is spreading like wildfire across the net. It has even made CBS News blogs now, believe it or not. It is being widely covered in the UK, except for the BBC. Australia has already killed cap and trade type legislation in their senate. But of course, off goes Odumbo to Copenhagen while his idiot mouthpiece, stay puft marshmallow boy Gibbs, continues to downplay all of this.

      1. It doesn’t seem possible to hate Obama the fuckbag anymore than I do, but he never ceases to find ways to increase it.

  21. Re: MNG,

    Again, I don’t know about the hard sciences, but in the social sciences when we present results it’s certainly not some horrorshow to use a “trick” to make the results look better

    I don’t think you understand at all, MNG. The issue here is not a simple study on urban development or human interaction. The supposedly- scientific results being spewed were being used by States to impose a MASSIVE REGULATORY scheme and a potentially impoverishing juggernaut that can still cripple the economies of many nations. All of that for a lie.

    So understand, the outrage is not just because of some peccadilloes, it is because of the terrible power being unleashed agaist our very LIVES in the name of “saving the planet.”

    Do you get it NOW???

  22. “while global warming skeptics may still be wrong…”

    Wrong about what? Wrong to be “skeptical”? No they are most certainly not wrong. That is the one and only lesson of Climategate.

  23. Re: MNG,

    [I had to post this here, to demonstrate the level of intellectual dishonesty from this guy]

    Yes, yes, you fear and abhor the policy implications of findings of AGW, I get it. […]No one has a bigger ideological axe to grind here than the hard core libertarian. I get that.

    You still do not understand – it is not the policy implications of AGW that I find repugnant. It is the policies based on data created by FLIM FLAM ARTISTS and CON MEN that a person who, at least, RESPECTS the freedom of others should find repugnant.

    If AGW was found to be real, there’s always the debate we can have on policies. But if the models and the data given by these bullshit artists is fraudulent, then the policies derived from them become immoral and unethical in themselves – you cannot have a policy imposed on LIES.

    Do you get it NOW, finally?

  24. In the long run, global warming skeptics may be wrong

    What a weird way of putting it.

    How can a skeptic be wrong? How is the question “I don’t know if that is true?” disprovable?

    Were they “wrong” and actually knew it to be true…and how is that being wrong? Isn’t saying you don’t know something when you actually knew it a lie?

  25. “Let me get this straight. Hundreds of temperature readings from hundreds of stations over decades were collected by data and compiled. They only made x copies, they gave some to CRU and then they destroyed them. Later CRU destroyed all their copies. Is that true? I’m going to have a link for that.”

    And

    “How did they “tweak” the data.
    Really, I’m not being smart here, what was it they supposedly did?”

    The answers to these two questions are pretty critical as to whether the outrage shown here about this is justified or not. Surely someone can answer these questions straighforwardly, right?

    1. You have all these raw temperatur readings. They are things like the high on this day in Tokyo was X. Well, that doesn’t tell you much. They have to adust the original data to compensate for how they were taken. Maybe the readings in Japan were all taken in urban areas and didn’t include the mountains and thus artificially raised the temperature. Things like that. So they did all of that and came up with new numbers that showed a rise in temperature. But they threw away the original temperature data. So there is no way to tell if the adjustments they made were right. There is no way to check their work.

      And yes the original data is gone. For the 10th time, it is gone and it is not coming back.

    2. MNG, a couple of things:

      (1) As I understand it, many of the adjustments to the raw data are, as of now, undocumented.

      (2) CRU destroyed the raw data.

      Both of these are cardinal sins in science. Either of them invalidates the “science” that results.

      1. To save you the pain of reading the entire thread: MNG admits the CRU data and ALL studies that depend on it are nwt worthless. MNG then shrugs his bony shoulders and says “So What?”.

        1. . . . are now worthless . . .

      2. If they are “cardinal sins”, every scientist is guilty. I know I sure don’t have the raw print-outs from many of the scans I ran back as a grad student. I took the parts that I needed and recorded them in spreadsheets and my lab books, and stuck the spectra in a box or closet or something. Years later, they got pitched….exactly like at CRU.

        Is it theoretically possible that there was some serious systematic error made? Yep, just like it is possible that unicorns spout from your rear every time you take a step.

        1. When your past work as a grad student becomes the basis for reconfiguring the entire global economy, we’ll start bitching about your inability to archive a dataset.

          1. By the way, if you worked in my industry your lab book would be locked up on an an archive if you work had any specific bearing on a safety critical system.

            We’re not talking about all the data that ever existed at CRU, just the raw data that was selected to create the value-added dataset.

        2. If they are “cardinal sins”, every scientist is guilty.

          WRONG

          I keep my data. I’ve never destroyed any of it.

          Course it’s as much laziness as anything else.

          And knowing lots of lazy (when it comes to practical matters) scientists I find it hard to believe one would go to the trouble of tossing data if they didn’t have a nefarious reason.

          Losing some data I could entirely believe.

          My desk is a mess too.

  26. “you cannot have a policy imposed on LIES.”

    There are those who say you cannot have a policy imposed on LIES. Now let me be clear. The days of honest policy making are over. We can no longer allow the truth-sayers to have their way.

  27. I would like someone to quote offending passages from the emails and tell me what they think they mean. Anyone with the balls to actually engage the controversy instead of just declaring that climate change is a fraud because of climategate?

      1. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards ? a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”).

        Here is a pretty good anatomy of the “trick” to “Hide the decline”

        1. hmm i might be wrong about the “hide decline”

          “trick” and “hide the decline” i think are two different things.

          Man used the “Trick” as mentioned above while briffa used the “Hide the decline”

          The “hide the decline” was to remove data from 1960 on to the present from the the graph. From 1960 onward to present showed a sharp decline.

          So to be clear the “trick” was to interlink Proxie data with instrument data when in reality the lines of these two divereged. Instrument showed an upward trend and the proxy data showed a downward trend.

          The Hide the decline was for Briffa which was all Proxy data, i think, and if it was shown from 1960 to present would have shown a sharp decline.

          The idea from all this is that claims that today is hotter then it has been for 1000 years cannot be substantiated as the evidence for this is depended solely on proxy data. They did not have a global network thermometers for most of that 1000 years. If the proxy shows a sharp decline in temperature today when in fact we know temperatures have risen how can we know that the proxy properly recorded temperature in the past?

          Anyway i hope this clears things up a bit. The climate scientists hide the fact that the proxy data does not follow current instrumental temperature trends.

        2. Here’s a good explanation from a NYT article on the ‘scandal’:

          Most of the graph was based on analyses of tree rings and other “proxy” records like ice cores and lake sediments. These indirect measurements indicated that temperatures declined in the middle of the millennium and then rose in the first half of the 20th century, which jibes with other records. But the tree-ring analyses don’t reveal a sharp warming in the late 20th century ? in fact, they show a decline in temperatures, contradicting what has been directly measured with thermometers.

          Because they considered that recent decline to be spurious, Dr. Jones and his colleagues removed it from part of the graph and used direct thermometer readings instead. In a statement last week, Dr. Jones said there was nothing nefarious in what they had done, because the problems with the tree-ring data had been openly identified earlier and were known to experts.

          The terms “trick” and “hide” aren’t used in a deceptive sense, but as shorthand.

          1. So, they use tree-ring data when it shows what they want, and claim it is spurious when it doesn’t show what they want.

            If the actual temperature readings rendered the later tree ring data showing a decline to be spurious, why wasn’t the earlier tree ring data showing a decline also thrown out?

            They’re cherry-picking their data to support their preferred result. Its as simple as that.

            1. White tree ring data isn’t the only proxy data on historical temperature, it’s a problem and they’re perfectly aware of and upfront about it–at least among experts. What isn’t disputed by these emails or anything else is that the planet is warming at an alarming rate, and you don’t need tree rings to see it. Just take a look at the north pole, or the changes in the chemical makeup of the ocean. What’s absurd about denialism is that it rejects actual changes happening in real time that anyone can see if they bother to look.

              1. You really are dense.

                Many, many people concede there has been some warming recently. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean it was caused by humans.

                The climate changed long before you were born many a time, and it will change after you die.

                Humans likely have an impact and it’s likely very small.

              2. You really are dense.

                Many, many people concede there has been some warming recently. HOWEVER, that does NOT mean it was caused by humans.

                The climate changed long before you were born many a time, and it will change after you die.

                Humans likely have an impact and it’s likely very small.

              3. What isn’t disputed by these emails or anything else is that the planet is warming at an alarming rate

                It’s not disputed because it’s not happening. It’s not warming. Dude ffs stop lying.

                http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp…..Nov_09.jpg

                I don’t even understand how you think this lie will fly.

              4. What happened to the glaciers that carved out the great lakes? and what caused them to recede? was it man made? what was the temp at that time? what was the CO2 ppm at that time?

          2. Because they considered that recent decline to be spurious, Dr. Jones and his colleagues removed it from part of the graph and used direct thermometer readings instead

            Why is the data spurious today yet not spurious 900 years ago? And if they had good evidence of why it is spurious today and not spurious in the past why did they prevent peer review work from being published that looked at this issue? Why are the emails littered with attempt to stop FOI requests by people who were looking at this very issue?

            Hell why doesn’t the NYT quote Jones on why he thinks current proxy data is spurious today but not before 1960?

            And if Mann thought the data was Spurious why did he combine it with instrumental data in his “trick”? If the data is spurious wouldn’t the appropriate action be to remove the offending data all together?

            I will freely admit that the issues brought up in the emails were somewhat in the open. But what the emails did do is expose these issues to a wider range of criticism. It seems to me that your big complaint is that when these issues were open to the public yet unexamined it was all cool and not a scandal. The fact is this has always been a scandal and the emails has exposed it to closer scrutiny.

            1. The guaranteed fact is that these emails will be blown way, way out of proportion by people who don’t know what they’re talking about but are looking for any shred of a reason to continue believing what they want to believe.

              1. The converse is obviously true as well. Religionists like yourself are completely unwilling to call fraud for what it is, because your sacred cow is feeding on the grass fertilized by the fraud.

                1. Sorry, I will need a lot more evidence than these emails to convince me that every national academy of science on earth is engaged in a massive conspiracy to… [undetermined].

                  1. I said exactly nothing about every national science academy on earth, nor did I mention the word conspiracy.

                    You strawman as a fucking kneejerk don’t you?

                    I was speaking of FRAUD, as in scientific fraud engaged in by fraudsters who were clearly engaged in fraud by their own words. I am not talking about every piece of science from the abacus through the space program, and you goddamn know it.

                    1. It’s not squeaky clean but it’s not a fraud. My biggest concern is how it will make the denial movement collectively blow its wad and assume the debate is now over and they won, and the possible implications for policy as more and more stupid people trend toward the more psychologically appealing alternative.

                      Of course, the fact that this hack occurred right before Copenhagen is pretty good reason to believe the hack was made for precisely this purpose.

                  2. . . .get funding? Man, I’m a former academic, and I think a good number of researchers would investigate Intelligent Friggin’ Design if that were where most funding was directed.

                    I don’t think it’s anything that blatant, but this weird idea that some here are tossing around that the money is on the other side of the debate is simply nuts.

              2. but are looking for any shred of a reason to continue believing what they want to believe.

                The real question is why are not changing your opinion due to changing facts.

                Mike Mann used a “trick” in 1998 that hid the fact that instrument data diverged from Proxy data. He then in 2004 denied ever using the “trick”

                No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

                Pretty damning stuff…yet you carry on without even a whiff of disbelief.

            2. Why would you expect tree growth not to be affected the CO2 and nitrogen fertilization, climate change, invasive species, and pollution that we have inflicted upon them at ever-increasing rates? Tree rings correlate with temperature readings from the 1850s through 1960…then they fall apart due to all the changes that we have made. While weak evidence, they are still one of the few ways we have of guessing temps prior to the 1850s. Generally, all the forms of evidence (sediments, ice cores, historical records, tree rings, etc) agree that it was notably cooler in the middle of the last milennium, and somewhat warmer than that (but cooler than now) in the early part of the millennium. However, the error bars are huge so we can only make vague statements like “probably”.

  28. “I would like someone to quote offending passages from the emails and tell me what they think they mean.”

    Any 10 year old could read these emails and know what they mean. They mean that they were skewing the data, fudging the data, altering the data to get the results they wanted instead of accurate results. Any other ways I can say it to get you to understand something so simple?

    Now why don’t you explain to us, what does the fact that they dumped their raw data instead of allowing anyone access to it mean? I think it’s pretty clear to anyone with any intelligence at all.

    There is no ambiguity here. Anyone who tries to delusion themselves into thinking there is, well, they are delusional.

    1. These emails were not meant for 10 year olds. They were meant for colleagues. You’re jumping on words you think indicate something nefarious when really they’re perfectly innocent jargon.

      1. How do you make a living, Tony? Who would hire you?

      2. Tony read above…i gave what you wanted. A demonstration of the context of the emails that shows they were hiding evidence that conflicted with their findings.

        No need to yell about 10 year olds. I gave you the context and it is damning.

        1. No I wanted quotes.

          1. “trick” and “hide the decline” are quotes.

            Don’t be an asshole.

            1. How about something not so easy? Those terms are not meant in a nefarious way as you would understand if you bothered to read anything on this topic other than conspiracy theory sources.

              1. If the “trick” was not nefarious then why did Mann lie about using it?

                No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

            2. “Don’t be an asshole.”

              You ask the impossible of Tony.

      3. Oh yes, Tony, colleagues speak a language that is so foreign and esoteric that it cannot be comprehended by the rest of us. I work for the research department of a very well known university. You are full of it my friend. The damning statements in these emails were not in technical jargon, but in plain everyday English. If there is a mysterious secret code language scientist use to say I lied, they failed to use it. Again, there is nothing ambiguous about what they said in these emails or about what it implies.

        1. Idealists deny the obvious.

        2. It’s not technical jargon, it’s just shorthand language used in a way that colleagues will understand. There are problems in the emails but the word “trick” isn’t one of them.

          1. Idealists deny the obvious.

  29. The whole thing has been absurd from the start, since, as the quote from Dr. T above says, replication is the only validation.

    To replicate you need to run the exact same experiment/models/source data.

    Take a little care here. Insofar as you don’t get to set up your own experiments, observational sciences[1] are different from experimental ones.

    Mind you, the analysis should be repeatable, which means hanging onto the data for dear life (or better, giving copies to as many of your colleagues and competitors as possible), so the CRU people are still on the hook.

    [1] And historical climatology is an observational science. As opposed to the neato things they do in the lab with scale models to try to measure the parameters needed by the computer models.

  30. Whatever happened to that ice age were were supposed to get? That was all over the news in the 70s, and the science behind it was settled.

    1. That could actually happen. There is REAL scientific evidence of past cycles of glaciation and de-glaciation. Hopefully, the next cycle of glaciation will not happen for a long time. And maybe if we are smart enough, we can find REAL science that could prevent it. As long as the solution doesn’t involve theft on a massive scale by corrupt politicians.

      1. Well, to put my little fly in the ointment, there is the idea that a period of warming precedes any ice age, and the process is thought to be fairly straight forward:

        Rising greenhouse gases (including particulates from volcanism as well as water vapor or even anthropogenic combustion and industry) perform their well-advertised roles of increasing atmospheric temperatures. The hydrosphere (mainly oceans as well as larger salt water bodies like lakes and inland seas) performs the function of heat sink, accumulating heat faster than the lithosphere. As the temperature differential increases, the oceans will then give up part of this energy excess through transpiration to the atmosphere in the form of clouds and storms. Increased cloud cover = increased albedo. With less sunlight reaching the surface, landmasses–already cooler than the hydrosphere–more easily accumulates snow under the increased unseasonably wet ubiquitous cloud cover. Oceans may still have an excess of energy at this point, and continue contributing to cloud cover and therefore higher albedo; the landmasses continue cooling until one year the snow doesn’t melt at far lower latitudes than normal.

        Presto, ice age.

        1. Your chain is wrong in one point: You confuse water vapor with clouds.

          Surely, heating the atmosphere and ocean will cause water to evaporate (causing further heating!). However, this does not necessarily lead to more clouds, which require cool temperatures so that water can condense on dust particles. Just think…where is it really cloudy? In the US, the answer is the Pacific Northwest and the Great Lakes. Note how both are *cool* and wet. Where is it the least cloudy? The southwest, where it is also the hottest.

          Indeed, a major study in Nature or Science (I forget) earlier this year found that there were FEWER clouds over the large area of the Pacific they studied on HOT days. The skeptic’s Holy Grail Negative Feedback so far seems to be a positive feedback. That is not good news.

  31. Tony sez:

    Massaging or manipulating data in the way the emails were talking about happens all the time

    Uh…no.

    Real scientists do sometime run their analyses on selected parts of the data, but they admit to it up front, defend their reasons for the choice, and understand that this is going to effect the degree to which their results are taken seriously.

    They don’t try to pretend that it isn’t an issue.

  32. Link to a great synopsis of Climategate:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy……ton-Caught Green-Handed Climategate Scandal.pdf

  33. All I know is that it’s freezing today in North Carolina. Where in Hell is AGW when you need it?

    1. And it’s snowing in Texas today!

  34. MNG said:

    “There is only one reason why I defend the findings of scientists who claim AGW is happening: I am no scientist and I defer to them. They are more likely to know than me, or you or most other posters on a libertarian board… “

    By that argument, you must also support scientists who claim AGW is not happening, because they are more likely to know than you. Thus, to reconcile these opposing schools of thought, you must therefore be keeping an open mind and considering it an open question.

    Insert your intellectually dishonest reply here: ____________

    1. This is stunningly dishonest. There are not two equally valid sides to this debate. There aren’t an equal number of denier experts as there are pro-AGW experts. Deniers are a small minority. So the honest thing is to proportion your support to their relevance in the field. What MNG is doing is assuming the overwhelming consensus of experts is reality. What you’re doing is assuming the consensus of a minority of experts is reality.

      1. Why should the majority suddenly be write? Are you saying superior numbers = certainty? Doe might make right?

        I am assuming NONE of their opinions are reality. How can I, when there are those who treat it as a holy crusade worthy of doctoring their figures for?

        Scientific history, in case you really need to be told this, Tony, is littered with majority opinions that were discarded over time.

        Read a book.

        1. Your problem is you’re looking for certainty in science. All you have are probabilities. If the vast majority of experts in a field say something is so, you better have a damn good reason not to believe them. And you’re being totally intellectually dishonest if you believe wholly in a tiny group of dissenters just because they say what you want to hear.

          Sure majority opinions get overturned sometimes. What’s your point? Much more often they remain intact and merely get refined.

          1. For the second time, you halfwit fuckhole, I am NOT endorsing EITHER of those scientific groups, and no honest reading of my initial post can be so construed. I am speaking solely of MNG’s lack of critical thinking, so the ‘you’ you are referring to is not me. If it is, you are not worth the wasted krebs cycles to read your words and respond to them.

          2. Tony Says –
            “If the vast majority of experts in a field say something is so, you better have a damn good reason not to believe them.”

            How about the fact that not one of their predictions has been correct.

            Or the fact that their models cannot expain the last 10 years of climate history.

            Or the fact that the “scientists” are more interested in public policy positions than their science.

          3. Your problem is you’re looking for certainty in science

            Lol you’re a loon. A theory produces predictive results or it does not. It’s reproducible or it’s not. That ‘vast majority’ of people believe in UFO’s and claim to have seen them. Yet they never seem to show up in undoctored video.

            AGW is worse. AGW models aren’t even predictive with doctored data.

            Where’s the warming Tony? Hmm?

        2. No, a 97:3 majority of experts isn’t “suddenly write (sic)”. They are, however, highly likely to right.

          Especially at this level of lopsided opinion, you can largely disregard the minority. Why? Because in any debate that involves politics, there will always be a few percent of experts on each side whose partisanship trumps their expertise. A 97:3 split implies that nothing is left on one side except the hyper partisans who wouldn’t change their mind if God himself threatened them with eternal hellfire if they didn’t budge.

      2. TONY “There aren’t an equal number of denier experts as there are pro-AGW experts. Deniers are a small minority” That’s a damn lie http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new…..rming.html now where’s your proof

  35. From The Economist:

    Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.

    http://www.economist.com/displ…..d=14742737

  36. Re: Tony,

    There aren’t an equal number of denier experts as there are pro-AGW experts. Deniers are a small minority.

    Tony, sweetheart, science is not done by democratic vote. Most of these scientists that agree with the theory are agreeing because they are trusting their colleagues at the CRU were doing their job.

    Let’s see how they feel in a few months after things become even more embarrasing.

    1. Dearest, I know that. I’m saying you as a nonexpert have no rational option but to believe what the vast majority of experts say on the matter. You could be wrong, but you’re less likely to be so than if you believe in the small minority of dissenters, which most people here do with 100% faith.

      1. “I’m saying you as a nonexpert have no rational option but to believe what the vast majority of experts say on the matter.”

        Tripe.

        You, as a non-expert, have every right to study for yourself and make your own educated guess, or even to become an expert in your own right. I, too, have that right.

        The only difference between us Tony is that I am willing to think for myself.

        1. I would hope that you’d study the matter objectively, and not just read dubious sources that confirm what you want to believe. I’m confident that if you did study all of the research from an unbiased perspective you’d have no option but to come away believing that climate change is real.

          1. Never, NOT ONCE IN MY LIFE, to anyone, for any reason, in any discussion, have I ever, EVER, denied climate change was real.

            I said to you in another comment above ‘You strawman as a kneejerk reaction, don’t you?’ and you know what? YOU DO, and this comment of yours proves it.

            1. I don’t believe agnosticism to be a coherent option on matters with such factual merit. You’re as good as a denier.

              1. This statement proves you have religious faith in AGW, not an appreciation for science.

              2. With us or against us, eh?

                Hilarious

      2. Re: Tony,

        Dearest, I know that. I’m saying you as a nonexpert have no rational option but to believe what the vast majority of experts say on the matter.

        Sure, that makes sense – for example, I am not one to question the myriads of experts on the issue of immaculate conception – the bishops. They’re the experts, I have to pay heed to their expertise.

        Let me tell you something, Tony: You are right in that it is VERY difficult to analyse ever single scientific claim there is and still go to work or go on with your life. That is why there are experts in a field that can review a work and its merits. The problem in THIS case is this:

        a) The issue being investigated was beign used as justification for sweeping policies that could hobble our productive capacity and take away our very freedoms.
        b) This should have RAISED the BAR of accountability foe ANYONE getting involved in this research, in order to avoid confirmation bias or misinterpretation of the data.
        c) All those scientific organizations should not have “jumped the gun” and immediately accept AT FACE VALUE the assertion of the AGW proponents.

        The reason I menion C) is because there is a big, giant leap between Global Warming and Man-Made Global Warming. That the globe could be warming is a distinct possibility worth studying. The problem is when the scientists jumped to the conclusion that the GW was MAN-MADE because “our models told us so”. THAT should have been taken with the UPMOST skepticism, because you are not only describing a physical phenomenon – you are giving A REASON.

        The fact is, the modeling used to demonstrate that GW was man-made was based on too many assumptions: One, that the scientists could actually model past temperatures with accuracy and, two, that the current readings are being interpreted correctly by comparing them to the modeled temperatures of past times. The questions become: What if your models for the older temperatures are based on wrong assumptions? What if you’re underestimating the velocity of climate change in past times, almost like comparing the temperature of a climate-adjusted room to the outside?

        Many skeptics were REASONABLY skeptical of the claims of AGW because it took a great leap to conclude that from the GW models. You COULD have GW, but that does not mean ipso facto you have AGW. They are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS!

        1. The facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that increased proportions of greenhouse gases means a warmer planet, and that humans have increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere are completely beyond dispute. Nobody’s found any smoking gun email to refute any of that. It’s not computer models telling us those central facts, it’s basic research that’s been understood for decades.

          1. Re: Tony,

            The facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,

            Not in dispute.

            [T]hat increased proportions of greenhouse gases means a warmer planet,

            THAT’s in dispute.

            […]and that humans have increased the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere are completely beyond dispute.

            This is not in dispute – the problem is that you are overestimating the IMPACT of the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is NOT the most important greenhouse gas – it’s water vapor.

            It’s not computer models telling us those central facts, it’s basic research that’s been understood for decades.

            You don’t understand – it is the MODELS that purportedly provide the conclusions, since they supposedly indicated the increased velocity of warming from 1960 onwards. The problem is that the models and the theory do not accout for OTHER periods of warming NOR for the current period of COOLING!!!

            Ergo, the answer lies somewhere else: Sunspots, Cloud activity, Ocean Currents, you name it.

            1. [T]hat increased proportions of greenhouse gases means a warmer planet,

              THAT’s in dispute.

              Really? By who? Not Lindzen…

              http://online.wsj.com/article/…..25400.html

              What element of basic physics are you arguing against?

              Old Mexican|12.2.09 @ 6:02PM|#

              of the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is NOT the most important greenhouse gas – it’s water vapor.

              Water vapor is in rapid (a scale of days) equilibrium with the oceans. Neither we nor nature can change the amount of water in the atmosphere except by somehow changing the average temperature….which we are doing. This amplification is inevitable and has been understood for more than a century. It has also been confirmed by several studies.

              Ergo, the answer lies somewhere else: Sunspots, Cloud activity, Ocean Currents, you name it.

              Sunspot activity is low right now, implying cooling…yet we are at near record temps. So that can’t be the reason. Where is your evidence that cloud cover or ocean currents are causing the changes? We are meausuring both.

              As I have said a dozen times, natural variability isn’t magic. If it isn’t AGW, what is it? Why can’t scientists (or the skeptics, who darned well are trying) find it?

              1. Sunspot activity is low right now, implying cooling…yet we are at near record temps.

                According to whom? Don’t tell me: The same guys that lost the data and talked about “tweaking” it?

                What element of basic physics are you arguing against?

                The fact that these gases do not make the planet into a “greenhouse”, but absorb the heat from infrarred radiation from the ground. However, there IS a saturation point where the CO2 will NOT absorb more radiation, but let it escape to Space.

                Water vapor is in rapid (a scale of days) equilibrium with the oceans.

                What in the world are you talking about?

                Neither we nor nature can change the amount of water in the atmosphere except by somehow changing the average temperature.

                I fail to see how that would invalidate or contradict the fact that the MOST important “greenhouse” gas (or heat absorbing gas) is water vapor. It is still the gas with the highest concentration in the atmosphere and has more heat-trapping properties than CO2

                And again, tell me how does one jump from “the globe is warming” to “let’s hobble the productive endeavors of people”? How does one come to that conclusion?

                1. I’ve come to the conclusion that you cannot reach any meaningful understanding with Tony. I do feel the need to try to, because communication is a common human drive after all–but I think you speak a different language than Tony. To you, words have meanings and the world is logical, while to Tony, words mean what he needs them to mean at any given moment and the world is an ever-changing flux of moods shapes and colors.

                2. Apparently, you don’t know how a greenhouse works…*sigh*

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

                  “Glass is transparent to most of the wavelengths of solar radiation, but is effectively opaque to the much longer (thermal infrared) wavelengths emitted by the plants and soil inside the greenhouse”

                  Duh. Bleeping duh. Are you really this dumb?

                  I fail to see how that would invalidate or contradict the fact that the MOST important “greenhouse” gas

                  Your problem word is “important”. It ISN’T important, because even though it is big, it can’t change. You cannot change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, except by changing the temperature. This implies that water vapor cannot force climate change, but only amplify it.

                  Do you not understand “equilibrium”? If we were to build a bunch of SuperDooperMistSoakers to flood the atmosphere with a whole heck of a lot of water, it would all fall right back down within days after we stopped. Any that we, or some natural even, puts into the atmosphere will fall right back out.

                  1. More importantly, you, and most climatologists apparently, don’t know how greenhouses work either.

                    From the very same paragraph as your quote:
                    “Polyethylene greenhouses, however, seem to work just about as well as glass ones — and polyethylene is nearly as translucent to thermal infrared radiation as it is to solar radiation.”

                    That article goes on to explain that the actual greenhouse mechanism is that the ground, heated by incoming solar radiation, heats the air above it by convection (not by re-radiating IR) and that warm air is trapped inside by the physical barrier of the glass or plastic regardless of how transparent it is.

                    I know it’s been posted here before, but this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161 does a pretty thorough job of demolishing the whole “CO2 as greenhouse gas” theory, and probably goes a long way to explaining this graph http://www.aps.org/units/fps/n…..igure7.gif (also from a link posted here previously).

          2. that increased proportions of greenhouse gases means a warmer planet

            Like in the Cambrian when CO2 was 18 times greater than it is now?

            Or in the Jurassic when CO2 was 5 times higher than today?

            Or during the Ordovician ice age where CO2 was 12 times higher than today?

        2. Old Mexican –
          “The reason I menion C) is because there is a big, giant leap between Global Warming and Man-Made Global Warming. That the globe could be warming is a distinct possibility worth studying. The problem is when the scientists jumped to the conclusion that the GW was MAN-MADE because “our models told us so”. THAT should have been taken with the UPMOST skepticism, because you are not only describing a physical phenomenon – you are giving A REASON”

          AGW believers jump a whole series of logical chasms beyond this”.

          1) A warmer world is worse.

          2) It is possible to stop AGW

          3) The particular policies proposed will stop AGW

          4) The costs of implementing the above proposed policies will be less costly than adapting to climate change.

          Each one of these steps is as large as the jump from

          a) detecting global warming
          to
          b) the warming is caused by human activity and not by solar activity or some other natural process.

  37. Re: Tony,

    Your problem is you’re looking for certainty in science. All you have are probabilities.

    AGREED!!!!

    So WHY for the love of Zeus is there CERTAINTY on what the States want to impose on us? Where is YOUR certainty that “we must do something NOW”?

  38. It is easy to distinguish skeptics from deniers.

    Skeptics are skeptical of ALL the data. Indeed, knowing that people show a strong tendancy to be biased towards data that affirms their beliefs, skeptics are even MORE critical of data which supports their own arguments.

    Deniers, in contrast, are hyper critical of data that contradicts their beliefs, but display little or no ability to critique data which supports it.

    Climate skeptics are rare. Climate deniers are a dime a dozen. Anyone who takes peer-reviewed data with a grain of salt (or two), but accepts data from WUWW, CA, etc without an entire salt shaker full, is a denier. That probably means you.

    1. Re: Chad,

      Skeptics are skeptical of ALL the data.

      This is nonsense, Chad.

      Deniers, in contrast, are hyper critical of data that contradicts their beliefs, but display little or no ability to critique data which supports it.

      Read the Nature link given by Neu Mejican – it is clear that anyone that even DARES question ANYTHING said by the AGW proponents and true believers is ipso facto a “denier.”

      By the way, people are not skeptical of Global Warming per se. They are skeptical of the claims that GW is man-made and thus a big problem which only government can solve. That should have raised the bar on the claims of the AGW proponents – instead, they were left to do shoddy work and become flim-flam purveyors, shysters, con men and bullshit artists.

      1. So which data should skeptics accept on faith? Whichever they like?

        I see no citation by NM. I regularly read Nature, though, unlike you. If you can find a quote that backs what you say, I’ll eat your dirty underpants.

        1. I like what this letter from the American Physical Society has to say. Many thanks to JW for pointing out the hilariously dispositive contents of the link that MNG originally provided:

          In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

          1. Non peer reviewed crap, written by a politician with a degree in journalism, yapping about trends of only a few years. Next, please.

            Level of skepticism applicable: Off the chart!

            1. You uphold peer-reviewed as if it really means something. Peer-reviewed means that peers have reviewed it, not that it is correct or repeatable.

              And thanks for pointing out that it is not peer reviewed–and thus “crap” as you call it–because the next sentence places these guys clearly in the majority:

              The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

              1. That was clearly put there precisely because most of them disagree with the crap in the article.

                You are right that peer review does not prove that it is correct or repeatable. But it does imply that it has been reviewed numerous times by numerous people with no skin in the game, and indeed, every incentive to find flaws and fix them before publication.

                1. Someone’s thoughts on problems with peer review:

                  Sometimes, if a scholar advances an unpopular or a truly revolutionary point of view, there may be considerable resistance within the peer group. Nevertheless, peer review is the best mechanism we have to attain scholarly objectivity and to guard against scientific fraud.

                  However, recent studies, and a US Supreme Court decision, described on the Web site of the International Symposium on Peer Reviewing: ISPR 2009 point out growing dissatisfaction with the process.These studies claim that peer review can be ineffective, and can impede innovation. The organizers say: “The almost unanimous agreement about peer reviewing as principle, and the huge disagreement about its current methods, are a clear sign that more efforts are needed in scientific and engineering research and development in order to identify more effective methodologies and support systems (especially with current Information and Communication Technologies) so the real purpose of peer review (based on its principle) is better fulfilled.” (Source: http://www.iiis2009.org/wmsci/…..asp?vc=27. Accessed 24 March, 2009).

                  Yes, anything that isn’t peer-reviewed is crap, right Chad?

                  I agree that peer reviewed, when performed correctly (preferably blinded), is more desirable than material not so vetted, but history has way too many examples of peer review groupthink to make me care all that much about it. I’m an engineer. I want to see repeatable evidence. So the planet’s a highly dynamic system? AGREED, but if you can’t demonstrate to me what is happening and why in a repeatable fashion, I don’t think you are qualified to legislate my lifestyle.

                  1. No, there is plenty of non-peer reviewed stuff that isn’t crap. This particular article clearly is. I didn’t have to read more than a couple paragraphs before it fell into the standard denier half truths, after which there was no point in reading further, because that is all it would contain from that point.

                    We only have one planet, silly goose. We can’t repeat anything in this branch of science.

                    Oh, and darned well DO have the right to legislate your lifestyle when it includes dumping your garbage on my and the public’s property. Sorry, Charlie.

                    1. “Oh, and darned well DO have the right to legislate your lifestyle when it includes dumping your garbage on my and the public’s property. Sorry, Charlie.”

                      Thank you for bothering to even check if I am dumping trash on your property.

                      Oh wait, you didn’t. And you don’t. Yet you are so sure I require more controls. Why thank you, herr Doctor.

                    2. It is mathematically impossible for your trash NOT to come on to my property. The atmosphere is well-mixed and the number of molecules on my property absurdly high. You can be sure that there is a water molecule from one of Jesus’s farts somewhere on my land.

                    3. It is mathematically impossible for your trash NOT to come on to my property.

                      So hold your breath so it does not come onto my property.

        2. Chad –
          “So which data should skeptics accept on faith?”

          The fact that you want us have “faith” in anyting related to AGW is your problem. Faith is a religious concept, not a scientific one.

          Merriam Websters Definition of Faith:
          “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”

    2. Unless one is a complete loser, one has many reasons to be skeptical about AGW. Look at Line 61 of your Form 1040 for a whole lot of reasons.

      If you don’t know what I’m talking about or if you’re don’t think Line 61 has a lot of reasons for skepticism that would explain a lot.

  39. “So which data should skeptics accept on faith? Whichever they like?”

    The question is meaningless, as skeptics don’t operate on faith. Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition, while scientific skepticism is about resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs.

    You may as well have asked which mammals should be eaten by vegetarians.

    1. I agree. Which is why I was challenging OM to explain why real skeptics don’t need to be skeptical of all the data.

      Indeed, the best skeptics are MORE skeptical of data which confirms their beliefs, as they are aware of their biases.

  40. My summary of Gibbs’s press house meeting:

    Kinsolving: 31,000 scientists don’t believe in global warming and 6000 of those have PhDs.

    Gibbs: Yes, but they’re all wrong.

    https://anacolutha.wordpress.com/

    1. Is Mickey Mouse on this list?

      Who are these people? Who vetted them?

      And why do so many of these “scientists” not have Ph.D.’s? Normally, that title is reserved for people with doctorates, or people with lesser degrees but long, distinguished careers.

      1. “Normally, that title is reserved for people with doctorates, or people with lesser degrees but long, distinguished careers.”

        Take a look at any of the States in the US at the pool of national parks workers who, even as non-degreed volunteers, take part in nature studies for the Park Service and have the title of ‘scientist’. Some of them have worked in the parks they love for decades, taking notes and measurements, conducting field trials of varying sorts, and generating a large amount of data.

        I suppose you think the government is wrong to call these people scientists?

        1. What part of “long, distinguished career” is hard for you to understand? Yes, if someone has been doing this work at a high level for decades, they are often granted the title of “scientist”. Corporations do this as well with some of their senior engineers whose career drifts towards R&D.

          I have a PhD, a couple years of post-doc, and more than a few years in corporate R&D, yet still think calling myself a “scientist” is borderline. I am getting there. To laymen, that is how I describe myself, but within the field, I am closer to a “Senior Research Associate” or something similar. “Scientist” is reserved for people one or two steps up the chain from me.

          1. I said some of them. I worked with a guy who was a part-time “scientist” in a national park–while still in college!

            Congratulations on trying to dodge the point and failing.

            As for being a PhD, what a hot stream of piss in the face you are to PhD’s who have critical thinking skills.

            1. If the NP system is using “scientist” this way, they are using it inappropriately and in contradiction of how it is used in both industry and academics. Frankly, it’s a little insulting. It would be like calling a nurse’s aide “doctor”.

              If the bar is set this low for “scientist”, saying you found 31,000 of them is meaningless, because hundreds of millions of people exceed that bar.

              1. I didn’t say I found 31,000 of anything.

                And by the way, tossing your credentials does nothing for me. It means you spent more time in school, not that you are cogent, or right, or even moral.

                Education and accomplishment mean very little to what kind of person you are. There were a great many Nazi doctors, after all. Why should I consider you any different?

                ‘Among all criminals and murderers, the most dangerous type is the criminal physician’ – Miklos Nyiszli, prisoner and pathologist to Dr. Josef Mengele at Auschwitz

  41. You are right, I could be an evil scientist. But plenty of other data refutes that, like my repeated calls to increase taxes on all people like myself. You haven’t been around here long if you don’t know that I hold myself to exceptionally high standards, far higher than I hold others to. I even deliberately overpay my taxes every year.

    1. “I even deliberately overpay my taxes every year.”

      Congratulations!

  42. I do get a certain sort of hilarious kick out of the fact that Chad and MNG tout their educational pedigrees–the only two I have seen to do so–while at the same time being the two most obvious* exponents of elitist groupthink in the thread.

    *I’m not counting Tony because, well, he’s just not worth including as an example of any sort of thinking.

    1. That’s because few crackpots HAVE pedigrees, silly.

      Most are 21-year-old geeks who are working their way through Atlas Shrugged for the third time. I was even one of you back then.

      1. You’re not speaking to me, Chad. You really aren’t. I’m a working engineer who does solar engineering and invention on the side (aimed at sustainability). I don’t sit around merely reading blogs and books. I read to get the pulse of the planet and then get to work actually solving problems. I think many more of the people here are talented problem solvers than you believe. I am sure most of them are far less of the problem than you believe. So go ahead and talk all the shit you want; it’s irrelevant.

        1. If you were “getting the pulse of the planet” you would know that the last three months were the hottest August-October on record, that the oceans are as hot as we have every measured them, and ice is melting everywhere at an accelerating clip. Where are all these magical joules coming from?

          There are some pretty smart people around here, with an emphasis on “some”. However, some really smart people can be incredibly stupid when it comes to politics. My test is to ask people about things they have changed their mind on since they left college. Most wingers around here just foam at the mouth and try to change the subject, because the answer is nothing.

          PS:) Gratz on doing something useful with your day job. If you were only as useful now.

          1. If you were “getting the pulse of the planet” you would know that the last three months were the hottest August-October on record

            Here are the relevant charts. I don’t see anything out of the ordinary for a period covering an El Nino build up. Are you using value added data to get that claim?

            Eyeballing the charts, it is no where near the 1998 anomaly, and a fraction lower at this time than the 2002/2003 peak.

            http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com…..alies.html

          2. Dang! I went off and forgot to address the second part of that statement you made. Sorry, if I left you hanging, Chad.

            , that the oceans are as hot as we have every measured them, and ice is melting everywhere at an accelerating clip.

            Here is the relevant data.

            http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c…..htrend.jpg

            As you can see from that chart what clearly stands out is the 2007 low point. Whoopsidaisy! Would Mann love to have raw data that looked like that or what! However, the two of us had a nice discussion about that last night where I pointed out that NASA is crediting the decline there in 2007 to the higher levels of wind activity causing the ice to melt unusually quick for that cycle.

            Here we see in 2008 the area of ice did not shrink to the extent as it did in 2007, and 2009 much improved over 2008 and already on the upswing. Given the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is resuming its cooling trend, it will be interesting to see what occurs in the measurement here this time next year.

        2. “You’re not speaking to me, [bitch!]”

          You’re such a hyperactive queen.

  43. From Chad:

    And why do so many of these “scientists” not have Ph.D.’s? Normally, that title is reserved for people with doctorates, or people with lesser degrees but long, distinguished careers.

    Wrong on the basics, again.

    Even at the Universities—place pretty well known for their fetish for rank an seniority—where I work “Scientist” is used to describe a diverse bunch of folks, including holders of doctoral degrees in the sciences, but all some holding Masters degrees and senior grad students who none-the-less have only a B.S. or B.A. Industry is widely believed to have similar or looser standards (and the few such places I’ve had much contact with do).

    The important thing is that people so described do science. Having a sheepskin that says you’ve piled it higher and deeper certainly gets you in the door more easily that the unwashed masses, but people still judge you by that basic criteria.

    1. If you set the bar at “anyone who does science”, then the world has at least 6.5 billion scientists. Actually more, because some animals even do rudimentary science.

      If you go type “scientist” into your favorite jobs search engine, almost all of the jobs that come up are for PhD holders. A few, typically from small companies, seem to use “scientist” in the colloquial sense and use it to describe the job titles of BS/MS level lab workers, but they are the distinct minority. This results from the lack of a better word, actually. Nurse is to doctor as X is to scientist? Most companies use something like technician or associate, but these are very vague.

      1. Grunt … Grunt … I agree

  44. I agree. Which is why I was challenging OM to explain why real skeptics don’t need to be skeptical of all the data.

    You’re trying to avoid the point, Chad. The baseline, skeptical of all claims position is “We don’t know what is going on, so the correct policy position is to take no action.”

    You are the one claiming that vast, drastic, and immediate measures have to be taken. Therefore, the burden falls on you. And when a significant portion of the “results” supporting you position are shown to be the work of frauds, you have to go back to square one.

    1. Bingo. The gig is up. The whole case for action was based on the science being settled. Well, that conceit is gone.

    2. That’s absurd. When faced with uncertainity, the correct response is to do nothing? Hell, under that logic, you couldn’t get out of bed tomorrow because you can’t be certain that the floor isn’t an illusion covering a one-way pit to hell!

      Skeptics take the balance of the evidence and head in the direction it points, and continue to re-evaluate their heading as new data comes in.

      NO work was shown to be fraudulent, let alone a “significant” part. Every bit of data from every one of these researchers could disappear tomorrow and nothing would change, as there are numerous other lines of data saying essentially the same thing. Nor are these researchers even remotely “frauds”. Read the citations below for what scientists are saying. There is no concern about the data. They are concerned somewhat about the blackballing and lack of transparency, but mostly from a PR standpoint. They also note (unlike deniers) that the deniers themselves share a lot of blame for this…deniers were clearly trying to provoke reactions with repeated spam FOIA requests. Who wouldn’t expect people to get a bit testy under those circumstances.

      I think Jones should have sent M&M all the data they wanted…after he translated it into a High Elvish and Klingon hybrid, written in dwarvish runes. Decoder ring included, of course.

      (OK, I am joking on that last point…barely).

      1. Hell, under that logic, you couldn’t get out of bed tomorrow because you can’t be certain that the floor isn’t an illusion covering a one-way pit to hell!

        You know Chad, you could just set up a code:

        1) Reductio
        2) Straw man
        3) Appeal to authority

        Then you could just post something like
        “1321231”
        or
        “322131!!” (if you wanted to express outrage)

        and you’d save us all a lot of time and you would get much more of your thought process across at the same time.

        If you ever used a different one just add another code for it.

  45. It should be remembered that the respected names involved were, in truth, science bureaucrats, following a very different code of conduct from what we used to think of as “scientists.”

    See “The war on the weather”:

    http://vulgarmorality.wordpres…..e-weather/

    1. Thirty years ago climate science was a tiny field with a few people doing obscure work in universities accross the world. It was about as well known and well funded as the study of rare cave invertibrates. Then came global warming. And viola it is a multi billion dollar industry with its stars advising world leaders.

      Tell me that didn’t have motivation to believe the theory. The whole thing is a classic case of group think and confirmation bias.

  46. Challenge of the night:

    Can any denier point to any peer-reviewed articles released in 2009 that indicate that AGW is LESS of a problem than we thought it was in 2008?

    Good luck.

    Hint: They do exist..they are just rare.

    1. Falsification Of
      The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
      Within The Frame Of Physics
      Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)
      replaces Version 1.0 (July 7, 2007) and later
      Gerhard Gerlich
      Institut fur Mathematische Physik
      Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
      Mendelssohnstrae 3
      D-38106 Braunschweig
      Federal Republic of Germany
      g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
      Ralf D. Tscheuschner
      Postfach 60 27 62
      D-22237 Hamburg
      Federal Republic of Germany
      ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov

    2. Challenge of the night:

      Can any denier point to any peer-reviewed articles released in 2009 that indicate that AGW is LESS of a problem than we thought it was in 2008?

      Ah, the Pauline Kael effect applied to the culture of scientist!

      “What? He won? How could that be, I don’t know anybody who voted for him!”

      An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
      (Submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research, February 2009)
      – Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider

      Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum warming
      (Nature Geoscience, Volume 2, 576-580, July 2009)
      – Richard E. Zeebe, James C. Zachos, Gerald R. Dickens

      Climate as a Result of the Earth Heat Reflection (PDF)
      (Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences, Volume 46, Number 2, pp. 29-40, May 2009)
      – J. Bark?ns, D. ?alost?ba

      Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles, A Possible Connection
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 75-83, January 2009)
      – Adrian K. Kerton

      Climate Change: Dangers of a Singular Approach and Consideration of a Sensible Strategy
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 201-205, January 2009)
      – Tim F. Ball

      Climate projections: Past performance no guarantee of future skill? (PDF)
      (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 13, July 2009)
      – Catherine Reifen, Ralf Toumi

      Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 101-104, January 2009)
      – Craig Loehle

      Global Warming: Is Sanity Returning?
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 5, pp. 721-731, September 2009)
      – Nigel Lawson

      Greenhouse gases and greenhouse effect
      (Environmental Geology, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp.1207-1213, September 2009)
      – G. V. Chilingar, O. G. Sorokhtin, L. Khilyuk, M. V. Gorfunkel

      Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature
      (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, Issue D14, July 2009)
      – John D. McLean, Chris de Freitas, Robert M. Carter

      Irreproducible Results in Thompson et al., “Abrupt Tropical Climate Change: Past and Present” (PNAS 2006)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 3, pp. 367-373, July 2009)
      – J. Huston McCulloch

      Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
      – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

      Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance
      (Physics Letters A, Volume 373, Issue 36, pp. 3296-3300, August 2009)
      – David H. Douglassa, Robert S. Knox

      Oceanic influences on recent continental warming (PDF)
      (Climate Dynamics, Volume 32, Numbers 2-3, pp. 333-342, February 2009)
      – G.P. Compo, P.D. Sardeshmukh

      On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (PDF)
      (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 16, August 2009)
      – Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

      Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
      (Energy Fuels, Volume 23, Number 5, pp 2773?2784, April 2009)
      – Robert H. Essenhigh

      Recent climate observations disagreement with projections (PDF)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 4, pp. 595-596, August 2009)
      – David R. B. Stockwell

      Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide (PDF)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2 , pp. 105-121, January 2009)
      – Tom Quirk

      Surface Temperature Variations in East Africa and Possible Causes
      (Journal of Climate, Volume 22, Issue 12, pp. 3342?335, June 2009)
      – John R. Christy, William B. Norris, Richard T. McNider

      Trend Analysis of RSS and UAH MSU Global Temperature Data (PDF)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1087-1098, October 2009)
      – Craig Loehle

      Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data (PDF)
      (Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-359, February 2009)
      – Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking, Michael Pook

      Validity of climate change forecasting for public policy decision making (PDF)
      (International Journal of Forecasting, doi:10.1016, May 2009)
      – Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, Willie Soon

      An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability
      (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Issue 18, September 2009)
      – Marco Tedesco, Andrew J. Monaghan

      Solar Arctic-Mediated Climate Variation on Multidecadal to Centennial Timescales: Empirical Evidence, Mechanistic Explanation, and Testable Consequences (PDF)
      (Physical Geography, Volume 30, Number 2, March-April 2009)
      – Willie H. Soon

      Validation of the cloud property retrievals from the MTSAT-1R imagery using MODIS observations (PDF)
      (International Journal of Remote Sensing, 2009)
      – Yong-Sang Choi, Chang-Hoi Ho

      Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition
      (Science, Volume 324, Number 5934, pp. 1551-1554, June 2009)
      – B?rbel H?nisch, N. Gary Hemming, David Archer, Mark Siddall, Jerry F. McManus

      Global Health Threats: Global Warming in Perspective (PDF)
      (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 69-75, 2009)
      – Indur M. Goklany

      Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions (PDF)
      (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 106, Number 6, February 2009)
      – Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

      Elevated water temperature and carbon dioxide concentration increase the growth of a keystone echinoderm
      (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 106, Issue 23, pp. 9316-9321, June 2009)
      – Rebecca A. Gooding, Christopher D. G. Harley, Emily Tang

      Global Warming and Sea Level Rise (PDF)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 7, pp. 1067-1074, 2009)
      – Madhav L. Khandekar

      1. Note to the squirrel, my program was set to sort out the first sixteen. Didn’t realize I copied almost the whole sequence for 2009.

  47. Btw, a good representation of what scientists think of this issue.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/j…..2545a.html

    In short, no change to the science, the transgressions are minor, and whatever issues ARE real problems are being addressed.

    Also note that they emphasize how deniars have been using FOIA as a tool for griefing researchers. I do find it odd that so few news articles have mentioned this. Can anyone blame scientists for getting a bit testy when constantly harassed by trolls?

    1. Also note that they emphasize how deniars have been using FOIA as a tool for griefing researchers.

      If they put their data and metadata on an FTP site they would not have the problem of FOI requests. Furthermore their are tons of examples in emails of these scientist trying to hide information and data from their critics for the specific purpose of hiding the data from their critics.

      Furthermore it was revealed only after climategate that the CRU had lost their raw temperature data.

      1. Can you cite the “tons” of emails. I’ve seen no more than two or three. How many exactly are in a ton?

        Most of the data in dispute is not owned by CRU. >95% has been available of years, as well as all of NASA GISS data. Deniers have done just about nothing with it.

  48. Another good article for you guys to read.

    http://www.popularmechanics.co…..tml?page=4

    Clearly, this guys is not some raving lefty…very much a moderate actually. He criticizes some of the events at CRU, but only to the extent they deserve. His conclusions match Nature’s…no change to the data or theory, minor transgressions by the researchers, appropriate corrective action underway, and lots of bad behavior by some of the deniers.

    1. and lots of bad behavior by some of the deniers.

      deniers? seriously?

      I have no doubt you know where that word comes from. Perhaps if you want to be considered seriously here you might want to drop its use.

      1. Actually, I doubt you do. That word has been around a lot longer than the 1940’s.

        Any association is strictly un-intended (though delicious, I must say).

        1. association to what? ..the “H” word…oh yes.. so delicious…you little imp!

          remember the words…”The Liquidation of the Polish Intelligentsia”. It might come in handy the next time you want to make comparisons to historiography with climate science.

          1. and if that made no sense, that’s because I’ve transcended your earthly reason. I exist as a wave of pure energy.

  49. I like the fella on here who thinks “social science” is actually a science…that’s cute.

  50. Some years ago several colleagues and I discovered we were collectively smarter than the entire field of AGW researchers. The published findings (in our school paper) can only lead other enlightened people to embrace our conclusions. We are absolutely shocked to have been met with vicious attacks by those who hold opposing (and wrong) viewpoints.

    These science-haters spew such vitriol that, for the sake of academic clarity, we refuse to publish, quote or even acknowledge such drivel. As well as nit-picking each and every minor statistical mistake we’ve ever made in our research, these radicals continually demand access to each of our IQ and SAT exam results. Unbelievable!

    We would of course gladly supply these Neanderthals with the “raw data” they refuse to believe in, however it was all destroyed in a barn fire south of Joliet, IL three years ago. We absolutely standby the results we derived from that data before it was tragically lost. While some of the data was slightly adjusted for conditional variables, the conclusions are based on generally accepted compilation and computation methods.

    Please . . . . just go away.

  51. Man, I love it how everyone misses the damn point. Let’s begin by stipulating:

    1) no deliberate fraud
    2) no human error

    A high hurdle, right, but benefit of the doubt and all…we’re not Hannity here, after all. What comes next?

    A) hypothesis: global warming trend, ostensibly caused by human-sourced emissions
    B) collect data. good for 60Y, mediocre for 60Y, and non-existent prior to that. No problem, substitute tree-ring study, etc.
    C) normalize data collected in step B
    D) data is now consolidated; identify and compensate for all externalities
    E) we now have curves indicating the effects of human-sourced emission

    Everyone is focusing on human fraud, and errors introduced, deliberately or not, in step C. That is not the point here. Your big problem, as a climate researcher, is step D. You are here, trying to claim to me, that you have successfully identified and eliminated all external effects, and are therefore in a position to make concrete claims about your hypothesis. With an accuracy of +/- 1.n? C.

    Bullshit, I say. Dirty emails and data-fudging are small potatoes, charlatan.

    1. Well, I’d buy off on your arguments here except that I don’t stipulate to points 1) or 2).

      I guess that kind of unravels your argument, at least in my mind.

      1. Unravels it in what way, exactly? The stipulations are pure charity.

        1. I read your comment too quickly & wrongly. I concure & apologize.

          1. No worries…you had me a fairly confused for a minute there, though.

    2. In the U.K. 1984 comes to life when the British equivalent to our Environmental Protection Agency announced they want to monitor and regulate individuals “energy usage”. How much people can drive, how much electricity, etc. etc. and the agency says that only those with “extravagant lifestyles… such as bankers” (they said bankers) -would be effected. Playing into the socialist handbook of class warfare. Global warming is about global government, a new tax scheme, and control over business and individuals, all by utilizing and invisible enemy that no one can prove exist, or doesn’t exist definitively, an enemy that can be blamed on many things. As population growth along coastlines grows exponentially there will be more property damage and deaths. This is not because the weather is worse, but because more people live in hazardous areas. But people are dumb so blame it on Global warming. The TV says it true, it must be!

  52. Actually, I cant believe you people let John, at the beginning of these posts, spell conniving ‘kniving’!

    I dont want to be a spelling wonk, but this guy said he had just published several law review articles…

  53. Actually, I’m not Tony, but I just love it when you guys rip into him everytime he spews shit from his asshole…

  54. ManBearPig. ManBearPig. ManBearPig. I find it really surprising that only 40% are “skeptical” about the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. What happened is that the enviro-nazis found an environmental theory purported by scientist that blamed humans, (some of leading scientist behind AGW were also the ones in the 70’s claiming that the Earth was entering an Ice Age, and also many of the same ones who claimed there was a giant hole in the ozone layer in the early 90’s). They jumped all over the fight against themselves as “evil” humans destroying the natural environment, forgetting that we humans are too part of the environment. Once this theory was championed by liberal enviro-Nazis, the liberal politicians championed it as well, once the Democrats and grass roots lib-nuts were on the case, the liberal media complex naturally turned the “theory” -into fact. The same way the liberal media complex controls public opinion by controlling the debate, they did with AGW, and pretty soon since all anyone ever heard was “its a consensus” and “the skeptical view is the minority view”, it became a self fulfilling prophecy, and the “consensus” helped turn “theory” into fact. No one seemed to realize that once science becomes politicized, it is not credible. The Germans in the 30’s and 40’s had a consensus too! And everyone agreed that Aryans were the master race and that all others should die. Since the media said so, the government said so, and everyone else said so, (because they did not want to be shot, the equivalent today of being ridiculed and blacklisted) it became fact. The scientist also have monetary incentive to be alarmist, as they get money when people are scared, and today its up in the trillions! Lots of money at stake for a highly politicized scientific theory championed by majority partys in government and media all over the world. Globalism and socialist aspirations are behind the greatest hoax the world has known. -ManBearPig.

  55. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

    There is no error, not data dump trash bins over at CRU, no data “dumping” of computer modeling, no cover-ups, conspiratorial chatter, destruction, and the FOI which amounted to harassment were probably illegal at that, given that some requests amounted to FIFTY in one week.

    And the whole issue of “suppressed” data and others research from the Denialist crowd is absurd. The Denialist nonsense does not generally meet peer-reviewed rigor, however flawed THAT system might seem to some.

    It’s the least worst scenario. And that’s all we can go with, people.

    In any event, regardless of ClimateGate being allegely negarious Soros inspired commie plannning, one has only to use ANOTHER time-testing scientific method of sheer observation to see the climate is changing in everything from migration pattern shifts of cold-sensitive hummingbirds sticking around longer and leaf changes in the Fall.

    I could go on and on.

    And if you really want to read the allegedly (NOT!) dumped data and fudged source code, good duplicates of the same damned thing are available from RealClimate, NOAA, and dozens of other outlets.

    Please.

    Another CATO/CEI oil funded NONtroversy.

  56. khpdave

    Nice snark.

    Now then, you and some others are free to take it up with Factcheck.org, who for some oddball reason seem to understand that while there might be some furrowed brows for anal retents who don’t understand who this all works, you need to SHOW where the errors are, and where the conspiracy is.

    Failing that, time to split, brother.

  57. R C Dean|12.2.09 @ 4:09PM|#
    MNG, a couple of things:

    (1) As I understand it, many of the adjustments to the raw data are, as of now, undocumented.

    (2) CRU destroyed the raw data.

    FALSE.

    NO SUCH THING HAS HAPPENED.

  58. Very informative article. Thanks for useful info!

  59. 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.

  60. which limited the actions of Congress and by extension had to be incorporated, the Second Amendment stated that RKBA was not to be infringed, and lacked detail as to by whom, and therefore applied to all government. By its very language it was already applicable to the states!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.