U.K. Climategate Investigation Set

|

An independent investigation of the leaked emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit will be headed by a former British civil servant. The Times (London) reports:

The university at the centre of a climate change row today appointed a former civil servant to head an inquiry into claims of misconduct by its scientists.

Sir Muir Russell, chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, who has no previous links with the climate science community, will lead the investigation into allegations that leading academics at the University of East Anglia mainipulated data on global warming.

He will also look at whether the university's Climate Research Unit (CRU) was in compliance with its Freedom of Information (FOI) policies and the Environmental Information Regulations for the release of data.

Not surprisingly reactions have differed. Climate catastrophe skeptics seem happy while proponents think the probe unjustified.

Skeptic:

Benny Peiser, director of the "sceptic" thinktank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, welcomed the choice of Sir Muir, saying that it was essential that the university chose someone without connections to the climate science community.

"We're not giving the inquiry a blank cheque, we will be monitoring it very carefully," he said. "If the inquiry is done properly and the scientists are cleared we welcome their restoration into their jobs.

Proponent:

Kevin Trenberth, a senior climate scientist at the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research, whose correspondence with Professor Jones was among the e-mails posted online, questioned the justification for the inquiry.

"Phil Jones and CRU are being punished and subjected to tremendous harassment stemming from illegal acts of others. Where is the counterpoint about the misrepresentation and downright lies about Jones and CRU, and who is going after those people?"

Dr Trenberth said that no matter what the outcome of the inquiry, the affair had been deeply damaging for the public perception of climate science. "From the recent vote in Australia, to statements from the Saudi rep about how he will use this to block things in Copenhagen," he said. "Politicians have to be strong and bold to go against their voters, and the political will is diminished by this."

The report will not be out until this spring. Whole Times article here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Congress Protects Breasts from Science, Themselves

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

  1. How to deconstruct an apologetic tirade for Dummies:

    Kevin Trenberth, a senior climate scientist at the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research:

    “Phil Jones and CRU are being punished and subjected to tremendous harassment stemming from illegal acts of others.

    We’re innocent! We weren’t even there! Others did it! Honest!

    Where is the counterpoint about the misrepresentation and downright lies about Jones and CRU, and who is going after those people?”

    It’s all a conspiracy! We were framed!

    Dr Trenberth said that no matter what the outcome of the inquiry, the affair had been deeply damaging for the public perception of climate science.

    They caught us red-handed! That’s not fair!

    “From the recent vote in Australia, to statements from the Saudi rep about how he will use this to block things in Copenhagen,” he said. “Politicians have to be strong and bold to go against their voters, and the political will is diminished by this.”

    You must believe US!

  2. Political science, Warmist style:

    “Politicians have to be strong and bold to go against their voters, and the political will is diminished by this.”

    The public is too stupid to understand. Policitians must act regardless of what the people they represent think.

    Is this guy taking his cues from Bill Maher?

    1. They can’t handle the truth!

    2. When politicians listen to their voters but not to the experts, it is “demagoguery”.
      If the politicians listen to them instead of to the voters, it is “being strong and bold”.
      If it happens that the majority thinks like the experts and the politician listen to them, it is “democracy”.
      If the politician listens to neither, it is “fascim”.

      1. that’s why they should ignore both and heed the constitution…

    3. Since when did libertarians give a shit about democracy? Isn’t democracy the big wrench that prevents the magical free market utopia from coming into being? (You know, since most people aren’t gonna vote themselves into poverty for the sake of a silly ideology.)

      Anyway, this is a question that I’ve been interested in but haven’t dared pose. IF global warming is real and as catastrophic as is claimed, but people are too stupid to do something about it democratically, should we hang onto democracy at all costs, or do something about it regardless of the will of the people (since they’re uninformed and there isn’t time to inform them)?

      1. That fact that you even find it necessary to ask this question says volumes about you.

        1. That I like to ask hard questions?

          1. bring back joe

          2. Yes, now you need to videotape them and upload them to YouTube.

      2. You know what, Tony? In 100 years you’ll be dead. Until then, STFU.

      3. IF global warming is real and as catastrophic as is claimed,…

        Those are two pretty big ifs, especially the second one. Back in 2000, if you’d have polled all the experts to estimate how many feet the oceans would rise by 2010 if we did nothing, I bet the “claims” would have been in the 1-10 ft range (and higher if the “experts” included Al Gore). The actual value is somewhere between 2 and 3 centimeters or roughly 1 inch.

        1. Nope. No poll of experts would have concluded that…Not even if your 2010 is supposed to be 2100.

          1. I had a climate class professor in cokllege in 1987 who said by 2050 the sea level would be at least 5 feet higher than it is now. I remember because the kid next to me remarked his house was only 3 feet abouve sea level.

        2. Actually, the first “if” is virtually certain. AGW will range from somewhere between “much ado about nothing” to “the four horsemen”, with the most likely outcome being “just plain bad”.

          When faced with uncertainty, everyone (and indeed, even animals) play the odds….except deniers, that is.

          1. Thanks prof ehrlich

            1. What, you want me to call the deniers “skeptics”? I wouldn’t besmirch skeptics that way.

              Skeptics are skeptical of all data, PARTICULARLY that which supports their own beliefs, as they know that being human, that they are biased towards believe it.

              Deniers, on the other hand, take anything that supports their belief (and a whole lot that doesn’t) as gospel truth, and anything that refutes it is, of course, a lie.

              1. Lemme guess, you’re a noble skeptic.

                From MW dictionary:

                Main Entry: skep?ti?cism
                Pronunciation: \?skep-t?-?si-z?m\
                Function: noun
                Date: 1646
                1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
                2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
                3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

                Any observer would say the deniers fulfill 2b.

                Although false and self-congratulatory, your short lecture was inspired and I look forward to the next.

              2. Pot, meet kettle.

      4. Tony: repeatedly, again and again, this argument has been raised for all kinds of other threats, real or imagined. One of them is terrorism. It’s called “the end justify the means”. I won’t speak on behalf of other libertarians (it is not in our habit to behave as a herd, you see), but for me, I have always said doing such a thing is never a good idea.

  3. “Politicians have to be strong and bold to go against their voters.”

    Why does this pesky democracy keep holding us back from telling people how to live their lives?

    1. “Politicians have to be strong and bold to go against their voters.”

      Jeez, we don’t hold elections every day (unfortunately).

      Candidates have to be strong and bold to go against voters. Elected officials do not. Once they’re elected, they can do as they please, as long as they don’t care about whether they’re re-elected.

      1. the down side of term limits?

      2. I believe that’s why the original Progressives introduced recalls…

        1. We just need to prepare the papers for the recall right after the election.

          Jeez, we don’t hold elections every day (unfortunately)

          Time to design a web app. Something where we can track every gov’t position, let people vote their (dis)approval.

          Have some forum boards for discussing issues, in such a way that previous discussions don’t get left behind. We flesh-out some great points on this board, but it all vanishes in 3 days once we’re all commenting on the subject again.

          Frankly, lets just replace our Elected Representatives with our new web app. and see how that goes.

          We have internet banking, and that has worked out pretty damn well. Time for internet governance.

          (i’m going to take credit for iGovt RIGHT NOW)

          1. Wylie, that’s an interesting idea: the marketplace for issues and positions. You’re going to have to have some crazy stringent registration rules (unique email addresses or valid OpenID entities) to prevent the wackos and lobby whores from flaming the whole operation.

            You can also develop a pretty spectacular data cloud that shows the movement of issues and positions over time so that people can see the differences between trends-of-the-week and issues that actually span several topics and long time frames.

            The opportunities for new search models and reporting are ripe for this kind of venture. My dad should be able to type “Does America have a cop problem?” to see how Americans and their elected officials (however you want to slice and dice them for visual displays) talk about, react to, ignore, or go Balkoish over the issue. A simple element of the UI is the ability to look for old/recent/pending legislation and all the officials/bureaucrats attached to them, with a consequent ability to directly influence the debate with some sort of one-click objection/approval/jury’s out/I need to know more.

            Around election time, you could print out an issue report, something like credit reporting agencies do, to show how you’ve changed or not changed over issues in the four or so years between major elections.

  4. The report will not be out until this spring.

    In the meantime, let’s have an agreement set in stone! Damned the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

    [Signed: Warmists]

  5. punished and subjected to tremendous harassment stemming from illegal acts of others
    the affair had been deeply damaging for the public perception of climate science

    Really, man, whoever exposed these shenanigans needs to be held accountable. You can’t just go around damaging the public perception of climate science like that. Don’t you know that people might get harrassed?

    1. Yeah, the comments from the apologists become funnier and funnier by the minute. It’s pathetic.

      1. Anyone else notice that Tony and MNG aren’t around today?

        1. Tony is a sockpuppet and MNG usually comes around more in the afternoon/evening.

          1. Y’all are giving sockpuppets a bad name. I’m going to start a Sifl&Olly; Defense Fund to counter all this slander!

          2. I guess he works for a living.

        2. Tony just made a statement – regarding the sanctity of “private property” (which I believe for him means Intellectual Property, which is NOT property)

          MNG is silent, and Neu Mejican just came out to insult me. So I guess things are Quiet on the Western Front.

          1. When did you get so thin skinned?

            You done nothing but rant for days using terms like fraud, criminal, liar, cop-out, huckster, and the cutest…”warmist” to describe those who disagree with you.

            1. get a room you two. We’ll all know when you get there, because the universe will implode. Get going.

            2. I’m a Denilist.

              That’s not a spelling mistake, for the record. I’m either a de-nihilist or a De-Nile-ist–take your pick.

            3. You forgot flim-flam, which never gets old. Old Mexican’s rants are a bestseller waiting to happen. Enjoy the book club.

              1. You forgot flim-flam, which never gets old.

                I loved that one. I learned it from James Randi. I also learned from him not to blindly and faithfully accept a sham just because it is “peer reviewed.”

            4. Don’t be a sourpuss – just because YOUR rants stopped being entertaining doesn’t mean you have to be so dismissive.

    2. Well, it is Mr. Jones’ comments, in the end, that are deeply damaging to the public perception of climate science.

    3. I agree, though, that if those documents were stolen, that is bad and an inquiry should be held about that too. However, now that it is public, you cannot ignore or deny (“deny”, get it?) the contents.

      1. “I agree, though, that if those documents were stolen, that is bad and an inquiry should be held about that too.”

        Damn straight.

  6. ‘Sir Muir Russell, chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland . . .’

    This reminds me of something Benjamin Franklin said about Scottish judicial appointments during the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787:

    ‘Doc[to]r. Franklin . . . mention[ed a method of choosing judges] which he had understood was practiced in Scotland. He then in a brief and entertaining manner related a Scotch mode, in which the nomination proceeded from the Lawyers, who always selected the ablest of the profession in order to get rid of him, and share his practice among themselves. It was here he said the interest of the electors to make the best choice, which should always be made the case if possible.’

  7. Not surprisingly reactions have differed. Climate catastrophe skeptics seem happy while proponents think the probe unjustified.

    Guilty people act that way. Or maybe the Warmists think the probe may be anal…

    1. anal probe jokes aside, those 2 sentences could’ve been left out for sheer obviousness.

      Though, i guess it DOES come as a surprise to all the “there’s a scientific consensus” sorts.

      1. Guilty people act that way.

        As do falsely accused people…just saying.

        1. Re: Neu Mejican,

          As do falsely accused people…just saying.

          Well, nobody likes to be probed

          1. Also not true.
            You don’t know much about people do you.

          2. Well, nobody likes most people don’t like to be probed…

            just sayin

            1. On the record… I can neither confirm nor deny my true opinion on this subject.

              Off the record… I pitch AND catch.

        2. As do falsely accused people…just saying.

          Falsely accused of what? Are you saying that the authenticity of the documents is in question?

  8. I’m all for them getting someone from outside the climate-community. But a civil servant?

    I would’ve assigned it to Thoreau, or another physicist.

    1. But a civil servant?

      Who cares? Didn’t you read above? The proponents [the Warmists] said the probe was unnecessary, and that is a peer-reviewed, consensus-making statement. I heard those two things have importance . . .

    2. white wash! how the fuck is a employee of the offending univeristy and a civil servant “independent”?

      I think we should let Henry Kissinger be in charge of the commission.

  9. Some background on Kevin Trenberth:

    “Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.
    (…)
    “To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
    (…)
    “It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
    unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity”

    – From an open letter to the climate science community by research meteorologist Chris Landsea, explaining why he would not be participating in the IPCC’s Fourth Assesment Report, of which Trenberth was lead author.

    http://www.climatechangefacts……omIPCC.htm

    1. “It is beyond me [Chris Landsea] why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an
      unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming.

      Three reasons:

      + Grants;
      + Grants, and
      + Grants.

      Oh, and the power to participate in the creation of a new Dawn of Man.

  10. Trenberth certainly isn’t helping his case.

    He just give fuel to fools like old mexican.

    1. He just give fuel to fools like old mexican.

      Indeed, Neu, because people that disagree with you have to be fools.

      1. No Old Mexican.
        I called YOU a fool.
        There are plenty of smart folks around here who I have disagreements with.

        1. Re: Neu Mejican,

          No Old Mexican.
          I called YOU a fool. There are plenty of smart folks around here who I have disagreements with.

          Does that mean you don’t love me anymore?

          Could it be that the people you consider as “smart” have not really chanllenged your cherished beliefs that much?

          1. Actually, the people that I consider smart ARE the ones who challenge my perspective.

            1. Are you guys wearing lucha libre masks while having this argument?

              1. Of course. Only a gringo would need to ask such a thing.

              2. Mine is silver.

            2. Re: Neu Mejican,

              Actually, the people that I consider smart ARE the ones who challenge my perspective.

              Not successfully, I would gather . . . which is why you don’t insult them . . .

              1. You would gather incorrectly.

                1. The silver masked fool is impressed with himself, it seems. But he knows not of what he speaks. He tries his fist-of-talking-points, he hides it in a fist-of-indignation and pairs it with a fist-of-myteamisalwaysright, but to no avail.

                2. Re: Neu Mejican,

                  You would gather incorrectly.

                  Really – well, ok. I will have to take your word for it. Maybe they taught you how to obfuscate and fly off a tangent. For that, you should be grateful.

                  1. Talk about a tangent, he’s goin off on your mask and your moves now.

                    He’s just mad that he’s a palette swap of you, a la Scorpion/SubZero.

  11. I thought libertarians believed in the sanctity of private property?

    Trenberth asks the most important question. Why are scientists being punished for what goes on in their private emails, and nobody seems to care about who STOLE them?

    Whoever it was is getting exactly what they want: throwing climate change into a supposed controversy on the eve of Copenhagen.

    1. Dumb ass. Those e-mails were not “private propty”. They were done on official govenrment run systems. They belong to the govenrment not to the people who sent them. They didn’t hack their yahoo accounts. And further, the whole dump is a response to a FOIA request that they were hiding. All of those e-mails are subject to FOIA and should have been made public years ago.

      So STFU Tony. You are embarassing yourself, if that is possible anymore.

      1. Both the FOIA requests and the email hacking were instances of the scientists being pestered by denier busybodies with an agenda to make their lives as difficult as possible.

        The collective pants creaming going on on this site over these emails is exactly the response that the hackers were probably hoping for, inflaming gullible people looking for any sliver of a reason to pretend like global warming isn’t real.

        1. Tony,

          You are a pestering busybody, is not one of the FOIA exceptions. The e-mails should have been and should be public.

          1. You are right. And if you had read any other of the emails besides the ones you cream your pants over, you would find that they were particularly concerned with following the letter of the law.

            They did, however, let their emotions go to far, and deliberately pushed the law to the edge. Perhaps they tip-toed over, but when you read all the emails in context, it is clear that was not their intention. Their circle-the-wagons stonewalling was a serious mistake.

            Though I do think it would have been hilarious if they responded to every denialist FOIA request on paper in Klingon or High Elvish (with decoder ring, of course!).

        2. Tony: there was harrassment on both sides. There are scientists who have proved that their papers were refused for political reasons. And Phil Jones was seemingly plotting ways to harrass the other scientists as well. So I won’t shed a tear for him.

        3. Global warming proponents in science and politics have an agenda to make our lives as difficult as possible, so I think it’s completely fair that some people might try to complicate their lives.

    2. I thought liberals believed in protecting whistleblowers. And in the importance of Freedom of Information legislation.

      Ah, well, I guess that only applies if it is used against the other team.

      1. Ya, when corruption is uncovered. Maybe these emails uncover some minor corruption and expose some bad data. What they don’t do is throw the whole enterprise of climate science into question. But that’s how all y’all are taking it, not surprisingly. The issue is way too political, and I believe the scientists involved are victims of that reality.

        1. Re: Tony,

          Y[e]a[h], when corruption is uncovered. Maybe these emails uncover some minor corruption and expose some bad data. What they don’t do is throw the whole enterprise of climate science into question.

          Well, whay do you think the probe is for, Tony?

          But that’s how all y’all are taking it, not surprisingly. The issue is way too political, and I believe the scientists involved are victims of that reality.

          Ahh, well, now, Tony – whose fault is that? It is not us Libertarians the ones talking about plundering the productive efforts of billions to forestall a potentially invented crisis, or are we?

        2. [T]he scientists involved are victims of that reality.

          FTFY.

        3. “What they don’t do is throw the whole enterprise of climate science into question” How do you know?

          That sentence is preposterous. Much too soon to tell. Have you examined all the correspondance and all the code to be able to say that? Meanwhile, what has been digged up seems to indicate that yes, some of the data was cooked, and some of the literarture was skewed, and that is a problem, because of the few people and the few independant sources of data on the subject.

          1. How do you know that there isn’t a unicorn in your closet?

            There is nothing in these emails that hints at any problem with any data anywhere, actually.

            Are there some issues with FOIA requests? Definitely. Blackballing researchers? Actually, not so much. Deniers can publish (Landsea, Lindzen, Christie, etc do just fine). The blackballing was of crap research that was deliberately allowed through by sympathetic editors…which is precisely what peer review is meant to prevent.

            1. “There is nothing in these emails that hints at any problem with any data anywhere, actually.”

              No use arguing with you: you are the real denier, here.

    3. Tony,

      Trenberth asks the most important question.

      No, he is simply trying to shift the focus to obfuscate the real issue.

    4. Wrong, Tony. I totally care about the person who made the CRU documents available. We should install his statues in major cities.

      1. Here’s an interesting speculation: What if the leaker is global warming bigwig James Hansen? If so, I expect the “string him up!” sentiments of Tony and Babs Boxer and company would quickly disappear.

    5. I thought libertarians believed in the sanctity of private property?

      What part of “government project” don’t you understand?

    6. Re: Tony,

      Trenberth asks the most important question. Why are scientists being punished for what goes on in their private emails, and nobody seems to care about who STOLE them?

      “Hey, you cannot use my second set of books! They were stolen. Why am I being punished?”
      “Because, Mr. Capone, it does not matter – the books are still evidence of your crimes!”

    7. Guys, I agree with you the documents should have been turned over long ago. But still, IF they were stolen, that need to be punished.

      BUT again, we cannot ignore their contents.

      By the way, it is strange how liberals react differently to some stolen document (e.g., climategate, watergate) than to others (Pentagon Papers).

      1. Or the college kid in Nashville who hacked into Sarah Palin’s personal e-mail last fall. The NYT put those e-mails all over the front page. Yet, they won’t publish these e-mails even though they should have been made public years ago.

        1. LOL! That’s true, I didn’t recall that one!

    8. In the Skeptics Blogosphere there is tons of speculation as to who hacked the emails.

      The problem is that it is all speculation. After everyone says their private theory about who and how it was hacked there is nothing to talk about until more information is exposed.

      The emails on the other hand have 1073 separate pieces to look at plus even more data and files to examine. It is understandable why speculation as to who and how the files were hacked are on the back burner.

    9. You sure as fuck don’t like the idea of private property, Tony.

      Otherwise, you wouldn’t be a liberal.

      1. I’m a liberal (I prefer economic and individual freedom, and private property). Tony’s a fucking idiot.

  12. “Phil Jones and CRU are being punished and subjected to tremendous harassment stemming from illegal acts of others. Where is the counterpoint about the misrepresentation and downright lies about Jones and CRU, and who is going after those people?”

    OMG they read our e-mails and we are now going to have to explain to the peasants what we are doing with all these millions of dollars in grant money. The humanity.

    Even if you are a believer, actually especially if you are a believer, these guys really have to embarass you. What a bunch of a arrogant asshats.

  13. Sir Muir Russell, chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland,

    Too bad Scottish knights no longer carry claymores.

    Dr Trenberth said that no matter what the outcome of the inquiry, the affair had been deeply damaging for the public perception of climate science.

    That part he got right.

  14. I have to say that this whole scandal is entertaining me a lot. I’d love to stuff this thing right up joe’s bunghole, with prejudice, but we don’t have joe to kick around any more. Tony is a sockpuppet (keep it up, dude, you’ve been getting better lately), so he’s no fun to wail on.

    1. Yeah. Tony is no fun. Joe would have been fun to torture over this. He is so pigheaded and dogmatic that he wouldn’t have given an inch over this. The beatdown would have been epic between this and the various Obama disapointments.

      1. I miss Joe. He should run for Kennedy’s vacated senate seat. He would fit right in.

  15. Re: Tony,

    Both the FOIA requests and the email hacking were instances of the scientists being pestered by denier busybodies with an agenda to make their lives as difficult as possible.

    Those poor, poor babies, making extraordinary claims, being harrased by mean people asking to back up their claims. Oh, boo hoo.

    1. Somebody cry me a river to replace the one that my carbon footprint dried up.

    2. pestered by . . . busybodies with an agenda to make their lives as difficult as possible

      Gee, that sounds like every leftist activist of the last 40 years!

  16. LOL! That’s true, I didn’t recall that one.

  17. Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture ? leaves ticketholders in a lurch

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..n-a-lurch/

    1. Gore does kind of look like Lurch now that you mention it.

      1. Lurch was never that fat.

        1. Yeah, he just looks like a taller version of the Penguin.

      2. no the most Lurchiest of the Lurches is John Kerry. Gore looks like the douchebag that he is. i can even see the massengil tattoo on his forehead through the makeup in his photos.

  18. NOt the link is to the Times of London not the New York Times. Our sorry ass media refuses to cover this. They refuse to cover the most interesting story of the year and then wonder why no one reads them anymore.

    1. But I thought Tiger Woods was the most interesting story of the year.

      1. I’m going with the ACORN scandle. I loves me some under-aged hookers!

    2. I have read articles in the NYT in the wall street journal and seen Stephonopolis on “the Week” talk about this with George Will, Cockey Roberts, and Paul Krugman.

      The meme that MSM is not covering this needs to end.

      1. It even got air time on The Daily Show.

        1. During which i’m sure jon stewart made it clear how the allegations are unfounded.

          I miss Bush. I couldn’t tell how much of a tool stewart was back then. I assumed they’d keep up the good work of making gov’t look retarded at everyturn. Nope. Suddenly they make everyone who disagrees with the gov’t into the retard.

          Poor Form.

          1. clarification:

            I used to not-be-able-to-watch the dailyshow because all the gov’t actions they covered pissed me off.

            Now I’m unable to watch it because of their non-stop Obama/Democrat lovefest.

          2. During which i’m sure jon stewart made it clear how the allegations are unfounded.

            actually no. I have to reassess my view of Steward. I use to think he was a lefty hack now i am beginning to think he is simply an opposition comedian. He simply goes after who is in power no matter what party they are in.

            here is the video:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

          3. No, Jon Stewart for once did a good job of fake journalism.

          4. I actually expected Old Mexican to have a writing credit at the end of the bit.

            prolefeed – hmmm…does that point to Stewart’s credibility, or the credibility of those making the same argument he did in his joke?

        2. I normally don’t watch The Daily Show but I did catch his converage of this. He ripped into it, even showing some of the emails talking about data manipulation. My take was that his opinion was CRU was discredited and that there was an actual conspiracy to manipulate data going on. He ended the piece with ‘the ice is still melting’ or some such quip.

  19. Re: John,

    They refuse to cover the most interesting story of the year and then wonder why no one reads them anymore.

    Maybe they’re deadly affraid of Neu Mejican calling them fools – those people have really thin skins, you know…

    1. Yeah, we “warmists” have that effect on people…scary.

      1. how do you endure the hateful pejorative?

        1. With a brave heart…with a brave heart.

  20. “Phil Jones and CRU are being punished and subjected to tremendous harassment stemming from illegal acts of others. Where is the counterpoint about the misrepresentation and downright lies about Jones and CRU, and who is going after those people?”

    Hold on a second… These guys were plotting to circumvent peer review in order to lie to the rest of the scientific community, and the rest of the world at large, and they’re supposed to be the victims?

    Give me a freakin’ break. Typical liberals.

    1. the bleeding heart is by definition the “victim” Actual facts dont matter.

      1. These people are on the side of the angels, so it’s only right that they lie to us. To protect us from ourselves.

    2. They should protest this injustice by holding a candlelight vigil.

    3. If your emails were hacked and exposed to the world, leading to harassment because people deliberately misinterpret them, or they are inartfully worded, would you consider yourself a victim of the hackers or not?

      1. wtf does Johnny Lee Miller and Angelina Jolie’s greatest film does this have to do with anything Tbag?
        why must it be the work of eeevil hackers and not your average pissed off CRU employee?

        1. CEREAL KILLER, YO

      2. If I was working for the government and had received valid official requests to publicly release information which should have been public without said requests, and then I stalled and stonewalled on releasing the data, and then someone hacked my files and released it anyway …

        And I was a leftist warmist …

        Of course I would whine about the files owned by the public being released to the public and embarrassing the fuck out of me.

    4. Ummm, the “circumventing of peer review” was done by the deniers! The responses of Jones, Mann, etc were actually appropriate.

      For example,the Soon and Baulinas 2003 paper which most of the dispute emails concerned was sent to a sympathetic editor in a low ranking journal. He sent it out for review (which is his job), and some of the reviews were scathing….YET HE PUBLISHED IT ANYWAY.

      I have reviewed plenty of papers in my life, and if one were published after I gave it a negative review (without serious corrections), you can damned well be sure I would follow up. If I learned that other reviewers said the same thing, I would raise hell.

      The emails that concern keeping a couple of papers out of the IPCC report (they weren’t kept out, btw) were about this paper and one other that used similar tactics…to get published in a non-technical journal!

      1. Well Damn. Now i believe in The Consensus.

        When do i get my fuckin koolaid?!

      2. AGW deniers = Holocaust deniers.

        Eh, Chad?

      3. “Circumventing of peer review” is not nearly as bad as sabotaging of peer review, which is what the CRU people did: sub rosa boycotts, trying to get people fired, etc.

  21. “Nope. No poll of experts would have concluded that…Not even if your 2010 is supposed to be 2100.”

    Didn’t Hansen famously say that the West Side highway that I was traveling along last week would be underwater? It was a while ago (go figure), so I might not be remembering all of the details.

    1. Hansen was the fucking idiot who predicted that global warming would destroy all life on Earth.

  22. It’s great that the “expert consensus” on global warming has been exposed as a hoax. The “experts” were actually pushing their materialist/socialist agendas. Science has always been made by brave thinkers opposing the majority of “experts.”

    Now hopefully we can also expose the “experts” pushing Darwinian evolution. The parallels are important:

    * Just like the Goreans Darwinians have a record of bullying the peer review process!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..ontroversy

    * Just like the Gaia-worshipers the Darwinians have a record of concocting evidence to push their faulty “science”: google “Peking Man”

    * Just like the Climate Czars the Darwinians promote materialist/socialist policies:

    http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

    1. whether or not we are descended from apes (hint: we are) doesn’t impact the present day much. Forking over 2/3rd of planetary GDP to solve a problem that may not exist, or may not be fixable by human actions matters a lot more.

      1. Wrong. Darwinian evolution was the state religion of the two greates statist nightmares of the century: Nazism (that’s NATIONAL SOCIALISM) and Stalinism.

        1. [citation needed]

        2. Darwinian evolution was the state religion of the two greates statist nightmares of the century: Nazism (that’s NATIONAL SOCIALISM) and Stalinism.

          wrong, too.

          Soviet “No. 1 Biologist” under Stalin, Lysenko (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko ), was rather a follower of Lamarck. here’s what he thought of Darwin:

          A major fault, for example, is the fact that, along with the materialist principle, Darwin introduced into his theory of evolution reactionary Malthusian ideas.
          http://www.brainyquote.com/quo…..senko.html

          1. See Expelled.

            1. *yawn*
              I grew up in the Soviet Union. Although I was born in 1971, 18 years after Stalin’s death, I’ve probably seen more propaganda stuff of that era than there is out there on the whole internet. There’s no way Darwinism could be ‘state religion’, it was nothing more than rarely ever mentioned ‘outdated bourgeois theory’.

              Even school biology textbooks of 80ies skipped over Darwin and evolution theory in one-two pages.

    2. Um, just for the record, I may be a “Denialist”, but I also accept evolution as a well-established fact.

      1. You should not, for the same reason you wisely do not accept the Climate Hoax.

        1. Both are advanced by “experts” with social engineering goals.
        2. Both have a record of calling dissenters “denialists”, colluding to silence dissenters and bullying the peer reviewed process.
        3. Both rely on arguments by authority to silence dissenters though well known experts can be found on the dissenting side (science is not done by “majority vote”)

        The fix is in for both of these hoaxes.

        1. “arguments from authority” and about 100 museums full of evidence, DNA & genetics showing consistency and providing testable proof for many of the major concepts, a solid chain of reasoning with excellent premises based on hundreds of years of observation…

          Oh, and – unlike global climate, evolution is actually rather simple and involves relatively few variables… most of which are known.

          Really dude… wtf.

          We know species change over time – this is observable & experimentally provable. We know that traits are passed genetically from parents to children. We also know that genetic replication is imperfect and genotypic variation can lead to different phenotypes (remember high school biology class?)… AND… we know from goddamn basic deduction that only life forms which have developed traits that make them successful within their environment actually get to reproduce – thus passing on their genetic material.

          Now – considering that we can breed traits we want in dogs, cats, horses, cows, corn, wheat, you name it (!) in a matter of a few generations, macro evolution is merely this process unfolding over hundreds of millions of years.

          The “experts” are, in the case of evolution, merely continually finding evidence of something that is largely obvious to anyone with a brain, and they tend to use tangible, physical evidence – again, unlike climate science which is more akin to bad Keynesian economics in its methodology.

          And btw, I saw “Expelled”, it was one of the worst films I’ve ever had the displeasure of viewing and it made me sad for Ben Stein.

          1. Relatively simple and common sense? Ever heard of the work on irreducible complexity? Of the incredible probablities necessary for Darwininian theory to be true? Besides the lack of empirical evidence (no one has seen macroevolution, only microevolution) and predictions cannot be falsified because theyare about periods (the beginning of time) which we cannot know about.

            The Climate Czars use “tangible” evidence too: temperature readins, ice and rock drills, tree rings, etc. The thing is it’s often been done dishonestly by leftist scientists bent on social engineering, both in the case of Climate Science (climate gate) and evolution (Pilt-down man).

      2. I am also a Denialist who still favors evolution theory and athiesm.

    3. Oh fuck, the nutbags are showing up.

      Chemtrails! CHEMTRAILS!!!

  23. So speculate for me…let’s assume that CRU has pulled off a Pilt-down Man level of fraud here…

    What damage does that do to the science…not the perception of that science, but the science…that is at the root of the AGW debate.

    John, Old Mexican, Joshua and others here would have us believe that it brings down the whole endeavor.

    But that does not seem at all warranted. On first blush it looked like “much ado about nothing,” but by this point it seems to have moved up a notch in severity…maybe “much ado about not very much.”

    I think we will see some people dinged for sloppy practices. I think others will be dinged for unprofessional behavior. But I just don’t see anything in this affair that does a lot of scientific damage.

    I thought this was worth adding to the discussion. http://groups.google.com/group…..682ab84454

    1. Nice try mister. The Gaia-worshipers are guilty of the same slimy Stalinist tactics as the Darwinians. Neither are good science, both have political agendas to advance. But the people are not falling for this flim-flam (manufacturing data, making unfalsifiable assertions, bullying the peer review process). The Emperor is stark naked parading down Main Street and the atheist/socialists are telling everyone to not look. But we see what’s going on.

    2. you are saying that candid admissions of perverting the vaunted peer “review process” isn’t damning or doesnt undercut the science? You are on this website every time there is a climate science debate saying that “peer review” is near on infallible. that you agree with the established consensus, because the process is fair and open. That we should listen to the science, because they are impartial, fact based finders of evidence and that the bulk of the evidence points to the same conclusion. I would have thought that a candid admission that this is not the case would have shaken you a bit. It ought to.

      1. Mr. Domoarrigato

        Excellently put. I had a similar eye-opening regarding Darwinian evolution. We are supposed to believe this fantastic awful idea is true because there is a “consensus” of “experts” with “peer reviewed” work behind them. Of course as Climategate and the bullying of creationists such as Dr. Sternberg shows that proves little.

        1. nice try. I give it 50/50 that Hoaxbuster is NM’s sockpuppet being used to make a snarky point. If so, believe me, the snark is unecessary. I am intellectually honest enough to take a fair point made. But I dont have to, as long as it’s criticism being made by (flawed) analogy, and delivered by sockpuppets.

          1. I thought we were in agreement. I’ve demonstrated that the same slimy techniques of manufacturing evidence, colluding to silence dissent, and bullying the peer review process has been used by the Climate and Evolution Czars. Why? Because in both instances ideology masquerades as science for leftist political policies.

            1. bah, you lose.

              1. I invite you to argue against my points if you think them false. Don’t be afraid to look deeply. You’ve seen Climate Flim-Flammery for what it is. Darwinians are guilty of the same and more. Click on my links, take a look, I’ll bet we find we agree on more than we do not. We both have a properly skeptical mind when it come to leftist policy pretending to be science. That’s the start.

                1. I did, see above. You are retarded.

        2. and anyway, my point is that Climategate highlights the need for more transparency and impartiality in the scientific process. Claiming that obviously outrageous behavior on the part of some of climate science’s most esteemed researchers is merely a misunderstanding and that “there’s nothing to see here” doesn’t accomplish that.

          You want my taxes, show me the math. That simple. I will NOT take your word for it, and when it comes out that the review process is blatantly politically driven, I wont take the word of your cronies either. They could still be right, but they have a higher bar now than they did two weeks ago. They are acting awfully guilty at the moment…

          1. domo…I like that….when they start forming a movement to implement a “evolution tax” collected by the UN then I will get much more skeptical about evolution.

            Until then I find that evolution helps explain a lot of things in my worldview and I have a fondness for the theory.

      2. Every time peer review comes up, I say that it is a low bar, flawed, but the best thing we’ve got.

        I do think the process, on the whole, is fair and open. But, more importantly, it is self-correcting.

        I have never claimed scientist were impartial. They are humans with bias. The nifty thing is, for every bias in one direction there is another scientist ready to step up and prove it wrong. That’s part of the self-correcting thing.

        I do science, so finding out that there are arrogant pricks involved in the process does not shake me up much. What I haven’t seen in this affair is solid evidence that the process has been corrupted or failed to work to find scientific misconduct. Maybe this probe will prove me wrong. The probe, hopefully, will allow the out-of-context accusations that have convinced so many who were primed to believe it was all a scam to be placed in context so that actual misconduct can be discriminated from the spin (if it occurred).

        1. NM,

          The largest problem I’ve seen so far is that all the research relying on the dataset generated by CRU is based on air. The original untouched data either no longer exists or has been hidden. That ain’t the way you do science, especially when you’re dealing with policy implications in the billions of dollars. We’ve beat this to death before, but the lack of data hygiene is the killer. Any work done that depends on the CRU is suspect. And from my understanding, that’s a hell of a lot of the research.

        2. but see, NM, climategate IS the self-correction. It’s the self correction of decades of incestuous padding of research journals with like-minded politically driven cronies.

          Admit it, someone blew the whistle on the type of shenanigans that people like myself have always assumed exist – and you have generally denied.

          You have indeed always said PR was a flawed process but the best we have got. I have always disagreed that it is as good as it should be. It could and MUST be better, when we are staking half the worlds economy on it.

          In the end, publishing is tied to grants and dollars. Where there is economic motive, there is cheating. Why would science be different than any other economic game? Duh…

          1. EXACTLY re “climategate IS the self-correction.”

            The screaming and howling from AGW proponents speaks volumes. Why are they so afraid that their original data sets will be released to others to try and replicate?

            If AGW is true…climategate will only strengthen the theory when the dust settles. The fact that proponents are so up in arms about releasing their data makes you wonder if the already know what the resolution will be…

            AGW proponents should welcome the chance to be proven right…

            NM if you really cared about ‘science’ you wouldn’t mind demonstrating the theory you believe in OVER and OVER again. You would welcome it. That is how self correcting science works.

            In light of climategate every rational proponent of AGW can only say “Regardless of the context, regardless of the senders intent, there is stuff in there that because it can be taken out of context, the light should be shown on it to figure out what they were really doing and the investigation will only strength our position.” [Which you haven’t had the balls to say]

            Rational skeptics can only ask for the data and for CRU to replicate its’ work. [Which funny enough, is exactly what they have been doing.]

        1. And another:

          https://reason.com/archives/200…..ent_766667

          Mark B’s claims are that the peer reviewed stuff is wrong, and that he has a better analysis.

          He makes claims to have done an analysis of sufficient detail to stand against the claims of the peer reviewed stuff.

          Given that, it seems just a formality to write it up and publish it under peer review.

          Your list of articles is longer than mine, but not by enough for me feel like I need to be schooled by you regarding the peer review process.

          Why is the peer review process now not so important? What changed in the last couple of years?

          1. sage,
            I am not sure I get the reason for linking to that discussion.

            I guess it is all in how you interpret the text.

            One of the problems with this whole scandal is it relies on interpretation of text out of context. But, of course, text always under determines meaning and uses the context to fill in the gaps.

      3. Domo, the “perversion” of the peer review process was BY THE DENIERS, who found loopholes and got a couple of crappy papers published (and then touted them everywhere). The emails were a *response* to political papers being snuck through peer review, which is exactly what WASN’T supposed to happen.

        Btw, can you give me the citation for the papers in question. I want to check if you have one tenth of a clue of what you are talking about.

        1. Soon 2003 I believe.

          The major complaint was that the proxies they used were spurious. What is funny is that Mann used spurious proxies as well…the difference is that he used a “trick” to hide them.

          The complaint about Soon’s paper can be equally leveled at Mann’s 1998 paper. as well as Briffa’s 1999 paper which used “hide the decline” to hide the fact that his proxies were spurious and Jones as well who used Mann’s trick and Briffa’s “Hide the Decline” to hide the fact that his proxies were spurious.

        2. you are an idiot. Your argument is the same as the climategate people. it’s basically “we know we are right, so anyone who says differently is wrong and/or politically driven – unlike us who are holy and pure and right”

          That is religion, not science.

    3. Re: Neu Mejican,

      So speculate for me…let’s assume that CRU has pulled off a Pilt-down Man level of fraud here…

      What damage does that do to the science…not the perception of that science, but the science…that is at the root of the AGW debate.

      A great deal, Neu, even if you do not want to believe it. The problem here is not that the climate scientists were studying an interesting phenomenon and discussing their findings in open debate – there were clear POLICY implications behind their research.

      John, Old Mexican, Joshua and others here would have us believe that it brings down the whole endeavor.

      Well, now, Neu – you’re being melodramatic. Nobody has said that the science of climatology or even Global Warming should stop being subjects of study. That’s crazy.

      What most people here are outraged about is that a set of leftist-leaning researchers were PROSTITUTING science in order to get a piece of the action in future policy making, with millions to rake and fame to garner.

      But that does not seem at all warranted. On first blush it looked like “much ado about nothing,” but by this point it seems to have moved up a notch in severity…maybe “much ado about not very much.”

      Yeah, keep thinking that… if that is your sole consolation.

      I think we will see some people dinged for sloppy practices[…] But I just don’t see anything in this affair that does a lot of scientific damage.

      Not scientific damage – there is no such thing. There will be quite a bit of public opinion damage which, fortunately for those that want to keep what we earned, will amount to more careful research and less enthusiasm for making us all poorer.

      1. “What most people here are outraged about is that a set of leftist-leaning researchers were PROSTITUTING science in order to get a piece of the action in future policy making”

        Well put. Marxist/athiest scientists have been warping science to advance their socialism for a long time, whether the thrust be “global warming” or “species evolution”. Read about one of the latter and his avowed Marxist and materialist views here:

        http://www.worldviewtimes.com/…..cleid-1739

    4. John, Old Mexican, Joshua and others here would have us believe that it brings down the whole endeavor.

      The idea that the present rise in global temperatures is unprecedented and therefore caused by rising temperatures is based solely on the multi-proxy studies of Jones, Briffa and Mann. These emails expose serious malfeasance in the construction of their multi-proxy studies.

      If their studies are not true (and the emails indicate so) then the claim that current temperatures are unprecedented and therefor must be caused by rising CO2 levels cannot be substantiated.

      Does it stop science? No

      Does it disprove AGW? No

      Does it mean that AGW theory is not proven and a major cornerstone of evidence has been knocked out? yes.

      1. opps

        The idea that the present rise in global temperatures is unprecedented and therefore caused by rising temperatures

        Should read:

        The idea that the present rise in global temperatures is unprecedented and therefore caused by rising CO2 levels

      2. The idea that the present rise in global temperatures is unprecedented and therefore caused by rising temperatures is based solely on the multi-proxy studies of Jones, Briffa and Mann.

        That’s what I am talking about…you are being hyperbolic here. There are many lines of evidence from many research groups. It is the way these various lines of evidence converge on the hyposthesis that is the “cornerstone” of the theory (or any theory in science).

        1. Re: Neu Mejican,

          I would agree with you if the rest of the research hubs made assurances to the public that THEIR protocols and THEIR data is beyond reproach. Since all I have heard is either silence or a closing of the ranks, it makes me think that almost ALL the data collating was being done by the CRU and that the rest were simply either providing field-obtained (i.e. raw data) or were using the digested data from the CRU.

          If that happens to be the case, the damage done by the flim-flam artists will be incalculable freom a PR standpoint.

          I trust science. I was skeptical of AGW and was amazed that people considered me a “denier” (a pejorative term). I did not trust a scientific community saying that “the science is settled” on the science of a very complex system, when there were many dissenting voices – this is not like Natural Selection or Special Relativity.

          While I have not lost my trust in science, many others will see science with much more and possibly unwarranted distrust, all because of politically-greedy scientists.

          1. OM, every drop of NASA’s data and code is available. Go refute the science, or pay someone with half a clue to try. You guys have failed to do it for years.

            1. OM, every drop of NASA’s data and code is available.

              Are you sure about that?

              http://www.foxnews.com/politic…..mate-data/

              By the way a large portions of that data and analysis are available today because of the heroic efforts of Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit. Who by the way has found not a few problems with NASA’s analysis not the least of which was the find of the y2k data problems which he actually found before the information was released.

              http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868

              1. Josh, you are just on a mis-informed roll today. Please do your homework.

                http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/c…..e-scandal/

                CEI is suing because it wants to read internal emails, so that it can look for dirty laundry just like the hackers found. NASA’s data and code is freely available.

                I say we propose a trade…all of NASA’s emails for all the emails of the gang at Climate Audit, WUWT, and James Inhofe. Deal?

                I can just see the “Climate-Gate-Gate” headlines now, when dozens of emails outlining their very deliberate misinformation and delay conspiracy are brought to life.

                Nothing found by McIntyre changed anything of substance. I will admit he found some trivial errors.

                1. Nothing found by McIntyre changed anything of substance. I will admit he found some trivial errors.

                  This narrative is interesting.
                  If McIntyre found some “trivial errors” then you freely admit that his work does have value to the scientific community and to Climate Science in general.

                  If McIntyre is not worthless and wrong and some nut who does not understand the science (which he clearly does understand or he would not be able to find those trivial errors) then why were Mann and Jones and Briffa so hell bent on not giving him the data and information that he requested?

          2. Old Mexican.
            You trust science, just not science that has policy implications? You trust the science, but want “assurances” that is was done properly? What assurances would be sufficient for you. Every time I submit to a journal I sign a statement to the effect that I am not being a flim-flam artist, that I do not have a conflict of interest, and that I brush my teeth before I go to bed. The assurances you are looking for are already part of the process.

        2. That’s what I am talking about…you are being hyperbolic here. There are many lines of evidence from many research groups. It is the way these various lines of evidence converge on the hypothesis that is the “cornerstone” of the theory (or any theory in science).

          This actually goes to the heart of my skepticism. Yes there is ample evidence that Global temperatures are higher today they they were say 50 years ago. Greenland melting, glaciers shrinking, satellite data etc. But this is only a 50 year span. Before I even heard the term Anthropic Global Warming i had a pretty clear understanding that the earth of the past had been warmer and cooler then it is currently; ice ages, Leif Erickson, the Roman warming period, grapes grown in Scotland, the world wide tropics that the dinosaurs roamed, etc.

          What the work of Mann, Briffa and Jones attempted to do was to show that today warming was unprecedented and therefor could be attributed to rises in CO2. In my view the studies these guys produced are insufficient and with the hacked files appear to be manufactured.

          I guess i have been asking myself what evidence could convince you and chad and MGN and others like you that global warming is not caused by man. I don’t know the answer. But i do know what evidence could convince me that AGW is real. I need an explanation of why past warming and cooling were natural in comparison to recent warming.

          The studies of Mann, Briffa, and Jones do not do that.

          1. I need an explanation of why past warming and cooling were natural in comparison to recent warming.

            Then you would just need to look at loads of readily available science.

            But, maybe you are making a philosophical point here. Humans are part of nature, so our activity is part of nature to the warming caused by our activity is natural.

            If that is your point, it is correct, but pretty meaningless.

            But, the CO2 is easily tied to human activity. The rate of increase is unprecedented in the geologic record, and most other likely explanations have been examined and found lacking.

            1. Then you would just need to look at loads of readily available science.

              How about someone actually says it? How about someone explains why the proxies were true 20 years ago and 1000 years ago but are not tracking instrument data today?

              And why did Mann lie about his “trick” that hid the fact that proxies are not tracking current temperatures?

              And why are you not saying? My suspicion is that you do not know why the proxies are not tracking current temperature and are accepting that point on faith.

              1. Well, you would need to be specific about which proxy you are discussing.

                Tree ring data, seems to be something people are worried about. So here’s a sketch.

                1) Tree rings in the center of the tree show a different width relative to temperature than the older rings further out from the center. Techniques to account for this do not work as well with the very inner and very outer rings.

                This means the most recent rings are not as useful as the older rings.

                The older (but not the oldest rings) can useful in large part because they can be compared to other proxies (ice cores or whatever) to converge on an number.

                SO, it would be inappropriate to use the very inner and very outer rings as it would create an artifact in your data. Climate scientists have come up with valid methods (aka…”tricks”) to deal with this.

                1. Hmmm…lost a “2)” in there somewhere…

          2. Josh, do you realize that they are growing grapes in Scotland NOW? I always find this denier argument a bit bizarre.

            1. Josh, do you realize that they are growing grapes in Scotland NOW?

              they are growing grapes in Antarctica and on the space shuttle. They can grow them is such places for the same reason. Technology.

              They were not growing them there 50 years ago and after or before the medieval warming period. Furthermore if they could not grow them there 50 years ago yet could during the Medieval period as well as now one would have to say today’s temperatures are not unprecedented.

    5. “John, Old Mexican, Joshua and others here would have us believe that it brings down the whole endeavor.”

      Bullshit. Which is why I seldom respond to you.

  24. Both the current Climate Fad and Darwinian evolution are unfalsifiable, one points to the distant past which cannot be verified, the other to the distant future.

    See Morris, Scientific Creationism for more on the other hoax!

    1. Just for the record, I am not a Creationist – I trust science, when it is done by people that do not want to mold humanity to their ideal.

      1. You “trust” science, but are an evolutionist? Oxymoron…The science is on the side of Creation.

        On the other point it’s been demonstrated that the proponents of Darwinian evolution aimed to mold humanity to their ideal more than the Climate Czars. See my link to the film Expelled.

        1. On the other point it’s been demonstrated that the proponents of Darwinian evolution aimed to mold humanity to their ideal more than the Climate Czars. See my link to the film Expelled.

          That just makes my point that science and politics should not mix. By the way, biologists that study evolutionary biology are not policy-makers. Eugenecists (that is, Progressive leftists) were the ones that co-opted evolutionary theory to make their case for population control, which is in no way what the biologists intended ever, not even Darwin or Wallace.

        2. HoaxBuster,

          Ever heard of sophism?

    2. You aren’t doing deniers any favors by linking them with creationists, although I applaud the effort.

      1. and that is the obvious snarky point he is repeatedly and obnoxiously making…

  25. Both the FOIA requests and the email hacking were instances of the scientists being pestered by denier busybodies with an agenda to make their lives as difficult as possible.

    Totally and absolutely wrong!

    Phil Jones Feb 2005

    We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

    Their motivation was not to avoid harassment or because they did not have time or what ever lame as damage control they are now trying to hide behind. Their motivation was to block criticism of their work.

    1. They were scared of making information public, just like the Darwinians often are:
      http://www.christianpost.com/a…..ce-center/

      Sunlight is the best disenfectant of their athiest/socialist agendas in both cases…

      1. Whose sockpuppet is this?

        1. Care to try and defend the manufacturing of evidence, the bullying of the peer review process and dissent involved in both Global Warming and Darwinian Evolution “science” which now stand equally exposed?

        2. sounds more like an escapee from free republic instead of sockpuppetry.

          1. Rather than charges of “sockpuppet” maybe folks should think about the clear similarities between the now exposed Climate hoax and the Darwinian Evolution hoax. I’ve listed the relevant links if anyone dares discuss this on substance. Is evolutionary science not rife with outright lies to advance their agenda (Pilt-down man anyone? Haeckels emobryos?)? Have they not been found to collude to bully the peer review process (Dr. Sternberg?). Have they not been found to be led by people driven by socialist ideals (Gould?)?

            People mocked Copernicus too. Like the Climate skeptics who spoke out when they were labeled nuts, a lot of people have been arguing Darwin is full of holes (see the Morris text linked to above) for a long time. But people can see the truth, if they will just cast of the fear of being made fun of and look.

          2. Or a certain pillow-biting chubby redneck from Oklahoma City.

      2. fuck me backwards.

        Well I guess anyone can pile on might as well let in the anti-evolutionists.

        athiest/socialist agendas

        By the way dipshit the Catholic church long ago stated that evolution does not conflict with Christian text.

        So calling all evolutionists atheists is bullshit.

        1. Evolution is a materialistic religion, incompatible with Christianity.

          1. The Catholic Church disagrees with you.

            1. But Catholics aren’t *real* Christians, don’t you see?

              1. this brings up a good point HoaxBuster thinks only atheists believe in evolution. What do Hindus and Jews and Muslims and Buddhists think about evolution? They are not atheists.

                Plus he also said socialists which should probably be the thing that pisses me off. hey dipshit, i am an atheist who believes in evolution yet i am a libertarian and not a socialist.

                Eat that and die.

              2. they are the only Christians.

          2. HoaxBuster=StrawManCreator


  26. This form of mining seeks to find dirt – to skew true meaning, to distort,
    to misrepresent, to take out of context. It seeks to destroy the reputations
    of exceptional scientists – scientists like Professor Phil Jones.

    how unprecedented…

  27. The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall. . . .

    This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. . . .

    A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists’ conspiracy theories.

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

    1. Even though the link you give was posted by C-H-A-D about 10 discussion ago, it is still funny for its Pravda-like language:

      e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

      Something like “these counter-revolutionaries” creeps into the mind when looking at such language.

      This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill.

      Yes, how dare these “obstructionalists” be in the way of our glorious People’s Revolution! These reactionaries will be crushed!

      Oh, man. It also reminds me of Granma. It’s hilarious, but at the same time, it is outrageous that such over-the-top language is found in a purportedly serious “scientific” journal.

  28. domoarrigato

    Sorry you arrived late to this. We probably could have had a good discussion. But, I’ve gotta go.

    We agree that this highlights the need for scientists to conduct themselves professionally and that transparency and openness is an essential element in the process.

    Most scientists already know that…this will just serve as a reminder.

  29. Down w/ the Denialist Wreckers and their Kulak Hacker allies!!!!!!

  30. by the way, “institutional” creationists take a stance opposite to HoaxBuster:

    US Creationists back Climategate scientists
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n…..-100096858

    this one made me grin evilly.


    1. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which is made up of more than two dozen of America’s largest companies, has called for Congress to take action now to set national goals for capping and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to help promote clean energy technologies. The members of U.S. Climate Action Partnership warn that: “Any delay in action to control emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper reductions in the future.”

      (The Christian Coalition)

      http://www.cc.org/america039s_…..r_platform

    2. US Creationists back Climategate scientists

      The faithful must stay together.

      I wonder if the Creationists want to start up Indulgences again?

      1. Do you mean carbon offsets?

  31. A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists’ conspiracy theories.

    Really?

    Then why did Mike Mann lie about using the “trick”?

    Phil Jones, Nov 1999

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards)

    Michael Mann, Dec 2004

    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 [realclimate].

    1. You can’t see the difference between the two statements, can you? They are talking about different things. The first is about a composite graph with many data sets, and is discussing how to blend them together as some sets end and others begin. This is clear to anyone who actually read the paper. Data “manipulation” is fine as long as it is transparent.

      The second concerns individual reconstructions. If you have evidence that this not the case (which you haven’t presented) than you have caught him being wrong (or lying), but again, as long as this was transparent, it is not a scientific issue.

      1. You can’t see the difference between the two statements, can you?

        There is no difference. What the poster at realclimate.com was specifically talking about “adding in the real temps to each series”.

        Mann has never addressed the fact that he did this (in peer review or otherwise) and in fact denied doing it.

        1. Here is the specific comment made by a john Flinn.

          Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record ? as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ ? is dubious to say the least.

          He is talking about the divergence and about Mann’s hockey stick and about combining instrumental data with Proxy data. This is Mann’s trick. And Mann lied about it.

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

          1. This link seems to refute your assertion…just saying.

            1. you read it wrong…Mann first asserts that Briffa’s work “hides the decline” because the data is spurious after 1960. you should note he never actually says why it is spurious.

              Mann next has a hissy fit when John Finn points out Mann’s “trick”.

              Which as we now know he actually used.

  32. oh, that seems to be satire… 😀

  33. Oddly, the Trenberth mails that turned up in my sampling of the data dump show him as resisting some overstatements of the certainty in the field.

    In 1255352257: Trenberth–>Mann

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? [… Boulder, CO is very cold in October 2009…] The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

    The first part reads like a skeptical scientist doing his job, but the bit after the colon is disturbing. The context here is a little hard to suss out. If CERES is a simulation, than he admits the simulations don’t work. If CERES is actual observation, than what??? Is the problem that they are uncorrected, or does he really think the data should conform to the models?

    And 1255530325: Mann–>Trenberth quotes an earlier mail from Trenberth thus:

    How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

    Again, this looks like the usual give and take of working on a hard problem, though the language is pretty strong, and suggests that the “consensus” on climate change isn’t quite what some would make of it.

  34. What is wrong with being in the business of observation? I can appreciate different approaches to the climate debate such as scatterometerogical study of Greenland’s ice. Why do we have to be so beholden to possibly flawed climate models based on temperatures?

    CRU doesn’t have to be defended at all costs to uphold a statement like “Greenland is warming and as it warms it is melting.” The more ‘defenders’ rally around CRU after what appears to most of us as wrongdoing, the more it seems like they don’t trust alternative ways of looking at problems like rising sealevels or melting ice.

    It seems to me that a lot of posters around here don’t like heavy-handed ‘we-have-to-do-something’ approaches to problems that often have huge costs and sometimes exacerbate the addressed problem.

    I don’t think it is fair to lump everyone who sees a problem with CRU as a denier. It truly appears to be a bona fide scandal. And downplaying that will have consequences.

    1. I don’t see “defenders” rallying around them. Indeed, we are generally quite pissed about the PR mess they made, and some of the FOIA-request issues may be actionable (at the speeding-ticket level, though).

      However, nothing has changed scientifically. Indeed, it actually got a lot worse that weekend. I don’t suppose you read Nature Geoscience, though.

      1. No, I’ve never heard of Nature Geoscience. I read Ranger Rick and Weekly Reader though.

        1. No Highlights? Or only at the dentist’s?

          1. Thanks Ska. I couldn’t remember the name of that freaking magazine. Otherwise, I would have thrown it in as well for a trifecta.

            1. Oh fuck, I still have a sort of “best of” stash of these and Sports Illustrated for Kids. Memories.

      2. However, nothing has changed scientifically. Indeed, it actually got a lot worse that weekend. I don’t suppose you read Nature Geoscience, though.

        You are conflating warming with man made warming. The science that connect current warming with the rise of CO2 levels has been blown away. Without the proxy reconstructions of Mann, Briffa and Jones the evidence that the current warming is unusual is nonexistent.

        1. “Natural variation” is not magic. If it was hotter at some point in the past (and it certainly was, if you go back far enough), then it was hotter FOR A PHYSICAL REASON. Not magic. Not voodoo. Not because little unicorns came out and spouted extra sunshine.

          Claiming “X is not causing Y, because in the past, Z caused Y” is utterly bleeping irrational unless you show that Z is happening NOW *and* you show that either X is not happening or X does not cause Y.

          What is Z? Where is your evidence that it is occurring, and to a magnitude consistent with the observed warming? Where is your evidence that overturns centuries-old physics that shows that X causes Y? The fact is that you have none of these, nor anything even approximating such.

          I don’t even think the deniers understand their own line of reasoning. Claiming that past variability is large does very slightly increase the chance that the current warming is “natural”. However, this chance is still small UNLESS YOU FIND THE NATURAL CAUSE AND EXPLAIN WHY CO2 ISN’T THE CAUSE.

          So in your vain effort to prove that there is only a 95% chance that is our fault rather than a 98% chance, you simultaneously are proving that the CLIMATE IS LESS STABLE. Therefore, perturbing it is MORE DANGEROUS. You are, in a very delicious manner, undermining your ultimate goal of blocking government action on this issue, as the government should respond even MORE strongly to a 95% chance of disaster than a 98% chance of merely a serious problem.

          Silly geese…

          1. “Natural variation” is not magic

            Of course not. Only markets are magical.

          2. No.

            Climatologists cannot explain why the Medieval Warming period was warm, and instead of trying to explain it they chose to hide it with a “trick”.

            By the way you need to go look at actual climate models involving CO2. CO2 is not the theories main contributor to global warming. Water Vapor is. The theory goes that CO2 will raise temperatures just enough to increase water vapor and the water vapor will cause the huge increases. So the idea that temperature will rise because of centuries old physics is a false claim. They are basing their assumptions on very new very complex models. Models which have not panned out.

            However, this chance is still small UNLESS YOU FIND THE NATURAL CAUSE AND EXPLAIN WHY CO2 ISN’T THE CAUSE.

            Your reasoning here is flawed. I only have to explain that the cause is unknown. You can claim it is CO2 but you have to prove it. And until you do it is unknown.

            1. The water vapor part of AGW is actually pretty weird. If a slight rise in global temperatures caused by increased CO2 can cause run away global warming then one could assume that any natural variation can cause run away global warming.

              This actually hurts your claim. I am not saying the climate is unstable i am saying it is relatively stable. It is you who believes in AGW and it is AGW theory that claims that any small change in the climate regardless of the cause can lead to run away global warming.

          3. I am cool with the science (from other angles of course). I am not cool with the enforcement regime. I have yet to see any global enforcement regime that works.

            That is my sticking point. When I see one that is flexible, fair, reasonably enforceable and capable of obsolescence, then I will sign on.

            No one has provided an answer. My personal complaints concerning CRU have centered around heavy-handed tactics that influence POLICY.

            I don’t deny AGW, but I call fraud on anyone trying to unfairly exacerbate policy based on overly shrill readings of climate data. Let’s approach this from all angles. Consider the woodpecker.

          4. “UNLESS YOU FIND THE NATURAL CAUSE AND EXPLAIN WHY CO2 ISN’T THE CAUSE.”

            Wrong. It’s believed by all sides that the Medieval Warm Period was not caused by CO2 forcings from anthopogenic sources, for obvious reasons. If the MWP and little ice age were real and significant, this makes the attribution of recent warming to CO2 much more tenuous. Indeed the arguments from the scientists are essentially that their models can’t replicate recent warming without some outside factor such as CO2. But why should anyone believe their model is worth much if the Medeival Warm Period is sitting right there in the literature, showing that just such a warming trend without outside CO2 forcing is staring you in the face? Hence the need to “contain the ‘putative’ medeival warm period” that is discussed in the emails. The hockey stick graphs were produced deliberately in order to hide the MWP and cement the status of CO2 as the primary driver of current warming, and to create the appearance of an unprecedented situation as a justification for public policies and the importance of climate science itself.

            “you simultaneously are proving that the CLIMATE IS LESS STABLE. Therefore, perturbing it is MORE DANGEROUS”

            Nope. Natural variability of a couple of degrees celcius does not necessarily imply a system that is going to spin out of control– Why didn’t we hit one of these tipping points during the Medeival Warm Period?. Indeed the subsequent little ice age suggests that some other forcing or forcings are capable of changing the trend in the opposite direction. Hence the need to eliminate the Medeival Warm Period,–> Hockey stick graphs by any means. –> Bogus claims of 98% certainty –> Climate Audit FOI requests –> Bogus rejections lies and various skullduggery –> CRU Hack –> Scandal–> Hopefully really open practices in the field of climate science and science generally.

            What really burns me up about this debate is that no matter which evidence or reasoning is disputed, some of those on the “disaster” side of the fence will just point to the “overwhelming consensus” which conveniently is not evidence of anything but a concensus.

    2. The concern is not wheather or not the earth is warming (I live in Minneapolkis and there was still green grass outside yesterday, though it did finally snow a little this morning), rather, it’s that they were trying to pin the warming on hmans.

      Icleand melted in the past; the Vikings farmed there.

      The CRU folks were lying in order to make it looked like man was the cause.

      I lean towards a solar reason, given that the icecaps are melting on Mars as well. Thos two little rovers we sent up there were solar powered, so you can’t blame the Martian melting on burning fossil fuels

      1. To me it isn’t about pinning it on humans. I can accept that humans contribute to climate change. What I don’t agree with is that humans are any monolithical entity that can be controlled by any particular enforcement regime. The UN can’t even control rogue nations without having some idiot volunteer for the job using the US military at the exopense of US taxpayers.

    3. oh youjust wait! the increasing intensity of storms is going to start showing up, hurricanes have been crazy recently!!!

  35. Jester, you got that right. Heavy handed approaches have no place in the debate when we have no idea why Greenland is warming.

    1. If you have no idea why Greenland is melting, I suggest you learn to read anything other than crackpot websites. AGW is by far the strongest in the Arctic, and I am sure that even you can understand the ice-albedo effect.

      1. I’d fuck you mother, Chad, but the potential risks are just too great.

      2. Greenland can melt all it wants but that is irrelevant. The evidence the the warming in the arctic is caused by man is shown in the emails to be manufactured.

        1. I think all deniers should be required to live on the coast, just to keep sure they are willing to put their money where their mouths is.

          1. I suppose you’d call me a denier. I live in a flood zone near the coast.

            I have purchased insurance. I suppose I should trust the government to declare my home a disaster area and let them pick up the bill.

            Your proclivity to despotism is evidenced by the ‘should be required’ statement. Maybe posters here are all devil’s advocates living safely in bunkers in the Intermountain West with stockpiles of gold, silver and guns n ammo and 5 yrs of food.

            Maybe that’s why they are truly free to be AGW deniers.

            1. You mean “government subsidized” insurance, right?

              Lol, I love libertarians.

          2. Chad, explain this: In the last 150 years or so, CO2 levels have gone from about 280 parts per million (.028%) to about 380 ppm (.038%). How much have sea levels risen in that period? If CO2 levels go up to .048% or .058%, what is the evidence showing that means a significant sea level rise? (By the way, a few years ago Al Gore bought a condo in San Francisco in an area that would be flooded if the seas rise by 20 feet.)

            1. What does Al Gore have to do with anything about climate debate? He is a policy advocate.

              Obviously he purchased the condo because he knew the government would buy him out at market prices when the shit hits the fan in 20 ft.

              1. Gore is a hypocrite. He takes a limo to get on a jet, then takes a limo to the huge, energy-sucking building for his latest “why cars and jet planes are killing the planet” speech.

                Fuck Gore.

            2. You seem to be pretending that ice melt is linear with temperature, and ignoring the rapidly accerating ice melt we are detecting even during a lull in atmospheric temperature increases.

              Of course, if you think about it, you would realize melting ice sucks a huge amount of heat out of the atmosphere or surface waters…but putting two and two together isn’t your specialty, is it?

  36. I don’t care how much pineapple Chony eats, you guys really need to stop letting him hump your laugh hole. The more he lies, the harder you suck.

    Trolls will troll, but no one is obliged to help them.

  37. The Tonys and Chads are up in arms, because their real goal – pounding sand up the ass of free enterprise – may be in jeopardy.

    1. ‘free enterprise’

      No, sir. Magical markets is the term they approve. Apparently markets are so mysterious that only the word magic can be applied. They only understand real observable cause and effect. Like “Hand over the money now! or you go to jail buster! The people need your ill-gotten gain.” Taxpayer forfeits his ill-gotten gain.

      1. Yeah. You’re right.

        Say, where IS “Markets are Magical”? He usually shows up to put his two-inch dick on the table in these kinds of threads…

  38. Re: Enough About Palin,

    The concern is not wheather or not the earth is warming (I live in Minneapolkis and there was still green grass outside yesterday, though it did finally snow a little this morning), rather, it’s that they were trying to pin the warming on humans.

    EAP, it is worse than this. One can blame humans for the disappearance of Mamoths, for instance, and not derive an impoverishing juggernaut out of that fact.

    The problem is in the assumption that Global Warming is intrinsically a BAD THING, to argue then for systematically plunder our productive efforts and our futures.

    And all because of the subjective definition of “bad” we are having this discussion on something that SHOULD HAVE BEEN just an interesting bit of information.

    1. The mammoths died because of all that Flintstone-era activity.

    2. Not so sure about that. I hear a lot of Polar Bear extinction talk thrown in to the climate muddle.

      1. If every polar bear in the world dropped dead, it would not affect me.

        Why should we care if polar bears go extinct?

        1. Because they keep in check the populations of pesky minorities like those who check the Eskimo/Alet box on the US Census form?

          1. Aleut. Aleut. Aleut. Aleut. as in Aleutian Islands.

  39. Re: Chad,

    If you have no idea why Greenland is melting, I suggest you learn to read anything other than crackpot websites. AGW is by far the strongest in the Arctic, and I am sure that even you can understand the ice-albedo effect.

    Why is the fact that Greenland is “melting” a bad thing? It did melt before, you know…

    1. That really was the point of my post, to point out historical events (as well as current solar system trends).

      Winters are nowhere near as has harsh in Minneapolis as they were in the 60’s and 70’s. It’s been that way for more than decade now. However, one thing is different now; in the mid-twentieth century, Minneapolis was a cow town.

      But today, it’s skyscrapers and urban sprawl. And it’s been this like this years. If I watch the satellite map on the local Weather channel, nearly every time a thick wall of thunderstorms approaches the Twin Cities, it splits in half as it nears us, and then reconstructs after it passes. Doesn’t even matter which direction the storm is going. You see that on TV year after year and you have to wonder about the temp data. Thunderstorms cool a city. Less storms, higher temps.

    2. Yes but last time there was farming in Greenland there was skiing in New Guinea. Please tell me there was skiing in New Guinea. There was wasn’t there?

    3. 20 meters of water, dipshit. I kinda like Miami and Manhattan (let alone Bangledesh, which I here is nice this time of year).

      1. wait a min did you just claim that Greenland will melt in a time frame where terms like Miami and Manhattan even have any meaning?

        I am sorry sir but you are a nut. There is no scenario in any IPCC report in which sea levels will rise 20 feet within 1000 years or less.

        1. 20 meters not 20 feet.

          1. And anyone who knows anything knows that the IPCC report left out a lot the ice melt trends due to the uncertainty. Since that time, the certainty has been increased, and the data has gotten far, far worse.

      2. Was it the last ice age when sea levels were 100m below today’s standards? Yes? Some interesting biological distribution occurred as a result.

        I wish poetically I could speak for mankind. I can’t. Some of us are creepy. Some of us are dishonest. Some of us are disgusting.

        Yes, it sucks, poetically, but we are a part of nature so to speak. No one speaks for all of us.

        A brilliant man considers our nature and constructs a schema that will allow us to proceed. An ignorant man throws his hands in the air and prescribes some variation of genocide.

      3. Won’t happen, dipshit.

  40. Ron Bailey and Reason, you have a winner on your hands with these climaxgate threads. Your Domino’s and Bing ad impressions must be putting somebody’s kid through college.

    1. the CTR has gotta be shit.

      1. Shhh, modern online business plans relegate CTR to the last slide in the Powerpoint.

    2. They should be thanking Choad and Toni, because this thread would have been a fraction of its size without them.

      I mean, they should be thanking whoever is running the sockpuppets. My mistake.

      1. Shouldn’t people who help others create wealth in some way be remunerated? I mean, shouldn’t the gentlemen you mention receive royalties, or something? A patent on the tireless championing of scornful, adversarial positions?

        I kid. Tony and Chad are my favorite socialists in the world. Because unlike all the ones in Washington, they participate in low-level debate, the one we don’t actually have with anyone in Congress or the White House.

        1. So how many times a day do you masturbate?

      2. Chad and Tony are not my creations. My sockpuppets aren’t losers.

        But you are right. They have to be irony trolls. Chad repeatedly and almost on que makes statements where the information he refers to directly contradicts the assertions he claims they make. He repeats this night after night with ‘Booga! Booga! Run Hoi polloi! Global warming is going to eat your babies’ fear mongering claims that he has to know are too obviously contrived for anyone to take seriously. He is trying to tarnish the AGW believers, and given the other AGW believers don’t call him this absurdity, well, mission accomplished.

        Here is to you, Chad!

        Hypocrite lecteur, mon semblable, mon fr?re!

        1. Citation, please.

          1. Which model are you asking for? 1958 had some cool lines. I think we can all chip in and get it for you. We want to show you that we aren’t all just mean-spirited libertarians.

  41. Re: Slut Bunwala,

    Global warming proponents in science and politics have an agenda to make our lives as difficult as possible, so I think it’s completely fair that some people might try to complicate their lives.

    Notwithstanding the ugly name, this has to be the best quote yet.

  42. not really on topic but when I visited UEA quite a few years ago when deciding what university to go to, the social sciences dept offered everyone wine at about 10.30 in the morning.

    1. Why so late?

  43. And to close the show, an exercise in question-begging, from our pal, Tony:

    IF global warming is real and as catastrophic as is claimed, but people are too stupid to do something about it democratically, should we hang onto democracy at all costs, or do something about it regardless of the will of the people (since they’re uninformed and there isn’t time to inform them)?

    Frankly, I would like to think I am not “too stupid” to understand an issue, and I would like to think that imposing my will upon others just because I think “they are too stupid” is still considered a tyranny.

    Ok, the question begging: Assuming that the claims regarding the catastrophe are true [which would require that the scientists have the power of knowing the future], to argue in favor of forestalling that catastrophe.

  44. As Al Gore would say, the truth can be inconvenient.

  45. For Old Mexican:
    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot……tacks.html

    1. Thanks Neu.

      I think this sums up the concerns of a lot of posters here. Why does Nature comment on US policy? It should act as a bystander that emphasizes the prescience of a scientific finding. It stands as an important reference for those who are charged with making policy i.e. elected representatives.

      When it steps over those bounds it has entered the cheap world of politics. It stains itself and is no longer a non-partisan informant.

      Nature defiled itself with that editorial. And the more important it is that we all jump aboard the world-is-in-crisis movement, the more these confused actors need to be taken to task.

      They have upstaged the process and bad actors are poor convincers.

  46. What we really need is an inquiry into Climate Science by experts outside the field: statistians, modellers, physicists and geologists.

    There was a Munk Debate Tues that nobody reported on, Ron.

    1. Hey idiot, this has happened. Not only did the IPCC have noted staticians, geologists, etc., working on it, but the major scientific professional organizations of every group you mention has reviewed the work and endorsed it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..anizations

      Yeah, yeah, I know, these guys are all on the take, or collectively mad, or SecretSocialistSpies or whatever…

      You guys are looking really, really stupid here. This thread is amazing, simply amazing.

      Can I give you guys a little help here? YOU DON’T HAVE TO PLAY ARM CHAIR SCIENTIST TO OPPOSE AWFUL POLICY LIKE CAP AND TRADE. You don’t. It’s an awful bill whatever the science says is happening to the climate.

      1. It’s like you guys would deny the moon orbits the Earth for fear the government might use that fact to tax you for a trip to the moon…Get a grip, none of you are experts and many more experts disagree with the experts on your side. It’s just rational to defer to someone with far, far more training and experience in a complicated field than you have, and when there is disagreement in that field the rational thing to do is go with the majority of experts. Can anyone here with a straight face say that as a general rule in life one should second guess experts on complicated issues one knows little about or that one should defer to minority expert opinion on such issues? That’s near madness…

        1. MNG,

          I believe in markets for god’s sake…and surprise, I listen to the experts in what they are expert in, science, in this case.

          When scientists overstep, say, into public policy, that’s where they are on common ground with the commoner, someone like me.

          That is a hard concept to grasp for most people. It’s easy for a simpleton like me who believes in markets. Markets that are efficient and blind. Not ‘magical’. You and me, we’ve been over that magical bullshit. Let’s agree to disagree. You, magic. Me, stimulus/response.

          1. I don’t see beliefs in markets and global warming as mutually exclusive. I actually totally agree on this: scientists are probably right when they make some claim like “the earth is warming up, humans activity is the cause, etc.” but they have no expertise when they say “so this is what we should do and how we should do it.” On the last question they know as much as the fucking dogcatcher.

            1. I disagree with your last sentence. Someone who is highly knowledgable about the consequences of various courses of action, but not an expert on the costs of each choice, has a much better position to attempt to analyze the costs vs the benefits than someone who is an expert in neither.

              Honestly, no one is an expert in the cost department. Economists try, but their opinions are all over the place. This is because the uncertainity is much larger than any signal they are looking for. Cost-benefit just doesn’t work on long time scales, because any errors in your assumptions (discount rate, growth rate, technological improvements, etc) are compounded a hundred times or more, making even tiny differences in assumption result in huge differences in conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.

              However, over 90% of economists agree that there should be a price on carbon, and a majority agree that we should do so EVEN IF NO ONE ELSE DOES (which would never happen).

      2. “the IPCC have noted staticians, geologists, etc., working on it” That’s too good! Do you now REALLY expect this to impress anyone?!

        1. I don’t know what to tell you, they had prominent people from a variety of fields on the IPCC, and the same can be said of the many bodies that later reviewed and endorsed their findings…Are we supposed to believe because of “climate gate” that all the other scientists involved in that are lying liars or something?

          1. No, but you could at least be skeptical, and not trying to argue-from-authority, especially when the authority in question is having credibility problems. Your method becomes arguing-from-non-authority, which is even weaker.

            By the way, do you believe that all scientists whose work has been subsidized by “Big Oil” are lying liars? If not, then you must admit that they have a point. If so, why do you think scientists don’t become liars when it is the IPCC that pays them? And don’t answer with the “profit” motive: IPCC is also a big business, and its leaders are making a lot of money and get a lot of power with that Global Warning thing, true or false.

      3. YOU DON’T HAVE TO PLAY ARM CHAIR SCIENTIST TO OPPOSE AWFUL POLICY LIKE CAP AND TRADE

        Thanks MNG. I think most of the ranting is about or at least rooted in the proposed solution to the problem. That is certainly my problem. I am certainly unqualified to review any data set.

        I do however feel qualified to observe when scientists overstep their bounds. An expert in science is not necessarily an expert in public policy.

      4. YFCLO, MNG — Your Fucking Caps Lock is On.

        Cap and Tax was enabled by the crappy science. Without the alarmism, they would have to find some other way to massively raise taxes and seize control of how industry operates.

        And awful bills get enacted all the time, often based on crappy, wrong-headed concensuses.

        1. written by experts to whom we are apparently supposed to automatically defer, I might add.

  47. Child abuse:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Un3Xb9JOg

    Bets on how many times Tony and/or Chad have masturbated to this clip?

    1. Have children narrate pablum. Isn’t there a child labor law to prevent such abuse?

    2. Couldn’t watch after this statement.

      The Worlds top scientist agree that climate change is the most serious threat to ever face our planet.

      And here I thought the little meteor that wiped out the Dinosaurs was.

      1. You are of course correct. The extinction caused by that meteor eventually led in the whimsical course of evolution to the populating of the Earth by Homo sapiens, a scourge that unleashed Anthropogenic Climate Change.

  48. People are seeing through Climate Flim Flam fairly quickly. It took forty years to expose this bit of manufactured evidence that the “experts” bought into:

    http://www.darwinismrefuted.co…..an_15.html

    It’s somewhat tragically ironic to see some who have wisely seen through the leftist nonsense of the Climate Czars engage in the very same insults and tactics at me that they have been subject too from leftist experts pushing Climate Hoax 2.0. In both cases a “consensus” of “experts” who hope their claims lead to statist social engineering tries to silence dissenters who see the holes in their claims by manufacturing evidence (see link), bullying the peer review process to not publish dissenters (google Richard Sternberg), hiding things from the public and generally colluding to have dissenters labeled as “minority” (as if scientific debates were an election!) “fringe” or “partisan” “deniers.” The same open minds that led many here to see through Climate Flim Flam could serve you well in challenging a Hoax with a longer history of such slimy collusion and lying.

  49. I am now forced to believe that if an asteroid were predicted to hit the earth, the consensus of scientists would argue we could be saved by cutting co2 emissions.

    1. “Oh, hell, I got a hangnail. Damn SUV drivers!”

    2. The world will be destroyed by do-gooder socialists well before the sealevels rise another 3 inches.

  50. ‘people are too stupid to do something about it democratically’

    People aren’t stupid. They are ill-informed. They don’t subscribe to Nature Geoscience. I personally don’t know how I let my subscription lapse. No wonder I am such an incompetent fucktard.

  51. ‘Adapt or die’ becomes mantra against warming

    Interesting. MSN just put up this headline. Maybe Libertarian thought is beginning to win currency.

  52. Obviously, Libertarians could see the effectiveness of say nuking 2/3 of the world’s human population as a solution to anthropogenic global warming. We are unique however in being creeped out by such a solution.

    1. Wide-scale nuclear war would definitely fuck the climate, jester. In fact, it’s about the ONLY way we can damage it to any meaningful degree – no pun intended.

  53. Re: Neu Mejican,

    You trust science, just not science that has policy implications?

    Yes – remember “Eugenics”?

    You trust the science, but want “assurances” that is was done properly?

    You mean you wouldn’t? Or do you trust implicitly the science that agrees with your ideology?

    What assurances would be sufficient for you[?]

    Very simply – MAKE SENSE,for a change! First, you say [the scientists] “The globe is warming!” (when in the 60s they thought it was cooling); then you say “It is man-made!”. Last, you say “We must plunder the productive efforts of millions of human beings in order to save the Earth!“. Really, that sounds like a Gypsy’s deal: “Give me money now, and I will make your future brighter.”

    I call that a SCAM. Science is not practiced that way.

    1. You mean you wouldn’t? Or do you trust implicitly the science that agrees with your ideology?

      This kind of stuff is why I call you a fool. Your indignation aside…these kinds of rants simply show that you aren’t able to think separately about the scientific issues versus their political implications.

      The assurances you want are built into the scientific process and the institutions that shepherd that process. A process which is self-correcting and self-regulating. But if the science can be used to support a policy YOU don’t agree with, you want additional, extraordinary assurances.

      And you top it off with an ironic call to “make sense.”

      Ay carumba.

  54. Re: MNG,

    It’s like you guys would deny the moon orbits the Earth for fear the government might use that fact to tax you for a trip to the moon…

    You know, notwithstanding Neu Mejican’s opinion on it, MY analogies are much cleverer than yours, MNG.

    A proper analogy would be that a group of people that call themselves “rain scientists” say that there will be raining rocks because of our sins and that the government must spend all of our savings to give each human being an umbrella. Really.

    And, by the way, there was and is no ethical or moral justification, ANY, to take money from productive people and spend it on moon trips, no matter how cool they looked.

    1. Old Mexican,

      Que bueno que Ud. esta en los EEUU. Porque seguramente su mentalidad sera de gran malgasto en el reino de los cien familias. No es que los estados en estos ultimos dias es un gran ejemplo de libertad, sin embargo comparando con la mayoria de paises en el mundo y peores lugares de ser naufragado como accidente de nacer.

      1. That babelfish is sure a neat tool,, isn’t it?

        And yes, I am glad I am in the USA, because back home one is liable to be either kidnapped, riddled with holes or robbed – and that is just what the police will do to you!

        1. No Babelfish. Some gringos can learn eSpanish.

        2. Yo fui kidnapado en Colombia hace mucho tiempo.

    2. Your last sentence is at least defensible, and it’s all you need to resist moon related spending.

      And it would do the same for climate change. You could oppose any provision to fight climate change I can remember just by saying what you said there. And you wouldn’t look like an anti-science knuckle-dragger like you do when you claim that thousands of scientists from hundreds of different organizations are all on the take, socialist spies or have gone collectively mad…

  55. A group promoting skepticism over widely-accredited climate change science has a web of connections to influential oil giant Exxon-Mobil, Raw Story has found.

    The organization is called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), apparently named after the UN coalition International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An investigation into the group reveals its numerous links to Exxon-Mobil, a vehement opponent of climate legislation and notorious among scientists for funding global warming skeptics.

    “Exxon-Mobil essentially funds people to lie,” Joseph Romm, lauded climate expert and author of the blog Climate Progress, told Raw Story. “It’s important for people to understand that they pay off the overwhelming majority of groups in the area of junk science.”

    The NIPCC’s signature report, “Climate Change Reconsidered,” disputes the notion that global warming is human-caused, insisting in its policy summary that “Nature, not human activity, rules the planet.” Many of its assertions have been challenged by, among others, the scientists’ blog RealClimate.

    The report was released and promoted this summer by the Heartland Institute, a think tank that claims to support “common-sense environmentalism” as opposed to “more extreme environmental activism.” It alleges that “Global warming is a prime example of the alarmism that characterizes much of the environmental movement.”

    “To call global warming a hoax is to question every scientific journal, every scientific academy, and buy into the most extreme conspiracy theories,” Romm said.

    Heartland has received at least $676,500 from Exxon-Mobil since 1998, the year Exxon launched a campaign to oppose the Kyoto Treaty, according to official documents of the two groups that have been compiled and reproduced by the website ExxonSecrets.org. Also, the institute’s self-described Government Relations Adviser Walter F. Buchholtz has been a lobbyist for Exxon-Mobil, the Washington Post reported in 2004.
    Story continues below

    The study’s two principal authors and NIPCC leaders S Fred Singer and Craig D Idso are both associated with various organizations that have gotten generous funding from Exxon-Mobil.

    Singer has researched and published for the Cato Institute, which has accepted $125,000 in grants from Exxon-Mobil since 1998. Other professional affiliations include the National Center for Policy Analysis, Frontiers of Freedom, and American Council on Science and Health — which have accepted contributions of $540,000, $1.27 million and $150,000, respectively, from Exxon.

    Although some praise him as a hero, Singer has been slammed by many fellow climate scientists as “a fraud, a charlatan and a showman” for his unorthodox views and research.

    His co-author Idso is founder, board chairman and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, whose mission statement is to “separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide and global change.” The organization has taken $100,000 in funding from Exxon since 1998, according to the oil company’s reports.

    Idso is also affiliated with the George Marshall Institute, which has reportedly won $840,000 from Exxon.

    Exxon-Mobil has spent more money lobbying Congress in the last two years than any enterprise other than the Chamber of Commerce, dishing out $29 million in 2008 and over $20 million so far in 2009 to legislators. It’s among the top 10 biggest spenders of lobbying cash since 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

    “Exxon has waged certainly the biggest, most concerted, and most extreme disinformation campaign on this issue,” Romm told Raw Story. “The trouble is they don’t have to win the argument — all they have to do is blow smoke and cast doubt, and they’ve accomplished their end.”

    In a recent incident, hackers exposed private emails exchanged between climate scientists. Some said the revealed information didn’t add up to a conspiracy, while others declared it definitive proof that anthropogenic global warming is made-up.

    The Senate will soon take up the mantle on climate bill that the House narrowly passed this summer, and a heated debate is likely to occur in Congress over the nature of the threat and the type of action that needs to be taken.

    “I think we’re going to pass it, but it’s going to be an epic struggle,” Romm said.

    Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch has referenced the NIPCC report, calling it a “Comprehensive scientific answer to the IPCC [sic] Reports.” Various blogs, such the conservative Free Republic, have touted this report as evidence that “global warming is not a crisis, and never was.”

    1. Oh my god, it’s Reverse Climate Gate! The Horror, the Horror!

      Won’t somebody think if the science!

    2. You need to show the links to the actual people who filed the FOI requests and have found fatal flaws in the science of AGW.

    3. of course you are buying into conspiracy theory to believe this story.

      But the transparency is welcome. It is amazing that oil companies have to pay so little.

      And Orrin Hatch is Mormon just like Harry Reid. These guys only think about having more children through multiple wives. All else is secondary.

    4. Why is it that if a scientist gets a grant from a university, or a foundation, or an environmental NGO, or a government, they are assumed to be selflessly pursuing truth, but if a scientist gets a grant from a corporation, they are assumed to be “lying for money”?

      Sorry, this is just sophomoric cynicism, and there’s a lot of it in the AGW camp. If the science of the anti-AGW camp sucks, use the established procedures of science to prove it. Don’t just whine about where their funding came from.

      1. A scientist can only pursue truth. When he/she takes results and tries his/her hand at policy is where corruption occurs.

      2. Oil companies have a transparent motive and no motivation to support accurate science if it negatively affects their bottom line.

        Universities and governments may have biases and agendas but nobody can point to one that makes sense. The conspiracy that would have to exist to justify deniers’ claims would make a Bond villain blush. It doesn’t take nearly as much of a stretch of imagination to wonder why oil companies fund denier propaganda.

        1. Oil companies have amassed amazing information about the geology of our planet. Unfortunately, they deem it trade secrets and so with their deep pockets they dwarf research by bonafide universities.

          Otherwise…universities do have a motive. That is to be considered cutting edge. They compete vigorously for that designation. It too is quite transparent.

          Universities are amazing places of learning. For example, they point out out that pseudo-intellectuals frequently call people names that they can’t spar with intellectually -names such as ‘denier’ or ‘oil-company shill’.

    5. The “climate expert” Romm said this?

      “To call global warming a hoax is to question every scientific journal, every scientific academy, and buy into the most extreme conspiracy theories.”

      This is disingenuous at best and anyone calling themselves an “expert” who believes that every single other “expert” either agrees with them are is crazy probably doesn’t have a whole lot of faith in the evidence backing their claims.

      Aside from that – all you printed were that organizations were setup to fight against the pro-AGW crowd and they were funded by evil oil companies….

      Which would be fine when you start caring that a government bent on removing your freedoms without reason is paying for research that gives them a reason to continue this policy with full gusto.

      Otherwise, pot, kettle, and all that.

  56. Holy shit.

    Well this one goes well with Briffa’s “hide the decline”

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

    By the way this is not in the emails…but in fact from a paper by Briffa published in 2002.

    In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing.

    There is not substantive reason to “hide the decline”. He simply assumed it was anthropogenic.

    This is the kind of work Chad and Neu put their faith in.

    Oh there is no obvious reason the proxy data drops like a dump truck off the empire states building in complete contradiction to current instrument data…

    Hell it must be that humans caused it!!

    WTF?!?!

    1. by the way i found this at:

      http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=529

      The fun thing is that in this blog post Steve McIntyre writes:

      Briffa et al [2002] report as follows on the problem and give what, in my opinion, is one of the most bizarre explanations ? even by Hockey Team standards. In fact, I’m pretty sure that it was after reading this, that I wrote to Mann in April 2003 asking for his data:

      So now we have come full circle. The whole battle for data and FOI requests the hacked emails and everything all started from this very very weird assertion by Briffa on why it was OK to “hide the decline”

    2. Josh, the “hidden” decline was IN ANOTHER PAPER WHICH THEY CITED. If this is “hiding” something, I’ll eat your dirty underpants.

      The “hide the decline” phrase which you hang your hat on was shorthand for something like “leave out the spurious data post 1960, as discussed in Fred et al…”

      Yes, they tranparently left off data known to be spurious off a graph, as to not clutter it up. There is absolutely nothing wrong about this, and it is done all the time.

      1. Wrong, chad, verrrry wrong. You’re not even reading joshua’s posts. That stinks.

        Read ’em and try again. There’s an underlying issue here.

        Ask yourself this question– if the post 60’s data is ‘spurious’ by which you mean doesn’t correlate with the thermometers, How can we be sure of the pre-thermometer reconstructions correlate with actual temperatures? Briffa solves this problem by assuming it away. This doesn’t bother you in the least?

        Time for you to point to an “overwhelming concensus”

        1. Joshua’s concern here seems unfounded. The tree ring data from the more distant past is used in conjunction with a suite of other proxies. This cross validation across multiple data sources is how this kind of science is done. You never trust a single source. You look for trends across multiple types of data.

          The excerpt he pulls from Briffa does imply a bit of circular logic…as common with JC’s posts, however…there is not sufficient context without the rest of the article to judge whether it fairly represents Briffa’s reasoning.

  57. Okay, would someone please explain to me why the lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase does not alone disprove the hypothesis of manmade global warming due to CO2??? What am I missing. Or has that claim – the backward (versus AGW supporters claims)lag time – debunked somewhere?

  58. would someone please explain to me why the lag time between temperature increase and CO2 increase does not alone disprove the hypothesis of manmade global warming due to CO2???

    Well, dynamic systems do take a finite time to respond. So a “lag time” per se doesn’t put the kibosh on it. In particular we’re talking about chemical changes which happen on scales at least as long as the atmospheric mixing time (they have to because the claim is for global effects). Not that I know what that time scale is.

    Climate is a big, hard problem, and no body promised it would fit into neat little boxes or that it could be understood on the basis of your high school science course or an article in the new paper.

    That said, in one of those mails (1096645745: Rahmstorf–>Jansen) I found an estimate on the scale of centuries(!), which if accurate gives me some real doubts. Doubts about how well the system is understood, and doubts that we can plan mitigating action with the slightest confidence at all.

    1. “Doubts about how well the system is understood, and doubts that we can plan mitigating action with the slightest confidence at all.”
      You’re not the only one Kevin Trenberth is in the emails saying

      “The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not…”
      http://www.eastangliaemails.co…..530325.txt

      We won’t ever know if the medicine has done its job or not, but we damn well better take it.
      –Sheesh

    2. But wait, it isn’t just that there is a lag time (and we’re talking 600 years or so) but a backward lag time with regard to AGW theory – CO2 going up AFTER the temp rises. Assbackward with respect to the hypothesis.

  59. We can now put this whole issue to rest. I have incontrovertible empirical data which supports AGW.

    When I went to my car this a.m., the thermo read 12 degrees F. I couldn’t find my ice scraper, so I let my car wam up for 15 minutes to defrost. When I got in my car, the thermo read 13!!

    Fifteen extra minutes of CO2 spewing from one car raised the temp a whole degree F!! The science IS settled.

  60. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz books series either as collectible or investment at http://www.RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.