Climate Change

Say Something Mr. President!

It's time for Obama to acknowledge Climategate

|

"Science and scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my administration on a wide range of issues, including … mitigation of climate change," President Barack Obama declared in a not-so-subtle dig at his predecessor soon after assuming office. "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process. Public officials should not suppress or alter scientific technological findings."

Last week's Climategate scandal is putting Obama's promise to the test. If he wants to pass, there are two things he should do, pronto: (1) Start singing hosannas to whoever broke the scandal instead of acting like nothing has happened; and (2) Ask eco-warriors at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit next week to declare an immediate cease-fire in their war against global warming pending a complete review of the science.

Someone—a whistleblower or a hacker—got into the computers of University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in England, also known as the Hadley Research Center, and revealed reams of e-mails showing that its leading climatologists had engaged in all kinds of scientific shenanigans including manipulating data, destroying evidence that didn't support their conclusions and keeping contrarian scientists from being published in peer-reviewed journals.

The revelations are significant because the Hadley Center is no marginal outfit. It is among the most influential research organizations in the field whose work forms the basis of all official global warming reports, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. body that serves as the Vatican of global warming.

One e-mail as recent as last month acknowledged that global temperatures plateaued in 1998, something that skeptics have been pointing out for years and warming warriors have been pooh-poohing. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment," the e-mail confessed. But instead of celebrating the good news that the planet may not ineluctably fry to a crisp, the e-mail continues with its gloom and doom, blaming an "inadequate observing system" for not picking up on the warming.

This wouldn't be such a big deal if other e-mails didn't show even worse malfeasance. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith to hide the decline [of temperatures]," one said. To most people with normal IQs, the words "trick" and "hide" in the same sentence would suggest manipulation of data. But the brainiacs at Hadley claim that these are just standard colloquialism that scientists use to describe completely innocent operations.

Really? Then how do they explain this 2005 e-mail by Phil Jones, the director of the center, to the aforementioned Mike. "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone… We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." The "two MMs" refers to Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. And–lo and behold–when one of them asked Jones for his data, what did he do? He hid behind the data protection act. But no, there is nothing premeditated here!

Why was Jones so afraid of the two MMs? Because they had debunked Mike's—or Michael Mann of Penn State University's—infamous "hockey stick" graph that supposedly offered proof positive that humans were warming the earth. It showed that global temperatures had remained flat for a millennium only to spike sharply in the 20th century following the industrial revolution. But McIntyre and McKitrick found that the innocent "tricks" that Mann was performing on the data were so riddled with methodological errors that even the IPCC was forced to remove the graph from its official reports.

One would have thought that the hockey-stick episode would have instilled some humility in the Hadley gang, prompting them to invite ever greater scrutiny and debate of their work. That is, after all, what real scientists would do. Think again. In fact, the e-mails show that they did the exact opposite. Around the time the "two MMs" went public with their analysis in 2003, Mann urged his colleagues to blacklist Climate Research, a journal that had published research by skeptics. "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal," he wrote. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit or cite papers in this journal."

This is precisely the kind of perfidy that undermines public trust in the scientific process that Obama pledged to restore. So if Obama had his priorities straight, he would end his radio silence and thank the authors of Climategate for performing a great public service. Indeed, if President Bush had been so lucky, perhaps fate would have contrived a WMDgate for him before he launched the Iraq invasion and saved him from the worst mistake of his presidency.

It is worth recalling that Bush too was relying on an international consensus—especially reports by U.N. arms inspectors—that Saddam Hussein was sitting atop stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction as a justification for war. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," Bush said in a 2003 prewar declaration calculated to escalate the hysteria level against Saddam. After a two-year-long wild goose chase through the deserts of Iraq, Bush was finally forced to admit that Saddam no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction. But at least the phony consensus on which he based his decision was intact at the eve of the war.

However, Climategate is fast shattering the global warming consensus, and so Obama won't have even that to hide behind should he go ahead and sign up the U.S. to cut its carbon emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 at Copenhagen next week. There is zero chance right now that Congress will endorse these cuts, which will dwarf the trillion-dollar Iraq price tag. So Obama won't really be able to advance his foolish crusade, but he will lose the opportunity to protect his own integrity by joining the growing chorus of voices—some of them of global warming believers—demanding a thorough investigation of this episode. Former Chancellor Lord Lawson is asking the British government to launch a formal inquiry about it. Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, is doing the same here in the U.S. Penn State is launching an investigation of Mr. Hockey Stick Mann's conduct. Calls for Phil Jones resignation are rising in England.

But the issues go beyond the misconduct of just one outfit. One of the dirty little secrets of the field revealed by the scandal is that climate scientists, though they are publicly funded, don't as a matter of routine make their raw data publicly available. This makes it exceedingly difficult for their peers to replicate their findings, subverting the scientific method at its core. Judy Curry of Georgia Tech, a stalwart in the field who is convinced that global warming is real, is exhorting her colleagues to end this incestuous tribalism and open their work to scrutiny, even of skeptics." Make all your data, metadata and codes openly available," she urges. Meanwhile, George Monbiot—the British media's alarmist-in-chief who has called global warming the "moral question of the 21st century"—is demanding a reanalysis of the climate science data.

A complete airing of the science of global warming, which is looking less and less avoidable by the day, might eventually vindicate the claims of climate warriors. Or it might not. The only thing Obama can control in this matter is which side he will support: The truth, or—what he accused his predecessor of—ideology.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation and a biweekly columnist at Forbes, where this column originally appeared.

NEXT: The Long Dark Tea Party Against Health Care Reform?

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. Am I in the wrond interweb?

      1. no u missed that left at Albuquerque…this r teh global series of tubez

  1. Great stuff.

    Pretty much confirms my suspicions.

  2. Separate education from the state, and you may have some hope of achieving objectivity or at least neutrality in the recipients of education, including scientists. As it is, certainly in the US and probably in most other Western democracies, education is primarily in the hands of the state and its blatantly ideological and statist/collectivist mandarins.

    Why would anyone be surprised that “science” is no longer objective, and that scientists can no longer be trusted to present an unbiased report. Substitute history/historians, political science/political scientists, economics/economists etc.

  3. Present.

    1. let us speak truth to power…you suck

  4. Perhaps, in the interest of fairness, we could see all the private emails of coal/oil company execs discussing climate change and their PR campaigns in response. It won’t happen, because it would probably be more embarassing to them than anything that has come out of this.

    1. Your pseudonym sums up much of the reason behind my skepticism of AGW much better than anything I could write on my own.

    2. Oil Company executives have duties to their shareholders to maximize profits within the law. Publicly funded scientists have duties to the public to do fair and impartial work. Can you see the difference?

      classwarrior,

      It’s quite telling that your instinct is to seek to achieve equal or greater embarrassment for what you clearly see as “the enemy” rather than to address the fraud emanating from the climate sciences cabal.

      1. May I suggest that when the fate of the planet and human life are at stake, that these take precedence over maximizing profits, and it’s the profit maximization regardless of the cost to others attitude that is “the enemy”. Also, I believe it’s quite plausible that corporate interests financed this criminal hacking project. As with any crime, the first question is: Who benefits?

        1. I’m old enough have have live almost my entire life under the concept of Mutually Assured Destrution and the impending threat of instant global annihilation from nuclear war.

          AGW, if true, is a slow-moving train wreck. There is time to behave in a rational way.

          Any one that tells me “oh my god, we’re all gonna die” in combination with “trust me I’m an expert” is going to be absolutely zero percent of my attention.

          So you can take your suggestion and shove it up your ass.

        2. “May I suggest that when the fate of the planet and human life are at stake”

          [citation needed]

        3. Also, I believe it’s quite plausible that corporate interests financed this criminal hacking project.

          1. It’s not like FOI was getting anywhere.
          2. It looks like someone on the inside assembled the leaked data and then electronically released it. What’s to finance? It’s not like he or she had copying or shipping costs.

        4. seems like the taxpayers benefit from ahving such a waste of tax money exposed.

          If you haven’t been paying attention, the question raised by the e-mails is whether or not there is a risk to the planet or human life or if it’s been a big scam by guys who should be making 60K a year doing weather reports in on newradio. Don’t you want to know the truth?

        5. Indeed you may. But just not here.

        6. May I suggest that when the fate of the planet and human life are at stake

          The world will end in five days unless 20 of the most gorgeous women on the planet bestow themselves as my sex slaves. Also everyone will get swine flu unless i get a few billion dollars.

        7. Also, I believe it’s quite plausible that corporate interests financed this criminal hacking project.

          Unlikely. It’s almost certainly someone who has felt uncomfortable with the lies and finally decided to act. But even if so.. so what?

          The emails are real.

          As with any crime, the first question is: Who benefits?

          The crime of a government funded hoax painted up as science?

          The government benefits by justification for new taxes. Big energy corps gain by regulations which will cement their cartels. Climatologists benefit by being paid to produce ‘science’ that supports these policies.

          Everyone wins but us.

    3. Why, classwarrior?

      Energy company execs aren’t scientists taking public money, producing reports in state institutions using state resources, recommending vast expansions of government, and putting themselves forward as disinterested arbiters of the truth.

      1. classwarrior,
        You are falling for the old “don’t throw me in the briar patch” scam.

        The big energy companies are in favor of corporate-welfare-and-trade err cap’n trade CO2 programs. They also like the tax credits they get for building big useless wind mills. Look at Duke energy promoting cap’n trade all the time. Some coal companies aren’t thrilled, but they will get special new “clean coal” corporate welfare to appease some and the gas guys outnumber the rest.

        The pipeline guys fund environmental groups all the time…to oppose any new construction on competitive pipes from coming in and stealing market share. Same thing happens with refineries and power plants.

        The green kiddies are so cute.

        1. Yeah…………. It’s cute until someone loses an eye.

        2. Yeah…………. It’s cute until someone loses an eye.

    4. Hey, look over there!

      Gatecrashers!
      Tiger Woods!
      Amanda Knox!

    5. When any scientist fudges, ignores or hides data to further support for a theory or conclusion, it is reprehensible. East Anglia and Phillip Morris employees included.

      Any questions?

      1. bad science is bad science regardless of who pays for it.

      2. But they had really really really good reasons to fudge and spin and hide.

        They are SAVING THE WORLD

        Don’t you get it!!!!

        They saving the world for you too.

    6. You mean like this energy company…

      http://network.nationalpost.co…..ecret.aspx

    7. What the fuck is wrong with coal and oil companies?

  5. How about we watch your effete ass drag itself out of here?

  6. Perhaps, in the interest of fairness, we could see all the private emails of coal/oil company execs discussing climate change and their PR campaigns in response.

    As I have been telling my children since they were very small the world is not fair. But if these companies are actively falsifying data that governments can use as justification for a massive decrease in everyone’s standard of living I am all for it.

    1. This reminds me of something funny. I was working for a large corporation and some moron lady with an ax to grind sent us a letter demanding all documents, emails, etc. germane to her ax grinding. She claimed that we had to due to the FOI. So our General Counsel sent her a nice letter informing her that the FOI only applied to the government. The part that makes the story funny is that this ignoramus was herself, an attorney.

  7. http://www.openmarket.org/2009…..e-bizarre/

    …However, there is some humor in ClimateGate. Here’s some odd stuff a commenter on the website Climate Audit picked up as a result of checking out the file HARRY_READ_ME.txt – one of the hacked files. The “Harry” file tells the tortured story of a programmer at CRU struggling to make sense of inconsistent, missing, and incompatible data files and seemingly to try to replicate them. Many of those files had earlier been compiled by someone named “Tim,” who seems to have really made a mess of things. According to the commenter, this “Tim” seems to be Tim Mitchell – who worked at the Climactic Research Unit at University of East Anglia when he was a Ph.D. student and then received his degree. At the time, he also was a member of ? no joke ? South Park Evangelical Church, as he notes in his religious writings on climate change and religion.

    Here’s an example:

    The government urges us to reduce our energy usage so that we may indulge ourselves in other ways, but we have a higher motive for reducing waste (1 Timothy 6.17-19). Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ’s imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).

    1. That is funny. I wonder how the Goreans explain the snakehandling evangelicals in their ranks.

      1. “That’s just how science is done,” probably.

    2. Livin’ a lie, Timmy!

      1. Tim…tim…timmmy. timmy timmy….TIMMY!!

  8. If you were professing a deep-seeded concern for mankind and worried about the catastrophic impact of AGW, would you not be celebrating…possibly joining in a collective sigh of relief to learn that credible evidence has been uncovered that may reveal that this catastrophe may never be? Would that not excite you? Or are these folks more concerned about being right than they are about the welfare of the folks they claim to protect?

    1. deep-seeded

      Shouldn’t that be deep-seated?

      1. Apparently you didn’t “get” the double entendre which might make more sense when you see the name under which the message was posted.

        1. Draco, I’m not smart all the time. I actually messed that one up. But thanks for the undue credit! But alas, isn’t it much more enjoyable discussing the misused homonym rather than the content of the post. ;o)

          1. An example of RC’z law.

      2. “Both Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and the OED2 (Complete) agree that the correct term is “deep-seated”, having its seat far beneath the surface.

        “Deep-seeded” does not have an entry in either dictionary.” – I stand corrected.

        Now why don’t you go look up “pedantic” and tell me what you find. ;o)

        1. The “correct” term is whatever your audience understands. The idea that a stuffy dictionary committee decides upon the correct meaning/spelling/pronunciation of a word or phrase is the epitome of collectivism.

          1. I should add that whenever a linguistic “mistake” becomes prevalent enough for grammarians and such to write articles about it, it’s not a mistake anymore. I’m talking to you, “ironic” and “begging teh question” pedants.

          2. Splartenbraf Tulpa, Splartenbraf

          3. The “correct” term is whatever your audience understands.

            Yes, except one’s audience may “understand” something completely different from what one meant to say. Seeded and seated – as well as ceded – are not alternative spellings of the same word with the same meaning.

        2. I don’t need to look it up – I already know what it means. Why else would I use it for a handle?

          As for your use of the phrase “deep-seeded” – I don’t see why it wouldn’t be just as legitimate as the use of “deep-seated.” However, judging by Draco’s comment the former phrase conveys a meaning entirely different than the one you had intended. I merely asked if that was what you meant to say.

          Just for fun and to refresh my memory I looked at the entries for pedantic in the Wiktionary and also another online dictionary. Among the synonyms listed are “fussy and/or anal retentive in matters of speech or form.” Had to laugh at that – if spun a bit differently it might just as easily be “averse to sloppiness and unwilling to shit all over everything.” 😉

          1. Pedant,
            I didn’t bother referencing your name in my first response. I find the coincidence that I suggest you look up “pedantic” to be amusing…albeit while also making me look foolish. But when I wrote the post, I actually considered the phonics of “deep seated” because I wasn’t sure how to spell it. So when I thought deeper, it made sense that a belief strongly rooted in one’s soul would of course be “deep seeded.” Who knew, that wasn’t a word? Apparently a lot of people except me.

    2. credible evidence has been uncovered that may reveal that this catastrophe may never be

      Do you think that’s what happened? Could you back that up with any facts?

      1. that was the most cautious statement i have read on this and you are trying to call it out. go home troll.

        “may reveal…may never be”

        1. No, it mis-characterized climategate then used multiple weasel-words to try to avoid being called on it.

          that was the most cautious statement i have read on this

          I think you have a problem with the english language, logic, or maybe both.

    3. Yes, proof that global warming science was a fraud and that warming isn’t happening would be a huge relief to pretty much everybody.

      But these emails do not in any way act as that kind of proof.

      1. Tony, You are correct. But the burden of proof does not rest with skeptics. Climategate weakened the collective evidence in support of AGW by completely impeaching the CRU’s involvement. If other entities relied on CRU’s informatioin, then that portion of the evidence is also weakened. Therefore, when somebody who is arguing that global catastrophe will be upon us, isn’t it at least momentarily relieving when the credibility of some of those arguments are compromised? It means there is a greater possibility the catastrophe may not be upon us. Even if that possibility only improves by 1%, is that not positive?

        1. This scandal does absolutely nothing to dent the scientific consensus on climate change.

          Even if it did so 1%, that wouldn’t change much of anything in the way of needed policy, but it was certain to make a bunch of people who already made up their minds to be deniers to go apeshit with excitement well beyond anything rationally justified.

          1. Tony,

            No one is arguing that the “climate changes”. Of course it does. The earth has been constantly changing its climate through entirely natural ways for billions of years. The question is is the current rate of change being pressured by humans?

            The problem is that this is a very difficult question to answer, and the amount of variables that affect the equation encompass so many different fields of geology and climatology that many scientists find it hard to believe that we have the answer already. Indeed, the models that predicted advanced warming of the climate over the last decadehave been wrong, meaning the equation proving mankinds contribution is not at this time falsifiable.

            The big deal with climategate is that the scientists behind the emails clearly are not interested in showing their work, so as to make the theories more testable and eventually falsifiable. They just want everyone to shut up and believe what they say.

            Until you can reproduce results using the original data in a model that proves that AGW is falsifiable, like for instance EVOLUTION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION, then you are simply talking out your ass.

            1. Spare me the “climate always changes” bullshit. No matter how many times it’s repeated, it will never become relevant. Of course climate changes naturally, sometimes radically–to the detriment of many species, of course. The point is that the climate is changing radically and it will likely be detrimental to the human species. Whether humans caused it or not is really beside the point that altering the average global temperature to the degree scientists are predicting will be a bad thing for human civilization.

              Yet they’ve ruled out every other possible cause of the warming they’ve detected. If someone wants to present evidence that it has been caused by something other than human activity, they should knock themselves out. They would become famous.

              1. No matter how many times it’s repeated, it will never become relevant.

                Um, bullshit. You never hear this addressed by the doom mongers. Climate has and will again change drastically. And humans will have fuck all to do with it.

                Whether humans caused it or not is really beside the point

                No, it is EXACTLY the point. If we aren’t causing it, then why do people want to cripple our economy by cutting or CO2 emissions 85% in 50 years?

                altering the average global temperature to the degree scientists are predicting will be a bad thing for human civilization.

                Sadly, their predictions have not borne fruit at this time. All of the models about the increase in temperature have been WRONG.

                Yet they’ve ruled out every other possible cause of the warming they’ve detected.

                No, they have not. That’s complete bullshit and you know it.

                If someone wants to present evidence that it has been caused by something other than human activity, they should knock themselves out. They would become famous.

                What the climategate emails reveal is that those scientists who have indeed attempted to present evidence that AGW is not the only cause or even the main cause have been inherently suppressed from having their voices heard within the scientific community.

              2. Tony – “The point is that the climate is changing radically and it will likely be detrimental to the human species.”

                This is the ultimate bullshit from you and your co-religionists.

                Who says that GW, even if real, will be detrimental to humans.

                What’s your evidence?
                What’s the theory?

                I mean the Medieval Warming period was several degrees warmer than we currently are.

                The Little Ice Age, which was cooling from that warmer period, is a well documented human catastrophe. Crop Failures, famines, plagues, political upheaval were all results of a colder world.

                Not a Warmer one.

              3. Yet they’ve ruled out every other possible cause of the warming they’ve detected.

                Citation.

                This begs the question. It assumes they can explain why climate changed before. Unless they do you can’t rule something out when you don’t know what it is.

                You’ve asserted the logically impossible.

          2. This scandal does absolutely nothing to dent the scientific consensus on climate change.

            Of course it does. The it’s not based on science, it’s based on authority and this shows the authorities were lying.

            This blows the consensus crap apart.

            Now they might actually have to do science.

  9. This is lunatic. Is the President of the United States seriously expected to weigh in on what is, at most, the lost credibility of a single institution in the UK? Unless you were already strongly predisposed against global warming arguments (even most skeptics I have seen agree) this should not change your opinion either way.

    Why libertarians feel that the philosophy requires knee-jerk opposition to environmental issues is beyond me.

    1. I get the feeling there’s a lot that’s beyond you. Like the concept of a cost-benefit calculation. Or the idea that man’s limited resources might be able to find a better use for $1 Trillion than attempting to reduce mankind’s carbon emissions.

      1. But you’re not responding to Gervaison’s point. The failure of East Anglia’s CRU to act appropriately is only one data point and hasn’t really shifted the debate. The scientific consensus may well be completely wrong about global warming, but obviously East Anglia’s fuck ups aren’t enough to falsify all the other research in the world. Expecting Obama to weigh in on this pretty minor issue in the big scheme is exactly the kind of overreaction that makes lay people think opposition to the AGW model is mostly led by cranks and industry stooges.

        1. vanya,

          I was really responding to his second paragraph, not his first.

          It’s quite idiotic to accuse someone of “opposition to environmental issues” — how can you be opposed to an issue? What many are rightly opposed to is an idiotic, precipitous, fear-driven and expensive proposal to solve the issue.

        2. “The failure of East Anglia’s CRU to act appropriately is only one data point and hasn’t really shifted the debate.”

          The fuck it hasn’t. Can you say “Australia”?

          I knew you could.

        3. Let’s put this in religous context (for fun):

          A rabid Christian Fundementalist is caught smoking crack and bunging his boyfriend. Sure he’s a hypocrite and a bad christian fundi, but as you say, it is only one data point and doesn’t shift the debate on if we should spend trillions and oppress billions to stop people from smoking crack and bunging their boyfriends.

          1. No, this would be more like somebody finding letters within the Vatican acknowledging that the Book of Mormon my very well be a legitimate alternative Gospel, and outlining the steps needed to prevent that information from spreading.

            Would that require a world-wide of all Bible-based Christianity, or even all Catholicism? Not really, but it would be a shocking revelation, and it would certainly rattle the faith of those who based their beliefs on traditional Catholic teaching and/or Fundamentalist Biblical scholarship.

            1. That should have read “world-wide rejection” in the second sentence. I hate it when forums don’t let you go back and edit your mistakes.

          2. Of course, there were a hell of a lot of data points of priests sexually abusing children, and the thing that makes it analogous to climategate is that the church was caught systematically covering it up.

            -jcr

    2. Who says anyone that is skeptical about AGW is necessarily opposed to environmental issues?

      I am afraid that those that blindly accept AGW are predisposed to class-warfare and acceptance of government overaction.

      Until climategate (gawd, I hate that term, but it has become the popular nomenclature) I bought into the idea that the earth was warming. I was a skeptic that the warming was man-made and even if it was man-made that there was anything we could do short of returning to a bronze age existence.

      The revelations of how the CRU worked has now not only made me doubt AGW, but I now doubt that the earth is warming in any meaningful way.

      1. I don’t think there’s any serious debate over whether the earth has gotten warmer over the past century. On average it has. There’s plenty of data sets to show that without the CRU’s data. Hell, ask any farmer over 50 if you want anecdotal evidence. The questions that have not really been answered by the Copenhagen crowd are 1)why is the Earth getting warmer 2) How do we know this is really a long term trend 3) Will the expense of reducing carbon emissions be less than the cost of not doing so? As far as I can tell the CRU kerfuffle doesn’t really impinge on any of these issues, but has just led to more of the ad hominem name calling that has made the debate so unproductive on both sides.

        1. the problem is that no one really is having that level of debate broken into components… all we get is evidence of warming = institutute cap and trade… if you don’t agree with that shut the fuck up.

          I myself agree we have had warming and I tend to buy that carbin emissions are indeed a greenhouse gas that has had some effect… where i remain skeptical is to the extent that carbon warms the earth (as apposed to other factors) and that the costs of mitigation will be worth it.

          1. In my lifetime we have had warming and we have had cooling, both in moderate amounts. Latest evidence from Arctic ice core analysis indicates that CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases don’t lead a warming trend, they actually follow it by about 1500 years. That would tend to indicate that warming (and therefore cooling) are not caused by the amount of greenhouse gases in the overall atmosphere at any given time. Most current theory is that the major cause of warming/cooling is energy output levels from the sun. Confirming this is the parallel warming/cooling of the other bodies in our solar system to match the rates at which our own planet changes temp, as evidenced by infrared data from the nearer planets over the last several decades…unless somebody thinks that pollutant overflow from the Earth is warming Mars and Pluto?

            1. Lesson of the Day:

              In a feedback loop, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH HAPPENS FIRST.

              If A causes B and B causes A, the feedback gets set off if EITHER A or B happens. Claiming that in the past, A was what set off the feedback and therefore B can’t set it off, is simply wrong.

              Actually, the climate feedbacks involve three elements – rising temperatures, greenhouse gases, and the ice/albedo effect. Generally in the past, the happened in that order, but (this is critical) THEY ALL CONTINUED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS TOGETHER, feeding off each other. It was not a simple “A happened, then B” but rather “A happened, then A and B, then A, B and C, and more A, B, and C, and more A, B, and C…and so forth”, until things petered out when the feedbacks began running out of fuel.

              And your “solar system warming”? Easily debunked. I’ll let someone else do the work for me.

              http://www.skepticalscience.co…..system.htm

              1. “In a feedback loop, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH HAPPENS FIRST.”

                Which is why the last ice age lead to the earth now being completely incased in ice.

                Oh wait a minute….

              2. THEY ALL CONTINUED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS TOGETHER

                Temp, Ice and CO2 are close buddies.

                Is this anthropic global warming or anthropomorphized global warming?

              3. In a feedback loop, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHICH HAPPENS FIRST.

                Correct because if higher temperature causes more CO2 and then CO2 causes higher temperature we would never cool.

                Yet we have cooled. Many times. We have warmed. Many times.

                Therefore it is not a feedback loop.

                Modus Tollens. Live it. Love it.

        2. Those questions have been considered at length by Jerry Pournelle, among others. Their “consensus” is, “we don’t know…so we should spend some time and money finding out” rather than going all out on expensive, uncertain “solutions” to problems that may not exist.

          1. Although Jerry may have an IQ of 180 (as he says) and multiple PhDs and taught constitutional law at Pepperdine, I’m not sure that he is qualified to pronounce on these issues. If these questions really have been “considered at length” perhaps you could cite some more competent authority. And isn’t it ironic that to make such a suggestion in the current environment seems like it must be an irony (but it isn’t). I also like some of Pournelle’s stuff and I read him everyday but I think he overreaches a lot of the time.

            I also don’t disagree with your point. I think that climate is very complicated with a lot of inputs, many (most?) of which have not been closely examined. We do need more research before we walk off the end of the pier. Maybe that will happen, but maybe instead, the well has been poisoned and most people will think that climategate *has* settled the science so nothing further needs to be done. I think the guys at CRU took a big gamble on this and we may all have to pony up to cover their bet.

          2. So if I cite one smart guy who disagrees with Jerry, now what you do you?

            What happens when I cite the opinion of every major scientific organization on earth?

          3. And there is no proof that the proposed solution even works .

    3. Is the President of the United States seriously expected to weigh in on what is, at most, the lost credibility of a single institution in the UK?

      When he is relying on the work of that institution to propose massive increases in the scope and power of government, then I would say yes, yes he should weigh in, rather than pretending that the foundation hasn’t just been knocked out from under one of his signature causes.

      1. It hasn’t. What kind of idiot with delusions of grandeur thinks the POTUS should weigh in on his pet conspiracy theory?

        1. It has. What kind of idiot with delusions of intellectual adequacy would suppose the TOTUS should be exempt from explaining why he wants us all taxed to death over Gore’s delusional apocalyptic visions?

          Oh, that’s right: Tony would. Tony, you need a brain transplant. The one you’ve got right now is broken.

          1. If taxes are the worst thing you have to worry about then I’d say you’re doing okay.

            What a crybaby.

            1. You do realize that taxation has a direct link to liberty and standard of living, right Tony?

              Just so we’re clear here – here’s how it works:

              Everyone needs to trade with each other to survive… Because we don’t all make everything ourselves (and can’t really do it anyway if we want a decent life). So we use this thing called “money” to make trading easier… When you work & produce things people want, you earn money – when you consume things that other people have made, you spend it.

              We clear so far?

              Yeah… So here’s the thing about taxes: Between earning & spending money, taxes are the thing where some ruler *takes* a percentage of that money, claiming that – for various reasons – you owe it to him. When the ruler starts to take more and more money from you – i.e. when he imposes higher taxes – you are less able to provide for yourself and your family by spending that money on things that you need and which are meaningful to you. Thus your standard of living decreases.

              At first, perhaps this only cuts into your “expendable” income – meaning, at first you just lose the ability to pay for things that you want. But eventually, when taxation becomes very high, it starts cutting into your ability to pay for things that you actually *need*.

              Am I making sense, Tony? Do you understand that taxes are directly related to actual quality of life?

    4. This is lunatic. Is the President of the United States seriously expected to weigh in on what is, at most, the lost credibility of a single institution in the UK?

      1. Hadley Center at East Anglia is the Pentagon of global warming.
      2. The emails in question were exchanged among researchers all over the world, representing most of the global warming scientific infrastructure. That includes a number of very influential people here in the U.S. who regularly brief the president on the issue.
      3. It turns out they’re refusing to release data, and destroying data when ordered to release it.
      4. This is the president who ran on the platform of scientific honesty and public access to government information.

      So, well, yes!

    5. Libertarians don’t have knee-jerk reactions to all environmental issues. For instance, most would oppose dumping dioxin on someone’s property.

      1. Yet you defend coal plants, which spew mecury, soot, and all sorts of other general nastiness all over everyone’s property, both public and private, doing $121 billion in damage per year in the US alone (and that’s only health, not damage to the environment and/or anything to do with climate change).

        Where is the disconnect?

        1. Yet you defend coal plants, which spew mecury, soot, and all sorts of other general nastiness all over everyone’s property, both public and private, doing $121 billion in damage per year in the US alone (and that’s only health, not damage to the environment and/or anything to do with climate change).

          Who was it that opposed nuclear power?

          Who was it that opposed breeder reactors and the reprocessing of nuclear fuel?

        2. So where’s the energy to run your computer coming from, oh high-and-mighty greentard? Unicorn farts?

        3. Yeah, there’s really no disconnect here.

          There are few other alternatives allowable by law – and those laws weren’t “our” fault, Chad. You want cleaner energy that actually meets demand, how about we quit banning nuclear reactors?

          Alternatively – you wanna talk about coal power plants as if we support pollution or whatever, and I’m certainly not a huge fan – But we do need a way of powering all the stuff that actually makes our existence possible, and though there are those nasty “externalities” you whine about all the time in this particular realm of thing, there are few better alternatives available. So by all means, figure out a way to internalize the costs and more carefully define property rights. I doubt many of us would be against that.

          The real trouble though, is that first you have to prove the negative health effects and actually define how to internalize those costs. $121 Billion is a big number and I’d love to see where you got it. If it’s provable that Power Plant X caused Y health problems, then by all means, sue the crap out of them and that by itself will internalize the costs. Otherwise, you’re just kvetching.

        4. Yet you defend coal plants, which spew mecury, soot, and all sorts of other general nastiness all over everyone’s property

          Actually no I don’t defend them, I’m not sure many who do. In fact libertarian philosophy is well developed to address just such issues, even cusp cases.

          Th the problem with the religion of warmism is that it undermines legitimate environmental concerns.

    6. Gervaison-“Why libertarians feel that the philosophy requires knee-jerk opposition to environmental issues is beyond me.”

      Because enviros are knee jerk supporters of bigger government.
      To the point where enviros side with big government over the environment when their values conflict.

  10. Why can’t Goreans understand just how much CO2 is released when they burn strawmen so furiously?

    1. They pre-buy their carbon offsets for straw-man burning.

      1. Ah, I see. The pay to have liar trees planted all over California.

      2. Fields of Amber Grain baby. just set some of those fields aside as straw-burning offsets.

        1. Before or after you turn them into ethanol?

    2. In the most general use of the word, Gorean means anything characteristic of the Gor science fiction novels by John Norman. In these novels, the word “Gorean” is used to refer to the fictional counter-earth, to its inhabitants and social customs, and to the particular language which is the most widely-spoken lingua franca in the known inhabited regions of Gor (though other languages are also spoken on the planet).

      As applied to non-fictional individuals, the word Gorean means an adherent of the philosophies espoused in Norman’s writings, especially someone who lives a lifestyle based on this philosophy. While the most conspicuous Gorean departure from mainstream modern norms is that Goreans allow and indeed promote sexual master/slave relationships, many who take the Gorean worldview seriously would insist that being Gorean is not necessarily about either sex or slavery, but about the general Gorean philosophy (so that one would not have to participate in a master/slave lifestyle or relationship in order to be Gorean). Some of this philosophy is concerned with “natural order” and the relations between men and women, which may or may not take the form of a master-and-slave dynamic. Where there is a master/slave relationship, the level at which adherents follow the books varies.

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

      I think calling climate believers Goreans is going to be for 2010 what “teabagger” was for 2009. I just love it.

      1. Fine, call them Manbearpigeans instead.

        1. Have you seen the manbearpiggies
          In their starched white shirts
          You will find the manbearpiggies
          Stirring up the dirt
          Always have clean shirts to play around in.

      2. Why are they being called “Goreans”? If it has anything to do with Al, pheh, he wouldn’t last a minute on Gor.

    3. I think Goreans tieing themselves in knots flows better than “burn strawmen.”

      Just a suggestion.

  11. I’m not convinced Obama should address “Climategate”. Especially if he wants to allow the science of Global Warming(tm) Climate Change(tm) to be a little less politicized.

    In my opinion, this is the perfect opportunity to get the politics out of climate science– by shedding light on the whole thing.

    1. @Paul -great strike through!

    2. A Lesson in Talking Points History

      “Global warming” was the common term used for the phenomenon until REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS GURU FRANK LUNTZ came along and decided to tell his clients to start using “climate change” because it sounded nicer.

      It just so happened that “climate change” is a slightly less blunt and more accurate way of phrasing it, so now scientists use both terms interchangeably.

      So yes it was politics that changed the terminology. Republican politics, with the goal of slowing climate change mitigation policy.

      1. You are such a goddamn liar. 8 years before Bush II and Luntz, the United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change was formed. 1992, fuckhead.

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

        Shut the fuck up, you goddamn lying piece of shit.

          1. You can lead a cunt to water, but you can’t make him stop lying.

          2. Seriously, you are using Wikipedia as your source? Really??

            1. Yeah just like SugarFree did when he called me a liar.

              1. Tony, all problems of Wikipedia aside, I looked at your link, and it contains no references, no citations. Only a reference to Clilmate Chaos in regard to Luntz “distancing” himself from Bush Policies. Not the statement itself. The IPCC (international panel on climate change) was formed in 1988. There’s no indication whatsoever that Luntz made this statement in 1988– especially when he’s associated with George W. Bush, a president elected first in 2000. So… you’ve just provided the weakest argument ever, in the history of weak arguments, that a guy I don’t like in the first place “changed” the terminology to Climate Change.

                1. intergovernmental* my B. Still holds, though.

                2. He didn’t invent the term, he just suggested the Bush administration use it instead of ‘global warming’ because it sounded less scary.

                  My point is that the shift in terminology was not the result of scientists engaged in politics. It was the result in Republicans engaged in politics.

                  1. My point is that the shift in terminology was not the result of scientists engaged in politics.

                    Except that the MSM completely ignored that until it became impossible to ignore the fact that we’ve been cooling. Then they embraced the term. I didn’t hear NPR ever using the term until a couple years ago.

      2. Why on earth would you bolster your argument with “A republican did it” on a libertarian board? Did you actually expect any regulars here to duck out and leave the issue alone because someone we “liked” said it first?

        1. No matter how loudly we decry corporate welfare, military adventurism, or religious intrusion upon affairs of state, the meme that libertarians are “Republicans on weed” just never goes away.

          The same Democrats who savaged Bush for the “you are either with us or against us” reveal the very same attitude most of the time. Libertarians don’t like wasteful progressive spending initiatives, and therefore count as being part of the Republican “team.”

  12. “The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone? We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” The “two MMs” refers to Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. And–lo and behold–when one of them asked Jones for his data, what did he do? He hid behind the data protection act. But no, there is nothing premeditated here!

    I have to admit, the above clearly indicates what some sympathetic scientists have been saying: This is how science is done. I mean, hiding information, erasing information – that is part of the debate and the evolution of science, right? Right???

    This is precisely the kind of perfidy that undermines public trust in the scientific process that Obama pledged to restore.

    Well, people are still waiting for the new ear of transparency he promised. I will have to sit to wait for this one as well…

    Just watch out for the flying pigs when it happens…

  13. And this just in time for the Fraud Summit:

    http://www.cphpost.dk/news/nat…..fraud.html

  14. “Just do whatever is necessary to bring down the crook Al “Capone” Gore… Even if we have to tell the TRUTH to do it.”

  15. Sing hosannas? It is more likely that the person who leaked/stole the files will end up in Gitmo.

  16. This is lunatic. Is the President of the United States seriously expected to weigh in on what is, at most, the lost credibility of a single institution in the UK?

    He had time to runnoft to sell Chicago to the IOC and it wasn’t a cornerstone in what is arguably the biggest chunk of his platform. That is saving the environment via cap and trade and millions of green jobs and completely changing our energy production and consumption with the help of huge government subsidies. So, yes. I think he needs to weigh in on this.

  17. Climategate is rapidly shaping up to be my favorite story of 2009.

    1. You and me both.

      1. I don’t know….that video of Obama swatting a fly during an interview was pretty good.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzgOS8dbF64

        1. lol

          [this is notspam, this is not spam, this is not spam, this is not spam…] 8-|

  18. Obama can take time out of his day to address police scuffles in Boston or lobby for his cronies in Chicago in Europe. The least he could do is to make a statement on this issue or review the facts before we waste trillions of dollars. Pathetic.

  19. The Climategate story also raises the question of whether or not CRU is just the one bad apple in the bunch of climate research facilities. I find this hard to believe. Considering the people involved in these emails (Mann, etc.) who spread out their data through various Universities across the world, I have to wonder if CRU is alone.

    How many other climate research organizations who depend on the government teat for funding are also actively suppressing dissent? Are we truly to believe that this is just an anomaly?

    There are already questions about the same issue at NASA.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..mate-data/

    I can’t believe this is an isolated incident.

  20. Those calling for an investigation and prosecution of the leak/hack might want to think again.

    If any aspect of this winds up in court, I would expect a whole lot more damaging information to come to light, in a highly public way. Do you really want to (a) martyr a whistleblower and (b) give them a bully pulpit (with subpoena powers) to expand on what they did and why?

    1. Everyone knows that when you spend more time screaming about the leak or the leak-or, the information leaked is probably very ugly, very damaging, and very true.

  21. Dalmia deliberately misrepresents the stolen emails. For example, she adds [of temperatures] after “hide the decline”. But the decline was in maximum latewood density, not temperatures which have undisputedly increased sice 1960.

    She claims that the IPCC removed the hockey stick from its reports when its still there in AR4 for anyone to see.

    She misrepresents what happened with Climate Research, where a failure in peer review allowed an unscientific paper to be published. Five editors resigned in protest and the publisher conceded that the article should never have been published.

    Neither Dalmia nor Reason care about the accuracy of what is published in Reason.

    1. Mr. Lambert,

      Do you feel that CRU did anything wrong in regards to the recent information exposed through the emails?

    2. Mann urged his colleagues to blacklist Climate Research, a journal that had published research by skeptics. “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal,” he wrote. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit or cite papers in this journal.”

      it still stinks on high ice – even if the purported paper was flawed, it would only have required debunking by a peer. By the way, where is the evidence these 5 editors resigned “in protest”?

      1. Mann was RIGHT, silly.

        The crackpot paper was sent into review, and the denier editor ACCEPTED THE PAPER despite scathing reviews.

        This is NOT peer review and is exactly what it peer review is meant to prevent. The uproar this paper caused was totally appropriate.

        1. The uproar this paper caused was totally appropriate.

          What Tim and Chad are complaining about is that the Soon 2003 paper used spurious proxies.

          Of course Mann and Briffa and Jones used Spuriouse proxies as well:

          Briffa 2002

          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.

          Funny how Mann gets soooooo upset about a paper which used the same type of “trick” that he did.

          1. I suggest you read the responses to the S&B article.

            The problem was that the paper was excepted DESPITE BAD REVIEWS, for political reasons. This should not happen. Yes, the editor deserved to get canned. Yes, a stink was raised about it, and yes, a lot of people quit because of it.

            1. The publisher eventually asked to see the documentation associated with the review of the paper – which had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection. Otto Kinne concluded that the review process had been properly conducted.

              Hey look Chad you lied again.

              but here is the best part:

              In the meantime, Hans von Storch (another Climate Research editor) and myself had been receiving numerous unsolicited complaints and critiques of the paper from many leading members of the international palaeo and historical climatology community. At the beginning of May 2003, these had reached such a level that we raised the concerns with the editor who had processed the Soon and Baliunas paper (Chris de Freitas) and the publisher (Otto Kinne of Inter-Research). In response, de Freitas accused us of ‘a mix of a witch-hunt and the Spanish Inquisition’.

              Hmm…i wonder who are the “many leading members of the international palaeo and historical climatology community”

              So it went throught the peer review process with none of the 4 reviewers haveing a problem with it. Then along come “many leading members of the international palaeo and historical climatology community”

              Jones, Mann and Briffa would not be leading members of the “palaeo and historical climatology community” now would they?

              http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm

            2. Hans von Storch: “I would assume that more interesting issues will be found in the files, and that a useful debate about the degree of politicization of climate science will emerge. A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.”

              Hans von Storch was one of those who resigned.

    3. “Dalmia deliberately misrepresents the stolen emails. For example, she adds [of temperatures] after “hide the decline”. But the decline was in maximum latewood density, not temperatures which have undisputedly increased sice 1960. ”

      Really? Here is the e-mail in question.

      Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
      Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
      first thing tomorrow.
      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) amd from
      1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
      land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
      N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
      for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
      data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
      Thanks for the comments, Ray.

      Cheers
      Phil

      Looks like they are talking about Temps to me, not tree rings.

      “She claims that the IPCC removed the hockey stick from its reports when its still there in AR4 for anyone to see.”

      Even if you are correct, so what? That makes it even worse in that the IPCC is still putting up a discredited piece of work.

      “She misrepresents what happened with Climate Research, where a failure in peer review allowed an unscientific paper to be published. Five editors resigned in protest and the publisher conceded that the article should never have been published.”

      Bullshit. That is just a tautology. Why was the science bad? Becuase you say so? Further, the emails relate to a lot more than just that one article.

      They say

      Thanks Phil,

      (Tom: Congrats again!)

      The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process
      anywhere. That leaves only one possibility–that the peer-review process at Climate
      Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn’t just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department…

      The skeptics appear to have staged a ‘coup’ at “Climate Research” (it was a mediocre
      journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite ‘purpose’).
      Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

      This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
      “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal!

      So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
      sit on the editorial board…

      What do others think?

      mike

      Attached to the alleged Mike Mann email was an email allegedly from Phil Jones. He too is against free expression of scientific thought

      Dear all,

      Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don’t let it
      spoil your day. I’ve not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. [B]The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere.

      Another thing to discuss in Nice !

      Cheers

      Phil

      That is more than just that one article. They wanted to cut out all access of skeptics to any peer reviewed journal.

      STOP FUCKING LYING YOU KOS TROLL!!!

    4. Dalmia deliberately misrepresents the stolen emails. For example, she adds [of temperatures] after “hide the decline”. But the decline was in maximum latewood density, not temperatures which have undisputedly increased sice 1960.

      No surprise here that Tim Lambert is lying.

      “hide the decline” is an attempt by Briffa to hide the fact that the derived proxy temperatures which even before 1960 sharply diverged from instrumental temperature data. This divergence makes the proxy data, which is used to predict temperatures in the past, (before there was any instrumental data) spurious. In other words we cannot trust the Proxy data to be good thermometer of past temperatures.

      What is even funnier, and I am sure Tim knows about, considering that he screamed and yelled until his lungs burned with Steve M over this issue, is what Briffa used as an excuse to use the spurious proxy data anyway.

      Briffa 2002

      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.

      let me repeat that again

      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.

      One more time:

      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.

      Tim Lambert is lying to you about “hide the decline”.

      “maximum latewood density,” is used in the peer reviewed work of Briffa and Jones and Mann as a temperature proxy.

  22. Tim, are you still Tim Blair’s bitch?

  23. Oh my, Climategate is fun. Watching the people who bought into AGW (which is what they did; they literally joined a club and fully looked down on those who wouldn’t join) squirm and obfuscate is priceless.

    Honestly, for a number of you I bet it isn’t even that you want AGW to be true; the fact is you got pwned like morons by these people and you feel stupid and you’re desperately looking for a reason why you aren’t gullible idiots. Well, guess what: you are.

    1. Yes it is fun. Because no matter how they lie and squim, you just go get the e-mails and repost them. It is a rethorical turkey shoot. But they are so invested in it, they keep coming back for more beatings. I am honestly not sure what any of the skeptics did to live well enough to see this come about.

    2. Another thing they are doing… the Popular Mechanics article and the Nature article that keeps being posted to “refute” the CRU scandal both seek to shift the problem with CO2 away away from rising temps and onto ocean acidification.

      “Yeah, well this thing we’ve been beating you over the head with for the last 20 years isn’t even the real problem!”

      What’s the solution to acidic oceans? Dilution by melting freshwater ice caps, perhaps?

      1. What’s amazing to me is how many people don’t seem to realize just how ridiculously obvious their obfuscations are. It’s like when joe would move goalposts as if we weren’t completely aware of what he was doing.

        I mean, this scandal just fucked the AGW arguments in the ass. Ridiculously hard. Are you so invested in not looking gullible that you are willing to look mendacious and stupid instead?

        For fuck’s sake, man up and admit you got played and that this whole subject needs to be reexamined from the ground up with total transparency. If you can’t do that, you are a fucking tool.

        And NutraSweet, the solution to acidic oceans is of course to do a lot more acid.

        1. I have a Futurama-equse vision of Bender muttering while he rolls a giant Tums the Professor made into the ocean.

          1. “Stupid Professor with his stupid antacid…I’ll show him acid…”

        2. Did they man up about the population bomb in the 70s? Did they man up about the Soviet Block being as strong and stable and morally equivilent to the West during the cold war? Fuck no. And they won’t man up about this.

          They will just move the goal posts, find some other excuse to make war against capitalism and freedom and deny this whole little episode ever happened.

          Mark my words. If there is still a Hit and Run in five years and Tony and Chad and MNG are still on there, they will tell you when confronted with this

          “no one ever claimed the science was settled about AGW. Stop argueing with the liberals in your head.”

          1. Indeed, it is a long list of bull-waste-product thrown out by leftist scientists: population bomb, global warming, Darwinian evolution. In all cases they declare a consensus by majority, engage in alarmism, fling the insult of “denial” and “dangerous denial” at cool headed dissent, and even engage in falsification of data and bullying of the peer review process.

            Look at what happened to someone with the same courage as the heros that stood up to the Climate “Consensus:”

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

            Any of that sound familiar?

            1. And right on afternoon cue, MNG returns.

              1. Oh yeah. Took me a minute to figure out he was trolling. Of course just because culturally enforced group think is right sometimes, doesn’t mean it is right all the time or even evidence for something being right. Yes, most educated people believe in evolution. But that sure isn’t because they have given it any thought or really understand it. They just happen to believe in something correct.

                1. John
                  Having seen through one leftist hoax based on revelations of data manipulation, attempts to silence dissenters and bullying of peer review processes, why not have the courage to see the analogy with another leftist hoax which meets all the same criteria (and worse!).

            2. Darwinian evolution

              You just fell into the bucket of shitheads that aren’t worth paying attention to.

              1. Hoaxbuster is a lame sockpuppetry attempt to link people who didn’t fall like morons for the AGW crap to creationists and anti-Darwinians.

                1. Episarch
                  The connections between the two are all around you, please have the courage to look.

                  In both cases there have been manufacturing of evidence, bullying of peer review, overwhelming odds of confirmation bias, and proponents with radical leftist agendas. In both cases a majority of “experts” tell us that what they are saying is true, and in both cases we can, with courage and hard work, see they are wrong. Do you dispute this?

                  1. Keep working it, dipshit. The only time you waste is your own. By the way, NutraSweet raped your dog last night. Repeatedly.

                    1. Here is one thing I know, he can rape my dog all he wants but there will still be a dog and a NuttySweet the next morning, because while microevolution is proven macroevolution is a hoax. Ever seen a dog change into a fish? I didn’t think so.

                    2. His meat was sweet, too.

                  2. He’s right, AGW is just like intelligent design! God wants the polar bears to burn!

          2. Or I could just change my name.

        3. After wasting lots of time and emotion arguing with MNG and Chad the last few days, I would like to make the following observations.

          The CRU crises is a “process” integrity problem not directly a “data” integrity problem. As I said before, the CRU value-added dataset is unverifiable. This means that the CRU cannot prove it is true. The equally means that opponents cannot prove it’s false. This means the data set needs to be shit-canned.

          However, the CRU crises does not directly discredit other researchers using data sets from NOAA or NASA.

          What it means is that this other researchers must submit to open audits of their process and data so that their results can be independently verified.

      2. What’s the solution to acidic oceans? Dilution by melting freshwater ice caps, perhaps?

        Limestone- lots and lots of it.

    3. Episiarch…I love your post. Keep up the charlie work.

      Ok so this is one more conspiracy theory that we know turned out to be true. When the government won’t release the tapes or the data it seems to be almost always the case that they are lying about stuff. what are the otehr conspiracy theories that will turn out to be true? I remember when the Gulf of Tonkin being a scam to ramp up the war was condsidered a conspiracy theory.

  24. Anybody else seeing the Greenpeace ad? What’s the definition of irony?

  25. “It is worth recalling that Bush too was relying on an international consensus?especially reports by U.N. arms inspectors”

    Thank you Woodrow Wilson!

  26. The biggest thing that bugs me about this is the non-reactions or foolish knee-jerk defense of AGW that have occurred in the Skeptic community. I link libertarianism, which is essentially a skeptical way to look at government power, to scientific skepticism. There has been some cross over in these areas with the likes of Michael Shermer, Penn & Teller and the creators of South Park, but many in the Skepticism community have bought in to AGW hook line and sinker. Even Phil Plaite, head of the James Randi Educational Foundation, sees nothing wrong with the content of the emails. His blog post regarding them would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

    Here’s a link to his most recent post regarding them…http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

    His first post pertaining to the inanely named Climategate is even more ridiculous.

    1. I think it is a cultural thing. Believing in AGW became a way to show that you were educated and elite. You have to remember Randi and skeptics like him were used to picking on new age hippies and snake handling evangelicals and others outside the mainstream. AGW was all mainstream all the way.

      In the last 10 years it has taken a lot of balls to stand up and tell people you think AGW is bullshit among certain circles. I know because I have done it. I think the skeptics sadly got taken in by their desire to fit in with the mainstream.

      1. “Believing in AGW became a way to show that you were educated and elite.”

        Yes, this is EXACTLY like the scorn manufactured towards those who dare point to the glaring holes in Darwinian Evolution! It’s a process of marginizalization through riducule in the hopes that no one will dare actually examine the paucity of evidence for such grandiose claims.

        1. Seriously, this has been 2 comments.

          You do realize that there have been oft repeated and repeatable studies on evolution? And no one is hiding the data? Or the results that disprove their assumptions? And they’re open to the public as well as the peer reviewed journals?

          That’s the difference.

          Oh, and no trillion dollar budgets to destroy monkey uteri in a desperate attempt to prevent them from breeding a super race that will enslave us all. Or whatever.

      2. John, there’s also (unfortunately) a lot of admiration for lefty, collectivist ideology among the ranks of the Skeptics. Most of this admiration comes from their own background, or their college years, and an incredible ignorance of economics.

        Unfortuately, the fact is that AGW (or rather, the purported “solutions”) meshed perfectly with their ideals of Perfect Man and a Perfect Society (i.e. one not driven by the “petty” interests of individuals.)

        At least I am hopeful that more honest skeptics will come to the realization that politics can really taint scientific endeavors and that ideology should never trump human individual rights, ever.

        1. Very true. And as I said above, a lot of skeptics turn their attention on things like flim flam faith healers and telepaths and the like, which doesn’t conflict with leftist ideology or culture.

          1. Actually, having attended TAM 6 in Las Vegas I can assure you that Skeptics target New Age beliefs that many left leaning people hold. It was there that I talked to Michael Shermer, who had just published Mind of the Market, and I asked him straight out if he thought there was a link between skepticism and libertarianism and he said there definitely was. Now this was only his opinion of course, but I would think that being skeptical of the government is tied strongly to skepticism of religion. They both attempt to control people and use the argument from authority claim to squelch dissent.

            But I just don’t get the AGW argument and crowd. Like Penn & Teller I can honestly say that I’m not sure and I don’t think we (humankind) know enough yet to make a definitive statement one way or the other. I certainly don’t think that large and potentially economically devastating government mandates are the solution even if global warming is occurring. Of course I have noticed that many so called skeptics also support government mandated “health care reform” so maybe there is no real link between skepticism and libertarianism and I, along with a few others, am just a freak.

  27. Don’t hold your breath, it took the community of “experts” decades to realize the following hoaxes:

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

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

    Obama will not “address” Climate Gate for the same reason he will not address the equallly solid and sordid corruption and bullying behind the hoax of Darwinian Evolution: both are hoped by leftists to advance their social engineering agendas. The “experts” are on the take and so it has come down to people like us to analyze their “science” and show the Emperor is indeed naked, marching down Main Street with a Scepter of Fraud in his hand!

    1. Hey HB,

      The climategate issue and evolution have zero in common. Evolution has truckloads of empirical evidence in which to falsify the theories behind genetic mutation and natural selection.

      AGW is based on models that when tested do not appear to be able to falsify the theories behind them.

      If you think they are the same, then you are an idiot.

      1. Oh, the people pushing Climate flim flam will say they have such evidence as well. They will go on about tree rings, and ice drills, and geological drills, ans other data sets, etc.,. But it’s apparent this stuff cannot be trusted, it is most likely fabricated like the Climate Gate research.

        Likewise for evolution. A greater chance for confirmation bias exists there, and we have a proven record of them blatantly manufacturing their “evidence.” A truckload of questionable evidence is as worthless as none.

        1. No stupid, it is not the same.

          Go look up what “falsify a theory” means and then come back. Until then you haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

          1. I know what it means, thank you, I have science training.

            Evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable, for a number of reasons, this being just one:
            http://www.mathematicsofevolut…..Box__.html

            1. LOL! ‘science training’ =/= Sunday School

              1. I don’t know about that. The best science classes I took before college were at my catholic grade school. Those old nuns really wanted us to think empirically.

                In public school grades 6-12 the science classes we pure shit.

    2. We don’t need more sockpuppets.

      1. Yes we do!

    3. Wow – you are not a terribly observant person to put it kindly, “Hoaxbusters.” Even your own link for “Nebraska Man” makes it clear that “it took the community of ‘experts’ decades to realize the following hoaxes” is patently false. First of all, the link (the one you provided, mind you) points out that it wasn’t a hoax. Second of all, it took three years from its initial description in 1922 for it to be falsified, and two more years for a retraction in a peer reviewed journal. Is that some super-special “hoaxbusters” math where 3-5 years = “decades”?

      Regarding this comment of yours about Piltdown: “we have a proven record of them blatantly manufacturing their “‘evidence'” – can you name a single other scientific field, or for that matter essentially any other field of human endeavour, for which there isn’t a comparable “proven record” of dishonesty? No, you can’t, because all of those fields involve people, and sometimes people lie. You just get your panties in a bunch when it involves evolution because your ideology has made you stupid and/or dishonest.

  28. I LOVE CO2!

    Study: Aspen warm to extra CO2 in air
    The trees are growing faster thanks to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere linked to global warming.

    Aspen trees, the backbone of Minnesota’s paper industry, are liking the extra carbon dioxide in the air linked to global warming.

    New research published Friday found that aspen growth rates increased by 53 percent during the past half-century, as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased about 20 percent.

    “Trees eat carbon dioxide for a living,” said Don Waller, study author and University of Wisconsin-Madison botany professor.

    As carbon dioxide increases in the air, he said, plants can extract more of it and convert it to sugar through photosynthesis. That speeds up their growth.

    The results could be especially important for Minnesota and Wisconsin, where aspen is the dominant species on about 7.3 million acres of timberland.

    http://www.startribune.com/loc…..3LGDiO7aiU

    1. New research published Friday found that aspen growth rates increased by 53 percent during the past half-century, as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased about 20 percent.

      Hey, I am a tree hugger! Let’s have more CO2?

      What? Tree-huggers want humans to lower emissions? Why, those double-crossing traitors! They just talk from both sides of their mouths!

      1. What? Tree-huggers want humans to lower emissions? Why, those double-crossing traitors! They just talk from both sides of their mouths!

        Double-binds are a primary tool of emotional / psychological abusers, who, as we all know, are all about controlling others. I equate warmists with emotional / psychological abusers and wife beaters.

      2. The effects of CO2 fertilization are discussed in the IPCC report. Crops will do better if climate change is mild, but will do worse if it is strong. It will be good for industries that thrive on chopping trees and regrowing them, again assuming it isn’t too strong. The impacts on wild areas will favor some species over another, which could be good or bad depending on the situation.

        CO2 fertilization is one of the upsides of global warming. So is increased tourism in Siberia. There are not really than many, though.

        1. Take a good look at a globe. The majority of land on Earth is outside the tropics. (Mercader projections exaggerate this difference on 2D maps, but the difference is still there.) Global Warming means a huge boon to agriculture, which enriches all of mankind.

          Personally, I’m a huge fan of human-caused climate change. I live in Minnesota, and I change the “climate” within the walls of my house all winter and part of the summer every year by artificial means.

          1. Really? So turning Texas into a desert, Kansas into Texas, the Dakotas into Kansas, and Manitoba into the Dakotas helps us…how exactly? How does moving the Ukraine and the Yellow River basin to Siberia help? And I don’t have any clue how you are going to move the grain belt around the Ganges into the mountains. Good luck with that.

            Additionally, the soil is terrible in the northern parts of Canada and Russia, because nothing much grows there.

        2. Shut the fuck up, Chad. You don’t know what it’s like up here.

    2. “Are liking the extra carbon dioxide”… That is one horribly written article. Fuck journalism.

  29. From the Discovery Institute:

    The most pervasive manifestation of this fraud is the perversion of the peer-review process; it renders all of the ‘consensus science’ that has accrued under that process essentially worthless. Peer review is to science as jury deliberations are to criminal justice. It is sacrosanct. If it is tampered with, the verdict ? scientific or judicial ? is worthless, and must be thrown out.

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

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

    1. The Discovery Institute?

      Seriously?

      Shut the fuck up HB.

      1. Why such derision and insult for a group of experts who agree with you on Climate Gate? Would you heap the same insult and scorn on those who see through both Darwinian Evolution and Climate Flim-Flam as the proponents of the Flim-Flam try to silence you with?

        1. HB,

          I give you derision and insult because you quoted the Discovery Institute. They are a collection of morons who think Jesus and dinosaurs existed simultaneously. If you put yourself in that camp then you too are a moron.

          1. This is a gross misrepresenation of the views of the Discovery Institute. You sound like the Climate Czars trying to deride and marginalize dissenters.

            1. http://www.avantnews.com/news/…..aur-saddle

              Mud Flaps, Arizona, March 29, 2006 — A team of creationist paleontologists from the Discovery Institute’s main field research arm announced today that they had discovered the remains of a large manmade object confirmed to be an ancient dinosaur saddle.

              Fish, barrel, shut the fuck up HB.

              1. Mud Flaps, Arizona, March 29, 2006 — A team of “creationist paleontologists” from the Discovery Institute’s “main field research arm” announced today that they had discovered the remains of a large manmade object confirmed to be an ancient dinosaur saddle.

                Fixed.

                1. “ancient dinosaur saddle” could be my phrase of the day.

                  The stupidity in those three words put together is simply awe-inspiring.

                  1. Not nearly as bad “modern dinosaur saddle”…

                  2. Tangentially, I think “Ancient Dinosaur Saddle” would be an awesome name for a band.

    2. We don’t need any spamming sockpuppets.

      1. Oh but we do! Tony and Chad and Anonymity Guy are just not enough.

        1. It is just a sign of how desparate they are. They can’t engage in an actual debate because they know they will get beat down. So instead, they just sock puppet and troll and try to screw up the conversation.

          1. Really? I think we hold up well despite being un-numbered fifty to one. Of course, it is pretty easy when you guys just keep spouting pure ignorance.

            1. it is pretty easy when you guys just keep spouting pure ignorance.,

              You are the same idiot who told us Greenland will melt and raise sea levels 20 meters.

              Even the IPCC knows that is complete bullshit.

              1. If we stay under business as usual, it is only a question of how long it will take to melt, not if it will.

                Ice melt is accelerating far beyond anything in the IPCC report.

            2. you guys just keep spouting pure ignorance.

              Who are you calling ignorant, you tragic little statist toady?

              -jcr

              1. Anyone who believes public policy should be based on the free-market religion.

                That would include you, of course.

                1. Reality is intrinsically a free market, chad. Or haven’t you ever taken a walk in the woods? It’s what happens under normal and natural circumstances. Somebody knows how to catch clams. Somebody else knows how to pull teeth. They make a deal. I don’t see any religion in that and neither do you.

  30. Hope all the folks in Houston and other parts of Texas are enjoying their earliest winter snowfall in, well, since measurements have been kept on these things.

    Happy global warming Houston!

    1. I am sitting here in my office in the Houston area, and I am not doing a lick of work because I am mesmerized by the beautiful white snowflakes coming down. I LOVE this global warming.

    2. I live just to the northwest of Houston and it is snowing outside as I type this. I have lived in the Houston area for over fifty years, and though it has snowed here before occasionally, I don’t remember it doing so this early in the year. Might get a real winter this season.

    3. The easiest way to tell when someone doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about with regard to climate change is when they say “it’s cold in ____” WHERE’S YOUR GLOBAL WARMING NOW?

      The mind-numbing irony is that you just said it was a weather record. Nope, no climate change happening there.

      1. Re: Tony,

        The easiest way to tell when someone doesn’t know what the fuck they are talking about with regard to climate change is when they say “it’s cold in ____” WHERE’S YOUR GLOBAL WARMING NOW?

        Tony, whose fault is that? For years, ever since the 80s, the talk was about Global WARMING, about higher temperatures, structures melting like icecram on pavement, droughts, famines, dust clouds, deserts increasing in size . . . and then all of a sudden, at the beginning of this Century, the talk was about “Climate Change.”

        Really, do you expect people NOT to be cynical about this?

        1. As I said above, the shift toward using the term “climate change” in recent years is due mostly to REPUBLICAN HACK FRANK LUNTZ who thought it sounded less scary. Now scientists use the terms interchangeably.

          It is technically the warming of the planet. That doesn’t mean, however, that it will never snow anywhere on earth. The climate effects will indeed result in cooler temperatures in certain locations.

          You’re not being cynical because anyone lied to you, you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

          1. Re: Tony,

            As I said above, the shift toward using the term “climate change” in recent years is due mostly to REPUBLICAN HACK FRANK LUNTZ who thought it sounded less scary.

            I don’t light a candle for Frank Lutz, Tony, nor for his employer – how in the world is this even relevant, even if it were true (which is not)?

            It is technically the warming of the planet. That doesn’t mean, however, that it will never snow anywhere on earth.

            I don’t know how long you have been in this planet, but the talk on the airwaves since the middle of the 80s was about DROUGHTS, LESS PRECIPITATIONS, MASS STARVATIONS, MORE DESERTS, LESS TREES, CATS AND DOGS FUCKING EACH OTHER… you name it. Climate Change was nothing more than a convenient cop-out because the Earth was obviously NOT warming.

            1. It’s not relevant. That’s the point. You guys get all bothered about the fact that global warming suddenly became climate change when you don’t realize it was denier-promoters who made the fucking change.

              It is in fact an increase of the average global temperature we’re talking about. That will have all sorts of effects. That you think they should only be ones that result in localized increases in temperature is your problem, not scientists who know what they’re talking about.

              1. Re: Tony,

                It is in fact an increase of the average global temperature we’re talking about.

                That’s Global Warming. Which has not happened in the way it was advertised, so far.

                That will have all sorts of effects. That you think they should only be ones that result in localized increases in temperature is your problem, not scientists who know what they’re talking about.

                Seems like those scientists don’t know what THEY were talking about, either – I heard that we would have a continuous period of very severe storms and hurricanes, after Katrina. I had to sit down to wait for that one, because I was getting tired…

                But, I will take it at your word that these “scientists” knew what they were talking about…

                1. You are still blaming scientists for your own ignorance. It’s pathetic.

                  No local weather events can easily be attributed solely to global warming. At best they can say there will be an increase in extreme weather events. Which is just what has been happening all over the globe.

                  1. Re: Tony,

                    You are still blaming scientists for your own ignorance. It’s pathetic.

                    Really? See below:

                    No local weather events can easily be attributed solely to global warming. At best they can say there will be an increase in extreme weather events.

                    That is exactly what they said.

                    Which is just what has been happening all over the globe.

                    You mean those that are expected from a changing climate?

                    Do you really think the Earth’s climate was like an air conditioned, sealed room before the 1900s?

              2. You guys get all bothered about the fact that global warming suddenly became climate change when you don’t realize it was denier-promoters who made the fucking change.

                Tony what does IPCC stand for?

                I will give you a hint…the two Cs at the end do not stand for global warming.

                The IPCC published its first assessment report in 1990.

                1. Oh, so there wasn’t a conspiracy of scientists to relabel it climate change in recent years?

      2. Tony,
        When Al Gore showed pictures of iceberg’s floating aimlessly away from the the mother berg, was that not his own way of demonstrating anecdotally that the globe was warming? When he shows pictures of rushing streams that ought to be blocks of ice, was that not a way of demonstrating warming? If so, how is the mention of extremely early snow fall just off the Gulf of Mexico not anecdotal evidence to support a belief to the contrary? It takes selective observance on the part of many AGW theorists who make the claim you do. I don’t see your breed calling B/S or insulting your like-minded colleagues when they make a similarly reasoned argument to demonstrate a warming of the globe. How many times have I seen a picture of a sun-cracked dessert floor to illustrate another AGW’s theory? This method of argument (right or wrong) did not begin with the skeptics. In order to be intellectually honest, you need to play fair to be credible. Even worse, you mock and insult those who come to the debate with the same tools as their opponent’s. It also takes selective observance for Al Gore to use the melting of the north pole to support his contention that the globe is warming while simultaneously ignoring the growth in size of the south pole.

        It is the behavior like yours and those scientists at the CRU coupled with scientific evidence that contradicts your beliefs that give credence to the skeptics. To insult them while simultaneously exhibiting intellectual dishonesty possibly says more about you and your beliefs than people who pose some reasonable “yeah but what about this” arguments to the contrary.

        1. Anecdotal evidence isn’t enough either way. It’s just that there’s a whole lot more real evidence on one side.

          I swear, one minute the climate is too complex to possibly comprehend, the next minute it’s expected to be hotter in every place at all times.

          1. that there’s a whole lot more real evidence on one side.

            Is there? Perhaps you can forward it to the CRU at East Anglia University. They seem to have misplaced theirs.

            -jcr

      3. Actually, Tony, this particular meme comes directly from the great Anthony Watts.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…../#comments

        I have been trolling over there today to. The mere fact that Watts posts *weather* articles with his climate arguments proves the man is a dishonest liar. While he knows the difference, he posts this articles because morons like “smartass sob” either do not or pretend they don’t.

        Watts provides fuel to lies, which makes him a liar himself. Therefore, he should be ignored in any policy debate.

  31. Does snow in Houston = Hell freezing over?

    Its actually starting to stick on the ground outside my window. Shades of Xmas Eve a few years back.

    1. This post is excellent. Like Darwinian Evolution Climate Flim-flam asks us to ignore our common sense and evidence before our eyes. We are told it is warming when it is snowing. We are told foxes change into dogs when no one has ever seen a fox change into a dog.

      1. Listen you clown fuck. That’s not what the theory of natual selection says.

        Natual selection says if you take a large population of dogs and split it into two isolated communities that do not have the opportunity to interbreed eventually enough genetic differences will pile up in the two communities so that they CANNOT interbreed. Therefore, they have become seperate species.

        No one to my knowlege says that natural selection alone is responsible for the transition from single cells critters in the distant path to millions of species of plants and animals today.

        Take your bullshit somewhere else.

      2. You obviously have no knowledge of dog breeding over the last 300 years.

        1. You can bread dogs. You can bread big hairy dogs. And you can bread little hairless ones and everything in between. But, no one has ever bread a dog and come up with a cat no matter how hard they tried.

          Not that evolution is wrong. But dog breading is really not an example of speciation.

          1. Just remember: If you bread a dog, you have to turn up the heat in your deep fryer so the breading doesn’t get soggy.

            1. My Korean cooking is a but rusty.

            2. And the need to be alive when you toss them into the hot fat.

              It can get messy.

      3. Technically, it is wolves that the DNA evidence shows are the ancestors of dogs, not foxes.

        And as for new species allegedly never being observed forming:

        Where did the AIDS virus come from prior to its first observance in the 50s or so?

        And other brand new infectious diseases?

        And new variants of diseases evolving, such as drug-resistant strains of diseases?

        And all the other examples that a few minutes googling would turn up?

        1. Those skeptical of evolution generally want to hear about speciation events in macroscopic critters observed in historical times.

          That’s a pretty high hurdle but, not really an unreasonable request.

          Such events have been observed. A few examples at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html . Ask google for more, I’m not going to do all your research for you

      4. Who the fuck ever told you that foxes turned into dogs. Domestic dogs are domesticated wolves.
        Wolves & Domestic Dogs:
        Wolf = Canis lupus
        Domestic Dog = Canis lupus familiaris

        While Foxes are:
        Grey Fox = Urocyon cinereoargenteus
        Red Fox = Vulpes vulpes

        I have to admit that I have always found the fact that a gray wolf, a Saint Bernard and a dachshund are all the same animal to be a bit unbelievable, but true never the less.

        1. If you took a dauchshund and let it fuck a grey wolf in heat, you would end up with a puppies that were dauchshunds from hell. If they can breed and turn out fertile offspring, they are the same species.

          1. Are ligers fertile?

            1. That is like my favorite animal. They are actually. So I guess you can be fertile if the hybrid is of the same genus rather htan species. Mules are not fertile. Most hybrids aren’t. But I looked it up on wikipedia and apparently ligers are.

          2. That, I would pay to watch.

        2. My dog is a Canis lupus epicurus

          1. My dog is a Canis lupus pheasant hunting mudda-fucker on steriods

            1. Mine just a sweet GSD who (yes who) likes pistachio encrusted Copper River salmon and creme brulee.

            2. Mine are Canis lupus biscuit eatus, but they’re friendly, and good watchdogs.

        3. My dog is a Cannabis Smokus.

        4. I have to admit that I have always found the fact that a gray wolf, a Saint Bernard and a dachshund are all the same animal to be a bit unbelievable, but true never the less.

          That’s no more surprising than realizing that the same thing is true of Andrea Dworkin and Raquel Welch.

          -jcr

      5. Since everyone has already jumped on the wolf/fox discrepancy, I will point out that foxes have been turned into something at least resembling a dog.

        From http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar06/life.html

        Some research on dogs, for example, suggests that human social skills might have evolved as an accidental byproduct of genetic selection for low aggression and tame behavior. As evidence for this theory, Hare points to his recent study of a Siberian fox farm. For 50 years, researchers there have been selecting foxes for breeding based only on whether the pups nonaggressively approached a researcher. In the study, published last February in Current Biology (Vol. 15, No. 3, pages 226?230), Hare found that the foxes bred through this method turned out to be as good at reading human communicative cues as dogs.

        They also developed curly tails as well as multicolored and curly coats.

        1. Cool, thanks for that

        2. Hare breeding foxes? What this world has come to…

    2. I was there for New Years in 2001. They had a huge ice storm. My then girlfriend came down from Boston and about froze to death. It was nicer in Boston. It can get damn cold down there when it wants to.

      1. Then girlfriend. Do you wish she had frozen to death?

  32. The affinity between socialism and evolutionary theory, like that between Climate Flim-flam and socialism, is well documented:

    Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were evolutionists before they encountered Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” – (Dec 12, 1859) Engels wrote to Marx: “Darwin who I am now reading, is splendid” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Zirkle). Like Darwin, “Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life… In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Borzin). “There was truth in Engel’s eulogy on Marx: ‘Just as Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in organic nature so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history'” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Himmelfarb).

    “It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but “Darwin ‘declined the honor’ because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset ‘some members of my family'” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).

    Other Soviet Communist leaders are evolutionists as well. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists. A soviet think tank founded in 1963 developed a one-semester course in “Scientific Atheism” which was introduced in 1964. Also, a case can be made that Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China.

    Interestingly, according to Morris, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, the co-founder of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution is a Marxist in philosophy, along with other distinguished Harvard evolutionary scientists and university professors across the country. One has to ask – could a person espouse the Marxist view and tolerate creationism?

    References:
    Morris 1989, 82-92

    1. You’re making a big mistake here.

      Totalitarian governments want to get rid of religion because they want the people they control to be held accountable to the government, not to any kind of god. It only makes sense that people like Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler would promote an evolutionary explanation because it provides a plausible answer to the question “Where did we come from?” without a reference to the divine.

      This does not mean evolution = totalitarian.

      Also, I’m assuming you’re a Christian. As a Christian, let me advise you to find a foundation for your faith other than the first 6 chapters of Genesis. Christianity and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There’s a lot that I don’t know about evolution yet and I have a lot of questions I’d like answered, but just because the first 6 chapters of Genesis may not be true verbatim doesn’t really bother me.

    2. Don’t you have to take a shit?

    3. Yes, and suicide bombers turn to the Quran for guidance. And Southern slave holders, including Robert E. Lee, used the Bible to justify their keeping of keep black Africans in the bonds of chattel slavery. People use any and all forms of ideology to support their crazy ideology. Unfortunately, when you die and rot you won’t have time to realize that you wasted a good portion of your life believing loony ideas that gained you absolutely nothing.

  33. Why should he acknowledge it when ABC, CBS and NBC haven’t in their broadcast newscasts? The mainstream media is trying to kill this story through non-reporting of it. Focus your anger on them and once they start covering it, Obama will have to cover it.

  34. Somebody got so butthurt at us making fun of his precious Al Gore, he had to go create a sockpuppet.

    It could be joe, actually. He was historically a fan of the specious AGW skepticism = Creationism argument.

    Somehow I doubt it. HoaxBuster and Freedom-Man haven’t yet bored us about how he’s the smartest and most respected commenter on the board and the time his high school debate team went to the state finals and they totally treated him like a real member of the team even though he was just really a glorified towel boy because of his profound stutter and tendency to gently piss himself when he tried public speaking and that’s why he has to hide out on the Internet because like most autistic kids he hits people when someone take his toys away.

    I mean joe would be telling us exactly what was in his debate coach’s eyes. Not that he could possibly know, because pride and pity are emotions people with such obvious narcissistic personality disorder confuse for their own purposes.

    1. That’s me. Stupid joke handles.

      1. I hate when that happens. Start posting as Obamaisah or some dumb shit. UGH!!

        1. I had fixed it back, but refreshed the page before posting. Gets me everytime.

          1. You’re lying and you’re taking credit for my work!

            1. Are SugarFree and Episiarch the same person? Will my taint be withered for asking this question?

              1. Frankly, even I get confused sometimes.

                1. If you two are the same person (people?!) you either have an amazing ability to self narrate, or are in need of professional help. maybe both.

                  1. Have you ever thought we might be you as well?

                    1. totally

    2. Yeah that is the kind of stupid shit Joe would have pulled, especially if he was getting a beat down. If you look up thread at classwarrior and Tim Lambert recieved, you realize they probably got tired of defending the indefensible. So they just decided to troll. Pathetic.

    3. And this is another strike against threaded comments. It allows trolls and sock puppets to really screw up the debate. If we just had one line of comments it would be easier to ignore the sockpuppet. But since the comments are threaded, he gets to insert himself into every conversation thread.

  35. If CNN can ignore climategate, Obama certainly can too.

  36. I feel guilty for feeding the puppet.

    You know what will make me feel better?

    This post. The all time classic sockpuppet post-

    http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wu…..uppet.html

  37. Sock puppetting always reminds me of Glen Greenwald. It is amazing how that little shitbag got away with that. He should have lost his job and never been allowed to write for a reputable publication again. Instead, he goes merely on as if it didn’t happen.

  38. May I suggest that when the fate of the planet and human life are at stake, that these take precedence over maximizing profits,

    What do you mean by “the fate of the planet”? Do you think this chunk of rocks and dirt with a thin veneer of an ecosystem can be destroyed by people?

    And do you place whatever you mean by “the planet” (other species?) as being more important than people?

    1. Of course not. Jesus Christ. Nobody is trying to protect the planet itself. Environmentalists care about the environment because HUMAN BEINGS live in the fucking environment. Stop being dense.

      1. Re: Tony,

        Environmentalists care about the environment because HUMAN BEINGS live in the fucking environment. Stop being dense.

        Tony, don’t be so naive – Many enviros could care LESS about humanity, otherwise they would have more qualms about violating fundamental human rights just to “save the environment”. They don’t care about that shit, they care about people being controlled and restrained.

        1. What fundamental rights are you referring to?

          The fundamental right of polluters to damage my private property with impunity?

          1. Re: Tony,

            The fundamental right of polluters to damage my private property with impunity?

            Oh, you are breaking my heart with all your melodramatic hyperbole, Tony.

            NO, the fundamental right of all humans to keep the fruits of their labor.

            Also, choose your bullshit more carefully: Weren’t we talking about Global Warming? How is CO2 emmissions polluting the air? CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

            1. Since when has it been a fundamental right not to be taxed? Since never, that’s when. Not in this country, not anywhere.

              Call CO2 whatever you like. Doesn’t change the fact that an increased proportion of it in the atmosphere leads to warming.

              1. Re: Tony,

                Since when has it been a fundamental right not to be taxed?

                Ever since STEALING was considered “wrong.”

                Since never, that’s when. Not in this country, not anywhere.

                That is irrelevant, Tony – you are confusing the coersive power of the state with the right of the state. But might does not make right.

                Call CO2 whatever you like.

                No, I am not calling it “whatever I like”. It is NOT a pollutant. Go check a dictionary.

                Doesn’t change the fact that an increased proportion of it in the atmosphere leads to warming.

                Well, seems like that is an invented fact. By the way, CO2 was found to be a “greenhouse” gas under lab conditions – says NOTHING about its capacity to hold heat in a complex system like our atmosphere.

                Oh, now that I remember, you were the nitwit who said that the atmosphere (a complex system) acts linearly when it comes to CO2 . . . the ONLY instance a complex system shows such behavior in all of Creation.

                1. You have me confused with another nitwit.

                  I get that you are an anarchist and think taxation is equivalent to theft, but you have to realize that’s a pretty fringe view. Meaning, it’s a pretty weak argument to make against climate change mitigation.

                  1. Re: Tony,

                    I may have confused you with someone else. That is possible.

                    I get that you are an anarchist and think taxation is equivalent to theft, but you have to realize that’s a pretty fringe view.

                    Don’t be ridiculous – it’s not a “view”. Taxation IS theft, by definition: The taking of someone’s property, by force.

                    Meaning, it’s a pretty weak argument to make against climate change mitigation.

                    No, don’t get confused. The argument against Climate Change mitigation is that it is IMPOSSIBLE, PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, to mitigate “Climate Change”, unless the sun suddenly stops radiating heat and light.

                    If you meant “Emissions Reduction”, the argument against is simply that such plan does not mitigate Global Warming, at all.

                  2. You have me confused with another nitwit.

                    Truer words were never spoken by our currently resident nitwit, Tony.

                2. Now you’re just engaging in semantic bullshit. The phenomenon in question is a rise in average global temperature. It really doesn’t matter what you call it.

                  On taxation. I’m an editor so I use Webster’s dictionary, perhaps you use another.

                  tax n: a charge usu. of mooney imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes

                  theft n: the act of stealing; specif: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

                  Any legally justified acquisition of someone else’s money is by definition not theft.

                  1. Tony,

                    You seem to have missed the word “imposed” on Webster’s definition of “tax.”

                    And just because it is “legal” does not make it moral, ethical or valid. Slavery was legal at one time, too.

                    1. Morality being somewhat subjective, you are within your rights to believe that the universal means of funding civilization is morally equivalent to theft. That makes you morally an accessory to theft every time you enjoy the benefits of civilization, of course, including most likely the fact that you’re still alive.

                  2. What the fuck is mooney, Mr.Editor?

              2. “On taxation. I’m an editor so I use Webster’s dictionary, perhaps you use another.”

                You use text in Teabagger Quarterly? I’m surprised.

            2. Very few of the “fruits of your labor” are created by you alone, but rather with the vast support of a society to which you owe a nearly infinite debt.

              Society will never extract from you more than it has given, even if we triple your taxes.

              1. Re: Chad,

                Very few of the “fruits of your labor” are created by you alone, but rather with the vast support of a society to which you owe a nearly infinite debt.

                Are you insinuating that my labor is owned by society?

                Society will never extract from you more than it has given, even if we triple your taxes.

                You are conflating “society” and “government.” They are not the same thing.

                1. No, I am saying the “fruits” that you collect are magnified a hundred-fold by the tools we have lent you. If we take a third as compensation, you have nothing to whine about. There is no threat that we would ever take more than the share which we have earned, because long before that, the Laffer effect would set in and make us both worse off.

                  Government is just one manification of society.

                  1. Re: Chad,

                    No, I am saying the “fruits” that you collect

                    I don’t collect anything. The “fruits of my labor” are my creation, not something I took.

                    […]are magnified a hundred-fold by the tools we have lent you.

                    What’s with this “we” business, Kimosabe? Who’s “we”? When did you “lend” me anything?

                    If we take a third as compensation, you have nothing to whine about.

                    Why not half, while you are at it. How about 100%?

                    There is no threat that we would ever take more than the share which we have earned, because long before that, the Laffer effect would set in and make us both worse off.

                    You’re citing the Laffer curve?

                    Government is just one manification of society.

                    Did you mean “manifestation”?

                    What would be another “manification” of society? I mean, I would like to know, you know, for comparison purposes.

                    1. Again, the “fruits of your labor” are “created” only using tools provide by US that amplify your creations a hundred-fold, at minimum. We gave you language. We gave you steel and cell phones. We taught you almost everything you think you know. You would be scrunging in the mud for grubs if it weren’t for us. Quit complaining. We are everyone but you.

                      Why wouldn’t I “cite” the Laffer curve. It is self-evident. However, we are currently nowhere near the peak, which is north of 70% effective rates. Since you owe us at least 99% of what you think you “create”, we cannot possibly collect as much as we give you. For practical purposes, something like half works pretty well, though.

                    2. That’s not true. I own my land. The title says “free, clear and unencumbered”. Fifteen years ago, I planted fruit trees, which I paid for, not you. For years I labored and coverd the costs of helping them grow, not you. Today they bear fruit.

                      If you want an apple, you gotta pay. If you come onto my property and take an apple, because you think that is fair, I’m going to shoot you.

                    3. You “own” your land? Only because we protect it from anyone stronger than you. You “paid” for the fruit trees? Really? Did you pay the person who created them ages ago? If not, you would be eating some nasty little ratty thing. Oh, and I suppose you used all sorts of tools we created for you to plant and harvest them, all sorts of fertilizers to grow them, etc. We also created the computer you are using right now, the words you are reading, even the words rattling through your brain right now. You would be nothing without us but a monkey who picked whatever fruit was there and hoped that a bigger monkey wasn’t there to take what you “earned”.

                      Btw, we provided you with the gun, too.

                    4. Chad Write like some kind of fucking psycho.

                      Who the FUCK Do you think you are???

                      “Again, the “fruits of your labor” are “created” only using tools provide by US”

                      What the fuck have you provided anyone

                      “We gave you language.”

                      GOD????

                      “We gave you steel…”

                      GOD???

                      “… and cell phones.”

                      You’r an inventor too!!!

                      “We taught you almost everything you think you know.”

                      You Chad are the ultimate teacher??
                      GOD???

                      “You would be scrunging in the mud for grubs if it weren’t for us.”

                      GOD???

                    5. Actually, Josh, I DID invent some tiny little fraction of your cellphone, in all likelyhood. Of course, I only did so by utilizing the tremendous gifts that society has bestowed upon me. I do not begrudge it a nickel.

                    6. Who is “society,” Chad – everyone but you? Everyone but one of us on this board? Or is Society just everyone except the poor sacrificial bastard Society is trying to fuck over at any particular time?

                    7. “Actually, Josh, I DID invent sometiny little fraction of your cellphone ”

                      I hope you got rich from doing so.

                      But really what is all this “we” and “us” Shit.

                      You may want to be part of some collective, but your not. You are an individual.

                      I know this because I didn’t profit from the “tiny little fraction of your cellphone” that “we” produced,

                      You Did.

                    8. No, you profited, I profited, my boss profited, our stockholders profited, your cell phone manufacturer profited, your cellular provider profited, and everyone you use the phone to profitably interact with profited. The amplification is enormous.

                    9. No, you profited, I profited, my boss profited

                      No everyone lost. They lost because those resources would have been allocated better had people actually affected at every point been making the allocation decisions.

                      Every dollar taken by the government and spent is less effective to human welfare than a dollar competed for by free people.

                      Asserting otherwise is asserting that a government worker is more productive than a private worker or that a bureaucratic knows what a person wants better than they do.

                      All of Disney economics is based on ignoring the cost side of the ledger.

                      Government can never produce more with resources than free people making free choices because the mechanism of efficiency is out of the picture. The mechanism is evolution.

                      Managed markets set evolution as an antagonist. (black markets, crime, etc)

                      Free markets leverage evolution.

                    10. And you were paid for it.

                      And I pay for my cell phne every time I use it. Why am I supposed to pay some third party, is the government that had noting to do with providing that service?

                  2. EVERY DOLLAR THE GOVERNMENT TAKES FROM ME IS A DOLLAR i CANT GIVE TO THE POOR.

                    1. tHIS SITE REALLY NEEDS A PREVIEW BUTTON.

      2. Is the federal government trying to save me from the next ice age (circa 1975), nuclear winter (circa 1985), AGW (circa 2005), or some new global threat that CNN hasn’t told me about yet?

  39. Man…I feel sorry for the authors of Freakonomics. They rubbed this lamp just a few months back, got scared by the sulphurous cloud that jumped out at them, and feebly backed down.

    It sucks to bail out in the middle of a winning fight.

    1. Fuckem. It those hipsters had had any balls, they wouldn’t have jumped ship.

  40. Im guessing whatever he has to say is just classified – like the plans to draft a “new bill of rights”

    dont believe me?

  41. http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..king-code/

    I would be curious to hear what someone who knows anything about computer code thinks of this.

    1. As one of the commenters was saying, the code may have been from an earlier test run, not necessarily the code used to model global climate. However, the sheer sloppiness of the model itself (from which the code is derived – you need to know first what you want to do in order to program it) is astounding.

      This makes it imperative to see the actual code for the models used by the scientists for their reports on the future temp trends – my guess is that it will not look too different.

      By the way, the “contractual agreement” red herring used to justify not publishing the data because of proprietory restrictions is pure nonsense – the data was collected from temperature reading stations located in public airports. The data is available for download to anyone.

      Dowloading the data is not the same as looking at the actual databases compiled by the scientists – those were being protected by CRU with tooth and nail.

      1. The original data used by CRU is an aggregation of publicly available data, data provided by countries with restriction, and data provided by commercial entities under non-disclosure.

        The value-added data may not be available to the general public, but any auditing body can sign non-disclosure aggreements and view the data. Results of the audit could still be published to the general public.

        1. Was the data shared with parties that they found agreeable to their position?

  42. Obama should acknowledge ClimateGate when Inhofe acknowledges that is a tempest in a teacup.

    Really folks, that is all it is. Indeed, I was thinking last night that this hack actually WEAKENS your argument that this is all some vast liberal conspiracy. If such a conspiracy existed, it surely would have existed at HADCRU. Yet all you found was a few researchers getting testy when provoked by relentless political attacks, and the same researchers responding (correctly, actually) to breakdowns in the the peer review process that allowed politically-motivated papers in.

    Your accusations of data “manipulation” are just downright silly. First, scientists “manipulate” data dozens of times each day. What do you think spreadsheets are for? The question is not whether it was “manipulated” but rather whether it was manipulated in a transparent manner…which it was.

    There is precisely nothing in these emails that even puts the smallest dint in the science at all. And that is what matters to anyone but political hacks. Read any of the statements put out by scientific organizations concerning this matter. They all agree that the science is not at all an issue.

    1. this hack actually WEAKENS your argument

      That’s just what I was thinking… There’s a notable lack of a smoking gun here. Maybe they only discuss the worldwide conspiracy in person, in dark alleys?

      1. Hey wow, Chad and Tony agree on this. Look, everybody, look.

        1. What’s to disagree with? You didn’t find a smoking gun. You did find a few molehills, and are desparately trying to turn them into mountains. Yet there are no guns, smoking or otherwise, anywhere in sight.

          1. You didn’t find a smoking gun.

            No, the guy who leaked the e-mails from the East Anglia CRU did.

            -jcr

            1. If he did, he hasn’t released it yet.

      2. Smoking gun #1

        Mann denied that he used his trick:

        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].

        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)

        Smoking gun #2

        Hide the decline relys on spurious assumptions.

        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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

        Keith Briffa 2002

        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.

    2. How Orwellian, so now the evidence of data-fraud, manipulation, and cooking the books is evidence for the fact that there have never been any abuses in the field of climate science.

      Congratulations, you have a position that is unfalsifiable.

    3. There is precisely nothing in these emails that even puts the smallest dint in the science at all

      True, as there wasn’t science there in the first place.

      All you have is assertions, failed models, and appeal to authority to back them up.

      The authority is exposed as fraudulent.

      Religionists have a problem.

      Non-religionists who think there may be some truth to AGW but actually want the truth should be encouraged. Perhaps, some real science can happen. If there’s an AGW case to be made, it was never going to be made when they knew they could put out lies and not be exposed.

  43. Another theory bites the dust. Pajamas Media:

    Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste ? a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize ? about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

    Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) ? a governmental body ? shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

    The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

    Professor Damste studied organic biomarker molecules in the sediment record of Lake Challa, near Mount Kilimanjaro, and reconstructed the changes and intensity of precipitation in this part of Africa over the last 25,000 years. They observed an 11,500 year cycle of intense monsoon precipitation.

    In the dry period between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, Kilimanjaro was ice-free.

    At the end of this period, a dramatic climate change from very dry to very wet took place ? driven by changes in solar radiation ? resulting in the creation of an icecap. At the moment, this part of Africa seems to be at the end of a similar dry period, resulting in the disappearance of the famous icecap.

    DOSR calls Al Gore’s iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro “unfortunate” ? since it now seems to be mainly the result of “natural climate variations.”

    The rest here.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/d…..limanjaro/

    1. Ahh, hilarious. Yet another gazillion-year cycle setting in RIGHT NOW, these very last couple decades, to have an effect mimicking AGW.

      Are you seriously dumb enough to believe the crackpot crap you read?

      How about we turn on your peanut brain? First, what are the odds that it would happen RIGHT NOW? Probably 50:1 or so, assuming a thousand years of error and variation, and a 20 year window to hit. What are the odds that it would happen THIS FAST? Pretty small. This is a gradually ocillating cycle. So we probably are already below a 1% chance, EVEN IF WE DIDN’T HAVE BETTER WAYS TO MEASURE THIS.

      You know what we can do? MEASURE PRECIPITATION. You can bet people are. Do you have data suggesting that there is less precipitation in Kilimanjaro, and that this lack of precipitation matches the ice loss. This is completely do-able scientifically. THAT is the evidence you need, and you don’t have it.

      1. So it has actually gotten colder in Tanzania and we are suppose to attribute that to? Global warming? Antelope farts? CO2?

        Thermometer Records, Average of Monthly Data and Yearly Average
        by Year Across Month

        YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC YR
        1878 28.4 28.6 28.8 27.7 27.1 26.1 25.6 25.9 26.1 26.7 27.3 27.4 27.1
        1898 28.8 28.9 27.3 25.4 26.6 25.3 23.2 23.2 24.2 25.1 26.2 27.0 25.9
        1908 28.8 28.1 28.2 27.6 25.3 25.2 24.7 24.8 25.2 26.1 27.1 28.5 26.6
        1918 27.8 28.0 28.8 27.3 26.6 25.6 24.9 24.8 25.4 26.2 27.5 28.2 26.8
        1928 25.9 26.6 25.8 24.8 24.2 23.5 22.6 23.3 24.4 24.5 24.8 25.2 24.6
        1938 24.5 24.1 23.5 23.8 23.3 22.4 22.2 22.6 23.7 24.5 24.1 23.6 23.5
        1948 23.9 24.7 24.2 24.0 23.7 23.1 23.0 23.1 23.9 24.8 24.8 24.2 24.0
        1958 25.2 25.2 25.1 24.8 23.1 21.8 20.9 22.4 24.0 24.9 25.8 24.8 24.0
        1968 23.9 23.8 23.5 22.8 22.0 20.5 20.0 20.9 22.3 24.0 24.2 24.4 22.7
        1978 24.4 24.8 24.2 23.6 22.5 21.8 20.8 21.9 23.1 24.3 24.2 23.9 23.3
        1988 25.1 25.2 25.2 24.5 23.4 22.3 21.4 22.7 23.9 25.0 24.7 25.9 24.1
        2008 24.9 24.1 23.8 23.1 22.7 20.5 21.8 22.4 23.5 24.9 25.1 24.8 23.5

        1. Whoops, just noticed something missing. Looks like I hid the decline! (Well, in this case, it went nowhere.) Here is the missing piece of data:

          1998 25.0 25.2 25.4 23.7 22.6-99.0 21.6 22.3 23.4 25.0 24.9 25.5 24.1

      2. Below is a link to an article discussing the glacier retreat at Kilimanjaro which will answer all your questions. If your going to nut out like this it might be kinda handy to read up on the subject first. Then you may come across as something other than an ignorant dick.

        MODERN GLACIER RETREAT ON KILIMANJARO

      3. Ahh, hilarious. Yet another gazillion-year cycle setting in RIGHT NOW

        So you think that civilization decline in the little ice age caused the little ice age?

        And the interglacial warming period, which we are in, which was due, and which will end any time now in climactic time frames is caused by civilization?

        We are recipients of a warming period which allowed for plenty.

        You’re like a lottery winner saying “OMG it must be a sign from God’s!”

        Interglacial warming periods are not the norm. It’s not going to last.

        LOOK

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F…..rature.png

        What do you think happens next?

  44. Great article, Shikha, but I wish people would stop saying things like “There is zero chance right now that Congress will endorse these cuts, which will dwarf the trillion-dollar Iraq price tag.” For 3 reasons:
    1) It gets my hopes up.
    2) Influential members of Congress has no shame or concern for what most Americans want and will stop at nothing to pass an act if it gives them more control of people’s lives and the economy
    3) Comments like that only egg them on to try harder and get things things like this and Obamacare rammed through.

  45. Nice article on realclimate today.

    RealClimate.org today.

    I particularly recommend the third comment.

    1. RealClimate.org the worst security blanket on the planet to cling to, bar none.

    2. From Chad’s Article at Realclimate

      The phrase “the science is settled” is associated almost 100% with contrarian comments on climate and is usually a paraphrase of what ‘some scientists’ are supposed to have said.

      A little google search and:

      The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers.

      From this 2007 NPR story

      http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=9047642

      AL GORE AND NPR ARE CONTRARIAN COMMENTATORS!!!!!

      1. Well, there you go: Chad admits that Al Gore is no scientist.

        -jcr

  46. Climategate doesn’t change anything and Obama’s gonna save the world and I CAN’T HEAR YOU I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA

  47. I’m wondering if it is outside the canon of accepted libertarian principles to contact the administrative and technical contact at Reason Foundation (you know who you are Mike and we know you have a price) to determine Tony’s and Chad’s current IP addresses. Not for any shady purposes you understand. Would that be wrong? Does anyone remember the Bill Cosby classic movie Ghost Dad?

    1. I’m wondering if it is outside the canon of accepted libertarian principles to contact the administrative and technical contact at Reason Foundation to determine Tony’s and Chad’s current IP addresses.

      I am sure the staff does this often and has a bit of a laugh about it. Still i think it would conflict with their journalist ethos and the general ethos of reason’s reader comments to publish their ips

      1. Still, a bit (just a bit) of throat squeezing might relieve the frustration.

        1. Bring it whore I can kill you with 2 fingers in less than a minute.

          Fucking rednecks.

          1. I can kill you with 2 fingers in less than a minute.

            Huh… I never would have guessed that Tony was an 18 year-old, dick-waving jar head.

            -jcr

          2. What an elitist attitude, Tony.

            Not surprising, though. You liberals love to use hateful terms like “redneck”, while claiming to be a) against hate speech and b) not at all elitist.

  48. So, should the IPCC be shelved altogether, or should the world’s leading authority on statistical analysis in regards to climate, Steve McIntyre, be brought in to head it to give it some semblance of credibility?

    1. I think I’d be satisfied with anyone who’s got a PhD in statistical mathematics and whose compensation is in no way related to the outcome of the data he or she examines.

      -jcr

  49. So, should the IPCC be shelved altogether, or should the world’s leading authority on statistical analysis in regards to climate, Steve McIntyre, be brought in to head it to give it some semblance of credibility?

    He was involved in the last IPCC report. As a reviewer i think.

    They got super pissed at him for asking for the data used in studies referred to in the report. I think they threatened to kick him out if he kept asking.

  50. Two good reads for the sexy and curious:

    An explanation of the Green House Effect that wont sound like it came out of the pages of the National Enquirer:

    http://www.countingcats.com/?p=4745

    Someone in the message board notes that the atmospheric temperature is similar to Earth normal on Venus at altitudes where the air pressure is the same as matching altitudes on the Earth’s surface. Interesting if true. I’ll have to look into that.

    and as titled, a devastating
    response to the AGW Pusherman:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/200…..more-13710

  51. An explanation of the Green House Effect that wont sound like it came out of the pages of the National Enquirer:

    http://www.countingcats.com/?p=4745

    Someone in the message board notes that the atmospheric temperature is similar to Earth normal on Venus at altitudes where the air pressure is the same as matching altitudes on the Earth’s surface. Interesting if true. I’ll have to look into that.

    No fucking way!!

    I am skeptical that the AGW crowd could be this fucking wrong. If you look into this Peermen and find this to be true please email me or post here about it.

  52. James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute, has dismissed him [McIntyre] as a “court jester.”

    Hey!

  53. “The degree of skepticism among real scientists is very small.”-Nicholas Stern

    I would call this hyperbole if it weren’t so obviously hubristic.

    This same person [Stern] said,”It has created confusion and confusion never helps scientific discussions,”

    Wow. Of course, only consensus helps discussion. ???? WTF?

  54. Q: I, jester, am a jester as a profession. How do I know, as someone unschooled in the rigors of science, a real scientist from a fake one.

    A: Anyone who adds to confusion over the AGW debate is not a real scientist. The science has been settled for god’s sake.

  55. ‘to be in Denmark next Wednesday on his way to Oslo to receive his Nobel Peace Prize.’

    Who is paying for Obama’s carbon offsets? Taxpayers?

    Honestly, couldn’t he be the first teleconferencing president?

    1. That’s why I don’t believe in AGW, above and beyond all the debate over whether the scientific research is credible or not: the alarmists clearly don’t believe in any of this crap themselves.

      If they really believed any of this crap they’re spewing, they could at the very least stop junketing around to their international meetings in their Gulfstream jets that spew huge amounts of CO2, and just buy a bloody videophone already. They could add further credibility to their cause by giving up those enormous McMansions of theirs, sterilizing themselves, and giving away those enormous fortunes of theirs to charity. In other words, if they would first do to themselves what they’re always trying to do to us in the name of reducing emissions, we might even start to think they actually believe this crap.

      Not that it would be any the less crap for their believing in it, you understand, but I might actually be willing to listen to them at all if they would take upon themselves the penitent lifestyle they keep trying to impose on everyone else.

      1. If I burn 5 tons of CO2 to travel to a conference, where I swing public policy by .0001% in the opposite direction, I am carbon-negative a thousand times over.

        l2math

  56. HERETICS!!!!!!!!!!!

  57. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke

  58. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.