Michael Crichton says manmade Global Warming is as real as .... [Archive]

Tenspace

10-10-2005, 09:21 PM

It's tricky Tenspace, because some alternative explanations are designed to simply counter the claim that anthropogenic activities are a significant forcing agent on climate. I haven't been tracking this stuff on a daily basis for a couple years now, but then, as now, no one was really sure how much human activity is contributing to recent decadal trends (there is very little real dispute over whether there's a human contribution, the debate is about how much.)

I don't mind assuming there's some human influence and proceeding accordingly: most schemes for reducing CO2 emissions (not to mention methane et al) can ony have positive consequences, even if human-induced global warming is bullshit -- cleaner air, better economy of fossil fuels as we transition to other energy sources, new technologies, etc.

Wasn't it just twenty years ago or so that we were supposed to be entering a cooling phase?
I agree about reducing obvious long-term harm to the planet, but do we really have a big enough data set to make empirical calls? If, for example, the solar system's cyclical meandering above and below the galactic plane correlates with the mean temperature of Earth, then that would have to be factored into the results.

As always, give politicians a serious issue, and they polarize it for their own personal benefit. I say we keep reducing what we can, while trying to find a way off this rock. :)

Cap'n Awesome

10-11-2005, 02:23 AM

I don't mind assuming there's some human influence and proceeding accordingly: most schemes for reducing CO2 emissions (not to mention methane et al) can ony have positive consequences, even if human-induced global warming is bullshit -- cleaner air, better economy of fossil fuels as we transition to other energy sources, new technologies, etc.

Wasn't it just twenty years ago or so that we were supposed to be entering a cooling phase?
Prehaps you could be a little more clear on only having positive consequences. I don't think the factories that get shut down because they can't afford to meet enviromental standards, the loss to productivity as less workers can be hired when companies have to spend millions to meet these standards, the creation of the giant, wasteful, paper-shuffling buerocracy known as the EPA and the damage to 3rd world countries as we step in and tell them how not to use thier own resources (Convenient that we have this position after we have already gotten to 'exploit' ours in order to industrialize our own countries) I don't think that there are 'only' positive consequences. More technology is stifled because of regulations then created. It's the New Technologies that create less CO2 emissions, not the other way around.

Philboid Studge

10-11-2005, 04:45 PM

I agree about reducing obvious long-term harm to the planet, but do we really have a big enough data set to make empirical calls? If, for example, the solar system's cyclical meandering above and below the galactic plane correlates with the mean temperature of Earth, then that would have to be factored into the results.

As always, give politicians a serious issue, and they polarize it for their own personal benefit. I say we keep reducing what we can, while trying to find a way off this rock.
The size of the data set is great, but it rests largely on computer modeling, so coming to empirical conclusions is rather problematic -- and given the political/economic considerations, without a true smoking gun I have the feeling we'll keep on adding fuel to the fire, as it were. It's not like the ozone hole, where sonde and other measurements confirmed what was predicted -- and dramatically illustrated it, even so the fat-cats could understand it. Re climate: Testing alternate factors -- cyclic solar flaring, galactic plane meandering (I confess, that's a new one to me; I suppose it was advanced fairly recently?), etc -- is likewise problematic because we have such a brief real record of climate as it is(just over a hundred years), and are obiged to use a number of proxy models (ice coring, tree rings, fossil record, etc) that are as un-empirical (izzat a word?) as the computer modeling. Put all together, the evidence seems to be very convincing to (most) climate scientists, but not enough to get the public or their leaders sold on it.

Anyway, I'm with you: reduce where we can, and eventually launch off this god-forsaken rock!

Jennifer

10-13-2005, 10:10 PM

From WAPO, 2005 will probably have the highest mean global temperature of any year since the advent of systematic temperature records (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html)

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculated the record-breaking global average temperature, which now surpasses 1998's record by a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, from readings taken at 7,200 weather stations scattered around the world.
and later in the article

William O'Keefe, chief executive of the George C. Marshall Institute, which is skeptical of global warming predictions, said policymakers should not rush to impose new rules on industry when it remains unclear whether the current warming worldwide reflects natural climate variability or a human-induced trend.

"It still remains very complicated," O'Keefe said.

But Rafe Pomerance, who served as deputy assistant secretary of state for the environment under President Bill Clinton and who now chairs the bipartisan Climate Policy Center, said a modest system to limit and trade carbon dioxide emissions could help curb global warming.

"We need to develop a range of very serious policies and put them in place," Pomerance said

darwinfish

10-13-2005, 10:32 PM

Tenspace

10-14-2005, 01:59 AM

um, even if we possibly aren't contributing to global warming...shouldn't we try to do something to cool it? I mean, regardless of it being a natural cycle, shouldn't we try to cool the earth just a little?
Interesting thought. Damping the natural cycle of whatever's causing global warming. I wonder if there'd be any consequences.

There Is

10-14-2005, 02:34 AM

um, even if we possibly aren't contributing to global warming...shouldn't we try to do something to cool it? I mean, regardless of it being a natural cycle, shouldn't we try to cool the earth just a little?
Seriously, I say yes, or then again facetiously, maybe serious, we can always try to genetically engineer Kevin Costner Waterworld gills. I've already started work on the urine-recycling machine. :P So far, there's still too much asparagus.

Revmonkeyboy

10-14-2005, 10:03 AM

Chrichton is not a climatologist. He is a fiction writer with some scientific background. I personally will not take scientific advice from a fiction writer. Even that Bushfuck is now saying that greenhouse gasses are a contributing factor. If these idiots want to prove the theory wrong, why don't they fund research? I don't mean, hire some guy to tell you what you want to hear, I mean, do real research into other causes. The usual cycles that caused ice ages and the like are not the cause. According to that cycle it should start getting cooler. You may remember the "global cooling" warnings of 20 yrs ago. That is not what is happening. I would like to hear one of these "global warming" skeptics change the properties of greenhouse gasses. How do you explain away the well known properties of these gasses? Where is the experimental evidence that methane does not cause these effects? It seems to me that they would have to change the laws of chemistry to think these gasses have no effect on the atmosphere.
I am not a climatologist either, but I can understand what has been written by chemists and climatologists.

GodlessHeathen

10-14-2005, 11:48 PM

Chrichton is not a climatologist. He is a fiction writer with some scientific background.
Not that it makes him any more credible on this issue, but IIRC, he's actually a medical doctor.

PanAtheist

10-15-2005, 04:18 AM

Not that it makes him any more credible on this issue...
Indeed!
Many, many doctors are insane people who act like sheep in following "accepted practise"!
Take circumcision!
A bloody outrage that vast numbers of doctors in our societies are happy to cut off parts of boys anatomy that are a fundamental part of their sexual apparatus just after birth, and which, when they grow up, would have inestimably valued (as would there partners).
The world is full of idiots who just go along with things because they are "accepted practise".
Outrageous!
And Pathetic!

Lily

11-23-2009, 10:36 AM

Well, I see everyone is either unaware of or ignoring one of the most amazing stories of scientific fraud in our lifetimes. Why am I not surprised? Global Warming, the orthodox branch of Ecowhackoism, the Libtard’s religion, is not going to be easy to rethink. Still, I would have supposed that someone here would actually care about this Steaming Great Turd in the Living Room.

Lemme see: Our intrepid NYT science blogger, is too pure to publish any of the incriminating emails. He has folded his hands piously and proclaimed on the NYT science blog:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here

This from a journalist at a paper that never had the slightest hesitation in publishing classified information that endangered troops in the field.

His news story, is not that bad. It does note:

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years.
In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”
Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

There is a delicious article in the Times (UK) about how the legacy media has reported this story. Needless to say, like true believers ignoring Obama’s unfitness for office, it has tried to wish it all away.

Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/)

After reviewing what a number of papers have said about the revelations contained in the hacked emails, the author notes:

Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.

What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).

He quotes Upton Sinclair quite tellingly on the problem that underlies the lack of reporting on the story:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”

Irreligious

11-23-2009, 10:45 AM

The steaming great turd in our livingroom is named Lily.

How does any of this "prove" that global warming is a fraud?

Philboid Studge

11-23-2009, 10:52 AM

:lol::lol::lol:

I call Poe's Law on Lily. NOBODY can be this stoopid and still have the brain capacity to type.

Tricks (http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2009/11/you-dont-need-to-know-what-science.html) indeed, and it reminds me of the time Lily tried to use Big Bang theory to bolster her fairy tales, subsequently had her ass handed to her nine ways from sunday, and then retreated with a humiliating proclamation, "I don't have to know anything about science" (in order to blather on incoherently about science).

Nice parody, but please stick to what you know (whatever that is).

Lily

11-23-2009, 11:02 AM

The steaming great turd in our livingroom is named Lily.

How does any of this "prove" that global warming is a fraud?

The steaming great turd in our livingroom is named Lily.

How does any of this "prove" that global warming is a fraud?

Why does this clueless remark not surprise me? Let's let the author of a nice lengthy article (and a book on the subject) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html) tell you a couple of things worth considering:

In the scientific world, notably in the U.S. and Europe, it has long been a major scandal that those daring to doubt the official orthodoxy on global warming face ostracism from their academic colleagues, have had research funding withdrawn and have not been allowed to publish their papers in the leading scientific journals.

But equally suspicious has been the way the advocates of the warming orthodoxy have been repeatedly shown to have fiddled the scientific evidence being used to promote it.

The most notorious example of this was the so-called 'hockey stick' graph, which for years was brandished to show that, after flat-lining for 1,000 years, global temperatures had suddenly soared upwards in the late 20th century to levels never known before in recorded history.

The hockey stick was used by the IPCC and Gore as the supreme icon of their cause. Then, two statisticians revealed that the graph had been created by a computer model programmed to produce hockey stick shapes whatever data were fed into it.

And now come these leaked emails showing that the very scientists who were responsible for championing the hockey stick - all at the heart of the IPCC establishment - have been regularly discussing how the evidence could be manipulated to promote their cause.

I know you won't read this or the wonderfully amusing article detailing how the msm has refused to man up to the real story. It is a shame but what can Cassandra do?

nkb

11-23-2009, 11:11 AM

Well, I see everyone is either unaware of or ignoring one of the most amazing stories of scientific fraud in our lifetimes.
But ... but ... Lily said it is "one of the most amazing stories of scientific fraud in our lifetimes"! She wouldn't be overly dramatic to try to score a point that supports her views, would she?
She only breaks out the superlatives when they actually apply, right?

Kate

11-23-2009, 11:14 AM

http://planetross.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/drama_queen11.jpg

Irreligious

11-23-2009, 11:14 AM

nkb

11-23-2009, 11:17 AM

To a certain degree, I can understand Lily's stance on global warming, and her resistance to imposing environmentally friendlier requirements on the industries. After all, she has no kids or grandkids to worry about, so why should she make concessions to her way of life for the benefit of other peoples' kids and grandkids. Fuck them!

Also, Armageddon is right around the corner, why is everyone getting so worked up about a trivial issue like humanity's survival?

Lily

11-23-2009, 11:41 AM

Lily, I'm no scientist, let alone a climatologist, but you're not seriously arguing that these hockey stick graphs are the only evidence that scientists studying global warming present to make their case, are you?

There have got to be hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists studying the phenomenon. What, are they all in on this alleged conspiracy? To what end?

Read the article I just cited. There is huge money involved, professional reputations to be made but that alone is not enough-- it is a way of looking at reality that is just askew.The thousands of hacked emails (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php)have been published and are key-word searchable. However it is slow going because the sheer number of files is huge and there is a lot of traffic to the site.

(Here is one of the emails (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=154&filename=942777075.txt)(and there are thousands that were snatched, just like it):

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

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

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 xxx xxxx xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Phil cheerfully admits to fudging data and it is absolutely clear, I think, that he doesn't see anything wrong with what he is doing. He takes for granted that those to whom he is writing will see nothing wrong with it, either. (Well one of them came up with the particular trick Phil used).

These are excerpts from an email to long to publish in full (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=40&filename=880476729.txt). But it is devastating. Had it been addressed to me, I would likely have died of shame. It is a vivesection of a particularly egregious attempt by a group of scientists to force certain outcomes at the Kyoto meeting in 1997.

From: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: jan.goudriaan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, grassl_h@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Klaus Hasselmann <klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jill Jaeger <jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, rector@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, uctpa84@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mparry@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:xxx xxxx xxxx(MST)
Reply-to: Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, t.mitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No
scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
-- when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
the subject.
...
The crux of this issue is developing policies for controlling greenhouse
gas emissions where the reductions relative to BAU are neither too much,
too soon (which could cause serious economic hardship to those who are
most vulnerable, poor people and poor countries) nor too little, too late
(which could lead to future impacts that would be bad for future
generations of the same groups). Our ability to quantify the economic
consequences of "too much, too soon" is far better than our ability to
quantify the impacts that might arise from "too little, too late" -- to
the extent that we cannot even define what this means! ...
People who endorse your letter will NOT have "carefully examined" the issue.

When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
find this extremely disturbing.

Tom Wigley

Lily

11-23-2009, 11:46 AM

Irreligious

11-23-2009, 12:19 PM

Don't misunderstand me, Lily: I am not saying that this is not a scandal and, very potentially, a huge one. I asked how this proves that the man-made global warming theory is a fraud?

Certainly, these hacked emails suggest a conspiracy among these particular scientists who were trading correspondences, but what I don't know is if all other research being conducted on the alleged phenomenon is based exclusively on the research of these particular scientists.

In other words, I'm not denying that an evident scandal is brewing but, based on that alone, I don't know that it's reasonable to conclude that allegations of a man-made global warming phenomenon have been "proven" to be a fraud. Ultimately, that could be the case, but we've got a ways to go to get to that point.

Unfortunately, this fledgling scandal may make it even harder to get at the "truth."

nkb

11-23-2009, 01:09 PM

In the scientific world, notably in the U.S. and Europe, it has long been a major scandal that those daring to doubt the official orthodoxy on global warming face ostracism from their academic colleagues, have had research funding withdrawn and have not been allowed to publish their papers in the leading scientific journals.

This sounds so familiar, I wonder where I've heard similar accusations? Oh yeah, right here (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php).

Philboid Studge

11-23-2009, 03:23 PM

I'll be on a teleconference with one of the "tricky" scienists tomorrow. What questions should I ask? The more retarded the better...

Mog

11-23-2009, 03:24 PM

This sounds so familiar, I wonder where I've heard similar accusations? Oh yeah, right here (http://www.expelledthemovie.com/aboutthemovie.php).

Yep, and its interesting that the global warming denier movie (http://action.afa.net/videos/NotEvilJustWrong/Alternate.aspx) is being promoted by the American Family Association, the organization that assumes that all American Families belong to religious right nutcases, and perpetual harasser of the Gap Department stores for claiming that people of all faiths want to celebrate the winter holidays.

Hmm, I wonder if I should get my free copy of "Tortured for Christ", the book that claims that Christians in America, that consist of 75% of the population are actually persecuted.:P

Kate

11-23-2009, 03:31 PM

I'll be on a teleconference with one of the "tricky" scienists tomorrow. What questions should I ask? The more retarded the better...

"What are you wearing?"

Choobus

11-23-2009, 03:34 PM

Hmm, I wonder if I should get my free copy of "Tortured for Christ", the book that claims that Christians in America, that consist of 75% of the population are actually persecuted.:P

To be fair, they are often persecuted in the sense that retards are frequently mocked, even by other retards.

Professor Chaos

11-23-2009, 03:42 PM

I'll be on a teleconference with one of the "tricky" scienists tomorrow. What questions should I ask? The more retarded the better...

If global warming is real, why does it still get cold sometimes?

Choobus

11-23-2009, 03:49 PM

It only takes one chilly monkey to disprove global warming AND evolution.

God wins again, suck on that evil doers!

Kate

11-23-2009, 03:52 PM

If global warming is real, why does it still get cold sometimes?

Because your wife still does not think it's funny when you fart under the covers, moron. :|

Lily

11-23-2009, 05:54 PM

Thankfully, you all have no influence with anyone. The truth is coming out-- whether we will be able to fully stop the financial devastation and further government control of our lives the various haters of real human beings have planned for us, is another question. But I just love the responses here-- they are so predictable and so totally irrelevant. The thousands of emails speak for themselves.

Even the faux "journalist" doesn't think there might be one or two questions he should ask, given the staggering revelations in these emails. Wait-- that's no surprise. "Journalists" are whores for the lefty lunatic contingent that aches to run our lives.

But what about the rest of you? Isn't science ... scientific? Based on reason and evidence? Self-correcting? Ah yes, you true believers are really something. Always striving for accuracy and evidence, as we see.

As we see.

Mog

11-23-2009, 07:20 PM

Don't you mean half-truths, Lily? Because that documentary you mention is full of half-truths as well as whole truths, but then again, in your world, a whole bunch of half-truths have a tendency to add up to one whole-truth, given your belief in jewish zombies and the like.

Lily

11-23-2009, 07:32 PM

Mog

11-23-2009, 07:51 PM

What documentary? Who is talking about a documentary? I'm talking about horrendously incriminating emails that have been published that show how much lying and deception has been going on among the "global warming" "scientists". What are you talking about?

So you are talking about a conspiracy of which the evidence is a bunch of hacked e-mails? Wow, I seriously over-estimated you, Lily. Your evidence is as weak as the stuff you try to pull with Obama.

Its no wonder why we aren't taking you seriously.

I mean what are you going to come up with next? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Lily

11-23-2009, 08:23 PM

:wall: :wall: :wall:

A veritable cyber football field full of emails from global warming "scientists" have been made available and show an unprecedented degree of fraud and lying at the heart of the enterprise. What does Opinion Times which has published them and made them key-word searchable say about them?

On 20 November 2009, emails and other documents, apparently originating from with the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

If real, these emails contain some quite surprising and even disappointing insights into what has been happening within the climate change scientific establishment. Worryingly this same group of scientists are very influential in terms of economic and social policy formation around the subject of climate change.

As these emails are already in the public domain, I think it is important that people are able to look through them and judge for themselves. Until I am told otherwise I have no reason to think the text found on this site is true or false. As of today, Saturday 21 November, there have been no statements that I have seen doubting the authenticity of these texts. It is here just as a curiosity!

ghoulslime

11-23-2009, 09:53 PM

It makes little difference what Lily and her stupid friends believe about Global warming. The ice caps on the Himalayas will be gone by 2035. These, by the way, are major sources of fresh water for India and China. These countries have no doubt about global warming. The people in these countries are taking it quite seriously, while Lily and the cuckoo-Jesus-is-coming-to-town-to-save-us-soon crowd continue their battle against reality. Lily and her nut bag apocalyptic maniacs are not concerned that their own water tables are already becoming permanently depleted, just like the water tables in all of the bread basket regions of the world. Fortunately Jesus will bring us all bread and fishes to eat! Sweet leprechauns! Why isn't this crazy old woman already incarcerated in an institution?

Lily

11-23-2009, 10:22 PM

Let's see what the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574552533758682774.html)h as to say on the subject:

"Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach," the New York Times reports. "They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic." But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files--which can be downloaded here--surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, "reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies":

In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes. . . .

Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said.

This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate--to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press's contention that global warmism is settled science--a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument," the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that "few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate," and that "nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal." (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC's conclusions.)

The press's view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a "consensus" based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one.

The silence, not to mention the outright denials that this is fraud, speaks louder than any words ever could about the level of intellectual honesty that can be expected from atheists who loudly proclaim their love of science, their own personal intellectual integrity, and all that BS.

Where is the outrage? I'd settle for pained incredulity at this point.

Choobus

11-23-2009, 10:36 PM

ghoulslime

11-23-2009, 10:55 PM

Lily

11-23-2009, 11:01 PM

Thank you, Choobus. You have made an old late middle-aged woman very happy. At least someone here is honest.

Oh man, it was so worth seeing what Pudgey-Wudgey would say, once you weighed in. I am not disappointed!

I could not agree more. It is an affront to to anyone who values honesty. The facts of Global Warming can stand on their own merit.

Oh? It would seem they can’t.

However, I can commiserate with people who feel they need to resort to aggressive tactics to counter the self-destructive stupidity of those who would ravage our planet unto complete destruction.

:lol: Is it the endogenous estrogen in all that pudge that is causing this hysteria?

The Lilies of the world cannot be allowed to cause further irreversible damage to our fragile ecosystem. They should be stopped by all means fair and foul. Fuck them! Shoot the mother fuckers down if that's what it takes to preserve our future generations!

:lol: :lol: Do evil that good may come from it! Yeah, that is a highly evolved morality, at work. Let’s kill those who are actually here in order to preserve the lives of future generations who don't exist yet. And won't, unless they manage to escape the abortionist’s knife.

That Lily is holding others to a standard to which she does not hold herself, is laughable, as always.

I never realized it, though I should have. This guy is every bit as batshit as Cal and Calwallow. Barking mad.

Mog

11-23-2009, 11:06 PM

Thank you, Choobus. You have made an old late middle-aged woman very happy. At least someone here is honest.

Too bad its not you. As GS points out, you don't put yourself to the same standard when checking opinions that you support.

ghoulslime

11-23-2009, 11:27 PM

Thank you, Choobus. You have made an old late middle-aged woman very happy. At least someone here is honest.

Oh man, it was so worth seeing what Pudgey-Wudgey would say, once you weighed in. I am not disappointed!

Oh? It would seem they can’t.

.

Is it the endogenous estrogen in all that pudge that is causing this hysteria?

:lol: :lol: Do evil that good may come from it! Yeah, that is a highly evolved morality, at work. Let’s kill those who are actually here in order to preserve the lives of future generations who don't exist yet. And won't, unless they manage to escape the abortionist’s knife.

I never realized it, though I should have. This guy is every bit as batshit as Cal and Calwallow. Barking mad.

You are supposed to be ignoring me, you wicked old witch!

It's all a big fucking game to you, isn't it? Just something to amuse yourself with while you wait to die, the worthless hunk of organic matter that you are!

It is both sad and shocking to me that even the average good person doesn't seem to grasp the significance of destroying our ecosystem. The forests are burning. The algae is dying. How many species will become extinct this year? Do you have any idea why these things are significant, you crazy person? :eh:

If you were able to go back in time, you personally, and strangle the baby Adolph Hitler in his cradle, would you not? I am not a violent person, but I don't see how I could refuse to bash in little boy Pol Pot's head with a stone if given one chance by the leprechauns to go back in time and stop the egregious crimes he committed on so many of our innocent brothers and sisters. If I could abort him in his mother's womb, before he became a person, better yet! Or a condom for his papa on that fateful night! :eh:

Take every person ever killed in every human war since the beginning of time. Add every child raped, every old woman murdered in her bed, every pitiful soul that starved to death -This does not even begin to amount to the degree of suffering, death, and destruction which WE are allowing to happen to our future generations by raping and pillaging our planet as we are.

The crazed Lilies of the world believe that if they hasten the destruction of our planet, that their imaginary friend will come back to save us. Now you know one of the main causes of my disgust and hatred for the delusional blood drinkers who would sacrifice untold lives for their own selfish aims. I reveal myself unto my leprechauns!

I would not stand by idly while Fascists marched little Jewish girls into gas chambers. I would not stand by idly while any "undesirables" were exterminated like vermin. That's why I spoke out very loudly against your Christer Facist wars against random Muslims. I will certainly not stand by idly while vile monkeys destroy the future of our planet for their unbridled avarice. Fuck you eternally, Lily! You vile monster! :|

Choobus

11-23-2009, 11:29 PM

However, I can commiserate with people who feel they need to resort to aggressive tactics to counter the self-destructive stupidity of those who would ravage our planet unto complete destruction.

I cannot agree in this case, for the simple reason that science demands honesty. If the integrity of science itself is called into question then no research could ever be taken seriously until double and triple checked, which, practically speaking, is impossible. This would make matters far worse than is presently the case, the liars on the right notwithstanding. As soon as you make science political you make it something that is not science. Only the truth matters, and science is the best way we have to get to it. These harm caused by these guys (if they actually did what it seems like they did) could have immeasurable consequences that far outweigh any good they could ever have achieved with their research because they have potentially invalidated all research in this area, most of which is probably kosher. (Of course the research itself is not invalidated, but it's usefulness with regard to solutions of the problems, i.e., how it is perceived by legislators, is a different story). They have given corporate obfuscation the best gift it could ever have asked for: an invalidation of what is actually going on. That they meant to do the opposite is utterly irrelevant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

They should be stopped by all means fair and foul

These guys have anally raped the goose that lays the golden egg thinking a goatse goose will provide more, but all we have now is a drop in the price of gold.

ghoulslime

11-23-2009, 11:33 PM

Too bad its not you. As GS points out, you don't put yourself to the same standard when checking opinions that you support.

Lies are Lily's primary tools for advancing her selfish little agendas. She has no interest in truth, as made apparent by her prolific lies on this forum. The truth is not in her. What does the Bible say about liars? Can anyone help me out? ;)

ghoulslime

11-23-2009, 11:45 PM

I cannot agree in this case, for the simple reason that science demands honesty. If the integrity of science itself is called into question then no research could ever be taken seriously until double and triple checked, which, practically speaking, is impossible. This would make matters far worse than is presently the case, the liars on the right notwithstanding. As soon as you make science political you make it something that is not science. Only the truth matters, and science is the best way we have to get to it. These harm caused by these guys (if they actually did what it seems like they did) could have immeasurable consequences that far outweigh any good they could ever have achieved with their research because they have potentially invalidated all research in this area, most of which is probably kosher. (Of course the research itself is not invalidated, but it's usefulness with regard to solutions of the problems, i.e., how it is perceived by legislators, is a different story). They have given corporate obfuscation the best gift it could ever have asked for: an invalidation of what is actually going on. That they meant to do the opposite is utterly irrelevant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

These guys have anally raped the goose that lays the golden egg thinking a goatse goose will provide more, but all we have now is a drop in the price of gold.

We are not at odds on the matter. I agree that those who value truth have the moral high ground. Science has paid a heavy price for the moral high ground over the centuries. All it takes is a few misguided sorts to fuck it all up.

As I say, I can commiserate with these people who felt so desperate to do what they apparently have done. I do not think it is the best method for advancing their (our) cause...lying for truth? Not a good idea! I am not a violent or dishonest person, but I understand why people who feel no recourse to justice often resort to it. As you say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Now the Nazi Lilies / Glen Becks of the world have paving stones to throw at those who would oppose their awful agendas - not that it will matter greatly outside of the USA. The world, if you haven't noticed, is quickly deciding on how to leave us out of things. The scum bag oil interests will continue to promote their destructive agendas. The Sarah Palins of the world will continue to bark about how more of our national heritage should be raped for short term profit. Those with a conscience will continue to jump on board the green revolution. It is here to stay. :)

Science can wash the egg off of its face, and those of us who value it, will quickly forgive. ;)

By the way, the Swiss got their great big super duper collide thingy going today! It might not be the big bang that Lily was hoping for - though, she might find a jubilant scientist willing to rub his love meat in her mushroom-stinking crotch. :D

Choobus

11-23-2009, 11:48 PM

ghoulslime

11-23-2009, 11:59 PM

Let me just add, science itself actually doesn't demand honesty (it just works better that way). Fraud in science is very difficult to detect, just because of the complexity of it all. However, it really is self correcting simply because fake data does not lead to any progress, whereas real data usually does. The problem is that this process takes time and requires that research be done in the right areas. The latter will suffer as everyone chases down the bogus conclusions drawn from fraudulent studies, making the correction process even longer. That's not good in a crisis situation. (This happened to Russian biochemistry under Stalin which was taken over by one guy who didn't like genes) (Obviously not "american blue Jeans", all russians like those). I think this is also happening right now with the loss of our best theoretical physicists to the string theory bandwagon. Very little progress has been made in particle physics in the last 30 years. That's not fraud per se, but it has the same effect in that many brilliant people are sure that it's right and keep chasing the wild goose hoping for some golden eggs. We have to trust that scientists are honest just because checking everything slows progress so much. This makes it easy for people to get away with fraud, but fortunately most scientists are honest. It gets worse in some areas (like climate studies) because they are so complicated that a lot of interpretation is required, which makes the self correction aspect less effective. However, this makes it even more important to keep it on the level because if you confuse the situation with bogus data it just gets even harder to penetrate the veil of confusion and get to the truth. That's why what has happened seems particularly reprehensible to me. They have fucked over everyone working in this field, not to mention everyone living on this planet.

Yes, they have, but I am of the optimistic inclination to hope that most people will realize that there are rogue individuals in every field of science. We can guess without having to smoke them out, that in every area of science, there are scientists with questionable agendas, such as the religious crusaders who are hoping to skew their studies to prove dinosaur riding Jesuses for example. One asshole Korean geneticist who pretended to have a dandy clone, did not stop Korea from pressing on. He sure fucked them in the ass for a while, but that's the beauty of the scientific method, the truth gets sorted out in the end.

I believe, sir, that you underestimate the esteem that scientists hold throughout the world. This will only be a tiny ripple in the ocean of truth. You will still be accepted in this forum! Your anal jokes are also equally treasured! :|

Choobus

11-24-2009, 12:12 AM

I don't think we disagree too much but I feel very strongly that scientific fraud is especially harmful because we rely so much on the assumption that the data we publish is obtained with due consideration to proper methodology. MY life would be so much easier if I could, say, only make a measurement once, or not bother with control experiments, or only publish the nice looking data. A paper might represent en entire year of really hard work, much of which is not even mentioned because it consists of due diligence that is taken for granted. I am sure that fraud is rare (maybe not as rare as we would like) but this particular situation seems slightly more insidious than a few rogue scientists; it appears to speak to an institutionalized corruption that is considered to be acceptable by many scientists working together. This is the most dangerous kind of scientific malfeasance because it can be self sustaining. I am proud of the integrity of both my work and my anal jokes!

Irreligious

11-24-2009, 12:45 AM

Thank you, Choobus. You have made an old late middle-aged woman very happy. At least someone here is honest.
The honest person certainly is not you. You have a preconceived notion that the alleged global warming phenomena is a fraud. Furthermore, you implied that these emails "prove" that it is.

As I have been saying to you, this is a scandal, but unless you know something the rest of the world does not, it is not proof that all those who have been conducting research on a possible connection between human endeavors and global climate change are involved in some giant conspiracy.

Nor does it appear that Choobus jumped to that conclusion, either.

Of course fudging data is dishonest, if that is what these particular scientists were engaged in. On the surface, it appears to me that that is what they were doing, but I honestly don't know enough about the science, nor how widespread this apparent conspiracy is in order to jump to the conclusion that you apparently think is the correct one.

ghoulslime

11-24-2009, 12:51 AM

Choobus

11-24-2009, 12:53 AM

Your integrity is as intact as your anal virginity, sir.

It is not!

Choobus

11-24-2009, 12:57 AM

Of course fudging data is dishonest, if that is what these particular scientists were engaged in. On the surface, it appears to me that that is what they were doing, but I honestly don't know enough about the science, nor how widespread this apparent conspiracy is in order to jump to the conclusion that you apparently think is the correct one.

There are two separate issues here: the validity of data not associated with these particular scientists, and what they have (apparently) been doing with their own research. The former should be unaffected, the latter is indefensible. Unfortunately, they have dropped a rather large turd into the pool of knowledge, and now people may well be disinclined to swim in it, even after it has been disinfected.

ghoulslime

11-24-2009, 12:57 AM

The honest person certainly is not you. You have a preconceived notion that the alleged global warming phenomena is a fraud. Furthermore, you implied that these emails "prove" that it is.

As I have been saying to you, this is a scandal, but unless you know something the rest of the world does not, it is not proof that all those who have been conducting research on a possible connection between human endeavors and global climate change are involved in some giant conspiracy.

Nor does it appear that Choobus jumped to that conclusion, either.

Of course fudging data is dishonest, if that is what these particular scientists were engaged in. On the surface, it appears to me that that is what they were doing, but I honestly don't know enough about the science, nor how widespread this apparent conspiracy is in order to jump to the conclusion that you apparently think is the correct one.

I wonder how many scientists from India, China, Korea, Japan, and Singapore, etc were involved in the emails in question. My guess is none. Their respective scientific communities have all reached the same conclusion that global warming is an alarming situation. China alone is taking astounding measures to change their impact on the situation. (Why have they suddenly become the world leader?)

Lily's premise that these emails somehow demonstrate the fallacy of a fact, a fact which is shared by every scientific community in every country in the world, is a poorly disguised ploy to suggest that her world-raping scum bag friends with oil and blood dripping off of their fingers are not the destructive pieces of shit that they indeed are. Lily is a liar through and through. There is not an honest thought in the filthy old witch's withered brain.

ghoulslime

11-24-2009, 12:59 AM

It is not!

You should also be informed that this discussion on the future of the world has prevented me from completing a movie picture for the great classic: "The Greatest Story Ever Sold"

I hold you personally responsible for this. :|

Choobus

11-24-2009, 01:00 AM

See, the consequences of this dishonesty are far reaching.

I was looking forward to seeing your work, which is always of such excellence as to make me proclaim "I love it so!"

ghoulslime

11-24-2009, 01:03 AM

See, the consequences of this dishonesty are far reaching.

I was looking forward to seeing your work, which is always of such excellence as to make me proclaim "I love it so!"

Already these dishonest people have prevented the world from receiving the gift of art which would have otherwise been theirs this day. Oh, well, maybe there will be a tomorrow! :(

Irreligious

11-24-2009, 01:09 AM

There are two separate issues here: the validity of data not associated with these particular scientists, and what they have (apparently) been doing with their own research. The former should be unaffected, the latter is indefensible. Unfortunately, they have dropped a rather large turd into the pool of knowledge, and now people may well be disinclined to swim in it, even after it has been disinfected.
Oh, believe me, I get that. That's why I said this earlier:
In other words, I'm not denying that an evident scandal is brewing but, based on that alone, I don't know that it's reasonable to conclude that allegations of a man-made global warming phenomenon have been "proven" to be a fraud. Ultimately, that could be the case, but we've got a ways to go to get to that point.

Unfortunately, this fledgling scandal may make it even harder to get at the "truth."

Choobus

11-24-2009, 01:09 AM

Already these dishonest people have prevented the world from receiving the gift of art which would have otherwise been theirs this day. Oh, well, maybe there will be a tomorrow! :(

Paul Calf's mum: "tomorrow never comes."

Paul Calf: "It did yesterday."

Choobus

11-24-2009, 01:11 AM

Oh, believe me, I get that. That's why I said this earlier:

Then we are in agreement. It's just that it sounds better coming from me because of how awesome (and white) I am......

I kid, because I love!

Irreligious

11-24-2009, 02:01 AM

Then we are in agreement. It's just that it sounds better coming from me because of how awesome (and white) I am......

I kid, because I love!
I know.

Choobus

11-24-2009, 02:15 AM

If you were able to go back in time, you personally, and strangle the baby Adolph Hitler in his cradle, would you not?

I have often wondered about that. What if the socio-political environment of post war Germany made it inevitable that some sort of dictator would arise, and what if instead of Hitler you got someone just as ruthless, but not quite so convinced of his eventual success. If Germany had not engaged Russia (as many of Hitlers generals supposedly pleaded for him to do) it might have been able to hold onto Europe and become a much bigger, longer lasting shitfest. Over time this could have grown into an unstoppable, nuclear regime. Killing Hitler could have led to something even worse!

Mog

11-24-2009, 03:09 AM

OK, it looks like Boingboing latched onto this piece and I got some more informed opinions here (http://futurismic.com/2009/11/23/those-hacked-climate-e-mails-good-scientists-poor-conspirators/).
For example:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

So it seems as usual, what we get from Lily's pointing the e-mails out, is more details in how she thinks.

I strongly suspected Lily was anti-environmentalist, and now that aspect of her political religion is out in the open.

Choobus

11-24-2009, 03:48 AM

that quote about what is not in the e mails rather misses the point I think. The fact is, what IS in the e mails appears to suggest not a worldwide vegetarian-communist conspiracy (which is ludicrous in any case) but a distortion of the scientific process by people who should (and undoubtedly do) know better. The consequences of this are far reaching and should not be taken lightly, even if Hitler is not involved.

Lily

11-24-2009, 03:52 AM

So it seems as usual, what we get from Lily's pointing the e-mails out, is more details in how she thinks.

I strongly suspected Lily was anti-environmentalist, and now that aspect of her political religion is out in the open.

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z191/Lily56AL/cuckoo.png

As always, Choobus is the voice of sanity here on what is at stake in this fraud. Go back and read what he wrote. This is not about me. This is about fraudulent science being used to drive a particular agenda. This is probably beyond your grasp but, who knows? Maybe you will surprise me.

Choobus

11-24-2009, 04:10 AM

As always, Choobus is the voice of sanity.............

:lol: Jeez lily, are you trying to ruin my reputation?

For the record, I should declare that I do not hold UEA in high regard. It is a pitiful university that doesn't even have a proper physics department. I am not suggesting that the lack of a physics department may have contributed to scientific delinquency, but I do think it's possible that a university that doesn't have a physics department may not have science as one of its highest priorities, and as a result might be inclined (or indeed, have no choice but) to hire second rate staff for those aspects of science that it does engage in. This is mere speculation on my part.

ghoulslime

11-24-2009, 09:58 AM

I have often wondered about that. What if the socio-political environment of post war Germany made it inevitable that some sort of dictator would arise, and what if instead of Hitler you got someone just as ruthless, but not quite so convinced of his eventual success. If Germany had not engaged Russia (as many of Hitlers generals supposedly pleaded for him to do) it might have been able to hold onto Europe and become a much bigger, longer lasting shitfest. Over time this could have grown into an unstoppable, nuclear regime. Killing Hitler could have led to something even worse!

That's true. It would be a matter of guessing at probabilities, wouldn't it.

ghoulslime

11-24-2009, 09:59 AM

I strongly suspected Lily was anti-environmentalist, and now that aspect of her political religion is out in the open.

[/INDENT]

That's the real agenda, ain't it? :\

ghoulslime

11-24-2009, 10:00 AM

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z191/Lily56AL/cuckoo.png

As always, Choobus is the voice of sanity here on what is at stake in this fraud. Go back and read what he wrote. This is not about me. This is about fraudulent science being used to drive a particular agenda. This is probably beyond your grasp but, who knows? Maybe you will surprise me.

Wow! Choobus is SO lucky to have won the admiration of Lily! :|

And she is already teaching him the club signs. :eh:

Irreligious

11-24-2009, 10:03 AM

:lol: Jeez lily, are you trying to ruin my reputation?
She'll do anything if she thinks it'll gain her an ally here. You share her outrage over the apparently faked data, but for different reasons.

Of course, we're not supposed to notice that while you're concerned about the integrity of the scientific process as it relates to the study of global warming, Lily is positively giddy over the prospect that that process may be have been irreparably harmed with the revelation of these emails.

Lily

11-24-2009, 10:17 AM

She'll do anything if she thinks it'll gain her an ally here. You share her outrage over the apparently faked data, but for different reasons.

Of course, we're not supposed to notice that while you're concerned about the integrity of the scientific process as it relates to the study of global warming, Lily is positively giddy over the prospect that that process may be have been irreparably harmed with the revelation of these emails.

I keep telling myself to be nicer to you-- it isn't your fault that you are so limited. But then you write crap like this (and when you start channelling mog, you have hit bottom). I don't need an ally. What on earth do you think you are talking about? Have I not always been impressed with Choobus' intellectual honesty and have I not said so repeatedly? It is so rare here. What's new? Is that any more of a revelation than my being not so impressed by his love of luxury? I always give the devil his due.

Beyond all that, what a stupid thing to write!! Are all of you idiots? If the science is fraudulent, then global warming is fraudulent. This isn't physics; this is elementary school math ( 1+1=2-- base 10, of course)

If the science is fraudulent then every damned person on the planet ought to be giddy over the prospect that ruinously expensive "fixes" will not be imposed on people and businesses. Go back about 15 messages and read what Capt Awesome wrote a couple of years ago. He was right and you fools who worship at the altar of faux environmentalism are going to have to man up to the fact that you were played for fools by some damned cynical people with agendas.

:lol: Jeez lily, are you trying to ruin my reputation?
You have a reputation to ruin? :P

... I am not suggesting that the lack of a physics department may have contributed to scientific delinquency, but I do think it's possible that a university that doesn't have a physics department may not have science as one of its highest priorities, and as a result might be inclined (or indeed, have no choice but) to hire second rate staff for those aspects of science that it does engage in. This is mere speculation on my part.
:lol:

Philboid Studge

11-24-2009, 10:49 AM

I have to admit, these e mails do disturb me. I don't know if they are real, taken out of context or just represent a few academics who have chosen to put their political ideals above the scientific method, but in any case this is an outrage. I hope these guys get fired, should this be a true representation of what they have been doing. I honestly cannot see how this could happen in my field as you can only put so much spin on "real" data. The climate is a much more complex system than I am used to dealing with, (atoms are generally well behaved and others can easily repeat my experiments). Perhaps this is a warning that the science of climatology is being hijacked for other reasons (which may even be well meaning, although that doesn't matter at all). I have been obliged to include "bad" data many times in papers, and have spent a lot of effort explaining the concept of outliers to truculent referees who seem less than well versed on statistics. This seems to be more a case of outright liars, which is an affront to all scientists.

I think you are a little quick to call them "liars," even seemingly. The "bad data" here are one set of proxy measurements (the maximum latewood tree ring density proxy) that has been regularly omitted from climate reconstructions for years, something that even the original authors of that proxy study (Briffa et al) have always recommended doing. The omission is no secret among climate scientists, and it's like tossing out a single outlier in a statistical analysis that includes dozens of proxies (and in this case, instrumental measurements). I haven't seen any credible sources call this "faking" or manipulating data.

If these scientists were guilty of anything, it may have been in trying to game their own peer review process in order to squeeze out dissenting voices (a separate issue). What they did looks underhanded, but I'll withhold judgment on that until facts are in. If it's true, they should be shunned and perhaps spanked. Other than that point, there doesn't seem to much there there.

You're right, the consequences of the email exchanges will be far-reaching, but the over-the-top reactions we've seen so far -- ZOMG1 BIGGEST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF THE CENTURY! -- have more to do with well-funded contrarian views than the "scandal" itself. Note how the petty remarks of a few scientists has triggered an across-the-board outrage.

How would your department look if every email exchange from the past fifteen years were aired (and cherry-picked to put you in the worst possible light) with every petty internecine squabble laid bare to the public ? I don't know, maybe the physics world is bit more innocent, but try this: what it would be like if all your research was under attack-- reflexively, constantly-- by the biggest economic forces on the planet? Fortunately, science is science, and eventually the truth will out (see Galileo), but still.

The complexity of climatology isn't just the science, where there are an unwieldy number of variables, complicated feedback mechanisms, and all the rest of it-- with much of it not fully understood or, gawd knows, predictable. It's also the ginormous economic -- and therefore, political -- implications of the issue that make it more of a battle ground. It's no wonder that even an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is still somehow "controversial."

Irreligious

11-24-2009, 11:35 AM

I keep telling myself to be nicer to you-- it isn't your fault that you are so limited.
Don't make promises you can't keep, especially since "nice" is not in your repertoire. Stick with what you know and don't try to exceed your limitations.

But then you write crap like this (and when you start channelling mog, you have hit bottom). I don't need an ally.
Please. You're desperate for an ally here. What, you think we've forgotten how you tried to suck up to ILJ? Any port in a storm will do, honey.

What on earth do you think you are talking about? Have I not always been impressed with Choobus' intellectual honesty and have I not said so repeatedly?
No, you haven't. Certainly not repeatedly. I don't doubt that you have a grudging respect for Choobus' intelligence and brutal honesty, but you are far more often in battle with him over those qualities than an open admirer.

It is so rare here. What's new? Is that any more of a revelation than my being not so impressed by his love of luxury? I always give the devil his due.
:lol: You always give the devil his due? Please. You might as well flatter yourself, because nobody else here is going to.

Beyond all that, what a stupid thing to write!! Are all of you idiots? If the science is fraudulent, then global warming is fraudulent. This isn't physics; this is elementary school math ( 1+1=2-- base 10, of course)
Unless you can demonstrate that all the research pointing to evidence of a man-made cause for global warming starts and ends with these particular scientists, then your conclusion is wildly overstated. This is the part you continue to ignore, which calls into question your competence to teach first grade arithmetic.

If the science is fraudulent then every damned person on the planet ought to be giddy over the prospect that ruinously expensive "fixes" will not be imposed on people and businesses. Go back about 15 messages and read what Capt Awesome wrote a couple of years ago. He was right and you fools who worship at the altar of faux environmentalism are going to have to man up to the fact that you were played for fools by some damned cynical people with agendas.
If, dopey, if. But don't let your prejudices get in the way of the facts before they're even fully examined. Just jump straight to the conclusion that supports your cynical agenda.

You have a reputation to ruin? :P

:lol:
Shameless flirt. As if it's gonna get you anywhere here.

Lily

11-24-2009, 11:51 AM

Leave it to Studge to explain away lies, as he does all evils of which he approves! But let's leave him to his delusions. The truth is out now, despite the race to sweep it away. Unfortunately for Studge and his ilk, this is already too big for that to happen.

Let's have a look at some of what has hit the Internet today:

From Human Events (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34550)
Because the Climate Research Unit in the windswept fenlands of Eastern England -- together with its sister unit in the West of England, the Hadley Centre in Exeter, Devon -- is one of the primary information sources used by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Not only have its resident scientists, computer modelers and statisticians been heavily involved in drafting the IPCC's three reports; but its global temperature records (known as HadCrut) are one of the IPCC's four official sources of data.

If the CRU's data and scientific staff were shown to be unreliable, it would call into question the very basis of the IPCC's doom-laden predictions of rising sea levels and inexorably-rising temperatures due to man-made CO2.
...

What is commonly misunderstood amid the IPCC's vaunted claims that its reports are approved by "2,500 scientists" is that only a tiny number – perhaps 53 in all – were actually responsible for drafting the sections predicting global eco-disaster due to AGW. These 53 scientists are a close knit circle, peer-approving one another's pro-AGW papers, banding together to shut out any dissenting voices. Almost all of them are close to the CRU; many are implicated in the offending emails.

The always amazing Melanie Philips (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5565331/green-totalitarianism.thtml)writing in the Spectator (UK):

Lord Lawson was right to call in today’s Times for an inquiry into the global warming scandal. As noted below, through a set of hacked emails a group of some of the most influential scientific proponents of anthropogenic global warming have been revealed to have been manipulating, suppressing and distorting scientific evidence in order to bolster their claim. ...

For me, one of the most telling emails was this one from Phil Jones on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility. (emphasis added)

In other words, despite the fact that science (or history) tells us that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, thus destroying the basis of the AGW myth that we are living through an unprecedented warming of the climate caused by carbon dioxide arising from industrialisation, it cannot be true – because the Hadley CRU Director’s ‘gut’ tells him so.

All the manipulation, distortion and suppression revealed by these emails took place because it would seem these scientists knew their belief was not only correct but unchallengeable; and so when faced with evidence that showed it was false, they tried every which way to make the data fit the prior agenda. And those who questioned that agenda themselves had to be airbrushed out of the record, because to question it was simply impossible. Only AGW zealots get to decide, apparently, what science is. Truth is what fits their ideological agenda. Anything else is to be expunged.

Choobus

11-24-2009, 12:08 PM

I think you are a little quick to call them "liars," even seemingly. The "bad data" here are one set of proxy measurements (the maximum latewood tree ring density proxy) that has been regularly omitted from climate reconstructions for years, something that even the original authors of that proxy study (Briffa et al) have always recommended doing. The omission is no secret among climate scientists, and it's like tossing out a single outlier in a statistical analysis that includes dozens of proxies (and in this case, instrumental measurements). I haven't seen any credible sources call this "faking" or manipulating data.

I wasn't referring only to the proxy data. I was trying to hedge a little because I don't know too much about these things (what you wrote for example does rather mitigate that particular omission). There are several things that bothered me, one was the lines of comment in a code that seem to suggest an actual attempt to exclude the range of data analyzed so as to support a particular conclusion. Overall though it was just the obvious attitude that spinning the data was not only ok but, somehow, scientifically valid. I agree that they have been under attack (there is a book that details some of this called the republican war on science (or something like that)) and it would suck to have all your shit under a microscope. However, while a close examination of my e mails would reveal some embarrassing shit, some illegal shit and some surprisingly juvenile shit (not surprising to you probably but to those who know me professionally) and, of course, a lot of porno, I do not believe any scientific wrongdoing would be detected because I simply don't do that. Easy for me to say of course, and no, I will not be releasing my e mails for scrutiny. The bottom line is my bullshit detector went off and I think these guys have been taking the piss, but there might be explanations. I would like to hear them. I would also like to know what a panel of impartial trained experts in the field makes of it all.

Philboid Studge

11-24-2009, 01:00 PM

The bottom line is my bullshit detector went off and I think these guys have been taking the piss, but there might be explanations.

Always wise. My BS detector went off at the timing of this "scandal."

Choobus

11-24-2009, 01:09 PM

Indeed, no doubt there is some jiggery pokery going on. However, I don't care so much about political trickery because that's to be expected. If there is scientific misconduct that disturbs me. I could be biased.

Lily

11-24-2009, 01:39 PM

Exactly what political trickery is involved in trying to put a stop to further treaties and international accords that are based on junk science? Accords that will bankrupt industries and further impoverish poor nations that are foolish enough to go along? The latest I am reading is that the hacking may be an inside job. It would really be hard for the Studges of this world to explain away the decision of an insider to blow the whistle on misdeeds of this magnitude and consequence. Whatever the case may prove to be, none of these guys whose emails have been published so far have denied that they are really their emails and genuine.

No matter how black the hearts of the hackers may prove to be, some or all of the science is still fraudulent.

nkb

11-24-2009, 01:42 PM

Political trickery would be to use these emails to declare everything junk science.

Why do you have to be so shrill, hysterical, and overly dramatic about absolutely everything? Why don't you wait until this has been investigated further?

What exactly is your problem with being more environmentally friendly?

nkb

11-24-2009, 01:44 PM

No matter how black the hearts of the hackers may prove to be, some or all of the science is still fraudulent.Wasn't it just a few days ago that you declared that you would stay out of scientific discussions due to your lack of knowledge?

Choobus

11-24-2009, 02:34 PM

No matter how black the hearts of the hackers may prove to be, some or all of the science is still fraudulent.

That may be true, which is why I make a sharp distinction between the intentions of the hackers, the uses to which the revealed information may be used and the actual possibility of fraudulent science. I think it's pretty obvious which aspect of the affair vexes me the most.

Lily

11-24-2009, 02:53 PM

That may be true, which is why I make a sharp distinction between the intentions of the hackers, the uses to which the revealed information may be used and the actual possibility of fraudulent science. I think it's pretty obvious which aspect of the affair vexes me the most.

Yes, indeed. I have no issues with you. I am plenty disgusted at the usual dishonest deniers, as I am at the lovers of all things lefty, no matter how repellent.

:o Wait!

I have no issues with you in this matter.

Philboid Studge

11-24-2009, 03:01 PM

At first it struck my as ironic that Lily of all be people would be a climate skeptic. After all, if she had a scintilla of skepticism in her brains, she would hardly have swallowed the whopping salty whang that is Christ-inanity.

However upon further review, it makes perfect sense. Lily isn't skeptical of the science (which she doesn't begin to understand anyway); she's trying to indict the whole shebang as an elaborate hippie-commie hoax--perhaps engineered by that evil Jew George Soros or that boring glutton Al Gore. If she can suspend disbelief to the point where she chugs down an international conspiracy of this magnitude--thousands of disparate scientists around the world, now into four decades of research--she'll believe almost anything (but we knew that already).

Not ironic so much as moronic. :|

Credit where due, however: It's very candid of Lily to admit that her dog in this fight is strictly ideological, which is as close to "logical" as we should expect from her.

Lily

11-26-2009, 10:18 AM

Via today's Telegraph (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/):

Wow! The scandal just gets juicier and juicier. Now it seems that the Kiwis may have been at it too – tinkering with raw data to make “Global Warming” look scarier than it really is. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That; Ian Wishart)

The alleged villains this time are the climate scientists at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NiWA) – New Zealand’s answer to Britain’s Climate Research Unit. And to judge by this news alert by the Climate Science Coalition of NZ, both institutions share a similarly laissez-faire attitude to scientific accuracy.

Compare and contrast these two graphs and you’ll see

(Graphs are pictures and don't copy. See original story.)

This is the graph from NiWA’s website, showing mean annual temperature over New Zealand from 1853. Note the dotted straight line showing the upward trend. Worrying, isn’t it? Almost enough to make you fall in love your flickery, yellowy new eco-light bulbs, recycle your kids and commit yourself to a binding agreement at Copenhagen.
Now have a look at this analysis of the raw data taken from exactly the same temperature stations.

(See graph at the original story)

Can you see the difference? I can – and I know as little about science as Al Gore. But lets allow the experts at Climate Science Coalition of NZ to explain:

Straight away you can see there’s no slope—either up or down. The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06°C per century since 1850.

Putting these two graphs side by side, you can see huge differences. What is going on?

Why does NIWA’s graph show strong warming, but graphing their own raw data looks completely different? Their graph shows warming, but the actual temperature readings show none whatsoever!

The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by a huge 1.3°C, creating strong warming from a mild cooling, yet there’s no apparent reason for it.

We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.

Lily

12-02-2009, 09:48 PM

Well, the fall out has continued everywhere. Phil Jones has stepped down, temporarily (cough...) as head of the CRU, while the investigation is carried out. The true believers may be clinging to their carbon credits but things don't look good.

Now an essay, Climategate: Science is Dying (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html), has appeared in the WSJ that posits that the global warming fraud is going to damage all science.

Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.

I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).
....

Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies. The New England Journal of Medicine has turned into a weird weekly amalgam of straight medical-research and propaganda for the Obama redesign of U.S. medicine. ...

nkb

12-02-2009, 10:15 PM

WSJ opinion pieces are always a good, impartial source when it comes to things like this. :rolleyes:

Creationists and IDers all have a collective woody, because they think that this gives them the opportunity to gain some respect.

Choobus

12-03-2009, 01:23 AM

Climatology (or whatever the fuck these guys call themselves) is not "hard science" in my view anyway. If you can't really do control experiments and the system is so complex as to demand a large amount of interpretation then you're kind of fucked. Cosmology has the same problem. That does not, however, give any credence to the "data of the gaps" assclowns. Unfortunately it is they who will benefit from this scandal.

Lily

12-03-2009, 07:56 AM

I think the problem the WSJ is trying to point out is that science has coasted on its reputation for "purity" for a very long time. Once it gets into the mind of the public that it is as slippery and agenda driven (like "Gender Studies" as the article put it) as politics itself, it will no longer enjoy the respect of the public or its money, at least not without fights. In fact, as a practical matter, I won't be surprised if I see our masters in Washington putting all sorts of new controls and idiotic reporting rules on every grant-funded dime that gets spent. Well, it is going to get worse before it gets better. This a.m. for example brings more news of the sort I think we are going to see a whole lot more of:

The Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Former-NASA-climate-scientist-pleads-guilty-to-contract-fraud-8613137-78268862.html)is reporting that Mark Schoeberl has been convicted of fraud:

Former NASA climate scientist pleads guilty to contract fraud

A former top climate scientist who had become of one the scientific world's most cited authorities on the human effect on Earth's atmosphere was sentenced to probation Tuesday after pleading guilty to steering lucrative no-bid contracts to his wife's company.

In addition to a year's probation, former NASA manager Mark Schoeberl, 60, of Silver Spring, was also fined $10,000 and ordered to put in 50 hours of community service. He admitted in the late summer that he had hid some $50,000 in NASA contracts for a company called Animated Earth, which was run by Schoeberl's wife, Barbara. Prosecutors alleged that Schoeberl tried to help his wife's firm for years. When his colleagues balked at giving no-bid contracts to his wife's firm, Schoeberl pressured them to steer money to his wife through indirect means.

Steel

12-03-2009, 08:25 AM

Climatology isn't so much a science as... observe and report?

ubs

12-03-2009, 09:15 AM

Choobus

12-04-2009, 09:01 PM

In case anyone is interested, here is an e mail I got recently:

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:

This is a matter of great importance to the integrity of the Society. It is being sent
to a random fraction of the membership, so we hope you will pass it on.

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate,
which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen
in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. For those who have missed
the news we recommend the excellent summary article by Richard Lindzen in
the November 30 edition of the Wall Street journal, entitled "The Climate Science
isn't Settled," for a balanced account of the situation. It was written by a scientist
of unquestioned authority and integrity. A copy can be found among the items at
http://tinyurl.com/lg266u, and a visit to http://www.ClimateDepot.com can fill in
the details of the scandal, while adding spice.

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on
global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was
based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted.
(The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought
to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we
know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.)

We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the
extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We
have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has
not been done.

None of us would use corrupted science in our own work, nor would we sign off
on a thesis by a student who did so. This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter
of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking
the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

If you believe that the APS should withdraw a Policy Statement that is based on
admittedly corrupted science, and should then undertake to clarify the real state of
the art in the best tradition of a learned society, please send a note to the incoming
President of the APS ccallan@princeton.edu, with the single word YES in the subject
line. That will make it easier for him to count.

Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

Irreligious

12-04-2009, 09:37 PM

I think the problem the WSJ is trying to point out is that science has coasted on its reputation for "purity" for a very long time. Once it gets into the mind of the public that it is as slippery and agenda driven (like "Gender Studies" as the article put it) as politics itself, it will no longer enjoy the respect of the public or its money, at least not without fights. In fact, as a practical matter, I won't be surprised if I see our masters in Washington putting all sorts of new controls and idiotic reporting rules on every grant-funded dime that gets spent. Well, it is going to get worse before it gets better...
You sound positively giddy over the prospect of an erosion of the public's confidence in the scientific method. Why? What's the upside from your perspective?

Personally, I don't think it's ever a good idea to blindly place one's faith in anything or anyone. Indeed, it's always prudent to keep some skepticism in reserve, regardless of the authorities in charge of providing us information.

Scientists, being only human, after all, will fuck up on occasion. Like all other humans, they have personal foibles and political agendas that can seriously compromise their work. I don't think anybody here would disagree with that.

However, the scientific method, itself, has held up to scrutiny. Wouldn't you agree?

Lily

12-04-2009, 10:08 PM

You sound positively giddy over the prospect of an erosion of the public's confidence in the scientific method. Why? What's the upside from your perspective? You are listening to the voices in your head again. I think the way this fraud has been unmasked is a disaster on a number of different levels. Scientists should have blown the whistle and fought this junk science much sooner, and much harder. Instead they allowed the dissidents to be dismissed and ridiculed by the true believers and their media lackeys. So now they are all tarnished.

The only thing good about this is that it may have happened in time to avert financial disaster based on what most of us have known was junk science for the last 10 or more years.

However, the scientific method, itself, has held up to scrutiny. Wouldn't you agree? No. That isn't the issue. It is the scientists who are the issue. The scientific method is, literally, nothing. It is a process. It doesn't do anyone any good, if not actually employed by scientists.

Personally, I don't think it's ever a good idea to blindly place one's faith in anything or anyone. Like scientists? I completely agree

Indeed, it's always prudent to keep some skepticism in reserve, regardless of the authorities in charge of providing us information.

Skepticism that is not grounded in actual knowledge isn't worth a damn. It is blind, too.

Scientists, being only human, after all, will fuck up on occasion. Like all other humans, they have personal foibles and political agendas that can seriously compromise their work. I don't think anybody here would disagree with that.

Hmmm. Kinda like priests. So off with all their heads! It is a fraud and they are all guilty!!!

Irreligious

12-05-2009, 01:45 AM

You are listening to the voices in your head again. I think the way this fraud has been unmasked is a disaster on a number of different levels. Scientists should have blown the whistle and fought this junk science much sooner, and much harder. Instead they allowed the dissidents to be dismissed and ridiculed by the true believers and their media lackeys. So now they are all tarnished.
No, dear. I was paying close attention to what you wrote and the tenor of it. You made reference to science having "coasted on its reputation for purity for a very long time." Whatever did you mean by that? It surely didn't sound like you were finding fault solely with the climatologists at the center of this particular controversy, but the science establishment, in general. You do realize that climatology is one very small branch of that establishment, don't you?

The only thing good about this is that it may have happened in time to avert financial disaster based on what most of us have known was junk science for the last 10 or more years.
You're not a climatologist, so you knew no such thing. You're just a biased observer, no different than any other outsider lacking actual knowledge of the (alleged?) science involved. It very well may be junk science but, obviously, you had already decided that it was even before the scandal broke. No doubt, you were swayed by your politics and vested interests, just like the folks you're now accusing of having been dupes. Again, it's not like you actually know the first thing about climatology yourself.

No. That isn't the issue. It is the scientists who are the issue. The scientific method is, literally, nothing. It is a process. It doesn't do anyone any good, if not actually employed by scientists.
The scientific method is literally everything to the scientist. Otherwise, he or she is not practicing science, which is the broad charge that is being leveled against these particular climatologists. Mind you, I'm not defending them if they were involved in nefarious practices.

However, I am concerned about the general reputation of the establishment of scientists. Ultimately, it's a good thing to have any kind of fraud exposed, but I don't see how it's helpful to have the public's skepticism turn to cynicism, if that winds up being the fallout from the burgeoning scandal.

You may disagree, but science (in general) is too important to us all for that to happen. Your faith-based beliefs may bring you comfort and purpose, but science, when practiced with integrity, brings results from which we all benefit.

Like scientists? I completely agree.
Scientists can't be excluded from the rest humanity. Neither can you, the pope, preachermen, atheists or alleged soothsayers.

Skepticism that is not grounded in actual knowledge isn't worth a damn. It is blind, too.
This sounds good, but it doesn't make any sense. Skepticism is the acknowledgement that one is lacking the appropriate evidence to arrive at a knowledge-based conclusion. It's not blind in the way that you are inferring.

Hmmm. Kinda like priests. So off with all their heads! It is a fraud and they are all guilty!!!
You sure you don't have a beef with science, in general? It sure as hell sounds like you do. Or, maybe, you have a beef with folks whom you mistakenly think revere scientists in the same way that you exalt the pope, perhaps.

The unfortunate plight of the Roman Catholic Church and its priests is not bound to have any tangible effect on me, since I don't really rely them for anything. Can you say the same where scientists are concerned?

Philboid Studge

12-05-2009, 09:43 AM

...
Bob Austin, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Hal Lewis, emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Will Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics, Hartford
Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

No confusion about these guys' motives at least. :eh:

At least two of the others in this lineup were denying the consensus on anthropogenic climate change long before climategate. (Austin made the same motion to zotz the 2007 APS statement back in May.)

Why do physicists hate Jesus? Did a climate scientist once take their lunch money?

(Isn't Cherry Murray still APS prez?)

Lily

12-05-2009, 11:11 AM

Behold! The True Believer

Captain Relativity

12-05-2009, 11:30 AM

Behold! The True Believer...moos The Original True Believer. The irony is as thick as...as...something really really thick.

Lily

12-05-2009, 11:51 AM

You're not a climatologist, so you knew no such thing. You're just a biased observer, no different than any other outsider lacking actual knowledge of the (alleged?) science involved. It very well may be junk science but, obviously, you had already decided that it was even before the scandal broke. No doubt, you were swayed by your politics and vested interests, just like the folks you're now accusing of having been dupes. Again, it's not like you actually know the first thing about climatology yourself.

There you go again! Do you never learn? Ever heard of Bjørn Lomborg? If anyone with an open mind had had any serious doubts by then, Lomborg alone would have finished him off. And that was 8 years ago. However, many scientists dissented. You got a glimpse of how they were marginalized in the CRU emails. Now the the fraudsters would probably not have gotten away with it but for the collusion of the lefty press and the true believers in government-- That is the definition of a marriage made in hell.

But far, far worse, and you don't see it, and won't, even after I finish writing this, you are telling me that only "scientists" can decide whether this stuff is junk science or not and that there conclusions shall drive the laws that are made that effect all our lives. Do you even get where that puts you and virtually 99% of humanity, if that is true?

By the way. Just what are my "vested" interests in seeing this bit of junk science debunked?

However, I am concerned about the general reputation of the establishment of scientists. Ultimately, it's a good thing to have any kind of fraud exposed, but I don't see how it's helpful to have the public's skepticism turn to cynicism, if that winds up being the fallout from the burgeoning scandal. You don't have a clue do you? Can you really not see the danger in having masses of people believing that scientists are little gods? Do you really not see the danger in masses of people being told that they cannot question what "science" says because they are too ignorant to do so? Do you really want to live in a world where you can be told to sit down and shut up because you are too ignorant to have a say in the laws that you will be forced to obey for your own and the planet's good?

You may disagree, but science (in general) is too important to us all for that to happen. Your faith-based beliefs may bring you comfort and purpose, but science, when practiced with integrity, brings results from which we all benefit. :wall: :wall: And just what guarantees that integrity? The scientific method? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please land!

Choobus

12-05-2009, 12:09 PM

No confusion about these guys' motives at least. :eh:

At least two of the others in this lineup were denying the consensus on anthropogenic climate change long before climategate. (Austin made the same motion to zotz the 2007 APS statement back in May.)

So what? Does this affect the veracity of their claims? Well, maybe, but look at what they wrote: they want an independent assessment. What's wrong with that? I agree that the oil companies obviously have a vested interest, but they do hire scientists you know, and if they thought that the science backed up their own needs they would piss themselves with happiness and never shut up about it. IF not they might keep quiet.

In any case, I thought I'd share, that's all. I wasn't endorsing.

Philboid Studge

12-05-2009, 12:44 PM

So what? Does this affect the veracity of their claims? Well, maybe, but look at what they wrote: they want an independent assessment. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, but there already is an independent assessment going on. (More than one, I'm sure.)

I agree that the oil companies obviously have a vested interest, but they do hire scientists you know, and if they thought that the science backed up their own needs they would piss themselves with happiness and never shut up about it. IF not they might keep quiet.

I don't think the oil and gas industries should feel threatened by climate change anyway. Even if the worst-case scenarios played out, we'd still extract and burn every drop of fossil fuel we could get at, though perhaps marginally more slowly than we otherwise would have.

In any case, I thought I'd share, that's all. I wasn't endorsing.

Understood. For my part I think it's useful to vet the credentials and motives of every climate skeptic who weighs in with an opinion, and it seems as if we are seeing only two types of experts: ones who aren't climate scientists, or, if they are, are on the payroll of some (heavily) vested interest.

Lily

12-05-2009, 12:57 PM

Studge is a glassy-eyed, mouth-breather. Why would anyone pay the slightest attention to him on this (or any other) subject? He has shown repeatedly that facts don't make the slightest difference to him. Vet the skeptics indeed! Fine. How about vetting the true believers? Does it matter to him that Gore has made millions off global warming? How about the grant money steered to businesses that the true believers own or have vested interest in? Has anyone heard Studge mention that?

In any case, those who still have open minds on any subject under the sun, may find a long article in the Weekly Standard, Scientists Behaving Badly (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=1), both informative and deeply troubling. It touches on so many relevant themes, that it is hard to single one out. However, in the light of Studge's usual smear the dissenter tactic, this one seems appropriate:

The CRU scandal is only the tip of an unmelted iceberg of politicized science, though the "hard" sciences until recently have been generally thought immune (or at least resistant) to the leftist bias and political correctness of the universities. Some scientists are quite open about their leftward orientation. In 2004, Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin wrote in the New York Review of Books: "Most scientists are, at a minimum, liberals, although it is by no means obvious why this should be so. Despite the fact that all of the molecular biologists of my acquaintance are shareholders in or advisers to biotechnology firms, the chief political controversy in the scientific community seems to be whether it is wise to vote for Ralph Nader (:lol:) this time." MIT's Kerry Emanuel, as "mainstream" as they come in climate science (Al Gore references his work, and in one of his books Emanuel refers to Senator James Inhofe as a "scientific illiterate" and to climate skeptics as les refusards), nonetheless offers this warning to his field:

Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures. Until this profound and well-documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.

Perhaps the most damning email from the CRU circle is this July 2005 message from Phil Jones to climatologist John Christy of the University of Alabama: "As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish." Jones's attitude may not be exactly political, but it is certainly unscientific. The denial of political bent is also hard to square with the emails revealing that several of these scientists worked closely behind the scenes with alarmist advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, which really deserves to be shunned by serious scientists.

Let's see. The BBC has finally been forced to take notice and, as Newsbusters reports (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2009/12/05/bbc-exposes-fudge-factor-climategate-global-warming-computer-programming-), aired a segment showing how the CRU fudged data by actually programming their computers to include steps "to skip over errors, which shows some of the data analyzed by the East Anglia CRU is completely neglected." Video available on the Newsbusters site

Philboid Studge

12-05-2009, 01:09 PM

Studge is a glassy-eyed, mouth-breather.

Well I have to agree with you there.

Lily, have you cited any climate skeptic in this thread who is an actual climate scientist, and is not on an industry payroll? I see Lomborg (not a climate scientist) and earlier, Patrick Michaels (longtime Western Fuels shill).

I'm not saying you haven't. The number and length of your posts are overwhelming to me, so I don't know. I just wondered if there's anyone in there worth paying attention to. Thanks!

Irreligious

12-05-2009, 01:13 PM

But far, far worse, and you don't see it, and won't, even after I finish writing this, you are telling me that only "scientists" can decide whether this stuff is junk science or not and that there conclusions shall drive the laws that are made that effect all our lives. Do you even get where that puts you and virtually 99% of humanity, if that is true?
Why should your uninformed biases be taken seriously? You're not a scientist. If the last couple of decades of climate research turns out to have been a fraud, it won't be because of any investigation that you've conducted. You're not qualified. This is fight between scientists, when all is said and done. And just like all the other non-scientists who'd already made up their minds on climatologists' claims, you're just sitting on the sidelines with your biases and no real understanding of what you're talking about.

Your agenda right here and right now is pretty transparent, Lily. You want to create some equivalence between religion and science when there is none. There is a process for arriving at "scientific truth," if you will. It's assertions can be tested for their veracity. The same cannot be said for religion. Get over it.

When scientists lie about their claims, the truth comes out, eventually. And that's a good thing.

By the way. Just what are my "vested" interests in seeing this bit of junk science debunked?
You're not a scientist and you'd already decided that it was junk science, based on your ultra right wing political agenda. Simply put, you hate so-called lefties and what you perceive as their agenda to destroy the world, so you enjoy sticking it to them whenever you can. That's why you're gloationg now.

That's OK. There has been plenty of gloating here about the Schadenfraude being experienced by the Roman Catholic Church and you want revenge. But your anger at science is misplaced. I think it's downright stupid, actually. And that's my main point here.

Beyond a momentary satisfaction at seeing some scientists humbled for daring to compete with your god and, perhaps, seeing the political allies of these scientists caught with egg on their faces, there is nothing for you to gain in seeing any scientist debase the scientific method. You depend on science as much as any atheist or non-Roman Catholic.

You don't have a clue do you? Can you really not see the danger in having masses of people believing that scientists are little gods? Do you really not see the danger in masses of people being told that they cannot question what "science" says because they are too ignorant to do so? Do you really want to live in a world where you can be told to sit down and shut up because you are too ignorant to have a say in the laws that you will be forced to obey for your own and the planet's good?
I think you need to get a clue. I'm not defending corrupt scientists. I'm defending the integrity of the scientific method. Scientists are people; they're not gods. Anyone who thinks that they are is a fool.

The scientific method, on the other hand is neutral and does not respect biases and political agendas. If climatology is junk science, ultimately, it is the scientific method that will determine that.

:wall: :wall: And just what guarantees that integrity? The scientific method? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Please land!
I think you've already landed on your head. Your obvious anger at scientists aside, what other method do you propose for arriving at the facts regarding assertions of global climate change? Divine revelation?

Choobus

12-05-2009, 01:44 PM

Understood. For my part I think it's useful to vet the credentials and motives of every climate skeptic who weighs in with an opinion, and it seems as if we are seeing only two types of experts: ones who aren't climate scientists, or, if they are, are on the payroll of some (heavily) vested interest.

I don't disagree with that. Frankly I think that something stinks about the entire business (on BOTH sides) and that maybe a good airing will help clear things up a bit. In theory, only the facts will survive such scrutiny, although you'd have to believe in some cosmic overlord to think that's what will actually happen, even though that's what should be happening anyway. Fuck it, this is why I like atoms.

Lily

12-05-2009, 02:24 PM

You may like atoms but your research; your science has been tarnished by this global warming crap. That is what always happens, when those who are in a position to challenge the obvious falsehoods don't. Evil has to be confronted, even when the evil is "only" politicized science.

The evidence has been around and clear for a mighty long time. Even the honest True Believers have been nervous about the wildly unjustified claims being made. Just a couple months before the CRU was busted, the Times Online had this to say:

Exaggerated claims undermine drive to cut emissions, scientists warn (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece)

When people overstate happenings that aren’t necessarily climate change-related, or set up as almost certainties things that are difficult to establish scientifically, it distracts from the science we do understand. The danger is they can be accused of scaremongering. Also, we can all become described as kind of left-wing greens.”

Irreligious

12-05-2009, 02:41 PM

Lily

12-05-2009, 02:44 PM

:wall:

Irreligious

12-05-2009, 02:47 PM

You're an idiot, blindly lashing out at scientists who have nothing to do with this scandal. Get a grip.

Lily

12-05-2009, 03:04 PM

Irreligious

12-05-2009, 03:15 PM

:lol:? Or :wall: ?

I can't make up my mind. Surely you cannot be serious. Surely, you cannot possibly miss the point of these articles, as comprehensively as you are indicating.

Or can you miss the point that comprehensively? :think:
Fuck those articles. I don't have a beef with them exposing fraud and liberal bias in the process of conducting research.*

I have been responding very specifically to the assertions that you have made here as it regards the whole scientific establishment. You just told Choobus that his research is as suspect as the work by those climatologist that is currently under scrutiny. What do you even know about his work?

*Edited to make it clear to you that I understand the claim being made in those articles to which you linked. But science that is primarily driven by my biases or yours is lacking in integrity. I've never disputed that. If the critics of the climatological community have compelling evidence of a liberal conspiracy, I'm all for that being exposed. However, what I do not endorse is substituting a right wing bias for a left wing one. Science, in order to have any integrity, ought to be free of biases, and a pervasisve perception that it is not does none of us any favors.

Kate

12-05-2009, 03:27 PM

http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/FC9/6AY8/E1ZEWIJLXSC/FC96AY8E1ZEWIJLXSC.MEDIUM.jpg

Lily

12-05-2009, 03:59 PM

I have been responding very specifically to the assertions that you have made here as it regards the whole scientific establishment. You just told Choobus that his research is as suspect as the work by those climatologist that is currently under scrutiny. What do you even know about his work? You are responding to the voices in your head and have comprehensively missed the point. Let's stroll down Memory Lane, shall we? I have bolded the bits that need your immediate attention:

Now an essay, Climategate: Science is Dying (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html), has appeared in the WSJ that posits that the global warming fraud is going to damage all science.

Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.

I don't think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn't only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called "the scientific community" had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).
....

Hard science, alongside medicine, was one of the few things left accorded automatic stature and respect by most untrained lay persons. But the average person reading accounts of the East Anglia emails will conclude that hard science has become just another faction, as politicized and "messy" as, say, gender studies. The New England Journal of Medicine has turned into a weird weekly amalgam of straight medical-research and propaganda for the Obama redesign of U.S. medicine. ...

Then Choobus posted an email he got from scientists in his branch of science. Guess what? They aren't concerned that I am tarnishing the name of science. But they have concerns, alright that this fraud reflects badly on all scientists (emphasis added):

Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society:...

By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen in our cumulative 223 years of APS membership. ...

What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement onglobal warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that wasbased largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted.

(The principals in this escapade have not denied what they did, but have sought to dismiss it by saying that it is normal practice among scientists. You know and we know that that is simply untrue. Physicists are not expected to cheat.) ...

This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.

You do not get it and never will. That is why this is the last time I am going to acknowledge anything you have to say on whatever subject you think you are addressing. You aren't addressing the topic of this thread. You are not dealing with the issue under discussion-- that this fraud may very well taint the public's perception of all science as political and agenda driven.

Smellyoldgit

12-05-2009, 04:05 PM

.... this is the last time I am going to acknowledge anything you have to say on whatever subject you think you are addressing. ....
Wanna bet? - you skanky lying shitbag.

Irreligious

12-05-2009, 04:16 PM

Lily, I'm constantly responding to the voices in your head and I've had enough, frankly.

Gloat to your heart's content.

Philboid Studge

12-05-2009, 05:49 PM

This is quite good, if you know nothing else about the vast left-wing conspiracy other than the ravings of febrile nitwits.

7nnVQ2fROOg

I like Rush's line. He's known for 20 years that the whole thing was a hoax, because .... because ... LIBRULS!

Sadly, the above will be of little help to you if you are a febrile nitwit. :(

Choobus

12-05-2009, 07:02 PM

You may like atoms but your research; your science has been tarnished by this global warming crap.

I don't think that's accurate. MY (indeed, all) science is always tarnished by fraud, simply because of the way science is done. There have been worse frauds that were out and out deliberate fakes (Jan Henrik Schon is a fascinating example) that have done more damage by far. This "global warming crap" is not even obviously affected by these e mails as far as I can tell. Even if there has been wrongdoing (and I think there has) it it very far from discrediting the vast amount of work that has been done elsewhere. It may mean that it has to be looked at carefully, and that's the real problem here. These fools have made it so that other research may now be taken less seriously simply because nobody knows the extent to which malfeasance may have occurred. That does tarnish all science, but not irreparably. What happens next will determine the extent to which this business tarnishes anything other than the reputations of those involved. The greatest harm will have been done if this affair is taken out of proportion (and that goes for doing nothing as well as using it as a universal weapon against science in general).

Lily

12-05-2009, 08:27 PM

Well, yes it does discredit the work that has been done so far-- it is going to have to be redone and, in fact, I understand that is what the MET is supposed to be doing (though there isn't a word about it on their website that I can find) with the results due in 2012! Now obviously, I don't believe that there aren't good solid reasons to cut emissions, and generally care for the environment but it has been a long time since global warming was about good science and acting responsibly on the basis of it. It has been the left-wing's eco-whacko theology for a long time and the basis for its intrusions into private life. It even has its own Pat Robertson in the person of Algore. What more could a movement want?

Choobus

12-05-2009, 09:19 PM

All the previous work will not have to be redone, especially if the raw data is still available (as it bloody well should be. I have all the data from every experiment I have ever done, apart from some stuff that was on a suicidal hard disc). I expect the MET and other organizations will have to exercise some damage control and will probably clarify some points, but there's no way you can redo all that research. It would cost billions and take decades, and despite what has happened most scientists would still not find it necessary unless there was some clear evidence of a problem. Probably anything from the guys who wrote the e mails will be tossed out, not because it's necessarily wrong but just because it's tainted. Those who see all this as a crushing blow against the very idea of global warming are likely to be sorely disappointing with its final impact.

Lily

12-05-2009, 11:28 PM

The raw data *isn't* available. That is part of what makes this such an incredible scandal. They were forced to admit that they had deliberately destroyed it when it was sought under the Brit equivalent of the "Freedom of Information Act". From the Nov. 29, 2009 Times Online: (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)

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

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

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

There really isn't decades of data that will save the day despite the fraudulent data. When you start poking around, it is easy to find lots of scientists who show rather convincingly that the data does not support the extreme claims of the True Believers and never has. That is why it has been fudged. Global warming is the altar at which a huge number of aging hippies, green weenies and haters of humanity worship. It has been buttressed by a relatively small number of scientists and now a significant percentage of them are tainted. I don't know how bad the fall out will be. I just hope it ensures sane measures to safeguard the environment and not the extreme measures the True Believers are pushing. Maybe the Brits will be able to buy real light bulbs again!

Still, there are such strong believers out there-- take someone like Studge. There are no facts that would persuade him that global warming is not nearly the issue the green alarmists have painted it to be. He will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo and damn the cost. There are a lot like him in the fundamentalist branch of EcoWhackoism.

Lily

12-05-2009, 11:57 PM

I guess I should say one more thing about this. The dumping of the raw data has been known for months. The mainstream media sat on the information, as it sits on all information that doesn't suit its ideological agenda. TigerHawk (http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/11/no-science-is-possible-cru-has.html) wrote an interesting blog post about this:

So, basically we are being asked to restructure the entire economy of the planet on the say-so of a few "scientists" whose work cannot be verified or even reconstructed. Is there any intellectually honest person who thinks that is a good idea?

In a few days this has gone from being a kerfuffle over a few snotty emails and some academic source code to a full-blown political and policy catastrophe. Any government that supports greenhouse gas regulation based on the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which relied heavily on the CRU data, would be derelict in its own obligation to do due diligence. Climate "skeptics" have been saying this for some time and dismissed as cranks for it. Months ago conservative bloggers were writing that these data had been destroyed (based on an admission on the CRU's own web site), but the mainstream media sat on the story as if it were irrelevant. Now, with the excuse of the CRU hack, even the Times of London is writing about it breathlessly.
He then asks a question that had not occurred to me and he is right. It is scary, though unlikely:

Better late than never, but it still leaves this scary question: What if these wholly discredited "scientists" who threw away their raw data and are asking us to change the world on their say-so are actually right?

Choobus

12-06-2009, 01:21 AM

Victus

12-06-2009, 09:12 AM

Losing the data makes for an effective loss of credibility. The data is all there is! Most scientists would not do that, so even though the CRU data may be lost, I am willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases whatever data as has been collected is preserved.

I don't know why any scientist would throw away raw data. It's like throwing away family photos because you know who your relatives are. If they were justified in their actions that is what would have been able to save them. Without the data they have nothing. In fact this is tantamount to scientific misconduct in and of itself, since (at least in some journals) one is bound to provide that data to interested parties on request as a condition of publication.

You shouldn't get too excited about it all though Lils, this no more disproves global warming than child molesting priests disprove Christianity.

In epidemiology and to a lesser extent, psychology, hard data is retained for a minimum period of five years (sometimes ten, depending on which department you're in). This is the actual physical original copy of the data (i.e., the survey booklet that the participants wrote their responses on). The 5-10 year retention rate is to insure that if your data is called into question, someone can get a hold of your originals, within a reasonable stint of time. On the other side, you're allowed to eventually destroy it because without this someone with a long career would have a proposterous amount of useless paper hanging around. Of course, the statistical databases are retained essentially forever.

This sounds like they deleted the database, which is suspicious.

Philboid Studge

12-06-2009, 09:22 AM

Philboid Studge

12-06-2009, 09:24 AM

This sounds like they deleted the database, which is suspicious.

Why does it sound like that to you? The entire database still exists, and it was never in their power to delete.

Victus

12-06-2009, 10:03 AM

Why does it sound like that to you?

I'm going off of what Choobus was saying. I probably misinterpreted.

The entire database still exists, and it was never in their power to delete.

Oh, then who cares? Same data, same methods, same outcome.

nkb

12-06-2009, 11:37 AM

Then Choobus posted an email he got from scientists in his branch of science. Guess what? They aren't concerned that I am tarnishing the name of science. But they have concerns, alright that this fraud reflects badly on all scientists (emphasis added):What else is new, selective quoting from Lily?
Let's see what the email actually said, and why the APS is concerned about their reputation.
What has this to do with APS? In 2007 the APS Council adopted a Statement on global warming (also reproduced at the tinyurl site mentioned above) that was based largely on the scientific work that is now revealed to have been corrupted.
...
We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 Statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done.
...
This is not only a matter of science, it is a matter of integrity, and the integrity of the APS is now at stake. That is why we are taking the unusual step of communicating directly with at least a fraction of the membership.
So, the fact that the APS adopted a statement, based on some of the scientific work that is now in question, and APS management has not officially reacted to this, is what they're concerned about.

It only potentially taints their reputation, and their work, if they continue to maintain their position, in spite of claims of fraud. It says nothing about their work being questioned.

Lily

12-06-2009, 12:41 PM

You shouldn't get too excited about it all though Lils, this no more disproves global warming than child molesting priests disprove Christianity.

This is a very peculiar and dismissive take on the breath-taking fraud that has been perpetrated. You don't appear to get its dimensions. Not only is this, at a minimum, the Piltdown Man of the 21st century but I don't think any scientific fraud in history has ever had the enormous cultural and economic ramifications that this one has had and was yet aiming for.

An article in the American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html)today spells out how the fraud was perpetrated and how deliberate and political it was. It is written for intelligent people unacquainted with how the "science" of climate change is done, so it takes nothing for granted in anyone's understanding of how the "science" was manipulated to give pre-determined outcomes. Some excerpts (True Believers hide your eyes):

In fact, the decline Jones so urgently sought to hide was not one of measured temperatures at all, but rather figures infinitely more important to climate alarmists – those determined by proxy reconstructions. As this scandal has attracted new readers to the subject, I ask climate savvy readers to indulge me while I briefly explain climate proxies, as they are an essential ingredient of this contemptible conspiracy.

Truth be told -- even reasonably reliable instrumental readings are a relatively modern convenience, limiting CRU’s global measured temperature database to a start date somewhere in the mid-19th century. That’s why global temperature charts based on actual readings typically use a base year of 1850 or somewhere thereabouts.

And yet -- most historical temperature charts, including the one Al Gore preached before in An Inconvenient Truth, go way back to 1000 AD. That’s where proxies come in.

While historical documents (e,g, ship’s logs, diaries, court and church records, tax rolls, and even classic literature) certainly provide a glimpse into past temperature trends, such information is far too limited and generalized to be of any statistical value. So climate scientists have devised means to measure variations in such ubiquitous materials as lake sediments, boreholes, ice cores, and tree rings to evaluate past temperature trends.

They then employ complex computer programs to combine such “proxy” data sampled throughout a region to plot that area’s annual relative changes in temperature hundreds or even thousands of years prior. By then combining the datasets, they believe they can accurately reproduce hemispheric and global temperature trends of the previous millennia.

And while reconstructions -- as past temperature interpretations from proxy data are called -- can differ greatly from one source to another, those generated by the CRU have often been accepted as the de facto temperatures of the past.

Largely because the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) proclaims them to be.

It’s important to understand that early analyses of these “proxies” clearly demonstrated that three radical temperature shifts occurred within the past millennium, as do many contemporary studies. Indeed, the years 900-1300 AD were labeled the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), as global temperatures rose precipitously from the bitter cold of the previous Dark Ages to levels several degrees warmer than today. The Little Ice Age, a sudden period of cooling, then followed and lasted until the year 1850. And then began the modern warming period, which was by no means unique and appears to have ended with the millennium itself.

Originally, even the IPCC accepted that pre-20th century analysis. In fact, the 1990 First Assessment Report used this schematic IPCC 1990 Figure 7c (courtesy of Climate Audit) to represent last millennium’s dramatic temperature swings.

But this image of a fluid climate system subject to abrupt and natural up-and-downturns made unprecedented 20th century warming about as marketable as Florida swampland. And opportunists who depended on the aberrance of post-industrial revolution warming in order to condemn and control mankind’s CO2 emissions soon recognized that perhaps the LIA but most certainly the MWP simply had to go.

And as many of these hucksters were closely connected to the IPCC – both sender and recipient names on those illuminating CRU emails include many of its editors, lead authors and contributors -- that task was far less daunting than one might imagine.

The author goes on to note what we have all known (not True Believers of course), that not only is the earth not warming, but we are actually cooling again, slightly. He uses the miscreants charts and graphs to point out how they wished away the inconvenient data and landed themselves and us in the position we find ourselves in.

Irreligious

12-06-2009, 12:57 PM

Better late than never, but it still leaves this scary question: What if these wholly discredited "scientists" who threw away their raw data and are asking us to change the world on their say-so are actually right?

The author goes on to note what we have all known (not True Believers of course), that not only is the earth not warming, but we are actually cooling again, slightly. He uses the miscreants charts and graphs to point out how they wished away the inconvenient data and landed themselves and us in the position we find ourselves in.
You need to check your posts for consistency.

If you have known all along that the earth is cooling, then what chance is there that these climatologists are actually right?

Choobus

12-06-2009, 12:58 PM

This is a very peculiar and dismissive take on the breath-taking fraud that has been perpetrated. You don't appear to get its dimensions. Not only is this, at a minimum, the Piltdown Man of the 21st century but I don't think any scientific fraud in history has ever had the enormous cultural and economic ramifications that this one has had and was yet aiming for.

You are conflating all climate research with the small subsection from these particular researchers. There is no basis for doing this. You're just assuming that some sort of conspiracy exists and that all similar data is simply wrong. This is not supported by the facts. I'm not downplaying the seriousness of what happened, but I question the extent to which it will affect other research, which is, after all, in the vast majority of cases conducted by honest scientists. When you say fraud you mean "all global warming research is fraudulent". If that were the case this would indeed be a stunning situation. It isn't.

Also, Piltdown was a deliberate hoax designed to exact revenge on one specific scientist. (It's a fun story, look it up if you don't know the details). It had little impact on the progress of science because it was contrary to all the other data and was, eventually, ignored and treated as a curiosity. When the hoax was finally revealed the impact was minimal. No text books had to be re-written, no other work was called into question, and the general response was something like "oh, that makes more sense."

Choobus

12-06-2009, 01:06 PM

You would win that bet, but I don' t think even the CRU in East Anglia destroyed any data. They did adjust for variables like heat-island effects (dropping weather stations that were showing warming likely due to urbanization, rather than any greenhouse effects. In other words, excising data that might have showed even more warming.) But all the raw data still exists, and the less-than-five-percent of the data that was adjusted for variables like heat-island can still be accessed. It's not data collected by CRU -- it's from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

Either they have the raw data or they don't. If they do then it can be independently analyzed and we can all move on. If they don't they need to explain why. Adjusted data is not raw data, but how can you have the adjusted data and not the raw data if you know how you adjusted it? They were not able to supply some of their raw data when asked to do so, and I would like to know why that is.

Lily

12-06-2009, 01:10 PM

Irreligious

12-06-2009, 01:18 PM

... They don't treat dissenters kindly or professionally. This is a religion and they are hell-bent on imposing it on the rest of us...
Someone's catching on. :thumbsup:

Philboid Studge

12-06-2009, 01:56 PM

Either they have the raw data or they don't. If they do then it can be independently analyzed and we can all move on. If they don't they need to explain why. Adjusted data is not raw data, but how can you have the adjusted data and not the raw data if you know how you adjusted it? They were not able to supply some of their raw data when asked to do so, and I would like to know why that is.

They have explained why: the data do not belong to them. It comes from National Meteorological Services (like NOAA), and they can't publish or release it until they have permission(s), which they claim to be getting. CRU has promised to release everything when it's available. (They claimed this less than a week ago, so we'll see.)

Lily

12-06-2009, 01:57 PM

I guess AGW really is waiting for a decent burial. Now the comedians are weighing in. Here is one "to do" (http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/12/05/it%E2%80%99s_got_to_suck_to_be_a_climavangelist!?p age=2) list that I suspect will give birth to many more:

1. I am going to go outside by my pool and spray two full 32 oz cans of Aqua Net right at the ozone.

2. I am going to use a gas powered scooter to go from room to room in my house, which will have all the outside doors open wide while the A/C is blowing full blast.

3. I am going to buy a ‘69 GTO with no exhaust system and let it idle for 4 hours a day in my driveway every day until Jesus returns.

4. I am going to fart as much as possible.

5. Speaking of farting, I am going to feed my cows bean dip and only bean dip.

...
9. When I go grizzly bear hunting in Alaska this spring I am going to add a polar bear to my license and take one of those as well.

10. While in Alaska I will take a blowtorch to a glacier to get my drinking water.

11. In addition, I am going to throw snowballs at seals. It won’t hurt them, but they will understand that the game is back on.

I wonder if cats like bean dip?

Irreligious

12-06-2009, 02:21 PM

So, why'd you leave out No. 12, Lily?
12. And finally, I am going to make certain my girls have Horner’s book Red Hot Lies and Milloy’s book Green Hell so that when their profs and goofy friends open their mouths on behalf global warming they can go Stone Cold Steve Austin on them with the cold, hard facts.
What are the cold, hard facts on global climate change?

Are the melting polar ice caps a fraud, too?

Nice reference to Stone Cold Steve Austin. That's sure to resonate with the intelligentsia on the right.

Choobus

12-06-2009, 04:19 PM

Piltdown Man, was. as I recall, the subject of some 36 dissertations which does suggest slightly more impact than you want to give it. Beyond that, it helped discredit early evolutionary research and because it revealed, yet again, that some scientists see what they want to see, it helped fuel public skepticism about evolution, in particular and "scientific" research in general.

What you don't seem to get either is that the CRU here represents close to the majority of the scientists working in the area of global warming. They are not a small subset. They represent, from what I have read, at least 1/3 + of all the actual "scientists" working in the area.

No, Choobs. This is a stunning revelation. The fact that the revelation of the emails appears to be an inside job is even more telling. These guys got the editor of one journal fired for publishing a skeptical article. They don't treat dissenters kindly or professionally. This is a religion and they are hell-bent on imposing it on the rest of us. Just look at Studge's desperate attempts to wish the scandal away.

Maybe piltdown was thought to be important when it was discovered, because if true it would have been revolutionary, but after a while it was not taken seriously, and well before it was exposed it was largely ignored, which in science really means that nobody believed it.

How do the authors of the e mails represent all these other people? The CRU may well integrate research from lots of other people, but what you are telling me is that if I look up this kind of research I ought to find the CRU in the byline for about a third of all papers. If I look is that what I will see? IT is interesting how you see a few possibly dodgy guys are representative of a much larger organization in this case but not in the church molestation cases.

Where can I read the facts about these guys getting an editor fired? I had not heard that. (I am not willing to take Glen Becks word for it because I am not convinced he knows how to read, and I'm not even sure that he loves America)

Choobus

12-06-2009, 04:21 PM

They have explained why: the data do not belong to them. It comes from National Meteorological Services (like NOAA), and they can't publish or release it until they have permission(s), which they claim to be getting. CRU has promised to release everything when it's available. (They claimed this less than a week ago, so we'll see.)

ok, that is perfectly reasonable.

Choobus

12-06-2009, 04:24 PM

Nice reference to Stone Cold Steve Austin. That's sure to resonate with the intelligentsia on the right.

I can only assume that stone cold steve austin is a bionic climatologist who works in an antarctic survey station.

Choobus

12-06-2009, 04:25 PM

So, why'd you leave out No. 12, Lily?

The real question is, why post 1-11 of these desperately unfunny "jokes"?

Lily

12-06-2009, 06:14 PM

How do the authors of the e mails represent all these other people? The CRU may well integrate research from lots of other people, but what you are telling me is that if I look up this kind of research I ought to find the CRU in the byline for about a third of all papers. If I look is that what I will see? :wall: There aren't lots of other people. The actual group of scientists working in this area is very small, particularly when you quarantine the skeptics, and these guys are 1/3 or somewhat more of them. Yes, you will find their names on some third or more of all papers.

Where can I read the facts about these guys getting an editor fired? I had not heard that. (I am not willing to take Glen Becks word for it because I am not convinced he knows how to read, and I'm not even sure that he loves America)

You know, I am getting really sick and tired of you libtards and true believers dismissing everything that doesn't fit your world view by attributing it to some tv talking head you don't like. Argue with the facts. The fact that they went after the editor is in the emails and has been widely reported. In fact, you *saw* one or more of the emails about pressuring journals not to publish nay-sayers because I reprinted it here.

ok, that is perfectly reasonable. No it isn't. This is Studge playing the Global Warming League's own Bill Donahue. Only in his case it is all bluster and no truth. Whether he actually believes what he is saying, as opposed to lying for the "greater good", I cannot say.

The real question is, why post 1-11 of these desperately unfunny "jokes"?

I posted the 8 barely amusing ones of the 12 (none were "slap your knee" funny) because they are a sign of things to come. The gleeful and now vindicated skeptics are just getting warmed up.

Victus

12-06-2009, 06:21 PM

The gleeful and now vindicated skeptics are just getting warmed up.

BaDumChing!

Choobus

12-06-2009, 06:21 PM

You know, I am getting really sick and tired of you libtards and true believers dismissing everything that doesn't fit your world view by attributing it to some tv talking head you don't like. Argue with the facts. The fact that they went after the editor is in the emails and has been widely reported. In fact, you *saw* one or more of the emails about pressuring journals not to publish nay-sayers because I reprinted it here.

that's why I asked where I could get the information. The thing you posted about giving shit to some journal hardly seemed to qualify as getting an editor fired.

Lily

12-06-2009, 07:28 PM

Well, if you have the time to review this email exchange (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt), it will tell you a lot about the dishonesty, the paranoia and the coldly calculated attempts to deal with enemies. In the first the journal Climate Research is drummed out of the corps. But far worse is the attempt (successful) to oust James Saiers, the editor of "Geophysical Research Letters". (I have cleaned these emails up of angle brackets >>> and created some white space to make it easier to read them. I have also highlighted some bits that I think are telling for the impatient.

From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,tc rowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,jto@u.arizona.edu,drdendro@ xxxxxxxxx.xxx, keith.alverson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xx x,jto@u.arizona.edu, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Thanks Phil,
..
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'). ...

I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...

It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
... 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 alsoneed to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...

What do others think? mike

This next discussion savages another journal “Geophysical Review Letters” It is too long to post all the emails that are increasingly paranoid so, you can look at the whole exchange if you like by clicking on the link. I think what is posted here is a fair representation of the tone and quality of this scientific discussion. The response from the editor in chief to which they are responding comes last in the series but is first here to make it easier to follow what they have their knickers in a twist about.

From: "Mackwell, Stephen"
mackwell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: <cjr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
<james.saiers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2005 20:42:12.0740 (UTC)
FILETIME=[84F55440:01C4FF30]

Dear Prof. Mann

In your recent email to Chris Reason, you laid out your concerns that I presume were the reason for your phone call to me last week. I have
reviewed the manuscript by McIntyre, as well as the reviews. The editor
in this case was Prof. James Saiers. He did note initially that the manuscript did challenge published work, and so felt the need for an extensive and thorough review. For that reason, he requested reviews from 3 knowledgable scientists. All three reviews recommended publication.

While I do agree that this manuscript does challenge (somewhat aggresively) some of your past work, I do not feel that it takes a particularly harsh tone. On the other hand, I can understand your reaction. As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to look it over. And I am satisfied by the credentials of the reviewers.

Thus, I do not feel that we have sufficient reason to interfere in the timely publication of this work. However, you are perfectly in your rights to write a Comment, in which you challenge the authors' arguments and assertions. Should you elect to do this, your Comment would be provided to them and they would be offered the chance to write a Reply. Both Comment and Reply would then be reviewed and published together (if they survived the review process). Comments are limited to the equivalent of 2 journal pages.

Regards

Steve Mackwell

Editor in Chief, GRL

Quoting "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:

Thanks Tom,

Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something might be up here. What a shame that would be. It's one thing to lose "Climate Research". We can't afford to lose GRL. I think it would be useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and potentially Mackwell (I don't know him--he would seem to be complicit w/ what is going on here).

If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it could betaken through the proper channels. I don't that the entire AGU hierarchy has yet been compromised!

The GRL article simply parrots the rejected Nature comment--little substantial difference that I can see at all.

Will keep you all posted of any relevant developments,
mike

At 04:30 PM 1/20/2005, Tom Wigley wrote:

Mike,
This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years. I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers -- it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published. Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult. …

Saiers denies that he was ousted but no one at GRL will talk about his stepping down on the record, according to reports.

Choobus

12-06-2009, 07:51 PM

Lily

12-06-2009, 08:54 PM

I haven't come across the "we did it" emails, if they exist. My main concern is to show the unprofessional, "unscientifc" attitudes of the true believers and the depths to which they sank to stifle any dissent. I haven't even scratched the surface. I don't think I have linked to the one in which they celebrate a skeptic's death... In any case, I think I have written enough and linked to enough places for anyone who wants to to see what is unfolding to do so.

For my next act, I think I will stroll down memory lane with you all (thanks to Forbes) and revisit the climate clergy's confident predictions of the coming ice age...

From an article entitled The Fiction of Climate Science (http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html)

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

It very much looks like climate science isn't science at all. It is philosophy. Bad philosophy.

Victus

12-06-2009, 08:55 PM

that doesn't seem to show that they were able to get anyone fired, only that they wanted to. To me the worst thing about all this is that they refer to "skeptics" as though they were Nazis or something. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical. I guess it's just a phrase used to denote the opposition, but it seems odd to me.

On one of the science forums I browse, the distinction is being made between skeptics (who might change their position given evidence) and denialists, who never will. It's somewhat hypocritical for a scientist to berate someone for being a skeptic. Mocking denialists, though, is entirely fine in my books.

Lily

12-06-2009, 08:58 PM

What if the "denialists" are right, as they are in this case? Don't we really have three camps? True Believers, Skeptics and Denialists?

Choobus

12-06-2009, 09:04 PM

When you claim that the pope is right you do so because (you claim) to have a personal relationship with jesus. What is your basis for claiming that these opposing global warming are right? If the pope were to comes out and say that it's all true, would your head explode?

Victus

12-06-2009, 09:20 PM

What if the "denialists" are right, as they are in this case? Don't we really have three camps? True Believers, Skeptics and Denialists?

This is informative with respect to how you view the world as a whole. In our version of events, no one is actually interested in the truth. There certainly are True Believers that would irrationally ignore evidence against AGW, but fortunate for them their irrational beliefs are consistent with the evidence.

Lily

12-06-2009, 09:23 PM

When you claim that the pope is right you do so because (you claim) to have a personal relationship with jesus. Err, no. We claim that because Jesus made Peter and his successors the head of the Church, the Pope has the final say about theological matters. Only if he goes mad, will the Pope say anything about matters in which he has no expertise. Even if he went stark raving mad, nothing he said on the subject would matter to Catholics. He can only speak "infallibly" on matters of faith and morals.

What is your basis for claiming that these opposing global warming are right?

We have always known that the "science" was a bunch of horseshit. No one is disputing minimal rises in temperature, just like there have always been. We are disputing that there is a dangerous increase of temperature (period) and that it is man-made. Thus there is no call for the Green Wienies to take away our light bulbs, put us in cars so small that they are a constant source of danger, or impose ruinously expensive measures on business, agriculture and industry. The game is up. The hacker(s) deserve medals for exposing these cretins with their own words.

This is informative with respect to how you view the world as a whole. In our version of events, no one is actually interested in the truth. There certainly are True Believers that would irrationally ignore evidence against AGW, but fortunate for them their irrational beliefs are consistent with the evidence.

:lol: :lol: :lol: What evidence? The stuff they made up???

Irreligious

12-06-2009, 10:09 PM

We have always known that the "science" was a bunch of horseshit.
Who is "we?"

Have you and these other folks been surreptitiously conducting your own global climate research?

It seems to me that, ultimately, science will have to tell the tale, if that is at all possible. Where is yours?

Lily

12-06-2009, 10:57 PM

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z191/Lily56AL/cb1125wj20091125061749.jpg

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z191/Lily56AL/11-30-09wishhedgoRGB20091130073716.jpg

Irreligious

12-06-2009, 11:17 PM

Are the polar ice caps really melting, Lily, or is this, too, some type of eloborate fraud?

Choobus

12-06-2009, 11:46 PM

We have always known that the "science" was a bunch of horseshit. We are disputing that there is a dangerous increase of temperature (period) and that it is man-made.

Well, ok, but you didn't answer the question, which was what is the basis for this "knowledge"? If you have always known, you must know how you know. Obviously this knowledge doesn't come from some sort of asinine observation like "it's not that warm/cold outside". Lots of really smart people still don't know (I don't, really, I am pretty ignorant about the research). You seem very sure that you know, I wonder how.

Choobus

12-06-2009, 11:57 PM

Only if he goes mad, will the Pope say anything about matters in which he has no expertise.

What, like sex?

Irreligious

12-07-2009, 12:02 AM

Oh, and I read the Forbes article The Fiction of Climate Science to which you linked, Lily.

"It's the job of elected officials to whip up panic," the author says. "They then get re-elected. Their supporters fall in line."

So, the author is laying the blame for this so-called panic at the feet of politicians. He further claims that scientists merely "march to the beat of grant money."

The problem that I see with this particular theory is that there has been no consistent panic being pushed by our elected officials. Typically, Republican leaders in our country have shared your view on the claim of AGW.

So why, when both the White House and the Congress were controlled by Republicans, would those in charge have continued to go along with this alleged hoax if they knew for certain -- as you did, apparently-- that it was all shit science?

Surely, the author of the article is not claiming that the perpetuation of this alleged hoax is what got them elected. I mean, you're not the type of voter who would fall for that, right? So, why didn't G.W. Bush and the Republican controlled Congress just pull the plug on this way back when?

And why would political leaders from around the world allow themselves to get sucked in? The author doesn't say.

Mog

12-07-2009, 12:52 AM

ghoulslime

12-07-2009, 01:36 AM

So is it a sign that Lily ran out of arguments that she starts posting political cartoons? Just an observation. Seems thats where she is on the whole Obama issue too. Too bad she doesn't have any cartoons on that whole animal sacrifice issue.

Lily has positioned her argument on a melting ice cap. The crazed dame thinks it's silly to worry about protecting our earth. Of course, Jesus will come and save us before we run out of dinosaur sap to burn! :rolleyes:

VladTheImpaler

12-07-2009, 04:13 AM

I’m so confused and bewildered in regards to the whole Global Warming debate and science. I’ve become extremely skeptic towards global warming claims and its entourage of political side effects.

On the other side I’ve become about twice as skeptical towards groups or individuals that claim global warming is a fake or a hoax. Considering I’m pretty much unable to do the science and draw my own conclusions that kind of leaves me in a tricky in-between-agnostic-limbo. This is freaking annoying.

I have generally subscribed to the opinion and information presented by the following YouTube user however: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610 (Global Warming is real and is man-made). However I’m really not confident at all about the issue.

I’m not reading too much into these released e-mails at this point however. I’ll wait and see what news they bring.

VladTheImpaler

12-07-2009, 05:32 AM

P70SlEqX7oY

It's not like the media is not known for taking quotes of out context and running with 'em...

Whisper

12-07-2009, 06:48 AM

Lily

12-07-2009, 07:52 AM

Let me link again to the article on climate science (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html)that I linked to yesterday. It describes what has been going on for complete neophytes. The most surprising aspect, apart from the outright fraudulent data, is how guesses about the temperatures in the past are arrived at.

Mog

12-07-2009, 08:09 AM

Have you seen this blog, Lily?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

Lily

12-07-2009, 08:14 AM

What, like sex? Sex is part of the human condition about which the Church is the expert.

Well, ok, but you didn't answer the question, which was what is the basis for this "knowledge"? If you have always known, you must know how you know. Obviously this knowledge doesn't come from some sort of asinine observation like "it's not that warm/cold outside". Lots of really smart people still don't know (I don't, really, I am pretty ignorant about the research). You seem very sure that you know, I wonder how. I know it the same way any other onlooker knows it. I read the conflicting reports, I look to see whose arguments seem strongest and who sounds sane. I look to see which side of the question Algore is on. That clinches it.

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z191/Lily56AL/globalwarming.jpg

Are the polar ice caps really melting, Lily, or is this, too, some type of eloborate fraud?

No they are not melting. The invaluable James Delingpole (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/9802307)reported back in May on the latest attempt by the alarmists to prove how quickly the ice caps were melting. I can almost find it in my heart to feel sorry for them:

They set out to the high arctic 73 days ago full of high hopes. They were going to tramp all the way to the North Pole. (But were frustrated by the unseasonal cold.) They were going to march 1000 km (they managed 434). Above all, they were going to raise awareness of “climate change” by drilling lots of holes in the polar ice cap so as to show how worryingly thin it is, and in how imminent danger of doom. (But their equipment broke in the freezing temperatures and anyway, as Christopher Booker reported the other day, there are US Army buoys which already do this job perfectly well and have found that since last March the ice has thickened by “at least half a metre”).

As if that weren't bad enough, Delingpole reports more bad news:

And now to cap it all (ho ho), comes the still more tragic news that the Arctic isn’t warming up dramatically after all. According to figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute – as posted by Steven Goddard on the inestimable Watts Up With That site – Arctic mean temperatures have barely changed since the start of their records in 1958. The Arctic was in fact warmer in the 1940s than it is now, but cooled between 1940 and 1980.

It has been a tragic year for the EcoWhackoists and their plans to run our lives.

Lily

12-07-2009, 08:23 AM

Have you seen this blog, Lily?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

?? It is a lovely compilation of all the points the EcoWhackoists have been making for the last 10+ years. It doesn't change the fact that much of what they have claimed is based on fraudulent data and has been refuted all along by other scientists, whom they have often successfully marginalized. So, really, it would be best if this site were updated to take into account what we are learning from the CRU e-mails and from the coming unravelling of the entire scam.

Mog

12-07-2009, 08:32 AM

?? It is a lovely compilation of all the points the EcoWhackoists have been making for the last 10+ years. It doesn't change the fact that much of what they have claimed is based on fraudulent data and has been refuted all along by other scientists, whom they have often successfully marginalized. So, really, it would be best if this site were updated to take into account what we are learning from the CRU e-mails and from the coming unravelling of the entire scam.

So it doesn't matter to you that nearly all professional readings of those e-mails state that nothing significant has changed from the argument. Very interesting.

Of course, the author does actually talk about "Climate-gate" if you actually had taken time to browse through his blog, BTW.

Lily

12-07-2009, 08:38 AM

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Land, Mog.

Mog

12-07-2009, 08:46 AM

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Land, Mog.

I'm on land, Lily. You just can't see that because you are buried miles deep in denial, both religiously and politically. Unfortunately, it appears that you are buried so deep that I can't even lend you a shovel.

Lily

12-07-2009, 08:54 AM

The American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/the_scientific_technological_e.html)has published another really interesting essay. This one recalls Eisenhower's famous speech in which he warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. The author tells us that Eisenhower had another warning:

However, little attention has been given to an equally important warning that Eisenhower issued in the same farewell address; the danger that public policy might become the captive of a scientific technological elite:

"...(In) the technological revolution during recent decades...research has become central...complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government...the solitary inventor... has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields...

...the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded....we must...be alert to the...danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite." [ii]

It is uncanny that Eisenhower almost exactly predicted the current results we are experiencing from the past thirty years of multi-million dollar grants to study earth's climate. From the recent revelations of intellectual fraud and deceit, we have seen a perfect example of a "government contract" that has become a substitute for "intellectual curiosity." ...

Governments will gleefully fund anything that tends to grow their power and control. The investment and stockbroker community rub their hands together in anticipation of the trillions of dollars that will reach their fingers through "cap and trade" solutions. Energy companies will happily join the parade. An unwitting public, dependent on a grossly inadequate press, will swallow the garbage whole. The media loves nothing better than a chance to help "save the world." Somehow it gives their lives meaning, and certainly beats the difficult task of being real journalists. That is how a theory becomes a widely accepted "fact" even though true scientific investigation has been seriously lacking.

The results are now before us; "science" has fraudulently provided liberal politicians with the means for total public control - anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming.

Mog

12-07-2009, 09:05 AM

So Lily, how many Liberal publications have you read lately? I mean, these conservative publications like American Thinker and First Things just seem full of BS, you know. You might do well actually following a publication that doesn't think atheists are public enemy number one for a change.

Lily

12-07-2009, 10:48 AM

I mean, these conservative publications like American Thinker and First Things just seem full of BS, you know. :lol: :lol: :lol: Both of these are first-rate publications, in their different spheres. First Things is about as high brow as it gets. It probably wouldn't help you to look at a list of the authors it has published because you won't know who they are. However, it reads like a who's who of some of the most influential writers and thinkers in American life. You *really* need to read more widely.

You might do well actually following a publication that doesn't think atheists are public enemy number one for a change.

I don't read any publications that think atheists are public enemy number one. What a peculiar thing to say. Just what pubs do you have in mind? I may have to add them to my reading list.

Mog

12-07-2009, 11:18 AM

I don't consider publications that are biased as all hell "first rate" publications, Lily.

The American Thinker is a daily conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States) website dealing with American politics, foreign policy, national security, economics, diplomacy, culture, and military strategy.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thinker#cite_note-1) The articles published are often mentioned on The Rush Limbaugh Show (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], and the site has been mentioned in other media including Le Monde (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Monde),[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thinker#cite_note-2) The Guardian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian), [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thinker#cite_note-3), Inter Press Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Press_Service),[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thinker#cite_note-4) Campus Watch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_Watch),[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thinker#cite_note-5) and the New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thinker#cite_note-6) The publisher of American Thinker is Thomas Lifson, and the Political Director is Richard Baehr. Key staff also include Rick Moran and J. R. Dunn.
Writing in the New York Times, Felicity Barringer credited American Thinker with initiating a public outcry over a California plan to require programmable thermostats which could be controlled by officials in the event of power supply difficulties.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thinker#cite_note-7)
Writing in The Nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nation) about what he describes as "a smear campaign" against Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama), Ari Berman (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Berman&action=edit&redlink=1) says "At the fulcrum of this effort is a little-known blogger from Northbrook, Illinois, named Ed Lasky, whose articles on AmericanThinker.com have done more than anything to give the smear campaign an air of respectability."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thinker#cite_note-8)

And of course, your First Things features David Hart, who wants to attribute New Atheism with Fundamentalism. Of course, since nearly all atheism doesn't consist of vacuous arguments afloat on oceans of historical ignorance, so I guess he's just attacking strawmen.

Anyway, Lily, why don't you get a life? Nothing is gained from attacking honest scientists as "Ecowhackoists".

BTW, when are you going to get on that pressing animal-sacrifice issue?

nkb

12-07-2009, 11:24 AM

Anyway, Lily, why don't you get a life?:lol: It's sad, but this is her life. That's all she's got, because nobody will talk to a hateful old witch like her. We are validating her existence here.

Irreligious

12-07-2009, 11:40 AM

Sex is part of the human condition about which the Church is the expert.
:\

I know it the same way any other onlooker knows it. I read the conflicting reports, I look to see whose arguments seem strongest and who sounds sane. I look to see which side of the question Algore is on. That clinches it.
So you go with the view that supports your biases.

No they are not melting. The invaluable James Delingpole (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/9802307)reported back in May on the latest attempt by the alarmists to prove how quickly the ice caps were melting. I can almost find it in my heart to feel sorry for them:
I'd never heard of this Delingpole guy before, but a quick Google search shows he's been all over this Climategate story lately, and even appeared on Glen Beck's show to sound the alarm about AGW being a fake.

I also learned that he's Oxford educated and that he despises our president as much as you do. Otherwise, I didn't find out much else about him, such as his academic area of expertise.

However, I was intrigued by the first sentence of his bio on his blog, to which you linked:
James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.

Steel

12-07-2009, 02:06 PM

Since when was anyone right about everything? And since when was lily right about anything?

Philboid Studge

12-07-2009, 02:30 PM

Lily I was just listening in to EPA Admin Lisa Jackson's press conference. She announced that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare and with that, a new era has dawned.

With this so-called "endangerment (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html)" finding by the EPA, Obama no longer has to wait for messy legislation to begin enforcing restrictions of CO2 and other GHGs* on business. Now he can begin taking down the economy in earnest.

It's a two-fer: this proves Obama is not only beholden to communist special interest groups, but also that he is thuggishly bypassing democracy itself. It's very good day, comrade !

I can see how this all fits into your many interesting theories !

*Don't forget: methane emissions from cattle is a noxious GHG. "First they came for the cows, and I did nothing ..."

Lily

12-07-2009, 02:55 PM

Less than one year til 2010. And counting...

Copenhagen climate summit (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html)

Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. "We haven't got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand," she says. "We're having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden."

And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? "Five," says Ms Jorgensen. "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish."

The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers.

As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges.

According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough.

Ah, the stunning hypocrisy! Private jets, limos... need anyone say more? The True Believers won't blink at this, either.

Irreligious

12-07-2009, 03:22 PM

How else would the summit participants and observers from far-flung corners of the Earth get to Copenhagen?

Who anticipated that they would be swimming the Atlantic and walking to their destination?

Philboid Studge

12-07-2009, 03:34 PM

Hey guess what will be the first carbon-neutral state in the world ?

The freakin' Vatican (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2450664/copenhagen_climate_change_conference.html).

Figures the Catholic Church -- it never fails to put the commie in Communion.:|

Lily

12-07-2009, 04:00 PM

How else would the summit participants and observers from far-flung corners of the Earth get to Copenhagen?

Who anticipated that they would be swimming the Atlantic and walking to their destination?

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Commercial airlines? Trains? Ferries and ships? How about staying home and teleconferencing, instead of pumping all that carbon dioxide (and hot air) into the atmosphere? How about putting their big fat rumps to some small discomfort to show that they are going to subject themselves to the same measures the little people are going to be subjected to? Sort of like our Congress being forced into the same health plan they have in store for us, instead of keeping their Platinum plan.

Oh and the global scammers? Let them do without the free sex being offered, as well.

Irreligious

12-07-2009, 04:12 PM

Since when do heads of state and their entourages fly commercial? Would you put the pope and his coterie of bishops on a commercial airliner? You know that's not feasible.

And what do you know of the logistics involved in setting up a teleconference for 15,000 people in disparate parts of the world over an 11-day period? Is that really feasible?

Also, why are you concerned about hookers allegedly giving away sex in Copenhagen? What's that got to do with anything?

Smellyoldgit

12-07-2009, 04:19 PM

Copenhagen hookers ain't cheap - and the beer was extortionate at £8 /pint last July.

Philboid Studge

12-07-2009, 04:22 PM

According to the organisers, the eleven-day conference, including the participants' travel, will create a total of 41,000 tonnes of "carbon dioxide equivalent", equal to the amount produced over the same period by a city the size of Middlesbrough. [/INDENT]

Ah, the stunning hypocrisy! Private jets, limos... need anyone say more?

No, anyone need not say more.

Coincidentally, 41K tons CO2 is exactly what Obama discharges (http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/04/12/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-the-president-41000-tons/) in a year.

One could offset that amount of emissions for a paltry half million dollars (Carbon Neutral Company has done a 41K tonne offset for BSkyB, Ltd, the first media company to go carbon-neutral), and I betcha somebody in Copenhagen is going to arrange it.

In any case, we can be fairly certain DiCaprio and Prince C-word will offset their travel emissions (I believe they have both long been carbon neutral). That kind of throws ice water on the loins of whatever point you were making, Lily, but take heart -- Senator Inhofe will almost certainly emit enough noxious gas for everybody. :|

Lily

12-07-2009, 05:04 PM

Copenhagen hookers ain't cheap - and the beer was extortionate at £8 /pint last July.

They are free to climate scammers. Seems the hookers took offense at the mayor asking the delegates not to patronize the hookers. So, the only payment required is a conference ID.

Since when do heads of state and their entourages fly commercial? Would you put the pope and his coterie of bishops on a commercial airliner? You know that's not feasible. It not only is feasible. It is. The pope and his entourage travel Alitalia (Boeing 777) and/or the local airline. Those planes hold a fair number of people, thus reducing the number of planes that must be employed to get everyone to the destination of choice.

It can be done, if anyone wants too.

Eva

12-07-2009, 05:29 PM

How about putting their big fat rumps to some small discomfort to show that they are going to subject themselves to the same measures the little people are going to be subjected to?

how commie of you, moocow......

Choobus

12-07-2009, 07:51 PM

Ah, the stunning hypocrisy! Private jets, limos... need anyone say more? The True Believers won't blink at this, either.

Does the pope travel in private cars and jets? Why can't he fly? That would really boost his credibility, although seeing him bearing down on you would be a terrifying experience.

Eva

12-07-2009, 07:59 PM

that was sister bertrille....

Lily

12-07-2009, 10:18 PM

Does the pope travel in private cars and jets? Why can't he fly? That would really boost his credibility, although seeing him bearing down on you would be a terrifying experience.

See what I wrote in post 188. 2 posts above this one of yours.

Irreligious

12-08-2009, 12:27 AM

It not only is feasible. It is. The pope and his entourage travel Alitalia (Boeing 777) and/or the local airline. Those planes hold a fair number of people, thus reducing the number of planes that must be employed to get everyone to the destination of choice.

It can be done, if anyone wants too.
Well, the point is that pope, obviously, does not travel with the masses (not the I would expect him to). He travels across the ocean in a chartered commercial airliner, because the Vatican does not own a jet dedicated specifically for the pope and all those who accompany him on overseas trips. A Boeing 777 is huge, by the way, with a seating capacity of over 300 passengers.

I wonder if the White House will be employing other planes besides Air Force One to get the president and his entourage (as well as accompanying journalists) to Copenhagen?

VladTheImpaler

12-08-2009, 05:28 AM

Why the fuck are you people getting sucked into an argument over whether or not politicians are hypocrites? Of course they are hypocrites. What the fuck does that have to do with whether or not global warming is real?

Lily

12-08-2009, 08:04 AM

:wall:

Choobus

12-08-2009, 01:01 PM

See what I wrote in post 188. 2 posts above this one of yours.

that doesn't explain why the pope cannot fly. I think that would be awesome......

Irreligious

12-08-2009, 01:31 PM

Why the fuck are you people getting sucked into an argument over whether or not politicians are hypocrites?
Habit, mostly.

Of course they are hypocrites.
What about the people who vote for them?

What the fuck does that have to do with whether or not global warming is real?
Nothing.

Lily

12-08-2009, 01:36 PM

that doesn't explain why the pope cannot fly. I think that would be awesome......

He can fly. Do you suppose he is going to let heathens see such a wonderful thing?

Kate

12-08-2009, 02:06 PM

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/political-pictures-pope-benedict-xvi-jesus-poor.jpg

Steel

12-08-2009, 02:11 PM

Why don't you try and fly, Lily? And the pope flying would only be cool until the air force shot him down for looking like a missile.

Kate

12-08-2009, 02:12 PM

http://realmanagement.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/falling_cow_zone1.png?w=360&h=360

Philboid Studge

12-08-2009, 08:48 PM

This is the first real scientist (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120803402_pf.html) I've seen to take the CRU emails seriously. Some may think I owe Lily an apology, but I won't apologise for waiting for a true climate expert (like this writer) to make allegations:

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.

ubs

12-08-2009, 09:51 PM

Who called it? That's right. You may kiss my ring.

VladTheImpaler

12-09-2009, 03:41 AM

What about the people who vote for them?

Most people are hypocrites in some regards, which is especially true when it comes to politics. I think the word hypocrite covers most individuals when it comes to the environment and global warming. Everyone is pretty much in agreement that we shouldn’t pollute and that something needs to be done to prevent global warming (at least those who don’t think it’s a hoax) but nobody really wants to change anything about their own life or lifestyle. I guess that’s one reason why people would definitely fight hard against the idea of global warming.

I try very hard not to be a hypocrite everyday of my life. However I’m sure I am a hypocrite in certain situations and contexts, some I might not be aware of others I’m simply in denial.

Lily

12-11-2009, 06:11 PM

It turns out that there has been a lot of turmoil caused by the email that Choobus and others got from some members of the American Physical Society (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml)demanding that its endorsement of climate warning be reviewed in the light of climategate. There is going to be an investigation headed by someone who makes an awful lot of money because of his support for global warming.

As the science scandal known as ClimateGate grows, the largest U.S. physicists' association is finding itself roiled by internal dissent and allegations of conflict of interest over a forthcoming review of its position statement on man-made global warming.

The scientist who will head the American Physical Society's review of its 2007 statement calling for immediate reductions of carbon dioxide is Princeton's Robert Socolow, a prominent supporter of the link between CO2 and global warming who has warned of possible "catastrophic consequences" of climate change.

Socolow's research institute at Princeton has received well over $20 million in grants dealing with climate change and carbon reduction, plus an additional $2 million a year from BP and still more from the federal government. In an interview published by Princeton's public relations office, Socolow called CO2 a "climate problem" that governments need to address.

"It is Socolow whose entire research funding stream, well over a million dollars a year, depends on continued alarm over global warming," says William Happer, a fellow Princeton University professor and head of the Happer physics lab who has raised the question of a conflict of interest. The reason: the ostensibly neutral person charged with evaluating a statement endorsing man-made global warming is a leading proponent of precisely that theory whose funding is tied to that theory.
...
Hal Lewis, a professor emeritus of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara who has been an APS member for 65 years, says that he asked both the current and incoming APS presidents to require that Socolow recuse himself from a review of this subject, and both refused.

That means the review will be "chaired by a guy who is hip deep in conflicts of interest, running a million-dollar program that is utterly dependent on global warming funding," Lewis says. In addition, he points out that the group charged with taking a second look at the 2007 statement, the Panel on Public Affairs, is the same body that drafted it in the first place. That, "too has a smell of people investigating themselves," Lewis says.

The plot, as they say, sickens.

Philboid Studge

12-12-2009, 12:09 PM

I have no patience with ignorance teamed up with insolence. I do not respect people parrotting [sic] the nonsense they get at 2nd hand from equally ignorant scholarly wannabes.

:|

nkb

12-22-2009, 12:22 PM

A very informative analysis of Climategate (http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/), and the reaction of the scientific community.

Seems the shrill, hysterical cries of "greatest fraud in history" were a little exaggerated.

nkb

12-26-2009, 10:15 PM

An interesting read about the global warming skeptics, and their associations (http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/12/who-are-climate-change-skeptics.html).

In particular, this part jumped out at me, since Choobus posted the letter sent from the APS to some of its members.
This year, S. Fred Singer circulated a petition to attempt to get the American Physical Society to revise its statement on global warming from being supportive of AGW to be in opposition to it. He collected 206 signatures from APS members, about 0.45% of its 47,000 members, and the petition was rejected. John Mashey analyzed the social network of the first 121 signers (http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed) (PDF), and found that the initial signing clustered around the SEPP, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Cato Institute, along with other interesting demographic information.

Lily

12-26-2009, 10:50 PM

What do real scientists, including those who are formally affiliated with the U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), say about the issues? Well, Lee C. Gerhard, one of IPCC's expert reviewers, recently wrote the following, which was republished at ICECAP, a site for dissident scientists:

I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.

His article, which I have had to shorten, sums up the inconvenient truth about global warming.

It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen.

Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history. …

• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.

• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.

• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms. …

• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.
…
The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

…
For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, “How long is ever?” The answer is since 1979. And then ask, “Is it still warming?” The answer is unequivocally “No.” Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word “unprecedented” cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years. …

What is ICECAP?
ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon.

Lily

12-27-2009, 09:58 AM

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z191/Lily56AL/Goracle.jpg

Captain Relativity

12-27-2009, 10:27 AM

http://dankoifman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/simons_holy_cow.jpg

Irreligious

12-27-2009, 11:16 AM

Al Gore parodied as your supposed lord and savior, Jesus Christ? That's not blasphemy to you, Lily?

Victus

12-27-2009, 11:56 AM

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

Water vapour is an effective greenhouse gas, but several negative feedbacks prevent it from piling on to the extent described. As air temperature increases, the air can hold more water, which makes the air hotter. This positive feedback would indicate that the earth was set alight billions of years ago. Of course, it wasn't. There are negative feedbacks that knock the moisture out of the air. These feedbacks would look quite strange to an on-looker... water falling out of the sky in a really massive way.

Since you're citing the "real" scientists (tm), I'm sure you can find me the peer-reviewed paper that found that nice "95%" figure. Others (http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf) do not find such high numbers.

Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.

At later points you argue that we can't use proxy measures for temperature. Why can we use them to infer CO2 levels from geologic history. Interesting. It is correct that CO2 levels have fluctuated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png) throughout history; however it is currently doing so to a greater extent and at a faster rate than would be expected from this normal cycling.

There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.

The two are highly correlated (http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm) historically, our understanding of the laws of physics and other disciplines allows us to plausibly parse out the causal mechanisms.

The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

There's a whole mini-field (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm) showing why this is wrong. Long story short, the predictions of the argument do not match reality.

Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.

None of which logically excludes anthropogenic global warming.

The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

1934 was the warmest year in the continential US by < .01C, after adjusting for changes in methodology (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/). They are not statistically different, and this is blatant cherry picking of data.

Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

Average global temperatures have increased (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/comment-page-3/) by .11C since 1998.You're cherry picking, again.

Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

The MCO was not warmer (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariations-in-past-centuries-and-the-so-called-hockey-stick/#figures) than the the recent past, and was quite likely a local (rather than a global) trend. More cherry picking.

During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling.[b] All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

AGW doesn't predict year-over-year increases in teperature, but average global temperature increases. This prediction is confirmed by the data, and the rate of increases is greater than any period in history.

Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

I agree, but it doesn't change the fact that the temperature is still changing.

Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.

Storm intensity has increased, frequency has remained about the same.

Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, online publication; published online 31 July 2005 | doi: 10.1038/nature03906

The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.

The authors of the paper you're incorrectly citing disagree (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/putting-the-recent-antarctic-snowmelt-minimum-into-context/)

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

The computer programs are based on the data.

Did Lily get a lump of lead paint for xmas?

Captain Relativity

12-27-2009, 12:09 PM

Did Lily get a lump of lead paint for xmas?

I don't know about the paint part, but the lump of lead part sounds OK with me. (just kidding, I'm not into killing animals for sport)

Lily

01-24-2010, 12:17 PM

Well, I have been neglecting to keep you informed of the latest in the sorry saga of this huge scientific fraud. If you are dependent on the old, worn out, liberal media, you probably haven't heard a word about the latest: Glaciergate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html):

I can report a further dramatic twist to what has inevitably been dubbed "Glaciergate" – the international row surrounding the revelation that the latest report on global warming by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained a wildly alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Last week, the IPCC, led by its increasingly controversial chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, was forced to issue an unprecedented admission: the statement in its 2007 report that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 had no scientific basis, and its inclusion in the report reflected a "poor application" of IPCC procedures.

Does anyone doubt that there has been a great deal of American grant money financing this clown? Does anyone think he will give back the Nobel he and Algore won for their "work"?

As the sheer immensity of the criminal fraud that Climategate represents becomes ever clearer, it becomes even more obvious that the hackers who dragged this mess into the light are genuine heroes who deserve every honor a (should be) grateful world can bestow on them.

Smellyoldgit

01-24-2010, 12:27 PM

http://www.digitaljournal.com/img/9/7/8/8/9/6/i/3/9/9/o/cow_fart_J.JPG

Lily

01-24-2010, 12:38 PM

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z191/Lily56AL/sarcastic%20words/al-gore-in-vegas.jpg

Irreligious

01-24-2010, 12:42 PM

So, the allegation of man-made global warming hinged on the work of one scientist from India?

Wow.

Who knew?

Lily, apparently.

All hail the sacred cow. :bow:

Edited: And why was Al Gore's head Photoshopped onto Rush Limbaugh's body?

Victus

01-24-2010, 12:46 PM

Glaciergate

Year prediction has no scientific basis, but glacial decline is an empirical fact.

Ren, J., Jing, Z., Pu, J., & Qin, X. (2006). Glacier variations and climate change in the central Himalaya over the past few decades. Annals of Glaciology, 46, 218-222.

Thanks for playing.

Lily

01-24-2010, 01:56 PM

More on Glaciergate: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dYahkR2D)

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

As if it were not bad enough that the lie was published in order to manipulate governments into "doing something" that did not need doing, the report was based on fiction published in a magazine, not on peer-reviewed science and sloppy Junior High-school arithmetic!

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.

It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.

The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.
Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’
In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z191/Lily56AL/sarcastic%20words/carbon-credits.jpg

Irreligious

01-24-2010, 04:31 PM

:lol: :lol:

You're a sad, pathetic woman, Lily. You honestly think global warming is a religion amongst the disparate posters here, don't you? We make fun of your religion, so it's payback time and you're going to make sure you make fun of what you assume is our religion. Is that it?

That's seriously fucked up.

But let me clue you in: If man-made global warming turns out to be a fraud, my world will not come crashing down. Can you honestly say the same, if by some chance, you ever actually come to terms with the fact that there is no savior Jesus and that he's not ever going to sweep you in his arms and carry you off to eternal glory?

Is the fact that so many others here have already come to grips with that what's got you thirsting for some kind of revenge to make you feel better?

You're wasting your time, sweetie. Al Gore ain't my savior and neither is that Indian doctor. I don't have a savior and it's quite liberating.

Jealous?

dogpet

01-24-2010, 04:49 PM

Global warming denial is good for justifying clown pocket vaginas, hence the catholic interest. Go forth & multiply as you are commanded the lily.

ubs

01-25-2010, 02:21 PM

Al Gore is publishing a book of Global Warming poetry. (http://fridaylovecafe.com/#ag_risingoceans)

psychodiva

01-25-2010, 02:23 PM

oh good grief that is bad

ubs

01-25-2010, 08:41 PM

oh good grief that is bad

I figured I better post it before someone else does.

Lily

02-14-2010, 08:47 PM

Well, the unravelling has continued and now finally, the sinner-in-chief, has confessed:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fZ3oxz7W) whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. ...

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there thas been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Better late than never, I suppose.

Choobus

02-14-2010, 08:53 PM

Lily

02-14-2010, 10:10 PM

It almost looks like it never existed ...

Irreligious

02-14-2010, 10:13 PM

Eh. That shouldn't bother those who truly worship at the altar of the climate gods.

Lily

02-15-2010, 08:02 AM

Ah, I stumbled on an old thread (eco research causes global warming), started reading and was rewarded with this. I wonder if our true believer has had any second thoughts? I doubt it but these bits are still too, too delicious.
"Proven"? No, and it never will be. But the scientific consensus on whether humans are driving climate changes is overwhelming: We are.

This Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) article lays it out.

The scientific body that is usually cited is the IPCC, which gives critics and 'skeptics' fodder, since it's a UN-created organization and we all know that the UN is a communist-jew conspiracy. (Ignoring that the IPPC's periodic assessment reports usually include input from the very naysayers who criticize it.)

Anyway, besides the IPCC, consider: The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science "all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."
(Not to mention entities outside the US saying the same thing, such as the UK's MET Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/index.html)).

Note the Science article graciously acknowledges that "the consensus could be wrong." I suppose it's possible that evolution by natural selection could be wrong too.

I particularly like this:

…
Here's a question rarely asked: why would all those scientists -- from all the world from many backgrounds, political ideologies, etc -- conspire to concoct such a fantastic hoax?

I wonder if he has figured it out yet?

Philboid Studge

02-15-2010, 08:22 AM

Too funny (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/daily_mail_caught_in_another_l.php).

"Ever gullible Tim Blair, of course, swallowed the lie, hook, line and sinker."

Not only Blair, but Ann Althouse, Glenn Reynolds, and any other ideologically driven dope who relies on the Daily Mail (!) rather than credible news outlets or --God forbid -- real climate scientists for their information.

Lily

02-15-2010, 08:47 AM

The true believers still believe. They do, they do, they do!

From a Q & A with the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm)

F – Sceptics of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) suggest that the official surface record paints a different story from the actual station records. To restore trust, should we start again with new quality control on input data in total transparency?

... I accept that some have had their trust in science shaken and this needs the Met Office to release more of the data beyond the 80% released so far. Before all the furore broke we had begun discussions with the Met Office for an updated set of station temperatures. With any new station dataset we will make sure we will be able to release all the station temperature data and give source details for all the series.

Of course they will. Of course!

What does the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm)tell us in another story?

He [Prof. "I am a sloppy record keeper" Jones] said he stood by the view that recent climate warming was most likely predominantly man-made.

But he agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.

These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.

I have to laugh when the True Believer posts a story that tries to brush away this latest admission from Prof. Sloppy Records as being a false story from the Daily Mail. True Believers are not always careful with their facts, as we see yet again.

Philboid Studge

02-15-2010, 09:14 AM

Why isn't the raw data from all these weather stations being analyzed by other researchers? This makes no sense to me. The raw data is work product, from many different sources. For it not to be available is astounding. I don't particularly care if Phil can't find the regression code he used to make a certain graph, only the original data matters. Where the fuck is it?

The Met Office released this last week; the answer to your question is at the end, in chocolate brown. (Even/especially if your question is about anal):

Following the release of the data from more than 1,500 stations that make up the global land surface temperature record in December, the Met Office has now released the data from a further 1,500 stations.

These data are a subset of the full HadCRUT record of global temperatures, which is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned IPCC assessment reports and numerous scientific studies.

The data subset consists of a network of individual land stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organization for use in climate monitoring, and other data that the Met Office has gained permission from the owners to make available.

The data show monthly average temperature values for more than 3,000 land stations. The subset of stations is evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land.

This subset is not a new global temperature record and it does not replace the HadCRUT, NASA GISS and NCDC global temperature records, all of which have been fully peer-reviewed. This subset shows that global-average land temperatures have risen over the last 150 years and is very similar to the temperature rises shown by the complete data set.

This subset release continues the policy of putting as much of the station temperature record as possible into the public domain. As soon as we have all permissions in place we will release the remaining station records — around 5,000 in total — that make up the full land temperature record. We are dependent on international approvals to enable this final step and cannot guarantee that we will get permission from all data owners.

Lily

02-15-2010, 10:42 AM

I do believe! I do believe! I do, I do, I do!

Mog

02-15-2010, 10:46 AM

I do believe! I do believe! I do, I do, I do!

There's an app (http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptical-science-iphone-app.html) for you, Lily. Seriously, what is your big problem with environmentalism? (Or multiculturalism, for that matter?)

Whisper

02-15-2010, 03:15 PM

She's a berk. That pretty much explains everything.

Irreligious

02-15-2010, 03:35 PM

What's a "berk?"

Simple Mind

02-15-2010, 03:45 PM

the truth

in my opinion? no one has a clue as to what is really going on

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1770901/is_the_earth_entering_a_cooling_cycle/

Kate

02-15-2010, 05:25 PM

berk

noun
a stupid person who is easy to take advantage of

I'm not thrilled with their dangling participle, or whatever. I've written a pedantic email.

berk
An idiot. Similar in tone to 'prat', 'prick', 'twat' or similar. Originally from the rhyming slang 'Berkeley Hunt', for 'cunt', although not generally considered as offensive as that.

Lily

02-16-2010, 07:58 AM

More bad news for Algore and his followers (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/):

More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.

Les Hatton once fixed weather models at the Met Office. Having studied Maths at Cambridge, he completed his PhD as metereologist: his PhD was the study of tornadoes and waterspouts. He's a fellow of the Royal Meterological Society, currently teaches at the University of Kingston, and is well known in the software engineering community - his studies include critical systems analysis.

Hatton has released what he describes as an 'A-level' statistical analysis, which tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration. He's published all the raw data and invites criticism, but warns he is neither "a warmist nor a denialist", but a scientist.

Hatton performed a z-test statistical analysis of the period 1999-2009 against 1946-2009 to test the six conclusions. He also ran the data ending with what the IPCC had available in 2007. He found that North Atlantic hurricane activity increased significantly, but the increase was counterbalanced by diminished activity in the East Pacific, where hurricane-strength storms are 50 per cent more prevalent. The West Pacific showed no significant change. Overall, the declines balance the increases.

Since Algore has made a fortune selling carbon credits, I am going to go out on a limb and predict that he will be one of the last, if not the last, to admit that he has helped perpetrate a fraud.