Fakegate: Can’t Hide This Decline
The warmists were atwitter last week because they imagined they had their own equivalent of Climaquiddick — someone fraudulently managed to get confidential documents from the Heartland Institute by portraying himself as a board member. Heartland has been at the forefront of supporting skepticism of hyperbolic climate claims, and has accordingly been put in the crosshairs by defenders of Big Science for years.
Names of confidential donors were publicly released, as were board-meeting notes and supposed strategy documents that critics claim indicated Heartland’s intent to subvert the teaching of science in the classroom. Amusingly, even the Koch brothers, the Left’s latest Goldsteins, were dragged into it:
The documents, leaked by an anonymous donor and released on DeSmogBlog, include the organization’s 2012 fundraising plan. It lists Heartland Institute donors, from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation (established by Koch Industries billionaire Charles G. Koch), to Philip Morris parent company Altria, to software giant Microsoft and pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly.
Advertisement
Michael Mann of Penn State, creator of the Hockey Stick, also weighed in:
These documents are breathtaking, and they reveal what many of us have long suspected: That there is a campaign afoot by groups directly funded by the fossil fuel industry and right-wing foundations such as Koch Industries to mislead the public about climate change.
In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times went full Godwin on the “deniers”:
Heartland officials say one of the documents was a fake, but the curriculum plans were reportedly discussed in more than one. According to the New York Times, the curriculum would claim, among other things, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”
That is a lie so big that, to quote from Mein Kampf, it would be hard for most people to believe that anyone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
What fiends, these deniers! Will they deny the Holocaust next?
Unfortunately for the narrative, Koch Industries claims that they have donated a grand total of $25,000 to Heartland over the past year, and none of it was directed toward climate-change projects, but instead to fund health care research. And while Heartland confirmed that several of the documents are genuine (and is pursuing a legal remedy), one of the documents — the one upon which the most hysterical claims have been based — was indeed very clearly faked, and it doesn’t reflect well on those who have seized on it:
There’s a reason that the majority of the quotes in the early blogging and reporting on this story seem to have been taken from the memo, including the initial post on DeSmogBlog. For example, someone named Richard Littlemore wrote “It is clear from the documents that Heartland advocates against responsible climate mitigation and then uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and ‘other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.’ Heartland particularly celebrates the funding that it receives from the fossil fuel fortune being the Charles G. Koch Foundation.” That is all taken from the memo, not the supporting documents. The fundraising document actually contains no record that I can see of contributions from oil companies.
…
It will be hard to identify the author. I suspect that it will be easier to do if the climate-bloggers — who may well know this person as a commenter or correspondent — get involved in trying to find out who muddied the story by perpetrating a fraud on their sites.
Well, they did get involved, but not in the way hoped. On Friday in the American Spectator, Heartland’s Ross Kaminsky speculated that the culprit was none other than Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, one of the more rabid defenders of the climate faith. As Anthony Watts notes:
While Dr. Gleick is presented as an expert in climate science, he’s mostly about water and water systems. Climate seems to be just an angry diversion for him. But don’t take my word for it, have a look at how he treats others on the topic when he thinks he’s among friends.
Why was he a suspect? Well, for one thing, he had recently been put in charge of a project by the National Center for Science Education to specifically combat what Heartland had been purported to be doing, so he certainly had motive. But there was also evidence:
The data shows that the file was created on a computer set to the Pacific time zone (signified by the -08:00 in the timestamps), where Gleick is based but where Heartland does not have an office. The stolen documents show their creation in the Central time zone.
…
Interestingly, Gleick, who would normally be preening and prancing in glee at this sort of attention to the Heartland Institute has so far been utterly silent at his Forbes blog and on his Twitter feed.
If you call central casting for a wimpy liberal dude without any muscles they send Peter Gleik over to your sound stage.
Able to guzzle more energy than dozens of normal men! Producing more hot air than a locomotive! Able to pile up carbon credits higher than a tall building in a single bound!!!
Look UP in the sky! It’s ChickenLittle! It’s FlyingSnakeOilSalesman! It’s the Sultan of Hanging Chads! It’s the Ayatollah of Heat! No, it’s CarbonMan in a private jet painted green! And now following in the tradition of other great men such as Jimmy Carter and Yasir Arafat, he is the proud recipient of a Nobel Prize!!!
CarbonMan, strange visitor from an alternate reality who came to Earth with claims and scary predictions far beyond those of sane men, disguised as Fat Albert, and now joined by other members of the Royal GreenLeague such as BioFuelHummerMan and EcoCleaningWoman, they all fight a never ending battle for Science-fiction, hypocrisy, money grubbing and the Hollywood way!
I would like to see a carefully reasoned response – by those who are so utterly convinced that their views on the global warming are correct – by addressing the two paragraphs quoted below:
I don’t “deny” AGW, because I don’t have sufficient knowledge of how climate works, or its history, to confidently have a strong opinion about it. What I do deny is that the proponents of the theory do have such knowledge or competence, and my doubts were buttressed by the release not just of the emails that revealed their duplicitous and unscientific behavior, but of the shoddy and unreplicable climate data sets and models themselves.
I deny that we understand the complex and chaotic interactions of the atmosphere, oceans and solar and other inputs sufficiently to model them with any confidence into the future
Puzzled ousider – you ask that question here and expect to get a rational response – now that’s funny. If you are serious and want to discuss this with scientists then go to this site and learn
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Flaming Liberal… um, YOUR side faked the documents to push an idea that they can’t find evidence for. Don’t accuse US of being irrational. If YOUR side had such solid evidence, they wouldn’t need to be faking documents now, would they? And this is YET AGAIN that they’ve been caught doing it.
What document did they fake? The one Heartland said was fake? And they have such high standing that you believe them?
What document did they fake? The one Heartland said was fake?
Yes.
And they have such high standing that you believe them?
One doesn’t have to believe them to know that it’s fake. Anyone with half a brain who has analyzed it has found it to be obviously fake. Follow the links in the article if you want to get up to speed.
So, Flame, you are publicly stating that document is NOT a fake? Well, are you?
One can be sure that you’re a fake. I doubt you have a tenth the knowledge the author has in model design, let alone know how University based scientists operate. Those of us with decades of experience have good reason to be skeptical. The last line of this article says it all.
Rand – I can’t tell if the document is faked or not. Glad you are sure about it. What isn’t fake is the deceit that Heartland Institute practices especially Fred Singer.
But you say you get insulted by being called a denier. So I ask – do you deny that the planet is getting warmer? Never mind the cause just is it getting hotter? If so then you are not a denier but probably in the same place as me although I think Co2 does have some causation. I just can’t fathom how anyone can say it’s not as that’s just plain crazy talk.
The data shows that the file was created on a computer set to the Pacific time zone (signified by the -08:00 in the timestamps), where Gleick is based but where Heartland does not have an office. The stolen documents show their creation in the Central time zone.
What say you to this, Flaming Liberal?
I neither believe or deny that the earth is warming, though I wouldn’t be surprised if it were, considering that we’re still coming out of the Little Ice Age of a few hundred years ago. If you want to know what I believe and what I deny, go reread the last four paragraphs of the piece.
It’s really not a question of if, it’s how much. Occams Razor should come into play here but it doesn’t seem too with the warmists who insist on a runaway process theory without fully understanding the elements of the process(es)(definitively). A models predictive ability depends on how well you understand a process. To model the planet, you would need to build a model that knits together very granular sections of the globe and than fully understand the boundary conditions between not to mention the underlying processes of several fundamental cycles within. Science is an iterative process. sometimes you have to start over.
“So I ask – do you deny that the planet is getting warmer?”
Compared to what? What span of time?
The world’s been warmer within recorded history, and the climate was quite nice for humanity. It’s been colder, too, and things weren’t as nice.
Heck, I remember when Hansen and friends were predicting a new Ice Age, and getting lots of attention for it because we had a couple of unusually cold winters.
If is fake, would that bother you at all?
Or is your attitude that anyone who disagrees with liberalism should be defeated by any and all means possible, even on a supposedly “scientific” issue?
I’m sure you only wish you had the audacity to pull off a political dirty trick like that yourself.
I looked at your link
Consensus is an opinion, not a proven fact
Science is about facts; not opinions
Global Climate Change is an “opinion” of some scientists
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/p/about-us.html
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
-Michael Crichton
Thanks for the evening you gave me last night, flaming pile of shit.
The best way to dispel the deniers’ reluctance to ‘believe’ is to release the data and the computer models that grind out the data that the IPCC and CRU et al use to arrive at their assumptions. Until that happens no amount of argument is likely to sway those of us who are opposed to the actions climate change advocates claim are necessary to ‘save the earth’. And it would be a fool’s errand for the USA to do so unilaterally. We’d be taking a step back towards the stone age as you and I know full well.
The data and computer modeling has been bought and paid for with taxpayer money. Lets see what the expenditure has bought us.
Until then I’m skeptical of any of the claims made by any of the AGW advocates.
And FWIW a warming climate is much better for mankind than a cooling climate – something that might well be happening now. And those who are looking for warming could notify us of that fact – if only they could read a thermometer without fudging the numbers.
I was watching a History Channel show the other week called ‘Little Ice Age, Big Chill’. Seems the period before that ‘little ice age’ was preceded by a warming period where mankind did quite well – indeed – they were thriving. No mention of evil storms that caused mayhem and death. Gee – I wonder why the AGW crowd predicts storms and mayhem? I guess dire predilections (isn’t that really what it is?) sell better than benign predictions.
Feh! That site is just hosting another warm/warmer/warmest propaganda machine. It is apparent from the words used. Words like mishmash, myths, misrepresentation and doom are political and/or rhetorical, not scientific.
flaming liberal,
Oh, please. The blog “skeptical science” is a Soros-funded propaganda blog run by an Australian cartoonist. It looks professional but its traffic numbers are very low compared with the internet’s “Best Science” site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com
Anthony Watts’ site has gone from zero to over one hundred million unique hits in only 5 years, with well over three-quarters of a million reader comments. It has won the Weblog Awards for Best Science site twice running.
Why is Anthony Watts’ site so popular among scientists and engineers? Because unlike climate alarmist blogs like skepticalscience, which censors out scientifically skeptical comments, and often changes the wording of skeptical comments without acknowledging it, Watts’ site encourages and posts all scientific points of view. It does not censor comments [except for the same reason PJ deletes comments, for violating site policy]. With all views posted, readers can make up their own minds, without being spoon fed one-sided climate alarmist propaganda.
WattsUpWithThat.com currently has a great series of articles on the Gleick scandal. Well worth checking out, to see how the eco-Left has politicized science.
Oh, yes, Flaming Liberal. I especially love skeptical science and their list of 173 Climate Change myths. News flash for you. That is a liberal website with a liberal green agenda. Those 173 myths of theirs are NOT myths whatsoever. They are scientifically proven and scientifically verifiable FACTS. Not to mention all the contradictions in that list of myths. In one instance, they say this. “For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.” In the next, they say this. “A local cold day has nothing to do with the long-term trend of increasing global temperatures.” These contradict each either. A local cold day has nothing to do with climate change but one hot year does? This is idiotic. Than there are their outright lies. I’ll give you a few here. They say this. “Satellites measure Antarctica losing land ice at an accelerating rate.” This is an straight up lie. Satellite data actually shows Antarctica has actually been GAINING ice the last several decades. It’s ice level is GROWING, NOT shrinking. They follow that up with just another outright lie when they say this. “The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.” Also, wrong. In actual FACT, the vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted COOLING, NOT warming. Oh, and there’s also this dandy little lie of theirs. “Mars is not warming globally.” According to NASA, which has actually been keeping track of Mars’s temperature, Mars HAS been warming globally. In fact, Mars has been warming globally at a similar rate to and in a similar fashion as the Earth. This is just according to NASA, however. You don’t have to believe the ones who have actually been tracking the temperature on Mars for a couple decades now. You can continue to believe the lies on skepticalscience.com all you wish. They go on and on and on in their 173 Climate Change myths with one lie after another after another. It’s ridiculous. They outright LIE about climate change and what the science actually says on the matter and you, the blind faithful follower that you are, actually believe them. People with your COMPLETE and UTTER idiocy make me sick.
Everybody, be skeptical of skepticalscience.com. I have found too many outright lies, half truths, and contradictions from that site that it’s flat out ridiculous. NOTHING from there can actually be trusted. Just take a good sane look at their list of 173 so called myths on Climate Change if you don’t believe me. They follow one half truth with a straight up lie. They then follow that up with one contradictory statement after another. skepticalscience.com is a flat out unscientific website that has taken a dump on REAL science. ANYONE who uses it to support Climate Change is a fool.
I notice Flamingliberal that you do not attampt an actual answer to the question posed, instead handing that responsibility off to some believer’s website. One must wonder whether or not you actually know anything about the subject.
While there may be some that honestly believe in AGW, most participating in this farce have much more insidious goals.
As with the previous “Immenent Ice Age” all the cures involve crippling industry with onerous regulations, massive transfers of wealth to our new care takers, and complete loss of sovreignty of this country.
Their goal is to empower and enrich themselves and cloak themselves in the mantle of savoir while they continue to indulge in the behaviors forbidden to the masses. This is the true face of evironmentalism. Naked absolute power.
AGW is a hoax. The climate changes in cycles. Depending on where you live your home may well have been buried under an ice sheet in the not too distant past and it may have been a tropical paradise at another time. Human activities likely do have some impact at the margins but they cannot be the main driver else the previous cycles of warming/cooling would not have occurred.
Here’s the main question that you need to focus on… Why do we generate computer models? If your answer is anything other than “to get management approval” then you know nothing about computer models. A computer model can only generate the answer that you program it to give. Computers are not independent thinking machines, they’re just big calculators that crunch the numbers you input using the formulas that you also input. The other thing you should know is that a computer model that can’t do a proper “history match” isn’t even a useful management approval tool unless it’s all a scam, and the climate models do not match recorded history. Sure, they have “reasons” why they models don’t match the historical record but if your formulas can’t match “what was” then how useful is the prediction of “what will be”?
So if, as I say, computer models are only useful for gaining management approval and the climate models aren’t accurate then why the hubbub? It’s all a con to shift more power to government. Government funded the “research”, the “research” reliably reported that more government control was needed (along with another two boatloads of cash for “research”), and the media reliably jumped on-board because it’s a great long-term disaster story that will drive ratings and generate thousands of print articles. It’s a con, plain and simple. Now don’t misunderstand, it’s not a scientific fraud because no science, other than psychology, was involved.
Ask yourself – or anyone – these questions:
1. What caused the ice ages?
2. What caused the ice ages to end?
3. How come every warm period in the climatic history of the earth ended in an ice age?
4. How is that past periods of global warming – oft times MUCH warmer than today – did not cause the earth’s atmosphere to burn off?
5. Now that it has been conclusively demonstrated that CO2 levels rise as a RESULT of increases in climate temperatures, how is it that CO2 can be a cause of climate change?
6.If science cannot explain the historical climate, how can they presume to predict the climate 20, 50, 100 years hence?
7. Why is it that AGW proponents are almost all socialists, communists or liberal progressives?
Nicely and succinctly put…
and deadly accurate.
They don’t even know what they don’t know.
Grifters and conmen. That’s all it is.
As it ever was, it ever shall be.
The Warmists have to resort to more fraud on top of the fraud already committed because they know they’re losing. This is what desperate people do when they know the jig is about up.
And they would have gotten away with it to if it hadn’t been for those pesky kids…
“And they would have gotten away with it to if it hadn’t been for those pesky kids”…
And I always though Shaggy was a left winger!
Appologies to all for judging that book by its cover!
The science of climate change, over the last ten years, has been repeatedly marked by people who debate,” I admit I am a thief and a scoundrel, but I do not lie.” I hope this does not spread to other fields of science. It would be sad if we learn that the Higgs boson, the God particle, was actually made in China.
Unfortunately Mr. Hails, the fraud perpetrated by Hansen, Mann, Gleick and all the other AGW zealots has done tremendous harm to the credibility of all scientists, especially those whose work happens to be funded by our tax dollars. Their dishonest approach to research and their abandonment of the scientific method expose them for the charlatans that they are.
I love Gleicks childish response to his uncovered perfidy. “The denier devils made me do it” line of excuse is so typical of Libs/Progressives in general, isn’t it? He accuses the anti-alarmists of staging well funded “attacks” on science and scientists. So, at least in the Lib/Progressive universe, any demands for the data (paid for by our tax dollars) to be released is an “attack” on both the science and scientists! Anyone trying to disprove their false assertions – which is what science used to be about before the Libscum polluted it with the science of manipulation and political correctness – is an act of irrational Luddite hate.
Got it.
Michael Mann of Penn State, creator of the Hockey Stick, also weighed in…”These documents are breathtaking, and they reveal what many of us have long suspected…”…one of the documents — the one upon which the most hysterical claims have been based — was indeed very clearly faked<
Mikey found the (fake) document breathtaking?
Mikey’s “hide the decline” was pretty breathtaking
This is really about all that needs to be said:
“I deny that we understand the complex and chaotic interactions of the atmosphere, oceans and solar and other inputs sufficiently to model them with any confidence into the future, and I deny that it is unreasonable and unscientific to think that those who do suffer from hubris.”
Well stated. I would go even further: it is unlikely that we will EVER be able to model the earth’s climate. There are too many non-linear variables. I am beginning to suspect that it could be mathematically demonstrated that modeling the climate is impossible. I’m not a good enough mathematician to do it, but I’d bet that others are.
The point is they don’t even try. They’d need to re-write sw. Not just because of the ‘new’ variables, but the performance would be horrendous. The models are based on statistics, with graphic models to pretty up the projections. a process model would require massive compute power with software designed to take advantage of it. a definite performance consulting opportunity.
Wow all the gnashing of teeth over Heartland being exposed and trying to say – oh this is a fake document – as if they have proven that it’s fake yet. Cry me a river why don’t ya.
Heartland took documents stolen from University of East Anglia and distorted them and said the science was wrong. Yet 6 investigations (maybe more) said the science was not changed and those emails were taken out of context. Where was the outrage there? Hell on PJM they still mention Climategate as if they had a clue what they are talking about.
Heartland is a fraud as well as that really nice scientist that you conservatives love so much – Fred Singer. Do you know anything about Fred Singer? – The Oregon Petition or the Oregon Institute.
The truth will out and hopefully in a few years you guys will be posting your apologies as time is just not on your side. But then ignorance is bliss now isn’t it
I see above Flaming that you’re recommending someone do homework.
When it’s you, sweet pea, that needs to do some homework
But it will take a whole half hour of your life, so I won’t hold my breath.
Thanks I’ll watch it tonight
Flaming Liberal, as a Liberal Action Committee dedicated to advancing liberal dogma and ideology, we must ask you to cease and desist in your efforts to represent liberal viewpoints. You are an ignorant buffoon and are causing those on the left inordinate embarrassment and chagrin with your foolish assertions and ignorant discourse. Again we demand that you cease and desist causing us to look like moronic tools.
Nothing was stolen from UEA. It was leaked, likely by an insider. As icing on the cake, the material leaked was material that had been requested under the British equivalent of the Freedom of Information Act.
You DO understand the difference between government agencies and private organizations, don’t you?
Well then the first document was leaked to Peter Gleik and then he deceived Heartland to sent him the others. Ho Hum
It still doesn’t absolve Heartland and many here from their continued distortion of what those emails represented. Do you understand?
Of course you cannot cite a single example of any misrepresentation, but what should we expect from someone who is DEFENDING FRAUD AND FORGERY….
I actually read the UEA emails. Did you? All five thousand plus? They have not been taken out of context. You can go on-line and read them yourself, in chronological order, in context. They reveal exactly what the so called climate scientists were up to: lying, cheating, falsifying, altering the temperature records, getting people fired, bullying editors, pal-reviewing each other’s articles, and living in baronial splendor. Oh, and TAKING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM BIG OIL, which heavily funded their research (the oil companies stand to make more from carbon trading than from selling oil).
The Heartland documents don’t reveal anything insidious or even slightly remarkable. The only one that has the Warmists gushing about imaginary conspiracies is the fake one, which may have been forged by Gleick himself, since it uses his idioms, his bad punctuation, refers to him by name as an important climate scientist (he isn’t), and is time-stamped for the very night and place he “released” the other documents. The fact that Bill Clinton’s and ENRON’s lawyer is now representing him free of charge should give every “progressive” pause. Who really is behind the trillion dollar global warming bubble, and why?
The UEA Climategate e-mails were public property, paid for by tax money. The Heartland documents were private property, paid for by donors. But, except for the names and addresses of contributors, everything in the Heartland documents was already available to the public on-line at Heartland’s Web site. The fake document, the one that is going to cost many Warmists lots of money for publishing, and many tabloids lots of money for claiming it revealed secrets, when they knew it was fake, is the only one remotely scandalous, but not for the reasons Gleick intended.
then he deceived Heartland to sent him the others.
And in doing so destroyed his career, dirtied the reputation of people who are seriously thinking about climate, and apparently committed both federal and state crimes as well as exposing himself to financian ruin.
Ho hum.
You need to brush up on wire fraud and “leak”. You clearly don’t understand what those terms mean.
A leak is perpetrated by someone on the inside. That is most likely what happened at UEA. Several independent investigations (and a whole lot of common sense) have come to that conclusion. It pretty clearly was executed by someone who knew exactly where the emails were, and what they meant.
Gleick, however, did not “leak” the Heartland data. He is not an insider. He used a phishing scam to trick someone into emailing several documents to a fake email account. This is, by most definitions, wire fraud. He impersonated someone associated with Heartland, to acquire documents to which he had no right.
Another huge distinction between ClimateGate and FakeGate is that the emails leaked as a part of CG I & II are a part of the public domain (or are supposed to be). Tax payers’ dollars are paying the salaries of the scientists doing the work, paying for the computer equipment on which the work is being performed, and paying for all the various junkets (and real research endeavors) that said scientists have gone on. Those are, for all intents and purposes, yours, mine, and everyones’ property. We own all of that data. Including said correspondence.
However, Jones and company have done their very best to deny access to the emails, the data, and the methodologies being used to “prove” AGW. Several FOIA requests have been made for access to said information. Those requests have been rejected. Unjustifiably, and frankly, illegally. The only thing that was leaked was data that we own in the first place.
That is not what happened with the Heartland Institute. They are a private institution. They are funded privately. They answer to no one but their board of directors (and, by proxy, their sources of funding). What Gleick did was steal information from HI. Using fraudulent means of doing so. That is a crime, given that we still have property rights in this country.
As far as the fake document goes–there are several clues as to why it is safe to assume it is fake:
1) It is in a different format from all of the other documents.
2) While it reiterates several factual items from the other documents (in fact, cutting and pasting whole cites), it gets several things wrong. Things that someone on the inside, were they to have actually produced this document, would not have gotten wrong. Like claiming that Koch Industries contributed $200k to anti-AGW causes in HI. If you look at the accounting docs, they contributed $20 in 2011, and that was to medical issues.
3) There are several inflammatory, statements in the fake document that are completely at odds with how HI runs their business.
4) The language style is consistent with how Gleick writes on his blog and elsewhere. It was Mosher who actually called Gleick out as the possible perpetrator before Gleick went public with his “confession”. Mosher did this based on an analysis of the questionable document.
5) The fake document reads, as others have pointed out, like an AGW proponent’s wet dream of how they would imagine a “denier” would think and write. Megan McCardle at The Atlantic puts it rather humorously: “Basically, it reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”
I could go on. But I’m sure you remain, in your fevered dreams, completely convinced that you are merely speaking Truth to Power. Or some such nonsense. And that I’m some money-grubbing denialist on the payroll of some huge oil baron. Wish that I were. I could use the cash….
So. Fail.
You can argue your own opinions. But you can’t argue your own facts.
Your comment is literally incomprehensible. Gleick forged a memorandum after the documents he was able to elicit via felony mail fraud proved to have no significant information (other than to demonstrate that the pro-AGW religionists are winning the funding wars by a 100 to 1 margin). (1) He elicited documents by felony fraud (and we’re supposed to believe ANYTHING he says?). (2) The only “interesting” information involved was false information that was planted by Glieck himself in a memorandum he FORGED. (3) You think this somehow helps your religion look good because why again???
It must be a real bitch to be shot down in flames so often eh?
Very apt name…
Oh please! Heartland’s attempts to get some opposing views points on climate change added to our public schools curriculum is a drop in the bucket compared to the tsunami of pro-catastrophic climate change pablum that’s being forced down our children’s throats. Hell, I remember this Malthusian, “We’re all gonna die!” crap going back all the way to my elementary school days in the early ’80s. Of course back then it was the “ICE AGE OF DOOM” that was going to kill us all. It’s a SCIENCE CLASS that’s supposed to teach kids about this thing called the ‘Scientific Method’. Not a course in indoctrination to the Holy Church of Catastrophic Climate Change.
You are also forgetting the Great Food Riots of 2000, when we all ran out of food and society collapsed and we had to eat Soylent Green and you know what THAT is made out of and…..oh, waitaminute…..didn’t happen. Sorry, carry on.
Flaming Lib
Just release the datasets, thats all….
Just show us HOW those hockey sticks and other “trends” were created, thats all.
Show me ALL the tree ring data you have, and explain WHY you discarded the ones that didnt agree with your “beliefs”…thats all
There would be no scientific controversy, if these “weathermen” would act like real scientists, in stead of …well…weathermen….
Of the Bill Ayres variety, that is.
The LA Times put itself on morally-shaky ground with their citation of the “big lie.” The passage they quote from Mein Kampf is not Hitler *advocating* the technique; it is Hitler accusing the Jews of doing it. So…basically, the LA Times has (unwittingly and ignorantly) cited Hitler as a sympathetic source in complaining about others supposedly pulling off the “big lie.”
Starting earlier in the passage:
“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie
Gee, Flaming Liberal, you look like a pile of smouldering BS to me.
The truth is out. The computer models were inaccurate, incomplete, and the data had to be heavily massaged to get the desired answers. Real science posts all data, to let others reproduce the results. Snake oil hides the cards, just like you and your CRU buddies.
The most bizarre aspect of this whole “debate” is that “deniers” are terrified that they may be wrong and catastrophic man-made global warming is happening. The believers, on the other hand are terrified that they might be wrong and devastating man-made global warming is NOT happen.
Huh? I don’t know any “deniers” who are terrified that they might be wrong about global warming actually happening. Most “deniers” I know think that if global warming is actually happening, it’s extremely unlikely to be happening in any amount that is worth worrying about.
Indeed. That’s because they are rational people. The point of the post was that the advocates of the cult of global warming are so irrational and petulant that they would rather be enslaved or dead than be wrong.
The term “deniers” was made up to cast derision upon the opponents of the AGW theory. This was done for two reasons 1) MONEY – The proponents of this absurd theory have been cashing checks from governments all over the world to do AGW research for 20 years now. We can’t have a bunch of naysayers messing up the gravy train before we can put our carbon footprints into our gated retirement villas. 2) SLANDER – The proponents of this absurd theory have decided that the onus should be on opponents to prove their own theory incorrect. The slur is to try discrediting opposition to absurdity with an inference that opponents would be akin to holocaust deniers and flat earth believers.
Always follow where the money goes to find out about the veracity of any proposal and always suspect the car salesman who tells you that a good reason to buy this car is that other people have bought it too.
Best solution to junk science – Get the government to quit funding scientific research of any kind. Good research will always find enough financial support.
Actually I’d love to be wrong but the data doesn’t support it. What I’d like to get to without all this foolishness is OK the earth is warming what do we do if anything about it. We can’t even get to that stage. It may be that we can do nothing about it or the costs are truly staggering and the cost benefit borders on insanity to try to change it. Or maybe we can do some things that might lesson the pace that may be acceptable. But before we even get there we must be able to agree that the earth whatever the cause is warming.
We’re coming up on 15 years (roughly since 1998) with no discernible warming.
Quiescent sun/low sunspot activity, driving the Warmists bonkers.
Himalayan glaciers aren’t even melting.
Damn.
See it’s when you deniers make such ignorant statements like you just posted about and get no rebuttal from even your side that makes everyone just shake their head and say = how freaking stupid can they be?
From Skeptical Science:
To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality – the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth’s climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
Oh and 2005 and 2010 are the hottest years since we have been keeping records.
Skeptical Science is a known propaganda site which routinely censors responses which it finds inconvenient to the narrative, and has been known to alter responders’ posts in content and order so as to frame the argument in its favor.
This is why, if you go to Watts Up With That”, you will find it listed on the blogroll as follows:
Your source is tainted.
“…ignorant statements…”
“Oh and 2005 and 2010 are the hottest years since we have been keeping records.”
Were those the years that Britney appeared in public in a short skirt with no underwear? Or maybe that was Hillary. You’re right there, we don’t need that kinds of warming.
“Oh”! “Oh”! “Oh”! Ooooohhhhhh!!!!!
As if a couple of billion years previous to “since we have been keeping records” has no place. Why? Because.
Geology indicating different climates in the absence of “personkind” have no place. Why? Because.
Golly gee gosh Flaming Bootlicker, you’re a veritable FrontThing for Skeptical Science. Looks like you have some personal tongue in that action. But then again, with the absence of critical thinking, the thinking must be done for you. Find what you like, and you really, really have to like it (or lick it), close your eyes and latch onto it, let your boot desire click 3 times, and there’s no place like… the top side of The Boot.
Funny isn’t it, that there is no dispute that the Earth is cooling and warming, even in “Oh” “2005 and 2010″. Gee whiz, just yesterday it snowed, and today the Sun came out and it melted. No, not the Sun, the snow. Wow! Pick a timeline, pick an outcome, and everyone can be smart like Flaming Bootlicker.
And don’t forget the “Oh” part. That is most important and really really is proof if infallible “logic”.
Look! Scattered teeth!
Those boots are made for lickin’
And that’s just what you do,
One of these days those boots
Are gonna walk all over you.
Sorry pal. NASA has confirmed ZERO GLOBAL WARMING for past ten plus years. Time for a new religion….I hear Episcopalian is hot….
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Read some of that. Most surface reporting stations in the USA have been in error – and mostly on the + side of the error.
Look over here and maybe you will realize you are full of cow dung.
Here is what NASA will tell you and it’s not that it’s not warming. From NASA own lips:
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Yea, because when James Hanson had his scary chart and was talking to Congress in 1990 saying that the temperatures were going to rise 8 degrees C and the oceans would rise 20 feet within 20 years — well that’s climate you see. But when the temperatures don’t rise and the oceans actually fall in the past 15, well THAT’S THE WEATHER YOU IGNORANT DOLT! I think I’m beginning to see the logi…..wait, wait, nope I lost it.
Flaming- I visited the Petrified Forest in Arizona. 100,000′s year ago it was a tropical jungle. It turned into a desert long before man inhabited the planet. The entire Northeast US, all the way down to Kentucky, was covered by a galcier, which began receding 1000′s of year before man produced CO2 emmisions. Until you can explain how these could have occured without human combustion influences, I will simpy ignore your ignorance.
One other note- I love the way the left always points to those evil industrialists as funding the deniers, yet why do we ignore the fact the those wonderful Academics get funded by encouraging fear of pending disasters.
“To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content”.
And to understand if its an any way “different”, or “worse” than historical norms, you’d need THE SAME volume of data from those historic periods…
And you dont….nobody has. There were no calibrated instruments measuring deep sea, surface water, sea level, and atmosphere even 100 years ago, never mind 1000. Its all speculation. All we know FOR SURE is, it went from really cold to really warm, back and forth a few times long before the E.C.M. event (thats Evil Capitalist Man?) so all your alarming theoretical BS proves nothing.
Every time I shit before leaving for work, the sun comes up.
Go figure.
The FACT that most of your alarming AGW BS was admitted to BEING intentionally “alarmist” ON PURPOSE to promote the theory tells me youre afraid of the truth.
Which is, that nobody really has a clue, nevermind “proof”
Sunspots!!?? Only astronomy professors believe that sunspots cause global warming, like mine in 1988. He said that there would be about 10 or 15 more years of warming and then it would decrease again, like it always does every 14,000 years (I only got a C in the class so it might have been 12,000 or maybe 22,000). What I noticed is that the global temperature chart he showed had cycles. I saw that chart again just a few years ago, except that it was on an AGW website. It only had the last 11,000 years or so, starting right after the last global warming period so it looked like Earth temperatures are unusually high right now compared to the past. So, I guess the AGW crowd are all Young Earth Creationists?
Ah yes, Flaming Bootlicker has it’s wishes brought forth in the form of the Modern Liberal Funhouse Mirror. Never delve past the reflected reality, gosh, Flaming Bootlicker might have to disengage from the Boot it services.
Notice the panoply of range of the moment regurgitations.
“Puzzled ousider – you ask that question here and expect to get a rational response – now that’s funny. If you are serious and want to discuss this with scientists then go to this site and learn.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/”
February 22, 2012 – 6:22 am
“…you ask that question here and expect to get a rational response…”
Bootlicker, of course, is not subject to its own “logic”. As if Flaming Boolicker’s postings here are “rational” Manna from… somewhere, in a sea of it deems anything it wishes.
Dishonesty is an accepted way on life – “Do you understand?” “Ho Hum” Indeed. Modern Liberals have a special place in the carcasses for their special liars. Heaven forbid, need one quote Goebbels? “Ho Hum”
“…he deceived…” That’s not a lie, he’s supporting Free Kiwi!
Flaming Liberal
“Well then the first document was leaked to Peter Gleik and then he deceived Heartland to sent him the others. Ho Hum”
February 22, 2012 – 7:34 am
Hey Bootlicker, there’s a case of Kiwi here from the Government, and guess what, it’s free! “Do you understand?” “Ho Hum” Free. It materialized from your wishes. Simple isn’t it? But then you must speak Greek.
“But then ignorance is bliss now isn’t it.”
The final answer. Why bother? Why question someone who is so dedicated that they lick boot, and love it, then pretend that somehow they have the Secret Knowledge to predict the future, all the while masquerading as a rational being in a rational conversation?
Flaming Bootlicker is not here to put forth any ideas, but simply to look in the Funhouse Mirror at itself with fawning self deception. And after all, promoting liars can be a vocation. Just look at Mr. President’s press spokesman rap about Keystone. “I was for Keystone before I was against it.”
I know because of personal I knowism. If you don’t know what I know you’re wrong, and immoral. You can never know what I know because you are not me. Therefore “ignorance is bliss now isn’t it.” Lovely.
Flaming Liberal
“The truth will out and hopefully in a few years you guys will be posting your apologies as time is just not on your side. But then ignorance is bliss now isn’t it”
February 22, 2012 – 6:32 am
“But then ignorance is bliss now isn’t it.”
Can there be skepticism that you really do enjoy licking boot?
It once licked a Boot,
Or shall it say,
That Boot kicked it…
I’m willing to admit that the earth is warming. What of it? It’s warmed before and it’s cooled before. Life has adapted. Humans have adapted, physically and culturally. What we have not done (until now, at least) is deluded ourselves that the global environment is like a terrarium: a closed, easily understood system that allows us to fiddle with the temperature and humidity settings until they’re “just right.”
Sorry, but I agree with Simberg’s last four paragraphs. Add to that a gut feeling about our culture – its pervading lack of confidence, pessimism, and fascination with conspiracies, disasters, and apocalyptic scenarios. It’s like a mass anxiety disorder. People as stressed as we are tend to believe the worst about the future. I think AGW gives some of us a focus for our fears. It gives a name to the nameless Bad Thing we’re all afraid is waiting for us. And if we can name it, then we can predict and control it. We (and science) can Do Something. Feels a little better, doesn’t it?
You can’t separate “the data” or “the science” from “the psychology” or “the sociology.” It’s all one big can of worms.
Bugs:
“..deluded ourselves that the…environment is like a terrarium: a closed…system that allows us to fiddle…until they’re “just right.”
You nailed it exactly….
Continents move, but we “fear” erosion and “loss of coastal wetlands”
Hint: Birds look for food, and the geese here in Bucks County PA no longer migrate…
They live here year round because of the farms and golf courses.
I love Monument Valley…look at the strada of rock color, its obvious the “monuments” are the same as the far away cliffs, but somehow a whole freaking lot of “mass” (cubic miles of it?) somehow went away over time, leaving these “peaks” behind…modern “scientists” would propose intervention to combat this “alarmingly disproportional erosion” because “massive envoronmental changes” might occur and the “negative effects” cannot be predicted.
Same thing with the Great Barrier Reef…two completely different eco-systems evolved on either side. But if we could “predict” such an event today, we’d try to stop it…”catastrophic changes to the ocean floor” and “devastating loss of habitat for certain species” the “conesquences” of which are “frightening” doncha know?
“Actually I’d love to be wrong but the data doesn’t support it.”
What data would that be, the stuff cooked up by the warmists?
Flaming Idiot, whether or not AGW exists and whether or not there is any climate change related to human activity, the whole Cimate Religion is the attempt by the Watermelons (green outside, red inside) to cripple the economies of the major western industrial powers. If the communists running this scam were really interested in the alleged shrinking of the Arctic icepack, they’d do something about the activities of ther fellow communists in China and their former soulmates in Russia, both of which put enormous quantities of soot into the atmosphere.
For those unfamiliar with snow and ice packs or longterm snow on the ground once the winter Sun is back above the horizon, soot or sand on snow or ice has amazing power to melt said ice or snow by absorbing light which heats the particle. Whalers trapped in the ice would paint the ices with oil and lampblack to cause it to melt and soften a path to escape to open water. Naturally ocurring forest fires in the far north, often of hundreds of thousands or even millions of acres) have a dramatic effect on both mountain snow caps and Arctic ice. While the smoke plumes from large fires may significantly cool the areas beneath the blume, the soot from the fires coats the snowpack and ice and causes it to melt very quickly.
The entire communist sphere is filthy; lignite plants in Eastern Europe, some being cleaned up with the end of Soviet control, poorly designed, constructed, and maintained nuclear plants, poorly designed, constructed, and maintained coal plants, grossly polluted oil provinces, leaking, hideously constructed pipelines, the list goes on. But, the soot from Chinese and Russian filthy coal plants and other unregulated industrial activity there is OK because the Chinese and the Russians are comrades after all.
“Actually I’d love to be wrong but the data doesn’t support it”
What data?
Fudged charts? Opinions? Lies? Drowning Polar Bears and Melting Mountains? Scare Tactics and name calling?
Where is THE DATA?
You have no data.
At least, none that you will reveal.
You only reveal the RESULTS, and thats bad science by any standard.
Doing so therefore places all your assertions into the “not buying it” box.
Their is a clear ulterior motive present with AGW claimants, and until THE DATA is revealed, they are rightfully held in suspicion.
End of story
Possibly so. Then there is a large number, including me, who think warming is happening, don’t think we understand the magnitude of human contribution, and are offended by the people making themselves rich (see Jim Hansen and his $1.6 million in outside income or Al Gore and his roughly $100 million in teh failed Chicago carbon exchange) out of scientifically unjustified hysteria.
What world are you living on? It’s clearly not Earth….
1. It’s one thing for Heartland to go after the person who deceptively obtained their documents. It’s quite another for Heartland to threaten bloggers who publish or link the documents. In the latter case, Heartland’s institutional goals conflict with free speech.
2. Yes, I am aware that the AGW mafia has tried to squelch speech by fair means and foul.
3. According to Climate Auditor Steven McIntyre:
More from McIntyre here.
I will be willing to listen to someone who claims to be able to model the climate of the future when they can take the climate of 1962, plug in HISTORICAL changes through 1987 (I’m willing to give them 100% accurate knowledge of the variables for half the time being modeled, which models of the future will not have) into their model, and successfully predict the climate of today.
Even that doesn’t cut it, because models have “knobs”, and if you know the answer ahead of time, you can always set the “knobs” to make the answer come out the way you want it to.
The bizarre think about the MBH hockey stick is that they adjusted the “knobs” to give the hindcast that they wanted, and the forecast from 1960 went the wrong way. That’s the decline that they hid.
What’s the greater tragedy… that Joe Paterno was drummed out of Penn State in disgrace or that Michael Mann is still there?
Why would any rational person care?
Megan McArdle bends over backwards to try and give Glick the benefit of the doubt after her fisking of the “smoking gun” Heartland document showed it was so melodramatic it could only have been written by someone hostile to Haertland’s position. But even she is shocked that Glick would go to such amateurish unethical attempts to try and slant the cause his way.
Two things to take from this are:
1.) The L.A. Times couldn’t see the ham-handedness of the forged memo, because like other climate change fanatics, the Times wanted it to be true, to the point that actually believe someone would write this way (being housed in the same city as thousands of writers who pen over-the-top attacks on conservatives, business, the military, etc, the Times’ staff probably can’t separate bad writing from reality);
2.) For the Times and others who rushed to support the forged document, it may mot matter that it was fraudulent. It’s the Dan Rather-Mary Mapes “fake-but-accurate” defense, which Rather couldn’t get away with because he was too high profile for CBS to retain. But very few people have any idea who Peter Gleick is and the media isn’t exactly going to be shouting his name to the hills now, or admit that they were snookered by the faked memo. Gleick can lay low for a while and be trotted out sometime in the future once again as a ‘irrefutable expert’ on AGW, in the same way that historian Doris Kearns Goodwin received media absolution for her plagiarism because she was on the proper side of the ideological spectrum.
…historian Doris Kearns Goodwin received media absolution for her plagiarism because she was on the proper side of the ideological spectrum.
I was surprised to see her a few weeks ago, resurrected as an ex-spurt.
Warmist fanaticism is downright scary. I recall Al Gore being challenged in some conference by an Irish? guy. The Goracle kept repeating, obsessively…”you don’t think polar bears are declining !? you don’t think they’re dying !?”
The questioner was knowledgeable and wouldn’t give up.
Gore’s “people” cut off his mike.
“To paraphrase Carl Sagan, extraordinary policy prescriptions require extraordinary evidence.”
Not a great choice to quote. Sagan was quite enamored of politically motivated models, if he agreed with the motivations behind them.
He’s geing ironic. Although that rule made it into Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Another academic found to be lying, surprise surprise.
Has anyone read a copy of “Dr” Glick’s dissertation? From his viva, it appears that the granting of silly degrees for little or no scholarship is spreading to the scientific community. Even a light analysis of those first “hockey stick” papers revealed an almost Obama-like ignorance of basic analysis techniques. Those of us with physics backgrounds have watched in awe at the almost immeasurable scientific ignorance that has become commonplace.
To summarize, methinks Glick is a big fat fake.
Period.
Those of us with physics backgrounds have watched in awe at the almost immeasurable scientific ignorance that has become commonplace.
Nobel prize winning physicist Steven (“paint roofs and roads white to combat global warming”) Chu is Obama’s energy sec’y.
As the BP/Gulf fiasco was going down, a hapless Obama often referenced his “brilliant” energy sec’y, who, I guess, was supposed to swim down there and personally plug the hole.
Chu is the guy directly responsible for over 1/2 billion of taxpayer money down the drain to Solyndra. He was trying to shuttle another $400 million Solyndra’s way as the company was tanking.
When Japan’s earthquake, tsunami and subsequent nuclear crisis happened last year, Steven Chu and some other “brilliant” physicists got together and came up with a plan to use controlled explosives around the reactor so they could get in there with some cold water.
Nuclear experts around the world found that idea…insane.
The guys showing off their big brains remind me of the guys in their 4x4s in a snow storm. They have the vehicles that have the best chances of successfully making it through the snow, but they’re always the first ones in the ditch. Hubris does that.
Nobel prize winning physicist Steven (“paint roofs and roads white to combat global warming”) Chu is Obama’s energy sec’y.
You know, the funny thing about the “paint roofs white” thing is that he’s essentially making a claim about land use patterns being a significant contributor to global warming.
This would be exactly the hypothesis that has caused Roger Pielke Sr to be excoriated as a “denier”.
Actually, using lighter colored materials for roofs, roads, airports, especially airports, isn’t a bad idea. It isn’t a good enough idea that we should spend money on retrofitting though. I’m always amazed when my old friends in Georgia, where I grew up, buy lot that used to be a farm field so it has no trees then build a big dark red brick Georgian with a black roof on it and then complain about their air-conditioning bills. They’ve just built a pretty good solar collector! The brick acts as thermal mass and stores up heat to radiate into the house all night. If you’ve ever flown in small airplanes on a still, sunny day flying a low altitude, say under a couple thousand feet, flying over a paved road or even a railroad track is like going over a speed bump because of the updraft of the air being heated above the surface.
Just some common sense in structural designs and land use goes a long, long way in reducing the energy requirements of a structure without making the structure funky and inconvenient. An adequately vented attic with good ceiling insulation and light colored roof dramatically reduces summer heat build up in the attic. Wider eaves shade windows from the direct summer sun while still letting in winter sun. Tall windows that can be opened at the top and bottom naturally ventilate even without a breeze because warm inside air rises and can escape at the top and be replaced by cooler outside air keeping the house comfortable so long as outside temperatures are not so high as to require air conditioning. Just painting the house a lighter color or using a lighter colored masonry reduces both summer heat absorbtion and winter heat radiation. Don’t cut all the trees down and name the streets after them, especially the trees on the south and west sides of the house in hot climates. All of these things add no cost really but make a significant difference in the energy load of a structure.
One of the most significant things that the warmists ignore is that around the World most weather observation stations are at airports which are heat islands because of the absorbtion of solar radiation by the dark runways and taxi/parking areas and many of them are large enough to have their own microclimate. Most of them still have their towers and administrative areas at or near the same place they were when the airport was built many, many years ago as a single, say, 5000′ strip. Then over time the runway got widened and lengthened to 10-12 thousand feet, a crosswind runway got added, more taxiways, more tiedown area, then a larger terminal and jetways got added and all the additional paved and roofed areas absorbed more and more solar radiation and turned it into heat. Then ever larger terminals required ever larger airconditioning plants to remove the heat from the terminals and pump it into the airport’s microclimate. And for all these years and all these changes, that termometer has been sitting in the same spot that when established was surrounded by grass and trees and now is surrounded by hundreds of acres of dark colored pavement. And we wonder why airport data shows warming?
I denied that the global warming alarmists could make accurate predictions, because I knew they were trying to make sense out of experimental noise.
That was before I found out they cooked their data.
In industry, these frauds would have been fired immediately.
Warmists are beside themselves. What if our religion is False ?
“Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement:
That statement:
“The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
Here are some of my favorite quotes:
From UBER Warmist Gavin Schmidt:
“No-one knows the ‘reality’ of what will happen in the future, that’s why there is a spread of scenarios based on different assumptions. Hopefully reality will fall somewhere within that spread.”
“No one knows” but we DO have “assumptions” and “hope.” Yeah, Gavin, let’s cripple our economy and standard of living based on those things.
From Yvo de Boer, former head of the UN’s IPCC:
“I completely understand that it is very difficult for a [national climate] negotiator to move if you haven’t been given a political sense of direction and the political space to move… [] You’ve got a bunch of international leaders sitting 85 stories up on the edge of a building saying to each other, ‘You jump first and I’ll follow.’ And there is understandably a reluctance to be the first
one to jump”
I say to the alarmists, JUMP! JUMP! Please JUMP!
NO POSSIBLE HARM CAN COME to you from jumping off an 85-STORY BUILDING!
If the AGW theorists really want to stop the bickering about who is right and who is wrong all they have to do is release the data and the computer models upon which they make their predilections. This would settle the question of who is right. Until then I’m planted squarely in the undecided camp. And lest we forget – this is data and computer models bought and paid for with public money – AKA tax money and should be made public.
Until then – I’m waiting…
This is an interesting and civil discussion on the site FL posted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/MeyersForbes_UncertaintyPoorInvestment.html
It responds to doubts expressed by the writer of the Forbes article.
These things are technical and complicated, enough so that I say a plague on both the houses of the believers and the deniers, but (call me skeptical) discussions such as the one on the link above help set some reasonable contexts. One should also dose oneself with sites such as Watt’s Up with that as well.
It is so much easier to pick a couple of convenient truth or lies and make our loud political case about the scoundrels on the other side, but the reason the above seemed helpful was because they are responding (negatively) to the supposedly common-sense Forbes article, and then get responders who agree and disagree.
I believe that they also reference the Trenberth quote, which they claim is about the difficulties of getting the right data, but does underscore the point that once you beleeeeve that you know that there is…or isn’t AGW, then you really only want to hear something which supports what you beleeeeve.
Me? I am skeptical, but I am not a denier.
I believe that they also reference the Trenberth quote, which they claim is about the difficulties of getting the right data…
In fact, it’s about mild panic that Mommy Gaia and Olde Sol simply aren’t co-operating with THE AGENDA.
Sorry, but I must call simple BS. You don’t get it, Dwight. If you are skeptical, you are perforce a denier.
What?
It was humor, Dwight. Sarcasm.
To the true believers if you are skeptical then you are a denier. They don’t accept any middle ground. Either you believe or you deny. They can’t see any other point of view.
Thanks for the help, Charlie and Chris. I’m sure Dwight gets it now.
D-White “get” something?
The kindness of strangers… Maybe. Sort of. But. Fart Cop.
Actually all the discussions I have seen there have been very engaging and civil and I doubt most of the bloggers or even the writers here can hold a candle to those posters. If Rand went over there I suspect he would be seriously challenged to keep up even if his questions were just on modeling.
See scientists always challenge one another to verify if what they are hearing is correct. I find it amazing how they always take what the deniers write and they can deconstruct it with ease on why not only how it’s wrong technically but patently deceitful.
That site is an enemy to the deniers because they actually understand science. Most people here who say they understand science would not last very long there but they do have some deniers who do engage especially when they try to defend themselves from and article they wrote. But the discussions are always intellectual and not base as one finds at PJM from posters and writers of articles
What. Ever.
“They’re all very, very intelleckshual, unlike you!”
*sigh*
Some people, apparently, are impressed by pseudo-scientific BS.
Yeah, I bet the posters aren’t Flaming Idiots! You idiots on the Left have reached a level of ignorance and superstition we haven’t seen since the world was only lit by fire.
The modeling part has always interested me. Clearly, economic models have had at least 10x the research poured in (both private and government) as anything having to do with global warming. Additionally, economic models should be several orders of magnitude easier to model as the interactions are more clearly understood, and the system is smaller and more directly measurable. Yet, I’ve noticed that no one, not the government, nor vested private interests, have managed to create models with any long term predictive capability, nor do rational people profess certainty in the modeling results. So why profess absolute certainty in models that are clearly incomplete, modeling systems that far larger and more complex than a simple economy?
Agreed. I don’t profess to understand mathematical modeling. However, one of my problems with the AGW theorists is that they present their model and their predictions as certainties. I don’t think any reputable predictor of anything would do that.
Sorry, I just noticed that there is a user here using the name “tanstaafl”.
I posted as “TANSTAAFL”
Upper case “TANST” does not reflect lower case “tanst”‘s views.
Sorry about that.
Didn’t we have this…little moniker problem…with some other articles at PJM ?
Anyway, “not paying attention” works
Well, it doesn’t matter which way you write it, there still isn’t any such thing as a free lunch.
This may be a little off topic but this year was supposed to be a La Nina year. You see some scientists measured the water temperature in the Pacific at a few places and found it was lower than normal. Thus they concluded that it was a La Nina year and forcast a colder than usual winter with lots of snow in the Pacific Northwest. But this winter has been mild with no snow except for an isolated storm over Seattle. To me this shows the science is weak and simplistic. Weather cannot be determined by one factor such as water temperature and climate cannot be determined by one factor such as the amount of a trace gas in the atmosphere CO2. This is a very nebulous science rife with incompetance and fraud.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
attributed to George Orwell
The director and co-founder of the Pacific Institute is Dr. Peter Gleick, a MacArthur Fellow and member of the National Academy of Sciences. I DENY that Dr. Gleick is a scientist.
Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Energy and Resources from the University of California, Berkeley, with a focus on hydroclimatology. Allegedly Dr. Gleick is well educated.
So was Obama, allegedly.
Allegedly, per an exposé at the Daily Caller, “Dr. Gleick admits to personally knowing jack sh!t about climate science.”
(I paraphrase)
And we all know that “BS” is “Bull Stuff” (I know), “MS” is “More Stuff” and “PHD” is “Piled Higher and Deeper”. I say their “stuff” stinks to high heaven.
Don’t hide in claims of complexity, Dwight. Because it ain’t all that complicated.
16 scientists. I’m going to guess that they’re more knowledgeable than 16 candles.
“The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”
“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.”
(article linked above)
I’m gonna guess that geophysist Dr. Vincent Courtillot (video linked above) is more knowledgeable, too. He’s particularly hard on the corrupt and agenda driven UN adjunct, the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) towards the end.
I’m guessing that you don’t care, but also on that site was an article about heat being stored in the oceans, rather than immediately causing warming of the atmosphere. I did not read it in detail to know the the evidence is for this heat storage, which supposedly will accelerate future warming.
It sounds to me as if 16 scientists say what YOU want to hear, then it becomes the truth, but if 2016 say something else, then they are all fools, frauds, or worse. Have you read the Forbes article and/or their response to it?
“I did not read it in detail to know the the evidence is for this heat storage, which supposedly will accelerate future warming.’
Your style is to “not read in detail” and to make vague allusions, Dwight.
It is not a convincing style.
Let’s face it, if I knew enough of the science to be convincing about heat storage and ocean mixing, based on various sets of data, you would not know what the hell I was talking about. But then, I am not CONVINCED of much here, other than that CO2 does cause some warming
Damn D-White, who pulled that Pick It Stake out of your But and let you out? Is the Sun down there or what? “Oh” (self important identifier) the pension check came….
Things were running smoothly with Flaming Bootlicker’s video “How To Lick Boot and Love U R Self More” and then the Ping Pong Tongue “blathers” something about “you’re all wrong but you’re all right” and my “Heisenberg Implant hurts”.
Well anyway, do I see you kneeling with Flamo at the Altar of Because Someone Told Me So I Can Say So?
You keep samin’ when you oughta be a’changin’
What’s right is right but you ain’t been right yet
Are you ready, boots? Start walkin’
Nice to see Flaming Bootlicker take it just like a Northeast RINO.
I suppose I could be convinced that you were obsessed with images of butts and bootlicking. Otherwise your post is devoid of substantive content. I’m shocked, I tell you, just shocked.
If the oceans are “storing” heat, why would they suddenly give it up to cause the planet to warm?
If the problem is the oceans “storing” heat, why are we blaming a miniscule trace gas?
Why is the “solution” to “global warming” the same solution they had to the “Coming Ice Age”, the ozone hole, the “Population Bomb”, the “Coming Famine”, and the “Coming Age of Scarcity”? When someone posits the same solution to multiple — often contradictory — problems, it quickly becomes apparent that their real interest is in imposing that solution, not in the reality (or not) of the problems.
Rob, you’re getting confused by the terminology. When someone talks about the oceans storing “heat”, they’re talking about the energy involved. As that energy is absorbed, the water’s temperature necessarily goes up — albeit slowly, since water has a really high specific heat.
I have a horrible feeling none of these people took Oceanography? I only took a couple semesters, but there’s a nasty tickle at the back of my brain about that notion.
I guess 15 yrs of no warming has left them a little chilled.
NASA disagrees with you but then when could you ever trust NASA and people who work there?
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
“…but then when could you ever trust NASA and people who work there?”
When could one trust one’s own mind? Apparently, you need direction. Must be some requirement created by a failed educational establishment.
You lick Space Boot too? You have learned well. All those lessons to indoctrinate you to be subservient to Authority. Or are you a “Natural”?
What ever happened to “Question Authority”? Let’s see, show Flaming Bootlicker a badge or a paper certificate and gauge the groveling. Bring in some of Saddam’s old henchmen, they know the nuances. Well… They might not know how to make a decision for themselves either.
Yeah, flip a coin. Chances are it will be warmer tomorrow. Spring is coming. Genius!
You keep lying when you ought to be truthing
You keep losing when you ought to not bet
“But, the soot from Chinese and Russian filthy coal plants and other unregulated industrial activity there is OK because the Chinese and the Russians are comrades after all.”
And the Russians dumped their nuclear sh!t in the ocean for all those decades.
A river in China had to be desperately cleared of algae bloom so the rowers could row during the Olympics.
Reportedly, particulate matter produced by the fire prone ion battery in Obama Motors’ Chevy Volt is even more damaging to “the environment” than those nasty gasoline emissions.
Particulate matter from China wafts over the Pacific, high into the atmosphere over Los Angeles.
I guess that it’s too late to point out that, akin to my skepticism about Mann-model AGW, I’m also skeptical about most theories of evolution? I’m not a creationist, I just don’t believe the Darwinists either. And quite frankly, both creationists and Darwinists have “religious” reasons for needing their account to be correct!
For the record, yes, I spent 4 years in a seminary, which should make me really good at recognizing a “religion” even if it claims to be “science.”
Darwin traveled about the world, scrupulously documenting minute changes in organisms’ physical structures.
There is copious substantiation in the fossil record for his “theory” of evolution.
I’ve read that “even” the Catholic church now includes evolutionary theory in its religious schools’ curriculum and is now arguing that the biblical version and Darwin can co-exist.
Whew, glad for that, at least. It took a bit longer for the church to apologize to Galileo.
About 400 years.
(over and out)
As my father explained to me many, many years ago, “over and out” is never used, except to be rude. It means: “It’s your turn to talk, and I’m not listening.”
It’s a subtle put-down, if meant.
It’s interesting to me, how Genesis 1 more or less describes the same creation timeline that science gives us, as long as you don’t get hung up on whether “yom” means “a twenty-four hour period; the time it will take for the Earth to rotate once it’s created” or whether it means “a time”. I like the poetic way Genesis describes the formation of the atmosphere.
Am I a denier? I believe in Mann-made global warming; where does that leave me?
I had a minister tell me that all these creationists and evolutionists could both be right because the bible tells us WHY things happened and science (is supposed to) tells us how it happened. One is cause, the other is methodology.
If the AGW “science” is so “settled”, why do these “scientists” act like such petulant children when challenged?
Wait a sec! The LA Times is not quoting Mein Kampf ironically; they’re quoting it for support! Can we now conclude that the LA Times is a den of Nazi sympathisers?
It sure would explin a lot.
Somewhere, Comrade And Hero Of The Proletariat Lysenko is frowning …
The original Heartland story was in my local (Colorado Springs) paper but, interestingly, this follow up wasn’t. Wonder if that’s true in other cities? Also, recall how the NY Times made a big deal about the Climategate emails being stolen? I wonder what their take on this fraudulent affair is. The media is certainly part of the problem here. Forbes has a good piece on the Gleick confession, including some pithy comments about the notion that AGW being settled science. Here’s the link.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/21/peter-gleick-admits-to-stealing-heartland-documents/
And his earlier article to which he refers in this short one is the topic of the discussion I linked to. At any rate his compromise proposal about how each side of the argument should frame there case works for me, but I am just wildly guessing that it would not work for many here.
His suggestion: “I repeat my ongoing plea — let’s get back to real engagement on the actual science. Here is my starter proposal: Catastrophic global warming advocates will stop calling the science “settled” and arguing that anyone who disagrees with them “lacks integrity”, and skeptics will ban the words “scam”, “myth”, “lie”, and “conspiracy” from their arguments. And we will all cease the dueling accusations about sources of funding. What really matters are issues like quantifying the climate feedback effect. Who the hell cares who funds the breakthrough work? We should be thrilled there are people from both sides of the debate willing to invest in it — if this were not true, we would end up with that most sterile of all scientific or political environments, the mono-culture.”
But, hey, what fun is that?
The Koch brothers and others make their billions in energy. When they are forced by regulations to curb pollutants, this costs them money. But instead of shelling out millions to actually reform their operations to emit fewer pollutants, like any good company should, they instead pay to fund groups like the Heartland Institute, a non-scientific organization, to publish non-scientific propaganda casting doubt on the science and on scientists. Why? Because not being scientists themselves, they can’t argue against the science, so instead they aim to castigate the scientists – if they can persuade laypeople to distrust scientists and science in general, then they don’t even have to enter into the sticky debate. It’s classic debating – when you can’t beat your opposition on the merits of the argument, impeach his character. This is exactly what the purpose of the Heartland Institute is – a third party mudslinger paid by Koch to impugn the credibility of scientists in furtherance of shifting popular opinion against any scientific findings that might result in emissions-curbing legislation. And clearly it’s working with uneducated Americans, because anytime any science is put on the table these days, the same predictable group of right wingers immediately scream about a leftist conspiracy.
Greatly looking forward to the big Baby Boomer Die Off. After all of you Luddites are gone to that big Tea Party in the sky, perhaps the rest of us can pull this era of idiocy back from the brink.
Muppet believed Obama when he said that we could solve our energy problems if we’d just properly inflate our damn automobile tires.
Mup also believed The One™ when he promised he would lower the seas.
And Jay Carney yesterday when he told the assembled press corps (that’s corps, not corpse) that Obama didn’t turn down the Keystone pipeline.
Wrong again. If you looked at the REAL Heartland documents, you’d see that Koch Industries only gave less than 30 thousand for medical research, and not a cent in the past decade for anything related to climate.
If you read the Climategate emails, you’ll discover that UEA and other pro-global warming bodies have received hundreds of millions of dollars from Big Oil to promote the global warming scare, because the Big Oil companies all have carbon trading departments just waiting to go to town.
The Warmists are projecting when they accuse the skeptics of accepting money from Big Oil, or of lying or cheating. No skeptic has ever been caught doing such thing.
Note that the BBC has five billion pounds of its retirement funds invested in carbon trading stocks. If there is no manmade global warming, if cap and trade and carbon trading laws are not passed worldwide, this stock will plummet in value (it already has), so the BBC has every reason to keep the scare going. Same for the New York Times, NBC (which owns G.E.), and many other media outlets. The so called inquiries into the Climategate scandals were all headed up by carbon investors and owners of wind farms. Do you think they had huge conflicts of interest?
The carbon offset thing is winding down in profitability. D’uoh. Who could have predicted that ?
The Goracle is branching out
He needs another $100 million to keep the lights on in the Tennessee mansion, the yacht and the private plane running up to speed.
Inconveniently for your whacky conspiracy theory, the Koch’s have not given any money to Heartland for climate-change work.
Rand don’t they have an anonymous donor who has given them millions every year. So you’re positive it’s not one of the Koch brothers. How do you know it’s not?
I would like to know wouldn’t you?
Rand don’t they have an anonymous donor who has given them millions every year. So you’re positive it’s not one of the Koch brothers. How do you know it’s not?
Heartland no longer has any anonymous donors. Gleick stole the documents that outed all of them. Which is one of many reasons that he’ll be sued, and likely charged with wire fraud (which is good for ten years in Club Fed). We now know that the Kochs only contributed $25,000 last year, and it had nothing to do with climate change.
I would like to know wouldn’t you?
Frankly, I don’t give a damn. Unlike loony leftists, I don’t think that either the Koch brothers or Heartland are the epitome of evil.
The only place the Anonymous Donor is mentioned is in the apparently fraudulent “strategy” memo. The Koch brothers — or rather the Koch Foundation — are named explicitly in the authentic documents.
It’s not enough to assert “well, the Koch brothers *could* be anonymous donors too” without at least some evidence.
So, Flamer, you anonymously state that people should not be able to anonymously support their beliefs?
Of course not – all I said was there is one very big donor that has not been identified still.
I have it on good authorititty that the Koch brothers are an invention of George Soros. Soros’ minions found two old homeless men to impersonate the entirely mythical Koch brothers. Soros himself is the last of the Illuminati, and lives in an underwater cave just off of Italy.
The Koch brothers and others make their billions in energy.
The Koch brothers also didn’t put money into climate change stuff at HI, and do fund the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
Now what?
Don’t spoil the Two Minute Hate with facts, Charlie.
“When they are forced by regulations to curb pollutants, this costs them money”
No, it doesn’t. It costs consumers money.
“It’s classic debating – when you can’t beat your opposition on the merits of the argument, impeach his character.”
To which you masterfully demonstrate by attacking the character of the Heartland institute and their donors. Well done! Oh and nevermind that the Heartland institute supports limited government, opposes Obamacare, skeptical of global warming, and assists businesses with regulatory and legal challenges from the government. So, spewing vitriol and hate towards a right leaning institution? Nope, no leftist conspiracy here folks, just an honest eugenicist that’s waiting for all you evil bastards to die.
The Charles Koch Foundation gave Heartland $25,000 for medical research.
Heartland planned to apply for $200,000 funding from the Charles Kock Foundation for medical research.
Koch Industries, so far as I know, complies with regulations, and pays fines when it fails to, or has an accident.
Telling the truth is much simpler than creating a fantasy.
Peter Gleick might be getting a little worried about the legal consequences of his not so excellent adventures
He should be.
In case no one noticed, unless he was extremely careful – and anyone who thinks he was, please raise your hand – he may very well have dragged the Pacific Institute down with him.
Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Insurance does not cover deliberate misconduct. If he used the Institute’s Epson scanner, his office desktop, or had a staffer look up the email address of a HI board member, things could get very ugly.
I sincerely hope he didn’t do any such thing. But I’m willing to bet that the board of the Pacific Institute is currently saying words to the effect of, “Peter, what were you thinking?!”
How do we say it plainly enough? The nation is on the brink of bankruptcy. It will take financial genius to save it.
Along comes a proven financial genius in the person of Mitt Romney, who has demonstrated his enormous abilities three times over: rescuing Bain Capital in 18 months, saving the Winter Olympics which was when he took over some $200,000,000 in the hole, and the Massachusetts state government, which was seriously in the red–and in four years he had it in the black –and with a rainy day fund. All for free. He accepted no pay for any of this.
He is prepared to do it again, this time for our venal, moronic federal government. Again, for no pay. … Anyone who prates that he “does not trust” a man who has done this repeatedly, and never collected on it, would do better not to trust the face he/she sees in the mirror.
Didn’t he say that he believed in man made global warming before he was told he couldn’t believe in it? Yes a real profile in courage
Flamer, quite wrong.
“I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control. I do not support radical feel-good policies … Of course, there are also reasons for skepticism. The earth may be getting warmer, but there have been numerous times in the earth’s history when temperatures have been warmer than they are now … If developing nations won’t curb emissions, even extreme mitigation measures taken by the United States and other developed nations will have no appreciable effect on slowing the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.” (Mitt Romney, No Apology, pp. 227-230)
Romney’s position on global warming/climate change has been consistent. The flip-flop claim is a straw man.
If the 1815 eruption of Tambora all by itself caused at least a 0.5 degree celsius drop in temps world wide and we have this same drop in a century or 2, where’s the beef? How do we know a lack of significant volcanic events in the last 20 years isn’t responsible let alone a millennial event like Tambora? If a Tambora erupted tomorrow and we go back down 0.5 then man-made warming is defunct?
Given ocean currents, man’s influence, solar activity, volcanic events, coriolis influences on weather patterns and the reality of Earth’s past changes, it seems hopeless to try and sort it all out when we simply don’t have the capacity at present to do so. I don’t think one has to be a scientist to posit that a range of temps is “normal” rather than whatever happened to be present when scientists said this is year zero.
In any event, if scientists are so concerned, then they should be going to the U.N. and asking the most obvious question of all: what will we do about the fact there are twice as many people on the planet than 40 years ago?
“I deny that skepticism about anthropogenic climate change is epistemologically equivalent to skepticism about evolution…”
So, Mr. simberg, are you saying the science of evolution is settled? Because I am as skeptical about that as I am about AGW. There are plenty of holes in the theory. Not the least of which is the inability to replicate it in the lab. Therefore the science clearly is NOT settled. Meaning the skeptism is warranted… and prudent.
So, Mr. simberg, are you saying the science of evolution is settled?
No, except to the degree that no one has yet come up with a plausible scientific alternative to it.
Evolution is so simple it has to be a major factor in how we got here. Picture this: Two apelike beings venture out into the savanna and meet a lion like creature. It attacks, they run away. One runs faster than the other. The slow one is lunch the faster one makes it back to the forest and lives to mate and have babies. Most of those babies will probably be faster runners than slow guy who got eaten and didn’t have any slow runner babies.
That’s microevolution; there’s plenty of fossil evidence. None for macroevolution.
Not the least of which is the inability to replicate it in the lab.
Actually, evolution has been demonstrated in the lab, and in the field.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/evolution-of-multicellularity/
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/researchers-evolve-a-multicellular-yeast-in-the-lab-in-2-months.ars
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v5/n5/full/7400145.html
It’s appropriate to be skeptical of any scientific result — the whole basis of science is “trust but verify” — but the general notion of speciation and variation arising by mutation and differential survival — which is to say, Darwinian evolution — is awfully well supported.
Now, you might have some more room if you were talking about where “life” originally came from, but if you attempt that trope I’m going to ask you to define “life”. It’s harder than you think.
There is NO Carbon Climate Forcing. There is NO magical negative or positive ‘feedback’ awaiting clarification. There IS a world banking cartel with monopoly control of western governments, mass media and education funding. Climatology IS modern Alchemy and was created to FORCE Carbon Commodity Markets. Read “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality” to understand the Faux Science and Faux History lies necessary to maintain this greatest of all frauds in history.
Hey look! A Paulbot!
They say the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn’t exist. Well, with global warming, I do believe he has done one better. “Whats that you say, my exhalation is a pollutant that will melt the Arctic ice?” “Whats that you say, CO2 is a pollutant, despite the fact that without it, plants would cease to produce oxygen?” “Whats that you say, my SUV is causing the temperature of the oceans to rise, even though you know less than 5% as to what is happening at the bottom of the oceans where volcanic activity is constantly occurring?”
Hmm. Consensus science. That means everyone agrees right? Didn’t everyone used to agree that the earth was flat? Didn’t everyone used to agree that the sun revolved around the earth? Didn’t everyone used to believe flying a heavier than air plane was impossible? Didn’t everyone used to believe that the atom was the smallest possible division of matter? Didn’t everyone used to believe that the Milky Way was the only galaxy? I could go on, but these are all examples of “consensus science” that were wrong. I suspect that the AGW consensus science is also wrong, I don’t know but I think it is. I think the earth’s temperature is controlled by the sun and that the sun’s output varies as much as 4% (I remember reading that someplace, don’t remember where). But if it only changes 1% the earth should warm up 1% right? Unless there is a mitigating feedback system here in the earth’s atmosphere. Or a big volcano could explode and put us right back to an ice age. More CO2 could be beneficial for plants. What do the “environmentalists” have against plants?
Oh, no. It’s happened.
We now have people claiming the “Strategy Memo” is genuine.
Behold: http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic
You need to read this to believe it. Keep in mind, going in, that this is an attempt to preserve the last credibility Gleick might have. It utterly fails, by my reading, but I’m not wedded to it, as the “authenticators” are.
”These documents are breathtaking, and they reveal what many of us have long suspected…”
A time-honored strategy of hoaxers: find out the speculation of the learned of what “must have been” but is little or not represented in existing materials. Forge that, and people will fall over themselves so fast to seize it and crow that they’ve been vindicated that they won’t bother with even the most rudimentary authentication.
Even if you believe the Global warming lies. This is one reason you should give it up already.
This amount of desperation means you already lost. In fact most of you warmists are considered Pathetic unless your a Neo Marxist nut.
Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
Contrast Revnant Dream’s and tanstaafl’s approach with the argument between Albatross and Eric Skeptic at http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=52&&n=1282
You hear two people who know a lot of the science, disagreeing rationally, not burping, farting, and yelling, “so’s your Obama-lovin’ mother.”
I happen to accept that global warming is real. No one has suggested any other way to explain the opening of the Northwest Passage for the first time since Columbus discovered America at least.
That doesn’t change the fact that what Dr. Glieck did is disgraceful.
And that once again, environmental activists and their Flaming Liberal friends (you reading this, Flaming Liberal?) have disgraced themselves by using the tools of dirty politics to advance what they themselves claimed was a scientific theory.
From now on, I’m simply going to tell each and every one of them, “Either you denounce what Glieck did and pledge never to do anything like that yourselves–or I’m going to consider you just as disgraceful as he is.”
As for Glieck, he should go to work for WikiLeaks.
Northwest passage open for the first time “since” Columbus?
Thats less than 600 YEARS.
Anybody try sailing it a thousand years ago?
Ten thousand? A million?
Anyone?..Beuller?
Whatever happens on this earth is no surprise.
Its a dynamic place…whole continents move.
My theory is:
Planet….space…whoa!
Amazing were even ALIVE, considering how puny and irrellevant we are in the the sheer scale of things.
Scientists think too highly of their trade, and of their relevance…
You want relevance?
Make me some live-action 3-D porn holograms.
Get me cheap gasoline, fast, so I dont have sit watching it GROW.
Better nuke plants so plug-in cars dont need coal power to recharge.
Maybe Fusion, yeah try that.
Get Left wing psuedo-Science out of Politics
They waste too much time naval-gazing.
Technology. Energy. Industry.
Everything else (AGW in particular) is make-work fluff.
Reminds me of the difference between a guy today with a lefty-puff-piece “grievence studies” PHD,
verses an old fashoined Apollo era NASA Engineer.
One talks a blue streak with no marketable value, the other performs.
Why do all the AGW guys look like Liberal Arts Majors?
We don’t really know that the “NW Passage” is any more or less open than it was at the time of Columbus or any number of other earlier explorers. We do know that the climate of Greenland was warm enough a thousand or so years ago to support substantial agriculture. It isn’t that warm, at least in that part of the ocean even today when we’re about to drown or cook from global warming.
All we really know for sure is that with the technology of 1000, 500, or even 100 years ago, nobody found a way through it and reported having done so. Until 200 or so years ago, all ocean navigation was dead reckoning and done with ships of limited maneuverability and little ability to sail close to the wind which dramatically limited their ability to traverse an ocean ice pack. 100 – 150 years ago there was decent celestial navigation and steam auxilliary or full steam ships though navigation by compass at these lattitudes is very problematic and to this day much of the Arctic is poorly charted, at least on charts available to us mere mortals; I assume the various submarine services have pretty good charts, but even today in much more travelled and accessible areas mariners still find uncharted obstacles the hard way, see, e.g., the US nuclear submarine that found an uncharted rock the hard way off Hawaii a few years ago.
There are plenty of people reading this who remember the first satellites and the first pictures of Earth from space, myself among them. Inertial navigation is only fifty or sixty years old, GPS navigation and satellite views are even more recent. In reality, only in the last 25 or 30 years would navigating a “NW Passage” voyage have been reasonably likely to succeed. We know that the Arctic icepack recedes from the coasts and has done so for some time every year that we have any records or historical knowledge of. The trick of sailing the NW Passage is being able to pick your way through the open water quickly enough that you don’t get trapped by the ice returning. There were several attempts with steam and sail that picked their way through most of a NW Passage but couldn’t do it quickly enough to avoid getting icebound off NW Canada or Alaska, see, e.g., the Franklin expedition.
Overall glacial retreat in North America has happened at every one of the 10-20 I have visited. Yes, maybe that is just standard inter-glacial melting, but it would also suggest that the NW passage would be becoming (overall) more navigable each decade.
Well, well, the Paragon of Paragons allows feelings of feelings to be exhibited. Maybe.
No D-White, this is not Homeroom at 7:45am with all the young robots in shirts and ties fully charged and ready for the D-White Symposium on Normalcy.
One could suppose that “burping, farting, and yelling, ‘so’s your Obama-lovin’ mother’” do not exist for purposes in that “oh” so alleged perfect world. A wager could put on the proposition as to whether these are normal human activities actually happen. D-White the Fart Cop of course would cite time and place, length, intent, olfactory effectiveness and past history And, the “proper” definitions reside in the D-White Mind only.
Or maybe, possibly, maybe emanating from D-White orifices.
Some mothers do love Mr. President. Maybe they take the Christian point of view.
The actual point however, is for Fart Cop to control the situation to Fart Cop’s advantage. Very Socialist.
Hey D-White. You want “rational”? Let’s see here, what’s in the archives? How about that Palin rap? Or… You get the picture. Something about Stones being thrown? Houses…Maybe? But? Maybe?
The way she talks about someone else
That she don’t even know herself
She’s the sickest thing in this world
Have something for us on the climate? or even Glieck’s perfidy? You won’t hear me defending that.
But the odor in here tells me that you have misbehaved, yet again. I will light a match, but you are sentenced to more than an hour of detention, listening to Lord (of exactly what?) Monckton (see above) carry on about DDT, AIDS,starvation, and maybe eventually get to climate change.
From the LA Times:
“That is a lie so big that, to quote from Mein Kampf, it would be hard for most people to believe that anyone ‘could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.’”
The irony being that Hitler imputed the Big Lie to the Jews. (Blaming von Ludendorf for Germany’s defeat in WW-I. Whatever.) So, Hitler wasn’t suggesting that Nazis employ lies to discredit their critics, but rather that Jews were lying about something that had nothing in particular to do with the Nazis.
IOW, the LAT was engaging employing a double reverse Godwin violation. Which is typical of people who have trouble dealing with facts and resort to invective.
The science that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas is settled. The debate is over climate sensitivity, i.e. how does the system respond to increasing levels of the gas, does it amplify or damp the effect.
The warmistas have argued that climate amplifies the effect of CO2, a difficult position to hold considering the climate history of the planet (after all, we are here). More and more scientists are realizing that recent temperatures have cast the position of sensitivity greater than one (amplification) in serious doubt.
There are some “deniers” who deny the effect of CO2 at all (scare quotes because some deniers only deny catastrophic warming). This may be out of fear that some people will overreact to any admission that there is a “problem”, no matter how slight (a not unreasonable fear, IMO, as far as some people are concerned).
I also do not doubt that there are warmistas who are inclined to hold that position because it agrees with their political bias.
All in all, almost everybody sees disaster coming in one form or another and is panicked to avoid it. Rationality has left the house (if it was ever present).
Disaster will not be avoided.
Get your best holt.
+1
And to the degree that there is any problem with climate change in the future it would make far more sense to spend money on dealing with the fallout effects of climate change rather than futile attempts at mitigating or preventing it from happening. In other words doing what humans have always done in the face of an ever changing climate — adapt and survive. Hell, there used to be lions, giraffes, and hippos in France for crissake; the Sahara was covered with forests and humans have managed to survive despite their absence today. If the warmists had their goody bag of demands completely fulfilled we’d be blowing 200 billion dollars a year for 50 years trying to prevent a .8 degree rise in global temperatures. That kind of money could save millions of more lives by dealing with malaria, hepatitis, AIDS, water shortage, famine, genocide, and etc etc. But that wouldn’t line the pockets of investors and politicians who are trying to create new wealth and power literally out of thin air.
“But that wouldn’t line the pockets of investors and politicians who are trying to create new wealth and power literally out of thin air.”
Nor would it cede control to the proper people.
As if there were any people, especially in the government, that are the “proper” people to which our liberty should be ceded.
If there had been a few more vocal “deniers” of Piltdown Man, then maybe THAT scientific fraud wouldn’t have lasted as long as IT did. The main difference between THAT hoax and the AGW fraud is that people were not being forced by government to pay higher energy prices, and no “missing link” offsets were being sold and traded.
And getting further on in the discussion at the earlier-mentioned site, the data appears to show that the oceans ARE warming. But then how is the lay person to know whose data and how reliable it is when BOTH sides are committed (it seems to me) not to truth, but to proving that their view is correct? Obviously all data has a context and can be “smoothed” or whatever, but you have to listen every so often to the expert believers, skeptics, and deniers hash it out. We would prefer to stick with whatever we happen to believe now and yell “fraud” or “catastrophe in the making” and let it go at that.
Carbon? This is from a Chet Raymo Blog of Feb 13:
The Loom of Life
The nature writer Jill Sisson Quinn said it at the end of one of her essays: “We’ve had it backwards all along: the body is immortal — it is the soul that dies.”
Which says something very big in very few words.
Which brings me to our compost bin.
All our food waste goes in. When we come back next winter we’ll have a bin full of rich soil. Right now I have peppers and tomatoes growing in last year’s table scrapings.
New food. Same atoms. Some of them at least.
What the peppers, tomatoes and me have in common is carbon chemistry. So, too, the hummingbirds, geckoes, sea grape, and barracudas.
All life on Earth is a flourish on the theme of carbon. If life on Earth can be thought of as music, it is a rhapsody in C.
Chains, trees and rings of carbon atoms are the skeletons of all living matter. The molecules that account for the muscles of the heart, the stink of a skunk, the color of carrots, the hormones of sex, the taste of vanilla, the pungency of peppers, have backbones of carbon.
Every carbon atom on Earth was cooked up in a dying star before the Earth was born, then spewed into space.
To flow.
To come and go.
We take our atoms from spewed-off star-stuff. Even during our lifetimes our atoms are temporary, flowing in and out of our bodies like a slow breath, in constant replacement. Atoms blow in and out like a wind, orchestrated by that exquisite score called life.
Our selves — our souls –are unique tapestries of atoms, tapestries of information, in the DNA, in the neural networks of the brain. When we die, that unique information eventually disperses. The self disperses.
The atoms flow. Endlessly recycled. From table scrap, to compost bin, to pepper, to table. In and out of the air with each breath. Carbon atoms forming alliances with hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen phosphorus, sulfur, as only carbon atoms do with such facility, such fluent grace. Carbon is the immortal frame upon which life weaves the woof and warp of mortal souls.
http://blog.sciencemusings.com/
Consensus only works in Politics and Religion; and then only barely so. Science cannot afford the stagnation of thought inherit in the concept. If we had stuck with “settled science” of the past we would never have learned to fly, never have walked on the Moon and never have harnessed electricity.
Racial superiority was a scientific “fact” for several centuries and many prominent American leaders subscribed to such evelutionary theories into the 1800s. After Darwin’s work, the inferiority of non-White races became the driving principle behind Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler, Carl Marx and many other influential thinkers.
That should serve as a warning against diving headfirst into scientific dogma. Never accept science as settled. Every time you do, bad things happen.