Anthony Watts and Jeff Id — and I don’t know how many others — got links this morning to a new bundle of 170 megabytes (compressed) of new emails from the same old people. Apparently FOIA.org has taken the position that these people are consuming money that could be better used.
I haven’t managed to download the files myself yet (it was 4AM, I was asleep, I’m sorry) but Jeff and others have identified some, ahem, interesting emails. The selections I’ve read so far suggest, again, that the “consensus” is political, not scientific: there is a lot more controversy than we hear about, and in several cases people raise or confirm the same objections that people like Steve McIntyre have been making for years.
It also explains why Michael Mann is so anxious not to have his emails released to Chris Horner.
On temperature reconstruction a la Mann’s “hockey stick”:
Wilson:
any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
Jones:what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
Mitchell/MetOIs the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no
Wilson:I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
Bradley:I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
Osborn:Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
Esper:Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?
Cook:I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
Cook:One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.
PJM Flashback: Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate
Well, there is this one thing about it, The guys at Penn State are going to be busy defending another goal right now.
Charlie – A.W. Montford’s book, The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science, made it crystal clear to me that Michael Mann and company are not scientists but thugs pretending to be scientists, and they have bambazooled a whole lot of people. The downside of their having done so, and have corrupted science as they have, is that non-scientists will become skeptical of all science even when practiced correctly. In event, as one commenter here said, global warming is Mann-made.
Yeah. The truth is that this kind of stuff is hardly unknown in science — cf the “good and bad calories” debate — and people’s idealized view of science is just as false as the “mad scientist” stereotype. But people whose idealizations are broken take a long time to find a more measured middle ground.
Exactly. What’s a ‘bad’ calorie anyway? Isn’t it all ‘energy’?
Well, yeah, but the Taubes thing is observing that we metabolize differently depending on the form in which the calories come. There’s pretty substantial evidence now that refined carbohydrates have a number of bad effects, but the Received Nutritional Wisdom is indeed that a calorie is a calorie. Google “Gary Taubes” for details.
This argument resembles very closely the “radiative physics” argument in climate science. Since energy must be conserved, it has to be hiding somewhere, therefore the greenhouse effect puts a floor under possible values of climate sensitivity.
They can never get past the energy is conserved part and on to the rest of the argument.
More and more evidence is coming out that eating fat is actually NOT bad for you and that refined carbs ARE bad for you.
Go figure!
“as false as the “mad scientist” stereotype”
What?
Charlie, I *KNEW* one in college. Had his own theory on the fundamental building blocks of particles and had a rather… novel… theory on the positioning of human genitalia.
And, yes, he managed to work that into a 100-level physics course.
(Granted, the head of his department was worse. Perhaps not as — offbeat? — but had his own issues. It was once suggested that as a departing gift, the entire EE graduating class leave him a barrel of urine. There was no shortage of volunteers to supply.)
Hell, I *was* one in college.
Charlie, unless you believed your genitalia picked up radio signals…
Well, it used to, but I’m getting old now.
Jack, the damage is worse than unwarranted skepticism of legimate science. Now political and economic entities know that “science” can be bought. Science used to be considered (correctly, or not) as the impartial arbitrator in all disputes. Now everyone knows the “ref” can be bought off.
Unless the scientific community is willing to do some major house cleaning and serious introspection, research is fast on it’s way to becoming nothing but a propaganda tool. And those with the deepest pockets (especially the government), will determine what’s science and what is not.
Hate to tell you, but this has been the case for quite some time…it is just that in this case that they have been so blatantly caught in the act.
Never, however, have they raised the stakes so high as in the global warming scam. Th closest they came was the AIDS scam.
They never thought about the level of scrutiny this con would bring.
But they are still in the pink. If a businessman tried this port of con they would be in jail. they will keep their jobs.
Not “pink”; “green”. They’re still in the green. Otherwise, you’re absolutely right.
Sad, isn’t it?
Not pink exactly, but red (for commie) + green (pro-jihadi) + green (enviro-wacko).
Mongoose, of course you are correct in saying that science, to some degree, has always been up for sale. But only in the last 20 years have institutions been so cavalier about losing their sterling scientific reputations. It all springs from grant money. Universities are so dependent on government money, that they literally can’t do independent research. “Post-Modern Science” is just a mealy-mouthed phrase that means they are open to bribery.
I think the template for agenda science was perfected through the bogus second-hand smoke research. It was the watershed in modern research when agenda trumped science. Most people knew it was bull$hit, but didn’t care. Prior to that, I think most people genuinely believed whatever scientists told them.
Exactly. The politicization reduces support for science. I think these jerks should be an example of.
It’s called post-modern science. And once the public becomes generally aware that science has been corrupted into non-neutral propaganda, its persuasive power, which was based on its ability and dedication to pursue objective truth, is broken.
That’s the Left’s end of road: to act as an AIDS virus, knocking down the epistemological immune system of science, to clear the way for the ancient diseases of religious primitivism to beset us once more.
Let alone suing Tim Ball for saying the he belongs in the State Penn instead of Penn State. Which is the truth.
Yeah, this is going to damage a lot of those things.
1. Statistics are statistics. The sole purpose of which is to predict the future. As more and more data are obtained, prediction gets better. Anything before the invention of the thermometer is sorta iffy. These guys are trying to predict to the tenth of a degree based on tree rings. Yeah, right.
2. Predictions are verified, thus proving or disproving the quality of the prediction engine (The math), by actual observation (empirical data)…i.e. look out the window, see the sun rise, yep, sun rises everyday. Duh.
ta
This point isn’t made often enough. Even if they hadn’t manipulated the data seven ways from Sunday, the core data itself simply isn’t reliable, for dozens of different reasons.
The fact that they use it for any purpose other than dicsussing trends in the most general and hedged manner is a scientific scandal all by itself.
It’s basically developing a library of scientific literature, including millions of calculation to the micrometer, about a scientific phenomenon that is based ultimately on an assumption that you have to go hundreds of layers deep to discover. And for the few who do so, the assumption is simply a guess that benefits the people who made it.
Statistics are statistics.
As for the tree rings, they show that the trees grew at different rates during different years. How strong is that correlated to temperature and not to other factors such as precipitation? Are the tree ring studies actually providing a direct measurement of temperature as they claim?
The factors that drive climate are complex and non-linear. The ability to create an accurate climate model depends on how well those factors are understood and also on our ability to know what those factors were in the past. For example, how well do we know solar variability over the centuries? Thanks to the Chinese, we actually have very good records of sunspot activity going back several centuries. How well do we know about cosmic rays, clouds and other possible climate drivers for more than the past few decades? For that matter, how good are the temperature measurements for more than the past 100 years? How much has the “urban heat island effect” skewed ground temperature readings?
One thing we do know – the Earth’s climate has changed throughout geologic time. There is amble geologic evidence of multiple ice ages through the ages. Each of those ice ages ended and the climate warmed even before the existence of humans. Is the climate changing today? Without a doubt – it has changed throughout time so why would now be any different? The evidence of man’s impact on climate change is sketchy, to say the least.
About the tree rings in your first paragraph: they also show how many sheep poop under the trees in question. Climate/weather conditions affect rates of grazing around the trees. I don’t think this has ever been added to the mix.
Want a sheep-shit grant? You may have to supply your own sheepskin.
I once cut a white oak that was barely 6 in in diameter at the base and counted 74 rings in it. I knew that the timber had been clear cut the year my grandfather bought the land 74 years before. The tree was minuscule because it was crowded and shaded by other larger trees. Looking at tree rings can tell age, but precipitation, temperature, sunlight available, soil ph, presence or absence of pests, fungi, parasites, crowding, etc are just guesses.
Statistics derived from a population describe that population.
If applied to a different population, it may give you insight, but it may mislead. For some people, the misleading is the purpose.
The Navier Stokes equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are non-linear, and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Because of the non-linearity and senditive dependence on initial conditions (A trajectory with temperature that starts at 10 Degrees would be different from one that starts at 10.001 degrees.) distant future states CAN NOT BE PREDICTED from the past. The inability to predict the future using the NS equations has been known since Edward Lorenz’s papers beginning in 1963.
There is a certain irony about ‘cooking the books’ for ‘global warming’ eh?
Great post, Charlie! You da man!
might mean more trouble for secretary Chu…Humanity 1, Malthusians 0.
Global warming is real! I saw that video of the skinny polar bear floating away on the melting sea ice.
Don’t you deniers DARE to refute what is obvious to everyone. You guys are hijacking science to use it against the science that is already settled. That is ILLEGAL. It’s only a matter of time before laws are put in place to prevent such misuse of science.
There is good science and bad science. It is a FACT that humans are causing our planet to self-destruct THIS CENTURY, and science is only called in to support this fact, but that doesn’t mean it can be allowed to disprove it, since it is already a fact!
Get your heads straight!! Before it’s too late!!!
I really can’t tell if you’re joking, cause that is a pretty common way of talking among liberals and those that believe this crud.
A post from a real liberal would have contained more name-calling and self-congratulations, I call foul.
You got me! I’m a bad liberal impostor.
That’s it! A new dish:
Liberal in pasta: finely chopped and sautéed with garlic.
Was that supposed to be taken seriously? No opinion is illegal, and the day that changes, our Republic is dead.
Scientists last month observed (saw with their own eyes) PROOF of six super novas in the same galaxy! And, these guys continue to deny global warming!
Texed: So now you are saying man has caused 6 stars to supernova? I know you didn’t mean that, it was just something libs grab at without thinking! This is just as ridiculous as supporting Mannmade Global Warming! Warming has been detected on each planet in our solar system too. This supports the theory that our sun is controlling climate change as it always has and will. Our planet is not the only planet that has had a warming trend in our solar system. That fact is never mentioned! The GW community is also hushing up findings from CLOUD experiment that tend to verify that the sun is the main factor in controlling warming and cooling cycles!
Looks like you got one, Tex.
It’s not that they are wrong in the science…that’s how science gets better.
It’s that they are wrong in the ethics. That’s how science gets destroyed.
This is taking evidence and manipulating it for purposes of a leftist agenda. Burying the results, destroying the evidence, secreting the findings, covering up the proof, and slandering anyone who doesn’t adhere to the political dogma.
If governments were enticed to spend taxpayer money based upon an intentional fraud…that’s not a political act, it’s a conspiracy to commit a crime.
Those who act as accessories after the fact are no less guilty.
Again, it’s not about having a hypothesis and finding out that it can’t be verified. It’s about hiding the truth from the public, while taking their money in a scheme to deprive them of the truth that is the evil here.
Slandering anyone who points out the fraud…is despicable…and adds to the bad intent. (by the way, someone ought to pass along this information to the leading GOP candidates, who continue to discuss this issue as if they are blindfolded)
Should people who don’t practice science be called scientists just because they declare themselves to be?
If we allow that, then science no longer exists.
As when the people in the white coats came out when Obama-care was the topic of the day. Not doctors….just some agit-props in white lab coats.
“The left uses science like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination.”
Mikey is attached to his hockey stick like a baby to his blanket.
Another agenda driven academic?
“But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.”
“The left uses science like a drunk uses a lamp post.” Pisses and vomits on it, then passes out so that chunks are sticking to his beard the next morning? Yeah, I think we’re there.
AGW scientists don’t use lamp posts. They use bristlecone pines.
I have known the plot and gist of Atlas Shrugged for many years but had never actually read the novel. A few days ago I managed to buy several hundred excellent books at an estate sale, amongst them Atlas Shrugged. I did not get half way through the first chapter before having a strong desire to punch some of the characters in the mouth. I am now half-way through. It does not read like fiction, or a novel; it reads like the current news. Had the AGW movement been around in the 50′s I am certain Rand would have made it a centerpiece of the ‘looters’ plot to rob the country. The AGW crowd seems like they are lifted straight out of the novel.
I am not as patient or diplomatic as many of the authors and commenters here. Were I to have a debate with our friend who often shows up here to defend AGW or any of its serious proponents in person I fear I would not be able to resist the urge I felt in Chpt. 1.
Tex,
Are you saying it’s not just Global Warming, it’s GALACTIC WARMING?!!
With a modest government grant, I’m sure I can prove that it’s apocalyptic and man is the chief contributor.
More specifically “white men”.
Not so long ago many of the AGW folks were pushing the “Post Normal” Science concept. The idea was/is that, contrary to Thomas Kuhn’s classic definition of Normal Science, those who ‘knew’ what was right, even though not proved, needed to be put in charge to ‘fix’ everything because if we waited for proof we would all be toast, literally.
The problem is what if they are wrong? Would all the fixes they proposed only do more damage? What happens when there are enough windmills that weather patterns change? Solar panels consuming sunlight that should fall on the planet? What about entropy? This all assumes they are correct that mankind can influence any of this.
Then there are the wasted resources used chasing…windmills.
PS I spent a lot of years designing, building, operating and maintaining cogeneration facilities. The most important part of my job was doing the engineering and math to evaluate the true energy balance of the proposed effort. Wind and solar can’t get there from here, and are at best, toys for those with time and money to spare. Period.
ta
“Atlas Shrugged” isn’t what first comes to mind when I think of “scientists” convinced they should rule the world.
Rather, I think of the first Tom Baker episode of Doctor Who, in which:
“At UNIT, the Brigadier has discovered that many Think Tank scientists, including Winters and Jellicoe, belong to the Scientific Reform Society, a fringe group advocating a society ruled by a scientific elite that would basically issue orders and restrictions on what everyone is allowed to do.”
Anyone think a modern version of this story would have those advocating a “scientific” dictatorship as the villains?
That worked out great with the robot, didn’t it Rob
Well, I think K9 came out of that episode, so it all turned out OK in the end.
Seriously, though, isn’t the “Scientific Reform Society” what these people are advocating? Isn’t that the effective outcome of the “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED” BS? All they have to do is declare something to be “scientifically proven by consensus” and voila! it must be done.
Better than just “OK”. K-9 could neither pee nor poop around bristlecone pines, which would otherwise have affected their tree-ring growth.
Nevertheless, “Atlas” has precisely such a character in it, Dr. Robert Stadler. He fights the fire while feeding the flames, until he snaps and attempts to do just that — seize power. Unfortunately, the applications of political power were beyond his specialty in comparison to the ordinary thugs who were trained in it from childhood.
We poor, we tired, we huddled masses were never fooled in the first place.
Temps go up – GLOBAL WARMING!
Temps go down – GLOBAL WARMING!
Weather is good – GLOBAL WARMING!
Weather is bad – GLOBAL WARMING!
No global warming – GLOBAL WARMING!
True dat Sandy.
Went backpacking up in the high country of yosemite last summer. Record levels of snow pack and runoff. Needed snow shoes in late June. Upon telling a co-worker she says to me….”ugh….I blame global warming…we’re doomed”.
I had to mull that one for a while.
Global Warming…is there anything it can’t do?
Hey, but that great institution of higher learning, Penn State U, allowed Mann to select all by himself the emails to be reviewed, and Mann was completely exonerated!! Maybe allow 24 hours for everyone to vacate the campus then nuke it?
Penn State nuked itself. They started 14 years ago when Coach Sandusky didn’t get the perp walk.
Assume that Prof. X begins with an hypothesis that eating large quantities of chocolate ice cream significantly diminishes the risk of developing cancer. He and his grad students spend years developing statistics relevant to his hypothesis but, in all honesty, can find no significant correlation between the ingestion of chocolate ice cream and the development of cancer.
What is he to do? No one would be interested in reading, let alone publishing, a study showing the lack of correlation. No grants for additional studies about that, even from the chocolate or the ice cream industries. Maybe adding some (chocolate) fudge might help him to find the badly needed correlation.
That’s only half of it, though. Now imagine the UN Office of Promotion of Chocolate Ice Cream Eating. See the other half of the problem?
Then, the politicians get wind of it and use it to strike fear in the masses. Messages get sent out about the coming avalanche of cancer from eating chocolate ice cream. Then, there’s an Algore-like apparition who goes from town to town excoriating the consumption of chocolate ice cream, while devouring copious amounts of same and even building a chocolate ice cream plant.
Then other politicians begin to notice that their peers who support the belief seem to get more votes. They then start campaigning that “chocolate ice ceam is bad” and the monster begins to grow legs. Various spontaneous groups crop up that are assembled to destroy the chocolate ice cream industry and lobby heavily to get certain laws passed.
It goes international as leaders of nations of dubious repute latch on to another mechanism to control the masses by controlling chocolate ice cream. Only certain people who are willing to pay the tax can have it. Others will have to do without, or, if caught with it will have to pay a heavy fine.
It’s all been done. Nothing new. It’s leftism on parade.
They then start campaigning that “chocolate ice ceam is bad” and the monster begins to grow legs. We need scientific studies, amply funded by national governments and the U.N., to determine how substantial might be the nexus between eating chocolate ice cream and having more than the customary two legs.
This could be a growth industry and could create or save countless jobs. It will be a great step forward.
Followed by studies showing the second hand chocolate ice cream effect. That sitting in the same room with someone eating chocolate ice cream is even worse for you.
Charlie–
Didn’t you do the same thing Wilson did above, namely feeding random data into the model and producing the “Hockey Stick Graph”? I seem to recall you wrote that up for American Thinker or something a few years back.
Fresh, *I* didn’t do it, but I did indeed report it.
Future joke about idiots:
“Hey, do you want to buy a Hockey Stick Graph ?”
You people do not understand math, the hockey stick is real. The only problem with it was the initial ordinate, and the recently discovered fact that it is a recurring series. The corrected ordinate is the number of might-be disasters; the abscissa remains unchanged, time. As T approaches the next climate change conference, the slope of the curve goes to positive infinity. Then the amplitude drops to zero a few weeks later, as gross errors and omissions are discovered in the predictions. Once upon a time, educated people thought that was it, but the event repeats itself, apparently an infinite series.
This is the imaginary part of a complex variable, the real portion being money. When the money goes to zero, a singularity point will be reached and the solution will blow up. The math is straight forward; my problem is a nation without money.
“As T approaches the next climate change conference, the slope of the curve goes to positive infinity.”
Well said.
Let us also not forget: Mann, Hansen, Gore and all these other guys aren’t just in it for the money and the women. Most of these folks don’t believe in an omniscient God and or a redeemer Messiah. So, for them, the titles of “Smartest being in the universe” and “Savior of Humanity” are still up for grabs.
I’m still stuck on the question of how scientists can say in one breath that they don’t know what caused the ice ages, but in the other breath that they absolutely know what is causing current temperature changes.
It takes a unique type of science indeed to say that you can’t account for all the factors that moved the measurement last week, but you are absolutely sure that those factors (whatever they were or weren’t) are absolutely not present in today’s measurement change.
Remember the episode of Gilligan’s Island where the professor thought the isnald was sinking but it turned out that Gilligan had been moving the professor’s measuring stick into deeper water, using it to catch better seafood?
Yeah…global warming is kinda like that.
Then there’s always the bit where you show a picture of something obscure to any number of people and you’ll get any number of answers as to what they think it is. The result is not so much determining what the picture is actually of, but the character of the people who comment on it and are certain they know what it is.
To me, one of the most damning things in there is Mann’s multiple references to people helping or hurting “the cause”. There can be no doubt that at least for Mann, this wasn’t science, but a holy crusade, huh Johnny?
To paraphrase Captain Mal:
“Until people stop trying to find ways to make us… better”
“So, why don’t you want to let the result into science?”
This statement speaks volumes. The term “science” is used here in such a way as to redefine it. It seems to denote neither knowledge of the physical world nor the systematic approach to discovering that knowledge. It rather seems to denote “pronouncements of truth as determined by us through private deliberations.”
Climate Change Science???? Global Warming Science??? More like Chicken Little Science.
Really, some people seem to be engaging in willful scientific fraud. Perhaps a few academic degrees should be rescinded by the granting institutions. It has happened for less.
Other people’s money runs short…. Global Warming!
Check out Lee Smolin’s “The Trouble with Physics” as well.
Mr. Lucky,
My thoughts exactly. The only difference between the AGW scam and the astronurds pursuing string theory and other non-falsifiable drek pretending to be science is that that they aren’t trying to suck trillions from us to counteract their worthless daydreams.
So, in summary: you’ve selected a number of sentences from 170mb of emails you haven’t actually read to form a narrative that supports your beliefs?
That is amazing. Well done. And they say investigative journalism is dead.
So, in summary: Move along. Nothing to see here……
Sorry Mark, the burden of proof is on the hypothesis. In this case the hypothesis is that the Earth is warming and man is causing it. All it takes is a couple of well founded deviations to undermine the hypothesis. There are plenty of documented issues with the hypothesis and these “few” new lines show more concerns are not explained. In addition, we were told the science is settled and every right thinking “scientist” agreed. That appears not to be the case. It doesn’t need to be stated in every email for there to be a problem.
So, in summary, you’ve “adjusted” your data in a way you don’t remember and didn’t document, and have lost the original, un-”adjusted” data, yet you expect us to radically reorganize our political and economic structure on the basis of your conclusions?
That is amazing. Well done. And they say science is dead.
Dummest response in the thread so far. Hang in there til the end man.
It looks like Mark got his marching orders from The Guardian. Just to lift one quote from their incredibly subjectively worded article on the second set of leaked emails.
“The message then includes a sample of cherry-picked quotes selected from a small handful of the emails focusing on apparent disagreements between the scientists…”
…cherry picked…small handful…apparent disagreements… can a reportor jam any more biased phrases in just one sentence?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails
[Note how the dismissive tone carries throughout the article]
No, I got that from this article. By reading it.
There should be debate about climate science, and what can and can’t be proved. And sensible people should be challenging the assertions of others so that a consensus can be reached. Or if no consensus can be reached, the points of contention should be laid out so that people can make their own minds up about whether global warming is real, not real or not proved.
I don’t think stealing emails and cherry picking sentences from them is the way to do this. It’s disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.
I have not made my mind up about global warming. That’s why I was on this site reading opposition to it. But this article appears to be a complete nonsense, and doesn’t do anyone any favours.
Even if what they fear comes to pass, would their fixes do more harm to mankind than a rise in temp. of a few degrees? Most likely, yes.
But…but…Dr. Mueller was on Morning Joe explaining how he’d given the skeptics a chance (being a reasonable guy), looked at their version of the data…
…and IT WAS STILL WRONG AND WE’RE ALL COOKING TO DEATH FOR REALLY REALS!!!!!!
They tried to pass Muller off as some skeptic who was forced by his evidence to change his skepticism and admit Global Warming was real…and if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids he would have gotten away with it.
Muller was never a skeptic, he was always a believer and thanks to that new fangled Internet thingie he didn’t get way with it.
Show of hands…
Mann Made Global Warming or Piltdown Mann?
Yes.
One thing is for sure: if you predict doom, and doesen’t matter if your a crystal ball gazer, a Bible thumper, wear a lab coat and stand behind black board, you going to gain attention, even if you prediuctions are always wrong!
Time for a revised release of the ever-so-popular Youtube video: Hide The Decline!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd3HYU80Dk&feature=related
The earth’s climate has been warming since the last ice age, it must have been caused by the industrial revolution in the stone age.
The real significance here is that Mann’s work is once again debunked and as it is the primary evidence for the AGW hypothesis and much of the computer models are based on his conclusions they must all be tossed along with any assumptions for temp, sea ice,sea level, polar bears etc.
The bottom line???? The climate is changing, but it is neither rapid change nor manmade change so the entire debate returns to a “just because” justification for all the social agendas that are built into the IPCC mandate.
Control energy and you control everything, the zero growth lobby will have to look somewhere else to continue pushing their dogma.
It should be mentioned, although I think most of us know this, that the computer models are NOT a proof but are, in fact, the hypothesis. So the AGW people have several obstacles in the way of their agenda.
First, as has been mentioned, is the difficulty of reliable data to put into computer models or to test computer models.
Second is testing the models with enough certainty to draw conclusions, not just about future climate but about man’s contribution to it.
Finally, and this is seldom discussed but was mentioned above, the proposed cure must be less onerous than the disease. It’s hard to imagine any climate change consequence more serious than the effect on humanity of a command-and-control tyranny.
We were warned that they were coming…
by Hayek http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html
and by Feynman http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf
Montford et. al. said they were here: An f(X) generating the same output for all X is a function of dogma. Paul, et. al., are still telling you that the scientisms of economics, education, and foreign aid are as fundamental to the cult of statism as the most corrupt of the mystic ecologists all y’all are decrying. So tell me, awakened ones, what sort of religions do you think the 1st amendment was talking about, anyway? what due process the 5th? the 6th? the 7th? the 8th?
Cheers really cool post.