Climategate: When Scientists Become Politicians
Fudging results in an attempt to make the world fit one’s preconceptions is beyond the scientific pale and a real crime. (Also read Ed Driscoll: All the News That's Fit to Bury)
At the dawn of the modern age of science, a few hundred years ago, accounting for the motion of the planets was a mystery, but one driven by a flawed theory. It was thought, going back to the ancient Greeks and Plato, that the motions of the planets, being otherworldly and celestial objects, must be perfect and therefore circular. Unfortunately, actual observations were hard to reconcile with this notion. The ancient astronomers could have fudged the data to make it conform to the theory, but that would have been unscientific, so they fine-tuned the theory to try to make a better fit. Almost two millennia ago, Ptolemy refined the concept of circles within circles, or epicycles, to try to develop a model that would explain the observed planetary motions. The theory reached its height half a millennium ago when Copernicus, with the insight that the earth orbited the sun, like the other planets, came close to modeling planetary motion by adding new epicycles, albeit with a different model for each planet. But it was a very complex system, and still wasn’t quite close enough.
Kepler resolved the issue by demonstrating that the best fit of the motion was not circles within circles, but rather simple ellipses. He came up with simple but powerful and explanatory laws that described the motion of the planets as a function of their distance from the sun. Newton in turn used this finding to validate his own universal theory of gravitation.
But it still wasn’t quite good enough. For centuries, the innermost planet, Mercury, stubbornly refused to conform perfectly to Newton’s laws, and many more modern astronomers postulated a hidden planet elsewhere in the solar system that might account for the discrepancies; they didn’t abandon Newton’s theory. However, despite years of trying, they could never determine its location or mass. But despite this frustration, they never yielded to the temptation of simply denying the planet’s mercurial behavior — they continued to refine the theory, no matter how difficult.
About a century ago, another physicist, Albert Einstein, came up with a new theory of gravitation. A key part of it is that Newton’s laws must be adjusted slightly to account for the near presence of large masses. By Einstein’s new theory of general relativity, of which Newton’s earlier theory was simply a special case for velocities much less than that of light and locations not adjacent to very large masses, Mercury’s motion was perfectly explained by its close proximity to the sun.
Over thousands of years, at each step, the response of the scientists was to continually adjust and refine their theories to conform to the data, not the other way around. This is how science is done and how we developed the knowledge that has given us such tremendous and accelerating scientific and technological breakthroughs in the past century. It is occasionally reasonable to throw out a bad data point if it is in defiance of an otherwise satisfactory model fit, as long as everyone knows that you’ve done so and the rationale, but a deliberate and unrevealed fudging of results in an attempt to make the real world fit one’s preconceptions is beyond the scientific pale. Journal articles have been thrown out for it; PhD candidates have lost their degrees for it.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his weblog, Transterrestrial Musings.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
103 Comments
1. Pragmatist:Yes the whole MSM worldwide is a disgrace but especially in the USA in fact if you were foolish enough to rely on Al Bee Bee Cera for your news then its lead story today says ‘Agreement in Copenhagen looks closer today’. This is astounding on two fronts
1) It MIGHT be true and if so we now KNOW this nothing but a Political SCAM with no concern for truth
2) The BBC might be trying to talk up the SCAM while suppressing the hacking story which is not mentioned at all anywhere on the BBC.
Its not his PIGMENTATION its his POLICIES
Nov 23, 2009 - 1:33 am 2. tc:Its not because he is BLACK but because he is RED
He’s not a Muslim oh no! LOL
Wake up before its too late USA.
The left is constantly harping on separation of church and state. They lament prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments, and the mere mention of God anywhere and everywhere. This appalling and petty effort on the unsubstantiated claim that there is to be a separation between religion and all thing public can now be neatly juxtaposed with the left’s efforts on AGW.
I submit to you that the Church of AGW has as its deity, the Environment. The Church is a green building, built with energy efficiency and reusable, sustainable ends in mind. The Minister of the Church are “scientists” such as these in the emails that put forth the teachings of the Church, those whose work and ministerings continue to sway the masses to recycle, reuse and, more ominously, to cap and tax. Their teachings have swayed major governmental players who now submit to the Church. These folks in Congress are so swung by the teachings of this Church as to donate the tithes of the American Citizenry to the efforts of the Church towards funding its work across the world. Its work you say? Yes, its work towards creating more converts and silencing more skeptics and doubters. The evidence? Clear evidence of publication bias and initimidation. The labeling of skeptics as heretics and joyfully cheering their deaths (its in the emails).
Yes, the Church of AGW is exactly what was meant by our founders when Mr. Jefferson wisely suggested that the government should not be a party to the establishment of a religion. This has occurred in the past when non believers or believers of other religions were forced to pay taxes on churches with whom they did not agree.
This is a conjoining between church and state–cap and tax. It is seeking to soak the congregation against their will. It’s like getting shaken down by the ushers at a church and then getting punched for disagreeing with the sermon.
I would encourage all who are duly concerned with liberty and freedom in this country to pursue this issue with a vengeance. This is clearly a case of scientific fraud–fraud that is designed to coverup the failure of theory to be substantiated by direct observation. Moreover, this fraud is being pushed upon us and, if accepted, it will do us grave harm. It is one thing to be personally responsible for one’s own actions upon the environment and it is entirely another to manipulate data in order to get millions in taxpayer funds to further your scientific fraud. This author does a nice job at putting it into historical context.
Strong work.
Nov 23, 2009 - 3:30 am 3. true science:A Russian scientist informed me he knew this hack would happen,
we talked about the legal and illegal results.
His main concern was the recent announcement by the new Russian President Dmitry Medvedev
that Global Warming/Climate Change is the worlds most critical crisis and that Russia would continue to use its influence and monies for the global fight.
And why would Russia not support ‘cap and trade’
if the end game is more money and gold?
The increase in oil prices could triple the Soviet Union coffers.
Russian black hat hackers gave us information that only time will tell,
Nov 23, 2009 - 3:52 am 4. Old Soldier:and that we can use to clean out our own house.
What many of us have long suspected is now confirmed. “Climate Change” is politics, not scientific research. Proving that CO2 causes global warming (rather than being merely a trailing indicator), or even getting that hypothesis elevated to the status of theory, has been a miserable failure via the scientific method route.
Politically, however, it has always been a big winner. “Climate Change” fear mongering tells the left-wing environmentalists and politicians exactly what they want to hear. The “environmentalists” love the “industry / civilization bad” message. And telling lefty politicians that more taxes and government control are needed is music to their ears.
The message is so lovely, they went out and bought themselves a whole bunch of “scientists” (or at least people with the right diplomas) to sing it to them constantly and bash anyone who doubted the message.
Nov 23, 2009 - 4:42 am 5. John "birther" Samford:The real story here is that the Global Warming Industry rolled the media. AGW isn’t real. Nothing humans have done effected the global climate. Nothing humans will do can affect the global climate.
Nov 23, 2009 - 4:47 am 6. Simone BC:Algore and his cronies hornswoggled the media and tricked them into acting as promoters for the greatest fraud inhistory. Saddam and his OIL for fraud scam netted a few billlion. Madeoff (sp?) got maybr half that. Algore was going for TRILLIONS.
What is amusing is the Media did the dirty work and won’t get a dime.
It’s not just the arrogance and agenda of these people, as shown in their emails. Apparently they also lost their original data and used very shoddy code to generate the results that were published and then cited.
At least that is the strong impression given by the file “HARRY_READ_ME.txt”, the first line of which reads: “READ ME for Harry’s work on the CRU TS2.1/3.0 datasets, 2006-2009!”. Harry apparently was given the job of making the code and data presentable, possibly due to increasing pressure on the East Anglia CRU to publish the underlying data and code.
Asimov at MarketTicker Forums posts his/her reactions to reading this file — not pretty at all.
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has posted a short comment and link to Asimov.
Nov 23, 2009 - 4:49 am 7. eon:Of course, the problem may be that the “scientists” in question were, in fact, politicians the whole time, or at least were driven by a political agenda (“How can we make the data fit our predetermined and socially-necessary theory?”) as opposed to the true scientific method (“What does the data tell us is really happening?”).
The fact that this occurred in the United Kingdom is noteworthy, as well. Gordon Brown and his New Labour Party (inherited from Tony Blair) are hardcore supporters of the AGW hypothesis and the Draconian measures that good “progressives” worldwide lust after to “save Holy Mother Gaia”- from the existence of free markets and democracy.
The Climate Research Unit (East Anglia or Hadley, take your pick) is a government-run and funded entity. Therefore, it would seem that the British government would be in the proper position to investigate the evidence of malfeasance and take appropriate remedial action (i.e., firing those responsible and possibly even prosecuting them for misuse of facilities and funds).
Except that it won’t happen because “Crash” Gordon & Co. would far rather that the lies had remained unknown because they were lies that supported the “Official View” and “Government Policy”.
On the plus side, if the British people take proper notice of this, it could be the final nail in the lid of Brown’s political coffin.
That is, if the Beeb ever sees fit to mention it to them.
As for the MSM in the U.S. doing likewise for the American people in this, the run up to Copenhagen… Surely You Jest.
They aren’t about to let the narrative of The One’s Brave New World be sidetracked by anything as irrelevant as… actual facts.
clear ether
eon
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:06 am 8. Jack in Silver Spring:Mr. Simberg – Spot on. You should have mentioned one other scientific fad, however: phlogiston.
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:21 am 9. Kazooskibum:Remember: The issue isn’t the issue. The issue is control.
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:23 am 10. MarkD:“You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your facts.” These are liars, not scientists. They must be shunned by honest individuals on both sides of the debate. I’d not want them on my side.
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:27 am 11. Pragmatist:# 5 John the left wing moonbat MSM did not need much rolling they never saw a scare story they did not love and hype beyond credulity. The problem is that they were not just ‘rolled’ by it but actively promoted it and CONTINUE to do so even now it has been exposed for the CRIMINAL SAM it is.
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:40 am 12. Terry Gain:The real story here is that the Global Warming Industry rolled the media.
The media rolled itself. On the fictions of AGW and Obama.
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:59 am 13. Archie:They are neither scientists nor politicians. They are religious zealots. AGW is a modern secular religion, and the behavior of these so-called “scientists” makes complete sense in this context.
Nov 23, 2009 - 6:02 am 14. Skip:Any memos to/from Al Gore?
Nov 23, 2009 - 6:30 am 15. macko:I certainly hope we have enough tar and feathers. All our politicians that voted for cap and trade are just as guilty. You really don’t need to ask many questions before you would become doubtful as to the authenticity of global warming. These scientists and the politicians are supposed to be the smartest people we have.
Nov 23, 2009 - 6:33 am 16. bandit:Now they haven’t signed the treaty and they haven’t passed cap and trade but we have been had.
Yhe hilarious yet odious hubris of academics is always good for a laugh mixed with disgust.
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:01 am 17. passive weatherman:@ # 6
Sorry for the long copy quote.
but this e-mail is un*******believable.
Absolutely criminal.
This so called climatologist-scientist should be put into jail and have his nuts frozen so he can no longer reproduce.
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:05 am 18. Poor Citizen:I agree with the political part too.
I remember when there were so-called real scientists saying that cigarrettes do not cause cancer and no such thing as drunk driving and that there is no need for seat belts. Now you have these same science clowns saying there is no environmental pollution and if there is, then nature will fix it and telling us we do not need cap and trade. What KooKs !! These people must have recieved their degrees from at Wal Mart University. At least the majority of Americans now support protections and strong laws against the polluters. Our grand kids will thank us….
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:12 am 19. true science:We need to weed the data- remove/adjust the data to your paper.
Planting-
Data will be planted/added in future papers as needed.
These guys sound like a bunch of Richard Nixon college freshmen that just broke into the Deans computer and are changing their grades.
WTF
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:21 am 20. XiaoMei:It is hard (perhaps impossible) to know the motives of the people who would so betray the basic precepts of science.
I’d like to know where one can find a good study of psychological, intellectual, and moral compartmentalism. This art seems to have a long history and a bright future.
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:31 am 21. Pragmatist:# 18 poor Citizen so do YOU say that CO2 is a POLLUTANT I will be VERY interested in your response or are you just trying to raise a STRAWMAN argument to divert attention from your Global Warming SCAM friends.
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:32 am 22. myth buster:18. Yeah, I’m sure our grandkids will thank us for inflicting upon them disease and famine. NOT!!! Grow a brain. Cap and Trade will kill people, not directly, but as a result of the ruinous effects it will have on the economy, which will cause people to starve. America can feed the world, if only people would allow us to, but Cap and Trade would deny us the capacity to feed ourselves, let alone the rest of the world.
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:33 am 23. JED:Science became the side-whore of politicians when funding came from the treasury in grants. Scientists work under the paradigm of objectivity to discover the truth. Politicians work under the paradigm of subjectivity to increase their power and popularity while obfuscating their means. A goal of scientists is efficiency. A goal of political states is inefficiency and wasteful spending. The golden rule becomes the bastardized version of “who has the gold makes the rules.” Thus the civil servants can become the civil masters and the wizards can become the priviledged slaves. The relationship is parasitic, hence corupt.
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:37 am 24. Tex Taylor:Will Dr. Heidi Cullen who called on the American Meteorological Society to start requiring all meteorologists to toe the line on “progressive” interpretation of global warming, or else lose the organization’s certification, now admit she was wrong and step down?
If not, she should be summarily caned for propaganda, hubris and stupidity.
Another lib left with egg on their face. Bulbous Gore will have a great deal of company by the time this farce is completely exposed.
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:47 am 25. no Obama:6_ BC Simone
>Weeding the Data.>
Are you sure this is not a government Labor Dept. computer trying to tell us about the jobs Obama has saved?
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:50 am 26. tdiinva:When a politician tells us he “will put science in its proper place” he means that proper place for science is to support the Party over society and the nation.
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:52 am 27. Jack in Silver Spring:Poor Citizen @ #18: If CO2 is a pollutant than every time you exhale you are polluting the atmosphere. (Have you considered how to end such pollution?) But the fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. It is simply part of the atmosphere and a very, very small part at that. Moreover, if the purported climatologists had done their homework, they would have noticed that CO2 will more often than not increase more after the increase in tempurature and not before, and the answer to why that is so is simple. There’s a lot of CO2 in the ocean. As the ocean heats up (for whatever reason) it releases CO2. It is comparable to a warm bottle of soda releasing its fiz really quickly. In any event, over the last ten years as CO2 has increased (due to anthropgenic causes) yet there has been no warming or there has been cooling. That I would think put the kibbosh on the AGW speculation. Also, Poor Citizen, while CO2 has in general increaed over the last century, we have experienced a widespread increase in wealth for all Americans, and of much of the world. Would you now reverse that and impoverish us?
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:03 am 28. 2klbofun:So maybe we need to refer to AGW as Piltdown-Man-Made Global Warming!
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:03 am 29. Thomas_L.....:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_man)
Poor Citizen@18: So it will come as some surprise to you that people who agree with you that actual pollution needs to be eliminated and cleaned up, still don’t believe the AGW hogwash? That’s because you’ve created a straw man to beat up on, my silly friend.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:12 am 30. maddd as arabbit:A major public inquiry must be held and all world/government efforts to combat AGW should go on hold while the ’science’ is examined from square one, day one.
No claims or results by any climatologists should be considered unless all the data and coding is released as well, to be held to the light of criticism and review by non partisans in open forums.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:19 am 31. Scott:With surprising agility, or fortuitous timing, Lord Lawson (famous agw skeptic) launches a new skeptic think tank (http://www.thegwpf.org/). Seems to be run by a scholarly group interested in protecting scientific integrity.
When will Inofe speak up? We need a champion in Congress.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:19 am 32. Robert G. Oler:global warming is the lefts WMD…
I always find it so funny that the last defenders of Bush’s “dangers gather near our shores” folks…all dump on the global warming thing so hard.
Both are fantasy’s of extremes
Robert G. Oler
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:23 am 33. Poor Citizen:No. 21 Pragmatist and his allies:
Dude, Pollution has happened. From cars and factories that make things, together with many other man made sources. Trust me, or read a newspaper when you get the opportunity. Some things have been done to curb and/or reduce that pollution. But much more needs to be done. Its that simple. Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 with bi-partisan support to help in that great endeavor. Since then, many politicians from both sides have supported measures to continue these efforts. So those are some facts for you to ponder. So write it down ok?…take your time…no rush… 1. Pollution is bad and 2. doing something about is good. Simple enough? On behalf of all the normal people, I certainly hope so.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:25 am 34. true science:My God!
Can this be true?
When it all boils down and I think about it,
it is just mind boggling that we in the community could be so gullible,
so trusting and so mislead.
My trust in global climate science has been set back 20 years and I am sad, depressed, and pissed, not at the data, it can still be changed, but at the SOBs that we allowed to ‘trick’ us.
later.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:26 am 35. Pragmatist:So say it straight Robert G. Oler: YOU categorically CONFIRM that Saddam had no WMDs even the ones he USED on the Kurds or the ones HIDDEN in SYRIA but that MAN made global warming by CO2 emissions is a defendable SCAM. Come on man own up to your MOONBAT status.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:36 am 36. Pragmatist:# 33 Poor Citizen dont DODGE the Question is or is not CO2 a POLLUTANT please dont continue your illogical Pollution STRAWMAN BS.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:39 am 37. willis:The MSM are not conceding their set back on this expose. WaPo is spinning it as a revelation of the bad blood between the scientists and the non-believers. They make very little mention of the fraudulent treatment of data, studies, etc. by the “scientists.”
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:41 am 38. Pragmatist:Seems like Poor Citizen has not got a clue what a STRAWMAN argument is.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:45 am 39. BHG:The real crime is that they influenced so many good-hearted but gullible and ignorant. How many times have you seen people in documentaries dragged out before the cameras and swear that because they’ve seen this or that natural phenomena that global warming exists. Note it’s all over the last 10 years.
Like, right, I look out my front door and swear that the earth is flat, well, not exactly flat, there are a few hills and stuff. You’d laugh but big bucks are invlolved – ours!
I had to stop reading Scientific American! What do you do when they rail against the irrationality of people of faith and worship at the altar of Al Gore’s global warming. Check out the mag’s warnings of a New Ice Age about now back in the 1950. How about a little introspection. Self-doubt? Humility?
years a
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:46 am 40. paul_unalaska:Pragmatist, you’re trying to illicit a lucid response from one who opens their stanza with ‘Dude’.
I’d just assume to let it go..
Smoke and mirrors is the best you can hope from many people, sadly.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:54 am 41. Pragmatist:# 40 Paul yes thats true but avoiding or ignoring or not confronting the moronic smoke and mirrors is what allowed someone like the LIAR Messiah BOGUS POTUS to get elected in the first place.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:01 am 42. not to worry:Anyone care to guess how many e-mails in other global warming centers are being deleted?
Can you say thousands of
degreesdeletes?
“Someone please help!”
“My damn computer delete button has quit working!”
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:06 am 43. Sebastian Shaw:All of this began 30 years ago with the Global Cooling scare with big stories in Time, Newsweek, on the television with In Search of & news programs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ndHwW8psR8&feature=PlayList&p=569D328F0DD9944B&index=0 [Part 1]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tokbiZW3gVY&feature=PlayList&p=569D328F0DD9944B&index=1 [Part 2]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nprY2jSI0Ds&feature=PlayList&p=569D328F0DD9944B&index=2 [Part 3]
The hysteria came from an intense winter chill in Winter.
Eventually, this changed into Global Warming; however, they want to use the same means: Taking liberty away from the people & use government to enforce Communism. There are also particular companies invested into the Global Warming scam such as GE (NBC) working in collusion with the White House.
We have been in a cooling trend for 10 years now. The Earth goes through cooling & heating cycles thanks to the sunspot activity of our star, the Sun, with other factors.
The frauds have too much invested to reject their Global Warming junk science. Eventually, their credibility will be questioned–as it is now–& they will be destroyed.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:07 am 44. D. Ch.:Before going too far down the road saying all this politicized science marks a severe falling away from the true spirit of scientific inquiry, you should contemplate how scientists and engineers who work for large companies in the private sector are usually well aware that directors and supervisors would prefer one sort of data-set, or one type of result, over another, and how there are always helpful employees with good engineering and science credentials who are happy to support this preference (the “party line”, if you will). Time and again you will find little tolerance for information that points to flaws in past technical decisions or current technical policies (you see, there’s always some important person or group of people responsible for those decisions and policies). If climate change played out the same way this sort of thing routinely plays out in large private companies, it wouldn’t be discredited until the evidence against it became impossible to deny — say the world’s average temperature falling 10 degrees over the next 5 years — or the refusal to face reality began to hurt the bottom line badly enough to effect the CEO’s bonus! Really, as soon as scientists, engineers, and so on become players in how large amounts of money are spent, it’s silly to expect dispassionate analysis about the merits of the technical and scientific issues under discussion. In the private sector, fortunately, people can waste time and effort any way they please without affecting most of the rest of us. When the same sort of self-interested science takes hold in the public sector, however, it’s much less tolerable, for obvious reasons. For one thing, the public thinks it’s paying for science, not lobbying disguised as science. I’m sure if you dug into NASA emails, and the emails at the top levels of the defense-industrial complex, you would see the same sort of East-Anglia nastiness at play — probably worse, in fact, since those areas of government supported science and engineering have been in operation for many more decades. Always remember, the more expensive an experiment has been to perform, the less likely it is to be declared a failure (and for that matter, when experiments produce “successes” or “failures” as opposed to just results, objectivity has been lost.)
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:09 am 45. Poor Citizen:to no. 36, 38 and 40 (Palin.s devoted toothpick):
Listen up. I will make this (very) simple for you (again) for one final time. And as far as strawmen go, I have checked my care meter and its not registering so that one is over. Dig?
We all know Co2 occurs naturally but human activity has increased it and alot of human activity (like how you were made) increases it mucho. Dig?
So then, when you get lots of it prouduced lots at a time (taking notes yet?) it heats up the atmosphere and causes things to melt (like your ice cream). Dig?
So what we want to do is slow that down a bit so you two can enjoy your ice cream longer. Now aint that cool?
There…now,
where did I put my shovel?
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:12 am 46. Professor Guvinoff:Science is supposed to be a non-prophet enterprise, in which theories are arbitrated by facts, not the other way around.
We don’t live in a world of equal-opportunity humility, as illustrated by the contrast between Albert Gore an Albert Einstein’s attitudes. Let’s keep our Alberts in order, and not get carried away on planet fever, while we still have an ample supply of human fevers to deal with.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:14 am 47. Bob14:The War on Prosperity will continue…though the AGW battle appears to be going badly at the moment.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:19 am 48. Pragmatist:# 45 STRAWMAN generator NO you did NOT answer te question here it is AGAIN. Is CO2 a POLLUTANT or not. Very simple question just answer YES or NO
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:19 am 49. Les Nessman:PC: “1. Pollution is bad and 2. doing something about is good. Simple enough?”
Ohhh, doing ’something’ is good, eh?
Yes, ’simple’ describes that very well.
You really don’t know what ‘doing something’ entails, do you?
‘We have to do something!”, the child shrieked.
The world run by children. Incredible.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:29 am 50. Barry:PC, are you a complete moron? Do you have any idea what the makeup of atmospheric greenhouse gases are? Do we “dig”? No, or rather, Hell No. You are the fool these “scientists” intend to fool. And it works. Some of us with an education have always understood this was a scam. Some of us without an education have always understood this was a scam.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:30 am 51. RadCap:I agreed with Rand’s article, except for this point:
“But every scientist worthy of the name should be a skeptic. Every theory should be subject to challenge on a scientific basis.”
It is true that every “theory” should be regarded skeptically if there is *cause* to do so (ie evidence for doubt). But not every idea about reality is still a theory. For instance, it is no longer a “theory” that the earth is round (rather than flat). That fact has now been established. The idea is no longer a theory, but is true. There is no basis for being skeptical – for doubting – this conclusion.
The question which gets ignored here is at what point does a theory become a truth? At what point does a conclusion go from being possible, to probable, to certain?
To suggest scientists must -always- be skeptical is to claim that certainty can never be reached – about anything. That is simply a false statement. That is not science. That is the acceptance and practice of a particular philosophy – Skepticism – which is something -quite- different from reason.
The actual problem here is that many people are treating an idea which is (at best) a flawed *hypothesis* as if it were not just a theory but an actual certainty – ie as if they somehow know it to be true. In other words, they hold their conclusion not based on the methodology of reason, but by means of faith.
Men who eschew the epistemology of reason for the epistemology of faith do not deserve the title “scientist”. To call them “scientists” is to sully the name and insult all those who rigorously and scrupulously practice rationality.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:30 am 52. Person of Choler:Problem foreseen 48 years ago:
“Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity…The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:33 am 53. Mike M.:~Dwight Eisenhower (from his Farewell Address, 17 January 1961, better known as his Military Industrial Complex Speech)
1. Before there was “science” there was “religion”, specifically and only the Judeo-Christian version, being quite and absolutely unique in its theology.
2. According to recently deceased Stanley Jaki (Seton Hall U.), Christianty in the West established the conditions that allowed for the birth and nurturing of science – and no other ‘culture’ in history did or could allow for this.
3. Therefore…….
When, AS IS THE CASE IN OUR INTELLECTUALLY SHALLOW WEST THESE DAYS, religion is not only dismissed, but seen by some as the enemy of science, science itself becomes a kind of religion.
The fact is that “Global Warming” is not science at all. If it ever was, it was for about 10 seconds, but that was decades ago. Since then it has been a postmodern form of Shamanism.
AND NOTHING ELSE!
Now, we will see what happens to civilization when faux religion replaces the real thing. Disaster happens, and it has ever been thus.
Peace.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:41 am 54. Akatsukami:“Now you have these same science clowns saying there is
no environmental pollutionanthropogenic global warming”Fixed that for you.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:44 am 55. Real Deal:Aww come on, let the moonbats believe CO2 is a pollutant. Perhaps we can convince them that offing themselves will save the planet. They can even recycle while doing it by using old plastic grocery bags to off themselves.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:46 am 56. WestWright:Poor Citizen should not be encouraged Pragmatist. PC is such a raging little ignorant fool, it probably believes that Polar Bears actually fall out of the sky. Waste of time!
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:47 am 57. paul_unalaska:#44 D. Ch, I agree with your post.
I experienced this while with NOAA. I’d used ‘outside’ meteorological data for analysis, issuance of my products.
A corporate ‘yes man’ saw me doing this and ‘recommended’ I use the NOAA, NWS products available. Oddly, our team was later ‘briefed’ about the importance of using in-house products.
This had taken place around the time, ‘The Office’ was in theaters. Perversely similar though on a more grandiose scale.
Being part of these agencies the ‘hidden’ mantra is ‘obey’. Not to question or improve upon but ‘obey’.
This realclimate fiasco is a situation that was easily apparent (again the ‘credentials’ of many ’scientists’ is a whose who in or was but still ‘obeys’ the Fed/Romulus teat) but having ‘hard data’ to back the claims is bittersweet.
I’m thankful for the private industry/free thinkers who I’m fortunate to call co-worker and friends.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:48 am 58. paul_unalaska:This supposed ‘global warming – we can remedy’ sense of being coincides with the hysteria-resolve which ‘General Jack Ripper’ in ‘Dr. Strangelove’ exudes.
“You’ll have to answer to the Coca-Cola company”.
Nov 23, 2009 - 9:58 am 59. John:Here’s my scientific prediction: All of the calls for hugely expensive, economy wrecking policies promulgated to save the planet from global warming will be placed in limbo due to the new evidence of fraud.
However, once a Republican is again elected President, the media will determine that despite the fraud, global warming *is* happening and will begin to shriek for the economy wrecking policies once again.
Global warming is not science. It is a political bogeyman the media uses to foment hatred against the “earth-hating” Republicans.
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:02 am 60. Horst Graben:It’s birther ID celebration day at crackermedia. A pollutant/nutrient is a matter of concentration or dose. CO2 causes warming. No debate. Science settled.
The CRU “Hack” just revealed the playbook of the alarmists: those who feel we need to act now before we cross the magic tipping point. What is not settled are the feedbacks from the CO2 warming, the influence from solar activity and the causes of natural variation in ocean currents.
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:04 am 61. Pragmatist:# 56 Encourage is the wrong word WestWright: what I am doing is EXPOSING him for the fool that he is.
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:08 am 62. Pragmatist:Wow you wait for a Moonbat loony nutcase then so many turn up at once Welcome # 60 Horst Graben
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:12 am 63. Ltw:#45 Poor Citizen
We all know Co2 occurs naturally but human activity has increased it and alot of human activity (like how you were made) increases it mucho. Dig?
So then, when you get lots of it prouduced lots at a time (taking notes yet?) it heats up the atmosphere and causes things to melt (like your ice cream). Dig?
It’s not as simple as you seem to think. You don’t seem to understand the AGW hypothesis you’re championing – CO2 alone is not enough to raise the temp by very much, as it increases its influence drops off, because the amount in the atmosphere is already sufficient to capture most of the long wave radiation it is opaque to. Past a cetain point it won’t raise the temp at all (all the heat it can prevent escaping is already captured). Think of it as the law of of diminishing returns. The predictions of the IPCC rely on what are called “forcings”, i.e. that the small increase in temperature from CO2 will drive increases in other greenhouse gases (primarily water vapour) and create a self-reinforcing positive feedback leading to catastrophe (“the tipping point”). Maybe this is true – but there is very little evidence for it.
Pushing “the more CO2, the hotter the world gets” is a silly misrepresentation. If that were true, the earth’s temp would track up and down in concert with CO2, and it’s well established that this doesn’t happen. If you’re going to defend a theory, at least know something about it.
Dig?
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:12 am 64. Pragmatist:So please tell us Moonbat HORST just HOW MUCH CO2 is enough and hw much is TOO MUCH what is the earths NORMAL level over thousands of years before man even existed???
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:15 am 65. Pragmatist:Moonbat Horst says SCIENCE SETTLED LOL
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:16 am 66. Claude Hopper:Damning as the emails seem, I suspect an insider with detailed knowledge of internal discussions at the lab found them even more distressing. Thus he/she felt compelled to shine a hot light on the lies. What we see is probably just the tip of a rapidly melting iceberg.
Some time ago, I challenged a US Army report on the safety of poison gas disposal (burning). I was asked to join a team opposing the method of disposal. I declined since the my goal was to question the statistical methods used to support the selected method’s safety. If I joined a team I would have had to suppress valid data if it did not support my teams contention. It looks as if these “AGW scientists” have joined the Gore team. Or is it that Gore joined their team?
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:16 am 67. joe buzz:Jim Jones, Phil Jones, their kool-aid has been served. The followers of the AGW cult have been brain-washed beyond the point of no return. I have no issue with the study of climate, but to attempt to establish energy policy and trading standards based on fraudulent data is criminal. Who in the UK will insist that charges be filed?
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:24 am 68. Klem:Poor citizen #18 you are correct, there are lots of scientists who will say anything for a buck. You are also correct that we need anti-pollution legislation so that our children will thank us in the future. No one would argue against legislation which is directed at reducing pollution. But this is not about reducing pollution, it’s about the truth of AGW and subverting science in order to create a global carbon commodity trading market. it’s about the money, your money.
BTW, I ask, when we sign the COP-15 treaty and we give Billions to Least Developed Countries to pay our ‘carbon debt’, what will they do with all of the money? answer; they will arm themselves. AK47s are made in china now and they sell for about $5 each. We think we will save the planet, but with the Copenhagen treaty we will arm it instead.
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:38 am 69. Duuuude, where'd you put my sticky buds:“We all know Co2 occurs naturally but human activity has increased it and alot of human activity (like how you were made) increases it mucho.”
So we’ve discovered the secret of creating mass out of nothing now, have we? I would have thought such a groundbreaking refutation of the law of the conservation of mass would get at least a little media attention.
Just as a piece of advise-write before you take bong hits duuuuude, it should increase the quality of your blurbs. Comprende?
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:53 am 70. jdkchem:#45-poor idiot. please continue to demonstrate your profound ignorance. CO2 happens to be a requirement for photosynthesis. CO2 also aids in water retention in soil. In other words more plants grow. CO2 is nowhere near as strong an IR absorber as water which has a greater impact on temperatures than CO2.
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:53 am 71. Don Rodrigo:Calling CO2 a pollutant is just plain ignorant. Take your pathetic attempt at science back to elementary school and finish 6th grade Jethro.
15. macko:
I certainly hope we have enough tar and feathers.
Feathers, maybe, tar . . . . no, because the AGW idiots won’t let us drill for more oil.
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:55 am 72. Pragmatist:Dont worry guys all is revealed on another thread Poor Citizen is a Mohammedan hence all his anti American moonbat views on everything.
Nov 23, 2009 - 10:59 am 73. Abdul Abulbul Amir:“1. Pollution is bad and 2. doing something about is good. Simple enough? On behalf of all the normal people, I certainly hope so.”
Not simple, simplistic.
If there were a machine that released an ounce of CO2 and 1/100th ounce of CO into the air each year while it cured 1,000 cancer cases in the same time, would it be “good” to turn it off in the name of doing something about pollution?
Pollution is undesirable, but far less so than many other things including famine, malnutrition, and disease.
Animals have been polluting water since they learned to defecate. However, that is no reason to surgically sew your poop chute closed.
Nov 23, 2009 - 11:05 am 74. Pragmatist:# 72 I could have added “and all his ignorance and stupidity but that is a given.”
Nov 23, 2009 - 11:13 am 75. Lee Peters:Scientists Advocating Man-Made Global Warming Caught with Pants Down on Special Climate Change Episode of Cheaters TV Show http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/11/scientists-advocating-man-made-global.html
Nov 23, 2009 - 11:21 am 76. Agnew Jr.:Many people don’t know this. But just because the users deleted some emails does not mean the emails are actually deleted and unrecoverable. It all depends on the university’s email system. But it’s very likely that every email sent and received was archived on a server deep in the university’s IT department.
Now maybe the university does NOT want to know if the leaked messages are real. I’m sure they prefer to look the other way and ignore it until a lawsuit forces them to look into it. But it would be a trivial exercise for a competent DBA to compare the leaked emails to the ones that are archived in the university’s email servers and prove the leaked ones are real or not.
Nov 23, 2009 - 11:22 am 77. "progressivewatch":The same thing is happening in medicine and health now,and is happening with the Supreme Court justices and their interpretation of the law and the Constitutiion. In fact,to a great extent,it explains what is happening to our congress.
Nov 23, 2009 - 11:28 am 78. Donna V.:However, that is no reason to surgically sew your poop chute closed.
Can we, at the very least, surgically sew his mouth shut?
I’m not completely heartless. I would leave just enough space for a straw so he could subsist on organic tofu and arugula smoothies.
Nov 23, 2009 - 11:29 am 79. not to worry:65. Pragmatist:
Moonbat Horst says SCIENCE SETTLED LOL
ROFLMAO
Nov 23, 2009 - 11:43 am 80. Donna V.:But just because the users deleted some emails does not mean the emails are actually deleted and unrecoverable.
Agnew Jr., there was a very entertaining case involving the heirs to the estate of Redskins owner Jack Cook Kent back in the ’90’s. Various family members were suing each other and the attorneys on both sides traded emails along the lines of “good Lord, all of these people are loathsome a**h***s, aren’t they?” (Of course, DC lawyers calling other people loathsome a**h***s – that’s comedy gold right there.) The lawyers had deleted the emails – they didn’t realize that they could be retrieved from the computer hard drives. They were and went public, giving the locals much amusement at the time.
That was in the mid-90’s, when email was in its infancy. I find it rather amazing that people in 2009 can still be under the impression that “deleted” emails somehow vanish without trace.
One of the “scientists” reportedly used his last name as his password. Boy, that’s secure!
Nov 23, 2009 - 11:43 am 81. You are too affluent:These people have always wanted to raise your taxes and have the government control your life (knowing that they would be among the nomenklatura). Watermelons indeed.
Nov 23, 2009 - 12:40 pm 82. Fireplug:In the 70’s James Hansen and other NASA scientists were spewing about the impending Ice Age, that if we didn’t stop hydrocarbon emissions we would soon freeze. Of course, Hansen says he only provided the computer program that other NASA climatologists used to produce their data. If you believe that, I’ll sell you some beachfront property and a bridge. And we don’t want to talk about the CFC fraud perpetrated to protect the profits of the producers of freon, wherein the Democrats had a big part in protecting a major donor.
Nov 23, 2009 - 12:48 pm 83. Ian Thorpe:I was a climate change campaigner over 30 years ago, arguing not for scientific mumbo jumbo and political control freakery but for improved sea defences, proper management of forests and better flood control systems. It was clear back then what was happening was too big to be dealt with by scientific tricks and wheezes.
Back then the scientists were the climate change sceptics, they stroked their chins and said “Hmmmm, well of course there is no scientific evidence.
Has nobody else noticed how they suddenly got interested when politicians started throwing money at climate change research.
The politicians have a hidden agenda of course. Their aim is to spread fear and panic and thus quell opposition to their global governance project.
Already, less than two days into his new job, the recently installed President of the EU has been talking about the world government.
Daniel Hannan on the EU President and global governance
Nov 23, 2009 - 1:07 pm 84. Horst Graben:Pragmatist: Thousands of years before man existed? I thought you birther Sarahphilles believed the earf was only 4500-years old.
That’s the rub, no one knows how much CO2 is too much. My guess is 1,000-ppm based on a swag.
Nov 23, 2009 - 1:58 pm 85. Nick Reynolds:Calling Algore, calling Algore, come in please!!!
Nov 23, 2009 - 3:08 pm 86. hitnrun:It’s amazing how quickly scientific principles have unraveled among many of those who consider themselves its advocates over the last few decades. There’s still an actual core of realist scientists – larger than ever, in fact – but for a large swath of practitioners and an increasing circle of popular culture, what used to be a working method has become a sort of secular god for those who need one.
Try to understand: science is not an arbiter of “truth.” It does not return results or provide answers you can put on a family coat of arms. It is quite simply a methodology of building increasingly better models for the way the observable universe works. Nothing more and nothing less. This is science according to that raging creationist nut, Karl Popper.
It’s all well and good now to treat science like a golden idol while the unsustainable federal spicket is open and scientific establishments are raking in the Monopoly money. But when that fountain of taxpayer money is closed – either by us or China – who will be left to support progress? Most of the dorks and wonks will move on without a paycheck. Most liberals only embrace science because it’s a convenient and reputable counterpoint to religious conservatives. And most greens would turn into pagans and “back-to-nature” reversionists in a split second if the scientific establishment ever stopped reinforcing their opinions.
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:06 pm 87. Dave Surls:That’s the rub, no one knows how much CO2 is too much. My guess is 1,000-ppm…
Too much for what? What would 1,000 ppm be too much for?
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:15 pm 88. Charliemax:Scientific Political Correctness. When does PC become criminal? I think in this case a crime against humanity itself.
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:48 pm 89. PAthena:#45 does not know what pollution is. It is relative to the class of living beings; to quote Heraclitus: “Sea water is polluted for man but pure for fish.”
Nov 23, 2009 - 5:49 pm 90. myth buster:CO2 is only a pollutant for man when it endangers human health. It is NECESSARY for plants and the animals which depend on them.
The “global warmists” (*or “coolests”) are anti-scientific, since they have not taken the history of climates into account. E.g., there is a 20,000 years cycle of Ice Ages dependent on the changes of the orbit of the earth around the sun. The last major Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago, and the next will be in 10,000 years. We are now in an inter-glacial period.
84. US Navy doesn’t consider CO2 a problem on submarines until it exceeds 8000 ppm.
Nov 23, 2009 - 6:14 pm 91. Doug:Excellent and very well articulated statement on the crime against science perpetrated by these leading proponents of the AGW hypothesis.
Nov 23, 2009 - 6:23 pm 92. AT:Scientists have to become politicians (in the US), or else they do not get funding. A scientist without funding … is looking for a new job.
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:22 pm 93. Mark Turner:Horst Graben=Ass Graben=Thomas Lee Elifritz=Biggest clueless troll in Internet history
Nov 23, 2009 - 7:39 pm 94. Pragmatist:# 84 Horst: thanks for confirming your total ignorance of the subject you deem yourself qualified to pontificate on. We knew you were a simple moonbat but its nice to get confirmation from the ‘Horses mouth’ as it where. As for your accusation that I am a CREATIONIST please point out to me where I have ever claimed that?
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:26 pm 95. Gregson:So what will be the fall-out from the leaked CRU files? What happens when politically connected scientists manipulate data to buttress a flawed correlation that increasing CO2 concentrations drive increases in global temperatures. As expected, the narrative now becomes an exercise in the dissembling of culpability and the inevitable claims of victimhood by the principles.
There should be no quarter spared in aggressively pursuing the perpetrators at every level and calling attention to all who have participated in the conspiracy to fraudulently access public funding based on the manipulation of data and research. The outright falsification of the scientific method, the craven self-interest demonstrated by the those who would foist the ultimate hoax onto an unsuspecting world for political and monetary gain; the politicians blindly signing onto invasive regulations, editors of peer-reviewed journals willfully rejecting dissenting opinion in favor of sensational headlines and the banishment of objective experts and opinions to the scientific equivalent of Botany Bay is unforgivable.
The virtue of scientific endeavor must be paramount and therefore the entire community must be held to the highest of standards. There can be absolutely no compromise on the manipulation of data, research techniques or scientific method – and for those who breech the protocols and endeavor to manufacture results – justice must be swift and uncompromising. To do anything less than issue harsh sanction to those who would perpetrate fraud on a scale such as this would border on criminal itself.
Nov 23, 2009 - 8:44 pm 96. Tao Jones:We shall see if this is in any way true with the report of the first suicide of a ’scientist’ involved.
Nov 24, 2009 - 12:49 am 97. Towering Barbarian:I never thought the day would come when I would miss William Proxmire. O_O
Where’s his “Golden Fleece” award when you need it?
Nov 24, 2009 - 1:10 am 98. Paul -Indiana:Right now, CO2 is at an all time high according to an internet article. At this same time, earth’s temperature has been declining for 10+ years. Correlation, anyone?
Nov 24, 2009 - 8:39 am 99. Fandango:What is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, and responsible for trapping the most heat for our climate? Anyone? Anyone?
That’s right: Dihydrogen Monoxide.
We need to outlaw that sh*t immediately!
Nov 24, 2009 - 11:42 am 100. Fandango:Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O), aka water vapor.
Nov 24, 2009 - 1:12 pm 101. Paul -Indiana:I have heard that current CO2 levels are the highest they have ever been. In addition, the global temperature has decreased for the past 10+ years. It follows that CO2 is not a global warming agent.
Nov 25, 2009 - 8:42 am 102. Duude:Most scientists are relatively underpaid when education and skill level are compared to the education of unskilled labor. The life blood of many comes from government grants for research. There isn’t any money in no man-made global warming. The left is basically lobbying scientists for their affirmation of global warming as a science. Forget about good science, this is about money. Add to that the hardball many universities play against scientists they employ who dare to offer a differing opinion. Simply, they get fired, demoted, and denied. Universities do this partly out of personal politics but more importantly because their liberal benefactors demand this of them. Sadly, this is western society, as it is. Perceptions are created through political forces and paid for with taxpayer dollars. It doesn’t matter what evidence can be produced that runs counter the global warming hypothesis. It will take a generation or more to undo the damage we’re doing now.
Nov 25, 2009 - 9:30 am 103. Janet:The crime is that the scientific community has been co-opted by multi-national companies who provide enormous sums of money to Universities. Every week I read a new paper issued by some University science department supporting whatever agenda their major contributors want to promote. How can we trust medical research if the researchers are being funded by a pharmaceutical company, or agriculture research funded by an agro-chemical company. I recently read a paper indicating that rBST is good for cows and people – the university researchers who issued the report were all either previously employed or on sabatical from their positions with Monsanto, the largest producer of rBST for use in dairy cows. It’s very discouraging.
Nov 25, 2009 - 3:09 pm