47 Comments

1. Kondratieff:

Maybe it was just that cold snap that hit Cal last week.

Jan 3, 2009 - 9:03 pm 2. Timber:

No kidding! HuffPo was the premier site to prop up Laurie David.

Jan 3, 2009 - 9:16 pm 3. cubanbob:

Maybe he realized that actually implementing this new age idiocy could drive the US economy over the cliff and the people will blame him and the democrats.

Jan 3, 2009 - 9:17 pm 4. Ric Locke:

You don’t need a weathervane to know which way the wind blows, but if you have one you can be more precise.

Huffington accurately predicted the right-to-left swing of the blogosphere, and got out in front — and made money at it.

Just more evidence that the wheels may not yet be coming off the AGW Juggernaut, but the knocking noise is evidence that the lug nuts are loose.

Regards,
Ric

Jan 3, 2009 - 9:40 pm 5. Candide:

We must always keep in mind that Arianna is a political opportunist (whore), first and foremost. She was one of the most vociferous right-wingers, turned libertarian, turned leftist, all within the last single decade. She keeps her nose to the wind at all times. Does this latest article indicate she is plotting a new switch, because conservative futures show new promise? Probably way too early for that, she’s simply keeping her foot in the door, just in case.

Jan 3, 2009 - 9:41 pm 6. Rob:

There is plenty in an aggressive energy independence policy that will lessen global man caused CO2, that is good. But the Gorbasm of Global Warming is basically a fraud and should only serve as a warning when other crisises are created that allow emotion and desire for political control to twist science to political ends.

Jan 3, 2009 - 9:44 pm 7. jvon:

There are two things working against the global warming alarmists:

1) The decreases of CO2 production they’ve demanded are here — because of economic failures. What now?

2) Temperatures, locally and globally, are down, in a measurable way. And the second preceded the first.

These two things, taken together, spell doom for the global warming freakazoids. I hope within ten years people will be as excited about global warming as they are about acid rain now. (When’s the last time you heard THAT phrase?)

Jan 3, 2009 - 9:54 pm 8. Ric Locke:

jvon, there is a third thing: opportunism.

If it’s too hot, it’s because of global warming.
If it’s too cold, it’s because of global warming.
If it’s stormy, it’s because of global warming.
If it’s abnormally calm, it’s because of global warming.
und so weiter.

Now any and all of those things could in fact be true; there are some subtle effects that are possible. But the success of the alarmists depends on scaring people who don’t investigate or think, simply respond to the latest PR effort, and for those folks, the seeming contradictions are real contradictions — it doesn’t “make sense”. That provides an opportunity for skeptics to be heard above the din.

Regards,
Ric

Jan 3, 2009 - 10:13 pm 9. heathermc:

could it be that this is one very cold winter???

Jan 3, 2009 - 10:18 pm 10. John Moore:

It’s nice to see the change in coverage, as the AGW hypocrisy has really gotten out of control.

However, I fear it may be too late. Obama’s critical appointments in the areas that count ) are global warming alarmists.

Furthermore, the EPA now has the legal authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant (because polar bears have been labeled “threatened” and supposedly CO2 is the cause), and awaits only an administration decision to regulate every bit of carbon emitted within their legal reach.

Wanna bet which way Obama’s appointees will go with that?

Jan 3, 2009 - 10:28 pm 11. Algore’s Climate Lies « Buttle’s World:

[...] So why would the HufPo suddenly allow this heresy? Gee, that’s a toughie. [...]

Jan 3, 2009 - 11:17 pm 12. Seerak:

The goal of the Left is to increase the scope of government at the expense of individual rights, in the hopes that the very notion of the latter — and the Enlightenment that begat it — can be erased as if they never happened.

That is the yardstick I use to evaluate the Left’s actions, and when seen in that light, the Left has been 100% consistent throughout its history, to this day.

So what does this portend? It means that the core Left now sees the risks of pushing AGW as beginning to outweigh the likely returns, from the standpoint of their core goal as stated above. As I see it, there’s two reason why AGW appears to be losing traction on the Left.

First, there is likely some stuff coming down the scientific pike that will eventually catch the global warming alarmists with their pants down once it hits the mainstream — so they are getting out ahead of it.

The second possibility is that something better for their overall goal of expanding government power has come up.

I lean towards the second item as dominant, on the grounds that the Left would not even exist as a credible movement if they had ever been held to account for even one of the disasters that flow from their philosophy — from eugenics and National Socialism, to communism. Seen in that light, damage control is hardly necessary, given their teflon history. Why would things be different this time?

It’s much more likely that the election of Obama and the widespread scapegoating of free markets for the sins of the regulatory state in the past year, have opened a sudden, new opportunity for Old Left New Deal socialism to regain its day in the sun — and we are seeing the beginnings of a hard turn to take advantage of it.

Either way, the envirocult’s dominance of the Left may very well have just peaked — and now the socialist Old Left is on the comeback trail.

Jan 4, 2009 - 12:10 am 13. peter jackson:

The exciting part is what this means regarding the scientific method and peer review: it wins out in the long run. It appears you can spin some of the science all of the time, or all of the science some of the time, but you can’t spin all of the science all of the time. This is unequivocally a good thing.

Jan 4, 2009 - 12:26 am 14. Steve Skubinna:

I’m going to guess that the reason is simple pragmatism: it’s becoming impossible to put the wheels back on the AGW bandwagon as rapidly as they keep falling off. Huffington probably is aware of this, and wants to bail before she is forced to, thus gaining points for prescience.

What will be most interesting is what will happen to those who have tied themselves to the mast, so to speak, and have no choice but to go down with the ship. I’m thinking specifically of Gore and Hansen, who can’t very well cap their two decade career as AGW pantswetters with a casual “Never mind…” On the other hand, the perennially discredited Paul Erlich is still shouting from the rooftops, so maybe a lifetime failure can still find employment at many of our fine trendsetting universities and cutting edge think tanks, where how something works in theory is much more important than how it works in practice.

Jan 4, 2009 - 3:10 am 15. Terrye:

Maybe it is because they finally have something real to worry about. I am sure that as soon as the economy goes into positive growth territory we will be freaking out over the impending asteroid impact.

Jan 4, 2009 - 5:14 am 16. DoDoGuRu:

They make up for this small deviation from true doctrine by allowing Bill Ayers to write for them.

Jan 4, 2009 - 5:32 am 17. Clyde:

Wow! That’s the first sane voice I’ve read on HuffPo since they ran Greg Gutfeld off!

Jan 4, 2009 - 5:37 am 18. Seamus:

I have this recurring dream of Al Gore tilting at wind turbines with a thermometer in his hand…weird, huh?

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:19 am 19. Skip:

This “crisis” may fade, but will return, as they all do.

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:33 am 20. Dave:

Maybe it was not really about the environment or the climate after all. Maybe the left just needed a club to swing and beat on successful conservatives with. Now that they feel that they can blame the economic problems on the conservatives and the free market (dishonest as that tactic is) they believe they can hide their crazy uncles for a while.

Of course if the economy recovers, they can pull him back out. It will be what the homeless issues was for decades – a massive epidemic under conservatives and non-existent under left liberals.

Sadly without an honest media in this country, they will get away with it and out slide to to 3rd world status will continue.

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:39 am 21. Severely Ltd.:

I think in comment 12, Seerak is really on to something. Now that the struggling global economy can be used to bludgeon the right, leftists can retire the environmental rationale, which is rapidly being discredited anyway.

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:40 am 22. John:

Yeah, now that Obama is in office, it’s time for the media to end the global warming hoax.

Not doing so would cripple the economy and we can’t have that on the Democrat’s watch. Tanking the economy and claiming the earth is being destroyed is reserved for Republican administrations, only.

Jan 4, 2009 - 11:46 am 23. John:

If the Earth is actually cooling (as the evidence suggests) and we “know” that carbon based fuel use causes warming, doesn’t that mean the government should encourage the purchase of gas guzzling SUVs in order to combat climate change?

Perhaps we could start a public awareness campaign to foster the use of more dirty snowmobiles, chainsaws and lawn mowers. Ya know, for mother earth.

Jan 4, 2009 - 12:04 pm 24. Insufficiently Sensitive:

Agree with @21 that @12 Seerak is on to something. And this article appearing where it does, is another piece of evidence.

Unlikely that Huffpo would have run such a thing until her preferred candidate had won the election. AGW or its euphemism ‘climate change’ was too useful a club with which to bash the Bush admin, and any possible Republican successor.

And Seerak points out that ‘climate change’ is simply descriptive of the entire history of the earth. So why do the the Chicken Littles who use Albert Gore as figurehead use such an expression, as the weakness of the AGW myth grows in public perception?

Well, if you’re in favor of the ‘intellectuals’ seizing control of industry to run it by fiat as the Soviets did, nothing is handier than screaming alarms every time the weather changes, and demanding the political seizure of profit-making enterprises.

Jan 4, 2009 - 12:17 pm 25. Mike:

I have to agree with the last two comments. If I recall correctly, none other than Al Gore himself was Vice-President when the Kyoto Treaty went down in flames in the Senate. It was only with the election of George W. that the whole AGW hysteria really took off. I mean, where was the vein-bulging, podium-pounding Al Gore prior to Jan 2001? Oh, that’s right– he was an elected official who might actually be held accountable for disastrously stupid government policies.

What is amazing (in a sad and infuriating sort of way) is how thoroughly the press has allowed Al Gore to get away with his abrupt mutation into Indignant Green Warrior. For instance, has anyone asked the man, “If this was such an important ‘global emergency,’ why didn’t you do anything about it when you were in a position to do so???”

Jan 4, 2009 - 12:19 pm 26. Jbl:

We should be grateful to Huffpo for printing this, because now the lemming left will fall in line and mutter “there is no global warming and Kyoto was a Krock” just in time for President Obama to not have to deal with an entirely FAKE issue that was used over the last 8 years to line the pockets of opportunists, make useful idiots feel important and – oh year – beat George W. Bush over the head.

Since they know it’s all fake, they have to take it off the table, NOW, so that Obama need not deal with it.

Jan 4, 2009 - 1:56 pm 27. Jbl:

And I’m still grateful that Bush kept us out of Kyoto.

I’m going to miss Bush.

Jan 4, 2009 - 2:01 pm 28. Lee:

# 25 Mike – I agree with you completely. In 1998, the Senate voted on an amendment that said it would not take up the Kyoto Treaty unless China and India were included. That amendment passed 95-0! And what did Al Gore and Bill Clinton do after that (while they still had 2-1/2 years in office)? Absolutely nothing.

Jan 4, 2009 - 3:32 pm 29. Mike_K:

Maybe some of the skeptics can get grants funded now. They have been (pardon the pun) frozen out of funding for about a decade. A lot of this was about grants and funding. If they say it is not about money, it is always about money.

Jan 4, 2009 - 4:00 pm 30. zefal:

Uh-ho, Could it be that I may find myself being sympathetic towards Al. The canard of man-made caused climate change is crumbling and Al is the one who is going to be made to swallow the whole enchilada of blame for it, in order to save face for the multitudes of others involved in its perpetuation.

Jan 4, 2009 - 7:03 pm 31. Mule:

So is Obama saying demand for environmental regulation decreases at a faster rate as income lowers? By golly, this guy has been listening to his economic advisors – concern for the environment is a luxury good after all.

Jan 4, 2009 - 8:20 pm 32. Arthur LEMAY:

The single thing you must realize is there is no evidence that increased CO2 from whatever source controls the climate. The opinion that it does is based 100% on computer models which were constructed to “prove” that this is true. But there are three spanners in the IPCC’s propaganda machine: 1) The models did not predict global warming would stop in 1998, and, 2) Since 2000 the world has actually cooled, and, 3) The IPCC has not only falsified studies, but have refused to consider that there is any other explanation besides CO2. Respectable scientists believe it is the sun, not CO2 which has the strongest effect on the climate, and when they point out that the other planets are warming and cooling like the earth, the IPCC says it’s a coincidence. Oh, really?

So what did the IPCC do? They said oh, sometimes the climate warms, and sometimes it cools, and this is because CO2 causes, “climate change.” Oh, yes the climate changes, but it has always changed. Well, this argument seems persuasive to the press, but, what causes the CO2 concentration increases to warm, or cool? It seems it can’t do both. Science is not like that.

I put the whole status of science being quoted by many to be exactly the same as the belief American Indian tribes had that beating the rain drums long and hard would cause rain. And, when it did rain they said “see how effective it is!” And, those who were skeptical about this were called “rain drum deniers.” I am just joking about the deniers of course.

Does this sound familiar?

Jan 4, 2009 - 11:37 pm 33. papertiger:

I really hope Barbra Boxer gets knocked out by the splatter when the AGW hoax hits the fan.

The Sacramento Bee has announced the coming “La Nina” cold phase of the Pacific, while concurrently belatedly admitting that the entire world has been cooling off over the last two years.
Not just the Huffpo giving Al the stiff arm.

Jan 4, 2009 - 11:57 pm 34. Ann:

It’s such an elementary aspect of this, I realize, but it has always amazed me that the libs apparently want to pretend that if WE were to sign and worship Kyoto, the rampant pollution(s) of China and Russia would just stay within their borders and not drift around the world. That’s what they want us to believe, I guess.

The global, political, monetary insanity of the left is extreme and it is frightening: it’s becoming clearer all the time that they don’t CARE if everybody plainly knows their motives and their flawed premises and recognizes their lies. They put every egg into the basket of “I AM IN CHARGE. YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT I SAY.” They truly don’t care if anyone is actually persuaded.

Sounds a little like a police state, now that I think of it.

Jan 5, 2009 - 6:39 am 35. Ann:

6.Rob…..Yes. And I am wondering if your point of “emotion and desire” laying the groundwork for political control can also be used to explain how the present financial/economic mess will be used by Presidential Wannabe Obama to facilitate and legislate (and Executive Order) socialist “solutions” in those areas?

Jan 5, 2009 - 6:42 am 36. AlanC:

I was given a set of DVDs for Xmas. This set was of the Connections series by James Burke first shown in 1978. Unfortunately I’m old enough to have enjoyed the originals with my wife 8^(

Anyway, we watched one of the shows last night and it started out with the enormous changes to civilization brought on by the Little Ice Age. How Greenland was no longer Green and how northern Euros started drinking beer because they could no longer grow grapes. This was all blamed on, in passing, the lack of sun spots as the most likely driver.

But it was a given, 100% consensus that the earth had been much warmer and then got much cooler with nary an SUV in sight. How this new bull totally rewrote scientific history is a frightening mystery.

Jan 5, 2009 - 9:01 am 37. ThinkingPerson:

Has anyone put Al Gore on a suicide watch yet? If the Huffington Post is starting to look behind his curtain, what’s next? We will all have signs of the second coming if the National Geographic magazine actually publishes pictures of happy, frolicking polar bears on an endless sheet of snow covered ice. They certainly have gotten a lot of mileage out of that picture of the bear clinging to that little ice cube bobbing around in the Artic Sea. Isn’t it fun to see the liberal left media opening it’s eyes to reality after a long, uninformed hibernation? Sort of like a newborn taking it’s first steps. Be prepared though, they’ll want to take credit for winning the war on Global Warming before they take on their next cause. Wonder what that would be? So many fuzzy animals to save, gay causes to champion, etc., etc.

Jan 5, 2009 - 10:16 am 38. WPZ:

Just when the AGW comedy was getting especially funnt… poof! it’s gone.
Especially now, when the Lincoln-Roosevelt-Kennedy combo deal myth is being dismantled, too, and we could have enjoyed the spectacle of a Republican (Lincoln) socialist world-economy wrecker warmonger (Roosevelt) warhawk interventionist (Kennedy) going into inverted flight for eight or nine months until the Iranians finally pull whatever trigger they’ve been waiting for Bush’s departure to pull.
The next thing you know, The Obama’s going to start saying the Constitution isn’t a flawed document after all, and judges shouldn’t ignore it.
November 4, 2008: The Looking Glass Day.

Jan 5, 2009 - 10:48 am 39. Instapundit » Blog Archive » JAMES PETHOKOUKIS: Sorry, Climate Change Wouldn’t Hurt America’s Economy. Plus, how to turn the …:

[...] Plus, how to turn the E.U. President into a “figurehead.” EU’s new figurehead believes climate change is a myth. Apparently, the Times hasn’t gotten the word about the new message discipline. [...]

Jan 5, 2009 - 11:36 am 40. Rose Colored Glasses:

Does that mean we can eliminate “global warming” and “climate change” from our vocabulary? When can we get rid of “green”. Never have liked that either.

Jan 5, 2009 - 1:17 pm 41. SukieTawdry:

So, we’re back to 1970’s levels, are we? I remember the 70s; the climate hysterics back then were predicting an impending apocalyptic mini ice age (and they weren’t especially convincing back then either). Now that most of them have jumped aboard the global warming band wagon, more rational minds are having real concerns about a cooling trend.

And, yes, Algore, you spent eight years as vice president and went through three national campaigns with nary a discouraging word about global warming-cum-climate change. What’s up with that?? (Never mind. We already know.)

Jan 5, 2009 - 9:59 pm 42. Lazar:

Roger,

The following email was sent to Glenn Reynolds, Stephen Green, and David Russin. Could you help? Could someone acknowledge the issue?

Dear Sirs,

There appears to be a case of false attribution in one of your articles

(Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exaggerated)

where the author states

“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”

I’ve been trying to obtain from PJM either a retraction or a corroborating source statement where NASA GISS state the above. I have yet to receive an acknowledgment of an email sent to the PJM editorial department (via the contact page) alerting PJM to this issue over two weeks ago. I have since sent another email by the same method and posted several comments on the thread, also to no avail. I would be grateful if you would look into this.

I’ve included the two emails below along with a comment from the thread which provides context of what the data showed and what NASA GISS said about it / interpreted from it.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Regards

Lazar [snip]

—

First email, sent December 21st;

Dear Editor,

The author makes the claim

“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record (they quietly corrected it to 1934 without announcing their error)”

As far as it is possible to prove a negative, “proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record” is false, as shown by quotes prior to the identification of the error, from an AP report and from the then and current director of GISS, Dr. James Hansen… http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/so_who_exactly_reported_that_n.php

Unless the author can provide a direct quotation from GISS “proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”, I request you issue a retraction.

Also…

GISS issued notice of the correction through their “Updates of Analysis” page, a standard procedure. The implication that GISS dishonestly hid the error is unfair.

The “Updates to Analysis” page is at…
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/

… and the relevant notice is dated Aug. 7, 2007

—

Second email, sent December 31st;

Dear Editor,

The author of “Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exagerrated”, falsely attributed the following claim to NASA GISS;

“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”

This is contradicted by an AP report dated 12 January 1999;

“While temperatures in the United States were the warmest in at least 40 years, final figures aren’t complete, NASA said. But, the agency added, it is clear that 1998 did not match the record warmth of 1934″

And a statement in a peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Geophysical research, by Dr. James Hansen, the director of GISS, in 2001;

“The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998″

Therefore I request that Pajamas Media issue a correction unless the author of the article can provide a corroborating direct quotation.

Further information can be found on this page;

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/so_who_exactly_reported_that_n.php

I request that Pajamas Media also consider removing two insinuations of dishonesty levelled at GISS.

1)

“(they quietly corrected it to 1934 without announcing their error)”

As GISS released notice of the correction through their “Updates of Analysis” page, a standard procedure, the implication that GISS dishonestly hid the error is unfair.

2)

In relation to another error;

“proclaiming it the warmest October on record (until they were caught)”

The author implies this error was deliberate. In fact it was an inevitable result of the automated processing algorithm applied to station data. The author would have realized this had he done a minimum of research. If needed, I can provide assistance to show that this is the case.

Engendering public mistrust in a major scientific organization *on false grounds* is, in the words of the author, a “serious error”.

I have yet to receive acknowledgment of receipt for a similar email sent to PJM nine days ago, but I realize it is the holiday season, and you are busy, or may not have received the email.

The previous email is included below.

Regards

—

Comment submitted on January 2nd;

Pajamas Media authors and editors,

Straight-forward science reporting;

“In 2007 Steve McIntyre identified an error in the GISS surface temperature data. Following a correction, 1998 in the continental US changed from being a statistically insignificant 0.01 deg C warmer than 1934, to a statistically insignificant 0.02 deg C cooler. In both cases 1998 was a statistical dead-heat with 1934 for the title of warmest year on record. Interestingly, GISS never released a statement claiming 1998 as the warmest year despite the 0.01 deg C difference. Instead GISS had the following to say about differences of this magnitude;

‘In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.’

GISS corrected their analysis and placed notification on the GISS home and “Updates to Analysis” pages within 1-2 days after being informed of the error, although they did not issue a press release.”

Compare with;

“GISS has made serious (1) errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record (2) (they quietly (3) corrected it to 1934 without announcing (4) their error)”

(1) Spin.
(2) Lie.
(3) Spin.
(4) Lie.

—

Jan 6, 2009 - 9:14 am 43. papertiger:

isn’t it wierd how the warmers can look at records (supposedly historic) which are apparently fluid, mobil, and subject to the whim of megalomaniacal personalities such as Jimmy Hansen, and they are troubled not a bit.
Last I checked 1934 happened a long time ago.
Either those people in the 30’s read the temp and marked it down, or they didn’t. In any event JAMES HANSEN has no say in what temperature it was in 1934.
That’s an absolute value which can not change.
And yet We see GISS changing the past, rewriting history, on a monthly basis.
See Climate Audit link for detail.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880

Jan 6, 2009 - 6:51 pm 44. Lazar:

Probably ‘warmers’ have studied publications and methodology and compared datasets from different sources, so they recognize claims such as ‘temperature anomalies are determined by James Hansen’s whim’ are garbage.
The behaviour towards James Hansen, NASA GISS, and climate scientists in general, of certain people who feel no obligation to do an ounce of work in researching issues, who then make cheap and scurrilous slurs against scientists and decades of intense, brilliant, and laborious research, is verging on the disgusting.

Jan 7, 2009 - 9:24 am 45. Lazar:

And on that note, as Timothy Birdnow doesn’t give an email address I left the following comment on his blog;

—

Dear Timothy,

In reference to your article on Pajamas Media;

“Rumors of the Death of Arctic Sea Ice Greatly Exaggerated”

where you state;

“GISS has made serious errors before, including proclaiming 1998 the hottest year on record”

Could you provide a corroborating source statement from NASA GISS? If you cannot, will you issue a retraction?

Thanks.

—

The comment was deleted.

Jan 7, 2009 - 9:30 am 46. Apostacy against core leftist doctrine at the Huffington Post! « Fabius Maximus:

[...] can only guess.

Jan 13, 2009 - 5:02 am 47. notorious big kat’s table dance « slate tile bistro table:

[...] Roger L. Si notorious big kat’s table dance mon, mentioning the NewAge Art Tax – on the mind and body (politic) – which you rarely find on Pajamas [...]

Jan 20, 2009 - 4:22 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: