23 Comments

1. Global warming fraud. | Billoblog ®:

[...] H/T Vodkapundit. [...]

Nov 20, 2009 - 3:41 pm 2. richb313:

I am waiting to judge the veracity of these E-Mails etc. I believe the U.K. should launch an Investigation and Demand a complete Dump of all thier servers so they can judge for them selves. If it is true I will not be surprised but will be extremely disapointed. This will do real damage to Science as a whole if it is proven to be true.

Nov 20, 2009 - 7:46 pm 3. jaymaster:

This will not “do real damage to Science as a whole if it is proven to be true”.

It will do real damage to grant seeking, rent seeking, politically influenced pseudoscience.

And that’s a very good thing for REAL science.

Nov 20, 2009 - 7:55 pm 4. McGehee:

Jaymaster: Hear, hear.

Nov 21, 2009 - 7:07 am 5. olderandwiser:

I am not at all surprised. The entire concept of “global warming” is based on statstical models. It has been said that statistics can be made to say anything you want them to. In this revelation, we find that even the statistics are abandoning the doomsayers in such a way that they are afraid they will be found out to be false prophets.

There is nothing wrong with living an efficient life. What is wrong is making it manadatory, and driving the cost of energy so high we are practically returning to the dark ages.

It should be investigated carefully and we should avoid the desire to act with revenge if their theories are proved to be bunk.

Where they lack understanding we must demonstrate such.

Where they lack tolerance, we must allow them their opinions.

However, we must not allow anyone to tie public policy to the conjecture of a small group of scientists again.

Nov 21, 2009 - 7:23 am 6. jon:

Scientists have been paid for for as long as they’ve existed. Drugs are safe, cigarette smoking isn’t bad for you, that car won’t blow up, this chemical is fine in drinking water, and whatever else the studies’ funding agencies want, they tend to get. And yes, they have agendas as well. That’s why Intelligent Design was invented: to give scientific cover to dogma that is entirely unscientific. Is the same thing true with climate science? I’m not so sure, but I

Global climate change isn’t about the weather, it’s about climate. Summers are still warmer than Winters because of factors plain to those who accept the science of heliocentrism. But climate is changing here and there. Australia’s drought isn’t over, trees in Montana are dying because beetle larvae aren’t freezing to death nearly as much as they used to, deserts are growing in Africa (though human causes are present as well as climactic ones,) the Himalayas aren’t getting as much snow, and the Arctic Ocean is becoming navigable by things other than submarines and enormous icebreakers. Changes are happening, and things like the last one require important changes in our trade (Seattle to Copenhagen trade and tourism?), defense (expand the Coast Guard and Navy?), and notice (why now?) There is still some question about whether rising CO2 will cause another ice age in Europe if the salinity and speed of the Gulf Stream changes. Scientists are often full of beans, but I’m glad they’re collecting those beans.

I’m still going to make the economic and ecological choices to reduce my reliance on foreign oil. It just makes sense to use less heat and cooling when I can do simple things like add or reduce the amount of clothing I wear. I have and will continue to reduce or eliminate my intake of big agricultural stuff with corn syrup and polyunsaturated fats, which makes sense regardless of the carbon footprint. I’m riding my bike more often. And I’m going to do what I can to continue that even if the climate is as predictable as a conservative’s call for tax cuts to reduce the deficit.

Nov 21, 2009 - 7:34 am 7. jon:

end of first paragraph: “I’m not so sure, but I have more faith in the climate guys than in the various creation-related “science” centers.” Editing, what a concept!

Nov 21, 2009 - 7:40 am 8. Steve In Tulsa:

Real scientists share their data and methods in hope that some one will disprove their theory or improve it. Global warmists don’t share data or methods. They refuse. They refuse to release uncooked data and they refuse to discuss how they adjusted the raw tempuratures to make them ‘more real’. Real scientists welcome the light but warmists hide behind ‘we lost that data’ excuses. Gore refuses to debate Inhofe. Hansen and Mann refuse to release their raw data or the methods they use to change that data to something they find more acceptable. They are liars. And I might add that they are quite well paid liars. Hansen has received millions from the Tides foundation and from Al Gore. Follow the money.

Nov 21, 2009 - 7:57 am 9. Arhooley:

It will do real damage to grant seeking, rent seeking, politically influenced pseudoscience.

And that’s a very good thing for REAL science.

Yes, as long as others can tell the difference. 52% anyone?

Anyway, it’s a great case for better scientific education. People need to learn that consensus is not evidence, as jon is on the way to demonstrating.

Nov 21, 2009 - 9:02 am 10. M. Report:

I hear that conspiring to violate

the FOIA is a felony.

Nov 21, 2009 - 10:27 am 11. Brad:

The most telling thing is these guys seem upset global warming isn’t happening. That should be a good thing, if their silly predictions of gloom are wrong. It’s like being bummed out a missile defense saved your city by knocking out an attack–bummed out because politically you opposed the defense system. Maybe the reason for the Age of Obama is for all this shit and other things like treating terrorism as a crime, trying to federalize industries of all kinds, etc., will be revealed for the total bullshit they are. Ah, that’s a pretty audacious hope. Sorry.

Nov 21, 2009 - 12:59 pm 12. Steve Ducharme:

“Science” or “the scientific method” are not political things. To prove something scientifically is a very strict discipline. Science is really a little boring (despite what they peddle on CSI) and has very rigid rules. If you do you science honestly… again HONESTLY!!!.. there is very little room for politics to interfere. The cornerstone of science (the part that makes theories so difficult to prove) is skepticism.

To be taken seriously you have to fully and HONESTLY (that word again) publish your results for the scrutiny of your peers (and often competitors). In many cases those same peers are tasked with reproducing your experiments (google room temperature superconductors for a good historical example). Nobody just takes your word for it. Nor should they.

And now we see why..

What these sci.. errr. gentl.. er… lying assholes did was the opposite of science. It was the opposite of the search for truth, the honest and rigorous scrutiny, the separation of knowledge from politics. It was politics and positioning done to likely keep their funds flowing to help support the attempts of a political class that desires more control over the lives of their lessers.

Will this deflect the religious and fervent beliefs of the global warming “prophets”? No way in hell. This will be spun to death. But it will polarize the 2 sides and critically damage the credibility of climate science for decades.

Nice going asshats..

One more thought (this ones for you jon. How’ve ya been doing). Getting off middle east oil and leaving a smaller footprint etc.. are desirable FOR THEIR OWN SAKE and NOT because some sci.. err… lying asshole says so. These are political and economic considerations.

The contribution that Co2 makes to global warming and mankinds role in that are scientific consideration. Scientifically speaking, one has nothing to do with the other. Unless the scientists are lying rat bastard asshats.

Nov 21, 2009 - 2:16 pm 13. McGehee:

That’s why Intelligent Design was invented

To give threadjackers a convenient phrase to include in hugely off-topic comments to try to derail discussion of the actual content of the original post.

Nov 21, 2009 - 3:43 pm 14. tim maguire:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline.”

It’s kind of hard to talk your way around that one. It’s still not proven that these emails are real–as in, yes, the hack was real, but were these emails hacked, or created and inserted into the hack?

jon, it’s time for you to stop making fun of the creationsists. You are one.

Nov 21, 2009 - 6:17 pm 15. jon:

“Trick” can be either a dishonest ruse or a handy way to legitimately accomplish something, as anyone who uses English already knows. The question is, will enough people examine the data to determine what kind of trick it is or has that already been determined? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Science is filled with inconvenient truths. As for my “Intelligent Design” comment, it’s not “hugely off-topic” when discussing science being misused to mention the fact that Intelligent Design is the least scientific nonsense since Eugenics based on the size of skulls was the flavor of its day. Is Global Climate Change a similar folly? If science gone dumb and dumb science are to be discussed, it’s good to have some parameters from which to discuss things, right?

Nov 21, 2009 - 7:11 pm 16. arhooley:

will enough people examine the data to determine what kind of trick it is?

Well, Phil Jones won’t.

Jones told TGIF he had no idea what me meant by using the words “hide the decline”. “That was an email from ten years ago. Can you remember the exact context of what you wrote ten years ago?”

Doesn’t exactly promise a rigorous pursuit of scientific fact.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf

Nov 21, 2009 - 8:31 pm 17. tim maguire:

The question is, will enough people examine the data to determine what kind of trick it is or has that already been determined? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Yes, we do know the answer to that one, a “trick” to “hide the decline.” Spin away, flat earther. Continue to insist that climate was static prior to the 20th century. Your fellow religious fundamentalists will applaud you, even if no thoughtful person does.

Nov 22, 2009 - 11:17 am 18. Casey:

Steve Ducharme has the right of it; as Professor Reynolds likes to say “it’s good planetary hygiene.”

jon, do you have any idea how silly look, trying to defend that statement? Just examine the syntax of the statement “Mike’s Nature trick (description of “trick/method/process”) to hide the decline. You apparently are resolutely ignoring the second half of the clause describing the “trick;” that is, how the “trick” hides the decline.

Or in other words, how the protagonists in this case to explicit steps to cover up weak links in their reasoning and/or evidence, as opposed to the proper choice of refining their hypothesis in face of new data.

Add to this other goodies including discussions of how to exclude AGW “deniers,” and delegitimize publications that publish skeptical points of view, and you have a big stinking pile of dishonesty.

…After that you can explain how Greenland could support dairy farming 1,000 years ago, and how Patriot forces could drag heavy cannon across the Hudson river during the Revolutionary war. After that, you can explain how the seas froze so hard that Prussian hussars could capture Dutch warships off Texel.

Then, after that, you could explain why the last inter-glacial period has lasted at least a thousand years longer than normal.

Nov 23, 2009 - 12:35 am 19. Akatsukami:

““Trick” can be either a dishonest ruse or a handy way to legitimately accomplish something, as anyone who uses English already knows. The question is, will enough people examine the data to determine what kind of trick it is or has that already been determined? I think we all know the answer to that one.”

Indeed, we do: people will, liberals won’t.

Nov 23, 2009 - 6:17 am 20. jon:

Did I suggest that climate was static? Wow, I never knew that. I don’t think it is now, was then, or will be in the future. The question is, was, and will be: how will this affect us? Things are changing, whether it’s natural (some evidence,) unnatural (some evidence,) or a combination of the two (and obvious answer that doesn’t please anyone since it’s hard to assess percentages of blame.) The models for climate change are generally new, getting refined, and yielding data that shows that we generally don’t know jack about the world’s climate. We know that there’s a lot of CO2 in the air right now, a lot of it in the oceans, and ancient ice samples suggest that this can lead to a new ice age. Or not.

I think energy consumption from fossil fuels should be taxed in a way that leads consumers to move to other forms of energy. The taxes generated should go toward the creation of new nuclear, solar, geothermal, water, and wind facilities that will cost billions but help our country not fund states that are generally run like dungeons. Fossil fuels are too convenient because they’re cheap, but the dungeon states’ continued existence is reason enough for me to want to reduce our reliance on oil. If climate change is a bunch of cowpies, the leaders of the Peoples Republic of Dungeon (a worldwide franchise) aren’t.

Nov 23, 2009 - 10:22 am 21. jon:

A ten-year-old email doesn’t refute all the information, especially when the “Nature trick” has since been determined to be a way to refute something that wasn’t seen as a good source of data and has largely been refuted by those scientists themselves, which had something to do with tree ring growth. Yes, some reputations are bruised by the older, not-as-accepted-as-before science, but I’m not much more skeptical because of some guy’s ego getting hammered by the truth. Better information is available from ice samples, satellite data, and other sources. The “hide the decline” thing certainly isn’t a good way to present scientific evidence, but it’s hardly a total refutation of the existence of something measured in other ways. Even during the subsequent ten years. Was it sleazy? Yes, but the numbers were still on the graph.

Theories change in response to new scientific knowledge. This isn’t proof of fallibility so much as progress. Global Warming is now usually called Global Climate Change as the reality that not everything warms universally and some things are likely to cool. Is this a total refutation of the science? No. Is it moving the goalposts? Yes. Does that mean we have nothing to worry about? I doubt it, as even the CIA is studying the possible negative effects: http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3213

Nov 23, 2009 - 3:46 pm 22. dorkafork:

Color me underwhelmed. I know I’ve used the word “trick” in a perfectly honest way to refer to something clever. And you can see a decline in temperature records, a temporary valley in the middle of a long-term upward trend. “If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.” They got over a decade’s worth of emails, and this is it? See this defense also.

Maybe the FOIA stuff has some meat to it, but from what little I’ve read the British version isn’t nearly as strict as the US version. Maybe they’ll find other incriminating emails. But this seems overhyped.

What really gets me are some of the side arguments, like the so-called “threats of violence” against critics. Because one guy made an off-hand comment that he’d like to punch a critic in the face. The shock, shock! that they had a “bunker mentality”. Well considering they got hacked I can’t blame them. You aren’t paranoid if they’re really out to get you.

Nov 23, 2009 - 4:02 pm 23. aaron:

“There is still some question about whether rising CO2 will cause another ice age in Europe if the salinity and speed of the Gulf Stream changes.”

No there isn’t. Not even the most devote Climatologists believe this.

Maybe the kids on L. Ron Gore’s house boat.

Nov 24, 2009 - 9:39 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.