Climategate

Let's see:

a) subverting the peer review process
b) stacking the UN IPCC
c) obstruction of the Freedom on information act
d) breach of university and state ethics codes

... and we haven't even talked about the data yet.

Climate Science - the new Ponzi scheme!

p.s. - Is this what the UN and Al Gore supports?

marcus,danielkuhne,MWG,are you guys gw guys reading your post leave me to believe it is more of a hoax than ever insults and name calling,very professional

Game.

Set.

[Almost] Match.

fraud ,fraud,fraud, gw is a fraud

Clearly, global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). It exists mainly in the human mind and is manufactured from two sources – careless data acquisition and dubious data processing.
It's time to stop all AGW funding anywhere in the world.

Hey look it's more evidence of "Man-Made" Global Warming.
Man-made meaning, some scientist manipulated the raw data in a way to induce a warming trend.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpo...

And it seems as Dr. Salinger at NIWA (New Zealand) has "adjusted" the official data. Adjusted in the same way Hansen, Jones and Mann have...hide any declines and manipulate the data to show warming trends. Of course just like Jones and Hansen, Dr. Salinger has refused to release his data for open scrutiny....how scientific of him.

the yamal uptick-
apparently about 100 samples from warmer yamal were relabelled as originating in a cooler place 400 km away.
This provided the upward slope they wanted.
This was discovered by tedious investigation as the author refuses to provide organized data.

Don't worry about it. Since we can't explicitly prove malfeasance at CRU, we must trust that they acted like angels about everything. I'm sure it was just an oversight that they refused to provide the data for public scrutiny. I'm sure it was random monkeys (that write Shakespeare in their spare time) that hard coded an artificial increase in temp. Basically what I'm saying is that there is nothing to see here, we better trust the experts on this one. We are just too ignorant to know any better.

/sarc

It gets better...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw...

Yeah like Climategate is going to stop climate change. Do you really want to go there and like this foolish to posterity?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24287887/


Hell if ever there were emails/ blog post that people will some day wish they didn't click send on it will be the foolishness displayed by many posting on blogs like this.

It's already well documented how none of you or the professors saw the economic collapse coming. I mean you didn't even NOT see it coming you denied it WHILE it was happening.

And now you have the gall to think you have a point to make regarding climate change? A subject of which your ignorance of even exceeds your economic mis-calculations by many fold???

Right now the climate is warming and you all are denying it just as you were denying the economic collapse while it as happening. And you have no shame. You don't even learn from your past magnificent mistakes. Just happy as shit spouting off your non-sense. The evidence actually visible before your eyes in the form of melting glaciers all around the world and you still go on spewing your BS like you have a point to be made. " THHAWW tis only a flesh wound". The Black Knight's , the Yosemite Sams and Wile E Coyotes of the real world.

If you are as far off on your calculations of climate change as you were on economic change I fear we are in for a 100 C degree rise in temperature.

You guys will have a place in history right up there with the Luddites.

Yes yes these emails prove the glaciers aren't melting... do even fricking care about the degree of your illogic?

Stop with the name calling; it is quite unbecoming.

Your heroes took liberties with their data. As a professional you should be outraged at such behavior.

As it was pointed out many, many times before: nothing is going to stop climate change. Science will find a way to provider cleaner energy provided science is given a chance.

Yeah like Climategate is going to stop climate change.

Please document the proof that any of the liberty-stripping measures that your Church is prescribing for humanity will actually stop climate change?

How could anything ever stop climate change?
Large scale natural processes, such as climate, are not under our control.

"Yeah like Climategate is going to stop climate change"

It probably won't. Your totalitarian heroes are in control, so no, the truth probably won't matter. Nothing for your to worry your knotty head about, muirspit.

To think that they should use raw unadjusted data and fell you've made a point is to shout as load as you can, " I'm a dumb ignorant stupid dope making claims on things of which I know not".

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/new...

" I'm a dumb ignorant stupid dope making claims on things of which I know not".

Wow, muircrotch, you've given us a great description of yourself! Thanks!

The .."I know you are but what am I" reply is pretty original Mark. The fact remains the link Babinich posted is DUMB and based on IGNORANCE.

Is there any correlation between the CRU apologists and the Fed apologists?

The CRU and the Fed both like to artificially inflate the numbers right?

What these emails do is open the door to further investigation, some of it in a legally compulsory setting (see above).

Now that we know these fools were covering up, there’s something of an evidence/concept trail, and that will lead to various FOIA requests. Failure to provide evidence requested is prosecutable (see above warning letter to Mike Mann link), but what remains to be seen is if a larger case of fraud in the inducement can be brought against this group (or members thereof, say, James Hansen). Not that I would [James Hansen] ever want to give anyone ideas [James Hansen], or condone [James Hansen] such [James Hansen] behavior.

A critical point lost in all this is that the drive-by press has completely dropped the ball. Basically, this should be a giant wake up call for them to get off their collective asses and report this fraud.

They won’t, because they're in on the scam.

Ha ha Who's James Hansen? Did he do anything nefarious as well?

Dr. James Hansen, wacko nutjob public employee (NASA GISS):

Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist

He is head Priest at the Alter of OWLGORE

"Hide the Decline"

There are several problems with the tree ring data series that I can understand. The tree rings are being used as surrogate thermometers for past times. They are calibrated to temperatures by comparing thermometer temperatures to the tree rings during overlapping periods of measurement. Sounds good so far, in principle at least. But, in some cases at least, trees seem to have been selected, possibly on the basis that they correlated most closely with the temperature record during the thermometer-era (this is problematic - if only some trees are acting as good thermometers, why aren't the others? could be cherry picking, but the authors won't tell). Then in more recent times, the selected tree ring data diverges from the temperature records markedly (trending in opposite directions for a long time). One of the scientists explains that they are getting a "non-temperature signal" from the recent tree ring data" in other words the trees are no longer good thermometers. The question then becomes "Were they ever really good thermometers?" Unhelpfully, as revealed in the code comments and emails, graphic representations of this data are always to be snipped or adjusted to "hide the decline"[of the tree ring data] This is important because it calls into question the value of the entire flat part of the hockey stick, which is based on the tree rings.

True, there is a consensus on global warming and there's a big stack of papers that support the same conclusions as the ones discussed in the emails. The problem is that metaphorically, these papers are somewhere in the lower middle of the stack, with papers higher in the stack rely upon it them in part for support through citations that form a chain of reasoning. Some are tied to these papers by shared methods of analysis and data sets. Continuing the metaphor, pull these papers out of the stack and they no longer support the ones above. Some of these papers, who knows how many, are going to fall onto the floor. The stack of papers is no longer so big, and the consensus is no longer quite so significant. It's pretty troubling that a retired statistician and an ad-hoc team of amateurs has managed to shake up such a fuss among a group of esteemed scientists.

This is why the CRU hack is important. Its more than just a portion of a graph being snipped off here for "presentation purposes", more than a few nasty comments. The best possible result of this mess would be more transparency of data and improved peer review (which seems to have taken abuse from all sides in this fight)

Just some thoughts

As I understand it, the alarmists have been singularly unresponsive to all requests to see the underlying data and the models. Attempts to figure out what they have done have led to highly plausible charges that they have cherry-picked data to support their hypotheses and that the quality of their statistical modeling has been substandard. Refusal to rebut these charges with actual data and models adds to the suspicion. Instead of allowing for others to repeat their work (repeatability being one of the basic tenets of scientific knowledge) they have chosen to hide, ignore, attack and smear. It is into this environment that the emails come to light, and it is in this environment that the plotting to boycott publications, violate Freedom of Information Act laws and influence reviewers and the media have created such a stir.

None of that can sway the faithful. They just KNOW that all this burning of fossil fuels must be bad, and if this reverse engineered bit of science is shown to be a lie then there MUST be another waiting to be found. That is assuming that the major news outlets even mention that this evidence of fraud has come to light.

Sorry for the over-long post.

It has always been glaringly obvious that the "science" behind the global warming religion was reverse engineered.

And now, even with proof in the form of hacked emails, the faithful will not be swayed.

No, John, you don't get it. It's SCIENCE. SCIENCE. When someone practices SCIENCE one is above bias, dishonesty, political agenda. You've got to understand that about SCIENCE. That's what makes so many folks so trusting of SCIENTISTS. SCIENTISTS never steer you wrong. SCIENTISTS are nice people who only love the truth. SCIENTISTS never scare people with what they say. SCIENTISTS are immune from temptations to power or even money. They just love the truth. Heck-they're one step up from EXPERTS, who all know the best ways and agree on them. Just ask them. And buy their books. Then Count Danku can memorize them and quote them as they split shards of hair.

I appreciate your sarcasm.
The faithful will assert their faith in their scientists, while denouncing other scientists as heretics.
Their scientists can only come up with one conclusion, their conclusion, because they knew they were right before they paid the scientists to come up with it.

Anytime someone tries to convince you of something and the only solution involves yours and everyone else's money, there's a good chance they're blowing smoke up your ass.

That's why my BSometer goes DINGDINGDING when OwlGore opens his fat mouth.

But the faithful will not see it. Nope. Never gonna happen. That's like trying to convince a Christian that Jesus was just some dude, not the son of their invisible friend. Never gonna happen. That's what faith is all about.

Talk of climate change is way overblown. Not because Climate Change does or doesn't exist, but because no one is going to do anything drastic about it. The Chinese aren't stupid. The Indians aren't stupid. The Europeans have no qualms about going Nuclear. And, believe it or not, the Americans aren't stupid. Taking action unilaterally won't do any good and would ruin the financial prospects of the political class, so they're not going to do anything.

What will happen. Democrats will make their talking points about doing something because making such points is good politics for Democrats. Republicans will respond with their counter points because the counter points are good politics for Republicans. Also, the building trades will find ways of making homes cheaper and more efficient, and the Chinese auto manufacturers will find ways to make cars cheaper and more efficient. The end.

"Talk of climate change is way overblown."

No it's not!!! Every year Muirgoo has to walk further to get to the ice. Don't make light of such suffering, especially when he has to step over the dead carcasses of polar bears, whales and whatnot. We're killing this planet! Oh, the guilt!

For clarity I referred to it as the dismal science thinking the slang term referred to the inapplicability of scientific principles to the discipline.

I'm quite sure that impression was made upon me while listening to a discussion on econtalk.

Bottom line is people with hard and true beliefs on how the economy works should think twice about questioning how scientific the discipline and literature supporting anthropogenic climate change is.

I would gladly challenge a libertarian economist to put up the empiric scientific evidence supporting their position to the empiric scientific evidence most climate scientist have to back their positions.

The libertarian ideologue would have a small stack of papers supporting his position while the modern climate scientist would have a stack as high as the ceiling.

Hacked e-mails won't change that... and I could only wonder if the professors here would like to endorse email hacking and also release all their own personal emails for all to see.

A stack of crap is a stack of crap, no matter how tall.

My position on this subject may be a bit different than other libertarians posting on this forum. I'm not opposed to the science of global warming, I'm opposed to the politics of global warming.

I'd like to draw a parallel to evolution. I would every bit as much oppose the politicization of evolution which led to things like the sterilization of poor people. That is exactly the same sort of thing I believe the politicization of global warming will lead to.

I also believe that it is exponentially more difficult to model an economy than it is to model climate. Unlike climate, an economy has active agents which are largely indeterminate.

To put it another way, in a complex climate model, changing one variable will cause other variables to change. But in an economy, changing one variable doesn't just simply cause other variables to change, it causes the set of variables to change. Because people are intelligent actors and they will change their behavior.

Because of this, all of the centrally planned ideas to address climate change are doomed to failure and will instead almost certainly make matters worse.

The libertarian ideologue would have a small stack of papers supporting his position while the modern climate scientist would have a stack as high as the ceiling.

Libertarians will also have only a handful of billionaires on their side, where as the rest of the 900 billionaires want "unfettered" markets so badly, that they are with us. We truly are for the working class. It is very difficult to get that into the heads of these ideologues here.

Kaching!

Could it be more than just emails?

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-hor...

Don't fool yourself. Emails are NOT private. The hacking thing is a red herring.

Al Gore goes...Kaching!

"the empiric scientific evidence most climate scientist have to back their positions."

What a load!!! All they have is observations plus COMPUTER MODELS!!! You trust them like a child. You have not grown up, George.

"Observations plus COMPUTER MODELS"?

What more do you expect?

A civil engineer would use observations plus computer models to build a prototype of a bridge. Then the prototype would be tested under real world conditions.

Climate scientists don't have the luxury of controlling the weather and testing their theories.

You can argue over the finer points of whether or not climate scientists are right based on their models, equations, data, and where the funding came from.

But, can you deny that since the Industrial Revolution humans have polluted the Earth with carbon and other pollutants?

Do you agree that these emissions and polllutants have caused adverse health and environmental effects? For example, increased asthma, inceased smog, and increased UV radiation, just to name a few.

There are two questions that citizens, politicians, businesses and nations need to answer:

1. Are the current levels of pollutants acceptable or should an effort be made to lower them?

2. Could climate scientists be correct about potential devastation through global warming and catostophic weather changes? If so is it worth policy changes and spending the money to potentially advert such a crisis?

"A civil engineer would use observations plus computer models to build a prototype of a bridge."

Oh, that and established laws of physics, as well as the body of knowledge derived from hundreds of years of construction engineering. Building a bridge and predicting the mean temperature 100 years from now is just a wee little bit different.

"Climate scientists don't have the luxury of controlling the weather and testing their theories. "

Bingo!!!

Carbon is a pollutant? Carbon is at the core of all life on the planet. But I like it. Kaching!

The point is that you had no idea of its origin. As for econtalk, Russ Roberts has mentioned its origin several times on the podcast.

The libertarian ideologue would have a small stack of papers supporting his position while the modern climate scientist would have a stack as high as the ceiling.

Popularity by itself means nothing in science; or shouldn't at least.

Anyway, my suggestion is that read the work of Kuhn on the nature of how science works; it would help you tremendously.

I don't see why anyone thinks these emails are so damning. It seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

Economists shun Marxist journals. Climatologists shun journals like Climate Research that they feel isn't up to par. This sort of shunning is part of the peer review process, it seems to me.

And as for the current stall in warming - who (among those who agree with climate change) claims they have an understanding of why that's going on? It seems to me they've always said they're not sure what's going on. Since when has uncertainty disproven a theory?

I don't know - I think this email thing is much ado about nothing. I have no idea why anyone thinks it changes anything. It tells us what we already know: sometimes human beings can be petty. It doesn't tell us much more than that.

I don't see why anyone thinks these emails are so damning. It seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.

Because the science has been settled and there is no longer any need for debate. At least that is what these same people have claimed. They can no longer claim the mantle of trusted authority.

Well then based on that you must believe the authors of this blog have lost their positions as trusted authorities considering how off they were in calling this economic collapse.

To be clear I don't believe this. Their positions, expertise and opinions are indeed very respected by me and deservingly by the community at large in spite of my disagreements with their ideology.

And still the climate "authorities have been yet t be proved wrong in any significant degree.

While I respect the authors of this blog, I do not take anything they say on their authority. That's part of being skeptical.

As for the climate "authorities", it's not a matter of proving them wrong. They are not yet proven "right".

Please point to any instances on this Cafe where contrary evidence was covered up?

It is fairly clear from the e-mails that there is some effort to silence climate scientists who fall outside the mainstream.

From wikipedia (these comments seem to be well sourced):

Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta (who has been described as a mainstream scientist on global-warming issues[20]), wrote that the e-mails reflect a problem with scientists lacking openness about their data and attacking those they disagree with: "[I]t is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports. Scientists are of course human, and short-term emotional responses to attacks and adversity are to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by this apparent systematic and continuing behavior from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in the major assessment reports. It is these issues revealed in the HADCRU emails that concern me the most [...]"[23]

The not sharing the data does bother me. The insults are petty too.

The fact that they don't take the "Climate Research" journal seriously and want to sideline it doesn't bother me a single bit. Nobody can obligate scientists to find other scientists credible.

Well, it illustrates, more than anything else, that the IPCC needs some sunshine. Or it just needs to be abolished.

RE: "Well, it illustrates, more than anything else, that the IPCC needs some sunshine"

No doubt! I knew that before the emails, though :)

Oh, we knew you knew, Danku. No one pulls the wool over your eyes. No one.

Dan - you are a fantastic poster, but this is a cop-out and you know it. You're playing defense for your side. If you are not honest enough with yourself to admit that, you aren't as intellectually mature as you purport to be. Petty? C'mon now, hoss. AGW is a theory that cannot be tested, it cannot be proven or disproven, and so it relies 100% on the authority and integrity of the people pronouncing it to be true. These emails are not "pettiness" they are damning indictments upon the integrity and authority of the some of the leading AGW proponents.

The theory may or may not be true. Before these emails came out, perhaps the reasonable thing would have been to defer to those "who know more about it." These emails make that default assumption less reliable. These guys are data-miners. Worse, they are data-miners in a field whose biggest limitation is a lack of reliable historical data. So they data-mine from a set of data that is ridiculously limited (we hardly have any accurate, long-term historical climate data). It's one thing to data-mine in a field loaded with reliable data. It's quite another to do so in a field with hardly any.

McIntyre was right all along. This confirms it. Stop playing defense and be honest and intellectually mature enough to admit it. It doesn't destroy the theory of AGW. It's no reflection on you, personally, for believing in AGW. But it's not nothing. And appeals to authority - which AGW relies on perhaps more than any "scientific" theory I can remember - just got taken down a few (dozen?) notches. That is a fact that you can choose to ignore or acknowledge, but your decision reflects only on you, not on what those emails mean.

I'm not sure why it's a "cop out". I would modify your characterization of climate change - it cannot fully be tested or proven or disproven - but it can be partially tested and proven or disproven. This goes with all kinds of theories. Take evolution. Evolution isn't a "theory" so much as a massive compendium of different theories, which we can't "prove" because we'll never be able to reproduce human evolution. But we can chip away at, keep some parts, jettison others. But as we learn more about how evolution actually happened, we never throw out evolution because we've had to adjust things.

I have no doubt the recent warming episode is going to modify our understanding of climate change - no doubt at all. I don't think it's "proof" that climate change is wrong or that it's an argument from authority.

As for McIntyre being right all along, how does this confirm anything???? They're sharing information on using the "trick" of not using unreliable tree-ring data.

I have no loyalty to doomsday climate change scenarios. Even if I had an inclination to have a loyalty to such scenarios, I wouldn't don't have the scientific background to say either way. But I have yet to see how any of this vindicates McIntyre, or how any of this undermines the basic thesis of anthropogenic climate change. It reveals that a lot of scientists are jerks. That doesn't sound like news to me, or anything that anyone shouldn't have expected.

"I have no doubt the recent warming episode is going to modify our understanding of climate change"

Only if the Climate Scientists follow the tried and true scientific method. But what about those in the positions of power that don't. The Manns, Jones, Hansens of the world that use their authority to stop science in it's track to promote a pure political agenda. They are the ones pushing the AGW story, now that their credibility is suspect and now that they have shown the world that their data is suspect, we need to start back over from square one, or at least reopen the debate. The debate was never over.

"how any of this undermines the basic thesis of anthropogenic climate change."
If depends one what you think the basic thesis is. If the basic thesis is that man does contribute to GW, then I think most all skeptics would agree that true. If you think the basic thesis is the doomsday scenario, then you need to get a damn clue. The doomsday scenario was built on faulty data (Mann, Kieffa, etc) Now that we know that they fudged the data, we have to question everything they used it for. Which means we have to question all the hype over AGW that they used to data to try and "prove."

What do you mean when you keep saying "fudged the data"? Let's get explicit. What you mean is "use instrumental data when it is available", right? Am I wrong?

Mann and others certainly have shown themselves to be petty and obstructionist - but you can't just call them unscientific or data-fudgers for that.

On how they used computer code to "hide the decline." Now I'm assuming that your like me and think that hiding data from a series (cherrypicking) is unscientific. if you think cherrypicking is ok, then this discussion is over.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climatega...

And about the "Nature trick" changing the data series in the middle especially when the original data doesn't fit your model is NOT scientific. It's dubious at best and fraud. So lets take this example(completely made up of course), if your looking for cancer rates among say New Orleans residents to show how river dumping of haz waste causes cancer but fail to get an statistical variation among long time residents, is it ok to start interviewing new residents that say only moved to the area in the last year or so...or even better interviewing tourists? Don't you see how changing your series in the middle is bad and how it is fudged?
Oh wait no it did happen: (http://www.junkscience.com/news/canceralley.html)

How does that New Orleans data bear any resemblance to what Mann did?

This is getting pointless, Justin. You're ignoring the best data available and calling conclusions you disagree with fraudulent because they choose not to use less reliable data that happens to support Justin Palmer's preconceived notions. I'm not sure what else to say than that. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

"How does that New Orleans data bear any resemblance to what Mann did?"
Do you not know what an analogy is? It's an example that helps my case. Seriously, and you tried to say my biases are feeding into this...what about yours?

You asked for what I meant about fudging and I gave it to you...so now your accusing me of having too much bias? Jesus man...happy dead bird day to you as well.
Don't forget to consume your way to happiness during the Black Friday sales...Keynes would have wanted it that way.

I can't believe it's come to this. What has happened to you, Dan?

Maybe it because I'm going bald, no hairs to split.

He wants to bury the hatchet. In your head.

He does look like Ramon Mercader!

Ahhh, Dan's found a hair...watch him split it!

Ha ha

I'd say that the recent warming trend is proof that any climate model of any significant period of time is not worth taking seriously. I've stated this many times, but hundred year predictions, even fifty year predictions, on any subject are outside of the range of human capability.

I mean honestly, would you take a hundred year population or economic prediction seriously? I wouldn't. For example, during the 1990s there were all manner of doomsday scenarios for a depopulating Europe, yet today, several European countries are returning to levels of fecundity near or above what one would need to replace the population.

People really do need to stop thinking that they are psycho-historians.

"It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested."
- John Christy

That says it best.
The science behind AGW is flawed. The models have failed the data test and therefore must be discarded. Maybe this will open up real debate, not the mafia like cabal like CRU.

Here from the people telling us climate change is nothing to worry about are quotes from these same people about "false economic fears" from May of 2008.

First Dons post is titled; Seeing Past the Chicken Littles

So they were chicken littles were they??? Incredibly from May of 2008.


Sam Grove
What we need is stronger headlines.

Lowcountryjoe
Hasn't the sky already fallen?


Flash Gordon
There must be hope because even my dyed-in-the-wool liberal (but lovable) New York State mother in law has been complaining lately about the news trying to paint the economy as worse than it really is.

Mesa Econoguy

The implications of this are manifold, most notably the selection bias towards unfounded negative headlines


There is so much more of this all over this blog. You guys were so wrong. You missed this economic collapse by a mile. And you show no remorse and no ownership to your incredibly off denials of what many predicted and described in detail.

Now you are all experts in climate science. So sure that there is no problem... that it's all a hoax. Your ignorance and narrow mindedness is so incredibly dangerous.

Sam Grove
What we need is stronger headlines.

George, I was tossing out a wise crack comment on the state of public discourse, not making an economic prediction.

I have always assumed that the system would collapse at some point, but I have never made any pretense of knowing when.

But thanks to all those progressives out there that voted for the HAC (Hope and Change) candidate, Wall Street is now in control.

We might have hoped that it would be better than the petro industry in charge, but I think hope and change are being replaced by doubt and fear.

You were right about one prediction I missed.
I said that the Democrats were going to have a hard time outspending the Republicans under Bush, but I was wrong.

And the Austrians have been predicting the bubble collapse. Perhaps you didn't notice.

George, I love this comment, because it is so stupid, brilliantly so, in fact.

Nice change of subject, but is that all you got? I’ve said far dumber things on this blog. Nothing remotely close to your vacuous drivel, though George.

By the way a while back I didn’t respond to an inane response from you, but I’ll incorporate it here: NBER completely blew this most recent recession call. It did not start in Dec. 2007, it started in June – July 2008 (helped by Bear imploding). All the macro numbers point to it. In the economic history of this country, I’m not aware of any recession which started with decelerating GDP (+4.5% Q4 07, +1.0% Q1 08), not negative, and then proceeded to accelerate again (+3.5% Q2 08).

I’ve built a few pricing/financial models (which is a few more than you have), and I set the curve in statistics in B school, so yes, compared to you, I am in a far better position to evaluate the statistical modeling and even much of the science than you.

But you don’t need to be an expert to see how obviously poor and intellectually shallow and bankrupt this entire process is. And now we all know first hand just what we had suspected all along – these pseudo-scientists were covering up, lying, and may have destroyed evidence. That may be prosecutable (more on that later).

George, are you aware that nearly everything in your first post is actually true of your side of the “argument,” such as it is?

Just how far is your head jammed up your sizable ass, George?

Actually, there has been no economic collapse. You want to see economic collapse? Visit Zimbabwe.

Anyway, a group of economists - the Austrians - have been predicting for some time that the profligate spending and taxation policies of the Keynesians and the discretion given to the central banks by the Moneterists would lead to significant problems. They were proven right.

Of course the massive debt, etc. that the Obama administration is accruing isn't helping us to get off our slow, steady course toward a nation ruled by men instead of laws.

Now you are claiming spending and taxation caused this collapse and that it is not a even a collapse. WOW... mind boggling!!!

Now I am claiming? Look dude, I just came to this blog one month ago or so. You are claiming that I have contrary record of statements on the matter when that cannot possibly be the case.

tell them, It is a collapse, but you also said it is not a collapse because of all the stimulus, which me and my buddy Al Gore are happily sharing. That's the way to do it, like a good politician with a heart for the poor. On our way to first billion george. Thank you.

Mommsen, since Gideon Gono seems to be Bernanke's intellectual hero, Zimbabwenomics may very well be coming to our shores. It's only a matter of time. Happy thoughts :(

OK. So you are one to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic while it's sinking. Good call or maybe you don't know the rest of the story.

All of AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) science is tainted now.

There never was a consensus on it anyway because the consensus takers had fixed the the game. If you dissented, your paper was rejected; if you persisted, your professional reputation was ruined. Not too many takers on the "non-consensus" side given the options.

You don't believe me? Read the emails. Read about the people who were destroyed by this cabal.

The science was cooked. Data was twisted and manipulated to fit a forgone conclusion. If a curve went down, it was necessary to "hide the decline" and make it curve up. It generated endless graphs and charts showing how we were all going to fry if something (forking over $$$) wasn't done about it. Endless scary story followed after scary story for 10 years.

The reality is Global Warming IS man-made. Not in real temperatures; they have been dropping for a decade. Man-made global warming was man-made in the graphs and charts.

Thank you for the opportunity to post as a guest without requiring me to go through the whole sign-up procedure. I only wish most others were as gracious as you are.

HERETIC!

You can try and nail your 95 theses to the door into the Church of AGW, but be warned! Heretics burn.

I am Cardinal Yasafi Torquemuirduck: Grand Inquisitor of The Church of AGW, and I am not amused by your insolence or your wicked heresy!

Why is it that muirgeo often manages to get the post in, and set the tone of the debate down to his level? Is it possible for some self-emergent behavior to arise where we DON'T FEED THE TROLL?

He didn't set the tone of debate - you all did. He put in his two cents, you guys ran with it.

The most obvious interpretation is that that's what you guys wanted to talk about - bashing muirgeo. It's a common pattern. Rarely do people want to talk about the substantive issues here.

No, people want to make sure that muirgeo's crap doesn't go unanswered ... and yet that's the only way to make him go away so we can have a serious discussion. Same thing with you, only you're much more cognizant of reality.

Well right... that's my point. You want to answer it.

A couple weeks back I was getting non-sequitor crap from methinks, vidyohs, and mark. Now (with one exception when I thanked mark) I just don't respond to them. Problem solved! It was particularly unfortunate in methinks's case because methinks could on occassion have a substantive conversation... but the resulting peace (and increased substance of interactions I've had on here since) has been well worth that cost.

Ignore that "like". I clicked on the wrong thing.

Let that be a lesson to you, people. Only Danny and Muirdiot ever talk about substantive issues and only Danny has the authority to grind on about some irrelevant side issue to deflect from his his authoritarian heros' shortcomings.

Why, he's lived a whole quarter of a century. He has much to teach you. Pay attention.

I've said it a few times, but sometime I still fall back to feeding the trolls.

Me .. the side with ALL the publications in the peer reviewed science journals... I'm the troll...

George inadvertently raises a very important issue here: now that we know the peer review process was corrupted, not only is the original work in question here, ALL of the material published subsequently citing this research is tainted, and ALL of these reviewers are now in question, as is any of the research they reviewed.

Basically, the entire field is now in question.

That is the wonder (and unintended consequence) of centralized research.

No, you're the lost sheep being lead to the slaughter. And the fool. And the dope who expects us all to believe you're not a totalitarian.

Peer review is just another political process, George ... which should make you very happy.

Kaching! Now, dazzle all the thick heads on this blog here with your understanding of peer reviewed data, how it is calculated. Start with the equation to calculate "Global" temperature. Let's make some moolah for ourselves and prophet Al.

Are Conservatives going to spread the good news and do their best to stop lefties introducing 'green legislation'? Not to mention stop 'green values' being taught in school?

Re: green values

Those aren't the only ones being taught....

"Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus."
The first step toward “cultural competence,” says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize — and confess — their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.

The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an “autoethnography” report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their “cultural” motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a “cultural intelligence” assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other “isms.” They “earn points” for “demonstrating the ability to be self-critical.”
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/7...

I'm surprised a ClimateGate post took so long.

I have my own post on it here; http://politicalzombie.blogspot.com/2009/11/cre...

What I find so interesting is the collective "Cover Your Ass" going on a CRU and realclimate. One good thing though is that realclimate is actually letting contrarian posts go up on their comment section. Could it be that CRU Hack email with Jones and Gavin talking about selectively deleting comments that challenge their positions? No of course not, how silly of me.

What the ClimateGate emails show, is how politicized the "consensus" is. It shows the depravity some alarmists will go to to control the message. It shows how far some are willing to go to keep their propaganda going, in the absence of data.

Google for "Rowland Thatcher CFCs". You'll find some very interesting presentations given by a Nobel-laureate where he is all giddy about getting Margaret Thatcher's panties in a bunch over ozone layer holes. It is a seminal moment in global environmentalism, because it showed that if science could raise a scare, the politicians could be forced to coordinate. Global warming is just the second donut chasing that amazing taste and feeling of the first.

It used to be that the scientists would just waste billions on big science boondoggles like nuclear fusion or the space shuttle. Now they've mixed in telling us what we should drive and how we should live. Lately, these turds, through their political proxies on the California Energy Commission, are going to make it more of a hassle to get an HDTV and cost the state of California significant sales tax revenues. All in the name of fighting global warming.

Honest debate? Check.
Settled science? Check.
Academic honesty? Check.
Peer review? Check.
Legitimate scientific procedures? Check.

P.S. Joke ends here.

No kidding, Chris. Great joke! Pay the man!

If jail is good enough for Jeff Skilling and Bernie Madoff, it’s good enough for Mike Mann.

Yes ... jail all the intellectuals... spoken like a rue authoritarian. You rapers and plunderers just hat intellectuals don't you?

I know. Don't rules and regulations suck?

We should get advance bail, passports and visa ready, just in case Al Gore gets caught in an accounting scandal. Kaching!

The alarmists will never let that happen. They will do ANYTHING they can to keep the facade of AGW going.

The investigation has started:

Inhofe Begins Climategate Investigation

FOIA warning letters have been sent to the relevant parties/scientists.

The lawsuits are pending:

CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS

Please tell me I'm not the only one disappointed by that interview. The first half of it is nothing but he-said-she-said garbage. Can we please have a reasoned debate?!?!

It was pretty weak.

Veru=y week and Michaels made some claims on ice sheets that are not in anyway settled.

Absolutely! Have you ever found 1 good argument against global warming? None. Nada. Zilch.

Kaching!

The bit is described as an "interview", not a debate.

"Economist with very rigid positions in their chosen study of the dismal science have very little room to criticize those who study falsify-able science."

Well, they sure did falsify their science didn't they?

Economist with very rigid positions in their chosen study of the dismal science have very little room to criticize those who study falsify-able science.

The most ardent climate scientist who supports the consensus of his profession has far less certainty on their position then do many economist who hold fast to their unproved position in their study the dismal science of economics.

Time to pull up the Ashley Montagu quote ... with a slight bit of paraphrasing....

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists... (make that Economist) have certainty without any proof".


Finally, wishful as the idealist are "climate gate" will have almost no perceptible effect on the trends of anthropogenic climate change.

There apparently are people out their who think a media blitz, hacked e-mails and propaganda can change climate trends. Such things have changed so much of THEIR reality such that they've lost all perspective of reality.

Muirvomit is at it again. Pride and foolishness in the same post. Your faith in computer models is typically childish, but since it leads to totalitarianism you just can't help yourself!

Yeah because my big thing is having a govenment that represent thepeople and that makes me a totalitarian... whatever dude.

I think what you want leads to a government and a society catering to an elite minority. The graph below has me just stunned at what goes on in this country and how policiy matters.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_n5ROGN0Id8Q/SwqTxQV5A...


What do you think of that graph? The implications BLOW ME AWAY! Does it mean anything to you?

What do you think of that graph? The implications BLOW ME AWAY!


Of course it does.

Because you don’t know how to interpret data (see above). And your grammar is horrendous.

And you don't know how to interpret anything.

And I seriously, very seriously fear for anyone in your care.

You are a danger to the community, and probably yourself.

I think what you want leads to a government and a society catering to an elite minority

Exactly! Imagine if all the proles in asia started using air conditioning? Or started making trips to Exit Glacier. What exclusivity is left for us and our country club buddies? Remember most of the billionaires are on our side. They pour money into the campaign coffers of the common man's representatives like Crook Dodd, and anti-war Barack "Stay the course" Obama. They want unfettered markets so badly, they are willing to put money where their mouths are.

Kaching!

"Finally, wishful as the idealist are "climate gate" will have almost no perceptible effect on the trends of anthropogenic climate change."

You actually got it right for once. No matter how much they try to fudge the data now, they simply cannot ignore the divergence between CO2 and Warming that has gone on now for the past few years. Their "Tricks" have been exposed. Only the AGW faithful will still beleive. Rational people, realizing that the line they have been fed was complete BS, will now question CRU and the IPCC "consensus" even more.

Justin ,

I visit Exit Glacier almost yearly. Every year I have to walk a little further to get to its snout.

I visit Exit Glacier almost yearly. Every year I have to walk a little further to get to its snout.

Meaningless.

Glaciers have been in retreat since roughly the early 19th century.

What was CO2 output ppm in 1820, George?

CO2 starts going up before 1850;


http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/l...

Exit glacier starts melting faster in the late 1800 's. It fits perfect.

http://www.micktravels.com/alaska2006/exit/02-e...

Wrong.

You think that made sense???? It only shows you and who ever wrote that post doesn't understand the data not to mention had to set up a straw man to make their supposed point.

Straw man... That anthropogenic warming only starts in 1950. I just showed you that CO2 levels were increasing as early as the early 1800's. What? Do you believe that CO2 had different properties back then. IN fact initial increases have a GREATER effect then subsequent absolute increases. The effect is logarithmic to CO2 concentration.

Finally, the ding bat concludes that the retreat should have a positive slope which shows a lack of understanding of glacier dynamics. The steady retreat is consistent with steady warming.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/l...

Mesa at some point you have to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you want climate change not to be true. Your ideological position is blinding you to the evidence.

Actually George, there is another possibility – that natural CO2 was sufficiently high around & before the industrial revolution, and that this concentration really took off after it, and the anthropogenic component effectively supplanted the “natural variability.” But that still does not account for glacial decline caused by human-caused warming at the end of the 19th century.

You said yourself "That anthropogenic warming only starts in 1950" was a straw man.

So when did it start, and what's the trigger point?
After, uh, whenever, the magic warming fairy suddenly “switched on” the AGW component, causing and accelerating (in a runaway unstable process, very rare in the known universe) warming well beyond any natural variance.

Riiiiiiiiight.

"It's no use pretending that this isn't a major blow," glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists.

Hear that, Dorko Kuehn and Muirloser? Sorry, but Algore's not on the fast track for carbon-billionaire status yet, no matter what kind of useful idiocy you've contributed on this blog.


Yeah!!!!

I always thought his name was George Moonbat…

Mesa,

You may already know this, but Monbiot is the inspiration for the term, moonbat.

Mon biot

Mon = my (Fr.)

Biot = the French physicist Jean-Baptiste Biot ?

Biot = a very picturesque and very popular medieval village that's actually about 2500 years old ?

Biot = a very picturesque and very popular medieval village that's actually about 2500 years old ?...

... That was only recently revealed by receding glaciers, thus proving AGW?

:-D

Ka-ching!

So you think that AGW somehow started in the 1700s now? Because that is exactly your position. In order for the net accumulation of CO2 to have reached levels for you to observe measurable warming during that time period, your carbon buildup had to have begun much earlier.

Again, your position is preposterous, because it is inherently non-falsifiable. It is also wrong, because the Industrial Revolution didn’t fully take hold until the mid-19th century, when CO2 output really took off (for CAGW purposes). You are either insane, or profoundly stupid, or a combination thereof.

But this point is moot, as we will have a vigorous debate in a legal setting shortly, and your side will be legally compelled to produce evidence, which will be shown to be fake and/or extremely shoddy.


Update: cap and trade is dead.

Torquemuirduck, at some point you have to look in the mirror and ask yourself why you want AGW to be true. Your ideological position is blinding you to contrary evidence.

I'll give you a hint.

It is a means to an end. You devoutly believe that only government can determine how much liberty a man needs in order to be free. Your Church is one more weapon in the arsenal of government coercion and control.

I also note that you have adopted the new, politically correct term, "climate change", rather than "global warming". Hypocrite.

Well that changes everything! I'm a believer now!

CO2 starts going up before 1850;


http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/l...

Exit glacier starts melting faster in the late 1800 's. It fits perfect.

http://www.micktravels.com/alaska2006/exit/02-e...

Again... YOU CAN'T BE A BELIEVER because you aren't even able to cite what would be believable evidence.


Like a creationist who would believe evolution when he sees an animal evolve you will only .. maybe...believe climate change when it becomes so obvious you can see it.

You're not interested in science but proofs that are obvious to some one 4 years of age or less.

You've got the intellectual maturity of a four year old, Mr. "If they make more than me, confiscate it" Muirgeorgewbushlover!

Oh so now I'm a creationist too? I never knew...damn I'll have to burn all those biology books I have now.

"Like" a creationist, Justin. The parallels are notable when you listen to skeptics.

Just like how the science was settle that the universe revolved around the Earth right? Oh wait until that skeptic of a man challenged the "consensus" showing a Heliocentric model.

That's a funny analogy - I suppose it largely depends on a person's perspective. Yes, the heliocentric model came before those skeptics in the same way that climate change models came before the skeptics - but I think the characteristics of the climate change skeptics (not considering the totality of the evidence, close ties to ideological imperatives, denunciations of the people they disagree with as trying to destroy society) sound more similar to the heliocentric advocates than to the geocentric advocates. But then, I suppose a lot of skeptics see those qualities in the climate change advocacy crowd.

As a complete aside, I think there's a difference between a "consensus" existing and the science being "settled". We do have a consensus on climate change - and that matters a great deal - but the science isn't "settled". We have a "consensus" around evolution, but the science isn't settled. We have a "consensus" around planetary motion - and the science is pretty settled around that question. I'm not sure when somebody says "there is a consensus around climate change" you can assume they're saying "the question is closed".

"I'm not sure when somebody says "there is a consensus around climate change" you can assume they're saying "the question is closed"."

You can tell because they usually say something along the lines that "AGW is proven," just read anything Muir has to say on the subject...that the gist of all his arguments.

Well yes... if they say "AGW is proven" I think it's a tautology to conclude that they think AGW is proven.

If they say there's a consensus and that consensus is meaningful, I DON'T think you can assume that they think the question is closed or the science is settled.

Again your completely missing my point. They say both things. In the same paragraph, over and over again.

"your completely missing my point"

That's because you're giving yourself wiggle room to have anything mean what you want it to mean. You're a fraud, and an intellectual wanker.

Me or Dan? I'm the one trying to nail down Dan's position, which from what I gather is very simple. It appears damaging but really isn't. They might have done something bad with the data, but I'm sure they had a good reason. And, They didn't really mean what they said by changing peer review, just trust them to sort this stuff out.

I'm pretty sure that Mark intended that reply for Yabbut.

OK, I don't have a clue who "they" is - but you're obviously completely missing my point. If they say both things than obviously they agree with both things. If they only talk about a consensus you can't assume they're saying the question is closed. I'm not saying that you said that - but since your comment about the heliocentric model raised both statements, I just wanted to be clear that they are two very different statements.

Do you guys realize that there are thousands upon thousands of Danku's all throughout the government bureacracy, wonking and hairsplitting us down the road to totalitarianism?

Oh I know but you can only change one mind at a time.

Funny.

Yasafi compares us to creationists, because we resist the attack on life and liberty that his Church is waging. It is His Holiness: The Divine Prophet Algore I, Cardinal Yasafi Torquemuirduck: Grand Inquisitor for the Church of AGW, and the other Cardinals and Bishops in the Church of AGW who are leading the charge that the science is settled, the debate is over, and those who disagree should be tried for crimes against humanity.

Oh my gosh!!! This proves AGW!!!

CO2 starts going up before 1850;


http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/l...

Exit glacier starts melting faster in the late 1800 's. It fits perfect.

http://www.micktravels.com/alaska2006/exit/02-e...

Head for the hills! Muirpus has his proof!

See the problem for people like you is I can ask you WHAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE? ( not yelling ... just highlighting) and you will NOT even be able to formulate na answer.


You will NOT be able to answer that question. And that just shows how dopey you and your buddies are being. You CAN NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION... because you do not want it to be answerable.

Muirry, if you're asserting that something is happening, you should be the one to prove it, huh?

Yes. I believe the evidence available proves it. You chose to ibgnore or do not know or understand the evidence.

But my point was and seems to remain true that you guys can not even imagine or state what evidence WOULD be valid proof. THAT'S PATHETIC!

Then you have a hopelessly low threshold of “proof,” and therefore should not be practicing in any science-related field, much less medicine.

George, it is your stance (glaciers are melting – AGW! Temperature is falling – AGW! Temperature is stagnant – AGW!) that is non-falsifiable, not ours.

If you truly understood the scientific process, which you clearly don’t, you would know that most of science is disproving concepts, not proving them. Hence, true science does and should involve highly skeptical scenarios and viewpoints.

You should start here.

I know you're convinced, but why haven't you shown me this evidence that's so convincing any of the several times I've asked?

What I've seen is not even close to convincing. The computer models are completely useless. Human CO2 production contributes a very small percentage of the greenhouse effect. Additional atmospheric CO2 has a progressively smaller greenhouse effect (i.e. going from 100ppm to 1000ppm has roughly the same effect as going from 10ppm to 100ppm). The climate system is extremely complex and not very well understood.

Where's the science to counter these things? I'm still waiting...

Notice muirgoob didn't reply to this one. Poor muirgoob. He can't heppitt!

You go girl. Kaching!

George, you walk from Vacaville, California to Exit Glacier? I mean every year? I say you take that private jet. You are allowed to spread your carbon "foot prints" all over the globe. That is doing a world of good to humanity. It is the proles who need to be prevented from ever boarding an aircraft. Imagine if all of worlds proles visited Exit Glacier. Yuck! Imagine the enviromental havoc it will cause in Exit Glacier. We should keep it exclusive to our country club buddies like Al Gore, George Soros, Jeff Immelt.

You, me & Al Gore have another thing in common. We look the part - I mean for somebody who walks all the way to Exit Glacier - we are all a tad big around the middle. Which is a good thing - High Holiness Al Gore has set the example, we will get to where he is quickly...Kaching.

The "divergence" that was referenced was the divergence of one guy's tree ring data from measured temperatures after 1960, not the stall in global warming in recent years. In fact, I think the paper they were refering to was published in 1998 - so how could it be referencing what's happened in the last couple years? This nefarious "trick" everyone is losing their minds over is simply substituting in measured data for widely suspect tree ring data.

What I'm wondering is - if we don't trust the tree ring data since the 1960s, should it really be used to construct temperature trends hundreds of years ago???

This is a tempest in a teapot.

That "one guys tree ring data" was a big part of the hysteria behind the whole "hockey stick." It is used to frighten people. That being said, there is also the issue of not letting anyone see the data set for over 10 years. How is that scientific? With no outside audit, we are supposed to trust in the expert, well the expert has been shown to be a simple con man, substituting data series as he sees fit to pass along an agenda.
Why did the Russian (forget the name) who used the same Yamal series not get the same uptick?
Remember that the emails are only a small part of everything that went and is going on at CRU, which probably is being done at GISS and other universities (Mann is at Penn, Hansen has already been caught fudging data) So what other tricks have they used that we don't know about yet? That "trick" has a lot of implication, like you said why should we use it to construct temp trends back then? It makes everything we have learned suspect, all the bad science and the good science.

the 'yamal' uptick-
apparently about 100 samples from a warmer area were relabelled as originating in a cooler area (wider rings = cooler temps) to correct that inconvenient decline.

Does anyone trust the post-1960 tree ring data over the instrumental data, though? People are acting like this is some sort of cover-up. My understanding has always been they were trying to put together a 1,000 year time series, had conflicting data in the late 20th century, and went with the most reliable data. You call it "fudging data". Why? They should use the most accurate data available. For 1200 AD, that may very well be tree ring data (and the error on those estimates is understandably large). For 1990, don't look at a damn tree ring - check the thermometer! Am I misunderstanding something? I just browse this issue out of interest it's not like I've actually worked on these issues.

And I hope you're not under the impression that we only see hockey sticks with Yamal data: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2...


RE: "That being said, there is also the issue of not letting anyone see the data set for over 10 years. How is that scientific?"

Ummmm... it's not.

RE: "That "trick" has a lot of implication, like you said why should we use it to construct temp trends back then?"

Right, I think that's a legitimate question. But I don't think it diverges from other records back then as much as it does in the last half century, does it?

Yes, everyone that believes in the Hockey Stick trusts in the tree ring data! That's what they are basing it all on! Now you and I agree that they should use other data but how. Once you change data series and go from tree rings to thermometers, you have different problems to deal with. Your adding new systemic bias into the system. Tree rings require calculations to come to temp, thermometers don't, so how much does that skew the data. Sticking with tree rings eliminates some that bias. I'm not saying I like it but it is consistent.
But changing to other measure of temps doesn't change the fact that they have and probably still do, change the data to fit what they already want to see. That is the whole point of the scandal.
You think that the petty insults and journal tampering is no big deal....fine, I think it all adds up to big problems but if you thinks it's no big deal ok. I'll give you that. What IS a big deal is the damn tampering with the Data!!!! When accountants do that on Wall Street, that is called fraud and they go to jail. Why are you so cavalier when these scientists do it. At least the accountant is only defrauding shareholders, whom a lot of people think don't deserve the money anyway, but these scientists affect data that is the BASIS for trillions of dollars in Cap and Trade legislation that affect BILLIONS of people!

The emails show collusion between RealClimate and Mann in trying to silence differing opinions. So sorry if I don't exactly trust anything that is posted on that site. Put it this way, would you go to mises.org for a "balanced" view on Keynes?

RE: "You think that the petty insults and journal tampering is no big deal....fine, I think it all adds up to big problems but if you thinks it's no big deal ok."

Again, you don't even seem to realize how your own biases are feeding into this. The whole point was the Climate Research journal - the skeptic's journal - was the one that was "tampered with" from their perspective. So they just want to shun it. How is saying "I don't buy what comes out of that journal" supposed to be interpreted as "journal tampering"???? You've got it exactly backwards.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me why using a variety of data sources - and placing emphasis on the most reliable data sources - is tantamount to "tampering". They do this in macroeconomic history work too. It's ALWAYS an exercise in splicing together the most reliable data.

Lots of data sources show a hockey-stick of sorts. You're the one demanding so much emphasis on post-1960 tree ring data that diverges from instrumental data. Who's the one cherry-picking here??? You abandon instrumental data in favor of tree rings when you have the option of using presumably more accurate instrument, and you expect people to believe that it's just because of your scientific method bona fides that you abandon the more accurate data in favor of the only data source out there that supports your position? Come on, Justin. I can't believe it's Mann that you're accusing of fraud.

"So they just want to shun it. How is saying "I don't buy what comes out of that journal" supposed to be interpreted as "journal tampering"????"

Well how about this little ditty;
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

And guess what happened? Von Storch isn't the editor anymore, thanks to them. Oh but I guess you don't think that is tampering with the journal huh?

"PS Re CR, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the
editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame -- he encourages the
publication of crap science 'in order to stimulate debate'. One approach
is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their
journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation
under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since
whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is
how the journal is seen by the community that counts."

Or
"you think that [the editor] is in the greenhouse skeptics camps, then, if we can find documentary evidence for this, we could go through official AGU (American Geophysical Union) channels to get him ousted.”

Yeah I forgot that's not tampering right...

Are you even reading the same text that I am? IF Climate Research was guilty of publishing "crap science" and "misinformation" these guys have a duty to raise the issue. Maybe they're right, maybe they're not. I've never cracked open Climate Research myself, and even if I did I wouldn't be able to evaluate it. But if a journal is letting bad science get published and people recognize it have to speak up, Justin. That's all part of peer review.

OK - von Torch got fired. I don't know the specifics of von Torch's situation, but if you do bad work, you're not going to get tenure, you're not going to get grants, you're not going to maintain your editorial position at a journal.

What about "IF" Climate Research wasn't guilty of publishing crap science? Who does that play out. Your want to say the CRU crew are innocent until proven guilty, but your resting some of that on the basis that other are guilty until proven innocent.
If Climate Research is publishing peer reviewed papers that the CRU crew doesn't like, because those papers are skeptical of CRU's claims, what make you think that CR is the guilty one? Oh yeah you never opened Climate Research, yet you are assuming they are the ones at fault.

Then you assume it was Von Torch that was a bad editor. You admit to not knowing the specifics yet your assuming he is guilty? WTF?
Oh yeah I'm the biased one, my bad.

How the hell do you get from me saying I have no way of evaluating the validity of their claims to me assuming that it was von Torch that was in the wrong?

Just get over it Justin - clearly some people think there are major problems with the editorial process at CR. Neither you nor I have any insight into whether those concerns are valid or not. But if they hold those concerns, BOTH OF US - if we support scientific peer review - should be in agreement that they should confront the journal over it. How in the world is that controversial? Everything is a controversy for you guys. Everything is a plot. Look, if von Torch or McIntyre thought there was some monkey business going on at another journal, I would hope they would confront them over it too. And I'll leave it to those in the field to sort out who's right (and you should too).

Since you don't believe me, at least listen to what Manbiot has to say on it. He is a "true beleiver" in AGW.


Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away

"Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science"

"I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can't possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemon...

If the SuperFreakonomics outrage is any measure, I wonder how long it will be before the Alarmists go on the attack against Manbiot?

I'm not sure what you expect this to prove. I think Manbiot perfectly captures my reaction to the East Anglia emails.

When I initially used the phrase "tempest in a teapot", I was refering to the "wild claims which the material can't possibly support" that Manbiot refers to. But I've never shirked from the fact that this is very damning material for the email writers.

I just think (with Manbiot, it seems), that you're over interpreting it, ignoring what I think are the most damning facets of the emails and substituting them for your own that I don't think hold very much water.

"When I initially used the phrase "tempest in a teapot", I was refering to the "wild claims which the material can't possibly support" that Manbiot refers to. But I've never shirked from the fact that this is very damning material for the email writers."

So Dan was dismissive of the whole thing, but at the same time never "shirked" from the fact that it's damning.

Hair splitting and backstepping and contradictions in the same post. Brilliant, Count Danku! You are strong in the force!

I'm over interpreting it? What might my motives be then?

I don't think you necessarily have a motive. It could be that you're just inaccurate. Or it could be that I'm inaccurate. Again, I'm not sure why you feel the need to read nefariousness or altruism into these things.

Ok fine, if you want to trust that the experts know best...be my guest.

Again, standard disclaimer, I do not condone throwing frivolous lawsuits around, but this

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climatega...

is pretty clear. It is direct code from the models.

This is likely admissible evidence in a fraud case.

Keep 'em coming. But be warned, I posted that link down below, in response to Dan wanting specifics....you'll see from his response below, he either didn't read it or just discarded out right anyway.
It's a very frustrating trend when trying to discus issues with Dan. He wants evidence yet when you give it to him he doesn't even acknowledge it and goes off onto a different tangent.

Because I had already discussed the decline ad nauseum with you. I swear, one minute you guys are complaining about how much I respond, and the next minute you get frustrated that I don't respond to everything you say every single time. The link you posted confirmed what I was saying - that after 1960 the data wasn't particularly reliable so they used other data. It's not like they hid this decision. The divergence of the data in that period is a major issue in climatology. You all have this paranoia that senses a massive coverup for everything - in this case, because they chose to use the most reliable data available!

Or did you want me to comment on the Australian stations they were talking about? Yes - working with raw data can be extremely messy - I can tell you from experience. There's some data I've used that I barely trust at all. And you know what? When we don't trust certain data to be accurate we don't run analyses on them - or if it's borderline, we do run analyses and heavily qualify any of our conclusions. That's life. I didn't read anything that sounded like a coverup.

And I also should note - I'm not defending these guys as the most stellar scientists... I just read a piece where they talked about changing the tree ring data "in an ad hoc way". That's terrible. I'm not defending that. This could indeed be very badly done research. All I'm saying is I don't see where the coverup is, and I don't see the problem with using more reliable data when you have it. It doesn't mean it was well executed - it's possible it wasn't. I'm in no position to determine that.

So at least you admit that they mangled the science by manipulating the data "in an ad hoc way." So now since you have admitted that was wrong, why are you going out of your way to assume they are innocent and everyone else (editors, Journals, skeptics) is wrong? You have admitted to not reading the journals, to not knowing all the specifics, that the CRU crew has done some improper things with the data, that the data isn't all that reliable; wouldn't the more prudent choice to be assume that the ones you have already admitted to being improper, have the more nefarious motives than the editors and journals that you admit to have no clue about? Please answer that question, no evasion.

I don't know if anyone is being improper - I think they were sloppy in that instance. I'm not sure why you think that implies nefarious motives, or why they are more nefarious than the climate change skeptics. And it's always possible that they both have nefarious motives! I'm amazed that you can see nefarious motives in the climate change community, but you're completely blind to the role of ideology in the skeptics' community.

For the second time - I'm NOT assuming CR is wrong. It's possible they are, and if people think they're in the wrong they have every right to shun the journal and every obligation to confront the journal. I would say the same thing about skeptics who have concerns about the review process at other climatology journals.

I'm sure you'll figure out some way to label that "evasion", but it's the same thing I've been saying all along.

You just admitted that they were doing improper things with the data one post up.
"I just read a piece where they talked about changing the tree ring data "in an ad hoc way". That's terrible. I'm not defending that. This could indeed be very badly done research."
Are you already retracting that statement? At least edit it out first. Please explain how changing the data "in a ad hoc way" isn't nefarious? What altruistic motives are behind it?

I'm not retracting anything. Why does it have to be nefarious or altruistic for you? I'm saying it was sloppy or inaccurate. Perhaps you feel comfortable judging nefariousness - I don't.

You do it all the time Dan.

Not getting into the weeds with you guys here, just going to help – M&M ran white noise thru Mann’s “model” and got hockey sticks – it (his model, and his data usage) was meaningless.

Then there was this.

And this.

The statistical trimming and manipulation was phenomenally bad.

See more here [I was there, right next to the camera in fact].

George, you are just fantastic. You haven't bothered to listen to Patrick Michaels. He is a climatologist, not a practitioner of the dismal science.

You said..."Economist with very rigid positions in their chosen study of the dismal science have very little room to criticize those who study falsify-able science."


That's awesome. I'm taking the lessons you are teaching to heart. We have to stay focused on controlling the proles and their disgusting behavior. We can make money doing so. No need to listen to all the climatologists with PhDs who disagree with what we knew to be the truth, even before the beginning of time.

He only appeals to the experts if they say what he wants to hear.

George is just great guy. He is the expert, have you seen him explain how HE calculates the "global temperature"? George learned math from that beauty named Sheryl Crow. Me and George will be following our libertarian savior Al Gore to billionairehood. You sitback and watch.

Actually time will reveal to you that with muirduck (sometimes known as the teacup chihuahua) it is not what is said by any one, it is all about how muriduck interprets what is said, and his interpretation always runs through the socialist scripture.

The most ardent climate scientist who supports the consensus of his profession has far less certainty on their position then do many economist who hold fast to their unproved position in their study the dismal science of economics.

Yes, I believe with the utmost certainty that freedom is preferable to slavery. I need no proof.

If your claim is that libertarian principles lead to greater freedom you DO need to prove it as I suggest their is much evidence to the contrary.

To channel Adam Sandler on OJ Simson: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Himler, Chiang, Diocletian, Pol Pot--NOT LIBERTARIANBS. Now how about a round of government-loving statists and how many people they killed? Economists--I am sorry the dismal science--have we killed as many as the Mengeles and Shipman's of that all so great medical science?

Almost all of 900 billionaires are on our side George. Tell them. We have got evidence on our side.

You need to prove it like the scientist muirgeo would! Give us some falsifiable experiments from peer reviewed journals!

Awesome, George. You are doing yeoman's work for myself and libertarian buddy Al Gore. I'm right behind that libertarian gazillionaire and working man's hero - high holyness Al Gore. My goal is to follow in his foot steps and become the second carbon billionaire in history. Al Gore knows the science, I have seen him rattle off multivariate regression equations eloquently.

The most amazing experience in my life was watching Sheryl Crow and Leonardo Di Caprio explain the science behind climate change. These people know what they are talking about. They are saviours of mankind, sort of like Jesus Christ, and they know it. They have seen the future, and they are scripting the manual that we will all be using to find meaning and direction in our lives going forward.

What else, I have seen you explain how derivatives and calculus used in "climate science", one that takes several supercomputers hours to calculate, effortlessly on this blog. You are my hero. You know your stuff. You will make me, and my libertarian buddies Jeff Immelt ( who runs a massive hedge fund called GE and sits on the board of Obama's NY Fed ), Al Gore a lot of moolah. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.

Everybody prepare for the end of times. Climate Change is coming, build your arks, Global flood like the one described in the bible is in our future. Four horsemen of the apocalypse are on their way.

Build your arks? Has the government determined the specs and have you acquired all the necessary state-issued licenses to buy all the materials? Resources are scarce, so government has to make sure you don't use more than your "fair share". If you're a white male in the United States, your fair share is zero, btw.

My libertarian buddy Al Gore told me that he will send a few of those licenses my way. We need to become rich for the sake of humanity and more importantly for the sake of Goddess Gaia.

The four horsemen of the apocalypse are government contractors.

That's the key to becoming a billionaire, all for the sake of saving humanity from it's own stupidity - Al Gore told me so.

Hey dipshit, your side of bastards used this (a media blitz, hacked e-mails and propaganda can change ) to destroy Sarah Palin, why shouldn't it be used to destroy the most devastatingly stupid piece of propaganda (man-caused global warming) to come along since the attempted revision of Stalin's record?

Sarah Palin destroyed herself. She's a dope. The media can't change climate. The spectrophotometric properties of the CO2 molecule are a fact of nature... and that fact makes you the ds.

"She's a dope."

She's of the Joe Biden type mold...

Yes she IS a dope and most of her supporters are creatinist and climate change deniers.

…most of her supporters are creatinist and climate change deniers.

Not following. Are climate change “deniers” made of creatine?

Are they keratinous cretins?

Your homonymorrifical Englishness is slightly confusing….

There you go. Hit them hard. Most her supporters committed cardinal sin. They are going to be in Hot Hell very soon. Tell'em george.

Kaching!

Full disclosure: I am not terribly impressed with Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin destroyed? Hardly. She seems to still be incredibly popular.

Amongst climate scientists there is a significant range of opinion - and that is what it is, opinion - as to the intensity of carbon as a climate changing molecule. So you are right, sort of.

Didn't the climate change before people were here? I've asked before but you continue to duck, duck, goose-step.

Of course climate changed before there were people.

And yes there were fires before man but its still not a good idea to stack all your old newspapers by the furnace.


The Holocene period in which human civilization arose has been a period of relatively stable climate... until now.

"The Holocene period in which human civilization arose has been a period of relatively stable climate... until now."

Umm, Ice Ages???

The Holocene is an interglacial period. No "Ice Ages". What's your attempted point.

Oh, I get it now! The Holocene Epoch is where the climate had finally settled into a groove, and was going to stay stable for the duration of the sun, only those pesky free marketeering humans messed everything up!

All of those climate swings of the past four billion years was just oscillation as the planet tried to find it's groove, so we should ignore the 40,000-year and 100,000-year cycles of glaciation. Those are a thing of the past. The 10,500 years of interglacial proves that the earth has endured its last Ice Age, because everyone knows that interglacials last an average of 10,000 years, and since we've been in the current interglacial for 10,500 years, it's safe to say that ice ages are a thing of the past.

Thanks, Yasafi! It all makes sense now!

It was working perfectly UNTIL RECENTLY! Huh George?

George,

You're side fudged the numbers to support their claims in order to garner government support.

Face it; ideology is their science.

This is a fraud pure and simple. These folks should be run out on a rail just as Hwang Woo Suk was run out of the business.

BTW, the peer review process is broken. The chattering class that pointed to the accountants as the devil should now look at the peer reviewers; some being the biggest prostitutes on the planet.

Wow.. so much ideology on the line that must be protected that you are willing to throw out the institutions and process of science that have so improved your life. It's really sad.

Climate change isn't going away... you can shout it down or wish it away. Deal with it dude!

Yes, as we are all aware, you have no ideology.

And of course climate change isn't going away; it is the natural state of the planet. The notion that we puny humans can somehow centrally plan the climate is what I find so incredibly ludicrous and yet that is the goal set by much of the political class.

Someone once said, "Whoever controls the weather, controls the future."

Don't lose heart George, keep your eyes focused on the first billion. You are doing a good job for our country club buddies.

Kaching!

What does global warming have to do with the climate? It's just another excuse for statism.

The Soviet Union had the capitalists and bourgeois who were always trying to "undermine" and "subvert" our attempt to build a communist utopia. To avoid the horrors of capitalism we were forced to sacrifice. The west has the horror of an ever changing planet, the consequences of which we are told we can only avoid through sacrifice.

You do realize that the phrase "dismal science" was originally used a means to mock economics as a discipline which opposed slavery. See, that great hero of 19th century anti-capitalists Thomas Carlyle used the phrase for the first time in his work Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question, a work dedicated to the reintroduction of slavery. Anyone with a smidgen of knowledge regarding the phrase would never use it.

To quote:

Truly, my philanthropic friends, Exeter Hall philanthropy is wonderful; and the social science -- not a "gay science," but a rueful --which finds the secret of this universe in "supply and demand," and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone, is also wonderful. Not a "gay science," I should say, like some we have heard of; no, a dreary, desolate and, indeed, quite abject and distressing one; [p.531] what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science. These two, Exeter Hall philanthropy and the Dismal Science, led by any sacred cause of black emancipation, or the like, to fall in love and make a wedding of it -- will give birth to progenies and prodigies: dark extensive moon-calves, unnameable abortions, wide-coiled monstrosities, such as the world has not seen hitherto!

The first half of the quote sounds like a typical anti-economics rant by muir...

It sounds like Torquemuirduck was sent to Dan Rather School:

It doesn't matter whether we're lying - AGW is real!

Are you aware of how economics came to be called 'the dismal science'?

Apparently not. I have educated him.

Unlikely. Muirgeo is uneducable.

Alright, lets lay off muir a bit... sure he set himself up this time, but everybody makes really dumb mistakes from time to time. I'm sure all of us, at one time or another, have inadvertently defended slavery.

It's kind of funny and fitting actually.

By using the term in the manner in which he uses it he is, in effect, associating himself with a supporter of slavery. Quite fitting given his position on global warming and health care.

How does using a nickname that's been around for over a century mean you support slavery? You might have to explain that one (I know Carlyle - you don't have to explain that).

I didn't say he supported slavery, I said using the term the way he does he associates himself with some one who did.

Thomas Carlyle first used the term 'the dismal science' while arguing "that slavery was actually morally superior to the market forces of supply and demand promoted by economists, since, in his view, the freeing up of the labor market by the liberation of slaves had actually led to a moral and economic decline in the lives of the former slaves themselves.".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science

OK - sub out "support" for "associate". "Dismal Science" has stuck as a nickname. How is the use of it associating oneself with Carlyle 160 years after he wrote it? It's just a term now.

I mean - a good history lesson is always enjoyable if that's why people raised the specter of Carlyle. But I don't think it really sticks as any sort of association for people who use the term. It's not even really a derogatory term for economics anymore - people use it as an endearment almost.

Of course it wouldn't be a derogatory term any more. I imagine that economists would wear it as a sort of badge of honor.

But in this case, the question is how did muirgeo use the term? Do you think he meant it as a compliment? Or did he use the term in a derogatory fashion like Carlyle?

Well of course he used it in a derogatory fashion. You can use it in a derogatory fashion without associating yourself with the pro-slavery arguments that a guy made while using it 160 years ago.

People that liked slavery called Lincoln a tyrant - does that mean everyone that calls me a supporter of tyranny likes slavery? I don't think these sorts of "associations" hold much water. (...and to prevent an extended Lincoln debate - a lot of Lincoln's policies bother me too. I'm not one of those "Lincoln is a god and if you hesitate to admit it you're a racist" types... it was just an example).

Libertarians must like slavery because they see Lincoln as a tyrant.

Poor example, tyranny and 'the dismal science' don't have anything like the same etymology.

A better example would be to compare 'the dismal science' to, say, the phrase 'Workers of the world, unite!'. Both phrases came into existence associated with a particular stance on a particular subject.

Now, that phrase to is well over a hundred years old too. Yet, if somebody used it in the same context as Marx did then I would say they are associating themselves with communism.

That doesn't mean, necessarily, that they support communism. What it means is there are parallels and in drawing the parallel they have (perhaps inadvertently) placed themselves in the same position as the person who coined the phrase.

That is what muirgeo did.

But "worker's of the world, unite" has never been adopted by managers as an endearment the way "the dismal science" has!!!!

daniel, Who the hell made you editor-and-chief of the comment section at the cafe? Muir used a term to insult the professors the same way Carlyle used it to insult those economists who spoke out against slavery. Muir insults people on a regular basis here at the cafe (as we do to him). You've never defended those who muir insults (nor do I'm sure anyone here needs/or wants your defense), and I'm pretty sure muir doesn't need defending from you.

Save the righteous indignation, MWG. Of course he insulted them. I said as much a couple comments back. Goofy associations with the pro-slavery movement don't follow from that.

And I take issue with muirgeo's accusations regularly. I'm not defending muirgeo here so much as questioning Marcus's logic.

No righteous indignation here...

It's great that you admit that muir insulted them, yet you feel the need to call those of out who pointed to his derogatory use of a term first coined by someone who used it to attack economists who opposed slavery.

You feel the need to defend muir who was being insulted for a comment he made insulting others... you might want to think about that for a minute.

:) Muirgeo accused the hosts of being wrong. Muirgeo was accused of associating with the pro-slavery movement. You might want to think about that for a minute!

No, as YOU admitted, muir INSULTED the hosts... we insulted back.

There's nothing wrong with my logic and you've failed to point out any. It is your logic which fails.

If a libertarian uses a quote from a civil war era proponent of slavery in which the quote refers to Lincoln as a tyrant, then I would say that THAT particular libertarian has associated himself with a proponent of slavery as far as their use of the offending phrase goes.

And I suspect that you would pounce all over it.