George Will on Climategate

If Will stuck to denigrating the alarmists and then publicizing the legitimate concerns, I would be more impressed. But as always, he has a party line to stick to and he feeds the misconception that the important questions lie in the battle between alarmists on the skeptic's side - who he supports, and alarmists on the non-skeptic's side. Will is a perennial disappointment. This article, like most of his, is just fanning the culture war flames and meeting non-skeptic alarmism (which should be challenged) with still further alarmism.

You mean he is the Right's version of Krugman.

In a lot of ways, that's a great comparison! Krugman makes good points on a fairly regular basis, though. Some of his columns aren't even worth reading, but he writes good stuff too. I can't remember the last time I came away from reading a George Will article that I felt like I really got something out of.

I can't remember the last time I came away from reading a Paul Krugman article that I felt like I really got something out of.

Yeah pretty much agree with you there.

That's because your biases are very closely aligned with Krugman's.

That should be a cause for concern to you (but I suspect it's not).

...yawn...

Speaking of perennial disappointments, how did you come up with the “alarmists on the skeptic's side” epithet? Is that the new ad hominem for church members to use?

I haven't been to church since my brother's wedding over two years ago.

Oh wait... were you refering to your old stand-by ad hominem?

It's not an epithet and it's not new. Alarmism is a disposition, and it's a distracting one no matter who is engaging in it. People who insist that Copenhagen is a back door to global totalitarian government? That's alarmist. People who declare that a Pigovian tax will ruin the economy but refuse to consider the prospect that climate change might threaten the economy? That's an alarmist too.

If you think it's possible climate change might threaten society, but recognize that taxes are a drag on growth too, and are interested in thinking hard about those tradeoffs and proceeding cautiously and democractically - those are the types of people that aren't relying on the crutch of alarmism.

Ah disingenous Kuehn is at it again. He tries to make moral equivalence between the AGWists and the people who call bullshit on them. Also he basically tries to worm the pro-tax argument using psuedo-alarmist rhetoric as in "we better do something or the economy and earth will be ruined". Tell us disingenious kuehn, what is your data based on?

Wow - nice job warping that one. I don't know if the economy or the earth will be ruined, that's the whole point. I'm not of school of thought that the earth will definitely be ruined or the economy will definitely be ruined - but both cases are very plausible so it seems like completely ignoring the one side would be foolish. How is that "we better do something or the economy and the earth will be ruined"?

Interesting view of the world you have - as long as they're just like you they're not alarmist.

I'm not an alarmist, but the Copenhagen as back door possibility is a bit more plausible than the catastrophic AGW predictions: History is full of despots using some premise to expand their power, whereas to call the scientific case for catastrophic AGW extremely weak gives it WAY too much credibility.

That said, I think its obvious climate change could have very negative consequences for people (I suspect most skeptics agree on that point). The planet has been quite a bit colder and quite a bit warmer than it is now many times throughout history and the cold is far more dangerous than the warm.

It’s certainly possible that we’re impacting the global climate one way or the other, but it’s very likely that impact is so small we can’t conclusively measure it. All this unfounded commotion about human CO2 production is (at best) a waste of resources. Idiotic prescriptions like cap and trade or a carbon tax for "solving" the CO2 "problem" are exactly what we do not need.

We need to stop the enormous waste of talent and resources targeted at AGW research. It would be good if some of those whose time is freed up would focus their efforts on real pollutants instead of carbon. It would be better to remove obstacles to increasing wealth so people will be better positioned deal with whatever climate change does happen.

Re: "Interesting view of the world you have - as long as they're just like you they're not alarmist."

Now that's a strange point for you to make. I'd imagine that's how just about everyone uses the term "alarmist". Who defines "alarmist" in such a way that they consider themselves an alarmist? Certainly the definitio of "alarmist" put forward by skeptics on Cafe Hayek conforms to that as well.

As for your views on the "unfounded commotion" - I think I'll rely on other judges of how conclusive the science is, rather than you. I'm not sure by what standard you end up concluding that it's unfounded.

I base my conclusions on my understanding of physics, chemistry, etc. and studying the available information on the subject. From that informed study it's extremely clear that catastrophic AGW from CO2 is not any threat. OTOH, the political threat is very real, and potentially very bad.

That said, I would strongly discourage you (or anybody else) from relying on me even if you were inclined to do so - reliance on experts is dangerous enough, and I make no claims to be an expert. In spite of your admission that you do not understand it, you appear to have already made up your mind and not be interested in studying the science. If I'm mistaken in that assessment, a good place for you to start is www.climate-skeptic.com

Made up my mind and not interested in studying the science? Sometimes I wonder if you're mistakenly commenting on my posts when you mean to comment on someone else's. Granted, I'm not interested in quitting my job and becoming a climatologist - if that's what you mean by "not interested in studying the science" I suppose you're correct.

I visit climate-skeptic regularly as a reference during these conversations.

Bob Murphy has a theory - that climagegate was an inside job.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/12/why-are...

It's not a theory, it just a hypothesis...sorry but had to do it.

I think that it was either an inside job, aka a whistleblower that had enough.
Or it was Jones himself that got all the emails and data together in prep for another "dump" because of FOIA request. He just made the mistake of putting the zip on and open server. And then someone just happened on it, doing a routine snoop session.

Either way, the way the politicians are talking about trying to prosecute the hacker/whistleblower is outrageous.

RULE BY EPA
EPA, controlled by Obama’s Marxist-leaning bureaucrats, will take over the management of life and work in America, to protect us all from the dangers of air-borne plat food, carbon dioxide. It is like second-hand smoke, only in this case it is second hand plant food. Instead of hanging with the unjustified notion of global warming by lighter-than-air plant food blanketing the earth, they are using the smoking argument. If we inhale that plant food, we’ll all die. Of course, the same people are hell-bent on euthanizing the elderly, infirm or too young to contribute as a means of decreasing medical care and plant food expiration. When we view the people as one mass, a community, instead of individuals with peculiar interests, it is appropriate to amputate parts of the community body that do not contribute, or stand in the way of their social progress. Hitler did it! We didn’t approve of it then, why do we approve of it now? claysamerica.com

This is a convenient overview of the issues in ClimateGate and the emails of concern.
Fast Facts About Climategate
December 6, 2009 - pajamasmedia by Charlie Martin

To vidyohs,

I wanted to see if there was any analysis under Muirgeo's opinion. Your discussions show that there isn't, and a discussion won't bring out much.

Muirgeo's insults are inventive and entertaining. That is something.

Sir,
You are fighting a battle in which you will never face your enemy. The origination of the "List of muirpidities" began with this:

"(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK
All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.
1. “The rising income discrepancy is what prevents people from obtaining affordable housing.”
Posted by: muirgeo Nov 2007"

by hounding the muirduck for almost two years I finally got it to address that stupidity and give his explanation for it. That resulted in this:

"Or (muriduck’s answer to muirpidity #1)
18. It's called Gentrification. It's a well described social economic / market phenomenon.
" Rising housing costs in gentrifying districts may ensure that poor residents who do move leave the neighborhood, rather than settle elsewhere in it. Since their places usually are taken by more affluent, better educated people, the neighborhood's character and demographics change."
gen•tri•fi•ca•tion
Pronunciation:
\ˌjen-trə-fə-ˈkā-shən\
Function:
noun
Date:
1964
: the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents."

As you can see, sir, even when you get an answer you don't get an answer.

All these "peer-reviewed" articles are donkey-balls as far as I'm concerned. Since they all share the same AGW-bias, I can't trust a single one of them.

Yes DOWN WITH SCIENCE.... especially when I don't like the results!!!

Late Michael Crichton is not friendly to our cause. He is not in support of floods of biblical proportions or for that matter fires of hell of biblical proportions. Here is what he said.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..."

- Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT. Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. He predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C.

Well you know those Haaavaaad folks...they don't know anything!

Oh and here is the original source emails which I am willing to bet almost NO ONE here has took the time out to look at in context.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php


Anybody here, including the professor, have you honestly looked at the most damning emails in context? Have you looked at the full threads of the 3 or 54 "damning" emails out of 14 years of emails?

If you haven't you are guilty of intellectual dishonesty and lack of rigor greater then what these climate scientist have supposedly done. If you have then good for you and lets post them and talk of them in context.

But simply posting to George Will, a proven ignoramus, is of little value.
Why would you put any faith in some one who was so cock sure of calling people economic Cassandra's of the time only to be shown to be the one who was massively wrong in interpreting the data and trends?

He is the one who has lost credibility not the climate scientist... and yet without shame he goes on ranting about things he clearly doesn't understand.

Basically he has an anti-intellectual argument all dressed up as intellectualism. He's nothing but a modern day luddite.

Please help me out. Take one of the damning emails and put it into context for me. I would like to benefit from the insight and work that you have done.

Show me that I am wrong, reading an email and taking it literally. If there is explanatory context, put it together for me. Maybe there are more people reading here that would also appreciate that.

Start with one of the juicy ones. You pick.

Then, if there are multiple, damning emails, all taken out of context, after a bit of work you would have created a significant body of work that we all could respect and discuss.

Uh oh, you called his bluff, he's going to have to fold. Muirgeo, you have the intellectual-argument equivalent of 2 7 off suit.

To Muirgeo,

You wrote: "So in other words you admit you've not read any of these emails in context.??? You've just eaten off the spoon what good nourishment your inculcating sources feed you? Wow such an independent thinker you are."

I know it isn't in the main line of the discussion, but I'm impressed by the quality of your insults. The line about eating off the spoon is wonderful. I'll even borrow the technique sometime. I assume that this is the format:

Fred: So, what else should I know about the situation?
Mike: Ha, you admit that you are not completely informed.

Is there a book you can recommend that collects these insults, or is it just a matter of experience?

XD

Perhaps muirgeo has been collecting insults over the years and is throwing them back out, no longer interested in solid argument, but is caught up in the ad hominem game.

Trouble is, his arguments and assertions seem so off point, so frequently, that one is easily tempted to dismiss him with insults.

The best I can think of him is intellecually dishonest with himself.

He once was Republican for some reason, then moved to the ideological left...dumb to dumber, or maybe it's dumber to dumb.

Honestly, sometimes I think the Dems are worst, but then the Reps do something to cast doubt on that view.

Muirgeo's mama so fat when she jumped in the air she got stuck. Muirgeo's mama so fat that when she sits around the house she sits AROUND the house. Muirgeo's mama so fat she sat on a rainbow and Skittles popped out of it. Muirgeo's mama so fat...

LMAO!

I hadn't heard the jump in the air one before.

To Muirgeo,

I have read some of the emails, and in my limited experience, they seem to be political and technical discussions about how to hide data, get the right results, and prevent other scientists from publishing their work.

You say that the emails are innocent when taken in context. OK, please point to that context. Connect some of the dots. You probably have picked up something that I missed. It is possible, even likely.

I fear that it isn't enough to say to me "read all of the emails". Maybe I wouldn't see the context that you see. I have relied on others to point out some of the damning emails. It has saved me the time of reading all 1000, but it leaves me open to the criticism that I haven't read them all.

Also, if you explain it to me in this public forum, it will have a much larger effect than suggesting that everyone read all of the emails. Provide your analysis so everyone can benefit.

You can sneer at me and call me stupid, but is that really the point? A discussion is about exchanging with others what you have found out. Of course some or most of them are going to be less insightful and less informed than you are. Educate me. As a dependent thinker, I am open to persuasion.

Context in this case apparently requires a hefty dose of imagination.

So in other words you admit you've not read any of these emails in context.??? You've just eaten off the spoon what good nourishment your inculcating sources feed you? Wow such an independent thinker you are.


Here since as always I have to do the research around here to find out the facts,


http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=...

>>Wow such an independent thinker you are.<<

Haven't you maintained that individualism is a bad thing? I orginally read your reply as sarcasm. Now, given your nature [and your worship of it as long as mankind isn't included] I'm not so sure how to take that sentence. Is independence a good thing as long as it strictly stays with thoughts only? Or is even independence of thought bad in your eyes, as well? I'd like to know where you're coming from.

we can settle this debate if you will help these thick headed libertarians see the light of day by providing the context that they just don't seem to understand. Waiting for you to dazzle us. SInce you spend a lot of time arguing against these thick headed libertarians ( 100% of the time ) and 0% agreeing, I believe you have the motivation to prove them wrong. So do it muir. You are Awesome. Love you man, mmmmmwwwwwaaaaahhhh

Don't hold your breath. providing you with the answers is not in the interest of our carbon trading enterprise.

What did I tell ya? Muir is an astute business partner; refer to his response below.

So my little mentally deficient Chihuahua, you would:

"Anybody here, including the professor, have you honestly looked at the most damning emails in context? Have you looked at the full threads of the 3 or 54 "damning" emails out of 14 years of emails?"

quantify lies?

One admission of lying for 14 years is as damning as 200 admissions.

Your total lack of moral understanding and moral character goes well with your total lack of intellect.

It's so amazing. Supposedly they are manipulating data If so why is there "no warming" over the last 10 years????

Please look at these emails in context.
Here is the one Mr. Will chooses to quote out of context.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=...

Here is a little context...

Oh for a second I thought your were going to cite a peer reviewed science article but alas you cite yet another blow hard blowing hard anbout which he knows not.

Not worth my time but for what it's worth look at the y-axis of IPCC 1990 Figure 7c. Anything??? No whistle or bells go off for you???

You mean peer reviewed by Mann, Briffa, Jones, Hansen, or the other liars?

I did.

Contained within that article were multiple “peer-reviewed” studies, all debunked, or very seriously called into question. The charts are from IPCC themselves or Mann, Briffa, et al.

I mentioned this the other day: whom can you cite now, who has not directly or indirectly been implicated in this scandal? Mann? Hahahahahahaa. Bill (Phil) Jones? Double hah. These charlatans (yes, I’m impugning both their “scientific method” and intelligence) controlled most of the dialogue, and drove most of the peer review, so everything they touched – which was just about everything – is now questionable.

And your fatuous “consensus” numbers thrown around are complete bullshit.

So basically, there's a whole lot of doubt cast, and a growing pile of evidence that this "scientific movement" was politically driven, and it's becoming increasingly clear that it's actually you who doesn't know jack shit about science.

You are awesome for saying what I wanted to say. For a second I thought Mesa was going to show us some peer reviewed hockey stick chart. Love you man, Mmmmmwwwwwaaaaahhhhh

I actually was going to!

Is this the same George Will who called wrote an article in October 2006 calling those suspecting the economy was built on a house of cards Cassandra's.

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will101906.php3

HAS HE NO SHAME!!! He should still be in the corner doing penance for this last enormous "mis-call"

Now he is accusing the scientific community, all the major journals, all the professional societies and all the national scientific academies of the world of not understanding the issue as well as he.

Totally missing the economic collapse and accusing the wider worldwide scientific community of being Cassandra's... and being so completely wrong. THAT. WILL. BE. YOUR. LEGACY.

I presume you have no argument since all you do is undefended assertion and ad hominem. If you had an argument, I think you'd make it, however poorly.

Hey, Yasafi!

How does this carbon footprint compare to your carbon-spewing trips to Exit Glacier?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-cli...

George Will has also written columns about baseball that relied on irrelevant statistics, and which made horribly inaccurate predictions about what would happen in that season. He has even admitted this!

He clearly should not be trusted on any topics in the future.

When the reality does not match the prediction, we throw out the predictor.

Is that your argument, muirgeo?

My argument is we should pay attention to the experts and the data they use to support their claims. It was clear to me the so called Economic Cassandra's had both the theory and the data to support their claims... now the same goes with the field of climate science but in this case there is even far more unanimity with regards to the evidence and the experts. Will is an expert in neither the economy or climate science and more significantly he is a denier of data on both subjects. That basically makes him an ideologue who should not be trusted as an objective or informed source.

...yet within the emails, we have scientists who are clearly lamenting the failure of their own models to hew to reality. Candid admissions.

It is further bolstered by the Read_Me file, which shows a long and disturbing pattern of data manipulation and massaging to reach a desired result -- and a process that makes replication impossible.

(never let the truth get in the way of a good story.)

To apply your standard about Will's lack of expertise in climate and economics --- now that real statisticians and programmers are getting a look at the code that was used in the CRU graphs, they are indeed appalled.

Sure, they aren't "peer reviewed climate scientists," but the IPCC had no compunction about putting the names of THOUSANDS of non-climate researchers on its reports. If you sorted paperclips for a piece about Pacific atolls and sea level rise, then you got a credit in that report.

But now those scientists aren't good enough to register their dismay about the subversion of the scientific method? Even those with greater knowledge of statistics, algorithms or programming?

My point here is that you discredited Will because in retrospect, his projections about what would happen with the economy were wrong.

Within the CRU emails, we have frank and stark admissions that the models are NOT aligning with more than a decade of temperature measurements!

Goose. Gander. Game. Set. Match.

Good night, gentlemen.

Ike also explain this to me.


If these guys are so powerful they are manipulating the data so well how could there be a "non-warming" since 1998?

Wouldn't they just have manipulated the trend to make it look more positive.

What you don't understand is the context of these researchers defending themselves and their complex data from onslaughts by skeptics who have a very easy time of making these complex things look uncertain.

How often do we see people who don't know the first thing about climate models and the "codes" used to analyze data claim they are worthless.

You don't know crap about the models or the codes. But you've heard the claims of problems over and over and over so you think the claims must be true. But you've never actually verified the denialist claims. You just took them in as convenient.

What I *do* understand is that the burden of proof is upon those who wish to assert that man-made warming is a real threat to the planet. To do so they must prove:

1) Positive Feedback. Few deny there is some degree of warming. The question is how much is natural and how much is anthropogenic. The "runaway warming" piece is NOT just a function of straight PPM, but is required for the models to take off into the scary realms.

The data does NOT suggest there is a positive feedback, but the models that call for several degrees of warming require it. And so far, those models have failed to predict the last ten years.

The CRU emails show a small enclave of scientists who are clinging to the MODEL, and bitching that the DATA is too stubborn to fit it.

I am far more versed in science than you give me credit for, muir.

2) Harm. If the planet does warm, is this necessarily a bad thing? What is the baseline for "normal" on Earth?

I ask, because the paleo records are fairly clear. In the last 6-million years, the Earth has only had polar ice for 20% of that time.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Polar ice -- which we enjoy today and which is some supposed bell-wether of change -- is the ANOMALY. Not the standard.

One would wager that if we had polar ice only 20% of the time, that we would be on the lower end of the planet's range, and that any natural trend (regression to the mean) would take us in a warmer direction without any assistance.

The fact is that more people die of extreme cold than extreme heat, and people thrive in warmer climates.

3) Baseline Fragility. I partially addressed it above, but it deserves to stand as a separate point.

We are to believe that we're perched on a perilous precipice, and about to slide down a slope of runaway warming. Yet the historical record shows that in the past we've had CO2 ppm of greater than *700*, with temperatures higher than today's.

Now, if we are that far within the boundaries of natural change, it is more than disingenuous to contend that we have just a couple of decades to change course.

Simply put, the system cannot simultaneously be THAT robust and THAT fragile at the same time.

(Who said that the world as it existed in 1900 is THE perfect world, anyway? And PROVE it.)

Great post...If Muir does respond it will probably just be some sort of name calling...

I think that one left the park...

"Within the CRU emails, we have frank and stark admissions that the models are NOT aligning with more than a decade of temperature measurements!"


No actually you don't. They clearly understand that variability will cause the trend to wax and wane. If you read the emails in context you'd have read Stephen Schneider's where he actually explains why the warming trend has subsided and how it will pick up again as expected.

"Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve

What in particular is wrong with George's article? Are there any particular facts that you think he got wrong?

Reading the article, he never mentions anything about a housing bubble, so clearly, if this article is any guide, he missed that. But it's not clear to me that any of the people he's criticizing in the article were warning of a housing bubble either. They were complaining about unemployment and he addressed their claims.

Nancy Pelosi was complaining the economy needed to be 'jump started'. Good god man, in hindsight it's clear it needed the opposite.

Now, if somebody was warning of the housing bubble and Will wrote that the housing market was just fine then maybe you'd have a point.

"What in particular is wrong with George's article? Are there any particular facts that you think he got wrong?" Marcus

Are you being serious??? The underlying theme from the progressive side was stagnant wages, rising health and education cost, gaping trade and budget deficits, increased consumer borrowing, decreased consumer savings, dangerous deregulation of the finance sector... Krugman wrote a book in 2002-3 about the current Depression Era Economics. Everybody (except Will) understood the underlying economy was in shambles and lower and lower interest rates could not continually be the answer... everyone except Republicans and Libertarian free market fanatics. It's no coincidence that most of the few economist who predicted this disaster were progessive/ Keyensians and not libertarians.


Here is a lecture from 10/07 , a little after Wills column that sums up the predications of the collapse of the middle class while guys like George Will were cheering on the bubble economy thinking everything was right with the world.

Hell I can dig through this blog and show you my own entries questioning the underlying economy well before the depression hit and all the while the professors and YOU GUYS here ignored the impending catastrophe.

"The underlying theme from the progressive side..."

I think that sums the issue up right there.

The idea that Democrats are somehow better stewards of the economy than Republicans or that Republicans are somehow better stewards than Democrats is naive and childish.

You want to balance the trade deficit? Then stop the federal government's deficit spending. That's all Krugman yelled about while Bush was in office. But now the Democrats have control and suddenly deficit spending is what we need!

The only reason the left was criticizing the economy is because Republicans were in power. Had the tables been turned, you would have been cheer leading the economy and Republicans would have been the nay-sayers.

Listening to the Austrian's, they nailed the issue far more squarely on the head than did any left-wing propagandist. But of course, the Austrians' are doing exactly the same thing the left and right are doing. Applying their ideology to past-events, counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

<rolling eyes>

"Everybody (except Will) understood the underlying economy was in shambles and lower and lower interest rates could not continually be the answer... everyone except Republicans and Libertarian free market fanatics."

Algernon, are you being serious? No, for real, are you being serious? Free marketers were the ONLY ones who understood the underlying decay of the economy and the fact that cheap interest rates solve nothing. And a lot of Republicans aren't actually free market, so don't lump us in with them. But I'm sure that we can take Alan Greenspan and his "free market" views seriously when he was head of the most powerful central planning agency on planet earth.

Yeah I'm serious dude.
I can go back and look at old post on this here blog and show you that no one here on YOUR side expressed concern for the underlying economy. My side did... it's clear and simple.

Here's a classic one on the Megan McArdle blog. As late as July of 2008 she was writing blog post titled , "I know I saw that recession around here somewhere . . ."

And of course my great reply.

"I know I saw that recession around here somewhere . . . "
It's just behind the piles of federal and consumer debt and in front of the subprime housing mortgage meltdown. Just look a little better and I'm sure you'll find it.

no one here on YOUR side expressed concern for the underlying economy

Buddy, Muir, I will play devil's advocate here. I will post 1 link for every link you post - I mean a link for their side! It will be fun, but will not be good for our enterprise, I admit. But let's play the game. I will fire first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k

Muir, my friend, Krugman's book was published on May 15, 2000, when Clinton was still in office. Yes, Clinton was a terrible president, but his VP, billion dollar hearted Al Gore is an awesome guy. He will be the first carbon billionaire for all our good.

You are awesome, muir.

Dangerous deregulation is right. There has been complete dismantling of regulations that master set off books in D.C has been reduced to a couple of pages. Right! YOu can settle this debate right now, but just dazzling us with the data on the net loss of regulations. Let's settle it for once and for all and focus on joining the other 900 billionaires already on our side.

Mmmmmwwwwwaaaahhhhh

Have YOU no shame?.., fraudulently signing your name to a statement you disagree with for the purpose of undermining the credibility of sincere signers.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the situation is as bad as the "climate change" politicians say it is. Even then, the solution will have to be political. That is, the politicians can't afford to just destroy the world's production, not even in the name of saving the planet. Because if they do, everything else they do will fall apart - not to mention a massive die off of human populations. The solution, therefore, must be a replacement for carbon fuels. That is the objective. Not a carbon tax, which will do nothing but line the pockets of the politicians. A carbon replacement.

Randy,

There is only one part of your argument that I have my own doubts about. I am more sure that the looney left people in public office are religious fanatics of the socialist religion than I am that they are politicians.

Why the distinction? A politician, as you say, would be reluctant to kill the thing that feeds him, whereas a religious fanatic has no hesitation over the action.

Socialists are the truly dangerous religious fundamentalists. Their bombs are taxes, legislation, and brainwashing. At least with actual religions one could argue that God might or might not exist. In the case of socialism, theory, logic, history, and common sense have proven that their "god is dead."

It is a humanistic religion. These people are fond of saying "We are government", because they are unable to draw the distinction between government and society. They worship the power of government. Being that they believe they are government, they worship themselves.

Okay, I'll kick it off then, not from Will's article, but a piece he links to in FT.

From the FT editorial cited by Will:

The most important point to make about the leaked correspondence
is that it does not undermine the scientific case for cutting emissions of
carbon dioxide to fight climate change, which is growing more rather than
less compelling.

That's only partially correct, because the case has never been made
initially - it doesn't exist, so there's really nothing to undermine. And
what is this "more compelling" evidence that CO2 emissions need to be cut?
None is offered - this is a vacant statement based on nothing, the Jedi mind
trick we now see in the (mostly silent, scientifically illiterate) media.

None of the e-mails seized on by sceptics shows manipulation of
the science itself.

That's not accurate either, as the code discovered within those emails (e.g. see here) most definitely does perform highly suspicious data manipulation which,
if it was used within published studies, would definitely constitute
manipulation of the science itself. That connection has not been made to
date. The evidence trail is obvious.

The fact that these emails exist is in itself damning evidence, and the most
important fact revealed here is that there is more evidence out there
awaiting discovery, via FOIA requests and lawsuits, and possibly further
"leaks".

Here's a better FT piece: Secrecy in science is a corrosive force.

And additional weight thrown into the argumen6t.

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

"None of the e-mails seized on by sceptics shows manipulation of
the science itself."

It gives climatologists way too much credit to call their field science.

Waiting for the climate science fraud denialists.