The American Spectator : Dead Ringer

Text Size

Dead Ringer

By Ross Kaminsky on 12.4.09 @ 6:07AM

In a prelude to Climategate, an East Anglia global warmist withheld critical data on tree ring growth. We now know why.

"Climategate" is first time that the magnitude of bad behavior by climate alarmist scientists was so large and so easily understood by non-scientists that even the liberal mass media can't completely ignore it (though they're doing their best.)

But the release of e-mail and data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Britain showing global warming alarmist "scientists" manipulating and deleting data is far from the first time these same people have been found to be acting in distinctly non-scientific ways.

It is common practice for academic scientists to share their data and their methods of calculation, allowing others to check their work in a quest for the truth. However, leading global warming alarmist, NASA's James Hansen, and Hansen's employees (who are paid with taxpayer money) and non-American climate alarmists routinely refuse to share their data with those who do not share their near-religious belief in man-made global warming. The issue became big enough that the GAO issued a (rather tame) report on the subject.

Earlier this year, Phil Jones, the head of CRU who just stepped down pending the Climategate investigation, claimed to have lost some of the world's oldest climate sensor data after first saying to the requesting scientist "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Indeed, there is a consistent tendency among climate alarmist scientists to refuse to make their data or calculations public.

In September we learned why with a revelation that those of us who follow this debate closely thought was an earthquake in the "global warming" debate. It turns out to have been a tremor leading up to Climategate, but remains a devastating blow to the "science" underlying claims of rapidly increasing temperatures:

One of the most influential data sets in climate science has been that of CRU climatologist Keith Briffa who, in 2000, published an article using tree ring data from northern Russia to show a dramatic "hockey-stick" increase in temperatures in the late 20th century.

Briffa and many others have published subsequent articles based on the same data. Even Wikipedia's historical temperature graphs are substantially based on Briffa's numbers. After several of Briffa's articles, Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre requested the underlying data only to be rebuffed each time by Briffa or the journals themselves. However, in 2008 Briffa published an article for a publication of the British Royal Society, an organization that requires data underlying an article to be made available. With his hand forced, Briffa released an uninteresting portion of his data, then waited nearly a year -- until this September -- to release the rest.

What McIntyre found was astonishing: Briffa's "hockey stick" was created by using data from only 10 trees in 1990 and 5 trees in 1995-1996. Given that tree ring growth can be affected by non-climate factors, such as if a nearby tree is cut down giving the subject tree more hours of sunlight each day, such a small sample size can lead to very large errors. Indeed, McIntyre found one tree that so skewed the data that he called it "the most influential tree in the world." Professor Ross McKitrick (who worked with McIntyre to disprove Michael Mann's original "hockey stick" graph -- the erroneous basis for much of the UN's global warming alarmism) notes, "Once again a dramatic hockey stick shape turns out to depend on the least reliable portion of a dataset."

Making Briffa's choice of data all the more suspicious is that there was data on 34 nearby trees available from a scientist with whom he had co-authored articles in the past. One implication, supported by Briffa's near-decade long refusal to share his data, is that he cherry-picked the dataset that supported the conclusion he wanted to find.

When McIntyre used the data from the other 34 trees, the "hockey stock" vanished, leaving the 20th century as just the latest trendless and unremarkable section of a generally trendless and unremarkable 2500-year history of tree ring growth in the region.

Scientists like Briffa, Hansen, Jones and Mann have self-serving motives for promoting fear of "global warming" and for hiding their so-called data. After all, it's much easier to get a grant and big speaking fees by saying we have a problem than by saying we don't.

But there is far too much at stake, particularly given the grave economic threat of cap-and-trade legislation, to allow scientists to sully their professions, to mislead the public, and to desperately keep others from checking their work when it comes to "climate change." As Professor McKitrick says about Keith Briffa's tree ring data -- data which has repeatedly been used to back up other people's "independent" claims of global warming -- "Whatever is going on here, it is not science."

Following Climategate, one might expand McKitrick's comment to include the entirety of the global warming alarmist establishment. Rather than Jones's "hide the decline," Briffa's actions served to "inflate the increase." Not science, indeed.

(For a longer layman's description of McIntyre's criticism of Briffa, I recommend THIS excellent blog note at the Bishop Hill blog.)

topics:
Global Warming, Climategate

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He blogs at Rossputin.com and is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver's NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (107) | Leave a comment

Appleby| 12.4.09 @ 7:02AM

One of the really big problems when trying to discuss science with liberal arts majors who have never paid attention in science classes is that they do not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. (These are the same people who dont know the difference between liberty and license.)

The other of course is that they think only in burps that will fit on Twitter or on a bumper sticker. Thus we get Rosie shouting that the nearby buildings could not have collapsed due to the airplanes that brought down the WTC *because steel doesnt melt like that!* and when someone asks her how steel beams are cast at the foundry, she retorts that the person is a homophobe or a fascist and thinks that is an answer.

It is easy to fool people who speak only for publication. All the ClimateGate people are doing is playing on that.

P.S. The real problem seems to be, just as it was in the case of Tiger Woods, that people whose fingers are endlessly twiddling and whose heads are buried in that two inch screen forget that the stuff flowing out of their fingers NEVER GOES AWAY.

Mark| 12.4.09 @ 8:21AM

Appleby:

Keen observation. As a physicist, as far as I was concerned, the global warming hypothesis never got any further than the hypothesis stage. To become a theory, the theory must be able to not only predict known outcomes in the past, and predict the future. A theory can not only predict one outcome. Global warming fails on that premise alone. Also interesting enough, the only things in science that are "set and stone" and not debate because it has comes to a consensus, are the laws of science, of which there are very few.

Ross Kaminsky| 12.4.09 @ 9:16AM

Appleby:

I'm having trouble understanding your point as it relates to my article. That is, I understand what you are saying but I'm trying to figure out whether you are saying you agree with my article or whether you're being critical of it. (If the latter, could you explain the criticism more clearly so I may attempt to address it?)

For the record, while I was a liberal arts major (politics and economics), I was also pre-med for much of college and studied plenty of science, including getting an A+ in my college physics class. (Not that I remember any of it now...)

Appleby| 12.4.09 @ 9:24AM

I am a liberal arts major myself, although being a keen science fiction fan I struggled to understand the science behind the fiction; but many of my colleagues in college did not.

I agree with your article; my criticisms were for those who allow 'scienctists' who are not scientists to rumfuddle them by using the words hypothesis and theory as if they were interchangeable. Back in the day, liberal arts majors used to have dictionaries and know how to use them. [I have the same problem with people who use a confusion over hypothesis/theory as a quick dismissal of evolution by shouting "it's only a theory!"]

Ross Kaminsky| 12.4.09 @ 12:06PM

I understand your criticism, but to a certain extent I don't blame the public.

The difference between theory and hypothesis is relatively subtle. Furthermore, if the political class will take either (or even something less than either) as fact and as the basis for legislation (because the legislation meets their political goals, not because they actually care about the science), it will take a lot more than explanations of rhetoric to make things better.

The real fault is with the media who repeatedly tell the public what the "science" is. There are reporters who understand science will enough to explain the flaws in AGW for example, but they seem to have the same self-interest in selling this hoax that Jones, Briffa, Mann, and Hansen have, namely to keep the money flowing.

For example, one of the worst is the NY Times' Andrew Revkin who has written at least one book about "global warming".

Also, as a general matter, whether it's science reporters or climate scientists, don't forget there's a lot more money to be made by saying we have a problem than by saying we don't.

Anthony Bocol| 6.16.11 @ 10:16AM

If its about the article, the commenter feels its one of the best. Indeed he is never wrong to think that there are severl useful information he can find here. Data that he can use on his own blog. Clearly, this marvelous piece must be lauded and he is hoping to find more. This development is important for the people so he will be expecting more. Surely success is on its way.

tenant screening keep it up

Margie| 12.4.09 @ 3:15PM

Evil-ution is just as fraudulent as man made Global Warming. They are both the Religion of the Left and Athiests the world over.

Ross Kaminsky| 12.4.09 @ 3:51PM

Margie,

Are you seriously saying that the "theory" of evolution is a hoax like AGW?

If so, I suggest you reconsider your position.

While evolution is not perfectly understood, there is a lot of evidence for it. You also don't find a lot of scientists in that field refusing to share data with others.

Those who call it "evil-ution" are part of the junk science problem, not part of the solution.

If I misunderstood your statement, I apologize.

Margie| 12.4.09 @ 6:01PM

Reconsider my position? That is impossible! Do you not know that God created everything, and He has always existed? I suggest that you reconsider your position. If you don't believe in God, what if you are wrong? When you wake up after "falling asleep" (dying), what will you do?
~Have you actually read Darwin? He was a Christian who turned his back on God, to become an Atheist. He was a thoroughly disgraced man. He actually admitted he made it all up, and no, there is NO proof of such nonsensical and ridiculous a "theory."
If I say that evolution is a hoax, I'm actually in agreement with the truth, thus I am in agreement with the fact that man made global warming is also a hoax.
Here are 2 fantastic sites for you to visit where present scientific evidence for the Bible and its literal truths~
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.creationmoments.com/

Ross Kaminsky| 12.4.09 @ 7:26PM

Margie,

We will never agree on the issue, but here's where I want to try to convince you of something.

I believe evolution is true. However, even if I'm wrong, can you not agree that it is not a hoax in the sense that AGW is?

What I mean is serious scientists put serious thought into it, share their data, are open to true discussion about it (even with people who think like you do), don't delete information in response to FOIA requests, etc.

There is a big difference between a theory being wrong and an outright fiction whose proponents know or should know to be so.

I respect your right to think that evolution is an incorrect theory. But I think you do the entire discussion, including for those on your side of the argument, by saying that the position of scientists who believe in evolution is analogous to what the CRU has done to climate "science".

Have a great weekend,
Ross

Margie| 12.4.09 @ 8:00PM

Ross,
Here's a reasonable question for you: If Darwin himself said he made it all up, and in fact, there is no proof whatsoever for it (how could there be if he made it up, and it goes against the Word of God in fact), as a Scientist yourself, would you not have to honestly change your mind then?
I do hope, in fact, I pray earnestly, that you would take a little while over the weekend to read at the websites I mentioned. Or at least one of them. You may just have a life changing experience. And I mean that ever so sincerely!
God bless,
Margie

DWPittelli| 12.4.09 @ 8:35PM

On the off chance that you are not a troll trying to make conservatives look stupid, I ask you for a link or other citation for your claim that "Darwin himself said he made it all up." (Of course, even if he did say that -- which is exceedingly implausible, except perhaps while he was on his death-bed and fearing damnation -- you should know that evolution, and indeed evolution by natural selection, really does not depend on the beliefs or actions of Charles Darwin; he did not invent the fossil record or hold all the original relevant data.)

Margie| 12.5.09 @ 1:48AM

Why is it anytime a person doesn't like what another person has to say, they're a "troll?" I haven't seen you around here before. Are you a troll? Also, I am a conservative, and I'd say the trolls make us look brilliant by comparison. :^)
Anyway, God knows who I am and that's who I will have to meet one day, as will you so let's take it from there if you don't mind.
~What I do know is that Darwin rejected God in his life, and had no death bed confession. The links up above have numerous extremely interesting articles on both Darwin himself and the fabulous evidence against evolution. There are also lists of Scientists against it as well.
More than 150 yrs. later, transitional fossil forms have yet to be found, but there have been instances where such fossils were made up, in order to "prove" evolution.
I hope you'll go read.
Regards,
Margie

DWPittelli| 12.5.09 @ 7:22AM

1) I don't call people "troll" because I don't like what they say. I call people "troll" when I find their arguments so weak -- so damaging to their own cause -- that I suspect they actually believe the opposite of what they are writing.

2) Are you still claiming that Darwin said he "made it all up"? And by that, you mean that Darwin himself didn't believe in evolution by natural selection? I am still awaiting a specific quote or link.

Margie| 12.5.09 @ 10:52AM

Interesting accusation. Because I believe in God and that He is the Creator of all things, according to you I couldn't possibly believe that! Believing in God is not against "my cause" whatever that may be. Believing in God is the only sane choice a human being could make. What's your excuse?
And yes, Darwin turned his back on God, and by definition that is calling God a liar. He knew he did it, and he knew he was a liar.
You aren't at all interested in the truth.
That's your "choice." Like Darwin, it isn't a good one.

DWPittelli| 12.6.09 @ 6:55AM

So you did not mean to claim that Darwin admitted that evolution was false. What exactly did you mean when you wrote that "Darwin himself said he made it all up"?

Margie| 12.6.09 @ 11:27AM

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." ~Charles Darwin. (Barlow, Page - 94)
And another poster (elsewhere), said it well:
Charles Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution, it was those that took what he taught about the Origin of Species, and in Charles Darwin's own words "people took them and made a religion of them". And yes, he did see at the end of his life that his ideas about the Origin of Species was wrong. But that genie was already out of the bottle.

And so men in darkness of their own imagination ran with it. Some knew it was wrong, but the only alternative was Creation, and they would not accept that. Others created their own fraudulent "documentation" to go along with the con. And so it still is perpetuated today. What I was taught about Evolution in school 20 years ago is not at all what they teach today. Of course, they were absolutely right then, and they are absolutely right today - go figure.

Ross Kaminsky| 12.4.09 @ 9:56PM

Margie,

First of all, evolution needs to be thought of on two scales, macro and micro.

On the macro level, there is certainly dispute between your view and mine.

On the micro level, the evidence is so strong that even the Pope (in fact two popes, I believe) have said that evolution is not in conflict with their view of creation.

So it comes down to creationism vs. something else. This is not a debate I'm particularly interested in having since your view of man's creation by God is not scientifically testable. Yours is a view based on faith. And while I respect your right to have that view, you shouldn't pretend that it's open to reason-based critique.

As for your "reasonable question": What does "made it all up" mean? Isn't every great (or even not great) idea originally "made up"? Wasn't the idea that the sun is the center of the solar system "made up"? (Or the idea that the earth is?)

There is a LOT of evidence for evolution on all levels. There are certainly holes in the fossil record when we start talking about macro evolution. But the holes are slowly getting filled over time.

To be sure, evolution is still a "theory", but for me it makes more sense than creation and at least it is approachable by science.

I'm quite certain that no religious site will give me a life-changing experience. I'm comfortable with and confident in my view of the world. This is not to say I'm 100% certain that I'm right, but I'm certain enough that I don't feel the need to spend a lot of time trying to prove something else to myself.

I'm sure you feel the same way about your views.

But here's one big difference: You are incapable of ever admitting that creationism is wrong because it can never be proven to be right or wrong; it is a matter of faith. If science were to show that what I believe is wrong, I could admit that I'm wrong, although I can't imagine the scenario in which the current science being wrong would then point to creationism being right.

In any case, my main point to you is not to try to dissuade you from your obviously strongly-held beliefs. It is to say that I think you make a serious error by likening evolution to anthropogenic global warming. I doubt that even you believe that the many very serious scientists who believe evolution to be true are intentionally misleading the public for their own financial or political gain.

Margie| 12.5.09 @ 1:34AM

Ross,
Since you say you aren't interested in debating, then what's the point? You choose to refuse to believe in God and the evidence that surrounds you.
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature, namely, His eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened." Rms. 1:19-21.
"Science" means knowledge. I prefer the knowledge of God above the knowledge of man, including a Pope. Why would a Pope choose to accept the word of an Atheist above the Word of God?
While a website cannot give you a life changing experience, God's Spirit can work on your conscience while reading His truth. So my suggestion to you to go and read at the links I gave would have been a tremendous opportunity.
As for evidence, there have been numerous fallacies in the Scientific world, and again, the websites I provided will have numerous examples.
Also~ I'm not "likening" evolution to AGW. What I'm saying is, they are simply both false. Man did not evolve from monkeys, nor can man destroy the Earth. In fact, God will not only burn it up with fire, but create a new Heaven and a new Earth in which righteousness dwells. Rev. 21:1, 2 Pe. 2:10. If God is true and you are wrong, where will you end up? Something to seriously consider.
As for making things up, or thinking things up, well, the Bible says that God's thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are His ways our ways. (Is. 55:8).
You're right, I do have faith in God, but as the Scripture says, what can be known about Him is in the Creation all around us, and that men who deny Him are in the darkness.

Ross Kaminsky| 12.5.09 @ 8:47AM

Margie,

You did not say that evolution and AGW were both "false". You said that evolution was just as "fraudulent" as AGW. They are very different statements and I objected to yours. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for God, I don't believe it's possible to have knowledge of him, although one of my closest friends believes he has felt God personally in his life. In any case, the existence of God is neither provable nor disprovable and therefore not "knowledge" in the scientific sense in which you apply.

Again, I am not trying to talk you out of a belief. I'm simply saying that (1) faith and science are different, and (2) even if some science is shown eventually to be wrong, that doesn't mean it's fraud (the way AGW is).

OK, I think that's enough for this conversation. I look forward to more on future articles.

Margie| 12.5.09 @ 11:00AM

Merriam-Webster's:
False: not genuine
2 a : intentionally untrue b : adjusted or made so as to deceive c : intended or tending to mislead
3 : not true
4 a : not faithful or loyal : treacherous b : lacking naturalness or sincerity
5 a : not essential or permanent —used of parts of a structure that are temporary or supplemental b : fitting over a main part to strengthen it, to protect it, or to disguise its appearance
6 : inaccurate in pitch
7 a : based on mistaken ideas b : inconsistent with the facts
8 : threateningly sudden or deceptive

Margie| 12.5.09 @ 11:06AM

My post wasn't complete, above. The rest:
From Merriam-Webster's~
Synonyms~ see faithless.

Fraudulent: Date: 15th century
: characterized by, based on, or done by fraud : deceitful.

These apply both to Darwinism and man made global warming.
~I too look forward to future conversations.

Ron| 12.5.09 @ 8:17PM

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It does not have to be one or the other, it can be both. Evolution is proven. We can see the evidence quite clearly. We can't prove creation but we can eliminate opposition to creation by process of elimination. If there is no creation event, then how did it all start? There had to be a beginning.

Margie| 12.5.09 @ 9:32PM

It's actually never been proven. And it never will be.
God gave us an account of how He created the Earth, and man, and everything in it in Genesis 1&2. It's a great read. In fact you can't get any better.
I highly recommend it.
You're right though.. in order for an evolutionist to try and prove evolution, he has to start with...Creation!

Margie| 12.6.09 @ 3:05PM

Question: If God says that "He created Man from out of the earth, and formed him, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," (Gen. 2:7), how do you reconcile with Darwin the "agnostic's" claiming that we "evolved" from an ape?
~Who do you believe? God, or an "agnostic?"

And by the way... why are apes still around?

James Biggar| 12.6.09 @ 4:35PM

Margie,
Have you discounted the "hypothesis" that instead of God's having created the Earth 4000 or so years ago, that the interpereters of the Bible may have miscalculated.
Is it possible that God could have, many billions of years ago, have planned a Creation that started with rudimentary life forms that were intended to develop in a planned way in steps that were intended to culminate in Mankind? He may even have had a sense of humor in causing man to evolve from an Ape. Or perhaps he just wanted to see what the first wiggling blob in the ocean would do if left to its own devices.

Margie| 12.6.09 @ 5:34PM

James,
No. I believe God gave us the Bible to go by. I don't believe He would "mess around with us."
Because every word of God proves true. There is not one iota that is false. History, archeology, and true science all agree with what is written. More and more facts come out to show the truth in the Bible, as more and more of it's "debunkers" have been proven wrong.
Genesis chapters 1 & 2 clearly say how God created the earth, man, animals, etc. That he created the earth from and by means of water, He created Man from the clay, or dust of the earth, formed him, and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. How He created animals, and every moving and living thing that both crawls and walks, the fish of the sea "innumerable" (we are still discovering them).
So I think God intended to do just what He did. Let the new age "thinkers" think what they wish.
~I've often thought, though that God must have a sense of humor. It also says in Genesis that He made the animals FOR Man. And when you look at some of them they are very funny looking!

ptor| 12.14.09 @ 9:37AM

You're all wrong. the truth lies in the middle, i.e. interventionism. Darwin AND the bible are rubbish, both deflections of our true origins. I suggest investigating Lloyd Pye (http://www.lloydpye.com/)
Furthermore, the current global warming debacle is deflecting awareness of "the middle" which is that man affects the climate but not in the way the powers that be want us to discuss.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i.....;aid=16413

tuono| 12.14.09 @ 9:55AM

Oh dear! Don,t know what this has to do with the global warming scam but show me the evidence for a 'god' that loves the human race? Try explaining 'gods will' to 1.5 million dead Iraqis or however many we have killed in Afganistan so far .
What about the Palestinians,Lebanese,Vietnamese,Cambodians,n north and south American Indians, ad infinitum.

The End| 12.13.09 @ 2:42PM

So do you believe that the towers fell from the impact of those jets hitting them? Then what brought down WTC Building 7, which no plane even hit?! The small, localized fires burning random office supplies were not enough to bring that building down.

If you use Rosie O'Donnell as your main 9/11 Truth spokesperson, it's no wonder you might not take it very seriously. But every American needs to inform themselves about it, because it and Global Warming are both examples of what's known as "The Big Lie", which many will fall for, because it's just too big to be a lie, right??? WRONG! It's a pattern of deceit established long ago by the handful of corporate elitists who run things here on Earth...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/.....tions.html

Bill H| 12.4.09 @ 9:18AM

This is the first article I have read about Climategate (and I have read many) where someone has mentioned Hansen.

Hansen has been equally as guilty of politicizing this issue as Jones - perhaps more so.

What I find most interesting are the words coming from the main stream press who chastise the scientists for their shody science yet assume that AGW is still as real as ever. If the underlying data is questionable and the peer-review process has been compromised then where does that leave the science of global warming.

We have been told for years that we must believe in AGW because there is a scientific concensus (a political argument). We now know that the concensus was a fraud. Take that argument away and you have nothing.

Unscathed in all this it seems is Al Gore. Gore set the tone early in all of this by polluting the science and turning the whole thing, first and formost, into a political issue.

The lesson here is that politics and science do not mix. In the end politics will win. Of course that was always the objective of the politicians. In this postmodern / post-Foucoult world, power is knowledge and that puts politics, not science, in the driver seat.

Deborah D| 12.4.09 @ 9:50AM

Gore has to be a bit nervous. He did cancel an appearance at the Copenhagen dog and pony show to promote his new book. He must think he'll be asked some embarrassing questions, and he can't have that! Read it here: http://www.washingtontimes.com.....openhagen/

Margie| 12.4.09 @ 2:42PM

Saw that, DebD.
Question: (to be asked in voice of CNN "new's" reporter) "Is Algore's hot air balloon finally deflating?"

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.4.09 @ 9:48AM

Ross,
Thank you guys for staying after this subject.
Yours is the most readable article I have seen that gets right to the significance of the whole mess.

I have been a (private) pilot for 38 years. Heh, believe me, piloting light planes across country is a science...and an ART....and observing the weather is a crucial part of it.
I have watched the skies become more "hazy" each year as the years go by, and I don't like it.
But, the "stuff" that makes up haze or smog could be cleaned up pretty easily..here...but Mexico and China could care less.
Anyway,
Thank you again.

Beer-can-Bob| 12.4.09 @ 4:29PM

Old Texican,
Are you sure that the increase in haze and smog isn't just your eye site deteriorating? Speaking from experience, about aging, that is.

owyheewine| 12.4.09 @ 10:21AM

The obvious outcome based studies by the warmers should be instructive. They are also very typical of most "scientific" studies. Studies these days are set up to give the results that the studier wants. (Apologies to the minority that do honest studies). The reasons are obvious. Just follow the money. Fame and fortune awaits those who can "prove" a point that will open up the government and liberal foundation money troughs. That is why ALL studies need to be looked at skeptically until you understand all of the fine print buried in the footnotes. I hate to keep kicking the liberal arts majors (not really), but most are woefully unequipped to untangle the math and scientific principals that dishonest science can hide behind.

Pete| 12.4.09 @ 11:01AM

Government Grant Grifters is what these asses are and they should be in jail for stealing taxpayer money.

JohnD| 12.4.09 @ 11:11AM

In a related story. . .

Snow predicted for Houston, TX today.

How's that for global warming? Snow in Houston.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.4.09 @ 1:36PM

Heh...JohnD. First time for snow in the first week of December in 64 years living here.
I am watching the snow come down...
lovely.
Ken

Carpenter| 12.4.09 @ 4:42PM

Hey Old Texican
Here's another Texas based old (not bold) pilot with 35 years of flight logs showing pretty much cyclic weather trends. Biggest difference seems to be the growth of Class B airspace consider.
Watch your six, old man.

Adam Smith| 12.4.09 @ 11:12AM

Ross,

I was a science buff if school also and had some premed classes. I have been reading the emails and frankly, they are worse than I would have dreamed. Frankly, this is anti-science and the cabal behind it is revealed as a bunch of thugs with limited intellects, SEIU / Acorn values & strategies for continuing the fraud and pipeline to taxpayer cash being thrown at them.

I have never seen a better case for RICO in my life.

Let's not forget Gore is encouraging "civil disobedience" right now to keep it together.
We have seen how civil the "green movement" is and know Gore is hoping for more riots and chaos to "help shape debate".

These people really are a religion as the UK recently aknowledged...

Good job picking on the Briffa study. I have been giving that little bit of "science" too much credit:

I thought they had used 11 cherry picked Yamal core samples, not 10.

Excellent piece.

Ross Kaminsky| 12.4.09 @ 11:47AM

Adam,

McIntyre says 10 trees used for 1990 and 5 for 1995:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7142

If your name is really Adam Smith, you have a lot to live up to!

Thanks for the compliment.

RGK

Pittsburgh Pete| 12.4.09 @ 11:44AM

Science is nothing but disproving other's conclusions.

Ed Schill| 12.4.09 @ 2:07PM

It's time for some serious action. Not an action such as a climate accord, treaty or agreement being signed by our President in Copenhagen this month. Not a single American official, especially our President should attend this summit until ALL climate data is released. Our President should be made publicly aware of the data inconsistency by the American people and be required to publicly acknowledge his awareness of this misconduct in an address to the Nation.

An American movement of accountability should be organized. This movement will succor civil or criminal prosecution of any individual or group that has profited from willful climate deception. Accountability should start with our elected leaders, NASA and all educational institutions etc that have procured funding or grants at the expense of American Tax Dollars. Immediate monetary restitution should be made to the American people should it be proven they had an involvement in or knowledge of climate data misconduct.

Dr.Chemical| 12.4.09 @ 2:52PM

Excellent article! Thank you to the Heartland Institute for its efforts to bring some clarity to this issue. I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and first became suspicious of AGW about 20 years ago. The whole CO2 thing bothered me. I remember using Beer's Law to calculate densities based on light absorbancy. So, the impact of incremental CO2 declines logarithmically and can hardly lead to run away warming. Also water vapor is a better IR absorber and is certainly far more abundant. So, the basic science for AGW was always flawed. Perhaps that is why they had to fake the data all along.

Ross Kaminsky| 12.4.09 @ 3:05PM

Dr.,

You are of course correct about the impact of increasing CO2 concentrations, or rather the lack of impact due to its logarithmic nature.

Unfortunately, most of the public believes the hockey stick to some degree, which is to say they believe the correlation is at least linear if not exponential.

Things will not get better until more in the media start telling the truth and I can't say I have a great idea as to how to force them to do so. The best I think we can hope for is that they realize they don't want to be left as the last people on the planet cheerleading for a hoax, so they might start moving at least toward neutrality in reporting just out of self-preservation.

But maybe I'm a hopeless optimist...

Dan| 12.7.09 @ 10:18PM

H2O does have a stronger radiative forcing. It I'd more abundant - however not significantly increasing as CO2 and CH4 are. Vapor also has a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere (if its lifespan was even 1/2 that of CO2 it would rain only a few times a century!). That is why climatologists are particularly concerned about CO2 and not H2O!

WRJonas | 12.4.09 @ 4:19PM

I am not a scientist but I am curious and since we have a live scientist commenting on this site I would like to pose a couple of questions I can never get a response to on other sites .
Why is it when I place two identical sized saucers of water in atmospheres of different temperatures , one evaporates much sooner than the other ? Is that what a scientist calls a variable? How are variables fitted into static computer modeling programs ? I also notice vast oceans of vapor swirling constantly in the atmosphere . Would that be something that might have an effect on global temperatures? Is the amount of H2O in the atmosphere a known number? I cannot seem to get any answers to these questions and I feel silly accepting a theory that apparently ignores what seems like some pretty basic factors affecting temperatures. Thanks

Dr. Chemical| 12.4.09 @ 5:09PM

The vapor pressure of water is proportional to temperature. The higher the temperature the more water wants to be vapor instead of liquid. At the boiling point, the water and vapor phases are in equilibrium. So in general, as temperatures rise, water vapor increases. Only in general because equilibrium conditions do not always apply. It gets complicated because water vapor forms clouds and rain. I wager that water vapor and cloud formation/reduction is 1000 more important to weather and climate than anything else.

James Reynolds| 12.8.09 @ 2:21AM

Evaporation of water depends on certain factors or "variables" like temperature, pressure, and solutes within the water solution.

JeffT| 12.4.09 @ 4:33PM

When I worked as a rep in BIG PHARMA, I always carried around clinical studies to buttress my arguments in favor of prescribing my medications. One of the first questions a physician would ask is, "Do you have another study showing the same benefit?" The answer was almost always, "Yes." If results can't be reproduced by other scientists, the data is almost meaningless and useless to a physician. One study, one set of data, one set of eyes, if you will, is never enough to convince a physician that a clinical study is valid. Scientists confident in their data will always welcome real peer review.

victor| 12.5.09 @ 12:20PM

Very Interesssssting!
What was their opinion about "second opinions"?

Seriously, it only benefited you and the companies you represented that you had studies,
sources, citations and facts to back up your position.

We have people here who only have opinions, but no facts to back up their assertions.
They feel as though they can assert any position without any corrobarating evidence.

victor| 12.5.09 @ 12:40PM

Correction:
When I said "here", I was not referring to this thread as "here", but "here" as in "American Spectater".
The author makes a very good case in a very good article.
There are posters elsewhere who pontificate and expound on a variety of subjects from economics to politics and never extend any proof past their own assertions.
They read, but never cite.
They think they are well red, but they are not.
And some just expound and then toddle off with no rebuttals.

WRJonas| 12.4.09 @ 5:27PM

Thank you for the answers Dr. Chemical . And I must admit I phrased the questions with a certain viewpoint in mind . I believe your last sentence has come closer to the truth than thousands of conclusions drawn by countless global alarmists trying to peddle deception.

Robert Pinkerton| 12.4.09 @ 6:25PM

I F "global warming" is reality, and I F it results in the inundation and submergence of places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington DC, New York, and Boston (World-cities all), what loss? Fifty years of - admittedly unsystematic - pleasure-reading of history suggest to me that a world-city is a running sore and a parasite on any Body Politic unfortunate to host it. (Chicago? If not a world-city, then at least a serious wannabe.)

James Clements| 12.4.09 @ 8:13PM

Florence Hawley Ellis, one of the originators of tree-ring dating, taught our anthro class that tree rings track annual precipitation, not temperature. Fugures don't lie, but liars do figure. An appalling percentage of academics are musguided or just plain dishonest. It is not surprising that radical politicians subsidise fraud [n science, media, voting, and any other politically useful activity.

Tony in Central PA| 12.4.09 @ 10:14PM

The possiblity of human - caused global warming os something I have always considered possible. However, when scientists start making speculatively predictive statements not backed up by solid data in order to sway public opinion, they stop being scientists and start functioning like priests and prophets of nature - worship. When a scientist loses his credibility its like a racehorse breaking his leg.

Yosemeti Sam| 12.5.09 @ 9:25AM

" ... What McIntyre found was astonishing: Briffa's "hockey stick" was created by using data from only 10 trees in 1990 and 5 trees in 1995-1996 ...."

Tree rings? Tree rings?

Yo, on thermometers! Still want to know their
GPS positions of deployment with date
and time stamped readings over the decades
since global warming theories became criminally lucratively fashionable - Hocus Pocus!

Hmmmm, perhaps 15 thermometers were
deployed to amass worldwide temperature
changes over the years. Wouldn't want too
many thermometers out there - what with
all the mercury in them and the potential
of spills if not handled with scientific care.

EskimoJoe| 12.5.09 @ 10:41AM

Appleby, then perhaps you should discuss climate change not with liberal arts majors but with the hundred plus Nobel science laureates who called for action on Kyoto? I'm sure you could 'open their eyes' and make them see the light.
Margie, did you actually write "Evil-ution"? Yes, you did! Now I see how it is that the Chinese are burying the American economy; millions of people just like you vote.

Margie| 12.5.09 @ 11:58AM

Yes, there are millions of voters like me who believe in God and actually vote. People like me who know right from wrong, good from evil, truth from a lie, and that everything isn't "relative."
Thanks to the Atheist Darwin, millions of school children over generations have been taught by their school teachers that they evolved from apes, and not by a loving Creator who made them and sent their Son into the world to die for them that they could have eternal life. Thanks to his deception these children grow up to be non-believers unless they have Parents to set them straight.
~The problem isn't with the voters who believe in God. It's with the voters who actually believe they could have evolved from apes. After all, if there is no God, these voters would prefer the Leftist Socialist candidate to suit their leanings. That would be the Democrat party of today. The Godless, pro-abortion, government-is-God party.
~The problem is, the Godless party is also criminal and uses thugs to make sure that the elections are tampered with. This is the only way they can win.
And in case you don't know, they run as conservatives, pretending to be the things us conservatives are for. That would be pro-life, limited government, a strong Military defense, etc. They deceive to get elected.
~President deceiver now resides in the White House. But not because of "voters like me!"

Cyril| 12.5.09 @ 2:06PM

Joe, Your last remark about the Chinese is a total non-sequitur, not to mention unprovable rubbish. Please try to stay on-topic.
There are millions of intelligent, educated Christians who have analyzed the claims of Darwinism and have concluded that it is a poor explanation of origins compared to Intelligent Design. You can find Christians and non-Christians with these views at www.discovery.org.
Interestingly, since over 80% of Americans state that they believe in God (including President Obama, I might add), this means that 80% of the populace de facto believe in Intelligent Design.

John II| 12.5.09 @ 11:45AM

Mr. Kaminsky's passing reference to "near-religious belief" put me in mind of something I've been noticing for the past 15 years or so in my lower-division literature survey and writing classes, which draw quite a few science majors seeking to get their liberal arts requirements out of the way.

Among those students, the normal ones have majors in straight-up hard science: physics, chemistry, biology, etc. The biology and pre-med majors tend as well to be quite good in literary analysis and writing, probably because their work has them connected to concrete detail of the sort that stimulates the imagination as well as the intellect.

But then there are the so-called environmental science majors, and what I have noticed (so far without exception among many dozens of such students over the years) is that the interest of these kids is almost entirely self-referential. They are not so much interested in nature as they are in what I take to be the religion of naturalism. They all seem personally troubled, as revealed by the erratic character of their responses to literature and, often, by their confessional mode of self-expression, in which I am told incidentally about this or that family trouble or this or that disorder in their "relationships." There is often a hollow iciness in their manner that seems the consequence of a studied narcissism.

I believe that environmentalism as it's evolved in our culture is a substitute for religion, a sense that I've acquired from the recurring observations noted above. If I'm right, we can expect the chances for serious public debate on the issue to be slim indeed, notwithstanding Mr. Kaminsky's optimism.

Tony in Central PA| 12.7.09 @ 1:57PM

Somebody smarter than me once said that people really can't suppress their religious impulses indefinitely, they will always emerge in other ways. Notice the dietary restrictions of vegans and " locovores " in relation to religious practices of fasting, abstaining and keeping kosher. The concept of good works has been replaced by " eco - friendliness ". Repentance has morphed into " reducing one's carbon footprint ".
Notice , though, that there is an unreality, almost otherworldy, component to these behaviors. Their effects are, for the most part, incalculable and quite possibly miniscule as far as achieving any desired environmental utopia. The behaviors seem to become a cause for creating guilt among nonbelievers while fostering a self - sense of superiority.

Mark30339| 12.5.09 @ 12:37PM

Great article. Where have the guardians of standards gone? Why do people been getting away with both hiding and distorting data for so long? This isn't science, it's Bolshevism.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.5.09 @ 1:38PM

Ross, Margie,
I may be getting both of you mad at me now, nevertheless...
Margie,
like Job, I wasn't there at creation. In fact, I wasn't even on the "creation committee". (smile)
As you know, I am a Christian. The only "committee" I have been assigned to is the "witness of personal experience committee."

I'm not judge, or jury, or lawyer, or prosecutor....just a witness to what I see with my own eyes.

Ross,
In my deluded state, (I believe The Unique Holy Spirit of our Creator spoke directly to my mind...and to many other minds of some pretty bright people from all over the world, when I prayed He would...in my presence. I have watched those lives do a 180 degree turn over many years.
There is my witness).
Simple huh?
If our Creator ENJOYED a few billion years creating and crafting our universe, and our planet, and every living thing, then that suits me just fine.

I personally think that is exactly what He did. Everything else simply begs the question and is a reductionism pastime.
What a lot of people do forget, is that Jesus Christ did not only call himself the "Alpha"...but also the "Omega" in terms of this world.
His only commandments were to 1. love one another
and 2. to remember Him as we break bread.

Again, thank you for your splendidly written essay.
Ken

John II| 12.5.09 @ 2:25PM

Correction, please. He reduced the whole law to two commandments: (1) love God and (2) love neighbor. The rest of it follows, including remembering Him. But if we don't keep numero uno first, the rest goes to hell in a handbasket--e.g., Christianity viewed as some kind of cheesy social service philosophy.

As to the evolution business, Ross sounds very sensible when he make the distinction between hypothesis and theory, and I think he's right so far as he goes, but I'm not sure he's going very far.

So far as I can tell, the controversy over Darwinism is a controversy because Darwinism itself, or at least Darwinism in the forms I'm familiar with, is much less about science than it is about intellectual method, the province of philosophy. And if that's the case, Darwinism and AGW may be closer relatives than Ross seems to allow.

At the very least, the practicing scientists who argue against Darwinism are accorded treatment remarkably similar to the abuse heaped on the many climatologists who argue against AGW.

When that sort of thing happens, something deeper than natural science is at issue, but how many scientists are trained in philosophy?

Margie| 12.5.09 @ 9:26PM

Hello Old Tex,
I wasn't there either. But Jesus was there. (Jn.1:1) as He is the Word of God and all things were made through Him.
I don't make this stuff up. It's the Bible. He gave it to us so that we'd know everything He wanted us to know.
It's fact. There's no evolution in it. It says God made the Heavens and the earth, and man. Just like that.
Genesis chapters 1&2 tells us how He did it.
If only mankind got a little interested they might learn something! :^)
(Instead of believing an Atheist named Darwin.)

Margie| 12.5.09 @ 10:20PM

PS,
Debunking evolution:
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Ross Kaminsky| 12.6.09 @ 5:41PM

Ken,

I certainly don't call you deluded for believing any particular thing. While I don't believe in god, that wasn't my reason for disagreeing with Margie.

My point was that I think she was off base for trying to put obviously fraudulent AGW on par with study of evolution.

I think evolution is correct, but even if it turns out to be, I don't think there's anything like the gore-hansen-CRU conspiracy trying to force it on us. (After all, there's no money to be made in a pro-Darwin hoax!)

John II| 12.7.09 @ 12:44AM

Sorry to butt in, but there doesn't have to be money made in a stubborn pro-Darwinism, whether or not that optic can sensibly be taken as a conscious hoax. My impression of the controversy (which I had to study for several months in preparation for an interview with the Darwin debunker Phillip Johnson) is that there is an enormous investment of ego and personal identity in the position staked out by the pro-Darwin camp.

In one of his books, Johnson records an experience he had in college back in 1962, when he was at a movie theatre crowded with fellow U of Chicago undergraduates. The movie was "Inherit the Wind," a dramatization of the Scopes monkey trial of 1925, based on an earlier play. Johnson himself didn't get entangled in the controversy until a quarter century later, but his experience of that film was almost exactly like my own. He was struck by the response of the college audience, whom he recalled behaving exactly in the manner in which the anti-evolution small-town rubes were depicted in the film: except that the audience' whooping and cocksure cheers were on the side of the enlightened evolutionists.

At the end of the film, the Clarence Darrow figure played by Spencer Tracy takes a copy of Darwin's "Descent" and a copy of the Bible and presses them together with a capacious expression of knowing smugness which only the liberal Spencer Tracy (well, maybe Henry Fonda too) could manage in those relatively innocent days of filmmaking. All is well in liberaldom: religion and science are reconciled, I suppose.

But I recall even in those salad days thinking, "That's weird--have the screenwriters ever read Darwin OR the Bible?" Of course, I was happy to view Spencer Tracy's earnest smugness and Fredric March's magnificent (and sympathetic) rendition of the William Jennings Bryan figure and Gene Kelly's portrayal of the cynical Mencken figure--hell, it's still one of my favorite flicks.

But my first experience of the movie, in a theatre dominated by the same kind of audience, matched Johnson's. There was something off and something vaguely manipulative about the dramatization, and the crowd seemed happy to be manipulated.

Today, many years later, I have a clearer sense of what bothered me back in those relatively callow undergraduate days. Darwin himself was an elegant stylist, so that Origin, Voyage, and Descent are worthy books so far as they go (immeasurably worthy to anyone interested in taking stock of 19th century utilitarian and Victorian sensibilities), but the biographical evidence is now all too clear that Darwin's own ideological atheism was the horse drawing the cart of his theory (hypothesis?) of natural selection.

Something similar seems to be the case with today's pro-Darwin camp. Whatever money may or may not be involved, the language of that camp suggests to me an apriori commitment to the religion of naturalism more than to any alleged concern for the integrity of science. In that regard alone, and perhaps most crucially, the pro-Darwin sensibility and its attendant rhetoric bear a remarkable resemblance to the AGW scandal.

Appleby| 12.7.09 @ 3:59PM

My Southern Granny used to gently tease us for worrying about things that were not likely to happen, by saying "What if one thing/what if another/what if a monkey was your brother?" I didn't know what that meant until I got to university.

I have no brief for Darwinian evolution; I am waiting for the atheist stationed at Home Depot in the building department to call me as soon as he sees a house spontaneously appear. All the material's there, right? And all we have to do is wait long enough ...

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.5.09 @ 2:43PM

OKOK, John II (smile)

Picky picky picky!
I will stand corrected, but ha ha, you must stand corrected as well...He also gave us the "Great Commission" as well. I guess that might be added to the list. Oh, and how about "be ye perfect." That is a good one to bust people's chops over.

OKOK, I'm just goofing off, but you are off message. If on my deathbed, I forget one or two admonishments, I truly don't believe our Creator would "interrupt" my already eternal life. (John 3:16)

John II| 12.5.09 @ 3:31PM

Picky!?! But Ken: you left out the most important one, and for all either of us knows, I may have been Commissioned from all eternity to correct you.

When Groucho dictates a letter to his lawyers in Animal Crackers, his salutation addresses the law firm thus:

Honorable Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, and McCormick

When he has his secretary Jamieson repeat the salutation, Jamieson reads back:

Honorable Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, and McCormick.

Groucho stands back, glaring at Jamieson: "You left out one of the Hungadungas, Jamieson--in fact, you left out the most important one!"

Well, this time the most important one really was left out, and I'm glad you stand corrected. Myself, I never stand corrected; when I'm wrong, I just grovel.

James Reynolds| 12.6.09 @ 3:34AM

As a doctor and journalist, I commend you for this article. It is the finest synthesis of the topic that I have read so far - and I have read many over the past month. The shaky "hypothesis" of anthropogenic global warming is far from being a tried and true "theory". This could very well turn out to be an example of conspiratorial fraudulance with far-reaching consequences.

I would suggest that the Darwinian Evolution debate has many examples of fraud, academic suppression, and conspiracy elements as well - on all sides, but especially in the "settled science" mainstream mentality.

I would recommend reading the published works of the Discovery Institute, a group of high-level intellectuals, doctors, lawyers, policy-makers, etc. that write with high standards:
http://www.discovery.org/

You may be pleasantly surprised by what you find on this website and in the books/media they offer. I am just a reader of their material.

Mark30339| 12.6.09 @ 10:34AM

Ross, Dead Ringer is a great title, but I'm leaning toward Tree Ring Circus.

Tony in Central PA| 12.7.09 @ 2:36PM

My sides !

tammyv| 12.6.09 @ 1:29PM

My concern is that if he supposedly "lost" the data, then he incompetent and should be fired for doing so. You can't claim to be a professional and expect anyone to believe you when you can't eve kep track ofyour records. Just another academic elite trying to make a name for himself and get more money! Your average employee would never be allowed to kep their job if there work was so "important". Shame on him for trying to use this as an excuse! This is all a hoax to get money and fame. No real science involved. Remember the 1970's? Enough said.

Bob Knutson| 12.7.09 @ 2:37AM

I wouldn't presume to get into the evolution v. creation argument. I do have some thoughts on the AGW business, tho.

Back in7th grade science, (That's waay back), I was taught that animals, including humans, inhale oxygen and exhale, among other things, Co2. Further, that trees and growing plants absorb the latter and generate the former. Seems to me, based on that teaching, that carbon dioxide is necessary to human life because without it, trees couldn't produce the oxygen that we require to survive. If this is wrong-headed, someone please corret me.

shamari feaster| 12.13.09 @ 9:52PM

Excellent article and great discussion afterwards. I really thought propaganda had reached a high water mark during the Bush years here in the U.S but the financial crisis and now this have showed me that not only could it be topped but the problem of disinformation is world-wide. Now for the plug: Please spread the word about Dr. Farid Khavari running for governor here in Florida. He is a doctor of economics with some great solutions for the economy.

ptor| 12.14.09 @ 10:58AM

Some important stuff on AGW that few are discussing...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/i.....;aid=16413

hgjghj| 1.4.10 @ 9:59PM

AVCHD Player,
AVCHD Player for Mac

gdfgdf| 1.4.10 @ 10:01PM

TS Player,
MTS Player

Ferry| 1.18.10 @ 10:34AM

Great post interesting as always you really provide the news to us.
Ferry writer at Health blog

jimbo| 1.22.10 @ 4:39PM

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. It does not have to be one or the other, it can be both. sweet irena

Valentine’s Day SMS| 1.24.10 @ 5:18PM

i like the work, thanks
Valentine’s Day SMS

pup boleh| 3.19.10 @ 7:39AM

antonfkip

Eclipse Trailer

Kim| 3.30.10 @ 10:46AM

Buy Cheap SSL

d| 4.2.10 @ 3:23AM

loi| 4.7.10 @ 8:34PM

thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica

loi| 4.7.10 @ 8:34PM

thanks you very much for your information
Poptropica
Poptropica

bobtu| 4.11.10 @ 8:22PM

is this really true? tourmaline

jeniffer| 4.15.10 @ 7:38AM

Cheap SSL Certificates
Thawte SSL123

polityu| 4.27.10 @ 5:50AM

ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010
dunia pewayangan

mili8951| 5.8.10 @ 1:58AM

http://www.edhardycawholesale.com/

mobile event marketing| 5.10.10 @ 6:00AM

writing an interesting and very useful,
informative

Jenny Brady| 5.10.10 @ 8:21AM

Underground Warning Tape
Barrier Tape
- supplying worldwide to many sectors including construction, electrical, telecommunication and gas pipeline industries.

出会い| 7.21.11 @ 3:57AM

There was a problem posting your comment
Your post (#581359) has been marked as spam by a third-party spam filter. If this is a mistake, please email WilliamsG@spectator.org. Your post (#581359) has been marked as spam by a third-party spam filter. If this is a mistake, please email WilliamsG@spectator.org.

Alan| 9.15.11 @ 11:13AM

well, thank you for this informative stuff here. Really enjoyed reading.. first aid kits

Home Extensions Perth| 10.12.11 @ 7:06AM

Home Extensions Perth

Hi Ross. People around the world has been like on the verge of panic about climate change and what-would-happened-in-2012, yet here are the scientists, hiding data from each other. Tsk.

SEO Specialist Philippines| 10.27.11 @ 10:56PM

SEO Specialist Philippines
Hi Ross, Awesome post Youve got and shared!

hair care product| 10.28.11 @ 12:05AM

Hair Care Product

Howdy, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam comments? If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can advise? I get so much lately it's driving me mad so any assistance is very much appreciated.

hair care product| 10.28.11 @ 12:24AM

Split Testing

Hi Ross,

My brother and I genuinely enjoyed reading on this site, I was just interested to know if you trade featured posts? I am always trying to find anyone to make trades with but it’s only an idea I would ask.

Anson ansel15| 3.20.12 @ 6:48AM

Very good post with informative information.I really appreciate the fact that you approach these topics from a stand point.I genuinely do enjoy this great website and your content was simply fantastic.
hiawassee retirement communities | murphy real estate

Anson ansel15| 3.22.12 @ 7:56AM

Thank you for sharing such great information with us. I really appreciate everything that you've done here and am glad to know that you really care about the world that we live in
small size ladies boots | wide ladies dress shoes

Archer aramis| 3.26.12 @ 8:13AM

Thank you for sharing such great information with us. I really appreciate everything that you've done here and am glad to know that you really care about the world that we live in
wireless security systems | wireless home alarms

Abel adalson| 4.4.12 @ 9:04AM

Valuable information and excellent theme designs you got here ! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and blinds time into the stuff you post !
sweet 16 dresses

Abel adalson| 4.4.12 @ 9:05AM

Valuable information and excellent theme designs you got here ! I would like to thank you for sharing your thoughts and blinds time into the stuff you post !
sweet 16 dresses