Among the Intellectualoids
Those Climate Pugilists
Welcome to Climategate II, a.k.a. Whinergate.
Pity the poor Climategaters. The staid were played. Gentlepersons were violated. And the billion-dollar global warming science complex can’t compete with spunky skeptics.
Those are some of the complaints registered in newly disclosed emails among members of the National Academy of Sciences, whose messages were mysteriously made public last week via the Washington Times. Some call it Climategate II; Whinergate is more apropos.
Among their electronically-sent lamentations:
• “Most of our colleagues don’t seem to grasp that we’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” said Paul “Nostradamus” Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist.
• “This was an outpouring of angry frustration on the part of normally very staid scientists who said, ‘God, can’t we have a civil dialogue here and discuss the truth without spinning everything,’” said Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford professor and senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment.
• “They’re not going to win short-term battles playing the game against big-monied interests because they can’t beat them,” Schneider, in a phone interview, talking about alleged competition with energy company funding of skeptics.
Wow — Schneider, who in a November interview with the New Republic announced, “I am an activist,” claims that he spurns spin. Just check the rest of his rhetoric from a few months ago:
• “The models have done really well on temperature over a long time period so we trust that.”
• ”The IPCC says, ‘One to five degrees warming [by 2100]’ for example. That is an expert judgment; it’s subjective, but built on objective modeling and data.”
• “I don’t have aggregate dollars as my moral principle — I look at who’s responsible.”
Yes, the models were so good they missed the non-warming of the last 15 years — probably thanks to the Climategaters’ unassailable data. And like most alarmists who speak from the global warming script, Schneider looks only at opponents’ aggregate cash while linking it to their immoral stands against “science.” Meanwhile we are to believe his objective team of activists is untainted by the many more billions of dollars that flow to their research institutes and eco-minded nonprofits.
And undoubtedly it was principled, trustworthy, objective modeling and data that informed Schneider’s most recent (November) book: Science as a Contact Sport. As the inside jacket explains, “Schneider’s efforts have helped bring about important measures to safeguard our planet, but there’s still more to be done to get them implemented.” That “S” on his chest doesn’t represent his surname.
Schneider is so measured and balanced in his “sound science” advocacy, that in the new “Whinergate” emails he urges his NAS colleagues to admit Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer to their exclusive society. “Can we please get that finally done next year!!” he doubly exclaimed.
You might recall the even-tempered Santer as the bloke from the original Climategate scandal that arose out of Britain’s University of East Anglia, who told Climatic Research Unit director Phil Jones that he’d be tempted — “very tempted” — to “beat the crap out of” skeptical climatologist Pat Michaels. Santer, as lead author of the UN IPCC’s 1995 second assessment report on the science, also admitted deleting statements that denied a human influence on climate change. This kind of behavior apparently has been established as common scientific procedure by “Contact Sport” practitioners — better known as “The Fight Club” within the NAS.
No wonder why, as the Washington Times reported last week, this discredited bunch wants to punch back at skeptics. The Whinergate emails disclosed that one of their strategies of persuasion is to chip in and purchase a back-page ad in the New York Times that would challenge their critics. This presumably would get their mini-choir of fellow elitists singing from their hymnal — but would totally miss the unconverted. Next up — a double-page glossy spread in Audubon! And they wonder why their message isn’t getting through.
Rock-solid science is built with a firm foundation of verifiable and repeatable tests, with trustworthy facts and figures as their sources. The Whinergate scientists employed fudged data and their personal agendas to belligerently promote a fabricated cause, amplified by their similarly unpopular anti-capitalist cohorts and ever-expanding government. Now they profess surprise at the growing resistance to their mission.
They still have not learned that all the money, media and muscle at their disposal have not produced sound science, or a victory. Tactics may provide a temporary advantage, but facts usually win, even though sometimes it takes a while.
About the Author
Paul Chesser is executive director for the American Tradition Institute and a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (167) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Paul Chesser
More Articles From Among the Intellectualoids
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/12/those-climate-pugilists
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Sweet Home, Alabama
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
ggoblue| 3.12.10 @ 6:50AM
if he or his cohorts misused public funds then he/they should be put on trial. then we could interview all of these parasites under oath.
we could also highlight the criminal intent of the mainstream media.
they have destroyed my state of michigan. with the help of our stupid democrat governor and senators of course.
John Roberts| 3.12.10 @ 9:48AM
RICO here, I believe, but alos fraud and misuse of government (taxpayer) money.
Jail time.
Bill| 3.12.10 @ 9:56AM
I agree with you ggoblue and thankfully our dimwit Jennifer is about done. Michigan does provide a glowing example of what the rest of the country will look like if the dems are successful in obtaining their agenda.
basur | 10.27.10 @ 6:36AM
How else would s scientist respond to a grant that asked for a response to proving AGW?
coal carrier| 3.12.10 @ 7:28AM
When someone tries to extort money from someone else by way of a false premise, Jack Webb would be working out the LA division on the Bunko Squad. Al Gore has and is pushing this global warming scheme to extract money from the federal government and have it filtered into the “green” companies he has financial interest in. It’s a scam and he should be sent to jail. Along with any other crooked politician, Dem. or Repub.
Obbo Objectivity| 3.12.10 @ 9:56PM
The overwhelming majority of scientists say that global warming is a reality. Are we to claim that there is no evidence whatsoever for global warming?
I can accept the skepticism coming from the Religious Right, who, believing in biblical inerrancy, still believe the world is flat.
Surely, there are some conservative readers (I being one) of the Spectator who have some respect for scientific enquiry.
I n your stubborn determination to dismiss global warming as a fantasy, you are diminishing what little credibility you once had among thoughtful conservatives.
FTM| 3.12.10 @ 10:35PM
I dunno,
I've been following this issue quite closely since November of last year. CRU's dataset appears to have been completely compromised, refrence the "Harry_Read_Me.txt" file written by one Ian Harris. In the Harry_Read_Me.txt file Mr. Harris finally admits that he made it up. Dr. Jones admission that he can't find the raw data from which his research is based I call, "the dog ate it" defense.
NOAA started out in the 1990s with over 6000 ground based weather stations and ended up with fewer that 1500. Funny how the stations that were showing no temperature trend increase or a temperature decrease were the stations that were "culled" from the list.
NASA apparently is still fumbling around looking for their data set in order to comply with freedom of information act requests. That's odd too in that the space bourn satellite temperature measurements that show no substantial temperature increase over the past thirty years is available on the web.
NASA put a Man on the freekin' moon and can't ffind a database file. Outstanding. Your tax dollars at work.
The ocean bouys show no problem. The argos diving bouy project shows no meaningful increase in ocean temperature, difference in current, acidity or salinity.
Is the climate changing? Perhaps, it's hard to tell. Is mankind responsible for the change? Perhaps, it's hard to tell. There's a lot of skullduggery and activism involved in the issue from almost all aspects.
As for me, I tend to lend the most credability on the machine measurements, the satellite and bouy measurements and they show nothing of any particular significance. machine readings aren't influenced by grant applications or political agenda.
It would seem that the Anthropogenic Global Warming gravy train has finally come off of the tracks as it has with ozone depletion, radon gas, acid rain and all the other tree-hugger scarey stories over the last forty or so years. I don't think that mankind should destroy the environment in an unrestricted fashion at will but I do think that mankind has a place here on the earth. Mankind evolved here on the earth the same as the whales and the bugs and we have a right to exist too regardless of the attitude of GreenPeace and the Sierra Club.
pass the popcorn| 3.12.10 @ 11:42PM
Well Obbo.....we're waiting...
(Judge Smails voice)
hemoroid | 7.8.10 @ 7:50AM
Nice post, congratulations sire.
When will the Turkish language?
With love from Turkey, respects.
vpills | 7.20.10 @ 6:22AM
thank you
John Link| 3.13.10 @ 12:07AM
A person offering nothing but a string of tendentious, unsupported, and mistaken assertions is in no position to describe himself as "objective".
A person who holds himself out as a "thoughtful" conservative while wilfully conflating the Religious Right with a belief in biblical inerrancy, and a flat earth to boot, is neither thoughtful nor conservative.
gedoug| 3.13.10 @ 8:56AM
Any statement supporting the climate hoax beginning with the canard "The overwhelming majority of scientists" makes all that follows suspect. If this AGW science is settled why are 'grant recipients' manipulating data and subverting the peer review process? There is just to much real evidence that an agenda is behind this rather than valid scientific research. The so called overwhelming majority of scientists have lost all credibility.
Stan Redmond| 3.13.10 @ 10:04AM
Climate is always changing. NATURALLY. Who cares? The part of this whole debate that gets me is why it is nanny groups use it as an excuse to gain more power over us and steal out dollars. And why is it they demand control over our behavior and choices? The scary part of "believe" is there are powerful people using fear and falshoods to radically structure a new government. It is the same group who banned DDT for junk science and are directly responosible for millions of unnecessary malaria deaths. It is the same group of people who banned safe and harmless CFCs for a scam ozone hole that was NATURALLY occuring. It's the same group of people who rallied against hair spray back in the 70s for a dreaded ice age that never happened. The scammers cried about global warming in the 90s and 00s and especially after Katrina. DOOM they cried but the doom never came and no warming was occuring. Now the all inclusive "global climate change" scam is in full effect and the people aren't falling it anymore. The environmental scares have always been perpetrated by the same group of communists fantasists who crave power and control.
And the other thing. Why is global warming always portrayed as a catastrophe that requires immediate money?
JERRY| 3.13.10 @ 11:21AM
I'd like to see a survey of scientists (excluding those who have/are working under grants to prove "Global Warming") who believe the temperatures are driven by CO2.
The burden of proof lies of AGW is on the scientists promoting it. (There hypothesis is disproved by any instance othat does not agrre with their projections, (None projected the flat/descent of temperatures since 1996)
Hypothesis falsified - case closed.
Jerry| 3.13.10 @ 11:34AM
Oooops Should read:
I'd like to see a survey of scientists (excluding those who have/are working under grants to prove "Global Warming") who believe the temperatures are driven by CO2.
The burden of proof of AGW is on the scientists promoting it. (Their hypothesis is dispproved by any instance that does not agree with their projections, (None projected the flat/descent of temperatures since 1998)
Hypothesis falsified - case closed
Paul Nelson| 3.13.10 @ 2:16PM
selection bias! those who believe in APG get grants. If you poll only those climate scientists who do not get grants, you may expect that those who are sceptical will be over represented
Jerry Smith| 3.14.10 @ 12:44PM
I wonder if that would result in a "Consensus"
Sam Grove | 3.13.10 @ 1:40PM
It is a straw man argument to claim that AGW skeptics deny that there has been climate warming.
The argument is over:
1. What is the extent of the anthropogenic component?
2. How predictive are the models?
3. Is climate disaster impending?
Answers thus far:
1. Not known.
2. Not really.
3. Based on trends to date, no.
doug| 3.13.10 @ 6:04PM
#1, your not a conservative, your a libtard, there not only hasn't been any global warming, all the "facts" were manufactured, the only ones that still believe in it (after the scientists admitted they faked the evidence), are dumb libtards.
name the "scientists" that are "overwhelmingly" saying it's happening. that whole deal was a giant moneymaking scam and the only ones who bought into it are dumb libtards like you!
Joe Humphrey| 3.14.10 @ 11:27AM
I respect scientific enquiry, but I detest lying, scheming pseudo-climatologists who only want to get government grant funds to continue their non-scientific "life-work." The fact is there is no such thing as human caused global warming. Get over it, the lying liars were caught out and Al Gore, et al will be made to pay for their deceit.
Margie| 3.14.10 @ 6:21PM
To: Obbo Selectivity::
I can accept the skepticism coming from the Marxist Left, who, believing in "government as God", still believe the Bible is false.
Surely, there are some Liberal Readers (I not being one) of the Spectator who have some respect for Biblical Truth?
I n your stubborn determination to dismiss the Bible as fact, you are diminishing what little credibility you once had among "thoughtful Liberals," if indeed there ever was any!
"Every word of God proves true, he is a shield to those who take refuge in Him." Prov. 30:5
A Working Man| 3.15.10 @ 3:05PM
I am on the "Riligious Right", and sorry - I know the world is not flat - I have flown in a plane! I also know that if you count the rings on 6 trees and disreguard the forest it does not scientific data make. You sir, like most liberals, reveal yourself.
Michael Callis| 3.15.10 @ 4:09PM
The debate isn't about whether there has been some warming in the past 150 years as we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age. The scientific question is whether the manmade production and release of CO2, combined with the natural CO2 in the atmosphere are driving temperatures upward. There is no evidence that added CO2 (a trace element at 385 ppm) is driving temperatures warmer. None.
Brian Mc| 3.12.10 @ 7:33AM
Criminals, all. And, they are just getting warmed up. To add insult to injury, some of their cohorts are attempting to put fudged info in front of the president that, upon his approval, would eliminate sport fishing. Go to ESPN for details if you haven't seen the report. This is scary stuff and they just keep at it. The real problem is, these types 'own' our children for the better part of their waking hours, suffering from their incessant indoctrination...!
Heatpacker| 3.12.10 @ 8:37AM
When the Republicans regain control of Congress next year, if they have the smallest trace of courage, they will demand a RICO investigation of all of the parties involved in this scam. This is, after all, an enterprise whose purpose is to defraud taxpayers, investors, and charitable donors out of billions of dollars, all to line the pockets of the conspirators and increase the leverage of their organizations. If this doesn't meet the legal definition of racketeering, I don't know what does.
And to think that medical insurance companies are being excoriated for operating within the law and earning legitimate profits.
owyheewine| 3.12.10 @ 10:07AM
We can always dream that the majority of Republicans will suddenly grow a pair and play some hardball. Unfortunately there are too many wimpy lawyer types that are more interested in riding the conservative wave and setting themselves up for a long beltway career.
FTM| 3.13.10 @ 7:54AM
Is there a federal judge left that is unleftist enough to even consider the case?
Eddie| 3.12.10 @ 8:51AM
I agree with other's comments that the government (us in other words) is being swindled by misuse of funds and then faking science. If I was CEO of a corporation not involved in the Gore religion and my company did this, we'd be hanged! As far as the scientists, traditionally, they are under-finded anyway. All you have to do is play the "warming" game and TA-DA! You have all the funding you need. All you have to do is agree with other scientists data and there you are. What a scam!
Eddie| 3.12.10 @ 8:52AM
(oops, the typo should have been "under-FUNDED")
Dacron Mather | 3.12.10 @ 9:08AM
Thanks to Paul for providing living proof of Monbiot'e Theorem:
http://www.monbiot.com/archive.....suadables/
John Navratil| 3.12.10 @ 10:49AM
The "monbiot" column (link above) challenges sceptics to state what it would take to change their minds. It's a fair question with a simple answer: "credibility".
Most of us are not client scientists, we are tax payers. We see taxes paid to researchers for the purpose of extracting more taxes to save us from ourselves. We see the bill, we just haven't been served the meal.
The problem for these scientists is that they have destroyed their own credibility. The real question should be thrown back at them: "How are you going to restore your own credibility?"
Truth to Power| 3.12.10 @ 11:39AM
For a start some heads have to roll. If scientists taking government money have been silent about wrong doing so they wouldn't upset the funding stream then they have ethical problems and shouldn't be trusted for quite some time. They are as guilty as those doing the wrong doing. Unfortunately this covers a lot of the AGW crowd. Government money has corrupted science in almost all areas where the two intersect. A review of the emails shows the peer review process to be in shambles. As John said they have made mockeries of themselves.
Jerry| 3.13.10 @ 11:39AM
How else would s scientist respond to a grant that asked for a response to proving AGW?
SunnyvaleKen| 3.12.10 @ 1:33PM
What would it take to convince me that global warming is caused by human activity, specifically, human additions of CO2 and other GHG's to the atmosphere?
First, the believers should say Global Warming instead of the generic "climate change" for the obvious reason that "fighting climate change" can mean fighting climate cooling and that has not been their argument.
Second, it would help if the believers actually engaged in debate, actually addressed the criticisms of their claims and addressed the claims of the scientists who believe that natural forces are the primary drivers of climate change.
The believers need to address the argument that there is a finite amount of infrared radiation available to warm the CO2 and once all that radiation is absorbed, adding more CO2 has no impact. See Dr. Happer Senate testimony(http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=84462e2d-6bff-4983-a574-31f5ae8e8a42)
The believers need to explain why the warming of the past 160 years is not the result of the natural 1500 year (give or take a few centuries) climate cycle documented in Singer and Avery's book Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 years.
In summary, the believers need to provide convincing evidence that much more is going on than a natural climate cycle AND that the evidence is GHGs introduced by human activity is the primary cause. Their case is not proved and the data tampering they have done invalidates their claims.
FTM| 3.13.10 @ 7:59AM
Amen.
Jerry| 3.13.10 @ 11:50AM
A projection of what the temperature will be within a reasonable period of time that could be verified by a living person would help.
Note that all the models failed to project a flat/ decrease in temperatures since the warming peak in 1998. This fact alone raises doubts in my mind that we have a problem in 2100.
Paul Nevins| 3.12.10 @ 3:53PM
What Monbiot does here is simply projection. If there were results from reproducible and properly controlled experiments that supported the alarmist view we would be convinced. It's that simple. In a contrary fashion warmists cannot be convinced though results predicted by their theory have repeatedly failed to occur.
Joe Humphrey| 3.14.10 @ 11:37AM
John,
I agree with your very appropriate response to the monbiot column. I, too, read the column with incredulity. These fake scientists are actually attacking us when they are the ones who fraudulently omitted facts, changes records, lost records and failed miserably as scientists. I am shocked and offended by their methods. We can only hope for significant change in the Nov 2010 elections such that this type of activity can be rooted out of the public trough.
--Joe H--
George| 3.12.10 @ 11:50AM
Uh, what would it take alarmists to be persuaded that they are wrong? This sort of arrogance by Monbiot works both ways. Neither side knows anythign, but only one side is attempting a power grab.
John Navratil| 3.12.10 @ 12:00PM
Good point, George. Only one side is seeking power. But they don't see it that way. Like all furtive doers-of-good, they have OUR best interests at heart. And if we can't see that, we are putting our fellow citizens at risk and, who cares why, we are wrong. Unless we take money from "big oil", in which case we are criminals.
I like 'Truth to Power's suggestion about cutting off funding. That, however, will take a serious re-ordering of priorities in Washington. Those guys are, recall, the one who want these results.
Come on November!
Pingback| 3.12.10 @ 10:38AM
Climategate Roundup… « Truth, Lies and In Between links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
axbucxdu| 3.12.10 @ 12:18PM
• "The IPCC says, 'One to five degrees warming [by 2100]' for example. That is an expert judgment; it's subjective, but built on objective modeling and data."
Thanks for that, I'll be laughing all wekkend...
SunnyvaleKen| 3.12.10 @ 1:09PM
During the Cafe Scientifique Menlo Park meeting in Feb. 2008, Dr. Hotair Schneider said that adding a little CO2 to the environment was like taking a small dose of ebola virus.
Since the planet has shown "no statistically significant warming in 15 years" (Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Richard Lindsen of MIT agree!) it seems that the Earth herself is not agreeing with Dr. Gasbag Schneider. The climate simply cannot be as sensitive to CO2 as Dr. Windbag Schneider thinks or, hopefully, thought.
Since the NASA GISS data, NCDC data and CRU data, three of the four major datasets, have been discredited, one can only wonder what dataset Dr. Schneider thinks we should use and we can wonder if he is just breathing his own fumes.
Chalkdust| 3.12.10 @ 3:24PM
Since the dawn of time, the earth's climate has been decided by solar flares and ocean currents with a few transit exceptions; active volcanoes, meteor strikes, kinetic energy. The very arrogance of the thought process that puny mankind can influence, on a continued basis, the earths climate, is devoid and incapable of holding any moral concept.
The entire climate deal is reminiscent of; Y2K, H1N1, acid rain, holes in the ozone and Carl Sagan's nuclear winter.
Heatpacker| 3.12.10 @ 4:15PM
Of course this is the same thought process that has created the wonderful Marxist/Socialist/Communist ideology. Those on the left believe not only that humanity has the power to alter the climate; they also believe that it possesses, within the statutory authority of the enlightened state, the power to alter its own behavioral nature.
The political and scientific efforts of the left originate from its underlying attitude toward humanity - the left believes that the ignorant, myopic masses will destroy themselves unless their behavior is controlled by their intellectual superiors. The left arrogantly assumes that it has been blessed with this intellectual superiority and believes that everyone else should kneel before it in obeisance. The proof of this fact is the extreme disdain and condescension with which the left treats those who oppose them.
Jerry| 3.13.10 @ 11:56AM
Don't forget the DDT Scare.
It had no basis in scientific fact either and resulted in the death of 40 million (mostly children)
Marc Jeric| 3.12.10 @ 3:33PM
All that garbage about climate science has been produced by government-paid drones. But this conspiracy must be put in perspective of 40 years' duration:
1) First came globel cooling scam in the 1970's; whe that failed to produce the desired result (unilateral US disarmament) we had
2) The global warming hoax of the 1990's; what after 11 years of substantial cooling they came up with
3) Climate change flimflam, where whatever happens we must nationalize oil & gas companies, coal mines, electic utilities, banks, car companies, insurance and mortgage coompanies... and, to translate these wishes into a congressional law, we now have
4) Cap & trade power grab.
The aim is now to establish a UN-sponsored world government with total taxing powers.
John II| 3.12.10 @ 8:32PM
Okay, but my recollection of this pattern of scamming the public for political gain goes back to the early 1960's. Before global cooling, there was ozone depletion, and before ozone depletion there was acid raid, and before acid rain there was resource depletion and the growth-limits wham-wham, and before that there was the daddy of them all: the population bomb, which was first dropped by the doubtable Professor Ehrlich when I was barely out of high school. And that one's never quite gone away, despite demographic anticipations of population depletion kicking in after about 2050.
Of course, the great-great-great-granddaddy of them all was Malthus, but that was before my time. As a college teacher for more than 40 years now, I have witnessed each of these serial quack-enthusiasms pass through the primly alarmed essays of students decade after decade, one fad after the other--and all of it encouraged by a fair portion of a degenerate professoriate.
Jerry| 3.13.10 @ 12:03PM
Don't foret the DDT Scam
John II| 3.14.10 @ 2:44PM
Whoa. I did forget about that one. Imagine all the head-scratching that would be caused by a bumper sticker today reading: RACHEL CARSON SPOKE --AND MANY PEOPLE DIED.
Pingback| 3.12.10 @ 10:17PM
Present State of the Canadas: Containing Practical and Statistical Information Respec links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dodgy Geezer| 3.13.10 @ 11:38AM
@Obbo Objectivity
"...Surely, there are some conservative readers (I being one) of the Spectator who have some respect for scientific enquiry. .."
Why, yes. I am a Spectator reader, and a mathematician to boot...
"....Are we to claim that there is no evidence whatsoever for global warming?... "
Evidence has certainly been presented. Complex statistical claims which very few people read, and a mass of observational evidence. But when you look at it, the observational evidence one way is countered by increasing masses of contrary observational evidence, and the statistical maths has major flaws in it - flaws which are completely consistent with someone attempting to bend the data to make it fit a pre-conceived theory.
This is straightforward fraud.
Bob Armstrong | 3.13.10 @ 3:30PM
I quote Schneider's advocacy of lying next to a quote from Lenin on my Liberty page as an example of why I call the watermelons eco-leninists .
Dacron Mather | 3.13.10 @ 5:48PM
It would appear that none of the above have actually read what they are criticizing.
Sunnyvale Ken:
it is symptomatic of Chesser's scientific illiteracy , and yours, that you are both unaware that Schneider is persona non grata among apocalyptic warmistas as author of the _lowest_ peer reviewed estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 to be published in recent years.
Chalkdust , If all this recalls nuclear winter, wouldn't that secure some street cred for Sagan's critics ? Google and weep.
Dacron Mather | 3.13.10 @ 5:53PM
Bob Armstrong:
I dare you to show your readers the rest of the cut-off quote from Schneider .:
" Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
John II| 3.14.10 @ 2:52PM
" Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Balanced honesty? What about ordinary, garden-variety straight-up honesty? I don't get it. The "rest of the quote" merely highlights the peculiar primness of Schneider's mendacity. Why would it be daring to include that portion of the jackass's commentary?
Explosiong Proof Spotlight | 11.2.10 @ 8:49AM
I am Wonder how a honesty will be, is there any standard? If so, how to define? Any way, I am always a honesty man in my mind.
jgreene| 3.13.10 @ 9:17PM
This AGW Hoax is a huge criminal conspiracy. Billions of dollars were at stake and Trillions in the future if Cap and Trade International Laws went into effect.
Someone mentioned RICO? Would Al Gore look good in Orange?
John II| 3.14.10 @ 2:59PM
He looks much better in the caricature gracing the front cover of the current Weekly Standard. The image of polar bears snickering at him looks pretty good too.
The hoax does indeed warrant a Congressional investigation, but don't hold your breath while Congress remains dominated by smug-left Demos and other crooks.
alfred | 3.13.10 @ 9:41PM
anything you need will be here
alfred | 3.13.10 @ 9:42PM
finding the unique watch only for you
fun | 3.13.10 @ 9:43PM
Come on! Welcome to anfmall
fun | 3.13.10 @ 9:44PM
MBT is quite helpful for our health
alax | 3.13.10 @ 9:46PM
we can find every in ghdstore
alan | 3.13.10 @ 9:47PM
like sports, like nike
John A. Jauregui| 3.14.10 @ 1:34AM
Question: What are the chances an infinitesimal (.04%) trace gas (CO2), essential to photosynthesis and life on this planet, is responsible for runaway Global Warming?
Answer: Infinitesimal
The IPCC agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). GWP for CO2? Just 1, lowest of all GHG. All greenhouse gases combined constitute just 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?
Beth Cooper| 3.14.10 @ 3:07AM
Obo,
Hard to believe anyone could make such a naive and foolish remark.Take a look at the profile of contributers to wuwt website. Over 50's professionals with tertiary qualifications. No creationists there! Skeptics are pro data and myth.
Beth Cooper| 3.14.10 @ 3:09AM
Omitted "anti" anti myth.
Beth
John Galt| 3.14.10 @ 9:43AM
I'm a scientist. I'm a capitalist. I've seen communism first hand. The current administration is riddled with people who reject the Founding Fathers' premises on liberty & the role of government, and yes, communists. The majority of Americans see the fraud and corruption. They seek an avenue to turn away the barbarians tearing away at our foundations. The so called consensus is refuted when you learn over 10,000 true scientists reject the consensus claims (search the web). Stop supporting the eco-movement until dissenters have a voice. Stop giving fuel to socialists who take away your liberties. Practice non-violent non-obedience. Who is John Galt?
Richard Baker| 3.14.10 @ 10:50AM
The "evidence" is concocted, manipulated, destroyed and fraudulent and the skeptics disbelieve because of the Bible? I guess Obbo Objectivity must have missed the news. It was in all the papers. Does he get out much? Remember, a "thoughtful" conservative is one who agrees with the most egregious liberal ideas.
Dacron| 3.14.10 @ 5:48PM
As tonic against innumeracy ,John Jauregui should try adding an infinitesimal .04% of indelible ink to his bathwater ,
the several watts per square meter of warming due to CO2-- anybody with a lab can measure it - approximates turning an electric blanket up a notch.
Marc McDill| 3.15.10 @ 12:46AM
Ok, I'm a liberal, but I read stuff like this to try to understand all points of view and to be aware of all sides of the argument. There are many,many published scientific articles that document many, many ways that the climate is changing and how it is affecting ecosystems (this is my field, so this is the literature I read as a scientist). There are undoubtedly some shoddy, and even falsified studies out there, but I can't believe that all these people doing this research are part of some big conspiracy. If you are interested in both sides of the story, and you are willing to read a few actual scientific studies (instead of just news articles and blogs) I would be happy to send you a reading list...
Nick| 3.15.10 @ 10:04AM
Mr. McDill,
It is not "some big conspiracy."
It is "group-think." And, it disregards the scientific method.
They have their premise: Man-made CO2 emissions are causing the global temperature to rise.
Then they go and try to find "evidence" for their premise. This is not science.
How is this any different than some creation scientists looking only for evidence of a "young Earth"? A charge evolutionists love to make against all creation scientists.
What ClimatGate proves is that scientists are not going to let the facts get in the way of their premise. This is what makes them Global Warming Hoaxers.
Marc McDill| 3.16.10 @ 11:08PM
Read the articles. The vast majority of them don't read like groupthink to me -- but then, maybe my own biases prevent me from seeing that. So that raises the question: is anyone capable of not succumbing to groupthink -- on either side? One could make the same argument against evolution. Do you think all the evidence for evolution is just “groupthink?” I don’t. I think it is about evidence. I have tried to be open-minded and look for evidence on both sides of the argument. Again, perhaps it only reflects my biases, but I see a lot more evidence of groupthink on the anti-AGW side than I do on the side of the scientists who are looking for evidence (for and against) relevant to the questions of whether dangerous climate change is occurring and, if so, what is causing it. The evidence that the climate is changing at unprecedented rates and that it is caused by human activity is piling up. Eventually, it will be as overwhelming as the evidence for evolution. And still there will be the deniers – just as there are those who still deny evolution.
Nick| 3.17.10 @ 7:09AM
Mr. McDill,
I don't know what this "evidence" is, to which you keep referring. Or which articles.
Also, how can skeptics be subject to group-think? All they want is the data that is supposed to "prove" what the Global Warming Hoaxers are claiming. The skeptics don't have anything to prove, they have made no claims.
Have you read the emails from East Anglia? ClimateGate proves they were trying to hide and manipulate this data.
May I ask you a few questions?
- Do you know the differences between Latent heat and Sensible heat? Do you know what Enthalpy is?
- What is the IDEAL global temperature? Have we past it yet?
- We know it has been warmer in the past than it is today. What caused that warming? Did it cause catastrophes?
Explosion Proof Light | 11.2.10 @ 8:21AM
Yes, the same question as i have, these days are quite warmer than when i was a child, and also the unusual weather is more more than earlier. Is there some problem with the human being? How and Where can we go in future.
Skeptic| 3.15.10 @ 1:04AM
The kind of weird PC life that makes someone use the word "gentleperson" without thinking must be really odd.
Solo| 3.15.10 @ 1:48AM
@ Dacron...
Here's a better idea, Dacron:
Pour a gallon of indelible ink into your bathwater. Then add another thimble full and see if you can record the difference in shade.
Christopher Holland| 3.15.10 @ 1:56AM
The global warming religion is rewriting basic laws of science to 'prove' their case. According to them, water flows uphill. The global warming industry here in Australia just put out a (junk) science report claiming that sea levels were rising in some parts of the country. How on earth can the sea level rise in one part and not in another! Nobody challenges this dismal stupidity, it gets printed on the front pages on newspapers and nobody notices.
Dacron | 3.15.10 @ 6:22AM
Solo
As with koolade in Jonestown , it's the first thimbleful that counts.
While a gallon is not an infinitesimal fraction of a thimbleful , CO2 concentration is growing at annual rate ten times faster than a thimbleful per gallon per day.
The thimble to gallon ratio is about the sane as the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere , so the second thimbleful would be roughly equivalent to doubling the radiative forcing ,
Please finish your homework before snarking further
axbucxdu| 3.15.10 @ 12:54PM
"...so the second thimbleful would be roughly equivalent to doubling the radiative forcing..."
Based upon what? The physics of a perpetuum mobile?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxi.....1161v4.pdf
Please, don't snark at all.
Pingback| 3.15.10 @ 10:32AM
7 days around the MMO world / March 14 - We Pay Cash for Your Scratched Video Games! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dacron| 3.16.10 @ 9:14AM
Based upon long division , thou stultoid
axbucxdu| 3.16.10 @ 12:13PM
"Based upon long division..."
That's multiplication. Two times zero is still zero.
Richard Baker| 3.16.10 @ 11:09AM
Christopher Holland:
Mate, it's because Australia is tilting as a unit that the water rises differently about the country. Sounds absurd, of course, but when you're making it up as you go along then anything could happen. Science? We don't need no stinking science!
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.3.10 @ 10:39PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
lay123 | 4.4.10 @ 2:30AM
They are really popular among teenagers or outdoor enthusiasts, famous by 'hip-hop' style in rap and hip-hop videos and also well-known for their strong and enduring work boots varieties www.timberland-outlets.com
Pingback| 4.4.10 @ 3:01PM
Portfolio Protection Strategies For The Coming Market Correction | Market Mentalist links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.5.10 @ 9:48PM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
Jacko| 4.19.10 @ 5:01PM
ood information. Keep up the good work. I could not have said it better!
Bola | Education Scholarship
Grant | 8.25.10 @ 6:31PM
When it comes to climate change, people need to understand that the real lie is making you believe it can ONLY be A or B, pollution or natural. What people would be shocked to know is that there is a top secret project called HAARP that is modifying the weather by burning wholes in the ionosphere. A bunch of scientists were scarred as hell when they found out what this new technology was being used for, so they made some documentaries that are simply amazing. One is called "Holes in Heaven, Angels Still Don't Play this HAARP." Check it out if this is your issue.
writing as a hobby| 9.23.10 @ 2:10PM
The American Spectator is providing meaningful experience to young conservatives it is very useful to the yoyngers
Explosion Proof Light | 11.3.10 @ 11:27AM
Yes, The Obama be the President of United States is the best example, i think. The young, the future. It's exactly true.
sex shop | 10.29.10 @ 8:09AM
Thanks for text. Very good. but some of the pictures displayed on your site. be aware of
Explosion Proof Spotlight | 11.2.10 @ 8:18AM
Thanks for you share, and i have learned a lot from your blog. Keep moving and just support you in spirit and body both.
Best Regards
bio oil stretch marks | 11.18.10 @ 1:25PM
Great post! Thanks for sharing :)
Mark | 11.18.10 @ 1:26PM
A very interesting read, thanks!
bio oil stretch marks
Sandy| 11.18.10 @ 1:29PM
I love the use of Climategaters ,I might have to use that myself too!
bio oil stretch marks
the postmodern | 11.22.10 @ 11:10PM
I agree with other's comments that the government (us in other words) is being swindled by misuse of funds and then faking science. If I was CEO of a corporation not involved in the Gore religion and my company did this, we'd be hanged! As far as the scientists, traditionally, they are under-finded anyway. All you have to do is play the "warming" game and TA-DA! You have all the funding you need. All you have to do is agree with other scientists data and there you are. What a scam!
prince sharma | 12.21.10 @ 1:04AM
its very nice and interesting work.............
i feel with that kind thinks.............
Hemoroid | 3.14.11 @ 5:14AM
I agree with you ggoblue and thankfully our dimwit Jennifer is about done. Michigan does provide a glowing example of what the rest of the country will look like if the dems are successful in obtaining their agenda.
porno | 5.15.11 @ 7:38PM
the country will look like if the dems are successful in obtaining their agenda.
iş makinaları | 8.6.11 @ 10:24AM
nice article, focused on topic