The Spectacle Blog
Today the board of directors of American Association for the Advancement of Science announced they’d had enough of scrutiny of the pioneers of global warming propagandism, particularly when it comes to the work of Climategater Michael Mann and the hockey stick chart he made up (flatlining the Medieval Warming Period) when he was at the University of Virginia, and also the outside wealthmaking of NASA stargazer Dr. James Hansen. In particular they took my organization, American Tradition Institute, to task for asking for records of the aforementioned scientists, and the Formerly Mainstream Media unsurprisingly rushed to amplify the AAASes’ message. The delicate flower from the New York Times who called our Christopher Horner was particularly off-put by his likening the situation to Hollywood’s defense of Roman Polanski.
Specifically, the board of AAASes said they objected to “personal attacks on climate scientists, including harassment, legal challenges, and even death threats,” as though ATI has advocated those things. We have asked courts to make U. of Virginia and NASA follow transparency laws that their records of Mann and Hansen are subject to, but that is a legal challenge to the government institutions and not the scientists themselves, and it is a request for their work and data done on public (that is, taxpayer-paid-for) computers while at those institutions. That is supposed to be where they do their professional work, but if they conducted personal business while on the taxpayer dime, that’s their problem, but anyway that hardly constitutes an “attack.”
Another FMSMer who rushed to the AAASes’ defense was USA Today’s Dan Vergano, who wrote:
Climate scientists have endured personal attacks as a result of their findings for more than a decade. In 2009, a hacker stole climate scientists’ emails from a British lab, a brouhaha that concluded with investigations clearing them of wrongdoing but in some cases chiding them for lack of transparency. Mann and others faced a 2006 Congressional committee investigation centered on a George Mason University team report critical of climate scientists (that report team itself is now under investigation for plagiarism and other shortcomings). In 1995, a fossil-fuel-industry-funded group questioned the integrity of federal climate scientist Ben Santer.
Vergano is another in the long line of alarmist mouthpieces who state as fact, with no substantiation (just look at his hyperlink on that one from Bully Ben Santer), that the Climategate emails were exposed by a hacker. No such proof exists, and that part of the case has never been solved. Many believe it was the work of an anonymous whistleblower.
Anyway, it’s a laff-riot that Vergano would use Santer as an example of victimhood for “personal attacks” on climate scientists. Santer was the guy who was revealed in Climategate to have wanted to “beat the crap out of” former Virginia state climatologist (and global warming realist) Patrick Michaels. But as we’ve already discovered with Freedom of Information Act requests and alleged threats toward scientists, the outrage from liberal academia, environoiacs and the FMSM only boils when it’s their friends who are scrutinized.
Update 7:25 a.m. 6/30/11: Chris Horner reminds me (I should have remembered) that it was Vergano who “personally attacked” (if you go by his standards) Dr. Edward Wegman after he produced a report through George Mason University that criticized the methodology in Mann’s hockey stick chart. Alarmists have accused Wegman of plagiarism in their efforts to prop up Mann, but have not been able to refute the fact that it’s always the same small group of academics engaged in each others’ “pal review.”
View all comments (31) | Leave a comment
Related Blog Posts
More Blog Posts by Paul Chesser
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/29/elite-sciences-selective-outra
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A President Loses His Power
- The Continuing Crisis
- Inside the Gates of Eden
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
Quartermaster| 6.29.11 @ 9:07PM
I didn't join the AAAS for good reason. They've been headed down this road for a very long time.
Michael L. Hauschild| 6.29.11 @ 9:39PM
One of the most brilliant men in the spectral analysis agronomy field told me when I was summand to his office and notified I was to be his TA (and I quote), “If you know what is good for you, you won’t make any noise about this Global Warming nonsense.” That statement spoke volumes; he let me know his stand, he knew I was fifty five years old (his age-approaching retirement) and came with an “attitude”, and he in a sense pleaded to not make him look bad. Many of you have a tendency to bash academics, as do I, but we did a lot of good things due to the fact that we simply ignored what was raging about us.
BD57| 6.29.11 @ 9:43PM
In other words, "How Dare You Expose Us As Frauds!!!!!!"
Wayne | 6.29.11 @ 10:36PM
From everything I have seen or read, Climatology is not even a science. It has no regard for the scientific method. Computer models are not empirical. It is no more science that Astrology (and probably has a poorer track record when it comes to predictions).
RJ| 6.29.11 @ 11:24PM
Hell hath no fury as a liberal disproved.
Kingofthenet| 6.30.11 @ 12:19AM
The Board added: “Scientists and policymakers may disagree over the scientific conclusions on climate change and other policy-relevant topics. But the scientific community has proven and well-established methods for resolving disagreements about research results.” It uses a self-correcting system in which research results are shared and critically evaluated by peers, and experiments are repeated when necessary.
What MORE do you want? You know there is NO LAW that say's a Rock-Ribbed Rethug can't become a Climate Scientist do their OWN experiments, write their OWN papers, and make all these lairs look silly.
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 1:50AM
Kook of the Net,
Umm....they have. Wiki even has a list of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....al_warming
Plus, it's up to the AGW Hoaxers to prove their claims, not the other way around. To prove their theory, the Hoaxers have to provide their data, which they refuse to do.
This is why Messrs. Chesser and Horner had to sue the U. of Va. Real scientists don't have to be sued to turn over their research.
BD57| 6.30.11 @ 10:12AM
Either you're being sarcastic or you haven't been paying attention ....
Part of what "Climategate" (yes, I'm tired of the "gates" too, but it's become useful slang) uncovered was the degree to which AGW advocates sought to SHUT DOWN the "resolving disagreements" process.
And one rarely hears (if ever) a peep of disapproval from the so-called AGW "scientists" when their political wing (but I repeat myself) is out there labeling skeptics "deniers," etc.
By & large, the "biggest names" in AGW stopped being scientists years ago - it's a religion now.
Dacron Mather| 6.30.11 @ 12:39AM
If Chesser and Horner had a case , they would not be reduced to mixing barratry with hypocrisy of an amperage Al Gore might envy. T
Kingofthenet| 6.30.11 @ 12:53AM
It doesn't even make sense, whether or not the Earth is getting hotter is a simple case of looking at the records and running the numbers thru a computer. Whether it's Man fault for the rise, well than show another cause,and explain the mechanism. I refuse to believe that 99% of Climate Scientists are purposely deceiving us, towards what ends? Maybe ALL Scientist are hood-winking us, and being able to split the atom and travel to space is all 'Hollywood Magic'.
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 1:38AM
Kook of the Net,
I'm still waiting for you to explain what the term enthalpy means? And, what is the difference between Latent and Sensible Heat? Oh...and exactly how much CO2 is in the atmosphere?
You have studied this subject a lot and understand the science, right? Enough to make comments on it, correct?
BD57| 6.30.11 @ 10:27AM
Well, let's see ....
First, it's not 99% ....
Second, you get the presumption wrong. The AGW crew wants man to change his ways; the burden is on him to show (a) man needs to change his ways; and (b) changing his ways will accomplish something worthwhile. And, no, giving a bunch of bureaucrats jobs & power isn't "something worthwhile."
Third, the topic of money & funding comes up often in these discussions. AGW types accuse practically every scientist who disagrees with their theory of being "bought & paid for" - for some reason, the fact that their science is being funded by someone & that those "someones" believe in catastrophic AGW & want to see it proven true .... why, that would never have any influence on their science !!!!!
Fourth, it wasn't too long ago that "science" told us leeching blood was an appropriate medical treatment in certain circumstances (just for example). The true hallmark of science is "We go where the evidence takes us - the goal is to find 'the' answer, not 'our' answer." Many, many times, true science requires the reluctant scientist to throw his pet theory in the trash.
We don't run 165 scenarios to get one which gives us the answer "we like." We don't bend the parameters of the study / model because it "won't work" unless we do.
If "science" was putting out reports that we could send men to the moon with a mechanical slingshot, then, yes, they'd be 'hood-winking us.'
Welcome to AGW world.
Paul Nelson| 7.2.11 @ 1:40AM
Actually there are some conditions in which there is an excess of blood in which bleeding is a legitimate treatment
Kingofthenet| 6.30.11 @ 2:13AM
No, I didn't study this, it's COMMON SENSE, something you Conservatives seem to lack.
So let's use our Common Sense. Here we go.
1. We have Temp Data going pretty far back(way over 100 years)
2. This data is written down for ALL to see.
3. You put that Data into a Computer(Even a cheap $400 laptop will do) crunch the numbers, You can do this with a simple Excel spreadsheet
4. Out pops the 'rankings' of the hottest years in order.
OK so now EVERYONE can see the hottest years, there are some pretty computer savvy Rethugs, if the data was being manipulated, it would be EASY to see.But NO credible refutations have come forward. Believe me if it was a lie AS, National Review ,Weekly Standard and Rush would have the CORRECT data on their Websites.
So we have the Data and it shows the HOTTEST years on record are ALL within the last 10 years.Case Closed on that.
Now is it MAN that is causing the rise in Temperature?
1. We know there are MILLIONS of Cars, Trucks,Houses, Power plants, Factories etc that spew HUGE quantities of CO2 into the air.
2. We know CO2 traps heat, the 'Greenhouse' effect. We know CO2 levels are going up (3 parts per million, last year alone)
3. Seems to make sense than that Man is causing the problem.
Now of course there 'could' be another explanation, but it's up to YOU to explain the how and why if it isn't Man.
I find it condescending that you ask me if I 'studied' the subject. You don't have to study something to see reality. I never studied the effectiveness of Viagra, but I know for CERTAIN it works. How can I make such a BOLD statement?
1. It's a BILLION dollar drug
2. has been for MANY years
All you need to know, if it didn't work NO ONE would continue to buy it. The fact that I hear VERY few complaints, and there are MILLIONS of refills tells you it works. In fact far more than any FDA 'seal of approval'(Which it also has)
ANYONE (well you do have to graduate College) can become a climate scientist and disprove this pack o' LIARS's
Chris| 6.30.11 @ 7:29AM
It's not that simple.
First, we have limited 100+ year records. Almost all of those are from Western or Western colonized countries. Although we have those records, all of them, until recently were kept by people and a lot of times those people would miss days for various reasons (like maybe it was too cold to go out or the person was sick). So, we have spotty records.
So, we have the records, but the environment has changed. Now where before the station was out in a field, it's not sitting besides the exhaust of an AC. Or, it had been partially shaded by a tree and that tree was cut down 15 years ago. (BTW, search the net and you can see how a lot of stations are affected by variables like this.)
Well, now we have our spotty, changing local environment data of the past 100 years. At best it might be telling us the temperature has gone up the past 100 years. That means nothing in climate terms. It could be a standard climate cycle (it has been much warmer than it is today as we are coming out of a mini-ice age). You need a much longer time frame.
There is lots to debate and it's far from clear cut.
Dai Alanye | 6.30.11 @ 7:42AM
Kingofthenet says: "...the HOTTEST years on record are ALL within the last 10 years."
Sounds good as propaganda but happens to be wildly off-base. The last ten years show a slight cooling trend.
Many of the other arguments this person offers could have (and probably were) used against Galileo and Copernicus.
Kingofthenet's basic argument seems to be that if an idea is popular it must be true. Therefore: It's impossible for a rocket to work in space because there is nothing for it to push against. Metal ships are impractical because iron can't float on water. Education can be improved by giving more money to schools. Barack Obama will be a great President because of his amazing intellect.
BD57| 6.30.11 @ 10:36AM
1) Temp data measured by a variety of instruments of varying degrees of accuracy, not consistently from the same locations, not consistently from the same basic conditions, etc.
3) (I'm skipping your #2) .... really? A $400 laptop? Where do I go get the "Absolutely Correct and Accurate Global Climate Model Software" which CORRECTLY accounts for each and every climate variable and is 100% accurate in how they interact with each other? They have it at Best Buy? Well, guess what - that software hasn't been written.
Earth has been warmer in the past .... why are we still here?
How does CO2 concentration relate to water vapor? (I'll give you a hint - - - "science" doesn't agree).
Sorry you find it "condescending" to ask if you know what you're talking about .... You make grand assumptions & you want to screw with everyone else's lives based on those assumptions .... and you think we should have to prove your assumptions wrong to win our freedom from them?
THAT is 'condescending' ... and arrogant.
george kimball| 8.7.11 @ 9:16PM
The actual data is weaker than what is described. There are many sources of error, and to document a temperature change of 1.5 C over a century requires a nominal accuracy of a tenth of that amount, far beyond the capabilities of the time. The geographic distribution of historical temp data is VERY limited, so claims of 'global' anything before 1980 (when satellite data started) are not credible. And that is only a taste of all the other things wrong with AGW claims...
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 7:51PM
"You don't have to study something to see reality." - Kook of the Net
The liberal mind-set in a nutshell, folks!
p.s. The reason you found it condescending was because I was being....condescending.
Kingofthenet| 6.30.11 @ 11:27AM
OK guy's those were some BETTER thought out reasons why AGW may NOT be occurring, but this is how I see it. Say it's REAL and we do nothing what are the positives and negatives, same for if AGW is not happening yet we 'fight' it.
Bad Consequences
1.IF AGW is real and we do nothing:
Millions die from starvation, freak weather occurrences, Wars, drought etc.
2.Human health is negatively affected by increased pollution, dirtier water, air and more smog.
3. Wasted energy and less efficient appliances.Car are dirtier
4. Sea rise literally 'drowns' low lying areas like Bangladesh
Positives
1. Cheaper Energy
2. Some nebulous Economic benefit.
Now if we 'Fight' it and it's real:
Benefits
1.Less AGW means less deaths from all those AGW related weather situations
2. Cleaner Air,Water less smog, you asthmatics will thank me
3. more fuel effect cars and appliances, that are cleaner
4. Low lying areas don't sink below the waves.
5. many new jobs in 'Green' tech
Negatives
1.Energy cost more
Even if it's fake it's a slam dunk to go GREEN!
Larry| 6.30.11 @ 7:16PM
I won't comment too much on your nonsense points, because the rest of the sensible posters here have thoroughly demolished most, if not all, of your silly arguments. I will observe only a couple of things:
The COST of the so-called "fixes" to this so-called problem you describe is TRILLIONS of dollars. Trillions. Don't ask me, go talk to IPCC, go talk to Bjorn Lomborg who has written several books on the subject and has said that it is money wasted. Because as even the writers of the Kyoto Protocol have admitted, the things proposed to be done will NOT reduce emissions.
Given that, and given what I consider to be the dicey state of the science (your own blindness prevents you from admitting that directly, although you finally concede that your opponents made some good arguments - finally), your silly notion that some kind of "preventive" principle justifies turning the world over to some bureaucrats who know no better than you and I how to live our lives and spending all of this money. I, for one, if I were a policy maker, would steadfastly resist those policy prescriptions. They are NOT insurance; they aren't even beneficial. They are, in fact, nothing less than a road to acquiring power over the lives of others.
I suggest you visit www.wattsupwiththat.com, the number one site for skepticism as to the global warming phenomenon. Unlike the warmist sites, your posts will be posted if you don't use the term "denial" or "denialist" and if you don't engage in the standard ad hominem attacks that some like to do over at Gavin Schmidt's site. But be prepared to make far better arguments than you are making here - most of the guys who post over there are actual scientists who know what they are talking about, and they'll skewer you even more than you've been skewered over here. But you will learn something more than just slogans and silly arguments in regard to the science of weather.
Larry| 6.30.11 @ 7:24PM
I must correct/elaborate upon one item: on the Kyoto Protocol, scientists involved with that silliness have admitted that the things proposed/desired/needed to be done will NOT reduce overall levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (part of the reason for that is that human-emitted CO2 is less than 5% of overall CO2 in the atmosphere; and CO2 remains a trace gas, around .00039% of the total mass of the atmosphere). And Kyoto "remediation" activities have NOT significantly reduced CO2 emissions, either in Europe or elsewhere.
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 7:46PM
Kook of the Net,
"Even if it's fake it's a slam dunk to go GREEN!"
Umm.....Kook.....It is FAKE!
So, it's a slam dunk to Drill, Baby, Drill!
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 8:00PM
Hey Kook!
I gave you God's "mugshot" as you asked, in that other thread. Did you catch it?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....ompare.jpg
Ask, and ye shall receive.
Cassandra| 6.30.11 @ 2:22PM
Nick, BD57,Chris, Dai Alanye - It is useless to argue with an ignoramus! This guy thinks CO2 is an air pollutant!!(asthmatics will thank me) Does he not know we breathe CO2 out with every breath? Does he no know that humanity thrived and prospered when temperatures rose on Earth?
(It was the ICE ages that harmed people, plants & animals). Does "Kook" not know that 'green' energy is WAY more expensive than carbon energy and will break the budget? Sea levels will drown Bangladesh? OMG! He thinks SMOG is analagous to CO2?- he is HOPELESS -a result of our failed Education System! He thinks "human health is negatively affected" by CO2?? He is unable to seperate CO2 (which supposedly causes
the dreaded AGW) from actual Air/Water Pollution. Can't tell the difference!!!!!!!!!
Nick| 6.30.11 @ 7:43PM
Cassandra,
I should at least get points for getting Kook to admit that he is an ignoramus, shouldn't I?
The enthalpy and Latent/Sensible Heat questions get them every time!
jgo| 6.30.11 @ 9:13PM
"We have Temp Data going pretty far back (way over 100 years)"
Don't just assert it. Show me.
A single century wouldn't tell us anything. We'd have to have reliable data going back at least 300 years, from numerous points on the globe not excessively distorted by micro-climate effects (especially, e.g. pavement) and changes in the tech for measurement, and at least plausible data going back 10K years, to be able to separate the solar cycle effects from human.
There's a lot of inferred "data" that does not pass muster because of circular reasoning.
These 2 posters hit the bull's eye:
"To prove their theory, the Hoaxers have to provide their data, which they refuse to do. This is why Messrs. Chesser and Horner had to sue the U. of Va. Real scientists don't have to be sued to turn over their research."
"AGW advocates sought to SHUT DOWN the 'resolving disagreements' process... By & large, the 'biggest names' in AGW stopped being scientists years ago - it's a religion now."
This is evidenced not only by their efforts to delete and jigger data, but also by their continuous changing of criteria. If temps go up, they claim it's because of global warming; if they go down, it's because of global warming. If it rains more they claim it's because of global warming; if it rains less they claim it's because of global warming. If storms are more frequent, more or less severe, they claim it's because of global warming. Hypotheses have to be testable, disprovable, and stated before the experiment/event or the data is examined, not fudged after.
I recall discussing this with a biologist (who brought it up) and with a long-range weather and climate prediction scientist (meteorology and oceanography), of differing political persuasions, a couple decades back. They said there was more noise than significant data at that time. They listed the worst case scenario the warmists were touting: Miami and NY and LA flooded. Sounds good, to me. If anything, their worst case flooding estimates were disappointing in that regard; it wouldn't be enough to clear/clean out these hideously over-crowded cess-pools.
Pointman | 7.1.11 @ 10:31AM
" If the writer of the article is gullible enough to accept the silly proposition that it was a hack, then it won’t contain anything much in the way of insight; just the usual alarmist party line. If the writer does know better, then the article is disingenuous and the writer is being fundamentally dishonest."
http://thepointman.wordpress.c.....uter-hack/
Pointman