“War” Against CO2
Let me be straight out and confess that I believe in Climate Change. There is no way that you can deny it. The ice age came and went, fall follows summer and today’s weather will be different than next weeks.
Now when I was a young lad, I bought into global cooling! In fact, I was terrified what I was taught in the “government indoctrination centers.” Too bad that was before Neal Boortz’s time!
I have some advice to the left. It is possible for you to achieve your goals when you take a reasoned thought out approach. I could support your goal of limiting CO2 production, if you could support my goal of energy independence utilizing current cost effective technology that is in use in places such as France.
But there is one thing that is going to drive people farther away from your goals and that is turning up the rhetoric and claiming the “fight” against “climate change” is like the real war against the Nazis;
Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis.
The former US Vice President said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change.
Subscribe to blog feed.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Public schools: indoctrination by the left.
Home schooling: indoctrination by the right.
No difference. None.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Al Gore is a politician.
Your link is to a conservative newspaper.
They cancel each other out.
Can’t you see that?
Oak Leaf, why not instead you quote from the original scientific literature, rather than tertiary sources or Al Gore?
Read up on “global cooling”…it was largely manufactured hysteria by Newsweek and other tabloids. In the scientific literature of the 1970s, in contrast, the studies showing global warming far, far outweighed the few studies speculating on global cooling.
Besides, that was 30 years ago, our understanding of climate change has progressed. Put another way, if you were to undergo open heart surgery, would you like the operation to be performed with medical knowledge of 1975…or 2009?
[The "climate change" fear mongering is bull shit. How do I know this? Those preaching the fear say we are facing the coming of the "apocalypse" if we do nothing. Well, as I wrote we have on the shelf technology to slash CO2 and that is clean French style nuclear energy. But no, we can not do that. See, if the coming of the CO2 apocalypse was real we would be shutting down every single coal electrical plant and replacing it with clean nuclear. The right and the GOP can be just as bad on other things and I love to call them out on their issues as well but on this one it is a scam, the right is correct and the left is a victim of just another scam. OL]
July 7th, 2009 at 9:27 am
China and India are salivating at the thought of Europe and the USA tying both hands behind our backs and allowing them to zoom past us forever.
Thanks, Gore – you private jet flying, multiple-mansion-living, fear-mongering HYPOCRITE.
July 7th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Oh wait, I forgot. Gore “offsets” his footprint with “credits”.
LOL.
[Here is something to think about, I should do a diary about it. I was amazed at what Wall Street did to the everyday common simple mortgage. They stripped them, stuffed them, broke them apart, commingled them and sold off bits and fragments for all kinds of purposes.
Just wait to what Wall Street does to cap and trade. Jobs are going to be created by Cap and Trade, it is going to put back to work the out of work Wall Street shisters. Give it ten years and the blow up we just went through IS going to happen with cap and trade!!
Just think we are going to have CO2 derivatives and CO2 counter party arbitrage!! LOL LOL
OL]
July 7th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Thanks, Gore – you private jet flying, multiple-mansion-living, fear-mongering HYPOCRITE.
The strategy of the right wing nutters: set up Al Gore as the poster child representing all of global warming, and the validity of climate change; then demonstrate that Al Gore is a hypocrite; then use that as an excuse to deny climate change.
In the form of Oak Leaf above, here is some advice to the right: nobody is going to take you seriously if all you can do is foam at the mouth regarding Al Gore.
Have a clue: Al Gore is not the linchpin.
Discuss the scientific literature, if you want to be taken seriously.
[Al Gore is the poster boy of "climate change." I laugh at Al Gore just like I laugh at John Boehner poster boy for the GOP in his golfing pants. No sacred cows here!! And when the poster boy calls this a "war on CO2" and compares it to a real war against the Nazi war machine, it puts your cause farther and farther back because it is too hard to take it serious. OL]
July 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Oak,
The Climate IS always changing, although there is some debate over whether we are in a warming or cooling cycle.
Let’s say, for arguments sake, we are warming. Is there conclusive proof it is the CO2? We are coming off a period of cloud scarcity, which let more of the sun’s rays through the atmosphere. More CO2 means bigger and faster growing plants. Is that such a bad thing?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that CO2 is the culprit- are we REALLY going to be able to regulate it? Look at China, look at India, look at a couple hundred 3rd world crapholes that want to Industrialize, have what we have- Are we going to tell them all NO? The Carbon emissions are only going to increase, regardless of what we do. Shouldn’t we try to live with whatever happens, find work arounds, etc?
Lastly, Do you not see the dangerous threshhold we are crossing when we give the Government the right to tax our breath? Are States like mine (TX) going to get a tax break when we execute criminals? This is patently ridiculous, and shouldn’t be contemplated.
The plain and unholy truth is that the only way we are going to ever control CO2 emissions by humans is to eliminate humans, shrink the size of the Human race.
[As I wrote, I maybe could have have questioned my own thinking on the matter IF the left (including McCain) were willing to seriously tackle the "CO2 Problem" by using off the shelf technology that is shovel ready. Ergo, if CO2 is going to bring about the apocolypse then why are they not willing to go full bore with proven technology? Hell, I would sign on to a ten year plan to replace every fossil fuel electric plant with a nuclear one and for good measure, enough new plants to replace every gas automobile with a battery electric one!! Since the left is not willing to do that, I am forced to believe that the apocolypse is not coming. OL]
July 7th, 2009 at 10:52 am
These is the policies you get with Dems in control.
[And you are saying had the other guy won, we would not be on this path? OL]
July 7th, 2009 at 10:53 am
These are the policies you get with Dems in control.
[Or this guy that you voted for?
OL]
July 7th, 2009 at 10:54 am
This little gem from Sarah Palin today:
“I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out.”
Department of Law. What a hoot. Hopefully she will run for President, because she is just too entertaining.
July 7th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Good op-ed on McNamara death
“As The Times’s Tim Weiner pointed out in McNamara’s obituary, Congress authorized the war after President Johnson contended that American warships had been attacked by North Vietnamese patrol boats in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964. The attack never happened. As Mr. Weiner wrote, “The American ships had been firing at their own sonar shadows on a dark night.”
But McNamara, relying on intelligence reports, told Johnson that evidence of the attack was ironclad. Does this remind anyone of the “slam dunk” evidence of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction?”
[All those American lives wasted in Vietnam, all those American lives wasted in Iraq. Oak Leaf]
July 7th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
L.,
Please discuss the scientific literature. Please discuss the CO2 window and then discuss the possibility that a 15 micron photon will impact a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere at sea level/10K/20K/30K. Then please discuss the time period that a CO2 molecule is in an excited state and the wavelength of energy it will emit when it declines back to a rest state. Then please explain what molecule will react to that new wavelength and it’s possible impact to other particles in the atmosphere. Then please extrapolate these findings to the changing rate of solar radiation due to cloud formations, inclination/declination of the sun and earth, slight deviations in solar orbit, gloabl variations in ocean surface temperature and water vapor. Please explain how a molecule that is found at 381 ppm in our atmosphere is heating up the north and south poles. Then please explain why the so called Global Warmists do not allow other scientist access to their data claiming that their work (although funded by your tax dollars) are proprietary and thus defeat efforts by other scientist to try to replicate or proof their work. Now any sane and/or rational person would look at this and understand that if you network a couple of supercrays together you would have a very tough time modeling these interactions…..but were supposed to pony up lots of money and destroy or economy because of an hypothesis.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Michael Steele says a run in 2012 is off the table for Sarah Palin.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Please discuss the CO2 window…
It is different than the absorption spectrum for water vapor. You do know why that is important, don’t you?
…then discuss the possibility that a 15 micron photon will impact a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere at sea level/10K/20K/30K.
Do you mean probability? You do realize that it doesn’t take much CO2, and it doesn’t take much of an increase in CO2, to absorb in the windows in which H2O has not blanketed. And so a few ppm of CO2 can have great greenhouse effect, and an increase in ppm have an effect.
the so called Global Warmists
In opposition to the so-called Denialists? It is always effective in propaganda to add an -ism or -ist. Call something, say, “Darwinism” and then you can not only deny 100 years of scientific advance by referring to the 1800’s but you also imply relationship to other -isms such as Fascism, Atheism…
do not allow other scientist access to their data claiming that their work (although funded by your tax dollars) are proprietary and thus defeat efforts by other scientist to try to replicate or proof their work.
I’d love to see your anecdotal evidence for this. Is it a story that makes the rounds of the Denialists? And once you have given the story, why do you believe one side of the story and not the other?
Then please extrapolate these findings to the changing rate of solar radiation due to cloud formations, inclination/declination of the sun and earth, slight deviations in solar orbit, global variations in ocean surface temperature and water vapor.
You do know the difference between feedback and forcing, don’t you? Do you know how to correctly use the word, “extrapolate”? Because it appears that you don’t. What do you mean by “changing rate of solar radiation”? Please define, since it appears that you pulled the phrase out of someplace. You do realize that “slight deviations in solar orbit” are termed oscillations, and they cannot explain the recent increase in global temperature?
You seem to think that “381 ppm” is paltry. Would you care to ingest 100 ug of cyanide, or LSD? I mean, those are paltry amounts. Would you care to have your body temperature raised by a mere 5%? I mean, 5% is a paltry amount.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Dems Could Win Texas If They Focused On Hispanic Turnout: Progressive Strategist
July 7th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
semi-fascinating demographic changes.
Look at these Texas statistics (according to data from the Forward Texas Foundation):
Anglos will be down to 52% of the adult population by 2010, and 49.99% – less than half – by 2012.
85% of the new adult citizens eligible to vote since 2002 are minorities, most of them Hispanics.
Barack Obama, who didn’t spend a dime targeting Texas in the 2008 general election, lost Texas by about 950,000 votes. Between 2008 and 2012, there are projected to be 1.2 million additional eligible minority voters added to the population of the state.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Lady Garble update:
Palin: Non-Existent “Department Of Law” Protects The President.
Palin said there is a difference between the White House and what she has experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House the “department of law” would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.
”I think on a national level your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we’ve been charged with and automatically throw them out,” she said.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I can’t imagine selecting someone even dumber than George Bush as the GOP presidential nominee. People seem pretty gung-ho about pushing Palin though.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Even if CO2 by man was sufficient enough to cause any global warming (which has not been recorded as increasing since 2001) AND if we just eliminate “Mother Nature” as a factor (despite hundreds of thousands of years of experience) why would we (the US) shoot ourselves in the foot with an ill thought out cap and trade law that would kill all remaining manufacturing in the US and sent it to China where nobody cares about cap and trade (and are way ahead regarding man made Co2 not having any effect).
If you want to live and work in a country with nothing including “world power” go to Africa someplace–be a pirate–but when you get within 1500 yards of a ship I’m guarding be ready to take a .50 cal through the head (which being devoid of brains may be acceptable to you). A realist.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Watch the swearing in of Al Franking, who probably campaigned longer for the job than Sarah Palin served as Governor.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
to take a .50 cal through the head (which being devoid of brains may be acceptable to you).
No thanks, I volunteer with head injury Iraqi war vets and have seen what are the consequences.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Oak. The president you support is pushing these policies.
[The MAN that YOU voted for, John McCain is supporting this nonsense and will be strong arming his colleagues in the Senate to support it.
To be blunt, Polipundit, WC Varones and myself looked at what either Obama or McCain would do and the list between the two was too damn close. All three of us chose to not vote for Obama/McCain.
You looked for the Republican and voted for the brand, we looked at ideology and said no thanks, pass.
Had McCain been elected, the GOP would have surely caved on this issue. They are afraid of Big John McCain!!
We have a chance that it will fail because McCain is now a loser!
Oak Leaf]
July 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Spoon with other Palin derangement syndrome patients at bejohngalt.com
July 7th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
L. states: ” You do realize that it doesn’t take much CO2, and it doesn’t take much of an increase in CO2, to absorb in the windows in which H2O has not blanketed. And so a few ppm of CO2 can have great greenhouse effect, and an increase in ppm have an effect.”
Ahh…first I disagree with your premise….a rise in CO2 does not mean temperature will continue to rise (logarithmically as per Hansen et al) most recent studies refute this and so a much smaller temperature increase per PPM due to the CO2 becoming saturated. Also, you would have to have CO2 mixed throughout the atmosphere, which again most recent studies have refuted this notion.
“the so called Global Warmists”…I could have said AGW Faith Healers…but I swore to myself I would not talk religion on these boards.
“I’d love to see your anecdotal evidence for this. Is it a story that makes the rounds of the Denialists? And once you have given the story, why do you believe one side of the story and not the other?”
Climate Audit….read the blog sometime. It’s amazing Steve McIntyre who disproved Mann’s Hockeystick….as been stymied again and again in attempting to audit Hansen and company… Most recently the study that stated Antarctica was warming. It’s amazing the GISS temperature data sets keep getting changed and remodeled and I still don’t think they have gotten Hansen’s code for changing the data sets….You should get out sometime. BTW Can you name an Important Paper or Study of the Team that was not Peer Reviewed by someone outside the team?
I use the word extrapolate in determining an answer from the results of other answer…I guess it’s the mathematician in me….and I damn well like the term….
“What do you mean by “changing rate of solar radiation”?”…
as the earth moves the angle of incidence of solar radiation striking the atmosphere and earth changes for every spot on the globe….I thought it was obvious
“You seem to think that “381 ppm” is paltry. Would you care to ingest 100 ug of cyanide, or LSD? I mean, those are paltry amounts. Would you care to have your body temperature raised by a mere 5%? I mean, 5% is a paltry amount.”
Quite a strawman there L. 0.0381% is paltry. How many molecules is that in a litre bottle? BTW…CO2 ain’t gonna kill you. If the atmosphere is well mixed (Not) then you breath even more than that with every breath you take….(damn there’s a song in there someplace)!
BTW…my long post and this response (including yours) brings out my point….You can’t model this…..even with a bunch of supercrays…..
Got to run…take the boy to a swim meet…..
July 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Well, the DOW is down about 650 points since June 12th. The recovery is well on the way.
July 7th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I don’t mean to imply this website is in the throes of death, but Oak Leaf is the author of this thread and 15 of the first 24 responses are from acroso or left-wing nutjob trolls.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Ron Paul on house floor today talking about George Bush’s desire for military rule in the U.S.
Ron Paul talks about Bush’s overthrow of the Posse Comitatus and the insurrection Act 1807 Act.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Awesome, budahmon!
July 7th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
conservative1,
This site is in the throes of death. It is dying due to Oak Leaf and Poli’s benign neglect.
July 7th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
This site is dead because Poli allows non-conservatives like Oak Leaf to hijack it with their left-wing bullshit like climate change…They need to read the dissenting report that Obama admin. attempted to supress.
[You were edukrated in a Publeek Skrool right? See, if you had been given a proper education at someplace other than a government indoctrination center you would be able to read and discern. This post points out how IMO climate change is a sham. So either you did not read OR you think climate change is the position of the right. OL]
July 7th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Oak, Poli,
ANYBODY with any f’ing sense…
DO YOU NOT BLOCK advertisment posts for Penis enlargements, or weight loss super drugs, or Hot Chicks waiting for you call now???
HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY you cannot see fit to ban Acroso?????
HE/SHE/IT?/ Whatever (I would support a one way ticket to N Korea )NEVER has contributed ANYTHING on topic, only posts ads for morons who can’t get over the wall coming down last century, or posts links to sites for those who still think Ron Paul is in the running for President (The new Rastafarians? )
I would duly submit his willful (or, more probably, IGNORANT) Malfeasance has detracted and is detracting from any hope of intelligent discourse on this blog.
Please. Rid of us him.
[He follows the rules, actually better than many. OL]
July 7th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Maria Conchita Shatiqua Guadalupe Ali Baba Mohammed Jones, American
Actually, I have to give Oak some leeway, if not props-
He sees this as a sham, and is starting to realize it- which is better than a lot in power
… and yes, McCain was drinking the same Koolaid Gore was serving.
["Starting to realize," be real.... I knew it was a sham before you could legally buy a beer. That was exactly when the nuts switched from the ice age was coming to the tide was rising. It is very easy to see when a position is political and not rational. I also have no problem admitting if a position I previously had was wrong hence why Iraq is a waste in lives and disability. I condemn the architects of Vietnam and I condemn the architects of Iraq. I was wrong for blindly supporting Iraq without a critical eye. But that does not mean I do not support my fellow colleagues on active duty, far from it and that is why I did a voluntary mob after I came out strongly against the fiasco. OL]
July 8th, 2009 at 4:39 am
You were edukrated in a Publeek Skrool right?–comment by OL
Your tirades against public schools is getting old and shows a lack of overall understanding. Should we list the sensible conservative heroes that have graduated from public schools? Should we list the outstanding Christians that graduated from public schools?
Your blanket statement against public schools is just as stupid as saying every member of the GOP should be elected. It is hypocritical of you to bash anything connected to a public school and then complain about people who vote blindly for Republicans.
Oh yeah Oak, I graduated from a parochial school, taught in a parochial and public school. and am working again for a parochial school. I can tell you shameful things about them too.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Climate Audit
That explains your blinders. That would be like me quoting the New York Times.
most recent studies refute this
Please cite.
t’s amazing Steve McIntyre who disproved Mann’s Hockeystick…
But, you only read Steve McIntyre, so how would you know if the Hockeystick graph is well supported?
You should get out sometime.
Right, coming from a guy that views Steve McIntyre with partisan glasses.
Quite a strawman there L. 0.0381% is paltry.
Too funny.
BTW…CO2 ain’t gonna kill you.
Mis-direction, pull yourself away from the right wing propaganda.
Can you name an Important Paper or Study of the Team that was not Peer Reviewed by someone outside the team?
You do realize that peer review is anonymous, don’t you?
July 8th, 2009 at 5:57 am
Also, you would have to have CO2 mixed throughout the atmosphere, which again most recent studies have refuted this notion.
Please cite these studies.
July 8th, 2009 at 5:59 am
Also please support that you would have to “have CO2 mixed throughout the atmosphere” since this is a right wing nutter notion.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Oak & Poli remain toe lickers for the marxist-in-chief Osama bin Hussein.
July 8th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Oak. I voted against Obama because I knew he would do exactly wahat he ios doing.
I voted against Obama because (I knew he would grow govewrnment to an even grater leve; than even Bush did.
I voted against Obama becasue I knew his scotus picks would be people like the racist he has chosen.
I voted against Obama because i don’t want a president who thinks decidibng when life begins is above his pay grade.
I voted against Obama becasue one party Democrat rule is usually not as great thing,unless you like Michigan,New Jersey or Massachussetts government.
I voted agaisnnst Obama becasue you know what,I would rather have Sarah Palin than Joe Biden for vp.
I voted against Obama becasue he said energy prices WOULD skyrocket under his plans for cap and trade. McaCain largely dropped the idea(I know he had supported it too).
I voted against Obama because I have serious questions with regards to things he has done(drug abuse,possible homosexuality).
I voted against Obama becasue I knew he would constantly badmouth our country. He has. and he has let Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez,Putin badmouth us while he sits back and smiles. He is also in nthe process of selling out our eastern european allies and Israel.
McCain was a terrible nominee. He ran a terrible,weak and soft campaign.
However,I have no regrets with not voting for Obama.
July 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
L…..”Discuss the scientific literature, if you want to be taken seriously.”
You take a liberal at face value to discuss scientific literature…and his basic response is to prove he doesn’t care to understand the literature unless it justifies his own faith….
L: “But, you only read Steve McIntyre, so how would you know if the Hockeystick graph is well supported?”
Not according to the Wegman investigation which concluded:
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.
or:
We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick.
or
Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on [Mann's work]. As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.
or
It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the papers would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be INDEPENDENT VERIFICATIONS.
Now…we will conclude this period of ass kicking with:
Find your own damn sources….they are there so use Google and test your faith!
Finally…the piece d’ resistance..
“Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS in a recent interview:
The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don’t anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can’t really get a handle on.”
Which I started off stating that models cannot possibly model something so
complex..”Now any sane and/or rational person would look at this and understand that if you network a couple of supercrays together you would have a very tough time modeling these interactions…..but were supposed to pony up lots of money and destroy our economy because of an hypothesis.”
H/T to Climate Audit and Watt’s Up With That for their outstanding work at holding auditing/investigating the basic data that Hansen keeps changing and Mann keeps creating….
July 8th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Al Gore: Listen to me, everybody! I’m your new Climate Pope! I’m gonna save your lives! I’m gonna tell you what to do!
Oak Leaf: Don’t listen to that fat pig. The world isn’t going to melt.
Al Gore: I tell ya it is too!
Oak Leaf: And I tell you it isn’t.
Al Gore: Is too!
Oak Leaf: All right, if the world is melting then why don’t I feel hot?
[John McCain dumps hot coals on Oak Leaf's feet]
L: Al Gore is right! What do we do? Oh, Al Gore, you’ve got to help us!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:14 am
I see that you are still quoting Climate Audit.
You know that “audit” means unbiased, but Steve McIntyre just digs and digs until he finds something that he can use in a biased manner.
Regarding withholding data, here is a nugget about Wegman:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf
Not the most open fellow, is he?
July 9th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Wow…L. you really got me…Ritson’s really pissed that Wegmann did not respond in two weeks….and he’s complaining to Mann about it… I think McIntyre gets it right when he says they’ve been waiting for 5 years for Mann’s material…and I still don’t think they have it. BTW, the NAS thought the Hockeystick was incorrectly calculated by using bristlecone pines as a proxy, Wegmann decided that the hockeystick was incorrect because of the use of bristlecone pines as a proxy and neither thought that M&M were incorrect in their assessment.
Mcyntyre’s response to Ritson:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=802
I think that is what an audit is supposed to do BTW…did and dig and see if there are some loose ends that cause the whole thing to unravel. That’s what Mcyntire does…BTW he believes in AGW. I think he abhors bad science based upon a political desirable result. I also think he abhors scientist who work for the taxpayer refusing to provide data sets.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
think he abhors bad science based upon a political desirable result.
Note that Mcintyre does not conduct science. He does not formulate hypotheses, and then gather relevant data which confirm or deny. He takes other people’s data and tries to find errors. If he is assuming that scientists conduct their work with a political goal in mind, then I find that abhorrent. And why not question Mcintyre motives? Because he suits a certain political agenda? Does Mcintyre eat humble pie when the errors are corrected, and the results are nonetheless the same?
I also think he abhors scientists who work for the taxpayer refusing to provide data sets.
Can’t really blame them, when their work is peer-reviewed, whereas Mcintyre’s audit is at his own discretion and is not peer-reviewed. He protects his own reputation, but not in a peer-reviewed fashion.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:38 am
The right loves Climate Audit, because it tells them what they want to hear, and so it has never occurred to them to audit Climate Audit.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
L.
I can’t really say what Mac does what he does…..but he has a proven track record of auditing Mann, Hansen and the team and finding errors, even with Mann and Hansen dragging their feet every time. I believe Hansen accepted money from Soros….If that is so that is a criminal act under the US Law. The fact remains that when you take a flawed study, MBH98, then use the same flawed proxies for other studies that is just bad science….and may very well be cherry picking to get a desired response.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Ursus…. you probably believe that RealClimate doesn’t have an agenda……or tamino.. They are just hard working scientist that just care about the planet….and they really don’t care if they get funded by the government at all….. Now that is a leftist living in a fantasy land….at least Mac doesn’t take money for his work on auditing from the government…..He funds it basically himself.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:49 am
I could support your goal of limiting CO2 production, if you could support my goal of energy independence utilizing current cost effective technology that is in use in places such as France.