A Four-letter Summary of ClimateGate
By PoliPundit ~ November 30th, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
In the warmists’ words: ”We know with certainty that we know f***-all.”
Subscribe to blog feed.
Subscribe to blog feed.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
That pretty much sums it up.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Poli:
Just a matter of time before other leaks appear. I’ll bring the popcorn.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
gdlcs, all of them.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
“warmists” !?
I’m predicting that epithet isn’t gonna work very well on the radio or the tv.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding.”
. . .
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
December 1st, 2009 at 6:04 am
Just a matter of time before other leaks appear.
And then the right-wingers can cherry pick and twist the meaning of a couple of sentences from over a 1000 emails.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:18 am
Pluto is Mickey Mouse’s dog…
December 1st, 2009 at 8:28 am
Pluto is Mickey Mouse’s dog…
That’s what Mickey thinks, but he is just Minnie’s beard.
The right-wingers’ approach to global warming is “attack the messenger”. Rather than do their own research they “audit”, or try to malign scientists by cherry picking and spinning stolen emails. They point out hypocrisy (eg. Al Gore’s mansion), as if that will somehow negate warming.
But, in the end, the earth does not care if some emails have been stolen.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:36 am
The University of East Anglia CRU director admits that the data used as the basis for the Global Warming theory is crap, but I guess everyone’s just cherry picking the e-mails. /sarcasm off
I mean, really? The earth can recover from volcanic explosions which can cause minor ice ages, but somehow humans are even more destructive than that? I’m sorry, I see the value in not soiling my own bed so to speak, but this alarmist “we’re destroying the world!” attitude is retarded. The world is more likely to do us in than the other way around.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:41 am
The University of East Anglia CRU director admits that the data used as the basis for the Global Warming theory is crap
Where? Please quote.
I mean, really?
No.
The earth can recover from volcanic explosions which can cause minor ice ages, but somehow humans are even more destructive than that?
Yes.
The world is more likely to do us in than the other way around.
Perhaps eventually, but the concern is real time.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:13 am
Climategate, Part One
In normal times, i.e., pre-politically correct, pre-Obama times, the slowly evolving truth about global warming/cooling/climate change would be blockbuster news and the whole sleazy story would already be in development as a movie.
Granted, Oliver Stone wouldn’t be falling all over himself trying to get the tale of Climategate onto the silver screen and into a theater near you but more reputable writers, directors, and producers–whoever they are–would just love to film an expose’ of the global warming charade to acquaint the American people with the fact they have been had for decades.
That wishful-thinking scenario of reputable Hollywoodians exposing the truth about the baloney-science climate farce is as probable as Adam Lambert going hetero or Patrick Kennedy going Catholic.
Regardless of Hollywood and related charlatans, thanks to computer hackers, the truth is finally slithering out about climate change and, God willing, Americans may soon be free of the meticulously-designed guilt for our reprehensible and willful destruction of Planet Earth.
If and when that happens, we hapless human Americans may finally rest easy content in the knowledge that we didn’t cause it and whether it even exists outside the venal minds of greedy publicity hounds in academia and self-serving politicos is very suspect.
The MSM, not unexpectedly, has chosen to either downplay or totally ignore the story out of Britain that has been tagged “Climategate” thereby linking it with the Nixonian political scandal of Watergate.
Such linkage does a disservice to the scope of this scandal which far surpasses in gravity Watergate and even surpasses the papal rebuke of Nicolaus Copernicus and his cockamamie cosmological theory of a heliocentric universe.
In the sixteenth century, only maniacs believed the Earth was not the center of the universe. In the twenty first century, only muckraking, semi-retarded conservatives rejected anthropomorphic/anthropogenic climate change.
Those sixteenth century maniacs were proven less maniacal than seers. The twenty first century idiots are now in the slow progress of being proven prophets.
Thank you very much! . . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1350)
December 1st, 2009 at 10:18 am
The communist views truth as subjective, anything that advances the revolution… Thus, facts are of no import unless they corroborate the “truth” they are interested in presenting.
The climate change protagonists seek to eliminate our freedoms and will stoop as low as necessary to gain control.
They admit in their emails to violating our trust and make plans to hide that and block dissenting voices.
We should never allow scientists to confuse their role with the Church or the Government. They are not trained as pastors. And Capital-S “Science” was the excuse for Auschwitz and Dachau.
I choose to worship my way. And not using “adjusted” truths…
December 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
The communist views truth as subjective, anything that advances the revolution…
That has nothing to do with climate science.
The climate change protagonists seek to eliminate our freedoms and will stoop as low as necessary to gain control.
Tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
They admit in their emails to violating our trust and make plans to hide that and block dissenting voices.
No they don’t. You are cherry-picking out of context.
We should never allow scientists to confuse their role with the Church or the Government.
We don’t. That is a meme of the right.
They are not trained as pastors.
Nobody said that they were.
And Capital-S “Science” was the excuse for Auschwitz and Dachau.
This is bullshit.
I choose to worship my way. And not using “adjusted” truths…
Nobody is preventing you. And you are imagining adjusted truths.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:12 am
pluto
December 1st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“The earth can recover from volcanic explosions which can cause minor ice ages, but somehow humans are even more destructive than that?”
The earth may be able to recover, but humanity won’t. And do you really, truly doubt that all the hydrocarbons and other chemicals we’ve been pumping into the atmosphere non-stop for about a hundred years really has NO impact on climate??? You are a very gullible vessel for petrochemical industry propaganda.
Let me guess…you also don’t see any connection between tobacco smoking and cancer or cardiovascular disease, right?
Heres my “Inconvenient Truth”: I dont’ care one little bit, NOT AT ALL, that you or any other wingnut chooses to believe whatever the hell you want about AGW, pro or contra. You’ve time and again proven yourselves incapable of rational thought or discourse, and like the whiny as titty-baby who ruins everyone’s family gatherings, are best IGNORED.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
You sir, obviously did not read all of my post, or did not understand my references to “not soiling ones own bed” or about the world doing us in rather than the other way around. I am a conservationist believe it or not, and I am tired of seeing agenda driven environmental initiatives that do more harm than good. “Global Warming” is the worst offender as being vehicle for pushing political agendas rather than actually taking care of the environment.
And for those who are asking:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
“Scientists at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.”
A good resource for environmental issues:
http://westinstenv.org/
December 1st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Pluto:
Opps!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102737_pf.html
December 1st, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Oops? Hilarious, the nutters pick through 1000 stolen emails, cherry pick and trump up a conspiracy, cause an uproar via their knickers-in-a-knot hysteria, then if they can manage to get a resignation it somehow legitimizes it all.
Meanwhile, cooler heads prevail.
Beers all around if Ken actually read an email that wasn’t cherry picked by his denialist pablum-feeders. Too bad, because he might have gotten an understanding of context.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pm
You do realize, Ken, that the FOIA is never used by the denialists to perform original research, they merely “audit” the research of others.
You do realize, Ken, that the troves of freely available data by NASA, NOAA, and other organizations are never used by the denialists to perform original research, they merely look for chinks in the studies of others.
What motivates them? They are not motivated to conduct hypothesis-driven research. They are motivated to…audit.
Why is it that, with an exception or two, that the names of the auditors are more famous than the climate scientists? Why is it that you can get more fame and ecognition for being an auditor, yet the supposed conspiracy is not among the auditors?
December 1st, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Pluto:
“You do realize, Ken, that the FOIA is never used by the denialists to perform original research, they merely “audit” the research of others.”
You’re beating a dead house. It’s over.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
You’re beating a dead house. It’s over.
Damn, you don’t ever crack a book, do you?
Here, this one has flippable pages, point out the flaws to me:
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/read/default.html
December 1st, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Pluto,
Still a friggin idiot who can’t read:
The emails are a smoking gun:
Let me see here…My tree ring proxy for temperatures does not show any warming but an actual decline from 1940 to 1990 so what can I do to hide the decline…I know…I’ll splice in the SW manipulated temperature data that has been selected to include urban heat islands to purposefully show an increase in temperatures and then destroy the raw temperature data and no one will ever know…Unless they read this email…
And what’s bad with auditing…..Your data should be provided so other scientist can replicate your results. Now if someone with a background in statistics and math finds that some of your numbers are somewhat suspect and you don’t have the mathematical background to challenge him…you find someone with a similar background that can challenge him…but not the warmists…oh no…they scream he’s an auditor not a scientist….Those auditors have found enough bad science to fill a college textbook and then some. ..and you claim to support scientist. This scandal stinks to high heaven…destroying data, refusing to comply with FOIA, corrupting peer review processes…..
General leftist crap all in all and we should not be surprised. I wonder what the next rock turned over will reveal….
December 1st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
First page: Contributor Michael Mann, a proving liar and hypocrite who used spliced data to create the so called hockey stick and then claimed no reputable scientist would ever do that…..Yep…that’s one helluva flaw right off the get-go.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
- “The emails are a smoking gun:” – No they’re not. What the denialists have done is taken phrases out of context and misconstrued scientific jargon in a desperate attempt to validate their position. The complete context of the messages have been provided by the authors, yet you people ignore it. Wingnuts have misinterprited the word “trick”, and ignored the fact that tree ring sourced data after 1960 that indicates (according to the entire scientific community) a temperature downturn is flawed. This has already been verified through cross comparisons with other measurement devices. The problem with the wingnuts is that they’re so desperate to deny reality, that they’ll do anything (especially take things out of context) and make up any flimsy story. It’s really sad to watch you flounder so…
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:42 am
Budahmon, you really need to read further afield than Climate Audit. Only a “friggin idiot” would get such highly filtered information.
Contributor Michael Mann…
The nutter “auditors” are still living in 1998. Only a “friggin idiot” would freeze their arguments in time in this fashion.
You probably also have an 8 track in your car, oblivious to changes in technology.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:47 am
First page: Contributor Michael Mann…
This is the standard practice of the nutter auditors, Budahmon scans the page, recognizes a single name, recalls that McIntyre found a glitch in 1998, is oblivious that it has been corrected numerous times…and thereby Budahmon manages to convince himself that he has discredited the whole document.
Stated another way, Budahmon digs a hole in the sand, and sticks his head in it.
Pull yourself away from Climate Audit, Budahmon.
December 2nd, 2009 at 7:45 pm
I have no problem with CA…but you definitely have a problem with your head stuck in the IPCC or otherwise known has Hanson Ass.
Mann isn’t under investigation at Penn State for a mistake he made in 1998 dumbass….Destroying data and covering it up is a crime.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
“ignored the fact that tree ring sourced data after 1960 that indicates (according to the entire scientific community) a temperature downturn is flawed. This has already been verified ….”
Dude….If your tree ring data was wrong after 1960…how can it be right anywhere else. I do believe that most of the scientific community with respect to tree ring proxies thinks its crap….
If your entire tree ring temperature proxy rests on one tree out of Yarmal…and you use that study in every other tree ring temperature proxy study…maybe all of your tree ring temperature studies are wrong.
If you use bad data to determine temperature….due to measuring temperature in a parking lot or beside an active jet runway…maybe your temperature readings are wrong….but we can’t have the FORTRAN code you came up with to homogenize your temperatures…or the actual homogenized source data….because even though you work for the US Government..you claim its proprietary…
The data is crap…bad data..bad results….and the hacked emails actually say that…
As to the trick…splicing so called homogenized temperatures into a graph of tree ring proxies to alter the graph is FRAUD…..not a trick….IT is FRAUD. No wonder Mr. Jones has been relieved of his duties.
Mike’s Trick of splicing in real temperatures to hide the decline…..and you are trying to defend this shite…..Dude you are terribly brainwashed.
What bullshit.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
- “If your tree ring data was wrong after 1960…how can it be right anywhere else.” – The same way that Newtonian equations for physics work for low velocities and not for speeds approaching c. Doesn’t make them any less valuable as tools at low velocities. The scientific community doesn’t think Newtonian physics is crap when used in the proper context.
- “because even though you work for the US Government..you claim its proprietary…” – Do they work for the US government, or are they contracted by the Government? There is a huge difference. As contractors, the source code they developed is theirs and is company proprietary even though they are contracted by the Government unless the code is specifically called out as a contract deliverable. In almost all cases it is not. The fire control software for an F-16 radar was developed under government contract, but the government only gets a functional F-16, not the source code for the fire control radar.
- “If you use bad data to determine temperature….due to measuring temperature in a parking lot or beside an active jet runway…maybe your temperature readings are wrong…” – Not wrong, and not bad, simply not processed – we generally call this “raw”. It must be calibrated to reflect values consistant with outputs from other measurement devices that are known to be correct. In mathematics we generally call these translations. What the scientists found is that the tree ring data is consistant with data collected from other sources up to 1960. There it departs. The scientists chose to go with the data from the other sources since the other sources actually validated each other.
- “As to the trick…splicing so called homogenized temperatures into a graph of tree ring proxies to alter the graph is FRAUD…..not a trick….IT is FRAUD.” – An airspeed indicator in a plane at 25,000 ft will give a very different reading than one at sea level on a standard day. That does not mean that the indicator is broken or that the indication is wrong. When altitude and temperature variations are factored in (using graphs and tables of all things), the new (calibrated) airspeed is the same as you get at sea level. And yes, it’s correct. This is not FRAUD, it’s a trick. Pilots have been using this trick for about 100 yrs to figure out how long it’ll take them to get from one place to another.
- “Dude you are terribly brainwashed.” – Nope, as an engineer, I’m used to using tools and tricks to get an accurate answer in an imperfect world. We realize that raw data more often than not must be adjusted to accomodate for environmental and instrumentational variations. This doesn’t make the data wrong, or the scientist a dishonest person. This stuff is done all the time in the real word and it’s led us to the technological marvels that you’re using today. You, unfortunately are driven by an agenda, and are only interested in disproving global warming. You lack objectivity and are willing to twist and distort in a vain attempt to prove your point. You probably think the earth is 6000 yrs old, too.