20 responses so far ↓

• 1 Thunder Storm // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:53 am

  How do you explain the emails discovered, via hack, showing manipulation of their own data. And the scientists admitting to it.

  Since 1998, every year cooler than the one before.

  In the mid ’70’s when I was in High School, all the talk was a mini ice-age was coming

  We could only get in our swimming pool for about 5 weeks this summer and certainly not past the middle of July

  Record cool summer months each month this summer.

  Couldn’t this just be a natural cyclical Mother Nature type of thing?

• 2 Not Confused ... // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:07 am

  Even a blind pig roots up an acorn from time to time, and this may be one of those cases.

  Anthropogenic Global warming is coming increasingly to be seen, from a scientific perspective, as wrong-headed – and perhaps as a mega-fraud.

  There is a serious story here, and it has nothing to do with Rand Paul or any of his like-minded associates …

• 3 eric schansberg // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:13 pm

  Which part of Global Warming: its purported size, its potential causes, or the proposed public policy solutions?

  Were you a Global Cooling denier in the 1970s?

  The biggest potential shame of this would be if “it” is true, given that some scientists and public policy hacks have cried wolf with Malthusian/apocalyptic and self-serving predictions.

• 4 Dan // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:35 pm

  No spin here. Frankly, I’d be pretty put back if it turned out that Rand Paul was a believer in this hoax.

• 5 Bozz // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:53 pm

  I guess if your only source of news is MSDNC, Media (Soros) Matters, and HuffPO you wouldn’t be aware that recent hack into a large number of documents and emails from scientists that admit global warming is a fraud and they fake the numbers for personal gain (i.e. money).

• 6 jake // Nov 25, 2009 at 2:58 pm

  Yeah, it’s all a big librul conspiracy!

  NANCY PELOSI! GEORGE SOROS! BLACK PEOPLE! MUSLINS! FEAR! 9/11!

  I love how all the Paultwards swarm together to tout a few emails amidst thousands from one random organization about a single article in Nature. No one ever said global warming is a fraud.

  Also love how you turds continually act like facts and specifics are worthless.

• 7 briansmith // Nov 25, 2009 at 7:17 pm

  “How do you explain the emails discovered, via hack, showing manipulation of their own data. And the scientists admitting to it.”

  Who are these “scientists” of which you speak? And their “emails”, what did they say? And what is the “data” they “manipulated”. Also. What is the “it” they “admitted” to? And how does discrediting their research lead to the complete refutation of climate change?

• 8 Bozz // Nov 25, 2009 at 7:42 pm

  briansmith since you are not up on current events here is some reading for you:
  http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937

  or you could just google Climategate

  Also, climate change and global warming are two seperate things. Global warming falls under the umbrella of climate change but so does global cooling.

  Also love how liberals continually act like hypocrites

• 9 jake // Nov 25, 2009 at 7:52 pm

  Hypocrites? You mean how Rush Limbaugh railed on addicts only to be a pill head himself? How Mark Foley fought against the gays? How Ralph Reed fought against the gays? How Larry Craig fought against the gays?

  Yeah. Those goddang libruls sure have a problem.

• 10 Thunder Storm // Nov 25, 2009 at 8:34 pm

  Scientist in climate change ‘cover-up’ storm told to quit
  By David Derbyshire
  Last updated at 9:25 AM on 25th November 2009
  The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.
  George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.
  More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.

  Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html#ixzz0XvPq4jKd

• 11 jake // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:17 pm

  From Reuters: “smear campaign”

• 12 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:48 pm

  As an environmental scientist myself, I can tell you that the global warming debate is influenced by the same factors as most scientific research.

  Follow the money. Like most university and research scientists, climatologists primary goal in life is not to solve science’s questions, it’s to procure and secure their funding for as long as possible. The science is secondary.

  If you look at the skeptics, there is a very high concentration of retired climatologists. the reason, they don’t need to get funded anymore.

  Why do you think so many government entities and groups creatively over-estimated the “jobs created” by the stimulus dollars they received. Was it because they couldn’t count, or was it that they knew that the more jobs they said it would create, the more money they would receive.

  While the debate that the earth warmed from 1970 though the late 1990s is certainly settled, man’s impact, if any, is absolutely debatable.

  The reasons are simple and many:

  1) The data set is too limited, both in coverage and more importantly, length of time observed.

  2) The complexity of energy inputs and outputs for global temperature budgets are incredibility complex, interconnected, and very difficult to isolate for quantitative study.

  3) The understanding of solar energy emissions, radiative heat, electromagnetic, solar winds, etc. are just starting to be comprehended.

  4) The impacts of global water temperature currents are still in their infancy.

  5) The coefficient variable given to temperature readings to account for localized heat island effects are highly variable. As you know, the temperature in the city is warmer than in the suburbs. As such, the increased infrastructure development around temperature stations over the years can cause a local rise in readings, not reflected by global increases.

  6) Finally, we have very little, if any, reliable temperature data from a control group (ie other planets in solar system) to compare against changes in our temperatures. For example if se saw a similar rise in temperatures on Mars that correlated to rises on earth, than you could conclude that solar activity was the cause, since our CO2 levels would not impact Mars.

  It may be a forgone conclusion in the simplistic terms that Al Gore deals with, but as I demonstrated above, the variables are so complex and the time that is has been studied so brief, that we have just started to scratch the surface if understanding something as complex as global temperatures.

• 13 eric schansberg // Nov 26, 2009 at 9:02 am

  Mark H, I don’t know where such postings put you in Jake’s THF (Turd Hall of Fame). But I appreciate you bringing your expertise to the table.

  (By his own standards, I’m still trying to figure out where Jake fits within his THF, since he’s been slinging turds in this thread far more than asserting [explaining?] what he believes.)

  I had not caught the retired climatologist angle previously. It’s similar– on a less public scale– to what some judges, police, etc. think about the War on Drugs after they’ve retired.

• 14 briansmith // Nov 26, 2009 at 9:28 am

  actually bozz I was well aware of what thunder pot was referring to. I’m just tired of deniers throwing out unsubstantiated accusations with nothing to back them up. Jake followed up with the same information I was going to post after making thunder pot do his homework.

  Science is hard! If we don’t understand it we don’t have to believe it.

• 15 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 26, 2009 at 9:54 am

  Thank you Eric.

  There are some very good scientists out there doing a lot of great work. However, their research is restricted by the validity and thoroughness of the temperature data they have received.

  Just recently, when several groups have requested access to the raw temperature data through the FOIA process and laws, they were told that the data was “accidentally erased.” That does not provide a level of confidence in the data set.

  It’s interesting how many on this board are the first to point out the corrupting influence money has within the university system (see Felner, et al). However, they somehow see to insulate science researchers from the same influences. Now I not saying they are all corrupt, they’re not, but to say they have no political or financial biases, is dishonest.

  What we need is a blind funding mechanism for science that takes the desire to please the grant givers out of the process.

  After Al Gore’s “the Earth’s core is millions of degrees” brilliantly insightful commentary on his scientific knowledge, I would suggest reading the words of someone who has a little more scientific knowledge than Al.

  This is a wonderful summary given by the author Michael Crichton, when he gave a speech to National Press Club before his death in January of 2005. You will see this is not as simplistic a subject as the former Vice President would lead you to believe.

  http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html

• 16 eric schansberg // Nov 26, 2009 at 10:26 am

  Another great observation on Felner et. al.

  And thanks for the Crichton link. I just finished reading State of Fear. Good stuff!

  I’m going to cross-link both on my blog. Thanks again…

• 17 Bozz // Nov 26, 2009 at 5:58 pm

  “Hypocrites? You mean how Rush Limbaugh railed on addicts only to be a pill head himself? How Mark Foley fought against the gays? How Ralph Reed fought against the gays? How Larry Craig fought against the gays?

  Yeah. Those goddang libruls sure have a problem”

  LOL so your rationale is basically “those guys are hypocrites so I can be one”?

  And it has always been my understanding that, yes, Rush Limbaugh did speak out against drug addicts at one time, but that was before he too became an addict. I believe he became addicted after being prescribed pills after a surgery. Once he became addicted he no longer spoke negative of addicts. It could be bad karma but not quite the same as being a hypocrite.

  Oh, and the climategate hits keep on coming
  http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

• 18 jake // Nov 26, 2009 at 7:17 pm

  No, my rationale is it’s fucking stupid to throw around language blaming “liberals” for being hypocrites.

  And those two links you provided? Both to opinion pieces. Nice spin.

• 19 tbrauch // Nov 26, 2009 at 8:38 pm

  So… let me get this straight. Some people are claiming that since the mid to late 90’s the temperature has actually dropped. And, most people would agree the green revolution started taking hold in the mid to late 90’s.

  Perhaps, just maybe, perhaps all of this going green and alternative energy and reduce, reuse, recycle stuff actually worked and maybe that is why we’ve seen a decrease?

  I’m not saying it is. But that’s at least as plausible as anything I’ve heard from the deniers.

• 20 Mark H (Not Hebert) // Nov 26, 2009 at 9:36 pm

  I agree with Jake, in that I think it’s safe to say that hypocrisy isn’t the divine providence of either party.

  The problem is that when either party hijacks a scientific problem for their own purposes, the discussion gets dumbed down to a level that seems easily solved. That is rarely the case.

  You can even break the diffuculty in understanding global climate by into the most simplistic terms.

  What is the ideal global temperature?

  Since the global temperatures have been both higher and lower than they were at the onset of the industrial revolution, what was the ideal temperature? The UN picked a temperature that was nothing more than throwing a dart. How can you regulate global climate without even knowing what the ideal temperature you are trying to achieve.

Leave a Comment