Althouse: That solemn editorial about global warming looks pretty silly...

November 25, 2009

That solemn editorial about global warming looks pretty silly...

... with all those comments about Climategate.

Newspapers just aren't what they used to be, when the readers can instantly talk back.

305 comments:

1 – 200 of 305 Newer› Newest»

Wince said...: Speaking truth to power, ain't it a bitch?; 11/25/09, 8:39 AM
lucid said...: While there are a number of sugestions in the leaked material that the East Anglia professors actively distorted their data to suit their career interests and their politics, it is enough of a scandal that they resisted releasing to others the data on which their work was based. This is irresponsible and really disqualifies the work that is based on the secret data.

Their problem with releasing the data was at least in part that the data was fudged and had "artificial corrections" applied to it. But they also had the problem that they could not say where their data was actually from, how it was produced, or how their computer programs worked.

Garbage in, garbage out.

The world almost fell for it.; 11/25/09, 8:42 AM
John said...: Reasons why American newspapers are dying. Climategate is a fantasically interesting story. It has every angle, politics, personal grudges, science, you name it. Indeed, the Austrailian and UK papers are covering the hell out of it, even the leftist ones.

American newpapers in contrast are ignoring it. They are just pretending it never happened because the "facts just don't fit the narative". Worse still, most American journalists are both too stupid and too intellectually uncurious to care about the story or give the coverage it deserves. The last thing they want to do is think that perhaps AGW isn't what its proponents make it out to be. So instead of covering the most interesting story of the year and thinking about and questioning their assumptions, they write boring tripe. Better to talk about how Sarah Palin is intellectually uncurious than you know actually do some intellectual work yourself.; 11/25/09, 8:47 AM
Joan said...: I was listening to Michael Medved's show the other day and he commented on these revelations, calling the situation a near-miracle. I agree.

I am really enjoying this process -- time to make popcorn and watch the whole thing unravel. Al Gore, your future has been canceled.; 11/25/09, 8:48 AM
traditionalguy said...: The story of how easy it was to yell Warming in a crowded theater while dressed up as Scientists, and watch the lemmings self destruct, needs to be told over and over everywhere. The Authority that Science and especially medical science has accumulated is being rented out to the Gang in power at the UN and in the gang in power in DC. We want that authority back now, and we will not allow it to be rented out or stolen again. That is the news story that needs to be told.; 11/25/09, 8:50 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: The odd thing I have noticed is the readers aka customers post many passionate, informed, well-written arguments and comments on the MSM websites but the coverage stays the same.

It's clear to me the newspaper staff simply ignore these "barbarians at their own gate".; 11/25/09, 8:51 AM
AllenS said...: I'll keep it brief: making shit up.; 11/25/09, 8:54 AM
HKatz said...: "The world almost fell for it."

And people are still falling for it, namely many of our society's "cultural elites". Denial's a powerful thing. And being able to tell people with a feeling of absolute certainty what to do and how to rearrange their lives and "don't talk back to me, just shut up and do as you're told" - that's a heady power too.

But at least it'll be more difficult to maintain the illusion of clear consensus and solid convincing data from now on.

Bring on the real debate, the real messy, honest, meticulous and thorough scientific undertakings we need.; 11/25/09, 8:55 AM
Chip Ahoy said...: Combining Arctic and Antarctic fauna always cracks me up. I'm cheered by the accompanying anim.; 11/25/09, 8:55 AM
MadisonMan said...: Denial's a powerful thing

Yes.

It's silly for an Editorial not to mention a glaring current event.

OTOH, I'm not sure what these emails show -- excluding the ones asking for destruction because of FOI requests (is there a UK equivalent to the US law?) which seems boneheaded if not illegal -- besides intense competition to keep one's own theories in the forefront. That is healthy. If you have data (NOT that horribly euphemistically named artifact model data) that shows something, all the obstacles in the world will not prevent the truth from coming out.; 11/25/09, 9:05 AM
Anonymous said...: Most distressing was the piece I read about how one of their programmers was unable to get their model program to rerun the known data. The program was so buggy and unstable he could get it to rerun the data after trying for three years. Need to see more verifiable information on this but it is very damning.; 11/25/09, 9:12 AM
hawkeyedjb said...: There may or may not be solid scientific evidence for (or against) anthropogenic warming, but it's a meaningless debate. The fight against global warming is a means to an end: greater control over human behavior. It wouldn't matter a bit if the whole concept of global warming were discredited, the end will remain and another means will be sought.

wv: fishinge. What we won't be doing as much of when the oceans recede...; 11/25/09, 9:17 AM
MikeR said...: I'm not distressed, I'm pleased. They are going to have to open-source their data and their algorithms, and so will all the other main data sources. If the data is as much a mess as harryreadme makes it appear, it will drop out of consideration.

Good news indeed. Maybe someone will be able to get the science straight now.; 11/25/09, 9:18 AM
John said...: Has anyone else noticed the palpable sadness among the more honest global warming advocates? You would think that the possibility of AGW not being true would make any reasonable person happy. Hurrah, it is wrong. We don't need to radically change our lifestyles and energy use. Not so with the advocates. They seem geniunly distrubed at the prospect of people being able to go on with life how it is currently lived.

They really are just modern day killjoy puritans who have replaced God with the State and Gia.; 11/25/09, 9:19 AM
J. Cricket said...: Your claims about Palin's book look downright idiotic by comparison.

Good thing we can talk back--until you delete the comments and pretend you never claimed to be able to produce a list of similar problems with Obama's books.; 11/25/09, 9:20 AM
MadisonMan said...: They are going to have to open-source their data and their algorithms, and so will all the other main data sources.

I very much doubt this. Public and private funding agencies will be the ones who decide that, or Universities. Good luck getting agreement on that.

Maybe it depends on what you mean by data.; 11/25/09, 9:21 AM
Gahrie said...: What these leaked e-mails (and more importantly computer codes) show is that not only did the "scientists" fail to release their data to allow others to attempt to reproduce their results, they themselves were unable to reproduce their results.

If the results cannot be reproduced it is not science.; 11/25/09, 9:24 AM
Tank said...: Here's the approach the Washington Post is taking.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112403549.html?nav=hcmoduletmv

There's a psych term I can't remember that covers this. Once you've made up your mind, it's very difficult to change. For many, they will need to be beaten over the head with fact after fact before they give up the GW religion.

You would think the natural reaction would be outrage at being purposefully deceived and relief that a "grave danger" ...isn't. Somehow, they'd rather continue to denigrate the "deniers." Who have been proven right (not that there is no warming, but that the GW zealots have not made a coherent case for radical change at great cost). You'd think THEY have the burdon of proof.; 11/25/09, 9:30 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: John:

That's a keen observation! The war on global warming appears to be based on over-cooked data. If there is no global warming, the war is over and we should be happy!

BTW -liberals went crazy when the incvasion of Iraq was based on possibly cooked data. It is now conservatives' turn to go crazy!; 11/25/09, 9:30 AM
Anonymous said...: What's it like to live in your alternate universe?

A universe where global warming doesn't exist.

A universe where Obama was born in Kenya.

A universe where Democrats are busy implementing death panels.

A universe where ACORN stole the election from John McCain.

A universe that's only 5000 years old.

Please - I want to learn more. Do tell me.; 11/25/09, 9:31 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Chip:

Please do a cartoon of the real Mr. T kicking Mr. Tea's ass.; 11/25/09, 9:31 AM
AllenS said...: Obama was born in a global warming oven. That, I am sure of.; 11/25/09, 9:33 AM
Automatic_Wing said...: OTOH, I'm not sure what these emails show -- excluding the ones asking for destruction because of FOI requests (is there a UK equivalent to the US law?) which seems boneheaded if not illegal -- besides intense competition to keep one's own theories in the forefront. That is healthy.

Well, I know you're a scientist, but I strongly disagree that the emails reflect a healthy scientific process. Several issues, really:

- They insist on keeping their source data and methods secret in order to keep other scientists from testing their theories. Unhealthy. Scientific results should be testable and reproducible by anyone.

- They conspired to keep opposing theories out of peer-reviewed journals and set out to ruin the careers of editors that did permit anti-AGW papers to be published. Unhealthy. The peer-review process is worthless if dissenters are silenced or intimidated into agreement.

- They hid evidence that the predictions from their tree-ring samples didn't match the actual post-1960 measured temperatures. This means that the validity of all the tree-ring based data is very suspect.

Is all this is really typical of the way scientists operate? I wouldn't think so, but maybe I'm naive.; 11/25/09, 9:33 AM
Scott M said...: I don't lightly give out these awards, but regardless of what anyone else says subsequently...

Al Gore, your future has been canceled.

Joan wins the thread. This elegantly encapsulates the entire affair in less than 50 letters.; 11/25/09, 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Your brainwashing and the brainwashing of your commenters is amusing to watch.

When the North Pole is ice free by 2040, all of you will still deny that global warming is happening.

I can guess the arguments - You'll just say that the arctic isn't ice free and scientists are just making it up. And you'll link to an article by newsbusters or hotair for proof.; 11/25/09, 9:40 AM
Larry J said...: OTOH, I'm not sure what these emails show -- excluding the ones asking for destruction because of FOI requests (is there a UK equivalent to the US law?) which seems boneheaded if not illegal -- besides intense competition to keep one's own theories in the forefront. That is healthy. If you have data (NOT that horribly euphemistically named artifact model data) that shows something, all the obstacles in the world will not prevent the truth from coming out.

In addition to emails that suggest fudging data, there are emails that talk about shutting out those who disagree with AGW from the peer-review process (very important in science) and then dismissing their arguments becauase they aren't peer-reviewed. That in itself is a major scientific scandal.

Included in the "hacked" documents were computer code listings for some of the models they were using to claim global warming. For those of you who want to get your inner geek on, here's an early analysis. The code is so sloppy that I would've flunked one of my freshmen computer science students had they it.

More analysis of the code is on the CBS website. I wonder if Kouric will stop reading poetry long enough to report it.

In short, the evidence suggests the data used to back up claims of global warming are garbage and so is the computer code that used the data. Garbage in, garbage process, garbage out.; 11/25/09, 9:40 AM
John said...: Nice to see everyone ignoring DTL.

The whole AGW fraud is based on the premis that there is no scientific debate. AGW advocates have claimed that AGW is a settled as gravity and that no reputable scientist is skeptical.

Now come to find out that GRU was manipulating the peer review process to ensure that no skeptical articles got published. Thus, the entire "consensus" is manufactured. Worse still, the entire peer review process over the last 15 years is now suspect. All the science now has a cloud over it.

Climategate puts an end to the entire conciet that there is no debate about AGW. The media can pretend that this didn't happen all they want. But scientists are going to look at GRU's behavior and the appalling state of their models and underlying data, and skepticism will become acceptable again. Once that happens, the political AGW movement is sunk.; 11/25/09, 9:42 AM
AllenS said...: In 2040, I'll be 94 years old. I shall travel to the North Pole wearing only shorts, much to the dismay of The Althouse.; 11/25/09, 9:43 AM
Anonymous said...: I am taking inspiration from Ann though.

I now declare myself to be an expert in Constitutional Law.

Sorry Ann, but you don't know crap about the constitution. Nada. It is now obvious that everything you've ever written about the law is completely bogus. You have zero credibility.

You should resign now, because of all the false things you've written about the law over the years - all of which is now PROVEN to be nothing but lies.; 11/25/09, 9:46 AM
Anonymous said...: News outlets will shortly respond to this leak in their gatekeeping function by removing comment sections.

And they'll do it unapologetically.

The New York Times already disables comments on stories that they do not wish their pesky readers to comment on.

In fact, when they turn off comments, you know the story is one you can ignore ... that it's likely not true or twisted and distorted and easily debunked. It's absolutely Pravda-esque.

Comment sections experiments will soon return to being what they used to be: letters-to-the-editor sections where only the "correct" opinions are allowed to be aired.; 11/25/09, 9:47 AM
nrn312 said...: Ann - You are really starting to sound like an idiot.

Starting?; 11/25/09, 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Here's a challenge for you John.

Why don't you provide ONE piece of evidence that global warming is not happening.

Just ONE.

And no - linking to Gateway Pundit doesn't count.

Must be fun living in your make believe world. Say hi to Sarah for me.; 11/25/09, 9:48 AM
hdhouse said...: Ann does no service to publish links to some roaring asshole who is long on hyperbole and short on facts. real science isn't a sound bite or an out of control quote.

A few flat earth sci-o-freaks say "no such thing" and they are then the experts while the vast vast majority of scientists (not rush limbaugh) are studying this from every angle and all come to roughly the same conclusion.

It is this kind of bullshit that makes us look like a third world scientific nation.

by the way, cleaning up data in the late 1990s referred to computerized (processed) graph making for those who don't know. data bits that fall outside the margins for testing error are routinely noted but not used. the emails say nothing about tossing data but "hiding it" so that the graphing programs won't pick it out as a normal instead of abberant. think of excel graphs with a million colums and you can plainly see the issue.; 11/25/09, 9:48 AM
Caroline said...: "Al Gore, your future has been canceled."

If global warming is a hoax, how truly inconvenient for Al Gore. Makes his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize award look silly(er).

The Nobel Peace Prize should have a runner-up, like in the Miss America pageant. This way in case the winner cannot fulfill the duties of being a Peace Prize winner, the runner-up can take it, for posterity's sake.; 11/25/09, 9:50 AM
MadisonMan said...: They hid evidence that the predictions from their tree-ring samples didn't match the actual post-1960 measured temperatures. This means that the validity of all the tree-ring based data is very suspect.

The divergence problem (Tree-ring data from 1960 doesn't match temperature data from 1960) is very well known throughout climate studies, and there is active research trying to investigate the why of it.

How is that hiding the problem?

I will say that using only tree-ring data to show something is to be questioned.; 11/25/09, 9:50 AM
John said...: "Why don't you provide ONE piece of evidence that global warming is not happening."

The global temperature hasn't risen in 10 years. And the models can't explain it. To quote one of the hacked e-mails "we can't explain it". In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.

There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.; 11/25/09, 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: And if there's anyone who's got an IQ over 100 and an open mind, the article below provides some background as to why climatologists were pissed off at the periodical Climate Research, and threatened to boycott it. The article below is from 2004.

It wasn't they published opposing views. It was because they published crap science.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/; 11/25/09, 9:53 AM
John said...: From: Kevin Trenberth

To: Michael Mann

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Cc: Stephen H Schneider, Myles Allen, peter stott, “Philip D. Jones”, Benjamin Santer, Tom Wigley, Thomas R Karl, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on Saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). …

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

No. There is something wrong with the models. What these e-mails reveal more than anything is the amazing group think of these people. They are absolutely, fanatically convinced of the theory and will go to any lengths to justify it.

That doesn't mean they are necessarily worng. You can lie in pursuit of a truthful cause. But it does mean that their findings cannot be trusted to tell us anything about the answer to the ultimate question.; 11/25/09, 9:54 AM
MadisonMan said...: The code is so sloppy that I would've flunked one of my freshmen computer science students had they it.

I always shudder when I have to change someone else's code. I see that they have some poor schlub who's into IDL trying to fiddle with FORTRAN code. I wonder how many named GOTOs there are. (I hate those things).; 11/25/09, 9:56 AM
AllenS said...: Today isn't going to be as warm as yesterday. Please don't let anyone see this email. It might get into the wrong hands. By, you know, those people.; 11/25/09, 9:58 AM
John said...: But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html; 11/25/09, 9:58 AM
The Drill SGT said...: Maguro said...

You left off the fact that in August CRU fessed up to destroying raw data due to lack of storage space.

Imagine being so heads down on your work that you lose track of the fact that media is 1/100th the price it was 5 years ago and you can roll stuff off to removable optical media in the TB range for pennies.

There may be AGW, I'm a skeptic, but what is evident is that a bunch of people have built their whole reputations on using data sets that now look:
- flawed (cherry picked, tuned data sets)
- unreproducable (cant be created by others)
- unrecreatable (underlying source data is destroyed and/or tampered with)

Some downstream scientists are innocent. I feel their pain. The source manipulators, one of the 9 rings of Science Hell for them

Coupled with the games played by Hansen with the NASA data raises real doubts that there may be no clean historical (100+ years) temp data left in the world from which to rebuild the theories; 11/25/09, 9:58 AM
Anonymous said...: BrainDeadLad Wrote: "When the North Pole is ice free by 2040, all of you will still deny that global warming is happening."

How can you manage to be so misinformed? Do you think people don't have access to scientific information? Is that it?

Let's cut to the actual scientists who live on the poles, who tell us that contrary to popular opinion, the polar ice caps are actually growing.

Headline: Antartic Ice is Growing, Not Melting Away

"Australia Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Allison said.

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Center shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.; 11/25/09, 10:00 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Frick & Frack are here!

DTL:

Why don't you give me one piece shred of evidence that shows I have not invented nucular fusion!

That's right I said nucular! Heh.; 11/25/09, 10:00 AM
John said...: MM,

If the code is that bad, doesn't that say bad things about the models? The one guy spent three years trying to get his model to recreate known data. And he couldn't do it.

You read the e-mails and you kind of feel for them. They have lousy data, are lousy programers, and are trying to do a monumental task.

I don't see how anyone can read the e-mails and still be convinced that AGW is beyond scientific doubt or that the doomsday projections are in anyway reliable.; 11/25/09, 10:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Sorry John, but you are being duped by propaganda, not science. You need to read the link I just sent.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

Everything you are citing stems from one article in Climate Research that has been thoroughly debunked. It was such crap, that several editors resigned and the publisher issued an apology.

But you keep linking back to the same 10 year-old discredited article as the basis for your entire belief that global warming isn't happening.

You're entitled to have a closed mind, and refuse to look at the thousands of other articles that say otherwise. But it's pretty stupid if you ask me.; 11/25/09, 10:01 AM
Fred4Pres said...: It is amazing how invested these scientist are in promoting what they deem is the truth.

But climate change/global warming has gone full circle. What was ridiculed and ignored was gradually accepted. But is is correct?

Probably not.

That does not mean there is not a manmade component to CO2 and climate change, but it is more complex than that. Our planet has has many wild climate shifts long before manmade CO2 production ever was an issue.

So these so called secular scientist seems more and more like the 17th century Vatican dealing with Galileo.; 11/25/09, 10:01 AM
Original Mike said...: MadisonMan: I hear conflicting claims, from opposite camps, regarding the temperature of the last 10 years.

"The global temperature hasn't risen in 10 years."

I hear this a lot. But I also hear that the last 10 years have been the hottest in the last {fill in the blank}.

Are both true? It is possible, of course, that the temperature rose and then plateaued. Is that what has happened?

I also hear that land temperatures have risen but ocean temperatures have not. Then I hear that ocean temperatures have risen. What's a person to think?; 11/25/09, 10:02 AM
Anonymous said...: "Why don't you provide ONE piece of evidence that global warming is not happening.

To what address may I send you my heating bill?

But that little joke misses the point. Downtownlad you are clearly uneducated in how science is conducted.

It is not the scientists job to prove that something is not occurring.

Theories are not political statements.

Darwin didn't merely announce his theory of evolution and then challenge everyone to prove it doesn't work that way. He produce evidence and other scientists are obliged to attempt to reproduce his experiments.

You're revealing to all around you your lack of a classical education in your comments.

Better to be quiet and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt.; 11/25/09, 10:06 AM
John said...: "I hear this a lot. But I also hear that the last 10 years have been the hottest in the last {fill in the blank}.

Are both true? It is possible, of course, that the temperature rose and then plateaued. Is that what has happened?"

There is a very big warming period in 03. 1998 to 2003 were very hot. And then temps dropped. So it depends on how you parse the data. If you count the number of "hot years" you can say "so many of the hotest years of the last 100 were hot". If you look at the temperature at the end of 08 and compare it to the end of 07, it is the same, so you can say "global temps haven't risen in 10 years"

The e-mail I posted above shows the problem with the cooling that happened in the last five years. The modelers were convinced that the warming trend would continue. Instead 03 was a high water mark. None of their models predicted it. And none of them explain it. Thus the furstraition shown in the e-mail.; 11/25/09, 10:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Actually Florida - You're full of shit about East Antarctica gaining mass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8371773.stm

That source is from BBC News all of 2 days ago:; 11/25/09, 10:08 AM
MadisonMan said...: I suspect that 10-year claim has something to do with the extraordinary warmth of 1998, but I don't know. The way claims zoom around the blogosphere, who can keep track? A plateau and then fall, or plateau then continued rising? I don't think anyone can tell.

Re: Weather, I am grateful that El Nino will give the Midwest a mild winter, however. All that snow in the past two years? Very tiresome.; 11/25/09, 10:08 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: I think the thing that has to happen now is that someone needs to follow the data, similar to a forensic accountant. We need to figure out how much of the AGW research that has been published has relied on the suspect data and analysis coming out of the CRU. There may still be enough untainted research that shows that AGW is a serious concern.

Also, all of the other data sources and models need to publish their raw data and all of their processing techniques for public review.

My guess is that all of the major climate models would have been expected to account for all of the climate data sets. As such, all of their predictions become suspect. But someone needs to figure this out.; 11/25/09, 10:08 AM
MadisonMan said...: Florida: North Pole != South Pole.; 11/25/09, 10:10 AM
John said...: "Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Again sea levels are not rising.

It is also important to remmeber that McIntyre and McKitrick were the ones who showed the famous "hockey stick" to be a fraud. They were the ones GRU was so concerned about keeping out of the peer reviewed publications. This isn't the first time these people have been found lying or misrepresenting data. See also the famous claim that so many of the hottest years in the last 100 were between 95 and 05, which was proven to be false.; 11/25/09, 10:12 AM
Anonymous said...: John - Please go to wikipedia and look at the following graph and tell me that you really see evidence of global cooling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880

I deal with facts - not wishful thinking.; 11/25/09, 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: 1998 was an El Nino year, thus the warm year. The fact that recent years (2005) have surpassed 1998 despite no El Nino, should cause one to think a little bit.; 11/25/09, 10:17 AM
Original Mike said...: Appreciate the response, MM. I'm coming to your conclusion ("I don't think anyone can tell"), as well, though of course I don't have your insight so it's helpful to hear.

Importantly, I think:

"I don't think anyone can tell"

and

"There is a consensus in the scientific community"

are two statements that are in conflict. Do you think there is less certainty in the community that is admitted to or would most of your colleagues disagree with you? (Don't mean to put you on the spot, but it is one of the big questions of our time, so I'd like to have as good of an understanding of it as I can.); 11/25/09, 10:18 AM
Scott M said...: Sure...think a little...but NOT commit TRILLIONS of dollars, handicap industry, and increase energy costs directly on the backs of people who can least afford it...while people THINK about it.

If anything, this whole affair reinforces the skeptics call for NO emergency action.

Besides, DTL, assuming you're 100% correct and we're doomed, why then do China and India get a pass? I happened to notice that both of those countries have significant coastlines.; 11/25/09, 10:20 AM
Kirk Parker said...: "Thus, the entire 'consensus' is manufactured."

Ahhhh, so that's what Chomsky was talking about--now I get it!; 11/25/09, 10:20 AM
Beth said...: If indeed sea levels are not rising, I will kneel down and thank God loudly, with hosannas. Really. As a coastal resident, I would love to hear that the data on climate change and sea levels are wrong.

But I'm not persuaded by "climategate" yet that the emails mean much; one learns over time that kneejerk "gotchas" are useless. I'll wait for more evaluation to come out over time.; 11/25/09, 10:21 AM
John said...: DTL,

Take it up with Mann and GRU.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

GRU admits that they can't account for the cooling that has occured and the lack of warming over the past decade you fucking moron. Now go away and let the adults talk for a while.; 11/25/09, 10:22 AM
Scott M said...: @Beth

one learns over time that kneejerk "gotchas" are useless.

I think the actual "gate", Watergate, would argue against that. Likewise, Nungate cost Bill The Cat and the Meadowcrats the nomination in '88.; 11/25/09, 10:27 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: It's amazing to me that this thievery is welcome as politics as usual.

So, I hope that hackers are at work cracking the mail servers at the Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, Peabody Coal and the rest of the polluters' lobby.

After all, thievery is now accepted practice in the political debate. Let's all do it!

All the stolen emails demonstrate is that scientists are human and the efforts of the right wing to barrage them with FOI requests got under their skin. They refused to participate in the sabotage of their own work.

And, global warming is happening and humankind is the number one cause of it. That remains unchanged.; 11/25/09, 10:31 AM
Alex said...: DTL:

Your brainwashing and the brainwashing of your commenters is amusing to watch.

When the North Pole is ice free by 2040, all of you will still deny that global warming is happening.

I can guess the arguments - You'll just say that the arctic isn't ice free and scientists are just making it up. And you'll link to an article by newsbusters or hotair for proof.

Yes, because the left isn't brainwashing young vulnerable minds that AGW is true.; 11/25/09, 10:32 AM
Alex said...: All the stolen emails demonstrate is that scientists are human and the efforts of the right wing to barrage them with FOI requests got under their skin. They refused to participate in the sabotage of their own work.

Bullshit. All it proves is that AGW scientists have an agenda. If these were WMD memos you'd be hailing the theft as for the public good. Usual leftie hypocrisy at work here.; 11/25/09, 10:34 AM
AllenS said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/25/09, 10:34 AM
PatHMV said...: Scott M... it was all lies! Bill did nothing but have raunchy, debaucherous sex with the so-called "nun"! There wasn't an ounce of wholesomeness in the entire sordid affair. What he did with that woman was illegal in every state but Nevada, I tell you!; 11/25/09, 10:35 AM
AllenS said...: One person's thief, is another person's whistleblower.; 11/25/09, 10:35 AM
John said...: Yes Alpha I am sure you were outraged last fall when the NYT published the e-mails that were hacked from Sarah Palin's yahoo account.

You are angry and shocked because the e-mails hurt your cause. Please don't insult people's intelligence by pretending that you would care if embarassing e-mails from someone you didn't liek were hacked. Unless and until you can show me somewhere where you said that stealing Palin's e-mails were wrong, spare us.; 11/25/09, 10:36 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Joe Romm, as usual, nails it:

..but we don’t name these things after the victim of these illegal hacks — a livable climate. We name them after the crime or its location a la Watergate. Certainly in this modern version of The Purlioned Letter, a better name would be Hackergate, if only because Nothing-gate isn’t catchy enough to catch on. But I welcome your suggestions. .

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/24/hackergate-hacked-cru-emails-climategate/

That the right wing would embrace criminal behavior is not at all news.; 11/25/09, 10:36 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Mr. Peabody owns a coal company? Does Sherman know that?

wv = wharate = when a karate expert opens a can of whoopus; 11/25/09, 10:36 AM
Anonymous said...: I came up with a plan that was guaranteed to expose the New Age lies in Obama's book. But all you Jewish Althouse hippies were too busy drinking boxed wine and hating gays to help. So I pinched a really fabulous loaf instead.

This has been your Unified Pest Post for Wednesday, November 25.; 11/25/09, 10:39 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: John, actually, I was outraged and shocked that Palin's emails were stolen. I dropped my Yahoo account.

I think it's outrageous that scientists have already been harassed by the right wing and now their private email is stolen and reprinted by the news media.

I'm outraged that the news media is simply repeating the right wings twisted attacks on science and showing little to now interest in the crime.

You dodge the point and just attack me. That's because you don't care if a law (or several) is broken as long as you can score cheap points.; 11/25/09, 10:40 AM
Alex said...: AL - stop being a flaming hypocrite. You are angry and shocked that your AGW meme is going up in flames. Your plans to ruin the American economy with cap n tax and carbon tax are faltering badly now.; 11/25/09, 10:40 AM
John said...: "That the right wing would embrace criminal behavior is not at all news."

STFU. Really. You were outraged when people hacked in Palin's e-mail adress. And I am sure you were totally outraged when the NYT published the illegally leaked Pentegon Papers, and when someone used a police scanner to listen to Newt Gingrich's cell phone back in the 1990s and when the NYT published the NSA wiretapping program in violation of the law.

Stop insulting people's intelligence. Everyone knows who you are and what your values are.; 11/25/09, 10:40 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Alpha:

On a serious note, I wish the MSM would look into any and all corrupt orgs including such groups as Acorn, AARP [IMO a front for a partisan left-lobbying alleged non-profit]. I wish the MSM would vet all public figures as thoroughly as it did Sarah Palin.

wv = iditio; 11/25/09, 10:41 AM
Alex said...: John - AL reminds me of the squealing of a stuck pig! I'm enjoying every single minute of this. AGWers are going down man!; 11/25/09, 10:42 AM
PatHMV said...: Alphaliberal on the hacking of Sarah Palin's e-mail account:

AlphaLiberal said...
Look, her email was hacked. We all agree that was wrong, the perp should be punished and the law enforced. And we don't know who the perp is and can't make assumptions.

What more do you want? That's all obvious. Stop yer whining.

And Gawker is a for-profit web site. They got a bunch of traffic publishing those emails. And rain is wet.

As Glenn Greenwald has noted, it's funny that the Right is in a lather over this because you're so eager to have the government snooping into our emails.

Sarah Palin shouldn't have anything to hide, right?

9/18/08 11:33 PM

AlphaLiberal said...
Here it is, from Greenwald,

If Sarah Palin isn't committing crimes or consorting with The Terrorists, then why would she care if we can monitor her emails?

Thanks, Glenn. You're great.

9/18/08 11:39 PM; 11/25/09, 10:42 AM
John said...: "I think it's outrageous that scientists have already been harassed by the right wing and now their private email is stolen and reprinted by the news media."

Those were not "private e-mails" They were e-mails on a government computer and were subject to FOIA. There is noting in this hack that isn't subject to FOIA and shouldn't have been turned over years ago in response to FOIA requests. The e-mails also reveal that they were ignoring FOIA requests as well, which is a crime. You really beleive in opne government there AL don't you.

So again STFU. And stop claiming you were angry about the Palin e-mails unless and until you can produce some proof because you don't get the benefit of the doubt.; 11/25/09, 10:43 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: One person's thief, is another person's whistleblower. .

So now you're saying it's legal to break into someone else's mail server and steal their mail?

You guys really have no actual values or principles. All you have is your hatred of so many people (a majority of Americans, BTW) and your rigid and obtuse ideology.; 11/25/09, 10:43 AM
John said...: PatHMV,

I think we have heard the last of AL on this subject.; 11/25/09, 10:44 AM
Alex said...: You guys really have no actual values or principles. All you have is your hatred of so many people (a majority of Americans, BTW) and your rigid and obtuse ideology.

LOL! He's coming unglued. This is so funny. Alpha - yes I hope all their emails get published! In fact let's go after all the other "climate scientists" email and data. Make them fess up - or better yet put them on trial for their lives for trying to ruin our economy through false data!; 11/25/09, 10:46 AM
John said...: "You guys really have no actual values or principles. All you have is your hatred of so many people (a majority of Americans, BTW) and your rigid and obtuse ideology."

So you think it is okay to ignore FOIA requests? Those e-mails should have been released years ago. But, GRU ignored the requests. Nothing in those hack is anything that shouldn't have already been public.; 11/25/09, 10:46 AM
Alex said...: I favor a Nuremberg-style tribunal that will try all government officials and "climate scientists" for trying to falsify AGW to push through carbon taxes and generally brainwash the American public. There will be executions of course.; 11/25/09, 10:46 AM
Joan said...: The emails are indeed subject to interpretation, although they really don't look good. At the very least, referring to the American Thinker as the "American Stinker" demonstrates a lack of professionalism that should be a source of embarrassment.

So, the emails are subject to interpretation. But the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file which contains the programmer's notes is 100%, completely damning. The data is a mess. The file system makes no sense. They relied on the file structure to differentiate between types of data (annual, monthly, smoothed, whatever) but used the same file names. Nothing, apparently, was documented. It was not a lie when CRU said they deleted the data, it was simply a way of saying "we can't give it to you because we can't find it ourselves." It's clear when you look at that readme file that the poor schlubs were trying to clean up this huge mess and get to the point where they could move on, but they were unable to make any progress.

The latest correspondence casts doubt on the reliability of temperature measurements, but that's a slippery slope for these guys. If today's temperature measurements are suspect and shouldn't be trusted, what does that say about all the temperature measurements that have been collected over the last 100 years, when technology and data storage techniques were much more error prone? They're pulling the rug out from under themselves and they don't even realize it.

It's dead alright, they just don't know it yet. AGW is just a zombie propped up by the willfully blind media.; 11/25/09, 10:48 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Alpha:

Are you certain the emails were stolen? Or were they released by someone with inside access? There is a big difference you know.

As to whether this type of theft bothers me- no it doesn't if it is in the name of Truth To Power! Conservatives Don't Have A Monopoly On Corrpption! Truthout Brother! Liberals Can Be Corrupt Too!; 11/25/09, 10:48 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: John, you should be more careful when being a lying SOS:

I never said I was "angry," you lying fuck. It's right there on this same page.

I said I was outraged and shocked. Outraged that Yahoo could run such a lax email server system and shocked that I had email on that system.

It's a real dumb and idiotic practice to tell people what they really feel and why. Truly, it's the mark of a person with no principles or morals who will say anything to suit their immediate need.

Man, you suck.; 11/25/09, 10:48 AM
vbspurs said...: If global warming is a hoax, how truly inconvenient for Al Gore. Makes his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize award look silly(er).

Yes, but then the Nobel Prizes have long been a joke, and not just the Peace Prize. Remember, they awarded it to the inventor of the Lobotomy, to Rigoberta Menchu for lying, and to Barack Obama for exactly nothing.

Cheers,
Victoria; 11/25/09, 10:48 AM
AllenS said...: Well, AL, I guess it's all about whose ox is being gored.

NOTE: read commenter PatHMV.

Care to comment on your earlier comments about stolen emails?; 11/25/09, 10:49 AM
Alex said...: AL you are outraged and shocked that Americans are waking up from your AGW lie. The biggest lie in American history. Even worse is when the kids start asking tough questions about your AGW religion. That's when you'll experience a sort of spiritual death, and I'll be LAUGHING at you. Mocking you.; 11/25/09, 10:50 AM
Zachary Sire said...: So now you're a global warming denier, eh Althouse? Oh dear...; 11/25/09, 10:51 AM
Scott M said...: @Alphaliberal

So now you're saying it's legal to break into someone else's mail server and steal their mail?

Saying one person's thief is another person's whistleblower doesn't say anything about legality. You've engaged in a bit of shark jumping there, Fonz.

Let's take this to one of it's logical (spurious at best) conclusions. Let's assume that you're correct and AGW is a fact...indeed so bad that it's cataclysmic.

Please explain to me, an American father of four young children, why I'm to suck it up and deny full opportunity to those children (re cap and trade, higher energy taxes, less employment, industry taking it in the pants, lower standard of living) when the Chinese and Indian fathers are not required to do the same for their kids.; 11/25/09, 10:51 AM
John said...: "It's a real dumb and idiotic practice to tell people what they really feel and why. Truly, it's the mark of a person with no principles or morals who will say anything to suit their immediate need.

Man, you suck."

We know how you felt. You told us. I will re-post these in case you missed them.

AlphaLiberal said...
Look, her email was hacked. We all agree that was wrong, the perp should be punished and the law enforced. And we don't know who the perp is and can't make assumptions.

What more do you want? That's all obvious. Stop yer whining.

And Gawker is a for-profit web site. They got a bunch of traffic publishing those emails. And rain is wet.

As Glenn Greenwald has noted, it's funny that the Right is in a lather over this because you're so eager to have the government snooping into our emails.

Sarah Palin shouldn't have anything to hide, right?

9/18/08 11:33 PM

AlphaLiberal said...
Here it is, from Greenwald,

If Sarah Palin isn't committing crimes or consorting with The Terrorists, then why would she care if we can monitor her emails?

Thanks, Glenn. You're great.

9/18/08 11:39 PM

There is what you thought and you didn't care.

STOP LYING. It is one thing to disagree. It is another to be a lying, dishonest hack. And that is what you are.; 11/25/09, 10:51 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Joan, you don't have all the facts yet you render such dramatic and sweeping opinions. You have some emails with references to files.

You don't even know if documentation exists at all. Have you really perused their entire server?

In short, you don't know what you're talking about and are blowing smoke.; 11/25/09, 10:52 AM
John said...: Further Alpha, way to completely igore that all of these e-mails are subject to FOIA and should have been made public years ago. If GRU had followed the law, there never would have been a hack.

No response to that?; 11/25/09, 10:52 AM
vbspurs said...: I'll wait for more evaluation to come out over time.

I pray to God that it's thoroughly investigated. What most of us who have LONG been sceptical of Climate Change want, is for conclusive, unpolitically slanted data.

The problem is, if there were, there would be NO NEED to falsify or destroy damning data that contradicts these theories.

Cheers,
Victoria; 11/25/09, 10:53 AM
John said...: "Joan, you don't have all the facts yet you render such dramatic and sweeping opinions. You have some emails with references to files."

NO. She has the readme file where they admit that they can't find the data or make the model work. None of their models can recreate known data. That means they are worthless.; 11/25/09, 10:54 AM
Original Mike said...: For example, I don't know what to make of stuff like this graph; 11/25/09, 10:54 AM
vbspurs said...: Al Gore, your future has been canceled.

Joan, seriously, this is one of the best one-liners I've ever heard on the 'net in almost 20 years of being on. You should TM immediately.

Cheers,
Victoria; 11/25/09, 10:55 AM
vbspurs said...: wv: prospa!

Live longa and prospa.; 11/25/09, 10:55 AM
X said...: they tried to blind us with science but instead got hit with technology.; 11/25/09, 11:01 AM
AllenS said...: From the fingers of a Liberal:

"John, actually, I was outraged and shocked that Palin's emails were stolen."

"If Sarah Palin isn't committing crimes or consorting with The Terrorists, then why would she care if we can monitor her emails?"; 11/25/09, 11:02 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: John:

I apologize. I assumed you had the ABILITY TO READ. My bad.

Here's the thing: I never said I was angry for Sarah Palin. I said I was shocked and outraged and, for your benefit, clarified I was shocked and outraged at Yahoo.

Yes, I enjoyed the incident at the time as it revealed a little of the depths of Sarah Palin's mendacity.

You put words in my mouth I never said and then played gotchya. That is the classic "strawman" tactic. But you're not debating with me, you're debating with a fantasy me you have constructed.

That's why I say, strawman debate tactics are the equivalent of mental masturbation.

And, you sir, are a wanker.; 11/25/09, 11:07 AM
vbspurs said...: You know what I truly mind? As an historian, not only that they these scientists (men and women dedicated to the pursuit of logic and fact, not religious frippery like faith and miracles) falsified, dissembled and at times destroyed facts, but that they did it for our history, our past (the Middle Ages) as well.

Unforgiveable.; 11/25/09, 11:07 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: AllenS, this was a joke:

"If Sarah Palin isn't committing crimes or consorting with The Terrorists, then why would she care if we can monitor her emails?" .; 11/25/09, 11:08 AM
AllenS said...: Now I remember. I laughed so hard that I peed my pants. You're like totally funny. In fact, isn't everything that you post a joke? Let me read everything you posted today. Oh, no! I did it again!; 11/25/09, 11:11 AM
PatHMV said...: Another blogger made the point that when you read through all of the e-mails, you see not a single one that has nothing to do with the climate issues. There's no "happy birthday!" messages, no "there's leftover food in the lounge," no "pick up the kids after work" e-mails.

This is pretty strong evidence that the material was in fact gathered in response to an FOI request. It's also proof that these aren't "private" e-mails, they're official, work-related e-mails by government employees. Nobody hacked into the scientists' personal Yahoo or Gmail or Hotmail accounts. There's nothing here but work-related e-mails from government employees using their government e-mail accounts.

Obtaining and releasing those e-mails may or may not have broken the law, but it sure didn't invade anybody's "privacy."; 11/25/09, 11:12 AM
AllenS said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/25/09, 11:12 AM
PatHMV said...: Alpha was also concerned with not labeling Palin's actual hacker as a law-breaker before trial:

AlphaLiberal said...
Victoria rants:
Hope they throw this kid in gaol.

A gaol is too good for him, I tell ya.

And would you like to bother with any sort of trial, show or otherwise, before we throw this kid into a gaol?

Or have you considered all the evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

9/18/08 11:44 PM; 11/25/09, 11:14 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: ScottM asks a rational and coherent question (rare in these parts):

Please explain to me, an American father of four young children, why I'm to suck it up and deny full opportunity to those children (re cap and trade, higher energy taxes, less employment, industry taking it in the pants, lower standard of living) when the Chinese and Indian fathers are not required to do the same for their kids. .

Because if we fail to act to deal with the consequences of global warming all of our children will have a much harder life. As will their children.

There is no security in continuing to dumps millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. As we now know, the damage from carbon pollution is worse than we thought even 12 years ago.

And, your question assumes that climate action will be devastating. This is due to the standard practice "Chicken Littlism" of the polluter lobby.

Just like with seatbelts, SO2 controls, and any other environmental proposal to come down the pike, the industry lobbyists are hyping exaggerated claims of doom. They've been proved wrong by these tactics time and time again.

Converting to a low carbon economy will be bad for Peabody Coal company and other fossil fuel interests. For the rest of us, not at all. We can do this and we can prosper in the process.

Thanks.; 11/25/09, 11:14 AM
Shanna said...: Wow, that Wash Post article is a doozy.

One discusses how scientists can't account for a recent, measured lack of warming -- a fact that climate-change deniers use to ignore the massive body of evidence that global warming could be a dire threat. Really, it demonstrates that the Earth's systems are extremely difficult to predict in detail.

This is what skeptics have been saying for a long time. If you are unable to make predictions that are accurate from your theories, because it’s “difficult”, then why the hell should we believe your theories are right? Maybe you should wait until you have proof that can stand up to rigorous testing (and the scientists themselves are the ones who didnt' believe their proof was strong enough, otherwise they wouldn't mind releasing it) before you try to control the word based on fear of a warmer earth.; 11/25/09, 11:15 AM
AllenS said...: Stop it, AL, you're killin me!; 11/25/09, 11:15 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: AllenS:

That was totally funny!; 11/25/09, 11:16 AM
Cedarford said...: If you follow the Climategate link, you find a poster has found an Anchoress take on the whole situation pretty darn good, and I agree!

"The Anchoress has a great take on why they can't afford to admit they were had...."
-----
The AGW/Climate Change question became a rigorous boondoggle that got out of control not because the scientist who first suggested a connection between human carbon emission and a change in climate were bad people, or that the question was not worth asking, but because bad people then took the uncertain hypothesis, put it on media-fueled steroids, demonized anyone who disagreed with them, made it political -so much so that even the scientists got caught up in the good/bad, smart/stupid, Gore/Bush, Left/Right identifiers- and found real power there; they allowed the AGW movement to become the dubious centering pole upholding the giant circus tent of their worldviews.

As such, it is not permitted to be shaken. Shake the centering pole, and everything could come tumbling down: Oh. My. Gawd! If the Gore-doubters were right about this, what else might they be right about? And if they’re all stupid, and I’m smart, but they’re right and I’m wrong . . .

Implosion.

If the true-believers of AGW got this wrong, and they’d attached it to all of their politics, all of their hate, all of their superiority, then everything is in a free-fall.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/

Actually, a brilliant take on the whole culture of superiority and Correctness the MSM and Leftist scientists are trying to subjugate the masses with. Now...the fact that so many of them are insufferable dickheads does not mean they are automatically wrong and the whole "pollution is a silly myth and Jesus and free markets will give us all the oil we need for eternity" crowd is right. BUt it should be debated civilly and not treated as a Stalinist "re-education camp issue that will steer the masses into correct thinking despite themselves sort of business.

And this is why the mainstream media cannot possibly report
on Climategate until they have an acceptable counter-narrative that
they can haul out in order to either debunk the story or soften its
edges, even as they break the news.; 11/25/09, 11:16 AM
Pastafarian said...: AlphaLiberal said: "...I hope that hackers are at work cracking the mail servers at the Chamber of Commerce..."

So the Chamber of Commerce, that represents millions of businesses large and small, is actually the enemy. Damned capitalists, cobbling out their widgets. Why can't everyone just make their living honestly, like AlphaLiberal, and be a lawyer, or a professional student, or run a drug paraphenalia shop out of their mom's garage?; 11/25/09, 11:17 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Really, are you guys complete idiots?

PatWTF reposts this joke:

"Victoria rants:
Hope they throw this kid in gaol.

A gaol is too good for him, I tell ya. "

I thought it was a typo and just now looked it up. Apparently, gaol is a real word meaning a correctional institute.

But I'll remember not to use humor with this crowd in the future.; 11/25/09, 11:17 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Alpha said:

"the industry lobbyists are hyping exaggerated claims of doom."

Sounds like what the global warming crowd does very well.; 11/25/09, 11:18 AM
AllenS said...: AL: "But I'll remember not to use humor with this crowd in the future"

How will we tell? I'm starting to giggle.; 11/25/09, 11:20 AM
Michael Haz said...: If global warming is a hoax, how truly inconvenient for Al Gore. Makes his 2007 Nobel Peace Prize award look silly(er).

It's going to be an interesting week for Barack Obama. He's going to attend the Copenhagen Summit December 9 where he will again urge he taking of actions to stop AGW, even though it appears to be based on falsified information.

From there, Obama will fly to Stockholm to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, just days after committing another 35,000 American troops to the escalating war in Afghanistan.

How can one not laugh at such blind stupidity?; 11/25/09, 11:21 AM
Cedarford said...: My last paragraph belongs in the Anchoress quote.

I also note that some people have "suspected" Althouse of being the Anchoress...and some have accused the Anchoress of being Althouse.

That is of course nonsense. While both ladies are very bright, their styles are different. And both are too busy with their own blogs, work, and life to have time to pretend to be someone else.; 11/25/09, 11:21 AM
X said...: I don't believe it!
There they go again!
They tidied up so I can't find anything!; 11/25/09, 11:22 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Pastafarian:

So the Chamber of Commerce, that represents millions of businesses large and small, is actually the enemy. .

Yes, they are. They have been so extreme on the issue of climate change that several major corporations have quit over the issue. Apple, Levi Strauss & Company, Mohawk Paper and the utilities Pacific Gas and Electric, Exelon and PNM Resources for starters.

And many other local CoCs are quitting over the case.

It's been in the news but I'll bet Faux News ignored the story so many of you who live in that bubble have probably never heard of it.; 11/25/09, 11:22 AM
Pastafarian said...: That's right, Alpha. We're just a bunch of idiots. The sorts of idiots that make the widgets and whatnots that go into that PC that you're staring blankly at. Idiots that know that we can't run the furnaces that melt the aluminum to forge the heatsink in that PC on windmills and fairy farts.

Idiots that don't think we should bankrupt the economy to build those windmills and harvest those fairy farts based on bullshit data. Idiots that dismissed the notion of a small increase in a trace gas that absorbs a tiny band of the spectrum would have a significant effect on global temperature.

Congratulations on being the smartest person in the room. Or in your mom's basement, anyway.; 11/25/09, 11:27 AM
traditionalguy said...: Alpha liberal...That is a noble sentiment that ending CO2 pollution is do able at a cost we can afford, so lets screw ourselves to show moral superiority. But where does the Constitution allow the Government to screw us to show moral superiority. Thanks for voluntering, but leave us alone. Taxes for a known fraud to finance political slush fund all over the world is the farthest thing from noble as one can get. But you are entitled to your own private CO2 fears like Ed Begley. The only sky that is falling is the American Constitutional form of Democratically elected representatives in a limited government. We are not at war with CO2; we are CO2 beings in a CO2 world. A war on CO2 is a war on the human race.; 11/25/09, 11:27 AM
Alex said...: AL - those corps you listed are run by notorious left-wingers. That proves nada, zilch.; 11/25/09, 11:28 AM
kent said...: Please go to wikipedia [...] I deal with facts.

If that is not the single most laugh-out-loud, oh-help-my-sides statement ever to thalidomide flop its way onto the Internet, it'll do untill the real thing comes along.

Incidentally, sparky: you still haven't backed up your embarrassingly obvious lie of several days ago, that Professor Althouse has stated (in your own words) "it's ok to call Andrew Sullivan a faggot and pray that he dies of AIDS."

It's all the same to me whether you do or don't, you understand... but, just so you do understand, to the haltingly limited extent to which you are capable: everyone else reading along, in this very thread, is absolutely going to know WHY you cannot do so.; 11/25/09, 11:29 AM
knox said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/25/09, 11:29 AM
kent said...: But I'll remember not to use humor with this crowd in the future.

Too late, by half.; 11/25/09, 11:30 AM
Scott M said...: @Alpha

Our industry is in tatters. We are heavily in debt to foreign powers. Our education system is buckling and real wealth is suffering across the income spectrum.

Even without a theoretical crisis, we're in deep shit and I remember that every day my kids might be the first generation in American history to be worse off than the previous. Don't get me started on the Boomers' collective guilt in this.

Climategate does nothing if reinforce the skeptics. At the very least, in the face of such an occurrence, the AGW crowd needs to lay open the floodgates and allow the closest scrutiny possible. Why this hasn't been done before now, I haven't the foggiest.

Again, as a father, I'll not rely on your assurances the the law of unintended consequences isn't going to kick in like gangbusters if they ever get all of the legislation passed the AGW wants.

At the very least, we shouldn't be hamstringing ourselves in the middle of a recession. And yes, I believe it will hamstring us even it benefits down the road. Wait for greener pastures before taking a shit in the dirt. I'm a fairly optimistic guy and I love embracing new ideas...however I'm extremely risk-averse when it comes to my children. I didn't even know that about myself until I had them.

And no, waiting for better times is not kicking the can down the road due to inconvenience...it's just common sense. If your claims are true and your assurances of no bedlam economically are likewise true, a better time to have done all of this would have been in the financial climate of the beginning of the decade...not now. Probably not for another ten years.

You don't look for better weather-sealing windows and doors, a better, more efficient furnace and a water-saving dishwater while the house is burning down and your family is still inside.

Maybe you do...I don't.; 11/25/09, 11:33 AM
Pastafarian said...: Seriously, AlphaLiberal, if there was ever a bad time to take that "you're all idiots" attitude of Montana Urban Legend (or Jazzy Brassiere, or whatever the hell he/she calls themself these days), it's right after the idiotic theory that you've been touting for years has the rug pulled out from under it.; 11/25/09, 11:33 AM
Big Mike said...: Don't get me started on the Boomers' collective guilt in this.

Yup, Scott, that's right. Blame us Boomers. Some kid gets a hangnail down in Bolivia and it must be the fault of the Boomers. So is everything else that's wrong with the world. (Not to mention an awful lot that's right with the world.)

The rest of your post is dead on the mark, but this drumroll about how everything is all the fault of the Baby Boomers is nothing but more left-wing MSM BS. Shame on you for buying into it.

WV: unred - what his spelling book was.; 11/25/09, 11:44 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: ScottM:

I remember that every day my kids might be the first generation in American history to be worse off than the previous. .

Uh, that's actually happened already. It takes two income earners now to afford a standard of living equal to what the post-War generation enjoyed. High School graduates used to be able to get jobs with family-supporting wages. No more.

There is one ideology that demands wages for American workers be kept low: the conservatuive ideology. They oppose unions that raise wages, they oppose the minimum wage, they zelaously promote trade policies abd business subsidies that lead to American industries being shipped overseas.

They demand both that there be no regulation of corporate behavior AND that we strip individuals of the right to redress in the courts. "All power to the corporations!"

That is not reason to avoid acting on policies that will actually create jobs.

It's funny, under Jimmy Carter we had a booming domestic renewable energy industry. Reagan came in, killed all that and took the solar panels down.

Now we're buying our wind turbines and solar panels from other countries who had more foresight and, now, have the jobs.

That's without even touching you "Chicken Littlism." Didn't you know that seat belts and air bags wold also be the death knell for the auto industry? Fool me once, shame on you...; 11/25/09, 11:45 AM
MadisonMan said...: For example, I don't know what to make of stuff like this graph

I look at that and perceive 4-year cycles: 1984-1988, 1988-1992, 1992-1996, 1996-2000, 2004-2008; Cool at the start and end, warm in the middle, and I ask myself: What in the atmosphere has a 4-year cycle? Darned if I know!

(And how was that global trend line computed?); 11/25/09, 11:49 AM
Sofa King said...: Because if we fail to act to deal with the consequences of global warming all of our children will have a much harder life. As will their children.

As bad as failing to act and dealing with the consequences would be, acting at great cost and having to deal with the consequences anyways would be even worse.; 11/25/09, 11:50 AM
Original Mike said...: What in the atmosphere has a 4-year cycle? Darned if I know!

Well, the presidental election cycle is 4 years long (just free accociating here).; 11/25/09, 11:54 AM
AllenS said...: AL: "Fool me once, shame on you..."

I bought this farm in 1973. One of the reasons this place looked so good to me, was the fact that it had 9 acres of woods. The smart people of the time were talking about global cooling. I'm thinking about heating the place with wood.

Fool me once, nope, can't be fooled again.; 11/25/09, 11:55 AM
David said...: This just in:

Obama pardons 45 pound turkey.; 11/25/09, 11:58 AM
AlphaLiberal said...: Pastafarian:

First, I still think that's one of the best handles going.

and, do you even understand this has not happeneD?

it's right after the idiotic theory that you've been touting for years has the rug pulled out from under it. .

All you have are stolen emails. Emails stolen from people who were under seige from the "anti's" to the point that their work was being interfered with. So, yeah, they're pissed.; 11/25/09, 12:00 PM
Original Mike said...: More seriously, I look at that and think, temperatures are currently on a downtrend. Short term trends aren't important if we have confidence in the model(s) that tell us that the long term trend will be up. However, isn't the issue with the CRU stuff that it calls into doubt the validation of the model(s)?; 11/25/09, 12:01 PM
Sofa King said...: Now we're buying our wind turbines and solar panels from other countries who had more foresight and, now, have the jobs.

You're so close to stumbling over the truth but you manage to avoid it.

Ask yourself - why aren't those turbines and panels made in the United States?

Is it because Americans are too dumb to invent them, or to build them? Clearly not, we invented many in the first place.

Is it because we lack the technological know-how, or the material resources? Obviously this is not true either; we have loads of capital rusting from disuse, and some of the most high-tech factories anywhere.

So, why is it, do you think, that those things are not made here? Why would companies set up factories overseas? Feel free to consider things like labor costs, regulations, liability, and taxes as you ponder this.; 11/25/09, 12:04 PM
Scott M said...: @Alpha

All you have are stolen emails. Emails stolen from people who were under seige from the "anti's" to the point that their work was being interfered with. So, yeah, they're pissed.

As I have understood the story thus far, your statement is incorrect. In fact, to me at least, more damning than the emails is the code that was also released into that there interweb.

You're also wrong on a number of levels about the standard of living now versus post-war re the first generation to do more poorly than the previous...I'll try to free up some time here in a bit to tell you why. Suffice to say that it does NOT require two incomes to enjoy that standard of living. It requires one income and the APPROPRIATE choices in life. If you are married and have kids, we can continue down this line of reasoning. If you don't, I'll submit anything you have to say is theoretical or second-hand.; 11/25/09, 12:09 PM
Pastafarian said...: AlphaLiberal said: "It takes two income earners now to afford a standard of living equal to what the post-War generation enjoyed. High School graduates used to be able to get jobs with family-supporting wages. No more."

Gosh, I wonder what has happened between now and the post-war era that would this happen. I bet it's the fault of those evil corporations. LBJ's Great Society demotivators to employment -- nah, a non-factor. Labor unions causing American manufacturing to whither and die? Nothing to do with this.

Hey, I know!! We can all make windmills. Of course, no one would buy one if not for heavy government subsidies -- they'd never pay for themselves -- but look at what a success cash-for-clunkers was. All we had to do was spend about $10,000 per car, and we were able to get people to buy cars. We'll just continue to flush money down another great big hole with wind turbines, because otherwise the poles will melt and the oceans boil, according to those scientists at East Anglia University.; 11/25/09, 12:10 PM
Henry said...: To hdhouse, downtownload, et al.

The key question about global warming isn't whether or not that it's happening. Clearly it is. The globe came out of the mini-ice-age in the 19th century, and a warming trend is hardly surprising. In geologic time, centuries of warming and cooling patterns will happen simply from random walk and feedback mechanisms.

The challenge for scientists is to demonstrate that twentieth century warming exceeds what we might expect from non-human causes (and does so in dramatic enough fashion to be cause for draconian response).

The ability to answer that question is surprisingly difficult. "Reliable" surface temperature data goes back less than 100 years. Upper atmosphere and satellite readings are obviously even more recent.

The two ways to come up with temperature readings beyond a 100-year horizon are a) proxy readings (ice core samples, tree ring analysis) and b) computer models.

The East Anglia fiasco is important because it exposes both of these approaches as failures. The proxy data is fudged. The computer models are broken. The CRU scientest don't seem to be able to reproduce their own findings from their own data. (That, I think is why they refused to release the data all these years.)

Without a reliable guide to what climate change looks like absent human activity, all conclusions about human influence have to be reevaluated.; 11/25/09, 12:15 PM
LouisAntoine said...: Can someone go over the conspiracy for me again?

So, first of all, East Anglia University or whatever is the control-center for the global warming con. That I get— I’ve been suspecting British perfidy for years— I’m part French, after all. Perfidious Albion! as we say.

So all the scientists in the world that have signed on to the AGW hoax take their marching orders from the research assistants at East Anglia U. But why are they trying to fool us? I suppose the scientists who study climate would have an interest in furthering their research funding. But what about the others? Is it herd mentality or professional solidarity? Wouldn’t some of them— molecular biologists, for example— in fact resent the funding being siphoned off to the climate hoaxers? To quote Jack Handey, “It’s a mystery, and that’s why so is mankind.”

Now. I think that these people also may be marxist-leninist revolutionaries? Considering their scientific prowess, perhaps they are even the SAME people who overthrew the Czar— having managed to preserve themselves from death through their dark “scientific” arts. They want to destroy the American economy! To lay it low enough so that the WORKERS may seize the means of production!

Now, imagine the poor industrialists whose factory smokestacks, it turns out, have been belching out harmless particulates all this while! Shackled with regulations! Chased from state to state, mountaintop to strip-mined mountaintop, searching for a land without the tyranny of regulations on pollution. They are simply seeking to further God’s exhortation from Genesis, that we go forth and rape the land! Rape it hard! They are doing God’s work while the army of communist science FIENDS parades around in the media with Al Gore’s demonic, cackling visage at their helm.

Thank GOD for the brave army of the right wing blogosphere for defending us from these science fiends! Perhaps in our lifetimes extractive industries will be able to fulfill their God-given mandates without interference or regard to any consequence of their profit-maximizing, utterly heedless practices.; 11/25/09, 12:21 PM
MadisonMan said...: The challenge for scientists is to demonstrate that twentieth century warming exceeds what we might expect from non-human causes (and does so in dramatic enough fashion to be cause for draconian response)

A seminar I attended in October on Hurricanes in the Atlantic suggests that at least 60 years of observations (from now) are needed before you can say with certainty that a change is due to AGW and not just natural variability.

The question becomes: How certain do you have to be before you think changes should be made? Or do you just want to push this off onto the next generation if in fact something is happening?; 11/25/09, 12:27 PM
Unknown said...: downtownlad said...

(a bunch of yammering moonbat AGW conspiracy stuff that I find too tiresome to quote)

I'd just like to remind you that in the 70's, it was cold for a few years in a row so all the newspapers and the chattering classes were saying that we were going into another ice age.

And in the 30's it was hot for a few years in a row so all the newspapers and the chattering classes were talking about global warming.

And then in the 1880's, it was cold for a few years in a row so all the newspapers and the chattering classes were talking about going into an ice age again.

This seems rather cyclical, and the sane people always want to wait and see evidence before they destroy their civilization to placate some scientists with some tree rings and reindeer poop.

I'm convinced Global Warming will go down as the phrenology of the late 20th century.; 11/25/09, 12:27 PM
Fred4Pres said...: Call me when Al Gore invests in sugar can, coconut and sugar palm plantations in Georgia. Plenty of cheap farmland there. If everything you say is true, we should be growing those things there so we can produce our own ethanol like Brazil. Win Win.; 11/25/09, 12:31 PM
Bill Kilgore said...: He stands above the lib who is on his knees muttering foolishly. He grasps his sword with both hands and demands, "where is your Gore now."

I just wanted to recommend that most thinking people will be very careful around the pseudo-progs for the next couple of weeks. To a lefty, last week's unbelievable events are roughly akin to stumbling upon Jesus Christ blowing lines with Lindsy Lohan while taking a walk with an evangelical friend of yours. You just know there's going to be a psychological blow-up, try to make sure you're not around when it happens.; 11/25/09, 12:33 PM
kent said...: He stands above the lib who is on his knees muttering foolishly. He grasps his sword with both hands and demands, "where is your Gore now."

I'd so buy the t-shirt. ;); 11/25/09, 12:36 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: The fact of the matter is that no amount of science, data, logic or facts will dissuade the global warming deniers from accepting reality.

The seas could rise 45 feet and they'd just attack Al Gore and climate scientists.

That's because your opposition had nothing to do with science, data, logic or facts.

Your opposition is tribal and ideological. If environmentalists are for it, you are against it. And the last thing you want is to allow that your sworn enemies were right about something.

It's a deeply irresponsible approach to a very serious problem.; 11/25/09, 12:36 PM
Alex said...: The seas could rise 45 feet and they'd just attack Al Gore and climate scientists.

It's always COULD/WOULD/SHOULD with you folks. You don't actually have to PROVE anything, douchebag? Nah, let's institute dramatic carbon taxes and HOPE FOR THE BEST!!!; 11/25/09, 12:38 PM
Alex said...: AL - if your side was serious about AGW you'd be for building 50 new nuclear power stations in the next 10 years. But no, your side wants no new power capacity, but wants to shut down all coal power as fast as possible. I'm sure you'll be enjoying the rolling blackouts.; 11/25/09, 12:40 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: More dishonesty:

I'd just like to remind you that in the 70's, it was cold for a few years in a row so all the newspapers and the chattering classes were saying that we were going into another ice age. .

1) A few scientists advanced a the global cooling theory.

2) The press went nuts over the theory.

3) Meanwhile, global cooling theory was evaluated in the scientific community, found wanting, and discarded.

4) No further action was taken on the global cooling theory. No movement, no legislation, no further action.

Fast forward 30 years and the liars and hucksters of the polluter lobby dredge this up as evidence that we should doubt the evaluated, tested, and approved theory of global warming.

It's this type of persistent deceit that leads people like me to conclude the opponents of climate action are liars and cheats (and, with the stolen emails we can add "thieves."); 11/25/09, 12:40 PM
Anonymous said...: "That's without even touching you "Chicken Littlism." Didn't you know that seat belts and air bags wold also be the death knell for the auto industry? Fool me once, shame on you...
"death knell for the auto industry?"

How are things going in Detroit?
They are just a few more government mandates from prosperity ,I'm sure.; 11/25/09, 12:40 PM
Joe said...: Seems to me that anthropological global warming theory largely rests on the rather arrogant theory that we can control life, the universe and everything to a far, far greater degree than we actually can.

One of the supposed lessons of the cold war is to be wary of human ingenuity--a common theme in science fiction. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Regardless of whether humans caused global warming or not, are we so arrogant as to presume what the best fix actually is? How do we know we won't do more harm than good? (At the most extreme, what if we did something that ended up reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere by several magnitudes?)

Of course this begs the question; what is the right temperature of the earth? That of 1980, 1850, 1350, 300, 13000 BC, 75000 BC? What's the right CO2 concentration? Nitrogen concentration? Hint: there is no answer because there is no "right" climate. Never has been, never will be.; 11/25/09, 12:40 PM
Scott M said...: @Alpha

That's a blatantly false statement and you know it. There are plenty of level-headed, fair-minded people that have a lot of problems not with AGW itself, but with what the environmental lobby seems to want to do about it.

You seem to have given up the debate to pursue the ad hominem tact of debate. This puts you squarely in the ranks of neither the level-headed nor the fair-minded.; 11/25/09, 12:41 PM
Bill Kilgore said...: That's because your opposition had nothing to do with science, data, logic or facts.

Projection is not just a river in Egypt.

Also, this (no linky); http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_RZxlYx1u9Jc/SwoI78XLtuI/AAAAAAAAA4A/SPmBieedlcc/s1600/Global+Warming+Cheaters.jpg; 11/25/09, 12:41 PM
Alex said...: ScottM - only lefties get to define who is level-headed in the AGW debate. They can decide on a whim who is a crackpot and ideologue. It sure aint any of theirs!; 11/25/09, 12:42 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Alex:

AL - if your side was serious about AGW you'd be for building 50 new nuclear power stations in the next 10 years. .

Some enviros have proposed such expansion schemes.

I don't support it because nuclear power is very expensive and will result in less carbon control for the buck invested.

Why conservatives are so ideologically wedded to such a boondoggle is a curious question.

Here is a good recent article detailing the horrific economics of nuclear power:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.html

This is without documenting the lax regulation and the tremendous downside if this technology goes bad.; 11/25/09, 12:43 PM
Alex said...: Alpha - that you oppose nuclear power as a "boondoggle" just shows you're nothing but a psychopathic luddite intent on bringing us back to the stone age. Fuck off now.; 11/25/09, 12:44 PM
Elliott A said...: This topic always brings out the comments! Despite what some people think, this is what we KNOW.

1. It is generally getting warmer.
2. See #1
etc.

We do not know for sure why. CO2 is more likely an effect than a cause. Other gases may be involved to a much greater degree. Man may therefore have an effect, but to what degree? Very little of the debate is about science, since it falls along political ideological lines. This would not happen if there were a true scientific debate.

IMHO, the only salient point in the whole thing is that there is nothing we can do to significantly change the climate in the short term. If the sea will rise, bring in Dutch engineers and put Americans to work building dikes. If the crops need to be planted in a different place, so be it. The world has been warmer before and it is obviously still here. The Dutch have lived beneath sea level for hundreds of years and are still here. People are very adaptable. We can build or empty whole cities in a generation. In the meantime, we will continue to develop better and cleaner energy sources since this is the way of the world; innovation and improvement.; 11/25/09, 12:45 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: The Global Warming/Climate Change Bubble has burst.

Rush Limbaugh; 11/25/09, 12:46 PM
AllenS said...: Alpha, please. You can only tell so many jokes in one day, before they just aren't funny anymore. And, to be truthful, today, like most other days, your jokes are not funny. Ever.; 11/25/09, 12:47 PM
Michael said...: Anyone who has developed a complicated computer model only to discover that a bad formula exists in the very middle of it will understand the frustration of these "scientists." They have to force data into the errant cells or start all over. You can get away with this kind of manipulation once or twice in a model, but after that it is nearly impossible to do anything other than basically make up outcomes. Over time this becomes to math, because that is what we are talking about here, what market conditions were to Madoff. Disaster. Madoff varied his outcomes to mimic reality but the outcomes were slightly better, or a lot better, than what the real world would or could produce. Ditto the climate. Highly uncooperative and thus requiring a lot of model tweaking to have the "aberrations" comport with received thought.; 11/25/09, 12:47 PM
Henry said...: The seas could rise 45 feet and they'd just attack Al Gore and climate scientists.

The expected sea rise over the next century is assessed at less than a meter over the next century. If the sea rose 45 feet, it would disprove every model out there.; 11/25/09, 12:47 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Scott M:

That's a blatantly false statement and you know it .

I think you're referring to my statement on the opposition to global warming action.

Nope. I'm not joking. I sincerely believe what I wrote there.

As another example, you think only environmentalists want action on global warming.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, major corporations have quite the Chamber of Commerce due to their opposition to climate action.

Also, the debate is settled globally. This "global warming conspiracy" seen by the American right wing is truly vast: it encompasses the leadership of most nations on earth, a growing number of corporations, insurance companies (who are paying for climate disasters), low lying nations, etc.

Meanwhile, the American right is rehashing the global cooling debate and other theories and arguments that have been disproven hundreds of times.

So, yeah, facts and science and logic do not matter to these people.; 11/25/09, 12:48 PM
Michael said...: Alpha:

If the debate is settled why do you continue to debate? Odd. Why do the climatologists labor on? Why do we spend money on a settled debate? Why not shut down these "research" centers that are no longer researching anything at all that is not already known, settled? We need to move directly to stage two and quit funding these people who keep researching the roundness of the world.; 11/25/09, 12:55 PM
Alex said...: Michael - until they get cap n Tax, and carbon taxes and shut down coal power, they can't rest. The "climate scientists" will keep churning out their fake projections until their political ends are achieved. Nothing short of the utter destruction of Western civilization will do for them.; 11/25/09, 12:57 PM
Dark Eden said...: Its quite a cushy little call to authority or however that debating term is called.

The AGW folks refuse to release any of their data.

They refuse to even listen to any skeptics who aren't peer reviewed.

They then work behind the scenes to make it has difficult as possible for any skeptics to be peer reviewed in the first place.

Quite a catch 22. Unless you're peer reviewed your findings are worthless. Never peer review anyone who disagrees with us.

Now the scam is up though, and all the rubes don't want to admit they were taken in. Its understandable really.

Especially though I think is the horrible realization that those dirty bumpkin red state mouth breathing knuckle dragging teabaggers were right and you were wrong! That has to hurt the self anointed smartest people in the room.; 11/25/09, 12:58 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Alex:

Alpha - that you oppose nuclear power as a "boondoggle" just shows you're nothing but a psychopathic luddite intent on bringing us back to the stone age. Fuck off now. .

I guess I am fucking off here, trying to reasons with a bunch of tightly closed minds. So, thanks.

Your name-calling, however, is not very persuasive. It is bereft of fact, logic or reference to some real world experience showing nuclear power is not very expensive. You're all theory and insults with no real world grounding.

The Finns built a new generation nuke with French technology. It is "simple, standardized designs and modular components."

From the article above:

"In the meantime, because the country expected the reactor to deliver a bounty of energy and didn’t pursue other options, it’s facing a severe electricity shortage and will have to import even more from abroad, which will drive up power bills. Elfi, a consortium of Finnish heavy industries, has calculated that the project delays will create $4 billion in indirect costs for electricity users."

You don't think that's expensive or a boondoggle, eh?

"We concentrated so much on nuclear that we lost sight of everything else," says Oras Tynkynnen, a climate policy adviser in the Finnish prime minister’s office. "And nuclear has failed to deliver. It has turned out to be a costly gamble for Finland, and for the planet."; 11/25/09, 12:58 PM
Scott M said...: @Alpha

And there you brought really big ramps out, filled the tank full of great whites, and brought out an AM radio station to broadcast the jump.

You've definitely left the big-kid's table if you think everyone else the world is just hunky-dory with your point of view and that debate is settled everywhere else but where fly-over Americans cling to God and Guns.

I think we're done here. It gets me no where to debate with those not serious about listening to the other side.; 11/25/09, 12:59 PM
Elliott A said...: @Alpha- Of course insurance companies are on the bandwagon! They don't pay for damage that can be proven to be someone elses fault! Corporations are politically correct and pay lip service while doing what they've always done. Most world leaders are idiots or at least do not understand the scientific method. Low lying countries want free money from us. Many climate experts are no longer looking at CO2 at all! At the University of Maryland, where my nephew is a student in aerospace engineering and atmospheric chemistry, they are taught that CO2 is meaningless as a greenhouse gas. This is one of the leading climate change research centers in the world. I am a science person, and I am waiting to see something a little more substantial than computer models. Does that make me a nut?; 11/25/09, 1:01 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Michael:

If the debate is settled why do you continue to debate? .

The debate over whether or not human-caused global warming is occurring is, indeed, done.

The political damage from the polluter lobby and their stooges in the conservative movement continues.

So from time to time I try to dialog with them. Results are tiresomely predictable, however.

Please explain to us how so many nations and corporations around the world are part of this conspiracy to stop carbon pollution.; 11/25/09, 1:01 PM
traditionalguy said...: Elliott A...That was a good reply to the Crisis Users. But we should not surrender to their CO2 is Pollution Lie or they will still get us by the balls as they planned to do with the faked Warming Fantasy. Clean is good and Dirty is bad. That's all the politicians need to get us to believe to get the votes to rob us blind. So stand your ground that CO2 is a clean and harmless plant food. That's the truth. Oil and coal look black/dirty and good little boys wash their hands to please Mother Earth. That implanted mental image (mind control)is all AlGore needs to create by his cartoon movies of an evil CO2 everywhere. The CO2 from oil and coal usage is very small compared to all other CO2 sources, and they do not pollute anything by creating CO2 and never will. "Clean" is not a legal requirement so long as no harm is done except to people's inner feelings of dirtyness that they wish to wash away. Truth is powerful.; 11/25/09, 1:02 PM
Original Mike said...: The question becomes: How certain do you have to be before you think changes should be made? Or do you just want to push this off onto the next generation if in fact something is happening?

But it's not even clear now that we're certain at all (apparently). Forget whether the warming is man-made. It's not even clear (to me) that we are even warming.

In direct answer to your question, I would say we should be doing everything we can in the realm of science and engineering to look for carbon emission reducing technologies, but given what appears to be, at the moment, a poor case to be made for the AGW hypothesis, we should not be brute forcing "solutions" that have such a detrimental impact on our standard of living.; 11/25/09, 1:02 PM
Scott M said...: @Elliot A

Does that make me a nut?

Nope. It keeps you at the big-kid's table while Alpha and his ilk are sitting in the other room on the fold out drinking grape juice and eating parent-sliced bits of dark meat turkey.; 11/25/09, 1:03 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Elliot A:

Interesting conspiracy theory. All the suits at the insurance companies decided to push global warming to shrug off their liabilities.

Man, these conspiracies are everywhere, aren't they?

Couldn't be that they are expert at assessing risk and see this risk as high and growing with direct financial impact on their industry?

No, that explanation is too simple. Must be a conspiracy.

From CNN:
Insurance companies take on global warming
'"Climate change - often referred to as 'global warming' - is one of the most significant emerging risks facing the world today, presenting tremendous challenges to the environment, to the world economy, and to individual businesses," the report said.

"Businesses - if they haven't already - must begin to account for it in their strategic and operation planning."'

http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/22/news/economy/pluggedin_gunther.fortune/index.htm; 11/25/09, 1:05 PM
Michael said...: Alpha

I asked a serious question and you ducked it because it is not a settled matter. There are very serious scientists whose conclusions differ from the "settled" position. Your thoughts on nuclear energy reveal a position that is loathe to consider solutions that would sustain, cleanly, a consumer economy.

There is no reason for you to take silly positions because some scientists have cheated and embarrassed your ideology.; 11/25/09, 1:06 PM
Dark Eden said...: Just remember Alpha.

Only your opinion is legitimate.

Anyone who disagrees with you is Evil. Bad. Wrong. Only You and people who think like you see clearly.

Only you.; 11/25/09, 1:07 PM
David said...: Alpha, you are ignorant on energy matters. I missed the great “boom” in renewable energy under Carter that you tout. So did the rest of the country, because it never happened.

According to DOE/EIA 2008 annual report:

Domestic production of renewable energy increased from 5166 Quadrillion BTU in 1979 to 7316 quadrillion in 2008. (This even though hydro—disfavored to protect endangered critters—actually fell from 2931 quadrillion btu to 2642 during that time.) This is about a 40% gain in renewable energy despite the decline in hydro, which had been the most important source of renewable.

Total domestic energy production rose from 67.2 quadrillion btu’s in 1979 to 73.7 in 2008. Thus there was only a 6.5 quadrillion annual increase in overall domestic production of energy over 30 years. (This after Carter promised that his policies would end dependence on foreign oil.) About 40% of this gain in domestic production is attributable to increases in renewable energy during that time.

During this supposedly blighted time of mostly Republican rule, energy efficiency was hugely improved. Total US energy consumption rose about 25% from 1979 to 2008, from about 80 quadrillion btu to 99 quadrillion. The economy expanded by over 100% during that time. The expansion would have been impossible without the dramatic increases in efficiency, which were mostly market driven.

Obama’s promises about how he will “fix” energy issues are as unreliable and unrealistic as Carter’s were. We are wasting billions on subsidies of uneconomic “green” sources while we should be focusing on natural gas, nuclear, hydro, offshore oil production and cleaner coal.; 11/25/09, 1:07 PM
Scott M said...: @Alpha

Couldn't be that they are expert at assessing risk and see this risk as high and growing with direct financial impact on their industry?

I take it, then, that you are against Obama's healthcare and think the current system of insurance company-led health care is just fine?

Hmm?; 11/25/09, 1:08 PM
Alex said...: Alpha Liberal would like us to believe:

* AGW is settled, fact.
* Nuclear power is an expensive boondoggle
* Coal power is obviously very bad for AGW and should be shut down.

I can only conclude from all this that AL wants a 50% reduction in GDP to "save the planet".; 11/25/09, 1:09 PM
DADvocate said...: Laugh now, but when Madison is hundreds of feet under water and/or 150 degrees in the shade, you'll be sorry.; 11/25/09, 1:10 PM
Fred4Pres said...: anthropogenic global warming is fact when I can get the house warm without drafts.; 11/25/09, 1:16 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Elliot A:

At the University of Maryland, where my nephew is a student in aerospace engineering and atmospheric chemistry, they are taught that CO2 is meaningless as a greenhouse gas. This is one of the leading climate change research centers in the world. I am a science person, and I am waiting to see something a little more substantial than computer models. Does that make me a nut? .

No, it makes you confused and misinformed.

Here are notes from a UMD class on CO2 and global warming [PDF].

From these notes:

"Current human activities release about 8 Gt(gigatons),or 8,000,000,000 (8 ×109)tons of carbon per year."

"CO2 is long-lived"

"Fate of Carbon Important"

'CO2 Latitudinal Gradient: “Fingerprint”of Human Release'

This conclusively disproves your claim that "they are taught that CO2 is meaningless as a greenhouse gas."

I return to my earlier point that facts have no effect on deniers. By all means, prove me wrong here and admit you made a false statement.

p.s. The class is:
Global Carbon Cycle
AOSC 434/658R & CHEM 434/678A; 11/25/09, 1:17 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: From a climagate email

The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers!
If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little - if anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI ) (fredom of information request)

In response to FOI and EIR requests, we've put up some data - mainly paleo data.

They had people deleting emails on a lead up to an information request?; 11/25/09, 1:18 PM
Dark Eden said...: You know, some people got the hint that Global Warming was a scam when the AGW folks were totally unphased by the fact that the globe hasn't been warming for over a decade.

Some people need a little bigger slap to the head to get it.; 11/25/09, 1:18 PM
Joe said...: Please explain to us how so many nations and corporations around the world are part of this conspiracy to stop carbon pollution.

Money.

Nations see climate treaties as a way to put competitors at a disadvantage. Corporations know that political patronage is very important, if not crucial, and thus go along.; 11/25/09, 1:18 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: David:

Alpha, you are ignorant on energy matters. I missed the great “boom” in renewable energy under Carter that you tout. .

Then he selectively shows data from 1979 and jumping to 2008! As if that address my point!

"Boom" means it grew. And renewable energy did grow under Carter. Renewable energy crashed under Reagan. Your facts don't address that claim at all.

Maybe you're a young `un who wasn't around then. I was. Things grew under Carter and went bust under Reagan.

And the fact remains that today the renewable energy industry that was born in the USA is increasingly global with other countries eating our lunch and reaping the benefits of these changes. Vesta, for example, is a leading Danish wind turbine manufacturer who picked up US technology after Reagan and Bush ran the industry into the ground.; 11/25/09, 1:24 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I can only conclude from all this that AL wants a 50% reduction in GDP to "save the planet".

Since the GDP consists of these basic components it would be easy as pie to cut the GDP by 50%.

Personal consumption
Government expenditures
Private investment
Inventory growth
Trade balance

The easiest way to cut GDP would be if government would quit borrowing Trillions of Dollars and artificially inflating the "G" in the GDP.

It is all a shell game right now. The government is spending money it doesn't have to inflate the growth in the GDP to make it look like we have had actual growth.

If you have an average monthly income of $4000 (household GDP) and then borrow $4000 to spend in the next month, it would a lie to say your monthly income (household GDP) for that month is $8000. Simplified example, but this is what the government is doing.

Borrowing money that we don't have in reality, spending it and then crowing about how there is growth. NO !!!! there isn't growth. We still owe the money PLUS the interest on the money. We are worse off than before.

Shell game, with our lives and our children's futures to make political points and retain power.; 11/25/09, 1:27 PM
AlphaLiberal said...: Dark Eden:

...the fact that the globe hasn't been warming for over a decade. .

That's not a fact.

That's another falsehood.; 11/25/09, 1:27 PM
Chip Ahoy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/25/09, 1:28 PM
Elliott A said...: @ alpha

Taht is all well and good, except: I never said that CO2 isn't increasing, nor did I say we were not causing the increase, merely that the climate scientists who are experts on Atmospheric Chemistry state that the .01% change in the atmosphere that the rise in CO2 over the last 100 years represents does not and cannot be a significant factor in the increase in global temperature. They are actively researching other gases, especially methane as the culprits. Their official line is that AGW is real, but they don't believe the complicity of CO2.; 11/25/09, 1:30 PM
Dark Eden said...: The really sad thing Alpha, is I have to assume that those links contain cooked data, until I know who produced, them what their agenda is, etc etc.

The consensus is that there hasn't been any warming since 1998.; 11/25/09, 1:30 PM
Bill Kilgore said...: Ms. Althouse,

There are many things to be said in your favor, but it is certainly true that you attract lousy trolls.

Work on it. ;)

wv-ovisms; Andrew Sullivan's suggestion for a Palin research project; 11/25/09, 1:31 PM
Larry J said...: Alpha, hate to disagree with your religion but the analysis of the computer code shows some critical information:

1. The data is a mess,
2. The code used to "model" global warming is worse,
3. The results are both irreproduceable and unverified.

The emails show collusion to prevent peer review by those who disagree with AGW. They also so conspiracy to avoid compliance with disclosure requirements. That's bad enough, but how can anyone still believe in global warming when the very data and code used to predict it is in such a sorry state? The only possible answer is religious conviction, not science.

From the linked article:

As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

This is a massive corruption of everything science is supposed to be. The people who committed this fraud should be prosecuted and imprisoned.; 11/25/09, 1:33 PM
Shanna said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11/25/09, 1:33 PM
Shanna said...: They oppose unions that raise wages

Unions raising wages has worked out fabulously for Detroit.

Because if we fail to act to deal with the consequences of global warming all of our children will have a much harder life. As will their children.

I’m not sure what makes warming so much better than cooling. From the info on the little ice age, it sounds like except for all the snow, cooling pretty much sucks. I maintain that the earth’s temp will go up and down and we need to learn to roll with it.; 11/25/09, 1:35 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: The problem with global warming is that el Niño is all grown up ;)

Nobody knows what happened to La Niña. Some speculate she ran off with some other Niño.

The whole thing is utterly unprecedented.

wv - rubtall - use your imagination ;); 11/25/09, 1:42 PM