This sort of thing would never, unfortunately, be said here.

Comments  Print This Post

---

As Climategate continues to drive significant interest online, despite a near complete absence of media coverage, the biggest adherents to the Global Warming religion are becoming unhinged.

A professor at the university in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal called global warming skeptic Marc Morano “an a**hole” on live television Friday.

This marvelously came moments after Andrew Watson, a professor at the University of East Anglia, told the BBC host moderating the discussion that the controversy surrounding e-mail messages obtained from his school’s computers is “a real setback not because there’s anything wrong with the science, but because the character assassination and the temperature of the debate which you can just see from our colleague in America is just obsuring the important issue.”

So they’re doubling down on the same tactics: attack dissenters personally, then declare any debate as a distraction from the need to do something.

Gordon Brown says those who question the increasingly exposed junk science behind AGW theory are “flat-earthers.”

It will never dawn on them that they’re all Chicken Little’s.

Yet despite their best efforts at claiming otherwise, American’s aren’t buying it.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Robert “Baghdad Bob” Gibbs chimes in on Climategate:

“[O]n the order of several thousand scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change is happening.  I don’t think that’s anything that is, quite frankly, among — most people — in dispute anymore.”

Here are 450 peer-reviewed papers questioning the indisputable consensus.

There are no infidels in Baghdad.  Global warming is not in dispute.

Comments  Print This Post

---

The next round of Climategate is upon us.  The Climategate emails exposed the unscientific behavior of those behind the so-called global warming consensus.  But the emails were only part of the story.  Also released was a wealth of data and computer programs, which require longer to analyze and digest.  Now they are starting to paint a similarly disturbing picture:

Since these documents are more technical than the emails, however, analysis has been slower in coming. And, as in the case of the emails, there’s unmistakable evidence of fudging and book-cooking, all designed to give the impression that the warming in the twentieth century is unprecedented. The evidence is all the more damning because of the expletive-laced complaints of programmers tasked with altering code to corral unruly, unreliable, and sometimes cherry-picked data in a pre-determined direction. At one point, a poor, exasperated programmer, “Harry,” bemoans “the hopeless state of our databases.” (See telling examples and good analysis of these code notes here, here, here, and here.)

Hiding and manipulating data and code are especially serious in climate science because, as Willis Eschenbach has pointed out, “unlike all other physical sciences, [climate science] does not study things—instead it studies averages . . . This is because climate by definition is the average of weather over a suitably long period of time (typically taken as a minimum of 30 years).” So without the background information, it’s almost impossible for other scientists to verify—or falsify—your results.

…We may just now be seeing the potential for this new way of transferring and analyzing information. In Memogate, remember, we were talking about a single one-page Word document. With Climategate, we’re dealing with thousands of detailed, often technical documents. They may even have been compiled internally at the CRU in response to a Freedom of Information request and were then leaked instead. So the revenge of the nerds could be especially brutal and prolonged. Already, insights and analyses are proliferating on the climate blogosphere so quickly that it’s becoming impossible for even the best consolidators to keep up.

On top of this comes the revelation that raw data used to construct the temperature record has been destroyed, and all the remains is the adjusted numbers.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

Some manner of adjustment of the data is expected and part of the process, but without the raw data to compare it to, we can never verify the accuracy of the methodology used, or even whether it was a good faith effort to correct for other flaws or simply cynical manipulation of the data to achieve the desired result.  And on the cynical manipulation front, the evidence against the warmists is piling up.

Comments  Print This Post

---

While the media is doing their best to avoid covering the bombshell Climategate scandal, the global warming propaganda industry is working on all cylinders to bring you the latest in scaremongering and hysteria.  The latest production is the “Copenhagen Diagnosis,” which laughably declares that global warming is worse than the exaggerated and made-up claims so far reported by the IPCC.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the world’s foremost body for weighing and assessing climate science—received a kick in the pants today from members who say the climate situation is much worse than the IPCC has so far reported.

Twenty-six climatologists—including 14 IPCC members—have released a startling update to the panel’s work, reporting that sea levels could rise and methane-laden arctic permafrost could melt much sooner than the panel had anticipated.

“The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science” is not an official IPCC report; it’s a summary of the hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that have been published since the IPCC’s last assessment. It was released now to fill the long gap in between official IPCC reports—the last was released in 2007, but the drafting text is more than three years old, and the next isn’t scheduled until 2013. It was also timed to the Copenhagen climate talks, of course.

We know from the Climategate emails that the peer-reviewed process has been thoroughly compromised by the political agenda of the warmist industry. Conspiring to subvert the anonymous review process, targeting journals that publish “skeptic” articles and demonizing any and all dissent are just some of the tricks they revealed.

This report, far from a summary of objective science, is a politically timed polemic designed to stoke fear and drum up support for the coming Copenhagen meeting, where world leaders will conspire to destroy the world economy and limit the individual freedoms of their citizens.

Update: IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri confirms the suspicion that global warming alarmism is an all-out attack on western life.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Time for more on Climategate.  There’s now a searchable database of the emails, which I decided to use it to find discussions surrounding FOIA requests.

In 2005, for instance, an interesting discussion took place on how to avoid legitimate requests:
Read more

Comments  Print This Post

---

This is a major scientific scandal. A hacker breached the network of a government-funded, so-called “leading Climate Research Unit” in Britain, and the resulting email exposure has given the global warming community a collective black eye.  The emails demonstrate a clear pattern of data manipulation, organized resistance and obstruction to disclosure, and private admissions to publicly denied faults in the research.

The New York Times naturally couldn’t resist a little spin and damage control:

The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists.

Ridiculous.  The evidence has been so thoroughly discredited and dunked that it is unconscionable for a major media organ, even one as biased as the New York Times, to engage in this level of spin.  But while the media doesn’t get it, the public increasingly does.

Opinion polls show faith in AGW continues to be the minority position.  Meanwhile, Al Gore is facing an increasingly emboldened public backlash for both his views and his hypocrisy.

Update: I’ve started a Climategate Link-o-Rama page to keep up with the story.  I’ll update it with the best resources on the controversy as I come across them.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.