Recent Bookmarks and Annotations
-
RealClimate: CRU Hack: More context less than a minute ago
-
Timmy,
You don’t need the tree-ring records as evidence of anthropogenic climate change if you don’t trust those records, for whatever reason. Last year, there was a reconstruction (by Mike Mann et al) of the global temperature record over the past 2,000 years, with and without tree-ring records.
Without inclusion of the tree-ring measurements, the data still showed that recent
warming is greater than at any point in at least the past 1,300 years. Instead of tree ring data this reconstruction used sources such as corals, cave deposits, sediments etc.
See: Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 105, 13252–13257 (2008)
-
Response: As we've discussed often, the problem with trying to constrain sensitivity over the 20th Century is the uncertainty in the aerosol contribution. If it is at the high end, then you get very large sensitivities indeed, while if it is at the low end, then sensitivities are lower (but not that low). Issues with ocean uptake are also relevant. Thus the constraints from the surface temperature record in the last century are not that useful. The LGM is much more useful. - gavin]
-
RealClimate: The CRU hack: Context 7 minutes ago
-
-
The mathematical equations derived to study the evolution of climate change will be non-linear. We have observed instabilities and tipping points in the climate history of the earth. Therefore I think it is clear that the climate is chaotic in a mathematical sense. (please correct if wrong?)
-
-
Actually it's not clear. And in fact there is significant evidence against it. First off, why are any climate changes predictable? The cooling of Pinatubo, the seasonal cycle, the mid-Holocene, the temperatures at the last ice age, the similarity of the interglacials etc. Climate models - even though they are chaotic in the classical Lorenz sense (individual trajectories diverge very quickly), have stable statistics regardless of the initial conditions. Thus climate - the statistical description of the model state - does not seem to be chaotic. The model climate does not have a sensitive dependence on initial conditions for instance. This isn't a proof that the climate isn't chaotic, and indeed simpler models show parameter regimes where it is, but it certainly isn't 'clear' that it is. - gavin]
-
Mark Gibb wrote: “My problem is, regardless of the science, I just cannot accept the liberty-destroying political outcomes that are favored by the global-warming fearists.”
-
What exactly is it about a vision of individuals, communities, small businesses, farmers and others owning their own solar and wind based energy generation systems, with which they can independently harvest free energy rather than having to buy scarce, expensive fuel from giant corporations, that you feel threatens your “liberty”?
Besides which, if you don’t like the solutions that are being proposed, then the rational response is to put forward your own proposals, not deny the facts of physical reality.
-
Lawrence, as a former EE, I assume you have some background in Signal Processing, to sort out the signal from the noise. So here are a couple of neutral sites to get some info on this whole discussion. Staring with global temps.
http://www.climate4you.com/
-
-
No matter how hard Realclimate’s Gavin Schnidt tries to stem the flood, this will not go away. As is said elsewhere (Note 7) QUOTE: Gavin over at realclimate keeps distracting people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other, and what Trenberth said, and the Nature “trick”, and the like. Those are side trails. To me, the main issue is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency. UNQUOTE.
-
How is the regulation of pumping chemicals into the atmosphere an attack on liberty? The release of greenhouse gasses is taking away liberty. A small group of people are making profit by damaging your future and the future of your children. If someone was putting radioactive waste into your water supply, do you believe that is an act of liberty? How can you possibly buy into the liberty argument? When someone is granted rights over other people, he or she is not enjoying liberty but totalitarianism.
-
I don’t really understand Monbiots angle on this. It looks like a massive overreaction. He seems surprised that scientists discuss how to present their work and how to keep bad science out of the spotlight. Weird.
-
Gavin, you stated earlier that submitting the names of possible referees, to an editor, is an acceptable technique in the peer review process. The preceding e-mail implies that Jones is recommending referees, to the Chief Editor of IJC, for a paper that he is not the author of. Do you consider this an ethical practice w.r.t. the peer review process?
The way this reads to me is that if Jones gets an e-mail about being a referee, he’ll recommend Francis (Zwiers?) and Myles (Allen?) as referees. Standard statement from every editor I’ve ever dealt with or any time I’ve requested reviews as an editor: “If cannot or do not want to do the review, please recommend other possible reviewers.”
Jones never says he’s going to contact McGregor about these people as reviewers. He only says something about if McGregor e-mails him (presumably to be a reviewer). Not only ethical, but expected, behavior.
-
Gavin, you stated earlier that submitting the names of possible referees, to an editor, is an acceptable technique in the peer review process. The preceding e-mail implies that Jones is recommending referees, to the Chief Editor of IJC, for a paper that he is not the author of. Do you consider this an ethical practice w.r.t. the peer review process?
No, if you bothered to read carefully, you’d see that Jones says that IF ASKED TO BY THE EDITOR, he will recommend referees.
Now, why do you think that if the editor e-mails him to ask for suggestions for referees, he should respond by saying “no! I won’t! I won’t help you by recommending a referee!”?????
-
Or, additionally, if the editor were to e-mail Jones asking if Jones would referee the paper, why on earth would it be considered unethical for Jones to say, “no, I’m not available, but I recommend Prof X and Prof Y be asked” ???
-
So, Hank Roberts, you actually believe that the effects of global warming will be so catastrophic that humanity will not survive long enough to become known to other star systems? Hyperbole.
Assuming that all the science behind AGW is as good as human foibles allow, I still don’t believe the catastrophic outcome is likely. The belief in catastrophe seems to be based on a very static conception of human potential, and underestimates the ability of humans to solve problems, adapt, and thrive.
[Response: I'm sure someone used that line with the Easter Islanders too. - gavin]
Trying to force adaptation by enabling governments to have more power is making a deal with the devil, and will fail.
-
-
It seems fairly clear to a casual observer that these “hackers” are among your own ranks, and that bias is too easy to introduce in the face of complexity. Rather than trying to calm the storms (whether in a teacup or not), perhaps you should all be considering providing greater openness to data sets and computer model algorithms. If the fear of the rising tide is justified, then the science will hold up to scrutiny. Maintaining datasets as secretive intelletual property has only resulted in this scandal. The flood gates will be open.
-
Climate scientists have taken it upon themselves to ‘care for the globe’. You refuse to see through this. Any manipulation, twisting of the facts, lies, deception would seem noble in such a high stakes game. The science most certainly would seem honorable. Is it difficult to see that a scientist who sets himself up to save the world would stop at anything? I see the CRU crusading evangelists to fit this mould. You do the science to save the world and the opponents to the science look like haters of humanity. Now, is that a tricky situation for a scientist to be in or what?
-
I find the fallout from this leak really quite depressing, and I was wondering if scientists do, too? I mean, by what mechanisms do leaked emails, brilliant rhetoric, and so on, have the slightest effect on CO2 levels? If person A “wins” on Newsnight over person “B” or vice versa, it doesn’t really make the slightest difference except, perhaps, to sales of their book
-
I see Mr. Schmidt is mentioned in a lawsuit against NASA.
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f
[Response: Fame at last! Not that they are 'playing the man' and not the ball or anything... ;) I'd be more impressed if they submitted a comment on one of the 20 papers I've authored or co-authored in the last 2 years. 'Cos I'm sure they are really interested in the science. - gavin]
-
-
believe the FOI compliance authorities knew about the file of emails, but declined to release it since the emails are not useful for scientific purposes, the reason M’s group sought FOI release. It is likely HadCRU has already addressed some of the FOI concealment concerns.
-
Re #331: Caerbannog, I don’t think it’s at all clear that anyone at CRU acted inappropriately. If you’re referring to the FOI business, note that the (apparent) deletions were of material first identified as exempt by the FOI officer. This identification was contingent on the two U.S. scientists involved saying that they believed the emails to have been confidential, but I’m confident that would have happened.
This situation is all too analogous to driving down the road and seeing someone jumping up and down and pointing into a building while shouting “Fire!” Even lacking any other evidence such as smoke or actual fire, we are wired to respond as if the assertion was true until we see firm indications otherwise. The media have been responding in that way, but let’s try not to join them.
-
“Where is the link, the data or other evidence, that shows warming is -driven- by CO2 increase – especially when it seems, when looking at longer term temp and CO2 record, that CO2 is re-active to temp change and not leading?
-
With all due respect, Dr. Schmidt, your answer is a non-answer. The poster asks for evidence and/or analysis on this key point–which is in fact the lynchpin of the entire AGW argument–and you respond with the chicken and egg analogy?
-
Your point 2) is a complete red herring. It is irrelevant whether the MWP was 0.1 deg C warmer than the late 20th C or 0.1 deg C cooler. If you want a time in the past that was warmer than today, try the last interglacial, or the Pliocene, or the Eocene or the Cretaceous.
-
As for M&M tackling the MWP, they have done nothing of the sort. They have never published a single reconstruction.
-
Never mind one that goes back to medieval time. The issue is not one of shutting down debate - there is debate a-plenty at science conferences and workshops across the world. it's that the 'skeptics' keep talking about non-issues - however loudly they declare that they are being repressed. - gavin]
-
Dan says:
It bears repeating: The idea that a layman somehow thinks they know something about climate science that literally thousands of peer-reviewed climate science researchers (who have spent literally decades studying the issue) and every major climate science professional society including the AGU, the AMS, the RMS, the NOAA, the AMOS, the EPA, and the NSF (for starters) is ludicrous and the height of arrogance.
It does indeed bear repeating: you’re describing the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
-
Scientist Explains Earth's Warming Plateau : NPR 8 minutes ago
-
RAZ: So based on your research, if I have this right, climate change, particularly a warming of the Earth's climate, is still the trend. It's just been slowed down for the last few years because of ocean currents, changes in ocean currents.
Dr. LATIF: Exactly. So - and this is the reason, because we have the short-term climate fluctuation, therefore, it doesn't make sense to look at short periods to assess the human impact on climate. So you have to consider several decades. Only then you see basically the long-term warming trend, and therefore, we can't really draw any inferences from this hold in the last 10 years or so, you know, with regard to global warming.
-
Richard Littlemore | JunkScience Lies: APS Offers Respectful Correction 10 minutes ago
-
Richard Littlemore | C. Monckton: Complaints and Critiques 10 minutes ago
-
Richard Littlemore | Junk Science: Steve M'Lie Sticks to His Script 10 minutes ago
-
NZ sceptics lie about temp records, try to smear top scientist — Hot Topic 42 minutes ago
-
Did you miss it? The big lie? There are no reasons for any large corrections. That’s it, there. And it’s a lie because the NZ CSC has known for at least three years why adjustments have been made to certain stations.
-
Did you miss it? The big lie? There are no reasons for any large corrections. That’s it, there. And it’s a lie because the NZ CSC has known for at least three years why adjustments have been made to certain stations.
-
-
Did you miss it? The big lie? There are no reasons for any large corrections. That’s it, there. And it’s a lie because the NZ CSC has known for at least three years why adjustments have been made to certain stations.
-
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least three years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth. But they keep on digging.
-
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least three years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth. But they keep on digging.
-
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least three years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth. But they keep on digging.
-
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least three years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth. But they keep on digging.
-
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least three years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth. But they keep on digging.
-
Did you miss it? The big lie? There are no reasons for any large corrections. That’s it, there. And it’s a lie because the NZ CSC has known for at least three years why adjustments have been made to certain stations.
-
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least three years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth. But they keep on digging.
-
Did you miss it? The big lie? There are no reasons for any large corrections. That’s it, there. And it’s a lie because the NZ CSC has known for at least three years why adjustments have been made to certain stations.
-
Did you miss it? The big lie? There are no reasons for any large corrections. That’s it, there. And it’s a lie because the NZ CSC has known for at least three years why adjustments have been made to certain stations.
-
Did you miss it? The big lie? There are no reasons for any large corrections. That’s it, there. And it’s a lie because the NZ CSC has known for at least three years why adjustments have been made to certain stations.
-
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.
Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least three years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth. But they keep on digging.
-
The cranks in the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition have sunk to new lows in a desperate attempt to cash in on the far-right driven furore about the Hadley
CRU data theft. Here’s an extract from a
press release which was doing the rounds of NZ’s newsrooms this morning:
-
New Zealand may have its own “Climategate”, including manipulation of temperature readings, according to a combined research project undertaken by members of the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. The researchers claim that temperature readings from seven weather stations throughout New Zealand have been adjusted to show a higher degree of warming than is justified by a study of the original raw data.
-
The author of the press release and the “research project” into NZ’s long term temperature record is
blogger Richard Treadgold, not unknown to readers of
Hot Topic
-
Treadgold’s approach to the issue is ignorant, his results meaningless, and he can have no excuse for not knowing he was wrong.
-
Worse, Treadgold, Dunleavy and the rest of the NZ CSC seem determined to smear NZ’s best-known and most respected climatologist, Jim Salinger (who did much of the early work on NZ’s temperature record), based on little more than straightforward lies. T
-
The real disgrace is that this analysis has been conducted by a team seemingly hell bent on ignoring the facts, preferring instead to make up their own.
-
Look again at Treadgold’s graph. He makes no distinction between the blue and green lines — he just joins them up. Temps before the mid-20s were recorded at Thorndon, near sea level, but then the recording station moved to Kelburn at 125 m above sea level. It’s pretty basic meteorology that temperatures fall as you move above sea level, so the two stations are not directly comparable. Treadgold affects not to know this… But there’s no need to throw out all the old data, you can apply a correction. Here’s how NIWA (and Salinger) went about it:
-
And it’s a very good long term record, with a pretty distinct upward tilt. This sort of correction is commonplace, and not remotely controversial amongst meteorologists and climatologists who are trying to build long term records from disparate data series. Apart from station moves, changes of thermometer and alterations in the environment around the recording station can all have an affect on temperature data, and are commonly corrected for.
-
The real disgrace here is that the NZ CSC and Richard Treadgold have published a piece of incompetent research and are either too ignorant to notice or are deliberately attempting to mislead the press and public. They have pushed it to the media and the more
credulous blogs, and attempted to smear a respected scientist.
-
Wunder Blog : Weather Underground 42 minutes ago
-
he CTR did a masterful job at this for decades, significantly delaying and reducing regulation of tobacco products. George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who is President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), wrote a meticulously researched 2008 book called,
Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health.
-
"the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy". Hill and Knowlton, on behalf of the tobacco industry, had founded the "Manufactured Doubt" industry.
-
-
The Manufactured Doubt industry grows up
-
By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized "product defense" firms and free enterprise "think tanks".
-
cientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today....Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative".
-
Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.
-
-
n 1975, the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) industry realized it had a serious problem. The previous year, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, had published a scientific paper warning that human-generated CFCs could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer.
-
The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. The CFC industry hired Hill and Knowlton to fight back.
-
essential in any Manufactured Doubt
-
Hill and Knowlton found a respected scientist to lead the effort--noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution
-
calling them "doomsayers", an
-
Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.
- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.
- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.
- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.
- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.
- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.
- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.
- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.
- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
-
The campaign worked, and CFC regulations were delayed many years, as Hill and Knowlton
boasted in internal documents. The PR firm also took credit for keeping public opinion against buying CFC aerosols to a minimum, and helping change the editorial positions of many newspapers.
-
In the end, Hill and Knowlton's PR campaign casting doubt on the science of ozone depletion by CFCs turned out to have no merit. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.
-
In 1988, the fossil fuel industry realized it had a serious problem. The summer of 1988 had shattered century-old records for heat and drought in the U.S., and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, testified before Congress that human-caused global warming was partially to blame.
-
swelling number of scientific studies were warning of the threat posed by human-cause climate change, and that consumption of fossil fuels needed to slow down.
-
As is the case with any Manufactured Doubt campaign, a respected scientist was needed to lead the battle. One such scientist was
Dr. Frederick Seitz, a physicist who in the 1960s chaired the organization many feel to be the most prestigious science organization in the world--the National Academy of Sciences.
-
According to the excellent new book,
Climate Cover-up, written by
desmogblog.com co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, over a 10-year period Seitz was responsible for handing out $45 million in tobacco company money to researchers who overwhelmingly failed to link tobacco to anything the least bit negative. Seitz received over $900,000 in compensation for his efforts. He later became a founder of the
George C. Marshall Institute, and used his old National Academy of Sciences affiliation to lend credibility to his attacks on global warming science until his death in 2008 at the age of ninety-six.
-
The petition is a regular feature of the Manufactured Doubt campaign against human-caused global warming. The petition lists the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" as its parent organization. According to Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000).
-
no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly homeschooler curriculums books on surviving nuclear war. The petition was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page review printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter from Seitz, who is prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review.
-
many recipients took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result
-
ssued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite
-
Scientific American presented its attempt to verify the petition. They found that the scientists were almost all people with undergraduate degrees, with no record of research and no expertise in climatology.
-
Suffice to say, the Manufactured Doubt campaign against global warming--funded by the richest corpo
-
ations in world history--is probably the most extensive and expensive such effort ever.
-
he history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science.
-
hink tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With Tha
-
I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.
-
What I see when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted at
Realclimate.org is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.
-
NZ temps: warming real, record robust, sceptics wrong — Hot Topic about 2 hours ago
-
A climate scandal, or is it just hot air? - Climate Change - NZ Herald News about 2 hours ago
Groups
Scriptbabe451 havn't joined any group yet.
Home
Eli Snyder says:
I posted this on greenfyre’s, and thought it might be worth reposting here:
I’ve been thinking about strategy and Sun Tzu, and I think it’s always wise to check against Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido.
I admit I’ve been thrown off balance by the strength and viciousness of this attack — but the stronger the attack, the more it puts the opponent off balance. Keep one point, maintain equilibrium, and the opponent will defeat himself.
I tend to forget this in the heat of battle, but it is good to revisit it: