WSJ: The AGW bubble is about to pop

posted at 12:15 pm on December 1, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

We’ve certainly seen our share of bubbles created by government interventions.  The housing-market collapse triggered the worst financial meltdown in decades, and we’re still feeding that bubble in hopes of containing the damage.  The Obama administration created a short-lived auto bubble with its Cash for Clunkers program that ended up targeting vehicles already on the lots from last year and eroding demand for new production.  Now Bret Stephens writes at the Wall Street Journal that the scandal known as Climategate may pop bubbles in both Academia and the artificially-created “green economy”:

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

This has been one of the credibility issues with the AGW movement from the beginning, although one built into government grants for research in general.  Government grants create a market for research, which universities and other institutions create supply to meet, as Stephens rightfully notes.  That gives government a great deal of power to distort academic markets, if you think of them in those terms — and a massive incentive for the providers to endorse the reasoning behind the supply.  After all, concluding that an issue is negligible or nonexistent means the end of such grants.

But researchers have ethics and a sense of responsibility as scientists, some will argue in return.  That may be true in many or even most fields, but the e-mails exposed at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit — one of the premier institutions pushing the anthropogenic global-warming theory — show that the AGW field was not among them.  The e-mails repeatedly discuss ways to hide bad and contradictory data and ways to attack other scientists arguing against their conclusions.  The charitable conclusion to draw from this is that they believe in AGW so much that they became high priests instead of researchers; the less charitable conclusion was that they didn’t want the gravy train to end.  Either or both, they stopped doing science a long time ago.

With the discarding of the raw data by East Anglia CRU, the pretense at science has ended.  The cash incentives for reaching those conclusions should end as well.  If AGW is real, then let the scientists build a transparent and complete data set for all to review openly that proves it, instead of only publishing subsets of “adjustments” and destroying the raw data.  Science welcomes critical review; corrupted advocates shrink from it and conspire to block it.  While some may argue over the benefits and problems with government funding of the former, no one can argue that the latter deserves a red cent of public money to encourage it.  Hopefully, Stephens’ optimistic assessment of the end of the AGW bubble will be borne out, but that will take a discipline with public money that this administration and Congress have yet to demonstrate on any level.

Update: Every once in a while I’ll write a headline, and later wonder what the heck I was thinking.  That’s the way the cookie, er, pops, I guess.  Bubbles don’t crumble, obviously.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Another excuse for Zero to declare martial law before the 2010 elections…. goes down the drain.

viking01 on December 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Given how much money he brings in, I strongly suspect this will by a Holder at DOJ style investigation. The report was written before the investigation started.

MarkTheGreat on December 1, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Interesting theory. Too bad there’s no evidence of that ever happening.

fossten on December 1, 2009 at 4:24 PM

You mean anything outside the history of the world?

MarkTheGreat on December 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM

How can these people call themselves scientists?
They are a disgrace and should be fired from their positions. Trying to hide data to verify a theory is as far from science as you can get! If you can pick and chose what data you want to use you can pretty much prove anything. With this kind of science the Earth would still be flat.

gullxn on December 1, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Can’t

Wait

for

South Park

to

Tackle

This!

Wander on December 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM

Another excuse for Zero to declare martial law before the 2010 elections…. goes down the drain.
viking01 on December 1, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Don’t worry – he’s doing his best to destroy the economy and invite attacks from the Jihadist, the way we’re going, there should Plenty of reasons – he’ll take 3 months to decide which one is the best, but at least he will have them waiting in the wings

Juno77 on December 1, 2009 at 5:16 PM

Hey, Ed. When that AGW bubble bursts, I hope that it doesn’t release any of that awful killer CO2 stuff. I’m going to kill off a steer and cook up some steaks to counteract your anti-green act -unless you want to buy some carbon credits.

Don L on December 1, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia
Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Philip D. Jones
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 30, NO. 15, 1820, doi:10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/mannjones03.pdf

Portion of Michael Mann and Phil Jones’ work.

Please “peer review” it at your leisure. This one may have not passed through an adequate “process” if you will….

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Sharke on December 1, 2009 at 4:20 PM

The windfarms are as useful a the Cadillac ranch in north Texas. http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2220

Johan Klaus on December 1, 2009 at 5:30 PM

MarkTheGreat @ 4:50 PM…

Don’t be so quick to judge that one. Look at this short bibliography.

Asara, J. M. et al. 2007. Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectromety. Science. 316 (5822): 280-285.

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2009. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis. Science. 324 (5927): 626-631.

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 1997. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 94 (12): 6291-6296.

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952-1955.

Schweitzer, M. H., J. L. Wittmeyer and J. R. Horner. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proceedings of the Royal Society. 274 (1607): 183-197.

Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2007. Analysis of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein. Science. 316 (5822): 277-280.

Kim, S. et al. 2004. DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: An ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Lauraceae). American Journal of Botany. 91 (4): 615–620.

Even if you don’t have access to all of these journals, you can get a feel for the content of the articles from the titles. Agendas and belief systems aside, if you look at these objectively, there are several questions that you should be asking yourself.

1. Do we really understand the decay rates of proteins and genetic material?

2. Do we have confidence in the timeframes involved?
Assuming the answers to questions 1 and 2 are yes, then:

3. Do we have a plausible explanation for preservation of material that should be destroyed with great age?
If we do, and these kinds of discoveries are anomalies of fossil formation as discussed, then:

4. How frequently do anomalies occur?

And the ultimate question that has to be asked because the anomalies must be extremely infrequent to be classified as an anomaly…

5. How many anomalous occurrences of ancient proteins and DNA need to be discovered before you have to question the answers to questions 1-3?

The old adage “the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know” applies to all areas of science. Climate change, evolution, plate tectonics, or the big bang theory take your pick.

Marine_Bio on December 1, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Stop the funding and demand a refund…!

Seven Percent Solution on December 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Wander on December 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM

You’ll have to wait. Season 14 of South Park premieres on March 17th, 2010.

July 10 on December 1, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Scam
1. a fraudulent business scheme
(synonym) cozenage
(hypernym) swindle, cheat, rig
(derivation) victimize, swindle, rook, goldbrick, nobble, diddle, bunco, defraud, mulct, gyp, con
Verb
1. deprive of by deceit; “He swindled me out of my inheritance”; “She defrauded the customers who trusted her”; “the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change”
(synonym) victimize, swindle, rook, goldbrick, nobble, diddle, bunco, defraud, mulct, gyp, con
(hypernym) cheat, rip off, chisel
(hyponym) short-change, short
(derivation) swindler, chiseller, chiseler, gouger, scammer, grifter, sharper, sharpie, sharpy

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2009 at 5:50 PM

The old adage “the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know” applies to all areas of science. Climate change, evolution, plate tectonics, or the big bang theory take your pick.

Marine_Bio on December 1, 2009 at 5:36 PM

The other thing we don’t know are the unintended consequence of mucking up mother nature like these AGW believers think we should.

CWforFreedom on December 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Friends: The attached presentation may have gotten past the peer review process without adequate scrutiny. Please lend a hand and give some critical review of this “scientific” work. Cheers.
Global Temperature Patterns in
Past Centuries: An Interactive
Presentation
Michael E. Mann,*,& Ed Gille,1 Raymond S. Bradley,#
Malcolm K. Hughes,@ Jonathan Overpeck,1 Frank T.
Keimig,# and Wendy Gross1
* Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville,
Virginia
1 NOAA Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder, Colorado
# Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Massachusetts
@ Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson,
Arizona
Received 11 May 1999; accepted 15 June 2000

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1087-3562/4/4/pdf/i1087-3562-4-4-1.pdf

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Healthy debate with regard to the details of past climate change exists within the peer-reviewed
scientific climate literature
, and it remains a challenge to reduce uncertainties and
properly synthesize global means. Nevertheless, the conclusion that late- 20th century
hemispheric-scale warmth is anomalous in a long-term (at least millennial) context, and that
anthropogenic factors likely play an important role in explaining the anomalous recent warmth is
a robust consensus view
.

quote from Mann et al. 1998

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM

If AGW is real, then let the scientists build a transparent and complete data set for all to review openly that proves it

They did.

hicsuget on December 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Inhofe Asks Boxer to Investigate Possible Scientific ‘Conspiracy’ in ‘Climategate’
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
By Melanie Hunter-Omar

@ cnsnews.com

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM

“…is a robust consensus view.”

quote from Mann et al. 1998

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Mann lied then. He has continued to lie since. He will never acknowledge the lie in the future. He knows the liberals can do nothing but circle the wagons, protect him, and forge ahead. They all have no other option.

Yoop on December 1, 2009 at 6:15 PM

The conclusions of the most recent IPCC report [Folland et al., 2001] that late-20th century mean warmth likely exceeds that of any time during the past millennium for the Northern Hemisphere,is based on a careful comparison of temperatures during the most recent decades with reconstructions of past temperatures, taking into account the uncertainties in those reconstructions. As it is only the past few decades during which Northern Hemisphere temperatures have exceeded the bounds of natural variability, any analysis (SB03) that considers simply ’20th century’ mean conditions, or interprets past temperatures using the evidence from proxy indicators not capable of resolving decadal-timescale trends, can provide only very limited insight into whether or not recent warming is anomalous in a long-term and large-scale context.

Quote from Mann et al. linked above.

Folks: These guys are taking measurements from proxy indicators (such as tree rings) that may not be valid, nor reliable proxies for actual temperatures from the period they are trying to sample. Despite these measurement shortcomings, these authors have no qualms about making their conclusions that climate change is likely anthropogenic in nature.

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM

hicsuget on December 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Of what value is a 5° x 5° gridded data set to the argument, when that equates to compressing thermal indices to 119,182 square terrestrial mile grids?

Or to put it into a more familiar framework, the state of Arizona is about 114,000 square terrestrial miles and New Mexico is about 120,000. So, what does it mean to a climate model if the annual average temperature varies by 0.5°C between New Mexico to Arizona? The model and assumptions in the parameter are what needs to be transparent and available, not some silly datasets that have little interpertive value as a stand alone.

As a general rule, be skeptical when you find averages in the text of some argument.

Marine_Bio on December 1, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Wonder how much waste is here:

Congress, Scientists Highlight Stimulus-funded Research New website highlights Recovery Act-sponsored research in all 50 states
Representatives of the nation’s leading public and private research universities, joined by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Members of Congress, gathered in Washington on Tuesday to discuss how funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is fueling research, recovery and reinvestment activities across the country.
New website highlights Recovery Act-sponsored research in all 50 states.

http://www.scienceworksforus.org/

njpat on December 1, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Mann lied then. He has continued to lie since. He will never acknowledge the lie in the future. He knows the liberals can do nothing but circle the wagons, protect him, and forge ahead. They all have no other option.

Yoop on December 1, 2009 at 6:15 PM

The problem is that this is the WSJ which is read by industry people. I expect that not only will the source of green money start drying up but that MSM will get hammered as to why they didn’t cover this. The bubble is about to pop because the WSJ stuck a pin in it.

RagTag on December 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Here are some stimulus funds….

The bulk of funding for research under the ARRA is being provided through the Department of Energy (DOE), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Science Foundation (NSF), although many other federal agencies also are providing stimulus funds for research.

Examples include the University of Washington’s research into the effects of climate change on marine ecosystems. A University of Nevada, Reno biochemist is working to understand how plants adapt and thrive in warm, dry climates – knowledge that will be important as global warming may make such climates more widespread.

http://www.scienceworksforus.org/press-releases/stimulus-funded-university-research-addressing-issues-from-climate-change-to-cancer-creating-jobs-and-training-a-new-generation-of-scientists

njpat on December 1, 2009 at 6:39 PM

This is just the Stimulus $ that went to the Univ. of Washington:
Total Award Count: 366 Total Award Dollars: $184,423,799
http://www.washington.edu/research/gca/recovery/

njpat on December 1, 2009 at 6:43 PM

California Universities stimulus:
Dollar amount of funded grants as of Nov. 2009: $1,186,877,427 *

njpat on December 1, 2009 at 7:00 PM

But but Gibbs, the Dough Boy, said the science is sound.

Whom to believe?

Dhuka on December 1, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Only through the arduous efforts of large numbers of
paleoclimate researchers can such networks be extended in space and time to the
point where significant improvements will be possible in proxy-based reconstruction
of the global climate.
Such improvements will lead to further advances in
our empirical understanding of climate variations during the past millennium and
will allow for more meaningful comparisons with the results obtained from model
simulations of past climate variation and empirical climate variability.

Mann et al. clearly noting that the science is not settled.


Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric
and global surface temperature variations
over the past two millennia

Michael E. Mann*†, Zhihua Zhang*, Malcolm K. Hughes‡, Raymond S. Bradley§, Sonya K. Miller*, Scott Rutherford¶,
and Fenbiao Ni‡
*Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; ‡Laboratory of
Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; §Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-9298;
and ¶Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI 02809
Communicated by Lonnie G. Thompson, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, June 26, 2008 (received for review November 20, 2007)

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252.full.pdf+html

From the conclusions of this paper: quote

The reconstructions appear
increasingly more sensitive to method and data quality and
quantity before A.D. 1600 and, particularly, before approximately
A.D. 1000. Conclusions are less definitive for the SH and
globe, which we attribute to larger uncertainties arising from the sparser available proxy data in the SH. Given the uncertainties,the SH and global reconstructions are compatible with the possibility of warmth similar to the most recent decade during brief intervals of the past 1,500 years. A targeted effort to recover additional high-quality, long paleoclimate proxy records from the SH could reduce these current existing uncertainties.Similarly, reducing uncertainties for the period before A.D. 1000 for the NH will require additional proxy records of sufficient length that preserve climate signal on the millennial time scale.

Friends, the above paper was published last year. Conclusions clearly indicate that uncertainties exist in the sampling of data for periods of ~1000 yrs ago and the researchers (Mann etal.) both recommend and suggest further research to obtain additional “proxy” records of sufficient length to help clarify their conclusions.

How does this jive with Professor Emeritus Robert Gibbs et al. conclusions that this science is ‘settled.?’ I’m not a climatologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 7:29 PM

Update: Every once in a while I’ll write a headline, and later wonder what the heck I was thinking. That’s the way the cookie, er, pops, I guess. Bubbles don’t crumble, obviously.

Yah know… I thought it was a mixed metaphor on purpose to emphasis your point… of the absurdity around us… that is until you admitted it was merely a mistake…

petunia on December 1, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Sooooo now what? How much money and time has been spent in this stupid stupid effort? I drove nearly 3000 miles over Thanksgiving week. There are wind mills everywhere now. Those were expensive and I understand they aren’t very efficient. What a waste!

How many victims of this scam are out there about to lose all their investments!

More likely AGW is too big to fail and will continue to be preached.

People are stupid.

petunia on December 1, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Is Pookie going to get a shout out tonight?

If he does, it’s a full beer <5 sec…

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 7:41 PM

RICO, anyone?

LASue on December 1, 2009 at 7:44 PM

Hey, these guys don’t know the difference between thousands and millions, or between 2035 and 2350. I think we can let “The bubble is about to crumble” slide.

Jim Treacher on December 1, 2009 at 7:45 PM

“…they stopped doing science a long time ago.”

It can be fairly argued that they never did any in the first place. Mann’s falsifications to produce the ‘hockey stick’ graph are well documented. As are the deliberate frauds and wholesale substitution / manipulation of NASA weather data by that fraud Hansen. Their early connivance in manufacturing this massive fraud laid the foundation for subsequent frauds throughout the Church of AGW. Formed the basis for the later fraudulant climate modeling and the deliberate selection and weighting of the ridiculous tree ring data and exclusions of the MWP. And the ice core CO2 valuations that more properly describe the relationship between CO2 ppm levels and global temps. AND for Al Gore’s deliberate frauds committed in his specious ‘Inconvenient Truth’. The entire effort is a fabric of interwoven lies and distortions. With Gore’s film and garbage like the pic of the polar bear perched upon a bit of ice (performing his NORMAL swimming / hunting routine, while his population numbers have actually INcreased over the last decade) being used to propagandize and INDOCTRINATE a decade’s worth of gullible schoolkids.

This has not been ‘science in the public interest’. It has been ‘malfeasance for public control’.

rayra on December 1, 2009 at 7:59 PM

The whole lot of these fraud artists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including Al Gore and the idiots on the Nobel committee that awarded him the \”peace\” prize.

BottomLine5 on December 1, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Just perusing the thread…

An interesting exercise for those worried about the environment: Define ‘logical environmental policy’.

Now define it without mandates so as to grant the greatest liberty to the individual and not foist government upon each of us.

There is great logic in encouraging good behavior and rewarding it.

Punishment is the realm of the State, it is our venue to ensure that the norms of our society are upheld by the organ of society that we vest our negative liberties into. As such we are best served by a State that treats us equally and does not flex its muscle to change society, because it is the punisher, not the place where we invest our positive liberty.

That is self-evident.

When members of society try to use government to change the broader society, it is the tyranny of the few upon the many. What is ‘good’ for one is not, of necessity, ‘good’ for all. Instead of encouraging good behavior we merely try to restrict the bad and then the restrictions proliferate. Soon whatever isn’t forbidden is mandatory. We are on that path now… recycling is a good example as there is now so much paper to recycle that we are actually wasting energy, chemicals and precious clean water to do the recycling. Glass, while a great boon to not make it out of sand afresh, must be purified which also takes energy. Metal goes easily from one form to the next, but ensuring the quality of alloys requires separation, too, thus costing energy. Some towns have seen the benefits of recycling dwindle and end up costing more than just hauling refuse to the dump. For the ‘good’ we now find that recycling, itself, has limits based on quantity, quality, timeliness and outright labor cost.

Perhaps we can encourage efficiency where it works and suggest that more efficient ways be found for those places where it doesn’t and stop the idea of ‘one size fits all, fits none well’. But that would be federalism… relying on more local governments to determine the best course. Do we really expect that farmers will return to the pre-Dust Bowl farming techniques if the Dept. of Agriculture disappeared overnight? Or that companies would stop realizing revenue streams from conscientious recycling if the EPA vanished tomorrow? Awareness of the environment has happened… yet the whip still is ready for use. When does the regulatory whip ever get put away when the ‘good’ of informing us all is done? Does it ever?

Or are we at the point where the beatings will stop only once morale improves?

ajacksonian on December 1, 2009 at 9:55 PM

I thought those who committed fraud for money were prosecuted.

(What was I thinking?)

BigAlSouth on December 1, 2009 at 10:47 PM

Or are we at the point where the beatings will stop only once morale improves?

The beatings will stop when the clueless American public stop saying “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

xblade on December 1, 2009 at 11:21 PM

Another excuse for Zero to declare martial law before the 2010 elections…. goes down the drain.

Obama doesn’t need martial law. He already owns most of America via the “stimulus”, GM, banks, soon healthcare and energy. ACORN is as powerful as ever and will only get more powerful as the stimulus dollars start flowing. Obama’s people will be in every corner of society. Businesses will toe the Obama line, promote his agenda, to avoid being shut down by regulation and rake in the Obama-dollars. ClimateGate will ultimately have no effect. It’s too little, too late. The Obamacrats dictate what’s truth and what isn’t.

modifiedcontent on December 2, 2009 at 1:59 AM

You mean anything outside the history of the world?

MarkTheGreat on December 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM

I see you’ve been watching too many Mel Brooks films.

fossten on December 2, 2009 at 8:25 AM

They did.

hicsuget on December 1, 2009 at 6:07 PM

The willfully deceived are so easily fooled.

That’s not the raw data. That’s the data after the mysterious “adjustments” have been made to it.

MarkTheGreat on December 2, 2009 at 8:29 AM

Marine_Bio on December 1, 2009 at 5:36 PM

That was impressive…thanks for the post.

right2bright on December 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Having survived –

the cold-war nuclear holocaust of the ’60′s;

the catastrophic effects of global cooling during the 70′s;

the world-wide mass starvations and food riots wrought by the “population bomb” of the early ’80′s;

the spread of malignant melanoma that filled first the worlds hospitals then crematoriums during the ’90′s;

the worldwide chaos brought about by the Y2K meltdown;

and, just this month, the terminal, diarrhea-induced dehydration caused by the swine/bird/goat/hih1/cold flu,

– I’m feeling like one lucky SOB. In fact, I’m sure that I’ll probably be one of the survivors when 2/3′s of the worlds population is baked to death in the coming global oven.

So, are you sure about global warming? Want to survive it by sharing in my amazing luck? Want a little of my luck to rub off on you? Send me ten bucks and I’ll send you a piece of the shirt right off my back that you can rub on your head.

Rod on December 2, 2009 at 9:18 AM

In the Age of Teh One, teaching children the ‘right’ song to sing rises to new heights.

Like ‘The Warming Song‘.

Complete with colorful ‘activity’ books.

Hmmmm.

Now where have I seen this ‘teaching method‘ before?

Oh well, at least we don’t giant statues of him everywhere.

Oooops, I forget about that one.

CPT. Charles on December 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Having survived – …

Rod on December 2, 2009 at 9:18 AM

What, you didn’t get AIDS?

right2bright on December 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM

What is clear is that the CRU should be shutdown.

If we assume that this “ClimateGate” is nothing, then clearly by the then obvious fact that the “science is settled”, we don’t need them any more, and the money can best be spent elsewhere. And all you “climate scientists” out there, I’m sorry but you hitched your horse to a wagon that isn’t moving any more.

On the other hand, if “ClimateGate” is the worst scientific scandal of the century, these rascals should not be in the business any more.

J_Crater on December 2, 2009 at 12:11 PM

RICO, anyone?

LASue on December 1, 2009 at 7:44 PM

YESSS.

NTWR on December 2, 2009 at 1:06 PM

I am afraid that whatever is heating up the earth surface would cause the magma from inside the earth to rise up more toward the surface causing a super volcano’s like at Yellowstone to erupt.

I found a commenter’s hilarious synopsis over on popsci.com.

It is ‘beliefs’ like this moron’s that fully explain how some people have come to believe in AGW.
Honestly, I haven’t read anything as stupefying as this in a while.
LMAO!

Badger40 on December 2, 2009 at 1:49 PM

It is ‘beliefs’ like this moron’s that fully explain how some people have come to believe in AGW.
Honestly, I haven’t read anything as stupefying as this in a while.
LMAO!

Badger40 on December 2, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Remember that his prophet, Al Gore, recently proclaimed that the Earth’s core has a temperature of “a few million degrees” and you can understand how he would be so concerned about his super volcano fantasy.

jwolf on December 2, 2009 at 1:58 PM

jwolf on December 2, 2009 at 1:58 PM

I discussed that in my HS geology class.
We laughed our butts off at that one, too!

Badger40 on December 2, 2009 at 2:14 PM

I guess I just don’t understand…Wasn’t the Nuclear Winter supposed to protect us from Global Warming, or was it the other way around?

docjohn52 on December 2, 2009 at 10:45 PM

Folks: These guys are taking measurements from proxy indicators (such as tree rings) that may not be valid, nor reliable proxies for actual temperatures from the period they are trying to sample. Despite these measurement shortcomings, these authors have no qualms about making their conclusions that climate change is likely anthropogenic in nature.

ted c on December 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM

The set of temperatures proxy indicators, in lay terms; tree rings, used to show past environmental temperatures was taken form a single forest. Only a small percentage of those trees supported the conclusion they desired. The data from those trees were taken and used to show a change in climate temperature and the rest of the RAW data was discarded as not relevent.

Guess this goes along with the recent NASA discovery that a satellite’s ice sensor was sending data that indicated quiet a bit less ice coverage of the NH than was actually there. We did notice an adjustment of the Climate Change data that used the inaccrate data didn’t we?

Oh, Data that is does not conform to the expected and desired data that has been collectively reviewed and adjusted is to be adjusted so as to be in compliance with the existing established collective data or discarded as irrelevent or unreliable data.

/S

Franklyn on December 3, 2009 at 12:08 AM

Franklyn on December 3, 2009 at 12:08 AM

The problem with using tree rings is that they indicate the quality of the growing season. Of which temperature is only one factor. They also show nothing regarding the non-growing season, which for those trees, was about 3/4ths of the year.

Additionally, a trees response to temperature changes is an inverted U shape. There is an optimal temperature. If the environment gets warmer than the optimal temperature, then growth slows. If it gets cooler, growth also slows.

The forest in question is also moisture limited, not temperature limited. Having a big horn sheep piss on a particular tree in the middle of summer made much more of a difference to tree growth than temperature ever did.

MarkTheGreat on December 3, 2009 at 8:40 AM

The assumptions made for data that are used as proxies for climate frequently have a similar pattern to the tree ring problems in the data that MarkTheGreat points out. That is certainly true of the oceanographic data that NOAA gathers.

Sadly, there is no humorous oceanic analog to the Bighorn sheep urine affect on the climate models. That was hilarious.

Marine_Bio on December 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM

I saw the fraying ends of this last year when the leading scientist from Australia tried to raise the alarm and was shut down. Here’s my link;

http://truthandcommonsense.com/2009/12/02/getting-a-handle-on-the-climategate-players-from-pubic-secrets-a-good-primer/

It’s be a robbery from the get-go. Gore at the lead. Time for some jail and fines.

archer52 on December 3, 2009 at 9:59 AM

The e-mails repeatedly discuss ways to hide bad and contradictory data and ways to attack other scientists arguing against their conclusions. The charitable conclusion to draw from this is that they believe in AGW so much that they became high priests instead of researchers; the less charitable conclusion was that they didn’t want the gravy train to end. Either or both, they stopped doing science a long time ago.

Among those points of self-education which take up the form of mental discipline, there is one of great importance, and, moreover, difficult to deal with, because it involves an internal conflict, and equally touches our vanity and our ease. It consists in the tendency to deceive ourselves regarding all we wish for, and the necessity of resistance to these desires. It is impossible for any one who has not been constrained, by the course of his occupation and thoughts, to a habit of continual self-correction, to be aware of the amount of error in relation to judgment arising from this tendency. The force of the temptation which urges us to seek for such evidence and appearances as are in favour of our desires, and to disregard those which oppose them, is wonderfully great. In this respect we are all, more or less, active promoters of error. In place of practising wholesome self-abnegation, we ever make the wish the father to the thought: we receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us; whereas the very reverse is required by every dictate of common sense. – Michael Faraday, Royal Institution Lecture On Mental Education(6 May 1854)

elgeneralisimo on December 3, 2009 at 11:10 AM

elgeneralisimo on December 3, 2009 at 11:10 AM

good post. thanks.

ted c on December 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3