Physicists’ memo to Parliament blasts AGW “science”

posted at 10:40 am on February 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The British Parliament has begun an investigation into the meaning of the East Anglia CRU e-mails, and part of that process is a form of peer review, in a sense.  Their Science and Technology committee has welcomed commentary from the scientific community, and among those members is the non-profit charity, the Institute of PhysicsIn their submission, the IoP says that the UEA CRU e-mails don’t just indict East Anglia, but the entire AGW industry — and that “science” wasn’t what they were doing at all (via Watts Up With That and Mike Ross, emphases mine):

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

And as far as the science being settled, or even “science” as understood by the public as conclusory data, the IoP has issues with that characterization as well:

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

In other words, the claims made by AGW advocates didn’t match the data available elsewhere.  When challenged on this, the AGW advocates refused to release the data to other scientists, and finally refused to release it under a Freedom of Information demand.  When it looked as though the government would get their hands on the data anyway, the CRU conspired to destroy the data, along with other AGW advocates around the world.

The IoP doesn’t trust East Anglia to restore confidence in the AGW movement’s claim to science, either, because the fraud went well beyond the boundaries of the University of East Anglia:

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

This is a devastating critique from an objective scientific community.  It exposes as risible the notion that, as EPA Director Lisa Jackson attempted to insist, the UEA CRU e-mails only revealed a lack of interpersonal skills among AGW advocates.  As the IoP makes clear, the UEA CRU and its many partners in the AGW movement committed intellectual and scientific fraud — and their conclusions should be viewed as worthless.

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

Of course, the usual selective quotation ignores that the memo indicates the two independent temperature lines are uncompromised.

Hal_10000 on February 27, 2010 at 1:56 PM

I don’t think you will find any scientist that is satisfied with the present models, which are, in part, constrained by the amount of computing power available to execute them.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Er … the point about modeling the future evolution of complex, dynamical systems is that accurate predictions are not dependent merely on having more computing power availbale. That’s the friggin’ point that Lorenz, a meteorolgist, made. The computing requirements outscale any available power as one goes further into the future, and for systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions it is not even a matter of computing the future but being unable to establish an accurate enough intial condition.

But, we are not even talking about a field with this much competence, as the computer models haven’t even taken clouds into account. CLOUDS!! Some might have thrown some cloud interactions, lately, but the global warming idiots were pushing models that were the equivalent of calling a stick figure (and I am being generous) a reasonable facsimile of the Mona Lisa.

neurosculptor on February 27, 2010 at 1:56 PM

“Scientists’ understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:40 PM

All of what you described is merely an exercise designed to construct a theory. In fact, AGW proponents have so far even failed to present a coherent, unified theory which can be tested.

No “science” has taken place until the theory is tested by reproducible experiments which demonstrate the theory’s ability to accurately predict future events.

Until then, all of this is “observation,” “conjecture,” and “politics.”

landlines on February 27, 2010 at 1:58 PM

A good scientific mindset would allow for the possibility that the theory might end up totally debunked.

Disturb the Universe on February 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Human activities no doubt play some part in climate. Soot on ice warms it. Billions of humans and farm animals pass lots of methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas. Then there’s land use. Oh yeah, Co2 too.

What we don’t know is how these variables interact with a multitude of natural factors that make up the very complex symphony of climate. People that say they know for sure that man has no effect on climate are just as full of of it as those that claim they know mankind is responsible for the modest climb in temperatures.

Having said that, the IPCC needs to go. Mann, Briffa and the whole “hockey team” should find other careers. They are a disgrace to science.

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 1:55 PM

I forgot to say is that the theory of anthropogenic climate change can’t ever be totally debunked. I do think that the theory that mankind is the primary or sole driver of climate change can be debunked over time. We’ll see.

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Uh oh! Algore missing and now this!

katy the mean old lady on February 27, 2010 at 11:06 AM
=============
==============

Gore? Gore? Anyone seen Al Gore?

GarandFan on February 27, 2010 at 11:08 AM
====================================
——————-
====================================

Where’s Albert?

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=18202

canopfor on February 27, 2010 at 2:00 PM

I don’t think you will find any scientist that is satisfied with the present models, which are, in part, constrained by the amount of computing power available to execute them.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Then why aren’t they writing to the newspapers complaining of the political panic caused by unsatisfactory models?

Chris_Balsz on February 27, 2010 at 2:02 PM

I don’t think you will find any scientist that is satisfied with the present models, which are, in part, constrained by the amount of computing power available to execute them.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:48 PM

It’s not only our computers that aren’t sophisticated enough…

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 2:07 PM

What i love about Oakland and the other liars is that there is NO reason these ‘scientists” shouldn’t be treated with the same respect shown to business people….Enron, Worldcom, bernie ebbers and the rest that went to prison. These jerks should be thrown in prison and stripped of every dollar they ever made. If only to stop this kind of “science” in the future. Bernie and the Enron boys only affected a couple hundred thousand shareholders, these jerks have changed governments, jobs and freedom for countless millions. PUT them and their apologists in jail!!!!!

colonelkurtz on February 27, 2010 at 2:11 PM

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

I bow to your superior intellect.

Bwahahahahahha. Sucker.

hillbillyjim on February 27, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Toliver and fools who buy into AGW need a history lesson. The Earth has changed radically on its own for millions of years. Yes even before man first arrived. Weird how that happened ain’t it? Before massive cattle farming and the building of SUVs. Who would have thunk? You mean to tell me that before man that the Earth’s CO2 was higher at times and it was warmer at times. Wow how did that happen. This is truly stupid. i see you are a wannabe have at it. I bet you don’t live your life that way do you?

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 2:13 PM

It’s refreshing to see a respected scientific organization confronting the problems exposed by the CRU emails, but the memo doesn’t live up to Ed’s headline (shocker). The memo is basically following the principle that the emperor’s wife should be above suspicion. It’s also, incidentally, the kind of memo that the AGW conspiracy is not supposed to let see the light of day.

RightOFLeft on February 27, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Toliver and fools who buy into AGW need a history lesson.

The Earth has changed radically on its own for millions of years. Yes even before man first arrived. Weird how that happened ain’t it? Before massive cattle farming and the building of SUVs. Who would have thunk? You mean to tell me that before man that the Earth’s CO2 was higher at times and it was warmer at times. Wow how did that happen. This is truly stupid. i see you are a wannabe have at it. I bet you don’t live your life that way do you?

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 2:13 PM

You should brush up on your reading comprehension. Read my posts again, this time with your mouth closed.

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Since they are true believers… that makes their pronouncement that the destruction of THE raw data on which ALL climate science is based, is “scientific malpractice” all the more damning!

From where do you quote “the destruction of the raw data”? Is this from IoP?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Here’s the thing. Climate change has always been, and will always be, with us. It is the nature of climate. It is the nature of our ever-changing big round blob that we call home. Gawd-a-Mighty, how hard is that?

When the Global Warming™ meme/theme started leaking around the cracks, next thing you know, it’s not really Global Warming™ we have to worry about; it’s Climate Change™.

If climate change ever ceases on Earth, we won’t be alive to witness the phenomenon. Count on it.

Before you go all: “Dumb hillbilly…blah blah…”, here’s a little sump’um for ya. I do know a little bit about the subject.

hillbillyjim on February 27, 2010 at 2:22 PM

From where do you quote “the destruction of the raw data”? Is this from IoP?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Is Google broken today, or are you that lazy?

hillbillyjim on February 27, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Er … the point about modeling the future evolution of complex, dynamical systems is that accurate predictions are not dependent merely on having more computing power availbale

Depends on the complexity of the model. For good resolution (requiring small finite elements) over a vast volume, such as the atmosphere and oceans, the computing power is very much an issue.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:26 PM

No “science” has taken place until the theory is tested by reproducible experiments which demonstrate the theory’s ability to accurately predict future events.

I believe that, if you review some of the scientific literature on the subject, they are on the trail.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Is Google broken today, or are you that lazy?

hillbillyjim on February 27, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Even the Moonies had true believers™

daesleeper on February 27, 2010 at 2:28 PM

From where do you quote “the destruction of the raw data”? Is this from IoP?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Is Google broken today, or are you that lazy?

hillbillyjim on February 27, 2010 at 2:24 PM

That’s the signature method of a “mission poster” troll. They post one or two sentences trying to get you to do a bunch of work and post several paragraphs in response. They get off on a 10 to 1 or a 20 to 1 ratio.

oakland is a mission poster. Note he/she ONLY post on Hot Air in AGW/Climate Change threads.

Yoop on February 27, 2010 at 2:32 PM

toliver on February 27, 2010
Wannabe.

I don’t care what you say. It is about how you say it. Meet Oakland. He needs a life too.

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 2:32 PM

I can’t wait to hear this story on MSNBC, NBC and the Weather Channel!

Ordinary1 on February 27, 2010 at 2:33 PM

I believe that, if you review some of the scientific literature on the subject, they are on the trail.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:28 PM

I’d say climate science [which encompasses many disciplines] is at the beginning of the trail.

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 2:34 PM

toliver on February 27, 2010

Interesting too how you totally gloss over the history of the Earth. Wannabes tend to be that way. ie. Oakland

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 2:34 PM

I believe that, if you review some of the scientific literature on the subject, they are on the trail.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Lacking a coherent, verifiable theory, “they” are nowhere near the trail…they are wandering around in the woods…without a compass.

landlines on February 27, 2010 at 2:36 PM

toliver on February 27, 2010
Wannabe.

I don’t care what you say. It is about how you say it. Meet Oakland. He needs a life too.

CWforFreedom on February 27, 2010 at 2:32 PM

That doesn’t make any sense. I’ve said we aren’t sophisticated enough to understand climate year and the IPCC should be done away with as well as the careers of the “hockey team”.

So you posted in my direction because you don’t care what I say, but rather the way I say things? Huh?

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 2:39 PM

For good resolution (requiring small finite elements) over a vast volume, such as the atmosphere and oceans, the computing power is very much an issue.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Interesting how the time scale of prediction didn’t quite make it into your post. It is the time scale being analyzed that tends to call for an exponential increase in computing power, but you need to have a solid mathematical model for the underlying model to even begin to know those parameters 9even rough estimates of them).

For truly dynamical systems whose initial state is anywhere near a boundary, there is a wall one reaches in the time scale that easily outstrips all computing power available. That was Lorenz’s whole point.

I would also like to hear you address my point about econometric models, which are made for much simpler and better understood systems than the Earth’s climate, and their histories of terrible inaccuracies.

neurosculptor on February 27, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Toliver and fools who buy into AGW need a history lesson. The Earth has changed radically on its own for millions of years. Yes even before man first arrived. Weird how that happened ain’t it? Before massive cattle farming and the building of SUVs

So, if the earth has changed, ergo man can’t change it?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:41 PM

That doesn’t make any sense. I’ve said we aren’t sophisticated enough to understand climate year and the IPCC should be done away with as well as the careers of the “hockey team”.

So you posted in my direction because you don’t care what I say, but rather the way I say things? Huh?

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I don’t know how the word “year” got in there. I guess you now have a point CWforFreedom, as I made a typo, which I guess qualifies for, “the way I said it”

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 2:42 PM

I would also like to hear you address my point about econometric models, which are made for much simpler and better understood systems than the Earth’s climate, and their histories of terrible inaccuracies.

Sorry, I have only worked with (relatively simple) physical models; don’t have a clue about econometric models. I defer to your expertise here.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:42 PM

So, if the earth has changed, ergo man can’t change it?

Incoherent and par for the course.

daesleeper on February 27, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Oakland: You miss the point that the scientific community sat on its hands about this phony science, and therefore brought deserved disrepute onto themselves. The scientific community abandoned the scientific method. This is not limited to “a few,” although it clearly does not include all scientists.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 27, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Incoherent and par for the course

My point taken.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Where’s Al Gore ?!?

BowHuntingTexas on February 27, 2010 at 2:55 PM

So, if the earth has changed, ergo man can’t change it?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

doriangrey on February 27, 2010 at 2:55 PM

When you look at what they had to do to create the environment they were able to you have to realize they have done this before.

They took over editorial review boards and such to silence critics. They control the academic grant process and they don’t give grants to critics too often. They had people in NASA willing to fudge data and go along with the scam. They launched smear campaigns against critics thru a media more than happy to shout their message.

This is not an isolated incident. This was backed by very large institutions from top to bottom. Media, academia, NASA, NOAA, respected scientific journals all were instruments of the deceit.

Mr Purple on February 27, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Incoherent and par for the course

My point taken.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:46 PM

It’s not working. A bit more effort needs to be expended on the mission.

You are lowering the average IQ of the HA trolls. Less flailing might work.

Yoop on February 27, 2010 at 3:00 PM

This is not an isolated incident. This was backed by very large institutions from top to bottom. Media, academia, NASA, NOAA, respected scientific journals all were instruments of the deceit.

Mr Purple on February 27, 2010 at 2:58 PM

All were with with agendas, be they political, economic or personal recognition and glory.

Now that the curtain has fallen that hid all these agendas people like oakland find it impossible to accept that all the data and claims (whether accurate or not) wear a taint such that nothing can now be accepted at face value.

All the science must be redone, and done correctly within full view of the public. Those who were involved have to be purged from the system. Those who find it impossible to see the need for these simple requirements, like oakland, have to be purged from the science and the fact gathering also, least they taint the outcomes yet again.

Yoop on February 27, 2010 at 3:12 PM

It’s not working. A bit more effort needs to be expended on the mission.

You are lowering the average IQ of the HA trolls. Less flailing might work.

Yoop on February 27, 2010 at 3:00 PM

A different opinion =/= trolling in and of itself.

Having said that, I’m not familiar with oakland’s posting history. What I see is a guy that is still putting an awful lot of faith in the IPCC. I don’t find this logical, but people can disagree in good faith so to speak.

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 3:30 PM

What I see is a guy that is still putting an awful lot of faith in the IPCC.

The IPCC has little credibility left; I was neutral to it before the present set of scandals. I am convinced, though that there is a lot of good science being conducted by researchers around the world. They aren’t perfect, but to whom else to we look for answers?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 3:43 PM

oakland: We need to start with the publication of raw, unaltered, data. Real scientists, with integrity, would then slowly reveal themselves.

GaltBlvnAtty on February 27, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Of course, the usual selective quotation ignores that the memo indicates the two independent temperature lines are uncompromised.

Hal_10000 on February 27, 2010 at 1:56 PM

Here we go with the standard line that there the two independant lines are independant. They aren’t.

The two “independant” lines are made up by people from the same click, and they also refuse to release what raw data was cherry picked to be used in their study, and how the cherry picked data was manipulated to get the answers the researchers were looking for.

MarkTheGreat on February 27, 2010 at 4:08 PM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

There’s an old saying, garbage in, garbage out.
Since all of this so called work was based on the garbage being put out by the CRU and their partners in crime, the results of this alleged science are, by definition, useless.

MarkTheGreat on February 27, 2010 at 4:10 PM

I would respectfully disagree. As one who has done mathematical modelling with computer technology, I can see the value (and also many of the limitations) of computer modelling.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:30 PM

How do you model a system when the vast majority of interactions between the components are not understood?

MarkTheGreat on February 27, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Yes, and I believe that you will see refinements in models as attempts are made to better fit the observations as well as to incorporate feedback mechanisms into the mix more appropriately.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Going from understanding 10% of the interactions to understanding 15% of the interactions is progress. But not enough to justify using the output of the models as anything other than attempts to improve the models.

MarkTheGreat on February 27, 2010 at 4:18 PM

From where do you quote “the destruction of the raw data”? Is this from IoP?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

It’s from the lips of the CRU itself.

The data that was used in their studies, the ones that these predictions are being based on, has been “lost”.

MarkTheGreat on February 27, 2010 at 4:20 PM

So, if the earth has changed, ergo man can’t change it?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Escellent strawman, perhaps you should enter it into the olympics.

If the earth has changed on it’s own, often by amounts much larger then the changes being claimed today, then the mere fact that things are changines, is not proof that the change must be caused by man, as the AGW’ers have been claiming for 30 years.

MarkTheGreat on February 27, 2010 at 4:23 PM

They aren’t perfect, but to whom else to we look for answers?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 3:43 PM

How about we limit our serach for answer givers, to those scientists who haven’t been caught committing fraud?

MarkTheGreat on February 27, 2010 at 4:25 PM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Whether or not there has ever been any objectively scientific work in the field is besides the point. The point is that, regardless, every study in this field of “science” (pseudo-science, it turns out), if not outright discredited, is at least suspect.

FloatingRock on February 27, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Of course, the usual selective quotation ignores that the memo indicates the two independent temperature lines are uncompromised.

Hal_10000 on February 27, 2010 at 1:56 PM

The two independent temperature data sets are essentially the same set. And both have been corrupted by “corrections” that emphasize warming. See Anthony Watts work at wattsupwiththat.com on the poor condition of the temperature stations, with air conditioning vents nearby, placed over parking lots, next to buildings, and loads of other violations of the standard siting policies. And if you want details on the “corrections,” see a paper by a couple of experts, with lots of details, at:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

iurockhead on February 27, 2010 at 6:01 PM

oakland: You’re mental. If you won’t see a shrink then please try a self help book.

trapeze on February 27, 2010 at 6:25 PM

If the earth has changed on it’s own, often by amounts much larger then the changes being claimed today, then the mere fact that things are changines, is not proof that the change must be caused by man, as the AGW’ers have been claiming for 30 years

I don’t think that there are significant numbers of folks claiming “proof” (at least not those who claim to be scientifically literate). However, to say that previous warming from natural cycles is proof that there is no man-made component of the presently observed warming seems to me to be lacking in validity.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Hear that? That’s the sound of everyone (and I do mean everyone) mocking you and not taking you seriously, oakland. What are you? A high school freshman?

You have jumped the shark and, yes, landed squarely in its jaws. You are fish food.

Now quick, get off the computer and get down to McDonald’s in time for your shift at the french fry machine. Don’t forget your paper hat.

trapeze on February 27, 2010 at 7:13 PM

But but but — they’re only PHYSICISTS!!! What the hell would THEY know about climate science?!!! They’re not qualified to judge the work of the CRU! Who are you all going to hire next to attack climate science, a bunch of plumbers???

/sarc

Aitch748 on February 27, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Hear that? That’s the sound of everyone (and I do mean everyone) mocking you and not taking you seriously, oakland. What are you? A high school freshman?

You have jumped the shark and, yes, landed squarely in its jaws. You are fish food.

Now quick, get off the computer and get down to McDonald’s in time for your shift at the french fry machine. Don’t forget your paper hat.

trapeze on February 27, 2010 at 7:13 PM

I don’t hear anything, but I just read a poor post. Actually oakland is more reasonable then I gave him credit for.

The IPCC has little credibility left; I was neutral to it before the present set of scandals. I am convinced, though that there is a lot of good science being conducted by researchers around the world. They aren’t perfect, but to whom else to we look for answers?

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 3:43 PM

I don’t think that there are significant numbers of folks claiming “proof” (at least not those who claim to be scientifically literate). However, to say that previous warming from natural cycles is proof that there is no man-made component of the presently observed warming seems to me to be lacking in validity.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Those aren’t the words of a dyed-in-the-wool global warming alarmist.

He’s absolutely correct when he says past changes in climate doesn’t mean that human activities aren’t having an effect.

I’d add that past climate changes show us that what we’re seeing now is not unprecedented. This is why Mann, Briffa and the IPCC “hockey team” had to smooth out the Medieval Warm Period. They had to make it look like whatever warming we’re seeing now is out of the realm of natural variance. So in a nutshell what they did was cherry pick tree rings from Yamal to rid that pesky MWP from the record.

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Vocabulary builder: “risible” . . . . at least I learned a new word. Appreciated with no irony.

Well, not only risible but truly criminal. Scientists are humans too and we should always keep in mind the self-interest involved in “proving” one`s “theory”. That is just how it is. There has always been the temptation to prove one`s pet theory with inadequate data and faulty experiments. To make a name in science. It is surely a great temptation. It`s just the sheer scope of this ruse here that astounds.

What we have here is a nest of alchemists, not scientists. At least they could try changing lead into gold instead of turning sparse, faulty, and cooked data into the notion of global warming that is the source of lies. Lies believed by otherwise decent people. And why not? They trusted the scientists. The millions of people who have been duped. These millions need to see the data, get the truth, and get mad. In Democracies everywhere politicians will find themselves ridiculed and out of office as it should be.

The Internet/email aided coordination between these snake oil salesmen around the globe and they “reviewed” and “substantiated” one another, as we see.

But it is the same sharp sword bringing them to the ruin they deserve: the Internet and email.

It cuts both ways.

The MSM is not reporting this and our government and so many others keep pushing it. Bald-faced lies.

It is the Alternative Media to which we must turn for the truth. More people need to know this. Tell a friend. Tell someone. Anyone. I tell people to watch the MSM, listen to NPR, but also check out the Alternative Media. Then compare, I say.

Power to Truth.

Truth is the power.

The Truth is in short supply these days. We can change that.

Truth to power

Sherman1864 on February 27, 2010 at 8:09 PM

I don’t think that there are significant numbers of folks claiming “proof” (at least not those who claim to be scientifically literate). However, to say that previous warming from natural cycles is proof that there is no man-made component of the presently observed warming seems to me to be lacking in validity.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 6:53 PM

The problem here is obviously, that you don’t think. Your statement is a classic example of Affirming the Consequent logic fallacy. Logic clearly is not your strong suit.

doriangrey on February 27, 2010 at 8:11 PM

How do you model a system when the vast majority of interactions between the components are not understood?

MarkTheGreat on February 27, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Exactly. And, also, how do you model sets of variables that have variables that have sets of variables. The models cannot predict the weather three weeks from now but are expected to identify global temperatures out in the decades range. I don’t think so.

The experts on the sun cannot even indicate why the present solar cycles are not following the models, and the sun is the prime driver of the entire climate system.

Yoop on February 27, 2010 at 8:20 PM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

What reasonable people are claiming is that the scientific work on climate change is flawed enough that all of it has to be treated as suspect to a degree that renders it useless.

If you were given a stack of $100 bills and the first 50 you pulled off the pile were discovered to be counterfeit, would you suspect the rest, or go ahead and use the remaining ones assuming they were good notes?

Yoop on February 27, 2010 at 8:31 PM

If you were given a stack of $100 bills and the first 50 you pulled off the pile were discovered to be counterfeit, would you suspect the rest, or go ahead and use the remaining ones assuming they were good notes?

Yoop on February 27, 2010 at 8:31 PM

Very good question. Likewise, if you have a set of plots showing solar activity and global temperatures are closely correlated should you wonder if there was a connection.

duff65 on February 27, 2010 at 8:48 PM

However, to say that previous warming from natural cycles is proof that there is no man-made component of the presently observed warming seems to me to be lacking in validity.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Is there GLOBAL warming at present? And we were told it was a radical warming trend that corresponded very neatly with the historical rise of man-made emissions. Nobody really disputes that industry hit an unprecedented pitch 150 years ago and is still running. Is going through unprecedented changes, GLOBALLY? (as in not regionally).

And frankly I don’t much care, like I have no clue how come some of Saturn’s rings are braided. The whole point of the POLITICAL movement was that the SCIENCE was settled. Saying, “well the science may be open, but speaking scientifically, you can’t disprove the political consensus” is no kind of argument based on deduction from observation of physical phenomena. It’s arguing a political viewpoint.

Chris_Balsz on February 27, 2010 at 10:20 PM

To dismiss all scientific work related to climate change (as well as the anthropomorphic component) as “worthless” is unjustifiable. There is a massive amount of work related to climate change that has been done over decades of time and attemps to paint all related science and scientists with this broad brush of incompetence (or worse), Ed, lacks reason.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM

No, it is quite justifiable when the work isn’t scientific at all — which is the point being made by the IoP. They are saying the rot extends beyond East Anglia into a world wide group of “movers and shakers” in the global warming community. When the models are so faulty (compute power laid completely aside, because we aren’t talking about real-time modeling) that the programmers themselves leave comments inside the software belittling it, and the data they are using has no provenance, there is no science.

unclesmrgol on February 27, 2010 at 10:31 PM

A different opinion =/= trolling in and of itself.

Having said that, I’m not familiar with oakland’s posting history. What I see is a guy that is still putting an awful lot of faith in the IPCC. I don’t find this logical, but people can disagree in good faith so to speak.

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Only if the other is not deliberately dishonest, or lying by omission or from ideologically-driven ignorance / acceptance.
And your going on about computational modeling etc sweeps the utter fraud of it all under the rug and treats the basal premise with far more respect than it deserves. AND does all that with deliberate irrelevance to the topic at hand – the global fraud being perpetrated by the global warming alarmists and their political masters, as a means to achieve political power. THAT is the central issue of the matter, and of the topic.
Yours is a red herring, and that’s a different sort of troll.

rayra on February 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Yours is a red herring, and that’s a different sort of troll.

rayra on February 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Ah-h-h-h… yep.

Yoop on February 27, 2010 at 11:34 PM

A different opinion =/= trolling in and of itself.

Having said that, I’m not familiar with oakland’s posting history. What I see is a guy that is still putting an awful lot of faith in the IPCC. I don’t find this logical, but people can disagree in good faith so to speak.

toliver on February 27, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Only if the other is not deliberately dishonest, or lying by omission or from ideologically-driven ignorance / acceptance.
And your going on about computational modeling etc sweeps the utter fraud of it all under the rug and treats the basal premise with far more respect than it deserves. AND does all that with deliberate irrelevance to the topic at hand – the global fraud being perpetrated by the global warming alarmists and their political masters, as a means to achieve political power. THAT is the central issue of the matter, and of the topic.
Yours is a red herring, and that’s a different sort of troll.

rayra on February 27, 2010 at 11:23 PM

It seems as though you’ve not paid attention. Let’s break it down:

Only if the other is not deliberately dishonest, or lying by omission or from ideologically-driven ignorance / acceptance.

You project. It looks like oakland has an open mind. You don’t. Too much Limbaugh and not enough objectivity?

And your going on about computational modeling etc sweeps the utter fraud of it all under the rug and treats the basal premise with far more respect than it deserves.

The climate models are rubbish. We agree.

AND does all that with deliberate irrelevance to the topic at hand – the global fraud being perpetrated by the global warming alarmists and their political masters, as a means to achieve political power. THAT is the central issue of the matter, and of the topic.
Yours is a red herring, and that’s a different sort of troll.

This is not logical. And your troll comment is in fact trolling.

toliver on February 28, 2010 at 1:13 AM

A high percentage of college student in Depts of Engineering are now majoring in Climate Engineering. Methinks they are going to be sorely disappointed.

Jimmy Doolittle on February 28, 2010 at 5:04 AM

Here at ASU they have this political boondoggle called the Center for Sustainability (or something like that). I feel sorry for the people who have been conned into pursuing degrees through them. At least art history majors have something real to study and talk about.

Our University president also recently sent out an email to the entire university talking about how he wants to make ASU “carbon neutral.” I guess working in academia, he doesn’t realize just how absurd that looks to people in the real world. Like every other leftist cover story, pseudo-environmentalism is quickly losing its patina of legitimacy. Don’t worry though, the leftists will simply find some other issue to hijack or corrupt to forward their destructive agenda. Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again.

leereyno on February 28, 2010 at 7:36 AM

Mr. Gore “flatulated”, then “layed cable”, ending the controversy. He then began to speak, and the additional CO2 omitting from his pie hole made the earth spin faster and caused the Chile earthquakes.

Cleveland Steamer on February 28, 2010 at 7:44 AM

Perhaps the students at ASU should shove a cork in the mouth of the president as he speaks of “carbon neutrality”. He shuts up, and CO2 levels are lowered.

Cleveland Steamer on February 28, 2010 at 7:46 AM

Too much Limbaugh and not enough objectivity?

toliver on February 28, 2010 at 1:13 AM

Again, the logic is astounding.

Sorry to break it to you, toliver, but AGW is a global laughingstock. I know it’s hard to watch dreams die. But adults eat their crow one bite at a time and move on.

Start chewing.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 28, 2010 at 7:50 AM

Again, the logic is astounding.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 28, 2010 at 7:50 AM

Astounding, but predictable.

As the belief system crumbles the logic train simply runs off the tracks. Since it is a one-track line there is no alternative but a massive wreck.

Yoop on February 28, 2010 at 8:12 AM

I would remind toliver and oakland that the global economy has been almost destroyed by financial “modeling”…every bond issue, every derivative, every Credit Default Swap had been “modeled” inside out…and it didn’t work. Anybody with even a small, tiny brain (listen up, toliver) would realize that if we can’t model something as simple as a derivative, how the hell-o can we ever model the global climate????? You guys are “stuck on stupid” Further, think of all the good that could have been done with the money wasted – cure for aids, better ways to fight malaria, things that actually made a difference, that actually saved lives. Your ego is appalling…….

colonelkurtz on February 28, 2010 at 11:01 AM

The debate’s over. The overwhelmning consensus is that the global warming industry is a ponzi fraud. Let’s move on to a new crisis du jour. How about man induced earthquakes?

Skipper50 on February 28, 2010 at 12:33 PM

The problem here is obviously, that you don’t think. Your statement is a classic example of Affirming the Consequent logic fallacy. Logic clearly is not your strong suit

I realize that I am no genius, and you have lost me here. Please explain to me how this statement you are referring to me (above) is not logical. Conditions then were different from conditions now, and climate change is known to occur from a number of different factors.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 1:41 PM

The climate models are rubbish. We agree.

I have only the most rudimentary understanding of the modelling process (my experience in modelling is very limited), but to say that they are “rubbish” is an insult to those very competent people who are highly skilled at working with what very few people on this planet can understand.

If you want to demean them (and their creators) because they are not completely predictable, then you must also do the same for all of the other scientific work, as none of it is 100% accurate or predictive.

If it is “rubbish”, then what would you propose in its place? If you possess the skills of those who author the models and execute them, please explain what they are doing wrong. If you don’t know much about modelling, then on what basis do you declare that they are “rubbish”?

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Anybody with even a small, tiny brain (listen up, toliver) would realize that if we can’t model something as simple as a derivative, how the hell-o can we ever model the global climate?????

So anyone who disagrees with you has a “tiny brain”? Please tell me what training and experience you have with systems modelling.

Isn’t it the easiest thing in the world to criticize the works of others. I have found that those who criticize the loudest are usually the ones who have the least to offer.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM

What reasonable people are claiming is that the scientific work on climate change is flawed enough that all of it has to be treated as suspect to a degree that renders it useless.

Isn’t every human endeavor flawed? Please give me an example of one that isn’t.
I would agree that work in climate change should be “suspect”, as all scientific knowledge is (or should be) considered as tentative. If the work in climatic reasearch has not progessed to the point where you want it to be, what would you do differently? Please tell them, because I know that they could use the help…

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Would you invest in the mutual found that Bernie Madoff is running out of his prison cell?

Slowburn on February 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM

When this entire subject came up about “global warming” and Gore was making it out as the imminent end of the world as we know it, I, smugly, contacted my brother a physicist with whom I have discussed/debated numerous subjects in the past. But, he slapped me down. “This was settled science and people simply didn’t know what they were talking about”. Sometime later, I forwarded a Telegraph UK article discussing the problems being encountered with the data base of “climate change”. This time, he asked not to send such “leftist trash” that he only read “peer reviewed work”. I haven’t talked to him since, but I pray daily that very soon it will splashed all over the old, new and emerging media about how Gore, et.al., sodomized his country to gain power and money. Wonder what my bro will say then!

sharinlite on February 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

I have only the most rudimentary understanding of the modelling process (my experience in modelling is very limited), but to say that they are “rubbish” is an insult to those very competent people who are highly skilled at working with what very few people on this planet can understand.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

The climate models are total trash. The people who constructed them are well aware of this fact. Most of them aren’t even built on underlying physical models but are only curve-fitting schemes, which is what the exposure of much of the code in the CRU emails explicitly showed so clearly.

neurosculptor on February 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Again, the logic is astounding.

Sorry to break it to you, toliver, but AGW is a global laughingstock. I know it’s hard to watch dreams die. But adults eat their crow one bite at a time and move on.

Start chewing.

Grace_is_sufficient on February 28, 2010 at 7:50 AM

I guess you haven’t read the comments in this thread? I’m well aware of all the shortcomings and deceptions of the most influential IPCC researchers. I want the IPCC to be disbanded and the “hockey team” to leave the business so to speak. You missed that, no?

If you have been following climate science closely for any length of time, you’d know that it’s not all rubbish. Please don’t count on Limbaugh for accurate climate science observations. Limbaugh is other side of the coin to Gore.

toliver on February 28, 2010 at 3:12 PM

The climate models are rubbish. We agree.

I have only the most rudimentary understanding of the modelling process (my experience in modelling is very limited), but to say that they are “rubbish” is an insult to those very competent people who are highly skilled at working with what very few people on this planet can understand.

If you want to demean them (and their creators) because they are not completely predictable, then you must also do the same for all of the other scientific work, as none of it is 100% accurate or predictive.

If it is “rubbish”, then what would you propose in its place? If you possess the skills of those who author the models and execute them, please explain what they are doing wrong. If you don’t know much about modelling, then on what basis do you declare that they are “rubbish”?

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

I’m sorry, but we don’t have the programming sophistication or the processing power to produce climate models that are worth anything.

toliver on February 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Processing power is an issue; however, climate models are continually being refined, and processing power continues to rise exponentially.

Despite the daunting challenge they face (and the relentless criticism these scientists receive), aren’t we glad there are those who are up to the task? There is little doubt that climate modelling has produced advances in our understanding of climate dynamics as the models are compared with actual climatic trends.

One must remember that the climate is enormously complex, and what may seem like a lack of progress is actually “baby steps” in an area of study that is relatively new.

Again, it is always easy to criticize (especially by those who don’t know much about the science), but hard to offer solutions.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

If it is “rubbish”, then what would you propose in its place? If you possess the skills of those who author the models and execute them, please explain what they are doing wrong. If you don’t know much about modelling, then on what basis do you declare that they are “rubbish”?

They developed the “hockey stick” showing GLOBAL temperature increases were simultaneous and proportionate to the rise of man-made emissions. And that they’d continue in proportion to emissions. That turned out to be wrong. I’ve heard explanations based on recurrent events- the El-Nino – that anybody over 30 has heard about in relation to wild weather; why didn’t they know an El Nino would disrupt their prediction?

If you want to demean them (and their creators) because they are not completely predictable, then you must also do the same for all of the other scientific work, as none of it is 100% accurate or predictive.

Done! Modelled predictions of the future shall henceforth have no political importance.

Chris_Balsz on February 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM

One must remember that the climate is enormously complex, and what may seem like a lack of progress is actually “baby steps” in an area of study that is relatively new.

Again, it is always easy to criticize (especially by those who don’t know much about the science), but hard to offer solutions.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Our basic criticism here is the presumption that your incomplete, infant science must have an urgent, global, political priority.

Chris_Balsz on February 28, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Processing power is an issue; however, climate models are continually being refined, and processing power continues to rise exponentially.

Despite the daunting challenge they face (and the relentless criticism these scientists receive), aren’t we glad there are those who are up to the task? There is little doubt that climate modelling has produced advances in our understanding of climate dynamics as the models are compared with actual climatic trends.

One must remember that the climate is enormously complex, and what may seem like a lack of progress is actually “baby steps” in an area of study that is relatively new.

Again, it is always easy to criticize (especially by those who don’t know much about the science), but hard to offer solutions.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

They aren’t “up to the task” though. Climate science isn’t anywhere near able to produce code that can accurately predict future climate.

toliver on February 28, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Oakland -
The answer is “logic”. At this point in time, since we have proven incapable of accurately modeling a simple thing (with very high financial stakes), to say that we can model something that is infinitely more complex, let alone make ANY ACCURATE predictions on the results, defies LOGIC. You need to lose your ego and think! Try logic! It works!!!

colonelkurtz on February 28, 2010 at 7:42 PM

They have made strides in the direction of predicting climate. It all depends on what you mean by “accurately”. What many folks on this site seem to want are predictions within a very narrow tolerance for the next few decades or century. Certainly, they are not at that point now. From what I have read, some models are showing much better predictive quality recently. The main unknowns are the various feedback mechanisms, and that leads to substantial uncertainties. I invite readers here to go to the library and review some of the literature in regards to climate modelling and see for themselves.

All throughout history, there have been naysayers that have discounted pioneering efforts that others have undertaken; and there have been many heroes that have come through with tremendous breakthroughs despite the naysayers. Nuclear fusion is another daunting challenge that, like climate change, requires major advances in computing power (in addition to materials development). Many scientists discounted commercial nuclear fusion as ridiculous or impossible; yet we see a concerted effort involving a number of nations (US included) to develop a commercial fusion power plant. I don’t hear many folks referring to their work as “garbage”.

We need the highly competent and intellectual folks continuing to find answers in climate science. I believe our civilization depends on them getting it right. They are in the process of improving their models all the time, and I applaud them. Most of them don’t deserve the invective being hurled at them due to the bad behavior of a very few others who have betrayed the ones they have been funding their work.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 7:45 PM

You need to lose your ego and think! Try logic! It works!!!

Have you read any scientific journals that deal with climate science, and seen some of the work they are doing? Do you have any credentials as a scientist in this area of study? If not, what “logic” are you using that I’m not.

I think you need to decide what you mean by “accurate”. I’d like to know your perspective on that.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 7:50 PM

They have made strides in the direction of predicting climate. It all depends on what you mean by “accurately”. What many folks on this site seem to want are predictions within a very narrow tolerance for the next few decades or century. Certainly, they are not at that point now. From what I have read, some models are showing much better predictive quality recently. The main unknowns are the various feedback mechanisms, and that leads to substantial uncertainties. I invite readers here to go to the library and review some of the literature in regards to climate modelling and see for themselves.

All throughout history, there have been naysayers that have discounted pioneering efforts that others have undertaken; and there have been many heroes that have come through with tremendous breakthroughs despite the naysayers. Nuclear fusion is another daunting challenge that, like climate change, requires major advances in computing power (in addition to materials development). Many scientists discounted commercial nuclear fusion as ridiculous or impossible; yet we see a concerted effort involving a number of nations (US included) to develop a commercial fusion power plant. I don’t hear many folks referring to their work as “garbage”.

We need the highly competent and intellectual folks continuing to find answers in climate science. I believe our civilization depends on them getting it right. They are in the process of improving their models all the time, and I applaud them. Most of them don’t deserve the invective being hurled at them due to the bad behavior of a very few others who have betrayed the ones they have been funding their work.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 7:45 PM

The difference between past advancements [and their naysayers] and this climate topic is that the modelers claim they are ~90% sure of their predictions.

The problem is that their models are looking worse as time goes on. We should be seeing much warmer temperatures as well as more and stronger hurricanes to name two major errors. To be blunt, the IPCC climate modeling sucks. I have no doubt that one day the science will advance to the point where we’ll be much better at this business, but that’s a long ways off.

toliver on February 28, 2010 at 10:21 PM

Oakland
There is no way to deal with someone who keeps telling everybody that the sun rises in the west, except to call him a fool. Your “science” isn’t because it’s all based on fraud, and you can’t admit that. So Oakland, quit telling me the sun rises in the west.
See if you can “model” my next statement…….

colonelkurtz on February 28, 2010 at 11:11 PM

We need the highly competent and intellectual folks continuing to find answers in climate science. I believe our civilization depends on them getting it right. They are in the process of improving their models all the time, and I applaud them. Most of them don’t deserve the invective being hurled at them due to the bad behavior of a very few others who have betrayed the ones they have been funding their work.

oakland on February 28, 2010 at 7:45 PM
///

If the data that the models use is bunk, then the models are bunk.

Hence…AGW models…are bunk.

uknowmorethanme on March 1, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Many scientists discounted commercial nuclear fusion as ridiculous or impossible; yet we see a concerted effort involving a number of nations (US included) to develop a commercial fusion power plant. I don’t hear many folks referring to their work as “garbage”.

becuase they are not demanding the world economy be rebuilt around the certain development of commercial fusion within five years. Global warming will be irreversible by 2015, remember?

Chris_Balsz on March 1, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Keep your eyes on Lindsey Graham!!!!

mobydutch on March 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM

“Baby girl survives after being shot in the chest in parents’ global warming suicide pact.” This insane fear-mongering has got to stop. I am so sorry for this poor baby girl.

chunderroad on March 1, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I am convinced, though that there is a lot of good science being conducted by researchers around the world.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 3:43 PM

A statement so vague as to be meaningless. Who is even raising the idea that a statement like this would be contested by anyone except you? For starters, there’s exceptional work going on with superconductivity, Bose-Einstein condensates, science applicable to nanotechnology, and so on.

I don’t think that there are significant numbers of folks IPCC members claiming “proof the science on AGW is settled(at least not those who claim to be scientifically literate).

Uh, actually there are, sherlock. Hence the significance of the exposure of the fraud at East Ganglia. “Yeah, *hence*!”

However, to say that previous warming from natural cycles is proof that there is no man-made component of the presently observed warming seems to me to be lacking in validity.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Repeating this syllogism over and over again, on multiple HotAir threads, in ‘response’ to a provocation never issued in the first place, is itself invalid, a logical fallacy, and a discredited smear tactic that when done deliberately identifies the purveyor as a con artist.

Given the prompt attention you have received to your queries and demands so far on HotAir, it is deeply disrespectful to the rest of us.

Are we to conclude from your disproportionate repetition of this tautology that HotAir commenters are somehow refuted by it?

The two points consistently made by HotAir commenters, which you fail to refute, or even engage on respectfully, are:

(1) the science — on AGW via CO2 from manual release of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere — is NOT “settled”. And

(2) there is proof of scientific fraud in the highest circles of the AGW lobby that includes conspiratorial e-mails between climate researchers, once-secret data manipulation algorithms and hard-codings that do not withstand scientific scrutiny, destruction of the raw data crucial to proving AGW claims (including proving that climate models are legitimate), and conspiring to rig the peer review process to give pro-AGW papers the imprimatur of legitimacy while foiling the presentation of evidence that falsifies AGW theory.

RD on March 1, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Actually oakland is more reasonable then I gave him credit for.
toliver on February 27, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Ah, come out of obscurity to support the latest troll. You do know, do you not, that affirming these smears of other HotAir commenters makes you oakland’s accomplice, not his vouch-savior.

Those aren’t the words of a dyed-in-the-wool global warming alarmist.

No, they’re the words of someone gaming the comments section. You’re just figuring this out now?? ;)

He’s absolutely correct when he says past changes in climate doesn’t mean that human activities aren’t having an effect.

An effect on what? Climate? Sperm count?
What human activities, specifically? Prayer? Animal sacrifices to the grand poobah?
And through what mechanism exactly? The alignment of the stars?

You do realize, don’t you, that the statement you stick up for so gallantly is a tautology? It is tantamount to saying that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, two chains of events that may be totally unrelated, may in fact be totally unrelated. Well no shinola, sherlock #2.

It looks like oakland has an open mind.
toliver on February 28, 2010 at 1:13 AM

In the same way that a landmine lying on the ground “looks like” a really big can of tuna.

RD on March 1, 2010 at 4:34 PM

However, to say that previous warming from natural cycles is proof that there is no man-made component of the presently observed warming seems to me to be lacking in validity.

oakland on February 27, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Science isn’t supposed to work the way you’re suggesting here. You don’t come up with a theory, then hold it to be true because nobody has disproven it.

Science works more like this. Create a theory, then create an experiment to test it. Share your data and results with the rest of the world, so they can reproduce the results.

As other people conduct their own experiments, any scientist can expect their theory to be challenged, modified, proven half-right, and rechallenged. Finally, after everyone has taken their best shot at your theory, a concrete, provable nugget of science remains behind.

You’re arguing that the mere presence of a theory is enough to make it science, at least until somoene can reproduce your experiments. But it’s hard to prove a theory right when the data used to prove your theory have been destroyed.

hawksruleva on March 1, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3