Home > Climate change, Economy, Moonbats, Opinion, Politics > More denial of the “Climategate” controversy.

More denial of the “Climategate” controversy.

A once well-respected scientific journal has forever tarnished it’s reputation in a manner not seen since…well since earlier this year when the Nobel Committee ‘jumped the shark’. The Scientific American published an article by David Biello titled, “Scientists Respond to ‘Climategate’ E-Mail Controversy”. Except that the only ones who responded were ones involved knee-deep in this scandal, Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, who I noted before as being disingenuous at best and have a knack for dancing around the issue to give a non-answer. Nobody outside the controversy weighed in the subject in this story.

In fact, very little attention was given to the actual impact of the leaked e-mails and was instead, a platform for which to dance around the issue.

With all the “hot air” surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R–Okla.), who famously dubbed climate change a “hoax” in a 2003 speech, has pointed to the stolen e-mails as information that overturns the scientific evidence for global warming and called on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to halt any development of regulation of greenhouse gases pending his investigation into the e-mails. And recent polls have found that fewer Americans today than just two years ago believe that greenhouse gases will cause average temperatures to increase—a drop from 71 percent to 51 percent.

Yet, Arctic sea ice continues to dwindle—as do glaciers across the globe; average temperatures have increased by 0.7 degree Celsius in the past century and the last decade is the warmest in the instrumental record; spring has sprung forward, affecting everything from flower blossoms to animal migrations; and the concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to rise, reaching 387 parts per million in 2009, a rise of 30 percent since 1750.


Yes the sea ice continues to melt….except when it doesn’t. The article continues on with a basic explanation of the greenhouse theory, as though the readers are inept. Then we get this little gem.

In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause. “There is a robust consensus that humans are altering the atmosphere and warming the planet,” said meteorologist Michael Mann of The Pennsylvania State University, who also participated in the conference call and was among the scientists whose e-mails have been leaked. “Further increases in greenhouse gases will lead to increasingly greater disruption.”

Some of the kerfuffle rests on a misreading of the e-mails’ wording. For example, the word “trick” in one message, which has been cited as evidence that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in data inferred from tree ring measurements.


What constitutes a “robust consensus” in the universe of Michael Mann isn’t the same as us unwashed peons in flyover country. Perhaps he is unaware of the tens of thousands of scientists who oppose this “consensus. Certainly they qualify as more of a consensus than 2400 politicians, business owners and scientists begging for grant money at the IPCC. Add to that the fact one of the e-mails details a plan to push a scientist out of the peer review process….you know….for the “consensus”.

I guess we’re just too stupid to understand what “trick” and “hide the decline” mean. Here I was thinking the “trick” referred to the manipulation of data to “hide the decline” in temperature readings. In other words, starting with a conclusion and pounding on the facts to make them fit the result YOU want. Maybe that’s what “reconciling observed temperatures” means when deciphered. Perhaps I’m not so stupid after all, Mr. Biello.

This is not the first time Biello has published an article with less than realistic interpretations of actual events. In an article he wrote on November 24th he tried to insinuate that there were no scientific opponents to the AGW theory. Only political ones.

You can judge the emails for yourself at this wonderful searchable database. While the revelations about pressuring the peer review process and apparent slowness in responding to an avalanche of requests for information unveil something below impressive scientific and personal behavior, they can also be seen as the frustrated responses of people working on complex data under deadline while being harassed by political opponents.

Note the adjective there. Political, not scientific, opponents. Because the opposition here is not grounded in any robust scientific theory or alternative hypotheses (all of those, in their time, have been shot down and nothing new has been offered in years) but a hysterical reaction to the possibly of what? One-world government? The return of communism? If that’s the fear, perhaps someone can explain why the preferred solution to climate change offered by former proponents of inaction is nuclear power. Has there ever been a nuclear reactor built anywhere in the world that didn’t rely on government to get it done? Sounds like socialism, doesn’t it? Hello France? USSR? USA?


Not only did this moron have the gall to insinuate that proponents of nuclear power were somehow hypocrites because the government rightly chooses to control the nuclear fuel and that’s allegedly socialism….or something, but he declared definitively, all contrary views to be debunked in some unnamed ethereal manner.

Just another in the long list of leftist moonbats that will do whatever they can to marginalize the significance of this scam on the world. Where do the liberals keep finding these morons?

Advertisements
  1. December 12, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: