Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Get a jump ...

... on the MSM: The CRU “climategate” proxy code: a primer. (Hat tip, Dave Lull.)

See also “Climategate” and the Social Validation of Knowledge.

... it’s important not to overstate the case. I don’t think we have anywhere near enough evidence to show that the academic consensus on global warming is completely bogus, or even close to it. Nor has it been proven that all or most prominent scientific supporters of global warming theory are as unethical as those exposed in this scandal.

On balance, therefore, I still think that global warming exists and is a genuinely serious problem. But I am marginally less confident in holding that view than I was before. If we see more revelations of this kind, I will be less confident still.


  1. Jeez, Frank. You being paid extra to run damage control for the ClimateGate deniers?

    Global warming - more likely, global COOLING - will happen or not, according to the level of insolation (energy transfer to the earth from the sun), but it's not anthropogenic.

    Not "man-made." And the CRU communications demonstrate that the "settled science" on anthropogenic global warming is nothing more than a fraud, created and maintained by Dr. Jones and Dr. Mann and the rest of their colleagues, who have perverted the peer review process throughout the field of climatology to sell their lies.

    Cap-and-rape is dead. The Copenhagen convention is dead. Dr. Jones and his buddies in the U.K. are definitely facing criminal charges, and Dr. Mann (at Penn State) and his friends are going to be refusing interviews or statements on the advice of their lawyers, 'cause they're going to be indicted, too.

    Isn't it nice when good science finally trumps political science?

  2. No, I link, you decide. I just wanted to give both sides of the story, unlike what you usually see in your local paper or TV news. I think you may well be right (history, which I do know something about, would suggest you are), but I am not a climate scientist and prefer to remain agnostic. Odd, I usually get criticized for being a denialist, so your comment is rather refreshing. Thanks for stopping by and feel free to continue commenting. Oh, and I think you are definitely right about cap-and-trade and Copenhagen. Which I think is good (that you are right).

  3. Frank, I'm not a climatologist either. But I'm trained in the sciences, and I've run papers of all kinds through the peer review process at referee'd journals, including addressing responses received (and modifying submitted manuscripts accordingly) from the editors and reviewers working on behalf of those publications.

    I know what peer review is, what its purpose is, how it's supposed to work, and why it is of critical value to the entire world. Hell, I rely on peer review to make sure that the information I draw from such promulgations is valid.

    Like any other person with similar training and experience, I've been looking at the AGW controversy with a perspective a bit different from those of the non-scientists who've bought into the "global warming" panic, and from the beginning I've gotten more than just a whiff of corruption every time I've poked my nose into the matter.

    And with "cap-and-trade" being imposed upon people all over the world by the "progressive" types, I quit needing to search out the subject to breathe in its reek. The proponents of this bilge were grinding it into my face.

    I won't deny that I've got an emotional response to this story about the CRU communicators. What enrages me most is that their exchanges evince a collusion to hijack the peer review process I mentioned above, and to fundamentally destroy the validity of published work in their chosen field of specialization. Journals such as Nature and Science - among the oldest and most highly respected in the world - are now shown to have been manipulated by a coterie of blatantly lying scoundrels who had perverted the seeming of science for the advancement of their thieving, self-aggrandizing, tyrannous political agenda.

    For those of us who have worked all our lives in the sciences, what Dr. Jones and his correspondents have been doing for the past ten years and more is the equivalent of running a child prostitution ring.

    Worse. A coterie of sadistic pedophiles do damage only to the children they molest, and their victims number in the dozens; at most, in the hundreds.

    Dr. Jones and his co-conspirators have plotted to molest millions, and have done so without so much as a single qualm of conscience.

    Is it any wonder that I want their flayed corpses dangling from a prominent gibbet somewhere?

  4. Well, I hope more informed people are willing - as you obviously are - to stand uo and be counted. To be honest, the more I read of this, the magnitude of the intellectual dishonesty is staggering.