Howl
If you have some time to kill, you could amuse yourself by watching various left wing bloggers and pundits try to undermine Sarah Palin's op-ed discussing the politicization of climate change science that appears in today's Washington Post.
The Op-ed, titled "Copenhagen's political science" contains what appears to be a few rhetorical embellishments and minor factual inaccuracies based upon what we now know, but overall, is more or less accurate. Climategate and questions about the validity of data sets maintained and possibly manipulated by several other research gatekeepers should be taken very seriously, and the raw data reexamined and opened to public review. Instead, climate change scientists have conspired to hide their data, and in the case of the East Anglia CRU, "lost" their raw data, a very improbable claim according to career scientists. Likewise, the code for the CRU's climate modeling software was exposed in the Climategate leak, and reveals that the the modeling of temperature trends was all but fraudulent, and compromised repeatedly by manual "adjustments" designed to provide advocates of anthropogenic global warming the manufactured evidence they desired. The outrage on the left was loud and predictable. Alan Colmes claimed the op-ed was "false and misleading," but instead bogged down in minutia. Perhaps Palin was incorrect in claim that AGW advocates deliberately destroyed data, but those scientists were forced to admit admit the raw data was destroyed. The rest of his "evidence" includes an ad hominem attack from a former Post correspondent and an attempt at obfuscation by a left-wing think tank over the damage cap-and-trade would do the to economy. The later still included an admission that Palin was essentially right on main basic point, that cap-and-tax would cost American jobs. Think Progress also screams in indignation, but does no better a job of explaining why admittedly polarized and deceptive practices lead to science that should be trusted. Taylor Marsh repeats similarly unimpressive arguments, and quite unscientific claims that climate change is leading polar bears to cannibalism (simultaneously, other advocates complain that the bears are in danger of extinction even as their population grows). A survey of progressive blogs responding to Palin's op-ed seem to focus primarily on variations of the argument that:- the data is accurate and unaltered, but doesn't need to be released to the public
- that the scientists involved have unimpeachable integrity, even though they admit in private emails to attempting to manipulate peer review and data to achieve desired results (which is why the CRU's head has stepped down and others in the cabal are under investigation)
- the data models are accurate, even though programmer's notes in the CRU code reveals it to have been manually corrupted to achieve specific results, thereby corrupting an other models that use the CRU's code or data, as apparently all other significant models used by the United Nations apparently do
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:30 PM
Comments
1
And then they should be charged.
Posted by: Jack at December 09, 2009 02:43 PM (bvDV5)
2
In her comments defending the recent endangerment finding on greenhouse gases as a danger to human health, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency relied heavily on data obtained from the UN’s IPCC. Guess where the IPCC got a lot of its data? You guessed it…the CRU at East Anglia University. I’m not saying, I’m just saying…
Posted by: Tarheel Repub at December 09, 2009 03:15 PM (prDeJ)
3
I read Taylor Marsh's column and almost spit out my soda. She figures Palin doesn't care about children because children suffer from asthma and pollution causes asthma. I'm assuming she made the missing mental connection that CO2 is pollution without showing her work, but I'd really like to see the science that shows that CO2 causes asthma. Particularly from one who calls us "anti-science."
Posted by: alwaysfiredup at December 09, 2009 03:20 PM (CZK+U)
4
CO2 causes asathma? What a fool. Vaccinations cause autism and impotence too, I bet. These people are 21st century Ludites. It seems a few of us have a better education than these so-called climate scientists. Perhaps they were just educated beyond their intelligence. I wasn't. The crows will soon be home to roost. Karma will be calling on these liars.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at December 09, 2009 04:01 PM (brIiu)
5
Many of these climate scientists have very poor math/statistics skills, a damning lack for a profession that is so based on statistics.
Which is why these climatologist-warmers shriek like children when mathematician/economists like Steve McIntyre and Bjorn Lundgren destroy their models.
AGW is a complete fraud. Nothing new from the Left--everything they promote is a complete fraud.
Which is why these climatologist-warmers shriek like children when mathematician/economists like Steve McIntyre and Bjorn Lundgren destroy their models.
AGW is a complete fraud. Nothing new from the Left--everything they promote is a complete fraud.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 09, 2009 06:09 PM (FGCRY)
6
global warming is as corrupt and discredited as any theory could possibly be.
that they still attempt to push it after what we've found out shows them to be no better than communist thugs who think they can do anything.
that they still attempt to push it after what we've found out shows them to be no better than communist thugs who think they can do anything.
Posted by: I.B. Wright at December 09, 2009 06:11 PM (4G06+)
7
Stating that the CRU deliberately destroyed data is NOT an inaccuracy. It is what they did.
Whether they did so in an attempt to prevent others from having access to it, or simply as a result of poor respect for the safe archiving of data is unknown.
Perhaps they thought there really was no need to hold onto the data underlying all their research. That would be stupid and sloppy, but not evidence of malice or conspiracy. But there is no question that they deliberately destroyed it.
Whether they did so in an attempt to prevent others from having access to it, or simply as a result of poor respect for the safe archiving of data is unknown.
Perhaps they thought there really was no need to hold onto the data underlying all their research. That would be stupid and sloppy, but not evidence of malice or conspiracy. But there is no question that they deliberately destroyed it.
Posted by: XBradTC at December 09, 2009 07:20 PM (y0E9v)
8
"...there is no question that they deliberately destroyed it."
Posted by: XBradTC at December 9, 2009 07:20 PM
Exactly! I read that when newly-flush-with-funds CRU moved into its swanky new digs, they didn't want to store the data anymore; they didn't want to make room for all the hard copy boxes, etc.
Sooooo, like the true dedicated serious scholarly scientists they are, they just gave it the ol' heave ho into the trash bin.
Records...who needs any stinkin' original records?
Posted by: XBradTC at December 9, 2009 07:20 PM
Exactly! I read that when newly-flush-with-funds CRU moved into its swanky new digs, they didn't want to store the data anymore; they didn't want to make room for all the hard copy boxes, etc.
Sooooo, like the true dedicated serious scholarly scientists they are, they just gave it the ol' heave ho into the trash bin.
Records...who needs any stinkin' original records?
Posted by: marybel at December 09, 2009 09:45 PM (Rb2gx)
9
Here's a prediction. Once the UK Met begins its recalculation of the 160 year global temps, NOAA/GISS will do the same. There will be a two part race. One will be who can be more/most open. Two will be who can get it done first.
Once the first, open recalculation is completed it will automatically become the "OFFICIAL" global temperature record. All others will be lesser with reducing grant receipts.
Competition is great!
Once the first, open recalculation is completed it will automatically become the "OFFICIAL" global temperature record. All others will be lesser with reducing grant receipts.
Competition is great!
Posted by: CoRev at December 10, 2009 08:06 AM (0U8Ob)
10
the US NAvy believes the climate is changing and that the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in the summer http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64471er by 2030.
The main country financing the climate change deniers is Saudi Arabia. They sell the most oil that is helping to produce this change and one of the countries in the lead in support is Israel who know that their high tech industry can help in the change to a non carbon based energy system
The main country financing the climate change deniers is Saudi Arabia. They sell the most oil that is helping to produce this change and one of the countries in the lead in support is Israel who know that their high tech industry can help in the change to a non carbon based energy system
Posted by: John Ryan at December 11, 2009 07:22 AM (m0Q2u)
11
John, you link doesn't go to an active article.
But more importantly, I have a very simple question: Where does the navy get their climate data from?
I strongly suspect that the get their data from NASA (compromised) East Anglia CRU (compromised) or one of the other primary data sets, all of which pull from the same pool of shared and suspect data.
Your "argument" isn't an argument, it is an appeal to authority.
Better luck next time.
But more importantly, I have a very simple question: Where does the navy get their climate data from?
I strongly suspect that the get their data from NASA (compromised) East Anglia CRU (compromised) or one of the other primary data sets, all of which pull from the same pool of shared and suspect data.
Your "argument" isn't an argument, it is an appeal to authority.
Better luck next time.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 11, 2009 08:54 AM (gAi9Z)
Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0763 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0736 seconds, 19 records returned.
Page size 13 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.