Tag: AGW/CC

For future reference

Atheists and evolutionists should keep this quote in mind the next time they wish to make an appeal to what an overwhelming majority of scientists believe:

The overwhelming majority of scientists believe the global warming is real and the result of human activity, but a vocal majority maintains that the science is not proven.

It’s not clear whether the journalist meant to write “minority” in referring to scientists or if he is referring to the majority of the non-scientific public, since either interpretation would be correct. Regardless, if anthropogenic global warming is subsequently proven to be real, then those who believe there is no God or believe in evolution by natural selection can quite reasonably argue that the opinion of the unscientific masses on the matter should be at least somewhat influenced by the opinion of the self-appointed scientific elite. If, however, it is subsquently proven to be false, any attempt to argue that the unscientific masses should pay any attention whatsoever to the latest way the winds of scientific consensus are blowing can and should be ridiculed.

The great backpedal begins

A paleontologist and global warming activist openly admits That Which Was Not Supposed To Ever Be Mentioned:

We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.

No, really? In other words, ah, the science isn’t exactly, um, settled. It actually is pointing in, well, precisely the opposite direction from what we’ve been saying all along. Which, of course, is what skeptics have been pointing out from the start.

Lord Monckton is characteristically forthright on the matter: The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures…. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years…. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.

The reality is that you don’t actually need to know very much about science to detect scientific fraud. I would go so far as to argue that non-scientists will tend to be better at noticing scientific fraud than scientists, for what should be the obvious reason that scientists tend to possess a lower level of people skills than the average individual. This means that scientific con men tend to be rather clumsy and obvious compared to the non-scientific variety in in the act and the subsequent excuse-making, and it’s only because their fellow scientists are also so clueless about people that they are able to get away with as much as they do.

Of course, if you expect your science BS detector to work, it helps a great deal to not have your sense of identity ensconced in romantic notions of the sanctity of science and the inherently pure intentions of scientists.

WND column

The Great Global Warming Fraud

I have an old T-shirt that I used to wear from time to time during my techno days with Psykosonik. Eric Bloodaxe of the Legion of Doom created it in honor of the “Hacking for Jesus” tour, complete with a listing of ISP addresses that were supposedly hacked during the LOD’s Internet World Tour of 1991. But last week, an anonymous hacker achieved a feat that will long be lionized by computer pirates, libertarians and genuine scientists alike, as he broke into the Climate Research Unit’s computers, copied 172 megs of data, and then released it into the digital wild.

Information wants to be free. And this information desperately needed to be freed.

UPDATE – In England, the CRU expose is now being described as “the greatest scandal in modern science“.

AGW/CC travesty confirmed

There isn’t any science to support the outrageous conclusions driving Kyoto and Copenhagen. None. Cram this statement from one of the leading IPCC scientists down the throat of the next idiot you hear using the term “global warming denier”:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
– Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change

Here’s another one: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The so-called scientists know their models are wrong. They know the global warming they predicted isn’t happening. And yet they are trying to keep it quiet, so that all the credulous science fetishists who believe wholeheartedly in the “science” won’t lose faith in the cause and pull out the scientific supports from the global governance scheme. Speaking of which, here’s another: “One particular thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO.”

This is confirmation that AGW/CC is indeed what I said it would turn out to be, namely, The Biggest Science Fraud Yet. Of course, if the climate scientists had one-tenth the integrity that the fetishists claim they do, it wouldn’t have been necessary to learn what they really think about the matter from a whistleblower releasing hacked emails.

Ian Wishart’s Investigate Magazine confirms the emails are real(4.1 meg PDF):

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine. In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”

In a word: awesome! Whoever did this merits knighthood by the Legion of Doom.

A lefty contemplates his banishment

For the moral crime of questioning aspects of the AGW/CC charade:

For better or worse I have a much better sense of how the liberal slime machine works in practice, having been inside now a bit. This is all the more ironic because I consider myself to be cut from a similar political cloth to many of those who are engaged in all out war against me. Here are a few reflections.

Here is how it works. The really giant fish — public intellectuals like Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman — confer authority on the big fish of the liberal blogosphere. They do so by applauding the work of the big fish and saying that they trust them. This is a useful exchange because the big fish amplify the writings of the giant fish in the blogosphere and do the dirty work of taking down their political opponents by playing some gutter politics that the giant fish would rather not be seen playing. This has the effect of establishing the big fish as people to be listened to, not because they are necessarily right about things, but because the giant fish listen to them and the giant fish set political agendas…. The giant fish then get plausible deniability from engaging in what might seem to be less-than ethical behavior, the big fish get the ego-strokes of acknowledgment from the giant fish and the occasional top-line billing among favorable-leaning media. Similarly the minnows get to parlay inexpertise into a small role in the politics of personal destruction, and are cited by the big fish, but never by the media or the giants, which would be unbecoming.

On a tangential note, I always find it a little peculiar how often an item is published by WND, or occasionally, even posted on my blog, and then shows, completely unattributed, on one of the more nominally mainstream sites. I think Steve Sailer is probably the most surreptitiously cited but least-quoted writer on the right.

Anyhow, it shouldn’t surprise the professor that the left relies so heavily on personal attacks and appeals to authority. First, they’re authoritarians. Second, they certainly aren’t going to argue the science on the subject, because none of it supports their position. And third, if they were informed and capable of arguing logic, they wouldn’t be leftists in the first place.