The Comment That Killed Global Warming (Not)

Environment • Views: 3,497

As the phony scandal dubbed (with mind-numbing banality) “Climategate” continues to descend into a black hole of ever-widening stupidity, one of the claims currently making the hot rounds of the right wing blogs is that one tiny bit of source code from the stolen CRU files contains one comment that proves the evil scientists made it all up!

Tim Lambert absolutely destroys this idiotic claim here, in a post aptly titled: Quote mining code.

Bottom line: The code in question was neither false nor deceptive … and it was not even used in the final resulting graph.

Read Tim’s post for the pathetic details. But one prediction is easy to make — his debunking will be ignored by the deniers, and “The Comment That Killed Global Warming” will enter the lexicon of anti-science, to be recycled over and over and over and …

Jump to bottom

192 comments
1 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:00:44pm

I confess, I'm a

zombie remnant of Soviet psyops

only here to undermine God's 5000 year plan.

2 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:01:07pm

Lies can run a mile before Truth can get its shoes on. It sucks but its a fact.

3 Jack Fate  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:11:42pm

Now that this 'AGW skeptic' talking point has been dubunked, I assume the deniers will ignore this and move on to the next talking point? Why can't they see the pattern?

4 Riptides  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:12:13pm

Global warming is just as manufactured as the President's Nirth Certifiket and Palin and Rush speak for all who identify themselves as conservative.

Just making sure we're all on the same page here for an epic fail win in 2012.


///sarc

5 Neutral President  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:20:31pm

re: #3 Jack Fate

Now that this 'AGW skeptic' talking point has been dubunked, I assume the deniers will ignore this and move on to the next talking point? Why can't they see the pattern?

Because they are deniers, once something is debunked it wont stop them from recycling it and bringing it up ad nauseam as if it's something new... for years.

6 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:21:53pm

re: #5 ArchangelMichael

Because they are deniers, once something is debunked it wont stop them from recycling it and bringing it up ad nauseam as if it's something new... for years.

Yep, they're just like the creationists like that. Exactly like creationists, as Charles has pointed out.

7 Neutral President  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:25:28pm

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

Yep, they're just like the creationists like that. Exactly like creationists, as Charles has pointed out.

Exactly. How many times do we have to hear about 'irreducible complexity', 'no transitional forms', or my favorite 'it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' as if these are new concepts that have not been totally blown out of the water already.

8 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:31:54pm

re: #7 ArchangelMichael

Exactly. How many times do we have to hear about 'irreducible complexity', 'no transitional forms', or my favorite 'it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' as if these are new concepts that have not been totally blown out of the water already.

forever?...AGW has taken a hit...now what?, disclaiming deniers is not good enough and this thing is exploding

9 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:33:20pm

re: #8 albusteve

forever?...AGW has taken a hit...now what?, disclaiming deniers is not good enough and this thing is exploding

Uh, no. It isn't.

10 ghazidor  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:33:44pm

So global warming is over? Whew, thats a relief. Does this means the polar bears are safe now so that I can go ahead and buy a nice skin rug for in front of my fireplace?

/I never said reading comprehension was my strong suit. ;)

11 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:36:03pm

re: #9 Charles

Uh, no. It isn't.

it's an issue that's certainly picking up steam...what strategy will resolve this rift so we can move forward?

12 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:37:08pm

re: #11 albusteve

it's an issue that's certainly picking up steam...what strategy will resolve this rift so we can move forward?

No, it's not. It's dying. In a week or less it will be completely out of the news.

13 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:37:35pm

re: #11 albusteve

it's an issue that's certainly picking up steam...what strategy will resolve this rift so we can move forward?

Steve has a point. The story is BS but it's making a lot of noise and the assault of lies will sway some people who don't know much about the issue.

14 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:38:09pm

re: #11 albusteve

Not to chase you down, but I fired off a reply to you on the last thread. Just wanted to make sure you saw it.

15 Jack Fate  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:38:14pm

re: #11 albusteve

Well, presumably the side with facts will beat the side with truthiness once their bloviating is shown to be based on irrationality.

16 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:39:18pm

AGW is a reality...I want solutions, not political backbiting and cred finger pointing...how can the US move forward now and express the leadership people expect of us?

17 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:40:53pm

re: #12 Charles

No, it's not. It's dying. In a week or less it will be completely out of the news.

Miller Time!...I hope you are right bro

18 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:44:20pm

re: #14 McSpiff

Not to chase you down, but I fired off a reply to you on the last thread. Just wanted to make sure you saw it.

got it...point taken and from that aspect you are certainly correct

19 McSpiff  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:45:11pm

re: #18 albusteve

got it...point taken and from that aspect you are certainly correct

So about that miller...

20 Bob with one O  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:56:10pm

Black eye for the greens.

In an age where the mere appearance of malfeasance presumes guilt, someone just sank your battleship.

Apologies for mxing metaphors.

21 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:57:30pm

re: #20 Bob with one O

Black eye for the greens.

In an age where the mere appearance of malfeasance presumes guilt, someone just sank your battleship.

Apologies for mxing metaphors.

You didn't even read the post, did you?

22 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 10:59:18pm

I love that people actually think that if you are going to participate in a massive fraud you would write something akin to "HERE IS THE MASSIVE FRAUD" in your code.

According to the critics of this code comment, if you ever hear of a bank robbery you should drive around town looking for a building that says THE STOLEN MONEY IS IN HERE.

23 EastSider  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:00:04pm

OT, random tech question. Is there a way to see WHO dinged your comment?

24 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:00:36pm

re: #23 EastSider

click on the ding number - will show you who up & down dinged.

25 EastSider  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:03:29pm

re: #24 Cineaste

thx.

26 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:04:25pm

It is silly to think this one event some how destroys the theory of AGW, it doesn't not.

It does however indicate a major blow to the alarmism and exaggeration.

I fully expect the theory of AGW will come out much stronger and much more widely accepted as a result.

Although this will also give cheer to the anti-science and denialists, the end result will be good for science.

27 Bob with one O  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:08:17pm

Honestly Charles, I commented on the PR value, agreed with you actually.

(read it twice actually)

28 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:08:36pm

re: #23 EastSider

Thanks, I hate appearing in the bottom 10 comments. :)

29 ghazidor  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:09:52pm
Today I'll look at Eric Raymond's alleged "siege cannon with the barrel still hot"

In Bed?

30 albusteve  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:11:21pm

I'm out like Ernie Shavers

31 Racer X  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:11:26pm

Dust Sculptures in the Rosette Nebula

32 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:11:56pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon
It would help calm the furor if the scientists in question would stop circling wagons and freaking out when anyone outside their academic circle raises questions about techniques and methods of collecting and reporting data. That they are only human, and thus fallible, is at war with the tremendous pressure they seem to feel from their peer group to present a united, conforming front of certainty, even when they may understandably occasionally be far from certain.

33 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:12:24pm

re: #20 Bob with one O

Black eye for the greens.

In an age where the mere appearance of malfeasance presumes guilt, someone just sank your battleship.

Apologies for mxing metaphors.

Unfortunately you have a point about the ridiculous age we live in, where spin and propaganda still has power over knowledge and facts. The lazy and superficial MSM are a big part of the problem.

However, you are incorrect about the battleship, it is not sunk, merely sent to port for repairs. It will emerge stronger and better armed.

35 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:14:39pm

re: #23 EastSider
Oh, you bet'cha.
Not so sure whether that's always helpful to promoting harmony, but it is a neat tool.
:)

36 tradewind  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:15:58pm

re: #34 McSpiff
Now I have the damn South Park ' Somalian Pirates We' song stuck in my head.///
' With a tricky-latty-do', I'm off.

37 ghazidor  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:17:05pm

re: #32 tradewind

It would help calm the furor if the scientists in question would stop circling wagons and freaking out when anyone outside their academic circle raises questions about techniques and methods of collecting and reporting data. That they are only human, and thus fallible, is at war with the tremendous pressure they seem to feel from their peer group to present a united, conforming front of certainty, even when they may understandably occasionally be far from certain.

Well to give them their due they are being constantly attacked and even slandered by people who have no problem with purposely distorting the facts and even bare faced lieing. It isn't so much a case of trying to stand up to people who are mistaken as one of trying to stand up to liars who are being paid to shout you down.

38 TheMatrix31  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:19:01pm

The motherfucker who threw shoes at President Bush had shoes thrown at him today during his media conference.

Good.

39 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:21:42pm

re: #32 tradewind

It would help calm the furor if the scientists in question would stop circling wagons and freaking out when anyone outside their academic circle raises questions about techniques and methods of collecting and reporting data. That they are only human, and thus fallible, is at war with the tremendous pressure they seem to feel from their peer group to present a united, conforming front of certainty, even when they may understandably occasionally be far from certain.

It would help but its unlikely. When you get attacked as much and as often as they do, you become defensive. They can't open up or attempt to qualify their methods, because if they do so they'll be attacked for it. Sadly, the deniers are like hyenas: Show any weakness and they attack. Worse off is that over time those sorts unrelenting attacks tend to work. People will normally give up trying to speak the truth just to make the monomaniacs stop harassing them. Here's an article by Theodore Dalrymple that explains it ever better than I can:

The Triumph of Reason?
Why bad theories never die

40 Bob with one O  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:22:28pm

Bagua,
From Reason.com
In another set of troubling emails, the CRU crew and associates discussed how to freeze out researchers and editors who expressed doubts about the man-made climate change. For example, an email from CRU’s leader Phil Jones saying that he and Kevin Trenberth would keep two dissenting scientific articles out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s next report "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" In addition, the CRU crew evidently plotted to remove journal editors with whom they disagreed and suppress the publication of articles that they disliked. If they actually succeeded, this compounds the tragedy. Eliminating dissenting voices distorts the peer review process and the resulting scientific literature. The world's policymakers rarely enjoy access to complete information, but the Climategate emails suggest they have been robbed of the chance to get the best information available.

The point being, I for one as a boomer grew up watching the space program, the medical industry and other "scientists" working for good. This does not bode well and trust is not easily reinstated.

41 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:26:15pm

re: #40 Bob with one O

Ok, but this is a small group of scientists, almost a click, this does not reflect on Scientists as a profession.

Would you lose faith in the Police because of one dirty cop? Or would you continue to have confidence that the majority are honest?

42 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:30:20pm
43 Bob with one O  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:32:26pm

Bagua,
I believe we've seen that no profession polices itself very well. The East Anglia carnival is one University out of many...

44 ghazidor  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:32:51pm

re: #42 Captkirk35

Down dings dead ahead Captain, raise the shields!

/sigh...fraud...really?

45 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:35:09pm
46 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:39:12pm

re: #45 Captkirk35

If you've been reading what the WSJ, NYT, and other mainstream news sources have been writing about what those email conversations were all about, then yes, fraud is an appropriate word.

Ding me down. I don't give a fuck.

I'll happily downding you, and then I'll borrow from Mandy and invite you to go piss up a rope.

47 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:45:37pm
48 Bob with one O  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:45:41pm

Bagua,
...so what else is out there? At other schools? Interesting reading at Glenn Reynolds.

Climate change is big bucks indeed. Temptations abound. On both sides.

49 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:47:10pm

re: #42 Captkirk35

Extremely disappointing, Charles, that you can't own up to this being a real scandal. When even the NYT has clarity regarding the damage done, credibility lost, and suffocating smugness on the part of the cabal of scientists, you know you're stuck in the mud.

Does this scandal mean AGW is a fiction? No. But why can't you be for sound science, and against fraud? Is that so hard for you these days? You've lost tremendous credibility, Charles, by positioning yourself, and LGF on the side of fraud.

There is no evidence of fraud that has come to light in this case. So far, all that's come to light is sloppy data management and the sort of unprofessional code commenting that I see all too frequently in code written by scientists and engineers. As I noted downstairs, I've written people up for leaving such comments in production code, but I'm dealing with software engineers who ought to know better.

For a more extensive analysis of what can be made of such comments, see the CRU thread below. Short version: they're meaningless, at best. You probably can't even tell me what the lines of code the comments refer to actually does, let alone determine what the comment means.

50 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:48:08pm

re: #45 Captkirk35

If you've been reading what the WSJ, NYT, and other mainstream news sources have been writing about what those email conversations were all about, then yes, fraud is an appropriate word.

Ding me down. I don't give a fuck.

None of those sources has put forward any evidence of fraud.

51 Bagua  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:49:12pm

re: #47 Captkirk35

No one is "blind to the obvious" the email leak and its implications have been discussed here in depth with both sides contributing.

You however have only offered insults, in what way are you making a contribution?

52 freetoken  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:49:58pm

re: #45 Captkirk35

If you've been reading what the WSJ, NYT, and other mainstream news sources have been writing about what those email conversations were all about, then yes, fraud is an appropriate word.

What I've seen from the WSJ et. al. are many opinion pieces, often by the very parties who wish that this would be a "scandal" of giant proportions.

Also, there are articles on the controversy, but then again that is the goal of the denial-machine here, just as with evolution: TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!

Ding me down. I don't give a fuck.

Ok.

53 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:50:38pm

re: #47 Captkirk35

Have you read about these emails in any detail? If you have, then how can you be blind to their agenda? The Freak'n NY Times can see it! This doesn't mean the other side is pure! But don't be blind to the obvious.. don't take Charles Johnson's word for it.. look into it yourself.

I'll be honest: I've read some of the articles claiming to have the dirt on CRU. Charles has shot them down decisively each time. As a result, I feel quite comfortable taking the word of Charles Johnson. And I know quite a bit about how people can act when they're under the kind of onslaught CRU has been under. All things considered, they've done an excellent job, while their foes keep slinging mud and taking things out of context.

54 ghazidor  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:51:39pm

re: #45 Captkirk35

I don't have to read what others have written about it, I have all the files myself. I have read all the emails and looked through almost all of the data files, I saw no fraud.

What I did see was a slight case of over partisan attitudes that were being reflected by too much effort to show only data that conformed to their expectations and showing it in the best light possible.

Something that every regional sales manager or person in a similar position does when called to show his supervisors the last quarters results. It isn't fraud, not by any definition of the word I am familiar with at least.

I'm not saying that it is the best way to conduct science, but they stopped well short of fraud.

55 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:54:55pm

re: #45 Captkirk35

If you've been reading what the WSJ, NYT, and other mainstream news sources have been writing about what those email conversations were all about, then yes, fraud is an appropriate word.

Well it's very simple Capt. Present for us here emails that show fraudulence and let's discuss. Not opinion that it's a scandal. Not opinion that there's fraud. Not innuendo of a commie plot. Present the data.

56 SixDegrees  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:56:15pm

re: #52 freetoken

What I've seen from the WSJ et. al. are many opinion pieces, often by the very parties who wish that this would be a "scandal" of giant proportions.

More often, the columns rightly point out that revelations like this are not at all helpful to supporters of AGW. It's what I've been saying for over a week now - it's all about appearances, not so much about facts, because this topic spills over into the political realm where appearances are all that matter. The scientists involved deserve criticism for sloppy protocols and unprofessional commentary. But so far, I haven't seen any evidence of outright fraud, and I expect that when CRU assembles and releases the raw data that it's input collection was derived from it will be found to be sound. Even if not, such examination hasn't happened yet, so there can be no conclusion, of malfeasance or otherwise, drawn from those circumstances at this point.

57 [deleted]  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:57:49pm
58 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 1, 2009 11:58:47pm

re: #55 Cineaste

Well it's very simple Capt. Present for us here emails that show fraudulence and let's discuss. Not opinion that it's a scandal. Not opinion that there's fraud. Not innuendo of a commie plot. Present the data.

He hasn't got them. All he's doing is slinging mud to see if any sticks. It's a tactic that has everything to do with politics and nothing to be with science:

If you don't have facts to make your case, attack the other side's motives. Make innuendos. Scream, cry, and wrap your self in the flag (especially if you're Glen Beck).

It makes me sick.

59 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:02:15am

re: #57 Captkirk35

Does this sound ok to you?? :

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Maybe fraud is the wrong word. Please find another that you're comfortable with.

It sounds like the sort of divide we've seen in other areas. The deniers took over a journal to promote their views and CRU was planning to respond by ignoring it until they got rid of an editor who was a hard-core denier. I don't see anything wrong with that. When someone is out to get you, the smart play is to avoid interacting with them or giving them legitimacy.

60 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:03:49am

re: #57 Captkirk35

[...]

Maybe fraud is the wrong word. Please find another that you're comfortable with.

I would be comfortable with your retracting your vile insult directed at our host.

Otherwise, I find no reason to converse with you and I cordially invite you to piss off.

61 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:05:07am

re: #57 Captkirk35

Maybe fraud is the wrong word. Please find another that you're comfortable with.

Ok, so you admit you don't have evidence of fraud. It's not my responsibility to figure out what you were harping on about. You find something cogent to say.

62 Neutral President  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:05:24am

re: #49 SixDegrees

So far, all that's come to light is sloppy data management and the sort of unprofessional code commenting that I see all too frequently in code written by scientists and engineers. As I noted downstairs, I've written people up for leaving such comments in production code, but I'm dealing with software engineers who ought to know better.

LOL... sloppy unprofessional code commenting...

Here's a jewel from one of my final projects a few years ago:

void GarbageCollect(vector<SObject *> *ObjList)
{
//despite the name... this doesnt actually do it
//I cant figure out how to get delete to work
//with these classes correctly so this is going to
//leak memory like a sieve... but we are out of time
...

That made it that way into the final. My group still got an A- on it. I don't code at my job other than for tools only I use.

63 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:05:27am
64 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:06:37am

re: #59 Dark_Falcon

It sounds like the sort of divide we've seen in other areas. The deniers took over a journal to promote their views and CRU was planning to respond by ignoring it until they got rid of an editor who was a hard-core denier. I don't see anything wrong with that. When someone is out to get you, the smart play is to avoid interacting with them or giving them legitimacy.

Probably the same reason why Dana Perino is happy to appear on Fox but doesn't do a lot of appearances on MSNBC.

Fraud, I tell you, FRAUD!///

65 Hector1980  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:07:26am

I checked the site the article you linked to is debunking, and I found this quote:

"This is a reasonable thing to be concerned about, given that the species of toxic slime mold known as “creationists” have been oozing all over the blogosphere with suggestions that evolutionary biology is just as bogus."

So hey, at least he's not entirely anti-science.

66 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:08:40am

For decent discussions of all the issues here, from the chronology of the data compiled by CRU to the nitty-gritty of code comments see this thread, below. Walter and I went into some depth on this. Neither of us would be considered as supportive of CRU's data management practices, an are that definitely needs attention and improvement, but the over-the-top rush to condemn and convict without any actual evidence needs to be reined in.

67 ghazidor  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:10:55am

re: #57 Captkirk35

How about this one?

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central
and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send
it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought
at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation
even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just
are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have
to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be
optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time
collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like
to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably
someday though.

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

Doesn't sound like fraud to me, sounds like he is saying that he wishes the data supported them more but it doesn't and that he is going to have to admit that it doesn't. If it were fraud he'd just say, "hey I pulled a few stunts to gin up that data and now it really shows what we want it to."

68 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:11:25am

re: #65 Hector1980

I checked the site the article you linked to is debunking, and I found this quote:

"This is a reasonable thing to be concerned about, given that the species of toxic slime mold known as “creationists” have been oozing all over the blogosphere with suggestions that evolutionary biology is just as bogus."

So hey, at least he's not entirely anti-science.

That is good news. If he's not a creationist, then he's likely not a loon. He's simply wrong and that you can do something constructive about.

69 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:11:27am

re: #63 Captkirk35

I've been a member w/ LGF for 5 years. I am one of CJ's biggest fans, and that's why this disappoints me so much.

Then apologize and ask for your insulting post to be deleted.

70 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:13:35am
71 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:13:58am

re: #69 Bagua

Then apologize and ask for your insulting post to be deleted.

Relax Bagua. Charles is a big boy and I'm sure his honor can handle a lame swipe. Captkirk is blowing a gasket and just now realizing that the data doesn't support his assertion.

72 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:15:50am
73 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:16:21am

re: #70 Captkirk35

Just calling it the way I see it. Peace out.

Yes, but you can still call it as you see it with being hostile and insulting. Stick to the facts, and you'll have no trouble with me. Sleep well, Capt. Come back soon.

74 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:18:04am
75 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:18:57am

re: #62 ArchangelMichael

LOL... sloppy unprofessional code commenting...

Here's a jewel from one of my final projects a few years ago:

void GarbageCollect(vector<SObject *> *ObjList)
{
//despite the name... this doesnt actually do it
//I cant figure out how to get delete to work
//with these classes correctly so this is going to
//leak memory like a sieve... but we are out of time
...

That made it that way into the final. My group still got an A- on it. I don't code at my job other than for tools only I use.

That's not so bad; it describes the problem and why you did what you did, so it's useful.

The comments that grind my ass are the ones that are filled with snark, personal insults or profanity, that shed no light on the problem at hand and provide no documentation. Due to the nature of our work, we never know when the source code we produce will wind up in the customer's possession, possibly years after being authored, and I hate spending my time scanning through it looking for such comments and stripping them out because, frankly, they're embarrassing and should never have been there in the first place.

It's always wise to think of your code as a PowerPoint presentation that you'll be giving to the customer. Or to consider whether you would want your comments read back to you in public - say, for example, in court. "So, Mr. Programmer, please explain exactly what you meant at line 647, where you say 'Fixed the hack bullshit code that asswipe down the hall drooled on' to the jury." It was actually a comment very similar to this that I wrote someone up for, after repeated warnings to clean up his act. If you knew the internal politics involved, it was actually vaguely humorous, but no one outside our office would have picked up on that. All they would have seen was a comment apparently disparaging our code, which would call all the rest of it into question. Illegitimately, to be sure, but it's not the sort of thing I ever want to spend my time explaining to a customer.

76 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:19:12am

re: #74 Captkirk35

I thought you were leaving, troll?

77 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:20:14am
78 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:22:20am
79 Neutral President  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:23:19am

re: #74 Captkirk35

Or this one:

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."

Already debunked (no I'm not searching for the link but we've been over this hundreds of times here if we have once.) Next.

80 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:23:24am
81 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:23:32am

re: #74 Captkirk35

Again, I'm not seeing any evidence of fraud. Does he then go on to say something like, "But don't worry - once I get done cooking the data, they'll never know! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" I'm guessing not.

82 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:25:38am

re: #78 Captkirk35

Uh - no, it isn't evidence of fraud. Perhaps you need to look up what constitutes fraud before accusing someone of it. You also ought to have some actual evidence of fraud before doing so, as well.

At the moment, what you're doing is spamming, and the moderators take a rather dim view of it.

83 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:26:37am

re: #80 Captkirk35

Yes you are a troll, trying to slip your insults in while you know the site host is sleeping. Pitiful. What's worse, you have nothing to say, just spamming the forum with random out of context quotes that have been discussed in detail here already.

84 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:27:41am
85 Neutral President  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:28:20am

re: #75 SixDegrees

Closest thing I had to that was trying to get MS Visual Studio 2003 to stop bitching about using strncpy() as if I was trying to do strcpy(). MS made up some apparently non ANSI C/C++ function strcpy_s() that no other compiler would accept and I needed what I was writing to work on Windows and Linux.

Every damn time i need to do it I had to do this:

#ifdef WIN32
strcpy_s(whatever);
#else
strncpy(whatever);
#endif

My comments cursing Microsoft Devs started to become quite humorous after awhile.

86 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:31:36am

re: #84 Captkirk35

Another opinion piece, from a source that's...well, let's just say it's less than reputable.

Sorry, not biting.

As already noted, you can see downstairs a lengthy discussion of the situation regarding both the emails, the data and the code. It's worthwhile, if you're actually interested in the topic, but that doesn't seem to be the case. There's certainly no shortage of criticisms that can be leveled, but fraud simply isn't one of them.

Review the story about the boy who cried "Wolf!" for why the approach you're taking is not prudent. Unless you ultimately are trying to lend support to CRU, which is where your current tactics will ultimately lead.

87 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:34:40am

re: #85 ArchangelMichael

Closest thing I had to that was trying to get MS Visual Studio 2003 to stop bitching about using strncpy() as if I was trying to do strcpy(). MS made up some apparently non ANSI C/C++ function strcpy_s() that no other compiler would accept and I needed what I was writing to work on Windows and Linux.

Every damn time i need to do it I had to do this:

#ifdef WIN32
strcpy_s(whatever);
#else
strncpy(whatever);
#endif

My comments cursing Microsoft Devs started to become quite humorous after awhile.

I can sympathize. Microsoft is notorious for breaking the rules and not following standards, making porting to their platform a nightmare.

A more compact solution, in this case, might be to declare a macro that performs the copy, then limit your ifdef to the single location where the macro is defined, rather than duplicating it everywhere the call is made. That has the side effect, though, of hiding what's actually going on, which may not be desirable.

88 ghazidor  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:38:47am

re: #72 Captkirk35

Or this one:

Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back

Too put that in simple english for you...

"We have a bunch of records that go back as far as far as two thousand years, lets try to show as much of those records as we can instead of just the last 1000 like we have been doing. We need to do this because people are spreading false data around about the "medievil warming period." Yes I know we don't have a full reconstruction of all the temps that far back yet, but we should at least show the ones we have."

...where is the fraud again?

89 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:40:00am

re: #84 Captkirk35

This article summarizes the fraud nicely:

[Link: www.realclearpolitics.com...]

Please link to sites about science, not politics. Realclearpolitics has its place, but not on this issue.

90 Neutral President  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:40:19am

re: #87 SixDegrees

Yeah, I wasn't used to using macros at the time so I didn't think of it. As soon as I upgraded to VS2005 this problem went away anyway and I usually went to great lengths to avoid having to use any of those string manipulators unless I had no choice.

91 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:48:01am

I'm fading. Goodnight, all.

92 ghazidor  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:48:39am

Nite DF

93 amrafel  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:03:26am

Not that the following "suspicious code" from the hacked emails is supposed to be a better smoking gun than the one being analyzed here, but I thought it would be good to put them together in one blog post.
[Link: directorblue.blogspot.com...] shows another piece of code that appears at first to be hiding information. I trust Lambert (Tim, not Adam) will have a good answer for that one, too.

94 emcesq  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:33:19am

May I please have a teeny bit of outrage about the four cops in WA? A goodly amount outrage about good Christian Republican Right Wing Gov. (wannabe pres) Huckabee pardoning the scumbag? Huge kudos for the cop that defused the situation and saved millions of dollars of tax money for the trials?...

...Instead of good Christian Republican Right obsessing over the 5% data which on a good day represent SNR of about -3 dB (power) and in the large scheme of things do not mean diddly squat. If there is anything to criticize the good Dr. Jones and his minions is the absolute lack of public relations sense. True Ivory Tower isolation that blew up in their face.

95 JohninLondon  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:34:56am

re: #94 emcesq

The thread is about AGW and the East Anglia CRU snafu.

I can't see how anyone can come away from the hacked/leaked stuff without feeling that there appears to have been subversion of peer review, and that the earlier CRU programming being examined for the past 3 years in "Harry's File" was a total mess. A dog's breakfast.

Both issues cast serious doubt over the credibility of the CRU folk. That's why a review is being set up.

Charles is entitled to feel that it is all a storm in a tea-cup, a Nontroversy. One does not have to be "Christian Right" to think the issue is, prima facie, a lot more serious.

96 Jimbouie  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 4:28:25am

re: #12 Charles

No, it's not. It's dying. In a week or less it will be completely out of the news.

It seems to be gathering steam in Austrailia: see here

97 Jimbouie  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 4:47:29am

As a commenter to Lambert's article points out, the code that was commented out in his example appears to exist unsullied in FOIAdocumentsharris-treebriffa_sep98_e.pro.

;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

98 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 4:48:56am

Hysterical attempts to whitewash the grossly unprofessional conduct of a few Brit scientists may be counterproductive to the credibility of the AGW Club.

99 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:11:50am

re: #98 Spare O'Lake

Hysterical attempts to whitewash the grossly unprofessional conduct of a few Brit scientists may be counterproductive to the credibility of the AGW Club.

Who is the "AGW club", please?

100 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:31:28am

re: #99 Obdicut

Who is the "AGW club", please?

Those who have made up their minds that human activity is the primary driver of climate change and who mock those who are skeptical of this theory.

101 Crashnburn  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:33:30am

This is starting to resemble the "Witch scene" in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". You have a set of folks who point at someone, start screaming "Witch!" because they don't like what is being said or like what they see. Another group comes up with "proof" for their concept (Witches burn = wood burns: Wood floats = ducks float: Dicks float therefore Witches float) The witch must weigh the same as a duck!

The really odd thing about this comparison is that it works for both sides. "Warmers" can be the townsfolk or the witch. "Deniers" can be either as well.

Regardless, there is a total lack of respect and civility on the subject from either side. Why is a denier a troll? Why is a warmer a zombiebot? Or versa vice?

Although Charles has been a bit rabid on the defense of Global Warming theory, I don't think his intent has been to shut down the discussion. If it is, why have the discussion at all?

Here is the Monty Python scene for a respite from the name calling...

Youtube Video
102 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:40:22am

re: #94 emcesq


Really? I'm no Huckabee fan, but isn't the SCOTUS poised to, on a much larger scale, implement a very similar arrangement (i.e. preventing most minors from being incarcerated for the balance of their lives)? If you're going to complain about illogical behavior from the right, setting a better example in your post is probably step#1. Just sayin.

103 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:47:27am

re: #52 freetoken

Disagree about the WSJ. Lindzen is the one guy who has kept me from a full-blown Charles conversion to the AGW camp. I've been on the fence for so long that my badonkadonk is feeling the pain. I haven't seen any discussion on this or yesterday's threads about his opinion piece, and i'd love to hear some non-hysterical thoughts about his thoughts.

Say what you want about most AGW 'deniers', Lindzen has spent the past five years being calm, smart, rational, and did i mention smart? You don't chair things at MIT after an incompetent career.

104 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 5:53:05am

re: #100 Spare O'Lake

Those who have made up their minds that human activity is the primary driver of climate change and who mock those who are skeptical of this theory.

Is there something wrong about making up your mind on a subject, especially after a monumental amount of data convinces you?

As you've probably seen over the past week, the 'skeptics' bring up the same points over and over, regardless of whether those points have been already shown to be fallacious. It's not only not easy to debate 'skeptics' who have no actual grounding in the subject, it's akin to debating creationists. Every time an anti-AGW position is shown to be false-- often not just false but intentionally deceptive-- that position still crops up over and over, for years, and the main crowd of deniers just spins up some other minor variation on that position and continues as if nothing had occurred. It's very, very similar to those who deny evolution.

I do my level best not to ridicule anyone who's truly just uninformed, but it rankles me, truly, when the uninformed don't, as a first step, attempt to become informed by looking at the actual science-- not listen to random conspiracy theories about scientists.

AGW becomes pretty simple when you actually examine the science for it: It has a rock-solid basis in simple physics-- CO2 increases heat absorption-- which you can test yourself in a literal greenhouse. It has been developed by climatologists into a sophisticated but still simple science, which shows things like CO2 outgassing from permatundra adding to the global warming effect, as well as the few things that act as a brake on the system.

Overall, though, after evaluating all the factors, scientists have not only been able to construct a solid theory-- in the sense of 'theory' that evolution is a theory-- but been able, thanks to the computing power available to us, to model the climate accurately. If you don't like CRU, for whatever reason, look to the fully open source CCSM. In other words, they can model the climate over decades and their models accurately 'predict' the historical range of temperatures. That's an amazing achievement, and one that should be celebrated as a triumph of science.

Instead, those men and women who have achieved this feat are accused of being money-grubbing politically-corrupt arrogant assholes who are trying to spread wealth distribution throughout the world and reduce everyone to global poverty.

If we're going to remain the world leader in science, we can't keep treating our scientists like this. It's shameful.

105 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:03:37am

re: #104 Obdicut

Sorry, just can't let it go. Anyone who says that the AGW topic is "simple" is way, way off base...on either side of the topic. How about aerosols? Are those simple?

106 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:07:20am

re: #105 Aceofwhat?

Sorry, just can't let it go. Anyone who says that the AGW topic is "simple" is way, way off base...on either side of the topic. How about aerosols? Are those simple?

You're not honestly engaging with my post. If you don't like the word "simple", just read the post without it, then respond.

107 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:18:55am

re: #106 Obdicut


As i said a few posts ago, I have trouble finding fault with Lindzen's comments in the WSJ a few days ago. That is my response, and i'm interested in what you and other fellow reptilians think about his take.

But I am honestly engaging with your post. One of your main tenets was that, at its core, the AGW topic is simple. I am saying that anyone who holds that to be relatively true is in danger of misunderstanding why some of us continue to ride the fence, despite the discomfort of sitting on fences for extended periods of time.

108 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:20:57am

Here's the Lindzen column i'm referencing.

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

sorry, wish i was better at hyperlinking here in the comments section.

109 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:46:31am

re: #107 Aceofwhat?

As i said a few posts ago, I have trouble finding fault with Lindzen's comments in the WSJ a few days ago. That is my response, and i'm interested in what you and other fellow reptilians think about his take.

But I am honestly engaging with your post. One of your main tenets was that, at its core, the AGW topic is simple. I am saying that anyone who holds that to be relatively true is in danger of misunderstanding why some of us continue to ride the fence, despite the discomfort of sitting on fences for extended periods of time.

No, that is not one of my main tenants. That CO2 absorption is basic, simple physics, is one of my main tenants, and it's helpfully absolutely true. When I said that climatology was simple yet sophisticated, the word 'simple' there does not approach the realm of a 'main tenant'.

He doesn't say a single thing there that isn't revealed as insufficient with an hour's reading on [Link: www.skepticalscience.com....] Here is the particular refutation of the 'little ice age' argument. Coming out of an ice age. Here is the refutation of the water vapor canard, which is simply the old argument with a slightly new twist: Water vapor.

That's what I mean about the same old tired arguments being repeated over and over. The refutations of those arguments exist already. They are widely available, and easy to find by anyone interested in the topic.

110 Capitalist Tool  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:36:54am

Dang! Missed yet another AGW thread.
It's cold as hell right here, where's the warming?
No wait... it's December.

111 shmuli  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:44:08am

Right. And for all the items you find to support AGW, there are scientific arguments and good facts on the other side. The intolerance and contempt with which those who BELIEVE in the nascent science of AGW present their position and belittle arguments against them is striking to any skeptic. The AGW crusade has been dealt a significant blow. More here:

[Link: www.dailyexpress.co.uk...]

Once this is over, the science will be pursued by scientists, not flakes who have AGW for a religion, or just want to increase funding to their departments, keep their jobs and advance their celebrity. Perhaps those nations who want to tax others and control the development and modernization of their competitors will someday not be able to use the UN for that purpose? I am not holding my breath. Until that time, intelligent people will have differences on this issue and those who are skeptical (skepticism is bad?) will also have scientific arguments on their side. The shrill response here to the disaster which has occurred at the CRU just means that the science in support of AGW has to progress MUCH further before skeptics, in the scientific community, AND lay public, are won over. Politics are taking over now (skeptics would argue that this has always been politics!) and this will have to run its course before the science eventually gets sorted out.

112 Joetheplumber  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:50:33am

re: #109 Obdicut


That's what I mean about the same old tired arguments being repeated over and over. The refutations of those arguments exist already. They are widely available, and easy to find by anyone interested in the topic.

As are the refutations to these refutations (see, for example, the numerous comments on each of these sites).

113 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:51:36am

re: #109 Obdicut


Yeah, read the water vapor post. It doesn't deal with cloud cover, either. Water vapor helps trap heat. Clouds reflect light. No one is saying that there is a big misunderstanding of water vapor. What i find interesting is that a climatologist at MIT is saying that we don't understand the role that clouds play. And if he doesn't understand it, neither do the cute little folks writing those cute little websites.

Look, i'm not saying there isn't AGW. I'm not saying there is. I'm saying that i keep finding myself persuaded by a really smart guy who is saying "we don't know as much as you think we know".

114 edgesitter  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:54:22am

I for one, note with much glee, that the AGW bulldozer has suffered a derailment. This pseudo religion was out of control. Hopefully, this madness can now be contained. The science is not settled and never was.

115 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:56:41am

Cards on the table - i have a biology degree. And i believe in God. But i'm still an Evolutionist, through and through. Why? Because we get it. You don't find smart biologists struggling with major concepts, or with humility for that matter.

But cloud cover, aerosol forcings...these are far more complex than evolutionary biology, and when i hear really smart, reputable scientists saying "hey, we don't get this stuff yet...we don't understand it well enough to be as certain as some of us seem to be", i'm persuaded. It's not denial. It's admitting what we don't know, and i go for that kind of honest humility, a trait I find lacking in both the hardcore skeptics camps and the "skepticalscience.com" spoon-fed AGW camps.

116 filetandrelease  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 7:57:55am

re: #108 Aceofwhat?

Here is another WSJ article that is illuminating.

AGW deniers in the media I am repeatedly told are pawns of oil companies etc... taking large sums of money to publish contrary opinions. Yet, the AGW industry in general turns out to be a huge cash cow receiving billions to distribute dwarfing the sums received by contrarians.

117 yoshicastmaster  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:00:27am

argh- i can't evaluate that code easily myself. determining who to trust is getting ridiculous.

fortunately I trust Charles to self-correct any misleading reporting and to report on future developments in prior reporting, so I guess I'll stick with LGF for now.

118 William of Orange  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:00:28am

Could be me but reading that link makes my brain go boiling. ;)

119 filetandrelease  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:04:17am

re: #115 Aceofwhat?

Ace

Did you read the article recently, I wish I could find it, regarding a computer modules inability to forecast climate deep into the future? The premise being that is mathematically impossible. In that a tiny error inputed into such complex modules as climate forecasting would butterfly effect and create gross errors in the long run?

Just wondering your take.

120 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:04:38am

re: #116 filetandrelease


Yeah, the whole "who's funding you" question is often a cop-out. Analysis is either solid or flawed, and should be evaluated analytically. But I agree that we often overlook the perpetual motion machine that any scientific field is in danger of creating (theory feeds interest feeds funds feeds theory feeds more interest feeds more funds...). There are usually funds on both sides of any story. Glass houses in abundance.

121 filetandrelease  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:06:19am

re: #120 Aceofwhat?

"Analysis is either solid or flawed" Yep, bottom line.

122 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:09:03am

re: #119 filetandrelease

Actually, i'm more interested in the corrections that have to be made in order to get the models to function well in the here and now. The models only work because folks are resorting to the einstein 'cosmological constant' trick, where you create a constant in order to solve the equation rather than finding the constant through research and plugging it in because you understand it.

Manipulating aerosol forcings to make the data look sensible is understandably attractive, but it's one of the main flaws of current models, to say nothing of models that attempt to forecast far in the future.

123 Joetheplumber  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:13:24am

re: #116 filetandrelease

Here is another WSJ article that is illuminating.

AGW deniers in the media I am repeatedly told are pawns of oil companies etc... taking large sums of money to publish contrary opinions. Yet, the AGW industry in general turns out to be a huge cash cow receiving billions to distribute dwarfing the sums received by contrarians.

Nice article in the WSJ. It's beyond weird to me how the AGW crowd keeps acting as if 'climate science' is so well understood that there can be no doubt about man-made global warming and about the catastrophic effects it will have on all of us; when we can't even predict the weather a few weeks in advance at a single locality. Its just amazing to me how gullible the masses are to this type of scare-mongering.

124 IngisKahn  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:31:32am

re: #93 amrafel

Not that the following "suspicious code" from the hacked emails is supposed to be a better smoking gun than the one being analyzed here, but I thought it would be good to put them together in one blog post.
[Link: directorblue.blogspot.com...] shows another piece of code that appears at first to be hiding information. I trust Lambert (Tim, not Adam) will have a good answer for that one, too.

The first one says that they fixed their calibration data so that it wouldn't be applied to data sources that weren't being used.
The second one is nothing - plot up to 1960 or plot up to 1994.

125 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:35:18am

re: #124 IngisKahn


Apropos of nothing, i love the profile pic.

126 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:35:53am

re: #113 Aceofwhat?

You seriously, seriously think that the climate models don't take albedo into account?

Never mind. You're not looking to become informed.

127 IngisKahn  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:39:26am

re: #125 Aceofwhat?

Hehe. I must have the original pic around somewhere. It just struck me as a particularly anguished looking mummy.

128 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:45:25am

re: #126 Obdicut


Ugh. How did you get that out of what I wrote? Of course they're trying to take albedo into account. But different models use different levels of cancellation from different sources. In other words, if you take the aerosol feedback/cancellation constant from Model A and plug it into Model B, Model B doesn't predict very well anymore.

I'm just saying that when different models ascribe different values to what ought to be a constant, I'm left shaking my head. This isn't Schrodinger's cat...the cancellation constants can't just be different from model to model because we think we're observing something.

Would you mind lightening your tone? I'm trying to remain civil. Clearly I "want to be informed". You are welcome to disagree...I won't disparage your level of interest despite your disagreement. I wouldn't be a long-time CJ sympathetic if i didn't want to be informed on a great number of things.

129 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:48:01am

re: #128 Aceofwhat?

In other words, if you take the aerosol feedback/cancellation constant from Model A and plug it into Model B, Model B doesn't predict very well anymore.

Please demonstrate this.

130 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 8:54:19am

Wow. Quite a deluge of denial in here this morning.

Really sucks when your talking points are shown to be false, doesn't it?

Of course, they just ignore the debunking by Tim Lambert and move on like it never happened. As I predicted in my post.

131 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:02:26am

And by the way, if you spew insults at me, your account is going to be blocked and all your denying comments deleted.

132 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:08:45am

re: #129 Obdicut


Look, i'm not going to replicate the models. I don't have the software. Do you disagree that different models use different constants for the same item? i want to be clear about where we may or may not disagree before moving to the next step.

133 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:13:23am

re: #132 Aceofwhat?

Look, i'm not going to replicate the models. I don't have the software. Do you disagree that different models use different constants for the same item? i want to be clear about where we may or may not disagree before moving to the next step.

It wouldn't be a constant, no.

Can you tell me where you read/heard this, how you came to believe this? It's a very strange claim to start making out of a vacuum.

You might also want to take a stab at explaining why you believe climatology to be more difficult than evolutionary biology. That was one of your more absurd statements.

134 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:17:07am

re: #132 Aceofwhat?

Look, i'm not going to replicate the models. I don't have the software. Do you disagree that different models use different constants for the same item? i want to be clear about where we may or may not disagree before moving to the next step.

I love this tactic.

Step 1: Make an assertion.

Step 2: Be confronted about the assertion and bluster in response.

Step 3: Be asked to back up assertion.

Step 4: Reply, with exasperation, something to the effect of: "Well I'm not actually going to do all that work to prove my point" and then ask everyone else why they insist on believing the other side.

Come on - make a claim, back it up with data, otherwise, sit down.

135 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:22:43am

re: #133 Obdicut


To answer one of your questions, i'll quote Lindzen so that you don't have to take me on faith.

"Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model."

136 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:24:52am

About Richard Lindzen:

[Link: www.google.com...]

Lindzen's credibility in the scientific community: below zero.

137 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:25:25am

re: #135 Aceofwhat?

Can you explain why it isn't completely and totally proper to choose a different degree of cancellation when the models have different sensitivities?

Are you saying, then, that this argument-- and, apparently, all your arguments-- are sourced from Lindzen?

138 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:25:38am

re: #134 Cineaste


All that i was trying to do was clarify where we disagreed before trying to back up my point. And that puts you off? I said that "i want to be clear...before moving to the next step" because maybe we disagree on a point that doesn't require an elaborate data model.

I'm honestly disappointed that a clarifying question was read as blustering. My grammar and syntax were accurate. Please don't react to clarifying questions as if they proved anything but honest intent to debate.

139 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:27:54am

re: #136 Charles

Ok, so that's where we disagree. See - i don't mind disagreeing...i just wanted to understand where folks stood on the subject. Me, i see a person who was clearly bright enough to chair a spot at MIT, and then all of a sudden he's not smart enough to engage in honest debate when he's the minority viewpoint? Again, i'm on the fence. You have concluded that the balance of the data is against Lindzen...i may arrive there, but i haven't yet.

140 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:29:17am

re: #137 Obdicut


no, they're not all from Lindzen. he's the point i wanted to clarify today. tomorrow it might be something else. but if you look at my original post in this thread, i was very clear about wanting some other opinions on his take.

thanks for scrolling up...

141 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:29:29am

re: #134 Cineaste

I love this tactic.

Step 1: Make an assertion.

Step 2: Be confronted about the assertion and bluster in response.

Step 3: Be asked to back up assertion.

Step 4: Reply, with exasperation, something to the effect of: "Well I'm not actually going to do all that work to prove my point" and then ask everyone else why they insist on believing the other side.

Come on - make a claim, back it up with data, otherwise, sit down.

You forgot the rest of the steps:

Step 5: Become butthurt as a result of being challenged.

Step 6: Start flinging insults in response to the challenges.

Step 7: Get bounced out on your ass by Charles.

Step 8: Whine and seethe about what a tyrant Charles is at Rodan's Place.

142 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:30:27am

re: #137 Obdicut


GREAT question - no sarcasm intended, i mean it sincerely. it's what i should have been asking.

why do the models have different sensitivities?

143 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:32:28am

re: #141 Dark_Falcon

i'm not hurt, and i've been nothing but civil...i think, right? where have I been uncivil, or been flinging insults?

CJ - you weren't warning me, were you? i'm freaking out now. i just wanted a casual discussion about Lindzen's take...

144 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:33:30am

re: #142 Aceofwhat?

Because the models represent different theories about the sensitivities. That's what models are-- they are competing to be more accurate than each other.

They all, however, are accurately predictive.

You seem to have a curious lack of understanding of what a model is, given that you're an evolutionary biologist and all.

145 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:34:39am

re: #143 Aceofwhat?

No, I was not warning you. That was directed at another of the deniers who decided he was going to insult me and then dump a whole bunch of crap into this thread.

146 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:37:06am

re: #144 Obdicut


But that's just it. A model that's close to being right is a few well-fitted constants away from being just right. But you can't just fit in the missing pieces because they fit. you have to fit them in because you understand them. Maybe Lindzen is wrong - maybe lots of people understand them and he just doesn't get it.

But again, as i said above, the aerosol forcings have the same feel as Einstein's constant...they all seem to fit their particular model, as opposed to fitting our larger understanding of how they work in the atmosphere.

i'll decline from responding to your more personal comments, in an effort to keep the conversation polite.

147 Dark_Falcon  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:38:16am

re: #143 Aceofwhat?

i'm not hurt, and i've been nothing but civil...i think, right? where have I been uncivil, or been flinging insults?

CJ - you weren't warning me, were you? i'm freaking out now. i just wanted a casual discussion about Lindzen's take...

Like Charles, I was referring to the troll who flung insults at Charles, Bagua, and myself before getting booted. You haven't been insulting, and so I don't have a beef with you. I think you're wrong, but I don't dislike you.

148 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:38:35am

re: #145 Charles


Thanks, man. Please grant me ten seconds of being a homer to thank you for hosting a space where good people can get together and talk around different subjects without descending to the sort of conduct that I know you don't tolerate.

love it here.

149 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:38:58am

re: #147 Dark_Falcon


civil disagreement makes my day. right back atcha.

150 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:48:32am

re: #144 Obdicut

And further, if different models have different theories about the sensitivities, then they can't all be accurately predictive, right? That's EXACTLY my point. If all of the theories are right, then most (or all) of them are wrong.

AGAIN, i'm not saying that AGW isn't really really real. But I am far from the 'foregone conclusion' camp, and getting there will take more work. Some of what I read is a little too serendipitous for my taste.

151 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 9:53:10am

re: #138 Aceofwhat?

All that i was trying to do was clarify where we disagreed before trying to back up my point. And that puts you off? I said that "i want to be clear...before moving to the next step" because maybe we disagree on a point that doesn't require an elaborate data model.

I'm honestly disappointed that a clarifying question was read as blustering. My grammar and syntax were accurate. Please don't react to clarifying questions as if they proved anything but honest intent to debate.

You made a claim that their models were wrong. You were asked to back it up. You stated that you were not going to redo the models. I don't know what you disagree with in what I'm saying.

152 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:00:50am

re: #136 Charles


So some of this i've read (nothing wrong with disagreement among scientists, it's generally healthy), but a good bit of this is the sort of thing that i dislike. I'll explain.

these guys ([Link: scienceblogs.com...]

are two MD's and one JD. i'm sure they're smart. so are a lot of the lizards here. but we should be commenting and debating this stuff, not discrediting highly credible climatologists, and so should these guys. So i'll keep reading through these links because again, there are a lot of smart people in the AGW camp and that means something to me. But a lot of my friends went the MD route, and they're all ready to anoint themselves the king of whatever subject you might currently be discussing. I need an internist to tell me about climatology like i need my janitor to manage my portfolio...

153 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:04:04am

re: #151 Cineaste


Nooo. I didn't claim that "their models were wrong". Where do you think i said that? I said that they use different constants, because as Obdicut pointed out, they have different sensitivities.

I am claiming that different models with different sensitivities and different constants can't all be right. You don't need a model to make that claim, do you?

154 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:11:40am
155 [deleted]  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:15:41am
156 Cineaste  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:20:36am

re: #155 DirtCrashr

que?

157 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:26:13am

re: #155 DirtCrashr

quoi?

158 exelwood  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:46:15am

This column references two lawsuits against CRU for fraud being filed by scientists in Canada and the UK. Apparently the plan is to keep the controversy alive through the courts. Does anyone have any additional information?

[Link: blogs.telegraph.co.uk...]

159 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:49:40am

re: #158 exelwood

First i've heard of it. Love the author's reminder that carbon trading was Ken Lay's idea...that doesn't make the idea good or bad on its merits...just funny.

160 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:53:33am

re: #150 Aceofwhat?

You have no idea what a model is. They are all 'wrong'. None of them exactly predicts or matches. They do, however, accurately predict.

You know, similar to models in evolutionary biology.


And further, if different models have different theories about the sensitivities, then they can't all be accurately predictive, right? That's EXACTLY my point. If all of the theories are right, then most (or all) of them are wrong.

Newton accurately predicted the movement of the planets. Einstein improved the accuracy of that. Modern physics has improved it still.

You appear to know very little about science.

161 lostlakehiker  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:57:27am

re: #136 Charles

About Richard Lindzen:

[Link: www.google.com...]

Lindzen's credibility in the scientific community: below zero.

The wikipedia article on Lindzen is more measured. wikipedia says

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers.[1] He was the lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has been a critic of some global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists.

He hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[2] This hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity.

Now the man may be wrong. I think he is. A lot of the scientific community thinks so too. But he's no fool. You don't get into the national academy of sciences by being a hack. There have been any number of great scientists who had some peculiar beliefs and whose thinking ran off the rails when it came to this or that particular topic. Einstein was wrong about quantum physics, after all.

Today has been a regular delete-fest and so it is with careful tread that I take issue with our gracious host on this point, but Lindzen has a lot more than zero credibility. He's a formidable voice on the other side.

162 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:59:23am

re: #161 lostlakehiker

Which of his theories about global warming hasn't already been disproven?

163 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 10:59:40am

re: #160 Obdicut


Ugh. No. Newton accurately predicted the movement of the planets. If you change his equations, even by what seems to be a relatively small amount, you end up with a solar system that doesn't resemble ours.

Little variables with big effects on the outcome of an equation need to be precise. Einstein improved our understanding of the accuracy of planetary rotation by an infinitesmial amount. It's a poor analogy for competing climate models whose sensitivities, and forcings, vary rather widely.

Stop being rude. Disagree if you want, i invite it as a matter of fact, but keep it civil or go hassle a creationist.

164 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:02:28am

re: #162 Obdicut

Which of his theories about global warming hasn't already been disproven?

You misunderstand my motivation. He may be wrong about the adaptive infrared iris. I find him far less likely to be wrong when he says "we climatologists don't understand cloud interference in our models very well, which makes our models a bad foundation for global economic decision-making".

165 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:09:34am

re: #160 Obdicut

You have no idea what a model is. They are all 'wrong'. None of them exactly predicts or matches. They do, however, accurately predict.

You know, similar to models in evolutionary biology.

Newton accurately predicted the movement of the planets. Einstein improved the accuracy of that. Modern physics has improved it still.

You appear to know very little about science.

re: #163 Aceofwhat?

[...]

Stop being rude. Disagree if you want, i invite it as a matter of fact, but keep it civil or go hassle a creationist.

Agreed. The snark doesn't help your case Obdicut, it comes across as very smug and condescending.

166 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:10:52am

re: #161 lostlakehiker

If you read some of the stuff about Lindzen at ScienceBlogs, it's pretty clear that he uses the same kinds of distortions and deceptions as every other anti-AGW talking head. He's probably the most credentialed scientist who's trying to cast doubt on global warming, but his tactics are extremely shady.

167 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:12:39am

For more on Lindzen's connections to Exxon-Mobil (yes, again):

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

Also notice that he's a tobacco apologist too.

168 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:12:50am

re: #166 Charles


I appreciate this clarification - it's exactly why i got on to the topic of Lindzen this morning. I'll take more time on ScienceBlogs, and i appreciate the recommendation.

I'm not trying be right, i'm trying to discover right, which is why i spend so much time among lizards. Thanks to all for the discussion so far today.

169 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:17:36am

re: #167 Charles

For more on Lindzen's connections to Exxon-Mobil (yes, again):

[Link: www.sourcewatch.org...]

Also notice that he's a tobacco apologist too.

Is there anything beyond that Newsweek comment that supports that Lindzen is a "a tobacco apologist?"

170 Scannit  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:22:30am

Some people have been attempting to categorize this data exposure as a ‘much ado about nothing’ incident. Nothing to see, move along folks…
Well, if I were to change this around a little bit. If you were to replace:

-Climate Research Unit (CRU) with Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

-Replace Phil Jones (CRU chief ) with George Bush (Commander in Chief)

-Replace Michael Mann with Dick Cheney

-Replace AGW with IRAQ

And so on…..

This story would be a leftist wet dream. If Bush had e-mails eluding deception, that would put into question everything else. Investigations would be called, and rightfully so. People would be held accountable for their actions. The people at the center of the claims in question should be called upon, under oath, to explain their e-mails, with supporting evidence. But since that evidence was dumped (deleted) years ago, all they would have would be their recollections (Nixon Tapes?).. And if a war was started with falsified data, then people would have to be held accountable.

But this war on AGW is just that, started with shaky data. Is there data to show that the climate has changed? Yes.. Is there a correlation between CO2 and Temperature, Yes! But not the way these researchers are presenting it.

In Mr. Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, he presented on his jumbo-tron a graph, going back millions of years, of the Earth’s temperatures. Then he superimposed the CO2 concentration onto the graph, it matched perfectly.. But there is a lie of omission. At that scale, you can not tell which came first, Temp rise or CO2 rise. It is a historical fact that CO2 concentration LAG Temperature change by 600 – 1000 years. If you scale the graph to the last few thousand years, you’ll see that the temperature rises then the CO2 follows about 800 years later. CO2 trails/lags/follows temperature. The current theory is that the oceans release CO2 as the temps rise. Since the oceans are such a large heat sink, it takes about 800 years for the change in temp to take effect.

In Mr. Gore’s testimony before the congress, he stated that the rising CO2 concentration was causing the temperatures to rise. He had his star witness scientist (name eludes me) testify to that effect. He was asked directly that if he was aware that it is a known association that historically, the temperatures have risen 600 – 1000 years BEFORE CO2 concentrations rise? The star scientists’ response (paraphrasing) Yes we know that, but we feel that in this incident, CO2 is driving temperatures.. He just shrugged it off.

Continued Next Post...

171 Scannit  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:23:10am

Continuation...

People are using (consciously or unconsously) AGW to either reduce pollution (I’m in favor of less pollution) OR to gain control of economies/people in order to gain more power or wealth (I’m not in favor of that). To use CO2 as a ruse, because CO2 is so common in industrialized nations, so easy to target. And many scientists have pointed out that their funding requests get fast tracked if they include in their proposal a link to AGW. Whether or not they feel the link is real. They put it in their proposals for muscle. Who’d want to refuse funding to save the planet?

Scientific theories, and that is what AGW is, can only become the accepted mainstream theory only after is stands up to rigorous review and all other theories resoundly defeated. We have Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. And it will always be the main, accepted Theory, until another comes along with more information, better mathematics, to disprove Einstein and prove their theory. The main theory of AGW is not the reigning champ, it has not defeated the other theories. We just have a collection of people saying that their theory is better that the others. But when you ask for the specific data, the models that calculated the results, the AGW Deniers are rebuffed and scoffed at. They are not smart enough to interpret the modeling, or else it’s proprietary. Just look to how they treat Steve McIntire. But look at his results and the data he collect without their data. They’ve even had to retract some info based on his observations.


Sorry all, their research DOES NOT stand up to scrutiny. These e-mails indicate that they are fabricating data, deleting data and conspiring in refusing to respond to FOI requests. I’m not saying that all of their data is forged, but this release of information shows that their research needs a thorough review. Their correspondences and actions show that they do not have the faith in their data and research to stand in the light of review. So they must have other motives, rather than a pure scientific mentality to the position they pose.


There should be much ado about something.


IMHO...

172 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:23:26am

...but as i mentioned earlier, the funding knife cuts both ways. Most scientists do, and should, look all over for grants. an old, 1990's-era study on behalf of Exxon does not one's conclusions taint. his work either stands on its own merits or it doesn't, right?

Plenty of AGW proponents are funded from places I may not agree with. That doesn't make them right or wrong, IMHO.

173 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:28:16am

Thanks everyone for the lively discussion. Need to run to a mtg.

174 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:29:15am

I don't accept this funding charge against Lindzen, so what if he received $10,000 a decade ago as consulting fees? Prof. Jones group received millions, that does not mean he is corrupt. What matters is the accuracy of their science.

175 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 11:34:05am

re: #163 Aceofwhat?

Ugh. No. Newton accurately predicted the movement of the planets. If you change his equations, even by what seems to be a relatively small amount, you end up with a solar system that doesn't resemble ours.

That has nothing to do with what I said, and it makes no sense anyway.

The point is that the different models use different sensitivities because they represent different theories. They are not as differentiated as relativity and Newtonian physics, but they are competing theories.


Little variables with big effects on the outcome of an equation need to be precise. Einstein improved our understanding of the accuracy of planetary rotation by an infinitesmial amount. It's a poor analogy for competing climate models whose sensitivities, and forcings, vary rather widely.

In what sense do their 'forcings' vary wildly?

What are the 'constants' that you have claimed vary between the models?

Stop being rude. Disagree if you want, i invite it as a matter of fact, but keep it civil or go hassle a creationist.

Or what? You have no coercive power to make me civil towards you, and I have no inclination to be civil to someone who's being intellectually dishonest.

You have made numerous claims and not done a single thing to back them up, except to reference a single scientist who's reputation is exactly what it deserves to be.

176 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:02:46pm

re: #171 Scannit

Sorry all, their research DOES NOT stand up to scrutiny. These e-mails indicate that they are fabricating data, deleting data and conspiring in refusing to respond to FOI requests.

That's just complete unadulterated bullshit.

177 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:03:32pm

re: #169 Bagua

The Heartland Institute connection, for one. Look up their history.

178 Gelly  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:06:10pm

re: #170 Scannit

Why are you talking about Al Gore? He's not a climate scientist! The global warming debate has been good for the world, I think, because it publicly illustrates just how many people have no idea how science works, and therefore highlights massive inadequacies in the public education system. Here's how things work. Climate science, at the least, uses a lot of statistics and mathematics, has plenty of fairly-easy-to-obtain data, and leans much more toward being a "hard science". What that means is that there is a fairly high bar to reach to disprove climate change, because there is a scientific consensus based on several accurate models which use hard data and pretty much agree on the main conclusion. You can't even see that bar if you're harping on out-of-context quotes, statistical jargon, or stuff a politician said a decade ago.

It doesn't matter if the people who came out with these studies murdered a bunch of people and wrote the paper in those people's blood - they'd go to jail, but their studies would still be right until someone proved them wrong. It doesn't matter if EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD disagreed with them or was "just asking questions", because if none of those people can produce a better study that proves it wrong, then it's most definitely right. If the AGW people are so sure that they're right, why is it that the few AGW papers have been thoroughly debunked, while the best AGW can do is "just asking questions" and McIntyre using statistics to lie to people who don't know about things like sample sizes?

In your case, you don't seem to realize that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - you seem to think that scientists noticed the correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise and just decided that CO2 must've been doing it? No. We KNOW that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Trapping heat is what it does. That's common scientific knowledge, and even the deniers accept that.

179 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:09:14pm

re: #178 Gelly

Updinged you, but noting that you're using "AGW" where you mean "Anti-AGW" sometimes.

180 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:10:28pm

re: #174 Bagua

I don't accept this funding charge against Lindzen, so what if he received $10,000 a decade ago as consulting fees? Prof. Jones group received millions, that does not mean he is corrupt. What matters is the accuracy of their science.

And if you read the numerous posts at ScienceBlogs to which I linked, you'll see that there are plenty of reasons to doubt the accuracy of Lindzen's claims too.

181 filetandrelease  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:24:12pm

re: #179 Obdicut

Updinged you, but noting that you're using "AGW" where you mean "Anti-AGW" sometimes.

Yes, I was a bit confused there for a sec.

182 Bagua  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:36:38pm

re: #180 Charles

And if you read the numerous posts at ScienceBlogs to which I linked, you'll see that there are plenty of reasons to doubt the accuracy of Lindzen's claims too.

That I accept. I make no claim that Lindzen is correct.

re: #177 Charles

The Heartland Institute connection, for one. Look up their history.

Thanks. I'll read up on that.

183 filetandrelease  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 12:38:18pm

Charles

For the record, I respect you opinion across the board, and consider it a privilege to be part of the conversation here.

If not for your diligence regarding AGW I would have discarded it long ago.

Keep up your good work.

184 Scannit  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 1:59:54pm

re: #176 Charles

That's just complete unadulterated bullshit.

Wow, I actually got a response from Charles, although not one that I'd rather have... Let me clarify, sometimes my thoughts don't transfer well to the printed word...

What I'm referring to is the fact that all that ever gets reviewed are their results. The final product.. The ones in question in this controversy don't seem to release their raw data and the modeling programs. Thats all Hush-Hush. They don't seem to welcome critical review of their work. And those few e-mails, from their own accounts, indicate that is what they have done for a while and would have continued to do if these e-mails didn't get released. We have to trust them that all is correct. Well, I'm not one to turn over control of our economy to a world government (UN, et.al.) on unsettled science.. Some in this blog may feel it's settled, but like me, it's an opinion. And, IMHO, this is far from settled science, especially enlight of this new information..

185 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 2:12:02pm

re: #184 Scannit

Please note that, again and again, people on this blog have pointed out that CRU is not the only source for the theory of AGW.

There are five models that all show AGW. I have linked above a fully open-source, open data model. It also shows AGW.

You can entirely throw out CRU, and you still have a strong theory of global warming.

186 Charles Johnson  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 3:34:18pm

re: #184 Scannit

The ones in question in this controversy don't seem to release their raw data and the modeling programs. Thats all Hush-Hush.

Wrong.

[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

187 claire  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 4:16:55pm

re: #184 Scannit

Here's something that might help you with the CO2 lagging temps in the ice age peaks and valleys. Read all the links within the article, too. You'll probably feel more confident about your argument if you read more about the subject and rely less on hearsay. The lagging CO2 is not a good argument. There may be others, but that one's a stinker for sure and not worthy of being the basis for one's worldview.

188 jimbouie  Wed, Dec 2, 2009 6:23:05pm

Why the down dings?

I'm sorry I don't agree yet, but I jest don't.

189 Sabba Hillel  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 4:50:38am

Actually, I had not seen the comments. What I have seen is the actual code as analyzed by Eric Raymond. That code actually forced the data ito a specific shape. The comments (not one but a number) just show the attitude of the programmer and how convoluted and bad he found the code he was trying to "fix".

190 Charles Johnson  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 9:41:50am

re: #189 Sabba Hillel

Actually, I had not seen the comments. What I have seen is the actual code as analyzed by Eric Raymond. That code actually forced the data ito a specific shape.

It did NOT. If you had bothered to read my post about this, you would have learned that the code in question was NOT EVEN USED in the final resulting graph.

Amazing. They'll even spout the talking points in a thread that debunks them!

191 jimbouie  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:16:57pm

Tim Lambert's dismissal of Raymond's polemic was based on the fact that the fudge factor had been "commented out", when in fact the same fudge factor was not "commented out" in a later version of the file ("...sep98d" vs "...sep98e"). So Lambert's takedown was actually erroneous.

Other comments on the article say this doesn't matter, that it was still just experimental code and nothing nefarious, but Lambert needs to show that if he wants to actually put down Raymond's contention. His first attempt didn't do the trick as claimed.

192 scannit  Thu, Dec 3, 2009 1:47:09pm

re: #186 Charles

Wrong.

[Link: www.realclimate.org...]

Touché…
Yes, I painted with a wide brush and got dinged for it. As they say, My Bad. I have seen the Real Climate web site before. I would like to know if their data has been corrected, just like the NASA data had to be corrected, twice I believe. At first they showed that 1998 was the hottest year, but then corrected it after an independent audit discovered errors. That made the hottest year 1934. Then the NASA data was corrected, yet again, and now 1998 is back in the running, with 1934 a close second… Are all of the heat islands removed from the data. Where over the years, NOAA temperature stations have been encroached by asphault, Falsly increasing the temps by up to 10 deg. F.? Speaking of data, what special raw data was deleted/trashed from the CRU archives? Data that can not be recovered and reviewed? I just get suspicious of magical data that only the great OZ can see and comprehend…..

Also, are their models as accurate as the IPCC models? The one where our current stagnation/decline in temps was not predicted? It seems that every time a climate model is shown to be wrong, the modelers re-re-tweak the program and then ask us to believe them again, and again and again.. The huge problem is that we are to fundamentally shut down our economy based on these predictions. And when they are proven wrong, the response will be, Oh well, my bad…. But that’ll be years after the damage to our economy has been done.. But they had good intentions, you can’t fault them for that…

Also, I see that Michael Mann is listed as credits in some of the presentations at Real Climate. Since his work is also in question with this e-mail release, should his research be set aside from the presentations as possibly tainted?

I do believe in Climate Change. One would be a fool not to. Earth’s climate is not stagnant. But I do not subscribe to the man made climate change theory.


And to answer the Gelly's comment.. Yes, I do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As well as methane (more potent that CO2 but less abundant in the atmosphere), but the research on limiting bovine emissions is still in its early stages. Being a co-conspirator with AGW, this is keeping us from exploring the huge frozen methane deposits off the Atlantic shelf.
Then there’s also water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas. But controlling the oceans is a lot harder than controlling people and industry.

Even Hydrogen is linked as a greenhouse gas contributor. Everyone has their pet energy they’d like to see emerge, I’m looking to a hydrogen based economy. Using Nuclear as a starting point, producing Hydrogen along with other sources, like Algae, supplemented with other renewables. Yes, Algae can be ‘forced’ to produce a lot of H2 as a by-product. But I was surprised in my research that there are those that don’t want H2 because it would just replace CO2 as the predominant GHG…I don’t see ONE fuel as a sole solution, but to force us by taxation into something that has not been developed, is stupid…


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 119 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 280 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1