I just came upon this article. Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
I just came upon this article. Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I'll still not trust the data, it's tainted. And, who's to say that temps
weren't taken in heat islands and/or gathered with extreme bias and tampered
with. How much **** does it take to ruin a bowl of ice cream?

Buerste wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
I just came upon this article. Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I'll still not trust the data, it's tainted. And, who's to say that
temps weren't taken in heat islands and/or gathered with extreme bias
and tampered with. How much **** does it take to ruin a bowl of ice cream?



"This is being sold as a dose of castor oil you have to swallow
and it's just not true."

Bill Clinton, former U.S. president,,
on selling climate change as an economic opportunity

http://www.reuters.com/

In article , "Buerste"
wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
I just came upon this article. Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I'll still not trust the data, it's tainted. And, who's to say that temps
weren't taken in heat islands and/or gathered with extreme bias and tampered
with. How much **** does it take to ruin a bowl of ice cream?

I'm sure that these things have happened to some degree. But more
generally all instruments have their issues, so one uses many kinds of
instrument and compares the results.


More generally, my opinion is that warming is most likely happening, but
that is not enough. What is not proved is:

a. Is this warming significantly affected by human activity or not?

b. If it is, is there anything practical we can do about it without
committing hari kari?

c. How much warming will we really see, and over what period of time?


I gave a fuller explanation of this in my reply to Ed Huntress in "
OK which is it Global Warming or Cooling?" posted on 7 May 2008.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article , "Buerste"
wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
I just came upon this article. Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I'll still not trust the data, it's tainted. And, who's to say that
temps
weren't taken in heat islands and/or gathered with extreme bias and
tampered
with. How much **** does it take to ruin a bowl of ice cream?

I'm sure that these things have happened to some degree. But more
generally all instruments have their issues, so one uses many kinds of
instrument and compares the results.


More generally, my opinion is that warming is most likely happening, but
that is not enough. What is not proved is:

a. Is this warming significantly affected by human activity or not?

b. If it is, is there anything practical we can do about it without
committing hari kari?

c. How much warming will we really see, and over what period of time?


I gave a fuller explanation of this in my reply to Ed Huntress in "
OK which is it Global Warming or Cooling?" posted on 7 May 2008.

Joe Gwinn

Liberals operate solely on their faith and viciously attack any faith other
than their own. They LOVE Global Warming like normal people love God.

In article , Pete Snell wrote:

It's good,(and typical)that scientists are releasing all the data for
evaluation. Here's an article from your same newspaper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...e/6753253/Cope
nhagen-climate-summit-the-climate-sceptics-QandA.html

I do agree that this is how it is supposed to work.

But it took the stolen and leaked emails to force actual release (if
release really happens as has been promised). I have been reading
complaints about the lack of actual transparency for many years; now I
know that these complaints were well founded.

In political terms, all this was a serious blunder. Most people will
conclude that because CRU was hoarding data, they must have had
something to hide. Nor did the emails about editing the data to
eliminate the lack of recent warming help.

It matters not what CRU's true motives were.


And a couple of other short articles worth reading.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. I think I'll pass.


http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/

(there is a PDF to download for the last one. The link is at the top
right of the frame)

I'll read it; thanks.

Joe Gwinn

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:04:36 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Pete Snell wrote:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. I think I'll pass.

Yes, let's continue to rely on the WSJ editorial page for a balanced
presentation.

--
Ned Simmons

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:04:36 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Pete Snell wrote:



http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rs-to-climate-
contrarian-nonsense

Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. I think I'll pass.

Yes, let's continue to rely on the WSJ editorial page for a balanced
presentation.

Umm. The WSJ Editorials Page does not claim to be anything but opinion.

In the pecking order of scientific journals, the Royal Society is very
high, and Scientific American doesn't even place.

Joe Gwinn

On Dec 7, 9:16*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message

...

I just came upon this article. *Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. *From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. *What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I'll still not trust the data, it's tainted. *And, who's to say that temps
weren't taken in heat islands and/or gathered with extreme bias and tampered
with. *How much **** does it take to ruin a bowl of ice cream?

And who's to say that you would have a chance in hell of understanding
any of it? Are you REALLY that smart?

On Dec 7, 10:39*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message

...



In article , "Buerste"
wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
I just came upon this article. *Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. *From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. *What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I'll still not trust the data, it's tainted. *And, who's to say that
temps
weren't taken in heat islands and/or gathered with extreme bias and
tampered
with. *How much **** does it take to ruin a bowl of ice cream?

I'm sure that these things have happened to some degree. *But more
generally all instruments have their issues, so one uses many kinds of
instrument and compares the results.

More generally, my opinion is that warming is most likely happening, but
that is not enough. *What is not proved is:

a. *Is this warming significantly affected by human activity or not?

b. *If it is, is there anything practical we can do about it without
committing hari kari?

c. *How much warming will we really see, and over what period of time?

I gave a fuller explanation of this in my reply to Ed Huntress in "
OK which is it Global Warming or Cooling?" posted on 7 May 2008.

Joe Gwinn

Liberals operate solely on their faith and viciously attack any faith other
than their own. *They LOVE Global Warming like normal people love God.

For certain twisted definitions of "normal"

On Dec 9, 12:06*am, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:04:36 -0500, Joseph Gwinn

wrote:
In article , Pete Snell wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-cli...

Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. *This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. *And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. *I think I'll pass.

Yes, let's continue to rely on the WSJ editorial page for a balanced
presentation.

--
Ned Simmons

You're kidding, right? Just like Fox News is "fair and balanced"

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 10:39 pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message

...



In article , "Buerste"
wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
I just came upon this article. Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I'll still not trust the data, it's tainted. And, who's to say that
temps
weren't taken in heat islands and/or gathered with extreme bias and
tampered
with. How much **** does it take to ruin a bowl of ice cream?

I'm sure that these things have happened to some degree. But more
generally all instruments have their issues, so one uses many kinds of
instrument and compares the results.

More generally, my opinion is that warming is most likely happening, but
that is not enough. What is not proved is:

a. Is this warming significantly affected by human activity or not?

b. If it is, is there anything practical we can do about it without
committing hari kari?

c. How much warming will we really see, and over what period of time?

I gave a fuller explanation of this in my reply to Ed Huntress in "
OK which is it Global Warming or Cooling?" posted on 7 May 2008.

Joe Gwinn

Liberals operate solely on their faith and viciously attack any faith
other
than their own. They LOVE Global Warming like normal people love God.

For certain twisted definitions of "normal"
****************************************
I want to be just about anything that YOU think is twisted.

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

I do agree that this is how it is supposed to work.

But it took the stolen and leaked emails to force actual release (if
release really happens as has been promised). I have been reading
complaints about the lack of actual transparency for many years; now I
know that these complaints were well founded.

In political terms, all this was a serious blunder. Most people will
conclude that because CRU was hoarding data, they must have had
something to hide. Nor did the emails about editing the data to
eliminate the lack of recent warming help.

It matters not what CRU's true motives were.

It doesn't?? I guess that depends on perspective. Ask some of the
scientists who were bullied into handing research data over to Google so
they could build on their image/info database. For free!



Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. I think I'll pass.


Not interested in reading something that might be even slightly
enlightening? I think this article aims to debunk some of the more
poorly thought out points of view that pervade much of the skeptic's
positions. It really isn't that silly or threatening. I do agree that
the title is unfortunate, but there really are people out there making
outrageous claims on both sides of the arguments.



http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/

(there is a PDF to download for the last one. The link is at the top
right of the frame)

I'll read it; thanks.

Good!

In case you think I'm a AGW the-sky-is-falling kind of guy, I'm not.
But it really bugs me when people don't even bother to make a modest
effort to get real information. No wonder this issue gets people so
worked up! When all you are presented with are half-truths, bent to
support one point of view or another, it can only cause problems.

Pete

--
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario,
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In a car everything you see is just more TV. You're a passive observer
and it is all moving by you boringly in a frame. On a cycle the frame is
completely gone. You're completely in contact with it all. You're in the
scene, not just watching it anymore, and the sense of presence is
overwhelming.

Robert Pirsig

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. (1974)

On Dec 9, 10:21*am, "Buerste" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 10:39 pm, "Buerste" wrote:

[snip]

Liberals operate solely on their faith and viciously attack any faith
other
than their own. They LOVE Global Warming like normal people love God.

For certain twisted definitions of "normal"
****************************************
I want to be just about anything that YOU think is twisted.

If you would take a moment to look at what you just wrote and at the
paragraph to which I was responding, you would see that you have just
defined yourself as a "liberal" by attacking a faith other than your
own.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 10:21 am, "Buerste" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 10:39 pm, "Buerste" wrote:

[snip]

Liberals operate solely on their faith and viciously attack any faith
other
than their own. They LOVE Global Warming like normal people love God.

For certain twisted definitions of "normal"
****************************************
I want to be just about anything that YOU think is twisted.

If you would take a moment to look at what you just wrote and at the
paragraph to which I was responding, you would see that you have just
defined yourself as a "liberal" by attacking a faith other than your
own.
**********************************
DAMN!

On Dec 9, 5:33*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Dec 9, 10:21 am, "Buerste" wrote:

"rangerssuck" wrote in message

....
On Dec 7, 10:39 pm, "Buerste" wrote:

[snip]

Liberals operate solely on their faith and viciously attack any faith
other
than their own. They LOVE Global Warming like normal people love God.

For certain twisted definitions of "normal"
****************************************
I want to be just about anything that YOU think is twisted.

If you would take a moment to look at what you just wrote and at the
paragraph to which I was responding, you would see that you have just
defined yourself as a "liberal" by attacking a faith other than your
own.
**********************************
DAMN!

Does your god even let you say that?

In article , Pete Snell wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

I do agree that this is how it is supposed to work.

But it took the stolen and leaked emails to force actual release (if
release really happens as has been promised). I have been reading
complaints about the lack of actual transparency for many years; now I
know that these complaints were well founded.

In political terms, all this was a serious blunder. Most people will
conclude that because CRU was hoarding data, they must have had
something to hide. Nor did the emails about editing the data to
eliminate the lack of recent warming help.

It matters not what CRU's true motives were.

It doesn't?? I guess that depends on perspective.

No, it doesn't matter if CRU's motives were pure, it still was a
political blunder. This is not a technical issue at all.


Ask some of the
scientists who were bullied into handing research data over to Google so
they could build on their image/info database. For free!

That's not the same issue at all. CRU is in effect asking the world to
depend on their GW analyses to the tune of trillions of dollars, and
should expect that people want to replicate their analyses and inspect
their data.


Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. I think I'll pass.

Not interested in reading something that might be even slightly
enlightening? I think this article aims to debunk some of the more
poorly thought out points of view that pervade much of the skeptic's
positions. It really isn't that silly or threatening. I do agree that
the title is unfortunate, but there really are people out there making
outrageous claims on both sides of the arguments.

Not interested in reading yet another rant. I have read many such
pieces, and it's been a long time since something really new turned up.


http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/

(there is a PDF to download for the last one. The link is at the top
right of the frame)

I'll read it; thanks.

Good!

Turns out that the Royal Society had a clear opinion as well:

"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious
argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and
undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the
potential consequences of global warming."

They then went over 8 "misleading arguments" (their term). While they
stated it very well, and did not rant or scream, there were no new
points made.

The crux of their argument is in their response to "misleading argument
1":

"However, in contrast to these climate phases, the increase of three
quarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global temperatures
that we have seen over the last century is larger than can be accounted
for by natural factors alone."

What they are saying is in effect that their models cannot explain these
effects. I have done my share of modeling of physical systems, far far
simpler systems than climate (and the general circulation models), and
let me tell you it is real easy to fool yourself. One must validate
against the real world at every step. Only the deeply skeptical survive.



In case you think I'm a AGW the-sky-is-falling kind of guy, I'm not.
But it really bugs me when people don't even bother to make a modest
effort to get real information. No wonder this issue gets people so
worked up! When all you are presented with are half-truths, bent to
support one point of view or another, it can only cause problems.

For the most part, I have stopped listening because it's mostly clashing
rants, and I have not the energy to sort it out in any detail. But I do
know that it's a bad policy to let either side prematurely terminate the
debate by political force, for many reasons.

For one thing, an incorrect conclusion may win the day, and stall
progress for a generation. There are lots of examples of this in
Science.

For another thing, if the losing side doesn't mostly feel that their
case was fairly addressed, even if imperfectly so, the political fight
will never end. This isn't to say that everyone on the losing side must
agree that they lost fairly; there will always be holdouts, and a 60-40
vote is considered a landslide.

So, circling back, I'm glad that CRU's ability to withhold data and
stifle debate is likely ended.

Given that I'm not convinced that the science is solid enough to justify
turning civilization upside down, I'm not unhappy that the fallout from
the leaked emails may derail Copenhagen, directly or indirectly.

And even if I believed everything CRU claims, it does not necessarily
follow that Copenhagen is the right answer; this is a separate question.
For one thing, China and India run on coal, and their economies are
growing rapidly, so their increases may wash everything we may do away.

It could well turn out that CRU is at least partly right. With luck, we
may have a better idea in a few years, after the Climategate scandal
runs its course.


Joe Gwinn

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 5:33 pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Dec 9, 10:21 am, "Buerste" wrote:

"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 10:39 pm, "Buerste" wrote:

[snip]

Liberals operate solely on their faith and viciously attack any faith
other
than their own. They LOVE Global Warming like normal people love God.

For certain twisted definitions of "normal"
****************************************
I want to be just about anything that YOU think is twisted.

If you would take a moment to look at what you just wrote and at the
paragraph to which I was responding, you would see that you have just
defined yourself as a "liberal" by attacking a faith other than your
own.
**********************************
DAMN!

Does your god even let you say that?
*************************************

I typed it.

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 12:06 am, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:04:36 -0500, Joseph Gwinn

wrote:
In article , Pete Snell wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-cli...

Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. I think I'll pass.

Yes, let's continue to rely on the WSJ editorial page for a balanced
presentation.

--
Ned Simmons

You're kidding, right? Just like Fox News is "fair and balanced"
**************************************

In comparison to the State-run, Drive-by networks?

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 9:16 pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message

...

I just came upon this article. Probably the best fallout so far from
the leaked emails is that now *all* the raw data will be published,
allowing a full evaluation to be performed by all sides. From this
scrum, something like truth may emerge. What will also emerge is some
idea what we do and do not in fact really know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...-confe/6678469
/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

The Telegraph (a major UK newspaper), 28 November 2009.

Joe Gwinn

I'll still not trust the data, it's tainted. And, who's to say that temps
weren't taken in heat islands and/or gathered with extreme bias and
tampered
with. How much **** does it take to ruin a bowl of ice cream?

And who's to say that you would have a chance in hell of understanding
any of it? Are you REALLY that smart?
***********************************

Understand what? Tainted data is worthless. Anybody with a brain knows
that.

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 06:00:56 -0800 (PST), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Dec 9, 12:06*am, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:04:36 -0500, Joseph Gwinn

wrote:
In article , Pete Snell wrote:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-cli...

Given that the title of the article claims that opposition is contrarian
nonsense, a balanced presentation seems unlikely. *This appears to be a
polemic, versus a scientific paper. *And Scientific American (which I
read for decades, from age 16, until it got too gee-whiz for me) is a
popular magazine, not an academic journal. *I think I'll pass.

Yes, let's continue to rely on the WSJ editorial page for a balanced
presentation.

--
Ned Simmons

You're kidding, right? Just like Fox News is "fair and balanced"

That wasn't kidding, it was sarcasm.

--
Ned Simmons

On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:46:45 -0500, the infamous Pete Snell
scrawled the following:

It's good,(and typical)that scientists are releasing all the data for
evaluation. Here's an article from your same newspaper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6753253/Copenhagen-climate-summit-the-climate-sceptics-QandA.html

By Fred Pearce, who seems to try to make himself appear neutral when
he certainly isn't. He's from New Scientist, which is not even peer
reviewed, though that doesn't seem to make much difference nowadays.


And a couple of other short articles worth reading.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

Har! I stopped here "But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was
busted... What of it? " regarding Mann's manipulation of data/graphs.
Who were Rennie's peer reviewers for this article?


http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/

Hmmm, in misleading argument #1, they say "the increase of
threequarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global
temperatures that we have seen over the last century is larger than
can be accounted for by natural factors alone."

Then in misleading argument #2, they say "Even these tiny quantities
have resulted in an increase in global temperatures of 0.74ºC (see
misleading argument 1)."

Bzzzzt! If this is any indication of the quality of the rest of the
article, it bears no further scrutiny. Hmm, do they get their data
from the CRU, too?


P.S: Um, don't Canadians have their own sources of news/scientists?

--
To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen
to what the world tells you you ought to prefer,
is to have kept your soul alive.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4369/H...indoctrination

Hurricane Expert Rips Climate Fears: 'There has been an unrelenting
quarter century of one-sided indoctrination'

Climategate revelations 'are but the tip of a giant iceberg'
Tuesday, December 08, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

The following commentary is by Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane
forecasting specialist Dr. William Gray. Gray is the renowned hurricane
forecaster and Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado
State University (CSU).

Puncturing the Climate Balloon

By Dr. Bill Gray

December 8, 2009

Had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study
and forecasting of meteorological and climate events I would have likely
been concerned over the possibility of humans causing serious global
climate degradation.

There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided
indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various
scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide (CO_2 )
induced global warming disaster. These warming scenarios have been
orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest
scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which
profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who
want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out
global living standards. These many alarmist groups appear to have
little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are
accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists
believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing
their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice
on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of
living in the name of climate salvation.

Rising levels of CO_2 are not near the threat these alarmists have
portrayed them to be. There has yet to be a honest and broad scientific
debate on the basic science of CO_2 's influence on global temperature.
The global climate models predicting large amounts of global warming for
a doubling of CO_2 are badly flawed. They should never have been used to
establish government climate policy.

The last century's global warming of about 1 degree F is not a
consequence of human activities. This warming is primarily the result of
a multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation. These
ocean current changes have lead to a small and gradual increase in the
globe's temperature. We are coming out of the Little Ice Age and into a
generally warmer climate state. This is akin to the warmer global
climate of the Medieval Period. We can do nothing but adapt to such long
period natural temperature changes.

The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of
East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized
international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering
momentum for the last 25 years. This conspiracy would become much more
manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research
groups of the US and of foreign governments were ever made public.

The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO_2 emissions from
the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as
being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general
public. Such CO_2 output decreases would cause very large increases in
our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing
of significance to improve our climate.

The Cap-and-Trade bill presently before Congress, the likely climate
agreements coming out of the Copenhagen Conference, and the EPA's just
announced decision to treat CO_2 as a pollutant represents a grave
threat to the industrial world's continued economic development. We
should not allow these proposals to restrict our economic growth. Any
United Nations climate bill our country might sign would act as an
infringement on our country's sovereignty.

see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOvyd...=youtube_gdata

Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

In article , Pete Snell wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article , Pete Snell wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

No, it doesn't matter if CRU's motives were pure, it still was a
political blunder. This is not a technical issue at all.

I still haven't really read anything comprehensive about what was
hacked or released. To be honest I haven't looked really hard. I can't
really give to much credit to people who hacked into someone else's
system and selectively 'released' material that lets them say "I told
you so!"

Well, so far CRU has not denied the emails or claimed that they were
altered, in particular the 10 to 15 critical emails. While there may be
many emails not leaked, a few of those 10-15 are startling, and it
really doesn't matter how many other emails were boring lunch
invitations.


Ask some of the scientists who were bullied into handing research data
over to Google so they could build on their image/info database. For free!

That's not the same issue at all. CRU is in effect asking the world to
depend on their GW analyses to the tune of trillions of dollars, and
should expect that people want to replicate their analyses and inspect
their data.

No it isn't the same specific issue at all, but it does illustrate
some of the problems the scientific community have in that regard, and
why they might not 'release the data'. Most scientists release their
data into the wild in a way that allows peer review and analysis.
Releasing it randomly to people who wish to bend it to their own means
and profit would be irresponsible in itself.

While I understand the problems some scientists have had with releasing
their data, I am not sympathetic with CRU on this. If one does science
with trillion-dollar policy impact, it comes with the turf that one will
be releasing data to one's sworn opponents, and will be dealing with the
consequences. This comes under the rubric of "if you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen".

Nor should one expect to be in a position to direct that much spending
without *lots* of help.


Not interested in reading yet another rant. I have read many such
pieces, and it's been a long time since something really new turned up.

That's ok! Your perogative.


http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/

(there is a PDF to download for the last one. The link is at the top
right of the frame)
I'll read it; thanks.
Good!

Turns out that the Royal Society had a clear opinion as well:

"This is not intended to provide exhaustive answers to every contentious
argument that has been put forward by those who seek to distort and
undermine the science of climate change and deny the seriousness of the
potential consequences of global warming."

They then went over 8 "misleading arguments" (their term). While they
stated it very well, and did not rant or scream, there were no new
points made.

The crux of their argument is in their response to "misleading argument
1":

"However, in contrast to these climate phases, the increase of three
quarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global temperatures
that we have seen over the last century is larger than can be accounted
for by natural factors alone."

What they are saying is in effect that their models cannot explain these
effects. I have done my share of modeling of physical systems, far far
simpler systems than climate (and the general circulation models), and
let me tell you it is real easy to fool yourself. One must validate
against the real world at every step. Only the deeply skeptical survive.


Yep! That's one of the reasons I recommended that link. It presents
things pretty truthfully (I think) without the hype.

I generally agree, even if they let the mask slip from time to time.


And even though the
models don't show that natural factors can account for everything that's
happened, it doesn't mean that they are right. But it also doesn't mean
they are wrong!

Well, there is no such thing as fairness to models ... they are guilty
until proven innocent.


So, circling back, I'm glad that CRU's ability to withhold data and
stifle debate is likely ended.

Me too! If that's what was actually going on. Hopefully honest work
will prevail.

It is. In those 10-15 critical emails, CRU's director says as much, so
I will take him at his word.


Given that I'm not convinced that the science is solid enough to justify
turning civilization upside down, I'm not unhappy that the fallout from
the leaked emails may derail Copenhagen, directly or indirectly.

I pretty much agree. I think that it is a tragedy that this whole
thing has become so polarized that people are willing to propagate lies
and half truths to advance their agendas. (yes I know that it was ever
so, but I'm still disappointed;-)

It has ever been thus. For that kind of money, people *will* lie.
An/or may have become true believers, where the end justifies the means.
This seems to be what befell CRU. Granting that people will lie and/or
believe too strongly, all such efforts must be designed to be able to
make progress nonetheless - people are people, and have always been so,
for all of history.


And even if I believed everything CRU claims, it does not necessarily
follow that Copenhagen is the right answer; this is a separate question.
For one thing, China and India run on coal, and their economies are
growing rapidly, so their increases may wash everything we may do away.

I also agree. And the fact that so much of the world's population is
truly suffering, mostly because of ignorance and greed, is at least as
important to address. (Again! I know it was ever so!)

Bjorn Lomberg's position is that it's far cheaper to deal with the
consequences of GW than to try to stop GW. He also points out that most
of the non-rich world has far more immediate concerns than what the
climate will look like in 50 years. I think he is right on both points.


It could well turn out that CRU is at least partly right. With luck, we
may have a better idea in a few years, after the Climategate scandal
runs its course.

Yes! And we can hope that people will look at the whole issue a
little more objectively. (Gawd, am I really that optimistic?)

I'm not convinced that true believers of either stripe will suddenly
develop balance. All I hope for is that the debate will become
unchained, and will be allowed to run to completion, with every position
getting the wire-brush treatment. The Truth will be somewhere is
whatever survives the wire brushing.

Joe Gwinn

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:23:35 -0500, the infamous Pete Snell
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:46:45 -0500, the infamous Pete Snell
scrawled the following:

It's good,(and typical)that scientists are releasing all the data for
evaluation. Here's an article from your same newspaper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6753253/Copenhagen-climate-summit-the-climate-sceptics-QandA.html

By Fred Pearce, who seems to try to make himself appear neutral when
he certainly isn't. He's from New Scientist, which is not even peer
reviewed, though that doesn't seem to make much difference nowadays.

I mostly posted that link as it came from the same source as the
previous poster's link. Personally I think that Q&A is pretty reasonable
until the last couple of A's....



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

Har! I stopped here "But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was
busted... What of it? " regarding Mann's manipulation of data/graphs.
Who were Rennie's peer reviewers for this article?

Really? You stopped there? I'm not sure why Rennie needs peer
reviewers for an article in a popular publication, especially when he
doesn't seem to be presenting any new or original research. He gave
links to the other papers and publications, which would seem to be
enough for an article like that.

You don't see the need for peer review of scientific articles in a
science mag? Oh, OK. I do. It (theoretically) keeps 'em honest. Not
that that counts nowadays. sigh



http://royalsociety.org/Climate-change-controversies-a-simple-guide/

Hmmm, in misleading argument #1, they say "the increase of
threequarters of a degree centigrade (0.74°C) in average global
temperatures that we have seen over the last century is larger than
can be accounted for by natural factors alone."

Then in misleading argument #2, they say "Even these tiny quantities
have resulted in an increase in global temperatures of 0.74ºC (see
misleading argument 1)."

Bzzzzt! If this is any indication of the quality of the rest of the
article, it bears no further scrutiny. Hmm, do they get their data
from the CRU, too?

Why Bzzztt? If the statement is based on what the data and evidence
shows, how is it wrong? Just curious. Perhaps you have other evidence to
share. Please don't keep it a secret like those other guys. ;-)

First they say that they can't attribute the entire .74C rise to
natural factors, then they suddenly say that the whole .74C rise is
anthropomorphic. Doesn't that strike you as less than honest, Pete?
It's damned subtle unless you're looking for it. That's why I'm really
curious to see to whence all the emails lead. Off with their heads,
Arrrrr! Then start over with just the facts next time, please.


It's
curious that you seem to stop reading as soon as you see something you
don't like. I'm not implying you need to swallow everything hook line
and sinker, but this article isn't by some lame blogger, and it isn't
long or cumbersome. Of course, its shortcoming is that it doesn't point
out a conspiracy by left wing groups, or scientists trying to build an
empire.

Nah, not an empire, just steady work on whatever they want. It's what
we all want, but do we lie, cheat and steal for it as they seem to be,
while under the guise of being upright, honest scientists? It's
sickening and angering to me. Science is no longer on its pedestal
for a whole lot of people after this crap (AGWK and CRU), and that's
truly sad. It leads to the politicians going after the rest of
science to use it for their own dark means, don't you think?


And it doesn't present a graph on a giant TV screen so that you
need a lift to see how high things are going, or show a polar bear
jumping from ice floe to ice floe.

I've read so much biased **** on this subject that when my finely
honed **** detector goes of clearly just 1 time now, I know it's going
to be more of the same with the rest of the article. Why waste time?
I read that same old pattern and just turn it off. What we all really
want is the unvarnished _truth_: good, bad or ugly.


Hmmmmm maybe you're right. It is kinda lame..;-)

Yeah. Effin' Algore and his sheeple minions worldwide... sigh


P.S: Um, don't Canadians have their own sources of news/scientists?

Yes. Yes we do.

So, quick: Quote one!


P.S: Have you read Huber's _Hard Green_ yet? Just do it! If everyone
had, we'd be more rational about things, solving the solvable, and
leaving the Parts-Per-Ten-Billioners in the dust where they belong.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

While I understand the problems some scientists have had with releasing
their data, I am not sympathetic with CRU on this. If one does science
with trillion-dollar policy impact, it comes with the turf that one will
be releasing data to one's sworn opponents, and will be dealing with the
consequences. This comes under the rubric of "if you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen".

Nor should one expect to be in a position to direct that much spending
without *lots* of help.

Joe Gwinn

That's why the whole thing is so suspect as science.

Peer Review is the very heart of the Scientific Method.

Without it, there is no science.

Larry Jaques wrote:


You don't see the need for peer review of scientific articles in a
science mag? Oh, OK. I do. It (theoretically) keeps 'em honest. Not
that that counts nowadays. sigh

I guess our opinions differ on what kind of publication SciAm is, or
what a scientific article is. Scientific American (or at least my
experience of it) is a newsy folksy publication that presents articles
based on science already conducted or being examined. Does anyone
actually present new or original research directly to them? That's when
peer review generally happens.


First they say that they can't attribute the entire .74C rise to
natural factors, then they suddenly say that the whole .74C rise is
anthropomorphic. Doesn't that strike you as less than honest, Pete?
It's damned subtle unless you're looking for it. That's why I'm really
curious to see to whence all the emails lead. Off with their heads,
Arrrrr! Then start over with just the facts next time, please.

Well I can't say it's less than honest, but you're right it doesn't
completely follow logic either. If it can't be attributed to 'natural'
causes, and the evidence implies some Human contribution, I guess that
leaves supernatural causes as the other cause. Maybe this is God's
modern day flood!;-)


Nah, not an empire, just steady work on whatever they want. It's what
we all want, but do we lie, cheat and steal for it as they seem to be,
while under the guise of being upright, honest scientists? It's
sickening and angering to me. Science is no longer on its pedestal
for a whole lot of people after this crap (AGWK and CRU), and that's
truly sad. It leads to the politicians going after the rest of
science to use it for their own dark means, don't you think?


Well Scientists are people, with egos and neuroses just like the rest
of us. I don't doubt that there are rivalries and conflicts of
personality (actually I know it). But the actions of a few scientist
don't define all of science. In fact the system is set up to prevent
that. As far as I know (and I haven't checked in depth) the scientist
who's work was being supposedly 'suppressed' was actually published. It
was probably peer reviewed to! And I agree about the dark side of
politics and big business. I think whoever it is that hacked into CRU's
computer system is as worthy of scorn as any group.


I've read so much biased **** on this subject that when my finely
honed **** detector goes of clearly just 1 time now, I know it's going
to be more of the same with the rest of the article. Why waste time?
I read that same old pattern and just turn it off. What we all really
want is the unvarnished _truth_: good, bad or ugly.

I agree mostly. But the baby and the bathwater analogy seems
appropriate here. It is helpful to have an idea about where people are
getting their information to make decisions. I trust Science a LOT more
than I trust politicians and lobbyists, or celebrities and popular writers!



P.S: Um, don't Canadians have their own sources of news/scientists?
Yes. Yes we do.

So, quick: Quote one!

You mean like McIntyre and McKitrick ? :-) Well they aren't actually
scientists..... Not that there's anything wrong with that. And of course
we have Dr. Weaver.

And of course we have David Suzuki, The CBC, etc

You'd probably like this article, I did:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/08/f-vp-handler.html



P.S: Have you read Huber's _Hard Green_ yet? Just do it! If everyone
had, we'd be more rational about things, solving the solvable, and
leaving the Parts-Per-Ten-Billioners in the dust where they belong.

More biased ****! ;-) I'm sure it's interesting, but I already have a
line up of books to read on subjects I find more interesting (like
metalworking) So this will be my last reply. Nice talking to you.

Pete



--
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario,
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
" The first instance of novel principle is invariably defeated
by the developed example of established practice."

Lawrence Pomeroy (1883-1941)

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article , Pete Snell wrote:

Well, so far CRU has not denied the emails or claimed that they were
altered, in particular the 10 to 15 critical emails. While there may be
many emails not leaked, a few of those 10-15 are startling, and it
really doesn't matter how many other emails were boring lunch
invitations.

So there has been no denial or spin? How unlike non-science groups!
:-) I daresay most of us have written something in a email they wish
they could take back, or would look very sinister or silly taken out of
context.


While I understand the problems some scientists have had with releasing
their data, I am not sympathetic with CRU on this. If one does science
with trillion-dollar policy impact, it comes with the turf that one will
be releasing data to one's sworn opponents, and will be dealing with the
consequences. This comes under the rubric of "if you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen".

My problem is that I don't really see where they 'haven't released
the data'. How would that even be possible? They certainly didn't
collect it all themselves. I suppose that somehow they got data that
no-one else has, but the magnitude is such that I can't believe they
have anything that lots of other people don't about. Now what they have
done with the data to analyse it could be another story. But I have a
hard time believing most of the data isn't already out there in the
wild. Why aren't other people analysing it and submitting their findings
for review? Remember, I'm talking about Data, not results. If you mean
results, then that's something different.



Nor should one expect to be in a position to direct that much spending
without *lots* of help.



That's sort of true, but it's also true that too much help is almost
as bad as none.



Well, there is no such thing as fairness to models ... they are guilty
until proven innocent.

Heh! Good quip! I would add that no model is ever finished!



It has ever been thus. For that kind of money, people *will* lie.
An/or may have become true believers, where the end justifies the means.
This seems to be what befell CRU. Granting that people will lie and/or
believe too strongly, all such efforts must be designed to be able to
make progress nonetheless - people are people, and have always been so,
for all of history.




Bjorn Lomberg's position is that it's far cheaper to deal with the
consequences of GW than to try to stop GW. He also points out that most
of the non-rich world has far more immediate concerns than what the
climate will look like in 50 years. I think he is right on both points.

Cheaper maybe, effective? Who knows. I think it is probably prudent
to take a pragmatic approach to both sides. Nothing wrong with
increasing the effort to find cheaper cleaner power and fuel. And we
could all put a little more effort into ending ignorance and poverty in
the world.



I'm not convinced that true believers of either stripe will suddenly
develop balance. All I hope for is that the debate will become
unchained, and will be allowed to run to completion, with every position
getting the wire-brush treatment. The Truth will be somewhere is
whatever survives the wire brushing.

I agree with that! I'm signing off on this, been good talking to you.

Pete

--
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario,
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Me fail English?! That's unpossible!

Ralph Wiggum

In article , Pete Snell wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article , Pete Snell wrote:

Well, so far CRU has not denied the emails or claimed that they were
altered, in particular the 10 to 15 critical emails. While there may be
many emails not leaked, a few of those 10-15 are startling, and it
really doesn't matter how many other emails were boring lunch
invitations.

So there has been no denial or spin? How unlike non-science groups!

Denial, no. Spin, yes, in spades. Mostly attempts to minimize and/or
reinterpret the zinger emails. Not very successfully, it appears. Time
will tell. It is certainly giving the US Congress a reason to temporize.


:-) I daresay most of us have written something in a email they wish
they could take back, or would look very sinister or silly taken out of
context.

Oh yes. While out-of-context can make a big difference in appearance,
it's hard to see how else to interpret some of the emails.


While I understand the problems some scientists have had with releasing
their data, I am not sympathetic with CRU on this. If one does science
with trillion-dollar policy impact, it comes with the turf that one will
be releasing data to one's sworn opponents, and will be dealing with the
consequences. This comes under the rubric of "if you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen".

My problem is that I don't really see where they 'haven't released
the data'. How would that even be possible? They certainly didn't
collect it all themselves. I suppose that somehow they got data that
no-one else has, but the magnitude is such that I can't believe they
have anything that lots of other people don't about. Now what they have
done with the data to analyse it could be another story. But I have a
hard time believing most of the data isn't already out there in the
wild. Why aren't other people analysing it and submitting their findings
for review? Remember, I'm talking about Data, not results. If you mean
results, then that's something different.

Well, the emails do discuss withholding strategies, as well as data
"adjustment" approaches. And I have been hearing complaints about
inability to get the underlying data for years.

I think people want the *exact* data that CRU used to arrive at their
various data, to allow exact auditing of the data and the analysis
process that underly CRU's various publications.


Nor should one expect to be in a position to direct that much spending
without *lots* of help.

That's sort of true, but it's also true that too much help is almost
as bad as none.

Only sort of? I agree that one can certainly get too much help, but
with this much money at stake, one must learn to live with the excess
and/or malicious help, or find some other line of work.


Well, there is no such thing as fairness to models ... they are guilty
until proven innocent.

Heh! Good quip! I would add that no model is ever finished!

Thanks; I take perverse pleasure in perverting the foundations of
American jurisprudence, all for a bad cause.

Not to mention corrupting the minds of the young.

Another quip: All models are wrong ... but some are useful.


It has ever been thus. For that kind of money, people *will* lie.
An/or may have become true believers, where the end justifies the means.
This seems to be what befell CRU. Granting that people will lie and/or
believe too strongly, all such efforts must be designed to be able to
make progress nonetheless - people are people, and have always been so,
for all of history.

Bjorn Lomberg's position is that it's far cheaper to deal with the
consequences of GW than to try to stop GW. He also points out that most
of the non-rich world has far more immediate concerns than what the
climate will look like in 50 years. I think he is right on both points.

Cheaper maybe, effective? Who knows. I think it is probably prudent
to take a pragmatic approach to both sides. Nothing wrong with
increasing the effort to find cheaper cleaner power and fuel. And we
could all put a little more effort into ending ignorance and poverty in
the world.

It all depends on how fast things change. If it's slow enough, we need
do nothing special, as the biosphere and economies will simply keep up
by adapting.

The Maldives come to mind -- it has to be far cheaper to simply buy the
entire island chain and turn it into an underwater nature preserve than
to control sea level.


I'm not convinced that true believers of either stripe will suddenly
develop balance. All I hope for is that the debate will become
unchained, and will be allowed to run to completion, with every position
getting the wire-brush treatment. The Truth will be somewhere in
whatever survives the wire brushing.

I agree with that! I'm signing off on this, been good talking to you.

Likewise. Let's compare notes in a year.

Joe Gwinn

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:24:12 -0500, the infamous Pete Snell
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:


You don't see the need for peer review of scientific articles in a
science mag? Oh, OK. I do. It (theoretically) keeps 'em honest. Not
that that counts nowadays. sigh

I guess our opinions differ on what kind of publication SciAm is, or
what a scientific article is. Scientific American (or at least my
experience of it) is a newsy folksy publication that presents articles
based on science already conducted or being examined. Does anyone
actually present new or original research directly to them? That's when
peer review generally happens.

They started out as a real science mag.


First they say that they can't attribute the entire .74C rise to
natural factors, then they suddenly say that the whole .74C rise is
anthropomorphic. Doesn't that strike you as less than honest, Pete?
It's damned subtle unless you're looking for it. That's why I'm really
curious to see to whence all the emails lead. Off with their heads,
Arrrrr! Then start over with just the facts next time, please.

Well I can't say it's less than honest, but you're right it doesn't
completely follow logic either. If it can't be attributed to 'natural'
causes, and the evidence implies some Human contribution, I guess that
leaves supernatural causes as the other cause. Maybe this is God's
modern day flood!;-)

Yeah, that fits in with science...how?


Nah, not an empire, just steady work on whatever they want. It's what
we all want, but do we lie, cheat and steal for it as they seem to be,
while under the guise of being upright, honest scientists? It's
sickening and angering to me. Science is no longer on its pedestal
for a whole lot of people after this crap (AGWK and CRU), and that's
truly sad. It leads to the politicians going after the rest of
science to use it for their own dark means, don't you think?


Well Scientists are people, with egos and neuroses just like the rest
of us. I don't doubt that there are rivalries and conflicts of
personality (actually I know it). But the actions of a few scientist
don't define all of science. In fact the system is set up to prevent
that. As far as I know (and I haven't checked in depth) the scientist
who's work was being supposedly 'suppressed' was actually published. It
was probably peer reviewed to! And I agree about the dark side of
politics and big business. I think whoever it is that hacked into CRU's
computer system is as worthy of scorn as any group.

Yabbut, scientists, doctors, lawyers, cops, and ministers are all
supposed to be above that. Hmm, I guess science just bit the dust
like all the rest.



I've read so much biased **** on this subject that when my finely
honed **** detector goes of clearly just 1 time now, I know it's going
to be more of the same with the rest of the article. Why waste time?
I read that same old pattern and just turn it off. What we all really
want is the unvarnished _truth_: good, bad or ugly.

I agree mostly. But the baby and the bathwater analogy seems
appropriate here. It is helpful to have an idea about where people are
getting their information to make decisions. I trust Science a LOT more
than I trust politicians and lobbyists, or celebrities and popular writers!



P.S: Um, don't Canadians have their own sources of news/scientists?
Yes. Yes we do.

So, quick: Quote one!

You mean like McIntyre and McKitrick ? :-) Well they aren't actually
scientists..... Not that there's anything wrong with that. And of course
we have Dr. Weaver.

MM vs. the Doc? Opposites, if we've ever seen any, wot?
(Andrew Weaver, Canada's Spinner Warmist in Chief, right?)


And of course we have David Suzuki, The CBC, etc

More True Believers(kumbaya), eh? I guess you -do- have a few.


You'd probably like this article, I did:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/08/f-vp-handler.html

Yeah, I did. Mike provides some interesting topics.


P.S: Have you read Huber's _Hard Green_ yet? Just do it! If everyone
had, we'd be more rational about things, solving the solvable, and
leaving the Parts-Per-Ten-Billioners in the dust where they belong.

More biased ****! ;-) I'm sure it's interesting, but I already have a
line up of books to read on subjects I find more interesting (like
metalworking) So this will be my last reply. Nice talking to you.

It's a quick read and I wish it were a mandatory read in schools. He's
the closest to neutral of all the writers I've seen yet, and if
nothing else, he makes one think about things from both sides.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:48:56 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

Oh yes. While out-of-context can make a big difference in appearance,
it's hard to see how else to interpret some of the emails.

Like "delete all emails from


Bjorn Lomberg's position is that it's far cheaper to deal with the
consequences of GW than to try to stop GW. He also points out that most
of the non-rich world has far more immediate concerns than what the
climate will look like in 50 years. I think he is right on both points.

Peter Huber is in somewhat that same stance.


The Maldives come to mind -- it has to be far cheaper to simply buy the
entire island chain and turn it into an underwater nature preserve than
to control sea level.

Hey, build an artificial island, scrape the top layer of the Maldive
Islandss onto it, and let it float happily wherever the Maldivians
like. Japan has a floating airport which is much larger than that.

I kid about that even though I strongly doubt we'll see that much sea
level rise in our (or our grandkids') lifetimes.

--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance