Ross Douthat opines:
It’s possible to be a celebrity and a serious politician at the same time: Barack Obama’s career proves as much. But Obama’s celebrity status is frequently a political liability, and he’s (usually) wise enough to know it. That’s why he plays the wonk as often as he plays the global icon.
For now, no Republican leader projects a similar level of seriousness. Late in the Bush years, it was easy to dismiss conservatism as brain-dead. Among policy thinkers, that isn’t true anymore: the advent of Obama seems to have provided just the jolt that right-of-center wonks needed. But innovative proposals are useless without politicians willing to champion them.
When the Republican minority needed an alternative to the Obama administration’s sweeping stimulus proposal, for instance, a number of free-market economists were ready with an answer: a payroll tax cut. It was plausible, elegant and easy to explain — but there was no Republican leader with the wit to seize on it and sell it.
You could tell the same story about regulatory reform. A slew of conservative economists and think tankers, led by the University of Chicago’s Luigi Zingales and the Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas, have been working on ways to protect free markets from a re-run of last fall’s “too big to fail” fiasco. But most Republican politicians would rather rail against bailouts that have already happened than talk about how to prevent them from happening again.
In the health care debate, too, conservative and libertarian policy thinkers have floated a number of plans to expand insurance coverage. Some are incremental and some are sweeping; some build on the existing system and some would essentially replace it. But any of them would be better than that threadbare plan House Republicans actually put forward, which would hardly expand coverage at all.
True, these ideas won’t sell millions of books, or excite the crowd on Huckabee’s talk show. But they’re what the Republican Party needs if it’s going to be more than just a brake on liberalism’s ambitions. And they’re what voters are going to be looking for, in 2012 and beyond, as proof that conservatives can be trusted once again.
This means that there are substantial political rewards awaiting the politician who becomes the voice of an intellectually vigorous conservatism. It probably won’t be Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. If Republicans are lucky, though, it will be somebody who shares their charisma — but who prefers the responsibilities of leadership to the pleasures of celebrity.
A serious, “intellectually vigorous,” grown-up conservative leader with charisma: now that would be “going rogue.”
Seriously, it would be a profoundly good thing for the country if such a leader were to emerge. We need the Republicans right now — if for no other reason than to keep the Democrats in check — but they’re off in la-la land. And, as long as they stay that way, a lot of people are going to fall into Casey’s camp:
Personally, I have a lot to say against how Obama is running the country. But I won’t say a word of it. Why? Because I can’t abide being associated with the mainstream Obama opposition. So long as Republicans keep making a lunatic circus of their political affairs, they’ll never win over people like me. They’ll be stuck battling to get out their base.
Ah yes, “their base” — which is only slightly bigger than CNN’s viewership, post-Dobbs.
P.S. TNR‘s Isaac Chotiner says Douthat’s argument is tautological:
Sure, it would be nice for the GOP if Palin and Huckabee were interested in policy. But if they were interested in policy, then they would not be so appealing to the GOP base. In other words, the problem is that a large part of the right has no interest in a policy wonk, and sneers at intellectuals and elites and the types of people Douthat would like to see running the party. A candidate who was interested in learning the ins and outs of the welfare state and health care policy is unlikely to ever achieve Palin/Huckabee levels of popularity with the grassroots.
The weakest part of Douthat’s article is the assertion that seriousness is “what voters are going to be looking for, in 2012 and beyond, as proof that conservatives can be trusted once again.” Says who? Voters tend to like shiny things. Wishful thinking aside, I fail to be overwhelmed by the evidence of voters’ interest in genuine political leadership.
So..yet another attack on Republicans–“they’re all crazy! Crazy I tells ya.”
Nothing about the leaked memos from the climate frauds?
Nothing about the ACORN scandals?
Nothing about the dithering on Afghanistan, or the failed trip to China?
gahrie, are you serious?
OK, I know this has been asked of you many times.
I am so not with you on ACORN (which is old), Afghanistan (where I’m glad Obama is taking time to figure out his strategy, and I hope he pulls out like George Will, a conservative), and have NO FRICKIN’ CLUE how you can call the trip to China a failure. I like his subtle attempts to talk about allowing dissent, and a trip like this can’t be called a success or a failure right away anyway.
I love Douthat, and think he makes an excellent point here. I agree that voters aren’t always attracted to good ideas. However, you have to viable ideas, rather then “WE HATE BAILOUTS!!!! WE HATE HEALTH CARE!!!” Which is where the Republicans are now. They’ve basically given the debate to the Dems, which stinks for someone who would like nothing more then to see a viable opposition to the Democrats.
Gahrie, the leaked climate memos “story” is overblown nonsense; ACORN is an apparently corrupt organization that I really don’t two shits about, and that has very little real significance to anything, despite what you’ve been brainwashed into believing; and it’s way too early to judge Obama’s policies re: Afghanistan or China.
Meanwhile, if all you can say in response to coherent critiques of the direction of the Republican Party and the conservative moment from a conservative perspective (Douthat) is OMG WHY AREN’T YOU TALKING ABOUT ACORN?!?!?!!? then guess what, I’m not the one who lacks perspective here.
Oh, and Sarah Palin is a dangerous idiot.
P.S.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/best-idea-of-day-climate-change-futures.html
Overblown nonsense?
We are talking about “scientists” who manipulated their data to get an outcome they wanted, data that formed the basis of the global warming theory.
Then after faking the data, they conspired to prevent anyone from replicating their work by hiding/destroying the data and making a conserted effort to silence anyone who disputed their conclusions.
This isn’t science.
Science is based on skepticism and truth On testing and retesting your conclusions. On welcoming those who attempt to replicate your work and those who seek to disprove your work. On providing the data used to reach your conclusions.
Up to now I’ve been able to respect your position even though I diagree with it. You were even willing to admit once where I was right and you were wrong.
Surely you aren’t defending this scientific fraud?
As for predictive markets, we aren’t talking about something untestable like economics. We are talking about science. Science isn’t based on consensus, it isn’t based on betting by putting up your money…it is based on the scientific method and testing your hypothesis.
Click the links I posted above. Of course I’m not defending it. But I refuse to be bullied by the Michelle Malkins of the world into blowing it out of proportion. Read the links — Nate Silver captures my sentiments exactly. This is bad, but it isn’t OMG PROOF OF THE MASSIVE FRAUDULENT CONSPIRACY OMG OMG OMG.
This really seems to be the defining characteristic of the Right at the moment: a complete and utter lack of perspective about everything. A couple of e-mails by jackass scientists emerge, indicative of exactly the sort of “sexing up” of charts that certainly shouldn’t be condoned but is also quite obviously pretty typical across all fields, and suddenly it’s PROOF of the giant conspiracy you’ve all been waiting for. Some ACORN people are caught doing bad stuff, and suddenly it means THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS CORRUPT. Etc., etc. Meanwhile we have real problems in this country and this world, really big problems in fact, but all you guys want to talk about are these relatively unimportant sideshows… and if anyone tries to point out, “um, yeah, OK, that’s bad, but it’s not really all that important,” you scream and yell and rhetorically bully them into accepting unquestioningly the agenda that posits these Outrages Of The Day as the stories that really matter, because if they don’t, they must be a Global Warming Alarmist ACORN Sympathizing Corruptocrat Communist whatever. It’s tiring. I’m tired of it. I refuse to go along with it. A big reason we’re so f***ed as a country and a world is because we can’t distinguish between Shiny Things and Things That Matter… and you guys are part of the problem, not part of the solution, right now.
P.S. Since I fear you won’t click the links:
Gahrie Gahrie Gahrie Gahrie Gahrie…look, how does one discuss AGW objectively? Perhaps a Wikipedia chart is an okay place to start. The link is to global temperature anomalies over the last 130 years. Of course I don’t have the data to do the stats, but just eyeballing the chart, does it seem like, you know, there’s the possibility that things have been getting progressively worse over that time period – and even accelerating recently?
To my knowledge, no one has ever suggested that greenhouse gases are the only factor impacting global temperature. Other major factors have an effect too, one obvious one being solar activity. In my amateur understanding, a significant shift in solar activity between about 1960 and 1980 offset the impact of AGW. As a committed skeptic of AGW you would no doubt know this, surely able to cite Malkin-esque quotes dug from the 70s that an Ice Age is on its way. But I digress.
To the matter at hand: a scientist sends a colleague a private email saying, essentially, hide the 1960 – 1980 data because it doesn’t tell the story as well as the rest of the data. Take another look at that linked chart. The fact that some guy quite understandably wants to make his presentation better by hiding “less compelling” data makes all of his data categorically false? Gahrie, that’s one of the craziest things anyone has ever argued on this blog, and this place has seen some doozies.
To put it in perspective, your inference would be the equivalent of saying that Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity is categorically false because he reported it 3rd in his famous paper also covering Brownian motion and the wave/particle nature of light. Surely, if the Special Law of Relativity were true, Einstein would have spoken of it first….
Many on the Right may be overplaying their hand on these global warming emails, but many on the Left are in denial about what they mean. This isn’t just “sexing up” of charts that is “quite obviously pretty typical across all fields,” unless it’s typical in other fields to prevent scientific data from being released, destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request, actively prevent publication of work by skeptics, or keep inconvenient data out of an IPCC report.
gahrie, the way you so predictably and viscerally lash out against any and all criticism of the GOP, the Right, Sarah Palin, etc. no matter how calm, reasoned, or fact supported leads me to believe that one of the two following situations must be true.
Either:
A) You believe deep down that the GOP is the One True Path and that criticizing them is tantamount to lunacy/blasphemy ala Muslims who think anyone who criticizes Mohammed deserves to be punished.
or
B) These points really hit home and you are forced to defend them with anything you can, even irrelevant and unrelated attacks, because you are unwilling/unable to admit the truth. Doing so would require you to admit you are wrong about too many things and force you to re-evaluate your entire world view, which frightens you to the core.
Now, given that you shrink from actually being able to defend GOP policies and actions on a factual and logical basis and instead throw as much crap out there that you can hoping that something, SOMETHING will stick (such as not attempting to debate the criticism above but instead bring up irrelevant and frankly overrated criticisms of the left) I’m leaning towards the later as the actual case.
Of course we will probably never know since you are unlikely to ever admit to either of the two as being true, but your actions, both here and elsewhere paint a pretty good picture for us to draw from.
Whether you take the following advice or not is up to you but here goes. Stop. Seriously stop. Nearly every post you make does more harm to your position than good. You really aren’t convincing anyone that your sides positions are the more reasonable or sound, you just come across as a blind partisan with no ability to view things objectively or rationally.
David K:
Project much?
I have made no attempt to hide my dislike of either Pres. Bush, and have stated my dislike of them numerous times. It was simply the sad fact that at the time they were better than the alternatives.
I also stated several times that I was no fan of Sen. McCain. (My candidate was Sen. Thompson) Again, he was simply better than the alternative.
I believe I have stated on this blog (and I know I have stated elsewhere) that I will not contribute one cent or one second of work, to the Republican party until they return to Conservative principles.
I have even stated that I am not a supporter of Gov. Palin. I just refuse to stand by and watch her slimed by the likes of you.
The man who wrote the article that Brendan cited is Ross Douthat. He is one of the breed of beltway republicans who have been trying to turn the republican party into Democrat lite. Conservatives feel the same way about him that you feel about Sen. Lieberman. Would you pay any attention to Sen. Lieberman’s advice to the Democratic party?
So, far from lashing out at any criticism of the Republican party, I myself dole it out.
And as to Nearly every post you make does more harm to your position than good. You really aren’t convincing anyone that your sides positions are the more reasonable or sound, you just come across as a blind partisan with no ability to view things objectively or rationally.
Which one of us has been asked by those on his side to shut up because they are making themselves and their position look bad?
Joe Mama @9: Researchers should discuss the 1960-1980 data on the same terms as the rest of the data. The fact that some random anonymous researchers in some corner of the AGW empire used an algorithm to hide contrary data from 1960-1980 doesn’t say much about AGW (though arguably everything about the researchers).
If indeed there is no such thing as AGW, then 1960-1980 tells a big part of that story. Those are bad people for distorting said data. On the other hand, if we’re going to get indignant at every instance of bad people in the universe, its going to get a lot harder to get any work done.
As an aside, this sorry chapter is a classic example for why the blogosphere, for all its vaunted anti-MSM-ness, really really sucks. Here are the two primary characteristics of AGW: a) uncertain, and b) arguably as important as anything else. That a person like Michelle Malkin, writer of serious intellectual treatises leaps from some random guy you’ve never heard of acting poorly to the final word on global warming…tells you everything you need to know about why this forum sucks as a news or opinion outlet. Sucks, and dangerously so.
Shoot! Serious intellectual treatises.
That a person like Michelle Malkin, writer of serious intellectual treatises leaps from some random guy you’ve never heard of acting poorly
Dr. Phil Jones is not “some random guy”. He is one of the most important and influential of the global warming scientists. The global warming movement and the IPCC rely heavily on his work.
Irrespective of Dr. Jones’ importance, the fact that he oversold his case is not a shock. Imagine a spectrum, in which AGW having no negative impact on humanity would be at 0 and AGW leading to imminent global catastrophe is 100. The real risk of AGW is somewhere in between, I think everyone agrees with that. Sake of argument, I’d personally guess somewhere about 70, but you may disagree.
In the context of this incident, if the real number is 70, then Jones et al embellished to make it seem closer to 100, to which the rightwing bloggers reliably replied “See! Proves its really 0”.
Too bad we’re all at least ten years too old for such things, but it occurs to me that a parody of Sting’s Russians is in order.
How can I save my little boy,
From multinationals’ deadly plants…
Michelle Malkin says she will protect you
I don’t subscribe to that point of view
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of Al Gore….
We share the same biology,
Regardless of ideology,
Believe me when I say to you,
I hope the Republicans love their children too
Irrespective of Dr. Jones’ importance, the fact that he oversold his case is not a shock.
This is not the sum of his sins.
1) He manipulated data to produce his desired results.
2) He conspired to hide and destroy his data.
3) He conspired (and succeeded in corrupting) to corrupt the peer review process.
If global warming is such a slam dunk, why the need for this conspiracy? If the science is so settled..why hide the evidence.
The main arguement we hear in favor of hamstringing our economy is ” The science is settled..there is a consensus”
Well..now we know why. The science is flawed and the consensus is artifically created.
Gahrie, you (and others) might enjoy reading James Surowiecki’s very influential book The Wisdom of Crowds. Surowiecki’s thesis: when there is an uncertain matter that needs to be decided, the best way to solve it is to get a whole bunch of different experts together, have them all throw in their opinions, and the summary of their opinions will tend to be the correct answer. If you read the book, I hope Surowiecki convinces you that an uncertain topic like AGW is best handled in the manner he recommends (experts of all stripes come together, all opinions thrown in the hopper, act on consensus).
Regarding Dr. Jones, glossing over the 1960-1980 data is no doubt a bad thing. You and I would probably agree that Dr. Jones is a global warming hawk, which is fine or bad, more or less depending on your politics. However, in the context of The Wisdom of the Crowds, dismissing Jones because he presses his case beyond the bounds of morality seems like a dangerous throwing of the baby out with the bathwater. By Surowiecki’s model, Jones remains an important hawkish voice in the global warming conversation. Now that we know he has a tendency to overreach, let’s do adjust the value we place on his POV – but throw him out? Strikes me as unreasonable.
See, I fear that the anti-Jones crowd is really the anti-AGW crowd, using twisted logic that “because there’s no consensus we should stop talking” or “because Jones can’t be fully trusted all AGW advocates should just STFU”. It doesn’t help when you use language like “hamstringing our economy”. Are you referring to that cap and trade bill Congress just passed? Or hasn’t even made it to the floor for debate? Given its infinite possible iterations, saying “cap and trade” will generically, automatically hamstring the economy is like saying “taxes” automatically hamstring the economy. Maybe you believe that too….
In conclusion, Surowiecki’s conclusions about The Wisdom of Crowds have come under fire recently. It turns out that The Wisdom of Crowds only works when the diverse inputs are coming from folks with expertise in the matter at hand. When those opining are largely a bunch of idiots, the crowd ends up having no wisdom.
In that spirit, I remain far more interested in having Dr. Jones weigh on the AGW debate – offset by expert opposition, of course – than some loudmouth know-nothing with a bullhorn such as Michelle Malkin.
Jazz, I don’t think you fully understand the facts here. This is NOT simply a case of AGW advocates “using an algorithm to hide contrary data,” or “distorting said data,” or “overselling their case,” or “overreaching,” or whatever spin you want to put on it (although “pressing the case beyond the bounds of morality” at least gets you in the ballpark). Contrary to what Brendan or Nate Silver would have you believe, these emails indicate behavior that is in no way, shape or form typical in the scientific community. The “scientists” implicated in these emails — who are NOT “some random anonymous researchers in some corner of the AGW empire” — may very well have conspired to ensure that only papers supporting AGW were published, to dissuade editors and journals from publishing contrary papers, to punish scientists and journalists who published skeptical information, and to prevent data from being made available to other researchers despite FOIA requests in the U.S. and UK. They appear to have blatantly subverted the peer-review process and suppressed dissenting voices. This is NOT science, but it ABSOLUTELY IS scientific fraud.
Oh, and just for shits and giggles, if it turns out that these “scientists” prevented data from being released as required by the FOIA, that is a FEDERAL CRIME.
Now, does any of this mean that AGW isn’t real? No. And to the extent that the Right is saying it is, they’re overplaying their hand, as I stated above. However, what this DOES mean is that, as you correctly point out, the case of AGW is UNCERTAIN, i.e., the ideologues who say it’s certain one way or the other are WRONG. And here gahrie is absolutely correct — there are far, far more AGW absolutists on the Left who insist that the science is “settled” and equate dissenters with the Flat Earth Society than there are anti-AGW absolutists on the Right. It is the Left that doesn’t want to debate AGW, not the Right.
Oh, and just for shits and giggles, if it turns out that these “scientists” prevented data from being released as required by the FOIA, that is a FEDERAL CRIME.
I’ll admit I’m confused about this. Aren’t these scientists from England? What’s with the FOIA stuff? How does this apply? I must be missing something.
Now, does any of this mean that AGW isn’t real? No. And to the extent that the Right is saying it is, they’re overplaying their hand, as I stated above. However, what this DOES mean is that, as you correctly point out, the case of AGW is UNCERTAIN, i.e., the ideologues who say it’s certain one way or the other are WRONG.
No, I don’t think it means that. That would imply all climate science relied on this one body of work. It does not. To believe what you believe, you would have to believe:
1.) That nobody else has done any work on climate change. Essentially you are implying that the only way you can believe in climate change is through this one body of work. This simply isn’t true, and there certainly wouldn’t be the consensus there is if it was. Scientists as a whole aren’t stupid, they aren’t going to rest their hat on one piece of evidence.
or
2.) That all scientists are in on “the conspiracy” and that they all know that the case for climate change is weak or falsified and continue to pretend it exists anyway.
I think neither of these are likely.
1) There is a FOI Act in the United Kingdom also.
2) One of the sins of Phil Jones and his co-conspirators is that they rigged the member of your “crowd”. They deliberately and purposefully elimanted dissenters from the crowd.
3) Most of the basic work done on global warming was done by Jones and his fellow conspirators, and the majority of other people doing work on climate change are relying on their released data. Virtually every major paper on global warming in the last ten years was co-written by Jones or one of his fellow conspirators. Every major paper on global warming (that supported global warming was peer reviewed by them.
What’s with the FOIA stuff? How does this apply? I must be missing something.
There is a FOIA in the UK as well as the U.S.
No, I don’t think it means that. That would imply all climate science relied on this one body of work. It does not.
Yes, I think it does. Not all climate science may have relied on this one body of work, but it’s fair to assume that a not insubstantial portion of it did. For example, while NASA maintains its own GISSTEMP dataset, my understanding is that the CRU Global Climate Dataset is the most cited surface temperature record by the IPCC, among others. Thus, it’s entirely possible that any errors in the CRU data have made their way around the world and become part of the “science.”
To believe what you believe, you would have to believe…
False choice.
And just to clarify, my post @ 19 should say that preventing data from being released pursuant to a FOI request in the UK (not sure if they call their law the Freedom of Information Act / FOIA) is “illegal” (but not necessarily a “federal crime” since that term would seem to apply only in the U.S.).
Most of the basic work done on global warming was done by Jones and his fellow conspirators, and the majority of other people doing work on climate change are relying on their released data. Virtually every major paper on global warming in the last ten years was co-written by Jones or one of his fellow conspirators. Every major paper on global warming (that supported global warming was peer reviewed by them.
Do you have any evidence for this claim? I don’t think you do, because this is not how science works, other than the very real possibility that Jones has been a part of the peer review process (which has nothing to do with whether or not what is being peer reviewed is valid or not).
Yes, I think it does. Not all climate science may have relied on this one body of work, but it’s fair to assume that a not insubstantial portion of it did. For example, while NASA maintains its own GISSTEMP dataset, my understanding is that the CRU Global Climate Dataset is the most cited surface temperature record by the IPCC, among others. Thus, it’s entirely possible that any errors in the CRU data have made their way around the world and become part of the “science.”
Well does the NASA data disagree with the data Jones is responsible for?
To be honest both Gahrie and Joe Mama’s arguments literally imply that scientists are just a big dumb herd, and that one guy came up with some data and nobody bothered to cross-check it with anything else. I really get the impression that neither of you has the faintest idea of how science works.
Here’s a challenge. I will provide either of you with $50 if you can produce one peer-reviewed paper that now has to clearly have its conclusions changed as a result of this issue.
but not necessarily a “federal crime” since that term would seem to apply only in the U.S.
Ah, right, that’s what confused me. I thought there was a prediction of legal trouble in the U.S.
To be honest both Gahrie and Joe Mama’s arguments literally imply that scientists are just a big dumb herd, and that one guy came up with some data and nobody bothered to cross-check it with anything else.
Speaking for only my own arguments, that is obviously false.
I really get the impression that neither of you has the faintest idea of how science works.
LOL…that’s cute.
No, not cute, I’m quite serious. Gahrie is obviously being a little more explicit about this than you are, but you seem to be implying that there’s some doubt being cast over climate science over this issue. Am I reading you wrong on this?
gahrie,
If you’ve actually criticized Dubya and the GOP this is the first time anyone on this blog is hearing about it, thats for sure. And its hard to take your claims seriously considering how vehemntly you defend Sarah Palin whose positions are virtual identical to those of the former President, not to metnion your reflex reaction to ANY and all criticism of the right wing.
I’d also like to thank you for further demonstrating your trait of trying to turn the conversation away from the topic at hand when you can’t answer the questions presented to you by trying to make this about me. It’s not. Its about you, and your behavior.
If you want to convince me and anyone else that you aren’t some rapid right wing ideologue, you might first start by avoiding the non-sequitors about the left and address the arguments Brendan has made above about the Republicans and their leadership problem. You don’t have to agree with him to still address those issues, but atleast you could TRY.
To be honest both Gahrie and Joe Mama’s arguments literally imply that scientists are just a big dumb herd, and that one guy came up with some data and nobody bothered to cross-check it with anything else
Everybody outside of Jones’ cabal who tried to cross check the data was denied access to the data. That’s why they filed FOIA cases and Jones began talking about deleting the data.
Weak attempt at humor to illustrate a point:
Dr. Jimmy Jazz is a Distinguished Professor of Widgetry at Harvard University. Dude’s been at it for 25 years, in which time he has published textbooks, a couple books, and more than 100 papers in refereed journals. He has made his mark via the fabulous finding that Green Widgets are better than Blue Widgets, and he has even taken that finding out into the general public, giving presentations to businesses on the meaningful implications of the superiority of Green Widgets. In addition to other important titles, Dr. Jazz is the Executive Editor of The Journal of Widgetry, the most important journal in the field.
Dr. Joe Mama is a young up and coming professor at the University of Massachusetts, also studying widgetry. In the course of setting up his research program, Dr. Mama happens to discover that in fact Blue Widgets are better than Green Widgets, not the other way around as Dr. Jazz has been reporting for a quarter century. This is not to say that Dr. Jazz’ raw data is incorrect or forged, mind you, but rather what Dr. Jazz interpreted as Green Widget superiority was really just that the Green Widgets were shinier.
What will happen with Dr. Mama’s data? Its pretty groundbreaking stuff, will he write it up and submit it to the Journal of Widgetry? Will Dr. Jazz, feeling his empire threatened, attempt to subvert the publication of Dr. Mama’s data?
The answer, which a professional like Scientizzle would probably immediately recognize, is: none of the above. This scenario would likely never happen in real life. Dr. Mama probably wouldn’t do anything with that data.
As regards the uncertain topic of global warming, it strikes me that this (understandable) aspect of human turf protection is a real problem for having a robust discussion on the pros and cons of AGW. Unlike the Republican frothmeisters, I don’t conclude that AGW is therefore false, but rather that we fallible humans can’t get to the bottom of it, so therefore the best choice is to err on the side of caution, push forward with a reasonably non-offensive version of cap and trade and modify it as we learn more going forward. Not sure how else to address the issue.
FWIW, we now have a second example of climate scientists manipulating data to produce global warming:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/climategate_making_new_zealand_warmer/
Unlike the Republican frothmeisters, I don’t conclude that AGW is therefore false, but rather that we fallible humans can’t get to the bottom of it, so therefore the best choice is to err on the side of caution, push forward with a reasonably non-offensive version of cap and trade and modify it as we learn more going forward.
Unlike the Democrat frothmeisters, one shouldn’t bury their head in the sand and ignore blatant scientific fraud, either. And since the CRU has the world’s largest temperature data set, and its models were incorporated into the IPCC report that, in turn, is what our EPA “relies on most heavily” when concluding that CO2 emissions should be regulated, which in turn is the Democrats’ chief basis for pushing for the multi-trillion “cap-and-trade” consumption tax / bureaucratic monstrosity that may very well do nothing to actually reduce CO2 in the atmosphere (if it’s anywhere as efficacious as the “stimulus” bill), the current version of that legislation is likely far from “non-offensive.”
FWIW, we now have a second example of climate scientists manipulating data to produce global warming:
Actually we don’t. First, the raw data still shows a warming trend, it’s just at a lower rate than the modified one. Second, the modified one is, per Update 5 in the link you posted, modified due to resiting of measurement tools.
Unlike the Democrat frothmeisters, one shouldn’t bury their head in the sand and ignore blatant scientific fraud, either. And since the CRU has the world’s largest temperature data set, and its models were incorporated into the IPCC report that, in turn, is what our EPA “relies on most heavily” when concluding that CO2 emissions should be regulated
Again, all you need to do is show us that other sources of data disagree with the findings or find us papers that now have to change their conclusions as a result of this. You have not.
You pretend this casts any doubt on climate science, yet you refuse to provide an example of why that would be.
that may very well do nothing to actually reduce CO2 in the atmosphere (if it’s anywhere as efficacious as the “stimulus” bill), the current version of that legislation is likely far from “non-offensive.”
Well, it’s a different discussion, but I think the stimulus has been effective. I’m not going to caricature you by pretending you think it’s wholly ineffective, I know you aren’t that stupid. I likely suspect you think it may not have been worth the money we spent on it, and as a result I suppose you may not think that cap and trade would be worth the, I dunno, cost to the economy. But you claim it would “do nothing.” I doubt you actually believe that. I mean, it literally, by definition, could not “do nothing” as it is limiting emissions. You may think it isn’t worth the cost, but it does something. It’s the same with the stimulus. It demonstrably creates jobs, you just may not think its worth it.
Actually we don’t. First, the raw data still shows a warming trend, it’s just at a lower rate than the modified one
New Zealand Data:
Real global warming with unmanipulated data was about .06 degrees celsius over the entire 20th century, and it has been a consistent warming since we emerged from the little ace age in 1850.
The manipulated data shows a rise of .92 degrees, with a sharp uptick in the last 50 years.
Again, all you need to do is show us that other sources of data disagree with the findings or find us papers that now have to change their conclusions as a result of this. You have not.
There are no other meaningful sources of data. The CRU dat is the data of record. It is used by everybody, including the IPCC and the EPA. The New Zealand data has been shown to be manipulated. NASA’ sdata has been shown to be unreliable, mainly due to the placement of monitoring stations and also has been manipulated.
Want to restore confidence in global warming science? Immediately release all data, the methods of manipulating the data and the computer codes, and let outsiders try to replicate the results.
If the results aren’t, or can’t be, reproduced than it is not science.
Again, all you need to do is show us that other sources of data disagree with the findings or find us papers that now have to change their conclusions as a result of this. You have not. You pretend this casts any doubt on climate science, yet you refuse to provide an example of why that would be.
First, I’m certainly not pretending that this scandal casts doubt on all climate science. But it ABSOLUTELY casts doubt on the AGW hypothesis, for the reasons I already explained above, even though those reasons are completely 100% obvious to any fair-minded observer.
Second, why would anyone need to find data that disagree with fraudulent data in order to legitimately question a hypothesis based largely on that fraudulent data? I really get the impression that you don’t have the faintest idea of how science works.
Moreover, any grade schooler familiar with the scientific method knows that the most crucial step in testing a hypothesis is the independent reproduction of the same results using the same methods and data. This is exactly what you don’t have with the CRU and AGW. For years the CRU has refused to give other scientists the original data on which it based its AGW hypothesis. That alone casts doubt on AGW even before these damning emails came to light. Real scientists don’t actively try to keep the data which underpins their hypothesis hidden.
Well, it’s a different discussion, but I think the stimulus has been effective.
I’m sure you do.
And again, just to clarify, I am NOT saying the CRU scandal necessarily disproves AGW. I merely agree with Jazz: it shows (or confirms) that AGW has not yet been proven.
My thoughts on the current state of global warming:
http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-inconvenient-truths.html#links
If the window to do something is indeed rapidly closing, it may not be possible for us to get a decisive answer in the available time, not because scientists are nefarious, but because they are human. If so, it certainly is better to do something than to do nothing, as the costs of being wrong are far worse in the “do nothing” scenario.
It always strikes me a bit odd the profile of those so vocally opposed to cap and trade and its “hamstringing” effect on the economy. These opponents are primarily right-wingers, who for the most part believe (in other areas of their lives) that society is best served by encouraging the ingenuity of the little guy, usually facilitated by keeping taxes low.
Yet forcing that same little guy to purchase offsets if his plant emits too much CO2 is inevitably going to hamstring the economy, or worse. The same little guy whose problem-solving ability is held up as the greatest economic force in one conversation suddenly morphs into a helpless victim when the subject changes to cap and trade.
I’m sure these folks are just making the argument to push partisan talking points, and that they don’t really believe that Joe Average has no capacity to address his challenges. Then again, if they really believe Joe Average is hopeless, maybe this will be the Republican economic platform heading into the 2010 midterms.
And, if its not Joe Average but Big Evil Corporate polluter who emits the most CO2, in that case a cap-and-trade system is ideal to address the issue. In year 1, cap-and-trade is a big pain in the ass to divisions of companies that have to purchase the offsets, since, depending on the specifics of the legislation, aspirational GMs will have to take a potentially painful hit in their profit centers that year.
However, in year 2 and onward, those same GMs now have another tool in their arsenal for delivering their profit goals – and unlike taking share or raising prices or other iffy strategies that give one pause, emitting less CO2 is controllable and probably easier than more traditional strategies.
MNC’s hate cap-and-trade because it imposes a burden on them in year 1. Assuming they can quantify that burden and get a pass from investors for the profit hit it causes, cap-and-trade actually presents an attractive profit growth opportunity for them in years 2 and beyond.
So we really shouldn’t pay too much heed to corporate PR hacks on this matter.
As I discuss in my link above:
Man produces 5% of the world’s CO2. CO2 is .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
If we discovered a way to totally eliminate man made CO2..it would reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by .002%.
Meanwhile, water vapor produces three to four times as much warming as CO2.
CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming..not a cause.
Sun spot cycles correspond to temperature cycles on earth at almost 100% accuracy.
So tell me again why we should cripple our economies.
Gahrie, suffice it to say that the potential of CO2 to trap solar radiation is entirely a threshhold one; as such it is facie meaningless to talk about the percent in the atmosphere being .04% or 40%. Your sun spots data point is also basically irrelevant; all that tells us is that there are other factors affecting climate beyond greenhouse gases, which I don’t think anyone disputes. If the earth on average is 5 degrees Celsius warmer because of greenhouse gases, with this sun spot cycle predictably warmer still (and the other one cooler), I don’t know why sun spot variance should provide us any comfort.
Going back to my post 38, I think you can be pretty confident that cap and trade will not only not cripple our economies, but in fact even its most onerous incarnation, it won’t hurt much at all, because of the way large corporations work.
Suppose you are a President-level manager at GE, with perhaps responsibility for North American operations. Your quite large profit center turned $1 B in after-tax profit last year. Then those Obama commies enact onerous cap and trade legislation, and because of your (remaining) outdated manufacturing facilities, you have to “buy” $100 M of credits, which restates your profits down to $900 M. You’re personally okay, though, because Immelt convinced investors to cut you slack because of the evil actions of those damn commies in the Obama administration.
Now you are entering next year’s planning phase. Last year you delivered $900 M and your boss, Immelt, expects you to grow that amount by 10%, which would be an additional $90 M.
And you’re carrying forward a $100 M cap-and-trade hit.
You can try to steal share. You can try to raise prices. You can bring to market new consumer-friendly innovations. You can emit less CO2. No doubt you will try to do some of all those things to deliver your incremental $90 M.
And it should be absurdly obvious that innovation for less pollution is quite a bit easier for you than innovation to satisfy a fickle consumer or defeat a fierce competitor.
Jazz:
OK…I’ll make it easy for you.
What caused the Roman Warming period?
What caused the Medieval Climate Optimum?
What caused the Little Ice Age?
What is the normal temperature of the Earth?
So your basic response to the twin arguments that:
a) AGW is inherently impossible to prove or disprove in the short window we (may or may not) have left and
b) The doom-and-gloom forecasts for cap and trade reflect basic ignorance about how corporations work
is that there has been variability in earth temperature down through the ages?
Huh?
You often blanche at the suggestion that the Fox News/Sarah Palin Republican party is stupid. Sometimes I agree that the rest of us are too harsh on those such as (former) Governor Caribou Barbie. On the other hand, while the Village Idiot is free to do whatever he wishes, when he starts insistently suggesting that the rest of us just step in front of a moving train, it does tend to irritate a bit…
No.
My arguement is that:
1) My theory is that climate change is most likely a function of solar output.
2) My theory on climate change is based on actual unmanipulated observations of the Earth over time.
3) My theory accounts for all known instances of climate change, not just the most recent.
4) My theory predicted the current cooling.
5) If AGW exists it’s impact is measurably so miniscule as to be meaningless.
6) My problems with Cap and trade are not it’s effects on the corporations. It is its effects on government and the people. It will increase the size and power of the government and seize yet more power and wealth from the people.
7) AGW is just the latest in a long history of scare stories designed to allow the environmental left to impose their will.
8) The message is exactly the same in all matters on the left…
health care, stimulus, cap and trade, ………..
we are in a crisis….
a consensus has formed so their is no need for debate…
we are the experts so trust us…..
we must act now and quickly….
more government is the answer…..
more spending is the answer…..
One of the important tests of a scientific theory is does it explain all known data.
There is a reason you ignored my questions and the AGW crowd spent so much time trying to hide the Medieval climate optimum and the current cooling trend.
AGW does not account for them.
When you examine historical periods in which the earth was warmer than today, by several degrees, you find that not only did man survive…he thrived.
The Roman warming period and the Medieval climate optimum were golden ages in human history. When the climate cooled..civilization collapsed.
What is the Earth’s normal temperature:
Is it 10 degrees or so colder like it was 20,000 years ago?
Is it 6 degrees or so colder like it was 10,000 years ago?
Is it 3 degrees or so warmer like it was 5,000 years ago?
Is it 2 degrees or so warmer like it was during the Medieval climate optimum?
Is it 2 degrees colder like it was 500 years ago?
Is it the 1degree warmer that AGW predicts 100 years from now?
Is it the 1 degree cooler that the AGW crowd has chosen?
As you know, science is about testing hypotheses by isolating the cause and effect relationships between variables and their consequences. At a 30,000 foot level, it is impossible to prove or disprove AGW because it isn’t possible to isolate the variables to an acceptable level.
That said, there is really no argument that CO2 traps solar radiation. That has been proven – endlessly – to an acceptable level by scientists. There is also no doubt that industrial activity produces more CO2. There can always be argument about whether the increased CO2 from industrial production leads to global warming.
But the experience of our medieval ancestors, who lived, among other things, pre-industrialization, has utterly nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Which is why I ignored it.
There really is no arguement that man made CO2 accounts for only 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
There really is no arguement that water vapor has three to four times more effect as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
There really is no argement that global warming occurred before man began creating CO2.
There really is no arguement that our medieval ancestors thrived in a world much warmer than today.
Gahrie, one more time, here’s the relevant question regarding AGW: does the incremental CO2 emitted by man’s industrial activity risk permanent/catastrophic increases to global temperatures? I can’t see that anything you have written thus far has anything more than a remote connection to this question.
I do give you credit for dropping the “cap-and-trade hamstrings the economy” argument. Even the most brain-dead Palinophile must recognize that the reason why capitalism works is because of the ingenuity and problem-solving skills of self-motivated managers, while the gloom and doom reaction to cap and trade assumes no such ingenuity or problem solving on the part of corporate leadership (an odd argument from Republicans).
There’s an ancillary reason why it is strange that the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd hates cap-and-trade: when the topic changes to the GWOT, Limbaugh’s dittoheads tend to disproportionately see said war as an epic battle between good and evil, as opposed to an unfortunate consequence of the messy interaction of the modern West with the resource-rich and culture-poor empires of the Middle East.
However one characterizes the GWOT, one of the things those innovative and problem-solving managers are sure to do in order to minimize their cap-and-trade burden is accelerate their transition to scalable hydrogen-based energy. Hydrogen is an ideal solution for them because
a) its clean, and
b) doesn’t come from the Middle East.
One would think that the Hannity/Limbaugh crowd would support a cap and trade program if for no other reason than because it encourages corporations to disentangle themselves from the wretched, evil, oil-possessing empires of the Middle East.
But that assumes that the person in question actually, you know, thinks.
1) I do give you credit for dropping the “cap-and-trade hamstrings the economy” argument
I didn’t drop it. I merely shifted your strawman to my real reasons it will hamstring the economy…increased governmental control and increased theft from the taxpayer.
2) here’s the relevant question regarding AGW: does the incremental CO2 emitted by man’s industrial activity risk permanent/catastrophic increases to global temperatures?
1) First of all, as I have stated and you do not dispute, man’s contribution to the CO2 levels is miniscule. .
Second of all, CO2 levels have not dropped in the past ten years, they have increased according to the AGW crowd. Yet global warming has stopped.
Thirdly, Elevated CO2 levels are caused by global warming. No one disputes that the earth was getting warmer..we were disputing the cause of the warming and the amount of danger produced by the warming.
In order to answer your question, we first have to answer mine…what is the most “normal” or even desirable temperature?
man’s contribution to the CO2 levels is miniscule. .
Is “miniscule” a scientific term Gahrie? I used to be a scientist, and we talked in terms of statistical significance (or lack thereof), measuring hypotheses by whether or not they caused the supposed effect. Scientists don’t use words like ‘miniscule’ because they are meaningless.
Second of all, CO2 levels have not dropped in the past ten years, they have increased according to the AGW crowd. Yet global warming has stopped.
Go ahead and revisit the link in post #8 above.
One other thing: a “straw man” is an argument that is set up to be easily refuted. As regards the cap-and-trade discussion, what you are describing as a straw man is the alleged capacity of the American worker to use his own ingenuity to solve problems (in this case, the costs of cap and trade).
I’m sure you didn’t mean that – surely Sean Hannity wouldn’t approve – but FWIW, one of my reservations with the Republican Party is that I have long suspected that many of its adherents do believe that the ingenuity of the American worker is a straw man, and their affiliation with the Republicans simply reflects their desire not to be taxed, and nothing much deeper than that.
1) No..the strawman I am describing in your arguement is that cap and trade is only going to effect corporations.
2) OK..if you don’t want to describe .002% of the atmosphere as miniscule..how would you like to describe it? Perhaps meaningless? Statistically insignificant?
3) Are you attempting to argue that global warming hasn’t stopped over the last ten years? Even the AGW crowd at the CRU acknowledges that global warming has stopped.
4) Sadly you on the left continue to make personal attacks on the right. We have been discussing science and facts, and yet you see the need to drag in and attack media personalities on the right.
Gahrie,
Interesting discussion – thanks for indulging me each step of the way. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, which was probably obvious about 30 posts ago.
One other thing, on the off chance it matters: I wouldn’t really self-identify as “on the left”. A better categorization for me would be RINO, together with all the pejorative connotations (depending on the commenter) that acronym carries.
It seems I’ve missed the party, and it’s interesting to see the direction that Jazz took in this converation because it is perhaps a more effective route than I would have taken.
While I don’t intend to try and go back and raise issues with everything you’ve sid Gahrie, here’s just one example of something I think you should read:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html
And of course my offer of monetary reimbursement remains open if you are willing to produce a scientific work that now must change its findings as a result of this issue.
pthread:
I’ve actually read that article before. To me the money quote is:
Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn’t this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature, so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat loss catches up with heat retention.
Purportedly, the whole reason the AGW crowd has focused on such a small component of greenhouse gases and an even smaller component of our atmosphere (of which man-made CO2 is statistically insignificant -.002%), we have been told, is because it has the potential to cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
In sum, this article actually supports my thesis in the end, even as it disputes some of the conclusions in my arguement.
The real reason why CO2 was chosen is because attacking CO2 emissions is the justification for radically changing our economy and standard of living.
As to your offer to pay me when papers are withdrawn, that is still several months down the road…definitely after Copenhagen. My charge is that the scentists invloved are corrupt…not stupid.
Back to the original subject, why does the GOP seem unserious? Conventional (and Gahrie-irritating) wisdom is that the GOP really is dumb or unserious, but it occured to me the other day that perhaps the Palinization of the GOP reflects a significant and subtle victory the liberals have been winning since the Great Depression.
Suppose we split each political ideology into its reflective and non-reflective cohorts. The reflective individuals on the left believe in concepts such as distributive justice, compassion, etc. Over on the right, reflective individuals believe in things like liberty, individual enfranchisement, etc.
Among the non-reflective folks on the left, you get: how can I get my hands on the other guy’s money? And on the right, you get: don’t let the other guy come anywhere close to my money.
Now, in the age of exploding entitlements (typically supported by a majority of the population), which ideology, the left or the right, has it easy peasy in keeping its non-reflective members in the tent? Which party doesn’t have to do any convincing of its instinct-driven adherents?
The fact that the right wing spends so much time playing footsie with its less-reflective cohort tells you that the political landscape has shifted significantly against them. Which I think is more or less correct – all due respect to Karl Rove, its hard to build a 50-year governing majority when your vast electoral base is instinctively discontented with the setup of the country.
Could be we have our first winner in the “paper has to be withdrawn” category.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/
Except that retraction has nothing to do with the events in question, it has to do with a typo.
Purportedly, the whole reason the AGW crowd has focused on such a small component of greenhouse gases and an even smaller component of our atmosphere (of which man-made CO2 is statistically insignificant -.002%), we have been told, is because it has the potential to cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
In sum, this article actually supports my thesis in the end, even as it disputes some of the conclusions in my arguement.
I don’t think it’s being presented as a runaway greenhouse effect. I think it’s understood that the situation is going to self-correct eventually. The question is if in the meantime damage is done to the world as we know it.
Except that retraction has nothing to do with the events in question, it has to do with a typo.
Funny how every “mistake” has been in the direction of increased warming……someone might almost thing there was a concerted effort to manipulate the data to fit a preconcieved idea…
Right, it’s probably all a giant conspiracy! Because nobody would ever figure out something so obvious, like, uh, they did.
But hey, I guess anti-climate change is a conspiracy as well:
http://crookedtimber.org/2004/08/25/mckitrick-mucks-it-up/
Oh noes!
“someone might almost thing there was a concerted effort to manipulate the data to fit a preconcieved idea…”
Only if that person allready had a vested ideological interest in ignoring the vast amount of supporting evidence that hasn’t shown any of these issues and instead focus on the one or two cases of scholastic dishonesty and treat those as if they were common (despite the lack of support for that theory). Of course someone who did that would be an idiot.
pthread:
Here’s a challenge. I will provide either of you with $50 if you can produce one peer-reviewed paper that now has to clearly have its conclusions changed as a result of this issue.
http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2010/01/some-inconvenient-truths-pt-2.html
Contact me on my blog or by e-mail and I’ll give you the address to send the check.
Gahrie – thanks for pointing me here …
OK – where to start …
Brendan – Nov 24 – seems there is ‘Inadvertent Truth’ in the first cite – where it says ” 5th warmist year on record” ! Note – not “warmEst” … (grin) …
Jazz – November 29 – “the reason why capitalism works is because of the ingenuity and problem-solving skills of self-motivated managers” – last time I checked, it was the ingenuity and problem-solving of individuals much more than managers … when something like cap-and-trade comes along, causig costs to be passed along/down the chain to the consumers, there is less free capital for the ingenious problem-solvers … and *that* is a problem …
gahrie – *my* scientific prediction is that we are more likely to find AGW to be genuine than you are likely to get the $50 from pthread … (grin) … of course, having said that, I just biased the ‘experiment’, so you may indeed collect …
gahrie: Gee, where do I start. What were the conditions of my offer:
Find me a:
1.) peer-reviewed paper that has had to have its conclusions changed
2.) as a result of this issue.
Please explain to me how either of those criteria are met by what you linked to, let alone both.
Not to pile on, but the Times of London article you link, Gahrie, notes the following:
But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review.
As a friendly aside, Gahrie, if you read the Times article you can pretty easily tell that the paper wasn’t peer-reviewed long before you get to the Times blatantly saying so about 2/3 of the way down.
It would generally be helpful if you AGW-denier types devoted a bit more effort to listening as opposed to routinely drawing conclusions that are fairly obviously beyond your expertise.
You guys are missing the point, not me.
I agree…there was no paper, peer reviewed or otherwise.
A pop science article was written a decade ago. That article was based on a phone interview.
That article was then used in last year’s IPCC report…which is peer reviewed and is the basis of every government’s environmental policies.
I’m not claiming my reward on a paper in some journal…I’m claiming it based on the IPCC III report itself!
Gahrie,
The IPCC report is not “peer reviewed”. ‘Peer reviewed’ means scientists conducted some manner of research, collected data leading to a conclusion, submitted it for publication, prior to which other scientists scrutinized the validity of the work. None of that applies in this case, as the Times of London article notes.
When I self-identify as an AGW agnostic, I basically believe that AGW is probably real, but having been burned once before on a similar topic, I have an eye out for the smoking gun. I probably told this story before, but when I was a little kid, my class was subjected to a hideous old filmstrip from the US Department of Scaring the Crap out of Little Kids, which said that the world’s oil supply would certainly run out by 1999. This made a big impression on me at the time, as I imagined myself just starting out by 1999, starting a family, and how difficult life would be with no energy (as the filmstrip emphasized).
That the filmstrip was produced prior to dramatic increases in oil discovery technologies doesn’t entirely excuse that US Agency from producing scare-mongering crap, but it is a bit understandable given contemporary technologies. Much later in life, I came to discover that the oil sands in Northern Alberta/Saskatchewan/British Columbia have vastly more oil than Saudi Arabia, and that oil men have known about this for at least 50 years (well before the filmstrip) and also knew, 50 years ago, that the extraction process was simply too expensive at prevailing oil prices.
So it isn’t really too much to expect that, in producing this scaremongering filmstrip, the US Department of Scaring the Crap out of Little Kids should have realized that, as known conventional oil supplies dwindled, which would necessarily drive up prices, there were vast supplies of oil, basically untapped, just to their north, that would suddenly become economically viable as the conventional stuff began to run out. The department making said filmstrip should have known about the tar sands, they should have known that even if traditional oil ran out by 1999, there was plenty more to replace it in the sands.
So I am certainly wary that a similar smoking gun may exist in the case of AGW, such wariness is the basis of my agnosticism. However, I find it frustrating when people triumphantly claim to have found the smoking gun, and what they have really discovered isn’t even a clown’s pop gun, its nothing, like for example the East Anglia guys being pissed about the horrendous behavior of Soon and Balunias. Show me the smoking gun. I am certainly interested to see.
None of that applies in this case, as the Times of London article notes.
That may be true..in fact it probably is.
But what the IPCC is supposed to be is a sumation of the current peer reviewed research on climate as compiled by teams of scientists.
Not only is the IPCC report not a peer reviewed paper, but you missed that you failed the other aspect, the reason for the retraction has nothing to do with the question at hand.
(the question at hand being the east anglia scandal)
Riiight..this scandal has nothing to do with climategate. Nope. It has nothing to do with fake data, corrupt peer review and a lack of the scientific method. It happened completely independently.
OK..I’ll just bide my time until even you can’t squirm out of it.
No, it doesn’t. At all. This is some idiot taking an off hand comment and some other idiot using the printing of that as evidence of something else. For you to pretend otherwise is pretty messed up.
You mean the idiots who wrote IPCC III?
Because that’s what we are talking about. You know, the document that is the basis of every government and the UN’s climate policies. So if idiots were in charge of writing the bits about the glaciers…maybe idiots were involved in writing about the rest of it?
If this story is not an example of climate science fraud what would be?
Seriously, what would you accept as evidence of fraud committed by the AGW crowd?
No, I mean an idiot. And that doesn’t even mean this person doesn’t understand climate science or science. They made a bad move. That still doesn’t change the fundamental underpinnings of global warming or AGW, for that matter. Idiots weren’t in charge, an idiot inserted this one tidbit of info, it appears.
So if idiots were in charge of writing the bits about the glaciers…maybe idiots were involved in writing about the rest of it?
Right, and perhaps a talking dog wrote the rest of it, too. Look, it’s pretty simple, if you have a problem with the IPCC report, you shouldn’t be making your case by pointing out goofy little mistakes. This is science, it’s not you bullshitting with somebody at a bar over this. Every single piece of that report that stands independently of the others does just that. Every single part of the report can be known to be wrong except for one, but that one that you still haven’t shown to be wrong must still be treated as if it were independent. Not only because that’s the way science and logical argumentation dictates things should be, but because that’s organizationally how these things work. One person didn’t write this report. Likely many people did, and they each were probably responsible for different sections.
As to your implication that this is fraud, or that somehow the “AGW crowd” was behind this, that’s ludicrous and neither relates to the facts as we know them nor the most likely reality. You are essentially insinuating that there is a conspiracy amongst the “AGW crowd” to push this agenda.
That’s the great thing about science though, this isn’t the 9/11 conspiracy or the moon landing conspiracy, which, while loony, perpetuates partly because there’s no way to ever prove them wrong. With science, however, put up or shut up. The mechanisms by which we believe GW/AGW to be occuring have been explained.
Explain why the science is wrong or fuck off.
AGW is not science because:
A) It is not based on observed data, but manipulated data.
B) It cannot be reproduced.
C) The data has been destroyed and withheld
D) The peer review process has been corrupted
E) The models have not been able to accurately predict any period of time that has occurred
F) when random nonsense numbers are plugged into the models, they produce exactly the same results
Very soon Mann’s hockey stick will be completely disproved (instead of just mostly)
The AGW scare is already over….you lefties just haven’t realized it yet.
But don’t worry..the next crisis will be along soon..and the solutions will be exactly the same yet again.
gahrie – IF the Cult of AGW was science-based, the AGW folk would be moving heavens and earth to get nuclear power plants built (the practical ones, at least) while the non-practical ones would be legislating the control of (and cap-and-trade for) Dihydrogen Monoxide since that is a significantly more important greenhouse gas …
pthread is no more capable of pointing us at unmanipulated raw data supporting AGW than he is of blowing out the Sun during his next birthday party … he doesn’t care about A-F above, since Newsweek , DailyKos, TPM, etc didn’t tell him about them …
Yes, considering water vapor causes the overwhelming majority of atmosphereic warming.
And it would make about as much sense to regulate water vapor as it does to attempt to regulate CO2.