Friday, November 25, 2011
Regular bloghounds know that the unknown leaker has published another trove of emails among establishment climate scientists. The latest batch, and the prospect for much more, expose the dishonesty of at least some of the leading practitioners of climate science. Really remarkable stuff. And the possibility that many more emails are to come promises to keep the story going for some time.
That is, if the mainstream media covers it at all.
The environmental movement is greedy for power over other human beings and is obviously willing to lie to get that power. Or perhaps there is a less obvious explanation as to why they are lying and trying to control other people.
This should stand as an indictment of many of our institutions: the Green Movement, universities, political leaders, MSM.
We had a lively debate here on the merits of AGW months ago. Where's "AGW Brian" now?
Eliminating the "Green veto" is a practical neccessity for national survival.
There's no evidence that any data was falsified, and so far as I know the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists still hold firm: global warming is a fact. That's what Richard Muller and the Berkeley BEST group recently verified. Muller in WSJ.
Eschenbach is bent out of shape because Jones didn't want to release the raw data. I don't know if CERN releases their raw data either. It's a big yawn, and, as the RealClimate folks point out, is more than two years old at this point.
No evidence that "The Data" was falsified? Which data is that? The data that they refuse to release after a FOIA was filed? The selected data from tree rings that reinforces the desired conclusion?
How would you know one way or another? That's really stretching the point of incredulity.
And the "vast majority of climate scientists" are in on the con too. They are feeding from the iron rice bowl of government grants. So where is there any intelligent, honest, sceptcism?
I see more honest sceptcism in the JACS where everything can actually be tested and/or falsified in a lab. "Climate Science" - not so much.
Is this science or a popularity contest?
Deniers grimly ignore the powerful results of Richard Muller and collaborators.
Thus far what I've heard from you here is this: some climate scientists failed to release some data. So we can't be sure the data wasn't falsified. That's a bit like saying, "I didn't see Jim yesterday. So he might have been eating a baby." Or, "Mitt Romney ordered records from his period as Massachusetts governor destroyed. So he might have been embezzling." It's kind of stupid.
Alas, there are multiple, independent analyses which all point to pretty much the same conclusion. There's even a Physics 101 analysis which starts with total world power consumption and ends up with a prediction of the increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 2 ppm per year, which is damned close to what the observed data show (i.e. the Keeling curve, which is unchallenged; the correlation between CO2 and temperature is more complex).
Unless and until any of you can point to some evidence that there was wholesale data fudging going on at a level which negates the overwhelming consensus of the field, I think it is safe to ignore the noise coming from the denier camp.
So now I'm a "grim ignorer". There's a little more to it than that, dontcha think?
1) Modern man is putting more CO2 into the air.
2) CO2 traps heat.
3) The Earth is getting warmer.
I'll give Darovas #1 and #2. I'll throw in #3 for sake of argument, even though it may not be significantly true for the last century let alone a trend, let alone a continuing trend, let alone a continuing accelerating trend.
But it takes a few assumptions and a few leaps of faith -- belied by other evidence -- to get from #1 and #2 to the conclusion that Man is the principal driver of #3.
As to Climategate, it's now abundantly clear that data was being cherry picked to fit modeled conclusions, that when "insiders" were talking among themselves some acknowledged the malpractice, and that data wasn't being released lest it expose what was going on.
Darovas may see "overwhelming consensus" in the field but it's still only "climate studies" to me and a long way from what I would call "climate science".
"There are ways of telling whether she is a witch." Al Gore would build a bridge out of her, at taxpayer expense.
Now for the hard stuff: How do we prevent tsunamis by using sheep's bladders?