RAND SIMBERG: FakeGate: Can’t Hide This Decline. “Peter Gleick adds yet more fraud to the warmists’ resume.” It seems to me that people who were confident in the science would behave differently.Then there's a Megan McArdle quote:
"When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right.”There are too many people with too much invested in this sham to give it up now, even everyday people who just believe. They can't admit to being suckered, so they'll probably double-down instead.
Plus this: “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.” Indeed.
Update, 2/24/12: Heartland responds with a thorough Fisking of the NYT.
Hat tip to NewsAlert.
40 comments:
Three facts remain unchanged:
1. The nontroversy over emails at East Anglia started with a hacking theft. Not exactly moral high ground. Did that thief ever come forward? No matter; it turned out there was no there there.
2. The Heartland Institute is to climate science what the Tobacco Institute is to medicine.
3. The reality of climate change. It continues with or without political approval.
But enjoy your 15 minutes of righteous indignation. It will allow you to take your mind of the perpetual accumulation of actual scientific data that continue to tell the tale of climate change.
And by all means, go out and enjoy today's weather: it's going to be 77°F in Sacramento this fine February day.
Don't confuse weather for climate. The earth's climate is getting noticeably warmer, and has been for at least two decades. The connection between fossil fuel pollution and warming trends is fairly clear, while not ironclad.
And even if there is a 1% it's true, failure to act would be incredibly stupid. And to argue there is not even a 1% chance is equally obtuse.
East Anglia certainly *was* a controversy, making everything you say after that *most* interesting.
This was still a theft, and they're still having to lie to support their so-called science. I notice you dance around those issues, which is fine by me--we're not going to sway each other on this topic anyway. Oh, I know you're trying to sway those zillions of "climate undecideds" who frequent this blog, and while I appreciate your belief in the multitudes of my readership, it seems as inflated as the claims of the Church of Global Warming.
Dean, listen to Mike. The fact that it's 77°F in Sacramento in February is weather, not climate.
1. As for the CRU at EAU, their credibility is shattered. No amount of whitewash will dilute the fact that its employees engaged in a number of activities designed to suppress non-conforming research.
2. Meh.
3. Really? There's climate change occurring?
Well, alert the media why don't you!
Certainly there was no climate change until people started burning coal. It was just one, long, seasonless utopia, without disturbance or excursion, from the time there was an atmosphere until wicked humans started irresponsibly tinkering with the climate...
Multiple investigations concluded that there was no there there at East Anglia. But I'm sure those investigators were all on the take from the Global Climate Hoax Cabal.
Creationists still wave around Piltdown Man as proof evolution is all wrong. So I suppose you'll cling to the nothingness that is "climategate" regardless of any findings of fact. Consistent with the pattern, if nothing else.
Fellow commenters, I appreciate the lesson on the difference between climate and weather. I've taken your lesson to heart and thank you kindly for the correction.
If you have a moment, you might kindly add a comment to each post wherein Darren demonstrates misunderstanding on the weather/climate difference. Just hit the "global warming" tag; you'll find plenty to choose from.
Right-wingers make the US the laughing stock of the world by denying climate science and evolution.
The actual science on both those issues is well-established. Both have solid foundations in the same methods of science that bring you technological advances and greater longevity through modern medicine.
You accept science when you're flying at 30,000 ft or are sick and in need of a cure, but deny science when it's politically or religiously inconvenient. As is your right, even when you're wrong.
Multiple investigations? Conducted by whom? Had you been old enough, I'm sure you would have believed Nixon when he said there was "no whitewash at the White House".
I'm familiar with the difference between climate and weather--but if it makes you feel better to believe I don't, then feel free. But were you making such statements (77 degrees!) last year when, for the first time in forever, Boreal had skiing as late as the 4th of July? No? Why not? Perhaps "weather =/ climate" is true only when it's politically or religiously convenient. And your statement about accepting science when flying is silly--I've seen lots of evidence for the engineering that goes into flying, not a lot for global warming. If I fly, do I have to accept everything some scientist says? 150 years ago I'd have ridden on a train, what was science saying about germ theory?
I must admit, though, that you're quite the evangelist for the Church of Global Warming. What a saint you are, venturing out amongst the heathens in order to share The Word! I'm sure there's a warm spot--or will it be a cooling spot!--reserved for you in Global Warming Heaven.
It is love of country, not mythical sainthood, that motivates me. I hate it when the rest of the world laughs at US science education and is justified in doing so.
Multiple investigations? Uhm, yes.
The facts of this matter are far from secret. But deniers' heads are so deep in the sand when it comes to facts that assistance is often required. I'm happy to help.
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations
See what I did there? I backed up my claim with references. I know you find the practice tedious and insulting, but I jumped through your hoops without breaking a sweat. Easy enough when you're arguing from a position of fact-based reality.
So I've given you eight investigations that say there's no there there as far as the science is concerned. What reputable scientific organization thinks there IS any substance to the CRU/EAU nontroversy?
I'm going with "none" but as ever, I'm eager to learn!
You link to Wikipedia and its mention of political investigations? That's it?
Sorry. Not flying.
The statement is solid, unequivocal, and decimates any claim you make in support of any substance existing in CRU/EAU kerfuffle.
"Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations."
Science Assessment Panel
The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel ... concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."
It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible.
National Science Foundation:
[NSF] found no evidence of research misconduct, and confirmed the results of earlier inquiries.
You offer no counter-examples. You cite no reputable scientific organizations who have found otherwise.
Your meritless rejection of these facts constitutes a white flag. Period.
Cheap "Straw Man" shot with the attack on Wikipedia.
You know you use Wikipedia, you know it's entries are sourced at the bottom of the page, and you know that independent research - most notably by CU - has verified Wikipedia as "overwhelmingly accurate" and often more so that print sources that don't undergo such regular critical review.
You can disagree with Dean, but attacking his source here is weak.
Negative. I don't trust the bishops of your church. No *unbiased* investigations were conducted. You believe in miracles.
Mazenko, I've found Wikipedia to be a reasonably reliable source for non-controversial information--the date of the Battle of Hastings, for example. It's not so reliable on topics related to politics or other hot-button issues of the day.
"Bishops of your church," Darren? Oh for goodness sakes, D., you're a math and numbers guy.
This rigid, anti-science, anti-expert, anti-intelligence thing going on among the GOP is really sad.
While we disagree, I generally respect your positions, but "I don't trust the "Bishops of your church"?
That's beyond the pale.
Dean understands what I'm saying there, and why I chose those particular words. He can explain it to you if he wishes, but it would be inappropriate for me to do so without his permission. I guess you can consider it an "inside joke".
Anti-science, anti-expert positions of the GOP? How about those of us who want to exploit our own natural resources, or pursue more nuclear power? We aren't anti-"them". And we're not anti-science just because we don't believe in man-made global warming.
Mazenko, do you *ever* get tired of pointing out how much smarter you supposedly are than the rest of us? *sigh*
Not really ... but only because you make it so easy. :-)
And believing that man has no impact on climate change and modifications to fossil fuel burning are unnecessary is, actually, quite "anti-science."
Don't you recall nine GOP candidates on a debate stage balking at saying they believe in evolution.
Anti-science, Bud. Big time.
If that's what you need to think in order to keep trashing Republicans, you're welcome to it. This from a guy who has announced his own religion, or at least his religious upbringing, on this very blog each time I say that socialism isn't Christian. Statements about religion are now banned? Then you, Mazenko, need to quit talking. Or typing. Or whatever.
I'm going to get back to editing my video. Got a new camera and went to Old Town to try it out. San Francisco this Saturday--hope it's clear, as the views from Twin Peaks are quite amazing.
And believing that man has no impact on climate change...
What, pray tell does believing one way or the other have to do with science? Science is the antithesis of faith and faith, in the context of science, is meaningless.
What's relevant to science is what you can prove by observation or experimentation. Beyond that it's all either a poor second or just, plain crap.
As in the elevation of peer-review to the status of science. Or the elevation of consensus to the status of science. Neither is science so the only valid conclusion to be drawn from the attempt to substitute consensus and peer-review for science is that the science is, in fact, absent and this is the extremity to which true believers in anthropogenic global warming are forced.
You won't have to sweat it much longer, guys. The whole global warming bandwagon is grinding to a halt so you guys can start to plan for the next, great crusade that's all about you.
In this post (http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2007/07/ancient-greenland-warmer-than.html) I've listed some of the "next, great crusades" that have already been tried. Please make sure you choose a different one, as I'm *do* enjoy variety :-)
allen (in Michigan) said...
...The whole global warming bandwagon is grinding to a halt...
Oh do tell! I'll do the courtesy of presuming this is not something you dreamt up on your own if you'll you'll do the courtesy of providing a link to the news of this new widespread consensus. I call it backing up a wild misbegotten claim clearly disconnected from reality; Darren calls it "jumping through hoops."
I am your student and I'm eager to learn. I should note that I don't accept science lessons from FoxNews, the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the editorial page of the Washington Times, Cat Fancy, or similar non-science nonsense.
Oh and Darren, permission granted! Sometimes the subtlety of your humor slips right past me. I don't see how the eight investigations of CRU/EAU were conducted by whitewashing bishops. Seems you're painting science as religion to denigrate it somehow, but the punchline got right by me. I'm concrete sequential!
If any one of the eight investigations had found wrongdoing at East Anglia, you would have gleefully decreed that investigation "unbiased" and perhaps even "fair and balanced." But since there was no wrongdoing at East Anglia, you instead decry all eight investigations as "tainted." Amusing if nothing else.
Yeah, maybe. It might pump life into the environmentalist movement as did global warming but I think it'd be an uphill fight. Global environmental anything is going to have a tough time gaining traction after the collapse of the anthropogenic global warming issue.
But, lefties are ever inventive when it comes to finding excuses to force their views on their inferiors as a means of assuring themselves of their own superiority.
Ah, Dean, you're so fun sometimes.
I don't treat global warming as a religion to mock religion, but I use the religious terms to mock your avowed atheism. You don't see the religious link because you're a "true believer", but notice how all the terms still fit?
Read the Mises.org article on Global Warming. That will open many eyes.
allen (in Michigan) said...
...The whole global warming bandwagon is grinding to a halt...
...the collapse of the anthropogenic global warming issue.
I have no doubt you've got plenty more whoppers where those came from. Fictions are ever so much more fun than facts.
But before you hit us with your startling truths about unicorns—truths the scientific establishment doesn't want us to know—humor us with support for the wild, reality-defyng claims you've made so far.
Please, nothing from the Coast-to-Coast AM website (Art Bell or George Noory). I'm one of those snobs who doesn't accept those guys for the truth-tellers they are!
And Darren, I'm multi-denominational: In addition to the Church of Global Warming, I'm an "avowed" member of the Churches of
Evolutionary Biology
Atomic Chemistry
Heliocentric Solar System Astronomy
Round Earth Geology
And the list goes on. Fellow congregants in these "churches" often refer to themselves as "scientists." They've made your life better and increased your longevity.
As a short-hand to keep from having to list all the "churches," we usually just say we accept evidence-based reality. It's not so scary over here, and everyone is welcome to join.
Except us non-believers!
Dean, could you provide a list of all "non-approved" sources? You've listed so many that it seems we're down to Democratic Underground and Earth First as being the only ones you'll accept.
Hit me with something associated with a professional science organization whose membership is made up of professional scientists. I know, I know; acolytes—the lot of them. The only people qualified to speak about atmospheric science are economists and TV commentators.
How about publications from AAAS? NCAR? Peer-reviewed scientific journals such as AJP? There are plenty of legitimate scientific publications to choose from. All of them part of The Conspiracy, I'm guessing. They're all in cahoots to keep The Truth from getting out.
And they would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you pesky Denialists! Scooby-snacks all around.
If I can undercut your formidable "scientific argument" by rejecting bloviations from FoxNews, Forbes, WJS and the like, you didn't really have a scientific argument to make in the first place.
As I implied before, when you limit sources on environmental issues to Earth First, Earth Liberation Front, Greenpeace, and Democratic Underground--all good and honest and sincere people, no doubt--well, I won't play.
You know what? I've quoted eminent people--in a variety of sources, not necessarily your "friendly" ones--so many times before that I'm not going to sink into your morass again. You don't like the people I quote--and yes, many of them *are* scientists--and I don't like the people you quote--and yes, many of them *are* scientists. In the end it comes down to faith, with you worshiping at their altar and me refusing to do so. And I refuse to do so because those same people you worship today have lied so many times in just our lifetimes that I'm calling their bluff; see my 8:55 comment above for so many of their previous lies just since you and I were born.
Scientists aren't saints, Dean. They're human, just like you and I are, and they've shown themselves to have the same foibles as all the rest of the sinners. You can appeal to their authority if you want to, but they've shown us their true selves behind the curtain too many times.
But I'm glad you've found a religion. Religion is good for the soul :-)
Science is not about consensus. It is about careful study, observation, asking questions and drawing conclusions. If you are not allowed to question it, then it is religion -- not science!
Only a few hundred years ago the "scientific consensus" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth. We know the truth now because men like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo stood against the scorn, ridicule and ostracization of their peers and questioned the "scientific consensus."
"Scientific consensus" doesn't necessarily mean you're right... it could simply mean that a lot of other people are wrong with you.
If we truly want science - here's some science: http://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case#.T0eUhlmYO74.email
The truth of the matter is there *was* global warming until 1998 or so, and since, it has been cooling. The truth is there are so many variables in play that we can't be certain about CO2, solar activity, ocean currents (ENSO, et al) or the demise of pirates. Causation is NOT correlation.
I say don't worship Earth, or man. Instead, worship the Creator OF the Earth and man.
I don't know if you all respect the Bible, but Job 38 is pretty clear. God says it pretty clearly that we were not there so quit questioning Him.
Like Darren says, it's about the fine line between listening to truthful Science and having Faith. All of the "Churches" mentioned can be defended using scripture (with the exception of evolution - which I agree with when we call it microevolution or "variation within a kind". That is Biblical.)
Hit me with something associated with a professional science organization whose membership is made up of professional scientists. I know, I know; acolytes—the lot of them. The only people qualified to speak about atmospheric science are economists and TV commentators.
How about publications from AAAS? NCAR? Peer-reviewed scientific journals such as AJP? There are plenty of legitimate scientific publications to choose from. All of them part of The Conspiracy, I'm guessing. They're all in cahoots to keep The Truth from getting out.
Dean, let me explain how this "science" thing works.
First there's the hypothesis in which you propose an explanation for something you've observed but can't explain. Then, you propose some means of testing whether your explanation that can fail if your explanation is incorrect. Then you run the test/observe and examine the results. If the test produces the results your explanation predicted then your explanation rises to the august standing of a theory. As in the theory of evolution, Einstein's theories about the nature of space, time, etc. See how that works?
What you'll notice by its absence is any mention of peer-reviewed journals, professional associations, choirs, gatherings, nose-countings or popularity contests.
All that stuff occurs after the experiment that provides the verification for the hypothesis which - magically! - transforms the hypothesis into a theory. In fact, all those various aggregations which you seem to think establish scientific veracity are, inevitably, wrong since consensus emerges after proof. When the new truth emerges, from experiment or observation, those various groupings you hold in such esteem, the members of which having established their professional reputations on the basis of the old truth, inevitably attack the new Prometheus and the flame he brings.
So there you are. No need to thank me now. Should you ever develop the ability to doubt your infallibility that'll be thanks enough for me.
Even celebrated atheist Richard Dawkins isn't sure God doesn't exist:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
1. neko: Please do some research on the history of the geocentrism/heliocentrism debate. The "consensus" of geocentrism had become entwined in religious doctrine, strictly and violently enforced by the Catholic Church.
By the time of Galileo, most European astronomers had moved on from geocentrism to heliocentrism. But The Church was holding Italy back. Galileo hoped to move Italy forward, but The Church—not the scientific community—put him on trial, coerced a retraction, and placed him under house arrest.
Scientific consensus arises from scientists asking scientific questions and using the methods of science to find answers.
Can scientists harbor biases? Of course! They're human. Can they claim findings that aren't true? You betcha!
Do the methods of science kill off wrong? Quite effectively. Geocentrism, phlogiston, creationism, Piltdown Man, cold fusion, faster-than-light neutrinos. The rigorous tests of science are toxic to wrong.
Scientific findings are subject to peer review, repeatability, and endless questioning. That's what separates science from religion and makes science the best method for determining the truth about reality.
Apply the Baloney Detection Kit to new claims and it's hard to go wrong.
2. Left Coast Ref: The linked article is an amusing stew of misrepresentation and cherry-picking. I doubt that the electrical engineer who authored the article will submit it to a peer-reviewed climate journal because it can't bear scientific scrutiny.
3. Darren. Why are you changing the topic from climate science to religion?
Did you watch the clip you linked to? Dawkins is 6.9/7.0 certain that God doesn't exist. He was being pressed to offer definitive proof that God doesn't exist. No such proof is possible (nor are such proofs available to disprove Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy).
An atheist generally starts from a position of no beliefs and chooses what to add. You suggest Christianity perhaps. I ask for reasons to believe. Christians offer their reasons. I find them wanting and elect not to believe. Some Christians get upset and demand I either disprove their faith to their satisfaction or join with them. I decline.
Which is *exactly* what I choose to do when you want to play tar baby games.
"Scientific findings are subject to peer review, repeatability, and endless questioning."
Then why is anyone who questions Global Warming labeled a denier? If scientific findings are subject to endless questions, why are people not allowed to question this?
No it's not.
I turn away from faith-based theological philosophies that build lack of evidence into their belief system.
You turn away from scientific facts and the scientific theories that organize them.
At the simplest, science has proof without certainty; faith has certainty without proof (to paraphrase Ashley Montague).
You can call climate science faith; I can say I'm rich, young and good looking. Objective evidence overwhelmingly contradicts both claims.
neko: You can question al you like, but you have to produce scientific—not economic—evidence stronger than the evidence supporting the prevailing model.
Deniers don't adhere to scientific methods. Their primary fault is that of cherry-picking data to support their position.
This animation shows the difference between climate "skepticism" and climate "realism."
Misinterpreting the temperature record is no way to get taken seriously in the scientific community. Of course, every fringe-theory believer feels there's a conspiracy afoot to silence "the truth" that "they don't want you to know." Perpetual machine/free energy inventors, flat-Earthers, moon landing hoaxters, creationists, anti-vaxxers, climate science deniers... it's always the same old yarn about how The Establishment works furiously and clandestinely to keep them down.
They imagine the black helicopters, but are never able to bring one down and put it on display. That's because there is no conspiracy. Boring, I know.
Scientific consensus arises from scientists asking scientific questions and using the methods of science to find answers.
Ooh, look! The word "science" and its variants four times in one sentence. That must make it a very scientific sentence.
Don't try so hard Dean. You might hurt yourself.
Science is just making a claim and then proving it. I'm committing science when I claim the west end of the lake is a good place to fish by returning to the dock with a full stringer. That's when the consensus of fisherman takes note and all go to fish at the west end of the lake. Before I return to the dock with the successful results of my experiment I'm just another opinion-monger, hypothesizer. Afterwards peer-review at the local bait shop establishes me as a fisherman de luxe.
You care to profer the proof that climate science is sufficiently advanced to generate worthwhile predictions?
Because if there is a methodology that'll predict the results of a purported anthropogenic global warming then it really ought to be put to the test shouldn't it? Or do you have faith in climate scientists who claim to be able to predict the direction of the climate. It really is a one-or-the-other proposition, either there is such a methodology or there isn't. Which is it?
So what you are saying is Science only counts when it is by the people you agree with? Convenient. How is it cherry-picked data? Either it's data or it's not. Because something he saw was able to convince him to change his stance from "believer" to "skeptic", is that why you won't trust it? The fact that he says the truth is somewhere in the middle of the debate is why I would trust him more than any other. Do you believe Al Gore's Science? A government major and career politician that owns a 7000 square foot house, whose "Carbon-footprint" is quadruple (if not higher) than any "normal" American? The duplicity of the left-wing slays me.
You wanted science. I gave you science. Well documented data. Observable, Measurable, and now we wait for repeatable. No "it's settled" claims.
By the way, THAT is what makes Science. While I may have different religious beliefs (faith), I still rely on the tell-tale signs of Science - observe, measure, repeat. We cannot say "the science is in" because it isn't. I can give you my hypothesis regarding the warming, but until I can measure it and repeat it, it's just a guess.
My guess: The Sun. Record sunspots in the 90's led to higher temps. The lower number of solar flares and sunspots in the late 90's and early 2000's led to a decrease. We just saw record numbers from the sun again in the last 2 years. Anyone want to wager we may see some increase in temps again in the next 2 or 3 years? Or maybe we won't, because the increased levels of CO2 will cause more evaporation, producing more clouds, reflecting much of that energy out of the atmosphere and we stay stable. Again, in order to do science, we must observe, measure and repeat. I'll remain on the skeptic side until someone can prove causation as opposed to correlation.
It is your right as an individual to remain unconvinced. Know that you elect to do so while climate scientists—those who study these problems in detail—are overwhelmingly convinced.
Is it the Sun? No. That is to say, the evidence does not suggest that the Sun is responsible for the rising trend in global temperatures.
The nice thing about the provided reference is that you can see the issue explained at a basic, intermediate, or advanced level.
Skeptical Science lets you do such with pretty much any climate science denial argument ever put forward.
Apparently Dean you're going to cling to the tactic of condescending repetition. Beyond feeding the need to feel smart it's no response to the demand for determinative experimental or observational verification.
That's all I wanted to clarify, that when the demand is for that which science requires you are forced to try to pass off an inadequate substitute. Probably why the radical, environmentalist movement is collapsing. Why the Kyoto Accords is a dead letter and why there's not a breath of a chance that anything'll arise to replace it.
It takes a while for people to notice that in your blizzard of sophistry the one thing missing is proof. But the evidence is building that people have noticed that absence.
Post a Comment