Steve McIntyre and the Data Quality Act

If you’ve never heard of the Data Quality Act go read this article by Chris Mooney.

Back? Good.

Steve McIntyre, still angry after a comment was not released from moderation on Christmas Day, is now trying to use the Data Quality Act against RealClimate. As far as I can make out, because Gavin Schmidt works for NASA, McIntyre thinks that the stringent peer review hurdles of the Data Quality Act (inserted by a tobacco lobbyist to make it harder to use the scientific evidence on the dangers of cigarette smoke) should apply to RealClimate.

I wonder where McIntyre learned about the ins and outs of the Data Quality Act? Has he been hanging out with tobacco lobbyists?

Comments

  1. #1 Lance
    January 3, 2008

    P. Lewis,

    Irked or not I appreciate your honest contribution to the discussion.

    In that spirit I am obliged to say that the authors of the paper I cited further conclude that it is possible that the current “record” low sea ice extent could be explained “as a possible superposition of natural low frequency variability and greenhouse gas induced warming of the last decades.”

    So I’m not saying there couldn’t be an anthropogenic CO2 signal component to the recent record low sea ice extent, just that it isn’t conclusively related to human activity. With such a short data set is impossible to determine how much, if any, of the anomaly is due to human influence.

  2. #2 Lance
    January 3, 2008

    dhogaza,

    Are you seriously suggesting that I need to produce papers that are less than three months old (the date of the event) to discuss the science behind Arctic sea ice extent?

    Also, perhaps you are aware of the study that indicated that the recent sea ice anomaly was a result of Arctic currents and wind patterns.

    Here is a quote from the official NASA website by the lead author.

    “Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. ‘Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,’ he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

    ‘The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,’ Nghiem said.”

    dhogaza, why don’t you try to engage in a little honest, rational discussion instead of knee jerk ad hom retort?

  3. #3 Eli Rabett
    January 3, 2008

    Lance dear, Amundsen took three years to get through the Northwest Passage. He coudda done it in one in 2007.

  4. #4 dhogaza
    January 3, 2008

    Are you seriously suggesting that I need to produce papers that are less than three months old (the date of the event) to discuss the science behind Arctic sea ice extent?

    Yes, actually, given that

    1. this year was exceptional

    2. the following historical comparision may or may not still hold true:

    “a similar shrinkage of ice cover was observed in the 1920s-1930s, during the previous warm phase of the low-frequency oscillation, when any anthropogenic influence is believed to have still been negligible.”

    How does a paper claiming that past shrinkage was similar to past events say ANYTHING about what happened in 2007, given the large difference in scale of the 2007 event?

    Lance, you could not have been in a fucking science PhD program, I simply don’t believe it. Scientists have to be honest and objective and some level, and you’re neither.

  5. #5 dhogaza
    January 3, 2008

    dhogaza, why don’t you try to engage in a little honest, rational discussion instead of knee jerk ad hom retort?

    Pointing out the obvious, that you’re dishonest, is not an ad hom retort. It’s a factual statement.

  6. #6 dhogaza
    January 3, 2008

    Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds.

    Winter perennial ice, not the summer ice melt.

    I could say more, but why bother.

  7. #7 dhogaza
    January 3, 2008

    Note the progression Lance follows.

    First, the summer melt was as extensive in the 1930s as in 2007.

    His ass got kicked on that one.

    Now, well, OK, it’s really unprecedented, but, well, it’s wind and currents that cause it. Sharply warmer temps have nothing to do with it.

    What’s next, Lance, given that your cite doesn’t support your position, doesn’t claim that warmer temps are not contributed?

    Artic ice folk aren’t saying it’s ALL due to warming, and in fact you can understand the dynamic that’s understood by reading the page you cite with a bit of care unblemished by your dogmatic insistence in refuting all science that “threatens your freedoms”.

    Which, BTW, is a looney-toon approach to science in the first place.

  8. #8 JB
    January 3, 2008

    “Amundsen took three years to get through the Northwest Passage.”

    Yes, but it had nothing to do with the ice. It was only because he liked the arctic and had a bit of a death wish:

    “If only you knew how splendid it is up there, that’s where I want to die.” — Roald Amundsen

  9. #9 Lance
    January 3, 2008

    dhogaza,

    I never claimed that past Arctic ice melting was “as extensive” as the most recent observed case. In fact my point was that quantitative data for such a claim is not available, but that qualitative descriptions certainly are.

    As for your nonsequitter in #110 “Winter perennial ice, not the summer ice melt. I could say more, but why bother.”

    “Winter perennial” ice MEANS ice that survives from one winter to the next. Thus the ice created in the winter was pushed into the warmer waters in the SUMMER resulting in unusually high amounts of that ice melting.

    I’m trying to be nice here. I could have rubbed your nose in your hasty and incorrect post, instead of just correcting it. Please note that I refrained from calling you a “liar” as you are won to do.

    Also “I” was the one that pointed out that the authors of the Journal of Geophysical Research article suggest, and I can’t completely refute, the proposition that at least part of the recent large summer ice retreats could be due to anthropogenic CO2. Heck I even quoted them saying it! So you’re claims that I am ignoring this point border on the ludicrous.

    To top it all off you abuse my openness about my political inclinations with a hysterical retort claiming that I base my conclusions about scientific matters on my “dogmatic” ideology.

    Sadly, I can’t say that any of it surprised me based on your past behavior. Perhaps it’s just my idealistic view of humanity that has me holding on to the hope that you will start responding honestly and openly to my posts.

    Enjoy your evening.

  10. #10 Eli Rabett
    January 3, 2008

    JB, Amundsen got his wish. I believe we share a common view of lancekind and friends.

  11. #11 Thom
    January 3, 2008

    Lance, you lovely retard. You keep on writing the same stuff over and over and over again….

    Your persistence. Your immaculate typing. Like Poetry. It makes me feel so….small. So irrelevant.

    You’re beautiful!

  12. #12 Paul S
    January 3, 2008

    =eli rabett said:=

    =”Amundsen took three years to get through the Northwest Passage. He coudda done it in one in 2007.”=

    One year?

    Canadian explorer Henry Larsen did the NWP in eighty six days in 1944.

  13. #13 dhogaza
    January 4, 2008

    This same cabal pop up all over the show. That is not to say you are right or wrong. But you do not belong to this cult

    Yeah, the cult that just simply can’t embrace outright lying, cherry-picking, selective quoting of papers, and continuous insinuations that an entire field of science is fraudulent and its practitioners guilty of scientific misconduct.

    If that makes us a “cabal” or “cult” (choose which, please) I’m fine with it. The Cult of Good Science and Honest Behavior. Got any other bad names you want to call us?

  14. #14 Ian Gould
    January 4, 2008

    Lance: I candidly admit that I bring more skepticism to issues that can be used to limit my freedoms than those that do not.

    So I take it you were firmly against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act?

  15. #15 jc
    January 4, 2008

    Gouldie chops.

    Please stop preaching about liberties when your idea of freedom doesn’t include economic liberty

  16. #16 Eli Rabett
    January 4, 2008

    Property is theft.

  17. #17 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 4, 2008

    Eli posts:

    [[Property is theft.]]

    which I think goes back to some 1820s utopian socialist, although I can’t remember which one offhand (was it Saint-Simon?). As a left-wing teen I used to like that slogan, but from what I know now it doesn’t really make sense. I’m more of Robert Heilbroner’s view — “Of course I believe in private property. I think everyone should have some.”

  18. #18 Eli Rabett
    January 4, 2008

    Barton, find me a piece of property which at some point was not stolen from someone.

  19. #19 TH
    January 4, 2008

    Eli – large tracts of Tokyo Bay?

  20. #20 Lance
    January 4, 2008

    Ian Gould,

    I wouldn’t have gone to war with Iraq the first time let alone the second. I was glad the first time went so well and was hopeful (watching with my hands over my eyes) that the second would bring an opportunity for the Iraqi people to at least get on a path to democracy.

    I view the patriot act as just another attempt to undermine the constitution. I am no republican or fan of “W”. Their blatant fearmongering over “islamofascism” is reprehensible. While there is a threat from Islamic extremism it is exaggerated by the Bush administration as an excuse to expand the powers of the executive branch and the reach of an ever expanding militaristic federal police state.

    Perhaps my opinion on the mater is best expressed by Ben Franklin who said “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” (Although this is probably a paraphrase depending upon which historical reference you choose.)

    I detest demagoguery whether it is over greenhouse gases or Al Qaeda.

    I think you have made the mistake of equating my skepticism of AGW with “ditto-headism”.

  21. #21 guthrie
    January 4, 2008

    Eli might be hinting at this sort of outlook:

    http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

    I’m sure some of you will find it interesting.

  22. #22 Lance
    January 4, 2008

    guthrie,

    Very interesting indeed. Transition from land title to any of the systems proposed by geolibertarians would be difficult (to say the least) to facilitate.

    I guess warrantee deeds could be replaced with use grants with little initial effect in most states since property taxes and the recourse of the state to claim delinquent property tax thru sheriff sales and the like usurp true land ownership property rights anyway.

    I read the manifesto with a jaundiced eye waiting for the lambskin of libertarianism to be pulled back to reveal the socialist wolf beneath. I was pleasantly surprised to see that this was indeed a representation of “liberal”, in the classical sense, ideas taken to their ultimate logical conclusion.

    One problem is that these use grants could be taken away from one person and granted to another at the whim of the state. Also “rents” could be perniciously rigged to favor the party or persons in power. Of course so can property taxes which is why I favor their abolition.

    Anyway it was an interesting and compelling idea.

    I wonder if it was really what Eli had in mind though.

  23. #23 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 4, 2008

    Eli writes, bizarrely:

    [[Barton, find me a piece of property which at some point was not stolen from someone.]]

    Sure. My computer. I paid for it.

  24. #24 Lance
    January 4, 2008

    BPL,

    Oh, I’m sure Eli can come up with some scenario such as the copper used in the circuitry was mined in Peru on land stolen from the Yahua native people and that the software was produced by wage slaves and then misappropriated by Microsoft.

    These silly regressions are possible on any item you care to mention.

  25. #25 Thom
    January 4, 2008

    Cleverly tying the misinformation on Weapons of Mass Destruction with climate change science, Lance writes, “I detest demagoguery whether it is over greenhouse gases or Al Qaeda.”

    Like I said, Lance. You’re a beaut!

  26. #26 dhogaza
    January 4, 2008

    that the software was produced by wage slaves and then misappropriated by Microsoft.

    Actually DOS was stolen by Microsoft – contract fraud. After a very long lawsuit MS was forced to pay the two victims (for lack of a better word) a couple mil, something like that.

    Essentially the contract MS signed when they licensed the predecessor to DOS only allowed them to redistribute to end users (at the time, as far as the world knew MS was selling basic and the like for dinky little micros, the deal with IBM was secret). This predecessor was developed and being sold by a couple hackers working more or less literally out of their garage (or family room or kitchen or the like). MS itself was a very small company at this time.

    Of course, MS turned around and used it as the base of the operating system they delivered to IBM for the PC…

  27. #27 bi
    January 4, 2008

    Wow. About the original blog post, I just have to say this:

    The `Galileos’ of the climatology world are now starting to look more and more like the Inquisition!

  28. #28 Lance
    January 4, 2008

    Thom,

    Ban Ki-moon’s attempt to blame tail pipe emissions from soccer moms driving minivans for the genocide in Darfur makes the WMD claims of the Bush administration seem positively credible in comparison.

  29. #29 bi
    January 4, 2008

    Lance:

    Yeah right, Ban Ki-moon said something, therefore all the IPCC scientists were wrong!

    Yeah, Bush’s WMD claims do seem to make more sense than _your_ ‘logic’.

  30. #30 Lance
    January 4, 2008

    bi said,

    “Yeah right, Ban Ki-moon said something, therefore all the IPCC scientists were wrong!”

    Did I say that all IPCC scientists were wrong bi? Did I even infer that in anyway?

    I merely pointed to the indisputable fact that climate change has been pimped as the mother of all scare tactics. Ban Ki-moon’s idiotic statement was just the first one that came to mind.

    To deny that demagogues of all stripes have latched on to climate alarmism as a political tool is to deny reality. Even Evangelical Christian leaders have added it to their “end times” scenarios to frighten the faithful into obedience.

  31. #31 bi
    January 4, 2008

    Lance:

    “I think you have made the mistake of equating my _skepticism of AGW_ with ‘ditto-headism’.” (emphasis mine)

    “Did I say that all IPCC scientists were wrong bi? Did I even infer that in anyway?”

    Yes.

    I’ll all too familiar with your denialist schtick: you’re trying to dispute the _science_ of the AGW theory without actually disputing it… so you blow a lot of smoke involving Ban Ki-moon, Al Gore, and maybe Sun Myung Moon which has _absolutely_ nothing to do with the science.

  32. #32 luminous beauty
    January 4, 2008

    Lance,

    Evangelicals have professed to the need for addressing AGW on the basis that God has ordained mankind to be good stewards of the earth. Nothing to do with eschatology.

    But what can one expect from a lying idiot?

  33. #33 dhogaza
    January 4, 2008

    I merely pointed to the indisputable fact that climate change has been pimped as the mother of all scare tactics.

    Which has as much to do with the scientific issues as the supposed social darwinism of Hitler has to do with biology.

    So, exactly why the fuck would you bring this shit up, Lance?

    “Some asshole says something really stupid so I have to oppose the science, and I don’t give a shit if the science is right or wrong!”

    That sums up your mentality, Lance.

    You’ll do a really good job in your PhD program with that sort of attitude.

  34. #34 Marion Delgado
    January 4, 2008

    I am still going to run a troll race, but having unkilled “jc” for just one thread, i have to say, i may have to introduce a handicap or a pro/amateur division or something.

  35. #35 JB
    January 4, 2008

    Cleverly tying the misinformation on Weapons of Mass Destruction with climate change science, Lance writes, “I detest demagoguery whether it is over greenhouse gases or Al Qaeda.”

    The same pathetic innuendo that one finds in such abundance on Climate Audit.

    It’s not clever, but it is kooky.

  36. #36 Thom
    January 4, 2008

    Lance: “Ban Ki-moon’s attempt to blame tail pipe emissions from soccer moms driving minivans for the genocide in Darfur makes the WMD claims of the Bush administration seem positively credible in comparison.”

    Like I said, Lance. You’re a beautiful retard. And that’s why I love you!

  37. #37 Lance
    January 4, 2008

    I have a great deal of affection for you as well Thom.

  38. #38 Arie Brand
    January 4, 2008

    Barton wrote:[[Property is theft.]]

    “which I think goes back to some 1820s utopian socialist, although I can’t remember which one offhand (was it Saint-Simon?).”

    It was, in fact, Proudhon. Some early Dutch socialists used to get that the wrong way around on their banners: ‘theft is property’. I wonder whether Eli would go that far.

  39. #39 Eli Rabett
    January 4, 2008

    Eli has always been of the Leland Stanford school. Anything that isn’t nailed down is mine. Anything I can rip lose isn’t nailed down. . .

  40. #40 bi
    January 5, 2008

    that which lurketh under the bridge:

    “There are many who have contributed to this ‘debate’ who display the emotional retardation of the opiate addict.”

    Oh, the irony.

    And what does your Great Mastery of Civility As Abundantly Shown Above have to do with the science of AGW anyway?

  41. #41 dhogaza
    January 5, 2008

    That which pisseth under the bridge asks

    Just what say the imcomplete science underpinning your view was found to be erroneous? How would you all respond? Would you all say – I was wrong – and allow your conciousness to shift immediately to a new understanding?

    Then immediately asserts:

    Whether you all like or not nothing can be done about AGW.

    Speaking about incomplete science, information or knowledge … care to look in the mirror?

  42. #42 Hank Roberts
    January 6, 2008

    > theft is property
    That would be kleptocracy.

  43. #43 Hank Roberts
    January 6, 2008

    Speaking of which, who audits the auditors?
    No I mean the real ones:

    Paul Krugman: January 4, 2008
    Probabilities in finance

    Joe Stiglitz, today at the American Economic Association Meetings, talking about financial crises: “Once-in-a-hundred-years events occur every 10 years.” He’s thinking of the stock market crash of 1987, the Long Term Capital Management crisis of 1998, and the current subprime-plus crisis — all of which involved changes in asset prices that were supposed to be vanishingly unlikely.

    Probability, anyone?

  44. #44 Peter Bickle
    January 7, 2008

    Rabbid is a fuckwit.
    Go to Russia and sit with Lenin’s grave.
    With all of your warming buddies.

  45. #45 dhogaza
    January 7, 2008

    Peter Bickle, the face of science denialism in 2008…

    Rabbid is a fuckwit. Go to Russia and sit with Lenin’s grave. With all of your warming buddies.

  46. #46 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 7, 2008

    Peter Bickle posts:

    [[Rabbid is a fuckwit. Go to Russia and sit with Lenin’s grave. With all of your warming buddies.]]

    With all the venom being spewed over this issue, it’s nice to see a calm, intelligent, thoughtful response like this one. You’re an example for all of us, Peter.

  47. #47 JB
    January 7, 2008

    You’ll have to excuse Bickle.

    He’s a Librartarian, you know (“Free the Librarians!”)

    He knows not what he types.

  48. #48 Lance
    January 7, 2008

    Yeah, Libertarians are terrible people. They won’t use force to impose their will on others and only ask the same in return. Heartless bastards!

    Socialists are nice enough to force people to do what’s “best” for them even if they have to enslave them to do so. Truly caring people.

  49. #49 Boris
    January 7, 2008

    Peter Bickle,

    First it was your racist comment about Tim’s dog and now you show that you are anti-bunny. Is there any cute furry animal that you would not stomp to death whilst whistling?

  50. #50 Eli Rabett
    January 7, 2008

    Bickle is a Librarian? They let him read Books???

  51. #51 Davis
    January 7, 2008

    even if they have to enslave them to do so.

    You forgot to mention that they hate kittens, puppies, and apple pie.

  52. #52 Chris O'Neill
    January 7, 2008

    According to Peter Bickle:

    Rabbid is a fuckwit

    Looks like I haven’t been trying hard enough.

  53. #53 Lance
    January 7, 2008

    “You forgot to mention that they hate kittens, puppies, and apple pie.”

    Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie eat a piece of apple pie?

    Mandrake: Well, I can’t say I have.

    Ripper: Borscht, that’s what they eat, isn’t it? Never pie?
    Borscht

  54. #54 Eli Rabett
    January 7, 2008

    There is, of course, < href="http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/03/if_wishes_were_.html"> a perfect answer Thanks to Belle Waring

    Now, everyone close your eyes and try to imagine a private, profit-making rights-enforcement organization which does not resemble the mafia, a street gang, those pesky fire-fighters/arsonists/looters who used to provide such “services” in old New York and Tokyo, medieval tax-farmers, or a Lendu militia. (In general, if thoughts of the Eastern Congo intrude, I suggest waving them away with the invisible hand and repeating “that’s anarcho-capitalism” several times.) Nothing’s happening but a buzzing noise, right?

    Now try it the wishful thinking way. Just wish that we might all live in a state of perfect liberty, free of taxation and intrusive government, and that we should all be wealthier as well as freer. Now wish that people should, despite that lack of any restraint on their actions such as might be formed by policemen, functioning law courts, the SEC, and so on, not spend all their time screwing each other in predictable ways ranging from ordinary rape, through the selling of fraudulent stocks in non-existent ventures, up to the wholesale dumping of mercury in the public water supplies. (I mean, the general stock of water from which people privately draw.) Awesome huh? But it gets better. Now wish that everyone had a pony.

  55. #55 VI Lenin
    January 7, 2008

    “Go to Russia and sit with Lenin’s grave.”

    I’m not buried but on display at my Mausoleum in Red Square, open every day except Mondays and Fridays from 10:00 to 13:00. Drop in and say hello.

  56. #56 dhogaza
    January 8, 2008

    Yeah, Libertarians are terrible people. They won’t use force to impose their will on others and only ask the same in return. Heartless bastards!

    And they openly admit that they reject science that would lead any rational person to agree that regulation of some activity is warranted based on their political beliefs.

    Just like you, Lance, in regard to global warming.

    Libertarians have a long history of denying conservation biology when it inconveniently suggests that unfettered exploitation of forests, watersheds, etc may cause various species to go extinct.

    Just to mention another example.

    What I don’t get, and perhaps Lance can answer …

    Why the insistence on denying science?

    Why can’t you libertarian types simply admit “WE DON’T CARE”. Don’t care if warming will screw the world for your grandkids as long as your “freedom” is unfettered today. Don’t care if species dependent on old-growth forests or other diminishing habitat go extinct, etc.

    Why lie that “we really do care, but see, but the scientific argument is fraudulent and the scientists involved are guilty of scientific misconduct” until you are blue in the face?

  57. #57 Neil
    January 8, 2008

    dhogaza: You have to understand that Libertarians believe we should use everything up as quickly as possible *right now* in order to make ourselves more wealthy, because when we *are* more wealthy, we’ll be able to afford to fix stuff.

    And no, you wouldn’t ask someone to thinks like that to look after your house.

  58. #58 Lance
    January 8, 2008

    “Now wish that everyone had a pony.”

    This from the folks that promises everything from free healthcare to free housing to free retirement as entitlements. PUHH LEEEZE! Progressives just promise to give everyone a pony as a birth right.

    Libertarians do not advocate NO government or courts or policemen as your silly post asserts. Independent courts are essential in resolving disputes over misuse of common resources and claims to private property.

    dhogaza, I am tired of your “liar, liar pants on fire” level of argument. I see nothing I haven’t already brushed aside many times in your latest tantrum.

  59. #59 guthrie
    January 8, 2008

    My understanding is that manyh individual libertarians do indeed value the environment etc. However they end up being used as stalking horses by the rabid “i’ve got mine so screw you” crowd, who, whilst professing allegiance to various liberatarian principles, use corruption and chicanery to ensure that a larger slice of the pie passes to them.
    Unfortunately few libertarians seem to notice this.

  60. #60 dhogaza
    January 8, 2008

    This from the folks that promises everything from free healthcare…

    Typical example of Lance lying. No one claims universal health care is free.

    dhogaza, I am tired of your “liar, liar pants on fire” level of argument.

    There’s a simple solution: quit lying.

  61. #61 dhogaza
    January 8, 2008

    My understanding is that manyh individual libertarians do indeed value the environment etc.

    Oh, there’s no doubt of this, none whatsoever.

    And this is why science denialism is so crucial to the cause.

    Back in the old growth war days (in the us pacific nw) I managed to open the eyes of a few libertarians who’d swallowed industry propaganda regarding timber management hook, line, and sinker. They believe so deeply, so innately, that any private entity will manage any resource, anything, better than government (even if “better” means managing for non-resource values) that they’ll swallow nearly any bogus argument.

    But, some can be reached.

    For many, though, devotion to the cause seems to cause objectivity and honesty to fly right out the window. Lance being a typical case. They’re annoyingly common on techie sites like slashdot, for instance.

  62. #62 Eli Rabett
    January 8, 2008

    Ever notice how many lawyers are Librarians?

    Ever notice how Librarians think that taking everything to court is an answer?

    Ever notice how those Free Markup Librarians think that there are too many product liability cases?

    Ever wonder what cognitive dissonance is?

  63. #63 Luna_the_cat
    January 8, 2008

    Now, hang on there, Eli. Nobody gets to diss Librarians.

    Or the scary librarian lady will come and get you.

  64. #64 Ian Gould
    January 8, 2008

    “Yeah, Libertarians are terrible people. They won’t use force to impose their will on others and only ask the same in return. Heartless bastards”

    No they CLAIM they believe this.

    Then in the US they vote overwhelmingly for the party that’s pro-war; anti-gay; anti-abortion and anti-free speech but that promises ot cut taxes and keep the coloureds in their place (sorry “end special entitlements for minorities”).

    Say isn’t great how Ron Paul’s campaign is bringing together white supremacists and abortion clinic bombers?

    He’s a uniter not a divider.

  65. #65 Ian Gould
    January 8, 2008

    “Why can’t you libertarian types simply admit “WE DON’T CARE”. Don’t care if warming will screw the world for your grandkids as long as your “freedom” is unfettered today. Don’t care if species dependent on old-growth forests or other diminishing habitat go extinct, etc.”

    Because that would mean admitting they’re spoilt middle class brats with an endless sense of entitlement who want public services but aren’t prepared to pay for them and who like to blame their personal failings on The Man keeping them down.

    Next thing you know they’d have to start thinking about how Goldwater small-government conservatism just happened to kick off at the same time as overtly segregationists politics were dying in the US – and how it always “just happens” that the scapegoats behind the failure of their policies are almost invariably blacks or Mexicans.

    (I.e. “It’s not the gun laws it’s all those blacks out there committing murders” and “American health care costs are being driven up by pregnant Mexican illegal immigrants and the cost of delivering their anchor babies.”)

  66. #66 Dano
    January 8, 2008

    I agree with Guthrie above. I also find, occasionally, that libertarians and I agree on some things, esp. certain environmental issues. Sadly, their voices get drowned out by mad dogs baying.

    Best,

    D

  67. #67 JB
    January 8, 2008

    Eli asked: “Bickle is a Librarian? They let him read Books???”

    Yes, he is free to read books. It is just that the Library he works at has no books on climate science.

    They did — once, but Al Gore checked them all out and has not returned them.

    …. which is why the Librartarians hate Al Gore so much.

  68. #68 Hank Roberts
    January 9, 2008

    You can fill any name you want into the name space in this cautionary cartoon: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fandom.png

  69. #69 larry
    January 9, 2008

    if you’re an american citizen it’s your tax money he has used to sit comfortably on his now unique ice cores. Apparently he doesn’t feel the need to publish detailed core logs, or he is simply hiding controversial information.

  70. #70 P. Lewis
    January 9, 2008

    JB said

    Yes, he is free to read books. It is just that the Library he works at has no books on climate science.

    They did — once, but Al Gore checked them all out and has not returned them.

    Just not true. Where do you get your information from? I have it on authority that they have a 3 copies of a climate science book in the system: one copy of State of Fear by M. Crichton is on the shelves; their other two copies are loaned out: one to one A. Mugg and the other to some Librert.. Libar… some in-house employee.

  71. #71 liberal
    January 10, 2008

    The biggest problem with libertarians is that (most of them) hate freedom and liberty, because they think that privileged individuals should have the right to control exclude others from access to land and other natural resources without any compensation in return.

    For an excellent introduction to this issue by a truly freedom-loving libertarian, see “Are you a real libertarian or a Royal libertarian?”.

    In short, most libertarians are a kind of freedom-hating feudalist.

  72. #72 Lance
    January 10, 2008

    liberal, you are a little late to the party. Guthrie has already linked to that web site.

  73. #73 brett
    January 11, 2008

    At the beginning of 2007 it was predicted by one of the leading AGW climate advocates that 2007 would be the hottest on record. It has come in seventh.
    Comments invited.
    ps few individuals’ views fall completely within the boundaries of a particular religious or political paradigm – ie much of the above commentary is not germaine to the issue at hand.

  74. #74 Barton Paul Levenson
    January 11, 2008

    brett posts:

    [[At the beginning of 2007 it was predicted by one of the leading AGW climate advocates that 2007 would be the hottest on record. It has come in seventh. ]]

    No, it hasn’t. Where did you get that idea? According to NASA GISS, 2007 is tied with 1998 for second place.

  75. #75 P. Lewis
    January 11, 2008

    At the beginning of 2007 it was not predicted by one of the leading AGW climate advocates that 2007 would be the hottest on record.

    The Met Office is not an advocate of anything in particular. They punch in the numbers and out comes the forecast. They said:

    Our best estimate forecast of the global temperature anomaly for 2007 is 0.54+/-0.16 °C, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.38 °C to 0.71°C. This is a best estimate forecast for the warmest year on record, warmer than the hitherto warmest year, 1998 (0.52°C). Thus, there is a 60% probability that 2007 will be as warm or warmer than the warmest year (1998, 0.52 °C).

    That it wasn’t was due in no small way to the earlier than anticipated and not so strong as anticipated El Nino. It is this (Hadley) data that is provisionally (still) the 7th warmest on record (and 11 of the warmest years on record have been in the last 13 years).

    The Met Office also said:

    Over the eight years, 2000-2007, since the Met Office has issued forecasts of annual global temperature, the mean value of the forecast error was just 0.07 °C.

    which at least to me sounds an impressive modelling/forecasting achievement.

  76. #76 dhogaza
    January 11, 2008

    The NASA GISS data came out first, and they rank 2007 as the second warmest ever, after 2005 and ahead of 1998.

    The CRU data does list 2007 as the seventh.

    Both datasets point to the current decade as having the majority of the ten warmest years on record.

  77. #77 z
    January 12, 2008

    “At the beginning of 2007 it was predicted by one of the leading AGW climate advocates that 2007 would be the hottest on record. It has come in seventh. Comments invited”

    Which reputable student of climate, whether pro or anti AGW theory, would predict a priori the relative ranking of a single year?

  78. #78 bi
    January 13, 2008

    OK, so are we all in agreement that McIntyre’s “use” of the Data Quality Act is totally bogus?

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.