Update: A special message to visitors from Drudge: you are being lied to. Global warming is happening and we’re causing it, but to avoid dealing with the problem folks are shooting the messenger, attacking the scientists who discovered and reported on the problem. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition isn’t made up of climate scientists, but is just a group of global warming skeptics who gave themselves a fancy title. And they just got caught combining temperature data from different places to get rid of the inconvenient warming trend in New Zealand. If you want to know what the science really says, please read the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by Anthony Watts and is based on a “news alert” from the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. (Note: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition contains no actual climate scientists.)

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. …

Gareth Renowden explains how the NZCSC concocted their result — they made the NZ warming trend go away by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site. Now that might be simple incompetence, but they also claim that NIWA won’t explain how they adjust the data for site changes, and as Renowden says:

Nothing in the station histories? It’s all there for anyone who can be bothered to look, or to ask politely. But Treadgold and the NZ CSC have no excuse, because the NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago, the last time they tried to make a fuss about “adjusted data”. In other words, Treadgold and whoever in the NZ CSC helped him with the data are being more than economical with the truth, they are lying through their teeth.

I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?

Comments

  1. #1 Michael
    November 26, 2009

    Denialists, remember – gullible is a life-style choice.

  2. #2 P. Lewis
    November 26, 2009

    The ignorati denialists are ineducable. How many times do they need to be told about the importance of station metadata and the need for data normalisation?

    I see on the CRU thread there are calls for “raw” data too. I presume some of them might want to do the same with that data as the NZCSC have done with the NIWA data.

    BTW, there is an update link to NIWA at Hot Topic, in which they say:

    Warming over New Zealand through the past century is unequivocal.

    * Combining Temperature Data from Multiple Sites in Wellington

    NIWA’s analysis of measured temperatures uses internationally accepted techniques, including making adjustments for changes such as movement of measurement sites. For example, in Wellington, early temperature measurements were made near sea level, but in 1928 the measurement site was moved from Thorndon (3 metres above sea level) to Kelburn (125 m above sea level). The Kelburn site is on average 0.8°C cooler than Thorndon, because of the extra height above sea level.

    Such site differences are significant and must be accounted for when analysing long-term changes in temperature. The Climate Science Coalition has not done this.

    NIWA climate scientists have previously explained to members of the Coalition why such corrections must be made. NIWA’s Chief Climate Scientist, Dr David Wratt, says he’s very disappointed that the Coalition continue to ignore such advice and therefore to present misleading analyses.

    NIWA scientists are committed to providing robust information to help all New Zealanders make good decisions.

    Not only have the NZ CSC been aware of it, but I’m sure DimWatt is also aware of it. As a class, they are beneath contempt. That, or they have the memory spans of a brain-cell-deficient goldfish.

  3. #3 Jeremy C
    November 26, 2009

    My hope is that from this whole cruddy affair no one will ever, ever take for granted that the science will explain itself and be accepted and, as well, underestimate the deniers.

    In the long run this may turn out to be a good thing for taking the steps needed to deal with global warming. Up till now if anyone was in doubt as to the danger from the fanaticsm of the deniers. Climate scientists not affected by this will see what can happen to them, they can either pull up the ramparts or take a much more active role in getting the science out to the community even if it means as individuals they get less time for research. For policy makers, once the dust has settled, they may come out of this less likely to listen to the denialists having had it laid out globally what the denialists will do. And for us self-selecting lot on these blogs we may redouble our efforts to thwart the denialist message in the community i.e. not blogging.

    Lets face it, the denialists are not going to sit back havign accomplished this congratulating each other on a job well done. Their worldview will mean they will keep going and going and going……

  4. #4 Jeremy C
    November 26, 2009

    Sorry guys, my above post was based on the CRU hack with the NZ affair as evidence of how the denialsits just don’t stop.

  5. #5 coeruleus
    November 26, 2009

    Ow! The stupid. It hurts!

  6. #6 MapleLeaf
    November 26, 2009

    Wow, those in denial will stop at nothing. The hypocrisy– accusing others of massaging data (which they have not), and yet they (those in denial) distort, misrepresent and lie about the science daily.

    We have the same problem with the “Friends” of Science in Canada (an astroturf group funded by big oil). The name is a complete misnomer by the way. Go to their web site and spot the half truths, deception and misinformation.

    How they heck do we counter (or stop) this relentless onslaught of misinformation from those in denial?? Ideas anyone.

  7. #7 Douglas Watts
    November 26, 2009

    If, as the CRU debacle seems to indicate, the standard denial cry has gone from “no warming since 1998″ to “all of the data is a fraud !!!1!!” then they will have effectively marginalized themselves. If all the data is fraudulent, there’s nothing to bicker about.

    But they’ll find something, I’m sure.

  8. #8 Robert McClelland
    November 26, 2009

    “How they heck do we counter (or stop) this relentless onslaught of misinformation from those in denial?? Ideas anyone.”

    Keep pointing at the melting ice. People will believe something if they can see it happening with their own eyes and even the dumbest person on the planet understands that ice melts when the temperature warms.

  9. #9 MapleLeaf
    November 26, 2009

    Robert, thanks. Yes, the melting ice does resonate with people. That said, the Arctic sea ice is recovering don’t you know (read sarcasm)? At least that is what Canada’s Lorne Gunter claims.

    There has to be a better way. Ads showing the graphs of Arctic ice, SATs, seal-level rise?
    Scientists getting slots on major talk shows?
    Full page ads in newspapers?

    Ugh, I give up.

  10. #10 Marco
    November 26, 2009

    @MapleLeaf:
    “Friends of Science” = “German Democratic Republic”

  11. #11 MapleLeaf
    November 26, 2009

    Marco re #10. Could you please elaborate? My coffee is still kicking in. Thanks.

  12. #12 Paul UK
    November 26, 2009

    Thank you very much for this Tim.
    Very useful.

  13. #13 Marco
    November 26, 2009

    East-Germany was officially called “German Democratic Republic”. “Democratic” as in “communist one-party system in which the population did not have any vote”.

    Friends of Science is just as ‘aptly’ named.

  14. #14 MapleLeaf
    November 26, 2009

    Marco, thanks. Yes, FOS is a misnomer. They are a joke, but have a lot of funding. Just paid for a C$250K ad campaign of misinformation in Canada, as well as for a “lecture” tour by Monckton. Seems that FOS are funneling big oil money through a neocon think tank now, this after they were caught using the University of Calgary for money laundering.

    Chris de Freitas has ties with both FOS and with the NZ climate “science” coalition. Not to mention his role in the Climate Research fiasco. And the guy is not behind bars yet?

  15. #15 jake man
    November 26, 2009

    Tim,

    Your report is biased. You focuse entirely this section of the press release:

    >*The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.*

    But then ignore the second part:

    >The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. …

    People here show their bias when they ignore the FACTS in the second paragraph.

    Let me list the manifold facts you coverup:

    1) The press release established that corruption of climate science occurs in CRU. The corruption is so well established that I need not labour the point.

    2) There is world wide concern about this corruption.

    Tim Lambert of UNSW, is covering up the corruption by ignoring the facts and instead cherry picking some minor error in the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition press release
    ;)

  16. #16 pointer
    November 26, 2009

    “And the guy is not behind bars yet?”

    Lol, Marco is clearly kidding. Because otherwise that remark would be, uh, dumb.

  17. #17 TrueSceptic
    November 26, 2009

    Is it not ironic that denidiots are jumping up and down calling Mann, Jones, etc., “criminals”, when

    Fred Singer

    Willie Soon

    Sallie Baliunas

    Chris de Freitas

    Bob Carter

    Marc Morano

    Ian Plimer

    (just for starters)

    are free to continue their dishonest and defamatory nonsense?

  18. #18 dhogaza
    November 26, 2009

    People here show their bias when they ignore the FACTS in the second paragraph.

    Not a single fact there. I’m biased towards the truth.

  19. #19 David Duff
    November 26, 2009

    Quite right, ‘Dhogie’, it’s the facts that count, just the facts:

    ‘Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.

    The response of the greens and most of the scientists I know is profoundly ironic, as we spend so much of our time confronting other people’s denial. Pretending that this isn’t a real crisis isn’t going to make it go away. Nor is an attempt to justify the emails with technicalities. We’ll be able to get past this only by grasping reality, apologising where appropriate and demonstrating that it cannot happen again.’

    Er, no, no, not my words but little Georgie Moonbat’s, oops, sorry, George Monbiot in The Guardian.

    Oh dear . . .

  20. #20 MapleLeaf
    November 26, 2009

    Re #15: “The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. …”

    Yet more unsubstantiated innuendo. Be afraid Tim, there is indeed a worldwide conspiracy. Seriously, do you guys live on rhetoric and unsubstantiated allegations? It is a wonder you leave the house.

    And Pointer. My comment in #14 had northing to do with what Marco said. Just wondering how de Freitas has avoided disciplinary action. And yes, I would consider the funneling of big oil money to FOS through a university account as criminal, and de Freitas has very close ties to FOS. There was an official investigation. Need I join the dots for you? And you guys have the gall to claim moral authority. Beyond belief.

  21. #21 dhogaza
    November 26, 2009

    Er, no, no, not my words but little Georgie Moonbat’s, oops, sorry, George Monbiot in The Guardian.

    Yes, he’s fallen for the same bullshit you’ve fallen for. I’ve never been a fan, this won’t turn me into a fan.

    Meanwhile, really the *only* thing of substance in the e-mail is Jones calling for folks to delete e-mail rather than see them coughed up to McI due to a FOI request (which, as it turns out, was denied anyway). Later Jones says that the FOI officer said “don’t delete stuff”, and there’s no evidence anything was deleted.

    Still, that reflects poorly on Jones.

    And has absolutely nothing to do with the science underlying AGW.

    Come back when you can disprove the physics.

  22. #22 MapleLeaf
    November 26, 2009

    Oh great the juvenile geriatric is back, Duffy. I do agree that the stolen emails are damaging. Just be fortunate that none has, yet, hacked into your Divine leaders’ email accounts. That said, Monbiot makes some good points.

    That said, this fiasco is no reason to delay action on AGW– the planet continues to warm blissfully ignorant of all this nonsense. What I find sad is how people like Duffy here are taking immense delight in someone else’s misfortune. Could they be any more malicious and vindictive if they tried? Probably not, but those in denial are infamous for that.

    This is best left to the police and lawyers now.

    Anyhow, Duffy you are trolling again. Any thoughts on those deniers in NZ fiddling the data? Or are you going to ignore that inconvenient truth? FOS have done the same, as has Lindzen…….OK, he did not fiddle the data, just **knowingly used** the wrong satellite data b/c the erroneous data showed what he wanted to see. Then there is Monckton who has been shown to fiddle IPCC graphs. The list goes on and on.

  23. #23 Joel
    November 26, 2009

    Anthony Watts was supposedly a TV weatherman right? I’ve seen TV weather reports where they were distinguishing between different recording stations in the same city. Surely he’s familiar with such things?

  24. #24 Happy Daze
    November 26, 2009

    Well, lets see. You could:

    Stop calling people who disagree with you “deniers”. That is all too close to “heretic”. This is not supposed to be a matter of faith.

    Publish your code. Invite open source style inspection and correction. Hire some software professionals to clean up and maintain the code. What’s been released does not inspire confidence.

    Publish the verification tests you use to demonstrate that the code does what its supposed to do.

    Publish ALL the data.

    Publish all the corrections made, with explanations.

    Engage your best opponents as a “black hat” team with the charter to find any errors in the code and analysis procedures. Fix any problems they find, and thank them publicly for that.

    Articulate and publish the best counter-arguments available, in a manner that their proponents will deem fair. Explain why you find the counter-arguments unpersuasive.

    You are asking people to spend trillions of dollars based on this stuff. The “we won’t show you the data, or the code” is unprofessional – just not acceptable. This needs to be above reproach.

  25. #25 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Here, here, for David Duff,

    I think this thread should be talking about the CRU not egregious errors from “skeptics”.

    I vote we turn this into another thread to discuss CRU. What do you say chaps?

    Duff, answer some [valid questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/competitive_enterprise_institu.php#comment-2103111) please, and don’t run away trying to hijack threads without substantiating your prior related claims.

    Take it were the issue is discussed, otherwise you’re exposing yourself as an empty vessel of unsubstantiated propaganda.

  26. #26 dhogaza
    November 26, 2009

    Stop calling people who disagree with you “deniers”.

    That’s not why we call anti-science denialists “deniers”. We call them “deniers” because they’re anti-science denialists.

    Engage your best opponents as a “black hat” team with the charter to find any errors in the code and analysis procedures. Fix any problems they find, and thank them publicly for that.

    GISStemp and GISS Model E have been out for some years, now. No denialist has done anything to improve the code or to show that the code’s erroneous.

  27. #27 Tony
    November 26, 2009

    Call the denialists what they are; propagandists. What they do is beyond marketing and beyond spin. It is propaganda pure and simple. Lies, more lies a little bit of truth and more lies.

    They do not care that there lines of argument are entirely contradictory. Scream when data is not adjusted for site changes, scream when data is adjusted for site changes. CO2 does not have a greenhouse effect, we need more CO2 to stave off another mini ice age. Scientists agree means collusion, don’t agree (on minor points) proof that it is all wrong.
    Have you noticed how they accuse others of their own dirty little tricks.

  28. #28 CKA in USA
    November 26, 2009

    For those calling deniers those who may be skeptical about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, but especially now: Take a deep diaphragmatic breath, exhale slowly, then learn that there is a difference between denial and skepticism.

    And apparently there is a difference between scientists and engineers who have the audacity to be honest and allow their findings, along with data, to be examined and critiqued–and those CAGW advocates, especially the prima donnas, who appear to be suppressionists.

  29. #29 David Duff
    November 26, 2009

    ‘Happy Daze’ suggests, very intelligently, sunny days, that is, all the scientists on both sides should open up their padlocked vaults and let the sun shine in.

    And ‘Dhogie’, you disappoint me. The reason they are called ‘deniers’ is because it chimes with ‘holocaust deniers’. Well, I mean, a bit of tar and a brush is so cheap and so effective!

    Jane, calm down, dear, all I did was let you know what one of your (erstwhile) most enthusiastic of supporters was saying. Don’t blame the messenger.

  30. #30 john smith
    November 26, 2009

    Drum ‘em out of the Scientific community. And don’t let them back in. period. Liars in the service to givernment, not man is a pot of manure.

  31. #31 Melvin Dauchburg
    November 26, 2009

    Sorry guys, ClimateGate proves its game over for your global warming alarmists. ……back to the drawing board on how to achieve global control……

  32. #32 Melissa
    November 26, 2009

    Maybe if all of you “warmists” would get over yourselves you might wake up and realize that the “planet” doesn’t want or “need” your kind of help!

    Screw off you commie bastards!

  33. #33 Paul UK
    November 26, 2009

    Jake:>
    People here show their bias when they ignore the FACTS in the second paragraph.

    I thought the second paragraph was irrelevant because the group of deniers in question had previously raised the issue about the graph/temp readings (“NZ CSC were told about this information at least two years ago”) and then they raised it again now to capitalise on a separate issue in the UK.

    eg. There was no merit at all in their query other than to make political capital.

    It seems that you are the one that is biased!

  34. #34 Douglas Patrick
    November 26, 2009

    Folks, this climate deal is very easy. Show us the raw data over time from the same sites over many years using equipment that does not require adjustments of any kind. Simple. We do not trust people or equipment that needs judgments of opinion when it comes to altering our lifestyles significantly and costing us Trillions of Dollars, not to mention the anxiety added.

    Remember, before Einstein and his General Theory of Relativity the entire world was based on Newtonian Physics, which was not up to the task of advancing human knowledge in the 20th Century. Now, the Warmists have apparently lied to us, likely out of a misguided attempt to save the world, not to mention earning a dollar or two. It is time for the truth and an open and complete debate about this Warmist truth.

    With great respect and Common Sense.

    Douglas

  35. #35 globalwarmer
    November 26, 2009

    Sounds like a bunch of you morons are a little upset that the biggest scam in the history of the world is out of the bag and into the light where it will die the death it deserves. Can’t wait to see Al Gore in jail oh happy happy day.

  36. #36 Richard
    November 26, 2009

    I really think the AGW supporters have run most of their course.. it’s time to bring in the accountants and see where and what and when we got some science for all the billions that have been paid out to prove AGW.. and change the world to a Green machine.. if theres something scientific there we’ll find it, act right and go on in poverty for the good of future humans, if not(as I suspect) we’ll hang the culprits, teach our kids how wrong it is to make up things and call it science, and go back to trying to balance the economy.

  37. #37 CHARLES
    November 26, 2009

    Hey all you intelligent scientific types (so-called)…we are not saying there is no climate change. Duh.

    We are saying that there has ALWAYS been cyclical climate change and that you have an agenda in putting forth hypotheses simply to create mass hysteria.

    WE are not going to die off…or become crispy critters. in fact, if anything we will all turn into frozen treats.

    You are ONLY trying to qualify your funding and help your buddies 1) Make a lot of money on foolish science inventions to stop a climatic event that is unstoppable by human beings, or 2) trying to destroy capitalist societies to form your own supposed socialist utopia ignoring 80 years of history of failed socialism.

    LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE. WE PREFER TO GET A SUN TAN…AND IF THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, WE WILL WEAR COATS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.

    Get a life.

  38. #38 Paul UK
    November 26, 2009

    >Show us the raw data over time from the same sites over many years using equipment that does not require adjustments of any kind. Simple.

    And what planet (sorry, I meant universe) does this equipment exist on?

    One without friction maybe?

    Actually lets turn that around. You go and do it and surprise us all with your miracle. I’m sure the science and engineering will mean we can go to the stars with zero effort once you find out how to do it.

  39. #39 Sam Deakins
    November 26, 2009

    Behead Al Gore!

  40. #40 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Happy Daze (I like the tag) says:

    >*Stop calling people who disagree with you “deniers”. That is all too close to “heretic”. This is not supposed to be a matter of faith.*

    You’re correct it should not be about faith, but some deniers make some pretty wild claims without supporting evidence. They simply take a faith based position. Search this site for a poster tagged “el gordo” as just one example that comes to mind.

    I, and many other call people deniers who deny the science, and make intellectually dishonest and egregious false claims like the NZCSC. I call sceptics who make honest points , ”sceptics”.

    There is a difference, keep your self at least in the later group and I won’t call you a denier.

    Happy Daze continues:
    >*Publish your code. Invite open source style inspection and correction. Hire some software professionals to clean up and maintain the code. What’s been released does not inspire confidence.*
    >*Publish the verification tests you use to demonstrate that the code does what its supposed to do.*
    >*Publish ALL the data.*
    >*Publish all the corrections made, with explanations.*

    Many here have discussed the problems to which you suggest the above solutions. Unfortunately it is not as simple as many would wish.
    Firstly much of the data has been published and is freely available, read the links in this thread for such an example. I believe the same is true for GISS (NASA) data. However contractual agreements prevent some third parties (e.g. CRU) from releasing data. The data is owned by others parties and current Intellectual Property rights allow for the funding of the work of these other parties.

    To look at this situation in a holistic way would require massive funding changes and addressing IP rights and consideration of the problems of establishing a[ two tiered]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php#comment-2096080) level of transparency.

    Similarly, I understand it that GISS (NASA) have already provided their code to the public. Others may wish to comment on this.

    Happy continues:
    >*Engage your best opponents as a “black hat” team with the charter to find any errors in the code and analysis procedures. Fix any problems they find, and thank them publicly for that.*

    When scientist have answered the campaing of FOI requests they may have time for some science, then perhaps extend engagement of their opponents. But as Bernard J pointed out take a look at Gavin’s response to [ this questions](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/comment-page-11/#comment-142825)

    >*Articulate and publish the best counter-arguments available, in a manner that their proponents will deem fair. Explain why you find the counter-arguments unpersuasive.*

    You’ll find this in multiple websites

  41. #41 Sam Deakins
    November 26, 2009

    Global Warming melted the Dinosaurs!

  42. #42 Dunston Scoggins
    November 26, 2009

    The arena of global warming debate is only the most egregious case demonstrating that those who know the least about mathematics and science place the most faith in its exactitude. Output and conclusions are tenuous without a thorough understanding of any algorithm’s underlying assumptions. Take a deep breath, warmers, and just relax about this…the vast majority of you are functionally unequipped to do other than parrot the conclusions of others. The technically literate will sort through the efforts at answers – good, bad, and otherwise – and like all sound science, this will take time and continuous revision. Find a new hobby, you parrots. Cheers from the States – DS.

  43. #43 Paul UK
    November 26, 2009

    Charlie boy:
    >”We are saying that there has ALWAYS been cyclical climate change..”

    Funny that, because the mainstream scientists say the same.
    Maybe if you understood the issues you might actually know that.

  44. #44 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Happy Daze, re my reply above, now you needn’t bother searching for “el gordo”, as “Charles” [above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2104626) is an adequate example. In particular, notice the reckoning of freezing.

  45. #45 George California
    November 26, 2009

    Denialists, Deniers, etc.. You Eco-Fascists have a solid response to opposing views on a very inexact science — Attack the eco-apostates! How dare someone disagree with you!!

    FYI to Eco-Nuts, 99% of the “deniers” are not against conserving energy or developing clean energy. We are however 100% against your eco-fascist solution: world taxation on everything one does. How the Left loves to mandate, control and mandate some more.

    The same chicken-little “the sky is falling” brain trust 30 years ago was positive the Earth would be deep in a new Ice Age by now.

    Brand me a proud Denier

  46. #46 Greg
    November 26, 2009

    There is something very cute about Global Warming: you have to believe in it! You aren’t allowed to question it because, as Mr. Al Gore & Co. tells us, “science has already spoken”. At the very moment that you subscribe to this view, “Human Induced Global Warming” theory loses any remote affiliation with Science and becomes a Metaphysical Concept, namely a Religious one.

    You see, Science must always have a dissenting opinion in order to move forward. The Scientific Method requires an experimental proof for any Theory to be accepted, and repeatedly so. If even one experiment negates any generally accepted Theory, then that Theory is either destined to the garbage bin, or it must be incorporated into a new “bigger” theory that will include it as a special case. For example, the Newtonian Theory of Gravitation – [your 9.8 m/c^2 reference, Mr. Kent comes to mind] had been proven wrong in cosmological settings, and was fully incorporated in the 20th century as a special case in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. As soon as one experiment will fail Einstein’s vision, then a new theory will be developed that will either be completely different or will incorporate the Theory of Relativity as a special case.

    When thinking of the “Human Induced Global Warming Theory”, I have to admit that physical laws governing such supposed phenomena may even exist, but there is nothing we can do to uncover them. In other words: WE CANNOT design a set of repeatable experiments that PROVE the existence of such laws.

    I challenge any climatologist to design the experiment that proves Human Made Global Warming or it absence. Please do this once and for all!

    But if you can not think even about ONE experiment this is what is wrong with the supposed Scientific Theory. That is precisely why this “Theory” realm is well beyond the scope of Scientific Method and it has become a matter of Faith, and in our pitiful world – a new religion.

    EU, UN, Greenpeace, Obama, and other marvelous entities declared that Human Induced Global Warming is the “Final truth”. That declaration immediately transforms Mr. Al Gore, and more familiar to us Canadians Dr. David Suzuki, into Prophets of the new “Church of Global Warming” to the disgust of few, and to the delight and awe of multitude of disciples. Those who cannot be frightened anymore by Hollywood horror movies are keeping themselves busy awaiting the coming Global Warming Apocalypses and scaring their friends and families into Human Induced Global Paranoia.

    Of course a small dirty secret exists, that for 10 years the global cooling is happening, and the Human Made GW Theory is dead, according to even meager scientific standards, but who cares, when media, politicians, celebrities [all of whom must be climatologists, besides we do now know that the most prominent warmist-climatologists are cooking books] are full of filthy hot air, and the new Great Cause for unwashed masses – after the fall of communism – is almost upon us!

  47. #47 Paul UK
    November 26, 2009

    Erm, Tim.
    Looks like you have an all out spam/troll attack going on here.

  48. #48 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    David Duff,

    I have made no comment on the messenger, I’d be willing to address Monbiot and his message elsewere. I am addressing both your high-jacking, and your smear-and-run tactics.

  49. #49 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Tim,

    Looks like this topic is one that the faith based want to distract people from. Their ehmm “rebuttal” provide a fine example, for those like Happy Daze who might be looking for a way forward, or are waiting to make judgement about the merits of “argument”.

  50. #50 chuck
    November 26, 2009

    bunch of pinko commie rag. the truth is out, deal with it, and become productive members of society. global warming is BS.
    blame the sun, or God, though im sure most of you believe in the existence of either.

  51. #51 MapleLeaf
    November 26, 2009

    WTF. Where did all the contrarians and conspiracy theorists come from all of a sudden? Site is swarming with them, kinda like mozzies. Did Watts and McIntyre send you all here? Come on now confess.

    Feeling a little concerned that more of your ilk have been exposed for fudging data? Not a inference or something taken out of context. Actual evidence. Care to defend their actions?

    Now stop trying to detract from the “dishonest and egregious false claims” of the NZCSC and FOS with your vitriol and invective.

    Either speak to the topic at hand or go and troll somewhere else please.

  52. #52 Mark
    November 26, 2009

    Douglas: “Folks, this climate deal is very easy. Show us the raw data over time from the same sites over many years using equipment that does not require adjustments of any kind.”

    It doesn’t exist, not until the last couple of decades. The data that are being used to estimate climate change over most of the 20th century were collected to support meteorology and oceanography at the time, not to estimate longer term trends. So there are inhomogeneities, biases, station changes that must be corrected for. People who want to use this data have to deal with them.

    Or ignore the old data and pretend we know nothing about what happened before 1990. Guess what, the Earth’s been getting warmer since then.

  53. #53 GLHockey7
    November 26, 2009

    For now, I think someone needs to begin creating a list of the deniers. We should include where they live and work. Eventually they will need to be reeducated. We can not allow their stupidity to ruin our planet. The ones that continue to ignore the truth can be silenced later.

  54. #54 Neil
    November 26, 2009

    Bloody hell. It’s all gone a bit pitchforks-and-flaming-torches hasn’t it?

  55. #55 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    >Where did all the contrarians and conspiracy theorists come from all of a sudden?

    NZCSC?

    I love Chuck!

    >bunch of pinko commie rag. the truth is out, deal with it, and become productive members of society. global warming is BS. blame the sun, or God, though im sure most of you believe in the existence of either.

    I’m overwhelmed with the case he presents.

    Yeah shall know them by their fruits?

    (Sorry bout that last line, I’m still in verse from addressing Dirty Dave).

  56. #56 MarkG
    November 26, 2009

    >When thinking of the “Human Induced Global Warming Theory”, I have to admit that physical laws governing such supposed phenomena may even exist, but there is nothing we can do to uncover them. In other words: WE CANNOT design a set of repeatable experiments that PROVE the existence of such laws.

    Your ignorance of physics is not a disproof of physics.

    Put some CO2 in a container. Point an interferometer at it. Measure the spectra from, say .4µm to 14µm. Repeat with CH4. The rest is 3rd year physics/maths. You should know that this has already been done, many times. In fact most of it was done before you were born.

  57. #57 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    GLHockey7, are you Charles in drag?

  58. #58 ed357
    November 26, 2009

    You have to be stuck on STUPID if you still believe in MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING after the “Disciples of Gore” have been caught in their lies.

  59. #59 Dave
    November 26, 2009

    This post made it to some social news sites like reddit. Hence the influx of smear-and-run anti-science groupthink.

  60. #60 Melissa
    November 26, 2009

    Gee GLHockey7 maybe you should reconsider your words when it comes to those who disagree with you.

    You said:

    “For now, I think someone needs to begin creating a list of the deniers. We should include where they live and work. Eventually they will need to be reeducated. We can not allow their stupidity to ruin our planet. The ones that continue to ignore the truth can be silenced later.”

    These words sound convincingly like 1939 Berlin to me..

    I didn’t realize that “disagreement” was a CRIME in New Zealand.

  61. #61 Bud
    November 26, 2009

    Wow, that’s a hell of a troll attack! I was wondering how this thread got so many comments so quick.

    GLHockey7 (#53 above) apparently thinks climate “sceptics” will see his post above and conclude that climate change activists believe in Nazi style methods to silence dissent. You don’t do much justice to the intelligence of your denialist buddies, do you Hockey?

    Also, the attacks on jake man (#15) are unwarranted. I’m pretty sure his post was intended as satire.

  62. #62 LeninUSA
    November 26, 2009

    These “scientists” are a bunch of fake phony frauds if you ask me. Cooking the numbers to help their warming theory sucks. I for one don’t want a carbon tax or crap and tax or what ever you call it. STAY OUT OF MY LIFE!

  63. #63 Dunston Scoggins
    November 26, 2009

    Didn’t know this was an insiders-only blog. Sorry, mate. Just a bit more discussion on the subject of controversy as of late. You are right – I’m normally studying elsewhere. Always looking for new pastures – preferably sensible ones – to link past and present. I agree – don’t much appreciate the all-caps style and invective, regardless of viewpoint. Seems a bit frivolous, much of the above, though the initial post was rather sober, even if clearly with a POV. Perhaps just a rant-site, then. The hubbub in recent years is unseemly and only growing, so it seems. For my part, I’d say it’s all too soon to tell, and I’m sceptical of the declarations of certitude. The meaning of the fairly-well recorded past is not nailed down in black and white and so I’m leery of this new urgency, not just in this arena, but the hyperbole is especially ripe on warming. Would rather stay with Augustine and St. Bernard in the research realm anyway but it is, I’d thought, worthwhile to consider the past in terms of current affairs. Back to the stacks, then, boyos. Cheers – DS.

  64. #64 MapleLeaf
    November 26, 2009

    Janet, re #55, the NZCSC is the “New Zealand Climate ‘Science’ coalition”. Yet another astroturf front group for the denial machine. We have “Friends” of Science and others here in Canada. Anyhow NZCSC are the ones who have been shown to be fudging the data to removed the warming trend. And now it seems they are in damage control mode. Which means, it seems, hurling abuse left right and centre. They and their ilk are lousy at science, but rather good at rhetoric and vitriol (and fudging data too it seems). Wonder if they kiss loved ones with those potty mouths?

    Here is an idea: We should start a list of documents fudged by Monckton, Watts, McIntyre, Tim Ball, de Freitas et al. and dedicate a whole web page to said fudged graphics, fudged statements and statistics. What do you think Tim Lambert?

  65. #65 Bud
    November 26, 2009

    Re my last post @#61, and judging by Melissa (#60) it seems like GLHockey wasn’t overestimating the stupidity and gullibility of some readers after all.

    Melissa, he’s one of you trying to be clever. It’s really really not hard to figure out.

  66. #66 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Melissa, are you GLHockey7 in drag?

  67. #67 Paul UK
    November 26, 2009

    I think the news has just reached the Florida everglades, obviously the dispatch rider just made it having avoided the alligators.

  68. #68 LeninUSA
    November 26, 2009

    I hope Al Gore gives back his Nobel prize. Oh yea that hypocrite is too busy flying around on his private jet to care about anything but MONEY!

  69. #69 Mikeyh0
    November 26, 2009

    Stupidity knows no bounds.

  70. #70 Faxx
    November 26, 2009

    LOL at all the liberals on here trying to do damage control. I think some of you are paid by big climategate.

    you got caught lying, now face our wrath for it.

    keep your cap and trade, and carbon taxes, keep your green bullcrap to yourselves.

    I am going to turn on my air and open my windows just to shove a middle finger in your general direction.

  71. #71 George California
    November 26, 2009

    Warming Farce Solution:
    1. Cripple Western Economies
    2. Redistribute Western Wealth to the Poor (Usually identified by dictatorship form of gov)
    3. Ignore #1 polluter (China)
    4. Ignore India
    5. Criminalize and Tax (of course) select human activities
    6. Attempt to marginalize the Deniers of the grand plan
    7. Ignore the big heater a.k.a. The Sun

  72. #72 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Greg,

    On what do you base this assertion:

    *”a small dirty secret exists, that for 10 years the global cooling is happening”*

  73. #73 Melissa
    November 26, 2009

    Thank God and his only begotten son, Jesus Christ that your religion of lies has met its match!

    Enough of your lies atheists!

  74. #74 Dutra
    November 26, 2009

    Read this excerpt, from a heretofore internal CRU email. Please rationalize the circumstances that support the denial of data to competing positions and the selective application of data in support of one’s own position. Then tell me if true science is suffering from this politicized approach to research.

    The email thread follows:

    Mr McIntyre’s analysis of the data – which he had been asking for since 2003 – suggests that scientists at the
    Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom’s Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a small subset of the available data to make their claims that recent years have been the hottest of the last millennium. When the entire data set is used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears completely. [1]

    Mr McIntyre has previously showed problems with the mathematics behind the ‘hockey stick’. But scientists at the Climate Research Centre, in particular Dr Briffa, have
    continuously republished claiming the upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years is real and not an artifact of the methodology used – as claimed by Mr McIntyre. However, these same scientists have denied Mr McIntyre access to all the data. Recently they were forced to make more data available to Mr McIntyre after they
    published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society – a journal which unlike Nature and Science has strict policies on data archiving which it enforces.

    This week’s claims by Steve McInyre that scientists associated with the UK Meteorology Bureau have been less than diligent are serious and suggest some of the most defended building blocks of the case for anthropogenic global warming are based on the indefensible when the
    methodology is laid bare.

    This sorry saga also raises issues associated with how data is archived at the UK Meteorological Bureau with in complete data sets that spuriously support the case for global warming being promoted while complete data sets
    are kept hidden from the public – including from
    scientific sceptics like Steve McIntyre.

    It is indeed time leading scientists at the Climate Research Centre associated with the UK Meteorological Bureau explain how Mr McIntyre is in error or resign.

  75. #75 BrokenHockeyStick34
    November 26, 2009

    GLHockey7- Your plan is par for the course for the Liberal/Socialist mindset. I am happy to meet you anytime and anywhere for you to begin the “re-education” program. I do doubt you would live through that process. Your Hoax is out and the game is over. Leave my freedom alone.

  76. #76 Tim Lambert
    November 26, 2009

    If you are wondering where all the crazy denialists come from, Drudge linked to this post, presumably because he thought the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was some sort of official organization, rather than a bunch of denialists.

  77. #77 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    [It was](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php#comment-2104737) one tiny portion of potential topic for which there might be the slightest possibility of a semblance of evidence based discussion.

  78. #78 Paul UK
    November 26, 2009

    The funny thing is, I don’t even like commies!
    But I don’t like capitalists much either.

  79. #79 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    “atheists”?

    Mmmm,

    Melisa, you were GLHockey7?

    Or perhaps do you two have this double team shtick where ever you go?

    el gordo, come back!!!!

  80. #80 Tom
    November 26, 2009

    the
    rules
    of the
    game

    Evidence base for the Climate Change
    Communications Strategy
    The game is communicating climate change;
    the rules will help us win it.

    futerra

    the principles of
    climate change
    communication

    Why were the principles
    created?

    The game is communicating
    climate change; the rules will
    help us win it.

    These principles were created as
    part of the UK Climate Change
    Communications Strategy, an
    evidence-based strategy aiming
    to change public attitudes
    towards climate change in the
    UK. This is a ‘short version’
    of a far longer document of
    evidence that can be found at
    http://www.defra.gov.uk.

    There is plenty of evidence
    relating to attitudes towards and
    behaviour on climate change,
    general environmental behaviour
    change and the whole issue
    of sustainable development
    communication. As we reviewed
    the research for these principles,
    one ‘überprinciple’ emerged:
    “Changing attitudes
    towards climate change is
    not like selling a particular
    brand of soap – it’s like
    convincing someone to
    use soap in the first place.”
    At first glance, some of the
    principles may seem counterintuitive
    to those who have
    been working on sustainable
    development or climate change
    communications for many years.
    Some confront dearly cherished
    beliefs about what works; a few
    even seem to attack the values
    or principles of sustainable
    development itself.
    However, these principles are a
    first step to using sophisticated
    behaviour change modelling and
    comprehensive evidence from
    around the world to change
    attitudes towards climate change.
    We need to think radically, and
    the Rules of the Game are a sign
    that future campaigns will not be
    ‘business as usual’. This is a truly
    exciting moment.
    For the full evidence for these rules, and the climate change
    communications strategy itself, please visit: http://www.defra.gov.uk
    For the new UK sustainable development strategy please visit:
    http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk

    1 blowing away
    myths

    Many of the oft-repeated communications methods and messages
    of sustainable development have been dismissed by mainstream
    communicators, behaviour change experts and psychologists.
    Before we go into what works, our principles make a ‘clean sweep’
    of what doesn’t:
    1. Challenging habits of climate change communication
    Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human
    survival instincts
    Recent surveys show that people without children may care more
    about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human
    survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of
    little use for a change in climate measured in years.
    Don’t create fear without agency
    Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon
    the threat. Use fear with great caution.
    Don’t attack or criticise home or family
    It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
    2. Forget the climate change detractors
    Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but
    unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate
    change, but how we should deal with climate change.
    3. There is no ‘rational man’
    The evidence discredits the ‘rational man’ theory – we rarely weigh
    objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear
    self-interested choice.
    4. Information can’t work alone
    Providing information is not wrong; relying on information alone to
    change attitudes is wrong. Remember also that messages about
    saving money are important, but not that important.

    2 a new way of
    thinking

    Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new
    ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging
    from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:
    5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before
    persuasion works
    Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is
    as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise
    (or remember) that climate change relates to them.
    6. Use both peripheral and central processing
    Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but
    peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot
    of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to
    public transport.
    7. Link climate change mitigation to positive
    desires/aspirations
    Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of
    their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home
    improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are
    all worth investigating.
    8. Use transmitters and social learning
    People learn through social interaction, and some people are
    better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these
    people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are
    transmitted more effectively.
    9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance
    Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and
    their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.

    3 linking policy and
    communications

    These principles clearly deserve a separate section. All the evidence
    is clear – sometimes aggressively so – that ‘communications in the
    absence of policy’ will precipitate the failure of any climate change
    communications campaign right from the start:
    10. Everyone must use a clear and consistent
    explanation of climate change
    The public knows that climate change is important, but is less clear
    on exactly what it is and how it works.
    11. Government policy and communications on climate
    change must be consistent
    Don’t ‘build in’ inconsistency and failure from the start.

    4 audience
    principles

    In contrast to the myths, this section suggests some principles that
    do work. These principles are likely to lead directly to a set of general
    messages, although each poses a significant implementation challenge:
    12. Create ‘agency’ for combating climate change
    Agency is created when people know what to do, decide for
    themselves to do it, have access to the infrastructure in which to act,
    and understand that their contribution is important.
    13. Make climate change a ‘home’ not ‘away’ issue
    Climate change is a global issue, but we will feel its impact at home –
    and we can act on it at home.
    14. Raise the status of climate change mitigation
    behaviours
    Research shows that energy efficiency behaviours can make you
    seem poor and unattractive. We must work to overcome these
    emotional assumptions.
    15. Target specific groups
    A classic marketing rule, and one not always followed by climate
    change communications from government and other sources.

    5 style
    principles

    These principles lend some guidance on the evidence of stylistic
    themes that have a high chance of success:
    16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on
    climate change
    We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can
    call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the
    UK public.
    17. Use emotions and visuals
    Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by
    disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions
    and visuals usually do.

    6 effective
    management

    These principles are drawn primarily from the experience of others,
    both in their successes and in the problems they faced:
    18. The context affects everything
    The prioritisation of these principles must be subject to ongoing
    assessments of the UK climate change situation.
    19. The communications must be sustained over time
    All the most successful public awareness campaigns have been
    sustained consistently over many years.
    20. Partnered delivery of messages will be more
    successful
    Experience shows that partnered delivery is often a key component
    for projects that are large, complex and have many stakeholders.

    “First they ignore you; then they laugh
    at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

    Tha Thats ALL Folks!

    Another FOIA file: Rules Of The Game
    Happy Thanksgiving All

  81. #81 Tim Osburn
    November 26, 2009

    Maple Leaf I am laughing at you do you also think the world is flat? Of course you have to manipulate the data? I am sorry but you do protest to much. If it quacks like duck and looks like a duck it is a duck. When is it necessary to massage data? When it goes against your cause. The sky is falling!! Global warmist you are the ones in total denial.

  82. #82 Dave
    November 26, 2009

    @ed357, CKA in USA, john smith, Melvin Dauchburg, Melissa,
    Douglas Patrick, globalwarmer, Richard, CHARLES, Dunston Scoggins, George California, Greg, chuck and any other cretin that’s flown by here in the last day or so

    You are credulous fools, incapable of thinking for yourselves, believing obvious lies and denigrating honest scientists – and having the brazen audacity to accuse others of precisely the delusion you yourself suffer from, calling yourselves skeptical while unquestioningly accepting nonsense that is spoonfed to you through sources your prejudices align with. Pretending evidence does not exist is childish – arrogance and stupidity is a heady mix, and you have clearly drunk deep.

    You bring nothing here but repetitions of third-hand lies. You are a complete and utter waste of time.

  83. #83 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Its all about Freedumb, forget the science! Science is determined by what our masters tell us is Freedumb!!

    I wonder what Gavin was talking about when he said McCarthyism?

    You crazies are fun!

  84. #84 Tim Lambert
    November 26, 2009

    Also, some of the denialists are parodies by regular commenters.

  85. #85 Neil
    November 26, 2009

    Damn that Poe’s Law! It really is impossible to tell.

  86. #86 Kenny181
    November 26, 2009

    The funny and frustrating thing about all of this is that if or when the Global Warming theory is proven false proponents of the theory won’t celebrate the good news. They will either feel defeated or, stubornly hold their previous position because they don’t want to be wrong. These people can’t be happy.

  87. #87 Tom
    November 26, 2009

    So let me get this straight for a moment. The site author of the blog “Watts up with that?” is supposedly very concerned about changes in the sites of weather stations, because those changes might influence the climate records. But this same author does not want NIWA to correct for the fact that certain weather stations in New Zealand had moved?

    Color me surprised.

  88. #88 Joseph
    November 26, 2009

    The corruption is so well established that I need not labour the point.

    Nice argument by assertion. BTW, I’ve seen the best the deniers got, and it’s not much.

  89. #89 MapleLeaf
    November 26, 2009

    The FOS have also recently been intimidating and harassing members of the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. They even planted a mole to access confidential information, and said mole then passed on the information to FOS. FOS then started emailing everyone on the executive and council and harassing them.

    If I were in NZ, I would be concerned that NZCSC would try something similar.

    Wonder how many of the crazies here realise that Mandela is a communist? It really is like watching a traffic accident with all these trolls flying around. Tim sure is going to be busy cleaning up their mess.

  90. #90 Randal
    November 26, 2009

    The truth does not fear and hide from scrutiny and skepticism.
    Global warming has been a Leftist lie all along. The debate is now over. The liars need to go find something else to $tudy and lie about. Make it something more believable and less expensive this time, eh boys. ;)

  91. #91 Happy Daze
    November 26, 2009

    Thanks for the reasonable replies from a couple of posters.

    I have a graduate technical degree, but frankly don’t have the technical chops to really form an independent opinion on this, nor the years to dig through a million lines of Fortran + all the underlying physics.

    But I do have a few years managing development of models for reasonably complex geo-mechanical events, where its not possible to directly measure predicted vs. actual results. I have some feel for the physical modelers vs. software engineers issues. I have some feel for defect density in code, how hard it is to get the defects out, and what it takes to keep from putting the defects in.

    So I’ll just say that the the CRU material sets off all kinds of alarm bells for me. There is some suggestion (from the CRU material) of technical problems in the code and data, organized suppression of opposition technical opinion, and etc. And its just not possible for many people in the field to claim dispassionate scientific interest (sorry, but that’s just the way it is, and you should recognize that).

    If you were modeling, say stellar evolution, frankly I wouldn’t care.

    But because this work is being used to justify huge economic and political decisions (I can’t think of anything of comparable magnitude), I think you just have a much, much higher benchmark to meet.

    Figure out a way to get past the IP issues. Buy them out, or get a release, or whatever it takes. I’m sure there are real issues there, but it comes across like a BS excuse. Figure out a way to get it off the table.

    That’s not to say any of this is easy or cheap or fast. I know modelers hate to spend money and time on software engineering rather than physics – but you need to spend some. I can imagine FOI is a huge pain in the butt. I know there are some entirely non-technical folks you will never convince (but to be fair there are some of these on both sides).

    I guess I’m what you would call a skeptic. The CRU material hurt your case in my eyes, for the reasons I noted above, but I’m a little skeptical of that too :) I’d like more transparency and smaller error bars all around.

    I guess overall I’d like to give you guys another 20 years to work on the models, collect more/better data, and get some faster computers so you can run better models on finer grids, and see how well the next 20 years match the current predictions.

    In the meantime, I think there are some things we could do that would be win-wins, AGW or not. For instance, I’d like to see a really big X-prize for a really, really good battery.

    I appreciate the opportunity to comment.

  92. #92 Tim Osburn
    November 26, 2009

    Science is not fascism. If 999,999 people say one thing and 1 can proof it otherwise with real absoulute data not smoke and mirrors and data manipulation then the 1 person is correct and it becomes a scientific fact. Not because a person with media and hollywood behind them says it is so.
    I have said that global warmist alarmist constant badgering was not science. How many sceintist since the beginning of time went against the esthablishments/ religous beliefs to be killed/imprisoned/chastied. Wow the world is flat. Center of universe is earth. ETC,, Bring your data and have a real debate not some clown Al Gore with a slick video Fear mongering at its best.

  93. #94 Torontojim
    November 26, 2009

    Mapleleaf: If you can document lies made by Monckton, then by all means do it. However Mr. Mann and his cronies have been caught in a tangle of lies. phoney science, destruction of evidence and attempts to discredit scientific discussion. If the science and data was clear and unequivocal, why would they need to “hide the decline” (gee Mr. Mann I wonder what the scientific basis for that is?) and discredit opponents? Gotcha

  94. #95 Tom
    November 26, 2009

    Job 37:14-24

  95. #96 Janet Akerman
    November 26, 2009

    Happy Daze,

    Thanks for your comments,

    If you ever want to discuss the CRU detail and context, I’d be happy to engage.

  96. #97 Eric
    November 26, 2009

    We spent $1 trillion to attack Iraq on the OUTSIDE chance that Iraq was a threat. Climate change is an even greater potential threat than Iraq ever was. It is prudent to preempt the problem regardless of what a few skeptics think.

  97. #98 Testy, testy
    November 26, 2009

    Testy, testy. Is this computer scientist on the AGW dole, modeling grants say, or just a true believer? Because what kind of scientist hears “ADJUSTMENTS” and their BS detectors do not flutter. Enjoy your carbon trading scam, Zealanders.

  98. #99 GWB's nemesis
    November 26, 2009

    Absolutely fantastic – I didn’t realise that there is a competition going on for the most crazed denialist satire post. What’s the prize? When do we get to vote?

    Personally I think George California (#71) is marginally shading it (calling the sun “the big heater” is inspired). Come on chaps, keep going, there must be some even more hilarious attempts out there.

  99. #100 Vince Whirlwind
    November 26, 2009

    A right lot of dingbats.

    Are they taking the decade off from UFO cover-up/fake moon-landing outrage?

    I recently started a technical course – the instructor is a complete dingbat – so far he has informed us that:
    – transistors were reverse-engineered from captured UFOs at Area 51 (“I’m not telling you what to think – I’m just saying there’s different ways of looking at things”.)
    – global cooling is occurring.
    – he “remembers” the great Global Cooling scare of the 1970s.

    I think these people were the retards at school who’ve grown up into adults who are profoudly jealous of the vast numbers of people whose intelligence exceeds theirs by a considerable margin. They hold contrarian views as a form of revenge against the intelligence which eluded them.

1 2 3 9