Amateur climatologists exposed (again)

They "MUST" read what YOU want them to read?

You sure the dog didn't already eat Lambert's homework too?

good one! heh

Hey Jimmy - Watts just passed 3MM hits. Oh wait. Of course, he's capable of talking science instead of just re-posting politically driven propaganda. Just sayin!

This just in, Mann's hockey stick graph algorithm still produces hockey sticks even when fed random noise. After all these years of the same bogus data cooking, why didn't it bother anyone until now is the real mystery.

Tierney in the NY Times hits the nail on the head in this whole debacle:

"These researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude â and ultimately undermine their own cause."

This blog is guilty of the same thing - the smug certitude is undermining the cause of climate change. When scientists give the appearance of bias, they lose all credibility.

"Hey Jimmy - Watts just passed 3MM hits. Oh wait. Of course, he's capable of talking science instead of just re-posting politically driven propaganda. Just sayin!"

Conservatives have gained a new found interest in science? I guess it's a good first step, even if knee jerky.

"the smug certitude is undermining the cause of climate change."

Funny, that's the way I've perceived the "skeptic" community. "Hey, I found these emails! I'm not going to read them yet, but GUILTY!"

This just in, Mann's hockey stick graph algorithm still produces hockey sticks even when fed random noise.

And you know this because you have TESTED this claim yourself, or are you just beleiving what a denialist blog tells you?

Once again we note the giant vacuum of silence to the substance of the post and a frantic setting up of new, improved strawmen. Yawn.

Likewise, it should not matter how God created life, whether it was through a miraculous spoken word or through the natural forces of the universe that He created. The grandeur of God's works commands awe regardless of what processes He used.

It's OK James. My kids felt the same way when they found out that Santa Claus wasn't real.

James,
It still appears the scientists at CRU did some no-nos. I'd be curious to get your response to this post from Derek Lowe if you have time.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/12/01/climategate_and_scienti…

It still appears the scientists at CRU did some no-nos.

Still? So you admit that those other accusations were already a waste of time to make and rebut. Why should anyone waste any more of their time rebutting yet more claims that are nothing more than a waste of time?

Out of the approximately 10,000 emails per staff member over the time period, this is what they could come up with? Ridiculous, and even a little knowledge fo the topic allows us to dismiss almost everything without a second thought. And what were the follow-up emails to the FOI stuff? I've seen much worse in inhouse emails after dealing with less tiresome twits than they had to. (50 FOI requests in 5 days, when the requester already had most of the information already?)

@Dan: Did the CRU gang do some things we all wish they hadn't yes. Did they do anything that should cause us to reevaluate our position the need to do something about climate change? No.

Derek Lowe simply doesn't understand the basics. He writes, for example, that "I do not want the future of the world economy riding on this. And what's more, it appears that the CRU no longer has much of their original raw data.

Wrong and wrong. As New Scientist recently reported (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427373.400-lowcarbon-future-we-…), the economy will do fine:

But electricity and other forms of energy make up only a fraction of the price of most goods. Other factors - raw materials, labour and taxes - are far more important. The energy that goes into producing food, alcoholic drinks and tobacco, for example, makes up just 2 per cent of the consumer price. For motor vehicle purchases and hotel stays, the figure is 1 per cent. Only for energy-intensive industries does the contribution climb above 3 per cent: for example, energy's share of land and air travel costs is 6 and 7 per cent respectively.

Of course, other analyses come up with different results, but even if the NS results are 100% understated, there's still no reason to worry much.

Second, the data aren't lost. Yes, CRU threw some away, but 95% of the data are still around, in other archives and at UEA. To repeat the propaganda coming from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as Lowe does, shows a lack of respect for the facts.

What about the Professional Climatologists ? Check out this editorial by Richard Lindzen, and before people start yelling that he is a âDenierâ. Remember that the IPCC considered him qualified enough that he was appointed lead author of Chapter 7, Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks, for the IPCC Third Assessment Report.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487039394045745674239170254…

Check out this editorial by Richard Lindzen, and before people start yelling that he is a âDenierâ.

Lindzen is one of the very few qualified scientists in the denialist camp. He's published in the literature, most notably his "iris effect" mechanism that he claimed would counterbalance CO2 forcing. Scientists take him seriously, seriously enough that efforts were made to measure the "iris effect" to see if he might be right (observations showed his ideas to be without merit).

I have problems with the fact that one of the most prominent skeptical scientists - Roy Spencer - is a creationist.

I have problems with the fact that Lindzen claims that cigarette smoking is mostly harmless and that medical research linking it with poor health is flawed.

I have problems with ESR because along with being a climate science denialist, he's an HIV denialist (not that he's in any way associated with climate research, he's a second-rate software hacker).

I have problems with John Christy stating publicly that he opposes any action on CO2 emissions because even of AGW is true, his missionary work in Africa tells him that we should ignore it.

Oh, and as a matter of principle, I didn't read the WSJ editorial. They've not stated anything truthful on their editorial page for years.

An editorial on a business and politics rag which has vested interests vying against climate change policies has a scientist saying what they want a hear. Great.

Thank god for the Wall Street Journal. Where would science be without it?

It appears to be a MOND autumn in the science glossies, as Science publishes a review on our favourite alternative physics theory and the status of MOND like extensions to general relativity.

Thanks for the response James. I suspected as much. It's unfortunate that the integrity of science with the public is the biggest loss here.