427

Norwich, we have a problem

Climate change skeptics needn’t be skeptical about leaked e-mails


 

I can’t say I am spectacularly surprised at the emerging scandal over private e-mails obtained from the servers of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which is at the heart of the process that produces IPCC reports on climate change. Some of the controversial practices revealed by the leaked e-mail corpus, such as fidgeting with visual presentations of statistics in order to make them as impressive and sensational as possible, are just evil habits that nonetheless form part of the standard operating procedure of applied science. But others—ignoring requests for data sets from one’s scientific adversaries, playing politics with scientific editorial boards, denouncing criticisms as not being peer-reviewed while working behind the scenes to ensure that those same criticisms are shut out of the peer-reviewed literature—were already known parts of the climate-panic industry’s playbook.

The CRU e-mails, whose veracity has so far held up to intense worldwide scrutiny and been generally confirmed by the University of East Anglia, reveal top IPCC contributors to be supercilious, inquisitorial, paranoid, nasty, thuggish, hypocritical, and, in general, trapped in an echo chamber of very modest dimension. If you didn’t already have a sense that all of this was true, you haven’t been paying close enough attention to the debate.

If, on the other hand, you instinctively think that “Climategate” isn’t going to be a big deal in the long run, I would suggest contemplating the very earliest reactions of the climatology nerds at ClimateAudit.org, the global-warming skepticism site edited by Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre (who is mentioned dozens if not hundreds of times in the CRU e-mails as a particularly intractable bête noire). In the hours immediately after the CRU leak, many members of the Climate Audit community, confronted with evidence of malfeasance and scumbaggery by the scientists who have been attacking skeptics as lunatics and astroturfers for two decades, at first reacted with… well, skepticism. And, in some cases, even sorrow. Sample quotes from the comment thread:

  • An ideological hacker smart enough to hack CRU is smart enough to manufacture a bombshell or two and seed it amongst the rest of the data. Treat “too good to be true” material with a lot of caution initially from such a source.
  • Folks I would run, not walk, away from this as quickly as possible. To think they would be stupid enough to not cover their tracks on this is not credible IMO. While parts are likely real, some could be added as embellishments meant to create the furor it is already creating in the skeptic community. Let’s not make any judgements on the authenticity until we are sure what we have here is real and not a plant.
  • I find this really quite shocking and distrubing. I mean it is one thing to think that such subversion is going on; it is quite another thing – if this is all undoctored – to read it. I don’t know whether to be elated (as a skeptic) or a little sad that this will reflect badly on science regardless.
  • I have concerns like others that this entire archive may be a “spiked” version of an otherwise legitimate (hacked) archive …but much of my concern is driven by the fact that I assume that things can’t be this blatant.

More such examples could be cited. The point is that the skeptics suspected the contents of the CRU leak were too “good”—that is, too damaging to the cause of the global warming hypothesis and the IPCC—to be true. It now seems nearly certain that they are true. Under the circumstances, what George Monbiot calls “climate rationalists” can hardly maintain a posture of indifference and dismissiveness. Monbiot himself, displaying a courageous spirit of openness that his critics may not have anticipated, has been arguing as much: but voices of agreement on his side of the debate are so few that he admits “I have seldom felt so alone.”


 

Norwich, we have a problem

  1. Time to review all the data & opinions comeing from all of these jokers.

    But I suspect its the real goods.

    • I love these types of grandiose proclamations. Too bad they're rarely grammatical.

      • I love these snide comments. Too bad they're rarely topical.

        Grow up troll.

      • The climate alarmists are going down. Was that grammatical enough for you? No, they're not going down because of these emails. They're going down because the climate is no longer cooperating with them, and their cherished models are turning out to be duds. Even the alarmists admit there has been no warming in the past ten years (amongst each other – rarely in public). They've sold the fraud that computer modeling by itself can serve as legitimate "science" long enough. That turd won't polish anymore.

  2. Finally! Only a week after the fact, a journalist in Canada is allowed to talk about this.

    Where the hell are the rest of your brethren on this topic?!?!? Too ashamed to write about it?

    The emails are scandalous enough. But the real scandal are the comments in the code dug up by the programmers. The HARRY_READ_ME file is a treasure trove.

    • If only there were a Canadian newspaper that was the most climate-skeptic-friendly in the English speaking world and had already printed at least three articles about this topic!!1!! Where might one find such a thing!??!

      • Ia m aware of only two major newspapers who are working this stuff – our own esteemed National Post and the London Daily Telegraph. No major TV outlet is touching it.

        • Wall Street Journal had a fairly decent summary

        • Chuckle.. the esteemed National Post..? there's a contradiction.

          • Certainly no contradiction on this story. It's astonishing to me that if I didn't read blogs I wouldn't know a thing about this – since I don't read the Post. Astonishing.

        • "No major TV outlet is touching it". CBS News and Fox News covered this.
          "Ia m aware of only two major newspapers who are working this stuff". The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, amongst others, reported on it as well. The WSJ's coverage is the least toady of the lot.

      • Where were those articles? In the opinion section, left to the right-wing opinion columnists like Gunter?

        Why hasn't CBC or CTV featured this story on their newscasts? Or their websites? Why is Google apparently suppressing search hints related to this story?

        • It is on CTV, but it's buried down at number 26 in the Sci/Tech headlines, just below something about a Darwin book someone found in the bathroom (?). It's also very much about how the emails were probably stolen to undermine the Copenhagen talks and were taken out of context, rather than reporting what the emails actually say.

      • "If only there were a Canadian newspaper that was the most climate-skeptic-friendly in the English speaking world and had already printed at least three articles about this topic!!1!! Where might one find such a thing!??!"

        Why, in the same newspaper than ran the Iranian badges for Jews story naturally.

        You, of all people, should know that no one sensible reads that rag anymore.

        Don't rag up this publication too much, by the way. I'm still holding out for it being a saviour of magazine-based public literacy.

        • "You, of all people, should know that no one sensible reads that rag anymore."
          You mean the Tornto Star? I fully agree to that.

      • Regardless, Colby, you've done this particular publication a great service by tackling this issue, which is a very important issue and requires a lot of analysis.

      • In fact, this presented two falsehoods:
        1- the temperature graphs that combined the modern temperature data from measurements with the temperature data obtained by research into tree rings, bristle cones and other artifacts should not have been combined, because they in fact diverged, but the divergence was hidden in order to combine them both to show large temperature increases

        2 – the drop in temperatures being exhibited by the post-1960 research figures were hidden

        • "Regardless, Colby, you've done this particular publication a great service by tackling this issue, which is a very important issue and requires a lot of analysis."

          Careful now. Save some of that slobber for Mark Steyn's next article.

          • Colby picked up more comments in one post than Wherry picked up in his last fifty total. Why don't you go back to lonely Wherry and post your own slobber over there, he needs the company.

        • s_c_f,
          1. "The combination enabled them to produce fraudulent graphs that show large temperature increases "
          This is ballocks……because the period in question is covered by the instrumental record……..which is you know…..the actual temoperatures.
          You can yell at the thermometers all you want……but the actual recorded observations from them post 60's showed a temperature increase.

          2. The drop int temperatures was published in 1998, in the original data. How can something be hidden and unavailble when it was published over a decade ago? And discussed by many papers since then?

      • I think that in addition to the serious offences you've listed there is more. There is not just the statisical fudgings you've mentioned and dismissed as "evil habits", but changes to the data that go beyond statistics and presentation.

        For instance, the computer programs have been manipulater to alter the data of the tree-rings and other research past 1960, to make it appear that the research is more in tune with reality than it actually is. The post-1960 figures were altered to hide the fact ("hide the decline") that the research figures diverged from the actual temperature measurements, showing that the two data sets cannot be mixed to form a single data set. This is fraudulent activity, and since the raw data itself as well as the methodology was not made available to the public, the fraudulent figures were used as evidence.

        • Research "divergence problem" to enlighten yourself about the difficulties with tree ring measurements, and how real scientists have acknowledged and been discussing these problems (in peer reviewed journals even) for years.

          That you're just catching up to the science now doesn't in any way excuse your ignorance over what you think it means.

          • Yeah, about those "peer reviewed" journals… you may wish to read what's been happening to any proposed study that doesn't meet the alarmist standards set by the esteemed peers. That's what makes these emails so revealing.

          • Thwim,
            I'm an enviro student, and my specialty isn't climate (though my general program and specialty does talk about it a lot). My specialty isn't terrestrial either……..
            so I haven't followed divergence between tree ring proxy and instrumental for the 60's. I've discussed general dendrochrono with some researchers, but not in the context of climate proxy.

            I have a little knowledge of limnological palynoolgy (pollen buried in lake sediments)…..enough to know that no climate proxy can ever be considered anywhere close to being the 'full story,' and that our understanign of paleo climate will always be challenging as we collect more field data, and learn to analysze it better.

            I don't know what the post 1960s divergence means. In fact…..no one does. My point is that the divergence isn't hidden- it is being discussed, and had been discussed ince Briffa '98. When all this came up

            I haven't noticed anyone here claim that the divergence indicates decreased climate sensitivity.
            Thwim, if you're familiar with dendroclimate proxies, and can point to some literature that indicates the post 60s data shows decreased climate sensitivity- I'd like to see it.

            Thwim- I'm not sure what you're driving at with "That you're just catching up to the science now doesn't in any way excuse your ignorance over what you think it means. "

            Do you expect me to read every paleoclimate paper?

    • Warren, Goldstein and Gunter have published columns on this topic for years… pretty much on a weekly basis … pretty much to the exclusion of anything else … pretty much ignoring the bulk of evidence in favour of the outliers. Canada is a hotbed of the climate-skeptic/journo/editorialist "industry", to paraphrase one of their own derogatory terms.

      There are holes in the data. There are unknowns about the models. There is debate about severity, rate and even cause of warming. That's why we have science … to continue the research and resist complacency and orthodoxy in the face of unknowns.

      But climate data has also been in line with the core theory: You can't triple the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in a short period and expect to see no change.

      • Amateur Hour is an apt name. When the concentation of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small to begin with, tripling it can easily have a negligible effect (yes, the concentration really is that small). And when the changes with CO2 can easily be offset by changes in SO2 which reduce temperatures, or changes in cloud cover which reduce temperatures, it is easily conceivable for even the simplest amateur to understand that the effect is uncertain.

        • s_c_f,
          Uhhhh……….Multiple regression anyone?
          Belive it or not statisticians have been partitioning out variation from independant variables for centuries.
          You should take a stats course- they're fun!

      • Amateur Hour, you've done this particular publication a great service by tackling this issue, which is a very important issue and requires a lot of analysis.

        • Apparently it's not just amateur hour, it's also kindergarten hour.

  3. When all is said and done, folks will remember those like Monbiot, who had the courage to say:

    "I was wrong, I didn't do my job as a journalist" (paraphrasing but not far off).

    There is some really startling stuff out there. Many here view Kate at SDA as an ideological pariah (even though she's the most read blog in the country by far),

    but here series of links is immense.

    The most damning (though the latestto come out because it's not as 'sexy" as back biting emails), is the coding.

    The coding was obviously doctored to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

    To think the world was on the verge of reordering its economic affairs on what could quite possibly be the biggest sceintific lie ever, is chilling indeed.

    • Monbiot also called denialists like you "scum".

      • The ultimate irony out of all of this is, as more of the general public comes to realize the hackery involved (two major polls show more disbelieve than believe in the U.S. and UK) and as more of this comes to light,

        the true "denialists" will be those like yourselves who for purely ideological reasons, will refuse to see what is plainly in sight.

        • "hide the decline" — Yes, it does say that, but why assume it's wrong to do so?

          That one data set — one of many — is said by the authors of the data set in peer reviewed literature to not be reliable after 1960. So, you load the data, but hide it's effects after 1960.

          This is not a secret. It has been in peer-reviewed material for years.

          • Firstly, this was never part of the peer-reviewed literature, they never asserted that the data is unreliable after 1960. Instead they changed the data, so it wasn't data any longer. They changed the data after 1960 to suit their preconceptions.

            Secondly, selectively choosing your data is a common statistical error called selection bias. You cannot selectively choose the data who use after the fact. If you look at the data, and then you decide what will be used, you are making an error, and your results are useless.

      • The scum, Holly, are those who continue to try to sell us this fraud by rigging data and stacking editorial boards of science journals against anyone who would disagree with them. I don't blame you for calling people scum. It must be almost heart-breaking to have been mislead for so long. I'd feel foolish and lash out and call people names too. I feel your pain. (And enjoy it immensely.)

        By the way, it's "denier", not "denialist".

    • So much for scientific method. This is unethical outrageous behaviour.

      AGW is a big hoax. These people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

      • With respects to Churchill, scientific enquiry is the worst system out there, except for all others.

        That scientists lie, cheat, steal & scam shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The general idea is kind of like a free market of ideas — a whole bunch of people acting in their self-interest end up producing the greatest value to all, most of the time. Sometimes you get "idea bubbles", The problem comes when people think scientists produce "Truth". If it's neat & clean, it's bad science.

        From what I understand of some climate change models, changes to average yearly or monthly global temperatures aren't really influenced by human activity. Short-term flunctuations in temperatures are. Instead of,say, 75% of daily highs, lows, precipitation, ext. being within so many percentage points of the average, only 65% are. That means more droughts, more floods, stronger storms, and so on. Unfortunately, funding bodies aren't great at statistical analysis, so models that give simple results are favoured over models that give accurate ones.

        Or maybe it's just Revelations & all true believers need to relax.

    • Speaking of the hockey stick graph, did you know it was based on a sampling of 25 tree rings, cut from two different locations? Yes. The graph that allegedly "proved" global warming was created out of tree ring analysis on 25 tree stumps, from just two different points on the globe. That by itself should be a scandal. The whole debate over the hockey stick was nonsense. That graph is such a farce, it never should have seen the light of day. The warmists (warmalists?) are actually clever like that. They've kept intelligent critics like Ross McKitrick shadow-boxing with straw men for the better part of a decade while they focused on "improving" (rigging) their computer models to better sell the catastrophe.

  4. Certainly I'm no scientist and I haven't ploughed through any of the vast mountains of stuff they got, but It hink its instructive that to my understanding, the first few "smoking guns" the denialists started trumpeting were quickly shown to be nothing.

    • Some were shown to be "nothing" or nearly nothing. But your understanding doesn't appear to agree with Monbiot's. And for what little it's worth, it doesn't agree with mine. Destroying data, particularly destroying it in anticipation of specific FOI requests, is a big deal (and a crime in the UK). "Redefining peer review" to exclude opposing viewpoints is a big deal. Refusing to make your research reproducible is a big deal. Treating the Medieval Warm Period like it was a mad deformed Victorian sister who needs to be chained up in the attic is a big deal.

      • I agree.

        And really, it should be environmentalists and climate realists, if you will, who should be the most pissed off.

        For climate change deniers, this is just proof of what they already believe, that the earth isn't warming and it's all just made up for personal gain.

        For the rest of the world, it undermines EVERYTHING, taints EVERYTHING for many, despite the mountains and mountains of evidence showing otherwise.

        Worse, it undermines science generally. This is awful and disgusting behaviour.

        • Agreed. Every component here that is confirmed is awful and disgusting and completely unacceptable.

          Every component that is just rumour and uncomfirmed ALSO undermines science.

          Sadly, the primary response to this from many (including some commenters here) is to deny the ability of science to tell us anything, and to ignore any scientific information. It's sad.

    • It is entirely possible that all the dubious references are entirely innocent and no actual fraud took place. At the very least, all of the raw data used for in the IPCC reports will have to be re-evaluated.

      Whether one supports or disagrees with previous global warming reports, this is a GOOD thing! Shedding light and a thorough analysis is exactly what is needed. The science has become far too political (this is substantially worse than science being overshadowed by politics).

      For the moment, however, its unclear to me how the emails are not representative of unethical behaviour.

      • ALL of the raw data used for the IPCC reports? Are you aware that the IPCC reports use p[ublished scientific reports, not stolen emails? Do you imagine that the reports used for IPCC came from CRU only? Go through the bibliography for each IPCC report and see how many of the authors there sent any of the stolen emails.

        Sanctimonious ignoramus.

        • Are these the very same data that apparently no one is actually allowed to review?

          And no, if you understood anything about peer-review, you would be aware that reviewers do not look at the raw data. We tend to assume that the authors did not manipulate it to suit their bias. However, in the case of predictive algorithms, one has to able to review the actual code. This is what the FOI requests have been about.

          By the way, your arguments might be more readable if you avoided calling people names because you disagree with them.

          If your concern is that the volume of the IPCC data is too great to review at this stage, it only speaks to the unreliability of the review process to date, as it has been called into question many times before without resolve. Most journals require that data and reagents are shared so that the original observations can be reproduced elsewhere. These emails speak to the suspicion that scientists are actively preventing what is a basic tenet of science, reproducibility.

    • So I guess you'd rather DENY the facts laid out by Cosh than engage even one of them. Thanks.

  5. Speaking of conspiracies…

    You know how Google has a little helper to finish your search term for you when you start typing it in the box?

    Yesterday, if you started to type "climate", Google would helpfully suggest "climategate", "climate email hack", etc. along with the fact that the search term had millions of hits

    Today, if you go to Google and type "climate" in the search box, the search helper does not find any reference at all to the CRU data theft. If you type "climate research unit", the helper doesn't find anything. If you type "climategat", the only search the helper will find for you is "climate guatemala".

    Any conspiracy theorists out there want to try to explain that one?

    • What's even weirder is that if you type "climate" in the search bar for google.com you get "climategate" as the first suggestion, but if you use the google.ca site (google.com defaults to it in Canada – you have to specifically select "go to google.com if you want the worldwide search engine) you get nothing to do with climategate as you point out.

      Very odd. If it was a google conspiracy they'd have made it apply to the general google engine first. But it may be some wonk in the Canadian division who's decided to manipulate the search in the interest of "Canadian Values" or something. That wouldn't surprise me.

      • Hi!

        Its just the same in Norway too. Yesterday I got "Climategate" "Climategate CRU" as suggestions. Now it is "Climategate guatemala" AFTER I WRITE: "Climategate" (WTF?!?!?!)

        • That is interesting. Especially your (and John G's) account that yesterday it did bring up Climategate but today it doesn't. You'd think if it was a question of public awareness that the pattern would be reversed.

          • Enough with the conspiracy theories already!
            Try "climate change emails"

          • "cimate change emai" does not complete to anything on either google site.

          • Nobody's calling it Climategate. That is, nobody who counts.

          • AGW is the hoax of the century kool-aid drinker.

          • That's simple: Al Gore is on the board of directors at Google

          • Where's the google conspiracy?? I get dozens of instant hits in google with climategate and climate gate, as well as the CRU itself. Call me skeptical of these blog comments.

          • If you try a different search engine Bing you get climate gate Google is doing something to quash this

          • obviously, canadians care very much about the climate in guatemala! In fact, I think I'll search for it right now, just to pump up the numbers.

          • If you believe that, then you really really ought to change your online name.

      • mmmm, climate guacamole…

      • Google is one of the corporate sponsors of Copenhagen conference

    • Yup. That's right. Some pocket protector techie geek at google is sitting there at his desk manually manipulating the search results for Canada.

      Often conservatives are right about something. But then so many of them feel they need to top it off with the whole tinfoil hat thing, that everyone is out to get them which is the only reason to explain why most Canadians don't vote conservative, Obama/Clinton got elected, climate change is an issue, etc.

      You remind me of lefties in the 70s and 80s.

      • No geek required, OSL
        Al Gore is on the board of directors at Google.
        Don't tell me you didn't know that?!

        • Don't tell me you think that is relevant to how a mathematical algorithm works?

          • Mathematical algorithms are often full of many objects called variables. If I was at Google and I felt I needed to exclude something I would set the algorithm to ignore searched such as climategate, climate change emails and CRU. All it would take is adding an invisible search parameter like "-climategate".

            No doubt you're old school or you'd know such simple things as this. Perhaps this will cause you to change your opinion?.. or maybe you'll keep proving yourself too old for change.

    • Uh, when I type in "clim" the first autocomplete is "climategate"

      • didn't for me and i just tried. bing did, no problem though.

      • google.com will produce it, but google.ca didn't. At least not yesterday. It changes constantly based on actual searches.

        It is utterly beyond bizarre to think that google is torquing the search results or, even more utterly beyond bizarre, to suggest that they are torquing the auto complete for "climategate".

        If they were that concerned, google.com would have been the first and most important "target".

        Bizarre bizarre bizarre world these conservatives live in.

  6. So Colby.. do all these email leaks explain why Arctic Ice is disappearing at an alarming rate, or any of the latest studies that show global warming computer models are underestimating the effects of climate change?

    It's nice and juicy I'm sure for 12 year old hacked emails to be bandied about showing scientists found climate change deniers to be dumb, but the facts remain that climate change is happening.

    • These e-mail leaks call into question the computer models themselves. So the question to your question is "yes." Your summary of the contents of the CRU corpus is ridiculous.

      • Well, not as ridiculous as you might claim, Colby. Here's a fellow at Discover Magazine saying you guys are blowing smoke over this:

        "The ClimateGate Burden Of Proof"

        Those of us who think this is all smoke and no fire are starting from the following position: There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies, showing that global warming is real and human caused. So then we pose the following question: What would it take for “ClimateGate” to significantly weaken this body of evidence in a serious way?

        Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that all of the worst and most damning interpretations of these exposed emails are accurate. I don't think this is remotely true, but let's assume it.

        Even if this is the case, it does not prove the following :

        1) The scientists whose emails have been revealed are representative of or somehow a proxy for every other climate scientist on the planet.

        2) The studies that have been called into questions based on the emails (e.g., that old chestnut the “hockey stick”) are somehow the foundations of our concern about global warming, and those concerns stand or fall based on those studies.

        Neither one of these is true, which is why I can say confidently that “ClimateGate” is overblown–and which is why I've never been impressed by systematic attacks on the “hockey stick.” Even if that study falls, we still have global warming on our hands, and it's still human caused.

        • Even if that study falls, we still have global warming on our hands, and it's still human caused."

          Wow, such a thoughtful scientific rant! Just about par with "it's my ball and I'm taking it home", except that it is coming from an adult.

          The reasons that these emails have caused a stir, even from supporters of AGW, is that they confirm what many skeptical scientists have been saying. That is, scientific work that was unsupportive of AGW was excluded from IPCC reports. These emails suggest that it was intentionally done so.

          So what does one call science that is tailored to find one answer only? Seriously flawed.

        • You haven't read enough of what's going on here. These core climate scientists are manipulating the data for study after study. They're manipulating the peer review system to ensure their articles get through, and any articles that may raise doubts don't. They're getting editors of scientific journals replaced if they don't toe the line. They reference their proof in one scientific article to another article whose proof references back to the original. Get it? A is true, see B for proof. B is true, see A for proof.

        • "There is a massive body of science, tested and retested and ratified by many leading scientific bodies,"
          Utter nonsense and BS. Nothing was tested and retested. The leading scientific body is the UN? Any critical opinion and study was supressed. They made up their opinions and did not wanted to be distracted by facts.

        • i believe it says somewhere in these overblown e-mails, that just as us climate change deniers have known for a while now, that the earth's temp has been in decline for over a decade now. was the medeival warm period also "human caused"? the climate changes once in a while. it's natural. same as co2, which is not a pollutant. if you believe otherwise, i suggest you tape your yap shut before you kill us all.

    • It's like that old lawyer joke: When the facts are on my side, I argue the facts. When the law is on my side, I argue the law. And when I have neither the facts nor the law, I dig up personal email correspondence and publish the most damaging.

      My own emails over a period of 12 years would show astounding disrespect for large groups of people, some of whom may actually deserve it. I'd sure hate for that to bias the judging of my actual work product.

      • Unfortunately, it is not just emails – it is the data and computer code used for analysis. It is their "actual work product". These are the "facts" that have long been requested by ClimateAudit and others, and which have long been kept secret.

        Now the real peer-review can begin.

      • Well this isn't about you personally, stop taking it that way.
        They are fudging the data and lying to the world.
        They reall want full wealth redistribution and you're siding with them…unreal.

        These are NOT personal emails, no such thing when you work on the public's money.
        and there is no hiding places on the digital infromation highway.

    • "that climate change is happening."

      Of course climate is changing, that's what it does. What it is not doing is getting warmer, which is what AGW scientists have told us to expect.

    • "Dissapearing at an alarming rate"
      Here is the Sea Ice extent directly from the source.

      http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_exten

      I see Sea ice has actrually been recovering, despite what has been predicted. The moving target of an ice free north 2008,2012,2013,2014,2019,2060 and the latest 2030. Maybe computers just don't know WTF is going on with the Earth.

      • The sea ice has not been recovering, merely thining out. The multi year ice is still retreating. I live in the north…below the Arctic circle, but far enough north to hear local opinion. Anyone living in the north would find the notion that there has been no warming laughable.

        • Right so given your logic, tiny pin-hole view and local comments, all to support AGW and your beleifs, but I contend that, and since I've been playing softball for two decades now, many days and evenings in June during the 1990's we needed a warm jacket not so in the 80's. I live in northern Ontario. Therefore it's cooling not warming.
          And AGW is a hoax.

          • Don't assume bud. I'm still a skeptic to a degree. But the evidence of climate change is here inthe north for anyone to see…is it just cyclical…who knows? . I can step outside of my house and see magpies. They weren't previously known here a decade or so ago.I can go across to the reserve and talk to elders about the observable changes…or is that a modelling error too?

          • Your "antidote" speak is NOT scientific evidence.
            What 'elders' are you talking about specifically?
            Name the region exactly where you are or at least the Band's name? If you're speaking from the James Bay regions and speak to the elders can you ask them to encourage the First Nations folks to not to leave their broken down vehicles all over the place?
            Stop putting broken down cars and snowmachines on the ice to have them sink out of site come spring…thanks that's be great.

            See up around Herst Ont, it isn't showing any signs of 'warming' during the last ten years of ice fishing, what-so-ever. Most of the trappers/guides around here claim that the summers have been very cool compared to the '80's. You'd think that wouldn't be so, given it's even more south than your claims of -just south of the Arctic circle where the 'elders' know this and the 'elders' know that …as you earlier stated.

            One souther polar expedition resulted in the 'environmentalists' deaths because they froze to death.
            How come this year the ice breakers had to work all summer long up in the northern seaways of Canada?
            And what happened to the that British expedition to the North this last summer and their so called proof of the ice melting or thinning or what have you…
            They became frozen in solid and had to be rescued from the crushing ice and well below zero temps on either temperature scale.

            Those that actually live off the land are the true stewards of the land, those that are paid just to live on the land, tend to abuse it.

            And I'm not a BUD.
            I didn't use any derogatory lable on you, but you couldn't resist, eh kcm…sad.

    • Now Scott…who told you ice was disappearing in the arctic? IPCC? Hadley CRU? Michael Mann?Gore?
      Certainly it wasn't Cosh.

    • The Arctic Ice is not disappearing at an alarming rate. You are just repeating a propaganda phrase. You are a mindless nitwit for whom propaganda is invented.

      It is actually just as normal as ever.

      YOU ARE BEING LIED TO!

      Just make the effort to check Arctic Ice area rather than listen to Goeblarian propaganda. Yes, you can do it on line; updated daily.

      Of course, the graphs don't show the very low level of Arctic ice when the Vikings farmed Greenland 1000 years ago, because, hey! satellites weren't around then.

      • Why don't you call someone, a real live person, in any Arctic community and ask an elder if he thinks the ice, or indeed the climate hasn't changed in recent years. Give them a laugh !

    • well said

  7. John g: You're absolutely right. In fact, a lot of other newspapers are printing articles touting the dangers of climate change and that we must act now! See: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/730495

    Other than a handful of editorials, the mainstream (or Lamestream) news sources have been ignoring this. Where's Canada's taxpayer funded broadcaster on this? "Nothing to see here; now move along."

    It's not just a matter that people should lose their jobs, there should be a criminal investigation into this global scam.

    • Criminal? Watch the libel, kiddo.

    • Notice where these articles are Bret?

      Techonology section of the Citizen.
      Opinion section of the Toronto Sun.
      Opinion section of the National Post.

      This story should be on the front page of every single newspaper and should be leading the nightly newscast of every national news broadcast.

      • Absolutely! The MSM has no problem promoting AGW, but now that the fraud of this junk science has been exposed, they clam up. Opinion pieces and tech reports — snort!

        News is what something, somewhere is trying to hide; everything else is just advertising. And that's what we've been subjected to for years now — ads for AGW.

      • The pattern: basically Climate Change skeptics are bunch of right wing cranks? OK then.

        Lorne Gunter is to science what the Pope is to marital counselling.

      • Actually John g, to Goldstein's defence: he actually took his article off the comment section of the TOSun and it was in the 'news' section,print edition, loaded with more facts that the article in the same edition bt Don Peat, discrediting the release of info as an 'overeraction' by 'deniers'.

        CTV and CBC..pathetic!

  8. I don't know (yet) whether these emails are as devastating as they are said to be, nor do I know whether they are genuine.

    Just as, I might add, I don't know whether Global Warming is as devastating as some insist it is, nor do I know whether it is genuine. And I have even less to conclude about whether Global Warming, if it's happening, is caused by man.

    But what I do know, from considerable experience, is that Athropogenic Global Warming supporters tend to treat it as religious dogma that must be believed even though (1) they are generally neither experts nor relying on widespread expert consensus, and (2) there are clear vested interests among those pushing the AGW story.

    Contrast to that the attitude of these Climate Audit folks with regard to a series of emails they'd like to believe: skeptical, believe it when the evidence comes in but not before, don't leap to conclusions. That is the right attitude for scientists to have.

    Kudos to Cosh for writing this up – the reaction of the Climate Audit folks is an interesting angle I hadn't seen written about anywhere else.

    • "whether these emails are as devastating as they are said to be"

      Emails can be spun – like the scientists and others are doing right this minute. If there is anything devastating to be found, and I hope there is, it is likely to be in the code that was also released. Coders are going through it now and are finding all sorts of dodgy practices.

      I wonder why AGW is so political – why are AGW believers watermelons (green outside/red inside) while the deniers are right wing, for the most part.

      • Well, we've all put up presentations in which we try to show the data in the way that best fits with our overall argument. There's nothing wrong with that as long as you (a) don't falsify the data, and (b) don't leave out problematic data.

        If they're just talking about how best to display the data to support their thesis then it's not a problem. But if they were trying to cover up data that didn't fit, or take it to reviewers who agreed with them, or prevent alternative explanations/data from being published then that's very problematic.

        I'm sure those of us who follow the blogs will soon know one way or the other, but I'm equally sure that those who restrict themselves to the CBC and non-Fox news will only hear more about it if the emails turn out to be a non-issue.

        As to your second question, it's political because it is tied in with population control. That's a whole other discussion, but yes, there are serious vested interests on both sides….which is never good in a scientific debate.

        • "it's political because it is tied in with population control."

          I have long believed that global warming was way for left leaning people to start creating a global governance system. Global problems require global solutions and all that. I don't believe it is coincidence that many claim that AGW can only be solved through higher taxes and UN orgs.

        • "it's political because it is tied in with population control."

          Ah yes, the Ultramontane school of AGW-skepticism. That certainly is a whole other discussion.

        • But if they were trying to cover up data that didn't fit, or take it to reviewers who agreed with them, or prevent alternative explanations/data from being published then that's very problematic.

          This has been happening. See the ongoing discussion about "hide the decline". Or see my comment replies to Colby above.

          • G, your point re religious dogma is bang-on. I've read some thoughtful commentators on that angle. I think there's no question that the decline of belief in organized religion in the West has led to this vacuum which people, consciously or not, look to be filled. Environmentalism has become, for many, the substitute or surrogate. Some people — perhaps most people — have to have a Great Cause to believe in, otherwise they think their lives have no purpose or meaning etc. It's not that these rabid environmentalists are all badly intentioned — of course not, most of them are at heart well-intentioned — but it's just like religion: think about all the heinous things that have been done over the years in the name of religion. I'll bet you that if you really put this scandal to a lot of the hard-core enviros, their candid admission would be that they're ok with the fraudulent stuff because the end justifies the means. Which is, of course, the attitude of all zealots and extremists.

          • A fair point. Some people do indeed seem to be latching onto it like a religion.

            In my opinion though it takes a lot more substance in an ideology than Climate Change has shown (so far) before it can accomplish either great accomplishments or great atrocities. Great religions have this, which is why they produce such great/awful results depending on the circumstances and characters of each era.

            Climate Change is just too shallow to be anything more than either a passing fad or a scientific fact.

          • Oh, I agree — I was referring to environmentalism as a whole, rather than just the climate change thing (which is like a subset or sub-category within the overall "belief system").

            You think about the whole "mother earth" thing (e.g., the fact that a lot of hard-core enviros will use that term quite freely), and the similarity to religious belief systems becomes pretty clear. It's basically an animist religion at that point.

  9. Over the past few days I have gained insight into how atheists feel when debating a religious person. People who believe in global warming say there is no evidence of conspiracy like there has to be a signed contract with a variety of scientists outlining how they plan to bamboozle people. The 'science' is good they claim even though there is plenty of evidence of doubt amongst scientists who think global warming is happening.

    If science is settled, why are global warming scientists refusing to release their work, deleting emails to avoid FOI requests and gaming the peer review process? Actions speak louder than words, or at least they should.

    What shocked me the most was the emails saying they hope AGW is correct so they can rub skeptics nose in it. According to the scientists, the world is going to be drastically altered but they are keen for it to happen so they can feel some schadenfreude. Who cares about the millions who might die, I want Stephen McIntyre to feel stupid!

    I thought TorStar article was typical of global warming believers – science is difficult, can't expect their results to be exact … yada yada yada. Since when is 'close enough' the standard used to judge scientific ideas? I wish that was the standard used while I was in high school because I would have done considerably better than I did with the right/wrong system I was lumbered with.

    http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/articl

    • Once again, you may want to read the science rather than the press about it.
      In this case, read the actual e-mails. Find evidence of any sort of grand conspiracy.

      There is certainly evidence of scientists getting tired with games being played by climate change inactivists and taking probably inappropriate steps in response.

      There is no evidence of AGW being any sort of conspiracy, or even being untrue.

      • You don't need a conspiracy to explain this. You just need a few very active and committed individuals to drive what was a weak theory into general acceptance and "consensus". There does not need to be malice or even any prospect of reward – just the satisfaction in establishing their view of the world as accepted.

        What is baffling is the ease with which they achieved this, given the paucity of their evidence and the problems with their theory.

        Finally, the burden of proof is always with the theory, not the doubters. The theory needs to be tested over and over again, as all theories are, and modified or discarded as the evidence leads. So far, they have been able to predict nothing (not even the "temporary" cooling that has occurred over the last 10 years), a problem they describe as a "travesty".

        • There's no malice when people who dare to disagree are likened to "deniers" of the Holocaust, or appeasers of Hitler? (Elizabeth May, for example).

    • I have gained insight into how atheists feel when debating a religious person

      Don't quite understand that one.

      • I do, being an atheist. Climate science is much like a religion. You have to "believe" that their climate models work, even though they failed to predict future climate miserably, and in fact they have a lot of trouble predicting the past (ie feed in past data and what they show diverges from what actually happened. You have to "believe" that their research is sound even though they refuse to release their methods. There is almost no experimental evidence for their claims. Even the graphs they've shown in their papers are fraudulent, it has been revealed.

        In science, it is the theories that must be subject to testing and experimentation. It is not the other way around, where someone poses a theory and you must prove him wrong. That is how religion works.

        • I agree with everything except the last statement. If all religions worked by asserting something and demanding that it be accepted unless people can prove it wrong, no honest, competent intellectual would subscribe. Yet clearly many do. Reductio ad absurdum, QED, etc.

          What (some) religion does do is posit that certain things have been revealed by an infallible source and should therefore be taken as true. However, it is up to the religion in question to establish that the source is indeed infallible (i.e. God). Once that is established (that being the hard part) it would be irrational to doubt the items so revealed.

          • However, it is up to the religion in question to establish that the source is indeed infallible

            There's no difference in believing this versus believing those things themselves. Either way, it's no different. Asserting something is true, or asserting the source is infallible, either way, you're asserting something with no proof and then expecting others to believe or to disprove.

          • No, there is a logical distinction between saying "source X is infallible" and saying "statement A from Source X is true". One can prove Source X is fallible by disproving statement A, but one cannot prove X is infallible by proving the truth of A. Therefore X's infallibility must be proved apart from his statements.

            Asserting that X is infallible therefore requires proof apart from X's statements. I'm sure you can agree, however, that IF X can be shown infallible THEN it follows that all his statements are true.

            Of course, it's a big if. But there are many who are convinced, by what they consider to be sound evidence, that this has been proven. Obviously you may not accept this, but the point here is that (some) religion tries to proceed in company with reason, not by the intellectual dishonesty of saying "A is true unless you can prove it wrong".

          • I know logic inside out. You cannot prove something is infallible. You can only assert it. Philosophically and mathematically, the statement is true only until it is falsified, which may be today, tomorrow, or at some point in the future. Kepler, Newton, Galileo, all of them were faiilble, and Einstein as well. No source can be proven infallible.

            Another analogy. You cannot claim a coin will always flip heads. You might flip heads 5000 times in a row, but statistically that outcome is just as likely as any other.

            There is no sound evidence that can prove that a source is infallible.

          • In the scientific method, that is true. Theories are postulated and then attempts are made to falsify them. They are held as "true" until falsified. Oddly enough, this is actually an example of the mentality "It's true unless you can prove it wrong" which is why it can't be used to draw any truly universal conclusions.

            As to whether a source can be proven infallible, I see your assertion but I do not see the grounds for it. How do you know that no source can be proven infallible? Is there some mutual contradiction in that notion? You can't know that "no source is infallible" unless you've actually found fallibility in every possible source. Therefore the logical approach is to admit that the possibility exists, but that you've never encountered such a source. Fair enough.

          • The statement "no source is infallible" is one of those statements that is neither true nor false.

            In mathematics, there are axioms that form the basis of mathematics that are neither proven nor disproven. If the axioms are weak, then the mathematics breaks down. There are other forms of statements that cannot be true or false in the logical, philoshophical or mathematical sense.

          • Well, if you're taking it as an axiom then we can't really debate it further – but I'd point out that you admit you don't know it for certain, you merely take it as your starting point (on faith, as it were…. :-) ).

            I'd also question your understanding that axioms are neither true nor false. We can't prove them, but that doesn't mean they aren't true. The statement "The whole is greater than the part" regarding geometric quantities in Euclid's Elements is an axiom, and yet it is also true.

          • No, I don't know for certain, to me something that can be neither false nor true, nobody can know :-)

            As for axioms in mathematics, you have to start with something that is neither known to be true nor false, and those are the axioms. Yes, that is not the exact same thing as saying they are neither true nor false. But to me, the distinction matters little.

            Whether something is true or false, when it is impossible to know the answer, to me that's a dead-end.

          • All right, and one last point re axioms: although they can't be demonstrated (by definition) that doesn't mean we don't know they're true.

            We know that "the whole is greater than the part" not because of a syllogism but because it's self-evident – once one knows what "whole" and "part" mean, one understands immediately that the whole (mathematically) is greater, which is why Euclid uses it as an axiom.

            Axioms whose truth/falsehood are unknown are "assumptions" by definition, and I'd hesitate to assume that no infallible sources exist simply because I'd never knowingly encountered one.

          • A related point:

            Once you show something to be false (ie the moon is not made of green cheese) then the religious simply assert that particular item is not from the infallible source.

            Consider the Bible, our most famous source of infallible stuff. The world was created in seven days, according to the Bible. Now, I know most people don't believe that actually happened, or that Noah put all life into an ark. So what gives? Oh, those are not the items that came from the infallible source!! You haven't disproved anything!! That Noah stuff, we believe that until we stopped believing it. The stuff that came from the infallible source is the stuff that you haven't disproved yet, like Jesus disappeared from the tomb and that a few loaves and bread satiated thousands of people.

            So, to me, there is no difference.

          • "Once you show something to be false (ie the moon is not made of green cheese) then the religious simply assert that particular item is not from the infallible source. "

            Hmm. That would certainly be intellectually dishonest. Do you actually believe that every religious intellectual in human history has been intellectually dishonest?

            As to the infallible source being selectively limited in what's thought to come from it, that's true for certain religions (e.g. fundamentalist Christians) but not all. There are other religions for which reason is held in higher esteem.

            "Consider the Bible, our most famous source of infallible stuff."
            I think you have it backwards (well, you and most fundamentalist Christians). The Bible isn't considered infallible in and of itself – it's just a collection of books. It is considered *true* because the source is thought to be infallible, and again if one has an infallible source then it behooves one to believe what comes from said source. The arguments for the infallibility of the source, however, are not based on whether the bible is infallible. That would be circular.

            "That Noah stuff, we believed that until we stopped believing it."
            Who's we??

          • "That Noah stuff, we believed that until we stopped believing it."

            I'm just paraphrasing what most Christians say.

            Regarding the ideas about infallibility, I think Jack's statement says it best for me:

            "Because, at the end of the day, if reason fails there's revelation; and also St. Thomas never contradicts revelation. It is therefore not easy to think that he is arguing in 100% good faith. An argument in which one side always wins, and, if it's losing, just takes its ball and goes home, is not really an argument, it's just a form of bullying. "

            The arguments for the infallibility of the source, however, are not based on whether the bible is true. That would be circular.

            I can't imagine that any argument of infallibility would not be circular.

          • Ah yes, Aquinas never contradicts revelation. But this leaves open two logical possibilities:
            (1) revelation is in accordance with reason, or
            (2) he's twisting his arguments to fit revelation.

            When one side always loses it could mean that the ballgame is rigged, but it could also mean that one side is just better (and in the case of an infallible source, infinitely better). You can't eliminate one possibility just because you don't like it; you'd need to address the arguments directly and show where they break down.

          • religion tries to proceed in company with reason

            I simply don't believe that is true whatsoever.

          • "religion tries to proceed in company with reason"

            I thought it was pretty bold statement as well.

          • *some* religion tries to proceed in company with reason. Let's remember the qualifier.

            There is some good writing on this subject if you're interested. I recommend "Fides et ratio" ("Faith and Reason") by the late JP2.

          • I was just looking up the different definitions of 'reason' because we could all be talking at cross purposes here. I am deist, believe in one god, and while I think the bible contains a lot of wisdom I don't believe it is accurate description of what happened all those years ago.

            I don't think people who believe bible is literally true ever use reason in their arguments because I think their whole belief system is built on ever shifting sand. Can the Pope, who believes in Trinity/Resurrection/Saints, really be said to be using reason when making his arguments?

            I think Popes are mostly wise, as are many other religious leaders, but I don't believe they have used logic/reason to reach their conclusions.

            "God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon." Thomas Paine

          • Well, I'd disagree that "Popes are mostly wise". On balance throughout history they're mediocre, with a lot of extremely good ones and a lot of extremely bad ones.

            However, if you think that "they haven't used logic/reason to reach their conclusions" then I'd suggest reading anything by the current Pope, "Fides et Ratio" by the previous Pope, and anything by Gregory the Great. There are a lot of valid criticisms one can level at the Catholic Church, but "not using logic/reason" is not one of them.

          • Well, in the example of the Trinity, it is logic mixed in with revelation. Trinitarianism was adopted as a logical means for how an infinite indivisible God could be percieved by humanity and come among them.

            So I'll agree that revelation comes first, and that largely you cannot "prove" or "disprove" the assertions of revelation (most of the time) , but certainly logic and reason play a role in how you interpret or adopt that revelation.

          • Also, if anything is found to contradict reason then it is known to be false, and hence not "revelation".

          • That's true too.

          • (or at least not "revelation from an infallible source" – either the infallibility of the source or the claim that the "revelation" came from the source is clearly compromised)

          • "Trinitarianism was adopted as a logical means for how an infinite indivisible God could be percieved by humanity and come among them."

            How "logical" is it? I thought it was officially "mysterious." There may be points of doctrine logically derived from larger points, but Trinitarianism is just an assertion that you can have your cake and eat it (and breathe it) too.

          • It is mysterious because you can't get to the trinity from self-evident principles.

            However, if you start with the problem that you believe God is one, infinite and indivisible, that Christ is god incarnate, and that you can percieve and have a relationship with not only god but his risen son, you have a quite obvious logical problem. Trinitarianism was arrived at to reconcile the three natures of God in a logical framework. A very, very, complicated logical framework, that requires an understanding of an extreme amount of subtlety.

          • Indeed, reconciling two stark contradictions is quite a challenge. The logical approach would be to conclude that at least one of them must be wrong. The illogical approach is to begin by saying they are both right. That's pretty basic logic.

          • Well not exactly. Infinity is a tricky business.

            For example. There are infinite numbers between 1 and 2. It is also true that one or two objects are discrete material values.

          • So tricky that you managed two non sequiturs in five sentences.

            Look, it's actually not that tricky to see that if God is three, He can't simultaneously be one, or if He's one, He can't be three. One can juggle essence, aspect, etc. till the cows come home, the point is that the juggling act is very apparent.

            What destroyed belief in the West was not science but the study of history. In this case, the patently obvious fact that the whole lumbering superstructure of Trinitarian philosophy is an ad-hoc 4th century compromise between strict monotheists and those who insisted that the phrase "Son of God" should actually mean something. The only way out of it is to suggest that the Council of Nicea was, in spite of itself, guided by the Holy Spirit to a Creed it thought was merely useful but which was actually true. And, you know, at that point you have to ask yourself how deep you're willing to reach to justify your orthodoxy. One thing's for certain: such pretzels played no part in the genuine Christian belief of our ancestors — ahistorically-minded as they were.

          • And that's why you can't trust true believers to be rational.

            I can't believe I read this whole thread.

          • Oh poor you. You have to deal with a philosophical and theological system that has made the world you live in. Too bad, you couldn't have lived in a prior age, when people who owned property and had lots of cousins pretty much had carte blanche to bury an axe in your forehead. Damn irrational true believers!

          • The point I was making Jack, is that you can't say that infinite is something contrary to something finite because you can't measure or perceive it in its fullest sense. It is simply being.

            Therefore you can't assign qualities to it, for example, by saying it one thing or another. You can't even say how it interacts or if it interacts with the finite, because how are you be able to perceive it?

            As for belief being destroyed in the west, it isn't like the history of the Council of Nicea was not known to anyone before the 20th century. As a compromise it satisfied neither of the parties who were fighting it about it but it was a compromise that satisfied many who were steeped in Greek philosophy. Read up on Plotinus for an explanation of some of the same questions about how one could commune with "the One" and all the logical problems it entails.

            As for Christians being ahistorical, why do you think you count the from the years of Jesus' birth? Has the attempted whitewash of Christian scholarship by referring to the last 2,000 years as "C.E." worked already? You know the history of the Council of Nicea because of the genuine Christian belief of our ancestors.

          • In other words, you cannot say that infinity has a particular "quality" but is always something that is an abstract conception. So you cannot in fact make the claim that the finite and the infinite are two stark contradictions.

            For example, you have this question. Is infinity is a pure abstract indivisible being (since it if it is divisible it would no longer be infinite), how can it encompass the material world which is divisible? How can it not encompass the material world, since to be outside of the material world would mean that infinity is not infinite?

          • What are you, some kind of Arian? If the infinite is imperceptible, as I readily concur, and God is infinite (rather debatable), then the perceptible & interactive incarnation can only be squared with infinity by inventing some fancy Trinitarian two-step. Or, in layman's terms, "it's a mystery, shut up."

            "it isn't like the history of the Council of Nicea was not known to anyone before the 20th century."

            I was thinking the 18th. And it's a fact that the modern analytic (= sceptical) approach to history was born in the German Enlightenment. There is a difference, of course, between knowledge of history and historical consciousness: the former is quite compatible with a myth-oriented perspective like that of the good monks, while the latter takes no prisoners.

          • Obviously the presuppositions are the weakest points (ie. God is Infinite, God is Man, God is presence of being in all of us). Trinitarianism is, like I've said, designed to reconcile Christian beliefs, not to prove the existence of God and his nature. In fact, if God is infinite and thus imperceptible, you generally can only make assertions (outside of revelation) as to what he is not… and even that has problems. Examining metaphysics is certainly enough to drive you to Logical Positivism.

            However, there is something that can be reasoned out if you take the presuppositions of the metaphysical reality and attempt to work it practically. Of course, I can't really explain it in anything less than the length of a book, and even if I could it would probably just provoke a misunderstanding. It is hard to point to something and not point to something, explain something that cannot be perceived as a material form, and how it can exist in our imperfect, divisible, finite world. I'll readily admit that there is no surety to this investigation, no way to prove it absolutely, but there is still rules of logic that are followed in the examination of philosophical metaphysics. Many of the same arguments for trinitarianism for example, are adopted from ideas by the philosopher Plotinus (as I've said).

            As for your last paragraph, that's just Hegel bull again. Monks were perfectly able to be critical of where doctrines came from, where certain religious practices came from, and how much you can trust myth and the historical record. You just have to actually read what monks wrote, instead of pulling out of your ass what "their consciousness" was.

          • I will leave you to Plotinus, confident as I am that the truth lurks somewhere in 18th Ennead. If that's the logical route to truth, I'll stick to revelation.

            Monks were perfectly able to be critical of where doctrines came from, where certain religious practices came from, and how much you can trust myth and the historical record.

            Don't be ridiculous. There's not a exstant single work of critical history from between, oh, Ammianus and the Renaissance. It's all synthetic. Which, in my opinion, is a virtue, but the notion that the monks could have, say, engaged in vicious biblical source-criticism and wisely chose not to is profoundly wishful thinking. You really idealise the middle ages, eh?

          • Well, an early example would be the Venerable Bede and William of Newburg off the top of my head. There was also a sense of history after the 12th century that you should ensure that you only used reliable sources and engage them critically.

            You really don't understand how the scholastic method works do you? The idea that before you present an assertion you deal with arguments to that assertion? There was no problems with debate on the basics of doctrine and ecclesiology (heck it even has a name!) and history was one of the things that was grist for the mill. The idea of the Trinity in the high middle ages was visited and revisted. The idea of the two natures of Christ. In fact, the Scholastics were deeply concerned at what allegorical meaning biblical scriptures had beyond its literal meaning, precisely because they recognized where it failed to match up with empiricism and logical argument.

            You only say that there wasn't historical criticism because you haven't read much of it, and then you're going to tell me otherwise when I've been neck deep in it. That's the sort of arrogance attachment to models of historical consciousness breeds. The tendency to assume that something exists because you haven't read it.

          • Obviously the presuppositions are the weakest points (ie. God is Infinite, God is Man, God is presence of being in all of us). Trinitarianism is, like I've said, designed to reconcile Christian beliefs, not to prove the existence of God and his nature. In fact, if God is infinite and thus imperceptible, you generally can only make assertions (outside of revelation) as to what he is not… and even that has problems. Examining metaphysics is certainly enough to drive you to Logical Positivism.

            However, there is something that can be reasoned out if you take the presuppositions of the metaphysical reality and attempt to work it practically. Of course, I can't really explain it in anything less than the length of a book, and even if I could it would probably just provoke a misunderstanding. It is hard to point to something and not point to something, explain something that cannot be perceived as a material form, and how it can exist in our imperfect, divisible, finite world. I'll readily admit that there is no surety to this investigation, no way to prove it absolutely, but there is still rules of logic that are followed in the examination of philosophical metaphysics. Many of the same arguments for trinitarianism for example, are adopted from ideas by the philosopher Plotinus (as I've said).

            As for your last paragraph, that's just Hegel bull again. Monks were perfectly able to be critical of where doctrines came from, where certain religious practices came from, and how much you can trust myth and the historical record. You just have to actually read what monks wrote, instead of pulling out of your ass what "their consciousness" was.

          • *some* religion. Not all.

            There volumes of thought by various religious philosophers in which an attempt is made to proceed by reason. Every argument (or "articles" as he calls them) put forward in Aquinas's Summa is an example of this. The statements of religious authorities are presented for reference and then the actual argument proceeds by logic. You might think the reasoning is specious, but how can you deny that the attempt is being made to proceed in company with reason?

  10. Good Colby, linking to Monbiot.. Bad Colby, not quoting some of the juicy bits like:
    "…The greatest tragedy here is that despite many years of outright fabrication, fraud and deceit on the part of the climate change denial industry, documented in James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore's brilliant new book Climate Cover-up, it is now the climate scientists who look bad. By comparison to his opponents, Phil Jones is pure as the driven snow. Hoggan and Littlemore have shown how fossil fuel industries have employed "experts" to lie, cheat and manipulate on their behalf. The revelations in their book (as well as in Heat and in Ross Gelbspan's book The Heat Is On) are 100 times graver than anything contained in these emails…"

    And would someone go over tothe national Post and explain to Lorne Gunter that the CRU at UEA is not Hadley? Does Lorne ever check facts?

  11. Actually, most of the emails seem quite trivial, and in particular the "trick" was hardly a secret, just a means of dealing with the divergence problem, which has been discussed quite openly in the literature.

    The playing politics stuff involved threatening to boycott publications if certain papers appeared and so forth, and this isn't a whole lot different than me boycotting Disney for being too gay friendly or whatever. Hardly beyond the pale. If I decide that if X publishes in journal why than I will not publish there, and if 10 of my friends decide to do the same thing, then that's democracy. Esp. since the papers in question were indeed crap. You might even say its a duty of the scientist to try and keep this stuff out of the literature.

    • No fair being reasonable! mr. cosh is trying to speak!

      • Umm I'm sorry, but science is not democratic. It's absolute. Your entire argument is nonsense.

    • In the pursuit of scientific truth, honesty, and credibility, wouldn't it have been far more proper to respond to any published papers that anyone thought were "crap" with, well, a published paper, or a scientific argument? Instead, the climate change lobby seems more intent on denying a voice to anyone who dare challenge them.

      • At a certain point, having to publish yet more papers and evidence detailing the world is round really isn't worth the effort, no matter how often the flat-earthers claim otherwise.

        • In other words, it's impossible for global warming theorists to be wrong? lol. Don't they think that way in communist dictatorships?

      • No. Obvious crap should be stopped before its published. Therefore you don't waste your time responding to obvious crap in print. The papers they are talking about are almost in each case obvious crap.

        • I agree. Let us then also agree that "obvious crap" is defined as any premise which is appealing to you but distasteful to me, alrighty?

          • No. Obvious crap is obvious crap. A science journal is not a poetry magazine. In the instance we are mostly concerned with, all the editors of the journal resigned in protest at having the crap article appear.

    • If incontrovertible proof in favour of AGW were available , complete with code and data sets , we'd never hear the end of it .
      The opposite , not so much .

    • It's actually verging on the pitiful to see hacks like `bigcitytwit' try to spin this obvious corruption and fraud. *Almost* pitiful…

      Let's see:
      -preventing `deniers' from publishing in peer-review journals is `democracy' and `hardly beyond the pale'
      -`blog scientists' are bad, but some Liberal hack somehow just knows that the anti-hysteria papers are `crap'; don't ask why, he just knows…
      -Freedom of Information requests are merely `sand in the gears' of the rightful hysteria that bigcitydink knows is right… but don't ask how he knows this, he just knows…

      these are the bigcitybigthinkers that are so big here.

  12. As for the FOI requests, well what happened with these may stray into the naughty, but then McL and Co. have been using FOI requests as a harrassment tactic for years to basically through sand in the gears of the machine. A bit like our Free Speech warriers filing frivolous FOI complaints with the HRC for the same purpose.

    If you want to read about scientific bitching and back biting, Google "Clade Wars" or read Hull on the topic. The "sides" on this one break down between those who have silly idealistic notions of how science works and those who dont'. Monbiot is being a Diva.

    • McL and Co. have been using FOI requests as a harrassment tactic for years to basically through sand in the gears of the machine.

      I'm sure you're equally disdainful of the idea that people you dislike might have their work frustrated by FOI requests, right?

    • If by "naughty" you mean dishonest and illegal, then I see your point. If climate scientists are engaging in the same unethical and deceptive tactics as other groups do, then they've clearly lost the disinterested moral high ground which makes us heed them, and on this issue have become just another set of political actors, no?

      • You mean if one scientist practiced deception then all scientists must? Do you not notice how stupid such an argument is?

        • Hye, if you're throwing the CRU people overboard, just say so.

  13. As for the FOI requests, well what happened with these may stray into the naughty, but then McL and Co. have been using FOI requests as a harrassment tactic for years to basically through sand in the gears of the machine. A bit like our Free Speech warriers filing frivolous FOI complaints with the HRC for the same purpose.

    If you want to read about scientific bitching and back biting, Google "Clade Wars" or read Hull on the topic. Th "sides" on this one break down between those who have silly idealistic notions of how science works and those who dont'. Monbiot is being a Diva.

    • Sharing raw data, which is fairly limited, should not depend on FOI requests. Sharing reagents/data is a standard requirement for publishing in many journals so that the original work can be confirmed. It most certainly cannot be considered "naughty".

      Replication is not a add-on to science, its an absolute requirement.

    • AT1 is absolutely right. The data used in published studies MUST be easily available. Otherwise it's simply not science. Period.

      • The data is collected from multiple sources across the globe, each of which involves its own particular legalities. All this MUST stuff is just wanking it with no knowledge of how the world works.

        • There are no legalities with data. It's data. You don't know what you're talking about. We're talking about science. This is how it works. If you publish something, you must make your data available. If it's not available, it will not be published.

          • This might be different for climate science where the data generally comes from public sources, but in other sciences one typically submits a journal draft that shows plots of the data rather than submitting the original raw data. Since the plots are just pictures, no one else has access to your raw data unless they write to ask for it.

            So it is possible to publish without making the raw data available, but again, that assumes others can reproduce the experiment to get similar data. For climate studies where the data is historical, you can't reproduce by redoing something; you just have to get it from the same or similar recording stations. If these are not publicly accessible then the raw data remains unavailable.

          • Well, I think you are splitting hairs. Whether you can download the data, or whether you need to ask for it, there is no difference. The point is that you can get it somehow. If you cannot get it, then it's not science. Similarly, if an experiment cannot be reproduced, it is useless.

          • SCF is correct.
            I would have thought that the IPCC would have made this material available to the public. Again, that is what most journals require for publication, so it isn't unusual. And it really makes no difference the data was collected in different locations by different teams. If it was used in a single publication, all those teams are, by definition, collaborating.

            What, in fact, the emails indicate is the the authors were using the international stature of the IPCC to get around FOI requests by arguing that IPCC related work was not subject to Britain's FOI laws. This is hardly honest and transparent science.

            Hence, it took a hacker to open this abuse of trust to the general public.

        • If it isn't released for verification, it isn't science.

          The legal arguments are irrelevant.

          Derek

    • The RATS are being exposed

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-d
      Proof of man-made warming

      What did we find? First, the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections. But we were astonished to find that strong adjustments have indeed been made.

      About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming. All the adjustments increased or even created a warming trend, with only one (Dunedin) going the other way and slightly reducing the original trend.

      The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming, as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this.

    • No religion about it – just scientific study and fact:

      State of the Climate: Much Worse than Predicted

      A panel of some of the world's most respected climate scientists have put together an update called The Copenhagen Diagnosis. The news is worse than predicted on every front.

      * Global carbon dioxide emissions are up 40 per cent from 1990.
      * The global warming trend has continued, despite a temporary decline in solar energy.
      * Both Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an accelerating rates, as are glaciers the world over.
      * Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from the IPCC's last report.
      * Global average sea-level has risen at a rate 80% above past IPCC predictions over the past 15 years.
      * Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could pass irreversible tipping points if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century.

      If you and Colby Cosh want to refute that with leaked emails or you know.. an actual scientific study.. we're all ears,

      • So why do these scientists complain about the lack of warming over the last 10 years and the failure of their model to explain it?

        If they are dismayed (a travesty they called it) at this failure, shouldn't we be? If they can't explain this, why should be basing huge decisions on their predictions for the future?

        • <sigh> Once again, you're relying on press (and press with an agenda at that) rather than the science. What the "travesty" was was that we don't have the instruments to measure small year to year variations in radiative fluxes. Not that there's a lack of various other data showing warming. But don't trust me either. Read Trenberth's paper for yourself:
          http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.p

          • Yes – I read this item before. It is a curious artifact, inasmuch as it asserts that a) AGW is a fact and b) we can't actually figure out how it is working…

            It hardly begins to prove anything except the extent of ignorance of how the many factors interplay, our current inability to measure them, and the consequent failure to predict anything.

            but, no matter, AGW is a FACT and we have to rearrange the global economy….

      • "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." K Trenberth

      • Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill." Der Spiegel Nov 19 '09

    • Golly, who would have thought that ice might form in winter, after it's been melting all summer!!!!111!!!

    • Learn the difference between extent and mass.

      Ice mass is disappearing. The ice is getting thinner.
      Ice extent is growing. The thinner ice is breaking up and spreading out further.

      The arctic is IS disappearing at an alarming rate, but what there is left is becoming more visible because it's not buried so deep under the water.

      • BS, I work up there during the Arctic shipping season and there was more first and second year ice this summer, the western end of Northwest Passage was plugged all summer and the concentration in the Beaufort Sea was over 90% ice coverage for almost the whole area.

        Glo-Bull Warmers lie through their teeth in the desperate hope of foisting their "religion" on the entire planet.

        PS-No shortage of Polar Bears either……………………………………………….freakin greenies……….scratch one and you'll find that they're all red on the inside.

    • You are asking a gentlemen who smugly claimed this morning that the only way to find a photo of someone on facebook was for there to be a snitch. You really think he has a grasp on this?

      • There is not much point in bashing the messenger. Go read the emails and the codes and see if they don't make you wonder what is going on.

        • I doubt I'd have the background to fully understand it, so I'm just going to have to go with traditional wisdom and listening to the experts.

          Much for the same reason I don't do surgery on myself.

          • I would not accept surgery from any physician who could not explain in concise language the whys and wherefores of what he proposed to do.

            There is no "traditional wisdom" in complex computer modelling, and the "experts" are clearly not so confident in their data and analysis that they will readily accept rigorous peer-review. They openly admit to hiding behind regulations to avoid releasing their data and analysis and also discuss deleting emails.

            Scientists are not machines – they are human and prey to same failings as anyone else. There has been scientific fraud and misbehavior before, and there will be again.

          • But you must admit that if another doctor showed up and used the same dumbed down language to explain the opposite, you'd probably be lost. So would I. I wish I had the background and resources to really get a grip on AGW, but I don't, so I have to go with scientific consensus, and yes, as reported by media.

          • science is not founded on consensus by a peer reviews from a "boy's club"

            This is not a FRAT club.

            The DATA has been restricted and not allowed to be viewed by critics. The Peer Reviews-Boy's Club destroyed DATA rather than risk it being used to show HOLES in the model.

            There was a CONSENSUS the earth was FLAT at one time, YOU failed the emperor has NO clothes on.

          • No one has believed the earth was flat for thousands of years. They did believe the earth was geocentric, but the controversy there was that an intellectual elite was intolerant of more radical opinions that went against "settled science".

          • 'science is not founded on consensus by a peer reviews from a "boy's club" '

            I don't know, that pretty much sums up academia to me. Lately they've been allowing women & minorities to join.

          • The "We are not climate scientists so we should trust the experts" argument is overused and a poorly thought out.

            First, if I go to a doctor with a cut on my finger and he suggests amputating my entire arm then I'm going to question his expert opinion. Yet that is what the AGW advocates are recommending – taking an arm and leg in taxes and then hobbling our economy. They claim that computer models show that the temp. may go up .X degrees in 50 years so we need to completely re-engineer our economy, send vast sums of tax money to the 3rd world, agree to give unaccountable international agencies more power and make electricity prices skyrocket.

            Second, not understanding the science should not mean exclusion from the debate. Long ago this issue moved out of science and into the political realm. This issue directly impacts all of us, so even science illiterates should question the motives and proposed solutions.

          • I doubt I'd have the background to fully understand it, so I'm just going to have to go with traditional wisdom and listening to the experts.

            What a curiously pre-Enlightenment view of knowledge.

          • usually by other experts, certainly not by "I read somethin on the internet once" types.

          • The point went flying right over your head, clearly.

            Experts can know all sorts of things that aren't actually true. Every credible learned man in Europe once knew that the Ptolemaic model of a geocentric universe was accurate, for instance. Things 'everyone knows' are frequently challenged by the contextual equivalent of Internet amateurs before a new theory is broadly accepted by the expert establishment. That's why Appeal to Authority is one of the basic logical fallacies, y'know?

          • "Things 'everyone knows' are frequently challenged by the contextual equivalent of derided Internet amateurs before a new theory is broadly accepted by the expert establishment"

            Really? Cite some examples please?

            "'That's why Appeal to Authority is one of the basic logical fallacies, y'know"

            Well i guess that would depend on the quality of your examples.

          • "Every credible learned man in Europe once knew that the Ptolemaic model of a geocentric universe was accurate, for instance"

            seriously, third sentence.

          • Refuted by the contextual equivalent of internet amateurs…really?

          • Well, there was plenty of reason to doubt Galilleo's assertions. A lot of his models didn't work as well as established geo-centric models to explain certain aspects of solar movement. There was actually a great leap of faith that the existing models were completely wrong (if you look at them you can see that they make a lot of sense) and that a more reductionist model (there is less fiddling that needs to be done to make a helio-centric system work as a big picture) was the more accurate one.

    • Anyone who is quoting from Small Dead Animals loses credibility instantly.

      • "Shut up," he explained.

        If you don't like the argument, counter the argument. Shouting it down with bare assertions that your enemies have no credibility, so just ignore everything they say, please and thank you is more or less exactly what it seems the CRU researchers are guilty of. Can you avoid the irony even a little bit?

      • Except that these are links, not quotes, and the links point to comments in the code that was used to analyse the data. The words are there and are pretty plain.

        Most "deniers" assumed that the AGW people were goosing the data a little bit,a nd seemed to be a little selective. Now they can see an active step to delete unhelpful data in a sequence and replace it with more helpful data, where "helpful" means supportive of a global warming trend.

        Credibility?

      • How is the wafer investigation coming along?

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-natur

        When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann's solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC's figure (violet original, green without “Mike's Nature trick”).

      • Scott, falsified science? what do you call that?

      • I would wager $1000 the curator of Small Dead Animals would beat you on an IQ test.

  14. Enough of this name calling and left-right BS! This is global deception coming from the highest levels. I'm not a denier….in fact I KNOW with 100% certainty that climate change is real. Climate changes all the time and has since the dawn of time. Now to say that humans are causing climate change is a completely different charge. This is doublespeak/doublethink psyop tactics.

    The propaganda surrounding this issue is incredible and now that concrete proof is out there that there is severe manipulation of the data and science behind AGW it's time for us to look deeper….think about it critically.

    To call people deniers and skeptics is just nonsense. Carbon Trading is the biggest load of BS the world has ever seen but they've been using the MSM to skew popular perception so that they can bring about such a radical solution.

    The use of the word denier is pretty low; it subconsciously implies holocaust denial and that is a petty way to argue. The fact that the AGW promoters refuse to debate any of the science goes to show you just how corrupt and false their whole argument is.

    All those who say that we need to "stop climate change" need to slow down and think about what they are saying.

    Peace and Love

    Time for some keywords:

    END THE FED, RE-INVESTIGATE 9/11, RON PAUL, SWINE FLU PANDEMIC, BILDERBERG, GEOENGINEERING, NWO

    • Nice false flag troll, non-ID-account-guy.

    • I don't mind being called a skeptic at all. The opposite of skeptical is gullible, and I'm certainly not gullible!

  15. Whoo boy!, congrats Cosh you've managed to collect together every nut-case conspiracy theorist (including yourself) on the Maclean's comments board for one article. Between the opinions of hundreds of highly qualified scientists and those of Cosh and his fellow tin-foil hat wearers, I know who I am going to believe (and most rational, thinking Canadians generally do likewise). Hiring you as a blogger demonstrates that Maclean's continues it's acceleration towards irrelevancy.

    • I know who I am going to believe (and most rational, thinking Canadians generally do likewise)

      That your religion has many followers does not make its precepts factually true.

      • No, science (that, unlike religion, doesn't require faith) has facts and the scientific method on its' side. That's all you need to answer these kinds of questions (along with piles of reputable research done by hundreds of scientists).

        • You didn't cite scientific evidence. You supported your insults only with an appeal ad populem: your belief must be correct because it is shared by so many people, especially the "highly qualified" and "rational, thinking Canadians."

          Live by the logical fallacy, die by the logical fallacy.

          • There's plenty of scientific evidence to support climate change, if you bothered to look with a sceptical, critical and open mind. Frankly I've got better things to do than to do your research for you. Anyways, I doubt I would convince you otherwise so why bother?

          • Really? I've heard repeatedly that the Antarctic is shrinking (not true), that Arctic ice is disappearing (also not true), that sea levels are rising alarmingly (also not true), etc. When people ask for raw data and methods, they are systematically rebuffed, so please tell me HOW YOU GOT ACCESS TO ALL THIS PRIVILEGED DATA to form your opinion. As far as I can see, you read what is published in the mainstream press, accept it as gospel, and then call anyone who dares to question it an idiot.

            I've spent hours at both RealClimate (pro-AGW), and Climate Audit (AGW skeptics), and I find CA to be a much more credible source. Of course, I'm only an engineer, used to dealing with hard facts and reproducible results, not opinions (and you'd better be damn glad we do, else buildings and bridges would be collapsing around you).

          • You may want to peruse peer-reviewed scientific journal articles by people who are actually doing the climate change analysis (as opposed to some former mineral explorer guy who runs a blog). Go to the source, as it were. Or did they not teach you that in engineering school?

            But as the many ill-informed comments on this blog post attest, there is no point arguing with ideologues. Cosh is happy though… his hit rate is through the roof. Next up, he'll probably right something about abortion…

          • "You may want to peruse peer-reviewed scientific journal articles by people who are actually doing the climate change analysis (as opposed to some former mineral explorer guy who runs a blog). Go to the source, as it were. Or did they not teach you that in engineering school?"

            Wow, you actually said that?
            Hello??
            Norwich, we have a serious disconnect problem!
            Psst. -Olly ol' muck muck, can I recommend that you actually read the above article?

            …. or are you that twisted about Cosh getting attention that you've gone totally um, blind… and lost the plot completely?

            Incredible. A keeper fer sure.

            Yep, watching them twist, shrivel and burn with the light of truth allowed through, is priceless.

          • And you would be one of those ideologues I was talking about…

          • Also, by the way, the CRU isn't the only place in the world where climate change research is being done.

          • I know and thousands of them point to a non event in the global warming/climate change is caused by humans camp.

            The CRU and LSM won't hear from them, just as you won't hear facts.
            CRU fudged the source data, over and over.

          • *You may want to peruse peer-reviewed scientific journal articles by people who are actually doing the climate change analysis (as opposed to some former mineral explorer guy who runs a blog). Go to the source, as it were.*

            Yes, Dee, I'm sure YOU'VE done that yourself…

            It is clear from your posts, though, that you haven't done so.

            It is exactly the `science, science, science' that you keep invoking , falsely, that is called into quesiton by this evidence of fraud.

          • >some former mineral explorer guy

            Interesting way of damning someone.

            Mineral exploration is rife with false claims, doctored results. Salted assays they call it.

            Any mineral exploration guy worth his salt doesn't believe anything he is told unless it is proven by a second reliable, independent source.

            What was the name of that mining outfit that hosed all the smart money in Toronto? They didn't do the due diligence that anyone connected with mining assumes.

            So come to think of it, if a mining guy can't be convinced, especially after having demonstrated a few frauds already, then it probably is all hokum.

            Derek

    • Are you kidding? They're going to get as many ad hits on this as they did on one of Kady's poll articles easy.

      Remember, Macleans is not in the business of providing you with useful or substantive information, Macleans is in the business of selling your attention to advertisers. For that purpose, Cosh is perfect.

        • Absolutely. Although judging from my score, some seem to think it's an insult. I don't. It's writing that draws people in which is exactly what Macleans is about. People who want to be educated should go read scientific journals. People who want to be entertained could do a lot worse than reading you.

          • Can't say I have been "entertained" by Maclean's for years. Appalled and disappointed? Yes.

      • Yeah, ya got a point.

    • After all, what could be more irrelevant than these emails about which every single blogger skeptical of AGW I've read said "wait on this one folks, these have just got to be too good to be true"?

      Meanwhile the Need To Know posters seem to find anything negative about Palin relevant, but no relevancy has been found in Al Gore's statement that the the temperature of the earth's core is several million degrees.

      Relevancy – it's so relative!

    • When the "shakedown" is exposed for the fraud it is, many like you will have to find some other religion. Best of luck.

      • You may want to change your moniker to "CanadianNonSense".

        • Follow the money, can't accept you yell Big Oil call us deniers, we just raise FACTS.

          1) Peer Review Consensus Boy Frat Club is witholding DATA from critical review.

          2) Billions have gone into this PONZI scheme for a Carbon Trading Market *Big Business and Bankers thank you!

          http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

      • Gotta love people who think CAPITALIZING WORDS gets their point across. Yeesh. Yell some more dude…

        • Dee,
          After your religion of AGW fails to redistribute wealth and control what is next?

  16. Scientists are as suffused with bias and crotchets as the rest of us–the difference is (or should be) that they rein in their bias with a thoroughgoing skepticism and a constant testing of propositions. The Anglia gang are thus no scientists. Again, “settled science” is always an oxymoron, even in much simpler matters–ultimate truths are the province of religion. I’ll bet the Anglia gang were even so prejudiced and stupid they discounted albedo as a factor.

  17. If a computer was hacked in, oh, let’s say, the PMO, and an email was found with disparaging remarks about, f’rinstance, Iggy’s taste in socks, we all innately understand the the MSM would be all over ad nauseum for days, and more on Sunday. CTV and CBC would be repeating it every 15 minutes on the news, with guest panelists of MPs and pundits babbling away until hell wouldn’t have any more.

    However…

    This is merely a scandal involving ultimately and literally trillions of dollars to be tossed like confetti into a hurricane annually from now til hell freezes over…figuratively speaking.

    CBC has not one single word on its website since this story broke, not so much as a sniff.

    Nor, for that matter have the rest of N.A.s major broadcasters given this tale of deceit and fraud the time of day…save for, naturally, those darned right wing rogues at Fox News. Good ol’ Fox comes through again. Funny how that is, eh?

    The handling of this by the MSM has been, frankly, despicable…and certainly revealing of their true nature (…meaning agenda).

    • I have to say, normally I absolutely loathe Fox News, but I agree that on this one, I'm glad they're there actually reporting this. On the other hand, most of the time Fox are such obvious tools, unfortunately a lot of people will simply (in every sense of the word) say "Oh, well, that's Fox — they're just a bunch of right-wing nuts." I'm not normally one to harp about media bias too much, but the fact that the CBC has ignored this story disgusts me. It's like me being forced to subsidize Pravda in its heyday.

    • I couldn't agree more. If their complete lack of coverage doesn't reinforce the conspiracy angle, I don't know what it would take.

  18. Good grief! You mean to tell me that my tin foil hat was right?

  19. A few problems with all this outrage:

    — the emails are a decade old … and the research conducted since has shown increases temperature, reductions in sea ice and glaciers, etc.

    — research not conducted by CRU also confirms increases temperature, reductions in sea ice and glaciers, etc.

    So, are you actually suggesting that CRU for more than a decade not only torqued their data, but also managed to torque the data collected by scores of other research centres looking at a wide gamut of indicators (habitats, water, temperature, ice, pollution patters, storms, etc.)?

    Those would have to be some mighty powerful, forward reaching secret emails then ,wouldn't they?

    • One of the key problems for AGW is that rising temperatures halted about 10 years ago. In fact, one of the email bemoans this point, and suggests that our ability to measure temperature change might be flawed rather than the predictions of the computer simulations.

      • This is false. 2006 was the hottest year on record, globally, then 1998, then 2002, 2003, 2006. Did you get your information from the Friends of Science ad campaign? They lied to you.

        http://www.desmogblog.com/friends-science-ads-are

    • Not all the emails are that old. Some are quite recent. And yes, there do seem to be some mighty revealing statements in there.

    • maybe you should actually do some research and find out what exactly is in the emails. There's lots of damning evidence to be seen.

    • WHy would you believe any new studies from these guys when they fudge the old ones. How dense are you?

      • AmateurHour has repeatedly demonstrated on these boards that he/she is very dense indeed.

  20. Clearly it is, because they'd have a defense to their other bad behaviour now if they had continued to keep proving what 'everyone knows.'

  21. "the climate-panic industry"? Sigh….What a poor, poor replacement for Kady O'Malley.

    Don't worry, you'll get your page hits Mr. Coyne, but you'll lose your credibility (and if you want to see where that leads you take a peek at Salon.com these days)

    • Editor: Please put the jump in earlier on Cash's postings so I don't have to spend so much time scrolling down through them to get to the next item.

    • Why are so many partisan Liberals, AGW kool-aid drinkers. Do you not think this extremism just might be hurting you guys at the polls?

      • I know you *think* "kool-aid drinkers" is witty as all get out…but it's not.

        But then again, you have time and again proven yourself to be bat guano crazy, so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to engage with you.

        • Actually the Frat Boys Club with Billions from taxpayers must prove their CASE.

          Science is not "consensus" popularity contest.

          Data has been witheld or destroyed from FOI: End of story.

    • I see, so MacLeans comments on some seriously damaging emails that undermine the credibility of some of the world's foremost climate "scientists", and MacLeans' credibility is at stake? I follow your logic. (No I don't.)

  22. Okay, this wasn’t the first bandwagon-amok-cum-children’s-crusade in the history of homo allegedly sapiens, folks. Back to work, everybody.

  23. Scott,

    therein lies the heart of the problem.

    You believe because you were told it was so.

    Check out those links the others have re the regaining of the arctic sea ice (not to mention the expansion of the Antarctic ice shield).

    In any other paradigm of science, when a theory involves a prediction and the prediction turns out false, then that theory is disproved.

    In AGW world, the theory holds and excuses are made. Leaving aside the obvious fraud, we were supposed to be cooking like boiling lobster by now (so said the predictions ten years ago).

    And in case you want to deny that its actually getting cooler (which many appear still to do) the emails have glaring examples where they express frustration at the trend in cooling.

    Imagine, instead of being happy that their predictions of us cooking to death appear to be incorrect they angrily wish we were cooking to death so that they could be right.

    • Scott chased the wafer story as a fact, so why are we taking him seriously? After the story broke it was fabricated he still believes.

  24. "emails are a decade old"

    I take it then you actually haven't read the material.

    Some are a decade old, some relate to the most recent tree ring issue.

    Some are weeks old dealing with access requests in October of this year.

    • The charts have been truncated to hide the declining temperatures in the last ten years

    • This is a good link." Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful."

  25. It seems to me like their are two options for those who believe fully in the severe and negative impact of modern man on climate change in these comments:

    1) Attack the information. Present a counter-argument grounded in fact, and argue that this information is largely irrelevant because of other studies, other data, etc.

    2) Attack the messenger. Whine and complain about Cosh's perceived bias and moan that Maclean's needs more lefty writers. In short, diminish the discussion to attacking the personal merits of people presenting data rather than arguing the data.

    Some have (wisely and thankfully) gone the first route. They are to be commended. Others have gone the second route. I assume it's because their grasp of the actual information involved is too tenuous for them to be involved in any sort of debate on it.

      • That's not so much information on global warming as it is a condescending explanation that scientists aren't always nice, and that this information was all illegally obtained in the first place.

        Which is fine, because that's a statement by a group that supports the widely-accepted theories on global warming. Their proof is littered among at least hundreds of scientific papers. It isn't in that link.

        • It's an awesome place to check out if you aren't up on the current million or so definitions of the word trick .

        • If you had bothered to look around a little at that website you would have found plenty of science by real scientists. But you can't handle that, can you. Too hard to actually face facts.

      • The very site you claim is providing information on climate change is run by the same guys who were careless, or honest, with their emails.

        By the way, the emails also alert us to the fact that postings on Realclimate were scrutinized so as to only provide acceptable views. So feel free to view it as a clearing house of climate info, but you ought to be aware that it is one sided and scientists with opposing views were blackballed from posting.

        • If you bothered to read the comments you would see that they allow plenty of dissenting comments. They also point out where the commenters are wrong. They do not allow trolls or spammers, and why should they?.

    • "And they refuse to release raw data and code."

      There is no other issue.

      Science demands that scientists who refuse to disclose their data and methodology be ridiculed as the charlatans they are.

      The only morons who take the CRU model at its word are people with vested financial interests who are defrauding goverments for the grant money (which is a trivial feat).

      No reputable scientists stand by the CRU models.

      http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009

  26. Read the guest post by Willis Eschenbach at the site below to get an idea of the context of some of the hacked emails.
    He is the fellow who made the first FOI request to the CRU

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    I hope that we will see an independent audit of the data and code in question.
    What is at stake here is to important to be left as it stands now.
    Both sides should welcome this if they are true scientists.

    • What, having scientists' private emails stolen and deliberately misinterpreted by a bunch of untrained denialists who can't handle data properly when it is released? Get real! You don't like the science, write a real scientific paper refuting it and get a real scientific journal to publish it. That is how real scientists do their jobs.

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/08/mckitrick… Do YOU know the difference between degrees and radians?

      • Do some more reading Holly. Try to be unbiased.
        Think of all of the ecological problems that we face.
        Is this really the number one issue that we should address?
        We owe it to ourselves and our children to get this right.
        I have always been skeptical of the other agendas that underlie Kyoto and now Copenhagen but I had a fair degree of confidence in the scientists and assumed until recently that their efforts where proceeding in accordance with standard scientific protocol. Now we have these revelations illegally obtained or not.
        If the data and code support the IPCC summary and are independently audited (climate science is very much about statistical analysis) we will be able to set our priorities with more certainty.
        Let's have an audit.

        • Try to be unbiased, This from another ignoramus pretending to know something, anything.

      • Holly, do you understand anything about scientific method. It's not a club of agreeable views. This shouldn't be news, but it apparently is to you.

        Progress in science relies on confirmation of the original work. Sharing with your competitors is not out of bounds, but is the accepted standard. Trust me, nothing is more heartwarming to a scientist than having a competitor confirm their observation.

        There is evidence in these emails that the IPCC was being used to circumvent the sharing of data/code. Why can't you see that as inherently wrong-headed. You seem to be operating on the assumption that public data will not stand up to scrutiny by non-scientists, when the real problem is that real scientists are being actively excluded. Is it your assertion that everyone who grumbles about this closed club mentality at the IPCC is by definition a denier.

        • Well, you see, the way that "science" is supposed to work in our correctoid new world order is this: a bunch of Wise Persons come down from a mountain where they have engaged in exclusive deliberations, armed with stone tablets that tell us all what to believe and think. Anyone who questions their wisdom is an infidel denier who must be ridiculed and banished. Got that?

          • Must have missed that memo. Perhaps I'm not on their email list.
            Do you think if I agree with Holly above, maybe they'll let me in the clubhouse?

          • Well, first you have to spend many years learning to understand things like physics, chemistry, etc.,; you know, hard stuff like that. Much easier to just blog nonsense.

          • And you're very good at it, apparently!

  27. Surely all sides of the debate can agree that a full independent enquiry should now be carried out? The doings of rogue scientists should not be allowed to taint the work of others nor should it be allowed to taint science generally.

    I should think those who think there is other, reliable, scientific evidence from other sources to support the case for man made global waming will welcome it if dubious reports are thrown out. Why should the data be kept secret?

    Why should this scandal be swept under the carpet? The only reason I can think is because a lot of important people don't want to risk being shown to have been fooled. But let's face it eventually it will be beyond dispute whether or not the Globe continues to warm. Anybody who decides lalalalala I don't want to know, I don't want to know, will look like a much bigger idiot down the line if they miss this opportunity to make sure that everything really is cosher.

    • A full independent enquiry? Who do you ignormai consider independent? Monckton? Ball? HAHAHAHAHA!

      • I agree with you Terry, even if Holly is incapable of doing so.

      • Holly, do you realize how many ad hominem attacks you've made, just on this topic alone? It does not enhance your credibility. It damages it.

        • Sorry, I lose patience with stupid people very quickly.

  28. Anthropogenic Global Warming is the fraud of the century.

    I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I hate being lied to so-called scientists. I can't beleive that outrageous conduct.

    What a despicable bunch of clowns.

    • I will assume Jarrid's position represents the Conservative Party and the Government of Canada.

      • Both these statements are ridiculous. Is it so hard to keep the politics of this particular board?

  29. Where is Craig O. when we need him?

    • You missed me? I'm touched.

      So… figure out how to read a graph yet, Gaunilon?

      • I missed your arguments, yes, since they're generally pretty strong and you also seem to have a good command of the facts.

        The arrogance I can do without, but no one's perfect.

        • Gaunilon, I'll make you a deal – I'll cut the arrogance if you do likewise. Our last exchange I'll admit, I became quite angry, because you
          a) Suggest a false interpretation of a graph, and an interpretation which would provide more evidence for AGW than I think will ever exist and
          b) Asserted with all confidence that both your interpretation of the graph was correct and a disbelief in AGW.

          When you do that, you move from skeptic to denier, and I have no patience for deniers. It looks like you've moderated your stance, though, so I apologize for the knee-jerk reaction here – it was unwarranted.

  30. Gee, someone in the MSM is, after a week on the internet, talking about this story. You still have it wrong Colby, the story is really about whether the IPCC temperature rise of 0.6C in the 20th century is true. In August the CRU admitted it destroyed the raw worldwide temperature data after years of refusing to release it. Then it was claimed that didn't matter because the data used by the IPCC was the "gridded" data set from this raw data. Now we find an email from Harris at the CRU bemoaning the incompleteness, corruption, bad programming and unreliability of the gridded data. Steve McIntyre destroyed the "hockey stick" showing the 1990s' as the hottest decade months ago. Now the CRU themselves have destroyed the claim of any reliable proof of global warming in the twentieth century.

  31. And I'll add this. Once upon a time the Liberals were moderate on public policy issues, they'd stake the middle ground. In the last number of years, they've taken increasingly extreme positions on a host of issues. They've abandonned the middle class. It's too bad for the country and it's too bad for the Liberals.

    • Over hyped-up nonsense on stilts.

      OK, thanks. As I suspected.

    • "And I'm beside myself with these latest revelations."

      You're always besides yourself. You're psychotic.

  32. Colby, you have a spelling mistake. You wrote "scumbaggery" when the desired word was "scumbUggery"

  33. This is journalism? Macleans is awful now. Coyne doesn’t care, he’s headed off to his new Senate position in a few weeks.

  34. Read the guest post by Willis Eschenbach at the site below to get an idea of the context of some of the hacked emails.
    He is the fellow who made the first FOI request to the CRU

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    I hope that we will see an independent audit of the data and code in question.
    What is at stake here is to important to be left as it stands now.
    Both sides should welcome this if they are true scientists.

  35. Scientific fraud is a very serious offense, not to be excused or lightly dismissed. It happens in all fields, even from scientists who have drawn their conclusions from sound results, who for whatever reason, feel the need to inflate those results.

    It's interesting though, reading the damning e-mails, the worst crime there is manipulation of presentation (still unethical), but not manipulation of data. That's a very important distinction – climatologists base opinions not on pictures, but hard data. If the hard data is still valid, so are their conclusions, assuming those conclusions were valid to before this. This it what separates an AGW scandal from a climate change scientist scandal – at most, this is the latter. The data's all still valid, the interpretation of the data isn't any different, the statistical analysis is unchanged, meaning the conclusion remains the same.

    The point here is to see through the rhetoric (and it's thick on both sides) and down to the science. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, whose concentration has historically been well correlated with surface temperatures. It's concentration has risen sharply above historical levels over the last century due to the burning of fossil fuels. This is the theoretical justification for rising temperatures. The empirical evidence confirms the theory – ice core samples, tree ring measurements, surface temperature measurements and satellite reading confirm that average surface temperatures, after accounting for natural year-to-year variations, have been steadily rising since the start of the industrial revolution. No other theory presented can match the consistency of the AGW model – natural variations are extremely unlikely to cause this much change over such a short time, the solar cycle's period is too short to explain current variations, and water vapour is an elastic GHG. Again, cut through the rhetoric, and get back to the science.

    • With Obama heading to Copenhagen, where he's expected to pledge some pretty big cuts in US carbon emissions, the ClimateGate story is an economic story as well as a political one. I said before that I don't think the emails refuted the notion that AGW is real, and happening. I still don't–the fact is, everything we know about carbon dioxide indicates that it has a greenhouse effect, because it is more efficient at passing sunlight through to the earth, than at allowing that energy to reradiate back into space as heat ……

      Bearing this in mind, I think most people–including me–missed the biggest part of the climate emails story. Sexing up a graph is at best a misdemeanor. But a Declan McCullough story suggests a more disturbing possibility: the CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish." Jane Galt Nov 25 '09

      http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009

      • I've always felt the faith in computer models to be unfounded and, in the grand scheme of things, unnecessary. Basic statistical reasoning is all that's needed, along with an understand of the chemistry and physics behind the theories. Computer models are like a fun toy – they may provide a nice framework for study, but they shouldn't be given much confidence – and I really feel that too many climatologists put too much confidence in the predictions of their computer models.

        • "I've always felt the faith in computer models to be unfounded"

          I finished this article just before I read your comment.

          From Der Spiegel Nov 24 '09

          "Climate researchers use some of the most powerful computers in the world to run their models. Still, the sheer amount of data that must be crunched mandates that many details are simply left out. How accurate are the results?

          "Give me ten parameters, and I'll simulate an elephant for you. Give me one more, and he'll wag his tail." The saying sums up the problem with many models. Models allow you demonstrate anything and everything, as long as there are enough knobs to turn. The real test of how good a model really is comes when you compare it to reality.

          But when it comes to climate change, researchers are faced with a practically insoluble problem: We won't know for sure until the end of the century whether climate predictions for the year 2100 are correct or not. But with climate scientists around the world warning of the dangerous consequences of climate change, it becomes apparent that we can hardly afford to wait that long."

          http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,…

          • Yep. Models are just what we think will happen, not what actually happens and when it comes to extremely complex systems such as earth's climate, specific things are difficult to test with certainty.

            Right now I'm studying up on computer models that try to determine dose for radiation therapy treatments for cancer patients. The physics behind it is pretty well understood, but how it all goes together in a real-life treatment is difficult to do accurately with models. The current "best" model goes right back to physical principles, but it takes so much computing power that it's impractical at the moment. We've been using worse models for years – they're not perfect (and we REALLY want to be perfect when it comes to exposing people to radiation), but we still use these imperfect models. Why? Because they're good enough for what we want to do.

            With models, again, too much faith is put into them, especially when it comes to details. But they're not worthless – they all still predict a warming earth, just as the dosimetry models give a good estimation as to where the radiation is deposited in a patient. And that's what needs to be kept in mind, that the overriding prediction is still a strong prediction, even if the details aren't.

          • I take it you'd also agree that the confidence we assign to scientific models, like the confidence we assign to scientific anything-else, is dependent on their independent reproducibility. That might be the single most important concept in science, and it makes transparency and sharing data (and, ideally, code) with critics an essential moral principle. I believe that, in general, AGW scholars have a bit of an ongoing problem with this, and the CRU e-mail corpus confirms it at several points. The argument that the skeptics are just jerks is no good: you need to let them have their innings. As a non-scientist I would argue that the "scientificness" of the climate research is legitimately at stake here, in this specific sense.

          • Data sharing in science is always a bit… tenuous. Data is key to a person's research and hence their standing in their field, so until a person publishes their findings (usually in a peer-reviewed journal), they're usually quite protective of their information. Once published however, yes, the information should be fully open to review – I don't know which it was in this case, but I'm not trying to defend these particular scientists anyway, just the AGW concept in general.

            As for reproducability of models, that's actually be demonstrated, albeit over short time scales. Even the latest plateau of temperatures this decade is consistent with many models, though certainly on the low end of the predictions. It's tough to hold to fast to the concept of scientific reproduceability here, because if we wait to see if the models are right, then it might well be too late to do anything with the data. The predictions are still testable, just not as testable as we'd like – which is why I give confidence to the general ideas, but not the specifics.

            Again though, computer models are really just the complex predictions of the consequences, they're not entirely necessary. The physical principles motivating those models are what's important and those have been reproduced time and time again – CO2 traps heat released by the earth and its concentration has been rising in our atmosphere dramatically. Without bothering too much to get into the details, I'll just offer an example of CO2 warming – Venus.

            Your last point is one that is very important and doesn't get addressed enough – giving skeptics their "innings". This would be valid, if skeptics came forward with claims that matched all the other conditions of sound theory that AGW offers, namely consistency with other established theories and properly explaining the observed data. Right now, a few such theories have been put forward and the few that have are pretty easy to debunk as either failing to explain the information or being completely inconsistent with other theories. To get back to the baseball metaphor – skeptics are welcome to their innings, but they've got to play with bats like the rest of us.

          • Colby is bang-on here. Without full access to the data and models, it's all he-said-she-said. The very foundations of science rest upon the scientific method. The "peer review" process has quite obviously been (to be kind) subverted here. FOI requests have been actively avoided, using any means possible. Yes, scientists have a vested interest in maintaining their funding, but hiding behind your legal department does not help in establishing your credibility. Far from trying to delay their work, Mr. McIntyre is a genuine researcher, with doubts to be sure, who wants to follow up on what should be simple request…..let us see the data and models so we can independently validate, and yes critique their validity. This is fundamental to the process. Data sharing should not be "tenuous", just publishing a chart, with a "trust me" at the bottom is simply not enough.

            Computer models are woefully inadequate to describe the chaotic complexity of our atmospheric system. We're lucky if the afternoon's weather forecast is accurate. Yes, C02 is a greenhouse gas, present amongst a myriad of others (water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas, as is methane). The "positive feedback" has not been proven (yes there are models that show it "could" happen and many that show it can't), and can't even be modeled without considering clouds and that big ball of gas in the sky we like to call the sun.

            AGW is not a "sound theory", it is a house of cards built on misdirection. Parts of it are certainly believable at first glance (e.g. C02 does rise with temperature but historically lags by decades, so cannot be the driving force, but a side-effect – correlation is not causation). The politicos have grabbed onto AGW as their latest, greatest hope for pushing their own agendas.

          • Maybe Bang-on Colby could respond to this:

            "This would be valid, if skeptics came forward with claims that matched all the other conditions of sound theory that AGW offers, namely consistency with other established theories and properly explaining the observed data. Right now, a few such theories have been put forward and the few that have are pretty easy to debunk as either failing to explain the information or being completely inconsistent with other theories."

            You could too.

          • My response is, I have no idea where Craig O gets any such idea. Challenging or refuting Hypothesis A can constitute valuable scientific work even if you don't have a Hypothesis B, and either way, the advocates of Hypothesis A are expected to welcome and invite criticism. Sometimes there is NO curve or explanatory scheme to fit the data. Craig O's expectation that data be confined to possessors of some equally viable alternate theory is arbitrary–and even if it weren't, in these circumstances it wouldn't come close to excusing outbursts along the lines of "I would destroy station data before I'd give it to Steve McIntyre".

            Nobody can have an excuse for that, and Craig rightly refuses to try supplying one.

          • You bring up a good point, but I don't think it's as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Science, especially applied sciences such as climatology, rarely have yes/no theories, which can be invalidated or properly refuted by a single data set. Instead, we rely on general consistency with observations and consistency with other theories (especially those which are more fundamental).

            Publishing data that runs against AGW would be valid science provided the techniques used to obtain the data meet sufficient rigor. This data does get published without any real controversy – of note is the decreasing temperatures and increasing ice cover on mainland Antarctica, which has been a pretty steady trend for over a decade.

            This all comes up, and is published, but doesn't sufficiently contradict AGW to invalidate it. Now, there could be information out there that would be sufficient to contradict AGW, but so far, it isn't out there.

            And so, in the absence of such information, a competing theory which better explains observations and matches more closely with other established theories, is necessary to invalidate AGW. This is why I say skeptics need to come forth with alternative theories, because they aren't coming forth with valid contradictory data.

            It's important that we all remember that every scientific theory could be wrong – in fact, most are. Evolution, black holes, the big bang theory, pretty much everything from psychology, quantum physics, relativity, etc… it could all be bull. Heck, thermodynamics (one of this most consistently successful theories in physics) IS wrong on a fundamental level, and yet is still part of the backbone of modern physics, with no real successor (unlike, say, Newtonian gravity). We go with what works the best based on available data unless there is a clear contradiction.

          • But this is a case where the impugned authority has (effectively exclusive, jealously guarded) possession of BOTH the empirical data and the models. And maybe we can be clear on an important distinction here: there are other lines of evidence and first principles pointing toward AGW, as you say, but a problem with the CRU is definitely a big problem for the IPCC, with its quantitative predictions and hard policy recommendations, even if it's not a big problem for AGW as such.

          • Colby, here is the list of authors who wrote the newest report about the state of the science. Are any of the from CRU? Did any of them write any of the infamous emails? Notice how many different institutions they work for. Do you not realise that all major scientific groups accept the science of AGW.?

            http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/authors.html

          • I think that the main point of most of the observational arguments is that we can look out the window and see change or we can rely on recorded historic temperature measurements to verify these models.To me that is flawed for 2 reasons.

            Very few people alive or in a position to make a political decision were around in the 30's. It was much warmer then, at least in the prairies. The evidence of this was the massive emmigration from the prairies to more moderate places like BC. Also the dust bowls and massive droughts that we have all been cautioned with our new bought of global warming about were common place. Also all most all of our summer and winter temperature records are from that time. With few people left to talk bout those times it gets forgotten.
            People only think about the immediate future.

            The second is that most temperature records in the world were not actually measured until after world war 2. thanks to the American military bases that went up across the world. Canada for example doesn't look past 1958 because we don't have data. So there is no empirical data for all of Canada to match the local weather station data. Also many of those weather stations are now not used because the bases aren't kept up. There is a large swath of this country that has no weather data and is instead averaged. This is true in other large countries as well like Russia, because they had no reason to keep as many bases.

            I am an Agnostic Global Warmer.

          • As I've said, I'm not going to try to defend these scientists. You're right, a problem with the CRU's data is a problem for the IPCC, its predictions and the justification for its policy recommendations.

            I'm really just here to support the scientific validity of AGW as a whole.

          • "The argument that the skeptics are just jerks is no good"

            It's not really an argument. It's a just statement of fact. Take a good look around you.

            Of course, having been associated with that festival of jerks, CanWest, for so long, you're probably desensitized to it.

          • The argument ad hominem. Wow, that's impressive.

          • QED.

  36. Craig O, let's stick to the scientific process and see where it leads us. In the meantime, there is this matter of scientific misconduct perpetrated by paleoclimatologists whose work has informed much of the IPCC crusade. If this work has been tainted, it will be uncovered by academic authorities.

    For serious scientists, the debate has already been reset – we know scientific misconduct when we see it. We are now, as you so aptly say, "[getting] back to the science".

    • Again, the scientific process doesn't seem to have been truly tainted. The data was, potentially (remember, this is just an e-mail), poorly represented, not falsified. Representation is the rhetoric, data is the science – let's stick to the latter.

      • The data was, potentially (remember, this is just an e-mail), poorly represented, not falsified.

        You had to be laughing when you typed that .

      • While I agree that the emails themselves do not compromise the datasets, comments such as the following (taken from a file called "Harry_Read_Me.txt" seem to suggest otherwise:
        "OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

        In this particular file, Ian "Harry" Harris is trying to recreate a lost dataset that was used in the compilation of the HADCRUT3 temperature data.

      • Fair enough, the data wasn't tainted. However, representation of data is not rhetoric, that's what interpretation of data is called. Representation of data is still data. What is missing here is the sharing of the raw data that led to the representations used in the publications, which in turn supported their interpretation.

        Would you agree that selective use of raw data to support a bias, however untainted, is misleading?

        • Of course it's misleading and again, rather unethical. What it's not is overly unique, both in the realm of climatology (on both sides of the debate) or science in general. I like the term misdemeanor here – it's an offense, but not a particularly heinous one.

  37. My goodness, I notice a lot of partisan Liberals have bought the AGW kool-aid. You folks are clearly not fit to govern.

    You'd run our bloody economy into the tank.

    Over hyped-up nonsense on stilts.

    • You'd run our bloody economy into the tank.

      How so? Can you elaborate with something profound?

      • By taxing carbon, the major input in our economy.

        • Jarrid, are you old enough to remember the Free Trade debates of 1988?

          • Indeed. Your point being?

          • Then you'd remember all of the doomsayers (many who enjoyed the status quo in protected industries) who claimed that freetrade would destroy the Canadian economy.

            So, what specific industries do you believe will be destroyed or unable to innovate and adjust to a new environment with a carbon tax? (as an aside – keep in mind that Japan's economy is the second, or maybe now third largets in the world, and they have no significant natural resources). Sorry, but general statements of doom and gloom don't enhance informed debate.

          • The kicker for me is that AGW proponents have the burden of proof. He who asserts must prove. We have no proof that AGW exists. You don't expend trillions and trillions of dollars to adress an unproved theory. Sorry that these are general comments, but it doesn't make them any less valid.

            And I'm beside myself with these latest revelations. The vested interests in the AGW industry are truly alarming. I'm all for sustainable development and protecting the environment but this is truly madness.

    • Follow the money. Billions of $ are spent on the GW scam. Since this is a UN sanctioned scam you will find crooks that are masquerading as scientist that benefit from this money all over the world.

  38. Colby… Macleans blog is rapidly becoming Wherry’s private sandbox. Coyne is rare. Wells does not seem to care. Do try to redeem the place.

  39. To all or you guys saying that this is no big deal. If these guys are sure enough that they are right to tell us to change our lives, quit driving, live in different homes, travel less etc etc

    Surely they should be able to publish their data and calculations. Surely proving their case should be easy. It would have the side benefit of making them believable.

    The reason that they don't want to publsh their data is because IT DOES NOT PROVE THEIR THEORY.

  40. "were already known parts of the climate-panic industry's playbook."
    It is not what you know. It is what you can prove. So without this kind of evidence, the people who were rightly skeptical of the science were incapable of getting a fair hearing from the public because the media and governments were all accomplices of the AGW crowd.

  41. That should be "tip-top IPCC contributors "

  42. Alright, question for the supporters of mann made up global warming.

    Science and theories are useless if they cannot make predictions. These AGW proponents have spent millions of dollars developing models that can't even predict if the sun will come up tomorrow with any degree of accuracy. I'm not talking daily temperatures, I'm talking decadal trends (the scientologists in the emails fret about this fact).

    Why should we listen to their theories if they cannot make accurate predictions.

    AGW may be correct. BUT, and this is a REALLY BIG BUT, it may occur over centuries or millenia instead of years like the AGW proponents jabber on about, and to whom policy makers are listening.

  43. Link here:

    http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091117/jsp/nation/

    Key graph:

    "In attempts to assess impacts of global warming, the IPCC considered 17 models of how climate would evolve as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rose. Some models predict more rainfall over India, but with great uncertainty.

    “The models have very serious problems in simulating even 20th century monsoon patterns,” said Madhavan Rajeevan, a senior scientist at the National Atmospheric Research Laboratory, Tirupati, and a co-author of the paper.

    “When a model (computer simulation) cannot even show with reasonable accuracy monsoon behaviour in the past, there's a big question mark over its ability to predict future patterns,” Rajeevan told The Telegraph."

    • No one's reading your copy and pastes, Biff.

    • Reverse predictability is a key aspect of any useful model.

  44. A few of the suggestions being vigorously put forward on this thread:

    • Governments are conspiring to fleece citizens using AGW as a justification.
    • Scientists the world over are all complicit or active in the AGW conspiracy.
    • Journalists are suppressing the truth about AGW.
    • Google is manipulating search suggestions about climate change emails, because Al Gore is on their Board.

    I hope someone is archiving this … because it's going to be useful to some social science researcher in a decade or two.

    • Did you miss the Global Recession, are you really this stupid? On what planet do you spend most of your time?

      1) Bundling worthless mortgages using flawed models to mitigate risk.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_cr… Estimated loss Global Financial Institutions only $ 4 Trillion!

      So let's close our eyes again and listen to another "Frat Club of Boys" who refuse to share their data and models?

      http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009

      "And they refuse to release raw data and code."

      There is no other issue.

      Science demands that scientists who refuse to disclose their data and methodology be ridiculed as the charlatans they are.

      The only morons who take the CRU model at its word are people with vested financial interests who are defrauding goverments for the grant money (which is a trivial feat).

      No reputable scientists stand by the CRU models.

      • "No reputable scientists stand by the CRU models."

        BTW, that's your source for this?

        • The e-mails call in to question the credibility of the climate change industry. Perhaps it is an isolated incident but maybe it's just the tip of the iceberg (sorry). News coming out of NZ suggest that their raw data was also made to fit the curve and hide the decline.

          The only way to be sure is to have a full audit and release all raw data. methods and codes. Refusal or a sudden loss of data should be consider an admission of guilt and any reports from those scientists and organizations tossed out. Ignore Gore's and Brown's "we must act now" spiel, there is time to do a thorough examination. In fact, a US Senator is already proposing an investigation.

      • My consistent point has been … if the CRU is not a creditable source, look elsewhere.
        Fortunately, there are many sources of climate research independent of the CRU. That you don't ike their conclusions either is another issue.
        Also, I purposely avoided the asset inflation game. (WTF?)
        There were many sources of caution and criticism about Asset inflation, so using it as proof of global conspiracy (vs. greed and ignorance), doesn't really hold … if that was your intended point.
        And no, I'm not stupid. But thanks for asking.

        • Unfortunately they and their ilk are the ones contributing to the IPCC reports, controlling the "peer review" process, and monopolizing the debate in the media. The media was so taken-in by this hoax that they are now completely unwilling to print anything about this scandal (yes it is a scandal). Colby and a select few notwithstanding. Skeptics (not deniers, in science it's ok to be skeptical, really it is) have been totally marginalized, to the detriment of all science and the scientific process itself.

        • You cite governments, some scientists, google some journalists as the only group capable of dispensing the "truth" or beyond review.

          Fact is simply the CRU has witheld DATA and FOI. (Climate Panic apologists make excuses) did they use the same excuse for Tobacco Companies, Banks, Detainee Committee?

          IF the Raw data, models were given to everyone including those outsde the Frat boys club (Peer Review) would we be having this discussion?

          We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

          There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
          This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists. ( All Oil shilling denialists?)

          http://www.oism.org/pproject/

          http://www.discovery.org/v/30

  45. And for God's sake don't let them put that H1N1 vaccine in your arm either. Probably weakens your resistance to Global Warming evidence.

    • "And for God's sake don't let them put that H1N1 vaccine in your arm either."

      Good advice.

      "There have been 24 confirmed cases of a type of severe allergic reaction called anaphylaxis in Canadians who have received an H1N1 flu shot, including one person who died after getting vaccinated, the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada said Wednesday.

      Attention was drawn to the issue of anaphylaxis last week when vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline told provinces to stop using vaccine from a batch of 172,000 doses that was sent out last month. The halt-use order was issued because six people vaccinated from that batch developed anaphylaxis – a higher than expected number of such cases." CP, Nov 25 '09

      • You bit.

        • Not certain what you proved but I am sure it was devastating.

  46. "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."

    http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/glob

    Canada needs to rethink their position based on the facts coming out about the science. Given there are claims that the data has been altered changing the outcome we need to take a step back before going forward.

    I have always stated “to ensure that proper science and not the court of public opinion governs good environmental stewardship and policy development”

    We need to ensure that the environmental policies of tomorrow are not developed today through conjecture and hearsay.

    On a lighter note

    Climategate Official Theme Song

    http://www.tatumba.com/blog/archives/1304

  47. "how can you deny that the attempt is being made to proceed in company with reason? "

    Because, at the end of the day, if reason fails there's revelation; and also St. Thomas never contradicts revelation. It is therefore not easy to think that he is arguing in 100% good faith. An argument in which one side always wins, and, if it's losing, just takes its ball and goes home, is not really an argument, it's just a form of bullying.

    • I think that is rather uncharitable. I believe St. Thomas would say that if something is determined to be demonstrably true that contradicts revelation (ie. the bible) then you would believe what you can demonstrably prove. He wouldn't just take his ball and go home like a fundy that doesn't believe in evolution.

      However, he does say that there are things that you accept as true as a good Christian from revelation, though you have no way to demonstrate whether they are true or false. He attempted however to work as close as he could through reason to get towards the assertions of the Christian faith through base principles. That's what the famous (and demonstrably flawed) 5 truths are about.

      • "5 truths"? What is that? Are you referring to his 5 arguments for the existence of God?

        • Yes. Is that not a valid term for those arguments? An embarressing mental fart if so.

          • I've never seen a good demonstration concerning their flaws, then. I've seen several attempts, but they all seemed to misunderstand the precise meanings of the Aristotelian terms he uses.

          • There are some problems if you examine the nature of time, though speculative. The proof that has been thoroughly demolished though is the argument from design.

            Myself, I consider other aspects of his philosophy far more interesting. We wouldn't have notions of prosecuting people for "crimes against humanity" or "declarations of universal human rights" for example, without Thomas and the Neo-Thomists who followed him in the early 20th century.

          • Hmm. I'm skeptical. Time wasn't a part of any of the 5 ways. I think you might be confusing them with Kant's Antinomies, one of which is a "proof" of God's existence which contains logical fallacies.

            I'd be interested to see an attempt to demolish the 5th way (argument from the Aristotelian concept that "nature acts for an end") if that's what you mean by "argument from design". It struck me as nonsensical the first time I read it, but after I came to understand the background on which it's based (Aristotle's 'Physics') it struck me as pretty solid.

            But it's a conversation for another thread on another day.

          • Eh, Darwin's natural selection and random mutation pretty much destroys the 5th way. Or at the very least, it throws enough doubt on it to diminish its gloss significantly. Nature doesn't always act for an end. Sometimes it acts towards a dead end, or doesn't act properly.

            While it is true that the first mover and the first efficient cause depend on time being put into motion with something outside time itself, you generally get into troubles examining the nature of non-linear time and what it means for action. Nothing that can be proven one way or the other of course (if anything is metaphysics, this is) but certainly equally valid arguments that don't play nice with Aquinas. But yeah, rarefied stuff for another day.

    • I would also argue, more controversially, that despite starting from revelation, the attempt to fit it into a framework that fits with empirical evidence, logic, and reason is not abandoning reason altogether. Certainly one could make the argument that you should start solely from first self-evident principles and believe nothing else, but I would be hesitant to say that you cannot practice reason even if you are theist who believes in revelation.

      The problems of starting solely from self-evident principles has its philosophical problems too, but that is another discussion.

      I guess this places me somewhere in between you, Joylon, and scf on one side and Gaulion on the other.

      • Oh, far be it from me to accuse St. Thomas of being unreasonable. It takes a heck of a lot of subtlety to make Aristotle agree with the Psalms. I just can't recall, from my admittedly haphazard reading of the Summa, a passage in which he does judge against revelation (or the Fathers, for that matter). My question would be, at what point do you get so subtle that you efface the distinction between revelation and reason at revelation's expense? And, once you pass that point, why continue citing revelation?

        I would say, by contrast, that starting (and ending) with self-evident principles is the essence of faith. Christianity's problem is that it attempted to include all knowledge and reason under religion, where beforehand faith had addressed itself only to faith, as myth. It's a big basket, but eventually one accumulates too many eggs and the overreaching exercise is discredited.

        • There is nothing that has been "discredited" in the core of Christianity's belief system, as it largely relies on a whopper that a Galilean Jew executed by Roman Authorities was the incarnation of the one, true God. There is nothing that the scientific revolution has brought that discredits that notion, because it was so unbelievable in the first place.

          The problem with your model is that it was tried, unsuccessfully. One of the key reasons that paganism lost ground to Christianity was because Christianity made the effort to reconcile its belief systems with philosophy. Paganism to a great degree never did, because it generally followed the model that you are suggesting. I am also hopeful that your model will not succeed with biblical literalists and young earth creationists.

          • "Unsuccessfully"? I think it was quite a success. What Christianity did, in terms of integrating philosophy and religion, was to show up in the schools of Athens, where a 700-year-old debate had been raging between Epicureans, Stoics, Sceptics, et al., and say, "Let's try this again, only this time everybody gets a gun." That is, the stakes of being wrong or right on philosophical questions were officially no longer losing or winning an argument but personal salvation or damnation at the hands of an omnipotent God. If that's a success, I say we try failure again.

            As to the incarnation being inherently improbable, I dunno, I think it seems a lot less probable to us in our scientific world than it did even to well-educated Greeks and Romans, accustomed as they were to compartmentalising mythology and ordinary experience. It's no more improbable that Jesus could raise the dead than that Perseus could fly. Perseus' flying was rather irrelevant, however, but as soon as everybody's physical and spiritual fate depends on Jesus' power of resurrection the mythological and the cotidian started intersecting in rather ghastly ways.

          • Yes Jack, you've made it quite clear that you consider Christianity to be the greatest intellectual setback Western civilization has ever suffered. It is your second most insufferable trait, right after your assertion that whenever Christian populations were butchered they had it coming.

            You know perfectly well as a classicist Jack, that the Platonists, Aristoteleans, Stoics, Epicureans, and Skeptics had very little to do with Greco-Roman cultic religion, which largely involved dramatic rituals based on the myths, animal sacrifice, and a priesthood composed of aristocrats seeking to cultivate divine benevolence (ie. please Gods don't screw us over). Plato said that people shouldn't tell the traditional stories because they opened Gods to ridicule. Aristotle believed in the unmoved mover. The Stoics believed in the logos, which governed all things. Plotinus believed that there was a true divine essence of which the gods were mere pale reflections. Any of this sounding familiar to you? It should, because the Christians adopted all of this into their theological and philosophical thinking very easily. The traditional cultic rituals of pagan Greece and Rome? Not so much.

            Also, Christians didn't sidewipe arguments and change the nature of philosophical debate. Sure, they were concerned with apologetics, but the intellectual class of Christians desired truth, and thus they sought to learn the Greek philosophers and their means of understanding. Sure, you have folks like Tertullian who said "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" but I think it is quite clear that the faith moved on without him.

            As for people being more gullible then than now about whether condemned Galileans can get up again after being executed, or that sex doesn't need to proceed conception… please. There was just as much skepticism about Jesus as you could possibly summon today. As well, you had all sorts of other problems. To the mindset of those who lived in antiquity, a God was someone who strode the world like a colossus. A king or a powerful warrior. A God isn't some lowborn Jew traitor who was disowned by his own people and executed by Roman justice.

          • Obviously I did not make myself clear. Pagan philosophy is obviously the basis of Christian theology — no argument there. What I'm saying is that pagan antiquity had no concept of eternal joy or eternal damnation: that came in with Christianity. When you then tie that up with philosophy, you raise the stakes in intellectual activity to the point where truth is not merely the goal, as formerly, but a necessary requirement to pass the pearly gates; whence the idea of heresy.

            I must say it's novel to be instructed by a devout Christian, and one moreover with a fondness for the middle ages, on how unsuperstitious our pagan and Christian ancestors were. Are you serious? You think mystery cults were a kind of pageant? Or that augury was just for fun? People genuinely believed in such things. Of course it was hard for a powerful Roman magistrate to grasp an idea like "God on the cross" — but Christianity was not aiming for such people. The first Christians were slaves and other disempowered folk, for whom the a crucified god was profoundly appealing: they were not skeptical about the reality of their own religion. You don't get martyred for an abstract concept.

          • As I've said to you before, the Romans and Greeks had their own views of what was heresy. There were many religious movements that the Romans found problematic to the Roman sensibilities about religion that they supressed. It was pretty much as acceptable to be an atheist in the Roman world as it was to be one in the Christian Middle Ages, for example. In other words you kept your head down and your mouth shut. Your ideal of a tolerant Rome is a lie that just doesn't match the evidence, and if the Christians never existed someone else would enforce social orthodoxy. The communists and fascists gave it a go just recently. What is more, because Christians have been around for 2000 years, and held positions of power for more than 1600 years, Christian tolerance to paganism, dissent and heresy waxed and waned. That's not to excuse the periods of intolerance, but it certainly pokes holes in your "Christianity always causes mindset X". Get thee behind me, discredited sociology.

  48. Scientists in India tried to use the same models to "predict" past monsoon activity. In other words they had reality to compare it against, not simple predictions.

    The result? Failure every time. Climate patterns are too complex and the interplay between variables not even close to being understood well enough for modelling to be successful.

    As time has gone by we've already seen the failure of the IPCC predictions for the past ten years on world temps.

    Indeed, most experts in computer modelling scoff at the ability to predict out anything this complex, particularly decades out.

    Yet despite all this, one is a "denialist" to be skeptical of these models.

    How utterly intolerant.

  49. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

    Google Search exceeds 1 130 000 hits for “Climategate” 25/11/09 9:30 am

    Google Search exceeds 3 050 000 hits for “Climategate” 25/11/09 5:44 pm

    Google Search exceeds 8 160 000 hits for “Climate-gate” 25/11/09 7:11 pm

    Google Search exceeds 10 400 000 hits for “Climate-gate” 25/11/09 8:04 pm

    Google Search exceeds 17 500 000 hits for “Climate-gate” 26/11/09 10:14 am

  50. Almost 300 comments – not bad, Colby!

    Hopefully we'll see more coverage in Canada's mainstream news media about the CRU emails and the still-developing "ClimateGate" story.

    • Frankly I think these 350 comments or so indicate that this is a non story.
      How many comments on the Generals? 17?

  51. The eco-fascists are in total damage control over this. Their Global Warming scam is being exposed and they won't go down without a fight.

    What an inconvenient truth this whole story is for Al Gore and his cultists.

  52. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Climepot Doome story only started breaking Friday, about same time Maclean’s is put to bed (?)

  53. With respect there is a line and its called fraud.. Dressing up the truth is alot different than brick and mortor fraud.. Passion for ones own career and political cause is no excuse to abuse the public trust.. Dropping data and adding bogus data.. Strong arming the people in a position to expose your tricks.. Cheering the death of these people.. Endless propaganda from friendly media… The public inquiry thats sure to happen will prove whats really going on.. What do you have to fear anyway.. Afraid you already know the answer…

  54. WHY is my answer to Climate Realist’s Q (re deadline) AHEAD of his question???… which vanished for a spell…

  55. Wow! Almost a week gone by on the CRU scandal and the best we can get from Macleans is some commentary hidden away in a blog! Where's the headliner this issue deserves?

  56. Thankyou Macleans,those who defend the content of said Emails,might consider reading them.This can not be spun, it is what it says.The silence of our tax funded media is deafening.Failure to investigate will rapidly come to be seen as collusion,our politicians will be throwing advisers under the bus,as soon as the revulsion I share rips thro this shroud of denial from the missinformers we fund.This is the fraud of the century and could destroy the UN .It will destroy political careers,what little credibility CBC had left is gone for me,I now fully supprt scrapping their funding 100%.Trillions wasted cause our watchdog would not do their job.The media,govt agencies& politicians have failed to protect the nation here,is this stupidity or active fraud? JRR Yellowknife

    • "destroy the UN"? The UN is the most corrupt world wide organization that exists. At best they are useless but for most part they are harmful. Controlled by dictators stifling free speech, spreading hate and shielding terrorists.

  57. Just rechecked last few days’ papers and C-gate stories ARE thin to non-existent (and the exception is always a gutsy journalist, like Lamphier in today’s Edmonton Journal). But I’m not sure I buy the paranoia about lefties/eco-fascists pulling all the strings. Mostly it is just (I would guess) journalists’ OWN biases and retrospective embarrasment, and even more than this the tangled nature of the story, which defies easy reporting. You can’just phone a few sources and get some approximation of “balanced” opinion/quotes. This story demands some very tough judgements upon evidence and authority, and as a result of this treacherous intellectual terrain, most newsroom folks are feeling a dismaying shortage of smarts. Better just to lay low…

  58. Everything looks bad if you actually read it. But that's off message.

    "Do not read the emails because there's nothing substantive"

  59. Excellent lecture by Dr. Richard Lindzen, Prof. of Metereology in MIT one of the foremost climate scientists in the world.. This lecture was given before the recent disclosures of "Climategate."
    6 parts You tube video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM8rSSuJ_wQ

  60. Well, this story has legs, and like the Danish cartoons it will still be galloping along a year or three from now. With or without the Thpmists debating how many angels will fit on a hockey-stick graph.

  61. So I guess it can be summed up as follows:

    We have Liars, Damned Liars, and Climate Scientists.

    Nice.

  62. Any one who questions the AGW cult findings and theory is a “denier” Galileo was also a denier that almost was burnt on the stake for contradicting the scientific and political consensus. Science is not built on consensus but on critical examination and transparency. Science is not matter of belief and trust of a leaders and establishment. . The most dangerous combination for humankind is a combination of politics and “science”. The Nazi extermination machine was based on the science of racism with the totalitarian political enterprise. Eugenics was practiced in Canada based on fake science.

  63. The mere fact that AGW “scientists” resorted to withholding information; doctoring data to suit their hypothesis, destruction of documents and obstructing publication of critical papers is a proof that the AGW is a scam. The climate gate is only the tip of the iceberg. As with cockroaches if you find one in a house you can be sure that there are hundreds hiding in dark spots. There is lot of money at stake “research” funding, traveling to conferences, acting as advisors to banks for the cap and trade BS. The crooks will not resign to go on welfare. They will fight tooth and nails. They know that if they give up and admit the fraud all what they can do in the university is apply for janitors job.

  64. I also believe the upshots of Climategate will trounce a few unwary politicians. Couldn’t believe the provincial (cabinet minister?) on Rutherford show yesterday, platituding about carbon sequestration as usual, as if nothing had happened. Rutherford himself seemed slightly incredulous. Intellectual non-life in Canada, I tell ya…

  65. “The best thing about the 18th century was that it put science above metaphysics for all time” — HLM

    Now will you blithering metaphysicians take your hobgoblins somewhere else, please an thank you.

  66. In case no one has linked to this yet, here is an article in Der Spiegel where several of the world's most prominent climatologists admit that it has not warmed at all in the past ten years, and that this represents a major flaw in their climate models. Yah, I know, Der Spiegel is a right wing "denialist" rag, but humour me will you?

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,…

  67. I also do think that civic cultic rituals were pageants, and than many people didn't take auguries seriously. Especially auguries, given the fairly open nature of bribes being given for good ones. Mystery cults were another kettle of fish of course, but those weren't the same as the civic religion.

    As for your last paragraph, that's just Hegelian bull about how our consciousness has evolved onward and upward through zeitgeist. It is an attitude towards history that has been falling into increasing disfavour as the information technology revolution allows easier sharing of sources so that historians aren't allowed as much to make up whatever historical constructs flatter themselves.

    We have always been the same individuals as we always were, with the same stone-age brains. I see little evidence that we are less prone to superstition in this day and age if you have a basic education in critical thinking. What is more, even if you did believe in superstition, there is no reason to believe the claims of the Church itself.

    As for the first Christians, they had their philosophers and learned men among themselves just as they had their slaves and unlettered poor. That's why you have references to the logos in the Gospel of John, and why the letters of Paul are so rich with references to philosophical ideas. That is not the only evidence of Greek philosophy in the bible, and there are many other Church fathers and episcopal leaders were were well versed in philosophy.

    • You have a talent for asserting things without evidence. When did the Greeks or Romans ever try anybody for impiety? There's the case of Socrates, of course, but I can't, off the top of my head, think of another. And in any case such impiety was never related to their abstract thinking but rather to their relationship with the State religion, e.g. failure to participate in official cults.

      People didn't believe in augury because bribery was rampant . . . right. So why was bribery rampant?

      if the Christians never existed someone else would enforce social orthodoxy.

      You seem to have forgotten the crimes of Christianity, which were not brief horrors like Communism but rather systematic, entrenched, universally applauded horrors. To wit, there was no Inquisition in ancient Rome. There were no holy wars. No books were burnt on the basis of doctrine. No one was excommunicated. You, right now, for holding such views as you do contrary to the spirit of the times, would, in the 13th century, have long ago been burned at the stake; I could probably weasel my way out.

      I see little evidence that we are less prone to superstition in this day and age if you have a basic education in critical thinking.

      You certainly see little if you look in the mirror.

  68. I just want to say that this news makes me very happy. I would like to sincerely thank the hacker for (hopefully) getting the snowball rolling that ends this "debate" once and for all.

    When the alarmists started using personal attacks and fearmongering to drum up support for their cause a few years ago, I started looking into the whole C02/warming link and realized there wasn't one. Even now, when the whole thing is exposed as a scam, they still can't help but resort to calling us sensible folks names. Its really very pathetic.

  69. Oh, and as for idolizing the middle ages, I don't think that there was a 1000 years of sweetness and light, but I don't think it was a 1000 years of dung-smeared violent ignorance either. Brilliant people can come from any age, they don't need to evolve in consciousness to culminate in what I think.

    • You seriously have Hegelianism on the brain. I'm not a Hegelian; I don't even believe in progress.

      Well, Bede is a good example, I'll admit. But you can't compare him (or any pagan except conceivably Thucydides) to the kind of open-ended historicism that came in with the German academics. They're the ones who destroyed belief in the divinity of, say, the Old Testament, for instance: no serious biblical scholar would today assert that Moses composed the Pentateuch, as was formerly believed. Don't get me wrong: I think it was better to believe in a simple, fairly seamless, mythological world-history, the kind that prevailed in antiquity and the middle ages, but there is no going back to that. Consult any scholarly journal if you want the converse of, say, the HIstoria Langobardum.

      I'd appreciate it if you didn't presume I'm ignorant of the middle ages just because I'm not a Catholic apologist à la Chesterton. Speaking of arrogance . . .

  70. I have no such "theory of the evolution of consciousness." You're being paranoid. On the other hand, ideas do matter.

    None of your examples, except conceivably Protagoras (about which we know next to nothing except for what Diogenes tells us) concern abstract intellectual speculation. Of course the persecution of any group of people, for nonconformity or any deviance, and the burning of their books are lamentable and intolerable, but I was not talking about mere persecution: I was talking about the concept of heresy, whereby a minute deviation from the official "line" is punished severely. That is one of the legacies of Christianity even today: deviate from the accepted democratic dogma even a little, and people are apt to label you a fascist. The persecution of the Christians does indeed foreshadow the Inquisition, because the Christians repudiated Roman power structures (including the state religion) holus bolus. If the early Christians had been content to make their cult one of many cults, there would have been no problem; and anyway they weren't persecuted for intellectual deviance but for deviant social practice. What I'm objecting to is the "frothing" insistence by medieval Christianity (in practice) and contemporary Christianity (in theory) on a single, unified form of intellectual inquiry.

    • Wow. With all that mumbo-jumbo getting exactly to the same place we started at, thank God I'm agnostic.

        • Platinum steak knives for Mitchell!

        • Congrats, Jack!!!!

        • Thanks, guys! But I'll be congratulating you both too before long.

          Too early to tell what it's like on this side, I'm still groping around a bit. Free daiquiris, which is nice. No overwhelming urge to join the NDP, which is a relief.

          • The free daiquiris sound delightful, the lack of an overwhelming urge to join the NDP is also good news.

            But what about the special powers? Don't you acquire some mysterious superpowers when you hit triple digits, or is that just a rumour?

          • Well, I'm noticing that all my analogies are apt, my logic iron-clad, and my command of Canadian political history rather remarkable, but it may be I just never noticed all that before. : )

          • LOL. We all noticed that before, but it may just be that your already-considerable talents have been further enhanced, much like Peter Parker developed "Spidey-sense" after he was bitten by that radioactive spider.

          • This is quite similar. You can't tell via the written medium, of course, but I'm moving the mouse telekinetically.

          • What? No extra life? Bummer!

          • What? No extra life? Bummer!

  71. p.s. I'm in Canada, supposedly even more removed …

    <