Rush, Hannity, Beck, T-man retract on Climategate

[kalm]

...At the end of our lives the hippies may be the most resourceful and best positioned to win.

Keep thinking that way, Marmaduke.

I'll be planting genetically engineered drought and pest resistant corn...

...and fertilzing them with decomposed Hippies.

Yes, we can overcome anything. We're 'marican and we got some science.

[Chizzang]

...At the end of our lives the hippies may be the most resourceful and best positioned to win.

Keep thinking that way, Marmaduke.

I'll be planting genetically engineered drought and pest resistant corn...

...and fertilzing them with decomposed Hippies.

I'm somewhat offended by that statement..!!!

[travelinman67]

Keep thinking that way, Marmaduke.

I'll be planting genetically engineered drought and pest resistant corn...

...and fertilzing them with decomposed Hippies.

I'm somewhat offended by that statement..!!!

...how else am I going to innoculate the ergot culture?

[Gil Dobie]

Yes, we can overcome anything. We're 'marican and we got some science.

As long as the science isn't politcally driven, aka algore.

[CID1990]

I'm not a climate scientist, so, like 99.9999999999% of the rest of the world, I have no fvcking clue if the sky is falling (or will be).

But I'll be damned if I am going to throw my hat in behind either side of the argument, because they are BOTH based in ideology. I'll continue to recycle, use less gas and power, and buy less plastic sh!t at the fvcking WalMart, and clean up my fvcking campsites.

The one thing I do know is that there is some shoddy science behind the AGW push. Not necessarily all, but some. Nothing is ever settled science. Ever. If the number one cause behind climate change is in fact the activity of human beings, then Al Gore did his cause the greatest disservice in the world by politicizing it. Moreover, the scientists who were cooking the books over at East Anglia did the science the greatest disservice of all. If the data speaks unequivocally for itself, then there is no need to fvck with it, add it, omit it, shop it.

Anomalous data (outside the expected/predicted range) is much less damaging to a theory than fraud.

This whole thing reminds me of the dinosaurs. Just 50 years ago, dinosaurs were cold blooded, ultra dumb animals. Their behavior was assumed, as was their physiology. Every time someone suggested that perhaps did not fit the big lizard mold, the paleontology community went berzerk. In fact, paleontolgists argue bitterly about pieces of evidence in ways that would make a person's head spin. Two of them can draw exactly oppposite conclusions from the most minute scrap. Today, we have smart dinos, warm blooded dinos, and even dinos that were likely half-birds and well on their way to becoming birds in fact. 20 years from now, these assumptions will be evolved again with the discoveries of new data and evidence.

Right now, there are a couple missions to the sun that will add a large amount of data to the body of knowledge we have on the effects of the sun on our climate, particularly the cyclical nature of the sun's energy output and the cyclical nature of increased and decreased solar flare activity. Hopefully the President won't cancel them like the moon missions, because that data could potentially go a long way towards getting us 0.00001% of the way to a final answer about climate change.

[Chizzang]

I'm not a climate scientist, so, like 99.9999999999% of the rest of the world, I have no fvcking clue if the sky is falling (or will be).

But I'll be damned if I am going to throw my hat in behind either side of the argument, because they are BOTH based in ideology. I'll continue to recycle, use less gas and power, and buy less plastic sh!t at the fvcking WalMart, and clean up my fvcking campsites.

The one thing I do know is that there is some shoddy science behind the AGW push. Not necessarily all, but some. Nothing is ever settled science. Ever. If the number one cause behind climate change is in fact the activity of human beings, then Al Gore did his cause the greatest disservice in the world by politicizing it. Moreover, the scientists who were cooking the books over at East Anglia did the science the greatest disservice of all. If the data speaks unequivocally for itself, then there is no need to fvck with it, add it, omit it, shop it.

Anomalous data (outside the expected/predicted range) is much less damaging to a theory than fraud.

This whole thing reminds me of the dinosaurs. Just 50 years ago, dinosaurs were cold blooded, ultra dumb animals. Their behavior was assumed, as was their physiology. Every time someone suggested that perhaps did not fit the big lizard mold, the paleontology community went berzerk. In fact, paleontolgists argue bitterly about pieces of evidence in ways that would make a person's head spin. Two of them can draw exactly oppposite conclusions from the most minute scrap. Today, we have smart dinos, warm blooded dinos, and even dinos that were likely half-birds and well on their way to becoming birds in fact. 20 years from now, these assumptions will be evolved again with the discoveries of new data and evidence.

Right now, there are a couple missions to the sun that will add a large amount of data to the body of knowledge we have on the effects of the sun on our climate, particularly the cyclical nature of the sun's energy output and the cyclical nature of increased and decreased solar flare activity. Hopefully the President won't cancel them like the moon missions, because that data could potentially go a long way towards getting us 0.00001% of the way to a final answer about climate change.

There is one big reasons to "cook the books" in the research fields = Grant Money

In the field of Proton exchange fuel cell research the examples of "cooked books" to get money was fairly common in the early 1990's - in fact the money was so good I had buddies quitting their respected well paying jobs to start Fuel Cell companies



Science is just like any other "business" once it's exposed to the forces of an open competitive environment as well as investment groups and boards and oversight committees it can very easily turn into "Business 101" which is focus on profit only and get out early


Al Gore did just that - write a book - shoot a movie and get out fast... leaving the collapsing infrastructure to be supported by the guys who didn't even ask for any attention - just wanted to do science...

[CitadelGrad]

As far as I know, Gore hasn't gotten out. The Chicago Climate Exchange and Generation Investment Management are still around and Gore is heavily involved in both.

[native]

This is like being exonerated by your fellow co-conspirators.

Exactamundo!

Whether you are for or against any particular liberal or conservative proposition, always consider the source and examine the facts.

[Chizzang]

This is like being exonerated by your fellow co-conspirators.

Exactamundo!

Whether you are for or against any particular liberal or conservative proposition, always consider the source and examine the facts.

Really...
have you examined the facts on this..? I had no idea you were a scientist

I've found that virtually all of the participants in the global climate change debate are uninformed sock puppets mouthing whichever position suits their personal political agenda

Kinda like the people screaming at the top of their lungs
"No federal Health care programs.. leave my medicare alone.."

95% of the America population should honestly have NO opinion on Global Warming - particularly if Al Gore or Glen Beck is where they're getting their information

[JohnStOnge]

By all measures, 1998 was the warmest year in recorded history. Indeed, global-warming deniers sometimes argue erroneously that the Earth's been cooling ever since. In climatological terms, this is like saying that if April 7 is warmer than April 15, there will be no summer.

It's not like that at all. Seasonal change is something that is very predictable. It's directly associated with the orientation fo the axis of the Earth with respect to the sun. The coming of "Summer" has been predicted numerous times then observed to occur numerous times. To say that there will be no summer because it's cooler on April 15 than it is on April 7 is way, WAY different than saying there is not sufficient evidence to support the "global warming" hypothesis based on a short term trend towards declining temperatures.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think a decade long trend towards either warmer or lower temperatures says much one way or another. But that statement about April 7 and April 15 implies that the certainty associated with the global warming hypothesis is comparable to the certainty associated with seasonal changes occuring during yearly cycles. That's ridiculous.

BTW, if true long term perspective is desired maybe the author should consider the fact that if what's believed about globall temperatures during the tenure of life on Earth is correct it is cooler now than it has been on average during that tenure. Saying it's the warmest its been in say, 180,000 years, is like saying that it's the warmest it's been for the past . If life has been around for 3.5 billion years (a ballpark estimate), 180,000 years is less than 1/19,000th of that tenure. It is not a long time in relative terms.

[JohnStOnge]

95% of the America population should honestly have NO opinion on Global Warming

No. Regardless of which side you're on this is too important not to have an opinion on.

You can't just sit there when debates about whether or not it's necessary to take drastic measures to "stop climate change" are going on. You have to decide whether or not you support those measures.

[Chizzang]

95% of the America population should honestly have NO opinion on Global Warming

No. Regardless of which side you're on this is too important not to have an opinion on.

You can't just sit there when debates about whether or not it's necessary to take drastic measures to "stop climate change" are going on. You have to decide whether or not you support those measures.

I guess the crowd of hunchbacks and dullards outside with pitch forks and torches should be intrinsically involved in this extremely complex debate....


Why not... I guess that's about normal

[Gil Dobie]

I guess the crowd of hunchbacks and dullards outside with pitch forks and torches should be intrinsically involved in this extremely complex debate....


Why not... I guess that's about normal

It should only be the liberal elite's with Havard Degrees discussing this. The algore's of the world coming to the common man, the poor man and spreading their fears to gain glory as they pick their pocket.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” - MLK

[Chizzang]

I guess the crowd of hunchbacks and dullards outside with pitch forks and torches should be intrinsically involved in this extremely complex debate....


Why not... I guess that's about normal

It should only be the liberal elite's with Havard Degrees discussing this. The algore's of the world coming to the common man, the poor man and spreading their fears to gain glory as they pick their pocket.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” - MLK

Not at all...
You obviously think I have some affection for Al Gore
and thus haven't read any of my last 4 years of direct criticism of him

but I appreciate your diving in
I believe it is AL Gore who has completely ruined any possible reasonable discussion by polarizing and creating embattled positions...

but: I repeat... as I stated above
If Al Gore and Glen Beck are the primary sources of information on this debate then there is no reason to even have a debate - as neither of them are credible

[andy7171]

Cleets, Is your avatar cross eyed?

[Chizzang]

Cleets, Is your avatar cross eyed?

I hadn't noticed her eyes...

[CSUBUCDAD]

that is interesting, I listen to Beck and Hannity every day and have not heared a retraction. When and where did this happen? Or is this just some wishful thinking by the environmental whacko's of the world?

[JohnStOnge]

I guess the crowd of hunchbacks and dullards outside with pitch forks and torches should be intrinsically involved in this extremely complex debate....


Why not... I guess that's about normal

I don't think you can responsibly escape having an opinion. Even if all you do is decide that there is indeed a scientific "consensus" and you choose to go along with that "consensus" you have formed an opinion.

Also, I don't think the basic underlying issue is as complex as many might think. Cause and effect cannot be legitimately inferred with statistical data without controlled experimentation. The set of anthropogenic climate change hypotheses are not supported by controlled experimentation. You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand that means people who say anthropogenic climate change hypotheses are "as certain as it gets" in science are exaggerating. Also, you can actually read at least one admission of the fact that they can't really unequivocally attribute climate change to human activity in the most recent IPCC "Physical Science Basis" report.

All a "non scientist" consumer need do in situations like this is ask: "Is that position supported by results of controlled experiments?" If the answer is "no" and people are telling you it's a "done deal" you know they are bullshitting you. Doesn't matter what the details of the particular area of science is. The rule is universal

BTW, it also applies to stuff like confident assertions about second hand smoke or statements about substances being carcinogens. Again, any time a cause and effect assertion based on statistical data comes up, just ask yourself if it's supported by controlled experimentation. If it's not, put an asterisk by it. If somebody says something is a carcinogen, for instance, ask yourself if somebody did a controlled experiment in which certain subjects were randomly assigned to exposure to the substance while others were randomly assigned to be controls.

If that didn't happen, they don't really "know" the substance increases the risk of cancer. Period. End of discussion. In this culture we've become accustomed to people making statements about cause an effect based on observational data. There has been a crisis in discipline on the matter. But that doesn't make it right or correct.