A nice little summary of how this all got started can be found here, and how Gore’s mentor in this fiasco came to renounce both Gore and his own research. Admitting that you are wrong is a difficult thing to do, but Roger Revelle was a scientist first. Not that he could possibly know as much about climatology as a failed divinity student of course.
My fellow Chicagoans should recognize the reporter in this one. Glad to see that John is still working – I always liked him.
That’s fascinating.
That is good stuff. I have been taking it to the climate change devout I am currently imprisoned with in class everyday. I love seeing smug turn into rage
blackhawk,
I’m very curious in the responses you are getting. How can folks deny that the data was intentionally destroyed and the numbers produced by the CRU were “fudged?” They can’t, so I’m seriously wondering how folks are reacting when you are telling them this. Is it like the Femmebots when Austin stripped to his Union Jack skivvies?
If they’re following the Real Climate mantra (Gavin Schmidt’s site), then these are just some minor, unimportant details relating to the finer points of a greater truth. They have, you see, established that the angels have opened a disco on the head of that there pin, so it really doesn’t matter how many seraphim are doing The Hustle. And that raw data they destroyed? Doesn’t matter either (which is why they spent so much time refusing to release it, apparently) – the “value-added” data they have graced us with is all that we should be interested in.
My bro Stosh distinguishes between the “hard sciences”, like mathematics or chemistry, where you can hypothesize and definitively prove or disprove a theory, and the “soft sciences” – which probably shouldn’t be called sciences at all, based on what people do with them – like sociology and environmentalism, where things are so mushy that you can get away with saying any damn thing you want, so long as it’s PC to say.
I am sincerely disappointed. I’m not surprised. Human beings have been disappointing me for over 4 decades now. I’m also happy to know there really is no global warming. That’s better than the alternative. But I am honestly disappointed to know this is all it was. It was all this stupid. Al Gore going way overboard with something a former Professor told him, then recanted upon realizing he had made an error and three guys abusing data to win grant money. Can’t there at least be an evil genius involved, or a volcano lair, or something? I am of mediocre intelligence and even I wouldn’t have written the stuff these guys wrote in their e-mails, even if I had decided to commit the fraud they were committing. It’s like learning Babe Ruth used a hitting tee.
It is a mixed bag of “That’s just how academics discuss things,” “They are being taken out of context,” and “A few emails don’t mean anything, what about NASA??”
The reality is that even those who don’t have a religious devotion to climate change still get their Moral Superiority fix from it so they are not going to be swayed by a few pesky facts.
Then what do they say about the fact that even the CRU and Nasa admit it’s been cooling for the last decade? Refer them to http://www.threedonia.com and dare them to debate Rich. Seriously, dare them to do it! “Well, there’s this website I read, http://www.threedonia.com, and there’s a chemist who blogs there named Rich. You should read some of his posts and let him know what you think…”
We need some fresh meat around here.
I’ve referred several people of both political sides to threedonia. I know some of them are lurkers.
Its funny how quickly the left resorts to anger filled rants when you take away their little snarky talking points like “Well you just don’t like science. You probably believe in God too.” They can’t very well argue that they are pro-science when we have emails confirming that the “scientists” fudged the numbers.
blackhawk,
I think this is a very good thing, though, because they smart people, the people who really are paying attention and trying to improve their knowledge will pick up on the fact that continuing to make this claim is dumb. They know they’ll lose a serious debate because there are now cold (pun intended), hard facts in the public forum. When the less bright people, i.e., sheep, notice the smarter people are no longer standing up to the dogma the sheep will eventually stop making the claim too.
This is why shows like “Red Eye” and “The Daily Show” are so important. And this is why it’s so important something like “Red Eye” exists, to keep “The Daily Show” honest.
It is unbelievable how blatantly deliberate this all was. I know almost nothing about the subject, and I really, really want to believe “scientists” are smarter than me so I’m having a real hard time believing it’s all this transparent.
I always thought many folks were jumping on the global warming bandwagon to readily, and without really understanding what was going on. Laypeople, like me. So I sat on the fence, but I always believed there were really smart people having really great and interesting debates behind the scenes. It turns out it was a couple of loons shouting really loud. Is nothing real anymore? Now you’re going to tell me Joe DiMaggio was queer and Captain Kangaroo liked altar boys.
God sure do work in mysterious ways.
“It turns out it was a couple of loons shouting really loud.”
As succinct a summary of the “crisis” as I have ever read.
The reporter reminds me of George Putnam out here in L.A. Truly a different breed from another time.
I, for one, would love to see the Oscar stripped from him, even the Nobel. Yeah, I’ll be standing over here holding my breath.
At least an apology. On worldwide TV. In HD.
Trouble is, the Academy isn’t exactly an institution known for its’ intellectual honesty. How many awards went to Michael Moore?
I used to subscribe Scientific American’s podcast. I stopped listening to most of them simply because of their tone. A couple of smug people talking smugly in their smug voices about how ridiculous it was that anyone could disbelieve anything these smug people said. Without ever seriously engaging opposing views, mind you. The mere fact that the views were opposed was sufficient to condemn them.
(On a tangent, I can’t understand why about half of their stories were on Darwin/evolution. Is there really that much ground-breaking research going on in that field? Or is it an excuse to be smug, you smug bastards!)
Why did I keep listening? Because I like science.
I unsubscribed last night.
Title of their current podcast: “John Rennie’s Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense.” Remember, this isn’t a HuffPo podcast. This is Scientific American.
If it had been in print format, I’d have fisked it in a post, but I can’t be bothered to listen to it, never mind transcribe it.
So, anyone know of a decent science podcast?
I was a member of the American Chemical Society for a long, long time. When AGW became the popular cause celebre, the editor of the American Chemical Society’s signature journal – C&E News (that’s shorthand for Chemical and Engineering News) – announced that he would no longer publish any studies or letters authored by ACS members which were in opposition to climate change dogma. He killed a brilliant letter authored by my bro that exposed the faulty “science” that AGW advocates espouse. Both my brother Stosh (from da sticks) and I told the American Chemical Society to go pound sand at that point, resigning our membership in ACS in no uncertain terms. I will admit that I miss being part of the fraternity for which I was trained, but I’ll be damned before I will belong to an organization that renounces the very principles that allowed it to exist in the first place.
Screw you ACS.
Oh, and when Gore’s mentor changed his mind, Gore called him “senile.”
Nice human being, there.
Does anybody have a link to where I can get a look at the e-mails and data?
Right here Mike. Not that there’s anything to see here!
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/
Thanks, Rich.
I came across this story, and was wondering what other gems were in there (almost) unreported. (Emphases mine.)
But not to worry, this is how scientists talk all the time!
Rich – I’ve always liked John Coleman too. People who never saw his weather reports on channel 7 in the 70s (and early 80s?) have no idea how entertaining a weather report can be. It’s kinda funny now to see him so serious. But good for him, it must be tough sledding for a “climate denier” in a place like San Diego.