Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 29, 2007 9:20 AM, by Tim Lambert

If you've never heard of the Data Quality Act go read this article by Chris Mooney.

Back? Good.

Steve McIntyre, still angry after a comment was not released from moderation on Christmas Day, is now trying to use the Data Quality Act against RealClimate. As far as I can make out, because Gavin Schmidt works for NASA, McIntyre thinks that the stringent peer review hurdles of the Data Quality Act (inserted by a tobacco lobbyist to make it harder to use the scientific evidence on the dangers of cigarette smoke) should apply to RealClimate.

I wonder where McIntyre learned about the ins and outs of the Data Quality Act? Has he been hanging out with tobacco lobbyists?

Comments

#1

What if a tornado hits Lonnie Thompson's fridge?

Unique data is lost forever, because it was never published.

That's why.

Posted by: Hans Erren | December 29, 2007 10:21 AM

#2

Steve McIntyre says: December 29th, 2007 at 12:28 am

BTW if one browses back through the posting times of Gavin's posts (and those of other realclimate authors), many of his posts (though not all) have been made between 9 am and 5 pm - odd timing for posts supposedly prepared during Gavin's "spare time".

Ah yeah, global warming is a lie since Gavin makes posts about it during his work hours! (Oh, never mind there's stuff like automatic posting, lunch breaks, flexible working hours, different time zones and whatever...). Even if it would be true that Gavin slacks of, how does that diminish his arguments?

Whatever, ClimateAudit and McIntyre are a joke anyway and the commenter even more so.

Thanks for bringing it up though, I was in need of a good laugh. It's really Sadly,No! grade stuff. :D

Posted by: student_b | December 29, 2007 10:52 AM

#3

Oh, just one more, because it's so much fun!

bender says: December 29th, 2007 at 6:14 am

104 Intelligence and experience are orthogonal. Many intelligent people have still not been exposed to the true facts.

As opposed to wrong facts?

The broken hockey stick is a very important point that needs to be understood by all - even though it is far OT for this thread. To summarize: there is zero probability that we can say with confidence that current temperatures exceed those of the (some would say non-existent) MWP.

Oh, but I say "with confidence that current temperatures exceed those of the ... MWP."

But we had zero probability for that to happen! But I still said it! It's unpossible!1!

Oh, noes, I've destroyed the space-time continuum! Woes to us all!

/*snark

Posted by: student_b | December 29, 2007 10:59 AM

#4

Ah, I screwed up the quote tags twice in a row. The paragraph after the cursive text still belongs to the quote.

Ashes on my bald head, for I suck at previewing!

Posted by: student_b | December 29, 2007 11:01 AM

#5

Hans Erren said: "Unique data is lost forever, because it was never published".

Far better for good honest data to be lost (it can always be repeated) than lies and distortion to be promulgated forever on right wing blog sites.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | December 29, 2007 11:52 AM

#6

I never did quite understand the whole smoking bad for you research issue. For as long as I've been alive (and probably a lot longer), everyone but idiots have known that smoking and tobacco use are bad for you. Really bad for you.

I understand but disagree with the tobacco lawsuits. Everyone who used tobacco should have known better.

Posted by: ben | December 29, 2007 12:46 PM

#7

ben,

The issue was that the tobacco industry was using phony research to convince smokers that tobacco wasn't bad for them, all the while pushing propaganda meant to create the affective impression that smoking cigarettes is sexier than sex.

A simple matter of false advertising with deadly consequences.

People not presented with accurate information, or by perceiving that information refuted by unjustified doubt, will naturally prefer to believe a lie that conforms to their personal confirmation biases, than accept a truth that undermines those biases.

Witness AGW denialism. It is all FUD. Smokescreens. Obfuscations. Throwing sand in the umpire's eyes. As much as McSteve may insist he only wants to insure the accuracy of the science, it is obvious to anyone with a lick of sense that he has zero interest in improving the science, but merely invalidating it in the eyes of public opinion through sly politically motivated and demonstrably phony rhetoric.

Posted by: luminous beauty | December 29, 2007 2:18 PM

#8

Ian Forrester said: "Far better for good honest data to be lost (it can always be repeated) than lies and distortion to be promulgated forever on right wing blog sites."

And how do you (or anyone) know if it's good data if you've never seen it?

Posted by: Paul S | December 29, 2007 3:27 PM

#9

McIntyre did a classic cherry-pick with his complaint, pointing out answers in a question and answer NASA page which quoted two and four, respectively, external links to further information, including to two RealClimate pages. But, if you look at all the Answers on the NASA page, of 55 references/external links, just three of them point to RealClimate.

On the bright side, McIntyre must read a lot of NASA and RealClimate stuff to be able to extract such connections. Maybe some of it will eventually sink in.

Posted by: pico | December 29, 2007 6:57 PM

#10

"For as long as I've been alive (and probably a lot longer), everyone but idiots have known that smoking and tobacco use are bad for you. "

A few years ago, I had occasion to see the Hartford Courant's write-up (a copy, not the original) on President Grant's death from jaw cancer, which the article obviously took for granted everybody assumed was due to his heavy cigar consumption. This in the late 19th century. On the other hand, a few years back, one of my neighbors asked me, in all seriousness, whether cigarette smoking was actually bad for you. What could have happened in the interim, I wonder? Oh well, whatever it was couldn't relate to the climate debate.

Posted by: z | December 29, 2007 7:16 PM

#11

Hmm. Not to throw cold water on Stevie Mac's pursuit of truth, but isn't he a Canadian citizen? IIRC, agencies of the US government aren't all that beholden to the demands of furriners.

Posted by: z | December 29, 2007 7:18 PM

#12

There's more than just parallels between the tobacco, lead, PCB, and fossil fuel lobbying campaigns. Same organizations, same skeptics repeat. You can look them up.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1446868

Am J Public Health. 2001 November; 91(11): 1749-1757. Copyright American Journal of Public Health 2001

Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms

"Public health professionals need to be aware that the 'sound science' movement is not an indigenous effort from within the profession to improve the quality of scientific discourse, but reflects sophisticated public relations campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve the corporate interests of their clients."

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/11/1981

November 2007, Vol 97, No. 11 American Journal of Public Health 1981-1991 2007 American Public Health Association DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.078014

GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, AND LAW Pharmacological and Chemical Effects of Cigarette Additives

"more than 100 of 599 documented cigarette additives have pharmacological actions"

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 29, 2007 7:37 PM

#13

Jeez, with transparently dishonest (and pathetic) reasoning like that McIntyre must be angling to become a Discovery Institute fellow.

Posted by: Joe | December 29, 2007 8:09 PM

#15

Thompson's fridge is in the basement, still you wanna chip in to buy him an UPS? That is really cold concerntrollism Hans.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | December 29, 2007 9:39 PM

#16

I wonder if there is a connection to this conversation a couple of weeks ago at Desmogblog, where John Holliday was busy smearing Realclimate, including asking why their posts were not peer reviewed: http://www.desmogblog.com/singers-deniers-misrepresenting-new-climatology-journal-article

And the RealClimate thread he was referring to: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends

At the Desmogblog post, Ian Forrester figured out John Holliday was brucew4yne, based on a particular phrase he used. I noted that Holliday quoted, without attribution, a comment by Richard Sycamore at the Realclimate post. So possibly John Holliday is also Richard Sycamore?

VJ (aka Holly Stick)

Posted by: VJ | December 29, 2007 11:54 PM

#17

"For as long as I've been alive (and probably a lot longer), everyone but idiots have known that smoking and tobacco use are bad for you. Really bad for you."

Up until about 30-35 years ago Ben the link between smoking and health wasn't even acknowledged by the US government.

Even after the government accepted it the tobacco industry spent a fortune trying first to deny there was any impact on health and then to minimise it.

The whole "everybody always knew" meme is only a few years old.

Posted by: Ian Gould | December 30, 2007 1:27 AM

#18

Acknowledged or not Ian, most everyone knew cigarettes were hazardous many years ago. That the smoking threat wasn't taken as seriously or that a few people insisted it wasn't hazardous doesn't change the fact that the perils of smoking was common knowledge back then.

Posted by: Paul S | December 30, 2007 1:34 AM

#19

re: #17

1) Well, z said, for "as long as he's been alive", which is a number not yet provided. "The Surgeon General has Determined" was in 1964, thanks to the political cleverness of SG Luther Terry, so that's 43 years. I strongly recommend Harvard Prof. Allan M. Brandt's excellent history "The Cigarette Century", especially because many internal documents have been made available online: http://tobaccodocuments.org/ makes for fascinating rummaging.

2) Clearly, to this day, not everybody knows, and in particular, kids do not know, and to get people really addicted to tobacco, the earlier the better. Early teens are most effective, as it has the chance of wiring the addiction during rapid brain development, and the tobacco companies know this well. Hence, Joe camel, candy-flavored cigarettes, clever advertising.

3) There's one more (besides the thinktanks/lobbiests) connection between tobacco & AGW: deforestration, both to grow the tobacco and to burn to cure it. See lower left in: http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas16.pdf

World production has more than doubled since the 1960s.

Posted by: John Mashey | December 30, 2007 2:41 AM

#20

Im at a loss to understand why Steve Mc gives a rats behind about when and where RC posts are made. If Gavin Schmidt is posting while at work, surely this is a issue for his employers? If NASA was concerned, I'm sure they would take it up with him. Given that he has published 11 peer reviewed articles during 2007 (see: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/gschmidt.html) it doesn't seem like his volunteer effort at RC is affecting his output.

NASA obviously doesn't run RC, and is not associated in any way except by association with Gavin Schmidt. US tax dollars don't fund the site, and contributors take full responsibility for the postings. What's the issue?

Posted by: ChrisC | December 30, 2007 3:18 AM

#21

Is this is a confession that climate audit and its ilk have lost the science debate and now need to explore narrow procedural issues?

Posted by: Thaumas | December 30, 2007 5:02 AM

#22

Up until about 30-35 years ago Ben the link between smoking and health wasn't even acknowledged by the US government.

Nice attempt at spinning and twisting reality. Gouldiechops. There was plenty bloody of evidence elsewhere.

Here's Harry Clerke's blog to prove just how wrong you are. To suggest big tobacco retarded information on the dangers of cig smoking is simply bullshit, so please stop dissembling, Gouldiechops.

http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/09/health-nazis-got-it-right.html

Harry is reviewing a book:

Robert Proctor's, The Nazi War on Cancer, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1999.

The main startling fact is that German work on the connection between smoking and cancer predated the major English language research (the papers by Levin, Doll/Hill and Wynder/Graham, published in 1950) by more than a decade. It was in Germany in the late 1930s that the addictive character of cigarettes was first recognised and the connection with lung cancer recognised. Indeed in the late 1930s the Nazis launched the world's most aggressive anti-smoking campaign with public health campaigns, bans on certain forms of advertising and restrictions on smoking in many public places.

These discoveries were driven partly by Nazism with its ethics of racial hygiene and bodily purity. Good science was pursued in the interests of antidemocratic ideals.

Cigarettes had not even been produced in Germany until 1860 though it grew massively after 1900 to peak in 1942. The shift from pipes and cigars is of major consequence - as Henner Hess nicely put it we are talking about a 'a revolutionary development in the history of drug consumption, roughly comparable to the invention of the hypodermic needle for opiate addiction' (cited in Proctor, p. 183). Cigarettes got tars and other noxious chemicals into bronchial passageways.

The physician Fritz Lickint wrote a number of papers beginning in 1920 pointing out the connection between smoking and cancer and a monumental survey on smoking and cancer in 1939. He pointed to the fact that women then had much lower cancer rates because they then smoked much less. He identified nicotine as an addictive agent in tobacco comparable in its addictiveness to morphine and identified clearly the dangers of passive smoking. By 1940,anti-smoking activists even initiated much more recent compensation arguments by arguing the low-nicotine cigarettes might cause smokers to increase their smoking to maintain nicotine levels (Proctor p. 202). Lickint was not a Nazi but was heavily involved in Nazi tobacco policies. In the early 1940s German physicians were aware that smoking caused heart disease and accurately observed that smoking reduced

Posted by: JC | December 30, 2007 6:52 AM

#23

The last three chapters are from harry's blog (in the interests of proper disclosure).

Posted by: jc | December 30, 2007 6:55 AM

#24

ooops Paras.....

Posted by: jc | December 30, 2007 6:56 AM

#25

Let us see, jc notes that 35 going on forty years ago even tho not accepted by the US government and fiercely resisted by the most backward state governments and the same in Congress there was so much evidence that smoking caused a myriad of miseries that any sentient being should have known. Subject to John Mashey's demurral that teen agers are not sentient we might accept this. Of course we also know that this ignorance was financially supported by industry and front groups that pretended to be scientifically motivated.

Sounds a lot like the climate change debte.

Wait long enough and every troll will eventy self destroy

Posted by: Eli Rabett | December 30, 2007 8:39 AM

#26

Back to the "Data Quality Act": What does it actually require the agency to do? Require them to publish their data and protocols?

IANAL,but any internal data relevant to a lawsuit against an individual or a corporation must be turned over to the "other side", on request, during discovery (before the lawsuit gets tried.) So what's the big deal about putting the government in the same situation. They want to take deleterious action against me, I get to see the data first.

You seem to be assuming that the regulatory agencies are populated with saints.

Posted by: bill r | December 30, 2007 9:52 AM

#27

Bill, AFAIK, NASA does not issue regulations and therefore would not come under the Data Quality Act FWIW.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | December 30, 2007 11:22 AM

#28

By the mid-'70's (30 years ago) cigarette smoking was a standard risk factor in cardiac and cancer epidemiology studies. The only question was how to code it into the regressions (any/none, packs per day, and so on). It was fairly settled at that point. These studies (e.g. the Framingham and Western Electric studies) were funded/sponsored by the U.S. government, through NIH.

Posted by: bill r | December 30, 2007 11:26 AM

#29

Thanks Eli, True, but NASA's own guidelines require that they observe it. McIntrye notes that an official NASA faq is disseminating results and conclusions from realclimate. That seems to bring them under the purview of the act.

If Dr. Schmidt wants to promote a particular conclusion as a (very knowledgeable) private citizen, he should. When he starts using NASA to do, then he needs to play by the big kid rules, even if he is right.

Posted by: bill r | December 30, 2007 11:48 AM

#30

Ah, the tobacco guys play the nazi card. Who should people trust, after all, prominent businessmen with a product to sell, or a discredited loser military maniac and his friends?

Who wouldn't know to rely on studies published in the 1930s in Germany instead of what their own contemporary businessmen were (and as below, are still) saying prominently in advertising, eh?

Is that the logic you're using?

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/resources/docs/diaryofdenial.htm

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/resources/images/lying.jpg

Yep. Same approach, same lobbyists, same lies. That's what the IPCC means by business as usual, eh?

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 30, 2007 1:43 PM

#31

Dagnabbit. I killfiled "jc" and then I let myself get suckered into taking a troll by one "JC" -- my apologies, folks. I've updated my killfile.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 30, 2007 1:46 PM

#32
"For as long as I've been alive (and probably a lot longer), everyone but idiots have known that smoking and tobacco use are bad for you. Really bad for you."

In my dad's time (1920's-2006), it was widely known that cigarette smoking was bad for you. Of course, many other things that were widely known in those times turned out not to be true.

Dad loved a saying, "It's not what you know that hurts you so. It's what you know that isn't so."

What is taken as common knowledge is often neither.

Posted by: Dangerous Dan | December 30, 2007 1:57 PM

#33

re: #25 Eli "Subject to John Mashey's demurral that teen agers are not sentient we might accept this."

I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I do think that "not knowing" and "not sentient" are different things. This is akin to the difference between people who don't know facts, and those who refuse to recognize a fact even when it comes and bites their leg off. The latter, especially if adult, may indeed not be sentient. :-) I figure teenagers deserve a few years' grace period.

In a contest between teenagers and very, very clever marketing costing $B's, the kids don't always win ...

I mean, who could pass up: Mandarin Mint, Kauai Kolada, and Warm Winter Toffee (yummy): http://chicagoist.com/2006/10/12/saygoodbyetotwistalime_cigarettes.php

Posted by: John Mashey | December 30, 2007 2:02 PM

#34

Is it just me, or does it seem that the dream of CA to have Gavin, Michael, James, etc. being led away shouting "If it wasn't for those darn kids!" while they (the CA/surfacestations crew) head back to the Mystery Van in triumph. Instead of critiquing papers and data, they now go after RC, Tamino and Eli. And for them it's just about the science. Right.

Posted by: Deech56 | December 30, 2007 3:28 PM

#35

Codgers.

PS John I was being snarky.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | December 30, 2007 5:56 PM

#36

Rabbet,

Tell that to your Democrat colleagues as they were the ones who ran both houses 40 odd years ago. Your hero, Algore, supported the tobacco industry, buddy.

And we're on science denial, you may wanna explain just what's wrong with GM crops and why the environmental industry is so opposed.

Posted by: Jc. | December 30, 2007 6:04 PM

#37

jc, you appear to be having an interesting conversation with yourself and it really is amusing to listen in to the birdies between your ears tweeting.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | December 30, 2007 6:45 PM

#38

"Thompson's fridge is in the basement, still you wanna chip in to buy him an UPS? That is really cold concerntrollism Hans."

Nope, if you're an american citizen it's your tax money he has used to sit comfortably on his now unique ice cores. Apparently he doesn't feel the need to publish detailed core logs, or he is simply hiding controversial information.

Posted by: Hans Erren | December 30, 2007 7:35 PM

#39

#21Is this is a confession that climate audit and its ilk have lost the science debate and now need to explore narrow procedural issues?

Visited the site recently? There is a scientific debate going on. Unfortunately the RC guys don't participate, never had, never will. If you really want to know the ins and outs of strip bark trees go to CA.

The train is moving, too late to hop on now.

Posted by: Hans Erren | December 30, 2007 7:43 PM

#40

Morphing your nick again, Jc (or jc, JC, jC)? Some trolls never deserve an amnesty.

Posted by: mndean | December 30, 2007 8:11 PM

#41

Hans "No net global warming since 1998" Erren said: "Apparently he doesn't feel the need to publish detailed core logs, or he is simply hiding controversial information."

In addition to debating whether global warming is simply self-delusion or complete fraud, the other favorite topic of discussion at Climate Audit is the "Paranoidal".

Gavin and are withholding/hiding the data/code/Christmas cookies.

Whatever you say, Hans.

Posted by: JB | December 30, 2007 9:04 PM

#42

Am I imagining things or did JC call the US government nazis?

Gouldiechops: Up until about 30-35 years ago the link between smoking and health wasn't even acknowledged by the US government.


JC: Not true! "Indeed in the late 1930s the Nazis launched the world's most aggressive anti-smoking campaign with public health campaigns, bans on certain forms of advertising and restrictions on smoking in many public places."

Posted by: pough | December 31, 2007 2:13 AM

#43

You mean there are people still reading JC's posts?

Posted by: Ian Gould | December 31, 2007 2:46 AM

#44

re: #43 Once again, Firefox, Greasemonkey+killfile works here & some other places. A Good Thing, although I still pine for good old newsreader KILLFILEs.

Posted by: John Mashey | December 31, 2007 2:57 AM

#45

Several (if not more) lawsuits in federal court have established that agencies can't stifle an employee's first amendment right to speak their mind. This right lay at the heart of Hansen's grievance against Bush's two-bit attempts to stifle him.

McIntyre's got his work cut out for him if he thinks he has a case against Gavin Schmidt. On the other hand, the entire episode speaks worlds about McIntyre's mindset. Not only are climate scientists engaged in fraud about the science, but NASA is engaged in a deep-cover exercise in avoiding a statute that doesn't even apply to it, by secretly deploying Gavin in his blog role at Real Climate:

NASA has carried out an interesting manouevre that has the effect of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA's own stated policies.

Hans Erren:

There is a scientific debate going on. Unfortunately the RC guys don't participate, never had, never will. If you really want to know the ins and outs of strip bark trees go to CA.

The train is moving, too late to hop on now.

Yeah, Hans, it's all about science.

You're love is as cheap as a two-penny whore's.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 3:03 AM

#46

McIntyre continues his personal attacks on Gavin, in the "it's all about the science" mode of personal behavior, of course (cough cough):

Just thinking out loud, suppose that Gavin had posted an account of the 1934 events that was critical of Hansen and contained details known only to insiders. Would Hansen have been content with Schmidt saying that he did so in his "personal capacity"? Of course not. There's an obvious bias for underlings to flatter supervisors.

And this

But do Americans want a system where federal employees can discuss work-related matters on blogs in their "personal capacity"? Gavin is setting a precedent here. If Gavin can do this, why can't all federal employees?

It's true that federal agencies at times have worked hard at stifling employees who want to speak their minds about science-based issues. So much so that there's an NGO that was created pretty much to lend support and a voice to those who wish to do so (unfortunately I forget their current name, originally it was set up by an ex-USFS employee who'd earlier won a grievance or possibly lawsuit establishing his right to speak his mind on his public time, after having been previously disciplined for having done so).

I'd love McIntyre or a proxy to make a federal case out of this. While it wouldn't be as much fun as Dover, it would be just as educational for some of those poor self-proclaimed libertarians over at CA who so deeply misunderstand our Constitution.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 3:38 AM

#47

And while McIntyre, as always, is careful not to actually state his belief that NASA scientist are engaged in scientific fraud, he does allow this comment to stand (the "snip" indicates a moderator edit, what's left unedited is telling):

#136 -- Steve M. wrote: "In Gavin's case, he's obviously a very able and very bright person..."

If that's true, then he knows for a fact that General Circulation Models have no skill at predicting global or regional climate; not even to one year on.

He knows for a fact that the Hockey Stick proxy for paleotemperatures was (most charitably) naive at first, and has since transgressed into active scientific fraud.

If he follows surface temperature he knows that Anthony Watts' volunteer network has demonstrated that USHCN temperatures cannot have an uncertainty of less than plus or minus 2 Celsius, and that the uncertainty in the global surface temperature record must be at least twice that.
snip

Posted by: dhogazas | December 31, 2007 3:47 AM

#48

And, at the end of the day, McIntyre closes the thread, and says that Steven Mosher "is one of the few people who caught my nuance". And what is this "nuance"?

And when HE is slighted on a NASA web site, slighted with government funds, slighted by an employee passing off his activities as Private...

Apparently the "nuance" of McIntyre's position is that Real Climate is a "NASA website".

Oh my.

Lord preserve us (and the internet wayback machine, this thread on CA...)

And in regard to McIntyre's allowing the claim of scientific misconduct on the part of NASA scientists to stand ... not only was that particular post edited, but when McIntyre closed the thread, he said he deleted some posts entirely (and the numeric references to posts by following responses make it clear that he did so). So claims of scientific misconduct are still welcome at CA, despite endless protests on the part of certain CA participants that "this doesn't reflect McIntyre's personal view".

CA, it's all about improving the science, oh yes.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 4:04 AM

#49

No need to foulmouth dhogazas, perhaps statistics of noisy data is not your speciality. Pound the table if you run out of arguments.

Note the subtle guilt by association by tim: Has he been hanging out with tobacco lobbyists? No Tim he hasn't, Steve MvIntyre has for years been trying to bring scientific data to the open. "The dog ate my homework" is not science you know.

Posted by: Hans Erren | December 31, 2007 5:28 AM

#50
No need to foulmouth dhogazas, perhaps statistics of noisy data is not your speciality.

I'm afraid statistics will be of little use in analyzing the noise that passes for "the scientific revolution that will overturn Climate Science" over at CA ...

You don't need statistics to understand phrases like "has since transgressed into active scientific fraud". Those are direct, unsubstantiated accusations which, if taken seriously, could end the careers of Mann, Schmidt, Hansen etc.

Which appears to be one of McIntyre's goals at CA.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 7:28 AM

#51

Hans says: "There is a scientific debate going on" [at Climate Audit].

That would be easy to forget, given all the implications and outright charges of scientific fraud in the comments at Climate Audit and all the implications/allegations of hiding/withholding data and code and the like.

Perhaps that was not McIntyre's intention, but it really does seem to have degenerated into a debate among conspiracy theorists and paranoids.

Posted by: JB | December 31, 2007 8:15 AM

#52

"There is a scientific debate going on" Tell me Hans, are they still debating if the greenhouse effect breaks the second law of thermodynamics over at CA?

Posted by: Thaumas | December 31, 2007 10:15 AM

#53

Ooooh, there's scientific debate at CA. Why doesn't Steve publish something else? (No conspiracies or social science journals, please.) Even the denialist sympathizer and CA hero Edward Wegman says that blogs are an inappropriate place for this type of discussion.

What a waste of time. They have a thread on the Schwartz sensitivity paper and they don't even mention Annan's comment on it. What thorough auditing!

Posted by: Boris | December 31, 2007 10:53 AM

#54
If Dr. Schmidt wants to promote a particular conclusion as a (very knowledgeable) private citizen, he should. When he starts using NASA to do, then he needs to play by the big kid rules, even if he is right.

Real Climate is not a NASA site, and carries a disclaimer making it clear that the opinions are those of the bloggers, not their employer, dipthong.

But if you feel you have a case, and care to hire a lawyer, and sue NASA, please please please do so.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 5:23 PM

#55

Check out cosmo's website for grins ... spanish fly ... pherlure (pherome lure?) ... beauty breast cream ...

All climate science, all the way!

Oh, and Koz, don't bother trying to follow my advice regarding hiring a lawyer and filing suit, you're not a US citizen and don't have standing ...

Posted by: dhogaza | December 31, 2007 5:26 PM

#56

I find the discussion here intriguing -- largely because regardless of the value (or lack therein) of the citations and references, both sides show an appalling lack of sociological knowledge relevant to the question actually possed about who knew what, when, about smoking. A discussion of who published what research when, and what government agency released what report when, has little to do with what ordinary people know and when they know it.

Smoking is (and has been) a habit that is disproportionately practiced by lower and working class persons, and as one person did point out the majority of these smokers begin when they are teens. These lower and working class teens don't read newspapers or warnings on packages, much less scientific articles or government resports on any topic (nor do they watch news on TV for that matter). They observe their grandparents and parents smoking, and smoking is an intregal part of social and cultural patterns that are difficult to disassemble.

Tnere are many ordinary people walking around this country today who do not know that smoking is potentially deadly. If you get outside the world of highly educated people, you discover that what people in this country don't know is enormous and frightening.

[This does not mean that lawsuits by individuals against tobacco companies are warranted.]

Posted by: Sue | December 31, 2007 5:43 PM

#57

OK so now requiring open and verifiable data is a denialist obfuscation?

Oh, I forgot Gavin and his fellow climate priests are infallible. How dare the infidels ask to see the data!

Posted by: Lance | December 31, 2007 8:57 PM

#58

re: #57 Sue Read Brandt's book. In the US, smoking may now be mostly lower-class, but it certainly didn't used to be. It is particularly noteworthy that the smoking rates for doctors have dropped rather strongly. The smoking rate also differs rather strongly by state, and while there is some correlation with income/educational levels, there is still a lot of variation, i.e., local culture and anti-smoking education matter. Utah is low at 11.1% smokers [Mormon], CA is at 15.2% [relatively fierce attention, lots of local anti-smoking rules, and at one point, some brutally-effective anti-smoking ads and commercials targeted at teenagers]. At the other end, Kentucky does 28.7%.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5542a2.htm

See table 1.

Posted by: John Mashey | December 31, 2007 9:41 PM

#59

well, let me point it still hasn't been "proved" that cigarettes cause cancer or heart disease, just like AGW hasn't been "proved". or evolution. or etc. etc. etc. the kinship between denialists of any stripe is large.

secondly, whether the average guy knows or doesn't know that cigarettes are bad for him or plutonium is bad for him is somewhat irrelevant to the question of whether manufacturers are permitted to reassure said average guy that, in fact, there really isn't any evidence that it is bad, and all the science isn't in, and it isn't proved, and many notable scientists disagree, etc. especially of interest to the authorities, when it turns out the manufacturers themselves have evidence to the contrary which they are burying.

Posted by: z | January 1, 2008 12:26 AM

#60

what would be the implications if steve won?? would he get to review every post before it go's public?? just every article??

gavin's data "model E" is available to all http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

Posted by: jacob l | January 1, 2008 1:52 AM

#61
OK so now requiring open and verifiable data is a denialist obfuscation?

Oh, I forgot Gavin and his fellow climate priests are infallible. How dare the infidels ask to see the data!

Careful, Lance.

You still teach courses at a university and therefore are subject to their employment policies, and depending on their funding sources, if McIntyre's right, possibly the federal regulation he claims Gavin is violating.

If you really believe McIntyre is right, shouldn't you STFU until you find out if you're in violation or not, posting here?

Indeed, someone should point that out over at CA, since many of those castigating Gavin claim to be subject to similar restrictions yet (hmmm) continue to post freely ...

Lance, who is your employer? I'd like to do a little audit ...

Posted by: dhogaza | January 1, 2008 4:33 AM

#62

If I could (and I feel kinda dirty for saying this)...

I feel I should stick up for CA a little. Over a considerable period of time, Stevie Mc has raised some interesting points, and legitimate critiques. The fact that his site wass jumped upon by every wing nut in the universe has led to the sites downfall and with it Steve Mc. While these days the site is nothing more than a clearing house for unfounded alegations, name calling and just about every denialist talking point in the book, back in the day I found it an interesting read.

I seriously don't know what's gotten into him lately.

And Lance, Stevie Mc's fantasy lawsuit has nothing to do with the aviliability or quality of data. Indeed, the data quality act never had anything to do with the availability and quality of data. Gavin Schmidt is a respectable scientist and publishes his data in complience with accepted standards. He plays by the rules and publishes in peer reviewed journals. Indeed GISS publishes most of their data freely on the web:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelE/

Think before you post next time.

Posted by: ChrisC | January 1, 2008 6:50 AM

#63
Over a considerable period of time, Stevie Mc has raised some interesting points, and legitimate critiques.

His history of making thinly-veiled insinuations that leading climate science researchers are engaged in fraud and are guilty of scientific misconduct is not simply a recent phenomena, however.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 1, 2008 8:26 AM

#64

As a minimum Steve Mc has revealed that the IPCC is based on extremely sloppy science: grey unpublished data, wrong data, reused wrong data, omission of data that doesn't fit the theory, truncation of data that doesn't fit the theory, arbitrary splicing, poor understanding of statistics, wrong use of statistics, unpublished statistics, and to top that off, lame excuses to not archive original data...

Posted by: Hans Erren | January 1, 2008 8:52 AM

#65

And, Hans, if this is so, why does the world ignore him?

It couldn't be because his claims don't hold up to scrutiny, right?

It is most certainly due to a worldwide conspiracy of scientists from a wide array of specialties ranging from physics to biology working on the causes and effects of climate change, right?

Because they're all commie new world order certified black helicopter pilots, right?

You can place your faith in the blogosphere and "Energy and Environment" if you want. Those of us interested in science will stick to where science is done.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 1, 2008 9:25 AM

#66

Nice rhetorical trick, dhogaza. Lot's of bla bla from you, but you fail address the content of my post:

As a minimum Steve Mc has revealed that the IPCC is based on extremely sloppy science: grey unpublished data, wrong data, reused wrong data, omission of data that doesn't fit the theory, truncation of data that doesn't fit the theory, arbitrary splicing, poor understanding of statistics, wrong use of statistics, unpublished statistics, and to top that off, lame excuses to not archive original data...

Posted by: Hans Erren | January 1, 2008 10:04 AM

#67

No, Hans, he CLAIMS to have revealed all these things.

It is not a "rhetorical trick" to point out that

a. the world at large ignores him

b. this might be because his claims do not stand up to scrutiny.

If "b" is not true, perhaps you have a favorite hypothesis to put forward? The world wonders ...

Posted by: dhogaza | January 1, 2008 10:35 AM

#68

Hans,

As per your content; a pig with lipstick is still a pig.

Just keep whacking yourself in the head with that hockey stick, pal. You'll break it yet.

Posted by: luminous beauty | January 1, 2008 10:35 AM

#69

Kooky is the only way to describe McIntyre's implied analogy between the behavior of NASA employees and of criminal activity at Enron:

"NASA Evasion of Quality Control Procedures" "It is a red-letter rule in business that transactions between a company and its insiders or employees must be disclosed. Some of the most egregious breaches by Enron were its attempts to avoid disclosure of writeoffs by selling worthless assets to the infamous limited partnerships organized by company insiders for equally worthless paper issued by the partnerships. Company insiders cannot evade securities laws by pretending to be be acting in a "personal capacity".

Posted by: JB | January 1, 2008 3:07 PM

#70

B. Because Al Gore shouts louder. Most people are not interested in gore-y details. Policymakers don't read the full IPCC report.

And dhogaza is deaf to facts that contradict his faith.

keep on shouting luminous beauty!

Posted by: Hans Erren | January 1, 2008 3:34 PM

#71
Because Al Gore shouts louder.

You really think that Al Gore is the reason why the NAS, the Royal Society, and every other leading professional scientific body in the world, disagrees with McIntyre?

Hans, with all due respect, you're crazy.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 1, 2008 3:38 PM

#72

To make myself clear, disagree with McIntyre's thinly-veiled assertions that climate science is a fraud...

Posted by: dhogaza | January 1, 2008 3:40 PM

#73

72 And Hans is one of the sanest contributors to CA.

Posted by: Thaumas | January 1, 2008 4:57 PM

#74

dhogaza,

I don't have a link to my "personal blog" posted at the official university website. If I did I can assure you that it would be scrutinized for compliance to official university policy and all applicable state and federal laws.

I believe Steve McIntyre, IMHO, is mostly rankled by links to RealClimate being posted on official NASA websites, especially when those links are defamatory and not backed up with credible evidence. Some of these links personally attack McIntyre and McKittrick and make assertions not backed by the findings of the NAS or other reviewing bodies.

RealClimate was created as a direct response to M&M's deconstruction of the Hockey Stick. Gavin is attempting to NASA-wash that little fiasco and if he is in violation of any federal law or policy he should be held accountable. NASA is not the private club of Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen though they often act as though it were.

Posted by: Lance | January 2, 2008 10:10 AM

#75
I don't have a link to my "personal blog" posted at the official university website. If I did I can assure you that it would be scrutinized for compliance to official university policy and all applicable state and federal laws.

And what evidence do you have that Gavin, who works for a NASA-sponsored lab at a NY university, is also the webmaster for the official NASA pages on global warming? That he wrote the page in question? That he put the link there?

Hmmmm?

I believe Steve McIntyre, IMHO, is mostly rankled by links to RealClimate being posted on official NASA websites, especially when those links are defamatory and not backed up with credible evidence.

The world's leading climate scientists have no credible evidence to support their work.

Got it.

RealClimate was created as a direct response to M&M's discredited deconstruction of the Hockey Stick.

There, I fixed it for you.

NASA is not the private club of Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen though they often act as though it were.

You are one sick puppy if you believe they do.

It's OK. We already know that you're ... out there.

I really hope that someone at CA has the balls to try to sue NASA on this. It's been two years since Dover delivered us Kitzmas against the last anti-science types to go running to court.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 2, 2008 11:06 AM

#77

Lance said: "NASA is not the private club of Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen though they often act as though it were.'

Oh, but you are wrong, Lance.

I once visited NASA, and above the door, there was a sign that said "Welcome to Club Hansen. Poor a drink on Gavin for me."

Posted by: JB | January 2, 2008 1:22 PM

#78

Sorry, that would be "Pour a drink on Gavin for me."

Posted by: JB | January 2, 2008 1:26 PM

#79

Hansen acts as if he is being pilloried if he is required to follow even basic protocol in regard to press releases.

He openly insults his boss in public statements and we are to believe that he is being restrained from openly presenting his ideas?

Posted by: Lance | January 2, 2008 2:00 PM

#80
He openly insults his boss in public statements and we are to believe that he is being restrained from openly presenting his ideas?

No. We are to believe that they tried to restrain him from openly presenting his ideas. I'm having a hard time understanding how that can be so difficult for you. It's not a trick statement. It's plain English. There no verb missing.

Posted by: pough | January 2, 2008 2:30 PM

#81

Asking Hansen to follow protocol is hardly equivalent to attempted censorship.

Hansen claims "swift boating" and censorship and our little leporidae friend calls McIntyre a drama queen?

Posted by: Lance | January 2, 2008 3:43 PM

#82

You're forgetting (or ignoring) the George Deutsch factor in this story. Oh, by the way, congratulations on the nice new location of your goalposts!

Posted by: pough | January 3, 2008 12:25 AM

#83

Stevie Mc reaches new heights of indigestion daily.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 3, 2008 12:40 AM

#84

McI's recent derangement is a result of the increasingly obvious irrelevance of the hockey stick/MWP/LIA "debate." This was a predictable consequence of the publication of the AR4 WG1 report, helped along by lots of more recent science. So McI searches desperately for a replacement issue, but I'm afraid the Arctic sea ice is screaming too loudly for him to be heard. In the end he's just another libertarian who's more concerned about his taxes being raised than with future generations, albeit a little slicker than most such (take note, ChrisC).

Regarding Gavin, he's not an hourly employee and I very much doubt he goes home at 5:00 PM on most days. Given his obvious high productivity, I don't see a problem if indeed he takes comp time to attend to personal matters while at work. Anybody who has a problem with his extra-curricular activities can and should take it up with his immediate supervisor. Good luck with that.

Injecting a little realpolitik into this discussion, even if there was something to McI's complaint, the Barton/Inhofe crew are no longer in a position to do anything about it, I doubt Michael Griffin is itching for more humiliation after getting publicly reamed by Hansen for expressing doubts about the implications of global warming and, finally, it is simply too late for the lame duck White House to do aything about it even if they wanted to (noting that Hansen and Schmidt have civil service job protection). Boxer and Waxman would love it if they tried, though.

Posted by: Steve Bloom | January 3, 2008 1:58 AM

#85
Asking Hansen to follow protocol is hardly equivalent to attempted censorship.

You know, Lance, if you think your dishonesty is going to sway anyone here, you are simply wasting your time.

I would have to say that outright dishonesty on the part of McIntyre and his CA worshippers like you do nothing to promote the notion that there are real reasons to doubt mainstream climate science.

If y'all had shit you wouldn't need to lie so profusely.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 3:00 AM

#86

Steve Bloom said, "In the end he's just another libertarian who's more concerned about his taxes being raised than with future generations, albeit a little slicker than most such".

Exactly. This hits the nail firmly on the head. The vast majority of the prominent sceptics aren't interested in understanding the scientific processes underpinning global change - in actuality they detest the science and are mangling and distorting it to bolster a pre-determined worldview and political agenda. That this isn't patently obvious is certainly partly attributable to the fact that it isn't openly stated by the denialists; they tend to promote the idea that their political beliefs are wholly separated from their take on climate science. The second factor is that the corporate media rarely, if ever, draw the link between climate change denial and the efforts of industry to obfuscate the truth about it.

The media might write about the predicted effects of climate change, but that fact that the denial lobby is twisiting science to promote a political agenda is almost always off the media radar. This could be because, as the pundits at Media Lens have stated, the mainstream media depends on corporate advertising for much of its revenue; they are fully aware that corporate CEO's are not going to want to read articles in papers in which they pay big bucks for advertising that conflict with their own agenda of profit maximization. There are many examples of corporations refusing to advertise in papers when articles appeared criticizing either their one of their senior staff, their products or mass consumption associated with their products. Yet even the liberal miedia in the UK avoid discussing this issue (at least until George Monbiot starting writing about it in the Guardian).

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | January 3, 2008 5:29 AM

#87

Arguing science with libertarians is like fighting over bananas with monkeys.

You can't win, no matter what.

Posted by: JB | January 3, 2008 10:14 AM

#88

Steve Bloom,

I don't think the Arctic sea ice is screaming as much as politically motivated alarmists. Funny you didn't mention that the Antarctic sea ice was at its historically observed maximum during the same period.

Jeff Harvey,

As usual I agree with much of what you are saying. You just neglect to mention that people on the left selectively interpret (to put it politely) the data to suit their political agenda, as Steve Bloom's sea ice myopia indicates.

Posted by: Lance | January 3, 2008 10:34 AM

#89

Lance said: "Funny you didn't mention that the Antarctic sea ice was at its historically observed maximum during the same period."

Lance, as you either do or should know, Antarctic sea ice is trending dead flat over that historical observed period, slope statistically indistinguishable from zero. In a flat trend with noise, one expect occasional maxima - and this years SH maximum was not distinguishable from normal variation due to noise. IOW, Antarctic sea ice is unchanged over time, with noise around that flat baseline, and this year was perfectly consistent with that.

In contrast, the North Hemisphere sea ice has been declining rapidly for years now, and last summer took a startling nose dive. You can't wave that away by pointing to southern hemisphere noise,no matter how you might try.

Posted by: Lee | January 3, 2008 11:16 AM

#90

Lance,

Can you prove that the bulk of the scientific community - those who are doing the actual research that is being distorted by lobbying groups, think tanks, and other generally conservative groups - is left wing? On the contrary, its pretty easy to establish causis belli for most in the denial lobby which is based around big business and its loathing of government (and constraints in the pursuit of private profit). They wear it on their sleeves; they see any form of government regulation as interfering in the way they do business.

Here's a suggestion. As Stuart Pimm and I said a few years back in a commentary we wrote in the ecological journal Oikos, one of the ways to establish the truth underlying an agenda is to follow the money. Where does the big money go? Not the comparative pittance in grants and scientific funding. I mean the big bucks. While you are doing your little assignment, you might enlighten me as to why you think a coterie of corporate funded think tanks are investing millions to debunk climate change science. Do you think they are doing it in a desperate search for the truth? Or might there be a very self-centered agenda at play? The answer should be as clear as daylight, but given your track record on the subject I am not too sure your answer will be as it should.

After all, if you follow the money, you hit

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | January 3, 2008 11:52 AM

#91

Lee,

The Arctic sea ice minimum observed this year was a "minimum" in a record of less than fifty years. There are historical accounts of similar events occurring over the last one hundred and fifty years, just no satellite record to compare it with, for obvious reasons.

While you dismiss the recent Antarctic sea ice maximum as being on the level of "noise" it still was a maximum and doesn't comport well with AGW catastrophism.

Jeff Harvey,

I think you overstate the case for a right wing conspiracy being funded by the deep pockets of big carbon and understate the huge amounts of money in play for AGW related research and policy makers.

I think the political lines are drawn for ideological rather than monetary reasons. The idea of humans running amok and needing to be regulated into line appeals to the mindset of the modern eco-left while those on the right are inherently suspicious of such scenarios.

I candidly admit that I bring more skepticism to issues that can be used to limit my freedoms than those that do not. That doesn't mean I am intransigent in the face of compelling evidence just that appeals to the "precautionary principle" based on weak physical evidence have to also be weighed in light of the value I place on free markets versus big government schemes.

I would find it refreshing if people on the left would be as candid about their motivations but rarely do I encounter progressives that will openly admit their predilections.

These relative predetermined value sets don't make any particular observer better equipped to evaluate the scientific evidence they just bring different perspectives to the issue. Sadly they also foster much of the animosity that is displayed in the often times heated discussions that result.

Posted by: Lance | January 3, 2008 12:43 PM

#92
The Arctic sea ice minimum observed this year was a "minimum" in a record of less than fifty years. There are historical accounts of similar events occurring over the last one hundred and fifty years, just no satellite record to compare it with, for obvious reasons.

Actually, no, there isn't. The fact you believe this is simply more evidence that you're getting all your information from a handful of denialist sites.

While you dismiss the recent Antarctic sea ice maximum as being on the level of "noise" it still was a maximum

Lance, self-proclaimed physics PhD student, insists that a result which is not statistically valid is meaningful...

and doesn't comport well with AGW catastrophism.

however it doesn't contradict AGW predictions of what we expect to sea in Antartica in the near term, which you're well aware of, you lying s.o.s.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 1:17 PM

#93

Lance, Please can you give a reference for this: "There are historical accounts of similar events occurring over the last one hundred and fifty years"

Posted by: Thaumas | January 3, 2008 1:18 PM

#94
I would find it refreshing if people on the left would be as candid about their motivations but rarely do I encounter progressives that will openly admit their predilections.

Right-wing nuttery for "if you won't admit to black helicopter commie new world orderism then you're not being honest about your predilections".

I candidly admit that I bring more skepticism to issues that can be used to limit my freedoms than those that do not.

This doesn't explain why you lie, Lance.

One of my left-wing predilections is to loath liars, which leads me to loath you. Libertarians routinely lie about science, and you're a fine specimen that supports the general observation.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 1:21 PM

#95

Much as it irks me to give Lance any credibility, his assertion about the NWP has a historical basis. Amundsen navigated it. Of course, that doesn't give any indication about ice extent in the Arctic in those years, since it does move around a bit, coming and going, depending on synoptics and currents.

See Roald Amundsen, Brief History and Wikipedia

Posted by: P. Lewis | January 3, 2008 2:37 PM

#96

Thaumas,

That the Arctic undergoes cyclical periods of sea ice extent is not in dispute. Even a cursory review of the scientific literature will reveal this mundane fact. The question is whether the recently observed (by satellite) minimum is anything to panic about.

Many anecdotal historical accounts could be cited as evidence of previous episodes of low sea ice extent in the Arctic, but let's stick to peer reviewed science for the moment.

In a paper that appears in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Dmitry Divine and Chad Dick (2006) of the Norwegian Polar Institute make the point that,

"a similar shrinkage of ice cover was observed in the 1920s-1930s, during the previous warm phase of the low-frequency oscillation, when any anthropogenic influence is believed to have still been negligible."

(Divine, D.V. and C. Dick. 2006. Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas, Journal of Geophysical Research, 111, 10.1029/2004JC002851)

The authors go on to say "We suppose therefore that during decades to come, as the negative phase of the thermohaline circulation evolves, the retreat of ice cover may change to an expansion."

Posted by: Lance | January 3, 2008 2:48 PM

#97
Much as it irks me to give Lance any credibility, his assertion about the NWP has a historical basis. Amundsen navigated it. Of course, that doesn't give any indication about ice extent in the Arctic in those years

That's the point. The retreat in ice this year was huge, far beyond what's necessary to sail the NW Passage.

Lance is one of those who would expect us to believe that climate scientists, and more specifically, experts on artic ice extent, would be unaware of Amundsen and his voyage.

Or other data of this sort.

Just like the first guy to reach the south pole and live, in addition to his artic explorations.

I'm sure Lance knows this.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 2:50 PM

#98
"a similar shrinkage of ice cover was observed in the 1920s-1930s, during the previous warm phase of the low-frequency oscillation, when any anthropogenic influence is believed to have still been negligible."

published in 2006.

in other words data from at best 2005 and earlier.

2007 shrinkage was far beyond that seen two years (or even one year) earlier.

Their paper can't possibly have addressed this far more extensive shrinkage in 2007 if it were published in 2006.

So:

  1. you can't compare to dates to see which is most recent

  2. you reject the concept of statistic significance as it relates to the antartic sea ice record.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 2:53 PM

#99
The authors go on to say "We suppose therefore that during decades to come, as the negative phase of the thermohaline circulation evolves, the retreat of ice cover may change to an expansion."

Speculation. Mainstream researchers claim the opposite, and they're wrong of course because what's happening is happening faster than they've predicted.

But at least they have the sign right, reduction, not increase.

Do they also claim that ice volume, estimated to have diminished by about 40% since US nuke subs started doing systematic ice thickness surveys, will also be restored?

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 2:57 PM

#100

So, Lance, what other warming indicators do you want to "debunk"? Earlier spring arrival and later fall departure dates for migratory birds in the northern hemisphere? Glacier retreat?

I'm sure you know more than every physicist, biologist, geologist, geographer, etc on the planet.

Very sure you think you do, anyway.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 3:04 PM

#101

P. Lewis,

Irked or not I appreciate your honest contribution to the discussion.

In that spirit I am obliged to say that the authors of the paper I cited further conclude that it is possible that the current "record" low sea ice extent could be explained "as a possible superposition of natural low frequency variability and greenhouse gas induced warming of the last decades."

So I'm not saying there couldn't be an anthropogenic CO2 signal component to the recent record low sea ice extent, just that it isn't conclusively related to human activity. With such a short data set is impossible to determine how much, if any, of the anomaly is due to human influence.

Posted by: Lance | January 3, 2008 3:07 PM

#102

dhogaza,

Are you seriously suggesting that I need to produce papers that are less than three months old (the date of the event) to discuss the science behind Arctic sea ice extent?

Also, perhaps you are aware of the study that indicated that the recent sea ice anomaly was a result of Arctic currents and wind patterns.

Here is a quote from the official NASA website by the lead author.

"Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. 'Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,' he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.

'The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,' Nghiem said."

dhogaza, why don't you try to engage in a little honest, rational discussion instead of knee jerk ad hom retort?

Posted by: Lance | January 3, 2008 3:41 PM

#103

Lance dear, Amundsen took three years to get through the Northwest Passage. He coudda done it in one in 2007.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 3, 2008 3:55 PM

#104
Are you seriously suggesting that I need to produce papers that are less than three months old (the date of the event) to discuss the science behind Arctic sea ice extent?

Yes, actually, given that

  1. this year was exceptional

  2. the following historical comparision may or may not still hold true:

"a similar shrinkage of ice cover was observed in the 1920s-1930s, during the previous warm phase of the low-frequency oscillation, when any anthropogenic influence is believed to have still been negligible."

How does a paper claiming that past shrinkage was similar to past events say ANYTHING about what happened in 2007, given the large difference in scale of the 2007 event?

Lance, you could not have been in a fucking science PhD program, I simply don't believe it. Scientists have to be honest and objective and some level, and you're neither.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 4:05 PM

#105
dhogaza, why don't you try to engage in a little honest, rational discussion instead of knee jerk ad hom retort?

Pointing out the obvious, that you're dishonest, is not an ad hom retort. It's a factual statement.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 4:07 PM

#106
Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds.

Winter perennial ice, not the summer ice melt.

I could say more, but why bother.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 4:13 PM

#107

Note the progression Lance follows.

First, the summer melt was as extensive in the 1930s as in 2007.

His ass got kicked on that one.

Now, well, OK, it's really unprecedented, but, well, it's wind and currents that cause it. Sharply warmer temps have nothing to do with it.

What's next, Lance, given that your cite doesn't support your position, doesn't claim that warmer temps are not contributed?

Artic ice folk aren't saying it's ALL due to warming, and in fact you can understand the dynamic that's understood by reading the page you cite with a bit of care unblemished by your dogmatic insistence in refuting all science that "threatens your freedoms".

Which, BTW, is a looney-toon approach to science in the first place.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 3, 2008 4:17 PM

#108

"Amundsen took three years to get through the Northwest Passage."

Yes, but it had nothing to do with the ice. It was only because he liked the arctic and had a bit of a death wish:

"If only you knew how splendid it is up there, that's where I want to die." -- Roald Amundsen

Posted by: JB | January 3, 2008 5:17 PM

#109

dhogaza,

I never claimed that past Arctic ice melting was "as extensive" as the most recent observed case. In fact my point was that quantitative data for such a claim is not available, but that qualitative descriptions certainly are.

As for your nonsequitter in #110 "Winter perennial ice, not the summer ice melt. I could say more, but why bother."

"Winter perennial" ice MEANS ice that survives from one winter to the next. Thus the ice created in the winter was pushed into the warmer waters in the SUMMER resulting in unusually high amounts of that ice melting.

I'm trying to be nice here. I could have rubbed your nose in your hasty and incorrect post, instead of just correcting it. Please note that I refrained from calling you a "liar" as you are won to do.

Also "I" was the one that pointed out that the authors of the Journal of Geophysical Research article suggest, and I can't completely refute, the proposition that at least part of the recent large summer ice retreats could be due to anthropogenic CO2. Heck I even quoted them saying it! So you're claims that I am ignoring this point border on the ludicrous.

To top it all off you abuse my openness about my political inclinations with a hysterical retort claiming that I base my conclusions about scientific matters on my "dogmatic" ideology.

Sadly, I can't say that any of it surprised me based on your past behavior. Perhaps it's just my idealistic view of humanity that has me holding on to the hope that you will start responding honestly and openly to my posts.

Enjoy your evening.

Posted by: Lance | January 3, 2008 6:11 PM

#110

JB, Amundsen got his wish. I believe we share a common view of lancekind and friends.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 3, 2008 6:54 PM

#111

Lance, you lovely retard. You keep on writing the same stuff over and over and over again....

Your persistence. Your immaculate typing. Like Poetry. It makes me feel so....small. So irrelevant.

You're beautiful!

Posted by: Thom | January 3, 2008 7:58 PM

#112

=eli rabett said:=

="Amundsen took three years to get through the Northwest Passage. He coudda done it in one in 2007."=

One year?

Canadian explorer Henry Larsen did the NWP in eighty six days in 1944.

Posted by: Paul S | January 3, 2008 8:32 PM

#113
This same cabal pop up all over the show. That is not to say you are right or wrong. But you do not belong to this cult

Yeah, the cult that just simply can't embrace outright lying, cherry-picking, selective quoting of papers, and continuous insinuations that an entire field of science is fraudulent and its practitioners guilty of scientific misconduct.

If that makes us a "cabal" or "cult" (choose which, please) I'm fine with it. The Cult of Good Science and Honest Behavior. Got any other bad names you want to call us?

Posted by: dhogaza | January 4, 2008 1:46 AM

#114

Lance: I candidly admit that I bring more skepticism to issues that can be used to limit my freedoms than those that do not.

So I take it you were firmly against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act?

Posted by: Ian Gould | January 4, 2008 3:22 AM

#115

Gouldie chops.

Please stop preaching about liberties when your idea of freedom doesn't include economic liberty

Posted by: jc | January 4, 2008 6:28 AM

#116

Property is theft.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 4, 2008 8:28 AM

#117

Eli posts:

[[Property is theft.]]

which I think goes back to some 1820s utopian socialist, although I can't remember which one offhand (was it Saint-Simon?). As a left-wing teen I used to like that slogan, but from what I know now it doesn't really make sense. I'm more of Robert Heilbroner's view -- "Of course I believe in private property. I think everyone should have some."

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | January 4, 2008 9:36 AM

#118

Barton, find me a piece of property which at some point was not stolen from someone.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 4, 2008 10:20 AM

#119

Eli - large tracts of Tokyo Bay?

Posted by: TH | January 4, 2008 11:09 AM

#120

Ian Gould,

I wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq the first time let alone the second. I was glad the first time went so well and was hopeful (watching with my hands over my eyes) that the second would bring an opportunity for the Iraqi people to at least get on a path to democracy.

I view the patriot act as just another attempt to undermine the constitution. I am no republican or fan of "W". Their blatant fearmongering over "islamofascism" is reprehensible. While there is a threat from Islamic extremism it is exaggerated by the Bush administration as an excuse to expand the powers of the executive branch and the reach of an ever expanding militaristic federal police state.

Perhaps my opinion on the mater is best expressed by Ben Franklin who said "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." (Although this is probably a paraphrase depending upon which historical reference you choose.)

I detest demagoguery whether it is over greenhouse gases or Al Qaeda.

I think you have made the mistake of equating my skepticism of AGW with "ditto-headism".

Posted by: Lance | January 4, 2008 11:29 AM

#121

Eli might be hinting at this sort of outlook:

http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

I'm sure some of you will find it interesting.

Posted by: guthrie | January 4, 2008 11:46 AM

#122

guthrie,

Very interesting indeed. Transition from land title to any of the systems proposed by geolibertarians would be difficult (to say the least) to facilitate.

I guess warrantee deeds could be replaced with use grants with little initial effect in most states since property taxes and the recourse of the state to claim delinquent property tax thru sheriff sales and the like usurp true land ownership property rights anyway.

I read the manifesto with a jaundiced eye waiting for the lambskin of libertarianism to be pulled back to reveal the socialist wolf beneath. I was pleasantly surprised to see that this was indeed a representation of "liberal", in the classical sense, ideas taken to their ultimate logical conclusion.

One problem is that these use grants could be taken away from one person and granted to another at the whim of the state. Also "rents" could be perniciously rigged to favor the party or persons in power. Of course so can property taxes which is why I favor their abolition.

Anyway it was an interesting and compelling idea.

I wonder if it was really what Eli had in mind though.

Posted by: Lance | January 4, 2008 12:39 PM

#123

Eli writes, bizarrely:

[[Barton, find me a piece of property which at some point was not stolen from someone.]]

Sure. My computer. I paid for it.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | January 4, 2008 12:53 PM

#124

BPL,

Oh, I'm sure Eli can come up with some scenario such as the copper used in the circuitry was mined in Peru on land stolen from the Yahua native people and that the software was produced by wage slaves and then misappropriated by Microsoft.

These silly regressions are possible on any item you care to mention.

Posted by: Lance | January 4, 2008 2:19 PM

#125

Cleverly tying the misinformation on Weapons of Mass Destruction with climate change science, Lance writes, "I detest demagoguery whether it is over greenhouse gases or Al Qaeda."

Like I said, Lance. You're a beaut!

Posted by: Thom | January 4, 2008 2:22 PM

#126
that the software was produced by wage slaves and then misappropriated by Microsoft.

Actually DOS was stolen by Microsoft - contract fraud. After a very long lawsuit MS was forced to pay the two victims (for lack of a better word) a couple mil, something like that.

Essentially the contract MS signed when they licensed the predecessor to DOS only allowed them to redistribute to end users (at the time, as far as the world knew MS was selling basic and the like for dinky little micros, the deal with IBM was secret). This predecessor was developed and being sold by a couple hackers working more or less literally out of their garage (or family room or kitchen or the like). MS itself was a very small company at this time.

Of course, MS turned around and used it as the base of the operating system they delivered to IBM for the PC...

Posted by: dhogaza | January 4, 2008 2:28 PM

#127

Wow. About the original blog post, I just have to say this:

The `Galileos' of the climatology world are now starting to look more and more like the Inquisition!

Posted by: bi | January 4, 2008 2:40 PM

#128

Thom,

Ban Ki-moon's attempt to blame tail pipe emissions from soccer moms driving minivans for the genocide in Darfur makes the WMD claims of the Bush administration seem positively credible in comparison.

Posted by: Lance | January 4, 2008 2:48 PM

#129

Lance:

Yeah right, Ban Ki-moon said something, therefore all the IPCC scientists were wrong!

Yeah, Bush's WMD claims do seem to make more sense than your 'logic'.

Posted by: bi | January 4, 2008 2:56 PM

#130

bi said,

"Yeah right, Ban Ki-moon said something, therefore all the IPCC scientists were wrong!"

Did I say that all IPCC scientists were wrong bi? Did I even infer that in anyway?

I merely pointed to the indisputable fact that climate change has been pimped as the mother of all scare tactics. Ban Ki-moon's idiotic statement was just the first one that came to mind.

To deny that demagogues of all stripes have latched on to climate alarmism as a political tool is to deny reality. Even Evangelical Christian leaders have added it to their "end times" scenarios to frighten the faithful into obedience.

Posted by: Lance | January 4, 2008 3:25 PM

#131

Lance:

"I think you have made the mistake of equating my skepticism of AGW with 'ditto-headism'." (emphasis mine)

"Did I say that all IPCC scientists were wrong bi? Did I even infer that in anyway?"

Yes.

I'll all too familiar with your denialist schtick: you're trying to dispute the science of the AGW theory without actually disputing it... so you blow a lot of smoke involving Ban Ki-moon, Al Gore, and maybe Sun Myung Moon which has absolutely nothing to do with the science.

Posted by: bi | January 4, 2008 3:46 PM

#132

Lance,

Evangelicals have professed to the need for addressing AGW on the basis that God has ordained mankind to be good stewards of the earth. Nothing to do with eschatology.

But what can one expect from a lying idiot?

Posted by: luminous beauty | January 4, 2008 3:48 PM

#133
I merely pointed to the indisputable fact that climate change has been pimped as the mother of all scare tactics.

Which has as much to do with the scientific issues as the supposed social darwinism of Hitler has to do with biology.

So, exactly why the fuck would you bring this shit up, Lance?

"Some asshole says something really stupid so I have to oppose the science, and I don't give a shit if the science is right or wrong!"

That sums up your mentality, Lance.

You'll do a really good job in your PhD program with that sort of attitude.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 4, 2008 4:02 PM

#134

I am still going to run a troll race, but having unkilled "jc" for just one thread, i have to say, i may have to introduce a handicap or a pro/amateur division or something.

Posted by: Marion Delgado | January 4, 2008 4:24 PM

#135

Cleverly tying the misinformation on Weapons of Mass Destruction with climate change science, Lance writes, "I detest demagoguery whether it is over greenhouse gases or Al Qaeda."

The same pathetic innuendo that one finds in such abundance on Climate Audit.

It's not clever, but it is kooky.

Posted by: JB | January 4, 2008 4:53 PM

#136

Lance: "Ban Ki-moon's attempt to blame tail pipe emissions from soccer moms driving minivans for the genocide in Darfur makes the WMD claims of the Bush administration seem positively credible in comparison."

Like I said, Lance. You're a beautiful retard. And that's why I love you!

Posted by: Thom | January 4, 2008 5:07 PM

#137

I have a great deal of affection for you as well Thom.

Posted by: Lance | January 4, 2008 5:12 PM

#138

Barton wrote:[[Property is theft.]]

"which I think goes back to some 1820s utopian socialist, although I can't remember which one offhand (was it Saint-Simon?)."

It was, in fact, Proudhon. Some early Dutch socialists used to get that the wrong way around on their banners: 'theft is property'. I wonder whether Eli would go that far.

Posted by: Arie Brand | January 4, 2008 5:53 PM

#139

Eli has always been of the Leland Stanford school. Anything that isn't nailed down is mine. Anything I can rip lose isn't nailed down. . .

Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 4, 2008 6:28 PM

#140

that which lurketh under the bridge:

"There are many who have contributed to this 'debate' who display the emotional retardation of the opiate addict."

Oh, the irony.

And what does your Great Mastery of Civility As Abundantly Shown Above have to do with the science of AGW anyway?

Posted by: bi | January 5, 2008 4:26 AM

#141

That which pisseth under the bridge asks

Just what say the imcomplete science underpinning your view was found to be erroneous? How would you all respond? Would you all say - I was wrong - and allow your conciousness to shift immediately to a new understanding?

Then immediately asserts:

Whether you all like or not nothing can be done about AGW.

Speaking about incomplete science, information or knowledge ... care to look in the mirror?

Posted by: dhogaza | January 5, 2008 5:22 AM

#142

theft is property That would be kleptocracy.

Posted by: Hank Roberts | January 6, 2008 8:40 PM

#143

Speaking of which, who audits the auditors? No I mean the real ones:

Paul Krugman: January 4, 2008 Probabilities in finance

Joe Stiglitz, today at the American Economic Association Meetings, talking about financial crises: "Once-in-a-hundred-years events occur every 10 years." He's thinking of the stock market crash of 1987, the Long Term Capital Management crisis of 1998, and the current subprime-plus crisis -- all of which involved changes in asset prices that were supposed to be vanishingly unlikely.

Probability, anyone?

Posted by: Hank Roberts | January 6, 2008 8:45 PM

#144

Rabbid is a fuckwit. Go to Russia and sit with Lenin's grave. With all of your warming buddies.

Posted by: Peter Bickle | January 7, 2008 6:39 AM

#145

Peter Bickle, the face of science denialism in 2008...

Rabbid is a fuckwit. Go to Russia and sit with Lenin's grave. With all of your warming buddies.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 7, 2008 7:34 AM

#146

Peter Bickle posts:

[[Rabbid is a fuckwit. Go to Russia and sit with Lenin's grave. With all of your warming buddies.]]

With all the venom being spewed over this issue, it's nice to see a calm, intelligent, thoughtful response like this one. You're an example for all of us, Peter.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | January 7, 2008 7:43 AM

#147

You'll have to excuse Bickle.

He's a Librartarian, you know ("Free the Librarians!")

He knows not what he types.

Posted by: JB | January 7, 2008 10:44 AM

#148

Yeah, Libertarians are terrible people. They won't use force to impose their will on others and only ask the same in return. Heartless bastards!

Socialists are nice enough to force people to do what's "best" for them even if they have to enslave them to do so. Truly caring people.

Posted by: Lance | January 7, 2008 11:45 AM

#149

Peter Bickle,

First it was your racist comment about Tim's dog and now you show that you are anti-bunny. Is there any cute furry animal that you would not stomp to death whilst whistling?

Posted by: Boris | January 7, 2008 1:33 PM

#150

Bickle is a Librarian? They let him read Books???

Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 7, 2008 2:19 PM

#151
even if they have to enslave them to do so.

You forgot to mention that they hate kittens, puppies, and apple pie.

Posted by: Davis | January 7, 2008 2:31 PM

#152

According to Peter Bickle:

Rabbid is a fuckwit

Looks like I haven't been trying hard enough.

Posted by: Chris O'Neill | January 7, 2008 2:53 PM

#153

"You forgot to mention that they hate kittens, puppies, and apple pie."

Ripper: Have you ever seen a Commie eat a piece of apple pie?

Mandrake: Well, I can't say I have.

Ripper: Borscht, that's what they eat, isn't it? Never pie? Borscht

Posted by: Lance | January 7, 2008 3:21 PM

#154

There is, of course, < href="http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/03/ifwisheswere_.html"> a perfect answer Thanks to Belle Waring

Now, everyone close your eyes and try to imagine a private, profit-making rights-enforcement organization which does not resemble the mafia, a street gang, those pesky fire-fighters/arsonists/looters who used to provide such "services" in old New York and Tokyo, medieval tax-farmers, or a Lendu militia. (In general, if thoughts of the Eastern Congo intrude, I suggest waving them away with the invisible hand and repeating "that's anarcho-capitalism" several times.) Nothing's happening but a buzzing noise, right?

Now try it the wishful thinking way. Just wish that we might all live in a state of perfect liberty, free of taxation and intrusive government, and that we should all be wealthier as well as freer. Now wish that people should, despite that lack of any restraint on their actions such as might be formed by policemen, functioning law courts, the SEC, and so on, not spend all their time screwing each other in predictable ways ranging from ordinary rape, through the selling of fraudulent stocks in non-existent ventures, up to the wholesale dumping of mercury in the public water supplies. (I mean, the general stock of water from which people privately draw.) Awesome huh? But it gets better. Now wish that everyone had a pony.

Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 7, 2008 7:43 PM

#155

"Go to Russia and sit with Lenin's grave."

I'm not buried but on display at my Mausoleum in Red Square, open every day except Mondays and Fridays from 10:00 to 13:00. Drop in and say hello.

Posted by: VI Lenin | January 7, 2008 8:16 PM

#156
Yeah, Libertarians are terrible people. They won't use force to impose their will on others and only ask the same in return. Heartless bastards!

And they openly admit that they reject science that would lead any rational person to agree that regulation of some activity is warranted based on their political beliefs.

Just like you, Lance, in regard to global warming.

Libertarians have a long history of denying conservation biology when it inconveniently suggests that unfettered exploitation of forests, watersheds, etc may cause various species to go extinct.

Just to mention another example.

What I don't get, and perhaps Lance can answer ...

Why the insistence on denying science?

Why can't you libertarian types simply admit "WE DON'T CARE". Don't care if warming will screw the world for your grandkids as long as your "freedom" is unfettered today. Don't care if species dependent on old-growth forests or other diminishing habitat go extinct, etc.

Why lie that "we really do care, but see, but the scientific argument is fraudulent and the scientists involved are guilty of scientific misconduct" until you are blue in the face?

Posted by: dhogaza | January 8, 2008 4:20 AM

#157

dhogaza: You have to understand that Libertarians believe we should use everything up as quickly as possible right now in order to make ourselves more wealthy, because when we are more wealthy, we'll be able to afford to fix stuff.

And no, you wouldn't ask someone to thinks like that to look after your house.

Posted by: Neil | January 8, 2008 5:07 AM

#158

"Now wish that everyone had a pony."

This from the folks that promises everything from free healthcare to free housing to free retirement as entitlements. PUHH LEEEZE! Progressives just promise to give everyone a pony as a birth right.

Libertarians do not advocate NO government or courts or policemen as your silly post asserts. Independent courts are essential in resolving disputes over misuse of common resources and claims to private property.

dhogaza, I am tired of your "liar, liar pants on fire" level of argument. I see nothing I haven't already brushed aside many times in your latest tantrum.

Posted by: Lance | January 8, 2008 9:50 AM

#159

My understanding is that manyh individual libertarians do indeed value the environment etc. However they end up being used as stalking horses by the rabid "i've got mine so screw you" crowd, who, whilst professing allegiance to various liberatarian principles, use corruption and chicanery to ensure that a larger slice of the pie passes to them.
Unfortunately few libertarians seem to notice this.

Posted by: guthrie | January 8, 2008 10:36 AM

#160
This from the folks that promises everything from free healthcare...

Typical example of Lance lying. No one claims universal health care is free.

dhogaza, I am tired of your "liar, liar pants on fire" level of argument.

There's a simple solution: quit lying.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 8, 2008 11:40 AM

#161
My understanding is that manyh individual libertarians do indeed value the environment etc.

Oh, there's no doubt of this, none whatsoever.

And this is why science denialism is so crucial to the cause.

Back in the old growth war days (in the us pacific nw) I managed to open the eyes of a few libertarians who'd swallowed industry propaganda regarding timber management hook, line, and sinker. They believe so deeply, so innately, that any private entity will manage any resource, anything, better than government (even if "better" means managing for non-resource values) that they'll swallow nearly any bogus argument.

But, some can be reached.

For many, though, devotion to the cause seems to cause objectivity and honesty to fly right out the window. Lance being a typical case. They're annoyingly common on techie sites like slashdot, for instance.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 8, 2008 11:45 AM

#162

Ever notice how many lawyers are Librarians?

Ever notice how Librarians think that taking everything to court is an answer?

Ever notice how those Free Markup Librarians think that there are too many product liability cases?

Ever wonder what cognitive dissonance is?

Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 8, 2008 12:50 PM

#163

Now, hang on there, Eli. Nobody gets to diss Librarians.

Or the scary librarian lady will come and get you.

Posted by: Luna_the_cat | January 8, 2008 1:19 PM

#164

"Yeah, Libertarians are terrible people. They won't use force to impose their will on others and only ask the same in return. Heartless bastards"

No they CLAIM they believe this.

Then in the US they vote overwhelmingly for the party that's pro-war; anti-gay; anti-abortion and anti-free speech but that promises ot cut taxes and keep the coloureds in their place (sorry "end special entitlements for minorities").

Say isn't great how Ron Paul's campaign is bringing together white supremacists and abortion clinic bombers?

He's a uniter not a divider.

Posted by: Ian Gould | January 8, 2008 7:32 PM

#165

"Why can't you libertarian types simply admit "WE DON'T CARE". Don't care if warming will screw the world for your grandkids as long as your "freedom" is unfettered today. Don't care if species dependent on old-growth forests or other diminishing habitat go extinct, etc."

Because that would mean admitting they're spoilt middle class brats with an endless sense of entitlement who want public services but aren't prepared to pay for them and who like to blame their personal failings on The Man keeping them down.

Next thing you know they'd have to start thinking about how Goldwater small-government conservatism just happened to kick off at the same time as overtly segregationists politics were dying in the US - and how it always "just happens" that the scapegoats behind the failure of their policies are almost invariably blacks or Mexicans.

(I.e. "It's not the gun laws it's all those blacks out there committing murders" and "American health care costs are being driven up by pregnant Mexican illegal immigrants and the cost of delivering their anchor babies.")

Posted by: Ian Gould | January 8, 2008 7:41 PM

#166

I agree with Guthrie above. I also find, occasionally, that libertarians and I agree on some things, esp. certain environmental issues. Sadly, their voices get drowned out by mad dogs baying.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | January 8, 2008 9:40 PM

#167

Eli asked: "Bickle is a Librarian? They let him read Books???"

Yes, he is free to read books. It is just that the Library he works at has no books on climate science.

They did -- once, but Al Gore checked them all out and has not returned them.

.... which is why the Librartarians hate Al Gore so much.

Posted by: JB | January 8, 2008 10:13 PM

#168

You can fill any name you want into the name space in this cautionary cartoon: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fandom.png

Posted by: Hank Roberts | January 9, 2008 6:48 PM

#169

if you're an american citizen it's your tax money he has used to sit comfortably on his now unique ice cores. Apparently he doesn't feel the need to publish detailed core logs, or he is simply hiding controversial information.

Posted by: larry | January 9, 2008 7:38 PM

#170

JB said

Yes, he is free to read books. It is just that the Library he works at has no books on climate science.

They did -- once, but Al Gore checked them all out and has not returned them.

Just not true. Where do you get your information from? I have it on authority that they have a 3 copies of a climate science book in the system: one copy of State of Fear by M. Crichton is on the shelves; their other two copies are loaned out: one to one A. Mugg and the other to some Librert.. Libar... some in-house employee.

Posted by: P. Lewis | January 9, 2008 8:43 PM

#171

The biggest problem with libertarians is that (most of them) hate freedom and liberty, because they think that privileged individuals should have the right to control exclude others from access to land and other natural resources without any compensation in return.

For an excellent introduction to this issue by a truly freedom-loving libertarian, see "Are you a real libertarian or a Royal libertarian?".

In short, most libertarians are a kind of freedom-hating feudalist.

Posted by: liberal | January 10, 2008 4:08 AM

#172

liberal, you are a little late to the party. Guthrie has already linked to that web site.

Posted by: Lance | January 10, 2008 12:37 PM

#173

At the beginning of 2007 it was predicted by one of the leading AGW climate advocates that 2007 would be the hottest on record. It has come in seventh. Comments invited. ps few individuals' views fall completely within the boundaries of a particular religious or political paradigm - ie much of the above commentary is not germaine to the issue at hand.

Posted by: brett | January 11, 2008 1:58 AM

#174

brett posts:

[[At the beginning of 2007 it was predicted by one of the leading AGW climate advocates that 2007 would be the hottest on record. It has come in seventh. ]]

No, it hasn't. Where did you get that idea? According to NASA GISS, 2007 is tied with 1998 for second place.

Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | January 11, 2008 6:47 AM

#175

At the beginning of 2007 it was not predicted by one of the leading AGW climate advocates that 2007 would be the hottest on record.

The Met Office is not an advocate of anything in particular. They punch in the numbers and out comes the forecast. They said:

Our best estimate forecast of the global temperature anomaly for 2007 is 0.54+/-0.16 C, with a 95% confidence interval from 0.38 C to 0.71C. This is a best estimate forecast for the warmest year on record, warmer than the hitherto warmest year, 1998 (0.52C). Thus, there is a 60% probability that 2007 will be as warm or warmer than the warmest year (1998, 0.52 C).

That it wasn't was due in no small way to the earlier than anticipated and not so strong as anticipated El Nino. It is this (Hadley) data that is provisionally (still) the 7th warmest on record (and 11 of the warmest years on record have been in the last 13 years).

The Met Office also said:

Over the eight years, 2000-2007, since the Met Office has issued forecasts of annual global temperature, the mean value of the forecast error was just 0.07 C.

which at least to me sounds an impressive modelling/forecasting achievement.

Posted by: P. Lewis | January 11, 2008 9:39 AM

#176

The NASA GISS data came out first, and they rank 2007 as the second warmest ever, after 2005 and ahead of 1998.

The CRU data does list 2007 as the seventh.

Both datasets point to the current decade as having the majority of the ten warmest years on record.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 11, 2008 12:17 PM

#177

"At the beginning of 2007 it was predicted by one of the leading AGW climate advocates that 2007 would be the hottest on record. It has come in seventh. Comments invited"

Which reputable student of climate, whether pro or anti AGW theory, would predict a priori the relative ranking of a single year?

Posted by: z | January 12, 2008 10:14 PM