“Textbook cases of gross lapses in professional ethics and scientific malfeasance”

H. Sterling Burnett is a member of the National Association of Scholars and he’s describing the global warming movers and shakers:

ClimategateClimategate, both 1 and 2, are textbook cases of gross lapses in professional ethics and scientific malfeasance.  To understand why, one must first understand what science is and how it is supposed to operate. Science is the noble pursuit of knowledge through observation, testing and experimentation.  Scientists attempt to explain, describe and/or predict the implications of phenomena through the use of the scientific method.  

The scientific method consists in gaining knowledge or explanatory power through a process.  Progress is made in science by proposing a hypothesis, and developing a theory to explain or understand certain phenomena, and then testing the hypothesis against reality.  A particular hypothesis is considered superior to others when, through testing, it is shown to have more explanatory power than competing theories or hypotheses and when other scientists running the same testing regime can reproduce the results of the original test.  Every theory or hypothesis must be disconfirmable in principle, which means that, if the theory predicts that “A” will occur under certain conditions, but instead, “B” and sometimes “C” result, then the theory has problems.  The more a hypothesis’s predictions prove inconsistent with or are diametrically opposed to the results that occur during testing, the less likely the hypothesis is to be correct.

Which brings us to Climategate.  Climategate parts one and two are a series of leaked e-mails from arguably the most prominent researchers promoting the idea that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. The e-mails show the scientists involved to be violating their professional ethics with the result that climate science in particular and science as an institution more generally is brought into question. 

The pursuit of knowledge through science can’t proceed if scientists refuse to share data and methods.  In defense of their refusal to share data, suppress its release or even destroy it, climate scientists have claimed that because those asking for the data are skeptics, they will only use the data to try and undermine their results.  So what?  Either the data and methods stand up to scrutiny and the results are robust or they are not. Either way, the skeptics have done the world a service. 

The National Association of Scholars now casting doubt on the Church of Chicken Little.

More of this please.

Wisconsin, The Slave State
This Is What Victory Looks Like
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • Don’t forget that these so-called scientists and their backers made a ton of money trying to sell this scam to the uninformed.

    • PBunyan

      That’s just a fringe benefit.  The holy grail of the movement is a single worldwide Marxist government with absolute power over all. 

      • Grace_ia

        I don’t believe, however, that they are even fully aware of this “worldwide Marxist government” movement, because it is clouded by the education that these dupes have received.  And the educators are not fully aware, either. 

        When we talk about “right” and “truth”, we are defining the ultimate Good.
        When we talk about “deceit” and “dishonest” we are defining Evil.

        Good and evil have always competed in this world and they always will.  People are the means to the end. 

        I believe that by the defining of the climategate scams or any of the other huge fear scams that have been foisted on people (remember overpopulation?  global cooling?  the emerging Water wars?) as a giant conspiracy theory weakens the arguement against them rather than clarifies it.

        • PBunyan

          Stan mentioned the money the scientists were making, which isn’t really true. There are lots of scam artists making metric ass-loads of money off of this who are far from being scientists (like Al Gore), but I doubt many “climatologists” make money from bunco like carbon credits and government “loans”. They have to rely on funding and those who fund them (or vote to fund them) do, I sincerely believe, have the objective of a one world, all powerful government.

          Sure it’s a conspiracy, but it’s far more than a theory. They openly declare their intentions. Well not all of them are so open about it– when the leftist politicians speak of it, it’s usually more of a slip up or an “unguarded moment”. I tend to believe that refusing to name a conspiracy, simply because it is a conspiracy, serves the forces of evil.

          I almost feel sorry for the climatologists after reading those e-mails. It’s clear that if they did their jobs honestly, they would not produce a single thing that’s of any value to anyone. If they could actually predict climate change, that would be useful*, but they can’t. The only thing they can produce, for which anyone is willing to pay them, is lies. I almost feel sorry for them, but I don’t. No one is forcing them to do what they do. The fact that they do it makes them just as bad other charlatans like Gore and Obama.

          *Edit: The more I think about it, even if they could accurately predict climate change it still wouldn’t really be of any use because it happens so gradually. It would be like: “Well I was thinking about putting in a pool, but the glaciers will be back in another 50,000 years, so what’s the point?”

          • Grace_ia

            You may be correct about those funding these scams wanting and working for a one world government.  I guess I just think there are many, many more who do not see the “wizard behind the curtain”.

            Most people see only their own little corner and do not see that bigger picture or those pulling the puppet strings.  I am glad you helped point out that bigger picture.

          • PBunyan

            And I understand your point about conspiracy theories.  The are plenty of nuts out there who spout some pretty whacky theories and so when you honestly point out real conspiracies you run the risk of being lumped in with the nuts and thus having your valid points dismissed for invalid reasons. Still, refusing to even mention real, true conspiracies because of that is exactly what Cass Sunstein wants and I refuse to play the game by his rules.

      • jb

        OMG, I almost wish that were true – just so you guys would really have something to cry about.

        You guys have managed to convince yourselves that Obama is to the Left of Lenin when he’s to the right of Bill Clinton – a corporate centrist to the core. So, I guess this really isn’t that much further. Woo.

    • jb

      You mean the alleged debunkers of “Climategate”, none of whom are actually climate scientists? Yep, you’re absolutely right.

  • jim_m

    Notice how the left is willing to throw ethics out the door in order to get their ideological way.  Climategate, the Chevron case Kevin posted about this week, the Michael Bellesiles scandal.  In all these cases left wing academics are willing to perpetrate fraud in order to score ideological and political points. 

    The left may talk about “fairness”, “justice” and “equality” but the reality is they don’t care about any of those things.  They are willing to lie cheat and steal in order to get their way.  They clearly believe that they have higher knowledge than the rest of us and they are justified in breaking the rules in order to get their way. 

    It never occurs to them that if they were right they wouldn’t have to lie about their data.

    • herddog505

      jim_mThe left may talk about “fairness”, “justice” and “equality” but the reality is they don’t care about any of those things.

      I suggest that they do care about those things, but define them (ahem) rather differently than the rest of us.  Basically, it boils down to what is best for the group / collective, not what is best for an individual / small group in an isolated case.  If you’ve ever seen the movie “Hot Fuzz”, the repeated line “the greater good” sums it up pretty well.  So, while INDIVIDUAL dems may cheat like hell on their taxes, it’s OK so long as they vote to raise taxes on “the rich” which serves “the greater good”.  Some “isolated” incidents of voting fraud are OK so long as “the greater good” is served by allowing as many people (alive or dead, citizens or foreigners) as possible to vote.  Fat Mikey refusing to hire union labor is OK because he supports “the greater good” of “worker’s rights”.  The evils of abortion* are OK so long as “the greater good” of women’s rights is upheld.  Minor infractions of the law such as squatting on private property, public indecency, drug use, rape, riot, arson, etc. are OK so long as they are done in the interest of “the greater good” of standing up for the 99%.

      (*) I saw the other day that the wife of the monster Kermit Gosnell has pleaded guilty to her role in his crimes, which in kind though not in magnitude rival the worst of the nazi butchers like Mengele.  Natch, MiniTru can hardly be bothered about this trivial, isolated incident, having much better things to do like worry about Tim Tebow’s blatant Christianity.

      • jim_m

        While I agree with you in general I would suggest that the Orwellian habit of redefining words to mean thing that they really don’t is just part of the lies and deceit of the left. 

        It’s very like religious cults which twist the meanings of words so they sound reasonable and rational to outsiders but when one digs down to understand what they are really saying it is something quite different from what it sounded like.

        I’ll add that one of the most chilling things in the ClimateGate2 emails is the repeated reference to “The Cause”, meaning global warming.  To the left science is just another tool for suppression of dissent.

        • Anonymous

          Plus don’t many of these leftists subscribe to the philosophy that there is no such thing as objective truth?

    • Leslie Graham

      They don’t.
      Lest we forget…How about we review the facts of the matter.In March of 2010, the British House of Commons’ Science and Technology committee released the results of their investigation into the “orchestrated smear campaign”, revealing that nothing in the 1,000 emails conflicted with the scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.” They concluded that the scientific reputation of the CRU “remains intact.” Another independent investigation released in July similarly cleared the scientists, saying they “were honest and their research was reliable”.Yet another investigation (there were NINE in all) by the U.S. Commerce Department was conducted after Inhofe requested an inquiry into the emails on May 26, 2010. He got his inquiry and he got his response which stated:” In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures…”The remaining SIX seperate inquiries in two countries ALL found that, in the words of one of them, the scientists “simply have no case to answer”. The only real criticism was that the FOIA requests could have been handled better – even though much of the data was not the property of CRU and could not be released for legal reasons and also that the scientists were receiving up to SIXTY frivolous FOI requests per DAY at one point – organised by Steve McIntyre via his denier-porn blog where he actualy posted forms for his usefull idiots to fill in order to harrass the CRU scientists with said frivolous requests. surprise surprise. Is it any wonder the scientists go hacked off with them?Be honest now.And whether you like it or not – those are the real world FACTS about the sordid and ultimately failed smear campaign organised by the denial industry. This is what actualy happened in the real world outside the denier-porn blogs.And yet they and their increasingly marginalised little army of gullible usefull idiots still likes to pretend that they havn’t been proved wrong on all counts and that there was some kind of ‘fraud’ or ‘fudging’ going on. They are totaly delusional and have been recognised as such by anyone who can read and has at least one brain cell. Do they really think everyone is so stupid that they will believe this “deja moo” (same old bullshit all over again) nonsense?No wonder it has backfired on them this time. According to Google news search: “Total number of news sources covering this story [‘climategate sloppy seconds’]over the last three days = ZERO”The media are still wiping the egg off their faces from the last time they got fooled – they aren’t falling for ‘climategate sloppy seconds’ again.The denial industry has been well and truly rumbled. You are gullible fools. Not a single reputable scientific organization is discussing “if its happening”, they are working on the real problems and leaving the amateur usefull idiots, like the deluded wingnuts in this pathetic blog, to rave about their imaginary ‘conspiracies’ with their head under the sand and out of the real way of real progress.Nobody gives a damn what you morons think.

      • Anonymous

        Well, you certainly care enough to copy and paste the same drivel on any blog that will have you….

    • jb

      Projection is beautiful.

      But global warming is backed up not just by climate scientists, but in independent peer-reviewed studies of the same data – the most recent study of which was funded by a climate denier. AND similar conclusions reached by NASA and the Pentagon.

      Not that I expect my expression of these facts to make any difference to you. You’ve made up your mind, and it seems like no facts otherwise can get in to convince you.

  • Anonymous

    Remember the planet Pluto was settled science for decades. ww

    • jim_m

      In the last year we have seen scientists discover particles that travel faster than light and animals that pass on acquired traits through non genetic inheritance, two things that physics and biology said were impossible.

      Settled science indeed.

  • Anonymous

    Paging Dr Crickmore, Dr. Steve Crickmore

    • Anonymous

      Oh, God, no!

      Don’t go there. Just don’t.

  • Anonymous

    Check out the website for the “National Association of Scholars.” Looks like the association has its own biases.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, well I happen to be biased against dumbasses like Mr. Henry who try to avoid discussion of the actual point of the thread.

    • herddog505

      Most associations do.  For example, the National Rifle Association is biased in favor of firearms.  The Brady Campaign is biased against them.

      Now, is there some particular bias that should make us suspicious of the NAS?  Something lurid or unsavory?  I did go to their website; they appear from what I saw to be a pretty normal libertarian / conservative organization concerned about political correctness, shoddy educational and research standards, and politicization of schools.  From their Who We Are page:

      NAS was founded in 1987, soon after Allan Bloom’s surprise best-seller, The Closing of the American Mind, alerted Americans to the ravages wrought by illiberal ideologies on campus. The founders of NAS summoned faculty members from across the political spectrum to help defend the core values of liberal education.

      The NAS today is higher education’s most vigilant watchdog. We stand for intellectual integrity in the curriculum, in the classroom, and across the campus—and we respond when colleges and universities fall short of the mark. We uphold the principle of individual merit and oppose racial, gender, and other group preferences. And we regard the Western intellectual heritage as the indispensable foundation of American higher education.


      I can see why this might give liberals a case of the vapors (no group preferences??? OH NOES!), but I feel confident that most of the regular commenters here won’t be especially put off by it.

      • jim_m

        We uphold the principle of individual merit and oppose racial, gender, and other group preferences. And we regard the Western intellectual heritage as the indispensable foundation of American higher education.

        Aha!  Racists!  Bigots!  There is no more proof needed to demonstrate that these people are totally unreliable and irrational.  Every leftist knows that individuals have no value apart from belonging to a group.  If we try to look at individuals we are taking away from them all meaning that their lives have.

      • Anonymous

        Hey, I’m just saying.

         Rick posts this as if the “National Association of Scholars” was some well-known, prestigious organization. It’s not. Not particularly.

        I’m not a big AGW partisan. I rarely comment on the subject. For all I know you guys are right about this “Climategate” business. All I’m saying is that this particular organization has no particular credibility or prestige, as far as I can tell.

        • herddog505

          Oh, OK.

          As it happens, I had something of a similar reaction: National Association of Whozits?  Never heard of ’em.  The author of the particular article, Burnett, appears to be a professional conservative activist, mostly interested in firearms and environmental policy.

          He has written a few articles for Human Events.


        • All I’m saying is that this particular organization has no particular credibility or prestige, as far as I can tell.

          Unlike Al Gore or the IPCC or NASA’s James Hansen…


          • herddog505

            Not arguing but making an observation:

            The issue of credibility and prestige are very important as they are used / misused by non-experts to support a given position.

            Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the letter President Roosevelt received in August, 1939 warning of the potential to develop a powerful bomb using uranium had been signed NOT by Albert Einstein but by Joe Smith, an assistant professor of physics at Podunk State University.  As Roosevelt was NOT an expert in nuclear fission, we may assume that the letter would have wound up shuffled off to some junior aide… or the trash can.  Einstein’s credibilty got Roosevelt’s attention.

            Non-experts do and MUST rely on experts to make certain decisions or at least provide them with data and opinions to guide them.  Choosing which “expert” to believe can be a tricky process, so it helps when other experts agree that “this guy really knows what he’s talking about” or “you’re asking HIM???”

            Lefties have grasped this idea very well, so they do what they can to not only feed “studies” and “reports” to MiniTru (whose members are generally “expert” in nothing but holding down a bar stool and turning on their word processors) but also prop up their guys as “experts”.  This is part of what ClimateGate has been about: the systematic efforts by a relative handful of scientists to manipulate not only government and the media but also the scientific publication and review process so that only their “experts” get “credibility”.  They have also tricked people into believing that a ginned-up, phony “consensus” is the equivalent of actual validation of their theories.

            I fear that this sort of thing is going to become more common, and it is well for all of us to give thought to how to evaluate “experts” and their opinions.

          • Anonymous

            And when have I extolled the credibility or prestige of any of those three, Rick?

          • When have you questioned their credibility or prestige Bruce?

          • Anonymous

            As I wrote in my comment above, I rarely talk about AGW issues, as I’m not really knowledgeable or passionate about the subject. So don’t remember ever expressing  an opinion either way as to the credibility, or lack thereof, of the three you mentioned, Little Ricky.

            But you, presumably, must be all butthurt because I called you out on your post. “The National Association of Scholars now casting doubt on the Church of Chicken Little” — as if the said association hadn’t already spent YEARS casting doubt on AGW, because that is what the association exists to do.

            See, you imply here that this group is some sort of impartial association of non-biased, objective scholars who have recently come to the conclusion that AGW is a lot of hooey. It’s not that kind of group, and, if you didn’t know it before, you do now.

            Now, for all I know they may be right, but let’s not try to pretend you didn’t know what you were doing when you posted this, and phrased your comments as you did. We’re grownups here. Well, I am, anyway.

          • “The National Association of Scholars now casting doubt on the Church of Chicken Little” — as if the said association hadn’t already spent YEARS casting doubt on AGW, because that is what the association exists to do.

            Can you back that up somehow with some facts Bruce?  Maybe a link or two?

            We’ll wait…

            In the meantime, I’ll help somewhat with this found on the NAS site:

            The National Association of Scholars does not take a position on global warming but advocates for a full discussion of all sides of the controversy.To learn more about NAS, visit http://www.nas.org.

            In other words Bruce… you, as usual, are confused… or simply a bald faced liar… you get to choose.

          • Anonymous

            Well, I doubt anyone’s paying attention at this point, LR, but I do admit that the NAS is not specifically set up to fight AGW proponents. That was an exaggeration on my part.

             What it IS set up to do is to try to debunk any and all ideas it considers “liberal” and to give credence to those, like yourself, who wish to imagine that science is on “your” side of a debate.

            In other words, whatever it says on its website, it is NOT, and is not meant to be, an impartial body of unbiased scholars, but your post implies that it is.

            I’m sure NAS wants to hear “all sides” of the AGW debate in the same way the Association of Creation Scientists wants to hear “all sides” of the evolution “debate.”

            In other words, one of us is being dishonest here, but it ain’t me.

          • In other words, one of us is being dishonest here, but it ain’t me.

            I think we’ve already proven who’s been dishonest… and who continues to be dishonest Bruce… put the shovel down and quit digging man… have some integrity and simply admit that you’re full of shit on this one… completely…

          • Anonymous

            So it is your position that this “National Association of Scholars” is a prestigious, unbiased body of impartial academics who have, until now, refrained from engaging in politicization of science? Is that your position, Little Ricky?

             Because my ONLY argument here is that this organization has its own slant, and that you have implied that it doesn’t.

            All one has to do is take a brief look at the website to see that it is a partisan effort. As your buddy herddog points out, the author of this particular article “appears to be a professional conservative activist” who has written articles for Human Events, a wingnut outfit if there ever was one.

            As I’ve said a number of times, I’m not an AGW partisan. I’m simply pointing out who is “full of shit” around here, and again, it ain’t me, dude.

          • Leaving a comment at the bottom for you Bruce…

  • Anonymous

    Every scientific breakthrough or major project generates controversies, or  corruption for example, anthropology discoveries  peking man, the  atomic bomb, the Manhattan project, Climate gate in East Anglia seems pretty small beer compared to other changing scientific paradigms, where human nature is at play. Most of you are grasping at straws.The other side, I don’t have to say, with   petroleum funded research  institutes staffed  with many pseudo scientists who publish non peer reviewed articles  is even worse.

    2009 and 2010 were the warmest years ever recorded, since records were kept over a hundred years ago, and who has been tirelessly  predicting  that for the last decade? The same climate scientists, 97 to 99% who believe in AGW.

     Global warming and climate change, are unfortunately very real and are occuring at much faster rate than ever has occurred naturally, in such a very short period (as opposed to  milleniums).

    • Anonymous

      On what basis do you say that 2009 and 2010 were the warmest years ever recorded?  I have read that satellite observations show no warming since the mid-90s, casting doubt on land and sea based observations.

      How do you know that warming is occurring faster than ever before?  Do you have records that go back millions of years?

      • Anonymous
        • Anonymous

          I saw no reference to satellite data.  Do you not understand how unreliable surface temperature observations have become?

          *edit: Whoops, I missed the train of thought here. Sorry.

          • Leslie Graham

            The sattelite data agree with the surface data.

            We have about 5 or 6 data sets on global temperature and every single one of them shows continued warming.

            The 12 month period between Jun 2009 and May 2010 was the hottest 12 month period since the Thermal Optimum over 8,000 years. ago.
            Even Roy Spencer sattleite data shows this.and he admitted as much on his blog.
            The calandar year 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year since the Thermal Optimum.
            Anyone can check this out in five minutes.
            Do you think everyone is as stupid as you?

          • Anonymous

            Then be a dove, and link to your sources.  The burden of supporting your end of the argument is on you, after all.

          • jim_m

            Anyone can check this out in five minutes.
            Do you think everyone is as stupid as you?

            I checked it out.  I posted two data sets below that contradict you. It took me 5 minutes to prove you either a liar or an idiot.  Take your pick.

    • Anonymous

      Where to start…
      Peking man: Was dug up, and not the result of any theory.
      The atomic bomb… WAS the Manhattan project
      2009 and 2010… what’s your source Steve?
      97% of climate scientists, again source?

      You can make claims, but without citation, the only one of your AGW claims I believe is that you don’t understand the science.

      • Anonymous


        Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.                 

        • Anonymous

          We’ve been down this path before Steve, on this very article
          Your cited study uses publication metrics as a measure of expertise.  That is, the more one publishes, the more one must be an expert.Being a prolific writer does not make you better scientist.Your cited study also infers the opinion of the authors examined, rather than surveying the authors themselves.Add the two together and you have a rather large opinion piece, not definitive proof that 97%+ of climate scientists share an opinion.

          • Anonymous

            Every  climate scientist publishes! and there have been surveys as well..there was one in the USA Today.. I’m sure you can google it.This is pretty common knowledge

            I suppose 97% of scientists could be wrong, 99% percent of the top ones. Anyways, it is really about explanation and prediction ,suchas with Einstein prediction of the light deflfection in the eclipse 1919, as reported by the royal society.
            You said I don´t understand science. Would n you accept Issac Newton does?
            Isaac Newton had something to say about all this: In his seminal “Principia Mathematica,” he noted that if separate data sets are best explained by one theory or idea, that explanation is most likely the true explanation.”

            And studies have overwhelmingly shown that climate change scenarios in which greenhouse gases emitted from human activities cause global warming best explain the observed changes in Earth’s climate…and as for predictibilty factor

            Also in the 1980s, NASA climatologist James Hansen predicted with high accuracy what the global average temperature would be in 30 years time (now the present day).

            Hansen’s model predictions are “a shining example of a successful prediction in climate science,” said climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University.

            Schmidt says that predictions by those who doubted global warming have failed to come true.

            “Why don’t you trust a psychic? Because their predictions are wrong,” he told LiveScience. “The credibility goes to the side that gets these predictions right.”

          • Anonymous

            Weighting the value of a scientists work based on how many things he or she has been published is not an indicator of the quality of his or her work.
            It is just and indicator that they publish alot.
            Quantity is not quality.

          • One could argue by that standard that L. Ron Hubbard is the best author EVER.  (And then you’ve got some fantasy authors that just … don’t … know… when to end a damn series!  Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind – I’m thinkin’ of you on that.

            Which does bring up something… “Wizard’s First Rule” is the first in the Seeker series by Terry Goodkind, and has the following bit in it.

            “”Wizard’s First Rule: people are stupid.” Richard and Kahlan frowned even more. “People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.

            Emphasis mine…

            Which is why it’s always essential to check what you think you know.

          • JustRuss

            I’d give you a heart or a star if I could just for bringing up TG and RJ, but quoting the First Rule was just wonderful. 

            For those on the left too dumb to understand the long explanation.

            Wizards First Rule: People are Stupid, they will believe anything either because they want to believe, or are afraid not to.

            People need an enemy to feel a sense of purpose. It’s easy to lead people when they have a sense of purpose. Sense of purpose is more important by far than the truth. In fact, truth has no bearing in this. … People are stupid; they want to believe, so they do.”—Chapter 36, p.560, U.S. paperback edition

          • Anonymous

            The AGW catastrophe scam is not just about the results of “scientific” studies.  It is very definitely about statist political ideology.  And, most importantly, reason for its ubiquitousness can be found using the always useful precept of “follow the money.”

            A 2007 U.S. Senate study found that grant funding from all sources since 1990 in support of global warming totaled $50 billion vs approximately $19 million for “skeptic” climate research (from the evil “oil companies,” the devilish Koch brothers, and assorted other scumbags).  Gee, what a surprise then that 97-98% of scientists support a premise backed by 99.9% of the grant funded research!  In this case, “demand” really does create “supply!”

            BTW if you want to address the “biased” source of the congressional study then please provide a competent independent study (peer reviewed) which refutes these findings and presents a different proportion of total global research funding.

          • Leslie Graham

            What utter drivel.
            What is the more logical.
            That there is a century long ‘conspiracy’ involving tens of thousands of scientists from over 100 countries to ‘get more grant money’ or that the largest, richest and most powerfull corporations the world has ever seen ( ie the fossil fuel industry) is trying to preserve their profit margins for as long as possible?
            Just use your brain for a few seconds please.
            You have been duped by a slick PR industry. You are what is known (by them) as a ‘usefull idiot’.

          • Anonymous

            So the consenus (and I shudder when that term is ever used when someone tries to end a disagreement about science) has been in place since 1911-ish?  Or are you saying that serious scientists have been gathering qualitative data with strong, published and replicatible methods and making verifiable preditions that the Earth is warming and man is the primary cause?
            Or something else?
            Again, I’ll have to ask for your cite
            For some odd reason, I don’t trust the word of someone that has no history here, and so far has only posted in this thread calling eveyone that does not share his/her opinion stupid or an idiot.

          • jim_m

            A century long conspiracy?

            Obviously you weren’t around for he 1970’s when the enviro left was screaming about the pending man-made global ice age.

            Why don’t you try using your brain or a few seconds and understand the history of climate science and the alarmists on the left that are trying to use it to force their anti-western agenda on the rest of us.

          • JustRuss

            You do realize that in the last century they have called for a new global ice age caused by man right? That is hardly consensus.

            The climate is changing nobody disputes that. 

          • Anonymous

            Every climate scientist does not publish; only those who promote global warming are allowed to publish.  And, statisticians’ and mathematicians’ objections to the climate scientists’ statistical methods are ignored on the basis that they are not climate scientists.  How can you regard such thugs as reliable?

          • Anonymous

             From my previous cited source..We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC (SI Materials and Methods).
            You guys are chasing up the wrong path! 

          • Anonymous

            You ignored my points.

          • Anonymous

            Because he doesn’t understand the arguments he is trying to defend.  This is what he does.  He cries that the science is settled, and holds up articles that he cannot comprehend and hides behind them like religious talismans, then proceeds to throw out strawmen about other people beliefs based on his own assumptions rather than facts.

          • Anonymous

            You did squat, Crickmore.  Aside from cut and pasting.

          • Leslie Graham

            Utter deluded nonsense.

          • Leslie Graham

            There have been THREE major independant surveys invloving thousands of climate scientists and they ALL resulted in a figure of around 97% consensus.
            That is what people in the real world call a fact.
            Making unsubstaniated claims to the contrary just identifies you as being ignorant of the basic facts.

          • Anonymous

            By all means, link to them.  Advance the debate.
            Maybe they will be of a higher quality than Steve’s favorite hobby horse, and will help sway opinion.  They certainly have a better chance than your ad hominem swipes at anyone that disagrees with your views.
            And please, define my “unsubstaniated” claims.

          • jim_m

            97% of climate scientists voted in favor of being eligible for tenure and being allowed to continue publishing?  this is surprising how?

            Pony up a link to at least 1 of your 3 “major independent surveys” so we can see what exactly they are agreeing with.  (and so we can see that they are actually climate scientists and not just “scientists”.  Honestly, you can ask a theoretical physicist about AGW and get an opinion but it doesn’t really mean much more than my own)

    • herddog505

      SteveCrickmore075Every scientific breakthrough or major project generates controversies

      You’re right: they do.  However, those controversies are settled by rigorous, skeptical testing and open, honest data, NOT by, “A bunch of us took a vote and 97% of us agree that this theory is correct.”

  • Anonymous

    JayDickB.  Actually it was 2005 and 2010 .”.According to NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, scientists,2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year of the global surface temperature record, beginning in 1880 ”

    Scientists can go back millions of years and analyze the fossils, carbon isotypes, the layers of sea bed mineral deposits,  acidification of oceans, carbon sequestration, sediments, fossils dead plants locked in permanfrost and so forth and get a very  good idea of the temperature of the globe and trends. like the the PETM  era 54 million years ago, the last great warming era when the globe accelerated 5 degrees C, but that took thousands  of years (were only at .8 yet, but occuring at a much faster rate) and what  life went extinct adapted or migrated.

    • Anonymous

      Cut and pasting from another thread, where you had your metaphorical ass handed to you Steve?
      Don’t you have any original thoughts, rather than just regurgitating what you don’t understand?

      • Leslie Graham

        So you can’t dispute any of the science so you just insult people.
        Every data set we have shows 2010 as the hottest on record – tied with 2005. No-one disputes this.
        It’s a simple matter of looking it up. It’s just a simple fact.
        Check it out.
        NOAA, GISS UAH, RSS and all the rest show the same results.
        That is why your cult are known as ‘deniers’. You are utterly incapable of facing up to simple reality.

        • Anonymous

          No, I criticize Steve for cut and pasting the same argument into any discussion of AGW, after he has already said he doesn’t understand the science involved.
          Insults?  From someone that has eneded every post in this thread with an insult, that is just a tad hypocritical.
          AS for being a denier, the only thing I deny is that EA-CRU, Mann et al are practicing good and open research.
          I am open to the possibility that the Earth is warming, even dangerously so, due to human action.  But I cannot ignore the shady practices of many of the leading stars of the AGW movement, and I cannot ignore that their predictions have not come true.
          Bring me good data and replicable experiments and models, and I will follow the data, not follow the cult.

        • jim_m

          Every data set we have shows 2010 as the hottest on record – tied with 2005

          Perhaps you’d like to rephrase that.  Phil Jones disagrees with you.  Or at least his data does.

          From the Crut3v dataset:
          January; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 00, 99.
          February; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 03, 01, 00.
          March; warmest on record.
          April; cooler than 07, 05.
          May; cooler than 03, 98.
          June; warmest on record.
          July; cooler than 06, 05, 98.
          August; cooler than 09, 01, 98.
          September; cooler than 09, 07, 05.
          October; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98.
          November; cooler than 05, 04.
          December; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97, 96, 94, 93, 90, 89, 88, 87, 81, 79, 39,1852.

          2010 cooler than 2005,1998.

          From the Hadcrut3 dataset:
          January; cooler than 07, 04, 03, 02.
          February; cooler than 07, 02, 99, 98.
          March; cooler than 02.
          April; cooler than 98.
          May; cooler than 98.
          June; cooler than 98.
          July; cooler than 05, 98.
          August; cooler than 06, 05, 03, 01, 98.
          September; cooler than 09, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98,97.
          October; cooler than 09, 08, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98, 97.
          November; cooler than 09, 06, 05, 04, 01, 97.
          December; cooler than 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 99, 98, 97, 92, 87, 79.

          2010 cooler than 2005,1998 and equivalent to 2003.

          The thing I like about debating warmists is that they never actually look at the data themselves. 

          I’ve shown you 2 data summaries from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, run by Phil Jones, one of the world’s foremost supporters of AGW.  I ask you again:  Do you care to revise your remarks?

          • jim_m

            And Leslie,

            Since you are apparently a fan of the NOAA and GIS data I ask you to address the study here: http://www.surfacestations.org/

            The data shows that the USHCN and the GHCN data are hopelessly corrupt and unreliable.  So you are basing a claim on data provided from collection sites that don’t even reach the standards set by the people who are using that data to make their claims.  They are knowingly using corrupt data and conveniently forgetting to mention that in their research.  Unethical?  Yes extremely.

          • jim_m

            Also Leaslie:

            It should be noted that the NOAA Press Release said 2010 tied with 2005. However, the quoted errors are +/- 0.07 which means that 2010 is statistically equivalent to 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 02, 01, 98.  So NOAA overstated it’s data to serve their own political ends.

            Also, according to NasaGiss 2010 set a record with only two record months. 

            And what you and NASA and NOAA neglect to mention is that 2010 was an el Nino year so we expect it to be a warmer year.

          • Anonymous

            I suspect Leslie is just a drive by.  None of his/her posting indicates someone capable of having a discussion outside of a room that is already in agreement.

  • Anonymous

    Frankly i dont have the time ..you want citation

    what’s your source Steve?
    97% of climate scientists, again source?

    You can make claims, but without citation

    .here is another because you keep asking for authorities http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/11/public-learning-scientists-agree-on-climate-a-game-changer/1 
    i only bother because it important issue and others can read it. you distrust eminent scientific authorities  but  accept perfectly the bible is written by a mythical entity that explains the world,. what is original about that?

    • Anonymous

      Jeebus on a pogo stick, Crickmore.  You just posted an article that references the same bullshit study you linked to above.

      I distrust you Steve.  And I distrust any “study” that infers opinion and conflates quantity with quality.

      And where did I ever state an opinion on the the Bible or it’s veracity or authorship?

      Go ahead, try to find it.

  • Anonymous

    I shouldn’t have meant  you personally. Let us say the wingnuts or GOP candidates, are more convinced  the Bible is true, but  ironically harbor so much skepticism for global warming and climate change-I would say denial?  64 out of 64 conservative American political  blogs, 100% unanamity, a couple of years ago were anti-global warming /climate  change. Now that is original, as if in a choir.

     Yes when I link to the USA Today study, I saw your point. The problem is the QUALITY is more subjective than quantity and not quantifable, but the case as illustrated by these flaky non peer reviewed articles that  Rick Rice links to even more substantive as negative reinforcement. These institutes that Rice favors, seem desperate for any article that casts doubt on global warming, any article would be of a value to their lobbly, which is well heeled financially, and could be easily published.

    • Anonymous

      Steve, again, where is your data?  Where is your evidence that GOP candidates believe 100% that 100% of the Bible is true?  Where is your 64 of 64 blog number from?  All you are presenting is your biased and frankly bigoted opinion of people that disagree with your opinion.

      You try to attack the holders of the opinions in Ricks article, but you can never seem to defend EA-CRU or Mike “Hockey Stick” Mann to rebut.

      • Anonymous

        It’s always the same with Steve, 97% of the people that agree with me agree…… 97% of scientist used to think the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, no partical can travel faster than the speed of light…. The only reason these things are no longer considered fact is that skeptics challenged the assumptions and formulated new theroies. Steve seems to confuse our rejection of the solution with a desire to trash the earth for money. It’s simply not true Steve. We object to people making bold claims and predictions that don’t come true telling us the sky is falling and we MUST do this or that or the other, while at the same time they do exactly the opposite. These people have lost their credibity due to their own actions they will never reclaim it until they come clean hit the “reset” button and start over. It would also help if they would throw Al Gore over board.

    • Anonymous

      If the science is settled then I assume these guys won’t be needing any more grant money, right? We could use that money for the starving children you know.

  • Anonymous


    Right Wing News emailed more than 240 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 8 questions. The following 63 blogs responded,

    4) Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?
    Yes (0) — 0%No (59) — 100%

    • Anonymous

      That’s not what you said on multiple counts.
      63 != 64
      Reading your link, the real # that answered the question was 59.  Meaning that 240 people/blogs were sent a survey.  63 (26.25%) responded to some or all of the questions.  Of those, 59 answered your question (24.58% of the total, or 93.65% of the ones that answered).  In no way can you say 100% unanamity.  Unless you are lying or truly so dense as to not grasp basic math.
      The answer to the question does not say they are anit-glogal warming, it says they don’t think mankind is primary cause.
      A couple = 2, not 5 (5 next month).

      Honestly, I can’t even begin to guess anymore if your are dishonest or just incapable of analytical thought…

    • Anonymous

      what does that have to do with Mann and Hansen and other’s cooking the books… wouldn’t you expect people that question these guys to be less than impressed with their chicken little proclimations? Use of the word PRIMARY might also skew this result just a bit, that would exclude things like the sun having an effect on the climate. Besides all of that what point does this prove, does it prove that the climategate emails are wrong, does it disprove that the hockey stick therory is seriously flawed, does it prove that these guys didn’t hide data and scheme ways to not comply with freedom of information request? If it does you’ll have to explain it to me cause I don’t see it.

    • Yes?  Why is there a problem with believing something which is true?

      • jim_m

        If manmade global warmingis true then why the need to cook the books, hide data and obstruct scientific inquiry?

        The facts are that:

        * CO2 comprises too small of a fraction of the atmosphere to have the effect that they claim (0.03%) and CO2 from human endeavor is only a tiny fraction of that.

        * Data from surface stations is corrupt and even in the US (where we are supposed to have the best and most complete data) 90+% of the stations overestimate temperature by over a degree and 70% by more than 2 degrees. http://www.surfacestations.org/

        * Current computer models do not include any calculation to include the effect of solar radiation which, according to the CERN Cloud study, has 10X greater an effect on cloud formation than the mechanisms previously proposed.

        * Current climate models have failed to predict the climate for the last 30 years so why should we act based on their results?

        *  Current climate regulation proposals do not regulate the largest contributors to atmospheric CO2.  In fact they focus regulation on the West and on the US (the US is a net reducer in atmospheric CO2 due to it’s large amounts of open land, reforestation activities and nuclear power). Meanwhile they ignore under developed nations that are cutting down their forests, using coal power plants and belching out CO2.

        * Claims by the IPCC such as the melting of the polar ice caps, melting of the Himalayan glaciers, death of polar bears, etc have all been proven to be bogus.  The Polar ice caps have not disappeared as predicted.  The Himalayan glacier claim has been admitted to be a hoax.  12 out of 14 polar bear population groups are stable or growing, only 2 are in decline.

        AGW is not a scientific fact.  It’s barely even a credible scientific theory.  Idiots on the left go around shouting down the opposition without ever bothering to look at the evidence for themselves.  Leftists repeat AGW talking points without realizing that they have been discredited.  AGW is little more than a leftist religion, believed in with an unthinking faith by a following that is invincibly ignorant and implacably resistant to learning the truth.

  • Anonymous

    It’s really not that hard Steve, if they want me to believe them they need to stop lying.

  • herddog505

    This is rather timely:

    [T]he then-head of the Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection — and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.

    “Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,” Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.

    Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data “has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

    A third email from Jones written in 2007 echoes the idea: “They are happy with me not passing on the station data,” he wrote. [emphasis mine – hd505]


    Phil Jones is one of the very tippy-top “experts” in so-called climate change, and here he is discussing keeping data “well hidden”.  Now, why would an expert do that?

    I took a poll, and 97% of the respondents agreed with the consensus that it’s because he’s a f*cking liar, cheat and crook who’s been making a fat pile of cash and notoriety from helping perpetuate a scam.

    What’s the difference between climate “experts” who hide data and methods about their work, and cigarette “experts” who did the same thing about the hazards of smoking?

    Answer: none at all.

  • Anonymous

    What I don’t understand, is that all scientists agree that for the majority of it’s history. the Earth has been much warmer than it is now. That for much of the Earth’s history, there were no ice caps at the poles. That today’s temperatures may have more to do with solar output and continental drift (wasn’t it the “consensus” that Wegener was crazy?). Which means that the current period of repeated ice ages and relatively low temperatures, is the exception not the rule. So why should they be surprised and/or blame mankind if temperatures are headed up. A rational explanation would be that temperatures are headed back to what they normally were over millions of years.

  • Anonymous

    A chart of the unadjusted temperatures for the last 15 years shows them to be flat. 
    A good discussion of a recent paper making adjustments to these flat temperatures, which adjustments showed rapid warming [gosh, whodaythunkit?] and the efficacy of the adjustments is found at
    I don’t pretend to understand all of the niceties of all of the adjustments.  What I do understand, however, is that scientists who try to hide their data, try to evade FOIA laws, and try to stop research that is contrary to what they believe are not performing science as I know it.  When these same scientists are making the adjustments that I don’t understand, I am skeptical. 
    Then, when the remedies for the supposed harm caused by these adjusted temperatures leads inexorably to a one-world, socialist government [read – everyone is equally miserable except for the unelected elites who happen to include the same scientists who make the adjustments to the temperatures] and that one-world, socialist government is the same one that has been ruthlessly fought-for by spectacularly failed ideologues for last century [and whose present-day adherents, just like their predecessors, plan to be part of the unelected, unmiserable elite that rule the rest of us with an iron fist], I am extraordinarily skeptical.

    • jim_m

      When these same scientists are making the adjustments that I don’t understand, I am skeptical.

      Not just making adjustments you don’t understand, but refusing to say what those adjustments are and refusing to provide access to the original data upon which those adjustments were made.

      The left takes the pronouncements from these self proclaimed scientists as holy revelations  These are not scientists in the traditional sense of people who seek after truth and try to expand human understanding.  They are priests of a new religion demanding obedience and uncritical belief without any proof.

  • Bruce,

    You’re now attempting to use diversion, trying to change the subject, because you were caught in a bald faced lie… what you instead decided to call an exaggeration… 

    Here, again, is what you wrote:

    “The National Association of Scholars now casting doubt on the Church of Chicken Little” — as if the said association hadn’t already spent YEARS casting doubt on AGW, because that is what the association exists to do.

    Did you write that?  Or did someone else under your name?  Is it completely and totally false?  Or are you going to add to your lies?

    Have the balls to admit you f’d up Bruce… for once, have the integrity to simply say you were wrong…

    That’s all you have to do… it’s really simple…

    Do you or don’t you, for this one instance, have the integrity to admit that you made shit up?

    • Anonymous

      I ALREADY DID admit I screwed up, Mr Reading Comprehension:

      “I do admit that the NAS is not set up specifically to fight AGW proponents. That was an exaggeration on my part.”

      Then I went on to explain what I DID mean, Which is that this organization exists to fight not only AGW proponents, but any and all positions held by academics which it considers liberal. That’s what I meant, but I worded it poorly.

      Which is why I walked it back and explained it in my very next comment, Genius.

       But you knew what I meant, Little Ricky. And so did anyone else who may have read it. But now you imagine you have me squirming in your little Gotcha Trap. Pathetic.

      In the meantime, you have yet to address, after two days, my point that you were implying the NAS is some kind of authoritative debunker of scholarly myths, when it is NOTHING OF THE SORT. It is a partisan outfit, and has been from Day One.

       But your “integrity,” Little Ricky, is not to be questioned, I guess. That’s why you’re all butthurt and won’t end this dead-ass thread, I reckon.

      You did the same thing when I mocked your ridiculous tenth-grade protege and his juvenile LiveJournal post about the Occupy protestors. You just can’t take criticism like Jay Tea can. Even Wodney P Gwaves will let it fucking GO after two days, LR.