15
Dec
09

Can you ask Al Gore questions about ClimateGate?

No!

About these ads

13 Responses to “Can you ask Al Gore questions about ClimateGate?”


  1. December 15, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    I have some questions for Mr. McAleer:

    Mr. McAleer, way back in September I pointed out some glaring factual errors in your movie diatribe, the Al Gore smear. You said you’d respond in October once your movie was “premiered.”

    When are you going to correct the record, Mr. McAleer? When do you fix your own errors?

  2. 2 docattheautopsy
    December 15, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    Deflect, deflect, deflect….

    You know, were the climate researchers at the CRU not working so hard to manipulate data, delete raw data, dress up contradictory data as something else, stonewall FOI requests, apply pressure to editors of scholarly journals, and behave like partisan hacks rather than scientists, I would have been happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    The truth of the matter is that they’re acting like people who have something to hide. Al Gore is one of them. He is completely unwilling to answer tough questions about climate change because he knows he can’t answer valid criticisms. Even now, people he’s clung to for two decades are now beginning to see what he is– an alarmist fraud, and they’re backpedaling from his claims, even though he’s accurately quoting them! Seems as though there’s a lack of confidence in the entire AGW scientific community.

  3. December 15, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    You know, if it were true that the CRU hadn’t published its stuff over the previous 40 years, you’d almost have a case. Were it not true that Hadley had already responded to several FOI requests, and that the requestors then did nothing with what they had (because it showed exactly what the scientists had claimed), then you’d almost have a point.

    If it were not true that the Hadley projections are confirmed by three other, independent, international climate measuring centers, we’d have cause to be concerned.

    If it were true that the stolen Hadley e-mails showed fraud on the part of scientists, officials would be preparing indictments. Instead, they show fraud on the part of warming deniers — and where is your outrage? Will you support indictments?

    You know, were it not 10 degrees warmer here in Dallas, on average, than it was a century ago, were our spring not coming two weeks earlier, were our average frost not coming two months later, you’d probably be able to find some data to back your case.

    But, isn’t the self-destruction of the denialists difficult watch? Unable to make any science case against warming, and unable to simply accept what Mother Nature and God show, they are thrashing around, sowing doubt in every inconvenient corner, to justify their political wishes over the welfare of the planet and our species.

    Scripture warned us there’d be people on such destructive bents in the latter days. Who’d have thought they’d speed the latter days, though?

    • 4 docattheautopsy
      December 15, 2009 at 5:12 pm

      You know, if it were true that the CRU hadn’t published its stuff over the previous 40 years, you’d almost have a case.

      Ed, this is where it would help if you knew something about how science is propagated. We just don’t take someone’s word on their research– we verify it. Somebody wanted to verify the work at the CUR, and we find it’s been deleted. People find information that is contrary to the conclusions of the CRU, and they want that information buried. That’s not how it works in science. The CRU is guilty of heinous crimes in their attempt to control scientific thought, rather than letting the data dictate the science.

      If it were not true that the Hadley projections are confirmed by three other, independent, international climate measuring centers, we’d have cause to be concerned.

      Ed, you can’t confirm predictions. It’s like getting 4 psychics in the room and they all agree Elvis will return in 10 years. Is that proof positive Elvis will return? No. The fact of the matter is that their methodology is and continues to be severely flawed. Hansen still refuses to release his modeling methodology, yet people like yourself are still believing this modeling crap.

      You know, were it not 10 degrees warmer here in Dallas, on average, than it was a century ago, were our spring not coming two weeks earlier, were our average frost not coming two months later, you’d probably be able to find some data to back your case.

      So, because of allegorical evidence in a locality on a spot less than 1/100th the surface area of the globe, I’m supposed to believe that the Earth is turning into a raging inferno? Again, you prove your sheer ignorance of the field and of science in general.

      As I’ve said on this blog numerous times, trends indicate a warming. I don’t need a computer to notice that. Even the ice core data I’ve posted confirms the warming. What I dispute is CO2′s role in the whole of warming. I’m also finding exaggeration of world climate data handled by the CRU, data that’s now disappearing off its servers.

      But, isn’t the self-destruction of the denialists difficult watch?

      And if you think ClimateGate is causing the “denialists” to self-destruct, you’re deluded. Ed, follow the data. Follow the historical trends. Look at CO2 responses to temperature in the past. It’s all quite clear, but you’re infusing your political belief here because of a liberal ideology that places the blame for, well, anything on the shoulders of mankind. Your invocation of the term “denialist” simply proves your utter contempt for information contrary to your political position.

  4. December 15, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Ed, this is where it would help if you knew something about how science is propagated. We just don’t take someone’s word on their research– we verify it. Somebody wanted to verify the work at the CUR, and we find it’s been deleted.

    Bullfeathers. Are you a researcher? No one asked to replicate the research — that has been done, as I noted. You don’t know what is going on here at all. This was a classic FOI fish, trying to find embarrassing stuff because there is no case to be made other than embarrassment. Each study relied on in the IPCC report was peer reviewed. Hadley had already published the stuff, and in almost every case, the data are still there. In fact, that’s still the case.

    The only thing not available is a small set of data for the construction of one chart that is based on peer-reviewed research, but originally generated.

    In short, what you’ve just said is false. It’s a fraud. And yet, you have the gall to claim these other guys have committed what you just did. Shame on you.

    The work was already verified. One other part of the complaint is about the substitution of data. A known-to-be-inaccurate set of projections was pulled, and actual temperature measurements put in their place. More accuracy, but you call “fraud?”

    Shame again.

    People find information that is contrary to the conclusions of the CRU, and they want that information buried.

    There has been no finding of anything that concludes something contrary to CRU conclusions.

    That’s not how it works in science. The CRU is guilty of heinous crimes in their attempt to control scientific thought, rather than letting the data dictate the science.

    They are guilty of nothing. You are guilty of bloviating. There is no finding of Hadley that is contested here by anything. None. The only fraud discovered was in a paper done by climate-warming “skeptics.” That’s why I asked if you’d really support indictments.

    Will you?

    Ed, you can’t confirm predictions. It’s like getting 4 psychics in the room and they all agree Elvis will return in 10 years. Is that proof positive Elvis will return? No. The fact of the matter is that their methodology is and continues to be severely flawed. Hansen still refuses to release his modeling methodology, yet people like yourself are still believing this modeling crap.

    The chart, originally created in 1995, carried projections through 2009 and beyond. The projections made for the decade already passed were low.

    Of course you can confirm predictions — wait and see. We’ve waited a decade, and the predictions were low. What’s your kick? Are you really willing to claim that we should be more alarmed than we are, because the “fraud” chart understated warming in the past?

    You don’t know what the methodology was, and I don’t trust your saying it was flawed. The methodology was spot on for more than 2,000 years of data, so far as could be corroborated. It deviated only after 1960. We see this a lot in biological systems that undergo some dramatic change. Carbon 14 took off after about 1850, and we have to adjust carbon dating for some things that died after 1850 because of it. “Flawed methodology?” No, just more carbon in the air from fossil fuel burning, and a different proportion of C14 to C12.

    How is this dendro issue any different? In court, I’d crucify a scientist who made a chart knowing that a methodology went wrong after a certain point, and he didn’t make corrections.

    We’re looking for accuracy in data here, not philosophical purity. Philosophical purity produces bad charts that mislead us about what the climate is doing.

    And that’s the bottom line: There is not a single study, anywhere, which calls into question the conclusions of the report. Not one.

    So, you want something to make the scientists blush, so you can say, as you do here, ‘Why would they blush if they weren’t lying to us?’

    Why are you trying to mislead us about climate change?

    I mentioned the climate change in Dallas:

    So, because of allegorical evidence in a locality on a spot less than 1/100th the surface area of the globe, I’m supposed to believe that the Earth is turning into a raging inferno? Again, you prove your sheer ignorance of the field and of science in general.

    Your sheer hubris wouldn’t allow you to know ignorance if you saw it. Frankly, I wonder if you can tell a burro from a burrow.

    Dallas is one spot on the North American continent, where almost all climate zones have shifted in the last 10 years, in the last 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, and 50 years. My point was that we live in climate change if we’re in the U.S. If you’re on planet Earth, you live in a climatically changed area, probably where the warming of the past few decades has done damage to your local climate (there are very few places that are not harmed). I’d find your skepticism easier to take were I living somewhere where we’re not being hammered by what you claim can’t be caused by humans. In a state where weather extremes have been the norm, we’re past the extremes.

    Are you on Earth?

    As I’ve said on this blog numerous times, trends indicate a warming. I don’t need a computer to notice that.

    Were that so, you wouldn’t be yelling “fraud” at a chart that agrees with you, would you? You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, but when the weatherman says which way it will blow, you yell “fraud!” And I thought Eugene Ionesco was dead.

    Even the ice core data I’ve posted confirms the warming. What I dispute is CO2’s role in the whole of warming. I’m also finding exaggeration of world climate data handled by the CRU, data that’s now disappearing off its servers.

    So, what cause do you propose, and where’s the study to verify it? We know about CO2 — Tyndall’s work is nearly two centuries old, now. We know how CO2 works, but we don’t know the degree it changes climate, and we don’t know all the effects in dynamic weather, geological and biological systems.

    What’s your alternative hypothesis? Where are the data to support it?

    And, after the way Hadley’s been treated, who cares if the data go off the servers? It was there, if it had been wrong, someone would have found the error — right? There’s no law, no ethical canon, no custom that requires such data be left available. You’ve been telling us it’s fraudulent — why are you concerned that it’s coming down, if you believe it’s fraudulent?

    Heck, you don’t believe it’s wrong, do you.

    And if you think ClimateGate is causing the “denialists” to self-destruct, you’re deluded. Ed, follow the data. Follow the historical trends.

    Hoax movements generally die out when they over-reach. The denialists have been denying warming, even claiming that we’re cooling. Oops, the WMO’s data shows this decade to be the warmest ever.

    Most denialists would lie to a frog in a warming pot, telling the frog it’s going to cool, soon. Worse, they’ll lie to us and say they’re not doing it for the froglegs. Maybe worse than that, they don’t even want the froglegs.

    Now everyone sees that.

    Look at CO2 responses to temperature in the past. It’s all quite clear, but you’re infusing your political belief here because of a liberal ideology that places the blame for, well, anything on the shoulders of mankind.

    You’re claiming that the rapid rise in fossil-fuel-tagged carbon isn’t from humans mining it and burning it? What sort of political belief is it you have that denies the industrial revolution and internal combustion autos? Don’t call me deluded when you’re flying on such fantasies.

    Your invocation of the term “denialist” simply proves your utter contempt for information contrary to your political position.

    No, it shows my utter contempt for denying the data. It’s not political, it’s spiritual, and scientific. I’m sort of with the writer of Romans 1:18-20 — the stuff is out there for everyone to see. Denying it is pointless, and probably some sort of sacrilege. And in science, we go with what the data show. It’s okay to believe, as Einstein did, that God doesn’t play dice with the universe. But when John Stewart Bell does the work to show that non-locality really does obtain, even Einstein has to back down. The least we can do is stick with the data.

    I’m not the one who got into this stuff for political reasons. In our lab, the head guy was a Republican, and his two chief aides were Democrats. We got the same grants from Democratic and Republican administrations; we did the same analysis for companies and for unions.

    In standing for protecting the environment, we stand with John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Theodore Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and David Brower. We stand with Mo Udall and Lamar Alexander.

    Clean air is a good idea, especially in politics.

  5. 6 Matt R.
    December 16, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Dear Ed,
    Your statement that “only skeptics find fault” is a tautology. It’s like saying “only cops find crime.” And since when skepticism become a crime? Seems to me a few skeptic would have halted the Salem witch hunts.
    Why bring politics into it? Can’t we stick to science. I look into the numbers and they add up? Did you?

  6. December 16, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    You’re right, Matt. Politics shouldn’t have a front-and-center role.

    But then, there’d be absolutely nothing for the anti-clean air side to talk about. The denial of warming, and the denial of human causation, are each purely political.

    (Actually, I’m from the Bright Line School: There are only two kinds of politics, good and bad. No such thing as “no politics.” Good, solid science is good politics.)

  7. December 17, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    Hey doc, I just stumbled upon your blog today I am loving it. I added you to my blogroll at The Vatican Lobby mainly for your fearless indictment of the climate “crisis.” I am covering one aspect of the green movement (Catholic “eco-theology”), and your general coverage complements mine so nicely.

    So. . .um, can you add me to yours? I’m trying to get more than 30 readers a day!

    You knew that was coming.

  8. 9 John A. Davison
    January 14, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Forget about the data, its manipulation and the politics. Here are some facts.

    Atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased every year since they were first monitored in 1958. Both poles are melting, glaciers are retreating world wide, polar seas are growing more dilute, sea level is rising and the Gulf Stream is probably already slowing. These are undeniable facts and they paint a dismal future for the planet. While all these changes have occurred in the past it is the rate of change that distinguishes the present, a rate Tim Flannery (The Weather Makers) estimates to be thirty times greater thah ever before.

    “We have met the enemty and it is us.”
    Pogo

    jadavison.wordpress.com

  9. 10 Doc the BS'er
    May 18, 2010 at 12:34 am

    http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/nasa-was-hottest-six-months-record-no

    It was the hottest April on record in the NASA dataset. More significantly, following fast on the heels of the hottest March and hottest Jan-Feb-March on record, it’s also the hottest Jan-Feb-March-April on record [click on figure to enlarge].

    The record temperatures we’re seeing now are especially impressive because we’ve been in “the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century.” It now appears to be over. It’s just hard to stop the march of manmade global warming, well, other than by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, that is.

    Most significantly, NASA’s March prediction has come true: “It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010.″

    Software engineer (and former machinist mate in the US Navy) Timothy Chase put together a spreadsheet using the data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (click here). In NASA’s dataset, the 12-month running average temperature record was actually just barely set in March — and then easily set in April.

    Actually, NASA first made its prediction back in January 2009:

    Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance.”

    Of course, there never was any global cooling — see Must-read AP story: Statisticians reject global cooling; Caldeira — “To talk about global cooling at the end of the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years is ridiculous.”

    In fact, the 12-month record we just beat was set in … 2007!

    [Doc here -- Just checking my poor, neglected blog, and find this comment. It corresponds with my old pal William, who decided it would be just awesome to swing by my blog and leave a comment on a 5-month-old post. Remember, this is the douchebag who had the "courage" to stand behind what he said. I guess that's why he needs a fake-name and fake email address. Typical of the hypocrite that is William.]

  10. 11 Gore
    July 1, 2010 at 9:10 pm

    The lies have been exposed. Climategate was a manufactured scandal.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/science/earth/02climate.html?src=me

    [Doc - More from William. Evidently he now has to hide behind anonymous names to come visit my defunct blog.

    For the interested-- both reports on the CRU email scandal have been conducted by institutions with vested interests in clearing the scientists involved. Had they found the malfeasance that was plain in the letters, they'd be admitting these guys, whose research is the basis of the global warming meme, were not following proper scientific methodology or practice. Notice that the only "denier" involved was Lindzen, and he was astonished that the questions asked were impertinent.]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


About Me

My name is Doc. Welcome to my blog. If you're visiting from another blog, add me to your blogroll (and I'll happily reciprocate). I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and live in Wisconsin. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. My email is docattheautopsy at gmail. (No linking to deflate the incredible spam monsters).

Categories

Archives

World Temp Widget

Blog Stats

  • 122,172 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: