We can all relax; ClimateGate2 was completely overblown. The University of East Anglia has posted explanations of some of the troubling quotations taken unfairly out of context, such as: "I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show the warming," “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital," and "Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden."
Yeah, I still don't get it, either.
16 comments:
"We can all relax; ClimateGate2 was completely overblown."
All I can add to that is, upon taking the pulse of the EAU/PJ new/improved explanations, in context, I must say the credibility of the AGW/ACC Investment Club is dead, or my watch has stopped. Rimshot!
Apologies to Groucho...
In other news, Penn State has declared that Michael Mann did not create the infamous "hockey stick" graph.
At least, not on purpose.
Uhhhh, okay, he did it on purpose, but it was okay, because he didn't intend people to take it as seriously as they did.
Errrr, well, the evidence indicates that he did, but they're not really comfortable with being judgemental, you know? So they'll just say he's a peach of a guy and let it go at that...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2010/02/climategate-penn-state-mostly-lets-researcher-michael-mann-off-the-hook/
"In other news, Penn State has declared that Michael Mann did not create the infamous "hockey stick" graph.
At least, not on purpose. "
Indeed. It is rumored that all of the suspect data produced was due to one-off dataset manipulations, faulty floating point operations, a unique Error-What_Error-Handler_Continue() error handling routine, along with generally sloppy and undocumented code provided by one of Michael's cousins. A Mr. Piltdown Mann, whose testimony is yet to be heard.
I still thing the meteorologist Anthony Watts best caught the spirit of the CRU/ East Anglia attitude when he called the first batch of e-mails "the CRUtape Letters."
LittleRed1
Yup. The WUWT archives are a trove of posts and comments dissecting the greenies' denials that the Climategate 1 e-mail leaks -- and they *were* leaks -- were the real deal. And then when the Motley CRU admitted they *were* real, they changed tack. There are some beautiful threads illuminating the twistings and straw-graspings the AGW defenders presented in their efforts to "prove" the e-mails didn't really say what they said.
You could drive the Chrysler Building through the holes in their arguments...
"A Mr. Piltdown Mann..."
*snicker*
*snort snort*
0>;~}
It is a good one. MIchael ("Piltdown") Mann.
A little gradual warming over the next century would be a good thing. Not without its own difficulties, but a net positive.
I'm perfectly happy to skip this whole winter thing. There's a reason I'm from the Midwest. And the USAF inflicted my lifetime share of winter on me with tours at Ft Yukon and in Germany.
I've given my wife the task of fixing winter here, but she's shirking her duties. [sigh]
Eric Hines
Greenies can't see into the past any further than Al Gore's last birthday. What none of them seem to understand is that we've been through at least five glaciations (okay, Ice Ages, but without the saber-toothed squirrels) in the past couple of million years, and the earth has always warmed up sufficiently to make the ice go 'way *without* mankind's help.
And we're still not fully recovered from the *last* glaciation.
Warming is *good* -- because once it stops, the glaciers are gonna push all the greenies out of NYC and Chicago and the rest of us'll be forced to listen to their incessant yammering about Anthropogenic Glacial Worsening...
BillT, if you take out the "corrections" that NASA, CRU, and NOAA have made to the US temperature records recently, warming in the northern hemisphere stopped around 1998 and the average yearly temp has been declining since then. Oddly enough (if you assume that only H. Sapiens has any effect on the planetary climate),solar energy output has also declined since 1998. And now NASA has re-classified how big something has to be for it to be a countable sunspot. Despite their cheerful announcements, sunspot activity (a measure of solar energy output) has not markedly increased this year. I'm not expecting to see large white bears hitch-hiking along I-40 in 2012, but we are in a pattern like the 1950s and a little like the 1970s (aka the "freeze to death in the dark" 1970s).
LittleRed1
I'd read it flatlined about 2000, but 1998 is within the margin of error. I get the impression that NASA went through that exercise in futility just to keep people from mumbling "Maunder minimum" under their breath.
As long as we're not in a pattern like the 1650s or the 1770s.
Or worse -- like the pattern in 110,070 BC...
"Or worse -- like the pattern in 110,070 BC..."
Back when you were working on the formula for fire, huh?
0>;~}
I've read "Dalton minimum" in a few places, usually followed by imprecations, speculations as to whether sacrificing a black chicken will be enough to ward it off or if the neighbor's obnoxious wandering bull would be better, et cetera.
LittleRed1
Durn tootin'. Do you know how many things we had to go through to find something that would *burn*?
At first, we tried ice, just because there was so darn *much* of it, but we could only get a decent flame going after we cracked the molecule and could feed the hydrogen and oxygen separately. Do you have any idea how *hard* it is to crack one dinky molecule with a flint axe?
Do you have any idea how *hard* it is to crack one dinky molecule with a flint axe?
Geez, all you had to do was collect up the ozone from the lightning strikes. We had those, on occasion, at the edges of the big ice.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment