

Mon, 2012-06-11 07:52Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

















I have purchased just now at Amazon 'The Hockey Stick' and the Climate Wars

will be added to my collection of Storms of My Grandchildren, Dire Predictions, Six Degrees and The End of the Long Summer....



Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".

chas rasper, an other ignorant, arrogant and dishonest denier.


That's that book that Heartland was pushing as the truth!  "Michael Crichton had it right!"  Their web page used to say.





Careful Chas!  I'm an eco ninja commin to get ya!  Fear me!


(Not really... I once hit myself in the head with some nunchucks...)


You were mentioning something about vindictive attacks on climate scientists?

Edward Cook is over reacting.




In any case, he also says says Mann'ss work produces marginally better results, but not statistically better.  This is kind of a what ever arguement if you ask me.  Office tiff...


You should stop reading other people's email when you don't understand what they mean.  You are clearly wasting your time and exagerating.

The more I have read about Climategate and Michael Mann, the more disgusted I have become. Mabe some ditzy newscasters have mischaracterized the hacked emails (it's not clear to me whether they were stolen or leaked) as proving AGW is a fraud, but I see a lot of serious criticism about openness in science.

You guys are trying to build him up as some kind of folk hero fighting a well funded machine whose "trick" is being quoted out of context. There is no good context for "hiding the decline". No, it doesn't mean temperatures are not going up. It does bring up uncertianties about the integrity of the data.


Its a common misconception that there was in fact any misdeeds at all found in those emails.  Nothing wrong was found at all.  And even if the hockey stick was fake... what ever, that that 1 page of 1000 in the the IPCC report out, and you still have climate change.


A survey of the word 'trick' in scientific literature will turn up lots of real and valid results used in all branches of science.


The fact is that 'trick' is a common word in science and we do it all the time.  Can't solve that derivative?  (Many are unsolvable by the way.)  Use a finite difference!




Conman says:

"but I see a lot of serious criticism about openness in science."


Why do you only support AGW deniers (Esschenbach) and refer people to junk and dishonest sites like Curry's? Have you no shame?

Google results show he is a poster of Waatt's Up and a fishing guide in Alaska (who apparently hasn't notice the huge climate changes happening there). 

I've been to Curry's blog and read some of her vaporous whim-whams about certainity. Nothing scientific enough to form a basis for debate.



"The more I have read about Climategate and Michael Mann, the more disgusted I have become."



Nonsense. All the data was freely avaialble. WUWT and it's henchmen spammed Jones with FOI when there was no need to. Their intention was just to hold up and delay science. The subsequent investigations agreed this was their intention.

"hero fighting a well funded machine"

You got that right.

"whose "trick" is being quoted out of context."


"There is no good context for "hiding the decline". "

Denier wishful thinking.


Or alternatively Willis could submit a peer reviewed paper that counters Mann's work. We both know he can't. We both know the only arena a denier has a chance in, is the public debate, where they can use the gish gallop technique.

Talk back radio make their living from that.







"WUWT and it's henchmen spammed Jones with FOI when there was no need to."

Sounds like a pariniod conspiracy theory.

" Their intention was just to hold up and delay science."


" The subsequent investigations agreed this was their intention."

If that were true, it would be bigger than "hide the decline" all over the internet.


"Sounds like a pariniod conspiracy theory."

Reality is a scary thing for deniers, hence the denialsm.



"If that were true, it would be bigger than "hide the decline" all over the internet."

Doesn't have quite the sensationalist ring.

"A few words about well funded machines. There are conservative and libertarian think tanks that are well funded. There are industry funded promotional orginazations. There are also well funded environmental organizations like Greenpeice and the World Wildlife Fund. This blog is probably funded by some sort of environmental foundation. You know what? I'm glad that they are well funded! These ideas need to be brought out into the public to be discussed and debated"










If you put someone into the spot light, then perhaps they may be concerned about their appearance.  Hell... put my wife in front of a mirror...  Should I wear this, or should I wear that?




I don't think Libertarianism would have 1/4 of the strength it does if it hadn't been funded by superrich, most of whom have inherited their wealth. Yeah, there are always people who are grumpy about government. Further, I suspect the Kochs or Mellons mean liberty for very rich; not for the freedom-loving suckers who benefit from their funding.

As an example, New Hampshire has always had an individualistic streak, as embodied in the state logo of a rattlesnake saying, "Don't tread on me." There was a relatively strong Libertarian group here in 2000. Then the Free Staters formed, investigated states to find one suitable to take over for a libertarian paradise, and selected New Hampshire, on the basis of its ambient culture, and its small population. So they called on libertarians to move to New Hampshire. Apparently many people received funding to come here. Further, I've heard of a now state representative who moved here and has no visible means of support. Work is at hand to identify the Libertarians, John Birchers, and other extra right who infiltrated the state house as "Republicans". (Libertarians have run as Democrats if they think the Democrats will win.) The new House Majority Leader is actively wishing the Republicans can get the wolves to stop wearing sheep's clothing.

It is money that is fueling the NH Libertarian's attempt to take over New Hampshire's government; it is money that has promoted the general growth of libertarian ideas. True, some people never outgrow reading Ayn Rand.

I think it's an AND.  I think nuttiness has increased, driven by meny from the superrich and from corporations.



The "strangle the messenger" technique inflicted on Mann and others didn't work out for Montezuma. Unfortunately, the whole world is at stake now, not just the Aztecs.


and the "take no prisoner" approach.  It became clear to me very early on in my life on the "internets", that turning the other cheek to the rightwing opposition was little more than an invitation to have you face slapped off.


I've always thought that the reason they decided to try to knock "the Mann" down, was because his hockey stick was so simple in concept and meaning, that even a caveman as they say, could understand it. Unlike the lions he talked about, and the tactic of the zebras, their thinking was to discredit/knock down the simplest sign even the simpletons that follow them could read and grasp the meaning of, and a great deal of the hard work was over in terms of keeping the waters muddied and their minions muddled and ripe for further manipulation.  This is particularly easy when as you've long noted, confirmation bias is the sought after ambrosia to feed them with.

This is precisely why they installed Gore as the titular head of the "Gorebal Warming" movement, which was especially effective given the politically-motivated angles they could inject into it as a result of his "lefty" credentials, as well as the loathing righties already had, making him ripe for such types of exploitation of the issue-discrediting kind.  One can't help but wonder as I've previously noted, what diffs there might be had a Carl Sagan-like figure "manned" the helm instead of Gore.  While there doubt-casting, etc would have surely followed, the direct mixing of a despised political figure (on their side) with a science issue with major political implications, surely had more negative impacts on the rightwingnut minion mind one lacking the burdens Gore brought, would have had, and particualrly if he didn't have large homes to heat, jets, etc -- a large carbon footprint/bauble they could hypnotise the "Morans" with.

And like with Gore, apparently Mann's appearance has some relevance to the work he's done as well. I'd bet if they both more closely resembled Adonis, the rightwingnuts would never have questioned their integrity or that of their work.

"An Inconvenient Truth" was/is tremendously influential, despite some unnecessary filler. 

Scientists whose work was featured underwent "investigations".

Was the hockey stick a good visual? Sure, that's why Gore used it. How did newly-appointed Cuccinelli come to launch an immediate investigation into Mann's work at UVa years earlier for 'civil fraud'? Who* supplied the 'kook' with the pseudo-scientific language that went into his legal briefs? How much Va taxpayer dollars went into the kook's witchhunt that ended when the Virginia Supreme Court dismissed his plea "with prejudice".

Then the polar bears. Al Gore's movie made drowned polar bears the poster child for global warming extinction. (Regretably, imo, they're distant and in a place that almost nobody ever goes to. Not the boy next door.) 

The author of the paper who saw the drowned polar bears has been endlessly investigated for, er, what? You can't tell from the inane questions legal staff asked him. (Google on PEER and Monnett to see the transcripts.) In the meantime, his career has been trashed. His co-author got uneasy with the earlier attacks and bailed out of that job. Smart.


*Who? I'm guessing it was S**F**Singer. He writes like that. Anybody got an author checking computer program?

here's his latest song



"Why Climate Denialists are Blind to Facts and Reason: The Role of Ideology"
by Johnny Rook


The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise. You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical thinking. Isn't that how scientists approach these problems? They're skeptical and critique each others work, discaring ideas which fail to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with ones that better describe the facts.

Denialists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in an ideological struggle. They don't even care if "facts" are correct or not, since their intention is not to establish that something is true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war.



Denialists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the "liberals" concerned about climate change of having invented it as an excuse to expand government. The latest version of this tactic that I've encountered is that none of the science in support of global warming need be taken seriously because it is the product of government-paid scientists who are only doing their bureaucratic masters' bidding, apparently forgetting that the current "masters" are themselves Climaticide denialists. (Bush was President when he wrote this)

Government science is corrupt science because it's government science. "Scientists" in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the other hand are free of this corruption because they are doing science for the capitalist heroes who defend our 'freedom'."



Let me tell you the story about the engineer who faked his data. This is a true story. and the punch line was the manager's 'reference' for this engineer.  "Putrid f***ing sack of s**t single handedly destroyed this company, and bankrupted it!"  (How would you like that on your resume?)


So the engineer in question was repeatedly asked why there were issues with USB electronics.  He denied there was any issue and continued as though it was all someone else's fault.  Finally his manager took the time to double check basic voltages, and errata... There were issues all over the place, but by this time, tech melt down had hit, and it was game over for the company.


Reviews and and disclosure of opinion function on consensus.  Furthermore most engineers don't have to do anything unless its serious, no matter how many people squawk.  However, professionals look into anything that comes across their plate, and denial should be the last thing you ever hear.  (Detailed explanations of test procedures should make you feel more confident.)






We're 10 degrees warmer that a gray ball in our orbit having increased from about 288 to 288.8 , 0.3% , while CO2 , which is provably greening the planet has gone up by a third .  From those basic facts , it's twisted to predict anything other than a greener planet ahead .

English doesn't seem to be a strong point either.


You use this word 'physicist'.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

 Like you know what these are:

      Navier-Stokes equations of fluid flow

      Chandrasekar radiative transfer equation

      primitive equations of atmospheric models




So... Ivar knows nothing of Climate Science.... Check!

Must be a Heartland or Cato expert... Check!


Shame he doesn't know anything.

@ GLS :  Yes .  See .  I'm an APL programmer .

I've wanted to get my copy of "Radiative Transfer" back from my niece who graduated in physics and applied math from Boulder last year , but she's currently in Namibia .



Do you agree that it takes a pretty radical non-linearty to predict anything substantially different than another 0.8 degrees warming from another molecule per 10k of air if we add again the total CO2 we've added since the industrial revolution which has so increased the world's standard of living , indeed , even lifespan ?




 & how are you at reading ?  Where do I use the word 'physicist" ?



Just curious... but .8k is a horrific huge number.  And that was talking about land surface. 



As much as I enjoy your random ramblings an innane claims... could you provide links?






"Hi! I'm Bob!  I'm a Naval Engineer, and I can tell you all this climate science stuff is garbage!"


Spare me, I've heard it all before.


Furthurmore how come you can't write a scientific paper yourself.  Seriously.. if its all hoopla, write a paper and submit it for critique.  There are plenty of Journals willing to print material even if it isn't mainstream.  I'm sure the world at large would be happy to be let in on your little secret.

@ AnOilMan .







So... you're going to use big words to impress people?  You know what? I think you're being supercilious.


Which recent Yale study was that Bubba?  There are so many you know.  Who was the author?  Do tell...

Just the words that come to mind .

Check ClimateDepot or search for the study . It's been getting lots of play recently because it came to exactly the result not desired . It was supposed to show that the way to get the population to swallow that the molecule out of which they are made is evil was to teach them more science .






I'm tired of it.  Find the paper and the link to it. ClimateDepot is not a journal, and clearly a political organization.  I'm only interested in the science.


Just so you know... Physicists don't talk that way.


Marc Morano's site is a central clearing house for links to items in any way related to to the CO2 controversy .  That's its power . It linked to several articles about the Yale report .

I see no evidence that you have any ability to understand any science . I would be curious how far you got in math -- because in the end , that's what will rule .


... but I declined and went into engineering.  (I've noticed that very few people drop out and into engineering.)


I have a patent in chemistry using a math trick to solve a problem that was previously unsolveable.  So, I'm used to taking flack from the folks who just haven't seen any real science in a long long time.  I've heard it all before...

By the way I used a math trick last Thursday and I was thinking of patenting it.  However I'm reasonably certain that no one in the industry can reverse engineer it.  The Oil and Gas industry just isn't that smart.


Remember!  3 in 100 climate scientists don't think Global Warming is real!

Given your background , I don't understand your continual appeal to authority .  Real 21st century peer review is happening right here , right now on these blogs .

Given your background , you should be able to evaluate my work ( unfunded ) so far on Heartland's  ClimateWiki - Category:Essential Physics , . It takes a very classical physics approach . Perhaps you could translate some of the most essential expressions into less arcane computer language than the APL evolute I work in .






Bloggers are not in any way a substitute for peer review.  That's just common sense.


So... let take a look at what happens if you don't have peer review;


Now lets take a look at what happens if you do;


In what way are you (an APL programmer) a peer to Hansen?  You have 40 years of studying climate science under your belt?  As an APL programmer?  Impressive....  Dendro Paleoclimatology is right up your alley?

Why don't YOU look at my initial work at and my more extensive work at .



The next step is adding the couple of lines of code to calculate temperatures for arbitrary spectra . But as I've said , I'm just an array language programmer attacking this on time taken from other priorities , so I'll wait till someone feeds me spectra , or spectral maps of interest to them .


Hansen , the guy who calls the coal trains which power life in Colorado nazi death trains ! You're joking , right ? He's a bigger nut than Gore and spouts drivel like tipping points
 with apparently no idea what he's talking about . He's an utter embarrassment to your cause .

" Why don't YOU look at my initial work at and my more extensive work at ."





Lawrence Hamilton! One escaped!



Bob Armstrong --- Study Ray Pierrehumbert's "Principles of Planetary Climate"

at least through chapter 6.  Then you'll actually know some (starter) climatology.  Its not for the faint of heart or the lazy.



I will take another look at it tho . But he's no Chandrasekar .






And there is not 'preprint'.  At one time some draft chapters were on his website.

I would think it obvious that draft is what I meant .

I'm not going to drop 70+ bucks on a speculative purchase when I don't remember even seeing any equations in the draft .  A long standing bitch if you will I have of the AGW crowd is that I have never been able to find an open web source of the supposed quantitative science .

If you understand his computations for venus -- they certainly shoulcn't take more than a few equations -- perhaps you could post them here , or point us to a non-pay-walled site which presents them .


Incedentally , the computations I present at should be easily translatable to Python which Pierrehumbert appears to use . I've set up tables to be fleshed out with other languages as people volunteer them .






plenty of equations.  The book is well worth the price.



Again , if you understand what he's saying , why can't you summarize the essential equations here ?  Math is not copywritable .


I guess the work I've initiated , unfunded spare time effort tho it is , on the Heartland ClimateWiki will beat youall to it and force youall to play catch-up .










The 10 degrees we are warmer than that is undoubtedly explained by our color , our non gray ( non-flat ) spectrum .  As I've said , give me a spectrum for the sun and for the ball , and I'll give you the ball's equilibrium temperature . That is a computation which appears to be beyond the education of most people spouting on both sides in these blog wars altho it's definitely high school level math ( aside from the proof of Stefan-Boltzmann itself ) .



T'ain me that's made errors . In fact I'm taking the traditional approach of physics and analyzing the simple , experimentally testable situations first , ie , opaque balls . But if you don't quantitatively understand the basics first , you are not doing science . You can see my planned syllabus on the Heartland site . I expect to have input from some old NASA and other experts by the time I get to such issues as the vertical structure of the atmosphere . ( You know there are a lot of astronauts and other NASA people pissed at the nonscience which has been coming out of the place in recent years . )










read more