Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Global Warming Rides Again

Global Warming Rides Again

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+1Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Have you ever heard of Fakegate? It seems that Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, a MacArthur Foundation Fellow, and (now past) chairman of an American Geophysical Union task force on scientific ethics and integrity,(isn’t that ironic?) stole the identity of a member of The Heartland Institute’s board of directors and then used that identity to steal documents describing Heartland’s budget, fundraising plans, and more. When those documents failed to produce what he wanted, Gleick or an ally forged a memo alleging to describe Heartland’s “Global Warning Strategy.”

On February 14, 2012, Gleick sent the stolen and forged documents to fifteen allies in the environmental movement and the MSM, resulting in a wave of criticism of Heartland’s supposed plans to “infiltrate schools” and “undermine” climate science. Gleick confessed to stealing the documents on February 20, 2012, but MSM coverage of the event focused overwhelmingly on the false claims in the fake memo rather than on Gleick’s criminal actions.

In 2011 Gleick led a new task force on scientific ethics and integrity for the American Geophysical Union. Then on February 16, 2012, he resigned from the task force citing “personal, private reasons.” But his reasons soon became very public. On February 20, 2012, Dr. Gleick admitted to having fraudulently obtained documents of a board meeting of The Heartland Institute under someone else’s name for the purpose of making its donors known. Gleick also forged a two-page strategy memo purporting that the Institute was engaged in a variety of efforts to fraudulently undermine the claims of global warming scientists. The Institute did not have to, nor ever did engage, in any such efforts. The truth about the global warming claims was sufficient to undermine them. This analysis, by Heartland President Joseph Bast, refutes claims that appear in Gleick’s forged memo.

So the questions are, (1) If AGW is real, as Gleick contends, and if 97-98 percent of scientists worldwide agree with him, as Gleick contends, then why did Gleick resort to identity theft and forgery to try discredit his opposition? and (2) Does Gleick know that his actions speak loudly about his and AGW’s credibility?

The Heartland Institute has led the effort to debunk the AGW hoax, sponsoring conferences where scientists and others who presented papers that demonstrated that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no greenhouse effect on the Earth’s climate or weather events. Gleick, who believes that anybody who disagrees with his scientific theories is anti-science, says the following are is anti-science:

  • tornado data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • tropical cyclone data compiled by Florida State University Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies
  • soil moisture data compiled by several independent teams of scientists

Gleick says the people who disagree with him are bought off, are part of a “concerted, well-funded, and aggressive anti-science campaign” that is “focused on protecting narrow financial interests.”  [emphasis NOT mine]   Gleick attacks people and groups with whom he disagrees on science, including the Republican Party. Whether one is a Republican, a Democrat, or a member/sympathizer of any other political party should be irrelevant regarding scientific inquiry and truth, but prominent global warming alarmists such as Gleick seem obsessed with bringing political party affiliation into the discussion. (Gosh, but that sure does sound familiar.)

Incidentally, Heartland’s sixth International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) attracted scientists worldwide, who employed science rather than pseudo-science. One participant, former Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an economist by training, said, “I’m convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature. That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished.”

Here is an article by James Taylor of The Heartland Institute that speaks to AGW alarmists in general, and to Gleick in particular. Gleick’s response to Taylor was classic. Instead of discussing the scientific facts that Taylor was addressing in his article disproving Gleick, Gleick just wanted the names of the donors of The Heartland Institute.

On January 13, 2012 The Heartland Institute invited Gleick to debate Taylor at its anniversary benefit dinner in August, 2012. Gleick declined, citing (or hiding behind?) reservations about AGW used as entertainment.

And now all you AGW Kool-Aid drinkers can see just how much credibility one of your foremost champions has.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by

About

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Warren… WARREN!!! It’s been definitively proven that the planet Mars is Republican!!!
    Click here

    How did Fox News miss this???????

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    PS… I refuse to take any article you write without the name Hussein in it seriously.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet “The research department” Gardner

    Fact check:

    Associated Press:
    WASHINGTON – It’s been so warm in the United States this year, especially in March, that national records weren’t just broken, they were deep-fried.

    Temperatures in the lower 48 states were 8.6 degrees above normal for March and 6 degrees higher than average for the first three months of the year, according to calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That far exceeds the old records.

    The magnitude of how unusual the year has been in the U.S. has alarmed some meteorologists who have warned about global warming.

    “Everybody has this uneasy feeling. This is weird. This is not good,” said Jerry Meehl, a climate scientist who specializes in extreme weather at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. “It’s a guilty pleasure. You’re out enjoying this nice March weather, but you know it’s not a good thing.”

    It’s not just March.

    “It’s been ongoing for several months,” said Jake Crouch, a climate scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Ashville, N.C.

    Couch said this is like the extremes that are supposed to get more frequent because of manmade climate change from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil.

    The first quarter of 2012 broke the January-March record by 1.4 degrees. Usually records are broken by just one or two tenths of a degree. U.S. temperature records date to 1895.

    Before you poo hoo 1.4 degrees Warren re-read ALL of the last paragraph.

    The atypical heat goes back even further. The U.S. winter of 2010-2011 was slightly cooler than normal and one of the snowiest in recent years, but after that things started heating up. The summer of 2011 was the second warmest summer on record.

    The winter that just ended, which in some places was called the year without winter, was the fourth warmest on record.

    On record Warren.

    Since last April, it’s been the hottest 12-month stretch on record, Crouch said.

    But the month where the warmth turned especially weird was March.

    Normally, March averages 42.5 degrees across the country. This year, the average was 51.1, which is closer to the average for April. Only one other time – in January 2006 – was the country as a whole that much hotter than normal for an entire month.

    The “icebox of America,” International Falls, Minn., saw temperatures in the 70s for five days in March, and there were only three days of below zero temperatures all month.

    In March, at least 7,775 weather stations across the nation broke daily high temperature records and another 7,517 broke records for night-time heat. Combined, that’s more high temperature records broken in one month than ever before, Crouch said.

    That bears repeating Warren

    ================
    In March, at least 7,775 weather stations across the nation broke daily high temperature records and another 7,517 broke records for night-time heat. Combined, that’s more high temperature records broken in one month than ever before, Crouch said.
    ================

    “When you look at what’s happened in March this year, it’s beyond unbelievable,” said University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver.

    NOAA climate scientist Gabriel Vecchi compared the increase in weather extremes to baseball players on steroids: You can’t say an individual homer is because of steroids, but they are hit more often and the long-held records for home runs fall.

    They seem to be falling far more often because of global warming, said NASA top climate scientist James Hansen. In a paper he submitted to the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and posted on a physics research archive, Hansen shows that heat extremes aren’t just increasing but happening far more often than scientists thought.

    What used to be a 1-in-400 hot temperature record is now a 1 in 10 occurrence, essentially 40 times more likely, said Hansen. The warmth in March is an ideal illustration of this, said Hansen.

    Weaver, who reviewed the Hansen paper and called it “one of the most stunning examples of evidence of global warming.”

    I can’t remember the last time I laughed so hard at one of your articles Warren! You were obviously home-schooled right?

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet “The research department” Gardner

    It’s not only what happened in March in North America,it’s the context: the extremity of this extraordinary early-season heat in the U.S. and southern Canada, plus Norway and Scotland breaking their March high temperature records; Texas and Oklahoma in 2011 having their hottest summer on record, even hotter than during the Dust Bowl; the off-the-charts 2010 Russia heat wave along with approximately 20 countries setting high temperature records that summer; and Canada having its warmest winter and year on record in 2010.

    All of this happening with such frequency, that it provides overwhelmingly convincing evidence that the overall increased warmth is making the atmosphere more conducive to these sorts of heat extremes.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Ask any drought stricken west or central Texan about what good all those prayers Rick Perry had his population make for rain did.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Political Fact check from the New York Times…

    Published: June 8, 2005

    A White House official who once led the oil industry’s fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

    In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

    The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase “significant and fundamental” before the word “uncertainties,” tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

    Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the Bush White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

    Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the “climate team leader” and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor’s degree in economics, —he has no scientific training—.

    The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project.

    In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, “Our Changing Planet,” Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word “extremely” to this sentence: “The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult.”

    In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack.

    Critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

    “Each administration has a policy position on climate change,” Mr. Piltz wrote. “But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this [Bush] administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program.”

  • Clavos

    You were obviously home-schooled right?

    If he was, he was exposed to a much better level of education than anyone of his contemporaries who went to a government school.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    All of those facts and figures and THAT’S what you’re commenting on Clavos???????

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I see, so it’s Peter Gleick who is now the lone scientist supporting AGW theory, is he?

    But I thought it was Michael Mann? Or was it Kevin Trenberth? Or Phil Jones? Or Al Gore? Or Kermit the Frog? Or…

    …Or 97% of all climate scientists?

    Never mind. This was a shoddy business, with some guy hacking into an organization’s confidential computer files, stealing them and making shit up when he didn’t find what he hoped to find.

    So I trust that Warren was equally upset when the exact same thing happened with the Climategate emails.

    Weren’t you, Warren?

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Gee, I wonder why this was published in the Politics section instead of Science. Hmmmmm.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    With sea levels threatening to rise with the ocean expanding and rising from global heat, and polar ice melting…

    I now understand why Clavos lives on a boat.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “If he was, he was exposed to a much better level of education than anyone of his contemporaries who went to a government school.”

    We’ve seen no evidence of that around here

  • zingzing

    what if the mother/father/teacher has no business being a teacher? it’s hard to say what level of education homeschooling will get you. and as a parent, you’re doing something strange to your child, denying them some crucial social experiences (as well as a few beatdowns, probably), and running the risk of creating a programmed little you, or creating a huge rift between yourself and your child. i only know a few homeschooled kids, but they all have terrible relationships with their parents and have some social quirks that should have been ironed out when they were in middle school. i’m sure that’s not true for lots of homeschooled kids, but it’s a pretty major risk to take. i guess you’ve got to balance it with the risks of public school (or private school, since you’re not sending them there either).

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Most home-schooled children are kept from public schools for religious reaons.
    They are taught:

    Science isn’t fact, but a strange religion called “secular humanism” and is contrary to bible teachings.

    Astronomy is in direct conflict with the teachings of God; no star can be more than 6000 light years away because nothing existed before God created the universe.

    They are taught that either dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by God to test our faith in his word and never really existed, or that science has it wrong and man actually existed with them… just look at Fred Flintstone for proof.

    Worst of all, all outsiders in the modern world have succumbed to evil influences of the devil and that you must keep only to your own kind.

    Most home-schooled children are taught that God will return in their lifetimes and that they must be always pure and ever ready for his apocalyptic judgment of everyone who was not baptized in the name of Jesus Christ our lord and savior.

    Judge everyone before you are judged yourself.

    Remain superior to all others in God’s eyes, because he raises you to his level in his love.

  • http://www.fregger.com Brad Fregger

    It is so tiring to read the same AGW misinformation time and time again. Here’s a couple of major errors: 1) the weather has nothing to do with climate change. This is something that climate change scientists agree on, especially when we have one of the coldest winters on record … Ah yes, I remember it well. 2) hackers, possibly with some internal help, stole the climate gate emails, which ended up containing some very embarrassing comments. Fakegate was carried off by a “respected” scientist for the express purpose of destroying an organization with whom he disagreed. Then, when he could uncover nothing he could use against them, he created a fake memo that he believed would accomplish his goal. Two extremely different scenarios. Why did he do that, because progressives honestly believe that any activity that supports their “save the earth” agenda is good and right; they have no basic sense of right and wrong.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Um Brad… you poor thing, where did you live through “the coldest winter on record?” on the North Pole with Santa Clause.

    Here in Ohio we didn’t even HAVE a winter!

    You need to read #s 3, 4, and 6 again… if you dare, instead of one of your books you’re promoting all the time, and then come back with an intelligent comment.

    And saying that “most Scientist agree” with you is delusional at best and perjury at worst.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    *sigh*

    You liberals just don’t get it, do you? You become wrong the very moment you become liberal! Regardless of the science and documented history that backs up what you say, it is all useless and of NO consequence. Why? Because it cannot stand before the faith-based politics of the Right.

    The Right is right because…they’re Right! It doesn’t matter that they believed in anthropomorphic global warming, and that they were the ones who first proposed the market-based solution of cap-and-trade. All that matters is that they are Right…and if they change their minds as to what is true, then what is true must change with them!

    The Right has become faith-based politics, which includes as dogma that anthropomorphic global warming is wrong despite the overwhelming scientific data indicating the reality of AGW. This doesn’t mean that one has to have crazy religious beliefs to be accepted as part of the Right (though it certainly helps) – it simply means that in order to be an accepted part of the Right, one must be able to accept and defend the beliefs of the Right in the face of all contradictory information.

    America’s political Right has for all practical purposes become a quasi-religion – and just as most who practice religion refuse to believe in evolution in the face of all evidence supporting it, those who believe in the Right will defend their beliefs despite any and all evidence to the contrary. The Right has become a faith-based political force.

  • Clavos

    Most home-schooled children are kept from public schools for religious reaons.

    Increasingly, homeschool parents take the plunge because they see how deficient the government schools have become, but can’t afford private schools. Some of the private school networks which are reasonably priced, such as Catholic schools, are bulging at the seams because of skyrocketing enrollments.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    the weather has nothing to do with climate change.

    What do you think climate is, Brad? (Spoonfed hint: It’s the pattern of weather over a long period, i.e. years to decades to centuries.)

    This is something that climate change scientists agree on

    Actually, what scientists agree on is that no single weather event can be taken as indicative of global warming. However, warming theory predicts that extreme weather events should become more frequent, and this is indeed happening.

    especially when we have one of the coldest winters on record

    You seem to want to have your cake and eat it. You can’t argue that weather has nothing to do with climate and then cite a cold winter as evidence against AGW!

    And see my above observation regarding extreme weather events. “The coldest winter on record” is an extreme, is it not? As is the unusually warm one Jet has just experienced in Ohio.

    The actual reason why winter 2012 was so warm in much of North America, and so harsh in the far north and parts of Asia and Europe, is explained here.

    hackers, possibly with some internal help, stole the climate gate emails, which ended up containing some very embarrassing comments.

    And that was ALL. The snippets posted by the anti crowd were all, without exception, either taken out of context or didn’t mean what they were claimed to mean. There were some intemperate remarks, as one might expect in private emails between scientists who were the subject of a sustained campaign to paint their entire life’s work as lies. Multiple independent inquiries found no scientific misconduct whatsoever.

    As far as the Gleick/Heartland incident is concerned, much of the “incriminating” evidence from the leak has been confirmed by the Institute’s own published documents and the individuals who worked on them.

    progressives honestly believe that any activity that supports their “save the earth” agenda is good and right; they have no basic sense of right and wrong.

    Stop projecting. Many AGW organizations have gone on record as disapproving of Gleick’s actions, and Gleick himself has stated that he regrets them. I don’t recall any such remorse from the anti crowd following Climategate, or indeed on any of the countless occasions they’ve been caught misleading, misrepresenting and outright lying about climate science.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Do you think Warren will admit he’s wrong?

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment # 1, OK Jet, I’ll bite – just what does the link you cited have to do with global warming?

    Re: comments # 3, 4, and 5, Jet, one year does not a trend make.

    Re: comments # 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11, Jet, references? At least Dr. D, in comment # 19, offers references. BTW, here is one that you may find interesting.

    Re: comment # 9, Dr. D, you say, “I see, so it’s Peter Gleick who is now the lone scientist supporting AGW theory, is he?” I NEVER said, or even suggested, that Gleick was the only AGW supporter. So much for your credibility.
    But we press on. You continue, “So I trust that Warren was equally upset when the exact same thing happened with the Climategate emails.” Gosh, I carefully read the source YOU provided and could find no reference to sending a document that tried to undermine, something Gleick admitted. Will you be kind enough to point out that passage to me? If not, your credibility will take another hit.
    Perhaps you should send the last paragraqph of your source to Gleick.

    Re: comment # 15, Brad, well said. And did you notice that Jet’s # 16 comment had “nothing” to do with your comment?

    Re: comment # 20, Jet, are you denying that Gleick did what he said?

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    There are some good reasons for thinking that some unquantified amount of anthropomorphic global warming occurs — our body temperatures are generally higher than ambient temperatures and so are the engines in our cars and trucks when we drive them. We cool our buildings and vehicles to make them comfortable in hot weather and heat them to make them comfortable during cold weather. Both transfer heat to the surrounding air.

    There are other not very good reasons, of course, for believing in anthropomorphic global warming. Here are some bad reasons.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment # 22, Dan, you, in your excellent article, say, “I use “liberal” to mean one with an open mind but not an empty head. Neither is true of Libruls.” What you say is true. And MOST of the commenters here are Libruls.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dan(M), I’m afraid you’re just regurgitating a strawman.

    Whether “libruls” believe in AGW is irrelevant to the many extremely good reasons why climatologists think it is occurring.

    Global warming “skeptics” invariably focus on minor details and never look at the big picture, and your article for PJM is no exception. Your polar bear citation is a prime example, focusing on a single population of bears and assuming, without bothering to investigate further, that what happens to this population is indicative of the fortunes of the bear as a whole. In fact, the latest comprehensive data indicate that of the 19 well-studied polar bear populations, only one is increasing in numbers.

    With regard to the lower Keys marsh rabbit, Dan, I’m happy for you that you’re amused by its plight. I doubt the rabbit finds it as funny.

    Then there’s the old crock about Himalayan glaciers. Firstly, the IPCC acknowledged and corrected the 2035 error: this was not based on data from any peer-reviewed research, but was apparently derived from an interview given by an Indian glacier expert several years ago in which he speculated that the glaciers of the Himalayas might disappear by that date. No climatologist or glaciologist actually thinks that they will.

    And I can’t say I’m surprised that confirmation bias made you miss this obvious red flag from the Telegraph article:

    “The fact that the satelllite is measuring ice much higher up the mountain range rather than concentrating on more accessible glaciers in warmer areas lower down could account for the change in estimates.”

    It is meltwater from the bottom of glaciers, at lower altitudes with higher air temperatures, that flows into rivers and influences sea level change, not high mountain ice.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dreadfulgate

    I NEVER said, or even suggested, that Gleick was the only AGW supporter.

    Then why do you think that discrediting him disproves AGW?

    Gosh, I carefully read the source YOU provided and could find no reference to sending a document that tried to undermine, something Gleick admitted. Will you be kind enough to point out that passage to me?

    Warren, if you’re going to insist on two comparable incidents of any kind whatsoever having precisely the same circumstances, you’ll have a very long wait.

    What I meant was that in both “Gates”, data was stolen and then presented in such a light as to make it seem that something was there that wasn’t. (Except that, as I showed in #19, in Heartland’s case it was there.)

    So where, then, Warren, is your outrage at (a) the Climategate thefts and misrepesentation, and (b) Heartland’s underhand tactics?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Oh, and Warren… when you’ve been around Blogcritics as long as Mark Manning has, perhaps you’ll realize why citing the Daily Mail does not, one little bit, help your credibility…

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Answer to Question 20… no. No surprise. Now is it ignorance or arrogance?

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment # 25, Dr. D, I could not help but notice that you did not respond to my statement that I NEVER said Gleick was the only AGW proponent. Please tell me what your response has to do with anything.
    I also noticed that you avoided answering the question I asked about YOUR source.

    You say, “… as I showed in #19, in Heartland’s case it was there.)” In comment # 19, you offer two sources. How do you know that they were not quoting from messages Gleick sent? Do the sources you offer have some truth-meter that only libruls can see?

    Another of your sources has this quote: “Last year more than half the nation was covered in snow as a Groundhog Day blizzard barreled across the country, killing 36 people and causing $1.8 billion in damage….” Does that mean you FAVOR death and damage? I like to, as Rush Limbaugh says, “illustrate absurdity with absurdity.” Or do you really favor death and destruction?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    Tell me – if you saw a real (and preventable) problem that you KNEW was going to result in mass death and destruction, would you really want to be right about it? Or would you want to be wrong about such preventable tragedy? I’m guessing that – like most good men – you’d choose the latter, that you would much rather be wrong about the death and danger that you see.

    What’s more, if your boss ordered you to lie about the danger, to claim that it wasn’t from what your research told you, and then he told you that if you didn’t lie about it, you’d lose your career and never work in that field again, would that stop you from telling the world about the danger? No, I don’t think so. I think that like most good men, you’d be willing to give up your career to alert people to the danger.

    But that’s what you don’t get about AGW. The climatologists WISH they were wrong, really, stupidly wrong. They would much rather the oh-so-religious Right was right. Why? Because they can see where AGW is leading, and they can tell what the long term effects will be, how (as time goes on) thousands (perhaps many thousands) will die because of AGW-generated weather, and millions will be displaced due to rising sea levels, and perhaps even wars due to increased scarcity of arable land and potable water.

    Furthermore, the claim that climatologists are forcing each other to “toe the line” on AGW is false, because like you, they would choose to tell the world about the danger and risk never being able to work again rather than to lie about it, because they would know that many, many thousands of lives – and even entire nations – are at stake.

    The climatologists WANT to be wrong…but that’s not what they see in the evidence.

    Your turn, Warren.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Doctor William Barack Ayers-Wright Hussein, re # 24,

    The linked article is at my own blog, not at the PJ Media site. The difference is not terribly difficult to detect. Mine has a photo of Volcan Baru, the highest peak in Panama, as seen from our small farm. The PJ Media site, sadly, lacks that or any similar graphic.

    The thrusts of the linked article are (a) that belief has its proper place in matters religious but not in matters scientific (but c.f. Roman Catholic Church), where thought instead should prevail and (b) that a notion which becomes fashionable does not on that account become valid. Belief in man made global warming, although apparently declining, remains fashionable. Thought about what that belief is based on and what it entails, however, remains unfashionable.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dreadfulgate

    I NEVER said Gleick was the only AGW proponent. Please tell me what your response has to do with anything.

    I refer you to paragraph 4 of your own article.

    I also noticed that you avoided answering the question I asked about YOUR source.

    I answered you directly in my #25. What I am NOT about to do is allow you to wriggle out of your corner by reframing the premise in a narrow way that makes sensible discussion impossible.

    So, for the third time, do you think the methods used by the Climategate hackers were despicable or not?

    In comment # 19, you offer two sources. How do you know that they were not quoting from messages Gleick sent? Do the sources you offer have some truth-meter that only libruls can see?

    No, Einstein. They have Heartland’s own press release confirming that all but one of the leaked documents are theirs.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dan(M): Source correction noted. Please disregard any irate emails from Pajamas Media concerning plagiarism that my comment may inadvertently have triggered.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Doctor William Barack Ayers-Wright Hussein, re #32. Thank you for taking that big, er, load off my frazzled mind. I was so petrified that I could hardly type.

    Now, as to the substance as noted in the second paragraph of my comment #30? What might be your beliefs, I mean, thoughts?

  • roger nowosielski

    Naughty naughty, DM.

    Are we highlighting, perhaps, a similarly-put distinction between feeling and thinking?

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Roger, re #34 — distinction between feeling and thinking — Perhaps, but I don’t see much practical difference between feeling and believing. Both are quite different from thinking, something which seems in some areas at least to have become rare.

    Elaboration?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dan(M), I concur with your thoughts in comment 30, para 2, although I confess I don’t see why the RCC has to get a special mention.

  • roger nowosielski

    Don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, DM, but it seems to be that your and Dreadful’s epistemological positions are rather indistinct in that both of you put high premium on so-called “scientific method,” etc. I come from a different tradition, one which tends to endow “belief statements” with a greater degree of latitude. So on my view, even proposition such as “2 + 2 =4″ is an example of a belief statement.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Roger, re #37, even proposition such as “2 + 2 =4″ is an example of a belief statement.

    I think I may understand that position, but it seems factually demonstrable that 2 + 2 does in fact equal four: * * + * * = * * * *.

    If a grocery store clerk were to believe that * * + * * = * * * * *, and to provide no change for a five dollar bill from a four dollar purchase on that basis, it seems likely that the clerk would soon be provided good cause to reconsider his belief.

  • John Lake

    I maintained from the onset that Global Warming was a fraud. The current new emphasis is clearly designed to shift our attention from the change in the weather being brought about by solar activity. The solar activity is basically unpredictable, and in a worst case scenario may be disastrous.
    We are being shielded , rightly or wrongly, by our government from the rigors of panic.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    John, that’s just bizarre. Why should devastating climate change brought about by human pollution be any less a cause for panic than devastating climate change brought about by solar activity?

  • Clavos

    I doubt the rabbit finds it as funny.

    Yawn.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Boat leaking, is it, Clav?

  • John Lake

    Cattle flatulence or human pollution are not likely to do overmuch damage. But solar flares such as we have experienced lately could be devastating.
    The weather reporters are conspicuous in their lack of comment. If we have 90 degree weather in a time period wherein 45 is the common, what will happen on a ordinarily 100 degree day in Las Vegas?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Cattle flatulence or human pollution are not likely to do overmuch damage.

    Where have you been for the last 200 years? On Mars?

    But solar flares such as we have experienced lately could be devastating.

    Agreed, but it isn’t flares that affect climate, since they only last a few minutes and most of them don’t hit Earth. And with a large enough solar flare the climate would be the least of our worries.

    The weather reporters are conspicuous in their lack of comment.

    I don’t blame them. It’s not their job.

    If we have 90 degree weather in a time period wherein 45 is the common, what will happen on a ordinarily 100 degree day in Las Vegas?

    Apples and oranges, John.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    John Lake –

    Apparently, #29 would apply to you, too.

  • STM

    Glabal warming is real. The question is: how much is cyclical and how much is caused by man-made emissions.

    The thing that is not real is the Greenwash that is going with it. Renewable energy schemes in this country have added to power bills; the government is introducing a carbon tax and that’s been factored in; economists believe it will have a big impact on the cost of living in this country.

    It’s all very well having a carbon tax and trying to reduce emissions in Australia, but when no other bastard is doing it, what’s the point until consensus is reached?

    Especially at a time when most Aussies are worried about the lingering effect of the GFC, job losses, rising prices across the board, staying healthy and educating their children.

    One problem with governments is that often they don’t listen to the people.

    In the case of this government, that’s mistake that will prove fatal come the next federal election in 2013.

    The Labor Party has already been virtually wiped out in two recent State elections; a backlash against the federal government is a huge part of that, despite what the fools living in cloud-cuckoo land in the nation’s capital choose to think.

    The problem is: they got into bed with the Greens (watermelons, green outside and all the stuff of substance – or not – is the red inside).

    So we now have a party that purports to look after working Aussies but which is really beuing run by inner-city elites and left-wing intellectuals. When a party loses its soul, it’s gone.

    Greenwash has been a huge part of that. We’re all for saving the planet but not at the expense of jobs and already dwindling purchasing power.

    Someone needs to separate the sh.t from the clay when it comes to this stuff. And unilateral action that eats into the wages of ordinary Australians and the companies that employ them is an insult to the people, especially when there is no consensus on doing this world-wide.

    Now isn’t the time to go radical. Change needs to be gradual so that it’s not hugely disruptive to the lives of ordinary people trying to pay mortgages, put food on the table, and hold down a decent-paying job.

  • STM

    It’s f..king hot here, too. This is the hottest place I’ve ever lived (having moved to a new State). They reckon they didn’t have much of a summer; geez, I’ll tell you what, if walking out of the house at 11am into a 40C brick wall of dry, desert heat doesn’t constitute a hot summer, maybe I should go back home where it’s at least humid enough to swim through the south pacific air when the mercury gets up.

    So is it actually warming or is it cooling, and which one of these is dangerous and indicative of man-made meddling with the climate? Both, perhaps? And why did the warmenists change the from “warming” to “climate change”.

    Perhaps we should call them global alarm-enists. In the meantime, with winter now approaching, I want a heater that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg to run, and ditto next summer for the aircon.

    Oh, and I don’t want to pay extra for renewable energy schemes and emissions trading and traditional electricity infrastructure that’s been allowed to rundown. What are my f..king taxes for in the first place? Oh, I know, to help pay big bonuses to publicly propped-up energy company CEOs, some of whom who couldn’t organise a f..k in a brothel.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment # 31, Dreadfulgate, I just reread the fourth paragraph of my article, and STILL find no reference to Gleick being the only AGW advocate. Elaboration?

    In comment # 25, you say, “What I meant was that in both “Gates”, data was stolen and then presented in such a light as to make it seem that something was there that wasn’t. (Except that, as I showed in #19, in Heartland’s case it was there.) So where, then, Warren, is your outrage at (a) the Climategate thefts and misrepesentation, and (b) Heartland’s underhand tactics?” Is that the response that you consider an answer? If so, all I can do is refer you to comment # 28.

    You continue, “No, Einstein. They have Heartland’s own press release confirming that all but one of the leaked documents are theirs.” Did you even bother to read, much less understand, what Heartland said in the source YOU provided?

    I ask again, can you cite one source where UEA “Climategate” documents were used by hackers to fraudulently published artricles under UEA’s name to try to alter public perception?

    Re: comment # 39, John, welcome to the fray. You say, “The current new emphasis is clearly designed to shift our attention ….” Bingo!

    Re: comment # 46, STM, you say, “The problem is: they got into bed with the Greens (watermelons, green outside and all the stuff of substance – or not – is the red inside).” Another bingo!

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    And for all you people out there saying NASA supports AGW, y’all may find this interesting – or not.

  • Clavos

    One problem with governments is that often they don’t listen to the people.

    QF effing T.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dreadfulgate

    I just reread the fourth paragraph of my article, and STILL find no reference to Gleick being the only AGW advocate. Elaboration?

    I was being sarcastic, but my point stands. In para 4 you say: “If AGW is real, as Gleick contends, and if 97-98 percent of scientists worldwide agree with him … then why did Gleick resort to identity theft and forgery?” You also say: “Does Gleick know that his actions speak loudly about his and AGW’s credibility?”

    The clear implication is: If Gleick is discredited, then so is AGW.

    Which makes about as much sense as arguing that the whole of modern medicine is discredited when one doctor is struck off for malpractice.

    Did you even bother to read, much less understand, what Heartland said in the source YOU provided?

    Yes. Did you? It said that THEY emailed the leaked documents to someone they mistakenly believed was internal. (With the exception of the one they said was forged.) So what’s your explanation for that? Did they forge their own documents?

    And for all you people out there saying NASA supports AGW, y’all may find this interesting – or not.

    I find it interesting that the letter is signed by 50 (out of thousands) of FORMER NASA employees… asking NASA to stop supporting AGW.

    Also, so what? Since Deepak Chopra, a qualified medical doctor, now travels the world promoting woo, does that make conventional medicine a hoax?

    [Alert for Dr Literal Beatty: The above, and my earlier medical remark, are analogies.]

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Someone needs to separate the sh.t from the clay when it comes to this stuff.

    I’m trying, Stan. It’s difficult when Warren (and others) keep shovelling more shit.

    And why did the warmenists change the from “warming” to “climate change”.

    They didn’t.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    “Climategate”… “Denialgate”… “Fakegate”… “Dreadfulgate”…

    D’you think the owners of the Watergate Hotel ever wish they’d named it something different and innocuous, like the Four Seasons?

    :-)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dread –

    You know that no matter how much you show him, Warren will never, ever admit that AGW is real as long as Fox News doesn’t say so, don’t you? I keep commenting that the conservative opposition to the very idea of AGW is religiously dogmatic because I see the level of Warren’s (et al) silliness and near-total lack of logic is really not much different than on the religious forum I was on for eight years.

    It really is faith-based politics to them – and the fact that the scientific data overwhelmingly support the reality of AGW simply doesn’t matter. It’s no accident that if one doesn’t believe in evolution and thinks the world is a hair over 6,000 years old, one is almost certainly a conservative.

    And this will not change as long as their version of the Vatican – Fox News – refuses to allow it to change.

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Clearly, some former NASA employees are addicted to Faux News. According to this article

    “49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

    The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.”

    Dear me. Can they possibly be reeducated or are they beyond salvation?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dan(M), the signatories are committing the fallacy of the false compromise.

    30 years ago, when the degree of human influence on climate change was less well understood, their concerns would have been more valid. Today, however, there is such a wealth of data supporting the anthropogenic hypothesis that what they are demanding simply isn’t reasonable. There is no justification for NASA to take a “balanced” approach because the data aren’t “balanced”: they point overwhelmingly in one direction.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Re: comment # 51, Dreadfulgate, you say, “Yes. Did you? It said that THEY emailed the leaked documents to someone they mistakenly believed was internal. (With the exception of the one they said was forged.) So what’s your explanation for that? Did they forge their own documents?” to my question about the source YOU provided in comment # 31: You, in comment # 31, said, “No, Einstein. They have Heartland’s own press release confirming that all but one of the leaked documents are theirs.”
    I just reread the Heartland press release to which you referred in comment # 31, and cannot find the quote you offer. Can you enlighten me?

    You also say, “The clear implication is: If Gleick is discredited, then so is AGW.” So, now you are a mind reader as well? You know what I wish to imply? Is there anything you can’t do?

    Regarding your emphasis of the word “former” and your humorous response in comment # 56 to Dan in no way changes the fact that the FORMER NASA employees feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. Can we IMPLY that you know more about AGW than seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. Sorry, Dreadful, but you are appearing quite foolish.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    WHY are you people bothering arguing with him, he has no intention of listening to reason.

    It’s the Maher bubble forget arguing with Warren, he only sees what he wants to see, not what you’re typing.

    The rest of us are but liberal conspirators out to make him look foolish… in his eyes. In reality he’s doing that all by himself without our help.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Go to the 1:43 time mark here to discover what the bubble looks like.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    Y’know what’s foolish? Pretending the following facts – facts – don’t add up to AGW:

    (1) There is less plant biomass now than there has been probably since not long after the last ice age, thanks to epic-scale deforestation, swamp drainage (like what the Delta used to be), land-clearing for farming, etc.

    (2) Each gallon of gasoline burnt results in 20 POUNDS of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

    (3) There are a half billion vehicles operating in the world today…each one probably using a tankful of gas each week.

    (4) There is no other source that can explain the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere – the only natural event that could have caused such a rise in the CO2 content would be a supervolcanic eruption, because even Krakatoa didn’t cause a rise in the CO2 like we’ve seen in the past generation.

    (5) The sun can’t be blamed either, since it only began coming out of a solar MINIMUM a couple years ago.

    (6) The geologic record shows a very strong correlation between high atmospheric CO2 levels, high temperatures, and low polar glaciation records. All these times before, there was some sort of cause of the rise in the CO2 level. This time, WE are the cause – there’s no other event that can explain the observed rise in the CO2.

    Warren, remember that WE were the cause of the ozone holes, and that was just from aerosol fluorocarbons!

    Is it really then that much of a stretch for you to grasp that WE are the cause of the drastic rise in the CO2 level of the atmosphere? Maybe parts-per-million doesn’t sound like much to you, but any chemist will tell you that PPM’s can make all the difference in the world.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Glenn when Warren reads the word “science” his brain sees “theory,” You are wasting your time.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I just reread the Heartland press release to which you referred in comment # 31, and cannot find the quote you offer. Can you enlighten me?

    Not a quote, Warren – the entire press release, which is entitled “Heartland Institute Responds to Stolen and Fake Documents”. [my emphasis] Now I don’t know about the universe you inhabit, but in mine, if I’ve stolen something from you, that means I took something that belongs to you without your permission.

    Then there’s the paragraph headed “How did this happen?”, in which it is explained how a person (identity at that time unknown) “persuaded a staff member here to ‘re-send’ board materials to a new email address.” Soooo… whose “board materials” do you suppose Heartland was talking about? Theirs? Someone else’s? (In which case, what were they doing with them?) Or some fake ones that they’d falsified, just on the off-chance that someone might steal them?

    Can we IMPLY that you know more about AGW than seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.

    No, but we can be quite confident that the global climatological community, which includes NASA scientists, knows more about AGW than seven Apollo astronauts and two former JSC directors.

    Sorry, Dreadful, but you are appearing quite foolish.

    If so, I’m not alone, I assure you.

  • Clavos

    It’s no accident that if one doesn’t believe in evolution and thinks the world is a hair over 6,000 years old, one is almost certainly a conservative.

    But the reverse is not necessarily true. I don’t believe either in creationism or that the world is only 6,000 years old, or in anything else to do with the “god” fantasy.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I agree that the reverse is not necessarily true – you’re proof of that. But by the same token, the fact that you don’t accept the existence of a deity does not make you more or less amenable to science, for Einstein, Galileo, and Newton all believed in God.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Incidentally, almost all of the Apollo astronauts were recruited from the military. Given that the military tends to be politically conservative, and that global warming “skepticism” is so closely aligned with political conservatism, I’m not at all surprised that so many of the Apollo men feel that way.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Given that the military tends to be politically conservative

    Quoted for truth! It’s no fun being a liberal in the military, let me tell you!

  • Cannonshop

    #66 AND #67…

    Tell that to the Marine getting bounced for his blog, Glenn. It’s a good bounce too-kid had a “Tea Party” site up on his facebook, while on active duty. They’re giving him an “Other than Honorable”.

    The Regs and UCMJ are harsh on ANY political activity-they’re actually softballing this kid.

    and Doc, as for those forty-nine something former NASA employees, with seven Apollo Astronauts? about how many years you figure they’ve been DOING scientific and technical work, with an emphasis on atmospheric, life-support, and climate?

    Just because, for this moment, the Global Warming scare fits your political goals, doesn’t make those who disagree worthless.

    Fact is, the models aren’t accurate, haven’t been accurate, and require heavy massaging to get CLOSE.

    even when it’s fashionable, bad science is still bad science, and smart people really shouldn’t be making policy based on bad science. Especially when said policy cuts into your economy hard enough that adopting it means you lose the ability to adopt something that IS going to work, with reasons that really ARE critical. Uncle sam can crank out the printing-press dollars, but he can’t crank out printing-press Megawatts, raw materials, or just ‘print up’ a few million tonnes of food.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    “Tell that to the Marine getting bounced for his blog, Glenn. It’s a good bounce too-kid had a “Tea Party” site up on his facebook, while on active duty. They’re giving him an “Other than Honorable”.

    First, when one puts up a blog, one is publicly publishing information. I have no sympathy for the guy – he’d been in long enough to know better. I was not happy at all with Bush (but even by then I wasn’t a really strong liberal), but I wasn’t about to publish anything untoward about him.

    That said, remember when the senior Marine in the armed forces publicly spoke out last year against the repeal of DADT? He still gets to retire with full bennies.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    and Doc, as for those forty-nine something former NASA employees, with seven Apollo Astronauts? about how many years you figure they’ve been DOING scientific and technical work, with an emphasis on atmospheric, life-support, and climate?

    Cannon, they’re engineers, mostly. Their expertise (well, some of them; those whose primary knowledge isn’t in ballistics, navigation, rocket fuel, construction etc) is focused on, as you say, life support: making sure the balance of gases and temperature within a space capsule is the right one to keep the occupants alive.

    That doesn’t make them climate experts, any more than my neighbors who keep tropical fish are experts on oceanography.

    Just because, for this moment, the Global Warming scare fits your political goals, doesn’t make those who disagree worthless.

    I’ve said this many times, sometimes politely, sometimes not: I do not give a flying fuck about whatever party or faction’s political goals AGW theory may suit. I’m looking at the science – ALL of the science, not just the inconclusive bits.

    I don’t discount the scientific knowledge of the engineers and scientists who signed the letter, but to value their opinion over that of almost every climatologist in the world is foolish.

    Fact is, the models aren’t accurate, haven’t been accurate, and require heavy massaging to get CLOSE.

    Again, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve refuted that claim on these threads. All I know is that I’m getting fucking tired of people bringing up the same bullshit over and over again. Nevertheless, let’s try one more time:

    1. Models are tools. They do not claim to predict precisely what will happen, just a range of probabilities, and no climatologist pretends otherwise.

    2. Within the scope of what they’re expected to do, they are accurate. Disturbingly, most of them are accurate at the high end of the range of probabilities.

    3. Before being let loose on the future, models are tested to see if they can successfully predict what happened in the past. They can. With that established, there is no reason to think they cannot successfully predict the future.

    4. Climatologists are constantly developing better models as they learn from earlier ones. They do not stubbornly stick with old models, any more than you or I are still driving Ford Model Ts.

    5. Finally, and most importantly, models are not the only evidence for AGW – not by a long chalk.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    You’re expecting perfection of the climatologists. First of all, they’re human and as such will never be perfect. Second, their predictions are ballpark estimates…and as long as their predictions are within the ballpark, they’re doing pretty good when it comes to the complexity of the subject.

    And while we’re on the subject:

    1 – Do we have more CO2-absorbing plant biomass worldwide than we did 100, 200, 300 years ago? Or do we have significantly less? Hint: thanks to cities, roads, farming, swamp/forest/jungle clearing, and logging, it’s the latter. In other words, our biosphere does NOT have the ability to absorb as much CO2 as it once did.

    2 – Each gallon of gas burned results in 20 lbs of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    3 – There are ONE BILLION cars worldwide (until today, I wrongly thought it was ‘only’ a half billion)…and each one probably burns a tank of gas each week.

    Put those three factors together, Clavos – how long do you think we can figuratively crap in the worldwide cradle of humanity before that figurative crap makes life really uncomfortable for us?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Why are you telling all this to Clav, Glenn? He hasn’t weighed in, at least not this time.

  • http://brokebackmountaintribute.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Doc, most of their arguments against global warming are based on “official” documents and reports that were altered by the Bush administration before they were released…

    see comment 6

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Call it a continuation of an AGW discussion Clav and I had a year or so ago. His point was that despite the untold thousands of tons of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each day, when compared to the volume of the atmosphere as a whole, it’s not enough to make a difference.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jet –

    I remembered that nearly half of Bush admin scientists stated that their reports had been altered when it came to climate change. Imagine how the Right would have howled if, say, the Obama administration had done the same!

    To wit:

    1. Nearly half of all respondents (46 percent of all respondents to the question) perceived or
    personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming,” or
    other similar terms from a variety of communications.
    2. Two in five (43 percent) perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review that
    changed the meaning of scientific findings.
    3. Nearly half (46 percent) perceived or personally experienced new or unusual administrative
    requirements that impair climate related work.
    4. One-quarter (25 percent) perceived or personally experienced situations in which scientists have
    actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to
    change scientific findings.
    5. Asked to quantify the number of incidents of interference of all types, 150 scientists (58 percent)
    said they had personally experienced one or more such incidents within the past five years, for a
    total of at least 435 incidents of political interference.

    And this is yet more evidence of the beginning of the Bush administration’s efforts to remove climate change from the national psyche.

  • Cannonshop

    #68 Last year…you mean, the third year of the Obama Administration, and they’re letting the guy stay…

    IIRC, at the time, it was still DoD policy, now if he made his noising AFTER the repeal, well…that, I guess, is the CinC’s responsiblity, or the SecNav, so that ends up being a political decision in D.C., and seeing as I doubt Mr. Obama has much knowledge of UCMJ regulations, and seeing as nobody’s likely to want to scalp a Commandant of the Corps right before retirement (It WOULD be different if said Commandant of the Corps was just beginning his term, or had a few more good years left to him, I reckon…) WE do live in an imperfect world. After all, the CO of that MP battalion at Abu Ghraib got to keep her Career in spite of losing control of her soldiers-in public, no less, while they prosecuted an E-4 as if an E-4 or E-5 would have the kind of juice to organize that in a chain of command that was functioning.

    But we were both in during the Bush Sr. and Clinton years-so don’t go being butt-hurt over having to keep quiet and obey the reg under Bush-you had plenty of colleagues who had to do the same thing under Clinton, and under Bush Sr, and I’d wager under Reagan and Carter and Ford and Nixon, all the way back to Truman, when the UCMJ was enacted.

    The GOAL of the regulation is to ensure that the MILITARY as a whole, is apolitical and in so being, unlikely to attempt what the Business Cabal (a group of American fascists that included a number of big Corporate names) intended to attempt during the 1930’s-a military coup.

    There are systems, regulations, and traditions in place in every service to prevent that-one of those, is the tradition (backed by the reg) that says “you keep your politics to yourself.”

  • Cannonshop

    #75 (continued) the name I was looking for reference the Business Cabal, was Smedley Butler, who told these fascist bastards to go pound sand.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Here’s a pretty neat post explaining exactly why the letter to NASA is supreme, absolute, thorough, complete, total, utter and unmitigated bollocks.

  • Clavos Juarez Santana Zapata

    Another storm brewing…

    Another nail in the coffin?

  • Zingzing

    Ah, Christopher Booker… A man of science, who also believes that even evolution rests on shaky scientific grounds. He’s apparently been proclaiming this sit for 4 or 5 years. He’s playing with your dick, clavos.

  • Clavos Juarez Santana Zapata

    Indeed, zing. But I learned long ago the whole world is.

    There is nothing new under the sun.

  • Zingzing

    Well, as long as you enjoy it.

  • Clavos Juarez Santana Zapata

    You don’t???

  • Zingzing

    Depends on a few things. I’d have to take a look at who’s tugging.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Booker’s op-ed is a series of strawmen, best fed to cattle. Male cattle, preferably, who can then recycle it into a more appropriate format.

  • Zingzing

    Searching for clavos’ coffin…

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    My thoughts on the article that follows, quoted from today’s New York Times:

    Am I the only that it’s occurred to that whether or not the warming trend is manmade, wouldn’t reducing carbon emmissions go a long way towards alleviating the problem?

    The oil companies have so blinded the public into fighting over who is to blame for WHAT IS CAUSING the problem, rather than finding a cure for it, because they know it involves using less fossil fuel-thus lowering their profit margin.

    —trick the American public into concentrating on their wallets and cheaper gas NOW, than fixing or at least lessoning global warming LATER.—

    And what do they care; as long as they’re making billions the future is no one’s concern… cross that bridge when it happens whether it’s too late for our future kids to do anything about it then or not.

    ————————–
    From the New York Times…

    Scientists may hesitate to link some of the weather extremes of recent years to global warming – but the public, it seems, is already there.

    A poll due for release on Wednesday shows that a large majority of Americans believe that this year’s unusually warm winter, last year’s blistering summer and some other weather disasters were probably made worse by global warming. And by a 2-to-1 margin, the public says the weather has been getting worse, rather than better, in recent years.

    The survey, the most detailed to date on the public response to weather extremes, comes atop other polling showing a recent uptick in concern about climate change. Read together, the polls suggest that direct experience of erratic weather may be convincing some people that the problem is no longer just a vague and distant threat.

    “Most people in the country are looking at everything that’s happened; it just seems to be one disaster after another after another,” said Anthony A. Leiserowitz of Yale University, one of the researchers who commissioned the new poll. “People are starting to connect the dots.”

    The poll opens a new window on public opinion about climate change.

    A large majority of climate scientists say the climate is shifting in ways that could cause serious impacts, and they cite the human release of greenhouse gases as a principal cause. But a tiny, vocal minority of researchers contests that view, and has seemed in the last few years to be winning the battle of public opinion despite slim scientific evidence for their position.

    The poll suggests that a solid majority of the public feels that global warming is real, a result consistent with other polls that have asked the question in various ways. When invited to agree or disagree with the statement, “global warming is affecting the weather in the United States,” 69 percent of respondents in the new poll said they agreed, while 30 percent disagreed.

    Dr. Leiserowitz’s unit at Yale, along with researchers at George Mason University, commissioned the survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks. That company surveyed 1,008 American adults by computer in the last half of March, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

    While many online polls are not representative of the broad public, Knowledge Networks is noted for its efforts to overcome this problem, including giving computers to households too poor to have them. The survey reveals public attitudes that are at least roughly consistent with scientific understanding of how the climate is changing.

    For instance, when people were asked whether they attributed specific events to global warming, recent heat waves drew the largest majorities. Scientists say their statistical evidence for an increase of weather extremes is indeed strongest when it comes to heat waves.

    Asked whether they agreed or disagreed that global warming had contributed to the unusually warm winter just past, 25 percent of the respondents said they strongly agreed that it had, and 47 percent said they somewhat agreed. Only 17 percent somewhat disagreed, and 11 percent strongly disagreed.

    Majorities almost as large cited global warming as a likely factor in last year’s record summer heat wave, as well as the 2011 drought in Texas and Oklahoma. Smaller but still substantial majorities cited it as a factor in the record United States snowfalls of 2010 and 2011 and the Mississippi River floods of 2011. Those views, too, are consistent with scientific evidence, which suggests that global warming is causing heavier precipitation in all seasons.

    One of the more striking findings was that 35 percent of the public reported being affected by extreme weather in the past year. The United States was hit in 2011 by a remarkable string of disasters affecting virtually every region, including droughts, floods, tornadoes and heat waves.

    Dr. Leiserowitz said that recent events might be puncturing the public’s “very simplistic mental model of what global warming is supposed to be.”

    Past survey work had suggested, he said, that people tended to see the climate change problem as “distant in time and space-that this is an issue about polar bears or maybe Bangladesh, but not my community, not the United States, not my friends and family.”

    Because the survey questions are new, it is not clear how people’s views about weather extremes may be changing over time. However, more general polling by the Gallup organization suggests that public concern about climate change, which has waxed and waned over the years, may be starting to rise again.

    Since 1989, Gallup has asked, “how much do you personally worry about global warming?” The percentage of people saying they were worried peaked at 66 percent just before the recession, then fell to a low of 51 percent in 2011, as the economy overwhelmed other concerns.

    Gallup’s most recent survey, in March, showed an uptick to 55 percent. “It’s certainly possible that this is the start of a trend back up,” said Frank M. Newport, Gallup’s editor in chief, though he added that another year of polling data would be necessary to be certain.

    Advocacy groups seeking policies to limit climate change say that extreme weather is giving them an opening to reach the public.

    A group called 350.org is planning a worldwide series of rallies on May 5, under the slogan “Connect the Dots,” to draw attention to the links between climate change and extreme weather. (The group’s name is a reference to an ideal concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.)

    “My sense from around the country and the world is that people definitely understand that things are getting freaky,” said William E. McKibben, the founder of 350.org. “During that crazy heat wave in March, everyone in Chicago was out enjoying the weather, but in the back of their mind they were thinking, this is not right.”