Dec 13 2009

Climategate Ripping Through The “Settled Science”

I mentioned in my long article speculating on who may be behind climategate that the puzzle provided the world in the CRU data dump was complex – it would get solved once it was torn apart by the virtual mind that is the internet.

Two great pieces hit the web today which confirm my confidence in all the minds logged into the internet with affordable high powered personal computers and software. First is from The Daily Mail, which lays out the core elements of Climategate. It is a must read.

Second is this wonderfully entertaining post at Iwoa Hawk on how to cook up your own AGW hockey stick. One of huge faults with the alarmist camp is the arrogant idea only they can understand what they are doing. My view has been they have been operating well below par when compared to other fields driven by math, science and technology. Iowa Hawk just nails the Hockey Team in terms of demonstrating why a lot of people, outside the peer review process, can dissect and critique the AGW theories and models without applying a majority of their available IQ points.

You don’t have to be a professor to understand when the professors have screwed up!

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “Climategate Ripping Through The “Settled Science””

  1. Terrye says:

    I am amazed how many people just blow this Climate gate story off and go right on assuming that the science is settled and anyone who disagrees is a flat earther. They are oblivious.

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Suhr Mesa, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: Climategate Ripping Through The "Settled Science" […]

  3. crosspatch says:

    AJ, over at Jeff Id’s blog.

    Seems they have exaggerated Antarctic warming 8x over actual.

  4. Neo says:

    “There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy.”

    .. and here underlies the real problem.

  5. MarkN says:

    I haven’t posted on Climategate since it broke. One, I have been busy with making a living and two, I have been watching with utter amazement at a prediction come true. I have to admit, I cheated. The LANDSAT program has been around for years and I worked on the project at university in the 1970s. I worked with a CO2 AGW pioneer who wanted the satellite program to gather temperature data more accurately that the land based system could. So when AJ says that the satellite data is more accurate and more precise than the land based measurements it brings back pleasant memories. The second reason was that the land based measurements were not confirming CO2 AGW. The scientific community has known the tenuous nature of CO2 AGW for 30 years. The whole impetus for AGW comes from the political world. The modern day watermelons. Green on the outside and red on the inside.

    AJ: Great work on Climategate. Personally I hate the term Climategate but it’s too late to try to coin a different phrase.

  6. MerlinOS2 says:

    Besides a number of excellent posts on the emails and the data the site linked in that story does an excellent job at looking at the head of the IPCC and his linkages to many other places that would or should be a conflict of interest and self enrichment in the process.

  7. Dc says:

    AJ, thanks again for all your work on this. I’m starting to notice that the AGW community rebuttals are now mostly limited to personal and conspiracy theory attacks meant to debunk or dispute “facts/data” that don’t line up. Yes…don’t believe what is in front of your face, because these people got 20 thousand dollars from some oil company backed research institute. (we wont’ mention the 20 MILLION “they” got)

    That’s one of the current common “debunking” themes: how much money and/or political ties that people presenting arguments and data to dispute AGW claims thave, etc. My understanding is..that there is data (actual figures/evidence) to show that the AGW community has FAR more money and political influence than their counterparts and that they are being “highly” dishonest about this.

    Mainly, given it’s one of their talking/selling points, I’m wondering why more isn’t being said about it currently? If the data is as would be a simple matter to shove this right down their throats and expose more of their agenda to the public how is constantly bombarded with the message NOT to listen to counter arguments “because” they are dishonest claims made by oil companies who spend lots of money, etc., to place doubt in peoples minds (ie., mind control)

    On the other hand, perhaps its just a ploy by them to try and get you off message (data/facts) and to get counter arguments on a different level. But, given what the data is…I suppose they’d loose “that’ argument too.

  8. Dc says:

    I also liked their response to the emails that showed they tried to keep others work from being published was “FALSE” because the publication actually ended up publishing them anyway. WTF!??

    AGW has become a “religion” based on “faith”.

  9. crosspatch says:

    There is one simple thing the media and the warmists seem to ignore. That is:

    Please explain the adjustments.

    That is as simple as it gets. Without the adjustments, there is no AGW. The raw data shows no “global warming”.

  10. Neo says:

    Science writer Andrew C. Revkin, the individual journalist most identified with reporting on climate change, is leaving The New York Times.