The View From 1776

Climategate Latest Revelation

Global warming is just HALF what we said: World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong 

• Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007

• Scientists accept their computers ‘may have exaggerated’


Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 09/15 at 12:49 PM
  1. Thomas,

    To me, the most revealing remarks in the whole report are those of Professor Curry, who confesses to confusion regarding the IPCC’s 95% confidence humans are to blame (up from 90% in 2007) despite admitting temperatures have not risen per model predictions. I did a little digging on Curry before passing judgment. Obviously, she is not one more agenda driven accomplice to the fraud, but neither is she properly skeptical (for a scientist) regarding what is now quite obviously a conspiracy to falsify data and outcomes.

    In ‘Physics Today’ ( ), Dr. Curry makes a case for climate-scientists regaining the public’s trust that is plausible and helpful. Unfortunately, she is more than a little naïve regarding this business. At the end of the day, she too persists in believing AGW is defensible. Her only complaint with ‘caught red-handed’ colleagues is that violated scientific methodological principles, and not ethical principles or intellectual-propriety. Curry confuses a clear case of widespread dishonesty, opportunism and outright opposition to dialogue with a beleaguered defensiveness and insularity on the part of her colleagues. She see the problem (on her side) as limited to a handful of genuinely corrupt individuals easily culled from the pack, rather than one of pervasive dogmatism that skeptics encounter routinely at all levels and guises.

    Conversely, she categorically and uncritically accepts the unflatteringly dismissive characterizations made of skeptics as loutish outsiders motivated by unscientific concerns (i.e., money, politics, weak theoretical backgrounds and mal-informed as to the science), never imagining we might be clever enough to sort through the science and debate ourselves, coming to perfectly reasonable conclusions at odds with her own. Some of the leading skeptics are, in fact, major climate-scientists rightly indignant at the corrupting of their beloved science, whose acceptance of [alleged] ‘oil funding’ came well after their opposition began.

    She takes as gospel the nonsense regarding oil money fueling the debate, which is demonstrably false (check out ExxonMobil’s website [ ] wherein environmental activism is as strong as at most American corporations). Exxon’s position has long and falsely been characterized as environmentally hostile; which is far from the truth. The reality is Exxon-Mobil cow-tows to environmental extortion the same as others. Exxon and oil have been a scapegoat for environmentalists for so long that few think to question the perceived wisdom, and imagine a corporation implacably resistant to pressure and corrupt as the old Soviet empire was to capitalism and perks for its commissars. Curry is blind to the activism waged by and financial resources available to her own ideologically driven colleagues, including those expropriated from our own government against us; and can’t imagine she, and they, (just possibly) might be causing problems for which others (aka, skeptics) are rightly opposed.

    Most skeptics are individuals without the backing of oil companies, corporations, governments, universities, &c (or anything beyond restoring reason to science and to science-based policy). To the degree some are, it is far less than the support given proponents. There are far fewer websites devoted to opposing AGW regulation than support it, typically do so out of conviction regarding the effects of bad-science begetting bad-policy, and maintain their sites mainly through advertising and the small contributions of individuals. Only a handful of the better known opponents receive any kind of corporate patronage, and typically said patronage and funding goes to much more than influencing this one issue. Yes, there is some of that, but only as pales by comparison (and absent the corrupting influences fueling climate change dogma), especially within government, ‘Green’-industries, and academia.

    Academia has reaped a windfall in research dollars to prove anthropogenic climate change is happening, and zero dollars to disprove it. The reason for this disparity is easy to see. As in the media, sensational and catastrophic trumps mundane and harmless every time. Anxiety spurred the initial interest in the possibility of man-driven climate effects, but it is self-interest that turned the quest for proof into an industry and keeps it going. The hordes of ‘deniers’ (and there are as many skeptics as believers) share almost nothing of the rewards flowing to proponents, and are mainly motivated by concern for our society and fellow humans; by a conviction that policies rooted in panic and/or upon weak evidence are inherently ruinous. Careers and ventures are staked out, are now depend on the premise AGW is real and hugely consequential – regardless the evidence. How, then, can she not see the corruption this inflicts even on the non-ideologically driven climate-scientist? How can she not see the compromise to intellectual integrity all around her? Dr. Curry admonishes her colleagues to bravely look in a mirror to find the source of mistrust regarding her science, but could probably bear a bit of mirror gazing herself. As can we all.

    IPCC deceit is perfectly comprehensible given you realize two things. First is the IPCC TARs have multiple authors who don’t communicate theoretical compromises with each other prior to publication especially well on the assumption their safeguards against detection were/are impregnable. This is a case of right-hand not knowing what left-hand is writing as contradicts right-hand (and vice versa), and not caring enough to avoid exposure from within. Secondly, IPCC is inhabited by environmental-fanatics to whom evidence matters only as it supports theory, and ignored where it undermines. This fanaticism is especially rife among IPCC’s top echelon. Most of Curry’s confusion (with regard to skeptics) hinges on her misperception of skeptics as ‘anti-science’ Luddites. Yet, many (if not most) are scientists, engineers and similarly science-oriented people concerned with the debasement of science as she. The skeptical response has not been one of opposition to studying climate (as she believes), of confusion regarding the science, nor even to admitting the possibility of some human agency. The skeptical response has mainly been an opposition to the corrupting of science for expedience’s sake, to agenda-driven pseudo-science, self-elected experts posing as scientists, the monomaniacal insistence on economically devastating ‘precautionary’ measures, and governmental policies based on unproven and largely improvable theory.

    The article ends on the subject of ‘climate sensitivity’, which I felt was presented rather confusingly and terse. So, I here provide links to some better explanations, one in support, one opposed, and a third explaining why the term is meaningless without a whole lot of validation (decades of it, plus vastly improved data collection and retention). Warning: this last one is moderately technical.

    Notes on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): - pro-AGW site devoted to refuting skeptics with just a dash of anti-skeptic bigotry - skeptical view of ECS - and another with math & graphs

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/18  at  08:57 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.