The biggest scam in history

[Daryl]

I dont think so. Not yet anyhow.

:lol::lol:

[Daklu]

I can't believe so many otherwise intelligent PROGRAMMERS can be so flippant about cooking data, manipulating data, using "tricks" on data, hiding data and DELETING data for nefarious purposes.

Paul, I think it's a big leap to think that because a few scientists have deleted data (if these affirmations have not been taken out of context), that all the climate scientists are covering the truth. You find a rotten apple, you expose it and take it out of the basket. You certainly don't throw the whole basket away.

Francois, I think you're missing a key point. From what I have read, it appears (though I am not certain) these scientists may have provided much of the data the climate science community based their findings on. It's not simply a matter of removing a bad apple, it's that the bad apple is held up as a model of what "good" apples should look like.

At the very least their papers have had a major impact on public policy, both within the US and in the IPCC. The economic impact of the proposed solutions based on their research is huge, both in monetary and geographical terms. In that context, I have to agree that this may be the biggest scam in history.

I'm not saying human-induced global warming isn't happening or that those who believe it is happening are enganged in a huge conspiracy. (Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Having spent time reading through various arguments and critiques from both sides I personally haven't seen any compelling evidence that it is.) I am saying these scientists let their personal/political motivations influence their work to the extent the results can no longer be accurate labelled "scientific." Yet they published and promoted their work as through it was, and successfully influenced public policy with it.

The more I read, the more disgusted I get. This is the religion of science at it's worst, and religious ideology of any sort should not form the basis of governmental action.

[bbean]

GA_googleFillSlot("news_story_left_sidebar"); LONDON (AP) - Britain's University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1

[crelf]

Ultimately I don't know, I take all the information that is given to me and I formulate an opinion based on what I am told is fact from groups and organizations which may have a private agenda.

Well said.

I'd say the 10 year global cooling trend is a pretty good clue.

10 years is a pretty short time to turn data into information in this instance. Hey - last winter was colder than the winter before, therefore global warming doesn't exist, right?

My understanding is that the atmospheric temperature isn't the concern (yet), it's more the ocean temperatures rising.

I can't believe so many otherwise intelligent PROGRAMMERS can be so flippant about cooking data, manipulating data, using "tricks" on data, hiding data and DELETING data for nefarious purposes.

For goodness sake - stop throwing mud when you're doing exactly the same thing! you've listed 5 bad practises, and shown us 1 example that backs up 1 example of 1 of them! ...and you haven't backed up the "nefarious" comment. I tried to steer this thread toward what I thought you wanted: I though you were after a sensible discussion of the facts, and how left keep making unfounded accusations, but here you are doing exactly the same thing. What do you want from this thread? Are you just using it as a sounding board because you're cranky with the flu? If so, I'll stop posting now. If you're actually interested in finding out the truth, or even discussing how both sides manipulate data to their own ends, then I'll stick around. But you need to choose which topic you want to discuss.

Paul, I think it's a big leap to think that because a few scientists have deleted data (if these affirmations have not been taken out of context), that all the climate scientists are covering the truth. You find a rotten apple, you expose it and take it out of the basket. You certainly don't throw the whole basket away.

Well put. An old physics professor of mine once said "there is no bad data, just bad interpretations". I totally agree that if scientists are found willingly changing data then they need to be hung, drawn and quartered. The problem is that (for the most part) a lot of the data is in formats that is difficult, if not impossible, for the general public to digest - that's when "commentators" come in to play, and try to interpret the data - sometimes to their own end

So, I don't think that we can call global wamring/climate change/the greenhouse eefect a scam just because some sicentists have fiddled with some numbers.

We could sit here all day long and post contradicting links without changing each others minds.

That is so totally the issue here - not wether climate change is happening, but that the data is being skewed by both sides to their own ends.

Believe what you want, i'll do the same.

Wouldn't it be great if we all looked at the data and could understand it so that didn't have to "beleive" anything? Now we're starting to get into the world of religion

[pallen]

Well put. An old physics professor of mine once said "there is no bad data, just bad interpretations". I totally agree that if scientists are found willingly changing data then they need to be hung, drawn and quartered. The problem is that (for the most part) a lot of the data is in formats that is difficult, if not impossible, for the general public to digest - that's when "commentators" come in to play, and try to interpret the data - sometimes to their own end

This reminds me of an interesting radio program I was listening to the other night. It seems that Canada has named a Pfizer exec to the board that funds health research. It's 'like having big bad wolf directing 3 little pigs'

Some see a very obvious conflict of interest here. Others....apparently don't.

[bbean]

People have been going through the code found in the hacked files and have found numerous examples of "tricks" to manipulate the data. Granted the people looking over the files are climate change "deniers" but if you look at the examples they present from a programming standpoint something smells fishy.

http://www.americant...mategate_r.html

Example 2

In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the "correction" is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the "adjustment" routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn't kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I'm familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you. Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930. And the former apparently wasn't a particularly well-guarded secret, although the actual adjustment period remained buried beneath the surface.

Plotting programs such as data4alps.pro print this reminder to the user prior to rendering the chart:

IMPORTANT NOTE:

The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.

Others, such as mxdgrid2ascii.pro, issue this warning:

NOTE

: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then (sic) they should be which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).

[JiMM]

Wouldn't it be great if we all looked at the data and could understand it so that didn't have to "beleive" anything? Now we're starting to get into the world of religion

Well said Chris (BTW - calumniative - thanks for the addition to my vocabulary )

I must agree with those who are not sure about the data on the increasing global temperature, and who are EXTREMELY apprehensive of those who claim certainty that it is anthropogenic.

How well have we characterized the effect of the varying radiance of that big ball of burning hydrogen in the sky?

How much of the snow melting in the Arctic and North America is due to increased soot deposits on the snow due to the increased coal burning in China rather than CO2 in the atmosphere?

Let us follow the "money trail" of those who are pushing these ideas. Are they concerned for the planet and our progeny, or have they found a new and profitable gig?

How many of the suggestions pushed by the IPCC and others lead to nothing more than bureaucracies funded by the UN to transfer money to lesser developed nations?

How many of those pushing these ideologies live lifestyles that are in conflict with them.

Al Gore won a Nobel prize for his championship of THE CAUSE. The IPCC calls global meat production the greatest threat to the earth because of the greenhouse gasses that it produces, yet he is still a self described "steak-aholic". He flies around the world in a private jet rather than with the "great unwashed" in a mass transit jet while telling us that we should ride our bikes to work.

I completely agree that we need to reduce the crap that we send into the ecosystem. I don't need data to tell me this is detrimental, and a bad idea.

The question is: How much of the furor is about the people who have a monetary stake in the "Green" process, and how much of it is really about anthropogenic global warming?

Al has found hisself a VERY profitable cause, and so have many in others. And they are profiting on evidence that is very disputable.

What exactly is the ideal temperature for the Earth? It has varied greatly over the millenia, and I am curious how we determined what the best one was. Which increases were natural and which were man made? And when did we find the thermostat? Is it controlled with LabVIEW? I'd like to checkout THAT VI!

Dismount from soapbox.

Cheers

Jim

[PaulG.]

Well said Chris (BTW - calumniative - thanks for the addition to my vocabulary )

I must agree with those who are not sure about the data on the increasing global temperature, and who are EXTREMELY apprehensive of those who claim certainty that it is anthropogenic.

How well have we characterized the effect of the varying radiance of that big ball of burning hydrogen in the sky?

How much of the snow melting in the Arctic and North America is due to increased soot deposits on the snow due to the increased coal burning in China rather than CO2 in the atmosphere?

Let us follow the "money trail" of those who are pushing these ideas. Are they concerned for the planet and our progeny, or have they found a new and profitable gig?

How many of the suggestions pushed by the IPCC and others lead to nothing more than bureaucracies funded by the UN to transfer money to lesser developed nations?

How many of those pushing these ideologies live lifestyles that are in conflict with them.

Al Gore won a Nobel prize for his championship of THE CAUSE. The IPCC calls global meat production the greatest threat to the earth because of the greenhouse gasses that it produces, yet he is still a self described "steak-aholic". He flies around the world in a private jet rather than with the "great unwashed" in a mass transit jet while telling us that we should ride our bikes to work.

I completely agree that we need to reduce the crap that we send into the ecosystem. I don't need data to tell me this is detrimental, and a bad idea.

The question is: How much of the furor is about the people who have a monetary stake in the "Green" process, and how much of it is really about anthropogenic global warming?

Al has found hisself a VERY profitable cause, and so have many in others. And they are profiting on evidence that is very disputable.

What exactly is the ideal temperature for the Earth? It has varied greatly over the millenia, and I am curious how we determined what the best one was. Which increases were natural and which were man made? And when did we find the thermostat? Is it controlled with LabVIEW? I'd like to checkout THAT VI!

Dismount from soapbox.

Cheers

Jim

I am speechless. I am in awe. I wish I could give you +10 points. Well said, Jim. You can take my place on my soapbox anytime.

crelf out.

Damn the global warming, uh, er, I mean "climate change" denying heretics!!!

Global warming/climate change: Biggest. Scam. Ever.

Edited December 2, 2009 by PaulG.

[Daklu]

crelf out.

Aww, Chris... do you have to go? I only just came out to play and so enjoy healthy debate!

What's in it for the scientists that say it's true? ...and don't forget to include (preferrably reputable, if that's at all possible) references.

What do you consider "reputable?" I'd hate to take the time to link sources only to have you dismiss them out of hand as not reputable enough.

I figure what Paul G. is commenting on is that climate change is a "scam", and while you've got some interesting points, let's keep it on that very narrow topic as to discuss it with more clarity.

Unfortunately, "climate change" (and "global warming") is an ambiguous phrase. The precise meaning--is the climate changing?--is largely meaningless without constraints on the timeframe. Is the climate today different than it was 3 million years ago? Not really. 300 years ago? Yep. 30 years ago? Maybe. 3 years ago? No. On the other hand, the political meaning and common understanding of "climate change" generally refers to climate change caused by human activities, or more specifically, by human production of CO2. This is what Climategate is about and I believe this is what Paul is referring to as the scam. (That's what I'm referring to anyway...) So although I'd love to discuss this with you I need to know which definition you're working with.

10 years is a pretty short time to turn data into information in this instance. Hey - last winter was colder than the winter before, therefore global warming doesn't exist, right?

If you restate that as '10 years is a pretty short time to reach conclusions in this instance,' I'll agree with you. Data is, after all, information in itself and doesn't need to be turned into it.

An old physics professor of mine once said "there is no bad data, just bad interpretations".

Your professor was wrong. Data can be bad. For example, a faulty sensor that continuously outputs a single value produces bad data. I don't see how any interpretation or corrections can make anything useful out of it. (Although I suppose you could claim that wouldn't be "data.") I do agree with what I believe the idea behind his statement is. Namely, statistics don't lie. They can't--they are simply math. The lie comes in manipulating data and analysis to produce an interpretation that supports your preconceived views.

The problem is that (for the most part) a lot of the data is in formats that is difficult, if not impossible, for the general public to digest - that's when "commentators" come in to play, and try to interpret the data - sometimes to their own end So, I don't think that we can call global wamring/climate change/the greenhouse eefect a scam just because some sicentists have fiddled with some numbers.

I have to admit I find this argument unconvincing on several counts:

1. The data and processes used to reach the conclusions arrived at by the CRU has never been made available for objective scientists to review, much less the general public and commentators.
2. Sometimes commentators DO have a personal stake in interpreting data a certain, less than honest, way. However, in your earlier posts you seem to completely discount the notion that a scientist may also have a personal stake in a certain interpretation. (i.e. How does one provide a reference to show that additional research grants generally depend on the research bearing fruit? Are grant decisions completely random?) Scientists are human too and subject to same desires as everyone else: Money, power, prestige, pride, etc. Why should we take it as a given that commentators can succumb to those influences while scientists are above reproach?
3. This issue is more than just a few scientists fiddling with some numbers. On the whole it's about deliberate, considered, and unethical actions taken by prominent scientists to ramrod a political agenda down the throats of governments.

That is so totally the issue here - not wether climate change is happening, but that the data is being skewed by both sides to their own ends.

I disagree the issue is that both sides spin data. Extremists at either end of any issue will spin data the way that makes their cause look the most favorable. That, while extremely frustrating to me, is to be expected. The issue here is that in this particular instance the extremists (defined as so by their willingness to spin the information) have obtained very prominent positions with the ability to influence economics on a global scale.

(Hmm... in rereading perhaps the "issue here" you are referring to was more narrowly referring to Daryl's comment on 10-year cooling rather than the larger topic of climategate in general. If so, I withdraw my disagreement, though I stand by the rest of the statement.)

Wouldn't it be great if we all looked at the data and could understand it so that didn't have to "beleive" anything? Now we're starting to get into the world of religion

Naw... then there would just be arguments about what to do about it. Or whose fault it is.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

...

That is so totally the issue here - not wether climate change is happening, but that the data is being skewed by both sides to their own ends.

Wouldn't it be great if we all looked at the data and could understand it so that didn't have to "beleive" anything? Now we're starting to get into the world of religion

That sounds like you are coming around to the point I was was making earlier, Scientist and Engineers fill the societal gap previously filled by clergy. "The numbers" are our "bones", "entrails" etc. We are looked too by society to help them decide what is truth and what is fiction. If this is goes on too long and is never closed with a definative answer, the religion of "science" will be called into question.

Quoting from Winston Churchill ( The Second World War Vol 4 "The Hinge of Fate" pg 53) where he wrote;

"There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away."

So the earlier we get this over with the better off the science types will be.

Ben

[Daryl]

Well said.

10 years is a pretty short time to turn data into information in this instance. Hey - last winter was colder than the winter before, therefore global warming doesn't exist, right?

My understanding is that the atmospheric temperature isn't the concern (yet), it's more the ocean temperatures rising.

For goodness sake - stop throwing mud when you're doing exactly the same thing! you've listed 5 bad practises, and shown us 1 example that backs up 1 example of 1 of them! ...and you haven't backed up the "nefarious" comment. I tried to steer this thread toward what I thought you wanted: I though you were after a sensible discussion of the facts, and how left keep making unfounded accusations, but here you are doing exactly the same thing. What do you want from this thread? Are you just using it as a sounding board because you're cranky with the flu? If so, I'll stop posting now. If you're actually interested in finding out the truth, or even discussing how both sides manipulate data to their own ends, then I'll stick around. But you need to choose which topic you want to discuss.

Well put. An old physics professor of mine once said "there is no bad data, just bad interpretations". I totally agree that if scientists are found willingly changing data then they need to be hung, drawn and quartered. The problem is that (for the most part) a lot of the data is in formats that is difficult, if not impossible, for the general public to digest - that's when "commentators" come in to play, and try to interpret the data - sometimes to their own end

So, I don't think that we can call global wamring/climate change/the greenhouse eefect a scam just because some sicentists have fiddled with some numbers.

That is so totally the issue here - not wether climate change is happening, but that the data is being skewed by both sides to their own ends.

Wouldn't it be great if we all looked at the data and could understand it so that didn't have to "beleive" anything? Now we're starting to get into the world of religion

you might have achieved the multi-quote world record here

[PaulG.]

Climategate: Dissent on ice

[PaulG.]

It's not a conspiracy if you are paying attention.

Stewart quipped, “Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!”

Video here.

"Why would you throw out data from the 80's?! I still have Penthouses from the 70's ... LAMINATED!!

Edited December 3, 2009 by PaulG.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

...

From Physics Today dated 2 Dec 2009 "Jones Steps Down as head of climate unit"

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics/2009/12/jones-steps-down-at-head-of-cl.html?type=PTALERT

Ben

[Daklu]

You know, I've never been one to subscribe to the 'left-wing media conspiracy.' Sure, they tended to lean towards the left, but on the whole I figured they were just trying to do their job well.

However, the complete absence of any major media outlet reporting on this story leaves me baffled and very disappointed. Why aren't they reporting on it? Fox News (which I neither condemn nor follow) has actually increased their credibility in my view. (Though I still won't watch it.) I know! I can hardly believe it myself!

[PaulG.]

You know, I've never been one to subscribe to the 'left-wing media conspiracy.' Sure, they tended to lean towards the left, but on the whole I figured they were just trying to do their job well.

However, the complete absence of any major media outlet reporting on this story leaves me baffled and very disappointed. Why aren't they reporting on it? Fox News (which I neither condemn nor follow) has actually increased their credibility in my view. (Though I still won't watch it.) I know! I can hardly believe it myself!

Can't speak for the media in general, but the Associated Press had 11 reporters "fact" checking Sarah Palin's book. Obviously Sarah Palin is more of a threat to world peace than the biggest scam in history.

I rarely watch the news on TV, but when I do it's always Fox. One day Neil Cavuto had a global warming, uh, er, I mean "climate change" "expert" and Neil called him out on it: "Why are we calling it 'climate change' now and no longer calling it global warming?" I was a little embarrassed that such a question even had to be asked.

And when 0bama singled them out a few weeks ago I figured they must be hitting very close to home. It only further validated Fox in my eyes.

Edited December 3, 2009 by PaulG.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Can't speak for the media in general, but the Associated Press had 11 reporters "fact" checking Sarah Palin's book. Obviously Sarah Palin is more of a threat to world peace than the biggest scam in history.

I rarely watch the news on TV, but when I do it's always Fox. One day Neil Cavuto had a global warming, uh, er, I mean "climate change" "expert" and Neil called him out on it: "Why are we calling it 'climate change' now and no longer calling it global warming?" I was a little embarrassed that such a question even had to be asked.

And when 0bama singled them out a few weeks ago I figured they must be hitting very close to home. It only further validated Fox in my eyes.

We are drifting from the topic but I'm game to wonder.

I don't think there is a world wide conspirency but I would not be supporised if many people are scamming the system with the agregate effect appearing to be a conspiracy.

My opion as it stand today (subject to change when i learn more) is/are

Sara Palin is scary because she is completely unpredctable (did you see her resigning as governer coming?). Her face book update about "death Panels" set the news organization off to deal with that. Her book set new record for numbers of printings prior to release. I suspect this is due to many people lossing confidence in the leader we have and want to find someon outside the Washington belt-way to setp up. Her backing of the independant candidate in the 23 district of NY state almost helped him win (counting of absentee balots were getting him close).

I beileve it was the 17th ammendment that changed the slection of senators from an appointment by the governor of the sates to direct election. That ammendment combined with the rules of seniority in the senate means that "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" just can't happen. THe only way to get anything done in either house is to get the party in power to run with it. I still hold out hope that a new constitutional congress will be called for so that the monopoly of powers held by the two parties in the US can be broken.

There are other factors that play into what gets covered. The most imporatant being sponsor $$$s. They have to fill that screen with something that keep people watching through te commercials. One of the easiest things to present is "the talking heads" since no writters or fancy expensive graphics involved. So if the News programs want to maintain the source of cheap air-filling stuff, they don't want to piss-off the talking heads. So running off to cover a story that could upset those that keep the air filled, may be a prudent approach.

FOX on the other hand is burning up the ratings and agian I can only specualte that is for the same reason that Sarah is ggeting coverage, people are looking for someone to tell them what they can accept as being the truth, nad FOX seems to be the next best thing.

Re: FOX being singled out

I really have to give a shout-ou to the White House press crew (proper name escapes me, association of all networks that cover the White house) refused to interview X if FOX was not included.

Again thank you for the inteligent exchange.

Ben

[PaulG.]

I really have to give a shout-ou to the White House press crew (proper name escapes me, association of all networks that cover the White house) refused to interview X if FOX was not included.

What else could the other networks have done? Every one of them understood that if 0bama could single out Fox today 0bama could single out any one of them (or all of them) tomorrow.

[Cat]

Can't speak for the media in general, but the Associated Press had 11 reporters "fact" checking Sarah Palin's book. Obviously Sarah Palin is more of a threat to world peace than the biggest scam in history.

My SO thinks Sarah Palin is "hot" (not that he would ever vote for her) so she's kinda a sore subject with me.

If it's true that there's been no mention of Climategate in any of the major news outlets, I do find it concerning. I could either think of it as a Big Leftist Tree-Hugging Conspiracy, or, what is probably even worse, blame it on the fact that global warming / climate change is becoming a boring topic that your average Joe no longer wants to talk or hear about. Unlike Sarah, who everyone wants to talk about. Because she's hot.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

My SO thinks Sarah Palin is "hot" (not that he would ever vote for her) so she's kinda a sore subject with me.

If it's true that there's been no mention of Climategate in any of the major news outlets, I do find it concerning. I could either think of it as a Big Leftist Tree-Hugging Conspiracy, or, what is probably even worse, blame it on the fact that global warming / climate change is becoming a boring topic that your average Joe no longer wants to talk or hear about. Unlike Sarah, who everyone wants to talk about. Because she's hot.

She can field dress a moose so of course she's hot.

Re Boring

If there were not a move about to use the Global Warming as a license to create laws based on it, it would be just another boring science story. But it is being used to argue for laws that will have far reaching impacts on everyone in the US if they pass Cap and Trade or enter into the world wide argreement. Ca-n-trade will not only put a tax on every unit of energy we are consuming now as well as establish a government agency that will determine how much everyone is allowed to produce. Since the decision of the agancy will determine who is paying what, we will be taxed dispite not haveing reporesntaion in that decision. Those who lust after power would like one of those jobs. It is also not limited to the obvious energy side of things but also can extend to the amount of CO2 produced while raising that steak dinner since it turns out our livestock produce a lot of CO2.

Ben

[PaulG.]

If it's true that there's been no mention of Climategate in any of the major news outlets, I do find it concerning.

It took the Internet in the person of Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report to break the Monica Lewinski story. Then the remaining media followed up on it. We all know how big that story became. I really don't know why the dominant media sometimes refuses to investigate a story. It could be that the dominant media has been so pro-global warming, uh, er, I mean "climate change" they might be somewhat reluctant to really report more about this story because it makes the media look stupid and lazy. Seriously, how many reporters went up to the program manager and said: "Hey chief. This article reads like it's about global warming but it says "climate change". What's up with that? What the heck is "climate change?!" "

[Phillip Brooks]

It took the Internet in the person of Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report to break the Monica Lewinski story. Then the remaining media followed up on it. We all know how big that story became. I really don't know why the dominant media sometimes refuses to investigate a story.

Don't forget the black eye that the media received after Dan Rather reported on "W"'s military record. That ended his career; I don't think the mainstream is going to start reporting until more is discovered. This is big stuff; stuff that ends careers, changes elections and long-term business decisions that represent billions of dollars.

[hooovahh]

Video here.

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Viacom."

Paul might be on to some thing I mean it looks like Viacom is in on the whole global warming conspiracy too.

[Cat]

She can field dress a moose so of course she's hot.

Exactly! The only thing I've ever field-dressed is a scarecrow, so how can I compete?!?

Re Boring

If there were not a move about to use the Global Warming as a license to create laws based on it, it would be just another boring science story. But it is being used to argue for laws that will have far reaching impacts on everyone in the US if they pass Cap and Trade or enter into the world wide argreement.

I agree completely. There is the tree-hugger side of me that hates what we're doing to the environment and is happy that something is finally getting people's attention (or was, anyway). But there is a lot more of me that REALLY hates bad science and when it is used to manipulate public sentiment. If it turns out that's what's happening here, that will be a Very Bad Thing. But I've read a few other articles from other organizations who vouch for their own data as being separate from the data that is suspect.

I hope Phillip is right and the big news orgs are just waiting on some sort of confirmation to start reporting this...

[Yair]

After the NRA thread, I'm almost afraid of my email client taking action against me, but I'll post anyway, just because this also illustrates the issue discussed in both threads, basically, of lying to further your goal.

While it's fun to make fun of Al Gore, he did not claim he invented the Internet. He's a politician, and politicians are at least smart enough to know not to say things like that (unless the politicians are actually scientists who invented something). He said he had a part in the creation of the Internet and he was actually backed by some of the people who did, who verified that he helped push and fund the relevant projects.