Frequent commenter Wakefield Tolbert has the latest on the thermonuclear mushroom cloud enveloping the research boys over at Hadley CRU. The first efforts to contain the radioactive fall-out have been advanced with the aid of the New York Times. As it is all good stuff, I have moved our discussion to a post all its own.
The science boys over at Hadley CRU basically explained to the journalists of the New York Times:
“We’re all assholes here, but we’re still right!”
To which the NYT was quick to concur:
“The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”
Very helpful of the NYT to explain to us all that there is nothing to worry about, everything is just as it was before, the world is overheating and will explode in a giant ball of methane, and the time for thinking is over.
How is it then that they follow that sentence with this one:
“In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.
Yeah, right. To which I would ask, why is the human contribution to global warming so widely accepted if the scientists who most emphatically pronounced the time for discussion as over, privately discuss their gaps in understanding amongst themselves.
Gaps? What gaps? I was certain sure these didn’t exist. What's more, the same guy laments their limitations as being a travesty.
Curious to understand the concepts the science community was using to discuss global warming, I took it upon myself to look up the word travesty. First on the list: false representation.
“Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages. But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed ‘the integrity of scientists.’" (?)(!)
And particularly his own integrity it would seem. Dr. Trenberth should be awarded an honorary degree in Integrity. Here is my tip to you. If the good doctor advises you to buy long, either sell or buy short, cause that's for damn sure what he's doing.
Probing further, in one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick”
"Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem"
Which is possible. The question is, is that the meaning Dr. Phil Jones employed when he wrote of using a “trick” employed by another scientist to “hide the decline” in temperatures.
The e-mails are great fun of course, and we are hardly surprised to learn these guys are a bunch of egocentric elitists. But it is the data that we are most concerned with. The theory is fine as far as it goes, but what is the predictive value? Theoretically, trace greenhouse gasses like CO2 may have some warming effect on the global climate, but what degree of influence would they have? Is it a weak forcing agent, or is it a negligible factor of no real influence? How has the data been handled? What opportunity was allowed for the information to be reviewed?
Based on the certainty of these theories, the plan is to take down the economy of the entire free world, transfer large amounts of wealth from the industrial nations to the thug dictators of the third world, all managed by our trusted friends down at the United Nations.
What's the word at Copenhagen? Act now and we can still save the planet! And in case you forgot, the time for discussion is over.
"Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed."
Buy the way, pulling a trick has other meanings.