Al Gore and the Great Green Meltdown

Well, I'm glad to see that I'm the only one who's sick and tired of Al Gore and his self-righteously shrill, pseudo-cultic, fraudulent greenie crusade.  Its implosion will be a moment of Schadenfreudtastic glee, not to mention relief for serious people who resist the outright politicization and corruption of science for power and profit (including people like ... oh, I don't know ...  actual scientists).  

Nerd News: Hal Lewis Resigns from the American Physical Society

This is pretty important in nerd terms: Lewis of UC-Santa Barbara is a very prominent physicist, and he has quit the world's second largest physics society after 67 years of membership.  His decision is based on the issue of global warming and ClimateGate.  Read his resignation letter here.  Along with a number of other physicists (such as Robert Austin and William Happer, both of Princeton), Lewis has long voiced his objection to the politicization of science in the name of global warming.   (OK, I'm a nerd and I can't help giving you citations.  Here are no fewer than 800 academic papers and articles calling for skepticism on climate alarmism.)  Anyway, I give you a bit of Professor Lewis' public letter of resignation:

ClimateGate Revisited: Nullius In Verba

Read this.  Plus some Latin you can use: Nullius in verba!

Nerd News: What Fresh Hell Is This? Blacklisting Scientists

Not just ANY scientists, mind you.  Scientists who are climate change skeptics.  The list by the National Academy of Sciences has almost 500 names so far.  Nevertheless, the fact that there are 500 scientists who are skeptics and critics of an idea is a fact that IN ITSELF should say something.  Now I seem to remember all those hysterical lefty accusations a while back about evil old Bush's war on science.  How now, brown cow?

Public Service Announcement: the National Academy of Sciences has nuked the fridge and made itself a laughingstock, as far as I'm concerned.

What Fresh Hell Is This? NOAA Claims Temperature Accuracy Doesn't Matter

A veteran meteorologist disassembles the spin from the NOAA, via Watts Up With That, whose commentary is worth a look too.

But this isn't really surprising, is it? What matters is the willful massaging of data (and defense of such corrupted data) in order to fit a predetermined narrative in which too many people have sunk all their social, political, and professional capital for the purposes for gaining still more. It's called ClimateGate, people, and the turning point came, I think we'll agree eventually, in November 2009.

RELATED POST:

~"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Christy was specifically talking about weather measurement stations.

Schadenfreude Alert: Global Warming? LOL!

Heh!

ClimateGate: Game Over?

The wheels are falling off fast:

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.

The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

Apparently some scientists have remembered that science means not forcing data to match an agenda.

The killjoy thermomaniac watermelons' increasing panic and dismay is just ... DELICIOUS. Meanwhile I want my incandescent light bulbs back!

The IPCC is going down in history as a collection of scientifically illiterate scoundrels who feathered their own nests with the lucrative benefits of being global warming alarmists.

I want to grab a stake and stab it right into the slimy green heart of cap-and-trade.

UPDATE 1: The IPCC admits it's not a scientific organization. Heh!

UPDATE 2: Skulduggery-mania! Here's a handy summary. The wheels are coming off so fast that I can't even keep count. Meanwhile, I bask in sweet, sweet vindication of my rejection of all the alarmism and its calls for "Give us all your money and freedoms or Gaia's going to burn." It sounded like bad science and corrupt politics. I was called evil. Turns out I was RIGHT. So there!

Schadenfreude Alert: the Netherlands Versus IPCC

For the IPCC, it's all gone horribly pear-shaped as the Dutch call them out:

The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.

. . . The Dutch environment ministry will order a review of the report to see if it contains any more errors, Vallaart said.

Mwahahahaha!

SERIOUSLY, if these people can't get their numbers right on something that can be verified, do they really expect me to trust their fantasy numbers spun out of thin air, computer models, and ever-increasingly discredited pseudo-research?

Steyn on the Aftermath of ClimateGate

The oh-so-quotable-Mark Steyn has this observation:

“Climate change” is not a story of climate change, which has been a fact of life throughout our planet’s history. It is a far more contemporary story about the corruption of science and “peer review” by hucksters, opportunists and global-government control-freaks. I can see what’s in it for Dr. Pachauri and professor Hasnain, and even for the lowly Environmental Correspondent enjoying a cozy sinecure at a time of newspaper cutbacks in everything from foreign bureaus to arts coverage.

It is indeed a "far more contemporary story," just as it is consistent with the age-old story of self-interest, messianic delusions, and the corrosive desire for corrupting power. Here's my most recent post on the topic.

Dissecting the Motivations Behind ClimateGate

Take a look at this analysis of the factors leading to the global warming alarmism, the scandals it has spawned, and the utterly pernicious interconnection of politicians, media outlets, and scientists:

For the researchers, grant dollars and reputations are on the line. For reporters, global warming offers the thrill of covering The Biggest Story Ever Told, an appeal I could not resist. For politicians, it has offered an endless opportunity for grandstanding and power grabs. Convinced they are saving the earth—what could be more rewarding or important?—all three groups helped each other lose their minds.

Alas, all too true!

A nerd friend of mine who works in the sciences confirmed part of this. To get an advantage in any grant proposal if you are working in biology, ecology, etc., you should somehow include "global warming." Suppose, she said, that you are a mammal expert and want funding for research about squirrels. Your application will have a better chance if you say you're looking at "squirrel behavior as it is influenced by global warming" than if you don't.

Schadenfreude Alert: IPCC Credibility Melting Like a Snow Cone in August in Arizona

Well, well, well, what have we here? (Besides the new tag labeled "Scandal and skulduggery," which I dare say will find much use.) Here is a blurb:

The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt.

Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists.

The IPCC’s report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions.

Was he afraid that the truth would torpedo Copenhagen? Sins of omission are still sins. So here we have a personal sin of omission meant to combat the global Greenie sin of emission? Heh. It certainly displays a disturbingly Machiavellian streak in the Greenie cause.

And for your Schadenfreude bonus, Copenhagen was STILL a wreck, its only prominent feature being its mass hypocrisy.

Remember ClimateGate too. Hide the decline!

RELATED POSTS on Copenhagen here and here, with the "dictionary" here.

UPDATE: Heh!

Copenhagen GreenFest -- Eco-Hypocrisy on Parade

Read this and this. I previously posted on the GreenFest here. Notice too how everyone seems to be trying to ignore or squash the troubling implications of ClimateGate.

Best Blog Post Title of the Day: "Bring Me a Shrubbery!"

The blog post is referring to ClimateGate and a tree in Siberia that is supposedly "the most influential tree in the world."

I'm utterly tickled at the Monty Python reference.

Thoughts on ClimateGate from the Man They Call Jaaaaaayne!

Not that I needed another reason to love Adam Baldwin!

Satire Alert: Iowahawk Geographic Investigates the Secret Life of Climate Researchers

In a magnificent satire that riffs on National Geographic and just about every wildlife documentary ever made, the glorious Iowahawk has struck comedy gold once more. Who knew the ClimateGate science scandal could be so funny?

Stick a Fork In It: Cap-and-Trade is Done

Oh, I do hope so.

UPDATE: Hilariously snarky comment on the whole Greenie enterprise/scam/confidence trick:

"Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t, and can’t teach, create a fake ecological disaster so that they can get grant money."

*giggle*

Here's more hoping. Of course, the climate change gang has so much invested in this enterprise that they will not go quietly into the night, probably.

Nerd News Update: The best thing to do is to FREE THE DATA! The University of East Anglia has ordered the immediate release of all data files, but at this point the university is basically in full CYA/damage control mode.

Then take a look at this: they've dumped their data. Basically, this wrecks their credibility. If your conclusions cannot be checked independently against the raw data, then you haven't got a leg to stand on, because your "conclusions" then fall into the category of "stuff you just made up."

Oh, and check out the inimitable quote-maker Mark Steyn on this: "Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?" amid this "climate change tree-ring circus."

Geek News: On Hacked Emails and Potential Scientific Fraud on Global Warming

Liar, liar, pants globe on fire?

This is a nicely reasonable observation on the potentially enormous scientific scandal regarding the hacked email accounts of global warming enthusiasts. Do read. It's also got links to the news story as it's being covered by everyone from NPR to the BBC. Inevitably, someone's already called it "Climategate" and "Global WarmingGate."

The tone of the emails is very indicative, because people in emails tend to speak their minds and not sugar-coat or whitewash or wrap everything in careful diplo-speak. (So out of all this is a life lesson and a piece of advice, dear reader: in email or in any form of written communication done in a work/study/research environment, don't write anything you don't want to be publicly read. There. That's your Public Service Announcement for the day.)

Anyhoo, this whole situation reminds me of one name I've heard given to enviro-fanatics. The word is "watermelon" -- green on the outside, but red on the inside. As in Commie, Commie agitprop, propaganda, crush-the-dissent shade of RED.

Also for the record: the sciences are NOT immune from scandal and skulduggery, as any nerd can tell you. Heck, academia and research are shot through with that sort of thing.

UPDATE 1: More here.

UPDATE 2: Three scandals altogether?

• First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices. This is at best massively unethical.
• Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case. This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud. This, if it proves true, should make these scientists subject to strong disciplinary action, even termination of their tenured positions.
• Third, what gives every appearance of an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK. If this is proven true, that is a federal crime.