The Science Is Unsettled

My thoughts on the climate-change fraud, over at PJM.

[Update a few minutes later]

All the news that’s fit to bury. I liked this: “If Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe are done tormenting ACORN maybe they can figure out how to pose as underaged climate researchers…”

[Update about 8:30 PST]

The ugly side of climate science.

[Late morning update]

Lord Monckton speaks: They are criminals.

[Early afternoon update]

Another “blue dress” moment for the media — the BBC has had some of this info for weeks.

[Update mid afternoon]

I like the comment that offered this code snippet over at McIntyre’s place:

void function fubar(void); {

if dataset == hockeystick then plot(dataset); else fudge(dataset);

return; }

I assume that it’s recursive, in that fudge calls fubar…

7 thoughts on “The Science Is Unsettled”

  1. For me, the issue is that this affects trillions of dollars of infrastructure and billions of people. If we get important parts of the science wrong, we can do a huge amount of damage. My view is that we don’t have a demonstrated link between human activity and harmful levels of global warming. Given the long time frames claimed for the harm from global warming, it makes sense to get more data (and build wealth and improve our technologies) rather than act hastily on the little we think we know.

    It appears that the CRU attempted counterproductively to rush a judgment in favor of carbon emission reduction through unethical and perhaps illegal means. I see no denial of the legitimacy of the emails. Sure it must be something of a pain having to deal with relatively well funded opponents willing to second guess your research at all levels, but this isn’t String Theory. It’s potentially one of the biggest issues to face humans ever. To do it right, IMHO, you need to address the concerns of your foes even if they are sponsored by forces almost unconditionally opposed to any carbon emission reductions.

    I wonder what role politicians might have played in this affair. At first I thought the CRU had special connections to the Blair government, but that opinion appears wrong. If there is a connection, this might provide further incentive for the researchers to do what they apparently did.

  2. If Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe are done tormenting ACORN maybe they can figure out how to pose as underaged climate researchers…

    Funny because it’s true — the protracted media war is a war of necessity.

  3. Great article Rand. Again you expose the point with laser precision. They reveal they are frauds when they make skeptic a dirty word. Sort of like ‘cowboy’… You buckaroo.

  4. C’mon, Christopher (Lord Monckton), don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think. I got a winter tan reading that.

  5. “…the BBC has had some of this info for weeks.”

    …or Hudson wrote ‘October’ when he meant ‘November’, in which case the timeline would more or less match up with when the leak went public.

    We shall see…

  6. Pingback: Ed Driscoll

Comments are closed.