Gay Patriot Header Image

In wake of Climategate, we’re beginning to learn just how much global warming alarmists have been keeping us in the dark

In the wake of the publication of the East Anglia e-mails, information strengthening the case of global warming skeptics has been coming to light at such a rapid pace than even the most dedicated followers of this debate can barely keep track of the data coming to light.  Al Gore has cancelled his $1,200 a head reception in Copenhagen.  One of the chief advocates of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis (thanks for the correction, Dave!) got quite testy in confronting a critic.

And the UK’s Met Office (its National Weather Service)

. . . plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

In other words, as Sonicfrog (who alerted me to this article) notes, “those now examining the state of everything that went on have absolutely no confidence that things were done properly.”  Well, it seems they got cold feet about their reexamination and won’t be doing a do-over, but will be making “an effort to release more data to to public.”  Let’s hope they do more than just make an effort and actually release the data.

Just another sign how much global warming alarmists have been keeping us in the dark.

This failure to release the data shows o what extent so many such alarmists have been going on faith.  And reminds me of a challenge I have occasionally made over the past four or five years to friends convinced about the reality of the AGW hypothesis, asking them, based on the global warming “science,” to predict what temperatures will be five or ten years hence.  If the earth warmed as per their predictions, then I would join them in supporting drastic carbon-reducing measures.

Instead of taking me up on my challenge, they respond that in five (or ten) years, it will be too late, that we need to act now.  Like those withholding the data, they too refrained from giving me figures.  And anyway, from what I’ve been reading in recent days, it seems had any of them taken up my challenge, well, they’d have to explain why temperatures these past few years have, instead of increasing, been decreasing.

So, yes, let’s look at the data.  And in the three years it was supposed to take to reexamine them, if we see a warming trend, I might be less of a skeptic than I now am, but given what we’ve learned in the past two weeks, global warming hypothesists have a lot more to do to convince me (and a lot of others) of the merits of AGW than they did a few years back.

Share

24 Comments

  1. Dan, – thanks, man, for the post.
    I see it like this – it’s the honors undergrad in GeoPhys speaking:

    Even IF AGW could be proven, there’s still zero evidence that these same clowns’ political “fix” – killing-off the US economy and strangling Europe’s – will result in a damned bit of difference. More:

    Even IF AGW could be proven, we still haven’t’ determined whether clmatic warming is
    A) abnormal or
    B) actually net harmful or
    C) reversible or
    D) whether (ahem) SOLAR influences are more important.

    The entire premise of Kyoto and Copenhagen is so pathetically ignorant one wonders whether the media aren’t staffed by zombies.

    I ain’t buying any of it. Fool me once…

    Comment by Ran / Si Vis Pacem — December 5, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - December 5, 2009

  2. I’m just glad Climategate is as big a “story” as it’s proven to be. It gives me hope that the world isn’t utterly insane. I mean, if the UK’s Met office is “admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered…” that is huge, and a sign of real hope.

    Ran, per your comments… I couldn’t agree more. Global warming (which I accept as real; just not as man-made) could have large net benefits, possibly including a reduction in the severity of tropical storms (not a worsening of them). But if GW is such a problem and disaster, yadda yadda, that must be dealt with now… then why aren’t we working on putting sun reflectors in orbit? They could be tiny, deflecting only something like 0.2% of the Sun’s annual radiation to end global warming as we know it.

    Leftist “solutions” to the “problem” of global warming always, always, always manage to involve socialism and a grinding down of the human spirit under ever-growing government, rather than some rather easier and more helpful technological fixes. Imagine that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2009 @ 9:51 pm - December 5, 2009

  3. Food for thought from Jonah Goldberg:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/05/why_copenhagen_is_all_hot_air_99410.html

    One tidbit I found interesting: Obama, like both Clinton/Gore and Bush before him, has thus far chosen to ignore Kyoto.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 5, 2009 @ 10:16 pm - December 5, 2009

  4. I am sick of fake environmentalism. Al Gore is a polluter and is gonna hurt the poor. He generates billions and that comes from dead trees so Al Gore doesn’t care about the environment, his green movement only cares about generating greens, aka dollar bills.

    Comment by Brian Hill — December 5, 2009 @ 10:39 pm - December 5, 2009

  5. @I Love Capitalism:

    Yes to the technological solutions. But to go one better, if you’re going to put reflectors up there, why not put up panels instead and find a way to TAP that energy?

    The refusal to embrace technology as the solution was what made me smell a rat.

    Comment by perturbed — December 6, 2009 @ 7:23 am - December 6, 2009

  6. Environmental extremism has been my hobby-horse since the late 70′s. I had studied Geochemistry at the graduate level, which has sadly been folded up into Enviro-Science.

    Even in the mid-80′s, the field was filled with Jacobins – to a man, the scientists coming up were the folks who got their degrees solely to stay out of Vietnam. Remember that when you hear about how liberal the current crop of scientists are!

    Anyway, I recall interning on a small research vessel taking and logging core samples from the Hudson River bed when I noticed that the results were unexpectedly favorable. Trace chemicals were way down and I asked the lead researcher about it.

    “Oh, we can’t tell people that the Hudson is safe to swim in or else they’ll jump back in and ruin it again.”

    My younger self completely bought this line of liberal paternalism. How clever, I thought.

    The icing on the cake? The research body I worked for was in on the East Anglia email dump.

    Christmas comes early, I say!

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 6, 2009 @ 9:17 am - December 6, 2009

  7. Maybe gillie can find a Little Green Footballs response to this:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

    It would appear that the complicated scientific modeling was little more than a Tinker Toy construct.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 6, 2009 @ 9:27 am - December 6, 2009

  8. Charles Johnson at LGF now denounces “climate change denialists,” but the record shows he used to be one. Something to remember the next time Gillie tries to cite LGF as a credible source of conservative opinion.

    Comment by V the K — December 6, 2009 @ 11:03 am - December 6, 2009

  9. There is an update.

    The MET now says the previous statements about the re-do were taken out of context – It WILL NOT be re-examining the data. They do say however the will release all data, code, and documentation* to the public within a three year period. I would have preferred the former, but this, if indeed they are good on their word, is a very good step in the right direction.

    Comment by sonicfrog — December 6, 2009 @ 11:48 am - December 6, 2009

  10. ILC #2, sounds like the dark ages doesn’t it? ;)

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 6, 2009 @ 11:48 am - December 6, 2009

  11. Rep Thaddeus McCotter explains empirical data and the need for such to claim that Global Warming is anything more than a collectivist theory.

    http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/12/rep-thaddeus-mccotter-weighs-in-on.html

    Comment by keyboard jockey — December 6, 2009 @ 11:56 am - December 6, 2009

  12. Yeah Steven it does.

    As for Charles Johnson: What happened? I mean, we know what happened to Sullivan. (Progressive loss of his reasoning powers, possibly due to long-term use of AIDS drugs including marijuana, his desire to be approved by the leftist(s) he sleeps with, and so forth… plus 2/24/04, the date that Bush proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment.) Now it looks more and more like Chuck is becoming as kooky and intellectually dishonest. What’s in play with him?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 6, 2009 @ 12:03 pm - December 6, 2009

  13. I blame Palin’s va-jay-jay…

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — December 6, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - December 6, 2009

  14. [...] GayPatriot, In wake of Climategate, we’re beginning to learn just how much global warming alarmists have been … This failure to release the data shows to what extent so many such alarmists have been going on [...]

    Pingback by Mother Nature Mocks Global Warming Again… Record Early Snowfall in Houston & ClimateGate/Global Warming Info from Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone — December 6, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - December 6, 2009

  15. Clearly there’s more than a lite gust of world dissent in the air. What with congressional attention growing and the head of a prominent climate change group stepping aside the bedrock of anything climate related is now being questioned.

    Former NASA scientist, Roy Spencer, makes a case for a high degree of futility apparent in previous attempts to estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. He says. “unless we can measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks operating in computerized climate models.” In other words, it is not possible (at least not yet) to measure cloud feedbacks because the two directions of causation are intermingled in nature.

    In light of these and other recent revelations its no wonder Al Gore is making himself absent at Copenhagen next week.

    Comment by Spartann — December 6, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - December 6, 2009

  16. I think there is a bigger story here. Why do we have to believe any of these so called liberal experts on anything?
    It is time for more whistle blowers to tell us the truth about all sorts of liberal data fraud. Is the unemployment rate really 10% or is it 20%.
    Is the GDP again growing at a 2% rate or is that data a fraud too?
    Has the stimulus porkulus spending gone to all of Obamas cronies?
    the fifth estate doesn’t check any liberal data, as they agree with 100% of the faux findings. It must be conservative whistle blowers.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 6, 2009 @ 2:26 pm - December 6, 2009

  17. #9: Sonic: if there was ever a case for open-source software, this is it.

    Since we taxpayers are on the hook for all this “research”, all the data and the software used to examine it should be public domain.

    If there is a real case for AGW (ACC?) then full disclosure should support the case.

    Just a question for the true believers: exactly what period in the earth’s past would you select as the “correct” climate? And once you’ve selected this timespan, how would you show that IT wasn’t an anomaly?

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 6, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - December 6, 2009

  18. Hiding the Decline Climategate Parody Video. Sung to Tommy James and The Shondells “Draggin The Line.

    http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/12/hide-decline-climategate-parody.html

    Comment by keyboard jockey — December 7, 2009 @ 11:24 am - December 7, 2009

  19. Beck’s sayin’ that he and Breitbart are releasing news at 1700 which SHOULD bury Climategate and ObamaCareless. Will be interesting to see.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 7, 2009 @ 12:44 pm - December 7, 2009

  20. TGC… Meh.

    It’s almost always the case, that when someone says they have an announcement that will blow your mind or something, it’s almost always extremely underwhelming. I keep thinking of the big Big-Foot thing a few years ago, where two guys held this BIG scheduled news conference, which, because it was schedule, got some coverage, and they were going to reveal stunning evidence that they had indeed found a real Big-Foot carcass. The to-do turned out not to reveal much of anything, just a new address for a new Big-Foot Hunters website they launched.

    And the Big-Foot carcass….. just a large Big-Foot Halloween costume laid out in a big freezer.

    Comment by sonicfrog — December 7, 2009 @ 2:46 pm - December 7, 2009

  21. Latest scare photo from the greenie-weenies!

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 7, 2009 @ 8:36 pm - December 7, 2009

  22. So, what was the BIG announcement?

    Comment by sonicfrog — December 7, 2009 @ 9:26 pm - December 7, 2009

  23. More bad news for Al Gore blatent data fixing from down under

    And in other news, the sun is hot, ice is cold, and Tano’s wrong.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 8, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - December 8, 2009

  24. oops, forgot (HT Planet Gore)

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 8, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - December 8, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.