NCDC’s Dr. Thomas Peterson: “It’s a knife fight”

This is a row screencap from this Twitter page: http://twitter.com/scio11

It comes from the January 13-16th, 2011 Science Online conference held in the Research Triangle Park in Durham. Details at these URL’s

http://scienceonline2011.com/

http://scio11.wikispaces.com/

You can also follow us on Twitter – either the hashtag #scio11 or our official account @scio11

https://scio11.wikispaces.com/Program+Suggestions

This is the session under which those words were uttered:

“LESSONS FROM CLIMATEGATE”
“You guys have got to start fighting back” is the message many climatologists are hearing in the wake the slanderous attack on their integrity that has been called Swifthack, or Climategate. But for many scientists, fighting back means publishing a really good paper in a reputable journal. That doesn’t cut it anymore. How should scientists and their communicator allies go about planning a strategy?

Panel:
Tom Peterson, Chief Scientist, NCDC
James Hrynyshyn, journalist, Class M — or Chris Mooney (he’s been invited)
Josh Rosenau, NCSE
(James Hrynyshyn)

- One thing to think about for this panel would be getting someone who has experience organizing successful campaigns. With the GOP promoting the idea of Congressional hearings on the “fraud” of global warming this discussion should involve strategies for countering their smear of climate scientists for political purposes.

==========================================================

Bishop Hill points out that:

The talk of ninjas and knife fights is interesting in the current atmosphere. (Tom Peterson is a scientist at NCDC. Some may know him for his work on urban heat island effect).

I’ll say. It’s far more than Peterson’s UHI papers. For those that don’t know, Dr. Thomas Peterson is the keeper and publisher of the most important surface temperature data set in the world, the Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN):

Note the references at the bottom. The genesis of GHCN comes from this paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:

And in case you don’t know, the GHCN data is the primary component of the NASA GISS GISTEMP surface temperature database, the most cited by media in the world:

from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html

So in summary:

We have the NASA GISS Chief Scientist, Dr. James Hansen calling for civil disobedience and the Chief Scientist of NCDC and keeper of the worlds most important surface temperature dataset, Dr. Thomas Peterson, saying things like “its a knife fight”. These two people have the most influential roles on climate data on the planet. Their words cause me to question their ability to be unbiased scientists.

Add that to NCAR’s Dr. Kevin Trenberth’s recent diatribe where he calls concerned citizens of the United States “deniers” in a preprint for a public address, while at the same time attempting to reverse the null hypothesis about human induced climate change….and they wonder why the public trust of climate science is going down the toilet?

Two points of advice, fellas:

1. Don’t forget who you work for, the U.S. Taxpayer.

2. You’d all do better to keep your mouths shut, your public utterances are embarrassments.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data, Climategate, GHCN and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

89 Responses to NCDC’s Dr. Thomas Peterson: “It’s a knife fight”

  1. John Kehr says:

    So the climate scientists are calling this a knife fight and Glenn Beck is calling for an accord of non-violence. That is an amusing juxtaposition.

    I wonder in the end if these people believe their own BS or if they are just pushing a fossil fuel free future? I have always tried to reconcile the facts and I just don’t understand how intelligent people that look at the data reach their conclusions. Is it only political for them or do they actually believe their own BS.

    John Kehr

  2. ew-3 says:

    I’m hoping the congress has the guts to subpoena all datasets from all US agencies involved in weather and climate research and make the results public. Let’s open the debate as wide as possible.

  3. M Clark says:

    [snip a bit OTT, try rephrasing]

  4. Karl Maki says:

    You have to love the attempt to rename Climategate “Swifthack”, an obvious desire to reference a well-orchestrated political attack using the media — the “Swiftboat” campaign — rather than the sloppy inside job that was Watergate. The only hacks here are the ones trying to portray themselves as victims rather than perpetrators.

  5. latitude says:

    The left takes low class to a whole new level…
    …I say encourage them to do more

  6. Martin Brumby says:

    latitude says: January 16, 2011 at 10:03 am
    “The left takes low class to a whole new level…
    …I say encourage them to do more”

    Too right! They are doing a great job taking potshots at their feet.

    Or as Napoleon put it “Never interrupt your enemy when he’s making a mistake.”

    And believe me, these clowns are certainly your enemy.

  7. dp says:

    “1. Don’t forget who you work for, the U.S. Taxpayer.”

    That can be fixed by a law suit for failure to perform.

  8. DirkH says:

    “One thing to think about for this panel would be getting someone who has experience organizing successful campaigns.”

    Here’s a guy who has talent organizing campaigns, and he’s available:
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/revealed-how-eco-spy-masterminded-g8-protest-1.1080175

  9. DirkH says:

    Karl Maki says:
    January 16, 2011 at 10:02 am
    “You have to love the attempt to rename Climategate “Swifthack””

    It will backfire – if the media really jumps on this, public interest in things like HARRY_README.TXT might rise…

  10. Walter Cronanty says:

    Given the statements above, has the CAGW crowd given up all pretences of relying on science and decided to strictly go with propaganda? Seems rather desperate and unscientific to this non-scientist.

  11. DirkH says:

    “But for many scientists, fighting back means publishing a really good paper in a reputable journal. That doesn’t cut it anymore.”

    They shouldn’t have devalued peer review in the first place.

  12. These “boys” and to call them men insults the rest of us, wouldn’t know what being unbiased or adherence to the scientific method means if it bit them in the ass. I wrote an essay: What is a Scientist (http://retreadresources.com/blog/?p=337) back in August. Lots of other essays too but this one defines the noun scientist and these boys simply no longer meet that definition. I can think of many terms or names, both kind and unkind but scientist is simply not one of them.

  13. Ian E says:

    I seem to recall that it was Obama (admittedly in a different context) who said, ‘If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun’. [No, honestly, it wasn't Sarah!]

  14. James Evans says:

    “‘You guys have got to start fighting back’ is the message many climatologists are hearing in the wake the slanderous attack on their integrity that has been called Swifthack, or Climategate… How should scientists and their communicator allies go about planning a strategy?”

    A few questions:
    1) Who has been saying “You guys have got to start fighting back”?
    2) Which climatologists have they been saying it to?
    3) If Climategate was a “slanderous” attack, then where are the law suits?
    4) “Scientists and their communicator allies” – does the phrase “communicator allies” refer to the media?
    5) As a strategy, could I suggest doing some decent science?

  15. Max Hugoson says:

    My, my…non-schizophrenic-paranoids, talking about Ninja’s and Knife fights!

    So if using terms as, “lock and load” cause the schizophrenic-paranoids to act (which of course they really don’t, this is tongue in cheek) then can we suppose that a “crazy nut” may show up at either a:

    A. Pro AWG conference, and commit mayhem..

    B. A skeptic’s conference and cause mayhem.

    I guess I’d better come to the point – NO “skeptic” that I know has advocated violence or “civil disobedience”. But on the AWG side?

  16. Mike McMillan says:

    Two points of advice, fellas:
    1. Don’t forget who you work for, the U.S. Taxpayer. . .

    No, they work for the government.
    So do us taxpayers.

  17. The Total Idiot says:

    Certainly, if it were slander, it would be actionable, however, it would also allow the ‘other side’ the right of discovery, as truth is an absolute defense in such trials. It is enlightening that they have chosen not to engage in that route of action, particularly should the claims of alarmists be true.

    In either case, it would open the system to public inquiry as part of the right of discovery in civil trial. Libel, as well, bears the same burden. Such suits would be extremely telling.

    Libel and slander would refer to damages to both reputation and economic wellbeing, as the two may be linked. Real damages would have to be shown, and often done (at least in the United States, at the option of both injured party and defendant, before a jury).

    My statement to those who claim the ‘attack’ to be ‘slanderous’… why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? File a slander suit. See what shakes out….

  18. tallbloke says:

    James Evans says:
    January 16, 2011 at 10:54 am (Edit)
    “‘You guys have got to start fighting back’ is the message many climatologists are hearing”

    A few questions:
    1) Who has been saying “You guys have got to start fighting back”?

    Sounds like Greg Craven to me.

  19. Shevva says:

    I’ve been thinking for a long tine now that there’s only one thing left to make AGW a true religion, violence, this is the final stand that the AGW theorists have left in defending there belief.

    It may take generations before science can recover from this.

  20. rbateman says:

    Si Mr. Peterson’s Dept. is the keeper of the historical data upon which GCHN is based.
    That Dept. could not account for the missing records that their inventory list indicated they had.
    Upon repeated hand-offs to various persons, the last one in line asked “What was it that you wanted?”.
    Repeat request. Same result.
    And we are supposed to believe that this knife-fight Dept. has integrity?
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
    Enjoy mixing it up with your GOP admirers.

  21. Jeff L says:

    The level of desperation by AGW supporters seems to be rising exponentially (unlike temperatures) over the last several months. It does seem that every time they try to bolster their case, they only make it worse. This is a case in point. We are not idiots. We see precisely the political games you are playing – rather than the science you ought to be doing.

    Also, this is manifested in how all weather events lately are blamed on AGW, climate change, climate disruption or what ever the term de jour is. This isn’t working out so well either – In Australia, they were blaming drought on AGW, now they are blaming flooding on it. In the US & UK, lack of snow was blamed on AGW, now snowstorms & cold are blamed on AGW. Again, we are not idiots – all you are doing is digging yourselves into a deeper hole with your contradictions.

    Try to get back to some real, non-politicized research if you are capable. That is your best strategy for regaining public trust. Please see Willis’ post if you are reading & can’t comprehend what the problems you face are.

  22. Curiousgeorge says:

    In keeping with the theme: Does anyone remember the phrase “nuclear option” used by various congress critters and media pundits? There does seem to be an escalation in weaponry in many areas. Perhaps it’s not so far fetched to think that some AGW desperado will in fact resort to such means to attain what he/she thinks are justifiable ends. Oh, wait. That has already happened in the larger ecoloon community.

  23. Alan Simpson not from Friends of the Earth says:

    The question that springs to my mind is;

    How can they manage shoot themselves in the foot in a knife fight?

  24. David Ball says:

    Here is an idea. Drop the knife and tell the TRUTH.

  25. Sean says:

    For more than 5 years now, I’ve looked for public debate between competent climate scientists such as the one brief one between Trenbreth and Spencer on Roger Pielke Sr.’s site last spring. So long as those in the consensus position think of themselves as the smartest guys in the room which by implication means everyone else is dumber by comparison, they are going to come off as arrogant and folks will be defensive. All the PR in the world coupled psychological analysis is only going to make things worse. Isn’t that how it’s played out in the last three years? If Dr Trenbreth and his collegues want to convince me, a PhD in a hard science field, of the viability of their position, it will take a series of debates between the best people with opposing viewpoints going head to head on different topics related to weather and climate. If Dr. Trenbreth and his colleagues make the better case, the public will come to their side. If they can’t make the better case, the spin doctors won’t help.

  26. docattheautopsy says:

    It’s not a knife fight. A knife fight is reserved for some kind of dirty fighting and swaying public opinion.

    This is science. Science doesn’t need knives, PR campaigns, or awareness conferences. Data supports hypotheses and conclusions are drawn from the data. The data speaks for itself. Only in obfuscating the data would you use publicity and PR, and only when the data supports ideas that do not conform to a political belief.

  27. mycroft says:

    The sad thing is Joe Public will never hear this…it’s only us “deniers” will pick up on this and as we all know we don’t matter.Never mind as the old saying go’s “give em enough rope and the’ll hang them selves”, tis our only hope until the MSM pick up there balls and start doing proper investigative jouralisim.Won’t come from the BBC thats for sure not while the likes of Richard Black are there enviromental reporters,he can’t even face postings on his blog which report/post the truth
    tried posting the NIWA court case (fasle temp record) and it was removed due to being off topic,so are most of the posting, but mine got picked up….
    But while WUWT fight the good fight there’s always hope of a break through, who knows might this year.(ClimateGate Part 2 more emails to come)maybe this is reason behind the rants from these clowns. There bricking it.

  28. Mike D. says:

    Cornered and desperate. No way out of the trap they laid for themselves.

    Better strike another match, go start anew, because it’s all over now Baby Blue.

  29. Bob Barker says:

    I don’t know what the “scientists” are fighting for but I am for fighting against driving the cost of food and energy up without any measurable payback. Remember, the cost of energy ultimately affects just about the cost of everything, and has.

    The only effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere that I am confident about is that it is a component of the worldwide increase in crop yield over the last 50 – 60 years and IMO that is a positive, not a negative. So why the rush to curtail that?

  30. david elder says:

    These people have got themselves into a situation from which they cannot extract themselves without massive loss of face. All those failures to predict supposedly settled scientific phenomena (like the floods here in northern Australia – many pundits were predicting ongoing drought), all that taxpayer funding, all that media (self)dramatisation, all that impatient demonising of ‘denialist’ opponents, all that stonewalling over Climategate, and often, all that attempt to convert the issue into a Mooney-Oreskes type political campaign for the trendier parts of politics. There is only one hope for the climate science community – go right back to square one. Have a conference with the leading people – including ‘heretics’ like Lindzen and Spencer. Nut out exactly what is solid knowledge and what is fad. Get some solid credible risk evaluation (not alarmism competitions) and possible responses in case AGW really is a problem (put nuclear on the table for a start). Do what NASA and the IPCC should have done but didn’t. And leave ideological or partisan politics trendy or otherwise at the door.

  31. Keith says:

    These guys are on the government payroll and are making comments like this. As government employees they also had to sign the below Oath of Office supporting the Constitution of the United States and the federal government.

    From the Office of Personnel Management

    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    5 U.S.C. §3331

  32. John A says:

    All of this talk of knife fights and couch warfare is exactly the sort of talk that will make the incoming Republicans even more determined to derail the AGW gravy train.

    Can you imagine Inhofe doing anything other than smile at this?

  33. kramer says:

    The “researching nukes” comment sounds like a compliment to us skeptics. Most of us are doing our homework in digging into this issue, whether it’s the science or the politics behind it.

  34. DaveS says:

    It always was a knife fight..

    Science has been mugged by the anti-capitalist movement in its war against capitalism. It may lose this battle but the war will continue. Will I ever trust a scientist or science again? I will always make up my own mind. A PHD is meaningless. Nowt but a piece of paper.

  35. Slabadang says:

    When your lost and can`t find democracy among the corruption.

    Find the answers and guidence from T Jeffersson.AGW is the new state religion.

    Jeffersson:

    “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”

  36. jorgekafkazar says:

    John Kehr says: “…I wonder in the end if these people believe their own BS or if they are just pushing a fossil fuel free future? I have always tried to reconcile the facts and I just don’t understand how intelligent people that look at the data reach their conclusions. Is it only political for them or do they actually believe their own BS(?)”

    Their belief in nonsense is protected from reality by a subconscious gatekeeper that fends off cognitive dissonance. Their inability to do science anymore is driven by collective and individual messiah complexes.

  37. Colin Porter says:

    “The GHCN is a database of temperature, precipitation and pressure records managed by the NCDC and the Carbon Dioxide Analysis Information Centre.”

    It would seem that with the very limited association of databases, the causal relationship of carbon dioxide concentration on temperature is inevitably a given fact and there is little chance of modifying the perceptions of these “Climate Scientists” charged with being keepers and soothsayers of the record.

    If it has assumed such an important responsibility to be the keeper of the above climate record, should not the GHCN also be keeper of the database of short term , decadal and multidecadal climate patterns, such as the PDO, the AMO, the AO and ENSO cycles along with a record of the sun’s activity including irradiance, sunspot count, cycle length and even cosmic ray intensity, coupled with a record of the earths radiation balance or the earths changing albido in terms especially of it’s cloud cover?

    If it collated all this information into one super database, albeit that its principal database on the temperature record is so heavily corrupted with UHI, perhaps these so called “scientists” might be able to formulate somewhat more objective theories on the reasons for climate variability.

    Until that happens, little old CO2 will remain that evil polluting molecule which will eventually destroy civilisation.

  38. Dave Boulton says:

    What use is a knife against Occam’s Razor?

    Dave

  39. GBees says:

    So they’ve had decades and billions of dollars to convince us of their AGW nonsense. The sceptics don’t get funded. Yet they’ve got a knife and the sceptics have nukes! Go figure.

  40. Hoser says:

    It always was about politics, not science. We can keep to the high road, but if we don’t understand their underlying motivations, their actions will seem bizarre.

    Politics it is. For government, they get control. For scientists and bureaucrats, they get money and a little fiefdom. No doubt, for too many people like Hansen, ego is a big deal. Politicians know how to manipulate people like that to get what they want.

    So we can decry that bad science, but it doesn’t matter. People like Hansen are playing to the gullible and to the politicians. To paraphrase Will Rogers, we have the best scientists money can buy.

    You would think big corporations would fight back, but they are happily raking in cash from new markets created by regulations. If they rock the boat, the regulations will change, and they will lose their effective monopolies.

    You might imagine small agencies and counties would fight back. Nope. They are seeing grant money washing away all resistance to green projects. Bought and paid for cheap.

    In the end, it comes down to blogs like WUWT, trying to get the word out to people. People need to know what all this green crap is going to cost them. And it isn’t just money. It also will be perhaps complete loss of privacy, security, freedom, and our dreams for the future. Informing people of this unacceptable cost is the only way we can fight back and win.

  41. Neo says:

    How long will it take you to learn you are passing a whore house, and there’s no love going on inside ?

  42. Barry Day says:

    Mann has no chance in a knife fight.The reason he can’t back away is because of his stonewalling of his own making.

    http://tinyurl.com/4qgr5wz

  43. Dave Springer says:

    Interesting to note is panel member Jason Rosenau.

    This cat is the propoganda minister at the Nation Center for Science Education (NCSE) a.k.a. National Center for Selling Evolution.

    The primary modus operandi for this NGO is preventing public school teachers from speaking critically left-wing bandwagon science/dogma in the classroom. They’ve also been involved in getting professors in public institutions black-balled for failing to preach the consensus dogma.

    This is a new phase in the propoganda war. Watch for disciplinary actions against science teachers in K-12 to begin for any of them that have to audacity to question CAGW tenets in front of their students.

  44. GaryP says:

    The calls for an honest debate are far too late. You cannot have an honest debate with ideologues. Matt Briggs has a good web site on statistics (link in sidebar), and the major point I have learned is that every statistical analysis starts with a model. All you can do with the statistics is adjust parameters within the model to make that model fit the data as well as possible. This tells you nothing about the validity of the model. It might be totally bogus. The only test for the model is to make predictions for data that you have not yet seen. If your predictions fail, the model is no good.

    The warmists have predicted that snow in New York and the UK would become a rare event. There was only 1 chance in 20 of another cold, icy winter in the UK. Little risk in not having large stocks of salt, grit, and deicing chemicals on hand. In Australia they predicted the drought will continue so keep the reservoirs as full as possible.

    Epic Fail. The only debate that should take place is should we fund someone else for climate research or just save the money? I say, save the money as there is just too much mischief whenever the politicians get to pay for the answers they want. Now we are starting to see the results of the warmists failed CO2 model as the bodies pile up at an alarming rate.

  45. Baa Humbug says:

    Add that to NCAR’s Dr. Kenneth Trenberth’s recent diatribe

    Is that KEVIN Trenberths evil twin brother?

    REPLY: No, just how I say Kevin when I have a head cold. Fixed thanks, – Anthony

  46. Theo Goodwin says:

    It goes without saying that the behavior of Hansen, Peterson, and many of their colleagues does not fall within the range of normal or expected behavior on the part of scientists. Scientists are interested in the science and sharing the science. Nor does it fall within the norm for government administrators, except for the high-level offices that are all too often politicized. This behavior demands serious scrutiny. I recommend that everyone send a letter of complaint to Congressman James Sensenbrenner, Congressman Darrell Issa, and Senator James Inhofe.

  47. Baa Humbug says:

    “We’re in a knife fight”.

    These people are public servants. They take 2 weeks off for paper cuts.

  48. Bill in Vigo says:

    I feel sorry for these men. Many of them were and have been academics life long. Having been in that form at least in the United States they have been protected from many of the better forms of education. During studies exempt from military duty/draft, basically exempt from dismissal once reaching tenure, Protected while in government employ. I do wonder what will happen when the money runs out. It will as we all know. John Q. Public when we run out of money quit spending. I think that the government has just been given a message that we are out of money and to quit spending. This climate study in its current form has done nothing to understand the cause of climate change. (not disputed, it has for as long as the earth has been.). They certainly haven’t been helpful in the purpose of learning ways to cope with the change when it does occur, in fact their tact has been most unhelpful by denying the funds to those that would try to mitigate the effects of change what ever it brings.

    For this one day they will be brought to account. Either in this life or the next.

    Bill Derryberry

  49. JRR Canada says:

    These guys, I can’t use men or scientist anymore to describe them, must really hate their feet, cause they just keep blowing them off. In their case knives might be safer but I suspect they won’t be able to resist trying hari kari. Every outburst made on their behalf or by themselves is amazingly destructive to their belief, are they hoping for an insanity plea?

  50. Baa Humbug says:

    Here is a list of whats required for this knife fight

    * Josh
    * A Couple of criminals labelled NCDC holding small knives labelled “Homogenize” and “UHI”
    * Anthony Watts in a Crocodile Dundee suit with a really really big knife labelled “Blogosphere”

    You get the rest, “that’s not a knife” and all that

  51. Dave Springer says:

    “REPLY: No, just how I say Kevin when I have a head cold. Fixed thanks, – Anthony”

    re; head cold. Me too. Haven’t had one in a couple of years. Kickass cold/flu season according to my wife who manages an MD practice so gets a good handle on seasonal illnesses. It’s definitely weather related. Colder the winter the worse they are. Or would that be climate related? I’ll defer to your expertise.

  52. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    You have to realize how serious these folks are!! Most are “true believers,” who have dire images of the earth in the future….and, in some bizarre “Star Wars” sense, they seem to view one another as true champions of the planet!

    The worst example I’ve ever found is Hansen’s bullcrap about the “Venus Syndrome,” see his Powerpoint slides here:

    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

    He says, on Page 22 of 28:
    “The Venus syndrome is the greatest threat to the planet, to humanity’s continued existence.”

    …these folks have all the trademarks of religious fanatics, and seem to justify anything to “protect Gaia”! Remember the “No Pressure” campaign.

    If they didn’t have so much influence, I wouldn’t worry so much. However, they advocate forced re-education of meteorologists, make veiled or open threats of violence against heretics etc. Read their material, visit their blogs & see what I mean.

    John Holdren’s lecture to the NAE group in Chicago is another lovely work of art, see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/jph-chicago-04212010.pdf

  53. Dishman says:

    So, we have government employees advocating violence as an appropriate response to dissent?

    I’m not okay with that.

  54. Eric Roberts says:

    Let’s face it – this is going to be the cause of World War III. The marxists feel so close to world domination now that they will do anything to push through the last few obstacles. This will cause a massive divide in the world’s populations. Those that cherish freedom on one side and the fascists on the other. That may be a good thing because then we can be justified in wiping them all out. It would be the easiest way – and hippies don’t know how to fight, so should be a cakewalk.

  55. Leon Brozyna says:

    Is this the level to which these folks have devolved? The language of the local gang, gearing up for a gang fight? The mindset of Dr. Stadler seeking the power of Project Xylophone. Didn’t work too well for him.

  56. 1DandyTroll says:

    “We’re in a knife fight”

    Hilarious, now they’ve started to fight amongst each other with pen knives that clearly says SCUD what with they keep dropping them on their own feet.

  57. R. de Haan says:

    There is no reason to fight any more.
    Temps just went under the global mean.
    AGW is dead.
    http://www.accuweather.com/video/748914366001/global-temps-have-dropped-below-running-means-in-jan.asp?channel=vbbastaj

  58. u.k.(us) says:

    “1. Don’t forget who you work for, the U.S. Taxpayer.”
    ==========
    It used to be the MSM’s job, to put the fear of god into those who have overstepped their bounds.
    Apparently, now it’s our job.

  59. Brad says:

    I simply cannot believe the scientific community allows political advocacy and true believer words to come from scientists, ’tis unblieveable! Kinda like watching Fox, you know it ‘aint the truth, or unbiased, but people belive anyway because it fits their world view.

  60. Dave Springer says:

    Corrected Rosenau’s name from Jason to Josh:

    Dave Springer says:
    January 16, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Interesting to note is panel member Josh Rosenau.

    This cat is the propoganda minister at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) a.k.a. National Center for Selling Evolution.

    The primary modus operandi for this NGO is preventing public school teachers from speaking critically of left-wing bandwagon science/dogma in the classroom. They’ve also been involved in getting professors in public institutions black-balled for failing to preach the consensus dogma.

    This is a new phase in the propoganda war. Watch for disciplinary actions against science teachers in K-12 to begin for any of them that have to audacity to question CAGW tenets in front of their students.

  61. Karl Maki says: January 16, 2011 at 10:02 am
    You have to love the attempt to rename Climategate “Swifthack”, an obvious desire to reference a well-orchestrated political attack using the media — the “Swiftboat” campaign — rather than the sloppy inside job that was Watergate. The only hacks here are the ones trying to portray themselves as victims rather than perpetrators.
    ***************
    I believe that the comparison that they are trying to make is valid. “Swiftboating” is defined as holding liberals/Democrats accountable. Liberals/Democrats are violently opposed to that as they feel that it is unfair to remind people of what they have said and done.

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  62. Stephen Brown says:

    You very lucky people in the US have the ability to call on some Congressmen to “grow a pair” and demand all that the Government has paid for. Everything. Every last number, computer program, adjustment algorithm etc.
    No homogenised, pasteurised, liquidised, sterilised, spindled, folded or mutilated opinions accepted.
    Just what has been produced on the tax-payer’s dime (as you ex-Colonialists so aptly term it).
    Someone in a Governmental position of authority must be able to demand every last shred of work for which the people of the United States have paid for, surely? NASA, GISS etc. are all paid for by the US tax payer. Can’t the tax payer actually see what they have paid for?
    If not, why not?

  63. Fitzy says:

    That is disturbing language.

    Men of science reduced to Brooklyn bar room brawling. This is no more a knife fight/nuke fight/sticks and stones fight…earnest and ugly tribalism has supplanted the scientific method. Now they’re getting down to it, the petty mammalian desire to dominate through violence, IS the Green/Red/Blue creed.

    I’d hate to see any WUWT commentators join in, the world needs this like it needs another … [ENTER ATROCITY HERE]

  64. Max Hugoson says:

    Here it is:

    I hope that everyone gets the point on the “knife fight” reference.

    Max

  65. Bill Illis says:

    From the guy who is in charge of the data (all of it that is, including the raw data), it is disturbing to hear this kind of language.

    We have to turn the data collection over to a statistical organization which is not composed of indoctrinated scientists (I think Steve McIntyre recommended this originally).

    You really cannot even trust the raw data going back, let alone the adjusted data. We only have the satellite data from objective organizations to rely on.

  66. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Dave Boulton says:
    January 16, 2011 at 1:19 pm
    “What use is a knife against Occam’s Razor?”

    Nice one Dave!

  67. Theo Goodwin says:

    Dave Springer says:
    January 16, 2011 at 1:56 pm
    “Interesting to note is panel member Josh Rosenau. This cat is the propoganda minister at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) a.k.a. National Center for Selling Evolution.”

    Yep, you nailed him. The boy is getting on to the big bucks, probably planning to buy furniture.

  68. Jack Simmons says:

    Our scientists are now politicians?

    When did this happen?

  69. Jeff Alberts says:

    Dave Springer
    January 16, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Saying it twice doesn’t make evolution any less irrelevant to the discussion.

  70. Merovign says:

    If someone claims that exposing their own words to public scrutiny (in context that that) constitutes “slander” against them, that should tell you a lot about what kind of people they are.

    Also, the people with billions in government funding, a largely compliant and supportive press corps and educational establishment, and an arguable plurarily or majority of powerful political allies in the US and internationally, describe themselves as the disadvantaged party in the debate. Which would be amusing if it weren’t such a tiresome cliche. That claim has been made since the beginning, but it’s never been more ridiculous.

  71. AusieDan says:

    It is very easy for those of a critical disposition to become down hearted by the 100% constant bombardment of warmist propaganda in the Australia media.

    But here is clear evidence here that the warmist scientists themsenves feel very threatened.
    They fear exposure – that the truth will at last come out.
    That the emperor in fact has no clothes.

    It’s all very nasty and brutish.
    But the weather (both north and south hemi); the US house of reps; the lack of government finance in many countries – are all working together to allow the truth to come out.

    Now who was it that said that “you can fool all of the people all of the time and some of the people all of the time but you cannot fool all the people all of the time”?

    Time’s nearly up.

  72. Dave Springer says:

    Jeff Alberts says:
    January 16, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    “Saying it twice doesn’t make evolution any less irrelevant to the discussion.”

    I quite agree the science is irrelevant and just to be clear I believe the earth is billions of years old and all living things descend from one or perhaps several common ancestors in unbroken cell lineages. I’m far from convinced this chain of events was without external cause or purpose. The probabilities for all we observe being due to serendipity simply beggars belief.

    That said there are many parallels between the politics of selling random evolution and selling anthropogenic global warming. Both have greed, ideology, suppression of data, ridicule of skeptics, outright lies, political machinations, lies of omission, subversion of peer review, and a basic blatant failure in philosophy of science to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

    My religion is scientism. I worship logic, clear unbiased thinking, and following the evidence wherever it leads. When I see corruption in science it effects me like a devout Catholic finding out his preist has been molesting the choirboys. In this regard there is little difference between evolutionary dogma and AGW dogma. Both are corrupted by ideologies that have no place in the halls of science, engineering, and technology.

  73. “2. You’d all do better to keep your mouths shut, your public utterances are embarrassments.”

    Mmmpf. Judging from Climategate and other released emails, even their private utterances are embarrassments. Better to just fire them.

  74. Dave Springer says:

    CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    January 16, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    “You have to realize how serious these folks are!! Most are “true believers,” who have dire images of the earth in the future….and, in some bizarre “Star Wars” sense, they seem to view one another as true champions of the planet!”

    I think the true believers are mostly at the bottom of the food chain. The dancing dimwits in the recent Cancun video for instance. I equate them to the flower children of the 1960′s and don’t really fault them for it i.e. if you’re young and conservative you have no heart but if you’re old and liberal you have no brain. I can’t despise the young people for having a heart in the sure knowledge that most of them will acquire a brain when they grow up and discover the real world outside academia and hopefully not lose their heart in the process – cynics in the making. The people at the top of the food chain see them as useful idiots. The leaders are driven by power and greed and perhaps guilt to some degree for being privileged citizen of a wealthy nation by mere circumstance of birth and knowing that unbridled consumption of fossil fuel is a primary driver in how their nation became rich – victims of their own politics of guilt which is the prime motivator of the liberal left even though most of them are hypocrites who only pay lip service to redressing societal injustice.

    Evolutionists are a bit different in that the leaders are driven by a belief that religion is the source of all evil and that if it just went away and was replaced by secular humanism the world would magically transform into some kind of Shangri-la where greed, injustice, strife and warfare no longer exist.

  75. JPeden says:

    “we’re considering picking up a knife while [the] other side [is] researching nukes”

    Always looking for the bright side, I’m at least glad that someone in the Climate Science Play Station Bubble has finally realized that an intentionally unhinged Propaganda Op. might be no match for reason and the Scientific Method, when the battle has to occur within Reality?……..Nah, they know we don’t fight fair and “we’re just out to get them”. It’s flat out amazing what some people can learn from a mirror!

  76. Myrrh says:

    Colds and flu, take echinachea.

  77. Brian H says:

    Peterson is probably in non-stop cold sweats that Inhofe will demand an audit of GHCN and its data integrity.

  78. Manfred says:

    How does a scientist, who sees himself acting in a knife fight

    deal with mistakes he or better a sceptic finds in his data, publications or his methods ?

    Deal with the career or job application of a young scientist with some dissenting views and on the other side with a dumb guy, who beyond that perhaps may be good in knife fighting ?

    Deal with a sceptic paper submission he may be entitled to review ?

    Deal with reports or interviews he is entitled to author for the public or other authorities ?

    This is disturbing to say the least. I don’t know how this person can continue to be part of the public service.

  79. Khwarizmi says:

    Dave Springer:
    I’m far from convinced this chain of events was without external cause or purpose. The probabilities for all we observe being due to serendipity simply beggars belief.

    Are you familiar with the Weak Anthropic Principle? It is an intractable form of circular reasoning …

    “….we must observe that the universe contains properties compatible with the existence of an observer because if it did not, no one would be here to observe it….”
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_kelly/wap.html

    That said there are many parallels between the politics of selling random evolution….

    1) The rare random mutation that produces a more effective duplicator (than its competitors)
    will likely be duplicated more often (than its competitors)
    2) What follows is not random, but weighted in favor of differential reproductive success.

  80. Dave Springer says: January 16, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    …My religion is scientism. I worship logic, clear unbiased thinking, and following the evidence wherever it leads. When I see corruption in science it effects me like a devout Catholic finding out his preist has been molesting the choirboys. In this regard there is little difference between evolutionary dogma and AGW dogma. Both are corrupted by ideologies that have no place in the halls of science, engineering, and technology.

    Dave, I’m with you in spirit (haha!) but I would word it differently.

    First, I use the word “scientism” to describe the situation where belief and unbalanced emotional responses replace Scientific Method, while the output is purveyed as science. That’s my use of the word, but I’ve heard others use the word the same way.

    Second, I (and I think others) always take “religion” to mean something where belief takes precedence over testable and tested knowledge. Having said which, I have a passionate love for true Scientific Method as you do. In my case, this is because I know with every fibre of my being that truth matters, truth works, truth heals, and discovery of truth is what Scientific Method is about, at root. Also I like the fact that Jesus is reported as saying his own work was to bear witness to truth (the evidence: John 18:37) – notwithstanding what the Church has done, Inquisition and all.

    Having said which, I have no desire for these words to spark a religious discussion here. It’s too off topic.

  81. Pamela Gray says:

    Politics, and in general, debates of any kind, have always included the idea of “Them’s fight’n words!” Does that cause weak and mentally ill minds to turn them into reality? No. The weak and mentally ill mind will do that all on its own. If the world were filled with peace and tranquility with nary a single harsh word or portrait, the human mind, ill with whatever attacks it, will think dark thoughts and carry out dark deeds.

    On the other hand, will poorly reasoned, and god forbid ill-thought, policies meant to squeeze the populous into controlling, restrictive and austere measures bring revolution? Yes. Sometimes peaceful, sometimes rancorous, and sometimes violent.

  82. PhilJourdan says:

    Dr. James Hansen calling for civil disobedience

    The problem with that is it only works for those NOT in power. Clearly with most of the media, and virtually all of the western governments, the AGW crowd is IN control. So they will be protesting themselves.

  83. Dave Springer says:

    Khwarizmi says:
    January 17, 2011 at 1:34 am

    “2) What follows is not random, but weighted in favor of differential reproductive success.”

    Mutations are random. Natural selection is to a great degree. The fittest can and often are killed by random events that have nothing to do with fitness relative to peers. In the interest of brevity I reduced RM+NS to random evolution. Regardless, the numbers just don’t work out. I suggest picking up a copy of Michael Behe’s “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Evolution”.

    The focus of the book is on the real world. Perhaps the best experiment we have to what RM+NS can accomplish is in one of the most widely studied and prolific organisms on the planet P.Falciparum (the malaria parasite). It’s a eukaryote with a completely sequenced genome of approximately 27mbp. It reproduces enough times in a single infected person to sequence through all possible single point mutations. Every year in toto in all infected people it sequences through all possible dual point mutations. It reproduces more times in one year than all the reptiles in history. It is under intense selection pressure from both natural environment (such as ability, or rather inability, to survive through a temperate winter and sickle cell hemoglobin mutation), and from an assault of various man-made drugs. It’s response to these selection pressures, both successes and failures, are quite predictable given a well known baseline single point mutation rate, size of genome, number of opportunities, and gene modifications required to overcome the obstacles.

    The bottom line of what P.Falciparum has and has not been able to accomplish with an order of magnitude more opportunities pales in comparison to the genetic modifications in the chain of evolution from reptiles to mammals. So what we observe in the evolution of P.Falciparum makes perfect predictable sense and what we imagine took place in the evolution of reptiles into mammals becomes preposterous.

    That’s just one example. There are many others where the opportunities for RM+NS to act are ridiculously too small to accomplish what the fossil record tells us has happened. My personal opinion is that the deck was stacked from the word go – the course of evolution was largely predetermined. Predetermined by what and why is a matter of speculation – there is no data to tell us that but the data certainly do lead us to a conclusion that pure happenstance is such a low probability event it can be discounted in a finite universe.

  84. Dave Springer says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    January 17, 2011 at 2:00 am

    “Dave, I’m with you in spirit (haha!) but I would word it differently. First, I use the word “scientism” to describe the situation where belief and unbalanced emotional responses replace Scientific Method, while the output is purveyed as science. That’s my use of the word, but I’ve heard others use the word the same way. ”

    I hear ya, Lucy but I don’t give a darn if it’s pejorative or not. If the shoe fits, wear it. It fits me. I tend to believe the universe is a creation not an accident so that makes me a creationist and that’s usually pejorative too but if it fits it fits. Just don’t call me a creationist with a capital C because that doesn’t fit – the evidence doesn’t lead to a bearded sky thunderer but who knows someday it might and if it does I’ll follow it there. I’m agnostic when it comes down to it but I do believe that science is the only means of knowing things and sufficiently advanced science has no boundary in what is knowable. I always keep in mind Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws of prediction:

    #1 When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

    #2 The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

    #3 Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

  85. PhilJourdan says:

    Dave Springer – I have Clarke’s laws as my signature line! They are very appropriate to remember in today’s world.

  86. Khwarizmi says:

    Dave Springer
    “I suggest picking up a copy of Michael Behe’s “The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Evolution”.”

    There are some who like a mystery for the sake of mystery, while others like a mystery for the challenge it presents. The former send mystics to enshrine the mystery in enigma and dogma, while the latter send detectives.
    Behe has built a career from trying to find a deity particle in DNA or the folds of a protein, and he is clearly in the latter camp. It is most unlikely that I will read his book.
    His comparison of simple prokaryotic evolution to complex eukaryotic evolution is invalid, since eukaryotes have a significant advantage conferred by meiosis.

    Also, a biology text you previous recommended failed to undermine or even address the point I made regarding methane-fueled life.

    I concur with Lucy that evolution is a straying from the topic into potentially volatile territory. It’s a topic I enjoy, however. The post on hydrothermal vents was one of my favorites.

  87. truth says:

    If scientists like Dr Peterson and the others involved in Climategate are so anxious for the rest of us to respond to their warnings in the ways that they believe we should, then why such apparent nonchalance about the research of their colleagues on black carbon and its large role in the Arctic melt.
    Their colleague Drew Shindell and others showed —
    that ‘black carbon is responsible for 50% or almost 1degreeC increased Arctic warming from 1890 to 2007’, and that ‘the climate-warming effects of these short-lived pollutants have largely been ignored by scientists and regulators focusing on climate policy’ —-that ‘decreasing concentrations of sulfate aerosols and increasing concentrations of black carbon have substantially contributed to rapid Arctic warming during the past three decades’.
    And—”We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide,” Shindell said. “If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”
    Why [ if they genuinely want to prevent warming], are they not all publicly clamouring for the necessary measures to be taken right now—lending their enormous clout to that problem—especially since they use the Arctic melt as their prime evidence for CO2-induced warming, with not a word about the black carbon.
    Instead , the burning of forests continues, as do the other practices that produce black carbon—-and the world’s most influential climate scientists remain silent—and also will not post comments on the subject on their blogs.
    This is just one of many contradictions that make us wonder if they really do believe in CO2-induced warming —or whether the science is being made to fit the political agenda.
    Could it be that they don’t want any of the more- easily-remedied problems fixed, lest they then have nothing to point to in order to maintain the required alarm ?

  88. Brian H says:

    Pamela;
    >:-(
    I’ve warned you before. “Populous” is not a noun. It does not mean “Populus”.

    Further violations will be met with deadly force. Or SLT.

    ;)

  89. Marconi Darwin says:

    Hey … [trimmed] Do you [trimmed] know how to read? [trimmed]

    [ Yes, we do know how to read. Please read the posting rules about language and insults. Robt]

Comments are closed.