Climategate: CATO’s Pat Michaels and Center for American Progress Dan Weiss on Fox News

Dan Weiss from the Center for American Progress seems to have more than a little trouble with this interview. I wonder why they didn’t ask Joe Romm to be on?

Left to right: Michaels and Weiss

Here’s the video description as posted on YouTube:

Hackers broke into thousands of emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University last week and uncovered the global warming conspiracy.

Stuart Varney interviews scientist Pat Michaels, with the CATO institute, who was the target of physical threat from Climate Scientist Ben [Santer]. He also DESTROYS  Dan Weiss, from the Center for American Progress.

Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

In an interview with The Washington Times on Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced he would probe whether the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.

Here’s the video:

Advertisements

106 thoughts on “Climategate: CATO’s Pat Michaels and Center for American Progress Dan Weiss on Fox News

  1. You’d think that the world would be happy that the globe isn’t any warmer today than it was in 1998. I guess if your bread and butter depends on it you’d believe anything.

  2. I don’t know why they didn’t have Pat Michaels debate that clown. Talk about “beating the crap” out of someone. I think Dan Weiss would have been pretty bloodied after that.

  3. RIP IPCC:

    I think people would be happy as well. I wonder how long the “if you don’t believe in AGW, you are a young earth creationist/flat earther” defense last? That’s pretty much all I’ve seen thus far. Are those the official talking points?

  4. Sunlight!

    It might have been warming the planet for eons, but its metaphorical counterpart positively COOKING these scientists in the juices of their own deceit

  5. Varney is going off on this like a shark in a feeding frenzy. I have seen him get hard on a guest, but he has been wonderfully hard core on the idiots that have come on to spin the issue. I love it, leave it to a Brit ex-pat to remind the “Americans” what America is all about, and the dopes still don’t get it. Every “believer” that he has interviewed since Monday has parroted the same basic mantra. Out of context, stolen emails, not meant for public, pollution, clean air, etc. The one today was great, he kept hitting the guest idiot over the head with multiple quotes from several emails. I don’t think this issue is just going to blow over as some may have hoped.

  6. Now that was funny. Congratulations to Stuart Varney for sticking to the point. So did Pat Michaels, but with Dan Weiss it was better than an Abbott and Costello skit. Did Fox purposely use a fish-eye lens on camera to view Weiss?

  7. If alarmists want a fighting chance they must never let Dan Weiss near a camera again. He was screamingly funny. Not on purpose, but nonetheless.

    I’ll tolerate Fox just for Stuart Varney.

  8. Folks, me think the arguing about cheating, falsifying, bullying etc is the wrong horse to whip in this crap. The AGW as a hypothesis is wrong. It’s assume warming like a greenhouse. Earth as a planet is not in a glass shell, so the hypothesis shouldn’t pass the first scientific test.
    But the political meme did.
    Fighting it on the ground of the testing/measuring/manipulating phase is not addressing the issue.
    The main goal should be to force the AGW cult to explain the “green-house-theorem” how to apply to a planet. No sheet-glass allow!
    And no “possible” scenarios run by dubious software either.

  9. Great to see Michaels so optimistic and funny.

    This Dan Weiss must be paid by some skeptic group because his performance is just insanely unattractive.

    It is a sign of a mental problem to suggest that those 160 MB of e-mails are fake or mostly fake, especially after pretty much all the external parties have confirmed that all e-mails in whose headers they appear are accurate, and Phil Jones et al. have essentially done the same thing with many e-mails, including the most disturbing ones.

    And despite a clearly huge effort, RealClimate and many other websites haven’t found a single sentence anywhere whose authenticity could be questioned. It’s just crazy to question the authenticity at this moment.

    Dan Weiss and some others – labeled the new “deniers” by George Monbiot – deny that the e-mails are a serious problem for them. But by their behavior, they just assure everyone that their behavior is dogmatic, unfair, irrational, and aggressive and it is just their primary beliefs that they’re ready to consider as an argument – and only in one direction.

  10. I love Fox! He really pushed the envelope with the “Alarmist” and the Interviewer was phenomenal…It’s about time for this occur…The Alarmists do not give the emails authenticity at all..Wow!
    On the FIRST day CRU stated that the emails hacked were real!!!
    Amazing, simply amazing…

  11. We need journalists to get a bit more informed. Dan Weiss could have been cut short if the admission of authenticity by some of the authors had been known by the interviewer. Instead Weiss was given a soapbox to be alarmist.

    The true travesty in this whole saga is that the UK press have not even touched the edges. The BBC has run no running headline on this whole hacking/whistleblowing/releasing story. Lacking proper coverage this whole story will be overshadowed when Copenhagen gets underway. There are too many people (politicians, business, journalists) with too much invested to allow this story to de-rail the talks.

    UK journalism died with this story.

  12. Thanks for posting.

    Weiss is an ex-Sierra Club hack and now part of the Joe Romm/John Podesta/George Soros goon squad. He knows basically nothing about this topic – hence his screaming that we are all going to die. He was hopeless and clueless. He must have been the one with nowhere to go on Thanksgiving. The grin and look of incredulity on Varney’s face as Weiss went off on a meaningless rant was priceless. I guess that is what triggered Varney’s conclusion that these guys are in retreat … probably a retreat from reality.

  13. ROFLMAO at Dan Weiss!!!!

    What a maroon! The whole point is that this stuff is probably not even real, and he’s going off on what was published recently!

    PLEASE let these guys rant! They really do harm their cause!

  14. Justin – We have the same problem here in NZ. Our MSM leads with stories about circus elephants being retired and some person who’s just married their cyber-girlfrend. They are staunchly avoiding this story, and the blogosphere (kiwiblog.co.nz, tbr.cc and others) and leading the challenge. It’s a disgrace!

  15. Bernie – ex Sierra club? An ‘interesting’ bunch. Witness:

    “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing” –David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

  16. Dan Weiss’ appeal to authority – no credibility – what a clown – to a UK citizen, who is this clown?

  17. And in the U.S., Happy Thanksgiving!

    Today will be a day of parades, football (American style), and much feasting. News which grates will be pushed onto the back burner. And Friday will be about shopping. And then another weekend. The news will be all fluff. But this story will still be evolving behind the scenes — and in other corners of the world. If the lamestream media says anything about it here, this might be the time they’ll do it, while people aren’t paying too much attention.

    Come Monday we should see if this thing flares up or if there are hidden developments exposed.

  18. That George Bush started….started by George Bush…

    The guy is such a political animal that he thinks it means something to bring up George Bush.

    BTW, where did he get those glasses?

  19. i guess you can hide the decline by raising your voice too

    them warmers is scared now, i think i could detect it, they found the enemy and it be them

  20. ooohh, aaaaahh, Russian hackers

    What if it turns out charles the mod is right and it’s David Palmer, Information Policy & Compliance Manager, who was just acting in line with his duties?

  21. Speaking of scientific organizations, I wonder what the APS office is feeling about their climate change statement since ClimateGate broke?

  22. Justin, you are right. The BBC is like an Eastern Bloc “newsagency” these days. As a supposed, impartial, public broadcasting corporation it fails miserably. It is told what to say and it just does it. Not even a mention of this CRU scandal. Not a bloody mention! They should hang their heads in shame! It just goes to show the grip that the AGW disciples have over the British media. But this is like an emerging tidal wave of truth and eventually they will succumb.

    Thank God for the internet.

  23. Okay, so Bush started a program and issued a statement — what was that based on, science Bush did in his basement? No, it is based on the same Scientists and lack of scientific methodology that operate the CRU.

  24. Could Dan Weiss have acted any more desperate?

    And could he have played on people’s guilt more by saying the word ‘pollution’ just one more time?

    Which life boat is he going to get in to as his manipulation by guilt, opp, I mean manmade co2 induced global warming ship goes down? The “plastics is worse for the environment than we thought” life boat?

  25. If in doubt blame Bush? Its only a matter of time before the leftists start blaming Bush for the global warming charade, a default position of leftists both in the UK and across the pond is ‘if in doubt sling mud at the other guy’.
    Wiess knows full well that the emails are a catastrophic blow to the entire credibility of the ‘science’ behind AAM and that is why he will not and indeed cannot explore their content.
    BTW “Russian hackers” huuuh? Does Weiss know something that we dont and why is he so sure that that Russian hackers stole this data from the CRU mainframe?
    It should be noted that the data was in the hands of the UK national broadcaster the BBC for weeks before it became available on the net, does it seem likely that Russian hackers would steal this data and then hand it to the BBC who then kept it secret for weeks until the hackers decided to post it elsewhere?
    It looks like Weiss is reading from an old script now made obsolete by the fact that it may well have been an inside job, a whistle blower who handed the evidence to what they thought was an impartial reporter of the truth when in fact the BBC hid the data because they are so deeply implicated in the scandal.
    I hope Weiss is further examined when the source is revealed.

  26. Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world’s leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.

    In his BBC blog three days ago, Hudson said he was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world’s leading climate scientists written as a direct result of his article “Whatever Happened To Global Warming?”. I remember this article was also covered on WUWT.

    That essay, written last month, argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures. It also presented the arguments of skeptics who believe natural cycles control temperature and the counter-arguments of those who think it’s man’s actions which are warming the planet.

    The leaked files – which show 4,000 documents which have allegedly been sent by scientists over the past 13 years – were apparently taken from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. They were then uploaded on to a Russian server before being published on a blog called Air Vent.

    Hudson doesn’t explain why he sat on the controversial information for so long, but said: “I do intend to write a blog regarding the CRU being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.”

    A spokesman for the University of East Anglia said: “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry.”

  27. We must not let this rest for one moment. It is indeed an outrage that the BBC & the MSM have allowed this to slide under the radar, although the Beeb did mention it online, but of course with plenty of caveats. Channel 4 News did at least cover it, although how many watch this channel for news at the time it goes out I don’t know, with many if the crappy soaps being screened at that time. We must keep up the pressure, there are one or two journos out there who are sceptical who might be able to run with it.

    UEA have put out a press release that was as bland as could be, & did not address any of the topics/questions raised within the emails – sub judice etc I suspect they’ll play that routine as long as they can. Such a press release would have covered any topic/subject being studied at the university so was in fact meaningless, probably a stock PR release that they have a “policy” about should such an occurrence take place. All major & minor institutions have to have such policies by default in the UK, they “must” have a policy statement about everything & anything, whether it concerns them or not. The interesting thing not addressed by anyone as far as I can tell, is that was this a hacking issue, or was it indeed a leak issue, which if I were Jones et al I would be very worried about! Tell me you experts on computing (I can turn mine on & that’s about it), how easy is it to hack into a computer as I am sure it is very unlike those wonderful Hollywood versions, or is it easier to leak this stuff & cover your tracks without a trace? Perhaps something like pushing the “leak” side of things might set the cat amongst the pigeons, with them wondering who it might be in their midst at the Comedy Research Unit!

    BTW & OT I am still awaiting Richard Black’s report on the Climate Fools Conference held at Imperial College, London & hosted by Piers Corbyn on 28th October. Any joy anyone? He was there & was very respectfully (although not the BBC itself) pointed out to the audience by Mr Corbyn, & challenged him to put Weatheraction’s winter forecast into a box along with the Met Office’s forecast, to be opened in the Spring for comparison. Poor fellow he looked rather embarrassed & sullen about the limelight, at least he appeared to ackonwledge the challenge.

    H T-G to you Colonials!

  28. Gene Nemetz 00:23:28

    Yup, I’m with you.

    Hands up all those who have been to the Russian site – OK, put your hands down if you can’t read Russian – Huh huh, what is the site for?

    It is a small web-mail site, that is now offering a speed of 64 kbytes to all subscribers at no extra charge! Wow.

    Not exactly the sort of site that would have sophisticated hacking capability, I would say.

    But it is the sort of site that you could do an anonymous FTP upload to, if you didn’t mind how long it took to get there. A sort of electronic dead-letter drop.

    All supposition, of course ;-)

    But however the data got out, it would not have been Russian hackers – they cover their tracks.

    Mind you, it might have been the Chinese trying to make the Russians look bad …

  29. Varney shouldn’t have interrupted so much. That’s reprehensible interviewing. If he’d been more au courant in this affair, he’d have been able to say, after giving Weiss his turn to speak, “But some of the participants have conceded the authenticity of the e-mails, and none of them have disputed the authenticity of the most-quoted and damaging e-mails. What do you say to that?”

  30. Dan Weiss, global cooling denier. Here in the UK we think Paxman gives a hard interview but compared to some of the US anchors, he’s a sheep!

  31. This may be premature, but all of a sudden, mails for Paul Hudson, the Climate Correspondent at the BBC (the chap who wrote their “whatever happened to global warming) story a few weeks back have started bouncing.

    I hope it’s just a mail server problem……

  32. Stuart Varney interviews scientist Pat Michaels, with the CATO institute, who was the target of physical threat from Climate Scientist Ben [Santer]. He also DESTROYS Dan Weiss, from the Center for American Progress.

    Yeah i have to disagree….Stuart was not all the good and Dan seemed to destroy himself.

    Pat did a good job. I wish he would have shrugged off the “beating” email more forcibly. I think it is obviously a joke. Still his defection of the threat by pointing out that it demonstrated a thin skin among the email authors was nice. Perhaps Fox News should give Pat the show.

  33. I think no one of the AGW hysterians is realy hysteric, because they all want that the globe is (should) warming up.
    They are not happy about a break like the last decade, no it is a “travesty”.
    As i told at the very beginning in the 90`s, it never was about climate or temperature itselfs, it was allways about controlling others and big money.
    i hope this “watergate” will stop in the next year and serios scientists like lindzen come back to tell us the scientific basics of the climate system.
    Copenhagen should be the last money trashing operation by this criminals:

  34. Dan Weiss’ appeal to authority – no credibility – what a clown – to a UK citizen, who is this clown?

    He is a Fellow, or what ever you call em, to a progressive think tank. He is like a counter to Pat Michaels who is a Fellow with CATO which is a libertarian think tank.

    I assume both of them focus their think tank work on environmental policy.

  35. Funny how Weiss forgot to mention the threat of hurricanes.
    Oh but wait a minute, hurricanes are at a 30 year low!
    I pity the poor souls who continue to believe charlatans like Weiss.

  36. Massive CRU Data Fraud Can’t Derail the Global Warming Gravy Train

    China sets a carbon target for 2020

    China has made a commitment to restraining the rise in its “greenhouse gas” emissions, announcing that it had set a target for reducing its carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020. China’s foreign ministry also announced that Wen Jiabao, premier, would attend the Copenhagen talks. China has not yet set a target date for its carbon emissions to peak, although there has been speculation in recent days that Chinese negotiators will make such a commitment at Copenhagen.

    note: The “carbon intensity” target means reducing the amount of carbon produced per unit of economic output, and is not the same as actually cutting emissions.

    President Hu Jintao had said at the UN climate change conference in September that China would adopt a carbon intensity target, although he didn’t provide specific details at the time. Beijing said it would reduce carbon intensity from the 2005 level, although the target is a domestic policy goal rather than a binding international commitment.

    China’s economy will be double in size by 2020 at current growth rates and its emissions will be considerably higher even if it meets the new target.

    China’s announcement came a day after the White House said President Obama would attend the early stages of the Copenhagen meeting and that the US intended to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions “in the range of” 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050.

  37. If in 10 years time or less AGW is thouroughly discredited what will people make of all these alarmists. What if in fact we are actually heading for a mini ice age and scientist warn of an impending mini iceage which could lead to food shortages? How many politicians / scientists are going to put their careers on the line over another scare? How many members of the public are going to listen to the new scare?

    Many people could die because we waisted time and money fighting the wrong cause!!!

  38. This was the best interview that I’ve seen on Fox since they interviewed Dr. Korvorkian a few months back (short link to my article on that interview http://wp.me/ps3dI-FY). It’s rare quality journalism from Fox. I hope they keep it up and learn that journalism is fair and balanced to the FACTS and not balanced to be equally fair to all points of view or skewed towards Fox’s political point of view. Of course the trouble is finding out what the facts actually are – and getting one’s own point of view and politics out of the way – as we know all too well.

    My article on the above interview: http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/call-for-resignation-of-phil-jones-michael-mann-et-al.

  39. Here in the UK anyone old enough will remember, during the 1950’s and 60’s, every High Street in the land had its Sandwich-board Sage pronouncing ‘The end of the world is nigh!’ Some were even bold (or stupid) enough to give the precise date when Armageddon would occur.

    Most rational and reasonable folk consigned these people to the realms of psychedelic fantasy and history has supported this sensible assessment. Despite all the hype and hysteria promulgated by the AGW Alarmists, history will prove them to be the modern Sandwich-board Sages and show we are right to ignore their frenzied screeching.

    Dan Weiss (whoever he is) is a present day Sandwich-board Sage….I haven’t laughed so much in ages!

  40. I think it is telling the concern of the warmists by who they are trotting out to discuss the issue. Poor Dan Wiess, I guess he did the best he could. Ed Begley Jr. got his hat handed to himself too by Stuart on Monday. If this is the best they can do, it must be because any serious players are hiding in the weeds.

    As for the threat to Pat Michaels of getting the crap beaten out of him, I wish he would have used the saying I used in Jr. High when last I was so threatened,” He better pack a lunch”

  41. Article: Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

    You seem to have this entirely wrong. The ‘decline’ doesn’t refer to temperatures at all, but to wood density –

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html

    In this letter to Nature in 1998, Briffa et al state:

    When averaged over large areas of northern America and Eurasia, tree-ring density series display a strong coherence with summer temperature measurements averaged over the same areas, demonstrating the ability of this proxy to portray mean temperature changes over sub-continents and even the whole Northern Hemisphere.

    Seems reasonable. However, they observe that this coherence has been declining over the last few decades –

    During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen. The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated.

    So the point here is that whilst temperatures *have* been rising over the last half century, wood density has not, so wood density doesn’t accurately reflect temperature for this period. There doesn’t seem to be any problem here. If you observe that your proxy breaks down after a certain point then of course you would not use that data as it would be invalid. This doesn’t suggest any ‘collusion’ to ‘manipulate data’, and it certainly has nothing to say about rising global temperatures – it’s just good science.

  42. This Weiss guy reminds me of Robert Kennedy Jr.! All bluster, no substance! Didn’t quite have that “I took mind altering drugs for years” look though!

  43. For all thsoe of you you have a problem with the BBCs coverage of global warming (as I do), can I recommend Mike Post ‘s comments on Tips and Notes to WUWT (13:23:33) and (13:39:07) where he explains how it was a policy decision not to give equal weight to sceptical views.

    It is outrageous, in my view, especially as it’s partly my money that is paying for it (the BBC, that is).

  44. Am I missing something, or did Varney fail to make the key point:

    The “science” of AGW depends on the temperature record – instrument and paleo. The emails seem to provide evidence that this temperature record has been systematically manipulated. If these data have been corrupted, how can the “science”, at least that part of it that depends on the temperature record, still be considered valid? Without demonstrable, unprecidented long-term rise in global temperature, the physics of how CO2 molecules behave in the atmosphere becomes pretty boring to most people.

  45. Wow…..Weiss was like a little screaming 4-ear-old.

    Pathetic.

    Exactly the type of sophistry that people of his ilk try to use…one last ditch effort of abandoning ship….the Great Ship AGW.

    Nah….he will never abandon….it is obvious his brainwashed state has him mentally “bolted” to the deck, even after it begins to disappear beneath the waves.

    This nonsensical tirade is right up there with Waxman’s waxing stupid about the North Pole evaporating.

    Cue Charlie Brown laugh: Hahahahahahaha.

    Happy Thanksgiving Anthony and Mods, and all you fellow USA’ers out there, and everyone else have a great day/night.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  46. What a let down. That Weiss guy showing signs of panic and refusing to even deal with the issues in the emails, instead preferring to reel of lists of “tractor stats” re climate change.

    They never even got into the code comments that completely undermine every single one of his climate alarm assertions.

    He claimed that it has warmed. How can he know that if the data has been so massively fudged? The fact is, that if we cannot state with certainty what the earlier temperatures were, to a fine degree of accuracy, and the modern temperature record has been altered (as they admit), then how can we know what direction the temperature has been going in?

    We no longer have a reliable record for temperature as there has been a global conspiracy to alter the record to show increased warming.

    The fact is that we cannot rely on any temperature reconstruction record by CRU.

  47. Consider the outrage if these e-mails had been found in the offices of those who certify, (1) the accuracy of the delivery of gasoline pumps, (2) the safety of elevators and escalators, (3) the composition and proper installations of building materials, (4) the airworthiness of commercial aircraft, (4) the safety of medicines and medical devices, (5) the safety of power plants, (6) the crash-worthiness of automobiles, (7) that Environmental Impact Statements are correct and true, and on and on and on.

    There would be no rationalizations, none whatsoever, presented to insist that the e-mails simply reflect Business as Usual. Independent investigations would be started immediately.

  48. There’s not doubt that any neutral viewer watching this will be asking some serious questions about the whole AGW thing.

    As for Dan Weiss – he looks just like Phil Silvers on amphetamine, and made even less sense. He didn’t know whether to argue that the emails were faked then equivocated when pressed. He argued that man is causing global warming because the government wrote some report to say it is. Confused local issues about lake levels with global temperatures; claimed global temperatures climbed half a degree in 12 years; said something about pollution which is a different issue entirely; mentioned sea level rise up an inch and a half – a meaningless statement.

    I loved the way they split the screen down the middle so you can juxtapose Weiss’s manic “frothing at the mouth” style hysteria against Stuart’s calm and patient composure. Priceless!

  49. Dan Weiss has a big mouth. He non stopped interrupted the moderator and avoided the questions.
    He is like Joe Romm. When they get in a corner, they get extremmely loud and try to shout over the newsman and change the subject.

    Weiss gave the Warm mongers a setback.

    Weiss also lied. he said the e-mails can’t be authenticated and Jones not only authenticated them, he said they were from CRU.

    We are going to see a surge. Romm is pushing 2099 threats and forcasts in greater numbers. He isn’t trained enough to get 2009 correct but claims he is perfect on 2099. Like we saw yesterday, if their forcasts are wrong, they have flopped in supporting their hypothesis.

  50. Luboš Motl (23:34:42) :

    “Great to see Michaels so optimistic and funny.

    This Dan Weiss must be paid by some skeptic group because his performance is just insanely unattractive.”

    Yes!!! Joe Romm on sister station Climate Progress and Dan are on Soros payroll and shill for the extreme left. Romm has the same angry demeanor. He starts name calling and spewing hostility.
    Romm is afraid of Fox and a web site run by Morano called Climate Depot.

  51. Google changed the behavior of Google News sometime in the last few hours. Today if you search for “climategate” it turns up mostly articles that do not have the word “climategate” in them. It did not do this yesterday.

  52. Wow. 4 minutes of incoherent babbling and hyperventilating, a long winded, fact free appeal to authority basically saying all the now discredited scientists still say it’s warming! And half a degree rise in temp in the past 12 years when the emails say they can’t explain the drop! Talk about living in a fantasy world, the CAP guy was about the worst possible representative for his view with the possible exception of Ed Begely. The stammering, whining, and obvious and ineffective attempts at diversion were astounding, and you know, when a Liberal like someone from CAP has to quote George Bush to support his cause you know they have nothing at all to back up their cause.

  53. Buffoons like Weiss and Ed Begley (peerreviewpeereviewpeerreview…) certainly hurt the Alarmist Cause more than they help it. The straws they grasp at are flimsy indeed. It’s very amusing to watch the desperation grow in the Alarmist camp. I guess now they are rightfully alarmed – at the coming demise of their AGW pseudo-religious ideology.

  54. Weiss’ only argument is that the e-mails are fake. But they are not.

    “Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them.” – Phil Jones

    “the selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way.” – UAE

    “In this email, I was discussing the importance of extending paleoclimate reconstructions far enough back in time that we could determine the onset and duration of the putative ‘Medieval Warm Period.'” – Michael Mann

    Attacking the authenticity of the e-mails might make sense if they were fake, but there was never any question of that. Quoting a panel appointed by W. that issued a statement based on 20 years of doctored research didn’t bolster his case either.

    I think the “global warming” thing is pretty much over. Maybe we can go back to worrying about something serious, like global cooling.

  55. Icarus :

    The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known,……..

    You miss the entire point. The problem isn’t that wood has been a temp. proxy for 950 years only to change suddenly in the last 50, the problem is that wood has never been a proxy. This simply shows the failure of this research and instead of stepping back to re-examine what they are doing, they ignore this failure and march forward. (see Groupthink)

    The emails are no longer the issue. What has come out from Harryreadme and the code are damning. Anyone with a thought process can see the house of cards this is.

  56. The data is tainted, the computer programs are buggy, the models don’t work, and we really don’t fully understand the system under study. Politicians willing to bet $10 trillion of our money on their conclusions should be taken out and shot – along with scientists who lie and deceive.

  57. Weiss is behaving like a cultist when challenged on his belief system.Faced with the
    facts-he almost slaps his hands on his ears and goes LALALALALA. The facts are these
    E-mails are volcanic and will not be suppressed….

  58. What Dan Weiss says, and Kevin Trenberth said in his debate with Fred Singer (?) is that, from the basic physics, the IPCC is right; end of story. What needs to be said very loudly and very clearly is that the IPCC is WRONG; there is NO physics to support the hypothesis of AGW. There are three crucial numbers on which the “physics” of AGW is based; radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2; how much this radiative forcing, by itself, causes global temperatures to rise; and climate sensitivity. NONE of these numbers can be measured experimentally. As such, they could all be subject to the Kelvin fallacy. The estimates of their values are based on NON-VALIDATED computer models.

    So let me repeat. Weiss is WRONG in claiming that there is solid physics behind the IPCC hypothesis of AGW. Surely we need to start saying this loudly and clearly at every opportunity.

  59. That was OK but could have been handed better – All Weis’s arguments based on “authority” (all the groups he listed that say AGW is a problem) all base that conclusion, in one way or another, based on data which very well may be manipulated to show the desired result (warming). As he said , your are entitled to your own opinion , but not your own data. Well, right now, it appears the the core the scientists pushing the AGW agenda may have thought otherwise – that they were entitled to their own data & made it look the way they wanted it to. If those points would have been brought up, it would have been much more convincing.

  60. I cannot help but think of a certain mustachioed demagog (we all know and hate) in the “emotional” method of communication.

    It worked in a society of people completely torn apart by economic problems, bitterness over recent (within 20 years) historical events, etc.

    I don’t think it will work in our current political/economic environment.

    Appropriate to this would be to quote a great American leader, Abraham Lincoln, and say, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time. But you can’t fool ALL of the people ALL of the time.”

    As has been noted by others: “Pay no attention to the MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!” I guess trying to say the leaked data is fabricated is like Dorthy saying, “Toto! Toto! Come back here.”

  61. karus says that, according to Briffa, the “decline” is in the tree ring density, not temperature, owing to the recent divergent correlation of the rings to temperature. He concludes “it’s just good science”.

    I’ll propose that if the tree rings show a known divergence since the measured record, and the cause is unknown, then they are thoroughly invalid as proxy without a measured reference. Insufficient sample sizes, unknown variables, and manipulation of data? That’s just bad science.

    I was disappointed that Varney didn’t just hit Weiss straight up with the fact that the email’s authors have themselves acknowledged the authenticity. We need mainstream media to employ (as in use) topic-educated interviewers so that Weiss-like Weasels can’t get away with claims that amount to Bernie Madoff assuring us that our accounts are on solid ground and the evidence against him was illegally obtained.

    We all need to make a concerted effort to contact all the mainstream media outlets with a demand to quit glossing over the issue by having ONLY the accused (and now clearly guilty) parties defending themselves, without addressing the REAL issue of the false science becoming the basis for a sure-to-fail political agenda.

  62. Icarus:

    Circular logic warning! If the “correlation between temperature and and tree rings” breaks down, then what assures there is any correlation with the past?

    The fact of the matter is the tree ring/temperature correlation is BOGUS, period.

    It’s pseudo science mumble jumbo. The king has no new clothes.

    I’ve been making this point about the O18/O16 data used for long term (50,000 to 150,000 years) temperature records. It represents the number of thunderstorms in tropical coastal areas (primarily) and applying it to temperature is a STRETCH at best. Some established geo-scientist who has been using it to trace ocean currents and the like needs to stand up on this one and complain about its lack of validity for the climate application!

  63. Peer review… A bunch of con-artists get together and develop a con. Then they break up into several teams and peer review the con in a journal. Result, this is a great investment that will double your money in no time at all and the gullible pour their life savings into it.

  64. I echo the general view that if trees are unable to reflect post 1960 temerature fluctuation or even trends post 1960 then it requires nothing less than a leap of faith to suggest that they are indicative of anything prior to the magic cut off date of 1960.

    All that said I was in stitches at poor old Weiss who did, indeed, appear to be shot through some sort of fish-eye lense, poor fellow!

  65. Icarus, if we don’t know why the tree ring data has diverged with recent real temperatures, then it may have diverged in the past pre-instrumental times as well. Therefore, we should not be using tree ring data as a temperature proxy.

    Oh yeah, and maybe tree ring data really hasn’t diverged, but the recent instrumental record database has been manipulated.

    I guess you can’t think outside the CRU box.

  66. The bbc has believed in two things for the last 10 or so years 1.Tony Blair and the labouir party are great and Global warming.Their first belief is now a bust so they have to hang on to the second. It seems that the only way they can do that is report anything that can by whatever tenious link be attached to it as climate change.
    In the mean time the met office who are given lots of air time can not even forcast a 1000 year event( they forcast 100mm of rain in Cumbria when there was over 300mm ) but have somehow managed to get figures to tell us this year is one of the warmest on record.

  67. I nominate Dan Weiss for MVP (most valuable player) on the skeptic’s team.

    If I were the leader of the AGW camp, I wouldn’t let Dan Weiss within a mile of a microphone much less a camera.

  68. Here is a clear example of someone speaking on behalf of AGW Scientists and again distorting climate facts in front of the tv public and again misleading the public . Dan Weiss said that global warming was unequivocal , that sea levels had risen 1 ½ inches and the temperatures had gone up 0.5 C degrees in the last dozen years
    The fact is that climate warming has been non-existent for the last 9-10 years [ decline of[ – 0.0083/year] based on a composite of 4 major data sources between [jan/2001 and sept/2009.]
    Sea level rise is non existent and flat since 2006 and had been rising at an average rate of only about 3.3 mm per year since 1994. There has been no unusual rise in this rate for 15 years.
    In a nutshell, there is no unequivocal climate warming for the last 10 years :
    These kind of misleading statements by the AGW supporting scientists are
    happening every day around us and need to be challenged every time they happen . The CRU incident is just the latest pattern of disception and misinformation that has been going on for years .

  69. I am hoping and seeing some encouraging signs that this may be tipping point that exposes the bias in much of the media today. If a majority of people begin to realize that many of their traditional news sources have been filtering stories to push a socialist/statist agenda. If people start questioning what they see and hear; then searching for opposing views and deciding who has made an honest and logical argument THEN there will be real hope for the free world IMO

  70. Kudos to Pat Michaels for clarifying, and I paraphrase: “that it is not about whether global warming exist or not but how serious it is and how people like me (Michaels) and his friends are treated for saying that it might not be the end of the world.”

    There is a groupthink amoung journalist that people like Pat don’t believe the world has warmed at all and infared radiation retention is a Hoax. There are univeristy students who are being taught by their professors that people like Michaels think the world is 6000 years old.

    If they ever read anything by Christy, Michaels, Lindzen etc. they would be forced to realize that aligning with the overzealous alarmist who see the world as a good (academia/government/liberals) and evil (business/capitalist/republicans) was out of line and exposed their own bias.

  71. Watching Dan Weiss in this video, only one person with similar discourse came to my mind: the jailed creationist, Kent Hovind!

  72. Icarus (04:35:49) :

    I see you used lots of bolds to try to get everyone to look. I guess that’s all you trolls have now. You feel yourselves sinking with no way of stopping.

  73. Fox has Dan Weiss on fairly often . He’s a predictable stooge for the CAP , although he’s more of an idiot than useful . Hence his appeal to the likes of Cavuto and Varney – he’s more shreddable than Ollie North’s papers .

  74. I enjoy shouting matches as much as the next guy, but I prefer the ‘deniers’ position to go more Jiu Jitsu than Kung Fu. I always appreciate the skeptic that is cool, calm and collective. Let them attack, and then trap them in their own words. Red-faced, belligerent, psuedo-confidence is a sign of weakness.

    Every day Jones is allowed to stay in power is great for the skeptic position. Every article that comes out about climate change causing prostitution is an opportunity. Every time Kofi Annan gives us a body count, or Gore publishes a book is an opening. Use their own words against them.

    Take the blows, and then go for the choke-hold or tap out :)

  75. Kate (02:37:41) :

    Massive CRU Data Fraud Can’t Derail the Global Warming Gravy Train

    I’m not so sure Kate.

    If the scientists in the emails end up in front of a Senate hearing and are asked to answer questions under oath the general public that already has doubts about global warming will have even firmer doubts if not complete conversion to being convinced it isn’t real.

    These emails will only get heavier and heavier for the global warming ilk like Dan Weiss.

  76. Bob_L (06:31:39):
    Icarus :
    “The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known,……..”

    You miss the entire point. The problem isn’t that wood has been a temp. proxy for 950 years only to change suddenly in the last 50, the problem is that wood has never been a proxy.

    So you’re arguing that there is no correlation *at all* between temperature and tree growth? That, all other things being equal, varying temperature will have no effect at all on tree growth? I think biologists would disagree with you.

    Of course there are factors *other* than temperature which also have an influence, but if you’re looking at tree-ring density data from hundreds of sites all over North America and Eurasia and you find statistically significant trends in the data then it seems to me that temperature is actually quite a good candidate as the cause of those trends (especially if, as the study says, there is a strong correlation of tree-ring density with temperature for times before 1960 when temperature measurements were available).

    Surely this is how science is supposed to work – you publish your results, others get a chance to challenge, confirm or refute your conclusions, more papers are published, the understanding improves over time. I don’t see any problem with this.

  77. Bob_L (06:31:39) :

    People like Icarus are still trying to defend the Mann Hockey Stick even though “Mike’s Nature trick” is revealed in these emails and even though Mann’s methods of trying to rid the temperature record of the Medieval Warm Period is in the emails.

    I suppose that if Michael Mann is called before the Senate and all his emails are read on C-Span, and he has to answer under oath that he did these things Icarus will still be here afterwards talking about tree ring proxies being robust and reliable.

  78. DJ Meredith (07:27:29) :

    I think Icarus isn’t aware that even the scientists in the emails were ready to throw Briffa under the bus.

  79. DJ Meredith (07:27:29) :

    I was disappointed that Varney didn’t just hit Weiss straight up with the fact that the email’s authors have themselves acknowledged the authenticity.

    Right. I was looking for that too.

  80. fish eye lens?

    I don’t think it’s a fish eye lens. It’s his glasses that give that appearance.

    Where did he get those glasses? It’s his taste I guess.

  81. You gotta love David Weiss and the rest of the pathetic responses thus far from the AWGF thugs. They are priceless. Their past success at mangling the scientific method and their organized, systematic marginalizing of critics is now over. They have been exposed for the despicable and ruthless dunderheads they are.

    AGW can no longer be discussed without adding an F for Fraud.

    While lame stream USA media continues to ignore this scandal, I believe they will have to at least try to whitewash it like the NYT did in a manner so grotesque and transparent as to be unbelievable.

    This is not going away thanks to folks who give a damn about science like Anthony.

  82. “That, all other things being equal, varying temperature will have no effect at all on tree growth? I think biologists would disagree with you.”

    And how do you know that all other things have been equal? Rainfall, for example?

    “especially if, as the study says, there is a strong correlation of tree-ring density with temperature for times before 1960 when temperature measurements were available).”

    You’ve not looked at the Briffa code, have you? The “corrections” aren’t only after 1960. There are alo adjustments applied for four five-year periods starting in 1929.

    In fact, adjustments are applied for something over 1/3rd of the entire time series.

    “Surely this is how science is supposed to work – you publish your results, others get a chance to challenge, confirm or refute your conclusions,”

    how’s that possible, when the author refuses to publish either code or data?

  83. “Where did he get those glasses? It’s his taste I guess.”

    He should’ve gone to “specsavers” Gene.

    Icaraus:
    “So you’re arguing that there is no correlation *at all* between temperature and tree growth? ”

    Hide the decline! Do you even know what that means, Icarus.

  84. Vincent (11:07:25) :

    “Where did he get those glasses? It’s his taste I guess.”

    He should’ve gone to “specsavers” Gene.,/i>

    Those must be his racquetball glasses.

  85. David Walton (10:38:15) :

    While lame stream USA media continues to ignore this scandal,

    They are telling us Brad is getting back together with Jennifer. And Kate is leaving Tom—and taking the baby with her!

    So they are telling us all the important things. ;-)

  86. Gene Nemetz (10:05:04) :

    Hi Gene. Thanks for your insight. My post was to illustrate the fact that our leaders are most definitely living in some sort of Parallel Universe where nothing can make them alter the course of their action, not even the knowledge that everything they now stand for on so-called “global warming” is based on the biggest scientific fraud in history. Our leaders are going to Copenhagen no matter what, and they are going to present us with the poisoned fruit of a corrupt tree and expect us to swallow it.

  87. What really encourages me is that Michaels says there is a lot of material and documents and that we’re going to be hearing about it for a year.
    :

  88. Weiss and his fellow travellers will be cranking up the volume and try to out-shout any and all critics. It’s pathetic, really.

  89. Dan Weiss from the Center for American Progress …..That’s a Soros funded outfit — 2006, the Center for American Progress was given a three-year, $3000000 grant by George Soros’ Open Society Institute to be used for…

    His performance was hilarious. He reminded of Chris Farley doing his “living in a van down by the river” shtick

  90. Nigel Alcazar (08:47:57) :

    “The bbc has believed in two things for the last 10 or so years 1.Tony Blair and the labour party are great and Global warming.Their first belief is now a bust so they have to hang on to the second.”

    So “aunty’s” got its tilt caught in a wronger? Tough.

  91. John M (10:31:45) :
    Icarus (10:16:02) :

    “…others get a chance to challenge…”

    Guess you haven’t read those e-mails.

    You’re right, I haven’t. However, I do know that Anthony’s claim about researchers colluding to “manipulate data in order to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures” is simply false, as the ‘decline’ referred to is a decline in wood density, not a decline in temperature at all (and I think there was an implied link to the recent ‘global cooling’ meme too, whereas the original email was over a decade ago).

  92. I guess I wouldn’t have such a hard line on all this if these idiots weren’t trying to tell me how to live my life, when they know, and are fully cognizant, that their reasoning is total crap.

    That’s what pisses me off. They know they are lying, but don’t care. Lunatics and scumbags, all of them.

  93. Icarus (17:14:16) :

    However, I do know that Anthony’s claim about researchers colluding to “manipulate data in order to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperatures” is simply false, as the ‘decline’ referred to is a decline in wood density, not a decline in temperature at all (and I think there was an implied link to the recent ‘global cooling’ meme too, whereas the original email was over a decade ago).

    I can tell you haven’t read the e-mails, yet you feel confident in commenting on one of them. Here’s the e-mail in question:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@[snipped]
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers, Phil
    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit

    He’s not talking about any “cooling meme”, he’s not talking about wood density, he’s talking about temperatures and replacing the temperatures derived from tree ring data with temperatures from instruments.

    This is known as a splice or a graft, which the inventor of the trick is on record as saying “know one would ever do” (paraphrase).

    Most folks familiar with this subject know exactly what’s going on. Those who are somewhat confused can see a very clear explanation here.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7844

    If you’re still confused, try here.

    http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/the-trick/

  94. Unless of course, you have joined the rest of us and question the validity of tree rings as thermometers. I suppose if what you’re saying is the temperatures derived from tree rings are not “real” temperatures…

    Hmmmmm.

  95. John M (19:18:45) :
    …he’s talking about temperatures and replacing the temperatures derived from tree ring data with temperatures from instruments.

    So you seem to be saying that Anthony’s claim, here:

    …emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.

    … is completely false – That there was no such ‘decline in global temperatures’ being ‘hidden’.

    Thanks, I agree.

  96. Icarus (05:00:24) :

    It does appear we agree. Tree rings do not represent global temperatures.

    Thanks for being so reasonable.

  97. Weiss’s big dagger was that Bush believed the lies he was fed. So how many other people have believed those lies. AGW is founded on lies so so far there are millions of believers. Governments are acting on lies. It is hard to describe how deep these lies have undermined science and government. It is not even clear that government will own up to this huge deception. To my mind this dwarfs watergate as it is international in nature with the corruption affecting every country.

Comments are closed.