Quote of the week #29

kruddwatch, there are links at the bottom of this:
New special from founder of the Weather Channel tackles manmade climate change theory
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2010m2d19-New-special-from-founder-of-the-Weather-Channel-tackles-manmade-climate-change-theory
“The situation is completely out of hand,” said Texas A&M climate scientist Gerald North. “One guy e-mailed me to say I’m a ‘whore for the global warming crowd.’ ”
which is from:
19 Feb: Science Mag: Scientists Grapple With ‘Completely Out of Hand’ Attacks on Climate Science
by Eli Kintisch
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/02/scientists-grapple-with-complete.html

What does “adds to the reduction of the sum total” mean? Is that math-babble for “subtracts”?
My judgment is that “trickery to hide the decline” subtracts from human knowledge, making GS’s efforts a net loss for all of us.

Jeremy,
Think of Gavin as the Paris Hilton of Climate Science? Please don’t ever create that anomoly again. The first thing that popped into my head was that Carl’s Jr. hamburger commercial with Ms. Hilton.

When people begin to criticise others I’ve learned over the years that what they are telling you is their world view. Somebody gives generously to a cause – bloke A stands up & loudly proclaims how nobody who isn’t seeking fame would do such a thing – bloke A is giving you an insight into his world, not that of the giver.
It’s as if such people can’t look at themselves & analyse who they are – they view the world around & think that everyone must be just like they are, so they take their own faults & project them out to everyone else.
Listen carefully when people begin to belittle others – they are telling you, in detail, how they see the universe.

All,
And ya know, most of us troglodites out here just would like to know what the hell is going on – from a scientific point of view. There are some folks on this site who obviously are convinced the whole damn thing is a bunch of bunk. Others argue (Pielke’s here) that wait a moment, looks like there is AGW, but it’s land use (apologies for over simplification – troglodite, remember?) that’s causing it. And there are a few who are CO2 cheerleaders (not talking about the trolls here, they don’t count).
Most of us are really sceptics on the CO2, I happen to like the Pielke theories – and think more $$$ should be invested there. At least I can trust the science. Anthony and others need $$$ for data integrety studies. It’d be money well spent since no matter your persuasion, at least you could trust the data (and access it).
I think the vast majority of viewers and posters here are not in favor of more pollution for pollution sake, but husbanding (can I use that – stewardship also comes to mind but that has a religious connotation) our natural resources and keeping this planet as “clean” as we can. What “clean” means is the scientific area.
Just my take, and thanks to everyone but Gavin…who reminds me of Pigpen in Charlie Brown, always stirring up dust.
Mike

M&M: True Canadian Heroes.
Veritas victrix.
…-
“The Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick
When the infamous hockey-stick graph that purported to prove that human activities are causing runaway global warming was finally broken, there is some irony in the fact that a couple of Canadians did the breaking. Retired mining engineer Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, have been a thorn in the side of global warming alarmists for years. McIntyre, McKitrick and, more often, the acronym “M&M” to refer to the pair, are the subject of many discussions in the e-mails released from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last November.
Reading the e-mails, it quickly becomes clear that leading alarmist scientists, like Michael Mann at Penn State and Phil Jones at the CRU, seemed positively obsessed – almost to the point of appearing deranged at times – with discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick. For example, when the pair published their first hockey stick busting paper in 2003, Mann sent an angry e-mail to his colleagues, telling them how to deal with MM: “The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.”
Raymond Bradley, a climatologist with the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and part of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), went even farther, suggesting that CRU should provide the “independent” voice that would discredit McIntyre and McKitrick: “…if an “independent group” such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an “audit”, and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue… If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments.”
What did McIntyre and McKitrick do to put these climatologists on the defensive?” (more)
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/02/19/the-heretics-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/
“The Sound Of Settled Science”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi

It is called falsification. It doesn’t reduce knowledge. It removes error and in the process increases knowledge.

Gavin Schmidt works for NASA?
Where is the NASA that put men on the moon?
Where is that glorious NASA?

“He could be a scientific superstar,”
Sorry Mr. Schmidt, but I don’t think you know what a scientific superstar is.

I learned today that, despite reports to the contrary, the ‘hockey stick’ is alive and well and that Dr. Wegman’s report has been discredited–The Globe and Mail is a welcoming platform for AGW propaganda and it occupies land that would make a great parking lot.