NCDC's Dr. Thomas Peterson: "It's a knife fight"

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.

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.

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.

“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

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.

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.

“‘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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What use is a knife against Occam’s Razor?
Dave

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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?

Here it is:

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

Our scientists are now politicians?
When did this happen?

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.

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.

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.

Colds and flu, take echinachea.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
😉