Two good pieces about the hacked email story: http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...43.html?page=1 http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/h...urnalistic.php

Quoting Bill Scher: Two good pieces about the hacked email story:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...43.html?page=1

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/h...urnalistic.php

Thanks for the links, Bill. You shouldn't have bothered. Here at bhtv forum we get our climategate links from Whatfur. No need for more.
More interesting would be if you explained how it is possible no diavloger mentioned the scandal "on air" yet. Why hasn't it been discussed on TWIB? (Haven't heard the complete show yet. I am judging from the topics list.) Here is an informative video for the folks: Hide the decline

an idea for BhTV: Janine Wedel

I strangely...agree that Climategate should have been brought up. TWIB is suppose to be more of a summary about what other people are talking about then the veracity of X or Y, right? If so, then this is probably a more "hot" story right now then other things mentioned here this time.

Is he really DOA for 2012? The Republicans aren't called the "Stupid Party" for nothing. And the problem wasn't only the pardon - his response to the criticism was slippery and evasive - as usual. Had he defended himself in a straight forward manner he might have won points. Huckabee isn't all bad - in 2008 he was the only genuine social conservative. And he might have beat Obama given his political instincts and common touch But we can do better in 2012.

Finagle, wrangle.

I haven't figured out what it should be yet but there is a genuine need to rename this series. As a couple of others have noted one of the hottest topics on the web this week was climaquidic. Yet here the cupboard is bare. I half expected this but was hoping that I would be proven wrong. alas I was not. I know that the left is hoping to bury this issue so as to be able to, in the words of Mr Emanuel

Never let a serious crisis go to waste

and return to their fear mongering to consolidate ever more power to the government, but I'm not sure that they will succeed given the long and documented finagling of the data and code to mold the forecasting models to predict what they wanted them to. Nothing to see here Move on. Move on! To get some idea as to what I am talking about I would recommend the testimony of Dr Edward J. Wegman from July, 2006 before the House Energy and Commerce committee. It is only 31 pages double spaced, lots of graphics, which are unfortunately included at the end, not in

Quoting Bill Scher: Two good pieces about the hacked email story:

Scher can't help himself, he's part of the groupthink that seeks to change the story from 'scientists' willing to fudge, corrupt and hide data to a story of email theft. The question here is who is seeking to get at the truth, the msm (and the BHTV team, most notably the regular science guys who seem to think internet dating is more important) who ignore it, those like Scher and Barbara Boxer who say the story here is theft, or those who believe unpoliticized science and access to the raw data used by those seeking to receive millions in public grants while promoting billions in business and governmental wealth transfers is needed to arrive at common sense decisions? Better reading is the comments section after each piece. The readers of Popular Mechanics and even the Columbia Journalism Review know a whitewash when they see one and use facts to point out the weaknesses in each piece. A good indicator so far in what I've read on Climategate can be found in the first few paragraphs. Those that use

Harkin, Well said. Mr. Scher, If you frequented my Climategate thread referred to by JoeK, you would discover a concept that, as you being someone who seldom breaks from the liberal dance line, you could certainly not rebutt. If say, Ian Plimer, was found to have fudged HIS data when compiling his books and an illegal source exposed it...you and yours would certainly be yelling things about the ends justifying the means. Any denials will be laughed at.

Harkin, The problem is that the emails will not change anyone's mind. Those who believe in the crisis will continue to do so and those who don't will continue not to. The do's are more numerous than the don'ts. The momentum towards enacting climate change regulation is so great that it will only be able to be stopped or slowed by another 'crisis' of equally global proportions.
Alien invasion?? I am at least somewhat sanguine about all of this because I do think we need to consider and change the way we are using and creating our energy sources, mostly because the ones we are currently using will one day simply run out. Unfortunately the costs which climate change legislation will incur are phenomenal and probably unnecessary. But what else is new? We currently are living well beyond our means. I'm not sure what doing more of the same will mean except perhaps just resetting the whole economy. So many zeros!

Quoting badhatharry: Harkin, The problem is that the emails will not change anyone's mind. Those who believe in the crisis will continue to do so and those who don't will continue not to. The do's are more numerous than the don'ts. The momentum towards enacting climate change regulation is so great that it will only be able to be stopped or slowed by another 'crisis' of equally global proportions.
Alien invasion??

I am at least somewhat sanguine about all of this because I do think we need to consider and change the way we are using and creating our energy sources, mostly because the ones we are currently using will one day simply run out. Unfortunately the costs which climate change legislation will incur are phenomenal and probably unnecessary.

But what else is new? We currently are living well beyond our means. I'm not sure what doing more of the same will mean except perhaps just resetting the whole economy. So many zeros!

The real problem is that the emails don't imply what critics say they do. There are some significant issues there - but there's no "scandal" represented like that which people like harkin seem to be hoping for.

Since you are now willing to admit "There are some significant issues there" would you mind laying out what you see them to be.

Quoting badhatharry: Harkin, The problem is that the emails will not change anyone's mind. Those who believe in the crisis will continue to do so and those who don't will continue not to. The do's are more numerous than the don'ts. The momentum towards enacting climate change regulation is so great that it will only be able to be stopped or slowed by another 'crisis' of equally global proportions.
Alien invasion??

Here's an interesting Frum/Bartlett dingalink about the allocation of carbon 'shares' under cap and trade. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/230...5:46&out=31:07

Quoting AemJeff: The real problem is that the emails don't imply what critics say they do. There are some significant issues there - but there's no "scandal" represented like that which people like harkin seem to be hoping for.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...err...for one the hockey stick graph of which a whole bunch of reliance and arguments have been based, being dismantled, has no affect whatsoever. Move along...nothing to see here. In any case, lets dissect the "significant issues" and go from there. Fortunately or unfortunately the appearance of impropriety has caused doubt and because much of this doubt had already been formulated (and those people posing those formulas disparaged by the likes of you)...it is no wonder you are hearing a chorus of Ah HAAA! s.

Quoting AemJeff: The real problem is that the emails don't imply what critics say they do. There are some significant issues there - but there's no "scandal" represented like that which people like harkin seem to be hoping for.

Do you have a good link laying out your argument, please?

Quoting piscivorous: Since you are now willing to admit "There are some significant issues there" would you mind laying out what you see them to be.

What do you mean by "now willing to admit?" Trying to avoid the FOI requests was idiotic. It's not the first time I've said that.

Quoting Whatfur: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...err...for one the hockey stick graph of which a whole bunch of reliance and arguments have been based, being dismantled, has no affect whatsoever. Move along...nothing to see here.

In any case, lets dissect the "significant issues" and go from there. Fortunately or unfortunately the appearance of impropriety has caused doubt and because much of this doubt had already been formulated (and those people posing those formulas disparaged by the likes of you)...it is no wonder you are hearing a chorus of Ah HAAA! s.

You have a real issue with confirmation bias. When you want something to be true - you should stop and ask yourself how much you should trust your own judgment.

Quoting look: Do you have a good link laying out your argument, please?

Interestingly, 'fur's somewhat tendentious thread has yielded a few excellent and serious replies. Osmium has a fairly judicious post. Starwatcher has provided numerous links - this one gives a good view of the overall lack of substance from the "skeptics."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ining_code.php To balance that last, Starwatcher also provided the following, which is the best argument from a skeptic I've seen. http://pipeline.corante.com/archives...ic_conduct.php

Well that's one, and yes I agree you have mentioned that, but 1 issue is not "issues". Have you seen this BBC video by John Graham-Cumming the author of the the open source POPFile email filtering program discussing problems with the code that makes up one of the 3000 items, that are not emails, in the hacked/outed files.

Scher can't help himself, he's part of the groupthink that seeks to change the story from 'scientists' willing to fudge, corrupt and hide data to a story of email theft. The question here is who is seeking to get at the truth...

Yes, you figured it out! Popular Mechanics is just another appendage of the left-wing media conspiracy. It's not like they have any track record "seeking to get at the truth" (http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html). Clearly any attempt to actually read the emails in context and separate out fact from fiction is just a "trick" to "change the story." The dictionary definition of "groupthink" is "a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics." Climate science deniers, meet mirror.

Quoting piscivorous: Well that's one, and yes I agree you have mentioned that, but 1 issue is not "issues". Have you seen this BBC video by John Graham-Cumming the author of the the open source POPFile email filtering program discussing problems with the code that makes up one of the 3000 items, that are not emails, in the hacked/outed files.

I just watched it. It's not very convincing, is it? I've seen "NASA" code. It's not that special. I've worked with scientists with varying levels of confidence in the own coding abilities. So they found some random code written bu a guy without a lot of confidence who used the phrase "fudge factor" in his comments. I'm underwhelmed.

I didn't expect you to be overwhelmed by a 108 second segment from the BBC. Yet you fail to list what other issues the emails raise nor the specific point raised in the video. My personal take on the competency of the bit about the self deprecation by the programmer is that it is snark, as I met few professional programmers that don't have fairly high opinion of their abilities and more than a few with a snide sense of humor.

Quoting piscivorous: I didn't expect you to be overwhelmed by a 108 second segment from the BBC. Yet you fail to list what other issues the emails raise nor the specific point raised in the video. My personal take on the competency of the bit about the self deprecation by the programmer is that it is snark, as I met few professional programmers that don't have fairly high opinion of their abilities and more than a few with a snide sense of humor.

He was obviously not a professional programmer. Have you ever met a scientist who does his own coding? That tends to be the rule, not the exception; and their skills range from awe-inspiring to damn near incompetent.

I can't believe I've just now read this.

Razzle Dazzle on Afghanistan
By Jerome Grossman When President Obama told the nation his revised policy on Afghanistan, he indicated that America's mission in that country is not open-ended in duration, that we will leave when our objectives have been accomplished, and that the objectives are worth the sacrifices. Obama’s primary goal is the destruction of the Taliban insurgency against the corrupt Karzai government. The president should have addressed the problem of corruption within the government of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and explain why the C.I.A. had his brother on its payroll. Did the C.I.A. foster the widespread Afghan corruption that we are now criticizing? The same brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is widely believed to be involved in the highly profitable drug trade. When this was called to the attention of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she said, "Every country makes compromises, and it behooves you to be humble about pointing fingers." This was hardly a denial, and it fits neatly with her comfort with the Karzai regime despite evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election. Another front requires a presidential explanation. The Obama administration prides itself on transparency

Given the contents of the HARRY_READ_ME.tx you would place the model code in which tank the "awe-inspiring" or the "damn near incompetent".

I think there are three reasons why bloggingheads has avoided Climategate:
1)Fears of a new Bebe-gate
2)Predilections of Bob's investors
3)Bob's desire for an Al Gore meet-and-greet (don't bother with Copenhagen) Would a liberal rather meet the Dalai Lama or Al Gore? It's now ridiculous. Even the NYT (at dotearth) and Huffpost have a fair number of pieces on it. For all the AGW skeptics looking for a pleasant echo-chamber, I recommend this.

Quoting piscivorous: Given the contents of the HARRY_READ_ME.tx you would place the model code in which tank the "awe-inspiring" or the "damn near incompetent".

Give it up, man. I have no more context for interpreting that than you do. I do know how real work gets done, and I've seen plenty of (and I dare say I've been responsible for some) stuff that, if you cherry picked it as a representative sample from a project, wouldn't make anyone proud. Harping on this stuff doesn't make it any more important or meaningful.

Yea but then I passed college and had to go to work in the real world. I can tell you only government and academic projects can get away with "if you cherry picked it as a representative sample from a project, wouldn't make anyone proud". My professional programming has been primarily in the pharmaceutical and trading industries. In the pharmaceutical industry often more time and money were spent documenting the code than writing it and validating it could be as time consuming and expensive as the two combined. The Brokers and Commodity firms I worked for weren't quite as particular but as the stuff I was doing could have direct negative effects to their profits they were pretty insistent on good documentation, easily maintainable code with no hidden surprises.

Quoting AemJeff: You have a real issue with confirmation bias. When you want something to be true - you should stop and ask yourself how much you should trust your own judgment.

Sounds a bit like projection to me Jeff. Again, Climategate did not happen because global warming denialist were caught being dishonest. And concerning:

Quoting AemJeff: Interestingly, 'fur's somewhat tendentious thread has yielded a few excellent and serious replies.

Call it what you will...my thread was and is created for serious discussion. I PMed osmium asking him to chime in. Most of Starwatcher submissions are a bit weak and the rest I have not had the time to get to...because weekends were made for other things. So yeah, you and others can choose to castigate first and attempt debate second and that will just add to what is my reality here. Its also alot like Jones pissing on everything that did not go the way he wanted it too.

Quoting Bill Scher: Yes, you figured it out! Popular Mechanics is just another appendage of the left-wing media conspiracy. It's not like they have any track record "seeking to get at the truth" (http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html). Clearly any attempt to actually read the emails in context and separate out fact from fiction is just a "trick" to "change the story."

Are you really comparing the collective work of the PM in-house editors and the responses of "300 experts and organizations" in the investigation of the 9/11 events with a brief attempt at dodge and deceive written by ONE 'guest analyst' from the same Columbia University as the other column you cited? Are you truly trying to equate the amount of dilligence in the two articles? It's that same lack of scrutiny, overwhelming groupthink and self-delusion that leads to Al Gore, Yasser Arafat and Barack Obama being awarded the same peace prize as Martin Luther King Jr and Lech Walesa.

Quoting Bill Scher: The dictionary definition of "groupthink" is "a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics." Climate science deniers, meet mirror.

To Mr Scher, I can only use the words of a CRU scientist in

Quoting AemJeff: Starwatcher has provided numerous links - this one gives a good view of the overall lack of substance from the "skeptics."
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ining_code.php

I don't know from programming, so do you think the entry in question could have been used elsewhere, in a misleading manner? Also, note the word 'basically' in the last sentence. What do you think he means by that?:

Raymond has made no attempt to find out if the graph was actually used anywhere. The file name was osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro, so we should look for a paper with authors, Briffa and Osborn published in 1998 and sure enough there's Briffa, Schweingruber, Jones, Osborn, Harris, Shiyatov, Vaganov and Grudd "Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?" Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998:

In §4, we referred to a notable correspondence between 'hemispheric' MXD series (averaged over all sites) and an equivalent 'hemispheric' instrumental temperature series. Despite their having 50% common variance measured over the last century, it is apparent that in recent decades the MXD series shows a decline, whereas we know that summer temperatures over the same area increased. Closer examination reveals that while year-to-year (i.e. mutually ten-year high-pass filtered) correlations are consistently high between tree-growth and temperature (ca. 0.7 for 1881-1981), the correlations based on decadally smoothed data

Quoting badhatharry: Harkin, The problem is that the emails will not change anyone's mind. Those who believe in the crisis will continue to do so and those who don't will continue not to.

You couldn't be more wrong. The polls have been steadily dropping against AGW belief for over the last year, before the emails were released. And Al Gore has just dropped his $1,500-per-handshake public event at Copenhagen and reportedly won't be available for reporter's questions.

Quoting badhatharry: I am at least somewhat sanguine about all of this because I do think we need to consider and change the way we are using and creating our energy sources, mostly because the ones we are currently using will one day simply run out. Unfortunately the costs which climate change legislation will incur are phenomenal and probably unnecessary.

I can't disagree with you. I don't even deny that there is global warming, I don't know enough about it. But I do want the scientists who ARE supposed to be the experts to be doing good science and those that arent should have no influence at all over politicians who control tax dollars. Right now I see too much

Another great read - What happens when Wibjorn Karlen, a Swedish scientist, questions some of the claims and graphs of the IPCC.

Quoting piscivorous: Yea but then I passed college and had to go to work in the real world. I can tell you only government and academic projects can get away with "if you cherry picked it as a representative sample from a project, wouldn't make anyone proud". My professional programming has been primarily in the pharmaceutical and trading industries. In the pharmaceutical industry often more time and money were spent documenting the code than writing it and validating it could be as time consuming and expensive as the two combined. The Brokers and Commodity firms I worked for weren't quite as particular but as the stuff I was doing could have direct negative effects to their profits they were pretty insistent on good documentation, easily maintainable code with no hidden surprises.

And I work in a space and defense environment; and, yet, I said what I said. These guys aren't programmers and they're not software developers, as such. What they are doing is number crunching, and quite a bit of what they produce is not professional grade software, nor is there a requirement that it be such a thing. It would be a category error

Quoting Whatfur: Sounds a bit like projection to me Jeff. Again, Climategate did not happen because global warming denialist were caught being dishonest.

And concerning:

Call it what you will...my thread was and is created for serious discussion. I PMed osmium asking him to chime in. Most of Starwatcher submissions are a bit weak and the rest I have not had the time to get to...because weekends were made for other things. So yeah, you and others can choose to castigate first and attempt debate second and that will just add to what is my reality here. Its also alot like Jones pissing on everything that did not go the way he wanted it too.

Sorry 'fur. You have a dog in the fight, and everything you produce is intended to support that pooch. Even your characterizations are tendentious. Starwatcher has a much better grasp of what's going on here and what's at stake than most people - and he's come the closest to arguing it from a neutral POV. I'm glad you invited Oz to comment, but your first response was to accuse him of "espousing prejudice," and of ignoring a

Quoting look: I don't know from programming, so do you think the entry in question could have been used elsewhere, in a misleading manner? Also, note the word 'basically' in the last sentence. What do you think he means by that?:

Also, although the Mockton article that pisc linked in the Manzi/Orr thread was impassioned in the first paragraph, and in the last section, I thought in contained some very clear information in the rest of the 39 pages, at least for the neophyte. Items such as how plot lines can be manipulated by cherry-picking end points to make them look steeper than the over-all picture indicates, that the sites of temperature-collecting equipment are often located near heat sources, and that the CRU and the NOAA were in collaboration over the fudging, and that fudging in turn corrupted the satellite data. It's a rather quick read because of large print and multiple graphs. I'd be interested in your take, if you care to look at it.

"Fudging" is how science is done. Ask a physicist about perturbation theory, for example. It's also important to note that Monckton's a crank. You might find that assertion to be awfully strong, but he has no

Quoting AemJeff: Sorry 'fur. You have a dog in the fight, and everything you produce is intended to support that pooch. Even your characterizations are tendentious. Starwatcher has a much better grasp of what's going on here and what's at stake than most people - and he's come the closest to arguing it from a neutral POV. I'm glad you invited Oz to comment, but your first response was to accuse him of "espousing prejudice," and of ignoring a conspiracy. Your mind was made up before the data was stolen, and the new awareness of that data hasn't changed it.

Again, you like to sound like you are fighting from some higher ground. You are not. I followed up my beliefs with reasons and anyone can come back and convince me why what I find obvious, might be wrong Yes there are things my mind is made up about or at least I would be looking for proof...where your mind is made up and you want to stop looking. I prefer my position.

Quoting Whatfur: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...err...for one the hockey stick graph of which a whole bunch of reliance and arguments have been based, being dismantled, has no affect whatsoever. Move along...nothing to see here.

Hilarious! And ditto about the appearance of impropriety. Unfortunately it's going to take a whole lot more to dismantle this train barreling down the track. Maybe we could have a tea party!!

Quoting breadcrust: I can't believe I've just now read this.

why don't you believe that you've just now read this?

Quoting AemJeff: Sorry 'fur. You have a dog in the fight, and everything you produce is intended to support that pooch. Even your characterizations are tendentious. Starwatcher has a much better grasp of what's going on here and what's at stake than most people - and he's come the closest to arguing it from a neutral POV. I'm glad you invited Oz to comment, but your first response was to accuse him of "espousing prejudice," and of ignoring a conspiracy. Your mind was made up before the data was stolen, and the new awareness of that data hasn't changed it.

OMG! Jeff, everyone has a dog in this fight. Tendentious characterizations? One can tell from the first sentence of any article on AGW which side it prefers, so tendentious characterizations abound. I think you may have written some, too. As far as the stolen emails are concerned, I believe that no one's mind is going to be changed because of them. Everyone is just going to be digging in their heels a little deeper. But it was quite a coup! tee hee

Quoting harkin: And Al Gore has just dropped his $1,500-per-handshake public event at Copenhagen and reportedly won't be available for reporter's questions.

Wow, this does sound serious. Gore being forced to forgo meeting his adoring fans....those hackers should be ashamed.

Quoting badhatharry: OMG! Jeff, everyone has a dog in this fight. Tendentious characterizations? One can tell from the first sentence of any article on AGW which side it prefers, so tendentious characterizations abound. I think you may have written some, too.

As far as the stolen emails are concerned, I believe that no one's mind is going to be changed because of them. Everyone is just going to be digging in their heels a little deeper.

But it was quite a coup! tee hee

Harry, I have a dog in this fight. It's probably not the dog you think it is. I make a big effort not to let my preferences dominate my contributions to the argument, however. I also try to be as open as possible about my assumptions. I definitely make an effort to be fair about my judgments. (How successful I am at that is matter for others to decide.) I feel no inhibition about holding others to the same standards I try to apply to myself. I'm perfectly open to charges of hypocrisy, but I'll argue the accusation.

Quoting AemJeff: And I work in a space and defense environment; and, yet, I said what I said. These guys aren't programmers and they're not software developers, as such. What they are doing is number crunching, and quite a bit of what they produce is not professional grade software, nor is there a requirement that it be such a thing. It would be a category error to believe that there is such a requirement.

Exactly right. There is often a world of difference between programmers and scientists who program computers to crunch data. In fact, it was my experience in the R&D world that scientists tended to look down on those of us who got "too" interested in programming -- "We're here to do science, not computer science," they'd say.

Quoting harkin: Do you really want to listen to those saying there is no mess here?

I hope you're REALLY trying to wade into these emails with as much honesty and gusto as you claim, and not just following a template. However, I would offer three, maybe four ways to interpret this rich mass - looks like mess, right? - of empirical information. 1. Climategate Updates: the "follow the money" approach. 2. Tim Lambert's analysis (maybe harkin can reproduce this straightforward approach on the back of an envelope?) And, my favorite approach: 3. Common sense, Monty Hall and the CRU emails

Why do people get this wrong? The most interesting explanation comes in a paper from the Journal of Experimental Psychology called "Partition–Edit–Count: Naive Extensional Reasoning in Judgment of Conditional Probability", by Craig Fox and Jonathan Levav. The paper suggests that people use a heuristic of dividing up the sample space into as many partitions as there are cases, and figuring that each case is equally likely. Because you wind up with two doors, people assume each door has a one in two chance of concealing the car.

But here's the other interesting thing about the Monty Hall problem: the probabilities all depend on the

And that line of argument is supposed to help convince me and others that the models are accurate and true because they were written by a bunch of know nothing hacks, as far as computing goes. Please!

Quoting piscivorous: And that line of argument is supposed to help convince me and others that the models are accurate and true because they were written by a bunch of know nothing hacks, as far as computing goes. Please!

There's a big difference between coding up a model and analyzing existing data. As far as I can tell, the latter is what is at issue here, and you're conflating your usual straw man of "THE MODELS AREN'T PERFICK!!!1!" with the current headlines. In my experience, there is a lot more attention paid to the development of software when a computer model is being constructed, compared to, say, someone trying to make a plot of a set of measurements.

Well I encourage you to read the Wegman report and the problems of letting scientists do modeling which is more the realm of statisticians.

Quoting piscivorous: Well I encourage you to read the Wegman report and the problems of letting scientists do modeling which is more the realm of statisticians.

To your abrupt change of subject, I will say only: thanks for the implicit acknowledgment of my point. As to what you say here, I'll let Schiller close it out for me.

Quoting bjkeefe: To your abrupt change of subject, I will say only: thanks for the implicit acknowledgment of my point.

As to what you say here, I'll let Schiller close it out for me.

Once again you prematurely ejaculate. It was you that mentioned

big difference between coding up a model and analyzing existing data.

But thanks for confirming that you have not bothered to read the report because it is an analysis of McIntyre and McKitrick critique of the Mann hockey stick analysis confirming that Mann's graph was in fact invalid. Ever wounder why it has all but disappeared; this is the reason.

Quoting piscivorous: Once again you prematurely ejaculate.

I'm glad to see that you've finally learned the term for the condition that's been plaguing you for so many years. However, you still have something to learn as far as using it metaphorically goes.

I'm disappointed with both Lewis' and Scher's political spin on Ben Bernanke and the Fed. I want no truck with either left or right populism about Bernanke - or Geithner's - role. Both are clearly scapegoats for a much more complicated situation. Holds on Bernanke's reappointment (Sanders) or auditing the Fed (Paul) infringe on the Fed's authority. Instead Congress should strip the enabling legislation, the Federal Reserve Act, of its amendments, and re-authorize the Fed with a new mandate that reflects the current crisis and would set a standard for the future. Russ Roberts has hosted a number of podcasts on this issue. There's the European Central Bank's inflation target, the Taylor Rule, or nominal GDP 1. Calomiris on the Financial Crisis 2. Posner on the Financial Crisis I live in a country where men rule, not laws, and to watch my native country descend to the level of its own latent Jeffersonian despotism really is repulsive. Lewis and Scher should be ashamed.

Instead of engaging in name-calling, I'd like to hear more about how you, AemJeff, and bjkeefe you handled data in your jobs. I think a good explanation of what you really did would be beneficial.

Quoting piscivorous: And that line of argument is supposed to help convince me and others that the models are accurate and true because they were written by a bunch of know nothing hacks, as far as computing goes. Please!

Guess what, it happens in other branches of science, too! The software used to create fake physics in three-dee environments for movies about malevolent aliens is often much higher quality (judged from a software engineering POV) than what real physicists are creating and using to study the real world. Get over it. I was hired as a freshman to code up a model for a physical chemist who taught at my school - the first time I'd ever written a computer program was only a few months prior to that. (We never got the data to converge - but I got all kinds of praise for the structural innovations [like subroutines!].) You have no idea how that sort of work often gets done, I think.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm perfectly open to charges of hypocrisy, but I'll argue the accusation.

Nuff said. Thx BHH. Hammer meets nail.

Quoting Baltimoron: maybe harkin can reproduce this straightforward approach on the back of an envelope?

Speaking of reproducing something, the collective carbon footprint of the 12 day Copenhagen (Hopenhagen to the enlightened) Climate Summit (UN estimate) will be equal to that (48.6k tons) produced by Morocco in the entire year of 2006. Pardon me if I question the commitment to curbing energy usage exhibited by those who could've easily achieved the same amout of connectivity through video conferencing. But then they would not have been able to avail themselves of the lavish accomodations, food and drink (not to mention the high class hookers flocking to Denmark) supplied to those seeking to distribute US tax dollars abroad. And speaking of hope, it would be a good idea if each 'greenhouse pig' jetting to Denmark was obliged to perform the same scaremongering lessons to which Australian schoolchildren are subjected.

Quoting Whatfur: Nuff said.

Thx BHH. Hammer meets nail.

You're going to have to learn to actually make your case. Namecalling doesn't cut it. (If you want to be taken seriously.)

The "look, Al Gore's house!" argument strikes again! I tell you what, let's grant for a moment that the organizers and attendees of the Copenhagen conference are being hypocritical. How does the knowledge that they are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere effect your understanding of the existence and likely effects of AGW, or the advisability of various policies designed to prevent it?

Quoting Don Zeko: The "look, Al Gore's house!" argument strikes again! I tell you what, let's grant for a moment that the organizers and attendees of the Copenhagen conference are being hypocritical. How does the knowledge that they are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere effect your understanding of the existence and likely effects of AGW, or the advisability of various policies designed to prevent it?

How do we know the so-called skeptics aren't being serious? The lack of any high quality arguments is a pretty good indicator.

Quoting AemJeff: How do we know the so-called skeptics aren't being serious? The lack of any high quality arguments is a pretty good indicator.

The arguments are already out there and have not been taken seriously because those in control have decided that icing them is better than showing them any warmth. Yet some are blasted for not taking seriously those like Gore and others preaching from gas-powered pedestals.

Quoting Whatfur: The arguments are already out there and have not been taken seriously because those in control have decided that icing them is better than showing them any warmth.

Yet some are blasted for not taking seriously those like Gore and others preaching from gas-powered pedestals.

That has nothing to do with an accusation of hypocrisy leveled at me.

Quoting AemJeff: That has nothing to do with an accusation of hypocrisy leveled at me.

Nor was it meant to...are you confusing threads.?

Quoting AemJeff: You're going to have to learn to actually make your case. Namecalling doesn't cut it. (If you want to be taken seriously.)

Namecalling? I think you take yourself seriously enough for the both of us. Not sure how much clearer I could be. You start pointing fingers, I point out that you are the better example of what you accuse others of being. It is seconded. "Nuff said".

Quoting Whatfur: Namecalling?

I think you take yourself seriously enough for the both of us. Not sure how much clearer I could be. You start pointing fingers, I point out that you are the better example of what you accuse others of being. It is seconded.

"Nuff said".

Yup - 'nuff said. You make unspecific accusations couched in word salad. There really isn't anything to which I can respond. Later.

Quoting Whatfur: Nor was it meant to...are you confusing threads.?

Quite possibly. Using the forum quote mechanism can help clarify context - especially when there are multiple active sub-threads.

Quoting AemJeff: Yup - 'nuff said. You make unspecific accusations couched in word salad. There really isn't anything to which I can respond. Later.

I realize following threads has been difficult for you this morning. Put down the bong and then go back though this thread and tell me who has concocted the more imaginative salad. But yeah, I too tire of this. Later. (Oh and on another note, it was almost Gore-like, you taking credit for subroutines somewhere here)

Quoting AemJeff: Quite possibly. Using the forum quote mechanism can help clarify context - especially when there are multiple active sub-threads.

Oh my, are you one of those people who hit their thumb with a hammer and blame it on the hammer? Bet people you live with walk around on pins and needles. But yeah...sorry to have confused you...I will make sure I quote you something everytime I respond...did I say I was sorry.

Quoting Baltimoron: harkin: Simpletons Aching for Simplicity

Instead of engaging in name-calling.......

From Copenhagen to East Anglia to BhTV, the hypocrisy, double-standard and disingenuousness is best exhibited by their own words and actions.

Quoting Don Zeko: How does the knowledge that they are releasing more carbon into the atmosphere effect your understanding of the existence and likely effects of AGW, or the advisability of various policies designed to prevent it?

You fail to understand. I do not deny climate change but I also understand that the climate has always changed. I question the reasons and how they are reconciled with fluctuations in the past that can't be blamed on man. I question the severity of actual temperature climbs of the past decade and why any scientist who also questions this and asks for raw data to replicate the findings is stonewalled and/or ostracized. I question science that claims it's all about C02 and nothing to do with sun activity. I especially question the fact that the same scientists who claim that the debate is closed and AGW is indisputable have found the need to fudge the numbers and stoop to conspiracy to exclude questioning or

Quoting AemJeff: "Fudging" is how science is done. Ask a physicist about perturbation theory, for example. It's also important to note that Monckton's a crank. You might find that assertion to be awfully strong, but he has no standing in this argument. I don't have the background (and neither does Monckton) to understand how the placement of sensors might affect the analysis; or how, and whether, they've accounted for that; or how, if they haven't accounted for it, what that means statistically. That also goes for the "entry in question." How it could have been used isn't a useful question. Judging how it was used is a question for people with the skill set to make such a judgment. There's currently a review underway, at East Anglia. I'll put a whole lot more stock in the result of that process than I do in the words of Monckton, or in the boundless speculation happening on the internet.

Who's conducting the review? The fox that took the census of the hen house? Thanks for your thoughts, Jeff. I see where you're coming from. The Monckton piece is not foot-noted, etc., but it seemed thorough, so we will see if he was fudging, in time.

Quoting look: Who's conducting the review? The fox that took the census of the hen house? Thanks for your thoughts, Jeff. I see where you're coming from. The Monckton piece is not foot-noted, etc., but it seemed thorough, so we will see if he was fudging, in time.

Assuming a transparent process and a public report, I don't see the problem.

Quoting badhatharry: why don't you believe that you've just now read this?

I thought ".tv" was some purposefully devised domain for use by people with sites like B. Wright's. It turns out to be the the truncation of the name of a country with the population of a small university. Neat.

Quoting AemJeff: The lack of any high quality arguments is a pretty good indicator.

...it's too long for a signature, but here:

I do not deny climate change but I also understand that the climate has always changed. I question the reasons and how they are reconciled with fluctuations in the past that can't be blamed on man. I question the severity of actual temperature climbs of the past decade and why any scientist who also questions this and asks for raw data to replicate the findings is stonewalled and/or ostracized. I question science that claims it's all about C02 and nothing to do with sun activity. I especially question the fact that the same scientists who claim that the debate is closed and AGW is indisputable have found the need to fudge the numbers and stoop to conspiracy to exclude questioning or opposing views from the same peer-reviewed journals they say are the only legitimate outlets of findings. I also question why these same scientists would destroy the raw data that not only would support their findings if it was indisputable but that the IPCC is basing the claims

Strikes again:

I live in a country where men rule, not laws, and to watch my native country descend to the level of its own latent Jeffersonian despotism really is repulsive. Lewis and Scher should be ashamed.

HEAR THAT Matt and Bill? The obscure, and not very intelligent, B-moron is ASHAMED of you! And we're heading for "Jeffersonian despotism" (LoL) - no doubt right after we descend into "Jacksonian Pacifism". Comedy gold.

Quoting look: ...it's too long for a signature, but here:

I'm having computer issues now, and can't access a search engine, but do you know off-hand of any connection between food riots in third world countries and the diversion of corn to ethanol?

Do you see any similarities between the conjectures that we went to Iraq for the oil, and that hyping-up climate change are related to the quest for monetary gain?

I can see that the above are not high-quality arguments, but how would you characterize these statement and questions?

The best parts of the two quoted paragraphs are nods in the direction of real skepticism, but they fail to raise any real issues. Instead, it's "I question X" and "I question Y." Well, great; but, on what basis do you question X and Y? Stop waving your hands and present something concrete that can used as a basis for a discussion. The complaints about the personal habits of the people taking an opposing view is pure ad hominem fallacy. Regardless of hypocrisy, the issue isn't the personal habits of a few people with means. Industrial output is the significant underlying issue, and has orders of magnitude more

Classic weak man arguments. Most Liberals that want to deal with AGW are opposed to further ethanol subsidies. Well-informed critics of the Iraq War always had far more to say than "no blood for oil," and pointing out that some people will potentially profit from efforts to reduce carbon emissions falls laughably short of proving that carbon abatement would actually be a bad idea. (I might add that if there's a side in the AGW debate that needs to address basic "cui bono" questions about the funding of their advocacy and the resilience of their position, it's the skeptics/denialists, but that's largely beside the point)

Quoting harkin: You fail to understand. I do not deny climate change but I also understand that the climate has always changed. I question the reasons and how they are reconciled with fluctuations in the past that can't be blamed on man. I question the severity of actual temperature climbs of the past decade and why any scientist who also questions this and asks for raw data to replicate the findings is stonewalled and/or ostracized. I question science that claims it's all about C02 and nothing to do with sun activity. I especially question the fact that the same scientists who claim that the debate is closed and AGW is indisputable have found the need to fudge the numbers and stoop to conspiracy to exclude questioning or opposing views from the same peer-reviewed journals they say are the only legitimate outlets of findings. I also question why these same scientists would destroy the raw data that not only would support their findings if they were indisputable but that the IPCC is basing the claims for wealth transference and on which Obama is basing his policy of compliance.

At the

Quoting AemJeff: The best parts of the two quoted paragraphs are nods in the direction of real skepticism, but they fail to raise any real issues. Instead, it's "I question X" and "I question Y." Well, great; but, on what basis do you question X and Y? Stop waving your hands and present something concrete that can used as a basis for a discussion.

When access is given to hoarded data perhaps the discussion will be able to move forward in a logical manner.

The complaints about the personal habits of the people taking an opposing view is pure ad hominem fallacy. Regardless of hypocrisy, the issue isn't the personal habits of a few people with means. Industrial output is the significant underlying issue, and has orders of magnitude more impact than that. That doesn't mean that trying to be a role model wouldn't be a good idea. Nor does it mean that trying to raise awareness by making the rest of us consider our own habits is a bad idea. But, none of that has an effect on the truth value of the proposition that AGW is real.

I'm blind without a search engine, but I think

Quoting look: ...
I'm not busting on legitimate researchers, I'm talking about the potential for Congress to have the bargaining chips of carbon off-sets, and the panics and guilt-trips engendered by cooked data, the media, and self-interested politicians.

When you find a non-political means for dealing with issues of this magnitude, l'll be deeply interested in your solution. Meanwhile, it's not a feature that distinguishes this problem from any other, do you agree?

Quoting AemJeff: When you find a non-political means for dealing with issues of this magnitude, l'll be deeply interested in your solution. Meanwhile, it's not a feature that distinguishes this problem from any other, do you agree?

Yes. Osmium said it nicely in the Climategate thread:

Add to that the fact that the research going into reducing CO2 emissions is proceeding through the same channels as our military, computing, and health research. Capitalism is in play, the people who can make energy cleaner will become rich men and women.

And as David Wilson might say, it's group competition in action.

Quoting harkin: Speaking of reproducing something, the collective carbon footprint of the 12 day Copenhagen (Hopenhagen to the enlightened) Climate Summit (UN estimate) will be equal to that (48.6k tons) produced by Morocco in the entire year of 2006.

No, I didn't mean more links! Show us you can do better than the CRU!

Were the links too difficult to follow? http://divisionoflabour.com/archives/006470.php Go, your worthless demagogue, and twist his words!

Quoting Baltimoron: No, I didn't mean more links! Show us you can do better than the CRU!

Is it worth the bother? Every one of his arguments can be summed up as "I don't like those guys, so they're wrong."

AGW proponents like Gore, Ariana Huffington, Graydon Carter, Sting, Cheryl Crow live large on multiple estates and private jets while they shame anyone who uses more than their share of energy. This may not bother you but it should bother any thinking person.

There's the rub. You're jealous of Sheryl Crow. You feel judged by Sheryl Crow. Therefore global warming must be a hoax.

Quoting Whatfur: ...

(Oh and on another note, it was almost Gore-like, you taking credit for subroutines somewhere here)

I have to admit, that was actually pretty funny.