Matt, some commenters are just ahead of events. The explanation for climategate was covered in a BHtv comment thread back in April .

Are you asserting that this is more common in climatology then elsewhere? If so, what makes climatology special? I also can't help but wonder how we keep getting even larger/more expensive particle accelerators without someone somewhere doing pretty much the same thing you accuse climatologists of doing (Shall we say...overaggressive selling of why we need X/more studies on X ?). Not to mention, I have a hard time believing there is not money out there for people who say things skeptics want to hear, considering how many Inhofe's are running around out there. Edit:
My bookmarks are a mess. Argghh. Apparently Inhofe earmarked some funding to the UAH. I am sure this has nothing to do with them showing the least amount of warming. Amiright?

Quoting Simon Willard: Matt, some commenters are just ahead of events. The explanation for climategate was covered in a BHtv comment thread back in April .

I thought at least one commenter had a relevant riposte.

Peer review does NOT guarantee truth It should be obvious to Bill that peer review can easily be used to block dissenting papers from being published. For a comment on the peer review process in a complelely non-political area see http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/H...2-3-Easy-Steps Peer Review is a corrupt process. The correct process, which should be clear to everyone, including liberals, is Open Science. Why would anybody be shocked if science journalists, including those at Popular Mechanics, who have repeatedly affirmed that AGW is a proven fact, be resistant to someone proving them to be witless sheep.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Are you asserting that this is more common in climatology then elsewhere? If so, what makes climatology special?

I also can't help but wonder how we keep getting even larger/more expensive particle accelerators without someone somewhere doing pretty much the same thing you accuse climatologists of doing (Shall we say...overaggressive selling of why we need X/more studies on X ?).

Read the whole thread. But the answer to your question is here. Focus on the words "existential threat".

What about the second part of my post? I'm sure Crichton (sp?) made tons of money off of State of Fear. I question if I would still know who Lindzen, Watts, McInterye (I'm bad with names okay) were if they weren't so popular with the skeptics. Why is it the money only flows one way? Do you deny the Inhofe's earmark to the UAH had anything to do with satellite data showing less surface cooling then other places? Edit:
Aha! Found it! Your theory,falsified. Corection: It was Richard Shelby (R-AL), that put forth the earmark. Not Inhofe

Quoting NormD: Peer review does NOT guarantee truth It should be obvious to Bill that peer review can easily be used to block dissenting papers from being published.

For a comment on the peer review process in a complelely non-political area see

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/H...2-3-Easy-Steps

Peer Review is a corrupt process. The correct process, which should be clear to everyone, including liberals, is Open Science.

Why would anybody be shocked if science journalists, including those at Popular Mechanics, who have repeatedly affirmed that AGW is a proven fact, be resistant to someone proving them to be witless sheep.

Show me evidence of corruption - not evidence that the process can fail, or that it can be gamed; that's not even a little controversial - I'm asking for evidence that conspiracies encompassing entire disciplines can thrive and allow the perpetration of large scale fraud.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: What about the second part of my post?

I'm sure Crichton (sp?) made tons of money off of State of Fear. I question if I would still know what Lindzen, Watts, McInterye (I'm bad with names okay) were if they weren't so popular with the skeptics.

Why is it the money only flows one way? Do you deny the Inhofe's earmark to the UAH had anything to do with satellite data showing less surface cooling then other places?

Edit:
Aha! Found it!

Your theory,falsified.

There's good evidence that real money has been offered, and has changed hands, in inarguably corrupt ways. Always to denialists.

It appears that years ago some scientists in East Anglia were unethical in responding to an information request = evidence global climate change is not happening.
A bearded man in Japan mugged an old lady = clearly people with facial hair are thieves.

Quoting NormD: Peer review does NOT guarantee truth It should be obvious to Bill that peer review can easily be used to block dissenting papers from being published.

For a comment on the peer review process in a complelely non-political area see

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18773744/H...2-3-Easy-Steps

Peer Review is a corrupt process. The correct process, which should be clear to everyone, including liberals, is Open Science.

Why would anybody be shocked if science journalists, including those at Popular Mechanics, who have repeatedly affirmed that AGW is a proven fact, be resistant to someone proving them to be witless sheep.

Peer review is not a corrupt process. That is incorrect. I do agree that I am troubled by the parts of the climate-gate emails that talk about keeping things out of the literature. But this is the way people talk, and in every field. It's not clear they were actually able to steer world opinion this way. And regardless, they have not done themselves any favors. Science journalists are not involved. I don't think I get your last point.

BTW, I would like to say something to Bill. Please do not use "peer review peer review peer review" as your talking point on this. That is a parody. It is not an incantation to absolve you from making any points. Peer review is part of the process that has brought humanity up from pissing on itself in the streets, and I would appreciate not politicizing the very words "peer review" any more than they already have been. (And to Matt: people in emails talking about how their scientific rivals are assholes is not a smoking gun that any science is wrong. You are correct: neither of you are scientists, and neither of you can speak authoritatively on this subject. Thank you.)

Quoting AemJeff: There's good evidence that real money has been offered, and has changed hands, in inarguably corrupt ways. Always to denialists.

My argument was primarily about professional advancement, not bribery. Professional advancement in academia rarely accrues to those taking bribes from political groups to skew results. I make no such bribery argument about anyone's research. If there is money from deniers, the fact that it has had little effect on respectable academic opinion demonstrates its ineffectiveness. Of course, professional advancement is more interesting in a field awash with funding. Call this the researcher bribing himself. Perhaps unconsciously.

Quoting osmium: (And to Matt: people in emails talking about how their scientific rivals are assholes is not a smoking gun that any science is wrong. You are correct: neither of you are scientists, and neither of you can speak authoritatively on this subject. Thank you.)

I agree. But, Matt's de rigeur "religion" crack was unforgivable. And, Bill just laughed.

(Note to Bill Scher: Is this now a trivlog? Your child is showing up so often, she needs her own platform. Teach her well - don't take advantage of her baby looks without giving her some compensation! So, what's her take on the important issues of the day!) I think we should just call this feature, "Talking points Regurgitation". Scher/Lewis do do a better job at running down the links than any other B-team combo. But, the meta-commentary is lacking. On the Nobel speech, it's not just that President Obama's speech was a hideously contorted and rarefied lecture on war and peace. But where's the muckraking analysis of the vested interests that continue to bleed the economy dry? On the CRU heist, the final discussion of the origin of the hack attack - Morozov, himself a former hacker for Moscow, at Net Effect has warned of those pesky Russians - can't save the overall discussion. I know this isn't Science Saturday, but it needs repeating, that conservatives operate from a mistaken perspective, if they believe - like the sectarian hacks most are - that the climate change models predict escalating climate numbers on a regular trajectory, especially on an annual basis. I don't

I am at wit's end. There is an elephant in the room, and no one, neither left nor right, will speak the truth about it. The truth is that the anthropogenic CO2 rise cannot be stopped. There is no chance, no way, no hope of stopping it. Year after year I must listen to this pap about solar cells and carbon caps. Year after year people talk about climate summits and international agreements. But none of this will solve the problem. Energy production is too important. Don't get me wrong. Iwant international agreements, windmills, carbon taxes, etc. I want to reduce the burning of petroleum. It's too valuable to burn, and it represents too much transfer of wealth to the petroleum producing countries. But there's not a chance in hell that CO2 concentrations won't continue to rise throughout this entire century. How this affects global climate is not a settled issue in my opinion. It could be very bad, or it could be something we learn to live with. There will probably be winners and losers. The hubris of people like Bill Scher who talk about global agreements that could possibly "avert a climate crisis" is stunning. Even if successful, these piddling proposals will

Quoting Simon Willard: The truth is that the anthropogenic CO2 rise cannot be stopped. There is no chance, no way, no hope of stopping it. Year after year I must listen to this pap about solar cells and carbon caps. Year after year people talk about climate summits and international agreements. But none of this will solve the problem. Energy production is too important.

Don't get me wrong. I want international agreements, windmills, carbon taxes, etc. I want to reduce the burning of petroleum. It's too valuable to burn, and it represents too much transfer of wealth to the petroleum producing countries. But there's not a chance in hell that CO2 concentrations won't continue to rise throughout this entire century.

How this affects global climate is not a settled issue in my opinion. It could be very bad, or it could be something we learn to live with. There will probably be winners and losers.

I'm sorry for this rant, but my frustration has been building for many years. No one is willing to confront the truth that the problem is insoluble.

CO2 isn't the only problem gas - methane, HFCs, nitrous oxide, black carbon - and is only half of the problem. Little, political cuts in each of the

The funniest thing about that clip, is we have above 350ppm for around two decades now.

Quoting Baltimoron: CO2 isn't the only problem gas - methane, HFCs, nitrous oxide, black carbon - and is only half of the problem. Little, political cuts in each of the other problems would be beneficial and build political momentum. What you are ranting against is a quick fix wrapt up into a press conference for all pols in one setting. I agree.

OK, but I'm also ranting about the fallacy that taking small steps is meaningful; that every little bit helps. This is nonsense. The required cuts are drastic and extremely painful. People will have to be forced to make changes that are blatantly unacceptable to them. The changes will be qualitatively different from the little steps we take today. Therefore, the little steps don't really prepare the way. On the matter of political momentum, I don't see where momentum comes from. When people cut back on something, there is pain and dissatisfaction which causes them to push back in the other direction. Negative feedback rules. Does giving up the minivan for a subcompact make it easier to give up the subcompact for a bicycle? I don't think so.

Quoting osmium: Peer review is part of the process that has brought humanity up from pissing on itself in the streets, )

So what have we learned? There must have been streets before there was peer review, otherwise people would not have been able to piss on themselves in them. Thank God for peer review which has enabled people to now piss in the shower.

Quoting present project: It appears that years ago some scientists in East Anglia were unethical in responding to an information request = evidence global climate change is not happening.
A bearded man in Japan mugged an old lady = clearly people with facial hair are thieves.

Ridiculous! Everyone knows Japanese men can't grow facial hair!

Quoting Simon Willard: The required cuts are drastic and extremely painful. People will have to be forced to make changes that are blatantly unacceptable to them. The changes will be qualitatively different from the little steps we take today. Therefore, the little steps don't really prepare the way.

On the matter of political momentum, I don't see where momentum comes from. When people cut back on something, there is pain and dissatisfaction which causes them to push back in the other direction. Negative feedback rules. Does giving up the minivan for a subcompact make it easier to give up the subcompact for a bicycle? I don't think so.

The example is CFCs and the Montreal Protocol.

lol @ Bill banging the 'peer review' drum. Once again, go to the emails: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil" You have to wonder if Bill even understands that the peer-review process is based on the free flow of data, allowing peers to replicate the results and which the CRU fought tooth and nail to obstruct. And Bill, do you still cling to the belief that a one-person column in Popular Mechanics written by a Columbia prof is equal to the 300 or so experts and organizations that investigated 9/11? You ran away from that one after the last dialogue.

There's good evidence that real money has been offered, and has changed hands, in inarguably corrupt ways. Always to denialists.

Since 1991, Phil Jones (who has stepped down (temp at least) in light of the emails) has received over $21 million in grants. To hide his data and stonewall anyone questioning his work seems rather curious considering he receives so much money at a public instituion.

So Matt's all "Obama had the chance to be the President of the United States of America, not just of the liberals." Refresh my memory, as it seems like so long ago: Was George W. Bush ever the president of anyone other than the rich? Ever once? Didn't think so. Not that two wrongs make a right, but to hear it come from Lewis, it sounds silly.

Quoting osmium: I do agree that I am troubled by the parts of the climate-gate emails that talk about keeping things out of the literature. But this is the way people talk, and in every field.

As someone who has published in peer reviewed scientific journals
I can assure you that is NOT the way they talk in MY field. Nor do I know of ANY cases
where my colleagues have conspired
to have the editor of a journal removed
or
to subvert the review process in order to have a paper rejected. But then I work in a field
where researchers genuinely want to know the truth. The gangsters at the CRU 'peer reviewed' one anothers papers.

Quoting enderud: As someone who has published in peer reviewed scientific journals
I can assure you that is NOT the way they talk in MY field.

Sorry, I was typing lazily and being imprecise. I also publish regularly and also review papers. Sometimes peer reviewer comments make me angry when I first get them, and I fire off an email to my co-authors and say things like "what an asshole, this guy shouldn't have a job!" But then after I've spent two or three weeks working up the official response, the attention results in a better paper, and the process is an overall good. I am reacting to the assertion above that peer-review is corrupt, which is not the case, and is not even supported by the link provided. I want to defend the scientific process as a whole and not the specific research leaders in question. The issues surrounding climate change do not seem affected to me, but if there really was any kind of concerted effort to reject worthwhile material from peer review, then they've damaged scientific credibility, and should be a lesson to everyone on what not ever to do. However, as I said above, personal emails could be taken

Quoting badhatharry: So what have we learned? There must have been streets before there was peer review, otherwise people would not have been able to piss on themselves in them. Thank God for peer review which has enabled people to now piss in the shower.

Good one. But seriously: nuclear physics, how to build computers, modern medicine. Peer review, universities and national labs, NASA, the military, the patent system, the corporate sector--lots of moving parts, but the system does seem to have pushed things forward.

Quoting Baltimoron: I agree. But, Matt's de rigeur "religion" crack was unforgivable. And, Bill just laughed.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything about Matt's spirituality. Is it just me, or are the people that are active participants in some religion generally the first ones to denounce ideologies that are alien to them as "just a religion" ? As for the substance, I think he is just saying ".9 of people have an opinion about AGW, but probably <.05 have a good grasp of the facts, therefore the validity of AGW is a matter of faith for most people.". I don't really have a problem with that statement, I actually agree with it. Of course, I do feel that there is a real lack of symmetry between saying "I don't know the facts, but I think I will side with the AMS, NAS, NOAA, GISS, WMO, etc. about the sensitivity of the earth to CO2" and saying "I don't know the facts, but I think I will side with Climate Audit, What's up with that?, and Rush Limbaugh about the sensitivity of the earth to CO2". It's when you get into what the solution should be that everything hits the fan and no one solution seems to have a large backing.

Quoting harkin: And Bill, do you still cling to the belief that a one-person column in Popular Mechanics written by a Columbia prof is equal to the 300 or so experts and organizations that investigated 9/11? You ran away from that one after the last dialogue.

Mmm. Those words stuffed in my mouth. Delicious. And nourishing, after a long exhausting run away from your unstoppable strawman arguments last week. The Popular Mechanics column was merely one particularly good example of the several analyses done by people who have read the emails and found the right-wing anti-science depiction of them to be dishonest. I posted it for people actually interested in getting the facts. I do not consider you to be one of those people. Forgive me if I don't spend my entire weekend responding to every lame attack on this thread. You can call it running away. I call it having a life.

Quoting osmium: Good one.

But seriously: nuclear physics, how to build computers, modern medicine. Peer review, universities and national labs, NASA, the military, the patent system, the corporate sector--lots of moving parts, but the system does seem to have pushed things forward.

You don't need to convince me. I love peer review! I love things moving forward in an orderly manner!
But as someone on this thread has pointed out, all this good science has enabled us to live in a way that may be detrimental to the environment....or not....who knows?
We are strange creatures. We really are an anomaly. And one day everything we have done will be buried in some layer of metamorphic rock so it makes you wonder how much any of this matters.
I'll go now.

Quoting Bill Scher: Mmm. Those words stuffed in my mouth. Delicious. And nourishing, after a long exhausting run away from your unstoppable strawman arguments last week.

You implied that the defense by PM was equal to that of their reliance on 300 experts and organizations in their study of the events of 9/11. When I pointed out the disparity, you remained silent. Are those facts or straw men? As to my running away....you mean from the collective brain trust on the last thread that summarized (incorrectly) that I denied global warming (I specificaly said I did not), that I was jealous of AGW zealots/hypocrites and believed their behavior negated the science they touted (I never did) and that any scientist who believed in AGW was 'evil' (wrong once again). What was that again about straw men?

Quoting Bill Scher: The Popular Mechanics column was merely one particularly good example of the several analyses done by people who have read the emails and found the right-wing anti-science depiction of them to be dishonest. I posted it for people actually interested in getting the facts. I do not consider you to be one of those people.

Please cite one example where anything I've said is 'anti-science'. I posted examples from

Quoting badhatharry: You don't need to convince me. I love peer review! I love things moving forward in an orderly manner!
But as someone on this thread has pointed out, all this good science has enabled us to live in a way that may be detrimental to the environment....or not....who knows?
We are strange creatures. We really are an anomaly. And one day everything we have done will be buried in some layer of metamorphic rock so it makes you wonder how much any of this matters.
I'll go now.

Yeah, I agree with all that. Maybe the deepest question is "humans: worth it or not?" But, well, ugh, yeah. Also: I realized soon after my previous post that I got up early this morning and defended something I called "the system." That is not really how I ever wanted to be. So I should shut up! See ya bad hat.

Quoting harkin;142675

The old [I: 'I'd respond but I have a life'[/i].....OK - fair enough, you're a famous writer/blogger and I'm just a fact-bereft conservative who has problems with truthiness....(I've got the groupthink correct, right?).

See Harkin, I was right. Those emails aren't going to change anyone's mind.
Good link, though. Love the home page graphic.

Quoting Bill Scher: The Popular Mechanics column was merely one particularly good example...

The PM article actually was a doubt-spreading piece of propaganda. The article is filled with unproven conjecture and hypocrisy that doesn't wait 2 paragraphs to rear its head. It talks of cherry picking...then cherry picks. It talks of the CRU validating the e-mails but throws out "Hey but they still could have been altered". It spends the rest of the time trying to baffle with BS, bloviating on the obvious, and excusing deviation from normal practices of science data gathering as "inefficiencies". "The Popular Mechanics column was merely one particularly good example"...of a circling of the wagons. It's individual author, I would bet my house, is knee deep in AGW dependant grants. PM gave itself a bit of deniability by him being a "guest author". Matter of fact, now hearing that Mr. Jones has received 21M in grants and having seen the finger pointing at skeptic scientists for years about them working for the wrong industry or looking to sell a book or...I think any scientist who writes an AGW article needs to provide his funding source and amount. Iowahawk is great and this picks

She's absolutely beautiful, and I can see Daddy is completely charmed.

Quoting badhatharry: You don't need to convince me. I love peer review! I love things moving forward in an orderly manner!
But as someone on this thread has pointed out, all this good science has enabled us to live in a way that may be detrimental to the environment....or not....who knows?
We are strange creatures. We really are an anomaly. And one day everything we have done will be buried in some layer of metamorphic rock so it makes you wonder how much any of this matters.
I'll go now.

From one long-range thinker to another: heh.

Quoting Whatfur: The PM article actually was a doubt-spreading piece of propaganda. The article is filled with unproven conjecture and hypocrisy that doesn't wait 2 paragraphs to rear its head. It talks of cherry picking...then cherry picks. It talks of the CRU validating the e-mails but throws out "Hey but they still could have been altered". It spends the rest of the time trying to baffle with BS, bloviating on the obvious, and excusing deviation from normal practices of science data gathering as "inefficiencies".

"The Popular Mechanics column was merely one particularly good example"...of a circling of the wagons. It's individual author, I would bet my house, is knee deep in AGW dependant grants. PM gave itself a bit of deniability by him being a "guest author". Matter of fact, now hearing that Mr. Jones has received 21M in grants and having seen the finger pointing at skeptic scientists for years about them working for the wrong industry or looking to sell a book or...I think any scientist who writes an AGW article needs to provide his funding source and amount.

Iowahawk is great and this picks up on the same concept that I was posing to

Quoting Simon Willard: OK, but I'm also ranting about the fallacy that taking small steps is meaningful; that every little bit helps. This is nonsense.

The required cuts are drastic and extremely painful. People will have to be forced to make changes that are blatantly unacceptable to them. The changes will be qualitatively different from the little steps we take today. Therefore, the little steps don't really prepare the way.

On the matter of political momentum, I don't see where momentum comes from. When people cut back on something, there is pain and dissatisfaction which causes them to push back in the other direction. Negative feedback rules. Does giving up the minivan for a subcompact make it easier to give up the subcompact for a bicycle? I don't think so.

IIRC, I've read that even if we stopped producing any CO2 from this point on, the temp would continue to rise because CO2 is not readily broken down in the atmosphere. Anyone else heard this?

I believe they are saying that it has a 50 (memory is a fragile thing) half life cycle, but regardless if I got the length right it will take decades of no production to see a significant reduction; for those disciples that believe it is the cause. Hence the rant about half steps I remember reading here.

Quoting AemJeff: Good grief, what are you trying to say? What a load of conjectural twaddle you've posted! You seem to have no clue at all about how scientific work gets funded or at what scale. ("21M" in grants, oh my!) A tone of wild assertions backep up by nothing ("circling the wagons" seems to be 'furspeak for "doesn't agree with me") seems to be the dominant theme here.

Your stated preference for the analysis of a web humorist (Iowahawk, that noted analyst and philospher of science!) over articles published in a journal like Popular Mechanics, on a set of specific technical issues such as this, speaks volumes about your preference for outlooks that reinforce your pre-existing opinions, regardless of any objective underlying qualites in the material itself.

"Good Grief", you always surprise me with your lack of deductive ability? Let me break it down for you. 1. The PM article is rubbish. Disputes nothing with facts. I suggest you read it before clearing your blow hole. (Putting a USDA label on package of cow, doesn't mean it won't make you sick) Matter of fact read the Iowahawk article also...you might learn something. 2. Circling the wagons was merely an observation that those

Quoting piscivorous: I believe they are saying that it has a 50 (memory is a fragile thing) half life cycle, but regardless if I got the length right it will take decades of no production to see a significant reduction; for those disciples that believe it is the cause. Hence the rant about half steps I remember reading here.

Yeah, I am unaware of any "breakdown" mechanism for CO2 in the atmosphere. It's slowly taken up by the earth's vegetation and very, very, very slowly stored back into the ground. On the other hand, I think temperature should very quickly respond to the CO2 concentration, like in a matter of days, so I don't understand Look's fear that the temperature will continue to rise after anthropogenic CO2 production stops.

Quoting Baltimoron: The example is CFCs and the Montreal Protocol.

The difference between limiting CFCs and CO2 is the vast difference in the impact they have on our lives. I am pretty much unaffected by the change away from CFCs. Did I pay $10 more for my last refrigerator? I'm not sure. That's why the CFC limit worked.

Quoting Whatfur: "Good Grief", In reality you are not really very bright are you Jeff? Let me break it down for you.

1. The PM article is rubbish. Disputes nothing with facts. I suggest you read it before clearing your blow hole. (Putting a USDA label on package of cow, doesn't mean it won't make you sick) Matter of fact read the Iowahawk article also...you might learn something.

2. Circling the wagons was merely an observation that those dependant on AGW grants would certainly be compelled to champion the cause of the EA scientists. I thought you worked in a logic-based environments. You ought to apply it to everyday thinking every once in awhile.

3. Like the PM article, few defenders are delving into the specifics of what Climategate sheds light on. Do you deny that the Hockey Stick graph was a large talking point for the last few years?

You're correct, I don't understand the granting process. Explain it to me. Of the 21 million, how much do you think ended up in Mr. Jones pocket? Do you think he lives in a 1 bedroom apt. with no running water.

Actually your response here is much like the PM article, a bunch of bloviation and attempts to discredit...and little

Quoting Simon Willard: Yeah, I am unaware of any "breakdown" mechanism for CO2 in the atmosphere. It's slowly taken up by the earth's vegetation and very, very, very slowly stored back into the ground. On the other hand, I think temperature should very quickly respond to the CO2 concentration, like in a matter of days, so I don't understand Look's fear that the temperature will continue to rise after anthropogenic CO2 production stops.

Not a fear, per se, just sayin'. Maybe I can find the article I mentioned...

there's this:

There is one way we could save ourselves and tat is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste—which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering—into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

[This will make enough of a difference.] The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009...mte-change.phptheir crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a

And Al Gore said the debate was over! This is hilarious. I watched Ezra Klein on the Olbermann show last week. He was explaining to a very chagrined Keith, the latest and various permutations of the current Senate health care reform legislation. At the end he said if the thing didn't pass it would be because of the Republicans. Whaaaa? The dems have the house, the senate and the executive and the Republicans are to blame? The same will be true for climate legislation. If it doesn't pass or do what it claims it will, it will be because of the deniers. Jeez!

Michelle Malkin ignores a rather important point with her hollow sarcasm: President Obama did not award the Nobel Prize to himself.

Quoting AemJeff: You could be right, I might be awfully dumb. You still lack objectivity and your arguments are baseless. It's clear that the standard you apply to new data is "is this consistent with what I believe?"

I've said it in the past: nobody should take my opinion (which I've rarely stated directly) on this topic seriously. I'm not qualified. You should look in a mirror.

Jeff, Actually your retort is what is baseless. I took issue with the PM article, and gave a number of examples why. Did you come back and argue why any of my particular statements were errant? No, of course not. You just breathlessly attack me while choosing to pick on one tangential comment I made about Jone's 21 million...and now after you belittle my knowledge in that area and I ask you for your enlightenment.. Do you provide any? No, of course not. I also make a comment on Iowahawk. It a pretty great article, breaks things down really well...(Hey Starwatcher...you'd love it, I think) although it prefaces it with expecting a little math and computer ability but hey that should have been right up your alley, Right? So did you dig into Iowahawk's baseless philosophical science and come back

Great handle, StopYellingDaddy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959...s-environment/

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

...

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.

...

As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.

"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a

Quoting Whatfur: Jeff,

Actually your retort is what is baseless. I took issue with the PM article, and gave a number of examples why. Did you come back and argue why any of my particular statements were errant? No, of course not. You just breathlessly attack me while choosing to pick on one tangential comment I made about Jone's 21 million...and now after you belittle my knowledge in that area and I ask you for your enlightenment.. Do you provide any? No, of course not.

I also make a comment on Iowahawk. It a pretty great article, breaks things down really well...(Hey Starwatcher...you'd love it, I think) although it prefaces it with expecting a little math and computer ability but hey that should have been right up your alley, Right? So did you dig into Iowahawk's baseless philosophical science and come back with your own scientific retort? No, of course not. It just whole lot easier to throw out an insult at me, an ad hominem at him and move on. Again this was in the same area that I had a discussion with osmium in. I don't care if a third grader puts the correct numbers together. It is either right or it is

Quoting AemJeff: Go watch the Roberts/Manzi diavlog if you're really interested in an approximation of an honest debate on this topic - including a much clearer view of what issues there might actually be with regard to the "Hockey Stick," and their status within the larger debate.

Based on this, will I have to consider that the second half of that diavlog somehow turned into intelligent discussion?

Quoting Ocean: Based on this, will I have to consider that the second half of that diavlog somehow turned into intelligent discussion?

Maybe not. I had no problem with the first half. I disagree with Manzi about a lot, but I thought this was informative and useful on a meta-level - since I never had the feeling that anyone was arguing in bad faith (which, in my experience, is rare on this topic when the interlocutors have fundamental disagreements.)

Quoting AemJeff: Maybe not. I had no problem with the first half. I disagree with Manzi about a lot, but I thought this was informative and useful on a meta-level - since I never had the feeling that anyone was arguing in bad faith (which, in my experience, is rare on this topic when the interlocutors have fundamental disagreements.)

I only watched just about the first half. Manzi appeared to agree and acknowledge Roberts on surface. But after some vague statement of agreement he would proceed to disregard that very same argument and return to his initial point of view as if there was no contradiction. Roberts didn't seem to question any of these nonsensical statements or Manzi's flawed logic. Yes, I was disappointed and frustrated with the process itself, regardless of the content. Maybe I'm just having a bad day...

Quoting Simon Willard: The difference between limiting CFCs and CO2 is the vast difference in the impact they have on our lives. I am pretty much unaffected by the change away from CFCs. Did I pay $10 more for my last refrigerator? I'm not sure. That's why the CFC limit worked.

You're making policy based on an hypothesis of human nature, namely, that it's better to do everything rather than take it in steps. But, except for the fact that CFCs are still cycling through the atmosphere, Montreal was a success, and Kyoto was not. CFCs are stigmatized, and by any measure that's a victory. Yje same cannot be said about CO2. This Montreal approach also rebuts the earnestly skeptical claim, that the economic cost of reform exceeds the benefits of CO2 reduction in the short and medium term.

Quoting Baltimoron: You're making policy based on an hypothesis of human nature, namely, that it's better to do everything rather than take it in steps.

I'm not trying to make policy, I'm trying to analyze things and illuminate the truth. I actually do want to see some real stringent controls on CO2 tried, just to see what happens. I anticipate a level of pain that will disabuse people of the idea that any meaningful progress is possible. But who knows? It's one of those rare cases where I'll be happy if proved wrong.

Quoting Baltimoron: CFCs are stigmatized, ... same cannot be said about CO2.

I'm not sure this is true. The EPA has declared CO2 to be dangerous to human health. (Which is nonsense.) Many people think that CO2 is something dirty and smelly that comes out of belching smokestacks. That's because the MSM likes to show pictures of belching smokestacks when discussing global warming. I guess it's hard to resist doing this, because CO2 is invisible, and invisible doesn't work well on TV. Even worse, the other day my local TV news station superimposed tape of a nuclear power cooling tower belching ominous white clouds of water vapor during a story on CO2 emission. How ironic

Quoting Simon Willard: I'm not trying to make policy, I'm trying to analyze things and illuminate the truth. I actually do want to see some real stringent controls on CO2 tried, just to see what happens. I anticipate a level of pain that will disabuse people of the idea that any meaningful progress is possible. But who knows? It's one of those rare cases where I'll be happy if proved wrong.

I find that amount of coercion hideous. Period. It's not worth being a guinea pig for any project.

Quoting Simon Willard: I'm not sure this is true. The EPA has declared CO2 to be dangerous to human health. (Which is nonsense.)

I mean that the average person accepts that argument and lives with that in mind. The other problems are different, but complementary, and are worth 50% of the solution. And, if doable with less coercion, so much the better.

Quoting Ocean: I only watched just about the first half. Manzi appeared to agree and acknowledge Roberts on surface. But after some vague statement of agreement he would proceed to disregard that very same argument and return to his initial point of view as if there was no contradiction. Roberts didn't seem to question any of these nonsensical statements or Manzi's flawed logic.

Yes, I was disappointed and frustrated with the process itself, regardless of the content.

Maybe I'm just having a bad day...

These guys have had this conversation before. I think what you're witnessing is each guy listing his points, then the other acknowledging, followed by some detailed elucidation from one or both. Everyone respects each other, but each knows the other guy's point of view well enough not to want to belabor the obvious. Or so it seemed to me.

Quoting Simon Willard: Yeah, I am unaware of any "breakdown" mechanism for CO2 in the atmosphere. It's slowly taken up by the earth's vegetation and very, very, very slowly stored back into the ground. On the other hand, I think temperature should very quickly respond to the CO2 concentration, like in a matter of days, so I don't understand Look's fear that the temperature will continue to rise after anthropogenic CO2 production stops.

Pisc and Simon, my very bad, I guess the article I read would have said absorbed, not broken down. But I found this about rate of sequestration: http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm And this as a primer for the less informed: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...house-gas.html

Quoting AemJeff: Breathlessly? Tangential? Alarmist? Your adjectives are showing. (By the way, I'm not sure you fully understand the meaning of "ad hominem." And - if you pepper your arguments with insults, you've pretty much forfeited any reasonable right to that appeal. Hint: a characterization of the quality of your arguments isn't the same as saying that any argument you raise is flawed, just because it was you who raised it.)

Go watch the Roberts/Manzi diavlog if you're really interested in an approximation of an honest debate on this topic - including a much clearer view of what issues there might actually be with regard to the "Hockey Stick," and their status within the larger debate.

I will be watching Roberts/Manzi but not because of your suggestion as you would be last person who would have any approximation of an honest debate. Don't have to search far for proof of that.

Quoting Whatfur: I will be watching Roberts/Manzi but not because of your suggestion as you would be last person who would have any approximation of an honest debate. Don't have to search far for proof of that.

Nicely restated.

Glad the original found its home.

Wait a second... is the system that brought us chernobl really that eco-friendly?

Quoting Bill Scher: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959...s-environment/

This clearly proves the Associated Press is part of the scientists' conspiracy to abolish American sovereignty and create a one-world government.

Your hyperbole non-withstanding...
It might be interesting to know who all the AP scientist sources were and where they stood before this "exhaustive" research was done. Ya know...kind of like stating that Popular Mechanics has debunked Climategate because one AGW-granted prof writes an article there. And how exhaustive could the research be considering much of the raw data is unobtainable. In reality, the cat is out of the bag. The AP throwing more smoke at it does not hide anything. It may not be a huge cat, but there are pieces that are disturbing whether the AP or you wish to ignore them. You and yours want to discount these things as "everyday". Well maybe then, at least in this field, the "everyday" gets changed up a bit. Because using tricks while ignoring valid input and questions and requests from others is more than "on the surface" bullshit. If we were only talking about, say tweaking the data on relative speed of the next INTEL chip it would be one thing, but this science

Quoting Simon Willard: I think temperature should very quickly respond to the CO2 concentration, like in a matter of days, so I don't understand Look's fear that the temperature will continue to rise after anthropogenic CO2 production stops.

I forgot there's a long time constant for warming deep ocean water.

Quoting Bill Scher: This clearly proves the Associated Press is part of the scientists' conspiracy to abolish American sovereignty and create a one-world government.

Welcome back from your life! But you returned to the purgatory of BhTV to post another 'there's nothing to see here' piece that refuses to look at the what the scientists were saying and how it related to either their work or their responses to those seeking the data and method used to replicate the results??? The story says that the three scientists sourced for their opinions are 'moderates' as to the AGW theory. Refresh my memory, does a moderate mean that they believe that NYC will be under water in 2015 or 2050? And you ignored the Iowahawk piece because you didn't understand it or because it had too much backup? Here's a few more to ignore which (backup data-wise) blow anything you've cited out of the water: The People vs The CRU Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline IPCC and the “Trick” It's rather curious that it's the 'anti-science' folks actually looking at the science.

Also Bill, Your linked article to Borenstein et al at the AP is already in trouble.

Quoting harkin: Your linked article to Borenstein et al at the AP is already in trouble.

Just thought I make a little time out of my busy day as a VERY FAMOUS BLOGGER, full of signing autographs and fending of paparazzo. But I do have cocktails later with Nancy Pelosi, so I'll be brief. The above link to Watts Up With That is a pitch perfect example of the disingenuous grasping-for-straws methods of the modern Right. (Watts Up With That is one of initial blogs to manufacture the "ClimateGate" pseudo-scandal.) What can Watts do to call into the question the AP's comprehensive investigation into the stolen emails? Treat the fact that a science reporter communicates with scientists in the course of doing his job as evidence of doing his job because he -- *GASP* -- addresses scientists he covers regularly by their first names. Never mind that the communication in question from the AP reporter is actually taking the blatherings of a prominent global warming denier seriously. Fellow traveler harkin can then spread the misinformation with a pithy link asserting the nonsensical post proves that the AP is "in trouble." And that is how lies spread.

Quoting harkin: Also Bill,

Your linked article to Borenstein et al at the AP is already in trouble.

Actually...it was in trouble 10,000 years ago.

Quoting Bill Scher: What can Watts do to call into the question the AP's comprehensive investigation into the stolen emails?

Comprehensive...??? You mean the five reporters the AP decided to use to investigate the emails......who for some reason can't be bothered with data and method and the timeliness of certain emails to the data requests the principals were receiving....while they assign eleven investigators to scour Sarah Palin's autobiography? Do you think any of those eleven called Palin during their political reporting and asked how to frame or answer particulars of all the dismissed charges against her in Alaska? Let''s see....eleven investigators looking for anything they can find to cast a possible 2012 presidential candidate in a bad light.... ...versus five investigators who fail to look at the data and method of a narrow group of scientists who influence global policy and wealth transference, and oh yeah claim certainty of a problem that is going to alter life on earth. Yep, no bias or problems with priority there - - lol You're both (AP and yourself) showing your true colors Bill, thanks for the assist. And Bill, once again you fail to

Quoting harkin: Comprehensive...???

You mean the five reporters the AP decided to use to investigate the emails......who for some reason can't be bothered with data and method and the timeliness of certain emails to the data requests the principals were receiving....while they assign eleven investigators to scour Sarah Palin's autobiography? Do you think any of those eleven called Palin during their political reporting and asked how to frame or answer particulars of all the dismissed charges against her in Alaska?

Let''s see....eleven investigators looking for anything they can find to cast a possible 2012 presidential candidate in a bad light....

...versus five investigators who fail to look at the data and method of a narrow group of scientists who influence global policy and wealth transference, and oh yeah claim certainty of a problem that is going to alter life on earth.

Yep, no bias or problems with priority there - - lol

You're both (AP and yourself) showing your true colors Bill, thanks for the assist.

And Bill, once again you fail to address serious links ('blatherings', in your words) that actually look at the data and method; are you anti-science?

And yet

Quoting AemJeff: And yet harkin links to right-wing bloggers and asserts all sorts of good stuff about what they have to say on the matter. For harkin, apparently journalists and scientists are too dumb and corrupt to evaluate scientific data and scientific methods and scientific assertions. The only possibly pure analysis is derived from the most ideological and uninformed sources it's possible to find.

At least he's upholding our standards.

Not what harkin said Jeff. Why are you always such a dip shit? As the whole issue has to do with exclusion and deception, is it not a logicial to want those evaluating the whole scenerio to be vetted as well or to at least include the opinions of those NOT a part of the so-called concensus? Just because they gave the answer YOU want to hear doesn't mean we might want to question whether they are not just part of the "Move along now, nothing to see here." crowd.

Quoting Whatfur: Not what harkin said Jeff. Why are you always such a dip shit? As the whole issue has to do with exclusion and deception, is it not a logicial to want those evaluating the whole scenerio to be vetted as well or to at least include the opinions of those NOT a part of the so-called concensus?

Just because they gave the answer YOU want to hear doesn't mean we might want to question whether they are not just part of the "Move along now, nothing to see here." crowd.

Before you get to talk about "exclusion and deception" you have to do enough homework to understand what's going on. As long as you (and harkin, and pisc) pretend that you know what the standards ought to be in a profession you don't have the credentials to judge (the same is true of me), you haven't passed even the laugh test. Regardless of that deficiency, you soldier on, making ridiculously loaded assertions on matters about which it's obvious you have no clue; and as support you produce mountains of tendentious horseshit. You simultaneously find reasons to ignore every source

Quoting AemJeff: Before you get to talk about "exclusion and deception" you have to do enough homework to understand what's going on. As long as you (and harkin, and pisc) pretend that you know what the standards ought to be in a profession you don't have the credentials to judge (the same is true of me), you haven't passed even the laughter test. Regardless of that definciency, you soldier on, making ridiculously loaded assertions on matters about which it's obvious you have no clue; and as support you produce mountains of tendentious horseshit.

You simultaneously find reasons to ignore every source who disagrees with your premise, regardless of merit, and continue to rely only on those sources who support your preconceptions (which of you understands enough statistics to analyze Iowahawk's much touted blog item for credibility?) - as long as those things are true, you have nothing relevant to add to this conversation. You're strictly a noise source making it harder to actually come to any sort of analytically valid conclusion.

Who's ignoring the sources again? Whose sources have been shown prone to deception and exclusion? What part of Iowahawk's presentation

Quoting Whatfur: Who's ignoring the sources again? Whose sources have been shown prone to deception and exclusion? What part of Iowahawk's presentation did you not understand? What test have YOU past?

Neither I nor harkin said anything about ignoring the AP opinion contributers...we would just like the parole board to be made up with people other than prisoners.

That's what's meant by "tendentious."

Quoting AemJeff: That's what's meant by "tendentious."

I should add that I've said nothing about whether I've understood Iowahawk's presentation. Neither have I tried to claim its argument as my own (or argued against it, directly.) The problem I have is that he's arguing against peer reviewed science. His blog posts are subject to no such scrutiny, so they can't bear the same weight. Reading back your responses, I find that I doubt you really have a very clear idea of what my point of view is on this. I doubt there's anything I can say that will help, nor do I think you care what I believe (or anybody else who doesn't share your point of view.)

Quoting AemJeff: I should add that I've said nothing about whether I've understood Iowahawk's presentation. Neither have I tried to claim its argument as my own (or argued against it, directly.) The problem I have is that he's arguing against peer reviewed science. His blog posts are subject to no such scrutiny, so they can't bear the same weight.

Reading back your responses, I find that I doubt you really have a very clear idea of what my point of view is on this. I doubt there's anything I can say that will help, nor do I think you care what I believe (or anybody else who doesn't share your point of view.)

I could tell that you obviously did not read Iowahawk's presentation. It is pretty straight forward in a number of respects and similar to a previous link I provided shows how the hockey stick was achieved and why it IS deceptive. The peer-reviewed scientists are not denying that Iowahawk's take is in fact true. Why? Because this is in fact true. By the same token the hockey-stick graph they reviewed was not in fact false, just in fact close to meaningless. I have read articles prior to Climategate, by scientists, who

Quoting Whatfur: I could tell that you obviously did not read Iowahawk's presentation. ...

You're wrong.

Quoting AemJeff: You're wrong.

Then why would you say he was arguing against peer review? Or show me where he is? [added] Oh and what don't you understand? Maybe I can help.

Quoting Whatfur: I could tell that you obviously did not read Iowahawk's presentation. It is pretty straight forward in a number of respects and similar to a previous link I provided shows how the hockey stick was achieved and why it IS deceptive. The peer-reviewed scientists are not denying that this is in fact true. Why? Because this is in fact true. By the same token the hockey-stick graph they reviewed was not in fact false, just in fact close to meaningless. I have read articles prior to Climategate, by scientists, who did not have the knowledge of the data the CRU was using but who questioned the result purely on the basis of it not aligning with what they held to be the truth based on ALL the data...you see...they did not understand that the boys down at East Anglia were not using ALL of the data. Now, these things make sense to them.

Now back to tendentious...if you wish to hide behind the pleated skirts of peer-review...dress yourself. Ian Plimer was twice voted Scientist of the Year in Australia...is he not a peer? In this endeavor, the peers should not be hand-picked

Quoting AemJeff: You're missing the point. Iowahawk's presentation contains a lot of embedded assumptions. So does the CRU data. There are also followup studies (like this) that support the conclusions Iowahawk is contesting. I'm not competent to adjudicate this. Are you? You seem to think so.

Ahhh "embedded". (thats a side-step Jeff) Using Mann as a backup is a bit disingenuous. (Come on Jeff, Mann is part of the problem here.) and Yes I fully understand what went on here. Its math Jeff. Simple statistics. You're a programmer right. Go through it.

Quoting AemJeff: Too much of your argument is shrouded in generalities and meaningless verbiage:

Huh? Actually (and again) its your responses that are shrouded.

Quoting AemJeff: That's gibberish, not an argument.

Oh Jeff...I used to draw stick people for you but gave up. Lets try things a bit different.... Scientist Jim creates a graph using data A-B. Scientist Dave uses data A. Their graphs are different. Dave is confused because he thinks scientist Jim is using data A too. Dave then discovers that Jim is using data A-B. Dave says, "Ahhh now I understand" and adds "Jim why are you discounting data B. Jim says "Never you mind, you bozo".

Quoting AemJeff: It's fine and valid to question the "Hockey Stick." The CRU people who were trying to obfuscate

Quoting Whatfur: Ahhh "embedded". (thats a side-step Jeff) Using Mann as a backup is a bit disingenuous. (Come on Jeff, Mann is part of the problem here.)

and Yes I full understand what went on here. Its math Jeff. Simple statistics. You're a programmer right. Go through it.

Huh? Actually (and again) its your responses that are shrouded.

Oh Jeff...I used to draw stick people for you but gave up. Lets try things a bit different.... Scientist Jim creates a graph using data A-B. Scientist Dave uses data A. Their graphs are different. Dave is confused because he thinks scientist Jim is using data A too. Dave then discovers that Jim is using data A-B. Dave says, "Ahhh now I understand" and adds "Jim why are you discounting data B. Jim says "Never you mind, you bozo".

Sorry...but that is "gibberish". Especially the second sentence. There is nothing un-scientific about Iowahawk's presentation and there is nothing un-scientific with wanting all sides represented in a peer review.

'fur you're playing random word games. "Embedded" means just that. There are assumptions (valid or otherwise) governing the choices, methods, uses, interpretations, and conclusions regarding a specific piece of work. Making those choices well is one of the arcane arts of professional level work. I'm competent enough to

Quoting AemJeff: 'fur you're playing random word games. "Embedded" means just that. There are assumptions (valid or otherwise) governing the choices, methods, uses, interpretations, and conclusions regarding a specific piece of work. Making those choices well is one of the arcane arts of professional level work. I'm competent enough to know that I'm not qualified to judge outside my specialty at the detail level. That's different from saying I believe there's no problem with the work. You'd have to go pretty far to convince me that you're in a better position to render judgment.

You also missed the point of the paper I posted. Firstly, this is a scientific dispute and Mann is one of the players. You don't get to exclude his work. Secondly, I wasn't posting it in specific reference to its conclusions. The point is that there's an ongoing discussion, in the literature, in the field, about these these issues which is not directly addressed by the single argument posted by a blogger, that you've hung your hat on.

Before you start judging the relevance of the particular data set used in a particular paper, you'd need a lot more information than what you provided with your

Quoting Whatfur: Jeff, Jeff, Jeff...Did you or did you not accuse Iowahawk of arguing against peer review? (You did!) Did I or did I not ask you to point me to where? (I did!) Did you, instead of pointing me to where, point to nothing tangible but instead excuse your accusation by saying it was based on "embedded assumptions"? (You did!) Who would any fair-minded individual then point to as using "random word games"?

You then point to Mann as far as hockey-stick backup and when I call you on that because he is currently a bad-actor here you extrapolate that to mean that I would accuse everyone of being a bad actor. You then try to also pigeon-hole me to one guy who performs MATH that you want to paint as opinion!!! Also, the dataset you say I am lacking is contained in this same article you say you have read.

...and so it goes. We can be done. Thanks for playing along.

How can you possibly believe your arguments should be taken seriously when you don't bother to read what other people say? Later.

Quoting AemJeff: How can you possibly believe your arguments should be taken seriously when you don't bother to read what other people say?

Later.

How can I possibly believe that Jeff would address the facts within the arguments instead of trying to change the arguments mid-stream because he has been show to be all wet? (I don't)

Quoting AemJeff: And yet harkin links to right-wing bloggers and asserts all sorts of good stuff about what they have to say on the matter. For harkin, apparently journalists and scientists are too dumb and corrupt to evaluate scientific data and scientific methods and scientific assertions. The only possibly pure analysis is derived from the most ideological and uninformed sources it's possible to find.

At least he's upholding our standards.

But speaking of scientists and standards, I understand they have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe all lined up at the U.N. to explain their most recent experiments.

Quoting Whatfur: ...Did you or did you not accuse Iowahawk of arguing against peer review? (You did!) ...

I hate to kick the embers here, but I've just understood what point 'fur had in one regard. My bad - I said Iowahawk was "arguing against peer reviewed science," but I didn't mean that the subject of his argument was peer review - I meant that his targets are operating in that realm and he isn't. I could have phrased that less ambiguously.

Quoting AemJeff: I hate to kick the embers here, but I've just understood what point 'fur had in one regard. My bad - I said Iowahawk was "arguing against peer reviewed science," but I didn't mean that the subject of his argument was peer review - I meant that his targets are operating in that realm and he isn't. I could have phrased that less ambiguously.

In now re-reading the original myself. I see the distinction and apologize for the misinterpretation. I think the abiguity was created by my referring to it an hour or so after reading it. For that, I apologize. Kind of wish the above was written in response to the first questioning of it...might have saved us a little time. Sorry. There is still a difference between what I was arguing and what you were. The hockey stick was reviewed by peers and found to be ok with them. (See Mann. ;o) ) Iowahawk's is purely pointing out how the CRU achieved their hockey stick and is asking "how can this be ok?", "how can this hold any real meaning?" and humorously "hey look at the hockey stick I can create if I do this or this!!" So, in a sense, he too is