THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR AL GORE!!

With the Climategate scandal freezing the bloom to anthropogenic global warming's rose, what will become of the those whose careers were based on the lie that the planet will soon become inhospitably hot?  If only the scientists at East Anglia had a hacker of their own who could—

Not quite what I expected, but I suppose it'll do.

Comments

[Bob Reed]

Great Comic! Where is it from?

And I think the East Anglia CRU guys needed a solid methadology moreso than a hacker; since all of the "deniers", as they're called, are pretty much upfront about the details of their own analysis. I also think that it's inconvenient for the AGW faithful that this information is coming to light at the same time that the much of the public has experienced an unusually cool summer and an early onset of winter. I mean, snowfall in Houston; at this time of year?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6748292.html

All that aside, it's still important to reduce emission levels as much as possible. I mean, we all still will have to live here (at least for a while!) so fom a practical point of view, and considering the ever increasing population of the Earth, the minimum effort on everyone's part should be to pollute as little as possible.

[SEK]

Actually, Bob, I'm not sure where that's from. One of my students included it in a presentation a few weeks back, and I liked it so much I saved it.

I think the East Anglia CRU guys needed a solid methadology moreso than a hacker...

...or they need to write more formally in private emails lest they become public one day. I write in an academic shorthand with friends and my wife because we know what we're talking about. The "trick" to avoiding Freud here, the "trick" to avoid Derrida there ... it's a part of the scholarly brogue that sounds bad to outsiders. I have no problem with the fact that climate scientists used a "trick" to make adjust two data sets so they met the same baseline distinctions, especially when the resulting graph was published in the peer-reviewed journal in the natural sciences and clearly indicated both that there were two data sets (different colored lines) and that they'd be routinized (in the key). That's kosher, in my book.

[Bob Reed]

I don't have any problems with the, "trick", turn of the phrase they used, I disagree more with the some of the mathematical assumptions made; and I'm talking about factrs as esoteric as the constants used other mathematical nuances particular to the differential equation being solved. Right now I can't locate a paper I downloaded that detailed the IPCC math models, but when I find it I'll send you the link; but here is a paper written by Chris Monckton that nicely summarizes some of those:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Now it's the American Physical Society, and has not been peer reviewed; many open submissions to their organization aren't. Still, I haven't seen any detailed refutation of it...

But in addition to my geeky objections, I also don't understand how you would lose the source data. In my career I've performed many material analyses and other investigations that I'm not really at liberty to detail. But I'll just say that proper practice dictates that you always safeguard the original data, and make loads of working copies; it definitely looks bad to both professionals and knowledgable laypersons. Especially in light of the discussion over smoothing out inconvenient "bumps" in their temperature curve.

But, you may be surprised to learn that I do believe in climate change, I just believe it to be driven more by natural processes than by any interference by people. Still, as I mentioned, I believe that it's important to all of the Earth's societies to minimize emissions, and all forms of pollution, in order to avoid mucking up the planet. And, for selfish economic reasons, I would prefer that renewable energy be used as much as possible; so we don't ship all of our cash overseas.

All the best...