ClimateGate/Copenhagen roundup, Dec. 13: “From Russia with love” edition

  • Featured: The Daily Mail has a must-read “special investigation” report. that offers a very good recap as well as some new stuff (e.g., concerning the “from Russia with love” theory) — go read the whole thing. In the sidebar, Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb, son of CRU founder Prof. Hubert Lamb, basically says the CRU cannot be trusted anymore, and that a major investigation is required to at least restore some trust.
  • We already know about Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr., Freeman Dyson, and several other outspoken AGW skeptics in academia.  From the Daily Mail article, here is another: Tom Segalstad, head of the geology Dept. at U. of Oslo, Norway.
  • Chemistry World discusses ClimateGate in a comparatively level-headed fashion
  • Rand Simberg on ‘hiding the decline’
  • And in case you missed it, Iowahawk gets very serious and technical about the Mann ‘hockey stick’ graph, and how flaky it really is.
  • more updates to follow as the day progresses.

Link to yesterday’s roundup.

Update: What “astroturf” looks like (note the identically printed and designed signs):

And Lord Monckton video-fisks a Greenpeace supporter live on camera. Don’t miss it!

Update 2: You’ve all heard of the Canadian journalist and mother of two who wants forced one-child policies imposed worldwide — in the name of “healing the Earth”. Of course, just as the Chinese are reconsidering their own one-child policy in light of the problems a radically inverted population pyramid creates…

Update 3: AP’s “reliable” sources on ClimateGate are: the very people who wrote the controversial Emails. (Hat tip: JCM)

Update 4: Jerry Pournelle (h/t: Insty) on data and climate science. “First, if you have any interest in the climate debate, you must read the careful analysis of the data from Darwin, Australia that we referred to last evening. I have studied this in some detail since Joanne recommended it, and it is important: not because it is a “smoking gun” demonstrating evil on the part of the climate analyzers, but because it raises questions that must be answered before the world spends trillions on remedies to climate change.” Go read the rest.

Update 5: In “Nature cannot be fooled“, Dr. Sanity offers her own reminescences of the Challenger disaster and what it teaches us about “consensus science” and confirmation bias:

[…] My own thoughts at the time are still very clear to me: this was NASA , after all. The people here were the “best and brightest” (of course I included myself in this) and our scientific credentials would insure that we would never ignore objective reality. Though I was young and foolish, I clearly understood that wishing and wanting something to be true did not make it so. I had faith that the system was relatively immune to psychosis (i.e., being out of touch with reality).

Needless to say, it was an extremely painful lesson that nature taught us that day, and I have never forgotten it. Of course, I internalized that lesson in a way that is not always consistent with being a psychiatrist, in that I learned you cannot take the “human” out of “human nature”; and that wishes and hopes are all very nice and all, but that reality is not in the least interested in your wishes and hopes–or any of your feelings for that matter.

Nature cannot be fooled; but human nature is predisposed to foolishness–and therefore likely to accept and tolerate all sorts of errors and fantasies for a variety of very human reasons–no matter what the tragic consequences might turn out to be.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “ClimateGate/Copenhagen roundup, Dec. 13: “From Russia with love” edition

  1. That Lord Monkton fisking of the Norwegian Greenpeace member is a classic for the ages!

    But it’s almost too good to be true (even though it’s obviously authentic): the poor woman had apparently never learned any of the argumentation techniques that are essential corollaries to holding a leftist worldview. To wit:

    – Never allow your opponent to define the terms of the debate. Don’t answer their questions: simply throw a different question back in his or her face.
    – If confronted with an unpleasant fact, change the subject.
    – Yell
    – Insult
    – Spew unverifiable “facts” and then declare victory if they are not disproven within 3 seconds.

    Instead, the Greenpeace woman just stood there and let Lord Monkton demolish her entire weltauunshung, while she listened politely and tried to answer his questions.

    Lady!?!?!?! Don’t you know that you must protect your little cocoon of leftism with a thick protective layer of irrational combativeness. Because once you open yourself to truly honest debate, everything crumbles.

    She acted the way we all WISHED lefties would act in a debate. Instead, by design, they obfuscate, dodge, insult and attack, and never address the actual issue at hand.

    Anyway, we need to preserve that video in a time capsule somewhere so that people in the future can know what an actual conversation is supposed to be like — after Newspeak has become the lingua franca of Earth.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s