I must say that, this must be a bitter plate of roast crow that George Monbiot is eating.
“Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away
Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That’s why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science”
This is unexpected, because I thought Moonbat was a
global warming climate change true-believing dead-ender (And he still has time to prove himself thus).
“I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crisis, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial. The emails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, they say, are a storm in a tea cup, no big deal, exaggerated out of all recognition. It is true that climate change deniers have made wild claims which the material can’t possibly support (the end of global warming, the death of climate science). But it is also true that the emails are very damaging.”
See what I mean? I’d call that a, “modified limited hangout” bordering on a, “fake but accurate” stance. If you read the comments, it’s clear that the warm-mongers are mostly in denial. I love the rich irony of that, because they call me a, “denialist” of course.
“It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote “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!”
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.”
See what I mean? Moonbat wants so badly to revert to type, that he can hardly contain himself. Lack of self-discipline seems to be a lefty trait. This article may have been written before the liars at New Zealand’s NIWA were exposed.
“The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.
The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.
In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:”
“The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:
From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).
But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:”
The, “very different result” is a +0.06 degree per century warming of N-Zed – a virtual goose-egg – versus the artificial and intentionally alarming lie concocted of +0.92 degrees per century.
Back to Mr. Moonbat:
“Some people say that I am romanticising science, that it is never as open and honest as the Popperian ideal. Perhaps. But I know that opaqueness and secrecy are the enemies of science. There is a word for the apparent repeated attempts to prevent disclosure revealed in these emails: unscientific.
The crisis has been exacerbated by the university’s handling of it, which has been a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond. RealClimate reports that “We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.” In other words, the university knew what was coming three days before the story broke. As far as I can tell, it sat like a rabbit in the headlights, waiting for disaster to strike.”
That’s the second time he’s deployed, “exacerbated” in this article. It must be his weekly vocabulary word. Well, Georgie Porgy (My name’s George too, so I can call him that if I want), I’d say your disappointment is exacerbated by the depth of your desire for
global warming climate change AGW all of this bullshit to be true. These fabrications of data are not a failure to meet the Popperian ideal of noble and objective science, they are an out-and-out rejection of it. Predisposing an outcome and manufacturing data to support it is what was done during the Spanish Inquisition, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method. They’re liars, Georgie, liars!
Just replace, “a fanatical dedication to the Pope and a nice red uniform” with, “a fanatical dedication to the idea of AGW and a while lab coat.” These assmaggots are equally pathetic, but not nearly as funny.