Dear god, I thought she had been put away, but Gloria is back in all her ....... glory here.
Gloria Zane
Precisely. Ol’ Russ won’t go blogging in Sac because it means he’ll have to debate facts — those science-based things that keep interfering with stuff and all that.
Gloria dear, where are your facts? I have been posting facts on this blog for years and not once have you come to refute those facts, or engage in a discussion of of the science behind climate change. I think your comments speak loudly of your intellectual capacity to engage in a rational discussion.
Has Russ yet responded to the latest on the East Anglia issue, or is his consortium still trying to draft something squeezable for the template? The latest is that a group of scientists exonerated the e-mailers of wrongdoing — this after the leaker sliced and spliced the e-mails until they looked juuuust right for the oil lords. Here, actually, is the latest on what caused Russ, O’Reilly, Rush, Beck and Bastardi to get all in a tizzy and to toss around words like scam and fraud without all the facts: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/east-anglias-climate-lessons/Gloria dear, here is what Dr Richard S Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had to say about the Climategate investigations in the WSJ:
In what has come to be known as “climategate,” one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation. The Climatic Research Unit is hardly an obscure outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed ample collusion with other prominent researchers in the United States and elsewhere.
One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled science underlying currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December’s Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits. But with the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding at stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small.
The general approach of the official scientific community (at least in the United States and the United Kingdom) has been to see whether people will bother to look at the files in detail (for the most part they have not), and to wait until time diffuses the initial impressions in order to reassert the original message of a climate catastrophe that must be fought with a huge measure of carbon control.
This reassertion, however, continues to be suffused by illogic, nastiness and outright dishonesty. There were, of course, the inevitable investigations of individuals like Penn State University’s Michael Mann (who manipulated data to create the famous “hockey stick” climate graph) and Phil Jones (director of the CRU). The investigations were brief, thoroughly lacking in depth, and conducted, for the most part, by individuals already publicly committed to the popular view of climate alarm. The results were whitewashes that are quite incredible given the actual data.
Whitewash!
Gloria, have you read the e-mails? Did you look at the computer programs attached to those e-mails and did you note the comments about about the use of fudge factors and the poor quality of the data, and how the programmer had to make up the data to get the computer programs to work. Those were the programs that were use by the UN IPCC to scare you and other weak minds in to believing in global warming. Revkin can twist the CRU e-mails all he wants, but the computer code does not lie!
