Skip to comments.Iceberg Ahead (scientists who play fast and loose with the 'facts' imperiling the planet)
Posted on 02/20/2010 6:49:50 AM PST by Libloather
Climate scientists who play fast and loose with the facts are imperiling not just their profession but the planet.
By Fred Guterl | NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 19, 2010
One of the most impressive visuals in Al Gore's now famous slide show on global warming is a graph known as the "hockey stick." It shows temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rising slowly for most of the last thousand years and turning steeply upward in the last half of the 20th century. As evidence of the alarming rate of global warming, it tells a simple and compelling story. That's one reason the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included the graph in the summary of its 2001 report. But is it true?
The question occurred to Steven McIntyre when he opened his newspaper one morning in 2002 and there it wasthe hockey stick. It was published with an article on the debate over whether Canada should ratify the Kyoto agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. McIntyre had little knowledge of the intricate science of climate change; he didn't even have a Ph.D. He did have a passion for numbers, however. He also had some experience in the minerals business, where, he says, people tend to use hockey-stick graphs when they are trying to pull one over on you. "Reality usually isn't so tidy."
As every climate scientist must know by now, McIntyre's skepticism of the hockey stick launched him on a midlife career change: he has become the granddaddy of the global warming "denial" movement. McIntyre asserted that the data of Michael Mann, head of Penn State's Earth System Science Center, did not support his conclusions, and that a true graph of temperatures would suggest a cyclical cause of recent warming.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
There is no reason to “save the planet.”
It was never in danger.
We can continue to clean up our own mess, of course, but not at the expense of jobs and the economy.
Or political freedoms.
Not so fast ... They want to fix it and then restart the scam with fixed up science. They do seem to know they overreached.
Like with health-care, FRANKENSTEIN always seems to revive.
Wait, I forgot, he has no honor.
Newsweek is still falling all over itself to give credibility to the hoaxers and denigrating many of the “deniers” as rank amateurs who are just trying to poke holes in climate change without real science. Man caused global warming is a HOAX and a fraud perpetrated by Al Gore and others for personal gain and political agendas. The US media are deniers of this truth.
What a steaming pile of biased excrement this column is. Every possible (and impossible) positive is attributed to the warmers, and every possible slur (deniers, for example) is attributed to the skeptics, who have been proven right time and time again.
MSM salvage operation, trying to salvage what they can so they can start the global warming hoax anew.
Yeah, not surprising that there is a plaintive wistful tone about the article....sort of a 'I can't believe it all came crashing down with a thud'. Hopefully, they and the Gorecle will be able to come out of their state of denial and move on... and as for the Gorecle himself, we can only wish him well in his future endeavours.
But of course, ALL of the evil, scheming deniers are in the pay of the greedy (republican-supported) oil companies....
It is the socially-correct, “loyal and truthful” holycost SUPPORTERS who are altruistic and honest, NEVER corrupted bby the 80 billion in research money squandered on their schemes and endless research in support of the “truth according to Al Gore...”
I guess the federal funding must'a ran out.....
Then I read the article. They couldn't have given the IPCC and the warmists softer treatment. They whitewash several major scandals and problems. They mention that the "hockey stick" graph is questioned but never mention that it has now been discredited.
Many more examples.....it's still Newsweak.
What the hell--they aren't going to instantly see the light and repent in a flash of conversion in public. It will take time. But when Newsweek starts even talking seriously about "Climategate" you know there has been a change in the weather.
All the article does is bemoan loss of momentum. It attributes it to “denier” unfairness, sloppiness in peripheral matters, or to understandable secretiveness of government scientists. It doesn’t touch the underlying reason: there hasn’t been any reliable science produced that can be backed up by credible data. It’s all been a product of massaging or cheating.
Do you mean to honestly state that NEWSWEEK ran a story about global warming being a LIE??
Thanks for providing a synopsis. I was afraid to click on the link, and evidentally my fear was justified. LOL
They’re at the first stages of addiction recovery-they have just recognized they have a problem. I look forward to the more painful parts of their recovery, in fact, aren’t they about due to go bankrupt?
As other posters have pointed out, their is value in having Newsweek proclaim that the global warming industry is on the defensive, and that they have behaving badly.
Newsweek may feel that this problem is one that can be massaged by the US media. But, in reality, the issue is being settled by British investigators and the scientific community itself, no longer cowed by the bullying of the past. The American liberal media has been reduced to neutered bystanders, saddled with the evidence of having been on the wrong side of science.
Acid rain ...
At the power plant where my dad worked, over the years they made changes to address this. Changed the kind of coal burned and used technology to scrub the emissions as best they could.
So, I guess we don’t hear as much about it because we worked on the problem ...?
At that time we were also supposedly heading into another ice age.
I see this article as an attempt to clear the tarnish off a damaged product. They're not ready to write it off, they still want to sell it.
They're not ready to go into recovery, they want to quietly brush the problem under the rug and be a little more careful from now on. They know they over-reached.
Wonder why the author did not include Phil Jones’ admission that the climate has not warmed since 1995 and his confession that it was warmer in the middle ages than it is now. There are a lot of little nasty revelations like those that the author cared not share with the general public.
McIntyre has actually carried out his audit of climate science with exceptional professionalism despite it being essentially an unpaid hobby, while Phil Jones was shown to have lost large parts of his supporting data to sloppy, sophmoric record-keeping even while being the recipient of huge amounts of government funding.
Check your chemistry lesson.....carbolic acid is phenol. Carbonic acid is a different critter.
Uh, I call baloney on this. If tree-ring growth measurements don't correlate to temperature for the last two decades of the 20th century then they don't for any other period of time. There can be no rational "technical reason" why they should no longer correlate; trees didn't evolve a new growth pattern in 1980.
“””What went wrong? Part of the blame lies, of course, with those who obstructed the efforts of the IPCC and the individual scientists, including bloggers who tried to sandbag scientists with spurious FOIA requests, and the perpetrators (as yet unknown) of the hack at the Climatic Research Unit.””””
This is really sad when Newsweek journalists lament the fact that some people actually want to know the truth.
In the mind of the Newsweek journalists truth does not matter. The only thing that matters to them is achieving a victory regarding a political position.
Why is anybody still subscribing to this garbage?
This is progress. Newsweek now sees a need to actually mention Climategate to its dwindling reader base. That the article grotesquely distorts the facts to favor the warmistas can be taken for granted.
***I wonder what ever happened to the ACID RAIN. CO2 + Rain water => Carbolic acid.***
Do you mean SO2 and rainwater? Sulfuric Dioxide+rainwater=sulfuric acid.
***I wonder what ever happened to the ACID RAIN. CO2 + Rain water => Carbolic acid.***
.... Do you mean SO2 and rainwater? Sulfuric Dioxide+rainwater=sulfuric acid.......
Or $2.70 per Gallon Diesel?
Actually, that would be sulfurous acid. You need sulfur trioxide to generate sufuric, and you need to jump through some process hoops to get that stuff in any quantity.
A niggling point, but there it is....
So, I guess we dont hear as much about it because we worked on the problem
So can we fix nuclear power, off shore drilling, drilling ANWAR, and Yucca Flats?
I'm glad we saved the evergreen buds and the Parthenon
“...So can we fix nuclear power, off shore drilling, drilling ANWAR, and Yucca Flats?
I’m glad we saved the evergreen buds and the Parthenon ...”
I think we can try. Those endeavors would also create engineering and manufacturing jobs.
I can’t figure out why our country would just roll over and play dead when it comes to energy independence.
We got so bogged down draining the swamp that we lost faith in ourselves as One Nation. So help me I still believe in 'American Know How' and Doing the Right Thing. I can't help feeling 'the Times they are a'changing' AGAIN.
It's kinda strange that any 'transparent' scientific info about the hoax is still considered top secret.
Sure woke me up this morning!
Not really. Even this article hangs on to the fiction that CO2 is some dreaded pollutant. They are still shooting at the soft belly of the economy with their junk science arrows.
We have to destroy the lie that CO2 is a danger before the hoax really dies.
I amazed that anything about climategate appeared in newsweek; however, it has been months since the story initially broke, hey??
We don't have to save the planet anymore. It was never in danger.
>> McIntyre has actually carried out his audit of climate science with exceptional professionalism despite it being essentially an unpaid hobby, while Phil Jones was shown to have lost large parts of his supporting data to sloppy, sophmoric record-keeping even while being the recipient of huge amounts of government funding. <<
I don’t buy Phil Jones’ pathetic excuse about sloppy record-keeping, any more than I buy his ridiculous global warming hoax.
Phil Jones and the rest of his unholy cabal of voodoo science priests intentionally cooked the books and twisted the actual climate data to produce the desired result.
Hats off to McIntyre, but all he had to do was read the actual data to see that there was nothing to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Phil Jones and the rest did the same thing as McIntyre, and saw the same things he did, but they were working on a totally different agenda than pure science.
Man, that's racist!
No niggard am I.
“There can be no rational “technical reason” why they should no longer correlate; trees didn’t evolve a new growth pattern in 1980. “
I’m sure global warming is to blame for it. In fact, the lack of correlation probably proves CO2 global warming.
Now you're giving me the niggles. Stop that.