Maybe the CRU will open peoples' eyes

The DailyMail runs a Special Investigation on climate change and the scientific basis for the Catastrophists' claims.

Climate science is complicated, and often the only way to make sense of raw data is through sophisticated statistical computer programs. The consequence is that most lay individuals - politicians and members of the public alike - have little choice but to take the assurances of scientists such as Davies on trust. He and other ‘global warmists’ often insist that when it comes to the IPCC’s main conclusions - that the Earth is in a period of potentially catastrophic warming and that the main culprit is man-made greenhouse gas emission - no serious scientist dissents from the conventional view.

 Well, the news outlets are finally starting to question that last point, as the article goes on to say...

In fact, there is a large body of highly-respected academic experts who fiercely contest this thesis: people such as Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a disillusioned former IPCC member, and Dr Tom Segalstad, head of geology at Oslo University, who has stated that ‘most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible’.

Wow, now that's what I'm talking about.  Let's have a heaping serving of skeptical inquiry and critical thinking.  Do the catastrophists' claims really hold up under scrutiny?  Let's hope we see more of this in major news outlets.

Scientists should be skeptics

This seems about right:

... everyone involved needs to embrace the idea that all scientists are skeptics; that all scientific theories are open to doubt; and in particular that future projections of climate change are subject to considerable uncertainty. Furthermore, the economic and environmental impacts of warming are also uncertain, as are the costs of CO2 mitigation. When scientists hide these uncertainties, or simply don’t discuss them, they lose credibility. Climate scientists are clearly unable to “save the world” alone. But they are stewards of key data that are essential to shape wise policy. Their credibility is much more important than their political opinions.

The climate for discussion has become so polarized that rational, skeptical inquiry is extremely difficult.  If you aren't for Copenhagen, you must be against it.  I take a different view; the climate is almost certainly warming, and it has been since the Little Ice Age.  Much less certain is the contribution from human emissions, CO2 in particular.  Remember, correlation is not causation.  The historic pattern has been for CO2 to lag climatic changes rather than drive such changes.  I would also urge a skeptical approach to the proposed dangers of warming.  There are certain to be positive aspects to a warmer climate.  The economics and human cost of mitigating CO2 emissions are yet other arenas where a dispassionate, skeptical approach would better serve humanity than alarmism.

Historical Perspective without Computer Models

J. Storrs Hall offers some historical perspective on the climate without using a computer climate model.  Imagine that, actual data, not statistical model runs.

Plant food now declared a danger.

The EPA has decided CO2 is dangerous to human health. Why?  It makes the Earth warm.

Does anyone in DC appreciate the irony?  Climate researchers use increased plant growth as a proxy for higher temperatures and CO2 concentrations. 

Lie of the Month, New York Times style

This New York Times editorial is simply filled with lies and distortions.  Let's examine a few...

The e-mail messages represent years’ worth of exchanges among prominent American and British climatologists. Some are mean-spirited, others intemperate. But they don’t change the underlying scientific facts about climate change.

True dat.  But the emails do reveal a clique of scientists working to subvert the normal scientific process, including cherry-picking data, and weakening the peer review portion by freezing out any pesky scientists with embarrassing questions.  Richard Feynman described what these scientists are missing as "scientific integrity" in his famous Cargo Cult Science talk:

It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

Let's continue with the editorial...

However, most of the e-mail messages — judging by those that have seen the light of day — appear to deal with the painstaking and difficult task of reconstructing historical temperatures, and the problems scientists encounter along the way. Despite what the skeptics say, they demonstrate just how rigorously scientists have worked to figure out whether global warming is real and the true role that human activities play.

However we feel about the emails, by far the most damning evidence of the scientific incompetence comes from an examination of the data and programs that process the data.  The CRU was not working rigorously; the computer programs are a hash, and the original data have been tossed.  Not only can the CRU not reproduce their earlier work, but we can no longer have any confidence in the work of the CRU and its temperature record.  The effect this has is to taint any and all papers that reference any HadCRUT results.  This is not a demonstration of rigor, this is a demonstration of results first, proof later.

How can the NYT be any more wrong?