Powered by TypePad

« That Liberal Media | Main | Latest Libby Material »

April 02, 2006



Somebody put bobsbaggage into the fancyford's trunk. Gotta love the names.

richard mcenroe

""This new media becomes much more important to us because conservatives have been more dominant in traditional media," said Simon Rosenberg, the president of the centrist New Democratic Network."

Oh, come on, Jeff, be fair. You have to remember the time Michael Savage walked onto the set at CBS and threw Dan Rather out of his chair!

Beto Ochoa

And I can remember when it was just the usenet and unix. Now people can spread a lie around the world before the truth can butter a slice of toast. Sorry Mr.Clemens.

distribute a document written by Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, discussing the political benefits of the Terri Schiavo case.
Except that it was a document written by some Martinez staffer, not Martinez.

Excuse me, I need to go bow before the great fact-checking and editorial layers of the mainstream media...

cathy :-)


No mention of either Rathergate or the Swift Boats from the 2004 cycle.

That's how you can tell this story is written by someone really up on the new media..


"This new media becomes much more important to us because conservatives have been more dominant in traditional media," said Simon Rosenberg, the president of the centrist New Democratic Network. "This stuff becomes really critical for us."

Hey's the Jakester


Well, better not to let the cat out of the bag about who dominates what, eh, C?


Conservatives have been more dominant in traditional media,"

Case in point: Their far-reaching power in getting Katie Couric the CBS anchor job.

Geez, this is getting too easy. It's like Liza Minnelli saying she's tired of sex.

Maybe we all need another diversion in our lives.

[I said "like", mind you]



It's like Liza Minnelli saying she's tired of sex.

Any wagers on whether that's the first Minnelli reference at this blog?

I always wanted to be first at something. Although, to be frank, this is really not what I had in mind.



"He repeats the observation that Dem blogs have dragged their party to the left"

There's different "lefts". Certainly dragged it to the upper/upper-middle class identity politics left of concerns about how people "feel" about us and implicit anti-americanism.

They can't discuss economics coherently except to ponder how unfair it would be that their illegal servant don't get every right to undercut the lower wage economy of this country. Until black politicians speak out and put whitey liberals to the test things will only get worse for the lower economic classes of this country.


Did you see Liza on Arrested Development? She was a hoot!


Man! There must be an April Fools overload on or something.

Would someone quote something from this guy's blog so I can be sure that I'm looking at the right blog and into the state of this man's mind hags?


Would someone quote something from this guy's blog so I can be sure that I'm looking at the right blog and into the state of this man's mind hags?

Sweet talk will not win you friends here.

Let me guess: you're visiting here from John Cole's blog, correct?

All the smoother talkers from that site like to drop in here.



I notice that Smooth Talker has got that 'J' thing going, too. What the heck is it with that letter?

cathy :-)


I have read JJ's post 7 times and I'm still not certain of what he's talking about.

This man? The state of this man's mind? The right blog?


richard mcenroe

"Until black politicians speak out and put whitey liberals to the test things will only get worse for the lower economic classes of this country."

Yep. I'm looking for the Congressional Black Caucus to get on that any day now...


No great mysteries! But thanks for the smooth compliment! (I mean it, you're all looking marvelous, have I told you that lately?)

guy = Adam N.

Check the memeorandum listing:

"Adam/Adam Nagourney's Personal Diary:
It's April fools- duh!
Discussion: Prairie Weather, JustOneMinute and Democrat Taylor Marsh"

TM mentions Adam's blog in opening sentence.

My eyes crossed reading it. For real-real? I know Adam is trying to be witty on April Fools. If this is the right Adam!

This is what happens when you've had too much April Fools, I suppose. Everything becomes a doppleganger.

If that is Adam's blog, Good Lord! The Times knows what this guy is cooking at home?



Alright let's work on the state of his mind. Hag: Is it female demon, or a woodlot, or a quagmire? Or are we haggling or harassing? We'll put that to one side for now. Quote...right blog.... mind state.....I think the poor thing thinks Adam's been mischaracterized. I dragged through the whole tedious thing to try to fathom JJ's point, and finally came swiftly to the conclusion that if JJ is trying to communicate, he's not trying hard enough.


Careful you don't see yourself coming and going, there.


I suppose that that means that the blog where the latest entry starts with "What up hags" is the right one, eh kim =======? It is in fact the Adam that writes for the NYT.

I certainly do not think Adam has been mischaracterized. If you look at the quality of his blog, can't you wonder how the Times would print his analysis?

OK, I'll do this slowly...

If Adam N. writes as he does in his blog and if the blog that Memorandum mentions is truly Adam's blog, then I find it difficult to believe that Adam is 1) a serious journalist and 2) that his stuff in the Times should be taken as quality political commentary.

Sheesh, you people deal with trolls too much or what?


You are not doing it slowly enough for me.


In the opening sentence, TM is saying Adam Nagourney writes ABOUT "Blogs and Politics". He provides a link to a NYTs article by Nagourney that discusses blogs and politics.
I am not understanding him to say Nagourney is blogging somewhere.

Do you see something different?


Next you'll try to tell me that the borogoves are all mimsy while I'm perfectly damned certain that the trove of bores is whimsy.


Ok, this is getting fun, but I'm using TM's bandwidth. I'll shut my grumpy head after this.

I am assuming that you found the listing for the Adam N. blog over at Memorandum.

The latest entry in his blog is titled "It's April Fools, duh"

The first line says "what up hags"

The quality of the writing is -- even as he attempts to be humorous -- not good. Comparable to what you say I am doing, maybe.

Then I looked at his work in the Times that is referenced above.

I am sorry, but the April Fools blog post bleeds through into the Times piece as I read it. I can't read the Times piece seriously because having just read the blog, it all sounds too similar. At this point, I don't think I can read an Adam N. article in the Times again and give it much credibility ...

How can the Times...


It was just an uffish thought that came whiffling through the tulgey wood and burbled as it came...


JJ:I am assuming that you found the listing for the Adam N. blog over at Memorandum.

No, I don't think that's a fair assumption.
But if you'd like to provide a link, it may all become clearer. You don't need to shut up (until TM tells you to, and that's rare), but perhaps you can see how your original post was met with some confusion.

Cecil Turner

I think JJ's point is that Adam Nagourney's fitness to comment for the Times on all things blogospheric is shaded somewhat by the strange crap he apparently thinks appropriate for blogging, as evidenced by the entries in his own odd blog. His latest, for example:

what up hags!
More proof that liberals have no sense of humor:( That ullltra liberal, in your face, Americablog guy fell for my April fools joke. I mean hello? I worte that piece almost 18 months ago. The f***ed up thing is I handed it in to the Times and they fell for it too. Eww. I hope I don’t get in trouble like Judy. [expletive censored]
The "hags" comment obviously refers to that post and its weirdness. Seems to me JJ is making a perfectly valid point, and paying the compliment of assuming his audience was better informed than it apparently was.


cecil:paying the compliment of assuming his audience was better informed than it apparently was

better informed? I could go with differently informed, but not better. I actually feel a little knowledge has been sucked from my skull after looking at that joke blog. But thanks for the link, Cecil!

Cecil Turner

I could go with differently informed . . .

You're right, of course. I was laboring under the misimpression those were actually Adam Nagourney's writings. (I plead severe jet lag after three weeks in Asia.) Never mind.


Hey Cecil- where in Asia were you? I just left Cambodia. It was only an overnight flight back, but honey I know the jet lag you are having right now, and it's ugly.

Cecil Turner

Osaka, Angeles City, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and Shanghai (and several trips back and forth between 'em and Anchorage). I figure I got about 40,000 air miles in; and my body clock is so whacked-out that the daylight savings shift was actually a bonus.


Ugh! I'm exhausted just reading it. Your body clock must be off, but what about your temperature clock? You went from hot to chilly to hot to cold. Yikes, take care of yourself. And I hope you did some shopping.

Cecil Turner

Shopped a little in Shanghai and Singapore, but I'm no good at it. (Too bad my wife didn't go, she'd have loved it.) Oh well.


I liked Ali Ali Achsenfri. Good one, JJ, subtle, but there were lots of clues.


this guy's blog so I can be sure that I'm looking at the right blog and into the state of this man's mind correctly..

Okay, "this guy's blog" refers to Nagourney's blog and not TM's blog. If one reads it as referring to TM's blog, an entirely different meaning can be made.

There was a study about a month ago that said roughly half the posts on the internet are misinterpreted by the readers.

Make that 50%+1.


Gabriel Sutherland

I lolled my way home over the weekend after stopping by the newstand prior to boarding my train. Pity it was to see the untouched stack of Sunday editions of the NY Times waiting for some poor soul to drop $5 to read.

It soon became obvious why the stack was untouched as I walked into the food court to see dozens of people punching away at their keyboards thanks to the free wifi service in the station and on the train.

They were reading the NY Times for free. Though, reading it, even on the Internet, acutally costs you time and stress, to say the least.


"I think JJ's point is that Adam Nagourney's fitness to comment for the Times on all things blogospheric is shaded somewhat by the strange crap he apparently thinks appropriate for blogging, as evidenced by the entries in his own odd blog."

SteveMG, that's it exactly.

"Okay, "this guy's blog" refers to Nagourney's blog and not TM's blog. If one reads it as referring to TM's blog, an entirely different meaning can be made."

Yes, and that's my bad, I suppose. Especially since I did say this incorrectly:

"TM mentions Adam's blog in opening sentence."

I assumed that the Ad Nag blog was all part of the consideration. Especially since Memorandum's reference to this site (JOM) was tied to Adam's blog.

Which was not a good assumption #2.

But as I said originally, there has been so much April Fools stuff, I begin to wonder when to pinch myself and when to take something seriously. I gawked at Adam's blog as something -- and I'm trying to be accurate and not snarky -- that a high school student would write. Difficult to take him seriously in *any* newspaper after reading it.

Now maybe this is a misplaced value judgment and Adam can journalistically shoot the eyes out of a gnat at two hundred yards while raging like a maniac, but...

"There was a study about a month ago that said roughly half the posts on the internet are misinterpreted by the readers."

Yes. I usually post comments directly -- or generally -- in response to the blogger's post unless directly addressing someone else. The comments section sometimes looks like a tennis match with many players volleying across the net at each other all at one time.

Ever see the Bugs Bunny cartoon about misplaced references where Daffy and Elmer continually blow themselves up because they can't get their pronoun references straight? Where's the transcript of that?

My humbler apologies and I will try not to blow myself up with confusing references again! ;)

...but I still wonder if that's the real Adam...

And did you notice that the reference to George Will's column at Memorandum has a pic of Jill Carroll next to it? The column is titled "Let Cooler Heads Prevail."

I can understand that mistake, but to add to the confusion, Will's column ends with this:

"About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the "problem" is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon.

Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism."

OK, this was in the Post, right? I'm pinching myself...

Jake - but not the one

Is that George Will, the climate scientist? hmmmm.

Some actual science.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change


Harry Arthur

Jake - bnto, pardon me for differing but the article you cite is emphatically not "actual science". It is an essay written by Naomi Oreskes, who in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego. We are not treated to her academic credentials or her "climate science" background.

I agree that Naomi has an opinion and cites a fair number of examples to support her opinion, but I would argue that in no sense is the opinion of the scientific field as monolithic as she claims. Furthermore, in more than one case she cites executive summaries to documents that are themselves more political statements than justified by the research attached.

As for whether Will is a "climate scientist", surely you know that many of the "scientists" who are prone to pontificate on all things warming are themselves emphatically not climate scientists. I would also suggest that the closer you get to the "climate science" end of this discussion, particularly the modeling, the more ambiguity regarding the long term warming trends and their source is to be found.

The best estimates of warming to date suggest about .5 degrees C warming in the next 50 years. Hardly something to be "very scared" about as the latest Time magazine scare campaign suggests.


OK, folks, it's simple. If you're not reading you are not getting the skinny. It's run by hockey stick debunkers who are very good statisticians and scientists, and who are both agnostic and curious about the anthropogenic component of 'Global Warming'. Other must reads include Patrick Michael's book 'Shattered Consensus'.

It appears to me that the only communities at guaranted risk from anthropogenic global warming are Dendropaleoclimatologists, and Carbon Creditors.

Ask TCO.


JJ, well now you are finally speaking slowly enough for me. I agree, it is indeed odd, and indeed a pearl. Look at the names of the commenters on his blog, and look at the volume and frequency of the commenters, and the original posts. I suspect it's brilliance.

Bienvenidos a CT. You know someone nominated you for Ben's replacement at the WaPo? I took that as an ethical statement as well as an intellectual statement, but I fear the ideology is a bit off. They say they are looking for a social conservative, but I'm certain they have no idea what they want.

Barney Frank

the idea that consensus =correctness is not revealed in the historical record, as the author admits. The 'scientific consensus'is more often than not completely overturned by a new pardigm; the big bang, quantum mechanichs or plate tectonics come to mind.
And the article's point is almost completely irrelevant anyway. The IIPC's conclusions are relatively non controversial and relatively modest;
A possible half degree warming is 'likley' to have been the result of anthropogenic causes. And this represents the 'current' thinking. Big deal. The author then draws her own conclusions. Even smaller deal.

The questions as to whether any models are even remotely useful for future projections, whether warming will be large, small, destructive, benign or beneficial, whether any anthropogenic warming will be more than offset by natural phenomena and most importantly whether there is anything we can do that would not either be far worse than the problem or have any effect at all are all open questions.
Just for instance, we hear dire warnings of the melting of Antarctic and Greenland ice. Yet in the last two decades as temperatures have seemingly warmed worldwide, over the interior of both areas temperatures have declined and in both areas the ice sheets are in fact growing. So contrary to the various models, increased CO2 has lowered polar temps and increased H2O trapped in polar ice, NYT headlines notwithstanding.
Consensus conshmensus.


You know you're getting old when you remember that the great concern was the approaching new ice age (Unfortunately, I remember--I was teaching physics).


Hey, Jake, call the police. The sky is falling through the roof of your house of cards that the hysterical have built on a batting of broken hockey sticks.


emphatically not "actual science".

Emphatically "jake science".

Ooops sorry for the typo, should be "junk science" ...


And before Jake trots in with the redundant Kos Dance routine about the hysterical news weekly cover, let me remind you the new Energy Department was advised in 1978 that we were in a warm interglacial period, and that another cooling was coming. The global warming meme only started in 1989. It's big crutch has been the tautological hockey stick, which has cracked and collapsed. The 'anthropgenic' component of so-called 'global warming' is barely guessed at by science, and the hoax that burning hydrocarbons is roasting us is largely derived from the unsupported and hysterical 'Summary for Policymakers', of the IPCC, a UN climate body. Do you begin to see where the skeletons are buried, and who is about to make killings in carbon credits?

Rick Ballard

I just wish it would stop raining in Northern California. I've been reviewing the requirements for an ark and I don't think my credit card will handle the action.

PS: Hi Jake! You're still a jerk. Keep up the flummery!


From the south, Ararat is easily the biggest mountain ever seen.

Jake - but not the one

Or, you could go to a site where, you know, actual climate scientists write -

The Real Climate site

Not to disparage Mack (climateaudit) - his points regarding that 8 year old study were well taken, and changes were made.

The results didn't change.



The results didn't change.

That's the problem. The result is an artifact of the analysis.

Post a link when both sides agree on a fair analysis and the results are reproducible regardless of POV.


Actually Jake, "RealClimate" is where junk scientists post about their discredited work without ever addressing the many statistical errors they have been caught hiding. McIntyre and McKitrick have shown the intentional and malicious misbehavior of Mann et al. Concealment of data and methods, misrepresentation of results and numerous violations of the protocol of the scientific method.

The claim by MBH that they have "fixed" the problems found has been refuted repeatedly. New repetitions of the "Hockey Stick" work repeat the bulk of the errors and finally, in Wahl and Amman's latest, admit that M&M's point about the lack of statistical robustness is true.

The claims of recent warming being somehow unprecedented are just junk science.


Memorable Quotes from
Rabbit Seasoning (1952) --

"Daffy is in a panic. It's the first day of duck hunting season, and Elmer Fudd has his shotgun loaded and ready. To save his own skin, Daffy tries to convince Elmer that it's actually rabbit season, and leads him to Bugs' hole. Bugs, naturally, turns the tables on Daffy in this classic animated feature."


Bugs Bunny: Would you like to shoot me now or wait 'til you get home?
Daffy Duck: Shoot him now! Shoot him now!
Bugs Bunny: You keep outta this! He doesn't have to shoot you now!
Daffy Duck: He does SO have to shoot me now!
[to Elmer]
Daffy Duck: I demand that you shoot me now!
[Elmer raises his gun. As Daffy sticks his tongue out at Bugs, he is shot]
Daffy Duck: Let'th run through that again.
Bugs Bunny: Okay.
[neutral toned]
Bugs Bunny: Wouldja like to shoot me now or wait till ya get home.
Daffy Duck: [neutral toned] Shoot him now, shoot him now.
Bugs Bunny: [neutral toned] You keep outta dis, he doesn't hafta shoot you now.
Daffy Duck: [with expression] HA! THAT'TH IT! HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!
[to audience]
Daffy Duck: Pronoun trouble.
[to Bugs]
Daffy Duck: It'th not "He doethn't have to shoot
[pointing to Bugs]
Daffy Duck: *you* now." It'th "He doethn't have to shoot
[pointing to himself]
Daffy Duck: *me* now."
[with anger]
Daffy Duck: Well, *I* thay he *does* have to shoot me now!
[to Elmer]
[Elmer shoots him]
Bugs Bunny: [Daffy stops short at Bugs] Yais?
Daffy Duck: [Daffy puts himself back into position] Ohhhhhhh, no you don't. Not agian. Thorry. Thith time we'll try it from the other end.
[to Elmer]
Daffy Duck: Look, you're a hunter, right?
Elmer Fudd: Wight.
Daffy Duck: And thith ith Rabbit Theathon, right?
Elmer Fudd: Wight.
Bugs Bunny: And if he was a rabbit, what would you do?
Daffy Duck: Yeah, if you're tho thmart, if I wath a rabbit, what *would* you do?
Elmer Fudd: Well, I'd...
Daffy Duck: [Elmer points his rifle at Daffy] Not again!
[BANG! Bill falls down and Daffy puts it on his mouth again. To Bugs]
Daffy Duck: Ha ha. Very funny. Ha ha ha ha.

Barney Frank


Article from Newsweek which highlights my point about "scientific consensus"......

"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

The only problem is, this is from a 1975 Newsweek cover story on global cooling.

I repeat, consensus, conshmensus.

JM Hanes


"The IIPC's conclusions are relatively non controversial and relatively modest"

The folks who are still outraged that the Prez ignored the footnotes in the NIE on Iraq ought to read the footnoted disclaimers in the gospel according to the IIPC. That's where the consensus seekers logged the disparities between observed phenomena & predictions, along with margins of error which sometimes exceed the differentials being posited -- not to mention the fact that we have approximately zero historical data from the entire southern hemisphere and no working model of key oceanic variables.

As you point out, the science to date has yet to provide a reliable basis for prediction. When it comes to hydrological systems alone, the Weather Channel's 7 Day Forecast is about as good as it gets. I personally believe that reducing pollution is a good thing generally, and may even be an urgent necessity, but we desperately need mo' betta modeling if we hope to avoid solutions -- like Kyoto's whole carbon credit scheme -- based on a "scientific" theory which turns out to have been dead wrong.

Rick Ballard

Frankly, Barney, Jake ain't in the game.

(finally got to use that one)

Harry Arthur

JJ, I'm still trying to figure out your point (metaphor?). Funny, though. I'm a large fan of BB.

"Of course you know, this means war!" is probably my favorite quotation in the entire known universe.

Harry Arthur

... ought to read the footnoted disclaimers in the gospel according to the IIPC. That's where the consensus seekers logged the disparities between observed phenomena & predictions, along with margins of error which sometimes exceed the differentials being posited -- not to mention the fact that we have approximately zero historical data from the entire southern hemisphere and no working model of key oceanic variables.

Excellent observations. Yet we have the cover of Time magazine virtually screaming: "Be afraid, Be VERY afraid." poppycock!

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" ... literally.

JM Hanes


I wouldn't even really mind the fear mongering if I thought it would result in more $$ for developing the climate modeling we really need. Unfortunately, it's pretty hard to lobby for more research when you're competing with a major political movement dedicated to claiming that the science has already been done.


developing the climate modeling we really need

Climate modeling will never work for prediction. Cloud formation is a chaotic system. The need for good climate models will arise when there is technology for controlling cloud formation from space. Then they will be part of the control loop and quality improvements evaluated by how well they work in that application.


The whole "consensus" argument takes on a different spin when you realize the climate models all use adaptations of the same computer code. History of the NCAR Community Climate Model

When you run the same code over again, it is not hugely surprising that you get the same answer...

cathy :-)

Harry Arthur

JMH, I see your point. My problem with the so-called science is that it has arguably become politicized to the extent that one doesn't really know what to believe. I'm not sure the "experts" themselves know what they don't know, or at least won't admit it in mixed company. That tends to be dangerous to the science being "done" and for public policy makers in reliance on the science in creating responses ... or not.

Of course we also have self-proclaimed "experts" such as Al Gore and others who proclaim that human-caused global warming is obviously a "fact" with which no one can rationally disagree. To a limited extent the article to which I responded above is an example of this mindset in the student who wrote it. Time magazine's hysteria is another example, though I would be reluctant to believe much if any of what any journalist has to say on the subject.

As boris suggests, we don't have a model that models clouds at all, and may never have the computing power to model clouds because they are extremely complex and possibly too chaotic. I've read some suggestions that clouds may form in "response" to local warming, actually acting as natural heat sinks. Who knows?

Or we might someday just connect the dots after all. For this we want to create public policy that places our worldwide economy at risk? I would agree that we ought to at least see where we can take the modelling, but accompanied with a very large dose of common sense and self-restraint.

Harry Arthur

cathyf, another point is that the more they improve on the model, i.e., more variables, more computing power, etc, it seems that the less warming is predicted. This causes my "common sense meter" to fluctuate some.


CNN just reported that the Capital Police have asked the Justice Dept to issue an Arrest Warrant for
Cynthia McKenney.

She and her attorney are on live and attorney is saying this is not


Don't forget 24 is on tonight and Prison Break at 8:00pm.

JM Hanes


"For this we want to create public policy that places our worldwide economy at risk?"

I certainly agree with you on this (and on the damaging impact of politicization too).

Harry Arthur

Wait until the hurricane season heats up this year. As scientists well know there is a hurricane cycle that lasts approximately two decades (plus or minus). Believe it or not we are at the end of a "calm" cycle. As we experience more Katrina type hurricanes in the coming two decades (or so) you can bet that we will hear repeatedly that it's all due to CO2-induced global warming.

Add to this cycle that as our population has grown, and the hurricane cycle has been on the bottom end of the curve, more and more people have relocated to the beautiful coastal areas that are the natural barriers for these storms.

If you want to be "very scared" about something, now there's something to worry about, especially if you live in one of these areas. For the rest of us, we will just have to pay the bills.


The NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a hundred million dollar a year National Science Foundation project, is being put out for competitive bid. RFP are due in around 6 months, but some sort of statement of capability is due on May 1st of this year. Details at Scroll down.

SPQR et al have it right. is the debunkers site, realclimate is the debunkees. Both are fascinating.


Alright, Jake, the Senate and the People of Rome as well as the commenters, universally, haave trashed RealClimate and Mann. I have called him the Piltdown Mann, but I think someone thought that was a bit personal and deleted it. I've also said that whenever Mann speaks, somewhere something sentient freezes.

The pressure of carbon two oxygen rises,
Making the rings of bristlecones thicker.
We'll lose billions of dollars at Kyoto bicker,
To thinner the rings of pine trees aginner.

The hockey stick, and much of the 'proof' for Anthropogenic global warming comes down to thickening rings in a particular series of bristlecone pines in one habitat, believe it or not. The crowning irony is that the same series have been studied to evaluate the fertilizing effect of CO2 on bristlecone pines, and hence, ring width. It is hard to believe that so-called 'anthropogenic' global warming is based on such thin scientific ice. It is tautological, and fraudulent. But, there it is.

Be a big boy, Jake, and check it out yourself. Don't depend on the pap already processed for you and lovingly dribbled in your gullet. They think they are looking out for you, but doesn't your mind want to fly free?


Going to have catch "Prison Break" on the DVD's.

Might also tell Jake to check into all the elites making a ton of bucks on the whole envioro thing. The Kennedy son is great example - they serve on numerous boards or as consultants, whatever, to many so the numeration looks reasonable until you add up what they are making a year.

Wish I had earmarked the list I saw on Kennedy. But it is not just him. Guess the trust fund isn't enought even with all the companies offshore and other manipulations the Kennedy's have done to not pay taxes.

But their "hearts are pure" and they are "doing it for our own good" so it is fine.


Jake - but not the one

Oh my, kim, but I did go check it out. I SAID I WENT AND CHECKED IT OUT.

And it's ok. Sort of.

But Realclimate is the real thing. Along with Prometheus.



RealClimate has some real science but has the skepticism re the hockey stick, and Steve McIntyre is dead right and Mann is dead wrong. It is that simple. Check it out, some MORE.

Jake - but not the one

Scepticism is good. It's healthy.

So get some.

And get real.

Climate, that is.



Beto Ochoa

Zell Miller; right.
Don't matter a hoot what you say.
The Shamans have said the earth will burn by the sun till the grass bursts into flame in the field. So kiss some generations' ass good-bye. After that Shangri-la.
But for now, remember the words of one of the greatest poet warriors who ever lived, Lt Ronald Speirs.
"We're all scared. You hid in that ditch because you think there's still hope. But Blithe, the only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead. And the sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier is supposed to function. Without mercy. Without compassion. Without remorse. All war depends on it."
In other words, you're already dead;
what are you going to do about it?!

Jake - but not the one

Well, Beto, I don't know if knowing you are dead means acting without compassion, even for soldiers. It does mean acting in complete accordance with your own beliefs - there is no reason to do otherwise.

Because if there is a reason for war, for us to be at war, it is to reduce suffering, to increase freedom, and so to act as a soldier is to act with compassion, as a surgeon cuts away the diseased flesh to save the being's life itself is an act of compassion.

Ok, she gets paid for it real well, too. But income comes second.

I hope. OTOH, if she does a good job at competetive prices, compassion may be optional.

There's always room for the hired gun.



Dear Kim:

Are you alleging that one bristlecone study differed from another because the author was looking for the "CO2 growth effect" and the other was not? That the one that found increased growth rings just happened to be by the scientist looking for the hypothesied growth effect? Are you accusing him of lying? Lets be fair, he just saw what he wanted to see. :)

Next you'll be suggesting that if the data from that one proxy is removed from the tree ring/CO2/Average Global warming study it the science shows there is no AGW different than long term historical data! How very un PC of you! Next you'll be alleging all these "models" take into account this fraudulent science!

/sarc - the truth is the Kyoto financial interests are debasing science about global warming but reducing pollution, not just CO2, is a good and just cause anyway.


Yes, Harry, Bugs is the rabbit.

Daffy was having trouble tracking pronouns and using good references. Just following up an earlier post.

However, keeping references straight is a predominant problem. George Will's column, for example. Will was not commenting on science, Jake, but on journalists who become authoritative on climate science with a journalism degree.

At any rate, TM can track references like nobody's business.(John Hannah?)


There is special irony in your use of the term 'peer review'. It is becoming evident that part of the reason that the phony hockey stick made such a splash was precisely because peer review, at least among Dendropaleoclimatologists, was pitifully inadequate.

This exchange has proven illlustrative. Higher in the thread, SPQR made a series of allegations about climate and the hockey stick. I don't know who SPQR is, but he/she is right on. You, Jake, have not responded to him/her, or the issues raised by other posters around then. You've merely touted the realclimate site in an ignorant sort of appeal to authority. It is obvious that those 5-6 posters know exactly what kind of mess dendropaleoclimatology is in right now, and you haven't a clue. You are spouting someone else's crap. Look at it yourself.


Since you've checked it out, answer this simple question. Do computer models adequately model the Arctic Oscillation? Or this more complicated one. How do the models deal with convection within the atmosphere?


Talk to me about water. Is it's vapor a greenhouse gas? Do clouds reflect energy or keep it in, or both? Is energy convection within the ocean understood, or the energy interface between ocean and atmosphere.

You have noted cf's remark about the antique Fortran modeling? Would you take an old flivver like that on a transcentury trip?

Jake - but not the one

kim, do you imagine for a second that fortran is antique because it is old? Do you have any clue as to how many mathematical algorithms have been built in Fortran and tested and tested and tested, just so they will be reliable and useful? Do you imagine that because we don't understand everything we don't understand anything?

Do you fly in airplanes, kim? Do you know that we can't yet model airflow around the wings perfectly, that we still make windtunnel models to actually TEST what occurs? Just so you know, the mathematical models are done in Fortran.

Your basic contention remains that scientists don't know what they are talking about. I call bs. What they don't know is everything.

Well, duh.

You can pull up all the bs bits and pieces of data from whatever hack site you want, and it's all been addressed, ad nauseum, by the people who care about the science, not about the outcome.

It's not up to me to prove you wrong. It's up to you to satisfy your own curiosity. It's plain to me your curioisty is not quite as strong as your partisanship.

But as I've said about a dozen times here on JOM, time will tell, eh? I don't have to show you anything - the climate will do what it's going to do.

In ten years or less, most new power plants in the US are going to be coal fired and they are going to have CO2 capture and sequestration. Many older coal plants will be retrofitted. It will cost huge amounts of money - and a lot of it will simply go into a hole in the ground (literally). But at least there will be no blood spent to put CO2 into that hole, and the money will be part of an energy program, you know, like the Bush HASN'T put together.

The science has left you behind, kim.

Catch up, will ya? You're embarrassing the rest of us.



Newer computers running antique fortran doesn't improve the result. You just get the wrong answer faster.

If it's still the fake answer you're hoping for, then by all means pretend it's newer better and more important.

Jake - but not the one

boris, what is antique about fortran? I don't get it. Clearly, you don't get it. The analytical tools that are written in fortran continue to be used for the kinds of reasons you all are whining about - so that there are NO questions about whether it is the tool, or the data. The tools are PROVEN.

And besides, the fortran compilers are written to generate extremely fast code, so that more data can be handled in less time on whatever piece of computer junk to which you have access. It only makes sense.

Guys, this is a loser argument. Fortran is part of the solution, not part of the problem. I am sure there are other programs, including new ones, that could work equally well - but the tools that already exist in fortran represent an immense effort over decades - why throw that away?



Are you pretending or really that thick?

The fortran that's antique is the code. Same old code. An accurate translation into Java++ would still give the same old fake result.

Not everyone can be expected to "get" geekspeak, but comeon, that's lame. Learn the lingo or drop the act.


Clue: The fact that it was written in fortran give's away it's age. Sort of like remembering Buddy Holly.

Barney Frank


Upthread there I was speaking of the body of the IIPC report as being modest and non controversial.
The conclusionary footnotes which caused such a division are an example of how science is politicised by conflating the known, modest science with the advocate's desired conclusion. And this part of the report was properly disowned by those scientists without an agenda.

Jake - but not the one

boris, you just don't get it, do you?

The code to which you object was used to mathemetically model airplanes, nuclear reactions, beer cans, and almost everything else that can be considered as engineered.

So if you are so worried about the code, don't fly anwhere, don't use a microwave, and don't drink any beer.

Not that your lack of belief in the efficacy of fortran code changes anything. You being wrong rarely confuses reality - or maybe never is more accurate.


Harry Arthur

Barney, excellent point. I think I touched on the same idea up thread in my response regarding the Science essay. This is one of the serious failings in this whole science debate. The scientists (most of them at any rate) do the best the can with the data they have. The closer they are to "climate experts" the more they realize the limitations of the data and their conclusions. The problem generally arises when the "executive summaries" are written with underlying agendas.

The real politicians, particularly in the international bodies, and more particularly in the UN, then take the "executive summaries" and use them to cram this, now politicized "science" down our throats. Don't for a minute assume that the UN and the EU don't have anti-US economic agendas behind their posturing on Kyoto. Kyoto would allow them level the economic playing field by bringing our economy down to their level.

Why else would their typical response to any level of doubt or disagreement be so ad hominem? This whole anthropomorphic warming issue has even taken on many characteristics of religious fervor. The media are willing participants. So-called journalists ponificate on subjects about which they know just enough to be dangerous as if they were experts. They are willing participants in the deception, yet they, themselves don't know what they don't know, mostly, I would assert, due to their laziness and their herd mentality.

Harry Arthur

We're still using Fortran to design airplanes? B-777? A-380? B-787?

Jake - but not the one

I can't tell you what the EU uses, but as for the US, yes. Fortran is used in all kinds of engineering and in all kinds of mathematics.

I don't even get the idea of antique as applying to something that has been continuously refined for 50 years. It is a TOOL. One that has been error checked and standardized. Those are GOOD things, not things to which anyone should object.

Do we still use wheels? Hell yeah. Because the wheel still works great. Well, Fortran may be almost as old as the wheel, but it too still works GREAT.


Jake - but not the one

A bit for Sue from the latest SciAm -

From an article by:

"JAMES HANSEN is director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a researcher at the Columbia University Earth Institute. He received his Ph.D. in physics and astronomy from the University of Iowa, where he studied under James Van Allen. Hansen is best known for his testimony to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped to raise awareness of the global warming issue."

“The warming of the past century is just a natural rebound from the little ice age.” Any rebound from the European little ice age, which peaked in 1650–1750, would have been largely complete by the 20th
century. Indeed, the natural long-term climate trend today would be toward a colder climate were it not for human activities.

“Isn’t human-made global warming saving us from the next ice age?” Yes, but the gases that we have added to the atmosphere are already far more than needed for that purpose.

So, Sue, to answer your earlier question, we WERE headed back to an ice age 30 years ago, but now we're not, and the difference is angthropogenic global warming.

Happy now?

And he isn't so doom and gloom either. Here is his concluding paragraph:

"How can I be optimistic if climate is closer to the level of dangerous anthropogenic interference than has been realized? If we compare the situation today with that 10 to 15 years ago, we note that the main elements required to halt climate change have come into being with remarkable rapidity. I realize that it will not be easy to stabilize greenhouse-gas concentrations, but I am optimistic because I expect that empirical evidence for climate change and its impacts will continue to accumulate and that this will influence the public, public-interest groups, industry and governments at various levels. The question is: Will we act soon enough?"

And finally, he comments specifically about the most accurate information coming from climate data, including paleodata. Models are instructive and getting better, but the empirical data alone is sufficent to point the finger at anthropogenic causes of global warming.



LOL. We staved off an ice-age. I wondered about that earlier, wasn't there someone out there that would make the claim that we did it, we really did it. We just went too far.

Jake - but not the one

Uh, and, uh, Sue, I misspoke, it isn't a recent SciAm, unless Mar of '04 counts as recent. :)



What's the matter Jake? Did I not take the bait? ::grin::

Jake - but not the one

Here is a true Mar '06 article, and one not behind a subscription barrier.

Climate Model Predicts Greater Melting, Submerged Cities

A little more doomish and gloomish than the other article, at least if a 13 to 20 foot increase in sea level is a bad thing.


Jake - but not the one

No bait, Sue. I followed a link from a current Mar article to another "Mar" article but failed to note the year.


Gary Maxwell

I wonder why Mars is warming? Must be those Martians are creating too many greehhouse gases and screwing up Paradise. I totally reject any correlation to sun spot activity. That is just so foolish that no one with any sense would even contemplate such a thing.



I imagine there is a perfectly valid reason for Mars to be warming, but what I want to know is what caused the last ice age/global warming? I have my suspicions, but some would poo-poo the idea that Fred Flintstone's smoking feet-brakes contributed to it.

Barney Frank

And here Jake is an article that answers, persuasively I believe, the article you linked to.

Sorry. I'm not skilled enough for a hot link. My expertise is with large, yellow diesel machines not little, gray electrical ones.

Barney Frank

I think that link got cut off but you can google the site and find it pretty easy.

Jake - but not the one

Oh, yeah, make fun of the so called lefty. Do you two pull the wings off of flies as well?



The comments to this entry are closed.