What Is "Unequivocal" About Climate Change? (The Times Goes Into The Dunk Tank)

In the run up to Copenhagen the NY Times pairs embattled environmental reporter Andrew Revkin with The Dean, John Broder, to assess the state of consensus on climate change and the human contribution thereto.

The Times does OK in their lead paragraph:

Just two years ago, a United Nations panel that synthesizes the work of hundreds of climatologists around the world called the evidence for global warming “unequivocal.”

And so they did - the IPCC said it that the evidence of warming was "unequivocal" and that it was "very likely" (more than 90% probability) that humans were contributing to that result. 

The WaPo got this wrong in their opening a few weeks back, which is why I happen to be obsessing about this just now.  The Times is accurate in their lead paragraph but drives into the warming mists in paragraph fourteen (my emphasis):

For many, a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a marker of a shift in the global warming debate. In it, the panel — a volunteer network of hundreds of scientists from many disciplines who meet periodically to review climate studies and translate the results into language useful to policy makers — concluded that no doubt remained that human-caused warming was under way and that, if unabated, it would pose rising risks.

"No doubt"?  I have my doubts about that sentence.  And unless there is a UN resolution opining that all probabilities greater than 90% equal one, then the IPCC acknowledged a smidgen of doubt about the human influence on global warming.

Comments

[Thomas Collins]

See LUN for the Climate Scientology outrage of the day. It looks as if the EPA is going to finalize its "air is pollution" regs.

[Thomas Collins]

I know lawyers and lawyering are not popular with a lot of my friends at JOM, but if the EPA does finalize its air regs, we will all be relying on relentless lawyering by the lawyers representing the parties suing to challenge the EPA's action.

[Rick Ballard]

It's good to see that Revkin knows how to roll over for a tummy scratch after being threatened by a Climate Scientologist bully. I suppose we could say that the fact that he's a coward is unequivocable but it would only be as true as the consensus on climate change.

[peter]

Here's a more nuanced version of faked, but accurate: LUN

[Thomas Collins]

It appears as if Val Putin's Russian hackers have done more to disseminate info on this fraud than our mainstream media (with the honorable exception of the WSJ).

[clarice]

I think the EPA is making this announcement to help O at Copenhagen--it still hasn't actually issued anything and when it does it will be tied up in court for ages. More flufferdoodle.

[Thomas Collins]

I hope you're right, clarice. But if EPA does issue it with an immediate effective date, do you think the federal courts will enjoin enforcement pending the litigation?

[Captain Hate]

I hesitate to ask what is probably a very obvious question but: Is typepad acting worse than ever today?

[RichatUF]

TC-

I'm skeptical it was Russian hackers in the pay of the Russian government. The AGW scheme is good for the Russians. A better bet, if one wanted to look at a state-based conspiracy, would be France.

Environmentalism is the biggest opponent of nuclear power and if France could dislodge them, France would have a huge lead on nuclear exports (both the technical side for plant and equipment and the fuel side through their African colonies). France would also be able to rub Obama's nose in another failed international conference and would then be able to bend and guide the successor environmentalist movement once the discredited British and American "scientists" are removed.

[RichatUF]

Note on my last: I believe that it was an inside job, a disgruntled grad assistant or staffer, not a state-based conspiracy. I'm just helping Sue with her conspiracy theory and France never seems to get the attention she deserves.

[Rick Ballard]

The case for it being a whistleblower.

Rich,

I agree re Russians (or Saudis). It just doesn't make a lick of sense for them to do this. I can go along with someone on the inside with a very healthy sense of fear re the Climate Scientologist Mafia. Especially when the Climate Scientologists are backed by thieving pols desperate for more money to throw away.

[pagar]

TC, I'm not so sure that the courts can be counted on. Remember how they found that stockholders had no standing in the GM/Chryser bankruptcy, or that American citizens had no standing in determining if Obama has the necessary documents to be president.
Big government com. is reporting that the judge in the trial of the former NY Speaker Bruno is apparently so anti-defendant that he will not allow a hung jury. Even thro the judge should have never taken the case.

IMO, the days when we could depend on the courts to protect Americans are gone.

[Joan of Argghh!]

The IPCC can say whatever it wants. Until they can prove it, they may as well tell us to worship fire.

As one wag put it: That is not science, that is religion with math equations.

[clarice]

I think the courts would get involved on this one..and pagar I think you are far too pessimistic.

[Old Lurker]

Pagar...or that a town can take property from a homeowner and give it to a developer who promises more tax income, even when they don't.

[pagar]

"The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering"

Pajamas Media's thoughts from Nopenhagen

[Jim]

This is why the msm are no longer news reporters. They given that up to become propagandists.

[Frau Nebenan]

A comment from peter's link about rhymster Goracle:
"I read his crap he needs a slap Then we will know why the shepherd cries."

[Charlie (Colorado)]

TC, the Rooskis-did-it theory has been vaguely popular for a while, but honestly it's not very probable, just like the theory that Jim Hansen did it that was around for a few days before. But constructing that file would have been some significant work and signidicant time; the emails were clearly very carefully selected. I think it's *far* more likely that the FOIA files were really assembled to respond to an FOIA request, and then either released by a whistleblower or accidentally disclosed.

On the whistleblower side, there was a lot of stuff being passed around through Turkish and Russian servers, but that's not evidence for the Russian government having done it; the hacking l337 community has plenty of knowledge of those sorts of cutouts themselves. I'd bet that whoever did it just new enough to know how to cover tracks.

[boris]

"may as well tell us to worship fire"

Not bad rock tune in its day (68).

[daddy]

Rick Moran has 2 good articles up at American Thinker, 1 of which says its been 12 days since the CRU E-mail document dump.

Can it really only have been 12 day?

Seems a lifetime to me.

[daveinboca]

This self-selecting "volunteer network of hundreds of scientists from many disciplines" had only one entrance requirement---a religious belief that climate is ruled by mankind, not by the Sun-God, whose sunspots are almost certainly the chief culprit for 99% of any temp increases worldwide.

[cf. "maunder minimum" in Google]

[clarice]

Chaco, remember the first effort was with the BBC and only when the BBC refused to print the emails were they sent to that Russian site.

[daddy]

And can you imagine if you're the leaker having probably risked life and limb to funnel them to the BBC, and then waiting and waiting...and waiting......and waiting.......and waiting........... and waiting.....................and finally going WTF?

I just gave the BBC the story of the Century, and they're sitting on it! Man, the rots even worse than I thought.

[Thomas Collins]

RichatUF and Rick and CHACO, if it's a Whistleblower, I hope he or she is keeping his or her lips wet for another toot on the whistle. Pagar, I agree that the courts might let us down, but I'm hoping someone out there closes down this fraud.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Can it really only have been 12 day?

No. My first article was on 20 November, and was actually submitted 19 November about 2200 MST. That makes it 19-20 days.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Here's a more extensive argument for it being a purposeful leak. He missed on sort of obvious point, that the file names are UNIX time stamps, but it's otherwise sound.

[daddy]

Does anyone know off the top of their heads if Newt is still singing his belief in AGW and Carbon offsets etc, or has he wised up due to the data-dump?

I'm too lazy to look it up myself and don't really care that much about it or him, so answer please only if its no bother.

[clarice]

Yeah, daddy. It's not like how many women Tiger's been sleeping with or anything.

[Extraneus]

Seems like they'd be all over the quest to find the culprit who exposed the files, right? The news would help deflect attention from the contents of the files. Yet, if it was an insider, that person might say even more once exposed, so maybe they're not looking so hard.

The file structure seems to indicate that it was pulled together in response to a FOI request (directory names "FOI2009" and "FOIA"). Wouldn't they'd already know whose job that was?

[Extraneus]

Well, Clarice, like I heard on Pandora.com the other night, if you gotta have a woman, might as well have five, cause two might quit ya, and three might die.

[clarice]

How was the file copy of the FOIA response kept? Was it maintained insecurely? How many people had access to it? My hunch is still that it is that file and someone in counsel's office leaked it when it was clear the CRU was going to stonewall and destroy data in clear violation of its legal responsibilities/..
Just a hunch.

I do not think it was someone in the lab.

[windansea]

yeah right Clarice

you want the hero to be a lawyer
:)

they (UEA) already know it was a prepared FOI file

reading the thread at WUWT and comments, it's either a leak or the file was placed on an open FTP server and grabbed

the russian server where it was placed for internet dump is just someone covering their tracks

[clarice]

ore likely a staffer in the legal officve--and the story will be that it was inadvertently placed on an open server..when it may or may not have been done deliberately but someone angry about the flouting of the law.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Yeah, daddy. It's not like how many women Tiger's been sleeping with or anything.

Hey, if he can just get endorsement contracts for vitamins and Viagra, he'll make a fortune.

[Sue]

Very odd that Kim is still missing in action.

[daddy]

Am not a golfer Clarice but if a guy should be a 1 holer and it turns out he's a 7 holer, is that like a sextupple Bogey over Par?

[Blue]

EPA chief: The hacked emails change nothing
http://thehill.com//blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/70943-epa-chief-the-hacked-emails-dont-change-a-thing

Jackson said:

“There is nothing in the hacked emails that undermines the science upon which this decision is based,” Jackson said in announcing the finding this afternoon. She said the controversial messages dealt with only a tiny fraction of the strong evidence of global warming.

No one voted for govt. control of the economy that will result. None of our representatives voted. BIG "taxation" without representation moment. Time for a HUGE Tea Party

[clarice]

Yes, I think so , too, Sue.
Daddy, I'm not a golfer either so I couldn;t say.

Re the EPA MSNBC reports:
"The EPA and the White House have said regulations on greenhouse gases will not be imminent even after an endangerment finding, saying that the administration would prefer that Congress act to limit such pollution through an economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Nevertheless, the EPA has begun the early stages of developing permit requirements on carbon dioxide pollution from large emitters such as power plants. The administration also has said it will require automobile fuel economy to increase to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2016, another push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

The EPA's readiness to tackle climate change is expected to give a boost to U.S. arguments at the climate conference opening in Copenhagen this week that the United States is making broad commitments to reduce greenhouse gases.

While the House has approved climate legislation that would cut emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and about 80 percent by mid-century, the Senate has yet to take up the measure amid strong Republican opposition and reluctance by some centrist Democrats.
"

If you think the obamacare fight is big, watch this one.

[Sue]

Does Tom have access to Kim's email address?

[Jane]

The White House has declared CO2 dangerous.

Perhaps we will be told not to breath. This lets the government take control of absolutely everything.

[Sue]

Jane,

Will you represent me in the lawsuit I am about to file? There is someone breathing on me.

[Jane]

Absolutely Sue - let's make it a class action.

[Sue]

Just think of the money we could make with all these people breathing on us. The subway ride alone could be worth billions if not trillions.

[Sue]

Let's make Al Gore a named defendant. As fat as he is, he is bound to be breathing on someone.

[PDinDetroit]

Am not a golfer Clarice but if a guy should be a 1 holer and it turns out he's a 7 holer, is that like a sextupple Bogey over Par?

It would be, except Tiger is now at 10 Over Par. LUN.

[Sue]

For the record, I don't think Al Gore is fat. I don't like calling people fat even when that person is stinky Al Gore. Lord, I apologize for talking about Al Gore that way, and be with the starving pygmies down there in New Guinea. Amen.

[clarice]

Whoa! SCAM Ltd. will sell you a breathing warrant for just pennies a breath. Contact us now and avoid needless and exoensive litigation defense costs.

[daddy]

It's double figures now!----and she only beat him up with an 8 Iron?

My wife would have been using a Big Bertha Driver, titanium shaft, the whole bit, then done a face dance in spiked golf shoes.

[glasater]

Sue @ 4:57--now that I'm up from the floor from laughing.........

I had time to see Tiger's #10 unidentified mistress:

"......reported in a UK paper to be a “sex-addicted cougar.”

Let's hear it for those terrifically sexy older women........

[JM Hanes]

Charlie:

My first reaction to the Russian theory in the article I read, was that the journalists or the paper involved might not be all that familiar with how the internet works. Am I wrong in thinking that folks often use Russian servers when they want to cover their tracks?

[JM Hanes]

daddy:

"Can it really only have been 12 day?"

No, it's been closer to three weeks, and perhaps somewhat more. The doc dump started really circulating in the blogosphere on Nov. 17th.

[Elliott]

It would be, except Tiger is now at 10 Over Par.

He's made the turn and is on the second nine.

[DrJ]

Just getting back on the Internet. We had a huge dump of global warming yesterday -- five or six inches -- that was the biggest snowfall in 20 years. We had electricity and telephone, but everything else was down.

When I moved here about 10 years ago, the area received a dusting of snow every few years. The last three or four have been much worse, capped by yesterday.

I know, it's only weather.

[daddy]

"Can it really only have been 12 day?"

If these Tiger gals keep jumping out of the woodwork, maybe my "12 day" should be changed to "12 a day".

[Kathy Kattenburg]

Tom, "the Dean" is David Broder. It's possible John Broder is related (I've actually never heard of him), but he's not the Dean.

[JM Hanes]

Should have read the thread instead of posting on the fly! I'm been worrying about ==== myself, although I was somewhat reassured by the fact that Nov. 17th was also last day that ==== posted here. I figured that ==== was just deep into the CRU weeds somewhere, but it's been an awfully long time. I remember ==== disappearing for quite awhile before, and haven't tried to do an organized search, but I haven't noticed any comments on the central skeptic blogs either, which is pretty unsettling.

[JM Hanes]

On the insider/outsider front, I don't know anything about hacking as a technical matter, but I'll opine anyway! If a hacker was responsible for getting all the documents out, it would have to have been a hacker who knew what he/she was looking for, not just someone who could ferret out the necessary passwords and get into the server(s).

If there weren't an existing FOIA file, I'm not sure how a real outsider could have put the inflammatory stuff together piecemeal, especially considering the long timeline the selected documents represent. It seems like it would take a lot of clandestine time inside the system to do it too.

Considering the content, the docs that actually came out strike me as a highly selective compilation too, even if there were a readymade FOIA collection somewhere. It would surely have included a whole lot more than the smoking gun that was produced for internet consumption.

I'd also think the authors of the emails would have been a lot more nervous than they appeared to be, if they thought all their "private" communications were already part of an FOIA package. I suspect that would have made it tricky to delete them, as contemplated, if it meant messing around with designated FOIA files ex post facto. The emails about essentially suborning the FOIA arbiter seemed much more focused on trying to avoid having to produce their data -- very little of which was actually included in the dump, if my impression is correct.

[clarice]

I agree,JMH. Let's hope he/she's is just maintaining a prudent radio silence.

[MayBee]

When was it that ===== was excited about something breaking on Watt's blog? I remember ==== asking if anybody else had read something big was about to break there, and eagerly waiting to see what it was. Seems like it was about 2 months ago, but it could have been longer.
Hmmm.

[mockmook]

MayBee,

That was probably the discovery that the trees that show the "hockey stick" were not selected randomly; they were a select few that fit the "science" of AGW.