Subscribe to EspressoPundit

« Malcolm Hughes Responds | Main | Avatar...Ishtar...Whatever »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Shelton's letter was actually very good and shows an understanding of the issues and science that are severely lacking in many of the critics. Rather than the segments of the stolen emails quoted here showing something negative, they in fact show the researchers willingness to express doubts, question hypotheses, and vigorously debate points with each other instead of being blind to different views. This is in fact good science.

Todd's a funny guy.

I guess this programmer is awesome, since he was willing to express his doubts.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/16/video-east-anglia-crus-below-standard-computer-modeling/

elephant - he is right, the code is not well-commented. programmers have lot's of poorly commented code sitting on their hard drives. how about someone showing that 1) this code was even used for anything and 2) if actually used for something, show how the code introduced any type of error in the graph that was produced. having done steps 1 and 2 maybe we can talk about the source code. until then, this argument is entirely meaningless.

Todd is a funny guy.
The emails seem to have been systematically prepared; perhaps for a Freedom of Information request?
Todd, if those guys were practicing "good science" by your definition, I don't want to buy what they are selling which is junk science.

MORE FANCY FRUIT!

Another Al Gore Reality Check: “Rising tree mortality”?

In this Reuters story (15 December 2009) they report: “Describing a ‘runaway melt’ of the Earth’s ice, rising tree mortality and prospects of severe water scarcities, Gore told a UN audience: ‘In the face of effects like these, clear evidence that only reckless fools would ignore, I feel a sense of frustration’ at the lack of agreement so far.”


Satellite data for the real world (not the one Mr. Gore lives in) can help give us an idea.
Globally net primary productivity (NPP) has increased. As the IPCC’s WG II report (p. 106) says:

Satellite-derived estimates of global net primary production from satellite data of vegetation indexes indicate a 6% increase from 1982 to 1999, with large increases in tropical ecosystems (Nemani et al., 2003) [Figure 1]. The study by Zhou et al. (2003), also using satellite data, confirm that the Northern Hemisphere vegetation activity has increased in magnitude by 12% in Eurasia and by 8% in NorthAmerica from 1981 to 1999

Amazon rain forests accounted for forty two
percent of the increased growth.

Wouldn't it have been nice if conservatives had put this much passion and energy into examining the Bush administration's fraudulent evidence of WMD's and the alleged "connection" between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 attack? Perhaps we wouldn't be stuck in a hopeless quagmire in Iraq. Wouldn't it have been nice if the mainstream media had given the Downing Street Memo as much attention as it has given to Climategate? The smoking gun showing the manipulation of evidence to lead our country into a war based on lies was totally ignored. There's been little to no attention given to Tony Blair's recent admission that the whole WMD's fraud wasn't really the basis for the invasion of Iraq. I can't wait to hear his testimony next month. When do we get to put Bush, Cheney, and Rummy on the stand?

Gregor Mendel manipulated his data as well. The Mendelian Laws of Inheritance and the entire science of genetics were not invalidated by his actions. The polar ice caps are still melting, fools. Maybe you should forward a copy of the emails to Santa Claus at the North Pole and ask him to tell the ice that it can stop melting now, it's all just a hoax. I assume you all believe in Santa Claus and creationism as well as WMD's and Sarah Palin.

From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:

• 1881: "This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting ..."

• 1932: "NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents"

• 1934: "New Evidence Supports Geology's View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer"

• 1937: "Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice."

• 1954: "The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future."

• 1957: "U.S. Arctic Station Melting"

• 1958: "At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago]."

• 1959: "Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?"

• 1971: "STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities"


Now that Mr. Woodman has called me a fool, I see his point: catastrophic man-made global warming must be real. Why, oh why, didn't anyone ridicule me sooner?

Robert Woodman: You're a typical leftist. You're losing the argument, so you change the subject and attack your opponents with irrelevant information. Global warming (now Global Climate Change) is a crock; just like Global Cooling was thirty years ago. Your side lost. Try something else.

RobJ - puzzle me this. If the term 'climate change' is so new, why is the 21 year old IPCC the Intergovermentall Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE?

Todd and Robert.

Read the New York Times chicken little quotes 1932-1959.

AND
Arctic Heats Up. Spitsbergen 1919 to 1939
On the 2nd of November 1922, The Washington Post published the following story: Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt”. The corresponding report in the Monthly Weather Review of November 1922 had also stated that the ice conditions in the Northern North Atlantic were exceptional; in fact, so little ice has never before been noted.


The Artic still has ICE in 2009!

No CO2 here.

Global Warming: Drip by drip, like a glacier melting in the sun, the claim that man is changing the climate is dissolving into irrelevance. The recent findings of Swiss researchers expose another hole.

Former Vice President Al Gore has for years warned that man-made global warming is melting the world's glaciers — a tactic commonly used by alarmists who want to whip up hysteria. Swiss researchers, however, have presented evidence that weakens the argument.

Scientists at Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology have found that solar activity caused Alpine glaciers to melt in the 1940s at rates faster than today's pace, even though it's warmer now.

The study found that the sun in the 1940s was 8% stronger than average and far more powerful than it is today. It also concluded that solar activity was weaker from the 1950s to the 1980s, an era in which the glaciers advanced.

Their finding validates other researchers who have said solar activity has a far greater impact on temperatures than human CO2 emissions.

This report from Zurich reminds us of another myth perpetrated by Gore. In his Academy Award-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," he contends the snowcap on Mount Kilimanjaro has retreated because of human greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet scientists have been telling a different story.

They say the melting on the 19,340-foot mountain has been going on for more than a century, beginning long before man accelerated CO2 emissions. They also report that temperatures at the top of Kilimanjaro never rise above freezing, so the reason for snowcap loss has to be due to one or more causes not related to temperature. A lack of snowfall is likely one of those.

My side lost. Try something else. Indeed.

Scientists have made mistakes and fudged data for centuries, for all kinds of reasons. Besides name calling, you have no response to this. Mendel fudged his data. The field of genetics and the laws of inheritance are not invalidated. Einstein, for God's sake, introduced a non-existent constant (lambda) into an equation in order to fudge his data in the direction he wanted it to go. Maybe he's a "typical leftist" too? Maybe his theories are still valid?

The polar ice caps are melting. Pulling billions of tons of carbon out of the earth, burning it for energy, and dumping the end products into the atmosphere are the reason. My "side" isn't losing, we all are. The sooner we stop living in the 19th century, burning up carbon based fossil fuels and ignoring the environmental, economic, and political catastrophes that result, the better off we'll be.

Your side already lost on WMD's. There weren't any. When does Cheney take the stand? We don't want the smoking gun to be the total meltdown of the polar ice caps, do we?

Yeah, let's follow all the cultists and:

- cripple our industries
- give away what's left of our wealth to third world countries
- kill our way of life

Meanwhile, China, India, et al, can sit back and suck up the rest of the jobs we'll be offshoring and giving away.

Cult before country.

WMD? Not relevant. But I assume the leftys are talking about the Clinton administration reports that were supported by the British and the French.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country..." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Meanwhile, can't we all be happy that the earth is in a temporary warm period (even if we are cooler than the Medieval Warming Period)?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9DskYE

Perhaps Mr. Shelton could explain U of A’s ethics and funding policies, and if any of the mentioned faculty were government grant recipients, with reference to Mr. Hughes and the others in this case.

It is indeed unfortunate that this particular issue has now become fully politicized. This is a direct result of the actions of these inexplicably secretive scientists, among them a public employee who may have violated data sharing and other university guidelines, not mentioned by Mr. Shelton, but under his nose. We do not have enough information yet to make that judgment.

Climate alarmist scientists protest that they are being subjected to a political witch hunt, and that’s probably true, now. To this point, a well-documented, orchestrated concealment of information and methodology has taken place, and this malfeasance, intentional or unintentional, would have exposed massive errors earlier, and exposed a critical flaw in the nepotistic, borderline incestuous peer review process which seems to have occurred. In a financial or business setting, many of these actions would be prosecutable.

This is a higher level of scrutiny being applied here, and rightly so: when you literally hold the key information upon which a multi-trillion dollar international socioeconomic reorganization is being predicated and pushed, you’d better damn well expect to be heavily scrutinized.

So, thanks to their refusal to proceed in an open, transparent fashion, they will now proceed to be ridiculed openly, and subject to various legal and other challenges. They probably should have cooperated sooner, instead of parroting “the debate is over.”

At a minimum, these scientists need to be expelled from science, and Mr. Shelton needs to undertake a fuller accounting of his employees.

I don't think Shelton is obliged to respond to every single whack job critique that exists in the 'sphere, but he did not address some of the central criticisms. As a result he appears evasive and "above the fray." That being said, I haven't read all the emails and I don't want to jump to a conclusion based on selected excerpts. I don't want a new tax scheme to eliminate carbon emissions, but I do want common sense approaches to encourage more efficient energy production without harming consumers. That is not the domain of researchers, and it is silly to start doing moral comparatives between global warming "deniers" and holocaust deniers. One might take these kinds of comments out of context and try to paint Greg as something more or less than what he is on the topic -- a skeptical satirist.

The Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming!

Jeff Id of the Air Vent

It’s true, and it’s huge. Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, Russian papers are reporting that the Russian surface station data was sorted by CRU to use the highest warming stations only.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

BETTER EVERY DAY!

Jobs lost in developed economies!

Fast forward to this month's news that Corus, Europe's second-largest steel producer, is shuttering a giant U.K. steelmaking plant at Redcar, cutting 1,700 jobs. Corus blames the recession that has cut steel demand and says the British government hasn't done enough to help it.

Whatever the truth of that, there's little doubt that cap and trade made the closure much easier. The decline in steel production means European steelmakers have surplus carbon allowances. According to Carbon Market Data, a European research firm, in 2008 Corus had the second largest surplus of EU carbon allowances—7.5 million.

The EU is looking for ways to drive today's depressed allowance price of about $21 apiece back up to former highs of about $50, so Corus has the potential for a $375 million windfall. By closing Redcar's annual capacity of three million tons of steel, Corus will produce six million fewer tons of CO2. That means more carbon allowances, which could translate into about $300 million a year if credits hit $50. Corus is essentially being paid to lay off British workers.

Corus will also profit if it moves the production to India. As part of Kyoto, the United Nations created the Clean Development Mechanism to encourage Western companies to invest in developing-world factories. Participants are financially rewarded based on the amount of carbon they "save" with more efficient plants.

Corus was bought in 2007 by Tata, India's largest steel company. The Indian steel industry is set to more than double production to some 124 million tons a year by 2011-2012. Were Corus to move production to a "clean" Indian factory, it could receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the Clean Development Fund. The kicker is that none of this results in fewer carbon emissions. A Corus plant in India might be more efficient by Indian standards, but it will be no more efficient than Redcar.

To summarize: Cap and trade is a scheme that would impose heavy carbon taxes and allowances on U.S. industries, which would then have an incentive to move overseas themselves, or to sell those allowances to overseas companies that could use them to become more competitive against U.S. companies. Like the 1,700 Brits at Redcar, American workers would be the big losers.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 11

If anyone cares about an actual argument showing that claims that the CRU was trying to censor opposing view, the following might be worth viewing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=player_embedded

Oh - and this second one is quite good as well:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/5/7nnVQ2fROOg

Todd

Please spin this.

The Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations.

E.M. Smith on Musings from the Chiefio on NOAA’s global garbage bin GHCN which CRU and the media are using as confirmation that poor Phil Jones and Hadley did not manipulate data. See how in China, the Dragon Ate the Thermometers in this analysis by E.M. Smith.

The Temperature History of China in GHCN

So, with this high stability, what did GHCN do to the thermometer counts? Anything interesting? Do we see thermometer counts changing in any odd way?

There is a remarkably steady 11.x for decade after decade once 400 thermometers are reached. Then a “step function” to 12.8 – 13.x range on the chop of the thermometer counts.

In 1958, the numbers stabilize at about 400. This holds with astounding stability up until 1989 – 91; when if falls off a cliff to less than 40. FORTY

I would bet hard money that it was not China that made that cut.

nick,
When I see a confirmation of your supposed info I would be more inclined to respond. Who is the Institute of Economic Analysis who is making this claim? DO you know? Did you even bother to check?

Todd,

Jtr.

Junk to read is your standard answer.
Your team is all truth.
Opposition is all nonsense deniers!

Obama landed in Copenhagen global warming.
Obama lands in DC global warming.

Some Rednecks say this will be a very cold
winter!

Todd, since you’re new to the political realm, here’s a little clue:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aMd_VEyskvcE

When your politically-driven scientific platform gets yanked from under you, your negotiating position kinda quickly goes to hell….

nick and Mesa Econoguy - what does any of that have to do with the science?

Todd, exactly.

You lost your chance. Good luck Todd.

My apologies Todd, that was a flip answer on my part. Since I believe you are sincere, however naïve you may be, I owe you a more complete answer.

What about the science? That discussion now moves to a different venue, because your side didn’t cooperate.

The good news: under the American adversarial legal system, both sides get an airing of facts and evidence, and your side will have ample representation.

The bad news: under the American adversarial legal system, both sides get an airing of facts and evidence, and your side is about to be exposed rather embarrassingly as having manipulated data,

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/russians-accuse-cru-of-cherry-picking-station-data.html

threatened dissenting scientists,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html

and covered up.

The science actually points to 1 degree of warming over the next century, not 10 (using the IPCC models).

You are now faced with a very serious problem: admit you were manipulating data, or continue with the charade. Mr. Shelton is faced with a very similar problem, plus exposure to taxpayer scrutiny. Because he is an academic, he doesn’t yet understand this.

And before you attempt to impugn my credentials and subsequently my message, let me state that I have a strong medically-oriented science background, including time spent in a (haematology) research laboratory setting - and peer review publishing process - at a major state university (not U of A or ASU). I have seen the scientific research lab environment up close, and it is universally left-leaning politically.

Above, a (meaningless) argument erupted about Iraq WMD – since I am libertarian, I have no dog in that fight. The only reason this is relevant is the same toxic groupthink led to this bogus science, and its ongoing justification.

Mesa Econoguy,
I certainly am interested to see a response about the claims made by the Russian economic group. If I were you, I would not get my hopes up.

The WSJ editorial you post to is completely refuted by the videos I posted. I am sure you didn't bother to watch them.

You still have not actually referenced any science just pointed to claims made by two libertarian think-tanks and then seek to impugned the credibility of all academic research scientists as being left-leaning and committing fraud.

DEAREST TODD,

I LOVE WATCHING THE GOLOBAL
WARMING GRINCH SHUT DOWN SHOPPING
IN MUCH OF THE EASTERN COAST DURING
THE DAY THAT WAS EXPECTED TO BE THE
BUSIEST CHRISTMAS SHOPPING DAY.

YES!
ALL OF THE XMAS CHEER HATERS MAY
APPLAUD THE DEMISE OF STORE OWNERS
THAT HOPED 12/19 AND 12/20 WOULD
SAVE THEIR BUSINESS AND JOBS OF THEIR
WORKERS. (WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE)

AFTER THE WORKERS UNITE THEY MIGHT
EXPLAINE A RECORD OR NEAR RECORD
GLOBAL WARMING!
THE WEATHER CHANNEL HAS GREAAT PICTURES
OF VAAAAAARIOUS STACKS OF GLOBAL WARMING.

BLESS THE CHILDREN THAT HAVE NO TOYS
BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING!

TODD,
I DONT NEED A PHD.

THE TELLY HAS GREAT PICTURES OF NEAR
RECORD GLOBAL WARMING IN THE CAPITOL
OF FOOLS.

ONE OF THOSE CAPITAL COMENTERS SEZ
THIS STORM MIGHT BE GREATER THAN
ANY PREVIOUS STORM.

PHIL JONES WHERE IS YOUR FUDGE FACTOR
WHEN WE NEED IT?

TODD,

YOU ARE SURLEY CORRECT.

THE HOCKEY STICK WILL FIND SOME
MEANS TO ELIMINATE THE STORM OF
DECEMBER 19, 2009.

DONT BELIEVE YOUR LYING EYES WHEN
YOU READ MOST AILINE FLIGHTS INTO
THE capital HAVE BEEN CANCELED

TODD,

I CAN SPELL OR FAIL TO SPELL
AS I WISH SINCE THE GLOBAL
WARMERS SPELL THE FUTURE AS EBERYTHING
HOT

GIVE IT UP TODDY,

WARMERS HAVE RECORD OR NEAR RECORD
DC SNOWFALL SINCE 1922.

TODD,

YOUR STORY REMINDS ME OF Y2K!!

SPEND BILLIONS OR BE DAMMED
TO DATA LOST IN THE ICEBERGS
OF Y2K.

AS DUMB AS YOU THINK NICKY IS YOU
HAVE NO ANSWER TO THE Y2K SCAM.

BLESS YOU TODD

WASHINGTON DC IS HAVING NEAR RECORD
GLOBAL WARMING!

PHIL JONES WOULD COMMENT
IF HE HAD NOT WITHDRAWN
FROM DISCUSSION.

YA HE MUST BE SMART DUDE

Todd,

I know that the global warmers will
find a way to spin the dc cold weather

Yes, Todd, it’s a massive libertarian conspiracy.

Pretty weak response.

Yes I did view the videos, and they provide little information other than citation and defense of previous information we know to be corrupted, i.e. the same 20 – 25 people were driving this entire process. This is patently clear from the emails, had you chosen to read them. The fact that contrary research doesn’t appear proves nothing other than they didn’t get published, not that there weren’t forces preventing publishing, or that they were “crap.” We do know from the emails that there was a concerted effort to keep this material out of multiple journals, and even talk of taking out an entire journal (Climate Research). And I find it a little odd that the authors of “crap” research (Mann, et al.) were in a position to brand other work “crap.”

And yes, I am calling Mann’s work “crap.” He cherry picks and whittles proxy groups, mixes (flips) correlative inputs, introduces massive confirmation bias (using altered proxies), uses crap proxies, etc. Statistically (I have a financial modeling background, too), it’s irresponsible, willfully dishonest, bogus, and a few other choice words I won’t use here.

Here is a very brief explanation of why your “science” is highly questionable, if not outright fake:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/why-the-historical-warming-numbers-matter.html

There’s much more - read it yourself.

I’m continually astonished by the almost total lack of logic and inability to reason when speaking with alarmists such as yourself. For purported scientific community members and participants, your viewpoint lacks coherence and sequential consistency.

The failure at Copenhagen, in addition to showcasing the jackbooted thuggery and massive corruption of the UN, presents a starkly different picture of the climate alarmism crowd than 6 months ago. It is now in irrational mania mode, and it’s adherents (i.e. you) hysterical.

But keep up your delusions Todd. The science is anything but settled.

"Yes, Todd, it’s a massive libertarian conspiracy."

Uh, that is not what I said. What I did point out is the 'russians' are actually a libertarian policy institute. I also said I would be interested to see what the response was.

You may think Mann's work is crap, but the same basic results come from many sources based on several datasets. If you want to delude yourself into thinking it is all false or that somehow what did or did not happen in Copenhagen has anything to with whether the science is true, you seem to be exhibiting irrational mania and hysteria. Its all a big conspiracy between thousands of scientists, yeah now that is weak.

Mesa Econoguy,
One last thing on this topic - what you have exhibited above is that some group you have no knowledge of purports to be able to show that climate scientists have ignored a large pool of data that would show something different than what they have concluded.

Now, the rational response would be to say "Hmm, that sounds like an interesting claim. I wonder about who this group is and I wonder what the response of the scientists in question are to these claims."

You, on the other hand, knowing nothing about this group, the report, their methods, or anything else are ready to go "LIKE OMG THiS TOTALLY PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE IS 100% WRONG!!1111!!" That is an example of hysteria and irrationality.

It’s not “thousands of scientists,” todd, that’s what you guys have been saying (and “the debate is over”). In fact, it now appears more like 25:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/12/25-not-2500.html

This is where you fools are completely blind: follow the incentives. Here’s a nice expose on the railroad engineer running things – check out his incentives:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

And here’s a great timeline of inappropriate behavior censoring views contrary to “The Team”:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

And I completely agree with you, it’s likely not a conspiracy per se – ample incentives exist for these scientists to have manipulated the science. But whatever their intent, they engaged in unethical behavior which would most definitely be actionable in many other settings, i.e. the real world. They may have violated data sharing requirements, and other ethics guidelines set by universities and research institutions, as well as the grant stipulations themselves.

So Todd, and Mr. Shelton, however you choose to reconcile the fact that these scientists are extremely questionable, the science itself is now completely in question, and the EPA ruling covering CO2 (among other things) will be challenged legally, try to understand that threatening journal authors and reviewers, flouting FOIA requests, and subverting the scientific process is not functioning in an open, transparent manner.

Mesa Econoguy ,
I read the 'american thinker' article - did you? The reason I ask is because no one is 'censored.' The stolen emails reveal that 'the team' wanted to have a response in the journal to an article they felt was inaccurate. There was no censoring of anyone.

The Telegraph article asserts about Pachauri is actually quite devoid of facts. It notes he has had consulting with various groups and his salary is not published. Without knowing a great deal of the facts they are suggesting one possible cause. Dr Pachauri has claimed they are totally wrong. Hopefully we will get to the bottom of the claim with more information. Again, you are ready to believe anything that supports your conspiracy theory.

I may be reading you incorrectly, but you seem to think I am a scientist or have some personal relationship with Dr. Shelton or people involved in this research. I am not a scientist nor do I know any of these people involved in this research. I don't understand where you are getting this.

Lastly, I do think we should follow the incentives. Have you looked at who is funding the most vocal climate deniers? Maybe you should.

Todd, you seem unusually dense. I’m openly addressing Mr. Shelton, who likely may have glanced at this thread. And it’s readily apparent you’re not “scientifically-minded.”

Since you are devoid of reason, let me dumb it down for you a bit. The timeline is of 2 papers, one pro-AGW, one not-so-pro (it refutes pro-AGW material). Submitted practically simultaneously, the pro-AGW paper is critiqued and accepted within days, and the not-so-favorable paper is delayed far beyond any reasonable time (compare the “pro”-paper), effectively censoring that material – keeping it out of publication – for over a year. In addition, the pro-AGW paper was given preferential treatment, and shepherded through the process using preferential treatment and even removal of a problematic reviewer.

It plainly, clearly, and explicitly illustrates two completely different sets of publication and review rules, and a near total failure and manipulation of the peer review process. You likely missed this, so please go back and read it again, little boy.

Todd, no I am not funded by Exxon Mobil, nor have I ever worked in the oil industry, nor do I know anyone who does, nor do I live near anyone who does (to my knowledge), but I did buy gas today, so I must be a shill for big oil.

Todd, since you are a science fraud denier, I will refrain from taking anything you have to say seriously.

This comment above which claims to be from me that threatens Nick is not in fact from me. I don't know who is doing this but I don't threaten
people in blog posts. Whoever you are, it doesn't say much that you feel you can't debate but resort to such childish tactics.

Mesa econoguy I'll do you one better. I am done posting on this site. Clearly some of you think it is clever to pretend to be me and post things on here. I'm not going to continue to post to a site where this happens and am also quite sick of the arrogant attitudes on here. Enjoy your echo chamber. Goodbye

Agreed, (real) todd, pretty underhanded tactic.

Folks, let’s not stoop to that level.

Address the issues on the merits and factual evidence, not by derogatory/defamatory impersonation.

That’s something people who fabricate and manipulate evidence and peer review do.

Greg Here: I deleted all the fake Todd posts.

The comments to this entry are closed.