Warmists In Denial

The world is now several weeks into the scandal of Climategate and the Warmists are in denial.† As a whole their response to a currently unknown hacker breaching the security of Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and leaking over a thousand emails and other documents has been to not respond. The Warmists have done their best to completely ignore this scandal and continue to maintain that “the debate is over.”

The cultists of Al Goreís pseudo-religion, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), desperately want this scandal to be dismissed and forgotten.

Sadly for them, the leaked material comprised more than 1000 e-mails, 2000 documents, as well as the commented FORTRAN source code for modeling and data analysis, pertaining to Global Warming or Climate Change research from 1996 to 2009. †Much of it was very detrimental to both their credibility and their faith.

For the purposes of disseminating raw data for independent review I have provided the†zipped contents (63.4Mb) of the compromised CRU server here.† Form your own opinion!

Possibly worse for them, those emails included discussions of how best to combat the arguments of climate change skeptics, defamatory comments about those skeptics, various queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers, apparently successful attempts to keep scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature, and talk of destroying various files in order to prevent raw, unmodified data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.

~*~

Carol Browner - Obama's "Climate Czar" and Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. She's a devout Warmist and is deep in denialPresident Obama’s “Climate Czar,” the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Carol Browner, was especially fervent in her denial of the issues uncovered by Climategate. Irrespective of whatever evidence of shoddy work and outright† malfeasance has come to light, she’s holding firm to the Warmists’ dogma and dismissing any complaints as irrelevant and from some “fringe” of society.

She’s either a True Believer in the Cult of Global Warming, or she just wants to keep her job, which is predicated on the Warmists’ doctrine, and remain somehow relevant.

There has been for a very long time a very small group of people who continue to say this isnít a real problem, that we donít need to do anything. On the other hand, we have 2,500 of the wordís foremost scientists who are in absolute agreement that this is a real problem and that we need to do something and we need to do something as soon as possible.

What am I going to do, side with the couple of naysayers out there or the 2,500 scientists? Iím sticking with the 2,500 scientists.I mean, these people have been studying this issue for a very, very long time, and agree that the problem is real.

— Carol Browner
November 25, 2009, Press Gaggle

A very small group of people who continue to say this isnít a real problem? A couple of naysayers? Carol Browner obviously has as little grasp of math as she apparently does of any other hard sciences. The Pew Research Center’s most recent survey concerning Global Warming showed that only 57% of Americans believed that there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming at all and only 36% believed that such warming was anthropogenic in origin.

Since there are approximately 305 million people in the US, that means that around 131 million of them don’t believe that there is solid evidence to support the theory of Global Warming and around 195 million of them, while believing that there is evidence to support the theory of Global Warming, don’t think that the evidence solidly supports the claim that it is primarily a human caused situation.

Nobody in anything remotely close to their right mind would honestly try to describe between 100 – 200 million people as “a very small group” or “a couple of naysayers.” Of course this isn’t about honesty; it’s about denying that her raison d’Ítre – and her raison d’Ítre employť – isn’t being accepted as much as she needs it to be and that it just got exposed, once again, as being based on poor data, substandard modeling, slipshod analysis, and an agenda-driven “group think” that actively silenced contrary opinions and theories.

~*~

There’s a certain schadenfreude to be derived from watching the Warmists, who disparagingly label any dissenters or skeptics as “Deniers,” running around in denial themselves. Indeed, the delectatio morosa that one can derive from the Warmists’ childish reaction to the discomfiture that Climategate has caused them is positively sinful.

They can deny the problem all that they want to. They can dismiss the scandal and the flaws and malfeasance it uncovered and forced into the public eye all that they want to. Doing so doesn’t change the fact that there is still debate about Global Warming, both its very existence and its possible causes, and that Climategate dramatically hurt their position.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |

8 Responses to “Warmists In Denial”

  1. zhann Says:

    Lets start by stating a few facts …

    – Fact – The earth is warming (see polar caps, see rising oceans, see average global temperatures over the past 3 decades)
    – Fact – The last 10 years are the warmest on record ever.
    – Fact – CO2 works as a greenhouse agent, easily testable in lab experiments
    – Fact – People are pumping out more and more CO2 every year

    Of course, there are many more facts that can be listed, but these are enough to prove a point. Those that wish to deny global warming is happening are, in all honesty, complete idiots. This is an undeniable fact with boatloads of data to prove it, much of it visible in every day life. Idiots like Matt Drudge, and others, that like to point out “Denver had its coldest day in history” are just that, idiots. Pointing out a single instance of cold and ignoring the global trend of warming is just plain ignorant.

    As for the email situation, this is probably the most nitpicked, out of context, completely ignoring everything logical I have ever seen. Even assuming that a tiny fraction of Scientists doctored data in order to show more global warming than actually happening (I am not implying this, I am just using this as an assumption for the basis of argument) in no way takes away from the blatant fact that the earth is warming up and Man has a role to play in this.

    Jonolan, I have always admired you and considered you of greater intelligence than this. While it doesn’t look like you are denying the fact that the earth is warming, I am likewise hoping that you aren’t trying to imply that Man is playing a trivial role in this. I am not going to try and argue that Man is the sole cause, but the fact that Man’s actions, if not changed, will be catastrophic is undeniable. My personal gut feeling is that Man is not just the primary cause of this, but our actions are dwarfing that of the Sun’s hot spell which is supposedly the main counterargument.

    Regarding your argument about 100-200 million Americans denying global warming … while I hate to be cynical, I see no other way. Lets be honest with one another, the majority of Americans are sheep. This isn’t just Americans, but the general world population, but since we are discussing American views I am singling out America. In a case such as this, we have to eliminate the sheep and concentrate on the experts. The vast majority of experts are behind global warming. If you take into account that the ‘pollution’ industry (not sure how to refer to them) definitely has bought the support of at least some scientists to help prove that global warming is a farce, then the numbers for global warming are even larger. As for buying out the other side, I can’t imagine who would do that or why. There is not much money in supporting the cause for global warming, so these people are far more likely to be sincere.

    Honestly, it really blows my mind when I meet someone that is vehemently denying global warming. Arguing that Man is not the primary cause is one thing, but ignoring all the facts that show global warming happening is something entirely different.

  2. jonolan Says:

    Zhann,

    Let’s start by correcting your stated facts:

    The earth may or may not be warming.
    NASA satellite studies showed that polar ice has remained essentially stable over the last 30 years. 2008 did, however break 2 records – the least ice on one day and the most ice on anther.

    International Commission on Sea Level Change refutes the rise of sea levels and predicts, based upon empirical studies as opposed to computer projections, a maximum rise of 10cm by 2100.

    The last 10 years have not been the hottest on record. The Mann “hockeystick” graph was fully refuted due to it’s bad modeling and the use of grossly flawed data-sets.

    Also and finally, there’s the issue that global temperatures, both rises and falls, have not mirrored (even with time offsets to normalize for inertia) levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Here’s the problem, zhann – we really don’t know what’s happening. That’s one of the things that Climategate exposed. The data was very poor and the modeling of it flawed – and that data and analysis is the basis of much of the Climate Change science and predictions that all the other scientists are using.

    Personally I think that some warming is happening, but I’m skeptical about how much mankind’s current activities are effecting it. I think we did far more centuries ago when we committed massive deforestation across the globe.

  3. guerillasocialwork Says:

    I think using the word ďdenialĒ when describing the AGW crowd allows them to not be accountable. It implies there is some subconscious process going on. I understand Iím getting in to semantics here, but letís call them for what they are: Liars.

  4. J.D.F. Says:

    There is too much data to ignore that at the very least something is going on and it needs to be corrected. I feel the earth is warming up, seen too much to deny it any longer. As a pagan, I feel responsible to the land and its dwindling resources. As a citizen, I feel one way to create jobs and get this economy going than to promote green jobs! Besides, whether or not you believe in warming – going green is just healthier, safer, and better for everyone all the way around.

  5. jonolan Says:

    J.D.F.,

    What data? Or more accurately, which data, and can any of it that we’ve seen be trusted in the wake of this exposure of the Warmists’ slipshod techniques and/or fraud?

    And Jobs? Green jobs? Every one of those that has been created has been at the expense of other, more traditional jobs in the same sectors of the economy. It would be, at most, a labor shift as opposed to an improvement.

    Now I wholeheartedly agree that “going green is just healthier, safer, and better for everyone all the way around,” but what the Warmists seem to want and focus upon is only tangentially related to “going green.”

    As far as I can see, the Warmists are to the Environmentalists what the Right-To-Lifers are to the Conservatives.

  6. zhann Says:

    I get the feeling that this is going to be a long drawn out battle. When you ask “which data” I only see one answer … the data provided by the experts and not provided by the media. What the media generally do is nit pick the data that best suits their story, while the experts are the ones studying the data and building new data sets to further a particular viewpoint. I am sure that some journalists actually follow the environmental discussions very thoroughly and have a vested interest in the subject aside from their paycheck, but the majority do not. Not only that, the majority are being pushed to think a certain way (on both sides of the argument) by their editors in order to appease their base.

    Returning to the experts in question, there is a tiny minority of experts that deny global warming, and very few experts that deny man’s role in global warming. Again, I would like to point out that the polluters, more specifically the fossil fuels industry, are buying expert opinions in order to avoid spending enormous amounts of money cutting back on their emissions. On the other hand, who would do the same to those supporting the global warming debate?

    I really have a hard time understanding how an educated person can in good faith deny global warming and man’s involvement. Again, I am not arguing that man is the sole contributor, but I am arguing that man’s contribution is substantial enough to be felt.

    (btw – I posted a more thorough response on mizozo, I can’t properly post everything in a comment)

  7. jonolan Says:

    zhann,

    I asked which data firstly because a large number scientists disagree with the base data being used by the proponents of AGW. It’s not just a small number of them; it’s a fair number and I’m not speaking of ones drawing their funding from the oil companies.

    NOTE: I said that they disagree with the data, not that they completely disagreed that the planet seems to be warming. But good scientists want the right result for the right, replicable reasons.

    I asked which data secondly because we have had repeated evidence that the data being used to support AGW claims is erroneous. And when that flawed or fraudulent data is put out by the CRU, it “poisons” a lot of research worldwide.

    As for Global Warming and my opinion of it – I’m skeptical (for the reasons stated above) but not ready to deny it out of hand. I am, however, more than willing to deny that the remediation steps put forth by the Warmists are appropriate or even primarily motivated by a desire to cool the planet.

  8. Climategate Revisited | Reflections From a Murky Pond Says:

    […] is said that a picture is worth a thousand words, so let’s revisit Climategate with that in […]

Leave a Reply