Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Wednesday, November 23. 2011

Revkin jumps to support corrupt climate alarmists

In the NYT: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute.


Who cares whether it's hacked? It's government-paid science, isn't it? We paid for this crap. What their emails show is that these guys argue amongst themselves about how to twist and spin to present the data they want people to get. It is disgusting, a major scandal. Somewhat happily, some amongst the cabal actually want to be honest.


I have known science majors and scientists, and they never talked like this about things they were curious about. This is money politics, not science. Sounds more like a Wall Street bond sales meeting than science, to me. "How to we unload this crap to the suckers without totally and permanently compromising our reputations?"


Revkin wants to focus on the hacking, not the content. Well, Watergate was basically a pre-internet hacking, was it not? And Teapot Dome? Our thanks to the mystery hacker who cares more about the truth than these scientists do. I think there will be a third email dump in the future.


Popcorn?

Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 12:44 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack
Weblog: blogs.dailymail.com
Tracked: Nov 23, 17:01

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Revkin spends column inches on his own characterizations of the e-mails and excuses from adherents to "the cause", but not so much on the actual text of the e-mails.

A good defense would be to quote copiously from the e-mails to show how the suspicious excerpts are somehow misleading.

But he doesn't do that - probably because he can't.

Pretty weak.
#1 forest on 2011-11-23 15:06 (Reply)
Compare and contrast:

Hide the Decline - what we have been using for pre-"accurate" temp measurement, tree rings, has [since-"accurate" actual readings] been way off the mark, let's use the real instead of our |proxy" and hope nobody notices.

FTL - our data seem to show faster-than-light-speed travel. We doubt this, but can't find an error. Will everybody please take a look at this?

- - - -
I know which I think of as the Scientific Method.
#2 John A on 2011-11-23 15:33 (Reply)
The big money became available in climate science when James Hansen spooked Congress with his presentation on one of the hottest days of summer, on the disaster awaiting earth with the warming of the globe. Gradually, everybody with a PhD tried to find a way to link their particular specialty to the problem of global warming with a good grant proposal.

There have always been numbers of scientists who support the alarmist case for warming without ever investigating the real science of it. A few have confessed. Recent articles, I think by Chris Horner (FOIA results), on the millions that Hansen has received in outside remuneration and prizes for his warmist activism are pretty interesting.

There is not only big grant money from governments and foundations, but prestige for the scientist and the university to which he is attached. In the meantime, skeptical scientists get blackballed if they utter a skeptical word that interferes with the gravy train. Those who speak out, once they have retired, are accused of receiving money or favors from BIG OIL. Hooray for whoever is releasing the emails!
#3 The Elephant's Child (Link) on 2011-11-23 19:17 (Reply)
A great, ongoing discussion here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com
#4 Smokey (Link) on 2011-11-24 09:28 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.