I haven't been talking politics recently. Hell, I haven't been talking recently. It has been all elementary schools and cold medicine for me this past week. But I gotta tell ya, this whole "Climate Gate" bull shenanigans has got me hotter than Tabasco. First, it is stupid in its own right, second it is is illustrative, and pronounce that correctly, of a larger Republican technique, media complicity, and public dumbitude.
Who out there loves science? What? I can't here you? Who out there mother fuckin' loves science? Man, I am gonna ship in a real audience 'cause I don't be hearin' nothin. Exactly. So a bunch of dipshit TV stars pretend to know something about science, which they don't, and translate it to a public who isn't listening. Go back to talking about Tiger Woods' titanium shaft.
It is such an easy technique the Republicans have developed. Is there a name for it? What can we call it? John Kerry is a real goddamned American war hero. What? He ain't your boy? OK, one guy who never met him in Vietnam and got paid by Nixon to take him down says he wasn't. Everybody who was there and knew him says he was. Well, I guess in fairness we have to call it a toss-up and take the war hero status off the table. There. Aren't we fair?
Health care and education are important. Ted Kennedy killed a chick....maybe. Kinda. Ted Kennedy supports health care and education. Well, you can see why these issues are controversial.
Climate change is undeniable scientific peer reviewed fact. 13 years worth of private emails have been illegally stolen and from them we have gleaned 3 or 4 that we can misinterpret. Climate change is a ho-ax. Obviously. Well, at the best it is a draw. If 98% of scientists agree it is real and 2% deny then you must see how fair the TV stars are when they call it.....Too Close to Call! Exciting drama.
It is too bad Tiger Woods didn't print out the emails and the data, put them in separate stacks, cut holes in them and fuck them back into pulp. Then, maybe there would be an in-depth look into the data and the information contained in the emails.
Questionable mail one refers to "Mike's Nature Trick." Well, you see the word trick right there and we all know that tricks are done by those big liars magicians and convince us that bunnies live in hats. There is no other use of the word. "Hey, neat trick, Coke does get the blood out of my carpet!" Shut the fuck up and speak English. That wasn't deception that was an interesting solution to a problem. Trick can never mean that. (Note to entry 5- you lying sack of shit)
Explanation: (via Realclimate.com)
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem" — see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Two other emails aren't even worth dealing with because they are private emails talking about being frustrated with the whole process. They talk about keeping skeptics out of peer reviewed journals or keeping data to themselves. Were either of these things ever done? No. Who cares? If they had been done, while bad personally, does it effect the thousands of people involved? Does it change any of the data? How?
Mail number four. Four out of thirteen years states: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't" Oh my God! He just admitted that global warming never existed! Never. There was no warming ever! By "ever" I mean in one small, geographically confined measurement during one small period of time. Oh no! And the scientist implied that that was a travesty....that they couldn't get an accurate measurement and account for discrepancies.
Horrible, horrible climate change scientists, why did you go and prove climate deniers wrong? We all know that the real forecast is cloudy with a chance of meatballs.