Climate scientist emails show no fraud

Yes, I was right! Three weeks ago I said that the climate research email hack shows global warming is real, because the furor over the stolen messages was a big ado about nothing.

Now AP reporters have read every email repeatedly. They discussed what the emails mean with experts in climate science and scientific methodology.

The AP found that the emails show pettiness, not fraud. Scientists are human, just like the rest of us. They get irked at global warming deniers who try to play fast and loose with facts.

Otherwise, the emails show that climate change science is solid. No big shock: Sarah Palin is wrong. From the AP story:

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Comments

[Leila]

Japanese scientists also state we have had global cooling for the last 10 years.

[Leila]

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2009/03/japanese-scientists-rejecting-global.html

90% of Japanese scientists reject IPCC report.

[Leila]

Why would you trust the media - Japanese scientists think they are part of the problem.

(See website above...)

[Randy]

Brian, using AP as an expert source is as bad as using the AMA (which I believe you have cited in previous posts).

Check this out about the lack of objectivity and professionalism of the writer of your quoted article.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/aps-seth-borenstein-is-just-too-damn-cozy-with-the-people-he-covers-time-for-ap-to-do-somethig-about-it/

[Blogger Brian]

Leila, wow! Three scientists. Three! That's more than two! And they only represent themselves, not any organization. I'm not impressed, given that the overwhelming majority of the top climate researchers in the world agree that global warming is happening, and humans are causing it.

[Randy]

By the way, I think it's fair to call Sarah Palin a "climate change denier". But there is another category which I would label "climate change agnostic." A climate change agnostic just doesn't know and would like to discuss it more. Sort of like the church of the churchless folks when it comes to true religion. I find it curious that you are so certain about such things as vaccines and human caused climate change but questioning when it comes to spirituality. Remember, I've read your God Whispers;Creation Thunders twice which, at the time, pretty much convinced me that mysticism was scientific.

[Blogger Brian]

Randy, I'm skeptical when people make unfounded claims about religion and spirituality. These relate to an unseen realm where the claims have to be taken on faith.

I'm not skeptical when people make well-founded claims about the physical world. If there is solid evidence, and if it has made it through the rigors of the scientific method (including being assessed via the peer-reviewed literature), then it makes sense to consider it provisionally correct.

What I find is that many people are too uncritical about metaphysical claims, and unduly skeptical about accepted scientific theories. It should be the other way around.

Regarding the link you shared, what's the big deal that an AP reporter on climate matters contacted a source and called him by his first name? That's what reporters on a "beat" do. Establish relationships with people in that field who are good sources of information.

No one seems to be disputing the conclusions of the AP story: that there is no evidence of scientific fraud in the emails. Attacking the messenger rather than the message is a desperate ploy by people who don't have a scientific leg to stand on.

Like I've said, this issue of global climate change is too important -- for us, our children, and for future generations -- to allow "Swift Boat" sorts of attacks to succeed. Facts are facts. The scientific method is the best means humanity has to sort out fact from fiction.

If global warming deniers have evidence that hasn't been presented, they need to publish it in peer-reviewed journals. If they don't, then this shows their motives aren't scientific, but political.

Lots of right-wingers hate everything Obama stands for, including protecting the environment. They don't listen to reason. Neither do fundamentalists, who believe that God is in charge of taking care of the Earth. We can't let the future of our planet be left in the hands of know-nothings.

[Kay Sowdon]

Of course it is important to dump the emails of pettiness quickly within 24 hours....just in case. Right? Scientists don't destroy any records of accumulated data. So where is it?

[DJ]

Haha, that's funny, Brian. 'The AP says so, so it must be true.' I thought your level of standard was formal and systematic rigorous peer review? How is it that leading climate researchers all but certain the 'science is settled' - panic to the point of violating FOI laws when challenged by Stephen McIntyre?

Here's more on this dog that barked:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/
Excerpt:
And in 2003, when McIntyre first saw the hockey stick graph, it reminded him uncomfortably of some stock promoter’s over-optimistic revenue projection. McIntyre asked lead “hockey stick” author Michael Mann for the underlying data and was startled when Mann had trouble remembering where he had posted the files to the Internet. “That was when the penny dropped for me,” McIntyre says. “I had the sense that Mann was pulling together the data for the first time—that nobody had ever bothered to inquire independently into the hockey stick before.”

To McIntyre, a scientist’s data and code stand in the same relationship to a finished paper that drilling cores do to a mining company press release. Peer review in scientific journals is good, he suggested, but it is limited and vulnerable to compromise. “There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy.”

In the CRU emails Mann speculates wildly about how McIntyre is “funded,” but his work has required little more than free time, effort, knowledge of statistics and linear algebra, and some software.

In the emails, leading climate researchers dismiss (McIntyre) as a capitalist hireling or a hapless “bozo,” and argue about the relative merits of ignoring him versus counterattacking him, even as others acknowledge that his criticisms have merit and imitate his use of the Web as a venue for hyper-detailed scientific discussion. At one point in 2005, CRU director Phil Jones, now under suspension, ponders the possibility that McIntyre might use U.K. freedom-of-information laws to obtain raw weather-station data compiled by the CRU. He grumbles: “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” The overall impression is that of 100 elephants stampeding in confusion and panic around a mouse.

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, your ignorance of the facts is showing. PolitiFact, an independent fact checker, has concluded that the evidence for human-caused global warming is unaffected by the stolen emails.
http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/11/climate-change-e-mails-and-copenhagen/

TIME magazine and Newsweek have said the same thing in recent issues. Everyone with an open mind, and scientific competence, agrees that global warming is real and human CO2 emissions are largely, if not entirely, to blame.

Tonight I wrote on my other blog about how a religious mindset underlies skepticism about the science of climate change.
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/12/religious-mindset-supports-skepticism-about-science.html

You don't understand the scientific method very well. You can cite web sites and blog posts all you want. What counts is solid scientific evidence that supports your position. And that is lacking.

Sorry. Truth is stronger than fiction.

[DJ]

Brian, are you still going on about appreciation for the "scientific method?" Would that be the same scientific method that your drool-worthy hero Al Gore rejected by throwing the inconvenient findings of his mentor, Roger Revelle, under the bus as I pointed out to you here: http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2007/02/global_warming_.html?cid=140875106#comment-140875106

By citing ignorance and a religious mindset, you Brian, are projecting onto "AGW deniers" the very same characteristics you possess in blind support of your view. The "dogs that did bark" are out there everywhere, yet somehow you consistently fail to hear them. Only out of faithfulness to the AGW Religion can you, Brian, hold so steadfastly to the doctrine you've signed up to. The reason you fail to even consider credible arguments from scientists and mathematicians like Peter Landesman below, is because to you - their arguments are blasphemy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html
The Mathematics of Global Warming
excerpt:
The forecasts of global warming are based on mathematical solutions for equations of weather models. But all of these solutions are inaccurate. Therefore, no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global warming. The false claim for the effectiveness of mathematics is an unreported scandal at least as important as the recent climate data fraud. Why is the math important? And why don't the climatologists use it correctly?

As an expert in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in weather models are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately. No approximation over long time periods has any chance of accurately predicting global warming. Yet approximation is exactly what the global warming advocates are doing. Each of the more than thirty models being used around the world to predict the weather is just a different inaccurate approximation of the weather equations. (Of course, this is an issue only if the model of the weather is correct. It is probably not, because the climatologists probably do not understand all of the physical processes determining the weather.)

Therefore, one cannot logically conclude that any of the global warming predictions are correct. To base economic policy on the wishful thinking of these so-called scientists is just foolhardy from a mathematical point of view. The leaders of the mathematical community, ensconced in universities flush with global warming dollars, have not adequately explained to the public the above facts.

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, when you start publishing your ground-breaking scientific findings in peer-reviewed journals, I'll start taking your comments seriously. Until then, I find them amusing -- check out the cartoon in a recent post of mine. I think you'll find yourself as one of the characters:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/church_of_the_churchless/2009/12/religious-mindset-supports-skepticism-about-science.html

For the reality lovers who read this comment, check out Tim Rutten's excellent column in the LA Time on global warming deniers:
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/121409/opi_535640612.shtml

Excerpt:
--------------------
The impact of this autonomic red-blue division often is amplified by the fact that we Americans are, by and large, technologically advanced but scientifically illiterate. Our national conversation is dominated by a culture of assertion rather than a respect for evidence reasonably assessed.

Thus the endless wrangling over self-evident nonsense like creationism. It's precisely the insistence on treating a scientific theory, evolution, and an allegorical notion, creationism, with a faux evenhandedness that creates a situation in which 75 percent of Americans believe most scientists disagree over global warming.

In fact, the scientific consensus on the issue is broad and deep.

[Nw]

"technologically advanced but scientifically illiterate"

"Thus the endless wrangling over self-evident nonsense like creationism"

These false beliefs are what in my opinion is leading to the weakening of the country and why other countries will eventually surpass us. When you have a large segment of the population living in delusion, there is no way the USA can be successful in the future.

Previously:

"As an expert in the solutions of non-linear differential equations, I can attest to the fact that the more than two-dozen non-linear differential equations in weather models are too difficult for humans to have any idea how to solve accurately."

Non-linear differential equations do not have to be solved. Solving a differential equation produces an equation that produces a continuous output given a continuous input. Well, that is what we have computers for, to avoid solving the equation but rather to step the input variables to an equation to determine the output, for example, over time. That is, produce a simulated output given a simulated input.

Other applications analyze huge non-linear differential equation systems, such as in electronics, so why not climate modelling?

See http://www.ecircuitcenter.com/SpiceTopics/Nodal%20Analysis/Nodal%20Analysis.htm

http://www.ecircuitcenter.com/AboutSPICE.htm

SPICE has been in use since the 1970's simulating electronic circuits. So you can have your IPOD.

Heck, non-linear differential equations describe the operation of shock absorbers in your car:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/555062775505w730/

Trying to make to climate modeling problem seem too difficult to solve by the scientific community - not a worthwhile strategy.

[DJ]

All take note: Brian’s standard for the rest of us is publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, but all he has to do is cite PolitiFact, Time, or Newsweek to be taken seriously. The religious often make up their own rules, and I guess his AGW god gave him special dispensation.

NW, you're actually making Peter Landesman's point regarding the mathematics of Global Warming.

The links you provide are examples of a program alternative (SPICE) for the type of circuit analysis I was required to solve using DifEq and a handheld scientific calulator. The SPICE website points out that it is a tool to build simulated circuits without needing to have all the components. Well, I did build/analyze these types of circuits with the actual components.

Unlike the many unknown variables affecting global climate, the SPICE program's inputs are all KNOWN values. That makes simulating an electrical circuit a rather simple undertaking compared to simulating global climate. Likewise in the lab, building a predictable and fooolproof circuit is a rather simple undertaking compared to the impossible task of building a predictable and foolproof physical model of global climate.

Vibration analysis…same story…been there, done that. Vibration analysis is a mature science and the basis for seismic building code. It is easily modeled physically in the lab for structural success/failure.

Hey Brian, ever build/analyze circuits before bailing on your Ph.D. in Systems Science? You very well may have. Ever build a physical model of global climate? Didn’t think so, it’s a bit less understood than NW's mass-produced IPOD.

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, TIME, Newsweek, and other reputable news sources rely on the peer-reviewed research, and the opinions of scientists who are familiar with this research, when they write analytical articles about global climate change.

As I noted in my blog post, people like you make little or no distinction between (1) objective reality and (2) subjective feelings about reality. This was the approach of the Bush administration in the run up to the Iraq war: they considered that through sound bits and misinformation, people could be brought to accept their unreal view of reality.

The same thing is trying to be done by global warming deniers. There is the objective science of Earth's climate, and then there is the subjective feelings of global warming deniers -- who aren't willing to accept facts because they trust their own intuition more.

I heard a right wing talk show host say recently, "For sure John McCain is wrong about global warming. It's snowing in Arizona!!!" With this childish level of analysis, it's no wonder that a clear majority of Americans favor strong action on CO2 emissions (just read that in the paper today -- of course, you probably don't believe in anything the mainstream media says.

[DJ]

Really, Brian? You count TIME among reputable news sources that rely on peer reviewed research? Would that be the same TIME magazine that famously reported the coming of another ice age in its June 24, 1974 issue? You're tripping over yourself big time here...I'd stop while I was behind if I were you.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
excerpt:
Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

(That's right - scientists back then thought man was to blame FOR THE COOLING! It just doesn't get any funnier).

[Nw]

From DJ:

"Unlike the many unknown variables affecting global climate, the SPICE program's inputs are all KNOWN values."

With SPICE, you refine the details of the input values to get more precise output values. Likewise you refine the circuit elements to get more precise output values.
You start out with coarse estimates, then refine.

How would Global Climate Modeling be any different?

[Nw]

"That's right - scientists back then thought man was to blame FOR THE COOLING! It just doesn't get any funnier)."

Actually that is incorrect, more scientists back then predicted warming than cooling:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643

"Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then."

[DJ]

NW, you continue to make the point of the "AGW denier" without knowing it.

You're correct, using a modeling program like SPICE, one can, "start out with coarse estimates, then refine" because YOU KNOW the end result you are trying to achieve with your model.

Is that what you suggest climate scientists do as well? Sadly, they do. They use computer models and juggle the input data and parameters until they get the "future warming" results they want. Problem is, no IPCC model has yet produced a forecast for which the "future warming" has come true. And the IPCC is supposed to be the best of the best.

As for the majority of scientists predicting warming vs. cooling either then or now, are you familiar with the story of the stomach ulcer and the discovery that received the 2005 Nobel prize for medicine?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4304290.stm
excerpt:
The scientific community’s reception of this discovery should give us pause... When Robin Warren and Barry Marshall first claimed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori plays a key role in the development of both stomach and intestinal ulcers, they were roundly ridiculed.

In 1982, when H. pylori was discovered by Dr Marshall and Dr Warren, stress and lifestyle were considered the major causes of stomach and intestinal ulcers.

Lord May of Oxford, President of the Royal Society, said: "The work by Barry Marshall and Robin Warren produced one of the most radical and important changes in the last 50 years in the perception of a medical condition.

"Their results led to the recognition that gastric disorders are infectious diseases, and overturned the previous view that they were physiological illnesses."

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, you continue to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the scientific method. The H. pylori finding did indeed go against the grain of what was believed to cause ulcers. And it wasn't all that long before further research demonstrated that this theory was correct.

But that research didn't consist of opinions published on blogs and web sites. Investigators conducted solid studies, shared those findings, and medicine eventually affirmed that H. pylori were a cause of many, if not most, ulcers.

This supports what I've been saying: that if global warming deniers have valid points, they can publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals and eventually change the minds of climate researchers. But they haven't done that, because they don't have facts on their side.

[Nw]

"Is that what you suggest climate scientists do as well? Sadly, they do."

Actually DJ they also use past climate inputs to apply to their climate models and compare against past measured results.

Here is a report from IPCC, see page 600.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Note the range of model solutions in yellow versus the measured results in black.

"Problem is, no IPCC model has yet produced a forecast for which the "future warming" has come true."

Not clear what you are trying to state here, DJ, other than wait 30 years.

[Blogger Brian]

Nw, nice job, as usual. Yes, the graph on page 600 of the PDF file you linked to shows that the climate models have done a fine job of mirroring actual global temperatures since 1900. And they are also able to predict short term trends. Excerpt:

"Some climate models, or closely related variants, have also been tested by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they can represent important features of the general circulation across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and other important climate features increases our confidence that they represent the essential physical processes important for the simulation of future climate change."

The graph shows that the models have been able to predict global temperatures up to the present. As you said, I can't figure out what DJ means by not being able to predict future warming. Maybe he isn't aware that the future hasn't happened yet.

[jim]

Al Gore and climategate emails

you decide

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_this_time_al_gore_lied

[DJ]

My responses, taken in order from above:

1) Arguing in support of the scientific method, Brian states, “Investigators conducted solid studies, shared those findings, and medicine eventually affirmed that H. pylori were a cause of many, if not most, ulcers.”
- What you fail to acknowledge, Brian, is that while the scientific method means always being open to considering new research that challenges conventional wisdom - for years after the Marshall/Warren discovery the medical establishment did just the opposite by ridiculing the theory and dismissing it with unkind jokes. To combat the close-mindedness of his peers, Marshall went as far as using himself as guinea pig – swallowing H. Pylori and making himself dreadfully ill to demonstrate the theory as correct. But don’t take my word for it, take that of the good doctor himself: http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html
Is the H. Pylori example still your idea of the scientific method in practice, Brian? What other diseases or ailments do you suggest doctors subject themselves to for the advancement of medicine?

Why is this pertinent when discussing CRU email fraud? Because the email trail shows that the climate researchers in the email spotlight did the exact same thing – they, with cooperation from the International Journal of Climatology, attempted to avert the scientific method by thwarting the peer review process of a challenger as detailed here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

For any unbiased observer the email trail puts the lie to the title of this post (“…emails show no fraud”). And it throws Brian’s argument (“…if global warming deniers have valid points, they can publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals…”) right back in his face.

2) NW, with reference to the IPCC pg. 600 graph you referenced – such a graph tells us nothing about the future. If you think it does, then I have a back-tested stock market “forecasting” program I’d like to sell you. As you pointed out, though, you’ll have to wait 30 years to find out if it was worth the money you spent on it.

By the way, Brian, you’re interpreting the graph incorrectly when you say, “The graph shows that the models have been able to predict global temperatures up to the present.” In fact the graph is part of IPCC AR4 which was published in 2007 – the same end year as the graph itself. The graph predicts nothing – it is a record of past temperature anomaly only – and shows that the models were programmed to match what had already happened.

[Blogger Brian]

Recently the Portland Oregonian had a great letter to the editor about the hacked climate change research center emails.

The guy said that since these emails supposedly revealed all kinds of errors in global temperature measurements and analytic methods, scientists should be busily reinterpreting that data now and preparing papers for submission to peer reviewed journals -- showing that global warming isn't really occurring.

Well, we're still waiting for those papers. I bet we'll continue to wait for a lot longer, because the hacked emails didn't reveal any problems with current climate change research.

But if new evidence comes along that challenges the current scientific consensus, the scientific method assures that conclusions will change. This is the great thing about science, as contrasted with religion: facts trump beliefs. Sure, sometimes it takes a while for scientists to accept a radically new theory, but this is a good thing.

Skepticism is essential in science. Evidence has to be solid, not merely circumstantial. This can result in some delays in accepting "revolutionary" findings, but it's better to be correct than hasty in matters of truth.

[DJ]

Brian: “Well, we're still waiting for those papers.”
- You expect to see peer reviewed papers by the middle of Jan 2010 in response to the ongoing investigation of CRU email fraud first revealed just two months prior?? For someone who so often touts peer review as the gold standard, you should better understand the timeline required for paper submission/review/acceptance/publication.
- In the case of a paper challenging the IPCC status quo, you should anticipate shenanigans that lead to manipulation and slowing of the process as revealed in the CRU email fraud: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

Brian: “I bet we'll continue to wait for a lot longer, because the hacked emails didn't reveal any problems with current climate change research.”
- We know you like to nap, Brian, :) but you need to stop napping in class. Here is just another example of problems with the current climate change research as revealed in the CRU email fraud:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_and_the_migrating.html (Please explain how this could happen if the IPCC truly valued the scientific method).

Brian: “Skepticism is essential in science.” “…it's better to be correct than hasty in matters of truth.”
- Show me one example from your blog posts where you show any skepticism regarding current anthropogenic global warming theory. You can’t, because the fact is, Brian, you’re not the least bit skeptical of your Green Religion – as further evidenced by your hasty conclusion “Climate scientist emails show no fraud.”

Oh, and this just in, still more CRU email fraud revealed: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_how_to_hide_the_su.html

[Blogger Brian]

I'm always astounded at how people can cite a few right-wing blog posts and believe these are more credible than the consensus of the world's leading climate scientists.

Oh, well, C'est la vie. Belief always will trump facts in the minds of some who have their minds made up and closed to reality.

[DJ]

And I'm astounded that in just seven minutes since my post that Brian can call himself a critical thinker who believes, "Skepticism is essential in science" when he couldn't possibly have reviewed the material I posted that refutes his position and beliefs.

Brian, you're nothing more than a blind and faithful follower.

[Blogger Brian]

I repeat: a right-wing web site featuring articles by people who think Obama is a socialist and un-American doesn't strike me as a reputable source of climate change science. But, hey, you can buy American Thinker coffee cups and t-shirts on the site!

Here's an example of the site's marvelous unbiased "thinking":
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/obamas_birth_debate_its_about.html
--------------
"Obama is a socialist, which means that his deepest commitment is not to our nation but to the Internationalist Ruling Class. That is why the Left always has to argue that Americans' love of country will kill off the rest of the world -- by global warming, by overpopulation, any excuse will do. The fact that it's all lies proves the point: The Left must lie in order to convince millions of Americans that their normal feelings of patriotism are evil.

...Obama is foreign to America in a way that has little to do with his birth certificate. He could be American-born and still think in this very anti-American way. A lot of people are. But whatever he is legally, there is not a shred of doubt that he is steeped in an Anti-American way of thinking.

...That is what our political battles will be about, for years and years to come. Don't expect it to be solved soon. It's been going on for a century. It didn't end with American victory in the Cold War. It is most of all a battle for minds and hearts, not for territory -- although territory matters. Conservatives helped win the Cold War, but did not win the battle for the schools and universities. That is why Barry Soetoro Barack Hussein Obama is now President.

Gear yourself up, and don't stop fighting the battle for hearts and minds. It's all-important."
----------------
So I understand where you're coming from, DJ. I just don't want to go there. Good luck with your efforts to win back America and make our schools and universities (plus climate change research centers) into a battlefront for the right-wing war against reality.

[DJ]

And there you have it...Brian found all kinds of stuff he cared to refute...just nothing that had anything to do with the subject at hand...CRU global warming email fraud.

Call it Brian's "dog that didn't bark."

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, when an organization such as American Thinker has an obvious political ax to grind, it's reasonable to be skeptical of their scientific objectivity. I prefer my science understanding to be based on peer-reviewed research. When you have some "global warming is a fraud" links that come from a peer-reviewed science journal, send them on.