Krugman hits back on Will's global warming claims: "Not a single smoking gun" in scientists' emails
November 29, 2009 12:01 pm ET
From the November 29 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Previously:
At it again: George Will claims evidence of warming is "elusive"
Following climate change distortions, Will uses widely disputed study to target green jobs
New sea ice data further bury George Will's global warming credibility
George Will continues to misuse WMO climate data despite criticism from WMO sec. general
Lashing out at critics, George Will spreads more falsehoods in new global warming column
But deniers think it is real eveidence.
Michael Mann directly responded to the criticisms of the emails here.
The questions he answers, refuting every distortion?
When Phil Jones wrote in 1999, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i. e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," what did he mean?
You wrote, "Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post. As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations," what's the story there?
Phil Jones again wrote "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment -minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
You wrote, "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal"?
"It would be nice to try to contain the putative "MWP".
This was about how Michael Mann debunks every point raised about those 4 points raised from the content of the emails.
Conserve to keep the price of energy down.
Conserve to keep pollution out of our air.
Conserve to keep our oceans clean.
Conserve to keep nature healthy.
Conserve for reasons other than climate change, and who knows? If the carbon output leads to a stabilized climate, then that's a great advantage to conservation.
All I'm saying is that it can't hurt to preserve our environment.
It used to be during the Bush Administration they used the excuse that with a Republican in office, it made sense that more Republicans would be on these shows.
What's their excuse now?
Yea, I know...heads they win, and tails we lose.
Deniers will seize upon anything as "proof", whether it's an email or that Al Gore left his dining room light on.
For some reason intelligence and knowledge is now a bad thing in 21st century America.
It's especially noticeable on television news, where surveys and polls asking if the public "believes in global warming" seem to get much more time than reporting the actual science.
The actual science, you wouldn't know science if... well!
Even I can form some complete sentences once in a while. That seems to be above omitbf's pay grade.
Even if you are a pathetic stupid idiot :)
For the first time ever, Col., I agree with you.
The thing about the 21st century America is that you confuse intelligence/knowledge for corruption/greed. We've always felt c/g were bad things, but when you change what you call it to intelligence/knowledge you make yourselves look like fools. Similar to when you changed the wording from 'global warming' to 'climate change'.
OK, I've seen a lot of weird, stupid attempts to discredit evolution, but this takes the cake!
And, Floyd has absolutely no idea what he is trying to say. He's simply drunk with stupidity.
although we do get a laugh out of you Darwinians who want to give your sardine the right to vote simply because someone once said monkeys look like men
Two things:
1) I'm not aware who you are referring to, but I'm pretty sure you just made that up. No logical person wants to give sardines a vote, nor did they say that monkeys looking like men was the basis for the evolutionary theory.
2) Being a "Darwinian" has nothing to do with a political stance, so your point about giving "your sardine" the vote is nonsensical. We are talking about the science; this has no bearing on politics.
Ahhhh.... That's better.
Now I get it!
Because I don't understand it, it must be fake!
And so, the "Billy-Bob theory of everything" was born!
Damn science! I got's my gun, and I got's my god, and I got's my flag. That's all I need!
I need another beer to celebrate!
Nice!
And it's about time - small oily fishes have been oppressed for too long . . .
Where's the original "climate change" data?
Who got paid 22.8 million, could it be Phil Jones? DUH
Fotran code manipulated to "fix" the "models". hmmm...
pathetic...
BUSTED...
"Where's the original "climate change" data?"
Here are some sites with data. Feel free to knock yourself out. Let us know what you come up with when you complete your analysis. When do you think you'll have the results?
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html
Me: Here is a real site where truth is paramount:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up
BTW: You do know 31,000 scientists, of which 26,000 are PhD's, don't think GW is man-made, don't you?
2BTW: If libbies had their way we would still believe the earth is flat.
3BTW: There is plenty of evidence leftists are elitist high-browed condescending snobs. For proof just read a few 100 leftist messages on this Board. Good grief, even in this thread a poster implied us 'hicks' couldn’t read and such.
Really? More like it's trying to be explained away. Krugman doesn't back one assertion up with facts, just his explanation of what he thinks they meant. Nice projection Paul.
AGW fraud-deniers(to borrow a term from one of our illustrious posters), you will be taken to task, and here.
Now will our MSM take this story to task. So far they have a failing grade. Time will tell.
Isn't that what you're doing - not backing up assertions with fact, just your explanation of what you think they meant?
For instance, from his first link, the author greatly exaggerates what Monbiot said, and then he totally lies about the hockey stick graph. He claims that Stephen McIntyre debunked the hockey stick. He didn't. He found a few minor math errors in the data and those errors didn't change the findings one bit.
Oh dear. A right-wing columnist in the "increasingly unreliable" UK Telegraph will give you the meanest look. That'll show you.
He just doesn't back it up with the facts that you want.
Just one weak link in the deniers chain - all this data requires independent corroboration. That's the way it is with all science. The science around climate change is no different.
These folks have goobs of facts. But, probably not what you are looking for.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://coaps.fsu.edu/climate_center/climatechange.shtml
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Even if it is found that these few scientists whose emails were hacked did fudge their statistics to fit their view, their work should and will be dropped from the journals and the scientists left out of any further studies. Even if this is done, the little anthill which they contributed to the science of Climate Change will be tiny compared to the mountains of science that still supports Global Warming.
P.S. To the Media Matters staffers..nice to see the content back up. Hope you had a nice break and did not overdose on tryptophan.
Without such, your just another ideology based voice.
Until you stop drinking the Kool-aid, and do some homework, YOU are just another ideology AGW fraud-denier.
BTW the CRU has done a 180 and agreed to release ALL their data. We'll see if they give the "scrubbed" version or not. Just thought I'd bring you up to speed on what's going on my man.
Too bad there's no corroborating evidence of any of this stuff. Y'know, AGW climatologists NEVER look for corroborating data!
Well, I guess these guys will just have to redo their web sites. And they put all that effort into it! Sniff. :-(
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
The IPCC! Yeah. The panal that featured the CRU scientists.
I wonder if NOAA used the faulty data....Hmmmm....
Maybe they did.
..... or did they?
So, I guess I would agree that my logical skills are amazing. Wow! Think about it ... 'my side' would like to have factual data to make critical decisions, 'your side' would like to continue using inacurate data. Amazing, simply amazing
You consider him creditable then. Wonder what we might find in some of his emails.
I consider myself in support of the majority of climatologists. position here. I see were the oil money goes.
Would IAGWFD be less of a mouthful than your term.
You imagine it is a policy of CRU to hide data?
Thank you for at least having a source.
You can take your condesending attitude and stuff it.
You gotta be kidding! An elitist high-browed snob leftist is calling someone else condescending! What a hypocritical joke.
BTW: My kids call their baby’s dirty diapers "ewe". Funny, huh?
At what point was I supposed to stop reading books, observing people, and wondering about it all?
There's been much better humor concerning my tag. Like many born in Montana, I take my sheep very seriously.
Your welcome to consider my other points, not wanting to be an elitist snob, if at all possible, that's all I can humbly ask.
Snort!
And did I mention that you're all a bunch of snobby liberal leftist elitists?
At the point you became a leftist. All leftists are elitist high browed snobs. In fact anyone who endorses the complete control of my life is an elitist high browed snob.
You can read as many books as you want but you'll always be an elitist high browed snob as long as you are a leftist.
BTW: Since manmade GW has been exposed to be a myth and fraud costing trillions of dollars why do elitist high browed snobs continue to push for more and more silly regulations against their own Country?
And, btw, special prize for incoherence goes to: "You can read as many books as you want but you'll always be an elitist high browed snob as long as you are a leftist." Well done!
Sorry I'm little interested in controlling every aspect of your life. Those parts that would degrade the quality of life of my fellow humans, sure I'm all over that as. If regulations do not exist to prevent it, then businesses will do so, and transfer the eventual costs of it, to the people and their government.
I don't think your case against GW has entered any recorgnized court. Your source on costs would be a good place to start.
Brilliant deflection!
Of course, that assumes there's absolutely no data to back any of this up!!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Or is it just easier to believe what you want?
You asked for data, so I gave you the links.
Busted?
This is why you have to hope put rational people into power positions in the government, and you hope that they do something about the nation's problems despite the opposition from those blinded by conservative dogma or propaganda. We just have to hope that Obama and the Democrats have the ability to pass something on climate change before 2010 (when a large number of them will be thrust out of office due to the economic situation).
Liberals have thrown money at problems for 50 years only to get more of the same problems. It is complete insanity.
A few? Many? Lots? Goobs? A whole bunch? Gazillions? Goggaduplogigaplex?
Maybe these links can help define those numbers.
http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/role-of-consensus-in-science.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schulte-and-scientific-consensus.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653
http://logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
http://chge.med.harvard.edu/programs/policy/course/Sheperdstown%202003/documents/mccarthy2_03.pdf
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2376
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm
As an example, I can remember during the last stages of the presidential campaign, candidate Obama saying he was against opening up any new areas to oil exploration. He followed up by saying that oil companies should either "use it or lose it" talking about the existing ongoing leases. Well, it was only several months later that some of the oil companies fessed up that the next big oil reserve had actually been found in the Gulf of Mexico. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the scientific information was being held in confidentiality to keep competing companies at bay - but in fear of losing the leases altogether they had to eventually spill the beans.
Many countries of the world are keeping a close eye on the climate change debate thinking of the many spin off industries that will be born once it is generally excepted as really happening. The effort to implement an accurate system for real time monitoring of effects world wide will be similar to that which happened as a result of the space race, the introduction of GPS, cell phones, etc. Those countries most involved in the debate will surely have the upper hand on manufacturing of all the different technology and widgets that will be required. Our country is somewhat now at a disadvantage because the past administration was reluctant to release scientific information because of the perceived threat to industry in the form of taxes.
Maybe some of the nay sayers are using this as a delay tactic to buy valuable time to get up to speed and be in a more favorable position before the climate change boom actually starts.
Just one mans opinion!!
I can't tell you how many times I've heard a sports commentator say something like "boy, it is really cold down there on the field today" only to hear him or his associate in the booth snark "So much for Global Warming!" or something to that effect. It's almost automatic. But when it's unusually warm? Not a peep. Why was I not surprised?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/20/uk.flood.rescues/index.html
All weather is local. Climate is global.
But, extremes in local weather will continue, as global climate changes.
The entire "climategate" started when a few sentences from a few email were thrown out there. Of the millions of emails sent over the past 10 years regarding climate research, the right thinks it has a "smoking gun" by pulling a few sentences in a few emails.
The past year has been a fascinating experience in terms of social phenomena.
where is the original data?
22.8 million to phil jones.
fake fortran models to "prove" global climate change... pathetic....
(Repeating my post to you above.)
"where is the original data?"
Here are some sites with data. Feel free to knock yourself out. Let us know what you come up with when you complete your analysis. When do you think you'll have the results?
http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html
Intelligent, thoughtful discussions are always undermined by overly simplistic grandstanding by the loud and ignorant. Will has reached the end of his usefulness and should retire, as should David Broder.
DUH!