If it snowing around Al Gore is “the Gore effect“, then is a record month of heat when the Liberals are tearing themselves to pieces over the issue of an ETS “the Liberal Party effect”? Would wherever the deniers go suddenly experience unprecedented heat waves?
Unfortunately, we could never send the lot of them overseas to test the theory.
Moved On 
This is an exercise in the grass roots taking back the party from Turnbull, the Johhny-come-lately whose first stab at power was with the ALP.
Turnbull failed to remake the Liberals as ALP-lite and is now slashing and burning on his way out. His ego and excessive self-regard would not have it any other way.
Rudd will have the same difficulties as people come to understand how the IPCC enabled politics to debase science.
Problem for the so called Grass Roots part of the party is that they’re totally unelectable (Andrews, Abbott), they need nice, cuddly Hockey to step up, basically they need somebody who believes in AGW to stand against his own beliefs.
What a rabble!
“Turnbull failed to remake the Liberals as ALP-lite ”
You mean the Liberals have let the ALP force them further to the right, like I say, they’re a rabble. A weak opposition! The ALP are more like the Liberal-lite, they aren’t so ‘lite’ either IMO.
It will be interesting to see how Shrek fares as the new leader.
SB, I’m picking that Rudd, Gillard and Albanese will make mincemeat of Sloppy ‘workchoices’ Joe
I would think so, Rob. Bumbling Shrek is not going to cut it.
It seems that Joe is being set up by Abbott (who will probably step back when Joe announces he is running) up so that he can have a crack later. Joe’s only real hope now is that Rudd & Co pay a price for their unseemly haste in bringing in the ETS.
It’s great to see the denialists tearing apart their political home.
It’s decades of conservative hostility to science coming home to roost.
Though it seems they will at least baulk at putting the Taliban (Abbott) officially in charge.
The hostility to science comes from the AGW crowd as disclosed in the Climategate documents. The denialists are those desperately trying to ignore Climategate.
Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether the Libs new Team Hockey will perform any better than the discredited RealClimate Hockey Team.
It’s rather telling that those claiming some kind of overturning of the science via a few lines in a few emails, demonstrate little science knowledge.
It’s hardly surprising that there is strong correlation between creationists and denialists -they share an anti-science bent.
This time around Michael, you are the denialist. Interestingly, some leftist AGW supporters have the integrity you so sadly lack, and explain why Pretending the climate email leak isn’t a crisis won’t make it go away.
Funnily enough anyone with half a brain and an ounce of integrity can see that ‘scientists’ destroying data, rigging the peer review process and subverting the FOI process need to be investigated. Obviously you don’t fall into this category.l
So we’ve gone from a few lines taken out of context in some stolen emails to ‘the Climategate documents?’
Unfortunately for the denialists, nature cares not a jot for the spin put on emails.
I look forward to our anti-science friends explaining how emails stop the fundamental processes of radiation physics.
George Monbiot has always been that rarest of things, a thinking leftist:
Daphon & Michael are still in denial.
I look forward to our anti-science friends explaining how emails stop the fundamental processes of radiation physics.
They don’t need to Michael.
As SB has amply demonstrated in this thread alone, wild conspiracy theory and unjustified hyperbole will effectively cocoon them from any genuine consideration of the current state of scientific play. Even if an investigation is launched into “climategate” (and I agree that one should be) they will simply dismiss any findings that contradict their paranoid conspiracy views as being a result of the conspiracy.
The deniers are not open to be persuaded. They’ve made up their minds.
Yes, Lisa, SB’s a climate scientist, but unlike all the others, he’s the kind with half a brain and an ounce of integrity. His ego and excessive self-regard would not have it any other way.
I’m glad you agree that there should be an inquiry, Mondo. That puts you in a class above the deniers. They have already made up their minds on this issue.
Given the amount of reliance placed on the work of the UEA CRU, it is necessary to ensure that their work is transparent and verifiable.
Yes, let’s throw out all the CRU data.
So we’ll use GISS……..which shows more warming than the CRU data!!
Oh, look at the denialists squirm.
Funnily enough, you squirming denialist, Team members Schmidt and Hanson (of GISS) are also prominent in the Climategate documents.
GISS has been no more forthcoming than CRU with its underlying data, in spite of which GISS was forced into correcting some of their errors by McIntyre.
The conspiracy is EVERYWHERE!!!!
No climate scientists can be trusted Michael – stop being so naive.
Gosh, I hope Newton didn’t fudge any of his work on gravity because that would mean that the physics is untrue. We might float off the planet at any moment!
GISS has been no more forthcoming than CRU with its underlying data, in spite of which GISS was forced into correcting some of their errors by McIntyre.” – SB
Whereby, SB neatly demonstrates how completely gullible and bankrupt the whole denialist movement is.
All the GISS data is stored publicly, yes, the code too! Naturally this makes absolutely no difference to the denialist’s endless claims about hidden data.
In fact there are masses of data available. What have the conspiracy nuts done with all this data – nothing. They could have tested it all a hundred times over, but they’d rather write blog comments. when you point this out to them, you just get vague accusations of some other important stuff being missing – they’re just not quite sure what.
And yes Mondo, it’s all a massive conspiracy. Strange thing is that all the other science is OK – maths, physics, biology, medicine, ecology, and all their subfields, it’s just one area where there is suddenly complete malfeasence.
The denialists have confused what they wish to be true, with what can be demonstrated to be true.
“Gosh, I hope Newton didn’t fudge any of his work on gravity because that would mean that the physics is untrue. We might float off the planet at any moment! – SB
Yep! And did you know that Sir Isaac was a bit of a ruffian too? He probably came up with the theory just for the grant money.
And there’s the, as yet, unexplained discrepencies observed in the flight path of the various Voyager spacecraft – means the the moon landing was a conspriacy. Was all filmed in Hollywood!!
The issue here is transparency. Given the stakes, it is reasonable to expect transparency as far as the scientific claims are concerned.
Instead we have seen unscientific practices from certain groups. No, you can’t check the data, no you can’t see how the data has been modified and no, the science is settled so you can’t even argue any more.
This is of course all about politics, and nothing to do with science. The thinking left understand this and acknowledge the defects, and call for higher standards.
It is only those whose intellectual blindness is informed by their political prejudice who can’t see this.
I would likely still be a proponent of AGW if I actually believed the hockey-stick graphs were good science. I don’t have a vested political interest in this, but I will only base my decision on some rational explanation. Non-transparent science cannot be a rational explanation.
I don’t get your Newton propositions. Is your point that we should believe what Newton said even though it was based on bad science? We do not have the luxury of hindsight in assessing AGW theory. What is your point, other than rhetorical charlatanism?
What we require is a transparent process, not political hyperbole.
In the case of GISS, in order to assess their data we need to know the raw data, and the tweaks applied to the data to get the published series. In their case, they were unwilling to allow people to understand how they tweaked the data. Their process is not transparent, and their results should be treated with caution, as they cannot be checked.
The real deniers are those who think that nothing is wrong with the non-transparent process that masquerades as science.
My point about Newton was that even if he had fudged some of his results, this would make no difference to the physical laws of gravity. Similarly, while some climate scientists may have been misbehaving to a greater or lesser degree, this does not invalidate the theory of CO2 induced global warming. Senior students in physics used to be taught about The Millikan Oil Drop Experiment, which established the charge of an electron, a fundamental physical constant. It turned out that Dr Millikan was a bit of a ratbag and fudged his results too. Still, he obtained a reasonably accurate value given the experimental limitations of his time. This is not to skate over scientific fraud, but anyone who thinks research into such a highly charged topic as AGW will be conducted with absolute probity is just as idealistic as some silly, head-in-the-clouds ‘lefty.’
Transparency!!
Well, nothing can compare to the transparency of the sophistry employed by the denialists.
(The GISS raw data is available, has been for ages, as is the code).
Though the peer-reviewed journal process is pretty damned transparent (in a good way). It’s what’s delivered incredible scientific/technical progress over the last 200 years.
And it’s only been getting better despite the ignorant bleating of the denialists. Decades ago journal articles, even on quite complex matters, might only have been a page long. The amount of methodological detail and data availability in recent times is quite astounding, and continues to improve with IT advances.
The real issue is the militant idiocy of the denialists. No doubt, the science is a bit complicated, but if you can’t follow it you have the option of doing some work on it. It’s a bit rich for people to claim that the science is a fraud when they then demonstrate a complete ignorance of fundamental principles.
Of course, instead of spending countless hours polluting the interwebs with pure silliness, they could spend the time cracking a few books and actually learn about the subject. But that would require a few hundred hours of concentrated effort, and they really don’t have the slighest interest in doing that.
Much more fun to screech – ’email’, ‘fraud’, ‘green tax’, ‘ grant money’, ‘raw data’ etc etc.
Colin:
Yes, even if Newton had supported the law of gravity by the divination of his stools, it would make no difference to the actual laws.
But the study of science by divination of stools (or other non-scientific methods) does not give anyone a rational reason for believing it. Anyone who does is a fool.
If the process is not transparent, we should not be betting the farm on it. Is it too much to ask for that we should ask for the basic values of science to be upheld, and to be sickened by the prospect of being railroaded by a bunch of fanatics?
Michael:
This is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether we should divert massive resources to a project where the science is questionable.
It is not transparent at all. It is even worse when it is compromised by an agenda driven cabal such as the Hockey Team.
The real issue is that Thescience has been corrupted by fanatics who controlled the process from top to bottom. Now they rely on deniers like you to shut down discussion. If you had any respect for science you would want answers about the Climategate documents. That is the difference between decent people like Monbiot and the other proponents of AGW who feel betrayed by the scandalous nature of the documents and cheap political whores like you who debase science to advance their political agenda.
Do have any facts to contribute SB, or is to it be more stream-of-consciousness denialism?
Sorry. I was merely replying to your non-fact based assertions.
The real issue is that Thescience has been corrupted by fanatics who controlled the process from top to bottom.
SB – do you mean to argue that the science “might” have been corrupted, or is it your intention to assert that it actually has been corrupted?
At the moment you appear to be offering a strangely illogical mix of instructions – we are to be sceptical of the Hockey Team’s science (as the logical outcome of your argument about the lack of scientific transparency), but we are also to outright reject the Hockey Team’s science because they are corrupt fanatics.
You appear to be trying to inhabit the position of sceptic and denier simultaneously. How can you be sceptical of the truth of a claim while you simultaneously hold the view that it is certainly a lie?
Mondo, I am sceptical as to whether climate change is driven by human CO2 emissions.
However, I don’t think there is much doubt that the actions of the Hockey Team scientists amount to a corruption of the scientific process. This was evident in their considerable efforts to ensure that their work could not be checked either by not disclosing the raw data they used, or in not releasing details of the algorithms they applied to it.
This concern was only heightened by the Climategate documents. Now it seems that a lot of the original data has been lost. That would be the include the data that Phil Jones said he would rather destroy than be forced to hand over under an FOI request.
So, overall I am sceptical about AGW. However, I am fairly sure that key members of the Hockey Team have corrupted the science. They have not been behaving as scientists so much as agenda driven fanatics.
The reason we need an inquiry is to judge the impact of these fanatics on the scientific issues.
The reason the real debate on AGW is only beginning now is that, because of the non-transparent approach of the Hockey team and the IPCC, the basic facts and arguments have not been available to enable the conclusions to be tested.
However, I am fairly sure that key members of the Hockey Team have corrupted the science. They have not been behaving as scientists so much as agenda driven fanatics.
Fair enough – I think your interpretation of the climategate emails is a little extreme but we’re all forced to speculate in this regard so who knows? You might be right – the scientists may have completely corrupted the process to the point where their findings are invalid.
You might, however, also be wrong. As Colin has pointed out above there is always a level of posessiveness amongst scientists when it comes to their theories and, just like Newton, misbehaviour in defence of those theories does not necessarily invalidate them. It certainly doesn’t justify a conclusion that the scientists are fanatics, your usual hyperbole aside.
Nontheless this only goes to further illustrate that a formal review of these scientists’ findings is necessary.