“The real professionals, on the other hand, have discovered that the source of all the recent global warming is not CO2, but bad data used in climate models which forces the models to show recent warming – where OTHER DATA shows there is no recent warming.”

Climate scientists talk about “forcing”, the causative agents behind whatever is happening (or, in this case, is not happening, really). They NEED to know what is underlying what we see, in order – if nowhere else – to program their models.

Supposedly forcing is something out there in nature, but the real forcing is turning out to be the mindset that tweaks the hell out of the code and the equations – until the output gives them the results they want – IN A PRETEND WORLD, but not in the real world.

The emails are clearly showing that they force the numbers over and over again.

They force the data sets – by cherry picking – to give them only the results that agree with their premise.

They force the journals to print only cherry-picked and friendly papers.

They even force their own kind to knuckle under (e.g., Mann leaning heavily on people including Briffa himself) or be excluded.

FORCING – sounds like extortion and gangster tactics, the way they apply the principle.

I am proud to not be one of their victims.

.

“As Krugman ably demonstrates, lay people should not jump into this debate without some experience and expertise in science, math and engineering.”

It is one of the most frustrating things to try to discuss this with people who simply cannot understand the basic tenets of the scientific method and who accept the “consensus” and the “1500 scientists are in agreement” at face value, or who remember that when they were kids it was not so warm where they live (which in this area isn’t even true [Chicago]). The worst are the ones whose last line of defense is, “But what id it is true? Shouldn’t we err on this side of caution?” Mann et all LIVE off these people, who think their version of thinking is logic, but all it is is repeating something they’ve heard enough times that it has ingrained itself in their brains.

Thanks to the author for including engineers along with the scientists and mathematicians. I’m an engineer and know you can’t just accept something because someone says it is so. That is why I delved into this in the first place, simply trying to see for myself what the hoopla was all about. I had no reason to doubt it – until I started trying to find the evidence. The evidence was WEAK, and that was apparent VERY early on. Suggestive evidence was presented as absolute fact, qualifying wishy-washy comments by the scientists, parsing words, was taken as gospel. This was the late 1990s, and things haven’t changed much in that time – except that people have had 10 more years of having in ingrained in their brains.

I have had ZERO luck trying to present things to people who weren’t already skeptical. I am looked at like I am crazy. Mann et al using the term “denier” is a really low blow, and completely uncalled for.

The emails is the best thing to happen in the entire decade, IMHO. These gangster scientists/co-conspirators are shown to be the liars and frauds they really are. No matter their initial “good intentions,” they have grown into a mafioso, subverting science and piling up huge wads of money, all based upon a lie.

A quick and true anecdote: In about 1985-6 a friend of mine was the Country Coroner (CC) here. He told of a young guy coming to a County Board meeting, declaring the lakes in our county were suffering from acid rain. The CC was shocked, as he would have known if they were. The CC told the young man to come to the next month’s Co Board meeting, that the CC would have tests done and results back by then. One month later, the CC had his results at the Board meeting – ALL WERE COMPLETELY NEGATIVE. NO acidity whatsoever. When told this at the meeting, the young man said, “Well that doesn’t matter, we have to do something anyway!”

When facts don’t matter, how does one deal with them?

Who are really the deniers?

I referred to Pons and Fleishmann in an earlier post today.

Where is the academy?

We’ve seen George Taylor retire, to be replaced by Phillip Mote. You know, the former Washington State Climatologist who fired his assistant becaus that assistant was correct on snowfall predicitions?

We’ve adopted the Chicago Way when it comes to science. Unfortunately, this isn’t a reference to UC.
.

I do too – but the problem is that those who are complicit in the fraud are those who control all of the effective enforcement mechanisms in the world.

As much fun as it would be to fantasize about Eric Holder indicting Henry Waxman, the odds are against it. And every big player is going to protect the smaller players since they know that they don’t let the edifice crumble anymore. We’re already at the “facts! We don’ need no steenkin’ facts!” stage – just look at Krugman’s pathetic excuse for an article referenced by AJ. He starts right off by moaning about how “the icecaps are shrinking faster than ever!” without caring in the least that they are in fact growing. (as you well know)

Facts no longer matter to them. We are engaged in a battle of pure PR where they are going to try and ram this through as the embodiment of all of their political hopes and dreams. There is no good faith on their part anymore – not on the part of *anyone* who supports this.

This is no longer a debate – this is war.

Pitchfork and torch time, indeed.

And it gets worse. Not only has CRU somehow “lost” the data, they also do not have a list of the stations used in the original data so that the data set can be reconstructed.

They can not even tell you what stations they used over which periods of time. In other words, it is all, basically, a matter of “faith”. You simply have to take their word for it that things are as they say they are.

Got a lighter? I need to get this torch lit.