NewLiberty on the LvMI Forum shares a bevy of links covering the recent climate scandal that seems likely to become even bigger than the Yamal Controversy…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
“So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory – a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below – emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.”
…as well as a torrent of the actual leaked emails and documents.
Elsewhere in the web, the heroic Bishop Hill provides us with an extensive collection of summaries of some of the more interesting “CRUgate” e-mails.
But LvMI Forum member Le Master has his own choice nugget to share. He enjoins us to particularly “check out the PDF in the documents folder. It’s a five-page document titled The Rules of the Game. It seems to be like a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average subject of the UK. The document suggests that it is a precis of a longer document housed at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.”
Hopefully some readers here will follow Le Master’s example and make the leaked emails and documents their weekend reading, and post what they find here or on the relevant forum thread. Many eyes make light work!
Let’s give them something to talk about in Copenhagen.
{ 217 comments }
← Previous Comments
Same goes for lawyers, doctors, stock brokers, real estate agents, tax preparers (obviously), anybody with a license. A license is nothing but making sure you know what the “rules” are so the government can keep track of what everybody’s doing and stop things it doesn’t like. Can’t represent someone else unless you’re a state-recognized lawyer (it’s easy for the government to convict you when it picks who can defend you). Can’t treat someone else unless youre a state-recognized doctor doing things the way the government says you can. Etc.
It used to be that anybody who could pass the bar exam could become a lawyer. But now you need brainwashing in how the government is great and how we need government laws to stop bad people, although I guess the bar exam itself pretty much covers all of that to begin with. Medical school is brainwashing in how the government is great and how we need the government to approve certain medical treatments. Business school is brainwashing in how the government is great and how we need government intervention to save the free market.
This is funny because there are no studies proving AGW. The ones that explicitly endorse it are all based on worthless climate models, something I am more qualified than Saildog to understand since my education is in computer science. But if he wants “climate” qualifications, no problem,
Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Former State Climatologist for Virginia, Contributing Author and Reviewer, IPCC
Patrick J. Michaels: Climate of Extremes (Video) (60min)
Matt C
Did you purposefully stub your toe just to try to disprove the epistemological foundation of Austrian Economics?
=(
Pat Michaels:
http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/patMichaels.html
Go back to the Glenn Beck show.
This is too easy; I’m leaving.
Daniel,
If there only was such a thing. You know, starting from Mises’ axiom, you could invoke the benefits of government intervention. Since human action doesn’t always resolve in a quick manner, people who know how to reach a particular goal better and faster can help you.
I don’t really think an epistemological foundationalism is very useful, especially when one claims infallibility. The fact of the matter is that his work did incorporate his observations and some common sense, but it isn’t perfect. Just because there are no controlled experiments (sometimes situations can create these though) doesn’t mean our interaction and observation of the market can’t get us a good amount of understanding and guidance to create a theory and see if makes sense.
“It is true, Mises was an extreme apriorist and he did caution against the use of econometrics. But the architecture of his system is actually radically empirical…â€
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FHET%2FHET31_01%2FS1053837209090142a.pdf&code=4095ce36fec007d081bc6fe8a66d382c
If you can’t make useful predictions, then you’re just another blowhard. The mathematical models that try to model economic phenomena don’t work very well, and that’s the ONLY reason why we should reject them. Mises is generally right about many things but partly for the wrong reasons. Some models do work reasonably well.
Much of his theory does make useful predictions, but the theory needs work in other areas. The focus on foundationalism (a product of his era) and the epistemological aspects of his theory is focusing on all the wrongs things. In other words, it focuses on the anachronistic.
You might think the joke is on me, but you guys are the ones that suffer from such backwardness. Only fan boys fail to improve upon their teacher’s work and make it more generally acceptable.
Matt C,
” people who know how to reach a particular goal better and faster can help you ”
To go from this to justifying Government intervention, you are going to have to prove that those in Government know how to reach the particular goal better and faster. I wonder how you are going to prove that.
As usual, you do not think 1 step beyond your own post.
By the way, how’s the stubbed toe doing? Hope you have acted to relieve the pain caused by the accident… oops…. action of deliberately stubbing your toe.
Bala,
As usual, you cannot understand the argument. The point was that government interventionists do think this. The axiom is hollow.
“By the way, how’s the stubbed toe doing? Hope you have acted to relieve the pain caused by the accident… oops…. action of deliberately stubbing your toe.”
I did stub my toe the other day, but not on purpose. But then again, how would know? lol
The current state of Scientists Elite have built themselves as GODS and the Makers and Breakers of Careers and it’s all about the MONEY now, no truth needed…….
The phenomenon I discuss in my research has been studied for nearly 50 years and accepted as highly plausible by the Royal Society (I have the Publication) but the process and connection were unexplainable; the only drawback of all Magnetic Intensity and Ambient Temperature studies, in their WORDS, up till now. We explained the Process in our paper along with the data analysis. Unfortunately, we used the Hadley Global Temperature Datasets. The data used were yearly averages, which was well explained both in the original paper and the 2008 AGU presentation. Just didn’t see any RealClimate people at the presentation. But they knew about it. I informed them.
The following is what I perceived as personal intimidation and a threat to call my USGS supervisor for doing this study. The only reason someone uses words like “Does your boss know what your doing” in the context of this event is a threat to get you FIRED if you don’t cease and desists. Now if the study and theory were not plausible and a potential explanation of global temperature variability, then why would RealClimate.org do what they did in their posts? Not very professional for PhDs. Additionally, there are many other areas on that website where conversations took place.
QUOTE
“264
John Mashey says:
30 June 2007 at 1:04 AM
re: #261: Chuck: you can stop worrying. Tindall has been at USGS for while,……………………………………..
Mr. Moran, if you’re still watching:
I have read USGS 370.735.5 and I hope you (and James Tindall) have.
Do managers SAF and LE HB know about this? Any constructive comments?”
UNQUOTE
From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200…
Matt C.,
” I did stub my toe the other day, but not on purpose. But then again, how would know? lol ”
From the phrase “stub my toe”, you know. A lot of words and phrases have fairly definite meanings, you know. “Stub my toe” means that I accidentally bumped my toe into something and hurt it. But then, for someone like you, how is that to ever be clear?
” The point was that government interventionists do think this. The axiom is hollow. ”
Actually, it is the minds of people who come up with this conclusion that are hollow or rather bereft of rationality (given the impossibility of ever proving their conclusion starting from the axiom of human action). That they can make such conclusions that they can never justify shows the level of their thinking (if you could call it that). Your post indicates that you are operating very much at that level.
Incidentally, if a person buys a knife for the purpose of cutting vegetables and then ends up slitting his throat with it, are you in the habit of blaming the knife for it? Your statements indicate that you are.
Bala,
The only person “bereft of rationality” is you. If you want to spin everything out of your head, then that’s your business. No serious person will listen to you. Foundationalism is over. It’s a foolish, young man’s game.
Furthermore, you talk as if there are definitive “proofs” in the social “sciences.” That type of confusion takes a great deal of time to reverse.
I have a theory that most Objectivists have asperger’s syndrome. Thanks for helping me verify it!
“A great many people now reading and writing would be better employed keeping rabbits.” — Edith Sitwell
Holy Kant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CliGdmHB9pY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ8OpVAWHMc
Bala,
You are confused. We were talking about “purposive behavior.” Blame has nothing to do with it. But now that you mention it, we don’t have control over all aspects of nature. You should accept the free will theorem (but I never said I did); it’s proved with axioms. LOL! It looks like you’re the one in the pickle.
Free Will:
If a doctor gave you 1 minute to live, would you decide to die with hate and contempt in your heart or love for all humanity? This would be you free-will choice.
Do you think at this time you thoughts could be persuaded while someone held a gun to your head?
Free will vs. determinism isn’t a very productive debate. It’s useful to assume that people do have free will, but I’m not so sure we could every “prove” it. I’m not even sure if it’s a sensible question, given the lack of understand what free will is, beyond basic generalization.
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light:
Sorry to be late to this party.
I posted a few thoughts here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/12/04/my-climate-confession-quot-climate-change-emails-stop-glaciers-from-melting-quot.aspx
Do you have your Medical Marijuana License and are you searching for your Marijuana Caregiver? Check out this website and find a Medical Marijuana Caregiver in your area today!
nice, good post
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.