Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Disappearing Letter

Sometimes I just like to see how honest the left is. WUWT had an article on the problems of climate modeling joshua tree habitat going forward based on several climate models. In the comments was an outraged demand that a picture of a painting used to accompany the story needed to be taken down. Apparently the fellow in the painting was outraged that neither the painter nor he was consulted. I searched the guy and found that he'd written a dishonest nastygram. From the way he was talking he might have just been uninformed about the pros and cons of the whole debate (he actually recommended the realclimate team as a resource for people honestly wondering about global warming) and so I dropped a comment in. It was quickly deleted. So here it is for those who care.

The skeptic/denialist side on climate change (which label you pick tends to come from what side you land on the issue) has exposed an awful lot of bad science, including some done by the realclimate brigade. Things have gotten so bad that what used to be 3 groups creating global datasets has now been joined by a 4th, to be run out of UC Berkeley (not the most right wing of places). This is because of plain old bad science. We’ve spent a great deal of tax dollars to create data sets that are just unusable and now we’re likely to spend more money to do it all again. 
a 5 minute pull video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
the whole 1 hour talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_916464&v=VbR0EPWgkEI&feature=iv
Without sites like WUWT, this scientific malfeasance would have never been exposed. The Berkeley professor believes in global warming. He just doesn’t believe in lying to get there. The realclimate people are a different breed.


I'd never heard of Chris Clarke before today but he sure made a lousy impression on me in near record time.