Sunday, November 29, 2009


Scientists Are Not Software Engineers
The real shocking revelation in the Climategate incident isn’t the emails that show influential scientists possibly engaging in the disruption of the scientific process and possibly even committing legal fraud. Those emails might be explained away.

No, the real shocking revelation lies in the computer code and data that were dumped along with the emails. Arguably, these are the most important computer programs in the world. These programs generate the data that is used to create the climate models which purport to show an inevitable catastrophic warming caused by human activity. It is on the basis of these programs that we are supposed to massively reengineer the entire planetary economy and technology base.

The dumped files revealed that those critical programs are complete and utter train wrecks....


  1. Read the Skeptical Environmentalist and learn more about the truth - it's been out there for years--- Thanks for this piece.

  2. Poor sneaky Pete and the other scam prophets will never let this stand. I can see it now, rallies,beer bashes and pot fest to keep the kids,&daddy's credit card, giving to the holy cause.

  3. You know how I keep saying that all you need do is listen to what they say - these new age con men - whatever they say, the opposite is true, whatever they say, it tells you exactly what they themselves are up to...

    Al Gore lied to this country - he "played our our fears."

    But the truth cannot stay hidden forever, even though they have now destroyed the original data.

  4. Rose,

    Really, this is a flat earth argument. Do I need to remind you that the last ten years have been the warmest in world history? Ditto for the last 25 years.

  5. Yep, guess there were scientists around for the last several million years with a thermometer.

    Modern geologists and geophysicists accept that the age of the Earth is around 4.54 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%) The beginning of the Hadean eon was when the Earth was a condensed portion of the accretion disk that made up the early Solar System. Over millions of years, this condensed portion started to chunk together by the mutual attraction of gravity, and a primitive proto-Earth was formed. Over a period of hundreds of millions of years, until about 4,100 million years ago, the Earth was quite hot. Convection and subduction churned the surface of the planet, creating a planetwide froth of magma. Heavier elements, like iron, lead, and iridium, sunk deep below the surface of the planet, forming its core. Lighter elements, such as gasses, rose to the top in outgassing events. The surface of the Earth was composed of silicates, which floated on top of the magma seas. Somewhere around the late-to-middle portion of the Hadean eon, the Earth began to cool and the outlines of the continents formed.

    Guess no one was around when the first form of life developed in the hot primordal ooze.

  6. Hi Rose, not sure about link to Skeptical Environmentalist.. author is Bjorn Lomborg and has written for the NY Times, Wall St. Journal - think he is adjunct professor at Copenhagen. Go to

    Bottom line: this whole issue has become RELIGON for its followers. Logic is lost on most of them. Why aren't we seeing more of them cleaning up their won individual acts (driving clunkers, littering, begging, etc.) and of really getting down to reality and truth of helping others without being asked to, being kind to everyone instead of acting as though they are entitled to money without having to work for it? We'd like to see them doing more to get developing countries to feed, employ their peoples using cleaner methods of production(and we're not talking drug production).

  7. "Logic is lost on most of them."

    I'll settle for science. 99.99% of the world's leading authorities on climate, including the entire physical science departments at Stanford, Columbia, Princeton and Harvard (to name just a few) agree that we are in the midst of a dangerous global warming induced to a large part by the burning of fossil fuels.

    Against that, you've got a few cranks and a handful of whores who work for oil companies trying to deny scientific fact.

  8. Nope - those talking points are failing by the day, too ludicrous to hold up in the face of mounting evidence of astronomical fraud behind the Global Warming hoax.

    Follow the money - Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

    But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

    Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

    Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

    Climategate: Follow the Money Wall Street Journal

  9. Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

    And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

    Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

    Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

    None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

    Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

  10. "some of the world's leading climate scientists"

    Make that ALL of the world's leading scientists.

    Must be a big conspiracy!

  11. What other universally recognized scientific truths do you doubt?

    Let me guess: evolution!

  12. It is indeed a religion as anon shows. I noticed on NPR last night they seemed to be doing all they could to minimize any effects of Climategate. Pretty much acknowledging the e-mails validity but insisting those e-mails meant nothing.

  13. I get it. Anything Al Gore endorses, we're supposed to oppose, even if it flies in the face of 99.99% of the peer-reviewd science on the subject.

    Politics trumps science.

  14. No, you don't get it. Al Gore is a charlatan.

  15. So of course the 99.99% of the physical science community that totally disagrees with your irresponsible conclusions are also "charlatans."

  16. 99.99% of the physical science community does not disagree with Rose. You just think so because of the sort of chicanery at issue here: Certain scientists (and Algore) manipulating evidence to manufacture the conclusion they want everyone to come to and shutting down voices that differ.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.