Beam me to Planet Gore !
"Shame on SA for publishing such a blatantly biased apology for what appear to have been long lasting and willful manipulations on an issue of the greatest importance to us all. Casual dismissal of Climategate as "a record of how Science is actually done" is deeply offensive to me. No this is not the way Science is actually done! Climategate has brought to public light all kinds of behaviors anathema to Science: Groupthink, restricted and/or proprietary access to data, significant use of poorly documented yet "highly complex" data processing techniques, primary reliance on extrapolations or "proxies", and most damningly, offhand dismissal of skeptics as crackpots, quickly come to my mind. As a scientifically trained person, I am genuinely embarrassed that the Wall Street Journal, as opposed to SA, has understood the great concerns raised by Climategate.
Dr Thierry Copie Ph.D Physics 1988, Cornell U."
Scientific American, once an absolute jewel of culture, a place in which the finest scientists in the world published their life’s work, has become a joke. A sick, cruel joke to those of us who loved what it once was.
Mark Sanford supports John Edwards?
Scientific American has been filled with Leftist claptrap for a couple decades, and this just puts the lid on it. Much like National Geographic.
It’s a shame, they were both once fine publications.
The comment secion is excellent.
I am the long lost King of France.
I don’t need to show my evidence to you peasants.
Best Global warming/”Climate Change” post ever. Love the comments. Thanks for posting.
I went through the comments and recorded the percentage of critical ones. That scientific community is running 4:1 against AGW. There is a consensus. AGW is a scam.
SA better wake up.
In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame.Of course it does - since it directly undermines one of the MAIN figures (the "hockey stick") used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This figure is one of the cornerstones of the IPCC reports on "climate change" (AGW).
“Heat-trapping properties can be verified by any undergraduate in any lab,” notes climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University.What a load of BS! While true, the entire point of climate realism is that the climate is highly complex, with non-obvious feedback mechanisms. Just as a for instance, if higher temperatures cause additional water vapor to enter the atmosphere, that may well cause more daytime cloud cover, reflecting a LOT more solar energy back into space. This effect probably does account for the Earth recovering from earlier high average temperature episodes (you know, the ones where humans were CLEARLY not a factor!).
“The detection of climate change, and its attribution to human causes, rests on numerous lines of evidence.” They include melting ice sheets, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and earlier onset of spring, not to mention higher average global temperatures."First of all, many of these "lines of evidence" are indeed in question. Have you seen the recent articles on the complete fabrication of a Himalayan melting glacier crisis? Others, such as rising sea levels, have been occurring since long before there could possibly have been a human influence.
Second, not ONE of those "lines of evidence" points to human causation of warming. We're in an interglacial period, temperatures have been rising for thousands of years. What we should all be dreading is the abrupt downturn into the NEXT ice age!
Shame on you Katharine Hayhoe, you clearly don't deserve the title "scientist". You need to go back to school and learn a lot more about the scientific method, as well as paleoclimatology.
David Biello, the author, is a shameless whore.
I am reminded of the magazine POPULAR SCIENCE. For years they had talked about the posibility of the “Greenhouse Effect”, then in the late 1970s they had an editorial that they would never use that term again as it was wrong(Ice age coming).
Then about ten or fifteen years later they began the mantra of “Global Warming”.
SciAm has disgraced itself by glossing over the non-repeatable data of the East Anglia fraudsters.
In contrast, ice-core temperature data is repeatable. Drill more ice-holes and extract more ice cores to verify the temperature data that is buried within the ice.
But...that data confirms that the Earth’s climate changes naturally, and has been so doing long before Man was here, so it probably wouldn’t be a popular view among the SciAm staff.
It appears as though IPCC credibility has suffered recently...