The Sound Of All Hell Breaking Loose

She gives the right answer,but unfortunately still doesn't realize it is political.Give her time and maybe she will learn that the sloppiness is pure politics and social engineering.

Uncertainty analysis? Kidding, right?

She didn't see the Kate Klassic photo: NASA thermometer next to the AC vent over the asphalt driveway... with the barbecue?

Nice to see another 800 pound chicken come in for a landing on these jerks though, I must say.

flap flap flap WHAM. [ow]

I remember when I was about 12. At the time I thought, "Hey, I could be the CEO of X big company, I'll just buy it with borrowed money and hire all my buddies!"

The socialists seem to think that the only reason power is held is due to titles, and once you get the title, you assume the honorific and all the goodies.

Generally, once they get there and find themselves wanting the fallback position gets ugly. This is because they tend to lack real-world experience and integrity.

Saskatchewan still going ahead with the carbon credit scheme. Nothing to see here folks, keep moving.

Ever wonder why our kids continue to be indocrinated with Gores Movie or sleezuky's
warm fuzzy creatures? It isn't that they are Evil or don't get it. They just find that thier Ego and pockets books have greater needs than the truth.

She knows the motivation for 'slopiness' is political, admiting it would be career suicide for her and another blow to the warmists. The cockroaches are scurrying back into the shadows.

I think Ms. Curry is striking a careful balance in her criticism. She's allowing some "save face" room for climate scientists to back up and admit error and uncertainty. She also made it quite clear who the IPCC answers to--the UNPCCC (did I get all the letters here?) Whoever frames the questions tends to obtain the answers they're looking for. This can apply to both sides of an issue. The world would benefit from research and information that wasn't being skewed to suit any particular agenda. If carbon dioxide is really such a culprit, would you not like to know that? Some questions that need to be addressed: 1. Is climate changing? 2. If so, is it due to normal cycles? Will these cycles regulate themselves? 3. Is human activity contributing to the change? If so, to what degree? 4. If change is occuring, is it negative or threatening--could we adapt as we have always done? Might it even be positive? 5. If change is occurring, are the proposed remedies addressing the problem?

If you read both interviews, the one with Michael Mann comes off as being much more defensive and not very convincing. He maintains the "we're right" position rather than bringing up any points that would support that. He takes a shot at Curry over some email that she sent him which he insinuates would put her in a bad light. (How would she like it if her emails were published yada yada?)

Curry suggests that if any action on climate is taken, it will be within the G20 framework. I would feel a lot better if all the climate research were removed from the overview of the UN and placed within a different organization. Perhaps the G20 nations would be as good as any. That way, not every tinpot nation who suffers a heavy out-of-season rainstorm would have a hand out for climate distress reparations.

By focusing entirely on CO2 and climate change, I really think we're losing focus on problems that we could and should be addressing. This also means that the dollars that we could be using to reduce local sources of pollution (such as coal-fired power plants) are being directed to futile places. Curry believes that technology would take care of CO2 problems (if it is a problem) and I think that is the way to go. We need reliable energy sources--wind and solar won't do it. But as long as we pursue the chimera of climate change, this will be delalyed or not done at all.

Ms. Curry is incorrect at best and dishonest at worst when she says that it's a case of sloppiness in data collection and analysis rather than politics that has created the problem.

Sloppiness is one of the symptoms of the political agenda that the pro-AGW climate and 'science' community is invoking.

Does she think that if they were getting the results that they wanted to see that they would have been this "sloppy"?

I bet if they were getting the answers they wanted they would be publishing their source data far and wide and driving for ever greater data collection and more precise and unimpeachable data collection systems (eg- moving impaired weather stations as documented chapter and verse on this site to better less damnable locations).

I bet they would be up in arms about Canada shutting down weather stations in the far north and in fact clamouring for even more.

Perfect, or at least more perfect data, is the enemy of their agenda - sloppiness gave/gives them the leeway to argue that AGW is significant and warrants global control.

Ken (Kulak) can you expand on your comment;

"Saskatchewan still going ahead with the carbon credit scheme. Nothing to see here folks, keep moving. " and provide any reference in this regard.

Interested.

Those who know better, (leaders and politicians) but buy in anyway because it's a great tax and control opportunity are pure evil.

Those who buy in on faith and envy IE the masses of the left without a shred of evidence, are pure idiots and evil in their own petty ways. But then the same could be said of those who buy into an almighty deity along with heaven and hell.

The human race is definitely not ready to join the Galactic Empire.

At least Discover Magazine is opening the climate debate which is more than Scientific American has to date. Picking someone in the middle like Dr. Curry and letting the hard line Mann rebut her isn't exactly balanced in my opinion, but it's a start.

Gord nails it !!

Micheal Mann answers with the precision of a well prepped defendant in a criminal trial. Judith Curry comes across as authentic but still clinging to the belief that major players in climate science are acting with objectivity and integrity.

WUWT had an interesting story the other day about Dr.Nicola Scafetta and his summary (booklet in PDF) on the state of climate change. It includes both the problems with the IPCC storyline and alternative theories.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/14/dr-nicolas-scaffeta-summarizes-why-the-anthropogenic-theory-proposed-by-the-ipcc-should-be-questioned/

No analysis because this has never been about science to begin with.

The back pedaling has begun. Hopefully the AGW religion faithful will not be as obstinate as the church was in recognizing the Galileo revelation. That admission took two hundred years.

Ron, it probably won't take quite as long what with the rapidity of communications today, but the battle is not over,and the AGW acolytes will hang on for dear life.

There's more than God at stake,there's MONEY!!!

reildeil @ 11:29, You asked for a reference.

Try this:
http://www.saskatoonhomepage.ca/agriculture-news/no-till-farming-give-it-credit.html

ron in kelowna, I would not hold my breath too long, as there is too much money, power and people control involved.

Yeah, right. "Sloppiness" is justification for every manner of evil, as though being sloppy is somehow merely accidental, not meant, no one's fault.

It's up there with the "I don't know," answer to a perfectly viable question; the shrug; the "I didn't do it, she did it, he did it, it's not my fault, I didn't do anything, I didn't mean to" you hear every day in the classroom, all answers pretty much accepted by most teachers nowadays (BUT, not me).

There's a general acceptance, in our post-Christian society, that being sloppy is OK; you know? no one's perfect, chill out, we all make mistakes. In fact, the general attitude is, it's expected that people -- especially when it's "me" -- will make mistakes and why get your knickers in a knot when it happens?

Gone are the days when being responsible and accountable was the general standard. We'll see lots more where this comes from -- and it's going to be a rapid slide down the slippery slope right into the swamp.

Glug, glug, glug.

Pure science does not tolerate the same type of sloppiness illustrated by political science.

Pure science established that facts and recognizes that theories that are not proven for nearly 150 years are probably just theories.

There is a universe of truth and a universe of lies. I would submit that the political science of AGW theory falls into the universe of lies.

Considering that the AGW scam is the stalking horse that International Communism mounted to achieve their goal of One World Government Global Domination after the Soviet juggernaut they were riding ran out of steam, I'm not inclined to be charitable to Judith Curry and her excuses of sloppiness.

If it weren't for the hard evidence that was released from CRU last November, the Copenhagen conference probably would have achieved the goals that were intended for it.
The goal of these EcoFascists is to literally reduce the world population by billions of people through privation starting with economic destruction by forced energy rationing.

We still haven't won this war yet, and make no mistake it is a war.
Having Judith Curry trying to explain to us that the Warmists attempt to kick our heads in was really just from sloppiness and the Warmists were really trying to dance with us but stepped on our toes doesn't cut it.

She is an apologist for the enemy and is in effect keeping the AGW scam alive whether she recognizes the stakes involved or not.

Ok.Could batb or ron or some one else please explain to this simple avionics engineer how CO2,a life giving gas,is a pollutant? Am I missing something?

Oz ... has got it!

CO2 is NOT ! a pollutant. It is an essential gas for life on earth. There is barely enough of it to support plant life - without plants we all die.

Al Gore tries to tell us CO2 is a global warming pollutant. In fact, it is a very minor greenhouse gas. Many times the earth has been in a miles thick ice age while at the same time CO2 concentrations were much much higher than today's minuscule, slightly elevated level.

[quote]Curry believes that technology would take care of CO2 problems (if it is a problem) and I think that is the way to go. We need reliable energy sources--wind and solar won't do it. But as long as we pursue the chimera of climate change, this will be delalyed or not done at all.[/quote] rita

Rita, you can't deal some problems in hard logical thought, like ET does, until you admit Good & Evil exist.. When things just don't make sense it's because someone has applied torque to the truth.. IMHO AGW is evil

All Environmental projects will be DOA..until truth is restored...All UN/EU climate R&D must be flat lined

Justthinkin, I wasn't aware that I had said that CO2 is a pollutant. The tack of my comment was that sloppiness in reporting as a defense of the evil AGW agenda is indefensible, though par for the course these days.

'Brings to mind some Leonard Cohen lyrics:

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions,
'Won't be nothing, nothing you can measure anymore ...

With our decent into relativism and its commensurate false equalities "sloppy reporting" gets you off the hook of responsibility and accountability. You can bypass "truth" altogether.

It's one of the many new dispensations.

Correction to above post:

With our DESCENT into relativism and its commensurate false equalities ...