Warning — grumpy engineer.

An odd editorial from Nature today. Apparently according to this ‘scientist’ anyone who sees anything wrong with the emails is a denialist and “obstructionist politicians’ will use it to disrupt the cap and trade legislation coming this spring. I don’t know who the goofball was that wrote this rubbish, but cap and trade is a scheme to allow politicians arbitrary control over money distribution. Taxing CO2 directly is simply a method to repress industry. And frankly those of us who are not extremist industry hating leftists can usually see right through it.

Denialist appears 8 times

Conspiracy appears 3 times

Besides the fact that this was apparently written by Michael Mann’s communist brother and ostrich-like in it’s open mindedness, they do finish up saying that being open with the data is important. WELL THANK GOD FOR THAT!!! Jeeez .. Like pulling teeth from a friggin’ alligator with tweezers.

Since the obvious and foolish intent of the editorial is to marginalize the “crazies” like US. I’ll point out a few details….

#1 -McIntyre and McKitrick star bad guys of these emails are not denialists. They never make any such point.

#2 – The files were intentionally released HERE. This blog who’s proprietor ADMITS GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL – Every other damn day it seems. — NOT A DENIALIST!!

#3 – VonStorch who strongly questioned the motives of these researchers – IS NOT A DENIALIST!!

#4 – Zorita who wants Mann, Jones and Rohmsdorf removed from IPCC processes – IS NOT A DENIALIST!!

#5 – I’ve read no articles which conclude global warming is proven wrong by this, there may be some but ya know – WHO ARE THESE DENIALISTS?

#6 – Monibot – IS THE FURTHEST POSSIBLE EXTREME FROM A DENIALIST!

#7 – Roger Pielke’s are not DENIALISTS!!

Ok, that took a little pressure off, I had to get the BP below 150. Here’s the article.

Editorial

Nature 462, 545 (3 December 2009) | doi :10.1038/462545a; Published online 2 December 2009

Climatologists under pressure

Top of page Abstract Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe. This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails. First, Earth’s cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year. Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world’s voracious appetite for carbon is essential (see pages 568 and 570). Read the rest here. ————–

Maybe instead of posting this embarrassing political silliness at Nature they should start a blog to let some steam off. haha. So if the major critics of these emails aren’t global warming denialists what does that make the people who wrote this piece? I would like to formally offer the editors who wrote this to feel free to contact me with their own guest posts here. The scientists have too much pressure and need a spot to let it loose. The ski trips and constant travel wear on a person. They might as well let off steam at the Air Vent because it’s kinda embarrassing to do it in front of everyone at Nature. Crazy times.



