“The IPCC’s regular reports are the gold standard in climate change science. Each report — the latest was in 2007 — is the result of years of writing, reviewing and consensus-building among hundreds of scientists.

This process is robust and custom-made to weather criticism. Its consensus findings are incredibly difficult to ignore, and have done more than anything to spread the vital message that climate change is real and it is caused by human impact.”
— Bjorn Lomborg, How to save the world in Copenhagen

“You really need to read Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and his latest book, THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING BLUNDER. “

Maybe.

Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 1
Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 2
Roy Spencer’s Great Blunder, Part 3
Just Put the Model Down, Roy

Then again, maybe not 😉

“Gavin, Kevin, Michael, and all the others (The Hockey team) have admitted that they must use guesstimates in their climate models, which they tinker with until they get the results that they want. “

“All models are wrong, but some are useful.” — George Box.

All scientific theories and laws are models at their basest level. All science is probabilistic with uncertainties.

Gavin, Kevin, Michael, and all the others (The Hockey team) have admitted that they must use guesstimates in their climate models, which they tinker with until they get the results that they want. Then they cry foul when people point put that we should not be making trillion dollar economic decisions based on these models that are really nothing more than estimates.

You really need to read Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and his latest book, THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING BLUNDER. It’s here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Dr. Spencer is is probably the best of the climate scientists that disagree with the Hockey Team. However, there is also Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit or Dr Richard Lindzen here: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
Do some reading of other voices, it might give you some perspective.

In spite of what the Hockey Team says, the debate is just getting started. They have dominated the field (and the finances) up to this point, but the uneconomic mitigation solutions they are calling for have raised questions as to whether the predictions and science on which they are based is sound. Until more certainty is established, in the words of Bjorn Lomborg, let’s “COOL IT.” See here: http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it/
The amount of warming observed and predicted calls for adaptation not mitigation.

Very true: Bickmore on the WSJ response.

This fake memo is not out of line with the various efforts revealed by the Climategate e-mails. It isn’t surprising, and it reinforces the “ends justifies the means” mindset of the AGW “scientists”.

This implies the actual weakness of their factual AGW argument.

If you have the facts on your side, you don’t have to lie and make shit up.

Unsettled Science.

I guess we’re lucky that Dr. Gleick wasn’t skilled that way, eh?

Yes, we are.

One of the many indicators that the memo was fake was where it said that Heartland would push a curriculum “dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

This is how the warmists view the skeptics. According to the warmists, the AGW skeptics are against “settled science,” and thus against “science.”

While this may be a warmist view of AGW skeptics, it is not how AGW skeptics view themselves. It is thus a good indication the memo was fake.

While most of us are not adept at imitating writing styles as is an experienced writer like Sgt. Mom, I suspect that wingnuts at this blog can do a more credible job of constructing libs’ arguments than libs can do of constructing wingnuts’ arguments. The reason at least at this blog is that a lot of us used to be libs, so we are familiar with lib ways of thinking.

Well, I guess it really must take an insider to hack into the servers they already have access to using an exploit, and then use an exploit to hack another website, take it over, and upload the ZIP file there, all via servers in Russia and Turkey. Not really your run-of-the-mill whistleblower.

“But AGW goes well beyond that. It is: hypothesis + money (LOTS of money) + politics + power. “

Actually, it’s older than relativity and quantum mechanics and based on fully accepted physical laws and theories. Look up John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius.

Evidently your ability to mimic different styles far exceeds that of most people (including writers) and especially that of technical people, such as scientists, engineers and programmers. Having worked for a long time in a technical field, I can tell you that a large percentage of techies cannot write at all, a fair chunk are marginally competent, some are reasonably capable and very few are good or excellent. And I’d bet that most of the latter group are good-excellent exclusively in their own distinctive voice.

So fortunately, I think the luck runs the opposite way. That is, Dr Gleick (or someone like him) would have to be very lucky to concoct a convincing memo in a style significantly different from his own.

On the other hand, I know that a writing style can be mimicked; I am very good at doing it for my own books. I can read up on certain 19th century authors and writers, and then ‘do’ page after page in their style. For one of my books, I did a series of letters and the diary of a character leading a wagon train so convincingly that there are a lot of readers who were sure that I had found a genuine cache of letters and the diary someplace!

I guess we’re lucky that Dr. Gleick wasn’t skilled that way, eh?