"Mission-oriented" global warming science

Well, the most recent AGW/CC unmasking certainly shows how the behavior of those pushing the great scientific fraud is nicely described by Michael Shermer’s concept of Darwin’s Dictum. Here’s a searchable archive of the infamous AGW/CC-related emails written by the con artists calling themselves “scientists” at the Climate Research Unit. As usual, the blogosphere is proving itself to be miles ahead of the mainstream media, who are still trying to ignore the giant woolly mammoth in the bathroom. There’s all sorts of stuff like this:

“I’ve got something quite interesting in progress here. If you look at the original 1989 paper, you will see that Jacoby “cherry-picked” the 10 “most temperature-sensitive” sites from 36 studied. I’ve done simulations to emulate cherry-picking from persistent red noise and consistently get hockey stick shaped series, with the Jacoby northern treeline reconstruction being indistinguishable from simulated hockey sticks. The other 26 sites have not been archived. I’ve written to Climatic Change to get them to intervene in getting the data. Jacoby has refused to provide the data. He says that his research is “mission-oriented” and, as an ex-marine, he is only interested in a “few good” series.

Jacoby has also carried out updated studies on the Gasp� series, so essential to MBH98. I’ve seen a chronology using the new data, which looks completely different from the old data (which is a hockey stick). I’ve asked for the new data, but Jacoby-d’Arrigo have refused it saying that the old data is “better” for showing temperature increases. Need I comment? I’ve repeatedly asked for the exact location of the Gasp� site for nearly 9 months now (I was going to privately fund a re-sampling program, but Jacoby, Cook and others have refused to disclose the location.) Need I comment?”

So, how about that debate, PZ?

Directly contra his past excuse-making, PZ Myers has reversed himself and decided that he is willing to engage in public debates with Unworthy Opponents again. Debates sponsored by Christian radio stations, no less! So, how about that public radio debate on the evidence for gods that Northern Alliance Radio is willing to host, PZ? Or even one on the scientific evidence for evolution? Or, in light of the very public unmasking of the AGW/CC charade, we could debate your manifestly unscientific belief in “global warming” aka “climate change”.

After all, an internationally known skeptic who appears regularly on radio shows around the world thanks to a series of correct economic and financial forecasts can’t possibly be less of a Worthy Opponent than an erstwhile Jehovah’s Witness and Intelligent Design enthusiast, right?

As everyone who posseses either above-average intelligence or a functional understanding of human nature has realized at this point, PZ is afraid to debate me because he knows perfectly well that I’ll destroy him regardless of the subject. His fear is not misplaced; he has the advantage of educational quantity whereas I have the advantage of educational quality as well as an additional 25-35 IQ points. We both know it, even if he’s not about to admit it in public. But the real problem is not that PZ is a coward, it is that he is a liar. That is why why he says he won’t debate crackpots before going on to debate crackpots and why he refuses to make an appearance on the “hostile territory” of a secular radio station before appearing on an openly Christian one.

Unfortunately, I can’t offer him a debate on teaching intelligent design in science classes because I don’t believe it should be taught there either. Nor, for that matter should evolution by natural selection. In fact, I believe the very notion of science classes for the great majority of students is eminently absurd. We know the American schools cannot teach reading, writing, logic, and personal finance to the great majority of their students, so it is easy to demonstrate that there is neither reason nor evidence to support the notion that the schools are capable of effectively teaching science of any kind.

Speaking of predictions, I note with some amusement that yesterday mainstream economists were reported to be expecting the exciting 3.5% third quarter Advance report to be revised below three percent in the 2nd report. (Remember, more than half of that was reported to be the direct result of the government-incentivized Cash for Clunkers-related increase in C.) In addition to the two scheduled revisions, I think we can safely expect further post facto revisions to the third quarter of 2009 in 2010 and beyond.