OK, I’m done talking about AGW

Dr Richard Lindzen cooks the goose of the Climate Changers:

Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.

and he doesn’t pussyfoot around about motivation, either, whacking one of my favorite villians:

The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance).

Tip from Planet Gore.

I see the Greenies have found God…

…and apparently His plan is to make the ANWR into a national monument

More than 80 members of Congress, 170 scientists, some 300 businesses and organizations and 22 religious organizations have signed letters to the president.

“Protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a moral issue. As people of faith, we not only have a commitment to care for creation, but our faith also tells us to protect God’s sacred spaces,” the letter from religious leaders says.

Aren’t these “religious leaders” hanging with the same bunch of rat bastards that keeps telling us there is no God, we all evolved from hydrocarbons that magically self-organized five billion years ago next Tuesday, in a universe that just **poof** happened? And now they need GOD to tell Congress what to do?  F ‘em, and the chicken manure-powered VW they rode in on.

Problems in evidence-based medicine

Ponder this the next time someone in the reality-based community tells you the “science is settled” based on peer-reviewed studies.

Tip from the Instapundit.

A Liberal Gene?

Yeah, he’s a liberal, but don’t hold it against him.  It’s a birth defect.

Sentence first — verdict afterwards

Uh oh, I think they’re on to us.

Tip from Will Briggs. Title from this.

Update (15 October). Kaiser Fung reminds us twice about story time.  Tip from Andrew Gelman.

“The science is settled.”

Looks like the California Air Resources Board (love the acronym!) put their thumb on the scale when they calculated diesel emission pollution.  In my stats classes, this gets marked as wrong answer. Remember this the next time someone tells you “the science is settled.”