The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As more and more information becomes public, we must conclude that, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.
Senator Barrasso's Letter to NASA
He said he's particularly concerned with planned changes to public policy regarding carbon credits and so called "cap and trade" legislation, rules that are based on the assumption that man is at least partly responsible for global warming.The letter, expressing concern with NASA's newly revealed use of data from the East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit, cites interviews with CRU's chief Phil Jones and programmer Ian "Harry" Harris, both of whom denigrated the quality of the CRU data. "No uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found. This whole project is SUCH A MESS," Harris reportedly commented.
Barrasso and Vitter also refer to a Feb 27 study by former NASA physicist Edward Long, who was involved in the development of several upper atmospheric research satellites. Long claimed that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) had been progressively modifying data, "lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those in the more recent past.""We shouldn't make decisions affecting millions of American jobs when the data isn't credible," Barrasso told FoxNews.com
"If the president is successful in passing what I call a 'cap and tax' bill, which is something that's already passed the House last year, I think all Americans will see their electricity rates go sky high," he told FoxNews.com"When the administration is trying to make an endangerment finding on carbon dioxide, I think it's reckless to make such huge decisions affecting American jobs and the American economy based on data that may not be reliable, and seems to be contaminated."
"I don't think the facts bear out, at this point," he said. "You wonder if it's more about politics than it is about science."
Dr. Strangelove praises warming sceptics - A abominable story with a positive twist. An "independent scientist" (a tautology) - Dr Strangelove comes to mind - who thought up a scientific, collectivist pseudo religion (Gaia "theory") says humanity is not yet "evolved enough" to stop climate change; but he praises the sceptics, because he at least understands that's a prerequisite to produce science in the first place.
Now, what makes that the rest of the warmists?
Now, what makes that the rest of the warmists?
He may have been the clever dicky who equivocated warming/climate change=war - ecojustice=peace. 'Humans too stupid to stop climate change', says maverick scientist. [source]
Prof Lovelock, the man behind the Gaia theory which says that the planet behaves like a single organism, claimed humans were “not clever enough” to handle the problems associated with global warming. In an interview, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist applauded “good” climate skeptics and gave warning that global warming would one day lead to severe conflict. "I don't think we're yet evolved to the point where we're clever enough to handle as complex a situation as climate change," he said. "The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful.” Without change, he said, climate change would likely one day lead to war. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being,” he said in his interview with The Guardian. “I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.” The controversial scientist is best known for his ideas that portray Earth as a living thing, a super organism – named Gaia, after the ancient Earth goddess – in which creatures, rocks, air and water interact in subtle ways to ensure the environment remains stable.
Prof Lovelock said he was disgusted by the actions of some scientists who have damaged the work of many other good scientists. "Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science," he said. "I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do." He added that the recent events surrounding the topic had left his thoughts about climate change “skeptics” thawing. “What I like about skeptics is that in good science you need critics that make you think: 'Crumbs, have I made a mistake here?' If you don't have that continuously, you really are up the creek,” he said. “The good skeptics have done a good service, but some of the mad ones I think have not done anyone any favors." ...“You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic.” [source]
The corporate response to climate change has become increasingly fragmented in the past year as the combination of the "climategate" scandal, the disappointing conclusion to the Copenhagen summit and the global recession has led some firms to voice skepticism over the need to take action to curb carbon emissions.
That is the conclusion of a major new survey from the Economist Intelligence Unit, which polled more than 540 senior executives, and found that while a number of firms remain fully committed to increasing investment in low-carbon goods and services, many senior executives are unconvinced by the case for climate change policies.
The survey, which was sponsored by the Carbon Trust, IBM, Hitachi and software company 1E, found that just over half of respondents believe the "jury is still out" on the urgent need to tackle climate change, while 32 per cent of companies polled said they do not yet have a coherent strategy in place to address energy use, an increase of seven percentage points on last year.
Moreover, just 12 per cent of businesses said they were introducing new green products to keep up with rivals, and seven out of 10 respondents said that carbon reduction policies are primarily driven by public relations issues. [source]
Climategate - Academic Disaster 
by Peter Berkowitz
The notion of objective truth has been abandoned and the peer review process gives scholars ample opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.
Last fall, emails revealed that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and colleagues in the U.S. and around the globe deliberately distorted data to support dire global warming scenarios and sought to block scholars with a different view from getting published. What does this scandal say generally about the intellectual habits and norms at our universities?
This is a legitimate question, because our universities, which above all should be cultivating intellectual virtue, are in their day-to-day operations fostering the opposite. Fashionable ideas, the convenience of professors, and the bureaucratic structures of academic [source]
Swedegate - Climate Professor’s Lies Exposed By Swedish Meteorologists
Disgraced Professor Phil Jones of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and his boss, Professor Edward Acton, head of the University of East Anglia appear to have been exposed in a blatant attempt to pervert justice. The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) has released evidence that proves Jones lied to Parliament during his testimony last week on the Climategate scandal. [source]
A coordinated campaign to hide scientific information about climate change appears unprecedented. Could it wind up costing us trillions?
Science depends on good quality of data. It also relies on replication and sharing data. But the last couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations. Computer hackers have obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails, which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked closely with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the “trick of adding in the real temps to each series … to hide the decline [in temperature].” Professor Mann admitted that this was the exchange that he had and explained to the New York Times that “scientists often used the word ‘trick’ to refer to a good way to solve a problem, ‘and not something secret.’” While the New York Times apparently buys this explanation, it is hard to see the explanation for “to hide the decline.” [source]
Analysis
Skeptics claim this trove of e-mails shows the scientists at the U.K. research center were engaging in evidence-tampering, and they are portraying the affair as a major scandal: "Climategate." Saudi Arabian climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban went so far as to tell the BBC: "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change." He said that he expected news of the e-mails to disrupt the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen this month. An article from the conservative-leaning Canada Free Press claims that the stolen files are proof of a "deliberate fraud" and "the greatest deception in history."
Claims that the e-mails are evidence of fraud or deceit, however, misrepresent what they actually say. A prime example is a 1999 e-mail from Jones, who wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline." Skeptics claim the words "trick" and "decline" show Jones is using sneaky manipulations to mask a decline in global temperatures. But that’s not the case. Actual temperatures, as measured by scientific instruments such as thermometers, were rising at the time of the writing of this decade-old e-mail, and (as we’ve noted) have continued to rise since then. Jones was referring to the decline in temperatures implied by measurements of the width and density of tree rings. In recent decades, these measures indicate a dip, while more accurate instrument-measured temperatures continue to rise. [source]
Related Articles
Scientists Admit No Global Warming
CERN, HAARP, Earthquake Conspiracy?
The Evolution of a Deception
No comments:
Post a Comment