Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Environment

Climategate 2.0

The Climategate scandal is (if you'll forgive the pun) snowballing. Following revelations of climate data manipulation in hacked e-mails from the UK's Climatic Research Unit, the British Meteorological Office has now also been exposed as having corrupted data

Apparently, the British office's study of Russian meteorological data cherry-picked data from a mere 25% of all stations - and that 25% predominantly included stations which 1) were located or re-located in urban centers which had experienced population growth (causing artificial warming) and 2) provided incomplete data which could be easily manipulated. Unsurprisingly, the 75% of stations in static locations with complete data, which were not included in the study, record no significant warming trend.

Having been forced to disclose portions of it's highly concealed raw data (rather than the "adjusted" conclusions which are disseminated for popular consumption), the Meteorological Office has been exposed for egregious exaggerations and manipulation in a wide array of data. See, for example:

download

The blue line is raw data. The black line is adjustments applied to that data. The red line is the result following the adjustments.

Charlie Martin concludes: "We now have substantial evidence, from several independent sources, that the data used as the basis for the IPCC report [the UN study on global warming] has been adjusted in undocumented ways, and those adjustments account for nearly all the warming we are told has been caused by humans."

The linked stories include several other instances of newly exposed deceptions by the global warming / climate change community, in case there are any fence-straddlers out there. However, it is important to remember that there are three essential questions involved in the global warming debate.

1) Is the Earth getting significantly warmer?

2) If so, are humans causing it?

3) Would a bit of warming be bad?

It seems more likely by the day that the answers to all three questions is "no."

In the beginning, it appeared that the global warming community was simply stubbornly resistant to embracing evidence that their doomsday predictions were incorrect. At worst, they were zealous ideologues, clinging fanatically to their opinions.

Now, it may be necessary to conclude that many alarmists were, in fact, intentionally fabricating the entire crisis of global warming for completely unrelated, socio-economic ulterior-motives. At best, this would constitute an attempted global coup - built upon scientific deception, apocalyptic fear-mongering and the domination of international agencies - which would prove unprecedented, in scale and scope, in the entire course of human history.

Categories > Environment

Discussions - 8 Comments

Amazing in its audacity, isn't it?


http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/busy-man.html

A confluence of interest.

It's the Audacity of Hope!

First off, "Climategate" is largely a bogus, contrived controversy. See the low-down over at FactCheck (a site recommended by none other than Dick Cheney himself!):

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/


"1) Is the Earth getting significantly warmer?

2) If so, are humans causing it?

3) Would a bit of warming be bad?

It seems more likely by the day that the answers to all three questions is "no.""

Really?? I don't think so.

You know you're really grasping at straws when Tom Friedman is telling you to just give it up.

nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09friedman.html?_r=2

Friedman - also referencing Dick Cheney - also makes an excellent point, one that I'm sure applies to most (if not all) of the bloggers here at NLT:

"Indeed, many of the same people who defend Mr. Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine on nukes tell us not to worry at all about catastrophic global warming, where the odds are, in fact, a lot higher than 1 percent, if we stick to business as usual. That is unfortunate, because Cheney’s instinct is precisely the right framework with which to think about the climate issue — and this whole “climategate” controversy as well."

...and meanwhile, in the liberally-biased reality-based community, reports like this just keep coming in all over, never getting any notice from the scientific geniuses Beck, Palin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091207165252.htm

Excerpt:

"More noteworthy even than the very high figures for sea level rise is the almost clockwork precision by which, on climatic time scales, temperature drives sea level rise," says Martin Vermeer. The results of the study also demonstrate the quality of the existing sea level and temperature time series used, "painstakingly constructed from measurements at stations around the globe for well over a century," Vermeer notes.

The projected rise is about three times as much as estimated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, which did not fully include the effects of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica. To avoid such a large sea level rise, which would be an existential threat to many large coastal cities as well as a number of small island nations, drastic and rapid cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will be required.

The study finds that delays in emissions reductions will come at a high cost, since early emissions cuts are much more effective in limiting sea level rise than later cuts. The emissions reductions needed to keep sea level rise below 1 meter will likely be considerably more ambitious than those needed to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, a policy goal now supported by many nations."

But I know, I know, it's just not credible science until it's confirmed by policy analysts at conservative libertarian think tanks or somebody blogging at The Corner.

Jimmy Akin put it quite concisely:

Key researchers have now been exposed as having massaged data to get the desired result, destroyed original data, rigged the peer-review process to keep contrary studies from being published--and then turned around an tried to discredit the studies on the ground that they weren't published in peer-reviewed journals--used junk code to analyze data--which even years of trying by a programmer couldn't fix--and flat out broken the law regarding Freedom Of Information requests.

I suppose all of the frenetic activity of Profs. Jones, Mann, et al. was just for sh*ts & giggles.

Go sell your baloon juice somewhere else, Nancy. Real Americans know the truth, that "global warning" is a terrorist scam to wreck the American economy, destroy our sovereignty and send our hard earned tax money to socialist dictators in Africa. Thank God for the 2nd amendment!

I suggest that some of you Global Warming Huggers search the following on google: Time Magazine on Global Cooling - 1970's. You will find quite a few magazine covers and articles dedicated to the religious belief that the world was going to cool down and become covered with ice and snow by the end of the 20th century. The Global Icing religious experts missed by a country mile.

I can't wait for further follow-ups here at NLT on "ClimateGate":

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_hacked_e_mails

Justin, you are now 2 updates behind on this Climategate matter! I know how important The Truth is to you (just as it is to Sen. Inhofe), so I thought I'd let you know of this matter before it gets just as much attention from the Rabidly Liberal Lamestream Media as it did when the schemes of the Evil (probably atheist!) Scientists were first exposed in those e-mails!

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/145913-report-on-climategate-clears-government-scientists-of-wrongdoing

"A Commerce Department inspector general investigation into the “Climategate” controversy finds that government scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration did not manipulate climate change data...

'In our review of the CRU emails, we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the [Global Historical Climatology Network] dataset or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures,' said the report, which was authored by Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser at the request of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)."

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/14676