We may hope, in the light of this evidence, that one day those who still believe in it will be classed with those who believe the earth is flat, those who insist Elvis lives, and all the other cranks and crackpots who inhabit the political fringes of our society.
As soon as we can vote them out of office, and otherwise push them off our TV and movie screens.
For those who haven't been following this story, here are the basics (H/T: Cao's Blog):
Hacked e-mails from Britain's Climate Research Unit are only the latest evidence of climate fraud. Just ask NASA's James Hansen about the faking of climate data or EPA employees about the suppression of climate fact.My bloggin' buddy Cao (pronounced like "key") remarks:
For years, noted scientists and other global warming skeptics have been accused of being on the take, their research tainted and funded by grants from Big Oil and other fossil-fuel interests.
Now, it turns out, it's the warm-mongers who are fudging the numbers and concealing the inconvenient truth.
We don't know who "Deep Throat" is. But according to an interview in Investigate Magazine's TGIF edition with Philip Jones, director of the Hadley Climate Research Unit at Britain's East Anglia University, the incriminating e-mails documenting collusion and fraud among top global warming scientists, including a few from Jones himself, are genuine.
In one e-mail sent to Michael Mann, director of Penn State University's Earth System Science Center, Raymond Bradley, a climatologist at the University of Massachusetts, and Malcolm Hughes, a professor of dendrochronology at the University of Arizona's Laboratory for Tree-Ring Research, Jones speaks of the "trick" of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:
"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." Hide the decline? "Keith" is Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit, also involved in the bogus manipulation of data.
An e-mail from scientist Mick Kelly to Jones also speaks of manipulating data to hide the fact that Earth is actually cooling: "I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again, as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent coldish years."
In another e-mail to Mann from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, copied to Dr. James Hansen of NASA, Trenberth says: "Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming. We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow."
Trenberth also says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can't." He goes on to say that "the data is surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate." [Emphasis added.]
It’s the hysterical climate change fanatics who’ve been caught with their pants down this time.Illinois Review has more:
In a day and age when hackers break into email accounts and wave their findings in the air with sarcastic aplomb, isn’t it ironic that what was exposed was by someone using the same technique the leftists use.
It’s all too familiar… The people who oppose Obamacare are supported by the Insurance companies because of PROFIT…
Those openly skeptical of global warming are in it for the money (what money? just see what writing “global warming” or “climate change” does for your grant application!), or are funded by Big Oil and other fossil-fuel interests.
...In an even more damning data series, the models were set to run only up to certain years BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE DATA STOPPED MATCHING THE TALKING POINTS!!! Click here for a summary. Look for oh so catchy and honest statements like "Hide the decline", and "oh, I can make it up", and my favorite "these can be artificially adjusted". Nothing makes you feel more confident in scientific research when the researchers are smart enough that they can just pull numbers straight out of the air.Too, the inimitable Iowahawk brings his satirical talents to bear:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has based their conclusions off the data that has come primarily from CRU and other institutions. The United Nations is proposing drastic treaties to curb carbon dioxide emissions. The United States Congress has been trying to pass a Cap and Trade bill. ALL of these efforts are based on the putrefied pile of steaming garbage that is coming out of the computer models at the CRU.
For years, other scientists have been trying to get their hands on the data that has been used at the CRU. The typical scientific method is to come up with a hypothesis based on data and then allow peer review using that data. If others can come to the same conclusion that you have using your data, then the analysis is probably pretty sound. However, the CRU has been doggedly resisting releasing their data as can be seen here. Now we know why the CRU has been resisting the release of their data. If you have based decades of work off of a steaming pile of dung, and now the world praises you, would you want REAL scientists to discover your mistakes?
Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature's most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world's most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers.And of course, what's a scandal like this with out a good Downfall parody (H/T: Cartago Delenda Est via Uncommon Descent)?
It frankly makes me mad to realize that this sort of nonsense, despite its obviously fraudulent nature, is still what many politicians, including incumbents, including Republicans, including the incumbent Republican I'm running against, are still running on Anthropogenic Global Warming as if it were proved, when in fact it's obvious to anyone who doesn't have their hand in the cookie jar that there's more truth in the new Star Trek movie and than in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. If they had any shame, they would publicly apologize and resign from office and spend the rest of their lives doing silent penance for their fraud.
13 comments:
I wonder how you could have "known" that global warming is a hoax. You've believed it or suspected it, but I can't think of any way that you could have "known" it. Skepticism or suspending judgment is one thing. Perfectly reasonable. Outright disbelief, one the other hand, is intellectually untenable.
Your outright disbelief is simply a manifestation of your trademark tendency in responding to any empirical matter. It can't be true because you can't imagine it. The argument from personal incredulity again. (Witness our discussion about antibiotic resistance and whether or not natural selection results in new "survival" traits.)
And you've got it wrong: global warming is real. The planet has warmed significantly in the past 100 years--about that there is no debate. I assume you mean AWG as the cause is the hoax.
All you've got here is an example of a few scientists behaving badly and copious spin. Neither proves anything about whether or not the planet is warming due to human activity.
The vast majority of climatologists accept AGW. I think they're right, but that's besides the point. The point is they may be right, and if they are we need to do something to curb emissions. If they're wrong, they could simply be wrong--calling it a "hoax" is unwarranted, despite the actions of a few (and I do mean a "few") unscrupulous scientists.
For another view on what all this means, those interested should check out http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/30/climategate-hadley-cru-climate-data/#more-14430
No warming for the past 5 years? Even if true, and I think it's not, that doesn't discredit AGW. To say otherwise is analogous to saying that because a tumor has stopped growing, it must not be there. There are all kinds of variables that can affect climate in the short term (e.g., El Nino), and 5 years is decidedly the short term.
Of course I knew John. When they trumpeted news about how it's getting hotter, and then didn't report that NASA has revised its data to reflect that the 1930s were the hottest decade on record, I knew.
When Al Gore made millions preaching the global warming dogma, and then was revealed to be living like he does, I knew.
I could go on, but I'll just give you one more:
When you tell me that 5 years is short term, but 100 years is not, I know that global warming is a hoax, because in the 4 billion years of the Earth's history (or even 100,000 years of human history), 100 years is a blink of the eye.
It's just a natural cycle, and I'm not going to believe otherwise until the people like Al Gore and all those Hollywood celebrities who want to make it a crisis start living their lives as if what they're saying were true.
Our good family friend is paleoclimatologist. Her fieldwork backs broad scientific consensus that the climate is changing due to man's activity. I saw her once arguing the science with a skeptic, a good friend of ours who is a biochemist. He is no longer a skeptic either.
We have two geologist friends that also have work that points to global warming.
A few bad actors (and probably a few more unknown), and a politician living like a politician doesn't add up to a hoax. The broad consensus is based on many studies in many different fields. There may be scientific squabbles on the details and degree, the scientific community is not (and should not be) monolithic. But the broad consensus is there.
But Stephanie, three family friends that believe doesn't disprove a hoax, either, nor does it demonstrate a "broad consensus."
C'mon guys, answer the issue! Global warming scientists have been doctoring their data to make it fit their meme! Why? Because that data doesn't support the desired outcome, that's why.
And it's not just at one university.
Whence comes your unshakable faith in this dogma?
You are right, three references don't make a broad consensus. Every scientific body of standing makes a broad consensus.
If global warming was a hoax, then my three good friends, along with thousands of other scientists, would have to be in on it. Even if I were to muster up enough denial to dismiss majority opinion to a hoax, I would also have to believe my good friends are in on it. I just can't buy what your selling.
I can buy that there are over estimations, under estimations, or everything in between. Science is always a process, and can be rough one. But that is a far cry from believing the majority of scientists are involved in a deliberate conspiracy to dupe, deceive or trick the public.
Not at all, Stephanie, they could be just as taken in as you are, and so many others.
And I'm not selling anything here; I give it away for free, and you seem to determined to come by regularly and have your share.
We actually do agree on some things, and I do enjoy the blog.
But this is not one of those areas where we agree. My friends conduct their own research on climate change. I just don't believe they are fudging their own results. I guess this is another area we will agree to disagree.
You might consider simply asking them how much data they use from these compromised institutions.
The data is what the data is. Either it verifies your Hypothesis or it doesn't. If you manipulate your data, you're not doing science. You're no different than those Aryan "scientists" of the 1930's & 40's.
I am visiting two of them over the holidays. (Actually, I'll be in your great state for the visit.)
I'll ask them. I'll ask if they use any of the data, and what they think.
You never know, but I'm guessing they do not use the questionable data because their research is modeling weather patterns and geological record of climate change. There are several different disciplines that research global warming, many using different measurements to reach their conclusions. If the globe is warming, warming faster, and from fossil fuel activity, the evidence can be found in different forms all over the earth.
I'll also ask their opinion about the scandal. Last year I had very interesting discussion with one of them about the limits of global warming research on advising policy. She was quite adamant that scientist should stay out of political solutions to global warming. She felt scientist should just answer questions and give predictions based on their research, and not advocate any particular action. The scandal should make for an interesting chat this time around too.
The vast majority of climatologists accept AGW
I suppose - I don't know. But as this discussion points out, the key question is does this vast majority rely upon data truly independent of the contaminated data, or are they derivative studies or do they in other ways rely upon the fudged numbers.
Still open as to my own personal opinion on it (as we in South Texas experience one of our earliest snowfalls on record), but the current scandal does not bode well for those who believe in AWG.
"But as this discussion points out, the key question is does this vast majority rely upon data truly independent of the contaminated data, or are they derivative studies or do they in other ways rely upon the fudged numbers."
Though I think the scandal has been good for discussions about scientific process and transparency, it is an overreaction to say all the science is based on contaminated data. Even if you throw out all of the base data held by CRU (the institution behind the scandal), there are three other agencies that track global-average near-surface temperatures (NASA, NOAA, and Japan's JMA).
Second, not all scientific investigations rely on global temperature. Many rely on other measurements, from the seasonal ice coverage north pole to the changing migrational territories of animals. These studies measure changes that likely occur because of the warming of the earth.
There are a lot of people studying the earth from many different angles using several points of data.
...as we in South Texas experience one of our earliest snowfalls on record...
The earth's weather patterns are complex, and temperatures oscillate to highs and lows even if the global average trend is a positive slope. There is no more reason to discount AGW because of early snowfall than there is to blame a particular hurricane on AGW.
Post a Comment