Climate Gate Continues
The mainstream media continues to try to shape/misshape the climategate story so that Obama and Gore will not be overcome by a tidal wave of ridicule.
From The Gouverneurtimes:
Global Warming Consensus: Garbage in, Garbage out
Written by Michael Barone
Saturday, 28 November 2009 06:44
As Air Force One heads to Copenhagen for the climate summit Dec. 9, it will presumably not make a U-turn while flying over the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University of East Anglia near Norwich, England. But perhaps it should.
The 61 megabytes of CRU e-mails and documents made public by a hacker cast serious doubt on the ballyhooed consensus on manmade global warming that the Copenhagen summit was called to address.
The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals. Some of the more pungent e-mails:
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."
"I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU temperature station data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"
You get the idea. The most charitable plausible explanation I have seen comes from The Atlantic's Megan McArdle. "The CRU's main computer model may be, to put it bluntly, complete rubbish."
Australian geologist Ian Plimer, a global warming skeptic, is more blunt. The e-mails "show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination."...Continue Reading
Quote for the Day -
..."If researchers cannot measure what they said they could, an unscientific rationale is just cover for a multitrillion-dollar political agenda"...
From The Daily Mail:
Saturday November 28, 2009
AS world leaders prepare to gather in Copenhagen to discuss again what to do about the weather, damning evidence has been released showing that some scientists have manipulated evidence regarding their theory of anthropogenic global warming -- warming caused by mankind.
E-mails from Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, are at the eye of this political storm. Many believers in manmade global warming rely heavily on his research group.
In one e-mail to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, Jones 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."
Tricks belong in magic shows, not science. Surely, researchers are not willing to lie.
And then there was this e-mail: "The fact is, we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. . ."
"There should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
Global temperatures have not risen since 1998.
It is a travesty that that is so?
Or is it good cause to slow down the bum's rush toward draconian policies to counter what, lacking evidence of "global warming," must now be called "climate change"?
If researchers cannot measure what they said they could, an unscientific rationale is just cover for a multitrillion-dollar political agenda. ...Continue Reading
