MATADOR NINETY-FOUR

 Powered by Max Banner Ads 

They lied, bullied, falsified documents, rewrote history, destroyed careers, impugned character, used people and placed the entire world economies in jeopardy

The PR surrounding ‘official’ climate science at Copenhagen is disgusting, but then the science on which it is based is dishonest and inaccurate. How convenient for the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to announce that 2000 – 2009 is ‘very likely’ the warmest decade on record to coincide with the Copenhagen fiasco. The decade is not over hence the “very likely”, but there are many issues to understand about what they are saying. You also need to know how they have been manipulating the record to make the current decade appear warmer. It is a shameful distraction as contrived as the video and abuse of children used to open the conference.

The Pattern of a Warm Decade is Normal But They’ve Falsified the Trend

Of course the warmest years have occurred in recent decades because the world has generally warmed since the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA) in 1680 AD. Nobody has denied that. The problem is it has nothing to do with CO2, which is the supposed purpose of the Copenhagen meeting. What they ignore is that although it may be a peak it is a flat peak because global temperatures have leveled and declined since 2002 and that is not supposed to happen because they claim CO2 levels continue to rise. I wrote about this before the leaks occurred.

If I said they manipulated the record even 6 weeks ago most would have stopped reading and determined I was a crank or worse a conspiracy theory crank. Now the emails exposed from the ‘scientists’ at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) reveal how they were manipulating and controlling the global climate data sets and the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That falsified work is the total scientific underpinning for Copenhagen they use and manipulate it for their political goals.

There are three sources of global climate data, as Willis Eschenbach summarizes. “There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

The NOAA/GHCN data is generally the source for the other two data sets, but the data is manipulated by GHCN before it is released. In a study of Australian weather data from GHCN Eschenbach concludes that there is, “indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.” (His underline).

We’ve known for some time James Hansen at NASA has been ‘adjusting’ his data to make the modern few decades warmer than the past. All of his adjustments are in that direction. We also know he was caught fudging US data. For example he said, and Al Gore used the claim that 1998 was the warmest year in the record for the US and that the 1990s had 9 of the 10 warmest years in the record. It was wrong. Four of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and 1934 was warmer than 1998.

GISS records are consistently higher than those from CRU and NOAA and all three records produce different numbers. How can that happen? Well, they use data already adjusted and provided by the GHCN, but each group uses different stations and then make their own adjustments. We also know the CRU data set is adjusted but because Phil Jones the disgraced Director of CRU refuses to release the data we don’t know how much. It was enough for him to make the claim that the increase in temperature since the end of the 19th century was beyond a natural increase, a false statement.

One major problem is the tendency to choose urban stations and then not adjust fully for the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE). I was involved with such studies in Winnipeg in the 1970s where we found the effect was significant and growing as the urban area grew. A major event was the publication of two graphs by Warwick Hughes comparing urban (Figure 1) and rural (Figure 2) Australian weather station data. The UHIE is obvious and likely more dramatic because the very slight increase in the rural stations in Figure 2 is because even the smallest of communities has an effect.

Figure 1: Note the significant postwar increase, originally attributed to global warming

Figure 2: Proof that the warming in Figure 1is due to the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Over the last several years adjustments to the historic surface temperature records have continued. The most recent example revealed was for temperatures in New Zealand. As Bob Dedekind notes, “Every long-term station in NZ has had its past made colder.” Here is a plot of Auckland Airport from Bob Dedekind

Figure 1: The Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) Raw data and adjusted data.

Notice the adjustments essentially end in 1970. This is because the satellite data became available and now another group were looking over their shoulder.

To cap the lies and deception Al Gore, who has yet to correct the 35 scientific errors in his book, held a conference and answered questions that were clearly pre-arranged. This to counter the charge he won’t answer questions or his handlers cut off the microphone. In a Q and A with Slate he says, “I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.“

That is a lie because he if he had read the emails he’d know they are almost up to the day they were released. For example, there’s an email from Michael Mann, the phony hockey stick creator, to Andrew Revkin, the compromised science writer for the New York Times dated 29 September 2009. In it he tells Revkin about Steve McIntyre, who broke the hockey stick, that, “ A necessary though not in general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer review process. Those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.” This is the peer review argument but we know from the rest of the emails how these people corrupted the peer review process. We also know in a study for the US Senate the Wegman Committee found McIntyre’s science was correct and Mann’s incorrect. Gore then compounds his ignorance of the science and the emails by saying, “What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.” The changes are normal Al; you just don’t know what normal means in climate.

Please stop these deceptions. There’s no justification for what these people did. They lied, bullied, falsified documents, rewrote history, destroyed careers, impugned character, used people and placed the entire world economies in jeopardy with completely unnecessary energy policies. Their actions diverted money from real issues and caused extensive hardships for people across the globe. Consider the impact of soaring food prices and reported starvation because of the biofuel travesty. They triggered and supported the completely unnecessary spending of billions as they and their followers flew around the world at the people’s expense. They put the credibility of science in jeopardy and gave ammunition to those who don’t think the environment is an issue. They provided the ‘science’ that allowed a fanatical fringe to sit in moral judgment of people just trying to survive.  I wrote an article in 1992, “An Iconoclast’s View of Climatic Change” for Canadian Water Resources Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2. 1992.  The editor published on condition he provide the title. Ironically, it was more appropriate than he thought because I dared to challenge the blind religion for which we now know Gore and the CRU gang are the false prophets.

Source article

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen climate summit: global warming ’caused by sun’s radiation’
2. Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
3. It’s Over, Al Gore
4. Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal
5. Climategate: the Whitewash Begins