The ClimateGate story won't go away quietly as warmists and their sycophants had hoped.
Here are some new developments:
Willis Eschenbach has uncovered a smoking gun with the way temperatures were adjusted in Australia. Temp records in Australia are based on a tiny number of stations that supposedly represent the entire continent. Then, those numbers have been "adjusted" by the small clique of climate scientists using huge multi-degree step functions. Anyone can see that this is not science, but blatant manipulation.
More leaks, this time from Copenhagen where someone on the inside reveals secret documents created by a small Orwellian named clique called "The Circle of Commitment." These docs show their attempts to circumvent the Copenhagen IPCC process. At this point, there will nothing that these evil manipulators will be able to do without someone exposing their game. Because those with a shred of integrity left are on to them, and revealing everything they want to keep secret. Oligarchies don't work so well in the Internet age.
Lastly, have a look at graphs that show a real big picture view of the earth's temperature over time. Not just a hundred years, or 30 years, or the last ten years, but 10,000s of years. As you can see, natural variance is the order, and we are lucky to be living at such a time by comparison to many previous epochs. Of course the climate is always changing, and we should all respond to sensible conservation efforts to limit pollution, use energy wisely, preserve our excellent national parks and forests, etc. But there is no justification for wrecking our economy and creating an even bigger depression that we have now, for the sake of some fantasy climate crisis.
Posted by JeffB. at December 08, 2009 09:31 AM | Email ThisPer the Economist,
"Judging by his post, Mr Eschenbach doesn't have the expertise to assess issues like these any more than I do. Mr Eschenbach is not a scientist; he's an amateur. His first effort in climate scepticism apparently came in 2002 while working as the construction manager for a beach resort in Fiji, when he published a non-peer-reviewed article claiming to have found that sea levels in Tuvalu were not actually rising, and that claims that they were stemmed from attempts by locals to blame subsidence problems on the developed world, and cash in on it. He's been beating this drum for years; he does not approach this issue from a position of neutral scepticism, he approaches it from a position of certainty that AGW is a hoax.
Look back, for instance, at the way Mr Eschenbach starts off his discussion of the Darwin data. He makes it sound as if he's just happened to stumble across this one site whilst perusing a debate over climate change in northern Australia. But as his link to that conversation from 2000 makes clear, Mr Eschenbach is already aware that climate change denialists have been trumpeting the apparent anomalies at Darwin for nine years. They do so because of that errant data at Darwin from before 1941, which makes it look as though there was a cooling trend there. The fact that climate-change researchers have to do a particularly strong correction on the data at Darwin, because they moved their dang instruments from the downtown post office to the airport, makes Darwin a perfect place to look for support if you want to claim that climate-change scientists are cooking the data."
And what about "Climategate"?
Per the AP investigation:
"E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data, but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions."
Shreds of integrity? Unraveling? Indeed.
And why no comment on the graphs that put our current insignificant climate in to proper historical context. An Inconvenient Truth you'd like to ignore.
And if it's not unraveling then why has Copenhagen turned out a failure?
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 14, 2009 10:13 PMNo one is doubting that... although this provides some interesting context:
Temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the past 400 000 years
The question is more one of proper scale. Deniers are quite willing to look at scales of 10,000 years or 10 years, but neither are representative of the time frame of climate change.
But hey, maybe you also invest in the stock market based on historical price data from the 1920s, or based on movements over the course of a single week.
Posted by: demo kid on December 15, 2009 05:45 AMYet, AGW fans claim that CO2 is causing warming and that it is not the result of natural forcings. The key IPCC reviewers implicated in the ClimateGate scandal, which yesterday shows signs of impending litigation, lamented the fact that they could not account for the warming in the Medieval period with CO2 and their GCMs. In fact the GCMs have failed to predict even recent trends. Rather than admit that their hypothesis might be flawed, the ClimateGate scientists chose to suppress the findings, and to pressure scientific journals, journalists, and others to tow their line.
So the question remains, why was the Medieval period so warm, and in fact many other periods in history, when there was no human induced CO2 production? Especially when AGW scientists discount natural forcings today. And, if the natural forcings don't matter today, then what caused climate change in the pre-industrial age?
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 15, 2009 12:10 PMThe AP? You mean the same AP that sent 11 reporters to fact check 432 pages of Sarah Palin's book but only 5 to investigate an international hoax played upon the world through the exposure of 1,000 + e-mails that prove it's junk science? The fact that you would think they still have a shred of credibility is laughable, but then, I never underestimate the gullibility of a true cultist whom believes in the high priest Al Gore. And the Warmists, if not smart nor logical, make up for that in their ferorcious defense of this junk science.
All hail GorebAl Warming
Posted by: Rick D. on December 15, 2009 06:56 PM