Posted by: inforodeo | December 2, 2009

The Foolish Man Built His House Upon the Sand

Contributed Post with additional commentary

After the widespread acceptance of the Al Gore hit film “An Inconvenient Truth”, It is surprising that most of the usually scandal-happy news outlets have overlooked one of the biggest stories in the past decade: Climate-Change data that is the very foundation of the Global Warming craze was manipulated to promote the theory. To put it another way, the scientists who advocate the Global Warming theory didn’t use science to arrive at their conclusion. It’s interesting news, and great timing – it just snowed in a New Mexico desert.

_42528243_christianlawton_ariz

Global Warming has become a multi-billion dollar industry, and its evangelists, like Gore, are quickly becoming the Rockefellers and JP Morgans of the 21st century with this new industry. If the news of the unsound “scientific” foundation of Global Warming gets out, however, this new industry may go the way of asbestos insulation, radium watches and lead paint.

The following is intended for those who are not aware of the emerging scandal that was quickly dubbed “Climate-gate”, and should work as a quick overview of the scandal as of today, complete with links and searchable keywords.

There have been some new developments in the “Climate-gate”scandal, and I’ve listed them below:

1. Computer-code in the software used to “research” global warming was written to “enhance” certain data:

“The computer code used to create the data the CRU has used contains programmer notes that indicate that the aggregated data were constructed to show an increase in temperatures. The programmer notes include: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend — so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!” The programmers apparently had to try at least a couple of adjustments before they could get their aggregated data to show an increase in temperatures.

All this could in theory be correctable by going back and starting from scratch with the original “raw” data, but the CRU apparently threw out much of the data used to create their temperature measures. We now only have the temperature measures that they created.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/30/john-lott-climate-change-emails-obama-copenhagen/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r2:c0.115110:b29150254:z10

2. The leading research center behind the movement actually fabricated data (listing nonexistent weather stations, claiming that other station data was irrelevant because their formula was more accurate than hard data):

“But the CRU… See More’s temperature data and all of the research done with it are now in question. The leaked e-mails show that the scientists at the CRU don’t know how their data was put together. CRU took individual temperature readings at individual stations and averaged the information out to produce temperature readings over larger areas. The problem comes in how they did the averaging. One of the leaked documents states that “our flagship gridded data product is produced by [a method that] renders the station counts totally meaningless” and “so, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!” There were also significant coding errors in the data. Weather stations that are claimed to exist in Canada aren’t there — leading one memo to speculate that the stations “were even invented somewhere other than Canada!””

(same source as above)

3. A “hacker” exposed a ton of emails showing requests to suppress and fabricate data, destroy records (including raw data), etc:

— Tom Wigley, a scientist with the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research wrote in one of the e-mails: “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.” Saiers’ term as editor ended the following year. In another e-mail, Wigley wrote: “If we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip.”

— Professor Mann, the Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, wrote: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

— Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU and contributing author to the United Nation’s IPCC report chapter titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes,” wrote: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

— In an e-mail entitled “IPCC & FOI” (referring to the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Freedom of Information Act) Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, wrote Dr. (Michael) Mann: “Mike: Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re [the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. . . . Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new e-mail address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

Mann acknowledges that he received the e-mail, but he claims that neither he nor anyone else actually deleted any e-mails to hide information from a Freedom of Information Act request on how the U.N.’s IPCC report was written. Yet, his response is quite damning as it seems that he goes along with Dr. Jones. Far from criticizing the request, Dr. Mann wrote back: “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new e-mail is: generwahl@yahoo.com. talk to you later, Mike.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/01/think-climate-gate-nonevent-think/

4.  They’ve admitted all of this, too! :

“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.”

“The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added data.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

5.   so now the director of CRU, Phil Jones, is stepping down.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578486,00.html?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r5:c0.101325:b29150254:z10

My assessment:

This is not the only scandal/controversy about the global warming theory. The whole thing is irritating, because those who endorse global warming point to science (which, in this case, seems to have some big holes), but its skeptics also point to science.

I don’t think the controversy is in whether or not the earth is warming … it is more in whether or not man’s contribution (in pollution or policing) is substantial enough to alter the course (which climate-gate casts into doubt), and whether or not this is just a natural cycle of the earth (the undisputed science has indicated that warm periods and cool periods are fact) and man just has to “get used to it”…. See More

I, like many GW skeptics believe that yes, the Earth is warming, it would have whether or not man was here, we need to quit trying to artificially alter nature (trying to stop the warming), and we DO need to reduce pollution regardless.

Because I still want a clean Earth, I’m working toward the same thing others are, in reducing our own “footprint”… but i do NOT think many of the dramatic measures being taken by some world governments are appropriate, especially since they are quick decisions made frantically and based on flawed (fraud!) science.

We are being taken advantage of by the Global Warming Industry – they’re using fear mongering to push their business on us, to reap huge tax benefits, and to politically manipulate the world.

The GW industry already has caused economic upset, destroyed valuable food-producing farms and already-endangered rainforest to make room for ‘ethanol farms’ (another bad-science product). While the GW Industry – like any industry – will create new jobs, it will also eliminate old ones, forcing entire communities into poverty (just like any industry).

Global Warming, Greenhouse Gasses/Effect, and Climate Change are over-used terms and can be kind of confusing due to the number of (mostly incorrect) interpretations of these terms. A Good primer is here: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

… and you may find some interesting information:

  • Climate change is caused by eccentricities in the earth’s orbit and rotation,
  • the greenhouse effect is caused mostly by densities of water vapor in the air (clouds), NOT by carbon dioxide
  • CO2 is essential gas for life on the earth
  • Humans only contribute UP TO 3.4% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere annually – the rest is from natural sources beyond our control.

The site adds:

Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases.

Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%.

Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation.

Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides.

Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas — they are mostly water droplets — but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth.

Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect – that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide).

Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm.

Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect.

Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect.

Anyway, there are specific points outlined in the British Court Ruling against Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” as well as other scientific points worth investigating on a number of sites (if you’re interested in hearing the other side of the debates and the other conclusions drawn by other scientists):

  1. http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/
  2. http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/35-scientific-errors-or-intentional-lies-in-an-inconvenient-truth/
  3. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts
  4. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html
  5. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_W90Iqq6WKZDieukjRUChXJ

473637372_599006f8cf

Final Note: While we recognize that rising temperatures could trigger colder climates, it would be nice if those folks who insist on pointing out that snow in the desert and colder winters are “part of Global Warming” would just cave in and admit that you can’t say “warming” when you really mean “cooling”.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: