Thread Started on Dec 3, 2009
Some of you may be aquainted with this term. It is the belief that objective science has been overtaken by morality and politics and that we are in a new era.
Well, I guess no-one disputes that science should be separate from politcs but surely the former should inform the latter?
Instead we find the luminaries and idologists of climate change embracing the belief that "ye picks yer scientist and ye takes yer choice!" Or, in Forrest Gump's immortal words, “Science is like box o’ Chocolates, ye never know what yer gonna get”.
Sadly, with the institution of the IPCC, and CRU in East Anglia which provides its data, we DO know “what we’re gonna get” because the findings are tailored to a priori conclusions. "The world is warming at an unprecedented rate, let’s go out and prove it, boys!" Or more accurately, "lets sit in our Ivory Towers and fiddle the data that comes into us from the Meteorological Bureaux round the world" who harvest the primary data from thermometers placed round their countries some of which have records dating back more than a hundred years.
In the leaked CRU data files are the computer codes which translate the “raw” thermometer data into the “adjusted” or “value-added product” which is then used to demonstrate the claim that the planet is warming.
Yes, folks, the whole global warming scam is based on nothing more than arithmetic. It’s not "rocket science” at all. You don’t need to abrogate your native wit to the ‘experts’ or the “authorities”, You can go to the raw data yourselves in the public domain and compare it with the “value added” tosh that Drs Jones and Mann have presented to the IPCC to demonstrate that the planet’s warming is “unprecendented”.
If you wish to see what the temperature trend in your own area is over the last century or so just go to the Met office data base and find a rural thermometer with a record going back a century or so. The rural thermometers should be free of most of the Urban Heat Island effect that so confuses Dr Phil and Dr Michael (and yes, this is an example of anthropogenic warming, but NOT via CO2 greenhouse gas effect). From them you can determine the ACTUAL raw temperature data - that’s IF Dr Phil’s boys haven’t already been there before you!
Here’s how it’s done with the USA’s GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Science) thermometer data base. It’s child’s play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04
Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that understanding the workings the world’s climate system is a doddle. Of course not. It is an incredibly complex system of interaction between many ill-understood variables over cycles of time from decades to centuries and even millenia. Almost every day I discover some new corner of the field to amaze me. BUT the claims of “global warming” are not difficult either to understand or to check. So be emboldened and start checking the raw data yourself or go to someone who has already done it.
GIStemp, as well as HadCRU has its detractors. Both organisations use the same basic raw data from the Global Historical Climate Network (the data from world's Meteorological bureaux). Both have been fighting off Freedom of Information Act requests from sceptical scientist who wish to test how the data are manipulated to give rise to the "adjusted value-added" data.
ReplyDeleteNASA, which oversees GIStemp, has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
GIStemp was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.
It had initially listed the USA's warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre’s questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten AGAIN so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999. ”
So WAS the warming in the late 20th century "unprecendented" then?
Errm, yes, but no but yes but no....., not in the USA, anyway, apparently.
And the USA is a large chunk of the land area of the Northern Hemisphere.
You see, the whole basis of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hype is about arithmetic, nothing more complicated than that.
.........
ReplyDeleteThe idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask [paraphrasing Kennedy!] not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.
..........
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical and spiritual needs.
..........
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
.............
These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’
.............
These are all quotes from the book ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change’
by Mike Hulme.
Wearing another hat (as distinct from that of alarmist polemicist) this man actually heads up a supposedly scientific institution - the Tyndall Centre for Climate Studies at the University of East Anglia - the same University that is responsible for collecting temperature data on which the whole “warming” hype is based.
The same university that houses the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the "Climatgate" controversy.
You can see how they have all got very mixed up about the boundary between science and policy-making.
Re the Greenpeace ad next to the YouTube Video above.
ReplyDelete"Give £3 a month to help stop climate change"
For the last 20 years or so I have been donating more than that to Greenpeace. I cancelled my standing order last month.
In the 1980s I made a will and since I had no dependents Greenpeace was my beneficiary.
So don't let anyone accuse me of not caring for the planet. I do. I consider it a privilege to exist on it and it never ceases to amaze me.
BUT loving the planet does not mean suspending your disbelief regarding what ideologues proclaim or leaving your common sense at home because of the "precautionary principle".
Greenpeace is no longer in my will, needless to say.