The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated. That is pretty momentous, and even if they try to whitewash it at this point, it is still going to be a giant elephant sitting in the middle of Copenhagen. That is something even the BBC acknowledged in a subsequent article. As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred. Do read the entire post.
While an unscrupulous American MSM maintains a blanket of silence on the greatest scientific scandal at least of our age, the science community itself is convulsing. Yesterday we were treated to Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann tossing his fellow AGW scientist, Phil "Hide the Decline" Jones under the bus on the BBC. Today, we learn that the IPCC's Chairman Mao, Rajendra Pachauri, who has completely stonewalled on Climategate up to this point, that he has now relented and called for a UN investigation. For him to do this on almost the eve of the Copenhagen Summitt means that heat must really be on. This from the BBC:
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said the matter could not be swept "under the carpet".
The allegations emerged after e-mails written and received by UK climate researchers appeared on the internet.
The police are investigating whether the scientists' computers were hacked.
Dr Pachauri told BBC Radio 4's The Report programme that the claims were serious and he wants them investigated. . . .
While the IPCC may have had a reality check, at least one other person is stonewalling with the help of our media. Al "green-backs" Gore, perhaps the most successful con man of all time, sits for an interview with the Politico, while the two interviewers, John Harris and Mike Allen, do not bring up a single issue surrounding Climategate. You can tell from the comments the readers of this white wash dribble were not impressed.
Over at Watts Up With That, a guest poster, Robert Greiner, a scientist and self-described AGW agnostic, pulls apart the code downloaded from the CRU and shows, line by line, how its been used to distort data. He concludes:
Where do we go from here?
It’s not as cut-and-try as one might think. First and foremost, this doesn’t necessarily prove anything about global warming as science. It just shows that all of the data that was the chief result of most of the environmental legislation created over the last decade was a farce.
This means that all of those billions of dollars we spent as a global community to combat global warming may have been for nothing.
If news station anchors and politicians were trained as engineers, they would be able to find real proof and not just speculate about the meaning of emails that only made it appear as if something illegal happened.
I tried to write this post in a manner that transcends politics. I really haven’t taken much of an interest in the whole global warming debate and don’t really have a strong opinion on the matter. However, being part of the Science Community (I have a degree in Physics) and having done scientific research myself makes me very worried when arrogant jerks who call themselves “scientists” work outside of ethics and ignore the truth to fit their pre-conceived notions of the world. That is not science, that is religion with math equations.
It bears remembering that the impact of climate change legislation will have little impact on global temperatures, it will vastly enrich many a rent seeker, and it will negatively impact on all of the rest of us, with, as Evangelicals point out in a recent press release, the poor being hit by far the hardest. That matters not to the far left and the rent seekers with vested interests in AGW. Just look at the ethanol/biofuel insanity. The World Bank estimates that the establishment of ethanol and bio-fuel mandates, with its negative impacts on agriculture, has driven 100 million people below the poverty line.
Lastly, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, thinks that the American MSM, so heavilly invested in promoting the AGW meme, is now in a corner, waiting for the scandal to blow over or for some act that will allow them to report that they were "misled." Writing at PJM, he hopes for the latter but sees the former as still possible. I disagree in the long run at least. FOIA requests are about to be honored. Programs will be requested and will eventually have to be released. "Climate science" will see the light of day. Part of the reason is the internet. And until our overlords invoke the Chinese option and start controlling internet searches, the biggest search words of the day now concern Climategate. Do see EU Referendum for the Tiger Woods Index, developed by Dr. North to answer the questions "Is the public more interested in Tiger Woods than Climategate? And does the media coverage reflect the public interest?"
Climategate and Surrealism
More Climategate Fallout
Climategate Update 3
Climategate Update 4: CRU Records Worthless
Climategate Update 5: IPCC's Chairman Mao
Climategate Update 6: Climategate In Video
UNEP, Green Religion & Global Governance
Climate Update 7: IPCC's Chairman Mao Plays The Obama Card, Peer Review Analyzed, Scientific Method Explained For Paul Krugman
Climategate Update 8: The NYT Reports
Climategate Update 9: CRU Head Phil Jones Steps Down During Investigation, An MIT Prof Explains The Holes In AGW Theory, And Climate Fraud Is Everywhere
Climategate Update 10: Climategate Reverberates From The UK To Down Under
Climategate Update 11: Finally An AGW Consensus, "Hockey Stick" Mann Attacks Jones, Gore Goes To Ground
The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated.
That is pretty momentous, and even if they try to whitewash it at this point, it is still going to be a giant elephant sitting in the middle of Copenhagen. That is something even the BBC acknowledged in a subsequent article.
As you can see, (potentially) valid temperature station readings were taken and skewed to fabricate the results the “scientists” at the CRU wanted to believe, not what actually occurred.
Do read the entire post.