Wolf Howling: Micahel Mann

Showing posts with label Micahel Mann. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Climatega Update 23: Hadley-Russian Surface Temp Fraud, Solar Activity & AGW, Driving Motivations At Copenhagen, Green Energy, & The Goracle's Prayer

In yet another major revelation, Russia's IEA is asserting that the UK's Hadley Center for Climate Research cherry picked - on a grand scale - Russian climatological data to show anthropogenic global warming (AGW) where none existed. This from a Russian news translation:

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

(emphasis added)

It further appears that Michael Mann was aware of this fraud and intervened to see that it went unreported. This from Watts Up With That, quoting one of the CRU e-mails from Mr. Mann:

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

And as Watts Up With That further comments on the Russian revelations:

Again the accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data. This data and code release is the subject of illegal blocking of FOIA’s is one of the keys in the Climategate emials. We need to know the list of stations used and we must have copies of the raw data.

This is a very powerful accusation, which if true could change much about the climate science debate. Many papers are based on this dataset which has the highest trend of the major ground datasets.

As ever more revelations come out relating to Climategate, the goings on in Copenhagen seem ever more surreal. Stripped of trustworthy scientific underpinnings for AGW, both the machinations of the third world attendees to engineer a massive transfer of wealth, and the machinations of Gore and other rent seekers - not the least of them being multi-millionaire IPCC Chairman Rajendra Kumar Pachauri - to ride the carbon gravy train to massive wealth, are all laid bare. More on this from No Oil For Pacifists and EU Referendum, here, here and here.

I have blogged before that many believe that the sun is the 800 lbs gorilla when it comes to determining the earth's climate. We know from multiple sources that all of the IPCC computer models have proven fatally flawed. All predicted future warming concomitant with a rise in carbon. None predicted our current decade long period of global cooling that has occurred even as carbon levels have risen. In a recent article, a South African physicist, Dr. Kevin Kemm, expounded upon a Danish model programmed to vary the climate estimate based on solar activity - or lack thereof. This from Dr. Kemm:

a Danish research group led by Henrik Svensmark has found an exact match with the level of sun spot activity on our sun. What is more, the match is spot on over the period of the last 1 500 years.

This scientific mechanism actually fits the evidence!

What happens is that cosmic rays impinge on the Earth from outer space, and these rays produce clouds much like high-flying jets leaving contrails behind their engines.

More cloud means global cooling because not as much sunlight reaches the ground to warm it. Less cloud leads to global warming. The sun creates a magnetic bubble around the Earth, which acts as a shield to incoming cosmic rays, preventing some of them from reaching the Earth.

Many sun spots mean a stronger shield, thus less cloud cover and so global warming. Currently our sun is passing through a record period of no sun spot activity.

Politicians are suppressing this information. In Newsweek of November 16, in an interview promoting the use of renewable energy, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said: "But none of this (renewable energy use) is possible if the forces of climate change scepticism are allowed to undermine the prospect of global (carbon dioxide emissions) agreement." So Rudd wants a political agreement no matter what the scientific truth may be.

Emma Brindal, the climate justice campaigner for the green organisation Friends of the Earth, put the NGO in the same camp when she said: "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."

If you google "henrik svensmark sun" you will come up with a number of hits, such as this Discover interview with Mr. Svensmark discussing his theories and how he has been blacklisted by the AGW cabal. Isn't that a surprise. Here is an excerpt:

If the scientists at CLOUD are able to prove that cosmic rays can change Earth’s cloud cover, would that force climate scientists to reevaluate their ideas about global warming?

Definitely, because in the standard view of climate change, you think of clouds as a result of the climate that you have. Our idea reverses that, turns things completely upside down, saying that the climate is a result of how the clouds are.

How do you see your work fitting into the grand debates about the causes of global warming and the considerations of what ought to be done about it?

I think—no, I believe—that the sun has had an influence in the past and is changing climate at the present, and it most certainly will do so in the future. We live in a unique time in history, because this period has the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years, and maybe even in 8,000 years. And we know that changes in solar activity have made significant changes in climate. For instance, we had the little ice age about 300 years ago. You had very few sunspots [markings on the face of the sun that indicate heightened solar activity] between 1650 and 1715, and for example, in Sweden in 1696, it caused the harvest to go wrong. People were starving—100,000 people died—and it was very desperate times, all coinciding with this very low solar activity. The last time we had high solar activity was during the medieval warming, which was when all of the cathedrals were built in Europe. And if you go 1,000 years back, you also had high solar activity, and that was when Rome was at its height. So I think there’s good evidence that these are significant changes that are happening naturally. If we are talking about the next century, there might be a human effect on climate change on top of that, but the natural effect from solar effect will be important. This should be recognized in the models and calculations that are being used to make predictions.

Why is there such resistance to doing that? Is the science that conflicted or confusing? Or is politics intervening?

I think it’s the latter, and I think it’s both. And I think there’s a fear that it will turn out, or that it would be suggested, that the man-made contribution is smaller than what you would expect if you look at CO2 alone.

Interestingly, while Mr. Svensmark's theories and work have been blacklisted by the AGW cabal, there is the below e-mail, appended as part of a larger e-mail dated 2 Oct. 2009 that was among the CRU tranche of e-mails made public two weeks ago:

Rodney Chilton maberrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Benny:

Recently, there has been considerable discussion concerning the slight cooling of the earth's overall climate since about 2005. The result of the cooling has brought some scientists into the forefront to be openly critical of the still prominent view that climate changes over the century or so have predominately been man caused. The proponents of human initiated climate changes are of the opinion that the recent cooling is but a temporary interruption in what soon again will be a rapid climate warming.

I think one of the keys to alleviate some of this discussion is to attempt to determine the triggers for two other climate shifts in earlier times. The first of these, the "Little Ice Age" is generally regarded by most scientists as resulting from a reduced output of energy from the sun. Coinciding as it did with an interval of very little to almost no sunspot activity, a time known as the "Maunder Minimum", many solar scientists suggest that as little as 0.25% decrease in solar output initiated this cold climate period. Similarily, during the mid 20th Century during the years from the end of the 1940's to about the mid 1970's, the sun was in one of its quiet modes (very few sunspots).

The cause for what was a slightly cooler interval could logically be linked to decreased energy from the sun. However, the quite recent thirty year period is more commonly linked to increased dust in the earth's atmosphere. Consistent with this view is the idea that perhaps the Little Ice Age too, was forced not by a decrease in the sun's output, but by an increase in dust, not that produced by man, but by extraterrestrial dust from a comet encounter. More details of this particular scenario can be seen at the following website:

http://www.bcclimate.com

All of this raises the questions, what drove both the Little Ice Age and the thirty year interval in the middle of the last century? It is possible that they were driven by the two different causes outlined. It is vital I think that the reason(s) for the two climate shifts be determined. This would go along way to settle the recent debate as to the importance of solar minima in initiating climate changes over more than just a few years. Further to this, the picture of the future will be clarified. If for example, decreases in solar output is proven to be of less importance during the past, then surely the present climate downturn will be likely only a temporary respite from the inexorable upward trend in temperatures worldwide. If on the other hand the solar cycles accompanied by low sun activity over decades and even longer can be proven as significant, then I believe we must re-examine the increased carbon dioxide scenario.

Rodney Chilton

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Climategate Update 18: Ice Core Flicks, Long Term Climate, Anti-Scientific Method Then & Now, & Fraud or Confirmation Bias

(H/T Jo Nova)

Update: Iowahawk teaches you how to make sausage - or at least a Mannesque hockey stick graph - using "value added homogenized data." A fascinating post.

The starting point to assess whether our current "global warming" is unusual and thus, may in fact be related to mans actvities (as opposed to Mann's activities) is to look at the historical record. Watts Up With That kindly obliges with a video showing the temps derived from ice core data from Greenland. What it establishes is that we are in a prolonged period of global warming far predating the industrial period, and that during this period of global warming, temperatures have been both changing rapidly and have, on average, been higher than today.

This jives with Prof. David Bellamy's conclusions at PJM: "Over the past 5,000 years . . . [t]here was not just one, but three periods when it was warmer than today." The Prof. also points to evidence in the historic record showing a lack of any relationship between CO2 levels and rising temperatures: ". . . the data from the much-celebrated Vostok ice cores paints a very different picture: Up goes the temperature, followed by a rise in carbon dioxide." And then this:

We have had at least 75 major temperature swings in the past 4,500 years — all in great part explicable by solar cycles, volcanic activity, and those little rascals El Nino and La Nina. Those “warming” oceans? The recent trend is one of cooling, not the warming predicted by legions of modelers and their models. Since 2007, the Arctic ice cap has been increasing in area, heading back towards the norm again. Yes, the Northwest Passage was navigable this year — but it has been that way on a number of occasions, just since 1850. Thanks in great part to prevailing winds changing direction, as they are wont to do.

Jo Nova, an Australian journalist specializing in science, gives us this assessment:

ClimateGate doesn’t just bring down the scientists who wrote the emails, it brings down all the institutions and organizations that were supposed to have exacting standards and ought to have exposed the crimes years ago. The men whose work was so bogus, were lauded by the IPCC, published in Nature and Science, and defended by the National Academy of Science.

This evidence of collusion, falsification, hiding data, and consistent deceit blows away the infrastructures of the practice of science. It doesn’t hurt the scientific method, but it destroys the premise that the IPCC expert review means anything, that peer review is capable of even picking up outright fraud, and that the National Academy of Science is functional.

. . . Of the 26 names on the [IPCC's] Copenhagen Diagnosis, 12 are connected to the email scandal. It implicates almost half the lead team. The IPCC only had 60 reviewers of the one chapter that matters (Chapter Nine), and some of them reviewed their own work, many had vested interests, and now a significant number have been caught by the scandal.

When I call up the weather station to get the day's temp., they give me a single number. But is that accurate? And is it what our climate scientists are using for their calculations? Here is the rub - to both questions, the answer is "no". And moreover, the reality is that there is a range of temperatures at any given point, making fine precision in small warming or cooling trends subject near impossible - and it would seem, giving our less than honest climate scientists a golden opportunity to mix and match different results to get a desired outcome. This from a fine catch at EU Referendum:

Such stunning precision, however, is somewhat at odds with the diffident explanation of the provenance of the Absolute Surface Air Temperature (SAT) on Nasa's GISS website. It offers this narrative:
Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT?

A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.

Q. What do we mean by daily mean SAT?

A. Again, there is no universally accepted correct answer. Should we note the temperature every 6 hours and report the mean, should we do it every 2 hours, hourly, have a machine record it every second, or simply take the average of the highest and lowest temperature of the day? On some days the various methods may lead to drastically different results.

Q. What SAT do the local media report?

A. The media report the reading of 1 particular thermometer of a nearby weather station. This temperature may be very different from the true SAT even at that location and has certainly nothing to do with the true regional SAT. To measure the true regional SAT, we would have to use many 50 ft stacks of thermometers distributed evenly over the whole region, an obvious practical impossibility.

Q. If the reported SATs are not the true SATs, why are they still useful?

A. The reported temperature is truly meaningful only to a person who happens to visit the weather station at the precise moment when the reported temperature is measured, in other words, to nobody. However, in addition to the SAT the reports usually also mention whether the current temperature is unusually high or unusually low, how much it differs from the normal temperature, and that information (the anomaly) is meaningful for the whole region. Also, if we hear a temperature (say 70F), we instinctively translate it into hot or cold, but our translation key depends on the season and region, the same temperature may be 'hot' in winter and 'cold' in July, since by 'hot' we always mean 'hotter than normal', i.e. we all translate absolute temperatures automatically into anomalies whether we are aware of it or not.

Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created?

A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.

Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies?

A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14 Celsius, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.
And the helpful person responsible for this explanation? Ah! NASA Official: James E Hansen.

But as we know, it is not just that climatology is inexact, and that the AGW "scientists" have been making great use of that, but that their actions are the very essence of corruption in science. I've blogged on the why, but here it is in the words of Ian Murray and Roger Abbott writing at PJM:

Specifically, the emails indicate that some of the world’s most prominent climate scientists have abandoned the basic scientific principle of subjecting empirical evidence, and the treatment of that evidence, to external scrutiny, so that findings can be verified and — when necessary — abandoned or revised.

The scientific method relies on the observation of empirical evidence in order to arrive at new truths. While some scientific “truths” may be considered true as a practical matter once they have undergone extensive scrutiny, the questions they address can never be considered closed and must always remain open to challenge. This means that empirical evidence marshaled by scientists must be made available for critical appraisal and that skeptics must be allowed to engage in honest debate without being subject to intimidation or smear. . . .

Compare the obfuscation and arrogance from CRU to the openness and humility of Albert Einstein. After the publication of “Gravitation and the Principle of Relativity” in 1918, Einstein insisted that his theory would only be valid after empirical testing. Even after Frank Dyson’s 1919 analysis of photographs of a solar eclipse satisfied the requirements of two of his three tests, Einstein still refused to accept his own theory until the third “red shift” test was met. “If it were proved that this effect does not exist in nature, then the whole theory would have to be abandoned.”

I think it fair to call the practice of our modern day AGW scientists the anti-scientific method. Richard Fernandez, also writing at PJM, takes up the proposition that the AGW theory of global warming may be wrong, but has been perpetuated and built upon by "confirmation bias" - i.e., the tinkering or deletion of scientific results that do not conform to the expected norm. This from Mr. Fernandez:

. . . Nature cannot be fooled, but man is capable of a great deal of self deception and politicians especially so. One commenter on Megan McArdle’s site unwittingly reiterated Feynman’s thesis. He argued that once the AGW money train began the danger of confirmation bias would rise almost unchecked. Like NASA’s Challenger a launch schedule for carbon amelioration had been publicly announced by the politicians, the activists and the UN. McCardle’s commenter wrote eloquently of the terrible pressure to assume that it had to be and the horrible cost of standing in the way.
. . . None of the scientists who have “come out” as climate skeptics allege a massive conspiracy by scientists, any more than there is a massive liberal conspiracy in Hollywood. What you have is a self-emergent, self-organizing bias. I hope I can illustrate it briefly.

I work in academic science (check my IP address if you wish). Scientists are, in general, uncompromising idealists for objective, physical truth. But occasionally, politics encroaches. Most of my work is funded by DoE, DoD, ONR, and a few big companies. We get the grants, because we are simply the best in the field. But we don’t work in isolation. We work as part of a department, which has equipment, lab space, and maintenance staff, IT, et cetera. We have a system for the strict partition of unclassified/classified research through collaboration with government labs. The department had set a research policy and infrastructure goal to attract defense funding, and it worked.

The same is true in climate science. Universities and departments have set policies to attract climate science funding. Climate science centers don’t spontaneously spring into existence – they were created, in increasingly rapid numbers, to partake in the funding bonanza that is AGW. This by itself is not political – currently, universities are scrambling to set up “clean energy” and “sustainable technology” centers. Before it was bio-tech and nanotechnology. But because AGW-funding is politically motivated, departments have adroitly set their research goals to match the political goals of their funding sources. Just look at the mission statements of these climate research institutes – they don’t seek to investigate the scientific validity or soundness of AGW-theory, they assume that it is true, and seek to research the implications or consequences of it.

This filters through every level. Having created such a department, they must fill it with faculty that will carry out their mission statement. The department will hire professors who already believe in AGW and conduct research based on that premise. Those professors will hire students that will conduct their research without much fuss about AGW. And honestly, if you know anything about my generation, we will do or say whatever it is we think we’re supposed to do or say. There is no conspiracy, just a slightly cozy, unthinking myopia. Don’t rock the boat.

The former editor of the New Scientist, Nigel Calder, said it best – if you want funding to study the feeding habits of squirrels, you won’t get it. If you wants to study the effects of climate change on the feeding habits of squirrels, you will. And so in these subtle ways, there is a gravitational pull towards the AGW monolith.

I think it the most damning evidence for this soft tyranny is in the work of climate scientists whose scientific integrity has led them to publish results that clearly contradict basic assumptions in AGW modeling. Yet, in their papers, they are very careful to skirt around the issue, keeping their heads down, describing their results in a way obfuscates the contradiction. They will describe their results as an individual case, with no greater implications, and issue reassuring boilerplate statements about how AGW is true anyways.

For the field as a whole, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s the unfortunate consequence of having a field totally dominated by politically-motivated, strings-attached money. In the case of the CRU email group, well, the emails speak for themselves. Call it whatever you want.

I think it likely that confirmation bias on a grand scale is a rot at the center of AGW. But, given that so many of the top scientists have stopped practicing science and refused to release their raw data, methodology and programs for scrutiny, there is also the outright stench of deliberate and knowing fraud, at least some of which should be actionable at law.

For example, Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit, in a long post, traces how the IPCC, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and others colluded to "hide the decline" in the IPCC assessments - they used graphs which showed only portions of the data which supported their meme, deleting other portions from the same findings which did not. That is not confirmation bias, it is deliberate fraud designed to induce the Western World, one, not to question AGW, and two, open their national purses and start transferring our national worth on a grand scale. Bring back the auto-de-fe is my knee jerk response.

Possibly the most insidious part of the whole AGW scam is how the left, by all accounts in control of our educational system, have brainwashed our children with it - as well as with much of the other "social justice" curriculum. Art Ball, a meteorologist, writes at PJM about how he has been blackballed from speaking at schools since he developed a program that points out the holes in AGW theory.

And I have written often that the socialists in AGW garb see AGW regulation as the ultimate accretion of power. With the ability to control carbon, there is literally no aspect of life that cannot be regulated. The latest ping on this radar screen - the UK government's Sustainable Development Commission's report on AGW diets for the
Brits. It calls for "which calls for radical changes in patterns of consumption" in order to combat global warming. Topping the least is a stark reduction in meat and dairy products - which, as even the report notes, could lead to deficiencies in calcium and iron. True, these were merely suggestions - for now. But clearly, it is something within the provence of government to regulate if they have a mandate to regulate carbon. And if anyone does not see such regulations on the horizon, they are deeply naive, I think.

Likewise gone are the days of the old saying, "Keep the government out of my womb." Now the facists/socialists hiding under the banner of environmentalism want to start regulating the number of children that couples may have, a la China.

We'll give the final word on this update to Jonah Goldberg at NRO:

Jason and his Argonauts set out to find the fleece so they might place Jason on the throne of Iolcus. The original story is one of power-seeking in a noble cause.

It’s debatable whether the modern tale of Jackson and the Goregonauts is quite so noble. But it’s obvious they’re interested in power and hell-bent on fleecing.

Indeed, some of loudest voices have a weird habit of telegraphing their priorities. Tim Wirth, a former senator and now chairman of the United Nations Foundation, once said: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” New York Times columnist and prominent warm-monger Thomas Friedman has repeatedly said (most recently this week) that he doesn’t care if global warming is a “hoax” because, even if it is, the fear of it will force us to do what we need to do.

And it just so happens that with the exception of nuclear power — which most greens still won’t support — global warming fuels nearly every progressive ambition. Wealth transfers from rich to poor nations: Check. The rise of “global governance” and the decline of American sovereignty: Check. A secular fatwa not only to erode capitalism but to intrude on every aspect of our lives (Greenpeace offers a guide to carbon-neutral sex): Check. Weaning us off of oil (which, don’t let the Goregonauts fool you, was a priority back when we were still worried about global cooling): Check. The checks go on for as far as the eye can see, and we will be writing them for years to come.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Climategate Update 12: The AGW Walls Start To Crumble, The Smoking Code & The Tiger Woods Index

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:

The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated.

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. . . .

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.

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:

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.

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.

Conclusion

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.

Do read the entire post.

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?"

Prior Posts:

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