A couple of summary paragraphs:
Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.What is distressing for our modern society is the realization that people who claim to be scientists can behave in such an un-scientific manner, in fact that they behave just like the rest of us selfish, greedy, highly-biased humans. Scientific and technological advancement is based on the Scientific Method of reproduceable results. The scientists doing this research are usually (by necessity) dealing with highly specialized data and jargon that the layperson can't follow easily or at all. We trust the scientific/technological community to rigorously fact-check and verify the results before they come to us and say "the universe is not as you know it". Global Warming alarmists want to fundamentally change our lives, to greatly diminish our standard of living because of the implications of this seriously flawed 'science'. If we can't trust the Scientific Method to keep their shit straight, we will never be able to trust what they say. Sort of like what the Main-Stream Media have done to themselves, except with far more serious implications.
But here's what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data (Bud-D: tree-ring data) after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result. (Bud-D comment: The scientists are saying that the rules that justified their use of tree-ring data prior to 1960 can be thrown out for the post-1960 period and recorded temperatures used instead. This is similar to Creationists saying, "sure carbon-dating works until 6000 BC, but that's when God changed the rules of physics". The scientists are acting exactly like strict Bible literalist priests here).
And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.(bold Bud-D's)
There is a lot of scientific language and data behind this discussion, but the bottom line is that data was fudged or twisted to make it look like the Earth was warming when in fact it wasn't. That is my understanding.
ReplyDeleteThe article states these leaked emails should show the world what a fraud this scam is and cause the governments of the world to pause and reexaimine the whole debate. I don't think that it will. They want to push through their agenda.
The biggest thing I can get from this is the fact that the very same thing is going on with the health care debate and all the other programs that the liberals push for--lies and twisted facts and data and framing their arguments in emotion. They have to lie and hide their true intentions.
Those Creationists are a bunch of Clowns. I was taught science in my home school from a Creationist point of view about the Earth and universe being only six thousand years old. What is interesting is that the Bible does not say that nor does science--I am not very versed in the debate. How are we able to see light from a star that took millions of years to reach Earth? Maybe if they would stop thumping the Bible and actually read it, they could stop making Christianity look like such a joke that the religion is presented as by these clowns. Religion is one of the biggest means of brainwashing and controlling a people. I would say that a scam that is similar to the current global warming scam is playing itself out in the world of religion.
My only question about all of this is why wasn't it fact checked? I know there is a large quantity of scientists that wouldn't want the truth to come out, but not all scientists can be of like mind (in fact, most government employeed Russian scientists oppose the idea). So if this work was as seminal as everyone claims, what specific technical trick did they do so as to fool the world?
ReplyDeleteMelkor, a good direct response to your question can be found in Mark Steyn's recent editorial in the Orange County Register:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ocregister.com/opinion/peer-221438-reviewed-climate.html
When the peer reviewers are the same people writing the articles, and when it feeds into exactly what those in power want to hear, it's amazing how far a scam can be pushed.
And to respond further to your question: they were able to push this so far, and they finally ran into the opposition: the Climate Audit blog, Watts Up with That blog, certainly other scientists whose views were surpressed (though they weren't completely surpressed, the doubting articles were/are out there), and also whoever that true hero is that put out all those e-mails, clearly someone who was integrally involved the research the U of East Anglia was doing. I'm sure we'll hear who he/she is soon. Also, don't forget the article under 'Required Reading' on our sidebar. That was widely-read technical analysis that put doubts in a lot of politicians' and scientists' minds.
ReplyDelete