Fast on the heels of Climategate in November 2009, we have now heard of another catastrophe - Glaciergate. It is now clear that the much vaunted "peer review" of the IPCC Reports was nothing more than sycophantic preening and the odd Chair of the UN appointed IPCC Committee, Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri (who is after all only a railway engineer) will be forced to step down.
SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION? by Joseph D’Aleo & Anthony Watts | January 27, 2010
A QUESTION OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
Recent revelations from the Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed how all the data centers, most notably NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than, in reality, they actually did.
This has inspired climate researchers worldwide to take a hard look at the data proffered by comparing it to the original data and to other data sources. This report compiles some of the initial alarming findings.
15 main factors presented by IPCC Reports are contentious. These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for overestimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggest that global data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or rankings or validate model forecasts. And, consequently, such surface data should be ignored for decision making.It has often been suggested by the Al GORE and IPCC supporters that "the debate is over". That claim is a typical tactic proposed by many left-wing groups on topics they wish to end debate. It is an appalling conceit.
In 2007 UK Minister of the Environment, David Miliband was greeted by cries of “Rubbish!” when he told a conference that the science of climate and carbon dioxide was simple and settled. Yet Miliband was merely reciting a mantra that has been widely peddled by politicians such as Al Gore and political news media such as the BBC, which has long since abandoned its constitutional obligation of objectivity on this as on most political subjects, and has adopted a policy of not allowing equal air-time to opponents of the imagined “consensus”.
The claim of “consensus” rests almost entirely on an inaccurate and now-outdated single-page comment in the journal Science entitled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Oreskes, 2004). In this less than impressive “head-count” essay, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology, defined the “consensus” in a very limited sense, quoting as follows from IPCC (2001) –
“Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Oreskes (2004) said she had analyzed "928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords ‘climate change’." She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate. It is not clear whether Oreskes’ analysis was peer-reviewed, since it was presented as an essay and not as a scientific paper. However, there were numerous serious errors, effectively negating her conclusion, which suggest that the essay was either not reviewed at all or reviewed with undue indulgence by scientists who agreed with Oreskes’ declared prejudice.Finally "35 Inconvenient Errors" by Lord MONKTON - debunking Al GORE's movie.
Global "Climate Change" is now henceforth known as "Climate Fooling".
No comments:
Post a Comment