The Problem With Obama

Posts Tagged ‘CRU’

Gover­nor Palin writes the fol­low­ing in the Wash­ing­ton Post:

With the pub­li­ca­tion of dam­ag­ing e-​mails from a cli­mate research cen­ter in Britain, the rad­i­cal envi­ron­men­tal move­ment appears to face a tip­ping point. The rev­e­la­tion of appalling actions by so-​called cli­mate change experts allows the Amer­i­can pub­lic to finally under­stand the con­cerns so many of us have artic­u­lated on this issue.

“Climate-​gate,” as the e-​mails and other doc­u­ments from the Cli­mate Research Unit at the Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politi­cized sci­en­tific cir­cle — the same cir­cle whose work under­lies efforts at the Copen­hagen cli­mate change con­fer­ence. The agenda-​driven poli­cies being pushed in Copen­hagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our econ­omy for the worse.

Read the rest of this entry »

Copenhagen’s polit­i­cal sci­ence (Wash­ing­ton Post)
Gov­er­nor Palin again calls for Barack Obama to skip Copen­hagen in this Wash­ing­ton Post com­men­tary. She points to the need for real sci­ence, bal­anc­ing real-​world costs and ben­e­fits, and the inequitable pro­pos­als and expec­tions among nations.

When sci­en­tists behave like bul­lies (San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle)
Debra Saun­ders writes about the damn­ing cor­rup­tion of sci­ence by global warm­ing scientists.

It is now rea­son­able to label global warm­ing, more for­mally known as Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing (AGW) a fraud per­pe­trated by a group of self-​serving sci­en­tists, doom­say­ers, and wannabes. For years we’ve been bom­barded with scary fore­casts and dire reports of man-​made cat­a­stro­phe. Skep­ti­cism was met with dis­mis­sive ridicule as deniers, equat­ing crit­ics with Holo­caust deniers. Fas­cism was the modis operandi of the the reli­gion of global warm­ing. The pur­vey­ors in the US were led by the likes of Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and many oth­ers. Their part­ners in the U.K. were Phil Jones and his crew at the Cli­matic Research Unit. They defined the prob­lem, con­trolled the research, and horded the data. Gov­ern­ments and oth­er­wise well-​meaning peo­ple bowed to their demands with amen-​like sup­port and money. Oth­er­wise respectable orga­ni­za­tions like NASA, NOAA, and the EPA in the US and their coun­ter­parts around the world remade them­selves to sup­port the reli­gion of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing. The media, like eager lem­mings, made great evan­ge­lists. But, as with any tale, all good things must come to an end and so did the reign of global warm­ing. Some­one, likely a whistle­blower within the global warm­ing com­mu­nity, in a moment of remorse (or spite, it doesn’t really mat­ter), released (so far) over 165 megabytes of secre­tive global warm­ing data and email. The reli­gion of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing (AGW) is now laid bare for the junk sci­ence and fraud that it is.

Read the rest of this entry »

We will release the data…
Cli­mate­gate: Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia U-​turn in cli­mate change row (Tele­graph)
We threw away the data…
Cli­mate change data dumped (Times)
The Cli­mate Research Unit says, accord­ing to the Tele­graph, that they will release the raw data that global warm­ing is based upon. At the same time the Times reports that the same folks now admit that the raw data was thrown away. All they kept was the manip­u­lated data they cre­ated to sup­port global warm­ing. As Roger Pielke, pro­fes­sor of envi­ron­men­tal stud­ies at Col­orado Uni­ver­sity, is quoted in the Times, “The CRU is basi­cally say­ing, ‘Trust us’.”

Tell it to the ice caps, An e-​mail storm wors­ens the cli­mate for con­sen­sus (Wash­ing­ton Post)
Don’t let a lit­tle sci­en­tific fraud get in the way. Eugene Robin­son white­washes the débâ­cle that global warm­ing to sug­gest “deniers” are get­ting ahead of themselves.

‘Climate­gate’ puts warm­ing in ques­tion (Detroit News)
A cau­tion­ary edi­to­r­ial sug­gest­ing that Obama’s upcom­ing trip to sign away America’s future at Copen­hagen is not only pre­ma­ture, but based on ques­tion­able and now dis­cred­ited scientific.

There are sev­eral updates from folks review­ing the CRU soft­ware code that paint a deves­tat­ing pic­ture of the sci­ence of global warm­ing (More below). As I read these, I keep com­ing back to the 1960 date. Newer data did not bear out global warm­ing which global warm­ing advo­cates had staked their careers. There­fore they played with it and made it up to get the results they wanted. What they seem to miss in this sci­en­tific fraud is that the newer data might be more relaible and that instead of it being wrong, maybe their old data and the entire approach or method­ol­ogy was the problem. 

The code doc­u­men­ta­tion and write read me files releaseed last week are so incred­i­bly unpro­fes­sional to be almost unbe­lie­ve­able. They raise big red flags about what was tran­spir­ing. Didn’t any­one ever look at the code?!

Read the rest of this entry »

Incon­ve­nient for Whom? (National Review’s planet gore)
“It’s been a tough cou­ple of days for Al Gore. Anthro­pogenic global warm­ing — his cash cow since leav­ing the White House — has been dis­cred­ited thanks to leaked e-​mails which show lead­ing climate-​change sci­en­tists mer­rily manip­u­lat­ing data.” Where is Al Gore any­way? [This is actu­ally a blog of all about Al Gore and his global warm­ing cash cow.]

A lot of folks are look­ing at the CRU Code that lays the foun­da­tion for the fraud of global warm­ing. Bishop Hill has a grow­ing list of find­ings (below). Bore Patch offers another take (above).

Read the rest of this entry »