The Problem With Obama

Posts Tagged ‘NOAA’

Forget the media exag­ger­at­ing the weather, now the National Weather Ser­vice is out fore­cast­ing “Heavy Snow” when accu­mu­la­tion is “less than one inch” and “1 to 2 inches”. Incredible.

I won­der if the gov­ern­ment mind­set that equates 1 – 2 inches of snow as “Heavy Snow” is the same as that which sees global warm­ing in every frac­tion of weather change?

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.

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 »

Global Warm­ing With the Lid Off (Wall Street Jour­nal)
Sub­ti­tle is “The emails that reveal an effort to hide the truth about cli­mate sci­ence..” WSJ writes: “How­ever, we do now have hun­dreds of emails that give every appear­ance of tes­ti­fy­ing to con­certed and coör­di­nated efforts by lead­ing cli­ma­tol­o­gists to fit the data to their con­clu­sions while attempt­ing to silence and dis­credit their crit­ics. In the depart­ment of incon­ve­nient truths, this one surely deserves a closer look by the media, the U.S. Con­gress and other inves­tiga­tive bodies.”

Anthony Watts at WattsUp­With­That has a new post out show­ing com­ments in the code that was released by the alleged hacker last week. First, he says fur­ther review of the email shows that among the datasets Phil Jones used, some con­cluded that ‘global warm­ing’ ended back in 1960 and that only with edited dated to “hide the decline” did Jones pro­duce the cur­rent global warm­ing trend. He shares that Jones now denies manip­u­lat­ing the data even if the email clearly state otherwise.

Any­way, Watts says that a review of the soft­ware code released by the alleged hacker includes com­ments clearly doc­u­ment­ing data manipulation.

Read the rest of this entry »

George Mar­shall writes in the block Cli­mate Change Denial a post bemoan­ing “Swift­boat­ing the Cli­mate Sci­en­tists.”

The theft of 1,000 pri­vate e-​mails from the Cli­mate Research Unit at the Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia (UEA) shows that deniers have learned lessons from dirty pol­i­tics and are run­ning a new cam­paign to under­mine pub­lic trust in cli­mate sci­en­tists. The fee­ble response from the UEA and the cli­mate sci­ence com­mu­nity shows that sci­en­tists are still totally under­es­ti­mat­ing the fragility of that trust and the cru­cial role it plays in build­ing pub­lic belief.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hack­ers recently seized and released 1,073 emails and 55MB of files from Cli­mate Report and the Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia. Not unex­pected on today’s Inter­net but the results are explo­sive. The con­tent of the emails unequiv­o­cally show that global warm­ing is a fraud and that sci­en­tists involved actively per­pe­trated this fraud.

Like so many oth­ers I have down­loaded the hacked files and have begun perus­ing the emails. First, I’ve got to sus­pect the sci­en­tists involved feel very vio­lated to find their emails now on the Inter­net for every­one to read. Inter­est­ing to note that they are admit­ted as gen­uine from sev­eral media reports (Phil Jones admits files taken, defends con­tent; Gavin Schmidt says his are gen­uine). Sec­ond, they should be con­cerned about reper­cus­sions, whether they should have attor­neys, and maybe whether it might be time to qui­etly retire. For Al Gore and oth­ers mak­ing a career out of global warn­ing, this has to be a bone chill­ing moment as their entire reli­gious cru­sade is exposed as fraud. What do they do? Admit it? Explain it away? Or, try to ignore it?

Read the rest of this entry »