Posted by
Catmman on Friday, November 20, 2009 4:17:05 PM
I have always believed that the entire premise of the global warming alarmists has been shady from the start. There is too much variability in the theory (not to mention the actual climate) itself to say otherwise. When prestigious 'Warmists' like Al Gore get involved (especially considering their increasingly invested financial stake in implementing Warmist policy), let's just say that my hackles go up.
Then to hear supposed scientists say the 'science is settled' and be parroted by folks like Gore - "
The time for debate is over." - let's just say I
know the Warmists are full of crap.
The evidence of the supposed settled science is hardly settled at all. Indeed, when the lynch-pin of the Warmists ideology - that CO2 drives higher global temps - isn't born out in
ANY real-world scientific observation and that
NONE of the doomsday predictions made about global warming over the last twenty-years come true, it can only be a matter of time before people catch on to the scam.
Today we learn that perhaps,
just perhaps, data used to bolster the theory of anthropogenic warming (man-made global warming) may have been 'doctored' from the get go - or at least going back to 1999.
Is this some innocuous misunderstanding? Perhaps evidence simply of
incompetence at the Hadley CRU? With e-mail communications (which have been verified by the originator as authentic) making statements about "hiding the decline", "removing the 1940's blip", "reducing the ocean blip" and where researchers themselves are bemoaning the lack of any warming - could it be anything other than an attempt at...
fraud?
Read this statement:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming
at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data
published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should
be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.***
If you read the above paragraph, it states pretty overtly that the actual observed data don't jive with the theory. This statement says that model predictions are wrong since they can't account for the lack of warming. The models clearly show warming which isn't happening. Any prudent scientist would take that as some kind of problem with the model. After all, a model is simply a tool plugged in with theoretical data (or old data to establish a baseline). In this case, the observed data don't jive with the models - so somehow it must be the "observing system" whchi is "innadequate".
WTF?!
I'm no scientists, but isn't it supposed to work like that? You come up with a hypothesis. Perhaps you create a model to demonstrate your hypothesis. Then you collect actual, real data (through observation or experimentation). If the real data jives with your hypothesis - you may have something there. Then you test it again and farm it out to the scientific community for further testing/verification. If everything works out, you've proven your original hypothesis. Then you bask in the light of scientific discovery.
If your real data doesn't jive with your hypothesis (or models), then you must assume there is a flaw
with your original hypothesis - not the real data. Not in this case. This 'scientist' realizes the real data doesn't jive with the hypothetical model - so the real data must somehow be flawed.
Huh? Talk about fanatical devotion to a pre-conceived notion.
In this case, the 'scientist' is either fundamentally narcissistic or fanatically ideological. Just as Al Gore still states CO2 drives global temperature increases -
when the data clearly show it does not - this guy sees the real data shows no warming, yet can't accept that subversion of his pre-conceived notion of warming, so his solution is to blame the real data.
It will be interesting to see if there are any more revelations exposed in these e-mails and if any of it further strengthens the possibility that possible ideological beliefs contributed to the falsification of climate data used to spread the Warmist mantra.