The Climategate Whitewash

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | March 7, 2010 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

Since Climategate, it's been clear that the UK Met Office and the UN Climate Czars would need to investigate themselves before anyone else did, and equally apparent that they would find little fault in themselves. Results of their “reviews” have the feel of partially digested left-overs from last night's bongy bash.

The UK Met Office is back to square one – the idea that there is a “scientific consensus” backing Al Gore's dire warnings based on a “study” that polls peer-reviewed literature; despite the fact that the only evidence supporting the view is now known to have been faked.

Australian newspaper, The Age and the BBC have slightly different versions of the new regurgitation of the old propaganda.

Excerpts from BBC article; Climate change human link evidence 'stronger'.

In 2007 the IPCC's report concluded that there was "unequivocal" evidence that the Earth was warming and it was likely that it was due to burning of fossil fuels.

Since then the evidence that human activities are responsible for a rise in temperatures has increased, according to this new assessment by Dr Peter Stott and colleagues at the UK Met Office.

The Age shines a light on the open-mindedness of reviewers to consider positions taken by “skeptics” in their article; Climate change review stresses human factor .

IT IS an ''increasingly remote possibility'' that human activity is not the main cause of climate change.

Not exactly a sincere sign of remorse that a judge would look for when sentencing.

Peter Stott, who led the study, hopes this new “evidence” will convince people to put their blinders on and ignore the actual evidence. He wants a do-over; complete with fears of melting glaciers, dramatically shifting environmental conditions, and strange weather patterns.

It's literally as if we haven't been through this before. According to Stott; "We hadn't [until now] looked in detail at how the climate system was changing." Really? But wasn't there some controversy ..... ?

"[Our paper looks at] not just the temperatures but also the reducing Arctic sea ice and it includes changing rainfall patterns and it includes the fact that the atmosphere is getting more humid.

"And all these different aspects of the climate system are adding up to a picture of the effects of a human influence on our climate."

You might think they could have acknowledged just a wee bit of the unequivocal evidence that shows little to no human effect on climate. Throw us a bone, will ya! Well – it's just tricky science, you know. Proving the case isn't easy.

The Met Office study said that it was harder to find a firm link between climate change and individual extreme weather conditions - even though models predicted that extreme events were more likely.

According to the report: "Extremes pose a particular challenge, since rare events are by definition, poorly sampled in the historical record and many challenges remain for robustly attributing regional changes in extreme events such as droughts, floods and hurricanes."

Then why not pay more attention to the overwhelming amount of common weather that actually defines climate? Unscientific, you think? Or just not worthy of another trillion dollars in government spending?

[reefdiver]

When Republicans re take one of the Houses of Congress, Please let their be hearings on this scam, Drag in Gore for the first day and let Him lie all over under oath, Bring in others to air out this scam completely shine the light all over it, let the liers be seen for who and what they are

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[prairiebreeze]

Republicans would do this? Our republicans?

In a fair world, yes. But in reality....

[lewislynn]

When Republicans re take one of the Houses of Congress, Please let their be hearings on this scam,

Right, like half of them aren't complicit in the $cam.

They'll do that right after they interrogate Sandy Berger for stealing OUR government secrets from OUR archives.

[reefdiver]

Oh yea, I forgot about that

[neverdem]

Right, like half of them aren't complicit in the $cam.

Who besides RINOs believed in AGW? They were the vast majority who lost their seats in 2006 and 2008.