Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/01/2011 3:27:09 PM PDT by neverdem
New data on global temperature trends sheds light on the 2009 climate change scandal.
Climategate erupted into public with the release in November 2009 of thousands of emails sent to and from researchers associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. It became a scandal because some of the emails seemed to suggest that prominent climate researchers may have fiddled with historical climate data with the goal of making recent increases in global average temperature look worse than it is. Suspicion was cast on three sets of historical temperature data, Hadley Centre/CRU series, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) series, and a third one from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
As a possible example of scientifically illegitimate manipulation, skeptics pointed to an email from National Center for Atmospheric Research climate scientist Tom Wigley where he mentioned lowering mid-20th century temperatures by 0.15°C. This would have the effect of making the later increase of global temperatures look steeper.
In another email from CRU head Phil Jones reported, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Skeptics decried this “trick” because it tacked (largely without acknowledging it) thermometer data onto the end of a tree ring data series where the complete set of tree ring data suggested that temperatures had actually declined rather than increased. A graphic using the adjusted data showing a recent sharp increase in northern hemisphere temperatures was published as the cover of the World Meteorological Association’s statement [PDF] on the status of the climate in 1999.
Were global warming proponents cherry-picking temperature data to bolster their claims that the world was becoming substantially warmer because...
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Al Gore is deeply saddened.
Cue the AlGore lilting lisp..."The debate is over".
I am no scientist, just an old man who is always seeking some knowledge.
I am no scientist, just an old man who is always seeking some knowledge.
Who can believe anything from a group whose name starts with “Berkeley”?
This should have a barf alert based on the conclusions, and to think I used to respect Reason & Bailey.
Instead of two million homes without electric it would probably be three million. No - wait! Probably six million! Or maybe even twenty or thirty million.
“Were global warming proponents cherry-picking temperature data to bolster their claims that the world was becoming substantially warmer”
The magic 8 ball says “Without a doubt”.
There is folly in trying to reduce the vast and complex atmosphere to one number, a global temperature.
While statistical quibbling about its results will occur,
That is an extremely minimal, sanitized summary of Climategate.
Try Lord Monckton's summary instead:
• The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia had profited to the tune of at least $20 million in “research” grants from the Team’s activities.source:
• The Team had tampered with the complex, bureaucratic processes of the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, so as to exclude inconvenient scientific results from its four Assessment Reports, and to influence the panel’s conclusions for political rather than scientific reasons.
• The Team had conspired in an attempt to redefine what is and is not peer-reviewed science for the sake of excluding results that did not fit what they and the politicians with whom they were closely linked wanted the UN’s climate panel to report.
• They had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.
• They had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures in the paleoclimate.
• They had expressed dismay at the fact that, contrary to all of their predictions, global temperatures had not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years, and had been falling for nine years. They had admitted that their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. This internal doubt was in contrast to their public statements that the present decade is the warmest ever, and that “global warming” science is settled.
• They had interfered with the process of peer-review itself by leaning on journals to get their friends rather than independent scientists to review their papers.
• They had successfully leaned on friendly journal editors to reject papers reporting results inconsistent with their political viewpoint.
• They had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase and corrupt science for political purposes.
• They had mounted a venomous public campaign of disinformation and denigration of their scientific opponents via a website that they had expensively created.
• Contrary to all the rules of open, verifiable science, the Team had committed the criminal offense of conspiracy to conceal and then to destroy computer codes and data that had been legitimately requested by an external researcher who had very good reason to doubt that their “research” was either honest or competent.
So did the BEST study somehow "end" all those issues? Of course not. This article employs the MSM's usual method of dealing with Climategate: ignore what really happened.
That was the Trenberth travesty that was caught in the emails of the Climategate scandal! Thanks for the summary from Lord Monckton and the link, TChad. Guess who is a subject in the next link?
APNewsbreak: Panel says wild weather worsens
New Gun Walking Documents Show Criminal Division Knew More than Previous Acknowledged
Who Killed Horatio Alger? The decline of the meritocratic ideal
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
I think that the "Trenberth travesty" was misinterpreted by some AGW skeptics. Trenberth thinks the travesty is that we don't have enough sensors to measure where all the energy is going, not that AGW science is a travesty because of the lack of recent observed warming. Here is the relevant paragraph from his Climategate email:
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.Of course, since the observing system is so inadequate, the dubious data that it generates should certainly not be used to justify shutting down a good portion of our economy. Why, that would be a travesty of prudent governance!
Even simple political polls give a margin of error. Give me a margin of error when you're talking about temperatures from centuries ago and divining differences of a tenth of a degree. Then we'll talk. Quibbling indeed.
Global Warming on Free Republic
In the etymological sense, then, you are a "philosopher."
- sophist
- 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
- philosopher
- O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
