An awful lot of people are going to lose their very high paying jobs or maybe they won’t...too established. It’s like living with the lie that Hitler was a Catholic and a right wing extremist. It’s carved in stone.
BTW, thanks for keeping us informed. You post very informative articles which I really enjoy though don’t usually contribute. Keep up the great work.
bookmark bump
IMO the last paragraph of the article is a copout to the rest of the article.
“So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.”
I’ve never found anybody willing to argue with me that we are closer to the next ice age than we are to the last one. The geologic record is just too plain. If anything we’ve had a slightly longer than typical mild stretch. Relax and enjoy it while it lasts.
To quote ole Joe “It’s a bunch of malarkey”. These “scientists” such as Collins, and his ilk are living high on government, and Corporate grants, rejoicing in the adulation of their followers/Climate Groupies if you will, and the Universities support them as they are gaining grants, and prestige amongst government, and major Leftist wealth in doing so.
There’s money to be made creating lies, and perpetuating them. Look at Communism for proof of that.
Darn, now I will have to think of some other way to destroy the planet.
I never met a meteorologist yet who believed in man-made global warming, much less any other kind.
Real meteorologists know better.
"Damage: Global warming has been caused in part by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station"
The problem with that - the 'smoke' is not smoke at all, it is harmless steam.
Even in an article completely debunking 'global warming' some idiot had to try to continue the scare tactics as best they could.
The last paragraph in the article:
"So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications."
Warming real? Only .75 degrees warming since 1997?
We all know it's a crock, but the warmists keep on telling us it's a catastrophe in the making. BS!!
Below is line of IDL source code from the leaked CRU codebase:
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
The comment after the semicolon (’fudge factor’) is in the original source code. Notice how the later time periods are adjusted upward. If you input random noise into this code you would get a hockey-stick graph.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447
Now, there could be a benign reason for the ‘fudge factor’. Maybe there is an a known error in the source data? Maybe CRU needed to correct some other systematic bias? Who knows? But unless the reason is clearly documented, explained, and justified in the published research, it’s going to look damn suspicious.
Back in late 1980s when I was a CS undergrad at UMN and later a CS grad student at UIUC, I worked quite bit with researchers to fix up their Fortran simulations, doing code optimization for models run on Cray supercomputers and TMC Connection Machines at the MN Supercomputer Center and NCSA at UIUC.
In those days all the big federal granting agencies (National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, etc) required that any computer source code created or funded using federal research money must be made available to any US citizen on request. I spent plenty of time at the copy machine killing trees and spinning tapes for these requests.
Some time after I left (not sure when) the federal research agencies quietly changed the rules. The requirement for public disclosure was dropped. Today AGW the reseachers like Michael Mann at Penn State are generally not releasing their source code or raw data.
Some AGW skeptics are trying to use FOI to get at the code and data, however Michael Mann and the other AGW proponents are fightning it tooth and nail in the federal court system.
As a Fortran programmer I know a million ways to fudge datasets in ways that would be absolutely undetectable without the source code (which I never did BTW).
We need to go back to the old rules from the 1980s: if you get federal money to publish your research, then the raw data and source code must be made public under an Open Source license.
If not, why not? What have the AGW researchers to hide if they are as above-board as they claim to be?
Maybe we should’ve increased the size of that hole in the ozone layer in order to vent all the heat from globull warming.
I just noticed this on Drudge and I’m bookmarking it here for later read.
Prison time and restitution for damages are warranted.Sounds like John should sign up in FR.- John Hendricks , Montevideo, 15/10/2012 13:27
“At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ “
That guy ought to be Knighted or something.