Gee, isn't it funny then that after McIntyre and McKitrick were being stonewalled by the East Anglia climate fraudsters on their request for the climate data, the hockey-stick-hoaxsters (as revealed by the whistle blown e-mails) were in a panic that FOIA laws would require them to release the data due to the fact they were government funded?I remember ClimateGate very well and I don't recall American researchers being in a panic at all. Can't speak for England. Mann at the time was completely unworried, as Mann's solution, the "Nature trick" was to augment the tree ring proxy data with real and reliable instrumental data in order to reconstruct the end series of the time averaging. There was no manipulation of actual recorded temperature data, only how the reconstructed proxy data was processed to more closely match the accurate data. This is a perfectly valid method of statistics and is accurately pointed out not only in the data link I gave above, but also in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4. Now, East Anglia had withheld about 5% of the data, but that was long after the Mann paper. Which is the only thing I'm talking about here.
And to perpetrate this fraud, is it believable that the left would stop at merely hiring some scientists to whore their data without also corrupting the peer review process as well?Yes, I've heard that theory, just as I've also heard it's a plot by the UN, the Bilderbergers, the Jews, the Muslims, the Communists, and a bunch of other groups to use climate change to take over the world. But I require more than supposition to believe in a conspiracy that would require the connivance of a few hundred thousand people to make good.
In fact, the AGW peer review process has been as corrupted as anything the left gets its tentacles into, not limited to academia, the MSM, and election stealing. Articles abound on the subject.Well, since it's Evolution News & Views, I really can't truck with what they say. Being Catholic and a scientific skeptic, I don't follow YEC, though I'll leave my usual commentary on it by the wayside for the sake of our more inclined FR members. I prefer people like this fellow who are a bit more...even-tempered on the subject. I'm not saying I believe that climate change is the big hoopla all the doomsters make it out to be. I am saying that no, I do not believe the peer review process has been corrupted, primarily because I have not received what I consider sufficient proof that would stand up in a court of law. Lot of speculation. Not much solidity.
Ooooh, I understand now. You are a newby.... Signed up on March 10, 2014.
You didn’t strike me as being conservative. . . now I’m sure. Welcome to FreeRepublic. I have a feeling your stay will not be long. People who believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and swallow that party line won’t last long around here.
(1) The Power/Control Grab
The prescriptions offered for addressing AGW are a liberal tyrant's wet dream, i.e., more power and control over We the People delivered into the hands of the political elites. It is the growth of Bigger Government, and the corollary loss of individual freedom.
The objective of the AGW hoax is exactly the same as the objective for ObamaCare. They are two sides of the same leftwing strategy coin. Despite the Serial Lies of Obama, Pelosi, et al, ObamaCare is a power/control grab of Leninist proportions (my FR tagline --- Lenin: "Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.") If the elites really wanted to insure the uninsured they would be horrified at the number of newly uninsured, legions of whom are also now out a job, or severely downsized in hours directly because of ObamaCare, but the reality of the elites' lack of contrition and their relentless continuing shill for ObamaCare puts the lie of the objective to the Liars.
(2) The Financial Profiteers
Foremost among these, of course, being Al Gore, the perfect point man for the AGW hoax. The bloated buffoon who flunked out of Divinity School, who earned a "D" in science has made himself fitly, filthy rich pushing the AGW scam. The flaming hypocrite who travels in an inefficient private jet, whose limousine runs the motor to keep the heat on while Al is inside addresses the gullible throngs of useful idiots, and whose palatial mansions each burn energy at the rate of a village. Yet he piously intones to a congressional committee that he pays for his lifestyle by purchasing carbon credit offsets, conveniently neglecting to add that he has OWNERSHIP in the carbon credit scam company, from which he is purchasing absolution. Gore also has heavily involved in the failed CCX … and let's not forget the hypocrisy of selling his failed TV network to Al-Jazerra, funded by evil Qatar oil.
A subset of the AGW profiteers is those who would prostitute their scientific credentials to falsify methodology and data to support anthropogenic global warming.
Richard Lindzen (the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT): "It's become standard that whatever you're studying, include global warming's effects in your proposal and you'll get your (government) funding."
According to Paul Driessen (author of "Eco-Imperialism") on the G. Gordon Liddy show 12/1/09, hour 2: The US Big Government had funded $90 billion in GW research over the previous 20 years promoting climate crisis science.
To this end, and if you're in the mood for a chuckle, see Dr. John Brignell's "Complete List of Things caused by Global Warming", most especially when for a single event independent "scientists" ascribe polar opposite results as both being caused by "global warming" --- pure comedy gold.
(3) The Useful Idiots
The scientifically and politically ignorant and gullible who are duped by the lies of the left, but have been so brainwashed they clutch at the mantras and unwaveringly spew them back when confronted by reality. I'm not sure what they get out of the AGW hoax, as I'm not a psychologist. The good news is that despite years of propagandizing most people have not been fooled.
And why should they be fooled? Certainly not by reality. There has been no temperature increase for 17.5+ years now. (Despite official temperature sensors suspiciously placed where they are not recording merely ambient air temperature, but the heat exhaust of air conditioners, reflected convection from nearby surfaces, etc., --- all photographically documented by Watt, plus the decommissioning of temperature sensors disproportionately in cooler locations.)
Moreover, the globe has been in a cooling mode since the Medieval Warm Period, a time when wine vineyards actually existed in the British Isles, now too cold for such activity.
But what is it that is said to be causing this Global Warming (GW which can't be verified, at that) as there are a multitude of interacting factors that no yet yet fully understands. Citing just a few, is it the fact that solar energy output fluctuates normally? Is it the eccentricities in the earth's revolution and orbit? Dr. Roy Spencer has posited the fact that the energy of precipitation and its role in climate has not even been studied.
No, we are to believe, greater than solar flux and all the other factors is the Greenhouse effect, and specifically one of the minor in terms of volume (minuscule compared to water vapor) and weaker (as compared to methane, for example) greenhouse gases but the one most advantageous for a political power/control grab --- namely CO2, a by-product of mankind's use of the engines of productivity that have advanced civilization and freedom --- both of which liberals can't abide.
After all, what's the use of being a liberal if you can't lie, cheat, and steal?
"...the "Nature trick" was to augment the tree ring proxy data with real and reliable instrumental data in order to reconstruct the end series of the time averaging...
Reading this in plain every day English language, I just want to say I'm instinctively suspicious of "augmenting proxy data in order to reconstruct the end averaging".
Of course, I don't understand the nuances of these words in the scientific community, but a plain reading using commonly understood English words suggests that you can't "reconstruct" something that hasn't happened yet (?), "proxy" data means "stand-in evidence", and "augmenting" said data with some other measure predictions which might be deemed reliable but are not actual things adds something that is not there in fact...
Then throw in "the end averaging"...
So, why do they (or at least this scientist) talk this way? It makes me very suspicious that "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance (in plain language), then baffle them with B. S."...and by all means, let's swerve the national and global energy policy to accomodate the postulated coming warming...GO GREEN!! Windmills (never mind any birds, wildlife and domestic creatures), algae fuel (non-renewable and expensive), no more "dirty coal" (no more coal fired power plants - Obama did warn us), natural gas power plants and fuel, except not if fracking is involved, and by ALL means, more corn ethanol (despite it will ruin older car engines, costs a lot to process for refineries and at the pump, and critically reduces the available food crop)...and etc.!
Maybe this is all on the up-and-up, but it doesn't look that way to me, in "fly-over country"...I'm just saying we shouldn't be setting binding stringent policies on hypothesis (sic). YES, the climate is changing, yet again. So what else is new? LOL!