Posted on 12/05/2009 7:29:19 AM PST by Delacon
Consider the Brits on the sideline until 2012 on global warming. The Met Office will need three years to rebuild ground-based climate models while recompiling raw data from the past 160 years to replace the data that the University of East Anglia’s CRU destroyed years ago. They want to create an open and transparent full data set, but until then have to back down from any of the conclusions that relied on UEA-CRU’s models (via QandO):
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The British government is attempting to silence the Met Office, however:
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.
But I thought they were interested in science, not political hackery!
The Met Office is taking the correct approach. The data on which they largely relied has not only been shown to have been corrupted by bias and corruption, it’s also been destroyed. Knowing the UEA-CRU’s credibility as a scientific effort has been compromised, real scientists would insist on recreating the data set in a thoroughly testable and transparent process before proceeding to use any of the conclusions reached from the previous work to form any more recommendations for action.
In fact, the UN, the UK, and the rest of the world should be insisting on the same approach — if they were interested in science in the first place. The UK’s efforts to quash the Met Office’s review, which is what scientists would demand in any other context, shows that the politicians aren’t terribly interested in whether AGW is scientifically supportable, or even true at all. They want the power that AGW hysteria gives them to seize control of private-industry production and the choices available to people now.
It’s the ultimate elitist entrée to statism, and they’re not going to let Climategate get in the way of it — even if the scientists themselves start balking at the political hackery surrounding AGW.
There is a demonstrable cycle of weather in the Midwest. Before the Dust Bowl, there were the Panics of 1873 and '93 -- when droughts ruined farmers and crops west of the 20" rainfall line. Then, another brief drought in 1907.
Following the Dust Bowl, there was an extended drought in the early fifties and another in the late-nineties.
You'll note a pattern -- about every twenty years, it gets unusually hot and dry in the Midwest. The only exception was the 1970's -- when the normal drought pattern didn't repeat. And that was when the climate alarmists started bleating about a New Ice Age.
Note: Facts reported without benefit of a computer model...
In any case, I would suspect that none of the parties even tangentially involved are releasing statements not thoroughly vetted (if not actually written) by lawyers.
The emails were hacked on Nov 19th. Given bureaucratic enertia, I’d say that Met Statement is pretty outdated. Interestingly Nov 24th was the same day that the CRU announced it would conduct an independent review of the matter. One week later directer of the CRU Phil Jones was forced to step down.
The Collective wants a “do-over”?
So wherever the Guardian got the quote, it wasn't an official Met Office press release.
But it is going to happen. Its breaking all over the web as we speak. The MET is going to release the raw data.
Since the existing data was cooked to support GW, and since there is no way of determine what data was cooked, what data is legitimate, what data is missing/destroyed, there is only one course of action if they want to do real science - go back to square one and start collecting raw data.
At Penn State it’s Mann-made Global Warming...
So is Obummer still going to Copenhagen?
He has an "out" if he decides not to go. He can just announce that not enough "progrees" has been made so he won't be attending. Then if the truth about the global warming scam really starts coming out he can bail at the last moment.
Given that the initial examination was controlled by climate change zealots, and fraud has been uncovered, I don't see why a healthy dose skepticism isn't fully deserved.
Conveniently, that puts us right after the next US presidential election. Wonder if there’s a connection?
Of course it will be seized upon by sceptics as well it should, sheez these warmers think they should be able to say and do whatever they want without any scrutiny. Eff em!
Thanks Yo Yo. Leave it to Ed Morrisey to beat the Met press office to its own punch.
I’d like to add what I think is important here. Its not the Met office or any pro agw people think the data will still confirm their views. We will have to wait and see about that. Also, the Met seems to be focusing wheter or not the planet is warming or not. Thats not the big issue. The big issue is whether humans are causing global warming. But what is important about this announcement is that it proves that the scientific process had been corrupted and needs re-examination. No cya “investigation” by them, the UN, the CRU or anyone else would have shown that as well as releasing the data does.
Absolutely, and that is the $64 trillion question.
Nobody can dispute that the temperature has risen during the 20th century.
AGW theory has three parts:
1) It was colder in the past than it is today, and CO2 was lower.
2) When CO2 increased in the atmosphere in the past, temperatures rose.
3) Therefore, as CO2 rises, temperatures must also rise.
Disprove any one of those three "legs of the stool," and their arguments fall flat.
1) If it can be shown that it was just as warm or warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, when CO2 was lower, then the whole AGW theory is wrong.
2) If it can be shown that CO2 increases lagged, rather than led, temperature increase, then the whole AGW theory is wrong.
3) If it can be shown that temperatures have held steady in the past decade while the CO2 continued to rise unabated, then the whole AGW theory is wrong.
Number two is the closest to being disproven. In spite of Algore's movie, scientists have conceeded that CO2 did lag temperature increases by about 800 years in the past. However, they claim a nebulus and unexplained "forcing effect" that theorizes that "something else" started the temperature rise, then CO2 increased, then temperatures ran away. See RealClimate: What does the What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
What they never explain is that temperature decreases also led CO2 decrease by 800 years, so even with all that CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures fell caused by an equually nebulus "something."
Number one goes to the heart of trying to create the Hockey Stick temperature chart, which has been modified but CRU and IPCC still insist that today is warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.
And number three is still in dispute by the CRU and NASA, saying only that some unknown natural short term effect is "masking" the larger AGW signal, and that temperatures should begin rising again any day now.
What happens if we stall a Worldwide treaty for another decade, and temps don't rise? They were supposed to get this shoved down our throats in 1997 with Kyoto but didn't. They have to get it passed in Copenhagen in 2009,but won't.
The next decade will finally tell the tale one way or the other, if CO2 continues to rise, but global temperatures do not.
Yo Algore.. not so "settled" now, is it? Now step forward to the witness chair and raise your right hand.
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.