The Independent View

Posts Tagged ‘UEA’

Gover­nor Palin writes the fol­low­ing in the Wash­ing­ton Post:

With the pub­li­ca­tion of dam­ag­ing e-​mails from a cli­mate research cen­ter in Britain, the rad­i­cal envi­ron­men­tal move­ment appears to face a tip­ping point. The rev­e­la­tion of appalling actions by so-​called cli­mate change experts allows the Amer­i­can pub­lic to finally under­stand the con­cerns so many of us have artic­u­lated on this issue.

“Climate-​gate,” as the e-​mails and other doc­u­ments from the Cli­mate Research Unit at the Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politi­cized sci­en­tific cir­cle — the same cir­cle whose work under­lies efforts at the Copen­hagen cli­mate change con­fer­ence. The agenda-​driven poli­cies being pushed in Copen­hagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our econ­omy for the worse.

Read the rest of this entry »

Gover­nor Sarah Palin on Climategate:

The president’s deci­sion to attend the inter­na­tional cli­mate con­fer­ence in Copen­hagen needs to be recon­sid­ered in light of the unfold­ing Cli­mate­gate scan­dal. The leaked e-​mails involved in Cli­mate­gate expose the unsci­en­tific behav­ior of lead­ing cli­mate sci­en­tists who delib­er­ately destroyed records to block infor­ma­tion requests, manip­u­lated data to “hide the decline” in global tem­per­a­tures, and con­spired to silence the crit­ics of man-​made global warm­ing. I sup­port Sen­a­tor James Inhofe’s call for a full inves­ti­ga­tion into this scan­dal. Because it involves many of the same per­son­al­i­ties and enti­ties behind the Copen­hagen con­fer­ence, Cli­mate­gate calls into ques­tion many of the pro­pos­als being pushed there, includ­ing any­thing that would lead to a cap and tax plan. Pol­icy should be based on sound sci­ence, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil sci­ence when I sued the fed­eral gov­ern­ment over its deci­sion to list the polar bear as an endan­gered species despite the fact that the polar bear pop­u­la­tion has increased. I’ve never denied the real­ity of cli­mate change; in fact, I was the first gov­er­nor to cre­ate a sub­cab­i­net posi­tion to deal specif­i­cally with the issue. I saw the impact of chang­ing weather pat­terns first­hand while serv­ing as gov­er­nor of our only Arc­tic state. But while we rec­og­nize the effects of chang­ing water lev­els, ero­sion pat­terns, and glacial ice melt, we can­not pri­mar­ily blame man’s activ­i­ties for the earth’s cycli­cal weather changes. The dras­tic eco­nomic mea­sures being pushed by dog­matic envi­ron­men­tal­ists won’t change the weather, but will dra­mat­i­cally change our econ­omy for the worse. Pol­icy deci­sions require real sci­ence and real solu­tions, not junk sci­ence and dooms­day scare tac­tics pushed by an envi­ron­men­tal priest­hood that cap­i­tal­izes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that own­ing an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inau­gural address, Pres­i­dent Obama declared his inten­tion to “restore sci­ence to its right­ful place.” Boy­cotting Copen­hagen while this scan­dal is thor­oughly inves­ti­gated would send a strong mes­sage that the United States gov­ern­ment will not be a party to fraud­u­lent sci­en­tific prac­tices. Say­ing no to Copen­hagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restor­ing sci­ence to its right­ful place.

The Cli­mate Sci­ence Isn’t Set­tled, Con­fi­dent pre­dic­tions of cat­a­stro­phe are unwar­ranted (Wall Street Jour­nal)
A rather detailed dis­cus­sion on global warm­ing that looks at that the glob­ally aver­aged tem­per­a­ture anom­aly (GATA). It is def­i­nitely worth a read but I’m not sure what point Lindzen is try­ing to make in the final paragraph.

When sci­en­tists behave like bul­lies (San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle)
Debra Saun­ders writes about the damn­ing cor­rup­tion of sci­ence by global warm­ing scientists.

Leaked emails won’t harm UN cli­mate body, says chair­man (Guardian)
Chair­man of the UN’s Inter­gov­ern­men­tal Panel on Cli­mate Change (IPCC) says global warm­ing is not debunk because of a few sci­en­tists. For Rajen­dra Pachauri – check out the pic­ture accom­pa­ny­ing the arti­cle as this guy is a def­i­nite look-​alike of the Uni­bomber and his the reli­gion of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing (AGW) is just as dan­ger­ous to civ­i­liza­tion. Any­way, he claims that despite every­thing, AGW is alive and well. He even defended Phil Jones and said he should not resign.

It is now rea­son­able to label global warm­ing, more for­mally known as Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing (AGW) a fraud per­pe­trated by a group of self-​serving sci­en­tists, doom­say­ers, and wannabes. For years we’ve been bom­barded with scary fore­casts and dire reports of man-​made cat­a­stro­phe. Skep­ti­cism was met with dis­mis­sive ridicule as deniers, equat­ing crit­ics with Holo­caust deniers. Fas­cism was the modis operandi of the the reli­gion of global warm­ing. The pur­vey­ors in the US were led by the likes of Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and many oth­ers. Their part­ners in the U.K. were Phil Jones and his crew at the Cli­matic Research Unit. They defined the prob­lem, con­trolled the research, and horded the data. Gov­ern­ments and oth­er­wise well-​meaning peo­ple bowed to their demands with amen-​like sup­port and money. Oth­er­wise respectable orga­ni­za­tions like NASA, NOAA, and the EPA in the US and their coun­ter­parts around the world remade them­selves to sup­port the reli­gion of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing. The media, like eager lem­mings, made great evan­ge­lists. But, as with any tale, all good things must come to an end and so did the reign of global warm­ing. Some­one, likely a whistle­blower within the global warm­ing com­mu­nity, in a moment of remorse (or spite, it doesn’t really mat­ter), released (so far) over 165 megabytes of secre­tive global warm­ing data and email. The reli­gion of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing (AGW) is now laid bare for the junk sci­ence and fraud that it is.

Read the rest of this entry »

We will release the data…
Cli­mate­gate: Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia U-​turn in cli­mate change row (Tele­graph)
We threw away the data…
Cli­mate change data dumped (Times)
The Cli­mate Research Unit says, accord­ing to the Tele­graph, that they will release the raw data that global warm­ing is based upon. At the same time the Times reports that the same folks now admit that the raw data was thrown away. All they kept was the manip­u­lated data they cre­ated to sup­port global warm­ing. As Roger Pielke, pro­fes­sor of envi­ron­men­tal stud­ies at Col­orado Uni­ver­sity, is quoted in the Times, “The CRU is basi­cally say­ing, ‘Trust us’.”

Tell it to the ice caps, An e-​mail storm wors­ens the cli­mate for con­sen­sus (Wash­ing­ton Post)
Don’t let a lit­tle sci­en­tific fraud get in the way. Eugene Robin­son white­washes the débâ­cle that global warm­ing to sug­gest “deniers” are get­ting ahead of themselves.

There are sev­eral updates from folks review­ing the CRU soft­ware code that paint a deves­tat­ing pic­ture of the sci­ence of global warm­ing (More below). As I read these, I keep com­ing back to the 1960 date. Newer data did not bear out global warm­ing which global warm­ing advo­cates had staked their careers. There­fore they played with it and made it up to get the results they wanted. What they seem to miss in this sci­en­tific fraud is that the newer data might be more relaible and that instead of it being wrong, maybe their old data and the entire approach or method­ol­ogy was the problem. 

The code doc­u­men­ta­tion and write read me files releaseed last week are so incred­i­bly unpro­fes­sional to be almost unbe­lie­ve­able. They raise big red flags about what was tran­spir­ing. Didn’t any­one ever look at the code?!

Read the rest of this entry »

Anthony Watts at WattsUp­With­That has a new post out show­ing com­ments in the code that was released by the alleged hacker last week. First, he says fur­ther review of the email shows that among the datasets Phil Jones used, some con­cluded that ‘global warm­ing’ ended back in 1960 and that only with edited dated to “hide the decline” did Jones pro­duce the cur­rent global warm­ing trend. He shares that Jones now denies manip­u­lat­ing the data even if the email clearly state otherwise.

Any­way, Watts says that a review of the soft­ware code released by the alleged hacker includes com­ments clearly doc­u­ment­ing data manipulation.

Read the rest of this entry »