Monday, December 21, 2009

Questions.....

.
There is much talk about 'carbon outputs', and many who would have power use the specter of 'global warming' as a path to such power. Carbon dioxide does cause changes in our atmosphere, and I do not doubt the science on that point. Man made global warming through the emission of carbon dioxide? That science I doubt... if for no other reason than the people trumpeting it. Senator Gore has to top the list of untrusted, as he piles up personal stacks of cash by trading in business which his political/environmental agenda pushes. Around the world, politicians, power brokers, and industry giants gather to carve up control over the worlds population based on 'carbon emissions', the latest cause celeb of worldwide disaster.

Everywhere we look, we can see evidence of climate change 'science' being corrupted to reach a political goal. NASA is a leading supplier of such 'scientific data', yet they have been caught over and over fudging data and misreporting results. When NASA's data collection and interpretation had serious flaws found which would change the results in a way not supportive of 'global warming', they quietly changed their published math, but not the published results.

Sadly, the actions taken by NASA in the past now make all their science suspect, even the good news they recently reported, finding that California has a zero net output of Carbon emissions after the effect of the states plant life is taken into account.

Moving to the latest story of 'climate-gate', where we find the University of East Anglia had it's climatologists e-mail system hacked and released to the public. There are numerous comments in the e-mail of the worlds leading 'climatologists' that indicate a very strong problem with the science, or at least their scientific method.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Such words make it difficult to regard their findings as usable. The 'scientists' e-mail also discusses ways to crush dissenting opinions.... a frightening reality.

The basis of all scientific method is verification and repeatability of findings, and in that light the latest news from the University of East Anglia is particularly startling. It's been reported that the climatologists at the university have dumped and erased all the raw temperature data they based their findings on, making it impossible to check their findings. Their excuse? They "didn't have room to store it". In an age where one can buy terrabyte portable hard drives from Costco by the pallet load for peanuts, that pathetic excuse rings of falsehood.

The list of points leading to doubt goes on and on.... and doubt breeds questions.

How is this 'climate data' being acquired? If we are to be looking at temperature data and comparing it over the span of decades, if not centuries, then how it was recorded and collected means everything to the outcome. If we are discussing 'climate change' extremes of a few degrees, then the measurement standard is key.

I have read that North America, the main target for what can only be termed economic and financial rape under current 'global warming' discussions, now has more trees and vegetation than it's had in recorded history. Is this true, and what effect does this have on the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere? Do we, in fact, have a net carbon output above zero?

If 'climate change' is based on science, then why are scientists who have done research detracting from the political agenda being treated as heretics of a religion?

I have many questions... and few answers. Facts in this discussion appear to be clouded, confused, and deliberately obscured. That does not bode well for the 'science' involved, nor outcome we will be faced with.






3 comments:

Borepatch said...

Careful about that "take the plant life into effect" bit. When you turn over the rock, it looks ugly.

Borepatch said...

If we are to be looking at temperature data and comparing it over the span of decades, if not centuries, then how it was recorded and collected means everything to the outcome. If we are discussing 'climate change' extremes of a few degrees, then the measurement standard is key.

Precisely. The data is astonishingly shoddy. 30 years from now, people will look back on this like we look back on the Piltdown Man.

Ted Amadeus said...

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change makes the climategate email writers look mind-bogglingly innocent by comparison: Their sole aim has been to do and say whatever will move the WASPel of Global Warming. Dan Rather and Jayson Blair, as well as AlGore, were ordained Apostles of the Earth-bitch-worship faith; Our Lady of "Scientific" Spiritualism...
Well, the "Fried Earth Club" has taken another massive hit, this one amidships and below the water line.
Apparently all you need for "scientific consensus" is a sufficiently large jerk-circle.