Home > Uncategorized > The rabbit hole gets deeper in Climategate.

The rabbit hole gets deeper in Climategate.

Apparently the “gatekeepers” in charge of the data decided to throw a lot of that data away:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

It is beginning to look as though this is a conspiracy concocted on a grand scale. If these guys were so sure about their predictions, surely they wouldn’t need to throw away a lot of their own data, right?

And how does Obama respond to this news that the “peer-reviewed” science of global warming is fast turning out to be a scam? Why he’s going to Copenhagen to propose cutting greenhouse gas emissions to levels matching House legislation awaiting Senate action. This would be one of those times when Obama can exercise great judgment and turn away from this fiasco, but that would be asking too much of a true believer in global warming.

Indeed, for a politician intent on “transforming America” global warming presents the perfect opportunity to internationalize America’s economy.
As Roger Simon says succinctly: global warming allows politicians “to exploit the science of which they are ignorant and the scientists too often perfectly willing to be complicit in their own exploitation”. Truth is irrelevant so long as the goal of controlling people is achieved. Hmm. Sounds like the other debate we are having on healthcare…

  1. December 4, 2009 at 10:43 am

    Why don’t the other scientists go look at the temperature data? I mean, how stupid and petty can this get? With a very few exceptions on tree-ring data — which are probably available from the original sources used — nothing else is missing.

    Much of the “missing” data is projections of future temperatures from tree-ring data which should have been discarded because it was known to make a wrong projection. To insist that erroneous data must be included is both stupid, and demonstrative of how blindly hateful of people the “climate skeptics” are. Why do you insist on using erroneous data? What’s the point?

    The “missing data” were projections meant to correlate with thermometer readings. In place of the data not included in the chart, which showed temperatures significantly lower than already measured, scientists substituted much more accurate, readily available data from weather stations — actual temperature readings, “the truth.” Can you make a case that substitute more accurate data makes the projections erroneous? That would be a first in science, and it would put you in competition with Eugene Ionesco for absurdist of the last half-millenium.

    Finally, the resulting chart showed projections of warming from about 1995 onward. So far, the projections have been wrong by being too low.

    So, you insist on substituting error for known, accurate data. And you complain the projections were too high, when the facts now show they were too low. In other words, the inaccuracy in the charts showed warming less serious than it is.

    You’d have been the guy who shot Paul Revere just outside of Boston for waking you up in the night.

  2. December 4, 2009 at 2:05 pm

    Ed, you’re fighting an uphill battle on this. Whether it is future data or past data (and I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that it is past data because future data can be manipulated) throwing ANY data automatically starts to raise flags about the validity of your position.

    I will be the first to admit: I am not a scientist, which is why I rely on the likes of Joanne Nova, the Science and Public Policy Institute, and Planet Gore @ NRO. However, even a simpleton like me understands that when you start throwing away data and threatening other scientists and trying to influence the peer review process you are putting up red flags that your science is flawed.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: