TargetRichEnvironment

I’m haunted by the words of the late, great Michael Crichton, MD on climate change and scienctific “consensus” (link):

In my view, our approach to global warming exemplifies everything that is wrong with our approach to the environment. We are basing our decisions on speculation, not evidence. Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized – red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren’t political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth….

As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

And furthermore, the consensus of scientists has frequently been wrong. As they were wrong when they believed, earlier in my lifetime, that the continents did not move. So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

Scientific fact is not a matter of “consensus”, as you’d learn in any basic science class about the scientific method.  Of course, in misnomered “Political Science” classes, they teach “consensus”. Climate Fraud is political science, not real science.  In fact, the data cannot withstand real scrutiny. One of the key arguments against the computer modeling that shows some catastrophic future is that you cannot plug in historical data and get today’s climate.  When you can, show us.

From Americans for Limited Government, Robert Romano has this (link):

From Russia, With Love

By Robert Romano

Russia has given the American people an early Christmas present.

More questions are emerging in the Climategate falsified research scandal, as the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) now says that climate warming “scientists” at the Hadley Center for Climate Change may have deliberately falsified Russian climate data. Indeed, some 40 percent of Russia’s territory has been excluded from the UN International Panel on Climate Change global temperature record.

This, as Barack Obama and his merry band of Congressional delegates travel to Copenhagen, Denmark to negotiate devastating cuts in carbon energy emissions in the industrialized world that will cost jobs, increase energy costs, and destroy lives.

All in the name of a “science” that is increasingly under suspicion of being faked.

As reported by the London Telegraph, on Tuesday the IEA “issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.”

That’s pretty bad. According to the story, the Hadley Center only used about 25 percent of the station data gathered at the Russian stations. And the data stations located in areas not listed by Hadley showed no substantial warming in the late 20th Century and early 21st Century.

This resulted in skewed data. Reports Cato @ Liberty’s Andrei Illarionov, “The IEA authors calculated that the scale of actual warming for the Russian territory in 1877-1998 was probably exaggerated by 0.64°C. Since Russia accounts for 12.5% of the world’s land mass, such an exaggeration for Russia alone should have an impact on the IPCC claim that the global temperature in the last century has risen by 0.76°C.”

And, Illarionov continues, “If similar procedures have been used for processing climate data from other national data sources, the impact on the rate of change in global temperature would be considerable.”

This new eye-opener comes on the heels of the Climategate scandal itself when it was revealed that the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia had apparently manipulated climate “change” data to hide the actual decline of the Earth’s temperatures, suppressed release of data, and stifled peer review.

Heretofore, the CRU has hidden behind the national meteorological centers that gathered the raw station data. On November 28th, the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) press release stated: “The University will make all the data accessible as soon as they are released from a range of non-publication agreements. Publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The procedure for releasing these data, which are mainly owned by National Meteorological Services (NMSs) around the globe, is by direct contact between the permanent representatives of NMSs (in the UK the Met Office).”

And, said the UEA’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davie in an earlier statement, “No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information.”

Now, we know that the raw data provided by those national meteorological services may have been discounted when it did not suit the hypothesis of man-made global warming.

Barack Obama and his Congressional sidekicks should bear this in mind as they travel to Copenhagen. Indeed, it is cause to cancel the trip entirely in another early Christmas present for the American people-in this case, not wasting taxpayer money on political junkets to help falsify bogus science.

Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News Editor.

Real scientists would laugh the IPCC off the world’s stage.  Real world leaders would hold  them accountable for defrauding their governments of research funding.