Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science

[Sunsettommy]

From this LINK

American Thinker

November 29, 2009

By J.R. Dunn

EXCERPT:

The East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) revelations come as no real surprise to anyone who has closely followed the global-warming saga. The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) thesis, to give it its semi-official name, is no stranger to fraud. It is no real exaggeration to state that it was fertilized with fraud, marinated in fraud, stewed in fraud, and at last served up to the world as prime, grade-A fraud with nice side orders of fakery and disingenuousness. Damning as they may be, the CRU e-mails are merely the climactic element in an exhaustively long line.

A short tour of previous AGW highlights includes:

The Y2K Glitch. This episode involved the NASA/GISS team led by James Hansen, possibly the most fanatical and unrelenting of all warmists -- a man who makes Al Gore look like a skeptic. (Among other things, Hansen has demanded that warming "deniers" be tried for "crimes against humanity.") While examining a series of NASA temperature graphs, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, himself not so much a skeptic as an anti-warming Van Helsing, uncovered a discontinuity occurring in January 2000 that raised temperatures gathered over widespread areas by 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit. McIntyre had no easy time of it, since Hansen refused to reveal what algorithm he'd used to process the data, forcing McIntyre to perform some very abstruse calculations to figure it out.
==================================================

Notice that these embarrassing errors are always being made by a small group of alarmists,who are now being exposed as unethical creeps.

[JohnWho]

It seems that there really is “Mann”-made global warming. It is made of fraud, data manipulation, collusion, squelching dissent, hiding data, deleting data, and punishing scientific journals that dared to publish papers challenging the carbon cabal.

Quote:The Obama administration, which promised to “restore science to its rightful place,” is ignoring events and sailing its ideological titanic to Copenhagen.

Uh, does Obama think that the rightful place for science is back in the Medieval Warming Period?

[Derek]

Hi All,
Some of you "may" be wondering what motivates the "scientists" such as the "scientists" at CRU.
Well, it is often said that they are on a "gravy train"..
Below is a link posted at Jo Nova's blog,
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/cru-dat...e-exposed/
it contains CRUs own listing of (research) grants awarded to who, for what from 2007 to the present.
Namely,
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm

I am truely amazed at the figures quoted, are they really on that much.?
No wonder they defend "the science" as they do.

I am left with the uneasy impression (read "I knew really") that if you pay an unscrupulous scientist enough,
he'll prove whatever you want him to prove.
But, the brazen nature of it all, just there to see.
"They" think they are above reproach, obviously.

A big round of applause for Aussie, it seems the above link to Jo Nova's blog shows things are happening down under.

I've said this privately recently several times,
one way or the other it'll be a different world by this Christmas.

NB - I read elsewhere that Russian climate scientists left "climate science" and the "global warming discussions" in the early 1990s. They left because the Montreal protocol being signed was the last straw, it was bad science. Now we all know that, but back then most of us (me included) did not know it was as bad as it patently now is. Rumour has it that since then the Russians have been following "cycles" as a line of investigation regarding climate. Developing on from Milankovich's ideas, but now at many different scales and causes (oceanic, lunar, etc, etc). I remember a couple of pieces and posts that I've read posted by or attributed to people with appropriate sounding names, one regarding fish population studies and their relationship to oceanic phases, and another back in 2007/8 regarding 300 to 400 year cycles in the Arctic ice cover.
It seems eminently sensible to me, and I imagine "we" are in for a hell of a shock when the Russians do come back into climate science discussions. They will be two decades ahead of us.

We really are going to look beyond stupid, having been up a CO2 "blind alley" for so long.
Quite embarressing really.

[JohnWho]

Ah, but if we "save the world" from the AGW by CO2 hoax, won't it be worth it?

[Sunsettommy]

(12-01-2009 05:07 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  Ah, but if we "save the world" from the AGW by CO2 hoax, won't it be worth it?

Only if they come with a money back guarantee.

[Derek]

(12-01-2009 05:07 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  Ah, but if we "save the world" from the AGW by CO2 hoax, won't it be worth it?

Hmmm, isn't that we are trying to do here. ?
As are skeptics everywhere.

Quite cheaply as well I may add. That is another advantage of the scientific method, not often lauded enough,
it is quite cheap for the layman to check the "expert" opinions with.

[JohnWho]

(12-02-2009 08:16 AM)Derek Wrote:  

(12-01-2009 05:07 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  Ah, but if we "save the world" from the AGW by CO2 hoax, won't it be worth it?

Hmmm, isn't that we are trying to do here. ?
As are skeptics everywhere.

Quite cheaply as well I may add.

By jove, it is "saving the world" that I can believe in, and for less money.

[Sunsettommy]

For a few years John Daly was the main source of good skepticism on the net,where he plugged away trying to expose the poor AGW hypothesis.I remember going to his website daily and marveling at how easy it was to show how feeble the AGW claims were.

It took men named Steve McIntire and Ross McKitrick,to break it open and ever since then AGW error after AGW error has been found and exposed.

Now we have a lot of skeptics today,who are getting a lot of attention.Alas John is not around to see it happen.