I was originally a believer in Global Warming until two years ago when I started to research the subject in more detail whereupon I discovered the same tactics used against plasma physicists - carefully ignoral, ad hom attacks, denial of publication, refusal to accept observational scientific evidence - are the same tactics used in the climate debate.
After reading many of the so called global warming websites and blogs the language was always the same " science settled, NASA agrees, general consensus, 1000's of scientists can't be wrong.
I instantly smelled something decomposing.
So I checked the skeptic's camp and found Piers and many others who talked only of the science, real world evidence, first principle physics and just plain common sense.
The entire global warming theory was built on erroneous assumptions about temperatures and the real physical properties of CO2 along with proxy data that has been proven to be ambitious at best.
Real scientists such as physicists, biologists, glaciologists, ecologist, geologists, medical technologists and many other disciplines that have been studying CO2 since it was discovered 200 years ago and who have a greater knowledge of its properties and effect on natural and biological systems have been shut out of the debated because "they are not climate scientists" - a discipline that is less than thirty years old and is dominated by computer modelers who have no real world concept of the how an extremely complex interlocking non-linear chaotic system like the Earth's climate system actually works. No one does. Only a widely drawn interdisciplinary study by all the sciences involved could ever hope to come close to explaining climate. ONLY THEN WOULD MODELING BE OF ANY PRACTICAL USE.
My conclusions have led me to reject the entire global warming theory because it is not science.
Copenhagen is indeed the best place for the charade to fall as it is the city where Hans Christen Anderson published the Emperor's New Clothes - a book every child should read - the irony is truly prophetic.
THE DEEP THOUGHT RORT – by Paul M Murray
The title comes from Douglas Adams’ scientific spoof novels and is related to the giant computer that was built to find the answer to ‘life the universe and everything’. The answer was 42, which thanks to the Wegman Report, is the number of climates scientist involved in the “Climategate” scandal. While Adams had a healthy scepticism about his subject matter –Astrophysics -the theme is no less relevant to climate science. Just an aside and still related to Adams is that the next scientific scandal is likely to be the billion dollar Large Hadron Collider project. When this gargantuan misguided enterprise is outed as a dismal failure you’ll witness the same obfuscation you are seeing now in climate science.
People on both sides of the argument can snipe and rationalise the Email traffic as much as they like but it is just a secondary issue, which encompasses the shallow vindictive and secretive mindset of a group of scientists entrusted with the critical analysis of the world’s temperature data; data that is being used to justify changing the economies of virtually every nation on earth.
The primary evidence is the data itself. What it shows is that not only has it been manipulated with false assumptions, fudge factors and glaring omissions but the actual data itself is also riddled with inconsistencies, double entries and unexplained infills of missing records. This code should serve as the classic example of GIGO (garbage in garbage out) in every university computer science and statistical analysis class around the world. It is RUBBISH.
We have been told by the perpetrators and by the climate change devotees that it really doesn’t matter because the other two data sets used to “confirm” man made global warming have reached the same conclusions so there is independent confirmation of climate change. Like Frank Drebben standing in front of a smouldering ruin they parrot “move along, nothing to see here”. All the time not realising the logical fallacy entwined in their statements. If the Dodgy CRU has produced a dog’s breakfast with their data set then anyone coming to the same conclusions irrespective of the data set used becomes immediately suspect.
And what are these other two independent data sets that are so robust they can negate the CRU findings. There is the NOAA and GISS (NASA).
Just how robust and independent are these two data sets. Well they are really only ONE data set. NOAA collects the data from temperature sensing equipment within the USA whereupon they ‘correct’ it before sending it to GISS who ‘correct’ it again before using the data in their climate models. NOAA collects the data GISS runs the models. But NOAA only collects data from the USA so where does GISS get its data for the rest of the world. They get most of it from the CRU and where does CRU get its data for the USA? You guessed it, it comes from GISS. So now you can see that three independent data sets are all part of the same data set. All three are intricately tied together.
We have seen from the CRU code that its data set is basically rubbish so how good is the NOAA/GISS data. Well according the Phil Jones it is inferior. In an email (Oct 6 2009) to Tom Wigley he writes “I think you can say the GISS is inferior to CRUTEM3”. It’s not just Phil Jones who thinks the GISS data is inferior. In an independent audit of the temperature station within the contiguous USA 90% were found to be sited poorly of very poorly according to NOAA’s own strict siting guidelines. Only 10% were considered to comply with best practice siting. The website www.surfacestations.org has a list and the Google Earth coordinates for over 900 sites personally inspected. Digital and Infrared (IR) images were taken and the siting of most of these stations is truly astonishing; recording equipment in the middle of concrete expanses, adjacent to buildings, air conditioning outlets, airport runways, asphalt roads and other heat generating objects.
There is even one sitting in the middle of a university car park outside the Dept of Atmospheric Physics. Is it any wonder Phil Jones distrusts their accuracy.
There is no justification for using data so flawed and to state publicly that there are three independent data sets is a gross misrepresentation of the known facts. There is an interlocking series of data sets that are being used by three separate entities. Not only is the semblance of independence in these organisations a sham but also the climate scientists who are allowed to share this data are an exclusive few. They are part of a cliché that operates beyond the scrutiny of the normal scientific principles of free and open access to data and methodology. This secret society is entrenched in many climate science organisations around the world. Similar results have been quoted by ‘team members’ in New Zealand and Australia.
They have steadfastly refused to allow independent corroboration of their finding and have disregarded numerous requests under FOI(Freedom Of Information) laws in all the above countries. In fact measures were put in place by the “Team” several years prior to any FOI request being forthcoming to deny access to research material and codes should it be legally requested.
What has taken place in the last two decades since the first assessment report to the UN IPCC is concerted effort by a small group of climate scientist to hijack the resources, funding and agenda of climate science. They have used data from sources that has been questionable and/or has had little of no quality assurance to comply with best practice data collection. Their modelling methodology has been show to be shoddy at best and incompetent at its worst. In order to maintain their stranglehold on funding and the agenda they have deliberately sought to pervert the peer review process with threats, intimidation and blackmail. They have replaced science with subterfuge, methodology with manipulation and integrity with incompetence.
Their vainglorious attempt at science has produced a work of fiction and a poor one at that.