The BBC interview with Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the climate science scam at East Anglia University, detailed here and here, is quite damning of the entire 'global warming' enterprise. Remember, the 'data' generated by East Anglia was used as the basis for billions upon billions of spending around the world. When confronted by Freedom of Information requests, Jones stonewalled. He knows in his heart that his work will not survive scrutiny. He seems to plea for sympathy at one point. OS finds it hard to work up any.
Planet Gore notes the profound lack of coverage of this inconvenient bit of truth in the mainstream US media outlets.
It's now a matter of time. One of them will realize that the silence will be much more damaging to their reputations and bottom lines than can be tolerated.
At that point, the dam will break. The ice, indeed, will melt around AlGore's feet.
Of course, each outlet will claim that (a.) they were wise to the scam all along, and (b.) that they had broken the story of the fraud.
Yadda, yadda.
Yadda.
In the meantime, OS wishes to share the 'Summary for Policymakers' of an extensive report by Joseph D'Aleo (co-founder of The Weather Channel), and Anthony Watts, a 25-year meteorology broadcast veteran. The full report, published 29 January 2010, may be downloaded here, at the end of the linked article.
1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th-
century “global warming”.
12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.
13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.
14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.
It's a 100+ page report, heavy on footnotes and charts.
No one had to force the information from them, and it is open to peer review, as it has been published.
Who you gonna believe?
No comments:
Post a Comment