Total Pageviews

Thursday, 28 January 2010

Guilty as Charged

The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has been found guilty under the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ for refusing to allow others to see their data. What an indictment of a scientific establishment who claim through the IPCC that their papers are peer reviewed. They are peer reviewed - if you can call it that- but by other IPCC contributors , in other words only by those who have already subscribed to the orthodoxy.

Of course we all know now why they were so reluctant. I have looked at a great many of the 1000 or so emails hacked out of their computers and am appalled at the lack of scientific objectivity I found there. Not objective science at all but much more akin to those early scientists who built up a whole new form of celestial mechanics in a desperate attempt to retain an earth centric planetary system. The scientists working at the CRU have made an assumption (one that is financially beneficial for their research) and are looking for the evidence to back it up, and because they are not finding it have had to resort to slight of hand (or to use their own words, ‘apply a trick’ or ‘beef it up’) to make it fit. This is not science, its science fiction.

BBC National Evening News today ( 28/1/10 ) covered this story but used it as an unashamedly blatant opportunity for AGW disaster propaganda, running film of calving glaciers in the background throughout the report. The BBC clearly stand firmly behind the AGW orthodoxy enabling their Science Correspondent David Shukman to present the few facts the report contained in a way that masked the truth. He suggested for example that the CRU could quiet justifiably have been irritated by the persistent requests to examine their data because they came from unqualified nuisances who wanted to use the data to damage the CRU. Of course if the data had shown good objective empirical research it would have been very difficult to damage anyone. Now they have been hung out to dry!

Anyone who believes in AGW without having taken a serious look at the evidence cannot convincingly argue that they have not been brainwashed. Can you?

Thursday, 14 January 2010

A Cooling Climate

Cooling Climate

As with God opinions regarding AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) tend to fall out along lines of personality and predetermined tendencies to accept certain positions without much need of evidence, rather than the more difficult process of intellectual appraisal.

There is now quite unequivocal evidence that the Earth is moving into a cooler phase and has been doing so for a few years now, but those who support AGW, including the ‘scientists’, will not openly acknowledge it and dismiss this third record breaking cold winter ( northern hemisphere) as natural variation. However, they cannot have it both ways; they cannot credit every extreme weather event that comes along as proof of AGW, and then classify cold weather as natural variation. The mantra they patronisingly use right now is that we ( the gullible public) must not confuse weather with climate. What? That is like saying do not confuse waves with the sea. Weather is a product of climate, if the climate were warming up then we would expect the weather to get warmer wouldn’t we? If not why the predictions of record-breaking temperatures and why would three cold winters and cool wet summers in a row not be an indication that the climate is getting cooler?

Dr Viner (UEA CRU) claimed (apart from citing that his decision to live in Stibbard was based on a wish to stay well above any areas likely to be inundated by sea level rise) that within a decade snow would cease to fall and would become so infrequent that it would become a novelty for children who had never seen it. Spot on there then. These people are so full of shit they no longer notice the smell.

The British Met Office has predicted that this will be one of the warmest winters on record, and as I understand it still do (even though we are only half way through). How can they justify this position? They do so apparently by taking the fifteen highest temperature readings between November and March and averaging them out. So as November was quite a warm month and despite the fact that Britain has been subjected to sub zero temperatures both day and night for a complete month since (coasts excepted) , that is where they will go for their temperature samples which will then be used to tell us, who have been struggling to get to work on icy roads and pavements, what this winter was actually like. Yes black is white and ten years hence who will remember. What do they say, lies, damn lies and statistics?

Anyone who believes in AGW without having taken a serious look at the evidence cannot convincingly argue that they have not been brainwashed. Can you?