//
you're reading...
climate change, opinion, political

The Smoking Gun of Climategate!

In my previous post ‘The Noble Sword’ I argued that Social Networking is a means to organize ourselves to ensure that we are not opinion-manipulated by the global media, global advertizing budgets, politicians and scientists. It does work! Read this popular post for example: The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero.

It follows up on the Climategate scandal that was originally started by a report of the Washington Post on hacked climate research material at the University of East Anglia that suggested that scientists were not at all choosy in their methods to deal with opponents and in presenting data in support of their theories favorably. The response to Climategate by the climate change pundits was that maybe these scientists overdid it but that does not invalidate the data that supposedly proof global warming theory.

Well, that could be true … but is it???

I have opposed global warming theory ever since mostly because of our lack of understanding. Once however clueless, populist politicians such as Al Gore step into the ring, I can be counted out. Let me say again that I am not promoting to continue mindless pollution. Let’s conserve energy! I propose however to focus on solving overfishing and the destruction of the rainforests, rather than CO2 footprints. Greenhouse Theory is nothing else than a marketing campaign for a CO2 taxation scheme and helps to cover up how inept politicians really are.

Willis Eschenbach went to the trouble to take a serious look at the actual historical temperature data and highlights some interesting relationships. In essence he explains that three global datasets (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are used to proof global warming, which are however all based on the same GHCN dataset. That means that there are not three independent temperature sources as we are led to believe.

Eschenbach shows that the GHCN data set has been adjusted for various influences (i.e. changes to weather stations) supposedly to make it a homogeneous data set. Comparing the underlying GHCN data to the adjusted ones shows that they are NEVER adjusted downwards, which in all statistical sense should happen to half the data. They are always adjusted UPWARDS – without justification or explanation – leading to the differences in the chart below.

I am not saying that Willis Eschenbach is right and obviously he is just sharing an opinion, which is however as valid as scientific opinions. His observations are most certainly discounted by scientists as not being done with ‘scientific method’.

That could be true … because he did not manipulate the data as some scientists do …

Advertisements

About Max J. Pucher

I am the founder and Chief Technology Officer of ISIS Papyrus Software, a medium size software company specializing in communications and process management. I wrote several books and hold a number of patents. My quest is to bring common sense to IT, mostly by focusing in human quality issues rather than cost saving, outsourcing and automation. I am also Chief Architect at VIPorbit software which provides mobile relationship management.

Discussion

11 thoughts on “The Smoking Gun of Climategate!

  1. If it ist true, that scientists overdid their studies, this could also be also a sign that they want to show it more drastically because they want to stop wasting precious resources. Could also be, that they have been “convinced” by the nuclear lobby to boost their plans to double the number of nuclear power plants. Or some want to reduce the dependency on the middle east oil production that weakens the US economy, while the petrochemical and armament industry would fight any decision towards any change of the status quo. Not sure, but another possibility!

    Posted by Bert P. | December 9, 2009, 7:41 pm
    • As always there can be many reasons as to why someone does not tell the truth, but to find someone lying and intentionally falsifying information and then to construct positive reasons as to why that person might have done that means that you yourself do not want to believe differently. And who knows what your reasons are …

      Posted by Max J. Pucher | December 9, 2009, 10:22 pm
      • in order to do something for a reason one must believe that causality exists.

        Posted by Karin | December 10, 2009, 5:39 pm
      • I can imagine that I do something for the reason that no causality exists – like writing this post about the lack of causality in global warmign theory?

        Posted by Max J. Pucher | December 10, 2009, 10:30 pm
  2. I agree completely with your views in this article — very well said…

    Posted by William J McKibbin | December 10, 2009, 12:29 pm
  3. From our dayly business in the health industry it is a common fact that scientists do exactly that what their contractor wants. If studies do not favor the purpose, they simply are disrupted or get stucked in any drawer. This is why You often get totally contradicting studys about the same topic. This is now also the case in the global warming game. Who can pay more scientists for supportig their goals may be the winner for now. The looser could be once more the average person who has no idea what happens beyond his TV set.

    Posted by Bert P. | December 11, 2009, 12:01 am
  4. “Climategate” started out when there appeared on the Internet a collection of e-mails of a group of climatologists who work in the University of East Anglia in England. These documents reveal that some climatologists of international preeminence have manipulated the data of their investigations and have strongly tried to discredit climatologists who are not convinced that the increasing quantities of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the cause of global warming.

    It is true that a majority of the scientists who study climatic tendencies in our atmosphere have arrived at the conclusion that the world’s climate is changing, and they have convinced a group of politicians, some of whom are politically powerful, of the truth of their conclusions.

    A minority, however, is skeptical. Some believe that recent data that suggest that the average temperature of the atmosphere is going up can be explained by natural variations in solar radiation and that global warming is a temporary phenomenon. Others believe that the historical evidence indicating that the temperature of the atmosphere is going up at a dangerous rate is simply not reliable.

    Such lacks of agreement are common in the sciences. They are reduced and eventually eliminated with the accumulation of new evidence and of more refined theories or even by completely new ones. Such debates can persist for a period of decades. Academics often throw invective at one another in these debates. But typically this does not mean much.

    But the case of climate change is different. If the evidence indicates that global warming is progressive, is caused principally by our industrial processes, and will probably cause disastrous changes in our atmosphere before the end of the twenty-first century, then we do not have the time to verify precisely if this evidence is reliable. Such a process would be a question of many years of new investigations. And if the alarmist climatologists are right, such a delay would be tragic for all humanity.

    The difficulty is that economic and climatologic systems are very complicated. They are not like celestial mechanics, which involves only the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force, and efforts to construct computerized models to describe these complicated systems simply cannot include all the factors that are influential in the evolution of these complicated systems.

    All this does not necessarily indicate that the alarmist climatologists are not right. But it really means that if global warming is occurring, we cannot know exactly what will be the average temperature of our atmosphere in the year 2100 and what will be the average sea level of the world’s ocean in that year.

    It also means that we cannot be confident that efforts by the industrialized countries to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have a significant influence on the evolution of the world’s climate.

    Alas, the reduction of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would be very costly and would greatly change the lives of all the inhabitants of our planet–with the possibility (perhaps even the probability!) that all these efforts will be completely useless.

    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

    Posted by hkyson | December 12, 2009, 8:39 pm
    • Harleigh, a thoughtful and balanced response. Thank you. I think that global warming is used to distract us from much more pressing problems and to levy additional taxes. A carbon credit trading bonanza is in store for the global financial players and it will allow the worst polluters to go on as they do.

      Lets focus on overpopulation and related destruction of our seas and rainforests.

      Posted by Max J. Pucher | December 13, 2009, 8:31 am
  5. A reduction of co2 would not only be costly,

    it would disturb the natural change of the atmosphere to where it always was:

    To 10 degrees more as it is now, with sea levels 100 m more than now. Let it flow!

    In times before the ice ages the atmosphere hat 5000ppm Carbondioxide. The last temperature drop to a nowadays level was amidst the “Carbon” age, when the carbon wood swamps tranported Billions of tons from wood to fossile carbon. The drop in temperature occured very fast when the co2 drops below 500 ppm.

    (I’ll send the graphics towards Max, he may show them)

    There will bei a lot of other regulating and deregulating effects like Methan-Ice, but listen to the fact:

    In the 18th century, the co2 was at 185ppm.

    Now it is already at 390ppm, growing.

    This afternoon I’ll do a little trip by car and that will rise it a little more…g

    The last major temperature hop of 10 centigrade in NO time was after the
    Carbon Period, in “Perm” thus 300.000.000 years ago. Co2 just changed from
    around 400pp to somewhat 500ppm. BANG! And it went up!

    This is just happening now, and nobody could change that fact.

    We are simply in the end period of an ice age. period!

    The reduction of mankind will happen in a whiz.

    What to do?

    Let’s have fun, the drastic effects may
    hit a century after our lives….

    Posted by Bert P. | December 13, 2009, 10:51 am

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: SOA and BPM Agility, Revisited « Welcome to the Real (IT) World! - December 11, 2009

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

© 2007-11 Max J. Pucher

All Rights Reserved. Content may only be replicated in full with all links intact and a link to this original content.

Max J. Pucher

Statistics

  • 15,738 readers
%d bloggers like this: