Thursday, September 24, 2009

Original data that started "Global Waming theory" missing, falsified, or unavailable for review.

Global warming is settled science. Everything about it is proven. Just ask them.

Heh. Its not even science......

Imagine you are a climate researcher who has been assembling the data that is used to support claims of global warming. Or imagine you are Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Or imagine you are a scientific fraud. Did I write “or”? I meant “and.”


Over at RedState, "BeagleScout" Miller begins his post with the above statement. Its also a summary of the entire thing. Quite a feat summarizing the entire post in your opening paragraph.

Apparently, scientific theories are supposed to be "repeatable" or, at least, "reviewed" by other scientists, using the ORIGINAL data.....who knew?

Over at Watts Up With That, Patrick J. Michaels, of National Review Online, exposes the fraud inherent in the entire global warming theory, in the article, The Dog Ate Global Warming.

The original "scientists" admit to throwing away the ORIGINAL data. And kept only their doctored data. Except when they have it, but refuse to provide it for review.....
Of course the sources for that data have huge problems, also.....
...the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/– 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/–” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.”

Make sure that you read the comment section of the above post. Very, very enlightening about the actual status of climatology....

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

|

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home