[Nameplate] Fair ~ 65°F  
High: 63°F ~ Low: 48°F
Saturday, Nov. 22, 2014

Valentine: Climategate hits the fan

Friday, December 4, 2009

Climategate continues to expose the fallacy of global warming. Scientists at the University of East Anglia, home of the Climate Research Unit, one of four temperature data collection sites worldwide, now admit that they have destroyed raw temperature data that was being sought under Freedom of Information requests. This follows on the heels of the damning evidence revealed in over a thousand e-mails the CRU had hoped to keep under wraps that show scientists conspiring to manipulate data and crush any dissent to anthropogenic global warming.

Being one of only four temperature tracking research centers in the world we can now assume that at least a fourth of the data that has been used to bolster the global warming theory is now contaminated. The university made a lame attempt at explaining the destruction of valuable raw temperature data claiming the data were dumped to save space when they moved to a new building. Don't people normally move to a new building for more space, not less?

Some of the e-mails reveal that the scientists were already in the process of destroying data when their e-mails were leaked by an inside whistleblower. That story -- save Fox News -- has been virtually ignored by the American mainstream media. The New York Times did a piece on it but their focus was on damage control for the flat-earthers of the global warming movement. "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument," the Times opined in its "objective" story on the matter.

The problem is the anthropogenic global warming theory is far from being "widely accepted" and Climategate simply confirms what many of us have known for years. Unless you manipulate the data, there is no global warming. Temperatures have either held steady or have declined for the last decade or so; an inconvenient truth that those who stand to profit from global warming are trying desperately to keep under wraps.

The "sky is falling" crowd is in a full-scale panic over not only the exposed e-mails but the science itself. They've resorted to preposterous claims like global warming is going to cause more prostitution in poor countries. It's as if they believe that screaming the same lies they've been stating over the last 20 years will make them so. Hysteria does not equal truth.

Al Gore even made a statement this past summer before a House committee that all 3,000 scientists that participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were unanimous in their finding that humans were causing global warming. There was far from anything approaching a consensus by the IPCC scientists. I've talked with several of them, including the lead scientist in the 2001 IPCC study, and they don't buy into all this global warming hype.

Even if there were a consensus of 3,000 scientists, juxtapose that group with over 30,000 scientists -- including 9,000 PhDs -- who have signed a petition attesting that the theory of manmade global warming is, itself, manmade.

Not to mention that science is not about consensus. It's about proof. There was a consensus in 1492 that the earth was flat. It turned out not to be the case. There was a consensus that Pluto was a planet. Now they say it's not. It's a dwarf planet. (Is that politically correct?) As one wise scientist told me, scientific truth is based on our knowledge up to today but that knowledge could very well change tomorrow.

It's time to stop clinging to the past. Don't ignore the latest evidence. Embrace it.


Comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on marshalltribune.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Pluto is still a planet. Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term "dwarf" in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto's orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned.

-- Posted by laurele on Fri, Dec 4, 2009, at 3:08 PM


Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on this site, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.