The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
The dog ate my homework? Really?
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. (Emphasis added.)
Think about this the next time someone tries to sell you "green" technology or wants to implement "cap and trade" legislation. Right now, anthropogenic Global Warming (AKA "AGW") as a theory is as valid as the "OMGWTFBBQ11!! We're all gonna die in an ice age" hysteria of the 1970s.
"Green" legislation is about people control, not helping the environment. It's time these charlatans were kicked out of serious scientific circles. AGW belongs in the dustbin of history right next to epicycles.
Posts
2 comments:
Dave,
As someone who likes to read your gear reviews, etc. let me note that for you to say essentially " everything looks cold outside to me!" is such a simplistic view of a complex dynamical system (i.e. the earth's climate) as to be almost embarrassing. Transcend the short-sighted right-wingnut / left-wingnut stuff by reading, for example, John Michael Greer's excellent weekly blog on energy, physical economics, and de-industrialization / collapse over at http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com
Best Regards,
Jay Marchetti
Jay, you're missing my point.
I am very much aware that the Earth's climate is an exceedingly complex system. My criticism of the AGW advocates is that they are making blanket statements (e.g., the Earth is getting warmer) without having evidence to back them up.
The idea that "the science is settled" is itself unscientific. If they were applying the scientific method, they'd be following these steps:
1. Ask a question.
2. Do background research (and don't keep the results secret or fudge data to meet a preconception).
3. Test your hypothesis by performing an experiment (which is hard to do with climate).
4. Analyze the data and draw a conclusion.
5. Share your results.
Key in this process is reexamining your hypothesis in light of the results observed. Instead, the AGW proponents have obtained data, failing to take into account many environmental influence such as urban heat islands, then when the data fails to support their hypo, fudge it or conceal it and proclaim instead that the science is settled in support of their claim.
Is there global warming? Possibly. But current the data does not support the case for its existence.
Post a Comment