It is with an ironic, interested eye that I’ve been watching “Climategate” unfold. Those 30,000 scientists who’ve been telling us all along that global warming is a myth are now starting to get their proverbial day in court what with the recent “whistleblower” release of emails that point out lead IPCC researchers’ real intentions (note for the record I can not, in good conscience, call them IPCC scientists any more; real scientists maintain a humble and objective state of mind).
Much liberal schoozing is being slathered on about how the emails don’t really show any retarded-rightwing conspiracy (yes, Virginia, those who don’t worship at the feet of Al Gore are called “retarded” to our faces); liberals will only go so far to say that at best they are simply showing how “bias” creeps into research. Call if whatever you like, but at the end of the day what has been passing for scientific facts are really just another garden-variety lie. Global warming are figments of some grant-dependent-lifestyle wanker’s imagination brought to life, rather like Frankenstein’s monster.
The proof of the not even lukewarm pudding is really in the code used to create the data reports. I found this piece and it’s obvious to my long-time-ago programming brain cell that the intention is to deliberately create an outcome, not present the facts contained in the data.
1 ;
2 ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3 ;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
7
8
For you non-geek types, “ne” means “not equal” and the intention here is to say “Oooops!” when the output doesn’t match the preconceived outcome. This is what you want to happen when you’re programming a machine to manufacture a part to specifications since all the parts have to eventually fit together, but Very Very Bad when analyzing data to determine what is going on with something. It is the stuff of CYA and we all know how that goes when the truth eventually comes out.
Of course, this badness hasn’t stopped the EPA and so extends to their recent ruling on greenhouse gases. As their report states, the EPA relies on the bad IPCC research, but it is strange to me why the media is overlooking one critical little detail found in the technical document supporting their conclusions about forcing control of CO2:
The ambient concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is presently about 0.039% by volume (or 386 ppm). Projected increases in CO2 concentrations from anthropogenic emissions range from 41 to 158% above 2005 levels (of about 380 ppm) or 535 to 983 ppm by 2100 (Meehl et al., 2007) (see Section 5). Such increases would result in atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 0.054 to 0.098% by volume in 2100, which is well below published thresholds for adverse health effects.
On one hand they are ruling that CO2 is so dangerous it must be regulated (and thereby let the progressive liberal Democrats further damn the American worker and economy), but on the other hand they are saying that even if we humans are to blame for it, the projected increase in CO2 in the air won’t be enough to hurt anyone even a hundred years from now.
Guess it all just goes to prove that Climate Change is what you call Global Warming when your Global Warming Conference is snowed out.