"What do Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Center for American Progress have to say about the growing Climategate scandal?"
This interview addresses the concept of "Global Warming" not just within context of "global warming is caused by man-made issues", but in the context that "Global Warming" is actually a current and on-going process.
Quotes from interviewed self-professed Global-Warming Supporters:
"Cherry-picking"The interviewers don't seem to accept that the issue of climate change is settled. They insist that "global warming does not exist within the last ten years" and "the hottest decade in history was in the 1930's" (which suggests that "carbon emissions" are not the root cause of "global warming" or "Climate Change", because industrial and "Internal Combustion Engine" "Carbon Emissions" were demonstrably in the 1930's than in the 21st Century).
"We're right, you're wrong!"
"We've got ... the polar bears ..."
"The underlying data no longer exists."
"I don't think there was an intend to deceive ..."
"If you are prone to believing that Climate Change doesn't exist you're grasping for emails to make that point."
"... as it pertains to 1 the issue of climate change, we've got so much observable data ..."
"What kind of investigation are you looking for, exactly?"
"I think that you and I can agree that the issue of climate change -- is settled."
The PJTV interviews were interesting, but not intrinsically convincing ... for either side of the question.
However, one thing is clear: those who are convinced that "Climate Change" exists, and especially if they are caused by humanocentric activities in the 20th and 21st century, are all-too eager to jump on to the "The Issue Is Settled" bandwagon.
This is not consistent with the Scientific Method, which has clearly definable steps. Here is an explanation of if the fifth and final step in one description of the Scientific Method:
5. Draw Conclusions from your data.Note that the last sentence emphasizes the possibility that a "theory" is accepted as being correct, until new information is discovered to disprove it.
- Here, it is stated directly whether the hypothesis was supported or disproven.
- If your hypothesis is supported, it should be repeated, since one of the basic foundations of the scientific method is that it is repeatable. The more an experiment is repeated, the more valid the results are. However, if there is a hypothesis that is supported by many experiments and a lot of data, we call that hypothesis a theory.
- The word theory is often misused in everyday language. Theory and hypothesis are not synonyms, a hypothesis is just an educated guess that perhaps has been supported once or twice by an experiment. A theory was once a hypothesis, but is now supported by a lot of data and is accepted as being correct, until new information is discovered to disprove it.
What we have here is a 'theory', the proponents of which strive diligently to dissuade any effort to disprove it.
This is not Science. This is religion, in that it is Faith Based. As such, it introduces a new panoply of "Gods" and stigmatizes anyone who would dispute it.
It is Western Jihad.
Mishs "Global Economic Trend Analysis" has much to say upon this, based upon a careful and thorough examination of the material in the
It's now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam.
Thanks to hackers (or an insider) who broke into The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and downloaded 156 megaybytes of data including extremely damaging emails, we now know that data supporting the global warming thesis was completely fabricated.
Inquiring minds are reading Hacked: Hadley CRU FOI2009 Files on The Reference Frame by Luboš Motl, a physicist from the Czech Republic.
Since the CRU is staffed by credible scientists who welcome peer review, we would naturally expect an "open source" approach to validating data. Right?
Maybe not; here's just one email which strongly infers that "peer review" is something to be avoided at all costs -- up to and including destroying emails which might suggest nefarious intent:
From: Phil Jones firstname.lastname@example.orgOkay, but at least they had solid computer programs which provided consistent results and forecasts based upon the "observable data" which they had gathered through (at least) recent years. Right?
To: "Michael E. Mann" email@example.com
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Well, perhaps not absolutely positively data which "has been supported once or twice by an experiment."
Here is an evaluation of the code, based on observations of a programmer ("Harry"?) who has been tasked with validating undocumented code used to predict weather patterns, using the original data.
Go ahead, read it.
Harry --- speaking as a professional Programmer and Systems Analyst, I can only say ... "I Feel Your Pain."