25-11-2009, 09:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 25-11-2009, 10:01 AM by Helen Reyes.)
Peter paints a desperate situation with all those hurricanes. Reminds me of the event that buried all those mammoths in Siberia 10,000 years ago or so, with undigested buttercups still in the stomachs of those not torn limb from limb.
This might be too fine a point for MSM to bother with, but Hadley CRU did not fudge the science, becaue they weren't doing science. They were running computer simulations.
From what I can tell, this is the best "science" IPCC can come up with, simulations and secret and/or lost datasets. This doesn't destroy the foundations of climatic science in any way, but it is very revealing on AGW. We already knew about this UN political body's false "scientific" consensus on AGW. Now we have access to a bunch of documents which seem to indicate plain fraud, an attempt to provide a scientific basis for what amounts to a cherished belief. With trillions of dollars expected to come of it among the powerbrokers.
The AGW theory has been disproved: carbon dioxide is still rising, but temperature isn't. The main hypothesis is untenable. CO2 as a trace gas in the atmosphere was never even a very good candidate for AGW. Water vapor and methane carry heat a lot better.
Luckily for the climatic terrorists, there is plenty of natural climate change afoot, as ever, and any number of disaster scenarios with which to titilate and scare funding out of the somnambulent public.
A point on the current leaked documents: a BBC meteorologist allegedly claimed they were genuine because he received the same set over a month ago. This cannot be true, because the batch I got has letters from around November 15, 2009. Either the BBC meteorologist is lying, or he never said any such thing. The claim seems designed to foster the idea they were leaked from inside rather than hacked, maybe to make them admissible in some court. I assume they're admissible anyway, they all seem to be emails and documents made during worktime at public expense.
I'm not sure why environmentalists engage in neo-Greek to rename the Earth, either. Maybe it sounds more scientific? I understand the "Gaia hypothesis" is nothing more than panspermia or animism, religion under guise of "hypothesis."
This might be too fine a point for MSM to bother with, but Hadley CRU did not fudge the science, becaue they weren't doing science. They were running computer simulations.
From what I can tell, this is the best "science" IPCC can come up with, simulations and secret and/or lost datasets. This doesn't destroy the foundations of climatic science in any way, but it is very revealing on AGW. We already knew about this UN political body's false "scientific" consensus on AGW. Now we have access to a bunch of documents which seem to indicate plain fraud, an attempt to provide a scientific basis for what amounts to a cherished belief. With trillions of dollars expected to come of it among the powerbrokers.
The AGW theory has been disproved: carbon dioxide is still rising, but temperature isn't. The main hypothesis is untenable. CO2 as a trace gas in the atmosphere was never even a very good candidate for AGW. Water vapor and methane carry heat a lot better.
Luckily for the climatic terrorists, there is plenty of natural climate change afoot, as ever, and any number of disaster scenarios with which to titilate and scare funding out of the somnambulent public.
A point on the current leaked documents: a BBC meteorologist allegedly claimed they were genuine because he received the same set over a month ago. This cannot be true, because the batch I got has letters from around November 15, 2009. Either the BBC meteorologist is lying, or he never said any such thing. The claim seems designed to foster the idea they were leaked from inside rather than hacked, maybe to make them admissible in some court. I assume they're admissible anyway, they all seem to be emails and documents made during worktime at public expense.
I'm not sure why environmentalists engage in neo-Greek to rename the Earth, either. Maybe it sounds more scientific? I understand the "Gaia hypothesis" is nothing more than panspermia or animism, religion under guise of "hypothesis."
Quote:Gaea, Gaia or Ge
Greek myth. the goddess of the earth, who bore Uranus and by him Oceanus, Cronus and the Titans[from Greek gaia earth]