Malone Today

Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

Forget the media exag­ger­at­ing the weather, now the National Weather Ser­vice is out fore­cast­ing “Heavy Snow” when accu­mu­la­tion is “less than one inch” and “1 to 2 inches”. Incredible.

I won­der if the gov­ern­ment mind­set that equates 1 – 2 inches of snow as “Heavy Snow” is the same as that which sees global warm­ing in every frac­tion of weather change?

Gover­nor Palin writes the fol­low­ing in the Wash­ing­ton Post:

With the pub­li­ca­tion of dam­ag­ing e-​mails from a cli­mate research cen­ter in Britain, the rad­i­cal envi­ron­men­tal move­ment appears to face a tip­ping point. The rev­e­la­tion of appalling actions by so-​called cli­mate change experts allows the Amer­i­can pub­lic to finally under­stand the con­cerns so many of us have artic­u­lated on this issue.

“Climate-​gate,” as the e-​mails and other doc­u­ments from the Cli­mate Research Unit at the Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politi­cized sci­en­tific cir­cle — the same cir­cle whose work under­lies efforts at the Copen­hagen cli­mate change con­fer­ence. The agenda-​driven poli­cies being pushed in Copen­hagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our econ­omy for the worse.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Cli­mate Sci­ence Isn’t Set­tled, Con­fi­dent pre­dic­tions of cat­a­stro­phe are unwar­ranted (Wall Street Jour­nal)
A rather detailed dis­cus­sion on global warm­ing that looks at that the glob­ally aver­aged tem­per­a­ture anom­aly (GATA). It is def­i­nitely worth a read but I’m not sure what point Lindzen is try­ing to make in the final paragraph.

When sci­en­tists behave like bul­lies (San Fran­cisco Chron­i­cle)
Debra Saun­ders writes about the damn­ing cor­rup­tion of sci­ence by global warm­ing scientists.

We will release the data…
Cli­mate­gate: Uni­ver­sity of East Anglia U-​turn in cli­mate change row (Tele­graph)
We threw away the data…
Cli­mate change data dumped (Times)
The Cli­mate Research Unit says, accord­ing to the Tele­graph, that they will release the raw data that global warm­ing is based upon. At the same time the Times reports that the same folks now admit that the raw data was thrown away. All they kept was the manip­u­lated data they cre­ated to sup­port global warm­ing. As Roger Pielke, pro­fes­sor of envi­ron­men­tal stud­ies at Col­orado Uni­ver­sity, is quoted in the Times, “The CRU is basi­cally say­ing, ‘Trust us’.”

Tell it to the ice caps, An e-​mail storm wors­ens the cli­mate for con­sen­sus (Wash­ing­ton Post)
Don’t let a lit­tle sci­en­tific fraud get in the way. Eugene Robin­son white­washes the débâ­cle that global warm­ing to sug­gest “deniers” are get­ting ahead of themselves.

‘Climate­gate’ puts warm­ing in ques­tion (Detroit News)
A cau­tion­ary edi­to­r­ial sug­gest­ing that Obama’s upcom­ing trip to sign away America’s future at Copen­hagen is not only pre­ma­ture, but based on ques­tion­able and now dis­cred­ited scientific.

Climate­gate e-​mails sweep Amer­ica, may scut­tle Barack Obama’s Cap and Trade laws (Tele­graph)
This edi­to­r­ial dis­cusses impact of global warm­ing fraud on U.S. “Joe Pub­lic, coast-​to-​coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how roy­ally he has been screwed.”

George Mon­biont – never heard of him until this past week – is out with another ‘we got a prob­lem’ arti­cle in the Guardian today as he frets over the dam­age being done to the reli­gion of global warm­ing [and his career] by the actions and incom­pe­tence of the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity. Inter­est­ing that other than his buried apol­ogy in a com­ment attached to his sar­cas­tic arti­cle yes­ter­day, he – George Mon­biont – accepts no blame for the fraud that has been per­pe­trated. This rat bailed and is now adding the sci­en­tists to his list of “scum­bag” cli­mate skeptics.

Read the rest of this entry »

There are sev­eral updates from folks review­ing the CRU soft­ware code that paint a deves­tat­ing pic­ture of the sci­ence of global warm­ing (More below). As I read these, I keep com­ing back to the 1960 date. Newer data did not bear out global warm­ing which global warm­ing advo­cates had staked their careers. There­fore they played with it and made it up to get the results they wanted. What they seem to miss in this sci­en­tific fraud is that the newer data might be more relaible and that instead of it being wrong, maybe their old data and the entire approach or method­ol­ogy was the problem. 

The code doc­u­men­ta­tion and write read me files releaseed last week are so incred­i­bly unpro­fes­sional to be almost unbe­lie­ve­able. They raise big red flags about what was tran­spir­ing. Didn’t any­one ever look at the code?!

Read the rest of this entry »