Friday, 27 November 2009

Climategate

I've not followed this so closely as I've not had the time to devote to it.

What I would say is that things don't look good for climate science in general and more specifically the science around anthropomorphic global warming. The evidence held in the leaked emails looks pretty damning in itself, but its also the wider picture.

If the data models, data, charts and graphs from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia are based on bad data and bad programming in an attempt to replicate the graphs from other climate research units around the world, then the graphs (and therefore the data) from other climate research units around the world are equally suspect.

Lets extend the problem further:

If the leaked data is true, then the CRU at East Anglia frigged their data and programs in order to match the graphs from other climate units showing severe global warming.

They frigged the data, because the raw data they were using didn't produce the now infamous "hockey stick " graph showing an extreme rise in global temperature.

By frigging the data I mean using various tricks and dodges, some borrowed from other climate units (as stated in the emails) to produce results that favour the man made global warming hypothesis.

I seem to remember a scientist proclaiming he had produced "cold fusion" but was decried by all his scientific peers when it was found no-one else could reproduce his results. Is the difference here just numbers? Did all the CRU people just gang together and conspire to make sure this wasn't going to be another cold fusion episode and that if they ganged together to emulate and promote each other's results they would get their thesis into science? Did the thing get out of hand when ecologists, lobbyists and governments jumped on the bandwagon?

It stands to reason that the data and graphs from the other climate research units mentioned using these tricks is also tainted and must come under suspicion. Because if they are using these same tricks, then their frigged data also diverges from the raw data. All in order to support the single hypothesis of MMGW, without any attention as to whether the data may be saying a different story. Its also pertinant to note at this point there seems to be a lack noise from CRUs distancing themselves from the Hadley and East Anglia people and their data.

So, the East Anglia leak and the exposed fraud goes further into the Man Made Global Warming camp that at first appears.

These scientists are now as discredited as the cold fusion mob and the whole man made global warming scam should be immediately put on hold until the data and science is reviewed, remodelled and independantly scrutinised. THATS what should now be happening at the Copenhagen climate summit.

Certainly ALL the CRUs that have been involved in the MMGW "science" should now open up their own code, data and models for independant scrutiny by the whole scientific community. Certainly what should NOT happen is for things to continue as the closed shop it is at the moment, neither should the code and data be reviewed by a selected set of scientists. This MUST be for the WHOLE scientific community to debate and form a concensus on, before we commit another penny to the cause.

But now I want to take things a little further:

What if the result of increased CO2 levels isn't the MMGW that these scientists predicted and manipulated the data to prove? What if the global cooling indicated by the raw data is the problem? What if we're heading for the ice age that scientists predicted back in the seventies? What if the problem is far, far worse and we're heading for a less survivable future? How would we know given that these so-called scientists have so skewed the scientific community, the data and the computer models?

What if governments use that as an excuse to extort more money from you? Would any of us trust the science any more?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.