Feb
Climate quack’s professional suicide ends lie of man-made climate change
Last week we reported on a ground-breaking interview by BBC’s Roger Harrabin of Professor Phil Jones, the climate scientist from the University of East Anglia (UEA) at the center of the Climategate e-mails. Disheveled and drawn, Jones looks a modern-day Piltdown man, hardly the figure of authority you would expect was responsible for the compilation of the IPCC’s historic global temperature data from the late 1800s to the present.
In this article, we employ graphs to illustrate how the four global warming blips discussed by Jones proves the historic temperature record fails to support the lie that the planet faces catastrophic climate change. Since these damaging admissions from such a key alarmist climate scientist, we are now witnessing the death throes of what has been the paradigm of post-modern science.
As Professor Jones confessed to the BBC:
“the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”
Jones was referring to those four distinct warming periods from modern ground thermometer records during 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 and 1975-2009.
The vast majority of scientists agree that the 20th century warming period of so much doom-saying and concern began around 1975. Firstly, that Jones admits warming stalled a mere twenty years later confirms skeptic’s analyses that there is no enduring statistical trend to prove a signal of man made global warming.
But, secondly, by conceding that there is no statistical difference between any of these four short warming periods, when in each them temperatures rose about 0.16 Degrees C per decade (under 2.0 Degrees C per century) before falling back, Jones, himself, debunks the hype that the Earth is set for any catastrophic global warming..
Indeed, the most up to date peer-reviewed study we have is by KERR (2009), who concludes there has been global cooling since 1998–a further nail in the coffin of the man made global warming myth.
Moreover, this graph tells us what the satellite records prove about the temperatures in the lower atmosphere between 1990-2008:
Credit: WeatherQuestions.com
These facts are then backed up by Lord Monckton’s global temperature graph (below) where all four of the world’s major global surface temperature datasets (NASA GISS; RSS; UAH; and Hadley/University of East Anglia) together prove the existence of a decline in temperatures that has now persisted for seven years.
Meanwhile, for the smoking gun of what may actually be key to what is driving our planet’s climate, we recommend readers take a look at this graph, that shows a clear correlation between temperatures and ocean and sun cycles:
Credit: Icecap.us
The undisputed data in these graphs proves that the panic over catastrophic man-made climate change cannot be substantiated by facts. The discredited IPCC and those incompetent (perhaps corrupt) politicians who bought into this scam must now be swept away. Thus, it is the objectivity that underpins the scientific method and defended for so long by skeptical climate scientists has finally vanquished the self-serving subjectivism and scare tactics of political ideologues.
Professor Jones is still currently suspended from his post and forever labeled by the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office as a key conspirator in the UEA’s unlawful breaking of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for his disposal of key climate data.
In a vain safe-facing exercise, the now discredited British Labour Government, in its final days of office, has cynically ignored the capitulation of their main scientific champion and has set about botching all attempts to objectively reveal the truth and punish the guilty in this, the greatest science fraud of all time.
Nonetheless, the most welcome of our conclusions must surely be that the nefarious socialist paradigm that was ‘post-normal’ science is now dead.
Possibly related posts:
Next scandal already here. Quote:
More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/
It’s hard find the right words. The scientific community may yet rally to the defence of science. The perps must however recieve justice under the law.
The bigger picture of climate data manipulation and fraud is getting lost in the overwhelming volume of disputed climate reports.
We need a concise wiki style site that outlines (a) the specific -gates surrounding the IPCC reports(b) other disputed climate reports.
The greater problem is that politically and financially motivated scientists have brought their profession into disrepute.
At this juncture scientists who do science, not politics, should rally together and form an independent grouping who produce science for the benefit of mankind, not the aspirations of politicians and their baggage train.
I myself have made the error of labelling all scientists as ‘alchemists’ but clearly there wouldn’t be an independent view without them, but now we are left not knowing which ones can be trusted.
The greater shame would be if these scientists who follow the orthodox view of anything are allowed to discredit those who challenge and test any theory or proposition. Isn’t that what science is about ?
Perhaps Climategate itself is only the tip of the iceberg of the end of science as we know it. Reflecting upon science as inherited from previous generations, it was based upon the presumption of absolutes, some read God or the Watchmaker, and the role of science is only to discover the rules. A scientist in the minority of one could continue to work because they could be confident that in the end the truth would be revealed that they were correct. However in the post-modern era where there are no absolutes and truth and reality are only relative, science itself is only relevant as long as it is political correct. Excuse me for citing the obvious.