Sunday, October 30, 2011

‘Hide the Decline’ – Part Deux

CO2 Insanity

Here we go again. More questionable warmer data released, which only takes a short period of time to be discredited. Yet more unprecedented, irrefutable proof going down the global warming toilet. That this was touted as the “scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all” is laughable.

From the Daily Mail we get this information:

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually.

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

Amazing timing these warmers appear to have . The inconvenient truth is conveniently published a mere week prior to the next global warming cabal with key words and phrases such as irrefutable, stringent and save civilization. So, what’s the problem with this irrefutable evidence?

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.

No scientific basis? My, what a big surprise! (Not!)

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

Credibility? Since when do the warmers need credibility? It’s all about smoke & mirrors, obfuscation, BS, and even sometimes blatant lies!

It seems the information was also conveniently released not only before it was ready, but before other parties of the study were even consulted.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did.

‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.

Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’

It appears to us that this was all conveniently orchestrated to avoid dissent and to ensure the disinformation was released immediately prior to the climate conference in South Africa. Why else would you brief only selected journalists other than to make sure they were journalist who would faithfully put out your disinformation? Why would you bind other participants with confidentiality agreements other than to silence the opposition?

Sounds like more typical CO2 Insanity to us.

Read it all at the Daily Mail and decide for yourself.

Help Us Transmit This Story

    Add to Your Blogger Account
    Put it On Facebook
    Tweet this post
    Print it from your printer
     Email and a collection of other outlets
     Try even more services

No comments:

Post a Comment