From Dr. Benny Peiser at The GWPF
Climate Scientists Get The Stratosphere Wrong
How did the Met Office get their data so wrong? Well there’s the rub. You see, the methodology used to develop the Met Office SSU product was never published in the peer-reviewed literature, and certain aspects of the original processing “remain unknown.” Evidently the boffins at the Met didn’t bother to write down exactly how they were massaging the raw data to get the results they reported. Indeed, those who did the data manipulation seem to have mostly retired. This is an egregious example of sloppy science, slipshod science, bad science. How other climate scientists blindly accepted the Met Office’s manufactured data, even when their models could not be reconciled with nature, leads one to question the scientific integrity of many of those in the field. This is not acceptable behavior in any realm of scientific endeavor. — Doug Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 15 January 2013
The steady, relentless collapse of the climate campaign proceeds apace, notwithstanding the sugar high climate campaigners enjoyed after Hurricane Sandy and Obama’s re-election. And if the climate campaign wasn’t already in denial about being abandoned by The One, their media allies, and new carbon riches baron Al Gorezeera, a new report coming out this week from Harvard’s Theta Skocpol should really harsh their mellow. Skocpol, a prominent liberal political scientist, argues that environmentalists deserve most of the blame for the defeat of their agenda. — Steven Hayward, Power Line, 14 January 2013
In an area where I have expertise on, extremes and their impacts, the report by the US Global Change Research Program is well out of step with the scientific literature, including the very literature it cites and conclusions of the IPCC. Questions should (but probably won’t) be asked about how a major scientific assessment has apparently became captured as a tool of advocacy via misrepresentation of the scientific literature — a phenomena that occurs repeated in the area of extreme events. Given the strength of the science on this subject, the USGCRP must have gone to some effort to mischaracterize it by 180 degrees. How is it that it got things so wrong? —Roger Pielke Jr., 15 January 2013
But what if climate change isn’t the disaster we fear but instead one more obstacle that humans can meet, one that may spur innovation and creativity as well as demand ever more resilience? What if it ultimately improves life as we know it? –Zacharay Karabell, “Climate Change Doesn’t Have To Be All Bad”, Reuters, 14 January 2013
The gravest danger to Earth these days isn’t climate skepticism; it’s the broken, Malthusian and statist green policy imagination. Wedded to grandiose and unworkable “solutions”, greens feel they must push the panic button at every opportunity to stampede the world into embracing an unworkable and unsustainable policy agenda. It won’t work. The Al Gore path (alarmism, hypocrisy, dumb policy solutions, green pig lipsticking or corporate subsidies disguised as green breakthroughs) will not bend the curve. –Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, 12 January 2013
“Questions should (but probably won’t) be asked about how a major scientific assessment has apparently became captured as a tool of advocacy via misrepresentation of the scientific literature ”
It’s very simple. Nothing in the literature supported their agenda/claims, so they had to go elsewhere, the grey literature, to find support. And then they managed to generate all kinds of corrupted papers that are easily shown to be flawed and got them published in journals that have thrown away their scientific integrity. Estimates are that there are about 41 main individuals in this effort; I am reluctant to call them scientists as real scientists do not lie, alter, and obfuscate.
Dr. Lurtz says:
January 17, 2013 at 8:11 am
“What if the entire “Climate Warming by CO2″ was put in place as a partial mechanism to stop WW3???
Look, we have “climate problems” that we can work together on: Let’s not have War!”
Unlikely. It would have been easier to stop propping up the Soviet Union. It is more likely that it was set up to help a global power grab.