Authored by DemocracyRules
WELL HERE IS, THE KEY GRAPH which summarizes all the UN Climate conference ballyhoo in Bali.
http://www.box.net/shared/bjkzirmkgo
The conference just ended, and the UN-controlled International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are sticking by their guns. This graph is gospel, not to be questioned. Questioners got told to shut up, or were thrown out of meetings if they questioned it.
“UN official Barbara Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises.”
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTk4OTEzMDU1YjdiMmVlYWJjYTE4MzY2ZGU5ZmNkZDQ=
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=281923042847901
“An Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations” debunking global warming.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
The graph above seems to show that the surface of the earth is heating up by a certain average amount every year. Since 1980, worldwide, the global temperature is supposed to have increased 0.4 Celsius degrees. That looks easy to measure, but it’s not, mostly because accurate data are really, really hard to get. It’s funny why that is. In 1850, Mrs. Johnson could have stepped out to her back yard, and nailed a thermometer to her shady oak tree. Then she could have gone out every day at noon and written down the temperature. If her descendants continued this, we would have temperature data from Mrs. Johnson’s backyard going back to 1850. If it changed, we would know.
We don’t have data nearly that good. Worldwide, temperature stations are terribly inaccurate. Sometimes the station is moved beside a hot air vent, the thermometer becomes defective and no one notices, the little white louvered box that holds the thermometer gets too hot in the sun because the paint peels, or the louvers fill up with cob webs. If the thermometer is located on a Greenland ice sheet, no one may check it for weeks because of a snow storm, and on, and on, all over the world all the time. A recent California study of these thermometers found that almost all the thermometers which showed increases were inside cities, which are known to get hot. Country temperatures were flat, or declining.
I kid you not, the IPCC policy on surface temperature data problems has been “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Bloggers have been outing these thermometers at a furious rate. One blogger found that all the Alaska thermometers he checked are producing questionable data. Worldwide, these thermometers are actually mainly for local weathermen/women, who tell you that, “today, at the airport, it’s 40 degrees”. These thermometers are fine for that, but they are not accurate for small changes. According to the graph above, from 1860 to 1930, earth temperature increased 0.2 degrees Celsius. This is an average annual change of 0.003 degrees, pretty small for Mrs. Johnson’s thermometer, or for any thermometer in 1860 or 1930.
UN Climate Panel Accused of Possible Research Fraud:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/un-s-ipcc-accused-possible-research-fraud
US temperature stations with problems:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/ushcn-national-weather-station-quality-plot/
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/Alaskacoopsites.php
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/11/28/terminating-warming-a-look-at-california/
The above graph is based on an unknown amount of inaccurate data, because the IPCC won’t fix it. On top of that, they make their own multiple ‘corrections’ to the data, and it’s not clear whether those corrections are right or not. One US team just published a study which claims to prove that one key correction is wrong, and the temperature from 1980 really only went from 0.0 to 0.2 degrees Celsius. Really, if it’s actually that small, it’s trivial, and the whole global warming thing should go up in smoke. If the earth is only warming that tiny amount, the CO2 greenhouse gas thing cannot be very important, big sea level changes will not happen, and there is nothing to worry about.
The complicated climate models are falling apart too, because they don’t seem to predict very well at all. The IPCC also will not explain why satellite measurements show the Northern Hemisphere has been getting colder since 1998. So far, the IPCC has ignored or poo-poohed all the data which disproves the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. They are insisting louder than ever that trillions of $$$ must be spent RIGHT NOW to fix the problem. Bush, it is said, is stonewalling. Thank goodness for Bush.
______________________________
Contaminated Data:
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=145245
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002599.html
Sea level rise is a 'total fraud':
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html
IPCC: Ignore studies after 2005
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf
Consensus? Not really:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
Model failures:
http://www.clangmann.net/?p=36
http://www.clangmann.net/2007_December_10/douglass.pdf
http://www.newsmax.com/us/Sun_global_warming/2007/12/11/56088.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152636.htm
Cooling:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/26/161204.shtml
Some hopeful signs:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Bypass or disband the IPCC:
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/members/login.php?fail=2&destination=/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2006/june/5/let1/
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/mclean-disband_the_ipcc.pdf
THEY WAY TO STOP
these fools is to de-fund their research. Giving money to people who run around saying the sky is falling will just make them run around more and shout louder.
Furthermore, as the money flows more easily, they feel more empowered to stray farther and farther from the truth. If you read the websites habituated by these people, they refuse to even discuss the very deep problems with their research.
Their science gets worse and worse, and still the money flows.
Money should go to those who want to double-check the existing research, and find out why it is so self-contradictory.
Money should also go to those who want to do cost-benefit analyses of the key trade-offs. For example, if you had 3 trillion $$$ to spend, how many lives could you save if, (1) you used it to help the poor directly, or (2) you used it to ‘fight’ with global warming? The UN will NEVER address such questions.
Posted by: DemocracyRules | December 18, 2007 at 12:01 PM