Monday, February 15, 2010

Has the Final Nail in the Coffin of Global Warming Finally Been Hammered In?

Simpsons-Global-Warming-Is-A-Myth-PosterWorshippers at the alter of Gore (We’re guessing Al Gore is doing a little praying of his own right about now.) are having their faith in global warming being tested like never before as the key scientist behind the theory reveals truths he and other climatologists have kept buried for years.

Professor Phil Jones, the climatologist that created the now infamous hockey stick graph, is admitting for the first time what many skeptics knew and what was uncovered by the leaking of key emails between global warming scientists.

First, Phil Jones admits that “for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”

Let us repeat that, “no statistically significant warming”.

Second, he admits that “the world was warmer in medieval times than now” suggesting that global warming is anything but man-made.

Third, Prof. “not-Indiana” Jones has admitted the data gathered from weather stations across the globe that was used to create the hockey stick graph global warming alarmists have hung their hat on has seemingly been “misplaced”.

Speaking of the weather stations climatologists rely on to gather data, seems even if Professor Jones had the data it wouldn’t be a reliable.  From Anthony Watts of surfacestations.org:

We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations—nearly 9 of every 10—fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited. It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.

The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7° C (about 1.2° F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.

So if key climatologist are now admitting that their data is a sham, warming over the past 15 years is a sham, and that the Earth was warmer just a few hundred years ago, what is the likely cause of climate change?

Well, if you believe the overwhelming majority of real scientists, it’s a combination of cyclical and extraterrestrial factors.  No, not aliens.  We’re talking about the sun, that giant ball of fire in the sky.

As one Russian scientists puts it:

"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity," Abdusamatov told RIA Novosti in an interview.

"It is no secret that when they go up, temperatures in the world's oceans trigger the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." [1]

The myth behind global warming is quickly unraveling.  Scientists are being found out to have manipulated data.  International agreements on climate regulation are falling apart.  The U.S. is undergoing it’s coldest and snowiest winter in over two decades.

But, perhaps what is more alarming than the exposure of global warming science fallacy is that it isn’t stopping President Obama and Congress from moving forward with a massive plan to restructure America’s economy by creating a new market for trading air under the guise of controlling global warming. 

Although Cap n’ Trade appears to be DOA in the Senate, President Obama’s own Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel indicated over the weekend that the President plans to usurp Congress’s congressional authority and use executive orders to push through global warming regulations without congressional approval.

“We are reviewing a list of presidential executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues,” said Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

Any president has vast authority to influence policy even without legislation, through executive orders, agency rule-making and administrative fiat.…

His administration has signaled that it plans to use its discretion to soften enforcement of the ban on openly gay men and lesbians serving in the military, even as Congress considers repealing the law. And the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with possible regulations on heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change

Only time will tell if Professor Phil Jones admissions that the science of global warming is anything but settled will be enough to finally bring an end to one of the biggest schemes to loot money from the public in the history of the Earth.

4 comments:

Kyle Rohde said...

Very interesting admissions from Jones but, as I always do when the story is in the Daily Mail, wonder why other news outlets aren't reporting the same?

James said...

Here is the original source interview done by the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Just curious, what's your bias for the Mail based on? To my knowledge it's a reputable news agency... atleast as much so as some other media outlets, like the NY Times.


I'm a fan of the vlog Cranky Geeks (a tech show hosted by John C Dvorak) and they have people from the Mail on quite frequently and they've never struck me as anything other than professionals.

Kyle Rohde said...

Thanks James - I guess my hang-up with the Mail is second-hand comments I've heard from BBC personalities and other people that make it sound almost like a tabloid. I need to read more of it and judge it for myself, and this article is a great example of that. Thanks for sharing!

PFL0W said...

again, the ice caps are melting, the glaciers are melting, the oceans are rising, we're losing whole islands and seashore, worldwide and they are melting at historically unprecedented rates.

How can anyone deny this?

Besides, the fact is, the ways we are living on this planet are completely, totally and irrefutably unsustainable. We are devouring the planet. If someone comes along and suggests we conserve our environment and pollute less, doesn't that make sense?

Mo Rage