Not that it comes as a surprise, but one member of the "climate change" cabal busily engaged in burying research suggesting that sunspot activity effects Earth's temperature is John Holdren, Obama's science czar, formerly Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.
When the Harvard University Gazette took Holdren's ideological temperature back in March of 2001, he announced that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had largely ended "the debate over whether human-induced climate change is happening." The debate was officially closed, we now have confirmation, by fraudulent data whose ascendancy was protected by an academically organized shut-out of opposing views and competing research.
This confirmation was delivered via exposed email correspondence and copies of the Fortran code used to deliver warnings of catastrophic global warming that failed to materialize except in the predictions coming out one end of a sketchy computerized model while cherry-picked, carefully sequestered data was being pumped into the other end. The idea, it seems, was to scare everyone on the planet, from kindergarteners to presidents, that the end was near, unless somebody did something drastic.
Holdren said he believes that global warming – which he prefers to term "global climate disruption" – will come to be known as an even more difficult problem than people today expect.
The the term climate disruption, of course, puts the blame on a climate disruptor, in this case a carbon dioxide emitter, and that doesn't mean the Pacific Ocean, which produces 72% of the world's CO2 or the Earth's population of termites, which emit ten times more CO2 than all the factories and automobiles on the planet. It means you, your transportation, your heat and light, manufactured goods, comfort, health, etc., etc. Back in early 2001, before the attack of 9-11, few Americans expected that a widely accepted fear of a global warming catastrophe would be used as a pretext for depriving them of their liberties, doubling the cost of their energy bills, and merging their country into a socialistic world government. Little did America suspect, in March of 2001, that in November of 2009, a newly appointed president of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy, would proclaim: "2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet."
From the Essex County Examiner:
According to Tim Ball and Judi McLeod at Canada Free Press, Holdren was directly complicit in impugning the credibility of certain physicists who challenged the orthodox opinion on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), specifically with reference to the Medieval Warm Period of 800-1300, that preceded the Little Ice Age of 1400-1850. These physicists, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, published a paper in 2003, "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years", in the journal Climate Research, explaining their findings. In brief, they correlated average temperature, using humidity as a proxy, with sunspot activity, and found that sunspot activity correlated well with the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.Ball and McLeod at Canada Free Press published this October 2003 email from Holdren to Michael Mann (of hockey stick graph infamy) and Tom Wigley:
[snip]CRU Archive File No. 1066337021.txt contains a long series of back-to-back e-mails between John Holdren, then at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, in which Holdren argued with Nick Shultz, editor of Tech Central Station, as to the credibility of Soon and Baliunas as scientists. In that exchange, Holdren rather peremptorially told Schultz that AGW was now as obvious as are the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium.The Crimson article is available here.
Nucengineer, a commenter to Marc Steyn's post, Cooking the books on climate, shows the shape of things:
And Winston looked at the sheet handed him:I am wondering, will academia be willing to come forward and redeem its collective soul, or will the world's ivory towers remain "double-plus good"?
“Adjustments prior to 1972 shall be -0.2 degrees and after 1998 shall be +0.3 degrees.”
Winston wondered at the adjustment to the data. At this point, no one even knows if the data, prior to his adjustments, was raw data or already adjusted one or more times previously.
It didn’t matter. All Winston was sure of is that one of the lead climatologists needed more slope to match his computer model outputs. He punched out the new Fortran cards and then dropped the old cards into the Memory Hole where they were burned.
“There!” Winston exclaimed to himself. “Now the temperature data record is correct again; all is double-plus good.”
_________
Related posts:
No comments:
Post a Comment