Dammit, Kim beat me to it. I saw this article the other day but didn't bother to read it at the time. Short version, Mr. Monckton notes exactly how the UN(got to increase our power over the world) and 'scientists' more concerned with pushing a political agenda than facts screwed the data and findings to show what they want you to see, not what the data actually is. Just to whet your appetite:
Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "
So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:
And there's more to come:
This week, I'll show how the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.
Next week, I'll demonstrate the atrocious economic, political and environmental cost of the high-tax, zero-freedom, bureaucratic centralism implicit in Stern's report; I'll compare the global-warming scare with previous sci-fi alarums; and I'll show how the environmentalists' "precautionary principle" (get the state to interfere now, just in case) is killing people.
Pretty much the only really nasty disagreements with people I've had over the last while have been over this 'climate change' crap. The people who wrote to disagree with me early in the history of this blog were quite nice about it; they disagreed and argued, they did not insult and threaten. In person? Different matter there, I've been hit with the "You don't read REAL sources" and "All RESPONSIBLE scientists agree" and so forth. So far, I haven't seen any unfiddled data to make me change my mind, and every time I've checked into the "We're all gonna die unless we act NOW!" stuff it's turned out to be anything from 'ignore the inconvenient facts' to flat-out falsified information. Usually from people who are a: truly worried about the world and think they have to do anything necessary(in their minds) to change things to power-hungry bureaucrats who see it as a way to grab more power.
I'll be watching for the next articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment