Når FN’s klimapanel tvivler på sine egne manipulationer

Diverse — Drokles on November 30, 2011 at 8:08 am

Af en eller anden grund optager de lækkede klima-emails ikke den danske presse. Hverken Politiken eller Information, der begge har en særlig klimasektion på deres hjemmesider har nævnt dem med et ord. Journalistisk ser de ellers spændende nok ud, som Jim Lacey beskriver dem i National Review, hvor de ledende forskere, som har det endelige ord over FN’s klimarapporter udtrykker stærk tvivl over den virkelighed de manipulerer med.

Unfortunately, from the very beginning, the core group at the heart of Climategate had no interest in “scientific truth.” As one states: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.” In other words, let’s decide on a conclusion and then use only evidence that proves that point, discarding everything else. One scientist who seems to have been slightly troubled by these methods wrote: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” In another note to Phil Jones, this same scientist complained: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”

Of course, nothing of the sort was done. As one e-mail states: “The figure you sent is very deceptive . . . there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change].” Too bad these so-called scientists felt they could tell the truth only to one another and not the public at large. Some of the other truths they shared only with one another are astounding. For instance, one writes: “I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!” So, despite having no confidence in any of the models the IPCC was using in its reports, this scientist was ready to support the IPCC findings to the hilt. And why didn’t he believe the models? Easy: They were designed to tell the big lie. For example, when confronted with the problem that if all the data were included, the warming disappeared, Phil Jones turned to a novel method: He used only “[time] periods that showed warming.”

Churchill sagde at man ikke skulle stole på statistik man ikke selv havde manipuleret.

2 Kommentarer »

  1. Der skrives heller ikke meget om klimapanelets bedrifter i det sommervarme Durban. Co2 er stadig farlig forurening, Climagate 2.0 eksisterer ikke. Vor presse er rettroende tilhængere af Climatology religionen. Vindmøller er godt, a-kraft må ikke nævnes.

    Comment by Sailor — December 1, 2011 @ 1:18 am
  2. Jorden går altid mere under op til et klimatopmøde end den plejer.

    Comment by Drokles — December 2, 2011 @ 10:41 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress