Climate Data Review: Fox Guarding Henhouse

Amazingly, the science is so settled and the data so picture perfect that leading climate alarmists want a do over

The two most influential advisory bodies on climate change are planning independent reviews of their research in an attempt to regain public trust after revelations about errors and the suppression of data.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to appoint an independent team to examine its procedures after admitting having made errors that exaggerated the severity of the impact of global warming.

The Met Office, which supplies the global temperature trends used by the IPCC, has proposed that an international group of scientists re-examine 160 years of temperature data. The Met Office proposal is a tacit admission that its previous reports on such trends have been marred by their reliance on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

Question: why only 160 years? Why only look at data from the end of the Little Ice Age? I’m sure you have your own answer, and mine would be “because the published charts and graphs will make it look like the world just started warming around the time industrialization really started popping, which means they can still blame Mankind.”

Second question: is it not crazy to have two of the most biased organizations which have a pro-AGW agenda in charge?

The problem is not just the temperature data, but the notion that changes in climate are a direct result of Man’s actions and lifestyle. Even without Climategate, without the numerous “errors” in the latest IPCC report, and all the other issues that have cropped up, it still comes down to a simple equation: is the post Little Ice Age warming caused mostly/solely by Mankind? Why is this warming trend different from the numerous ones that have occurred during the Earth’s 4 billion year history?

There is no doubt that Man does play some small piece in the puzzle. Agriculture and landfills certainly release greenhouse gasses, as do 6 billion humans. We can work on the landfills, but, will we cut down on our food production, not to mention humans? Certainly, that is what some climate alarmists, extreme envirowackos who have adopted the globull warming mantle for their own nefarious purposes, advocate.

There is also no doubt that the temperature records are flawed (alarmists are covering their eyes, if not spitting on their computer screens about now), since the number of monitoring stations have not only gone down tremendously over the last decade, but quite a few of them are located in sub-optimal locations which give improper readings. Stations out in the countryside, where the most accurate readings will occur, have been heavily reduced. Much of the data sets are reliant on stations located in areas where the Urban Island Affect is in full force.

And, it still comes down to the basic premise for those who think feel that Mankind is at fault: prove it. Of course, this little inquiry into the data will take up to 3 years, so, plenty of time for alarmists to do what they do best: deny reality and blame everything (hot, cold, wet, dry) on anthropogenic global warming.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend