Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Jun 21, 2011

Scientists demand respect, while fudging the data again.

Images: Loy Yang A power station. (L) as it is, and (R) as depicted by a Melbourne newspaper.

"The Australian," has published a report (as usual, complete with belching smokestack photo) on how climate scientists are demanding to be respected, claiming:
“The valuable and credible work of all scientists is under attack as a result of a noisy misinformation campaign by climate denialists,'' the Chief Executive of the Federation of Australian Science and Technological Societies, Anna Maria Arabia said.

At an anti-carbon tax rally of up to about-400 people in Melbourne yesterday there were placards such as ``Co2 is Good'' while promotional material from the organisers the Consumer and Tax Payers Association said Co2 was ``100 per cent beneficial.''
FASTS said the ``misinformation campaign'' on climate science was undermining the work of all scientists.
``It is this rigorous peer review science process that provides decision makers with the confidence they need to make important decisions about our nation's future,'' FASTS president Dr Cathy Foley said.
This is probably the same rigorous peer review process that resulted in Climategate, the discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph, and numerous examples of fudged figures.

Himalayagate falls into a special category of peer review. Apparently some ‘reputable’ climate scientist got on the piss with a couple of guys who had been told by a Sherpa, that the Himalayan glaciers were disappearing at an alarming rate. As the two guys were equally lubricated at the time, it was considered to be peer reviewed and thus found its way into the IPCC Report.

Now it appears that we are having a ‘virtual’ sea level rise:
The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters -- or about the thickness of a fingernail -- every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

"Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring," said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.
Perhaps the ‘rising’ land might account for the tendency of climate scientists, politicians, and environmentalists to think the sky is falling.

No comments:

Post a Comment