BLACK IS WHITE (AGAIN)
>> Tuesday, December 08, 2009
This morning, the Times reported that the World Meteorological Orgainsation, using data from CRU, and with the clear purpose of influencing the discussions at Copenhagen, had claimed that this year had been the fifth warmest on record. Hours later, our dear BBC environnment correspondent Richard Black reports the same story. He mentions that there's some controversy about the figures - and about CRU - but without a peep about the key propaganda point. He seems to take the whole thing at its face value, and ignores completely that these weather organisations are involved in a massive rigging exercise. Not only that, his story is illustrated with a blazing sun and a rigged graph that is a crude schoolboy variation of the hockey stick. How much more blatant can you be?
10 comments:
<span style=""> this year had been the fifth warmest on record. </span>
What planet is that? Mars? Cos it sure wasn't the earth.
From rigged/faked polls showing majority public support for the global warming swindle to using rigged and faked graphs to support a climate conference based on fraud and fakery, that just about sums the multi billion pound BBC doesnt it?
THE BBC WE LIE AND WE CHEAT AND WE USE FAKERY AND FORGERY BECAUSE THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
He's not ignoring it: he's trying to explain it away. Things are very messy, you see. There are far more stations in the US and Europe than in the middle of Africa and places like that. And many of them are there for weather readings, so they take temperature readings. So the fudging...er...taking that into account and correlating the data is totally understandable. Plus there are, gosh, ships traveling around taking ocean temperatures as they go, bouys with thermometers, and satellites. All of which can be filtered any way they want, of course. But we're supposed to trust them implicitly. because November was really warm. The CRU guys may have been controlling data for a desired outcome, but the Met Office is totally honest about it all. Pay no attention to the early snowstorms and record cold weather of the past year.
The Met Office says the data sets are independent from each other, and Black leaps to the defense. Thank goodness for honest, unbiased reporting.
The problem is not so much the data sets but the computer models and assumptions that are used to crunch the figures. We saw that with the hockey stick graph you can put any data in and get only one result out.
So they are confident they are right despite:
The Met Office is to re-examine 60 years of climate data in an effort to ensure the accuracy of historical records used to gauge the extent of global warming.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233426/Met-Office-review-60-years-data-amid-claims-figures-doctored-support-climate-change-fears.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0Z1t6x9NH
But it does not matter if they are right or not. It does not matter if this is the hottest year in a million years. They keep coming out with this stuff but do not have any evidence what has caused the warming (or cooloing). They take it as read that we all beleive that the only possible cause for warming is CO2 whereas there is no proof for that hypothesis at all. This is where the crux of the matter is, and this where they are at their most dishonest.
I tend to take the other view. People can argue until the cows come home about what factors influence climate - including man and eg. CO2.
But the whole debate is dead if there is NO Global Warming, man-made or otherwise. That is - if there is no good evidence that we are in a period of UNPRECEDENTED and CONTINUAL warming.
That was the aim of the fraudulent hockey-stick graphs. Which flattened the Medieval Warming Period and therefore lost the subsequent cooling period/mini-iceage.
We keep being told that there are thousands of scientists preaching AGW. But all the work of the IPCC in terms of temperature charts for the past 2000 years pivots on the incestuous papers by just a few key names - Phil Jones and Briffa at the CRU, Michael Mann, Bradley. That crowd and their friends ARE the IPCC's scientific component - all marching in lockstep and keeping out any dissident opinion.
Here's a recent paper dscribing the fraud at the centre of the IPCC's temperature reports :
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Virtually none of this stuff gets any coverage on the BBC. But it is the CENTRAL question - is there unprecedented and continuing warming or not ?
I have just read the article showing the NOAA/GCHN data. Wow. The chap Willis has done a lot of work on that. But our Dear Leaders will complete ignore it of course and get every nearer their dream of a One World Totalarian Government of The Elite.
Of course the MET office would say the data is independent of each other...which of course is a complete lie. All three data sets are related to each other, with the GCHN (dont kill me if I got the acronym wrong!) being the basis of the other two data sets (which are substantially built upon it).
So when al beeb wanks on about other scientists using other data sets and still coming up with the same answer...well what the fuck do you think they would come up with since the data is the same in the first place!
Mailman
Alarmist Eye Candy:
Magic Tricks Explained http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg
Central England Don't Panic! http://i48.tinypic.com/xfvoyg.jpg
"Value-Added" Data http://i46.tinypic.com/t63qxe.jpg
Exactly. And still no mention anywhere that the vaunted computer models themselves are crap.
Post a Comment