One lie costs trillion$...
I've always thought it a bit unusual that the data supporting the most famous 'indication' of global warming was never put out into the public domain. After all, if it were clear, clean, and completely conclusive (as it looks in the hockey stick chart) then the proof would be obvious - or at least a lot less murky than it currently is.
But that data was never forthcoming. Which is kind of funny, because the projected trillions of dollars in costs that would be caused both by the COSTS of the supposed remediation of the problem and the effects of the same should have SOME reasonable justification. One scientist, backed by a whole lot of politicians, shouldn't be able to shove a lie through the system tho the point where the entire world is held hostage to it - right?
Yet that seems what was done.
How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie – Telegraph BlogsBut wait - it gets better.When McIntyre approached the Met Office and the CRU for more information they refused, claiming implausibly that it would damage Britain’s “international relations” with all the countries that supplied it. (Clue #1 - Damage international relations? How? - ed.) Later they went a step further and claimed the data had been mislaid. (Clue #2 - "The Dog Ate My Homework" works in grade school, once. If the kid has a dog. If it's important data, worth billions - you make backups early and often. - ed.)
And there McIntyre’s efforts to uncover the mystery of the Hockey Stick might have ended, had he not had a stroke of luck, as Chris Horner explains at Planet Gore.
“Years go by. McIntyre is still stymied trying to get access to the original source data so that he can replicate the Mann 1998 conclusion. In 2008 Mann publishes another paper in bolstering his tree ring claim due to all of the controversy surrounding it. A Mann co-author and source of tree ring data (Professor Keith Briffa of the Hadley UK Climate Research Unit) used one of the tree ring data series (Yamal in Russia) in a paper published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 2008, which has a strict data archiving policy. Thanks to that policy, Steve McIntyre fought and won access to that data just last week.” (Clue #3 - when you WON'T publish your data - and fight hard to keep it blocked - chances are you're a fraud. - ed)
When finally McIntyre plotted in a much larger and more representative range of samples than used those used by Briffa – though from exactly the same area – the results he got were startlingly different.Global cooling, anyone?Have a look at the graph at Climate Audit (which broke the story and has been so inundated with hits that its server was almost overwhelmed) and see for yourself.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/rcs_chronologies_rev2.gif
The scary red line shooting upwards is the one Al Gore, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa and their climate-fear-promotion chums would like you to believe in. The black one, heading downwards, represents scientific reality.
Think about it for a second - what's the one thing that environmentalists want over everyone?
Control. They want to be able to decide how large a house you have, how much electricity you should be able to use, what kind of car you drive - or even if you get to have a car, or appliances, or electricity...
So what better way than to manufacture a 'crisis' - and push hard to implement their solutions now, NOW, NOW - waste not a moment! - all the time telling people "You're gonna fry in your own grease if you don't listen to us!" Everything is spun towards that one goal - to gain control. Skeptics are derided and ridiculed. Cooling trends are dismissed as 'weather', not 'climate' - and then spun as indications that things are actually WARMING. Charts are constructed that make a .5 degree variation over a couple of centuries look like Mt. Everest - ignoring both the excellent possibility that thermometer calibrations weren't exactly 'precise' two centuries ago, and that variations in the solar output might have some small effect - and overlooking the small fact that two centuries in the life of the planet is the equivalent of a mayfly's blink.
In the mean time, the Earth does what it does. It warms, it cools. Now scientists are forecasting a couple of decades of cooler weather... and if the trend holds it could be a century or more.
Now think about it - we're already going into a cooling trend, and it's been going on for a while. The frantic efforts recommended by the environmentalists would have 'worked' - in that the temperature trend would have gone down. That it 'worked' showed they knew what they were doing - and would justify further intervention in the name of 'saving the planet'.
But it looks like the con men aren't making their case fast enough. The marks are wising up - and aren't buying the con like they did at first. Carbon credits have become essentially worthless, and for all Al Gore pontificates, he's getting a lot less traction than he used to.
The next year or two will tell - people are getting fed up with the crisis mongers screetching about the environment. They're looking at a 2 degree projection and going "2 degrees worst case? Humans can adapt - we live from the equator to the polar circle - from deserts to the Himalayas . Maybe there won't be so many polar bears looking at igloos as 'frozen meals' - they're predators, they can find something to eat. Life will go on."
And it will.
J.




