Malone Today

It is now rea­son­able to label global warm­ing, more for­mally known as Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing (AGW) a fraud per­pe­trated by a group of self-​serving sci­en­tists, doom­say­ers, and wannabes. For years we’ve been bom­barded with scary fore­casts and dire reports of man-​made cat­a­stro­phe. Skep­ti­cism was met with dis­mis­sive ridicule as deniers, equat­ing crit­ics with Holo­caust deniers. Fas­cism was the modis operandi of the the reli­gion of global warm­ing. The pur­vey­ors in the US were led by the likes of Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and many oth­ers. Their part­ners in the U.K. were Phil Jones and his crew at the Cli­matic Research Unit. They defined the prob­lem, con­trolled the research, and horded the data. Gov­ern­ments and oth­er­wise well-​meaning peo­ple bowed to their demands with amen-​like sup­port and money. Oth­er­wise respectable orga­ni­za­tions like NASA, NOAA, and the EPA in the US and their coun­ter­parts around the world remade them­selves to sup­port the reli­gion of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing. The media, like eager lem­mings, made great evan­ge­lists. But, as with any tale, all good things must come to an end and so did the reign of global warm­ing. Some­one, likely a whistle­blower within the global warm­ing com­mu­nity, in a moment of remorse (or spite, it doesn’t really mat­ter), released (so far) over 165 megabytes of secre­tive global warm­ing data and email. The reli­gion of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing (AGW) is now laid bare for the junk sci­ence and fraud that it is.

A heretic I might be, but the reli­gion of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing is and was allegedly based on sci­ence not faith. As such, the story can begin and end with the data.

Almost since the begin­ning of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing, its pur­vey­ors horded their data, allow­ing only manip­u­lated data to be released. This con­trol allowed them to say and do what they wanted. In hind­sight, shame on the gov­ern­ments that paid for the data, even par­tic­i­pated. As sci­ence, this data should have been freely avail­able from day one for any­one to review, val­i­date, or debunk. Now faced with their scan­dalous email and soft­ware code that unmis­take­ably cre­ated desired Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing results, they offer to release their data. But, alas, as their own emails make clear, they already deleted their raw data (in some cases very inten­tion­ally to avoid dis­clo­sure) and can now only offer their manip­u­lated data.

Set­ting aside the pol­i­tics of the pur­vey­ors of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing, ignor­ing for a moment their con­trol of the con­ver­sa­tion, of what got pub­lished, and who par­tic­i­pated in the con­ver­sa­tions, the sin­gle most impor­tant ele­ment of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing is the data. With­out the source data Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing is noth­ing. It is not sci­ence and, at least for me, it is not a reli­gion that I can take on faith.

Now, regard­ing the pur­vey­ors of Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing that include Al Gore, James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and so many oth­ers, they are noth­ing more than liars and witch doc­tors to me. I’ve had enough of their dire doom­say­ing, their holier-​than-​thou atti­tudes, their insin­u­a­tions that deniers of their faith are not much bet­ter than Holo­caust deniers. Enough.

What is left? Let’s all take a new look at the data – rebuild the raw data, eval­u­ate it’s ori­gins and cred­i­bil­ity, and con­sider other pos­si­bil­i­ties. Here in the U.S. the col­lec­tion of data has evolved and some data is sus­pect (con­sider Mohonk Lake USHCN as an exam­ple, and look at the more com­pre­hen­sive qual­ity plot and sur­face sta­tion data). Even more sus­pect than the data sources is the way that the result­ing data is used and manip­u­lated. The pur­vey­ors of AGW became mas­ters at adjust­ing this data to cre­ate desired results.

Regard­ing other pos­si­bil­i­ties, the influ­ence of solar cycles and other non-​man-​made causes are roundly rejected by AGW pur­vey­ors. That is, in pub­lic at least. The recently released email tell a dif­fer­ent story – that solar cycles do have impact. But this was ulti­mately rejected and sup­pressed because it didn’t pro­mote AGW. Now that we are in what some are call­ing a solar min­i­mum, even a poten­tial mini-​Ice Age, it is increas­ingly hard to ignore other causes of cli­mate change. Even AGW pur­vey­ors admit pri­vately in their email that the ongo­ing weather does not sus­tain the reli­gion of AGW. For nearly a decade tem­per­a­tures have decreased. Fur­ther­more, glimpses of data sug­gest that the AGW data was manip­u­lated to sup­press much warmer peri­ods in the past and that pre-​1960 data was incom­pat­i­ble with post-​1960 data, sug­gest­ing recent cool­ing instead of global warming.

Finally, no one has con­clu­sively said if global warm­ing, if it can be proven, is really a bad thing after all. Surely the increased grow­ing sea­sons in the Amer­i­can mid­west and Cana­dian plains is a good thing. Milder win­ters in Siberia might also be very wel­comed by Russians.

Bot­tom line for me is that (1) I want to see real data, not data faked to cre­ate a desired result and cover up incon­ve­nient infor­ma­tion; (2) let’s get real about what mankind can and does have abil­ity to influ­ence; (3) let’s dis­cuss what is good and bad about cli­mate change; and (4) let’s be more real­is­tic about what mankind is really doing to the environment.

Regard­ing the lat­ter, I am always dis­mayed to see ‘Blame Amer­ica First’ as the quick response among AGW pur­vey­ors. This is politically-​motivated and incred­i­bly short­sighted. Granted that most AGW advo­cates may not have trav­eled exten­sively and are rely­ing on the words of oth­ers, but I have trav­eled to 47 coun­tries and can say with­out hes­i­ta­tion that the U.S. is among the clean­est, best kept areas on the planet. The real prob­lem areas – and the ones explic­itly excluded by the AGW pur­vey­ors – are China, India, Mex­ico and other third world and devel­op­ing coun­tries. These places are often absolutely filthy and there is no appar­ent regard for the environment.

Until some­one can inde­pen­dently prove Anthro­pogenic Global Warm­ing exists, it is dead. The pur­vey­ors need to be held account­able for their sci­en­tific fraud, deceit, and actions. In the mean­time, maybe we can have a sub­stan­tive dis­cus­sion on what we can do to respect the envi­ron­ment? Like, for starters, stop littering!

2 Responses to “Global Warming? Show me the data!”