Archives
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
FOLLOWUP AND UPDATE. Some of our comments are so good they have to be reassigned as posts. That's true of this one by Lake, who has dug into the nuts and bolts of the AGW scandals with the ferocity of a committed science teacher, which he is. He's offering good information here, and I thank him for sharing after I suggested I'd done enough work on the subject to put some of the onus for further debunking on everybody who doesn't want their lives run by the Green Police.
You don't owe me anything, but you and the original Climategate have dominated my thoughts and research work since November. I have a lot of mindspace invested in this, in part because I am a science teacher looking for a golden opportunity. If I can disabuse some of the die-hards in the next generation who have bought into the farce, I'd be happy. Our school is in the midst of a 'green cup challenge' that has some kids studying in the dark with a flashlight and such...
My moment might come in the upcoming spring term, as our department chair may be starting a new class to study the issue. I've already pushed to get at least a class period worth of time to present some of the shockingly obvious problems with the whole field.
Two things for those of you who are inclined to read further:
First, a fully documented look at the ridiculous decline in instruments that are used to generate these climate models. Not only are they down from 6000 stations to fewer than 1500, the trimming has been intentional and selective for lower latitudes, fewer mountains, etc. It's right there, on the GISS website, in the middle (click graphic for page link):
Here's a long but very readable paper that dissects the whole temperature measurement issue in great detail: SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS:
POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION?. It's co-authored by Anthony Watts, the guy who took it on himself to lead the volunteer-driven survey of all the surface stations in the US -- you know, since the government agencies responsible for them didn't think it was necessary, I guess.
Second, here's an email-by-email fisking of the entire Climategate correspondence dump. Screw the 'hide the decline' sound bytes -- this document tells an incredibly damning tale, and while it's 148 pages long, it read like a thriller to me. PDF: Climategate Analysis. At the very least, read the introductory essay and then pick a page at random and read the email, the context, and Costella's fair but dead-on analysis.
If the subject of these emails comes up in a debate with any believers you know, challenge them to lower their gaze from the quotes perched at the tip and read the whole black iceberg. I can't imagine someone trying to explain it all away.
There. What HE said.
UPDATE. Tried to interest Hotair in Lake's beautifully concise science post for nonscientists. No takers. (Allah responded but said he'd been busy, no time to look at it. You know. Otherwise engaged on important stuff. Ah well. Acquisition fever, no doubt. No hard feelings.) However: here's a fitting postscript for a contribution I have a hunch will become better known and frequently referenced by truthseekers in future:
Neat, huh?
