Doubtful Data in Denmark

The UN sponsored Climate Change Conference ignored the fact that its entire basis is a subject for debate among scientists. What happened to truth in scientific method and what will happen to our quality of life if the debate stays frozen?

Danny Hershtal,

guest
guest
Arutz 7


CRU scientists knowingly contorted data, violated the IPCC standards, suppressed skeptics and manipulated the peer review process.
Question for the UN Sponsored Climate Change Conference:
Which of the following are completely frozen:

a. Building in Judea and Samaria
b. Carbon emissions
c. Temperatures in Copenhagen

The answer, unfortunately, is a, but that freeze is not on the agenda in Denmark. In fact, the UN's Copenhagen Climate Change Conference appeared to implode from within and explode from without what with violent protestors, police reactions to them and heated debates between Western and developing countries. All this probably raised world temperatures, bringing me to add another frozen topic:

d. The debate over the veracity of climate change data, which should be defrosted immediately.

In order to attend this United Nations massive conference on climate change, the world’s leaders and environmental jet-setters flew to Copenhagen International on their chartered airplanes, there to decide what punitive taxes to impose on commercial airlines for those of us who cannot avail ourselves of taxpayer-funded chartered airplanes.

The basis for taxing and restricting air travel and other carbon and carbon dioxide output activities (breathing?) is the Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory or AGW. The AGW theory claims that the Earth’s surface and ocean temperatures are steadily rising and that this rise has been caused by the increase in manmade carbon pollution since the onset of the industrial revolution. It should be noted that even the maximalist proponents of the theory only attribute a 0.75 degree temperature rise over the 20th century and claim that only a portion of this is anthropogenic – i.e. man caused. However, in 1988, the United Nations empanelled the International Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, to address the issues of AGW and make recommendations. Since then, the IPCC has released 4 key assessment reports.

The term “climate change” was adopted by the IPCC so as to remain neutral about the global warming. However, the first assessment report  “settled the science” and “proved” the AGW to be true. Oddly, as if on heavenly cue, surface temperatures immediately began to cool. The current decade has been significantly cooler than its two predecessors. The “settled science” came into question.

In 2005, hurricane expert Christopher Landsea resigned from the IPCC before the fourth assessment report was released. He viewed the process "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

A large amount of environmental climate research has been conducted at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. Last month, someone hacked into their e-mail accounts and posted a number of them online at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/.

The running thread through these e-mails was that the CRU scientists knowingly contorted data, violated the IPCC standards, suppressed skeptics and manipulated the peer review process.

The scientists who wrote the e-mails confirmed that the e-mails were factual but disputed the interpretation. For instance they say that using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures is not a deception but a proven scientific technique. They were more hard-pressed to explain why they would rather delete hard research data than allow it to be reviewed by other scientists, especially when they were asked by the media to produce the raw data and admitted that it had been deleted. I encourage everyone to use the search
Scientists claimed they helped the average person understand the problem, without exposing him to annoying contradictory facts.
tool on the website to skim through as many e-mails as possible.

Scientists not directly related to the CRU work could not deny that the CRU had been fudging some results and suppressing others. However, environmentalists like Dan Esty have actually justified the misdoings by stating that by doing so, the scientists helped the average person understand the problem, without exposing him to annoying contradictory facts.

The e-mails, while damaging, do not debunk AGW completely. However, they do merit returning to scientific principles and reopening the debate on whether or not carbon emissions have a significant detrimental effect on the planet.

However, even as the CRU e-mails have moved from the blogosphere into mainstream news, world leaders and delegations to the Copenhagen conference have refused to reopen the debate. The only topic on the agenda will be which extreme measures all governments can agree upon to punish their citizens for releasing carbon and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere..

I am an environmentalist. I believe that we should maintain a clean society and that local governments must dispose of waste in responsibly. I want the preservation of green spaces and conservation of natural resources, but I also appreciate the quality of life that progressive industry and technology have provided us. Before our society takes drastic steps to curtail its progress and the conveniences, such as air travel, which facilitate business, investment and leisure, we must have an open and honest debate on the veracity of AGW and evaluate the risk/benefit ratio.

Israel was represented by President Shimon Peres, who spoke eloquently of Israel’s commitment to environmental protection research and innovation, and by Environment Minister Gilad Erdan. If they would only call for a cautious reevaluation of AGW with fair and open debate, based on raw data available to all parties, it would be to Israel’s and the world’s benefit.

Shakespeares’ Hamlet was staged in Denmark, whence the well known phrase “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” The solution, appearing in the same play, “this above all, to thine own self be true”, holds for scientists as well as VIP’s.


 





top