Posted by
TampaDoc on Thursday, December 10, 2009 12:23:27 AM
I recently did a blog on Global warming where I laid out a fair amount of data supporting my position. I supported key points pivotal specifically to the data the the Global Warming community was holding as their Holy Grail of fact. While debating someone recently on the importance of Climategate and wether there was any merit to Anthropogenic Global Warming. In spite of all of the data I presented I was asked for more and I had to defend against some of the propaganda that people have been brainwashed with. Please understand, I get it. I watched the news the other night which started by talking about the most severe blizzard this early in the year in decades, followed by that 2009 could be the warmest year on record and that Global Warming was the worst threat to man-kind in the history of the world. It was at this point that I decided to compile the most comprehensive data to disprove the Gorians in a manner that would be as easy to understand as possible and also have enough supporting data to satisfy the nay sayers.
First of all, lets establishsome basline facts. I do not work for any large corporation, I run a software company. How am I qualified, well I'm not, I minored in physics and astro physics and geology but by education I am an aeronautical engineer. However I do understand the scientific process and my math skills are fairly good particularily in crunching data. I'm not anti environment, in fact I feel very strongly about the stewardship of this planet, I want my children to get it the same way I got it if not better. I do not however wish to be restrained by scare tactics designed to oppress the progress of mankind. Having said that, I'll procede. I will warn you all now that this is going to be a tremendous amount of data, so you better plan on some time, but I promise you that you will come away with much new found data. I am also going to mix in several videos with some good factual data and I will pepper in other supporting data.
First of all, Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud. It's not just a little fudging of data, it is an out right fraud involving felonies. You were not only lied to and decieved, but the very data to scientifically dispute the GW claims was deliberately destroyed in an attempt to block peer review. Fortunately, they only destroy a small amount and the rest is out there. And oh did I mention the yleft the most damning information in tact that came out in the Climategate data. I'll get to that later, First I'll start with this video and I'll support that data from each part.
Now I'm not argueing that Earth got warmer then usual during the 90s, it did. But was it caused by CO2, no! Was it cause by man, no! Was it caused by Algore? maybe! Seriously, if you want to know what caused it, it's simple, walk outside at noon tomorrow and look up. That's right, it's the Sun! Solar activity (solar flares, sun spots) effect temperatures. There are regular recorded cycles that have proven that they effect the temeratures. These periods of activity go on for years. This caused warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period where for 400 years temperatures were far in excess of current temperatures.
Now the GWLs claim that it wasn't as warm as it is now, howwever they were trees in Greenland, they were growing grapes in northern England, Greenland and Labrador in areas that to this day can't support cold tolerent hybrids that didn't exist in Medieval times. Oh, nay sayer, you want proof, look at the names of streets and farms in northern England, they are still named after vineyards that have been gone for 800 years.
Fact: CO2 levels rise as a reult of temperature increses not the other way around.
CO2 always FOLLOWS temerature.
Now this may shock some of you, but the Sun is what makes the Earth hotter or colder. Wow, what a concept! Imagine that, cycles in sunspots make earth warmer or colder, in fact, unless our GW is spreading to Mars, the Sun has warmed Mars as well
and guess what, the other planets too!
So the left say that the reason we are dispoving their hoax is out of greed. Well the reason they created the hoax was greed and power. This is the part of the story where the anti-capitalist/Marxist moved in with and shacked up with the environmentalist.
Now I'm going to point out to you hear that it's easy to manipulate the data, remember that!
And many people say "Why would the media allow this hoax to go on?"
So If al of this is true, why is it never in the news? Well it is actually, but there is so much of the propaganda by the GW community that it gets lost, I mean do you remember this story?
The bombardment of propaganda combined with the suppression of any opposition has left this one sided. And it's not like the scientist haven't been speaking up, they have. This letter to the UN was a plee for truth and sanity, the UN wants neither.
Here are the credentials of the scientist. You'll notice that several of these are scientist from the IPCC. They were ignored because they wouldn't "playball".
So I know I alluded to the accusation of destroying and manipulating data, well let's look at what happened to the data. First of all that got rid of the baseline data so that no one could check their work except to use their doctored numbers.
This by the way violates both Britains and the U.S.s Freedom of Information Act and is a felony. Once the data was disgarded, how do you manipulate data to do what you want it to do in the output for review. Well that's simple, you doctor the formula. Many in the science community (infact many outside the science community) knew they were doctoring the data, but how? Well you all heard of "ClimateGate", right?
Well it wasn't just emails,
Well one of the documents was the "code" for doctoring the program that calculates the famous "Hockey stick" graph. And if you thin the emails are a smoking gun, look at this.
CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
What's it mean? We don't want to use the other data
Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
What's it mean? From the 40s to the 60s temperatures were dropping, they didn't want to show falling temperatures during one of the heaviest periods of CO2 output.
Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
What's it mean? Again, temperatures dropped in the 40s and they didn't want that to show
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
What's it mean? Since we dunped the baseline data, we'll just make up the data instead
printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
What's it mean? We want the data to match the tree ring data we picked
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’
What's it mean? Reconstruct data to match our hand picked tree ring data
printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.
What's it mean? Ditch this data
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
What's it mean? What, I need to translate this?
;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***
What's it mean? Every time you change real data to fake, recalibrate it or it will look wrong
Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
What's it mean? Use recallibrated real data here
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.
What's it mean? We have sucessfully faked the data so now it looks like it's rising through the 20th century and that moves the mean (average) temperature where we want it
we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines(...)
; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)
What's it mean? We can't have the Medieval Warm Period above current temperatures, so we'll calibrate it totally away, look: it disappeared!
So who is backing this scam and why? The CRU is funded by the oil companies, guess who has a huge future in carbon credits?
Oh and lets not forget tha tall of the small counties of the world think they'll get monry from us and have power over us. Oh wes, and if this gets signed the UN would have power over our economy.Got an extra day? Read this
I know that was a lot of data. I hope it helps, I trust you've learned something. If you weren't sure, I'll bet you are now. Notice I didn't even use the emails? But why should I, you've seen them, the FORTRAN code fills in the blanks. So whe nsomeone trys to tell you that the emails didn't mean what it looked like, you know what it meant! I have a lot of data and graphs I didn't include, most people wouldn't get it anyway and those of you that would, you know how to find them! If you still believe in GW, I've got some prime land in southwest Florida that's a bargain, all waterfront.