Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: Politix |
A big chill on global warming |
2009-10-17 |
![]() But reaching a new consensus will be exceedingly difficult because the raw data on which the landmark 1996 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its conclusion has been destroyed. The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit acknowledged in August that it discarded data that, in addition to the IPCC report, has been cited by other international studies as the main justification for severe restrictions on carbon emissions worldwide. This development raises more troubling doubts about global warming just as scientists and policymakers are expected to call for harsh new limits on energy use in its name when they meet in December in Copenhagen, Denmark. Every schoolchild knows that the last step in the scientific method is independent reproduction of results. But lost climate data cannot be reproduced, which is a huge problem for everybody. "Every time CRU massaged the temperature data, they were getting more warming from the same numbers. It's incumbent upon scientists to find out why, but you can't find out if you don't have the data," Dr. Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, told The Examiner. "The data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared." The Competitive Enterprise Institute has formally requested that the Environmental Protection Agency, which helps fund CRU, "reopen the record" and allow CEI and others to submit newly uncovered information regarding the East Anglia data destruction. The conservative think tank also wants to submit information about flaws in other data EPA is using as it devises stringent new anti-global warming regulations. Congress should also investigate the dumping of data partially paid for by U.S. taxpayers and other suspicious global warming anomalies, such as the temperature readings taken from "ghost weather stations" like the one at Maine's Ripogenus Dam. It was officially closed in 1995 but allegedly is still transmitting climate data 14 years later. Such questionable data sources must be eliminated if credible policy decisions are ever to be reached. |
Posted by:Fred |
#7 "prediction is hard, especially when it is about the future." |
Posted by: eLarson 2009-10-17 19:32 |
#6 Time for "Cap and trade" to get "capped." |
Posted by: JohnQC 2009-10-17 16:04 |
#5 > Yet this data goes into the climate models that confident predict temperatures a 100 years in the future. It wouldn't matter if that data was 100% accurate. You cannot model the future accurately. The amount of error grows exponentially until it swamps any signal. At 95% model accuracy (an over-estimate) it will take 13-14 "loops" to have a 50% chance of accuracy. |
Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2009-10-17 10:37 |
#4 Doesn't matter: Global Warming is Pravda for people running USA now. |
Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-10-17 07:57 |
#3 The FARK.com CATZ frown heavily on those HUSKY DAWG-WITH-SUNGLASSES shennigans. |
Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-10-17 02:07 |
#2 These problems lead into the real issue, which is that pre-satellite era the measurements and data just aren't good enough to say whether the 20th century warmed or cooled. For most of the planet (the oceans) and for most of the 20th century, the main way temperatures were measured was to throw a bucket over the side of a ship, haul it up on deck and stick a thermometer in it. Clearly, such a method will be subject to many large influences. Much larger than the claimed temperature increases. Yet this data goes into the climate models that confident predict temperatures a 100 years in the future. There are similar sampling issues with land based temperatures. |
Posted by: phil_b 2009-10-17 01:58 |
#1 Warms my heart. |
Posted by: gorb 2009-10-17 00:27 |