Hello, Townhall listeners. When I received he invitation to be a contributing author, I was surprised. No one (except perhaps Premo) reads my normal drivel. After confirming that the invite was, in fact, real, I felt humbled. I also felt concerned. I would now have to post things that didn’t detract from the quality work done here at the Town Hall. My own site, eh. But someone else’s site? I would have to dig deep to maintain quality.
So there I sat, wondering just what to contribute. It took me a while, but I decided upon the following: My pet peeve, among all other peeves, is Global Warming. For those that know me, you kn0w this is one topic that I try to stay on top of, and tend to rant about with quite a passion. As such, I feel that my best way to tackle the contribution dilemma is to work with what I know. I shall be your voice of all things AGW. If nothing else, it will keep me focused.
So anyway, we all know the fiasco that was Copenhagen. Glorious Leader (er, El Presidente) came to a meaningless agreement with the likes of China and India. What I want to focus on, however, is the earlier news story- Climategate. For those who follow such things, you know that the release of a horde of emails between the so-called “elite scientists” was a major scandal that never made it to the main stream news cycle. (Gosh! What a shock!)
There were those who had plagued the East Anglia University for their data under Britain’s Freedom of Information. Of course, they were stonewalled, leading to suspicion among skeptics. Then, under the light of Climategate, the requestors were told “we got rid of all of our original data, and only have the ‘adjusted’ values.”
Huh? What scientist dumps their raw data? Ah yes. Those scientists who are caught with their pants down and cannot afford to be ruined even further. Well, it seems that the data they ‘lost’ had been sent to other groups (those groups who agreed with the AGW theory) such as the Meteorological Office of the UK- hereafter call The Met.
According to The Met:
The Met Office received the data information from Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released..
Interesting. First, the scientists ‘lost’ the data. Now, the data mysteriously appears (after lots of pressure) at The Met. You can get the raw data here. What is very interesting, is that there are several academics working over the data and the programming code supposedly used by The Met to create their warming trends. It seems that first of all, the code given does not work. It has a particularly nasty bug that scientists had to fix. And, even with the fix, the data does not create a match if what Te met has published.
What does all of this prove? Nothing, really. What it implies, if you apply the common sense rule, however, is that some scientist rushed to put out ad hoc data and program code to cover their butts. They just need a way to say “See? We are open and transparent.”
Look closely, readers, and you will see that they are anything but. Until next time…