The Disappearing Science of Global Warming

For those who have asked that we feature a wider variety of articles on climate change, here’s a “special report” from, of all places, the American Spectator:

Establishment figures intone about the substantial “body of science” supporting the notion of man-caused global warming. But based on recent events, they need to check the body’s pulse. The body is dead, and rapidly wasting away before our very eyes.

Over the past 3 months, a circus of scandals has played around the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its periodic Assessment Reports on global warming. The latest report issued in 2007 proclaimed a consensus regarding a 90% probability that mankind’s activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, were causing global warming that would lead to catastrophic results if drastic steps were not taken to reverse it.

The lasting scientific upshot of that circus of scandals is that the historical global surface temperature record on which the contention of global warming has been based has been thoroughly discredited as manipulated and mangled beyond recovery.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Three official global surface temperature data sets exist. These include British data (Hadley-CRU) maintained by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, and the Hadley Center for Climate Change of the British Meteorological Office (Met Office). Another is maintained by the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S. The third is maintained by NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (NASA-GISS).

Last October, Hadley-CRU admitted in response to Freedom of Information requests that they had actually thrown away the raw temperature data from which they constructed their historical surface temperature record…

[continues in the American Spectator]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

11 Comments on "The Disappearing Science of Global Warming"

  1. markwalder | Feb 17, 2010 at 12:22 pm |

    The problem is we are all still paying ridiculous taxes on fuel for our cars and house hold, and still so many people seem to be ignoring the facts, some to my surprise were even oblivious to the global warming issue entirely, so not it has been exposed as a bunch of government lies, and scientific fraud, they haven't got a clue what we are going on about, some even thinking rise if fuel prices was simply part of inflation. So there is still a long way to go to educate people in general, and that is proving a task and a half.

    • You're right Mr. Walder, American Spectator and similar conservative money-tanks are trying to pull scientific fraud by mis-quoting whomever they can to ignore the facts and feed lies to the government. They really don't have a clue, and if they did, they'd be quick to put it in the shredder I'm sure.

  2. emperorreagan | Feb 17, 2010 at 3:39 pm |

    I would like a wider variety of articles on why rich, attractive women aren't knocking down my front door to fuck me and shower me with gifts. I believe that I am the most desirable man on the planet and have super-pheromones that make me irresistible. Anyone who has data and evidence that suggests otherwise is a liar or a fraud.

  3. American Spectator is not a science publication, they are a conservative publication. All this stuff about the CRU is out of context and is not the final nail in the coffin of the 'global warming conspiracy' these right-wing money-hogs would love you to believe. Too bad right-wingers never check their sources if it stands a chance of hurting their pocketbooks.
    The owner of American Spectator was once paid by the Kazakh government (through PR firm the Carmen Group) to help give good PR to a president there whose electoral status was being challenged, and whose main opponent was being barred from legally contesting the election.
    I suppose if you're trying to show 'balanced' sides of the global warming 'debate', the best you can do for opponents is to find the big-money nay-sayers, because scientists obviously aren't going to back them up.

  4. I find it simply amazing that people ignorantly still site the IPCC report as evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Look into the facts people. The report plainly stated that there was no evidence for anthropogenic climate change as it was written by the IPCCs scientists. Only when the politicos with no scientific credentials whatsoever got ahold of it, was it changed to say that it was all man-made.

    The ignorant weather denier crowd is really pathetic.

  5. The American Spectator is the very definition of a birdcage liner. It's that batcrap crazy Richard Mellon Scaife's personal propaganda rag which would have closed down years ago from operating at a loss, were it not for Scaife's billions.

  6. Why is the debate specifically 'global warming' as in, whether our industrial age has been heating up our atmosphere dangerously. Why isn't the debate on a more practical level whereby we discuss the fact that we live in a 'cocoon' of our atmosphere and all the noxious toxic chemicals and byproducts of our industries are buried, spewed and dumped into the environment and how that, in and of itself, warrants precautions to limit all of it? It doesn't even matter if global warming would be proved false (which I kinda doubt but I'm willing to be open to it), the real problem is our collective wearing down and destruction of the environment that can easily lead to our demise.

    • Wreckingball | May 27, 2010 at 6:06 pm |

      The reason the debate is about “Global Warming” is because global warming is an economic phenomenon, not an ecological one. “Global Warming” has been accepted as a business model by a politically connected, globalist billionaire class and this is the tragedy of it: the science of it doesn't matter to these folks. They hold the monetary strings to climate change research and they will be able to produce the “scientific” results they desire to execute their very profitable economic model. This is unfortunate because it robs those who are actually trying to gage the effects of real climate change of the information they need to come to real, scientific and unbiased conclusions. The information leak that happened during the last Copenhagen summit – that western governments were attempting to covertly shift climate change monies from the U.N. To the IMF/World Bank system – was telling. This is the system that the “Global Warming” threat is meant to fund. Your climate change dollars are meant to fund a pro-corporate, global financial system that is run for the benefit of this billionaire investor class at the expense of everyone else: taxpayers, workers, smaller investors and the countries that will looted by that financial system.

  7. The world hasn't fucking warmed for 15 fucking years while carbon fucking dioxide emissions have fucking been increasing. There is no fucking Global Warming. What the fuck is it about this fucking fact that you AGW fucking catastrophists idiots don't fucking understand?

    It's not fucking warming.

    The fucking science is not on your fucking side. AGW has been fucking disproved by fucking observation. If you still want to pay fucking taxes to the fucking World Bank for the privilege of being fucking alive then kindly fucking eat shit and die.

    I don't fucking want my descendants to have compulsory abortions foisted on them to save a handful of fucking pandas.

    The fucking world isn't fucking warming. Go fucking hug a fucking polar bear.

    • emperorreagan | Feb 18, 2010 at 2:11 pm |

      Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck. Fuck.

  8. The claims on this page are mostly hogwash.

Comments are closed.