Global Warming

How many trillions of dollars will be spent before this fraud is admitted and debunked?

Spread the love

As you read this, ask yourself whether this sounds like another reflexively held scientific position (hint, it begins with “D” and ends in “arwinism”):

Flawed climate data
Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph of global warming

Ross McKitrick, Financial Post

… I have been probing the arguments for global warming for well over a decade. In collaboration with a lot of excellent coauthors I have consistently found that when the layers get peeled back, what lies at the core is either flawed, misleading or simply non-existent. The surface temperature data is a contaminated mess with a significant warm bias, and as I have detailed elsewhere the IPCC fabricated evidence in its 2007 report to cover up the problem. Climate models are in gross disagreement with observations, and the discrepancy is growing with each passing year. The often-hyped claim that the modern climate has departed from natural variability depended on flawed statistical methods and low-quality data. The IPCC review process, of which I was a member last time, is nothing at all like what the public has been told: Conflicts of interest are endemic, critical evidence is systematically ignored and there are no effective checks and balances against bias or distortion.

I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am grateful for those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who continue to ask the right questions and insist on scientific standards of openness and transparency.

– Ross McKitrick is a professor of environmental economics at the University of Guelph, and coauthor of Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming.

FULL ARTICLE

5 Replies to “How many trillions of dollars will be spent before this fraud is admitted and debunked?

  1. 1
    Gods iPod says:

    Faith, simply can’t be debunked.

  2. 2
    tribune7 says:

    If global warming were true Al Gore would be demanding a crash program to replace coal plants with nukes and nobody would be ripping down hydro-electric dams.

  3. 3
    JGuy says:

    1. Is global warming occuring?
    Maybe.

    2. Is it even a net danger?
    I don’t think so, unless you are selectively worried about some of the short term effects.

    3. The biggie: Is it anthropogenic?

    No. Humans can’t globally compete with the direct effects of the sun.

    A thought to consider:

    If all humans on earth were to stand side by side, it would cover only about 20 square miles. Assume the average human is 5 foot tall, colelctively that is a human the size of a cube that is LESS than half a mile cubed (~1 kilometer cubed). Now, imagine that as a single person compred to the size of the earth and it’s atmosphere.

    Yeah, I know! We could hardly argue our collective selves as even being consider as a spec on the planet!

    Imagine a similarly scaled camp fire beside this human burning all day long. It would be a modestly sized forest fire (4 kilometers square). That should be a very fair comparison to what amount of CO2 the people of the world collectively contribute to the environment (industry & power plants). If you think that is significant, then you need to recalibrate your thinking. A single active volcanoe would easily dwarf the CO2 output of this giant human, and his(or her) camp fire.

  4. 4
    JGuy says:

    clarification/correction: People would fit (standing side by side) in a square with sides of 20 miles, or 400 square miles.

  5. 5
    JGuy says:

    There’s the solution!

    Cap one volcano and call it a day. No more debates needed.

    πŸ˜›

    [Though actually, that is one of the problems, there are no real debates]

Leave a Reply