Nathan R. Jessup

You Want The Emails, Here They Are

In global warming on November 30, 2009 at 12:12 am

While I have only had about an hour to comb through this mountain of correspondence in the controversial emails, I did happen to come across some very interesting information to say the least. I understand there will be some who say these segments have been “taken out of context”, and for this reason I have linked to the entire package of emails HERE (East Anglia Emails). Below, is some of what I have found so far:

Few investigators doubt that the world has warmed recently. Nor that the enhanced “greenhouse effect” of pollution from gases such as carbon dioxide, will warm the planet. But in the past five years, climate researchers have growing increasingly aware of how little they really know about the natural variability from which they must pick out the “signal” of human influence.

As I read through the emails I am struck by the overwhelming sense that these researchers are looking only for information that might support the GHG effect on Global Warming rather than searching to understand what is really taking place.

Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that “the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world”. If they are they “might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case.”

This entry was speaking to a piece published in the journal, The Holocene. In this work, Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography points out:

they do not include vital “forcing” mechanisms that alter temperature, such as solar cycles and volcanic eruptions. Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.

The thing I am most shocked by is how utterly arbitrary the methods seem to be for collecting data. Moreover, how factors like solar cycles, El Nino and volcanic eruptions could be overlooked in the process of understanding and interpreting the previously gathered data.

Barnett knows how easily this can happen. He was a lead author for a critical chapter in the last IPCC scientific assessment, which investigated “the detection of climate change and attribution of causes”. It formulated the IPCC case that the evidence points towards a human influence on climate, but it warned repeatedly that great uncertainties remained. “We wrote a long list of caveats in that chapter,” says Barnett. “We got a lot of static from within IPCC, from people who wanted to water down and delete some of those caveats. We had to work very hard to keep them all in.” Even so, when the findings were first leaked to the New York Times, it was under the headline “Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming”.

In this section, Barnett ‘warned repeatedly’ how great uncertainties remained. In addition, Barnett had to fight with the IPCC to keep these warnings from being deleted. Further, I find it amazing that with all these warnings the New York Times still led off with the headline, “Scientists finally confirm human role in global warming”. Did they? Or was no one listening?

Should you have the time, ‘End of Empire-Propaganda and the American Myth’ offers a brilliant perspective on how Americans are longing for the garbage our Government has been serving up at the ‘all you can eat’ buffet of lies. Enjoy, I sure did.

  1. Let’s replace Green with Blue.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: