It is no longer global warming because it isn't.

It is climate change because it does.

Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.

— Thomas B. Macaulay (1800-1859), Essay on Southey's Colloquies

All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.


About Me

My photo
Copyright Notice © JLS and LensFocus, 2008-present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to JLS and LensFocus with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

A Revealing Climategate Email

One of the most telling emails to come out of the Climategate fiasco contained the following:

“Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)…
   
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

Bold has been added. The email was written by Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann in 2009. It appears that the lack of warming was known by climate scientists long before the recent admission by the MET.

Somehow Kevin ‘knows’ the theory is correct and concludes that the data must be wrong. Yet, how do you know a theory is correct unless it agrees with Mother Nature who provides the data. Only a politically motivated scientist would draw such a conclusion.

Science would draw the opposite conclusion: if the theory doesn’t agree with the data then it is time to modify or abandon the theory because it is wrong as it stands.



There exist among us many people who have fooled themselves about CAGW and Nature doesn’t care about that. Is this another example of that?


Is that another example of blaming humans for the fact that Nature does not support their coveted CAGW narrative? And these guys call themselves scientists?

A Phd does not come with a direct line to the truth or a guarantee of infallibility.

Let’s put up some more fans on the hillsides to cool us off.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive