Got my weekly e-mail from the PCUSA/Democratic Party lobbying firm Washington Office today, and it takes up the issue of the Murkowski resolution that would have Congress roll back the Environmental Protection Agency’s power grab in declaring greenhouse gases (most notably carbon dioxide) a “pollutant.” In this e-mail they urge action:
Call your members of Congress and ask them to vote “no” on Senator Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution and its corresponding measure on the House side. Members of Congress are hearing from the coal industry and other corporations who would like them to support this resolution but they need to hear from their constituents that protecting creation from climate change is your concern.
Since God is obviously asleep at the switch, it is up to us to “protect creation from climate change.” Uh, huh. I have just one thing to say to that:
The “hockey stick” has been completely discredited–it was a production of manipulated and dishonest data. So if the second graph, which takes into account the “medieval warming period” (the time during which, for instance, there was arable land in Greenland, which is why the Vikings called it that, not because they had a sense of irony), is correct, the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past than now, has seen much larger changes in temperature than we have, and–here’s the point–those changes weren’t caused by humans. Now, here’s the really amazing thing: notice the steep drop between the peak temp in 1200 to below the 20th century average, which the world was under for the vast majority of the next 500 years. That drop came about without any help from the UN, Congress, or the Presbyterian Church (USA). I know that isn’t really conceivable–I mean really, Pastor, you actually expect the planet to be capable of natural climate change sans the help of God’s Little Helpers?–but there it is.
I think this would be a good place to insert a compendium that Ed Morrissey at Hot Air put together. (I know it’s a conservative site–just check out the links to liberal media such as Britain’s Guardian to see this isn’t just some fundamentalist/neocon/coal industry/oligarchical disinformation campaign.) In this post he’s talking about the failure of the American media to cover the story, but my point is for you to notice how many issues are stacking up that mitigate against the anthropogenic theology of the Religion of Green™:
- University of East Anglia e-mails that exposed data destruction, attempts to hide contradictory data, and conspiracies to sabotage the work of skeptical scientists
- The East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data, undermining any effort to check their work
- NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases
- East Anglia CRU’s below-standard computer modeling
- No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol
- IPCC withdraws claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035
- IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri knew Himalayan claim was bogus for months before exposure
- Amazonian rainforest conclusions not based on scientific research but on advocacy group claims
- Mountain glacier claims based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from climber magazine
- Search of IPCC report footnotes exposes ten more student dissertations presented as peer-reviewed research
- Medieval Warming Period temperatures may have been global, undermining entire AGW case
- Measurements used for AGW case were influenced by urbanization, poor location, bad data sets
- African-crop claims exposed as false
- IPCC researchers excluded Southern Hemisphere data to exaggerate effects of warming on hurricanes
- Hurricane claims further exposed as false by actual peer-reviewed research — including by some AGW researchers
- Major scientific group concludes IPCC-linked researchers “complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices“
That’s a lot to ignore, even for the Washington Office, the NCC, or the other mainline climate hysterics.
March 6, 2010 at 9:59 pm
The last item, “Major scientific group concludes IPCC-linked researchers ‘complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices’” caught my eye and I thought I would look into it. The link goes right to a 404 error. Undeterred, I pressed ahead and used my Google skills to their utmost. I kept coming up with circular referenced to the Hot Air article and its 404.
I finally found what appears to be the actual source of this item (at a site called “CO2 Realist”). It seems to be from a “Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)” to the UK Parliament concerning “The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia”.
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm)
The actual section from the memorandum that seems to have inspired Hot Air is as follows:
“10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.”
I think it is obvious that this recommendation for a wider inquiry does not indicate a “conclusion” on the part of the Institute of Physics that there actually was any scientific malpractice. They are just referring to the fact that there was an exchange of e-mails that went outside of the CRU. Big deal.