Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
357 bytes added ,  13:01, July 1, 2011
Line 9: Line 9:     
==Climategate Scandal==
 
==Climategate Scandal==
−
[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|frame]]
+
[[File:DetroitLakes 212142 North 01.JPG|right|200px|thumb|An example of a poorly-placed, poorly-maintained satellite temperature sensor and MMTS unit, placed next to a private home's air conditioning unit, Detroit Lakes, Minnesota.  The placement of thousands of these units near man-made heat sources had the effect of skewing temperature readings.]]
 
Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref>  The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question.  On November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]], it was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.  [[Michelle Malkin]] detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss at the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She reported, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref>  
 
Climate science was troubled after news reports of the Climategate scandal went public, after the release of a thousand email messages and a collection of data and data processing programs from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.<ref>Christopher C. Horner. [http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/23/media-missing-the-plot-on-climate-gate-its-the-fraud-stupid/#more-35302 Media Missing the Plot on ‘Climate Gate’: It’s the Fraud, Stupid!], BigGovernment.com, November 23, 2009.</ref>  The trustworthiness of the scientific community's global warming data pool was called into question.  On November 29, with the publication of a report by ''The Sunday Times'' of [[London]], it was reported that scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom confessed to throwing out most of the raw temperature data on which the theory of global warming is founded.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref> The admittance occurred following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.  [[Michelle Malkin]] detailed one of the many problems that will occur as a result of such data loss at the University of East Anglia, the research institution at the center of Climategate. She reported, "It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years."<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/30/document-dump-a-palooza/ Document-dump-a-palooza], ''Michelle Malkin'', November 30, 2009.</ref>  
   Line 23: Line 23:     
Stations in places such as the [[Andes]] and [[Bolivia]] were revealed to have virtually vanished, and temperatures from these areas became "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon." Average temperatures were extrapolated from readings in other cities across the world. This selectivity of locations made NASA's data and [[climate change]] conclusions skewed to advance the global warming agenda rather than create data based on scientific facts. The Climategate emails showed that climatologists had conspired to suppress research that challenged the global warming [[orthodoxy]].<ref>NP Editor. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/29/steve-janke-more-unsettling-science-in-the-global-warming-camp.aspx Steve Janke: More unsettling science in the global warming camp], ''[[National Post]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref>
 
Stations in places such as the [[Andes]] and [[Bolivia]] were revealed to have virtually vanished, and temperatures from these areas became "determined by interpolation from stations hundreds of miles away on the coast or in the Amazon." Average temperatures were extrapolated from readings in other cities across the world. This selectivity of locations made NASA's data and [[climate change]] conclusions skewed to advance the global warming agenda rather than create data based on scientific facts. The Climategate emails showed that climatologists had conspired to suppress research that challenged the global warming [[orthodoxy]].<ref>NP Editor. [http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/29/steve-janke-more-unsettling-science-in-the-global-warming-camp.aspx Steve Janke: More unsettling science in the global warming camp], ''[[National Post]]'', January 29, 2010.</ref>
−
 
+
[[Image:RobinsonWhatWarmsTheEarth.gif|right|200px|frame]]
 
The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a [[cap and trade]] scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a [[FOIA]] request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable [[university]].
 
The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific [[peer review]] process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a [[criminal]] intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a [[cap and trade]] scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a [[FOIA]] request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable [[university]].
  
Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336

edits

Navigation menu