Frugal Café Blog Zone

Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on December 11, 2009

Let’s assume that global warming is presently happening and the climate is hotter now than it has been in a century… which it isn’t. Let’s assume that there is consensus about man-made, anthropogenic global warming in the scientific community… which there isn’t. Let’s assume that all the raw data and earliest AGW methodologies can be reviewed, debated, and tested by unbiased peers… which they can’t. Let’s assume that the numbers used in calculating global warming are correct… which they aren’t. Now, let’s assume that the polar bears are dying off… which they aren’t. Let’s assume that the Himalayan glaciers and ice at the Arctic is melting and diminishing… which they aren’t.

An awful lot of assumptions here that have been proven false or without sufficient information to be “proven” true. Assumption is a poor indicator of truth.

Let’s also assume that “global warming guru” Al Gore honest-to-gosh cares about saving the planet in the new era of ClimateGate, even though Earth isn’t in any danger from man-made activities… which, heck, who knows if Gore honestly does? Spouting off on the David Letterman Show that the core of the Earth is a couple million degrees (settle down, Al, get your facts straight and shelve your hysteria… it’s not that hot, you chucklehead) makes you question the veracity behind other loony science-based “conclusions” that the global warming multi-millionaire claims, or recites (Gore poetry, anyone?).

H/T to VotingFemale for doing the legwork to research Earth’s actual core temps and debunking Gore’s groundless claim that geothermal adaptation is something new:

The Earth’s core temperature is estimated to be about 3,273° Kelvin, 3,000° Celsius, 5,432° Fahrenheit.

Geothermal adaptation for use as an alternative energy source is certainly NOT, I repeat… NOT… “relative new.”

Geothermal to Electric Power generation has been around in the US since 1922.

Nowhere near “millions,” Al.

If we were to assume ALL or MOST of the above assertions in the first paragraph to be correct, then I’d have reason to believe the global warming alarmists, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt.

But how many debunking “but it ISN’T true” conclusions must global warming eco-zealots and world leaders, salivating over the increased CO2 taxation, ignore to be able to logically, scientifically substantiate their global warming myth? It appears all must be ignored, because the initiating science is no longer deemed credible. Dr. Mann’s global warming hockey stick graph and the conclusions it claimed were one of the primary theories upon which so many other scientists over the next two decades would draw upon and reference in their scientific experiments and journal publications. If everyone believes that 2 plus 2 equals 5 because one hot-shot said it was true and he had the backing of a powerful scientific organization, no one would be able to move forward in that field without having to resort to data manipulation to also get the erroneous “2 plus 2 equals 5″ conclusion.

So, it must be pointed out that not all manipulation of scientific climate-change calculations are slime-dog-dastardly hoaxes or hell-bent schemes to scam people out of their hard-earned money to stop the non-existent global warming. If the original data that Dr. Mann generated was compromised/manipulated, then other scientists, not knowing this and in hoping to use his hockey stick AGW calculations as their own benchmark, would find that they wouldn’t achieve the same outcome Mann did. Many, assuming that Mann’s computer models and raw data claims about escalating climate warming were correct and their own were wrong, would then adjust their numbers, methodologies, their own findings to more closely match Mann’s. It’s not the first time this has happened.

German-born American theoretical physicist, Albert Einstein, one of the greatest, most respected minds of the 20th century

German-born American theoretical physicist Albert Einstein, considered to be one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century, did something similar over 100 years ago because of a then-common assumption about the universe that was later proven wrong.

Excellent article at Wizbang: Einstein and Climategate… here’s a portion of it:

…Even the greatest scientific minds have been hindered in both their theoretical and experimental work because their initial assumptions were wrong.

A little over a century ago, Albert Einstein published a short paper with the rather uninteresting title “On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Einstein was intrigued by the persistent problems that were caused by the conflict between Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism and Newton’s laws of motion. Building on the work of Lorentz and others who were also working on the same problem, Einstein proved conclusively that the speed of light was a constant, while it was distance and time (erroneously assumed by Newton and everyone else to be universally constant) that changed, from the point of view of one observer to another, when one of those observers was traveling at a velocity near the speed of light. From this work, Einstein also derived his famous expression e = mc2, which showed that energy and mass were equivalent, related to one another by the speed of light. Einstein’s discoveries were astounding, and they literally changed the way physicists understood nature.

Ten years later, Einstein published his greatest comprehensive work, General Relativity, which took his newly-discovered relationships between mass, energy, and the speed of light, and applied them to the universal (or “general”) phenomenon of gravitation, which was the cornerstone of Newtonian physics. The mathematical models that came out of General relativity predicted a number of surprising phenomena including black holes and gravitational waves, and something that greatly troubled Einstein himself: an expanding universe.

Ever since the dawn of time, mankind had assumed that the size of the universe as a whole was static. Individual bodies moved in orbit and interacted with one another through the effects of gravity, but the spatial dimension of the universe did not change. That was simply a given. An expanding universe was an absolute impossibility, and therefore must be the result of a mathematical error. In order to correct this error, Einstein introduced a “fudge factor” that he called the Cosmological Constant into his equations. The Cosmological Constant eliminated the expansion and gave the “right” result, a stationary universe. After astronomer Edwin Hubble found conclusive observational evidence for an expanding universe, an embarrassed Einstein admitted that introducing the Cosmological Constant had been the “biggest blunder” of his career.

Today, none of us would vilify Einstein as a “liar” or the perpetrator of a hoax. We recognize that he simply attempted to correct his work it in what he assumed was an appropriate manner, given the prevailing assumptions of his day. Similarly, the climate scientists at East Anglia’s CRU worked very hard to figure out why their measured data was not corresponding to their own prevailing assumption that the climate had experienced a steep warming trend since the beginning of the twentieth century. Their solution to the problem was to adjust the data in order to obtain the “right” result. A conspiracy of sorts perhaps, but probably not a deliberate or malicious one.

Einstein admitted his error, and history exonerated him; it remains to be seen if the CRU team and other climate change proponents will admit to the ideological biases that we now know resulted in sloppy record keeping, questionable statistical methods, and apparently deliberate attempts to silence critics. With billions, perhaps trillions of dollars at stake in the climate change debate, they owe it to us to come clean.

More errors and flaws found:

From USA Today:

COPENHAGEN — Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters, harried delegates and the 20,000 other people gathered here for a global warming summit and wonders: What’s the fuss all about?

Weiss, a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed.

Specifically, he says the cuts that countries including the USA are proposing in greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to measure and highly susceptible to manipulation by government officials and companies.

“I don’t see the point in doing all this if the numbers are so far off,” Weiss said, shaking his head as he watched conference attendees hurry by Thursday. “When you hear politicians tell you that they can measure these things, just because they passed a deal in Copenhagen, I think you should take that with a few grains of salt.”

[...]

In a study last year, Weiss and colleagues took air samples and found that levels of nitrogen trifluoride, an industrial gas 17,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as an atmospheric warming agent, were four times above what industry estimates had suggested.

He says that monitoring equipment must be significantly upgraded around the world to prevent similar fudging of data if a deal is reached in Copenhagen.

Todd Stern, a lead negotiator for the U.S. delegation, says he’s pushing for a system that, after Copenhagen, “allows countries to look at each other and get confidence that everybody is doing what they said they were doing.”

However, governments in India and China — which is the world’s biggest carbon emitter — have resisted draft proposals that would allow for international verification of data.

Bjorn Lomberg, a Danish economist, says the problems reflect a “failed strategy” in the last two decades of international environmental talks.

“Conferences like Copenhagen allow the politicians to go back home and say ‘We’ve got a deal!’ but then the targets are almost never kept,” says Lomberg, who advocates more research and development of clean energy sources to solve environmental problems.

Not many in the scientific community questioned Dr. Mann’s global warming “hockey stick” data graph for a long time. Those who did, and asked for him to answer questions or to show them his raw data, were ignored or rebuked. Many were smeared by the IPCC for daring to question the data. Mann’s raw data has been destroyed, oops. Now we know why.

It goes without saying that Michael Mann is no Albert Einstein.

More on ClimateGate and the criminal global warming scam:
Ace of Spades HQ: Sure, Why Not: Scientists in Met Office (Overseeing CRU) “Pressured” to Sign Circular Defending AGW “Or Risk Losing Work”
RedState: Fun Facts About Methane
Hot Air: EPA declares air a danger to human health and Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud? and Weird science: East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data
Half-Baked Sourdough: A Climate Scientist Speaks
Wizbang: Einstein and Climategate
Frugal Café Blog Zone: Liar, Liar, EPA Chief Lisa Jackson’s Pants Are on Fire… about Her Contrived “Air Is Bad for People” Announcement and More Power-Grabbing: EPA Rules Air Is a Danger, Now Is the Wolf Guarding the Chicken Coop and “It’s My Nation’s Carbon Footprint, and I’ll Enlarge It if I Want To…” Copenhagen Attendees Ignore ClimateGate Scandal, Will Negatively Impact World’s Environment & Don’t Care and Shaky House of Cards… Australia Parliament Has Voted “NO” on Global Warming/Cap and Trade Bill and ClimateGate’s Lies and Deception to Hide the Decline: The Heat’s On, Dump the Data! and Global Warming Scam: Scientific Data in “Hockey Stick” Graph Bogus, Uh, ‘Fudged’ (video) and Climategate: Rush Limbaugh on Global Warming Hoax & Three Siberian Tree Rings… There Is No Global Warming
Patterico’s Pontifications: AGW Defender: Let’s Not Engage in Character Assassination and Overheated Debate . . . You Asshole
Alfonso Rachel, Big Hollywood: Save the Planet, Hold Your Breath… Liberals first
Ztower: Copenhagen weather forecast for Friday, December 11, 2009
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Just A Giant Iceberg Story
The Foundry, Heritage.org: Climategate: From Skepticism to Investigation

Categories: Business & Economy, Entertainment, Celebrities, Environment and Earth, Government, Social and Political Climate, Technology
Tags: Al Gore, Albert Einstein, An Inconvenient Truth, anthropogenic global warming, Barack Obama, cap and tax, cap and trade, carbon credit, carbon credits, carbon dioxide, carbon footprint, carbon tax, climate change, climate change lies, climate gate scandal, Climate Research Unit, Climate-Gate, Climategate, Copenhagen, CRU, David Letterman, debunking climate change, debunking global warming, Democrats, earth's core, email, emails, energy bill, EPA, fringe media, global warming, global warming hoax, Himalayan glaciers, hoax, hockey stick, hockey stick graph, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, journalism bias, Kate Sheppard, liberals, Lisa Jackson, media bias, methane, myth, political, politics, pollutant, POTUS, Pres. Obama, scam, scandal, scientific data, socialist, taxation, taxes, Team Obama