The climate alarmist perspective is often held not by extremists, but by people who clearly don’t understand science or the patterns of nature. Why are they and others making so much noise about “tipping points”?
Tagged: phil jones
An acquaintance said I must feel vindicated now that the extent of the corruption in climate science is exposed. The answer is no, because I knew all along there would be no pleasure in “I told you so”. The damage done to climate science, science, and environmentalism is serious.
No matter what political committees try to absolve corruption of climate science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they cannot hide the complete failure of the computer models to make a single accurate prediction. Leaked emails from the CRU received media attention, but the emphasis must shift to the computer models.
A small group of scientists – mostly associated with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia – have consciously withheld data and methods to place global progress, development, economies and peoples lives in jeopardy. Lord Monckton calls it a global fraud. It is that, but much more – and raises the question of accountability.
Political whitewash of the corrupted climate science of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) illustrates the completely political nature of the issue. Indeed, the Chairman of the British Parliament investigating Phil Jones and the CRU specifically said they would not look at the science. If they had, they would see the extensive and outrageous scientific errors, manipulations of data, and omissions of large areas.
The degree to which those in official climate science are incapable is illustrated by the reaction. The answer is in the reaction the whitewash has triggered; an orchestrated attack on the skeptics, those who dare to perform science by proving the hypothesis wrong, to ask questions or demand debate. Why? The obvious answer is because the public was increasingly skeptical as evidence accumulated that the hypothesis was wrong.
How much do calculations of global temperatures represent the real temperature of the Earth? Every day, new stories appear about temperature records with errors or deliberate omissions.
Ernst Georg Beck was a scholar and gentleman in every sense of the term. His work, determination, and ethics were all directed at answering questions in the skeptical method that is true science: the antithesis of the efforts of all those who challenged and tried to block or denigrate him.