Climate change fraud/climate change frauds

There are two thing about the current man-made global warming scam that really make me crazy. One of them is the way people take the "science" on faith without bothering to see if there is any evidence against the "consensus" view. The other is the way the environmental evangelists tell the rest of us how we should live while they themselves live their lives to a completely different standard.

Part I: the "scamintists"

Here is yet another example of scientists playing fast and loose with the facts.

Methodology used by NASA to estimate rates of climate change are resulting in dramatic shifts in previously published historical temperature data, causing figures for estimated global surface temperature prior to 1970 to now be lower and figures since 1970 to now be higher – and appearing to provide evidence for those who say the Earth is warming.

John Goetz, writing last month in the science blog Climate Audit, analyzed the way NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculates estimated global surface temperatures and showed that the addition of new, contemporary data could "have a ripple effect all the way back to the beginning of a [weather] station's history."

Goetz found 32 different versions of published global annual averages going back to Sept. 24, 2005, that showed the published figures – figures used as a baseline to demonstrate change through time – changing hundreds of times.

"On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years," he wrote. "The largest single jump was 0.27 °C. This occurred between the Oct. 13, 2006 and Jan. 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43 °C to +0.70 °C, a change of nearly 68 percent."

Temperature anomalies – differences between the average measured global air temperature and some long-term mean – are primary data for studies of climate change.

Uh-huh. Adjust the real temperatures pre-1970 downwards, and the real temperatures post-1970 upwards. And we wonder why there is so much "evidence" of warming.

But wait! There's more to chew on here. Surely you remember the famous 1990's era "hockey stick" graph showing the catastrophic warming we will face soon. It is the Holy Grail of the climate change cultists, even today, even after it was proved to be a complete fraud.

Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

In other words, you could feed this program the price list from Wendy's and it would generate a hockey stick.

Part II: the false prophets and evangelists (do as I say, not as I do)

Al Gorebells is on the receiving end of most of my venom on this count (Mr. 20,000 square foot house with an energy bill larger than my mortgage payment). But these asshats are just as deserving of derision.

Is the hot air emitted by celebrities when they spout ecological platitudes a greenhouse gas?

If so, then the melting of the polar ice caps just moved a step closer, following calls by Trudie Styler, a leading celebrity ecological hypocrite - call them hippy-crites for short - for the general public to eat more locally grown vegetables.

Campaigning against food miles might seem an unlikely cause for Styler, given that a tribunal last year heard how she ordered her personal chef to travel over 100 miles to make a bowl of pasta for her youngest child and has sold olive oil and honey from her Tuscan estate, Il Palagio, 1,000 or so miles away, in Harrods in London.
------
The couple's carbon footprint, the impertinent ink-stained wretch pointed out, has been estimated at 30 times greater than the average Briton's. How did Styler and Sting - who have seven homes - square that with their environmental crusading?

Styler conceded that as Sting "has a 750-person crew to bring around the world, it is a difficult challenge".
------
"I would like to think that we both work pretty hard for the rights of indigenous people and for the rights of conservation of the Amazon rainforest, but we do need to get around," she said.

Oh, don't worry - Sting and his obviously retarded wife are hardly the only ones guilty of such self-importance and "hippy-cracy". Read the article and see for yourself. John Revolting. Chris (Mr. Gwyneth Paltrow) Martin of Coldplay. Madonna. Leonardo DiCaprio. Brangelina. And, my personal favorite, Barbra Streisand.

See, they're "persons", and we're just "people", so it's okay that they jet around the globe, wasting energy and natural resources, all the while berating the "people" for not buying in to their "vision" of environmental utopia - a utopia where, I might add, our lives are diminished while they get to do whatever they want.

Is it any wonder I get so bent by the "greens" and all they represent? Frauds. Hypocrites. Elitists. And those are their good points.