Why did the CRU try to mask the temperature data?
The fraility of the anthropomorphic climate change theory is illustrated by the very exercise the East Anglia alarmists tried to pull off. Lacking any historical data that shows temperature changes have been caused by elevated greenhouse gas levels, the alarmists are struck with trying to make a weak hypothesis stick: that the warming trend in the last hundred years cannot be explained by other factors, so it must be greenhouse gases.
This hypothesis is about as weak as it gets in science. We do not understand the climate variables well enough to reconstruct past climate changes, let alone explain what is happening now. Several cyclic trends in climate occur with reularity over geological time. These are also affected in major ways by solar cycles, including the notoriously weak solar cycle 24 that we are now experiencing. Various "feed backs" among the many factors involved confound simple linear models.
Lacking any direct evidence that greenhouse gas levels cause any climate impact, the alarmists are left with a negative hypothesis. If we cannot explain recent warming (over a century or more), then it must be from elevated GHGs. Forget the fact that GHG levels have been ten times higher in the past with no climate impact. Forget the fact that we cannot accurately describe climate variables even when we are trying to fit the model to known facts. Forget the fact that climate changes in history take centuries to occur. Forget the fact that most 20th century warming occurred before 1940, before any elevated levels of GHGs due to human activities. Basically make the skeptics prove the negative: show us that it is not human activities that have caused gradual warming since 1850.
Lost in the current controversy over how much, if any, warmer it is getting since the recent peak in the 1930s, is the fact that nothing whatsoever in the alarmists playbook directly associates any of the changes to human activity and/or elevated GHGs.
The real tragedy of the climate scam will be its negative iompact on alternative energy sources, which will be even more necessary with global cooling (which is the projection for the next 15-20 years based on solar cycles).
This hypothesis is about as weak as it gets in science. We do not understand the climate variables well enough to reconstruct past climate changes, let alone explain what is happening now. Several cyclic trends in climate occur with reularity over geological time. These are also affected in major ways by solar cycles, including the notoriously weak solar cycle 24 that we are now experiencing. Various "feed backs" among the many factors involved confound simple linear models.
Lacking any direct evidence that greenhouse gas levels cause any climate impact, the alarmists are left with a negative hypothesis. If we cannot explain recent warming (over a century or more), then it must be from elevated GHGs. Forget the fact that GHG levels have been ten times higher in the past with no climate impact. Forget the fact that we cannot accurately describe climate variables even when we are trying to fit the model to known facts. Forget the fact that climate changes in history take centuries to occur. Forget the fact that most 20th century warming occurred before 1940, before any elevated levels of GHGs due to human activities. Basically make the skeptics prove the negative: show us that it is not human activities that have caused gradual warming since 1850.
Lost in the current controversy over how much, if any, warmer it is getting since the recent peak in the 1930s, is the fact that nothing whatsoever in the alarmists playbook directly associates any of the changes to human activity and/or elevated GHGs.
The real tragedy of the climate scam will be its negative iompact on alternative energy sources, which will be even more necessary with global cooling (which is the projection for the next 15-20 years based on solar cycles).
Comments