Global warming NOT reconfirmed

Anthony Watts laments that this publication from barfing berkeleyearth put PR before peer review. I tend to think they got some lightning-fast peer review on the Net in full view of all those who actually want the real deal… Even with the price of the blitz-fast cooperation of Control-Compliant Media to fall in line fast with yet another doubtful “reconfirmation” [sic].

http://berkeleyearth.org/ "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values previously published by other teams in the U.S. and U.K." Since these folks were the ones most vocal about the methodology of the previous studies, it is understandable that they were surprised to find that their results are a good fit. 

—-
Hey yo, I’m sure it was a BIG SURPRISE, right, since berkeleyearth.org was founded precisely to give PR boost to those “results” already discredited as a rigged scam just as bad as Saddam Hussein’s 100% election share.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review | Watts Up With That?:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/

http://tinyurl.com/5rmuk43

The article at the above link refers to this dutiful echo of the PR blitz by the BEST gang, which is not the “best” of anything:

Climate change: The heat is on | The Economist
A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming

http://www.economist.com/node/21533360

The full article is here. Apparently, Astill has never heard of the UAH and RSS Global Temperature records, nor does he apparently know that all the surface temperature records come from one source, NCDC.

Now compare that headline and subtitle to this line in the article:

“It will be interesting to see whether this makes it past the review process.”

And, The Economist still doesn’t get it. The issue of “the world is warming” is not one that climate skeptics question, it is the magnitude and causes.

I was given a pre-release draft copy of one of the papers, related to my work as a courtesy. It contained several errors, some minor (such as getting the name of our paper wrong i.e. Fell et al in several places, plus a title that implied global rather than USA) some major enough to require revision (incorrect time period comparisons)

Well, I think they “get it”, it’s just the kind of Pavlovian advocacy journalism where facts don’t matter, just use enough of them to confuse the truth.

Then the Berkeley coverup does nothing to vindicate the fraudulent manipulation of the data and conclusions for AGW (as versus GW), uncovered in the work of Anthony Watts and many others.

And remember this berk-barf is from the same general crowd that says the guys who were exposed as rigging peer reviews and poisoning their data base and then were (not) “vindicated”. So now, this being a complete PR campaign, of course who needs peer review..

And even though this PR blitz was meant to pretend to avoid the criticisms of the base data bias, nothing vindicates the way the religious zealotry with which the AGW science pimps rallied round that flawed data.

GAO Confirms: Anthony Watts’ Is Right, UN Temperature Data Rigged To Show Warming:
http://blog.heartland.org/2011/10/gao-confirms-anthony-watts-is-right-un-temperature-data-rigged-to-show-warming/

But the GAO has found that “42 percent of the active stations [in the USHCN] in 2010 did not meet one or more of the siting standards.” Siting standards violated include temperature sensors located too close to buildings, roads and other heat sources that artificially increase measurements and so, ultimately, the supposed global warming trend.

GAO writes that they “did not assess the effect of stations not meeting siting standards on the reliability of NOAA’s analysis of temperature trends.” Until this is done and similar assessments carried out on the rest of the data used to determine global trends, it is clear that the global record is not reliable.

The New York Times laments that “global warming” (they always leave out “anthropogenic”) is losing credibility in the United States. Well, that sometimes happens in a land where free speech is still reluctantly tolerated by powers-that-be.

Whatever Happened to Global Warming? – NYTimes.com:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/sunday-review/whatever-happened-to-global-warming.html

And the article unintentionally exposes the real end point in the minds of the big money pushing this AGW story, control over our lives, which this guy Hoffman seems to think is some big revelation about skepticism (contrary evidence doesn’t count) –and which also serves as an innoculation for the AGW faithful against the obvious totalitarian implications of total control over every one of our individual economic decisions:

…..“Climate change presents numerous ideological challenges to our culture and our beliefs,” Professor Hoffman of the Erb Institute says. “People say, ‘Wait a second, this is really going to affect how we live!’

So there you ago. Somebody has billions of dollars to throw at convincing the world to let them tell us what to eat, what to wear, how to travel, where to live, what to buy. Some of us know what is happening here, and where it is going.

Stay tuned.

About these ads

2 Responses to “Global warming NOT reconfirmed”

  1. Global Warming – More on the BEST claim of proven AGW | The GOLDEN RULE Says:

    […] Global warming NOT reconfirmed (trutherator.wordpress.com) […]

  2. Socialism is theft by dictator or by majority vote and drives AGW « Trutherator's Weblog Says:

    […] Global warming NOT reconfirmed (trutherator.wordpress.com) […]

Comments are closed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 190 other followers

%d bloggers like this: