Return to Weather section
By Klaus Rohrich, Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body pushing for laws that would limit man-made carbon emissions through a series of ultra-draconian regulations aimed primarily at developed nations, has a dirty little secret: its scientists have fudged their data to make the global warming picture look worse than it actually is.
That's what Douglas J. Keenan, an obvious global warming denier who bothered to check the documentation used by the IPCC's chief climatologist, Dr. P. D. Jones in the IPCC's latest report.
Jones, in conjunction with several other scientists published a paper purporting to use long-term data from 84 weather stations in China. The authors claimed these stations were chosen on the basis that they had not been changed or relocated since 1954 so that their data stream would provide a reliable record of temperatures over a 30+-year period.
Jones and his associates and later another IPCC scientist named Wang issued a similar report claimed that the stations were used because they had not been moved over a long period of time. "The stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times. [Jones et al.] They were chosen based on station histories: selected stations have relatively few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location, or observation times...." [Wang et al.]
But when checking over the claims made by Dr. Jones, Wang and their associates, Keenan discovered discrepancies that he says couldn't possibly be accidental. So the only logical conclusion is that Jones and his cohorts lied. Keenan's charge stemmed from the fact that the United States Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences issued a joint report, which stated that 49 of the 84 weather stations had no history as to location, or instrumentation changes available. The remaining 35 stations, Keenan discovered, had indeed had changes in instrumentation and movement, in one case, movement as much as 41 kms.
The significance of moving a weather recording station, according to Keenan, is that if a station is relocated downwind of a city from being formerly upwind, then the temperatures it records will tend to be higher, as cities generate heat. Conversely if a weather station is relocated near a lake, its overall temperature recordings will tend to be lower than before. Sometimes a move of as little as 100 meters will make a significant difference in the data recorded.
Another concern that global warming alarmists have been flogging is the melting of the polar ice caps and the associated rise in global sea levels. In fact, Al Gore, the Lenny Riefenstahl of global warming hysteria, predicts that ocean levels around the world will rise by as much as 20 to 30 feet over the next few decades.
The only problem with that prediction is that reality doesn't support the hysteria. A recent article in CO2 Science Magazine stated that the ocean's mean rate of rise is significantly slower than previously thought.The global warming hysteria isn't so much about the dangers humanity faces from climate change as it is about controlling humanity's behavior through a universal government body, namely the UN. If humanity can be frightened into acquiescing to having their behavior controlled in efforts to reduce their "carbon footprint", then the one-world government types can execute a bloodless coup and rule the world by instituting their social and economic agenda.
They are dangerously close to achieving their goal in that even the most seemingly rational politicians are now climbing onto the climate change bandwagon aided by shills such as British economist Nicholas Stern, Al Gore, Maurice Strong and David Suzuki, Canada's Josef Goebbels of global warming.Their theories and ideas are being thoroughly debunked on a daily basis by individuals who are beginning to see through the false altruism that permeates the global warming debate. It's a small wonder that many of the IPCC's scientists do not wish to release their data for peer review, as they would face a scientific drubbing. As for Gore, Suzuki, Stern, Strong and the other high priests of the climate change cult, they refuse to openly debate dissenters because deep inside they know their arguments won't withstand the light of day.
--Klaus Rohrich is a columnist with Canada Free Press. Klaus can be reached at: email@example.com.
Details about Diana DeathThis is the prev iously available article re-added
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speec hesat Columbia University, Monday 24th Sep 2007