REPORTING FOR DUTY
-
-
-
-
Dec
16
What Decline Were They Hiding? -And- “Copenhagen Pigeon Drop”
December 16, 2009 | Leave a Comment
We want to point our readers toward two articles which are required reading for anyone interested in a thoughtful analysis of “Climategate’s” meaning and impact on the Progressive global warming movement.
The first article comes via Instapundit, and is written by David Rose for the overseas news publication Mail Online. It explains the crux of the fraud contained in the Climategate emails, “hiding the decline”:
However, the full context of that ‘trick’ email, as shown by a new and until now unreported analysis by the Canadian climate statistician Steve McIntyre, is extremely troubling.
Derived from close examination of some of the thousands of other leaked emails, he says it suggests the ‘trick’ undermines not only the CRU but the IPCC.
There is a widespread misconception that the ‘decline’ Jones was referring to is the fall in global temperatures from their peak in 1998, which probably was the hottest year for a long time. In fact, its subject was more technical – and much more significant. [MORE]
The article reveals that the decline they were hiding was the decline in values related to PROXY data.
Proxy data is what scientists use to measure potential climate characteristics that predate the invention of the thermometer.
The proxy data contained some rather inconvenient truths which would have cast a shadow of doubt on the otherwise pristine global warming “Hockey stick” graph they were aiming for. So the CRU and IPCC simply used the proxy data that fit their graph, and discarded the proxy data that did not.
According to the article, this is a blatant violation of scientific standards:
‘Any scientist ought to know that you just can’t mix and match proxy and actual data,’ said Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.
‘They’re apples and oranges. Yet that’s exactly what he did.’ [MORE]
No wonder the debate was over. They disappeared the dissenter!
The second article was written by J.P. Travis and is entitled “Copenhagen pigeon drop”
The pigeon drop is a scam in which two confidence men – the “catch” and the “accomplice” – persuade a victim – the “pigeon” – to believe they found some money in a bag and the three of them can split it and keep it. With disarmingly rational arguments they convince the victim that everybody should contribute money from their own pocket as “collateral” until they can spend the newfound treasure.
Then they give the victim the bag of money to hold – making him feel secure – and leave. Eventually the victim gets curious, peeks into the bag, and discovers nothing but newspaper scraps, whereupon the realization sets in that he has been fleeced by con men.
You are the pigeon in this story so pay attention.
……
Liberals like Obama and Global Warming scientists like James Hansen are playing the “catch” role in this con game. The lures they dangle are “green jobs” and a “healthier fossil-fuel-free economy” and a cleaner environment somewhere down the line… and the polar bears won’t drown. That’s the bag of money they found, and just like any good con man playing the “accomplice” in a pigeon drop, the United Nations is pretending to offer expert advice, telling you the bag of money is yours to spend if your national leaders sign a global climate treaty. That’s all. After that everybody is supposed to sit back and wait the necessary amount of time.
All they need is a little collateral from everybody – mostly from the United States, of course, because the U.S. is the primary “victim” – to make sure everybody stays honest. That’s the Cap ‘n’ Tax that Obama and the Democrats want to impose. Much of that money they will simply spend, because that’s what politicians do, but much of it will be transferred into the afore-mentioned shadowy, Bizarro World “carbon trading markets” where the switch will take place.
Did I mention that part? There’s always a switch in a pigeon drop. That’s how the pigeon ends up holding a bag with no money in it. Duh.
Read the rest of that article. It’s worth it.
