Decline in public confidence in climate science over the climategate scandal has emerged as a big trouble for researchers, claimed a top US academic at the science conference in San Diego on Saturday.
While speaking about ‘transparency and integrity in science’ President of the National academy of Science Dr. Ralph Cicerone said that there has been a decline in public trust on Climatology and it is spreading.
The study of climate faced a set back after emails leaked from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research department unveiled that scientists manipulated and suppressed data to mislead others. Climate scientists image was also tarred after the UN’s climate change body admitted of issuing flawed data related to melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Earlier in 2008 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had shocked everyone stating that all of the Himalayan glaciers may melt by 2035. The announcement, as it was found later, did not have sufficient scientific support.
Various surveys conducted in the US had also shown that people’s faith and opinion on climate scientists plunged sharply.
Dr. Cicerone, however, expected the scientists to create a new level of trust with the people.
By tacitly accepting the “Science Is Settled” slogans put forth by the likes of Gore et al, scientists must accept the blame for the public’s lack of confidence in their work. There have been too many cases of intimidation and threats to the academic creditials of any academic or scientist who dared introduce a report or spoke out against the “consensus” AGW theory. And public money was flowing only in one direction – in support of AGW.
Scientists need to simply look themselves in the mirror when assessing blame for the damage done to their profession by Climategate.
Statements such as the following: “Earlier in 2008 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had shocked everyone stating that all of the Himalayan glaciers may melt by 2035. The announcement, as it was found later, did not have sufficient scientific support.”
DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT! It had no scientific support – none, zilch! It was a misquote (at best) or a lie (more likely) put forth by an AGW advocacy magazine based on a phone interview with an obscure Indian scientist. Putting out under statements such as the one above instills no confidence in the scientific community and its ability to manage itself.
Do you see any of these stories on television news after two decades of relentless press coverage of Global Warming with no questions asked? Why not? The national media’s continued silence on ClimateGate and increasing revelations of outright fraud and wrongdoing at all levels of government, academia and the media itself, tells the truth of the tail. That truth is there’s a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we-the-people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, “What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?” Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn’t you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And —- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies. The mainstream media’s conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.
Trust is a bucket that can be emptied in an instant but has to be refilled one spoonful at a time. Dr. Cicerone needs to stop complaining and get going with a spoon.
At the bottom of this page:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
From the Climate Research Units own web site you will find a partial list of companies that fund the CRU.
It includes:
British Petroleum, ‘Oil, LNG’
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, ‘Food to Ethanol’
The United States Department of Energy, ‘Nuclear’
UK Nirex Ltd. ‘Nuclear’
Sultanate of Oman, ‘LNG’
Shell Oil, ‘Oil, LNG’
Tate and Lyle. ‘Food to Ethanol’
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, ‘Nuclear’
KFA Germany, ‘Nuclear’
World Wildlife Fund, ‘Political Advocates’
Greenpeace International, ‘Political Advocates’
You might what to check out what these and the other funding companies actually do.
So can you climate scientologists please stop with the skeptics in the pockets of Big Oil thing, it’s getting old. These companies have been funding the CRU for years and years. British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell were in there right at the start in 1974.
I wonder where ‘charities’ like Greenpeace International (Storms, Hurricanes, Floods, etc will get worse, false, retracted by IPCC) and the World Wildlife Fund (Glaciers will melt by 2035, false, retracted by the IPCC) get the money to fund climate research.
In unrelated news…
—
February 16, 2010 1:45 p.m. EST:
President Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday for two nuclear reactors to be built in Burke County, Georgia.
Obama’s proposed fiscal year 2011 budget triples loan guarantees for nuclear power plants to over $54 billion, the White House noted.
—
You should be hearing about off-shore Liquefied Natural Gas off loading platforms shortly. You already have the whole ‘Food to Ethanol’ program.
This of course will all have to be paid for somehow.
Climatology: The spice for data:
Note: Released by NASA under FOI.
-
Subject: Re: Your Reply to: GISS Temperature Correction Problem?
From: Gavin Schmidt gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
Date: 19 Feb 2008 14:38:47 -0500
To: rruedy@giss.nasa.gov
I had a look at the data, and this whole business seems to be related to the infilling of seasonal and annual means. There is no evidence for any step change in any of the individual months.
The only anomalous point (which matches nearby deltas) is for Set 2005. Given the large amount of missing data in lampasas this gets propagated to the annual (D-N) mean – I think – with a little more weight then in the nearby stations. The other factor might be that lampasas is overall cooling, if we use climatology to infill in recent years, that might give a warm bias. But I’m not sure on how the filling-in happens.
Gavin
-
So remember if you find the temperature data is cooling off, just add a little “climatology” it will warm things up nicely.