By Bobby Eberle
As Washington DC was pummeled by record snowfall Obama and his team continued their push for more funds to be diverted from our wallets and into his Global Change Research Program. In his new budget Obama is asking for a 21 percent increase in funds over last year.
This despite growing evidence that climate data was manipulated to further a conclusion that was to the liking of people such as Obama Al Gore and the host of other socialist leaders who want to further tax and control the planet under the global warming banner.
Now more news is coming out. It turns out that the man a
With its 2007 report declaring that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won a Nobel Prize -- and a new degree of public trust in the controversial science of global warming.
But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing are undermining confidence not only in the panels work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panels methods and mistakes -- including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level -- give doubters an opening.
The Washington Post story continues:
But in the past year a cache of stolen e-mails revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors has sullied their image as impartial academics. The errors in the U.N. report -- a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt -- are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat instead of the new question of how to stop it.
The story still has the slant that global warming is real and that it needs to be reproven in order to get the skeptics to back down. As NewsBusters.org reporter Tim Graham notes The Post account failed to note the BBCs new interview with climate scientist/activist Phil Hide the Decline Jones who called his trick of merging tree-ring data with thermometer data was a convenient way of achieving something in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent more reliable instrumental record. In other words reliable is defined as whatever proves my drastic-warming thesis.
Speaking of scientist Phil Jones a story on FOXNews.com about the BBC interview reveals that Jones now admits there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.
Jones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was warmer in medieval times than it is today -- a concession that may also undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.
In addition Jones admitted that an overall lack of organization and his poor record keeping and office-tidying skills had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics which he regretted.
The Heritage Foundation also studied the BBC interview of Phil Jones and was particularly interested in the following question and answer:
BBC: When scientists say the debate on climate change is over what exactly do they mean - and what dont they mean?
Jones: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I dont believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties not just for the future but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
The Heritage Foundation was correct is focusing on this response because it points to our current state of affairs where politics is forcing an issue of science when the full scientific understanding doesnt even exist.
If the vast majority of climatologists do not believe the debate on climate change is over why do our politicians pushing for cap and trade and a transition to a clean energy economy repeatedly assert that the science is settled? Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said so and told us that a warming planet was unequivocal.
And because this is NOT about the climate. Its about money and power and another way for people to be taxed and an elite group of leaders to get rich.
Obamas call for increased funding for his global warming program should be rejected completely. This is not the role of the federal government and the debate over global warming is far from over. Lets get back to the business of the smaller government mandated in the Constitution. That would be change we could all believe in.
By Bobby Eberle
As Washington DC was pummeled by record snowfall Obama and his team continued their push for more funds to be diverted from our wallets and into his Global Change Research Program. In his new budget Obama is asking for a 21 percent increase in funds over last year.
This despite growing evidence that climate data was manipulated to further a conclusion that was to the liking of people such as Obama Al Gore and the host of other socialist leaders who want to further tax and control the planet under the global warming banner.
Now more news is coming out. It turns out that the man a
With its 2007 report declaring that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won a Nobel Prize -- and a new degree of public trust in the controversial science of global warming.
But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing are undermining confidence not only in the panels work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panels methods and mistakes -- including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level -- give doubters an opening.
The Washington Post story continues:
But in the past year a cache of stolen e-mails revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors has sullied their image as impartial academics. The errors in the U.N. report -- a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt -- are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat instead of the new question of how to stop it.
The story still has the slant that global warming is real and that it needs to be reproven in order to get the skeptics to back down. As NewsBusters.org reporter Tim Graham notes The Post account failed to note the BBCs new interview with climate scientist/activist Phil Hide the Decline Jones who called his trick of merging tree-ring data with thermometer data was a convenient way of achieving something in this case joining the earlier valid part of the tree-ring record with the recent more reliable instrumental record. In other words reliable is defined as whatever proves my drastic-warming thesis.
Speaking of scientist Phil Jones a story on FOXNews.com about the BBC interview reveals that Jones now admits there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.
Jones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was warmer in medieval times than it is today -- a concession that may also undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.
In addition Jones admitted that an overall lack of organization and his poor record keeping and office-tidying skills had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics which he regretted.
The Heritage Foundation also studied the BBC interview of Phil Jones and was particularly interested in the following question and answer:
BBC: When scientists say the debate on climate change is over what exactly do they mean - and what dont they mean?
Jones: It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I dont believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties not just for the future but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
The Heritage Foundation was correct is focusing on this response because it points to our current state of affairs where politics is forcing an issue of science when the full scientific understanding doesnt even exist.
If the vast majority of climatologists do not believe the debate on climate change is over why do our politicians pushing for cap and trade and a transition to a clean energy economy repeatedly assert that the science is settled? Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said so and told us that a warming planet was unequivocal.
And because this is NOT about the climate. Its about money and power and another way for people to be taxed and an elite group of leaders to get rich.
Obamas call for increased funding for his global warming program should be rejected completely. This is not the role of the federal government and the debate over global warming is far from over. Lets get back to the business of the smaller government mandated in the Constitution. That would be change we could all believe in.
