We have consensus

The Institute of Physics, which represents 36,000 physicists across Britain and the world, has told a Commons inquiry into Climategate that the controversial emails at the centre of the storm represent "prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions".

In short, the IoP has called into question the integrity of the entire field of climate change.

The Commons science and technology committee is interviewing key climate scientists and global warming sceptics. The standard of the interrogation on the first day was tame and the protagonists merely restated their arguments.



In the absence of actual recorded temperatures, scientists have used 'proxy data' – for example, tree rings – to determine average global temperatures over the past 1,000 years. However, in the final few decades of the 20th century, the proxy data has been jettisoned in favour of temperatures recorded on modern instruments. The IoP is critical of this method:

"The [Climategate] emails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions," the IoP states. "For example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC [the United Nations climate panel], of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements."

The IoP also suggests the scope of the Common inquiry should be broadened to include not only the CRU, but also the entire field of climate science.

"Most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change," the submission reads. "In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is [a] need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field."

Link

I really don't know what else to say. They have been caught lying. Pure. Flat. And Simple.

And they should be read out of the scientific community and never allowed back in.




On Twitter I am Lesabre1

What if?

I’m reading “Warlord,” Carlo D’Este’s biography of Churchill from birth to 1945.

Fascinating book and it brings out the “What if…..?” in me.

Little known fact. There were over 180,000 English, French, and other troops in Russia in 1918 protecting various ports and such. Think what would have happened if the West had intervened on the side of the White Army?

Can you say 50,000,000 or so would not have been killed over the next 50 years?

Then we have the Germans in 1936 taking back the Rhineland as the French sat and watched. All they had to do was push back and the Germans would have left and WWII probably wouldn’t have happened. There’s 15 million or so.

When the Communist Chinese was about to take over the mainland our State Department declared them Agrarian Reformers. If we had supported the Chinese, how many would have lived? 20 million?

Or more? Certainly North Vietnam would not have attacked the South. 15,000,000?

Now, have we learned our lesson?

Nope. Iran keeps working on its nukes and we keep hoping.

Problem is, you can’t pet a snake.

And hope is between hell and horror in the dictionary.



On Twitter I am Lesabre1