In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
“Le GIEC est mort, vive le débat!” (Le Monde)
Global warming science is as dead as the dodo. The last nail in its coffin came this week from reports that embattled former CRU director Phil Jones covered up the fact that data from Chinese weather stations was flawed and that the original data documentation was nowhere to be found. (The dog ate it?)
Jones and a collaborator have been accused by a climate change sceptic and researcher of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming – a hotly contested issue.
Today the Guardian reveals how Jones withheld the information requested under freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Jones’s collaborator, Wei-Chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had “screwed up”…
Wang was cleared of scientific fraud by his university, but new information brought to light today indicates at least one senior colleague had serious concerns about the affair.
It also emerges that documents which Wang claimed would exonerate him and Jones did not exist.
This may be the blow that brings the whole “climate science” scam down. With AmazonGate, GlacierGate, and the entire CRU leaked email scandal, I can’t think of a single mitigating circumstance that would make me confident that any single piece of data in any report from NOAA, GISS, CRU, or the IPCC was true and verifiable. Or that any report produced as a result of that data should be relied on to enact legislation that would dramatically affect the economy and emissions of any nation.
In the grand scheme of things, this is really a shame. The humble reasoning of an individual should lead him to conclude that human society affects the planet and the climate. How much? Uncertain. But wouldn’t it be nice to know, for instance, whether humans have less effect on our climate than, say, the methane emissions of the tens of millions of buffalo that once roamed the Great Plains… or even the 1.5 billion domestic cattle that exist today? Because according the the United Nations as of four years ago, that truly is the greatest “global warming” threat:
A United Nations report has identified the world’s rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.
The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world’s 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. [emphasis mine]
On the other hand, if data coming out of the United Nations is suspect, why should we even believe this? I don’t know.
So we need to scrap all the data and start from scratch. Humanity should understand the effect we have on our home. So let’s begin again and gather the data in a transparent and scientifically sound way, base conclusions on fact, not opinion, and write reports that are not biased toward a certain conclusion.
Because right now, my humble reasoning leads me to believe that we’ve got bupkis.