The Elephant in the Room - Climate-gate and Cosmetics for Data

Precisely.

Which is why the whole climate change movement is suspect at the very core: the motivation of the "researchers." When grant-driven research is used to try to subvert the world's economies, a much greater burden-of-proof is required than "a consensus of mainstream scientists agree..." Of course a consensus agrees; they agree that they wish to continue being funded. And the funding continues from power-mad politicians who see the hysteria as a means for taking over entire economies and subjecting them to central planning. A scheme, by the way, which was totally discredited under various communist (red) regimes, but which is resurrected as something new and different and good when painted "green." Which is why, as they say, "Green is the new Red." And the Green Party, or environmentalism, is the home of old communists looking for greener pastures.

emc_c

When I was in college for the second time a number of years ago (older than average student) I had a environmental geology class I really liked. For our final grade we had to present a paper on an environmental issue that we felt was relevant to our selves. I chose to do mine on the methods and procedures relating to how the data is collected for global warming and climate study is done being at the time I was rather serious and concerned about the beginning of the global warming problem.

After much reading of the actual reports that the USGS and other federal and private agencies publish relating to environmental studies and doing a close look at the data collection methods and margins of error which must be accounted for and documented in the reports involved I felt like a total fool and an idiot for ever believing that crap they said on the news and jammed down everyones throats.

The margin of error in typical real world data collection is between 25% and 95%. WTF? The margin of error is greater than the accuracy of most of the information presented. When graphed there is no solid pattern or trend in much of it.

The hot topic at the time was the supposed 35% rise in green house gas level in the atmosphere. The real calculated mathematical estimate number is 1000 times less than that with a 95% margin or error on top of it! The testing and data collection methods base line background noise numbers are greater than the assumed rise in green house gasses.

Since then I have a completely different view as to what effect we humans have on the overall environment. I do my part to be cleaner, more responsible, and less wasteful with what I have but I don't believe the garbage they say on the news about global warming or negative climate change ever!

If you do the numbers and actual chemistry behind how emissions systems work on vehicles you will likely change your mind about what they really do as well. Trust me suposedly using more fuel per mile to make less emissions output doesn't add up either.