What the leaked emails reveal, among other things, is some of that bit of principal component sausage making. But more disturbing, they reveal that the actual data going into the reconstruction model -- the instrumental temperature data and the proxy variables themselves -- were rife for manipulation. In the laughable euphemism of Philip Jones, "value added homogenized data." The data I provided here was the real, value added global temperature and proxy data, because Phil told me so. Trust me!
Read the whole thing.
Rush Limbaugh made an observation that I thought was interesting.
If the data revealed that global warming is no longer a threat wouldn't that be good news for the earth and its inhabitants? Why do climate scientists then skew data to show a problem if there really isn't one.
If an meteor were headed toward earth and massive distruction would follow its impact, and if we then found that the trajectory has been inadvertantly miscalculated and now it would miss earth, wouldn't we all be relieved? So why not so with climate data?
Could there be another agenda afoot?
Post a Comment