A photo from open sources
Allegedly, scientists working on the most reputable research on climate change, were called upon to hide the fact that the temperature in the world has not increased over the past 15 years, writes dailymail.co.uk.
A copy of a leaked UN report by hundreds of scientists shows that politicians from Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States expressed Concern about the final draft. Report which will be published next week is expected to take into account that the fact that 1998 was the hottest year in the history of observations, and world temperatures have not yet exceeded his record that scientists still then they tried hard to explain.
Photos from open sources Report is the result of six years of work of the Intergovernmental Group UN Climate Change Experts (IPCC), which regarded as a global authority in assessing change climate, and the causes of the phenomenon – on which governments, including UK base their green policies. But leak The Associated Press document showed yesterday, deep concern among politicians about the lack of global warming in the last few years. Expected in the report will say that the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half the average level, which was recorded since 1951 – and such natural changes like El Nino and La Niña, oceanic cycles and cooling effect of volcanic activity.
The reason for the “climate gate” is explained in the article “Climategate: Scientific thriller “- Spin-a-Climategate: a science thriller
What happened to science? Here is a summary of this “Climategate” for those who missed everything. Unknown person (or individuals) gained access to thousands of emails and documents, and also to the program code from Climate Group servers Research (CRU) University of East Anglia. University already called it “criminal hacking.” Earliest posts are dated March 1996; the last – this November. Letters are the private working correspondence of the leading workers climate change research institutions and some excerpts from them cast a giant shadow on the working methods in CRU. Indeed, skeptics immediately cried out for breaking the rules, quoting like “The trick Mike masked the recession” (abridged quote) and “we can not explain what is now observed lack of warming. “Many took this as evidence. a global scam by proponents of global warming, and concluded that no warming exists at all, “like we said. “CRU officials tried to reduce the damage from scandal, indicating that the data was obtained illegally, and saying that scientists in private use professional the jargon that journalists misinterpreted. They also started a public investigation, and Professor Phil Jones – one of the main characters in the scandal – had to leave Director of CRU. Other famous climatologists whose reputation affected by email leakage, now also are under close scrutiny. The explosion of this media bomb intentionally or not, coincided with the UN Copenhagen Summit, at which global politicians discuss what to do about climate change. The results of the work of compromised scientists appeared in previous publications of the UN climate authority IPCC changes. After the scandal, only a notorious optimist would become expect immediate action from world leaders to curb carbon dioxide emissions. However, according to some reportedly first attempt to publish ill-fated letters occurred a few weeks before the Climategate erupted. And even before the scandal, there were well-founded doubts about results of the Copenhagen summit. Ubiquitous transition to “green” lifestyle is not cheap and very vulnerable because of the desire less enthusiastic countries to enjoy the benefits of the campaign, without investing in it. The mediocre results of the Kyoto Protocol are a good example of this. It’s not about science now skeptics zealously comb the stolen data for even more discrediting evidence, and the defenders of the theory try their best more plausible to explain them. The essence of the problem is that global warming is not a matter of science. More precisely, not only science. Climate prediction is not building a rocket that either will fly or not. The main weakness of modern climatology is that she relies on computer models, which in turn rely on insufficiently advanced technologies. Our computers too weak for the calculations needed for really complex models, so researchers are forced to simplify them. Decisions on which parameters to consider and which to sacrifice, are an important part of the research process. Also there some lack of input data. Even temperature measurements are available only for the last one and a half centuries at best, and in in most places this period is much shorter. Earlier values temperatures that we can see on graphs like the famous “hockey sticks” are obtained from auxiliary sources – such as tree rings on trees or air bubbles in millennial ice – by which temperature in the past is estimated. AND temperature is just one of many parameters that affect the climate. Not that climatologists were unique in their difficulties. Physicists learning quarks do exactly the same thing – process huge arrays of statistics from particle accelerators in the search extremely rare events that theoretically should have a place.
However, climatologists use much more closely public attention. This is partly due to people’s subconscious desire to be scared and media readiness help them with that. A scientific paper that says that the Earth, perhaps heats up and after a few hundred years it can cause sea level rise turns into a newspaper headline in the style of “We all drown!”. And Hollywood immediately illustrates the idea with using the blockbuster, which receives an Oscar for special effects. Yet one factor is far-reaching political consequences. Finite the conclusion of a chain of scientific assumptions is that global warming is caused by man and that to avoid catastrophic consequences humanity must spend trillions of dollars all over the world to reduce greenhouse emissions. Such political decisions always affect many interest groups, from oil companies to fighters for the conservation of polar bears, and it would be naive to assume that each of them will not lobby in its own benefit, both among politicians and among the public. Finally, screams of global climate change are calling for the same values that many movements to protect the environment and “return to nature.” “Green” ideology over the past twenty years has lured a fair part of the electorate is from the socialists, and ideology is a matter of faith. No wonder the average voter is now in the lead Climate Change Dispute Expert Calls Former US Vice President Al Gore earlier than some professional scientist. Or that supporters and opponents of this theories are often called “believers” in global warming and “denying” him as if it were some kind of newest religious teaching (for many people the way it is). Or what among ten YouTube’s most watched climate change videos you will find an almost ten-minute monologue in which without a shadow of a smile an “undeniable” argument is given: if you ignore the real threat of global warming, then as a result we will lose much more than if we mistakenly spend resources to combat non-existent threat so the only reasonable way out remains to act. Such an argument also applies to any hypothetical threat: from a giant meteor strike to zombie apocalypse. Along with the media hype comes more public interest in the issue, generous grants come from governmental and non-governmental organizations for her studying, and even more scientific work, which the media can then interpreted in the most panicky way.
This is a classic positive feedback circuit. Climatologists, being smart and energetic people, are well aware this mechanism and fulfill their role in the promotion of the topic. Stolen emails illustrate this well – simply read on the right an excerpt from a letter from Joseph Alcamo, a professor from Center for Environmental Systems Research and German University Kassel. I stand for the speediest and broadest possible collection signatures. I think the only thing that counts is the numbers. media will write: “1000 scientists have already signed up” or “1500 scientists signed up. “No one will check if there really was 600 people with a candidate degree or two thousand without it. Newspapers names of celebrities are mentioned, but that’s another story. Conclusion – forget about checking, don’t ask them about their last publications (most will ignore it anyway). Get the names! So what? Is global warming a hoax? Such a scandal would be impossible around, say, entomologists studying mating habits of European butterflies. However, the published correspondence is not became “the last nail in the coffin of the Anthropogenic Global Warming, “as skeptics say. Undoubtedly, in correspondence full of unpleasant moments, and all those who thought that gentlemen scientists live in ivory towers, can with these illusions happily say goodbye. Just like members of any corporate communities, scientists are plotting, looking for unflattering characteristics to his opponents, get angry when they manage outsmart and do not shun to use the shortest paths in personal gain. Who would have thought that experts with world-famous and impressive salaries have such sharp teeth and trained elbows? But can this be called unscientific approach or unfair work as advisers for politicians? These questions have yet to be reply. But damage to reputations has already been done. Storyline with a mysterious hacker who revealed to the world a secret clique of sinister scientists and corrupt politicians too attractive in the eyes of readers and viewers. Alarmists got on the forehead with their own media boomerang. In the game for pulling public opinion to one’s side, reputation a key role is assigned, as people, as a rule, do not read initial scientific work and trust others with the right to make it for them judgments. Who to believe? Climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues with their reconstruction of past temperature changes – or statistics to Edward Wegman and his colleagues who criticize the first about the methods of processing the source data? RealClimate.org website which talks about scientific consensus on the issue of man-made the nature of global warming? Or ClimateAudit.org, which states that there is no consensus on this issue at all any meaning? Most likely, the pendulum will swing in favor skeptics, and they will receive more funds for their research – perhaps even more than they would have received if scientific a climate change dispute would be properly conducted without media attraction. And that’s good, as alternative explanations actually observed temperature increases finally get deserved attention. Which, in turn, will allow us to get more accurate and less politicized answers to questions such as “Is the current temperature rise trend unprecedented? ”,“ Is our activity the reason? ”, “Can we stop this?” And finally, “Wouldn’t it be on is everyone better if it gets warmer on Earth? ” And if, in the end in the end, climate alarmists will be right in their predictions, the stronger the support for green technologies will be. What more the important thing is that climate climat exposed the flaws of the existing research mechanism. Science is supposed to open-minded – and from the case of climate change research this is clearly not the case. Climate Research Group (CRU) was already forced to become more “transparent.” Climate gate may turn out to be just such a case when minus to minus gives a plus.
Global warming US climate
