Copenhagen Bombshells and AGW Tactics

Bombshell after bombshell.

What else should we expect from any large and highly politicized homogeneous body meeting ostensibly to further its own dogma and advocacy? Should we be shocked that the news coming out of Copenhagen is shocking!

The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization.

Their analyses also show that 2009 will almost certainly be the fifth warmest in the 160-year record.

Interesting (er...shocking) to say the least.

How else can this esteemed industry redeem itself in the face of the real climate change bombshell of the past few weeks--the one that exposed the CRU as having done everything in its power that it could to systemically ostracize AGW skepticism and skeptics?

What better way is there to to proceed than to simply soldier on while ignoring the conspiratorial evidence as best it can? What better way than to charge onward arguing that the evidence they have is still sound despite the fact that their movement has been exposed as being controlled by lying anal retentive control freaks with an agenda?

So, despite the leaked emails, this is "by far" the warmest decade since instrumental records began. This seems pretty impressive given the 160 year history of instrumental records.

Except for one thing.

As early as public school elementary I was taught that geologic time is a pretty impressive spread. It started before my first birthday, before my parents were born, and even before my grandparents were alive on this Earth. My Grandpa was born in 1884, over 125 years ago. In three short generations my family has spanned nearly as long as instrumental records have been logging temperatures.

My education exposed me to plate tectonics, orbits of distant planets, the time it takes for light to reach the earth from far away suns, and that dinosaurs walked our lands even before Grandpa bought his first sawmill. Diamonds were formed deep within the earth after epochs of extreme heat and pressure. Michigan used to be covered by a shallow sea. The boulders in the woods at the farm were dropped by expansive ice sheets that receded thousands of years ago. There was a time before John Dingell was in the House.

In fact, if my old science books were to be trusted at all, man's total existence on Earth is but a paper thin wafer when compared to geologic time. Why, it was every bit of 2,000,000 years ago that carp first grew legs and became apes, who then became man, thankfully in just the nick of time to invent fossil fuel powered aircraft making it possible to travel to the Copenhagen climate conference.

With serious pronouncements, the recently exposed frauds of global warming want me to freak over 160 years of heating which, in geographic time, must be a very thin sliver of time indeed.

The WMO said global temperatures were 0.44C (0.79F) above the long-term average.

"We've seen above average temperatures in most continents, and only in North America were there conditions that were cooler than average," said WMO secretary-general Michel Jarraud.

"We are in a warming trend - we have no doubt about it."

In most places on Earth the idea of AGW is accepted. In America however, there is a growing skepticism as to its merits.

My Mom tried (as I'm sure many other Moms did also) to get me to eat the food on my plate by talking to me about the starving children around the world. They were sad stories and may have even helped once in a while, but I'm afraid my habit of eating was mostly encouraged by my appetite rather than the aches of malnourished children.

I had food while others starved. And now I have cool while others bake under conditions created by evil American consumers and corporations. We need to stop prospering, even if we are cool here in North America, because people are not so cool elsewhere.

Is it more than coincidental that it is North America, the home of most of the world's AGW skeptics, that the climate is actually cooling? Or, more likely, is this a tacit admission by climate operatives that there may be a better way to convince Americans to fall in line; because of the suffering of others? There is no evidence here in North America, and in fact any evidence here is contrary, but elsewhere, beyond our reach where we must rely on the works and understandings of others, things really, really suck.

As a matter of fact, I'm not buying any of it at this point. The AGW community has been thoroughly debunked by its latest scandal that made evident the community's desire to make climate statistics show exactly what they wanted the statistics to show. They fudged evidence, ostracized dissenters, and proclaimed a desire to toss out basis evidence rather than release it to third party evaluators. It is not that there is no proof or disproof of AGW, but that we cannot trust these douchebags to tell us the truth if they have the opportunity.

This morning at WUWT there is a great post on “inhomogeneity” and how temperatures at at least one temperature station in Australia have been seemingly arbitrarily increased over the past few decades to compensate for discontinuities with instrumentation, geography, etc. Oddly, every effort to homogenize the data ended up increasing the temperature.

The Smoking Gun at Darwin:

YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C.

So, the data in North America shows a cooling trend, but elsewhere, things are heating up! That is until someone looks closely at the data supplied.

I tell my kids that liars do not have to lie all the time to be untrusted. If they even lie one time in ten it means that nothing they say can be trusted. This is where I'm intellectually and emotionally at in regards to the AGW experts that are meeting this week.

They can say what they want, and they can make their statements on the need of immediate action and impending doom and gloom--I'm not trusting the information until it is evaluated by people whom I trust.

Which is exactly the response that AGW advocates have earned, regardless of how hungry the kids are in Copenhagen.