Global warming baloney

Without much much fanfare the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit has confirmed that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997 based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

So much for the hockey stick chart (below) from the the late 1990s presented by a teams who used proxy indicators to estimate the temperature record of past centuries, to suggest recent warming was exceptional with clear implications for anthropogenic global warming.

It turned out that the hockey stick chart shown above falsely discounted the Medieval warming period. The figure below shows real data (red curve) and the fudged data used in publication by Moberg in 2005 (blue)the official IPCC Third Assesement Report from 2001 (black) and the hysterical projection (dashed green) from a paper by Jones from 2009.

Hacked emails from the Climactic Research Unit (CRU) and University of East Anglia that were released on the internet showed collusion between these professors. Wikipedia article on this subject appears to have been written by sympathizers of these researchers, because it attempts to exonerate their conduct following Climategate 1.0. The second batch of hacked emails, known as Climategate 2.0 nail down the three themes that emerged initially were true:

(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry;
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

The latest data released by University of East Anglia and the CRU showed that their prior projections were completely worthless and are a reminder of the embarrassing conduct of researchers involved. These data also shame Wikipedia, which provides political cover for the debunked 'anthropogenic global warming' to this day.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona suggest that Sun Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be particularly weak, suggesting there is a likelihood of a mini ice age, not global warming.

Will these researchers who colluded and pushed misleading data be fired? Will Wikipedia's article change to reflect their documented, and shameful behavior?

Let's just say I won't be giving money to Wikipedia anytime soon.