Garbage in, global warming out

My colleague, Dan Calabrese, summarized what happened:

The exposure of e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia demonstrates beyond a shadow of any doubt that – at the very least – global-warmist climate researchers a) dumped data they didn't want others to see; b) manipulated data to hide information that didn't support their preconceived conclusions; c) didn't know how to explain the lack of warming over the past decade; and d) conspired to attack their critics and prevent their work from being published.

My colleague, Dan Sherrier, called it what it really is, a scam:

Global warming is perhaps the most brilliant scam in all of history.

Less ethical scientists who want government subsidies can offer interpretations of data that further a politician's ability to justify seizing more power. Or, you can invest in "green" companies, knowing that the government will stack the decks for those companies to do well. There's plenty to gain.

And, my colleague Jerome Corsi reported on honest research that shows global cooling for the last decade over the United States and Canada:

The mainstream media is reporting the World Meteorological Organization's assessment of global average temperatures asserting this decade is "the warmest on record," without mentioning the WMO data actually documents the United States and Canada experienced cooler-than-average conditions since 2000.

To provide one more blow to the junk science used to produce a political result for the United Nations and the Obama administration, I will draw upon my formal education in mathematics and computer science, and my early professional experiences using mathematical modeling, to explain how easy and tempting it was for the named climatologists to do what they did.

Let's start with an analogy. Each month the Labor Department issues the official unemployment rate for the country. For November 2009 it was 10 percent. The number of government jobs has been increasing for the last three months, whereas the number of professional-services jobs has been decreasing.

If the Labor Department wanted to fudge the unemployment rate to make it look better than it is, it could have conveniently left out the number of professional-service jobs. But it didn't, and I doubt that it would. After all, one of its jobs is to just count heads, and it would be easily detected by most analysts.

But when a group of scientists intentionally omits a large amount of data from the development of models to predict future climate-change trends, as pointed out by Dan Calabrese and others, it is not easily detectable without some inside information. That's what the hacked e-mails provided.

It is also dishonest and unreliable.

I learned early on that with any computer program the principle of "garbage in means garbage out" is always true. When you do not use all of the empirical data to develop your mathematical model it is "garbage in."

It is outrageous that the head of the United Nations, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Obama administration are all dismissing these revelations as they push onward with their political agenda in the face of scientifically manufactured results.

This is no longer a controversy. This is conclusive. And once again, liberals choose to ignore the facts.

It's a scam.