A recent article in the Washington Times demonstrates the lengths to which those who 'believe' in global warming (alarmists) in the scientific community have to go to silence those practicing solid science which happens to go against their beliefs.
The core point being this:
'The IPCC report argued that temperatures rose one degree Celsius over the course of a century as a direct result of man-made carbon-dioxide emissions. This tiny change in temperature was calculated through the use of an "adjusted" set of global surface-temperature readings. Mr. McKitrick found that factors unrelated to global climate contaminated this data set, resulting in a higher temperature reading. He showed a statistically significant correlation between the change in temperature readings and socioeconomic indicators. It makes sense, for example, that replacing trees and forests with concrete and glass skyscrapers might contribute to the .01 degree annual increase in local temperature readings. This "urban heat island" effect would not be present in readings taken outside the asphalt jungle. '
What is wrong with this picture? Answer nothing really - except it blows a hole right through the middle of the IPCC report and goes right against the Warmest agenda.
I just really wish more people in the scientific community would come clean and stand up against this peer bullying - the science is getting lost behind all the egos..
Got a question or comment about this?Find what you were looking for?.. Not quite what you expected?.. Got a question to ask people?
Share your thoughts and use the form below to post a public comment right on this page.