I have been following the climate change meltdown to draw parallels with the coming meltdown of evolution believers. Both sets of believers are firmly entrenched in education with plenty of self interests to keep the belief systems going no matter what the evidence. We have been showing the creation videos in Sunday School and the Intelligent Design films on Sunday nights. So I think this will the last post following climate change for now. I am sure the believers will keep doing what Al Gore does in this article in the New York Times entitled: You Can’t Wish Away Climate Change. The refrain of the chorus for both sets of believers has been: “All the experts agree”. Let’s see what Al has to say:
It is true that the climate panel published a flawed overestimate of the melting rate of debris-covered glaciers in the Himalayas, and used information about the Netherlands provided to it by the government, which was later found to be partly inaccurate. In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law.
But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. (The bold part reads: “All the experts agree”)
So Al Gore is not changing his tunes, they may have missed in their exaggerations but “all the experts agree” we are still doomed. Here is an article published that same Sunday in England entitled: A Perfect Storm Brewing for the IPCC. Their take on the points Al tried to brush away is a little different:
OK, they say, it might have been wrong to predict that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035; that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other "extreme weather events" were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report; behind them the mighty edifice of global warming orthodoxy remains unscathed. The "science is settled", the "consensus" is intact. (They recognize the same defence: “All the experts agree”.)
But this completely misses the point. Put the errors together and it can be seen that one after another they tick off all the central, iconic issues of the entire global warming saga. Apart from those non-vanishing polar bears, no fears of climate change have been played on more insistently than these: the destruction of Himalayan glaciers and Amazonian rainforest; famine in Africa; fast-rising sea levels; the threat of hurricanes, droughts, floods and heatwaves all becoming more frequent.
The article goes on describing how all the wheels fell of going into Copenhagen. Of course these spectacular mistakes are much more newsworthy but they are dwarfed when compared to the purposeful use of false statistics to prove their global warming theory. So one more article entitled: Global Warming Fraud: The Big Picture. Here is a quote:
the basic temperature data had been manipulated, yielding the reported strong surface warming of the past 30 years. Again, we had long suspected this, because the data from weather satellites showed little warming trend of the atmosphere since 1979. Available proxy data seemed to confirm this result (see "Hot Talk Cold Science"  — HTCS Fig 16). But according to theory – and every greenhouse climate model — tropospheric trends should be substantially greater than surface trends.
This disparity between the trends derived from weather station data and from satellite data was already apparent in 1996 (see HTCS Fig 9), and was amply confirmed in a special study of the US National Academy of Sciences ["Reconciling observations of global temperature change" 2000].
The NAS report could not reconcile the disparity and never explained its cause. But it has become evident now that the cause may be a greatly exaggerated surface trend – brought about by the CG cabal. We will learn the details once we unravel just how the data were manipulated.
The ‘manufacture’ of a ‘man-made’ warming trend, when there is none, likely involved (i) selection of stations that showed a trend, and (ii) inadequate correction for purely local warming influences such as the ‘urban heat island’ effect (see HTCS Figs 7 and 8; and the recent extensive publications of Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts).
We will pick things up in the future. Its onto some evolution/creation points for a while.