Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2010

I know that the study of climate is a tricky science. I am also aware that, often times, things aren’t quite as they seem.

We now know, for instance, that global warming triggers global cooling that induces global moderation that leads to all-encompassing global climate change.

And even though nothing may actually be changing, things change all the time, even when they don’t.  And even though it may not necessarily be a global thing, it is taking place all over the world, even if it’s not.

This isn’t your father’s weather.

Last week, for example, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said that the last ten years have been the hottest decade since temperature records have been kept, although Professor Phil Jones – the former chief of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit who was forced to step down due to the ClimateGate scandal – finally admitted there has been no global warming in 15 years.

Nuance, baby.

Last week, Professor Neville Nicholls, of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, said that the three month span from November 2009-January 2010 has been “the hottest November-January the world has seen.”

Yet, in Great Britain, it has been the coldest winter in three decades.

Go figure.

Adam Gabbatt from the Guardian.UK writes:

After suffering snow, sleet, rain and consistently freezing temperatures, the knowledge that the Met Office has officially recognised winter 2009-10 as the coldest in 31 years brings with it a certain grim satisfaction.

Provisional figures from the forecaster show the UK winter – which in forecasting terms lasts from the start of December until the end of February – has been the harshest, in temperature terms, since 1978-79.

According to the Met Office the mean temperature in the UK was 1.51C this winter, compared to a long-term average winter temperature – calculated from data collected between 1971 and 2000 – of 3.7C. The mean temperature in 1978-79 was 1.17C.

So much nuance.

I’m out of my league.

Speaking of Professor Phil Jones … he testified on Monday before the British Parliament’s committee on Science and Technology in an attempt to defend himself after the ClimateGate scandal threw the entire manmade global warming farce into a tailspin. Indeed, he admitted to withholding data about global temperatures, but said that it wasn’t standard practice to share that kind of information with other scientists, nor was it common to release computer models so that the “science” could be checked.

Jones said, “I don’t think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way.”


That’s all I can say.

Is he serious?

True, I’m no scientist, but the layman in me can’t help but wonder … what exactly is the “peer review” process if it isn’t allowing fellow scientists to review and challenge research? What is it that peers are supposed to be reviewing if not the methods and data used to arrive at given conclusions? Isn’t that, quite literally, what science is supposed to be all about? Isn’t that what the scientific method is?

Before conclusions can become accepted in the scientific community – let alone “settled science” – other scientists must be allowed to conduct their own research using the data and methods employed by those who have drawn the original conclusions.

Am I wrong?

What am I missing here?

wordpress statistics


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: