"The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time"
The accuser is Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. -- whoa! That's a lot of initials! -- published in the March 2007 journal EIR Science. Jaworowski is now a senior advisor at the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw. He's been measuring CO2 records in ice since 1957, in glaciers from Africa to the Arctic. The results of these studies are the foundation of numerous papers.
You know, just another climate whacko. Here's the top line of his latest work:
Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected [by supporters of anthropogenic climatic warming]. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers.The study goes on for 14 well-documented pages that I've skimmed but am simply too exhausted after an 8-hour meeting today to attempt to present here.
For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists-and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine,nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.
Why would scientists -- Scientists for cryin' out loud! -- do such a thing? We've always heard it's about money, and Jaworoski puts this into perspective:
During the past six years, the President of the United States devoted nearly $29 billion to climate research, leading the world with its unparalleled financial commitment (The White House 2007). This was about $5 billion per year, more than twice the amount spent on the Apollo Program ($2.3 billion per year), which in 1969 put man on the Moon. A side-effect of this situation, and of politicizing the climate issue, was described by meteorologist Piers Corbyn in the Weather Action Bulletin, December 2000:Many are justifiably skeptical of ideas like this because they smack of conspiracy theories. I offer two points in rebuttal:
“The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity.”
- Warmies, like all hardcore environmentalists, lie. They are like jihadists who find no immorality in lying to promote jihad. It's made easier by the fact that most Warmies are agnostics or atheists with secular thinking awash in moral relativity.
- Warmie scientists live in a world of like-thinkers who feed each other's energy. They read each others' studies, peer-review each others' studies, don't seek out contrarian views, and when they stumble onto such a view, they rally together to pick at it. This phenomenon is referred to as incestuous amplification.)
hat-tip: Greenie Watch