=?windows-1252?Q?Met_Office_Has_=93Cherry=2Dpicked_Climate_Change_Figur?= =?windows-1252?Q?es_in_a_Bid_to_Increase_Evidence_of_Global

Subject:	=?windows-1252?Q?Met_Office_Has_=93Cherry=2Dpicked_Climate_Change_Figur?= =?windows-1252?Q?es_in_a_Bid_to_Increase_Evidence_of_Global_Warming=2E=94?=
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:41:02 -0800 (PST)

Met Office has =93cherry-picked climate
change figures in a bid to increase
evidence of global warming.=94

Russians Are Right! Met Office Uses Selective Data
By Barry Napier Thursday, December 17, 2009

The UK=92s Meteorology Office has been accused by the Russians of lying.
Well, I never! They say the Met Office has =93cherry-picked climate
change figures in a bid to increase evidence of global warming.=94

I don=92t like to keep on about it, but I said this in my book last
year! I got the information via a science forum I belong to, populated
by high-level scientists, including IPCC contributors. To get into my
book I had to have had the information in early 2008, meaning that the
truth about the Russian weather stations was made at least in 2007!

What we knew at that time was simple: the Russians closed down a huge
number of temperature measuring stations, at the same time as Western
scientists were collating world figures subsequently used in the IPCC
Reports. Suddenly, there were incomplete data from a vast area of the
northern hemisphere. But, the westerners continued without these vital
figures! And, make no mistake, proxy measurements, whether tree-rings
or satellite, are not equal to thermometer measurements and should
never be mixed.

I see no problem in using them, but I see a very big problem when they
are mixed by people like Michael Mann. The only reason he mixed them,
was that between the various proxies they could be manipulated to
produce the results he wanted. And we already know this is what he
did. So, when the Russian stations were suddenly closed, Mann and
others began to mix =91n=91 match their figures, selecting whatever served
their cause.

Russians Correct

So, the Russian accusation is correct. We knew about this manipulation
and selective use of data a few years ago. The assurances given by
the Met Office are, then, highly suspect, because everyone knows they,
and others of pro-green persuasion, are being very selective in their
data. The Met Office claim the measuring sites are chosen for them by
someone else. Do we believe that? Frankly, no. Even if we believe it,
do we believe they don=92t tamper with the figures? No, we don=92t.

Do I believe the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis, when, as
critics tell us, they are only making the accusations to safeguard
their gas, coal and electricity industries? Yes, I do! If their reason
is to safeguard their economy, I don=92t blame them. Indeed, I applaud
them for doing so. Obama and Brown et al certainly don=92t care what
happens to their economies, and seem bent on destroying them for the
sake of socialist ideals not shared by their electorate. The Russians
say the British have picked figures that suit their theories on global
warming. This certainly appears to be the case, especially when they
are adamantly protecting the frauds and liars mentioned in the email
scandal and won=92t release raw data.

>From Ice Age to Climate Change in a few Years!

Between 1975 (when a global ice-age was predicted by the same folks
who vaunted global warming, and have now changed that to climate
change) and 2000 the number of weather stations dropped from 7000 to
3000, because most of them were in the Soviet Union, who closed them
down. Instead of recalculating, the western lads simply messed around
with everything without proper recourse to genuine science. And we can
legitimately say this, because, as the Russians tell us: =93We want to
know more about the Hadley Centre=92s report, but they won=92t show us the
raw data.=94 Now, isn=92t that a surprise? And isn=92t it a sheer
coincidence that they don=92t share, just like Mann, Jones, Briffa and
others who are behind this gigantic fraud?

Of course, critics will latch-on to the fact that Russia does not want
the Copenhagen Summit to insist on CO2 emission legislature. Perhaps
they haven=92t heard, but most people in the world are against it, and
want nothing to do with climate change laws and controls! Brown in
particular is rushing ahead of everyone else, as he always does, in
order to bring the UK to its knees, and to bully its citizens with
higher taxation, which will do absolutely nothing to help the mythical
CO2 =91problem=92. But, he already knows that. Throughout the arduous
years of Labour government the UK has suffered multiple tax hikes and
multiple hidden taxes, all to pay for Brown=92s big errors and socialist
desires.

Another old-hat report, is that Brown is using the Summit to =93push for
new taxes on flights, shipping and finance.=94 (Which will drive up
costs of food, clothing, industry, etc). Never! Once again, I related
this in my book last year. I keep a constant check on what the UK
government does, and using climate (or global warming as it was then)
as a pretext to bring in huge taxes was an obvious reason for Brown to
get involved in CO2 nonsense.

Until last year we heard nothing from Gordon Brown on the issue of
CO2. But, when it dawned on him that he could tax everyone intensely,
he was suddenly Green-Gordon! It is no coincidence that his new-found
green heart came along at precisely the same time that his meddling
brought about the financial crisis in the first place! He couldn=92t get
out of the mess he had dug for Britons or himself, so he thought he=92d
use CO2 as a lever to get more tax money. Easy stuff for a socialist
who wants to hide his errors.

Something else coming out in the late stages of the Summit, is the
fact that UK voters (who did not vote-in Brown as Prime Minister, nor
did they vote him to act on CO2) are already being taxed several times
over =91green=92 issues=85 on air travel, car fuel and energy. Prices on
these items have shot up uncontrollably, without any scientific
reason, and will continue to shoot up. The net result is hardship for
millions in the UK. As I have said before, many cannot afford to heat
their homes now.
True Cost of Greenery

This is already going on, so after the Summit the people are expecting
to be throttled by more taxation. The costs of green tax in 2008 came
to a staggering =A326 billion. For a small country, that=92s huge. And
there=92s more to come. Yet, even the deceptive UN says the cost of CO2
emissions to Britain by humans is only =A34.6 billion. So, where=92s the
massive extra going? It is going to Gordon Brown, to make up the
deficit he landed the country with when he invented the financial
crisis (which he nastily blamed on the banks; Yes, they were culpable,
but they were only acting on his advice or command)!

The UK Taxpayer=92s Alliance says that =93The cost is expected to increase
massively in the years to come=94 as the true cost to families become
=93intolerably large=94. He says people in the UK are already being
overcharged for almost everything =96 and this can be confirmed.

So, when you read of the most recent =91revelations=92 remember they have
been known for some time. I commend Russia for bringing this up right
now =96 if it puts a spike in the Summit, then I will be more than
pleased. I think, though, that leaders want to wring us dry, so will
come up with something horrendous.

Until governments allow freedom of research and outcomes, do not trust
them one little bit! Their aim is to drain you of your incomes,
pensions and savings, until your life is made a sheer misery. Then,
when you have had enough, they will bring in the =91big guns=92 of policy
and law, to force you into a socialist strait-jacket. And this is what
those 40,000-plus climate protestors are really about. They may be
completely ignorant of the science, but their worst problem is
following Marxist commands, that will destroy western civilization,
including themselves. But that, of course, is the real intention of
the Summit =96 both protestors and leaders want to intimidate everyone
into submission. Is that Marxism in action, or not?

=97=A0=97
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena

=?windows-1252?Q?Met_Office_Has_=93Cherry=2Dpicked_Climate_Change_Figur?= =?windows-1252?Q?es_in_a_Bid_to_Increase_Evidence_of_Global_Warming=2E=94?=