Climate, er, change: A paper’s sober look at the science

Coming from a German paper, and Der Spiegel, no less, “Climate Catastrophe: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research” is a surprising, impressive and important piece of journalism. At eight Web pages long, you won’t get through it quickly. But I heartily recommend it for anyone who wants to read a critical but fair examination of the state of climate science.

Spoiler alert: The days of “consensus” are over for all but the most basic elements of climate science.

Here’s a sampling from the report, offered with the intent of enticing you read the entire piece.

On the politicization of science:

Reinhard Hüttl, head of the German Research Center for Geosciences in Potsdam near Berlin and the president of the German Academy of Science and Engineering, believes that basic values are now under threat. “Scientists should never be as wedded to their theories that they are no longer capable of refuting them in the light of new findings,” he says. Scientific research, Hüttl adds, is all about results, not beliefs. Unfortunately, he says, there are more and more scientists who want to be politicians.

On the reliability of temperature data:

Most climatologists still believe [East Anglia professor Phil] Jones’ contention that he did not intentionally manipulate the data. However, that belief will have to remain rooted in good faith. Under the pressure of [Steve] McIntyre’s attacks, Jones had to admit something incredible: He had deleted his notes on how he performed the homogenization. This means that it is not possible to reconstruct how the raw data turned into his temperature curve.

For Peter Webster, a meteorologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, this course of events is “one of the biggest sins” a scientist can commit. “It’s as if a chef was no longer able to cook his dishes because he lost the recipes.”

On the importance of verifying the data to regain public trust:

German climatologist Hans von Storch now wants to see an independent institution recalculate the temperature curve, and he even suggests that the skeptics be involved in the project. He points out, however, that processing the data will take several years.

“There is no other way to regain the trust that has been lost,” he says, “even if I’m certain that the new curve will not look significantly different from the old one.”

And if it does? “That would definitely be the worst-case scenario for climatology. We would have to start all over again.”

On who would suffer most from climate change:

The common myth that developing countries, the poorest of the poor, will suffer the most as a result of climate change is wrong — at least according to current climate models.

In central Africa, for example, the models predict that hardly anything will change, and precipitation will likely remain constant. And according to most simulations, precipitation could even increase in the drought- and famine-plagued Sahel. “If this turns out to be true,” says [veteran climatologist Erich] Roeckner, “it will of course be a surprisingly positive side effect.”

On the importance of the much-discussed need to avoid at all costs more than a two-degree (Celsius) increase:

Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.”

But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”

Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.

As I said earlier, the article really needs to be read in its entirety. But the fact that German media are now taking a skeptical look at climatologists’ claims is significant because, as British journalist James Delingpole explains so succinctly, “No people on earth are more righteously Green than the Germans.”

For all the aid some journalists have given to efforts to brand climate skepticism as akin to Holocaust denial, perhaps the media can now make it safe again to question the conclusions of scientists who are, like the rest of us, only human.

51 comments Add your comment

Peter

April 2nd, 2010
11:28 am

I guess being sober would have to do with the day after the RNC goes Strip club hopping ?

CJ

April 2nd, 2010
11:48 am

Kyle’s link is suddenly outdated:

“The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they’d seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming – two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.

In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, ‘the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact,’ adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that ‘global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.’”

Kyle Wingfield

April 2nd, 2010
11:57 am

Hardly, CJ. First of all, this is the first of a few investigations, and it included just one day of oral testimony. See the Guardian’s explanation of some of this particular inquiry’s flaws here: http://bit.ly/aSsXAF

Second, the issue raised in the Spiegel article to which I linked is something completely different: Jones’ inability to document how he turned the raw temperature data into the homogenized data set he presented to the world. It hardly matters whether he was trying to tamper with the data or be an obstructionist — the gist of the parliamentary inquiry — because the result is the same. His work is unverifiable.

Intentional or not, that’s still a huge scientific problem.

CJ

April 2nd, 2010
12:08 pm

Kyle’s link is suddenly, er, outdated (pdf)—as per the first report just issued by The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee

“…insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty–for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to ‘hide the decline’–we consider that there is no case to answer…We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that ‘global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity’”

Speaking of important journalism, the results of this investigation have been awaited by scientists and skeptics alike; this report is widely disseminated. But so-called journalists will continue to rely on this “scandal”, plus the likes of meteorologists, podiatrists, and others with no expertise in climate science to provide them with quotes to support their pro-corporate ideology.

CJ

April 2nd, 2010
12:11 pm

Oops sorry about the double post. For some reason there was a delay in the first post. I started over and, as you can see, got angrier as I went along. (On the bright side, I was able to find the original pdf in the process).

Peter

April 2nd, 2010
12:21 pm

After Bush did all he could to change the Scientific data for 8 years, we still have Kyle providing Hate for the world, not just America but the world.

CJ

April 2nd, 2010
1:13 pm

I realize that some will take anything coming from Greenpeace with a grain of salt—given the demonization of this organization by corporate funded organizations with more pull in the media.

However, I’ll risk it and post a link to their report offering a case study in how the petroleum industry is financing the “climate change denial machine”, and more importantly, creating its own echo chamber in the “liberal” media.

Click here (pdf) to take a look.

Chris Broe

April 2nd, 2010
1:29 pm

The weaknesses in the theory are grounded in the size of the data sample: 100 years vs 5 billion years of earth’s existence. To trust the Germans about anything except cornering is to ignore history.

Please. Global Warming is just another distraction from the real issue. That issue is obvious so I wont even mention it.

retiredds

April 2nd, 2010
1:38 pm

Kyle, posting about the science of climate change is getting to be old news. The die is and has been cast regardless or your or the conservative right wing opinion denying climate change. The future growth of business is in clean energy. Its the new (clean) industrial revolution. There is the potential for 5-10 million jobs in this sector. There is the potential for the US to export clean energy technology. Many other countries and many in this country are already on board to develop, generate, and produce clean and more efficient energy. Too bad there are those who are still arguing over the East Anglia stuff. That’s old hat and the world, including the US, has moved beyond that neanderthal argument. Check out Duke Energy, GE, GM (electric vehicles), cities that are going green, citizens changing to more energy efficient appliances and light bulbs. The climate change nay- sayers are the dinosaurs. The new wave is energy efficiency, clean energy, and a burgeoning industry which will produce millions of jobs. So, Kyle, when are you going to get on board?

Kyle Wingfield

April 2nd, 2010
1:48 pm

“The die is and has been cast” — perfect summation of the hands-over-the-ears approach to any new and contrary information about this topic. Perfect antithesis to what Hüttl, the German scientist (not a “denier”) quoted above, says science is about.

CJ, you still haven’t answered my comment about the issue raised here with Jones’ work. But I’ll go ahead and add another:

Why do you dismiss politicians who question climate science as inferior to scientists, but in this case accept the verdict of a bunch of politicians over the belief of many scientists who acknowledge something is amiss with Jones and CRU?

Linda

April 2nd, 2010
1:57 pm

retiredd, Which greenhouse gas do you think is the most harmful & why?

Ragnar Danneskjöld

April 2nd, 2010
2:01 pm

I note only, with amusement, that the leftists are now conjoining global warming – pardon, “climate change” – with the Population Bomb.

Kyle Wingfield

April 2nd, 2010
2:17 pm

And either one, Ragnar, could make Guam capsize at any moment.

Chris Broe

April 2nd, 2010
2:31 pm

Ragnar Danneskjöld

April 2nd, 2010
2:34 pm

Linda

April 2nd, 2010
2:35 pm

I had no idea that a greenhouse gas other than carbon dioxide was so dangerous & is being targeted by the EPA & the IPCC.
It’s in acid rain, may cause severe burns, is absolutely fatal if inhaled, contributes to erosion of our natural landscape, accelerates corrosion & the rusting of many metals, may cause electrical failures & decreased effectiveness of auto brakes & has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
In spite of the danger, it’s often used as an industrial solvent & coolant, in nuclear power plants, in the production of Styrofoam, as a fire retardant, in many forms of cruel animal research, in the distribution of pesticides (Even after washing, the produce remains contaminated by this chemical),
& as an additive in certain junk & other foods.
I’ve already joined the coalition to ban it completely.
Why are we concentrating on carbon dioxide?
Kyle, please do not respond.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

April 2nd, 2010
2:37 pm

Dear Kyle, if I find I cannot cut it in this shystering business, maybe I can be a straight-man for you and PoFo. LOL

Linda

April 2nd, 2010
2:49 pm

High levels have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic & Antarctic ice caps.
Recent massive exposures have led to loo of life in destruction of property in numerous states in the last few days.
Significant levels were found in the devastating tsunami in Chile.

william

April 2nd, 2010
2:54 pm

“Why are we concentrating on carbon dioxide?”

Because of Al Gore!

william

April 2nd, 2010
2:57 pm

So this climate thing is to tax and cost us more money so we can give it to other countries. Hey my son does not need it. Why should I have money to leave to my family. Distribute the wealth with government control–now that is the real plan.

Linda

April 2nd, 2010
2:59 pm

But carbon dioxide isn’t the real problem. You rarely hear anyone complaining about the OTHER greenhouse gases that are just as dangerous & much higher in content. WHY?

CJ

April 2nd, 2010
3:02 pm

Kyle,

I’m not getting into the raw data question because, because I don’t have any expertise on the matter—nor do you. We’re in no position to claim expertise in a particular area of science, and by being sucked into an argument about raw data, I would be wallowing in my ignorance.

Answering your question at 1:48, I generally don’t believe politicians on climate science—as I’ve said—I believe climate scientists. That said, I’m more likely to believe politicians who rely on people who are experts in their fields rather than believing politicians who relying on non-experts who tell them what they want to hear.

I have a suggestion. Republicans liked to stack up the pages of the HCR bill to demonstrate how big the legislation is. You should print all the IPCC reports to see how they look on the printed page (one-sided, double space, large margins—as done by HCR obstructionists). Then draw a line through the “more and more mistakes” referred to in the article you linked to. I think you’ll find that deleting said mistakes are the equivalent of taking a can out of the ocean.

Linda

April 2nd, 2010
3:28 pm

Homogenization in global warming research is like trying to make cornbread like your grandmother used to make. You try different amounts of the ingredients over a period of months, omitting some & adding new ones until you’re satisfied with the results. Then you save your final recipe in a safe place.

Unfortunately, Jones didn’t save his recipe. His granddaughter is 5 years old. He used the oldest & best excuse in the world, “The dog ate it.”

CJ was teasing when he said he didn’t have expertise on the matter of raw data.

Kyle Wingfield

April 2nd, 2010
3:34 pm

CJ, I’m not an expert, but I know enough to understand that data and processes which can’t be replicated and verified are worthless in science. Think about it: Jones cannot explain how he got from the raw data — which are full of problems, for reasons explained in the Spiegel article — to the “corrected” data which he has used to argue the greatness of the danger posed by climate change. That is no small thing.

It’s not the fact that he made any corrections that is problematic; it’s the fact that, depending on how the corrections are made, entirely different conclusions could be drawn about the cause, degree and even presence of global warming.

This is at the heart of the debate — and yes, debate still exists — over climate change. It easily swamps the other mistakes because these data are at the heart of the IPCC reports.

Yet, the only response by Jones, et al. is that, yes, it’s problematic, but they’re quite sure nothing would change if the data and processes were replicated, so let’s just forget about all this unpleasantness and move on to restructuring the world economy.

Sorry, but it’s not that simple.

Understand, much of the public skepticism about climate science and related policies would not exist if these data had been verifiable in the first place. Big Oil didn’t create this mess for Jones or anyone else; the wounds are self-inflicted.

The scientists may well be able to make amends and vindicate themselves. But it will take a lot more than a report from a dozen members of the House of Commons.

CJ

April 2nd, 2010
3:52 pm

Understand, much of the public skepticism about climate science and related policies would not exist if these data had been verifiable in the first place. Big Oil didn’t create this mess for Jones or anyone else; the wounds are self-inflicted.

Much of the public skepticism would not exist? This comment ignores recent history. The right has been relying on think tanks funded by the petroleum industry to refute climate science long before somebody hacked into UAE computers to get access to Phil Jones’ e-mail.

A trumped up controversy in the media combined with snow storms in the media belt are the cause of the public skepticism—not anything that has to do with the foundation of conclusions regarding climate change.

Kyle Wingfield

April 2nd, 2010
4:01 pm

…and before November, when those emails were released, public opinion moved steadily against skepticism. The public is moving back in the direction of skepticism because it’s not only the usual suspects who are saying this is a big deal.

Btw, given your admitted lack of expertise, on what grounds do you declare the controversy “trumped up”?

CJ

April 2nd, 2010
4:10 pm

I consider the sources.

Glenn

April 2nd, 2010
4:21 pm

I really think we just need to hope that climate change doesn’t exist . Most manufacturing is now coming from countries with little environmental laws .That isn’t going to change . It probably doesn’t matter whether we do anything or not . As countries develope they are not going to have fuel cells or solar panels . If global warming exists it won’t matter . The reality is carbon omissions globally will probably continue to rise . Personally I think pollution or acidification will ruin the planet first . Environmentalists used to say wait till a billion Chinese get air conditioning . That day is coming quicker than most thought a few years back . Anyhow we will get to find out . I have made to decision to try and find it exciting .

MarkV

April 2nd, 2010
4:21 pm

Kyle,
Why all this emphasis on the politics and who did what with the data? Why don’t you just look around to see what is happening, such as glaciers and islands disappearing?

tgone

April 2nd, 2010
4:34 pm

water is in acid rain too, is that being regulated as a pollutant now? That Oxygen is in there too, when will that be regulated as a pollutant, also oxygen is highly flammable, I say we ban all 3.

Linda

April 2nd, 2010
4:45 pm

The website for the most dangerous greenhouse gas is at:

http://www.dhmo.org/

You can sign up to join the coalition. It’s free.

tgone, please go there now.

tgone

April 2nd, 2010
4:54 pm

consider me joined and a little embarrassed.

Linda

April 2nd, 2010
5:05 pm

tgone, glad to have you on board.

Steven Douglas

April 2nd, 2010
6:02 pm

CJ, I guess you haven’t been following the news.

Koch Industries, a lone company supposedly at the root of the “well funded climate change denial machine” payout, all of which is alleged to fund “climate change denial” – less than fifty million dollars.

NASA climate science budget increase: more than 2.5 BILLION. Worldwide grant and other moneys spent on climate “and related” science: inestimable.

The inability by some to weigh anything properly, or to put anything whatsoever into a reality perspective: PRICELESS.

Pot-kettle? More like cauldron-thimble.

Linda

April 2nd, 2010
6:26 pm

NASA repositioned my floormat, changed my oil & cleaned my windshield today & then suggested I buy Government Motors.

Michael H. Smith

April 2nd, 2010
6:51 pm

Please. Global Warming is just another distraction from the real issue. That issue is obvious so I wont even mention it.

OMG! The troll is making sense. This can’t be happening… is it?

Candice Hanson

April 2nd, 2010
7:46 pm

It’s gotten so I don’t know who to believe. I can’t do the experiments myself, and I certainly can’t believe everything I read. In an ideal world, there would be no political agenda. Science would be pure and unblemished from subterfuge. The wisest man I know is my 90 year old father. He says the weather is changing, it is getting warmer. I think I’ll go with his assessment for now.

One Voice

April 2nd, 2010
8:29 pm

Uh, Kyle, you do know that journalism and the media are irrelevant in regard to the question of climate change, don’t you? The mood or the approach the media takes has no bearing on the accuracy of the data. You seem to suggest that the way the media is approaching the issue somehow changes the substance of it. You can wish whatever you want to and talk about whatever you want to, but opinions are irrelevant.

Just like with the Theory of Natural Selection, you’ll always be able to find a couple of fringe nutcases with PhDs in some peripheral content area who will argue for the opposite of what has become the general scientific consensus. But that doesn’t change the fact that that consensus is the best information we currently have on the subject. No scientific Theory (with a big “T”) is ever “proven”, not the Theory of Light, Gravitational Theory, Germ Theory, Atomic Theory, or the Theory of Evolution. New discoveries and adjustments can and will always be made relating to those Theories. That’s how science works. But we know there is light, gravity, germs, atoms, and we know we evolved (at least those of us with a minimal level of education do). Climate change is reaching that threshold to big “T” status. Wishing (or praying) that climate change or natural selection is not true and then going out and finding someone with “academic” credentials to support your preordained conclusion is intellectual dishonesty. That’s not how science works and it’s not how you arrive at the truth. It’s just a way to spread lies and propagate ignorance. Congratulations. You’ve succeeded in that regard.

Orkneygal

April 2nd, 2010
8:50 pm

Fraudulent presentation, using faked “Hockey Sticks”, openly and agressively violating Freedom of Information requests and conspiring to squash dissenting views by corrupting the peer review process, that’s the type of work that some climate scientists have done to mislead the public about the causes and affects of our ever changing climate.

The overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.

However, the MWP deniers will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.

In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.

But this part is simple.

If the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth’s temperature regulator.

A thousand years ago, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly, ocean cleansing and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.

Taxing carbon is not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.

That is adaptation.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

TGT

April 2nd, 2010
9:13 pm

“a couple of fringe nutcases with PhDs in some peripheral content area”

You mean like Freeman Dyson, Ian Plimer, Reid Bryson, Roy Spencer, John Coleman, Richard Lindzen, Dr. Nathan Paldor, Dr. Oleg Sorochtin, Dr. Marcel Leroux, Edward Wegman, Timothy Ball, John Christy, William Gray, Christopher Landsea, Henrik Svensmark, etc. etc. etc.

Victory67

April 2nd, 2010
9:19 pm

There is nothing wrong with cleaning up pollution. However to charge people for what the Earth is doing and has been doing for eons is ludicrous. (That is where the fraud comes in.) It is that simple. The doom and gloomers are always with us and scientists being human need to impress us. They also need to to listen to other scientists and not guard their own pet theories so jealously.

Arno Arrak

April 2nd, 2010
10:40 pm

After reading the Spiegel article I got the impression that these are honest people who are moved to put their house in order after the Climategate revelations came out. They are not deniers and I almost feel sorry for them because they still think that global warming is happening. But Climategate is only the tip of the iceberg when you realize what is yet to come out. I am speaking of the world temperature curves put out by NASA, NOAA and the Met Office that show a “late twentieth century warming” in the eighties and nineties. This is the warming that Hansen testified about to the U.S, Senate in 1988. Global warming has arrived, he said, and it’s cause is carbon dioxide we are putting in the air. His testimony provided a push towards starting up the IPCC for which plans existed and was instrumental in supporting the Kyoto and Copenhagen agendas. But satellites have been observing global temperature for the last thirty years and they simply do not see that warming. What they do see in its place is a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise. These are not simply random wanderings but can be related to the ENSO system in the Pacific that has a global climate influence. This is very different from a claimed steady late twentieth century warming. It is quite clear that this warming did not happen and that all three climate curves that show it are cooked. As in falsified. To find out how it was done get “What Warming?” available on Amazon.com. And now consider this: without this warming there was no greenhouse warming at all in the twentieth century. Greenhouse warming has simply never been observed, then or since. Our recent temperature history includes a forty year period of stable temperatures until the 1998 super El Nino showed up. But its cause was not carbon dioxide in the air but a storm surge in the Indo-Pacific region that brought much warm water to the start of the equatorial countercurrent. That is where all El Ninos begin. The one-time global temperature increase from the super El Nino was a full degree Celsius, more than the recorded temperature increase of the entire twentieth century. Its left-over warm water was responsible for the twenty-first century high, a run of six warm years that followed. Most of them were among the top ten and collectively they made that decade the warmest on record. During this period temperature stagnated near the El Nino maximum while carbon dioxide kept increasing at the rate it has been for the last fifty years. This drove the model-makers nuts who were feeding carbon dioxide into their models and expecting temperature increase from that. All that came to an end with a La Nina cooling in 2008 that Kevin Trenberth of CRU could not understand. It is actually simple: the La Nina signifies the resumption of the oscillatory climate of the eighties and nineties that NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office obliterated to get that late twentieth century warming on the books. This sustained and coordinated scientific fraud is the only thing that holds up the claim that global warming is happening. Since three organizations are involved it is also a criminal conspiracy and should be internationally investigated. A climate Nuremberg perhaps?

Sue

April 3rd, 2010
12:49 am

The hackers who stole the private personal emails from East Anglia were operating from China, according to British security experts. China wants to keep building one coal plant per week, so it is easy to see why they fund the climate skeptics. Also China wants to win the battle to make renewable energy technology cheaper than coal, and they need the USA to take a back seat because right now they are behind.

How come the Climate Skeptics all happen to be making a living off of CO2 heavy industries? Even a lot of these silly comment posters are paid for by Koch Industries.

Joe

April 3rd, 2010
3:32 am

Interesting conversations, although I don’t find the arguments criticising climate change especially convincing. I don’t claim to have the answers, but the folks asking why we’re not paying attention to water vapour, can you tell me if the amount in the atmosphere has changed? Because that’s the point about CO2 – the amount in the atmosphere has increased by around a third since industrialisation begun. And then, on whether this is a natural variation – well, if it is, what exactly is that increased CO2 doing? It’s been known to be a greenhouse gas since the 19th Century.

I’m also not entirely convinced by Arno’s argument that the temperature change is just an oscillation. I don’t know whether he wants to include a link to a temperature graph, but pretty much all of them that I’ve seen are about a half-degree lower at the beginning of the 20th Century than at the end. There’s one included in the link here:

http://wp.me/pLahN-4h

That same link includes an interview with a different Potsdam researcher from the one Kyle mentions, who says “Most climate scientists wish they could be wrong, but the evidence is already overwhelming – and still accumulating.”

It’s important to try and pick up errors in science when they’re there, but I’m not convinced that any of the arguments on this page damn the climate change science overall. I do not want to believe that I will have to cut back on my consumption – in fact I’m tempted to go on holiday to all the islands that may disappear under rising seas while I can, before there are taxes on flying. However, it seems to me that any sensible person should prepare themselves for this possibility.

TGT

April 3rd, 2010
7:39 am

“How come the Climate Skeptics all happen to be making a living off of CO2 heavy industries?” (Not true.)

How come most of the (powerful) AGW cheerleaders stand to profit from their climate fear mongering? The “follow the money” argument goes both ways.

Michael H. Smith

April 3rd, 2010
9:15 am

Please. Global Warming is just another distraction from the real issue. That issue is obvious so I wont even mention it.

Well, as the deep subject goes, since the troll chooses not to mention the real issue, yours truly will: Energy.

Clean renewable energy and how best to have it: That is the real discussion which should be occurring but isn’t.

Neil Craig

April 3rd, 2010
11:04 am

The consensus is a fraud.

I have asked journalists, politicians & alarmists now totalling in the 10s of thousands to name 2 prominent scientists, not funded by government or an alarmist lobby who have said that we are seeing a catastrophic degree of warming & none of them have yet been able to do so. I extend this same invitation here.

There is not & never was a genuine scientific consensus on this, though scientists seeking government funds have been understandably reluctant to speak. If there were anything approaching a consensus it with over 31,000 scientists having signed the Oregon petition saying it is bunk, it would be easy to find a similar number of independent scientists saying it was true, let alone 2. The whole thing depends on a very small number of people & a massive government publicity machine, both very well funded by the innocent taxpayer.

As a general rule of thumb when somebody has been caught saying something untrue once anything else they say should be treated with suspicion. If no “environmentalists” can prove their abuse of the good name of science in claiming “consensus” we should not respect their warming alarmism or indeed any of the other numerous scare stories produced over the years.

The next “scientific consensus” that needs examination is the “no lower threshold” (LNT) theory that low doses of radiation are deadly. This has allowed hysteria to prevent cheap & plentiful electricity for the world for 40 years. Yet not only is there no evidence whatsoever for it there is massive evidence for the opposite theory, known as hormesis, that it is beneficial

Science is a matter of evidence, in fact, no clear evidence whatsoever of catastrophic warming exists which is why they need to change the subject with the “consensus” lie.

vicki

April 3rd, 2010
4:28 pm

“In central Africa, for example, the models predict that hardly anything will change, and precipitation will likely remain constant. And according to most simulations, precipitation could even increase in the drought- and famine-plagued Sahel.” Here is one that is totally creative writing. Just look at what is happening in Africa. http://tinyurl.com/y8j8nn4 and this http://tinyurl.com/yf6mtbt Or what is happening to forests. http://tinyurl.com/yfhk4ce or the Arctic http://tinyurl.com/y8nmdkf
I hope Mr Wingfield has a good explanation for his kids as their future deteriorates

lrbinfrisco

April 4th, 2010
9:58 pm

I work as a programmer and have a degree in IT. I remember in my in my senior year, I was taking an advanced systems analysis class. The instructor was diagraming a common anti-pattern found in business software development. It started off with a diagram representing input on one side of the board and another representing output. In the middle was an unlabled diagram. He then labled the middle diagram as “suddenly a miracle occurs.” To me that describes the homogenization of historical temperatures. That’s fine for a Sunday school lesson, where I expect to rely on faith. I have a huge problem being expected to take solely on faith, that this is science. I’ve studied the science, and I’ve found huge gaps where you are simply expected to take it on faith. Like taking it on faith that anyone critical of AGW or ACC as it’s called now is in the employ of “evil” oil companies. But those “evil” oil companies that are public don’t have any financial record of contributing substantial funds to begin to fund all skeptical scientific opinions. And Exxon’s entire annual charitable and political contributions are just a rounding error when compared to NASA’s climate science budget. But magically NASA has no conflict of financial interest even though it’s budget has multipled many times over since James Hansen 1st testified to Congress on the dangers of Man Made Global Warming. I shouldn’t have to have a Phd to follow the logic. I don’t have to have on to follow the logic of the Theory of Evolution, nor of the Theory of Relativity, much less Boyle’s law or Newton’s laws. All of those relied on observations that were highly repeatable by thousands if not millions of professional and amateur scientists alike. But less than a handful of scientific organizations monopolize the observations that determine the temperature history of the world. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. But where are the temperature studies showing that if you increase C02 by x amount per million, the temperature goes up y amount if all things are held constant? Any college undergradute in chemistry or physics should be able to reproduce this. But, we would see the changes of temperature increase being attributed to C02 by AGW alarmists. Most experiments show increasing C02 to about 20 to 30 percent of gas to show significant increase, yet we only have around 390 parts CO2 in our atmosphere. That’s only 0.039% of our atmosphere. Where’s the proof in repeatable and verifiable experiments that CO2 has at this concentration can cause a degree or two difference from say 0.014%? Does suddenly a “miracle happen” when it’s in the world atmosphere instead of a controlled laboratory atmosphere?

Just ME in T

April 11th, 2010
5:52 am

The AGW Scammers will not lie down and die quietly. They will pull whatever (?) facts they can find into the fray… and then if that does not work they will fabricate and or concot others to get you to ’sign on’….. seen this?

Is this really asking you to be part of the World’s Greatest Bank Job (ha ha ha ha) or a conniving way to encourage you to be a part of the Worlds Biggest Con Job?
I just have to wonder how many folk actually have heard about the ‘Robin Hood Tax’ ? – (RHT) and more importantly have taken the time to find out what it is? where it comes from? what is actually involved? Let me tell you right now it involves BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and of course, should it come to pass, just who will administer it?

http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/04/men-in-tights.html