It is now fifteen years since the well diddled global temperature
everyone was asked to accept peaked and flat-lined at the least. It is still warm because the original rise
pushed it into the upper range of the Holocene temperature range channel. And that was that and replicates similar
events throughout the Holocene. Since
then the human produced CO2 has continued to climb or at least no one has said
other wise.
What this does is completely unlink the tautology between rising CO2
and rising temperature. It in fact
outright disproves the conjecture which was why the Climate gate dump uncovered
apparent consternation.
What is becoming more apparent is that special interests with
meglomanic ambition hid behind easily diddled weather science and got burned
when the weather failed to cooperate beyond a couple of years. That was the inherent danger of the tautology
which I addressed immediately when I launched this blog in 2007 and chose to
keep the two phenomena separate as both are individually important even if they
are simply not linked at all.
Is The Climate Consensus
Beginning to Change?
Posted by David
Solway Bio ↓ on Apr 18th, 2012
|
|
The current scientific
consensus on Global Warming and Climate Change (or Global Weirding or Global
Climactic Disruption, etc.) may be slowly shifting away from the catastrophism
of the United Nations IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. True, the shift has been
tentative. Carbon-driven global warming was an easy sell, but it will be a hard
buyback—too many professional reputations are on the line. Nonetheless, the
evidence is piling up to suggest that the human contribution to (earlier)
global warming is far less than originally assumed and that a meteorological
calamity is highly unlikely. Two-thirds of the scientists attending the
33rdInternational Geological Congress in Norway in August 2008 were “hostile
to, even dismissive of, the UN’s IPCC report” (U.S. Senate Committee &
Public Works online, December 10, 2008).
More recently, a coalition of
49 former NASA scientists and seven Apollo astronauts has accused the
bureaucracy of both NASA and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, with
which it is affiliated, of diddling with the facts. They write: “We believe
that [their] claims that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic
impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when
considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of
well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists
publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming
particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT
settled.” (Watts Up With That, April 10, 2012).
Further, the Interim Report of
the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) of August 29,
2011 showed unambiguously that the UN suppressed or ignored much of the
countervailing data that challenged its official position. This is hardly
surprising since the IPCC, which certified and entrenched the so-called
“scientific consensus,” is essentially a political body with an agenda of its
own. Mark Hendrickson of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College
points out that the IPCC “does not speak as one voice,” since some of the
“leading scientists on the panel contradict its official position.” Others have
resigned in protest against its policymakers’ summaries, which are “produced by
a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.” It
turns out that those “who compose the summaries are given considerable latitude
to modify the scientific reports,” and Hendrickson quotes a U.S. State
Department official who informed an IPCC co-chair that “it is essential…
chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate
manner” (Doc’s Talk, May 25, 2009).
Hendrickson cites warmist
crusader and suspect guru Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim
Wirth, who has gone on record justifying the kind of scientific fraud
perpetrated by the IPCC. “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,” he
said, “we will be doing the right thing.” Further data casting serious doubt on
this railroaded consensus may be found at Inhofe EPW Press
Blog, Daily Tech online, and the journal Energy and Environment,
whose findings are based on a survey of the Institute for Scientific
Information Web of Science database covering almost 9000 scientific
publications.
But the fix is still in and
soldered tight by all sorts of disreputable means. In her new book The
Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Scientist,
Donna Laframboise shows that “IPCC has been recruiting 20-something graduate
students” as lead authors, many of whom had not even earned their degrees and
some of whom were majoring in non-climate disciplines. More than a third of the
2007 IPCC report (or Climate Bible) consisted of so-called “grey references,”
that is, unaccredited studies. The IPCC has also chosen “to muddy the water by
aligning [itself] with lobbyists” and relies heavily on non-peer reviewed
material, including newspaper items, press releases, magazine articles,
unpublished graduate theses and Green activist sources.
And then there is the
taradiddle, emanating from a University of Illinois 2009 survey, that 97.4% of
scientists agree that mankind is responsible for global warming. This is easily
debunked when one considers its selection methodology. As Rich Trzupek explains
(FrontPage Magazine, August 30, 2011), citing Lawrence Solomon’s crushing
putdown (FullComment, December 30, 2010), the Illinois researchers
decided that of the 10,257 respondents, the 10,180 who demurred from the
so-called consensus “weren’t qualified to comment on the issue because they
were merely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists,
meteorologists, astronomers and the like. Of the remaining 77 scientists whose
votes were counted, 75 agreed with the proposition that mankind was causing
catastrophic changes in the climate. And, since 75 is 97.4% of 77,
‘overwhelming consensus’ was demonstrated once again.” The real percentage
of concurring scientists in the survey is less than .008%. That these 75 were,
as Solomon writes, “scientists of unknown qualifications” adds yet another
layer to the boondoggle.
This sort of thing is not a
little white lie but a big green one, which has reached the point where it must
be maintained by the omission of details, the distortion of data and the
suspicious liability to error. The plot had already thickened in 1989 when the
late Stephen Schneider, Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at
Stanford University—who twenty years earlier had been warning the world of an
advancing ice age—wrote: “So we have to offer scary scenarios, make simplified
dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have”
(Detroit News Editorial, November 22, 1989).
Twenty years later, in
November 2009, the Hadley Climate Research Unit was hacked, releasing thousands
of files suggesting a covert mega-operation to propagate an Anthropogenic
Global Warming myth. It had become undeniable that data was tampered with to
paint the desired canvas, that counter-evidence was deliberately squelched,
that character assassination against climate skeptics was an accepted tactic
and that experimental results were falsely replicated. The notorious Wikileaks
cable dump made it even clearer that the climate “consensus” was more of a
political gambit than a scientific project (guardian.co.uk, December 3, 2010).
A new bundle of “hide the
decline” email dumps, known as Climategate 2.0, has confirmed that
“climate science” has been cooked and that, in the words of science and
technology writer Charlie Martin, “the ‘consensus’ is political, not
scientific” (The Tatler, November 22, 2011). Writing in The Weekly
Standard for December 12, 2011, Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise
Institute is equally if not more emphatic: “the new cache offers ample
confirmation of the rank politicization of climate science and rampant cronyism
that ought to trouble even firm believers in catastrophic climate change… it’s
another case of policy-driven science, and not science-driven policy.”
Even some of the specialists
involved in the enterprise have begun to question or object to the findings as,
to quote from the emails, “not statistically significant,” as “truly pathetic,”
and as “defending something that increasingly cannot be defended.”
Nevertheless, “The same science personalities at the top of the United Nations
climate research machine,” writes Terence Corcoran, “are back, parading before
readers in all their blundering glory” (National Post, November 23, 2011). The
lead researcher at the East Anglia CRU, Phil Jones, has gone so far as to
recommend deleting all incriminating emails and/or changing the wording of
others.
Myron Ebell, director of the
nonprofit Competitive Enterprise Institute Center on Energy and the Environment
(CEI), has said it definitively. “If there were any doubts remaining…the new
batch of E-mails…make it clear” that the IPCC “is an organized conspiracy
dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis
that requires a drastic response” (CEI online,November 22, 2011). Of course, as
noted, it is not only the IPCC which is tainted, but most of the GW outfits
whose theorists, adherents and practitioners are at least as concerned with
saving their careers as saving the planet. These frauds and true-believer
scientists who have profaned their discipline have clearly become a danger to
us all. But to our great good fortune and irrespective of the obstacles raised
before them, the mavericks refuse to go away. With luck, diligence and belated
good sense, one of the greatest scams of our time may eventually be exposed.
2 comments:
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/signing-global-warmings-certificate-of-death/
This is a link to a contract signed by 16 scientist who say that man made climate change is a hoax. I personally perfer the word "LIE".
Perhaps those who deny global warming will produce a single species, plant or animal, that is sensitive to temperature and is not either moving north or up. Maybe a set of numbers that does not show record number of high temperatures, and fewer lower temperatures. Maybe something that does not show earlier melting of lakes and rivers and later freezing.
something... anything other than a year or two data point for a few locations.
Post a Comment