In medieval times, there was a "scientific consensus" that the Earth was flat. Today, there is a "scientific consensus" global warming is real. But to achieve this consensus, there has been name calling, personal attacks, calls for defunding the sceptics, etc. It seems such bullying tactics are required, to keep the pretence up.
Past president of the National Academy of Science Dr. Fred Seitz noted in the Wall Street Journal that there were serious problems with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A second brief IPCC document entitled the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), did not match what the hundreds of scientists had stated in the TAR. The SPM had misrepresented what the scientists had said without their knowledge or approval.
Dr. Seitz wrote: "This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be - it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
This is a major scientific scandal, but where are the international headlines? It is not the only problem. The issue of the famous" hockeystick" graph was another major blow to the credibility of the IPCC. This chart was included as fact in the TAR and has been shown widely since the report's publication.
The hockeystick term refers to the general shape of the chart of global temperatures over the past 1000 years or so. It had been produced by modifying temperature data and proxies and generating the chart by a computer algorithm. Detailed analyses of the data and the algorithm by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demonstrated very improper and unscientific conduct.
For example, the chart did not show the well known warmer times of the Medieval Warming Period about 1000 years ago. This was a time when Vikings lived and farmed in Greenland for centuries. The hockeystick also did not show the Little Ice Age, which extended from about 1350 to 1850. The history of those times include snow falling in Paris in July, ice festivals held on 4 feet of ice on the Thames River in London, people walking from Denmark to Sweden across the frozen Baltic, as well as people walking from Manhattan to New Jersey across the frozen New York Harbor.
The Little Ice Age also included major famines, crop failures, and widespread diseases. So yes, it seems to be warmer now than some past time when it was cooler. Nobody has lately walked from Manhattan to New Jersey. We should all hope that such misery of cooler times would not occur again.
The improper conduct extends to the authors of the chart, editors and peer reviewers at Nature Magazine which published the chart, as well as the peer reviewers, editors, and publishers at the IPCC for publishing the chart in the TAR.
Even worse, the computer algorithm developed by these authors was essentially reverse engineered since the authors were unprofessionally reluctant in sharing it. What McIntyre and McKitrick found was that the algorithm could produce a hockeystick shaped graph from a table of random numbers. No valid temperature data was necessary. And that seems nothing short of magic... proving that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
When Steve McIntyre found errors in the temperature data of NASA facility at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), some global warming adherents were quick to point out this error was nevertheless insignificant in the greater scheme of things. In short: there is no "logical reason" to doubt the dogma, that global warming is real.
But the real consequences of this error were summarized by climatologist Dr. Fred Singer: "A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday, August 11, 2007." As with the IPCC problems, this drastically undermines the credibility of NASA.
In case this is not sufficient evidence that all is not well: on December 6, 2006, Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma gave some telling testimony to the US Senate. He testified that after writing a research paper in Science, he had received a call from a prominent global warmer stating that "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period".
Apart from removing data that does not fit the theory, some experts argue there isn't even a scientific consensus. Lord Monckton states "One has only to cut away the alarmist rhetoric and the media distractions, one has only to focus on the central question in the climate-change debate, and at once the fact that there is no scientific consensus about climate change is laid bare.
The central question is this: By how much will global temperature increase in response to any foreseeable increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide? On that question, the 'climate-sensitivity question', there is no consensus whatsoever within the scientific community. There is no scientific basis for the current panic."
The "Weather Eye" in The Times (UK) reported on August 16, 2007 how "East Africa should have heavy rainfalls in 2010." At first, you might believe this is another aspect of the "global warming" saga, but think again.
Paul Simons wrote: "In 1843 an amateur German astronomer, Samuel Schwabe, was trying to find a new planet that he thought could be detected as a dark spot in front of the Sun. For seventeen years Schwabe scanned the Sun and found no new planet, but he did discover a regular cycle in the numbers of sunspots, rising and falling over about ten years.
Sunspots are regions of intense magnetic activity and a sign that the Sun is increasing its energy output. The sunspots are also linked to solar storms that spew out electrical particles which batter the Earth and charge the upper atmosphere to produce intense auroras."
To continue quoting from Simons: "The sunspot cycle also has been linked to the weather and climate on Earth, although this remains a contentious subject. However, a new study has looked at weather records going back a century, and found that unusually heavy rainfalls in East Africa preceded peak sunspot activity by about a year. If true, a peak in rainfall should occur a year before the next sunspot peak, which is expected in 2011-12.
One explanation for this link is that the increased solar energy heats the land and sea, forcing more moist air to rise and trigger precipitation. If so, sunspot cycles could be used to predict floods and subsequent disease outbreaks in the region."
Note how in the report sunspots are - as has long been known - held to be able to heat the land and sea - i.e. "global warming", of a what somewhat different, and temporary kind.
The sunspot cycle is a matter of scientifically established fact. No-one doubts it. However, it also seems that the cycle was upstaged by global warming theorists, who may have merely confused a recurring cycle, which will soon ebb away in a few years to come, using it to spread propaganda for their theory.
Why? Amongst a myriad of reasons, one is that scientists are no longer able to receive funding for detailed sunspot cycle research, as little or nothing needs to be further investigated. But, of course, the theory of global warming is merely in its infancy and is the beneficiary of millions if not soon billions of dollars in research funds.
Freeman Dyson summarises the global warming controversy: "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.
Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans.
They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
It is also why the flat earth model was destroyed once Columbus set sail across the Atlantic, and proved all the armchair researchers wrong. The question is who will go against the new global warming dogma... and how can it be shaken, if not broken?
http://www.conspiracy-times.com/content/view/130/42/
Past president of the National Academy of Science Dr. Fred Seitz noted in the Wall Street Journal that there were serious problems with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A second brief IPCC document entitled the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), did not match what the hundreds of scientists had stated in the TAR. The SPM had misrepresented what the scientists had said without their knowledge or approval.
Dr. Seitz wrote: "This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be - it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."
This is a major scientific scandal, but where are the international headlines? It is not the only problem. The issue of the famous" hockeystick" graph was another major blow to the credibility of the IPCC. This chart was included as fact in the TAR and has been shown widely since the report's publication.
The hockeystick term refers to the general shape of the chart of global temperatures over the past 1000 years or so. It had been produced by modifying temperature data and proxies and generating the chart by a computer algorithm. Detailed analyses of the data and the algorithm by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demonstrated very improper and unscientific conduct.
For example, the chart did not show the well known warmer times of the Medieval Warming Period about 1000 years ago. This was a time when Vikings lived and farmed in Greenland for centuries. The hockeystick also did not show the Little Ice Age, which extended from about 1350 to 1850. The history of those times include snow falling in Paris in July, ice festivals held on 4 feet of ice on the Thames River in London, people walking from Denmark to Sweden across the frozen Baltic, as well as people walking from Manhattan to New Jersey across the frozen New York Harbor.
The Little Ice Age also included major famines, crop failures, and widespread diseases. So yes, it seems to be warmer now than some past time when it was cooler. Nobody has lately walked from Manhattan to New Jersey. We should all hope that such misery of cooler times would not occur again.
The improper conduct extends to the authors of the chart, editors and peer reviewers at Nature Magazine which published the chart, as well as the peer reviewers, editors, and publishers at the IPCC for publishing the chart in the TAR.
Even worse, the computer algorithm developed by these authors was essentially reverse engineered since the authors were unprofessionally reluctant in sharing it. What McIntyre and McKitrick found was that the algorithm could produce a hockeystick shaped graph from a table of random numbers. No valid temperature data was necessary. And that seems nothing short of magic... proving that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
When Steve McIntyre found errors in the temperature data of NASA facility at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), some global warming adherents were quick to point out this error was nevertheless insignificant in the greater scheme of things. In short: there is no "logical reason" to doubt the dogma, that global warming is real.
But the real consequences of this error were summarized by climatologist Dr. Fred Singer: "A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday, August 11, 2007." As with the IPCC problems, this drastically undermines the credibility of NASA.
In case this is not sufficient evidence that all is not well: on December 6, 2006, Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma gave some telling testimony to the US Senate. He testified that after writing a research paper in Science, he had received a call from a prominent global warmer stating that "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period".
Apart from removing data that does not fit the theory, some experts argue there isn't even a scientific consensus. Lord Monckton states "One has only to cut away the alarmist rhetoric and the media distractions, one has only to focus on the central question in the climate-change debate, and at once the fact that there is no scientific consensus about climate change is laid bare.
The central question is this: By how much will global temperature increase in response to any foreseeable increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide? On that question, the 'climate-sensitivity question', there is no consensus whatsoever within the scientific community. There is no scientific basis for the current panic."
The "Weather Eye" in The Times (UK) reported on August 16, 2007 how "East Africa should have heavy rainfalls in 2010." At first, you might believe this is another aspect of the "global warming" saga, but think again.
Paul Simons wrote: "In 1843 an amateur German astronomer, Samuel Schwabe, was trying to find a new planet that he thought could be detected as a dark spot in front of the Sun. For seventeen years Schwabe scanned the Sun and found no new planet, but he did discover a regular cycle in the numbers of sunspots, rising and falling over about ten years.
Sunspots are regions of intense magnetic activity and a sign that the Sun is increasing its energy output. The sunspots are also linked to solar storms that spew out electrical particles which batter the Earth and charge the upper atmosphere to produce intense auroras."
To continue quoting from Simons: "The sunspot cycle also has been linked to the weather and climate on Earth, although this remains a contentious subject. However, a new study has looked at weather records going back a century, and found that unusually heavy rainfalls in East Africa preceded peak sunspot activity by about a year. If true, a peak in rainfall should occur a year before the next sunspot peak, which is expected in 2011-12.
One explanation for this link is that the increased solar energy heats the land and sea, forcing more moist air to rise and trigger precipitation. If so, sunspot cycles could be used to predict floods and subsequent disease outbreaks in the region."
Note how in the report sunspots are - as has long been known - held to be able to heat the land and sea - i.e. "global warming", of a what somewhat different, and temporary kind.
The sunspot cycle is a matter of scientifically established fact. No-one doubts it. However, it also seems that the cycle was upstaged by global warming theorists, who may have merely confused a recurring cycle, which will soon ebb away in a few years to come, using it to spread propaganda for their theory.
Why? Amongst a myriad of reasons, one is that scientists are no longer able to receive funding for detailed sunspot cycle research, as little or nothing needs to be further investigated. But, of course, the theory of global warming is merely in its infancy and is the beneficiary of millions if not soon billions of dollars in research funds.
Freeman Dyson summarises the global warming controversy: "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.
Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans.
They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models."
It is also why the flat earth model was destroyed once Columbus set sail across the Atlantic, and proved all the armchair researchers wrong. The question is who will go against the new global warming dogma... and how can it be shaken, if not broken?
http://www.conspiracy-times.com/content/view/130/42/
No comments:
Post a Comment