End of Another Global Fraud: IPCC in turmoil

As the Financial Post, a real paper from Canada, put it: here is all you need to know about global warming:

Oops.

The nice colors are the models the IPCC and, hence, the true believers used to "settle" the question of global warming. The mean black lines are data, the deniers.

Flash back years: I explained all this and predicted, like a bad radio host, that real scientists will jump the PC ship one they start to look stupid. This is happening at the IPCC. The scientists at IPCC are at odds with the political drones who will publish data, then add a preface, one disconnected from reality, about how the world is ending.

There are many fraudulent careers at stake in an era when stupid people may have to work in the "private sector," as they call normal life.

One addition:  I glibly talked about solar activity as the thing to watch (and the models ignored). This is sort of a good plan, but the key is that water vapor the sun generates is the greenhouse gas that affects temperature.

I am in the process of organizing a NFP to cover the oceans with floating concrete.  Sounds reasonable.  Maybe, we coat it with a floating, while oil or something or kill animals that breath.
---------

From Behndtheblack.com:

SEPTEMBER 19, 2013 AT 7:11 PM

Another leak from the IPCC shows that politicians in Belgium, Hungary, Germany, and the United States attempted to pressure the scientists writing the report to cover up the lack in global temperature rise since 1998.

[L]eaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years. Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries. Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change. Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve. The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

Two points: First, for this article to refer to any legitimate scientist who questions the theory of human-caused global warming to be called a “denier” offends me beyond words, as regular readers of this website know.

Second, this leak proves once again the foolishness of allowing politicians to get involved in the scientific process. They should be kept as far away as possible, at all times.

• By Robert Zimmerman
• Comments (5)
• Permalink
• Share

Zimmerman see the current leaks as intentional. The lowly, worker bee scientists have had enough.

Zealots hiding in Scientists' clothing

I noticed some hoopla from the La. Coalition for Science.

They were in a tizzy because La. decided to allow 'intelligent design" to be mentioned along with evolution in high school science. Their argument is the state got what it deserves as some society won't hold a meeting in New Orleans out of scientific revenge.

The Coalition was happy to say other decisions not in keeping with theirs have resulted in economic damage to other states and that La. can expect more.

Doesn't this bother anyone? 

First, do as I want in the schools or I will hurt everyone. 

Second, others messed with us and they were injured.

Third, obey or be ostracized.

Doesn't RICO apply to this?

The reaction to Louisiana's move bespeaks of something far greater than a disagreement over what is taught in school. The mini scientists want control. Period. They insist science demands atheism, when you cut out the bull crap. 

No one, no one, and again, no one has proven global warming even exists. I can't say I have even read the working definition, it is some vague religious feeling that shifts to climate change when necessary.

There is NO proof of any connection between man and heating, if it even exists. Therefore, the theory cannot be tested. To be science, men in white jackets should be able to tell me what the weather will be, not try to explain what they missed when predictions failed.

Hence, it should not be taught in science class.

The society noted a history of law suits about this subject. Why are they going to Court? Why all the hysteria over a science teacher saying, "Many people believe behind life and evolution there is an intelligent design, a first mover some call God."  Wow, that hardly seems even worth thinking about, unless the idea is to ban God. What if it we suspected aliens? Also, is creationism a religion because many religions follow it?

The claim is that Intelligent Design is not science, and, thus must be banned from science class as religion.  To wit, the Wikki (which was hostile):

The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

Curious. I deal with global-warming pseudoscience below.

Science was developed by religious people. Darwin was a devout Christian. Einstein rejected the new physics because God would not play dice - Einstein expected an intelligent design, not chance. The Pope just said, though it is not news, the the Church has no problem with evolution - it is not contradictory. To the vast majority of people, science is a tool to push toward causes, not a religion to supplant all philosophy and religion.  

I am not sure if it is bad science to teach incomplete information, but it is poor education.  The notion that only science is taught in science is absurd. I was taught Marconi invented the radio. Not only was that not science, it was wrong.  I never heard the word "quark" until long after college. Science, please.

Students are told only the incomplete evolution theory is science, leaving the impression that evolution is a fact floating in space without beginning, proof, or inclusion in other theories.  

If you do not teach something to children, they usually do not accept it as part of the knowledge they must have.  The public schools no longer teach morality, so it does not exist. Children of morally sound parents are subjected to distress because of this. Their child rejects what is not taught in school, unless they have a strong extra-school guidance. Personally, I won't teach in public school anymore because of the degeneration of the population and fear of teachers to offer any resistance. 

The Courts have stopped prayers in the schools because some students will be uncomfortable or see something their parents do not want. This is our Constitutional plan. Yet, this is exactly what the intelligent design parents fear. A religion of small-headed science now is taught and any other ideas are ignored or degraded.  A child is unsophisticated and does not understand the academic distinctions, of the notion "theory,"  being thrown at them. 

As an analogy, Democrats are now gearing up their "fairness doctrine" to stop right-wing entertainers from expressing distasteful things like the relevance of the Constitution.  The ostensible claim is these right wing people should be countered by a left wing person. Of course, since the left cannot survive on the radio, a media devoid of emotional images and requiring logic, the end result will be country music, as the station owner can't have three hours of Alec Baldwin.  

The point is, what is the logic for a need for "fairness" in a media entertainment program that does not apply to school?

I would like a scientist to tell me how DNA was started.  If we evolved from something, what? The whole discussion of life is without any provable cause and effect. Science can't make life, so it can't exist, right?  Ban biology? The whole discussion is stupid. The organization of 'scientists"would bar Darwin from talking, if he mentioned God's nature.

No one has been able to prove evolution is true.  It is a good theory and, retrospectively, makes sense. Its a self-fulfilling theory. There are also huge holes in the theory. For example, the time frames for man's appearance and development, as predicted by evolutionary theory.  When is man going to evolve, anyway?

I recall Aristotle and Aquinas discussed first cause, so I guess we should ban their names being mentioned in science class. (Assuming the teachers ever heard of them.)

Anyway, back away from evolution and think about global warming.  Let me rephrase the wikki:

The consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "claims of intervention in the earth's climate and fluid dynamics are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

Seems the same to me.

No one, no one, and again, no one has proven global warming even exists. I can't say I have even read the working definition, it is some vague religious feeling that shifts to climate change when necessary. 

There is NO proof of any connection between man and heating, if it even exists. Therefore, the theory cannot be tested. To be science, men in white jackets should be able to tell me what the weather will be, not try to explain what they missed when predictions failed.

Hence, it should not be taught in science class. 

QED

If you want to use global warming in a statistics or logic class, to explain correlation does not yield causation, that would be perfect.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Some light reading from icecap.us. On the right is the earth's temperature vis a vis CO2, as best it can be determined. Temperature is down as CO2 is up. As noted several times below, CO2 has been much higher in the past.

Watch as the noise becomes louder against "warming" until, suddenly, the topic changes. People will look at you like you are discussing mini dresses. No one is ever wrong, anymore. They just move on.

The investment banker, Al Gore, won't care. He's already set. I wish I didn't have a moral center.

First, I didn't think this had a name:

The Gore Effect (The phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming) remains in full effect. Planet Gore reader Rosa e-mails from Milan:

As you perhaps know, Mr Gore visited Italy last week, precisely Milan (Nothern Italy). He gave a speech on his usual theme: the globe is warming, there’s a lot of warning signs, we shouldn’t be so foolish to dismiss them, we must act now, etc. Outside the hall, it was snowing and snowing. Well, perhaps you think it’s usual in a northern Italian city to have three snow spells within two weeks. In fact, it’s quite rare....

Some articles, you can read full texts at the site.

Dec 19, 2008

Reply to RealClimate’s Attacks on the NIPCC Climate Report

By: Joseph L. Bast and James M. Taylor, Heartland Institiute

On November 28, the global warming alarmist Web site “RealClimate” posted a ridiculously lame attack by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt against ”Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate,” the summary for policymakers of the 2008 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

The NIPCC report was written by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. and an additional 23 contributors, including some of the most accomplished atmospheric scientists in the world. The paper references approximately 200 published papers and scientific reports in support of its conclusions. It provides strong evidence that human activity is not causing a global warming crisis.

Mann and Schmidt call the NIPCC report “dishonest” and “nonsense,” a document “served up” by “S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries financed by the notorious ‘Heartland Institute’. But instead of critiquing the scientific arguments presented in the NIPCC report, Mann and Schmidt simply dismiss and belittle them and refer readers mostly to their own past blog comments. Time spent following those links reveals a hodgepodge of opinions and superficial comments, a boatload of rhetoric, and very little science--an entirely unsatisfactory way to support such serious charges.

In case your forgot, Mann is the guy whose hockey stick graph is the key to the recent outcry. As I mentioned, previously, it was wrong, but who cares about math when the future is at stake.

I think the next guy, Happer, is the former college teacher of Mr. Gore, who got a C+, but zeroed in on global warming as a good pennant. The words below echo what happened to the teacher, if it is not he. (Somewhere in the archives you can find who it was). As I reall, now, Mr. Gore went out of his way to discredit Happer and was rebuffed by the TV news folks. That late night guy with the funny hair. (Below is a redo of a prior set of information)

Dec 22, 2008

‘Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’

EPW Minority Blog

Joins Senate Report of More Than 650 Dissenting Scientists. Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore's scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008...

...“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences....

...“I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.

“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average. Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.

More below with a look at the Heartland Institute, thus, apparently filled with lies, which did not fund the report as was the sweeping defense. Shooting the messenger is a flag of weakness.

Dec 21, 2008

Global Cooling Brings Early White Christmas

By Deroy Murdock

Winter officially arrives with Sunday’s solstice. But for many Americans, autumn 2008’s final days already feel like deepest, coldest January. New Englanders still lack electricity after a Dec. 11 ice storm snapped power lines. Up to 8 inches of snow struck New Orleans and southern Louisiana that day and didn’t melt for 48 hours in some neighborhoods.

In Southern California this week, a half-inch of snow brightened Malibu’s hills while a half-foot barricaded highways and marooned commuters in desert towns east of Los Angeles. Three inches of the white stuff shuttered Las Vegas’ McCarren Airport that day and dusted the Strip’s hotels and casinos.
What are the odds of that? Actually, the odds are rising that snow, ice and cold will grow increasingly common. As serious scientists repeatedly explain, global cooling is here. It is chilling temperatures and so-called “global-warming.”

According to the National Climatic Data Center, 2008 will be America’s coldest year since 1997, thanks to La Nina and precipitation in the central and eastern states. Solar quietude also may underlie global cooling. [I told you so] This year’s sunspots and solar radiation approach the minimum in the sun’s cycle, corresponding with lower Earth temperatures. This echoes Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas’ belief that solar variability, much more than CO2, sways global temperatures.

Meanwhile, the National Weather Service reports that last summer was Anchorage’s third-coldest on record. “Not since 1980 has there been a summer less reflective of global warming,” Craig Medred wrote in the Anchorage Daily News. Consequently, Alaska’s glaciers are thickening in the middle. “It’s been a long time on most glaciers where they’ve actually had positive mass balance,” U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia told Medred October 13.

The reference to financing seems intended to imply that the authors of the NIPCC report were paid by The Heartland Institute, which is not true. RealClimate has been informed of this, but hasn’t corrected its false claim. To go on implying it anyway tells you all you need to know about the integrity of the RealClimate authors.

And what about “the notorious ‘Heartland Institute’”? It's a 24-year-old national nonprofit organization that gets 95 percent of its funding from non-energy-related donors and 84 percent of its funding from non-corporate sources (in 2007). It has a long history of publishing reliable scientific and economic analysis of global warming. Heartland’s credibility is certainly less questionable than that of RealClimate, a front group created specifically to attack global warming skeptics by Fenton Communications, a truly “notorious” PR agency.

Mann and Schmidt’s assault on Fred Singer reminds us of Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon’s observation, in his book The Deniers, that the qualifications of most alarmists in the global warming debate fall short of those of the skeptics. Now consider Mann’s and Schmidt’s qualifications. Mann is the author of the “hockey stick” temperature graph that did so much to fuel global warming hysteria when it was featured in an IPCC report, but which a Congressionally appointed panel of experts found was not supported by scientific data. Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeler at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and in recent weeks has been

frantically trying to explain why his organization falsely reported that October 2008 was the warmest October in recorded history. Many climate researchers believe Mann and Schmidt are deliberately falsifying temperature data to keep their global warming scare going a few more years.

With no apparent sense of irony or shame, these two discredited authors call one of the world’s leading scientists “dishonest.”

Mann and Schmidt pretend to be engaged in a scientific debate over global warming, but they are not. They have banned global warming “skeptics” from posting on their blog, resort to ad hominem attacks against anyone who dissents, and have repeatedly declined invitations to appear in public forums to debate their critics. They are what the history of their organization says they are: A PR shop for discredited global warming alarmism.

Dec 23, 2008

Minus 60 (deg C)

By Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit

Climate Audit, December 18, 2008

One of the interesting by-products of the GISS screw-up in October was that we learned the names and locations of quite a few Siberian weather stations - that are glaring “hot spots” on temperature anomaly maps. However, most of these places are among the coldest places on earth.

One of them was Verhojansk, about which Anthony Watts had an interesting post last week; it was one of the screwed up NOAA-Hansen sites. It vies for the title of coldest place (in the Northern Hemisphere) with nearby Ojmjakon. (the place where the lowest-ever temperature in the Northern hemisphere was recorded - Verkhoyansk with a record of minus 67.8 degrees Celsius (minus 90 degrees Fahrenheit) and Oymyakon with a minimum of minus 67.7 degrees Celsius (minus 89.9 degrees Fahrenheit).

Dec 22, 2008

Scientist Adjusts Data—Presto, Antarctic Cooling Disappears

Posted by JBlethen, Heliogenic Climate Change

"New research presented at the AGU today suggests that the entire Antarctic continent may have warmed significantly over the past 50 years. The study calls into question existing lines of evidence that show the region has mostly cooled over the past half-century.

Using an iterative process to analyse the data, they found warming over the entire Antarctic continent for the period 1957-2006. Restricting their analysis to 1969 to 2000, a period for which other studies have found a net cooling trend, Steig's study found slight cooling in east Antarctica, but net warming over west Antarctica.” “Evidence that Antarctica has warmed significantly over past 50 years”

Abstract excerpt: “We use statistical climate field reconstruction techniques to determine monthly temperature anomalies for the near-surface of the Antarctic ice sheet since 1957. Two independent data sets are used to provide estimates of the spatial covariance patterns of temperature: automatic weather stations and thermal infrared satellite observations. Quality-controlled data from occupied instrumental weather stations are used to determine the amplitude of changes in those covariance patterns through time. We use a modified principal component analysis technique (Steig et al., in review, Nature) to optimize the combination of spatial and temporal information. Verification statistics obtained from subsets of the data demonstrate the resulting reconstructions represent improvements relative to climatological mean values.”

Mann’s not the only one inventing his own “modified” PCA. Looks like Steig “got rid of” antarctic cooling the same way Mann got rid of medieval warming. Why not just look at the station data instead of “adjusting” it (graph above and linked here)? It shows a 50-year cooling trend. Read post here.

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”—Disraeli

J'accuse Homme (not Home)

Just a few years ago, during global warming, I had a plastic pipe split in the Rube Goldberg plumbing system of the Vermont house. (I once spent a day mapping the system, trying to identify unknown pipes.) Lost in the flood was a Scientific American magazine, back when it read like science, not first person travelogues. The 1970's cover image and story: OH MY GOD GLOBAL COOLING!



Well, I exaggerate on the headline, but that was the theme. I kept the magazine to be my exemplar of how lemmings run off the cliff. Or, was that chicken littles? Now we have the UN taking a vote on aspects of climate change to prove a political point - we need billions more to stamp out human activity. I never heard of a scientific axiom being proved by a vote. How democratic. The first sign of stupidity is judging the messenger instead of the message.

Indeed, I no longer take anyone's ideas seriously that are based upon a listing of others who say the same thing. If someone says 800 scientists agree with me within the first three minutes, they have nothing to add; they have properly identified their true believer status.

TIME Magazine, that bastion of (politically) correct reporting had a piece in a June 24, 1974 piece, Another Ice Age?, where a sad, familiar rhetoric could be found:

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F....

I hope you sense the same ignorant rant in the language and approach to science. This could have been written by Al Gore's doppelganger. Of course, you may feel that because of the proven fact of evolution, today's scientists are more evolved than those of the era when people used to read and think, so when UN "experts" vote on establishing a scientific principal, they know what they are doing.

Contrast this: in April 2001, TIME had a 16 page section on OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE BURNED TO DEATH. There was a frying pan on the cover. (OK, I made up the name of the section.) Apparently, TIME does not use TIME as a source. Good fact checking, at least.

In a recent article by Climatologist Tim Ball, I was reminded of the 1970's. Doctor Ball quoted:

"It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

Good thing the UN didn't vote on that one, we would all be under glaciers.

As you will see, if you read the article, Dr. Ball dismisses the causality of human activity after working through what seems to be half a century of work in climatology, being the first PhD in Canada in that field, the degree from University of London. He explains how academics are highly defensive, which non-academics already know, and that the J'accuse homme (I just made this up) element of this discourse is purely political, driven by the color of money. (If that is crappy French, please advise. I voted on it being correct, but it may not be.)

He indicated the Canadian government brags about spending $3 billion CAD on the issue. The money was spent where? Public relations - media. The media that pushes the issue.

Anyway, you can read the musing of an expert in the field at your leisure. I do wish to quote, however:

Another cry in the wilderness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

Just another right wing crack-pot.


fn: When I tell you who has opinions that are contrary to consensus, its not the same things as me disregarding others who tell me who holds their consensus opinion. When I figure out the difference, I will let you know.