01/24/09 - PowerLineBlog by John Hinderaker
Predictions of global warming from human activity are based on bad science, filled-in data, and convenient results that fit the cause of limiting human activity, just because we are bad.
Hinderaker gives a summary (and there is more):
[edited] The key evidence relied on by Al Gore, the United Nations, and global warming alarmists is the "hockey stick" graph developed by Mann, Bradley and Hughes. It purports to show that 20th-century warming is unprecedented and that the 20th century was the warmest ever.
More recent scientific work has thoroughly debunked the "hockey stick" analysis. It rests on "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations, incorrect mathematics, and other serious defects."
There are indications that some of the errors were deliberate, a corruption of science by politics and perverse financial incentives that underlies the entire global warming movement.
Hansen Embarrassed NASA
02/01/09 - PowerLineBlog by John Hinderaker
James Hansen of NASA is a leader in espousing the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). He has public credibility because of his NASA affiliation. His boss at NASA was John Theon, who has recently retired, and has announced his view that AGW is not supported by evidence.
[edited] As Chief of several NASA Hq. Programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research.
James Hansen was never muzzled, even though he violated NASA's official position, that NASA did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind's effect on it. He embarrassed NASA by his claims of global warming in his 1988 testimony before Congress.
I believe that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system, because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.
Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. They don't explain what they have modified in the observations or how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done.
Thus, there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.
The Greatest Fraud in History?
01/30/09 - PajamasMedia by James Lewis
[edited] The credibility of science may never recover from the Global Warming scare. Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered. Far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing political larceny here on a planetary scale. Why should scientists who have gambled their own reputations on this fakery ever be trusted again?Mr. Lewis discusses a number of things that real scientists NEVER do. These are all things that promotors of global warming are doing loudly and repeatedly. It is politics or religion, but not science. Here is one point (it is worth reading the rest):
I’m not a climatologist. Like most scientists I rarely judge what others do in their fields. And yet it’s been flamingly obvious for years now, that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming violates all the basic rules and safeguards that protect the integrity of normal, healthy science. That’s why AGW (anthropogenic global warming) looks like a massive fraud, the biggest fraud ever in the history of science.
Bad data has been very widespread in global warming theories. Judging by past performance, it may still be endemic. Thermometers are placed in hot areas in the cities, and the data is shamelessly generalized to the whole world. The infamous “hockey stick” temperature diagram has been exposed. James Hansen has brought NASA to its lowest point ever by repeatedly endorsing false data.
In any healthy field of science, that disastrous empirical record would have discredited the hypothesis. But while the data seems to crash periodically, the models don’t change in their catastrophism.
Climate Scientology: Getting rid of the Medieval Warming Period
12/25/08 - AndrewBostom.org by Andrew Bostom
Andrew Bostom cites much detail. It is a meaty article, and worth the reading. The government is going to demand your money and resources to bury carbon, at great expense. You should know that they are politically motivated (wanting your money) rather than altruistic (saving your great, great grandchildren). Maybe you would rather see a movie, eat steak, or buy a better TV.
[edited] Professor Ross McKitrick:
The late 20th century appears to be nothing special compared to the The Medieval Warm Period. The historic temperature graph was a problem for those pushing the global warming alarm.
If the world could warm so much, on such a short time scale, as a result of natural causes, surely the 20th century climate change could simply be a natural effect as well. The present climate change could hardly be unusually hazardous if even larger climate changes happened in the recent past, and we are now fluctuating in the middle of what nature regularly dishes out.
A Scam, With No Basis In Science
12/28/08 - John Hinderaker at PowerLineBlog
Distorted, politicized, and failed "science" supports Anthropogenic Global Warming (warming caused by human actions).
Read the whole thing there, or go to the original letter by mathematical physicist Frank Tipler Warming or Hot Air?
[edited] Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a scam, with no basis in science. A scientific theory makes predictions which are then compared with future observations.
AGW predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, now refuted by experience [and data]. AGW theorists now "predict" cooling, after the fact. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.
Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" critical of the "consensus" view on AGW and other environmental questions. He was charged and convicted (later reversed) of scientific fraud [by his Danish university?] for being critical of that consensus. He would have been fired if the conviction had held. This is very similar to what happened to Galileo during the Inquisition.Frank Tipler cites a bit of fascinating history about Galileo at the above link Warming or Hot Air?.
John Holdren is Obama's new science advisor. It is disturbing that Holdren wrote part of the Danish case against Lomborg. Holdren thinks skeptics like Lomborg are dangerous. Really, it is Holdren who is dangerous, because he is willing to use state power to silence his critics. [And, don't forget Al Gore saying that the debate is over.]
The AGW nonsense is generated by government funding of science. If a guy agrees with AGW, then he can get a government contract. If he is a skeptic, then no contract. I am astounded that people advocate increased government funding for scientific research. We had better science and a more rapid advance of science in the early part of the 20th century when there was no centralized government funding.
[edited] Aristotle's theory was the consensus view. The "out-of-the-mainsteam" Galileo had the gall to prove it wrong by devising simple experiments that anyone could do. Galileo's fellow "scientists" first failed to refute him by argument from authority. Then they tried calling Galileo names, but this made no impression on the average person, who could see with his own eyes that Galileo was right. Finally, they manipulated the Inquisition into trying and convicting him.
Global Warming in 1000 Years
A warning from a scientist who believes in global warming. Don't think that we can quickly undo the current damage from high CO2 levels. Climate will be this bad, almost constant, for 1000 years.
[edited] People thought that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide, the climate would go back to normal in 100 - 200 years, but that is not true. Absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans acts to cool the Earth. Release of heat from the oceans warms the Earth. These processes will work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant (at current levels) for more than 1,000 years.