Archive for 21 maj, 2008

IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!

21 maj, 2008

”Most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.”

Här kommer en utmärkt artikel av Melanie Phillips i gårdagens Spectator. Där hon går igenom varför hela Global Warming Hysterin nu har börjat rämna och hur folk börjar få upp ögonen för detta charlataneri

Som jag sa i mitt inlägg But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!:

Som drabbats av eftertankens kranka blekhet och insett att tåget har vänt – Global Warming Hysterikerna står ertappade med byxorna nere. Alla deras tjusiga modeller och förutsägelser faller platt till marken inför verkligheten.

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/719126/brr-the-climate-cools-for-realitydeniers.thtml

Brr! The climate cools for reality-deniers

Tuesday, 20th May 2008

I have previously written about the work of Lawrence Solomon for Canada’s National Post. He has been regularly charting in his column the ever-increasing number of climate scientists around the world who have been either crying foul about the man-made global warming scam or, having initially signed up to it, have been having second thoughts about it. This was a journey of discovery for him, to put it mildly; he had previously been inclined to believe the claims that ‘deniers’ were oil industry stooges, since he himself had worked for an anti-nuclear energy group and so was duly cynical about the way that industry’s scientists could twist the truth to suit their paymasters. But then to his astonishment he discovered that, when it came to MMGW, the scientists who were corrupt weren’t pushing the boat out for big business but for its holier-than-thou green challengers.

Now he has written a book, provocatively entitled The Deniers, in which he shows that not only is the fabled climate change ‘consensus’ itself a sham but the so-called MMGW ‘deniers’ are by far the more accomplished and distinguished scientists than those pushing the theory as a settled and incontrovertible truth. A number of them indeed, are so eminent they were used as experts by the IPCC – but then came to realise that this was an innately corrupted process and that even some of their own work was being abused and distorted in order to promulgate the false doctrine of MMGW. 

Among those he cites are Dr Edward Wegman, chairman of the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics and the granddaddy of statisticians, who administered the definitive coup de grace to the ‘hockey stick curve’ research that underpinned the whole IPCC doomsday prognosis by showing that its author Dr Michael Mann (an impressive authority in his own field of paleoclimatology) had made a catastrophic statistical error (and had thus managed to ‘lose’ several hundred years of climate history including the Little Ice Age) which vitiated his entire study; Dr Richard Tol, an author with all three IPCC working groups and who called the Stern review of the economics of climate change ‘preposterous’; Dr Christopher Landsea, a former chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones and another IPCC author, who discovered that the IPCC was telling lies about the relationship between climate change and hurricanes; Dr Duncan Wingham, Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who revealed that Antarctic ice was expanding, not contracting; Dr Robert Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University Queensland, who says science was never about ‘consensus’ and that there are many sides to the climate change debate; Dr Richard Lindzen, a much garlanded professor of meteorology at MIT and another IPCC author, who says that the IPCC’s politicised summary of its defining 2001 report created the false impression that climate models were reliable when the report itself  indicated precisely the opposite, with numerous problems with the models including those arising from the effects of clouds and water vapour; Dr Vincent Gray, a participant in the IPCC science reviews who has described the IPCC process as a ‘swindle’; Dr Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Centre of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, who says the world’s temperature has shown a linear progression since the 17th century and that 20th century warming was nothing to do with carbon dioxide but the planet’s emergence from the Little Ice Age; Zbigniew Jaworowski, former chairman of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, who says the IPCC’s ice-core research is wrong and that therefore it has

based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false;

David Bromwich, head of the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research Centre, who says :

It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now;

Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, who says climate change computer models are profoundly flawed and that

blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate ‘realistic’ simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate sceptic… There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies;

Dr Antonino Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, who says the IPCC models are

incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view;

and Dr Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and another IPCC reviewer, who says

most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible

and that climate change scientists have launched

a search for a mythical CO2  sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil-fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction’.

Ouch.

And now this nonsense is beginning to exact a political price as the public – who have a talent for sniffing out bogus assertions even when (or perhaps because) the entire nomenklatura is pumping out propaganda and smearing any dissidents – begin to exact their revenge on the politicians who have gone along with it. Philip Stott notes on his blog that Labour is about to be greenwhacked in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election:

In attempting to appear ‘Green’, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, and Mr. Brown are having to defend the indefensible, a retrogressive, retrospective tax change which will especially hit poorer members of society and less well-off families, with no environmental benefits.

While Richard Rahn in the Washington Times observes:

What do you think was the most costly intelligence failure of all time? No, was is not the world’s leading intelligence agencies’ failure to notice that Saddam had few, if any, weapons of mass destruction. It was the failure of many leading climate model builders to be modest enough about their predictions, and the politicians’ and media’s failure to ask the tough questions of these climate experts. As a consequence of what we now know was an overblown global-warming scare, everyone on the planet is paying substantially more for food and fuel than is necessary.

Meanwhile, the carbon really has hit the fan with the highly inconvenient truth that global temperatures are not only currently static but are predicted not to rise at all for the next decade. Andrew Bolt links to a debate on the Politics and Environment blog between climate change believers who are trying to reconcile the IPCC predictions with reality. Officially, the greens are claiming that the prediction that rising CO2 inevitably meant rising temperatures always allowed for, er, pauses. Of a decade. But in the P&E debate, there is the distant clang of a spade being called a spade:

The IPCC projections remain falsified.  

Where now is that fabled ‘consensus’ when it is urgently needed to defend all those reputations which depend upon it?

You’d have to have a heart of Antarctic ice not to laugh.

Copyright ©2007 by The Spectator (1828) Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

The Real intelligence failures and the ”integrity” failure of Global Warming Hysterics

21 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel av Richard W. Rahn från dagens Washington Times.

Citat:

”What do you think was the most costly intelligence failure of all time? No, was is not the world’s leading intelligence agencies’ failure to notice that Saddam had few, if any, weapons of mass destruction. It was the failure of many leading climate model builders to be modest enough about their predictions, and the politicians’ and media’s failure to ask the tough questions of these climate experts.

As a consequence of what we now know was an overblown global-warming scare, everyone on the planet is paying substantially more for food and fuel than is necessary.

Despite the prediction of all the major climate models, the Earth has been getting cooler since 1998. At first, it was not considered a big deal because temperatures fluctuate from year to year. However, the drop has now been going for a decade, with another big drop last year.

The global warming zealots have just been handed another rude shock, when the peer-reviewed journal, Nature, reported on May 1 that according to a new (and hopefully improved) climate model, global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade.

Climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global-warming policy.”

”You may wonder – if the data from the last decade show the Earth is not getting warmer, and the climate models have been making incorrect predictions – why are so many in the political and media classes continuing to shout about the dangers of global warming and insisting the ”science” is settled when the opposite is true. (You may recall that Copernicus and Galileo had certain problems going against the conventional wisdom of their time.)

The reason people like Al Gore and many others are in denial is explained by cognitive dissonance. This occurs when evidence increasingly contradicts a strongly held belief. Rather than accept the new evidence and change their minds, some people will become even more insistent on the ”truth” of the discredited belief, and attack those who present the new evidence – again an ”intelligence” failure.

Finally, many people directly benefit from government funding global warming programs and care more about their own pocketbooks than the plight of the world’s poor who are paying more for food. This is not an ”intelligence” but an ”integrity” failure.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080518/COMMENTARY/673994116/

 Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

(more…)

‘Grantsmanship’ – The Iron triangle between researchers, government and media That Distorts Global Warming Science

21 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intressant artikel av Jerome J. Schmitt i dagens American Thinker. Om hur Global Warming Hysterin sprids i en samverkan mellan journalister, politiker och forskare i en ”järn triangel” som stöder och göder varann i en förödande cirkelgång.

Citat:

”Almost every day another species of plant or animal is ”discovered” to be threatened by global warming. I read a new report concerning moose in Scandinavia that are unexpectedly ”threatened” despite what researchers admit is a growing population.  Penguins are in danger from loss of Antarctic ice even though the Antarctic ice-cap is known to be growing with colder temperatures recorded in the southern hemisphere in recent years according to NASA.

Fortunately for these species — which hitherto managed to survive and thrive on their own for hundreds of thousands or millions of years — intrepid 21st Century researchers have arrived on the scene with Al Gore just in time to ”rescue” them from climate change. How is it possible that such disparate species all around the globe are in such dire straights all at once? 

Perhaps it has less to do with actual species’ population trends and other such noisome facts and more to do with a novel nexus between the news-media and ”grantsmanship” among academic researchers who have hit upon a winning formula: if one ties one’s research project somehow — even via the most tenuous and flimsy grounds — to global warming, one’s grant proposal will have much greater chance to be selected for funding, one’s chances of appearing on 60 Minutes or NPR are greatly increased, and as a consequence of this positive PR for one’s project, university and funding agency, one’s grant is more likely to be renewed. 

In contrast, if one continues to toil on relatively obscure scholarship where actual scientific data is important, trend lines have meaning, and logical debate is allowed, the chances of winning funding for one’s work are greatly reduced.  Scientists have learned therefore that they will be rewarded handsomely by identifying any tangential connection between their favorite studies and ”global warming” alarmism. Like Pavlov’s dog with a PhD.

Scientists are people too and, like anyone, crave a moment in the limelight, with his or her work celebrated in the news-media as being ”relevant”.  Thus a moose expert who has toiled in anonymity for decades will find that if he or she mentions that the moose might be ”threatened” by global warming, he or she is suddenly lionized by the media as another ”expert” chiming in about the dangers of climate change (cf. first link above).  And being an ”expert”, it is difficult for the layman (i.e. your average person who has not toiled for decades studying moose) to refute the assertion no matter how spurious the moose-expert’s ”science”.  We should acknowledge that even moose experts can be taken in by the anthropogenic global-warming hoax.   A plant expert sees the moose expert win enormous attention and acclaim and thus inspired concludes ”suddenly” that his or her favorite plant is somehow also affected by climate change in the hope of drawing similar positive attention — and grant money.  

The media add fuel to the flame of global warming hysteria by dutifully reporting every new species (preferably cuddly photogenic ones) reported by ”experts” to now be threatened, thus allowing them to inexpensively recycle the same clips of glaciers calving icebergs into the ocean  (as glaciers have done for millions of years), and highlighting the alarming ”relevance” of the particular researchers’ conclusions. Meanwhile, the university, the funding agency and congress get to bask in reflected glory (the media covered it so it must be highly relevant!).

It is this newly formed iron triangle (reserachers/government/media) of grantsmanship, knee-jerk media coverage, federal research agency log-rolling and congress’s desire to seem ”relevant” by addressing a ”global crisis” that creates more and more ”discoveries” of species threatened by climate change.  This nexus creates a screeching, noisy feedback loop that is distorting science and corrupting the processes that insure research quality.

We may be doomed, not by global warming, but by this iron triangletriangle’s distortions and fear-mongering that attempt to stampede our fellow citizens into foolhardy policies intended to ”correct” an unfounded ”crisis”. 

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/05/grantsmanshipand_the_global_wa.html

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

(more…)

WCCO meteorologist: Global warming ‘extremism’ uses ‘squishy science’

21 maj, 2008

Här kommer en intervju från gårdagens StarTribune med meteorologen Mike Fairbourne om vad han tycker om hela Global Warming Hysterin.

Citat:

”Fairbourne, who joined WCCO in 1977 and has been a meteorologist for 40 years, said that while there is no doubt that ”there has been some warming” of global temperatures in recent years … there is still a pretty big question mark” about how much of that warming is from human activity.

Fairbourne, a University of Utah graduate, said he has talked ”to a number of meteorologists who have similar opinions” as his, adding that he is concerned about ”the extremism that is attached to the global warming.”

He noted that in the 1970s ”we were screaming about global cooling. It makes me nervous when we pin a few warm years on squishy science.”

Asked why there has been so much momentum toward connecting human activity and global warming, Fairbourne said, ”They’re doing it for a lot of reasons; some may be scientific, but most of them are political. We need to be calm and look at scientific evidence and evaluate it.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://www.startribune.com/nation/19095579.html?location_refer=Commentary

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

(more…)

But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!

21 maj, 2008

Så här utttalar sig Tim Palmer (head of the Predictability and Seasonal Forecast Division of the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK). Som drabbats av eftertankens kranka blekhet och insett att tåget har vänt – Global Warming Hysterikerna står ertappade med byxorna nere. Alla deras tjusiga modeller och förutsägelser faller platt till marken inför verkligheten.

Så här säger han i artikeln i New Science (01 May 2008, Magazine issue 2654 )

”Poor forecasting undermines climate debate”

”POLITICIANS seem to think that the science is a done deal,” says Tim Palmer. ”I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.”

Palmer is a leading climate modeller at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK, and he does not doubt that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a good job alerting the world to the problem of global climate change. But he and his fellow climate scientists are acutely aware that the IPCC’s predictions of how the global change will affect local climates are little more than guesswork. They fear that if the IPCC’s predictions turn out to be wrong, it will provoke a crisis in confidence that undermines the whole climate change debate.

On top of this, some climate scientists believe that even the IPCC’s global forecasts leave much to be desired.

Så här lät det för 2 år sedan:

”But crucially, uncertainty is not a reason for inaction. If we pool together the forecasts from the best available climate models of today, these similarly indicate that there is a very high probability of a serious problem – a problem which has already begun to be manifest, and is very likely to become more and more significant as we progress through this century.”

Artikeln finns här:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19826543.700?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg19826543.700

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6 rel=”tag”>miljö</a>


%d bloggare gillar detta: