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

”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>

Annonser

Etiketter: , ,

4 svar to “IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!”

  1. IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view! | Politics in America Says:

    […] MyDD wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAndrew 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…. […]

  2. Global Warming:Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found? « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] New York,  Hey, Nobel Prize Winners, Answer Me This,  The Sloppy Science of Global Warming!,  IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!,  But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!,  There […]

  3. The IPCC must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices! « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt Says:

    […] the feedback factor?,  IPCC and its bias!,  Peer Review – What it actually means,  IPCC models are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view!,  But the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain!,  The […]

  4. Dennis Says:

    Keep on writing, great job!

Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s


%d bloggare gillar detta: