The following report is from Benny Peiser’s blog The Global Warming Policy Foundation:
It is a year since the so-called Climategate e-mails were leaked. Since then, we have had freezing winters in Europe and the US, and revelations of gross misrepresentations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The lasting impression is of massive corruption of science.
Leaked from the Climate Research Unit in England, the e-mails showed the scientists behind the climate scare plotting to: hide, delete and manipulate data; to denigrate scientists presenting different views; to force journals to publish only papers promoting climate alarm; to subvert “peer review” into “pal review”; and make the reports of the IPCC nothing but alarmist propaganda. The corruption spread through governments, universities, scientific societies and journals. You have to look back to the Lysenko episode in the Soviet Union in the 1940s (when a crank persuaded the Soviet establishment that agriculture did not follow Darwinian evolution) to find such perversion of science.
The worst nonsense after the scandal was this: “Well, some climate scientists committed a few minor transgressions but the basic science is sound.” In fact, the basic science is nonexistent.
There is no evidence that mankind is changing the climate in a dangerous way. The slight warming of the past 150 years is no different from previous natural warming periods, such as the worldwide medieval warm period from about 900 to 1200AD… [Read the rest here]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why we did not hear a thing here about the “Satellite-Gate”?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6144&linkbox=true&position=2
For many folks, particularly the readership here at WUWT, yes, the shennanigans revealed by the East Anglia files (Climategate) has been enlightening – but not unlike the illustration in the sidebar ad for Spenser’s book “Blunder”, it’s just the tip of a larger iceberg.
I dropped off this link in the ‘tips’ thread, but I’ll repeat it here, as it’s cogent to the overall discussion and point – that being the sad and sorry state of ‘industrial strength science’ as practiced in the modern day – with climate not the only area where then current methodologies run into problems. It’s also an issue in other fields, with much more immediacy, such as the field of medicine, as described in this piece from The Atlantic magazine, which details findings that followers of the Climategate mess will find all too hauntingly familiar.
The very state of ‘science’ itself almost appears to be an utter trainwreck, given these examples from current events. What is to be done? I don;t have the foggiest idea. But the entire subject is certainly dis-heartening.
You touch on one of the subjects I have wondered about. Mann’s hockey stick smooths over the MWP and the LIA. Both that were accepted to have happened via the historical record. Good scientific practices would have required that his theory be independently validated like what happened with cold fusion.
Very important topic but the article could have been more focused on corruption and less on making the case that there is not dangerous global warming caused by humans. Both are important topics and trying to cover them in a single short article does justice to neither topic.
It should also be mentioned that no matter what we eventually discover about CAGW, corruption of the scientific method (as demonstrated by ClimateGate, for example) is a profound problem that has to be dealt with immediately.
“There is no evidence that mankind is changing the climate in a dangerous way.”
It is one thing to disagree with or even distrust the evidence mainstream scientists have published. But no honest person can assert that it does not exist. This is absolute closed mindedness not scepticism.
Also a year after Climategate, Prince Chuckles is still backing the UEA, CRU, Jones and the rest of the gang:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/8179485/Prince-Charles-backs-Climategate-scientists.html
“The Prince of Wales has given his support to the scientists involved in the “Climategate” saga, describing their treatment as “appalling”. ”
Even Acton must wish he’d shut up. Support from this plonker isn’t likely to improve the UEA’s credibility.
And conversely his support for CRU isn’t likely to harm the campaign for the long overdue abolition of the monarchy.
rob m. says:
December 3, 2010 at 9:11 am
…and Hot fusion too, and , and….We are about to witness the end of the “Flintstones’ Universe” paradigms, and the fall of many science “idols”, “saints”, holy names and their fans alike.
Kenny wrote: “Over the p ast half- billion years (the span of multicelled life), CO² levels have averaged more than 2000ppm (parts per million) but with wild fluctuations, from more than 6000ppm to less than 500ppm. This has had no noticeable effect on global temperatures, which have remained remarkably constant for long periods, pointing to a stable global climate system, without which higher life might not be possible. ”
So, the ice ages did not happen? Whatever you think of AWG, this essay is nonsense.
No creditable organization would publish this.
Next he writes: “This stability probably comes from low clouds, which increase when temperatures rise and have a powerful cooling effect by reflecting away sunlight.”
It is a reasonable hypothesis, but Kenny gives no evidence that verifies it. New research points in the oppose direction.
“LOW, grey clouds help keep the planet cool. But as the world warms they will shrink and temperatures will rise ever higher, according to a study that could help to resolve one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827893.400-goodbye-grey-skies-hello-extra-warming.html
Interestingly enough, while the MSM and the Warmists have done their best to circle their wagons around the scoundrels, the public seems well aware that the seriousness of AGW is in doubt, the sea levels have stopped rising (the Obama effect?), and that the Warmists are hysterics with an agenda that involves them getting wealthy at the expense of taxpayers.
We know it was fraud. The fraudsters of course know it was fraud. And they know that we know it was fraud, and that we know that they know that we… ok, you get the point. The evidence for the fraud is so overwhelming that one can sometimes feel like one is existing in the Twilight Zone when hearing and reading the stinking bullshit that comes from our governments and the UN.
Unfortunately for us realists – and fortunately for the fraudsters – it is still painfully obvious that there are a lot of gullible, green idiots out there who are still only too willing to lap up the alarmism in spades, and completely ignore any evidence which contradicts their world view. And they call us deniers! Have they learnt nothing from history? Or maybe they just think those abuses of citizens by governments only happen in other countries – the UK and USA couldn’t possibly have turned into corrupt, totalitarian states like 1930s Germany or the USSR, could they? No, never. Our leaders are saving us – they’re saving the planet! We’re all being ruled by saints (God bless ’em) with super powers to stop the climate from changing!
And all we have to do is surrender our money, our freedom and our desire to prosper. Small price to pay though, in return for sleeping soundly in the knowledge that these glorious people are saving the world.
Mike says:
December 3, 2010 at 9:18 am
“There is no evidence that mankind is changing the climate in a dangerous way.”
It is one thing to disagree with or even distrust the evidence mainstream scientists have published. But no honest person can assert that it does not exist. This is absolute closed mindedness not scepticism.
You have fallen into a logical fallacy Mike. Your statement “no honest person” is used to imply that anyone who disagrees with a given view is dishonest. Be careful that the closed mindedness is not your own. The arguement was that ““There is no evidence that mankind is changing the climate in a dangerous way.” If you disagree, then show your proof that the statement is wrong without the use of ad hominem BS.
Absolutely correct, jev2000
Mike says:
December 3, 2010 at 9:18 am
Mike quoted: “There is no evidence that mankind is changing the climate in a dangerous way.”
And Mike replied: “It is one thing to disagree with or even distrust the evidence mainstream scientists have published. But no honest person can assert that it does not exist. This is absolute closed mindedness not scepticism.”
===========================================
(Above in bold added by me.) Mankind has affected many local climates; there’s UHI, climate changes from changing forsests to crops and changing cropland to forests, and other such local effects. I can’t argue that mankind has not had an effect on climate. However, I’d be curious to see your evidence that mankind has; a. changed the global climate, and b. in a dangerous way.
Where are the bodies? Where is your evidence?
Mike responds to:
“There is no evidence that mankind is changing the climate in a dangerous way.”
By saying:
“It is one thing to disagree with or even distrust the evidence mainstream scientists have published. But no honest person can assert that it does not exist. This is absolute closed mindedness not scepticism.”
You misunderstand the scientific method, skepticism, and the definition of an honest person. First, scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. And dishonest people make fact-free assertions while evading the necessity of testing and verification. Skeptics ask to be shown data, methodologies and metadata – and their requests are routinely stonewalled by “mainstream scientists.”
The question at this point is not whether AGW exists. The climate alarmist crowd [AKA: “mainstream scientists”] have put forth a hypothesis saying that an increase in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe [CO2=CAGW].
It is not the duty of skeptics to falsify CAGW, and it is the duty of those asserting the CAGW hypothesis to demonstrate, with testable, replicable, empirical evidence, that their hypothesis explains reality better than the null hypothesis of natural climate variability.
They have failed, because they rely on computer climate models rather than on raw, testable data. Their models have been repeatedly falsified. Their models cannot predict the future. And the planet itself falsifies their AGW hypothesis: there are no verifiable measurements showing the fraction of warming, if any, attributable to the very minor 0.7° warming over the past century and a half. Thus, their hypothesis is downgraded to a conjecture; an opinion that cannot withstand the rigor of the scientific method.
If testable evidence is ever produced showing how much warming the increase in CO2 causes, out of the total of natural climate variability, and such putative evidence withstands falsification, that would be evidence of AGW. But so far, the claims of CO2-induced warming is all conjecture.
The observed temperature fluctuations are minor, and they are well within the parameters of past variability. According to the scientific method you cannot simply assume that the cause of the 0.7° rise is due to CO2, when much greater rises and declines have happened naturally, prior to the industrial revolution.
It is either laziness or grant greed that causes mainstream scientists to disregard the scientific method in favor of evidence-free climate alarm. No other branch of science allows this, and by skipping the essential scientific method, climate scientists who are promoting AGW in return for grant money are depriving the other physical sciences of much needed funds.
IMHO, CAGW is nothing but a fraud, done with a wink and a nod between corrupt mainstream climate scientists who cash in on their alarming scam. If the conniving scaremongers at Cancun actually believed their own alarming stories, they would be the first to lead by example, by meeting in low-cost venues with lots of public transportation, and teleconferencing whenever possible.
Instead, their profligate waste of energy and gluttonous consumption at a very expensive beach resort shows that they do not care about the environment; they care only about living high on the hog at the expense of taxpayers, and conniving to boost the UN to the status of the world’s government.
Don’t listen to what they say. Look at what they do.
The post’s author writes;
“There is no evidence that mankind is changing the climate in a dangerous way.”
It is going too far to say “no evidence”. It would be more accurate to say “insufficient evidence with many indications of poor quality and a similar body of evidence to the contrary” (from mainstream scientists Mike). Further, that many of the “solutions” proposed could do more harm than the thing they claim to prevent. That last point is the reason why it is so important for scientists to subsume their egos and be 100% scientific.
Mike says:
“Whatever you think of AWG (sic), this essay is nonsense. No creditable (sic) organization would publish this.”
Thanks for the fact-free post. Actually, your comment is nonsense. Why don’t you try again, using facts instead of sweeping ad-hom generalizations?
Phil’s Dad,
I think the emphasis is on the word “dangerous.”
Are there any global observations you’re aware of showing that the climate is changing in a dangerous way? I’m not aware of any, but I’d like to know if there are.
In fact, the current global temperature indicates a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but ju-u-u-st right.
Mike says: December 3, 2010 at 9:32 am
Kenny wrote:[…]
So, the ice ages did not happen? Whatever you think of AWG, this essay is nonsense.
This is typical of the proxy reconstructions I’ve seen over the past 45 years, concurring with this essay. Do you have alternate data?
http://i46.tinypic.com/2582sg6.jpg
A lot of what Lysenko was advocating looks very much like epigenetics, which is a valid area of study today. Mind you, Lysenko screwed up a lot of other things. Skeptics are by definition, sceptical. When somebody starts yapping that they are positively certain who is wrong and who is right, well they are just evangelists of another stripe. The balance of evidence suggests, it doesn’t dictate.
Mike is either a rube or a troll, or maybe he is both. You will do your best by ignoring him.
Very interesting and quite informative and accurate on a number of topics, but I have problems digesting the following statement:
“In the 19th c entury, CO² levels were about 280ppm, extraordinarily low, putting stress on green plants. Man, by burning fossil fuels and through deforestation, has pushed the levels up to 390ppm.”
Oh, reeeally? Are you sure man is the sole culprit of ALL the increase in the level of CO² from 280ppm back in the 19th c entury to current 390 ppm in the atmosphere?
Mike says: December 3, 2010 at 9:32 am
“So, the ice ages did not happen? Whatever you think of AWG, this essay is nonsense.”
Ice ages happen roughly every 100,000 years – do you want to posit that every 100,000 years, the CO2 level decides that it’s time to cause another ice age and starts to drop? Sort of like an invisible spirit?
Sorry, Mike. Your theory falls into the realm of animism.
Andrew Kenny is a fellow citizen of mine in South Africa
His publication in Business Day and interview on radio is a major breakthrough here.
It is the first time ever here that sceptics have been given an opportunity to speak.
In fact I already warned him,
:::
always be careful! It does not hurt to look over your shoulder a bit more.
There is (very) big money riding on this carbon dioxide scam.
Your pension already depends on it…I am sorry to say.
:::
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
When compared against the extremes possible in known planetary bodies, Earth’s climate is *amazingly* stable within bounds. I’m curious why ice ages are something you’d bring up in discussion of CO2 concentration over known geologic time frames. You seem to be waving a flag of distraction on ice ages while failing to address what Kenny wrote, which is that there isn’t even historical correlation between ice ages, warm periods, and CO2 concentration, much less reason to believe in causation.
New research also tells us that eggs are bad for us… no wait, they’re good for us. No, now they’re bad again, except only when used with butter. Now bacon is bad. Now all cholesterol is bad, now only some cholesterol… nope, now all cholesterol is good for you, but only in certain levels. Now anti-oxidants are good! Now they’re bad! Now they’re really bad for you! Now you want a high carb diet! Now you dont! Now it’s a balance of carbs you want!! Now you dont want any glutens!!! Now you want them!!!!
My point? New research should always be given about the attention of the next layer of paint as a masterpiece is laid down piece by piece. It’s interesting, but inconclusive. If it were conclusive, it wouldn’t be considered new research. If it’s new research, it cannot be conclusive.
So your mention of “new research disagrees with you,” is meaningless. Until you can predict next months or next years, or next decades weather by the hour, we officially don’t know jack about our climate system, and certainly not enough to trust our instincts about what new research may be showing.
Ah, a new scientist article, based on their past attachment to blatant journal gatekeeping, I’ll properly file that for you:
http://www.generalwastedisposal.com/images/3yd_bin.jpg
Of course corruption of science persist. Apparently there’s very few actual scientist brave enough to adhere to the common rules and regulations of everything science these days.
If you’re considering yourself a scientist but can’t stack yourself up against Dr Lindzen in behavior, you’re a frakking hippie, get a god damn grip of yourself, get frakking real will ya’, god dammit, but can’t you take the responsibility?