The new Elmer Gantry
Elmer Gantry is a story, and was later a film, about a con man selling religion.
It would seem some of our climate “scientists” are today’s Elmer Gantry, selling manmade global warming. But it’s hard to make much of a scare unless you have an adequate platform from which to scare with. A magazine is a useful start. A self-serious one. A self-serious one like Nature.
One of the most vociferous cheerleaders in the cause has been the Nature, which calls itself “the world’s most prestigious weekly journal of science”.
Of course, prestigious is not the same as accurate.
Whenever some landmark event in the story is approaching – such as a world climate conference or a new report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – Nature can be relied on to come up with a new paper purporting to refute one of the more embarrassing objections to the orthodox theory. However thoroughly such a paper is then dismantled by expert critics, it will remain established as a pillar of the orthodoxy.
It isn’t unreasonable to ask what the “science” of global warming has wrought. Is it:
a) the most disturbing corruption of the peer-review process in 60 years?
b) meaningless pieces of artifice, created by skewed computer models?
c) meaningless pieces of artifice, created by skewed inputs to its computer models?
d) all the above?
Based on Booker’s article, the answer is “d.”
Now, a year ahead of the IPCC’s next major report, Nature has again provoked controversy with an article, by Jeremy Shakun et al, claiming to disprove what has long been seen as one of the most awkward facts for warmist theory. This is the evidence of ice cores which shows that, for millennia, rising levels of carbon dioxide have not preceded rising temperatures but have followed them, as warming releases more CO2 from the mighty carbon sink of the oceans.
As can be seen in full on WUWT, one of its expert contributors, Willis Eschenbach, has now carefully plotted all Shakun’s data, to show how it does not confirm his headline thesis at all. Even the Nature article admits that, when the earth was emerging from the last ice age some 15,000 years ago, it was temperatures that rose first, later followed by rises in CO2. But when Eschenbach downloaded all the CO2 data he could find, he came up with a startling discovery. Shakun had only used one CO2 data source – and he had mysteriously cut off his graph about 6,000 years ago.
When the additional data was fed in, it clearly showed CO2 continuing to rise after this point, for thousands of years, at the same time as temperatures went into a long decline.
So, to summarize, CO2 is a trailing indicator of global warming, not a precursor. And of course, if the earth emerged from the last ice age 15,000 years ago, the wheels tend to fall off the whole manmade part of manmade climate change.
The link for the Nature article is here but as Johnnie Cochran might say, scientists can make the model work, although the inputs are berserk.
The “settled science” of manmade global warming is again shown to be neither settled, nor science.