What’s scarier than scientists working for ‘big oil’?
The scientists working for global warming (AKA big governments or the UN).
The big oil folks deliver a product: energy. The global warmunists deliver anti-science and propaganda.
Two and a half years after the initial revelation of the Climategate e-mails, new controversies, on the part of the scientists and the investigators involved, continue to emerge. Many of the players involved are desperate to sweep the scandal under the rug. However, their machinations have only succeeded in bringing renewed attention to their questionable science and ugly behind-the-scenes shenanigans, reigniting hope that more complete and more independent investigations — on both sides of the Atlantic — will yet be performed.
How bad is it? The climategate participants have made the Obama administration look transparent (but they’re sadly similar in other ways).
Lawyers can be disbarred. What do you do with a corrupt climate scientist? Or an often corrupt climate science industry?
Given the state of the nation, they probably have the dollar value of their grants increased.
You know: it’s for the children, for the planet, for the greater good (or some other liberal cliché).
Super-shrill climate alarmist James Hansen, who has staked whatever is left of his tattered reputation to the bogus invented-by-men crisis once called “global warming,” is attempting to crank the fear factor up to eleven.
It was one thing when he had political top cover from guys like Al Gore and another when he had the global warming conspiracy covering his backside, all empowered by a fairly reasonable U.S. economy. But things change.
Now Gore is a divorced and disgraced sex-poodle with a failing cable network with a carbon footprint that’s bigger than Shaq’s Nikes. Meanwhile, the proverbial top has blown—several times—off the global warming cover-up. Finally, under President Obama, the economy is in the septic tank while the federal debt towers far beyond the troposphere. Those seas that are rising? Red ink.
If it wasn’t so darn annoying, it would be quite sad.
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.
A mind, as they say, is a terrible thing.
The terrible minds of the global warmers can generally be explained in one (or more) of several ways, which are often closely related.
Follow the money: scientists want grant money which can infer power and prestige. Grant money will not be provided to confirm what’s already known, ergo, myths like “man’s activity is warming the earth to dangerous levels” must be created to win grants, and in time, to sustain them. Similarly, rent seekers, crony capitalists, and the regulatory-capture minded endorse global warming to feather their own nests.
Just following orders: scientists want to be please the grant provider, to fit in with the situation, and to do what is expected of them. Hence the “settled science” claim possesses great power even if it isn’t settled, let alone is it science. This also supports the idea that warmers are satisfying the needs of the grant provider.
People will interpret the same information in radically different ways to support their own views of the world. When deciding our view on a contentious point, we conveniently forget what jars with our own theory and remember everything that fits.
Warmers will edit out inconvenient truths—sometimes consciously, as seen in the Climategate scandals, and sometimes not—that don’t align with their mental models or interests.
False consensus bias. How do you explain the need to paint manmade global warming non-believers as flat-earthers, denialists, etc.? When you can’t attack the facts, attack the man:
In reality people show a number of predictable biases when estimating other people’s behaviour and its causes. And these biases help to show exactly why we need psychology experiments and why we can’t rely on our intuitions about the behaviour of others.
…many of us will deny our own senses just to conform with others.
Loss aversion (global warmers desperately want to avoid losing the power, and positional gains they have made by endorsing manmade global warming) and behavioral economics (global warmers make their decisions with biases towards promoting their own self-interest) both hold explanatory power as well.
It seems that much of the thinking behind the manmade global warming community is reminiscent of the quote attributed to Pauline Kael:
“How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him?”
Once again, man is the only creature who can lie to himself.
From the New York Times:
…when a group of physicists going by the acronym Opera announced in September that a batch of the strange subatomic particles known as neutrinos had traveled faster than the speed of light in a 457-mile trip through the earth, the first response among many physicists was to wonder what had gone wrong with the experiment.
Last week another team of physicists whose apparatus lives right next door to the Opera group — under Gran Sasso mountain in Italy — reported that they had clocked neutrinos, produced in an accelerator at CERN, outside Geneva, racing over the same path to Gran Sasso at the speed of light and not a whit faster. Which is exactly how fast scientists had always thought the enigmatic particles, with barely zilch for mass, should go.
…scientists — even Einstein — proceed by trial and error.
“We are allowed to be wrong,” she [Laura Patrizii, an Opera member from the University of Bologna] said.
There is one exception to Dr. Patrizii’s rule of thumb: manmade global warming and climate “science.”
What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.
The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned.
Sometimes, it’s just as the song Rocket Man tells us: And all this science, I don’t understand. It’s just my job five days a week.
It would appear some of the shovel ready stimulus money (that is, grant money) is just now showing up at Climate Central.
And it would also appear they (Climate Central) realized Comedy Central was already taken.
And finally, it appears Climate Central is the one that didn’t get the memo.
A new report shows sea levels are rapidly rising and the study predicts the Jersey Shore could be underwater in a matter of decades.
The group found global warming is expanding sea water and causing ice sheets to melt.
Scientists believe by the end of the century, water levels will be three to four feet higher, with bigger storm surges that could wipe out low lying areas.
What scientists are we talking about here? Political scientists? Two guys with masters of science degrees? And do their engineers drive the trains?
At their site, Climate Central says this:
Global warming has raised global sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating.
Eight inches, assuming its correct, doesn’t seem to be too much. But in their press release, the Climate Centralists give this ominous warning:
By 2030, many locations are likely to see storm surges combining with sea level rise to raise waters at least 4 feet above the local high-tide line.
Should anyone be worried? In a word, no. Or at least, not any more than normal.
That’s because Wikipedia tells us Hurricane Isabel (2003) caused a storm surge of over ten feet in New Jersey. Going back to 1821, the Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane provided a five foot New Jersey storm surge. Other notable New Jersey storm surges were in 1941 (9.6 feet), 1960 (6 feet), 1976 (8.85 feet), and 1985 (4.6 feet).
The Bathurst Bay Cyclone, also known as Tropical Cyclone Mahina, which struck Bathurst Bay, Australia on March 5, 1899, is generally credited with the world record for storm surge. The cyclone’s storm surge is variously listed at 13 – 14.6 meters (43 – 48 feet).
Hmm. 1899? That was before the global warming scare, so I suppose the Climate Central guys would say Think what it would be like now with all the subsequent global warming!
The back end of the extended forecast at Accuweather.com changes daily and these guys are making predictions about the end of the century?
Climate change, thy name is legion.
(Fake AP) The bad climate news continues with an emerging weather phenomenon called global winding.
Global winding in California caused power outages, school closings, and property damage. In Utah, global winding was responsible for overturning semi-rigs and toppling backyard swing sets. Global winding is said to affect children, women, and minorities most.
The need to address global winding is urgent. If action is not taken in the next two years, the earth is likely to become permanently windy, and at dangerous levels. One way to address the issue, according to the IPCC, a highly-disreputable arm of the United Nations, is to control the wind by controlling greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide with sequestration programs, cap-and-trade efforts, higher energy costs, and offering incentives for people to die at an early age.
Former IPCC Chair (now incarcerated in Bogota, Columbia on drug and gun-running charges), and railroad engineer Franz Gupta had this to say: “Global winding is as big a risk to humanity as crystal meth, human trafficking, and Bruce Willis movies. It’s impossible for me to overstate how urgent it is that we take action immediately, before polar bears are blown into the Arctic Sea, or even worse.”
Respected entrepreneur Donald Trump is said to already be pursuing solutions to global winding, just as committed environmentalist Al Gore once did for global warming.
Global winding was first suggested in the 2006 documentary Happy Feet, with more settled scientific evidence presented in the just-released Happy Feet Two.