Fake climate science and scientists A whole lot of someones are true believers in the cult of Environmentalism and Anthropogenic Climate Change. These same someones are so deep in their mental devolution that they can no longer understand that they are loons. Go hug a tree or something. "Alarmists game the system to enrich and empower themselves, and hurt everyone else Paul Driessen The multi-colored placard in front of a $2-million home in North Center Chicago proudly proclaimed, “In this house we believe: No human is illegal” – and “Science is real” (plus a few other liberal mantras). I knew right away where the owners stood on climate change, and other hot-button political issues. They would likely tolerate no dissension or debate on “settled” climate science or any of the other topics. But they have it exactly backward on the science issue. Real science is not belief – or consensus, 97% or otherwise. Real science constantly asks questions, expresses skepticism, reexamines hypotheses and evidence. If debate, skepticism and empirical evidence are prohibited – it’s pseudo-science, at best. Real science – and real scientists – seek to understand natural phenomena and processes. They pose hypotheses that they think best explain what they have witnessed, then test them against actual evidence, observations and experimental data. If the hypotheses (and predictions based on them) are borne out by their subsequent findings, the hypotheses become theories, rules, laws of nature – at least until someone finds new evidence that pokes holes in their assessments, or devises better explanations. Real science does not involve simply declaring that you “believe” something, It’s not immutable doctrine. It doesn’t claim “science is real” – or demand that a particular scientific explanation be carved in stone. Earth-centric concepts gave way to a sun-centered solar system. Miasma disease beliefs surrendered to the germ theory. The certainty that continents are locked in place was replaced by plate tectonics (and the realization that you can’t stop continental drift, any more than you stop climate change). Real scientists often employ computers to analyze data more quickly and accurately, depict or model complex natural systems, or forecast future events or conditions. But they test their models against real-world evidence. If the models, observations and predictions don’t match up, real scientists modify or discard the models, and the hypotheses behind them. They engage in robust discussion and debate. They don’t let models or hypotheses become substitutes for real-world evidence and observations. They don’t alter or “homogenize” raw or historic data to make it look like the models actually work. They don’t hide their data and computer algorithms (AlGoreRythms?), restrict peer review to closed circles of like-minded colleagues who protect one another’s reputations and funding, claim “the debate is over,” or try to silence anyone who dares to ask inconvenient questions or find fault with their claims and models. They don’t concoct hockey stick temperature graphs that can be replicated by plugging in random numbers." These paragraphs describe the denizens of Portlandia, the zombie cultists of Environmentalism and Anthropogenic Climate Change. They do not have opinions; they have beliefs. They resemble nothing so much as the pod zombies from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Once these zombies realize you are not one of them the conversation goes like this: "When these folks and the yard sign crowd brandish the term “science,” political analyst Robert Tracinski suggests, it is primarily to “provide a badge of tribal identity” – while ironically demonstrating that they have no real understanding of or interest in “the guiding principles of actual science.” Genuine climate scientist (and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) Dr. Judith Curry echoes Tracinski. Politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren use “science” as a way of “declaring belief in a proposition which is outside their knowledge and which they do not understand…. The purpose of the trope is to bypass any meaningful discussion of these separate questions, rolling them all into one package deal – and one political party ticket,” she explains. The ultimate purpose of all this, of course, is to silence the dissenting voices of evidence- and reality-based climate science, block creation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Science, and ensure that the only debate is over which actions to take first to end fossil fuel use … and upend modern economies. The last thing fake/alarmist climate scientists want is a full-throated debate with real climate scientists – a debate that forces them to defend their doomsday assertions, methodologies, data manipulation … and claims that solar and other powerful natural forces are minuscule or irrelevant compared to manmade carbon dioxide that constitutes less that 0.02% of Earth’s atmosphere (natural CO2 adds another 0.02%)." Understandable, these totalitarian socialists want power; they spend the last half of the 20th century hunting for some hook upon which to snare the people. They tried global cooling and a new ice age, the population bomb theory, acid rain fear mongering, The ozone hole was going to fry our heads, the extinction event, and global warming (or is it climate change, or climate wilding, or some other nonsensical inflammatory phrase?). "Between the peak of the great global cooling scare in 1975 until around 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise in rough conjunction. But then temperatures mostly flat-lined, while CO2 levels kept climbing. Now actual average global temperatures are already 1 degree F below the Garbage In-Garbage Out computer model predictions. Other alarmist forecasts are also out of touch with reality. Instead of fearing rising CO2, we should thank it for making crop, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, benefitting nature and humanity – especially in conjunction with slightly warmer temperatures that extend growing seasons, expand arable land and increase crop production. The rate of sea level rise has not changed for over a century – and much of what alarmists attribute to climate change and rising seas is actually due to land subsidence and other factors. Weather is not becoming more extreme. In fact, Harvey was the first Category 3-5 hurricane to make US landfall in a record 12 years – and the number of violent F3 to F5 tornadoes has fallen from an average of 56 per year from 1950 to 1985 to only 34 per year since then. Human ingenuity and adaptability have enabled humans to survive and thrive in all sorts of climates, even during our far more primitive past. Allowed to use our brains, fossil fuels and technologies, we will deal just fine with whatever climate changes might confront us in the future. (Of course, another nature-driven Pleistocene-style glacier pulling 400 feet of water out of our oceans and crushing Northern Hemisphere forests and cities under mile-high walls of ice truly would be an existential threat to life as we know it.)" Without the data fraud, the lies, the misdirection, and fallacious reasoning, anthropogenic climate change theory is unsupportable. The data simply does not logically take one to a place where the alarmists' position is reasonable. But then data don't matter if you are a zombie cultist who believes. Notice that the entire period of global warming was from 1978 through 1998, a mere 20 years. Since then the Earth's climate has taken a nap it is flat, an unchanging yet carbon levels have risen dramatically, even more than they did from 1978 to 1998. Before 1978 the Earth cooled after 1998 temperature was flat, these are not facts which support the wild-eyed climate alarmists claims of doom and gloom. Nor does even a cursory examination of the Earth's Climate during the Holocene. The alarmists are wont to provide only a tiny few temperature data points, commonly from about 1880 to present. The reason for this Cherry Picking of data is that it is about the time the Little Ice Age, the longest, coldest period during the Holocene ended. In every case, after the end of a cold period, the Earth's climate once again warms. The Holocene and how it undermines climate fear mongers Graphs from the article: Update on the Holocene and how it undermines climate fear mongering An even more important graph from the above article: I will end with the following quote from the article:
"Black curve, global temperature reconstruction by Marcott et al., 2013, as in figure 37. Purple curve, Earth’s axis obliquity cycle. Red curve, CO2 levels as measured in Epica Dome C (Antarctica) ice core, reported in Monnin et al., 2004. Blue curve, methane levels as measured in GISP2 (Greenland) ice core from Kobashi et al., 2007. Notice the great effect of the 8.2 kyr event on methane concentrations. Green curve, simulated global temperatures from an ensemble of three models (CCSM3, FAMOUS, and LOVECLIM) from Liu et al., 2014, show the inability of general climate models to replicate the Holocene general temperature downward trend. Pink bar, 8.2 kyr BP climatic event. Major Holocene climatic periods are indicated." Ok! That makes things a bit more complicated but look only at the black line, the proxy temperature reconstruction, and the green line the average of the three climate models. They do not mirror, in fact, they are clearly opposites. The reconstruction rises first, then falls over time, while the climate models start low and slowly rise over time. This has reinforced my understanding that the climate models used by the climate alarmist are valueless, and cannot be used for any real world climate modeling. Back to the paper: "Climate models adjusted to explain present global warming do not reproduce the Holocene climate. The mean temperatures of an ensemble of three models (CCSM3, FAMOUS, and LOVECLIM; Liu et al., 2014; figure 38) show a constant increase in temperatures during the entire Holocene, driven by the increase in GHG. This disagreement between models and data-derived reconstructions of Holocene climate has been termed by the authors the Holocene temperature conundrum (Liu et al., 2014). Climate modelers should take the opportunity to adjust their models to Holocene conditions. It is clear that the main driver of Holocene climate has been changes in insolation due to orbital variation. Changes in GHG concentrations appear to have had only a minor effect." This has only reinforced my arguments made in the original article. Thanks to the author for helping me include the better proxy temperature graph, and the other very valuable materials. The prior article has a more information, charts, and graphs, I recommend it to you. Otherwise I will end with its conclusion: "You will never find the CAGW crowd arguing, or charting the period prior to 1850, at least not in the public press. All attempts to do so have ended like Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph in fiasco, and recriminations. The only way the crowd can win the argument when the big data set is included is through fraud, and data manipulation. They excel at this, but are incompetent at it as well. And, so, Mann was hoisted on his own petard, and made into a self-made laughingstock."
Comments
|
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|