Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science

All I know is from what I have been reading we are still suppose to have another ice age in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years and it is suppose to more more sever than past ice ages. So, by that point in time global warming may of just helped. And, we are going through another mass extinction

including plants as well as animals. Too bad I won,t live long enough to see how it all works out.

 
I read something recently about a river of water beneath certain glaciers helping the large chunks move.Of course, just the weight of the ice will melt it underneath, but...

A possibility that occurs to me is that perhaps the crust of the Earth has been warming. This would accelerate the melting of the ice on rock, and probably raise ocean temperatures, but might not affect air temperatures.

"Don't know nothin' about the Middle Ages. I look at the pictures and turn the pages."

 
The last 8 years of data show NO WARMING.There is no global warming! Repeat it to yourself over and over, because it is true!

THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

Data proves this!

RMT
Click to expand...
The data proves nothing of the sort.
Given the large yearly fluctuations in the graph, it is clear that the observed short-term "trend" doesn't prove anything. It might be the result of short-term noise and nothing else.

You might want to try and do a rigorous statistical analysis on this one. Make a null hypothesis, such as "global warming is less than +0.02C/year" and calculate the confidence level. Your exact results will depend on your exact assumptions, but there is no way you'll reach anything over 95%. And this is simply not enough to cause us to disregard a full century of data, which clearly demonstrates that global warming was real in the past 100 years.

The only debatable point here, is whether this warming was caused by human greenhouse emissions or by something else. But does it really matter? For curiosity's sake, I suppose it does. But from the practical standpoint, it doesn't change anything. Even if the global warming of the 20th century was natural, this doesn't mean that we can sit back and do nothing. And it certainly doesn't mean that we should go on emmitting greenhouse gases, and make the naturally sticky situation even worse.

 
The data proves nothing of the sort.
Click to expand...
It uses the same linear regression that IPCC used on data to proclaim warming was occurring (note also that their "hockey stick" never occurred). So by using the same analysis technique they used to proclaim warming, we have a definite cooling trend. Any argument you make as for "short-term noise" would also have to apply to the apparant warming of the 90s.

The only debatable point here, is whether this warming was caused by human greenhouse emissions or by something else.
Click to expand...
If you know anything about closed-loop system dynamics, then that is a huge point.

But does it really matter? For curiosity's sake, I suppose it does.
Click to expand...
It most certainly does, especially if no matter how much much we spend (or can no longer make as a result of restrictions) we cannot do anything to affect the outcome! I mentioned closed-loop system dynamics, and this can show us how it is more than just curiosity. A phenomenon previously known as Pilot-Induced Oscillations is a result of the human pilot's dynamics coupling with the natural airplane dynamics. In essence, the pilot is the forcing function that drives the system to higher levels of dynamic instability. The first lesson the test pilot learns with regard to PIO is "just let go...stop giving the system inputs because you can and will only make it worse."
This applies to bad AGW science because, if we are NOT the cause of the warming (and there is plenty of data that does show statistical correspondence with sunspot activity) then anything we DO to take action on a bad hypothesis can make things worse! Happens all the time in dynamical systems that are not well understood. It is called "being out of phase with the system." Since no one can show an accurate picture of the dynamic response of the climate system, NO ONE (not even the self-proclaimed zealots of AGW, the IPCC) can predict whether anything we do would be "in phase" or "out of phase" with nature.

But from the practical standpoint, it doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...
Wrong. It is a highly practical point because: If data shows CO2 is not the mechanism, and we are not (largely) responsible then NOTHING we could possibly do will change it...and we could even make it worse. Compare all of humankind's power spectral density to that of the sun's. We are not even showing up as a minor blip!

Even if the global warming of the 20th century was natural, this doesn't mean that we can sit back and do nothing.
Click to expand...
Not do nothing, but you should certainly not take actions based on an INCORRECT climate model which does not even measure the impacts of oceanic currents, and has disputable feedback gains for CO2! What you should do is continue to take data, and continue to improve models until you CAN reliably predict something...anything about the state of the climate. But right now I am afraid the IPCC climate predictions made at the end of the 90s simply have NOT COME TO PASS. That means they failed, and so why should we believe their models?

And it certainly doesn't mean that we should go on emmitting greenhouse gases, and make the naturally sticky situation even worse.
Click to expand...
Actually, those climate scientists who actually consider the impact of the sun (as opposed to the AGW zealots who like to ignore the sun's impact) are suggesting (based on sunspot activity that matches early in the 20th century) that we may be on the verge of a massive cooling event. If that is the case then we will need all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on (AND "alternate energy" technology) just to keep ourselves warm.
RMT

 
It uses the same linear regression that IPCC used on data to proclaim warming was occurring (note also that their "hockey stick" never occurred). So by using the same analysis technique they used to proclaim warming, we have a definite cooling trend. Any argument you make as for "short-term noise" would also have to apply to the apparant warming of the 90s.
Click to expand...
That would be true... Had global warming started in the 1990's.
It did not. The world has been warming since the late 19th century. The graph has its ups and downs, but the overall trend cannot be denied.

It most certainly does, especially if no matter how much much we spend (or can no longer make as a result of restrictions) we cannot do anything to affect the outcome!
Click to expand...
Of-course we can.
Forget the graphs for a moment. You don't need them to realize that emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will cause a greenhouse effect. And you don't need computer simulations to understand that (say) doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have a non-negligable effect on climate.

Not to mention the fact, that these greenhouse emissions have side effects which have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. Most industrial proccesses which emit CO2, also emit toxic gases such as carbon monoxide. Deforestation, which is another contributer to the increased level of CO2, also has ecological implications far beyond the greenhouse crisis.

In other words, even if the greenhouse problem was a non-issue, we would still have to do more-or-less the same things in order to preserve the ecosystem.

This applies to bad AGW science because, if we are NOT the cause of the warming (and there is plenty of data that does show statistical correspondence with sunspot activity) then anything we DO to take action on a bad hypothesis can make things worse!
Click to expand...
You just gave the best possible argument in favour of reducing our greenhouse emissions: Tinkering with complex dynamical systems is dangerous and unpredictable. And we have been tinkering quite a bit with the "knobs" of our planet's ecosystem in the past century or so. We've changed the composition of the atmosphere in 100 years, at a rate thousands of times faster then our planet had ever experienced before.

Actually, those climate scientists who actually consider the impact of the sun (as opposed to the AGW zealots who like to ignore the sun's impact) are suggesting (based on sunspot activity that matches early in the 20th century) that we may be on the verge of a massive cooling event. If that is the case then we will need all the hydrocarbons we can get our hands on (AND "alternate energy" technology) just to keep ourselves warm.
Click to expand...
Oh... So suddenly it becomes OK to tinker with closed dynamic systems? :)

What you should do is continue to take data, and continue to improve models until you CAN reliably predict something...anything about the state of the climate.
Click to expand...
Very true.
But in the meanwhile, we should act responsibly and stop fooling around with things we do not understand. If we have no idea how the climate "machine" works, we shouldn't be testing its limits. We should make every possible efford to minimize our impact on the ecosystem, until we have some idea as to what we are doing.

 
Einstein,

That would be true... Had global warming started in the 1990's.It did not. The world has been warming since the late 19th century. The graph has its ups and downs, but the overall trend cannot be denied.
Click to expand...
You have not been paying attention. I have not claimed that "Global Warming" is bogus. The title of this thread is "Anthropogenic Global Warming is Bunk Science". While it certainly is necessary evidence for there to be temperature increases documented to claim humans are the primary reason, it is not sufficient. I assume from your knowledge of science that you are perfectly well aware of "necessary and sufficient".

In other words, even if the greenhouse problem was a non-issue, we would still have to do more-or-less the same things in order to preserve the ecosystem.
Click to expand...
And we (the USA) have. What is not often told in the media is that we have done more than any other country to combat ALL FORMS of air pollution. Thankfully, my home state of California lead the way as early as the 1970s. The evidence is seen in our skies in SoCal which are much clearer than back then, and also in the fact that where Stage III smog alerts used to be normal in SoCal summers, it is now rare for a summer to pass where even 1 Stage III smog alert day comes to pass.
The upshot here is that the rest of the world should start towing the line and imposing and enforcing the regulations we already have in the USA. To be explicit: The biggest polluter in the world, bar none with no arguments, is China. India is not far behind. Get those two onboard and we can talk. But passing laws in the USA which are based on flawed science is not going to impact the biggest polluters. It will only transfer wealth into the hands of the politicians pushing this bas science....namely, Al Gore. He has a vested interest in carbon credit trading schemes.

You just gave the best possible argument in favour of reducing our greenhouse emissions: Tinkering with complex dynamical systems is dangerous and unpredictable. And we have been tinkering quite a bit with the "knobs" of our planet's ecosystem in the past century or so. We've changed the composition of the atmosphere in 100 years, at a rate thousands of times faster then our planet had ever experienced before.
Click to expand...
Then why, pray tell, are you still using a computer? Why are you not doing your part by moving into a cave and giving up all electrical appliances? Actions speak louder than words. Of course, I am being fascetious. The point is: It is wonderful to talk this line, but until you being to talk about balancing things like our quality of life and our economy right alongside this, then you are only speaking meaningless platitudes.... unless you have some plan that is workable to shut down all energy (read: pollution) producing activities. Your statement, while true, is trite and meaningless without solutions that address the entire issue of society doing what it does. Because the simplest solution would be to exterminate the entire human race.

But in the meanwhile, we should act responsibly and stop fooling around with things we do not understand. If we have no idea how the climate "machine" works, we shouldn't be testing its limits. We should make every possible efford to minimize our impact on the ecosystem, until we have some idea as to what we are doing.
Click to expand...
Let me reveal something that I always put out there when this issue comes up for discussion: Way back in 2003 (before it was "chic" to be concerned about global warming, and before AlGore got his Oscar) I installed a 3.3 kW solar PV system on the roof of my Huntington Beach home. On an annualized basis I give more power to the grid than I consume. Furthermore, the property I am building (from bare ground) in SW Colorado will not only have solar PV but also a wind turbine...the current plan is to remain off-grid completely. So, I am walking the talk. What about you?
The point of me sharing this is to agree with you only so far as we need to be responsible actors with our environment. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the science which claims that the warming is "primarily" due to human actions, while NOWHERE does this politically-charged science EVER EVER EVER even estimate the sun's impact... nowhere do they try to explain the relative magnitudes of impacts. (In dyanmical system analysis, we call this identifying the gains of each input path). They simply leave it as "the globe is warming and it is all mankind's fault." Somehow, I know that is not true (because there is correlating data that shows the sun's impact over solar cycles), and therefore this is nothing but misapplied science intended to "scare" people into allowing government to force them to "do the right thing".

I did not need anyone scaring me to make the decision to install my solar PV system. All I needed was a simple engineering analysis with resulted in a Return On Investment. It clearly showed me that not only was it an environmentally proper action to take, but it made financial sense too.

I am opposed to using "partial science" (not telling the whole story) to affect social engineering. It can only lead to more abuses of science by politicians. And that eventually leads to fascism.

RMT

 
Einstein,

Here is a perfect example of what I am talking about. All of the so-called "scientists" who are trying to convince people that global warming is "primarily due to human activity" never seem to talk about any sort of natural effects that cause warming (i.e. the sun). That is dishonest and bad science. You would never see the "priests and proselytizers" of AGW report any science like the following:

Watts Up With That

Correlation demonstrated between cosmic rays and temperature of the stratosphere

 


"Published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and led by scientists from the UK's National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS) and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), this remarkable study shows how the number of high-energy cosmic-rays reaching a detector deep underground, closely matches temperature measurements in the upper atmosphere (known as the stratosphere). For the first time, scientists have shown how this relationship can be used to identify weather events that occur very suddenly in the stratosphere during the Northern Hemisphere winter. These events can have a significant effect on the severity of winters we experience, and also on the amount of ozone over the poles - being able to identify them and understand their frequency is crucial for informing our current climate and weather-forecasting models to improve predictions."

This is but one reason why claiming "the science is settled" is a purposefully misleading statement which does not reflect how science really works. Why is it that the people who are trying to convince us of Anthropogenic Global Warming never talk about the sun's impact (which is clearly larger and the primary source of energy input to our closed system)?

RMT

 
All of the so-called "scientists" who are trying to convince people that global warming is "primarily due to human activity" never seem to talk about any sort of natural effects that cause warming (i.e. the sun).
Click to expand...
...nor do the "man made global warming" fruitbats even dare to add the little tidbit that Mars is also undergoing a global warming event concurrent with ours. Explain that one with Earth "carbon foorprints".
Or maybe its related to solar activity cycles;

Or maybe its related to cyclic cosmic ray activity relative to the solar system's orbit about the galactic center as it passes through regions of varying mean density in the outer spiral arm.

We do know that not so very long ago (50-60 million years ago) the Arctic climate was tropical and the region was ice free...

and we also know that the vast majority of scientific theories on the subject of global warming are being driven not by science but by political correctness.

 
I am opposed to using "partial science" (not telling the whole story) to affect social engineering. It can only lead to more abuses of science by politicians. And that eventually leads to fascism.
Click to expand...
If you are so opposed to "partial science", why are you doing the same thing yourself?
You fail to mention that:

1. The idea of Anthropogehenic Global Warming has been around since the 1970s, and it was devoid of any political implications. Only in the past few years did the issue become a political "hotspot".

2. The simple fact that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has almost doubled since 1800, and that this increase is of roughly the same magnitude as our own industrial emission of CO2. These are two pieces of raw data which cannot be disputed.

3. Greenhouse gases are bound to create a greenhouse effect. You don't need complicated computer models to know this. It follows from the basic light absorption properties of these materials. And if you are still skeptical about it, take a look at the planet Venus.

4. Global Warming - regardless of its cause - is a real trend. Data from the past 150 years prove that the earth IS becoming warmer. This warming began with the industrial revolution, and accelerated as our CO2 emissions increased. This correlation would be a pretty odd coincidence, if we assume that our CO2 isn't responsible for the warming.

5. Computer models of the effects of AGW predict a rise in temperature which is of the same order-of-magnitude as the observed trends. Different computer models give different figures, but they are all in the right ballpark when compared to the actual data. Is this another coincidence?

Now, I agree that the situation is not 100% resolved. Perhaps our computer model are off, and what we really have here is a couple of extraordinary coincidences. But this isn't very likely. The evidence is certainly on AGW's side, even if it isn't completely conclusive. There's no doubt it's good science.

You're right in one thing, though:

Science and politics do not mix well. The other side of this very same coin, however, is that you shouldn't judge a scientific theory by the way politicians use it.

 
...nor do the "man made global warming" fruitbats even dare to add the little tidbit that Mars is also undergoing a global warming event concurrent with ours. Explain that one with Earth "carbon foorprints".
Click to expand...
Reference, please.

We do know that not so very long ago (50-60 million years ago) the Arctic climate was tropical and the region was ice free...
Click to expand...
What does this has to do with anything? How can you compare 50 million years to rapid changes that occur over a few decades?
I'm suprised to hear such a statement from you, Darby. Very surprised.

 
Mars is also undergoing a global warming event concurrent with ours...Explain that one...
Click to expand...
Everybody knows that China is responsible for that. Not only do their pollutants cross the Pacific Ocean, affecting the North American Continent, but on days where there is minimal or no wind, the pollution from China goes straight up and heads out across space to warm-up Mars, too.

 
Everybody knows that China is responsible for that. Not only do their pollutants cross the Pacific Ocean, affecting the North American Continent, but on days where there is minimal or no wind, the pollution from China goes straight up and heads out across space to warm-up Mars, too.
Click to expand...
Dang! I forgot about that. The ChiComs are terraforming Mars and reducing their carbon footprint through exportation of carbon credits to Mars. A win-win! :)

 
What does this has to do with anything? How can you compare 50 million years to rapid changes that occur over a few decades?
Click to expand...
The point is "Save the Polar Bears - The Polar Ice Caps Are Melting". Earth's response is, "Been there - done that. Several times. Stop screwing with my bears you twits."
The fruitbats have localized the situation of global temperature change to today and only today and crying, with a lot of hand waving - some stomping, a bit of general tantrumizing, lots of threats and occassional violence - that we have to do something about it without considering or even caring that the history of the planet is one of constant temperature change - some slow and others very rapid but always cyclic. We will have another ice age. We will have another hot age. Will have another mini-Ice Age and another mini-Hot Age. Many of them, in fact. We are currently at the mid-point between the last major Ice Age and the next major Ice Age. It's supposed to be getting hotter right now. The hot ages are the initiators of global bio-diversity and evolution. Without them the planet dies.

That we saw, a few years ago, a short term rise in temperatures is not at all unprecidented. In the 1940's it was global cooling, in the 1950's it was global warming, in the 1960's it was global cooling, in the 1970's it was global warming, in the 1980's it was global cooling, in the 1990's it was global warming and now in the 2000's we're back to global cooling. There might be a short-term pattern or two there - one a physical fact, the other a psychological tendency for the Drama Queens to come out and play the "gimme a trillion tax dollars more for global warming/cooling prevention - or gimme the money jus cuz" power trip game.

And the fruitbats demand excruciatingly long and expensive EIR's from everyone and anyone who is doing something that might in their view alter the temperature...but they'd cry bloody hell if someone filed a law suit and demanded that they file and get approved an EIR before their pet project to alter temperatures is approved...wouldn't they? Sure, their Sister Moonbeam-Starship Earth argument would be that they are doing it for the benefit of mankind (sing kum-bye-yah at this point) and we're supposed to shut up, sit still and buy the neo-flowerchild hokum hook, line and sinker without questioning their motives, knowledge or even their sanity. Right.

No one, and I mean no one, on the fruitbat team has given a single thought as to what the effect - assuming that we can affect temperature change - of their weather tinkering would be. They just mindlessly assume that it would work out as they want it to work out. It would never occur to them they they might be wrong, that the changes are natural and they they would bring about the very thing that they claim to want to prevent by tinkering with the weather.

 
If you are so opposed to "partial science", why are you doing the same thing yourself?You fail to mention that:
Click to expand...
Just because I do not mention them does not mean they are not addressable with objective evidence that refutes (or at least causes one to question) the proclaimed AGW "conclusions". I will answer each of those points over the weekend when I have more time. But let me address this one first, because clearly you have not been seeing everything that has been going on, nor reviewing the science put forward by people refuting AGW:

The evidence is certainly on AGW's side, even if it isn't completely conclusive. There's no doubt it's good science.
Click to expand...
Actually, the evidence is very much sketchy, when you look at all of it. As for it being "good science" that can also be refuted 12 ways to Sunday. Here is just some eye-opening information from the guy who was the former supervisor of the "AGW Chief Priest" NASA's James Hansen:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

"Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA's vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen 'embarrassed NASA' with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was 'was never muzzled.' Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears."

And with respect to "good science" here is what Theon is alleging about how some people performed their science:

'Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,' he added.

That's "good science"? Hardly. And now let me present some "from the horse's mouth" admissions to the kinds of things alleged in the above statement. Ones that, as an engineer, clearly cause me to question whether these people are doing real science, or only trying to confirm their own beliefs:

From:

Scientific Colloquium


January 23, 2009


RON GELARO


GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER


"Atmospheric Data Assimilation and Observing System Science"

Data assimilation is the process by which observations are combined with a prognostic model to provide the best estimate (analysis) of the current state of a physical system. Observational information, which tends to be irregular in space and time, can thus be made available in a regular or gridded form required for many applications. The process is far more complex than a simple interpolation of information from one point to another, as it depends on aspects such as the errors of the various observation types, imperfections in the prognostic model and the physical relationships between different atmospheric variables; e.g., pressure and wind speed.

Mixing raw data with a "prognostic model"? Least squares fitting is one thing (and acceptable science), kalman filtering is also acceptable science to get normalized data. But running raw measurements through a "prognostic model"? That hardly appears to be good science, especially if the assumptions used in the "prognostic model" have not been expressley stated, along with their realm of validity, with validation methods and data to back them up.

I am really hopeful that some of this data will open your eyes, and you do not simply reject it because it does not fit your current belief. You seem to me to be very scientific in your thinking, and I am hopeful you have simply not seen some of this data or these admissions before.

Coming up: More data that will show how the IPCC climate models predictions are at least questionable, if not incorrect, related to "stabilizing vs. destabilizing" systemic effects. In other words, feedback loops. Something I know a lot about, and am fully capable of backing what Dr. Roy Spencer (climatologist) explains about them.

RMT

 
Here is another story that just came out today...written by none other than John Coleman, the gentleman who started the Weather Channel.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

The whole thing is a very good read, but here are some highlights:

"The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming. "

This is not simply alternate alarmism. There have been stories quoting Gore saying he was recommending that CO2 be labeled a pollutant. Gases that plants need to survive, a pollutant? ONLY politicians could come up with that.... show me ONE scientist who would recommend that (other than the obvious political animal Hansen) and we can talk.

"These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures. "

 


snip

 


"But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

 


Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere. "

This is where the politics really started to mix with the science, although it was not overt. The thing that overtly disconnected the two was the "research funding". That has become much clearer in the past 10 years.

"Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up. "

I can (and will if requested by any readers) post an analysis from Dr. Roy Spencer who shows just how TEENY TINY total CO2 is, in addition to how miniscule the CO2 buildup has been.

"Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meeting."

The UN gets involved. Let us remember that the UN is not a scientific organization! First and foremost it is a political organization, committed to achieve political goals...quite often NOT in accord with the best interests of the USA or their people. But that is politics on an international scale. No surprise there. But when the UN gets into the business of proclaiming scientific conclusions....BEWARE!

"And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. "

Here we have the "grandfather of global warming" (Revelle) pointing this (bold) out!!!

"Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle's Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names. "

You see, the politics have been entangled with "science" (bad science) for so long, that people are generally not aware of just how long Gore has been using such platitudes as "science being settled" (that is unscientific, in and of itself) and "the time for debate is over". Moreover, Gore does not even listen to the Harvard professor who got him all starry-eyed and on his tree-hugger quest!

"Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history. "

RMT

 
Ray,

Thanks for posting the Coleman information.

Another concern that Coleman has expressed is how politicized university departments of enviornmental studies have become around the nation. He's quite alarmed over the fact that skeptical positions regarding global warming are not tollerated at all.

Students had better be on board with the politically correct position, pro manmade global warming, or their grades will suffer and getting into grad school just might not be an option if they can't get a professor to sponsor them. It's no surprise that there's only one point of view coming out of university research when students face that one-sided fact.

Research funding, of course, comes mostly from the federal government. Congress allocates funding through spending bills. As I looked at the line item funds in the bail-out bill today I didn't seem much in the way of funds being allocated for research projects that don't support the manmade global warming position. In fact the total line item funding for such projects was zero dollars. Professors are expected to engage in ongoing research for publication. With the available funds allocated for one predetermined outcome, professors who want to keep their jobs have but one choice as to what their findings will be. Thereafter the professors write the textbooks for the undergraduate division. The science expressed in the textbooks is based on their published research. Undergrads aren't expected to disagree with the textbooks, especially when their professor is the author their textbooks. [Loop to top of paragraph - Execute endless Loop]

It gives a whole new meaning to the term "political science".

 
Hi Darby,

Thanks for posting the Coleman information.
Click to expand...
As I am sure you suspect...it gets better. The AGW house is truly crumbling right now. Too bad the new administration is ignoring the writing on the wall and pressing forward with its bad-science-based agenda. And they bashed Bush for ignoring reality? It is to laugh.
So here is the latest person to step forward and call BS on AGW:

Forecasting Guru Announces: "No scientific basis for forecasting climate"

Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they "violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting", but that "The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose." This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice.

No doubt the AGW zealots will put this on heavy "ignore and do not address"...

What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia's CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.

 


In today's statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis:

 


 1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth's climate.


2. Improper peer review process.


3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting.


4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change.


5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.


7. The climate system is stable.


8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.




Number 7 is my favorite from a technical standpoint, since it deals with feedback loops. Something I work with day in and day out...and something that many "climatologists" can only barely do the LaPlace math for...

To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre's data, we started with 1850 and used that year's average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This "successive updating" continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts.

 


We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts.

The process they describe here provides hard-to-refute evidence that there are stabilizing (negative feedback) loops built-in to the climate system. Dr. Roy Spencer has written about this at length, and points out that the IPCC climate models (all of them) consistently model cloud effects as a positive (destabilizing) feedback gain. If this were true, the world would have gone divergent long before man showed up because of all the CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by volcanos.

RMT

 
Back
Top