CO2 is increasing scientific fraud

"The world has never seen such freezing heat" by Christopher Booker

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month ....

.... The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

Economic and Climate Models

"Economic and Climate Models" by Robert P. Murphy:

The "rigorous," peer-reviewed Keynesian economic models reached the zenith of their professional success in the 1950s and 1960s, and yet, in retrospect, many economists would now admit that they were fundamentally flawed and provided horrible policy recommendations. Despite the obvious differences between the disciplines, this sorry episode from the field of economics should counsel caution before we hand over even more power to the politicians due to the results of mainstream climate models.

Let me be clear: I am not saying that the climate models are demonstrably wrong .... To go back to economics, it is not as if Paul Samuelson made a mistake in his arithmetic and that's why the United States experienced stagflation .... But if you suspected that perhaps the very approach of the model was flawed, you wouldn't expect Paul Samuelson — the very person responsible for the mainstream approach — to engineer a paradigm shift.

It is true that science must start somewhere, and a bad model is better than no model. But this truism does not mean governments should expand their powers whenever the "best guess" says it would be a good idea. A wise student of history should also be able to say, "We really don't understand this very well yet."

Climate Change (4)

"Uncertainty, the Precautionary Principle, and Climate Change" from Scott Armstrong, in The Global Warming Challenge:

Appeals for urgent curtailment of human activity “just in case” are often couched in ways that imply that industrial societies are inherently sinful, rather than that there might be a problem to be dealt with. Indeed, interpretation of the precautionary principle is subjective and it is arguable that it is being misapplied to the issue of climate change.

Firstly, even if forecasts of increasing temperatures turned out to be accurate, predicted temperatures and other conditions are within the range of variations that have been experienced in the past. There is no evidence that the natural environment “prefers” relatively cool to relatively warm average temperatures. In fact, life in general prefers warmth.

Secondly, curtailing human activity would harm people’s health by making them poorer than they would otherwise have been. This is likely to be the case even if curtailing human activity happened to reduce global average temperatures. When the situation is framed in this way, the precautionary principle dictates that it is policies to curtail economically efficient human activity that should themselves be curtailed.

The outlook for the climate over the 21st Century is highly uncertain. There is a word in the English language to express high uncertainty. That word is “ignorance”. And ignorance is not a basis for responsible government action. We should expect our politicians to have the courage to resist interest groups’ calls for action in the face of ignorance.

The precautionary principle brings to mind the slogan on the Ministry of Truth building in George Orwell’s 1984: “Ignorance is Strength.” Instead of this political principle, we hope that politicians will turn to scientific principles for making public policy.

Science: What is relevant is reproducible results

"Aliens Cause Global Warming" from Michael Crichton:

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Climate Change (3)

The Challenge:

Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School challenges Al Gore $20,000 that he will be able to make more accurate forecasts of annual mean temperatures than those that can be produced by climate models. Scott Armstrong’s forecasts will be based on the naive (no-change) model; that is, the forecasts would be the same as the most recent year prior to the forecasts. The money will be placed in a Charitable Trust to be established at a brokerage house. The charity designated by the winner will receive the total value in the fund when the official award is made at the annual International Symposium on Forecasting in 2018.

The current status of the Challenge:
- "Gore proposes new condition on climate forecasting challenge . . . Armstrong accepts and awaits a reply"

From "Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts" by Scott Armstrong:

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report.

The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Another presentation by Scott Armstrong, with stronger evidence than the one from IESE:
- "Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts" (PDF)

The youtubes:
- Dr. Scott Armstrong on Climate Forecasting - Part I
- Dr. Scott Armstrong on Climate Forecasting - Part II
- Dr. Scott Armstrong on Climate Forecasting - Part III

Climate Change (2)

Marlo Lewis Testifies in the Senate on Global Warming

"Global-Warming Jujitsu" by John Tierney:

“The surprising conclusion using the Stern Review’s own estimates,” Dr. Goklany writes, “is that future generations will be better off in the richest but warmest” of the I.P.C.C.’s scenarios.

"Now for the Good News" (Cato Institute):

.... we today find that the richest countries are also the cleanest. And while many developing countries have yet to get past the "green ceiling," they are nevertheless ahead of where today's developed countries used to be when they were equally wealthy ....

Climate Change (1)

CO2 and Temperature (from An Inconvenient Truth)


Proof that the famous CO2 graph has been manipulated and therefore isn't trustworthy




The Great Global Warming Swindle (Parts 3 & 4 )

Junk Science: "Breaking the hockey stick:

The famous graph that supposedly shows that recent temperatures are the highest in a thousand years has now been shown by careful analysis to have been based on faulty data.

"If we used Mann's method on red noise, we consistently obtained hockey sticks ....

.... Mann's climate reconstruction methodology would have yielded a hockey-stick graph from any tree-ring data set entered into the model, as long as there is sufficient red noise.

Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4