By Sanjeev Sabhlok
There are two key pillars of science. First, it doesn’t matter how many “scientists” believe something. All of them could be proven wrong by a single new scientific theory or experiment.
Science is always tentatively proven, and it is incumbent on everyone who calls himself a scientist to ask questions even about things that are “settled.”
The great physicist Richard Feynman rightly said, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Scientists must continually question everything and everybody.
Second, science must necessarily make accurate predictions. The global positioning system (GPS) in our mobile phones works only because Einstein’s theories of relativity are accurate to the last possible decimal.
Science must not just predict the future: it must predict backward. Our scientific understanding of cosmic microwave background radiation allows us to literally see the universe as it existed a few thousand years after the Big Bang.
With climate change, things are dramatically unclear and unsettled. Even converting the basic logic of the greenhouse effect into actual estimates for planet Earth is not settled.
The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report notes that:
“If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously … the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2 degrees, in the absence of other changes.”
However, some scientists calculate that its impact would be much lower.
Even if we accept this figure of 1.2 degrees, the key question is about these “other changes”, or the feedbacks.
The IPCC tells us that positive feedback loops (e.g. from water vapor) from doubling of CO2 will overwhelm negative feedback loops (e.g. from clouds) to lead to a much higher overall temperature in a hundred years.
But the IPCC’s approved models have too much variance and the actual measured temperatures over the past forty years have been much lower than the predicted average of the IPCC-approved climate models.
In fact, the list of failed predictions by climate “scientists” over the past 100 years could form a large book in itself.
Climate science is more like “diet science,” in that every other doctor has his own ideas about a good diet. It is a very immature science at best, and most of its current conclusions will be totally rejected with time.
What is global temperature anyway? How is it measured? Why are we looking at the last fifty years and not the last fifty million years?
Even simple things like the measurements of temperature are subject to huge disagreements because of complexities like the urban heat island effect.
And the fact is that the world has seen much higher levels of CO2 in the past even during ice ages. Until climate science can make accurate predictions of past ice ages and temperatures, it will not be ready to be called a science.
Among the books that supported me in answering some of my questions on this topic were Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth and Donna Laframboise’s The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.
Ian Plimer is professor emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne.
Scientists like Judith Curry (the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology) have raised major concerns about climate science including concerns about fraudulent temperature data manipulation.
Ivar Giaever, the Nobel prize winner in physics has studied the methods of climate science and considers it to be pseudo-science.
Vernon Smith, an electrical engineer who later moved to economics and won a Nobel prize, has very strong concerns about the methodology of climate science.
The fact that there is an attempt by some people to bulldoze others into “believing” their views itself confirms that this is not a science.
Moreover, there are strong reasons to believe that this field has been fully captured by commercial interests.
The great economist George Stigler raised the issue of regulatory capture in the 1970s to describe the situation when a regulator is no longer independent and unbiased because of commercial conflicts of interest.
As Mark Lynas has pointed out, “The renewables industry stands to be the main beneficiary of any change in government policies based on the IPCC report’s conclusions.”
I believe that an even greater conflict of interest comes from politically inspired groupthink in government, which means that those “scientists” who can successfully create more panic receive more money to help them expand their empire.
Real scientists who want to explore questions that might disprove the “findings” of climate science are being refused research funding and even being ousted from universities.
Alleged scientists like Tim Flannery, who have repeatedly made false predictions, enjoy cult status in the media which loves their bold (and panicky) predictions. Good, cautious scientists are not loved since they are boring.
And this “science” is extremely corrupt. The Climategate emails were just the tip of the iceberg. Fraudulent studies have formed part of the IPCC reports (such as the one about the melting by 2035 of all Himalayan glaciers).
And unproven reports by wildlife advocacy groups have been extensively used as “evidence” by the IPCC. Calling this commercially and politically driven project a science hugely stretches the meaning of the word.
We know that plants evolved to flourish when the earth had much higher levels of CO2. Even today, advanced farmers pump CO2 for plants under controlled conditions to achieve higher yields.
CO2 is immensely beneficial for life and a slight increase in its levels over the past fifty years has made our planet greener.
If CO2 were a pollutant, then carbon emissions trading would be a useful solution. But my personal conclusion is that climate science is too primitive to be of any use in making policy.
Let it first get its predictions right and become a genuine science. In the meanwhile, we know for sure that the modest increase in CO2 over the past fifty years has been enormously beneficial.
India should not spend even a minute thinking about this issue and focus instead on abolishing socialism.
Read more at The Times Of India
Stopping The Flood Of Fraudulent Global Warming Papers
By Dr. Joel Glass
Each year we are confronted with countless “academic” global warming publications which soon after publication are shown to contain data errors or misinterpretations.
Shown, to put it bluntly, to be frauds.
The authors are almost always tenured professors. And in one major case of 2018, there were 10 co-authors and there was a major “math” error.
The new book, A Global Warming Primer For Those On the Political Left, which is meant to clear the minds of those on the political Left, is of course already known to the astute readers of this website.
The book is not meant for them but is meant for their relatives, friends, and co-workers who are part of the climate change hysteria movement.
After reading this book, the formerly mesmerized relatives/friends will either flip to our side…or at least shut up about climate. Either way a victory.
The book contains several examples in detail of recent papers which have strange math errors. One is the ten-author Resplandy et al. Ocean Heat Uptake paper, whose lead author is Dr. Laure Resplandy…a key member of the Department of Geosciences and Princeton Environmental Institute.
Very impressive of course. In fact, all ten authors have very impressive credentials.
The paper was published by the prestigious journal Nature.
Within a few days of publication of this paper, which was intended to be the sledgehammer that destroyed any academic opposition to global warming hysteria, substantial math errors were spotted and became public.
This was not before the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Democrat Media Complex had heralded this paper as the end of “climate denial.”
“Startling!” and “This changes everything!”
Then after the findings of the paper were completely discredited within days (see the math problems here), one of the ten authors Professor Ralph Keeling, a global warming proponent of a leading American Institute of Oceanography, made a public statement.
To paraphrase Dr. Keeling’s statement: “We seem to have made a teeny-weeny little math error. It wasn’t very serious. But in fact, it did make our findings inaccurate.”
“But,” he said, “What is important in science is not making mistakes. It’s correcting your mistakes.”
He said this exactly:
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean…We really muffed the error margins.”
“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here, I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.”
Global warming support scientists are always the reincarnation of goody two shoes.
All was forgiven. The global warming paper that was hyped by the Washington Post, New York Times, and the whole Democrat Media Complex as the final proof that global warming exists, turned out to be scientific garbage.
Sorry about our little mistake, said the authors. But now we fixed it and everything is OK.
Remember, there were ten global warming “scientists” who authored that paper. All professors or similarly academic “experts.”
It’s fair to assume that all of the “Gang of Ten” actually read this magnum opus they wrote and signed. And that they can do the basic math of a freshman high school student.
In other words, professor Keeling’s statement finally paraphrased: “Sorry we got caught.”
Now, it’s simply part of the unending global warming hysteria fudging academic data. In this case, wholesale falsification according to leading experts.
Being a climate change supporting “scientist” means never having to say you’re sorry. Except after getting caught.
This and several other similar cases are covered in the book.
REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ACADEMIC GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
A rapid and effective way to stop this mudslide of academic fraud would be to cut off the federal funding. More than two billion dollars of federal money gets poured into the open mouths of opportunists who will gladly tell white lies for cash.
This is the result of the Obama regime working with the intent to utilize global warming as a power grab.
But while terminating funding is a great way to reduce fraud, because the American government is now largely a bureaucratic state, cutting off funding is easier said than done.
Departments are staffed with employees who can’t be fired due to unions and federal regulations. Employees who are dedicated to global warming warriors or simply don’t care about overspending.
Another approach to reducing the academic blood of false research papers would be judicial. Such papers cause material damage.
However, judicial methods are not simple and have a tendency to get into the “thought police” realm. A realm most people likely don’t want to go.
But there is another way. And that is something which was taught to me by my Aunt Edith.
Starting at about five-years-old, she always brought me a bag of peanuts when she came to visit us. I think they were shelled, roasted, and salted if I remember correctly.
In any case, I absolutely loved them. I would run down the stairs at the first sign of her appearance.
But there was a catch. When I got the peanuts, I also got a loving pinch on the cheek.
Pinching children on the cheek is not done anymore and was a quaint American habit from her own childhood I suppose.
The problem was that because she loved me (and I, of course, loved her too), she squeezed sort of hard without realizing it. As in, when someone gives a relative a hug, the greater the loving intent involved, the warmer the hug.
The pinching hurt a bit, but I didn’t say anything. Because I didn’t want to say something mean to my aunt, and because the peanuts were part of the deal.
Eventually, I decided that I didn’t want to get my cheek pinched any more, and I made a catastrophic decision. I told my mother about it.
That approach was very foolish, even for a five-year-old. I simply could have told Aunt Edith that it hurt a little, and asked if she could squeeze a little less.
And then offer my cheek with a loving smile. My five-year-old daughter today would have the smarts to do something like that right away.
But no… instead of taking the kind and diplomatic way, I told my mother.
That, in fact, stopped the pinching. It also stopped the peanuts.
While that was an unhappy event which I still remember today, I provide a template for dealing with the flood of fraudulent global warming academic papers.
Stupidity has a price.
GLOBAL WARMING ACADEMICS…AND APPLYING THE AUNT EDITH PRINCIPLE
Money, and to a much lesser extent, virtue signaling, is the motivation for writing global warming hysteria papers. It’s mostly money.
But what if… along with the funding provided for the writing of these papers, there was a document. A small one-page statement, that the prospective authors would be required to sign…
This tiny document states: If the paper contained fraudulent or manipulated data or if the conclusion contradicted the data in an obvious manner, the taxpayer money received for the paper would have to be returned in full.
This approach is a serious one, and in a more government regulatory-formulated effort is realistic. This is a real proposal which could have some good results.
And it is absolutely not “thought police” regulation.
It’s not imprisoning anyone. It’s not putting anyone before a firing squad. It’s simply requiring that, in exchange for government funding, there is a basic level of measurable accuracy in the papers that even a high school student could produce.
So while the best way to reduce the endless little white lies in global warming support publications, is to cut off the government funding…meanwhile, if the authors make a bad decision, meaning in this case if they lie, fudge data, misrepresent, cheat … they give back the peanuts.
Read more at climatechangedispatch.com
Why Scientists Need To Speak Out Against Flimsy Climate Claims
By Larry Bell
Honest, competent scientists should have no reason to close out opportunities for open discussion regarding claims that appear to be disproven by readily verifiable observations.
Let’s also add to this that responsible researchers and their professional organizations should not quietly stand by when they witness recognized misrepresentations of factual data and conclusions, whether these are directly attributed to them or not.
Here are three representative examples:
Revisiting Exaggerated Climate Model Predictions:
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finally got at least one thing right on page 774 of their 2001 “Third Assessment Report”:
“In research and modeling of the climate, we should be aware that we are dealing with a chaotic, nonlinear coupled system, and that long-term predictions of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC confirmed the inaccuracy of climate models in their 2014 “Fifth Synthesis Report” which admits that:
“…111 out of 114 realizations [sic] show a GMST [global mean surface temperature] trend over 1998-2012 that is higher than the [trend in observed temperatures even after accounting for statistical uncertainty in the observed trend].”
So in other words, IPCC tells us that while 97 percent of their computer models exaggerate warming, we should nevertheless trust them as a basis for influencing trillions of dollars of energy policy decisions.
Game Over For The Broken Hockey Stick Debacle:
One of the loudest, shrillest voices of protest against science scrutiny is emanating from Climategate scandal star Dr. Michael Mann, the author of a cobbled-together and thoroughly debunked “hockey stick” graph first used by the IPCC and Al Gore to gin up climate Armageddon alarm.
Mann’s alarmist chart projections have since disappeared into the murky pseudoscientific mists along with last sightings of Sasquatch.
Yet before we all forget, let’s retrace those Big Foot tracks to investigate why competent scientists who knew better — including informed members of his own hockey team — remained silent.
A March 20 article co-authored by Mann and Bob Ward in The Guardian equated a planned White House panel to investigate any such matter as Stalinist repression.
Nevertheless, even Mann’s hockey stick paper co-author Raymond Bradley observed in an email that he could no longer defend such incompetence.
Regarding another paper jointly published by Mann and colleague Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia, Bradley wrote, “I’m sure you will agree — the Mann/Jones GRL [Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2,000-year construction.”
Writing to Jones, Peter Thorne of the U.K. Met Office advised caution, saying:
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous.”
Phil Jones had also written an e-mail stating:
“Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low-level clouds. . . . what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”
Or as Jonathan Overpeck, a coordinating lead IPCC report author, suggested:
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”
Busting Bogus Scary Settled Science Consensus Claims:
All purportedly competent “climate scientists” and/or their professional organizations purporting to endorse the existence of any legitimate survey of their peers indicating dire climate crisis consensus views should be made responsible to elaborate any such evidence.
Let’s begin, for example, with the origins and merit of a grossly-misleading, endlessly-reported, and politically-weaponized claim that “98 percent of all scientists believe in global warming.”
The misleading ruse was based entirely upon responses of 77 cherry-picked people out of about 3,000 who responded to an anything-but-scientific two-question American Geophysical Union online survey.
The first question asked, “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Few would be expected to dispute this . . . the planet began thawing out of the “little ice age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 12,000 years ago.)
The second question asked, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
Eighty-two percent of all respondents answered “Yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people would have also agreed.
It’s impossible to imagine that human activities — including land use and global greening attributed to CO2 emissions — don’t have at least some potential warming (and also cooling) influences.
Conscientious professionals and public representatives have nothing to fear regarding full disclosure of facts and conditions underlying enormously costly and socially consequential climate and energy policy decisions.
Any consensus among true scientists should openly welcome White House plans to convene an NSC review panel headed by Princeton emeritus professor Dr. Will Happer to do exactly that.
Read more at CFACT