Why would the Rent & Grant Seeking Community of activists and criminals (mostly criminals) use scientific Trickery to push (Man Made) Global Warming?

How Climate Alarmists Use Scientific Trickery To Push Global Warming

By E. Calvin Beisner

When empirical data show so clearly that computer climate models grossly exaggerate the warming effect of carbon dioxide, how do climate alarmists maintain public alarm?

Tricks.

Among the more famous was “Mike’s Nature trick.” University of East Anglia climate scientist Phil Jones wrote that he had used “Mike’s Nature trick” of “adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. [sic] from 1981 onwards) and [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The result hid a decline in recent temperatures that would have appeared in the continuation of proxy temps used for the earlier part of a graph that played a crucial role in convincing the world that dangerous warming was happening.

Even more famous, and earlier, was Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph. The graph gave the appearance of a stable global temperature for over a millennium followed by sudden, dramatic warming starting in the late 19th century.

That graph appeared repeatedly in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (2001) and in media reports worldwide.

But never in later IPCC publications.

Why?

Because it turned out that Mr. Mann had cherry-picked his data and misused a sophisticated statistical method that, as he had misused it, yielded a hockey stick out of any numbers fed into it.

Mr. Mann stubbornly and litigiously defends his graph, but to many in the climate-science community, it and he are an embarrassment.

An even earlier trick was to define a term in a way non-specialists wouldn’t dream of — and not tell them about it.

That’s what the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) did. It defined “climate change” specifically as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity [emphasis added] that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

The result? Pretty much every reference to “climate change” in public discourse since has assumed that it is entirely man-made. And if it’s entirely man-made, then it’s entirely preventable — if we can just adopt the right policies.

Another trick has been to quietly change the subject.

No, I’m not talking about the change from “global warming” to “climate change.” Some people think that reflects alarmists’ abandoning the first term because it’s so easy to show that warming isn’t happening as predicted and adopting the second because practically anything can fit with it.

But the IPCC got its name when it was founded in 1988, and the UNFCCC its name in 1994, and “climate change” has been the preferred terminology for most scientists ever since.

True, journalists, politicians, and some of the more sensationalist scientists warned constantly of “global warming” but began to change their tune when, by the early 2010s, the global temperature wasn’t cooperating.

But there really was no outright substitution of “climate change” for global warming.

What did happen, though, was that when skeptics pointed out the ever-lengthening lack of warming, alarmists changed the subject.

They had warned of warming near-surface atmospheric temperature — which affects everyday life. It wasn’t happening—at least not on the scale they predicted. What to do?

Say the “missing heat” was in the ocean. So they talked of an increase in “ocean heat content.”

That was a perfectly legitimate hypothesis to explain the missing heat in the atmosphere. But it wasn’t an answer to the skeptics’ point.

Why? Because the skeptics’ point was that the climate models called for warming in the atmosphere that wasn’t being observed. That meant the models were, on that measure, wrong.

The alarmists’ proper, scientific response would have been, “Okay, you’re right. The models were wrong about atmospheric warming. Now we understand that a lot of the outgoing energy sent back toward the Earth’s surface ends up in the oceans, not in the atmosphere. Now let’s look at the consequences of that.”

But they never got that message across to policymakers, the media or the public. Instead, they tried to keep everybody worried about rapid atmospheric warming.

But that nasty absence of atmospheric warming persisted. So they issued a study whose “results [did] not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.”

Even the usually more careful Wall Street Journal took the bait, reporting, “Study Finds No Pause in Global Warming.”

But of course, one study’s finding no evidence of a pause didn’t mean no other studies found it — let alone that the pause was imaginary.

Within days the study came under withering critique by numerous scientists that pointed out numerous serious errors in its data handling and statistical methods. And shortly thereafter, it received a fatal blow.

More recently, in a panicked effort to hide the hiatus (the lack of statistically significant warming for about the past 20 years), alarmists have resorted to another trick.

They “adjust” weather-station temperature readings from long ago downward, while “adjusting” more recent readings upward, creating the impression of more rapid warming.

The results are stunning, as demonstrated by numerous critiques.

In short, a great deal of what the mainstream media report, and politicians tout, as the sure results of solid climate science are anything but.

The best evidence continues to be that natural causes of climate change — whether warming or cooling, wetting or drying, blowing or calming — far outweigh human contribution through CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

So, don’t be tricked into embracing climate-change/global-warming alarmism. There’s science, and then there’s sleight-of-hand masquerading as science.

• E. Calvin Beisner is the founder and national spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Read more at Washington Times

Via https://principia-scientific.org/how-climate-alarmists-use-scientific-trickery-to-push-global-warming/

More BBC Drivel On Catastrophic Sea Level Rise

By Paul Homewood

Today’s climate rubbish from the BBC (analysis after the jump):

Scientists believe that global sea levels could rise far more than predicted, due to accelerating melting in Greenland and Antarctica.

The long-held view has been that the world’s seas would rise by a maximum of just under a metre by 2100.

This new study, based on expert opinions, projects that the real level may be around double that figure.

This could lead to the displacement of hundreds of millions of people, the authors say.

The question of sea-level rise was one of the most controversial issues raised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), when it published its fifth assessment report in 2013.

It said the continued warming of the planet, without major reductions in emissions, would see global waters rising by between 52cm and 98cm by 2100.

Many experts believe this was a very conservative estimate.

Ice scientists are also concerned that the models currently used to predict the influence of huge ice sheets on sea levels don’t capture all of the uncertainties about how these are now melting.

JUDGEMENT DAY

To try to get a clearer picture, some of the leading researchers in the field carried out what is termed a structured expert judgement study, where the scientists make predictions based on their knowledge and understanding of what is happening in Greenland, West and East Antarctica.

In the researchers’ view, if emissions continue on the current trajectory then the world’s seas would be very likely to rise by between 62cm and 238cm by 2100. This would be in a world that had warmed by around 5C – one of the worst-case scenarios for global warming.

“For 2100, the ice sheet contribution is very likely in the range of 7-178cm but once you add in glaciers and ice caps outside the ice sheets and thermal expansion of the seas, you tip well over two metres,” said lead author Prof Jonathan Bamber from the University of Bristol.

The IPCC report in 2013 only considered what is “likely” to happen, which in scientific terms means they looked at 17-83% of the range of possibilities.

This new study looks at a broader range of results, covering 5-95% of the estimates.

For expected temperature rises up to 2C, Greenland’s ice sheet remains the single biggest contributor to sea-level rise. However, as temperatures go beyond this, the much larger Antarctic ice sheets start to come into play.

“When you start to look at these lower likelihood but still plausible values, then the experts believe that there is a small but statistically significant probability that West Antarctica will transition to a very unstable state and parts of East Antarctica will start contributing as well,” said Prof Bamber.

“But it’s only at these higher probabilities for 5C that we see those type of behaviours kicking in.”

According to the authors, this scenario would have huge implications for the planet.

They calculate that the world would lose an area of land equal to 1.79 million square kilometres – equivalent to the size of Libya.

Much of the land losses would be in important food growing areas such as the delta of the Nile. Large swathes of Bangladesh would be very difficult for people to continue to live in. Major global cities, including London, New York and Shanghai would be under threat.

“To put this into perspective, the Syrian refugee crisis resulted in about a million refugees coming into Europe,” said Prof Bamber.

“That is about 200 times smaller than the number of people who would be displaced in a 2m sea-level rise.”

The authors emphasise that there is still time to avoid these type of scenarios, if major cuts in emissions take place over the coming decades. They acknowledge that the chances of hitting the high end of this range are small, around 5%, but they should not be discounted, according to the lead author.

“If I said to you that there was a one in 20 chance that if you crossed the road you would be squashed you wouldn’t go near it,” said Prof Bamber.

“Even a 1% probability means that a one in a hundred-year flood is something that could happen in your lifetime. I think that a 5% probability, crikey – I think that’s a serious risk.”

The study has been published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, according to Jevrejeva’s reconstruction of sea level rise:

The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm·yr− 1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm·yr− 1 since 1970.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/jevrejevaetal2013gpchange.pdf

To get to a two-meter rise by 2100, sea levels would have to accelerate like this:

Even the IPCC admits that sea levels are rising no faster now than between 1920 and 1950:

It is very likely that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm/yr between 1901 and 2010 and 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm/yr between 1993 and 2010. Tide gauge and satellite altimeter data are consistent regarding the higher rate during the latter period. It is likely that similarly high rates occurred between 1920 and 1950.

The junk study that Matt McGrath gives prolific coverage to has many flaws. For instance:

1) It assumes warming of 5C by 2100, far more than any serious projections.

2) The error margins prove that their “expert judgments” are nothing more than guesswork. For example:

“For 2100, the ice sheet contribution is very likely in the range of 7-178cm”

3) Unhappy that computer models aren’t scary enough, the scientists make predictions based on their knowledge and understanding of what is happening in Greenland, West, and East Antarctica. Sorry, but subjective judgments are not science.

The BBC report states:

The authors emphasise that there is still time to avoid these type of scenarios, if major cuts in emissions take place over the coming decades. They acknowledge that the chances of hitting the high end of this range are small, around 5%, but they should not be discounted, according to the lead author.

“If I said to you that there was a one in 20 chance that if you crossed the road you would be squashed you wouldn’t go near it,” said Prof Bamber.

“Even a 1% probability means that a one in a hundred-year flood is something that could happen in your lifetime. I think that a 5% probability, crikey – I think that’s a serious risk.”

As I have noted before, it is funny how all of these highly funded “scientists” always tell us to reduce emissions, as if it was their job to tell us how to live our lives!

But the idea that there is an arithmetical probability of 5% that we hit the high end of the range is crass and absurd.

Such probabilities may be calculated for random events based on known data, such as an asteroid strike or a flood.

But their projections are not based on known data at all, which is precisely why even their GIGO computer models don’t support their assertions.

Just because Prof Bamber says something might happen does not mean it will.

Read more at Not A Lot Of People Know That

Via https://principia-scientific.org/more-bbc-drivel-on-catastrophic-sea-level-rise/

Here we go again: UN, Media recycle climate species ‘extinction’ fears – Dredge up discredited Paul Ehrlich

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: Morano ‘has prepared an extremely hard-hitting report for his written testimony’ at Congressional species hearing

More ..

 

Ad