Climate Change; These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For

One of the first issues one has to deal with the Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) zealots is their terminology; they tend to use Global Warming, AGW and Climate Change interchangeably (Climate Change as defined by the zealots, always means Climate Change that is the result of AGW, but they will try and trap the opposition, making it appear they are denying the natural process of climate change that has occurred since the planet had an atmosphere). The point being it is well known that the climate has been warming since the 16 century, the question being what affect man has had on the climate, and the best information science has, is nothing; or it is so minor it is unmeasurable. Further, ask any AGW zealot what exactly would be the result of de-industrializing the world to reduce man's carbon foot print and the answer is a minor reduction in the timetable of the inevitable warming of the planet; a warming that humanatinity was has had no part in (AGW is based on the theory that increases of C02 in the atmosphere from the Industrial revolution has accelerated Global Warming; ie Climate Change). One problem with this theory is the fact that C02 in the earth's atmosphere has increased in the last 15 years (360 ppm to 400 ppm; this is the same rate of increase since the 1980's, from 336ppm in the 1980's to 395ppm in 2013) but there has been no global warming in the same period Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Atmosphere. Still the zealots wave their hands in front of our collective faces, trying the Jedi mind trick that "These aren't the droids you're looking for"; in other words any chink in the AGW is not to be dwelled upon because the science is settled.

Then there is the often quoted study that AGW has a 97% consensus amongst scientists. The so called survey by AGW alarmists John Cook, has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the poster child for the manipulation of information.

Then there is the often quoted study that AGW has a 97% consensus amongst scientists. The so called survey by AGW alarmists John Cook, has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the poster child for the manipulation of information.One of the primary criticisms is most of the studies Cook claimed to support AGW, were actually neutral on the subject (8,000 out of 12,000) or rejected it entirely (the 97% was based on a ranking system, not the actual number of studies). One researcher that critiqued the study said,  

"Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.  This study done by John Cook and others..., found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it". Musings on the 97% Consensus. Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis. Global Warming Alarmists caught Doctoring 97% Consensus Claims/

The settled science of AGW is usually based on proxy data being fed into a computer model, or more recently "multi-proxy climate reconstructions", both rely on the often mistaken belief that proxy data is accurate enough and can be used to document past climate changes in order to predict future climate change due to global warming; both have proved  problematic and elusive. The purpose of science is rarely to predict the future, but to understand current phenomena; pretty much all attempts to predict the future of any act of nature, unless it's constantly repeats like the tides, has resulted in failure. The amount of variables in the weather and climate change are so numerous, it was the impetus for Chaos Theory; "Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future". In other words, until you know all the variables in minute detail of the initial condition of a process (and understand how they interact with each other), you will never be able to make an accurate prediction of the future.

Michael Mann's famous (and now discredited) hockey stick graph was based almost solely on proxy-data (and a programed for success computer model). "(Proxy data is an) indirect measurement inferred from a property more loosely related to temperature (the relationship may be less well understood or less reproducible and require more measurements and analysis before drawing a conclusion)." When one talks about proxy data, it means such things as tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments; these and other proxy data is open to interpretation and requires a huge amount of repetitive results to be even come close to being reliable. It was the tree ring scientists (dendrochronologists) that first complained about the Manns lack of cross-check tree ring record.Tree Ring Records Spur Debate. Then there is the exposé of the Phil Jones  Keith Briffa/ CRU studies,  showed that from hundreds of Siberian samples, Mann appeared to cherry pick only those that matched the criteria he was looking for. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies; now refereed to as "the most influential tree in the world." The Most Influential Tree in the World.

This is an IPCC graph before Michel Manns Hockey stick graph; there is still a hockey stick looking part of the graph on the right side, but it also includes the Medieval Warming period.

This is Michael Manns Graph that shows a similar "hockey stick" at the end, but ignores the  the Medieval Warming period.













The limited proxy alone shows the failings of the AGW predictions. If there is any validity to Chaos theory (Choas theory is still the gold standard in the study of the behavior of dynamical systems) there is no way any amount of proxy data will ever be accurate or complete enough to know the initial conditions of the processes of global warming and climate change. Further AGW doesn't even qualify as a hypotheses or theory as by definition these must include a method to determine if the hypotheses or theory is false; if the science of human generated global warming is settled than is only scientific theory ever known to have reached this paradoxical state. Michael Manns Hockey stick graph has become a discredited object in the history of science The Hockey Schtick  The Hook 97% consensus survey has already been debunked Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring Consensus Claim as has the recent Lovejoy multi-proxy climate reconstructions (who simply omitted the Medieval Warming period again to prove his case)  Lovejoy Global Warming Paper 100% Wrong

Now, I would like to include a description of science to show how far from science AGW really is. Recently, scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced their discovery of gravitational waves created at the dawn of the universe. These waves were created in a period of rapid expansion called cosmic inflation. This new evidence could prove the definitive confirmation of the inflation theory. But other researchers are not convinced. Discovery of Gravity Waves Questioned by Cosmologists The reason for questioning the these gravity waves is explained by the following, Science is a demanding and unforgiving business, and great discoveries are greeted not with parades and champagne but rather with questions, doubts and demands for more data. Really? So why has it been so different with AGW. The article goes on, No one is alleging an outright scientific error. It’s more of a debate about how scientists should communicate their uncertainties when presenting blockbuster findings. This is a case of “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Again one has to ask, where is the extraordinary evidence for the blockbuster findings of AGW?  The answer is there are none, because AGW is not empirical science, it  political (within the realm of fascist) science. Big-Bang Backlash.

Finally, let's look at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). This think tank was formed prior to the 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Summit. The GWPF as an enemy of US climate scientists becasue it takes the stand that it,  does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled;  and, Above all we seek to inform the media, politicians and the public, in a newsworthy way, on the subject in general (AGW) and on the misinformation to which they are all too frequently being subjected at the present time. Recently, Professor Bengtsson, a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and author of more than 200 papers, accepted an invitation to join the (Academic Advisory)  Council (of the GWPF) less than three weeks ago. His decision significantly enhanced the credibility of the foundation, which announced that “one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists” had joined its council. Unfortunately he had to resign soon afterwards, “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable. It is a situation that reminds me [of] the time of McCarthy.” The reason? because the GWPF takes the position that the science AGW is not settled. Professor Bengtsson Blames US Climate Scientists for Witch Hunt. Professor Bengtsson said the pressure was so intense that he would be unable to continue working and feared for his health and safety unless he stepped down. Yes this is the fascist political science of AGW.. but don't pay any attention, because "these aren't  the droids you're looking for".

MIT Climate Scientists Call IPCC report "Hilarious Incoherence"

With climate week coming to the UN it may be worth looking at the IPCC's new assessment on Man Made Global Warming (AGW); basically the report says it ain't happening, especially since 1998. This of course means that every climate change computer model has produced bunk. It also turns out that Arctic ice, which had been melting  at a record rate is now growing back at a record rate; 60 % in just one year! In an article in Popular Technology.net it turns out the 97% consensus on AGW  was greatly exaggerated with many of the scientists complaining that John Cook's team falsely classified their papers as "endorsing  AGW." Finally you have the commissioner of the EU policy on global warming admitting the science appears to not sustain AGW, but that the EU should follow through with it in the event it proves to be true in the future. EU, Climate Change Policy Right Even if Science Wrong This is not to say the IPCC has given up on global warming. While they admit they don't understand the recent lack of warming, they have doubled down with their computer models saying the proof of AGW is greater than ever. The lack of warming they say should be looked at with the knowledge that climate occurs over thousands of years, so a decade without warming is not that consequential. This sounds reasonable unless you realize that AGW is based on proxy science, meaning it is based on what is already known about historic climate change, which only goes back about 100 years and it was  the warming of the 1980's and 90's that was in part, the bases of the proxy science proof of AGW; in other wards the AGW proponents themselves sold AGW on the warming of a few decades. Further, the AGW proponents have locked AGW together with C02 being a heat trapping gas and therefore heating up the planet, but during the last 15 years C02 levels have increased at a rapid rate but there has been no warming.

The real issue is AGW is a political notion not really based in science. The current school of thought amongst the AGW proponents trying to explain the failure of all their computer models, is the warming air is hiding in the ocean and there are governments, including the US that castigated the IPCC for not giving enough weight to this supposition. “The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean,” US and Europe tried to Cover Up Data Showing Lack of Global Warming The mere fact the government entites is involved in any way with a scientific report shows it is political and not scientific.

Climate scientists from MIT explain the since the previous computer models  failed to include the transfer of heat into the ocean question the validity of the extent of AGW. “However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.” Top MIT Scientists say IPCC climate report hilariously flawed “I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

When a human body is shot or stabbed and a main artery is ruptured, the person will usually bleed out in 30 seconds. During the beginning of the 30 seconds the person can be alert and seemingly functional;  in other words the body is dead, but the brain doesn't know it yet.

Global Warming Falls Short Under More Intense Scrutiny

Those that have been pushing Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) have been keeping a pretty low profile. The only piece of AGW information that has been released recently has come from NASA’s GISS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), that 2010 was either the hottest year on record or was tied for that distinction. This seeming predictable announcement by the proponents of AGW has suddenly had to defend their data from a slew of scientists detractors and investigative scientific journalist that are finally doing their job. One point of contention has been the a bit of attention has been the National Climatic Data Center's (NCDC) ,( wattsupwiththat.com), apparent deviation from the other climate agencies saying 1998 was the hottest recorded year, and 2010 ranks 94 out of 116 years. If that’s the case, who’s right? Well this is what happens when you have an activist scientist, James Hansen in charge of the Global Warming arm of NASA;the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Hansen has been under increasing scrutiny over his “fabricated numbers” by the likes of the highly regarded “Real Science”; from the UK Telgraph “Real Science demonstrates that the parts of the world which GISS shows to be heating up the most are so short of weather stations that only 25 per cent of the figures are based on actual temperature readings. The rest are simply conjectured by GISS. This is not the first time Dr Hansen’s temperature record has come under expert fire. Three years ago, GISS was forced to revise many of its figures when it was shown that wholesale “adjustments” had been made, revising older temperatures downwards and post-2000 figures upwards.”

After The UN Climate Change Conference debacles in Copenhagen (which was routed by Climategate and the fact that carbon credits would be taken from the non industrial countries and given to IMF) and Cancun, the IPCC has all but capitulated as the real science is starting to win out. Climate Depot in a Special report discusses how “More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC and Gore.” RK Pachuari (head of the IPCC) admitted in the India times, that first, if there is a lack of data to prove (AGW), then the data is made up, “in some cases, you really don't have a quantitative base by which you can attach a probability or a level of uncertainty that defines things in quantitative terms. And there, let's not take away the importance of expert judgment.” Second, that the IPCC is owned by governments, and the results of their research are what ever Governments wants, “…we are owned by governments. If that was not the case, then we would be like any other scientific body that maybe producing first-rate reports but don't see the light of the day because they don't matter in policy-making. Now clearly, if it's an inter-governmental body and we want governments' ownership of what we produce, obviously they will give us guidance of what direction to follow, what are the questions they want answered.”

If there is one piece of pseudo science that is the centerpiece of AGW it is Phil Jones and Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph. However, even Jones has had to admit that the graph’s presumption that there has never been a period of warming as has been experienced since the 1900’s and the Industrial Revolution is in dispute. From a reveling article in the UK’s Daily Mail “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995”, “Skeptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD...” which runs counter to the Man Man Made Global Warming consensus, “Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.” Jones and Mann also have not shared any of the data they used to construct the Hockey Stick graph and now say the data is missing due to poor record keeping.

What has also become common is the confusing of weather and climate. The fact that there was an ice (or Glacial age) about 20,000 years ago and that the planet has slowly become warmer to what it is today is climate. The fact that global temperatures have been relatively stable for 15 years is the weather. But the global warming alarmists use these terms interchangingly to suit their purposes. When someone points out that recent winters have been colder, some colder than recorded history, they are quick to quantify this information as weather not climate. However the same AGW scientists have created a farcical “global temperature” to state that 2010 was the hottest years in history, as if there is some scientific manner to measure global temperatures, which there is not. Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University ridiculed the “hottest year” rankings and Hansen’s admission that it “was not particularly important” which year was declared the “hottest.” “Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto,” Maue demanded.” From Professor Werner Kirstein of the Institute for Geography at the University of Leipzig “caution(s) against placing too much emphasis on the decade of 2001 -2010 being the hottest decade on record, believing the claim is “a joke” and saying that determining a global average is a tricky business and in the end is only a theoretical value.

And finally from Icecap Today’s “record warmth” may be fleeting. Statements by agenda driven government agencies can’t be trusted. Real scientific data, not shadowy half truths show that earth’s temperature is falling and has fallen nearly 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 3,000 years. Remember, when someone only reveals part of the truth it means they have something to hide.

Added 01.18.2010
After writing this article, I found several articles on an editorial James Hansen wrote in a state controlled Chinese newspaper. One area of AGW I did not discuss are the eco-fascists such as IPCC Professor David Shearman and James Hansen; both view AGW as a rational for eliminating the Constitutional government of the US for a totalitarian government that they feel could better address the problem of AGW. From prisonplanet.com David Shearman has called for a future government and a new Green religion to replace Christianity and Islam, “Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task...And it is not too difficult to imagine what shape this new religion could take. One would require a transcendent God who could punish and reward – because humans seem to need a carrot and a stick.”

James Hansen is a little more simplistic, but stills believes the authoritarian Chinese is the world's best hope to, “lead the world through the most dangerous crisis that humanity and nature have ever faced”. Hansen believes the US Democracy (is) Not Competent To Deal With Global Warming, saying "Democracy of the sort intended in 1776 probably could have dealt with climate change, but not the fossil-money-’democracy’ that now rules the roost in Washington. Either Hansen has forgotten or simply does not care that the Chinese take great pride that they starved 60 million people to death (the Chinese actually say 84 million died) to bring China into the modern world. One wonders how he expects the Chinese model will work in the US.

What this demonstrates is the scientific dictatorship, which has the basis of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has simply changes it names. Those espousing the tyranny of a collective government will always find a scientific reason to enslave the masses. If Communism fails, then the elite will use AGW; as AGW has started to fail, the next scientific emergency ready to take it's place will likely be the scarcity of resources and over population. Regardless of the reason, if the collectivist do take control, whether it's called fascism, communism, socialism or eco-fascism, history tells us the end result will always be massive starvation and the death of millions of people.