Re: A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIFE

here's no g


D'ohBoy wrote:

On Jan 4, 7:24�am, Andre Jute <fiult...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIFE
by Andre Jute

Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job
creation scheme in the history of the world. It starts with human
guilt, always a reliable tool for those who want to control our lives.
In this case the guilt is about the ease conferred by the motor car.
The control freaks made the motor car into a symbol of evil. A whole
bureaucracy with attendant scientific establishments and political
lobbies full of grimfaced activists sprang up to "control the
emissions". Unfortunately for them, the emissions of cars and trucks
were technically easy to control and in no time at all this entire
1960/70s version of the bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex
had very little to do except twiddle its thumbs and go before Congress
to ask for more money.

They needed a new crusade. This was "greenhouse gases", an enlargement
of a nutty fringe concern about a hole in the ozone layer in the
1950/60s. The greenhouse gases are many and complex, but the
bureacratic-academic-pressure group complex had no problem fixing on
CO2 as the evil pinup of their next target. It isn't the most
important greenhouse gas but what the hell, it was less risible to
explain to people than that "cows farting out methane threaten our
planet". Gradually this became a campaign against "global warming"
driven by manmade CO2 emissions.

Soon the canonical faith took shape: CO2 always drove global warming
but man -- oh, all that Christian guilt! -- was especially
destructive. In what seemed like minutes academics who wanted to be on
television were forecasting terrible storms, droughts, famines, a
rolling apocalypse, all due to manmade CO2. This was so successful a
tale that soon politicians felt they had to act, and the United
Nations set up the richly funded and humongously staffed IPCC, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control. The IPCC was a glorious
trough for all the snouts, including the littlest snouts, the
scientists squealing around the ankles of the bureaucrats for
handouts, called "research allocations". Every few years the IPCC
issued an "Assessment", no less than a policy document for top
politicians, presidents and prime ministers. Oh god, were the
scientists ever in their heaven: they were driving worldwide policy!

The scientists were guided by the experienced bureaucrats, of course,
and soon a system arose of "consensus", because to quibble in public
would endanger the political equilibrium and thus the funding. Nobody
noticed that "consensus" is by definition against the principles of
science, or that the intimidation and persecution of critics of
"global warming" that soon followed from "consensus" was deeply
inimical to the skepticism so essential to the continued conduct of
true science. If there was "consensus" -- if everyone was by
definition in agreement with the aims of the organisation and thus
with the findings -- there was no need for due diligence, for "peer
reviewers" who didn't know the authors of any article, for review of
source data, for review of statistical methods, in fact for any of
that superstructure of hardnosed questioning which meets a paper in
any other branch of science except only the climate and environmental
sciences.

Never mind, nobody who mentioned these uncomfortable truths would long
have a research grant, or a job, or any chance of being published, and
thus promotion and career would be gone. The system had come a full
circle. It was the richest closed shop on earth.

All this "science" about Global Warming (the capitals arrived by
stealth) was applied to making a variety of forecasts of how humans
were driving the planet to hell in a handbasket by CO2 emissions,
which in turn would cause global warming. These computer models were
trumpeted in the media as if they had perfect reality and scientific
respectability, but in fact they were based on very poor statistics
and had such a low level of confidence even from their creators, Joe
Public took only a decade or two to catch on that they were silly
toys, the pretentions of "scientists" and bureaucrats protected from
reality and scrutiny by new doctrines that environmentalist policies
should not be measure by any cost-benefit analysis, and that the
precautionary principle overrode all common sense and certainly the
absence of proof (of course it overrode the absence of proof: the
precautionary principle was designed specifically to override the
absence of proof). Enviromentalism was the new religion and no heresy
was permitted.

A major test of a statistical model which presumes to predict the
future is that it must, given a start date sometime in the past,
accurately map the intervening known period. But none of the vaunted
models of the future put forward by the IPCC as predictors of world
temperature a century or two hence could map out the past reliably.

These models fell down at many points and for many reasons. But, most
strikingly, all fell down badly at two historical points. They are
called the Medieval Warm Period, when for several centuries it was
much warmer than it has been ever since, including in the 20th
century, and the Little Ice Age, when shortly after the reign of
Elizabeth the First and for the period covering the rise of the
Industrial Revolution, people skated annually on the Thames.

The IPCC case, built into its models, is that manmade CO2 drives
global warming. But there was no exceptional CO2 emissions during the
Medieval Warm Period when temperatures were substantially higher for
centuries on end than they are today. And in the period that includes
the start of the Industrial Revolution, with all that coal being
burned and emitting CO2 like it was going out of fashion, instead of
heat wave, we get a couple of centuries of freezing temperatures!
Ouch! The models couldn't handle these "anomalies".

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are troublesome only
for CO2-centric models, indicating that the underlying assumption of
the model -- manmade CO2 drives global warming -- is faulty. Other
models, of sun activity for instance, have no problem following the
historical reality closely. That should long since have told the IPCC
and its retinue of favoured "scientists" that they were staring into
an infinite void of their own making. But by now the snouts were too
deep in the trough.

So now the useless forecasting models are given less public exposure.
But they are not discarded. All those "climate scientists" don't start
looking for useful work. By now Global Warming is not only an
industry, it is a faith, with threats against "deniers" which sound
appallingly like those of Muslim Mullahs against the Infidels.

So, instead of looking for useful work, all those "scientists" start
looking for ways of "getting rid of" the �Medieval Warm Period and the
Little Ice Age. If they could "lose" these inconvenient historical
truths, then the temperatures of the 20th Century would no longer look
modest by comparison to the Medieval Warm Period, and they would no
longer have to explain how rising CO2 emissions "caused" the Little
Ice Age. The ideal, to match the already announced IPCC scare story
that the last decade of the 20th Century would be the hottest on
record, was to recast past temperatures so that they were below the
entire twentieth century and very much below the period 1990-2000. The
result would look like a hockey-stick on its side, the hook pointing
upwards. By now nobody (important -- those who did had their grants
revoked) even asked whether it was scientific practice to cook the
figures in order to support a bureaucratic idee fixe. The snouts were
bolted into the trough: hundreds of millions in research grants for
"global warming" were at stake.

The first "scientist" to succeed in making a hockey stick was Michael
Mann. He re-analysed old tree ring samples with a new algorithm and
new methods of data selection. No one pointed out that tree rings are
very uncertain proxies for temperature, or that the particular trees
he selected are the most unreliable temperature proxies. No one
examined his algorithm. No one pointed out that Mann selected his data
to deliver a hockey stick. Mann had saved the world -- or at least the
IPCC and Global Warming: Mann had produced the Hockey Stick.

The IPCC immediately promoted Mann's deeply flawed study from a little
local aberration in tree rings to a global rise in temperature over
two millennia, most of the rise centred in the last decade of the
twentieth century. It was "proof" that human CO2 emissions drove
global temperature! Mann's hockey stick graph was the only one shown
to presidents and prime ministers on which to base environmental
policy costing trillions of taxpayers' money and shaping economies for
decades to come because that sort of fundamental change is not easy to
undo.

You might ask, what happened to the historical evidence of the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Why, the IPCC declared
them Euro-centric phenomena. Self-styled "scientists" told this lie in
public. Anyone asking whether these multi-century historical events
happened in the rest of the world was suddenly treated as if he
committed a form of racism ("Euro-centrism"). The IPCC and its
"climate scientists" simply ignored a huge literature proving that the
Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age happened on every
continent and in every ocean around the world at the same time. It was
as if any paper which was published by anyone except one of the IPCC's
accredited "climate scientists" not only wasn't true, but that it
didn't exist, and more, had no right to exist.

It took the IPCC seven years to discover that Mann's Hockey Stick is a
broken crutch. Neither they nor any of the "scientific reviewers" ever
asked to see Mann's raw data, no one checked his algorithm, no one
checked anything. But two tenacious Canadians, McIntyre and McKittrick
(who should get the Nobel Prize for this service to mankind), with the
help of the US Senate extracted the basic data from a reluctant Mann
and tried to replicate his hockey stick. They found his algorithm so
biased, it would generate hockey sticks from random noise... (That
just about defines zero reliability!) They found his specially
selected data heavily biased towards data with an inherent hockey
stick shape. When they updated the samples Mann worked with by going
to some of the same trees, they couldn't duplicate the hockey stick.
The Mann article in which the IPCC put such faith stood revealed as a
sham on every level.

Mann is discredited, but the IPCC still shows hockey-stick shaped
graphs, adding a new wrinkle: it just cuts off graphs that are
inconvenient in 1950, or whenever they start showing an
"inappropriate" trend.

***

The upshot of all these years of effort, all this money, all this
time, all this publicity, all this waste, is that "global warming" is
merely a matter of faith with "scientists" and bureaucrats with their
noses shamelessly in the public trough. The models are a joke, the
thousands of biased studies have proven nothing except that history is
resistant to revision, and only the committed faihful can now fail to
understand that the IPCC is political body which tells political lies
to hang on to power and funding; absolutely nothing to do with honest
science. The "consensus" maintained by intimidation is breaking down.

The IPCC and all its scientists have failed to prove that there is
global warming: The entire 20th century is cooler than the Medieval
Warm Period. The last decade of the 20th century is cooler than
centuries on end in the Medieval Warm Period.

The IPCC and all its scientists have failed to prove that CO2 --
either natural or manmade -- drives global warming: At �a time of
increasing CO2 output from coal during the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution, there was the Little Ice Age for a couple of centuries.

The IPCC and all its scientists have disgraced themselves by trying
dishonesty to throw the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age,
which are historical and scientific truths, into the dustbin of their
bizarre ambition to prove a mirage.

Copyright 2009 Andre Jute

Wow. I'm underwhelmed at the force of your argument. Here, let me
boil it down for you, based on the actual facts and data you have
provided (and a little inference): Some people believe that global
warming is real. Some don't. It's very complicated and there appear
to be contradictions. You have chosen to believe the ones who don't.
You don't understand it as well as the scientists on either side. You
are just parroting some crap you found on the web. Like my Alzheimer's-
suffering father-in-law and his e-mails telling me Obama is going to
destroy our country.

Thanks for composing your diatribe. Utterly useless except to make
you feel better. Did it?

D'ohBoy

My point is that it is really very simple, D'ohboy. To prove global
warming, these guys first need to demonstrate an abnormal temperature
increase and then to connect it to CO2 emissions. They haven't done
either in a quarter-century of trying. Honest scientists would
conclude that they are wrong but these like their research grants too
much. So now they're trying to lie away the obstacles to proving their
pet theory, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, which are
part of history. They have been exposed in that dishonesty. The
question is, can you ever trust them after you've seen how they
cheated on the statistics? It's that simple.

Far as I can see, there is no global warming. It isn't even as warm as
in medieval times, and hasn't been almost a millennium. Nor can I see
how they will prove that human CO2 emissions create global warming
when the historical record is that rising human CO2 emissions created
an ice age.

I don't mind if a bunch of clowns, to protect their research grants,
want to lie that black is white. What bothers me is that they call
themselves "scientists", and that these liars are in a position to
influence economic policy, where they have already caused several
disasters of which the Kyoto Treaty is only the most notorious. But
hey, maybe you don't pay taxes, D'ohboy, so it won't matter to you
that they have their snout in a public trough.

Andre Jute
A common man's simple understanding
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIFE
    ... Global warming is probably the most expensive and least productive job ... Nations set up the richly funded and humongously staffed IPCC, ... scientists ever in their heaven: ... called the Medieval Warm Period, when for several centuries it was ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: What does a top scientist say?
    ... > Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus ... > Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the ... Concerned Scientists, ... massive simultaneous incident ever in global geologic history other ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: What does a top scientist say?
    ... > Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus ... > Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the ... Concerned Scientists, ... massive simultaneous incident ever in global geologic history other ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Re: State climatologist not jumping on global warming bandwagon
    ... we had a warming period that was warmer than todays temperatures. ... Does CO2 cause global warming? ... This is what the IPCC hangs it hat on with regards to global warming. ... then they call on "scientists" to provide data to support it. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIFE
    ... A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIFE ... Nations set up the richly funded and humongously staffed IPCC, ... scientists ever in their heaven: ... called the Medieval Warm Period, when for several centuries it was ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
Loading