A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE

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

On Jan 4, 7:24*am, Andre Jute 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

here's no g


D'ohBoy wrote:

On Jan 4, 7:24�am, Andre Jute 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

Oh, they figured out the 'Little Ice Age'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age was caused by Human
Induced Global Cooling. When the Europeans met the native American
residents from 1492-15xxs, diseases were passed to the native
Americans. Also a lot of Europeans were dying from the Black death.
A lot of people died. A lot of plowed farm ground reverted to trees.
These trees took a lot of CO2 out of the air. The reduced CO2 caused
the 'Little Ice Age' about 1650-1850 C.E.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/1...te-change.html

On Jan 4, 8:11*am, Andre Jute wrote:
here's no g

D'ohBoy wrote:
On Jan 4, 7:24 am, Andre Jute 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

...

read more »

But what we really want to know but were afraid to ask is if you stomp
your feet in anger while posting?

wrote:

Oh, they figured out the 'Little Ice Age'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age was caused by Human
Induced Global Cooling.

LOL.

"While some scholars regard the LIA as an unusual period caused by a
combination of global and regional changes, other scientists see
glaciation as the norm for Earth and the Medieval Warm Period (as well
as the Holocene interglacial period) as the anomalies requiring
explanation."

And you might add our own cool but not unpleasantly so interlude as
another dangerous time which could easily slip into another ice age,
and on the balance of history seems much more likely to do so than to
overheat. You rarely hear of the majority of scientists who, far from
believing in the telegenic global warming, think it so much more
likely that the earth will freeze again. The reason you don't hear
much of them is that the global warming clowns are so loud and so
pushy and so rude, as we see daily on RBT.

When the Europeans met the native American
residents from 1492-15xxs, diseases were passed to the native
Americans. Also a lot of Europeans were dying from the Black death.
A lot of people died. A lot of plowed farm ground reverted to trees.
These trees took a lot of CO2 out of the air. The reduced CO2 caused
the 'Little Ice Age' about 1650-1850 C.E.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/1...te-change.html

Prep school teachers are now jumping on the next bandwagon! This guy
is already preparing his students for when the global warmers burn out
and the kiddies will find space for their own young snouts in the
trough, talking about how stupid the old guys were not to recognize
that it wasn't global warming that was the danger but *sudden climate
change*. See that hurricane coming: it is the result of not letting us
tell you what you can and cannot do!

Even if nine per cent of the known world's population was killed off
back then, rather than just nine per cent of the region's population,
a little simple calculation of how many acres could feed how many
people back then (such numbers stand on RBT from the Irish famine
discussion only a few weeks ago) would tell anyone who isn't a dullard
that the actual numbers of people weren't enough to upset the forces
of nature. That teacher is another clown with a total disregard for
the internal consistency of statistics and huge contempt for his
audience -- or maybe he has a wicked sense of humour!

Thanks for the links, Mike. I needed a good giggle after the
depressing spectacle of so many RBT "enviromentalists" and even self-
declared "scientists" slinging abuse without ever once discussing even
one of my points.

Andre Jute
Charisma is a talent for infuriating the unworthy by merely existing
elegantly

"Andre Jute" wrote: (clip) the global warming clowns (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One of these "clowns" is President Elect Obama, who has appointed another
"clown," Steven Chu, to be Secretary of Energy. Chu is a Nobel Prize
winning physicist. You must feel really horrible to see yourself so
outnumbered by distinguished clowns.

Overlooking for the moment that these arguments are ridiculous, what
does this have to do with bike tech?
CK

On Jan 4, 5:24*am, Andre Jute 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 ...

read more »

wrote:

Overlooking for the moment that these arguments are ridiculous, what
does this have to do with bike tech?
CK

I agree with you that the arguments of the global warmers, as seen
here on RBT are ludicrous. As for the genesis of this article, you
must ask Robert Chung, who inspired it by trying to pass off some
lying hockey stick graph as respectable statistics and was caught out.
Or you could ask Ben Weiner, who told some ludicrous lies about the
how widespread the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were,
and was caught out. Or you could ask the scum abusing me for having an
opinion, at whom this ultra-simplified article is aimed. -- Andre Jute

On Jan 4, 5:24�am, Andre Jute 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 ...

read more �

On Jan 4, 7:40*pm, "Leo Lichtman" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote: (clip) the global warming clowns (clip)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One of these "clowns" is President Elect Obama, who has appointed another
"clown," Steven Chu, to be Secretary of Energy. *Chu is a Nobel Prize
winning physicist. *

I must have missed the post where Mr Obama sent to RBT a discredited
graph of stunningly meretricious and incompetent statistics, as Robert
Chung did.

I must have missed the post where Mr Chu sent to RBT a set of lies
about the spread of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as
Ben Weiner did.

I shall reserve judgement on Obama and Chu until I can see what they
do once they are faced with the realities of power, and the
realization strikes them that they will be held responsible for their
actions. I think the appointment of practicing physicist is inspired.

I merely not in passing that bestowing a Nobel Peace Prize on that
hypocrite Al Gore diminished the Prize considerable in the eyes of
many.

You must feel really horrible to see yourself so
outnumbered by distinguished clowns.

Nothing distinguished about the clowns on RBT; you can see they're
little people by their refusal to discuss my points, by the indecent
haste with which they fall into personal abuse, present company not
excepted. I have the lot of you surrounded. Surrender before you get
hurt.

Gee, I left the theatre because I was bored with the petty sniping of
the little queers. I expected better of a bicycle *tech* group. At the
very least, I expected respect for physics and the rules of scientific
proof. Instead I find faith-based dogma preached by clowns like Chung
and Weiner who have the incredible cheek to claim to be "scientists".
And they and their little acolytes, including you, Lichtman, snipe
worse than any theatre full of narcissists.

Andre Jute
Arse to the wall -- Sailor's Song