|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LIFE
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE
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 » |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE
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 � |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
A GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THOSE EDUCATED IN THE UNIVERSITY OFLIFE
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Global Warming | Tom Kunich | Racing | 308 | May 10th 08 03:54 PM |
Damn Global Warming | Tom Kunich | Racing | 16 | February 9th 08 04:44 AM |
A little global warming | WeaselPoopPower | Racing | 1 | November 16th 07 06:47 AM |
Global Warming | Tom Kunich | Racing | 212 | November 16th 07 02:41 AM |
Global Warming | Richard Bates | UK | 84 | July 25th 04 11:58 PM |