Feb 09 2012
Major Update Below
We are witnessing the total credibility collapse of the Global Warming Alarmists as their shoddy statistical modeling and over-hyped conclusions start to unravel in the face of Nature’s brutal reality. I bet when the Green Lobby thought up the plan to take control of the world’s top economies – under the guise of saving the planet from imminent doom – it never occurred to these people that maybe, one day, they would have to prove the planet really was in imminent danger. If you look at the nonsense like the Hockey Stick fudged data and graph or the endless claims that every day-to-day change in nature we now see is caused by human industrial activity it is a wonder this canard did not fall apart sooner.
But all things will succumb to the power of Nature. We are a by-product of nature – not its enemy or nemesis. Nature’s natural path to date brought us to where we are. And whatever grand plan Gaia or God has in store for us, part of it entails Nature’s creation of humanity and its desire to build, fix, explore and succeed (biologically). We are not mindless animals that will consume until we die. We have enough awareness to know we need to be good and faithful stewards of this planet so that we can remain viable. Because without the a healthy planet we will die a horrible death of failure.
Nature will make sure of that.
We know we have to be careful. With great gifts comes great responsibility. Humanity has been handed great gifts. And what the IPCC and alarmists have concocted is the opposite of responsible stewardship. They got egotistical, power hungry and greedy. The fell to the same sickness that infects many who rise to a position of power. They suffer from the idea that notoriety and prestige automatically equates to wisdom and unique insight. Sadly, notoriety and prestige are simply a test of character – not a confirmation of it. Just look at DC and you can see how it works. Either you do great things with your success (e.g., Abraham Lincoln, George Washington) no matter how hard the slog, or you fail miserably despite being handed even the most mundane challenges (e.g., Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama).
Thank goodness we did not rely on Carter to build a lasting nation or Obama to heal a divided country.
We are seeing an ever expanding avalanche of devastating news regarding the mythology of global warming. If you have not seen these stories that have come out over the past weeks, enjoy them now in holistic vision of the state of the climate alarmist camp.
Example 1: It has now been scientifically proven the Himalayan Glaciers are not melting or receding at all. Instead of quirky field studies and questionable math, consistent and repetitive satellite data provides the correct measure of Himalayan Glacier status:
The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.
The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.
The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the “third pole” – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.
Emphasis mine. Its called the water cycle and it has been operating for 100’s of millions of years. I mean – duh!
Example 2: In Germany a new book is coming out by a leading, recovering alarmist:
One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found.
The truth is most scientist cherish their vocation and the honor it implies. That honor is built upon quality work under the rigors of open review and comment. This is not something the infamous IPCC Hockey Team (made up of pretend scientists) would grasp. The alarmists abused the implied trust within the scientific community to push falsified graphs and manipulated data. No single group has done more damage to statistical processes than this group. And now they are being caught at it.
Major Update: The Der Speigel link is a must read. Pass this around to everyone you know!
Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. “I’m going to make enemies in all camps,” he says.
He wants to break a taboo. “The climate catastrophe is not occurring,” he writes in his book “Die Kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.
Even more problematic for climate ‘science’ is the expanding body of evidence exposing the shoddy math behind the claims.
Here is a detailed explanation on why the claims of the IPCC statistical studies are exaggerated – since they don’t know how deal with uncertainty or keep it hidden:
Now, the “global average” referenced is not a static thing, in the sense that, say, measurements from identical (and identically situated) thermometers at fixed locations are averaged together and called (arbitrarily, of course), the global average. Instead, the global average as it is operationally defined mixes sources and locations freely each year (and even within years). Therefore, when the “average” is computed there will be some uncertainty in it. Further, the uncertainty is larger in times historical than in times present.
Whatever else you do in life, you must not, you must never, look at the pretty red (or blue, etc.) straight line you have just drawn and claim it is, or think of it as, the real data. (It is only in climatology where I have seen scientists forget error bars, and then pitch a fit when somebody points out the omission. You at least have to put predictive, and not parameters-based, error bars on the line, even ignoring measurement uncertainty of the data.)
Here is more horrible statistical abuse (or abuse of statistics):
In other words, a quarter of the global ocean has been sampled less than once a year per 10,000 sq. km. by Argo floats … yet they claim an error of only a few thousandths of a degree in the global average.
Can you take the temperature in your home town once a year and claim to know the temperature for 100 km in any direction to a thousandth of a degree for the year?
Laughingstock comes to mind here.
I really enjoy this chart, which shows how the preponderance of scientific study concludes the current climate is COOLER than it was during Medieval Times (before the industrial revolution).
Since our current climate is not historically warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, it is very UNLIKELY any current warming is dominated or driven by CO2 levels, and it most likely all driven by whatever process ended the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800’s. This shows the IPCC is focused on the minority view in those blue colored studies, not the majority conclusion made in the far more numerous red colored studies. My eyeball tells me we have around 20 blues and 90 reds, making the minority view around 18% of the total study space.
And speaking of consensus, I find this analysis (pdf file) damning to the claim the science is settled and a majority of scientists concur with the alarmists:
How can you deny that man made global warming is real when 97 percent of climate scientists agree that it is true?” At this point I have to explain that the 97 percent figure is not what it appears to be.
The survey was sent to 10,257 scientists. It was intended to be very easy to respond to and was supposed to take only two minutes to complete. As a result 3,146 scientists responded to the survey.
OK, so 70% of scientists had no opinion (30% responded). What happens next is a sin against statistics and polling:
When compared to pre-1800 levels, do you think mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Of the 3,146 respondents 90% said risen. Herein lies one of the flaws in the survey. This is a loaded question.
You can go read why the question is loaded, but the point is 27% of those surveyed agreed (90% of 30%) with the comment. Of course, it has been warming since the Little Ice Age which ended in the 1800’s, so I am surprised even 10% said otherwise. PhDs just aren’t what they used to be.
Question number two is even more suspect. The question is: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? Of the 3,146 respondents only 82% answered yes to this question.
For those math challenged scientists out there, that means 24.6% of the people surveyed (of which 30% responded) agreed humans have some effect. Is this CO2? No, the question is much broader than that and includes urbanization, deforestation, etc. Things I am much more concerned about than CO2.
But the final insult to the intelligence is this:
The 97% figure from the survey comes from a whittling down of the accepted number of responses from 3,146 to 79. The 79 scientist are those that said they have recently published 50% of their papers in the area of climate change. Of these, 76 of 79 answered “risen” to questions one (96.2%). How this number is not 100% is very strange. As to question two 75 of 77 answered “yes” (97.4%).
As I said, a crime against statistics. These ‘scientist’ shrunk the pool down to a measly 0.77% of those surveyed. The 79 special responders are 2.5% of the total who responded. The 97% number is a complete fudge. A lie. Propaganda.
How long did these people think they could run this scam? Who do they think they are – Paul Newman and Robert Redford in The Sting?
Update: A lively debate on the Himalayan glacier false alarm is naturally occurring over at WUWT.