Mar 04 2012
Why Global Warming Alarmists Must Cheat, Steal & Lie
The recent incident where a top global warming alarmists admitted to identity theft and wire fraud (and soon will most likely be found guilty of creating a fraudulent documents) is the latest in a chain of false information and outright lies promulgated by the debunked Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (C-AGW) community (e.g., the United Nations IPCC, the United Kingdom’s CRU, the United States EPA, etc). Note we now have to add a “C” to AGW since the fact the world warms and cools is now not such a novelty anymore.
The chain of falsehoods began with the infamous Hockey Stick graph produced by the CRU for IPCC. That graph contained numerous lies. Firstly it used poor statistics (one would have to call it statistical chicanery if done with forethought instead of by the ignorance of a zealot) to remove the measured climate variability that has been detected since the Roman Warm period. This ‘trick’ erased the climate changges seen through the Little Ice Age and into the current warm period.
Let me be clear here, Mann’s flat historic temperature record is not true. That was proven by professional statisticians many times over.
Figure 1: Mann's Fictional Temperature Reconstruction
Figure 2: More Accurate Historic Reconstruction
But the Hickey Stick Graph not only flattened historic climate change, it also hid critical problems with the temperature proxies used to develop Mann’s reconstruction. You will note in figure 1 above that the blue reconstructed data of the hockey stick handle is appended with a bright red blade rising up dramatically. That red blade of completely different data was added to ‘hide the decline’ – a now infamous euphemism for the fact the tree rings in the modern period started to diverge from the hypothesized recent warming. If that graph was honest and complete, the blue handle would have turned downward dramatically – not upward.
Mann deleted this key data from the results – an inconvenient truth he hid from the public and policy makers. Instead he slapped on some other estimates from questionable ground temp measurements to create the myth that we are experiencing historic warming. This is completely unethical, and in my area of expertise (space exploration) a firing offense – if not worse.
We of course are not experiencing never before seen warming. As can be seen in Figure 2 and numerous studies, today is not warmer than the Roman or Medieval Warm Periods. Therefore humanity’s increased industrial activity can only have a minor effect on the overall global climate – if at all. It is still up to the zealots of C-AGW to prove human produced CO2 is the driver, and CO2 increases are the cause (not the result as many studies show) of a warming global climate.
The next suite of crimes against science, ethics and the truth came when someone at the CRU blew the whistle and made public a series of emails and data that had been collected at CRU in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Now many people will claim I have no proof that the source of the email dumps was (a) associated with CRU or (b) from the FOIA pool of information gathered by CRU at the time. But the fact is that is the only logical answer (see here). And given how the recent Gleick Fakegate incident has played out versus the CRU Climategate, it is now clear the reason there is no legal action being taken by CRU is because they know the source and legally cannot touch them.
In the CRU emails we learned of more than just fudging data. We learned of professional oppression, coercion and even extortion to censor opposing scientific results and views. The CRU Hockey Team was caught red handed working a conspiracy (very close to a RICO criminal act) to silence or professionally destroy those who not only doubted their claims, but who challenged their claims and were exposing their lies and omissions.
And then there was the cover up – which probably pushed the VRU whistle blower to expose the emails in the end. When reading the emails one finds CRU scientists willing to do anything to cover up their mistakes and avoid FOIA requests. See here for a forensic analysis of Phil Jones’ emails over time and how he dealt with his legal responsibilities.
The next step towards the dark side by they Warmists was in fact the 4th IPCC report itself. Due partially to a lack of new evidence to support C-AGW, but also in the face of mounting contrary evidence, the IPCC propaganda machine went full-throttle Chicken-Little in 2007. In their haste to yell ‘fire’ on this crowded planet, the IPCC 2007 report was riddled with exaggerations without any scientific foundation. The most infamous claim was how 80% of the Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035.
So now we reach 2012 with one Peter Gleick committing a series of crimes in order to create a propaganda event against an institute that simply is not buying the C-AGW BS. Thankfully for the entirety of scientific endeavors, and those who seek truth in a professional manner, the episode has not just backfired but exposed the rot at the core of C-AGW. Those C-AGW proponents who made up pathetic excuses for Gleick’s crimes have done more to undermine the credibility of C-AGW than 1,000 reasonable scientific papers of contrary results. The science may be hard to grasp, but the ethics (or lack of therein) are simple.
So why the panic moves by Gleick and his fellow travelers? Why do they once more fall into the gutter?
I believe the escalating corruption inside the C-AGW community (from fudging their own data, to censoring contrary data, to violating FOIA laws, to open fraud and theft) is because the C-AGW hypothesis is running out of time. These zealots were so over confident because of the holiness of their quest they overstated their confidence and then their conclusions. Now all that arrogance and ignorance is coming home to roost.
A few interesting reports out in the last 2 weeks illustrate what I mean. First off, the real world data is now statistically so far off from the IPCC theories that each passing year is another data set proving the hypothesis of C-AGW to be completely wrong:
Abstract: Global temperatures measured since 2005 are incompatible with the IPCC model predictions made in 2007 by WG1 in AR4. All subsequent temperature data from 2006 to 2011 lies between 1 and 6 standard deviations below the model predictions. The data show with > 90% confidence level that the models have over-exaggerated global warming.
Here is another important report in the same vain:
We check the main predictions of the climate models against the best and latest data. Fortunately the climate models got all their major predictions wrong. Why? Every serious skeptical scientist has been consistently saying essentially the same thing for over 20 years, yet most people have never heard the message. Here it is, put simply enough for any lay reader willing to pay attention.
Alarmists' C-AGW Model & Predictions
Skeptic's Model & Predictions
The climate models get them all wrong. The missing hotspot and outgoing radiation data both, independently, prove that the amplification in the climate models is not present. Without the amplification, the climate model temperature predictions would be cut by at least two-thirds, which would explain why they overestimated the recent air and ocean temperature increases.
The data does not lie, neither does the math. You can take ALL of the prior IPCC predictions – based on their flawed hypothesis – and see the same result. There models and predictions are wrong with higher confidence levels than ever claimed for C-AGW and the human CO2 component.
Finally, the evidence continues to mount showing global climate driven primarily by solar output, and that the current reduction in solar activity is indicating a cooler global climate for the next few decades. This solar based theory is 1000 times more compelling than C-AGW.
The reality check is happening now, and the C-AGW hypothesis is crashing and burning. For its desperate clingers-on it is clearly time to pull out all the stops – especially the ethical ones. At least that is what they believe.
The truth is the overly dramatic (or over-egged for our UK friends) claims of C-AGW were lost years ago. Lost to bad math and hidden data, lost to unethical decisions, lost to a lack of a true scientific method and lost to a lack of professionalism. You can’t undo years down the wrong path with a stupid propaganda stunt. But by the number of Gleick defenders coming out of from under their rocks, it is clear we are not done with that kind of nonsense. (Update: Noticed this link at WUWT discussing the excuse-mongering from the green left).
The C-AGW proponents rang the alarm bells, and the broader community of scientists and engineers answered. The problem for C-AGW proponents – the answer was the IPCC got it wrong.
For those looking for insight into how science progresses, I suggest you read the following – which is playing out right now:
Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. During revolutions in science the discovery of anomalies leads to a whole new paradigm that changes the rules of the game and the “map” directing new research, asks new questions of old data, and moves beyond the puzzle-solving of normal science.
It is hard for the zealots of C-AGW to realize this, but they are not leading this current round of revolutionary global-scale science. They were simply the catalyst of failures in conventional thinking (discovered anomalies) that initiated the revolutionary thinking. And now their C-AWG hypotheses are being replaced with new, better scientific theories.
Thank you yet again AJ for another brilliant takedown of the alarmists who seek to control us with the global warming hoax. You have been a pioneer in this war. You were telling us long before it became obvious and courageous it was!
Reagan Was A Sure Loser Too
(Conventional wisdom about Republican presidential prospects sounds mighty familiar.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203370604577263624201684582.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
By WILLIAM MCGURN – WSJ.COM
Not since Herbert Hoover has a party out of power had such an opportunity to run against everything that troubles the American family—prices, interest rates, unemployment, taxes, or the fear for the future of their old age or the future of their children—than is now presented to the Republican Party.
The Republicans, however, haven’t figured this out. This is their basic problem. They have no strategy for defeating an Obama administration that is highly vulnerable on both domestic and foreign policy.
That’s the conventional wisdom in a nutshell, isn’t it?
It will come as no surprise that these words appeared in a Feb. 29 column in the New York Times. They are reproduced here exactly as written, save for one small adjustment.
The president whose failings they describe is Jimmy Carter, not Barack Obama. The lines were written in 1980, not 2012. The author was the then-dean of conventional wisdom, James “Scotty” Reston. The headline was “Jimmy Carter’s Luck,” a reference to Reagan’s victory in the New Hampshire primary three days earlier.
It appears the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed much. Today’s narrative holds that however weak President Obama’s hand, Republicans find themselves in no position to capitalize on it. A glance back to where we were at this exact point in the 1980 primaries suggests otherwise.
Then as now, the Republican primaries opened with a bang, when George H.W. Bush upset Ronald Reagan in the Iowa caucuses. By late February, this loss would lead to Reagan’s firing of his campaign manager, John Sears, in a disagreement over strategy.
Then, as now, Republicans feared that an unhappy contender might bolt the party to mount an independent campaign. In 1980, that was liberal John Anderson, not libertarian Ron Paul. Mr. Anderson did end up running as an independent, whereas Mr. Paul will likely be constrained by the effect a third-party run would have on the future prospects for his Republican son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.
Then as now, the chattering classes wondered aloud whether a candidate who could win the Republican nomination could prevail against President Carter in November. On March 1, former President Gerald Ford amplified that view when he told a New York Times reporter, “Every place I go and everything I hear, there is the growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election.”
Then as now, some put their hopes on a late entry, in the same way that some now pine for Jeb Bush or Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie to enter the race. In the same interview where Mr. Ford predicted that Reagan’s nomination would mean a repeat of 1964, he also declared himself open to a draft if there were a genuine “urging” by the party.
In retrospect, we forget how seriously the Ford possibility was taken, or how popular it was in the polls, or how lingering its effects would be (at the convention, there would be speculation about a “co-presidency”). A Harris Poll released just about this time in 1980 bolstered the case for Mr. Ford by reporting that, in a head-to-head matchup, Ford (the noncandidate) would trounce President Carter 55% to 44%. The same poll showed Reagan (the front-runner) trailing Carter 58% to 40%.
Nor was candidate Reagan without baggage. As governor, Reagan had pushed through the largest tax hike in California’s history, had signed one of the nation’s most liberal abortion laws, and—as George H.W. Bush pointed out—presided over the doubling of the state budget over his eight-year tenure, to $10.2 billion when he left office from $4.6 billion when he entered.
Along the way in 1980 there were missteps and minor dustups inflated beyond their importance. In Iowa, Reagan lost the caucuses because he sat on a lead and played it cautious. In New Hampshire a month later, he had to apologize for an ethnic joke that made fun of Italians and Poles (to its credit, the New York Times defended him in an editorial).
Later he would face Santorum-like fears about his social message, especially after appearing at a mass gathering of Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals. A minister with whom he’d shared a stage was taped saying “we’re being attacked by satanic forces,” which Times columnist Anthony Lewis declared “the scariest piece of television” he’d seen in some time.
Yes, the parallels to 1980 take you only so far, and Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. Still, at this same point in his campaign for the GOP nomination, neither was Reagan. The President Reagan we rightly admire for bringing down the Berlin Wall, reviving the U.S. economy, and attracting into the GOP millions of disaffected Democrats was still to come.
And he got there by transcending the conventional wisdom rather than allowing himself or his message to be limited by it.
wgirl, very good writeup
and of course, the conventional wisdom is that none of the Republicans running can defeat Obama.
That may be, but None of them should be running against Obama. He is only a figurehead of the movement that the Repub has to run against.
First, Loss of Freedom. re-elect a Dimocrat and freedom will continue to evaporate. It is clear that the dimocrats want the government to tell them what time to get up and what time to go to bed and what do do in between. They don’t want anyone to have to think for themselves. The worst part is that they don’t only want to make that choice for themselves, they want to make it for everyone.
So the Republican has to run for Freedom and against the loss of it.
Second, a S-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-t Government. The governing class (exemplified by obama) have all the money they need. they have done a great job of funneling to their cronies for 3 years now and have another year to steal another trillion or so. They know that once s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-m is in place, they will always be running things and will live much as the ruling royalty classes in the world have since the beginning of time. The poor have nots will continue to support these rulers by continuing to demand nothing but to be taken care of in return for growing their food and laboring to make their toys (autos, etc)
So the Republican has to run against this.
This election can not be taken as ‘personal’ it has to be a movement to maintain freedom in this country. It only depends on who can convince the most people. Which message do you personally prefer, the government will take care of you, or you can choose freedom? Seems simple, it’s not. There are a lot of people betting that you don’t want freedom… ever heard of community organizers?
Gotta comment on this. All the uproar about Sandra Fluke and what Rush said about her. While I don’t agree with calling people names, I think we need to look at who called who what in this case.
Here we have a 30 year old female political activist, unmarried, and with completely unlimited free birth control available to her through many free government clinics.
Then, she goes on record saying that for some reason, that she needs someone to pay for about $1000 of birth control per year for her. Now you have to assume that this is for activities that are above and beyond what the free birth control would have taken care of.
She’s the person that put out this description. Some, including Rush, only attempted to say what it meant.
I personally don’t care what she does in her free time and don’t care what it is called. I only object to her feeling as if it is our responsibility to pay for her recreational activities. I wanta play golf full time, could you require my neighbors to chip in so the costs are fully covered?
Of course this Fluke thing was a setup by Obama and the DNC from the start; but I am pissed that Rush was both cocky and stupid enough to walk right into it. Of *course* the MSM ignores leftists when they use every manner of vile language; but that still doesn’t mean that it’s okay. Look at it in a big picture way; the great unfairness in fighting evil is that if you become evil to fight evil, you have lost the war. Rush let the vulgarity, nastiness, and viciousness of his enemies drive him to publicly make a vulgar, nasty, vicious statement. Now he’s paying the price – but he should have known, he should have seen this coming. Obama and his minions set him up, sure, but they’ve been trying to do that for years. This time he walked right into it.
“Culture War, Democratic style. If you told Obama six months ago we’d be talking about Rush Limbaugh and contraception instead of unemployment and health care mandates, they would have high-fived. Take a look at the DNC homepage. Most of the headlining items deal with women’s issues and contraception.”
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/rush-vs-sandra-fluke-the-fight-obama-wants-116455.html
(also he should have known that his advertisers included a lot of leftists that would cut his throat the minute they could get away with it. Sloppy, Rush, sloppy)
I’ve listened to Rush for years because I like his message. I’m not a fair weather friend. While I don’t think anyone should call others degrading names, I think Rush was only attempting to put a label on what Fluke had described. I’ll let others decide what she meant and what Rush meant, but I’ll continue to support Rush.