Only consistent data point: The denial that deniers exist
I have the pleasure of working with Dr. Roger Cohen, RWC Fellow American Physical Society, to publicize a better understanding of climate science and the flaws associated with the models that are being pushed to generated bad policy.
The claim that there is “consensus” among scientists that there is significant, man-made environmental impact on a global scale is based largely on the suppression of dissenting voices, especially in the American media. Recently, Cohen and his colleague Dr. William Happer (Cyrus Fogg Professor of Physics, Emeritus Princeton University) wrote an open letter to the American Physical Society (APS) that gives the public a much needed window into the workings of a normally reputable organization’s response to politicized science.
For example, here is how the original APS statement supporting “global warming” came about:
APS email records show that the original 2007 Statement was rewritten “on the fly, over lunch” by a small group of firebrands who arbitrarily inserted themselves in the process, thereby overruling the prerogatives of POPA [ Panel on Public Affairs] and the APS Council. Thus, in “reaffirming” the 2007 Statement, the current Draft is referring to one that was produced by a bogus process and led to much ridicule of the APS, especially for its use of the infamous “incontrovertible.” In an attempt to disown this public relations fiasco, in 2012 APS (presumably POPA) quietly introduced a new paragraph break in the 2007 Statement so as to alter the original intent of the passage. Thus, the description of the Statement presented today as “Adopted by Council on November 18, 2007” is untrue and a violation of APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct.
And here is how the APS quietly suppressed a study that didn’t correspond to the politically correct models:
In the process of developing a Draft 2015 Statement, POPA failed to take into account the findings of the broad-based workshop, chaired by Steve Koonin, which faithfully and expertly executed its charge to assess the state of the science in global warming. The Koonin committee did the APS proud, conducting the only serious review of global warming science by a major American scientific society that we know of, while simultaneously realizing the objectives of our 2009 and 2010 petitions. Having thus advanced the interests of physics and the Society, POPA subsequently ignored the Koonin workshop and its product. POPA once again returned to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as its sole source of authority on the science, thereby abrogating its responsibility to the membership to properly conduct independent scientific assessments.
Why is this important? Because this level of obfuscation and data massaging is probably the only consistent element of climate science.
Recently, the press has been abuzz claiming that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has found there was no hiatus in global warming, as indicated by a careful review of its satellite images and other data from professionals who are actually conducting sound research. In fact, a supposed news report that is extremely derisive of skeptics used the term “consensus” while mocking those who refused to buy into NOAA’s recent revelation.
The study refutes a claim that the planet’s mean surface-temperature increases began to slow down in 1998, commonly referred to as a global warming “hiatus” phenomenon. Despite an overwhelming consensus among scientists that the Earth is warning at an alarming rate, critics Thursday accused the researchers of consciously cherry-picking facts to mislead the public.
But a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information and others say the way ocean temperatures have been measured has masked the rate of global warming.
The “Watt’s Up With That” blog fisks the NOAA study thoroughly. Here is a sample of the detailed refutation of the latest example of politicized science:
“The authors have produced adjustments that are at odds with all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite.” “They do not include any data from the Argo array that is the world’s best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.” “Adjustments are largely to sea surface temperatures (SST) and appear to align ship measurements of SST with night marine air temperature (NMAT) estimates, which have their own data bias problems.
…“This is a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry-picking time intervals, resulting in a global temperature graph that is at odds with those produced by the UK Met Office and NASA. Caution and suitable caveats should be used in using this paper as evidence that the global annual average surface temperature ‘hiatus’ of the past 18 years has been explained.”
Truly, the only scientifically consistent aspect of “climate change science” is the denial that deniers exist.DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.