Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Incontrovertible: There is NO consensus on “climate change”

Incontrovertible: There is NO consensus on “climate change”

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.

Comments

Our society has devolved into one in which truth is merely a vague concept. Whenever data suggests the existence of facts that do not fit within the PC narrative, the methods for measuring, collecting, or analyzing those data simply are changed by the ruling class.
We have obama claiming never to divide people and Hillary pretending to campaign on getting money out of politics.
A society that acts this way will not long endure.

It’s not about the environment or climate, and it only concerns science insofar as some scientists found the mother lode of government funding and decided to take the money and play the game.

It’s always been about power and control. The Left’s concept of command economies has flopped in every place it has been implemented: every sort of situation from developed industrial countries to third world hellholes. They can no longer sell their Revolution on its benefits, there being none.

– –

So, the backdoor approach is fear of a crisis approaching, one so big that only governments exerting their full powers can possibly avert. The chosen target is energy as the fuel of the economy.

But notice their proposed solutions are the same, no matter whether the “crisis” is overpopulation, the coming Ice Age, or global warming. More government, taxes and control over fossil fuels, control over individual behaviors that have traditionally been voluntary and private, and central planning.

– –

No matter how it is packaged, their “solution” will fail in every respect as it always has – but once they get the boot of government on the throat of the free market, it won’t matter. American and Western (capitalist) Europe is the big prize, the last bastion of the flickering light of liberty the Left despises.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Estragon. | June 8, 2015 at 11:45 am

    More government, taxes and control over fossil fuels, control over individual behaviors that have traditionally been voluntary and private, and central planning.

    There’s a real fallacyu here with this thing about trying to control individual behavor.

    This is government! There’s no need to do such a thing. If anything needs to be controlled, it can be done on the wholesale level.

    If you had amass voluntary movement, then what everybody did would be important. But if it is not voluntary, what is this about summing up what individuals do?

    And with water, there’s an extreme fallacy. It is necessary to conserve waste, not water, so that in the event of a shortage, people can cut back easily, like by not watering their lawns. But if they are already not watering their lawns, what is there to cut back on??

    This is besides the fact that the greatest use of water comes from agriculture and industrial uses are higher consumers of water than individual uses.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Estragon. | June 8, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    It’s all about the “FREE” Money!

The new NOAA study, Karl et al, is one of the finest examples of climate scientists working from the Tobacco Institute’s playbook.
They torture that data to show that no matter what result you may want or need, they can provide it.
Frankly, it shows that the conspiracy theories perhaps aren’t theories but part of the consensus.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Neo. | June 8, 2015 at 11:51 am

    Like pulling gay into the “mainstream”, the Left is masterful at taking a conspiracy and giving it false legitimacy.

    Just as the Left manipulates polls and call it societal change, they manipulate data and call it science.

Midwest Rhino | June 7, 2015 at 8:31 pm

“The Agenda” and “The Narrative” have taken control of our government, from IRS with selective prosecution of innocent conservatives, to JustUs ignoring Hillary crimes, to Obama using Sharpton to stir up race riots, and even NASA tortures numbers to get the desired result (not to mention that alleged directive to task NASA with making Muslims feel better about themselves). And the military stand down and surrender has been maybe worst of all.

But “They” have been made wealthy, especially after six years of Obama redistributing wealth via TARP, stimulus, IMF, Import/Export Bank, open borders for cartels, etc. And Soros apparently decided to use his $25B to help destroy America before he croaks, via 100 groups that crank out propaganda, which gets reported as real news by a complicit MSM.

Something has to break, but it may be sanity doesn’t return till more things break. At that point we may not have good choices, as any panic event would probably evoke a cry for even more government intervention. On every front the left seems to be pushing for an overthrow of traditional America, as they “stand down” everywhere, but promote corruption. It’s been a six year creeping coup.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | June 7, 2015 at 9:09 pm

Thanks for working with Dr. Cohen to publish the letter taking issue with the official statement of the APS on man made climate change. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the truth in our society, which is a sad and scary development.

For those interested, here’s a great summary of the BENEFITs of rising CO2 that Matt Ridley published a couple of years ago.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-probable-net-benefits-of-climate-change-till-2080.aspx

Here’s a graph from the New York Times illustrating, CO2 levels in the U.S. and Europe have peaked. We are not he problem.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/new-co2-emissions-report-shows-chinas-central-role-in-shaping-worlds-climate-path/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=3&

Finally, as this chart from the EPA demonstrates, The U.S. economy has been “decoupling” not only from CO2 emissions, but also from six major pollutants for several decades.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/images/y70_13.png

Environmental zealots ought to declare victory and find another cause to give meaning to their life. What they were committed to 45-50 years ago was a noble and legitimate cause. They won. Our air and water have never been cleaner in the industrial era.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | June 7, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    I’d guess CO2 in the atmosphere has not peaked, since it seems to lag long term warming by a LONG time. The point is that in long term warming cycles, NATURAL things happen that put MORE CO2 into the air.

    One is oceans hold less CO2, so over time that chemical equation shifts/keeps CO2 in the air.

    Another is warmer climate means more microbe activity (duh), more insect activity (you betcha). Those might seem like tiny things, but they are HUGE things on a global scale. Those three combined mean a natural release of something like 35 times as much CO2 as man can possibly create, and it’s a RESULT of warming.

    CO2’s influence as a “greenhouse gas” is minimal, it’s influence on plants is positive. But destroying our economy and turning us globalist will not change the increase of CO2 one “iota”, not even 1% of an “iota”. INCREASE seems inevitable, we can’t even slow it, and shouldn’t try.

    First table down in this link
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/04/an-engineers-ice-core-thought-experiment-2-the-follow-up-2/

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | June 8, 2015 at 11:46 am

    Stating that, “we’re not the problem” implies there is a “problem” with CO2.

    With the Left, that anyone, anywhere produces CO2 implies a direct threat not only to Gaia, but more so to One World Governance. Until China “evolves” (a staple of Left-speak), we in the west must make more sacrifices, otherwise China will pull the whole world down with it.

    CO2 is really just plant food that crosses national borders without papers and without controls. Hence, the Left’s inherent need to control, tax and regulate the man-made “sources” of CO2. Otherwise, their whole takeover attempt is in vain.

If there’s one thing that’s true, it’s that the climate for common sense has sure changed.

Michael Crichton, MD, author (The Andromeda Strain (1969), Jurassic Park (1990), and many others) on consensus and science (1/27/2003 at Caltech):

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Noblesse Oblige | June 7, 2015 at 11:39 pm

The boys are getting desperate. Mother Nature isn’t cooperating with the dogma… so they need to bugger the data. Winston Smith would be proud.

Trees love CO2. If you don’t like CO2, you hate trees.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Loren. | June 8, 2015 at 11:39 am

    If you look at the fossil record and tree rings, trees grow faster when CO2 levels are high. That’s how vulcanologists find and correlate significant eruptions.

    In fact, all that carbon locked up in fossil fuels came about when the flora of the ancient Earth absolutely exploded during high carbon periods. [insert face palm, here]

    Also, when the Earth was covered with mile-thick glaciers, why did they melt? Did Neanderthal blame it all on Cro-Magnon and his use of fire? Did some early Al Gore lament the demise of his icy world and the loss of his wooly mammoth food supply on the use of fire? “Oooga booga, carbon credits, ooga booga!”

    Maybe other factors are at work here. Maybe, as the Earth ages and revolves around the aging, changing sun, stuff on Earth naturally changes. Maybe Leftists have not realized that the Earth doesn’t, in fact, revolve around them. [insert face palm, here]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend