Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Warmist flip-flops [update]

A guest post this morning from reader Kerry Sharp.

Jeanette Fitzsimons is wrong in stating about warming that "the science that shows it is happening gets stronger all the time."

MP Jim Anderton stated "the vast majority of international scientists in the field of climatology believe that excessive CO2 and methane emissions are a prime causal factor."

Since when has scientific truth been established by "consensus" or "majority vote?"  Truth is established by evidence, not by popular vote.

It’s sometimes suggested however that the science is settled. However, if a respected MIT climate scientist like Richard Lindzen can still argue in the Wall Street Journal that "the science is not settled," and other scientists disagree, then doesn't the very dispute itself prove that the science isn't settled?*

In any case, there are at least 32000 scientists who have signed a petition stating that they disagree with theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

And the data that are the backbone of climate science are now revealed as a complete mess.

So much for “consensus”, or what the IPCC scientists’ data shows us.

The history of science is littered with the carcasses of dead theories, killed of by individuals who assaulted the scientific "consensus." Since when has scientific truth been done by consensus or a show of hands? Science is the systematic knowledge of Nature through unbiased observation and experimentation. So why is the term "consensus" applied to the science of Global Warming or Climate Change?

The theory of Global Warming itself seems to reappear in various guises. It has a curious history, dating back to the French mathematician Joseph Fourier who first postulated a terrestrial greenhouse in the early nineteenth century.

Yet science has flip-flopped five times on the issue since the beginning of the twentieth century as scientists and the media proclaimed approaching climate doom. - first by global cooling, then global warming, then global cooling and so on until today when we are back to warming.

A senior contributor to the International Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] has stated,

_quote We have to offer up scary scenarios, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. . .  Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

And from an IPCC climate scientist contributor,

_quoteWe have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to climate scientists."

From New Scientist,

_quoteCarbon trading won't do a thing about climate change, but will make a lot of money for a lot of people."

Honest scientists with no vested interest - over 43,000 (and growing) - have petitioned their governments to say that mankind has no effect on climate.

My own conclusions from studying the issue of Global Warming Climate Change over the past few years is that Global Warming is NOT happening. The evidence indicates that there has been no global warming this decade.

The so-called "experts" have compensated for this aberration by saying in public that it is a "blip" in there predictions, and private that it is “a travesty” that they can’t explain it.

"Climate change" is definitely happening but is has always happened through history. During the time of the Vikings, Europe experienced a time of warming where grapes could be grown in Scotland, and Greenland was green. When the climate cycled into a cooler period, the glaciers were encroaching on farmland at the rate of 100 metres per year.

On the claim that Greenland and Antarctic ice is melting so fast that a 1.0 to 1.3 metre rise in sea level is unavoidable, according to late 2008 data from the GRACE satellite tracking system, regarded as "ideal" for keeping tabs on the Greenland icecap, the ice melted so fast between 2003 and 2008 that "it is now estimated the Greenland is accountable for a half millimetre [0.5mm] rise in global sea level per year," reported scientists from the Center for Space Research, in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. Earth to Copenhagen climate scientists: take note, half a millimetre a year equates to 50 millimetres a century, or two inches of sea level increase!

And from the respected Science journal, earlier this year: "Glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland's ice Armageddon has come to an end."

_quoteThere seems to have been a synchronous switch-off of the speed-up. Nearly everywhere around south-east Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000."

Obviously, someone's been telling outright lies to scare politicians into introducing draconian and expensive carbon laws that we the people will have to pay for, and this is just the tip of the iceberg!

Kerry Sharp

UPDATE: Tim Blair has all the links you need on the Copenhagen Hopenchangen LovenHugin.


  1. I have posted 2 of the following links to short papers which are very interesting.

    I would like to see more theoretical work on this area as it appears that the current climate models are based on inappropriate use of black-body radiation law. In short, the climate models are based on false premises. The papers are readable to non-experts.

    - An Analysis of Universality in Blackbody Radiation

    - Blackbody Radiation and the Loss of Universality: Implications for Planck’s
    Formulation and Boltzman’s Constant

    - On the Earthly Origin of the Penzias-Wilson Microwave Background

    - Global Warming & The Microwave Background

  2. Mockery and scorn are effective weapons. This morning's cartoon from Emmerson is a very interesting and significant step forward...


  3. I think the 32000 scientist thing has been completely debunked

    As there was no reference, my apologies if you are talking about another 32ooo signature petition

  4. Graham

    So there are NO scientists who do not agree with the "consensus". That's your proof for it? That fib is ALL you have?

    Never in the entire course of human scientific endeavour has there been such a pile of lies, as your wawrmist propaganda bullshit, presented to the public. If ever there was a reason to get the government out of research and science, warmist nonsense is it.


  5. If ever there was a reason to get the government out of research and science, warmist nonsense is it.

    Absolutely LGM. My question is - who is paying the hackers? The corruption is not just on the 'warmist' side.

    And we also have nutbars promoting a conspiracy theory about nefarious forces plotting to rule the world, and scientists have taken the place usually held by Jews, Freemasons or whoever.

    So yes - get govt out of it!

  6. "The evidence indicates that there has been no global warming this decade."

    Damn it, I see this claim everywhere. 1998 holds the record for the warmest year so far, yes. But that does not mean that "there has been no global warming this decade" because the warming trend has not stopped.

    A simple graph of a moving-average of global temperatures (red line) shows that the warming trend continues and it is as steep as ever.

  7. @Luke: Yes, that certainly is a simple graph. Amongst other problems with it (its lack of sourcing and its fudging of middle-century temperatures among them)it also appears to be missing almost a decade.

    Which is a problem, you must admit, when it's the decade in question.

  8. I did that graph back in 2007, so, yes, it is missing a few years (recent years have been warm, BTW).

    My point still stands - the warming trend continues. Graphing a 3, 5 or 7-year average is hardly a controversial 'massaging of the data'.

    As far as being a 'simple graph' goes - well, in this case we are trying to answer a simple question (whether there has been 'no warming' in the last decade). So a straightforward graph showing the warming trend in recent years should do it.

    This is a question that is based in reality: has the warming trend stopped? The answer is: NO.

    The question of whether human CO2 emissions have contributed to the warming trend is separate matter.

  9. Sources: My blog post on these matters. The data in the graph is the HADCrut3 data.

    Yes, I know there are alleged problems with the data. Perhaps readers can suggest a different data source with which we can check my findings?

  10. @Luke, Odd how this bothers you so much, but you can't even be bothered finding the data.

    Here's the surface temps over the decade to October, plotted using the data from all your own favourite warmist centres.

    Result: no warming trend over the decade.

    Here it is again: surface temps from 1995 to June 2009, plotted using the same source you say you used, with an overlay showing CO2 levels at the same time.

    Result: no surface trend.

    And here's the satellite date from 1979 to June 2009, measuring temperature at the very place where your warmist theories say "catastrophic" warming should be occurring.

    Result: No discernible warming trend.

    So frankly, Luke, I don't give a rat's arse what bothers you, because what bothers you is frankly not worth a damn.

    Frankly, Kevin Trenberth has more integrity than you do, when he says "We can't account for the for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't."

    At least, he would have integrity if he had the balls to repeat that obvious truth in public, instead of just in private emails to his colleagues.

  11. Jeanette Fitzsimons is wrong in stating about warming that "the science that shows it is happening gets stronger all the time."

    The evidence is getting stronger that there are;

    1 Problems with understanding of the physics of climate.

    eg Lin et al 2009

    : Large climate feedback uncertainties limit the ability of current general circulation models
    (GCMs) to predict the climate system change, including the response of the Earth’s
    climate to the increase of CO2 concentration within the atmosphere. Current estimates
    5 of global mean temperature increases for a doubled-CO2 (2×CO2) atmosphere
    range from 1.0 K up to more than 10 K (IPCC, 2007), which has remained virtually
    unchanged for three decades. This wide envelope of climate projections is an obvious
    result of the intrinsic sensitivity of climate prediction systems to the climate feedback
    coefficient (Roe and Baker 2007). Development of advanced methods to reduce the large feedback uncertainties is critical and urgent for both climate sciences and socioeconomic policies.

    The inability to reduce the range of the climate sensitivity no matter now much money has been spent on research, or how powerful the gcm experiments are leads one to conjecture that the climate complex is irreducible with all its "random" consequences.


  12. Ruth

    It would appear that the "hacker" is a whistle-blower who works at the Climate Research Unit. Who paid for that person to release the emails to the public domain? Seems like it was a matter of conscience....

    Good to see that there are those who recognise fraud and corruption when they see it, especially when it is encoutered in the hallowed halls of priviledge, power and influence. Good to see it exposed.



1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.