I was speaking with one of my poker playing buds the other
day and the subject of man made global warming came up. He initially indicated
he believed but said he would keep an open mind on the subject. I said I would
email him some info.
Now to be fair I’m not gonna load up his email account with a
a ton of data. Instead I’m going put the info here and he can go to the blog
address and have it all.
So here goes.
I begin by noting that newspapers, and all media for that
matter, have a saying, “If it bleeds it leads.” That’s short hand for “Bad news
sells.” And it does. No one clicks on a line that says, “Everything is fine.”
The genesis of the latest kerfunkle goes back to the mid 70’s
when various “scientists” decided that the world was cooling and that we were
in imminent danger of starving and along with starving and freezing we were
going to run out of all kinds of raw materials.
One of the proponents, perhaps the best known, is Paul
Ehrlich who is a strong believer in population control.
“However, he always has been a strong advocate of
government intervention into population control.[citation needed] In Population
Bomb he wrote, "We must have population control at home, hopefully
through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary
methods fail.”
That should give you a flavor of his views. Plus, as we have
now, the media, following “If it bleeds it leads” sounded the clarion call for
surrounding our rights and changing our life style. One of the more infamous
examples was published in Newsweek in 1975:
“A
survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground
temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to
George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large
increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a
study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of
sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between
1964 and 1972.”
Snip
“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s
Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to
the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth
of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible
for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during
past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive
action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.
They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as
melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic
rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the
scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to
take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of
climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The
longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with
climatic change once the results become grim reality.
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Of course none of that has happened and that is just one of
many blatherings that said we must turn ourselves over to government or freeze
and starve.
Now, to be honest, I really wasn’t paying much attention. My life
was focused on making money and taking care of my family. And cable TV was for
Earl Flynn and “Captain Blood.” CNN was far in the future and Fox made movies.
Besides, what little I heard made sense. Too many people,
falling temperatures, shortages of oil, etc., etc.
Then the story changed. The new problem was global warming
caused by man’s automobiles and power plants. And the solution wasn’t dumping
coal dust on the arctic, one of the supposed solutions for global cooling. No,
the solution was changing our lives.
The main man in this was a guy named Michael Mann and he had
studied the tree rings and other sources and determined that earth had not be
cooling but actually warming. And even worse, the rate of change resembled a
hockey stick. The warming was going to
come faster and faster and the world would burn if we didn’t change our life
style, give power to the UN and transfer a lot of money to various agencies that
could spend it more wisely than we ever could.
But I digress. Let me return to Mann’s hockey stick. That it
achieved its purpose of scaring people there is no doubt. But there were a lot
of questions that Mann, and others, didn’t want to answer. It was a simple
question.
“Can I see the code??”
The answer was no and the debate raged on. But then, after a
while, there came this.
“We have
seen above that one of the chief criticisms of the hockey stick was the fact
that its author, Michael Mann, had withheld the validation statistics so that
it was impossible for anyone to gauge the reliability of the reconstruction.
These validation statistics were to be key to the subsequent story. At the time
of their press release Wahl and Amman had made public the computer code that
they'd used in their papers. By the time their paper was submitted to Climatic
Change, McIntyre had reconciled their work with his own so that he understood
every difference. And he therefore now knew that Wahl and Amman's work suffered
from exactly the same problem as the hockey stick itself: the R2
number was so low as to suggest that the hockey stick had no meaning at all, ….
Wahl and
Amman's response was to refuse any access to the verification numbers, a clear
flouting of the journal's rules.
One of the most basic requirements for any scientific claim
is peer review. And when the originator rejects that then my bull shit sensors
start to flash.
And there was lots of other stuff back and forth. The Mann
faction claimed that the reviewers were
(1) not qualified, (2)biased, (3) paid by the Big Oil Companies and (4)
all of the above.
Matters not to me. The facts would speak and if the man made
global warming people’s claims were true then it would be self evident.
And it was obvious the hockey stick theory would not stand up
to the light of day.
Now all of this didn’t happen in a few months. It was years
and years and along with the hockey stick brouhaha there was the issue of how
accurate the measurements were.
That was kind of important because if NOAA’s temperature
measuring sites weren’t giving out accurate readings then what could we depend
on for the truth?? And the truth was that over the years the sites had changed.
Concrete and asphalt was poured, buildings were built, and some with air
conditioning vents that dumped warm air. Here’s a link to what I’m writing
about.
The result was that 64.4% had errors of +/- 3/6 degrees F and 6.2% had errors of 9 degrees
F.
Think about that. The UN and a host of other agencies and
people were telling us the world was ending yet their measurements had wide
variations. No wonder none of the predictions by the UN’s IPPC have came to
fruition.
“A
preliminary draft of a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change was leaked to the public this month, and climate skeptics say it
contains fresh evidence of 20 years of overstated global warming.
The
report -- which is not scheduled for publication until 2014 -- was leaked by
someone involved in the IPCC’s review process, and is available for download
online. Bloggers combing through the report discovered a chart comparing the
four temperature models the group has published since 1990. Each has overstated
the rise in temperature
that Earth actually experienced.
“Temperatures
have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted,”
Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, told
FoxNews.com.
“Their
predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that
it's time for them to re-evaluate,” Spencer said.”
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/un-climate-report-models-overestimated-global-warming/?test=latestnews
And
that’s important because to be accepted as a Scientific Theory, it must:
“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation andexperimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Now let that last sentence roll off your tongue. Note the “…for PREDICTIVE…”
Yet
none of the predictions have been
met.
And nothing has been “…confirmed…”
much less “repeatedly so.
BTW, have I mentioned that five years ago on December 13 Al Gore said the
ice cap would disappear in five years??
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/five-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-the-north-pole-will-be-ice-free-in-5-years/#!
Of course it hasn’t. What this is just another
example of predictions to try and scare us into doing what they want. “They” being an unholy loose alliance of
environmental wackos, greedy and power hungry politicians and many “scientists”
who have found out that they can get research money by always tying whatever
they are doing to man made global warming. Indeed, MMGW is the cause of flat
feet, bad breath and the heart break of psoriasis
Now I didn’t reach these conclusions over night.
It took time and a lot of reading. And old retired guys don’t have a lot of
time, the reaper is peering around the corner, but I was able to focus a bit on
things.
And, along with Mann’s resistance to allowing his
peers to see all of the information, I started to pick up on some other stuff.
Like this:
"To capture the
public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might
have.
Each of us has to
decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
Leading greenhouse
advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider ( in interview for "Discover"
magazine, Oct 1989)
Now anyway you cut it
that is an invitation to lie. And he didn’t stop there.
“Dr
Stephen Schneider is perhaps the most media-exposed Greenhouse expert, having
developed a charismatic speaking style, complemented by his 1970s good looks,
and penchant for extravagant claims about impending environmental disaster.
For example, in a TV
interview in 1990 to Britain's Channel 4, he remarked -
"The rate of
change is so fast that I don't hesitate to call it potentially catastrophic for
ecosystems."
Now that causes a bit of head scratching, eh??
As I wrote, none of this happened over night, but the longer I studied
and thought the less convinced I became. Perhaps the final straw was the
infamous Dr Phil Jones email.
And it is helpful to understand who Jones is. He is the head of the
prestigious Climate Research Unit – CRU – at England’s East Anglia University.
And he has been a vocal proponent of man made global warming. But from time to
time he has let his guard down. This is from what Jones thought was a PRIVATE
email that became public when the email system was hacked in what became known
as climate gate.
“….The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.”
Now the date of that email was July 5 2005.
It is now 8 years and 5 months later and the cooling continues. I wonder at what point the time frame will be “statistically significant.I also want to note in the strongest possible way Jones’ comment, “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998” (Emphasis added)
That is a flat out admission that he knows the bias of his fellow “scientists.”
Then we get to the good stuff.
Jones wrote:
“As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to
see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless
of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish.”
“As you know, I'm not political.”
This is a statement in which Jones is trying to establish his
philosophy. He is trying to describe himself in a manner that puts him above
the fray. Remember this because I will come back to it.
Jones then wrote:
“I would like to see the climate change happen”
There can be no “out of context” nonsense in this statement. It
is a clear statement of what Jones wants to happen. He then goes on:
“so the science could be proved right,”
And the above clearly states his reason. It hasn’t been proven, but he wants it to. He
concludes with a strong ending.
“regardless of the consequences.”
This is a very emotional statement. He doesn’t care if the seas
rise and the earth burns and millions die. He wants it to be proven. He closes
with:
“This isn't being political, it is being selfish.”
This is a repetition of him trying to claim he is non-political.
What it does his give the personal reason. He is “being selfish.”
Now, remember, from above:
“As you know, I'm not political.”
This is a statement in which Jones is trying to establish his
philosophy. He is trying to describe himself in a manner that puts him above
the fray.
Also remember that the email was thought to be PRIVATE. That means he could speak his feelings.
http://www.di2.nu/foia/1120593115.txt
But the proponents had their claims. Mostly it was that everyone agreed
and that it wasn’t necessary to have any further discussions.
Of course consensus isn’t science. Learned men once thought the earth
flat. Doctors did not believe in germs and “bleeding” was an acceptable
treatment for pneumonia.
Of more recent times we had Phrenology. The science of feeling for bumps on the head to
determine the intelligence and character of the patient.
So don’t tell me about “consensus.” And don’t tell noted science philosopher
Karl Popper.
“Falsifiability or refutability of a statement,
hypothesis,
or theory is an
inherent possibility to prove it to be false. A statement is called falsifiable
if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument truthness of which
proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is
synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but
"show to be false". Science must be falsifiable.[1]
For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming
observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All
swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a
single black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous
to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in
one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.[2]
The concern with falsifiability
gained attention by way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientific epistemology
"falsificationism". Popper stresses the problem of demarcation—distinguishing the
scientific from the unscientific—and makes falsifiability the
demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific,
and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically
true is pseudoscience.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Of course the MMGW proponents had
their web sites. One that is often mentioned is Skeptical Science. Kind of a
funny name given that opponents of the fake consensus are the skeptics. Anyway,
after I had seen a few dozen times and watched it refute everything while
attacking the credentials of the MMGW’s
opposition I decide to ask, “Who is this??”
“Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a
self-employed cartoonist, John Cook. It is moderated by zealots
who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their
alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality
they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not
pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed
and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully
attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored while Dr.
Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name
"Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the
most extreme alarmist positions.
John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was
employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in
academia or climate science.
Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,
"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self
employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science’
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
And go to the above website to
get the credentials of some real scientists.
So we come towards the end. We
started with cooling that became warming that has become cooling and science
that was never proved and admissions that MMGW has not happened. The question
that we haven’t really touched is “why.”
The answer is, like all things,
power and money. I’d guess that Mann started out with a theory and has become
sucked into the whole thing. He probably has received more attention and more
money than he ever thought possible.
“Prominent
global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who often asserts that scientists who are
skeptical of his alarmist global warming theories are motivated by making
money, charges $10,000 plus expenses for speaking fees, Media Trackers Florida
has learned. The revelation about Mann’s exorbitant speaking fees comes as Mann
prepares to give a global warming presentation at a taxpayer-funded Florida
public college. Mann will be speaking at Valencia College Thursday, January 17,
at 1:00 pm.
Mann’s
agent, Jodi Solomon, said in a phone call earlier this month that Mann would
charge $10,000 plus travel expenses to address a meeting of Florida air
conditioning specialists.”
http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/01/16/climate-alarmist-michael-mann-charges-10000-speaker-fee
But
that is chicken feed.
“The COP-18 environmental conference held in
Doha has come and gone. In the wake of high expectations for a successor
treaty, the Kyoto Protocol was extended, but only after bitter debate – and
several countries have withdrawn from the process or signaled their intent to
do so.
Moreover,
many observers believe the decision to extend the Protocol was primarily the
result of countries not having the courage to stop or scuttle it outright, and
not actually knowing what to do next. So the easy way out was to just extend
Kyoto and also promise the developing world lots and lots of dollars for
“climate mitigation,” which is a sort of apology from the first world for
having allegedly messed up the planet in the first place with their fossil
fuels and economic development.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/17/the-carbon-trading-money-tree/#more-77696
The money. Always follow the money.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper
“It’s the presumption that Obama knows how all these industries ought to be operating better than people who have spent their lives in those industries, and a general cockiness going back to before he was president, and the fact that he has no experience whatever in managing anything. Only someone who has never had the responsibility for managing anything could believe he could manage just about everything.” - Thomas Sowell in Reason Magazine
daly.com/schneidr.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm
by MO Blue on Sun Oct 27, 2013 at 08:11:53 AM CST