The Debased State Of Climate Science

Introduction

For a good overview of the disgrace, with a cast of characters and clear explanation of what the issues are, you can do no better than thisbrief article.

What Facts Matter Most

There are five major truths that characterize this scandal. In order of their importance:

1. The software used by the crucially important University of East Anglia to model climate and predict it is a total disaster. All forecasts and analyses produced using that chaotic code are worthless. Raw climate data employed in the modeling no longer exist. The program has collapsed.

2. Secrecy replaced honesty in climate research. Refusals to make data available for study by other scholars, refusals to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, and destruction of data that might undermine the pro-AGW stance of the UEA researchers have been documented.

3. Solid evidence has existed for some years that raw data had been tampered with to produce evidence of AGW; now corroborating evidence of fakery is available.

4. The peer review process, a necessary protection against error and fraud, was corrupted and effectively dismantled by a small group of climate activists.

5. Not a single salient contention of the proponents of AGW remains standing. AGW is not just unproved, or problematic; it is a manifest absurdity.

Implications

The above facts suggest a policy that repairs the fundamentals before advancing. Of course no political action based on a belief in AGW should be undertaken, and it is also clear that a reform of the practice of climatology is in order. The necessary next step will be to see how far the rot spread, and that will require a careful examination of the data, projections, modeling software and proclamations of US climatologists who have claimed that AGW exists.

Hindrances To The Truth And Rational Action

There are two powerful groups that both deny the above facts and militate against rational responses to them: those who are greedy for power and/or money, and the unprincipled press.

Clearly, there was (and probably still is) a lot of money to be made by promoting AGW. The sale of carbon offsets is just one huge opportunity that should now be totally eradicated. Governments that planned to enhance their revenues based on AGW-related taxes should drop their plans. None of these parties will be eager to respond to reality, however — in fact, they will certainly insist that the scandal is trivial and can be ignored.

Journalism, as always, poses a serious impediment to the diffusion of facts and rational opinion. The bias and censorious misbehavior of the news media have been documented in nauseating detail by this newsletter for years, and the pro-AGW stance of the major media cannot be expected to change simply because of hard, cold facts. The predominant ideology considers all facts malleable, subject to ideological sanitation, and totally dependent on the aims of the elite. In spite of information published by a small number of maverick outlets, one cannot expect the full AGW scandal to reach the public via TV, newspapers, and magazines.

Ideology dies hard. AGW is, as this newsletter insisted many months ago, a fable that has become a religious phenomenon. The news media are overwhelmingly behind the lies, distortions and nonsense promoted by James Hansen, Al Gore, and the bogus scholars who have mocked the science they claim to practice.

The Gap

For months, this newsletter has iterated the point that the geologic record clearly shows that increases/decreases in atmospheric carbon dioxide lag, rather than lead, increases/decreases in atmospheric temperature. The gap is typically six hundred to eight hundred years. If we make the unwarranted and irrational assumption that temperature and CO2 levels are causally linked, we can ask which is the cause. Because a cause cannot follow its effect, the conclusion that temperature drives carbon dioxide levels is inescapable.

This reasoning refutes AGW at a fundamental level. How do the AGW lunatics deal with it? The answer (which might be just one of many, admittedly) can be found in this article. Summarizing the crackpot view:

Yes, the gap exists, though Al Gore evaded mention of it in his film. It is unimportant. Carbon dioxide responds to higher temperature levels by coming out of the oceans or wherever it was, and because it is a greenhouse gas, it drives further warming. That releases methane and other greenhouse gases, and the warming is promoted even more strongly. As temperatures go up, more and more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere, and things get really hot. No one knows what starts the process — it is clear that the initial warming is not touched off by CO2 — but that does not matter. Whatever initiates the cascade, carbon dioxide in the air accelerates warming. Carbon dioxide starts heating the atmosphere about eight hundred years after the warming period starts.

Obviously you should check this summary against the text of the web page linked to above.

Rational folks who have read this newsletter see at once that this trivialization of the gap is insane. Here are the truths that are ignored by the AGW cult:

1. Carbon dioxide does not start the warming process, but gets involved in it some hundreds of years after it begins. How do these claims relate to today, when CO2 is rising, but there is no warming? (Prof. Lindzen’s recent research proves that warming has not begun. Videohere; paper here.) We just don’t know. So the world today may have some time — possibly centuries — to deal with the problem of warming. The lag between cause (temperature change) and effect (CO2 level) is real, but it just tells us that CO2 does not drive temperature.

2. Carbon dioxide does not have the physical properties necessary to drive atmospheric temperatures up as the AGW cult believes. Its greenhouse effect (per unit of the gas) is greatest when it is added to an atmosphere low in carbon dioxide, and diminishes sharply as those concentrations go up. That means if you add a million tons of CO2 to an atmosphere that contains no CO2, the greenhouse effect will be measurable; but if you add a million tons of CO2 to an atmosphere that already has a 0.5% concentration of CO2, the resulting increase in temperature will be unmeasurable. Beyond a certain minimal level of concentration, additional carbon dioxide literally does nothing significant to atmospheric temperature. That helps to explain why though CO2 levels are definitely rising today, global warming is not taking place.

Parenthetical fact: speaking of Lindzen, the paper that set climatology back on track is Lindzen’s and Choi’s work on radiation escaping the atmosphere. They used improved technology to measure actual climate sensitivity, and showed that earlier, fanciful computer models underestimated the ability of the atmosphere to transmit heat out into space. “Garbage in, garbage out,” of course, but the modelers were badly embarrassed when their a priori guesswork did not square with empirical observations. Lindzen has accordingly become a target of the AGW cultists’ scorn. Download the landmark Lindzen-Choi correction here.

3. The AGW cult’s explanation for the gap posits higher temperatures driving higher CO2 levels driving higher temperatures driving higher CO2 levels driving higher temperatures — with no mechanism to halt the continual warming. Yet the ice cores show unequivocally that temperatures both rise and fall, and they show cold periods in which CO2 was at levels many times today’s. If the warming mechanism operated as the AGW believers describe it, it could go only in one direction, resulting, presumably, in the boiling of the oceans. That wouldbe a problem.

Is that too simple for you? Yes, it’s a layman’s take on the problem, so for a closer look at the role of CO2 in atmospheric physics, try thisexplanatory article. Or you may want a copy of “Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics,” by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, which says among other things:

The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.

From the Conclusions: The derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science.

The above mongraph costs $25, but if you want a free copy, let TLB know and a .pdf will be on its way to you.

Links To Additional Information On The Scandal

For lots of good AGW links, you can’t beat this weblog (if that link does not perform satisfactorily, try these three: one, then number two, and finally number three.) By all means browse for a while.

“We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2 — it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature (records – Ed). It’s a disgrace.” Yes, it’s yet another instance of fiddling the data to make them politically correct.

This telephone interview with an unhappy climatologist is an excellent summary of the scandal.

There’s growing frustration with the media’s refusal to provide full and accurate reports of climate science-related developments.

Read about “this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five“. Australia shows the way…but Obama and the Democrats in the US Senate are not interested in truth and justice.

This is why many Australians reject the concept of AGW.

Mark Steyn sets us straight on junk science, the major news media, and the facts. Read it. He’s correct.

How did the AGW fanatics suppress the facts? Very easily: “Since the small group — revealed within the CRU emails — control (sic) most of the peer reviewers, very few peer reviewed papers which criticize that group are allowed to appear in the most prominent published literature which dominates the academic establishment.”

From the “Oh, drat, I did write that!” file comes HARRY_READ_Me.txt, a waking nightmare.

Here’s a discussion of interest to those who focus on the statistical aspects of climate data.

Get out the pitchforks and torches.

More links on climate here.

“So, will the state-run media be bold enough to hide this, too?” TLB certainly hopes not. — Be sure not to miss the item on The Lancet, as well. Scroll down.

Crucial climate data were deleted (in order to sustain the AGW hoax), and then one of the rascals claimed the deletion had never taken place — the full data were still there, just “hidden in plain sight.” View proof of the lie.

Regard, Pilgrims, a prediction that TLB greets with hope and trembling. Update: according to this seminal weblog, the word is out from the Powers That Be: “Foreign Office and government leaning heavily on UEA to keep a lid on everything lest it destabilises (sic) Copenhagen.” Doubtless true. Sacred cows are lined up for slaughter.

Obama Does Not Have Benefit Of Good Counsel. TLB Corrects That

Oliver Kamm:

Oliver Miles is former UK ambassador to Libya. ….

Miles was one of the organisers of the “ambassadors’ letter” of 2004 that attacked Tony Blair’s Middle Eastern policies. I wasn’t impressed with it at the time, and it has become less credible since. It declared: “To describe the resistance [in Iraq] as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful.”

Fortunately, Coalition policy in Iraq ignored this advice and set about turning Sunni tribal groups, notably in Anbar province, against the leadership of the violent opposition to Iraqi civil society. This leadership turned out to comprise – who knew? – terrorists, fanatics and foreigners. Instead of surging into Iraq, transplanted foreign Islamists turned tail and surged out again.

Arabism in diplomatic policy is not a source of disinterested regional expertise: it’s a partial political view, which has done great damage to Western interests and the cause of democratic ideals.

Read it all here.

Links

As the kids say, “Now this is what I’m talkin’ about!”

Mystery solved: a guy has figured out how the pyramids of Egypt could have been built by a relatively small crew, without ramps, and without exotic or unknown tools. He also has a proposal for how Stonehenge was built. Video here, and it’s pretty convincing: if it was not done this way, it could have been. That’s good enough for TLB’s resident former student of archaeology.

ACORN has friends in high places. Obama and Holder are taking a huge risk by sheltering and funding the criminal enterprise. Breitbart lies in wait.

This is “Samizdata day” at TLB, for that weblog has an embarrassment of riches waiting for you. Begin with this post dealing with scientific research (timely in view of the AGW mess) and then read two very apt follow-ups on the same topic, here and then in this post. Next, there is excellent commentary on Keynesian economics (see also issues 111 and 113 of this newsletter), and clear thinking on the popular mythology of banking and bankers. Samizdata is weblogging at its finest.

Saying NO to minarets. This is not a trend, unfortunately.

Work done on a computer is necessarily cutting-edge, scientific, and accurate. Everyone knows that. Everyone is wrong.

The general view of what science is and the results it obtains is wrong.

Here’s an informative article that takes a common-sense approach to some related topics: the intelligence community and ESP, Manchurian candidates, mind control, UFOs, brainwashing, non-lethal weapons, truth serum, and a number of other topics on the fringes of the news. Highly recommended for both soft-brained tinfoil hat types and rigorous skeptics.

Life is bitter for many in Britain. Does it have to be like this? As long as there are rascals like Anglican bishop Humphrey Southern around, evidently it does. Egad!

Following up on a previous link published in this newsletter, here is an update on the authorship of Obama’s book, Dreams From my Father.