Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Everything Else Forum - View Post
Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Original thread:
Post 84 made on Thursday September 26, 2019 at 15:36
djy
RC Moderator
Joined:
Posts:
August 2001
34,746
Part One

On September 16, 2019 at 00:02, Anthony said...
Maybe and I addressed that, many pages back and agreed with you. I think it gets a worst wrap then it deserves. But that being said the IPCC is not here to debate the subject, it is me and you. And even though this is nowhere near my field of expertise if you have something better to bring up please do so.

Well, as it so happens, climate science is not my field of expertise either, but does that prevent someone from researching the issues and learning, if only the fundamentals? Furthermore, as I said in one of my responses to BizarroTerl (in regards to Andrew Montford's expertise) one doesn’t need to be an expert in climate science to appreciate the political nature of the IPCC and its willingness to use bad science to promote it.

A common misconception is one of the IPCC being a scientific body. It's not; it's political. It assess the science of climate change on behalf of the UN who, as previously mentioned, has the two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger; with everything else being subservient to these two imperatives. Surely then it's not too much of a leap to determine that the IPCC is seeking climate science evidence in support of those imperatives (evidence supporting demands for a profound political change) and downplaying, or even ignoring, that which doesn't.

In 1995 Ben Santer was appointed the convening lead author of Chapter 8 of the IPCC's second assessment report (SAR),1 entitled 'Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes'. In this position he unilaterally altered agreed text from this...
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
2. "While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes."
3. "Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."
4. "While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue; they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."
...to this...
1. "There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate."
2. "The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate." 2
...and in doing so he…
"single-handedly reversed the 'climate science' of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The 'discernible human influence' supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the 'stopper' in millions of debates among non-scientists." 3 & 4
When this sleight of hand was exposed a quick cover-up article, entitled 'A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere' was produced and published in Nature in July 1996.5 The paper claimed a steady increase in upper atmosphere temperature and reproduced a graph reflecting this. When analysed by John Daly though it was clear the graph had been truncated (it was merely a section taken from a much longer series) and was thus clearly designed to mislead.6 Two rebuttal papers were subsequently written, but not published until December 1996 (some five months later) by which time a PR cover-up was underway.

The first paper, by Prof Patrick Michaels and Dr Paul Knappenberger, said in part:
"When we examine the period of record used by Santer et al. In the context of the longer period available from ref.5, we find that in the region with the most significant warming (30-600 S. 859-300hPa), the increase is largely an artefact of the time period chosen."
The second paper, by German scientist Geri R. Weber, explained that the warming trend highlighted by Santer et al. could be explained by natural factors.
"Regarding the role of natural factors, the early years of the period 1963-87 were substantially influenced by tropospheric cooling (and stratospheric warming) following the eruption Mount Agung, whereas the end of that period was influenced by several strong El Nino events, which have led to some tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, particularly in the southern subtropics of the lower latitudes. Therefore the general tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling trend between 1963 and 1987 has been accentuated by widely known natural factors and could at least be partially explained by them."
So not only was the graph an artefact of 'cherry-picked' dates (from a data series showing no overall trend) the warming section picked could easily be explained by natural factors and not necessarily the result of any man-made cause. This led John Daly to comment quite acidly:
"So, did Santer et al. really discover a 'discernible human influence on global climate'? Hardly. The obvious intent inherent in the paper's title, mounting external pressures for some unambiguous sign of human climatic impact, and the choice of a time period which just happened to show a warming phase in an otherwise neutral longer-term record, indicates only that there is today 'a discernible human influence on global climate change science'.
No doubt those holding more extreme views would see Santer's actions as little more than a form of noble cause corruption. I, however, do not subscribe to such an opinion. I find his behaviour both unscientific and appalling, and fully deserving of censure. And yet he wasn't. Indeed, in the crazy world of climate science, (where arguments regularly get turned on their head) he actually garnered support. This came in the form of an open letter from the AMS.7

For those appreciative of a little dark humour it rather hilariously states:
"We are aware of the tremendous effort you and other climate scientists from many countries around the world have put into this document, and the thought, care, and objectivity which have characterized the process throughout".
It is even critical of, what I believe to be, the quite legitimate criticism of Santer’s behaviour:
"The Wall Street Journal essay is especially disturbing because it steps over the boundary from disagreeing with the science to attacking the honesty and integrity of a particular scientist, namely yourself."
Is this an endorsement of the subversion of science? That outrageous behaviour is perfectly acceptable providing, that is, it supports a particular narrative?

The letter also goes on to suggest:
"The appropriate arena for debating the first, scientific question is through peer-reviewed scientific publications - not the media".
Sounds perfectly reasonable, but did they comment on the rebuttals to Santer's deliberately misleading Human Influences paper? And of course, as the Wegman report8 later found (and confirmed by the Climategate emails), the peer- review process became corrupted by a claque of individuals closely associated with Michael Mann. As Steven Mosher and Thomas Fuller say in their book about Climategate:9
[They] "Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands."
Needless to say they also comment on the efforts to avoid FOI requests:
"Actively worked to evade (Steve) McIntyre's Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data".
And also the altering of data shown to politicians:
"Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, 'hiding the decline' that showed their data could not be trusted."
Having already discussed Mann's 'work' I’ll not waste time repeating it. What does bear worth repeating though is that the replication of bad science does not vindicate it, something that some appear entirely unable to comprehend. Neither do they seem able to understand the enormity of a paper overturning a vast swathe of previously accepted research, never mind that it's to be used to promote a policy of profound global political change.

Is it not reasonable to thoroughly scrutinise such a paper to ensure its findings are beyond reproach? Did the IPCC carry out their due diligence or merely accept it because it lent support to their preferred narrative? Did its authors provide free access to all for it to be assessed? Is not the proffering of evidence to support one's research the way science should work? Was Phil Jones of the CRU right in stating: "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Can one not see what a dangerous path we tread if we allow science to be subverted in such a way? As Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his farewell address:
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.


It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."
This is where bad science can lead: to a monumental waste of money which will do nothing to combat the problem it’s claimed it would and likely create its own unique catastrophe. 'Climate change' in this regard will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, though one for entirely different reasons. Lysenkoism and the Holodomor are stark examples of this.

Yes, the average global temperature has risen. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, global atmospheric CO2 content has increased. Yes, there's likely an anthropogenic component to that increase. Evidence to support it being the primary driver of the late 20th-century warming though is at best flimsy and at worst corrupt. It also ignores the other natural factors surrounding the early 20th-century warming, the mid-20th-century cooling and, of course, history.

The IPCC, however, do not care for such niceties, for they have a political agenda to fulfil. They care not whether CO2 is the actual cause of the warming just so long as some 'science' can be found to attribute the warming to it. Analogous to this is the flaky science being used to support federal land management in the western states of the US. In this presentation,10 for example, Jennifer Fielder reports on how a part-time observational study of just two Grizzly Bears (a mother and her cub) is used in preference to a 24/7 study of 19 Grizzly Bears wearing radio tracking collars: the former supporting the predetermined course of action, the latter not.

Scientists questioning such 'science' do not help. Like Lysenkoism, independent thought is to be crushed and not tolerated. Those voicing concern, many more qualified than those supporting 'the cause', are to be denigrated and their livelihoods threatened. Bogus claims of consensus are produced. Powerful interests in industry and finance are keen to promote climate alarmism for the profits it will provide: Malthusians and environmentalists for seeking population reduction and a return to a utopian ideal of feudal living. And all the while the Chinese and Indians are laughing their little socks off wondering how Western nations can be so gullible.

I disagree with the notion of the IPCC getting a bum rap. The above merely scratches the surface of their increasingly strident attempts to force political change, and their use and abuse of science to achieve it. Donna Laframboise provides a far more comprehensive account in her book.11


On September 16, 2019 at 00:02, Anthony said...
Maybe, but when my friends place got flooded this spring and two years ago because his house is on the border of the hundred years flood plain, it does not take a genius to figure out that global warming + melting glaciers mean that the water level will get higher I don't need fear mongering or crackpots to understand what is happening.

My condolences to your friend, but in a naturally warming world, sea-level rise is inevitable and something which has been occurring steadily for the past 160 years.12 - 14 I appreciate it's of little consolation (and contrary to what you appear to believe), but once again there is no clear evidence of a CO2 influence. As for fear-mongering and crackpots (Gore and Wadhams* perhaps?), claims of huge increases and polar ice cap collapse, such as that mentioned in the New York Times report of Hansen's testimony, are as you say, precisely that…
"The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century. Scientists have already detected a slight rise in sea levels. At the same time, heat would cause inland waters to evaporate more rapidly, thus lowering the level of bodies of water such as the Great Lakes."15
Of course, this hasn't prevented various environmental groups travelling to the polar regions to raise awareness of climate change/global warming; only to get entrapped by a 'mysterious hard white substance'16 necessitating their rescue.

*Note: Gore needs no introduction, but one may not be aware of potty Wadhams: the BBC's go-to Arctic expert, who has the seemingly unique ability of getting all his predictions wrong.17 & 18 There was also a time he thought he was on a hit list for knowing too much.19

As a bit of an aside, an excellent example of a man-made catastrophe is that of flooding of the Somerset Levels over the winter of 2013/14.20 As Booker reported at the time,21 the usual suspects initially attempted to blame climate change. It didn't take long, however, to discover that it was more the result of a toxic mix of low lying land, EU directives, Environment Agency/DEFRA incompetence, environmentalism, and an embarrassingly bad MET Office weather report.22


Hosting Services by ipHouse