History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Social Commentary

Global Warming Theory

11 Comments

…is the new Lysenkoism:

All the climate alarmist organizations simply rubber stamp the irregular Assessment Reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). None of them do any original science on the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. But the United Nations is a proven, corrupt, power grabbing institution. The science of their Assessment Reports has been thoroughly rebutted by the hundreds of pages of science in Climate Change Reconsidered, and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, both written by dozens of scientists with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and published by the Heartland Institute, the international headquarters of the skeptics of the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming.

Again, check it out for yourself. You don’t have to read every one of the well over a thousand pages of careful science in both volumes to see at least that there is a real scientific debate.

The editors of the once respected journals of Science and Nature have abandoned science for Lysenkoism on this issue as well. They have become as political as the editorial pages of the New York Times. They claim their published papers are peer reviewed, but those reviews are conducted on the friends and family plan when it comes to the subject of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. There can be no peer review at all when authors refuse to release their data and computer codes for public inspection and attempted reconstruction of reported results by other scientists. They have been forced to backtrack on recent publications relying on novel, dubious, statistical methodologies not in accordance with established methodologies of complex statistical analysis.

Formerly respected scientific bodies in the U.S. and other western countries have been commandeered by political activist Lysenkoists seizing leadership positions. They then proceed with politically correct pronouncements on the issue of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming heedless of the views of the membership of actual scientists. Most of what you see and hear from alarmists regarding global warming can be most accurately described as play acting on the meme of settled science. The above noted publications demonstrate beyond the point where reasonable people can differ that no actual scientist can claim that the science of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming has been settled or that there is a settled “consensus” that rules out reasonable dissent.

My emphasis.

Climate “science” doesn’t seem to have very many actual scientists involved with it.

11 thoughts on “Global Warming Theory”

  1. What I find amazing is that even the IPCC are quite candid about the high level of uncertainty surrounding CAGW, so I don’t see why anyone with the slightest bit of curiosity can believe that “the science is settled” or that there’s a large degree of consensus that it’s real.

    Just follow this link…
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html
    …and simply look at the Table 2.11 in Chapter 2.9.1, which lists all possible sources of radiative forcings. Now, compare it to Fig. 2.20 (A) in Chapter 2.9.2 and you’ll see that those listed as ‘Very Low’ Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) are not included in any of the models. Then go read Chapter 8.6 (Cf. 8.6.2.3, 8.6.3.2 & 8.6.4) and see what they say about feedback and, especially, clouds.

    Of course, none of this made its way into the ‘Summary for Policy Makers’…
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
    …so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that this important message never got through to politicians and leaders of learned societies.

      1. Had to be available for Herschel, which still hasn’t run out of He II and so looks like screwing my plans for NSRC too 🙁

      2. I spoke too soon: we’ve just run out of He II… spookily coincident with SS2’s first powered flight 🙂

    1. No change in Antarctic and Arctic sea-ice since 1964.

      No significant trend in Antarctica, but a huge decline in Arctic September ice extent over the last 4 decades.

          2. Interesting information at WUWT, but none of asserts a catastrophy or mentions anthropometric.

            From Trent’s link (emphasis mine):
            “We’ve seen since 1979 some small increasing trends in the Antarctic with a lot of variation from year to year. So the question is: have we been seeing a real shift or something more cyclical? Nineteen-sixty-four gives us some indication that what we are seeing now may actually be within the bounds of natural variability.

            A sample image showing the ice edge in the Arctic north of Russia on 4 September 1964 “It certainly puts the ‘record highs’ for newer satellites in perspective. These are records since 1979, not necessarily before then.“

            See Al’s comment above.

        2. Well, that’s Antarctica. And, the Warmists will just say, “yes, that is what we expect in the Antarctic, because ocean currents blah, blah, blah…” If the ice increases, it’s because of Global Warming. If it shrinks, it is because of Global Warming. If you get a bunion on your toe, it is because of Global Warming.

          It is faith based, and impossible to counter until the observations diverge to the point where the congregation loses faith. Fortunately, that time has arrived, and the divergence promises to become more apparent as time progresses.

Comments are closed.