Global Warming Politics

“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date."[Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1)]

Oh dear! The inevitable is happening. The ‘global warming’ trope is unravelling on a daily basis - scientifically, economically, and politically. The wheels are coming off the hysterical bandwagon, and it is not going to be a salutary sight watching the politicians and the media junkies jumping cart and trying to throw mud in everyone’s eyes.

Pathetic Sophistry.  First, climate - as long predicted here - just won’t play ball. We now know that there has been no ‘global warming’ since 1998, a fact unpredicted by the models and despite an above-average rise in ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions. Moreover, new computer models show that the Earth’s temperature may stay roughly the same for at least a further decade through the workings of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) [for example, among many reports: ‘Next decade “may see no warming“‘, BBC Online Science/Nature News, May 1]. And, even the Solar Cycle 24 sunspots are refusing to flare up.

It is pathetic sophistry to claim, as some are wont, that ‘natural forces’ are having the temerity to “suppress” ‘global warming’. The fundamental point has ever been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors. The very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins just one politically-selected factor is about as bonkers as it gets. How on Earth have folk been conned into believing such hubris? It is so like The Prophecies by Nostradamus - the vagueness and lack of dating make it easy to quote ‘evidence’ selectively after every major dramatic event, and retrospectively claim them as a ‘hit’! Read more here.

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views. Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate. He has a PhD in mathematics and worked as a climate modeller, but those accomplishments don’t explain his influence—PhDs are not uncommon and, in any case, he comes from the mid-level ranks in the British Antarctic Survey, the agency for which he worked until recently.

Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he’s a big shot at Wikipedia—an administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought-after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

Connolley and his cohorts don’t just edit pages of scientists actively involved in the global warming debate. Scientists who work in unrelated fields, but who have findings that indirectly bolster a critique of climate change orthodoxy, will also get smeared. So will non-scientists and organizations that he disagrees with. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5-million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding. Read more here.

By Dr. Vincent Gray, 4 time IPCC Reviewer and Nobelist

The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.

In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to solve three problems: (1) To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing, (2) To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere, (3) To reliably predict changes in future climate. None of these problems has been solved.

It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to measure “anomalies” of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn. suggest that the cool part of the cycle is imminent.

The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with most of it over the tropics and very little over the poles. Yet the IPCC tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its “anomalies” can be treated as “feedback” to a global temperature models. Carbon dioxide is only measured in extremely restricted circumstances in order to pretend that it is “well-mixed”.  No general measurements are reported and 90,000 early measurements which show great variability have been suppressed.

Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead the claim is made that “climate” can be predicted 100 years ahead. The claim is based on the development of computer models based on the “flat earth” theory of the climate which assumes it is possible to model the climate from “balanced” average energy quantities This assumption is absurd since all the quantities have skewed distributions with no acceptable average. No resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are mere “projections”. Since the projections are far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity. Read more here.