Skip to content

The East Anglia Revelations Have Not Changed My Mind, Part 1

December 2, 2009

Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

On Fox’s Special Report Monday evening, Brit Hume made the central argument against the politics and science of global warming: its proponents have not yet made accurate predictions. Nor have they gotten the concept straight. Is “global warming” or “climate change” the problem?

I began writing about this issue years ago and always have been an extreme skeptic (Climate Change Fraud – Hollywood’s Silent Spring.) The data appeared doctored and the conclusions seemed preposterous. But my assumption had been it was due to extreme researcher bias, not explicit fraud, as we now know is also true. Modern climate science has become a political game of wealth transference. Future generations will view AGW as we now view alchemy, a “science” which Isaac Newton believed during his lifetime. I cannot transfer my certainty to you, but I can explain why I think this way. In part 1, I will discuss scientific reasons; and, in part 2, my heuristic reasons for this skepticism.

Scientific Reasons

Most science is applied science. This activity uses known theories to create things (for example, computer chip manufacturers use quantum mechanics.) While difficult, the most difficult type of science is new or “theoretical science.” Theoretical scientists create theories that try to make successful predictions which have never been made before. This is extremely difficult. The science of global warming is a theoretical science.

Simply stated, climate scientists have been trying to answer the question: “what causes the earth to warm or cool?” The ultimate thing they seek to measure — then predict — is temperature. Many things need to be measured to determine that. Some of these other “things” include greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists want to measure the amount of them, and how they dynamically interact with each other, the suns heat, and the planet. Since AGW scientists have hypothesized that man’s actions have disturbed a delicate natural balance, they also must measure the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by nature versus man’s activities (including animal husbandry, farming, heating and cooling of buildings, emissions from cars and machinery, etc.) A theory must describe why this delicate balance is so sensitive to man made emissions versus other types of naturally occurring random emissions. This data must be put together with a theory that requires many feedback loops in order to make predictions.

Given the complexity of the task, we should be more surprised if the science made accurate predictions than not. The late physicist Carl Sagan wrote, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Being able to predict the next 3 or 30 years’ temperature is certainly an extraordinary claim; and almost absurd sounding on its face. Little wonder this has not been successful. Instead, climate scientists have relied on computer models to promote their cause. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, per se. But computer models are themselves only theories. One cannot use a theory to prove itself! One needs empirical evidence to make a theory or computer model viable.

The reason computer models have been unsuccessful making predictions, for me at least, is obvious. The sheer number of variables, their complex interactions, and the amount of accurate data required is enormous. The more variables and the less certain the data, the easier it is to “fit the data” to the desired conclusion. One need not do this purposely, although scientists at East Anglia were fraudulent. Science requires predictions, not simply consensus (which this paper shows does not exist, in any event), to be viable.

On one level, this is not complex at all. Alarmists have a theory. It has not yet made accurate predictions. Why are we even discussing “consensus”?

Click here for part 2.

—-

Visit Michael Rulle’s Blog Here. See his previous NewsReal commentaries here.

Advertisements
7 Comments
  1. December 2, 2009 10:34 am

    This is interesting: (and thanks for your post!)

    From an interview with eminent geologist and winner of many scientific achievement awards, Dr. Ian Plimer:

    Prof Plimer – author of ‘Heaven and Earth’ Global Warming- The Missing Science, told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”

    His comments came days after a scandal in climate-change research emerged through the leak of emails from the world-leading research unit at the University of East Anglia. They appeared to show that scientists had been massaging data to prove that global warming was taking place

    The Climate Research Unit also admitted getting rid of much of its raw climate data, which means other scientists cannot check the subsequent research. Last night the head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, said he would stand down while an independent review took place.

    Professor Plimer said climate change was caused by natural events such as volcanic eruptions, the shifting of the Earth’s orbit and cosmic radiation. He said: “Carbon dioxide levels have been up to 1,000 times higher in the past. CO2 cannot be driving global warming now.
    “In the past we have had rapid and significant climate change with temperature changes greater than anything we are measuring today. They are driven by processes that have been going on since the beginning of time.”

    He cited periods of warming during the Roman Empire and in the Middle Ages – when Vikings grew crops on Greenland – and cooler phases such as the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850.

    And he predicted that the next phase would cool the planet.

    Climate change is widely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases such as CO2 into the atmosphere, where they trap the sun’s heat.

    The talks at Copenhagen are expected to find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally.

    But Professor Plimer, of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said that to stop climate change Governments should find ways to prevent changes to the Earth’s orbit and ocean currents and avoid explosions of supernovae in space. Of the saga of the leaked emails, he said: “If you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.”

    The CRU’s Professor Jones has admitted some of the emails may have had “poorly chosen words” and were sent in the “heat of the moment”. But he has categorically denied manipulating data and said he stood by the science. And yesterday he dismissed suggestions of a conspiracy to alter ­evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming as “complete rubbish”.

    But mining geology professor Plimer said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby.

    He suggested many scientists had a vested interest in promoting climate change because it helped secure more funding for research. He said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.

    “The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”

  2. ehmoran permalink
    December 2, 2009 10:50 am

    It gets much worse than stolen emails!

    Amazingly, the data are in the faces of Man-Made Climate Change supporters and they still refuse to acknowledge the evidence. But, then again, someone once said that the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

    Now, Al Gore PUBLICLY states Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn’t have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. SO WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can’t, because if they do, the gig is up. “Make no mistake, this event is not revenge, it’s the reckoning”.

    These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth’s physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me and the following is what I perceived as personal intimidation and a threat to call my USGS supervisor for doing this study. When someone uses words like “Does your boss know what your doing” in the context of this event, they’re going after your JOB.
    QUOTE
    “264
    John Mashey says:
    30 June 2007 at 1:04 AM
    re: #261: Chuck: you can stop worrying. Tindall has been at USGS for while,……………………………………..
    Mr. Moran, if you’re still watching:
    I have read USGS 370.735.5 and I hope you (and James Tindall) have.
    Do managers SAF and LE HB know about this? Any constructive comments?”
    UNQUOTE
    From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
    If my study and theory were not plausible and a potential explanation of global temperature variability, then why would RealClimate.org do what they did in their posts? Not very professional for PhDs. Additionally, there are many other areas on that website where conversations took place. On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried posting comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..

    I always knew that when man-made global climate change was shown as insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word “FAITH”, in science. But this event and exposure is by far worse for the science community; but “Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)”.

    Nevertheless, the bigger question is when and where will next big lie and mass manipulation occur? With Job Creation, our Economy, or the Financial and Monetary Systems?

  3. JOHN REDMAN permalink
    December 2, 2009 11:54 am

    Great article, but irrelevant to the point that many conservatives have known and espoused for years: Global warming scare mongering is about socialist control,not science or “saving the planet”. These are just the emotional issues raised to gain support from useful idiots who should know better, like these “scientists”. The science is interesting but has to be discriminated from the polical propaganda spewing constantly from the bloodsuckers on the left. To all the latecomers I say welcome to the party. Again, thank you for an informative and interesting article.

  4. December 2, 2009 12:11 pm

    I’m with Redman. Great article, but it misses the point. Climate change is a means to an end, and that end is CONTROL.

  5. December 3, 2009 5:34 am

    Science is one angle to Global Warming, the other is religion. It has become a crusade with elements that remind me of religious beliefs.

  6. December 3, 2009 9:14 am

    It has been pointed out more than once that the environmentalist movement stopped DOING things to improve the environment in the 70’s. Instead they began promoting merely the IDEA of “saving the planet” while selling out to various interest groups with political and economic goals.

    The global warming scam (which I have been waiting years to see implode) stands to garner these interest groups incomprehensibly huge returns in both political power and obscene amounts of wealth. Is it any wonder that the science got progressively distorted until the Green Pravda reached truly Stalin-esque magnitude? With every snail darter victory and every suppression of efficient solutions to the problems they highlighted the “environmentalist” movement has been lured further from their ideals into the swamp of partisan activism that serves only the faceless puppeteers behind the feel-good slogans.

  7. SaintGeorgeGentile permalink
    December 3, 2009 8:42 pm

    **The late physicist Carl Sagan wrote, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”**

    He should have followed his own advice when he came up with his own scam, “Nuclear Winter”
    see http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

Comments are closed.