Recap on Warmism


by Jim
http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/recap-on-warmism.html
Recap on Warmism

I have been ignoring the issue of Global Warming for a while, because it is pretty much settled. Anyone who still believes in Warmism is stupid, crazy, or lying. Usually stupid.

But, a short summary:

Climategate files:

The internal emails and documents of a conspiracy to falsify science, which revealed that peer review is a conspiratorial system to ensure that holy views are published and heretical views are not published, regardless of facts and evidence. I have read about six hundred of the slightly over a thousand emails of the first Climategate release, and every single one is incriminating. They are all more or less summarized by the infamous email “trick to … hide the decline”. If you twit a leftist on any of the emails, they will patronizingly explain to you that “decline” does not mean what it sounds like it means, but resist explaining “trick” or “hide” no matter how vigorously you twit them on it, implicitly admitting that they know full well that “trick” and “hide” mean exactly what they sound like they mean. The first climategate release was the emails of a criminal conspiracy to falsify science. The second climategate release was the emails of a holy priesthood engaged in a crusade to purify the planet of the sins of mankind.

The climategate files not only give us reason to disbelieve “Climate Science”, but discredit all peer reviewed science. Peer review means you don’t get the actual evidence, but rather the consensus about what the evidence should show if it was not so wickedly prone to evil heresy. Peer review means that a consensus is quietly established behind closed doors, and then the evidence is corrected to agree with the consensus. This maximizes the authority and prestige of official science, at the expense of disconnecting it from reality. Science got along fine without peer review until the 1940s. The core of the scientific method is “Nullius in Verba”, “take no one’s word for it”. Peer Review reverses that for taking the word of a secret committee of scientists reaching agreement behind closed doors, reaching agreement for secret reasons on the basis of secret evidence.

No observed warming:

Supposedly the surface instrument record indicates the world warmed rapidly from 1975 to 1998. Climate scientists issued a bunch of models that accurately retrodicted this supposed warming, and projected it into the future, projecting doom.

Unfortunately, they then started making accurate measurements of climate, and, by and large, since 1998 the climate has cooled down as much as it warmed up. For sixteen years, there has been no net global warming. Climate models retrodict with wonderful, indeed quite improbable, accuracy, but have totally failed at predicting.

The surface instrument system was not maintained for the purpose of measuring minute long term changes in climate, but large days to day variations in weather. So equipment was frequently moved or replaced, generally moved to some place closer to people because of technological changes in the equipment.

Thus the surface climate record has large systematic errors if one attempts to extract climate data from that record. If one ad hoc corrects for those sources of error that tend to produce the result one wants, and is less apt to correct for those sources of error that produce the result one does not want, one can produce, in the short term, pretty much any result one wants.

Careful examination of “corrections” made by the warmists reveals some rather disturbing ad hoc corrections. They knew what the result should be, and if the data failed to agree, simply changed it, on the quite plausible basis that we know the data to be total cow manure. Since there is in fact no accurate indication of whether the world warmed in the period 1975 to 1998, they were totally justified in pulling data out of their asses.

Now in fact we have rather good data indicating the world did not warm up over the period 1975 to 1998. In particular, global sea ice remains the same as ever it was and the tree line has not moved.

But, supposing that the world did warm by the amount claimed over this period, climate models provide a very good fit, a suspiciously good fit, to that warming. Their retrodiction is extremely accurate, suspiciously so, given that what they are retrodicting is not at all accurately known.

Hence the Spirit of Mawson expedition attempted to sail through ice that their ideology told them was not there.

So, since 1998, the gap between the 1998 models and reality has grown very rapidly. They retrodict wonderfully, but their predictions have
been a total failure.

And same is, I expect, likely to be true for the 2014 models.

About these ads

4 responses to “Recap on Warmism

  1. Sorry if OTT, but does anyone else have problems accessing Watts Up With That recently? Other WordPress blogs – including this one – seem often very slow. But it’s ben almost a week since I’ve had anything but a 404 when trying to get to WUWT.

    • Julie near Chicago

      I got it fine at http://wattsupwiththat.com/

      There are postings up for today, but I love this one from yesterday. I think maybe there’s a g-d after all!

      “<strongIt’s Game Over for Keystone XL opponents ‘Game Over’ Claims
      “Posted on March 13, 2014 by Anthony Watts

      “Even Dr. James Hansen doesn’t believe Keystone XL itself will significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions

      [Video follows below]

      “At today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Keystone XL, Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) asked well-known climate scientist James Hansen to clarify what he meant when he made his famous “game over” comment, which has been used widely by Keystone XL opponents to justify their erroneous claims. Of course, “game over” has been the main rallying cry for the Sierra Club’s Michael Brune who sat next to Hansen at today’s hearing. In response to Senator Menendez’s question, Hansen explained…. [SNIP] “

  2. I heard Obama on the radio a few weeks ago saying he was going to mandate better fuel efficiency for large trucks in order to “reduce carbon pollution”.
    One presumes that by ‘carbon’ he means carbon dioxide, and he further demonstrates his ignorance by referring to this essential component of the air we breathe as a ‘pollutant’.
    And why is the President getting involved in this anyway – hasn’t he got more important things to do?