Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.bicycles.tech,rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Why Climategate is so important, was All Scientists Throw Outthe Raw Data, Right?
On Dec 1, 4:59*am, "
wrote: There's a lot of people who work on atmospheric science, ocean temperatures, so on and so forth. There are probably a significantly smaller number of people who work on historical reconstructions of the long term climate record of the specific type that Michael Mann and this CRU did (honestly, before this scandal, I had never heard of the CRU, which suggests they are not as central as it is now fashionable to say, but I am not in the field). * It is precisely the centrality of the work of Mann, Jones, Wang and the other historical climate statisticians that makes their crooked methods so controversial. You see, Ben, this is what I've been trying to explain to you, that in the presence of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age in the earth's recent history there can be no global warming, just a normal uptrend from the LIA with normal variability around a rising trendline, probably for another century or two. Until temperatures rise well above those in the MWP -- and we're a long, long way from there -- there is no cause for alarm. Global warming only exists because of lies like Michael Mann's hockey stick, which with statistical dishonesties flattened the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age out of existence and thus made the decade of the 1990s look like a sudden uptrend whereas in the historical perspective it is just another unremarkable variation around a slight upward slope. That is why these scientists are so important: because they are the only ones who can make global warming possible. You are also wrong about their importance being only recently noticed. Many of us who object to this sort of statistical crookery have been saying so for decades. The lie that the MWP and LIA were euro-centric, which you too told, perhaps because you were misinformed, is given the lie in every other science. It is only in climatology that Mann and Jones and the others, with their long-since discredited hockey stick, find any acceptance at all. And Mann was described as incompetent before the US Senate under oath by both Wegman and North, who respectively led two panels of the NAS. (That would have been enough in any other profession to get him thrown out. But not in climatology...) Of course Wegman and even McIntyre only pointed to incompetence but many of us have long suspected, from the surrounding unscientific practices and public persecutions, that a conspiracy to cook the figures was at work behind the scenes. The Climategate e-mails prove that the crucial hockey stick was not the result of mere statistical incompetence but something worse: deliberate scientific fraud for a political cause. More, it proves that the fraud was not confined to one or two individuals but was endemic in this branch of climatology. Even worse, it wasn't just endemic, it was the result of a conspiracy. (Wegman, in his report, already hinted at conspiracy when he discussed the collusionist "peer review" procedures of this clique. He identified them by name. We've known all along who the plotters were. Climategate isn't a revelation, it is merely proof by confession.) I repeat the point: Without Jones and Mann by statistical tricks flattening the MWP and the LIA, *there not only is no global warming, there cannot be global warming for a very long time*. Without the presumption of global warming, there is no need to look for a cause for a non-existent problem. Thus there is no need for policy to control the scapegoat CO2. This whole charade only works in the presence of a whole raft of special pleadings for climatology which every other science would and has rejected with contempt (see Wegman before the Senate, supported by North). There's the precautionary principle which demands action on assumptions not subject to proof, there is the rejection of cost- benefit analysis which allows all kinds of hysterical pressures to direct policy, there's the continued reliance on totally discredited work (Jones, Mann, Wang, etc, etc, etc, nauseatingly -- for small branch of a small science, it sometimes seems as if everyone in it is a crook) which actually removes the entire basis of the "science" of global warming for the reasons given above, there is the withholding of data, the persecution of critics, the bullying false claims of "consensus" (as if science is decided by vote!), etc, etc, etc -- excuse me while I vomit in disgust. In no real science would this hysterical crap be permitted. However, I don't work on any of this stuff, and I do understand some of the physics involved (radiative transfer in stratified atmospheres, infrared radiation and so on), and so do about a jillion other physicists. Well, of course you do. But if there is no global warming because we actually live in a cool period (including the 1990s and specifically including 1998), then the work is of merely academic interest. I'm not qualified to write or review articles on historical reconstruction of temperatures, Statistical procedures are common across the sciences. That's how we caught out Mann, Jones, Wang and other crooks. but I can understand the parts of climate science that have to do with anthropogenic radiative forcing, and it is not going to go away no matter how many pies they take in the face in East Anglia. Once more, unless you can first prove that there is global warming -- and there is prima facie evidence easily understood by the man in the street that there is none -- you can make all kinds of contortions about CO2 and it will still be of only academic interest. (There is also the small problem of CO2 emissions throughout history lagging temperature rise, not leading it.) *If I and all the other scientists are wrong, it will be quite obvious of order 40 years from now, manifesting itself in things like changing growing seasons, plant and animal ranges, glacier disappearance, and so on. * Oh, crap. These things have changed radically through history, even in recent history. Human agriculture in the modern form wasn't even established until the opportunity of the last "global warming" of the Medieval Warm Period. Perhaps they should give you guys a compulsory course in economic history before they let you loose on science. All of these are happening now, I just picked 40 years because there are fluctuations on decade-long timescales to average over. Of course they're happening. They happen all the time. They're entirely natural. It is hubris of the highest order to attempt to fix the planet in your image, Ben. The fact that Clive Crook is full of doubt now reflects the success of climate change skeptics in laying down a base of mistrust. * Actually, the big success in turning misinformation into a religion -- witness the agony of the committed like Max Otter who writes here as Landotter -- was the IPCC's when they made a beneficial gas (CO2) that is food for plants the bogeyman in an event that didn't even happen (global warming) and persuaded a frightened populace to spend trillions on combating it. Honestly, it's way too hard to organize scientists to do anything even when justified, let alone organize a conspiracy of deception. That bandwagon had powerful incentives, like not being published, like being seen to buck a much-touted "consensus", like being seen to be a reactionary, and much more. More from Ben snipped; he's either got the point by now or he hasn't. Hope this clarifies the matter for you, Ben. Andre Jute Visit Andre's books at http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|