Slutspil for klimaet (Groundbroken Science II)

Diverse — Drokles on March 6, 2012 at 11:50 pm

I slutningen af Januar skrev 16 videnskabsmænd et indlæg til Wall Street Journal, hvor de gjorde op med påstanden om at der er et videnskabeligt konsensus om klimaet. Det affødte selvfølgelig en del reaktioner fra andre videnskabsmænd, som forfægtede konsensus og nu har de 16 svaret - igen i Wall Street Journal

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is “falsified” and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.


From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that “computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.” The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world’s oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of “missing heat” hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion.


The continued efforts of the climate establishment to eliminate “extreme views” can acquire a seriously threatening nature when efforts are directed at silencing scientific opposition. In our op-ed we mentioned the campaign circa 2003 to have Dr. Chris de Freitas removed not only from his position as editor of the journal Climate Research, but from his university job as well. Much of that campaign is documented in Climategate emails, where one of the signatories of the Trenberth et al. letter writes: “I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing articles from Climate Research [then edited by Dr. de Freitas] is certainly warranted, but perhaps the minimum action that should be taken.”

Or consider the resignation last year of Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. In a fulsome resignation editorial eerily reminiscent of past recantations by political and religious heretics, Mr. Wagner confessed to his “sin” of publishing a properly peer-reviewed paper by University of Alabama scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell containing the finding that IPCC models exaggerate the warming caused by increasing CO2.

Det ligner mere end blot en kritik af af en videnskabelig tese. Det ligner beskyldninger, som No Tricks Zone godt tør sætte ord på

Deliberately ignoring the major natural factors while wildly exaggerating another, despite the volumes of data out there, has been going on in the IPCC models for years now. We’ve seen the culture of deception in the Hockey Stick, Al Gore’s exaggerated AIT, Climategate, Hansen’s adjustments and just recently with the behavior of Peter Gleick. With every passing year, scientists have noticed the widening deviation between their models and reality, yet they continue to ignore the major factors of sun, oceans and soot, and they manipulate the models even more to make CO2 appear as the culprit.

This systematic fudging and manipulation of models is increasingly fitting the definitions of criminal fraud. Unless the IPCC changes its course and starts acknowledging the sun, oceans and soot in its models in its next report, then the public will have grounds to sue them for fraud in a class action suit. The sheer weight of the data showing that the sun, oceans, etc. have considerable impacts is overwelming and can no longer be ignored in good faith.

A society the feels defrauded needs to start taking the legal steps to begin moving the case forward. It can be argued that the line between wrong science and fraud science was crossed long ago and that the hand of justice needs to intervene.

Der er altid en regning, der skal betales, som vismanden Indurain gjorde rede for.

0 Kommentarer »

Ingen kommentarer endnu.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress