Nullius in Verba

The reader will benefit from reading the blog article previous to this one.

Drs. David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer have published an article in the International Journal of Climatology in which they explain that serious discrepencies exist between the computer models of climate change and the 25 year data from satellites and weather balloons.

Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer are the world’s experts on satellite data and Christy is a United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) editor. Ironically Christy and Spencer also have serious problems with the IPCC report, claiming it is a politically biased publication and misrepresents a lot of the science, reasons for why Christy left the IPCC process recently. (Christy and Spencer however, do think the evidence suggests CO2 can cause local climate change.) 

Why am I not surprised? As I have said before, having created computer models myself, you have to be concerned with the raw data used and more specifically the assumptions you make. Garbage in can easily equal garbage out. Sometimes even good data in can equal garbage out if your assumptions are wrong. As I have mentioned before at this time the surface station data is suspect.

From the publication:

On the whole, the evidence indicates that model trends in the troposphere are very likely inconsistent with observations that indicate that, since 1979, there is no significant long-term amplification factor relative to the surface. If these results continue to be supported, then future projections of temperature change, as depicted in the present suite of climate models, are likely too high.

In summary, the debate in this field revolves around the idea of discrepancy in surface and tropospheric trends in the tropics where vertical convection dominates heat transfer. Models are very consistent, as this article demonstrates, in showing a significant difference between surface and tropospheric trends, with tropospheric temperature trends warming faster than the surface. What is new in this article is the determination of a very robust estimate of the magnitude of the model trends at each atmospheric layer. These are compared with several equally robust updated estimates of trends from observations which disagree with trends from the models.

The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic modeling efforts. Yet the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution.

(Bold faced emphasis is mine.)

Scientists recommending caution, imagine that? But that is what real scientists do. Just like real doctors are cautious about making promises to patients. That’s how I was trained.

Politicians and fake scientists, on the other hand, like Al Gore and the Suzuki make all kinds of hot air promises.

Which reminds me of the ancient Babylonian inscription:

Psychics who make predictions that are found incorrect shall have their heads seized from their bodies and placed upon the southeast gate.*

(How long did it take for the politicians to screw up this earthly delight created by ancient scientists?)

* The one about doctors who fail to save their patients sucks just as bad.

Update:

From the comments:

Models aren’t perfect, but they are our best means to predict the consequences of increasing GHG in the atmosphere. 

- Grant

You mean you trust this data, Grant?:

(Official NOAA Suface Station Sensor, Livermore California)

Update: Guess who was right, Danny and the media or the economist and me? And notice how the media ignores the whole issue when Harper looks like he’s right again. 

Now back to our regular programming:

Watching the recent frenzy over the Climate Conference in Bali I am very happy that we finally have a Prime Minister who is able to blow the cold air of reality into the environmental maelstrom of something that looks like a big-hot-back-slapping doldrum. Canada’s position, Japan’s, (and Australia’s, no thanks to the brainwashing organization, CBC, everyone thinks that the position in Oz has changed because of the new Labour government, but really it hasn’t) and the position of the United States is that there is no point in setting restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) when the world’s largest emittor won’t join in, and I refer to China. India’s emissions are projected to overtake the United States as well. The emissions from the US are going down each year under GW Bush, and not due to a recession either as the United States economy is better than ever, while Chinese emissions are increasing rapidly. If you’re one of those people who believes that anthropogenic GHG emissions (AGHG) is causing a disaster then by AlGlorey, why aren’t you concerned? It’s not going to matter one iota how much Canada does or even the United States for that matter, when the fat kids on the teeter-totter are all sitting on one end. Why isn’t this a bigger concern?

It’s comparable to a disarmament treaty during the Cold War that restricts the United States from building missiles but mandates the Soviet Union to build even more.

But does the media care? They’d rather follow the likes of Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio. After all, it should concern us greatly when the dogs of Hollywood fly in on Lear Jets led by Al-Goreacle, and start yapping that perhaps things are getting blown way out of proportion.

Recently a new journal article* published in 2007 by a Canadian climate researcher and external IPCC reviewer, Dr. Ross McKitrik, in the Journal of Geophysical Research has demonstrated that the increase in surface temperature is in large part due to non-GHG anthropogenic reasons, ie: urbanization - in layman’s terms our cities are warm and temperature stations near cities are recording that. Moreover the methodology used by current science to screen out this background effect isn’t doing an effective job. His work reveals that the increase in temperature is half of that which the current United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is estimating, thereby reducing their estimates even lower than their own reduction in estimates from the latest report. 

A group of Dutch scientists have independently confirmed McKitrik’s work. Dr. Jos DeLaat and Dr. A.N. Maurellis at the Royal Netherlands Meterological Institute and National Institute for Space Research Netherlands respectively showed something very interesting indeed in two recent papers. Their latest in the International Journal of Climatology, 2006, states:

Our analysis of climate model simulations of GHG warming confirms our earlier results, namely, that they do not show any kind of CO2 emission–temperature trend correlation. In fact, the modeled temperature trends are quite insensitive to the magnitude of the industrial CO2 emissions. It is possible that the response of the climate system to enhanced GHG radiative forcing is much more localized than expected in that it occurs only in specific regions and mainly in the lower troposphere, although this runs contrary to the current understanding of GHG-related processes (cf Hansen et al., 1997; IPCC, 2001; Hansen et al., 2005; Santer et al., 2005).

This confirms an earlier work of theirs in 2004 that points out that surface stations situated in regions of low economic output show relatively little change in mean surface temperatures compared to surface stations in areas of high economic output as seen in this graph:

(star = high CO2 area, cross = low CO2 area)

In other words, AGHG is not causing global climate change, only a local effect is seen.

Although the exact mechanisms have yet to be determined our findings show that a significant part of the observed surface warming is related to processes other than enhanced greenhouse warming.

Its interesting to see other scientists dispute the current mainstream thinking just for the sake of a challenge. Stephen McIntyre just cannot leave the Dr. Michael Mann et. al. famous hockey stick graph alone, and for good reason. With its projection heavily weighted by the Graybill tree ring data, McIntyre spends some time in the same Sheep Mountain woods doing core sampling to update the data and demonstrates that according to the forest, the planet has been getting colder lately.

And this brings me to my main point. I’m really concerned when science gets manipulated by politicians. Take for instance hurricane researcher and IPCC member Dr. Chris Landsea who points that fact out as he resigns from the IPCC. There is also no doubt that certain countries eye Kyoto as the holy grail of economic subsidies, a diversion of money to their coffers. It is now currently the world’s largest welfare scam. Kyoto has not much to do with saving the planet from AGHG because it’s reductions are meaningless. Kyoto is all about transplanting more factories to China and India.

(In 1614 Galileo challenged mainstream thinking about the sun revolving around the earth leading to an Inquisition where he was soundly chastized)

It disturbs me as a scientist to see things get so manipulated by certain people with certain agendas. Like for instance what happened with Dr. Paul Reiter, a leading expert on malaria and other diseases carried by the mosquito vector. His testamony in front of the British House of Parliament reveals how the lead writers of the IPCC report on the Impact on Human Health are chosen. It is worth reading the whole thing. After not being chosen as a lead author in IPCC 4, largely due to his suspicion that he is not alarmist enough because he states the research doesn’t support an increase in malaria due to Global Warming, he retorts that the people chosen are basically laymen with agendas chosen by politicians:

34.   I replied with a question about the two Lead Authors that had been selected: “It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered “Lead authors” with experience, representative of the world’s top scientists and specialists in human health?”

  35.   I also pointed out that one Lead Author is a “hygienist”, the other is a specialist in fossil faeces, and both have been co-authors on publications by environmental activists.

Imagine that, the lead authors of part of a document that is due to set world policy and massive interference by governments at all levels was written by a group of people with no scientific publications at all. 

The list of climate scientists disillusioned with the political manipulation of the IPCC grows longer, however when they try and make their voices heard they are soundly run out of town. That’s partly the fierce nature of the whole argument which involves scientific blows from both sides, however this fight is now one sided because the media, the politicians, and the hollywood hound-dogs have chosen the side they like - the socialist side that says global warming is cause by us bad humans but we should feel sorry for China and let them emit GHG because they’re poor. So in essence lets do nothing but feel good about it. Modern Liberal policy in progress, something Jean Chretien who did nothing about Canada’s GHG emissions over the last 10 years would have been proud of.

* Note: McKitrik’s work is sponsored by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, not industry.

Remember when a bunch of rock musicians got together and solved third world poverty? (Most of the money was stolen by corrupt Ethiopian politicians, and there is good evidence some was used by thugs to forcefully oppress several hundred thousand people.) Heck, forget about free trade, capital markets, democracy, property rights, civil order, and global investment - lets just transfer a bunch of money to them and they’ll be all right.

After all subsidies have been working for the natives in North America, fishers in the Atlantic, car producers in Windsor, and forestry mills in BC for years. Right? Nope, this little economic truth called rent seeking means all that money has been flowing into the hands of thieves and lawyers for years.

Why the heck, me included, are people so willing to pay money to screw themselves?

(In Western culture, foolish gluttony is often represented by a continually growing Leviathan that is difficult to kill)

Real scientists ask questions, and are rarely willing to go on TV and make broad ranging statements. Scientists tend to be cautious and always re-evaluate the evidence.

Thats why when respected researchers like Roger A. Pielke, a climatologist with hundreds of papers in climate journals makes statements like:

In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.

Or William Gray, who said:

Gray acknowledges that we’ve had some warming the past 30 years. “I don’t question that,” he explains. “And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle ’40s to the middle ’70s.”

And Richard Lindzen (an author of IPCC 1 who withdrew from what he calls quackery) and Chris Landsea (who withdrew from IPCC 4 because it was too politicized and not scientific) and so on.

I tend to believe these scientists over people with no credibility like David Suzuki or Al Goreacle. Now don’t get me wrong, Pielke, for example, believes in climate change on a local level due to anthropogenic effects and that is what his research is focused on. What he stresses is that we really don’t know what we are talking about on the global picture. I think he’s right on there.

(Watch this commercial and tell me why Suzuki isn’t telling people to shut off their wasteful outside lights, instead of recommending bulb changes. This just sums up their mentality - simply dumb)

The IPCC has been infiltrated by horrible politicos, bent on only one thing - transferring wealth. The real goal of Kyoto is to transfer money to third world countries in the form of imaginary CO2 credits. I mean even if we followed Kyoto to the nuttiest of its conclusions we’d only be reducing the increase in theoretical global warming by 0.2 degrees. Its like throwing a 2 cm piece of Black and Decker fridge ice into a volcano. It isn’t doing anything.

The reality is the IPCC conclusions are constantly being challenged. When some IPCC scientists that have signed the document have asked to have their names removed, and some have quit the organization altogether one should start to some raise flags of one’s own. Especially when scientists left because they felt science was becoming political.

A recent article in the journal, Science, points how how flawed the computer generated projections likely are, and more insidiously, how ad hoc they may be.

But the group of three atmospheric scientists–Charlson; Stephen Schwartz of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York; and Henning Rodhe of Stockholm University, Sweden–says the close match between models and the actual warming is deceptive. The match “conveys a lot more confidence [in the models] than can be supported in actuality,” says Schwartz.

To prove theirpoint, the commentary authors note the range of the simulated warmings, that is, the width of the purple band. The range is only half as large as they would expect it to be, they say, considering the large range of uncertainty in the factors driving climate change in the simulations. Greenhouse-gas changes are well known, they note, but not so the counteracting cooling of pollutant hazes, called aerosols. Aerosols cool the planet by reflecting away sunlight and increasing the reflectivity of clouds. Somehow, the three researchers say, modelers failed to draw on all the uncertainty inherent in aerosols so that the 20th-century simulations look more certain than they should.

Just as flawed are the new Live Earth concerts. A bunch of musicians are going to travel the world releasing tons of CO2 putting on a concert to tell everyone to stop releasing CO2. This is not much different, except on a larger scale, to David Suzuki’s recent tour across Canada in a gas guzzling tour bus used simply for his own comfort. We’re all going to pay to see it, releasing even more CO2. This series of concerts could themselves release more CO2 than many third world nations.

(Genesis on Stage. What would Suzuki and Ontario Hydro say about all those bulbs?)

This planet has ranged from friggin hot to not over milennia. Moreover there is a lot we don’t know.

Update:

Another CTV poll gone horribly wrong, as in not the way they wanted it to go. Usually they leave their polls up so that about 10000 people can vote, but they stopped this one quickly.

Dear Enlightened Sirs,

It is with deep regret that I “turn in” my friend Carlo Artieri, however I feel that I must for the good of human relations to denounce this heretic of the worst kind. While many of my friends and colleagues are heretics, Carlo is sufficiently far enough away from me as I write this that he cannot punch me in the head or singe me with the flame of his dangerous evilly evil-ness.

(Carlo won’t be laughing long when the PC police burn his hide on a pile of faggots)

Recently your esteemed organization the UN Human Rights Commission (noted for the fact that none of its works has helped anyone, see the video below) passed this resolution on religion. By religion I take it to mean all UN approved religions including Christianity, one of the religions Carlo always attacks.

Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam in the media, and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims, Alarmed also at the serious instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence based on religion or belief, intimidation and coercion motivated by extremism, religious or otherwise, occurring in many parts of the world and threatening the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights,
Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums,
1. Expresses deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still in evidence in some regions of the world;
2. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of religious symbols;
3. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
4. Expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
5. Also expresses deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by Governments;
6. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any other religion;
7. Recognizes that in the context of the fight against terrorism and the reaction to counter terrorism measures, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion;
8. Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular especially in human rights forums;

In favour (24): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

Against (14): Canada (Damn you McKay, you non lap-dog of progressive thought), Czech Republic, Finland, France (WTF), Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.

Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.

Carlo continually offends humanity by defaming, criticising and attacking religion so its high time for him to be hauled up on the pulpit of the International Criminal Court. Like right now. In fact I hope you don’t wait because he may defame me soon. Carlo can be found in Canada somewhere and I expect that he will be quickly deported to the Hague because unlike that nation of evil gun-toting inbred Jesus worshippers in the United States, we quickly signed off on our citizens and subjected them to the whims non Canadian judges and laws.

(Burn you mother of all deniers)

Defame, is defined via Websters as to “harm the reputation of by slander or libel” and to “humiliate by a superior showing”. Libel can also be defined as “the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures.”

Carlo does all this. (And he’s done it like seven times seven times.)

Carlo’s particular modus operandi is attacking creation, which is a sacred tenet of all important religions like Islam and Christianity, but specifically Islam because its like the most importantest (bless the war-prophet). (Judism doesn’t count because they’re subhuman democratzi-Nazi-wank-off posers in the eyes of the glorious Human Rights Commission and deserve what they get. And should get it as much as possible.)

Some may notice that the signers of this Human Rights Council declaration are well noted for their esteemed beliefs in and strident protection of Human Rights. Of course someone like me, a good Canadian socialist trough feeder, would never consider them complete hippocrites. After all the one religion noted in the declaration would never be intolerant, right?

(All your bases are belong to us)

But listen up all you other fundamental fook-twads. This is currently allowed:

(Before: Ancient Buddha statue in Afghanistan)

(After: Take that you lame ancient statue, yeah.)

Taking the “fun” out of “fundamental” every time. But with quotes like this you cannot go wrong:

Ishaq:470 “We attacked them fully armed, swords in hand, cutting through heads and skulls.” - YEAH!

Qur’an:61:11 “Believers, shall I lead you to a bargain or trade that will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive and fight in Allah’s Cause with your property and your lives: That will be best for you!”
Qur’an 61:12 “He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Eden: that is indeed the Supreme Achievement. And another (favor) which you love: help from Allah for a speedy victory over your enemies.” - Gimme my reward!

Tabari IX:25 “By Allah, I [Mohammad] did not come to fight for nothing. I wanted a victory over Ta’if so that I might obtain a slave girl from them and make her pregnant” - Stupid women, weak subspecies.

Thanks UN Committee I’m glad my taxes go to you.

 - langmann

PS

(This guy thought he ended all the fundamentalism with quotes like “love your enemies” etc.
Look where it got him. Oh yeah.)