Tag Archives: Chicken Licken

Consensus

0
Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

Those arguing for action against the perceived threat they call variously Catastrophic Anthropgenic Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption or whatever new name they can come up with to try to keep it alive have long relied on the argument that there is overwhelming scientific consensus about it and the “the science is settled”.

In another blog I have argued that consensus has no bearing on scientific accuracy, and that no science is ever settled.  AGW believers say that is nonsense.

Well, it now seems there is scientific consensus that AGW is incorrect, unscientific, fraudulent, and on the data available so far, most probably plain wrong:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims–Challenge-UN-IPCC–Gore (Hat tip to Joe Bastardi through one of his tweets).

In the face of this, look out for AGW supporters declaiming that consensus has no bearing on accuracy…

Climate Change – Rice Bowl Science

0
Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

Climate Scientists are not all necessarily participating in a global conspiracy.  Climate Science itself is compromised by the funding model.

This sentence is in the charter of the IPCC:

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

So, the IPCC was set up on the assumption that the risk is considerable, the impacts  huge, and that we  need to have global plans for adaptation and mitigation.  All in one.  It was not set up to assess risk and impact and report back so that decisions could be made about the need for adaptation and mitigation measures.  No, the UN assumed from the outset that those measures would be needed.   They put “options for adaptation and mitigation” right there in the charter.  Such a charter all but guarantees unscientific conclusions – it compromises scientific objectivity,

It is a charter, not for an objective scientific assessment, but for a living organisational entity.  The natural desire of any entity is to survive.  And the IPCC is funded by the UN – a bottomless well.  So, what would you expect the IPCC to find in its assessment of the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change?  The impact assessments would be the conclusions that most influenced future funding of the IPCC.  So, what would you expect to find in their assessment of the impact?  Go on – take a guess.

It is no surprise that of all the IPCC findings, it was the impact assessments that most conspicuously lacked rigour.  Most lacked proper peer-review, some were not peer-reviewed at all.  The IPCC  predictions about the melting of Himalayan glaciers, African rainfall and harvests, tropical storm frequency and strength, the spread of malaria  and projected rises in sea level were based on anecdote, magazine articles, and activist literature.  All were couched in exaggerated, catastrophic terms.  And all have been discredited.

The IPCC preaches global warming to the world, and has a charter for rice-bowl science.  It funds and coordinates funding of climate research, always with the aims of assessing impact on climate change.  The scientists and institutions who win climate change  funding for their research know that their findings must be delivered in terms of the climate impact.  They are not about to disappoint the source of their funding, so they write their findings in the terms of advocacy.

And rice-bowl science is what they deliver.

References:

Principles governing IPCC Work”  http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

Oh, that Explains Climate Temperature Adjustments!

1
Filed under Global Warming
Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Brett Anderson, in his Global Warming blog in Accuweather, reports that the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have explained why they adjust temperatures to “remove bias”.  Wow.  Wherever they look, the nasty recording devices and processes produce a cooling bias that they have to correct for the sake of accuracy.  And even when they use the raw data, they still show warming.  Here are their warming rates:

1.6552 deg C per century (“corrected”), or 1.6539 deg C (uncorrected) based on analysis of temperatures from 1979 – 2009.  Should we be alarmed?

Nope.  The Accuweather hurricane forecaster Joe Bastardi, in his European blog, points out that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has just switched over from its warming cycle to the start of a thirty-year cooling cycle.  The Northern hemisphere similarly has just switched over – here in the Netherlands, the negative Arctic Oscillation has brought the coldest winter for thirty years, and there are more cold winters to come.  Now even the IPCC admits that we are headed for thirty years of global cooling.  From 1979 – 2009, the Atlantic and the Pacific have been in warming mode.  The warming rate in the last thirty years is completely normal in those circumstances.

In his blog entry for Saturday 16 January 2010, Joe Bastardi rhetorically addresses the NOAA people.  This is how he puts it:

“Its not like the 80s and 90s guys ( and gals) you were running the table with warm warm warm. Kick in the Atlantic switching to its warm cycle and what did you think would happen. Cmon now.. 75% of the worlds surface is water… the ice caps are surrounded by water…. the two biggest oceans in their warm cycle together.. Folks, if you bet warming, you have a free shot on goal, NO GOALIE!”

Right on, Joe!  To publish per century rates based on three decades of natural oceanic warming conditions, without mentioning those warming conditions is mischievously misleading at best, and downright malicious alarmist poppycock if I am to be less polite.  You can bet your shirt that when they publish the cooling trend during the coming years, the NCDC and the IPCC will shout about the negative PDO at the top of their lungs!

The NDCC warming rates based readings from 1880 – 2009 are 0.5911 deg C per century (“corrected”) or 0.5621 deg C per century (uncorrected).  That’s more believable.  One has only to look at environmental changes like the retreating glaciers in a number of locations like New Zealand to find evidence of warming.  Perfectly natural warming – the earth has warmed much more rapidly many times in its long history.  The rate of warming in the last century certainly does not indicate that we are warming the planet by our activities.  Sorry, chicken lickens.  The sky is not falling.  The earth will cool again.

You can read the whole story by following the link to the NCDC/NOAA report in the References section at the end of this grump.  I leave it to others to criticise the way they massage data, and their selection of temperature records.

You can access Brett Anderson’s and Joe Bastardi’s blogs from the links section of this website.

References:

NCDC Article http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html