Global warming roundup
Over the last month, a number of things have transpired in the world of the great global warming hoax. (You’ll excuse the lack of measured language, but it can hardly be described otherwise.) It behooves us to take note, and make a record, of these events.
So, if you’re a die-hard global-warming dead-ender, how do you handle these depressing developments? You commit fraud in an attempt to discredit global-warming critics.
That’s what Peter Gleick, a cult member in good standing, decided to do to the Heartland Institute, a free-market think-tank that has long been outspoken against global warming. Gleick, who is nominally a “scientist” but doesn’t let ethics stand in the way of righteousness, created a false identity and stole confidential information from Heartland – including financial documents and their donor list – then published them online. He even threw in a complete forgery to make the story more interesting.
Because that’s what “science” is all about! Ignoring hard data, attacking the motives of those who dare to challenge your dogma, and making stuff up when necessary!
Once he was caught, Gleick wrote a hilarious “apology” in the Huffington Post in which he asserted, consistent with the highest traditions of science, that extreme righteousness justifies theft and forgery . . .
Hayward has a lot of great information in his piece, and the whole thing is worth examination. As far as the act of Gleick, those people aware of how the global warming cultists operate are hardly even surprised at this point.
Naturally, Arizona’s own Raul Grijalva is unconcerned by Gleick’s actions, but is calling for investigation of someone who was allegedly exposed by Gleick for violation of federal rules:
The ramifications from the recent leak of Heartland Institute documents continue. After identification of Heartland funding ($1,000/month) going to a federal employee, seemingly first noticed by the investigative folks at Greenpeace, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva has “called for a full Natural Resources Committee hearing to probe whether Indur Goklany, a Senior Advisor at the U.S. Interior Department, improperly received payments from the Heartland Institute while collecting a paycheck from U.S. taxpayers,” as DeSmog Blog, central in getting the Heartland documents out to the public after they were provided to the site by Dr. Peter Gleick, reports.
Rep. Grijalva wants the hearing to start as early as next week. The investigation would focus on whether or not Goklany “received money he was promised by the Heartland Institute for writing a chapter in a book focused on climate policy in apparent violation of federal rules, among other issues.”
Always glad to have Grijalva’s sober hand on the ethical tiller of our barge as it navigates these difficult waters.
Next, we have the letter written and signed by sixteen scientists back in late January, the main point of which is that “There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.” It begins . . .
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
Needless to say, horrified that their dogmatic orthodoxy dare be challenged, the global warming crowd responded angrily, and the sixteen scientists published a vigorous response:
The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, “No Need to Panic about Global Warming,” is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.)
We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.
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.
The scientists go on, in prose and a chart, to demonstrate just how badly wrong the IPCC and other projections have been.
Reinforcement of the last point from Clive Best:
Abstract: Global temperatures measured since 2005 are incompatible with the IPCC model predictions made in 2007 by WG1 in AR4. All subsequent temperature data from 2006 to 2011 lies between 1 and 6 standard deviations below the model predictions. The data show with > 90% confidence level that the models have over-exaggerated global warming.
Background: In 200o an IPCC special report proposed several future economic scenarios each with a different CO2 emission profile. For the 2007 assessment report these scenarios were used to model predictions for future global temperatures. The results for each of the scenarios were then used to lobby governments. It would appear that as a result of these predictions, there is one favoured scenario – namely B1 which alone is capable of limiting temperature rises to 2 degrees . . . more
Not that that will stop the global warming dogmatists, whose behavior is clearly motivated by something beyond the scientific search for truth. But the rest of us can certainly take note and pass the information on.