Investment and other financial matters

The Suspicious "Science" Behind Man-Made Global Warming

James Anderson

Jun 30 2009

QUOTE: if you’re looking for scientifically rigorous experiments linking CO2
to increased temperatures, I have bad news for you: It doesn’t exist.

Supporters may be more concerned with politics than facts.

Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, had an op-ed in Monday’s
New York Times in which he called anyone who’s skeptical of man-made global
warming a "traitor to the Earth."

Now, I don’t have a PhD in Economics (although I do have one in another
field), nor do I have a Nobel Prize, but that accusation seems a bit over
the top. Perhaps it’s just another example of the growing societal acrimony
frequently discussed on Minyanville.

I’d like to take a look at the evidence for global warming resulting from
increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere: The argument is that more infrared
radiation released by the Earth is captured given the higher concentration
of CO2 in the air, thereby warming the planet.

However, if you’re looking for scientifically rigorous experiments linking
CO2  to increased temperatures, I have bad news for you: It doesn’t exist.

What we have are computer models showing that increased CO2 levels will lead
to catastrophic increases in global temperatures; an increase of as little
as 10 degrees Fahrenheit will cause a lot of ice will melt, the sea level to
rise, and Newfoundland to resemble Bermuda.

But that’s the model talking.

Can any model accurately capture the complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere?

There are certainly many sophisticated ones out there. Happily, most of them
use actual physical experiments to verify their underlying assumptions.
However, until the "Flux Capacitor" from Back to the Future gets built, any
climate model will need decades to verify its assumptions using real data.

Climate simply refers to one day of weather after another.

Global-warming true believers, let me ask you the following question: Do you
view weather forecast projections for 2 weeks from today with the same
certainty that you do a computer model that purports to predict the weather
100 years from now? If not, why not? After all, they’re both based on
computer models.

If your neighbor told you he were getting a tent for his daughter’s wedding
reception 2 weeks from now, and you told him not to bother, because a
computer model predicted sunny weather, do you think he’d take you
seriously?

The key to good science — not good politics — is understanding the
scientific method. Richard Feynmann, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, put
it this way: "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t
matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong."

Since we can’t look 50 years into the future, let’s go back and look at the
actual climate forecasts from 6 to 7 years ago, and compare the global
temperature forecasts to the actual observed temperatures.

Here’s some science that no one with a vested political or financial
interest in climate change would want you to know: The warmest year since
1934 was 1998, at the height of the strongest El Nino on record.

The gold standard for CO2 measurement is taken at Mauna Loa Observatory in
Hawaii. In 1998, the observatory recorded 366 parts per million (ppm) of CO2
in the atmosphere; it steadily rose to 386 ppm in 2008. In the meantime, the
earth has cooled.

If we go back to climate models from, say, 2002, what did they predict
during the past 7 years as CO2 was steadily rising?

As you can see, the IPCC models — the ones blessed by the UN — predicted
that global temperatures would be steadily warming, but instead they’ve been
cooling. Let’s recall what Feynmann said: If the data don’t agree with the
theory, the theory’s wrong — regardless of a widespread public desire to
blame Exxon (XOM), or Chevron (CVX), or Hummers (GM) for global warming.

The observed temperature data don’t match what the model predicts. In
physics (my field), we’d look at both the experiment and the data to see
whether there was something wrong with the experiment’s design, or whether
the data were right and the theory wrong. Either way, we’d step back and
reevaluate everything.

What we certainly wouldn’t do is cram 300 pages of amendments through
Congress at 3:00 a.m. and force a vote the next day.

To quote Professor Krugman’s article:

"Sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if
dissenting opinion makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work
and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with
experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was
misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly."

"Authoritative analyses" a phrase that sums up the problem better than I
ever could have. Not scientific analyses, not peer-reviewed, not unbiased —  
but authoritative. Sounds kind of like Iran, North Korea, or Al Gore to me.

"If they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts, and
concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided — they
could at least claim to be acting responsibly," Krugman says. I don’t even
have to be snide about this quote.

CBSnews.com had an article this past weekend about an EPA scientist who
wrote a 98-page report warning against making hasty "decisions based on a
scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available
data." The report was quashed by an EPA official who wrote in an email to a
staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration has
decided to move forward … and your comments do not help the legal or
policy case for this decision."

To give you another example, the first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology
was Joanne Simpson. Last year, she wrote a telling article, in which she
said: "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any
funding, I can speak quite frankly," suggesting that she may have felt
obliged to keep quiet on those of her views that were at odd with her
funders’.

I’m not surprised that Professor Krugman has never heard of any of the
highly qualified researchers who are skeptical of man-made global warming,
because they’re typically either quashed, ignored by the mainstream media,
or threatened by the ruin of their professional careers.

Dr Simpson’s first line is classic.

"There are way too many myths out there about global warming that never get
fact-checked. Krugman thinks that Arctic ice is decreasing at terrifying
rates. And yet, ice coverage through June is just about average for the past
8 years. Also, the average Arctic temperature is holding near 32� F, the
latest date in the year it’s been that cold in 50 years of record keeping.
That’s terrifying?"

Back in March, 2007, Al Gore told Congress that "the science is settled."
Don’t do any more research, don’t question my judgment, "The science is
settled." The person who probably heard that first was Galileo Galilei: "The
science is settled. The Sun revolves around the Earth, not vice versa.
You’re hereby sentenced to house arrest until you recant your heretical
views." Poor Galileo, the man Albert Einstein called "the father of modern
science," spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

There’s no doubt the science isn’t settled. The data’s not fitting the
model. With the Earth cooling, what was the real reason for cramming the Cap
& Tax Bill (its actual name) through the House? Hopefully, some "cooler"
heads will start looking at both sides of the story, and will come up with
an energy bill that doesn’t include caps on CO2  – which, it’s beginning to
seem, may have nothing to do with global warming.

Traitors, betraying the planet?

Paul, let me give you a little advice.

You got Cap & Tax through the House. It’s summer — chill. Lighten up a bit
and check out icecap.us.

You might discover that there are some quality traitors at work out there.

http://www.minyanville.com/articles/xom-CVX-gm-Global-CLIMATE-warming…

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (2)

2 Responses to “The Suspicious "Science" Behind Man-Made Global Warming”

  1. admin says:

    "James" <kingko…@iglou.com> wrote in message

    news:4a4d776d$0$18231$d94e5ade@news.iglou.com…

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > "enigma" <enigma_…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:e8c6b86f-08f6-4431-bfb6-792265c6647c@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com…
    > On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, "z0n0b" <i…@j.com> wrote:
    >> James Anderson

    >> Jun 30 2009

    >> QUOTE: if you’re looking for scientifically rigorous experiments linking
    >> CO2
    >> to increased temperatures, I have bad news for you: It doesn’t exist.

    >> Supporters may be more concerned with politics than facts.

    >> Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, had an op-ed in Monday’s
    >> New York Times in which he called anyone who’s skeptical of man-made
    >> global
    >> warming a "traitor to the Earth."

    >> Now, I don’t have a PhD in Economics (although I do have one in another
    >> field), nor do I have a Nobel Prize, but that accusation seems a bit over
    >> the top. Perhaps it’s just another example of the growing societal
    >> acrimony
    >> frequently discussed on Minyanville.

    >> I’d like to take a look at the evidence for global warming resulting from
    >> increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere: The argument is that more
    >> infrared
    >> radiation released by the Earth is captured given the higher
    >> concentration
    >> of CO2 in the air, thereby warming the planet.

    >> However, if you’re looking for scientifically rigorous experiments
    >> linking
    >> CO2  to increased temperatures, I have bad news for you: It doesn’t
    >> exist.

    >> What we have are computer models showing that increased CO2 levels will
    >> lead
    >> to catastrophic increases in global temperatures; an increase of as
    >> little
    >> as 10 degrees Fahrenheit will cause a lot of ice will melt, the sea level
    >> to
    >> rise, and Newfoundland to resemble Bermuda.

    >> But that’s the model talking.

    >> Can any model accurately capture the complexities of the Earth’s
    >> atmosphere?

    >> There are certainly many sophisticated ones out there. Happily, most of
    >> them
    >> use actual physical experiments to verify their underlying assumptions.
    >> However, until the "Flux Capacitor" from Back to the Future gets built,
    >> any
    >> climate model will need decades to verify its assumptions using real
    >> data.

    >> Climate simply refers to one day of weather after another.

    >> Global-warming true believers, let me ask you the following question: Do
    >> you
    >> view weather forecast projections for 2 weeks from today with the same
    >> certainty that you do a computer model that purports to predict the
    >> weather
    >> 100 years from now? If not, why not? After all, they’re both based on
    >> computer models.

    >> If your neighbor told you he were getting a tent for his daughter’s
    >> wedding
    >> reception 2 weeks from now, and you told him not to bother, because a
    >> computer model predicted sunny weather, do you think he’d take you
    >> seriously?

    >> The key to good science — not good politics — is understanding the
    >> scientific method. Richard Feynmann, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
    >> put
    >> it this way: "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t
    >> matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s
    >> wrong."

    >> Since we can’t look 50 years into the future, let’s go back and look at
    >> the
    >> actual climate forecasts from 6 to 7 years ago, and compare the global
    >> temperature forecasts to the actual observed temperatures.

    >> Here’s some science that no one with a vested political or financial
    >> interest in climate change would want you to know: The warmest year since
    >> 1934 was 1998, at the height of the strongest El Nino on record.

    >> The gold standard for CO2 measurement is taken at Mauna Loa Observatory
    >> in
    >> Hawaii. In 1998, the observatory recorded 366 parts per million (ppm) of
    >> CO2
    >> in the atmosphere; it steadily rose to 386 ppm in 2008. In the meantime,
    >> the
    >> earth has cooled.

    >> If we go back to climate models from, say, 2002, what did they predict
    >> during the past 7 years as CO2 was steadily rising?

    >> As you can see, the IPCC models — the ones blessed by the UN —  
    >> predicted
    >> that global temperatures would be steadily warming, but instead they’ve
    >> been
    >> cooling. Let’s recall what Feynmann said: If the data don’t agree with
    >> the
    >> theory, the theory’s wrong — regardless of a widespread public desire to
    >> blame Exxon (XOM), or Chevron (CVX), or Hummers (GM) for global warming.

    >> The observed temperature data don’t match what the model predicts. In
    >> physics (my field), we’d look at both the experiment and the data to see
    >> whether there was something wrong with the experiment’s design, or
    >> whether
    >> the data were right and the theory wrong. Either way, we’d step back and
    >> reevaluate everything.

    >> What we certainly wouldn’t do is cram 300 pages of amendments through
    >> Congress at 3:00 a.m. and force a vote the next day.

    >> To quote Professor Krugman’s article:

    >> "Sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if
    >> dissenting opinion makers and politicians based their dissent on hard
    >> work
    >> and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted
    >> with
    >> experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was
    >> misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly."

    >> "Authoritative analyses" a phrase that sums up the problem better than I
    >> ever could have. Not scientific analyses, not peer-reviewed, not
    >> unbiased —
    >> but authoritative. Sounds kind of like Iran, North Korea, or Al Gore to
    >> me.

    >> "If they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts, and
    >> concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided —  
    >> they
    >> could at least claim to be acting responsibly," Krugman says. I don’t
    >> even
    >> have to be snide about this quote.

    >> CBSnews.com had an article this past weekend about an EPA scientist who
    >> wrote a 98-page report warning against making hasty "decisions based on a
    >> scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the
    >> available
    >> data." The report was quashed by an EPA official who wrote in an email to
    >> a
    >> staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration
    >> has
    >> decided to move forward … and your comments do not help the legal or
    >> policy case for this decision."

    >> To give you another example, the first woman to receive a PhD in
    >> meteorology
    >> was Joanne Simpson. Last year, she wrote a telling article, in which she
    >> said: "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive
    >> any
    >> funding, I can speak quite frankly," suggesting that she may have felt
    >> obliged to keep quiet on those of her views that were at odd with her
    >> funders’.

    >> I’m not surprised that Professor Krugman has never heard of any of the
    >> highly qualified researchers who are skeptical of man-made global
    >> warming,
    >> because they’re typically either quashed, ignored by the mainstream
    >> media,
    >> or threatened by the ruin of their professional careers.

    >> Dr Simpson’s first line is classic.

    >> "There are way too many myths out there about global warming that never
    >> get
    >> fact-checked. Krugman thinks that Arctic ice is decreasing at terrifying
    >> rates. And yet, ice coverage through June is just about average for the
    >> past
    >> 8 years. Also, the average Arctic temperature is holding near 320 F, the
    >> latest date in the year it’s been that cold in 50 years of record
    >> keeping.
    >> That’s terrifying?"

    >> Back in March, 2007, Al Gore told Congress that "the science is settled."
    >> Don’t do any more research, don’t question my judgment, "The science is
    >> settled." The person who probably heard that first was Galileo Galilei:
    >> "The
    >> science is settled. The Sun revolves around the Earth, not vice versa.
    >> You’re hereby sentenced to house arrest until you recant your heretical
    >> views." Poor Galileo, the man Albert Einstein called "the father of
    >> modern
    >> science," spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

    >> There’s no doubt the science isn’t settled. The data’s not fitting the
    >> model. With the Earth cooling, what was the real reason for cramming the
    >> Cap
    >> & Tax Bill (its actual name) through the House? Hopefully, some "cooler"
    >> heads will start looking at both sides of the story, and will come up
    >> with
    >> an energy bill that doesn’t include caps on CO2  – which, it’s beginning
    >> to
    >> seem, may have nothing to do with global warming.

    >> Traitors, betraying the planet?

    >> Paul, let me give you a little advice.

    >> You got Cap & Tax through the House. It’s summer — chill. Lighten up a
    >> bit
    >> and check out icecap.us.

    >> You might discover that there are some quality traitors at work out
    >> there.

    >> http://www.minyanville.com/articles/xom-CVX-gm-Global-CLIMATE-warming

    >> Warmest Regards

    >> Bonzo

    > Biased opinions are not news bozon.

    The FACT of global cooling for the last ten years is news.

    Warmest Regards

    Bonzo

  2. admin says:

    On Jul 2, 9:54 pm, "z0n0b" <i…@j.com> wrote:

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    > "James" <kingko…@iglou.com> wrote in message

    > news:4a4d776d$0$18231$d94e5ade@news.iglou.com…

    > > "enigma" <enigma_…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > >news:e8c6b86f-08f6-4431-bfb6-792265c6647c@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com…
    > > On Jul 2, 5:10 pm, "z0n0b" <i…@j.com> wrote:
    > >> James Anderson

    > >> Jun 30 2009

    > >> QUOTE: if you’re looking for scientifically rigorous experiments linking
    > >> CO2
    > >> to increased temperatures, I have bad news for you: It doesn’t exist.

    > >> Supporters may be more concerned with politics than facts.

    > >> Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, had an op-ed in Monday’s
    > >> New York Times in which he called anyone who’s skeptical of man-made
    > >> global
    > >> warming a "traitor to the Earth."

    > >> Now, I don’t have a PhD in Economics (although I do have one in another
    > >> field), nor do I have a Nobel Prize, but that accusation seems a bit over
    > >> the top. Perhaps it’s just another example of the growing societal
    > >> acrimony
    > >> frequently discussed on Minyanville.

    > >> I’d like to take a look at the evidence for global warming resulting from
    > >> increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere: The argument is that more
    > >> infrared
    > >> radiation released by the Earth is captured given the higher
    > >> concentration
    > >> of CO2 in the air, thereby warming the planet.

    > >> However, if you’re looking for scientifically rigorous experiments
    > >> linking
    > >> CO2  to increased temperatures, I have bad news for you: It doesn’t
    > >> exist.

    > >> What we have are computer models showing that increased CO2 levels will
    > >> lead
    > >> to catastrophic increases in global temperatures; an increase of as
    > >> little
    > >> as 10 degrees Fahrenheit will cause a lot of ice will melt, the sea level
    > >> to
    > >> rise, and Newfoundland to resemble Bermuda.

    > >> But that’s the model talking.

    > >> Can any model accurately capture the complexities of the Earth’s
    > >> atmosphere?

    > >> There are certainly many sophisticated ones out there. Happily, most of
    > >> them
    > >> use actual physical experiments to verify their underlying assumptions.
    > >> However, until the "Flux Capacitor" from Back to the Future gets built,
    > >> any
    > >> climate model will need decades to verify its assumptions using real
    > >> data.

    > >> Climate simply refers to one day of weather after another.

    > >> Global-warming true believers, let me ask you the following question: Do
    > >> you
    > >> view weather forecast projections for 2 weeks from today with the same
    > >> certainty that you do a computer model that purports to predict the
    > >> weather
    > >> 100 years from now? If not, why not? After all, they’re both based on
    > >> computer models.

    > >> If your neighbor told you he were getting a tent for his daughter’s
    > >> wedding
    > >> reception 2 weeks from now, and you told him not to bother, because a
    > >> computer model predicted sunny weather, do you think he’d take you
    > >> seriously?

    > >> The key to good science — not good politics — is understanding the
    > >> scientific method. Richard Feynmann, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist,
    > >> put
    > >> it this way: "It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t
    > >> matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s
    > >> wrong."

    > >> Since we can’t look 50 years into the future, let’s go back and look at
    > >> the
    > >> actual climate forecasts from 6 to 7 years ago, and compare the global
    > >> temperature forecasts to the actual observed temperatures.

    > >> Here’s some science that no one with a vested political or financial
    > >> interest in climate change would want you to know: The warmest year since
    > >> 1934 was 1998, at the height of the strongest El Nino on record.

    > >> The gold standard for CO2 measurement is taken at Mauna Loa Observatory
    > >> in
    > >> Hawaii. In 1998, the observatory recorded 366 parts per million (ppm) of
    > >> CO2
    > >> in the atmosphere; it steadily rose to 386 ppm in 2008. In the meantime,
    > >> the
    > >> earth has cooled.

    > >> If we go back to climate models from, say, 2002, what did they predict
    > >> during the past 7 years as CO2 was steadily rising?

    > >> As you can see, the IPCC models — the ones blessed by the UN —  
    > >> predicted
    > >> that global temperatures would be steadily warming, but instead they’ve
    > >> been
    > >> cooling. Let’s recall what Feynmann said: If the data don’t agree with
    > >> the
    > >> theory, the theory’s wrong — regardless of a widespread public desire to
    > >> blame Exxon (XOM), or Chevron (CVX), or Hummers (GM) for global warming.

    > >> The observed temperature data don’t match what the model predicts. In
    > >> physics (my field), we’d look at both the experiment and the data to see
    > >> whether there was something wrong with the experiment’s design, or
    > >> whether
    > >> the data were right and the theory wrong. Either way, we’d step back and
    > >> reevaluate everything.

    > >> What we certainly wouldn’t do is cram 300 pages of amendments through
    > >> Congress at 3:00 a.m. and force a vote the next day.

    > >> To quote Professor Krugman’s article:

    > >> "Sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if
    > >> dissenting opinion makers and politicians based their dissent on hard
    > >> work
    > >> and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted
    > >> with
    > >> experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was
    > >> misguided — they could at least claim to be acting responsibly."

    > >> "Authoritative analyses" a phrase that sums up the problem better than I
    > >> ever could have. Not scientific analyses, not peer-reviewed, not
    > >> unbiased —
    > >> but authoritative. Sounds kind of like Iran, North Korea, or Al Gore to
    > >> me.

    > >> "If they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts, and
    > >> concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided —  
    > >> they
    > >> could at least claim to be acting responsibly," Krugman says. I don’t
    > >> even
    > >> have to be snide about this quote.

    > >> CBSnews.com had an article this past weekend about an EPA scientist who
    > >> wrote a 98-page report warning against making hasty "decisions based on a
    > >> scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the
    > >> available
    > >> data." The report was quashed by an EPA official who wrote in an email to
    > >> a
    > >> staff researcher on March 17: "The administrator and the administration
    > >> has
    > >> decided to move forward … and your comments do not help the legal or
    > >> policy case for this decision."

    > >> To give you another example, the first woman to receive a PhD in
    > >> meteorology
    > >> was Joanne Simpson. Last year, she wrote a telling article, in which she
    > >> said: "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive
    > >> any
    > >> funding, I can speak quite frankly," suggesting that she may have felt
    > >> obliged to keep quiet on those of her views that were at odd with her
    > >> funders’.

    > >> I’m not surprised that Professor Krugman has never heard of any of the
    > >> highly qualified researchers who are skeptical of man-made global
    > >> warming,
    > >> because they’re typically either quashed, ignored by the mainstream
    > >> media,
    > >> or threatened by the ruin of their professional careers.

    > >> Dr Simpson’s first line is classic.

    > >> "There are way too many myths out there about global warming that never
    > >> get
    > >> fact-checked. Krugman thinks that Arctic ice is decreasing at terrifying
    > >> rates. And yet, ice coverage through June is just about average for the
    > >> past
    > >> 8 years. Also, the average Arctic temperature is holding near 320 F, the
    > >> latest date in the year it’s been that cold in 50 years of record
    > >> keeping.
    > >> That’s terrifying?"

    > >> Back in March, 2007, Al Gore told Congress that "the science is settled."
    > >> Don’t do any more research, don’t question my judgment, "The science is
    > >> settled." The person who probably heard that first was Galileo Galilei:
    > >> "The
    > >> science is settled. The Sun revolves around the Earth, not vice versa.
    > >> You’re hereby sentenced to house arrest until you recant your heretical
    > >> views." Poor Galileo, the man Albert Einstein called "the father of
    > >> modern
    > >> science," spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

    > >> There’s no doubt the science isn’t settled. The data’s not fitting the
    > >> model. With the Earth cooling, what was the real reason for cramming the
    > >> Cap
    > >> & Tax Bill (its actual name) through the House? Hopefully, some "cooler"
    > >> heads will start looking at both sides of the story, and will come up
    > >> with
    > >> an energy bill that doesn’t include caps on CO2  – which, it’s beginning
    > >> to
    > >> seem, may have nothing to do with global warming.

    > >> Traitors, betraying the planet?

    > >> Paul, let me give you a little advice.

    > >> You got Cap & Tax through the House. It’s summer — chill. Lighten up a
    > >> bit
    > >> and check out icecap.us.

    > >> You might discover that there are some quality traitors at work out
    > >> there.

    > >>http://www.minyanville.com/articles/xom-CVX-gm-Global-CLIMATE-warming

    > >> Warmest Regards

    > >> Bonzo

    > > Biased opinions are not news bozon.

    > The FACT of global cooling for the last ten years is news.

    > Warmest Regards

    > Bonzo- Hide quoted text –

    > – Show quoted text –

    The over bearing, morbidly obese Federal government can
    only stay in power by panicking the people with a continuous
    round of Chicken Little hoaxes. Remember? The sky is
    falling!