In doing science, you see where the data leads.  After collecting data, conducting field and/or laboratory tests, and testing hypotheses, you draw conclusions based on the data and test results.  If scientists willfully violate this rule of practice, then they are conducting pseudo science, or if you prefer, “fake” science.  Scientists – objective, impartial, dispassionate and ethical practitioners that is – do not start with a conclusion (a prejudiced, preferred conclusion), and then go cherry picking data to fit that desired outcome, and along the way, bury, exclude or ignore data that contradicts the desired outcome.

(If this process or modus operandi sounds familiar, it is because historians-cum-propagandists do this, too.  Inconvenient facts that contradict the politically desired narrative are ignored and suppressed.  We have previously addressed the problems with Western historiography.  Of course, Western journalists are guilty of ignoring and burying inconvenient facts on a daily basis.)

She blinded me with science. – Thomas Dolby, 1982

 

 

manmade global warming as an example for discussion

With the recent anthropogenic global warming “theory”, we have such violations of the scientific method.  The public needs to be convinced of 2 things: 1. that the observed global temperatures are rising (and such rise is statistically significant); and 2. that the observed temperature increases are primarily due to the activity of human beings around the globe.  By the way, contrary to what many are asserting, this is not “settled science”.

(We are told that 95 per cent of climate scientists concur with Al Gore and assert that the atmospheric temperature is rising and that man’s activities are responsible for the rise.  It is not clear as to what exactly this alleged 95 per cent actually agree on.  (See link here.)  Before we rush to judgment, consider that if these 95 per cent of climate scientists reach the same conclusions by reviewing the very same data, and that data is flawed, their consensus in error does not do anything constructive for us.)

Here are some troubling issues with the first point above.  In “proving” the warming, the data sets (of observed temperatures) used were neither random nor a representative sample.  The reliance on too many data points located near to concrete cities (also known as heat islands or heat sinks) yields more warming than is observed across the entire landscape or land area of the earth’s surface.  (see links here and here and here )  Simply put, the data is skewed because too much heat island data is included vis-à-vis rural and open country temperature data.  (This is why we heard that observed night time temperatures were rising the fastest.  Yes, if you over represent these heat island observations you will get elevated night time temperatures as concrete heated during the day radiates away its heat at night.)  Bear in mind, that cities even with urban sprawl make up only a very small percentage of the land area of most countries.  Also, much observed temperature data for Russia, not an insignificant fraction of the landmass on Earth, was excluded because such data failed to show significant warming (see here) again skewing the data.  As well, when there were differences between the more comprehensive satellite temperature data and the ground based (abridged and skewed) data, the satellite data was downplayed by the promoters of manmade global warming because it showed less warming (see here and for an earlier critique and analysis click here).

The East Anglia IPCC email scandal (2009, known as “Climategate”) indicates chicanery and fraud in the science.  (See links here and here  and for a good analysis of how the IPCC violates the accepted scientific methods and practices see hereanother relevant article here ).  Of course, in an effort at damage control, these leaked emails were said to be “fake” or had been taken “out of context” (see here).

Let us now turn to the second requirement, that of convincing the public that man’s activities are the cause of the alleged warming.

The sun’s cycles are a major factor or cause of multi-decade warming periods throughout history and pre-history.  There have been warmer periods before in history prior to the Industrial Revolution and no reputable scientist is asserting these were caused by the actions of humans.  (We would point out also that no sane person will assert that the actions of humans can affect the behavior of the Sun, a main sequence star that will emit more warming energy over time as it grows older.)  See links here and here.  An interesting item of note is that data from astronomers in the past 20 years had shown that some of the other planets and moons in the solar system were warming.  What can we on Earth possibly have in common with the planets and moons further out in space from the Sun?!  In the following linked article, the warming of other worlds is noted but then the author quickly shifts into high gear to protect the dogmatic manmade global warming idea here.)

This is critical to the public policy debate!  If, in fact, most of the observed warming was due to an active solar cycle* (decades long) and not the effect of man’s activities, then major efforts and costly sacrifices undertaken on a global scale to reduce carbon emissions will not significantly reduce the dreaded warming.  Let us suppose that man’s activities were/are responsible for 20 per cent of the observed warming.  If this were the case, reducing man’s effects by 50 per cent (not realistically achievable in the near or even intermediate term) would only serve to reduce the expected future warming by 10 per cent.  (Of course, there are those who will speak of synergistic effects of the many variables involved in climate and in weather, but the above example serves to illustrate our point.)

* We are now hearing of global cooling as the last active solar cycle responsible for much of the warming ended around 2005 or so..  There are some researchers that say by 2030, it will be difficult to deny that the Earth is cooling ( see here and here).  What will those who have invested their reputations and their careers in promoting this idea of manmade global warming do then?  (Does anyone here recall in the mid to late 1970s, we were told that the Earth was heading into an ice age?  Perhaps, it was those same individuals who reinvented themselves and surfaced again 20 years later proclaiming the inevitable global warming caused by man.)

As to the concentration of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere rising significantly since the Industrial Revolution, there can be no disagreement.  The unresolved issue is: does increased CO2 cause the increase in temperatures?  Ice core samples show that long ago periods of warmer temperatures were accompanied by more CO2 in the atmosphere.  However, other variables are not given sufficient study and analysis.  Coming out of previous ice ages (largely caused by the Earth’s long-term orbital dynamics and cycles) there was some warming prior to an increase in atmospheric CO2.  Also, volcanic eruptions are one source of CO2.  Yet such eruptions also contribute to aerosols that block sunlight and serve to reduce global temperatures until these precipitate out of the atmosphere or are broken down by UV radiation from the Sun.  Thus, volcanic eruptions introduce “noise” in the data on ancient temperatures and CO2 concentrations.  (By the way, water vapor is a much more effective “green house” gas and helps Earth to be habitable and not in a permanent frozen state.)  In the Permian Age, CO2 concentrations were lower than today, much lower, yet the temperature of the Earth was 10 degrees Celsius higher back then.  CO2 is not the only variable scientists should be looking at.  See articles  here, here, and here .

(Caution is warranted when considering the use of computer models to predict the magnitude of any increase in global temperatures in the future.  There are so many variables and more importantly very many interrelationships among the variables (not yet so well understood) involved that the climate is one of the most challenging phenomena in the natural world to mathematically model.  Thus, computer model predictions for future global temperatures may be a case of “garbage in garbage out”.)

For an article on El Nino’s effect on global temperature, see here.

Despite the sensation caused in the early 2000s by ice shelves breaking off from the Antarctic peninsula (which makes up only between one and two percent of the Antarctic continent’s area), Antarctica as a whole is not losing ice (see links here and here).  The peninsula is experiencing some anomalous changes that are not so far being observed on the rest of the continent.  After warming for 75 years, the peninsula has now cooled over the past 15 years (see article).  Greenland may be losing some ice while Antarctic ice sheets are slowly growing.  (And, do not panic when you see video clips of glacial ice collapsing into the sea.  This seasonal phenomena occurs each year in the spring and summer.  Snow and ice accumulating on land in these polar regions throughout the year offsets this loss of ice in the spring.  Net ice sheet growth or net ice sheet shrinkage is what is important.  Do not worry about the state of sea-borne ice as this does not alter sea level.  It is only the ice on land melting and draining into the sea that will serve to raise sea level.  Although, there is some relatively small expansion of water due to small increases in water temperatures, this is not enough to cause doomsday scenarios.)

As to sea level rise in recent centuries, here is an interesting, but quite lengthy article on mean sea level since 1841.

Sadly , those who are skeptical in light of all the above, are simply called “deniers” and dismissed (not taken seriously).

money versus integrity

Grant money and the need to secure such money is a motivation for bias in the minds of some practitioners, sorry to say.  (Of course, there can also be ideological bias and peer pressure working in the minds of both practitioners of science and those in executive capacities in various scientific organizations.)  Scientists who wished to receive additional grant monies from governments and from private sources needed to deliver the desired results, meaning they had to produce results from their funded studies that supported this idea of manmade global warming.  (Regarding who funds global warming research, see here.  For suppression of contradictory data, see hereMassive federal government funding effectively out shouts and shuts down those in science who dare dispute manmade global warming (article).  Another insightful analysis of the dangers of corruption among climate researchers due to large amounts of money hereFor a catch-all of many related aspects of the global warming corrupted science click hereFor more on scientific and academic corruption in climate science, see here.)

questions for readers

Do we want public policy on a national, and even international level, to be informed and/or guided by a corrupted, politicized scientific establishment and its faulty research findings?  Do we really want agenda driven science?  Is it wise to not question ideological bias in science practitioners?  Taking a step back, we ask: What about the powers behind the scenes pushing this manmade global warming idea in order to get a worldwide carbon tax, and further undermine national sovereignty?  What else have we been misled about?  Other questions or areas of concern could be (and actually are) the safety of childhood vaccines, and the ecological and health effects of these undeniable manmade chemtrails in the air above us.

the moral(s) of the story

As with most human endeavors, science is only as good as the integrity of its practitioners.

1.  It is prudent to maintain a healthy skepticism as regards the claims of science and scientists in these times.  This also applies to the news media that have largely conditioned tens if not hundreds of millions of people in the Western world by repeating the mantra of manmade global warming.  Remember those in the media are not hired for their intelligence or for their integrity.

2.  For those who place their faith and trust in science and scientists, it is terribly disturbing to feel deceived, or at the very least misled by those whom you trusted.  If you cannot trust science practitioners, who can you trust?  Yet, scientists are not incapable of error.  They are human beings and suffer many of the same frailties as the rest of us.

3.  To those in science we say: If you wish to continue to enjoy the prestige, the trust, and the deference due a medieval priesthood, then clean up your act.  Adhere to a code of ethics and follow the data (not the money) and see where it leads.  Do not falsify in any way the data, and thereby falsify your conclusions.

4.  The interested citizen must exercise his or her own due diligence in considering Internet sources of information.  It can be a challenge to find reliable information from trusted sources.  We found that there is much propaganda masquerading as science out there today on the Internet.  We also observe the near fanatical closing of ranks on the part of scientists, technicians, academicians and science writers (in scientific journals and periodicals) in their attempts at “debunking” and discrediting criticisms of, and objections to this idea of manmade global warming.  If manmade global warming were to be disproved or fall out of favor in the public’s consciousness, this would be the psychological equivalent of death for these science practitioners and writers.  (The results returned from web searches may even be biased and skewed as Google’s search algorithms may be biased as some individuals have asserted.  This is something most of us cannot pass judgment on.)  Ask yourself if the source(s) have vested financial interests and/or ideological/political objectives in the side of the argument they have adopted.  It is a little more complex than merely being a competition between fossil fuel companies and renewable, “green” energy industries.

5.  We have previously written on the very old concepts of conservation and stewardship, and these are important to be sure.  But, we caution readers about sliding into an emotion driven eco-fanaticism because of the currently prevalent group-think that is produced by the mass media.

copyright 2018 – larrysmusings.com