Free Markets, Free People

AGW’s Crumbling House Of Cards (updates)

Uh oh … in advance of Copenhagen when this government will try to give away what little is left of your earnings, reality is beginning to dawn:

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

That last sentence should tell you all you need to know about the AGW scam – if they can’t figure out what’s causing this cooling event, how in the world can they be relied upon to forecast the future? The fact is they use models which are, in the big scheme of things, technologically crude and force certain types of climate variables while minimizing or leaving out altogether numerous others. They can’t, in fact, model what has happend in our history, much less what is coming – and yet, by some, they’re taken as scientific “proof” of impending doom.

Now they have to deal with something their models didn’t at all predict:

The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.

[…]

Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

As for “settled science” and consensus:

“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,” says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

Or maybe we do:

Just a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill.

Again, that “settled science” canard of Al Gore’s is out the window. Not that there won’t be warmist deniers:

But a few scientists simply refuse to believe the British calculations. “Warming has continued in the last few years,” says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). However, Rahmstorf is more or less alone in his view. Hamburg Max Planck Institute scientist Jochem Marotzke, on the other hand, says: “I hardly know any colleagues who would deny that it hasn’t gotten warmer in recent years.”

But, as is obvious and is now being admitted, it hasn’t.

So back to the drawing board boys. When you can put a model that can duplicate the past with fidelity, then we might accept what it has to say about the future as “proof” of something. But trying to pawn off the results of those you now use in the face of the real temperatures and trends we’ve undergone (which are wildly different from the models) seems at best anti-scientific. The theory’s the models force have been disproved – or at least heavily damaged. Try, try again.

Unfortunately, even while the scientific community begins to understand the huge scam that has been pulled on them, politicians are blinkered creatures who, having now made up their unscientific minds that global warming is happening, and being a part of a caste which has as a juvenile part of its job description a desire to save the world, will meet in Copenhagen and try to strike a global monetary redistribution scheme to do so.

Facts – they don’t need no stinkin’ facts to give your money away. See “national debt”.

UPDATE: Hacked emails or leaked?  Which ever is the case, they’re pretty damning to the “science” of AGW.

UPDATE II: Remember the UN’s IPCC report that Copenhagen is going to be based upon?  Uh oh:

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

It is getting tougher and tougher for the alarmist warmists to maintain their “settled science” mantra. In fact, it’s getting tougher and tougher for them to even call what has been foisted upon the world “science” at all.

Question: How long will it take the media here (the stories are coming out of the UK and Australia and have been picked up by blogs here) to cover the story and, assuming they do, will it have legs are get the page A35 treatment?

[HT: Hot Air]

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

49 Responses to AGW’s Crumbling House Of Cards (updates)

  • Hey, did you see that Hadley CRU (which leads the scientific fight for AGW) was hacked by a Russian hacker yesterday.
    He got all the data that they refused to give out and the email correspondence as well.
    I downloaded it as soon as I found out and startd reading through it.
    Smoking gun and scam are my first impressions

    • I saw that this morning.  That could be the final nail in the coffin for global warming hysteria, but will the media really bother to cover this?  There may be some entertainment value in watching them try to put a lid on it, but it’s also disconcerting if they do.  Between this and the recent scandal after the Yamal data was finally released to the public, there’s enough evidence of wrongdoing to not only kill the ‘manmade warming’ movement, but also damage some careers, and deservedly so.

      • “Damage some careers”???

        Any scientist who engages in this level of apparent deceit should have his degrees revoked, the word FRAUD branded onto his forehead, and a copy of Galileo’s Dialogue shoved forcibly up his a**.

        I have little doubt that MiniTru will ignore this issue, but I’m curious about actual scientists around the world who’ve been duped by Jones and the other con artists.  What will they do?  Will they continue to go along with the fraud, or will their integrity demand that they blackball Jones and his gang?  Peer review may be about to get a LOT tougher for AGW papers, especially those coming out of the CRU.

        • I agree that it should do more than just damage some careers, and depending on how the story develops, it could destroy a few careers (also deservedly so).  But I am cynical that “MiniTru” will report the issue with the same zeal and flourish that they would if it was a blow against GW skepticism.  If they’re forced to cover it, they’ll find every possible angle to soften its impact, and thereby will limit the damage done to the careers of the people who are perpetrating this.

      • “but also damage some careers”

        It’s an attempted crime against humanity on the order of the Holocaust.  They tried to support the implementation of policies that would relatively impoverish the entire species!

        Seriously, it’s attempted murder on the order of hundreds of millions of people–certainly hundreds of millions of years off of the lifespan of every person in aggregate who would have been affected.

        If this can be proven, letter of marque should be issued for their heads, necks optional.
        Oh Kev?

        • Yes and thanks for pointing out the criminal nature of this thing.

          What’s the name of that guy Obama has as “Science Advisor,” Holgren?

          He’s a legatee of the Progressive fascination with eugenics, which was really the polite name for raceology. It is, I think, also a derivative of Malthusianism. The idea that there are just too many people, especially the wrong kind of people. This was writ large in the work of Progressive and Socialist heroine Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

          One thing you’ll find at the bottom of it all, and the late German variant of it was the now unciteable proof, is the homicidal impulse. The mass homicidal impulse, not just your everyday street thug variety of the impulse.

          • Good point, and one that really underscores the fundamental difference between modern liberalism and libertarianism (and, to a lesser extent, conservatism):

            The belief societal perfection can be achieved by active government intervention, rather than by increasing liberty and letting people decide how to live their own lives.

            The State / Elites vs. the people. 

            The age-old conflict is playing out again.  King George vs. the Americans, King Louis vs. the French, Tsar Nicholas vs. the Russians, the CPSU vs. the Russians, and now the democrats vs. the Americans.

    • Here’s a couple of links to start with:
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
      http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/
      I’ve looked at some of the files myself. It looks like most are genuine. The Hadley director admitted as much. The only possibility favoring AGW advocates is that the documents have been lightly salted with incriminating material.
       

    • Look for yourself

    • Except for the conspiracy aspects of the contents of FOIA2009.zip, exactly why was all this stuff secret in the first place ?
      Likewise, if the part of the theory that says this was put together as part of the review to Steve McIntyre’s FOIA request, exactly what contained with FOIA2009.zip, aside from the embarrassing conspiracy perpetrated by CRU employees, were the CRU officials trying to protect by denying the request on Nov. 13, 2009.
      Finally, the legal department of CRU found nothing strange reading this material that obviously reveals many unethical, if not illegal, acts by CRU employees ?
      Frankly, the best course for the CRU and the University of East Anglia is to announce that a ongoing probe had been started on Nov. 12, 2009 into the actions of various employees of the CRU, from material that came to light because of a FOIA request.

  • capt joe beat me to it.  Here’s a little gem from the alleged hacked e-mails:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.  [emphasis mine – dj505]

    This e-mail was allegedly sent by Dr. Phil Jones, the guru of global warming at CRU.

    If it and the others are authentic, then we have evidence of perhaps the greatest scientific conspiracy in history.

    One last excerpt regarding the difference in observed temperatures on land and at sea:

    We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important [emphasis mine – dj505]

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked

    DAMN those skeptics for daring to suggest competing theories about the cause of observed temperature increases!!! / sarc

    • Eisenhower warned of this sort of thing …<blockquote><em>The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present  and is gravely to be regarded.  Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, <strong>we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.</em></blockquote>Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

      • Interesting as Ike’s speech is normally flogged by lefties who want to cut defense spending and try to cast any opposition to their schemes as resistance from the military-industrial complex.

        Such is the woeful state of education in our country, and especially science education, that many Americans can be duped into believing virtually anything if it’s somehow pitched as “scientific”.  Witness commercials that use actors dressed as doctors to hawk a product, usually accompanied by fancy-looking but otherwise useless graphs to give the information a veneer of scientific legitimacy.

        Global warming is the same.  There are PhD’s (so they MUST be experts) who present all sort of numbers, graphs, “computer models” and fancy jargon: of COURSE people believe what they say.  Nobody stops to ask why a person with a PhD in economics or even chemistry is especially qualified as an expert on the climate.  Hell, nobody in MiniTru asks why a politician whose highest level of education consists of flunking out of seminary is especially qualified as an expert.

  • Al Gore: The temperature of the earth core is several million degrees.

    The science is settled I guess!

  • Expect the warmies to trot out the “false but accurate” defense.

  • Al Gore recently remarked that Geothermal energy was a good source of renewable power because the earth’s core is several million degrees hot.        O.o
     
    THAT’S why it’s getting hot!!! a star snuck into the earth’s core (and it’s a HOT star too, I mean, really really really hot, even for a star….okay, actually it’s like…@75 times hotter than the hottest star, but hey, Al is all about REAL science, so I bet he knows about a star out there that’s 10’s of millions of degrees hot!)
     

  • ” while others explain it through ocean currents”

    Someday perhaps they will realize that the ocean, and its currents, are part of the globe.

  • The deeper premise is that we are in an inter-glacial period (in other words, still technically within an ice age) and that these last ten thousand plus years of warming are the context within which civilization exists, as we know it.

    “Global warming” was to be the Reichstag as eternal flame for the Brave New World of global fascism. These people will not let go easily, however.

    When I read the late Michael Crichton’s novel, State of Fear, about the global warming hoax, I thought that he was exaggerating the level of deception unto coercion involved to make for a good story, but now it strikes me as pretty much right on target. I recommend it to anyone who hasn’t read it.

  • The Global Warming crowd is doomed. They know it as their “dream” in Copenhagen goes down in flames. And as this crappola goes down, so goes down The Clown™.

    Oh, and, by the way: hello again, folks. Sorry to be away for so long. Did I miss anything?

  • “It is getting tougher and tougher for the alarmist warmists to maintain their “settled science” mantra.”

    The very term “settled science” should set of red flags that real scientists are not the ones making that determination.  It is a bare-headed attempt to co-op the “settled law” argument commonly used by lawyers to say “that’s just the f—ing way it is!” and, thus, ward off any argument to the contrary regardless of how well constructed (and there are plenty of arguments against “settled law” that are quite convincing).  Any real scientist knows that is just not how things work.   How long were Spontaneous Generation and the Geocentric Universe accepted as “settled science”?  Galileo and Louis Pasteur would be positively dismayed at what passes for sound public policy today.

  • How many YEARS have I been saying that the computer models weren’t worth squat (putting it nicely) because they weren’t including all the data???

  • American Power tracked-back with (a BIG roundup), <a href=”http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-warming-hoax-breaks-wide-open-as.html“>’Global Warming Hoax Breaks Wide Open as Hackers Target East Anglia Climate Research Unit!'</a>.

  • I think that the media will not cover this up. It sells papers. They can claim they were lied to (they were!) so they have no reason not to cover the story. Sure, it has to get more exciting than the Yamal graphs, but this might be enough. Don’t expect Republican sex scandal levels of coverage though.
    The other scientists who used this data or who believed in AGW will have to decide how they want to approach this…I will bet that they will mostly agree that this is horrible and start backpedaling. They have jobs to keep, and the AGW was a gravy train but they will still have jobs without it, just less stature. Expect these guys in 20 years to be denying they ever supported AGW theory, like the Ice Age 70’s supporters did.
    Some guys might double down. Hansen already made a specific forecast that 2010 will be the hottest yet – I bet that blows up in his face, too.

    • Harun –  I think that the media will not cover this up. It sells papers.

      I think that we’re seeing increasing evidence that MiniTru doesn’t really care about “selling papers” when it conflicts with spreading lefty propaganda (and, given the leftist bent of the various editors and publishers and producers who control MiniTru, they may be outright disgusted by such a bourgeoise concept as “selling papers”).  DCNN’s ratings have tanked, and they are now the least-watched cable network.  Response: fire Beck and Dobbs to maintain ideological purity.  The networks have likewise steadily lost viewership, but do nothing other than hire Katie Couric to read the news.  Papers across the country are losing circulation, but respond by putting sexist photos of Sarah Palin on their covers (which, immature pig that I am, I sort of appreciate as she’s smokin’).

      So, if it comes to deciding between “cover a hot story to boost my sales” or “bury a story that is damaging to my political allies”, I think that MiniTru will pick the latter option without much hesitation.

      Harun –  Hansen already made a specific forecast that 2010 will be the hottest yet – I bet that blows up in his face, too.

      Of course
      2010 will be the hottest year on record… if the people who make such determinations are as crooked as they appear to be.  It’s a variant on the old Boss Tweed quote:

      “I don’t care who does the reporting, as long as I get to decide who does the measuring.”

      And so what if Hansen is wrong, even SPECTACULARLY wrong?  This is, after all, the same bozo who assured us thirty years ago that we’d be buried under glaciars and woolly mamoths by now, yet he is still treated as an “expert” by MiniTru.

      • They have an out. So they will use it. So will many other researchers.
        We have seen this before, with Dems who voted for the Iraq war, but ended up very conveniently saying “we were lied to.”
        Enough scientists will back down now (because they have some integrity) to make the media also do so, it will be slow though.

      • So, if it comes to deciding between “cover a hot story to boost my sales” or “bury a story that is damaging to my political allies”, I think that MiniTru will pick the latter option without much hesitation.

        No, they’ll report it with their typical subjective spin.
        Already MediaMatters and RealClimate are throwing themselves on their swords of delusion and denial.

  • Those emails are all fakes!  They were planted there by Dick Cheney and Haliburton!

  • Back in the 1990s, three of us talked senior management into installing a network with an email server.  The technical people liked it and intracompany communication got a lot better.  We could get trip reports from the road and access financials off site, but one aspect I had not considered began to worry me.

    Inappropriate email communications.  My boss was one of the worst offenders.  After receiving an offensive missive, I printed it and took it to his office where, behind a closed door, I asked him to sign it and post it on the bulletin board.  Of course, he declined.  The point is as valid on this AGW as it was then. 

    Emails can live forever and some people email some very dangerous stuff.  If you would not sign it and post it in the hallway, do not put it in an email.

  • All the leftwads and the science idolitors and the Erbs of the world owe us a big farking apology for trying to scare the crap out of us, and for scaring children. And what is more they all owe a goddamn down on your knees apology to Rush Limbaugh, because he was the first one to proclaim this all as a hoax, which it is.  Id especially like to see those rat bastard liberals at Scientific American have to eat crow.  Can we sue these charlatans?

    • I’ve got some bad news for you, Kyle.

      Not only will there be no apology, there will be a doubling-down on the hoax.

      The force behind this has a world of believers that will not be allowed to go to waste.

      The facts of deception that we are looking at now might make their way down to the streetcorner, but the deception has already circled the planet a million times.

      The deception isn’t over. It’s in place. And here comes the coercion.

      • Well, right now we have had a decade of no GW, public opinion in the US is swinging against the idea, cap and trade has been moved into 2010, and even the MSM is reporting that scientists don’t understand the cool temps of the decade.

        They can double down, but that will end up with them losing whatever credability they have left. Some, like key AGW scientists and supporters/promoters like Gore probably have no choice but to double down, since they have already sold their souls. But those on the margins, who can still save themselves have a reason to back down.

        A lot of AGW was drivin by self interest, and now the driving force of that self interest is inverting. You can already see it in the news, which is beginning to report on this stuff. I suspect NYT and CBS eventually cover this, they may not want to, they may downplay it, they may put the best spin on it (did I say may?) but unless they want to continue down the path of fail, they will need to cover it.

        • The AGW hoax survived a 98-0 rejection of Kyoto in the U.S. Senate, circa ’98. The complex web of promoters has since indoctrinated a generation of school kids to believe this stuff. They can go back to looking at the polls as half-full: “Look, 55% still believe us!”

          The skeptics have won the argument: About ten times already. Now, with the fundamental data falling apart, watch for the liberal horselaughs and “denier” accusations to be ramped up.

          This thing will get back up, like the guy in Halloween, and it will keep on coming.

          It’s a subsidiary of socialism. About which, witness the debate in the Senate this day.

          • I’m not sure about that. People don’t have to just blindly take scientists or leftists assertions about climate; they experience it directly. I think one of the main reasons behind public scepticism is that they don’t see the warming in their own lives; many places in the US have had various records (such as earliest snowfall) that indicate cooling instead of warming.

            Now, other places around the globe have had records indicating warming, but that’s because the globe is nice, big, complex place with a lot of variation, and that’s why those stupid models don’t work. But the average person doesn’t really get that. They depend far, far more on direct experience. I think we’re about one record cold winter away from support for “the settled science of global warming” eliciting a horse laugh from everyone but the loony left.

          • A few things.

            The new elite don’t care about what people think, unless people think what they want them to think.

            A case in point, huge, today: the health care debate in the Senate. There is no national consensus to take over a sixth of the economy so that the federal government is essentially running it. What’s more, there is no need for it. Further, the reasons being given for it (save money because the costs are out of control; cover everyone uncovered; make existing health care less expensive) are falsified by the legislation itself.

            So, it’s about power.

            Next: Europe. The EU is establishing control. It doesn’t really consult with the people of the constituent sovereign states it is gaining control over. It is, in essence, not very far at all from becoming a new Soviet Union. The people are largely pacified and told how things will work. Dissenters are marginalized. AGW is certainly alive there.

            Back in the U.S. “gay marriage” is now 0 for 31 on state ballots. Yet its supporters don’t care. Skeptical arguments are dismissed as “unfair.”

            If common sense can so easily be turned on its head, the science of AGW can be bluffed and fudged anew before the people who will actually pay for it even get the word that it’s been exposed as a hoax.

            Crichton does provide some hope that any given scientific hoax will eventually die down. He documents several that have. But there’s never been a scientific hoax like this one. This one is, if you’ll pardon the expression, an engineering marvel. A social engineering marvel. I live in a town where it is holy writ. People here wouldn’t even entertain the notion that it isn’t for real.

          • Martin, I don’t think AGW is 100% done yet, but I think it is fading fast. The weather is not cooperating with the AGW theory, the people don’t believe it anymore, and the scientific creds are slipping away. It will be hard for them to push through cap and trade, and if it fails I think that’s the end of it.

  • Since when have facts ever stopped religious fanatics? Faith is what counts, not reason.

  • The only unanswered question for me ..

    Did any of these folks (in the “hacked” e-mails) ever give testimony before Congress or any court under oath ?
    If so, they should go to jail.