Free Markets, Free People


When Speculation Becomes “Science” – More AGW “Meltdown”

This gets worse and worse – or better and better, depending on which side of the man-made global warming scenario you come down on.  This time it is the Himalayan glaciers:

A warning that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research.

Yet it found its way into a science journal, and later was included in the IPCC’s 2007 report as an alleged scientific finding? How many scientists signed that report? And why, now that the CRU and NASA’s GISS data (the basis for the AGW hypothesis) has been called into question and we find the glacier “scientific fact” was based on speculation, not research, should we ever take anything they say seriously?

This is an excellent example of the worth of anything called “scientific consensus”. Cherry-picked and manipulated data along with claims based in pure speculation.

That’s science? That’s what we should base life-changing political policies on?

AGW is dead. I just wonder how long it will take politicians and the religious “environmental” zealots to finally realize that?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

9 Responses to When Speculation Becomes “Science” – More AGW “Meltdown”

  • “AGW is dead. I just wonder how long it will take politicians and the religious “environmental” zealots to finally realize that?”

    They’ve been training kids in school for decades that industry is evil.  They started with my generation and they were amateurs that anyone with the will to use a braincell and a sense of independence could see through.  All too many lack one or the other.

    And they’ve refined their conditioning.  eg.  Baby polar bears trapped alone on ice flows shown to 5-6 year old children.

    They only need to sway the swing portion of voters.  And those voters have been conditioned for over a generation to accept such as fact.

    • Except that a few years ago a majority bought into it, now the majority reject it. They are losing this one.

      • What I’m saying is that they are ready to move onto the next one.

        They came so close this time it wasn’t funny.  If it wasn’t for a little luck of a period of cooling and some cold winters, they may have been successful.  If Obama was in office a couple of years ago, they may have been successful.

        Before global warming, they were on global cooling.  They’ve resurrected and prepped it already with a new name, “global dimming”.  If that doesn’t stick, they’ll find something else.  I’ll end with a quote from the Terminator.

        Listen, and understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, remorse or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

  • So where in this process did the peer review take place? Does it mean that several scientists read the ‘New Science’ article? I think it probably means they reviewed all those  papers for grammar and spelling mistakes.

    • I was thinking the same thing.  The authors and organizers of the IPCC reports are the same people who maligned people like Steven McIntyre, belittling them for not having more peer-reviewed work.  Then it’s discovered that they tried to manipulate the peer-review process to block dissenting views, while skipping the entire review process (at any level) to include alarmist claims that they couldn’t even properly summarize!

      But I think there’s a bigger problem here.  We have very little data about the climate and weather.  Some of that data has been destroyed.  Much of it has apparently been manipulated into uselessness in pursuit of a political agenda.  Question- just how far back has climate science research been set by these actions?  And when will we begin the process of repairing the damage?  At present, the Church of Global Warming continues to dismiss climategate and other embarrassing failures as it presses forward with its insistence that AGW is not just as bad as they claimed, but worse!  And there are still scientific publications and plenty of media who are compromised and perfectly comfortable continuing to push this fraud.

      And just how much damage is being done to science in general?

  • The quote is from a veteran geologist who, yesterday, restated his  observations about the declining glaciers.  It’s happening faster than ever.   Google is Lord.

  • Sorry, it’s not dead.  Just on leave.   The UN cannot afford to squander this opportunity to put in place a global taxing system.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet