Free Markets, Free People


All of a sudden, it’s OK to question the conclusions of climate alarmists

Following on Phil Jones’ tentative walkback, we’re starting to see articles like this one, questioning the very foundations of global warming.

“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.

Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

So are we warming at all? Besides Phil Jones admitting that there’s no statistically significant evidence for it since 1995, the article above casts more doubt:

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

“The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years,” he said.

Naturally, the usual suspects are sticking to the “global warming is definite” position. The article quotes Kevin Trenberth, who was involved in the Climategate scandal, as one of them. Another is the head of the Met Office that seems to be hellbent on working warming into their weather predictions.

We seem to have passed a tipping point in the last few weeks. At the very least we’ve moved from global warming/climate change being discussed as a quasi-religious cause being crammed down everyone’s throats to having some genuine debate about the data and the science.

Not to say there are not holdouts; some people won’t give up their religion easily. Most American legacy media outlets have been silent, for example, and the comments on the article above still contain the usual ears-in-fingers-I-can’t-hear-you entries. However, if the best the Daily Mail can come up with to defend global warming are those already caught up in controversies of their own, that in itself is an indicator of just how much the debate has changed.

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

21 Responses to All of a sudden, it’s OK to question the conclusions of climate alarmists

  • we’re starting to see articles like this one, questioning the very foundations of global warming.

    >>>> Not so much in the American media though

    • The media need to be shown the “middle ground” where they can walkback AGW but not be seen as the fools they were.

      • NeoThe media need to be shown the “middle ground” where they can walkback AGW but not be seen as the fools they were.
        Is there such a middle ground?  It seems to me that the best MiniTru can do is to admit, “Our reporters are scientific illiterates who didn’t know enough to even ask the right questions, and indeed were so dazzled by all the numbers, graphs, tables, and models that were thrown at them  by people with “Ph.D.” after their names, it never occurred to them to ask anything.  Yes, yes: some people tried to tell us that there were serious problems with AGW, but we thought those criticisms were politically motivated, and our reporters are so politically illiterate that they can’t tell the difference between scientific criticism and political hackery.  But all this shouldn’t be taken as an admission that you can’t trust our reporters to ask tough questions and get to the truth.  Because they can.  We can give you lots of examples.  Just not here.”

        If they admitted the truth, it would be that a combination of scientific illiteracy and political activism made them virtual co-conspirators with Algore and his fellow hucksters, and they don’t STILL want to report about the problems with AGW not only because they are ashamed but also because they are trying to hold on to some tiny shreds of credibility.  Really, after AGW, is it possible to believe ANYTHING MiniTru reports?

      • They want to throw the data under the bus before the conscious manipulation of the data comes to widespread light.  Hell, they could end up in front of Congress as Congress through these guys under the bus to protect their own careers.

        That duo that exposed the cherry picking of data must have hit the nail on the head.

  • PS- I’d call this a bit of an “inconvenient truth”.

  • I can almost hear the walk back.  “Well, I always had my doubts, but THEY were always so convincing that I thought they were right.”

  • Since science is irrelevant to you, and all that matters is the political narrative, you may believe you’ve passed a tipping point (even though the wild winter weather we’re having is part of what global warming predicts — including snow storms where there usually are not snow storm).  But the science is very clear, and you are so lost in trying to win a political meme war that you are in danger of condemning future generations to a fate much worse than they’d otherwise have had if we were to act sooner.  I’m amazed by the level of short sightedness in doing that, how you’ve blinded yourself to real science in order to focus on a couple of blunders to try to spread the disinformation.  I don’t think you realize you’re buying into a heavily funded propaganda campaign by big oil and big industry (they do things like effectively brainwash bloggers by taking them on junkets, among other things).   I think you actually believe this is some kind of conspiracy.
    You provide an example of the kind of hyper-relativism I’m research/writing on now.  Truth doesn’t matter to you.   The future doesn’t matter.   History gets rewritten, all to service a political bias.  Reality doesn’t matter.   You are a prime example of why America is in decline, even as many of us work hard to try to resurrect a belief that truth trumps ideology.
    Sooner or later, as the evidence mounts and real world events like the weird weather we’ve been having (from Vancouver to Miami) makes it undeniable that global climate change is occuring, you’ll grow mute.   You’ll change topics.   Just like with Iraq, when the war failed so much you managed to shift positions and pretend like the whole set of goals listed in 2002-03 failed and redefine success as just creating some stability.   And as future generations suffer more than they should, you’ll wash your hands of your (admittedly small) role in this propaganda campaign.  You’re being used, and you don’t even seem to realize it.

    • I had to look twice at the author of that one. I was convinced that it was Ott Scerb when I got to the bottom.

    • So, Erbie, tell us about all the credentials that make you qualified to dispute the scientists and statiticians quoted in the article. You’re really big on that credential thing, all the time going on about your degrees. So tell us, what science courses did you take? How much physics? Do you understand thermodynamics? How did you do in math? Any statistics beyond two red balls and five blue balls in a box? Any differential equations?

      I somehow doubt you’ve got good answers to those questions, unlike many of the others who frequent this place. But somehow we’re the ones who are hyper-partisan and taken in by big oil progaganda. Do you realize how stupid that sounds? As if YOU are not vulnerable to whatever propaganda circulates around academia, considering that you lack the training or brains to figure any of this out for yourself.

    • Erb, the science is clear on one thing and that is that there is NO warming.  Let me throw your appeal to authority back at you.  What the heck would you know about the science anyway, you’re an artsie.  You have no background to even understand the math involved.  As an aside, the math involved with proving the stats are wrong is 2nd year at best.
      Ah the conspiracy of big oil propaganda.  My god man, you are truly delusional.  So far the real evidence is that with all the money being thrown at this, scientists and activists have jumped on the bandwagon for their part of the big payoff.
      Good, when Otto Scerb starts sounding more rational than you, you know it is time to throw in the towel.

    • Even for you Scott this is staggering in its obtusity.  And talk about the pot calling the kettle black.  One wonders what exactly would cause you to write even something as mild as “perhaps the observed warming is more natural than previously thought.”

    • Actually the truth is Erb, that you have bought into a colossal hoax, and for all your sophistication and learning they played you like a rube.

      In fact, you ought to get down on your knees and kiss Rush Limbaugh’s fat hairy ass because he was on to these hucksters a long time ago, and now the evidence is that he was right and you were wrong.

    • Heh – You’re irrational, you know that?

    • Erb has perfected self parody.

  • Ha! Even Scott Orb knows the battle is lost for the warmists!   All he can do now is cry in his 3.2 beer and hurl vague insults along the lines of “you’re gonna be sorry someday!!!!”

    Oh come on, Scott, say “Rue the Day!!”   All really bad hammy losers have got to say “You will RUE THE DAY!!!!”

    Btw, you haven’t even read your own “science” (of which you know nothing, Scott)   The theory was that increasing WARM air masses would lead to increasing precipitation.    That would lead to more hurricanes, which is why your patron saint Al Gore predicted that.   But hurricanes have slowed way down, and instead we have increasingCOLD air masses.

    This is NOT what your theory ever predicted, you nitwit, and you are outed as a complete scientific illiterate for swallowing this hogwash hook, line and sinker.

    You know who wants to change topics?  YOU want to change topics, because you and your fellow travelers have LOST!!!

  • Here is a funny bit
    Subprime Science hahahaha

    • I find it funny that knobs like Erb are so fast off the mark to say “big oil funded” as their counter mantra against the sordid truth.
      The fact of the matter is that climate skeptics get basically 32 Million a year vs the 79 Billion that climate fantasy advocates get.  God when you get 79 Billion and still can’t make your case then there is NO case to be made.
      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/pitman-paid-190000-a-year-to-throw-baseless-insults/#more-6382

      • I like how they explain the “hide the decline” comment as an honest scientific trick. They never explain what Mann et al were doing. They just say it was avalid trick used by scientists, taken out of context.

        In fact, the “hide the decline” trick was to splice tree ring historical data and recent (and we are now finding out, dubious) temperature data together. The decline they were hiding was the decline shown by tree ring data. It amount to cherry picking the data source, and rejecting the data the does not show what they wanted to show. It also implies there is a correlation failure between the tree rings and the temp data.

        And Mann lied about doing this.

        And they keep finding more odd corrections in the temp data recond, etc. It is all falling apart.

  • It’s no wonder that some folks have trouble believing that AGW ACC is a hoax if they get their info solely from MiniTru.  This is in the WaPo (H/T Michelle Malkin):

    … recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes — including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level — give doubters an opening.
    It wasn’t the first one. There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. But in the past year, a cache of stolen e-mails, revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors, has sullied their image as impartial academics. The errors in the U.N. report — a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt — are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat, instead of the new question of how to stop it. [emphasis mine - dj505]

    Ah. 

    Message: Don’t pay attention to those typos!  Ignore the “stolen” e-mails!  Don’t give little errors a second thought!  Climate change (i.e. “the scientifically-proven, horrible, terrifying phenomenom formerly known as Global Warming”) is REAL, dammit!  The WaPo decrees it!  People who don’t agree are just troublemakers, forcing REAL scientists to waste time trying to re-prove what we already know instead of moving ahead to solve the problem and save us all!

    The article goes on to discuss some of the recent revelations of (ahem) typos and sloppy sourcing, waving them away as pedestrian mistakes in the “massive undertaking” that is the IPCC 2007 report, something that “[t]housands of scientists across the globe volunteer[ed] to evaluate tens of thousands of academic documents and translate them into plain-English reports that policymakers can understand.” Hey, with thousands of selfless scientists (and we all know that you can absolutely trust scientists, right?) working FOR FREE on the document, dumbing it down so that politicians can understand it… well… Who WOULDN’T expect the odd mistake here and there?  Take the thing about glaciers melting: REAL glacier experts KNOW that the Himalayan glaciers are melting, just not quite as fast as the IPCC report said because they made a typo:

    [University of Arizona professor Jeffrey] Kargel said he noticed an error in the report of the IPCC’s second working group, a research unit, in 2007. The report said huge glaciers in the Himalayan mountains might disappear by 2035. Some glaciers are melting, but they are too enormous to disappear that quickly: “It’s physically impossible to kill the ice that fast,” Kargel said.
    He said colleagues regarded the error as too ridiculous to fuss about until recently. Last month, the journal Science printed a letter to the editor that traced the origins of the mistaken data: The U.N. panel seemed to have quoted an activist group’s report, not a peer-reviewed study. And, in citing another source, it appeared to have committed a serious typo: The year 2350 had become 2035.  [emphasis mine - dj505.  O' course, you also have to do as the WaPo did and ignore the admission by another glacier scientist that he DELIBERATELY put the false info in the report to scare politicians into taking action about water supplies in India or some such.]
    See?  Nit-picky stuff.  REAL scientists remain convinced.  And so should you! 

    Bah.

    It’s getting so that belief in AGW or ACC or whatever it’s called on a given day should be used as a diagnostic indicator for pathological dishonesty, idiocy, or both.

  • Man the hits just keep coming. They were coming in weekly, not it seems to be daily. The IPCC had fake claims about African crop yields.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7231386/African-crops-yield-another-catastrophe-for-the-IPCC.html