Tuesday, 17 July 2012

“Climate Science” in Shambles; astounding Fraud

Active Scientist or
Science Activist?
WIlliam F. Jasper writes for The New American

“Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda 

It is the best of times, it is the worst of times — for science. Over the past several years, the world has been spectator to an alarming meltdown as one serious scandal after another has publicly exposed many of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizations, institutions, and publications as being captives of rigid ideologues who employ rigged computer models, fraudulent “evidence,” censorship, and intimidation to advance a radical “green” political agenda and to squelch genuine scientific inquiry and debate.

Some of the preeminent scientists involved in promoting global-warming alarmism have been disgraced and discredited, after being caught in flagrante in unethical and illegal activities. Even before the 2009 “Climategate” e-mail scandal, many leading scientists who had earlier been true believers in man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW) had begun jumping ship and joining the AGW skeptic side. Since then, the defections have turned into a veritable flood, making this one of the great untold stories of the major establishment media, which continue to trumpet the alarmist propaganda. 
He talks of the defection of James Lovelock covered by this blog HERE.
“We rushed into renewable energy without any thought,” says Lovelock. “The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant.” He has upset many of his erstwhile green brethren for attacking wind turbines and wind farms as “ugly and useless.”
Also he describes the defection of Professor Fritz Vahrenholt  as "another green heretic." See HERE.
“For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory,” Vahrenholt wrote in the Telegraph. “Recent experience with the UN’s climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.”

Read more HERE including:
The AGW consensus scam is one of the most astounding frauds in all of history, not only because it is patently false, but also because it is being used to propel the most sweeping and authoritarian scheme for global economic, social, and political regimentation the world has ever seen.

The Chill on Global Warming

The density and width of tree rings shows how warm it was
during each year's growing season, and thereby
serves as a record of long-term climate trends.
CREDIT: NSF.gov
Live Science.com reports on a new analysis of tree ring data.
The tree rings "prove [the] climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now," the British newspaper the Daily Mail reported last week, "and [the] world has been cooling for 2,000 years."
That and other articles suggest the current global warming trend is a mere blip when viewed in the context of natural temperature oscillations etched into tree rings over the past two millennia. The Star-Ledger, a New Jersey newspaper, mused that the findings lock in "one piece of an extremely complex puzzle that has been oversimplified by the Al Gores of the world."
Roger Cohen, a fellow of the American Physical Society, reviewing the paper wrote:
If you read the paper, it begs a simple conclusion that the authors don’t make explicitly but is damaging to the AGW ‘cause.’ The authors say that the decline in solar forcing over 2K years was about 6 W/M^2, about 4 x anthropogenic forcing since 1750. Yet the long term cooling was only ~0.6 deg. Then the inferred climate sensitivity for the Northern Scandinavian region must be very small – since the climate sensitivity determines response for both warming and cooling.    Also people who argue for an enhanced solar effect on climate via cosmic rays will say that the real solar forcing was much larger and therefore the climate sensitivity is yet smaller.