May 21st, 2013 at 7:58 am
Hello DPF…
This is rather late since one cannot devote all of one’s life to this excellent blog.
Your reference to 5th Form (I’m glad that you talk in real, as opposed to “new”, educational terms) physics and a “disservice”, suggests to me that I touched a nerve that you have been scratching for some time, and that I should therefore reply, albeit some 12 hours later. Perhaps this exercise will bring you out, and finally convince you that you have eaten a dead rat. 
It will therefore belong long, and will include a paper by my colleague Rupert Wyndham (edited to exclude irrelevant matters), that I have previously sent in full to you on behalf of The Outside The Beltway Group.
For the first, second and third times , I did not deny (repeat, deny) a link between “greenhouse gases” and atmospheric temperature.
I remind you of the what I stated at the beginning of this discussion, namely (among the questions I posed):
**** Almost everyone outside the warmist cult accepts that CO2 does increase atmospheric temperatures.
But by how much, and due to what?
But by how much, and due to what?
No one, I repeat, no one has yet established either the “what” or the “how much”.
And, to repeat, no one has shown whether any increase, if established, is injurious. ****
Your comment was therefore based upon a misapprehension on your part.
Now to the paper mention. This was delivered early last month to the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee. Climate: Public Understanding and Policy Implications
**** R C E Wyndham stated …..
2. Declaration of interests
In conspicuous contrast to numbers of MPs, I have no financial or reputational interests whatsoever in the subject of alleged man-made climate change. Neither have I ever had.
2. Declaration of interests
In conspicuous contrast to numbers of MPs, I have no financial or reputational interests whatsoever in the subject of alleged man-made climate change. Neither have I ever had.
3. Public perception of climate change
The public, rightly, increasingly perceives alleged anthropogenic global warming as a scam designed to:
The public, rightly, increasingly perceives alleged anthropogenic global warming as a scam designed to:
• extract stealth taxes;
• reward rich third parties often, or even usually, family, personal friends or political allies of legislators;
….
Why?
• reward rich third parties often, or even usually, family, personal friends or political allies of legislators;
….
Why?
3.1 Science – overview. AGW ‘science’ has been fraudulent from inception. Since it always lacked authentic
scientific underpinning, it was obliged to have recourse to chicanery – contrived claims of a scientific
consensus, refusal to observe protocols of scientific method (verification and replication),
subversion of peer review, avoidance of debate, denial of contra-indications, concoction of data,
misrepresentation, misinformation, disinformation. …….
3.2 Is there any aspect in which AGW ‘science’ is plausible?
scientific underpinning, it was obliged to have recourse to chicanery – contrived claims of a scientific
consensus, refusal to observe protocols of scientific method (verification and replication),
subversion of peer review, avoidance of debate, denial of contra-indications, concoction of data,
misrepresentation, misinformation, disinformation. …….
3.2 Is there any aspect in which AGW ‘science’ is plausible?
No, quite simply impossible. The orthodoxy posits that fundamental and potentially dangerous alterations
to the Earth’s climate may be wrought by minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of a single
component, a trace gas amounting in total to less than 1/25th part of a single percentage point. By any
standard, this constitutes an hypothesis that can only be regarded as facile and unlikely, if not positively
flaky, the more so when taking into account that:
to the Earth’s climate may be wrought by minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of a single
component, a trace gas amounting in total to less than 1/25th part of a single percentage point. By any
standard, this constitutes an hypothesis that can only be regarded as facile and unlikely, if not positively
flaky, the more so when taking into account that:
• CO2 is the sine qua non of all life on Earth;
• the geological record discloses numerous precedents for CO2 atmospheric concentrations many times greater than those prevailing today, during which there was no “runaway greenhouse effect” – another delusional concept. In fact, the interfaces between the Ordovician & Silurian epochs (4000ppmv) and the Jurassic & Cretaceous (2000ppmv) were periods of planetary glaciation, totally destroying the linkage between CO2 concentration and global mean temperature. CO2 atmospheric concentration currently stands at around 390ppmv.
An implausible hypothesis requires exceptionally strong proof.
Has there been any evidence to support of the AGW hypothesis? Not one example has yet been
put forward drawn from observation in the real world.
put forward drawn from observation in the real world.
Nevertheless, this still does not represent the flaw au fond in the AGW edifice. That, ironically, is provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) itself, of which more in due course. Pro tempore, it is sufficient to note that, writing for once truthfully and accurately, in its First Assessment Report (AR1), it made the entirely correct (though obvious!) declaration that the atmosphere/climate is a vast, chaotic, non-linear system, not susceptible to prediction. In consequence, the IPCC added that it would/could deal only with ‘scenarios’.
By the advent of AR2, however, it was clear that it had every intention of promoting not only prediction but catastrophism also. And the supposed scientific justification for such predictions? Why, to be sure, they were to be attributed to minute alterations in a single variable, namely CO2. For members of this Committee and others:
N.B. By virtue of underlying realities, the acknowledgement on the one hand that prediction is impossible
and on the other an appeal to predictive determinism represents the juxtaposition of mutually
exclusive propositions!
and on the other an appeal to predictive determinism represents the juxtaposition of mutually
exclusive propositions!
4. Credibility of cited authorities
4.1 IPCC
Cataclysmic climate change propagandists frequently seek to dismiss questioning of their orthodoxy by reference to the alleged absence of specialist expertise possessed by dissenters. In spite of this, the public is not so dense that it cannot see the clash between this proposition and the appointment of a railway engineer to head up what is, supposedly, the world’s primary authority on proclaimed climate change. Moreover, as propaganda from the IPCC and pseudo-environmentalists has grown increasingly shrill, so too have investigations multiplied both of their claims and of their basic integrity. It did not take long for a string of outright falsehoods to be exposed:
Cataclysmic climate change propagandists frequently seek to dismiss questioning of their orthodoxy by reference to the alleged absence of specialist expertise possessed by dissenters. In spite of this, the public is not so dense that it cannot see the clash between this proposition and the appointment of a railway engineer to head up what is, supposedly, the world’s primary authority on proclaimed climate change. Moreover, as propaganda from the IPCC and pseudo-environmentalists has grown increasingly shrill, so too have investigations multiplied both of their claims and of their basic integrity. It did not take long for a string of outright falsehoods to be exposed:
• shrinking Himalayan glaciers;
• 100% peer reviewed research materials (more than 30% found to be the work of eco-extremists and even students);
• rising sea levels;
• rising global temperatures;
• 100% peer reviewed research materials (more than 30% found to be the work of eco-extremists and even students);
• rising sea levels;
• rising global temperatures;
to name but a few. Neither did it escape public attention that Rajendra Pachauri had substantial conflicts of
interest between his official role and his business activities, nor that these were both insolent and brazen -
(“They’re of interest to me so are not conflicting.”). ……..
interest between his official role and his business activities, nor that these were both insolent and brazen -
(“They’re of interest to me so are not conflicting.”). ……..
…….
That source is, in fact, within the public domain. It is vested, courtesy of the Tyndall Centre, in ‘Working Paper No. 58′ – The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change – Dennis Bray & Simon Shackley, Sept. 2004) [My underlining]
“Only the perception of positive anomalies will be registered as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as global warming.
Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as ‘climate change’.
We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.”
In plain English, too hot and it’s CO2. Too cold and it’s CO2. No change and it’s CO2. What is clear is that Messrs. Bray and Shackley knew well that they were selling a pup; the ethics of the second hand car dealership or, perhaps more immediately, the solar panel salesman, are normative throughout the climate change industry.
Hypotheses that, at least in principle, are not capable of being disproved are not science; they are merely manifestations of cultist dogmatism and demagoguery.
………
4.5 The Royal Society
Under the stewardships of its last three Presidents, from being a national treasure, the Royal Society has become a propagandist for the human induced climate change paradigm. It is fair to state that over the course of the past decade, the RS has exercised all its authority and prestige in advancing the orthodoxy by lending to it a spurious veneer of scientific/intellectual respectability. It has gone to inordinate lengths to encourage acceptance of the proclaimed consensus and to discourage all debate. With respect to the latter, I am able to speak from experience. More to the point, even significant numbers of its own Fellows have expressed disquiet at the public stance of the Society. This too is in the public domain, and the public at large is increasingly aware that the alleged consensus is not even remotely as monolithic as is claimed by pseudo-environmental jihadists.
Under the stewardships of its last three Presidents, from being a national treasure, the Royal Society has become a propagandist for the human induced climate change paradigm. It is fair to state that over the course of the past decade, the RS has exercised all its authority and prestige in advancing the orthodoxy by lending to it a spurious veneer of scientific/intellectual respectability. It has gone to inordinate lengths to encourage acceptance of the proclaimed consensus and to discourage all debate. With respect to the latter, I am able to speak from experience. More to the point, even significant numbers of its own Fellows have expressed disquiet at the public stance of the Society. This too is in the public domain, and the public at large is increasingly aware that the alleged consensus is not even remotely as monolithic as is claimed by pseudo-environmental jihadists.
4.6 Academia
Mutatis mutandis, much of the foregoing relating to the RS may be transposed to academia at large, especially scientific academia.
Mutatis mutandis, much of the foregoing relating to the RS may be transposed to academia at large, especially scientific academia.
4.7 The print media
Except amongst AGW cult fundamentalists, the reputations of The Guardian and The Independent have been increasingly under attack for their unshakeable left wing cultist prejudice. The Daily Telegraph has gained credibility, because it has consistently over a long period entertained both sides of the debate. A sea change, however, has occurred within the daily tabloids. Two years ago sceptical articles were rare to the point of extinction. They can now be described almost as the default position for both copy and editorial comment.
Except amongst AGW cult fundamentalists, the reputations of The Guardian and The Independent have been increasingly under attack for their unshakeable left wing cultist prejudice. The Daily Telegraph has gained credibility, because it has consistently over a long period entertained both sides of the debate. A sea change, however, has occurred within the daily tabloids. Two years ago sceptical articles were rare to the point of extinction. They can now be described almost as the default position for both copy and editorial comment.
……
4.11 The blogosphere
Since officially sponsored information cannot be trusted, the internet is now the predominant source of dispassionate and reliable information on putative climate change. Numerous highly regarded blogs exist, which cover all aspects of the subject by recourse to data not unsubstantiated assertion, with many being run by, or closely associated with, scientists of immense prestige, who are dismissive of the orthodoxy.
Since officially sponsored information cannot be trusted, the internet is now the predominant source of dispassionate and reliable information on putative climate change. Numerous highly regarded blogs exist, which cover all aspects of the subject by recourse to data not unsubstantiated assertion, with many being run by, or closely associated with, scientists of immense prestige, who are dismissive of the orthodoxy.
5. Summary
This submission can be distilled as follows:
This submission can be distilled as follows:
• The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is a fraudulent chimera.
• Its adoption by Parliament has resulted in baleful and cripplingly expensive consequences for the country.
• Amongst these have been
• Its adoption by Parliament has resulted in baleful and cripplingly expensive consequences for the country.
• Amongst these have been
– corruption of politics, both at national and local level;
– corruption of national institutions – the Royal Society and the BBC, most conspicuously;
– subversion of the integrity of the scientific enterprise and the education of the young;
– despoliation of the natural environment;
– immense pollution and habitat expropriation, albeit not necessarily on these shores;
– diversion of financial resources on a blanching scale into worthless palliatives to non-existent problems;
– impoverishment of populations, both at home and abroad, to no good end,which has been the subject of
repeated critical comment, as has been, in parallel, the self-enrichment of key players.
…..
7. Postscript
Anthropogenic Global Warming, speciously morphed to ‘Climate Change’, is not a scientific issue at all. The science is clear. There is no demonstrable causal linkage between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and global mean temperature. Neither is there any evidence that modest rises in global mean temperature would be anything other than beneficial.
– corruption of national institutions – the Royal Society and the BBC, most conspicuously;
– subversion of the integrity of the scientific enterprise and the education of the young;
– despoliation of the natural environment;
– immense pollution and habitat expropriation, albeit not necessarily on these shores;
– diversion of financial resources on a blanching scale into worthless palliatives to non-existent problems;
– impoverishment of populations, both at home and abroad, to no good end,which has been the subject of
repeated critical comment, as has been, in parallel, the self-enrichment of key players.
…..
7. Postscript
Anthropogenic Global Warming, speciously morphed to ‘Climate Change’, is not a scientific issue at all. The science is clear. There is no demonstrable causal linkage between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and global mean temperature. Neither is there any evidence that modest rises in global mean temperature would be anything other than beneficial.
Rather, because it represents a full frontal assault on the very notion of open and objective debate and evidence led scientific investigation, it constitutes a fundamental ethical issue of unique significance. ******
Enough, or should I produce more, and arrange for some anonymous (real peer reviews are anonymous)scientific giants to review your data????
May 21st, 2013 at 10:54 am
God this becomes boring when idiots like Griff believe in their dead rats. So let me try again:
**** Is there any aspect in which AGW ‘science’ is plausible?
No, quite simply impossible. The orthodoxy posits that fundamental and potentially dangerous alterations
to the Earth’s climate may be wrought by minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of a single
component, a trace gas amounting in total to less than 1/25th part of a single percentage point. By any
standard, this constitutes an hypothesis that can only be regarded as facile and unlikely, if not positively
flaky, the more so when taking into account that:
to the Earth’s climate may be wrought by minute changes in the atmospheric concentration of a single
component, a trace gas amounting in total to less than 1/25th part of a single percentage point. By any
standard, this constitutes an hypothesis that can only be regarded as facile and unlikely, if not positively
flaky, the more so when taking into account that:
• CO2 is the sine qua non of all life on Earth;
and
and
**** What are the greenhouse gases?
There are several, water vapour being by far the most significant – responsible for 95% of the GHE. Why? Because H2O absorbs radiation over almost the entire IR spectrum. CO2 is only a secondary ghg, exists in minute overall concentrations (0.0385% of the atmosphere as a whole), and absorbs over only two narrow bandwidths, most usually quoted the 15 micron band. Consequently, the radiative potential of CO2 quickly becomes saturated. Other GHGs are occasionally mentioned, and include methane and nitrous oxide.
and
**** Do CO2 concentrations explain recent climatic variation – last 150 years, say, but especially since late 70s?
No. Even CO2 protagonists acknowledge that CO2 of itself explains nothing. The first 20 ppm of atmospheric CO2 give rise to roughly 1½ºC of warming. The next 1½ºC requires a further 400 ppm, and the next 1ºC calls for a further 1000 ppm. We are currently standing at about 385 ppm. In short, the forcing relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is logarithmic not linear, for which reason alone its effects are self-limiting. It requires a feedback mechanism, for which H2O has been enlisted as the agent, ie more CO2 means more warming, which means more water vapour, which means more warming. However, and rarely if ever mentioned by AGW proponents, H2O also produces cooling by virtue of two mechanisms – evaporation and cloud formation. 70% of the earth’s surface comprises ocean and much of the land surface also transpires, so evaporative cooling is significant. Clouds directly radiate heat back into space. Overall, it now seems that H2O has a negative feedback greater than any positive feedback. Though they have consistently denied its importance, CO2 protagonists have never understood the influence of clouds as well as several other natural variables (eg so called aerosols – mostly pollutants, such as SO2, oxides of nitrogen, etc often blown off by volcanoes but occasionally attributed to power stations, when facts inconveniently fail to support theory). They have never successfully integrated them into their models.
and
**** Is there any evidence for the operation of this mechanism?
None. The AGW hypothesis is the product of computer models. The real world contains none of the signatures that the theory demands – for example and very importantly, greater warming of the tropical troposphere as against near surface temperatures. Two datasets (satellite and weather balloon) show almost complete stability of tropospheric temperatures over the relevant periods, ie since these two methodologies were available – say the last 50 years for radiosond (balloon) readings, a bit less for satellite.
and
****With regard to increases in CO2 concentrations, do humans contribute significantly?
No – about 4% of any annual increase, and that’s now, not 100 years ago, when temperature rises overall were greater. Vastly greater GHG increases, including those of CO2, spring from natural processes (see above plus volcanism and the planet’s biota).
and
****Couldn’t that extra 4% be doing all the damage?
What damage? And, anyway, CO2 proponents would still have to come up with a plausible mechanism to show how the additional 4% effects its supposedly malign and cataclysmic influence. CO2 concentrations in the past have been much higher than they are today. Ice ages came and went. Climate change remained a constant of planetary existence. And, as has already been stated, there is no empirical observational evidence. ****
There are several, water vapour being by far the most significant – responsible for 95% of the GHE. Why? Because H2O absorbs radiation over almost the entire IR spectrum. CO2 is only a secondary ghg, exists in minute overall concentrations (0.0385% of the atmosphere as a whole), and absorbs over only two narrow bandwidths, most usually quoted the 15 micron band. Consequently, the radiative potential of CO2 quickly becomes saturated. Other GHGs are occasionally mentioned, and include methane and nitrous oxide.
and
**** Do CO2 concentrations explain recent climatic variation – last 150 years, say, but especially since late 70s?
No. Even CO2 protagonists acknowledge that CO2 of itself explains nothing. The first 20 ppm of atmospheric CO2 give rise to roughly 1½ºC of warming. The next 1½ºC requires a further 400 ppm, and the next 1ºC calls for a further 1000 ppm. We are currently standing at about 385 ppm. In short, the forcing relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures is logarithmic not linear, for which reason alone its effects are self-limiting. It requires a feedback mechanism, for which H2O has been enlisted as the agent, ie more CO2 means more warming, which means more water vapour, which means more warming. However, and rarely if ever mentioned by AGW proponents, H2O also produces cooling by virtue of two mechanisms – evaporation and cloud formation. 70% of the earth’s surface comprises ocean and much of the land surface also transpires, so evaporative cooling is significant. Clouds directly radiate heat back into space. Overall, it now seems that H2O has a negative feedback greater than any positive feedback. Though they have consistently denied its importance, CO2 protagonists have never understood the influence of clouds as well as several other natural variables (eg so called aerosols – mostly pollutants, such as SO2, oxides of nitrogen, etc often blown off by volcanoes but occasionally attributed to power stations, when facts inconveniently fail to support theory). They have never successfully integrated them into their models.
and
**** Is there any evidence for the operation of this mechanism?
None. The AGW hypothesis is the product of computer models. The real world contains none of the signatures that the theory demands – for example and very importantly, greater warming of the tropical troposphere as against near surface temperatures. Two datasets (satellite and weather balloon) show almost complete stability of tropospheric temperatures over the relevant periods, ie since these two methodologies were available – say the last 50 years for radiosond (balloon) readings, a bit less for satellite.
and
****With regard to increases in CO2 concentrations, do humans contribute significantly?
No – about 4% of any annual increase, and that’s now, not 100 years ago, when temperature rises overall were greater. Vastly greater GHG increases, including those of CO2, spring from natural processes (see above plus volcanism and the planet’s biota).
and
****Couldn’t that extra 4% be doing all the damage?
What damage? And, anyway, CO2 proponents would still have to come up with a plausible mechanism to show how the additional 4% effects its supposedly malign and cataclysmic influence. CO2 concentrations in the past have been much higher than they are today. Ice ages came and went. Climate change remained a constant of planetary existence. And, as has already been stated, there is no empirical observational evidence. ****
The above extracts are by/from R C E Wyndham –
1. Presentation to UK House of Commons, April 2013
and
2. A Layman’s Guide to Climate Change issues (RCEW. revised Jan 2012)
flipper (1,646) Says:
May 21st, 2013 at 12:11 pm
1. Presentation to UK House of Commons, April 2013
and
2. A Layman’s Guide to Climate Change issues (RCEW. revised Jan 2012)
flipper (1,646) Says:
May 21st, 2013 at 12:11 pm
I cannot not resist quoting from Whale this morning, just to piss off the idiot melons:
” **** All over for the Greens?
by Whaleoil on May 21, 2013
The Green party in NZ put all their eggs in the AGW basket and have no position to retreat to from it.
They are also the enemies of the environment as the anti AGW policies they have advocated are creating massive harm – economically and environmentally – especially for the poor who – highly paradoxically – they claim to stand for in New Zealand.
The other aspect they have no morals on is the negative influence on, and exploitive use of, young people through the needless panic and worry they create .
Dr Matt Ridley says in the Times:
The latest science suggests that our policy on global warming is hopelessly misguided
There is little doubt that the damage being done by climate-change policies currently exceeds the damage being done by climate change, and will for several decades yet. Hunger, rainforest destruction, excess cold-weather deaths and reduced economic growth are all exacerbated by the rush to biomass and wind. These dwarf any possible effects of worse weather, for which there is still no actual evidence anyway: recent droughts, floods and storms are within historic variability.
The harm done by policy falls disproportionately on the poor. Climate worriers claim that at some point this will reverse and the disease will become worse than the cure. An acceleration in temperature rise, they say, is overdue. The snag is, the best science now says otherwise. Whereas the politicians, activists and businessmen who make the most noise about — and money from — this issue are sticking to their guns, key scientists are backing away from predictions of rapid warming.
Yesterday saw the publication of a paper in a prestigious journal, Nature Geoscience, from a high-profile international team led by Oxford scientists. The contributors include 14 lead authors of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific report; two are lead authors of the crucial chapter 10: Professors Myles Allen and Gabriele Hegerl.
So this study is about as authoritative as you can get. It uses the most robust method, of analysing the Earth’s heat budget over the past hundred years or so, to estimate a “transient climate response” — the amount of warming that, with rising emissions, the world is likely to experience by the time carbon dioxide levels have doubled since pre-industrial times.
The most likely estimate is 1.3C. Even if we reach doubled carbon dioxide in just 50 years, we can expect the world to be about two-thirds of a degree warmer than it is now, maybe a bit more if other greenhouse gases increase too….
It is true that the “transient climate response” is not the end of the story and that the gradual warming of the oceans means that there would be more warming in the pipeline even if we stopped increasing carbon dioxide levels after doubling them. But given the advance of nuclear and solar technology, there is now a good chance we will have decarbonised the economy before any net harm has been done.
Any chance the Greens will simply admit they are/were wrong and simply leave for the good of the nation? ****”
No comments:
Post a Comment