Sunday, October 28, 2012

On Climate Science and the Nobel Prize: Indict the Entire Process

Many blogs are castigating climate scientist Michael Mann for claiming to have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, when that prize was in fact awarded to the IPCC, although even the IPCC presented certificates to Mann (and many other scientists) whose work led to that award. I don't much care about going after the small fry, however; I prefer to strike at the heart of a problem. Following are two comments on the present episode that I have made on other blog sites.

At notrickszone:

I consider all of the IPCC-associated climate scientists to be incompetent to the point of mental delusion, and every one of them responsible for bringing worldwide shame and loss of trust upon science itself. But the added certificate clearly says, "Presented to Michael E. Mann for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC". It doesn't appear to claim the Nobel Prize was awarded to Mann. You must know, as I do, that the shame for this particular fiasco remains firmly with the Nobel Prize committee that picks the winners. It is first and foremost the IPCC and the Nobel committee that stand disgraced and humiliated, in my book -- and you can tack on the names of Mann et al. after that prime indictment (just as Mann's "trick" here does), as a piggyback.

And at tomnelson:

All of this rests firmly upon the foundation of a quite general incompetence among climate scientists. On top of that is the fraudulent promulgation of that false science by the IPCC -- which has suborned all of our institutions -- and on top of the latter is the awarding of an unearned Nobel Prize to the IPCC by the Nobel Committee. If you just castigate Mann for inflating his sense of professional worth, and leave intact and unindicted the reputations of the Nobel Prize itself, of the IPCC, and of the climate scientists who enabled the IPCC in its fraud, then you miss the real lesson to be learned -- that all of those now piling on Mann's reputation have no credibility either, in the larger, true picture, because they fail to provide that picture to their readers, and thus to the world.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Interlude: "The Heart's Desire" Vs. the "Facts On the Ground"

Steven Goddard presents yet another small post on the whoppers that hysterical climate alarmists are routinely throwing on the flames of public opinion (built upon a bed of public ignorance). I have submitted the following response, which I consider a key to understanding the times:

Here is a clue...we are all seeing, or about to see in the coming months and years, why believing that "You create your own reality" is like children running with sharp scissors. Expansive ideas, at odds with the facts on the ground, as they say. People now just want to wipe away any and all opposition to what each one thinks is the attainment of his/her highest aspirations, the fulfilling of ones own creativity, "naturally" blossoming in a brighter, happier world. (Just think, that is all the jihadists are trying to do as well.) Sorry folks, but obviously that is not how the reality of this planet was designed. There are things, like climate (or the fundamental opposition of the nonbeliever in your pet dogma), that were set in clockwork design from the beginning, and which man does not (yet) have the wisdom or power to direct.

An unrecognized, overarching design to the world -- in all things, including the inner urgings of man -- is the key.

Friday, October 5, 2012

US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere

Steven Goddard in recent months has been presenting evidence on his real-science site of fraudulent manipulation, by NASA and other renowned federal scientific institutions, of the temperature data used by climate scientists to promulgate global warming hysteria. Goddard has presented the following graph, showing that adjustments made to the US temperature records have systematically lowered past temperatures and raised more recent ones, to give a false indication of warming over the past century and more:
The indicated adjustments looked familiar to me, as being like the actual change in atmospheric carbon dioxide, as measured at Mauna Loa since 1957:
I submitted a comment, suggesting that a graph comparing the temperature adjustments with the measured change in carbon dioxide "would be nice", but I then decided to do it quickly myself, working from the above graphs:
The correlation between the temperature adjustments (which should, it must be emphasized, have nothing to do with the atmospheric carbon dioxide) and the carbon dioxide level is extremely good; the correlation coefficient (R-square value) for the best-fit line above is 0.974. This means virtually all (97%) of the change in the US temperature adjustments, from 1960 through 2010, is due to the measured change in carbon dioxide. The US temperatures have quite apparently been deliberately changed according to the level of carbon dioxide, and can therefore not be used to even suggest, much less prove, that the US has warmed due to increasing carbon dioxide. I consider this the smoking gun that those adjustments made to the US temperature record are indeed fraudulent. This -- along with Steven Goddard's recent efforts to uncover such fraud -- should be made front-page news, worldwide. (Of course, I have already, 2 years ago, showed that there is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide -- and that too should have already become worldwide news.)