The Greatest Scientific Scandal of our Time;
We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions inscience, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements,recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropo-genic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.
You can start at Cjunk and follow the links to the quoted paper.
Seems there has been a rteversal..
Both Neighbourhood electric vehicles are allowd to sell here in BC.. Zenn and Dynasty.
How that came about,, I do not know..
It’s OK with me though… =TG
@John Cross:
What about Greenland?
I always get in on these threads late, but anyone interested in another article pointing out several flaws in the AGW hypothesis, written by two physicists is: Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Falsifcation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, arXiv:0707.1161v1 [physics.ao-ph] 8 Jul 2007. Their English isn’t great, but their points are pretty clear.
Abstract
“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional
works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861 and Arrhenius 1896 and is still supported in global
climatology essentially describes a fictitious mechanism in which a planetary atmosphere
acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but
radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of
thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost
all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for
granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In
this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are
clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming
phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there
are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the
frequently mentioned difference of 33 deg C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a
radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to
zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”
‘I will note that the Jaworowski article has a couple of excellent examples.’
Is that the article supposedly countering Jaworski? Links please!
Daniel M. Ryan said: “For the purposes of avoiding possible future litigation, I note explicitly that “honest mistake” and “well-meant but excessive enthusiam” could explain any holes in the AGW proponents’ work.”
Daniel, I would like to think that’s true. I don’t like the idea that people lie about science deliberately. Science is about Truth, capital “T”, and it depresses me when people corrupt that for mere money.
Unfortunately, my experience with the gun literature indicates that while many were merely incompetent, some people did lie deliberately and systematically. Reviewers and editors let them, research foundations and the government paid them to. Michael Belesilles is the most egregious and recent example I can rhyme off, but there are others.
There was a lot less money involved there than there is with AGW. I have no examples of people lying deliberately, because I can’t bother myself to go read the literature. Its a lot of work and I don’t really have to, because the sh*t heads who lied about gun control are busy pushing AGW now. I haven’t read where Algore got religion and apologized for all that stuff he’s said about gun owners over the years. Once a lying sh*t head, always a lying sh*t head.
Then there’s the mounting of temperature sensors on concrete driveways. That’s starting to edge beyond gross incompetence and head for deliberate data vandalism. I can see that here at SDA every week. What other gross incompetence bordering on vandalism have I missed?
AKA, how stupid would I have to be to fall for this snow job, anyway? No offense to John Cross, but I don’t trust these guys as far as I could throw them by the ear.
Daniel: There are about the same number in Greenland but I do not know about different authors. I think there are also a couple in the northern Russian islands.
Otter: the link is in my post at 11:27 above.
Phantom: No offence taken I assure you. If we are ever in the same city and chance to meet up the first beer is on me!
regards,
John
Thanks, John.
A problem is developing for AGW theory. Namely the growth rate in CO2 is stalled since 2002 or so. There’s a lot of “noise” but clearly the non-linear rise in anthropogenic emissions is not translating into an increased growth rate for CO2. Some sink has clearly kicked into to slow the growth rate (all time peak for CO2 growth was in 1998). According to the scarier theories being bandied about, we’re on the verge of “run-a-way” greenhouse effect. If anything the opposite appears to be happening.
Regards, BRK