The Sound Of Settled Science

Climate Cult 58 Comments

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.

58 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. There are new standards for Nobel prizes nowadays… the old ones don’t count … ask that fat opportunist Al Gore or that old terrorist who died of AIDS after looting his people and scamming the West for decades. And … oh ya … all those climate experts at the UN..

  3. Thanks for posting the link to that. I read the entire paper. It needs to be given a wider audience.

  7. C’mon y’all know that these scientists are bought by the oil companies, that they are somehow measuring the wrong thing, what they have measured has been mis-interpreted, they mis-interpreted the data because they are not the right type of experts, blah blah.
    So, the long slide from consensus, to majority, to…., to oblivion is well on course. I wonder when the AGW supporters here start hedging their bets fully on the precautionary approach mentality.

  8. Thanks for posting this paper which I’ll be sending off to a few politicians (as soon as I get a new printer cartridge).
    Here in BC there seems to be something in the water which has affected all politicians making them all worship at the alter of Kyoto. The current liebral government of BC is busy tacking new taxes onto everything (or should I say “environmental levies”) but the NDP are ready to do so much more. At least in 2002 the Marijuana party had the most intelligent platform, but they’ve now migrated from their libertarian position to cozying up with Jack Layton who’s promised them they can smoke what they want as long as they vote NDP. What’s a voter to do in this province except spoil their ballot? We need lots more immigrants from Alberta right away.

  9. Today’s scientific community are the prodigy of the Crack-head Generation.
    Good Read: “Cold Fusion” The debacle where competition for Government funding “created” a false scientific consensus & fake academic research.
    Gore: Proof that all wise guys don’t wear pointy shoes!

  10. Good article, a good summary of the debate against the AGW crowd. Still some things missing in it.
    Now, who is the author, better bullet proof this kind of thing before you send it around. All it takes is one, oh he sits on the board of Exxon or he also wrote a paper on the science of Astrology to shoot down his credibility.
    I dont’t know. I would just double check before you ship around. You need to think like a “Believer”.
    While looking around for up to date satttelite data based on the times article, it sadly doesnt reference the source, I found this nice discussion paper.
    It also is a great summation of the problems with the AGW mania.
    http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/415.pdf
    Easy read and covers all the bases with some well known and serious people. One being the infamous Dr John Cristy who sat on the IPCC but refused his Nobel money.

  11. I hope this guy is wrong Kate. I walk to work everyday just praying the globe is warming. Maybe that’s my problem. I should be driving a Hummer. And not an H2, they are for wussies. I mean the big guy. With Armour plating.

  13. The greatest scandal of our time is that scientists are being punished for practicing…good science. If you actually test hypotheses, try to verify the results of other studies, and report the results honestly, you’re called a climate change denier, a Nazi, a corporate shill, etc. Disgusting.

  14. Al Gore, it is said, came to do good regarding the global warming issue. Considering the amount of money he has made and is going to make from this scheme, he has done well indeed.

  15. John Cross will soon be along with his link to a so-called critique of Professer Jaworowski, even though it has nothing to do with Ernst-Georg Beck.

  17. Reality Check:
    If AGW was truly the world ender that Dr Fruitfly et al claim it was, the great Bali Swimup Bar Photo op and Schmoozefest would never take place.
    Follow the money. AGW is not about saving the world; it is about scamming lots and lots and lots of money from the taxpayers.

  18. “Strong elaborated on the idea of sustainable development, which, he said, can be implemented by deliberate “quest of poverty…reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
    Set levels of mortality control?
    Isn’t this at the bottom of every totalitarian, socialist purge? But this one, I suppose, can be spun as a charitable pogrom for humanitarian reasons.
    At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy wack, the whole thing stinks of the application of some twisted Helgelian dialectic.
    It might take 20 years, but it sure will be gratifying to see a televised Nuremberg type trial for Strong, Gore, Suzuki, et al.
    I wonder what the brownshirt supporters of AGW will say to their grandchildren?

  19. The whole irea of global warming is alie and a fruad its being foisted upon us by a bunch of radical enviromewnalists and unscruplous politicians and other underhanded persons in such sinister groups like GREENPEACE,SIERRA CLUB,CFR,UN,TRILATERAL COUNCIL,LUCIOUS TRUST, and evil men like AL GORE,MAURICE STRONG,JOHN EDWARDS, and many many others

  20. I’d agree; it has every attribute of a Hegelian dialectic; that’s the nature of utopianism.
    So, Kyotoism is a utopian rhetoric, positing that IF ONLY mankind would do such and such, he would be absolved of SIN, and the world, and he, would be PURE.
    That’s utopianism. It’s based on the irrationality of emotion, rejects dissent as heresy and criminal, rejects reason and facts.
    Underneath this hysteric emotion, UN Kyotoism is an extremely clever, reasoned-out process of money laundering. Its agenda is simple. Take from the industrial countries by the cynical political tactic of appealing to the ignorant public, defining their industrial actions of their nation as Sinful. The population will pressure the govt to hand over billions of money to the so-called ‘developing countries’. Not as loans to be repaid. Heck no. Pure transfers. So that these countries can industrialize.
    Imagine. Did anyone help the industrial nations to industrialize? Or did they do it themselves? The industrial nations funded their own infrastructure, took out loans to build, repaid those loans, allowed foreign capital to invest, taxed their population to develop. They did it themselves.
    The UN, however, wants these now successful nations to pay the ‘new industrial nations’ to develop. No loans, no taxation of the population. The loans aren’t defined as foreign investment.
    And the new industries devt have nothing to do with reduction of emissions or pollution.
    Climate change is real. For the most part, man can’t do anything about it. Pollution is real; man can do a great deal about this. Kyotoism ignores pollution.
    Finding other energy sources is important. Just as man moved away from wind and water power, to coal and gas, and then to oil. And nuclear. We can find other more efficient sources of oil. But, a money laundering scheme has nothing to do with these agendas.

  21. I do not recall the author nor the name of the book, but back in 1959 one person wrote that, if the US and the USSR could set aside their differences and pump $100 billion into uplifting the third world, a lot of today’s problems would not exist.
    Of course the flip side of that would be that half the world would now be major polluters 😛 According to the likes of the goreacle the world would have drowned by now in ice melt.

  22. The current thing that is bothering me is the reporting in the MSM.
    I have TWICE in the last week seen or heard someone in the Canadian media claim that John Baird said the the evidence on global warming is conclusive.
    Did he say this? What evidence? What context?

  23. “John Cross will soon be along with his link to a so-called critique of Professer Jaworowski, even though it has nothing to do with Ernst-Georg Beck.”
    He’s already been beaten to the punch by well known climate scientist Dr.Dawg, whose compelling rebuttal begins and ends with accusing Jaworowski of writing for a “fascist demagogue”.
    I mean – does the evidence for global warming get any better than that?

  24. Irwin said:
    “Set levels of mortality control?
    Isn’t this at the bottom of every totalitarian, socialist purge? But this one, I suppose, can be spun as a charitable pogrom for humanitarian reasons.
    At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy wack, the whole thing stinks of the application of some twisted Helgelian dialectic.”
    Irwin et al: If you want to understand where the financiers and protagonists of AGW global policy are coming from you have to go to their stone henge:
    http://mediaspecialist.org/pistones.html
    This is the monument to new age abasement promoted by pagan spriritualists like Chaiman Moe and his ilk…this is pagan earth worship coated in the fraudulent premise of “reason”, then wraped in scientific pretense, and sold as a hysterical urgency for survival….at it’s core is a global depopulation agenda…. please don’t feel like it is YOU who wears the tin foil hat when dragging this new age mysticism of the green cult into the light.
    Clearly it is the new age earth cultists who blindly accept AGW abd the new age stone henge commandments who wear the tin foil hats.

  26. As an individual in a world of pagan sheep, the thing that disturbs me the most is that Pope Benedict and leaders of the free world have seemingly swallowed AGW and every pronouncement and dictum wholesale and mimic the UN’s lines over and over.
    I thought science was about skepticism?

  27. WLMR – Bang on!
    You say Stone Henge — I say the ancient Inca’s.
    Mass murder institutionalized, codified into the psyche and the daily life of an entire civilization.
    All to what end?
    Nothing other than to assuage the fear of being at the mercy of the “Gods” who controlled nature.
    A fear that the high priests and rulers worked very hard to cultivate and sustain!
    Where did that get them in the end? EXTINCT!

  28. Ah yes, Georgia’s infamous Guidestones.
    Well, they’ve established their spiritual alter in Kyoto. They have their mysteriously authored physical alter. And they’ve admitted their plan for blood sacrifice.
    The perverse, arrogant and self-appointed rulers of the world also have their shock troops in morally and intellectually debased leftards like doc dawg.
    These drones are not programmed to debate rationally. As is typical, and in the face of facts, they must dehumanize their opponents with insult and innuendo.
    “fascist demagogue” indeed.

  29. Ol Hoss has already done me the favour of pointing out that I have analyzed some of Dr. Jaworowski’s work – by which I mean looking at the science and references for it (link available upon request). However for some of the specific issues that Dr. Jaworowski mentions in the paper that is linked to, please see Jim Easter’s detailed analysis.
    However since ol hoss brought up Beck, you can find a review of some of Beck’s work here:
    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/10/amateur-night.html
    I will note that my opinion of Dr. Jaworowski does not depend on his being a “fascist demagogue”. I don’t care if he gets money from Exxon or not. I would be more than willing to sit down and have a beer with him (first one on me). However his science doesn’t hold together and that is what makes his articles poor.
    Regards,
    John

  30. John:
    As far as deconstructing Jaworowski, many of Easter’s links simply say that Jaworowski is wrong, or suggest such, but don’t counter with a scientific basis any stronger than Jaworowski’s. In otherwords, they are just dismissive; and that doesn’t count for me.
    Simply saying that so-and-so said it is so, doesn’t make it so (this applies both ways then)
    I could care less if 80% of icecore specialists say something is so … there is a long and storied history of the majority of scientists being wrong on many many issues from flu to DDT to AIDS. In fact, usually when science is wrong, it’s that a majority are wrong because they’ve accepted a false premise and worked from there. It is incumbant on scientists therefore to counter argue using science, not just dismissal.
    Now, I’m not qualified to make any scientific arguement at all, but I am qualified to recognize statements of opinion. Some of Easter’s links seem to explode what Jaworowski claims, yet others do not, they are simply statements of , “this is right because I say so” … no more an authority or arguement than Jaworowski presented.
    For example, IPCC claims give no link back to the undlying science … they simply say this is the way it is because we say so. Deconstructing any of the IPCC basis becomes nigh on impossible because of the way the underlying science has been firewalled. You just can’t track back to it … anywhere. There is no matrix that offers anyone a way of following the science back to all it’s sources to challenge it … and in the day and age of internet when all scientific research is online, this is inexcusable and the most suspect thing I’ve come accross in regard to the IPCC. We don’t even know what science was accepted, what was rejected, and why. Considering AGW is the greatest catastrophe to ever face mankind, I find this incredibly inexcusable and suspect. Any thinking person should have red flags popping.
    So, start with this … find me a link to the CV of every IPCC contributing scientist … please. And tracking names down across the internet doesn’t count … I want a central location, just like I’d expect to find for any legal firm.
    Another false premise is to say that only climate scientists have valid opinions. AGW research covers a great many fields far beyond those who specialize in climate. Climate scientists depend on many other disciplines for the raw data they plug into their models…. if any of that is wrong, then the climate guys are wrong. To say, for example, that astrophysicists can’t make a contribution is false … many disciplines contribute.

  31. .. and finally, good science can predict. In that then, AGW science has a bad record. The earth is cooling since 1998, yet the IPCC climate guys say it’s supposed to warm up. they can’t even explain why there might be a hickup. From predicted hurricaine seasons, to explaining thinning icesheets in the north, to thickening icesheets in the south, to droughts, to just about every predictible element in AGW, these guys aren’t even running 50%.
    On the other hand, we will know within the next decade if the solar guys are right because we’ll be freezing our asses off. Futhermore, the solar guys make the earth’s past climate, the earth’s position astronomically, and the sun their basis … they have a historical foundation therefore, and in that I’d watch what they have to say very carefully.
    They can predict ancient climate based on there observations, so now we’ll find out if they can predict the next four decades. They’ve only got to be 50% right to outdo the IPCC “climate” gurus.
    Example of AGW prediction:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152636.htm

  33. Paul2
    If the solar guys are right we will know within the next decade…
    I think that explains why the AGW fanatics are so desperate to get some kind – any kind – of program in place.
    They know (in my opinion) that the earth is going to not warm (and likely will get colder). They need to be able to take credit for it not warming.
    If they are not successful at getting reductions and we see evidence of a cooling, they will lose any remaining credibility they have.
    If they get an agreement that achieves some real reductions – any reductions- and we see some cooling, they will point to that as a validation of the “science”.

  34. Ward: I recall the Ozone scare; they said it’d take centuries to repair the damage; sheep in Argentina would go blind, Australians would all get skin cancer … remember?
    But, magically, shortly after international agreements forced us to change our AC systems, the Ozone holes shrunk; they turned out to be dynamic. Guess what, the Ozone guys took credit … .

  35. john cross makes the same faux arguments at Canadian Sentinel. He dismisses things out of hand, No matter how many new Major blocks of data are shown to be unaccounted for in the ‘science is finished’ global warming models.

  36. Quoting Ward at 1:07
    “If they get an agreement that achieves some real reductions – any reductions- and we see some cooling, they will point to that as a validation of the “science”.”
    And what do you bet that this was the game plan all along? IPCC knows the planet is going to cool, so they create a false scare about global warming to gain wealth and extraordinary political power for the elite, and when the cooling indeed does come, they take credit for it, and go on to seize even more power based upon the “favorable outcome” of their program.
    It’s EXACTLY like the bone-waving shaman taking credit for warding off the demon that tried to eat the Sun.

  37. Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive; those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C.S. Lewis, In Freedom.

  38. The greatest Scientific Scandal is that it’s -35 with the windchill in Winnipeg this AM, and people want to steal taxes from us to fight global warming! Incase the windchill was a mere
    -34,
    Some here are dumb enough to say thats ok, Winter is less than a month away,…

  39. Time will show the nincomepoops to be scaremongers and intellectually challenged in the near future. Mind you, it might be a little hard to convince me today that the Ice Age hasn’t arrived in my neck of the woods.

  42. john cross~ but when the records DO speak for themselves, you choose to listen to the gw crowd anyway.
    Sorry to hear CS is not accepting your posts. When the day comes that gw is proven the scandal that it is, and hundreds if not thousands of politicians and scientists crash and burn world-wide, I shall remember to come here to see what you have to say then.

  43. As I have previously put forth,the fraud of the MMGW movement is as evident in their so-called solutions as it is in their so-called science.
    If we are in such dire catastrophic danger as the Gore/Suzuki’s of this world would have us believe,then why have they only targeted politically-correct carbon abusers.
    It’s funny how they totally ignore mentioning the following….
    Vacation travel(especially air)
    Cruises and pleasureboating
    Drive-thru lineups
    All professional sports(I believe it still burns more fuel to fly one ball team across N. America than to run the entire Daytona 500)
    And that’s just for starters.
    Nope,this is all about the oil industry and our personal transportation.

  44. Let’s say man made co2 is really the culprit,
    It costs me at least 4 times more money and it takes at least 4 times more electricity to heat my 3 bedroom condo here near Montreal in winter than it costs me to cool it with air conditioning in the summer.
    stay with me,
    there is a point to this.
    ok my electricity is relatively “clean” because it comes from Hydro Quebec but most people on the planet get their electricity or heating from either coal, gas , wood or something else that causes co2 emissions.
    So if hundreds of millions of people across the globe produce at least 4 times more co2 heating their home
    than cooling them,
    isn’t global warming a
    good thing
    that will help reduce our co2 emissions?
    PS; I first thought of this “theory” as a joke but then realized there is a part of truth in it…

  45. “Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between 1812 [italics added] and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected.”
    I wonder if any of the AGW proponents will have the brass to claim that all of those measurements are flawed, even the earliest ones, because all of them were bribed by Standard Non-Whale Oil Company of the New England Colonies as Chartered by HM the Sovereign of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, America, et. al. (later known under different names, you betcha.) Or that wicked Exxon did it through a secret time-tunnel machine that they’ve been wickedly hiding from the publick for reasons nefarious, and which we would have not known about had it not been for an Irwin Allen documentarial series featuring two jut-jawed fellows exposin’ the trooth.
    Seriously: from what I know of drilling and samples, if the drill records show an exciting result that doesn’t gibe with earlier disappointing soil samples, then watch for the palmed ring and don’t pony up money for the promotion.

  46. Having just come in from freezing my butt off while fixing of all things my A/C compressor, I could handle a little global warming right about now.
    I see from Kate’s above mentioned article that people have been playing musical citations again. This is a game played in junk science where authors cite articles that support their argument, but aren’t the article that did the original science. After you dig through five or six layers of citations you find the actual measurement or whatever is either complete crap or it isn’t what they all said it was. Example, the infamous “hockey stick”. How many people quoted that thing as support over the years? Think they went back and changed their papers to reflect the demise of the hockey stick? Nuh uh.
    The reason this works is that people never read more than the abstract. They assume the abstract is true, because guys couldn’t, like, LIE in a peer reviewed journal and get away with it, would they? That would mean the reviewers AND the journal editors were crooked, and that could NEVER happen! Could it?
    Yep. Could. Did. I direct your attention to exhibit A, the medical literature on gun control. Complete failure of peer review and the most disgusting display of editorial bias I can think of. They systematically lied about gun control for over thirty years, and they still are. If a Democrat gets to be President in 2008 you watch and see how much anti-gun “science” suddenly jumps out of the woodwork.
    I strongly suspect the AGW literature will turn out to be even worse, and that is saying something.

  47. @The Phantom:
    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. The calumination that AGW skeptics have faced from some proponents could also be explained by plain and entirely legal ward heeling, nothing more.
    The standard procedure is repeatability – meaning, re-drilling new ice samples in the region – using a well-supervised team of new assessors. Any assessment team should not include anyone involved with the earlier sample-taking and interpretation. This procedure covers plain mistakes – including honest ones – as well as shadier kinds of ‘forcing’. Even the shadier type of fiddling may be prompted by ordinary irresponsibility that’s below the threshold of negligence.
    If it turns out that there was only one series of ice samples, with no verificatory re-drilling later, then we’d better watch our words. Kate’s broke enough as it is, and I’m broker than her.

  48. While this is not precisely on AGW it seems to me to be a perfect example of how AGW proponents and other assorted lefties think, or er, don’t think.
    The headline reads “Canada failing to protect polar bears, Susuki Foundation says”. (MIKE DE SOUZA CanWest News Service) While decrying that Canada has no plan, that the polar bear is a species of special concern, and that polar populations of the bears will shrink by two thirds by 2050, the final paragraph states that the latest federal survey shows the population “has jumped to 2100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s”. There you have it, benign neglect has resulted in an almost tripling of the population. Don’t these people even read what they write themselves?

  49. Daniel: are you aware of how many ice core samples have been taken? I believe that there are holes in about 13 separate areas in the Antarctic alone. While there is some overlap of teams for some holes, others had completely different members (for example the Vostok and EPICA holes). The information is archived and available to anyone who wants to look at it at the Ice Core Gateway.
    Phantom: I have seen a great deal of what you call “musical citations” since I have been looking at this issue. In fact it is what keeps me interested since I like to track down the references and read them. I will note that the Jaworowski article has a couple of excellent examples.
    Regards,
    John

  50. The latest UN declaration on Global Warming opens the ‘hidden agenda’ of Kyotoism.
    The ‘rich nations’, says the UN, owe the ‘poor nations’, 68 billion dollars, for global warming.
    Ahhh. At least the scam is now in the open. AGW and its sidekick, Kyotoism, is all about money laundering. From the ‘rich’ to the ‘poor’. Sin money. Not loans, not foreign investment. Just hand over the billions. Because you have it, and we don’t.
    So much for science, truth and ethics.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation