In the realm of science, when a computer model is contradicted by empirical observation, the model is deemed to have been refuted. Only in the field of global climate do purported scientists refuse to recognize that basic principle.
The board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has issued a statement demanding that all attacks on global warming advocates cease.
Though they couch their wording as if they oppose all outside interference with the scientific process (a bad idea on its own), they conveniently only complain about the efforts of skeptics to challenge the work of scientists who support human-caused global warming.
Lawmakers and activist groups also have sought detailed disclosure of records from climate researchers. The American Tradition Institute (ATI) has asked the University of Virginia to turn over thousands of e-mails and documents written by Michael E. Mann, a former U-Va. professor and a prominent climate scientist. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a climate change skeptic, demanded many of the same documents last year in an effort to determine if Mann had somehow defrauded taxpayers in obtaining research grants. ATI also has sued NASA to disclose records detailing climate scientist James Hansen’s compliance with federal ethics and disclosure rules.
In other words, don’t question these people, only skeptics are open for attack.
Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty switches from global warming advocate to skeptic.
This is just more fallout from Climategate and the unwillingness of scientists to clean house.
At House hearings this week the head of NOAA was attacked for ignoring Congressional law in setting up a National Climate Service.
One big sticking point for legislators is language in this spring’s final 2011 spending bill that averted a government shutdown, which states that “none of the funds made available by this division may be used to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service.” Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said the appointment of Karl and the hiring of six regional directors appear to have ignored those instructions. He quipped that NOAA was “living in climate sin,” a reference to Karl’s statement during an interview in December 2010 with ClimateWire that “we’ve moved in, … we’re waiting for the marriage certificate, but we’re acting like we have a climate service.”
Lubchenco defended her actions, saying that her appointments were “smart” and merely “good planning.” She said their salaries are drawn from “existing funds” and that legislation dating back to the National Climate Program Act of 1978 describes providing climate services as part of NOAA’s mission. She responded to Hall’s concerns that the climate service would take away from NOAA’s other activities by saying, “It’s good government to reorganize periodically.” She also referred to its economic potential, citing the $1 billion industry that has emerged around the National Weather Service.
Speaking with ScienceInsider after the hearing, she made it clear that NOAA intends to push ahead. “This is an idea whose time has come.” [emphasis mine]
In other words, so what the law forbids NOAA from doing this. We know best, Congress can go to hell.
Global warming scientist James Hansen is being sued for failing to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding more than $1.2 million in compensation he earned outside his NASA job.
Junk science: Michael Mann and associates have just released a paper claiming “The rate of sea level rise along the U.S. Atlantic coast is greater now than at any time in the past 2,000 years–and has shown a consistent link between changes in global mean surface temperature and sea level.” You can read the paper itself here.
For many, many, many reasons, I agree here with scientist Richard Mueller, who believes in global warming but also believes in good science, “I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore.”
Nonetheless, I have looked at this new paper by Mann and crew, and find its evidence so weak it ain’t worth the paper it’s written on. To look at the record of a single fossil and claim it is a sufficient proxy for sea level rise is downright laughable.
The failed predictions of global warming activists.
In 2005 “the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.” Three years later . . . Srgjan Kerim, president of the UN General Assembly, said it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. A UNEP web page showed a map of regions where people were likely to be displaced by the ravages of global warming. It has recently been taken offline but is still visible in a Google cache.
A university research center is under attack for arbitrarily adjusting its sea-level data upward.
The IPCC is in trouble again for using a Greenpeace activist to help write one of its recent energy reports.
From JunkScience: Google to censor climate skeptics?
The IPCC announced this week it has established new procedures in an effort to avoid the problems that occurred with the last report.
I remain very skeptical of these reforms, as well as anything this UN organization publishes. Consider this quote for example:
On the issue of citing non-peer-reviewed literature, such as reports from nongovernmental organizations and climate activists, the new procedures say that IPCC report authors can include such documents “as long as they are scientifically and technically valid. [emphasis mine]
How convenient. Decide that something written by Greenpeace is “scientifically and technically valid” and you can use it as evidence.
The predictions of disaster from the first Earth Day, 1970. I especially like this one:
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. . . . By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University [emphasis mine]
A consensus was reached and the science was settled!
Remember this the next time some blowhard global-warming pundit tries to claim “the science is settled” today.
Confusion in the environmentalism movement: A global warming activist discovers that anti-nuclear activists lie!
This is wrong, if true: The chief of the UK’s Met Office said yesterday that he has received death threats from climate change skeptics.
A Met Office spokesman confirmed Mr Hirst had received death threats made in a number of ”unsavoury emails”, but said they were ”isolated incidents” and the organisation had not felt it necessary to involve the police.
The electric-powered Chevy Volt actually produces more CO2 than an ordinary gasoline engine!
I don’t know if the analysis in the above article is completely accurate, but it sure suggests that switching to electric cars over gasoline is not all that it’s cracked up to be, and is probably not a good idea.
It’s not the crime it’s the cover-up: According to Science, Michael Mann of the climategate scandal did not advocate the illegal deletion of emails that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as reported earlier by the Daily Caller. All he did was forward an email by Phil Jones, also part of the climategate scandal, that requested that emails should be deleted. He is therefore innocent.
This is getting absurd. That a journal like Science would try to justify this idiotic argument puts a serious stain on almost everything they publish. Michael Mann was requested by Phil Jones to contact Eugene Wahl and ask him to delete emails illegally. Mann took the easiest approach, and simply forwarded Jones’s email. Without question he was complicit in this illegal act.
If the scientific community doesn’t wake up soon and honestly deal with this scandal, they are going to destroy a four hundred year track record of honesty. Worse, they are going to find it increasingly difficult to get funds from anyone for their research.
