Global warming, as “concluded” by the United Nations' IPCC 2007 study, is fatally flawed science. The reliance of liberals on global warming is based on faith, not on anything approaching science.
The victory of the global warming “skeptics” is absolute. Presented below are three separately fatal arguments against IPCC 2007. Any of these three discussions is adequate to “kill” IPCC 2007. It is utterly preposterous that all three can be so flawed that they are incorrect and IPCC 2007 is correct. Only faith can sustain IPCC 2007.
= = = == = = = = =
FIRST ARGUMENT
IPCC 2007 ignores the changes in land use by humans; these altered uses of land are probably at least as responsible for temperature changes as CO2 levels
http://www.ecoworld.com/atmosphere/atmospheric-science/interview-with-roger-pielke-sr.html
In the same interview at the same link, the expert, Pielke, severely criticizes the fair-mindedness of the IPCC 2007 process:
“Pielke: Mainly the fact that the same individuals who are doing primary research into humans’ impact on the climate system are being permitted to lead the assessment of that research. Suppose a group of scientists introduced a drug they claimed could save many lives: There were side effects, of course, but the scientists claimed the drug’s benefits far outweighed its risks. If the government then asked these same scientists to form an assessment committee to evaluate their claim (and the committee consisted of colleagues of the scientists who made the original claim as well as the drug’s developers), an uproar would occur, and there would be protests. It would represent a clear conflict of interest. Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process. To date, either few people recognize this conflict, or those that do choose to ignore it because the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.”
Pielke also contends that the computer studies used in IPCC 2007 are really “sensitivity studies” and do not qualify as a projection. Pielke quotes an IPCC scientist, Kevin Trenberth, in support of this view.
Conclusion: in failing to address the question of human land use, in failing to separate primary research from assessment and in touting sensitivity studies as a projection, IPCC has failed to perform rigorous science and IPCC 2007's global warming projection should be ignored in making policy. The errors discussed by Pielke are FATAL to the reliability of IPCC 2007.
= = = = = = = = = =
SECOND ARGUMENT
A seminal expert in developing forecasting standards, J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, teamed up with Kesten C. Green of the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit of Monash University in Victoria, Australia. The two of them separately examined part 8 of IPCC 2007 for compliance with recognized international forecasting standards. Then they compared notes. No grant or government money was used in their analysis whatsoever.
“We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.”
This was the result of Armstrong and Green: “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” printed in Energy and Environment Volume 18 Nos. 7&8, 2007 and available online at http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf . It's only 27 pages long and should be read in its entirety.
“Comparative empirical studies have routinely concluded that judgmental forecasting by experts is the least accurate of the methods available to make forecasts.” – Armstrong and Green
“Climate models are, in effect, mathematical ways for the experts to express their opinions” --Armstrong and Green
Conclusion: IPCC 2007 conducted a study to produce a climate forecast for the entire 21st century. In doing so, dozens of forecasting standards, many critical, were violated. No credence can thus be placed in the results of such a fatally flawed study.
= = = = = = = = = =
THIRD ARGUMENT
If you must make a decision based on models, then the best model must be used, and all inferior models must be utterly rejected as flawed.
Very roughly, there was a steady and substantial increase in worldwide temperature from about 1979 to about 1998. The temperature was stable from about 1998 to about 2002. Worldwide temperature averages have very slowly been declining since 2002.
IPCC 2007 was released in 2007 with no statements about “pauses” or periods of temperature decline. The study provided us with a picture of steadily increasing temperature throughout the twenty-first century as a result of its mathematical modeling.
Then, in October of 2009, something very odd happened.
Qing-bin Lu, a researcher at the Department of Physics and Astronomy as well as the Departments of Biology and Chemistry at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, was looking at data regarding the “ozone hole” in Antarctica to confirm its growth and shrinkage. The results were published in Physical Reports, Volume 487 Issue 5 in February, 2010 on pages 141-167. The conclusion of his abstract says, modestly, “Finally, a new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.”
The “new observation” is that the ozone hole grew rapidly for twenty years until 1998 and has been very slowly but steadily shrinking since then. Thus the CFC level over Antarctrica exactly matches both the 20 year warming period and mild cooling since 1998. Qing predicts continued slow cooling through 2050.
see: http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012
IPCC 2007 predicted steady temperature increases throughout the 21st century. Two years later, a study was published by Qing at Waterloo (with the objective of looking at CFC levels and ozone) that provides a vastly superior prediction, calling both the warming and the “turn” to slow cooling. This means that in pure terms of mathmatical modeling, IPCC 2007 is unreliable and Qing's work is a more reliable prediction (because it “caught” the change in trend).
Conclusion: IPCC 2007 is FATALLY FLAWED as a mathematical model and cannot be relied upon, since another, simplier model with clearly “uncooked” data follows future tempature trends more closely, especially a key trend reversal.
Second independent study: By researching Atlantic sea levels over the past century as well as water temperatures for the last ten years, scientists at Southampton Univeristy in the UK predict several decades of slow cooling as of 2015. See https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/05/28-ocean-circulation-study.page .
= = = = = = = = = =
Conjecture: the overwhelming majority of followers of IPCC 2007 are liberal. The science denies their position, yet they maintain it. The obvious reason would be that “global warming,” if acted upon worldwide by the governments of the planet, would suddenly and overwhelmingly result in massive redistribution, the paradise of liberal faith. This compelling limerence trumps reason and science for those with the same specific faith.
= = = = = = = = = =
synonyms: pragmatism · practicality · common sense · levelheadedness (from Oxford Dictionaries)
synonyms: exactness · exactitude · accuracy · correctness · preciseness · care · carefulness · meticulousness · scrupulousness · punctiliousness · methodicalness · rigor · rigorousness (from Oxford Dictionaries)
The victory of the global warming “skeptics” is absolute. Presented below are three separately fatal arguments against IPCC 2007. Any of these three discussions is adequate to “kill” IPCC 2007. It is utterly preposterous that all three can be so flawed that they are incorrect and IPCC 2007 is correct. Only faith can sustain IPCC 2007.
= = = == = = = = =
FIRST ARGUMENT
IPCC 2007 ignores the changes in land use by humans; these altered uses of land are probably at least as responsible for temperature changes as CO2 levels
http://www.ecoworld.com/atmosphere/atmospheric-science/interview-with-roger-pielke-sr.html
In the same interview at the same link, the expert, Pielke, severely criticizes the fair-mindedness of the IPCC 2007 process:
“Pielke: Mainly the fact that the same individuals who are doing primary research into humans’ impact on the climate system are being permitted to lead the assessment of that research. Suppose a group of scientists introduced a drug they claimed could save many lives: There were side effects, of course, but the scientists claimed the drug’s benefits far outweighed its risks. If the government then asked these same scientists to form an assessment committee to evaluate their claim (and the committee consisted of colleagues of the scientists who made the original claim as well as the drug’s developers), an uproar would occur, and there would be protests. It would represent a clear conflict of interest. Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process. To date, either few people recognize this conflict, or those that do choose to ignore it because the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.”
Pielke also contends that the computer studies used in IPCC 2007 are really “sensitivity studies” and do not qualify as a projection. Pielke quotes an IPCC scientist, Kevin Trenberth, in support of this view.
Conclusion: in failing to address the question of human land use, in failing to separate primary research from assessment and in touting sensitivity studies as a projection, IPCC has failed to perform rigorous science and IPCC 2007's global warming projection should be ignored in making policy. The errors discussed by Pielke are FATAL to the reliability of IPCC 2007.
= = = = = = = = = =
SECOND ARGUMENT
A seminal expert in developing forecasting standards, J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, teamed up with Kesten C. Green of the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit of Monash University in Victoria, Australia. The two of them separately examined part 8 of IPCC 2007 for compliance with recognized international forecasting standards. Then they compared notes. No grant or government money was used in their analysis whatsoever.
“We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.”
This was the result of Armstrong and Green: “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” printed in Energy and Environment Volume 18 Nos. 7&8, 2007 and available online at http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/files/WarmAudit31.pdf . It's only 27 pages long and should be read in its entirety.
“Comparative empirical studies have routinely concluded that judgmental forecasting by experts is the least accurate of the methods available to make forecasts.” – Armstrong and Green
“Climate models are, in effect, mathematical ways for the experts to express their opinions” --Armstrong and Green
Conclusion: IPCC 2007 conducted a study to produce a climate forecast for the entire 21st century. In doing so, dozens of forecasting standards, many critical, were violated. No credence can thus be placed in the results of such a fatally flawed study.
= = = = = = = = = =
THIRD ARGUMENT
If you must make a decision based on models, then the best model must be used, and all inferior models must be utterly rejected as flawed.
Very roughly, there was a steady and substantial increase in worldwide temperature from about 1979 to about 1998. The temperature was stable from about 1998 to about 2002. Worldwide temperature averages have very slowly been declining since 2002.
IPCC 2007 was released in 2007 with no statements about “pauses” or periods of temperature decline. The study provided us with a picture of steadily increasing temperature throughout the twenty-first century as a result of its mathematical modeling.
Then, in October of 2009, something very odd happened.
Qing-bin Lu, a researcher at the Department of Physics and Astronomy as well as the Departments of Biology and Chemistry at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, was looking at data regarding the “ozone hole” in Antarctica to confirm its growth and shrinkage. The results were published in Physical Reports, Volume 487 Issue 5 in February, 2010 on pages 141-167. The conclusion of his abstract says, modestly, “Finally, a new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.”
The “new observation” is that the ozone hole grew rapidly for twenty years until 1998 and has been very slowly but steadily shrinking since then. Thus the CFC level over Antarctrica exactly matches both the 20 year warming period and mild cooling since 1998. Qing predicts continued slow cooling through 2050.
see: http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012
IPCC 2007 predicted steady temperature increases throughout the 21st century. Two years later, a study was published by Qing at Waterloo (with the objective of looking at CFC levels and ozone) that provides a vastly superior prediction, calling both the warming and the “turn” to slow cooling. This means that in pure terms of mathmatical modeling, IPCC 2007 is unreliable and Qing's work is a more reliable prediction (because it “caught” the change in trend).
Conclusion: IPCC 2007 is FATALLY FLAWED as a mathematical model and cannot be relied upon, since another, simplier model with clearly “uncooked” data follows future tempature trends more closely, especially a key trend reversal.
Second independent study: By researching Atlantic sea levels over the past century as well as water temperatures for the last ten years, scientists at Southampton Univeristy in the UK predict several decades of slow cooling as of 2015. See https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/05/28-ocean-circulation-study.page .
= = = = = = = = = =
Conjecture: the overwhelming majority of followers of IPCC 2007 are liberal. The science denies their position, yet they maintain it. The obvious reason would be that “global warming,” if acted upon worldwide by the governments of the planet, would suddenly and overwhelmingly result in massive redistribution, the paradise of liberal faith. This compelling limerence trumps reason and science for those with the same specific faith.
= = = = = = = = = =
Footnote (July 14, 2015)
IPCC 2007 and IPCC 2013 are not falsifiable because they are
conclusions from math model iterations (see Armstrong and Green, above), which themselves are not laboratory
findings nor data. Therefore IPCC 2007
and IPCC 2014 are not consistent with the scientific method. Further, the forecasting standards were not
even consulted and dozens were broken (see Armstrong and Green above). Further, “global warming:” has been
contradicted by SIMPLER, falsifiable data-driven results from academic studies
at Southampton and Waterloo (links shown above) Princeton . This quote summarizes why the global warmists
utterly lose the argument they have presented:
“A simple falsifiable model that has
been properly validated [even if in a more limited sense than that of Oreskes
et al. (1994)] is better than an ill-conceived complex model with scores of
poorly constrained proportionality constants [also see Murray
--Modeling and
Mathematical Concepts, page 3, press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9502.pdf
Definitions
Generality
-- a statement or principle having
general rather than specific validity or force:
"he
confined his remarks to generalities" (from Oxford Dictionaries)
Realism -- the
attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to
deal with it accordingly:
"the
summit was marked by a new mood of realism"synonyms: pragmatism · practicality · common sense · levelheadedness (from Oxford Dictionaries)
Precision -- the quality, condition, or fact of being exact and
accurate:
"the
deal was planned and executed with military precision"synonyms: exactness · exactitude · accuracy · correctness · preciseness · care · carefulness · meticulousness · scrupulousness · punctiliousness · methodicalness · rigor · rigorousness (from Oxford Dictionaries)
No comments:
Post a Comment