Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!
- Thread starter PornAddict
- Start date
Come on, you are painting science as a battle between horrible computer models, and I am the one misrepresenting science? I guess to a guy like you all you care about it is the surface appearance, so long as it has the word science in it then it is good enough to be called science.
If it does not follow the scientific method then it is not science. If that is a misrepresentation then throw me in jail along with, Tesla, newton, descarte, Hawking, Higgs, Einstein, schrodinger, feynman, dirac, turing, and many other real scientists.
If it does not follow the scientific method then it is not science. If that is a misrepresentation then throw me in jail along with, Tesla, newton, descarte, Hawking, Higgs, Einstein, schrodinger, feynman, dirac, turing, and many other real scientists.
"Every single time interval"?
The observed data have been below the predictions for every year since we entered the 21st century, with the divergence between the predictions and the data getting ever wider. The Earth's temperature has been stagnant since about the turn of the century, contrary to what was predicted.
According to the IPCC, which used the average of the model runs for its predictions, the models have a 97% failure rate.
If the observed data don't match the predictions, the hypothesis can be rejected. That's not my "basic idea" -- it's how science works.
PROFESSOR WILLIAM HAPPER, PHD Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a member of the US Government’s group of independent scientific advisors JASON, for whom he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. Recipient of the Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, the Herbert P Broida Prize, and a Thomas Alva Edison patent award. Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
This is what Professor William Happer, PH.D. said " The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me motto of Orwell's Ministry of Information in novel 1984.
On February 25th 2009, Professor Happer testified before the US Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee : The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent “Medieval Warm Period” at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious “Little Ice Age” that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated “hockey stick curve,” in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.
I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick… The hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. The hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis.
There really was a Little Ice Age and there really was a Medieval Warm Period that was as warm or warmer than today. I bring up the hockey stick as a particularly clear example that the IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are not dispassionate statements of the facts…
The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information in the novel 1984 : “He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” In 2011, Will Happer expanded his thoughts on “controlling the past” : This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later.
The IPCC and its worshipful supporters did their best to promote the hockey-stick temperature curve. But as John Adams remarked, “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Maybe not. But the hockey stick certainly took “facts and evidence” on a wild ride. In order to control the future, the IPCC had to take control of the past and Mann’s graph was their way to do that.
On the board of the George C Marshall Institute, an Exxon and other funded denier 'think tank'.
Its relevant, as lobbyists like Happer were brought on board after Exxon decided to ignore its own scientists and researchers and go on a path of climate change denial.
From the article above:
This claim is pure bullshit.
As you have noted:
That's 100% success.
Time to talk about the 4 major tipping points, the big sudden change type disasters that we are close to experiencing.
1) AMOC slowdown.
If the AMOC slowdown turns into a stop, which has happened before, Eastern US and Canada and Europe will experience drastically colder weather.
Right now that risk is considered still low, but considering that the globe is recording record warm temperatures while the AMOC warmed areas are experiencing record cold temperatures, its a real risk.
Not according to the IPCC.
Try reading Page 769 of Chapter 9 of the IPCC's AR5 report -- it said only three of the 114 models got it right (a 97% failure rate) and that all of the temperature anomalies were below the CMIP5 mean trend that the IPCC used to make its predictions.
As I said before, Frankfooter is a big believer in "Santa Claus is real" sophistry.
Frankfooter's approach to science works like this:
-- There are many children who believe Santa Claus is real and that each Christmas he brings them presents.
-- On Christmas Day, children throughout the world will wake up to find presents from 'Santa' under the Christmas tree.
-- Thus, according to Frankfooter, the science has proven that Santa Claus is real.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...-a-big-scam!&p=5368545&viewfull=1#post5368545
Using the fact that three of the 114 model runs were correct (the three that predicted stagnant temperatures) to support the claim that the models achieved "100% success" is as preposterous as using the existence of Christmas presents to claim that Santa Claus is real.
No, they didn't 'fail', due to natural variability is was below trend lines (but within projection ranges, as you confirmed) for that 15 year period, the 15 year period before that it was over. But all within ranges and over the long term accurate.
As they noted in page 769, not 768 as you claimed:
Over the longterm the IPCC is accurate.
As you noted:
Now, I note that you refuse to discuss the AMOC slowdown.
Do you deny its happening?
So, the IPCC's predictions were right for about 10 years and have been consistently and spectacularly wrong for about the last 15 years.
For the hypothesis to have any merit, you have to be able to produce results that confirm the predictions and can be consistently replicated. By your own admission, the IPCC's predictions fail the test.
No, by your metrics they pass.
The projections are long term projections, they will be off on short term results, as natural variability gives us a 'wiggly line' in global temperature.
But over the long term they are what you call, spectacularly accurate.
From the same page you linked to, but tried to ignore:
As you noted:
Still afraid to comment on the AMOC slowdown?
And note on the bet, Septembers temp now bring the year to date down to 0.81ºC, so we are now 0.02ºC under with three months to report.
Very close, could go either way, but right now its still so close that it makes the IPCC projections really, really accurate.
I can't really say it's something I'm all that interested in.
I would note, however, that your researcher confirms there has been a "hiatus" in warming over the last 15 years.
"Interestingly, the effect of atmospheric cooling due to an AMOC collapse is associated with heat flow from the atmosphere into the ocean, which has been witnessed during the climate hiatus of the last 15 years." (Bolded emphasis added by me.)
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/10/could-the-day-after-tomorrow-happen.page
I'm glad to see that your own sources are confirming that the IPCC's predictions of unprecedented surface temperature increases were spectacularly wrong.
Actually, I seem to recall Frankfooter repeatedly posting (in other threads) that only a liar or someone with severe problems would claim there's been a "hiatus" over the past 15 years. I wonder if that applies to Frankfooter's own source?
No, I would not give a passing grade to models that only got three out of 114 projections correct.
Your metric might say that is "100% success." Those of us who are a bit stronger in math would say it's a 97% failure rate.
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Challenge UN IPCC
anelNote: This report was originally published in 2010. It is of utmost relevance to the ongoing debate on climate change. .
Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf
More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.
The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,” said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones “should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore.”
Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been “captured” and demanded that “the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed.” Tol also publicly called for the “suspension” of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]
Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a “worthless carcass” and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in “disgrace”. He also explained that the “fraudulent science continues to be exposed.” Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. “‘I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!” See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: “The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”
Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:
“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”
— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”
— Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”
— Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”
— Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”
“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”
— Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]
“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”
— Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]
“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.”
— Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”
— Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.
“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.”
— Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
End of Selected Excerpts
Another piece of crap that came from the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation
Which gets us back to Exxon.
GWPF also gave us the '900 papers' claim, in which 9 of 10 top 'scientists' were all Exxon employees.
Have you got anything real, that isn't 5 years old and didn't come from Exxon?
But they are deadly accurate over the long term, and even in the short term were within their projection ranges.
As you noted:
Why do you keep calling yourself a liar so often?
HERE YOU GO .. THIS IS RECENT peer review ARTICLE THE LATEST ...YOU CLIMATE ALARMIST ( JUST FOR YOU FRANKFOOTER & ALSO FOR YOUR SIDEKICK Fujii ) !!!!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...ctor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/
GLOBAL COOLING process discovered as Paris climate deal looms
'Could explain recent disagreements'
30 Sep 2015 at 11:28, Lewis Page
As world leaders get ready to head to Paris for the latest pact on cutting CO2 emissions, it has emerged that there isn't as much urgency about the matter as had been thought.
A team of top-level atmospheric chemistry boffins from France and Germany say they have identified a new process by which vast amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted into the atmosphere from the sea - a process which was unknown until now, meaning that existing climate models do not take account of it.
The effect of VOCs in the air is to cool the climate down, and thus climate models used today predict more warming than can actually be expected. Indeed, global temperatures have actually been stable for more than fifteen years, a circumstance which was not predicted by climate models and which climate science is still struggling to assmilate.
In essence, the new research shows that a key VOC, isoprene, is not only produced by living organisms (for instance plants and trees on land and plankton in the sea) as had previously been assumed. It is also produced in the "microlayer" at the top of the ocean by the action of sunlight on floating chemicals - no life being necessary. And it is produced in this way in very large amounts.
According to an announcement just issued by the German government's Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research:
Atmospheric chemists from France and Germany, however, can now show that isoprene can also be formed without biological sources in the surface film of the oceans by sunlight and so explain the large discrepancy between field measurements and models. The new identified photochemical reaction is therefore important to improve the climate models.
Global models at the moment assume total emissions of isoprene from all sources - trees, plants, plankton, the lot - of around 1.9 megatons per year. But, according to the new research, the newly discovered "abiotic" process releases as much as 3.5 megatons on its own - which "could explain the recent disagreements" between models and reality.
"We were able for the first time to trace back the production of this important aerosol precursor to abiotic sources. So far global calculations consider only biological sources," explains Dr Christian George from French lab the Institute of Catalysis and Environment, in Lyon.
VOCs such as isoprene are known to be a powerful factor in the climate, as they cause the formation of aerosol particles. Some kinds of aerosol, for instance black soot, warm the world up: but the ones resulting from VOCs actually cool it down substantially by acting as nuclei for the formation of clouds. It has previously been suggested that production of VOCs by pine forests could be a negative feedback so powerful that it "limits climate change from reaching such levels that it could become really a problem in the world."
With the discovery of the new abiotic sea process, the idea that cutting carbon emissions may not be all that urgent is looking stronger. That's probably good news, as it has emerged lately that efforts to cut carbon emissions to date are having the unfortunate side effect of poisoning us all.
The new research is published here courtesy of the learned journal Environmental Science and Technology, and as the Leibniz Institute notes: "Because of the great importance this paper will be open access".
Last edited:
So, using your exact same line of argument, you think anyone who says Santa Claus isn't real is a "liar."
How ridiculous.
By the way, your AMOC guy says there's been a 15-year "hiatus." I guess he's also a "liar."
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2015/10/could-the-day-after-tomorrow-happen.page
