OT:Global Warming and Junk Science

[Bill Campbell]

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007, Boaz Bezborodko wrote:
>I have recently been in an extensive argument on GW with some 
>Anthropogenic GW promoters.  It is amazing the extent to which these 
>people rally around each other in their defense of what seems to be some 
>very incomplete science.  One particular case that comes to mind is the 
>Mann Hockey Stick chart. 
>
>A scientist by the name of Mann came up with an analysis of climate 
>proxies that "proved" that the current rise in temperatures is both 
>unprecedented and man-made.   The man-made part comes by comparing this 
>with the growth of CO2, but this is not "proof" and would easily be 
>disproved by the existence of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP).  What 
>his chart has done, and what its supporters keep insisting is the case, 
>is to "prove" that the Medieval Warming Period did not happen. 
>
>According to anecdotal evidence the MWP was a period of very warm 
>weather over a period of a few centuries.  During this period Greenland 
>was full of arable land on which the vikings were able to sustain 
>settlements and the Romans were cultivating vineyards in northern England.

The evidence isn't anecdotal, but the result of many studies from all parts
of the globe, studies of ice cores, tree rings, stalagmite chemestry, and,
not to be discounted, contemporary histories going back thousands of years
in the case of Chinese records.

The ``Unstoppable Global Warming'' book I cited earlier goes into details
on these studies with many references of peer-reviewed studies.

>The pro-AGW folks are saying that the MWP didn't really exist except as 
>a short-term and regionally isolated blip on the global temperature 
>record.  I think that it is so critical to their argument that current 
>rises in temperature have to be human generated that they have blinded 
>themselves.  The disturbing part is that this includes eminent 
>scientists who are supposed to not be biased by the outcomes. 

Where does the funding for these scientists come from?  How many of them
would get their grants renewed if they came out disputing the conventional
wisdom.

I have read a fair number of books on this subject, written by scientists,
or people with strong science backgrounds, which refute the human-caused
global warming including:

The Chicken Little Agenda by Robert G. Williscroft, an atmospheric
scientist who spent over 20 years with NOAA (National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration), and was an Naval officer on nuclear
submarines.

Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan, best known for his science
fiction, but his background is in science, working at Bell Labs if I
remember correctly (I don't have a copy nearby today).

State of Fear by Michael Crichton.  While this is fiction, it has copious
refernces at the back.

>What happened was that some econometric statisticians (McIntyre and 
>McKitrick) evaluated the Mann work and found serious problems with it.  
>Essentially they were able to get the same chart by feeding the program 
>random data.  After years of work and pressure from Congress to open up 
>the data used they found a lot of the causes for those errors.  One 
>report by the National Research Council on behalf of the National 
>Academy of Sciences analyzed the work and in their sumary said that what 
>Mann said was "plausible".  What the summary did not say and what you 
>have to piece together from various parts of the actual report is that 
>Mann's critics were correct.  But instead of saying this the NRC study 
>goes further by adding other studies that "confirm" Mann's hypothesis if 
>not his work.  The study included a number of people who've already 
>expressed their belief that AGW is real.
>
>There is still, to this day, an ongoing argument about whether the MWP 
>did or did not exist and whether the proxies chosen are valid for the 
>comparisons being made.

There were arguments for years that Galileo's views were wrong as well.

The Medieval Warming Period was only one of hundreds of warm periods
throughout history.  The Roman Warming Period, from about 200bc to 400ad
was followed by the Dark Ages cooling period, and was followed by the
Little Ice Age from the early 1600s through the middle 1800s.  During the
Little Ice Age, the Thames river froze solid enough to have fairs on it.

During the MWP, crops such as grapes were grown in northern England, and in
many areas of Europe higher, and farther North than they do today, a strong
indication that it was warmer in these parts of the world.

...
>But all this controversy is not evidence that we don't yet know enough 
>about what happened in the past, let alone what's going to happen.  No, 
>it is merely evidence that Global Warming "deniers" are either in the 
>pay of the oil companies or are unwilling to accept the "consensus" of 
>the "experts".

It's pretty damning when the advocates of human caused global warming
resort to ad-hominem attacks rather than answering the arguments.

The people who wrote the books cited above certainly aren't in the pay of
energy companies, and they cite numerous sources.

Which is more likely, that politicians, academics, and bureaucrats will act
to further their power and wealth, or that the mathematical models with
hundreds of variables, and unknown conditions are accurate?

Bill
--
INTERNET:   bill at celestial.com  Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
URL: http://www.celestial.com/  PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX:            (206) 232-9186  Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676

The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science
requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require scholarship.
                -- Robert Heinlein