Willis Eschenbach"s recent guest post at Watts Up With That? on the current state of Climate science" should be made compulsory reading in every classroom, every university science department, every eco-charity, every environmental NGO and in every branch of government. They won"t like it up em, that"s for sure.
What Eschenbach says is so pure and simple and obvious you"d need to be as dumb as Chris Huhne not to get it:
The theory linking man-made CO2 with dangerous global warming is dead. It has been falsified. It has run smack bang into a Snull hypothesis. It has met its Waterloo. It has bought the farm. It has gone for a Burton. It has cashed in its chips, fallen off its perch, gone south, gone west, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible. Man-made Global Warming has ceased to exist.
Eschenbach wrote his post in response to a bizarre speech prepared by Dr Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), which he intended to deliver to the American Meteorological Society. Trenberth is the arch-warmist perhaps best known for writing the Climategate email which went:
The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can"t.
When Trenberth"s speech was pre-published on the internet it caused something of a stir, both for the way large chunks of it had been taken almost verbatim from another scientist and for its use six times of the word Sdenier. (Thanks to some kindly advice proferred by Steve McIntyre, Trenberth has now significantly altered his speech. But not as I incorrectly reported earlier by changing his six uses of the word Sdeniers to Ssceptics. That loaded word deniers he has kept, which gives you an idea of the man"s zealotry. And also his foolishness: a good many in his audience at the AMS, being meteorologists rather than Sclimate scientists tend very much to fall into the sceptic camp).
What Eschenbach focuses on, though, is Trenberth"s absurd demand that the Snull hypothesis on AGW theory be reversed. That is, instead of having to prove AGW exists, what people should now be required to prove that it doesn"t exist. (!)
Here"s an excerpt from Eschenbach"s hilarious demolition of this nonsense:
Gotta love the style, though, simply proclaiming by imperial fiat that his side is the winner in one of the longest-running modern scientific debates. And his only proffered Sevidence for this claim? It is the unequivocal fact that Phil Jones and Michael Mann and Caspar Amman and Gene Wahl and the other good old boys of the IPCC all agree with him. That is to say, Dr. T"s justification for reversing the null hypothesis is that the IPCC report that Dr. T helped write agrees with Dr. T. That"s recursive enough to make Ouroboros weep in envy.
Do read Eschenbach"s post in full.
Eschenbach goes on to offer a long list of things climate "scientists" should do if they"re ever to be taken seriously again:
Stop avoiding public discussion and debate of your work.
Stop secretly moving the pea under the walnut shells.
Enough with the scary scenarios, already.
Speak out against scientific malfeasance whenever and wherever you see it.
Stop re-asserting the innocence of you and your friends.
STOP HIDING THINGS!!!
Will any of this happen? It"s about as likely, I"d say, as my winning gold in the 100 metres at the 2012 London Olympics. The reason for this is that SClimate Change has long since abandoned any connection it had now with actual science. It is an ideology. A religion. A psychopathology.
That"s why the people on this planet now inhabit two parallel universes.
On the one hand are the true believers, such as NASA"s Dr James Hansen, who believes his compatriots are Sbarbarians, that US democracy is Sdysfunctional and that the best way to sort out the world"s carbon problems would be to invite some kind of global, Chinese-led eco dictatorship. These true believers also include this eco-loon at Treehugger who appears to admire China"s no-nonsense way of meeting its five-year energy-efficiency targets: by Scutting power to industry and imposing rolling blackouts.
According to the Treehugger this is brutal, statist, anti-human example is something we could learn from:
It"s worth noting the difference in political culture: What do you think would have happened if the US had such an energy-reduction target to hit, but a sagging economy got in the way?
I can tell you with some certainty: We would have missed that mark.
Then, on the other side of the planet, living in a parallel universe, are the rest of us. We look at James Hansen"s quotes and think: SHang on a second. This is the guy in charge of one of the world"s four main climate data sets. He"s paid for by the US taxpayer, supposedly to represent US interests. And he"s a scientist who"s supposed to be politically neutral. Is it just me or has one half of the world gone totally mad?
Or as Dr Kevin Trenberth might say if only he weren"t so committed to the wrong cause, SThis AGW sham. It"s a travesty!
I"ve been urged and rightly so to draw your attention to the equally brilliant refutation of AGW at WUWT (commissioned by the GWPF) by the mighty Dr Richard Lindzen. (H/T D Simmons)
When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for saving" the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the cap and trade" bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one"s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America"s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.
Warmists: 'We can't win the game, so let's change the rules', Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.Legal Forum | Politics Forum | Sports Forum | Teen Forum | Webmaster Forum
Read More... [Source: The European Union Times - World News, Breaking News]
No comments:
Post a Comment