COP17 The Junk Science Behind Climate Change

There has been no global warming to speak of despite what environmental journalists describe as “obscene levels” of CO2 emissions, the temperature of the planet stubbornly refuses to follow the settled science of the Church of Climatology.

CO2 levels have risen 33% in the last 10 years and the temperature of the planet is the same as it was in 1979, a recent study of ocean sediment core showed that during the Medieval Warming Period the temperature of the planet was 1.5 C higher than today while atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm as opposed to today where atmospheric CO2 is 392 ppm.

The whole Climate Change scam is founded on junk science where the scientists give the answer the politicians want, or the answer that ensures that vainglorious scientists like Phil Jones continue to get accolades and huge research grants.

There are 8 warning signs of junk science:

Science by press release. It’s never, ever a good sign when ‘scientists’ announce dramatic results before publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. When this happens, we generally find out later that they were either self-deluded or functioning as political animals rather than scientists. This generalizes a bit; one should also be suspicious of, for example, science first broadcast by congressional testimony or talk-show circuit.

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of eschatological panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “a terrible catastrophe looms over us if theory X is true, therefore we cannot risk disbelieving it”, you can be pretty sure that X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to panic the herd into stampeding rather than focusing on the quality of the evidence for theory X.

Rhetoric that mixes science with the tropes of moral panic. When the argument for theory X slides from “theory X is supported by evidence” to “only bad/sinful/uncaring people disbelieve theory X”, you can be even more sure that theory X is junk science. Consciously or unconsciously, advocates who say these sorts of things are trying to induce a state of preference falsification in which people are peer-pressured to publicly affirm a belief in theory X in spite of private doubts.

Consignment of failed predictions to the memory hole. It’s a sign of sound science when advocates for theory X publicly acknowledge failed predictions and explain why they think they can now make better ones. Conversely, it’s a sign of junk science when they try to bury failed predictions and deny they ever made them.

Over-reliance on computer models replete with bugger factors that aren’t causally justified.. No, this is not unique to climatology; you see it a lot in epidemiology and economics, just to name two fields that start with ‘e’. The key point here is that simply fitting historical data is not causal justification; there are lots of ways to dishonestly make that happen, or honestly fool yourself about it. If you don’t have a generative account of why your formulas and coupling constants look the way they do (a generative account which itself makes falsifiable predictions), you’re not doing science – you’re doing numerology.

If a ‘scientific’ theory seems tailor-made for the needs of politicians or advocacy organizations, it probably has been. Real scientific results have a cross-grained tendency not to fit transient political categories. Accordingly, if you think theory X stinks of political construction, you’re probably right. This is one of the simplest but most difficult lessons in junk-science spotting! The most difficult case is recognizing that this is happening even when you agree with the cause.

Past purveyers of junk science do not change their spots
. One of the earliest indicators in many outbreaks of junk science is enthusiastic endorsements by people and advocacy organizations associated with past outbreaks. This one is particularly useful in spotting environmental junk science, because unreliable environmental-advocacy organizations tend to have long public pedigrees including frequent episodes of apocalyptic yelling. It is pardonable to be taken in by this the first time, but foolish by the fourth and fifth.

Refusal to make primary data sets available for inspection. When people doing sound science are challenged to produce the observational and experimental data their theories are supposed to be based on, they do it. (There are a couple of principled exceptions here; particle physicists can’t save the unreduced data from particle collisions, there are too many terabytes per second of it.) It is a strong sign of junk science when a ‘scientist’ claims to have retained raw data sets but refuses to release them to critics.

Science is never settled despite what Barry Obama would have us believe and no matter what the Chief Climate Scientist Railway Engineer at the IPCC Rajendra Pachuari predicts about environmental Armageddon happening by some date or other, the event does not happen and Pachuari moves the doomsday date back a few years:

We have just a small window of opportunity and it is closing rather rapidly. There is not a moment to lose.
January 2005

If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.
November 2007

I am very worried that we are running out of time.
January 2008

It is very important to reach an [international emissions] agreement by 2009.
April 2008

If we allow things to continue unchanged and we don’t take action today, it would destabilize human society…I hope that in the next year and a half…that we show a certain resolve and aspiration to do things that are required for the benefit of the human race.
August 2008

The least cost part of effective emissions reduction would really require us to see that global emissions peak no later than 2015. And that’s just four years away…if we have to meet that requirement of a least cost trajectory of emissions stabilisation then we really need to move rapidly and every country in the world has to do that.
May 2011

This is not science, it is nothing more than political expediency.

About Tory Aardvark

Climate Realist, Conservative and proud NRA member. I don't buy into the Man Made Global Warming Scam, science is never settled. @ToryAardvark on Twitter ToryAardvark on Facebook

Posted on December 1, 2011, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, COP17, Global Warming, Green Lies and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. Reblogged this on Johnsono ne'Blog'as and commented:
    Taip pat būtina pridurti – “baubas” CO2 yra augalų maistas, verčiantis juos tuštintis O2 (deguonimi).Nejaugi sunku žmonėms suprasti kodėl Amazonės miškai vadinami planetos plaučiais?

    Be atodairos kapojami dabar tie plaučiai, sėjama menkavertėmis GMO kultūromis. Smegenyse naivuoliams sėjamos ekofašistinės vizijos, tuo tarpu šiems fantazuojant – realybėje akis bado aplinkai kenksmingos (ne dėl “emisijų”, pagūglinkite, kenkia kiek kitaip) ir nuostolingos vėjo jėgainės…

    Valstybė švaisto mokesčių mokėtojų lėšas nepasiteisinantiems projektams ir perka “emisijų kvotas” – t.y. perka teisę teršti. Taip sakant pinigai į balą – na nevisai, yra kas tuos šekelius susirenka. 🙂

  2. It is quite evident and unrefutable that the science community, especially the ‘climate science’ has been hijacked by unscrupulous politicians and environmental zealots. Not just for political gain but for financial rewards.
    Case in point is the prevailing commentary from these zealots is that CO 2 is a warming agent. May I remind those who have learned knowledge CO 2 properties, is that CO 2 does not creat heat, rather heat creates CO 2
    Let’s use basic physics to establish the theoretical temperature increase from doubling CO 2 levels from 280 ppmv, which they were in 1900, to 560 ppmv, which they are projected to be in 2100, assuming there are no natural or other anthropogenic forcing factors.
    Since the relationship is logarithmic, CO 2 will have to double again, to 1120 ppmv for another 0.7 degrees C to result. This might happen by around the year 2400, if current rates of increase continue and we haven’t run out of fossil fuels before then.
    All of the above assumes that there are no significant natural forcing factors and no positive or negative feedbacks (solar, water as
    vapor, water as liquid in lower altitude clouds or as solid in higher altitude clouds, etc).
    For further proof that AGW is over-hyped alarmism, one only needs to reflect on the undeniable fact that neither Al Gore, ( 2007 British High Court ruling in which “inconvenient Truth” film was deemed as false information and border line propaganda, nor the UN/IPCC, nor James Hansen, nor Michael Mann, nor Phil Jones or any of the other purveyors of the AGW doomsday scenario will debate their position.
    Since the promoters of AGW consistently run and hide from any debate (and also refuse to publicly archive their data and methodology), then the conclusion is crystal clear: they are lying.

    • One thing I always find amusing about deniers. They get 90% of there information from politicians and Politically minded commentators.

      Yet somehow they forget this when they claim the science has been hijacked by politics.

      I don’t entirely disagree with your comment on politics but probably not in the way you think. However, your physics is just terrible and I don’t fancy writing a 8 page long post to dispute it.

      (FYI) The Great Global warming swindle was declared propaganda as well and most of the scientists interviewed wrote angry open letters about the amount there interview was cut up and made to look like they were saying something entirely different.

      Honestly stop getting your information from politicians.

      • LOL, let Me know how that is working out for ya Sphincter, same for that wirllygig scheme you like when it crashes and burns. For you and your new buddy Drewski. Armageddon!

  3. And the dollars are melting away before their very eyes in Durban at least.

  4. Well thousands of disgruntled farmers stormed Durban conference, demanding polluters pay etc., because they blame their inability to farm properly on climate change? Sad isn’t it.
    I agree ‘Me’ more hot air, agreement to disagree, and another wobbly UN etc. When will this madness end. I just wish that the EU, Australia and NZ will end their chasing a pipe dream and are left like a shag on a rock. If COP 17 does anything it will show the shams and scams in a bad light. Tell despotic African dictators, they should look after their own better, and the big five, tell the UN to bugger off. Aid yes in emergencies, but not handing over millions to look after some other countries environmental problems, when we should be looking after our own. Particularly Australia, trying to look good to the rest of the world with a carbon tax, that will support clean energy subsidies at the expense of the general consumer. We have the coal, black and brown, and can support a population at the moment, but to say jobs for all in clean energy projects is a lie. It isn’t working overseas, and we don’t manufacture solar panels etc. China does, sending other countries broke in the process. Anyway Lord Monckton is there let’s see what he reports at the end of this stupid international conference.

    • Bush bunny I see that once again you are big on opinion and short on facts.

      I get it that you think it’s hot air. However saying it’s hot air while at the same time ignroing every counter opinion is not what one would consider an informed or honest opinion.

      Also I will also be interested to hear what “lord” (not a lord) Monckton has to say. Maybe he’ll reveal his cure for aids that he claimed he had last year.

    • Long story if you don’t like Al Gore for his lack of knowledge and experience you should not be seeking the opinion of a long debunked, english major with claims of gradure and miricle cures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: