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.
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.
I am very worried that we are running out of time.
It is very important to reach an [international emissions] agreement by 2009.
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.
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.
This is not science, it is nothing more than political expediency.
Posted on December 1, 2011, in Anthropogenic Global Warming, Church Of Climatology, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, COP17, Global Warming, Green Lies and tagged COP17 Durban, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.