The Noble Corruption Of Climate Science 

Posted: April 11, 2019 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Critique, modelling, predictions, propaganda, weather
Tags: ,

H/T The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
Is IPCC-oriented climate science running out of road in terms of public credibility, when measured against reality?

This is a story of climate science, tracing from its enthusiastic beginnings as a small field – warning of a global threat – to its rich and increasingly desperate present, writes Larry Kummer @ Fabius Maximus.

It is a long story, with a climax at the end.

The climate change campaign hits a dead end

On 24 June 1988, James Hansen’s testimony to the Senate began the campaign to fight anthropogenic global warming. During the following 31 years we have heard increasingly dire forecasts of doom.

Some describe the distant future, beyond any reasonable forecasting horizon (due to both technical and social uncertainties). Some describe the near future. Many attribute almost all current extreme weather to our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) – using impossible to validate methods.

Karl Popper said that successful predictions, especially of the unexpected, were the gold standard of science (see here). That is a problem for climate activists.

The Earth has been warming since the mid-19th century, when the Little Ice Age ended. The rate of warming in the past four decades (since 1977) is roughly the same as that during the four decades up to 1945. Anthropogenic GHG became a major factor only after WWII.

So warming has occurred as predicted, but a naive forecast (without considering GHG) would have also predicted warming. There are explanations for this, but it makes model validation difficult (perhaps why it is seldom attempted: see links in section f in the For More Info section of this post).

Worse, the weather has not cooperated. Major hurricanes avoided America for 11 years, ending in 2017. Warming slowed during what climate scientists called the “pause” or “hiatus” (see links about its causes). And most forms of extreme weather have no obvious increasing trend.

So surveys show little public support in America for expensive measures to fight climate change.

Activists grow desperate.

“The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells in New York Magazine –
“Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: what climate change could wreak
– sooner than you think.”
Expanded into a book: The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming.

“The five ways the human race could be WIPED OUT because of global warming.”
By Rod Ardehali at the Daily Mail. H/t to the daily links at Naked Capitalism.
Promo for Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?, a book by Bill McKibben.

Activists responded to the uncooperative weather by making ever-more dire predictions (many of which have passed their due date and been proven false).

All extreme weather was “climate change.” They made more vivid propaganda (e.g., the 10:10 video, showing a teacher exploding the heads of students who do not accept her propaganda). They increased the volume of their claims, with more 2-minute hate sessions for dissenters (with lies about even eminent climate scientists).

The long-term effects of this are (hopefully) small, since these fear barrages have been the Left’s go-to tactic since the 1960s (see some classics of the genre).

Continued here.

  1. oldbrew says:

    It’s time for us all to recognize the 97% con game
    April 10th, 2019

    The fraudulent 97% consensus is clearly a marketing ploy. What makes science different from religion is that only empirical evidence matters not opinion. Consensus does not matter at all in science.

    In theory it doesn’t matter, but in reality the majority – or claimed majority – has the upper hand unless or until overthrown somehow.

  2. tom0mason says:

    Indeed it is a deception. Why would a paper on the Southern Oceans that showed that the climate models were wrong and “Polar Amplification” has not happened, be rejected.
    Rejected as the author tells it as —

    What was truly bizarre about the review of this particular paper is that the editor was complimentary about the paper (“this valuable analytical work”) and acknowledged that it was correct (“you are right as current models have many serious problems because of their poor resolution and their crude parameterizations of key processes”), but then refused publication saying quite openly that papers critical of the climate models were not needed because the models “need to be taken seriously (as the IPCC does) even with a pinch of salt”!

    The story is at

    Why do models have to be taken seriously when among their many failings is the acknowledgement that they have “poor resolution and their crude parameterizations of key processes” ?
    Just because the major influence in funding ‘climate science’ says so?

  3. People seem to be forgetting “climategate” which has a leak from UEA (University of East Angela) by an insider of emails which identified cheating with temperature records, conspiracy to suppress papers setting out true results etc. There was correspondence about Warwick Hughes request for data (blog here ) with Prof Jones saying the data had been deleted and why should they give data to someone that could use it to oppose their findings.
    I have lost the wikileak download but remember searching for Prof Will Steffen who joined ANU and became an advisor to the Australian Government on Climate. I found 6 emails which named him. He was an organiser of a conference in Russia and corresponded with Prof Jones and others at UEA about who should attend and what should be discussed. My memory indictates that there was a UK peer a leading light and there were representatives from the Russian Govt and some European institutes. I think it turned out to be a small exclusive conference with less than 50 attendees.
    I never saw a full analysis of all the “climategate” emails. My recollection was that someone was going to do searches in three batches but I only saw the first and followed instructions how to search through them. I did not have time or skills to search for names other than Will Steffen (who it appears has qualifications as an industrial chemist, I have not been able to find his PHD thesis and he certainly has no clue about heat transfer)

  4. Above I mentioned Warwick Hughes. He has a section on Jone et al and it it is this post with 28 comments about the history.

  5. oldbrew says:

    Why do models have to be taken seriously

    Otherwise the bottom drops out of climate alarm and the money dries up?

  6. hunterson7 says:

    There is a medieval deliberate blindness infecting the reactionaries running government, academia and media today.
    This willfull blindness is expressed on topics like climate, immigration, gender, Brexit, GMO, Trump, and free speech. They cannot even allow an opened discussion if these so-called trigger issues.
    This reactionary culture is pernicious, anti-rational, and increasingly totalitarian. Those reactionaries supporting their increasingly untenable positions are choosing more and more to support outright censorship and tyranny.
    These are interesting times, in the worst sense of the proverb.

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    the Lysenkoism of climate science is obvious to the general public now, but the Warmists will continue to beat that dead horse as long as they keep getting money out of it.

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