Another study by scientists with impeccable credentials is confirming our assertions that the climatology models are severely flawed. Which only reinforces my belief that the science of climatology has been corrupted by the far-left political loons (do-gooders, socialists, communists) and the special interests who see an enormous scheme to plunder the wealth of entire nations.

First the science...

CNSNews.com is reporting:

Sun, Not Man, Main Cause of Climate Change, New Study Says

"According to a new study on global warming, climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia found that the climate change models based on human influence do not match observed warming."

"The new report, which challenges the claims of Gore and the IPCC, was published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society." 

"The report was written by David Douglass at the University of Rochester, John Christy at the University of Alabama, and Benjamin Pearson and S. Fred Singer at the University of Virginia." 

The report abstract from the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society:

"We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modeled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modeled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data."

According to the CNSNews article:

"Our findings basically are that fingerprints - that is to say the pattern of warming - that's predicted by greenhouse models does not match the fingerprints of observations, so there is a disconnect between greenhouse models and the actual reality of observations."

"This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very important in producing climate change," he said. "It's a lot smaller than what the models calculate."
Singer said the reason why the models "overestimate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is that the models ignore what are called negative feedbacks which occur in the atmosphere, such as clouds, which reduce the effect of the greenhouse gases." "Their models just don't consider them properly," he said.

Note: the report's authors ONLY report an apparent discrepancy between observational data and the computer models. For those political folks reading this blog entry: this is science at work. The next step would be for the computer modelers to respond to the report's assertions, possibly by pointing out errors in methodology or corrupted data or flawed assumptions -- or by revising the computer models to best match the observational data points which were used in the report. This is a time-consuming process which may take many years before scientists may have replicable results where the models match the observations. Then there is the matter of the predictive nature of the models -- and the cycle of  assertive challenge and defense is again renewed. Again, this is how science works in a politically-neutral environment. It is not fast, it does not produce pre-ordained results and it should be funded whether or not the results match the beliefs or opinions of  those that control the funding sources.

Now the politics: Again, with the "science by consensus" falsehood... perpetuating the "BIG LIE"

"But Bracken Hendricks, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, told Cybercast News Service, that the study is "radically out of step with the complete scientific consensus." "'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not just a report. It's not just a random gathering of scientists. It's the largest scientific body ever assembled," he said. 'Their most recent assessment determined that there's 90 percent certainty that global climate change is happening and that it is caused by human beings.'"

This is another example of a "bald-faced" LIE. Scientific truth is not determined by a consensus. Best beliefs do not count. Feelings and subjective alterations of the outcome are not science. Science is performed first hand: hypothesis, experiment, observation -- and lastly, a mathematical model to attempt to describe what is happening. After description comes prediction and another round of testing... until the assertion is generally accepted to the point of replication by anyone with the skill and resources to duplicate the results to independently confirm the findings at will. That is science!

But Singer said, "We have to remember that the climate has always been changing ever since we have records, and we have geologic records going back millions and millions of years. We know that there have been huge climate changes on the earth long before human beings actually came into existence.
"We are fairly sure that what's causing the warming are changes in the sun," he said. "These are very subtle changes that are very difficult to observe. The sun is really a quite variable star." 

Hendricks, however, said because of the IPCC report, "the assertion that this is caused by increased solar activity or these sorts of things is out of step with the vast consensus."
"It's dangerous to get into a game of dueling science," he added. "We don't want to be gambling with the fate of the planet."

But Singer said because global warming is a natural event. "There is little point to try to control emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which means that all of this legislation and all of these efforts to find substitutes for fossil fuels are pointless, useless and very, very expensive," he said.

The truth shines through...

"Hendricks countered, saying that alternative energy will be a multi-billion dollar industry and "an opportunity to revitalize our global competitiveness" through innovation and job creation."

So we are back to the "end justifies the means" argument which is that it is permissible to lie, cheat and steal from the world as long as your sociopolitical goals are accomplished.

What they don't openly say is that the control over energy production, industrial output is just another means to exert political control over another sovereign entity. Or that the taxes and wealth re-distribution is just another attempt to plunder the planet's existing resources for the few that act as gatekeepers to the system.

There is not doubt in my mind that the Marxists, Socialists, Communists and other radical elements in our society have hijacked the ecology movement and are using our own laws, rules, regulations and politics against the United States in such a manner as to reduce the power and influence in a world of evil-doers and complacent fools.

If the Goracle's people refuse to debate the issue, let them publish a peer-reviewed article refuting the scientific assertions of the newly published journal piece and have at it for all the world to see. No multipliers, smoothed data, hidden assumptions. Let them publish their computer model program code and datasets and let's start evaluating the science and put the politics on hold.

What can YOU do?

Demand intellectual honesty from both politicians and scientists.

Set the stage for a scientific shootout of competing ideas in a non-political environment that is not hosted or promoted by an anti-American foreign entity seeking to claim global influence over sovereign nations.

Have the courage to do nothing. Not every problem demands immediate answers. Since weather cycles are between 500 -1000 years, I think that we can all agree that any action taken within the next fifty years may never be measurable or even helpful as an answer to how man can mitigate the effects of nature by adopting a sociopolitical solution based on non-science and where money and power reign supreme.

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for personal power, prestige or profits.

Use common sense and guard your pocketbook.

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Reference Links:

Sun, Not Man, Main Cause of Climate Change, New Study Says |CNSNews.com

Link to purchase access to the article: "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions"

And for the credential hounds: (I am only doing a single author to conserve space and reading time)...

"Dr. S. Fred Singer is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a Member of the International Academy of Astronautics. He received his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. Dr. Singer has served as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres; Chief Scientist for the U. S. Department of Transportation; Deputy Assistant Administrator at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U. S. Department of the Interior; Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami; (First) Director of the U. S. Weather Satellite Center; Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland; and Research Physicist, Upper Atmospheric Rocket Program, Johns Hopkins University. He has also been a visiting scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology; National Air and Space Museum; Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas; and the Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth. He is the recipient of the White House Special Commendation, Gold Medal Award from the U.S. Department of Commerce, (First) Science Award from the British Interplanetary Society, and Honorary Doctorate from Ohio State University."

"Dr. Singer is the author or editor of fourteen books on climate science, energy, and environmental issues as well as the author of over 400 articles in scientific and public policy journals plus over 200 articles in popular publications, Dr. Singer has been featured in articles in Time, Life, and U. S. News & World Report, and he has been interviewed on Nightline, Today Show, News Hour, Nightwatch, and other national and international television programs."

For those that believe that there is a global conspiracy of the oil companies, here is the Greenpeace link that claims Singer is somehow tainted by his funding sources and/or contributions to organizations. <LINK> While I believe that this amounts to character assassination and the "pot calling the kettle black," we present it so that our readers can do their own analysis and developed an informed viewpoint. Please note: that one loosely-coupled global conspiracy (the far-left co-opted ecological movement) needs a villain in order to raise funds. What better target than oil companies whose profits are much less (approximately 10 cents) than the government's tax on the product itself. (approximately 62 cents) but who have the often deserved reputation as freebooters and destroyers of the environment?