GLOBAL WARMING: PROOF THAT MODELS DO NOT PRODUCE SCIENTIFIC FACT
Four elements of the current conversation on global warming that should be greatly disturbing to all Americans …
Political corruption – There is little doubt in my mind that we are living in an age of unprecedented political and social corruption. Where self-serving politicians and their special interests are engaging in a power grab and simultaneously looting our wealth, both public and private. Therefore, it is with great suspicion that I look upon politicians looking to pursue public policies that cannot be justified by science. Public policies which would: create a permanent majority political party, enlarge the size and scope of government, introduce federal central planning that overrides the constitutional prerogatives of the states, raises taxes on all goods, services, and individuals, and more troubling – reduces personal freedoms as individualism is phased out in favor of collectivism.
Institutional bias – There is a solid scientific case that can be made for the proposition that allegedly independent research institutions and researchers are subtly biased as their researched is aimed at attracting support from funding sources. Clearly stated, researchers are more likely to perform research that attracts funding, than perform research that cannot be funded. It is as simple as that. Research which negated the wide-held beliefs of the funders or goes against the “consensus” viewpoint is unlikely to see the light of day. And, researchers knowing that their reputations, careers, and income are pegged to doing research, may not want to rock the boat by engaging in controversial or disputed activities that run contrary to the “powers that be.” Besides, there is little credit for confirming or negating already performed research when the “research rock-stars” are seemingly producing break-throughs.
Consensus – we are told over and over again by the media that there is a consensus of knowledgeable, well-credentialed scientists that support the tenets of anthropomorphic global climate change, that man’s activities can greatly influence the global climate of our planet and that such influence is projected to lead to a planetary catastrophe sometime in the future. Begging the fact that consensus is not science, nor may it even be accurate, we posit the position that this is a combination of “groupthink” and “peer pressure.” When the commonly held assumptions of the group are accepted as the starting point for their research or lead to a similarity of results. In non-scientific fields, this is known as “groupthink.” Then, there is the more prevalent “peer pressure” where lesser credentialed and experienced researches give-way to their “elders” or “top men in the field.” lest their own career and projects be damaged by vindictive colleagues. This disturbing trend was exposed in the “Climate-Gate” e-mails where top researchers plotted to manipulate the peer-reviewed publishing process at certain scientific journals to keep papers that did not fit the consensus from being published. And, then deriding non-peer-reviewed papers as somehow being of lesser quality and more suspect than those appearing in the journals they were manipulating.
Special interests – witness the demonization of coal, nuclear energy, fracking, and other energy production techniques that might upset the global balance of power. For decades, politicians have been promising to make the United States energy independent and to curtail the flow of petro-dollars to Middle East belligerents that fund worldwide terror. And, nothing seems to be getting done, our foreign energy purchases continually increasing while government continually impedes domestic energy production. Mostly on the the grounds of environmental concerns, not withstanding that today’s environmental movement has been infiltrated by our enemies, both foreign and domestic, who do not wish America well. Make no mistake about it, government is the largest self-serving special interest and far surpasses that of all of the energy producers combined.
Silicon silliness: the models do not match reality …
For those of you who care about what your government and the equally corrupt United Nations is telling you about the science of global warming and the catastrophic predictions of the global climate models, look no further. Here you can see how the models fail to reconcile to actual observed global climate – and overstate both the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the catastrophes made popular by certain climate activists (e.g. James Hansen, formerly of NASA) who have a financial and emotional vested interest in being right. Even when Hansen’s work was used to predict the possibility of a coming ice age only forty years ago. The only thing that did not change was the need to centrally plan our economy for the purposes of averting a global catastrophe.
EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature
Courtesy of John Christy, a comparison between 73 CMIP5 models (archived at the KNMI Climate Explorer website) and observations for the tropical bulk tropospheric temperature (aka “MT”) since 1979
If we restrict the comparison to the 19 models produced by only U.S. research centers, the models are more tightly clustered:
Now, in what universe do the above results not represent an epic failure for the models?
I continue to suspect that the main source of disagreement is that the models’ positive feedbacks are too strong…and possibly of even the wrong sign.
The lack of a tropical upper tropospheric hotspot in the observations is the main reason for the disconnect in the above plots, and as I have been pointing out this is probably rooted in differences in water vapor feedback. The models exhibit strongly positive water vapor feedback, which ends up causing a strong upper tropospheric warming response (the “hot spot”), while the observation’s lack of a hot spot would be consistent with little water vapor feedback. Source: EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature « Roy Spencer, PhD
Bottom line …
We are seeing political corruption up close and personal. We are seeing scientific corruption that supports the political viewpoint up close and personal. How long will it be before ordinary Americans and the voting public sees the manipulation of our government and science by our enemies, both foreign and domestic.
When will people come to believe in reality versus the stage-managed effects of Hollywood (remember: the ice calving scene in Al Gore’s “science” book was a fictional creation of Hollywood for a movie)?
When will we remove the corruption from the political process? 2014, 2016, 2018 – or after America is lost to the socialists and communists? While facing the guns of government, after being disarmed years previously?
Hitler openly stated his intentions. The United Nations has admitted to manipulating science (Population Growth, DDT, HIV/AIDS, PANDEMICS) to increase public awareness and to attract power and funding. When are we going to believe that the socialist democrats and the United Nations areplanning to implement their one-world governance view as expressed in Agenda 21.
It’s not a conspiracy theory when you can look at the research results and see that the government/media story does not track with reality.
-- steve
“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words
“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw
“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”
“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS "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 “A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell “Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar “Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS