THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING by Jon Rappoport December 23, 2009. In science, theories are supposed to do two things: explain past observable facts, and predict future observations before they come to pass. If a theory does both, you have something valuable. If not, you go back to the drawing board. In the case of the manmade global warming theory (AGW), there is a problem right away. The range of past facts is huge and involves temperature measurements made at different tracking stations around the world. As has been shown (and I’m paraphrasing here from a pithy comment made at The Air Vent blog), many of these measurements are dubious, because the stations are monitored by volunteers, the instruments are error prone, there are historical gaps in the record, and, all in all, there is a lack of control. In other words, measurements may be wrong. So how can you construct a theory to explain data whose reliability is in doubt? It would be like saying you want to build a theory to explain the worldwide appearance of ghosts over the last six hundred years. Former meteorologist, Anthony Watts, and his band of volunteers have looked at US stations that measure temperature. Here is the summary of his now-famous report: “We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas. The Watts report has its critics, and there has been a great deal of back-and-forth on it, but it appears that he has punched a huge hole in the reliability of US temperature measurements. What about satellite data on temperature? Claims that surface measurements aren’t really needed to see that AGW is real—we can go to satellites and weather balloons—well, it turns out that these atmospheric methods have their own problems and turn out questionable data. Again, there is debate on both sides of the satellite-data issue…but I see no conclusive evidence that these instruments show a warming trend. And satellites for measuring Earth’s temperature have only been in use since 1979. AGW science is admittedly not precise enough to predict temperatures in the next year, five years, or ten years. The projections are of the “possible” “maybe” “could-be” variety. Therefore, there is no real science of manmade warming. There is certainly not enough to say, “The world is ending unless we wreck industrial economies from one end of the planet to the other.” However, this uncertainty has not stopped the researchers. They have constructed models that purport to fill in temperature-record gaps and avoid the problem of varying dependability of station measurements. These models, we are to believe, solve issues like replacement of instruments at stations, physically moving stations, and the emergence of (warmer) urban construction at stations located in once-remote regions. These models also purport to overcome questions about the usefulness of atmospheric measurements. These models are not theories. They’re complex and hard-to-access systems for summarizing reams of data. They spit out conclusions about warming based on cryptic assumptions that are largely unstated. “Trust us. We’re the experts.” The propaganda spewed by such warming front men as Al Gore doesn’t even begin to touch on the very serious problems in the “science.” Issues have arisen that throw this science into further doubt. For example, the so-called Medieval Warming Period (MWP). MWP contradicts the notion that warming is now greater than it has ever been. But researchers have built graphs that smooth out and flatten the MWP and make it seem inconsequential. With the recent release of emails from the CRU at East Anglia University, we have seen that key researchers there have been scheming to avoid releasing their raw data to people making FOIA requests. In fact, the Harry-Read-Me emails show the enormous frustration of a technician brought to the CRU to clarify the raw data. He could make no sense of it. It was a complete mess. How do you build a theory using that data as a prime reference point? Still, the massive propaganda campaign on behalf AGW presses on. The train has left the station, and there is no way the proactive scientists will stop it or turn it around. If they did, they would be admitting to fraud and incompetence on a gargantuan level. As a final capper, consider this recent message from the UK Met Office, a repository for absolutely vital underpinning temperature-measurement data used by East Anglia climate scientists. The message explains why these underlying data sets are not available for inspection: “The data set of temperatures, which are provided as a gridded product back to 1850 was largely compiled in the 1980s when it was technically difficult and expensive to keep multiple copies of the database. “For IT infrastructure of the time this was an exceedingly large database and multiple copies could not be kept at a reasonable cost. There is no question that anything untoward or unacceptable in terms of best practices at the time occurred.” In other words, they threw all that data out. They couldn’t have kept the paper files stashed in a storage locker. No. They had to throw it out. (Or they still have ONE complete copy and they won’t release it or copy it now.) This is like saying, “We’re completely insane, and insane is better than admitting we’re criminals.” JON RAPPOPORT |
