Cooling it 3

Michael Mann’s “hockey stick graph” was constructed with computers (“garbage in, garbage out”) to “prove” that a wonderfully steady climate prevailed over the world for nearly a thousand years and then suddenly, in the twentieth century, Modern Industrial Man with his disgraceful appetite for material things that make his life longer, pleasanter and easier, started polluting the air and water and ¬†earth with disgusting “emissions” that heated the planet, which is now set to become so hot that … Oh, all sorts of dire consequences will follow. And drastic, impoverishing remedies must be hastily applied world-wide by diktat. The population of the world must shrink, so have no children and die early. If you insist on surviving, go back to living hand to mouth like your primitive ancestors.

We may be exaggerating a little, but not diverging from the broad  truth.

A report by The Science and Environmental Policy Project points out:

The first two assessment reports of the UN IPCC included charts showing temperature change for the last 1000 years that included the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The Summary for Policymakers of the 2001 Third Assessment Report eliminated these temperature changes and substituted Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick” graph produced by statistical techniques that purport to show that temperatures were relatively stable for about 900 years then shot up in the 20th Century. The results of a computer model trumps physical evidence. The research was “peer reviewed” but not available for independent review. …

If Mr. Mann had been open with his research data and methods, and permitted their review by independent scientists, his errors may have been appropriately corrected in a scientific setting rather than in a political one. Instead, he chose to withhold the information. It is imperative to understand the full extent to which Mann’s now discredited study distorted the climate and energy policies of the US government – at great cost to the taxpayer and energy consumer.

Commenting on this, John Hinderaker writes at PowerLine:

It is a remarkable fact that warmists claim the right to keep their data secret and avoid any critical assessment of their work, while at the same time demanding that every country in the world fashion its energy policies on the basis of their alleged findings. No doubt there is a precedent, somewhere, for such arrogance. But I am not sure there is any precedent, anywhere, for governments being stupid enough to accede to such unreasonable demands.

Yes, it would be a far better, though probably harder, aim for the citizens of democracies to lower the level of stupidity in their governments, rather than the temperature of the earth.

  • Alejandro

    I do not believe that it is appropriate to joke about issues with such gravity and importance as global warming. It may seem like a strange idea that humans have the ability to profoundly altar climate change, but this point was beautifully and conclusively dealt with by Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth. He said that the atmosphere of the earth was like the varnish on a globe: it's that small. Thus humans can have a large impact on the seemingly large atmosphere and environment, because they are actually smaller systems than they seem and because humans have more of an impact than they realize. On smaller levels, human damage to environmental systems are being witnessed as we speak: just look at the oil spill. It is hard to imagine the overall cost of this oil spill, not money-wise, but environmentally speaking. It is the result of humans overreaching their natural ecological place to earn more money. However, the by far the largest and most significant demonstration of human intervention into the environment is global warming.

    It is a scientific consensus with overwhelming evidence that global warming is true. Even John McCain, with whom I have had many disagreements, believes so. It is bipartisan, scientific, and settled. In particular, the world's greatest climatologists came together, and concluded that industrial CO2 emitting factories and power plants contribute vastly to global warming.

    In this article peer review is discussed, which to me is one of the best ways to verify the scientific validity of a publication. Keeping such results from the general public stops the ability of non-credible sources to manipulate the public opinion.

  • philabor

    Something I don't see much, even with people who don't believe in the global warming scam, is a discussion of computer models. YOU CAN MAKE A MODEL SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT IT TO SAY! Even if the model is fairly honest at it's roots, play with the parameters and you can make it say the earth will experience runaway warming. Think albedo from snow or clouds for instance. And of course, if you don't share your model OR your data (that you fudged), no one can replicate or disprove your conclusions.

  • C. Gee

    Yet another “study” has been published based on computer simulations that concludes that climate may be many times more sensitive to CO2 than previous studies have concluded, and the so the authors of the study recommend immediate the institution of policies to mitigate CO2 . (See link through Climate Debate Daily). This is the Henny-Penny corroboration of the Chicken-Little theory.

    When those policies are not put in place or put in place quickly or strongly enough, expect further computer-based studies to revise the sensitivity upwards. These will be the Turkey-Lurkey through Goosey-Loosey proofs of Henny-Penny and Chicken-Little.

    At some point, the studies will show that tomorrow's industrial output of CO2 may cause global death the day after. At that point Al “Foxy-Loxy” Gore, will go short on his Carbon Exchange stock. And laugh all the way to the bank.