Junk Science 4.0

The latest, and fourth, UN report on Global Warming (AKA Climate Change during cold snaps) maintains the ancient UN tradition of devious dishonesty. Here are highlights from a splendid fisking by Fred Singer, the professor emeritus of environmental sciences at UVa.

1. It’s Just A 12 Page Executive Summary

The 16,000 page report won’t be available until May, presumably to allow time to adjust the detail to fit the alarmism.

2. It’s A UN Resolution, Not Science

The Summary was hammered out in tough negotiations in a committee of 150 nations. If that committee matches the UN profile, it’s as corrupt as Syria.

3. They’ve Lost The Hockey Stick

The last report used some particularly bad math to produce a dramatic curve showing the world’s temperature recently rising sharply. This didn’t fit with the historical record, notably the Medieval warm Period, when Greenland was colonized. Having since been comprehensively busted by mathmeticians, the Hockey Stick is no more, sob.

4. They’ve Dropped Their Forecasts

The Summary halves the forecast rise in sea level from their previous report.

5. They Still Haven’t Shown How Any Warming Is Man Made

For the past 11,000 years, we’ve been in an interglacial period – that means coming to the end of a glacial period prior to entering the next one. So to model the warming that has been observed (most of which was prior to 1940) you have to show exactly how human activities -rather than interglacial changes – caused it.

That’s very difficult, because the normal trend is noisy. For example the aforementioned Medieval Warm Period, and the subsequent cold century, when Greenland was abandoned, and fairs were held on the frozen Thames.

Abandoning science, the report just asserts a man made connection.

6. Their Climate Models Are Still Broken

You test a theory or model by running it on part of the known data and seeing if it correctly predicts the rest. In this case, you’d take climate data to, say, 1975, and see if it predicts what’s happened since. None of the models can do this – not surprisingly since they’re basically weather forecasts writ large, and those are only a bit more accurate than assuming tomorrow’s weather will be the same as today’s.

Ironically, if the US and UK do take this junk seriously, there’s only one thing to do – switch wholesale to nuclear power! I rather doubt that’s what the Syrian-alikes at the UN have in mind.

UPDATE February 5

Mark Steyn  satirizes the “solid science” here.

And Flopping Aces references the formidable Christopher Monckton of the Center for Science and Public Policy completing the demolition here, with these additional points:

Temperatures Have Not Risen Since 2001 

Previous reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 had been progressively more alarmist. In the final draft of the new report there is a change in tone. Though carbon dioxide in the air is increasing, global temperature is not.

Figures from the US National Climate Data Center show 2006 as about 0.03 degrees Celsius warmer worldwide than 2001. Since that is within the range of measurement error, global temperature has not risen in a statistically significant sense since the UN’s last report in 2001…

Temperatures Fell While CO2 Rose 

The 2007 draft concludes that it is very likely that we caused most of the rise in temperatures since 1940. It does not point out that for half that period, from 1940 to 1975, temperature actually fell even though carbon dioxide rose monotonically – higher every year than the previous year…

The UN Models Failed To Predict All Major Climate Events Since 2001

Computer models heavily relied on by the UN did not predict the considerable cooling of the oceans that has occurred since 2003 – a cooling which demonstrates that neither the frequency nor the intensity of the hurricanes in the year of Katrina was attributable to “global warming”.

The UN’s models also failed to predict the halt to the rise in methane concentrations in the air that began in 2001. And they did not predict the timing or size of the El Nino which hiked temperature in 1998.


2 Responses to Junk Science 4.0

  1. dearieme says:

    And for his pains he (and you, and me) will be referred to as a “denialist”, thus implying some connection to scummy Nazi-sympathising pillocks. The left has so little to be proud of.

  2. dearieme

    Indeed, Left and Right merge at their extremes, and that makes the GW lefties fascists, not us.

    When I signed the Official Secrets Act, it had a footnote to the effect that “all references to Communism/Communist shall be read as also referring to Fascism/Fascist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: