The End of the Global Warming Consensus

Thanks to Drudge, found this series of reports in the National Post, Canada.

As is pounded on us every day, the following appears to be the basis for the theory of Global Warming:

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

These three steps are driving the Global Warming scare mongering business - and don't think it isn't one - and the nature of the movement, such as it is, has less to do with science in its classic, enlightened form and has everything to do with a romanticist approach to the world.

First this one: the Global Warming "scientists" are not statistically competent to draw the conclusions that they do. Mann's Hockey Stick has been thoroughly refuted, and it is a severe indictment that those involved in propagating the meme of Global Warming have failed to use proper statistical methodology, insisting instead that while their methodology may not be perfect, the conclusions are right. Step Two is therefore not only not proven, but highly unlikely. And the real, academic problem? In this case, the peer review process failed: those reviewing professional articles that relied on faulty statistics failed to see that the statistics were faulty because they themselves were not competent, statistically speaking. Hence the notion that proper, peer-reviewed science is sound fails miserably when the peer group itself fails.

Second this article: is warming bad? Or, more exactly, how do we deal with it to our benefit?

Third, this article: the political misuse of science, or more exactly, the politicisation of science such that only the conclusions count, the evidence and the empirical world be damned.

Fourth, this article: that the Global Warming true believers are willfully ignoring contradictory evidence.

Fifth, this article: what little consensus actually existed was destroyed by the political hijacking of the meme. We all know that the IPCC report differs significantly from the scientists' consensus on the empirical evidence, manipulating results and ignoring qualifiers to influence public opinion.

Sixth, this article: the models, those complex approximations of reality that the Global Warming "experts" use? The original models were bad, failing to take into account key exogenous ( i.e. from outside) effects because of model bias, i.e. the need to "prove" that humans were the cause. What was ignored? The fact that our sun is what the astronomers call "mildly variable" and hence solar influx is not a constant, but rather variable over time.

Seventh, this article: given the sixth point, what happens when you include the solar influx? Exactly the opposite of what the modellers so fervently believe and hope: global cooling, not global warming.

Eigth, this article: the fundamental failure of the core science of Global Warming, the models. Put bluntly, the climate is so complex that modelling it is sort of like trying to draw microprocessor components to scale using a blackboard and chalk. There is no way that the models are going to be what they claim to be: a scientific approximation of complex reality.

Ninth, this article: the failure of a simple, easily applied empirical test. What test? Why, if global warming was man-made, then only the Earth should show any effects. But look at Mars: very similiar effects are visible there as well. The only logical conclusion? Global Warming is not the anthropogenic phenomenon that is being claimed. Or are there people on Mars doing the same thing as we are doing here?

Finally, this article: the first step above, that increases in certain gases in the mixture of our atmosphere lead to a greenhouse effect, is itself called into question.

What's the point of all these "denier" claims? Aren't all these folks in the pay of evil big corporations?


The answer is simple: no, they are not. The CVs of those involved are literally world class.

Let's talk some of the names:

Edward Wegman, Richard S.J. Tol, Christopher Landsea, Duncan Wingham, Richard Lindzen, Henrik Svensmark, Nigel Weiss, Frans Nieuwstadt, Habibullo Abdussamatov, Nir Shariv.

All right and proper scientists, vastly published, honored with professional recognition, and all "Global Warming" deniers.

In proper science, the existence of contrary evidence must call your thesis into question. Science is not about consensus: politics is about consensus.

There is no scientific consensus on "Global Warming": there is only a political consensus, driven by a romanticist meme, that this is a great way of getting money.