“Climate Change” Quackery, Part I

By Bradley Harrington

Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what ‘the stars foretell,’ avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable ‘verdict of history’ – what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?” – Robert Heinlein, “Time Enough For Love,” 1973 -

In the face of a newly-declared EPA rule that “aims to cut emissions from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels over the next 15 years” (“Coal regs worry Wyo.,” WTE, June 3), now would be a good time to ask: Just how settled is the science behind such a move?

And the answer is: Well, um, uh… Not very settled at all.

And, in the face of the fact that Wyoming’s economy is about to be plunged into the toilet with thanks to these EPA regs, being the Number One coal-producing state in the country – let’s discuss some of this “settled science”:

► I’ve already brought up how the hacked “Climategate” emails clearly demonstrated that Phil Jones, Director of England’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), had threatened to delete CRU research data rather than show it to anyone else: “If they [the two MMs] ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I’ll delete the file rather than send it to anyone … We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.” (“Climate change. Forget it,” WTE, May 30.)

What many people aren’t aware of, however, was what finally happened to that highly significant data: “The world’s source for global temperature records admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record.” (“Global warming ate my data,” The Register, Aug. 13, 2009.)

Wow! How convenient.

► Nor have such shady “scientific” practices been limited to England’s CRU – for, just a month after the “Climategate” scandal hit the streets back in 2009, the story broke that NASA itself had been engaging in similar antics as well:

“Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.” (“Researcher: NASA hiding climate data,” The Washington Times,” Dec. 3, 2009.)

So: What are we to think of “settled science” when two of the world’s major climatology dataset centers simply refused to release – or even destroyed, as in the case of the CRU – relevant data where, in a truly scientific world, such releases would be welcomed and encouraged by all parties interested in pursuing the facts of reality?

► And what, additionally, are we to think of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), recipient of untold billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money, which has been so staggeringly wrong on all of its predictions that even astrologers, saddled with that same record, would hang their heads in shame? For instance:

“The IPCC is facing a credibility deficit after temperatures today sit at levels below those of all five of its previous reports. After five misses, the IPCC is desperate to be right for once – particularly after it was forced to retract a key glacial melting prediction from its last report.” (“After missing 5 predictions, IPCC cuts global warming forecast,” Daily Tech, Sept. 27, 2013.)

► And what of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), of which the above quote covers only the released policy summary? Well, if you thought these policy recommendations were based on “settled science,” you might want to think again. In his final paragraphs of an analysis of AR5, Larry Hamlin, former California state energy construction czar under Gov. Gray Davis, had this to say:

“The UN IPCC AR5 report findings inappropriately rely on flawed climate models which exaggerate higher global temperatures”; that “additionally, the AR5 reports are grounded in speculative conjecture based on well documented climate model analytical limitations instead of solid science”; and that “these huge flaws and limitations make the use of the UN IPCC AR5 reports for purposes of framing government climate policy actions completely inappropriate and unjustified.” (“UN IPCC AR5 report infected with fatal technical and procedural flaws,” Watt’s Up With That, April 16.)

Ouch. No wonder the political hacks at the IPCC can’t get even ONE prediction straight. “Settled science”? I hardly think so.

In view of such devastating information, what are the “climate changers” to do? Why, launch a massive “Appeal to Authority” campaign, of course – which, along with a few other highly-damaging facts, I’ll discuss in Part II.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming; he can be reached at brad@bradandbarbie.com.

About MamaLiberty

As a lifelong individualist and voluntarist, my philosophy can best be summarized here: No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. Self defense, and the defense of others, is a basic right of all living creatures. After a long career as a registered nurse in So. Calif, I retired in 2005 to NE Wyoming, living alone in my own log home, with good friends and neighbors all around. Biological family includes two grown sons and five grandchildren, unfortunately still in California. In addition to writing and editing, I garden, sew, cook and bake my own bread from home ground wheat and other grains. Hobbies include identification and cultivation of wild food and herbs. I am also a certified instructor for firearms and self defense. I carry a gun at all times.
This entry was posted in Brad's Rants and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to “Climate Change” Quackery, Part I

  1. Daniel Wiener says:

    This quote from Richard Feynman is apropos:

    “In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>