Hello All, "A government committee had as a witness a government-employed doctor. When asked if his public speeches throughout the country presented both sides of the discussion touching compulsory national health insurance, this witness answered, "I don't know what you mean by both sides."
"This naive answer throws light on the state of mind of people who proudly call themselves progressive intellectuals. They simply do not imagine that any argument could be advanced against the various schemes they are suggesting. As they see it, everybody, without asking questions, must support every project aiming at more and more government control of all aspects of the citizen's life and conduct. They never try to refute the objections raised against their doctrines. They prefer, as Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt recently did in her column, to call dishonest those with whom they do not agree." from The Freeman, 1952, Ludwig VonMises _______________________________________________________________________________ Though Von Misus was directing this comment to the teaching of economics, (Socialist, Communist, Keynesian) at the college level, his comment could also be nicely applied to the current state of science and scientists. Not being a "Scientist" nor dependant on anyone but myself for where my living comes from, I doubt that I can fully appreciate the pressures on scientists and educators to refrain from bucking the AGW dogma, and to simply hold their thoughts, keep their mouths shut, and move on. To refrain from voicing or outwardly recognizing that their might be a, "both sides". From my perspective as an outsider it seems to me that those individuals who comply with that pressure are risking their credibility as scientists, educators, and also as men and women with a concern for the well being of their children and grandchildren. What can become of the concept of science when it becomes a religious dogma with no questions or dissent tolerated? What becomes of your descendants when you are too fearful to disprove or object to the, "pathological science", that is AGW and the solutions that misguided governments propose to inflict on their citizens. These conditions could easily occur when those who disagree are to weak or fearful to object and if within their capacity to offer honest scientific alternatives. In that vein here are two Internet postings from two very different sources and individuals, but with very similar ideas and conclusions. _____________________________________________________________________________ No Scientific Forecasts to Support Global Warming Posted by jennifer, January 28th, 2009 - under News, Opinion. Tags: Climate & Climate Change, People YESTERDAY, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate claiming they are not scientific in part because the modellers have "resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists". [1] Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2] What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia's CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed. In today's statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis: 1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth's climate. Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists' opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming. We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery— given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles. 2. Improper peer review process. To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting. 3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting. Expert opinions are an inappropriate forecasting method in situations that involve high complexity and high uncertainty. This conclusion is based on over eight decades of research. Armstrong (1978) provided a review of the evidence and this was supported by Tetlock's (2005) study that involved 82,361 forecasts by 284 experts over two decades. Long-term climate changes are highly complex due to the many factors that affect climate and to their interactions. Uncertainty about long- term climate changes is high due to a lack of good knowledge about such things as: a) causes of climate change, b) direction, lag time, and effect size of causal factors related to climate change, c) effects of changing temperatures, and d) costs and benefits of alternative actions to deal with climate changes (e.g., CO2 markets). Given these conditions, expert opinions are not appropriate for long- term climate predictions. 4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change. Even if it were possible to forecast climate changes, it would still be necessary to forecast the effects of climate changes. In other words, in what ways might the effects be beneficial or harmful? Here again, we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts—as opposed to speculation—despite our appeals for such studies. We addressed this issue with respect to studies involving the possible classification of polar bears as threatened or endangered (Armstrong, Green, and Soon 2008). In our audits of two key papers to support the polar bear listing, 41 principles were clearly violated by the authors of one paper and 61 by the authors of the other. It is not proper from a scientific or from a practical viewpoint to violate any principles. Again, there was no sign that the forecasters realized that they were making mistakes. 5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change. Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies. 6. To justify using a climate forecasting model, one would need to test it against a relevant naïve model. We used the Forecasting Method Selection Tree to help determine which method is most appropriate for forecasting long-term climate change. A copy of the Tree is attached as Appendix 1. It is drawn from comparative empirical studies from all areas of forecasting. It suggests that extrapolation is appropriate, and we chose a naïve (no change) model as an appropriate benchmark. A forecasting model should not be used unless it can be shown to provide forecasts that are more accurate than those from this naïve model, as it would otherwise increase error. In Green, Armstrong and Soon (2008), we show that the mean absolute error of 108 naïve forecasts for 50 years in the future was 0.24°C. 7. The climate system is stable. To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre's data, we started with 1850 and used that year's average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This "successive updating" continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts. We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts. 8. Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle. One of the primary scientific principles in forecasting is to be conservative in the darkness of uncertainty. This principle also argues for the use of the naive no-change extrapolation. Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle. As we explain in our essay in Appendix 2, it is actually an anti-scientific principle in that it attempts to make decisions without using rational analyses. Instead, cost/benefit analyses are appropriate given the available evidence which suggests that temperature is just as likely to go up as down. However, these analyses should be supported by scientific forecasts. The reach of these models is extraordinary, for example, the CSIRO models are currently being used in Australia to determine water allocations for farmers and to justify the need for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – the most far-reaching of possible economic interventions. Yet, according to Dr Armstrong, these same models violate 72 scientific principles. ____________________________________________________________________ and then the second but similar from James Lewis and Pajamas Media: ____________________________________________________________________ - Pajamas Media - http://pajamasmedia.com - Anthropogenic Global Warming: The Greatest Fraud in History? Posted By James Lewis On January 30, 2009 @ 12:51 am Like famished swine shoving each other aside to get to the trough, self-proclaimed scientists and real politicians are again launching headline upon headline to claim yet another disaster in the name of utterly unproven global warming. Did you know that the flock of geese that flew into US Airways jet engines this month in New York City [1] were put there by global warming? And that London fogs, or rather their absence, are making [2] global warming worse? Yep. It's right there in the paper, Maud. As scientific skeptics are finally discovering the courage to speak out, the [3] hype machine is faltering just a little. But President Obama just[4] appointed a True Believer to be science czar in the White House. So we can expect the politicians to keep hammering on this little piggy bank until the last golden coin drops out. You'll be paying for the [5] biggest false alarm in history for years to come. But what worries me most is that the credibility of science may never recover — and perhaps it shouldn't. Credibility has to be earned, and once it's squandered may never be recovered. By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing political larceny here on a truly planetary scale. Why should scientists who've gambled their own reputations on this fakery ever be trusted again? They shouldn't. Would you entrust your life savings to Bernie Madoff? Right. I'm not a climatologist. Like most scientists I rarely judge what others do in their fields. And yet it's been flamingly obvious for years now that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming violates all the basic rules and safeguards that protect the integrity of normal, healthy science. That's why AGW (anthropogenic global warming) looks like a massive fraud, [6] the biggest fraud ever in the history of science. If that's true, anybody who cares about science should be outraged. Even if you don't care about that ask yourself if you want your next medical exam to be honest. Or the next time you drive across a traffic bridge, do you want the engineering tests to be falsified? If scientific corruption becomes endemic, we risk losing one of the great jewels of our culture. So here are some fundamental violations of scientific integrity that any thoughtful person should recognize. I'm not going to touch on climatology — the case against the warming hypothesis [7] has already been made very well by experts.[7] I just want to talk scientific common sense. Threatening the skeptics. Scientists get seduced by enticing ideas and bits of evidence all the time. That's why every scientist I've ever known is a thorough-going skeptic, even about his or her own data. Especially about one's own data, because one's career is on the line if it doesn't check out. So we need skepticism in ourselves and others. Good science honors the [8] rational skeptic. Which is why it's beyond outrageous that AGW believers are publicly attacking thoughtful skeptics — not on the facts, but on their sheer temerity in doubting their precious orthodoxy. According to the [9] Guardian: James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer. That is Stalinism; it is never, ever done in real science. Stalin shot real scientists and promoted scientific frauds who helped to kill Soviet food production. Right there we know we're looking at political corruption and not real science. Albert Einstein and Nils Bohr spent decades debating quantum mechanics. Neither side tried to criminalize the other. Einstein's stubborn skepticism actually led to spectacular new findings. Skepticism turned out to be one of his [10] great gifts to the world. Today's public attack on skeptics should trigger loud alarm bells in the minds of scientists. It is indecent as well as dangerous. Pop media hype. AGW is heavily promoted through the popular media. But the pop media are utterly incompetent when it comes to any scientific or technical question. An English or journalism degree just doesn't prepare you; nor do news editors want you to tell the truth. In the media a good story always beats out technical facts. But in reputable science nothing is published without careful peer review, and the more spectacular the hypothesis, the more intensive the reviews are going to be. That's why peer-reviewed journals are so vital to a healthy science, and why the constant evasion of peer review by global warming fanatics is a sign of their scientific weakness. If the evidence was solid, they would not have to run to the nearest headline-hunting journalist. Bad data without apology. In AGW bad data has been very widespread, and judging by past performance, it may still be endemic. Thermometers are placed in hot areas in the cities, and the data is[11] shamelessly generalized to the whole world. The infamous "hockey stick" temperature diagram [12] has been exposed. James Hansen has brought NASA to its lowest point ever by repeatedly [13] endorsing false data. In any healthy field of science, that disastrous empirical record would have discredited the hypothesis. But while the data seems to crash periodically, the models don't change in their catastrophism. Read the headlines in SCIENCE magazine any week, and you can see that grinding process of doubt, clarification, and constant revision going on. In real science researchers can be forgiven for making a few errors, but not many known or suspected frauds are denied tenure or fired. They are essentially blacklisted for the rest of their careers. The process is utterly Darwinian, and it works. Except for the global warming hype. Here, we're supposed to accept the word of media types who know nothing about science, and care only about the [14] next big headline. Here are seven more fundamental violations of scientific integrity in the AGW game. 1. Never confuse lab results with nature. Richard Feynman said that the physics we know is the simple part; natural physics in the real world is far too simple for [15] blind generalization. 2. In real science we never label a speculative idea to be true by fiat. Ordinary scientists would lose their reputations simply by mislabeling a wild hypothesis as the truth. They would be isolated like a cyst in the human body, blocked from spreading the infection. 2. In real science the burden of proof is always on the proposer, never on the skeptics. 3. In real science 'data surrogates" are never accepted without long- term testing. Until a decade or two ago we didn't have satellites to measure global temperatures. Before that time we had to rely on very spotty and locally distorted surface thermometers, or even worse, ice core surrogates for real world temperatures. But those core samples take decades of testing and open debate before we know what they really measure. It took centuries for the mercury thermometer to be adopted. Can we really believe the story that ice cores and tree cores tell us the truth about global temperatures eons ago? I don't know, but in a toxified field of research, I don't trust it. 4. In real science we never smuggle untested premises into the words we use. The very term "greenhouse gas" is an unproven assumption. Don't even use it unless you are prepared to prove that C02 and methane actually raise world temperatures. So far the evidence doesn't look good. 5. In real science we never corrupt the integrity of research by slanting grants toward any preconceived idea. Nor do we allow ourselves to be rushed into making huge claims without adequate testing and debate. Political deadlines mean nothing in real science. 6. In the real world, much less real science, we never, never believe politicians when they claim to know a scientific truth; they are unqualified, and they are professional liars. Al Gore is a sick joke. The same can be said about the establishment media, and yes, even about scientist-politicians. Scientists are as corruptible as anybody else. Good scientists do have a conscience, but it's the double-checking mechanisms of science that makes it trustworthy. We routinely see corrupt accountants and clergy in the news, and the news business itself is deeply corrupted and untrustworthy. The question is, do you build in checks and balances? Reporters are always rushed and deadline-driven, and they always trade off their integrity against the daily pressure for headlines. All this affects you personally. Don't doubt that your life and mine depend upon healthy science and medicine, and yes, even on honest journalism. 7. Finally, in real science we never confuse an infant research effort with a mature science that has been checked and triple-checked over decades. Climate modeling is just a toddler science, barely able to waddle around the living room. It's a nice idea to try modeling the earth's atmosphere. But nature is inconceivably more complex than what we ever see in a laboratory jar. There are no proven "greenhouse gases" in the real atmosphere, just as there are no proven causes of alcoholism or obesity. Alcoholism is an incredibly complex mix of nutrients, heredity, epigenetics, exercise, lifestyle, early learning, puberty, social support, economics, food availability, optimism, toxins, sunshine, interactions, feedback loops, and all the unknown unknowns. Try to build little computer models of alcoholism and you learn nothing new — because it's the evidence that's missing. Computer models of the atmosphere are just as premature. Climate modeling is a baby "science" just like the quack cures for alcoholism or obesity. Most scientifically savvy people understand this perfectly well. It's not news — except to the news media, who just don't want to know. They will never ruin a good story with facts. Journalists don't get fired for being wrong. AGW therefore looks to be the biggest fraud in the history of science. The AGW hype machine may signal the worst breakdown ever in the normal, healthy process of open debate and endless testing that makes for good science. It's pathological science — which is not science at all. What's happening today is very dangerous. It can infect other parts of the sciences, medicine, and technology. If honest scientists cannot stand up to the pressure we are in deep, deep trouble as a society. Bad science kills people. That institutional breakdown could spread — perhaps it has already spread — to other fields that have been politicized. This is very bad. Ultimately the only solution may be to cauterize the proliferating mass of corruption. That can only be done by the new media, which are not playing footsies with political frauds. All we can do is keep telling the truth, and listen to honest debate. Keep on doing that, and this sickness may yet pass, without killing the patient. Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anthropogenic-global-warming-the-greatest-fraud-in-history/ URLs in this post: [1] were put there: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1872175,00.html [2] global warming worse?: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/4284363/Fall-in-pea-souper-fogs-has-led-to-increase-in-gl obal-warming.html [3] hype machine: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html [4] appointed: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/12/23/obamas-not-so-centrist-cabinet/ [5] biggest false alarm: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/25/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange [6] the biggest fraud : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/rssarticleshow/msid-3843374,prtpage-1.cms [7] has already been made : http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-5017272,00.html [8] rational skeptic.: http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/science-advisors-unsustainable-bet-and-mine/ [9] Guardian: : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange [10] great gifts : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox [11] shamelessly generalized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Heat_Island [12] has been exposed.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy [13] endorsing false data.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_McIntyre [14] next big headline. : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3557445/Stop-the-CO2-scare,-before-i t%27s-too-late.html [15] blind generalization.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_body_problem Copyright © 2008 Pajamas Media. All rights reserved. ___________________________________________________________________ A quick look around seems to indicate that most scientists and educators who actively advocate their concepts, understanding, and science, are those who are also disciples of AGW and promoters of the ill advised and potentially disastrous remedies that are presently being advocated as the cure. How about you? FT Rouse --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
