Willis Eschenbach’s recent guest post at Watts Up With That? on the current state of ‘Climate science’ should be made compulsory reading in every classroom, every university science department, every eco-charity, every environmental NGO and in every branch of government.
What Eschenbach says is so pure and simple and obvious you’d need to be as dumb as Chris Huhne not to get it.
Unequivocal Equivocation – an open letter to Dr. Trenberth
This essay from Willis appeared on WUWT overnight Saturday while I slept. After reading it this morning, I decided to make it a sticky at the top of WUWT (I also added the open letter reference) because it says everything that needs to be said about the current state of affairs in climate science and the skeptic position. I ask readers not only to read it, but to disseminate it widely at other websites and forums.
I’ve made this essay available as a PDF here: Willis_Trenberth_WUWT_Essay suitable for printing and emailing. – Anthony
UPDATE2: Trenberth reacts: edits speech to fix copying, leaves “deniers”
......
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I would like to take as my text the following quote from the recent paper (PDF, 270k also on web here) by Dr. Kevin Trenberth:
Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].
The “null hypothesis” in science is the condition that would result if what you are trying to establish is not true. For example, if your hypothesis is that air pressure affects plant growth rates, the null hypothesis is that air pressure has no effect on plant growth rates. Once you have both hypotheses, then you can see which hypothesis is supported by the evidence.
In climate science, the AGW hypothesis states that human GHG emissions significantly affect the climate. As such, the null hypothesis is that human GHG emissions do not significantly affect the climate, that the climate variations are the result of natural processes. This null hypothesis is what Doctor T wants to reverse.
The first part of Dr. T’s statement is true. There is general scientific agreement that the globe has been warming, in fits and starts of course, for the last three centuries or so. And since it has been thusly warming for centuries, the obvious null hypothesis would have to be that the half-degree of warming we experienced in the 20th century was a continuation of some long-term ongoing natural trend.
But that’s not what Dr. Trenberth is doing here. Keep your eye on the pea. He has smoothly segued from the IPCC saying “global warming is ‘unequivocal’”, which is true, and stitched that idea so cleverly onto another idea, ‘and thus humans affect the climate’, that you can’t even see the seam.
Lest you think that the IPCC actually did mean that ‘humans are the cause’ when they said (in his words) that ‘global warming was “unequivocal”‘, here’s their full statement from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Summary For Policymakers (2007) (PDF, 3.7 MB):
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level (see Figure SPM-3).Despite the vagueness of a lack of a timeframe, that is generally true, but it says nothing about humans being the cause.
He’s claiming that normal scientific rules should be reversed for the benefit of Dr. Kevin Trenberth and the IPCC and those he supports.
Global Warming — What If It’s a Big Hoax [CARTOON]
http://planetsave.com/2011/01/19/global-warming-what-if-its-a-big-hoax/comment-page-1/#comment-122345
Another IPCC claim contradicted with new science
This new study directly contradicts at least some of the IPCC’s forecasts on the impact of global warming causing elevation shifts of flora.
From the University of California – DavisUC Davis study shows plants moved downhill, not up, in warming world
Increased precipitation is the key, authors say
The downfall of science and the rise of intellectual tyranny
http://www.naturalnews.com/z031073_science_tyranny.html
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
The very reputation of so-called "science" has been irreparably damaged by the invocation of the term "science" by GMO lackeys, pesticide pushers, mercury advocates and fluoride poisoners who all claim to have science on their side. It seems that every toxin, contamination and chemical disaster that now infects our planet has been evangelized in the name of "science."
Where "science" used to be highly regarded in the 1950's, today the term is largely exploited by pharmaceutical companies, biotech giants and chemical companies to push their own for-profit agendas. Actual science has little to do with the schemes now being pushed under the veil of science.
To make matters even worse for the sciences, many so-called "science bloggers" have been revealed to have financial ties to the very same companies whose profits are shored up by their activities (http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/...).
Rather than defending any sort of scientific truth, science bloggers have become the internet whores of Big Pharma, Monsanto, pesticide manufacturers, chemical companies and toxic mercury factories. There's hardly a dangerous chemical in widespread use today that the science bloggers haven't venomously defended as safe and effective. Many are just blatantly paid off by corporate entities to run around the internet pushing GMOs, chemicals and vaccines.
This realization has caused the science bloggers to be widely ridiculed by intelligent people who see right through their thinly-veiled (but well-funded) disinformation campaigns. Where science bloggers once had credibility, they now are seen as intellectual prostitutes for dangerous corporate agendas that benefit powerful companies at the expense of environmental health and human health.
If they weren't doing all this in the name of science, it wouldn't be so bad, actually. If they called themselves "corporate whore bloggers" instead of "science bloggers," their actions wouldn't be so harmful to the reputation of science itself. But, to the great detriment of actual science, they insist on calling themselves "science bloggers."
New paper: Cosmic rays contribute 40% to global warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/cosmic-rays-contribute-40-to-global-warming-study/ From the Hindu
Shale gas boom on
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/21/shale-gas-boom-on/#comment-579648
Oil and Gas Collection: Hydraulic Fracturing, Toxic Chemicals and the Surge of Earthquake Activity in Arkansas
Clearville – Pretest water near natural gas drilling. Use a certified state lab
The negative impacts of modern, industrial-scale mining are increasingly scrutinized as conflicts between mining companies and affected communities have intensified globally.
The Framework for Responsible Mining, released by CSP2 and WWF-International, seeks to address these concerns by providing the most comprehensive review of and recommendations for new environmental and social guidelines to date
The coalition Government has rejected a moratorium on shale gas drilling, stating that the operations do not pose a threat to human health or the environment. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "We are aware that there have been reports from [the] US of issues linked to some shale gas projects. However, we understand that these are only in a few cases and that Cuadrilla [the company exploiting shale gas reserves in Lancashire] has made it clear that there is no likelihood of environmental damage and that it is applying technical expertise and exercising the utmost care as it takes drilling and testing forward."
Following the emergence of video evidence in the US, that apparently shows domestic water supplies polluted by shale gas, the UK Government's assurances are unlikely to assuage fears that drilling in Lancashire could produce similar or worse results. In the US, residents have filmed their experiences of the allegedly polluted water systems with striking results. In several clips, people were apparently able to ignite the air flowing from taps with a lighter – an effect that is presumably caused by the presence of methane in the water supply. Reports have also surfaced of cattle dying en masse after drinking from water supplies affected by the fracturing process.
Following the emergence of video evidence in the US, that apparently shows domestic water supplies polluted by shale gas, the UK Government's assurances are unlikely to assuage fears that drilling in Lancashire could produce similar or worse results. In the US, residents have filmed their experiences of the allegedly polluted water systems with striking results. In several clips, people were apparently able to ignite the air flowing from taps with a lighter – an effect that is presumably caused by the presence of methane in the water supply. Reports have also surfaced of cattle dying en masse after drinking from water supplies affected by the fracturing process.
In 2009, USDA agents euthanized more than 4 million red-winged blackbirds, starlings, cowbirds, and grackles, primarily using pesticides that the government says are not harmful to pets or humans.
In addition to the USDA program, a so-called depredation order from the US Fish and Wildlife Service allows blackbirds, grackles, and starlings to be killed by anyone who says they pose health risks or cause economic damage. Though a permit is needed in some instances, the order is largely intended to cut through red tape for farmers, who often employ private contractors to kill the birds and do not need to report their bird culls to any authority.
"Every winter, there's massive and purposeful kills of these blackbirds," says Greg Butcher, the bird conservation director at the National Audubon Society. "These guys are professionals, and they don't want to advertise their work. They like to work fast, efficiently, and out of sight."
In addition to the USDA program, a so-called depredation order from the US Fish and Wildlife Service allows blackbirds, grackles, and starlings to be killed by anyone who says they pose health risks or cause economic damage. Though a permit is needed in some instances, the order is largely intended to cut through red tape for farmers, who often employ private contractors to kill the birds and do not need to report their bird culls to any authority.
"Every winter, there's massive and purposeful kills of these blackbirds," says Greg Butcher, the bird conservation director at the National Audubon Society. "These guys are professionals, and they don't want to advertise their work. They like to work fast, efficiently, and out of sight."
( This perpetuates another Myth : that the public approves of the theft of their taxes to murder abroad )
0
Posts
Matt Desrochers