The Climate Science Criminal Aniled Minds
Posted by pwl on February 23, 2012
The Climate Science Criminal Aniled Minds
Peter Gleick’s actions are shocking and atrocious, a sad event for standards in science where we see otherwise dedicated scientists violate their own integrity in furtherance of their belief stricken cause to save the Earth at all costs. It’s an unfortunate pattern of behavior that the end justifies the means.
By using fraud and deception Peter Gleick compromised himself. This is all too familiar in climate scientists dedicated to their cause above their commitment to the scientific method. Peter Gleick likely fancied himself, absurdly, as a whistle-blower of sorts, as DeSmog climate doomsday rapture cultists have characterized him justifying his criminal actions, but the facts now show that there was nothing of substance to the climate issues to be “blown”, just private information stolen in a crime against a think tank who disagrees with Gleick’s world view of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW. Nothing to blow the whistle on thus Gleick’s acts are wholly criminal acts not qualifying for whistle-blower status.
The two Climate Gate incidents also fit this pattern but on a much larger scale where an entire clutch of climate scientists, Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, Dr, Jones, Dr. Briffa, Dr. Threnbreth, et al., as is evident by the two sets of Climate Gate Emails, had a similar ongoing conspiracy to fudge their numbers, defraud the public, violate the scientific method using secret political actions to block publication of papers, coordinating their actions to the benefit of their pet hypothesis, CAGW, to the benefit of their careers, to the benefit of their funding, to the benefit of their “cause” rather than to the benefit of science or to the benefit of the public paying their bills.
It is obvious that an insider having observed these suspect activities of scientific fraud and cronyism and the resulting gaming of the data to bias towards CAGW plus the fact that funding monies where clearly involved as motivation to career and person adds in the suspect activities of potential criminal fraud not only across state lines but across international borders as well.
The role of the whistle-blower is typically reserved for insiders who observe highly unethical and or criminal behavior going on in an organization who then reports such events and crimes to the public for action by those with the legal obligation to act accordingly and responsibly. Some countries even provide legal protections for such “honest” whistle-blowers who side on the side of doing the right thing rather than letting the crimes continue.
The direct comparison of these two events, ClimateGate and Gleick Fake Gate, leaves one with the bitter taste that, unfortunately, there are many climate scientists willing to engage in unethical actions even crossing the line into scientific fraud (fabrication of data is a no no Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann) and advancing their own careers using deception (hiding the decline is a big no no Dr. Mann) and, now evidently clearly criminal acts of identity theft, social hacking misrepresentation deception passing oneself as a board member of an organization one is not a member of nor a board member of, receiving stolen documents across state lines for wire fraud, and likely many more charges will be identified as this story develops and unfolds, not to mention the loss of scientific integrity and violating ones commitment to the scientific method and nuking one’s own career with a Tsar Bomba in the process.
So two major cases, Climate Gate I & II (with III in the wind) and Gleick Fake Gate have shown the criminal aniled minds of climate science are active and willing to break the laws that help to keep civilization civil and worse they routinely break the rules of the scientific method claiming they are under attack. Well dah! If you can’t stand the heat get out of the lab!
Science is about testing all claims of hypotheses put forward, it’s the science that is being “attacked” since it’s not hard science of the order of f=ma or e=mc^2. If these two equations had the lack of “predictive value” of the climate science statistical virtual models we’d not be able to build sky scrapers safely let alone have humans visit the moon and robotic probes explore the solar system and beyond!
There is a serious quantitative failure of the field of climate science to keep it self rooted in hard science, sure they put up space satellites and take observations, but it’s the climate scientists methods of analysis that are the key problems (when the frauds and blatant politics are removed that is) they have an over reliance on statistical games and statistical models that disconnect many if not most of their results from the Actual Real Atmosphere and Climate of this Small Blue Marble known as Earth.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford
Rutherford’s Rule of Experiments is a very concise and elegant filter that separates true hard science from pseudo sciences such as Climate Science.
Judith Curry hits the head on the nail with Gleick’s [lack of] Integrity: when one “perceives with passion” that the Earth is at risk one’s emotions lead one to compromise ones values and self; and in the case of scientists it seems that shows up as a Passion Bias or a Dedication Bias or as commonly known, Confirmation Bias, but to that we can now add Compromise Bias: these are all the blatant ignoring of the counter evidence that has a damn good habit of falsifying the many claims of CAGW.
What makes a Bad Scientist? What makes a Good Scientist? What makes a Great Scientist? How well they adhere to the scientific method and how well they can shift their point of view to consider what others are telling them. Also being honest and not using deception or fraud is a baseline essential commitment.
Dr. Girma Orssengo has a compelling analysis (Girma Analysis) that puts the CAGW central claim and equation that “CO2 Drives Temperature” in the real actual atmosphere to the test. It’s shocking that such a basic and elegant test is not the mainstay first line test of every Statistical Model in Climate Science for the results of Girma’s Analysis are quite revealing.
“The only question in the climate debate is “does human emission of CO2 causes global warming?” One way to answer this question is to compare IPCC’s model projections for the global mean temperature with actual observations (hadcrut3 data) as shown in the above chart.
The above result shows IPCC projections are wrong. Actually, the observed global mean temperatures are even less than the projections if emission were held constant at year 2000 level, as shown by the orange curve in the above chart.
It is extremely crucial that public policy be based on facts. The above data shows, human emission of CO2 does not cause global warming.” – Girma Orssengo, MASc. PhD
A summary of the in-depth conclusion of Girma’s Analysis:
Girma Orssengo’s analyses using the standard observational temperature and CO2 data sets shows that Mother Nature has falsified the alleged CAGW Hypothesis. It’s well worth your time to comprehend this elegant and clear analysis.
“Effect Of CO2 Emission On Global Mean Temperature
Examination of Figure 3 shows that the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) for 1940 of 0.13 deg C is greater than that for 1880 of –0.22 deg C. Also, the GMTA for 2000 of 0.48 deg C is greater than that for 1940 of 0.13 deg C. This means that the GMTA value, when the oscillating anomaly is at its maximum, increases in every new cycle. Is this global warming caused by human emission of CO2?
The data required to establish the effect of CO2 emission on global mean temperature already exist. The global mean temperature data are available from the Climate Research Unit of the Hadley Centre shown in Figure 3, and the CO2 emission data are available from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre . For the period from 1880 to 1940, the average emission of CO2 was about 0.8 G-ton, and the increase in the GMTA was 0.13+0.22=0.35 deg C. For the period from 1940 to 2000, the average emission of CO2 was about 4 G-ton, but the increase in GMTA was the same 0.48-0.13=0.35 deg C. This means that an increase in CO2 emission by 4/0.8=5-fold has no effect in the increase in the GMTA. This conclusively proves that the effect of 20th century human emission of CO2 on global mean temperature is nil.
Note that the increase in GMTA of 0.35 deg C from 1880 to 1940 (or from 1940 to 2000) in a 60 year period has a warming rate of 0.35/60=0.0058 deg per year, which is the slope of the linear anomaly given by Equation 1. As a result, the linear anomaly is not affected by CO2 emission. Obviously, as the oscillating anomaly is cyclic, it is not related to the 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2.
Figure 4, with high correlation coefficient of 0.88, shows the important result that the observed GMTA can be modeled by a combination of a linear and sinusoidal pattern given by Equation 3. This single GMTA pattern that was valid in the period from 1880 to 1940 was also valid in the period from 1940 to 2000 after about 5-fold increase in human emission of CO2. As a result, the effect of human emission of CO2 on GMTA is nil.” – Girma Orssengo, MASc. PhD
Furthermore the conclusive counter evidence analysis based upon *observational data* by Girma Orssengo puts a nail in the coffin of the AGW Hypothesis as promoted by the CO2 Climate Doomsday AGW Rapture proponents. Orssengo shows that Nature falsified the CAGW hypothesis as clearly CO2 does not drive temperature in the Real Actual Atmosphere to any noticeable extent. If you can’t see the CO2 Signal You Must Falsify.
“Hole in Man Made Global Warming.
a) Global Mean temperature (GMT) => http://bit.ly/zISeEo
For the period from 1880 to 1940, GMT increased by about 0.35.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, GMT increased by about nearly the same 0.35.
b) Human CO2 emission => http://bit.ly/wD1SZj
For the period from 1880 to 1940, CO2 emission increased by about 150 G-ton.
For the period from 1940 to 2000, CO2 emission increased by about 840 G-ton.
How come the increase in CO2 emission by 460% has not caused any change in the GMT?” – Girma Orssengo, MASc. PhD
When presented with such counter evidence the way that a scientist responds speaks volumes. Are they so dedicated to their point of view that they won’t even take the time to comprehend the analysis and it’s implications? Are they open to it? Do they take it under their wing and let it fly them to where ever it leads even if that leads out of their CAGW hypothesis box?
Clearly if one proposes an equation that claims that “CO2 Drives Temperature” there needs to be the actual comparison of those equations using data from the Actual Real Climate/Atmosphere. Any hypothesis aka statistical climate model (which are hypotheses not observational data) that fails to output results within the narrowest margin of error to the Actual Observed Measurements from the Harsh Objective Reality of Nature isn’t worth the floor coverings of a Bat Cave in either sense.
The human mind is a terrible thing to waste with passion aniling it for a lofty cause. Point of View lock in is the death of any scientists skepticism and thus the death of their being scientists. The Criminal Aniled Minds of Climate Scientists and their supporters is a terrible thing to waste away soothsaying dark visions of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture when there is zero evidence that any substantial effect can be seen as Girma’s Analysis, and other counter evidence, clearly shows.
What Gleick and the other Criminal Aniled Minds of Climate Science reveal with their taudy and allegedly fraudulent acts that circumvent the Rules Of The Scientific Method is that they really at heart don’t believe in the Scientific Method at all, for if they did they would let the actual results of Hard Core Real World Independently Verifiable Experiments And Observations determine what the results where rather than attempting to direct those results towards their pet hypotheses. A very sad set of events for science, Climate Gate I, II & III, and Gleick Fake Gate, is.