Science wants answers; climate science wants no questions

I warmly recommend anyone curious about the peculiar status of climate science and the theory of dangerous anthropogenic global warming to read and circulate this devastating analysis of modern climate science by Dr Robert McBride. The hard-hitting letter was published two days ago in NZ Farmers Weekly (paywalled). It concisely describes the extraordinary differences that have evolved to mark climate science out from other branches of science. It is accessible and significant. Robert works for agKnowledge in the South Island and earned a PhD in soil science in the US. – RT]
UPDATE 1145, Saturday 30 January: 300 scientists demand NOAA stop hiding its data – see below

So called “climate science” is not science. Science is a process typically involving controlled experiments to isolate a single variable in an effort to get the best answer to a specific question.

This is not as straightforward as it sounds. For example, I was recently co-author of a paper that criticised the data and conclusions drawn from a series of pasture fertility experiments. Our critique was in turn criticised in a follow-up paper.

This critique of the critique will no doubt receive further criticism and so it goes in all fields of science—science is a rigorous and relentless refinement of knowledge in an effort to determine the best answer to a question.

Contrast this with “climate science” that starts with a conclusion and only seeks evidence that supports that conclusion. The “Climategate” email scandal in 2009 revealed that top climate “scientists” around the world were collaborating to manipulate data, subvert the peer review process and control what information was published.

Since then nothing has changed. Attacks on anyone who questions aspects of the alleged “settled science” of human-caused global warming have intensified. This is perhaps the most compelling evidence that “climate science” is something other than science—increasingly we are seeing calls to make criticism a criminal offence. Think about the implications of making it a crime to question.

If not science, what is “climate science”? It is a political ideology movement that has effectively sold itself as being a scientific endeavour. Don’t be fooled into thinking it is anything other than political activism.

Again, consider that climate “scientists” are not seeking the best answer to a question—they are seeking no questions to their answer.

UPDATE 1145, Saturday 30 January:

As this letter is published, a group of 300 sceptical scientists have demanded in a public letter that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists comply with NOAA’s own rules concerning the quality of their data. This is not happening in any other branch of science. Why does anyone tolerate it?

But there’s no doubt the pressure against climate activism is increasing and we can all add to it.

11 Thoughts on “Science wants answers; climate science wants no questions

  1. Richard C (NZ) on January 31, 2016 at 12:51 pm said:

    >”Contrast this [all other fields of science] with “climate science” that starts with a conclusion and only seeks evidence that supports that conclusion.”

    No this is not quite right. IPCC AR5 Chapter 2 Observations Atmosphere actually cites the data that DOES NOT support the conclusion of climate science (i.e. they published contra evidence to their conclusion). In fact, the contra evidence proves their conclusion false. The IPCC then failed to address their own non-supporting evidence in AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution.

    In other words, the IPCC in their assessment DID seek the evidence which included evidence that DID NOT support their conclusion, but they ignored their own contra evidence.

    The IPCC’s climate change criteria is this: radiative forcing “measured at top of atmosphere” (IPCC AR4 FAQ 2.1, Box 1 – “What is radiative forcing?” – see below).

    # 0.6 W.m-2 TOA imbalance, trendless (Stephens et al 2012, Loeb et al 2012, IPCC AR5 Chap 2 – see below).

    # 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and IPCC Table of Forcings, similar to net anthro. Co = 280ppm pre-industrial, C = 400ppm 2015).

    CO2 “forcing” is more than treble the TOA imbalance and increasing, CO2 is an ineffective climate forcing. The IPCC’s conclusion that CO2 forcing is the driver of the earth’s energy imbalance and therefore temperature, is false.

    # 0.6 imbalance TOA = 0.6 imbalance Sfc – see below

    Sfc imbalance is global average ocean heat accumulation (around 24 W.m-2 tropics, -11 W.m-2 Southern Ocean). Therefore, TOA imbalance is simply solar SW going straight into the oceanic heat sink and lagged in energy out at Sfc and LW out at TOA.

    There is no need to invoke CO2 “forcing” and it is impossible to invoke anyway – it doesn’t fit between Sfc and TOA. IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution fails to address this.

    Thus the theory of man-made climate change is falsified from the IPCC’s own findings.

    # # #

    FAQ 2.1, Box 1: What is Radiative Forcing?

    [A] – “The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] controls the Earth’s surface temperature”

    And,

    [B] – “When radiative forcing [‘measured at the top of the atmosphere’] from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system”

    https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html

    Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg

    Loeb et al (2012) Figure 1
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Loeb2012-TOAfluxvsOHC.jpg

  2. Richard C (NZ) on January 31, 2016 at 1:02 pm said:

    >”CO2 “forcing” is more than treble the TOA imbalance and increasing,”

    CO2 “forcing” is THEORY in respect to TOA.

    TOA imbalance is what is observed (0.6), contrary to theory (1.9).

  3. Richard C (NZ) on January 31, 2016 at 1:16 pm said:

    >”# 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 “forcing”, trending (dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) and IPCC Table of Forcings, similar to net anthro.”

    Net anthropogenic forcings, 1750 to 1950, 1980 and 2012 (IPCC, 2013).
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/clip_image032_thumb.jpg?w=821&h=183

    Net 2.3 W.m-2 to 2012.

  4. Richard C (NZ) on January 31, 2016 at 1:21 pm said:

    >”Net 2.3 W.m-2 to 2012.”

    Again, this is THEORY, but not what was observed.

  5. Mike Jowsey on January 31, 2016 at 1:47 pm said:

    I would have liked to read the full article but it does not appear in the print edition. ;-(

  6. I have been called a “denier” (on Facebook) for pointing out the obvious flaws in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”

    Behead those that insult the Prophet Gore!!

  7. Richard Treadgold on January 31, 2016 at 9:53 pm said:

    Mike,

    I would have liked to read the full article but it does not appear in the print edition. ;-(

    This post reproduces the op-ed (or letter) by Dr McBride. There’s nothing else. 🙂

  8. Alexander K on February 1, 2016 at 8:43 am said:

    The criminality and silliness involved with CAGW are two different factors – scientists who use their work to prove a conclusion are, in my view, criminals. Those lay people who earnestly believe and promulgate the lies of dodgy scientists are dupes, although some of the stuff that is passed off as science would indicate that these people are dopes as well as dupes.

  9. Speaking of silliness, I get the enviable task of presenting my submission to the Christchurch City Council at the end of the month, on the subject of the coastal hazards plan, which despite being “dropped” still seems to be in force.

  10. Wolfgang Haumann on February 10, 2016 at 10:24 pm said:

    In Germany we have a chancellor who has studied physics before her political career . She stands at the forefront of the AGW ideology and advocated the complete phase-out of carbon-economy. She ought to know better. I am ashamed of my current government!

  11. Richard Treadgold on February 10, 2016 at 10:37 pm said:

    Yes, this is frustrating and it is happening around the world.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation