“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.-- Jonathan LeakeIn its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal” wrote Jonathan Leake reporter for the Timesonline UK.
The IPCC warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. (see story)
This new report is helping to bring a dramatic conclusion to the scientific farce known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The fact that the errand hypothesis of AGW is being disproved day by day and has helped morphed it into the all encompassing and ambiguous phase called Climate Change.
Global Warming’s change to Climate Change should have been the first indicator that something was not quite right. To give a particular scientific phenomenon the same name and characteristics as a phenomenon that is normal and reoccurring in nature at both the historical and seasonal levels doesn’t make for good scientific unbiased observable quantifying.
Instead what it does is obscure the facts which we now know probably was the intent all along.
What is more, in light of other recent disclosures of scientific malfeasance regarding global warming, this new report shows us that AGW advocates were willing to dispel and destroy the factual evidence of no global warming or the lack thereof pressuring their peers and the public into group think and P.C. thinking also referred to as consensus. This group think has permeated the sociality at all levels —even at the scientific level.
Yet there are those that still insist that AGW is real although almost everything that previously supported this claim has been disproved as either bad science or no science at all.
According to Leake, Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the chapter of the IPCC report that deals with the observed temperature changes, said he accepted there were problems with the global thermometer record but these had been accounted for in the final report.
But according to the report ,”Surface Temperature Records: Driven by Deception?” written by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts adjustments were not made or were made poorly. (source pg 34)
Leake also reported that , The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts has recently issued a new set of global temperature readings covering the past 30 years, with thermometer readings augmented by satellite data.
Dr Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said: “This new set of data confirms the trend towards rising global temperatures and suggest[s] that, if anything, the world is warming even more quickly than we had thought.”
Is this some sad attempt to keep the AGW scare going by unflagging climate change scaremongers?
For instance the argument that Antarctica is gaining ice, made by Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute is placed in the skeptics column by Skeptical Science website, a global warming alarmists site.
This is laughable as Skeptical Science performs so called “scientific” acrobatics to avoid Ockham’s Razor.
Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''. In many cases this is interpreted as ``keep it simple'' or "the simplest solution is usually the correct one"
What Skeptical Science does is construct a complicatedly opaque argument which conclusion is, “the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is now at the highest level since satellites began to monitor it almost 30 years ago.” With of course a few caveats, addendums and theretofores.
When the issue of AGW was originally raised it was presented as a consensus. No argument, no questions but in the end we find that there was no science—no creditable science.
Now that the truth is coming out we all understand that consensus is not science. Those who have said so have done a great deal of damage to science.