Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

Ten of the Worst Climate Research Papers: A Note from Cohenite

By

As a layman reading the literature and arguments in support of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) three defining characteristics of those arguments have become apparent.

 

The first is the idea that the science is settled and that there is a consensus in favor of this science. This is wrong and the Oreskes thesis has been repudiated.  

 

Secondly, the pro-AGW literature uses terms of apocalyptic consequence; we read about tipping points, rapid sea rises and extreme weather. Because of this, pro-AGW statements often take on a ghoulish, vulture-like quality with every bad climate event being hailed as proof of AGW. But again, there is no compelling evidence that the climate is becoming more extreme or worse than it has been.

 

The third and most striking characteristic are the computers, the General Circulation Models (GCMs), which are the basis of AGW science. They have informed the msm to the extent that nearly every report confirming AGW (are there any other kind?) begins with ‘computer modeling has shown’…etc.

 

The result of the dominance of GCM’s has seen a growth in what Aynsley Kellow, Professor and Head, School of Government, University of Tasmania, calls climate virtual reality where there is a persistent conflict between GCM evidence and empirical data.

 

What stands out for me in this debate is the clash between real data and AGW data and the repeated examples where data has been manipulated, adjusted, discarded or subject to arcane statistical methodology so it conforms with the GCM simulations.

 

All of the 10 papers, statements and articles I have selected as the worst of the pro-AGW support literature exhibit the above 3 qualities. Some of them have iconic status and others, while more obscure, present such glaring examples of this matrix science, or climate virtual reality, that they cannot be ignored.

 

1.Dr James Hansen’s 1988 Statement to the US Senate.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

Hansen is the public face of AGW science. This statement establishes all 3 of the defining characteristics. He says “the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.” Why then does GISS adjust their US data to stop the ‘30’s being the warmest decade? He says the greenhouse effect is proven; why then does IPCC have to invent the enhanced greenhouse? He takes pride in his “computer climate simulations”. Money for jam for Koutsoyiannis.

 

2. Dr James Hansen’s 2008 Anniversary speech before the US Congress.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798

After 20 years of climate zilch Hansen ups the apocalypse ante; tipping points are now “ominous”, AGW is a “time bomb”, and there is a need to “preserve our planet, and creation.” The public face of AGW is now Moses. Amidst the blatant untruths there is a resonant irony; “The fossil fuel industry maintains its stranglehold…via demagoguery.” Is Hansen the copper or the kettle?

 

3. Michael Mann et al (MBH): Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations. AGU GRL 1999

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html

The Hockey stick is the figurehead of the good ship AGW. If anyone says that it is not essential for AGW to prove that 20thC temperatures are higher than any other time in recent history they are dreaming. MBH do so using tree-rings and esoteric statistical analysis (Principle Component Analysis); they ignore discrepancies with instrument data and obfuscate about their sources. McIntyre eats them for breakfast.

 

4. Eugene R. Wahl and Caspar M. Ammann: Robustness of Mann, Bradley, Hughes; Reconstruction of Northern hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.

http://www.cgd.vcar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange.2007.pdf

Before the Hockey stick could be used in AR4 it needed to be rehabilitated after McIntyre’s, and others’, demolition. Wahl et al said they had a new standard for Reduction of Error verification, i.e. zero=skill. McIntyre wanted proof. Wahl procrastinated until AR4 was published and then said the proof was that the new verification had been referred to in their paper. Fidus Achates writ large.

 

5. Mann et al (part 2): Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf

Rehabilitated, Mann threw out the tree-rings and used an even more esoteric form of statistical analysis (PCA) to produce data so robust it could withstand minimal correlation with instrument records and 2 confirming dates over a millennium in some of the proxy series. McIntyre couldn’t believe it, but Tamino, in praising Mann’s use of whatever form of PCA he used, is taken to task by Ian Jolliffe, the world’s leading expert on the method, whatever it is. Jolliffe is nonplussed and declares, “This is just plain wrong.”

 

6. Spencer Weart: A Saturated Gassy Argument.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

This is the user friendly version of AGW’s semi-infinite atmospheric model; this model ‘shows’ that vertical layers of CO2 trap and delay the rise of surface emitted IR. If it was right there would be a troposphere hotspot/fingerprint as unequivocally predicted in AR4 by FIG 9.1(c). The satellite and other data collectors show there is none.

 

7. Robert J. Allen, Steven C. Sherwood: Warming maximum in the tropical upper atmosphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geoscience 25 May 2008

http://lubos.mtol.gogglepages.com/sherwood-allen-ngeo-2008.pdf

Concerned that the instruments showed no troposphere hotspot, Allen & Sherwood repudiated the instrument data and developed a windshear model which showed if there was windshear there would be warming. Matrix science. Resonant irony; the instruments which were not good enough for temperature were used to establish windshear and model predicted temperature.

 

8. Rolf Philipona et al: Radiative forcing-measured at Earth’s surface- corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 31 2004

Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase in Europe. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 32 2005

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023624.shtml

2 papers from Philipona who deals with increasing downward longwave (DLR). If the semi-infinite model is correct, as well as a troposphere hotspot, there will be increased clear-sky LDR. This is a crucial point but Philipona’s studies are flawed by statistical method, inadequate study period, selective use of insolation and temperature data and extrapolation from regionalized Stefan-Boltzman.

 

9. AR4, Chapter 2; Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing; Executive Summary; pp131-132.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report?Ar4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf

The science is settled. The standard of scientific understanding in the Executive Summary ranges from “very high” to “very low”; the great majority of climate indices have “medium-low” to “very low” levels of scientific understanding; yet the Summary concludes that “humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate.” Diagnosis: scientific schizophrenia.

 

10. Keenlyside N S, Latif M, Jungclaus J, Kornblueh L, Roeckner E: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector. Nature 453, 84-88 May 2008

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

Both sides of the debate claimed this paper as proving/disproving AGW. The paper asserts that natural, contrary climate patterns can “temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.” To this layman that has a Claytons feel about it, but the kicker is Lucia’s 2001 and onwards temperature analysis; Lucia removed the ENSO and found a decline in post-2001 temperature trend. If there was an underlying warming it would have shown. How can anthropogenic warming be “temporarily offset” when it isn’t there?

 

These papers and articles and statements are the worst because they exhibit all three defining characteristics of AGW science. Some are indefensible, others don’t make sense.

 

 

*******

To read the ten best climate research papers according to Cohenite, click here .

how to overcome the fear of public speaking

Bankrupt Lehman Brothers Promoted ‘Global Warming’

By

The now bankrupt merchant bankers, Lehman Brothers, invested heavily in the politics of climate change.  The bank released two reports last year on the issue broadly embracing and promoting the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Agenda including emissions trading.

 

The second report entitled, ‘The Business of Climate Change ll’, went as far as to suggest that it will be possible to reach an international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions; indeed within five years.

 

The following extract gives an insight into the flavour of the report:

 

“The introduction of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which covers a little under half of the industrial carbon emissions in Europe, has triggered discussion and concern about the impact of such a carbon trading scheme on (European) industrial competitiveness. The concern is that, by acting unilaterally, European firms may be disadvantaged, and the economy thereby damaged relative to non-EU firms and economies.

 

“As considered in the chapter Emissions trading: grandfathering vs auctioning, any scheme – be it cap and trade, a carbon tax, or whatever – that limits emissions thereby raises the (relative) price of carbon, a proportion of which is in turn passed on to intermediate and final prices. Depending upon whether the emissions permits are issued free or auctioned, firms may or may not experience a decrease in profit. Either way, however, firms stand to be disadvantaged relative to competitors abroad which do not face the increased marginal cost of carbon.

 

“This loss of international competitiveness could be resolved by the region (Europe in this case) imposing a border tax on imported goods according to their carbon content; or by other economies raising the relative price of carbon, whether by joining the carbon trading scheme or otherwise. The risk with a border tax is of retaliation, and the potential for a trade war.

 

“More likely, we judge, is that some sort of global scheme to limit carbon emissions, and quite possibly a global cap-and-trade scheme, will be in place within the next five years.”

 

On the issue of the Stern report and the associated controversy over discount rates, Lehman Brothers again come down on the side of those promoting immediate action against global warming backing “the correct ethical position” over what many would consider prudent economics.

 

The Lehman Brother’s report acknowledges the assistance of Dr. James Hansen, Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and advisor to Al Gore.

 

 

********

The Business of Climate Change ll: Policy is accelerating, with major implications for companies and investors. By John Llewellyn and Camille Chaix, Lehman Brothers, September 20, 2007

The Moratorium on Whaling as a Reflection of the “Muddled Cosmological Beliefs” of the West

By

The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established in 1948 at the initiative of the United States to establish a new world order in whaling.   Initially 15 governments were party to the IWC with Japan at the time under occupation and without the right to join.   

 

The Commission’s objectives included safeguarding the great natural resources represented by whale stocks and providing for the “orderly development of the whaling industry” recognising that whale stocks will increase if whaling is properly regulated.

 

But by the 1960s an anti-whaling movement had emerged in the West and the IWC focus started to change.  In 1972, at the United Nations Human Environmental Conference held in Stockholm, the United States lobbied for a moratorium on commercial whaling; a moratorium that came into effect ten years later. 

 

Japan initially took action to be exempt from the moratorium in accordance with Article V of the convention.   Japan made the case that the moratorium infringed upon provisions within the convention in particular that decisions of the IWC be based on scientific findings – at the time the scientific recommendation was that the moratorium was unnecessary – and take into consideration the interests of consumers of whale product. 

 

 The United States threatened that unless Japan withdrew its objection it would revoke fishing allocation for Japanese trawlers off the west coast of Alaska.   Japan withdrew its objection, but the US nevertheless phased out its fishing allocation to Japan.

 

In a book, ‘Reviving the Invisible Hand’, by Deepak Lal, a well known economist born in Indian, reference is made to the West’s obsession with promoting its “habits of the heart” including through the propaganda of the NGOs, most of whom espouse various environmental causes (pg. 233).   Lal explains that the bread and butter of environment groups involves arousing the fear of “Apocalypse Now” (an enduring superstition of mankind) along with the “muddled cosmological beliefs of the West” about how one should live.     

 

He refers to organisations such as the International Whaling Commission as transnational institutions created after the Second World War to legislate our Western morality around the world and that the infiltration and use of these institution by NGOs as source of potential serious disorder (pg. 234). 

 

What the West doesn’t seem to understand is that while Japan, to again quote Lal, joined the bandwagon of globalizing capitalism, they have done this without sacrificing their culture or cosmological beliefs and see the demand from countries like Australia that they give up their tradition of eating whale – a tradition that can be traced to the Jomon Period of approximately 5,500 BC – as a form of cultural imperialism.    Masayuki Komatsu and Shigeko Misaki in ‘Whales and the Japanese’ (The Institute of Cetacean Research, 2003) indicate that the Japanese don’t like others to dictate what “our habits should be” and suggest that the anti-whaling lobby is practicing ethnic and cultural discrimination (pg. 103-104). 

 

At a summit of traditional Japanese whaling communities held in March 2002, it was affirmed that “the basis of Japanese whaling tradition and culture, characterised by the total utilization of the whales and a spirit of gratitude, should be maintained and perpetuated”.   

 

The Japanese have a strong connection to the Shinto and Buddhist religions and believe that deep respect should be afforded animals that are killed so we may eat.   This respect involves not wasting any of the animal and so the Japanese have made a virtue out of utilizing every part of the whale.    There is also a cemetery for whales in the Koganji Buddhist Temple in Nagato City where the fetuses of whales that “did not live to swim in the sea” are buried and kakochos (books of the dead) dedicated to the whales that gave their lives for the well-being of humans.  A service is held once a year in the temple to pray for the souls of the whales.   

 

The Japanese want an end to the moratorium on commercial whaling and the right to continue to harvest whales.  They see the moratorium as reflecting Western arrogance and believe that they will prevail, simply because “we are right”.

 

 *****

This is my fourth blog post on whaling following my recent visit to Japan.  

 

 

Deepak Lal was elected President of the Mont Pelerin Society at its 60th Anniversary Meeting in Tokyo.  

 

The picture was taken in the garden of the Orion Hotel, Chinzanso, on September 12, 2008.