H.L. Mencken :-
“The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on ‘I am not too sure’.”
Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu
“Certainly, global warming is in progress. However, in spite of their claim, not even the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) presents definite scientific proof that “most” of the present warming is caused by the greenhouse effect, as stated in their summary report. It is simply an assumption. Since the physics of the greenhouse effect of CO2 is well known, and since they thought that no other forcing function is likely to be the cause, the IPCC hypothesized that the warming from about 1900 was caused by it. They assembled a large number of scientists, mostly meteorologists and physicists (not necessarily climatologists who are really needed in climate research) and tried to prove their hypothesis based on supercomputer models. They have continued to do so, in spite of new evidence from some ice core data, which shows that the temperature rises tend to precede CO2 rises by about 1000 years, suggesting that the hypothesized relationship between the temperature and CO2 is reversed, namely that some of the past temperature rises may be the cause of CO2 rises. It is very unfortunate that the hypothesis has somehow become ‘fact.’”
Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming:
“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.”
The “may” in the last sentence is very telling. Do not stray little sheep. Sleep now. Mommie’s here. Here is the teat of further funding.
The great unwashed “may” rise up and overthrow the liars and fraudsters. Gore “may” give back his Nobel and his editors “may” return their Oscar. Pigs “may” fly. But currently this seems unlikely.
Why does the American political system attempt to “tag” failed policy to other business?
“Added to the end of the House bill by the Senate are existing tax bills. One would provide tax incentives for individuals and businesses to save energy, produce alternative energy or mitigate carbon emissions.” – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/02/BU77139RDC.DTL
Why would some form of carbon tax credit policy be dragged along with the supposedly imperative “bailout” of the very people who have caused the problems we all now face.
Where was Al when Bill did this? – http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2087375/posts
Maybe working with some of the people in that room to create this -
Like verdigris encrusting the bearings of the industry and economies that delivered the very equipment and energy they now use to attempt their power grab the greens have vitiated the cogs of science funding and further perverted politics.
“A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction” – http://despair.com/teamwork.html
Such as this team? – http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
A paper that describes the phenomena from Richard S. Lindzen :
(Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 19, 2008)
“For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.”
This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.