Wednesday, May 30th 2012, 7:18 PM EDT
Although global temperatures have been pretty flat despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels since the big 1998 El Nino, no one that I know disputes that climate changes. Nor do they doubt that there has been very mild warming since the mid-19th century when our planet began thawing out of the last “Little Ice Age” (predating the Industrial Revolution). And while most acknowledge that greenhouse warming may well be a contributing factor, it is also true that a great many very informed scientists believe that any human contributions to that influence are negligible, undetectable and thereby grossly exaggerated by alarmists, while far more important natural climate drivers (both for warming and cooling), are virtually ignored. Particularly consequential among these are long-and short-term effects of ocean cycles along with changes in solar activity.
The pervasive hype that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis is based upon speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. Much of this emanates from politically-corrupted processes and agenda-driven report conclusions rendered by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is trumpeted in the media as authoritative gospel.
Fritz Vaherenholt, a socialist founder of Germany’s environmental movement who headed the renewable energy division of the country’s second largest utility company, was once a big IPCC believer. Recently, however, his new book titled The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen, charges the organization with gross incompetence and dishonesty… especially regarding fear-mongering exaggeration of human CO2 emission influences.
After serving as an IPCC reviewer for their report on renewable energy, he was stunned by the large number of errors and wondered if the other IPCC reports on climate change “were similarly sloppy.” This concern prompted Vahrenholt to dig into the IPCC’s 2007 climate report, and he was again horrified by what he found. He concluded in an interview which appeared in the German news publication Bild that: “… IPCC decision-makers are fighting tooth and nail against accepting the roles of the oceans, sun, and soot.” Accordingly, IPCC models are completely out of whack. “The facts need to be discussed sensibly and scientifically, without first deciding on the results.”
Many would attribute the beginning of rampant U.S. global warming alarmism with star witness testimony delivered by James Hansen of NASA, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), at then-Senator Al Gore’s Committee on Science, Technology and Space during the particularly hot summer of 1988. Then and now, Hansen’s catastrophic predictions (based upon highly theoretical and unproven general circulation climate models and subjective tweaking of incomplete and unreliable surface temperature data) continue to be a huge embarrassment to NASA.
In a January 29, 2006 New York Times interview, he charged that NASA public relations people had pressured him to allow them to review future public lectures, papers and postings on the GISS website. Yet in January 15, 2009 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works-Minority Committee, his former boss John S. Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program, took issue with the interference charge, stating: “Hansen was never muzzled, even though he violated official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen has embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claim of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”
Theon also testified that: “My own belief concerning anthropogenic [man-made] climate change is that models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit”. He observed: ”Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modeled in the observations, nor explain how they did it…this is contrary to the way science should be done.” He then went on to say “Thus, there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy”.
On April 10, forty-nine former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, admonishing the agency in general, and GISS under Hansen’s leadership in particular, for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change…while neglecting basic empirical evidence that calls that theory into question. The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, is dismayed over the failure to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change, charging that NASA is relying too heavily upon complex models that have proven to be scientifically inadequate for climate predictions.
Their criticism is well founded, supported by scandalous exchanges among prominent researchers exposed in e-mail files retrieved from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia. The communications reveal conspiracies to falsify and withhold information, to suppress contrary findings in scholarly publications, and to exaggerate the existence and threats of man-made global warming. Many of these individuals have had major influence over highly publicized summary report findings issued by the IPCC.
A GISS researcher confessed in one e-mail that “[the United States Historical Climate Network] data are not routinely kept up-to-date”, and in another that NASA had inflated its temperature data since 2000 on a questionable basis. “NASA’s assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data…may not have been correct.”
Click source for more [LINKS]