As IF Times

link The great global warming collapse – The Globe and Mail.

You know the jig is up when a Canadian newspaper prints a story daring to question a “green” cause.  As more evidence of cover ups by scientists  and scientific bodies at the core of the hysteria that is AGW, the fervent clamor to “do something” has died down.  Especially since the northeastern part of the United States  has been so hard hit with generations levels of snow and cold.  Understandably, Al Gore and his gang have been mercifully quiet recently, no doubt afraid to appear from his  mansion to face the pitchfork and torches crowd. 

As discussed in an earlier post, the international scientific body which supposedly knows about such things, the IPCC,  has admitted with great embarrassment that data upon which they made such dire predictions with regard to glacier melt was not only unchecked, they were bogus in the first place reinforcing the old computer credo, garbage in, garbage out.  This is not to indict the work of such bodies because I’m sure some science is involved with their work.  How are we supposed to know the weather forecast in 30 years if no one works on it? Besides, where’s all that research money going to go?

However,  all contentious science must be brought to closer scrutiny because as we have seen, there are many many players willing to capitalize on people’s naivete and fears.  In the case of AGW, entire industries, political action movements and opinions were spawned from the hysteria of the now iffy theories and projections.  In the old days, scientists were regarded with great respect for they were merely reporting observations and projecting conclusions.  There didn’t appear to be a  political agenda to the conclusions.  If subsequent research proved the theories wrong, the knowledge base was updated and people were better off. 

Vaccinations are a good example of this.  In my youth, it was just accepted that vaccinations against all manner of diseases was the way to go and there was not much questioning of that.  Recently, the outbreak of H1N1 has not made everyone panic to get inoculated, in fact many chose not to because of varying debates on efficacy and longer term effects.  I don’t recall that non participants in the vaccine  program were considered  foolish gomers. 

In today’s climate change discussion, critics of AGW are regarded with contempt, scorn and labelled deniers instead of having their views rationally aired.  A couple of things are at work here.  First, the whole Green movement needed a cause to get behind so they could rise to political influence in nation states, mainly in the west.  In fact, they were able to progress from a somewhat fringe movement to influencing legislative and tax policies in western governments.  The machinery for so called “cap and trade” was built by governments and large corporations savvy enough to see this as a monster revenue source.  To support this program, they had to bring the public on side with their vision, plus they needed their willingness to be taxed.   Sounds diabolical, but looking at the people at the forefront of AGW and then to follow the money trail to figure out who benefits is very revealing.  At least now it appears, the public is waking up.

The next logical step in this saga is, who’s going to get sued?  This step always happens at the end of any fiasco.  This will be a bonanza for tort lawyers who can pursue those who knowingly pushed or abetted the massive fraud which is AGW.  They will rope in politicians, former politicians, scientists, newspaper editors, teachers, cartoonists, comedians, entertainers, even lawyers that can be charged with propagating BS and costing taxpayers billions and billions.  The pool of defendants will be so big that someone coming out of law school now can make an entire career out of this alone. 

Meanwhile, the alarmist crowd will have moved on to the next issue.  Perhaps alien invasion or imminent planet collision.

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report – Times Online.

Enough of these kinds of stories have surfaced recently that should make rational people at least question the claims made by the Anthro weather crowd if not dismiss the entire notion once and for all.  The persistent retort by the weather chicken littles has always been that “science has verified these conclusions” and to deny them made you a flat earther. 

It turns out that the ground zero of evidence of glacial melting in this story is not a roomful of meticulously collected data, analyzed objectively and mapped out using complex mathematical and predictive models, but on an interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.  Upon learning this, to their great embarrassment, the IPCC panel admitted to poorly substantiated predictions.

!!!

One of the inconvenient facts gleaned from this study was the minor statistic involving the size of glaciers under scrutiny.  One of the most glaring errors in the study claims:

“…the total area of Himalayan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035…”

Only problem is, there are only 33,000square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas. 

This kind of stuff happens I suppose; a fat finger press of the buttons on the calculator and all of a sudden, an area the size of the moon will melt into the ocean etc etc.  But when the results of the analysis of the data are so controversial, you would think, certainly as scientists, that a check of the data and techniques are in order.  At least that’s what they told us in first year science. 

The truly disturbing part of this article is this passage from Dr. Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist whose interview formed the basis of these series of conclusions is now suspect:

He said he realised that the 2035 prediction was based on an interview he gave to the New Scientist magazine in 1999, although he blamed the journalist for assigning the actual date.

“…He said that he did not tell Dr Pachauri because he was not working for the IPCC and was busy with his own programmes at the time. “I was keeping quiet as I was working here,” he said. “My job is not to point out mistakes. And you know the might of the IPCC. What about all the other glaciologists around the world who did not speak out?…”

What kind of operation is the IPCC?  Is it run like the Mafia where ‘omerta’ is the code and someone will break your legs if you point out an inconvenient fact?  Is there a history of this kind if thing with IPCC? Do horse’s heads wind up in people’s beds?

It’s all fun until someone loses an eye is the old saying and in this case some serious damage has been done.  This kind of ‘science’ has contributed to the great bogus industry and worldwide political handwringing over dealing with global warming.   This oversight led to the butterfly effects of scaremongering. In an article from The Register exactly one year ago, Dr. John Theon the NASA scientist who supervised James Hanse, the man widely credited for inflicting global warming hysteria states:

“…My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the 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. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.

“They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

Hmm, evidence of faulty or fraudulent data.  I think what we need here are forensic lawyers.  We need the vast army of under utilized legal talent to audit, verify and hold those responsible for foisting this junk science on the world.  After all, much damage has been inflicted on all societies.  There have been  unneccesarily increased taxes, destroyed industries, the laughable cap and trade schemes and most dastardly, the conning of young people to bow to the cause.  Let the lawyers loose.  Let them figure out who has been complicit with the whole charade.  Hey, in the legal world, someone’s always responsible.  When they figure it out, send them all to Antarctica to re-study the scientific method shod only in flip flops and flowered shirts.