Flying Off The HandleTM
A follow-up to “Global Warming? Bring It On!”
Global Warming: The unsettling truth
There’s a very high probability that you have never heard about the data below--and there are more examples. If you wonder why, it is because what used to be described as the “mainstream press” isn’t so mainstream any longer given its overwhelmingly leftist ideology. This in spite of the fact that most polls reveal no more than 20-24% of Americans self-describe as liberal.
Silly, you say?
Well, I have read the Washington Post almost every day for over 40 years, but what was once an exemplary model of good journalism has devolved into what can only be described as a modern-day Pravda.
Ditto for the once vaunted New York Times, perhaps the only newspaper venue more corrupt than the Washington Post.
So you won’t find stories of recent scientific research that raise serious questions about the certainty of the narrative of overwhelmingly man-caused catastrophic global warming.
Dear reader, that does not constitute professional reporting on the scientific process.
Radio celebrity Chris Plante, who worked 17 years as a journalist at CNN, including nearly ten years assigned to the Pentagon covering the U.S. military and intelligence community, incisively and accurately commented, “The most insidious power the press has is the power to ignore.”
This truism is on display every day, in all facets of the traditional media.
Perhaps it’s why Thomas Jefferson said, “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”--CWA
* * *
Proof that the main premise of “Global Warming? Bring It On! How ego, greed and the social imperative affect the practice of the scientific method.” is true...
May 2015--“ The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” --Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet
The latest defector from the cult of man-caused Catastrophic Global Warming:
[In 2008, Dr. Ivar Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Barack Obama for president, but seven years later the Nobel Prize winner now stands against the president on global warming.
“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Giaever, who won the Nobel for physics in 1973, told an audience at the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting earlier this month.
“Global warming really has become a new religion,” Giaever said. “Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”]--The Daily Caller
More unsettling scientific evidence that the currently forecast climate catastrophe isn’t such a settled deal after all...
This is what science as a religion looks like--Ed.
[But a paper released May 28, 2015, by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study’s readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren’t buying the new claim. (Italics added)
“While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study.]—Fox News
* * *
Two new scientific studies, one from prestigious Duke University and one from the former lead author for the International Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations), strongly suggest that global high temperatures experienced over the last 100 years are well within normal variability.
Importantly, both studies are based on empirical evidence, as opposed to man-made mathematical models.
How can this be? This is science, isn’t it? And science is perfect, no? --Ed.
Well, read “Global Warming? Bring It On! How ego, greed and the social imperative affect the practice of the scientific method. Or proof that even scientists are only human.”
The real problem is not the scientific method. As usual, when we have a problem, the last place we look for the source of the problem is ourselves, when it should be the first. Or why “even scientists are only human.”
Science Daily Date: April 21, 2015
Source: Duke University
A study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Natural decade-to-decade variability in surface temperatures can account for some much-discussed recent changes in the rate of warming. Empirical data, rather than climate models, were used to estimate this variability. [Italics added.]
And from an article about IPCC lead author Philip J. Lloyd’s scientific paper:
“Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to a new paper by a former Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) lead author.”—Daily Caller
* * *
Is global warming one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time?
British journalist Christopher Booker writing in The Telegraph claims climate data from stations in South America have been altered to create a scenario that supports the idea that Earth's temperature is rising. He calls it "one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time."
Reportedly, scientists have used adjusted data to estimate temperatures in locations that don't have actual data measuring devices. Which may sound reasonable except that the adjustments are all in one direction--higher.
Booker writes, "...in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded."
Ed.--While the jury is still out until a deeper investigation is conducted, if true, such improper use of the scientific method is the basis of one of our most popular commentary pieces: Global Warming? Bring It On!
Back to Flying Off The Handle