The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Climate Change Tower of Pisa

There are several reasons I hope to live a long time. I want to see as much of my kid's and grandkid's (not here yet) lives as possible. I want to have more time with the love of my life Olive Oyl (alias of course). I look forward to more traveling and time to read. I have always had a dream to write and publish a book, but have not had the time to write one.

After these things there is one other reason high on the list for desiring longevity. I want to live to see the Global Warming theory collapse in ruin and become the laughingstock it deserves. Climate Change (the new CYA name for Global Warming just in case the globe starts a cooling trend) is the Scientific Leaning Tower of Pisa of our times. The real Leaning Tower of Pisa leans because of its poor foundation. Climate Change is beginning to lean because it also has a poor foundation. That foundation would be the government funding of research. Mixing government funding with a politically charged theory is a recipe for flawed results.

There is a new press release on the website of Skeptic Champion Senator Inhofe that shows the tower is beginning to lean. The post quotes a blog post by Michael Asher, who in turn is providing more details on the original post by Marc Marano. A scientist might back a theory to obtain funding, or to give an opinion for the media, or for any number of reasons. However, the seem reluctant lately to stand behind Climate Change when writing a peer review. Asher states:
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

So less than half of scientists submitting peer reviews were willing to put their reputation on the line. Only 7% were willing to explicitly put their reputation on the line. A similar number (6%) were willing to explicitly reject it. The rest are implicit support or neutral. Note that the original assessment by Orekses on the peer reviews between 1993 and 2003 and this new assessment on the peer reviews between 2004 and 2007 only get to question #2 of my five questions (see below). Any consensus on man's contribution to warming that might have existed before seems to be on shaky ground these days. I have made the point before that there is no consensus on the extent of catastrophe (if any) to be caused by Climate Change. Throwing out consensus is a shell game used by frauds like Al Gore to stiff-arm any real debate on the matter.

While 3 years of reviews compared to 10 years of reviews may not yet be solid evidence of a shift, my opinion is that scientists are beginning to see the very real possibility of becoming a future laughingstock. While a scientist may want to enjoy public praise today, they want to make a mark that will outlive them. Ridicule is not the kind of mark they have in mind, either. Their tower is starting to lean. There is a fascinating story here about the extravagant steps taken to keep the real Tower of Pisa from collapsing. Look for similar extreme measures to be taken by the liberal camp to save Climate Change from disaster.

As always with posts on climate change, here are my five questions we need to answer before succumbing to Climate Change Alarmism:
1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?

Labels: , , , ,

2 Comments:

  • At 2:07 PM, Anonymous ghassan karam said…

    I think that you and your readers might be interested in the following.

    A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open
    By Steve McIntyre

    There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader.

    A little unexpectedly, 1998 had a late bogey and 1934 had a late birdie. (I thought that they were both in the clubhouse since the turmoil seemed to be in the 2000s.) In any event, the new leader atop the U.S. Open is 1934.

    2006 had a couple of late bogeys and fell to 4th place, behind even 1921. I think that there’s a little air in the 2006 numbers even within GISS procedures as the other post-2000 lost about 0.15 strokes through late bogeys, while it lost only 0.10 strokes. It is faltering and it might yet fall behind 1931 into 5th place.

    Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings are calculated separately.) Note: For the new leaderboard see http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt. The old data has been erased; by sheer chance, I had the old data active in my R-session but I can’t give a link to it.)

    GISS U.S. Temperatures (deg C) in New Order
    Year Old New
    1934 1.23 1.25
    1998 1.24 1.23
    1921 1.12 1.15
    2006 1.23 1.13
    1931 1.08 1.08
    1999 0.94 0.93
    1953 0.91 0.90
    1990 0.88 0.87
    1938 0.85 0.86
    1939 0.84 0.85

    Here’s the old leaderboard.
    Year Old New
    1998 1.24 1.23
    1934 1.23 1.25
    2006 1.23 1.13
    1921 1.12 1.15
    1931 1.08 1.08
    1999 0.94 0.93
    1953 0.91 0.90
    2001 0.90 0.76
    1990 0.88 0.87
    1938 0.85 0.86
    This entry is filed under GISS, Surface Record. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

     
  • At 2:23 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    ghassan,

    Welcome back. That is pretty clever. Thanks for sharing it. Using a music reference instead of golf, the climate change crowd seems to have only one note to play - consensus. Now that note is beginning to sound a bit flat.

    AICS

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home