Tag Archives: climate science

“ClimateGate” investigations revisited

“A true exoneration of someone accused of misconduct would involve transparent, thorough exchanges between the supporters and opponents of the accused. Then, at the conclusion of that process, there would be clear, verifiable proof that the charges were incorrect. That did not occur with respect to Mr. Mann.” click here

More climate science skepticism needed.

Within a matter of days after the press release for a newly published Nature paper spewed the usual it’s-worse-than-we-thought headlines throughout the alarmosphere (Washington Post BBC, New York Times), the paper’s results were assessed to have “major problems” by an author of multiple CO2 climate sensitivity papers (Lewis and Curry, 2015)click here

“…published peer-reviewed scientific literature…has scientific flaws…”

Piers Larcombea,b,⁎ , Peter Riddc The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science Marine Pollution Bulletin 126 (2018) 449–461

Research science used to inform public policy decisions, herein defined as “Policy-Science”, is rarely subjected to rigorous checking, testing and replication. Studies of biomedical and other sciences indicate that a considerable fraction of published peer-reviewed scientific literature, perhaps half, has significant flaws. To demonstrate the potential failings of the present approaches to scientific Quality Control (QC), we describe examples of science associated with perceived threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. There appears a serious risk of efforts to improve the health of the GBR being directed inefficiently and/or away from the more serious threats. We suggest the need for a new organisation to undertake quality reviews and audits of important scientific results that underpin government spending decisions on the environment. Logically, such a body could also examine policy science in other key areas where governments rely heavily upon scientific results, such as education, health and criminology.

National Climate Assessment intentionally misrepresents reality

“According to the National Climate Assessment, the number of hot days from Montana to Texas will skyrocket due to a 0.0001 mole fraction increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century.” click here

IPCC assumptions of human CO2 emissions are invalid

“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate theory assumes nature is constant. This assumption forces IPCC’s invalid claim that human emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. IPCC’s argument to support its failed theory also fails logic because the argument itself assumes nature is constant.

IPCC’s theory cannot simulate the carbon-14 data from 1965 to 1995. The carbon-14 data prove human CO2 does not “reduce the buffer capacity of the carbonate system” as IPCC claims.

A Simple Model, based only on the continuity equation with CO2 outflow proportional to level, exactly replicates the carbon-14 data. The Model shows CO2 emissions do not accumulate in the atmosphere as IPCC theory claims but set balance levels for CO2.

Present human emissions increase the level by 18 ppm and present natural emissions increase the level by 392 ppm to produce today’s total level of 410 ppm.

The Simple Model requires us to think in a new paradigm about how CO2 flows into and out of our atmosphere. It changes entirely the dominant worldview of how human emissions change the level of CO2 in our atmosphere.” click here

HadCRUT4 data limitations render IPCC analyses unreliable

“HadCRUT4 is the primary dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”, to justify its demands for trillions of dollars to be spent on “combating climate change” and as the basis for the Paris Climate Accord.

But according to a groundbreaking analysis by Australian researcher John McLean it’s far too sloppy to be taken seriously even by climate scientists, let alone a body as influential as the IPCC or by the governments of the world.” click here

Climategate – the next episode from Arizona

“Nearly seven years ago, on December 7th, 2011, the Free Market Environmental Law Clinic’s (FME Law) sought public records from the University of Arizona related to the Mann-Bradley-Hughes temperature reconstruction that looks like a hockey stick, and development of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.  They refused much of the request and FME Law sued.  Now (on September 18th, 2018) legal counsel for the University informed FME Law that they were done, that they would be withdrawing their appeal of the trial court’s decision, end the case and disclose the records.” click here