The consensus is not

First there was prominent physicist Hal Lewis who resigned his membership of the American Physical Society over the global climate change scam.
It is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
And this week saw another noted scientist, a Nobel laureate even, Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned his membership of the self same American Physical Society. As to the reason of his resignation Dr. Giaever is as clear and succint as only the giants among scientists can be:
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.
There's a bitch-slap you don't easily counter, is it? That much vaunted consensus clearly is not.
(via WUWT, thanks to DP111)

5 reacties:

DP111 zei

One thing that amazes me is, how does one measure temperature to an accuracy of .1K over a period of 150 years. I cannot even think of how to measure temperature at the same spot in any city or human habitation, to that kind of accuracy over a period of 150 years. Then how does one do that for the whole planet? 

The supposed rise in temperature 0.006K/year. Can we actually measure this rise, year on year, for the whole planet?  

Klein Verzet zei

From experience I can tell you: You would be amazed what can be achieved by good mathematics based on bad assumptions.  That is something most people ignore: The logic may be impeccable, but if the starting position is crap, the result we be equally crap.

DP111 zei

KV

I suppose you mean statistics rather then mathematics.

However, we are talking here of measuring a physical parameter - temperature. One can just about measure temperature to an accuracy of 0.1C, ie the accuracy of the sensor itself. When the sensor is incorporated in a measuring instrument, then errors of the instrument, plus the errors associated with the fact that the sensor is in the open, makes any claim to an accuracy of 0.1C overall for just that measurement, a brave statement, leave alone over any protracted period.
 

Klein Verzet zei

Well, not quite. In my previous work I encountered mathematical modelling (not the same as stats) of physical and biological systems that gave some really unintuitive answers. The math itself was not at fault, it was the ... incomplete? ... understanding of the makers of the model about the processes underlying the system they were trying to model.

But you're right, that goes double for statistics.

The lack of proper accounting for uncertainties in climate measurements has been pointed out repeatedly in the past. So you're in good company. And you do have an important point. A precision <0.1 degree K is suspect and probably fake.

DP111 zei

KV

In other words, faulty assumptions, but the mathematics was sound. 

But hey, the debate is over. The moment the politicians got the answer they wanted and had paid for, the debate was over. This is how the EU works, you keep sitting the "exam" till you gove them the answers they like. It is the new democracy.   

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...