Another quote from Stephen Jay Gould,“The fundamentalists, by ‘knowing’ the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science – or of any honest intellectual inquiry.”
For Part 2, I want to go on to describe why I believe AGW is a fraud. (If you didn’t read Part 1, it’s HERE)
The original researchers were working on a theory that the World was cooling, when they discovered some evidence to suggest it was actually warming – at an alarming rate. But there were and are problems with that initial data.
Firstly, the method used to measure historical temperatures back in history (before records began) was to look at tree rings and analyse growth of trees. This is immediately flawed in that there are many factors that impact tree growth apart from temperature including rainfall, cloud cover, what if a nearby larger tree fell and exposed the tree to more light etc. This inaccuracy has been proven – the scientist decided (after making their first apocalyptic predictions) to verify more recent ring data against measured temperatures from the past 50 years and found no correlation between them. So the whole basis of that initial prediction is false.
Secondly, there is significant proven scientific evidence of something called the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) which, it has been calculated, was a period when the Earth was warmer than it is now. Records indicate grapes being grown in northern England for example.
Current global temperatures are lower than they were then, and this was centuries before the human race started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. So, while it is true that global temperatures increased in the last 50 years and CO2 emissions increased the two are not linked. This is coincidental.
Despite these flaws, many groups took this evidence as proof that we are a disease on the face of the earth and, along with governments and other bodies set about studying and predicting how far up crap creek we would be without immediate reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
This led to a series of graphs and charts – including the now legendary ‘Hockey Stick’ graph – predicting doom, gloom and the end of the World. The cause has been championed by two groups in particular;
Anti-capitalists who saw this as proof that our profligacy, greed, gas-guzzling cars and jet-set lives were killing us all. They campaign against all things ‘modern’ and advocate a return to nature, population control (meaning reduction) and other drastic and draconian measures.
Green Parties – who had long fought for recognition for the genuinely great work they do advocating protection of wildlife; places like the Amazon rainforests, and endangered species like – pandas, tigers, rhino, gorilla etc. – saw this as a global challenge that they could take and champion.
As money available for research increased, everyone wanted to get in on the act and there are now so many vested interests that people will do anything to defend their position regardless of the science behind it – as demonstrated by some leaked emails from various Warmist organisations that indicate data in subsequent reports was manipulated to meet the needs of the people involved.
With billions pouring into this new industry, the entrepreneur and then the capitalist got involved as they saw money to be made – did you know for example that PM David Cameron’s dad is paid thousands of pounds per day for the wind farms that are located on his vast lands?
Feelings against AGW sceptics has turned particularly nasty in recent years with scientists and publications that dared to speak out against the Warmist theory vilified, alienated and shut down.
But the sceptics have one irrefutable ally – the weather.
It is universally acknowledged that there’s been no warming since 1998 – FACT.
None of the major client change models identified this ‘pause’ as a possibility even in all the scenarios that they ran. So why haven’t any of the Warmists got an answer to this anomaly? – because the models are wrong.
The temperature of the earth is impacted by many many things – some of these change annually, some over longer periods (like El Nino), some effects have been shown to cycle over a decade or more. Then there are external influences like solar activity.
So the research is wrong and the prediction models are wrong.
In the final Part I’m going to explain why all of this matters to you . . .