Monday, 11 November 2013

Scientific consensus

Any academic knows the level required to pass muster and end up as both a theory and taught, and at university level the majority of what is taught is fact, with some opinions in subjects like sociology and politics. But when I took sociology my discovery half way in was although via the human ego each theory claimed to explain an entire area (as did legal theory) each provided a piece of the jigsaw, usually getting a bit right but not all of it, and when I put it all together and represented how it all worked and fit my marks doubled in both.

Until now the last time scientific agreement was used as a justification of a theory was the geocentric universe, which got various heretics put to death for suggesting the solar system. It was science by primitive edict, non-science in fact, or more accurately nonsense. In 2013 we now have the UN acting as the world's Spanish Inquisition, insisting 97% of scientists are 95% certain man has caused global warming.

But where did these figures come from? I won't copy and paste, but there was only one main study to get the 97%, which whittled down thousands of replies to vague questions no more precise than 'can man influence the climate', and then ended up with a total of 77 acceptable individuals, and was used as the Koran ever since to provide the edict of global warming and now repeated as often as morning prayers.

All studies since have been variations on the same theme, and if pinned down to psychological data or scientific then they would have caused the students creating them to be sent home and probably recommended never to return. Yet most warming believers roll this 97% out first, as if that makes it all OK, the Doctor Who psychic paper passport allowing total access to all areas and signed by God himself.

I will now rip the whole fucking lot to pieces. So small your toothless granny could manage them.

1) How many scientists exist who are qualified to speak on the climate? It depends what you believe. If you agree with the 97% (sic), you can be a geneticist (Paul Nurse), an obstetrician (Robert Winston), a total wanker with no relevant qualifications (Al Gore), a railway engineer (head of UN IPCC Rajendra Pauchari), basically your BSc is a passport to climate excellence so long as you agree with the climatologists.

In order for the 97% to be a representative sample, meaning 97% of all BSc qualified scientists minimum agreed man has warmed the planet with CO2 you would be better off counting the ones  we already know to disagree.

There are two places to find them, firstly the BScs onwards, the tens of thousands of scientists who signed the petition project, and secondly the PhDs and meteorologists who write papers every week dismissing one or more key areas of AGW theory from start to finish. The 'reasonable doubts' created over solar radiation, decadal cycles, cloud cover, dimming effects from pollution, CO2 time lag and dwell time in the atmosphere, and even a small cabal who claim they have proved the greenhouse effect is not possible using gas at all, mean if you add all of them together at say 40,000, (shame I failed maths so don't know the formula to do it) you would need around 980,000 who are qualified and agree, just one the ones who have said so in public, while a handful of anonymous whistleblowers have said they had to keep quiet or lose their jobs, which apparently represents the current university position for all involved.

2) Rather than play with numbers, what about logic? If you honestly assess the genuine known figures of course there can't be anywhere near that many scientists who care or grasp global warming, and those with an understanding tend to do their own jobs and only talk about it when specifically asked, and if their jobs are in another field believe it or not frequently say it's utter nonsense. Then you get the retirees, such as Philip Stott, or independents like Stanton Friedman, both quite capable of the science as professional scientists for many decades. They have no one to pay them for an opinion so simply say under the science they learned and worked with man made global warming beyond the margins is impossible. Now the word there, margins, is the key way they slid in the consensus, as the questions were so general even chaos theory states any act can affect the climate, so it must include humans, so it ought to be 100%. But give an honest question removing 'possible' for 'serious' and what would the answers have been?

Bear in mind this was not an anonymous survey, partly as each person needed to be qualified, but also it could have checked their status first and then given them a form without a name to identify them. If you do a survey or any vote it must be controlled, and getting professionals who have jobs and reputations to maintain are going to be as genuine as people wanting to put their hands up against union action. So besides making the questions and sample unscientific, the very process of questioning introduced possible bias by each voter being named on their answers. Imagine Phil Jones or Mike Hulme of the IPCC Mafia saying they didn't think there was enough evidence, or the question was honest and said 'raise temperatures above 2C' or the like, which is what everyone assumes they meant (which they didn't). One appendix to this, Phil Jones and Mike Hulme did cast serious doubts on their own scientific processes, along with some very heavyweight colleagues, but was revealed in their private emails. Now that is going to tell you exactly what they really think, not a survey which breaks every single rule of surveys.

3) The final question to ask, which I hardly ever hear, is when most of the scientists who don't agree are climatologists and meteorologists, equally or better qualified than the others, either they may be right as equally able to do the figures, or at least are casting vast amounts of doubts over the status of global warming theory, as technically although it has warmed since CO2 rose in 1850 it was warming already, and only around half the total is attributed to the CO2 anyway, so it's not any more than a potential, requiring many phenomena to happen at the same time which have never been witnessed before so they simply can't know for certain. Had it already risen 1C plus then I'd shut the hell up and only criticise the policies as it's far better to spend nothing and save the money for adaptation (the alternatives are far, far worse as we've seen around the world) but it's way below even the lowest estimates except three, and heading lower each year. So it is not observed science, but an extrapolation of a shaky theory at best (where are the past examples of studying the climate at high CO2 levels?) and sold as certain in order to maintain the public acceptance of policies destroying societies at every level.

In fact, there is a growing number of both scientists and studies running a coach and horses through the tenuous CO2 + positive feedback = dangerous global warming. If you go to some of the usual sites like Wattsupwiththat or Real Science they post every day and have all the correct letters after their names and credentials, and are not even surgeons or botanists but meteorologists and astrophysicists, like Piers Corbyn and Joe Bastardi. I am familiar enough with the names and qualifications I can list hundreds now by memory (trust me or look for yourself, I want people to read this to the end) and if they represent 3% of scientists there must be at least a million who represent the others. Or it's total bollocks, which I hope I have just demonstrated to be the only possible outcome.

No comments:

Post a Comment