Some senior climate scientists write recent columns that must send shivers across the warmists pushing the IPCC
global warming
climate change agenda:
For the numbered articles below please see this week’s TWTW at: http://www.sepp.org. The articles are at the end of the pdf.
1. IPCC ‘s Bogus Evidence for Global Warming
By S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, Nov 12, 2013
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html
Personally, I have come to the realization that the constant name calling, deniers, flat earthers and so on, “arguing from ignorance”, is due to a failure to understand simple logic, let alone the science behind climate.
Denial: On her web site, Judith Curry discusses two articles on the use of the term climate denier or similar terms in discussing those skeptical that humans are the primary cause of global warming/climate change. In an aptly named article “Words that think for us,” Edward Skidelsky writes: “The extension of the “denier” tag to group after group is a development that should alarm all liberal-minded people. One of the great achievements of the Enlightenment—the liberation of historical and scientific enquiry from dogma—is quietly being reversed.”
Denial
By Judith Curry, Climate Etc. Nov 11, 213
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/11/denial/
The increasingly shrill alarms must be to compensate for their lack of comprehension, that they are on the wrong end of science, and history.
Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Is the IPCC Logically Challenged? Writing in American Thinker, SEPP Chairman Fred Singer recaps the major failures in science and in logic that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) employed in its five scientific Assessment Reports (AR) from 1990 to 2013. The scientific failures in the first three reports, such as Mr. Mann’s Hockeystick, have been clearly discredited.
The logical errors in AR4 and AR5 are more subtle. As Singer states: “Their first step is to construct a model that tries to match the reported 20th-century surface warming. This is not very difficult; it is essentially a ‘curve-fitting’ exercise: By selecting the right level of climate sensitivity and the right amount of aerosol forcing, they can match the reported temperature rise of the final decades of the 20th century, but not the initial decades — as becomes evident from a detailed graph in their Attribution chapter.”
The issue arose what type of logical error is this? Aristotelian scholar Viscount Monckton of Brenchley provided the answer. He wrote: “If the IPCC argument you are challenging is that we can only explain observed warming in the late 20th century if we assume a large anthropogenic forcing, but that we cannot explain it without that forcing, then the logical fallacy the IPCC here perpetrates is not the argumentum ad petitionem principii: it is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fundamental fallacy of arguing from ignorance. If we do not know why the warming occurred, and we merely assume that the warming must be manmade because we cannot (or do not want to) think of any explanation except high climate sensitivity to manmade greenhouse-gas emissions, then we perpetrate the fallacy of argument from ignorance.”
One can illustrate this error with algebra. If A + B = 10, where A is the natural variation, B is the human influence, and 10 is the measured change. One cannot solve for the numerical value of B without knowing the numerical value of A. Yet the models are used to simultaneously solve for the values of both, without independent testing of the values for natural variation, except for changes in solar irradiance. Of course, the models do not work if the value of B is removed. But this not independent confirmation of the validity of the models. As The Right Climate Stuff Team reported, we cannot hope to successfully model the human influence on climate without first successfully modeling the natural influences on climate. The IPCC and the climate establishment does not even try to model the natural influences on climate.
This week, scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) employed the same faulty argument in linking precipitation with global warming. For Singer’s evaluation see Article # 1, for the LLNL paper see link under Model Issues.
A lot more at the links above.
The Get-up crowd, pictured yesterday, at climate action rallies, just yesterday:
Yes, it’s their own picture … coming back to bite.
