or lack of same
For anyone wondering how global temperature changes are measured, here is a pretty good description of the process. Betting one’s paycheck on the accuracy of the resulting data might not be prudent but it’s a well-grounded approach and there is no question that global average temperature continues to change.
The first chart below (click on it for a closer look), aside from the noted irregularities, is a pretty good summary of temperature over the past 500 million years, but the seemingly purposeful distortions noted here contribute to the widespread lack of confidence in Climate Science and Climate Scientists today.
- The horizontal axis is not linear, nor is it logarithmic.
- It is incremented on the left by 100 million years and on the right by 5000 years.
- Not even the two most recent sections are on the same scale.
- To put those two on the same scale would make clear a million years with a distinct upward trend.
… (not a popular idea in the Climate Change community) [i]It is not popular because it reveals the natural upward trend with no humans around, and is therefore disguised by the change in scale.
- The first three sections show much detail, which is likely “manufactured” for effect.
- I can find no data of such granularity in the works attributed in the chart.
- Read this footnote[ii]… their features have not yet been fully established … remain uncertain … might have come from … perhaps liberated as … Alternatively, it could have come from … might have triggered … for a sample of the wording in the subject article.
… (In other words, the conclusions are 100% conjecture.)
- The detail that makes up the entire fourth section is highly suspicious.
… Careful reading of the work referenced offers no such granularity.
- The (red) “trend line” in the sixth section does not match the (blue) data lines.
- Instead, it is exaggerated by following NGRIP, Greenland, ignoring the EPICA data.
- The dog-leg at the end is pure fiction.
… There is nothing in EPICA Dome C Antarctica like that.
- The two (red) points labeled 2050 and 2100 are not data points, but rather SWAGs. [iii]Scientific Wild Ass Guess – precious little “S” in the “G”
It is also well understood that human activity has resulted in an increase in global temperature of as much as 1 degree Centigrade over the past 140 years.
Nonetheless, predicting what will happen over the next few hundred years based on the cumulative knowledge of the scientific community at this point in time is a fool’s errand, leaving scientists a Herculean task and leaving politicians and journalists completely in the dark. There is simply not enough reliable evidence for Real Scientists to see into the future but enough for Climate Scientists to speculate wildly that the sky is falling.
Knowing that manmade greenhouse gases are a contributor to what might become a problem in the future, it would make sense to study the sources and take reasonable measures to mitigate those sources, but first, let’s think about the reality for a moment.
Estimates vary wildly and most reports ignore the 2% to 10% coming from volcanos and other natural sources but this chart is probably as accurate as any we might find.
We can add up China, Russia, and India in our heads – maybe throw in Iran and half of the Rest-Of-World number. Is there anyone reading this who thinks that driving electric cars, eliminating cow farts, and joining the Paris Accords are going to change this picture? Anyone who has traveled in Asia as much as I have will scoff at such a notion. We could cripple American industries with regulations and it would have the opposite effect as intended. For every natural gas power plant we shut down in the U.S.A, just add two more coal-fired plants in China.
We all understand that it is necessary for politicians to lie about such things in order to get reelected and journalists of course write whatever sells best, but why Climate Scientists would be willing to exaggerate or even misrepresent their findings is a really good question. The answer is alarming and very simple – (a) Professional Expediency, driven by (b) Misguided Political Judgment.
The forgoing presents a serious assertion, requiring a serious defense, so allow me to digress for a moment to explore the “why” in two parts – the Professional Expediency part and the Misguided Political Judgment part.
There was a time when companies like IBM, 3M, Monsanto, Bell Labs, and others did independent research, resulting in technological miracles that bettered our lives, but those days are gone. Today, that kind of research is done within academia and is largely Government funded. Hence, it no longer represents independent thought. Rather it is “guided” by the bureaucrats who review the grant applications, selecting those that fit the pre-ordained agenda, dictated, not by the elected officials at the top, but rather by the unseen bureaucratic workers in the ranks.[iv]… aka the “swamp”, which I contend cannot be drained
Having personally written a few successful Government grants and seen firsthand how the system works, I don’t underestimate the seriousness of Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the Government-funded “scientific–technological elite”. If this sounds like a conspiracy theory, it is easy to verify by taking the time to look into how such grants are awarded, or by simply talking to any college professor who has ever written one.
The second part of the answer goes to the core purpose of governments. We can start with the fact that Democrats embrace government while Republicans are suspicious of it. Republicans view Democrats as unrealistic and naive and Democrats view Republicans as heartless and uncaring. When Republicans are in power, their goal is to keep the economy growing, thereby “lifting all boats” and providing more goods and services for everyone. When Democrats are in power, their goal is to protect the citizenry from the evils Republicans.
Now consider that governments, whether Local, State, or Federal, and regardless of which Party won the last election, are made up of bureaucrats, largely of Democrat persuasion.[v]The reason for this can be found in the Psychology section So the Misguided Political Judgment part of the answer is not so much “Misguided” as it is “Unbalanced” in favor of one particular political view,[vi]… both views being perfectly legitimate resulting in the ill-considered Chicken-Little agenda.
The net result is that climate scientists are strongly biased toward conclusions that may or may not be substantiated by their work. In the process, they have created a problem for themselves by beginning their debate with conclusions that cannot be substantiated. What we should all be hoping for is that, as time goes by and their credibility fades, fewer and fewer people will believe them. Meanwhile, the Real Scientists, who are all busy with their Real jobs, just hang their heads in shame for their would-be colleagues.
One such example is Jennifer Marohasy, who caught the Australian Bureau of Meteorology red-handed and exposed their purposeful distortion of the records to support their prescribed position. Another comes from Bjorn Lomborg who actually is part of the academic scene but someone who insists on taking a rational view of the facts. If you wonder why his opinion matters, and you can spare 18 minutes, check out this 2007 TED talk, or this very brief interview. It is certain that you will never see either of these people in the so-called mainstream media or in anyone’s Twitter feed.
What has been lost in this government overreach is something most of us learn early in life – perhaps sometimes the hard way. Whether reporting on research, preparing for a college-style debate or just negotiating with a spouse, or for a salary increase – stick with facts. Once we violate that rule and hinge our position on claims that cannot be substantiated, we put our position in jeopardy. Mark Twain said it best .
Published: June 2021
|↑i||It is not popular because it reveals the natural upward trend with no humans around, and is therefore disguised by the change in scale.|
|↑ii||… their features have not yet been fully established … remain uncertain … might have come from … perhaps liberated as … Alternatively, it could have come from … might have triggered …|
|↑iii||Scientific Wild Ass Guess – precious little “S” in the “G”|
|↑iv||… aka the “swamp”, which I contend cannot be drained|
|↑v||The reason for this can be found in the Psychology section|
|↑vi||… both views being perfectly legitimate|