I obtained to ruminating once more; a 3rd WUWT retrospective put up

0
50
I got to ruminating again; a third WUWT retrospective post

From Rud Istvan

My first recently published "ruminant" post dealt with fundamental climate science misconceptions. My second was about the resulting failed basic climate predictions over the past four decades (e.g. Viner 2000 – children will soon no longer know about snow!). This third ruminant contribution (which is celebrating my 10th WUWT anniversary contribution) examines the misconduct of climate science in the dubious service of contributions 1 and 2.

Like my first one here a long time ago, just more examples like this first ten year old verifiable NRC US harvest canard.

The standard religious cannon of climate science claims:

  1. Due to the anthropogenic global warming GAST increases.
  2. This will have catastrophic consequences, including the disappearance of islands, millions of climate refugees, a sixth major extinction, and worse.
  3. That is why we have to turn into energy ashes with a Green New Deal.

The basic problems of the Warmunists (my last two previous ruminant posts) are:

  1. They cannot prove that GUEST increases above natural rates of variation.
  2. There are still no catastrophic consequences, although "still" since 1988, ie over four decades of pathetic forecast errors.
  3. Your GND solutions fail both technically and economically.

How can this terrible PR situation of warmunistic climate change persist?

I believe the answer lies in Peter Ridd's lawsuit against the Great Barrier Reef against Cook University in Australia, which he politely describes as a "lack of quality control". I give it another more specific name that is followed by much evidence: academic misconduct in prosecuting government grants dollars. It's just scientific financial corruption.

There are many ways to prove this thesis, all of which are already in the general literature. For this ruminant post, we will extract the essence of a few examples. All examples are from Steve McIntyre, me, or (once) both. (Again, I lazily don't provide many links as the ruminant details are all easily accessible on the internet, or via WUWT or CE search functions – or via my cheap old book.)

1. MBH1999 hockey stick, the featured diagram from AR3. There are at least three problems that together border scientific misconduct:

  • His paleoclimate data is partially incorrect (Biffa's single Yamal larch, the inverted tilander sediment, the US striped bark cone pines, … all with a hockey stick blade.
  • Its paleoclimate data also contradict the well-known medieval warming period (- the wrong hockey stick grip, a worse data sin).
  • His novel mathematical method by Mann is fatally flawed and always creates a hockey stick from red noise. For those who do not have any knowledge of climate / statistics, red noise in a time series is very different from white noise. Red noise has a "memory," also known as a degree of autocorrelation. So it is not purely random like white noise in classical statistics is a normal random distribution.

2. Marcott 2013 hockey stick.

He revised his thesis by grossly reworking selected core tops to produce his infamous science paper. A few weeks after the publication by Judith Curry, I proved his "rejected" renewed scientific misconduct in detail and then rewrote the visual evidence (by rewriting his thesis with his scientific paper for the essay "A High Stick Foul" in the e-book "Blowing Smoke ". Submitted Draft book with backup evidence for then science editor Marcia McNutt in 2013, her administrator confirmed receipt, nothing else has ever happened. Imagine my" disappointed surprise ".

3. Fabricious claimed in Nature Climate Change (1: 165-169) 2011 that ocean acidification killed corals in Milne Bay.

The scientific misconduct identified in their SI was that their only location "killed" coral transects also had volcanic H2S of 163 ppm – fatal to marine animals at below 50 ppm, no different than hydrogen cyanide for people in Auschwitz.

4. NOAA PMEL claimed that the spawning bug at the Whiskey Creek Oyster Hatchery in Netarts Bay, Oregon was a smoking weapon used to acidify the ocean.

Not correct. A complete academic misrepresentation of Pacific coast upswings and estuarine oyster biology. Verifiable USG misinformation.

(Examples 3 and 4 are both explained with footnotes and illustrations in the Shell Games essay in my e-book Blowing Smoke, Preface by Judith Curry.)

5. There have been many claims that the Antarctic ice sheet had previously collapsed and therefore could lead to another very sudden catastrophic rise in sea level.

One of the most recent “evidence” was in Australia during the Eemian. Except that this paper misrepresented the Western Australian data found in its own SI and was found to deliberately misinterpret the results of an ancient earthquake which its own data proved. Details with pictures, graphics and footnotes in the essay "On land or on water" in the eBook Blowing Smoke. Clear scientific misconduct.

And for those who think this is just an old e-book advertisement, wrong. I spent nearly three years with this e-book and it now sells for about $ 7 on Amazon Kindle (still $ 9 on iBooks). I didn't do anything and I didn't plan to do anything. My publisher has done a little; My plan was to thank them for publishing it in the first place. Getting the climate truth out was the whole and only point. Is still. We are just repeating here some of the blatant scientific misconduct previously demonstrated in writing but may not be well known to the recent newcomers.

Like this:

To like Loading…