Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years

People who totally accepted the corrupted, limited and narrowly focused science of the IPCC have taught climate science for the last 30 years


Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years

By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, January 10, 2011

It’s frightening how little climate science is known by both sides of the debate on human causation of global warming. I wrote this sentence before I saw a paper from Michigan State University that found, “Most college students in the United States do not grasp the scientific basis of the carbon cycle – an essential skill in understanding the causes and consequences of climate change.”



The professor says students need to know because they must deal with the buildup of CO2 causing climate change. This discloses his ignorance about the science of the carbon cycle and the role of CO2 in climate. It’s not surprising and caused by three major factors:







1.A function of the emotional, irrational, religious approach to environmentalism.

2.The political takeover of climate science

3.Funding directed to prove the political rather than the scientific agenda.

The dogmatism of politics and religion combined to suppress openness of ideas and the advance of knowledge critical to science.



We now have a generation (30 years) of people teaching, researching, or running government that has little knowledge because of lack of fundamental education. Because of them, the public is ill informed, don’t understand the problem, and don‘t know the questions to ask. Correcting the education process will take time because there are insufficient people with the knowledge or expertise. Correcting and widening the research functions will take longer because of removing or re-educating current personnel and a lack of qualified replacements. Even if achieved, success is unlikely. There is the massive problem of inadequate data.



Reduction in the number of weather stations, elimination of raw data by national governments, unexplained manipulations of existing data, lost data by people like Phil Jones, were all done to falsify the results and prevent scrutiny of their work. This couples with failure to fund research to recover and reconstruct historical data. In his autobiography Hubert Lamb said he founded the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) because “it was clear that the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.” The situation is worse now, sadly due to people at the CRU and government weather agencies.



The blame begins with the political manipulations of Maurice Strong, but he only succeeded because of the so-called climate scientists. Among them, computer modelers caused the biggest problem. They needed to know the most, but knew the least. If they knew anything they would know there is inadequate data and understanding of the major components and mechanisms on which to build the models.



I responded to a newspaper article with a letter pointing out many errors. It elicited an invite from Andrew Weaver IPCC computer modeler. I entered his office with my backpack and he said, “I hope you don’t have a microphone in that thing do you?” I remarked, “Someone’s paranoia is showing.” In the next twenty minutes I realized, because of 25 years of teaching, researching and publishing, he knew very little about climate. He received a phone call and I left his office. A student working outside said he heard my comments about the severe limitations of the computer models and and said he agreed. He simply wanted to get his degree and research money was available. Weaver claimed to be a climatologist, but removed that from his web page when it was pointed out he was a computer modeler.



Over the years Weaver consistently refused a debate. When a students group arranged one at the University of Victoria he refused to participate with his standard line about only dealing with “working” climatologists. His students showed up at my presentation and were talking to students outside the door, apparently attempting to deter them from entering. When they all finally came in they tried to interrupt the proceedings by constantly asking questions. They even had laptops and challenged with Internet sites supposedly contradicting what I said. It was shameless and not surprisingly their interpretation of events appeared on a smear blog site. For example, I showed the Milankovitch Effect and said it was not in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models. One student said he worked with the models and it is included. There’s no doubt it is in some climate models, but not those of the IPCC.



Weaver has announced he will not participate in the next IPCC. He, like so many who got on the bandwagon of politics and funding, is abandoning the sinking ship. Most of his early funding was from Environment Canada until alternate arrangements were made. He began withdrawal in January 2010, “Senior Canadian climate scientist says the United Nations’ panel on global warming has become tainted by political advocacy, that its chairman should resign, and that its approach to science should be overhauled.”



He also said, “the leadership of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has allowed it to advocate for action on global warming, rather than serve simply as a neutral science advisory body.” He knew this all along, partly because I told him. The question is what has he taught his students in the meantime? Judging by his responses to my questions and those asked by his students at my presentation, not much and very biased.



A former editor of an enlightened environmental journal said we need a committee of scientists from the many disciplines involved in climate science. Such a committee existed 25 years ago, and produced groundbreaking work. It was a joint project funded by The National Museum of Canada and Environment Canada under the title “Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 years.” Each year a specific topic was considered and scientists presented material that was published in Syllogeus. For example, Syllogeus 5 examined Critical Periods in the Quaternary of Climatic History of Northern North America. All the problems that plague climate science such as tree rings, ice cores, circulation patterns and proxy data, among many others, were identified and researched. In the last meeting, I was elected Chair, and in my acceptance speech said, we need to consider carefully and scientifically the claims of global warming. Environment Canada cut the funding because it challenged the political position that agency had already taken; the project died. Canada should reconstitute it because it was producing useful and non-political science – supposedly Weaver would now approve, but I don’t think he’s qualified to participate.



People who totally accepted the corrupted, limited and narrowly focused science of the IPCC have taught climate science for the last 30 years. They should all read Lamb’s monumental two-volume set;



Lamb, H.H., 1972,“Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 1: Fundamentals and Climate Now.” Methuen, London and 1977, “Climate: Present, Past and Future. Vol. 2: Climatic History and the Future”.



They’d learn that all issues now put forward as ‘new’ are not new at all. They only appear new because of the black hole that politicians, aided by a few climatically uneducated political scientists, have dragged climate science into over the last 30 years.





CFP Tools



Share21






More







(0) Reader Feedback



Subscribe



Print friendly



Contact Us



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dr. Tim Ball Bio

Dr. Tim Ball Most recent columns

Copyright © 2010 CFP