THE EMERGING CONSENSUS WAS
THAT IT’S ALL HOOEY!
Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. ~Donald Rumsfeld
Finally, we have accurate data — using satellites to measure the temperature of the lower-troposphere — and just then, global warming stopped! Among all the unknowns, we see the shimmering of truth like a jewel beneath the waves –i.e., now there’s something we really do know: there has been 0.00°C of global warming over the last 17.5 years. Do tell… despite increasing atmospheric CO2; and, I think we know the reason why: what goes up must come down.
As it turns out the billion of dollars that Western civilization has funneled to academia to measure, adjust, maintain and explain the mountains of data about the temperatures over the lands and waters of the world has been a big waste of time and money. As it turns out, while Western academics have been busy spreading fears of global warming alarmism, a lazy sun has led to an easily observable 20-year long cooling trend during the December/January periods for all, “9 climate regions in the US.” Like Paul Revere riding through the night to warn the patriots, this cooling trend signaled the coming 17.5 year hiatus in warming around the globe and helps to explain why many scientists outside the West see decades ahead of future global cooling in our future not warming. (See, AGW movement collapsing – cooling December/January now for 20 years!)
Gone are the days when a feckless academic can sift and sieve secret numbers — boiled over with undisclosed computer programs using unverified models — to produce a ‘hockey stick’ graph depicting a scary Gorean future of runaway global warming, supposedly in sync with an increase in human-caused atmospheric CO2. Mathematically speaking, Western academia’s support of Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been like witchdoctors huddled around a green bubbling brew of magic potion; and, the IPCC’s use of Mann’s work for ideological purposes has made a mockery of science.
As a religious leader Mann perhaps had a great deal of influence over his sycophantic followers. But as a scientist you are not supposed to teach how to produce a flood of hockey stick-shaped graphs by simply feeding white noise into a mathematical model that works like a maniacal global warming doomsday machine stuck in maximum overdrive.
White noise, has equal power density across the entire frequency spectrum, that is, it has constant energy at all frequencies. When this is graphically represented, white noise has a flat power spectral density. In a practical example, white noise is what is used to refer to that steady, even soothing sound produced when tuning in to an unused radio or TV frequency. White noise has an equal amount of energy per frequency band in contrast to pink noise, which has an equal amount of energy per octave. Pink noise has a frequency spectrum that is flat in logarithmic space. The power density of pink noise, compared with white noise, decreases by 3 dB (decibels) per octave. It is said that pink noise is the most soothing sound to the human ear. Pink noise has the same frequency distribution as falling rain.
Red noise is similar to pink noise, but it has relatively more energy at lower frequencies than pink noise. Red noise has a power density that decreases 6 dB per octave as the frequency increases. Of course, red noise was named after a connection with red light, which is on the low end of the visible light spectrum. Mathematically speaking, integrating white noise produces red noise. Red noise in the paleoclimatology context comes from the fact that tree rings have correlation from year to year, that is, if a tree grows well in a given year, it will store carbohydrates and will tend to have a good year of growth the following year as well. Red noise in the paleoclimatology context is modeled by a first-order autoregressive model.
(See, Edward J. Wegman, et al., Ad Hoc Committee Report On The ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction)
Amazingly, Western academics don’t even need data — especially if they are paleoclimate dendrologists (and their tree rings are not telling them what they want to hear) — to be acclaimed global warming doomsday prognosticators with the ear of Leftist politicians and bureaucrats in the highest levels of government. Simply construct models that turn white noise into noisy red hockey sticks. “In general,” says Wegman, “we found [Mann’s methods] to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms [by Mann’s skeptical critics] to be valid and compelling… It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community… Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.”
Global warming academics need not even tell the truth to be quoted in the mainstream media. “Overall,” says Wegman, “our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”
David Holland published in the 2007 Energy & Environment, (Vol. 18, No. 7) the results of his review of the IPCC process and found, “bias and concealment” in “the hockey stick affair.” Holland, “concluded that the IPCC has neither the structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science.”
Will Rogers said, When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Recognizing the problems of, “systematic error that are larger than the observed anomalies… [and] burying the bad news about model performance,” statistics Professor Leonard Smith (London School of Economics) is smart to ask, “Can (we) climate modelers stop digging?” Smith sees, “the demonstrated value of earth/climate forecasts,” as follows: (1) “significant” in the “medium-range,” of about two weeks or less; (2) of value seasonally for, “some months and regions;” and (3), not of much value at all for global or regional purposes when looking decades into the future. (See, The user made me do it: seamless forecasts, higher hemlines, and credible computation)
No probability forecast is complete without an estimate
of its own irrelevance. ~Leonard Smith
There are at least two things about which we all can be certain. First, given that climate change is inevitable, the past is prologue and nothing we can do will ever stop the climate from changing, our best adaptation strategy is to have the courage to do nothing! Finally, society must face the fact that the Golden Goose is on the mat, the economy will continue to shrink, futures will be dashed and our liberties will be trampled if we cannot get the weasels out of the chicken coop.
Probably there is no other field of applied science in which so much money has been spent to effect so little progress as in weather forecasting. ~H. C. Willett, The Forecast Problem, Compendium of Meteorology (1951)
The fears that global warming is caused by modernity says more about our society than our climate. Mann’s hockey stick is symbolic of the fall of Western civilization, the loss of honor and integrity in science and the sacrifice of truth and honesty in academia and politics on the altar of a failed Leftist ideology that is based on self-defeating fears about individual freedom and taking personal responsibility for our own lives.