Main website

GWT Forum

Green World Trust
AGW- the Greatest Fraud. Includes key science concepts to reclaim and make transparent
Contact ClimateGate Skeptical Climate Science Primer In a Nutshell Index to Topics
Links Stickers Videos

Anthropogenic Global Warming-
the greatest fraud in history?

Principles of real science that are being consistently violated
in current Climate "Science"

Scientists and politicians are launching headline upon headline to claim yet another disaster in the name of global warming. But... as scientific skeptics are finally discovering the courage to speak out, the hype machine is faltering just a little.

But the credibility of science may never recover — and perhaps it shouldn’t. Credibility has to be earned, and once it’s squandered may never be recovered. By now far too many scientists have knowingly colluded in an historic fraud, one that would put Bernie Madoff to shame. We are seeing political larceny here on a truly planetary scale. Why should scientists who’ve gambled their own reputations on this fakery ever be trusted again? They shouldn’t. Would you entrust your life savings to Bernie Madoff? Right.

Most scientists are not climatologists. Most scientists rarely judge what others do in their fields. And yet it’s been flamingly obvious for years now that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming violates all the basic rules and safeguards that protect the integrity of normal, healthy science. That’s why AGW (anthropogenic global warming) looks like a massive fraud, the biggest fraud ever in the history of science.

If that’s true, anybody who cares about science should be outraged. Even if you don’t care about that ask yourself if you want your next medical exam to be honest. Or the next time you drive across a traffic bridge, do you want the engineering tests to be falsified? If scientific corruption becomes endemic, we risk losing one of the great jewels of our culture.

So here are some fundamental violations of scientific integrity that any thoughtful person should recognize. I’m not going to touch on climatology — the case against the warming hypothesis has already been made very well by experts. I just want to talk scientific common sense.

Threatening the skeptics

Scientists get seduced by enticing ideas and bits of evidence all the time. That’s why every real scientist is a thorough-going skeptic, even about his or her own data. Especially about one’s own data, because one’s career is on the line if it doesn’t check out. So we need skepticism in ourselves and others. Good science honors the rational skeptic.

Which is why it’s beyond outrageous that AGW believers are publicly attacking thoughtful skeptics — not on the facts, but on their sheer temerity in doubting their precious orthodoxy.

According to the Guardian: "James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming..."

That is Stalinism; it is never, ever done in real science. Stalin shot real scientists and promoted scientific frauds who helped to kill Soviet food production. Right there we know we’re looking at political corruption and not real science.

Today’s public attack on skeptics should trigger loud alarm bells in the minds of scientists. It is indecent as well as dangerous.

Popular media hype

AGW is heavily promoted through the popular media. But the pop media are utterly incompetent when it comes to any scientific or technical question. An English or journalism degree just doesn’t prepare you; nor do news editors want you to tell the truth. In the media a good story always beats out technical facts.

But in reputable science nothing is published without careful peer review, and the more spectacular the hypothesis, the more intensive the reviews are going to be. That’s why peer-reviewed journals are so vital to a healthy science, and why the constant evasion and corruption of peer review by global warming fanatics is a sign of their scientific weakness. If the evidence was solid, they would not have to run to the nearest headline-hunting journalist.

Bad data without apology

In AGW bad data has been very widespread. Thermometers are placed in areas exposed to increasing city warmth, and the data is generalized, without due correction, to the whole world. The infamous “hockey stick” temperature diagram has been exposed as worthless, yet this expose is never acknowledged. James Hansen has brought NASA to its lowest point ever by repeatedly endorsing false data. His own ex-superior has now publicly disowned his bad science.

In any healthy field of science, that disastrous empirical record would have discredited the hypothesis. But while the data seems to crash periodically, the models don’t change in their catastrophism.

Read the headlines in SCIENCE magazine any week, and you can see that grinding process of doubt, clarification, and constant revision going on. In real science, researchers can be forgiven for making a few errors, but not many known or suspected frauds are denied tenure or fired. They are essentially blacklisted for the rest of their careers. The process is utterly Darwinian, and it works.

Except for the global warming hype. Here, we’re supposed to accept the word of media types who know nothing about science, and care only about the next big headline.

Eight fundamentals of scientific integrity in real science, that are being violated in Climate "Science"

1. Never confuse lab results with nature. Richard Feynman said that the physics we know is the simple part; natural physics in the real world is far too simple for blind generalization.

2. Never label a speculative idea to be true by fiat. Ordinary scientists would lose their reputations simply by mislabeling a wild hypothesis as the truth. They would be isolated like a cyst in the human body, blocked from spreading the infection.

3. The burden of proof is always on the proposer, never on the skeptics.

4. “Data surrogates” are never accepted without long-term testing.

Until a decade or two ago we didn’t have satellites to measure global temperatures. Before that time we had to rely on very spotty and locally distorted surface thermometers, or even worse, ice core surrogates for real world temperatures. But those core samples take decades of testing and open debate before we know what they really measure. It took centuries for the mercury thermometer to be adopted. Can we really believe the story that ice cores and tree cores tell us the truth about global temperatures eons ago? I don’t know, but in a toxified field of research, I don’t trust it.

5. Never import untested premises into the words we use.

The very term “greenhouse gas” is an unproven assumption. Don’t even use it unless you are prepared to prove that C02 and methane actually raise world temperatures. So far the evidence doesn’t look good.

6. Never corrupt the integrity of research by slanting grants toward any preconceived idea. Nor do we allow ourselves to be rushed into making huge claims without adequate testing and debate. Political deadlines mean nothing in real science.

7. In the real world, much less real science, we never, never believe politicians when they claim to know a scientific truth; they are unqualified, and they are professional liars.

Scientists are as corruptible as anybody else. Good scientists do have a conscience, but it’s the double-checking mechanisms of science that makes it trustworthy. We routinely see corrupt accountants and clergy in the news, and the news business itself is deeply corrupted and untrustworthy. The question is, do you build in checks and balances? Reporters are always rushed and deadline-driven, and they always trade off their integrity against the daily pressure for headlines.

All this affects you personally. Don’t doubt that your life and mine depend upon healthy science and medicine, and yes, even on honest journalism.

8. Finally, in real science we never confuse an infant research effort with a mature science that has been checked and triple-checked over decades.

Climate modeling is just a toddler science, barely able to waddle around the living room. It’s a nice idea to try modeling the earth’s atmosphere. But nature is inconceivably more complex than what we ever see in a laboratory jar. There are no proven “greenhouse gases” in the real atmosphere.

AGW looks to be the biggest fraud in the history of science. The AGW hype machine may signal the worst breakdown ever in the normal, healthy process of open debate and endless testing that makes for good science. It’s pathological science — which is not science at all.

What’s happening today is very dangerous. It can infect other parts of the sciences, medicine, and technology. If honest scientists cannot stand up to the pressure we are in deep, deep trouble as a society. Bad science kills people.

Ultimately the only solution may be to cauterize the proliferating mass of corruption. And all we can do is keep telling the truth, and listen to honest debate. Keep on doing that, and this sickness may yet pass, without killing the patient.

 

Quoted from James Lewis with a little editing and thanks.

Page built 30th January 2009

 

 

go to top