Is the Earth’s Climate History Largely a Fraud?

Powerline ^ | September 19,2017 | John Hinderaker

[Hojczyk]

Andrews concludes:

The bottom lines that emerge from all this are:

1. The only published temperature time series that are not distorted by adjustments and which can therefore be considered reasonably reliable are the UAH TLT series and the SST series after about 1950. (The various radiosonde series, which go back to 1958, also appear to be generally reliable, and more use could be made of them.)

2. Climate models show too much air temperature warming at the surface and in the troposphere. They show probably about the right amount of sea surface warming after 1950 but probably too little before. Overall the models [sic] show that greenhouse gases have had considerably less impact on temperatures than AGW theory says they should have had.

Which is the real point: the climate models, which were created for the purpose of generating hysteria and government grants, are wrong. Observation trumps theory. What is extraordinary about our current situation is that the people who created the self-interested and politically-motivated models also control the temperature record, and they have been changing it to make their models, and their entitlement to billions in government grants, look better.

This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Or, if not a fraud from the outset, at least largely conjectural?

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks so much for your support to this point... I personally apprecaite it...
FReepers, it's far beyond time to wrap up this FReep-a-thon.  Lets get the job done.  Please chip in.

President Donald J. Trump and the Free Republic of the United States of America
President Donald J. Trump's address to the United Nations on 09/19/2017.

Ramirez political cartoon:  Football Referee Signals LARGE VERSION 09/20/2017: LINK  LINK to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).
Garrison political cartoon:  Irrelevence Park LARGE VERSION 09/19/2017: LINK  LINK (scroll down) to regular sized versions of his political cartoons (archive).


Please join the monthlies, an automated and the best way to help support Free Republic.  If you opt not to join the automated monthly support program, please consider joining the One One Done project.  LINK

FReepers, 94.00% of the Third Quarter FReep-a-thon goal has been met.  Click above and pencil in your donation now.  Please folks, lets end this FReepathon.  Thank you!
...this is a general all-purpose message, and should not be seen as targeting any individual I am responding to...

Just $877.00 dollars and cents to 95.00%

[LibWhacker]

Replete with fraud and fraudsters.

[ClearCase_guy]

So much of modern science isn’t science at all. It’s just politics. But it’s a political ideology which claims: “You can’t argue with me — this is settled science.”

It’s pretty easy to see this with Climate Change. I maintain that it is also true with Evolution. Much of that stuff is make-believe.

[TigersEye]

No smoking hot spot David Evans - THE AUSTRALIAN July 18, 2008

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

[eyeamok]

This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.

If we were a Nation of Laws it might matter, but we are a Nation of Men.

[Carl Vehse]

The global warming climatistas are certainly frauds and should be subject to arrest and prosecution.

[Repeal The 17th]

‘If’ you had ‘reliable data’ from 100 years ago, and you were able
to put that data into a mathematical model to show today’s climate...

If they could do that, then they ‘might’ be able to predict the future.

The problem is twofold:
they do not have reliable data, and their mathematical models do not work.

[Grimmy]

Or, if not a fraud from the outset, at least largely conjectural?
_______________________________________________________

It was blatant fraud from the outset.

It doesn’t take a whole hella lot of academic archaeology to find the scumbags that started this crap bragging about how it will help further the glorious Communist revolution by manipulating “The West” into destroying its own industrial and economic infrastructure.

[BroJoeK]

CCG: "I maintain that it is also true with Evolution. Much of that stuff is make-believe."

Important differences, including:

1. Evolution theory is 150+ years old, not of recent origin or funded by government grants.

2. Evolution theory was developed to explain confirmed observations (aka: facts) such as fossils and geological strata.
   It did not originate in some computer model using bogus temperature data.

3. Evolution theory does not require a vast international bureaucracy, new laws & taxes to enforce.
   It is not used to elect politicians or raise taxes.

4. Evolution theory & assumptions are confirmed across multiple scientific disciplines, from A-astronomy to Z-zoology.
   AGW is confirmed by... well, politicians!

5. If evolution theory is ever falsified, it will surprise a good many people and overturn many scientific understandings, but otherwise life will go on as usual.
   By contrast, falsifying AGW will have great political & economic implications.

That's why I think evolution theory belongs in a different category from the AGW "scientific consensus".

[MAGAthon]

to make it worse, there will soon be new generations in control, who have been brainwashed into thinking there was no such thing as “climate change” before the scammers manufactured “manmade global warming”.

[Redwood71]

“Is the Earth’s Climate History Largely a Fraud?”

No, it is very true. What is a fraud is the people that have given lying opinions of it.

rwood

[Gay State Conservative]

When thinking about "climate change" I'm reminded of a science documentary I saw a few years ago.It said that there's irrefutable evidence that only a few thousand years ago the small piece of land that's now Central Park (the one in New York City) was completely covered by a glacier at least 2,000 feet thick.

And yet somehow it disappeared long before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

[Rebelbase]

“This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.”

Not only that it’s the greatest financial fraud in the history of man.

[roadcat]

Yes, completely.

[Paladin2]

Defund NASA GISS Now!

[Paladin2]

In Theory there is no difference between Theory and Practice.

In Practice there is.

QED

[publius911]

Is the Earth’s Climate History Largely a Fraud?

Absolutely.
At least doofus Gore's version, which is demonstrably phony.

[henkster]

“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”