Friday, November 21, 2014

The Climate Scam’s Meltdown: Corruption is now systemic in climate science

A superb essay by Australian marine biologist Walter Starck published at Quadrant Online exposes how
"The rent-seekers, opportunists, third-rate academics, carbon-market scam artists and peddlers of catastrophic prophecy can see the alarmist bubble deflating, so they're trying harder than ever to sustain the scare. Problem is, Mother Nature isn't cooperating"
The Climate Scam’s Meltdown

By Walter Starck

This doesn’t mean the climate change “debate” will stop, the news media will cease reporting weather as a dire threat, or that the true believers will no longer be obsessed by it. However, the ultimate arbiter, climate itself, has made clear its decision by ceasing to warm for over 18 years. Despite the ongoing use of fossil fuels, a proclaimed 95% certainty of 97% of scientists and the high-powered projections of the world’s most advanced climate models, the climate has refused to pay the slightest heed.

Contrary to all the confidence and predictions of alleged experts, storms are no more intense nor frequent, while droughts, floods and sea levels have declined to confirm alarmists’ barely concealed hopes of disasters. The simple fact is that the alleged experts and their high-powered models were wrong. The climate has ceased to warm and, with little or no greenhouse warming, the entire theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), aka Climate Change (CC), aka Global Warming, aka Extreme Weather, is left with no basis.

The debate over CC has been unique in the history of science in that its proponents have largely abandoned the primacy of evidence and openly declared methodology in favour of self-proclaimed authority backed by their own confidential methods and models. It is also unique in that the alarmists refuse to directly address their arguments, preferring to ignore, censor and personally denigrate them. In a few instances in the early part of the public debate, the proponents attempted direct debate with their critics but came away looking decidedly second-best and they soon refused any further direct discussion. With no convincing answers to the uncertainties and conflicting evidence raised by their opponents they simply chose to ignore them, declare the science “settled” and anoint themselves as the only experts. All who disagreed agree were deemed to be fools, knaves and/or in the pay and pocket of Big Energy.

With a naive and compliant news media steeped in the same politically correct, left wing academic indoctrination as the researchers, the latter enjoyed a near monopoly on favourable news coverage. Self-serving publicity releases were regurgitated undigested beneath the by-lines of environmental “reporters”, who eagerly reduced themselves to unquestioning stenographers.

Yet even as the alarmists’ received kid-glove treatment in the mainstream media, the Internet has been a very different story. Not only did the climate alarmists have no advantage online, the thinking public was increasingly looking to the Web as their primary source for news. This digital realm was outside any particular control or influence, open to the airing of opposing argument and evidence. It was also a forum for the exposure of malpractice, regularly producing exposes which would shatter the façade of scientific expertise and propriety the alarmists had erected around themselves. Think here of how Wattsupwiththat demolished the charlatan Michael Mann and his infamous hockey stick, and the Climategate emails revealed the lengths professional warmists are prepared to go in order to silence sceptics, not least by debasing the conventions of the peer-review process.

In retreat, climate alarmists are now trying to deny the lack of warming while fiddling the temperature record in an effort to “prove” it is continuing. Their ever-more imaginative explanations — the heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean; trade winds are skewing sea-temperature readings — increasingly smack of desperation. Making matters worse for the alarmists, there is increasing evidence that the global climate has not only ceased to warm but may actually be starting to cool. Severe, often record-breaking winter weather demands more and more undeclared “adjustments” to the temperature record are being exposed. Overwhelmingly these serve to reduce past temperatures and increase more recent ones without which the lack of warming would be more obvious.

When such changes to the record have been discovered and questioned the response has been to waffle about “homogenization” and “world’s best practice” or to suggest such corrections are needed because, say, the Japanese bombed Darwin, a weather was moved and, therefore, the coastal city’s temperature record must be reconstructed by drawing on numbers from Daly waters, far inland. These explanations, however, are inevitably long on hypothetical context and galling deficient in specific explanations for their justification.

More broadly a similar pattern of response has also been made in various other instances wherein malpractice in climate science has been exposed. At first the problem is denied, then it is dismissed as being of no importance and, finally, the attempt is made to justify it as excusable error. In the more egregious instances, when the scandal is no longer in the news, the miscreant may then be given some prestigious award, thus certifying the unimportance of any misdeeds. To any thinking observer, all this, when combined with a noticeable lack of any disavowal by colleagues, can only confirm the corruption now systemic in climate science.

Currently the recent US/China agreement is being touted as an important breakthrough in the battle against climate change. In reality it amounts to a non-binding agreement to do nothing different before 2030. Until then China is free to continue increasing emissions while the US agrees to continue to reducing its own in line with the reductions already achieved and further anticipated through the ongoing switch from coal and oil to natural gas. For China this agreement affords cost-free relief from diplomatic pressure over their increasing emissions. On the US side it provides President Obama the excuse of diplomatic obligations to invoke his executive authority to implement various measures unlikely to receive approval from a Republican-controlled Congress. As ratification by the Congress would be required for any binding climate agreement and such approval is likely to be lengthy or never, the blank cheque for the exercise of executive authority may remain useful for some time.

The reality is that the threat of catastrophic climate change has almost certainly been vastly exaggerated. At pre-industrial levels of CO2 the back-radiated IR energy in the absorption bands of this gas was virtually all absorbed within a few tens of metres of the surface. More CO2 only concentrates the initial absorption a bit closer to the surface but the mixing at that level still quickly distributes the heat energy through a much larger volume of the lower troposphere while, at the same time, also increasing transport of heat away from the surface by enhancing evaporation, which in turn can be expected to increase cloud cover. How much actual warming may result is highly problematic. Empirical evidence is now indicating that any such warming is probably much less than has been estimated by the alarmists — probably so little as to be over-ridden by other natural variables. The only significant effect attributable with any confidence to increased CO2 thus far has been a marked greening of arid regions and an increase in agricultural yields.

With or without any agreement or government initiatives, economics, technological developments and demographic changes will in due course inevitably reduce the demand for fossil fuels and replace them with other and cleaner sources of energy. Thorium- and fusion-reactor developments are showing increasing promise of providing effectively unlimited cheap and clean energy within a few decades. For domestic use, solar voltaic technology is beginning to become competitive with mains electricity, with further gains in cost effectiveness near certain in the near future. Major advances in storage technology are also well underway and expected to become commercially available within a few years. Better cheaper solar technology to power homes and vehicles is likely to drive the beginning of mass uptake within a decade. This will be impelled by cost effectiveness, with subsidies unnecessary. Indeed, such support risks doing more harm than good if it diverts development and uptake from the best and most efficient technologies emerging from a complex, rapidly changing and impossible-to-predict scientific frontier.

An argument is often made that the climate-change threat must be real because a conspiracy involving an overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists is simply not credible. This is disingenuous in that the climate threat, as exemplified by the IPCC’s scare machine, is far from representing a scientific consensus, even a majority. Global scientific opinion on this matter is highly mixed with the alarmist position concentrated in Europe and the Anglosphere. Even here thousands of dissenters exist, including many highly qualified and respected researchers with very relevant expertise.

The core alarmist proponents only comprise a few dozen, mostly third-rate, academics whose scientific reputations are minimal outside of climate alarmism. They co-opted the niche, little known interdisciplinary field of climatology, proclaimed themselves to be the world authorities, declared a global crisis, received lavish funding to research it and gained global attention. They have been aided and abetted by sundry fellow travellers who see advantage for various other agendas. A conspiracy does not require secret planning. It can be implemented just as easily with a wink and a nod when the aims and methods are apparent to all the participants. It is time to recognise the climate scam for what it is: a conspiracy to defraud on a monumental scale.

Although climate itself is presenting its irrefutable opposing argument, failed prophets never willingly concede defeat until their mouths are stopped with the dust of reality. In this instance gob-stopping reality seems likely to take the form of severe winter weather leading to a widespread collapse of electrical power in an overloaded grid suffering from the underinvestment, malinvestment, restraints and neglect. All these stem from years of misguided climate policies. Until the crunch comes, the rent-seekers and their useful idiots in the press will rant and rage without pause, their livelihoods and careers hanging on their ability to perpetuate the hoax they foisted on the rest of us.

As so often, Shakespeare said it best: “A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

A marine biologist, Walter Starck has spent much of his career studying coral reef and marine fishery ecosystems


  1. Pleasant to read articles like this one. I personally had debates/arguments/shout fests with advocates of globull warming. These people were the most condescending, arrogant, self professed know-it-alls who are absolutely desperate to keep the money spigot turned on and to use government rules and regulations to impose their social views and force control the world.

  2. The AGW conjecture has always been a half baked idea in the first place. There is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has ever affected climate. CO2 has increased with higher temperatures because warmer water holds less CO2 but there is no real evidence that CO2 adds to that warming. If greenhouse gases add to global temperature variations then H2O has got to be the primary culprit.

    The AGW conjecture hinges on the idea that H2O provides positive climate feedbacks to changes in CO2 thus amplifying CO2's effect. But that idea neglects all that H2O does. Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth's atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth's surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to models more heat energy is moved by H2O then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. There is the issue of clouds which not only reflect incoming solar radiation but that radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Then there is the fact that a good absorber is also a good radiator. More so called greenhouse gases cause the Earth to radiate to space more efficiently in LWIR absorption bands. All these phenomena that the AGW proponents forgot involve negative feedbacks. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth's climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. If CO2 really effected climate then the level of CO2 in our atmosphere would factor in to computation of the lapse rate but it does not. The so called greenhouse gases do not really hold heat as much as the non greenhouse gases do because the non greenhouse gases do not radiate to space as efficiently as the so called greenhouse gases do.

    What the modeling exercises have shown to far it that the CO2 warming conjecture does not explain what has been happening to our climate where as models that depend on variations in total solar activity and the effects of the oceans do. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

    1. Absolutely.

      The sad fact is climate science has the greenhouse effect upside down and backwards. The non-IR active gases nitrogen & oxygen >99% of atmosphere control atmospheric mass and heat capacity of the atmosphere! which in turn controls the lapse rate and the entire temperature profile of the atmosphere. N2 & O2 are the true insulating "greenhouse gases" and CO2 & water vapor are the cooling agents of the atmosphere!

  3. "Major advances in storage technology are also well underway and expected to become commercially available within a few years."

    Passionate and well written article, but an amplification of the above quote would be welcome.

  4. Another great article. Thanks for the good work you do here.


  5. Walter, excellent. I certainly agree hat "...It is time to recognize the climate scam for what it is: a conspiracy to defraud on a monumental scale." As skeptics we can both recognize this. But I am not just a lukewarmer, I totally deny that any greenhouse warming exists. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of science the warmists have fraudulently suppressed with their pseudoscientific babble about global warming. Without the greenhouse effect no anthropogenic global warming or AGW is possible. Lets start from the beginning. IOCC has a greenhouse thery based upon the work of Svante Arrhenius. Arrhenius observwd that pure carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation if you shine it through thr gas. He knew that the atmosphere contained carbon dioxide and therefore must warm the air by absorbing natural IR radiation present in the atmos[here. He then calculated how much warming to expect if you doubled the amount of CO2 in the air and determined that it should increase global temperature by about 4 to 5 degrees Celsius. Using modern values for parameters this Arrhenius warminng comes out to about 1.1 degrees Celsius. To IPCC this was not threatening enough. But the had a remedy for that. Carbin dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, so let us put it to work for us. Only problem they had was thar the Arrhenius theory had nothing to say about it. But no problem let us just assume that its IR absorption gets added to that of carbon dioxide.and thisway jacks up the meager 1.1 degrees by a factor of two or three. That way they could talk of global warming exceeding the two degree limit that politicians have accepted as limit not to be exceeded. They were unable to show any science to back it up because the simultaneous interaction of several GHGs in the atmosphere was a mathematical problem their science could not handle. But in 2007, out of NASA climate labs, comes comes a new theory of greenhouse warming that can handle simultaneous absorption by more than one greenhouse gas. It was a complete mathematical theory by the Hungarian scientist Ferenc M. Miskolczi. Miskolczi had taken an MS in nuclear physics (1971), a Ph.D. in astrophysics (1975) and another Ph.D. in earth sciences (1981). As soon as the IPCC people saw what was in his theory they started to smear him on the internet and blacklisted him. He could not be mentioned in any publications they controlled and grad students were never told that he even existed. So what stirred them up like that? According to Miskolczi, the two important greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide and water vapor, form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared. The IR optical thickness of this window is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to air it begins to absorb in the IR just as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor will begin to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is thereby restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps the total absorption constant and no warming takes place. This warming, if it had occurred, would have beem called greenhouse warming but now we will just have to live without it. And this is the explanation of why there has been no warming for the last 18 years despite a constant increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide as the Keeling curve tells us. During wvry one odf these 18 years the Arrhenius theory has predicted warming and gotten nothing. If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but you get nothing at all for 18 years you are justified in tossing it into the waste basket of history. You need to use the Miskolczi theory that predicts what we see: carbon dioxide does not warm the atmosphere. With that, yje greenhouse theory of global warming is dead, and AGW is nothing but a pseudo-scientific fantasy, dreamed up by an over-eager climate worker to prop up the greenhouse effect.

    1. Arno Arrak November 22, 2014 at 3:43 PM

      Great, just one small problem with your vague summary of AGW fraud;

      Miskolczi's theory is even more erroneous than Arrhenius'.

      W R Pratt