I got to ruminating again; a third WUWT retrospective post

By Rud Istvan

My first recent ‘ruminative’ post was about basic climate science misconceptions. My second was about their resulting failed basic climate predictions over now 4 decades (e.g. Viner 2000–children will soon not know snow!).  This third ruminative post (celebrating roughly my 10th WUWT anniversary post here) introspects climate ‘science’ misconduct in the dubious service of posts 1&2.

Like my first here long ago, just more examples like that first, decade old provable NRC US crop canard.

The standard climate science religious cannon claims:

  1. Anthropogenic global warming is causing GAST to rise.
  2. This will have catastrophic consequences, including islands disappearing, millions of climate refugees, a 6th major extinction, and worse.
  3. Therefore, we must repent in energy ashes with a Green New Deal.

The Warmunist (my two recent previous ruminative posts) basic problems are:

  1. They cannot prove GAST is rising above natural variation rates.
  2. There are no catastrophic consequences yet, despite ‘yet’ being now since 1988, so over four decades of abject prediction failures.
  3. Their GND ‘solutions’ fail both technically and economically.

So, how can this awful Warmunist Climate Change PR situation continue to be?

The answer, I believe, lies in the Peter Ridd Great Barrier Reef lawsuit against Cook University in Australia, which he politely titles ‘Lack of quality control.’ I give it another more precise name, with many proofs to follow: academic misconduct in pursuit of government grant dollars. Simply, it is scientific financial corruption.

There are many ways to prove this thesis, all already in the general literature.  For this ruminative post we will extract the essence of just a few examples. All examples are from Steve McIntyre, myself, or (once) both. (I am, again lazily, not providing many links since the ruminative details are all easily accessible on the Internet or via WUWT or CE search functions—or via my cheap old book.)

1. MBH1999 Hockey Stick, the featured graph of AR3. There are at least 3 problems collectively bordering on scientific misconduct:

  • His paleoclimate data are in part spurious (Biffa’s single Yamal larch, the inverted Tilander sediment, the US strip bark bristle cone pines,… all comprising a Hockey Stick Blade.
  • His paleoclimate data also contradict the well-known Medieval Warming Period (–the faux Hockey Stick Handle, a worse data sin).
  • His novel Mann mathematical method is fatally flawed, always producing some hockey stick from any red noise. For those not climate/statistics literate, red noise in a time series is very different from white noise. Red noise has a ‘memory’, aka some degree of autocorrelation. So it is not purely random like white noise in classical statistics around a normal random distribution.

2. Marcott 2013 Hockey Stick.

He redid his thesis by grossly redating selected core tops to produce his infamous Science paper. I PROVED his ‘disavowed’ redating scientific misconduct IN DETAIL a few weeks after publication over at Judith Curry’s, then rewrote the visual proof (just by comparing his thesis to his Science paper for essay “A High Stick Foul’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.  Submitted the book draft with backup evidence to then Science editor Marcia McNutt in 2013; her admin acknowledged receipt, nothing else ever happened. Imagine my ‘disappointed surprise’.

3. Fabricious claimed in Nature Climate Change (1: 165-169) 2011 that ocean acidification was killing corals in Milne Bay. 

The scientific misconduct found in her SI was that her single location ‘killed’ coral transects also had a volcanic H2S of 163 ppm—lethal to sea creatures at below 50ppm no different than hydrogen cyanide to humans at Auschwitz.

4. NOAA PMEL claimed that the spawn failure at Whiskey Creek oyster Hatchery on Netarts Bay, Oregon, was an ‘ocean acidification’ smoking gun.

Wrong. A complete academic misstatement of Pacific Coast ocean upwellings and estuarine oyster biology.  Provable USG misinformation.

(Examples 3 and 4 are both explained with footnotes and illustrations in essay Shell Games in my ebook Blowing Smoke, foreword Judith Curry).

5. There have been many claims that the Antarctic ice sheet has collapsed before, and so may again giving rise to a very sudden catastrophic sea level rise.

One of the most recent ‘proofs’ was during the Eemian in Australia. Except this paper misrepresented the West Australian data found in its own SI, and provably deliberately misinterpreted the results of an ancient earthquake that its own data proved. Details with images, graphics, and footnotes in essay ‘By Land or by Sea’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Clear scientific misconduct.

And for those thinking this is just an old ebook advert, wrong. I spent almost three years on this ebook, and it now sells for about $7 on Amazon Kindle (still $9 on iBooks). I have not made, nor did not plan to make, anything. My publisher has made a little; my plan was in thanks to them for publishing it at all. Getting the climate truth out was the whole and only point. Still is. We just reiterate here some of the obvious scientific misconducts previously proven in writing but perhaps not well known to recent newcomers.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/37OUetZ

December 9, 2020 at 09:06AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s