Climate Change Deception Easy Because Most Don’t Understand

Written by Dr. Tim Ball

It occurred to me….” When somebody says “let me be honest with you” does it mean they haven’t been previously?

Confused

Two videos reveal important information about why and how the global warming/climate change deception was, and continues to be, successful. The major reason is because only 20 percent of the population is comfortable with science. Even among scientists the degree of specialization makes most of them unfamiliar with climate science or climatology. Everyone else was vulnerable to the deception that occurred, especially because it was deliberately conceived and exploited.

A presentation by Professor Murray Salby illustrates what is wrong with climate science and the climate models and why people don’t understand and were easily fooled. A presentation by Simon Buckle tries to justify the models and define the terms skeptic and denier central to public misunderstanding. He gets it wrong and only underscores the effectiveness of the deception.

Official climate science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is disintegrating from self-inflicted wounds. They did not carry out proper scientific testing of the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming and latterly climate change, known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). They worked to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis, but failed. Despite the failures they made false claims now exposed by actual events.

 

Several years ago I gave a separate public presentation in Washington DC after appearing before a Congressional hearing on global warming. The theme of the presentation paralleled earlier publications and presentations on the inadequacy of the computer models. It is covered in many articles on this web site including a general concern about their application in society. In one article I quote Pierre Gallois’ comment that,

If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no one dares criticize it.”

As I wrote in one article, GIGO which stood for Garbage In Garbage Out for models in general in climate science of the IPCC became Gospel In Gospel Out.

Sufficient data from the IPCC computer model projections has accumulated to analyze what was wrong and why it occurred. None of it is a surprise, but we could only speculate because we had insufficient information about the computer codes, that are the programming instructions. Now Salby, working backward dissembles the models showing they were knowingly designed to produce a desired result.

This concept of premeditated results was the theme of my presentation to the Heartland conference on Climate Change in Washington, a couple of years ago. One slide from that presentation said,

The computer results were predetermined.” “They set out to prove the hypothesis contrary to the scientific method.” “They did not entertain the null hypothesis.” “Despite this they convinced the world that CO2 is a serious problem.”

Salby’s presentation also illustrates the problem we’ve confronted all along. The science is beyond most people’s abilities. Few will understand most of the presentation even though Salby provides a good summary in the last 15 minutes.

Buckle’s comments are unaware of what has gone on in climatology and his claims about the models are wrong. He doesn’t appear to know they were used to produce the outcome the IPCC needed for its political agenda. In doing so they stalled climate research for thirty years.

Buckle also doesn’t seem to know the terms skeptic and denier were PR words used to marginalize people studying climate who did not agree with the claims of the IPCC. Proof of their PR use was they were introduced quite separately and in response to events that challenged the AGW hypothesis. 

Skeptics was applied early in the phrase “Global warming skeptic.” The public understanding of the word skeptic is different than its scientific use. Buckle explains how science works through skepticism of existing theory and provides classic examples, but that misses the point.

Deniers appeared after people like me pointed out that all scientists are skeptics and we were not rejecting that warming had occurred but only the cause, human CO2.

To my knowledge I was first publicly called a denier in a Times of London story a few years ago. However, now the term was “Climate change denier”. Two things caused the change. Explanation that scientists must be skeptics negated that form of marginalizing, but there was the added problem of temperatures not rising as CO2 continued to increase. People at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) knew the problem as 2004 leaked emails show;

Minns/Tyndall Centre: In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

“Kjellen: I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming. “

The fundamental assumption of the AGW hypothesis that an increase in CO2 would cause an increase in temperature was compromised. Global warming became climate change and global warming skeptics became climate change deniers, with all the holocaust connotations of that term. IPCC projections of warming failed because their models were programmed to have temperature increase with CO2 increase. Salby shows how and why, Buckle shows how supposedly knowledgeable people were deceived.

—————-

* Dr. Tim Ball has more articles on his blog.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments (23)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Ball”][quote name=”Tim Ball”]I am aware of all the things Greg accuses me of not knowing.[/quote]I don’t think you are. Greg’s point is being lost in the emotion here. Greg’s point is that extrapolating from point data to arrive at a global temperature is a fool’s folly. For example, using point data requires each data point to represent different polygons in two dimensional space. Since polygons have different size and different physical characteristics there is a HUGE amount of generalization associated with each data point. Thus, different weighting of different data points MUST be employed. And there is no reliable objective way to do this weighting. So it is inherently subjective.

    This subjectivity is being concealed by the AGW alarmists. Tim’s comment, benign as it may have seemed, helps them maintain this concealment.

    Greg’s point is a very valid point. It may seem that he is attacking Tim, but he is not. He is trying to help him understand the the inherent complexities associated with extrapolating point data into three dimensional reality.

  • Avatar

    Jonathan Grove

    |

    [quote name=”Tim Ball”]You might also want to look at Jean Grove’s book The Little Ice Age, among many others.[/quote]

    It’s all very well, Tim, to refer to my mother’s book, but what you need to know is that she was perfectly happy with the theory of the greenhouse effect, and in the 1990s, before her untimely death in 2001, was perfectly convinced by the emerging science on AGW. If you refer to the second edition of her book, you’ll be able to appreciate the kind of scepticism which she favoured. Her views were not the same as those of other headline climatologists, but that did not mean that she did not share their general views on human impacts on the environment. She did. The changing picture led to her to update and to some extent modify her theories significantly in the second edition of her book, but the point is that she did not see her continuing interest in LIA and MWP and her acceptance of AGW as contradictory. For a view of the kind of position she favoured, you might like to read a more recent work written by her husband and long-term collaborator Dick Grove, who completed the second edition of her book, at http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_eng/Content?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/dt25-2010
    This is what scepticism can look like.

  • Avatar

    Tim Ball

    |

    I said I rejected the instrumental record, which includes that pre-government records. I know how limited they are having dealt with a large set of instrumental reading taken by the Hudson’s Bay Company.

    The evidence prior to the instrumental is mostly from proxy records and they come from global sites in a very wide range of forms. The earliest and most extensive records were compiled by Hubert Lamb, who used the phrase Little Ice Age (LIA). I had extensive discussions with him about the extent and global evidence for the LIA and the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) because my doctoral period of study was affected by both. You might also want to look at Jean Grove’s book The Little Ice Age, among many others.

    I am too busy to respond any further.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Tim Ball”]
      The evidence prior to the instrumental is mostly from proxy records and they come from global sites in a very wide range of forms.[/quote]

      Wonderful, so please name the world temperature or whatever you call it for the year 1666 and tell me please how exactly it was calculated. Many thanks in advance.

  • Avatar

    Tim Ball

    |

    I am aware of all the things Greg accuses me of not knowing. It is simple, I do not accept the instrumental record for a variety of reasons.

    I am particularly impressed by the article by Essex et al.,

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/globaltemp.html

    and the analysis of global temperature data by D’Aleo and Watts

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html

    My position on the warming is based on the historic evidence of the conditions from a multitude of evidence that the world has warmed since the nadir of the Little Ice Age, circa 1680. I also reject the claim that this warming is due to CO2 at all, but especially that portion from human activities.

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      There was no accusation in my comment.

      I suggested that the only rational reason for “not rejecting that warming had occurred”, as you put it, could be not having sufficient knowledge about how this “warming” has been calculated.

      Now you are saying essentially, although in a somewhat unclear way (“I am impressed by the article…”) that the “global warming” is not proven by the weather stations record. Still you “not rejecting that warming had occurred” for the reason, as far as I understand, that “the world has warmed since the nadir of the Little Ice Age, circa 1680.”

      Let me ask you then, how do you know that there was a global “Little Ice Age”, who exactly proved that and how?

      Your expression “the world has warmed” implies higher temperatures globally which implies you know those temperatures globally from past and present times, otherwise you could not have made a global comparison. How do you know that? Or let us make it easy, just tell me please the temperatures for the year 1666 globally and who and how calculated that.

      Right, I am asking all that, because I think it is important to demonstrate that the so called “climate science” knows very little to make any global claim.

  • Avatar

    ewiljan

    |

    # DougCotton 2013-07-02 05:38
    (1) You’ll have no trouble reading about temperatures in the tropospheres of Venus or Uranus if you do a bit of internet searching, ewiljan.

    I can find no reference to any troposphere
    on Venus or Uranus. Is this your stuff giving earth names to the atmospheres of other planets?

    Please define what you mean by troposphere
    about this Earth and how that may apply to any other planet.

    About the earth the troposphere has has an isotonic temperature/pressure decrease with altitude until the tropopause where the preassure is so low that liquid water cannot exist and, at higher altitudes the temperature actually increases.
    Demonstrate such effects on any other planet!

  • Avatar

    ewiljan

    |

    Dr. Ball,

    Your opinion please. After studying is it your conclusion. That the issue was mear bad science,
    or deliberate fraud for profit?

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    Is the Arctic warming? Yes, like everywhere else, with a long-term trend for 500 years rising out of the Little Ice Age at the rate of about half a degree per century, due to turn to cooling at least within 200 years.

    [img]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2865/xkbx.jpg[/img]

    But it’s no hotter than it was in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s.

    [img]http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5030/pso0.jpg[/img]

    Is there a super-imposed 60 year natural cycle that caused all the alarm during the 30 years of rising prior to 1998. Yes.

    [img]http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2496/otc3.png[/img]

    But it’s all natural. Every bit of it – and nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide, radiative forcing, back radiation, greenhouse effects or any such travesties of physics.

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    As all of the IPCC “peer reviewed science” that I have seen seems to rely on the assumption that [b]adding[/b] radiative fluxes from discrete sources can be used to calculate a valid temperature for that simple sum [b]I say it is time for them to demonstrate this claim by valid experiment[/b] !

    Is the scenario as taught in University or as elaborated in Trenberth et al Energy Budget real ?

    Can two radiative fluxes each associated with a cold temperature combine to result in a higher temperature as these people claim ?

    For example is it really true that 239.7 + 239.7 Watts per sq metre combine to result in a temperature of 303 Kelvin as claimed ???

    I seriously doubt it but this assertion ought to be simple to prove by experiment and I say it is time we [b]demand [/b] it be done !

    If they’re right well so be it – my two cents worth is they [b]can’t[/b] prove it and if they can’t them all they have is an unproven hypothesis that is worth nothing at all !

    All the arguing about whether or not photons are emitted by cold objects and absorbed by warmer objects will never be resolved.

    But it should be easy to experimentally demonstrate whether the sum of discrete radiation fluxes has the thermal effect the experts claim !

    I know they’re wrong so let them demonstrate they’re right – they’re so great it ought to be easy for them – right ?

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    [i]Written by Dr. Tim Ball: “…people like me pointed out that all scientists are skeptics and we were not rejecting that warming had occurred”[/i]
    ============================================

    Tim, I asked you once and you did not bother to answer there (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/18/labeling-people-climate-change-deniers-merely-reveals-the-attackers-ignorance/#comment-1177957), then let me ask you again, since you have made the same claim.

    What scientific reason do you personally have to consider the alleged “warming occurred” to be a scientific fact? Let me guess: consensus? IPCC? What else?

    Is it possible that you just do not know anything about the “methods” used to calculate the so called “global temperature”? Do you know anything about “extracting temperatures for large areas” from a single or a few weather stations, or about “temperature reconstructions” etc.?

    Who exactly has proven that the sample of weather station is representative for the whole world?

    Why exactly are you not “rejecting that warming had occurred” or at least finding the claim unproven?

    • Avatar

      Rosco

      |

      To reject that warming has occurred simply suggests the person proposing such a thing is simply deluded.

      Besides there is no real evidence one way or the other !

      Whether or not there has been warming is irrelevant – in fact only a fool would argue the climate never changes.

      All that is relevant is whether or not it is conceivable that man made emissions of CO2 are solely responsible.

      As there is no proof of that, or even of the claim it is valid to sum discrete radiative fluxes in the manner practised by climate scientists, it is entirely reasonable to claim there is no proof for the hypothesis.

      Anything else is merely smoke and mirrors.

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        [quote name=”Rosco”]To reject that warming has occurred simply suggests the person proposing such a thing is simply deluded.

        Besides there is no real evidence one way or the other !

        …in fact only a fool would argue the climate never changes.[/quote]

        I do not know a fool who argues that “the climate never changes”, maybe you should work on your reading comprehension. “Never changes” and “unproven to have changed in a certain way” are two different things. The other option is, of course, that your reading comprehension is OK, but you just dishonestly suggested, even if indirectly, that I said or meant something like that.

        Besides, you’d better not throw words like “fool” around, because your first 2 sentences contradict each other. If [i]”there is no real evidence one way or the other”[/i], as you put it, then the notion of [b]unproven [/b]warming should be rejected, [b]for lack of evidence[/b].

        • Avatar

          Rosco

          |

          Touchy – but if you wish to be offended that is your problem – I wasn’t implying any sort of insult.

          Are you saying the temperature records are BS because it seems to me you have an agenda ?

          The temperature records relied on are hardly convincing for many reasons.

          There are huge areas of the globe where there has [b]never[/b] been any consistent record previously – the oceans, the poles and the uninhabitated desert regions to name only a few.

          More than 70% of the globe has [b]never[/b] been reliably monitored previously which is why I say there is no real evidence at all.

          I do know the BOM in Australia admit to changing records from the past on grounds such as they think some extremes were recorded in full sun so the reliability is questioned even by the “experts”!!

          I do [b]know[/b] that it is impossible for a radiative flux of say 239.7 to combine with another of say 239.7 and result in a temperature of 303 K as taught in University lectures – that is junk science !!

          What do you say to that – am I wrong on that one ?

          I suspect you want someone to say “there is no evidence of warming” so you can insult the person in a childish manner.

          I am unsure of why you resort to insult at imagined offence – I assume it is a personality fault.

          Perhaps you’ve run out of cogent argument ?

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Rosco”]I suspect you want someone to say “there is no evidence of warming” so you can insult the person in a childish manner.[/quote]

            What a nonsence 😥 . I thought it was clear that I questioned all their warmings and coolings. They know temperatures from the past, even millions of years back, unbelievable. But when I ask them about the global temperature for the year 666, they choose to remain silent.

            As for your comments, OK, let it be some reading comprehension problems, but please, do not play insulted after you used words like “deluded” and “fool”. I suggest next time you’d better just make your point, ridiculous or not, without touching your opponent.

            And please, ask yourself if you really know what you are talking about, because you managed to contradict your first sentence immediately by your second one, see my comment above. Maybe you can build an adequate research team together with Doug Cotton.

          • Avatar

            Rosco

            |

            Why were you attacking Tim Ball if you have no agenda ?

            All he appears to have said is he does not question the veracity of the claims for the “alleged warming”.

            You simply prove yourself to have some sort of agenda as all your posts drip venom to all who you consider to have questione your greatness.

            All I said initially was that people who challenge the consensus are attacked –
            “To reject that warming has occurred simply suggests the person proposing such a thing is simply deluded.”

            [b]You promptly attacked me[/b] – all I was proposing was a reason why people do not make claims that attract controversy unnecessarily.

            “only a fool would argue the climate never changes” is a simple statement of fact yet again you attacked me.

            I notice you didn’t answer my statement about –

            “I do know that it is impossible for a radiative flux of say 239.7 to combine with another of say 239.7 and result in a temperature of 303 K as taught in University lectures – that is junk science !!”

            What is your answer to that – does 239.7 W/sqm from one source – say solar radiation as quoted in University lectures – combine with 239.7 W/sqm from another source – say back radiation as quoted in University lectures – to produce a resulting temperature of 303 Kelvin – Yes or No ?

  • Avatar

    DougCotton

    |

    But even the vast majority of skeptics have still allowed themselves to be misled by radiative forcing concepts and greenhouse effects. Most still think these processes somehow determine surface temperatures, and most still think in terms of applying the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, fiddling with the emissivity and magically coming up with what the surface temperature ought to be.

    All this misconception has been brain-washed into the scientific field and very few have paused to question it.

    How on Venus, for example, could direct Solar radiation cause the surface to warm from about 730K to about 735K over the course of the 4-month-long Venus day? It can’t. It’s not direct Solar radiation striking a surface (or back radiation) that is playing the primary role in maintaining planetary surface temperatures. Gravity does so by maintaining a temperature gradient which is actually a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, as the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve spontaneously.

    [b]There is no warming by 33 degrees or whatever that is still to be explained after gravity has done its work.[/b]

    • Avatar

      ewiljan

      |

      Your coments on Venus have nothing to do with the article but only an attempt to promote your owm mistalen ideas. The effective radiation temperature of Venus of 303 Kelvin
      is set by the amount of Soloar radiation absorbed by that planet and its atmosphetre.
      Itclosely mastches what is radiared by that planets atmophere. If the Solar radiation were to decrease the whole temperature profile at any altitude wod also be lower.
      Moreover because of the tremendous
      sensible heat and cyclic heating and cooling
      Venus Like the earth is neve4r in thyermodynamic equilibrium with the Sun, planet, space system. All of the energy frome the sun is eventually converted to entropy by cold space. The amount of entropy that is sometimes allocated to any object like a planet and its atmosphere, serldom changes much as that object spontaniously tries to acheave thermodynac equilibrium, but never quite does.

      • Avatar

        Rosco

        |

        Really – you [b]know[/b] what is happening on Venus ?

        I will nominate you for the Nobel Prize – prepare your acceptance presentation.

        You may need to explain how the space at the orbit of the Earth is cold though !!

        Any area of space where the radiative flux is 1367 W/sq m or so can not really be considered cold – [b]even if it weren’t completely absurd to apply physical properties to something that is considered to have np physical properties by its very definition – vacuum space ![/b]

        • Avatar

          ewiljan

          |

          I can do some of the thermodynamic effects of Venus, from measured data. I have no idea of what goes on on Venus as the pressure and temperature of the CO2 near the critical point.
          This is where even specific heat goes chaotic.

          The 1.4 kW/m^2 all comes fron one direction.
          If you control your emissivity in that direction relative to all other directions
          you can get any temperature between the Sun and cold space. All spacecraft do just that.

      • Avatar

        DougCotton

        |

        Firstly, it’s good to see you know some of the facts about Venus which I have mentioned in my paper. But you don’t know much about physics, as is obvious by your misunderstanding of what entropy is.

        And the thermodynamic equilibrium you mentioned necessitates a spontaneously evolving temperature gradient in any planetary troposphere. And that is why the surface of Venus is about 730K – far hotter than the radiating temperature of 303K. Hence it very obviously is not radiative forcing, back radiation or any “greenhouse effect” which is causing the Venus surface to be that hot and to warm even more by 5 degrees each 4-month-long Venus day. Radiation cannot transfer heat from a colder atmosphere to a hotter surface, either on Venus or on Earth.

        [b]Therein lies the relevance of determining what exactly is the universal mechanism which operates on all planets. [/b]
        You can read about it in [url=http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-COTTON_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures.pdf]my paper[/url].

        • Avatar

          ewiljan

          |

          Please define what you meen by the warmist buzzwords “necessitates a spontaneously evolving temperature gradient in any planetary troposphere.” Does Venus really have a troposphere? Where is it?

          Are you speaking of the well known adiabatic and reversable pressure/temperature covariance caused by the weight of the total atmospheric mass above any altitude but yet above the pressure where such covariance begins. (small mean free path)? This was always neglected by Jimmy Hansen, in his rush to blame everything on CO2.
          What does “adiabatic and reversable” have to do
          with entropy, except that it allows the word
          isentropic, that you misuse as “maximum entropy”,rather than constant entropy.

          I have made no claims of “radiative forcing” or
          “back radiation” as those are also Climate Clown buzzwords. Try to stick with any one
          of the physical sciences. If you use temperature, heat, and entropy those are all classical thermodynamics. No Nuevo Science (post 1980) needed.

          • Avatar

            DougCotton

            |

            (1) You’ll have no trouble reading about temperatures in the tropospheres of Venus or Uranus if you do a bit of internet searching, ewiljan.

            (2) I never speak of any direct relationship between temperature and pressure, because it is an old wives’ tale of climatology, and is not supported by any valid physics. (See [b][url=http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/183-the-old-wives-tales-of-climatology.html]this article[/url][/b] of mine.) [b]High pressure does not maintain high temperatures.[/b] There are higher temperatures in Earth’s thermosphere than those at the surface where pressure is far, far higher.

            (3) I don’t imply that isentropic means anything other than equal entropy. The prefix “iso” always means “equal” and this really is very basic stuff, ewiljan.

            (4) I have very specifically proven in my latest paper why there can be no greenhouse effect or any radiative forcing having any effect on planetary surface temperatures. The Venus surface is not hot (730K) due to any greenhouse effect, because radiation from the colder atmosphere cannot raise the temperature of the Venus surface by 5 degrees each 4-month long Venus day. What does raise it is explained in my paper and nowhere else to the best of my knowledge and very comprehensive research on Venus. Likewise for temperatures at the base of the (theoretical) troposphere of Uranus which you can read about in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Comments are closed