Blogs busting open AGW 'science' frauds
In a June 18, 2011 edition of Canada's National Post, Rex Murphy takes a swipe at the incestuous nature of the climate "science" community.
Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate "science" is a closet-game, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a "climate-assessment oligarchy."
Murphy's indictment references a "perfect propaganda circle' in which the climate-alarmist faithful in government, academia and the media identify, appoint, empanel and uncritically review each insider's declarations on global climate change.
Climate change sympathizers have hijacked the peer review process and used it irresponsibly to strengthen indefensible cases. In just one recent egregious example, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) accepted a report from a "joint publication of Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC)" which claimed that "close to 80% of the world's energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies." The Greenpeace contributor to the report "peer-reviewed" his own piece, a practice apparently acceptable to the IPCC.
Got that? In the climate-change industry, interested parties which stand to gain financially from preferred policies are allowed to write the justifications, do the peer-reviews and then write the policies. Murphy believes that, given other inaccurate predictions made by the UN group, these circumstances can't be written off to mere sloppiness on the part of the IPCC.
Murphy isn't the only one to suspect an AGW conspiracy. Others have made open accusations of fraud. In June, Dr. Bill Gray Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, accused the global warming crowd of compromising the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Gray claims that a "small organized group of AGW sympathizers has...hijacked our society." According to Gray, "...AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think."
Many of us AMS members believe that the modest global warming we have observed is of natural origin and due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in the globe's deep ocean circulation resulting from salinity variations. These changes are not associated with CO2 increases. Most of the GCM modelers have little experience in practical meteorology. They do not realize that the strongly chaotic nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system does not allow for skillful initial value numerical climate prediction.
Gray has concluded that blogs are the only untainted source for facts on the AGW debate:
To understand what is really occurring with regards to the AGW question one must now bypass the AMS, the mainstream media, and the mainline scientific journals. They have mostly been preconditioned to accept the AGW hypothesis and, in general, frown on anyone not agreeing that AGW is, next to nuclear war, our society's most serious long range problem.
To obtain any kind of a balanced back-and-forth discussion on AGW one has to consult the many web blogs that are both advocates and skeptics of AGW. These blogs are the only source for real open debate on the validity of the AGW hypothesis. Here is where the real science of the AGW question is taking place. Over the last few years the weight of evidence, as presented in these many blog discussions, is beginning to swing against the AGW hypothesis. As the globe fails to warm as the GCMs have predicted the American public is gradually losing its belief in the prior claims of Gore, Hansen, and the other many AGW advocates.
Read the rest.