The man-made global warming priests went to a conference, COP 10, in Buenos Aires recently, explaining the sudden deluge of pro-global warming scare stories in the media. All rather contrived for those of us of a conspiratorial bent. But as we are continually reminded by the global warmers, there is no conspiracy, but there is consensus.
It is therefore possible to assume that as a camel is a horse designed by consensus, then climate science suffers from similar design aberrations. But as the author Michael Crichton has emphasised, science is not consensus.
This raises the now infamous statement of the IPCC - that the climate system is a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the prediction of future climate states is impossible.
The IPCC then states :"Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential".
Model solutions of what? Models of something which cannot be modelled in the first place? We cannot model chaotic systems by definition. We cannot even model small scale turbulence, so what is the basis for the arrogance behind the IPCC statement that it's scientists can? They can't, except that the bureaucrats running the IPCC agenda don't want to confuse you with these awkward facts. Instead we will blind you with statistics.
So they propose an ensemble of model solutions. Now these model solutions are essentially linear models, since we have a problem in defining non-linear ones, and by coming up with a great number of different linear models, we can then statistically estimate future climate states. This is done by some magical statistical gobbledygook clothed in arcane scientific jargon, where linear models are converted to non linear ones, and the IPCC hopes to convince by authority alone, that its climate modelling is scientifically valid. It isn't. Linear models cannot give rise to non-linear results. Talk about creating a silk purse from a sow's ear.
Our meteorology departments cannot, with the massive computing power and scientific knowledge, forecast the weather in one week's time. They certainly cannot in 50 years time. Let's get the short term predictions right first before wasting money on predicting the weather 50 years hence because there is a good chance that our understanding of the past climate is seriously incorrect. If our understanding of past climates states is flawed, then any prediction of future climate states from those flawed assumptions, will be equally flawed.
Which really means we cannot predict future climate states but we can predict statistically the future climate states by creating many smaller models of climate systems we cannot model, and from reading chicken entrails we can predict future climate states by blinding you with statistics. Believe in us, we are the UN, the most despotic and corrupt, taxpayer funded junket on the planet.
In the past we have had to be put up with prophesies of doom and gloom of the second coming. This has metamorphosed into the doom and gloom of the coming climatic disaster. Both prophesies are based on fallacies, but as the Nazi Propoganda chief Joseph Goebbels well knew, repeat a lie often enough, it will eventually be accepted as fact.
A letter writer Richard S. Woodgate wrote in the Quadrant Magazine, edited by Henry's contributor Padriac McGuinness, about abnormal weather, past and future and in particular referred to Gavin Menzie's book, 1421: The year China Discovered the World, published in 2003, with a second edition in 2004. Mention was made of a shift in the earth's axis which which appeared to have been associated with a change in the weather.
This is not the first time that shifts of the earth's axis were noted in the historical past, the most infamous being the biblical Joshua Ben Nunn event who commanded the sun stand still by pounding his staff on the ground. Of course no man can do that, (but advocates of anthropogenic global warming assert that while man cannot stop the sun, he surely can change the weather, though it then strikes me that as the devout believe Joshua did stop the sun, then changing the climate would seem a trivial exercise for the devout, whether divine or secular - ask Sir David King - thereby confirming Michael Crichton's observation that anthropogenic global warming is a religious belief rather than scientific fact).
Then there are other more ancient accounts in Egyptian history where the rising and setting suns exchanged places. Where once the sun used to rise, it now sets, and that this happened more than once. So they said. Modern science, limiting its understanding to Newtonian mechanics, finds these ancient accounts extremely problematical, if nigh well impossible but as we all know too well, science also has a habit of changing when new facts are discovered. So while the past might remain inexplicable using existing theories, it is quite likely that new facts will enable us to explain the past in a more sensible manner than by simply dismissing it as impossible today. That is science, of course, which always changes when new facts are discovered. Religion never changes, even when confronted with overwhelming contradictory fact.
But I am not going to dwell on this because it occurred to me that if the earth did change its axis of spin, or careened, slightly, or significantly in the past, then that would have had the interesting effect of moving regions which were once in the tropics, perhaps into more temperate zones, and those in the temperate, perhaps into the arctic zones. We can change the climate of a place simply by moving it about in space?
This would result in the illusion that a particular region suffered a severe climate change, which in one sense is true, but this was only because that region was moved to a different latitude by a change in the earth's attitude around its axis of spin. The earth's overall thermal balance would not have changed, but only appeared to have changed from a misinterpretation of the evidence.
This then suggests that during the Medieval warming period Greenland was closer to the equator, and afterwards was moved further north to colder latitudes as the result of some cosmic interaction. That also means that Europe moved to colder climates. Is there any evidence for that? Seems so, if the Korean Choson Annals are anything to go by, as well as the necessity to change the Gregorian calendar, at the time. Of course much research needs to be done in this area, but if no one accepts this, then funding of course will not be allocated. Same old story of facts being quietly ignored by denying funding.
So past climate changes may not have been due to the earth cooling down to an ice age, but that overall thermal balance of the earth remained the same, and the illusion of climate change produced by infrequent careening around its axis, removing areas from the tropics to the arctic or polar regions, as hinted at by many ancients myths and legends of many older civilisations. True? Perhaps, and obviously a lot of research needs to be done to clarify our understanding of the past.
Climate science is far more complex than most of use realise, especially if we are using politically correct histories. The debate has only started.
A careening earth caused by close encounters of the cosmic kind, in an electrically dynamic plasma universe would offer some solutions to the interesting questions made in Richard Woodgate's letter in Quadrant Magazine.
Genital warming and infertility link found in notebook users:Study
Laptops should be used as desktops if men want to protect their
reproductive health, according to a new study published Thursday and the
link to this is here. An you thought there was only global warming to worry about!
As usual the same deluge of doomsday announcements by Anthropogenic global warmers - here are some of the latest:
UK CHIEF DOOMSTER WARNS GLOBAL CLIMATE CATASTROPHE IS IMMINENT
The Scotsman, 8 December 2004
By Andrew Woodcock, PA Political Correspondent writes here
GREENS SHOCKED AS 'PLANET EARTH'S NOVELIST OF DOOM' TURNS SCEPTIC
Slate, 8 December 2004
Michael Crichton: Planet Earth's novelist of doom.
By Bryan Curtis
Who dinosaured Michael Crichton? Was it a comet or just the responsibility of being America's prophet of doom? Rest here.
SHOCK, HORROR: GLOBAL WARMING 'HELPS CORAL REEFS GROW'
The Scotsman, 8 December 2004
CORAL reefs could be growing 35 per cent faster by the next century
because of global warming, it was claimed yesterday.
NATURE: ANOTHER GAFFE, ANOTHER DENT IN ITS REPUTATION
World Climate Alert, 9 December 2004
We'll grant the editorial staff at Nature this: They never are shy about printing really loosey-goosey stuff whenever the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) needs a boost or on the eve of another glitzy UN confab to discuss global climate change. Who can forget Nature's 1996 gaffe timed in conjunction with the meeting in Geneva, Switzerland that gave rise to the Kyoto Protocol? Nature
published a paper by various federal climatologists intended to demonstrate how upper-air data from 1963 through 1987 was in synch with gloom-and-doom generated by various climate models.
Rest of article here
Your lowly scribe is off to the field in West Australia till 20th December, so SMERSH will be delayed a little - and it is of course the festive season.