Fakegate ... get up to speed (and sustenance for the science buffs)

3 Mar 2012

This is really climate change but it is also having a look inside science, hence the heading. Fakegate has dominated the blogosphere for the last fortnight. Very little about it has hit mainstream media but one place to look is http://wattsupwiththat.com (a lot of posts) and for those seeking a shred of amusement, always the best option, go to http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/25/gleick-and-americas-dumbest-criminal/. If you want a belly laugh this is the one to go for but a warning, making funny noises in front of the computer might cause consternation and probing questions by your spouse. On a more hopeful tack go to http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/the-climate-wars/ where the blogger thinks the sceptics have won and the alarmists are on the run. The analogy, I think, is with Bannockburn --- and a Scottish bog. A bit premature I would say.

At http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/02/emphatic-blow-to-co2-warmists-new-stu... ... the title comes from a paper by Caroline Cleroux et al in the AGU Paleoceanographic Journal that purports to show a link between climate and the Sun over the last 10,000 years - but it might just have some flaws as it highlights oscillating ocean currents at 6200BC and 3200-1500BC which is smack on the nob of what in catastrophist terms we see as evidence of past catastrophic events (at 6200 and between 3200 and 1500BC), rather than a quiet or an over-active Sun.

The German sceptics have been jumping with joy of late as a prominent former AGW adherent has suffered a Road to Damascus type conversion and is now an ardent sceptic - and the author of a book, The Cold Sun (see http://kaltesonne.de). Alarmists have been frantic in their efforts to plug the gaping hole in their 'consensus' with personal attacks on the scientist at the fore.

Over at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-theory-is-not-settled-sci... is a guest post by Dr Robert Brown, a physicist at Duke University - which is a must read for science buffs. He uses other science disputes as a yardstick, from Newton to Einstein by way of Maxwell, Planck, Bohr, Kepler and Heisenburg etc. For tasters, I quote 'classical flat-space mechanics was doomed the day Maxwell first wrote out the correct-er equations of electrodynamics for the first time. We suddenly had the most amazing unified field theory ...' and so on. Later, he drops the line, 'physicists therefore usually know better than to believe the very stuff that they peddle ... ' and 'where does this leave you in the Great Climate Debate? Well, it damn well should leave you sceptical ...' and 'the odd thing about the Great Climate Debate is that so far there hasn't really been a debate ...'. He goes through tree rings as thermometers, satellite data, weather station data, thermometers and their history and sea surface temperature recording using buckets suspended on ropes from the side of ships etc and says, 'the 20th century perhaps was a period of global warming - at least the period from 1975 to the present where we have reasonably accurate records, it appears to have warmed a bit - but there were lots of things that made the 20th century unique. Two world wars, the invention and widespread use and testing of nuclear bombs that scattered  radioactive aerosols throughout the stratosphere, unprecedented deforestation and last but not least a stretch where the Sun appeared to be far more active than it has been at any point in the direct observational record ...'. Basically, he says, the models are wrong - they are not conforming to reality.

See also the comment by 'Johnnythelowery' (March 2nd 7.56am) which begins with particle physics in such a lovely way and finally comes to 'string theory' with the remark, 'if a theory can't provide a satisfying explanation of an important pattern in nature it's time to consider a different theory' and then begins a paragraph on neutrinos and that recent experiment - and what it might imply.