Non-Scientific research work doesn’t prove a thing more than the lack of skill and knowledge by the “scientist” trying to use it….
This uneducated behavior is seen over and over during the years. One of our day’s most discussed non-scientific research is dealing with the unproven hypothesis that human behavior is due to CO2 (rising – which isn’t a true assumption in anything but microlevel studies) and that CO2 always effects the Earth’s temperature depending on “human” production of CO2…. and that “all these” computer model studies “show” an existing “Climate-Threat”
Facts – CO2 percentage hasn’t changed the last 300 years – please remember what happens when you do maths with to figures where both is presented in % (percentage) place the “dot” in right place. The fifth figure after “,” has never been changed over the years. Figures presented from measuring om micro-level and/or in models AREN’T Facts for anything but the special situation and that situation¨s assumption in where it’s presented.
When ever “map” and “reality” show different views – Reality rules. BUT and that’s also important to tell directly:
* Consensus is a political term with no connection what so ever to Theories of Science.
* Appealing to fear is a fallacie when used combined with Ad Hoc/Ad Hominem. Ad Hoc/Ad Hominem with or without “computer model”-views NEVER EVER CAN BE USED AS VALID ARGUMENTS. Fallacies in argumentation
Those who don’t know about correct figures for temperatures in the past ought to read the historical and geological liiterature dealing with WWII years when the correct figures in most part of the Northern Hemisphere had temperatures below average and other areas still was waiting for scienceexpeditions to be stationed.
And please remember:
In some areas of the world, such as the inner parts of Arctic and Antarctic there wasn’t any scientist living on same place for more than a month before 1959. Nor was there satellites dealing with reflextion temperatures…
One example of many:.
Compare the graph 1880-2006 Temperature Time Series, South Africa Global Historical Climate Network with curve traditionally used by IPCC to show a completely different view (higher during later years) in other words their favorite a cropped statistical curve they actually show how they reach that by avoiding figures from 1880-1910 in their curve it’s to be seen in the Sourthern Africa links – but it’s even worse. They have cropped some regional readings so only the last 60 years can be seen and say they have cropped to make changes shown….. All in all they appinsys.com/global warming have ‘fixed’ (my words) over 25 different definitions of periods and four different statistic average definitions….. traditional “mean value” but with different time of day when measuring is made, weighted aritmetic average, geometrical average as well harmonius average…..
Little do they know that we exist, we who are educated in Math Statistic and on same time educated systemprogrammer(-s)….
Might be the answer for question WHY, that they forgotten we still are alive and sound? Over and over they have done the same forging, for it’s forgery when a “scientist” avoids presenting all information only presenting information/readings matching his/her thesis. This occurs around the world – apart from that. some of the so called experts also ‘changed’ (corrected…) actual figurs for places up to 500 miles away…
The Alarmists had a link up in the CO2science.org which broke when they realised how they showed their incapacity and stupid ways. That broke. But now it’s gone…..
Co2science page where it’s written:
“The first set contains the actual Spatially averaged temperature anomalies
*From 1880 to 2006. The second set, Which follows the first set, contains
*The temperature anomalies estimated by the regression from 1880 to 2006.” If you look in Wikipedia, good enough for this short blog article, for the science stations in Arctic and Antarctic you will find that hardly anyone was in place and active before 1956 and none in the inner areas close to the poles. But that´s even worse in real life. Some of the places where stations is up now wasn’t there as late as 15 years ago and there never was a good satelitreading that is accurate of measuring 3 meters above ground which in the old days where one of the places readings were made. Satelit only can measure re-radiation values not where above ground temperature show that and that figures – not correct values at all!
The problem is that both graphs refered above, aren’t drawn from true/real facts. They are completely fiction figures. For how could anyone sit on high horses trying to pretend that we possibly could calculate the earth’s average temperature during the late 1800s and first half of the 1900s, or earlier than that, before any scientists and science expeditions been stationed in many areas? History from three essential areas prove graphs wrong:
* The North Pole.
Peary and Henson reached according to their own data (!) North Pole 1909;
Nobile, Amundsen and Ellsworth considered to have flown over the North Pole 1926 (Zeppelin) and Sir Wally Herbert was leading the first scientific expedition up the North Pole in 1969 (!!!!) .
That’s why they use Ice-Cores someone probably say….. Said it before and say it again: People are allowed to be ignorant and/or stupid. Never good showing off as such!
Don’t forget that ice-cores drilled down from surface in Arctic never ever show the situation on same spot, longitude and latitude, ten years ago let alone 50 or more.
The ice in Arctic is never still but moves around, due to centrifugal force as well as the water cycle, as all forms of water do, including the glaciers and icesheets. All form of water including ice moves to reach the lowest possible level, to sea level. For information re. Arctic ice movements please look at with
I slutten av september 1893 frøs Fram fast i isen ved De nysibirske øyeneFram, Expeditioner, polarhistorie.no
Look at map. Red marking-line show Nansen’s Fram movements after being frozen into ice having to follow Polar Ice movements.
There you will find Fram’s movements during the time the ship was frozen in the ice up to the time it finally reached open water… Same goes for every single surface where you might drill for ice-cores. The ice under never been in same place over the decades, centuries and so on. An other factor most person’s forget is
It’s not possible to drill ice cores in Arctic showing the weather situation for one and the same place, and even if this had been the case no cores could in have given correct information of the wind-, solar-and temperature erosion for any given year let alone for a serie of years.
* South Pole.
Amundsen reached the South Pole in December 1911.
The first scientific expedition was the Commonwealth Transantarctic Expedition Arctic 1958
Today there are a number of research stations but only a few are placed in locations in western and eastern Antarctic. The two stations inlands used by the so called Climate-experts, one of which btw wasn’t operating in full scale until January this year (2009) can’t give enough information for an area of 20,327,000 square kilometers !!!!
That people from the ‘old’ and ‘new’ world began to migrating to Australia from the 1770s onwards doesn’t mean that every place in the inland of Australia had had scientific expeditions stationed measuring temperatures, climate, etc. before World War II….
There are lot’s of Facts (instead of assumptions and/or fictions) most of the so called scholars should have known had they learnt what their teachers of history, geography, physic science and chemistry tought them,
but for this blog article above facts are sufficient to prove them wrong. Actual measured data are lacking for a large number of places on earth before 1950/60-talet.
Any true scientist knows the need for data used to be correct/real measured data (and/or being presentes in full details why they aren’t and how the figures used been obtained). None of this so far been published from the so-called Climate researchers. What’s worse is that the temperatures before 1992 been corrected (!) as shown many times in Watts up with that. One example
Watts up with that 9th september 2009 Arctic temperatures what hockey-stick.
Changes been made refering to “expected change” in temperatures. That’s what has happened to the average temperature figures for Stockholm, Sweden. Someone has been correcting correct figures for Stockholm’s temperatures in the past from measured temperature figures of Uppsala (!). As told in Watts up with that many times this happens all the time. Sometimes values are corrected using figures from stations 1000 km from the place fictive (sorry ‘calculated’) figures from the past or present are used as facts to be put into a graph or two…
I wrote about it in my blog in May: Miljöhot konstruerade fakta, Norah4you 19 maj 2009 Eng. Environmental constructed facts except in translation:
“Frightening 1984-model changes used, for example, Stockholm’s weather history been presented in the climate threat debate aren’t true figures. All to promote the unproven hypothesis, well any given hypothesis is unproven until proven true. Up to that point it’s an hypothesis after that point it’s a fact. But no true scientist knowing what Methods of Science and Science Theory stands for has proven that CO2 changes are due to human activities. Instead this assumption has been used as if it were proven true and also to prove the premisses needed for same assumption to be proven true. In other words circle proof been used to prove that the average temperature on Earth is rising in Sweden as well as elsewhere. Read and take in the low quality for the input values that underpin the use of the unproven hypothesis :
“Our reconstruction of winter and vårtemperaturens variations over half a millennium, is shown in Figure 1. Measurements for 1860 are corrected for the artificial heating caused by the City of Stockholm’s growth, so that the curve shows the more natural change. “Reference and Research Progress No. 5, 2008, 500 years of weather.” If that’s not a smoking gun, what is?
Science demands repeatability and ability to analyze, refute, if possible, any given hypotheses put forward.
A hypothesis is not evidence and can not be used as evidence either for evidence of factors inside the study based on the assumption nor any other hypothesis. That circle is called evidence and proof circle proves nothing. Only when a hypothesis is proven, the known facts of which are no longer hypothesis. It is completely irrelevant if 98% or 50% of all scientists in a substance reaches a consensus. A consensus reached is not evidence for a hypothesis being true.
PLEASE NOTE that none of the above changes the following two important factors:
Our Earth’s resources are limited and the environment, flora and fauna locally and globally will not take chemical or other products and spills from humans for ever. Clean water is a large and essential issue all over our globe, as well as clean air is essential in urban areas as well as in non-habited areas. We all need clean water to drink and clean air to breathe.