There has been a rash of dubious papers published lately. Many of us suspect that the IPCC is desperate for science that can serve to prop up the ailing global warming science of its upcoming 5th assessment report.
The most recent include papers by Jeremy Shakun et al, who attempt to put CO2 back into the driver’s seat as the climate driver, and by Gerrit Lohmann et al, who hint that dozens of tediously produced temperature reconstructions from proxies may be false because they don’t agree with a simplistic model made by physicists and mathematicians who have very limited or no knowledge of geo-sciences.
German veteran meteorologist Dr. Wolfgang Thüne writes his reaction to the quality of these papers in a commentary posted at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) site here.
Thüne, a leading skeptic of the AGW theory in Germany, is not known for mincing words.
In summary, he attacks today’s climate science, comparing the climate science and modeling community to children in a sandbox playing tip-the-bucket. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and Stefan Rahmstorf proposed the tipping-point back in 2007: Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Since then, climate scientists have spent much time fantasizing about end-of-world tipping scenarios. Thüne writes:
It’s fun playing tip-the-bucket to see what force is needed to reach the balancing point and then tip it over. It’s also a favorite game among children to try to knock each other off balance with sudden shoves.
Experts all over the globe have taken up these child’s games, and are now trying bring the Earth out of balance. But because this cannot be done with the real Earth, they’ve moved the game to the computer where the Earth does what it is commanded. With climate models one can bring about the end of the world, and at the same time have a little fun in an otherwise staid science scene. You can get your kicks out of it, generate lots of research funding, and keep the world in suspense through the media. This is what two science teams in the USA have done, and have published their fun-and-games in ‘Nature’, a publication that has long since stopped being a scientific journal and has become a comic book for climate junkies. Allowed to publish there are only those who play by the rules and profess the guiding theme, which is: ‘Lies and deceit are the integral components of science’!”
No mincing words here. In fact Thüne says of both publications from the science teams of Harvard University in Cambridge and the University of Massachusetts in Amherst:
They so primitively and grossly lie that it can be perceived as an insult to normal common sense. 55 million years ago and then again 18,000 years ago phantoms with an invisible hand threw the Earth off its orbit. The Earth began to teeter so that first Antarctica and then the Arctic warmed. Especially in the ‘South Pole regions humongous amounts of carbon were released’ which then triggered a ‘heat shock’. Also today ‘changes in the Earth’s orbit’ could have similar consequences and precipitate ‘a run-away warming’. Isn’t that just frighteningly awful?”
Climate scientists are really mathematicians and physicists who are much like bored kids in a sandbox armed with computers and reality-detached models. This playground, Thüne writes, is all thanks to governments who shower funding on this “kind of pseudo-science, and then misuse it.”
Politics and science work very closely together in a game that is increasingly about money and power. […] This is indeed a scandal. It is a political scandal. […] It is time to get back to reality, to the weather, and to not waste our intellectual and material energies on proving the chimera that is the “climate catastrophe. We would be much better off focusing on how to protect ourselves from the weather.”
Finally, Thüne cites some examples of “wasted intellectual and material energies”:
– Shakun on our wobbly world’s precession, ocean CO2 fizzing, the last ice age, and all that
– Did Shakun et al. really prove that CO2 preceded late glacial warming? [Part 1]
– Shakun Redux: Master tricksed us! I told you he was tricksy!
– Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper