May 6, 2011

The Great Hypotheses Scam Continued

It is important to recognize that projections of climate change in specific areas are not forecasts comparable to tomorrow’s weather forecast. Rather, they are hypothetical examples of how the climate might change and usually contain a range of possibilities as opposed to one specific high likelihood outcome. (EPA)
Wherein: Climate models which are nothing more than hypothesis are used to generate studies of future events, which are unmeasurable and unverifiable. Also known as CYBER WAG (Computer generated Wild Ass Guesses)


This scam virus originates in one of America's great institutions, Johns Hopkins. In addition to the normal despicable practice of using unproven, unverifiable and unmeasurable projections of future climate, generated only in the depths of computer models, these scientists project their finding so far into the future as to be totally meaningless. They are projecting future heat wave deaths in Chicago.
For the analysis, Peng and his colleagues developed three climate change scenarios for 2081 to 2100. The scenarios were based on estimates from seven global climate change models and from mortality and air pollution data for the city of Chicago from 1987 to 2005. The data were limited to the warm season from May to October of each year.
Once again we see that scientist are feeding from the troff of climate science's fantasy world of future scenarios which are neither evidence upon which scientific findings can be determined or for that matter a valid scientific methodology. From the report:
In the second stage of our approach, we obtained estimates of future heat waves from seven different climate model simulations of temperature from the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI 2009) as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) (Meehl et al. 2007a). 

Even if the models which the projection are based upon were correct, do we believe that technological and medical advances would not keep up with these dire predictions? That despite centuries of historical precedents of mankind's ability to adapt and conquer environmental and medical challenges we will be unable to find solutions to a hypothesized warming?  At the turn of the Twentieth Century what would projections for typhoid deaths have been for the last two decades of the century? Or for the scourge of Polio? To make such projections is meaningless, even more so when they are based on the speculative hypotheses of climate models. It is not as if these researchers do not recognize how totally speculative this little exercise is:
Our results assume that the baseline rate of mortality on non–heat wave days is the same in the future as it is for the present day.
The estimates also assume that there is no adaptation to extreme heat, so that the mortality risk from heat waves is constant over time. 
In other words if everything remains as it is today and if the models are correct in their assumptions of future warming, then these projections could happen. But even they know they are just swimming against the tide of reality:
For example, the presence of central air conditioning in Chicago housing units has risen steadily for 1995–2003 from 47% of all housing units to 60% (U.S. Census Bureau 2004). In our analysis, we do not adjust for air conditioning use, early warning systems, and other factors that could lower the mortality impact of heat waves under a changing climate. Further, additional climate change scenarios with more or less stringent control of greenhouse gases could be explored, as well as more definitions of heat waves. In the next few years, new scenarios at higher resolution from both global climate models and regional climate models will become available and are expected to represent more accurately local climate change effects (such as blocking effects) that are relevant for extreme heat statistics.
After all this assumptions and speculations what are we left with?
Applying the present-day heat wave risk for Chicago to the estimates of heat waves under future conditions, we estimated an annual excess mortality attributable to heat waves ranging between 166 to 2,217 deaths per year
Excuse me?  That seems to be quite a range doesn't it? Well they explain why and the reason ought to stop every such pathetic perversion of science from using climate models to conduct science:
Projections of future heat wave mortality varied considerably across the climate models and across SRES within a climate model.
So here we have alleged scientist spending valuable research time not to mention monies which could have been used towards actual scientific inquiries wasting both time and monies to hypothesize upon a hypotheses what the potential deaths will be in one city in the distant future. It is not even as if this information, if anyone was foolish enough to use it, can be used for some sort of policy decisions being far too speculative and distant in the future to have any practical application.

If the output of the climate models generate such a wide range of hypothetical outcomes what possible benefit are they? Only one. To perpetuate the scam, to generate press releases "Climate Change Analysis Predicts Increased Fatalities from Heat Waves" and fear mongering media accounts "Extreme weather due to climate change deadly" in order to insure continued funding to the climate change academic complex.

It is deceptive, it is corrupt, it is not scientific and the fact that so called moderate scientist do not speak out against it is a stain upon their profession, if it can still be called that. But these scientist explain why .
Our approach could be easily modified with respect to various inputs and assumptions about the future to obtain predictions from a wide range of climate-change scenarios
Those various "inputs and assumptions... to obtain predictions from a wide range of climate-change scenarios " is the goose which is laying the golden egg for scientist  throughout the scientific community and they know it. This is why they close their collective eyes to the greatest scientific scam in history.

No comments:

Post a Comment