The global warming self perpetuating money machine

The scientific community uses unverifiable model projections of global warming to gorge itself on taxpayer money.

When discussing global warming it is important to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.  Wikipedia defines the difference this way:

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.

The problem with the greenhouse theory which is actually the "enhanced" greenhouse theory is that it has never truly been tested.  The alleged increase of global temperatures over the past century certainly cannot be proven to be "unprecedented" since in the millions of years that the  Earth has actually had a climate, it has only in been in the past couple of centuries that man has had the ability to measure temperatures and far less time than that to measure them globally.

The scientists who promote the global warming "theory" over the past two decades have sought to prove that the increase in temperatures is unprecedented so that they can tie it to man's use of fossil fuels. They have done this most notoriously with the controversial and discredited "hockey stick" graph. Even if it could be proven that Mann's hockey stick graph were an accurate representation of temperatures, which it is not, the graph itself only goes back a thousand years and  only represents the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures. In other words the infamous graph is a millennium short of the reaching the time of Christ, the rise and heyday of the Roman Empire and all the many centuries before and then of course it does leave out half of planet Earth completely.

Unable to prove their theory using the past and knowing that  their shtick of blaming every single variation in the Earth's weather from snow storms to droughts on climate change  is both unscientific and wearing thin to an ever more skeptical public, the climate change cult uses something which can not be proven in order to sell their "theory" climate model projections of the future. It makes sense in an underhanded way, if you can not prove your theory with the past, or with the present you boldly go where no one can prove you wrong, the future.

Not only does the use of climate model "projections" of the future have the advantage of  being unverifiable, they are a gold mine to the scientific community. To show how truly unscientific this method is let's continue with the definition of a hypothesis from Wikipedia:

For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Can you test the projections of a climate model?  Of course you can, you simply wait to see if the projections come true.  The scientific community overcomes this basic of all scientific principles with the argument that "the projections of the models are so dire that we cannot wait for them to be proven right." This is an activist and not a scientific argument, it is also circular logic at its best. "Our models prove that we cannot wait for our models to be proven correct." How unscientific is this practice? From An Introduction to the Scientific Method:

The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests.
Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.

The accuracy of earlier model projections and how the climate change cult "tweaks" their models to get the results they want are  matters for another day but let's just say that two decades of model projections tweaked or not are proving to be less than "robust" as the scientists like to say.

Brian Prat, a Professor Sedimentology, Paleontology-Geology at the University of Saskatchewan sums up the little game being played on the world’s taxpayers this way:

"There has grown a whole industry of taxpayer-funded climate modelers whose equations can’t reproduce last week’s weather let alone past climate change at all, but whose crystal balls universally forecast impending disaster (and of course the urgent need for more research money)."

Why is the scientific community so willing to ignore well established scientific standards and principles when it comes to global warming? In part it is that many scientists are activist who seek to promote agendas and not science but as always it is a good idea to "follow the money" and climate modelers are not the only ones feeding from the tax payer fed trough.

If you have a series of "scenarios" based on model projections of future climate which are accepted as being "scientific" those projections themselves become a gravy train for other scientists to use for their own scientific hypothesis game, a game which is paid for by the world's taxpayers. A scientist can take the projections of future warming which cannot be verified and apply for grants to do studies based on those unproven "scenarios."  The practice is so common now that very few in the scientific community even raise an eyebrow less alone raise the alarm at this very unscientific practice.

To review, global warming is "proven" by the computer model projections of future climate which  of course cannot be verified. These unverified findings are then used by other scientists to conduct studies which reach other unverifiable conclusions.  On  some occasions these second studies are used for even more studies to reach even more unverifiable conclusions.  Unverifiable hypothesis (climate model projections)  become the foundation for more and more unverifiable studies and upon mountains of such studies the global warming scam is built and billions upon billions are spent not the least of which are on the studies themselves.

There have been literally thousands upon thousands of such unscientific studies done during the "climate change era."  Here is just a recent example from a news story at NBC News about "possible" future hurricane intensity. One way to quickly identify the lack of scientific seriousness behind a story is the use of the word "could" or "may" as in the opening paragraph of this story.

Wind-whipped mayhem may ratchet up as the global climate adjusts to ever increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to a new study.

Then of course the qualifiers which explain exactly how uncertain the findings really are and in this case they actually use the word caveats.

There are caveats, however. Just because the winds associated with the waves will become more intense in a warming world does not necessarily mean that hurricanes will be stronger or more frequent in the future.

Well then why do the study? But the statement why the entire global warming charade has no real scientific integrity, forget the caveats for a moment, is the key phrase here "in a warming world."  Their entire study is based on the premise that there will be a warming world but their warming world is nothing more than a computer game. They can no more "prove" that the future will be warmer than I can prove my Dolphins will win the Super Bowl in 2050. It is a hypothesis, an unverifiable hypothesis at that. This "scientific" study  is based upon an unscientific premise which makes this study unscientific as well.

The scientists based their study on 17 model simulations of Earth's climate with carbon dioxide concentrations about double what they are today, which is the current trajectory for the end of this century if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked.

Under this scenario, they found....

Model simulations are not facts and scenarios are not real. The modelers can make the future be anything they want it to be.  Even if they are honest in their programming the science and the variables which go into their calculations are more complex than even the human brain.  For the climate community and their well-funded enablers throughout the scientific world, the models are really all that they have.  Most important of all  though the model projections are the goose that keeps laying the golden egg. The model projections are what the scientific community uses to generate fear and funding to keep their self-perpetuating money machine pumping out cash. This is why the scientific community fails to follow basic scientific principles, to follow them would be to shut off the cash flow.

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)


**************************************************

It is not as if the scientific community, especially the climate science community does not know that the qualifier on future "climate change" as adequately described in the short caption (from the EPA) I have posted under the picture above is true. The scientific community is well aware of the fact that all these doomsday predictions of future climate induced disasters are solely based upon "hypothetical examples of how climate might change" all derived from climate models that have shown themselves to be both less than robust in actually predicting future climate but also the product of assumptions derived from unproven science.

With all of that they continue to spew out studies, reports, press releases and even major policy recommendations as if these hypothetical might's are instead irrefutable fact. Note in the statement from the EPA that they state that projections in "specific areas"  can not be trusted even to the accuracy of local weather forecast which are made at most a week or so in advance let alone years or decades into the future. Yet it is precisely "specific areas" which are most often used to warn of disaster scenarios which are decades in the future .

If I were to say that I predict that a category 5 hurricane is going to strike south Florida in early August and local officials ought to prepare by shutting down hotels and evacuating millions of people in late July would anyone take me seriously ?  Would NOAA's hurricane center even think to make such a projection even in mid July and even if conditions were very favorable for development of a hurricane in early August? Of course not and they would rightly loose all credibility if they made such forecast. Yet we are constantly inundated with forecast for climate conditions in specific areas not months in advance not even years in advance but rather decades away.

These totally hypothetical projections of a future world are not only presented as if they were scientifically verified but are also used to promote policies which have had and will have real life consequences for real people now and into the future. To show how unreliable these forecast are I need only point to two projections highly publicized by climate scientist from two different  "state of the science" organizations almost a decade apart.

The first is a well known and often mocked forecast of the future by a well respected climate scientist made in March 2000.

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event" 

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.... 

....David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold. 

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

Not a decade later this seemingly "written in stone" forecast of the future world made by eminent scientist working for a most respected of climate science institutions is totally reversed by forecast made by eminent scientist working for another most respected science institution in June of 2010.

We can expect more cold and snowy winters in Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America.

"Cold and snowy winters will be the rule, rather than the exception," says Dr James Overland of the NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in the United States. Dr Overland is at the International Polar Year Oslo Science Conference (IPY-OSC) to chair a session on polar climate feedbacks, amplification and teleconnections, including impacts on mid-latitudes....

Obviously both forecast of future climates for Europe can not be correct, yet policy recommendations were made and in some cases instituted as the result of the earlier of the two scenarios causing waste and hardship for very real people in the very real world.

The scientist, in both cases, made their forecast based on their interpretation of what climate modelling was telling them. The same modelling which as we repeatedly point out and as the EPA says are no more than  "hypothetical examples of how climate might change"

 Recently we have another example of this deceptive practice of promoting as certainty that which is at best a guess far less accurate than a long range weather forecast. This example of scientific and institutional malpractice comes from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in a report with policy reccomendations titled Climate Change, Water, and Food Security .

The report not only makes forecast and recommendations based upon "hypothetical examples of how climate might change" it does so by targeting "specific areas" and determining for the sake of these recommendations what conditions will be in these areas decades in the future.

They make these recommendations while simultaneously undercutting the scientific foundation for those policy recommendation in the end leaving only a faith based justification for major policy changes. From the report itself:

However, the long-term climatic risk to agricultural assets and agricultural production that can be linked to water cannot be known with any certainty. While temperature and pressure variables can be projected by global circulation models with a high degree of ‘convergence’, the same cannot be said of water vapour in the atmosphere. The levels of risk associated with rainfall and runoff events can only be determined with provisional levels of precision. These may not be sufficient to define specific approaches or levels of investment (e.g. the costs of raising the free-board on an hydraulic structure) in many locations.

provisional 
.

1.

providing  or serving for the time being only; existing only until permanently or properly replaced; temporary: a provisional government.

2.

accepted or adopted tentatively; conditional; probationary.

So all the conclusions and recommendations which follow are based upon provisional data subject to change. The same could be said for everything that comes from climate modelling. Would you invest substantial sums of your money in a company if the accountants for that the company told you that the data for their projections for future profits were merely provisional and subject to change? Especially if the accountants previous projections had been both suspect and unreliable? Of course you would not, yet the world's governments are constantly making exactly those decisions based on that type of scientific accounting.

This report is filled with caveats which while providing cover for the authors, totally undermines the conclusions and the recommendations they make.  An example:

The prediction of impacts relies heavily on simulation modelling with global climate models (GCMs) that have been calibrated as closely as possible to historical climate data. Modelling scenarios have been standardized from a set defined by the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) to allow more consistent comparison of predicted impacts. The predictive ability of climate models is currently much better for temperature than for rainfall . Indeed, models tend to solve primarily on temperature and pressure. The spatial and temporal patterns of rainfall are affected by land atmosphere interactions that cannot be accomodated in the existing algorithms, and the models’spatial resolution is anyway too coarse to capture many topographic effects on climate patterns. The predictions for one scenario of economic development vary considerably from model to model, and contradictory predictions, such as increased or decreased precipitation, can result for specific parts of the world. 

Despite the fact that the report is primarily focused on water resources, they make clear the tool they are using to forecast (climate models) do not do a good job at the exact thing they are telling us is going to be a problem. In fact the climate models are so bad at projections on this issue that they are prone to  "contradictory predictions, such as increased or decreased precipitation, can result for specific parts of the world". The idea that you would use admittedly unreliable tools on which to base policy does not deter them from almost immediately jumping to definitive and authoritative conclusions:

Climate change will significantly impact agriculture by increasing water demand, limiting crop productivity and by reducing water availability in areas where irrigation is most needed or has comparative advantage. 

Excuse me? After all those caveats about the inability of climate modes to adequately represent precipitation they then make a definitive statement  such as climate change will have the affect of
"reducing water availability in areas where irrigation is most needed" 

To show how contradictory and silly this report is, a few paragraphs later they again restate how unreliable the models are in forecasting the very thing they are forecasting

Since the scale of GCM simulation precludes the analysis of specific impacts at river basin and even national scales, there is increasing effort to downscale modelling in order to assess agricultural and hydrological consequences in a specific location. 

So if they admit that they can not simulate the impact at river basin or even national scales how then have they determined that there will be reduced water availability in areas where irrigation is most needed ? To be specific, if they are saying that current climate modelling is not able to forecast future snowfall in the Sierras how can they then say that the Central Valley of California will suffer severe droughts decades down the road as the result of AGW? They can't either in California or anywhere else in the world, yet that is precisely what this report claims to do.

A small example of the specificity this report gets into while simultaneously recognizing that they are really presenting nothing more than crystal ball gazing science.

In Africa, by 2020, between 75 and 250 million people will be exposed to increased
water stress and in some countries, yields from rainfed agriculture could be reduced by 50 percent.

• Significant reductions in runoff are forecast, with a 10 percent reduction in
rainfall in the higher precipitation areas, translating into a 17 percent reduction in runoff. This compares with severe falls (30–50 percent) in the medium (500–600 mm) rainfall zones (de Wit and Stankiewicz, 2006).  

• However, there remains a high level of inconsistency between models across different macro-regions – western, eastern, and southern Africa in particular (SEI, 2008). There is urgent need for detailed predictive modelling across these extensive regions.

 In Asia, by the 2050s, freshwater availability in Central, South, East, and Southeast
Asia, particularly in large river basins, will decrease. The heavily populated mega
deltas in the South, East and Southeast will be at risk due to increased flooding
from the sea and rivers.

Note the dire predictions in very specific regions at very specific time scales something they repeatedly tell us they are incapable of doing. Note too the desperate cry for future funding for more predictive modelling because everything they are saying is is based on "a high level of inconsistency between models". In other words, "Our models give us a wide variety of possibilities to choose from, so we will present the most dire in order to make a plea for more money to study the problem" Cha Ching.

The entire report is filled with nonsensical contradictions and obviously biased conclusions not supported scientifically or by common sense. And it must never be forgotten that the entire exercise is based upon a hypothesis created by climate models that predict dangerous global warming to begin  with. From that unproven, intellectually dishonest poisoned fruit supposition do all these other deceptions sprout.

There are some good policy recommendations in the report but they are not "climate change" dependent, they would be worthwhile recommendations and goals regardless. But that is not the true purpose of this report as the report itself plainly states.

Since climate change impacts may be difficult to internalize in some countries, given the host of other pressures on water resources and agriculture, there is need for a broad level of advocacy. 

Advocacy would lead on the integration of climate science with agricultural water management and include a strong focus on the preservation and enhancement of natural ecosystems, which are tightly bound to the development and management of irrigated agriculture. This will see further development of an integrated perspective at river basin level, and also across a spectrum of irrigated and rainfed agriculture.

The purpose of this report as is so much of the AGW advocacy is to infect all aspects of society with their leftist dogma in this case agriculture. Although the science and modelling upon which all of this is based can not "simulate the impact at river basin or even national scale" this does not mean that the ideology behind it can't and that rather than science is what is behind this report.

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)


**************************************************

I came across this rather frightening article in Africa Business Daily with the ominous title and opening:

Climate change to eat into Kenya’s tea production

Climate change will drastically reduce Kenya’s tea production over the next 40 years with suitable lands being pushed further up the altitude, denting earnings from one of the country’s top hard currency sources.

Scientists from the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) said during a global conference that land under tea will reduce by 42 per cent by 2050, creating excess capacity in tea factories dependent on the catchments.

This is the type of totally irresponsible assertions that could and will have very real  implications on peoples lives. In making these claims at this conference the scientist relied upon a study called  Future Climate Scenarios for Kenya’s Tea Growing Areas by Dr Peter Laderach, Dr Audberto Quiroga, Dr Jason Gordon, and Dr Anton Eitzinger. As is common practice in the scientific community these scientist are basing their findings and recommendations almost exclusivly on the output of hypothetical global climate models. Some excerpts from the study:

Methodology C • Current climate from historical climate generationGlobal circulation models as future climate Suitability prediction...

..Future climate C• Global circulation models (GCM)Calibrated in the past (using time-series)and projected to the future >> UNCERTAINTY Emission scenarios = Political uncertainty Global Circulation Models = Scientific uncertainty• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/)Fourth Assessment Report, based on the results of 21 global climate models(GCMs)...

...Future climate: Downscaling of GCM C• Delta (Hay et al. 2007) – Base climate: WORLDCLIM, Used in most studies of CC. – Take original GCM surfaces (time series) – Calculate averages for baseline & specific periods – Calculate anomalies – Interpolate anomalies – Add anomalies to WORLDCLIM

They give a list of all the GCM's they used to reach findings such as:

the annual rainfall increases from 1658 millimeters to 1732 millimeters in 2050• Temperatures increase and the average increase is 2.3 ºC passing through an increment of 1.0 ºC in 2020• The maximum temperature of the year increases from 26.6°C to 29°C in 2050• The minimum temperature of the year increases from 8.9°C to 11.1°C in 2050...

or details of our future world such as:

In 2020 the municipalities Meru and Nithi will have larger increase in precipitation • In 2050 Kisii and Nyamira will have the largest increase in precipitation....

...Regional changes in the mean annual temperature D • The increase by 2020 is between 0.7 and 0.9 ºC • The increase by 2050 is between 2.1 and 2.2 ºC The mean annual temperature will increase progressively

Please note the use of the word "will" in the study, as if the output of these models is ordained from on high. And from such hypothetical computer model output they reach the following conclusions:

In Kenya the yearly and monthly rainfall will increase and the yearly and monthly minimum and maximum temperatures will increase by 2020 and progressively increase by 2050.• The implications are that the distribution of suitability’s within the current tea-growing areas in Kenya for tea production in general will decrease quite seriously by 2050.• The optimum tea-producing zone is currently at an altitude between 1500 and 2100 masl and will by 2050 increase to an altitude between 2000 and 2300 masl.• Compared with today, by 2050 areas at altitudes between 1400 and 2000 masl will suffer the highest decrease in suitability and the areas around 2300 masl the highest increase in suitability.• A comparison of potential diversification crops recommended by the project show that coffee perform similar to tea and would not be a good alternative crop. For more than 90% of these sites maize and cabbage will remain constant and pea will be much more suitable on 97% of this sites. Passion fruit will be much more suitable on 51% of this sites and banana on 14% of these sites more suitable for 2050.

Extrapolating from Kenya's future climate which exists only within a computer, these people are setting in motion a plan to change the way farmers produce "one of the country’s top hard currency sources". From the article

The scientists were making presentations at the Tea Research Foundation of Kenya in Kericho. The seminar was organised by the Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP) and the German International Cooperation (GIZ). 

The report says the two organisations aim to increase Kenyan tea producer’s resilience to climate change, to secure their livelihoods and make them more environmentally and economically sustainable. 

The two partners will over the next three years train 10,000 farmers on the most appropriate adaptation techniques,” they said....

Among these techniques will be diversifying their crops to adapt to the hypothetical climate change which  exists solely within computer models and the unscientific projections of a scientific community  who is no longer grounded in reality.

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.

Virus Tracker Update

Tracking the Great Hypotheses Scam Virus through the media and society

Here is our initial post on the this Interior Department Study which included the following conclusions

Lack of calibration of the hydrologic models is a real issue that needs to be addressed and should be addressed before these models are used in future assessments. Reclamation will (a) refine the VIC application and/or (b) introduce more appropriate hydrologic models. However, before implementing west-wide calibration efforts, it also is important to assess the fitness of the chosen model structure for some geographic situations, particularly basins where ground water interactions with surface water may be an important process and not well simulated in VIC.

AND

6.1.2 Global Climate Simulation
While the activity presented in this report considers climate projections produced by state-of-the-art coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models and even though these models have shown an ability to simulate the influence of increasing GHG emissions on global climate (IPCC 2007), there are still uncertainties about the scientific understanding of physical processes that affect climate; how to represent such processes in climate models (e.g., atmospheric circulation, clouds, ocean circulation, deep ocean heat update, ice sheet dynamics, sea level, land cover effects from water cycle, vegetative other biological changes); and how to do so in a mathematically efficiently manner given computational limitations

Yet we have media outlets and authority figures representing this report as being evidence on which changes to policies should be made.

VIRUS TRACKER
LA TIMES

[excerpts]

...Temperatures could rise 5 degrees to 7 degrees this century, increasing evaporation, and the spring snow pack will drop sharply in much of the West, changing the timing of peak runoff, which is crucial for the state's irrigated agriculture....

...The report predicts that precipitation in the river's upper reaches will increase by a few percentage points in the mid- and late century, although that would be offset by a slight drop in runoff associated with warmer temperatures and more water consumption by plants.

Farther down the river, at Lee's Ferry, runoff could decline by 8.5% in the 2050s, the report suggests.

The greatest drop is predicted for the Rio Grande in New Mexico, where stream flow could shrink by nearly a fifth by the last quarter of the century.

"The status quo is going to change," U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael L. Connor said. "We need to take action now to plan for those changes that are occurring."

Pasadena Star News

[Headline]

New report says climate change likely to make water more scarce

[excerpts]

..Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the report will help officials understand the long-term effects of climate change on Western water supplies and will be the foundation for efforts to develop strategies for sustainable water management 

The report notes that projected changes in temperature and precipitation are likely to alter the timing and quantity of stream flows in all Western river basins, with increased flooding possible in the winter due to early snowmelt and water shortages in the summer due to reductions in spring and summer runoffs..... 

.... All eight basins should see an increase in temperature of about 5 degrees to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, the report says.

Four basins will see an increase in overall precipitation by 2050: the Upper Colorado, Columbia, Missouri and Sacramento, while four will see a decrease: the Lower Colorado, Rio Grande, San Joaquin and Truckee.

Reductions in spring and summer runoffs could lead to a drop in water supply in six of the eight basins, the report said.

Local officials said the report shows the need for more water conservation.

"It just means that it's all the more important for us to conserve water and be independent of imported water supplies as much as we can," said Carol Williams, executive director for the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster.....

....MWD also is looking at solutions. One possibility would be to build a desalinization plant in Mexico that would free up Colorado River water for the United States, including Southern California, he said.

One problem could be the expense. Water from such a plant would cost $1,500 per acre-foot, in contrast to the water bank's cost estimated at $450 per acre-foot that also includes pumping costs, according to Hazencamp.

Updates as found

UPDATE 1

Reuters

[Headline}

Climate change to hit American West water supply

[excerpts]

...This steep drop in stream flow is projected for parts of the West that have seen marked increases in population and droughts over recent decades, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a telephone briefing.
"These changes will directly affect the West's water supplies, which are already stretched in meeting demands for drinking, irrigating crops, generating electricity and filling our lakes and aquifers for activities like fishing, boating and to power our economy," he said... 

..."Climate change will add to the challenges we face, which will be felt first in the Western United States," said Anne Castle, the Interior Department's assistant secretary for science and water. She noted that some of the fastest population growth has occurred in the driest areas, including parts of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Texas.

"Water is on the leading edge of climate change, so many of these basins have already experienced significant ... decreases to water supply," Castle said.

also Lompoc Record

The Great Hypotheses Scam

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)
**************************************************

 As painful at it is, it must be recognized that The Great Hypotheses Scam has infected every aspect of our society and nowhere is this more painful and evident than in our government institutions. Here is a press release about a report issued by the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation

Interior Releases Report Highlighting Impacts of Climate Change to Western Water Resources

The report is not about any current impact from climate change but are projections of future impacts as this excerpt points out:

The report, which responds to requirements under the SECURE Water Act of 2009, shows several increased risks to western United States water resources during the 21st century. Specific projections include:

• a temperature increase of 5-7 degrees Fahrenheit; 

• a precipitation increase over the northwestern and north-central portions of the western United States and a decrease over the southwestern and south-central areas; 

• a decrease for almost all of the April 1st snowpack, a standard benchmark measurement used to project river basin runoff; and 

• an 8 to 20 percent decrease in average annual stream flow in several river basins, including the Colorado, the Rio Grande, and the San Joaquin. 

The report notes that projected changes in temperature and precipitation are likely to impact the timing and quantity of stream flows in all western basins, which could impact water available to farms and cities, hydropower generation, fish and wildlife, and other uses such as recreation.

Policy makers are making decisions based on this report which as the report itself clearly states is primarily the result of modelling hypotheses not actual measurable science:

To develop the report, Reclamation used original research and a literature synthesis of existing peer-reviewed studies. Projections of future temperature and precipitation are based on multiple climate models and various projections of future greenhouse gas emissions, technological advancements, and global population estimates. Reclamation will develop future reports to Congress under the authorities of the SECURE Water Act that will build upon the level of information currently available and the rapidly developing science to address how changes in supply and demands will impact water management.

From the actual report we have even greater detail of the modelling they used to determine their projections:

The analysis involves developing hydrologic projections associated with World Climate Research Programme Coupled Model Intercomparison Project3 (WCRP CMIP3) climate projections that have been bias-corrected and spatially downscaled and served at the following Web site: http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_cmip3_projections. In total, 112 hydrologic projections were developed, relying on watershed applications of the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) macroscale hydrology model (described below). From these time-series climate and hydrologic projections (or hydroclimate projections), changes in hydroclimate variables were computed for three future decades: 2020s (water years 2020–2029), 2050s (water years 2050–2059) and 2070 (water years 2070–2079) from the reference 1990s’ decade (water years 1990–1999). The reference 1990s are from the ensemble of simulated historical hydroclimates, not from the observed 1990s.

So as pointed out the report issued and submitted to congress is based on climate modelling, a hypotheses, not evidence, but note the last sentence of this paragraph "The reference 1990s are from the ensemble of simulated historical hydroclimates, not from the observed 1990s." So pervasive is the reliance on modelling in the climate science arena that even when there exists actual, verifiable, measured data to work with, they choose "simulated historical hydroclimates" Consider that little tidbit of information when you read in the report:

In the context of assessing future hydrologic impacts using these BCSD hydrologic projections, the findings from the assessment are: 

Precipitation is expected to increase from the 1990s’ level during the 2020s and 2050s but to decline nominally during the 2070s (though the early to middle 21st century, increases could be artifacts of the BCSD climate projections development leading to slightly wetter projections). 

Temperature shows a persistent increasing trend from the 1990s’ level. 

April 1st snow water equivalent (SWE) shows a persistent decreasing trend from the 1990s’ level 

Annual runoff shows some increase for the 2020s’ decade from the 1990s’ level but shows decline moving forward to the 2050s’ and 2070s’ decade from the 1990s’ reference, suggesting that, although precipitation changes are projected to remain positive through the 2050s, temperature changes begin to offset these precipitation increases leading to net loss in the water balance through increased evapotranspiration losses. 

Winter season (December–March) runoff shows an increasing trend. 

Spring–summer season (April–July) runoff shows a decreasing trend.

Now all of this upon which important decisions are to be made are nothing more than computer generated projections but in addition, the past which they are comparing it to "the 1990's" is not the actual historical 1990's but rather a simulated historical hydroclimate .


Not only is the future being divined by computer modelling but so too is the past. 

And how confident are they of all this projecting? How much weight should we give this important report? Well they tell us:

Lack of calibration of the hydrologic models is a real issue that needs to be addressed and should be addressed before these models are used in future assessments. Reclamation will (a) refine the VIC application and/or (b) introduce more appropriate hydrologic models. However, before implementing west-wide calibration efforts, it also is important to assess the fitness of the chosen model structure for some geographic situations, particularly basins where ground water interactions with surface water may be an important process and not well simulated in VIC.

How much should we rely on this report? Not much.

In fact after all the verbiage, colorful graphs and charts near the end of the report there is an entire section filled with caveats and warning to not really take this report too seriously. Why ? Because as they admit models really are not that good. An example:

6.1.2 Global Climate Simulation 

While the activity presented in this report considers climate projections produced by state-of-the-art coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models and even though these models have shown an ability to simulate the influence of increasing GHG emissions on global climate (IPCC 2007), there are still uncertainties about the scientific understanding of physical processes that affect climate; how to represent such processes in climate models (e.g., atmospheric circulation, clouds, ocean circulation, deep ocean heat update, ice sheet dynamics, sea level, land cover effects from water cycle, vegetative other biological changes); and how to do so in a mathematically efficiently manner given computational limitations

Got that? Not only is there "scientific uncertainties", so much for settled science , there really is no way to represent climate "in a mathematically efficiently manner given computational limitations".
In other words they really still do not have the capacity to understand the physical complexity of the Earth's climate less alone the ability to model it.

Reading the Interior Department's press release or the many news articles (example) about this report you would have absolutely no understanding of how primitive, caveat laden, indeed totally speculative this "scientific" report truly is. Despite all this hedging, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael L. Connor is very definitive.  "The status quo is going to change .We need to take action now to plan for those changes that are occurring."

And so the Great Hypothesis Scam continues to be perpetrated upon society.

The Great Hypotheses Scam

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)
**************************************************

(Editor):Here is an example from the past brought to our attention by Real Science

Is Colorado’s Ski Industry Doomed Due To Global Warming?

...A downscaled climate model was run on a regional scale for the eight-state Rocky Mountain region to see the potential effects of global warming in the Rockies, using data from 1961-1990, and projecting future trends from 2070 to 2099. The climate model generated the temperature, amount of precipitation and depth of snowpack at each of more than 15,000 data points evenly distributed throughout the eight-state region.

The climate-trend model shows that in every eco-region, springtime snowpack decreases by at least 37 percent, and in 14 eco-regions, snowpack decreases by more than 70 percent, which would have devastating effects on ski areas in the region....

The Ever Growing Hypothesis Scam

Years ago I read something by Roger Pielke Sr which reinforced my skepticism towards the whole alarmist view of global warming. I can not find the exact quote now but it really does not matter since he makes the same basic point often as he did in a recent post regarding a new scientific paper about future cold spells in a warming world. The relevant point he made was this:

Models are hypotheses and need to be tested against real data. However, the climate models have not been shown skill at predicting how the statistics of cold waves change in response to human climate forcings during the 21st century. Indeed, there is no way to perform this test until those decades occur. (emphasis mine)

Models are hypotheses, does the climate science community treat models as hypotheses? Does the climate science community represent modeling output to the general public and policy makers as simply hypotheses? Any objective observer of the scientific debate could not possibly believe that as a practice the scientific community treats or portrays climate modeling as simply hypotheses,

In an interview several years ago Pielke explained:

"The problem is, if they give forecasts 50 years in the future, nobody can validate that right now. From that sense, it's not scientific. When I see peer reviewed papers that talk about 2050 or 2100, for me that's not science, that's just presenting a hypothesis, which is not testable. I don't even read those papers anymore. They need to have something that is testable"

Reading Dr. Pielke's blog over the past few years it is obvious he is reading those papers again and he still finds these types of model derived projections as nothing more than hypothesis.

What should be obvious as Dr Pielke points out is that not only are climate models just hypotheses, the output of the models is not really a scientific verifiable fact unless that output can be tested in the real world. This is not rocket science, this is common sense. The fact that so much supposed science is being conducted based on modelling hypothesis and being presented to the public and policy makers as if it was somehow scientific evidence, is dishonest.

It is also very telling that so few scientist in the field outside of the "realist" community ever point out that without validation the computer projections are not really scientific. How many papers and studies do we see in which some future dire event is based upon a climate model projection which as in the above example can not possibly be verified, they are treated as if they are science but in fact they are nothing more than hypothesis based upon hypothesis. These type of scientific studies are the basis for my CYBER WAG  (Computer generated Wild Ass Guess) posts. Yet the climate science community and the science community in general seem not in the least disturbed by this obvious misrepresentation of actual scientific methods. In fact rather than pointing out this deceptive practice, they seem to promote it.

Here are just a few examples of the technique:

Ken Cole of the U.S. Geological Survey and colleagues used models of future climate

Barry Rock, Professor of Natural Resources at the University of New Hampshire in Durham predicts that, based on two climate models in a New England regional climate assessment study, "Within the next 100 years, Boston could have a climate similar to either Richmond, Virginia, or Atlanta, Georgia." 

Using climate models, they determined that if carbon emissions remain high by 2050, the number of reliable crop growing days would fall below 90 for almost 1 million square kilometers of arid and semi-arid lands in Africa.

COAPS scientist Jianjun Yin, who led the research, analyzed ten climate models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and calculated a 90 percent likelihood that sea levels along the northeast will exceed global sea levels by the end of the century.

That this modelling hypothesis scam is not only unscientific but also part of a scheme perpetrated by some scientist to promote an agenda was made clear by Danial Botkin in an excellent article Science and Soothsayers.

"Since proving the validity of long-term forecasts is difficult and the ultimate tests would take years, and since many scientists are alarmed at the dire scenarios, my colleagues are beginning to talk about whether it is O.K. to exaggerate and push forecasts that are not currently provable if the only way to get societies to act is to frighten people. I think it is not O.K. It is a short-term view, and even if it works, it will inevitably debase science and scientists." 

Thank you Dr Botkin for your integrity. He is taking the most generous view of the scientist motives and I am sure that some scientist  indeed operate out of some misguided "greater good" motivation. However it is also obvious that many scientist ignore basic scientific principles for financial gain as in increased funding or have a political agenda. Regardless of the motive it is not science as Botkin makes clear;

The question is not really whether the forecasts are scientifically valid, but how much impetus they can provide to influence society.

The reliance on climate modelling while understandable in order to investigate something as complex as the Earth's climate has totally distorted the normal concept or at least the laypersons understanding of normal scientific principles. To be sure that my laypersons view of what scientific principles were, foggy as it may be,  I went to the good people from Wiki World to see if what I thought was true about what science is...is. Here is some of what I found

...To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.^[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."^[3]

.... Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.. ....

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of thereliability of these data to be established.

That is precisely what my unsophisticated laypersons understanding of what science is....is. The fact that climate scientist have so much faith in their untested and as yet unverifiable models is disturbing in itself, the fact that they use these findings to promote various agendas and financial rewards for themselves is unconscionable. For the rest of the scientific community to then leech onto this hypothesis scam to gain funding for their own studies in their own fields of study is beyond disheartening, it is scientific corruption on a grand scale

Update: I meant to mention that if climate modelling output is not simply a hypothesis, what is it? Measurable evidence?