This post by Sott.net is a comprehensive over-view of the ‘science’ aspects of the AGW debate. It is titled “The Cs Hit List: Space and Weather Science Gone Wild” and is authored by Harrison Koehli.

I like much of this article and highlight some extracts here:

“It’s been my experience that people tend to forget that scientists are ‘human’ too, or more precisely, scientists can be just as willfully blind, self-serving, conformist, fearful and mendacious as anyone else. Some of them are even unabashed con men who falsify their data, or intellectual prostitutes who will produce the results they are paid to, whether they believe them or not. Just because it’s been peer-reviewed, or written by a person with a string of letters after their name, doesn’t mean it’s true, or even remotely so. And if history tells us anything, it’s that the history of science is a long history of wrong or incomplete ideas. So it’s best to be skeptical whenever scientists speak in terms of absolutes with certainty, whenever they put the lid on testing alternate hypotheses. Chances are, they’re simply deceiving themselves, and you.

“Science is a work in progress. The theories that are taken for granted as being true may very well turn out to be completely bogus following the intervention of new discoveries and innovations. Sadly, space and weather science are two areas where innovation not only rarely occurs, it is actively hindered by scientists and politicians with vested interests in keeping old, inadequate theories at the forefront of popular and academic belief systems. Like many of the examples that will follow in subsequent installments of this series, the ones below are just a sample of ideas that at first glance may look just plain wrong. But new discoveries have been proving many outdated preconceptions to be just that.

“To fit these data into a global carbon cycle, IPCC assumed a speculative lifetime for man-made CO₂ in the atmosphere as 50 to 200 years, ignoring observational evidence from 37 studies (based on natural and nuclear bomb carbon-14, Suess effect, radon-222, solubility data and carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance) documenting that the real lifetime is about 5 years. With CO₂ atmospheric lifetime of about 5 years, the maximum amount of man-made CO₂ remaining now in the atmosphere is only 4%, and not 36% (see review in (Segalstad, 1998).

“In other words, they cherry-picked their data, just like they cherry-picked the reporting stations that gave them the data they needed to fit the facts around their beliefs. The graph below shows how the number of stations reporting average temperatures dropped dramatically in 1990. Coincidentally, this is when the graph shows a remarkable increase in temperature. The connection is hard to miss. For whatever reason (we can hazard a guess), the scientists responsible for hyping global warming eliminated many stations reporting lower temperatures in 1990. In all likelihood, if they had continued to use that data, there would be no warming. In fact, there might even be evidence of cooling.

Related articles

• Carbon Tax – “Sorry Julia, Bob and Greg, you are wrong” (tgrule.wordpress.com)
• The truth about AGW is becoming CLOUDy (thebrightlibertarian.blogspot.com)
• Global Warming – More on the BEST claim of proven AGW | The GOLDEN RULE (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• CO2 science. A version including H2O effects. (tgrule.wordpress.com)
• Claim: Infrared Thermometers Relied Upon To “Prove” Greenhouse Gas Warming… Actually Are Specifically Calibrated To Not Measure Greenhouse Gas Warming (minx.cc)