Could It Be? The Final Nail in the AGW Coffin?

Why can't the people who get paid to report the news find this stuff? I'm not even looking very hard.

Blogger Ace of Spades put me on to the link to what may be the final nail in the coffin of the AGW hypothesis: the computer models are wrong, and someone has figured out what the error is!

Hungarian atmospheric scientist Ferenc Miskolczi discovered that the climate models being used were based on a series of differential equations for modeling greenhouse gases originally derived in 1922 that made the assumption (to simplify the math) that the atmosphere was infinitely thick, which of course it isn't. So he did the logical thing -- he re-derived the equations including terms that described the actual thickness of the atmosphere. And guess what?

The new equations show that as CO2 concentrations go up, negative feedback forces kick in, limiting temperature rises and preventing any runaway global warming.

The new theory also predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid, temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates, and what the actual data show appears to be happening right now.

The new model also accurately describes the witnessed global warming on Mars.

Dr. Miskolczi worked for NASA when he figured all this out. As one would expect in this politically correct nation, NASA refused to release the results, and he eventually published his findings in a Hungarian peer-reviewed scientific journal. When he resigned from NASA, his resignation letter stated, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

Global warming advocates dismiss his theory in spite of his model's more accurate fit with the data, the paleoclimate record, and the warming on Mars. After all, the AGW model just can't be wrong. There's too much money already tied up in it.

I thought it would take a while to find the evidence to disprove the AGW hypothesis. It never occurred to me that the hypothesis could be that fundamentally flawed.

So the coffin is now nailed shut. But we've all seen enough vampire movies to know that it won't stay shut, at least for a long while, and that the monsters will continue to plague us for some time.

AGW and the (Foreign) Press

Once again I bring to your attention the increasing quantity of data and evidence that AGW is a crock of manure and that we may have much more dire things to worry about. And once again this information can only be found in news outlets located outside the USA, or by depending on information obtained from foreign sources.

An editorial in Investor's Business Daily (which I'm sure all of you subscribe to and read daily) reiterates the idea that I've introduced you to before -- that the sun is the driver of the climate and that it overpowers what little (if any) effect man-made CO2 has on temperature. But look closely at where the data are coming from: the Danish Meteorological Institute, Canada's National Research Council and Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Carleton University, Germany's Max Planck Institute of Solar Research, and a Russian astronomer. Where are the Americans? Cowed by the PC police, that's where.

The better piece comes from the the Australian News regarding a recent interview on Australian radio, revealing that both terrestrial and satellite data are showing that since 1998 the Earth has been cooling -- and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, that mouth organ of the UN that is the main champion of the AGW cult) is very aware of this data! Of course, the statement is made that the meteorological community is "having trouble digesting the findings" since the data don't fit their beloved computer models, and as we all know, the computer models can't be wrong, can they?

I particularly like the second half of this Australian article, where it talks about the "implications" of the failure of the AGW hypothesis, focusing mainly on the political aspects. But right near the end, the article reveals that even in the foreign press, there is still politically correct censorship -- I mean editing. In republishing an essay from the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian paper The Age deleted the following statement:

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now.

Guess that assessment hit too close to home. It certainly hits too close to home in the USA. Only here, we don't see only the editorial musings of an essayist "edited". Here, the news media edits the facts as well. Thank God there are foreign media outlets that still allow for true freedom of the press. The First Amendment? That only limits the government from censoring the press. It doesn't say anything about censorship by liberal ideologues.