Anthropogenic Global Warming - a modern Piltdown Man hoax?

The "science" of climate change as expressed by non-scientist Al Gore and his adherents seems remarkably similar to an earlier hoax, the famous Piltdown Man "discovered" in 1912. The staging is remarkably similar. Conclusions are/were based on falsified data, people with important names supported the hoax, and the hoax was perpetrated by individuals seeking publicity and public recognition.

There are other similarities:

Once the Piltdown hoax was accepted by the Geological Society of London, there was great resistance to coming to grips with the truth.  Acceptance of the fact that it was a hoax took over 40 years.

The AGW hoax has been accepted by the UN and our current administration. Scorn is still being cast on those who question authority.  Well, there are a growing number of highly qualified skeptics who are casting light on questionable altering of data by AGW supporters.

Piltdown Man

The fragments of the Piltdown Man were thought by many experts of the day to be the fossilized remains of a hitherto unknown form of early human. It turned out to be a clever hoax by Charles Dawson, who craved recognition and membership in the prestigious Royal Society.

Approximately 1915, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the jaw was from an ape. Similarly, American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape.

In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took until 1953 for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct.

Anthropogenic Global Warming

In our modern hoax, the world is heating up, the seas are rising, and the glaciers are MELTING!!!
Only the application of money and suppression of industry will save us.

The few grains of truth are buried in a sea of falsified and altered data which more and more real scientists are exposing. The links to both sides of the argument can easily be found using Google.

Take the matter of glaciers melting. That is actually true as you can see from this chart. They have been melting ever since the 1700's.  Draw your own conclusions. (click to enlarge)
 

For the entire article go to: http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/1/77/2007/tcd-1-77-2007-print.pdf

I think that the sun is the primary driver of climate change and we will see a continuing fall in global temperatures during the decade 2010 - 2020. I am planning to stack away all the firewood I can. If we see a warming trend, I will welcome the longer growing season.

Thanks to The Englishman for the original link.

Comments

[Perspective]

I see your point and appreciate it. But when I look at the chart of glacial lengths, my read is the lines almost all increase their rate of decline as the industrial revolution picks up the pace.

[Waldo Jaquith]

I think that a better tack for deniers of global climate change is to claim error, or accidental misinterpretation of data. To claim that it's a hoax implicitly accuses thousands of scientists from hundreds of universities, corporations, and research institutes of colluding in secret over the course of decades. That's because the evidence for global climate change is decentralized, a result of independent temperature monitoring done at thousands of locations over the course of a century or more. Compare that with Piltdown Man, which was premised on the discovery of a single collection of skull fragments found by a single person. In that case, anybody studying the subject had to trust Charles Dawson in his claim as to where it was found, which is what made such a hoax plausible. Obviously, that's considerably easier to pull off, because it was a confidence game, since the discovery itself outstripped the scientific capacity of the day. There is no such fulcrum on which global climate change rests.

So what you are proposing is a massive conspiracy theory which, even if true, leads reasonable readers to conclude that your thinking is in line with those who believe that Elvis is alive, JFK was killed by the FBI, September 11th was an inside job, and the moon landing was faked. I think you'll find it far more effective to claim that you possess some knowledge or perspective that thousands of climate scientists lack.

[David St Lawrence]

Waldo,

Good to hear from you again! You always bring interesting viewpoints to the discussion.

I used the term hoax because James Hansen of NASA pieced together disrelated data to support his AGW conclusions and left out data that did not support his theory. (I misspelled his name earlier and left out his affiliation.)

In the same vein, the IPCC summary report that supposedly reported on a consensus of 2500 scientists, carefully omitted the contrary views of a great number of people whose names were included in the "consensus.

These people have been coming forward ever since.

If one picks and chooses data to support a theory and then claims that the issue has been settled because of a "consensus", this is the hallmark of junk science. Efforts to claim a consensus in science date back to flat earth days and to the notion that the sun revolves around the earth.

The targeting of skeptics is another sign of a religious belief in global warming as opposed to a scientific attitude of inquiry.

I am an engineer, not a scientist, so I have little regard for theories unless I can see that they produce results. When someone comes up with an idea that produces results and these results can be replicated by others, I don't even ask if the originator has the proper PhD.

When AGW zealots attempt to discredit skeptics because they are not "real" experts, it is a dead giveaway of their inability to produce results that matter.

Their only results so far are their ability to get funding and to deny funding to those who expose them.

[Julia]

Oh some on! Surely you're not denying that we're causing climate change on a massive and destructive scale!
The planet may have undergone periodic shifts in temperature over the course of its history but we are now seeing those changes withing the span of decades and the graphs are all going up.
It doesn't take a PhD to appreciate the basic chemistry of more CO2 = higher temperatures = environmental imbalance and havoc.

David says: It all depends on whose graphs you look at and CO2 has been much higher in the past when temperatures were lower.

[GBGames]

David, your argument is that global warming is a conspiracy theory. You mention that Hanson, whoever he is, picks and chooses his data to support his view, but what about other scientists? Other groups? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

"With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[65]"

And so what you are trying to convince us is that the individual scientists who oppose it must be right.

And I have no problem with that assertion. It is entirely possible that everyone is wrong and a handful of people have it right.

I just find it strange that in a world where saying that global warming supposedly leads to a push against industry, I'm supposed to believe that there is an incentive for all of these government funded studies to purposefully misinterpret the data. Also, by saying that the minority scientists are correct, isn't that just picking and choosing data to support your cause and ignoring the rest of the data? How are you not guilty of the same crime you are accusing others of?

I wish I knew what you meant by "producing results that matter". If AGW is fact, wouldn't a warning be a result that mattered? Wouldn't initiatives to reduce or reverse global warming be results that matter?

[David St Lawrence]

Thanks to all who are joining in the discussion. I write to stimulate thought and possible action, not to prescribe to others what they should believe.

On Global Warming, you are going to have to decide for yourselves.

I had no difficulty with the concept of global warming at first, but the actions of those espousing global warming soon convinced me that their goal was political control. not any concern for mankind.

Read my simple credibility test and decide for yourself:
http://www.making-ripples.com/2008/09/a-simple-credib.html

[Jim White]

Mr. St. Lawrence,
As a person who feels that it's humanity's DUTY to tread lightly on the earth, I find it chilling that you (and others who view the earth as ripe for exploitation) have sucessfully politicized this "issue"...in effect making this an us vs. them issue.

Taking care of the planet isn't a political issue, unless you're damn fool enough to let it be one.

David says: You need to read my article again. I failed to mention any exploitation. If there is a crisis, let the authors of the AGW scam act like there is a crisis. Al Gore's 100 ft houseboat and monstrous energy-sucking house give the lie to his claims that there any crisis at all.

Politicizing the care of the planet was not an issue until Al Gore started it with his junk science film.

Science is about asking questions and finding answers. When a politician tells us that the matter is "settled" and there is no room for further discussion, that throws science out of the window and opens the door to all sorts of legislation to "fix" things that may not be broken.

[GBGames]

That's fine, but I've yet to find any evidence that anyone is suppressing speech here. What I've found is that a broad majority seems convinced through many, many independent studies, and a small minority thinks otherwise, which hasn't been quelled or covered up since it is very easy to find information on their views.

It seems amazing to me that there could be that much organization involved to have "political control" as the goal of such a wide-scale hoax. And who is doing the controlling? It seems that you could blame liberals if you believe that they are trying to destroy capitalism, or you could blame conservatives if you believe that they are just trying to push nuclear power through the guise of "being green". It can't be both, can it?

Dave, you've essentially made some heavy accusations in this post, and I guess I'm hoping for better evidence than that you think the proponents seem fishy. I can't find much information out there when I've searched, so I was hoping you could tell me what exactly you found that convinced you that any suppressive action and conspiracy was happening. I've seen more evidence for global warming than against, and it seems most of the science world has, too. How does someone who claims he is not a scientist come to be so sure of a completely different conclusion?

[DragonQuilter]

Think you certainly hit a tender spot here! Glad to see it. We need more of this kind of questioning and examination of things, rather than expecting things just because 'someone' says so.

[Rick Parrish]

The way I see it, the bottom line is that there is no harm in reducing carbon emissions and it is very likely that great good will come from doing so. There is also a good chance that great harm will come from continuing "business as usual". Sure, there is a chance that the minority scientists could be right but are you willing to gamble your grandchildren's or great-grandchildren's future on it? Not me.

[David St Lawrence]

More than six hundred scientists, economists, legislators, and journalists from around the world met in New York on March 8-10, 2009 for the second International Conference on Climate Change.

Presentation after presentation documented the pseudoscience and dictatorial intentions behind the climate alarmism of the UN, EU, and Obama administration.

The full proceedings can be read here:
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

[Jack Russell]

David, this has been an interesting thread, though I find myself in the same school of thought as Rick Parrish in thinking that business as usual will likely do great harm.

With that preface, I followed the link to the Heartland report on the second International Conference on Climate Change and was interested to find that Heartland didn't just cover and report on that event, they sponsored it. Their mission includes "to discover, develop, and promote....market-based approaches to environmental protection." Yikes!

As you noted in, and we debated following, your piece on Rating Obama, "At the very best, all we get is opinion and that is worth only as much as you agree with it."

According to Heartland, they set out only to justify their own pre-existing opinion. http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/background.html Had they simply invited the other voices in the warming debate and offered them forum to present differing opinion I believe their effort would have been laudable. But Heartland appears to have used those other voices and marketed the gathering as "Truth or Swindle" only to advance its own agenda. I do not think that the Heartland gathering of skeptics can really be relied upon as anything more than their means to their end. Nor do I think The Heartland Institute can pass your test of interest in political control versus concern for mankind.

Differing opinions make the world go round, but Heartland is no impartial authority on the matter.

[GBGames]

Thank you, Dave. I have never heard of the conference. This page says a lot as well: http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/background.html

I'm almost ready to believe it. But then I found the following:

On the conference, I found http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_2008_International_Conference_on_Climate_Change

Heartland is fairly conservative and apparently was funded in large part by Exxon. It hardly makes it unbiased.

***The New York Times reports that while the Heartland conference "was largely framed around science ... when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so."*** Hmm.

I find incredibly hard to believe that anyone would be so willing to spend so much money and do so much disruptive work to combat global warming if the science behind it was supposedly so easily debunked. The idea of a massive political conspiracy is still hard to swallow.

Again, I'm expected to believe that hundreds or thousands of studies and experiments conclude that AGW exists on data that is wrong, and the only people skeptical enough to check the data happen to be a handful of scientists (and a bunch of economists, politicians, and journalists) going to a conference funded by a conservative think tank?

I also found this, which offers rebuttals to the skeptics. The one on the lack of scientific consensus seems most relevant, as well as the one about the sun being the primary driver of climate change: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal

At the same time, I'm not finding any sense of scorn or harshness. It's science, and it sounds like the science of the skeptics have science from proponents in opposition, not political ideology.

And I see no threats, legal or otherwise, to indicate that the credibility of the majority is in question. Do you have any examples that I am having trouble finding?

[Julia]

I'm with Rick
Even IF you doubt the global warming warnings that become more and more apparent every year, it won't hurt to tread a little less heavily on the planet
n'est-ce pas?

[mattbg]

I agree with Julia somewhat. I don't see any harm in reducing pollution for the intrinsic value of doing so. The problem is that, under the auspice of global warming, carbon dioxide becomes a pollutant and it's a very expensive one to curtail.

Diesel cars, for example, generally don't emit as many greenhouse gases as gasoline cars, but they emit more particulate pollutants that have a more direct effect on our health. The assertions of global warming are important to a debate like that because they classify greenhouse gases as an abstract enemy, and this can be harmful if it's not valid.

I think David's point in this post is very valid if you take it as a contribution to the discussion and not a personal affront to your worldview. Scientists need to arrive at a consensus.

Scientists are also not infallible. They are human and have egos and some will do what they can to protect the value of their life's work against the best interests of science in general. It's dangerous to create an environment that encourages scientists to only work in one direction (by questioning their values or conflicts of interest if they disagree) because you are forcing them to make a career out of it, and it will lead to reluctance to give up the theory if it starts to show holes. Some will, but many won't. That's why it sometimes takes a generation to work out some of these problems -- the people associated with a paradigm have to die before we can see a real adjustment is closer to reality (i.e. Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions).

On top of that, science does try to arrive at a consensus, as another commenter mentioned. For that reason, it can lag because it takes a long time for so many people to get on board and arrive at the consensus through scientific discovery. It's worse if universities generally don't attach prestige to positions that challenge a certain point of view, and I think there's some of that going on.

Consider Shakespeare, who was describing the state of delerium in some of his plays far more accurately than the doctors would have in his time: doctors in Shakespeare's time would have put such a condition down to bad humours that could be cured with an offsetting humour. Shakespeare's descriptions have far more in common with what we know as medicine today than it did with the medical sensibility of his time, yet he wasn't a doctor.

[Jeffrey King]

I would like to be added to the group that agrees with doing more with less in a more responsible way. I've been living that way for a long time now and will make further changes, if I can afford them.

I can see past the debate and shamefully say that Sarah Palin wasn't too far off in saying it doesn't matter what the cause is or was. The discussion is alive and well.

My concern is about the creation of this magical cap and trade market solution. It appears to me as simply a political and financial ruse that will provide a new opportunity for the financial engineers to play with each other and make money. I don't see how buying and selling the right to pollute will change behavior.

David says:

Jeffrey, your final line: "..don't see how buying and selling the right to pollute will change behavior." is a classic!

Dispensations being bought and sold put the Catholic Church in disrepute many centuries ago. Modern day dispensations will do the same to our current Administration.