NC State Global Warming Professor accused of "recklessly falsified work"

First let me set the table, Professor Feldheim of N.C. State is one of the local loud-mouthed Global Warming advocates. "According to a 2013 report to Congress by the inspector general of the National Science Foundation, Feldheim, Eaton and then-graduate student Lina Gugliotti “recklessly falsified their work.”

The story actually involves his work in Chemistry - but provides an interesting summary (in the last section) of how the university refused to let others resign from government & private grants - even when they knew the research was deceitful - in order to keep millions flowing into the university.

This aptly demonstrates the attitude of professors and universities towards fabricated research including most of the information put out by global warming promoters.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03...su-chemistry-professor.html?sp=/99/100/&ihp=1

 

"This aptly demonstrates the attitude of professors and universities towards fabricated research including most of the information put out by global warming promoters."

Overgeneralizing.

 

Overgeneralizing and one doesn't need to a genius or even a scientist to understand what this chart means...

 

This chart, which is either erroneous in presentation or in interpretation, or possibly both -- it is impossible to tell which from the chart alone -- and to which I have objected for other reasons in previous posts, seems, like a zombie, to be impossible to kill. It keeps popping up no matter how many times its obvious defects are pointed out.

Although this is not its major defect, a simple matter of chart ethics would dictate that total atmospheric CO2 in dimensionless units of ppm not be directly compared to anthropomorphic carbon emissions in gigatons of C per year, and on two completely different scales. This would obfuscate the correct relative relation between man-emitted C and total atmospheric CO2 even if such a relationship was useful, which, sadly, it isn't very. The correct useful, relative relationship still eludes us even though we are in hot pursuit. So it wouldn't have been possible for the originators of this colorful chart to give a useful chart in any case, but they mustn't be let off the hook that easily.

We don't have a very good idea of the relationship we are really interested in as of yet because CO2 is involved in multiple, simultaneous, dynamic, temperature dependent equilibria with monstrously slow forward and backward rate constants. And thus obtaining anything like accurate equilibrium concentrations of man produced CO2 in our atmosphere has so far eluded us. And not only because we are altering the CO2 concentration more rapidly than equilibrium can be reached, but also because true equilibrium can probably only be obtained in a static biosphere, and ours is anything but static!

We know with reasonable accuracy how much CO2 per year we are dumping into the atmosphere and we know with adequate accuracy the average total atmospheric concentration of CO2 globally over some reasonably short time periods. But sadly those numbers alone can't get us to our destination.

There are many natural sources and sinks for CO2 that completely swamp in size man-produced CO2, and for these latter numbers we are still searching. But we know they are large. We think we know them to at least one significant figure and possibly now two. And we get continually better at estimating them.

Because it is impossible to chart without great uncertainty the actual relationships of interest, the present chart was, I suppose, produced as a next best effort-- where "best", of course, is horribly inadequate. [And here I am admittedly being way too kind to the makers of the above chart, because I have allowed that they had something worthwhile charting in the first place!]

Now look very carefully at the above chart, which FC has so kindly provided. Ask yourself this question: "Why does the little hump in atmos.CO2 start forming at ~1775 whereas we see virtually no rise in man-made C until ~1850, seventy-five years later. It does appear that natural CO2 is leading Man-produced C by at least half a century, and we also note that the "little hump" maximum in the atmospheric (brown) CO2 precedes the man-made C (pink-yellow) by a century. That's odd! Somehow Mother Nature's CO2 has gotten very much out of sync with ours. I wonder if Mother Nature's been paying attention. Apparently not, because she started her steep rise in atmospheric CO2 around 1850, whereas we did not get really busy dumping C into the atmosphere until 1950! Mother Nature jumped the gun by a full century!!! What are you up to Mother Nature?

 

So, for now, it's ok to keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere?

 

Nitpick all you want, but the fact is the AGW alarmists cannot produce a reliable model, yet they want to wreck our economy anyway.

 

In the same way that two centuries of growing pollution control regimes have wrecked the economy!

 

Take a look at what you just paid for: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/26/feds-spent-700000-on-a-climate-change-musical/

 

I have yet to discover what the Feldheim controversy has to do with global warming.

Feldheim is an electrochemist working in an interdisciplinary area among nanotechnology/ biochemistry/molecular biology/medicine

 

If you lived near Raleigh N.C. then you would know he is a global warming fan-boy.