Bast: Understanding the Global Warming Delusion (PJM Exclusive)
The reliability of climate models is important because actual global temperature records show very little warming or changes in long-term weather events — such as the frequency or severity of hurricanes — that could be attributed to human activity.
Computer models are practically the only “proof” that global warming alarmists have to support their theory and forecasts. How can scientists know that global warming is man-made and will be a crisis, while at the same time express deep skepticism towards the computer models that might support such beliefs?
The answer is that they don’t actually “know” global warming is man-made or will be a disaster; they “believe” this to be true.
Like the rest of us, scientists rely on the expertise of others to provide guidance on issues they haven’t taken time to study. Climate change is a complex topic that requires the insights of geologists, physicists, climatologists, and statisticians (to name only four disciplines) to get a fairly complete understanding of the issue.
Most scientists align their beliefs regarding global warming with the views expressed by the IPCC, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other organizations they trust. Climategate revealed that trust was misplaced. The institutions formed to bring together specialists to produce overviews of the science of climate change have been politicized and corrupted by private agendas.
In the months and years ahead, many scientists who lent their names and reputations to the global warming delusion — because they trusted the IPCC and other institutions — will “come out of the closet” and admit that, upon closer inspection, they were wrong and the theory of global warming is either unproven or simply false.
Many prominent scientists have already debunked global warming (see Lawrence Solomon’s book, The Deniers, for profiles of some of them), and tens of thousands more have signed petitions and resolutions protesting the abuse of science in the global warming debate.
The histories of other “extraordinary popular delusions,” as Charles Mackay labeled them in 1841, suggest it may take decades for elite opinion to acknowledge the truth. Some very bright people will go to their graves still believing in “global warming.”
But believing is not knowing, and that crucial difference both caused and is spelling the end of one of the great delusions of our age.
You say that most of the scientists responsible for creating the delusion of man-caused global warming are still deluded. Quite so.
They believe because they benefit mightily at no cost to their precious selves. Take away the free lunch, take away the belief.
Suppose, like any entrepreneur, they had to invest their own money (not a bank’s money) in their belief and in their research. Further suppose that any monetary return depended on them convincing independent third parties of the results. Then I bet they’d be, er um, SKEPTICAL about man-caused global warming.
Betting your house on your business success concentrates the mind. Betting ones house on the success of ones climate change research would shrink the number of delusional climate change scientists to zero, give or take.
The term is “Hubris”. It’s the same kind of motivation that caused Copernicus such a headache when he dared reveal his theory (the earth revolving around the sun). AGW fills the same niche as that kind of thinking. Since the sun revolves around the earth we are the chosen! With AGW, since the earth (might) be warming up, and we are so important, WE must be the cause!! So since we start from there all we need do is make the models fit that theory!! Wa la!! AGW (excuse please . . . now “Climate Change” because it might be getting colder too).
Whether it is delusion or money (follow the money) these scientists have ruined the ideal of the objective search through scientific methods the answers to many questions and problems we face as humans. It is only the hubris of these scientists(?), our sycophantic MSM and present administration and those administrations of nations seeking our tax dollars or harbor jealousy towards us that this issue is still an issue.
“Most scientists align their beliefs regarding global warming with the views expressed by the IPCC, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other organizations they trust.”
Was it really about trust or were they coerced and threatened to go along with the fraud? And again many were dependent upon the financial backing of Soros and GE and others who have long sought to bring down the US. Too many college scientists were politicized into supporting this hoax. They will never tell the truth because their livilyhoods still depend upon the corrupt sourcing.
Well now that the UK (East Anglia) is a frozen tundra, they have plenty of time to bask in the certitude.
There have been so many climate model failures, it is truly stunning any objective, impartial scientist would still support the predicted outcomes of these models. This web page lists a bunch of climate model failures……..
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
The poll you cite was taken in 2008. Would be interesting to see the results of that poll taken today.
It’s increasingly clear that scientists who “believe” in AGW do so not because it is provable, or even because the countermeasures they demand would be effective in slowing or reversing it. They believe in it because, for sociopolitical reasons, they see the “stern measures” they advocate as desirable.
The entire thrust of the global climate change movement since the “New Ice Age” scare of the Seventies has been the elimination of technology from human society. And the replacement of democracy with command-and-control on the Platonic “Dictatorship of the Chosen” model. No matter what the “threat”, these have always been the “solutions” demanded, and they have always been non-negotiable.
The fact that the same solutions are invariably demanded, regardless of the “malady”, is proof positive that the problem is political, not scientific. It also tells us that scientific education is no longer free from political radicalism, if indeed it ever was.
“Believing” in AGW while admitting that the computer simulations (let alone reality) don’t support it unless you “tweak” them brings to mind the old saying, “When all else fails, manipulate the data”; or in other words, lie. Do whatever it takes to convince people that you are right, and that they must obey you, irrespective of reality.
In any decent encyclopedia, you will find this listed under the definition “cult”.
If the AGW “believers” believe in their perfect, non-technological, Platonic society so fervently, there’s a simple solution. Let them pick an island somewhere comfortable, go there, set up such a society, and live in it. The rest of us can watch them to determine if it works.
It should be noted, however, that most such experiments in the past have failed. Because those who plan them always intend to be the rulers, and generally end up with nobody willing to do the actual work. Which is beneath the dignity of the “intellectual elite’”.
clear ether
eon
The difference is between THEORY-someone’s best guess and fact-something that can be proven more than once by actual observance. Science seems to have forgotten that. In the rush to “prove” something they have been willing to manipulate, fake and delete data that doesn’t fit with their beliefs. That’s not science that’s sophistry.
However it is good to know that the science so highly touted as an option to religion is just as nebulous at least to the unbeliever. To the believer however nothing has changed.
The great global warming debacle, or as they swap over to in the winter, “climate change” is a massive effort to drain the resources of the USA and other free countries and spread the wealth out to the ones run by the dictators and thugs of the world, through the cap and trade scam. It’s a totalaliarian scheme of the highest proportions thought up by marxists and those going off the alinsky playbook. This scheme and others like it have been decades in the making, and have only been enables recently through the takeover of the democrats. We, the people, will overcome these thugs and resume life here in the USA back to the guidelines that the constitution allows. No more attempts to control us under a one world government and tax such as cap and trade dictates. The leftist have finally shown their hand, and the right will prevail.
Defund the universities.
GET RID of student loans and Pell Grants — both a huge rip-off.
The proponents of “climate change” are proof that some people will believe anything, regardless of whether it makes any sense or not. P.T. Barnum was right when he said that there’s a sucker born every minute.
“Betting your house on your business success concentrates the mind”
Ahh…. wisdom. Food for the mind and soul. Government in a nutshell.
Great Article, Thanks.
AGW is one of the cornerstones of the Progressive worldwide agenda. They will never let go of it. In the long run truth will prevail. However in the short term the AGW crowd can do a lot of damage.
Baloon boy parents are already serving the sentence for their hoax. This hoax has yet to convict it’s perps. Should they be sentenced to hard work in Siberia? We could call it a field trip and have them gather a few more tree rings.
There is great cause for hope that the dopes and cads of the theory of global warming must eventually face reality. Why? Because what little of the climate’s history that we know, even with the crudeness of the measurements of historical global temperatures, is that the temperatures go up and down. The theory of one-way global warming and the so-called evidence to support it are absurd.
Of course things may get really cold or hot in a billion or three years or so, depending on what is going on in the sun. So don’t buy any green bananas.
A poll of climate scientists reveals they still believe in AGW, though they do not believe their models are any good. Now that’s delusion.
Reportedly, that NASA True Believer James Hansen said,, a long time ago, words to the effect…”Hey, we know we’re stretching the truth, but it’s for the good of mankind, the good of the planet, so we have to.” ?
(I freely paraphrase
)
Implicit in such hubris is the notion that individuals of such superior knowledge & understanding don’t need no stinkin’ data.
Such an attitude also infects politics and university instruction, of course.
Science has really been done a disservice with this latest go round of revelations about the AGW data.
This pretty much proves that AGW is a religion to so many. They now admit that their scientific models do not work, but they have the faith that they are right! These scientist-whores are keeping the faith, baby!
If you do not believe that it is about the money, read this:
http://myuminfo.umanitoba.ca/index.asp?s….eve=8&npa=19153
“The 2009 Discovery Grants competition implemented important changes to the review process in response to recommendations from two rigorous external reviews that reported to NSERC in 2007. These changes have created a much more dynamic funding system, with more opportunity for researchers with superior accomplishments and contributions to receive substantial increases.”
The new peer review process resulted in Barber’s research support increasing by 70 per cent and Farenhorst will see a 30 per cent increase to her support. Under the previous peer review process any funding increases would not have been as substantial.
http://myuminfo.umanitoba.ca/index.asp?s….eve=8&npa=19153
Science-whores.
seanmahair (8):
The difference is between THEORY-someone’s best guess and fact-something that can be proven more than once by actual observance.
This is actually not correct. The fundamental problem with the AGW crowd is that they have perverted the very essence of science: the models.
seanmahair, like most non-scientists/engineers, confuses theory with hypothesis.
* A hypothesis is the initial guess as to how some part of nature works. It is usually based on some preliminary observations and “educated guesses” on the part of the scientist or engineer involved, but has not been rigorously studied.
* A theory is a model, almost always mathematical in nature, analyzing how some facet of nature works. A “proven” theory is one that has been extensively studied by various people (“peer reviewed”) and for which contradictory evidence has not been found. “Proven” theories also generally have been shown to successfully predict at least one datum not in the original set – usually some future event.
For instance, Newton’s theory of gravity
(literally F = G mM/r^2 )
was proven by his subsequent observations of planetary motion and successful predictions of their future positions. Einsteins law of relativity was proven by his successful predictions of Mercury’s orbital motion. Theories of atmospheric behavior are proven by successful prediction of future weather patterns (by mathematical computer models, and subject to the inherent chaotic nature of weather).
The theories of Newton and Einstein deserve further consideration. Newton was not dis-proven, per se, by Einstein; his model was too successful for that. Rather, Einstein noted that in certain circumstances – namely involving the nearness of very large masses or velocities close to that of light – certain parts of Newton’s model which were assumed to be equal to zero turned out to not be so, merely very close to zero.
Similarly, the model that the Earth is flat is perfectly valid – so long as you don’t go further than 20 miles from home, and certainly not out to sea; then you have to start assuming that the planet is round. A spherical Earth is fine, until you start trying to navigate precisely to within 10 miles over oceanic distances, then you have to assume an oblate spheroid. This, in turn, works until you start flying – especially if you are trying to do orbital navigation, then you have to start worrying about where the lumps and bumps in the Earth’s gravitational field really are.
Even the historical sciences, such as paleontology, use models. The models for paleontology say that certain things happened at certain times for certain reasons, and have been validated over and over by the successful predictions of which skeletons may be found in which rock layers. If I were to truly find a large mammalian, much less a human, skeleton in the same Cretaceous rock layer as a dinosaur skeleton, then it would throw a wrench into a great many works. For instance, paleontology fits with nuclear physics (via radioisotope dating), geology and geophysics (rock layer sources and plate tectonics), astronomy (solar behavior), and climatology (dinosaurs in Antarctica).
An important point to make, re seanmahair‘s statement, is that no science can every truly “prove” any theorem. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem shows that there are always some axioms that must be taken for granted (an oversimplification, I admit). The best that we can ever do is to show that an extensive search has found no contradictory evidence and that the theory makes successful predictions.
This is why the AGW scam is so serious. Science depends entirely upon scientists being willing to honestly verify and test their models. The only way to verify a climactic model, which works over decades if not centuries, is to show that it successfully predicts past and present climactic behavior not in the original data set. If these predictions are shown to be at all doubtful, if the scientists are not honest about dissenting data or about what their models actually predicted, when comparing it to reality, then their entire model must be called into question.
How Long Does It Take for a Global Warmist To Freeze Solid?
ok, even we are getting tired of this . . .
High today: 0
Windchill in eastern Nebraska: -22
Winds out of the North: 35 – 50 mph ALL DAY
Low tonight: -15
High on Friday: below zero
Low Friday night: -25
WANTED: Global Warmist and tree hunging types
EXPERIMENT: See how long these yahoos are willing to stand outside today on the principle that Global Warming is settled science
Here’s an article you will want to read that is in the Omaha World-Herald this morning entitled, “A Persistent Polar Pattern”.
A couple highlights:
A little-understood Arctic phenomenon may be behind the worst winter conditions in a quarter-century across much of the United States, near record lows in Omaha and misery from northern Europe to Asia.
There is more snow on the ground, 21 inches, than in any January since 1948 — the earliest date for which reliable snow records are available.
The average temperature in Omaha for the first five days of the year has been 3.1 degrees, the third-lowest on record dating to the late 1800s.
And on Friday, Omaha’s daytime high isn’t expected to climb above zero. That hasn’t happened since 1997, said Ken Dewey, an applied climatologist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s School of Natural Resources.
But as bad as the Midlands weather has been, the southern United States might be faring worse because that region is less accustomed to the cold, said Eric Wilhelm, a meteorologist for AccuWeather Inc., The World-Herald’s consultant.
The Arctic Oscillation involves atmospheric circulation over the polar region, and its intensity is the strongest in decades, meteorologists say.
And then let me throw this last one at you: “Michelle L’Heureux, a meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center, said the Arctic Oscillation is one of the least understood weather patterns and is difficult to predict.”
Really? In 2010, we can not predict the weather? Hmmm, could it be that Global Warming ISN’T settled science after all?
Say it ain’t so Al . . .
I’d not be overly critical of a scientist who continues to hold a long-standing belief in reserve, and yet acknowledges the impact of new information. Press reports about scientific matters are notoriously imprecise. Dissatisfaction with an inaccurate model is a good thing: once the model is changed, perhaps by the input of better data in this case, the model’s predictive ability may improve.
The segment of scientists chosen for this survey is significant: many of them are people who were selected because of their philosophical approach (belief that AGW could be real) and are supported by funding tied to an attempt to prove that it does indeed exist. That this group of people evinces dissatisfaction with the model is significant. Some of these are the people that have taken and innocently used what could be falsified data in a genuine attempt to understand the workings of a very difficult subject. They are well aware that the dust has not yet settled, and that right now, they don’t know how much of their own work will have to be revised. The smart ones are going to wait for the answer from the accused scientists, and the rebuttal from the accusers before they decide what to do with the data they have been using.
Unless, of course, a substantial fraction of the government funding for climate research is pulled, as happened in the case of HIV research. Then maybe they will follow all those splendid medical researchers to Europe.
I am afraid that I am to blame for global warming and for the subsequent decline in temperature recently observed. I was traveling by train sometime back and as was my wont I was reading a book as I completed each page I tore it from the book and threw it out of the window. When a fellow passenger asked me why I did this I explained that it was to prevent elephants from rampaging around the English countryside. He pointed out that elephants did not rampage around England.
“Effective isn’t it?” was my reply.
At this point a third passenger pointed out that, throwing pages out the window was littering and would increase global warming. This gave me pause for thought and the real fear of rising sea levels and hurricanes in Hartford caused me to sublimate my fear of rampaging elephants and stop throwing pages from train windows. Since that time there has been no discernable increase in global temperature, in fact there has been a slight decline. This will not continue, however, as I do believe I saw a trunk and a pair of tusk jutting out of a copse the other day. I have just purchased another book and plan to resume my practice of removing the pages as I read them so I fully expect the temperature to start rising again.
I must close now the nice lady with the pills is here.
this as frozen iguanas fall from trees in florida
FEAR the COLD not the HEAT
Recent survey of Meteorologists discussed in this Accuweather video segment:
Meteorologists still skeptical on global warming.
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=28984389001&title=Meteorologists%20Still%20Skeptical%20on%20Global%20Warming
Most scientists align their beliefs regarding global warming with the views expressed by the IPCC, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other organizations they trust.
And why do they trust them? Could it be that that’s where the GRANTS for research supporting AGW come from? My money says it is.
Were there non-commercial sources of funding for research questioning AGW – say some mythical NGOs devoted to such questioning on the grounds that science must be even-handed – perhaps there would be a group of scientist equally trusting of those NGOs and their viewpoint.
A parallel item: the ‘educated’ folks around universities have, in the post-Vietnam era, not only formed a misanthropic viewpoint regarding human behavior vs ‘the environment’, but they’re trending toward leftist beliefs, including anti-capitalism. These viewpoints have converged in excoriating any grants received by researchers from profit-making energy companies, which they claim to have poisoned all research so undertaken, regardless of how scientifically correct and pure-minded.
It’s no wonder that these surveys turn up humans with scientific credentials but near-religious beliefs regarding AGW, despite the well-known failures of predictive ‘models’.
Scientific method having been derailed is not a reason to abandon an approach to existential data that has been mankind’s most successful method of reality measurement. Apply the method properly…no fudging, opacity and lack of peer review. Open the true data up widely for all to see and study. In the meantime, if we have global billions, let’s apply those monies to AIDS, sewage treatment, vaccination, malaria, food, water, housing etc. The results of these expenditure can be seen tomorrow not in one hundred years.
Models aren’t required to understand the basic physics of the greenhouse. One can still understand the physics and then also say that the models are lacking (and precisely because they’re not good at short term — i.e. 10 years out — prediction.) Arrhenius knew that doubling CO2 would result in a temperature rise, and from what we can tell his earlier calculations are reasonably accurate. You do not need a model to understand the underlying physics.
I’m no warmer. Not by a long shot. But man *is* running a long term experiment spewing ever more CO2 into the atmosphere, and nobody truly knows what the results will be. You claim the climatology people don’t, yet they’re in a better theoretical position to know. So if the claim is that the best trained people don’t really know, you certainly aren’t able to claim that you DO know. I tend to agree that the climatologists don’t know yet. It’s a given that we (humans) don’t really understand what the consequences are. And I say this while it’s -3 outside with a -30 wind chill and snow blowing in 8′ high drifts in my back yard. I’m certainly no screeching warmer.
It would not hurt us to limit CO2 spewing; I for one advocate the construction of as many nuke power plants as we can afford, and then build an extra 50. This would create jobs and wealth. Wealth is always the result of energy. On the other hand I think we call all agree that so-called “green” agenda (e.g. windmills, cap and trade) is specious rubbish that doesn’t accomplish much beyond lining the pockets of Gore et al via well intentioned fools. Nuclear advocacy is a serious adult position, and as far as I can tell, the only rational one.
But somewhere in this we do need sanity, and I do tire of people like you trying to (ab)use climategate excesses to claim that all of this is mere politics, a commie plot, or a hoax.
I do wish people would top referring to global warmist computer game geeks as scientists. They are delusionists or con men.
Environmentalism is the official religion of the enlightened left and of our government. For the pseudo scientific community, it is all about the money. AGW wouldn’t be “settled science” if government research grants to promote environmentalism were eliminated.
That was a good laugh. Being snowed in where it snows once a decade at best (worst) I can appreciate the humor.
Meanwhile that poll is about as valid as one asking Foxes if they like eating Chicken. I suspect you would get a pretty good favorable rating on that one. If you polled Chickens on how they felt about Foxes, you would get an entirely different set of numbers.
If the AGW believers were to admit they are perpetrating a fraud, They would be looking at jail time. Of at least unemployment in a tight job market.
Face it, if any of them were any good a modeling, they would be working on Wall Street, getting fat off TARP funds. Instead they are trying to create their own little scam. They have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar and now they are claiming they weren’t stealing cookies. They were checking the jar to see if it was air tight.
Believe them if you want. I don’t.
GL – I agree we do not know what the impact of increased release of CO2 will have. It is NOT “settled science”. The climate alarmists are politically motivated. They have a political agenda. They only use data which supports their agenda. This is why people call AGW a hoax. Selective use of data.
Using nuclear power to reduce our dependence on oil would improve our geopolitical position for sure. I would advocate increased use of nuclear power for geopolitical reasons, but not to reduce our carbon footprint.
Actually, climate models are the ONLY proof.
Of all the reading I have done on this, it seems the most likely scenario about increasing CO2 is that for every W/M^2 that CO2 adds as a ‘greenhouse’ gas water vapor subtracts an equal amount from it’s concentration in the atmosphere. The Earth is 70% water covered, of the other 30% of land mass, 80% is moisture rich. With the exception of deserts, this means that for the energy balance in any given area, there is already 100% ‘greenhouse’ effect in existence.
“Now that’s delusion.”
That’s faith.
It is now 22 F in NJ.
Reliable forecasts state that in 6 months, the temperatures will be 50 F higher.
At that rate, temperatures will rise 1,000 degrees F in just 10 years ! ! !
This data is incontrovertible… The projections are based on simple mathematics :
50 degrees F x 20 = 1,000 F
Kindly send my Nobel Peace Prize via email.
All average global temperatures since 1895 are accurately predicted by a simple model using the first law of thermodynamics and the time-integral (same as ‘running total’ if time steps are equal) of sunspot count. The standard deviation of concurrent measured minus predicted temperatures since 1900 is 0.064 C. There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. Climate change is natural.
The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. (One of the discoveries made during this research was the effective sea surface temperature oscillation. The integral of the PDO Index http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest indicates a substantial measure of sea surface temperatures, as does the time-integral of ENSO 3.4, but not all so replace all references to PDO with ESST for Effective Sea Surface Temperature).
This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses do.
Thank you #26 G L Alston for a dose of reason here among the Deniers. I am a skeptic, but not a denier. I don’t think that wind and solar can replace fossil fuel and am in favor of nuclear, but also think that some sun and solar units also make sense, even if they can’t supply the bulk of our power.
The reason that the whole warming thing is tricky is as close as our current arctic freeze. Yes, the arctic air is more down over us, but in the mean-time, the arctic is not as cold. November was one of the warmest on record, December is close to record cold, but the global temperature comes out as an AVERAGE.
and way back to #7 Eon. I have no doubt that one of your great fears is the establishment of the Platonic Republic, but like so many here, you immediately accuse people of aiming for the hated thing, and build your case accordingly. It produces the reasoning: what the AGW people REALLY want to do is control the world, THEREFORE, they must be wrong in their science. Try to keep the two separate. It’s like ODS. We know that Obama is a fake, a thug, weak, a commie blah, blah, THERFORE, everything he does is all of the above. Sure simplifies the world, doesn’t it?
Typically the collapse of a cult leaves most going off to find a new religion, some giving up religion, and a few becoming isolated and hermetic who retain the tradition against all reason.
The Pope didn’t shut down the Vatican when Darwin published Origin of the Species.
AGW has taken a long walk off a short peer. Your 2008 poll is outdated. It is obvious those still supporting AGW in light of the emails have a financial/political agenda and despise this country. To defeat these global environmental socialist frauds that inhabit the MSM, academia and government we must defeat the enablers, namely, the socialist democrats and boot their non american commie rear ends all the way to cuba in the next elections.
I believe in Climate Change with all my heart and mind. After all, it’s been constantly changing since the earth was formed (for those global warming zealots, that’s well before man existed).
Careful. Anthropogenic causes covers a lot more territory than CO2, or even greenhouse gasses. That’s not as alarmist or activist as it sounds. Some anthropogenic causes of warming, such as soot, are relatively cheap and quick fixes. They’re not all multitrillion dollar boondoggles.
#35 Dwight,
Follow the money, then you will see what the AGW advocates want. Any time a minority is attempting to steal from a majority, they will cite the enlightened opinions of our scientific betters as a reason for their theft. Theories supported by the testimony of an authority are not made accurate because of the credentials of that authority.
#36 Dave,
The Origin of the Species is entirely based on cross-correlations, just like environmentalism. That doesn’t say it is wrong, it just says that it is only a connection of the dots. I agree with your opinion on cults.
Dwight say : “Yes, the arctic air is more down over us, but in the mean-time, the arctic is not as cold. November was one of the warmest on record,…”
Tell us Dwight, if you know, how many temperature measuring stations are there in the arctic? How many in the antarctic? Are the numbers equivalent on an area basis, for example say per five hundred square miles, to those in say, Mexico? Or France, or Europe and Asia? If they aren’t, the data would not be equivalent in terms of averaging would it?
Say there are two classrooms full of third graders, 30 students in each. I go to classroom A and measure the height of half the students there. Then I go to B and measure two students. Could I then say I measured samples of the two rooms and found the students in B remarkably taller? See what I mean? Rather, am I making the point clearly?
Another question, are the stations there of the same number and accuracy as they were fifty or a hundred years ago, and located in the same spots? If there were only two stations there in 1910 and there are 300 now in various places, they can’t be accurately compared/contrasted over time can they?
An interesting (to me, anyway) article in the current WIRED on how science is done, and how differently it is done than is usually perceived:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/
I am a skeptic, but not a denier.
You have lots of company. As I’ve said in a previous thread, the issue has become not one of science, but of policy, and the AGW alarmists have shot themselves in the foot by 1) corrupting the process, and 2) being shrill to the point of annoying most of us.
If after 30 years of AGW alarmism we don’t have palm trees on Park Avenue, it’s kind of hard to keep people believing you, isn’t it? And if the “solutions” involve the likelyhood of severely depressing the economy and quality of life despite any “proof” of warming-induced catastrophe, people are going to tune out. And this is all compounded by a case of ‘tampering with the evidence’ by the East Anglia CRU and other entities. It’s time to declare a ‘mistrial’ and start over, and this time: be open and transparent; allow vigorous debate; fund an aggressive and open climate research campaign; use supercomputers for your modeling for crissakes; use data from ALL monitoring stations; move monitoring stations that have become surrounded by urban environments out to the boonies; be scrupulous about eliminating the heat island effect; due more complete research into past climate changes, like the Medieval Warming Period and the Bronze Age holeocene. And don’t involve the UN in any of this except possibly as a facilitator of some sort.
#27 Frank:
“I do wish people would top referring to global warmist computer game geeks as scientists. They are delusionists or con men.”
What’s wrong with “Scientist-Whores”?
They don’t ‘believe’ in global warming. What they believe in is money, first, and not being humiliated, second. Both are basic human needs or instincts, but please don’t confuse them with ‘belief.’ The people who ‘believe’ in global warming are the stupid co-eds and euro-trash losers who fill the old bill: Those who believe in nothing will believe in anything.
#35 Dwight. Everybody accepts that the earth has warmed since about 1850. Three things they don’t accept without question are:
- that the warming is unprecedented;
- that the warming is dangerous
- that the warming has a significant man-caused component.
Climate change happens 100% of the time. Warming followed by cooling followed by warming followed by cooling ….
During these natural changes ecosystems, species diversity and a whole bunch of things have changed in the past and will continue to change in the future. That’s just the way nature works. In nature only dead things don’t change. Well, even they decompose.
What irritates people is the emergence of a global climate industry that is able to shake down tax payers by frightening them with dubious bogey-man stories.
The great delusion of this age is Darwinian Evolution. Global Warming and Darwinism are intrinsically related, by the way. It is a belief in millions of years of earth history that is a backbone to both theories, and that (millions of years of earth history) is also based on biased science. Why do people buy it, even conservatives, even Christians? Because, we are creatures and the thinking behind these ideas is intuitive. Intuition is the token spirit of those who have displaced the truth of the Bible with human reasoning. How can human reasoning fail, you ask? When there is no witness then any attempt to explain past events will always be guesses. The Bible has revealed, as a witness, an event that man could not guess; Noah’s Flood. This one event refutes Darwinism and multiple Ice Age’s.
Another question that should be included in that survey is whether their own personal/professional reputation will be damamaged when global warming is proven to be a hoax.
#41 Fred Beloit All those questions about the number of the stations are completely valid; they try to build some of te fudge factor into their models. I believe that there are differences between some of the recording systems, based on the fact that one has a lot more Arctic and Antarctic temperatures than the other.
#46 Western Canada I am also irritated that almost every environmental group to which I belong or have belonged now has a huge global warming theme to so many of their articles, sales pitches etc. It’s like the NRA warning me about gun-grabbers. Anything to get the cash flowing from me to them.
So, where are all the trolls who have been calling us dolts and morons for not believing in the Global Warming tripe? They should have plenty of time on their hands, now that they are snowed in, and can’t get out of their parents’ basements.
“an international survey conducted in 2008″
2008 – Hmmm! The past is truly another country.
#18 you are a fraud. The most basic understanding of science requires that you understand one conceptual constraint; science cannot ‘prove’ anything. Science is an inductive endeavor, and hence its findings are always tentative. Further, good science proceeds by deriving testable hypotheses from theory, not calling ‘educated hunches’ (how do you decide what is ‘educated’) hypotheses. I suggest you try and move beyond your Popular Mechanics collection and read some really good science writing, such as almost anything in Scientific American. And, if you follow this advice, you’ll find some excellent articles dealing with man-made global warming.
True story-last night while watching the news, a woman came on and said with a straight face “you cannot understand terrorism without understanding global warming”
She then went on to say that global warming predicts the movement of humans and the places that terrorists will migrate so that they can carry out their work. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. OMG I laughed my butt off. Didn’t we find Saddam in an essentially underground casket? Isn’t Afghanistan one of the harshest climates with the most unfriendly terrain known to man?
These people are just flat out nuts.
I think this survey reflects a “selection” process in the climate sciences over the past couple of decades.
One must believe in and do work that promulgates AGW in order to:
1) get published
2) get grant money $$
3) be a successfull academic (ie. get published and get $$)
4) be invited to join faculaty (where && and publishing are key)
5) be a successfull graduate student (ie. get && and be published)
6) find a grad student project (ie. one that has $$)
6) did I mention get $$ and get published.
So, my take is that the selection process heavily bias the climate science population and a large percentage are true believers as the survey indicates.
…just a thought.
We can all agree that ‘science’ was abused to promote a political agenda in this climate change mess, the question remains is how to stop these people from further harming our developed societies. Lawmakers have to see through the smoke and mirrors and adhere to a much more critical stance instead of being overawed by the uncontrollable ‘evidence’ that mankind is the cause of climate change. The audacity of believing (like in Copenhagen) that as long as we are willing to pump gazillions of dollars into underdeveloped countries the Earth will not warm up or sea levels will not rise is giving ourselves way too much credit. Mother Nature has always found ways of surprising us, we simply do not have enough knowledge at the moment of the complexity, let alone predictability, of how she works.
Global Warming/Climatechange has got to be the only scientific field where the science is “settled” in such a brief span of time and with few experimental results that actually match theory. Since when did consensus ever matter in scientific endeavors more that verification.
Even if the actual data isn’t politicized (which it certainly could be), clearly the rush to “settle” the science is…
The choice doesn’t come down to being a “believer” or a “denier” in the thesis that has been promulgated concerning the effects of human produced CO2. (geez, does anyone attack the by far largest “greenhouse gas”, water vapor ?) I am very skeptical of the agenda and sponsorship of many AGW “settled science” enthusiasts, but very much want more respect for out Earth Tree (Avatar Alert
)
I like the Mann-made as opposed to Man-made reference in this video…
Hitler vs AGW
Today there is a new editorial here
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5092
This is a well-written article by the opposition. The author restates belief in AGW and states these “facts.”
“So this is what we know, as established science.
i) there is a broad correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature,
ii) the greenhouse effect is only one causal factor, but it is an important factor
iii) CO2 concentrations are very steeply rising, to levels not achieved for millions of years
iv) Average temperatures have risen by 0.6 degree C over the last hundred years, and there has been a significant increase in the last 30 years
v) The rise in CO2 correlates with the explosion of air-flights, increase of animal husbandry for a more meat oriented diet, and growth of consumerism”
(What can I post there that will be the strongest talking point?)
#52, Kate
Maybe you should say…thank you. Your writer is correctly reporting what, to date, IS the consensus amongst serious, dedicated, highly trained climate scientists, a training that takes them way above the paranoid, ignorant level of discussion on display here. It is interesting, Kate, that you come looking for support in criticizing something that you are sure should be criticized, Maybe you should listen rather than reflexively look for your gang to support the criticism of a position you clearly don’t understand.
(What can I post there that will be the strongest talking point?)
You could point out that there is no substantive and completely believable link between the “man caused” (thank you Janet Napolitano) rise in CO2 and the kind of catastrophic climate change that AGW enthusiasts get off on. (their point #5)
You could quote from them at their own website:
“Firstly, the Earth’s climate is very complex, and variation in temperature is not monocausal. It is affected by the long wave variation in the Earth’s orbital distance from the sun; by sun-spot activity; by the amount of particulate in the atmosphere whether from volcanoes, meteorites, or pollution, which blocks the sunlight; it is also affected by the amount of reflection, itself a function of glaciation; over the very long term global temperature is even affected by continental drift. So the greenhouse effect, whereby water vapour, CO2, CH4 and some other trace gases trap the heat energy is only one causal agent among many.”
AGW True Believers have distorted & suppressed information and have clearly attempted to discredit those scientific “peers” (and there are quite a few) who don’t subscribe to their thesis.
This really sucks and the thesis has taken a big hit.
BTW, their list of climate affecting “complexities” left out what is probably the biggest determinant of all, ocean currents.
On our watery planet the climate is governed largely by the oceans.
Climate change, Global Warming, whatever name used is a religion to these believers. What if any other person, you or me, would walk down the street in any town or city,with a bullhorn and a donation bucket, telling the people, that the world was going to end in 5yr., if they didnot donate money to stop climate change. How long would it take for the police to come an arrest you? AL GORE an his cronies rip off millions@ millions, they are scam artist, but the law will never come after them. The whole climate change scheme is a scam, that we will be paying for the rest of our life and our childrens lives. These people that lie @ lie about this subject should be locked up, like the criminals they are.
This poll was conducted pre-Climategate (2008). I would like to see how many of those same scientist feel post Climategate.
Also, How many scientist have relied on the temperature data provided by UEA/CRU and NASA/GISS? I mention NASA because, I expect to see a new climategate II when they are forced to relent to the FOI law suit.
“Science is an inductive endeavor, and hence its findings are always tentative.”
So… today, 1 + 1 = 2… but tomorrow? maybe not?
or, (if you get this far my friend), that anti-particles might not exist tomorrow?
Do you know this thing Truth?
go ask your Mother and
What is the most glaring aspect of the AGW fiasco is how close the prognosticators came to achieving control. To me this has all the characteristics of a “bloodless coup d’tat”. Clearly there were zealots of belief and riots in Copenhagen . . . yet the coup did not happen because of the exposure of the leaders with the release of the “shame-shame” archive of slightly tweaked data. It is with in the reasonable mind to see that the motive was control of financial resources, trillions of trillions of currency units, be the units eruos, dollars or yuan. So the question is why was the shame-shame data, the tweaking done in the first place . . . yes, maybe because their is a true belief that AGW is happening by the scientists, but most like not. To me it is a time restraint. All the various movements, scientific, political, environmental, socio-economic, and others came together and the bullet in the gun was the scientific one. Everyone was ready to pull the trigger . . . but suddenly the gun was no longer loaded. So will the AGW’ers go away . . . no probably not . . . but the other movements have learned a valuable lesson . . . without a bomb you can have no suicide bombing . . . but you can still commit suicide.
G.L. Alston, Nobody is denying that the climate of this planet undergoes changes on a faily regular basis. What we are laughing at is your insistance that CO2 is involved. No Evidence there. Just that fact that historically, CO2 level have risen at about the same time and rate that temperature rises.
The AGW believers see that as CO2 causing the temperature increase. It would be just as valid to say that the Temperature increase causes the CO2 increase. Data indicates that the changes are paired, with no measurement precise enough to determine if one precedes the other.
Obviously there has to be a reason why the “experts” (yes, those are sneer quotes) chose one over the other.
Now you might believe a coin was flipped, but I look at those “scientists” ( yes more sneer quotes) and see a mix of rabid Socialists and Luddites. So naturally I feel there is malice behind their choice. They used a two headed coin.