This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness - An Interview with Judith Curry

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by James Stafford of OilPrice.com

The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness - An Interview with Judith Curry

As the global warming debate increases in its intensity we find both sides deeply entrenched, hurling accusations and lies at one another in an attempt to gain the upper hand. This divide within the scientific community has left the public wondering who can be trusted to provide them with accurate information and answers.

The IPCC, the onetime unquestioned champion of climate change, has had its credibility questioned over the years, firstly with the climategate scandal, then with a number of high profile resignations, and now with the new “Gleickgate” scandal (1) (2) – One has to wonder where climate science goes from here?
 
We have just had the pleasure of interviewing the well known climatologist Judith A. Curry in order to get her thoughts on climate change, the IPCC, geo-engineering, and much more.

Judith is the current chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and hosts sensible discussions on climate change at her popular blog Climate, etc.

Considered somewhat of a black sheep within the scientific community Judith was a one time supporter of the IPCC until she started to find herself disagreeing with certain policies and methods of the organization. She feared the combination of groupthink and political advocacy, combined with an ingrained "noble cause syndrome" stifled scientific debate, slowed down scientific progress, and corrupted the assessment process.
 
OP: What are your personal beliefs on climate change? The causes and how serious a threat climate change is to the continued existence of society as we know it.

JC: The climate is always changing. Climate is currently changing because of a combination of natural and human induced effects. The natural effects include variations of the sun, volcanic eruptions, and oscillations of the ocean. The human induced effects include the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, pollution aerosols, and land use changes. The key scientific issue is determining how much of the climate change is associated with humans. This is not a simple thing to determine. The most recent IPCC assessment report states: “Most [50%] of the warming in the latter half of the 20th century is very likely [>90%] due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” There is certainly some contribution from the greenhouse gases, but whether it is currently a dominant factor or will be a dominant factor in the next century, is a topic under active debate, and I don’t think the high confidence level [>90%] is warranted given the uncertainties.

As I stated in my testimony last year: “Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation.”

OP: You have said in the past that you were troubled by the lack of cooperation between organizations studying climate change, and that you want to see more transparency with the data collected. How do you suggest we encourage/force transparency and collaboration?

JC: We are seeing some positive steps in this regard. Government agencies that fund climate research are working to develop better databases. Perhaps of greatest interest is the effort being undertaken by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which is a (mostly) privately funded effort to compile and document a new data base on surface temperatures, in a completely open and transparent way.

OP. Do you feel climatologists should be putting more effort into determining the effect of the sun on our climate? As the IPCC primarily focuses on CO2 as the cause of climate change – Is the importance of CO2 overestimated and the importance of the sun is underestimated?

JC: I absolutely think that more effort is needed in determining the effect of the sun on our climate. The sun is receiving increased attention (and funding), and there is a lively debate underway on interpreting the recent satellite data record, reconstructing past solar variability, and predicting the solar variability over the 21st century. Nearly all of the solar scientists are predicting some solar cooling in the next century, but the magnitude of the possible or likely cooling is hotly debated and highly uncertain.

OP: You are well known in climate and energy circles for breaking from the ranks of the IPCC and questioning the current information out there. What do you see as the reasons for the increase in skepticism towards global warming over the last few years.

JC: Because of the IPCC and its consensus seeking process, the rewards for scientists have been mostly in embellishing the consensus, and this includes government funding.  Because of recent criticisms of the IPCC and a growing understanding that the climate system is not easily understood, an increasing number of scientists are becoming emboldened to challenge some of the basic conclusions of the IPCC, and I think this is a healthy thing for the science.

OP. What are your views on the idea that CO2 may not be a significant contributor to climate change? How do you think such a revelation, if true, will affect the world economy, and possibly shatter public confidence in scientific institutions that have said we must reduce CO2 emissions in order to save the planet?

JC: Personally, I think we put the CO2 stabilization policy ‘cart’ way before the scientific horse. The UN treaty on dangerous climate change in 1992 was formulated and signed before we even had ‘discernible’ evidence of warming induced by CO2, as reported in 1995 by the IPCC second assessment report.  As a result of this, we have only been considering one policy option (CO2 stabilization), which in my opinion is not a robust policy option given the uncertainties in how much climate is changing in response to CO2.

OP. There has been quite a bit of talk recently on geo-engineering with entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates and Richard Branson pushing for a “plan B” which utilizes geo-engineering to manipulate the environment in order to cool the atmosphere.
Geo-engineering could be much cheaper than reducing emissions, and also much quicker to produce results and scientists are lobbying governments and international organizations for funds to experiment with various approaches, such as fertilizing the oceans or spraying reflective particles and chemicals into the upper atmosphere in order to reflect sunlight and heat back into space. What are your thoughts on geo-engineering? Is it a realistic solution to solving climate change or is it a possible red herring?

JC: With regards to geo-engineering, there are two major concerns. The first is whether the technologies will actually work, in terms of having the anticipated impact on the climate. The second is the possibility of unintended consequences of the geoengineering.

OP. You have been noted to criticize the IPCC quite openly in the past on several topics.
Even going so far as to say: “It is my sad conclusion that opening your mind on this subject (climate change controversy) sends you down the slippery slope of challenging many aspects of the IPCC consensus.”
Do you believe that the organization as a whole needs to be assessed in order to better serve progress on climate change? What suggestions do you have on how the organization should function?

JC: The IPCC might have outlived its usefulness. Lets see what the next assessment report comes up with.  But we are getting diminishing returns from these assessments, and they take up an enormous amount of scientists’ time.

OP. Would renewable energy technologies have received the massive amounts of funding we have seen over the last few years without global warming concerns?

JC: I think there are other issues that are driving the interest and funding in renewables, including clean air and energy security issues and economics, but I agree that global warming concerns have probably provided a big boost.

OP. What do you believe are the best solutions to overcoming/reversing climate change; is a common consensus needed in order to effectively combat climate change?

JC: The UN approach of seeking a global consensus on the science to support an international treaty on CO2 stabilization simply hasn’t worked, for a variety of reasons.  There are a range of possible policy options, and we need to have a real discussion that looks at the costs, benefits and unintended consequences of each. Successful solutions are more likely to be regional in nature than global.

OP. I saw an interesting comment on another site regarding climate science that i thought i’d get your opinion on as it raises some very interesting arguments:
Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.
Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex - all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review.

JC: I agree that there is lack of accountability in the whole climate enterprise, and it does not meet the standards that you would find in engineering or regulatory science. I have argued that this needs to change, by implementing data quality and model verification and validation standards.

OP: Do you believe that the language used in papers and at conferences is a problem? The public just wants straight answers to questions: Is the climate warming, By how much, and what will the effects be? Scientists need to step out from behind the curtain and engage the public with straight answers and in their own words. Is this achievable, or is climate science too complex to be explained in laymen’s terms? Or is it because even climate scientists can’t agree on the exact answers?

JC: I think the biggest failure in communicating climate science to the public has been the reliance on argument from consensus.  We haven’t done a good job of explaining all this, particularly in the context of the scientific disagreement

OP: What resources would you recommend to people who wish to get a balanced and objective view on climate science and climate change.

JC: There is no simple way to get a balanced and objective view, since there are so many different perspectives.  I think my blog Climate Etc. at judithcurry.com is a good forum for getting a sense of these different perspectives.

Thank you Judith for taking the time to speak to us. For those who wish to engage in balanced discussion on climate related issues we recommend you visit Judith’s blog Climate etc

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:24 | 2234614 q99x2
q99x2's picture

Bribe those fk'ers and lets get this thing over with.

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:31 | 2234629 markmotive
markmotive's picture

And guess who the largest per capita greenhouse gas polluters are? Here's a hint...you're wrong.

http://www.planbeconomics.com/2012/02/21/5-largest-per-capita-greenhouse...

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:35 | 2234635 HoofHearted
HoofHearted's picture

And why do we even care about greenhouse gas polluters when it isn't even clear whether CO2 is pollution or not really? And if it is pollution, then cut out that breathing. Then the plants have no chance to convert CO2 to oxygen...and we're all screwed, whether human or armadillo or tree.

Dumb arse "climate scientists" need to take my freshman stats class and my colleague's basic logic class.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:11 | 2234713 Fedophile
Fedophile's picture

This doc does a great job of cutting through the bull shit on both sides of the debate

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/climate-change/

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:46 | 2234933 Likstane
Likstane's picture

Not when the "scientists" believe they are able to determine weather and temp. patterns by looking at supposed 80,000 yr old ice cores.  This guy needs to read the Bible. 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 04:00 | 2235103 Pinch
Pinch's picture

OMFG, I didn't realise this site is a hidey hole for the brainwashed deniers! Curry is completely despised in the climatologist community. Climate scientists criticize her for the elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions (unsupported by evidence) she makes. She admitted in 2010 that "I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry" FFS, this is beneath ZH!

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 04:24 | 2235139 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Meanwhile the climate "scientists" receive funding from the tax collection industry in Washington and Brussels, both of which criminal gangs would like to extend their extortion racket to cover all countries they haven't yet bombed into submission (or overrun in gas-guzzling tanks and supersonic penis extensions) ... under the pretense of "doing it for the planet ... errrm, children". Let's call it quits on that particularly spurious line of argument.

Got any others?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:01 | 2235332 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

It's not surprising that you have projected your own view of 'profit motive' onto everyone else and then use it to justify your dismissal of this area of science.

 

Most scientists would rather have a nobel prize than a Corvette.

 

Clearly visualising this idealism is beyond your capabilities

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:25 | 2235519 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Haha! Yeah, those innocent scientists. All they want is to help people (and get that next million dollar grant so they can bring in more young co-eds to their lab). They are as pure as the driven snow.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:42 | 2235573 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

You dullard - if scientists wanted to make money then they would go into Banking wouldn't they?

That way they wouldn't have to spend 10 years studying first.

 

"and get that next million dollar grant so they can bring in more young co-eds to their lab"

 

You clearly have built up sexual tension as that's the last thing on a scientists mind - once again you are assuming the world thinks the same way you do - a desperate pauper who can't get laid and will do ANYTHING to get some.

 

...it's only YOU who isn't getting laid.

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:25 | 2235716 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

I remember I needed to get my dissertation signed by a big whig at the University who was acting chair of the program. He has his own building and I couldn't even physically reach his office as the secretary at the front of the building wouldn't let me through. I had to drop it off with her even though making yourself available to students within the program and signing stuff is standard responsibility with being chair. Same guy refused to let a grad student defend when she had worked in his lab for 7 years and had 4 papers published in good journals. She hadn't done enough. Not sure if he was waiting for her to get down on her knees or not. At least the guy was a brilliant scientist which made his building up of his little fiefdom a little less irritating. But what do I know?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 11:00 | 2235833 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

So you base your 'knowledge of scientits' on one anedoctal experience?

 

This is why you failed your course - you were fooled by 1 example and extropolated it to cover the entire scientific community!

 

Very bad science.

Fri, 03/09/2012 - 23:28 | 2242371 barliman
barliman's picture

 

Your choice ...

... you are either incompetent or stupid.

"Most scientists would rather have a nobel prize than a Corvette."

The Nobel prize includes a check for more than $ 1,000,000. A top of the line 'Vette runs $ 100,000.

Either you know nothing about the Nobel prize (incompetence) or you put forward one of the dumbest statements in the history of this site (stupidity).

Pick one.

barliman

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:43 | 2235412 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"Meanwhile the climate "scientists" receive funding from the tax collection industry in Washington and Brussels"

Blind ideology talking.

Including the climatologists that are privately employed and scientists (no quotation marks needed) that work in field outside of climatology, but whose work and findings support the conclusions of climatology as it is today?

"Let's call it quits on that particularly spurious line of argument."

Yes. Yours.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:17 | 2235501 blindfaith
blindfaith's picture

 

 

There are paid whores in every industry and corner of government.  That, however, does not mean that the facts are not there.  Just like the folks who think Revelation is talking about some future holocaust when the 'story' was ABOUT Rome and Ceasar and his family, Nero and all the other Emperors' destruction in the 80's AD, the folks who won't consider the Warming are folks who won't read the data, history, etc. but just like to pass on the story.

When the UTAH Legislators have to use boats to get to work, then there might, just might be some interest in reading the data and not reacting to folklore alone.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:46 | 2235418 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

It's the same everywhere.

Since climate change denialists rarely have even a semblance of scientific understanding, let alone in the field of climate science, they must by necessity resort to cut-n-pasted 'arguments', which are conveniently found on blogs that are either regurgitations fo the forever repeated mythology of the 'skeptic' crowd, or outright outlets for paid shills of special interests that woudl rather keep the public in the dark.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:18 | 2235505 EatersOfTheFed
EatersOfTheFed's picture

Save the Planet.

Kill yourself.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:22 | 2235514 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

I understand your reaction. No other option for you guys but to denigrate her. She is despised by the climatologist community. Really? Kinda like Ron Paul is despised by AIPAC?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:14 | 2235678 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

How does Co2 affect climate? It's a invisible gas which does not block sun light or solar radiation. You can't have it both ways. If it can't block the suns radiation, how can it trap it? The Green house gas theory and its affect on the climate is just that, a "theory" You don't make laws or policies based on a theory.

 

I have nothing against being green but some common sense needs to be applied. Many who are into the green house gas theory resemble some bizarre hippie cult in both appearance and behavior. This does little to convince me we have a problem. My approach to this subject is a skeptical one always questioning who has the greatest financial gain to be had. As far as I am concerned...and from a  historical stand point.... the sun controls the climate. Yes, there have been periods where volcanic ash clouds blocked sun light and caused earth to be cooler, but there has also been periods where the earth has been warmer. This warming was well before industrialization and the release of so-called green house gases. How do climate scientist explain that? As far as I know, they are pretty mute on warming trends that occurred pre-industrialization.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:50 | 2235743 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"The Green house gas theory and its affect on the climate is just that, a "theory" You don't make laws or policies based on a theory. "

Atomic theory is also "just a theory", yet nuclear power plants work.

Theory of gravity... "just a theory", yet you dont float away from the surface of the planet.

"theory" does not mean "taken out of thin air".

Ironically, creationists make the same mistake in their flawed reasoning.

(Oh, and the "quantity theory of money" is also, "just a theory", but that doesnt stop expansionist monetray policy from howllowing out your savings, does it?)

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 11:58 | 2236088 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

"Atomic theory is also "just a theory", yet nuclear power plants work."

"Theory of gravity... "just a theory", yet you dont float away from the surface of the planet."

There is a differences between theory and fact. Atomic theory moved from theory to fact as you pointed out it works. Gravity is also a fact. The so-called green house gas theory is far from fact. Even climate scientists will not state it is a empirical fact. The argument has always been we should stop what we are doing just in case they are correct. That sounds to me more politically motivated then scientifically sound.

Keep in mind that the scientific community is always looking for a way to generate funds. The greatest portion of these funds come from governments (tax payers) Why do you think they used Al Gore to promote their theory? Because publishing the theory in scientific journals for peer review gave the climate scientists little traction. In general, it was dismissed by most scientists. Al Gore comes along, makes a movie, and poof..it gets some attention..and funding...I could care less if one believes that "global warming" (oh sorry...they changed the term to climate change as the earth became cooler) climate change is caused by C02. To prove it is fact one has to look at historical trends and not discount them as a anomaly. Earth has been around allot longer than man and the climate has changed drastically over the millions of years. 

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 12:07 | 2236125 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

You need to understand the difference between a 'theory' and a 'scientific theory'.

 

"A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena.[1] Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments.[2] Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.[3]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

Note the bits about 'verified hypotheses'

 

This is why you are a raging 'flat earther' and not a scientist.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 13:56 | 2236586 Cole Younger
Cole Younger's picture

Are you suggesting that global warming...I mean climate change  is 100% do to CO2..If so, please provide the empirical evidence. Playing on words and meaning is just another way of saying you don't have a clue. The historical data suggests the earth goes through warm and cold cycles none of which is due to mans emissions. Solar cycles, earth's orbit, volcanic occurrences, etc. have a greater affect on earth's climate then Co2 emissions. Believe what you want, I don't really care. I won't believe until there is 100% certainty. The earth is currently in a cooling trend, how do you explain that if CO2 is causing such havoc?

 

Short term trends are just a blip and are meaningless. a couple of degrees up or down means very little. In the 70's the scientist thought we were going into a ice age, now it is global warming, the next decade it maybe a ice age again and so on. The reality is that you cannot base a climate change on a short term cycles ( a couple of decades) and you certainly cannot point to C02 as a cause for global warming..I mean climate change in a short term cycle.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 14:01 | 2236600 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

No he isn't, nor is anyone informed of the subject. Do the homework and look it up yourself instead of asking for spoonfeeding.

You might want to google for Svante Arrhenius, who did the first lab work 150 years ago, and whos work has been verified uncountable times since then.

"Short term trends are just a blip and are meaningless"

Glad you said that, because that invalidates the rest of the climate change denialists' idiocy when they claim that the warmning stopped in 1997, or 2007, or whatever they have or will pull out their collective, ignorant asses.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:45 | 2234805 samwell
samwell's picture

CO2 is not pollution as plants fix the carbon in C02 with the aid of sunlight as an energy source.  The percentage of CO2 in recent earth history has been much higher than it is right now.  Plants are actually carbon starved right relative to say the  early carboniferous period.  Increases in CO2 actually lag the sun spot cycles and are more a result of increased solar activity.  the carbonazis have merely chosen CO2 because it is something they can tax you for producing despite the fact that they are some of the biggest producers of the stuff.  Just ask man-bear-pig masseuse-molestor  al the saint gore how much his monthly heating and electric bill is?  we just have to purchase "carbon offsets", or indulgences, from the "high" priests of AGW like Obongo and his lackeys at solyndra.  these are the same charlatans that brought us the sub prime slime and soon to be sub prime student loan fiasco.  I guess all of these "highly educated" diploma mill graduates can all move to china since there are no more jobs being created here

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:31 | 2235535 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Isn't it interesting that both peak oil and global warming call for rationing of the most important resource in the world? Huh, how about that?

What if increased CO2 was actually a benefit in terms of shrinking the Sahara and increasing crop yields?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:03 | 2235336 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Before you start suggesting scientists take your 'logic class' - I would read up on CO2 - then you might realise that plants also produce CO2 - so no, even if we cut it all out of the system - the plants wouldn't die.

 

I do love to was a neanderthal who puts his hands in the 'pretty fire' to keep them warm.

 

Logically speaking this makes sense!

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:35 | 2235551 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

"I would read up on CO2 - then you might realise that plants also produce CO2 - so no, even if we cut it all out of the system - the plants wouldn't die."

You should never make fun of anyone else's intelligence.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:45 | 2235582 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

"You should never make fun of anyone else's intelligence."

 

When someone shows some then I won't - there is no intelligence here - just sponsored bible bashers who think they have the right to drive.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:28 | 2235728 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Global Warming skeptics bash the Bible? This is some truly fascinating stuff. Are you a Congressmen?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 11:02 | 2235843 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

...they do at T-party rallies.

 

It's no coincidence that the MAJORITY of people who are climate change sceptics also have a bone about when the earth was formed (and by whom).

 

Maybe your problem is you're associating with nutters in order to serve your own self interest.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:23 | 2234880 greyghost
greyghost's picture

this is not science. lying,cheating, stealing and just plain cookin the books is not science. just now after a couple of years are the true scientists coming to grips with the stench of fraud that these crooks have fostered on the field of all sciences and scientists. it is why complete and open review must be maintained or else all science is tainted. that is the foundation of research and scientific studies. and oh looky here....another post by oil experts that does not mention....peak oil......is that another non scientific approach to crap theory?

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:15 | 2235496 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

"this is not science. lying,cheating, stealing and just plain cookin the books is not science"

 

no - you're confused, the lying, cheating and stealing is done by the corporations - mainly the giant oil producers.

 

Which is more trustworthy - a scientist who dedicates his life to discovery? - or a  snake oil salesman who dedicates his life to selling things which aren't actually his to begin with?

 

I rest my case.

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:28 | 2234623 redpill
redpill's picture

If the UN ceased to exist tomorrow the world would be a much better place.

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:33 | 2234632 surf0766
surf0766's picture

It was just another propaganda tool.

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:33 | 2234633 DocinPA
DocinPA's picture

Well.  A shred of truth.  Ms. Curry is to be commended for her honesty.  All of the climate "models" are crap, Phil Jones and Michael Mann are liars and Al Gore is a charlatan.  There are awhole bunch of academics whose funding depends upon AGW being true and even more statists that salivate at the thought of stuffing everybody into clown cars or even better, mass transit.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:24 | 2234736 malek
malek's picture

Ms. Curry is to be commended for her honesty, humbleness, and for not sidestepping the ambiguities.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:31 | 2234760 spdrdr
spdrdr's picture

But, but.......  the debate is OVER, isn't it?

Why then are all these scientists debating the settled science?

(Why have you not categorised ManBearPig as a liar AND a charlatan?)

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:36 | 2234638 ACP
ACP's picture

Shows you how a reasonable theory called "The Greenhouse Effect" can be morphed, politicized and monetized into the monster it is today. "Global warming" has been going on since the last ice age. They are separate and distinct.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 02:44 | 2234818 New World Chaos
New World Chaos's picture

The main greenhouse gas is water vapor.  You can experience this yourself by freezing your ass of in the desert at night.   I don't see anyone even talking about water vapor because it won't get any political traction.

I think CO2-based global warming is real but easily survivable.  The biggest threat to humanity is world government.  But the left will try to stampede us off the NWO cliff with their bugaboos (global warming, food safety, "economic and social justice", and horrors at the thought of anyone being responsible for anything), while the right will stampede us off the cliff with their bugaboos (terrorism, religion, sex, and drugs). 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 04:29 | 2235155 i-dog
i-dog's picture

Who can I vote for to get sex and drugs? ... I'm a little short of both right now!

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 05:09 | 2235200 New World Chaos
New World Chaos's picture

Ron Paul

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 11:12 | 2235874 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

If you want sex and drugs, just vote for the status quo..., that's where we're headed...  Now, you might not have the freedom to abstain (either physically or emotionally via peer pressure, etc.), but you'll get all the sex and drugs you want.  See generally, aldous huxley.

For anecdotal evidence...  look no further than the prescription epidemic.  [note, it's the cure for belligerent indigents/structural unemployment].

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:48 | 2235422 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

It's easily survivable for those of us who don't live in the areas that will be hit the hardest by climage change and its resultant effects.

Of course, judging from the costs of extreme weather in the US alone, which seems to be rising exponentially, every time the hurricane season is over and the destruction is asessed, survival isn't the major problem - the eternal rebuilding thats required will be.

But i suppose thats just a neo-keynesian plot as well.

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:36 | 2234639 ABG LINE
ABG LINE's picture

Chemtrails????????????????????????????????????

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:38 | 2234640 Uber Vandal
Uber Vandal's picture

At best, reliable WRITTEN climate records go back 500 years.

What is 500 years of data when compared to 5,000,000,000 years?

 

Foamy hit the nail on the head here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upgS56ORpZQ

 

And of course, there is George Carlin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

 

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:49 | 2235594 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

That cartoon just about sums up the sceptics position.

 

No arguments

No facts

Nothing but angry swearing.

 

It's not a coincidence it was a short cartoon - that's designed for the short attention spans of it's intended audience.

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:48 | 2234645 barliman
barliman's picture

 

I am ALL for none of the above.

This is a far more objective inteview but there are obvious questions still not being asked of anyone professing proof or the possibility of proof of AGW:

  • What is the standardized computer model being used to model the billion plus variables required for global system?
  • Where have the billion plus variables been obtained from actual, unadulterated data sources?
  • What is the mean deviation in results obtained from known error factors in the data sources?

In shorter terms, we are decades from having the hardware and software to model the Earth, its various contributing systems and the external energy sources (i.e. the fricking Universe) that contribute to what we call climate. We are even farther away from having the necessary equations required to obtain verifiable results.

barliman

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:38 | 2234777 Fedophile
Fedophile's picture

You obviously don't understand Computational Science and have no idea what you're talking about.

  • There is a thing called Google, use it.
  • All the papers list their sources and you'll just have to do the hard work of determining for yourself what is unadulterated and what is not.
  • If small errors in input data (or those caused by truncation error) lead to any significant changes in model output over many time-steps your model is garbage and can't be used.

 

Approximations to the problem can reduce the complexity to something manageable and they do actually work (when the approximations are proven to be appropriate). There are many examples of appropriate uses of this technique in mathematics, physics, and other sciences.

Don't get me wrong, the climate models need another 10+ years of work but saying that you need to know billions of variables to solve a complex problem is bullshit and the equations we need to describe the problem were worked out decades ago.

 

Sat, 03/10/2012 - 00:21 | 2242472 barliman
barliman's picture

 

Hmmmmm, long before this I spent time reading & reviewing, considering the different points of view and reflecting on the "approximations"

  • How do the current models simulate the various external energy sources and thier influence on the Earth's ecosystem?
  • How have the "approximations" been proven to be appropriate on a combined system crossing so many disciplines (i.e. chemistry, geology, physics, biology, cosmology, etc.)?
  • Why is it appropriate to take so many independent systems, simplify some, ignore others entirely and hand pick data?

As a reference for the layman, the current models are to reality as the science of physics was prior to Einstein. I was breaking 32 bit modeling systems 30 years ago and then explaining the mathematical basis for the modeling to the people who had told their bosses I had no idea what I was talking about - it was sad when they had to admit my explanation was accurate when their bosses asked them in front of me.

Billions of variables for a set of proven approximations is at the low end of the scale for this problem.

barliman

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:51 | 2235426 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"In shorter terms, we are decades from having the hardware and software to model the Earth"

Only if you demand a perfect model, which entirely defeats the purpose of modelling.

"Where have the billion plus variables been obtained from actual, unadulterated data sources?"

This makes it all too clear that you don't know what you're talking about. There are not a billion variables, not even close to a million.

There are about 10 significant forcings, and for every system or sub-system, there are a number of parameters for their interfacings to neighbouring systems, plus some functions for internal state. This is not difficult to model.

Sat, 03/10/2012 - 00:31 | 2242490 barliman
barliman's picture

 

Wow

"Only if you demand a perfect model, which entirely defeats the purpose of modelling."

Do you EVER read what you have written?

/s

It is obviously a better approach to spends trillions of dollars on limiting CO2 by the most expensive, least likely to work methods (nobody would ever cheat on carbon tax credits), let millions of people in third world countries die by restricting their access to less expensive forms of energy and the benefits they bring and leave unchallenged the proposals being insisted upon by a group of scientists too small to populate a small town in the middle of nowhere.

/sarc off

How about we get to where the models are not laughably simplistic before we start down that road.

barliman

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:55 | 2235443 mikesswimn
mikesswimn's picture

I think I can be helpful here.  In order to model something as complicated as "climate" and "climate change" researchers use something called AOGCMs (Atmosphere and Ocean Global Climate Models).  Essentially, this is a combination of two models, AGCM and OGCM, both of which use similar mathematical frameworks.  The basic idea, is they take a rotating sphere, and place a fluid on top of it, either gas or liquid.  For those with a background in partial differential equations, the tool here is the Navier-Stokes equation.  I cannot stress how complex these models are, even the Navier-Stokes equation itself has many open questions surrounding it from a purely mathematical standpoint (I think the Clay Institute has some open questions that pay $1,000,000 if you can answer them).  Additionally, these models have to be tweaked quite a bit to deal with the enormous complexity that is the Earth and how it functions.  Hopefully that answers your first two questions, I don't think there is an answer for your third, although I could be wrong.

For those modellers out there like myself, we all know the adage "all models are wrong, but some models can be useful".  AOGCMs are most certainly incorrect, but given their complexity, I wonder how useful they are in their current form. 

Either way, cool math, too bad it's so politicized.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:33 | 2235542 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"For those modellers out there like myself, we all know the adage "all models are wrong, but some models can be useful". AOGCMs are most certainly incorrect, but given their complexity, I wonder how useful they are in their current form. "

ALL models are "incorrect" (you mean imprecise). It's the very Nature of a model to simplify the reality down to something that can be predicted.

Demanding a 'perfect model', which climate change denialists often do, explicitly or implicitly, betrays a fatal lack of understanding of what a models purpose and function is.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 11:17 | 2235886 mikesswimn
mikesswimn's picture

Are you seriously arguing the semantics of a common saying about models?  Then using your sad little point to try to make it seem like you have a clue about how a climate model (or any modern model for that matter) is built?  Depressing.  Let me see if I can reword this so you can understand:

"AOGCMs are like, super hard math, way past trigonometry.  It's totally going to take several semesters to figure out.  Homework sucks for reals."

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 11:34 | 2235968 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

No, nimwit, im arguing the hard, basic, realities of what any mathematical and computable model is, which is an approximationm of a system being studied.

This is especially important to nail down, seeing that so many skeptics and denalists expect models to *perfectly* predict something (weather, climate, their sour feet, they never seem specific abotu what excatly they expect to see - of course because they havent the slightest clue), else they won't believe it.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 12:29 | 2236234 mikesswimn
mikesswimn's picture

Then here's the hard, basic realities of climate modeling: The math being utilized isn't well understood by mathematicians (see existence and smoothness problem), nevermind the huge host of disciplines required to deal with something as complicated and complex as the climate.  The current results, due to these tremendously complex problems and the massive complexity of the underlying goal, are understandably not very good.

Additionally, at no point did I say that a "perfect" model is required, those are your words, don't put them in my mouth.  I merely tried to explain how it's done and the difficulties involved.  Your irritating self-righteousness begets your abject ignorance.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 14:07 | 2236616 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"Additionally, at no point did I say that a "perfect" model is required,"

Don't play dumb. You, like so many other skeptic and denialist, implied it in your criticism.

Since you backtrack now, I'm happy you've seen your error, so you can avoid fooling yourself (and others) in the future.

 

"Your irritating self-righteousness begets your abject ignorance."

Boo hoo. I stopped taking the remarks of denialists seriously a good while ago, because it's essentially all bluster, born out of a niggling awareness that they're fundamentally ignorant about the subject, and talking shit to defend their religion (read: political ideology).

Sat, 03/10/2012 - 00:00 | 2242426 barliman
barliman's picture

 

mikesswimn,

Thank you for spelling out the nature of the limitations in the modeling. With regard to your efforts to enlighen Death & Gravity - Liberals are loved by web sites because they generate page hits by people who think that they can somehow be educated. They can’t. I grew up in a liberal family. No amount of facts, no matter how clearly presented, will ever sway them from their religious belief in liberal ideology.

Ironically, electing liberals violates the First Amendment; you can’t separate Church and State if you believe they are one in the same. Liberals KNOW they have a right to their opinion but feel YOU do not have a right to an opinion that disagrees with their opinion. Since they equate dissent from their opinion/dogma as heresy, anyone who does not believe in lock step with them may be treated as unenlightened savages.

I have never met a liberal who could deal with being ignored. Obama proved that point last year. Obama is not a narcissist  - he is a full out, hardcore liberal. The MSM fawns over him because they know that without their constant fluffing it would be impossible for even the dumbest of people not to notice his ineptitude and corruption back lighted by his own peevishness.

I would recommend the same course of action with regard to Death & Gravity - just ignore since there is no exchange of ideas possible.

barliman

 

Sat, 03/10/2012 - 00:39 | 2242505 barliman
barliman's picture

 

The math is cool. Engineering background - loved applied diffy-Q.

One day, we will have the ability to model this incredible planet, the little part of the universe it sits in and be able to sit back and make informed judgments.

Absent aother Einstein, my view is we are decades away from that happening. Unfortunately, one set of politicians sees this as an "opportunity" while lacking any basis for making an informed choice. The politics of this are complete shite.

barliman

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:40 | 2234646 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Red...alert....red...alert....

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-iran-may-cleaning-nuke-202531198.html

AP Exclusive: Iran may be cleaning up nuke work
Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:43 | 2234660 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

Zionist...alert....Zionist...alert....

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:27 | 2234740 john39
john39's picture

expect one bullshit story after another, all based on confidential sources, inuendo or just plain fiction.  the crazies won't be happy until the war gets going.   it is purim after all.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:31 | 2234759 samwell
samwell's picture

it's always "unamed" confidential sources so as to protect the identity of the zionazi state propagandist of israel and the US from the usual recriminations.  these fascists are hell bent on TEOTWAWKI.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:23 | 2234731 Z Beeblebrox
Z Beeblebrox's picture

Oh no! Iran has trucks!

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:27 | 2234741 samwell
samwell's picture

fool me once....and umm you won't get fooled again

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:41 | 2234649 q99x2
q99x2's picture

How bout this. Measure the average temperature of the planet and see how that corresponds to the analysis of ice cores from Icelandic glaciers.

The average World temperature has gone down for the last two years. Maybe it's time to move south. What do you say to burning a little more Pennsylvanian coal in Pennsylvania not Bejing!

Maybe loss of reserve currency status of the dollar will help there too.

Looks like another crack in the NWO's chaos. Once the shell of order falls whose face shall our anger bear upon. God I hope it is someone other than Al Gore.

For a bit of irony look into Al Gore and the Molten Metal Corporation. He is certainly not new to shell games.

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:53 | 2234674 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

after Al Gore was caught asking for a belly massage , who could ever be angry with him again

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:43 | 2234650 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

"Human-induced global warming" = Globalist/Socialist meme. Our entire civilization has grown up in a gap between two Ice Ages; global warming has made it all possible. When the ice comes back, we go back to the caves. Just as well.  

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:48 | 2234819 Fedophile
Fedophile's picture

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Global cooling is a bigger threat to our survival than a warming planet. That doesn't mean that increased CO2 concentrations caused by humans burning fossil fuels isn't affecting the climate though.

As always the real problem is the MSM fear mongering the sheeple into buying whatever they are selling and invested interests in keeping the green industrial complex juiced with the government fiat

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:43 | 2234655 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

Sometime tomorrow, we can expect climate change to wrath down on are planet/ lol. We need to reorganize.. a beer summit is in order. There’s money to be made on a sun who is creating low profit margins for a new business to sell Climate Change. DHS is all over this new terrorist sun suspect.

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:51 | 2234671 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

with all that snow last winter i didnt believe in global warmimg, but now with no snow this winter i do........will see how next winter turns out before i decide again

Wed, 03/07/2012 - 23:59 | 2234685 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

By the way, I know the love my fellow ZHers have for climate science bashing, and just so's folks know where I am coming from...the planetary science is ironclad, the timing is uncertain, but you CANNOT multiply greenhouse gas concentrations severalfold in the atmosphere and avoid substantial and ultimately extremely damaging increases in retained heat. 

We will burn all the oil due to economics (ignoring quibbles about what 'all' means--it means substantially ALL).  So the question is how much coal do we have to leave in the ground.  If that gets burned we are talking about scenarios beyond any you've seen discussed thus far.  Essentially it all boils down to a standoff between the US and China about coal replacement in electric power.  It's really...not...that...big...of...a...deal.  I mean it is, but then again it isn't.

We burn about a billion tons of coal per year in the US.  Big pile.  But not all that valuable considering the trillion-dollar SCAMS being thrown around on this site.

I guess now that climate change is becoming less fashionable it would be fun to call out a Tyler or two on the subject.  It gets a lot of clicks, this climate skeptic stuff, but what do you REALLY think?  Sure there are plenty of 'angles' for the financial jerkoffs to play, but the science?  Come on.  Black body radiation 101, known for over a hundred years.

Fun fact:  The US is unlikely to ever reach its pre-crisis CO2 emissions peak again.  We have already stabilized.  Coal is about to turn into a zero cost resource due to take-or-pay contracts.  They'll burn it in power plants just to get rid of it.  Funny how energy markets can change the 'facts on the ground' and destroy conventional wisdom in a hurry.  Cheap natural gas and energy efficiency are wiping out the baseline assumptions of the past 50 years.  Also wiping out renewable power markets, oops, but there it is.  Gotta call it like I see it.

And I hate eco-fascists too.  There are many.  But the fact that there are nutrition fascists doesn't make morbid obesity good for you.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:46 | 2234809 Tao 4 the Show
Tao 4 the Show's picture

Surprised - thought you were smarter than this. If you bring engineering type simplistic thinking to the question, you arrive at an answer like yours. Have you ever tried to model a truly complex system? No, I do not mean a nuclear power plant. Once you understand nonlinearities and instabilities, you realize how insane it is to make sweepingly "obvious" statements as you just did. There are feedbacks in many directions that cannot be modeled simply. Thinking you can model the climate when you cannot even model the weather is the height of arrogance.

I am strongly against polluting the environment and think we should be making masive efforts towards alternatives to carbon fuels. That's a longer discussion, but the truth about human effects on climate is that we do not know the answer. Predictions of the models are wildly off the mark and anyone with modeling experience (and lacking an agenda) knows full well that we do not know the answer. My own guess based on much review of data is that colder weather is more likely in the coming decades.

We are in trouble, folks, but it is not likely man made global warming that poses the most immediate threat. With so many people and so many bad policies, we are polluting the planet at an insane rate, stressing our food sources, and depleting our available energy supplies, etc. All the while we remain a few EMPs away from massive nuclear contamination as plants shut down and overheat.

The global warming issue is a bad, bad distraction from reality, which is far worse than this importance and fund gathering strategy of the IPCC.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:27 | 2234900 Vint Slugs
Vint Slugs's picture

"...engineering type simplistic thinking to the question..."

 

What kind of a phrase is that? 

 

"...think we should be making masive [sic] efforts towards alternatives to carbon fuels."

 

Maybe you could give us a little factual substantiation for such an inane statement.

 

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 04:18 | 2235144 Tao 4 the Show
Tao 4 the Show's picture

Just left out the dash "engineering-type". It means that most people are trained to think complex systems are harder linear mechanical problems. They are not.

Not long ago, if you had tried to argue a major claim on the basis of a computer program, you would have been regarded as an idiot. Now, idiocy seems to be commonplace and good sense is trumped by politics.

Try to predict the conversation two people will be having ten years from now. The problems in climate science are similar.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:45 | 2234931 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

Right.  The timing  is uncertain.  I said that. 

Have you ever tried to model the soil in a square meter of farmland?  The complexity is staggering.  Guess we can't grow food.  Uhm, no.  We do the best we can with all information.  The highly charged and deliberately politicized nature of this information doesn't make it any different than anything else in the world. 

Remember what site this is?  It's ABOUT risk and tail risk and the difficulty of managing risk in the face of human greed.  You can't beg off by saying it's complicated.

It's OK if there are other important reasons to do things as well.  

Not really an argument here IMHO.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 04:27 | 2235153 Tao 4 the Show
Tao 4 the Show's picture

I like your farmland analogy and could not agree more that pumping out vast amounts of pollutants including CO2 is an experiment and a bad idea. The problem is that clouds, cosmic rays, solar variability, and many other factors in the environment create instabilities in the mathematics involved in modeling. Why do you suppose that you can't predictthe weather one year from today? Same problem. Different variables, but the mathematical reason leading to lack of predictability is the same. I have gotten so far into my own models that I started believing my own hype. It's a phase. The climate scientists will hopefully also grow out of it.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:24 | 2235370 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"Once you understand nonlinearities and instabilities, you realize how insane it is to make sweepingly "obvious" statements as you just did. There are feedbacks in many directions that cannot be modeled simply."

What makes you think that the modeals are 'simple'? What is simple to you?

" Thinking you can model the climate when you cannot even model the weather is the height of arrogance."

Weather and climate are not the same.

"That's a longer discussion, but the truth about human effects on climate is that we do not know the answer."

No, the answer is pretty straight forward. Whats the truth is that we do not know the pricise parameteres of the climate system /arbitrarily well/. This is what skeptics then proceed to say is ignorance, which is simply untrue.

"Predictions of the models are wildly off the mark and anyone with modeling experience (and lacking an agenda) knows full well that we do not know the answer."

Likewise untrue, the predictions are mostly accurate, and getting better as the models do likewise.

"The global warming issue is a bad, bad distraction from reality, which is far worse than this importance and fund gathering strategy of the IPCC."

No, it is part of the reality of many ills accumulating for humanity, climate or non-climate related.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:47 | 2234815 Z Beeblebrox
Z Beeblebrox's picture

Unless the effect from CO2 is already close to saturation. The small concentrations in the atmosphere are opaque to certain wavelengths, transparent to others. Adding more CO2 will have the greatest effect on the shoulders of its transmission curve. Some wavelengths are already being blocked by existing CO2 at near 100%, and other wavelengths will get through no matter how much CO2 you add. Once CO2 is effectively blocking all of the energy it is the bands it is capable of blocking (and there's reason to believe current concentrations are doing just that), further increases will have a negligable effect. Think of a clear pane of glass. Paint it with one coat of paint, and it will block perhaps 80% of visible light. Add a second coat, and now maybe it will block 95% of visible light. Further coats are not going to have much effect on how much light gets through.

The thought that high CO2 concentrations will not have a disastrous effect jives well with historical proxy records, which indicate much higher CO2 concentrations than we're seeing now in past geological eras. The geologic time scale proxy records also indicate that it has historically been global temperature that drives carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:54 | 2234941 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

  I vote we don't go there.  I have collected fossils from the ancient ocean floor that was up in Minnesota in past geological eras. 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:01 | 2234691 tickhound
tickhound's picture

"Is the importance of CO2 overestimated and the importance of the sun is underestimated?"

JC: "I absolutely think that more effort is needed in determining the effect of the sun on our climate"

Yeah I would've never thought to look there.

CUZ if the sun is a culprit, then they might just have to stop....blaming.....me.  And that's just unacceptable cuz the sun can't pay carbon tax.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:49 | 2234937 gwar5
gwar5's picture

LOL! Thinking the same thing. The sun... who knew!

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:05 | 2234701 shinyindallas
shinyindallas's picture

Since I have a minor in meteorology I will make a few comments. Climate change affects different areas differently. While this seems obvious, it is hard for people to understand. A point that is hard to get across is that the difference between 31f and 33f is massive. Ice and liquid water effect the climate, and downwind climate differently. When you add moisture to the air, it's phase change frorm ice to water to vapor and it causes cause a lot of energy to be released. I could go on with a big lecture but you get the picture. When someone posts peer reviewed literature showing something different I will take notice. "The big picture" linked today to an article discussing how incompetent people are unable to notice they lack competence.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:39 | 2234784 Atomizer
Atomizer's picture

 

 

The IPCC Fraud  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IMGiNn9hmc

 

Suck your dick and fucking like it, shiny does Dallas. Your faget UN climate laws have complete global transparency. 

KoRn - Faget [Live @ Family Values '98]

 

Winks and laughs.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:14 | 2234709 deflator
deflator's picture

 I don't think anyone would regard it as a science but my reasoning is 1) Since we began using crude oil, coal and natural gas 150 years ago there has been an expectation(or possibility) that carbon emissions could have an impact on the Earths climate.

 2) Our debt based economic model requires infinite growth to sustain it's self, TPTB are clearly in the infinite growth camp(an idea that the production and consumption of fossil fuels has produced), where do you think they are on something that would upset the apple cart of infinite economic growth? I would think TPTB would put all of their propagandistic powers to dissuade the masses away from the idea of climate change.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:13 | 2234717 Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

UN building pushed into water, UN staff and all its ridiculous US hating "diplomats" invited to leave at point of gun = A good day and a good start..

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:24 | 2234735 ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Thank you ZH for stepping into this. We will never be free unless we are allowed an opportunity to challenge the 'planners' plans. It is my opinion that the ever present truth that climate does in fact change, was recognized and selected for abuse and manipulation by these 'fucks' (sorry, I'm just not eloquent).

I'm giddy that your brains have my respect. How is 'climate science' different from 'Keynesian economic science'?

HINT:

It is not different, it is not 'science'. It is goal seeking bull. All funded courtesy of the machine hell bent on playing SIMS with your life, comfortably of course and from a safe distance.

I'm constantly reminded of my experience with a 'corporate' entity. The game was how to justify your own existence within the organization (paycheck).

So now my dumb statement of the day!

Human beings are tribal by nature and most content and fulfilled, intellectually and spiritually empowered (impowered?) when functioning within a tight group within which soulfully considered and accepted norms set healthy parameters.

In other words, slavery doesn't sit well with human nature and we are being treated as slaves.

Were any CRITICALLY THINKING< HUMAN BEING to fully consider the plight of personkind at this point in history? I can't help but conclude that individual would feel sick, sad, disgusted, outraged...and then maybe just overwhelmed.

I am so sick, seriously, sick of the deception.

I am perfectly okay with having a difference of opinion. Just be honest, do not try to screw me.

The climate hoax is a screw job.

A bunch of 'religious extremist' ( yes, for the radical left, it is a religion) attempting to rule us by fear ( and utter bullshit).

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it until the extreme left can convince me otherwise.

And good luck with that.

I don't watch T.V.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:31 | 2234754 Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

+1 to infinity and beyond.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:44 | 2235577 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"Were any CRITICALLY THINKING< HUMAN BEING to fully consider the plight of personkind at this point in history? I can't help but conclude that individual would feel sick, sad, disgusted, outraged...and then maybe just overwhelmed."

This, combined with this:

"The climate hoax is a screw job."

...does not compute.

By the way, "critical thinking" does not mean "cussing at the ipcc and the establishment".

Rather, it seems that so many self-proclaimed 'critical thinkers', which are really just climate change denialists, are incapable of takign a critical stance on their own data sources (ie. the professional skeptics).

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:27 | 2234738 Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

I believe we have had global climate change.

In the 1970s, that meant global cooling.

http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

In the 1990s and onward, it meant global warming.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

What do I believe now?

What does it matter?

I'm looking at either a second term of Barack "The Evolver" Obama, or somebody like Newt Gingrich, Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum, Mitt "The Statue" Romney, or worse - Jeb Bush, in a brokered compromise - as our next president

So really - what the fuck does it matter if the Earth is getting warmer or not? We're still fucked.

And not in a good way.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:44 | 2234926 gwar5
gwar5's picture

Yeah, but who to choose who could get elected. Too late for RP?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:25 | 2235375 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"So really - what the fuck does it matter if the Earth is getting warmer or not?"

Thats called sticking your head in the sand, and letting special interests fuck you sideways while you do so.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:30 | 2234752 AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

Great quality guest posts again ZH!

"This divide within the scientific community has left the public wondering who can be trusted to provide them with accurate information and answers."

Hu... What? What divide in the scientific community? AFAIK there's very much a unified message from the scientific COMMUNITY. What I see a lot of digression is with the pseudo-scientific community, like wattsupwiththat and several other BLOGS...

"firstly with the climategate scandal, then with a number of high profile resignations, and now with the new “Gleickgate” scandal (1) (2) – One has to wonder where climate science goes from here?"

Hm. Let's see. 1) Climategate = Murdochgate, not troves but a readers digest of select information tortured enough to produce a message the carrier wanted (very much like our friend Breitbart). And also, the wrinkly Murdoch fingers all over. Nice. 2) Resignations... ok. 3) Gleickgate... yeah sure... and the science? It wasn't a scientific but rather a character issue. No science there.

Well, anyways. Those who can't read the writing on the wall of Climate, will for sure take some very bad long term decisions.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:31 | 2234757 apberusdisvet
apberusdisvet's picture

The Obama/Soros/Gore carbon credits plan (the ultimate in marxist wealth redistribution), is all you need to know to devine the true agenda of the AGW group.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:42 | 2234792 Tsar Pointless
Tsar Pointless's picture

You name some prominent Democrat fools in your comment.

Tell me - do you still believe in the "D vs. R" meme?

Are you that easy of a mark?

Inquiring minds - we love to know!

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:40 | 2234923 gwar5
gwar5's picture

You can't be against the UN globalist fraud and be a D. It's litmus.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:59 | 2234954 Peter K
Peter K's picture

I think it's more of a R v M (arxist) meme these days:)

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:07 | 2235340 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Gore-Goldman Carbon Exchange = bankrupt.

Need one say more?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 02:16 | 2234976 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

While I agree that the whole "climate change" agenda needs be looked at through the wider lense of it's socio-political motivations, there's no traction in branding it as a "marxist" form of wealth distribution. The well known fact that the backers of 'marxist-leninst' revolution in Russia and elsewhere were Wall St/City of London financiers forces one to look beyond the formulaic 'left' vs. 'right' cul de sac in order to make sense of this scam and all the others that make up our phony reality paradigm.

The scum were are dealing with in all these scams are hegemonists. IOW, the one thing they all have in common is the desire to concentrate power and wealth in their hands at the expense of the rest of us. But that's too dry a term for relaying the real flavor of their psycho-pathic drive for dominance - and I there would therefore submit in it's place hegemonsters: the class of anti-social deviates who conduct covert campaigns to defraud societies of their wealth and liberties by seizing control of education, media, and political institutions.

The punch&judy show of left/right, conservative/liberal, capitalist/communist etc. etc., is just that - a puppet show designed by hegemonsters to distract and delude citizenry whilst the heist(s) go on behind stage. Waking up to this fact requires of us to collectively connect the dots behind the myriad methods of their parasitical apportioning of the public purse.

In June, 2001, Thomas Barnett, strategist at the U.S. Naval War College, held a workshop—Cantor Fitzgerald/eSpeed Conference—in Windows on the World at the top of the North Tower of the World Trade Center directly above the Cantor Fitzgerald complex of offices.

Among those attending was Rajendra Pachauri currently chairman of the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. During the workshop the participants engaged in a game to exercise the new rules of Carbon Emissions Trading. [http://www.abeldanger.net/2010/01/catastrophe-capitalism.html]

or,

The exchange's founder, Richard Sandor, says he knew Obama as far back as when the Joyce Foundation awarded money to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was research professor. He estimated that climate trading could be "a $10 trillion market," which it very well might have been if cap-and-trade legislation like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer made into law.

For his efforts, Sandor was named as one of Time magazine's "Heroes of the Planet" in 2002 and one of its "Heroes of the Environment" in 2007. Sanders eventually sold his 16.5% stake in CCX for $98.5 million, making him a hero of take-the-money-and-run.
 
Other CCX founders include former Goldman Sachs partner David Blood, as well as Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, also of Goldman Sachs. In 2006, CCX received a big boost when another investor purchased a 10% stake on the prospect of making a great deal of money for itself. That investor was Goldman Sachs, accused of selling financial instruments it knew were doomed to fail." [http://www.abeldanger.net/2010/11/climate-fraud-abel-danger-crashes.html]

Iran, 9-11, Carbongate, "Homeland Security" Sovereign debt crisis, - it all fits together in the big cabbalist jihad jigsaw puzzle of Death.

And there sits Chicago, at the center of it all! http://youtu.be/CLQQcirULpw [Roy Ayers - Chicago (Extended UK version)]

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 07:15 | 2235290 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

Marx's work relied on resources being plentiful - cimate change has no friend in Communism.

 

The associations is simply ex-McCarthy trial types acting like irresponsible children and name calling - because in the US 'cummunist' replaced the word 'Bogeyman' - when people grew up and no longer believed in the Bogeyman.

 

...and before that 'bogeyman' was 'the devil' - oh what a coincidence - all the T-party loons are religious too!

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 07:58 | 2235323 nmewn
nmewn's picture

What a surprise to find, a defense of the state subverting religion, also goes hand in hand with a defense of the state attempting to subvert science.

Simply, the-state-sponsored-climate-models-are-not-working.

What's next? The state attempting to subvert freedom of speech & the press?

Oh, wait...

As far as a communist "bogeyman"...there are millions of skeletons testifying to something very different. From Mao to Stalin to Pol Pot to Kim Jung Ill the record is pretty clear on that score comrade ;-)

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:56 | 2235447 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"Simply, the-state-sponsored-climate-models-are-not-working."

Horseshit. Climatology and its supporting disciplines were by and large existent half a century before governments started funding academia at the scale to day, let alone the field of climateology.

As for states sponsoring climate research, any comments on the consistent US oil & coal industry funding of the climate change denialists?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 19:18 | 2237657 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Horseshit. Climatology and its supporting disciplines were by and large existent half a century before governments started funding academia at the scale to day, let alone the field of climateology."

Would that be the Ice Age scare of "climatology and its supporting disciplines" in the 1970's...as surmised by Paul Ehrlich? He was just as wrong then as his flip flop to warming now.

Anything to sell a book I suppose.

They have already plugged their models in on known knowns...(90's if I recall) the models failed to predict what was already known. Why do you think NASA got "shovel ready" stimulus money to build a better mousetrap?

Because the mousetrap they're using sucks...lol.

"As for states sponsoring climate research, any comments on the consistent US oil & coal industry funding of the climate change denialists?"

So what!...at least they're using their own money to beat down utter fucking foolishness instead of promoting it with subsidies.

The facts are...you boys got caught lying, deleting, manipulating, losing or misplacing very "valuable data" that is at the heart of your "scientific" theoretical research...not a very scholarly or scientific position to be sitting in while shouting the sky is falling.

The mean ole oil & coal companies didn't do that...your "climate scientists" did ;-)

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:19 | 2235508 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

"From Mao to Stalin to Pol Pot to Kim Jung Ill the record is pretty clear on that score comrade"

 

Not a communist amongst them - you're confusing communism with party fascism. I know it's hard for you to understand - that's because you don't read what you criticise!

 

The state didn't subvert religion - facts did.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 19:24 | 2237685 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Not a communist amongst them..."

lol...I debated whether to even grace this (or the rest of yours) with a reply because it's stupifyingly ignorant...thanks for the chuckle though, comrade.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 00:42 | 2234791 PLove
PLove's picture

My skies were filled with chemtrails today. 

Tons of aluminum and barium nanoparticles saturated the atmosphere ... and have done for more than 10 years.

Judith is professional challenged, if not dishonest, to gloss over such blatant geo-engineering. 

 

http://arizonaskywatch.com/

 

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 02:25 | 2234988 IQ 101
IQ 101's picture

We got Chem Trail Nailed today, a fine blue sky spring day made into a white hazed chill by Consistent non - contrails, the light from the Sun became so reminicent of the time I spent in L.A. in the 1970's in Smog Angeles .C.A.

A polluted diffusion of the creators gift of the Sunshine, to us, denied by the self seeking pseudo-scientists and the financers, Chem manufacturers, Pilots and Ground crews who are clearly involved in this Monstrous operation, knowingly.

I Pointed out 3, Fat classic Chemtrails to a guy I work for on occasion,as they Filled a blue patch in the sky and was met with "Well, HMMMM? Huh!

But that is O.K. If you can only get people to make a habit of LOOKING UP, Observing, 

Cops need Criminals to justify their existance, hence the "War on Drugs" and make everything illegal !

Climate scientologists need CO2 drama to justify their next grant and make Cow Farts Taxable, (They are now, in many places )

This is the future, Bullshit Science, Bullshit law, Bullshit Economics, Bullshit electric cars that run on COAL generated electricity ?

Bullshit Journalism,Medicine, Psychology, Philosophy,Politics, Education,

Religion, and even War, as if the goal was to create Hatred of all learning by accentuating the negative in each realm ? thereby creating a greater form of SLAVE with no desire for knowledge ?

Leif Erikson bailed out of Greenland @ + 1000 years ago because the Cows died and the Barley grew no more, he found a little place down South and called it Vinland for a few years, Google Nordic or Viking sagas,

He went South because the climate changed, it does that!

Dendrochronology, Arctic core samples, it is not a matter of doubt to anyone. Karl Marx giggles from his grave, sick parsites.

 http://www.nabohome.org/meetings/glthec/materials/keller/ArcticAnthro401-02-2.pdf

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:28 | 2235526 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

Great, a chemtrail nutter. Now we just need some Area51ers and 911 truthers, and we've got the whole family reunion set.

Jeez. All the loons are coming out of the woodwork as soon as a headline is posted about climate, even here on ZH.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:36 | 2234919 gwar5
gwar5's picture

And there it is, from an IPCC defectors mouth.  Even so, she was sugarcoating it and treading very lightly so her house is not burned down. That is as close as you'll ever get to a ranking IPCC member saying global warming is an absolute total fraud.  Words like "Consensus", "Groupthink," "Lack of transparency," and "Funding concerns" are not some new scientific vernacular for evidence, facts, and transparent debate

 

All She needed to say, just wouldn't blurt it out, was: 

1. Current Atmos. CO2 is only 389 ppm and the average CO2 over millions of years has been 1250+ ppm. If anything, we have a shortage of CO2 which is essential for all life. 

2. Or, 95% of all greenhouse gas is just water vapor which we can do nothing about -- and only 3% (of the remaining 5%) is composed of CO2, and 97% of all the CO2 comes from things like dead and decaying stuff over every sq. meter of the planet, not SUVs.  Atmos. CO2 is part of the natural carbon cycle.  

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 03:02 | 2235055 IQ 101
IQ 101's picture

Exactly! I would 10+ that gwar, if I could.

What we need is a Bullshit trading market, where we sell each other Bullshit, Oh, never mind, we do have one of those.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 04:57 | 2235157 DutchDude
DutchDude's picture

Insects produce more Co2 than humans+human industry etc together... kill insects, save world :')

Co2 as global warmer is such a hoax; perfect for taxing people because you can measure it perfectly;

one effect which i haven't read is that Co2-hoax DID make a lot of people buy eco-cars instead of V8 gas guzzlers. This will have an effect on the amount of oil the US needs from the middle east which is goood in these unstable times.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 07:11 | 2235287 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

"Insects produce more Co2 than humans+human industry etc together... kill insects, save world :')"

 

I know it's a joke - but it hides a serious subject.

 

Inescts do produce a lot of CO2 - however thanks to their pollination of plants they return to the planet far more than they take.

 

The problem with humans is not the amount they produce - but how little of it they give back. This idea of 'take, take' take' is born in Materialism and is the real cause of waste.

 

This is where flat earthers fail - they try to suggest this is about stopping them driving - well it's not, it's about people recognising and ACTING RESPONSIBLY for their luxuries.

 

Clearly the children of the t-party don't like to take responsibility - which is odd considering it's their mantra!

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 05:14 | 2235209 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Great points that are starting to be understood more widely.  H2O is the important green house gas for a sound reason:  clouds, their formation as a function of time of day or night.  Clear days and cloudy nights= higher surface T, cloudy days and clear nights = more radiation loss and lower surface T.

Now just try modeling cloud formation that over the entire global surface as a function of latitude (i.e. angle of incidence of the sun rays) and time and you'll understand why no realistic model can ever be developed that ignores water.  Its a highly non-linear system where small changes in input assumptions have dramatic changes in output prediction that are magnified with time.

Another important point: over long periods of geological time, CO2 increases always follow in time increases in global T, not the other way around.  How to explain this?  Simple, gasses desolved in water (think the oceans) are expelled when you heat the ocean-say due to greater solar flux. 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:26 | 2235522 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"1. Current Atmos. CO2 is only 389 ppm and the average CO2 over millions of years has been 1250+ ppm. If anything, we have a shortage of CO2 which is essential for all life. "

Horseshit. No shortage, even if such a concept is meaningful.

Co2 levels have risen by 33% the past century, conincidentally during the greatest industrialisation of human civilisation.

"2. Or, 95% of all greenhouse gas is just water vapor which we can do nothing about -- and only 3% (of the remaining 5%) is composed of CO2, and 97% of all the CO2 comes from things like dead and decaying stuff over every sq. meter of the planet, not SUVs. Atmos. CO2 is part of the natural carbon cycle. "

True but irrellevant. That Co2 is part of the carbon cycle doesnt mean that it cant have detrimental effects on the ecosystems it circulates in. (As can oxygen - a 25% oxygen atmosphere would cause even moist forests to spontaneously erupt in flame given sufficient warmth. At the moment, the atmosphere is at 21% oxygen).

Water vapor, besides, has a lifetime of a few days on average in the atmosphere. Co2 has one of decades.

This should help make it clear why the "water vapor argument" is bunk.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 01:58 | 2234949 Peter K
Peter K's picture

I guess some of the really smart folks are learning the difference between science and scientology the hard way :)

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 02:45 | 2235004 IQ 101
IQ 101's picture

That is called a Deliberate mistake, try and get your head around it ,

Such a thing moves into the realm of humor, in a subtle way, for certain readers, but certainly not for you. Or perhaps I misinterpret in my haste.

If so I Apol. or are you that thick?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 03:19 | 2235087 Peter K
Peter K's picture

IQ. I have a problem with halfwit socialist shills myself. If you notice, they come out on the weekends in this blog:)

 

BTW Apology accepted.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 02:55 | 2235041 IQ 101
IQ 101's picture

I suspect that I may have misunderstood you and hope you will accept my apology,

You never know what form of Halfwitt Socialist shill is coming at you on Z.H. 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 03:07 | 2235068 cnhedge
Thu, 03/08/2012 - 04:23 | 2235147 DutchDude
DutchDude's picture

Whatever happened to that acid rain thingy? Remember back in the early 90's we would need asbestos umbrellas to survive; thus taxing diffent chemicals... probably worked...

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 07:06 | 2235280 The Swedish Chef
The Swedish Chef's picture

We just started taking the sulphur out of oil when making different fuels and that pretty much solved the problem.

 

Problems are easy to solve, it´s the people benefitting from them that are the obstacle. Just look at The FED. Easiest problem in the world to solve, if it wasn´t for a handfull of greedy bankers profiting from the system.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 07:06 | 2235279 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

"This divide within the scientific community has left the public wondering who can be trusted to provide them with accurate information and answers."

 

Really?

 

Last time I checked the scientific community were in total agreement about climate change.

 

Please don't make the SIMPLE mistake of confusing an argument over the extent of climate change and it's existence. The scientific community is in TOTAL AGREEMENT - that's why the oil barons and the T-party morons cannot find a single scientist to stand with them.

 

The flat earth society are just getting excited because scientists (rightly) disagree on the speed of change. Which incidently DISPROVES their other claim which is 'science is in a self induced conspiracy' - brought on by the demand for funding.

If this were true then you would not see this debate that is clearly going on.

 

I do grow tired of these sceptics who think they know more about science than people who have dedicated their lives to the subject.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:06 | 2235476 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"I do grow tired of these sceptics who think they know more about science than people who have dedicated their lives to the subject."

Ain't that the truth.

Of course, a dunce will never know his limitations, while a wise man all to well knows his. For that reason the ideologically motivated useful idiots will always be able to shout down any voices of factual argument or reasoned discussion under whatever profane line of crooked reasoning they choose, though these are typically something along the lines of a world communist conspiracy headed by IPCC, Al Gore and whatever.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:32 | 2235537 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

now you mention dunces and Al Gore almost in the same sentence. Brilliant.

we could focus on his fictional film, An InCONvenient Truth... the inconvenient truth was it has 13 scientific erors in it

but let's not blame Al, afterall he is thicker than mud. He claimed this work of hysterical fiction (propaganda) was advised by "some of the greatest scientific minds" (his friends) in the field.

Don't blame Al for a dozen schoolboy scientific errors, blame what he claims are "scientists"

and so it continues.. there's almost not a single truth peddled in the entire corrupt, rotten junk science history of this AGW hyper-bollocks. Everything from glaciers that aren't melting, sea levels that aren't rising, graphs that aremn't warming but made to look so

We've amassed 100's of lies, cheating, fraud, scientific stupidity, predictions that fail. computer programs that are bent and designed to warm etc etc etc

You could say the AGW crew are full of shit, but that would be generous for these frauds, cretins and Big Govt/Big Oil funded crones

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:35 | 2235552 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

So what scientists agree with you?

Can you name a single one?

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:18 | 2235695 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"now you mention dunces and Al Gore almost in the same sentence. Brilliant."

And anoooother denialist "contribution" to the debate that is nothign but adhoms, sans facts, sans arguments, entirely of unfounded indignance...

"We've amassed 100's of lies, cheating, fraud, scientific stupidity"

How about your learn some science, amongst that, proper, valid reasoning, and construction of valid arguments before you berate others for their supposed "scientific studpidity", you ideologically mindless numbskull.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:36 | 2235395 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

Sorry Tylers, this is a miss. Referring to the Climategate affair as a 'scandal' shows a severe lack of insight.

Fact of the matter is that "Climategate" was very much an engineerd "scandal", the 'leak' of the Hadler Climate Research Unit emails precisely timed to make a big splash before the Copenhagen talks.

A *decades* worth of emails were trawled for anything that could be skewed to sounds damning, and of course the ones that did that found a paltry 10 emailas with chatter what - necessarily taken out of context - sounded as if the relevant researchers are busy in some coverup.

Of course they aren't, but with the usual divide between laymen and experts in a field, it requires a careful explanation of what a given field is studying, the state of the discipline and its current problems, and how its methodology is.

Such explanation is NEVER offered by those why scream 'CONSPIRACY!'. Never. Only cussing, flyign spittle and damnation.

No talk from the self-proclaimed skeptics either of the subsequent 4 examinations of HAD/CRU's methodology and activities which cleared them of any wrong doing. (If there is any mention of it, the 4 relevant palens that did their job are of course in on the conspiracy. And so it goes.)

Since you've taken to avoiding zerohedge falling into a state of gutter talk and wild rumor mongering in the past (e.g. the case of the mossad-backed blog spreading the at the time, wild rumor, of Iran trading oil for gold), you ought to extend the same skepticism and due diligence towards the endless regurgitations of the paid shills of coal and oil special interests in the US, which are just as content making a buck off an ignorant public (kept ignorant due to the ill-informed, agressive 'skepticism of the anti-establishment crowd) as the financial cartels you are doing a good job of exposing.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:24 | 2235518 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

you mean hiding the decline, Mikes "nature trick", doctoring charts and data, shredding emails and non-compliance with Freedom of Information requests is a cospiracy theory!!!

the 2 public investigations into the Uni of East Anglia scandal were as big a scandal as the scandal itself

like everything in Govt, including its science, it was bent from start to finish (like the Hockey Stick graph)

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:01 | 2235627 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"you mean hiding the decline, Mikes "nature trick", doctoring charts and data,shredding emails and non-compliance with Freedom of Information requests is a cospiracy theory!!!"

Yes, it is, when you recall that the first two were internal jargon that refers to a quite non-controversial and well-known fact of dendrochronology which refers to a discrepancy in proxy data for tree rings and observed warming from 1960s and onwards.

No charts and data has been doctored; that is an outright false claim. The 4 review panels also found that there is no substantiation whatsoever of scientific misconduct, which doctored data would be.

The non-compliance was quite understandible and excusible, considering that the denialist numbskull audience of one of the major denialist blogs had taken to doing a denial-of-service attack on the Hadley staff using mass FOIA requests of data that was already publically available, so that the research staff could waste their time (for each FOIA request submitted, a specific minimum time MUST be spent on processing it per FOIA regulations) supplying data for a bunch of saboteurs who had no interest in it whatsoever.

"the 2 public investigations into the Uni of East Anglia scandal were as big a scandal as the scandal itself"

And just like the rest of your silly claims, this is unsubstantiated and most likely competely made up as well.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:49 | 2235424 Dr.Engineer
Dr.Engineer's picture

Asa scientist, anthrpogenic (global) warming is a warm crock of poop.  I have looked at the leaked code and docs.  It is a total fabrication and a crime.  For those who don't want to go through the code, here is a temporal ordering of the headlines with the oldest being at the bottom.

Oh, the other crime here is the lamestream media who should all have their licenses revoked or, at least, be put out of business.

Enjoy reading the headlines, bottom to top.

----

Fakegate: Global Warmists Try to Hide Their Decline
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/23/fakegate_global_war...
-- Scientist fakes a document

Earth's Polar Ice Melting Less Than Thought
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/08/earths-polar-ice-melting-...

The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years, study shows
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/08/glaciers-mountains?int...

Breaking Global Warming Taboos
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020430140457717153183842136...

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-war...

The climate may not be as sensitive to carbon dioxide as previously believed
http://www.economist.com/node/21540224

GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, SAYS EXPERT
http://www.express.co.uk/features/view/280948/Is-global-warming-over-

Sun Causes Climate Change Shock
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-c...

Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hold In Global Warming Alarmism
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism...

UPROAR AS BBC MUZZLES CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/260164/Uproar-as-BBC-muzzles-climate...

Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634...
 
Climate models go cold
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-ant...

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870442220457613030099212663...

Climate change study had 'significant error': experts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110119/ts_afp/climatewarmingfood_201101191...

8 Botched Environmental Forecasts
http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/12/31/8-botched-environmental-for...

Another Domino Falls: UK’s Leading Scientific Body Retreats on Climate Change
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23117.html

Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/meltdown_of_the_clim...

CLIMATE CHANGE LIES ARE EXPOSED
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642/Climate-change-lies-are-...

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-cli...

Global warming graph attacked by study
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/162b0c58-47f5-11df-b998-00144feab49a.html

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climatega...

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-r...

'Warming' meltdown
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1...

Many meteorologists break with science of global warming
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1746746.html

THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor’s amazing climate change retreat
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1250813/MAIL-ON-SUNDAY-COMMENT...

World may not be warming, say scientists
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Aston...

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-cl...

Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate...
Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data: But legal loophole means they won't be prosecuted

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

"UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece

UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece

The mini ice age starts here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mi...

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”
http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory%22

"Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-...

"CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY"
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

"Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climateg...

"Climategate: it's all unravelling now"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018556/climategate-...

"CLIMATE CHANGE 'FRAUD'"
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

"Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/...

"Climate change data dumped"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"Climate Emails Stoke Debate"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

"Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-...

"EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-globa...

"Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-...

"In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR200911...

"Scientist in climate change 'cover-up' storm told to quit"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change...

"How to Forge a Consensus"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870349940457455963038204849...

"Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax "
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-...

"Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469...

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 08:59 | 2235457 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"Enjoy reading the headlines, bottom to top."

An excellent illustration of the typical denialist M.O.:

Make uncompromising blanket statements, say the debate is over, show no factual understanding of the matter whatsoever, but instead drown the debate and its participants in a flood of links.

Bullshit artistry extraordinaire.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:19 | 2235503 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

you might have a look through and learn something peanut brain

but obviously you have a bias to listen to hysterical politicians and politically funded crony scientists who all trumpet the same hot tune

and we all know just how honest and upstanding the Govt and its paid crones are don't we?

what's the 'solution' to warming? ...oh fuck me if it isn't taxes on everything

what a shocker eh peanut?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:20 | 2235510 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"but obviously you have a bias to listen to Govts and Govt funded crony scientists who all trumpet the same tune"

Fool. I've been something akin to an anarchist for a decade. I have little trust in governments.

You, and your ideology-first brethren in denialism, have a severe deficit in attention to facts and scientific truth.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:34 | 2235544 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

This is the REAL rub of it.

 

There are climate change sceptics who are not prepared to accept the science as 'definite proof' yet - and who focus on the cause (the fact it's happening is not really up for debate anymore) - I can understand this sceptical view and it's welcomed

 

There are sceptics who aren't really sceptics, they are either paid for by the oil giants, or they have a self interest which exceeds their intelligence and will tell themselves any bullshit rather than have to face facts.

 

Then there are t-partiers who basically lump in climate change with everything else they believe impacts their 'freedoms' in a display of ignorant individualism which most people worked out would fail 3000 years ago (about when they think the earth was 'created'). This is apparently a 'communist conspiracy' which is so masterful in it's design that it has the world fooled - even though we can visibly see the changes in the weather patterns as records are being broken around the world on a daily basis - I suspect they write that up as a 'communist weather machine' designed by DaVinci and developed by Lenin!

They are the most dangerous and loudest (considering their tiny numbers). They're not dangerous on an intellectual level (their ideas are flawed) - but some twat let these redneck morons have guns!

Sat, 03/10/2012 - 01:04 | 2242548 barliman
barliman's picture

 

Comedic genius

" I've been something akin to an anarchist for a decade."

Now if only I could introduce you to some REAL anarchists who would skin you alive to see what other bon mots you could pronounce.

barliman

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:36 | 2235554 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"you might have a look through and learn something peanut brain"

For someone who resorts this early to insulting the intelligence of his counterpart in debate, it would help you immensely if you could not only /argue your case/ without resorting to ad hominems, but also punctuate your postings.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:59 | 2235622 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

"and we all know just how honest and upstanding the Govt and its paid crones are don't we?"

 

This isn't about Government - it's about SCIENCE you jackass.

 

What I find fascinating is this...

 

If you sceptics think science is in some 'Marxist conspiracy' to impose on your life - then why do you happily drive your car / watch your TV / play with your Iphone - all of which were brought to you by SCIENCE.

 

It seems like the religious nuts you want to pick and choose which bits of science you 'believe'

This shows your lack of understanding of science and the scientific method - it's not a 'pick and choose' system - it's right, or it's ALL wrong.

 

So which is it? (and remember what you're typing your response on)

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:22 | 2235513 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

...looking at some of the sources of those 'facts' - there seem to be rather a lot which are owned by 1 Rupert Murdoch - who of course is motivated by profit - and NOT doing the right thing - as the current scandal (and that's a real scandal) is proving.

 

 

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:39 | 2235562 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

...another thing I have noticed (because unlike you I am thorough) - a LOT of those links are in fact the same story published by different media sources.

 

There's nothing like a good deception eh?

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:41 | 2235568 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

Indeed. And when you call the deniers on their deceptions, you'll get a wall of silence, or a whole new line of pseudo-argumentation complete with a barrage of links, complete with insults and flying spittle.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 13:38 | 2236512 Dr.Engineer
Dr.Engineer's picture

D&G, this is about science.  Here is a link where one of the key people agrees that the scientific model for global warming is flawed.  How big is your faith that someone in the know is wrong?  Did you read this?

Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/15/former-alarmist-scientist-says-ant...

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 14:13 | 2236642 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"D&G, this is about science.  Here is a link"

Yep, links, the only thing you've contributed with. Not an inkling of insight, og argumentation aboutthe subject at hand.

"where one of the key people agrees that the scientific model for global warming is flawed."

Key people of what? Which scientific model specifically? See, you're bullshitting.

"  How big is your faith that someone in the know is wrong?  Did you read this?"

No, and since WOTW found that the barrage of links you delivered earlier was by and large all bullshit covering one story, but the same crooked journalists, you'll have to give me a solid reason for spending my time reading your propaganda feed.

Start off with a concise explanation of what is covered in the debate that is linked to, on your own words, and ill consider spending any time on you.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:01 | 2235628 writingsonthewall
writingsonthewall's picture

"Oh, the other crime here is the lamestream media who should all have their licenses revoked or, at least, be put out of business."

 

Couldn't have put it better myself, something we agree on - but considering most of those titles are News International - we're already working on it.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:13 | 2235492 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

the IPCC are what all 'consultants' are to Govt who finance them: crones

these Govt funded junk scientists will underline whatever the policy makers want to hear, especially if it gives them a fear story to enrich the parasites with a new tax 

the IPCC have produced nothing but biased garbage from start to finish, the biggest fraud being Lord Sterns 'work' on pricing CO2 (he priced all the downsides but not a single Cent for the upside of warming and more CO2, a massively fraudulent omission).

IPCC Reports are such shoddy garbage even Govts are allowed to 'edit' passages and horse-trade what documents say (ie. what they want to hear)

If you want to stop global warming stop funding the IPCC and all its Govt junk-sceintists to windbag about it

..and shutter the UK Met Office who are a bunch of clowns/frauds and wholly inept at predicting weather 3 days out let alone 10-100 years ahead ..the private sector forcasters already hammers the UK Met into the ground (as the private sector will do to any pea-brained Govt Dept) 

AGW RIP

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 09:21 | 2235506 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"the IPCC have produced nothing but biased garbage from start to finish, the biggest fraud being Lord Sterns 'work' on pricing CO2 (he priced all the downsides but not a single Cent for the upside of warming and more CO2, a massively fraudulent omission)."

"IPCC Reports are such shoddy garbage even Govts are allowed to 'edit' passages and horse-trade what documents say (ie. what they want to hear)"

Again, the usual voice of the denialist, who has never in his life read anything that the IPCC has published (and thus is unaware of how much they do to underscore the scientific veracity of the work of the contributign authors, and make the known uncertainties visible).

"AGW RIP"

Wanting it so doesnt make it so.

As for what one wants to hear, try reading something else than the what-the-skeptics-want-to-hear denialist blogs.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:03 | 2235624 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

1. be assured i have read the management-speak hed-fuk garbage of the IPCC Reports. I also know of the many, many errors in them, errors in how Editors amass and present these peices of propaganda and the zillions of facts and figures the IPCC deliberately leave out... they are (politically) biased shite from start to finish

Que. Who is the "denialist" when you ignore so much science (observational and otherwise) including the Earth is now cooling (contrary to UK Met warming computer projections) and the hundreds of lies and scientific frauds uncovered in the past decade of AGW propaganda?

2. be assured i have read much of the Pro AGW crews crapology. Almost every story, from the Arctic to Antarctic, is flawed and still the IPCC has no link between CO2 rise and Earths Temp rise

indeed the 520,00 year ice-core record of Earths temperature/CO2 relationship shows Temp Rise (cause) causes CO2 rise (effect), not the other way around. All previous 5 peaks in CO2 have arisen after Earths temp has peaked, proving peak CO2 does not cause Earths temp to peak as it is declining as CO2 reaches its peaks

Schoolboy science the IPCC could do (but choose not) any day of the past decade to prove CO2 is not a threat but in fact a hugely beneficial gas (it's an airbourne plant fertilizer, it greens the planet, the very opposite of the hysterical frauds 'pollution' lies)

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:11 | 2235662 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"1. be assured i have read the management-speak hed-fuk garbage of the IPCC Reports."

Even if that is true, reading, of course, is not the same as comprehending.

" I also know of the many, many errors in them, errors in how Editors amass and present these peices of propaganda and the zillions of facts and figures the IPCC deliberately leave out... they are (politically) biased shite from start to finish"

You're full of it.

"Que. Who is the "denialist" when you ignore so much science (observational and otherwise) including the Earth is now cooling"

Not the Earth I inhabit, which has shown an almost unchange positive warmign trend for the past 4 decades. Are you using some cross-dimensional internet link to post this, perchance?

" (contrary to UK Met warming computer projections) and the hundreds of lies and scientific frauds uncovered in the past decade of AGW propaganda?"

As usual, pure unsubstantiated, outrageous claims.

"indeed the 520,00 year ice-core record of Earths temperature/CO2 relationship shows Temp Rise (cause) causes CO2 rise (effect), not the other way around."

Which is the usual direction of causality, in absence of /human industrial activity/.

"Schoolboy science the IPCC could do (but choose not) any day of the past decade to prove CO2 is not a threat but in fact a hugely beneficial gas (it's an airbourne plant fertilizer, it greens the planet, the very opposite of the hysterical frauds 'pollution' lies)"

And for every 1. degree centigrade increase in temperature, over a mean of 30 C, argricultural output will decline around 1/10. So as much for the "greening" argument, it wont require much warming in the tropics, which incidentally are largely all-agricultural for their economic output, and the grain baskets of their local regions, before their entire economies and agro output are cut in half.

The usual riddling of a denialist post with insults and belittlings of his opponents as shown above, I'll leave to the reader to judge.

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:26 | 2235718 Zero Govt
Zero Govt's picture

well you know the IPCC Reports so well.. give me a round-up of IV

IV has now been ripped to shreds of course because there's 'research' included in IV from outward bound magazines and hearsay about Himalyan glaciers melting (that aren't). A bit embarrassing and to add insult to perjury the IPCC Chairman himself was set to profit from the Himalyan research funds

that's the unbiased scientist (ok railway engineer!) who can't shut up about herding people out of cars onto, yes you've guessed it, public transport. Who can't shut up about meat eaters as he's a vegitarian 

in fact the IPCC are such a bunch of clowns they've breeched nearly all their own scientific standards on the quality of research allowed in.. the usual Govt funded bent garbage

Thu, 03/08/2012 - 10:29 | 2235732 Death and Gravity
Death and Gravity's picture

"well you know the IPCC Reports so well.. give me a round-up of IV"

For someone who says he is so well-read in IPCC literature, why would you ask others to spend time spoon-feeding you?

Rather, you're lyign garbage who on purpose seek to sabotage debates with your incessant regurgitations of denialist mythology and adhoms.

"in fact the IPCC are such a bunch of clowns"

No, *you* are however one, obvious to anyone with actual knowledge of this field, and not the pretend-knowledge that you and other denialists are so adept at.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!