Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
maure

Agw

44 posts in this topic

The AGW thread seems to be gone. Unsurprising, really.

I remember there was talk once around here about the honesty of scientists, that is, some forum members thought scientists were unfailingly truthful. Clearly, this is not the case. It is as infantile to think all scientists are liars as it is to think all scientists are honorable.

I came across this article today and it reminded me of you people. There, learn something for a change:

The Mind of a Con Man (takes you to the NYT)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maure, the thread disappeared because no one had replied to it in a while. Old threads automatically disappear like that. It was not deleted by anyone, and still exists.

Not sure if you wanted this one:

Or this one:

But they're out there. No thought control/needless censoring going on. Just a lack of recent responses.

Nice to see you here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured as much. Besides, as a friend says, it is only a conspiracy when SkySports says so.

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to dig up the old threads. Kind of you. Did you use a different handle way back when? Memory fails.

Here is something worthwhile to look into:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot. The link below will take you to the donation page at indiegogo.com for this project:

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change/x/3173230

Some of you (especially in the UK but also other-where in Europe) are being badly hit by tax hikes and bizarre energy policies. Take a moment to consider what this sort of initiative means to you and can do for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is amusing that you believe science is based on committee decisions. It is amusing but unsurprising.

Please read the post linked below and address the points raised.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

And, just for kicks, check out this peer-reviewed journal, the Dædalus, that describes itself as...

Dædalus was founded in 1955 as the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. It draws on the enormous intellectual capacity of the American Academy, whose Members are among the nation's most prominent thinkers in the arts, sciences, and the humanities, as well as the full range of professions and public life.

... while publishing articles such as this one:

Science fiction writers construct an imaginary future; historians attempt to reconstruct the past. Ultimately, both are seeking to understand the present. In this essay, we blend the two genres to imagine a future historian looking back on a past that is our present and (possible) future. The occasion is the tercentenary of the end of Western culture (1540–2073); the dilemma being addressed is how we–the children of the Enlightenment–failed to act on robust information about climate change and knowledge of the damaging events that were about to unfold. Our historian concludes that a second Dark Age had fallen on Western civilization, in which denial and self-deception, rooted in an ideological fixation on “free” markets, disabled the world’s powerful nations in the face of tragedy. Moreover, the scientists who best understood the problem were hamstrung by their own cultural practices, which demanded an excessively stringent standard for accepting claims of any kind–even those involving imminent threats. Here, our future historian, living in the Second People’s Republic of China, recounts the events of the Period of the Penumbra (1988–2073) that led to the Great Collapse and Mass Migration (2074).

The full "article" is here: http://history.ucsd.edu/_files/oreskes/daedalus.pdf

You cannot make this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a blog post by someone with an opinion that, well, I don't agree with for the most part. However, I respect the effort and more so when it starts with something like this:

Charles Mackay wrote in his book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds – “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.” The book may have been written in the mid-nineteenth century, but here we are at the kick off to the twenty-first, and that mass psychology is only too familiar. Maybe Hari Seldon was on to something after all.

The global warming craze is dying down. People, as Mackay noted, are coming out of it one by one and that process is accelerating with every passing day. Governments are cutting subsidies for green technologies not only because they don’t work, but because government coffers are empty. They’re broke. The politicians no longer mention it because it no longer gets votes and indeed just attracts a baleful hostility from a cash-strapped electorate, worried about paying their soaring power bills in the midst of the worst recession in living memory.

And here is one observation (of many) that has not been given any publicity in mainstream media but that helps understand the political situation of the AGW movement:

One of the key reasons why the whole green project failed, was that the developing world not only distrusted it, but always despised it for its rank hypocrisy. It’s the people of the developing world who are on the bleeding edge of environmental policies. That’s why they torpedoed Copenhagen and every annual climate clam bake since. They’ll do the same to any future ones too, unless there’s a sea change in the politics of the environment.

The full post is here:

http://thepointman.w...e-climate-wars/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last week I received a present from a colleague I worked with on cognition way back when. It was a DVD of "The Story of the Weeping Camel" (2003). I watched it with fresh eyes because I had forgotten I had seen when it was released. It was only at the "high point" at the end of the film that I recalled the awesome journey into the psychological consequences of perception and reasoning in animals (yes, us as well as all others).

Anyway, I think at least some of you have enough depth to their souls to appreciate this little gem. My recommendation, for what is worth, is that you don't spoil your experience by reading a summary or IMDb comments. Just watch it during a relaxing afternoon and soak in the pathos.

On topic, I recently came across a scientific paper providing experimental evidence that the earth's core rotates at different (and variable) speed in relation to the mantle. For instance, its rate was faster in the 70's and 90's than in the 80's. The idea itself is not new but the evidence is. World of wonder, indeed, and truly interesting stuff. Here is a readable (and brief) article on the subject:

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-earth-center-sync.html

Could this possibly/conceivably have an effect on the climate? It amuses me that formulating this (or any) question marks me as an "extremist" by the "consensus". World of wonder, indeed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon dioxide can't be the only cause. I guess magnetic fields can have an effect on climates.

But what about phenomena in the oceans? Something covering 70% of the planet crust must surely have an impact on climate. But what are the general mechanics of that situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list of potentially contributing factors to climate is ridiculously long. The subject is brutally complex.Take a look at cloud physics alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a chance this will come in useful. Where exactly does the "consensus" idea come from?

It was Naomi Oreskes, a “historian” of “science”, who started the “consensus” hare running in the literature in 2004 with a non-peer-reviewed essay in Science alleging that not one of 928 abstracts she had reviewed had disagreed with the “consensus” that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.

...

The complete article is linked below. Scroll down and start reading at that paragraph (above) if you just want to get an idea. It is easy reading anyway.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/the-collapsing-consensus/

It even comes with pictures:

image2.png

These are optimistic numbers, btw. A proper methodology would yield far lower results.

Speaking of which, if you are of average intelligence, have 5 minutes to kill, and a passing interest in the subject, you can assess the "consensus" articles by yourself. They are based on simple find&tally methodologies (i.e. how many of which). In other words, it is absolutely feasible for you to actually find out by yourself alone what the consensus is... optimistically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using even simpler terms, here is the briefest possible summary of what the latest "consensus" paper really amounts to:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/01/tol-statistically-deconstructs-the-97-consensus/

The good news in all this is that, despite irate claims to the contrary from the AGW mob, it seems more and more unlikely that you are not going to die a horrible death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above, I have posted a few links to layman discussions of the most recent "consensus" paper so that those interested can get basic information on the subject.

It comes as no surprise to now find out that, before results of the "study" were produced by the authors (that is, before the "study" was really made), plans for huge media impact were being put together... yep, this is what happens when you make the data as you go. It will say exactly what you want it to say (somewhere else, I forgot where but I'll find the link, a researcher has found that +99% of the papers wrongly assessed by these geniuses were "classified" as supporting AGW, yes, over n-i-n-e-t-y-n-i-n-e percent).

You really, really cannot make this up. According to one of the "conspirators":

"I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don't even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research)." - Ari Jokimäki

Here are more details of the drama:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few years ago, the article below discussed the timeline of cooling/warming hysteria over the last century.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

http://www.mrc.org/special-reports/fire-and-ice-0

It's a strange lesson in history, because this is the history of glorified gossip playing a game of Chinese whispers and because at no point the true weight of the evidence is allowed to speak for itself. Of course, there is nothing unusual about this and catastrophic AGW is but one deranged example (among many) of the depths of human delusion. In other words, human activities could be warming the planet (or cooling it, or having minimal/no effect on temperatures against the sheer magnitude of other forces at play) and yet we are not given the opportunity to evaluate the data freely and openly because of a mantle of obscurity brought about by politics that have absolutely nothing to do with scientific inquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some harmless humor:

Climate scientists move to atom-bomb number system, give up on exponentials

To be fair, although the man (John Cook) is now considered a "climate scientist", he was a cartoonist before hitting the AGW jackpot.

EDIT: Forgot to include the...

Hiroshima-equivalent calculator

I used 0.3 nano-Hiroshima-equivalent units posting this!

Edited by maure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need for you to know that Nature is one of the most prestigious journals in the world. There is also no need for you to know that this journal too has tarnished its reputation plenty of times by kneeling to political pressure of various kinds. I open like this to simply point out that there are no sacred cows in science or academia. There are no magic bullets either.

And so, in Nature, we find the following in a 180 degree departure from previous (and blind) endorsement of AGW. Some claim it is a meaningful change in direction. I say it is just a natural and necessary part of scientific inquiry, that is, the discussion of ideas.

Climate change: The forecast for 2018 is cloudy with record heat

It opens with:

In August 2007, Doug Smith took the biggest gamble of his career. After more than ten years of work with fellow modellers at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, Smith published a detailed prediction of how the climate would change over the better part of a decade. His team forecasted that global warming would stall briefly and then pick up speed, sending the planet into record-breaking territory within a few years.

The Hadley prediction has not fared particularly well. Six years on, global temperatures have yet to shoot up as it projected. Despite this underwhelming result...

There is nothing wrong with being _wrong_ in science... provided, of course, that it is science. However, since we've been told (screamed, at this point), over and over again, that the science is settled, the manifest failure of models to predict anything of value is catastrophic for the AGW movement(?).

Indeed, please take a moment to consider the following bit from the same article:

It is one of the biggest mysteries in climate science: humans are pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere today than ever before, yet global temperatures have not risen much in more than a decade. That trend does not undermine the idea that greenhouse gases will eventually push global temperatures into uncharted territory, but it does have scientists puzzled.

The underlined part is a direct and insulting assault on AGW orthodoxy. It claims that the warming effects of greenhouse gases is an IDEA and not a scientific fact as, one more time, we've been told over and over again.

In science, there are hypotheses. In religion, there are dogmas. Ignoring the difference is how religion takes over science... and, let's be clear, religion has no place in a lab any more than science in an altar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of 2018 if the temperature standstill continues (which looks likely based upon history and UK Met Office predictions up to 2017), the model is then officially "broken" as the global temperature measurements are already at the bottom end of the predicted range and post this point they will fall outside it (meaning that they have to come up with a new model).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there are quite a few climate models out there in the wild. Yes, they are all useless (so far) but this is expected and acceptable within the context of normal scientific inquiry. The reality is that this is a young science and, in any case, most hypotheses formulated in any field (no matter how established) are systematically proven wrong. In fact, most studies (peer-reviewed or not) can never be replicated no matter the subject. You read that right. This is true in all sciences, btw. It is one of the reasons why meta-research is gaining so much momentum in medicine, the most prestigious field of inquiry in all of humanity's short history and, consequently, the most packed with bad science. And bad science that deals with our health is the worst kind of bad science.

Anyway, the year 2018 is just a line in the sand. There will be more and better climate models regardless, before that date and after. This is how true science evolves, by making mistakes and learning from them.

A meme such as "the science is settled" is an aberration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The science behind climate research is 99.99% outside of my field (I once did some work on cloud simulations but extremely little and tangential). Thus, when climate concerns hit the political mainstream, I shrugged my shoulders and reserved judgment. It did not take long, however, before certain unethical behaviors within academic and scientific circles made me realize not all was well. I was able to recognize the early symptoms because I had seen this type of madness happen several times before.

Based on past experiences, it was easy to see where this new crisis was headed. It would become catastrophic. It would become undeniable. It would eventually be forgotten without much of a fuss.

A friend sent me a link to this article (below). I had read it already when it came out and forgotten about it. It is an easy-read and some of you may enjoy it.

Apocalypse Not - A history of failed predictions of doom

Here is a passage for the impatient:

The past half century has brought us warnings of population explosions, global famines, plagues, water wars, oil exhaustion, mineral shortages, falling sperm counts, thinning ozone, acidifying rain, nuclear winters, Y2K bugs, mad cow epidemics, killer bees, sex-change fish, cell-phone-induced brain-cancer epidemics, and climate catastrophes.

And, of course, the simplest insight. When doom fails to happen:

...do not expect apologies or even a rethink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More and more people speak up:

The consensus referred to by Davey and Nuccitelli, then, is what I call a consensus without an object: the consensus can mean whatever the likes of Davey and Nuccitelli want it to mean. Davey can wave away any criticism of government’s policy simply by invoking the magical proportion, 97%, even though those critics’ arguments would be included in that number. Consensus is invoked in the debate at the expense of nuance. A polarised debate suits political ends, not ‘evidence-based policy’.

...

The consequence of excluding non-expert opinion (other than expert opinion’s cheerleaders) from the climate debate is, paradoxically, the undermining of the value of expertise. Rather than engagements on matters of substance, a hollow debate emerges about whose evidence weighs the most, whose arguments are supported by the most experts, and which experts are the most qualified. The question ‘who should be allowed to speak’ dominates the discussion at the expense of hearing what they actually have to say.

Full article (and very, very easy read) at:

http://blogs.notting...ceived-wisdoms/

EDIT: Second passage was deleted for some reason.

Edited by maure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've already linked to this fellow's site before. Although I disagree with a lot of his conclusions, he is eloquent and lucid. Here is a post of his worth reading.

http://thepointman.w...of-their-mouth/

Why do they persistently withhold the data on which their conclusions are based?

Why do they, in their own words, hide behind Freedom of Information laws, as a reason to keep such data hidden?

Why do they, in their own words again, hide behind Non-disclosure Agreements, as a reason to keep the data hidden?

Why are they so vague about the exact methods used on the data to derive their results?

Why do all their computer climate models run hot?

Why have they consistently overestimated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2?

Why don’t they ever design experiments attempting to disprove their theories?

Why do the Climategate emails reveal their deep private doubts about the science, which they’ve publically reassured everyone was settled?

If the science was so solid, why’d one of their number feel they had to resort to identity theft to discredit the opposition?

Why are they telling each other to delete emails to circumvent Freedom of Information requests?

Why do they feel they’ve got to “redefine the peer review process” to prevent dissenting science papers being published?

Why do they need to get science journal editors removed from their jobs because they dared to publish a dissenting paper?

Why, after being the beneficiary of billions of dollars of research funding in the last two decades, haven’t they by now proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

Why is anyone who simply questions the science being equated with a holocaust denier?

Why are they attempting to substitute science by consensus for scientific proof?

Why do they say the world suffering six successive years of freezing winters is somehow caused by global warming?

Why have global temperatures not risen in the best part of two decades while CO2 levels have kept on rising?

Why in the decade following 1990, were the number of ground temperature stations selected to calculate global temperature reduced from the available 14,000 to a mere 4,000?

Why for Russia, with a land area over twice the size of the USA , are only a handful of southern ground-based thermometers selected to calculate its temperature?

Why has the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) been saying for years that the average temperatures calculated for Russia are quite simply wrong?

Why did it fall to a skeptic volunteer force organised by Anthony Watts to regrade the data integrity of the alarmist’s few cherry picked temperature stations?

Why is there an unexplained divergence between the global temperature derived from satellite observations and their ground based measurement?

Why did it take them nearly fifteen years to finally concede that the global temperature had not risen in all that time?

Why at the end of nearly every one of those fifteen years was it loudly proclaimed to be the hottest one on record?

Why did the experts we’re supposed to trust, not feel the need to correct such scientifically inaccurate claims?

Why, in the absence of the heat predicted by their theories, do they suddenly assert it must be by some mysterious mechanism hiding undiscovered at the bottom of the world’s oceans?

Why isn’t the Argos network of ocean monitoring buoys showing any such warming?

Why, in the absence of any global warming, did they switch the threat to climate change?

Why do we see supposedly objective scientists acting like catastrophists, haranguing us to do as they say or we’re all going to die?

Why can’t we get a straight answer to those simple questions rather than abuse, outright propaganda or simply being ignored?

Why can’t these supermen of miraculously settled science ever say they just don’t know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of essays for the cool summer nights...

GM crops don't kill kids; opposing them does

http://www.rationalo...-them-does.aspx

...

Meanwhile at least half a million, perhaps two million, children die each year from preventable vitamin A deficiency. On your conscience, Greenpeace.

The Age of Global Warming is Over

http://www.quadrant....warming-is-over

...

The lineage in the twentieth century from environmentalism to sustainable development to global warming to climate change is critical...

EDIT: format issues

Edited by maure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0