So...new evidence out suggesting that proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspired together and manipulated data to promote the cause, and demonize skeptics...instead of just dealing with the science.
Suprirised?
HT: Half-Sigma
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud . Always has been. Always will be.
Science deals with facts.
Fact - The majority of the observed global warming (which is slight) occurred in the early part of the 20th century, prior to WWII and global industrialization
Fact - accurate satellite data shows global cooling over the past 10 years, not warming.
Fact - There is 100% correlation between measured global mean temperature and the solar activity cycle.
Any single one of these indisputable facts completely falsifies the idea of AGW.
Folks believe in AGW with a religious fervor, not a scientific rational. There is also of course the ever present issue of federal funding.
Q: Why is everyone worried about "global warming"
A: you can't get federal funding to study "global cooling"
Notwithstanding the fact that historically speaking every single global warm period (all of which were warmer than now) was a time of relative prosperity, not economic decline. The height of the Roman Empire corresponded to the Roman Warm Period. The European Renaissance corresponded to another warm period, etc.
It is not surprising that the AGW supporters would fake the data; it would be inconceavable for them to do otherwise.
But what do I know, I'm a Scientist, not a Gaia worshiping eco-terrorist kook. (or is that last part pejorative?)
Mark,
You're a better scientist than that.
Science deals with models, probabilities, data (are these the facts you're talking about?) and predictions.
In climate science, the models are always fishy...the data is over-abundant, and prioritizing/weighting the data is harder than the rest of it, the system is non-linear (chaotic), and it's so complex the predictions SUCK. Reminds me of Macro-economics.
There are a metric ass-ton of climate facts to sift through, and as far as my reading on the topic goes, they don't all point the same direction in any model that I'm aware of. This means that cherry-picking facts will give you whatever results you want. Indisputable is pushing it, I think.
I don't like your 10-years line, because I had understood that the relationship was complicated. 1998 was very hot, 2007 was very cold. That makes an easy cooling trend, regardless what happened in between.
I like the solar activity cycle explanations, and am inclined to think that SAC > Humans for global temperature. I don't think this fits all known climate cycles...Dino temps were 5C(?) average above now? Sun just hotter?
My favorite anti-AGW facts are ones that call into question the narrative.
1. Carbon Dioxide content in the atmopshere trails warming pre-historically. It does NOT lead warming.
2. Massive, fast temperature shifts have happened before. Ice ages came on in <20 years, not 200.
3. All the warming stuff we're talking about now is tremendously minor compared to historical temperature changes. Dino temps were MUCH warmer. Ice age temps were MUCH colder.
4. Damn near every economic model you can find...except for the ones that say: tech and wealth growth stops next week, permanently...say that waiting and building wealth is substantially more likely to create better results on GW if it happens...than doing anything anytime soon.
5. Federal Funding $ matters.
6. You would expect power-hungry politicians who want more control over everything to generate a difficult-to-determine danger with dire consequences, where the only solution is to give the politicians more power. Not saying that's what happened, but rather that you would predict that this would happen. It would be a better scam than a war.
FWIW,
My not quite book report on Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It covers the way I prefer to argue Global Warming.
I think attacking the "facts" gets you nowhere but ignored...rather approaching obliquely gets better results.
That does not change the fact that science deals with falsifiable hypotheses.
Oh there is not doubt that the models are completely broken, and that most of the tweaking of the models is to get the desired result.
If you can't enter the climate data for 1970-2000 into your model and accurately predict the climate for 2001-2009 your model is broken, not merely somewhat deficient.
Or as I tend to rather snarkilly say, "As soon as they can reliably tell me what the weather is going to be like next week, I might believe them when they tell me what the weather is going to be like in 20 years."
As for your bulelts.
1) poorly phrased but accurate
2) It is clear from the European ice core data that ice age onset is less than 100 years. I'd need better data to be comfortable saying onset occurs in less than 20
3) True, but understates the case. The Renaissance was significantly warmer than now, no need to go back to dino times. The Vikings farmed and grew grapes in Greenland .
4-6) are dead on.
AGW is no different than the old "CFCs caused the Ozone Hole" fraud that was perpetrated back in the 80-s and 90's. Again, this was a directly falsifiable theory.
Theory: Free Chlorine liberated from CFCs acts as a catalyst for UV breakdown of Ozone.
Fact - Mt St. Hellens put more free chlorine directly into the Ozone layer than 100 years of human CFC production, and there was no coresponding reduction in the Ozone Hole
Thus falsified.
Of course now we know that the Ozone hole apears to correlate over 90% with Solar Sunspot activiity
1. Falsifiability is so ... Popper.
In all the cases, we can't simply falsify. There are lots of data and some points in one direction, some points in the other. You're playing what Seth Roberts likes to call Black and White, while the proper game here is Bayesian.
If Bob has a bunch of evidence that has increased his belief that CFC's cause Ozone Holes to ~80%...then Mt. St. Helens data don't falsify. They just move the confidence back down towards 70%. Maybe it ain't the free chlorine that's causing the problem.
2. New-ish data from Greenland ice says Ice age onset was fast
Post a Comment