Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Indy Coug]

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news...te-change?lite

He previously painted some of the direst visions of the effects of climate change. In 2006, in an article in the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, he wrote that “before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

However, the professor admitted in a telephone interview with msnbc.com that he now thinks he had been “extrapolating too far."

Good ol' extrapolation.

[Indy Coug]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ONG-along.html

[statman]

This whole mess is what happens when you have models driving theory, and not vice versa.

Yes, there is a strong theoretical background for CO2 as a greenhouse gas - in a lab. Given a restricted timeline, it was easy to show that from the 1940s to the 1970s, there was a very strong correlation between CO2 and temperature. Looking at a broader time horizon, and the correlation is much more tenuous. So "scientific consensus" decided not to use a broader time horizon when the models were built. The theoretical underpinnings as CO2 as a (laboratory) greenhouse gas, and the strong correlation in the reduced dataset guaranteed CO2 as the primary driver of the models - and that role as primary driver wasn't changed, even as data from the early 90's showed that it might not be right - atmospheric CO2 was growing really fast, but global temps, while still increasing, were being significantly outpaced by CO2. The correlation was getting weaker over time, indicating that they didn't understand the relationship as well as they thought they did. And then, by the late 90s, temperatures stopped increasing. They hid this fact for several years, by adding 'correction factors' to the original data, and reducing the number of reporting stations to a smaller number of increasingly handpicked sites. Then it got to the point where NASA was recording the most accurate global temperatures, and when THEY had to use correction factors, the rat had been smelled. The whole Climate Gate fiasco of a couple years ago verified what a lot of people had been questioning - emails that showed the roles of "scientists" in creating misinformation, submarining research, stacking policy and academic review boards, etc. And then there was my personal favorite "we lost the original uncorrected data. All of it. and nope - no backups, so don't even bother asking."

Now we're to the point that even with handpicked temperature data and all other manipulations, even the keepers of the flame have to admit what the "deniers" have been saying for 15 years - the impact of atmospheric CO2 on temperature is nowhere near as strong as the models suggest. Co2 likely has a slight moderating effect on temperature, but it certainly doesn't belong in place #1 in the predictive models. It probably belongs at about place #10, explaining a tiny fraction of the annual variance in global temperature. What's funny is by forcing CO2 to be the big explainer of variance in the initial models, it all-but-eliminated the impact of the biggest greenhouse gas on the planet (by far) water, in the form of clouds and water vapor. But atmospheric water can hardly be taxed or otherwise regulated, so why would you want something as unsexy and as uninteresting as H20 as a headliner in the Greenhouse Gas Wars. CO2 has a much nicer ring to it - and a much bigger price tag. Which is of course why it's inability to accurately predict global temperatures for the last 16 years has been completely ignored. $$$.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hogwash.

[statman]

My argument is the one that we deniers have been making for over a decade. And the data fits our arguments, and not the infallible models. Being wrong for 16 years in a row SHOULD turn people to question their assumptions. Atmospheric CO2 has increased every year for the last 16, while global temperature has not increased significantly in a single one of those years. The CO2-temperature relationship as assumed by the scientists is broken. The models are now running outside of the lower confidence intervals of the predictions used to already inflict hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to Western taxpayers. Who are the REAL deniers? Those most likely to benefit from inflicting a couple trillion more in damage to economies that can't afford it.

So besides saying what I wrote was "hogwash" what explanation do you have for the inability of the models to predict global temperature? The data is on the deniers side.

[Bo Diddley]

I don't buy into the whole Global Warming thing. But what concerns me is all the air pollution. I'm just glad Geneva Steel finally went away.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My argument is the one that we deniers have been making for over a decade. And the data fits our arguments, and not the infallible models. Being wrong for 16 years in a row SHOULD turn people to question their assumptions. Atmospheric CO2 has increased every year for the last 16, while global temperature has not increased significantly in a single one of those years. The CO2-temperature relationship as assumed by the scientists is broken. The models are now running outside of the lower confidence intervals of the predictions used to already inflict hundreds of billions of dollars in costs to Western taxpayers. Who are the REAL deniers? Those most likely to benefit from inflicting a couple trillion more in damage to economies that can't afford it.

So besides saying what I wrote was "hogwash" what explanation do you have for the inability of the models to predict global temperature? The data is on the deniers side.

The Daily Mail = Fox New of the UK. That article is a classic example of cherry picking by an author with an axe to grind. The graph is incredibly deceptive. There are several ways to compute average earth temperature as described here:

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/wh...emperature-now

Check out the graphs in the various links. We are still in a warming trend.

It is pretty simple mathematically to show that without a baseline of CO2, the earth would be a deep freeze. It absolutely has an effect on the earth's temperature. And just in my lifetime, CO2 has gone from 315 to 390. In my LIFETIME.

In the second paragraph of your earlier post, you imply that all of the world's scientists are complicit in a global conspiracy to falsify data and waste money. Bullshit. That is about as likely as Bigfoot being the mastermind behind a 9-11 conspiracy.

[All-American]

It absolutely has an effect on the earth's temperature. And just in my lifetime, CO2 has gone from 315 to 390. In my LIFETIME. .

[BigPiney]

that is so awesome

[Jeff Lebowski]

that is so awesome

Yes it is.

[Uncle Ted]

The Daily Mail = Fox New of the UK.

I guess that makes it better than the MSNBC of the UK...




http://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc...esearch-2013-3

[il Padrino Ute]

The Daily Mail = Fox New of the UK. That article is a classic example of cherry picking by an author with an axe to grind. The graph is incredibly deceptive. There are several ways to compute average earth temperature as described here:

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/wh...emperature-now

Check out the graphs in the various links. We are still in a warming trend.

It is pretty simple mathematically to show that without a baseline of CO2, the earth would be a deep freeze. It absolutely has an effect on the earth's temperature. And just in my lifetime, CO2 has gone from 315 to 390. In my LIFETIME.

In the second paragraph of your earlier post, you imply that all of the world's scientists are complicit in a global conspiracy to falsify data and waste money. Bullshit. That is about as likely as Bigfoot being the mastermind behind a 9-11 conspiracy.

Please explain how the earth came out of the ice age. It seems that that was a much more dramatic rise in temperature than what is alleged is happening now.

[woot]

Please explain how the earth came out of the ice age. It seems that that was a much more dramatic rise in temperature than what is alleged is happening now.

I'm not really interested in debating global warming, but if you are actually asking, the climate varies cyclically according to a number of factors. These factors comprise what are called "Milankovitch cycles"

The science most certainly doesn't say that the climate doesn't change dramatically. During the Miocene (the period from about 23-5 million years ago), for instance, the world got a lot colder and a lot drier, causing the forests to recede and leading to the evolution of tropical grasses. This is a pretty big event in my field, as is the last ice age when neanderthals were still around.

The thing that's weird about the current warming trend is that it seems to be occurring when it shouldn't be, and is doing so more rapidly than it should even if we were supposed to be in a warming period. That's as far as I'll go on that, but regardless of which side of the debate you're on, the issue is not that anybody thinks the climate isn't supposed to ever change.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm not really interested in debating global warming, but if you are actually asking, the climate varies cyclically according to a number of factors. These factors comprise what are called "Milankovitch cycles"

The science most certainly doesn't say that the climate doesn't change dramatically. During the Miocene (the period from about 23-5 million years ago), for instance, the world got a lot colder and a lot drier, causing the forests to recede and leading to the evolution of tropical grasses. This is a pretty big event in my field, as is the last ice age when neanderthals were still around.

The thing that's weird about the current warming trend is that it seems to be occurring when it shouldn't be, and is doing so more rapidly than it should even if we were supposed to be in a warming period. That's as far as I'll go on that, but regardless of which side of the debate you're on, the issue is not that anybody thinks the climate isn't supposed to ever change.

My point is that the earth does what it wants to do regardless if man exists or not. That's all I'm saying.

And to be clear, I never said that the climate doesn't change dramatically. I said that it seemed that the earth got a lot warmer to get out of the Ice Age than whatever change is happening now.

[All-American]

I am able to report that the Chicagoland area has opted out of global warming. Brr.