Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[ERCougar]

I want theoretical science for the sake of knowledge. It is often viewed as impractical, but it is valuable nonetheless.

I want science where the scientists don't meddle in public policy. I don't want scientists becoming partners with one of the parties and making it a partisan debate.

The climatologists began meddling in public policy for the base purpose of obtaining more funding. It may be that they have discovered some aspects of the climate, but I daresay, we learn much more from evolutionary biology, medicine, geology, applied physics than we do from public policy driven climatology. Once a science becomes merged with public policy, we should not fund it. If it grows independent of public policy, then we should fund it.

Ugh. You're not even making a coherent argument any more. This is a waste of time, and a depressing one at that.
I have some magnets to sell to you. They work for...well, anything. Never mind the lack of science supporting them--they can't get any research funds because Pharma just keeps squelching them.
PM me if you're interested. I think I'm done here.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Yes, obviously everything is completely settled. Also, apparently it's too much to expect that the 97%'s predictions and models to actually somewhat reflect the reality that comes to pass. By all means, given the impeccable track record of their models at predicting what happens, let's hand off policy-making too them.

SPIEGEL: Just since the turn of the millennium, humanity has emitted another 400 billion metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, yet temperatures haven't risen in nearly 15 years. What can explain this?

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts?

Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.

SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models?

Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.

SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…

Storch: Why? That's how the process of scientific discovery works. There is no last word in research, and that includes climate research. It's never the truth that we offer, but only our best possible approximation of reality. But that often gets forgotten in the way the public perceives and describes our work.

SPIEGEL: But it has been climate researchers themselves who have feigned a degree of certainty even though it doesn't actually exist. For example, the IPCC announced with 95 percent certainty that humans contribute to climate change.

Storch: And there are good reasons for that statement. We could no longer explain the considerable rise in global temperatures observed between the early 1970s and the late 1990s with natural causes. My team at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, was able to provide evidence in 1995 of humans' influence on climate events. Of course, that evidence presupposed that we had correctly assessed the amount of natural climate fluctuation. Now that we have a new development, we may need to make adjustments. {You don't say!}

SPIEGEL: In which areas do you need to improve the models?

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect. {In America, we call this shifting the goal posts. Auf Deutsch, man kann sagen die Fussballtore bin geruhrt.}

SPIEGEL: That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. {Hey Der Spiegel, speak for yourself. Their track record has convinced me that they should be allowed to take a few trillion out of commission from the world economy to fix a problem of which they apparently have no idea what's causing it.}

Storch: Certainly the greatest mistake of climate researchers has been giving the impression that they are declaring the definitive truth. The end result is foolishness along the lines of the climate protection brochures recently published by Germany's Federal Environmental Agency under the title "Sie erwärmt sich doch" ("The Earth is getting warmer"). {I wonder what Storch thinks about Al Gore's declarations several years ago that all the polar ice would be gone by now. Seems like his objections to this hyperbolic bullshit are coming too late. Maybe there are a few guys within the 97% kicking against the pricks before these models are proved demonstrably wrong, but apparently Storch wasn't one of them. It's funny what happens to one's predictions when one's livelihood largely depends on the occurrence of a certain event compounded by a considerable amount of peer pressure.} Pamphlets like that aren't going to convince any skeptics. {Really? I've always thought predictions and movements that are proven spectacularly wrong are quite authoritative.} It's not a bad thing to make mistakes and have to correct them. The only thing that was bad was acting beforehand as if we were infallible. {Beforehand? How about afterhand too Hans. Nothing will deter your work from moving forward.} By doing so, we have gambled away the most important asset we have as scientists: the public's trust. We went through something similar with deforestation, too -- and then we didn't hear much about the topic for a long time.

Yeah, I know TLDR. Der Spiegel is some kind of combination of the New York Times, Time Magazine and The Economist in Germany.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes, obviously everything is completely settled. Also, apparently it's too much to expect that the 97%'s predictions and models to actually somewhat reflect the reality that comes to pass. By all means, given the impeccable track record of their models at predicting what happens, let's hand off policy-making too them.



Yeah, I know TLDR. Der Spiegel is some kind of combination of the New York Times, Time Magazine and The Economist in Germany.

This is the classic science denier strategy. Cherry pick a statement here or there that shows some confusion or disagreement and blow it way out of proportion. You could do the same thing with 9/11 conspiracy, bigfoot, yeti, etc.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This is the classic science denier strategy. Cherry pick a statement here or there that shows some confusion or disagreement and blow it way out of proportion. You could do the same thing with 9/11 conspiracy, bigfoot, yeti, etc.

Or one could also say that climate change was the main cause of the dust bowl as opposed to the farming methods employed in the several decades prior to the 30s and completely ignore soil erosion.

And cherry picking concludes that a small bit of data was taken out context. 98% of their models/predictions were off. It's cherry-picking to claim they were right based off the 2%. Looking at the 98% that were wrong is the opposite of cherry-picking.

[Topper]

Ugh. You're not even making a coherent argument any more. This is a waste of time, and a depressing one at that.
I have some magnets to sell to you. They work for...well, anything. Never mind the lack of science supporting them--they can't get any research funds because Pharma just keeps squelching them.
PM me if you're interested. I think I'm done here.

Then I've not made my point clear.

I favor science funding that is theoretical in nature, or funding for science that has immediate practical benefits. Funding for science that becomes embroiled in politics is of little interest to me.

Climate science is relatively new. It may have discovered great things. But from its dire predictions, it talks about things which might be unavoidable or will happen after I am dead. Thus, from a practical standpoint, it is a waste of my time. We have plenty of problems, that might ultimately be tied to climate matters, but which need more pressing and immediate attention. Plus, they might be more solvable at a lower cost.

Such as, cancer treatments, AIDS, water problems, crop rotations, disease diagnosis and treatment, oil, mineral and gas discovery, and host of more immediate problems. In my mind, worrying about seventy-five to two hundred years from now, when more immediate problems can be solved at a lesser cost is the better administration of funds.

I won't be able to resolve whether climatologists are right or wrong what will happen in two hundred years, because I won't be here. I am not great statesman who will get his name in the history books for paving the way rightly or wrongly. My suspicion is climate scientists will know more in twenty years than they know now and fifty years thereafter. But they are not benefiting us now with our current problems and their theoretical postulations are not as interesting as the origins of the universe. Wherein lies your frustration? You are a medical physician treating emergent conditions and understand the nature of treating the immediate problems first. That is the nature of triage.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Or one could also say that climate change was the main cause of the dust bowl as opposed to the farming methods employed in the several decades prior to the 30s and completely ignore soil erosion.

And cherry picking concludes that a small bit of data was taken out context. 98% of their models/predictions were off. It's cherry-picking to claim they were right based off the 2%. Looking at the 98% that were wrong is the opposite of cherry-picking.

Sorry. Not following you. The dust bowl was a combination of farming methods and a severe drought. What does that have to do with whether or not there is a scientific consensus on climate change?

[Northwestcoug]

Then I've not made my point clear.

I favor science funding that is theoretical in nature, or funding for science that has immediate practical benefits. Funding for science that becomes embroiled in politics is of little interest to me.

Climate science is relatively new. It may have discovered great things. But from its dire predictions, it talks about things which might be unavoidable or will happen after I am dead. Thus, from a practical standpoint, it is a waste of my time. We have plenty of problems, that might ultimately be tied to climate matters, but which need more pressing and immediate attention. Plus, they might be more solvable at a lower cost.

Such as, cancer treatments, AIDS, water problems, crop rotations, disease diagnosis and treatment, oil, mineral and gas discovery, and host of more immediate problems. In my mind, worrying about seventy-five to two hundred years from now, when more immediate problems can be solved at a lesser cost is the better administration of funds.

I won't be able to resolve whether climatologists are right or wrong what will happen in two hundred years, because I won't be here. I am not great statesman who will get his name in the history books for paving the way rightly or wrongly. My suspicion is climate scientists will know more in twenty years than they know now and fifty years thereafter. But they are not benefiting us now with our current problems and their theoretical postulations are not as interesting as the origins of the universe. Wherein lies your frustration? You are a medical physician treating emergent conditions and understand the nature of treating the immediate problems first. That is the nature of triage.

I shouldn't step into this, but you aren't making any sense. You claim to not support climate change science because it is apparently tainted by politics. Yet you have also argued that you're not convinced that the predictions will pan out. Sounds like the predictions are pretty theoretical to me. So why isn't this a case of 'theoretical in nature' that you ostensibly support?

[byu71]

Here is the kind of bull crap the left throws out that makes me cynical of the whole thing. If you are not leary of what they say or apply common sense you could believe this stuff.

This morning on MSNBC Chuck Todd, I think it was him, said the natural disasters last year cost $40 billion dollars. Basically saying climate change has and will have a huge economic impact.

First off, will you scientific folks let me know if climate change impacts volcanoes and earthquakes?

Secondly I read all the time, the worst hurricane, tornado, earthquake, etc in 100 years. I wonder if in todays $$$ and populations if there weren't probably a lot of years even prior to man made emissions that would have made the $40 billion dollar mark.

It is like saying $$$ terms car accidents cost a lot more this year than 70 years ago. Conclusion, we are much more wreckless on the hi-way than we were 70 years ago.

I remember after Katrina the dire prediction because of global warming of the huge number increase in hurricanes that was coming. Scientists predicting it. Guess they also were clueless as to how the scientific process works. Actually, I think they were aware. After fewer Hurricanes, they claimed that was because of global warming.

The climate changes, duh.

[Omaha 680]

I'm fine with the science. It's the proposed massive policy impositions and accompanying taxation and suppression of commerce that raises my eyebrows. Doesn't CMBF make some decent points? Shouldn't policy-makers wait for these discrepencies between the models and reality to be sorted out before we turn the world economy upside down?

[byu71]

I'm fine with the science. It's the proposed massive policy impositions and accompanying taxation and suppression of commerce that raises my eyebrows. Doesn't CMBF make some decent points? Shouldn't policy-makers wait for these discrepencies between the models and reality to be sorted out before we turn the world economy upside down?

We aren't going to turn the world economy upside down. We might ours and that will hurt the world economy. However, India, China, the South American countries, Russia, the oil countries, heck maybe even Canada aren't going to give in to the far lefties in their countries. Canada is supposed to be more liberal than we are and yet they can't get their pipeline to go through the U.S.

If we get all this climate change restrictions through, then listen to them cry and moan about income equality. The rich will continue to do fine and the middle class and lower income folks will fall even further behind.

[Topper]

I shouldn't step into this, but you aren't making any sense. You claim to not support climate change science because it is apparently tainted by politics. Yet you have also argued that you're not convinced that the predictions will pan out. Sounds like the predictions are pretty theoretical to me. So why isn't this a case of 'theoretical in nature' that you ostensibly support?

Because they got involved in the political process and public policy. As BYU71 and others note, I do not want to go down the road that we need to do what some non-US organization dictates inside our own economy. I do not want to abdicate our jurisdictional sovereignty to foreign organizations. If climatologists had steered clear of dictating public policy, I would have found their ruminations interesting. I have no idea how accurate their prognostications are. And I won't find out because I will be dead or we will have done something else to modify the trajectory. I am unconvinced they have a handle on enough of the variables to make accurate predictions, but if they are so be it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm fine with the science. It's the proposed massive policy impositions and accompanying taxation and suppression of commerce that raises my eyebrows. Doesn't CMBF make some decent points? Shouldn't policy-makers wait for these discrepencies between the models and reality to be sorted out before we turn the world economy upside down?

First of all, CMBF said that we are turning policy-making over to climate modelers. That is simply not true. The scientists do the research and the policy-makers decide how to respond to the results of that research. They are two separate endeavors.

The full magnitude of the impact of the climate change is something that will slowly come into more focus over time. Some of the impacts are already happening, and some will occur over centuries. Mostly it will be your grandkids and great grandkids etc who will see the biggest changes. Either way, there are very few people suggesting that we "turn the world economy upside down".

[Shaka]

You mean temperatures go up and down, ice freezes melts and refreezes, and oceans raise and lower over time?

When did this happen?

How is this emergency going to affect Lake Powell this year? I need to know how much to budget for prop damage.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is the kind of bull crap the left throws out that makes me cynical of the whole thing. If you are not leary of what they say or apply common sense you could believe this stuff.

This morning on MSNBC Chuck Todd, I think it was him, said the natural disasters last year cost $40 billion dollars. Basically saying climate change has and will have a huge economic impact.

First off, will you scientific folks let me know if climate change impacts volcanoes and earthquakes?

Secondly I read all the time, the worst hurricane, tornado, earthquake, etc in 100 years. I wonder if in todays $$$ and populations if there weren't probably a lot of years even prior to man made emissions that would have made the $40 billion dollar mark.

It is like saying $$$ terms car accidents cost a lot more this year than 70 years ago. Conclusion, we are much more wreckless on the hi-way than we were 70 years ago.

I remember after Katrina the dire prediction because of global warming of the huge number increase in hurricanes that was coming. Scientists predicting it. Guess they also were clueless as to how the scientific process works. Actually, I think they were aware. After fewer Hurricanes, they claimed that was because of global warming.

The climate changes, duh.

No, climate change does not impact volcanoes or earthquakes. Nobody is claiming it does.

However, there has been a significant change in frequency and severity of extreme weather events (droughts, floods, etc) in recent years. There is a very high likelihood that it is related to climate change. It doesn't make sense to look at a single event (such as Katrina) and state definitively that it is due to climate change because such events have always happened at some frequency. But when you analyze all the data in aggregate and see a significant change, you can be confident that something is going on.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You mean temperatures go up and down, ice freezes melts and refreezes, and oceans raise and lower over time?

When did this happen?

How is this emergency going to affect Lake Powell this year? I need to know how much to budget for prop damage.

Utah is about 70-80% of normal but most of Colorado has ~100% normal snowpack. Should be a great year to refill the reservoir somewhat and rebound from the past two years. I am heading down this weekend.

Sadly, the quagga/zebra mussels have been found in big numbers at Wahweap. That is going to be a big problem over the next 20 years.