Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[ERCougar]

Here's how I see it...I don't know jack about climate science (of course, I'm willing to admit that...). However, I do know a little about how scientific research goes, how one gets published, and how scientists think. Plus, I have that common sense thing going for me. So, putting the two together, I can come to the conclusion that it's beyond ridiculous that the vast majority of climate scientists are all involved in a great global conspiracy. And I can do this without spending years studying climatology (or listening to Rush on the afternoon commute, which is pretty much equivalent). It's by this same process that I've come to the conclusion that those who think we blew up the twin towers ourselves are probably wrong, despite how much gosh darned sense their videos make.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[SandYFan]

Here's how I see it...I don't know jack about climate science (of course, I'm willing to admit that...). However, I do know a little about how scientific research goes, how one gets published, and how scientists think. Plus, I have that common sense thing going for me. So, putting the two together, I can come to the conclusion that it's beyond ridiculous that the vast majority of climate scientists are all involved in a great global conspiracy. And I can do this without spending years studying climatology (or listening to Rush on the afternoon commute, which is pretty much equivalent). It's by this same process that I've come to the conclusion that those who think we blew up the twin towers ourselves are probably wrong, despite how much gosh darned sense their videos make.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Only problem is, even if this is all true, we can't do jack to stop it.

Thanks, India! Thanks China!

So why hurt the economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal?

[ERCougar]

Only problem is, even if this is all true, we can't do jack to stop it.

Thanks, India! Thanks China!

So why hurt the economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal?

This I completely agree with. (And I swear I said it in the thread...)

I think we should be putting more money into adaptive efforts, rather than preventive ones. But those aren't going to get the political support either as long as we have amateur climate scientists with their tin foil hats in place.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[old_gregg]

Only problem is, even if this is all true, we can't do jack to stop it.

Thanks, India! Thanks China!

So why hurt the economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal?

what are you talking about? it's inevitable that some children will die in car accidents, so we should just live with those consequence for fear of "hurting the economy" because total prevention is impossible? it is not an either/or proposition. if climate change is effected by human activity, prohibiting in those activities will presumably slow or mitigate the consequences of climate change.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Only problem is, even if this is all true, we can't do jack to stop it.

Thanks, India! Thanks China!

So why hurt the economy in pursuit of an unattainable goal?

The problem with global warming (as exhibited to a degree in your posts) is the conflation of policy with science. You seem to have assumed certain things about my politics based on my appraisal of the science. As if global warming is some kind of religion and there are certain articles of faith attached to it (note your repeated usage of the term "believe"). Every climate scientist that I have spoken with doesn't want to touch policy issues with a ten-foot pole. They are just focused on the science.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

What is the point?

Let me help you out with a little logic. Just because there have been significant swings in temp and CO2 over the full span of geologic history, that doesn't mean that man is incapable of significantly altering the climate via CO2 emissions.

"That doesn't mean that man is incapable of significantly altering the climate via CO2 emissions" = the global warming skeptics having to prove a negative. I suppose if I can frame an argument that way, I'll take it every time. It's ridiculous to set out to prove something and then expect the other side to disprove something that you haven't met the burden on. "Oh yeah? You need to prove it isn't happening.

Meanwhile, temperatures haven't really increased in 15 years and the IPCC is trying to figure out the best way release these rather uncomfortable facts. It seems to me that if temperatures haven't increased in 15 years and their previous computer models were utterly wrong, then the burden is on the global warming scientists to provide some explanation as to why their predictions were off. Then they need to explain why their future predictions have remedied what previously plagued their predictions. If you read the article it's clear that some scientists understand this, but others apparently don't. The burden should never fall on skeptics to prove a negative when the last 15 years of data suggests that temperatures haven't increased. The idea is ludicrous.

[ERCougar]

'I haven't seen humans evolve a bit in my lifetime! Animals neither.'

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[old_gregg]

"That doesn't mean that man is incapable of significantly altering the climate via CO2 emissions" = the global warming skeptics having to prove a negative. I suppose if I can frame an argument that way, I'll take it every time. It's ridiculous to set out to prove something and then expect the other side to disprove something that you haven't met the burden on. "Oh yeah? You need to prove it isn't happening.

no, the argument is that a co2 level 25% higher than the next closest point in the last 400,000 years whose rise correlates with the post-industrial revolution exponential growth (in numbers and scale) of human produced/associated co2 sources is not a coincidence.

It seems to me that if temperatures haven't increased in 15 years and their previous computer models were utterly wrong,

1. average global temperature does not tell the whole story
2. a variation from a model does not mean the model is "utterly wrong."

[Jeff Lebowski]

"That doesn't mean that man is incapable of significantly altering the climate via CO2 emissions" = the global warming skeptics having to prove a negative. I suppose if I can frame an argument that way, I'll take it every time. It's ridiculous to set out to prove something and then expect the other side to disprove something that you haven't met the burden on. "Oh yeah? You need to prove it isn't happening.

Meanwhile, temperatures haven't really increased in 15 years and the IPCC is trying to figure out the best way release these rather uncomfortable facts. It seems to me that if temperatures haven't increased in 15 years and their previous computer models were utterly wrong, then the burden is on the global warming scientists to provide some explanation as to why their predictions were off. Then they need to explain why their future predictions have remedied what previously plagued their predictions. If you read the article it's clear that some scientists understand this, but others apparently don't. The burden should never fall on skeptics to prove a negative when the last 15 years of data suggests that temperatures haven't increased. The idea is ludicrous.

The computer models are never expected to perfectly track temp changes, especially in the short term because something like a la nina event can have a big short-term impact. Again, we are looking at a range of possibilities over the long term and how various factors could potentially impact the climate. You can keep beating that horse all you want, but the recent anomaly does not negate the models or the overall scientific consensus.

From the article:

Germany's Federal Ministry of Research would prefer to leave any discussion of the global warming hiatus entirely out of the new IPCC report summary. "In climate research, changes don't count until they've been observed on a timescale of 30 years," claims one delegate participating in the negotiations on behalf of German Research Minister Johanna Wanka of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). The Ministry for the Environment's identical stance: "Climate fluctuations that don't last very long are not scientifically relevant."

I think people are reading their own biases into that article (which was poorly written, btw). The problem is that people are mistakenly interpreting the recent anomaly due to a lack of understanding in how the models work (as clearly evidenced by the responses in this thread). That makes it all the more difficult to communicate the science.

[SandYFan]

Does anyone want to explain exactly how CO2 is causing this effect?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

no, the argument is that a co2 level 25% higher than the next closest point in the last 400,000 years whose rise correlates with the post-industrial revolution exponential growth (in numbers and scale) of human produced/associated co2 sources is not a coincidence.



1. average global temperature does not tell the whole story
2. a variation from a model does not mean the model is "utterly wrong."

1. Before they extract trillions of dollars (both directly and indirectly), they need to tell us what the "whole story" is. Do you think it's okay to predict that temperatures are going to rise _ degrees, then it doesn't happen and then merely explain "well, actual warming doesn't tell the whole story?" They're using these models as a basis to enact some, at times, draconian and expensive policies. If the basic thrust of the model is warming, and then said warming doesn't occur, it's ridiculous to give that a pass.

2. The model was supposed to predict temperatures, the model was wrong. They can explain why the variance occurred. It seems like a lot of the people at the IPCC aren't interested in doing that. Early on in the article, they mention how the IPCC crapped their pants because of the actual data. It didn't seem to align with their theories and models. The IPCC should be a dispassionate seeker of truth. They have to be prepared for some blowback when their predictions were wrong. It seems they have assigned some undue certainty to some things.

[Jeff Lebowski]

1. Before they extract trillions of dollars (both directly and indirectly), they need to tell us what the "whole story" is. Do you think it's okay to predict that temperatures are going to rise _ degrees, then it doesn't happen and then merely explain "well, actual warming doesn't tell the whole story?" They're using these models as a basis to enact some, at times, draconian and expensive policies. If the basic thrust of the model is warming, and then said warming doesn't occur, it's ridiculous to give that a pass.

2. The model was supposed to predict temperatures, the model was wrong. They can explain why the variance occurred. It seems like a lot of the people at the IPCC aren't interested in doing that. Early on in the article, they mention how the IPCC crapped their pants because of the actual data. It didn't seem to align with their theories and models. The IPCC should be a dispassionate seeker of truth. They have to be prepared for some blowback when their predictions were wrong. It seems they have assigned some undue certainty to some things.

(Sigh... Call me Sisyphus)

Both of your points exhibit a basic misunderstanding of climate modeling science. The objective of the models is to predict a broad range of possible outcomes over the long term. The projections in the short term are expected to have a high degree of fluctuation due to random events like la nina.

You are misinterpreting the article, but that is not surprising since the article presents a somewhat distorted picture of what is going on.

[USUC]

I don't really have dog on this fight but isn't the position of most scientists labeled "skeptics" arguing the models are wrong in the assessment off climate sensitivity to CO2? I'm not taking about the bloggers or internet mind you.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The computer models are never expected to perfectly track temp changes, especially in the short term because something like a la nina event can have a big short-term impact. Again, we are looking at a range of possibilities over the long term and how various factors could potentially impact the climate. You can keep beating that horse all you want, but the recent anomaly does not negate the models or the overall scientific consensus.

From the article:



I think people are reading their own biases into that article (which was poorly written, btw). The problem is that people are mistakenly interpreting the recent anomaly due to a lack of understanding in how the models work (as clearly evidenced by the responses in this thread). That makes it all the more difficult to communicate the science.

You're quoting a delegate from the government, quite possibly a total political hack presuming that Germany's government is anything like ours. Here's what the top researcher in Germany says about 30 years being the guideline:

Germany's highest-ranking climate researcher, physicist Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, in Hamburg, is fighting back against this refusal to face facts. Marotzke, who is also president of the German Climate Consortium and Germany's top scientific representative in Stockholm, promises, "We will address this subject head-on." The IPCC, he says, must engage in discussion about the standstill in temperature rise.

Marotzke calls the claim that a temperature plateau isn't significant until it has lasted for over 30 years unscientific. "Thirty years is an arbitrarily selected number," he says. "Some climate phenomena occur on a shorter timescale, some on a longer one." Climate researchers, Marotzke adds, have an obligation not to environmental policy but to the truth. "That obligates us to clearly state the uncertainties in our predictions as well," he says.

Herr Marotzke is saying the same thing I'm saying. Namely, explain why the model is wrong and confront the variance head on. Don't say that 15 years is meaningless.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You're quoting a delegate from the government, quite possibly a total political hack presuming that Germany's government is anything like ours. Here's what the top researcher in Germany says about 30 years being the guideline:



Herr Marotzke is saying the same thing I'm saying. Namely, explain why the model is wrong and confront the variance head on. Don't say that 15 years is meaningless.

Yes, 30 years is arbitrary. Pick a number. That doesn't negate the overall point. I agree with his entire statement and it is not inconsistent with what I said.

You seem to be ignoring the central point I am making about short-term events and modeling, so I am not sure how useful this discussion is. But let me leave you with this statement that is repeated everywhere in the modeling community:

"All models are wrong, but some are useful."

A model is NOT reality. It is a simplification of reality. A dead-on match is a wild coincidence. The lack of a dead-on match is always expected. It is all about trends and ranges of likely answers.