There’s an old saying, “be part of the solution rather than the problem”. Team science is now quantified thanks to Andrew Montford.
Doesn’t this just sum up the problem with climatology – that new ideas, particularly from those outside the mainstream, are seen as a problem rather than a possible step forward? – Andrew Montford (writing at Bishop-Hill.net)
Full story here
Keeping in the long tradition of climate science….
….let’s vote on it
If your not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate.
In climate science it is bad to be the one to precipitate a discussion.
The problem being is that so much is invested in policy based on the mainstream “idea” that any new thinking might reveal the folly of that investment….losing face for those who hold the reins.
I suggest that your moderators enforce scare quotes around mainstream use of the term climate “science”.
For the love of “Insert Deity or lack thereof “. Please make this all go away!
I have been researching this subject for the last several weeks after finding the paper from CERN. Like most I had heard for the last decade that we were killing our planet and just kind of blew it off as being akin to the Ozone crises. I had no idea how freaking bizarre and surreal this whole situation really was.
I did catch on the news about climate gate and had figured that it had all been put to rest since the fraud was exposed. Guess I was wrong…….
Could I get some verification on the following just to make sure that I have interpreted the facts correctly.
1. Mann’s Hockey stick formula was clearly shown to be in error and deliberate. He has been cleared and vindicated of all charges?
2. The Data for AGW is irrefutable. A scientist said this really? I seem to remember from my 3rd grade science book that all science is a theory and is always open to change based on current understanding. Is this not the premise of what science has been built on? I happen to have a picture of Einstein hanging on my wall at the office is it now blasphemy to challenge his theories?
3. IPCC has made many statements and predictions for AGW. Has even one of these came to fruition in the last 10 years?
4. In the last 3 weeks I have been following the science section of Google news. The claims that the end of the world is upon us is 10 to one in favor of AGW. How is this possible?
5. The IPCC states that virtually all of the climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Is there a list of individual names so I can contact them to verify this claim? Is there a formula like three experts in the science CO2 = one climatologist?
The above are really genuine questions apart from the sarcasm.
Jeff
Damn! Only three comments but someone still beat me to it!
It is probably no accident that the people who came up with the expression “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem” were America’s most visible communists and that they worked tirelessly for the imposition of their solution on all Americans. Some of them serve in Congress today.
“If your not part of the solution then you are part of the precipitate.”
Hey that’s good, I like that one and I’m not even a chemistry geek. Or maybe I am a chemistry geek and did not know it. Ouch.
Greenies, you don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here. Finish your Kool-Aid and go smoke some Gaia. My electric bill has doubled in the last year (California). Once the price goes up, it’ll not come down soon. Mission accomplished Eco helpers.
This is off the blog topic but very relevant to this topic.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
“Dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
“But the Virgo Consortium has created computer simulations to visualise how the dwarf galaxies formed, using their assumptions about CDM
The team found that the final results of these simulations did not at all match what we observe. The models showed many more small galaxies in a wide halo around the Milky Way, whereas in reality there are fewer, larger dwarf galaxies.”
Reality differing from computer models eh.
klem says:
September 16, 2011 at 10:41 am
No, if you were a chemistry geek you would have heard this before. 🙂
Jeff says:
September 16, 2011 at 10:22 am
> Could I get some verification on the following just to make sure that I have interpreted the facts correctly.
To answer this well take more time than I have at the moment. This will be a start.
>1. Mann’s Hockey stick formula was clearly shown to be in error and deliberate. He has been cleared and vindicated of all charges?
He was not cleared. He and other members of the Team have interpreted the explanations of irregularities as vindication. Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it.
> 2. The Data for AGW is irrefutable. A scientist said this really?
Yes, several, and many more non-scientists. One of many amazing attributes about this politicized “debate.”
> I happen to have a picture of Einstein hanging on my wall at the office is it now blasphemy to challenge his theories?
No, you’re welcome to challenge anything Einstein theorized. Its just climate scientists who say the world is warming and we’re in big trouble if we don’t act by 2008 you’re not allow to criticized.
> 3. IPCC has made many statements and predictions for AGW. Has even one of these came to fruition in the last 10 years?
I believe their predictions that the next report will be released have all come to pass, except for the current next (5th) report. They’re working it now and it will likely be released, though the intense scrutiny it will get (if the review process is open) will delay it for months.
They don’t make predictions. They refer to models that are initialized with something other than current conditions (I think that’s why the output is just a projection) and the error bars are large enough so what happens fits within the error bars. Then a new report comes out with new error bars, so in general reality fits within the error bars and the projections are validated. Then they’re called predictions.
> 4. In the last 3 weeks I have been following the science section of Google news. The claims that the end of the world is upon us is 10 to one in favor of AGW. How is this possible?
We don’t know. Well, we do. Follow the money.
> 5. The IPCC states that virtually all of the climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Is there a list of individual names so I can contact them to verify this claim?
Of course not. Duh!
> The above are really genuine questions apart from the sarcasm.
Welcome to the debate. Please read Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass to properly prepare for what you will find.
mwhite says (September 16, 2011 at 11:49 am): “Dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong”
Heh. Maybe “dark matter” and “dark energy” are hiding in the same place as Trenberth’s “dark heat”. 🙂
If you are not part of the solution there is great money to be made prolonging the problem!
If you can’t be part of the solution, then there is good money in prolonging the problem.
>>
“Dwarf galaxies suggest dark matter theory may be wrong”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14948730
“But the Virgo Consortium has created computer simulations to visualise how the dwarf galaxies formed, using their assumptions about CDM
The team found that the final results of these simulations did not at all match what we observe. The models showed many more small galaxies in a wide halo around the Milky Way, whereas in reality there are fewer, larger dwarf galaxies.”
Reality differing from computer models eh.
>>
Well, that is a travesty. where is all the missing matter? Our whole telescope network must be faulty.
Janice, TRM, you’re not related are you? Or just a case of great minds think alike 😉
The problem is not so much with Climate Science, as Climate Science is the problem.
Jeff said
“5. The IPCC states that virtually all of the climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Is there a list of individual names so I can contact them to verify this claim? Is there a formula like three experts in the science CO2 = one climatologist? ”
I haven’t seen a list put forward by the IPCC, but you might want to check these out:
US Senate Minority Report (700+ skeptical prominent scientists)
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/USSenateEPWMinorityReport.pdf
Also see the petition project (31,000+ skeptical scientists):
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Makes one wonder whether the definition of “consensus” changed while no one was looking.
If the bird book differs from the bird, believe the bird
With the current crop of Gorons, the solution is the problem.
Spending money we don’t have on things that won’t work for problems that don’t exist.
Ideal government activity. (we really need a sarcasm font)
After 25 years of organic non pesticide farming I can find insects the extension agent cannot identify, and wild flowers not native to the local area, who knew?
Replying to Jeff:
1. Mann’s Hockey stick formula was clearly shown to be in error and deliberate. He has been cleared and vindicated of all charges?
>>>Mann’s hockey stick was based on a bad statisitcal analysis of incomplete biased data to show incontestable proof that the Earth is undergoing unprecendented warming – I would hate to think that was deliberate – I think he just isn’t a very good scientist.
2. The Data for AGW is irrefutable. A scientist said this really? I seem to remember from my 3rd grade science book that all science is a theory and is always open to change based on current understanding. Is this not the premise of what science has been built on? I happen to have a picture of Einstein hanging on my wall at the office is it now blasphemy to challenge his theories?
>>> All climatology canon is irrefutable by definition. If I haven’t learned anything else in the last 33 years of following AGW, it’s that it cannot be refuted or you will be excommunicated.
3. IPCC has made many statements and predictions for AGW. Has even one of these came to fruition in the last 10 years?
>>> Absolutely. They predicted some places would get warmer, some would get colder, some would get wetter and some would get dryer… And they were right!
4. In the last 3 weeks I have been following the science section of Google news. The claims that the end of the world is upon us is 10 to one in favor of AGW. How is this possible?
>>> The water rises by 28,000 feet covering all land and drowning all land creatures. All water creatures die in boiling oceans. The extra gravity caused by water runoff from the melting ice eventually turns the Earth into a black hole. (I may have a career as a AGW science writer in me!)
5. The IPCC states that virtually all of the climate scientists agree that AGW is real. Is there a list of individual names so I can contact them to verify this claim? Is there a formula like three experts in the science CO2 = one climatologist?
>>> Start with a list of main-stream news reporters and you will have approximately 80% of the “Scientists” that think AGW is real. Add in environmental activists for the rest of the names.
(I used to call myself an environmentalist because I actuall love nature… I didn’t realize that environmentalist was just another word for misguided political activist)
Jeff says
September 16, 2011 at 10:22 am
For the love of “Insert Deity or lack thereof “. Please make this all go away!
——–
Jeff you claim these are genuine questions. I don’t believe you. You clearly have made up your mind already about what the answers are.
It looks very like the standard post justification and rationalization if preconceived ideas.
Dark heat … I like that
LazyTeenager said
“Jeff you claim these are genuine questions. I don’t believe you. You clearly have made up your mind already about what the answers are.”
* * *
Way to avoid the questions! How very LAZY of you!
And for people who’ve brought up the comparisons to the ” You’re either with us or against us” slogan, ( and we all know who started that ) great job. This is exactly how people who throw their undying support behind AGW, with no questions asked.
As for ” The Science is Settled” , the fact that we are here having this conversation shows that in fact, the science is not ” settled”. It never is.
LazyTeenager,
No the questions were genuine curiosity on the subject. I have hit information overload with my old feeble mind. Example:
In the last couple of days I have read several articles on Mann that are in total conflict with each other. I read a Pro Article proclaiming with warm fuzzies that Mann’s work was vindicated and how ecstatic he was that his work has once again proved AGW is real and we must act now! On the Anti side I see articles stating that the investigation was a white wash to cover up the shoddy work that was spoon fed to the masses to prove AGW. So who do you believe?
The first time I heard the words irrefutable being declare by a scientist I cringed. Just guessing but by your name you choose to reply with you are young. When I was your age I remember a statement ” Hold Nothing Sacred, Question Everything ” I will always remember that and I really do try and live by that stupid little saying.
The question of IPCC claims, in the last 24 hours there have been 6 articles listed on the Google News science section stating that AGW { will destroy the California Economy, All the Ice has melted where will the polar bears go, Sea lions have no place to rest, The drought / floods in Africa, The sea level is still rising, not to mention the Goreothon. } All of these claiming to be the harbinger of the end of the world as we know it due to AGW. Now on the Anti side I see the rebuttal to these claims. {Sea Level is still dropping, Polar Bear populations are at an all time high, Africa is having droughts / floods just like it always has had and the average global temperature is still dropping since 1998. } Again who do you believe?
The last question regarding who are all these scientist that make this claim. I have found more than 100 articles stating that all respectable scientist agree on AGW. I really would like contact them. I would really would like the chance to analyze the data. Thanks to response of Quin I now have a list of over 30,000 scientist that do not agree. Why cant I have a list of all the scientist who agree?
From what i have learned in the last few weeks is that data can be manipulated on both sides. The only difference I have found between the two is that the methodology of the pro AGW is not available for me to try and understand.
With the above, yes I have developed a bias based on the information I have been able to acquire on the subject. But this does not mean that I was not wanting an opinion of the questions I asked. I really did hope to get conformation on what I believed I was seeing.
Just the fact that you found this website leads me to believe that you as well are starting to develop the philosophy of ” Question Everything ” congratulations there may hope for the youth of the world.
Jeff
If you’re going to quote it, fix the grammar error so you don’t look like you’re an illiterate chemistry geek.
LazyTeenager said
“Jeff you claim these are genuine questions. I don’t believe you. You clearly have made up your mind already about what the answers are.”
+++++++
Jeff, that sounds like Dark Debate or Dark Righteousness-with-a-back-door. We here all know that the answers to his straightforward questions do not support the “man-is-causing-global-thermal-runaway-unless-we-stop-burning-fossil-fuels” message. The concept is wrong. It is not happening and never was.
The idea looked sound in the 80’s and the more we learned about the climate, in fact the whole solar system, the more it appears that many other factors are much more influential than CO2. There is simply not nearly enough of it and other factors overwhelm it. AGW now stands on the one-legged stool of ‘water feedback’ and that peg has been kicked out from under it several times. It simply does not work like that (and never did). The counter evidence (open to scrutiny) is overwhelming.
There is a further problem with the CO2 argument about future temperatures: there is not enough carbon available to us to even double the present 391 ppm to 782 ppm. It is called ‘peak carbon’ which will occur some say about 2070 at a level of about 540 ppm which might see a 0.1-0.3 Deg increase – a barely detectable, let alone attributable increase.
I am sure you have heard of ‘peak oil’. Well the repeated re-dating of that momentous event since the 20’s has me convinced we are far from it, but still, peak carbon has to happen at some point, right? If CO2 rises to 3000 ppm it sure won’t be because of fossil fuel burning. It will have to come from natural events like the past few times it went to that level.
You gotta get over it. The CAGW and AGW and even the GW memes are morning mist in an intellectual desert, disappearing as the sun of reality shines upon them.
Chill, man. Enjoy.
Jeff, if you want to explore more substance to the refutation of AGW, click my name. I tried to write it for both scientists and non-scientists. Many have thanked me. Haven’t updated it recently but I think it still stands as a good primer to climate skepticism.
Retired Engineer says:
September 16, 2011 at 2:57 pm
With the current crop of Gorons, the solution is the problem.
Spending money we don’t have on things that won’t work for problems that don’t exist.
Ideal government activity. (we really need a sarcasm font)
============
GORONS
brilliant word, should go into the ecyc Brit asap:-)
rofl
Robert of Texas wrote “I used to call myself an environmentalist because I actuall love nature… I didn’t realize that environmentalist was just another word for misguided political activist”
You are SO not alone in this. I used to call myself an enviornmentalist too, but that was back in the days when environmentalists used to fight for clean air land and water. Now its about saving the planet, carbon markets, social justice, global carbon debt and world governments, etc. Todays environmentalism has left me behind, it is a movement with which I am unfamiliar now. I find it offensive and I do not call myself an environmentalist anymore.
I’ll wager there are alot of climate skeptics that frequent this blog who used to call themselves environmentalists at one time, but find that they can’t anymore.
Someday environmentalism will return to its roots and only then will I rejoin it’s ranks.
Lucy Skywalker,
Add my name to the list of thanks. I like they way in which your data was presented in concert with the timeline of events that have transpired.
As I said the CERN study is what put me onto this by accident. After several days of reading I got in contact with a very well know and nationally recognized Meteorologist. It was in conversations with him that I was linked to this site and icecap.us. He didn’t have many things nice to say about our scientific organizations that are promoting AGW.
Thanks to all of you for your information. It is much appreciated.
Jeff