Blind faith in climate models

Thank you Anthony. What an honor!

I so agree. The cat’s been out of the bag for awhile now, the models thoroughly debunked, predictions AND projections one after another wrong, year after year after year.
A rhetorical question now: After 30 years of getting it wrong, why are these people allowed to continue with the meme, continue to draw much needed money down the green tubes, continue to cause global disruption to economies, the environment, civilization, health and safety? Why?
This is what the MSM should be asking. This is what every citizen of every country should be asking. Alarmism is destroying the world on many layers to a noticeable extent now. And people everywhere just sit back and watch?
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Pull. The. Plug.

I indicated a similar distrust of models on the excellent Climate Etc site and the comments showed that the academic scientific community seems to support AGW to the hilt, despite any temperature hiatus or any other contrary evidence.
We are up against a belief system that defies logical thought or scientific integrity. I don’t know how to argue with that using conventional scientific argument.

In Ottawa, 5″ of snow means the storm missed us ~(;-)
(That emoticon is supposed to be a toque)

Jim, well done!

geran says:
October 31, 2013 at 3:25 pm
given the time of year, I’d suggest a few barrels of gunpowder!

Second try. Editor played a trick on me.
Randy says:
October 31, 2013 at 2:52 pm
So the best the IPCC could come to explaining the current lack of warming was saying that natural factors caused this.
____
Exactly. In their statement they suggested various things: volcanoes, hiding heat, etc., but they assigned low probability to each of these explanations–at least quite a bit lower than their 95% certainty on CO2. So basically the latest summary is that the warming trend has been blocked for 17 years by UNKNOWN. Until some definitive science is done on the potential magnitude and schedule of UNKNOWN, it seems unjustified to assign a high certainty to their pet cause.

The Emperor whose new clothes were admired by all the Imperial Clothiers, the Royal Guild of Weavers, the Household Dressers, and all the other accredited experts was confounded when a mere child pointed out that His regal PP was showing.
The AGW Emperor’s PP has been in evidence for far too long now, and it’s high time the offending Member was tucked back in

The good baroness merely consulted the usual soothsayers, and so remains ignorant of the impending reality. And as for, we have another 10,000 years to go before the Holocene ends, I can only think that the British Antarctic Survey can’t been to the Antarctic recently. This has been looked at and debunked. Perhaps she got her nautical vessels mixed up and consulted the crew languishing in Murmanski jails.
If flip flop Lockwood’s current line of research holds up then this period of cooling we about to embark on will be the most rapid since the last glaciation. Something that is hardly suggestive of the Holocene holding out for a further 10,000 years. I appreciate that Milankovitch orbital variation shows a slower decent than the last few glaciations, but not sufficient to support the idea that we may get a further 10,000 years.
We don’t need to drop all the way into a glaciation, which can be a drop of 10 degrees, before we can no longer grow food in the Northern hemisphere.

Guess who didn’t (and will not) miss a single flight despite their guilty paws all over it…

There are none so blinds as…..I am proud to say the voting public of Australia have seen and overwhelmingly rejected the Carbon (Dioxide) Tax.

When can we start measuring these dumkoffs and criminals for their pink prison suits, a la Sherriff Joe’s Arizona brigade?

31 Oct: The Hindu, India: Warsaw climate talks may witness consensus-majority battle
Russia has strongly criticised the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for failing to be impartial and breaking rules of consensus-based decision-making during recent negotiations. It has asked that the talks beginning November 11, 2013 at Warsaw decide on a voting process for decision-making.
The decisions at the climate negotiations are taken by consensus between all countries but this principle was broken in the last three rounds of talks and decisions gavelled despite objections from some countries. Russia’s objections were over-ruled in 2012 during one such incidence…
But the fresh Russian proposal to put the issue on the formal agenda of the Warsaw talks has raised the spectre that the rule of consensus could get pitted against the proposal of majority by vote — a move that several developing countries such as India and China are opposed to…
In strongly-worded formal submission, Russia has now said, “Decision-making in the UNFCCC process has suffered evident setbacks over the past few years with serious procedural and legal flaws being multiplied, transparency eroding, frequency of dubious proceedings acquiring alarming magnitude…”
An Indian climate negotiator wishing to remain anonymous told The Hindu, “We are aware that the principle of consensus has been broken in recent past. It is not a healthy practice. But to formally debate on rules of voting at the U.N. climate talks will only ensure that the well-settled principle of consensus is re-opened and questioned.” …
The Indian negotiator added, “There is a procedural concern about how such an issue can be added on to the agenda for the talks at the last moment. Then there is concern about what the Russian proposal implies for the negotiations. The last time (at the mid-year talks) Russia was strongly opposed by all others for blocking the talks using this issue…
The other (previous negotiatorone noted that the Russian proposal had come too late in the day and by procedure only proposals made six months before the annual talks can be ) formally accepted as part of a draft agenda. This draft agenda is then affirmed by all countries before it’s even discussed formally through the two weeks of talks.
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/warsaw-climate-talks-may-witness-consensusmajority-battle/article5301086.ece

With all due respect, no one in authority is going to speak out against it. The relationship between alarmists and governments is incestuous. The alarmists provided a great excuse to curtail liberties. But it is failing. Governments had the means in their hands, but now it is slipping away, so they are doubling down (both sides – government and alarmists – as evidenced by the lack of science and the proliferation of spite and vindictiveness). They won a couple of hands at the poker table, but are losing now, and throwing more money hoping for a change of luck.

They will stop spewing this lunacy when we are able to attach a political price tag to it. Not a minute before.

In all cases, the warming from increasing greenhouse gases significantly exceeds any cooling from atmospheric aerosols. Other effects such as solar changes and volcanic activity are likely to have only a minor impact over this timescale”

Now this is what I called settled science. Until their models fail AGAIN in which case they will blame

“solar changes and volcanic activity” [insert excuse]

What a con job.

Inspired by
pat: October 31, 2013 at 5:34 pm
but it’s my fault it got this long.
Downside of strong central government
US and China
I wonder whether I’ll be around to have one great last laugh at China’s expense. Thanks to Nixon, Kissinger, Bush 41, and BJ Clinton, China has robbed us for over 30 years and built a powerful economy, and shiny new cities. There are many predictions of China’s imminent economic collapse. China will get through any recession in fine shape. However, it will be interesting to see the country about 30 years from now. Sadly (for me), I might miss the ugly finish 50 years hence. I have little doubt the mad construction, glass towers, bright lights, and amazing roads will age. With it all being built (almost certainly) to shoddy construction standards, the aging process will be rapid. Recall what happened to Japan around 1993, following decades of rapid growth after WW II. In the case of China, the scale is larger by at least a factor of 10.
Costs to rebuild their infrastructure will be very high; no doubt wages will have increased and there will be no giant American economy to plunder. Replacement will be harder to do than building fresh. Moreover, the one-child policy will leave China with a small base of labor relative to the aging population it must support. Social costs could be crippling. Is there a way out? Horrible thought: If the Communists retain control, perhaps the elderly will be persuaded to make one final long march into oblivion in order to save the nation. Or, perhaps the plan will be to exploit the lesser nations in Asia and bring in workers who might work for next to nothing.
The final crushing blow to China I would never laugh about is their horrific pollution. Nature might not clean up that mess in centuries. Groundwater is particularly hard to clean. It will make life very risky in areas lacking technology to provide clean water, and where people must eat contaminated locally grown food [1]. The end will be signaled if their children start dying in large numbers [2]. Using technology to clean up their mess will also be very expensive [3].
I’ll concede their economic victory, mainly because our national debt is over $17 trillion and rapidly rising [4]. But what will winning cost them? If they decide to crush us, it may cost them everything. Within 20 years, I hope our doomed experiment with socialism will be over and we will have a renewed interest in real education and free market capitalism. We are headed for a severe crash, much worse than 2008. Nevertheless, I expect we will recover. The sooner we return to local control over education, smaller government, and real free market capitalism, the sooner we will rebound. China will eventually recover after they hit bottom, but it will take a long time. If our economy recovers in time, we might be able to help even if only as a more equal trading partner.
If economic and environmental turmoil lead to war, it will be due to politicians pointing fingers at others to escape responsibility for problems they caused. These days, government doesn’t solve problems, it only creates them. Problems make government seem more necessary. The people generally find solutions themselves if government stops meddling and controlling. We only need limited functions of government. Providing limited government was the intent of the US Constitution.
Why didn’t we think of just following the Constitution? Let’s do that! Well, maybe with a few more checks and balances added to avoid repeating the mistakes of the last century.
1) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/10/china-pollution-idUSL3N0CXAPA20130410
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world/asia/pollution-is-radically-changing-childhood-in-chinas-cities.html?_r=0
3) http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=11094
4) http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

It will take someth8ing I really don’t want to wish for, because of the injury it will do to so many – but the only thing that I believe is likely to stop this madness is a series of 15 or 20 years of crushingly cold winters and weak summers.

It’s just another promise by a politician and therefore it will not last much past the next election, so by about the middle of 2016 we’ll being told that the climate is cooling and we must be taxed more and it was all the previous lots fault.

The vermin of which we speak is unelected, a prime creator of the climate change act and vested in mind and wallet.
She will spend the rest of her life denying her part in increased cold deaths, impoverishment of the children of the realm and her immeasurable stupidity.

“Surely it is about time that someone with both authority and courage to stand up and say this nonsense of CAGW must stop before even more damage is done.”
There are so many people with so many vested interests in the continuation of the myth it won’t be easily stopped.
Perhaps if this crowd…
http://www.raeng.org.uk/
…could be persuaded to look into it and publicly report it might slow things down a bit (in the UK at least).

Steven Mosher, you write “Their response is perfectly factual”
True, but I think you are an American, and may not be familiar with the way the British Parliament operates. The US has a written constitution, and the rules for Congress are written down. The UK does not have a constitution, and there are few rules; only precedent. The Canadian Parliament operates the same sort of way, so I am familiar with how the UK operates.
An answer to a question must be factual, but it does not have to answer the question. There was a recent incident in the House of Lords where the same, identical, question was asked 7 times, and received 6 answers that were factual but irrelevant. The 7th time the question was answered.
But there is another tradition that the answer must not mislead the House. I would suggest that Baroness Verma’s answer was misleading.

I notice that the chart has two keys. One says that the circles are the average of two baloons. The other says the circles are the average of four baloons. Careless mistakes like this, if discovered, can be damaging to the cause.

Schrodinger’s Cat says “What can we do about it?”
As for the politicians and CAGW proponents in academia, probably not anything we can do until we undermine their popular support among the masses. So how do we do that?
The problem is that the regular CAGW supporter has no idea what the facts are; that at least is what my experience in trying to speak with them indicates. No matter what data, what facts, what logic you present to them, nine times out of ten, their response is “but 97% of all scientists say you are wrong!” No thought, no analysis, no argument of data — just the ill-informed 97% response.
The lesson is that you cannot use facts and logic on someone who has embraced a counter-factual fantasy. The good news is that a large proportion of the CAGW faithful do, actually, wish the best (however irrationally they may think to implement it) for their fellow humans. Use that as a lever. Don’t argue facts, argue ethics. “I cannot support a carbon tax; it would mean millions of poor people in the third world could not afford energy.” Or perhaps, “Ethanol? Do you have any idea how ethanol subsides have driven up the cost of corn? Tell the farmers in Central America why ethanol is more important than whether their children get to eat today.” Don’t tell them they are bad. Tell them why you refuse to do evil. “Sure, wind farms would be a good idea if they were safe – if they ever figure out how to make them without wiping out the birds and bats. I just can’t bring myself to support killing off endangered species.”
The average CAGW proponent has been lied into thinking that they are supporting saving the planet. Facts did not convince them, it was the “saving the planet” part that got their support; after all, everyone likes to hold a high opinion of themselves. Explain how you cannot support what they are doing because it is NOT “saving the planet.”