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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.