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
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