By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
To those of us who have dared to question on scientific and economic grounds the official story on global warming, it is a continuing surprise that there is so little concern about whether or not that story is objectively true among the many who have swallowed it hook, Party Line and sinker.
For the true-believers, the Party Line is socially convenient, politically expedient, and financially profitable. Above all, it is the Party Line. For those who think as herds or hives, it is safe. It is a grimy security blanket. It is the dismal safety in numbers that is the hallmark of the unreasoning mob.
But is it true? The herd and the hive do not care. Or, rather, they do care. They care very much if anyone dares to ask the question “But is it true?” They are offended, shocked, outraged. They vent their venom and their spleen and their fury on those of us who ask, however politely, “But is it true?”
Their reaction is scarcely distinguishable from the behavior of the adherents of some primitive superstitious cult on learning that someone has questioned some egregiously, self-evidently barmy aspect of the dogma that the high priests have handed down.
They have gotten religion, but they call it science. They have gotten religion, but they do not know they have gotten religion. They have gotten religion, but they have not gotten the point of religion, which, like the point of science, is objective truth.
The question arises: can science function properly or at all in the absence of true religion and of its insistence upon morality? For science, in searching for the truth, is pursuing what is – or very much ought to be – a profoundly moral quest.
Yet what if a handful of bad scientists wilfully tamper with data, fabricate results, and demand assent to assertions for which there is no real scientific justification? And what if the vast majority of their colleagues cravenly look the other way and do nothing about their bent colleagues? What you get is the global warming scare.
As every theologian knows, the simplest and usually the clearest of all tests for the presence of a moral sense is whether or not the truth is being told. The true-believers in the New Superstition are not telling the truth. On any objective test, they are lying, and are profiteering by lying, and are doing so at your expense and mine, and are bidding fair to bring down the Age of Enlightenment and Reason, flinging us back into the dumb, inspissate cheerlessness of a new Dark Age.
Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, and no one ever went to jail who safely parroted the Party Line.
“The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus! A 97.1% Consensus! Doubters Are As Bad As Holocaust Deniers! Global Temperature Is Rising Dangerously! It Is Warmer Now Than For 1400 Years! Well, 400 Years, Anyway! Tree-Rings Reliably Tell Us So! The Rate Of Global Warming Is Getting Ever Faster! Global Warming Caused Superstorm Sandy! And Typhoon Haiyan! And 1000 Other Disasters! Arctic Sea Ice Will All Be Gone By 2013! OK, By 2015! Or Maybe 2030! Santa Claus Will Have Nowhere To Live! Cuddly Polar Bears Are Facing Extinction! Starving Polar Bears Will Start Eating Penguins! Himalayan Glaciers Will All Melt By 2035! Er, Make That 2350! Millions Of Species Will Become Extinct! Well, Dozens, Anyway! Sea Level Is Rising Dangerously! It Will Rise 3 Feet! No, 20 Feet! No, 246 Feet! There Will Be 50 Million Climate Refugees From Rising Seas By 2010! OK, Make That 2020! The Oceans Will Acidify! Corals Will Die! Global Warming Kills! There Is A One In Ten Chance Global Warming Will End The World By 2100! We Know What We’re Talking About! We Know Best! We Are The Experts! You Can Trust Us! Our Computer Models Are Correct! The Science Is Settled! There’s A Consensus!”
And so, round and round, ad nauseam, ad ignorantiam, ad infinitum.
Every one of those exclamatory, declamatory statements about the climate is in substance untrue. Most were first uttered by scientists working for once-respected universities and government bodies. For instance, the notion that there is a 1 in 10 chance the world will end by 2100 is the fundamentally fatuous assumption in Lord Stern’s 2006 report on climate economics, written by a team at the U.K. Treasury for the then Socialist Government, which got the answer it wanted but did not get the truth, for it did not want the truth.
Previously, you could count on getting nothing but the truth from the men in white coats with leaky Biros in the front pocket. Now, particularly if the subject is global warming, you can count on getting little but profitable nonsense from your friendly local university science lab. They make the profits: you get the nonsense.
The central reason why what Professor Niklas Mörner has called “the greatest lie ever told” is damaging to civilization arises not from the staggering cost, soon to be $1 billion a day worldwide. Not from the direct threat to the West posed by the avowedly anti-democratic, anti-libertarian policies of the UN, the IPCC, and the costly alphabet-soup of unelected busybody agencies of predatory government that live off the taxpayer’s involuntary generosity. Not from the dire environmental damage caused by windmills and other equally medieval measures intended to make non-existent global warming go away.
The damage caused by the Great Lie arises from the fact that just about the entire global governing class has found it expedient or convenient or profitable to adopt the Great Lie, to peddle it, to parade it, to parrot it, to pass it on, regardless of whether anything that it says on the subject of the climate has any truth in it whatsoever.
The fundamental principle upon which Aristotle built the art and science of Logic is that every individual truth is consistent with every other individual truth. The truth is a seamless robe. Religion – or at any rate the Catholic presentation to which I inadequately subscribe (practising but not perfect) – is also built upon that fundamental principle of the oneness of all truth.
Science, too – or at any rate the classical scientific method adumbrated by Thales of Miletus and Al-Haytham and brought to fruition by Newton, Huxley, Einstein, and Popper – was also rooted in the understanding that there is only one truth, only one physical law, and that, therefore, every truth unearthed by the diligence of the curious and hard-working empiricist or theoretician must, if it be truly true, be consistent at every point and in every particular with every truth that had ever been discovered before, and with every truth yet to be discovered.
It is in the understanding of that central principle of the remarkable oneness and self-consistency of all truth that men of true religion and of true science ought to have become united. For there is an awesome beauty in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As Keats put it, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty – that is all.”
The beauty of the truth is sullied, the seamless robe rent in sunder, if not merely a few individual scientists but the entire classe politique not merely of a single nation but of the planet advantages itself, enriches the already rich and impoverishes the already poor by lying and lying and lying again in the name of Saving The Planet by offering costly and environmentally destructive non-solutions to what is proving to be a non-problem.
The very fabric of the Universe is distorted by so monstrous and so sullenly persistent a lie. Those scientists who have been caught out trampling the truth, and those universities in which it has become near-universally agreed that the best thing to keep the cash flowing is to say nothing about the Great Lie, are by their actions or inactions repudiating the very justification and raison-d’être of science: to seek the truth, to find it, to expound it, to expand it, and so to bring us all closer to answering the greatest of all questions: how came we and all around us to be here?
We who are not only men of science but also men of religion believe that the Answer to that question lay 2000 years ago in a manger in Bethlehem. The very human face of the very Divine was “perfectly God and perfectly Man”, as the Council of Chalcedon beautifully put it.
We cannot prove that a Nazarene made the Universe, or that any Divine agency takes the slightest interest in whether we tell the truth. But, for as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, we are free to believe it. And it is in our freedom to believe that which has not been proven false that the value of true religion to true science may yet come to be discerned. For our religion teaches us that truthfulness is right and wilful falsehood wrong. We cannot prove that that is so, but we believe it nonetheless.
Science, though, is not a matter of belief (unless you belong to Greenpeace or some other Marxist front organization masquerading as an environmental group). It is a matter of disciplined observation, careful theoretical deduction, and cautious expression of results. The true scientist does not say, “I believe”: but he ought, if there is any curiosity and awe in his soul, to say “I wonder …”. Those two words are the foundation of all genuine scientific enquiry.
Yet the global warming scare has shown how very dangerous is science without morality. The scientist, who takes no one’s word for anything (nullius in verba), does not accept a priori that there is any objectively valuable moral code. He does not necessarily consider himself under any moral obligation either to seek the truth or, once he has found it, to speak it.
Science, therefore, in too carelessly or callously rejecting any value in religion and in the great code of morality in which men of religion believe and which at least they try however stumblingly to follow, contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.
Yea, truth faileth (Isaiah, 59:15). The Great Lie persists precisely because too many of the scientists who utter it no longer live in accordance with the moral yardstick that Christianity once provided, or any moral yardstick, so that they do not consider they have any moral obligation to tell the truth.
That being so, we should no longer consider ourselves as laboring under any obligation, moral or other, to pay any particular heed to scientists seeking to meddle in politics unless and until they have shown themselves once more willing to be what al-Haytham said they should be: seekers after truth.
Two hundred and forty-six feet of sea-level rise, Dr. Hansen? Oh, come off it!
A merry Christmas an’ a roarin’ Hogmanay to one and all.
the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
right, built in warming and confirmation bias for a few hot years in the 90’s and then all FAIL…..reality shows little variation +/- for millions of years. No data shows deviance from natural variation.
Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Davidmhoffer: I think the difference between your take and mine on the models is this: what I meant (but admittedly didn’t say) was that the models have faithfully predicted the general trend line of temp rise we’ve seen in the 20th century
================
Not true. the models did not predict the trend line of the 20th century. Any such suggestion is false. What the models have done is to hindcast the past, which is no different than a parrot repeating what it has heard.
There is no skill involved in a parametric model hindcasting the past. Any model that did not would be modified until it did. As any mathematician will tell you, a polynomial of degree N will exactly fit any set of lines with N+1 points. And such a polynomial will have no skill in predicting point N+2. Exactly as we see with the climate models.
If this was not the case, the climate models could just as easily predict the stock market, and climatologist would have no need for government funding. They could simply use their climate computer to predict stock futures, and quickly parlay any small investment into mega millions.
What prevents Santa from going back home to his family in modern day Turkey? Are they estranged or something? Or is this another case of religious persecution? In which case he could always seek asylum in Germany, when push comes to shove.
Or maybe his Arabic buddy Jesus would let him crush on his couch until he found a new place to hide in Antarctica? I mean, Bethlehem is just around the corner from Turkey, innit?
Btw, it only took me like half an hour to scroll to the bottom of this thread on a tablet.
Warren
You asked a specific question of skeptics to which I replied. Do you not have the politeness to answer or was the question rhetorical in your mind?
Best
Michael
It is now 6:30 am on Christmas Day – and instead of ‘prepping’ today’s massive family lunch, yet again, my obsession with non-existent CAGW means I have spent the last hour reading Lord Monkton’s excellent message and all those regular well-wishers (except Warren) who seek the truth. Christmas lunch will just have to wait.
PS. Warren – please consume about 50 x brussel sprouts today.
Merry Christmas all.
Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 8:06 pm
“I don’t what you mean by AR….”
Assessment Reports, as issued by the IPCC. The most recent of which, AR5, becoming available in various drafts, has been extensively discussed here in recent months. No offense is meant, but it really would behoove you to keep up.
For instance, one major oversight of the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming is just how long the present interglacial, the Holocene, is expected to last. By the new year the Holocene will be exactly 11,717 years old, or a couple of centuries or so older than half the current precession cycle. The precession cycle varies from 19,000 to 23,000 years long, and we are at the 23kyr point now, making 11,500 half. Only 1 such warming as the Holocene has lasted longer than about half a precession cycle in the past million years or so, and that was MIS-11, the Holsteinian interglacial.
If you are possessed of better knowledge than this……….
“While the astronomical analogy between MIS 1 and MIS11 has been incorporated in mainstream literature, there is a distinct difference between the two intervals: the Holocene contains one insolation peak so far, while the MIS 11 interval of full interglacial conditions (Substage 11c of the marine isotopic stratigraphy) extends over two insolation peaks. Thus an interesting situation has arisen with regard to the precise alignment of the two intervals.”
“The two schemes lead to very different conclusions about the length of the current interglacial, in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, …
“… the precessional alignment would suggest that the Holocene is nearing its end, “while the obliquity alignment would suggest it has another 12,000 years to run its course.
“In this view, the two Terminations are incommensurate and MIS-1 is analogous only to the second part of MIS-11c.” http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf
……….then you should enlighten us. If there is something that can ease or delay the transition into the next glacial, other than CO2 I suspect you would have a very attentive audience here.
If not, then evidence must be presented as to why MIS-1 will be like MIS-11 in the absence of GHG forcing. Because MIS-11 did happen. It lasted something like 1.5 to 2 full precession cycles, not just about half of one cycle, like all the rest, and we are just over half now.
To be involved in this discussion you have to have a pretty good idea of when you live, and what can reasonably be expected to happen at such a time http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it:
“In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples). Results of palynological studies of all these sequences indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation. This paper discusses possible correlations of these events between regions in Central and Eastern Europe. The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.”
Warren, if you wish AGW to even be detectable (and sea level leaves little doubt), then CAGW must exceed this (+6 to +45meters amsl):
http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf
and this (+52meters amsl):
http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
Given the strong environmental oscillations that appear to attend the end interglacials, how do you propose separating our AGW signal from significant climate noise?
The most interesting bit might actually be that in order to prevent attenuation of MIS-1, the Holocene, we may have to leave the CO2 “climate security blanket” up there, just in case……..
It might all depend on just how good a GHG CO2 actually is…..
At the end of this discussion, that is all that matters. At the half-precession old Holocene, we will either “go-long”, like MIS-11 did, or we might not. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the difference was dependent on whether we leave CO2 up there, or not?
That is a depth of the discussion you seek to join.
“Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
davidmhoffer says:
December 24, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Again, the 99% you claim you represent contradicts you. Extreme weather events, hurricanes and tornadoes have been in decline for several decades.
============
Which is predicted by science. Weather is the net work performed by the earth due to warming by the sun. This forms a Carnot cycle heat engine with an efficiency of about 20%.
CO2 is predicted to raise polar temps more than equatorial temps, which will reduce the efficiency of the engine, leading to less extreme weather. Quite simply, since the energy from the sun is assumed to be constant, you cannot do more work if you decrease the efficiency. Even if the poles and equator rise the same amount, this will still reduce efficiency. Thus it is a violation of scientific laws to expect more extreme weather with increasing temperatures
The only scenario under which more extreme weather is predicted is in the case of falling temperatures. As temperatures fall, especially polar temperatures, this increases the relative difference between the poles and the equator, increasing efficiency and leading to more extreme weather.
Where to begin?
1. No, the models did NOT “reproduce” the 20th century – They were re-programmed specifically to duplicate the 20th century warming – only 1/2 of which 1950 – 2000 (50 years) could have been influenced by man-released CO2; and only 1/4 of which actually showed an increase in temperature while CO2 increased (1973-1998). But for the first 1/2 of the century, temperatures were either increasing (while CO2 was steady), or were decreasing – also while CO2 was steady!
See Hansen’s original 1988 temperature plots: The rise from 1890 to 1940, the decline from 1940 to 1973 is striking … but not very supportive of the IPCC’s agenda of destruction and taxation.
2. As soon as that “forced” period of compliance stopped, the models – every single one of them, in every run, under every computer, and under every different starting condition ( and that alone invalidates the concept that some kind of average of all these different model conditions and programs could “duplicate” correctly earth’s past, present or future because there is only ONE correct “earth” – averaging 23 different “wrong” earths together cannot make a ensemble average that is more correct than the (perhaps) single model that might be almost right. The rest? By definition, if every one of 23 is different running even slightly different programs or codes or start points or assumptions, 22 of the 23 models are WRONG.
3. The other 75 percent of the century had steady CO2 levels, but increasing, steady, and decreasing temperatures. And, in the 60 years since man DID influence CO2 levels, temperatures have spent MORE time steady or falling than they have rising! Your entire premise is based on the ONLY 23 years (1975 – 1998) in the world’s history over 4.0 billion years that both CO2 and temperature rose at the same time.
4. Thus, even if you correctly state that the earth was warming, it has been warming at the same average rate since 1650 – 350 years with no CO2 influence from man, and 63 (1950 – 2013) with man-released CO2. Thus, no CO2 influence can be proved on earth’s warming. The “physics” you have paid for with your (our!) 10.6 million dollars a day in government money to “prove” a CO2 = warmer temperatures = more taxes on CO2 to the government is simply .. wrong.
5. Ah, the magical “prudence” policy. Also known as the insurance policy, the precautionary principle, the “I am not sure about the future but I have been taught by people who fear the future, and I have faith in those people who have taught me despite the evidence, therefore I must stop the future from occurring by harming as many other people as possible unless I control the future” principle.
So, you have been taught to fear a warmer earth, and that fear is now your religion. (Since there is no evidence of your religion, and no evidence of the future you fear might occur, and since your faith in that feared future is only due to your faith in the teachings of the priests of that religion based on their interpretations of the (deliberately hidden) obscure projections of their oracle (and Basic and C++ and NEVER on the evidence those programs actually run) run by their religious homes.) But I digress while discussing your faith.
We have now had 17 years of static temperatures while CO2 has steadily risen at the HIGHEST rate possible in your models. NO model has duplicated actual conditions, but you base your religion on the assumption that (somehow) the earth’s temperature will rise the next 100 years.
What is the probably of a continuing static or even a declining temperature?
At least 71% historically … We already have (25 + 10 + 17)/63 years of steady or declining temperatures since 1950! And CO2 has steadily increased the whole time. Assume 68% to be conservative.
So let’s try 0-1 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 0 and 1 degree? None. All changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 16% ? (You tell me. )
So let’s try 1-2 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 1 and 2 degree? None. All changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 1-2 degree warmth? 8% ? (You tell me. )
So let’s try 2-3 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 2 and 3 degree? None. All changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 4% ? (You tell me. )
So let’s try 3-4 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 3 and 4 degree? Experts begin to predict “some harm” but never seem to be able to quantify that harm: If crop land is lost someplace, additional land is now available elsewhere previously too dry, too cold, or too wet! If sea levels rise proportional to temperature, the sea might rise another 2-3 mm per year. All other changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 2% ? (You tell me. )
So let’s try 4-5 degree warmth.
What is the “harm” in a temperature rise between 4 and 5 degree? Experts consistently predict ” harm” but never seem to be able to quantify that harm: As above, If crop land is lost someplace, additional land is now available elsewhere previously too dry, too cold, or too wet! If sea levels rise proportional to temperature, the sea might rise another 3-4 mm per year . Still, almost all other changes from that temperature rise are beneficial to mankind: More food, more crops, less deaths from cold, more food, fuel, fodder, farms and farm land, more trees and more plant growth from higher CO2 levels and longer growing seasons.
What is the probability of a 0-1 degree warmth? 1% ? (You tell me. )
What is the percent of HARM (compared to the known good) coming from that 1% possibly of potential occurrence? Well, perhaps 25% harm, 75 % good coming from a 1% chance of a rise the century to +4 degrees.
So, YOU are demanding the world kill millions every year for 100 years, and condemn billions to day-to-day harm from stress, bad food, bad water, no sewage treatment, no transportation, no storage, no lights, no refrigeration, no productivity but from animals and humans as slaves to your policies. YOU are the one demanding “we” follow your religion of CAGW to avoid your fear of the future and your failures.
But your policy of the “Precautionary Principle” demands the absolute certainly of death to millions and daily harm to billions based on an unproven theory that says there is a 1/10 of 1% “chance” of “possibly” avoiding “some” harm to some people. Somewhere. 100 years from now. Maybe.
So we must destroy today’s economy to prevent that 1/10 of 1% chance of the future from occuring.
Primitive superstitious cult? Virgin birth?
Merry Christmas to ALL. Unless it would incur a fatwa from our Moslem friends. Or the disdain of our Jewish friends. Or the incredulity of our Hindu friends. Or the condescension of our Buddhist friends.
But your policy of the “Precautionary Principle” demands the absolute certainly of death to millions and daily harm to billions based on an unproven theory that says there is a 1/10 of 1% “chance” of “possibly” avoiding “some” harm to some people. Somewhere. 100 years from now. Maybe.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s both stupid and cruel.
Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
Should we take out some insurance in the form of Policy?
=====================
Insurance pays out in case of a loss. Who is going to pay you or your descendants if you make all your policy payments but temps rise more that 2C anyways? The simple fact is that you will be paying premiums into a policy that will never make payment in case of a loss.
As such, what you are describing is not insurance at all. What you are doing is making payments on a promise to deliver, with no mechanism to enforce the promise. This is a standard confidence trickster rip off. They promise to deliver in return for your money, but after you have paid they could care less. They know full well there is nothing you can do if they fail to deliver. Even if they wanted to, the money is long gone. You have no hope of recovery.
I will not join in either religious o scientific debate this Christmas Eve. I write to extend my very best wishes to one and all. May your holiday to full of family love and laughs. If you are known, please think of your fellow commenters and posters on WUWT as your extended family. Merry Christmas to all.
Warren says:
December 24, 2013 at 9:49 pm
What if the models are right?
We will need to kill of a LOT of humans. Would you prefer industrial methods or just plain old starvation? I guess industrial methods are out. They produce too much CO2.
“Then there is also the case of Anthony Flew, a life-long atheist philosopher, who decided in his later years, based solely on reason, that it was likely God does exist.”
Not God as the Christian thinks of it, but something more in the line of the Aristotelian Prime Mover.
http://www.reason.org.nz/journal/2005v78n4sum.pdf
I knew Flew. He was a good friend of J. J. C. Smart, who was my professor when I was an undergraduate at Adelaide, and he was emeritus at Reading when I did my doctorate there. I met him several times, and had dinner with him. I never thought he was a particularly great philosopher, but he was a decent man, and I am disgusted with the way Christian apologists exploited him in his old age and still exploit him after his death.
http://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2007/11/the-exploitation-of-antony-flew/
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-04-21/
(Smart hinted to me that Flew’s mind was failing at the time of his “conversion”, and others have made the same suggestion. A criticism of that suggestion is here.http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/regis-nicoll/antony-flew-true-convert-or-exploited-scholar-11562658.html )
” Nothing is done about the many lies, of course, because the many lies are the Party Line, ”
Would the 36 lies MoB goes on to quote be just so many of those those multiple li(n)es of evidence we hear so much about ?
Michael: I’m sorry, but I did not see your earlier post. Here is my reply. Your point that you don’t like the policy implications, and thus don’t believe, or are more skeptical, doesn’t seem logical to me. The science rises or falls on its own merit. Or in other words, the atmosphere has no idea about policy or politics. Regarding confidence level, climate science is multidisciplinary. That is different than physics in which I can write f=ma and calculate a value with 100% confidence. 90% confidence in a calculation having to do with a complex system of the earths atmosphere is a VERY high confidence level.
Warren
You now totally ignore your previous appeal to relativity, plate tectonics and evolution and instead appeal to policy and politics. What am I to make of your answer? I think you did not think through your previous appeal to skeptics.
Davidmhoffer: you’re reading my post exactly backwards. I said the models do NOT predict regional climate trends. And you have not directed me to any specific finding in the 5th Assessment that says the models have not predicted the 20 century uptick in temperature trend. . I cite Professor Wolfson (Professor of physics at Middlebury College) in his lectures on the “science of Climate change” published by the Teaching Company, in which he shows a graph of multiple projections in the IPCC reports, tracking the shape of the hockey stick of Global average trends.
Michael: ? You made the appeal to politics, citing fear of the consequences of climate change as a reason to doubt the Science. That’s quite a strange view.
Ok Warren
I see you are not up to it. Thanks
Best
Michael
Ferdperple: your concept of insurance is sure different than the insurance one buys for the risk of one’s house burning down. It does not promise to repay you, Unless your home burns down. Likewise, the carbon tax is a good idea, only if the earth is going to warm sufficiently to cause economic and environmental damage without it. The odds of having a house fire I’ve read are about 5% in ones life time., yet we all buy fire insurance. So then you have to assess the odds of significant climate change vs the costs of prevention. For most on this forum, it appears to be a purchase they wouldn’t make. I would.
” Would the 36 lies MoB goes on to quote be just so many of those those multiple li(n)es of evidence we hear so much about ? ”
Would you mean ‘ lines of evidence’ in the sense of ‘to spin a line’ then ?
How can you be so dismissive of the alarmist’s cause ?
Mcclenney: yes, the earths climate has a roughly 100,000 temp cycle, punctuated by say 20,000 year warm spells. We’re in a warm spell, and in another 10,000 years or whatever, the earth will begin to cool again. The global AGW driven temp uptrend is superimposed on this 100,000 yr cycle. So the question is are you not expecting the two to be additive, leading to ever warmer global temperatures for the next 10000 years?
M Courtney says:
December 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Although Lord Monckton’s implied association of socialism with immorality is questionable to say the least.
Depends on who owns your labor. If you own your labor then the basis of socialism is theft. Funny that socialism bases its whole theory on labor and the self ownership of the same. But then takes that labor for the good of the collective. When dealing with the capitalists you at least have the option of making a better deal with a different capitalist. Assuming that you keep improving your ability to serve.
Warren says:
December 25, 2013 at 12:41 am
The historical evidence is of roughly 10,000 year interglacials. We should do what we can to prevent the next ice age which will soon be upon us.