Guest essay by Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT
A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm.
In the December 3, 2015 edition of the Boston Globe, the distinguished physicist, Freeman Dyson, had on op-ed, “Misunderstandings, questionable beliefs mar Paris climate talks.” His main point, stated immediately, is that any agreement reached in these talks would “likely do more harm than good.” In an otherwise, thoughtful commentary, however, Dyson begins with a common error. He attributes the basis for climate alarm to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
For reasons that I will address shortly, this is an entirely understandable error. Dyson’s description of the IPCC position is
“The IPCC believes climate change is harmful; that the science of climate change is settled and understood; that climate change is largely due to human activities, particularly the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by industrial societies; and that there is an urgent need to fight climate change by reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide.”
To be sure, it would be hard to identify the ‘beliefs’ of the IPCC, but I take it that he means their position. Obviously, the IPCC does not claim that the ‘science is settled;’ that would destroy the raison raison d’être for the existence of the IPCC.
Also, insofar as the IPCC is not supposed to make policy recommendations, it does not claim “that there is an urgent need to fight climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.” That climate change is harmful is, of course, the basis for the existence of the IPCC, and is an intrinsic source of regrettable bias. The IPCC does not claim that climate change is mostly due to human activities generally; it restricts itself to the period since about 1970, which was the end of the most recent cooling period (a period which gave rise to global cooling concerns). Even the IPCC recognizes that climate change has always occurred – including a warming episode from about 1919 to 1940 that was almost identical to the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 that the IPCC does identify with human activities. However, all the claims cited by Dyson are frequently made by politicians and environmental activists (including Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the UN), and the IPCC scientists never really object. Why should they? Support for climate science (a rather small backwater field) has increased from about $500 million per year to about $9 billion.
Dyson, further notes that the ice ages were major examples of climate change that we don’t fully understand, and that lacking this understanding suggests that we don’t really understand climate change. As another example of something that we don’t understand, he cites the potential role of the sun. Dyson then goes on to praise environmentalism in general, to approve of the increasing wealth of China and India, and their understandable unwillingness to forego this, and finally notes the well-known fact that CO2 is plant food whose increase has been associated with extraordinarily valuable increases in agricultural productivity.
In the December 13, 2015 Boston Globe, 8 members of the MIT faculty (three physicists, two hydrologists, one meteorologist, and two atmospheric chemists) attacked both Dyson and his claims. Their letter was entitled “So much more is understood about climate change than skeptic admits.”
They proceed to express their dismay with Dyson’s “limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate science.” There follow 3 disingenuous objections to Dyson’s scientific examples. As concerns ice ages, the MIT professors argue that they took thousands of years, allowing humans to adapt. They ignore the Dansgard-Oeschger events (episodes of dramatic change within glacial periods) which involved major changes in decades as well as the onset of the Younger Dryas (where glaciation suddenly reoccurred after the initial deglaciation of the last major glaciation) that also involved major changes setting on in decades. With respect to the sun, they argue that solar activity changes have been minor, ignoring the potential amplification due to solar impacts on cloud formation, most recently explored by Svensmark and Shaviv, but already suggested by Dickinson in the 1970’s. With respect to the role of CO2 as plant food, the letter writers appeal, without justification, to other limiting factors, ignoring that the greatest limiting factor, water, is alleviated with elevated levels of CO2. They also ignore literally hundreds of observational studies.
The letter writers then propose that ‘prospects’ in renewable energy, energy efficiency and safe and secure nuclear energy should presumably justify the abandonment of cheap, safe and available fossil fuels by developing nations. Yes, safe. Control of real pollutants is well developed already.
The letter writers go on to their only unambiguously correct claim: namely, that the IPCC does not declare that the science is settled. They then present the iconic statement if the IPCC’s Working Group 1 (the one dealing with the scientific assessment – as opposed to the remaining 2 working groups that generally begin with worst case scenarios in order to claim impacts and design mitigation strategies): “The IPCC report presents strong evidence that more than half of the climate change seen in recent decades is human-driven.” One may readily disagree with the claim of ‘strong evidence’ since the claim (based on model results) depends on the assumption that models correctly display natural internal variability which very clearly they don’t.
That said, the claim that most of the climate change since 1960 is due to human activities, refers to more than half of a change on the order of only 0.5C, and is entirely consistent with the possibility that the sensitivity is low and far from dangerous – especially since model projections for warming since 1978 have almost all exceeded what has been observed (regardless of ‘adjustments to the data). Indeed, the warming since the end of the little ice age (around 1800) of about 1C has been accompanied by improvements in virtually all measures of human welfare. Why another 1C should be considered planet threatening is rarely explained. The letter writers’ conclusion that the observed warming implies “a great risk that increasing greenhouse gases will result in future climate change with destructive consequences for humanity and the natural environment” does not follow from the iconic statement; nor is it made by the IPCC. Rather, it is, as has already been noted, the conclusion that is added by environmental activists and politicians.
A careful reading of the letter of the 8 professors leaves one wondering whether the dismay they express over Dyson’s “limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate science” is not merely a projection of their own limitations and biases.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“The sensitivity” is a scientifically and logically bogus concept.
Due to now dangerous catastrophic anthropogenic global warming in our experience, which we are not experiencing, the deniers, i.e. the real deniers of natural clime change, came up with, “Things aren’t hurting you, but we need to consider our grandchildren; to wit, in 80 years the catastrophic changes will happen.”
I guess they mean, “Me and my fiends’ grandhicldren,, not yours . you neanderthals,” because they want the earth’s human population to drop 90% to 500M by 2200. That’s what degrowth, de-industrialisation envisions.
Unless somebody points out that “saving our grandchildren” means killing off 90% of everybody else’s grandchildren you can’t see the evil in these people’s “vision”. It boils down to, “We have to destroy 90% of humanity in order to save the part we like. Not our elite’s grandchildren, but the proles’ grandchildren, must die, or not come into existence.”
You know this is that they mean. Decrying carbon-fuel-burning, did these miscreants set up an online videoconferencing COP21? No, they burned thousands of tons of fossil fuel to travel to Paris, without any regret. They’re leaving brachiosaurus sized carbon footprints, but that didn’t hurt the environment? The problem is too many proles leaving Bambi-sized footprints.
Not sure what the point of this chart was, but it looks to debunk the myth that Man is producing the atmospheric CO2. CO2 increased from 180 to 280 before man began producing CO2 in significant amounts. 180 to 280ppm resulted in an increase in 6°C change, 280 to 400ppm resulted in a 1°C change. It looks like man producing CO2 slowed the temperature increase.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-W0dggL-4e68/VMzoRRfoyHI/AAAAAAAAAUE/yAHA4IAVS4c/s1600/Temp%2Bvs%2BCO2%2BScatterplot%2BEDC%2Bwith%2Bmodern.png
Perfect observation. Brandon just debunked himself.
co2islife,
urederra said that I should look at a T vs CO2 scatterplot instead of a time series, so I posted one. (S)he then exited the conversation, so I’m not sure what the point was either.
My, what a creative argument.
That one isn’t terribly hard to figure out, as temperatures warm, the partial pressure of CO2 in aqueous solution rises.
That’s the tricky part; the scatter plot makes it seem that the entire rise in temps was due to CO2, something I certainly do not believe to be the case because I know from reading the literature that a number of other forcings and feedbacks are relevant on geological time scales.
Couple issues there. First is that the scatter plot doesn’t show the time evolution …
http://skepticalscience.com//pics/regemcrufull.jpg
… and like that time series plot, the scatter plot also mixes time resolution. So, in the Marcott time series, the HADCRUT4 portion presumably contains annual time resolution, whereas Marcott can only resolve something on the order of 50-100 years so it potentially makes the temperature rise look “faster” than if Marcott’s 20th century reconstruction had been robust. IIRC, Marcott’s conclusion was that present day temperatures are not definitively higher than the Holocene maximum, but that he couldn’t rule it out either.
On the other side of the coin, the scatter plot shows the CO2 concentration zipping out rapidly, but temperatures haven’t had time to fully respond to the forcing. Additionally, the orbital forcing at the top of the Holocene isn’t nearly as high as it was during, say the Eemian interglacial 140 k years ago. Those two factors combine to make modern-day CO2 forcing in the scatter plot look tepid relative to the ice core records. Any comparison of the paleo record to modern effects needs to account for as many other forcings as possible to be meaningful. Scatter plots of temperature vs. CO2 alone just doesn’t get there.
Here is an experiment every high school class to run to understand the glacier/interglacier cycle.
1) The galaxy has “fingers.”
2) Those fingers act as shades, blocking some of the sunlight headed towards earth.
3) In the “shade” the max temperature on earth is -8°C lower than the max.
4) Once the earth leaves one of the fingers, more direct sunlight reaches earth.
5) The increase in solar radiation starts to warm the earth, melt the ice, and drive sea level higher.
6) Outside the finger, a new thermal max is set.
7) The experiment is like taking a bowl half filled with H2O and putting it in an oven. On the shelf above it putting an ice block and heating the oven up 8°C.
What would happen is you would see the water would start to warm, but the ice melting would slow the warming, as cold water drips into the bowl. As the ice melts the bowl sea level would increase. Once the ice has completely melted, the water will then finally reach the thermal max consistent with the new higher solar radiation. That why the sea level stops raising just as the temperature plateaus. The warmer water outgasses CO2, but CO2 plays no role in warming. This also explains why a stable output of the sun can result is variable levels of radiation reaching the earth.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
http://img12.deviantart.net/419a/i/2015/168/c/2/spiral_galaxy_a5_by_alphaspace-d5beywe.jpg
This video explains the glacial/interglacial cycle, and the warming and cooling have nothing to do with CO2.
https://youtu.be/C4V-ooITrws
The world has been blessed with an agricultural revolution and a minimum of 15% of the increased food bounty has been shown to be as a direct result of increased atmospheric CO2. NASA has even attributed a 25% increase in the planet’s entire biosphere as a result of increased CO2, since their satellite observations began in 1968.
According to some denizens of the climate fearosphere who’ve appeared on this thread, the only food increase has been because of modern technology (an implication reinforced with pics) and that CO2 as plant food can’t be good because weeds also grow better. Do I have that right?
And climate is much like financial markets where statistical aberrations eventually are self correcting. In fact stochiometrics show a 5 wave movement before reestablishing the primary trend. It’s all very anthropomorphic.
Unless you introduce the goat factor.
Climate Change means political climate change, such that they all run to fund and supply underground bunkers to protect themselves from the body politic.
Dr. Lindzen; this appears to handle the D-O events just fine: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/22/volcanoes-and-ozone-their-interactive-effect-on-climate-change/ . A seriously complete theory, readily verified. Lots of long-term data.
“A careful reading of the letter of the 8 professors leaves one wondering whether the dismay they express over Dyson’s “limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate science” is not merely a projection of their own limitations and biases.”
Too right you are.
Even basic things such as denying that Nyquist is involved in what they do.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/26/nyquist-doesnt-apply/
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/27/ratio-mathematics-an-ancient-way-of-describing-things/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/29/ipcc-science-ipcc-government/comment-page-1/#comment-2083053
Note the year of Lindzen’s article in the WSJ – 2001.
Note also that none of the scary predictions of the IPCC have materialized.
The IPCC has a negative predictive track record; so no one should believe them.
Regards, Allan
Wall Street Journal
June 11, 2001
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf
Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support the Kyoto Treaty
By Richard S. Lindzen
Excerpt:
The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty — far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge — and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.
*******************************
WUWT, there are a few smoking gun charts posted on this thread.
1) Why is the temperature of the Holocene so relatively stable?
2) Why does the stability start almost exactly when the sea level stops rising?
3) Why would the temperature suddenly stop increasing if CO2 was the driver?
4) Why would CO2 only gradually increase from 180 ppm to 280 ppm over 10,000 years, and then increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm over 150 years?
5) The oceans contain 1,000x the heat of the atmosphere, CO2’s contribution is the spectrum 13µ to 18µ there is no way to blame CO2 or the GHG effect for the warming of the oceans. What is warming the oceans is also warming the atmosphere.
6) Volcanoes have been producing CO2 at variable levels for billions of years, CO2 has been as high at 7,000 ppm, CO2 has never caused significant or catastrophic warming. There are natural processes in place that efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The oceans are the main regulator of atmospheric CO2, so once again, what is warming the oceans is also what is changing the atmospheric CO2.
8) This theory accepts the warmist’s point that the solar output is relatively stable
Please shoot holes in this unifying theory that helps explain all those smoking gun comments.
Comments:
1) It isn’t the radiation from the sun that matters, it is the radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and oceans that counts. That is common sense 101.
2) There are the Milankovitch Cycles which can explain how more sunlight falls on the oceans at times and more on the surface at times, explaining some of the regular cycle seen in the ice core. The earth also travels through the fingers of the Galaxy. The fingers act like shade trees. In the fingers the earth is in the shade, between the fingers the earth is out of the shade. Cosmic rays can also alter the cloud cover. Those facts explain how the sun’s radiation can be constant, but the amount of that radiation reaching earth can be variable.
The Theory:
1) The earth is in a Galaxy Finger ie the shade. That sets the maximum earth temperature 8°C below the temperature that is reached outside the shade.
2) The earth leaves the shade of the finger, and the maximum temperature then increases to current temperatures, or 8° above the temperature in the shade.
3) The earth doesn’t immediately warm 8° because it has to melt all the ice. The melting ice slows the warming of the oceans and also results in a rapidly rising sea level.
4) Once all the ice has melted, the sea level stops increasing, and the temperatures reaches a stable thermal maximum. CO2 isn’t needed in any of this theory because with the melting comes higher atmospheric H2O whose impact is 50 to 70x that of CO2.
Experiment:
1) Put two pots on a stove.
2) Fill both pots 1/2 full with water. (That is the ice age ocean)(Earth is in the shade)
3) Put a candy thermometer in both pots.
4) Turn the heat on to warm the pots. (This is the interglacial period)(The earth has left the shade)
5) Slowly pour/rapid drip cold water into one of the pots to represent melting glacier water.
6) Record the time and temperature of the two pots.
Note: to make it even more realistic you could set both burners and place a piece of fireproof insulation on them to act as the shade and then remove the insulation. The fixed burner would represent the constant sun, but the insulation would demonstrate how even a constant sun can have a variable impact on the earth.
Results:
1) What you will find is that each pot will reach the identical maximum temperature, assuming each burner has the identical setting. The pots will only get warmer if you turn up the heat. Given the sun has constant radiation, it is effectively a fixed burner. (See note above about the insulation)
2) You will see the pot that had cold water slowly poured into it reached the maximum temperature much slower than the other pot.
3) You will see that the sea level of the pot that had the cold water poured into it increased.
4) You will see that the thermal max was not reached in the pot that had the cold water poured into it until after the sea level stopped increasing.
That simple theory explains the smoking guns identified above, and doesn’t require CO2 at all given the impact of greater CO2 in the atmosphere consistent with the warming. In fact, noting in the current AGW/GHG theory can explain why CO2 suddenly stopped increasing, and why it suddenly stopped causing warming. The only logical answer there is that CO2 wasn’t what was causing the warming.
The one question I have that I don’t have an answer to is does the earth pass through the fingers of the Galaxy at regular intervals that would create a pattern similar to what is found in the ice core data? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vXsBJlcwQsc/Tx1zQrGba5I/AAAAAAAAF_Y/RAI27OlLwDk/s1600/IMG_2695.JPG
Actually I would just simply observe that most of the Carbon in the world is buried in rock, which has a very long cycle time.
and I don’t mean in Oil!
Alternate theory: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/22/volcanoes-and-ozone-their-interactive-effect-on-climate-change/ . A seriously complete theory, readily verified. Lots of long-term data. In Brief: ozone clears the way for radiation, aerosols blocks it. Some gassy eruptions cause one, explosive ones the other.
You are nit-picking about Freeman Dyson’s ideas on IPCC. Why create such unnecessay verbiage?
Indeed, attack rather than discuss seems to be the order of the day.
WUWT Posters, I have a question. The problem I have a problem. It is stated that solar output is constant, yet the ice core data shows that earth temperatures follow a cycle, as if someone dims the sun for 90,000 years and then turns it up for 10,000 years, and then it dims again. How can that be if the sun remains the same constant temperature? This video may provide the answer. The solar system circles the Galaxy, but the galaxy is flat and has fingers. The fingers act like clouds. As the solar system flies out of a finger the earth get direct sunlight, when the solar system flies into a finger the earth flies into the shade, and some of the radiation gets blocked. That theory explains why you have thermal maxes and mins with the same solar output. The fingers act like galactic clouds. Inside the cloud you have an ice age, outside the cloud you get a warming period. The constant solar output limits the thermal optimum. Is there research that shows that the earth flying through a finger reduces the radiation reaching earth? If there is, you can rule our CO2 or run away warming.
https://youtu.be/C4V-ooITrws
For an alternative conjecture as to why this ‘cycle’ happens (Ice Ages). have a look at https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/a-hockey-strick-for-xmass/
Maybe spin in relationship to ocean circulation. Or if don’t have the global oceans, one can’t get this effect from rotation, but one can also get some long duration pattern of warming and cooling of a ocean without rotation- having a slow or fast rotation has some effect upon the pattern warming and cooling.
co2islife,
Very good video, thanks for posting. Notice how the galactic arms are discrete? In a ‘normal’ liquid, coffee, for example, when cream is added the swirling begins as arms, then the arms get tighter until the swirl is almost solid, with no discrete arms visible (I hope this is making sense; it’s late here).
All spiral and barred spiral galaxies show discrete arms (well, almost all). Even after many rotations the arms remain separate. What’s happening?
The theory is that dark matter, which comprises most of the matter in the universe, is also swirling around the galaxy like a giant blob extending much farther out, allowing the galaxy’s arms to remain separate. It’s like pouring the cream into the cup without stirring, but instead, rotating the table the cup is on. Sort of. Not the greatest analogy, but it’s all I’ve got at the moment.
In fact, almost all the matter in the universe is completely unseen, undetected (except for macro gravity effects like this), and totally invisible and unknown to us.
But the science of CO2 affecting global warming is settled…
LOL, thanks 🙂
Seriously, the discreteness of them is what made me think of it, that allows for the cycles of on and off. The edges are a little fuzzy, and that allows for the temporary randomness. Do you know if anyone claims the earth flying in and out of fingers develops a regular pattern here on earth by altering the solar radiation?
The timescale for the “up and down through the finger” oscillation is on the order of 60-70 million years.
We’re generally stuck in the finger, loosely, during the 200-225 million years orbiting the galaxy.
Probably something else.
Those event can be explained by the earth flying into a galactic cloud, ie a finger. See the video above. The random and rapid cooling can’t be explained by CO2 or the sun cooling, but it could be explained in the earth some how flew into a cloud or the shade. The cosmic ray theory and the Galaxy Finger/Cloud theory could explain those events. I’m aware of the cosmic ray theory, does anyone know of a galactic cloud/shade/finger theory?
To quote Einstein, “God does not play dice with the universe.” Look at the ice core data and geologic record, there are patterns, and then odd random events. The paths are constant, the physics is constant, the radiation is constant, what provides the randomness? Clouds could explain the random events, the Galactic Fingers aren’t constant, nor are clouds. There is a randomness to them that could explain the rapid on off events, just like a jet flying through a cloud. One second clear skies, the next zero visibility, the next clear skys. The cloud may even have fingers so the visibility can turn on and off rapidly when you are inside the cloud.
.
Like us all, Einstein was entitled to his belief.
Some like to think the big G has a sense of humor and rolls to see if snake eyes pops up.
Religion requires Belief, Science requires Impartiality.
Richard, if that is true, then partial scientists are not conducting science.
I do not have the capacity to form any accurate opinion one way or another. The data will tell out in the end (as will entropy 🙂
co2islife,
I do not think anyone can cite a published scientific research paper by Einstein that has that as: a basis; a methodological component; a supporting verified observation/data; or an implicit/explicit conclusion.
So, who cares, in a discourse with a scientific context, about Einstein’s trivial gossiping?
John
Considering the points made by Linzen, and the amount of weasel-words and equivocation of the supposed rebuttal, I’m seriously surprised! One would MIT professors would be more eloquent, perhaps a refresher course in Logic and Semantics would be in order.
For you or him?
or them I suppose.
My Einstein quote was a distraction, here is the question In was asking. Can anyone answer it? What causes the interruptions to the patterns/cycles? There is a regularity interrupted by random counter cyclical trends. What is causing the cycles to be interrupted?
co2islife asked: “does anyone know of a galactic cloud/shade/finger theory?”
I don’t know of a published theory but I started looking into it myself a couple of months ago and did find some evidence the solar system is poised on the edge of an interstellar cloud and will be entering (or exiting) it in some fairly short (non geologic) time, I honestly can’t remember which. I rooted trough my notes and couldn’t find the reference.
I thought I’d asked the question on this site and it was answered but can’t find any record of it. I’m not sure the “Search” on this site looks at comments so I may never find it. But If you search hard enough I’m sure you’ll find evidence to support the hypothesis. Astrophysicists have been mapping the nearby galaxy and we do randomly pass through gas clouds capable of attenuating solar radiation.
Not exactly what you were looking for, but see:
“Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?”
Nir J. Shaviv, Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel
Ján Veizer, Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr Universität, 44780 Bochum, Germany, and Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa,
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf
Regards, Allan
Thanks, you would think for a “settled” science (what ever that is), this question would be well documented and rejected.
Not exactly what you were looking for, but see:
Thanks Allen. I was aware of the Cosmic Ray theory, and I believe it works by seeding clouds in the atmosphere. I was wondering is there is a theory that claims the fingers act a galactic clouds, blocking radiation from outer space.
Quote:
“Dyson, further notes that the ice ages were major examples of climate change that we don’t fully understand”.
But we will shortly, and they do not involve CO2.
They are forced by precession and assisted by albedo.
Should be finished in a week or so.
Ralph
This might help you.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/a-hockey-strick-for-xmass/
But a unilateral response by the developed world will be futile and ruinously expensive. Only a nuclear-powered “response” would be affordable. Plus some safe geo-engineering like the iron powder fertilization of the Gulf of Alaska.
A multilateral response is out of the question, as COP21 documents.
PS: In the US, natural gas would be cheaper than nuclear, but in the ROW it would not be, as shale gas formations like those in the US are rare.
“… all the claims cited by Dyson are frequently made by politicians and environmental activists (including Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the UN), and the IPCC scientists never really object. Why should they? Support for climate science (a rather small backwater field) has increased from about $500 million per year to about $9 billion.”
That about sums up the climate change scare … money!
CO2 is not, and never has been a meteorological parameter. It should not be used as such in the global warming alarmism con. Anyone who looks seriously at the scientific geological data would never suspect CO2 has ever played a role in changing earth’s climate in the past. There is no reason why it should do so now or at any time in the future. The only truth about dangerous man-made global warming a.k.a. climate change is that it is actually true … it was fabricated by people, which makes it man-made!
Mervyn wrote: “CO2 is not, and never has been a meteorological parameter.”
I agree. I would add the word “significant” after “a”.
However,
There is a strong correlation between increasing atmospheric CO2 and the loss of integrity among many individuals and groups, including grant-seeking scientists, false environmentalists, corrupted politicians, and their institutions.
However:
Correlation is not causation.
Regards, Allan 🙂
___________________
Quotations:
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
“Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.”
“We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.”
“We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.”
Source: “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”,
– a history of popular folly by Charles Mackay, 1841
“However:
Correlation is not causation.”
It helps if you find a lag leading signal. At least that only goes one way 🙂
Bingo, great way to put it.
The scam continues unabated, driven by political agenda and a torrent of money.
Gates’ last post linked to this bogus chart:
http://skepticalscience.com//pics/regemcrufull.jpg
And wouldn’t you know it, he got it from that paragon of bogosity, skepticalscience.
Whenever I read a Brandon Gates comment, my meter pegs:
http://americandigest.org/aabullshitdetect.gif
That last Gates chart blew its fuse.
Our Galaxy is ideal for a glacial/inter-glacial cycle. There are ripples and clouds all over the place that could disrupt the solar radiation reaching the earth.
http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storage/midas/1e73108c497d7e92677c49cfc4b6f0c9/201691469/milky-way-galaxy-ripples.jpg
http://chandra.harvard.edu/graphics/resources/illustrations/milkyWay/milkyWaySide1_300.jpg
NASA even calls them clouds.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/images/620032main_Clouds-Astrospheres_full.jpg?itok=lBjT0HfJ