Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Daily Caller – The New York Times has provided one of the most inane reasons ever for why we should trust alarmist climate predictions.
Should You Trust Climate Science? Maybe the Eclipse Is a Clue
Justin Gillis
BY DEGREES AUG. 18, 2017
Eclipse mania will peak on Monday, when millions of Americans will upend their lives in response to a scientific prediction.
Friends of mine in Georgia plan to drive 70 miles to find the perfect spot on a South Carolina golf course to observe the solar eclipse. Many Americans will drive farther than that, or fly, to situate themselves in the “path of totality,” the strip of the country where the moon is predicted to blot out the sun entirely.
Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.
For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions about the likely consequences of our emissions of industrial gases. These forecasts are critically important, because this group of experts sees grave risks to our civilization. And yet, when it comes to reacting to the warnings of climate science, we have done little.
…
The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.
Considering this most basic test of a scientific theory, the test of prediction, climate science has established its validity.
…
I don’t ever recall hearing an astronomer claim that we should trust eclipse predictions because climate science is valid. But then, Astronomy enthusiasts probably don’t feel a burning need to cloak the failed predictions of their heroes with a shaky veneer of pan-scientific solidarity.
OK everyone, close up, science is done, completed, finished, good hustle guys, go home, don’t come in Monday, we were right about the Eclipse.
‘For years now, atmospheric scientists have been handing us a set of predictions’ and more often than not they been proved dead wrong , hence the need to take everything they say with at least a bucket full of salt .
Of course they have ‘learned’ that making these ‘predictions ‘ for 50 or more in the future means not they are less likely to get it wrong merely less likely to be around to be asked why they got it wrong .
When ancient Chinese astronomers mispredicted an eclipse, they were hanged. Need I say more.
*failed to predict 😛
Correction noted. So to keep from getting hanged for failing to predict an eclipse, it would be wise to predict an eclipse every day so one doesn’t sneak up on you. But people do get tired of continuously banging drums to keep away the dragon that never shows up…
…unless they’re paid to bang the drums.
Need I say more.
Words fail. Gillis’s grasp of logic and understanding of science in general are equally bad, but his grasp of climate “science” is laughably absurd. I swear, these people make it up as they go along, and the NYT just keeps churning out this garbage. Amazing.
When one realizes that the NWT articles predicting Hillary’s Victory are actually much more accurate than the 50 years of CAGW Predictions, one might begin to suspect these outrageous claims made by a Newspaper that has less validity than The National Inquirer!
Sorry, NYT
Over at Ace of Spades HQ (www.ace.nu.mu) they’re displaying a 1932 NYT article titled/subtitled,:
“Eclipse to be Best until August 21, 2017. That on August 31 Offers the Last Chance for Adequate View until 85 Years Hence. Next One Visible in 1970.”
IOW the prediction of eclipses has long been “settled science.”
AGW? Not so much.
So in 1932 astronomers predicted the August 21, 2017 eclipse. In the 1970’s did climate “scientists” predict (project) that “the Arctic would warm especially fast…. to expect heavier rainstorms…. heat waves would soar.” They did not. They predicted (projected)…COLD! Astronomers haven’t changed their predictions, climate scientists have.
Saw this as a meme yesterday, where they also equated climate skepticism with anti-vax. I couldn’t help wondering if anti-vaxxers were horribly offended by being lumped in with us “deniers”.
Probably
“AGW Believers™” feel no conscience, hence feel no embarrassment at their abject failure to predict.
All they have left is con-science.
The Mayan Priests (and other similar ancient observers) may have done the same thing,
“I can know when the eclipse(s) will occur … I represent GOD … give me your tribute and bend to my will. It is difficult to be right all the time, as it is difficult to interpret the will of God, so forgive me my minor inconsistencies & understand that I am the Word of God (97% of the time).”
An Eclipse is by no means a rare event. An accurate climate prognostication is however, very rare, if not extinct….
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/how-often-solar-eclipse.html
If climate scientists did eclipse prediction, the timing and locations of eclipses would always be a surprise.
“Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations.”
But climate scientists don’t make predictions, they make “projections” or so I am told. And “projections” can be wrong, but still right. Did I get that correct?
That is exactly what I was thinking; Scientists make predictions of Solar Eclipses, but the people that study climate science make projections which don’t have to be correct, just scary.
“The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.”
What an indictment of their own article, none of these of come to pass so by their own logic they should be “DENIERS”
Why are journalists so stupid?
It’s not that they are all stupid, it’s just that they think all of their readers are stupid.
Amen, and amen. I’m tired of elites—political, economic, and educational—implying that the average Joe Q. Public is a moron incapable of understanding basic principles and that we should leave the important heavy lifting of policy in their hands. P.T. Barnum famously said, “A sucker is born every minute” but he didn’t make his patrons to the circus feel like they were suckers.
Today’s elites do. Or more accurately, like morons. Their track record for effecting real change that benefits the masses, however, is pathetically dismal and all that really happens is a lot of good money being thrown at hacks who turn around and do the same to other cronyism hacks.
It isn’t that journalists are stupid.
It’s just that soooo much of what they ‘know’ isn’t true!
We wouldn’t be able to predict eclipses without modern science, so we should be grateful for all modern science. Er, what about the ancient Babylonians? http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/1.808116
We wouldn’t know about the climate of the whole world without modern science …. Well, they may be at an early stage, and it looks like they’ve already taken some wrong turns.
This NYT writer should check the 1960’s and 1970’s archives of his own newspaper. They would show her that CAGW was not even a twinkle in anyone’s eye back then, even though CO2 levels were rising. CAGW is a new hypothesis based more on the social sciences than the physical sciences.
show him… not her.
” They would show her that CAGW was not even a twinkle in anyone’s eye back then”
Uninformed assertion. Have you looked at the scientific papers from back then? There were quite a few that were saying rising CO2 would lead to warming. In fact about 7:1 were predicting warming rather than cooling. Far from not being a twinkle in anyone’s eye it was very much a serious concern among scientists and warming was predicted even back then.
Please, please do not be tempted to trot out some media stories or some old CIA report about coming ice age. That in no way confirms that warming was not “even a twinkling in anyone’s eye” back then. The evidence is clear that more scientists were concerned about warming than about cooling, whatever the media chose to report.
“There were quite a few that were saying rising CO2 would lead to warming.”
They are still “saying” it… like parrots.
Normal thinking people are still waiting for some actual proof !!
“Please, please do not be tempted to trot out some media stories or some old CIA report about coming ice age.”
How about a peer reviewed paper by Schneider and Rasool?
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Those results were based on a climate model developed by none other than James Hansen, incidentally.
“Please, please do not be tempted to trot out some media stories or some old CIA report about coming ice age.”
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE AND AEROSOLS:
Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate.
Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
Fool.
catweazle666
We are constantly told that AGW and the GHE is based upon old and basic principles of physics and well settled science. Accordingly
(i) Please identify what NASA, back in the 1970s did not understand about the physics of CO2 and what effect the radiative properties of CO2 would have on Earth’s atmosphere.
(ii) Please also detail what new properties of CO2 have been discovered since 1970, when they were discovered, how they were discovered and the papers in which the new properties of CO2 were identified and explained
The NASA paper may well have over estimated the effect of aerosols, and may well have under estimated the effect of the Clean Air Acts that had been put in place across the developed Western Nations. This may well have led them to infer that there would be further significant cooling, on top of the cooling seen in the Northern Hemisphere of around 0.5 to 0.7 degC between 1940 and early 1970s, but that is a different issue altogether and has no bearing upon their assessment of Climate Sensitivity to CO2
I set out below the temperature profile of the Northern Hemisphere (National Academy of Science plot and Nation Centre for Atmospheric Research plot) for the period up to the mid 1970s. This profile was accepted by Phil Jones and Wigley in their 1980 paper, and also by James Hansen in his 1981 paper.
Both Jones and Hansen considered that the Southern Hemisphere lacked historic data and was too spersely sampled to have much confidence in Southern Hemisphere temperatures. Indeed, in the Climategate emails, Phil Jones goes as far as saying that the Southern Hemisphere temperatures are largely made up. Factually he is right on that since there is so little spatial measurements and so little historical data.
And
You know when someone might be trolling when they refer to a NASA (GISS) paper which was peer reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal as “some media stories or some old CIA report”
The scientific paper referred to was neither a media story or a CIA report. We will know whether catweazle666 is doing something other than trolling if he declines to fully answer in detail the questions I have asked of him.
SORRY catweazle666, I did not properly review all the exchanges. I failed to appreciate that you had referred to the Schneider paper and this was in response to a comment by seaice1.
Please accept my apologies.
Perhaps science1 might like to consider the points that I raise in my comment of August 23, 2017 at 2:47 am.
richard verney August 23, 2017 at 3:01 am
“Please accept my apologies.”
No problem, Richard.
I note however there is no response from seaice1…
I always try to be moderate and understanding, and seeing both points of view, but this is pretty ridiculous. What does eclipses and climate even have in common? It’s like saying if “certain scientists have proven that sleep is good for you, then another, completely different group of scientists, who study completely different thing, are also right no matter what they claim.” That is ridiculous. Are they saying that “scientists” (vague term) are never wrong and we should uncritically worship everything some scientist say?
Many scientists have been wrong in the past. They are not gods. They are humans and have flaws like everyone else. And of course, inconvenient fact is that some climate scientists support the skeptical point of view, but I guess they can’t be “real” scientists then. After all, “scientists” are a monotonous hive mind who are always right and never disagree.
Disagreeing with skeptical point of view and explaining why is fine, but this kind of junk is just baffling.
There is a tendency – which climate scepticism unwittingly supports – to rubbish all science… for example, there is( believe it or not) an active flat earth movement out there on social media.
Science and scientists are not perfect, but pointing every time something is less than crystal clear or theories change and yelling ‘see, they are all telling lies!’ is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There is a tendency – which AGW alarmism unwittingly supports – to worship and elevate anything said or published by anyone claiming to be an expert as actually SCIENTIFIC. for example, there is( believe it or not) a silence/kill/incarcerate anyone labeled a “denier” movement out there on social media.
Science and scientists are not perfect, but pointing to everyone who dares to remind people of that, or who clarifies the difference between a hypothesis and a validated theory and yelling ‘see, they are all telling lies!’ is causing people to NOT trust their babies in your bathwater.
Pure Bovine Scatology!
I have seen more science at skeptical sites than true believer ones. The true believer sites have articles that start out looking like science, but then take a left turn in Albuquerque into pure fantasy land complete with circular reasoning.
Griff
thank you for your daft observation.
The real problem is that there is no credible empirical evidence which demonstrates CO2 causes global warming.
You know this. How can you support a ‘scientific’ concencus on something that has been studied for generations with the latest techniques and instruments but which no one has demonstrated?
You maintain that 30 years is the minimum period climate can be assessed over. Yet after well in excess of 30 years no one has provided the empirical evidence required to support the lab studies.
Isn’t it time you alarmists gave up and admitted you have no idea what you’re doing?
Griff – “… there is( believe it or not) an active flat earth movement out there on social media.”
If they gather enough followers to form a consensus, you’ll believe it too, right?
The thing is, there never was a baby. There was a miscarriage long ago. The baby you reference does not exist. It was a fantasy, an illusion to ameliorate lost hope. You have been wasting bathwater for a long time, pretending that there is a baby.
Quit hanging onto the dead baby.
“The thing is, there never was a baby”
And in the case of climate science, the bathwater is more like a fetid oozing sewer.
Griff,
Your premise “There is a tendency – which climate scepticism unwittingly supports – to rubbish all science…” is pure, unadulterated rubbish! You state this stupidity on a web site provided, supported, and frequented by a veritable panoply of well educated minds from around the globe, yet you vomit unsupported AGW talking points with acolyte assurance. In foolishly doing so, you expose your zealotry, you diminish what little respect you may have garnered in these electronic auditoriums, and you disgrace your own integrity in the process.
“There is a tendency – which climate scepticism unwittingly supports – to rubbish all science…”
No Skanky, that’s you paid CAGW evangelists with your totally discredited false religion.
Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford for maliciously and mendaciously attempting to harm her scientific credibility.
“for example, there is( believe it or not) a silence/kill/incarcerate anyone labeled a “denier””
Here you go”
PROGRESSIVE PROFESSOR DEMANDS DEATH PENALTY FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS AND THE POPE
“The police would start to identify the most influential Global Warming deniers who had not responded to the changed legal situation. These individuals would then be charged and brought to justice.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/170948/progressive-professor-demands-death-penalty-global-daniel-greenfield
“There is a tendency – which climate scepticism unwittingly supports – to rubbish all science…”
Says the paid troll that gets all its “science” from the Guardian and the Puffington Host…
This is why science isn’t ruled by consensus, no matter what Griff might say to the contrary.
Oye vey. That’s all I can say.
I’ve seem a lot of this lately, mostly in Facebook posts, mostly shared by good friends of mine that I don’t have the slightest desire to fall out with. “Climate change is real because gravity” – “Climate change is real because vaccines” – and now “Climate change is real because eclipses can be predicted”.
It’s really hard to counter (and I don’t try!), because it’s hard to explain to a non-scientist;
(a) the difference between predicting an eclipse using centuries-old celestial-mechanics equations that have been proved again and again, and just sticking a load of assumptions into a computer model and calling it science,
and (b) that some scientists are less than entirely honest.
I wonder how these memes always seem to suddenly appear, just when CAGW is looking most ropey…
If “climate scientists” predicted eclipses…
* They would look at 50 different models, each of which would give different tracks and times
* They would then synthesize a consensus report
* The IPCC would publish the SAER (Sixth Annual Eclipse Report), and claim a 97% consensus
* Actual raw observational data of eclipses would be adjusted 75 years after the fact, to better fit the models
+100
🙂 How true that be. !!
If Neil Tyson used climate science to predict eclipses…
*Man-made CO2 would make this eclipse “much worse” than “normal” eclipses, and he would have a chart of “eclipse anomalies” proving it. After adjusting past eclipses. Because science.
The old honor by association fallacy. Climastrology cannot stand on its own, so it has to be associated and presented as being as strong as real sciences.
I believe the Mayans could predict the eclipses too, without understanding the solar system. The climate scientists cannot predict the climate, although they claim to be able to understand it.
The clueless inanity of the NYT on climate change is almost as perfectly predictable as an eclipse.
Predicting eclipses 1000 years out is akin to predicting what the weather will be like ten minutes from now or what the climate will be like a year from now. Predicting eclipses 10 millions years out is akin to predicting the climate a century out — it can’t be done with any useful certainty.
The solar system is chaotic (there are no closed solutions to the general n-body problem for n>2 even in Newtonian physics), but the climate is orders of magnitude more chaotic.
Woooooooo………..Voodoo NYT!
The Sun has disappeared, fall to your knees and pray it comes back folks.
For all the reasons pointed out in this blog, the author of this utterly puerile piece of junk journalism ought to be running round in a loin cloth with a flint axe.
Pea brained moron. And there will be petits pois brained morons who will read this and feel smugly content that they were right and that the world will end next year, again.