Readers may recall yesterday that I posted about a wacky paper that said Earth was on it’s way to a “hothouse state”. The press release for it was so bad, and so full of straw men arguments, I didn’t even bother to look up the actual paper.
The Guardian went a bit loopy with it.
And Ben Pile @climateresistance on Twitter summed it all up like this:
Here are the Greens, trying to turn what the scientists admit is wildly speculative into political capital. https://t.co/m3F9OjdXzf
— Ben Pile (@clim8resistance) August 7, 2018
Josh had similar thoughts, and came up with this:
Bishop Hill bothered to look up the paper, should you want to bother reading it. It’s junk science at it’s worst, and apparently sailed through peer review in less than two months.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115
The abstract:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“and apparently sailed through peer review in less than two months.”
They had to get it in the news while the hot summer is still going.
Anyway, this is Agenda21. Surprised it didnt mention gender though like the Paris blurb.
CNN has decided to advance the topic as well.
This is one of those days where Climatology appears to be the Bre-X of Science.
With Bre-X, the assay results from each new hole that was drilled yielded still more gold, and the size and projected value of the ore body expanded.
At least with Bre-X, public participation in the shenanigans was voluntary.
Hmmm, what happend some 2-3-4 000 years ago? or 9000 years ago when temperatures where 6 degr C higher than today in these regions?
We can’t only beleve what we hear, we must be sure… Though we also do what’s right. We let our oun minds decide what is wrong or right, don`t we…?
Junk science it certainly looks like, but here in Norway it is featured in almost every MSN news outlet.
Where is Karl Marx when we need him? It worked so well the last time.
See, this is how Zombie’s are made. All the ‘climate change’ people are worried about the planet. So they loose sleep. An article in the Assoc. of Individual Investors describes how people who don’t get enough sleep make bad investment decisions. And another article in Science News describes how people who don’t get enough sleep develop Alzheimer’s. The struggling, not so smart college student takes out a massive student loan to pay for college. An easy course to take is climate. The only requirement is to believe that ‘climate change’ ( as defined by AGW) is real. So they graduate and not receiving the huge grant monies to pay off the loan, they buy a ton of carbon credits believing that they have nowhere to go but up. It’s a no brainer. Then as the price of carbon credits fall, the sleep deprived zombies, worrying about money now in addition to saving the planet, develop Alzheimer’s. They can’t remember last weeks article on global warming that contradicts the new findings. Or anything that happened in the last 30 years. And if they can’t sue some oil company or change the political landscape so that their investments do go up, what are they going to do? And of course Run Away Greenhouse is replaced with a new term hothouse. Which didn’t happen, but it will someday. it’s just around the corner. And let’s bring back tipping points. It’s a brand new idea, wasn’t thought of 30 years ago. Both ideas were trotted out 30 years ago and trotted out as, ” we have to get rid of democracy now. It’s too slow to fix this catastrophic event that we befall all of us by 2008″.
See, what I think is that critics of AGW, if analysed, probably don’t have mountains of debt. Probably are smarter and have better memories from getting a good nights sleep. Had a company to pay for their education. More widely read and better educated.
That’s why when talking to a fellow critic of AGW, you don’t have to provide links. They already know what you are talking about. They remember that discussion from 3 months ago. AGWer’s have no clue and can’t understand any concept beyond what they were brainwashed with. Sleep deprivation makes it easier to brainwash someone…. where’s a link for that? The Zombie Apocalypse has arrived….
As well as the Orwellian aspect of authority figures. … your not a mathematician, only peer reviewed people can be mathematicians, and mathematicians say 2 plus 2 = 5.
Dominoes again?
Weren’t dominos used in the Harvey et al. paper to describe the way people were criticizing their work? Yes, here it is, a section heading called: Climate-change denial by proxy: Using hot topics as “keystone dominoes”
“These topics are used as “proxies” for AGW in general; in other words, they represent keystone
dominoes that are strategically placed in front of many hundreds of others, each representing a separate line of evidence for AGW. By appearing to knock over the keystone domino, audiences targeted by the communication may assume all other dominoes are toppled in a form of “dismissal by association.”
[Showing the failure of polar bears numbers to plummett as predicted is apparently a “keystone domino.” It can’t be seen as a valid topic of scientific criticism in its own right.]
“Junk science at it’s worst”? Now we have a contest going: I though it couldn’t get worse than the Harvey et al paper.
But I guess that was the other lesson learned by researchers and journalists from the Harvey paper (besides using the domino analogy). Really bad junk science not only sells, it sells really well. The media love it and don’t care that it’s cr*p.
Susan Crockford
The ultimate domino is, of course, that no one has reliably and empirically demonstrated CO2 causes global warming.
There should be hundreds of studies demonstrating the concept from the last 40 years but I can only find one which has been debunked.
On that basis alone, they don’t have a domino to knock down in the first place.
How credible would you be if you didn’t know a Polar Bear from a Budgie.
Yet they can’t touch CO2 driven climate change other than by sense, they can’t smell it other than by faith and they can’t see it other than by superstition.
CO2 derived climate change must be empirically demonstrated in a replicable manner by credible scientists before any more money is wasted on it.
If they can’t count it, it don’t count!
Apologies in advance, but I just could not stop the mouse…..
“Collective human action is required…..”
And there it is! A fear mongering tale written expressly to justify the marketing pitch that ‘Collectivism/Socialism is required’!
I wonder if the authors of this paper practise what they preach? No electricity, cars, running water, computers, drugs, birth control etc
I have a sneaky feeling they all went downtown to celebrate on a city centre when their paper was published.
A strong earthquake in the Greenland Sea.
Still no Northwest Passage , and it looks as if there will be no North East Passage this year (unlike last August).
Off piste but where did it all go wrong-
http://notrickszone.com/2018/08/07/business-daily-handelsblatt-german-wind-industry-in-serious-crisis-could-implode-consequences-could-be-fatal/
The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry. 🙂
Perhaps these crash-test dummies will serve as examples of what not to do, and save the rest of us a lot of wasted time and money.
143,000 German jobs in the wind industry? Is that number credible? According to this resource, in 2017 Germany produced 17.9 TWh of offshore wind and 88.7 TWh of onshore wind power, for a total of 105.7 TWh. If there are 143,000 jobs in the wind power industry as that article asserts, the annual production per job is well under 1 GWh / job (739 MWh in fact).
If this is even remotely close to the truth, it is beyond dispute that wind power is not “sustainable”. Assume capital and all the other non-labor costs for operations make up 50% and that means the other half of the wholesale price for 105.7 TWh has to pay the wages/salaries of 143,000 people. How many people in Germany can maintain a remotely decent life on that? Or looked at another way, how high would electricity prices have to go to pay for all that labor on 105.7 TWh worth of sales?
Wouldn’t that make them Zombienoes?
You mean the machines that renew the ice surface between periods of an hockey game?
No, those are Zimbabwes.
I think you mean Zambonis, Bruce. Zimbabwe is a country in southern Africa.
Zamboni? You’re crazy. What a silly name for a machine that re-surfaces ice.
John Endicott
Judging by the current state of the country, Zombies is a fair description of the poor Zimbabwean people.
If you want an example of the benefits of colonial practises Vs the hopelessnesses of Marxism, it’s right there.
The bread basket of Africa reduced to the basket case of Africa because of racism. That is, racism against whites.
Now it seems the new government is reversing the trend by offering cheap farming land to the white farmers Mugabe kicked out, violently.
When _those_ fall over, they stay fallen.
Since I really can’t take this too seriously, I have a somewhat off-topic question:
Isn’t a climate model that runs hot sexier than one that does not ?
Well, since this IS about zombies, I suppose that I should, at least, TRY to be on topic:
Meanwhile, on a global scale, nothing is changing in fact as regards global temperatures or sea levels in human lifetimes, particularly not the tropospheric temperatures where all the CO2 GHE is predicted to be.
I prefer to believe actual data to the prophesies of computer modelling priests who write the modes that amplify their chosen cause and dismiss other possibilities as not large or variable enough. And ignore clouds as the major climate control. And are wrong.
Religions promise life after death that you must believe in and pay to receive, or else. Science demands independent validation of laws. That’s not a characteristic or deliverable of “climate science”, which has become branch of religion, an act of faith, also akin to bookmaking or economic forecasting, using the same approach of manipulating gains in numerical models to fit assumed causes to reality by correlation.
No laws are proved.
It’s not rocket science, that must work as advertised or people notice.
COULD is not a useful word in science (used 3 times in the abstract).
Could implies something is in principle possible without say anything about its probability of occurring.
Many possible coulds are very improbable.
If the authors can’t go beyond could, why should the reader?
Happened to listen in on PBS “News Hour” at my mother’s recently (I don’t have TV).
The entire show was in the subjunctive!
When do the summer zombies switch to daylight savings time and hit up fall and winter news items?
Just wait until further precession.
Basically they are promoting international socialism, their original goal.
It used to be that science was about the search for truth. How is this paper at all searching for truth? How does this paper at all adhere to the scientific method? What hypothesis is being tested and confirmed against observations? Any publication that publishes this nonsense is no longer a scientific journal.
When it gets hotter, the oceans make more clouds, and cool it down again. Even the extreme warmings of the 7Ka interglacials are ended very abruptly by clouds after a 12 degree rampage at the poles and 100 metre sea level rise, evidenced by their precipitation. CO2, that the warming oceans emit as a conseqence of warming, has almost nothing to do with this, as it carries on burgeoning , ignored by the climate but enjoyed by the plants, while the water vapour also emitted by the warming oceans that modellers claim amplifies warming produces evr more clouds that stop any further warming by carrying much more heat towards space while also reducing insolation from the dominant energy source, the sun. It’s not climate science. It’s physics.
Whatever the impulses that cause change, mainly the 100Ka Milankovitch cycle eccentricity, clouds keep us in a tight band that limit the upper and lower limits of the ice age cycle by increasing or decreasing solar insolation and ocean heat transfer to space. The energies and effects we are responsoble for are insignificant in this, And most certainly are not CO2, on the evidence of the ice age interglacial warming, never mind the failure of CO2 risng 40% to heat the troosphere as prophesied by “climate scientists”. The new internal dichotomy.
Like the notorious pseudo-scientific climate models, the warm-mongers contradict each other. Only in January this year, we were told that the “worst-case global warming scenarios were not credible,” [1].
More importantly, though, only in May this year, we were told that collision and radiative processes physics for CO2 molecules in the atmosphere were incorrectly calculated in CMIP5 models and other considerations, and when the corrections were made it turned out that all the human contribution (due to burning of fossil fuels) to the observed warming of ~0.8 degree Celsius since 1880 has been a puny 0.02 degree Celsius [2].
It’s much ado about nothing, isn’t it?
According to [2], whatever “climate change” we are seeing today is 97.5% natural, and… hugely beneficial, resulting in global greening [3] and higher crop yields around the globe [4]. It is, as it turns out, perfectly natural for the global temperature to vary by about 1 degree Celsius per century [5], EVERY century for the past 8,000 years, not just the last one. The change we’ve seen since 1880 has actually been LESS than average, not more.
The earth’s climate is remarkably stable, thanks to the earth’s oceans, seas and great lakes (like the Caspian). Nothing we do on the dry land, which covers only about 25% of the planet’s surface, of which only about 1/3rd, that is, about 8% of the planet’s surface, is affected by human activities, primarily agriculture, can have much effect on the earth’s “global climate.”
The PNAS paper [6] discussed here is, of course, baloney. The exhortations to “stewardship,” “globalism,” “collectivism,” “decarbonization of global economy,” “behavioral changes,” “transformed social values,” and “new governance arrangements,” are enough of a give-away.
These people are totalitarian enviro-fascist freaks making a yet another attempt at taking over the World. Frankly, I’d rather face a catastrophic climate change than let them, and others like them, lord over us.
[1] https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25450
[2] https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6
[3] https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004
[4] https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00048
[5] https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417
[6] https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115
and no doubt with the greens in charge making lots of money and taking all the women too
Or boys, for those greens that have that – entirely valid, of course – declination, amongst the many such available [all equally valid and affirming, I am positively certain].
Auto
Still noting that CO2 is – to the nearest one-tenth of one percent – zero in the 2018 Global Atmosphere.
“trying to turn what the scientists admit is wildly speculative into political capital.”
Apt summary of the climate change movement dating back to before the 1970s cooling scare.
Which is different than when Svante Arrhenius proposed his famous theory. He thought the warming would be beneficial. It was cold at the time, and he was from Sweden.