Climate Change aka Global Warming Venn Diagram

 

Discuss

Advertisements

221 thoughts on “Climate Change aka Global Warming Venn Diagram

  1. Given the current state of climate science and alarmism, I would say that the diagram greatly overstates the science component and understates the political. In fact, rather than a concentric diagram, an overlapping diagram may be more accurate, since much of the politics has no basis in science.

    • I agree. Charles the Moderate’s diagram should be modified to a very large purple circle labelled politics, partly overlapping a very small blue science circle. The diagram could also be made dynamic so that at times, the two circles separate entirely.

          • A Venn diagram with no overlap of science and politics?

            And the relative amount of science vs the amount of politics can be indicated on a Venn diagram.

          • In every discussion online, there is always someone who has to make this point. It’s considered the smartest thing you can say and instantly makes you the winner. And the good thing is you never need more detail. Just that phrase. Well done.

      • Shouldn’t there also be a circle representing religion? The Church of Omnipotent Greenhouse In Carbon has grown quite large, worldwide.

    • I’d say a core of politics partially enclosed by a thin layer of science.

      Might add another large Green “Science” circle.

      In any case. a good discussion question.

      • I think the diagram is spot on. There is a lot of science, both pro and con in support or against the CAGW hypothesis ….. but it all has to pass through a layer of politics to reach the general public. That layer of politics ensures that all that comes out will be in support of The political agenda of CAGW alarmist.

    • No, you need THREE circles.

      One for actual science,

      and one for climate change science, which is wholly contained within a political circle.

  2. One has to go through the politics to get to the science. Only true if one wants to do something with the science. Otherwise, the study of science in and of itself is personally worthwhile.

    • Or conflicted science as against evidence based science, so three circles.
      both have a portion outside of politics. I think?

      • How about political circle in the middle, a surrounding science circle and a political circle around the outside. Arrows should flow from the center (priorities and funding), through the science and into the outer political circle (what gets published/released to media). The science in the middle is mostly what is necessary to keep a job/paycheque/institute alive (soft money).

    • Perhaps three circles.
      One large purple circle labeled politics.
      Two small circles with a very tiny overlap between them, both of which are entirely inside the larger circle.
      One circle labeled models, one circle labeled science.
      The circle labeled models should be 3 or 4 times the size of the circle labeled science.

    • The blue circle should be labeled political propaganda masquerading as science. A small circle labeled real science should be added outside and just barely touching the larger circle labeled politics.

    • +100 as well.

      What science? Seriously, science no longer exists in any form when it comes to “climate change”.

      Note: Anthony, the article contributors and the commenters on this site and a few others are all that is left of meaningful discussion on the subject. Your persistence at pursuing scientific evidence and methods is the only thing that keeps my sanity when it comes to this subject.
      A big thanks to all. That you remain dogged in your pursuit of science is a tribute to all of you.
      Jim

  3. The numerous skeptical websites have been highlighting the serious problems with the AGW hypothesis for what seems an eternity. It is not evident that any of this effort has led to even a small change in the minds of the true believers and particularly the main stream media. It is obvious to me that a radical rethink is required if the true state of the actual science is to ever reach the general public. Maybe we happy to bang on with the same old stuff for the next 30 years?

    • Gary
      Are you saying that the real and observational science is being held captive by the political agenda. That is what ctm,s diagram is displaying. It can’t get out to the public.
      Regards

      • Each side of this issue live in their own self generated echo chamber, with little evidence that anyone outside is listening. The sign of insanity (Generally accredited to Einstein) “Doing the same thing over and over again, each time expecting a different result.

    • The hypothesis has been falsified hundreds of times.
      It’s just that the acolytes are impervious to reality.

      • “icisil nothing in science is proven. If you want proof get math or go to a liquor store.”

        A hypothesis isn’t made true by assertion either, as climate science is done. The legitimate method would be for climate scientists to form null hypotheses and disprove them. But that isn’t done because they aren’t actually doing science.

      • The so-called greenhouse effect is not disputed, AGW as promoted by simpleminded zealots is unfalsifiable.

      • …so far it’s can’t be falsified or proven

        No one can prove it’s outside the range of natural climate variability

        …no one for sure knows what that is

      • “That is not what climate science has done. The AGW hypothesis was birthed over 100 years ago, and to this day has yet to be falsified.”

        That CO2 might contribute to atmospheric heating is not disputed. What hasn’t been proven, or disproven by null hypotheses, if you will, is how much and what effect that contribution has.

        • Uh no it’s not. Quite reductionist of you claim that. It can be included in climate science, but it is only one piece of the puzzle, and probably a very small piece. Meteorologists don’t even consider it in their work.

        • “… the AGW hypothesis is a basic starting point for the science of climate …”.
          =====================================
          Sadly that has become so, as illustrated by Charles the moderator’s diagram, and may explain why IPCC ‘science’ hasn’t progressed.
          Maybe a genuine understanding of climate will emerge from climate change™ science just as modern chemistry evolved from medieval alchemy.

      • So the fact that none of the predictions made have ever come true isn’t sufficient to falsify the theory?
        Fascinating.

      • Steve, the greenhouse effect is in part what keeps planet Earth habitable:
        “At present, roughly 30% of the incoming solar radiation is reflected back to space by the clouds, aerosols, and the surface of Earth. Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C)” (NASA).

      • So Steve, are you actually going to claim that if temperatures rise 0.01C because of CO2, then the theory is proven?

      • Arrhenius said the global temperature was about 15C due to greenhouse gases. Not long ago, NASA said it was ~15C. This after an ~35% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the same time period.

      • It hasn’t been successfully falsified once.
        ====≠===
        Not correct. Falsification has been provided via two failed predictions. Tropospheric hot spot and accelerated warming with accelerated CO2.

        Both of these have failed and in any true science it would be sufficient to falsify AGW.

      • Ferdberple there was no prediction of accelerated warming. Strike one.
        ======
        Wrong again. The IPCC RPC 8.5 for example. CO2 is accelerating as per prediction but warming is far below 8.5 prediction.

        The IPCC had to change “prediction” to “projection” it was so embarrassingly wrong.

        Failed prediction is absolute proof in science that your theory is wrong.

      • “It hasn’t been successfully falsified once.”

        That’s because all things are predicted by the climate change fraud. If the weather’s hot, that’s climate change. If the weather’s cold, that’s also climate change. Ditto for drought/floods, snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, and everything else.

      • Steve: 1) Every IPCC climate model shows accelerated warming going forward. 2) That hot spot “study” was shown to be so much voodoo science that was cooked-up by activist “researchers.”

      • Steve Heins
        You said, “there was no prediction of accelerated warming.” The alarmists claim a direct relationship between CO2 concentration and warming. The CO2 concentrated has been accelerating, therefore it follows that warming should be accelerating.

      • “So the fact that none of the predictions made have ever come true isn’t sufficient to falsify the theory?”

        And just what “predictions” were supposed to have “come true”
        by 2018?
        That have been published in the IPCC ARs that is.
        Not from an isolated loud-mouthed scientist that the media have picked up on and reported because they feed off sensationalism.
        Do please find a quote from said ARs to verify that oft quoted here but false assertion.
        Properly verifiable (picked out from the noise of weather) AGW attributable consequences lie decades away.

      • Claims of accelerating temperature increases.
        Claims of more and worse storms.
        They are out there to find, unless you are paid not to find them.

      • “They are out there to find, unless you are paid not to find them.”

        Like I said … from the IPCC ARs.
        And there are none.

        That is where the consensus AGW science is.
        And not the straw-man that denizens like to call CAGW just to burn down.
        Just because a paper makes it through peer-review doesn’t mean it’s accepted as correct. Just not obviously wrong.

    • What? Is the north pole ice free, as the AGW predicted and I didn’t noticed? or was a failed prediction that falsified the AGW hypothesis?

    • The AGW hypothesis is harmless. Without positive feedback, AGW due to CO2 is about 1C per doubling of atmospheric CO2. That is more likely to be beneficial than harmful.

      The bad hypothesis is CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). That invokes positive feedback to increase climate sensitivity to 4C per doubling of atmospheric CO2.

      Calculations of climate sensitivity based on measured data is about 1.5C. link

      The only thing that keeps CAGW alive is models that can’t be verified or validated. It’s kind of pathetic.

      I would say that Mother Nature has performed the experiment that falsifies CAGW.

      • Without the “C”, there is no need to do anything about CO2. That’s why the acolytes push it, while denying they are pushing it.

      • We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN link

        There is an oversupply of similar crap.
        Since you asked specifically for a scientific paper, here’s an example.

        Beyond single-species extinctions, both direct and indirect processes can lead to cascading and catastrophic co-extinctions, also called “chains of extinction” (Brook et al. 2008) link

        The word ‘catastrophic’ and its synonyms are liberally used in alarmist papers.
        QED

      • Steve Heins – You are a bald faced lier, one among Millions. The absolute hypocrisy of claiming that Skeptics falsely created the C in CAGW while your fellow travelers daily fill every form of communication with endless reams of doomsday predictions and cries of Crises is both breathtaking and insane.

        Please note, however, I am not asking you to stop your absurd lying. Frankly, it has been nonsense like this that has convinced far more of the public of the innate dishonesty of the Climate Faithful then anything the Skeptics could have done.

        ~¿~

      • Don’t be such a simpleton “Heins”.

        All things being equal, CO2 delays radiative cooling and that should raise surface temperature. But guess what? All things are never equal. Other effects can counteract or amplify the warming. Climate is an extremely complex system.

        It’s only simple to those who are trying to use it to drive a political agenda, like you.

      • Steve Heins December 27, 2018 at 5:21 pm

        The Guardian quotes people and organizations warning of the catastrophic results of global warming. The warming is attributed, by those quoted, explicitly and implicitly to human activity. Your LOL is pure ad hominem.

        There is no problem at all finding papers that attribute catastrophic consequences to anthropogenic global warming. Saying otherwise is just quibbling about a semantic nicety.

        Before you respond, give a thought to what conclusion people will reach about your character.

      • Steve Heins December 27, 2018 at 6:17 pm

        If scientists use the word ‘catastrophic’, or any of its synonyms, in a published paper, and they don’t quantify it, your quibble is with them. Why don’t you ask them.

      • For a mathematical attempt at defining 7 different kinds of catastrophe, look up René Thom’s “Catastrophe Theory,” which has had checkered results when it comes to successful applications. I see a potential ‘application’ of it by CAGW believers when they speak of “tipping points.”

      • The absorption spectra of CO2 and other atmospheric gases is well enough understood, but that is a long way from understanding the earth’s climate well enough to make all the predictions that are being made. There has been and continue to be many exaggerated claims about how CO2 is negatively affecting climate, now and into the future. Climate alarmism is much more of a fact that anything we know about the climate 50 years from now.

      • Just today, the NYT published a long article proclaiming that Trump is imperiling the planet.
        If that’s not “C”, I don’t know what is.

        Stever, why do you feel the need to lie about things that are so easily checked?

      • Steve, the papers list “catastrophic” results due to climate change.
        Your attempts to weasel out of your previous lies is both amusing and pathetic.

      • Steve Heins December 27, 2018 at 6:11 pm

        Well known climate cycles.
        Now you prove that it was caused by CO2.

      • So, tell me Rich Davis, how do you explain this: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/trend
        .
        .
        .
        0.4C in 40 years.

        @Steve Heins
        Not one person I have seen post on WUWT has to my recollection EVER denied that earth’s climate has gotten slightly warmer over the past 150 years. We are recovering from the Little Ice Age and there is a SLIGHT warming certainly going on. Global warming is real. It is a net-beneficial situation. It may be all natural, but I’m willing to further stipulate that some of the warming is the result of humans adding 0.012% to the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. Some here may dispute that, but they are outliers. Most will agree that there is probably such a thing as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

        What we are denying is that your side of the argument has made the case that all natural variation has been accounted for when you claim that the only “forcing” is additional GHG in the atmosphere. What we are denying is that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is anything higher than 1.5K. We are denying that positive feedback from water vapor actually results in an ECS around 3.5K. We are not denying science, we are referencing it in observing that the empirical evidence disproves that theory. We are denying that the consequences of human activity will be catastrophic or even net-negative. We are certainly denying that those who claim absurd things like sea level rise inundating all coastal cities are basing their fear-mongering on sound science.

        Clearly we live on a homeostatic planet with an incredibly complex climate system. Anybody who claims to fully understand it is either a politically-motivated malicious liar or an arrogant ignoramus. The more I learn about it, the more I realize what I don’t know.

    • AGW is a conjecture based on only partial science and it is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere caused by trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system for that mater, The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

    • It’s up to the people making the claim that CO2 drives climate change to falsify (or attempt to falsify) their own hypothesis. It is up to those who create and run GCM climate models (CMIP-5, and all others) to “prove” by falsification testing that those models are actually modeling the Earth’s climate, which a job that I think is impossible. They won’t even try. Hence, I give zero credit to GCM modeling in any science paper. GCM models don’t produce data, but rather they produce an almost infinite number of untested hypotheses.

      Where is the peer-reviewed paper that says GCM models fairly reproduce the Earth’s climate? It does not exist. The closest thing I’ve seen to a proof of GCM models is a sheepish grin by Gavin Schmidt at the end of a Ted talk and he says something like “this is what we have” while a true believing audience claps like Scientologists. That’s one of the lamest, most unscientific statement ever made. Papers that tie some physical system to a GCM model projection are totally worthless, and carry zero scientific value.

      Where is the peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates unambiguously and clearly that the statistical tests used to make a point are fit for purpose, that they represent a real, true, accurate sampling of the Earth’s physical reality? Nowhere, is the answer.

      Where is the adherance to the scientific method, Feynman-style? Nowhere. No activist “scientist” ever writes a convincing hypothesis, let alone a convincing abstract. They write a headline, then go looking for evidence that supports their headline. They find none, except for tiny statistical distinctions. So they marry imaginary, unproven (and unprovable) GCM projections to some tiny trend and make a huge headline out of what amounts to total speculation.

      Climate science has gone totally off the rails, and we need to stop funding the men and women who have allowed this to happen, and fire them if they are public employees. We need to end the association of academics receiving funding from the political IPCC process and the UNFCCC. We must end federal bureaucrats funding who are also married to the IPCC, in departments like NASA, NOAA, DoE, DoD, EPA and all other administrative branches. We need to end the propagandizing of K-12 school students by leftist teachers. I could go on, but I’ll stop there.

      • +100

        “We need to stop funding the men and women who have allowed this to happen”

        That should free up enough money for Trump to build his wall!

    • Steve Heins
      December 27, 2018 at 6:07 pm

      Ferdberple there was no prediction of accelerated warming. Strike one.
      ..
      The tropospheric hot spot has been found:
      —————————————-

      Steve.

      I may be wrong, but the impression I got by following the link you provided, even when I may
      confess that I could not go through the whole lot, is that neither you or these chaps really understand the concept of a “hot spot”, let alone when it comes to the one expected, due one of RF or
      as in the case of AGW.

      A warming of atmosphere globally, or even the warming of the high troposphere globally means global warming, not “hotspot”.

      In the case of the RF warming the signature required is the clear significant warming of Tropics, regional, the “hotspot”. Which according to AGW should be the power source of the global warming.

      Fanny thing is that, as far as I know, the satellite data provide a short term signature as such, ending some 20 + years ago.
      Somehow still the data, from this point of view, if correct, does not nullify the RF warming, but it does very clearly and indisputably nullify the AGW.
      And also supports even further the grounds of falsifying the AGW.

      Regardless of what you, me or any one else could consider as predictions or not, not much value there when a hypothesis stands nullified and further more falsified….
      you see a hypothesis can not predict what must not happen in accordance to that hypothesis…
      unless as means of falsification.
      If such happens, something that the hypothesis does not predict, and it contradicts and debunks
      the main premise then that hypothesis stands as falsified.

      Main grounds of falsifications for AGW,
      -CO2 concentration going up and warming not following, for quite a significant while now.
      -While RF warming not nullified perse, in the same time AGW nullified.
      -Anthropogenic CO2 emission ever increasing, but the CO2 concentration shows no acceleration even when the atmospheric warming stagnated, with no any sign of atmospheric thermal expansion at all.

      No significant enough Tropical warming, no RF or no “Sunshine” global warming to be expected by “radiative” means ;
      ‘ no “hotspot” no RF warming, no AGW whatsoever.

      Even in the case of RF, still very shallow to consider it as with a warming potential in its own.
      You see, the GCMs, the experiment, do actually very clearly show the way of a radiation warming,
      with a very clear and significant Tropical warming, “the hot spot”…the missing thing in reality, the missing warming…the biggie problemo of the AGW.

      cheers

  4. Activists will bend scientific research to their own ends by attempting to end the career of any scientist who publishes inconvenient findings. Galileo’s Middle Finger Such activists make wolverines look like lap kittens in comparison.

  5. Gary Gibson AKA Gibo … at 2:24 pm
    The numerous skeptical websites have been … bang[ing] on with the same old stuff for … 30 years?

    And it’s not working. Money and organization are badly needed.

  6. In a way this is true not even without regard to the contamination of science by global warming. Most science is funded and the funding at universities comes from USDA, DOE, DOD, and NSF. All those funding sources decide on the priorities for the grants and those priorities are politically motivated. NEPA compliance creates a giant sucking sound on the availability of funding from lesser sources from states, cities, and private companies.

  7. Found this:
    “Our visual and spatial skills help us find our orientation in space, perceive objects around us and organize them into a coherent visual scene, mentally imagine an object that isn’t physically present. Mental imagery plays an important part e.g. for thought processes, dreams, problem-solving (like mental calculation), anticipating events (e.g. when playing chess), memorizing (e.g. an itinerary), understanding a verbal description, reasoning, recognizing objects presented in an unusual way…
    =========
    That said, Venn Diagrams do nothing for me….

      • True believers have no sense of humor. Maybe Josh could take this one on to make it obvious to people as blinkered as even JPP.

      • I’m afraid Mr Peterson doesn’t understand the concept of context, as provided by the title of the post.

      • You should know better than that. The implied context is “Climate Science”. No other discipline was implied.

      • Everything has context. The context in this case was the title immediately above the diagram.
        What is it about AGW trolls and their inability to admit that they were wrong?
        Both JPP and Steve continue to dig themselves in deeper and deeper.

      • It’s like the old adage about lawyers:
        when the law is on your side pound the law,
        when the facts are on your side pound the facts,
        when neither is on your side pound the table.

        What you are seeing is classic table pounding. It’s pretty much all they have.

    • Once again, instead of admitting that he messed up, JPP results to crude insults.
      Note, his next step will be to whine about others have failed to be as nice to him as he wants, therefore it’s ok for him to insult others.

      • Actually, J.P.P. While I disagree with much of what you have said so far, you are correct. It should be re-labeled ‘Climate Science.’

      • “Once again, instead of admitting that he messed up, JPP results to crude insults.”

        Ok, that being the case.
        Quote any insult he has made, let alone a “crude” one
        I see none other that stating his belief that the head article has some aspect of incorrctness.
        You seem to display your double standards here on most threads Mr markw.
        That is, accuse others of insults, while you are, and have been for some time, the chief user of ad homs on this website….
        E.g.
        “It’s almost like he is paid to make himself look dumb.”
        Now thats a “crude insult”
        And just par for the course for you.
        Hint my friend: It’s not big, or clever.

        PS: I await the ad hom in repost, accusing me of ad hom! And to which there will be no comeback in terms if moderation.
        Again double standards.
        Been there. Got the T-shirt.

      • Anthony, in order for your recent whine to have merit, I would have had to have complained about other people issuing insults.
        In the above post, I am not complaining about JPP’s insults, I am laughing at him for having to resort to insults.

        Why don’t you try reading for comprehension instead of reading for something to whine about?

      • “I am laughing at him for having to resort to insults.”

        Except, as I said, there are no insults from him.
        Post it/them if there is.
        Meanwhile there most obviously is from you.
        As there were in a current thread… which I shall now compile.

      • Re the “compilation”
        To whit …..
        This thread …
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/26/lawmakers-overwhelmingly-vote-to-modernize-us-nuclear-fleet/

        “Do you ever stop to think about the propaganda you are paid to spout?”

        “It really is fascinating how acolytes such as henryp completely ignore the responses to their rants and just keep repeating the same tired lies over and over again.”

        “Among his many other shortcomings, apparently henry doesn’t know the difference between fission and fusion.”

        “Is there anything you know that is actually true?”

        “Looks like scripture is another subject that henryp is eager to display his ignorance of.”

        “only storm that is brewing is in your fevered imagination.
        Please, seek professional help.”

        “Your desperate efforts to remain uneducatable on this issue (assuming it actually exists) is why you have earned the monikers that have been applied to you.”

        “You watched a movie?
        Really?
        No wonder you’re an idiot.”

        “Yes you are an idiot, and I strongly suspect you have been imbibing in multiple illegal drugs as well.”

        “If you continue to behave like an idiot, I will continue to call you on it.”

        How old are you markw?
        Seriously.
        Because you behave on here as a child in the midst of a tantrum.
        And yes, I am being a “tone Troll”.
        Why?

        Because the moderators here don’t.
        Which is why I know without looking (I did) that there cannot have been any insults from Mr Peterson or Henryp – as the moderator WOULD have intervened.
        On the other other hand if they happen to be defenders of consensus climate science (note I said “consensus” – by which I mean that which projects consequences well down the line. And NOT by now), they would have been.

        OH ….
        Apologies (1 mod at least), as this one got caught ….
        “griff, if you were [pruned], then you would already know that the cost of decommissioning is already included in the price of the plant.”

        BUT on the other hand – this was ignored…
        “Moderator, please read the above comment by MarkW and take appropriate action. Thank you.”
        And other appeals to the moderator.

        Then our hero has the gawl to say ….
        “It really is funny how JPP and henryp can dish out insults, but they get the vapors when any are directed their way.”

        I’ve news for you Mr W … there were none.
        What is it about that that you don’t understand?
        It is YOU doing the insulting.

        CTM: Are you/Anthony bothered about this kind of poster here?
        Excuse me for thinking so after the remarks you made when taking over from Anthony.

        If WUWT wants to exclude all but the echoes then carry on.

  8. Politics determine how much is spent on particle physics.

    If particle physics had any potential for political benefit, money, politicians, bureaucrats and profiteers would be all over it. And politics would guide the direction of the “science.”

    If anyone does not believe politics pollutes climate science, they need to spend a few years in a Federal bureaucracy.

      • presumably from Lockheed’s R&D budget. IE Lockheed’s own money. Unless you can point to any evidence that Lockheed received a government or other grant to develop it. no? didn’t think so.

      • Dave you’ve already been told multiple times: from Lockheed’s own money. You see the way businesses like Lockheed work is they work on projects (contracts) that are paid for by a customer and they work on projects (R&D) paid for out of their own pocket in the hopes of developing something they can later sell to customers. From all indications the project we are discussing is the later. If you have any evidence that it was paid for *specifically* by a customer then please cite that evidence.

      • Their primary customers are governments, yet politics doesn’t play a factor in how the company is run.
        Just keep posting JPP, the hole your in is about to reach the mantle.

      • Lockheed Martin is the world’s largest defense contractor and about 80% of its revenue came from military spending.

      • Anyone that believes that politics doesn’t affect major defense contractors should go study what happened to the F23.

      • Actually, now that I think about it, the F22 also now shows how politics can effect a defense contractor. I’m sure when they were developing it Lockheed Martin never guessed they wouldn’t even build 200 of them. Or that after a decade the Pentagon would have cut maintenance funding for them so much that more then half of them would be unflyable ‘hanger queens’ being parted out to keep the rest airborne (and unable to escape an oncoming hurricane).

        Seriously, I’m not sure there’s any industry MORE dependent on politics then being a Defense Contractor. Except maybe being a ‘Renewables’ provider.

        ~¿~

      • R Shearer: Lockheed Martin would not exist if it were not for politics.

        Not true. They started building planes with no involvement of any government or politics. While they have become a large defense contractor in the years since then, they exist because, in 1912, Glenn L. Martin started the company after building his first plane in a rented church, where he took a leap of faith on his risky but innovative new aircraft design at the urging of none other than Orville Wright. So you could say Lockheed Martin wouldn’t exist were it not for Orville Wright.

        Schitzree : Seriously, I’m not sure there’s any industry MORE dependent on politics then being a Defense Contractor

        yes and no. They are certainly affected by political decisions as is anyone that works as a contractor for any government. (IE when politicians decide which projects get funded they often make those decisions based, at least in part, on political reasons), But that’s not exactly the same thing as being dependent on politics (IE once the decision has been made on what projects get funded, politics no longer is a factor). What they are dependent on is keeping their customers happy (even when that customer is the government) by delivering their product on time with as few defects as possible. When they fail at doing those things (or some other company provides a better bid), their work will be contracted out to someone else when their contract is up for renewal. The contracting process is, contrary to what you may believe, not dependent on politics. The bureaucrats who oversee the process are not politically appointed and have no involvement in the political (republican vs democrat) goings on in capital hill. Indeed, if a contracting bureaucrat was to make (or be suspected of making) a contracting bid decision based on politics, the losing companies can and will contest the decision (as they can for any number of other reasons).

      • Their primary customers are governments, yet politics doesn’t play a factor in how the company is run.
        Just keep posting JPP, the hole your in is about to reach the mantle.

        On this one point, JPP is actually correct. As a public traded company, it’s the shareholders that call the shots. And playing politics in the way it’s run is a good way for a company like Lockheed to lose it’s government contracts (it would be a violation of the government ethics rules for contractors for one, and other contractors could contest any bids to Lockheed if they caught a whiff of politics being played in the bidding process).

        Now that’s not to say Lockheed, as a company, doesn’t do like every other major corporation, and spend some of their money on lobbying efforts and political donations (and they have a big budget for such, which goes to politicians from both sides of the aisle). But their day-to-day operations (IE how the company is actually run) isn’t involved in politics.

    • A single example does not a theorem make.

      P.S. It is hard to have a erudite discussion in the insulated world of silos. The real discussion is about high-speed Internet, two-way connectivity, and the 8 or 9 silos contained (i.e. science, Broadband, technology, health care, energy, environment, economics, politics, data, etc.) in a global discussion about modernity and the billion people left behind.

      • …What?

        Oh, hell. You’re just a bot, aren’t you. I should have realized from how often you were managing to reply with nothing but standard issue Faithful talking points.

        >¿<

      • A single example is all that was asked for.
        Other examples exist, except you are too deep into silo thinking to find them for yourself.

  9. I had Christmas lunch with family, and met my niece’s partner. He was strongly in the cagw mindset just from the headlines, no research. He is a computer programmer and they seem to like this sort of thing.

    I let him talk for a while about the current and pending heat increase and the catastrophe that is unfolding. After a few minutes of calm rebuttal by myself I invited him to look at the image below that Javier had prepared and examined what is was. Oh he said, I see what you mean. Changed him on the spot.

    This is the most powerful image that skeptics have and not one skeptical site has it regularly updated and the first thing that is seen when visiting the site.

    A picture paints a thousand words and when you have to dig through the comments section to find it says a lot about the impotence of skeptic sites.

    Perhaps WUWT could replace the current image for 2019. Regards.

    https://i.imgur.com/yFrUbjs.png

    • I wonder what CMIP6 models will show? Anecdotally, I have seen that it will basically repeat CMIP5, despite IPCC AR5’s cooling off the model results in the near term.

      Tuning models to the late 20th Century is biting them in the ass.

      • I think UAH needs to be added as well. There is the necessity of showing there is more than one version of “actual”, depending upon methods, quality, and corrections.

        Finally, add the USCRN — The oft-neglected US Climate Reference Network, the stations that should need no adjustments. What’s that, you say? It isn’t world-wide? True, but does it agree with the others or not? And if NOT, does it make you wonder why?

    • Imagine if hurricane forecasts were done like those CHIMP models. They should all be reset to current observations (like hurricane forecasts are done), except for probably INM-CM5 because it seems to be relatively correct.

  10. With the state provifing the majority of funding for science, it is not surprising science has become politicized.

  11. The basic science of AGW long predates any politics. There was no political reaction to Arrhenius, or Callendar, or even Manabe and Weatherald. Politics entered because early this century, US conservatives decided they were agin it.

    • I see. So Maurice Strong and the founding of UNEP/UNFCCC to demonize CO2 to end the industrialized nations had nothing at all to do with it ? It was all the US conservatives fault ? Oh look. A unicorn.

      • ” the founding of UNEP/UNFCCC to demonize CO2 to end the industrialized nations”
        An interesting case from the pre-politics era. Pres GHW Bush signed the UNFCCC (Rio treaty), and sent it to the Senate for ratification. It passed with no significant opposition.

        • Interesting point that “CAGW has become politicized” and Nick supports that position with his comments.

          Skeptics, and Nick knows this, do not deny that CO2 adds to atmospheric warming nor do they deny that human emissions add to the atmospheric CO2. The discussion revolves around whether the human contribution is either measurable or even noticeable.

          Do we know with a reasonable certainty how much the atmosphere has warmed since 1850?

          Do we know with a reasonable certainty how much CO2 adds to the atmospheric temperature?

          Do we know with a reasonable certainty how much human CO2 emissions add to the atmospheric CO2 level?

          Do we know with a reasonable certainty how much of the atmospheric CO2 is human emission related?

          From what I’ve gathered, there are scientific “peer-reviewed” papers that are all over the board with “reasonable certainty” on each of those questions.

          The politicians who want to control “the people” will accept any supposed scientific “reasonable certainty” that supports their ability to control. The politicians who don’t support that agenda, do not.

        • Bush didn’t get a royal send off for nothing. It’s all about cash. And twits like you, Nick, who believe the West got it’s wealth by stealing it from the North, South and East.

        • There was no opposition because most everyone believed the extant, unsupported global warming scare. Politicians and politically aligned activists started the whole thing, not conservatives.

        • An interesting case from the pre-politics era. Pres GHW Bush signed the UNFCCC (Rio treaty), and sent it to the Senate for ratification. It passed with no significant opposition.

          fortunately more and more people have woken up to the scam since then. GHW Bush was also a globalist new world order guy. It’s no wonder he would back such a treaty.

    • …and before conservatives decided they were agin it

      Liberals weaponized it…the UN/IPCC decided to use it as a tool

    • It really is fascinating how the alarmists try to claim that all of the early researchers, while expressly denying their results.
      None of the people Nick lists claimed that the world was going to warm up by 3 to 5C, or more. None of them felt that there was any danger in increased CO2.

      It’s just another example of trying to distract from the train wreck that modern climate science has become.

      • “None of the people Nick lists claimed that the world was going to warm up by 3 to 5C, or more.”
        Far from it. Arrhenius calculated a warming of 4°C per CO2 doubling. That remained a common expectation.

        • However as we know scientific hypotheses often modify over time a good example the atom.
          Once thought to be the smallest part of matter indivisible!
          Democritus to Dalton’s atomic theory through to Rutherford, his model only lasted two years then came the Bohr model and on and on we go, I think this is the way science is supposed to work.

        • Surely you know better.
          Rasool &Schneider 1971
          0.8 K per doubling and a 10 fold increase would not raise temperatures above 2.5K. Arrhenius’s last calculation for CO2 alone was similar. Estimates of 3-5 rely on a large positive feedback. Its not the same thing so pretending that the science was settled is a deceit.

          The stories of Schneider highlight the deceit. We need to decarbonise the economy to stop global cooling turns out to be based on rubbish calculations so he he changes his mind but only the reason why we must decarbonise the economy and does well for himself despite the incompetence. Even cited as a great scientist who assures us that the modelling can only be 3% off at the most.

          Its all a sad joke and people like Nick only reinforce my opinion of it.

          • “Rasool &Schneider 1971”
            R&S got it wrong. Schneider published a correction in 1975. He said it should be 1.5 to 3 K/doubling.

            Arrhenius did a calculation for CO2 alone, but emphasised that wv feedback inevitably accompanies the CO2 effect, so the calculation for CO2 alone has no physical significance.

          • But the assumptions about the magnitude, or even the sign of wv feedback does have “physical significance,” Nick. Atmospheric phenomena are not tracking the highly tuned IPCC climate model predictions.

          • The hand waving doesn’t make it settled since Arrhenius.

            And the paper you link doesn’t do what you say it does. In the conclusion – theory and modelling has the inability to give anything more than an order of magnitude estimate.

            First paragraph on p 2061 is interesting.

          • ” theory and modelling has the inability to give anything more than an order of magnitude estimate”
            Modelling then meant simplified 1D modelling. We can do much better now.

          • Then why bring up Arrhenius or Callendar when even more developed understanding of physics in the computer era gives a range from Big Oil shill to thermogeddon?

          • Modelling then meant simplified 1D modelling. We can do much better now.

            Yes, we can get our GIGO much, much faster now. it’s still GIGO though.

        • He finally settled on 1.5°C per doubling. And you failed to mention Angstrom in your list of political predecessors, whose assistant showed adding more CO2 made no difference as all the IR was already absorbed.

    • It really is fascinating. Up above we have JPP denying that politics has anything to do with climate science. Yet Nick here is admitting that politics is the driving principle. (All the while making up stories about the early days of the climate scam.)

    • “Politics entered because early this century, US conservatives decided they were agin it.”

      How can that be when climateers have been wavering between global cooling and global warming for over a century?

    • Wrong as usual, Nick. And the “basic science” of AGW merely states that, all things being equal, our additions of CO2 should cause some warming. Meaning, maybe it has, maybe it hasn’t. Because it can’t be sussed from the climate noise, which most likely means that, if it exists, it is too small of an effect to matter. But it gets even better. You see, the Alarmists, bless their hearts had to go full retard, yelling all sorts of nonsense about catastrophe coming, and how we are already suffering the effects of “manmade climate change” (which can’t and hasn’t been shown to exist).

      • That’s nice… How about the 80 years prior to 1980?

        MacFarling Meure et al., 2006 demonstrated evidence of a mid-20th Century CO2 decline in the DE08 ice core…

        The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm from ~1940–1955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.

        [11] The CO2 stabilization occurred during a shift from persistent El Niño to La Niña conditions [Allan and D’Arrigo, 1999]. This coincided with a warm-cool phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua et al., 1997], cooling temperatures [Moberg et al., 2005] and progressively weakening North Atlantic thermohaline circulation [Latif et al., 2004]. The combined effect of these factors on the trace gas budgets is not presently well understood. They may be significant for the atmospheric CO2 concentration if fluxes in areas of carbon uptake, such as the North Pacific Ocean, are enhanced, or if efflux from the tropics is suppressed.

        From about 1940 through 1955, approximately 24 billion tons of carbon went straight from the exhaust pipes into the oceans and/or biosphere

        What were temperatures doing?

        Temperatures rose just as fast in the early 20th century with very little rise in CO2. They declined in the mid-20th century with a possible decline in CO2 despite rising emissions.

        How about the prior 2,000 years?

        How about the prior 560 million years?

        A crossplot of a pH-corrected Phanerozoic temperature reconstruction from Royer et al., 2004. with Berner’s GeoCarb III…

        Shocking!!! It yields a climate sensitivity of 1.28 °C. Royer’s pH corrections were derived from CO2; so it shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that the correlation was so good (R² = 0.6701)… But the low climate sensitivity is truly “mind blowing”… /Sarc.

      • It really is fascinating how simple the average AGW cultist believes the world to be.
        He sees some warming, which may or may not have occurred, and immediately assumes that it must be because CO2.
        The difficulties with actually measuring the temperature of the earth, discarded.
        The possibility that other things could be affecting the temperature, discarded.

    • “The basic science of AGW long predates any politics” The advancement and refinement of it should post date politics. Free Climate Science!

      • And wasn’t Arrhenius’ theory largely dropped after it was realized it had nothing to do with how ice ages actually form? Wasn’t it only dug back up when the anti-technological Greens needed a new reason to vilify Fossil Fuels after the Pollution problem was essentially solved?

        ~¿~

          • Nick I believe Robert B is refereeing to the 1906 paper “Die vermutliche Ursache der Klimaschwankungen” (“The Probable Cause of Climate Fluctuations”) which offers a lower estimate than his previous work. Are you claiming there is no such paper (IE it’s a hoax) or are you claiming that paper does not offer a lower estimate than his previous work?

          • “are you claiming that paper does not offer a lower estimate than his previous work?”
            I am claiming that what has been said above (and is endlessly repeated here) is simply wrong. And to do that I will do what people making those claims never do – quote what he actually said (in the FoS translation):

            “For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 de-grees (rounded to 4 degrees C).
            My first calculation of this figure gave a slightly higher value – approximately 5 degrees C. In this older calculation, the influence of CO2 was too large, for that the influence of water vapour was valued too low, as Ekholm already commented. This situation was caused in general from Langley’s data, where the quantity of CO2 increases with the quantity of water vapour, so that a slight shift in favour of one results in experimental errors. However, the resulting errors compensate each other for the most part.”

            So the later estimate was actually 3.9°C per doubling, not 1.8. His earlier estimate was 5. He clearly didn’t “admit he was way off”. And the main point is that it is the second estimate, of 4° per doubling, that has been quoted in the years since, as I did above.

          • Again, his calculation for just CO2 was drastically reduced. The part calculated from the absorption of LWIR by CO2.

            He needed to explain why there were ice ages, hence the claim the wv must have a larger effect. Papering over cracks, not modelling and certainly not the sort of modelling requiring computer power that still gives an order of magnitude spread of results in the mid 70s.

            Again, you are trying to deceive.

          • “Again, his calculation for just CO2 was drastically reduced. “
            From what? Again, quotes please.

            In fact, all that happened was that in 1906 he set out his calculation in two parts – the direct effect and the wv effect. And people who can’t read to the end get carried away.

          • “You pasted it”
            He didn’t say it was “drastically reduced”. He said:
            “My first calculation of this figure gave a slightly higher value”

            Are you “trying to deceive”?

          • You apparently have the paper. I can’t cut and paste the relevant paragraph so look it up. In the absence of water vapour, halving CO2 would reduce temperatures by 1.5 C and doubling would increase by 1.6C. This estimate is a drastic reduction in his initial estimate.

          • ” In the absence of water vapour…This estimate is a drastic reduction in his initial estimate.”
            So what was his initial estimate for warming in the absence of water vapour?

            The thing is, you are deliberately trying to confuse the number for total warming in the initial estimate with the sub-calculation for a fraction of the heating in the second paper. He made clear which figures do correspond – the 5°C/doubling in the initial with the 3.9 in the second. You have quoted no initial figure for which 1.6 could be said to be a drastic reduction.

          • Surely the “too large” tells you “drastic reduction” is not an exaggeration. The contribution of carbonic acid was twice that of water so 2/3 of 5-6 which is 3.2 to 4. So to get the sensitivity back up to 4-5 requires a feedback that makes the contribution from water vapour greater than CO2.

            Rubbish method is the point of all this arguing. Not what Arrhenius found.

        • Schitzree wrote:
          “Uhm, didn’t Arrhenius admit he was way off several years after?”

          Steve Heins replies:
          “Yes he did,…”

          Nick Stokes replies:
          “No, he didn’t.”

          If you must deny reality in shilling for your CAGW religion, Nick, then perhaps you should rethink exactly why you believe what you think you believe, and why.

          If you must use an admission of error as “proof” of the validity of a failed and debunked theorem, Steve, perhaps you should do the same.

      • Adding CO2 would warm the atmosphere, all else remaining equal, by ~1C per doubling of concentration e.g. 400ppm -> 800ppm, no-one is disputing that.
        You are arguing with yourself.

        • all else remaining equal. Except it’s highly unlikely that ANYTHING would ‘remain equal’.

          The Climate Faithful are demanding we ‘decarbonize’ at horrendous expense, to prevent the possibility of a doomsday scenario based on a theory that was created to explain something that has by now been explained by something else (what causes ice ages) and despite that CO2 has been shown to have a weak or no correlation to global temperature.

          ~¿~

      • Dear Steve Heins,

        Is there anyway to differentiate between you and me in public? While you are smart and opinionated, you and I have quite different methodologies.

        Thanks,

        Stephen

  12. There needs to be another object, totally separate from the science object, labeled
    “Non-falsifiable Belief Systems”

    So three blobs:
    1. Politics, 2. Science (must be falsifiable!), 3. Non-falsifiable Belief Systems

    No overlap between 2 and 3, but might be touching.
    1 almost completely encloses 3, and encloses most, but not all of 2. I think there should be some 1 not in 2 or 3 (Power for power’s sake)
    None of 2 is in 3, but some of 2 is not in 1. There are non-political elements of science.
    None of 3 is in 2, but all but a sliver of 3 is in 1. What value does 3 have if it is not used as a basis for politics? A personal belief system, perhaps, that is kept secret?

    Is 3 = “Religion”? Not necessarily. There could be falsifiable religions. There could even be scientifically based Religions. Could there be religions without politics? Depends upon your definition of politics, I guess.

        • Gary,

          That’s direct democracy.

          “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

          Attributed to Ben Franklin.

        • You need politics to resolve the stalemate. One of the two is going to have to convince the other to change their position.

    • Any religion which claims that there is an objective moral standard set by a creator (i.e. the Big Three) will directly or indirectly be involved in politics. As an example: it is only through the political actions of Christians, acting on their religious beliefs, was the slave trade not only stopped once but twice (once in the 9th century, and then in the 18/19th century.) at tremendous cost. England was nearly bankrupted when slavery was abolished and of course, everyone knows the cost the United States paid. All because the believers of a religion applied their beliefs to politics. I could go on about how Roman and Greek religions influenced politics. The United States is nearly unique in history on how little Organized religion (particular churches and denominations) influence the government.

      I am not too sure how you could define politics so that the people’s moral beliefs don’t affect what is done. The CAGW crew strongly believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is immoral, and they want to have us adhere to their moral values. Most people don’t realize that ALL laws are based on what is believed to be moral by those who propose them. (Even, believe it or not, racist laws)

  13. “At no time is a ‘Storm’ is just a ‘storm.'” – Sigmund Fraud

    CAGW (or whatever it goes by now) was never more than a lever to political power and it is politics that funds the “close but no cigar” science that promotes it.
    Sad.

    A side note.
    For my little spot on the globe the record high for today, 12-27-18, according the NWS was 68*F set in 2008.
    Yet in April of 2012, the record high for today they said the record high was 66*F set in 1959.
    In July of 2012 they said the record high for today was, again, 66*F set in 1959 but now (err..then) it was tied in 2008.
    What happened between April of 2012 and July of 2012 to insert “2008” as a record high day four years later?
    And what happened between 2012 and 2018 to raise 2008 high from 66*F to 68*F ten years later?

    And that was just the “record” high temp for just one day for my little spot on globe. Science? Politics?

  14. Climate Science is the Temperance movement of the 21st Century – fanaticism.

    280 drops of vodka in 999,720 drops of orange juice is ‘unavoidable’, 400 drops of vodka in 999,600 drops of orange juice is ‘the road to hell’.

    Frigging MORONS.

    • That’s pretty good. Stated another way – add 3 drops of vodka to 16.9 oz (500 ml) of orange juice and no problem. Add one more drop and alcohol poisoning, DUI, hangover, life ruined, etc.

  15. Hey Charles, how’s it going?

    I think your diagram is both incorrect and incomplete.

    The diagram is incorrect because the political discussion does not embrace all of the science; only the science that is useful for generating alarm. Therefore the circles should not be concentric, but overlapping.

    Which parts of climate science lie outside the political circle? The positive effects of higher temperatures, the positive effects of higher CO2 concentrations, the ability of science to make lives better over time to offset the feared negative effects of higher temperatures. Also outside the circle of political discussion is any research that indicates climate sensitivity is at the lower range of IPCC estimates, and that the highest IPCC estimates are not credible.

    The diagram is incomplete because it does not account for the large amount of anti-science activism and speculative fiction that are passed off as if they are legitimate science. Anti-sceptic hate speech probably fits in this category too.

    So my Venn diagram would have 3 partially overlapping circles. I’ll have to think long and hard about examples for the overlapping areas.

    [Merry Christmas butthead. Give me a call sometime~ctm]

    PS. Were you thinking of something like this?

  16. The only important science of the new era is political science. All research must be done for the good of the masses. The political elite define “good”.

    Once you accept this you will be happy (by definition).

    If you are a practionner of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. you need to be educated in modern socialist thought, and have a political adviser assigned so your research does not stray from true, i.e. political, science. This is for the good of society. 🙂

    If you are wondering if you are a member of the political elite – you are not. 🙁

    Welcome to the 21st century.

  17. I think the diagram needs to distinguish different types of politics. Maybe a second circle labelled “USA – Right Wing Politics” with no science inside it.

    • As usual, the socialists amongst us define science as only being what they agree with.

      It really is sad hos simple minded most leftists are.

      Kind of like defining charity as taking money from others and giving it to the poor.
      Giving your own money no longer qualifies.

    • In a way, Bellman is inadvertently right. It’s only the left-wing politics that perverts and distorts science to push it’s agenda. As Right-wing politics generally doesn’t do that (certainly nowhere near the extent that the left does) the right-wing circle would be mostly clear of the Science circle showing that the two are independent and the left wing circle would mostly subsume the science circle showing how the politics overwhelms the science. Well done Bellman.

  18. In a way, a Venn diagram is the wrong tool to describe the relationship of politics and science. This is because we are not so much interested in when the interests / actions of one overlap with the other as the extent to which one informs and affects the other. And it is more subtle than just the directional arrows. For science does inform climate politics – the problem is the selectivity with which it does so. And as others have discussed at length, politics clearly affects the science via funding etc.g

  19. Another possible representation would be to keep the diagram as is, BUT have the two labels alternately blinking between one another, where “science” sometimes blinks to “politics”, and “politics” sometimes blinks to “science”, as if they are the same words, one cyclically oscillating re-defined as the other, in the true spirit of alarmist, verbal, hijacking gymnastics.

  20. Wrong JPP. The circle labeled”Science” in a diagram with the caption “Climate Change Venn Diagram” is clearly intended to refer to “science of climate change”, not “science of everything”.

    My interpretation of CTM’s diagram is that there is no aspect of climate change science that is not an aspect of climate change politics and at the same time there is a certain amount of climate change politics that is completely devoid of science. I’d say that’s about right, except that the climate change science circle is far too large in proportion to the climate change politics circle.

  21. The term “evidence-based research” has infiltrated politics. A supposedly subset of politics that is synonymous with “science” rather than “scientifically influenced” being just a subset of their policy decisions. Sounds better than claiming better researched policies but its hijacking the good name of a useful method that has limitations just to make all their pronouncements look superior. If anything, science is the antithesis to divination, which is all reasoned to some extent but assumed to be infallible by the preacher and disciples. You should be very wary of policies that are almost guaranteed to be based on personal preferences but draped with the tinsel of the scientific method. Almost guaranteed that evidenced that supported the postulate was searched for and not that single result that told them that they were wrong.

  22. Ctm diagram looks like a tree ring to me. It needs to be spliced onto something, maybe turned upside down and run through an excel sreadsheet.

  23. http://www.geoffstuff.com/VENNB.jpg

    We have politics with undefined, fuzzy borders, interacting with the real world, like with butterflies.
    We have Climate Science, full of holes, completely constrained by Politics of various colours.
    There is a small area of Proper Science that at times can cut across Climate Science and Politics to reach the Real World. But, it has a strong wall built around it, so that only the gifted can – and should – enter and leave. Geoff

  24. Should be three parts. Politics, and False Science in the above with a touching but rather small circle labeled “Actual Science” with at most an overlap of four pixels.

  25. Very few Politicians know or understand much science which explains dumb policies they propose/enact.

    • Yes. Most of CAGW is Politics and Propaganda. Plausibility requires a core of Science. We all agree on the chemical reaction C + O2 -> CO2 at elementary school level. Just after that all changes acidic.

      CAGW agenda relies a long chain of assumptions ( emissions add CO2 to atmosphere, CO2 warms it, feedback warms more, warming is harmful, CO2 taxes help, … ). Each of the needs a seed of plausibility so that a 8-year old can understand it. If not, the sheeple relies on what others say.

      Skeptics need elementary school level talking points.Memes that connect to people: recovery from the ice age, GW gives more nice weather, plants live on CO2, organic fuels are essential to mankind, bankers and bureaucrats try to rob us, …

  26. The USGS is sending out ‘robot death tweets‘ that are being used to flesh out news stories before news is available: “Their initial, automated report estimated a 44 percent chance at least one life would be lost, a 27 percent chance the death count could reach 10, and a five percent chance it could top 100. There is a 24 percent chance no lives will be lost.”

    Perhaps Politics and Science should both be encapsulated completely in a STATISTICS bubble. Because when there is a statistical possibility of death… nothing else matters.

    • Yep… Most science doesn’t have policy implications. Whether mountain ranges are built by plate tectonics or geosynclinal processes or something else has no relevance to government policy.

      • Depends on the grant source. In some cases, if you were studying how clouds appear to take on fruit shapes, you would be obliged to mention AGW.

      • Yep… Most science doesn’t have policy implications. Whether mountain ranges are built by plate tectonics or geosynclinal processes or something else has no relevance to government policy.

        Yeah, but if you want the government grant money, you’ll find ways to make even a non-relevant to government policy paper bow down to the desires of the government grant givers. So a paper about Mountain ranges being built by platetonics will work in how AGW might or could make that process worse in the nebulous future. A few words about how Climate change could make mountains more unstable, but more research is needed and Grant granted.

      • True.
        It reminds me of “innocent until proven guilty”. A sound basis for any justice system.
        But when politics enter in … we get the attempted perversion of justice we witnessed in the Kavanaugh hearings. An unfounded accusation was proof enough for some … because of their politics.
        In climate “science” the claim that Man’s CO2 is responsible for (usually future) changes in the weather, climate, extinctions, volcanoes, flooding, …. the list goes on, is politically/financially useful and therefore the “claims” have replaced the scientific method.

Comments are closed.