Reposted from the Fabius Maximus website.
By Larry Kummer, Editor / 13 December 2019
Summary: Yesterday I proposed that we try new ways to end the climate policy gridlock. Today I explore why we have not yet done so, and probably won’t do so. The reason why reveals something important about America.
“When I was sixteen, I went to work for a newspaper in Hong Kong. It was a rag, but the editor taught me one important lesson. The key to a great story is not who, or what, or when, but why.”
— Elliot Carver, in Tomorrow Never Dies(1997).
Climate science marching into the future.
ID 51961474 © Rangizzz | Dreamstime.
The public policy debate about climate change first caught my attention as an example of America’s ability to see the world, evaluate what we see, and collectively make decisions (our national OODA loop). An effective OODA loop is necessary for our prosperity amidst the hazards of the 21st century. Perhaps even for our survival. What I found is all bad news.
Yesterday’s post recommended that climate scientists try new ways to break the three-decade-long gridlock in the climate change policy debate – and gave a specific suggestion. Today’s post asks why we won’t do that and why the policy debate has run in circles for so long – as participants on both sides repeated tactics that consistently failed. It is an immense story of failure by key groups and institutions across America. This posts hits a few of the high spots.
(1) Phase one: tit for tat, not science
“A genuine expert can always foretell a thing that is 500 years away easier than he can a thing that’s only 500 seconds off.”
— From Mark Twain’s A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
There are some obvious but shallow answers. We have seen this situation many times in books and films since the publication of When Worlds Collide
“In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {U of East Anglia} said ‘We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’”
– From the testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report). Jones has not publicly denied it.
This happened repeatedly during the long debate since 1988. Questioners (and later critics) were rebuffed and insulted, a mind-blowingly counter-productive tactic that screamed “climate scientists have much to hide.” In reaction to this rose the legions of denialists. Not skeptics, but people denying the “greenhouse” effect and anthropogenic warming. The mainstream skeptic community contributed to the poisonous gridlock by embracing deniers (handling fringe elements is a challenge for all political movements).
(2) Phase two: playing politics while the world warms
Once the climate policy debate fragmented into two opposing teams, inevitably they become adopted by the major political parties.
The Left saw climate policy as a means to gain the power to restructure the US economy and society to their liking (e.g., journalist Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate
Much of the Right easily incorporated denialism into their worldview, along with creationism, denial of Keynesian economics, and belief in faux history about the Civil War and Thanksgiving.
The reaction of both sides is pitiful, but that of the Left is also weird. Thirty years of playing politics and nothing to show for it. I discussed yesterday’s post with a physicist, whose rebuttal to my recommendation for more science was No, we need more politics – vote for Bernie! That was the thinking of WWI’s generals. There was always one more “over the wire into battle” before victory. There was no need to work together with their foes to find solutions. Now we see them as madmen who brought disaster on Europe. Future generations might see us as crazy people for the same reason if the climate wars end badly – either from climate change or a repeat of past extreme weather (the policy gridlock prevents preparation for either).
That is not only bad tactics, but it is also bad politics – if you care about climate change (vs. just cynically using it as a cover story). Politics in a successful society (e.g., not Somalia) is the search for agreement. That means finding steps that can gain majority support. Climate change is unlike slavery, as it offers many opportunities for everybody to work together. There are two obvious ones. First, preparing for the repeat of past extreme weather (which resilience also helps for climate change). Second, testing the models (both sides are confident of the result, and so should be willing to support funding for the test).
But we live in ClownWorld, so climate debate resembles a food fight in a grade school cafeteria.
(3) Why not test the models?
Model validation is a well-established field, since computer models are used in thousands of critical applications. Climate scientists ignore most of this, instead giving us endless backtests – a weak form of validation due to tuning.
Some of the evidence given as validation would be funny, if we were discussing something other than the future of humanity. Perhaps the best-known attempt at model validation concerns the forecasts in “Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model” by Hansen et el. in the Journal of Geophysical Research, 20 August 1988. Its skill was evaluated in “Skill and uncertainty in climate models” by Julia C. Hargreaves in WIREs: Climate Change, July/Aug 2010 (ungated copy). She reported that “efforts to reproduce the original model runs have not yet been successful”, so she examined results for the scenario that in 1988 Hansen “described as the most realistic”. How realistic she doesn’t say (no comparison of the scenarios vs. actual forcings); nor can we know how the forecast would change using observed forcings as inputs. Sorry world, the dog ate my model.
Another equally weird example is “Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections” by Zeke Hausfather et al. in Geophysical Research Letters (in press). They use complex mathematics to avoid re-running the models, as Dr. Hausfather explained in a Tweet.
“Our implied TCR approach effectively accounts for mismatches between models and observations without the need to dig through punch cards and FORTRAN 77 code.”
With the fate of the world at stake, they did not want to bother “digging through” old records. But such shortcuts do not work, as Paul Krugman said in “What have we learned since 2008“ (2016).
“Some annoying propositions: Complex econometrics never convinces anyone. …Natural experiments rule. But so do surprising predictions that come true.”
Where have the skeptics been in this debate? Lots of mockery (imitating their opponents), bickering about the accuracy of the global temperature datasets (which are dilapidated, but not substantially), and complaining about the IPCC (deeply flawed, one of the best science institutions ever, and better than we deserve). The few skeptics (they often dislike that label) with meaningful challenges to the science (e.g., Roger Pielke Sr. and Jr., Judith Curry) get applause but little support.
The most common response to my proposal
“It won’t work because of XXX or YYY or ZZZ.”
This is the most common response to Every Single Reform Proposal on the FM website, from people on both Left and Right. This confident defeatism is the fun easy path to national disaster. We are a successful nation because the Americans before us tried and tried and tried again, defying the odds. Most of our problems are like climate change: building a consensus about how to use our fantastic national power to solve our problems. If we cannot relearn how to do this, we are finished.
Conclusions
In military theory, the key to victory is understanding the schwerpunkt – the key point at which the battle is decided. Breaking the climate policy gridlock requires identifying that point and focusing relentlessly on it. I believe that is model validation. Others will have different ideas. We need to try as many of them as possible as soon as possible. It is up to us to demand action.
If you have not yet read it, see part one:
After 30 years of failed climate politics, let’s try science!
For More Information
Ideas! For your holiday shopping, see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.”
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. For more information about this vital issue see the keys to understanding climate change, and especially these …
- Paul Krugman shows why the climate campaign failed.
- Fix the mistakes that killed the climate change campaign!
- Scientists show us why the climate change campaign failed – so far.
- A crisis of overconfidence in climate science.
- About the corruption of climate science.
- The noble corruption of climate science.
- A demo of why we do nothing about climate change.
- Climate science has died. The effects will be big.
Activists don’t want you to read these books
Some unexpected good news about polar bears: The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened
To learn more about the state of climate change see The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters & Climate Change
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Second, testing the models (both sides are confident of the result, and so should be willing to support funding for the test). But we live in ClownWorld, so climate debate resembles a food fight in a grade school cafeteria. (3) Why not test the models?
—
Does author Larry Kummer even realize that actual global climate-change occurs on the scale of a minimum of 250 years, and as much as 500 years of observations to unambiguously detect a global climate trend change? That’s presuming a change even occurs within that interval – which it may not. And if it does not it would take as much as 1,000 years to see an unambiguous global change of climate trend (warmer or cooler).
Does Larry Kummer also understand that a test can only be observational, after the fact?
Nothing else is an actual test of a model’s prediction. So testing is not even possible on the scale of actual global climate trend change. This is what makes them a fools-errand, they can’t be tested or improved on. All you can do is forever make more model (why there are so many), and these also will forever remain beyond actual science untestability.
Do not confuse calibrations to curve-fit with actual testing of observational results, Larry.
These untestable models even run hot even on the shortest possible multi-decadal time span, of weather cycle noise trends! But you still want to pretend these things can be “tested” on the scale of actual climate-change?
Does Larry realize the concept of climate-change emerged from geology? That in geology things are seen to occur rather slowly, compared to the span of a human life? That the smallest scale of unambiguous climate-change occurs on a scale of about 10 generations of consecutive human lives? Larry, this does not occur in the span of half of your life – if you were told it’s possible, you’ve been lied to.
If you don’t understand that much you’re of course going to buy into the idea that climate-models offer a quasi-scientific crystal-ball on trends. They can’t, they don’t and they never will because they are observationally untestable, and thus not amenable to empirical Science methods.
Weather models are scientific models because they can actually can be observationally tested and measured, everywhere and every day. But climate models can not be observationally tested in any useful or practical way. They are fundamentally different due to this and your testing proposal is completely out.
If you want to test climate models Larry first you need to invent a time-machine, but then you don’t need to test the models, because you will already know the future of the climate and can verify it without even reference to a model. So the ‘climate’ models will never be tested, no real Scientist would accept less than observational testing because there’s literally no other kind of confirming Scientific test possible.
If you can’t even accept that Scientific reality you’re already lost.
Much of the Right easily incorporated denialism into their worldview, along with creationism, denial of Keynesian economics, and belief in faux history about the Civil War and Thanksgiving.
The right, in America, is libertarian (i.e. natural reconciliation). The center is conservative (i.e. moderate). The left is progressive liberal (i.e. monotonically divergent). Then there is a left-right nexus of totalitarians and anarchists. The weird thing is the conflation of logical domains by what are purportedly “scientific” or “secular” people, the indulgence of diversity that judges and labels people by classes based on color, not character, and proliferation of supporting institutions, organizations, and businesses, in what can be presumed is an evolutionary tactic to avoid cancellation, occupation, etc.
The South was motivated by political, social, economic considerations, as well as slavery. The North was motivated by political, social, economic considerations, as well as slavery.
The “native Americans” or the diverse nations and tribes were not a monolithic entity either internally or otherwise. Their treatment, their native conflicts, their alliances, foreign and domestic, complicated relationships between indigenous nations, tribes, and later with native Americans.
The guilty ones preventing good policy about [political] climate change and faux… complex science and history… and contemporary wicked and marginal solutions.
Increasing CO2 has been a boon to mankind. Whatever warming over the past 150 years also a boon.
No one has given us the name and address of a “global warming” casualty.
Where I live the low temp today is 78F and the high will be 85F. People here are thriving and reproducing like rabbits. Food is abundant. Sea levels are about where they have been for 100 years.
Life is good here on Subic Bay, PI.
Get a live climatistas!
Time will tell if AGW actually is real or not. It is impossible to tell right now the true sensitivity of co2. Even if a person came up with the true sensitivity their methods would be debated forever from reliable sources on both sides. So even if that person were correct the truth would not make it to the public ( especially if the sensitivity was low ).
Doesn’t matter. Any harm from a realistic warming is not proven, and the costs of battling CO2 is prohibitive anyway.
More Fabius Maximus fantasy masquerading at red herring strawman.
Nice words. They mean squat! Those words are mouthed by an actor playing a fictional character using words dreamed up by script writers to meet their needs for a fictional story. Script writers who never wrote for newspapers or ignore what they learned, if they did.
The strict rules of writing for newspapers, in use for well over a hundred years, are the questions “Who” What? When? Where? Why? How?”.
It doesn’t matter how the reporters questioned their sources, the writing order is essential and critical to newspapers. With the least important answers to questions written last, allows an editor to easily trim a story from the bottom and to still get the most important questions answered and in print.
More fantasy based upon total fiction!
1) Samuel Clemens learned the hard way to not believe or buy into multiple terrific buys, inventions and predictions! That is because Samuel Clemens lost a great deal of money supporting baseless predictions and worthless inventions.
2) Samuel Clemens did state directly, not part of a fictional work;
3) Samuel Clemens described his writing “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”:
http://www.twainquotes.com/CYknight.gif
4) Samuel Clemens addresses statistics and lies:
Later the quote source was corrected as belonging to Leonard H. Courtney, not Disraeli.
The problem I see is that skeptics demand a scientific answer to a political/legal problem. Politics and law often can not wait for science to settle a scientific question. That being the case, politics and law will always chose to go with the most popular explanation of the scientific question, especially when there is no popular refuting explanation.
Look for things to be status quo until a popular theory refuting CO2 emerges.
Larry, you seem to be alarmed about something.
As Anthony has demonstrated, the temperature monitoring system (and resulting data) is not merely “dilapidated” but execrable and totally unfit to purpose. The satellite data has the potential to be fit for purpose, but the official record keepers keep adjusting it to match the surface station data, thereby begging the question of actual measurable warming.
Dr Michael Connolly and Dr Ronan Connolly analysed data from 20 million Radiosondes. They plotted molar density against pressure to discover equations of state for the troposphere & tropopause.
— Dr Michael Connolly. youtube | paper
As this relates to the denier insult, Michael and Ronan Connolly are scientists. The author of this baiting piece is not a scientist.
There are a very large number of ways in which the greenhouse gas effect can be modelled. None of these are settled science. Because none have ever been tested nor validated. When tests are done, they should certainly include tests proposed by red-team members and skeptics. Off the top of my head, I recall 3 ways to model the effect of radiative gases which show no significant temperature rise.
Larry,
What I find missing from all the discussions on climate change is any challenge to the idea that a warming planet is a BAD thing. I can not see how anyone wins the argument that we would better off if we were cooling…and any idea that we can achieve a steady state climate is just absurd.
John,
A vast – gigantic – body of research shows that rapid big warming has net ill effects. IMO, too much attention has been devoted to this. The relevant question is what are we likely to get, how fast?
In general, rapid changes in conditions are destabilizing for societies. That is, the rate of change is the key factor – not the specific kind of change. 50% inflation is lethal if occurring in a year, but trivial if over 50 years.
It’s not so much the climate, it’s the change.
Notice how they stress climate change?, and their slogans:
— Fight climate change.
— Stop climate change.
In a sense it does not matter to them what direction the change is so long as they can blame change on people and propose a way to stop change.
The problem as I see it is that nature controls the climate, not humans (humans have a small part to play mostly from land use changes), and the climate community has VERY poor understanding of nature, it’s history, and all the processes that affect the climate.
Just a little example, the sun’s activity as it cycles, causes Earth’s temperature to vary. This is obvious but the IPCC and the modelers assume that the sun’s activity is too low to be of any real consequence to the climate. This assumption by the IPCC et al. is built on the laughable idea that we measure and understand all the effects that solar activity has on the planet. The same can be said of variations in ocean currents, cloud cover, and a host of other parameters that are just approximated by the climate community.
” In reaction to this rose the legions of denialists. Not skeptics, but people denying the “greenhouse” effect and anthropogenic warming. The mainstream skeptic community contributed to the poisonous gridlock by embracing deniers ..”
Pulled this out of somewhere?
A dark warm recess?
Legions of Denailists?
Can you name one?
Who denies a Defined Greenhouse Gas Effect ?Or A specified amount of Anthropogenic Warming?
Just how much of the current recovery from the little ice age is down to the works of man?
Mocking an unspecified Doom is not denial.
Until the “Concerned Ones” start using the scientific method,they have nothing but belief .
I ain’t buying that religion.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by mankind increasing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is not even a thesis,pure speculation that is contradicted by the geological record.
How can one deny Climate Change?
Define this “Climate Change”
None of the Concerned ones will define what that term means to them.
Climate has changed.
So we need to reestablish the Laurentian Ice Sheet?
Cause “Climate Change is Bad”.
Finally the “Cause” is not winning.
President Trump is the most obvious example of failure.
No USA Money,no UN rip off.
No Climate Accord.
Saint Greta,the Magic Retard, is an act of desperation and insanity.
As well as being child abuse of the lowest kind.
This is your idea of winning?
The Cult of Calamitous Climate has peaked and is going down.
Tough for the bureaucracies who staked their futures on it.
And even tougher for the politicians who claimed the Cloak of Green for themselves.
Gang Green will be remembered, as similar to the Witch Burners.
What makes the IPCC “one of the best science institutions ever” ? Do they have real scientific luminaries, i.e. people whose work would be appreciated outside of climate science? I know Lindzen gets credit for explaining the quasi-biennial oscillation, which is impressive to me as a different kind of physicist, but he hasn’t been in the IPCC for many years. Who else at the IPCC has produced science of general interest?Let’s exclude global warming, since that is the topic whose importance is being debated.
“Breaking the climate policy gridlock requires identifying that point and focusing relentlessly on it. I believe that is model validation.”
Larry, I don’t think you know much about models or their validation. There is indeed a well established process for validation, which basically ensures that a program performs according to specs. IOW it does what it was designed to do. GCMs generally do that, else they crash. One merit of having so many independent efforts is that if they agree, you can be fairly sure that there isn’t a big problem of invalidity in that sense.
People here tend to want to test them in ways that amount to successfully forecasting weather. But they weren’t designed to do that, as anyone concerned will tell you. So there is no point in pinning validity on something they aren’t designed to do. If you think they should be designed to do that, that is a separate argument.
So if they are correctly implementing the physics that is specified, the question is whether that physics is appropriate or not. That is not a computer code validation issue. The best test is the kind that Zeke and Hansen have done – where there is enough record to test a climate projection, having regard to scenario provisions, how did they do?
Models are validated, against what criteria/measure?
Nick,
I’ve been a s/w developer for over 35 years, and your statement “…validation, which basically ensures that a program performs according to specs. IOW it does what it was designed to do,” is only half of the answer. An engineer could hand you specs that say steel melts at 105°C and concrete has the hardness of diamond, and you could duly write code that applies those principles. Would you consider that the code was validated just because it parroted back those answers? Your building, or bridge, or whatever collapses, but the fact that the code “did what it was designed to do” means everything’s cool?
A computer model of some process that is not completely understood is not a “model”; it’s a guess.
James,
“An engineer could hand you specs that say steel melts at 105°C and concrete has the hardness of diamond”
In a normal engineering model, these properties will be supplied by the user. What is the melting point of steel? The hardness of concrete? You shouldn’t be hard coding these things in to a program.
Whether the user supplies the correct data for their application isn’t a computer model validation issue.
“Nick Stokes December 15, 2019 at 12:18 am
You shouldn’t be hard coding these things in to a program.”
Unless they are climate models, right?
Again, you know nothing about climate models. Like all other such models, they will have a database of physical constants which the user can vary depending on the application. They are not hard coded.
I know and understand about validation in computer coding and physical engineering (To +/- 2 microns AND the programming of CNC machines), and how to validate results. Please explain how coding in computer models is different?
“Nick Stokes December 15, 2019 at 1:02 am
Again, you know nothing about climate models. Like all other such models, they will have a database of physical constants which the user can vary depending on the application. They are not hard coded.”
I know coding! Constants that vary are called variables! I am glad you do not model aircraft as they would have fallen from the sky before they got off the ground.
“Nick Stokes December 15, 2019 at 1:02 am
Again, you know nothing about climate models. Like all other such models, they will have a database of physical constants which the user can vary depending on the application. They are not hard coded.”
A “user” of climate models is usually a Govn’t, used to set a policy. So, the “user” can change any PHYSICAL constant, in a database (What database, who knows?), depending on the “application” when using computer models. In effect, the output of the model is what is desired by the “user” and “application” by changing “physical constants”.
In other words making sh!t up! Thanks for confirming that.
Nick,
“There is indeed a well established process for validation, which basically ensures that a program performs according to specs.”
I am astonished at the consistency with which you provide misinformation in these comments.
Model validation is the process by which model outputs are systematically compared to independent real-world observations to judge the quantitative and qualitative correspondence with reality.
As said in one of the early big works about this: “For this reason, what we actually seek to establish is a high degree of face validity. Face validity means that, from all outward indications, the model appears to be an accurate representation of the {real world} system. From this standpoint, validating a model is the process of substantiating that the model, within its domain of applicability, is sufficiently accurate for the intended application.” (Schlesinger, 1979)
For more about this very basic question, Wikipedia provides a wealth of links to authoritative sources.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_model_validation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_and_validation_of_computer_simulation_models
Also see this, which would be a good starting point for climate science’s validation of its models – rather than the ad hoc methods they now use.
3X theoretical CO2 warming through water vapor and cloud interactions is not physics, Nick – its speculation. With the absence of the model-specified tropical tropospheric hot spot, the whole game falls apart.
You heard it here first folks. Computer model coding uses constants that vary, as required by the user and application in that coding. Ok, apply your variable constant in your computer climate models for gravity given gravity affects the weight of the atmosphere and pressure! D’uh!
I think he meant physical input parameter weighting (fudge).
Even so, Nick appears to thinks observational climate change trend testing of such models can be performed on a human timescale rather than on a geological time scale of sediment deposition layering, which makes a mockery of a duration as short as the era of coal use for electrical power generation.
They’re not testable Nick. However, they largely don’t even track the weather cycle noise in periods less than 30 years – which is not the scale of actual climate trend changes, sorry if you were told it is but the planet strongly disagrees, and in such situations it’s the planet that’s always right.
He didn’t say that. He is wrong, or ambiguous, on almost every count in my experience in coding. Maybe in my industry, lives actually matter. Computer simulations are just that, rubbish! Testimony to that is the tail plane on the A380, worked well in a computer model, failed in reality. So too the Boeing 777X, failed in reality.
Having said that, these days, all of my computer coding development happens in virtual machines. I do not let my code “out in to the wild” without through verification and testing. QA. Computer model coding seems not to require any of that.
My experience in computers and coding extends to keeping people alive with medical devices. I don’t see any models, and variable constants, in that coding work. Does not pass the sniff test IMO!
Voodoo science.
The sooner we eliminate the deniers and their God, eliminate those that disagree with Keynes’ math for economic purposes, adapt a worldview of Hansen that the world cannot sustain current populations, well then we can garner the power of the nations on this thing.
I think your missing a key observation here. That being AGW is a religion. It is not a scientific discipline following the scientific method. It is clearly obvious that it doesn’t follow scientific rigor.
AGW is not like a religion that many became familiar with in the course of our modern times if you grew up in a free country. It not like an obscure cult. It is a religion melded with the state as in a feudal society. It has its own ministers in the courts of the governments and kings. It is universal. It is orthodox. It has it own doctrines and dogmas that those ministers use as guidelines to advice the nobles. The policies of the state and the religion are married. It has its own cathedrals in the form of university ivory towers. The institutions and the professional clergy of AGW are supported by the public teat. Heretics are punished via excommunication -at least so far. It has its courts of inquisition. The choice to not believe is not an option to the professional clergy of AGW, nor to those that consider themselves the nobles. Enforcement is sought in the form of “climate action.” It has its own scriptures in the form of the models and academic papers. Those scriptures are not open to interpretation, but the clergy of AGW must tell the ordinary folk what they really mean. Papers and models and hypothesis outside the institutions of the AGW clergy (consensus) and gate keepers are considered apocryphal at best.
That is why it has not made progress in the USA like it has elsewhere. The USA threw off such shackles with the American Revolution.
KT66.
That is the best explanation of the Doom by Catastrophic Climate meme,I have read so far.
Thank you.
Anthony,that may be a posting in its own right.
For the nebulous nature of this Climate Argument is its number one advantage,neither fish nor fowl it is hard to argue a subject that is not science nor completely political,however as defined by KT66 a truer shape emerges.
It is not a religion. It is a political movement written in the language of pseudoscience. The shock troops and hard core are activists. IPCC pseudoscientists are careerists and mercenaries. Take away their funding and the pseudoscientists will go elsewhere. Their only motivation is money. They do not believe in this so-called religion.
No. Because the whole IPPC process is a bad joke. Stressing the importance of good science is the least one should do. Yet because standards sunk so low they can simply move elsewhere and ignore everything one says about models, failed projections, data manipulation. The only route which might work is the red/blue team process proposed by William Happer. Followed by withdrawal of all funding for climate pseudoscience.
It began as a political problem. Scientists have shown themselves incapable and unwilling to tackle it. It is best solved by politics. US withdrawal from the IPCC after a red/blue team reevaluation is a good start.
The IPCC once said, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”
Oops. Can’t tell the truth! Hide the decline! Were they lying then, or are they lying now?
Good talk, worth watching: Peter Ridd on peer review and the replication crisis, and when it matters.
I believe in common sense and what I’ve seen with my own eyes for 49 years …climate alarmists are the most stupid walk of life on earth ..
“if the climate wars end badly – either from climate change or a repeat of past extreme weather ” This one sentence proves what a fool you are Mr. Kummer.