54 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. I just watched an excellent documentary on the subject. It is in DVD format called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, a documentary by Martin Durkin produced by WAGtv. It was a new purchase by our library and is excellent. It is a must watch.

  2. And Al Gore says ‘the science is settled’, eh ??
    [… that man-made greenhouse warming as portrayed by the agenda driven alarmists, the mainstream media and the IPCC is a fraud.]
    IMO, the evidence is piling up for a successful fraud suit against Albert Arnold Gore Jr.
    IMO, a successful fraud suit will have to prove that money was obtained (carbon credits) from others in a fraudulent fashion (fear-mongering), all the while knowing (it has been in the public domain for years including sda archives) that the subject (science) was/is fraudulent.
    Gore has a wad of cash to fight a suit, but if the 31,000 scientists, who have now signed and renewed their petition, each threw in $10,000, ($320 million) it may exceed Gore’s take.
    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=522276&p=1
    http://petitionproject.org./

  3. I would love–love–to see Kate try to explain what she thinks she has here. Not some cheeky and deflective one-liner, as is her usual MO, but a technically accurate and scientifically informed description of the data within the context of the broader body of climate literature.
    Such a flailing display might even warrant a hit to the old tip jar.

  4. QE, I think the link explains it pretty well. Don’t you agree?
    I especially like the concluding paragraph…..
    “I believe that if we had satellite monitoring for the last 120 years, we would see the recent warming though real, fell short of that in the 1930s and that the changes are cyclical and thus primarily natural in origin. That is not to say that cities have not grown warmer as they have grown and some warming through the population growth from 1.5 to 6.5 billion since 1900 has taken place nor that we shouldn’t be better stewards of our environment, only that man-made greenhouse warming as portrayed by the agenda driven alarmists, the mainstream media and the IPCC is a fraud.”
    Really, is that not good enough for ya?

  5. If Global Warming has been running rampant as we have all been told and that we are not doing enough to make a difference, why are temperatures not being recorded as increases every time statistical data is compared?
    If we have been trending higher for the last one hundred years should there still be anomalies occurring?

  6. Tomorrow’s CBC Headline: April 2008 3rd-Warmest on Record
    sub-heading: Al Gore Moving to New York “Where It’s Really Happening”
    sub-sub-heading: Just 17 Months, 3 Weeks, 6 Days Until It’s Too Late To Prevent Global Warming Catastrophe: Prince Charles
    sub-sub-sub-heading: Suzuki reiterates call to round-up global warming deniers

  7. “Really, is that not good enough for ya?”
    No, it’s not “good enough” for me. If the fact of, say, March’s global land temp being the highest on record is not in itself sufficient proof that man-made global warming is real (and I don’t believe it is), then neither is the fact of April’s US land temp being below average in itself proof that the AGW thesis is a “fraud.”
    The thing about being a climate change “skeptic” is that, by definition, you still have to be at least open to both possibilities. If you’ve already decided, on the basis of incomplete evidence, that AGW is definitely a fraud, then you’re no better than the “alarmists” on the other side of the aisle. You’re as ideologically motivated and agenda-driven as those whom you so love to mock — the only thing that differs is your particular ideology and agenda.

  8. The burden of proof is on those who make grandiose claims about our climate. The “warmers” (mostly liberals it seems) say that we have to make draconian changes in our economies to stave off catastrophic warming. “Deniers” like me say that we should do all we can to get conventional energy sources and keep our economic system going, since it has worked so well for us. It is only our economic success that allows any of us to listen to these doom and gloomers, anyway.

  9. QE; well no, not really. Kate’s not selling anything (based on bad science). She IS however providing a forum for others to discuss the aforementioned bad science…more than can be said for Suzuki et al.

  10. QE:
    “..March’s global land temp being the highest on record is not in itself sufficient proof..”
    You’re missing the point of this QE. April is just another bit of the accumulating evidence, which shows no global warming since the start of 2002. Clearly something different is going on in this century, than the end of the last. April may be just a symptom of the current waning La Nina, but look at the graph presented. It’s not just April is it?
    The “not-warming” trend is creeping closer and closer to statistical significance. Perhaps it would make you feel better if you looked at the graph Kate presented in the mirror.
    Regards, BRK

  11. What Daninvan said:agreed!
    The onus is not on Kate. The pressure and questions should be on Gore and Suzuki who stir up a frenzy and lay on the guilt and fear and step back and enjoy the show and the bucks. Every politician who claim climate as a major election or policy point should also be required to explain to voters/taxpayers why they think we any government time or taxes should be spent on ‘climate issues’.
    And the media should stick with facts.
    But thanks for the discussion QE…this is just a blog.
    BTW…I wore my winter coat for a walk today…
    I know..it’s just weather…how could that possibly be connected to climate.

  12. My mind is “closed” to the extant that I think AGW is a fraud with little hard science to back it up.
    I tend to support all of the various solar factors being the main driver of our climate.
    I also support the Roger Pielke Sr. view, that if you want to look at human influence, start someplace basic – like land use.

  13. Further to Bluetech’s comment, the Taxpayer is already deeply committed to research through funding of Universities, Government grants, and subsidies to assorted scientific research initiatives. Should we be spending more? Do we get to discuss HOW it’s being spent? Who is determining where the money’s being allocated? These are all vitally important topics that really need closer scrutiny.
    I’d hold up Fisheries as a shining example of bad science…

  14. QE: basics of the scientific method — AGW proponents are assigning causality therefore the burden of proof is upon them. To reiterate previous posts on this matter (for all the good it will do) please present your AGW lunacy as a testable scientific hypothesis i.e. “Unchecked human CO2 production will produce a rise in the atmospheric level of CO2 to _____ causing a rise in the “mean global temperature” (an absolutely fatuous concept but you guys seem to love it) as measured at the following stations _______ to _______degrees Celsius above the current “mean global temperature” within ______ years (hopefully sometime between now and when your vacuous drivel destroys our will to live)”. Just fill in the blanks. I can’t make it any easier. Please, for God’s sake don’t apply to my program; we have to chop enough qualified candidates and I don’t need any more paperwork.

  15. “The onus is not on Kate. The pressure and questions should be on Gore and Suzuki who stir up a frenzy and lay on the guilt and fear and step back and enjoy the show and the bucks.”
    By Kate’s own admission, a fair number of her readers have supported this website, and thus her livelihood, through tip jar donations. So, she indeed has a financial stake in giving her readers what they want. Obviously, the number of zeros involved are incomparable, but I imagine not dissimilar relative to their respective incomes. But I digress.
    You (and others) complain that Gore, Suzuki, etc. start from a preconceived position on the issue and then present only one side of the evidence to support their agendas. I happen to agree with you on this particular point, though unlike you, I don’t particularly hold it against them. Being self-professed activists, what else would you expect from them?
    What I find odd, however, is this: How does Gore/Suzuki/et al.’s approach fundamentally differ from Kate’s approach?
    To be sure, the scale and influence of the enterprises are hugely divergent, but all are private citizens, and all have a personal financial stake in their efforts. So if the former are to be criticized for unfailingly presenting only one side of the issue and claiming it as ‘truth,’ why not the latter? If the former’s tactics are detestable to you, why aren’t the latter’s, which are identical in practise if more humble in ambition?
    Perhaps it has something to do with shared politics and ideologies?
    Be honest: to what extent have you gravitated towards your current “skeptical” position on climate change (i) following a personally conducted, objective, and technically informed assessment of the science, vs. (ii) because you simply agree with Kate’s general ideological stance and therefore accept uncritically whatever “evidence” she puts before you?

  16. “Be honest: to what extent have you gravitated towards your current “skeptical” position on climate change”
    Honestly its simple the people that champion the farce are as usual the biggest hypocrites on the planet, in other words – phony, power hungry elites, that pretend to take the first step, and have the audacity to send their propaganda into schools to scare more than educate, but then thats how you push – utter crap.
    By the way this year the leaves on the magnolias froze not just the flowers I haven’t seen that in my lifetime, that I can remember.

  17. Still having trouble with the concept, QE?
    Have you seen “An inconvenient Truth”?
    Who ‘produced’ that?
    Have you seen anything that Kate has ‘produced’ as an individual to make a ‘climate’ arguement?
    BTW another blog has a link to an arguement from ‘a few more’ scientists (30,000) who disagree with Gore.
    But you seem to have an agenda that doesn’t have anything to do with climate, so if you aren’t interested in the climate or politically motivated schemes don’t bother checking out Joel at proudtobecandian.com….
    cuz he’s just a blogger.

  19. QE, it would help if you mastered the language first. It’s not “climate change” that people have a problem with. Change is what climate does. It’s the CO2 theory of global warming. And note the word “theory” because that is all it is.
    Now look at the central pillars of this theory:
    1) the most significant warming to occur in the troposphere, where CO2 density is greatest;
    2) warming of the oceans
    The latest satellite data shows the first has not occurred, despite IPCC predictions that it would, and the most comprehensive data gathering project in the oceans — Argo — shows the oceans have actually cooled slightly.
    The second point has been particularly bothersome to the CO2 theorists because they had been attributing the planet’s last decade of cooling to an absorption of heat by the oceans. So the theory to patch up a theory needs patching too.
    Not exactly inspiring us with confidence now, are they? Let’s throw in to the mix the more than 80% non-compliance rate of US weather stations (and they are the world’s best!), a multi-decade cooling in the southern hemisphere and the highly suspect method of predicting something as complex as climate with computer models that run on a small selection of available data and a very large selection of assumptions about the unavailable data.
    So, speaking for myself only, I think skepticism is a pretty secure position at this point of the debate over global warming.

  20. QE:
    There’s no denying scientific facts.
    Is there?
    Science itself is the enemy of the AGW theory.
    One cannot declare any scientific theory to be ‘settled.’

  21. “So, speaking for myself only, I think skepticism is a pretty secure position at this point of the debate over global warming.”
    I agree with you. I think a healthy dose of skepticism is required when interpreting any body of evidence.
    But my point is this: one should be skeptical of both the evidence that purports to support the AGW thesis and the evidence that purports to debunk it. THAT would be the hallmark of the true rational skeptic. Kate’s very good at encouraging skepticism over the former, but where is she (or you) in terms of encouraging skepticism over the latter?
    Her blog, her prerogative. But make no mistake: she’s as partisan, agenda-driven, and anti-science as Gore et al.

  22. QE:
    Remaining willfully ignorant is not ‘open minded skepticism’.
    Your March land temps are worthless, check the source data, begin at CA.

  24. I would love–love–to see Kate try to explain what she thinks she has here. Not some cheeky and deflective one-liner, as is her usual MO, but a technically accurate and scientifically informed description of the data within the context of the broader body of climate literature.

    Such a flailing display might even warrant a hit to the old tip jar.
    Posted by: QE at May 19, 2008 2:14 PM
    Firstly, you appear to be in the Gore vortex hook, line and sinker. That’s fine … enjoy your fear and anxiety.
    The point is that the climate if forever changing. The planet is not a room it is a planet at the mercy of the sun and other influences that are to some extent beyond our understanding. To be arrogant enough to state the “science is settled” is testament to the lunacy of the global warmers and their shrinking hoards.
    What most of us consider to be the fraud is simply that fact that the zealots claim that climate change is man made. How stupid is that?
    We do pollute in our daily fare in the industrial way of life we now lead, but to assign the workings of the sun and other cosmic phenomena to our cars and tissue uses is stupid beyond belief. It can only be a fraud to use this as a grand excuse to raise taxes, cost of living and the grand daddy of them all buy carbon (anti-guilt) credits.
    The whole scam is directed and hobbling the West and destroying freedoms. You would do better to direct your fear and loathing at China and India. Compared to what they are up to, our pollution habits will look like nothing more than spitting on the sidewalk.
    Take your scorn elsewhere you are not smart enough to comment on this site.

  25. Chip:
    “…So, speaking for myself only, I think skepticism is a pretty secure position at this point of the debate over global warming…”
    I will add my voice to the “secure position” position.
    It is true that the data “going the wrong way” right now might not be statistically significant yet. But they certainly are going the wrong way.
    Regards, BRK

  26. QE
    Most of us who visit Kate’s site are well read on climate change, we do not come here too feed as it were. Some of the eloquent regulars voice their ideas not be take at face value, but to be pondered, debated and researched. The forum is in it’s nature an educational tool, not a dogmatic tome, not as let’s say, Real Climate. Besides, Kate is a very interesting lady, people who love dogs and wrench rare bikes are golden. Fill in the chip on your shoulder, times are a wasting.

  27. I believe that QE has a point, though I think that he/she is ascribing the generally prevailing viewpoint of SDA-ers to Kate. Kate has been giving voice to the deniers without actually commenting directly herself (at least not significantly); her readers tend to express themselves on her behalf (as I am doing now…sorry).
    QE, the prevailing opinion in the MSM is that climate change is “settled”; that it is a fact that the climate is warming. Kate is giving voice to the deniers who are saying that it is NOT settled…though they are NOT NECESSARILY saying that the climate is NOT changing, but that we are much too far from knowing for certain.
    I think you are reading too much in to the issue here. I do not believe that Kate feels that she is qualified to state one way or the other whether AGW is real…but she CAN state confidently that the science is not settled, because it obviously isn’t.

  28. Perhaps QE could explain why CO2 levels during the last ice age were over Ten Times what they are today- yet it was Cold!

  29. Even if one knows nothing about global warming – the fact that the Warmongers will not debate is reason enough to be sckeptical. Ya think ?

  30. And look what it’s doing to my veggies! Nothing taking hold. The soil still isn’t wqarm enough I guess. The St. Lawrence was only 50F today.

  31. QE I do not normally flatter trolls with a response, but for you, the important measure is Sea temperatures, not land temperatures. Secondly, the tropospheric temps.
    For anyone who lives near a body of water, it is obvious that water temps moderate land temps, indeed more or less control them. This is due to something called specific heat, or did you not do grade 6?
    So, sea temperatures are dropping; tropospheric temperatures are dropping; the anxiety of the Global Warmers is heating up.
    What really disturbs me is that this scam is being propagated by those who do actually know better but are raking in the spondulics. It is their faithful who are going to be seeking blood when the deception is undeniable.

  32. Eeyore , “the deniers”. You disqualify yourself from serious discussion, Suzuki lover.

  33. These words, “The phrase sounds shrill to many”, betray Gore, aka the Warmite Fraudster. They are a tacit admission of his guilt.
    …-
    “Gore wins $1 million prize from Israeli group”
    “In his address, Gore said, “We do face a planetary emergency. The phrase sounds shrill to many, but it is unfortunately quite accurate.””
    http://tinyurl.com/444s5r (breitbart)

  34. John V at 6.22.
    I think your fear of India is misplaced; they have a society that accepts the rule of law, British common law, is democratic and finally in favour of free enterprise. India is part of the Anglosphere. Unlike India, China has unfettered crony capitalism, and many Chinese companies are really branches of the state, that top CP members profit from.

  35. Is Queen Elizabeth a paid up Greenpeacer or something, who’s job is to oppose the “deniers”?Rather like that stupid, but evil, woman who brow-beat the BBC journo to change his “news” to conform to the global warming religious doctrine.

  36. Vitruvius nails it.
    “Kate is anti-science? Oy! Next contestant please.”

  37. “By Kate’s own admission, a fair number of her readers have supported this website, and thus her livelihood, through tip jar donations. So, she indeed has a financial stake in giving her readers what they want.”
    You’re on crack.

  38. “QE I do not normally flatter trolls with a response, but for you, the important measure is Sea temperatures, not land temperatures.”
    Thanks, RW, for helping to prove my point.
    Note that this particular blog entry concerns NOAA data pointing out that the past month was the “29th coldest April” on record in the US — based on land temp recordings. Everyone eagerly jumped on this finding as further evidence that the AGW ‘alarmists’ are wrong.
    The same NOAA release that reports this — found here: noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080515_april.html — also reports that “the global average ocean surface temperature [which you point out is more important than land temp] in April was the ninth warmest on record.”
    This fact of course ‘proves’ nothing, though it does completely undermine the intention of this particular ‘Sound of Settled Science’ entry. See what I mean now about the need to also remain skeptical about spoon-fed ‘evidence’ that purports to debunk the AGW thesis?

  39. “You’re on crack.”
    Cheeky and deflective one-liner – 1
    Scientifically informed comment – 0

  40. Your comment accused me of being financially motivated in my choice of blog content.
    You’re not going to crawl away from that with a “cheeky and deflective” reponse.

  41. RQ,
    I was referring to the rabid growth in their countries. I am aware of what India is in relationshiopt to China and the West. My point is that they will pollute as they grow and even though much of their growth is in technology service, they will all be buing cars and building bigger air condition homes etc. It’s the numbers of them.
    I China’s case they are the other huge number and along with the cars and homes they are already the worlds biggest polluter and they are only getting warmed up.
    As the West shuts down it’s economy under the scrutiny of the America haters all over the world the developing world will have a free ticket to ride the wave to a point never imagined by us.
    This entire debate around global warming and what is actually happening on the ground is nothing short of insane.

  42. QE: FYI Science by definition is the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic OBSERVATION and experiment. Therefore when it is observerved by people that the global temperature is decreasing NOT increasing that is scientific. Asking the question “Does man generated CO2 increase global temperature” (AGW theory rephrased for the non-scientist) is not science in itself. Just as denying the hard evidence in favour of a pet theory is not science. Ask the question look for the evidence reach your conclusion. The question has been asked and all the irrefutable evidence says “NO”. There is evidence that is refutable coming from ground based weather stations. Strangely enough there seems to be a correlation between the repositioning and or degradation of the land based instrument placement that coincides with the rapid increase in land based temperature averages up until 1998.
    Besides being a troll you sound like a practioner of the “soft sciences” were it is normal to hold a theory long after the theory has been dicredited simply because it is normal for there to be several theories floating around that might make a bit of a mess of things for a bit but do no real harm. However soft science doesn’t work when you are building a bridge. The theory that you can leave all the rebar out of the concrete if put into common practice would have very real and dire consequences.
    AGW as a theory deserves to be treated as hard science. Let’s make sure of the facts before we starve millions of people to death because we think it better to burn food in our cars than feed the worlds poorest people. Let’s make sure that CO2 is actually causing increases in mean temperature before we shut down entire ways of life for millions of Ontarians. Funnily enough there is no irrefutable evidence that ACW is actually taking place. On the other hand there is quite a bit of irrefutable evidence that AGW is not happening.

  43. [quote]AGW as a theory deserves to be treated as hard science. Let’s make sure of the facts before we starve millions of people to death because we think it better to burn food in our cars than feed the worlds poorest people. Let’s make sure that CO2 is actually causing increases in mean temperature before we shut down entire ways of life for millions of Ontarians. Funnily enough there is no irrefutable evidence that ACW is actually taking place. On the other hand there is quite a bit of irrefutable evidence that AGW is not happening. [/quote]
    Joe,
    Well said! The Liberals/NDP are throwing the Union Memberships under the BUS (Auto Industry) because the Elite part of those Groups “think” they will get Green Jobs… The question for Canada is how many other manufacturing jobs are also in a fringe area that depends on an American Contract.
    In the USA most major Companies have pension problems coming due… 401K’s are I.O.U. shares. They will convert Carbon Credits into their plans pulling out available Cash. (like buying an annuity for pennies on the dollar) They can blame the UN for the collapse of trading.
    The biggest loser will be Science… but most ppl are predicting that 65% of the unemployed, in 10 years, will be those with advanced degrees. Why do we need science?
    We can have Paris Hilton Host an “American Science” program that will pick a theory
    every 3 months with a billion dollar (tax payers money) winner, Emmy & Noble prize included.

  44. To RW at 8:11pm on May 19th:
    To borrow someone else’s line, “you must be a young person”. What a juvenile conclusion that I must be a warmer since I used the term “denier”! A casual reading of my past comments will confirm that you made a stupid allegation.

  45. The thing about being a climate change “skeptic” is that, by definition, you still have to be at least open to both possibilities. If you’ve already decided, on the basis of incomplete evidence, that AGW is definitely a fraud, then you’re no better than the “alarmists” on the other side of the aisle. You’re as ideologically motivated and agenda-driven as those whom you so love to mock — the only thing that differs is your particular ideology and agenda.
    Posted by: QE at May 19, 2008 3:04 PM
    A voice of reason and logic. Are you sure you are in the right place?
    You proved your point effectively, aided and abetted by the you are on crack commentary. Curious how when someone presents a challenging point of view that necessitates the label of Troll from the “enlightened”.
    Quote, “The latest satellite data indicates that the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass, though the much bigger East Antarctic sheet may be gaining mass.
    A full melting of Greenland and West Antarctica would raise sea levels by many metres; but the process, if it happened, would take centuries. ”
    Why not discuss items that people can have input into and accurately assess like carbon taxes or cap and dividend?
    http://www.capanddividend.org/
    Constant posting on a subject that regurgitates the same bias certainly supports QE’s hypothesis that it’s cheap tabloid tactics.
    Additionally, many of you need to learn to read gooder. You accuse this person of being the enemy when their stated position is that they lean toward being a skeptic. As example; Posted by: QE at May 19, 2008 5:51 PM
    Hugger

  47. re: NOAA and predicting the future; Having lived on the gulf coast for six years I can honestly say that when it comes to predicting natural phenomina (i.e. hurricanes) everything is just a crap shoot. Although NOAA has probably collected more information than any other scientific body, a lot of their predictions are way off. Weather prediction, and all that goes with it, is still a black art.

  48. Greg/Hugger ,I’d be interested in your thoughts on the 31,000 scientists that think GW is horseshit..

  49. “Constant posting on a subject that regurgitates the same bias certainly supports QE’s hypothesis that it’s cheap tabloid tactics.”
    Kate repeatedly blogs on the “settled science” that has yet to reveal itself.
    QE and Greg, typical of Climotards, demand that we leave off the dispute over ‘what the facts are’, let alone their interpretation, and proceed to ‘solutions’, damn the cost.
    You are vapid poseurs.

  50. To AL GORE and the greens. liar liar pants on fire hanging from a telephone wire

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation