The Sound Of Settled Science

So, when does Al Gore show up to debate?

When do the fraud charges start getting laid against the likes of Maurice Strong, Al Gore, James Hansen, David Suzuki, et all?

actually the idea of laying fraud charges against Dr. Megele Suzuki is a good one.

a couple of charges and he would be howling like a dog tied to a hayrack and backtracking faster than an arab in gaza.

Here's an abstract from the paper "Does a Global Temperature Exist" (Essex and Andresen, 2006):

Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. ... Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both "warming" and "cooling" simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.

The paper is here:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf

I am a global warming skeptic, not a denier. I think most of the research done on global warming is competent and professional, and it may well be that the earth is warming due to human activity.

The skepticism comes in with people who claim that the matter is settled. One thing I am dead certain of is that the climate is a stupendously complex affair about which one must be very careful about making sweeping predictions and conclusions. Most AGW "supporters" do not properly echo these uncertainties - and neither do many deniers.

The above paper is a reason this has happened. If you are not careful, climatic data can serve as a Rorschach test, where you only see a reflection of your own mindset.

I wonder how much coverage this year's event will get from the AGW cult owned MSM.

rabbit, you sound far too reasonable!

The earth (at least at my particular latitude) goes through four defined seasons each year.

I don't see why the earth shouldn't also go through different macro-cycles as well.

So, I'm a global climate change acceptor, and I think that's more or less a no-brainer, our planet does not stay the same, it's always changing.

BUT - what I don't know is how much is anthropogenic.

If there is an increase or decrease in that anthropogenic component, what difference would it make to our current macrocycle, in terms of rate of change, and magnitude of change?

Larsen:

That the earth's climate is always changing is a given. How much of it cyclical is a difficult question.

My main point was that no knows for sure how much of the climate change is anthrogop - anthropecig - what you said. And that it is dishonest to assert otherwise. AND that climate is so complicated that it lends itself to anyone making a case for either side if they are just selective about the data they present and biased about how they interpret it.

Those 3.5 little words we have so much difficult saying... "We don't know."

rabbit - sorry for my poorly worded post - I was just trying to say I agree with you!

rabbit: how often do those three point five words land fifteen million dollar grants?

It's a scam.

rabbit hinted at a good point. By acting peremptorily, the AGW promoters managed to tick off a lot of people who would otherwise have given them the benefit of the doubt. To put it more plainly, they acted as if they had pulled something. We're too used to scientists being cautious and tentative to not have noticed something odd.

I have this vision of the ringleaders congratulating themselves on their 'strategic' cleverness as I write this. In hindsight, treating the lab as if it were a debating club really backfired on them.

It seems unlikely that AGW will go down as a scam in scientific circles, unless there has been real Piltdown-Man-style data faking. More likely, it'll go down as the modern age's answer to the phlogiston theory.

I live on Vancouver Island. It's still snowing here and it's almost the middle of March.

That's not global warming.

Please follow this conference, Kate. We all know the MSM will diligently ignore it, despte the presence of esteemed scientists, because it does not fit their global warming alarmist agenda.

I doubt many people doubt that AGW is a scam but too many people are using it to advance their social engineering designs. Gore, Suzuki etc are I believe unwitting front men getting rich advancing the cause of the UN's desire for one world governance.

When I read, as a former system analyst, that the IPCC didn't understand the impact and therefore did not include the sun or water vapour in their climate models and even their models could not duplicate the actual live data of past years I rejected this whole AGW as junk science.

When you have people like Al Gore, Hansen, Suzuki saying the science is settled and Prince Charles saying the world will end in 4 years it just compounds that this is a scam, that they have made a fortune on, and pure garbage. When the media headlines Arctic ice loss of 1.5 million sq kms then on page 26 a few days later notes that the sensing instruments somehow moved you lost me.

A couple of days ago it was 18 in Toronto, today it is snowing. Weather and climate is always changing.

I agree that science has taken a major hit over this and has lost a lot of trust in its methods and conclusions. When this junk science is used by politicians to tax us for their stupid carbon credits we should damned furious but as we have seen with adscam and our current economic disaster they simply move on to the next best thing.

Was Chuck Norris not available?