The Sound Of Settled Science

Because computer models are always correct.

Maybe these AGW climate scientists could have second careers making models of how well Obama's economic policies are working out.

The essential part of all "successful" scams - hard to disprove, at least initially.

RIP AGW fear.

glaciation is flooding too.. this is still the dawning of the age of Aquarius!

WE'RE DOOMED BY GLOBAL COOLING! :-O

(couldn't help myself, new age nuts are easy to mock)

Hmmm ... well, thirty years ago sealevel rise was predicted real soon now. It is still being predicted, "real soon now".

An important issue IMHO is the lack of resolution in the predictions. What does a rise in global mean temperature matter
if in fact one part of the globe is blazing hot and elsewhee it is freezing cold?

I recently attended a seminar on mesoscale forecasts in which it was stated that current skill was about 16%,
i.e. the best predictions e.g. of the weather next winter were about 16% better than educated random, random including some general information.

At the end of the day, the only question about climate that matters to all the warmists (oops, sorry John Holdren: "Global Climate Disruptionists") is simply this:

How can we make a buck off it?

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

"The essential part of all "successful" scams - hard to disprove, at least initially."
Hind-casting there doomsday predictions CAGW science was never able to reproduce past climate. Extending there linear projection back to 1911 it should have been 1.2 C colder than it actually was.
Searching the internet for "dirty thirties" one will find countless Wiki and other articles that insist the events of the time haven't been the result of the very hot climate but that farming practices are to blame, clearly some people are rewriting history as a hot or hotter 1930th just doesn't fit the CAGW picture climate science wants to portray and get funding for.

it's hard for lefties to fathom that a "PeeHateChDee" (PHD) can so utterly screw things up, but they have, and even their own supporters condem their use of math (statistical based models)

I have been fighting global warming as hard as anybody; and I want, nay, demand a waiver, a 39.6% tax deduction, and for Shirley Sherrod to quit driving around Georgia harassing the farmers!

Well, the HadCrut and IPCC low are rather similar; and even the UAH shows a rise in temperatures.

But - this is only a 30 year time span! And thus one could say that it refers to weather rather than climate. And even if one claimed that a 30 year timespan is a valid climate data base, it ignores that within climate, there are intermittent changes related to the various Nino's and Nina's and volcanic eruptions and ..oh...the sun, the sun.

So, trying to use this chart as statistical evidentiary proof that 'the climate is warming' is weak. And of course, trying to link the opinion to human activity is even a further stretch of the hypothesis.

@ET - nailed it. The notion of humans-as-climate-drivers is - IMO - a chimera invented by rich people who wanted to get richer (cf. Pachauri, Hansen, Gore, et al) and agreed to by governments who were overjoyed to add new taxes.

Environmental NGOs were the perfect pawns and propagandists, since they are experts at it and the whole scenario thing fit their agenda from the start.

I think I can detect the point where Obambi started cooling the economy.

Now does everyone see the danger of listening to academics who reduce complex interactions down to single causes and insist "It has to be!"? For some odd reason said academics find it hard to repent even when ALL the available evidence runs contrary to their pet theory.

Right Michael, ET nails it.

I by no means pretend to know much about this except the stench of fraud permeate the AGW story.

Even in this 30 year time span HadCrut and UAH show leveling off and then decline in temperatures.

The "IPCC" projections were based upon a positive feedback of temperature change.

This means:

If the temperature goes up, then it will go up at an ever-increasing rate.

If the temperature goes down, it will go down at an ever increasing rate.

As it happens, the temperature of the planet has been remarkably stable, within a few degrees - enough to produce ice ages and tropical poles; but no death and dismay.

The scientistas who produce the "evidence" for the theory of man-made cataclismic destruction of the planet have a serious personal moral problem to resolve. That is: At what point to they tell the truth rather than the words their paymasters wish?

Calling Phil Jones!

Posted 11-06-11, 13:14 Hide Post
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, though not the dominant one contributing to global warming.

Yes, human activities produce CO2.

Yes, the CO2 that human activities produce contributes somewhat to the global warming effect, however the magnitude or significance of the human contribution to that effect can not be measured with any accuracy or precision.

Yes, human activities produce toxic pollution which causes significant and accurately measurable morbidity and death.

If the toxic pollution that humans irrefutably cause is significantly reduced, then CO2 production will be reduced as well.

Humans should focus on the problems they know they cause not the problems they think they might be causing.

That's pretty much the crux of the whole AGW/Climate Change 'debate'.

Name calling or personal attacks against those who disagree with you is not necessary, it only degrades your credibility. Grow up, show some personal responsibility, and deal with the problems you create with your own lifestyle. Don't expect others to solve your problems for you.

Mouthing the words of the AGW crowd...."we may be a little off on our predictions but isn't it better to error on the side of caution, just in case." The fact that we're destroying economies and ruining populations ways of life is just an unfortunate side effect that they'll thank us for, if we're right.

North: Bang on! How about we throw some numbers at this?
If we give the carbon credit industry $100 billion the human induced co2 levels will be reduced by __??
This will result in a negative change in temperature rise of = NTBA dg C . (Next To Bu**er All deg C).
This will stop the seas from rising = 1 to 1.5 cm. over the next 100 years.
Hint; if we have to build up the New Orleans dykes/levees 23"/7.4M, fighting GW with bushels of cash will reduce our needed height by 2cm.
There now, doesn't that put things into proper perspective?

The big question in my mind is whether this is sufficient evidence to get a refund on all of the carbon taxes that I've paid to the moronic BC government? Being rational people I expect that as soon as they see this data they will eliminate carbon taxes immediately.

While slightly OT, there is a HST mail in referendum coming up in BC and it will be so nice to see this tax get defeated. Reminder to everyone on SDA to vote against the BC HST - I'd like to eat in a restaurant again.

Folks its very clear. We are failing to meet our targets. This calls for a strong response. Everyone, lets get out there and light up the fire pits, go for a "Sunday Drive", leave the lights burning, etc. It will take a concerted effort from all of us to get back on track!

Well, I guess the IPCC isd full of BS ... who knew? Who has gthe authority to take action about this error-prone organization?

Fred at June 11, 2011 10:53 AM

Maybe these AGW climate scientists could have second careers making models of how well Obama's economic policies are working out.

But he IS using the very same brainiacs, and you can also see how well that is working out.