38 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

  1. Lost?
    Kate, do you actually read the articles, or just check out the headlines and drool at the pretty pictures?

  2. “I’m not worried about the resilience of Arctic ecosystems and not worried about the system tipping into an irreversibly slushy state on time scales relevant to today’s policy debates.”
    Definitely lost as it pertains to unreasonable, restrictive, policies that kill jobs and the economy, and also tax revenue. He said himself that it’s not in a ‘death spiral’ as alarmists would have you believe.

  3. great story . . . Revkin is doing the usual global warmonger attempt at climbing down from his high horse while appearing to still believe in the great global warming con job.
    Great find Kate. Do you think it will be too difficult for some fools to understand?
    Maybe Revkin will do a crayon version for those simpletons who can’t figure it out on their own.

  6. Alex,
    “Kate, do you actually read the articles, or just check out the headlines and drool at the pretty pictures?”
    Is that the best you can do? An ad hominem. Perhaps you’d like to disagree with what Andy wrote instead. You denier!

  7. I though his most profound utterance was where he said … The temperature affects the ice. No shit Sherlock!
    And … to Smart Alex … Andy R cannot come right out and switch to the ‘dark’ side all at once … that would be far too humbling … however, admitting this one big thing is a start. He will get more real incrementally now that the first olive is out of his climate jar.
    Now you go back to your drooling.

  8. If F******G Al says the F*******G science is F******G settled, then the F******G science is F******G settled, God F*******G Damnit!

  9. “Andy R cannot come right out and switch to the ‘dark’ side all at once … that would be far too humbling”
    lol
    Only in the land of fools and idiots does a disagreement on a single aspect of an issue signal a rejection of the overall premise.
    Although, I have to admit, I’m always fascinated by this glimpse into the minds of ideologues. This is a display of the same psychological quirk which drives you to yell “LEFTIE!” any time anyone disagrees with you about anything. Makes me wonder how our species ever managed to get beyond the caveman stage, and why we bothered to drag you along behind us …

  11. Alex
    “Only in the land of fools and idiots does a disagreement on a single aspect of an issue signal a rejection of the overall premise.”
    Ok, so now we’re getting somewhere. You admit Revkin is disagreeing with some aspect of the AGW premise.
    One down.
    At least it’s not an ad hominem. Imagine how foolish that makes you look.

  12. Like I do, when I twig that a “new” or “ok” is spouting off, I scroll down and bypass anything by Alex.
    So, lately, that means that I’ve bypassed nearly whole threads. Too bad.

  14. poor poor manbearpig.. what next, will davey call him out on the ceeb..
    Incidentally alex, I saw your golden child tonight on the sun’s byline, ask your mom for the remote and watch the latest iteration of the watermelon stupidity

  15. @lookout just above. I agree. Life here between the trolls is getting subject to the old Jenny Craig effect.

  16. Alex:
    But that single aspect is the major part of the overall premise – that we HAVE to do something IMMEDIATELY. OR ELSE. You guys are no different than that preacher in Texas.

  17. Fred: “Revkin is doing the usual global warmonger attempt at climbing down from his high horse…”
    No, Fred, that’s not usually what the alarmists do, as the Climategate emails clearly showed. The usual pattern is deny and deny some more, and attack the credentials or motivations of the skeptics.
    Kate is right about losing Revkin, but the green slime have been losing Revkin for years. The first big crack in the wall for him was Climategate. Unlike most of the warmies, he never denied either their authenticity or their accuracy.
    Alex: “Only in the land of fools and idiots does a disagreement on a single aspect of an issue…”
    Dead wrong. In science, all you need is one clear observation contrary to the theory to reject it. For example, if you find just one object repelled by another mass, you would know that Newton’s law of gravity was wrong.
    In the case of global warming, this is by no means the first, but one of many of a string of observations contrary to the theory propounded by IPCC. But the great difficulty in dealing with global warming theory is that its proponents have never accepted the principle of falsification.

  18. “Only in the land of fools and idiots does a disagreement on a single aspect of an issue signal a rejection of the overall premise.”
    If you look into the issue a bit more carefully you will notice that there’s more than one disagreement emerging and that the overall premise is significantly weaker than it was a year ago.

  19. I think a lot of thanks are owed to Bloggers like Kate for standing up to this Marxist imperialism, in so called Climate science.
    Global human caused ended the day the data was slurped in Manchester along with the reporters getting caught colluding.
    If nor for their efforts it may well be against the law to even disagree with these Earth fanatics.

  20. Alex: “Only in the land of fools and idiots does a disagreement on a single aspect of an issue…”
    Butt, alex, if there is disagreement on anything, then belief in “the science is settled” just took a big hit, and that is the MAIN issue for many skeptics
    BTW; you do a great job at proving even the stupid can post on a blog…just sayin:-)))

  21. Man-Bear-Pig has been found out and Revkin is just puking some of Cartmans gold. If he farts the world may be done for.

  23. Yesterday, I encountered what I initially took for and intelligent guy but after I just blinked at the oceans cooling…. and hadn’t heard of the ARGOS programme and then thought OBOZO was a genius…….did I ever spoil his day….denied that some of the cerificates of live birth and the birth certificate were counter-feit…then declared that that was he was GIVEN….
    That his school grades are private and nobody elses were ever published buy then smiled at Bushes poor grades…..
    Didn’t know about the SS# from Conneticut or the selective service #….just denied it…
    I suspect he just watches the CBC….
    I told him that Canada would be as tolerant when he riots….(or at least this area)……

  24. Blanks
    South Park conservatism is a force. My own early twenties sons and their friends very much recognize the absurdity of policy on the left through the the work of Matt Stone and Trey Parker.
    And they all vote whenever the opportunity arises.

  25. I visited the National Review article. They seem to be offering Steyn’s latest for free — as a loss leader, I presume, [clicked the X before reading it]
    Anyway, this is the same article that was on another thread, so I may as well try to see if this response gets through —
    The NR quoting the study author —
    // The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. //
    // In Arctic terms, “tipping point” is generally used to mean a point of irreversible change – i.e. the ice loss becomes self-sustaining such that the ice will not return even if conditions return to normal.
    The Tietsche paper showed that weather-driven short-term perturbations do not lead to a “tipping point” : ice returns to the general level specified by climatology.
    This new paper suggests that even wholesale climate change does not lead to a “tipping point” : if the climate changes back, the ice returns.
    I find both studies interesting but irrelevant. We have released the CO2 already, and are continuing to do so. The residence time in the atmosphere is centuries if not thousands of years. The climate isn’t going to change back.
    As such, finding out that the ice will come back if the temperature drops is a bit like telling a homeless guy he could buy a house if he had some money.
    What this study does do is put a minimum limit on the degree of ice loss we are already committed to. Holocene Optimum temperatures (lower than today’s) led at equilibrium to loss of ~50% of Arctic ice. Since temperatures won’t be coming down any time soon, that and more is what we’re committed to for the next several centuries, at best, even if we stopped all fossil fuel use today.
    Posted by: Peter Ellis | August 05, 2011 //
    This comment is from a very good discussion on the Arctic Sea Ice Blog
    This is a fascinating paper, in that it pioneers some novel [to me] proxies. Who would imagine that driftwood could inform one about palaeo wind patterns?
    The paper is available from JunkScience [pdf]
    Incidently, the first line of this paper says “global warming will probably cause the disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean during this century”.

  26. @RGB:
    “But that single aspect is the major part of the overall premise – that we HAVE to do something IMMEDIATELY. OR ELSE.”
    No, it’s not 🙂 You’re confusing science and politics, as usual. No wonder you guys are so screwed up on the issue; you don’t even understand what the discussion is about!
    @cgh:
    “Dead wrong. In science, all you need is one clear observation contrary to the theory to reject it”
    Except he’s not making observations which contradict the theory; he’s disagreeing with a prediction made by a model which is based on the theory. There are only two observations which could possibly contradict AGW:
    1. measurements which show that the average temperature of the planet in a significant time period is either static or decreasing
    2. evidence that CO2 doesn’t interact with IR in the way we believe it does.
    Nothing else will do. If you don’t understand this, then you clearly don’t have even a basic grasp on the science.
    Also, while your statement may be correct in some circumstances, it’s wrong for many others. If we don’t find the Higgs Boson, we’re not going to throw away the Standard Model – we’ll just need to figure out what part of it is in error. It takes a LOT more than a single observation to toss everything out and start over from scratch. Your ‘all-or-nothing’ approach is ridiculous.
    @GYM:
    “Butt, alex, if there is disagreement on anything, then belief in ‘the science is settled’ just took a big hit, and that is the MAIN issue for many skeptics”
    You obviously have no idea what the phrase “the science is settled” means, and no, this isn’t any kind of “hit”. Plus it’s cute that you think you’re a skeptic 🙂
    “BTW; you do a great job at proving even the stupid can post on a blog…just sayin:-)))”
    Thanks 🙂 Rest assured that I will continue to point out stupidity in all it’s many forms.
    Like, for instance, the idea that “the science is settled” means “we know EVERYTHING!” :p Hilarious bit of retardation right there!

  27. Alex:
    1. Temperatures have been stable for the past 10 years. Moreover, temperatures declined from ’40s to ’80s despite rising CO2.
    2. Geologic record shows that CO2 is a consequence and not a cause of warming or cooling.
    Also note that with respect to the model, since the observation contradicts the predicted outcome the model is wrong.

  28. “1. Temperatures have been stable for the past 10 years.”
    Sure. So what? A 10 year period is insignificant when we’re discussing global climate trends. Even 20 years wouldn’t be particularly convincing.
    “Moreover, temperatures declined from ’40s to ’80s despite rising CO2.”
    The decline was insignificant – you’re talking about a fluctuation of 0.2 degrees in the 5-year-average, or 0.4 degrees in the annual average, over the entire 40 year period.
    It’s certainly an interesting anomaly – one worth studying – but mostly irrelevant to the discussion of CO2s effect on climate. Nobody has suggested that increased atmospheric CO2 is the only factor affecting temperature. You’re building a strawman and then knocking it down. Why not respond to the actual claims?
    “2. Geologic record shows that CO2 is a consequence and not a cause of warming or cooling.”
    The first half of that sentence is correct, the second half is completely wrong. Yes, a rise in temperature due to orbital changes has repeatedly caused the release of CO2 from the oceans. This happens every 100,000 years or so. However, it takes some really “special” logic to go from that to “therefore CO2 doesn’t cause warming”. At best you can say that the geologic record shows that other factors have caused the earth to warm in the past – something which nobody is disputing.
    “Also note that with respect to the model, since the observation contradicts the predicted outcome the model is wrong.”
    Absolutely – if Andrew’s observations turns out to be correct (as seems likely at this point) the model will need to be revised. That’s how science works.

  29. None of what you wrote points to the significance of human emissions of CO2. The rise has been about 0.2 degrees overall, entirely consistent with the recovery from the Little Ice Age. If you want to claim a variation of 0.2 degrees is insignificant then
    1. you can’t claim the rise attributed to human CO2 emissions is significant when the observed rise amounts to no more than that.
    2. you can’t claim that CO2 is the dominant driver in global warming as the IPCC has claimed. You claim the variations are irrelevant, but this is false in light of the claims for dominance of the CO2 effect claimed by IPCC.
    It doesn’t take any special logic re. the non-significance of CO2 warming. Its effect is virtually at saturation.

  30. “None of what you wrote points to the significance of human emissions of CO2”
    Of course not. I was responding to your points – not trying to teach about AGW from scratch.
    “The rise has been about 0.2 degrees overall, entirely consistent with the recovery from the Little Ice Age”
    What timeframe are you talking about? The rise since the early 1900’s has been almost a full degree. If we’re talking about the rise since the little ice age, it’s been about 1.2 degrees. Since the medieval warm period, it’s been about 0.4 degrees. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
    “1. you can’t claim the rise attributed to human CO2 emissions is significant when the observed rise amounts to no more than that.”
    See above. If you’re using a 40-year timeframe, then yeah, I wouldn’t make such a claim. If we’re using the last 100 years, the picture looks a bit different.
    “2. you can’t claim that CO2 is the dominant driver in global warming as the IPCC has claimed.”
    I wouldn’t claim it was the dominant driver, anyway. I think it probably is, but there’s enough uncertainty that I wouldn’t want to commit to that claim. There’s no question that it’s a major driver, though, even if other factors may contribute more. Also, it happens to be the only factor that we have any control over. I think it’s too early to be taking any drastic measures to attempt to stop AGW, but if we do decide to tackle it seriously there’s no doubt that the only mechanism by which we could do it is by controlling the atmospheric CO2 levels. We’re certainly not going to move the earth to a higher orbit.
    “It doesn’t take any special logic re. the non-significance of CO2 warming. Its effect is virtually at saturation.”
    Using the chain of “reasoning” you demonstrated earlier (ie. geologic record shows X causing Y, therefore Y can’t cause X), it certainly does. If you can make a better attempt, I’m all ears.

  31. Alex,
    “1. measurements which show that the average temperature of the planet in a significant time period is either static or decreasing
    2. evidence that CO2 doesn’t interact with IR in the way we believe it does.
    Nothing else will do. If you don’t understand this, then you clearly don’t have even a basic grasp on the science.”
    Wow. Just wow. How ignorant of the complexity in a chaotic system.
    You left out the feedbacks. Though CO2 in a closed system can cause increased energy storage, the earth’s climate is not closed and has many ways of altering both energy input (clouds, etc.) and energy output.
    Wow. Just wow. That is truly ignorant of the science.
    It also fails to account for temporal changes, impulse response, and not to mention the fact that we don’t have a comprehensive and acurate accounting of all energy nputs, CO2 inputs/outputs, etc. etc.
    Finally, computer models are subject to programmer/science bias not to mention programming errors, quantization, error, and well. I could go on.
    Wow. Just wow. let me see that again.
    “1. measurements which show that the average temperature of the planet in a significant time period is either static or decreasing
    2. evidence that CO2 doesn’t interact with IR in the way we believe it does.
    Nothing else will do. If you don’t understand this, then you clearly don’t have even a basic grasp on the science.:”
    Wow. just wow. That’s truly ignorant of the science.

  32. “It also fails to account for temporal changes”
    Yes, of course. Just don’t forget to depolarize the quantum matrix or your dylithium crystals might cause a feedback loop in the flux capacitor.

  33. Alex,
    “Yes, of course. Just don’t forget to depolarize the quantum matrix or your dylithium crystals might cause a feedback loop in the flux capacitor.”
    Temporal changes.
    Changes over time.
    Ie. subject to rates of change.
    You know, those similar to RC networks in electronics, decay in nature, impulse response, etc.
    What??? You’re not aware that x @ t-1 can affect x @ t, can affect x @ t+1?
    You dolt!

  34. Yes, captain Kirk, I’m quite aware of how time works. I’m just amused by your ability to spit out techno-babble without saying anything 🙂 Now, if you don’t mind, I’m gonna go back to ignoring you. Cheers!

  35. Alex,
    “Yes, captain Kirk, I’m quite aware of how time works. I’m just amused by your ability to spit out techno-babble without saying anything.”
    Is that Klingon for…
    “I don’t understand Time series analysis so I’ll insult the messenger instead”?
    Partial differential equations?
    Multi vector calculus?
    Chaos Theory?
    Control Systems?
    Computational Analysis & modelling?
    Thermodynamics?
    Anytime…bozo!

  36. dizzy,
    The residence time in the atmosphere is 5 to 10 years.
    According to ice cores, atmospheric CO2 in 1900 was the same as in 1983 – fact is, it’s extremely variable. (How did the alarmists explain that one? They said the 80 meters of ice was porous and the air in the bubbles was replaced by 1983 air.) Most ice cores show CO2 as variable, but only those showing relative stasis are accepted because “everyone knows that CO2 was stable before human emissions”. Studies of leaf stoma in leaves preserved in peat bogs confirms the variable CO2.

  38. I really wish one of you would make a serious argument. It’s kinda like pitching three slow balls to a retarded kid, seeing him strike out, and then watching him run around the diamond yelling “YAAAAAY I’M NUMBER ONE! I’M NUMBER ONE!”. Amusing, the first time, kinda annoying after the 6th inning.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation