Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by PA

June 24, 2015, 8:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Jim D

$

0

0

Well…

The IPCC/Global warming GCM models illustrate that the current ability to model climate is substandard for prediction purposes.

The range of future CO2 levels and the confidence range for GHG forcing is so broad as to be essentially useless.

The claims that more warming is bad, more CO2 in on net bad, that weather will be worse etc. are unsupportable.

The situation is that the future effects of more CO2 are so badly bounded it is like predicting an asteroid strike and not specifying if it is 1 meter or 10 kilometers.

Future CO2 levels and GHG forcing need to be more reasonably bounded and the effect of these better bounded estimates investigated before an intelligent discussion of policy can start.

It is hard to persuade someone with the argument “we think something bad will happen” and no supporting facts or details. That is where the climate change discussion is at the moment.

Right now empirical measurement and realistic assessment of future emissions would indicate that there will be a small future change due to CO2.

---

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

June 24, 2015, 8:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by PA

$

0

0

“This is not your property. Neither is it your hunting ground. It’s not even your turf.”

Is that your argument, willy? I never said or implied any of those things that you just made up. Didn’t you notice that I was talking about my region, my neighborhood, my garage and my freaking house? I don’t live here. I come here for entertainment. I don’t imagine that I am going to persuade or convince anybody, especially the clowns like yourself. Do you think this is a real place, willy? And you are persuading or convincing anyone? What is wrong with you? What do you hope to accomplish with this foolishness?

I haven’t looked. Have you apologized to Judith for that Kervorkian BS, willy? Well, at least you didn’t use Dr. Mengele. But you probably thought of it.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf

June 25, 2015, 5:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by David L. Hagen

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Don Monfort

$

0

0

A serf’s Thought fer Terday:

‘Beware ‘the consensus’
as persuasive defensus
ad captandum vulgus.
Ex scientia vera and
fiat lux!’

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by David L. Hagen

June 25, 2015, 5:14 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by andywest2012

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf

$

0

0

<b>Fall of East Europe 1989</b> Such rapid collapse is exemplified by the fall of Eastern Europe in 1989. e.g. see: <a href="http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/The-Fall-of-Communism-in-Few-Words-Twenty-Years-Later.php" rel="nofollow">The Fall of Communism - Twenty Years Later</a> Few realize that it was led by prayer movements in the Churches.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by andywest2012

June 25, 2015, 5:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by David L. Hagen

$

0

0

Excellent :)

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf

June 25, 2015, 5:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by andywest2012

$

0

0

Hmm. ‘Ex scientia vera et fiat lux’ sounds better.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by popesclimatetheory

June 25, 2015, 5:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by aneipris

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf

$

0

0

Mother nature does continue to provide real data that does not agree with Consensus alarmist climate model output.Yes, the alarmism will likely collapse quickly. I don’t know how soon this will happen.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by aneipris

June 25, 2015, 5:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Peter Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

“Possible motivations for consensus:

consolidating an epistemic community
shoring-up the authority of science
offering a ‘firm foundation’ for policy
closing-down dissenting voices”

Consolidating an epistemic community must be latin for “let’s keep the goodies flowing for as long as we can.”

(aka pokerguy)

---

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Peter Davies

June 25, 2015, 5:29 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by David L. Hagen

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by aneipris

$

0

0

+10 :)

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by David L. Hagen

June 25, 2015, 5:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Buck Smith

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Peter Davies

$

0

0

<b>Noble Cause Corruption</b> A major problem with climate scientists and the IPCC abusing the scientific method is their being caught in the vicious circle of models predicting warming therefore tuning them with expected warming, and the grant cycle that biases funding to addressing / creating climate alarms. They are further misguided by <a href="http://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/2003646-Noble-cause-corruption-Do-the-ends-justify-the-means/" / rel="nofollow">Noble Cause Corruption</a> by using any means to justify the end. e.g. <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEEQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjudithcurry.com%2F2014%2F12%2F01%2Fthe-legacy-of-climategate-5-years-later%2F&ei=ZpyMVczUGoS5sAW4_LmACA&usg=AFQjCNELua0-KAAe9db9garZkuuq18wHWA&sig2=uq1S-x58gU2h7S_hxwo4Rw&bvm=bv.96782255,d.b2w" rel="nofollow">Climategate.</a>

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Buck Smith

June 25, 2015, 5:30 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by David L. Hagen

$

0

0

There is also the bias to report alarming results because the non-profits can fund raise more with a scare story. People that make fun of bible thumpers preaching that judgment day is coming are susceptible to the same pitch from enviro thumpers.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling

June 25, 2015, 5:31 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Buck Smith

$

0

0

I think that might be happening. There have several articles about weather news on the Canadian Weather Network recently that say things like “climate variability happens naturally and because of the activities of humans” and other such qualifying statements to the Global Warming creed. This seem to me to be a shift from the constant 100% climate change alarmism I recall from them in the past. I see the same thing in the press stories from the UK about cooling due to solar minimum with statements like “this cooling will only be partially offset by anthropogenic global warming”. I think the collapse has begun.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf

June 25, 2015, 5:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Peter Davies

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling

$

0

0

I thinkso, pokerguy. See me latest voyage re
‘the baggage in the hold’ which nevertheless
was jettisoned in the clash with observations.
https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Peter Davies

June 25, 2015, 5:35 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by beththeserf

$

0

0

The AGW consensus will collapse slowly because bruised egos will take time to heal. While I am no fan of short term data I do note that the AGWers are and they will be hoist by their petard of short term pause/hiatus in the more reliable modern data that keeps coming in.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D

June 25, 2015, 5:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Peter Davies

$

0

0

I also think Beatty and Moore make good points. Unanimity would be suspicious in science. There will always be a minority view. There should be a “minority report” or “dissenting opinion” to parallel the IPCC one. Some might even say the NIPCC is, but I don’t think that is well constructed because it is a series of individual opinion pieces rather than having a coherent idea of why the IPCC is wrong on the basic warming mechanism. Many dissenting scientists won’t say that the IPCC is plain wrong, and it is difficult because their uncertainty range covers 97% of climate scientists. This leaves 3% dissenting of which probably 2/3 represent a loony fringe (planet cycles, UHI, solar delay, skydragons, negative feedback, warming is good, plant food, etc.) and 1% can make a scientific case that can be read and judged for what it is. The lack of a coherent case against IPCC’s AGW is a major problem for this minority. As it is we just have the majority view with any coherence. Perhaps this is a signal that there is no coherent minority case to be made against AGW because all the skeptics don’t like each others ideas either.

---

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D

June 25, 2015, 6:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D

$

0

0

While the so-called “hiatus” gave the skeptics a breather in global warming, the next warming phase may make them feel like the evidence is submerging them again. The next El Nino will cause some sputtering. Perhaps in time they will just go under by conceding yes it is actually warming pretty fast all the time, and this is something to do with the record-high and growing CO2 levels.

Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Vaughan Pratt

June 25, 2015, 6:03 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by mosomoso

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by Jim D

$

0

0

@PA: <i>Look at the chart.</i> Are you referring to <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/mean:120/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:120" rel="nofollow">this chart</a>? This shows NH and SH temperatures since 1850 smoothed to a 10-year running mean (much less than that and it's impossible to say what "in sync" means). Based on this chart it would seem that the hemispheres are "in sync" in 1880, 1920, 1970, and 1990. The only time SH goes above NH is the 20 years from 1970 to 1990.. @PA: <i>The southern hemisphere temperatures do a slow progression and the northern temperatures oscillate around the southern temperatures in a 70 year cycle. </i> Either you have a different notion of "in sync" than I thought you meant, or you must be looking at some other chart.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by mosomoso

June 25, 2015, 6:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on Pascal on the art of persuasion by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

“Finding policy agreement despite the ‘consensus gap’”

This was about trying a new wrapping and flavouring for the same old sludge, right? Yum. So smooth and delish, yet low in carbon and rich in white elephants…I can’t believe it’s not consensus!

Good try, warmies.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by popesclimatetheory

June 25, 2015, 6:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by mosomoso

$

0

0

Consensus is really a sickness. it has no place in science. anyone who suffers from consensus cannot be any kind of scientist.

Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by ordvic

June 25, 2015, 6:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by jacksmith4tx

≪ Previous: Comment on Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology? by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

Jim D, For one thing the 97% deal is a farce. It has been shown to be more like 87%. There are also many Solar physicists how write their papers with a caveat that they believe in GHG warming as well. Most of the skeptics could be considered to be part of the consensus they just question some of the assertions since the scientific method is not always used or in the case of the IPCC never used. You’re probably right about the minority speaking with one voice and marginalizing the kooks.