You can see from the emphasis here, it is about the people, not the papers. Even when a paper is the focus, like Karl’s, it becomes about a conspiracy that Smith should look into rather than whether the increase buoy data really does affect the trend. Even after Zeke’s contribution, there is no concession that Karl could have been right after all. With the APS, it was about their people, that she refers to as activists, when they chose to go with the moderate scientists’ view rather than her wing’s. It’s just a constant drumbeat of attacking what she considers to be a tribal view, driven by politics or funding, rather than just being a majority view derived from the evidence in climate science per se,
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Don Monfort
Judith separated herself from the sheep, not the science.
↧
Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by RiHo08
“Climate science does not define a safe guard rail; instead science indicates that atmospheric CO2 is already into the dangerous range, as shown by a group including world experts in the carbon cycle, paleoclimate and other relevant areas.10 (reference 10 is a self-referral from an article in 2008).
Of course the assumption: we are on a catastrophic precipice of our own making and we must tax ourselves into oblivion.
Hansen correctly identifies Big Green, such as the Environmental Defense Fund as being wealthy lobbyist with high priced lawyers who crafted the Kyoto agreement and are striving for more of the same in Paris.
Hansen also identifies these Big Green lobbyist groups as shielding Obama from reality and economic sanity; otherwise, Obama would be an exemplary climate leader.
Then again, what do I know? Great minds are hard at work producing “me too” research papers as to why CO2 is leading us all to hell in a hand-basket; yet, there are piddling funds to understand why climate changes naturally.
Whatever bad things we have to do to ourselves and to the economy, based upon models and reanalysis and the gifted oratory of experts… we have to do it now! because? Hansen told us so.
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by paulski0
PA,
According to the paper the Feldman result is for surface forcing while the theoretical calculation is for TOA forcing. Not the same thing. Surface forcing from CO2 is expected to be considerably smaller than TOA forcing.
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Jim D
I can see that his concerns match those of the UNDP that fights poverty with some success. These people know the livelihoods in vulnerable areas, having worked there, and they can see how climate change at their regional locations will affect them in real terms, whether it is sea-level, temperatures, fresh water supply, food, pests and diseases, wildfires, extended droughts, worse storms, etc.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by curryja
At this point I don’t care about the IPCC tribe. I’m interested in having productive discussions with open minded scientists. I just had such a discussion on twitter with Ed Hawkins.
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Don Monfort
“Even when a paper is the focus, like Karl’s, it becomes about a conspiracy that Smith should look into rather than whether the increase buoy data really does affect the trend.’
You consistently lie, yimmy. That’s why you have no credibility. There has been plenty of discussion on whether and how the increase in buoy data affects the trend. And it goes on. Judith posted the freaking story from Zeke and the SkS Kid, didn’t she? Have you seen that thread? Please explain why you are doing here is not trolling.
↧
Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by erikemagnuson
Insightful question and a very appropriate one.
↧
Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by cerescokid
Really, how many “facts” exist in climate science within the context of how the word is commonly used. There are representations of facts. There are beliefs of what the facts are. There are estimates of the facts. If so-called facts are about what will happen in 2100 or any other date, they are not facts. We don’t even “know” what CO2 will do to temperatures. We hypothesize the effects, but sorry there are no facts.
This grading by a group of supposed climate experts is a metaphor for all that is wrong in climate science. There is a pervasive culture short on humility and long on self importance.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by richreilly
“If potential voters were to come to believe that decarbonization would be a very dangerous risk to their own well being I think you’d find all candidates would change their tune”
Maybe..but they might need to hear it more widely than Obama’s ’09 campaign promise to skyrocket electricity costs..admitting he would lie to do so. The only thing more incredible about that is how incapable Republicans were in capitalizing on that Mondale moment. somehow that is allowed to co-exist with concerns over the 1% and “fairness”. Unbelievable.
↧
Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by richreilly
obviously..it was ’08. SF chronicle video interview..STILL makes me squirm watching it.
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by climatereason
Bart
In your second article you say this;
‘This couldn’t be further from the truth. The media has actually suffered from the opposite, creating an image of false balance by giving minority viewpoints equal footing with the mainstream evidence based outlook.’
I find that a simply incredible thing to say. I had always taken you to be Dutch. I see no sign of the media in Europe-the EU- giving minority viewpoints equal footing. Quite the opposite. Both Britain and Holland in particular have the media very firmly in the IPCC camp
tonyb
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by dpy6629
Walter Kaufman wrote a book called “Faith of a Heretic” and another called “Critique of Religion and Philosophy.” These things go in cycles. Critique became a word of honor again by 1960 whereas theology was dominant in the 1950’s. The word heretic by itself means little.
I think what Judith perhaps objects to is the personal attacks from political hacks such as Sou (the Whopperette) who is really as bad as the average political attack dog and people like Ken Rice, who is not really a climate scientist. More disturbing are the attacks from the likes of Mann and other politicized climate scientists. One could argue that global warming and environmentalism is the new theology and critique is not a word of honor for Oreskes, Lew, and their fellow travelers. However, I would argue that the environment is worse than the 1950’s when few in the media really cared about theology that much. Today there is a smear machine out there ready to attack those who don’t tow the line.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by erikemagnuson
Hansen is far from the first person to complain about the isolation of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The recent news reports about intelligence being modified for the benefit of the WH is another example of that isolation.
Hansen also needs to do more work in backing up his assertion that CO2 increases persist on a millennial timescale.
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by Jim D
Don, Zeke’s article supported Karl’s adjustment independently. This is the kind of thing that the thinktanks Judith listens to should be doing, but so far nothing from them on the data.
↧
Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by David Wojick
If we subtract the green scores from 100 we get the skeptical score. A fine symmetry.
↧
Comment on ‘Fact’ checking the U.S. presidential candidates by Dan Pangburn
The assertion 97% of scientists believe atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) causes global warming (aka climate change) is blatantly false. There is no excuse for anyone to be so gullible that they would make that assertion. Scientists are not that ignorant although some may have gotten mired in irrelevant minutia and/or misled by wildly speculative notions, or mesmerized by CO2 being a ‘greenhouse gas’, or even willfully blinded by the siren call of a paycheck.
Necessary knowledge to realize CO2 has no effect on climate should have been learned before the 12th grade in school. It is a basic understanding of the ramifications of photosynthesis. Google provides a good definition of photosynthesis: “the process by which green plants and some other organisms use sunlight to synthesize foods from carbon dioxide and water. Photosynthesis in plants generally involves the green pigment chlorophyll and generates oxygen as a byproduct.”
The applicable ramification of photosynthesis is CO2 is necessary for the initial step for all life on the planet and always has been. For life on land as we know it to have evolved there had to have been substantial CO2 in the atmosphere for more than 500 million years. If CO2 made the planet warmer it would have been doing it for 500 million years. But average global temperature (AGT) has gone up and down over the eon and most of the time it has been warmer than now. The only way this could consistently result is if CO2 has no effect on temperature and temperature change is caused by something else.
The idea that a threshold level of CO2 might exist, where above the threshold CO2 warms the planet and below the threshold it does not, requires a more complex analysis but the end result is the same: CO2 has no effect on AGT.
Because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, if CO2 change does not cause temperature change, it cannot cause climate change. Thus the CO2 change from burning fossil fuels has no effect on climate, and ‘climate sensitivity’ (the effect on AGT of doubling CO2) is zero.
The analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com expands on this and identifies the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change for at least as long as AGT has been accurately measured world wide. An equation there using only the noted two factors calculates a 97% match to reported measured temperatures since before 1900 (after calibration to historical AGT, the only inputs to the equation are from the sunspot number data set). Everything not explicitly included (such as aerosols, volcanos, non-condensing ghg, ice changes, uncertainty in measurements, heating from the earth’s core, storing heat in ocean depths, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 3%.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by verytallguy
Tony,
Yes, regional climate is interesting. Did you know, for instance that climate models are not, as is commonly assumed, tuned to historical co2/temp but rather assessed against their ability to replicate current climatology.
But seriously, you always claim cet is a good proxy for global temp. Doesn’t your current data clearly show that not to be the case?
↧
Comment on Climate Heretic. Part II by vernroberts
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
↧
Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by A Buoy-Only Sea Surface Temperature Record Supports NOAA’s Adjustments | Enjeux énergies et environnement
[…] is an update of an update of an article which originally appeared at Climate Etc. The authors are grateful for the helpful comments which have informed the […]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
