Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

From a global warming advocate: Global warming: time to rein back on doom and gloom?

Prediction, as they say, is tough, especially when it’s about the future – and that’s especially true when it comes to the climate, whose complexity we only partially understand. It is, as we all know, naturally immensely variable. And the effect of human intervention is subject to long timelags: it will be decades, even centuries, before the full consequences of today’s emissions of carbon dioxide become clear.

As a result, scientists and policymakers draw on the past to predict the future. Until now, they have therefore placed much weight on the rapid temperature increases in the Eighties and Nineties. But for at least a decade, these have dramatically slowed, even as carbon dioxide emissions have continued to increase. [emphasis mine]

Or as I like to say, every climate model proposed by every global warming scientist has been proven wrong. They all predicted the climate would warm in lockstep with the increase in CO2. It hasn’t.

This is not to say the climate hasn’t warmed in the past five centuries (though some of the data used in for the past 150 years is sadly suspect). What isn’t clear is why. It might be the rise in carbon dioxide. It might also simply be the lingering warming the Earth is experiencing as the last ice age ends. Or it might be because of the Sun.

The field of climate science is very complex, confusing, and in its infancy. We just don’t know yet, and anyone who says they do is not a good scientist.

Share

10 comments

  • JGL

    If you notice its no longer described as “anthropomorphic climate change” that was abandoned with the revelation that data had been purposefully massaged to fit models, and all models are inaccurate, now its just “climate change”. These are subtle differences in how these topics are talked about by politicians and media talking heads that are true believers. The question remains: What is it that they are true believers in?

  • Thomas

    Sir, theres an iceberg, straight ahead!

    Thats not an iceberg! I dont think it is…
    Im not really sure…
    Maybe its just an overly large ice cube…
    … which the atmosphere is somehow refracting to make it seem bigger.

    It could be a big white duck sitting in a puddle on the deck…
    at just the right angle that it appears to be an iceberg
    or maybe its just a hallucination….
    After all I did not sleep well last night.

    Its all so complicated.

    But whatever it is,at least its not moving.
    Since I have so much time,
    I think I will have someone conduct a leisurely study of it.

    In the meantime, full steam ahead!

  • JGL

    I saw a video of a woman being interviewed about the ice in the Antarctic. The video showed ice bergs, and she was emotionally talking about the potential of these particular ice bergs that the earth created possibly melting as if they were “dieing”, a part of the earth was dieing.

    I thought it was a joke, but it was not a joke, she was serious.

  • JohnHunt

    The warming alarmists are wrong to think that CO2 is causing global warming. Not even close. Surface temperatures correlate better with the rise in the consumption of cheese. You got that right…cheese!

    Check out the graph for yourself:
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wKIial6wap0/Sdy_pScnPPI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/HismtRqnh1k/s400/Cheese+Consump.JPG

    If cheese consumption is going up and surface temperatures are going up, then cheese consumption MUST cause global warming!

  • D. K. Williams

    That’s a good one, John. Mann’s infamous hockey stick also correlates positively with my waistline.

  • wodun

    You are placing a value judgment on the use of the term iceberg. We already know a lot about icebergs and we don’t know much about how our climate operates. It isn’t a very good analogy.

    A better one might be dark matter, something that is all around us and has significant effects on the universe but something we know almost nothing about. Should we all freak out?

  • wodun

    Don’t tell that to alarmists, they already hate cows as it is and will just use this as one more reason to advocate for their elimination as a food source.

  • Thomas

    We know almost nothing about dark matter since we’ve only just begun to study . We’ve beens studying the climate nearly since science began, hundreds of years ago. Here is a timeline that ONLY covers the discovery of global warming, from the American Institute of Physics. You might notice the earliest date is 1824.

    http://aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

  • Tom Billings

    Thomas, while people have been studying the climate for a century or two, it was in the mid-late 1970s when its study really began to get more money. Till then it was highly disjoint, compared to say, Organic Chemistry, and no one tried to organize things, …till then. In order to make plausible simulations, the denizens of the newly named “climate science” community needed data from all over the world.

    Their problem was they could not get significant portions of that data for the full range of the scientific process, …in particular the part of it known as ‘replication’. This was because certain members of “the socialist camp” refused to allow their data to become public. The data would have shown that bad weather was *not* the cause of the famines that swept through their countries, which left their government’s control of seed and food distribution as the major cause. The embarrassment could have been fatal *before* 1991.

    Some climate science types refused to accept sequestering the data. They did not get the data, and subsequently lost out in funding, because they admitted they could not do the desired simulations. Others caved, took the data, under the sequestration agreements, and got the money, because they *could* do plausible simulations with the datasets, even though they refused both data and algorithms to fellow scientists. I was told this at the time, and replied that I thought the field could mature and get the data freed. Not even the changes after 1991 did that, until the issue was forced, however. Well, …I have truly great experience at being wrong!

    So, the great bulk of people who have ever worked on climate science have done so in the last 35 years, using data sets they did not have full access to. That has come back to haunt them, because their models don’t match data in the last 15 years. They would not admit that you cannot do real science with sequestered data. You can go through the motions with most of the scientific method, but full replication using the original data is the proper core of the scientific method, …no matter how much people try to substitute “peer review” for it.

    Without replication, their models could not be corrected, and have not improved enough in the last 15 years to matter. Now that they are finally allowing the data to be free, ..or that data which they do not claim was “lost”, …climate science can begin the long slow process of replication and improvement. Unfortunately, it will take generations before they are trusted again by the rest of society. How long? Well, when a country changes policy to confiscate the assets of investors for X years, …and, realizing the source of their growing poverty, repent and switch back, many investors will wait a second X years before investing again. It is very probable we will see at least that much skepticism of climate science over the next 35 years, and we may well suffer for it, …but that skepticism is all too human, and at least partly reasonable. The problem was discarding that inconvenient replication, and saying “trust us” for far too long.

    The idea that Dalton’s data on early 19th century weather in Great Britain will affect this “original sin” in modern climate science, is ridiculous.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *