Midnight repost: Al Gore and the silencing of debate
The Behind the Black tenth anniversary retrospective: Today’s repost is from August 29, 2011, and was one of my earliest essays describing the real meaning of the scientific method.
——————————–
Al Gore and the silencing of debate
Yesterday I posted a link to a story about Al Gore claiming that any expression of skepticism about global warming is to him no different than racism. Here again is what Gore said,
“There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won. We have to win the conversation on climate.”
More than at any other time, Gore here has very successfully illustrated the differences between how climate skeptics debate the scientific questions of climate change versus how global warming advocates do it.
When climate skeptics such as I talk about climate change, we do it by bringing up and discussing recent scientific discoveries that raise questions about global warming. For example, in the past week alone I have noted two different scientific papers that illustrate how earlier climate predictions by global warming scientists have proven to be either weak or simply unsuccessful. (See “Another IPCC prediction fails” and “Another Al Gore doomsday prediction bites the dust.”)
I was not expressing my opinion in noting these results. I was relating actual research that, from my interpretation, raised serious questions about the conclusions of people like Al Gore and other global warming scientists.
At the same time I have always been willing to admit that my interpretation of this data might be wrong, that the data itself is incomplete, and that it might even be proven wrong when new data is obtained. I as well as most climate skeptics by our very skepticism recognize the present limitations of the science and are gladly willing to see new data, even if it doesn’t correspond to our own conclusions.
This one of the primary reasons I gladly allow critical and sometimes blistering criticisms of my writing to be posted as comments on my website. I could be wrong. I want the science to win, not my opinions.
What is Al Gore’s approach? He believes that anyone who expresses any skepticism of his conclusions to be no different than a racist and should shut up, or be shut up by everybody else. He doesn’t bother to refer to any science to back up his position, nor does he expend any effort to explain or counter the recent science that raises serious questions about man-made global warming.
Nor is Al Gore alone in this kind of behavior. The entire climategate scandal centered on how global warming scientists in positions of power, such as Phil Jones, head of the government-funded Climate Research Unit, and Michael Mann, inventor of the hockey stick graph that claimed that the Earth’s climate only began warming in the last hundred years, did everything they could to prevent skeptics from getting published in any scientific journal.
Rather than debate the actual science, these pseudo-scientists wanted only to silence those who disagreed with them. Or as Andrew Klavan has noted, their detailed answer to any Doubting Thomas was to say, “Shut up!”
Al Gore and the climategate scientists had come to a conclusion. They are not interested in any new data. Any new data to them was the equivalent of being a racist or a denier of reality. In fact, global warming activists repeatedly use that term, denier, when they want to attack global warming skeptics. They don’t debate the facts, they simply try to destroy the skeptics by name-calling.
There is only one good thing about this mean-spirited and Stalinesque approach to open debate: It finally illustrates for all to see that guys like Al Gore and those who agree with him haven’t the faintest idea of what science is all about.
The fact is that science is skepticism. Good science questions data at all times. You have to let the bulk of the data eventually convince you of the right conclusion. And you must always recognize that additional data could easily change that conclusion again, and again.
In order for science to function properly, skepticism and questioning of all kinds must always be permitted. For Al Gore to say that the science of climate change will somehow be helped by demanding we silence the skeptics is so foolish and counterproductive I am almost at a loss for words. Above all, it certainly discredits what Al Gore and his supporters in the scientific community have to say about this important scientific debate.
As I’ve noted repeatedly, the science of climate change is still in its infancy. Our good climate data only goes back a few decades, beginning with the space age. Moreover, we really don’t understand everything that is going on in the Earth’s very complex climate. There are enormous gaps in our knowledge, and to say that anything is settled on this subject is downright foolishness.
As a nice example of what I mean, watch this hour long lecture by Jasper Kirkby, the chief scientist behind the CERN experiment that suggests very strongly that the long-term fluctuation of interstellar cosmic rays that hit the upper atmosphere — a fluctuation caused by the solar sunspot cycle — might have a significant influence on past climate change. Before Kirkby describes his experiment, he spends about 30 minutes outlining the copious data that exists suggesting the Sun might have a much greater influence on climate change than carbon dioxide.
To Al Gore, Kirkby is therefore a racist and should be silenced. To me, his lecture contains valuable knowledge about climate science and is worth watching until the end.
On which side do you fall? Our freedom, and the fate of western civilization, actually hangs on that choice.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
There are many people who accept AGW is real and significant but don’t see the evidence that “we’re all going to die”, but still recognizing that climate change will have both costs and benefits. Such people look at the science and see, yep there’s warming, yep, sea levels are rising, and with a warmer planet with more water vapor in the atmosphere, yep, there’ll be other changes – more of some types of extreme weather events, and yep increasing GHG concentrations as a result of human activity are the cause. But who aren’t all-a-panic because they know that Humans are adaptable, as illustrated by our occupation of the planet virtually pole to pole, and because humans continuously rebuild the vast majority of the infrastructure of their civilization, some in just decades, most of the rest within a century, they recognize that if the rebuilding this century takes into account changes in climate over the next century those changes will impose little in the way of additional costs. We can likely adapt to the changes without breaking the bank.
There might well be people who are similarly not tied to ideological motivations, who look at the science and see no case for Human activity being the dominant reason for current climate change, and so conclude that any changes are natural or insignificant.
I have just never encountered an ideologically agnostic person who holds such skeptical views on AGW.
A short chronology of failed ‘ice age’ predictions [5:05]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6eswiI3KLc
An apology from Global warmist?
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/03/acclaimed-environmentalist-apologizes-for-pushing-climate-alarmism/
And as I remember, the founder of Green Peace has also rejected the terror tool “Global warming” and “Climate Change extremism”.
https://www.technocracy.news/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/
The extremist Left as does the Democrat party and its leadership who have become Globalists and are now anti American must use fear and scare tactics in all that they endeavor to do. Why? Because ultimately they are in a quest for power and not actual truth and they have no grounded foundation based in truth and freedom. They MUST lie about all that they endeavor to do, and hope that more people believe them than don’t.
Its always a shell game and fraudulent because they see themselves and their virtuous “Caring” as being necessarily superior and everyone else is just too stupid and suicidal to understand what needs to be understood. And in reality its just about the acquisition of and the retention of power. Politics in other words. They care ultimately only about one thing, and its not YOU.
Sorry “well meaning” and so very passionate and concerned Liberals and Leftists, it is what it is because that is what the evidence indicates. Want to argue with the evidence? Go right ahead but your conclusions have nothing to do with reality. You do not inhabit reality, your reality inhabits you.
All things that would be expected as the earth continues its cycle OUT of an ice age. You do realize that the earth continues its cycling through its warming and cooling conditions as it has for the last 500K plus, plus, plus years all on its own?
Are the last 150 or so years of human activity the prime drivers of this condition now? Really? Does that sound reasonable?
Does humanity have an effect on this cycle by introducing CO2 into the atmosphere? Probably to some minor degree, but what is being promoted in the media and “science ” is that humanity now is driving and “Controlling” this warming and cooling condition.
You want to talk about pollution in general and cleaning up our industrial processes and pollution in the air, land and seas? That is a worthwhile and rational conversation and cause. But human beings are now the prime drivers of and “Control” this warming and cooling cycle? I don’t think so.
It’s not that we don’t believe the Earth needs our good stewardship.
We just don’t want our freedoms to do so undercut by liars, slanderers, fascists, “racists” and thugs that base their agenda on bad science and hatred power mongering.
Personally I love that concept that civilization is remade periodically. Observe the push that Tesla has brought to the automotive industry. It is wildly succeeding not by forcing people at threat of law and loss of rights. Instead they simply make a compelling, attractive, S3XY product that people desire. Tesla vehicles are better, MUCH better. And therefore, many people want one, or six.
We’ll change better by wanting to.
Cotour: Are the last 150 or so years of human activity the prime drivers of this condition now? Really? Does that sound reasonable?.
Yes, yes and yes. What sounds unreasonable are the alternative “theories”, Shellenberger’s got it right:
“It’s mostly good science, but then once the politicians get involved and help to write the summary for policymakers and the press releases, it starts to get more apocalyptic. And then by the time you read The New York Times, it sounds like the world’s going to come to an end in 10 years”
………….
Conservatives aren’t scot-free, however. Shellenberger said the bottom line is that humans play a role in climate change, and the conservative voices denying that and refusing to accept any science regarding climate change discredit the party as a whole. . . Despite Republican legislators making positive impacts in their policy-making, certain high profile climate deniers on the right drown out any significant climate change progress brought forth by Republicans.
Andrew_W: Wrong, wrong and wrong. The data does not support the theory.
Just be reasonable. Human being are not the prime drivers in the changing nature of this planet, the sun is. The existence of the sun and its effects on everything is the reason that we are all here in the first place. The sun and its relative position to all planets is in my estimation what primarily drives climate warming and climate cooling throughout our solar system. Do we have an effect? To some degree I would assume. But are we the prime drivers? I have to say no.
I fully embrace the cleaning of our environment and the improvement of our industrial processes, 100 percent.
Now tell that to the Chinese and the Indians who are playing catch up to the U.S., and unless there is some new technology that can reliably replace fossil fuels then this situation will continue no matter what America chooses to do or not do.
And America and most other 1st world economies are well on the way to both reducing their use of fossil fuels and cleaning their environment. But there must be a balance arrived at, a proposal like the “Green New deal” is a non starter. Why? Because it proposes economic suicide in the cause of saving humanity, a bit of a paradoxical argument. And no one on this planet of any consequence is going to do that.
So protect the environment, clean the environment? 100 percent, who in their right mind would disagree with such a statement?
There are many technologies being worked on from Fusion, to new batteries technologies, to zero point energy or similar and others that will go along way in solving this situation. But they just are not evolved and / or proven enough to make much of a difference at the moment in time, but they are moving in the correct general direction. And in time this will too will be solved.
That is if the Globalists and anti American Leftists are not successful and destroy and discard the Capitalist model and the American Constitution. And that is what the Human Caused Global Warming is primarily a tool of. And it is a tool of fear and worry, its a well know strategy.
Just be reasonable. Human being are not the prime drivers in the changing nature of this planet, the sun is.
Nope.
Are we headed for a Grand Solar Minimum? [30:23]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjgCaF9BGUo
Cotour, like I said above, I have just never encountered an ideologically agnostic person who holds such skeptical views on AGW.
You say “the Sun is”, then you go on to give lots of reasons to support your position:
“the Chinese and the Indians . . must be a balance arrived at,. . .proposes economic suicide . . . many technologies being worked on. . . the Globalists and anti American Leftists”
That’s the rationalizing I get from “skeptics” every time: “the Globalists and anti American Leftists”. “Skeptics” cannot leave their ideology out of it, and that’s because it’s what their anti-AGW motivations are based on – not an objective look at what the science – the physics – actually requires to make sense.
Your missing my main points:
1. We as human beings are not the “Prime” drivers of Global warming or “Climate change”. To think so is to have too much of a homo centric view of the universe. The earth and the climate do not give two craps about our conversation. Do our activities have some effect on our environment or climate? I would think to some degree, but we are not the “Prime” driver of change.
Are you saying that our planet is not still emerging from a 100K year warming period and still generally warming? And it will if history and science is accurate be descending into another 100K year cooling cycle at some point in the future. Because that is what the evidence indicates.
And, 2. No economy of consequence is going to sacrifice their economy for this cause any time soon. None.
So we can have these climate discussions, but the climate will be doing what it will be doing regardless. The climate will continue to generally warm because the planet is generally warming at this point in time.
Are our activities pushing the climate over some razors edge where the climate becomes out of control and we are all doomed? I really doubt it. But that is me and its not one my top ten things that concern me.
And remember that this subject has morphed and necessarily evolved over the years to the more refined and universal “Climate change” which can mean what ever is needed. And that evolution becomes the bigger issue for me because that is about politics and manipulation in the end.
And that IS among my top ten things that in deed concerns me.
You got climate – it will change.
Stating it is anthropological – as in AGW – that is an unsubstantiated claim.
Seeing changes in climate does NOT prove AGW.
Seeing correlated changes in climate with anthropologic activity does NOT prove AGW. (There are not a lot of these anyway and the data has been corrupted. Who knows who’s telling the truth.
Correlation is NOT causation.
We do not know enough about the climate to say what is happening – far too many variables and even unknown unknowns. (What’s the temperature of vast sections of ocean at 100 ft? 1000ft? …etc)
Taking the earth’s temperature is a really hard task. Measuring the energy is harder.
I would argue we really don’t have this in place even now.
Anyone with any amount of skepticism rejects the AGW argument.
Sure the climate may be changing. As I say – got climate you’ll get change.
Making the massive leap to AGW – truly unbelievable.
Chris: As Al Gore would say, “You racist,you!” :)
. . . but we are not the “Prime” driver of change.
Arm waving.
Are you saying that our planet is not still emerging from a 100K year warming period and still generally warming?
We’re well past the natural temperature peak of this interglacial period – by several thousand years.
No economy of consequence is going to sacrifice their economy for this cause any time soon.
Not an issue for the physics involved, just more evidence that you can’t leave the ideology alone.
The climate will continue to generally warm because the planet is generally warming at this point in time.
A circular argument, but it will continue to warm if GHG concentrations continue to increase at rates that exceed the effects of any other negative forcings.
. . evolved over the years to the more refined and universal “Climate change” which can mean what ever is needed
Sometimes people are lazy and use “climate change” when they mean ACC, or “anthropogenic climate change”, sorry about that, they should be shot for causing so much confusion in some people.
We do not know enough about the climate to say what is happening
I think you mean that you don’t know what is happening, you shouldn’t project your lack of knowledge onto other people who spend their lives getting an understanding of what’s happening, how and why.
(What’s the temperature of vast sections of ocean at 100 ft? 1000ft? …etc)
Have you heard of Argo? No, not the movie. .
Andrew – tell the world what the full climate change model is.
Win the Nobel prize.
You can’t.
I stand by my statement -as written.
Argo – has 3000 sensors going 2000 m deep and TRYING to cover 360,000,000 square km of ocean surface with an average depth of 3000-4000 m.
Not enough sensors.
Next
I leave the science to the experts, same with most things I want done well.
Not enough sensors.
Looking forward to your evidence supporting that claim.
On leaving the science to the experts – I’m an engineer – I want the design review.
When I met an engineer who had an advanced degree and she/he wanted to state this or that and noted their degree my guard hairs went up.
Engineers and scientists don’t rely on their prior achievements (degrees or findings …etc). They always prove with results. This is why for the most part the buildings don’t fall down, the planes fly and the cars run. There are charlatans but the day-to-day scientist or engineer always wants to the results, the data, the calculations. The good engineer and scientist is eager to show the data, to show their designs, their findings, their discoveries AND to find ANY flaws in their work because, as Professor Mike Bright of Grove City College once told me – “Engineers seek truth.”
On the sensors…
Do the math on sensors vs area and esp depth of ocean.
Yes, I believe that Michael Mann “Climatologist”, famous for the Al Gore “Hockey Stick” had a problem with what you outline here, he was not very eager to share his work. Lost two big law suits, was ordered to pay all costs for the defendants if I recall properly.
Chris: should stand by his statement. Global temperatures started to rise three centuries ago, with a brief dip again a couple of centuries ago. Manmade CO2 didn’t start in earnest until 80 years ago, or so, showing a lack of correlation, much less causation.
Global temperatures began to drop again 75 years ago, causing scientists to proclaim the that the next Ice Age was on its way, once again demonstrating that there is no correlation between anthropogenic CO2 generation and global temperatures.
Half a century ago, soon after the scientists warned of the coming Ice Age, temperatures began to rise again, demonstrating an anti-correlation between scientific conclusions and climate, but causing scientists to warn of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) — despite a lack of science to support the claim. No wonder there are so many skeptics; the climatologists clearly don’t have a handle on the subject but are insisting that they have knowledge that they obviously lack.
A few years and a Kyoto Accord later, temperatures stopped rising, yet again demonstrating that there is no correlation between anthropogenic CO2 generation and global temperatures, but instead causing 1) a change in nomenclature from AGW to anthropogenic climate change (as though stable temperature means change in climate), 2) scientists making wild and unsupported claims as to where the heat was “hiding,” and 3) unannounced, unexplained modifications to past temperature records — the very definition of fudged data. What the stable temperatures should have caused was celebration that the Kyoto Accords worked and that we are all saved from doom and hellish Earthly heat. Yay! Instead we learned, or should have learned, that we cannot trust these scientists or their data.
I, too, am an engineer. I built a satellite instrument that measured one form of energy flux coming from the Earth and worked on two that measured some of the flux falling onto the Earth, to refine knowledge of the Earth’s energy balance, making me far closer to being a climate scientist than anyone with whom I have ever argued global warming or climate change. But they all think that they know better — that they are the experts on the topic — because Al Gore made a movie and a hundred million dollars selling carbon credits. The latest one I argued with is so scientifically illiterate that she didn’t know that a proton has a positive charge and thought that a neutron had a negative charge. But she still thinks that she is right and I am wrong, because everyone knows that global warming — er — climate change is real, and to disagree is to be wrong, so shut up! https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/midnight-repost-what-ever-you-do-dont-shut-up/
Since Wayne is late on this:
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
Chris–
Is that Michael Crichton the author?
(I’ve been looking for a copy of the movie version of his book “Binary.” From the early 1970’s I believe.)
What type of Engineer are you?
Yes this is the Aliens cause Global Warming talk I think you posted so time ago.
It’s a PFD
I am an electrical engineer. The last 15 or so years of my career I was an engineering manager with multiple disciplines in my group. This let the really smart people do the engineering and gave me something else to do.
Sorry – PDF – autocorrect changed
Chris–
Very cool –Electrical Engineer! (Have an older cousin who retired from Honeywell in Minnesota with the same discipline.
Tangential Question– as a child, did you take electrical stuff apart to see how it worked? How did you get into this?
Ref; Crichton, ok, yeah, it’s the transcript, to the video…
(the memory, is the first to go!)
Andrew_W:
Here you go: https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/tag/Greatest+Scientific+Fraud
This is a blog with many many links to the unaltered data, with statistical and scientific analysis of all. SCIENCE!
Educate yourself. Do your own research. There are study after study out there for perusal. Keep in mind that the scientific method is INHERENTLY SKEPTICAL. That’s why we call them hypotheses and theories instead of facts.
My favorite scientific statement: “What we THINK we know is…”
Side note: No one believes that we are doing absolutely nothing to affect the outcome of climate. That would be silly. What we are saying, and showing through data and math, is that the effect is so minuscule that our measurement tools can’t pick it out from the background drivers of climate.
Enjoy!
Unfortunately, when an AGW believer states that he/she is “leaving it to the experts”, they transition Climate science from a field of study into a religion, with the “climate scientists” being the priests. And, almost universally, they come from the seminary. Climatology is one of the few “hard” science which has attracted big government liberals, and is headed, at virtually all colleges, by those BG liberals, just like the social “sciences” and liberal arts.
Climatology as a “science” came out of the environmental movement, most of whose organizations believe that humans are the cause of all ills. Any scientist who was willing to see where the science leads was drummed out early (or found real jobs in industry), so only the true believers made it into the educational system. And 90+% of those who choose climate “science” as a major really want to change the world – changing your belief as to cause, to one in which nature is the primary driver, is a major emotional crisis, one to be avoided at all costs. Any that really want to know the science are convinced to leave the major by their 2nd year, so they never get the title.
And the “experts” are only those with “climatology” degrees – chemists, physicists, and engineers need not be considered, even though climatology is one of the simpler sciences from a data interpretation standpoint.
As a satellite solar array engineer, energy fluxes drove my designs. Solar input (by frequency), Earth Albedo (shifted frequencies), and Earth emissivity (thermal frequencies) are all part of the energy balance (especially in Low Earth Orbit). So yes, I am an Expert in climatology, at least at the global scale. And I have looked at the data, and the data manipulation performed by the AGW fanatics – always in the service of larger, more intrusive government, and often easily identified. It is clear to me based on the data, that much of the 20th century was of multiple solar cycles destructively interfering (keeping climate stable), a period which we are out of, and we will likely see multi-decade long warming trends followed by multi-decade long cooling trends, a pattern which will continue for a couple of hundred years until the next period of overlapping cycles stabilized the climate for another 60 year period. These patterns have been happening for all of human history, and can be seen both in sediment cores and in human history of civilizations.
Humans have some small impact on climate, which will be taken by AGW fanatics as proof of their position, even if it is only a second or 3rd order phenomenon compared to the astronomical impacts on climate. But, since climatology is to the big government religion as intelligent design is to extreme christian theology, it is almost impossible to change the mind of anyone willing to engage in a “discussion” (which is really them just telling you why you’re wrong, and not listening to you explain to them what the science says).
Wayne – some stuff taken apart as a kid but the EE decision was from taking a few electronics electives as a physics major. This pushed the decision Physics – need to get a masters or more to get a foothold vs Engineer – bachelors and then into the working word.
Want to prove global warming is a new religion and thus a myth?
Whats the next date of no return?
And when we pass it and nothing happens watch the GW crowd take credit for the change.
Sort of like a christian taking credit because they prayed.
Chris, if you can find valid analysis of the Argo floats or their coverage that finds fault do share.
Cotour, Mann’s methods and data are freely available, the court case was not a trial of the science, and did not find the science at fault.
Trent Castanaveras, I had a look through a few of the links, I didn’t find anything other than the usual amateur attacks on the mainstream position on AGW.
Here’s someone who will refute all the claims your preferred site makes:
https://scienceofdoom.com
Edward, There are four main inputs to climate that combine to result in the Earth’s average surface temperature: Anthropogenic forcings, Natural forcings, changes to wind affecting surface water distribution (eg ENSO) and thermal inertia, the early ’40’s warmth was a result of a strong El Nino, same with the recent “hiatus” which started with El Nino and had La Nina condtions at it’s end when the surface temperature trend resumed.
You fail to account for one of those inputs (as you do when you point to the 1940’s temperatures) and what has been observed doesn’t make sense.
It’s your standard game to try to refute AGW by suggesting that deviations caused by natural forcing or weather events disprove AGW. That’s been your game for years. Without including a substantial GHG forcing observation can’t be made to fit the physics.
Tom Tolan, “always in the service of larger, more intrusive government”. Like I said above, “skeptics” of the mainstream position always see an evil leftist agenda at work, the “skeptics” don’t recognize their own ideological agenda. Their logic requires thousands of people to be involved in a worldwide conspiracy, as does the logic of Flat Earthers, Moon Landing Deniers etc.
And please do not think that the whole world believes it except the USA,
None of the communist nations believe it either. They are just saying they do in order to force America into accepting a theory that will totally destroy Americas economy.
Saying you believe it and doing something about it are two different things. Who is giving you the latest lip service?
It doesn’t require a conspiracy of thousands world wide.
It just requires believers.
Andrew do the math. – There are too few sensors 3000-4000 (I think now) for 360,000,000 sq km of ocean
Average ocean depth is 3000m – the sensors do a max 2000 m dive.
We are still finding ocean currents (2018 article):
https://www.livescience.com/62275-new-ocean-current-madagascar.html
This is a “small but very important” current.
Argo was in place for years.
And do any or all these currents change over time? What were the currents before we could measure?
How would you know if you just found this new ocean current now?
We also seems to have miscounted the amount of forest we have.
https://newatlas.com/forest-discovered-plain-sight/49504/
What else don’t we know?
How does or did this affect the overall climate picture?
I don’t know and I don’t think anyone else does either, but a lot of “climate scientists” say they do. “The science is settled”
And if the science is done then we need to stop all funding of this science – since hey the science is done and it’s settled. No need for more funding. Move along citizen – nothing new to see here.
The point here is there is no one who can say QED. QED where anyone can look at the data, the equations and the theories and agree that there is causality (let alone correlation).
The key is anyone – not just the climate scientists need to be able to review the data and findings and agree. The science needs to stand on its own – it doesn’t. We cannot rely on the consensus of climate scientists telling us this or that.
Consensus is not proof.
You should read the Crichton piece I put above. His talk gives example after example of how science is being lax on critically reviewing its findings and very keen on publicity. It’s a show. And any who challenges the show are called names and publicly shamed for challenging. “Danger Will Robinson! Danger!”
Should we study the climate – absolutely. It is an important part of our existence. But we need to scientifically study it with the effort to discover what has occurred (as best we can) and what is now occurring; NOT prove a theory. Programs like the Argo system and satellite temperature observations are good things for trying to begin to understand what the climate is. However, stating that we know or begin to know now is foolish.
Andrew W: Incorrect.
“What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.”
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php
Trent/Tom/pzatchok–
Good stuff.
Chris–
Very interesting!
“If Physics Was Less of A Science”
2019
https://youtu.be/GFU3KpyreEk
2:09
Andrew_W:
You riposte with mathmatical modeling as science?!
You sir are correct. You should leave the science to the experts.
pzatchok It just requires believers.
A believer is someone with no science supporting of their beliefs.
I said: “the court case was not a trial of the science, and did not find the science at fault.”
Court ruling The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years.
Chris Andrew do the math
I’ve been unable to find any papers making the claims of inadequate coverage that you do, can you offer any?
Trent Castanaveras You should leave the science to the experts.
I’m doing so, what expert studies are you basing your claims on?
pzatchok wrote: “And please do not think that the whole world believes it except the USA,
None of the communist nations believe it either.”
No one believes it. The only people who believe in AGW stop using powered transportation, powered appliances at home and work (including lighting), or buying anything produced or delivered using power.
The Earth has, of course, been warming since the middle of the Little Ice Age, with a few pauses, so global warming itself is real, but we still have no evidence that human activity adds any measurable amount to this warming. You would think that after all this time some scientist would have been able to do so.
Chris noted: “And if the science is done then we need to stop all funding of this science”
Another sign that no one believes in AGW or believes that the science is settled.
I am waiting for Dark mater and Dark energy to be blamed next.
I was looking at the OCO-2 data yesterday.
They have wonderful graphics showing their data in any number of ways.
But they NEVER explain exactly how they can differentiate between human created co2 and naturally created co2.
As far as I can tell they are just assuming a specific amount of all CO2 in the atmosphere in caused by humans. They then represent it in their graphs according to each areas population and use of fossil fuels.
As far as I can tell they are just assuming a specific amount of all CO2 in the atmosphere in caused by humans.
The human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is well understood, and there are several people who comment on BtB who are certainly well enough versed in the science involved to cover this. But will they? I doubt it, it’ll suit them better if they let me cover it, or allow you to continue with your misperceptions, rather than help you be better informed. Your lack of knowledge on this suits them.
It’s after 7pm here and I’m on my third glass, so best I address this in the morning . . . unless someone else is willing to risk damaging their anti-AGW credentials, which I doubt. Mussen’t let knowledge get in the way of a useful narrative. . .
Andrew_W: You are getting cranky and a bit insulting again. It does not do you credit, nor does serve to convince others of your stance.
I think it really is best that you go to bed and wake up refreshed and in good humor tomorrow. Better for you, and for the conversation here.
Bob, it’s a serious challenge, our civilizations CO2 emission rates are well known, Henry’s law well established, solubility of CO2 with temperature basic, levels of C13 isotopes in fossil fuels against the natural atmospheric levels known. Will someone stick their neck out and address pzatchok’s concerns before I get out of bed in 12 hours? Are you a betting man?
And not cranky, I’m a happy (nearly) drunk. :-)
Andrew – way is a paper required?
360,000,000/4,000 = 90,000 sq km per sensor
Average depth 3,000 m the sensors only dive to 2,000
On it’s face it is not covering. This is evidenced by recently finding a new ocean current as I noted. In the article linked the person interviewed noted how the new current add to the picture of ocean currents but that they have much to learn.
You cannot still have much to learn and have the science settled at the same time.
But then again you mussen’t let a simple calculation get in the way of a useful narrative.
I hope you enjoyed whatever it was you were imbibing.
And Andrew still did not explain how they can tell the difference between human caused CO2 and natural CO2 from space.
I am led to understand that its a simple answer for those who know.
Lets see who the ‘knowers” and the believers are.