Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sneak'n]

Ummm... your previous post?

You bagged out Wilde without a shred of justification for doing so.

Wilde's model does not discuss the issue at hand. It simply represents his view of how climates can change. I said it had no temporal base; that is, it does not consider the role of increased greenhouse gases with respect to current temperature trends. To put it into this thread does not further debate on current science. So you are inaccurate in this instance, not to mention my point referred to previous posts.

I must point out that it is not my place to back claims. I can never do so as successfully as the scientists involved. That is their job.

You make assertions that you do not understand? What are you presenting? What science are you referring to? I have not seen any evidence you know what you are doing in this thread.

It is up to the inquisitor to decide whether the argument is valid or not. Second hand arguments are... well, secondhand. My purpose is to line up behind those arguments that make sense to me.

Maybe so. Are you able to sustain the position so that others can grasp what it is that makes sense?

You only welcome discussion that ascribes to your specific point of view. You steadfastly refuse to consider any other viewpoint, even after concessions from the other side.

Yet again, where is your evidence?

I regard it foolish that you continue to ignore/deny this.

Not sure what you are referring to here as I have given my stance on most positions, and don't recall ignoring or denying anything.

As detailed above, it is Wilde's role to support his model. I merely present it as an alternative for interest. Whether it is valid or not is subjective, as are the various IPCC models

That's a blatant cop out. It's not about subjectivity. It's about its value to climate science for one, and it should have been of value to this thread. Again, I ask how so?

You responded (immaturely) by detailing your purported amusement without actually debating on any scientific level.

Given Wilde has not addressed the climate science we generally allude to here, how is it immature?

This is a monumental hypocrisy which sadly drags the argument into the gutter level so typical of Mann, Monbiot et al and ignores the true scientific method. This is why I can only ever regard you as a zealot, unable to discern bona fide challenges to your faith of your version of The Apocalypse.

You keep putting labels and tags on me. Where have I ignored the science here? On the other hand, where have you shown your comprehension of it?

I would bet my @ss that rederob lives in a better than average (and hungrier in energy) house, drives a nice car and has a "carbon footprint" typical.... perhaps even in excess of those of his peers.... just like Al Bore.

Perhaps he has even invested in companies profiting from ETS etc. That would be odds on.

When will you put your character assassinations to one side, and argue the science?

Mr L, it is more of the same, more of the same. Until you actually add meaningfully to this debate, I shall not be responding to your posts.

 

[wayneL]

Rederob,

As tempting as it is to address your logical fallacies forthwith, the land of nod beckons as it is now late in the Godzone; and I have an early start on Monday and a busy week ahead.

Thankfully, explod deals only in irrelevancies and can be addressed for amusement avlue if time permits.

But as you purport (erroneously) to have a grasp of the issues, I will take the time to address some of your points later in the week.

Meanwhile, as you have accused me of character assassination re your lifestyle, I would be pleased if you would detail your personal contribution to "saving the planet" and the proportions of your "carbon footprint".

 

[basilio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by basilio View Post
Krugman
***Spits on ground in disgust.

Apart from being a far more scarlet shade of pink than most of the Champagne Socialists around, he assumes a biased view of the science.

Some good points, but most is bin-worthy.
__________________

.....

By the way has anyone else taken the opportunity to actually read Paul Klugmans article and in particular consider his comments on balancing the costs of tackling climate change versus the costs of inaction ?

 

[ghotib]

Hi Wayne.

I read Wilde's article, and I also read his comment about it:

Where do I claim it to be a ’science article’ or a ‘mathematical model’ ?

It is a logical description of the processes that must be occurring in one form or another or to one degree or another to get long term observations to fit the basic laws of physics.

So Wilde himself acknowledges that this is a long, long way from being either a testable hypothesis or a testable model. In the words of another comment, a better title would be "assumptions for a new climate model".

The article makes a number of unsubstantiated statements about the existing, testable, publicly available models. You don't need to publish a detailed critique of existing work to produce something new, but you do need to understand the existing work to know that what you're doing really is new and potentially useful. So far, it looks as though Wilde doesn't understand.

And Wayne, if this piece is Watts' idea of science, I think he might really be a liberal arts graduate and not a weatherman.
Cheers,

Ghoti

 

[basilio]

Thanks Wayne for the reference to Stephen Wildes discussion “A New and Effective Climate Model” . When you have a good look at the paper and Stephen himself many of the recurring issues that arise with bashers of current climate scientists emerge.

For a start Stephen is actually a lawyer (with Honours !) but not a scientist. Interestingly enough however he somehow manages to claim he is a “Fellow of the Royal Meteorological society" since 1968. see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1041. Well that should add plenty of kudos to his theories shouldn’t it ?

Trouble is that Stephen joined as student member of the society in 1968. However he but never actually reached the full professional standards and education required to be a Fellow. See http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/06/stephen-wilde-sixth-article-death-blow.html

But lets not worry about details like that when your trying to look as if you know what you are talking about.

As for his Model.. It is a very confusing amalgamation of obscure and not so obscure scientific utterances seemingly intended to convince those who want to be convinced that
1) I’m very, very bright and can use big words
2) The rest of the scientific world hasn’t yet appreciated my insights

Interestingly enough there was absolutely no maths in the discussion or any reference to any other scientific paper.

There were hundreds of comments in response to the article. Naturally many were in enthusiastic support (it is after all Watts what) while a number of others engaged Stephen in some of the scientific detail he used in his paper. In the first response I have quoted below I thought it was really neat how the writer demonstrated Stephens fundamental lack of understanding about basic scientific principles. When you get something as basic as this wrong you fail year 10 Physics.

The second response goes to the core of what climate models are intended to do.

TLM (02:31:17) :
Gosh – where to start with this one…?
The biggies here are:
(iii) Counterintuitively an active sun means cooling not warming and vice versa.
and
(v) [re CO2 forcing causing back radiation of infrared] …since evaporation has a net cooling effect due to the removal of energy as latent heat the net effect should be increased cooling and not warming of the oceans

Well if (iii) is correct then the less energy we receive from the sun, the warmer we get, and the more energy the cooler we get. How do I falsify that one? I know, lets compare a planet close to the sun, such as Mercury, with one that is far away such as Neptune. By this theory Neptune should be boiling hot and Mercury freezing cold. Hmm…
It also blows out the Milankovitch Cycles as an explanation for the ice ages. This theory predicts (extremely accurately as it happens) that known variations in the orbit of the Earth bring us closer or move us further away from the sun creating really quite small changes in insolation. However, these small changes are enough to cause huge areas of the northern hemisphere to be covered in vast ice sheets.

Sorry, I don’t buy (iii). You need to explain the mechanism in more detail.

For (v) I would try an experiment involving a pan full of cold water. Above this I would put an infrared lamp. Now according to your theory the water should get colder due to evaporation as the heat from the infrared lamp hits the water.
But if this were to happen then as soon as the water warmed a little under the lamp it would instantly cool due to evaporation and evaporation would stop. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the physical process. If the water does not get warmer then greater evaporation cannot occur. The greater evaporation only happens because the water is warmer! Sunshine (infrared, ultraviolet, and visible spectrum) all warm the sea – as anybody who has paddled in the water on a beach in the Summer and avoided doing so in the Winter will testify.

Sure, evaporation (and re-emission of infrared radiation) will moderate the speed of the rise in temperature and eventually return it to a steady (but much higher) temperature – but rise it most definitely will.

I could go on and on but I have a life to lead.

TLM then offers another post that identifies just what climate models are intended to do

…

.Your “model” seems to be a random collection of various studies you have read on this site. Take a step back and have a look at the bigger picture. it really is a lot simpler than even your model tries to describe.

The problem for the climate models is not that they cannot predict the future, just that they cannot predict the near future, i.e. the next 5 to 10 years. What they can do, however, is predict a trend. I think a problem for the modellers is that they are probably trying to claim too much for their models.

They are almost certainly predicting the correct “trend”, i.e. a gradually warming climate. What they cannot do is account for all the internal variability – and to be honest I think it is beyond any climate model to do that.

Internal variability is by definition “weather”. Predicting chaotic variations in weather gets more difficult as the period of time increases. However, predicting a long term trend in the climate becomes easier as the period of time increases because the chaotic internal variations cancel each other out and the trend becomes clearer above the noise. If you do not understand that then you misunderstand the whole point of climate modelling!

…..The thing that the climate modellers are trying to achieve is a prediction of the effect of adding billions of tons of CO2 to our atmosphere over the next hundred years – that is a human timescale of two or three generations. It is worth stating what they are not trying to achieve:

1. Prediction of the weather and temperature over the next one, two or even ten years.
2. Prediction of the climate over the next thousand years.
3. Prediction of the climate over the next million years.

Their major problem is that it is going to take another 10 or 20 years of empirical data for the trend to become apparent enough to “prove” that their models are correct – by which time it will probably be too late for us to do very much about it.

Cheers

 

[wayneL]

Hi Wayne.

I read Wilde's article, and I also read his comment about it:



So Wilde himself acknowledges that this is a long, long way from being either a testable hypothesis or a testable model. In the words of another comment, a better title would be "assumptions for a new climate model".

The article makes a number of unsubstantiated statements about the existing, testable, publicly available models. You don't need to publish a detailed critique of existing work to produce something new, but you do need to understand the existing work to know that what you're doing really is new and potentially useful. So far, it looks as though Wilde doesn't understand.

And Wayne, if this piece is Watts' idea of science, I think he might really be a liberal arts graduate and not a weatherman.
Cheers,

Ghoti

It is interesting that you make the same criticisms of Wilde's model that apply to the religious IPCC canon.

And do I really need to remind you of how discredited the IPCC are, and how far from scientific method they have diverged now?

That said, as per above, climate models suck... all of them so far.

 

[derty]

It is interesting that you make the same criticisms of Wilde's model that apply to the religious IPCC canon.

And do I really need to remind you of how discredited the IPCC are, and how far from scientific method they have diverged now?

That said, as per above, climate models suck... all of them so far.

In all fairness Wilde doesn't have a 'model', there is no maths behind it and he doesn't know the relative effects of his various factors. You cannot run it and have it predict anything.

So far Wilde has a list of assumptions. Comparing this with the existing climate models is apples and oranges.

 

[Stephen Wilde]

Hello all. Thanks for the attention.

Given that current climatology failed to anticipate the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years I think it's now open to anyone with reasonable suggestions to weigh into the debate.

Perhaps some of you might be a little more constructive. We are all on the same side in wanting to know the truth are we not ?

As for my 'model' that term is pretty wide ranging and need not be bound by any particular style or format.

If one gives it a little thought you will see that it complies with real world observations. The sequence I have set out is exactly what really does happen.

As for the appropriate interpretaion of those real world events there is lots of room for alternative suggestions. Even the CO2 theory could be slotted in but only if one can seperate any human CO2 influence from natural internal system variability.

Unfortunately nobody can do that yet.

Furthermore the CO2 theory does not explain the real world sequence of events either.

Time for a fresh start and I've provided one.

 

[wayneL]

Hello all. Thanks for the attention.

Given that current climatology failed to anticipate the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years I think it's now open to anyone with reasonable suggestions to weigh into the debate.

Perhaps some of you might be a little more constructive. We are all on the same side in wanting to know the truth are we not ?

As for my 'model' that term is pretty wide ranging and need not be bound by any particular style or format.

If one gives it a little thought you will see that it complies with real world observations. The sequence I have set out is exactly what really does happen.

As for the appropriate interpretaion of those real world events there is lots of room for alternative suggestions. Even the CO2 theory could be slotted in but only if one can seperate any human CO2 influence from natural internal system variability.

Unfortunately nobody can do that yet.

Furthermore the CO2 theory does not explain the real world sequence of events either.

Time for a fresh start and I've provided one.

Hi Stephen,

Welcome to the forum.

I hope you stick around a bit and put forth more of your views.

Cheers

 

[sneak'n]

Hello all. Thanks for the attention.
Given that current climatology failed to anticipate the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years I think it's now open to anyone with reasonable suggestions to weigh into the debate.

How does that square with most of the hottest years of the past century being recorded in the last decade?

Your model contains obvious and basic scientific mistakes, so how do you consider you have added to climate science?

Climate science does draw from the known impact of greater quantities of CO2 in our atmosphere. We know that human contributions have sped up the natural cycle, but the precise quantum will never be known. To not "model" - on a scientific basis -a known impact when there is a large amount of empirical evidence to suggest the trend may have severe consequences, would be rather foolish.

At best, your model tells us that climate changes. That's not really a fresh start, is it?

 

[trainspotter]

Modern cold waves (2001-date)

2009-2010 European Cold Wave - At least 90 are confirmed dead after record low temperatures and heavy snowfall across Europe causes travel disruption to much of the continent including the British Isles, France, the Low Countries, Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, the Baltic States, the Balkans, Ukraine and Russia. Coldest winter for 30 years in the UK with the longest sustained cold spell since 1981. Temperatures in the Italian Alpine peaks have reached low to an extreme of -47 °C.

December 2009 North American Blizzard - heaviest blizzard for a decade causes power outages and travel chaos along the U.S Eastern Seaboard and Eastern Canada killing at least five people.
Early 2009 European Cold Wave - Early January gave most of Europe, especially in central and south very cold temperatures. Some places like Germany, France, Italy, Romania and Spain had record cold temperatures well below 0 °C. Most of the places were covered in snow and ice which caused school closings and airport delays. Large cities like Paris, Madrid, Berlin and even Marseille saw very cold temperatures with lots of snow and ice in Northern Italy, most of Germany, in northern Portugal and even along the coasts of the Mediterranean. In early February another cold front brought heavy snowfall to much of Western Europe with the heaviest snow falling in France, Northern Italy, the Low Countries and the United Kingdom, where parts of Southern England had seen the worst snowfall in over 18 years causing widespread travel disruption particularly around London.

2008 North American Cold Wave - In December, Canada and large parts of the United States experienced very heavy snowfall and plummeting temperatures. Snowfall was seen in unusual areas along the Great Plains and even in the deserts in and around Las Vegas. Also, over a foot of snow fell in Seattle and other parts of the lowland Pacific Northwest. Mexico experienced a number of cold waves in October, December and January, with temperatures below 0 °C.

2008 Alaska - In early February Alaska experienced some of the coldest temperatures for 8 years, with Fairbanks nearing (-50 °F (-46 °C) and Chicken, Alaska bottoming out at -72 °F (-58 °C), a mere 8 degrees away from the record of -80 °F (-62 °C). The first half of January also brought unusual cold weather and heavy snow to widespread regions of China and the Middle East.

2007 Argentine cold wave - An interaction with an area of low pressure systems across Argentina during the July 6, July 7 and 8 of 2007, and the entry of a massive polar cold snap resulted in severe snowfalls and blizzards, and recorded temperatures below -30 º C. The cold snap advanced from the south towards the central zone of the country, continuing its displacement towards the north during Saturday, July 7. On Monday July 9, the simultaneous presence of very cold air, gave place to the occurrence of snowfalls. This phenomenon left at least 23 people dead.[3][4]

2007 Northern Hemisphere cold wave - All of Canada and most of the United States underwent a freeze after a two-week warming that took place in late March & early April. Crops froze, wind picked up, and snow drizzled much of the United States. Some parts of Europe also experienced unusual cold winter-like temperatures, during that time.

2005-2006 European cold wave - Eastern Europe and Russia saw a very cold winter. Some of them saw their coldest on record or since the 1970s. Snow was an abundance in unusual places, such as in southern Spain and Northern Africa. All the winter months that season saw temperatures well below average across the continent.

2004-2005 Southern Europe cold wave - All areas of Southern Europe saw an unusually hard winter. This area saw an ice storm which have a 1 in 1000 chance of happening.[citation needed] This cold front caused snow in Algeria, which is extremely unusual. The south of Spain and Morroco also recorded freezing temperatures, and record freezing temperatures were observed on the north of Portugal and Spain.

2004 January cold outbreak, Northeast United States - New England was near a record month when frequent Arctic fronts caused unusually cold weather. Boston was one of their coldest in 114 years. Virginia Beach had an unusually long period of below freezing weather. One area of New York saw 150 inches of snow in a month. Many parts of the western and midwestern area of the country seen the effect as well.

Yeppers ...... bloody hot in them countries !

 

[Timmy]

What's the source for that TS? - looks interesting.

 

[derty]

it's wikipedia Timmy,

here is the corresponding heat wave selection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave

We are seeing some extremes in weather at both ends of the spectrum.

21st century

* In April 2002 a summer-like heat wave affected much of the Eastern United States.
* In the European heat wave of 2003, around 35,000 people died of it.[citation needed] Much of the heat was concentrated in France, where nearly 15,000 people died[citation needed]. In Portugal, the temperatures reached as high as 48 °C (118 °F) in the south.
* The European heat wave of 2006 was the second massive heat wave to hit the continent in four years, with temperatures rising to 40 °C (104 °F) in Paris; in Ireland, which has a moderate maritime climate, temperatures of over 32 °C (90 °F) were reported. Temperatures of 35 °C (95 °F) were reached in the Benelux and Germany (in some areas 38 °C (100 °F), while Great Britain recorded 37 °C (99 °F). Many heat records were broken (including the hottest ever July temperature in Great Britain) and many people who experienced the heat waves of 1976 and 2003 drew comparisons with them.
* A heat wave affected much of the United States in July and August 2006. Over 220 deaths were reported. Temperatures in some parts of South Dakota exceeded 115 °F (46 °C), causing many problems for the residents. Also, California experienced temperatures that were extraordinarily high, with records ranging from 100 to 130 °F (38 to 54 °C). On July 22, the County of Los Angeles recorded its highest temperature ever at 119 °F (48 °C).[23]
* The European heat wave of 2007 affected primarily south-eastern Europe during late June through August. Bulgaria experienced its hottest year on record, with previously unrecorded temperatures above 45 °C (113 °F). The 2007 Greek forest fires were associated with the heat wave.
* During the 2007 Asian heat wave, the Indian city of Datia experienced temperatures of 48 °C (118 °F).
* In January 2008, Alice Springs in Australia's Northern Territory recorded ten consecutive days of temperatures above 40 °C (104 °F) with the average temperature for that month being 39.8 °C (103.6 °F). In March 2008, Adelaide, South Australia experienced maximum temperatures of above 35 °C (95 °F) for fifteen consecutive days, seven days more than the previous longest stretch of 35 °C (95 °F) days. The March 2008 heat wave also included eleven consecutive days above 38 °C (100 °F).[24] The heat wave was especially notable because it occurred in March, an autumn month, in which Adelaide averages only 2.3 days above 35 °C (95 °F).[25]
* The eastern United States experienced an early Summer heat wave from June 6–10, 2008 with record temperatures.[26] There was a heat wave in Southern California beginning late June,[27] which contributed to widespread fires. On July 6, a renewed heat wave was forecast, which was expected to affect the entire state.[28][29]
* In early 2009, Adelaide, South Australia was hit by a heat wave with temperatures reaching 40+ °C for six days in a row, while many rural areas experienced temperatures hovering around about mid 40s °C (mid 110s °F). Kyancutta on the Eyre Peninsula endured at least one day at 48 °C, with 46 and 47 being common in the hottest parts of the state. Melbourne, in neighbouring Victoria recorded 3 consecutive days over 43 °C (109 °F), and also recorded its highest ever temperature 8 days later in a secondary heatwave, with the mercury peaking at 46.4 °C (115.5 °F). During this heat wave Victoria suffered from large bushfires which claimed the lives of more than 210 people and destroyed more than 2,500 homes. There were also over half a million people without power as the heatwave blew transformers and the power grid was overloaded.
* In August 2009, Argentina experienced a period of unusual and exceptionally hot weather during August 24–30, 2009 during the Southern Hemisphere winter, just a month before Spring[30] when a unusual and unrecorded winter heat wave hit the country. A shot of tropical heat drawn unusually far southward hiked temperatures 22 degrees above normal in the city of Buenos Aires and across the northern-centre regions of the country. Several records were broken. Even though normal high temperatures for late August are in the lower 15 °C (59 °F), readings topped 30 °C (86 °F) degrees at midweek, then topped out above 32 °C (90 °F) degrees during the weekend.[31] Temperatures hit 33.8 °C (92.8 °F) on 29 August and finally 34.6 °C (94.3 °F) on 30 August in Buenos Aires, making it the hottest day ever recorded in winter breaking the 1996 winter record of 33.7 °C (92.7 °F). In the city of Santa Fe, a remarkable 38.3 °C (100.9 °F) degrees on 30 August was registered, notwithstanding the normal high in the upper 15 °C/60 °Fs. As per the Meteorological Office of Argentina August 2009 has been the warmest month during winter since official measurements began[32].

 

[Timmy]

Thanks Derty

 

[trainspotter]

Thanks Derty & Timmy !! It appears that a case can be augmented to any bias depending on whose research and statistics you want to use ! Hot in some places & cold in others. I just got tired of bloggers telling me how freaking hot it is blah blah blah and it appears it has also been the coldest in other areas in decades as well yadda yadda yadda. Wikepedia might not be the best place for research BUT when the Guardian tells you it is the coldest winter in 31 years ya just might have to believe it !! LOLOLOL

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/02/british-winter-coldest-30-years

 

[sneak'n]

Given that current climatology failed to anticipate the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years I think it's now open to anyone with reasonable suggestions to weigh into the debate.

I could have used other data sets, but Wiki seems easiest and has other references for those wanting to go further:

20 Warmest years on record
( °C Anomaly of mean from 1901-2000)
Year Global Land Ocean
2005 0.6058 0.9553 0.4884
1998 0.5768 0.8321 0.5087
2002 0.5575 0.8309 0.4784
2003 0.5566 0.7711 0.5102
2006 0.5524 0.8159 0.4669
2007 0.5499 0.9804 0.3874
2004 0.5332 0.7075 0.4809
2001 0.4939 0.7204 0.4416
2008 0.4869 0.7758 0.3721
1997 0.4618 0.5584 0.4498
1995 0.3991 0.6531 0.3191
1999 0.3953 0.676 0.3237
1990 0.3701 0.5484 0.3279
2000 0.3632 0.5175 0.3406
1991 0.3239 0.4094 0.3105
1988 0.2886 0.4196 0.2585
1987 0.2867 0.2963 0.2999
1994 0.282 0.3597 0.2699
1983 0.2715 0.3718 0.2508
1996 0.2586 0.2184 0.2986

How do we start a debate from a false premise, Mr Wilde?
I know, pretend it's not true!

So then, let's look at the sense of your first sentence.
"...current climatology failed to anticipate...." As a lawyer, Mr Wilde, you will know that climatology cannot anticipate anything. It is not what climatology is about, is it?

"...the cessation of global warming trends over the past 15 years ...." What does this really mean?
Unless one misuses data, it is difficult to construct a declining temperature trend over the past 15 years. But it is possible to say that the previous trend - of continuing warming - had moderated.
What is missing is the "compared to what" factor; and without it the sense is quite useless.

Mr Wilde, I am up for debate and my first reasonable suggestion is that you put forward something better.

 

[trainspotter]

LOL sneak'n ... derty stole your thunder ! Te he ! Rock on wikipedia !

 

[sneak'n]

LOL sneak'n ... derty stole your thunder ! Te he ! Rock on wikipedia !

No.

derty responded to your post which was only about weather, not climate.
Weather events will continue at either extreme, and your respective posts showed just that.

Climate hysteria is about warming, and that implies a discernable trend.
I was presenting a rebuttal to Mr Wilde's initial contention. If he thinks the last 15 years provide evidence of cessation of warming, why is it that every one of those years is in the top 20 warmenst in the past century.

My Wiki table exluded last year, which was the second warmest in the past century, although for Australia it was the hottest since records began.

 

[basilio]

Hang on there Sneak'n et al. I really think you have missed the main point about this forum and perhaps Stephens potential contribution to the discussion.

First the ground rules. Understand that practically the entire current scientific community which is examining the climate change issue has got it hopelessly wrong. For some reason all their collective education has simply taken them down a blind path that is at absolute odds with "the truth". God knows why but somehow we currently seem to have the most extreme example of collective scientific error/stupidity that has ever existed

Secondly a number of current scientific laws just don't accord with "the truth" and therefore need to be reconsidered. Stephen manages to highlight a number of these in his writings which are vigorously backed up by highly vocal supporters who speak loud and long and in CAPITAL LETTERS. Which in this day and age is surely enough to cause us to reconsider the need to change the laws of physics to suit this new truth.

And finally but most importantly. There is absolutely no way that man produced CO2 can be having more than the most insignificant effect on our climate This is tenement 1 of "The truth". Because of course if our emission of CO2 was actually causing climate change we should be considering doing something about reducing our fossil fuel usage. And since that would cost some very rich people a lot of money and is therefore just not politically possible we just can't go there. Get it so far ? These are the ground rules for this forum. Remember the title "Resisting Climate Hysteria".

Somewhere in this debate you were probably thinking we should be looking at objective "facts" and "evidence" . But that is just old thinking and in this New Age of communication the right groups and politicians with the appropriate sound bites, plenty of absolute confidence, a sharp suit, and a complete morality excision can create their own reality. Black can be white. The innocent can be guilty. The guilty can be declared innocent. And inconvenient facts can be swept away with a contemptuous spit. Simple really.

We see this every day in the relentless brainwashing of advertisers trying to convince us that Vegas and McDonalds are great. We watched for years as banks created pyramids of make believe wealth out of B/S loans. We live in a world where every significant economic commentator sings the chorus of perpetual growth (in a finite planet.) So why on earth should we expect that monumentally unpalatable facts and supporting evidence will be accepted and dealt with realistically ?

We live in a fairy land of our own making. Stephan and co are just the larger artistes of "The Truth" . Somewhere out there is a little kid dying to point out that the Emperor is starkers - but all the smart money is spinning imaginary silk into imaginary clothes of infinite taste and beauty - but no substance.

______________________________________________________

I think I'll go and paint my toenails. Certainly get more sense and satisfaction there than dealing with "the truth" seekers here.

Cheers

 

[wayneL]

I could have used other data sets, but Wiki seems easiest and has other references for those wanting to go further:

20 Warmest years on record
( °C Anomaly of mean from 1901-2000)
Year Global Land Ocean
2005 0.6058 0.9553 0.4884
1998 0.5768 0.8321 0.5087
2002 0.5575 0.8309 0.4784
2003 0.5566 0.7711 0.5102
2006 0.5524 0.8159 0.4669
2007 0.5499 0.9804 0.3874
2004 0.5332 0.7075 0.4809
2001 0.4939 0.7204 0.4416
2008 0.4869 0.7758 0.3721
1997 0.4618 0.5584 0.4498
1995 0.3991 0.6531 0.3191
1999 0.3953 0.676 0.3237
1990 0.3701 0.5484 0.3279
2000 0.3632 0.5175 0.3406
1991 0.3239 0.4094 0.3105
1988 0.2886 0.4196 0.2585
1987 0.2867 0.2963 0.2999
1994 0.282 0.3597 0.2699
1983 0.2715 0.3718 0.2508
1996 0.2586 0.2184 0.2986

How do we start a debate from a false premise, Mr Wilde?
I know, pretend it's not true!

Perhaps examine the quality of input and how these figures are arrived at? There are a number of concerns over this, only one of which is placement of weather stations. There are also others.

Then there is the matter of the length of the "record". Perhaps they are the warmest, perhaps not, but compared to what period are we talking about and with what accuracy?

Then there is the matter of "adjustments", ahhh the adjustments -arbitrary inputs no?

Each data set/assumption used by climate doom mongers is framed by a whole range of factors which should rightfully be contested by scientists, yet politics and plain old self interest (funding etc) means that only those prepared to forego funding and career opportunities are prepared to contest the dogma.

As we have seen in the last year, the "science" is well dodgy... the IPCC et al has been called out on a range of issues.

In is in fact the warmers pretending things are not true rederob. The classic example of this is the open secret of your identity. Everyone knows you're lying through your teeth by referring to your previous forum incarnation in the third person and that you don't have the integrity to admit it. The movement is full of this attitude as climategate exposed.

Warmeners typically refuse to concede a single point, even when it is unequivocal.

So let's not have a presentation of hypotheses and problematic data sets as fact. Only the IPCC religiously faithful will hoop and cheer (bizarrely); more enquiring minds will roll their eyes and look deeper into the data.