Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[Hornet33]

[soap box]
For me, this whole issue with global warming isn't about whether or not there is 'climate change'.  No one is going to stop believing 'something' is happening.  There are two schools of thoughts however on this science.  You have regular scientists who believe in causation science versus the correlation science of climatologists. I cannot say I have the same respect for climatologists however. Their methodologies, data, and science, at least how they're going about it, is not following proper research methodologies.

As an amateur scientist of the sky (Astronomer), science at its core is transparent, open, and full of debate and honest and thoughtful challenges with peers. Climatology is anything but open, no debate with its peers, and hateful accusations of mistrust and full of secrets. If I have a theory about a pulsar and why it varies a particular way, I'll throw it out there to my peers to break apart and destroy my theory - that's how we're suppose to do it. You announce a study result (about a possible causation) and HOPE someone proves you wrong. We then get more 'Ah Ha!' science moments when someone else studies the theory and then using their own experiences, knowledge, or research, may be able to modify my theory about that same pulsar and then collaborate to come up with a new theory.  We then try to destroy and disprove the new theory - or in most cases, validate the findings using the same methodologies they used in their findings to verify the causation.  That is how science works!

Climatologists may be right, but their science methodologies are not 'best practice' leaving a lot of us to wonder how they're coming up with their results - which they keep to themselves.

How unscientific indeed.

Another side-bar: isn't it interesting that climate change is about BUYING into new technologies?Buy hybrid cars, buy fluorescent lights? Isn't it amazing that even capitalism has a place in this? 

I agree with you except for one thing. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN LISTENING TO THE CLIMATOLOGISTS!!! THERE'S NO TIME FOR DEBATE, WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!    At least that's what they want everyone to believe because as long as they can get away with that, they'll continue to get their money.

[Chalenge]

CAP its not about science is the point but it is about abusing science to conjur up a belief system and gain even more power over populations. In fact the very next step will be to control populations through forced abortions and surgical procedures and eventually forced euthanasia in order to 'save the planet.'

[CAP1]

CAP its not about science is the point but it is about abusing science to conjur up a belief system and gain even more power over populations. In fact the very next step will be to control populations through forced abortions and surgical procedures and eventually forced euthanasia in order to 'save the planet.'

I know........

[RTHolmes]

Looks like this at the moment:
(Image removed from quote.)

fantastic really enjoyed my stay in switzerland, if I had to move it would be near the top of my list. I even managed a swim in lac leman, it was ... refreshing

[Kev367th]

Greenland ice core RAW data.

Last  600 years - Ooooh look a hockey stick!

.

But hold on, not so fast - Going back to 800AD, thers the MWP



Back to 8500 years ago - OK, so what is unusual about the warming or cooling then?

[potsNpans]

Seems like the EPA has its own "climate gate" going on also. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) disclosed a report by EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin who they hit with a gag order which you can read at http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/News/071609_Followup_Letter_to_EPA_on_Carlin_Report.pdf.    You can read his EPA report at http://www.humanevents.com/downloads-pdfs/Endangerment_comments_v7b.pdf 
"The principal comments are as follows:
As of the best information we currently have, the GHG/CO2 hypothesis as to the cause of
global warming, which this Draft TSD supports, is currently an invalid hypothesis from a
scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable
data. Any one of these failings should be enough to invalidate the hypothesis; the breadth of
these failings leaves no other possible conclusion based on current data."    from page 4 of the report.
Doesn't sound like a consensus even at the EPA.   

[DMBEAR]

The look of scientist who realize they don't need biodumb...

[bj229r]

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ) has a blistering take on all this. Haven't seen him derided as a 'denier', nor have I seen his views challenged. He cannot be explained, so he is ignored.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

a link to his pdf 'Deconstructing Global Warming' http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen-talk-pdf.pdf

There is some evidence of a positive feedback effect for water vapor in cloud-free regions, but a major part of any water-vapor feedback would have to acknowledge that cloud-free areas are always changing, and this remains an unknown. At this point, few scientists would argue that the science is settled. In particular, the question remains as to whether water vapor and clouds have positive or negative feedbacks.

The notion that the earth's climate is dominated by positive feedbacks is intuitively implausible, and the history of the earth's climate offers some guidance on this matter. About 2.5 billion years ago, the sun was 20%-30% less bright than now (compare this with the 2% perturbation that a doubling of CO2 would produce), and yet the evidence is that the oceans were unfrozen at the time, and that temperatures might not have been very different from today's. Carl Sagan in the 1970s referred to this as the "Early Faint Sun Paradox."

For more than 30 years there have been attempts to resolve the paradox with greenhouse gases. Some have suggested CO2—but the amount needed was thousands of times greater than present levels and incompatible with geological evidence. Methane also proved unlikely. It turns out that increased thin cirrus cloud coverage in the tropics readily resolves the paradox—but only if the clouds constitute a negative feedback. In present terms this means that they would diminish rather than enhance the impact of CO2.

There are quite a few papers in the literature that also point to the absence of positive feedbacks. The implied low sensitivity is entirely compatible with the small warming that has been observed. So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.

What does all this have to do with climate catastrophe? The answer brings us to a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe. This is the grossest of "bait and switch" scams. It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.

The notion that complex climate "catastrophes" are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA (globally averaged temperature anomaly), to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

Consider the following example. Suppose that I leave a box on the floor, and my wife trips on it, falling against my son, who is carrying a carton of eggs, which then fall and break. Our present approach to emissions would be analogous to deciding that the best way to prevent the breakage of eggs would be to outlaw leaving boxes on the floor. The chief difference is that in the case of atmospheric CO2 and climate catastrophe, the chain of inference is longer and less plausible than in my example.

[Angus]

You should thank the carbon camp...all of 'em.
Why?
Their effort will lead to us humans running out of oil later than before expected.
Oh, and we will run out. I have no belief in mankind either finding another "source" in time, nor take care about CO2 and GW issues. We're gonna burn what we have until we run out and then say....sheeeet!

[DMBEAR]

You should thank the carbon camp...all of 'em.
Why?
Their effort will lead to us humans running out of oil later than before expected.
Oh, and we will run out. I have no belief in mankind either finding another "source" in time, nor take care about CO2 and GW issues. We're gonna burn what we have until we run out and then say....sheeeet!

Will we run out before we have other sources that are affordable?   Or will we run out of sources we are allowed to use because of alarmist law?

[CAP1]

You should thank the carbon camp...all of 'em.
Why?
Their effort will lead to us humans running out of oil later than before expected.
Oh, and we will run out. I have no belief in mankind either finding another "source" in time, nor take care about CO2 and GW issues. We're gonna burn what we have until we run out and then say....sheeeet!

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/unfreezable.html

[Chalenge]

You should thank the carbon camp...all of 'em.
Why?
Their effort will lead to us humans running out of oil later than before expected.
Oh, and we will run out. I have no belief in mankind either finding another "source" in time, nor take care about CO2 and GW issues. We're gonna burn what we have until we run out and then say....sheeeet!

Oil is one of the excuses but in reality it cannot be shown to even be a problem except through this same form of BAD SCIENCE.

[CAP1]

Oil is one of the excuses but in reality it cannot be shown to even be a problem except through this same form of BAD SCIENCE.

and if i recall correctly, didn't they do this in 73 or 74? claim we were about to be out of oil?

[33Vortex]

BAD SCIENCE indeed, it doesn't stop there though.

I'd advise everyone with common sense and a level head to be ready for anything in the coming year. Hold on to your hat and pants, the stack is about to be reshuffled. 

[Have]

and if i recall correctly, didn't they do this in 73 or 74? claim we were about to be out of oil?

Actually the planet is not ever going to completely run out of oil. As the consumption constantly increases, it will be harder and harder for the producers to meet the growing demand and that will lead to increasing prices. It is simple market economics.

I have no doubt that when this current economic recession starts to clear and and the global economy gets back to the growing trend again the oil prices will hike up again.