ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, September 20, 2013

The "global warming" cover-up

And here we have an excellent example explaining why modern scientistry is corrupted and why science-skeptics are more than justified in remaining skeptical of various government-funded "scientific" consensuses:
Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.
The politicians justified their attempt to sweep the problematic observations that destroy the hypothesis due to their "fears that the findings will encourage deniers of man-made climate change".  As they should. Isn't declaring the hypothesis to be unsupported by the evidence exactly what scientists are supposed to do when the predictive models fail and the observations don't support the hypothesis?

The skeptics are the real scientists, not the corrupt professionals who practice scientistry rather than scientody and serve as the mouthpieces for power-mad politicians.

Labels: ,

88 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous September 20, 2013 4:46 AM  

Goddamned Hippies.

N5

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 20, 2013 4:50 AM  

John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"

Day by day, we are finding out what they do.

Anonymous Idle Spectator September 20, 2013 5:16 AM  

You may well wonder why I would work on some of the climate models.


For the lulz, of course.

I was curious how full of shit they actually were.

Anonymous Adsignatos D. September 20, 2013 5:31 AM  

Isn't declaring the hypothesis to be unsupported by the evidence exactly what scientists are supposed to do when the predictive models fail and the observations don't support the hypothesis?

No because polar bears and shit.

Anonymous Outlaw X September 20, 2013 5:35 AM  

Vox, a few nights ago a man (liar) was saying the polar bears were downing for lack of ice. I didn't even try to call in but If I would I would have said they deserve to drown, They are the best swimmers in the world and there population has doubled in the last ten years. I could not believe what I was hearing and rightfully so.

Anonymous outlaw X September 20, 2013 5:40 AM  

By the way it s legal for any Icelander to kill a polar bear that comes on to shore. Because they have become such a nescience and kill people.

Anonymous VryeDenker September 20, 2013 6:56 AM  

If government supports it, you should be hearing alarm bells.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni September 20, 2013 7:05 AM  

I do marvel, though, at the genius of the scam, as well as its load of pure evil. Predict something that can't be proven or disproven for a hundred years or more, cobble up "consensus" as science, demonize disbelievers, hook into every nook and cranny of life to nag everyone with guilt merely for breathing (what, you want to kill your great-grandchildren!? Put down that Twinkie!) Of course, all the politicians recognize a good con game when they see one and hop right on board. And twenty years later, waterfront property is still worth as much as it ever was, and nobody even notices. Close to perfection. And, like any good carney operator, when this scam blows up, there's always another. I almost can't wait to see what the rubes fall for next.

Anonymous Idle Spectator September 20, 2013 7:18 AM  

One of the other problems is not all scientists are created equal.

We know the biologists are the retards of science.
But ecologists and these climate scientists are the retards of biology.


These fields would benefit from some top talent, instead of physics or mathematics vacuuming everything in.

Anonymous Vic September 20, 2013 7:33 AM  

Pay no attention to that raving lunatic behind the curtain,,, all the "true scientist(tm)" say it is TRUE TRUE TRUE!!! Only a flat earther toofless hillbilly would say otherwise! Who yall gonna believe, the great and powerful ooz or your lying eyes?!!

Goo to you through the zoo too!

Anonymous VryeDenker September 20, 2013 7:49 AM  

I am actually a bit disappointed. It was much more satisfying making my turbo's wastegate "sneeze" every time I accellerated by a Prius when I thought AGW/CC was a real thing.

Anonymous Sigyn September 20, 2013 7:57 AM  

I'll get it:

"__________ proven science ________ consensus _________ hate science __________ ignorant ____________ Iron Age mythology ___________ mancrush on Al Gore.

"Dipsh**."

Anonymous daddynichol September 20, 2013 7:58 AM  

Ice caps are INCREASING, too.

Anonymous DrTorch September 20, 2013 8:21 AM  

The funniest part is that they're trying to cover up w/ people see when they go outside every day of their lives!

The good news: Scientists make lousy liars.

The bad news: There are much better liars at work out there.

Anonymous Rantor September 20, 2013 8:21 AM  

but USATODAY says we just had the third hottest summer ever! EVER!

Everyone in Virginia is happy that it was seemingly mild here, that heat must have been much much worse elsewhere.

Anonymous anon123 September 20, 2013 8:24 AM  

There is big money in them there windmills and solar panels. Not to mention the emotional investment in 'alternative' energies.

Blogger buzzardist September 20, 2013 8:31 AM  

One can't entirely blame the "scientists." I mean, their funding and livelihoods depend entirely upon politicians funneling them money. If the "scientists" don't produce the results that are in the public interest, what use are they?

As I write these sentences, why does it sound more and more like we are living in Stalin's Soviet Union?

Anonymous Obvious September 20, 2013 8:45 AM  

Uh...

"it is claimed."

"A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft." So... scientists say yes, politicians say no... Hmmm.

You have a point, It's probably the power mad politicians that are right.

Anonymous DT September 20, 2013 8:46 AM  

As I write these sentences, why does it sound more and more like we are living in Stalin's Soviet Union?

Because we are.

1984 is not a stark warning for progressives. For them it's an instruction manual.

Anonymous DonReynolds September 20, 2013 8:47 AM  

Titus Didius Tacitus ....
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?"

"I will stick by my friends when they are right and part with them when they are wrong."

A. Lincoln

Anonymous ODG September 20, 2013 8:49 AM  

One can't entirely blame the "scientists." I mean, their funding and livelihoods depend entirely upon politicians funneling them money. If the "scientists" don't produce the results that are in the public interest, what use are they?


"Personally, I liked the University; they gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything. You’ve never been out of college. You don’t know what it’s like out there. I’ve worked in the private sector — they expect results." - Ghostbuster

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 September 20, 2013 8:59 AM  

At this point, anyone who touts global warming as something that is really happening should be mocked.

A year from now, if they continue, they should be tarred and feathered.

Anonymous KJ September 20, 2013 9:00 AM  

Just last spring there was an article out that several of the European labs were finally measuring the solar heat absorption rates of CO2. So for years they guessed and made it fit the model. Michael Crichton was right computer models are poison to science.

Anonymous Porky September 20, 2013 9:03 AM  

The leftist authoritarians are nothing if not predictable.

First they argue reasonably.
When reason fails them they argue with hyperbole.
When hyperbole fails they argue with lies.
When lies fail they point a gun at your head.
When that fails they kill you.

Then they say "See? We were right all along."



Blogger Crowhill September 20, 2013 9:19 AM  

The most interesting thing in that daily mail story is how plain it is that politicians (not scientists) are guiding what is said.

Anonymous Samson J. September 20, 2013 9:27 AM  

Where did I read it recently - nobody who ever believed in "global warming" has any business criticizing creationists ever again.

Anonymous Jonathan September 20, 2013 9:37 AM  


When that fails they kill you.

Then they say "See? We were right all along."


they were right. Global warming is gonna kill us all.

Anonymous Bob Ramar September 20, 2013 9:37 AM  

It has been interesting to watch the evolution of climate theory since the 1970's. It was around the mid-70's that enough deep ice cores were taken from Greenland and Antarctica to show that there have been five ice ages in the last 600,000 years. Each ice age lasted 100,000 years, more or less, and each interregnum (warm spell) lasted 11,000 years, more or less. The periodicity is impressive. It's existence is undeniable, at least if the interpretation of the data is correct. The current interregnum has lasted 11,500 years. That means, without any other forces at work, that the next ice age could easily start two weeks from next Tuesday! The bad scary thing, in my opinion, is that we now have data from those same ice cores, and subsequent ones, that show that the onset of an ice age can occur in as little as ten years. It used to be thought that it would take centurys for a mile thick continental glacier to form. If you take the 14 inches of rain that fell in the Estes Park region last week and convert it to snowfall (assuming a 10% moisture content, which is typical for that area), you would have 140 inches of snow or almost 12 feet!!! Oh, it started snowing in the Estes Park region high country this week. Finally, I was there three weeks ago and noticed that two of the glaciers, Tyndall and Andrews, were significantly larger than I had seen them two years ago and that Andrews has crevasses on the north and south margins. I have never seen crevasses on Andrews glacier in ten years of observation! This means that the snow accumulation is sufficient that the glacier has started to move again.

Blogger Crowhill September 20, 2013 9:49 AM  

@Bob Ramar, good comments. I majored in geology in college and one of the things you learn is that things are predictable over the long haul, but you can't be very specific. For example, you can be pretty certain there will be "100 year floods," but you can never predict which year they'll occur in.

Ice ages are another good example. They seem to come in roughly predictable intervals, but ... that's the rub. It's never quite as clear as people would like.

And who knows when it will stop entirely? The "normal state" for earth is to have no ice at either pole. Maybe we were heading back to that, and human activity has nothing to do with it.

Climate is an incredibly complicated and chaotic thing. It's influenced by milankovitch cycles and sun activity and all kinds of stuff.

My long-standing problem with the "global warming" story is that they've tried to make it too simple, i.e., man-made CO2 will cause warming.

Nothing in earth science is like that.

Anonymous Susan September 20, 2013 10:00 AM  

Dittos Bob Ramar. Great comments. This current cooling trend was predicted back in the early 1970's while I was in high school.

If Al Gore had stuck with that, he might have had a few million more believers.

Blogger James Dixon September 20, 2013 10:00 AM  

> The most interesting thing in that daily mail story is how plain it is that politicians (not scientists) are guiding what is said.

It's a UN report. What else would you expect?

The UN (and later the EU), was created by politicians for politicians as a place they wouldn't be accountable to the populace.

Anonymous Huckleberry - est. 1977 September 20, 2013 10:14 AM  

The Weathermen never could tell me with accuracy what the weather was going to be like four days out, even in a place like Southern California where the predominant weather concern is slight temperature variance, and they can't even get that right.
Now that all the Weathermen have been replaced by hot chicks and smartphone apps, Global Warming is going to kill us all.
This isn't JUST about power and control; on a certain level its also a golden parachute...

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 10:22 AM  

At this point, anyone who touts global warming as something that is really happening should be mocked.

A year from now, if they continue, they should be tarred and feathered.


You may be overplaying your hand. The IPCC has basically killed the field, and it may never recover. Luckily there quite a few professionals out there taking measurements, looking at data, and measuring climate change.

In another few generations of observations, we may have sufficient data to start making guesses to what happens next. It's certainly prudent for scientists to discuss what changes are observable and have been observed, to study what environmental changes precipitated or did not precipitate these changes, and to carry out experiments to try to ascertain how they are related, or not related.

Global climate change is a thing that happens, as it has always happened. It is in the best interests of society to have a strong technical grasp of how the natural cycles of weather impact climate, and what human or other factors contribute or do not contribute to these patterns.

Anonymous buzzcut September 20, 2013 10:25 AM  

Money money money money...MONEY!

Money money money money...MONEY!

Money money money money...MONEY!

Money money money money...MONEY!

(Now the bass line)

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 10:31 AM  

The problem with Daily Mail is that they are incredibly sloppy. Here is the headline:

World's top climate scientists told to 'cover up' the fact that the Earth's temperature hasn't risen for the last 15 years

Cover up is 'quoted'.

When you read the article, however, where is the cover-up? It's in the opening sentence:

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.

Claimed, by whom? And there is 'cover up', not quoted.

When discussing what changes were requested, the article references just the countries, no actual names of the people making requests. It's highly confusing.

It is very interesting that VD would likely not accept such a sloppy piece of writing as an example or evidence in a debate about Christianity, but would accept it when talking on this topic.

Anonymous VD September 20, 2013 10:46 AM  

It is very interesting that VD would likely not accept such a sloppy piece of writing as an example or evidence in a debate about Christianity, but would accept it when talking on this topic.

What is interesting about it? This isn't a debate.

We already know that the scientists, the politicians, and the media have been trying to cover up the fact that it isn't getting hotter. We already know that their predictive models are false. We only have to go outside to know that it isn't hitting record temperatures, and look at pictures of the Arctic to see that the polar ice cap hasn't completely melted.

This is just an additional indication of what we already know.

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 11:01 AM  

What is interesting about it? This isn't a debate.

That actually explains it, till now I believed, apparently incorrectly, that when you enumerated the reasons for being a global warming/climate change/human made global warming skeptic, you were skeptical it was happening, skeptical of the proposed changes to remedy those changes, and skeptical of the motives of those saying it is happening.

But maybe a better description of where you are on the topic is that it is a debate, that really you deny - as opposed to being skeptical - the whole ball of wax.

scientists, the politicians, and the media have been trying to cover up the fact that it isn't getting hotter

I would also point out, that in the draft report, the complaints from the countries listed in the Daily Mail article were that the evidence was in the draft report - that things hadn't gotten hotter, that the last 15 years or so was "flat". The complaints were apparently that it wasn't suppressed.

Of course until we have the final report we can't say for sure, but wouldn't you agree that if the IPCC report that is released accurately reflects that the climate hasn't gotten on average hotter, that the predictions in the 1998 report were incorrect, and that there are not good explanations for why their predictions were wrong - if all that is true - wouldn't you agree hat the scientists had showed that they are interested in the science? (And, of course, the converse is true - if the final report is released it whitewashes all of that, it would be evidence that your view of the scientists involved is accurate).

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 11:03 AM  

VD, also, understanding it's not a debate, Scalzi used a Daily Mail article against you and in it they claimed to have 'quoted' you, but in fact, the 'quote' was from the author of the article, you would be all over both Scalzi and the Daily Mail for misquoting you. Isn't that true?

Anonymous Bob Ramar September 20, 2013 11:04 AM  

I should have added to my comment that 12 feet of snow in one dump would be a good start on a glacier, especially in an area that already had them.

Focusing on carbon dioxide as a warming agent, in the face of observations of increased solar activity during the past 20 years, was a red herring in climatology if I have ever seen one. It reminds me of the 'Piltdown Man' scandal of the 1920's. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Yes. Is it a driver of global warming? No. What gases are drivers of global warming then? Water vapor and methane. Are there other significant causes of global warming or glacial melting? I think that airborne soot (carbon black) may be more important than is being discussed. I also think that, as air quality has improved in the developed countries (US and Western Europe) from the 1970's to the 1990's, that there is less and less emitted soot to work with and that any warming/melting effects from soot should be observably decreasing by now. Let's see now, when was Gulf War 1 and how long did the Iraqui oilfields burn? How much soot was emmitted? How long did that remain suspended in the atmosphere? How much of it wound up on glaciers in the Himalaya, arctic, Canada, and Europe? Maybe this caused the spike in warming during the 90's, combined with increased solar energy output. Think about it fellow ilk!!!

Anonymous VD September 20, 2013 11:43 AM  

But maybe a better description of where you are on the topic is that it is a debate, that really you deny - as opposed to being skeptical - the whole ball of wax.

How on Earth does that follow? Especially since I just pointed out that this post is not part of a debate?

I would also point out, that in the draft report, the complaints from the countries listed in the Daily Mail article were that the evidence was in the draft report - that things hadn't gotten hotter, that the last 15 years or so was "flat". The complaints were apparently that it wasn't suppressed.

Correct... unlike previous reports, studies, news articles, and journal articles where it was suppressed.

Of course until we have the final report we can't say for sure, but wouldn't you agree that if the IPCC report that is released accurately reflects that the climate hasn't gotten on average hotter, that the predictions in the 1998 report were incorrect, and that there are not good explanations for why their predictions were wrong - if all that is true - wouldn't you agree that the scientists had showed that they are interested in the science?

Yes, on this occasion, contra previous examples. The problem is that in the previous IPCC report, those things were already obvious and it contained all sorts of propagandistic howlers.

Isn't that true?

Yes. But I think you've misread the quotes. I don't believe they are quoting their own article in the headline, but rather, the Associated Press stringer. That's what the use of it twice indicates to me. There isn't any actual question that there is an attempted cover-up taking place, your only point of possible dispute is whether the quotes belong.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 11:45 AM  

The cover up is from the politicians having a say in what goes in the report, dh.

Slam dunk proof of the politicization of climate science.

Besides, like I told you last time, as long as they don't understand cloud formation, this is all much ado about nothing.

It is blindingly obvious that climate science is overwhelmingly political. Government funds it. Govt is openly influencing the reports.

Corrupt.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 11:53 AM  

The other blindingly obvious evidence of corruption is their ridiculous surety in their predictions, despite always being wrong, and knowing there are significant gaps in their knowledge in critical areas.

These people are hacks and merit no consideration. Honest people have humility.

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 11:57 AM  

How on Earth does that follow? Especially since I just pointed out that this post is not part of a debate?

Sorry, I once again didn't follow. I thought you meant - there is not debate, not, this isn't a debate.

Yes. But I think you've misread the quotes. I don't believe they are quoting their own article in the headline, but rather, the Associated Press stringer. That's what the use of it twice indicates to me. There isn't any actual question that there is an attempted cover-up taking place, your only point of possible dispute is whether the quotes belong.

I agree that the cover-up is select evident. But, for me, I was extremely surprised to find the use of the word 'coverup' in quotes, because of the Mann v. Steyn lawsuit, where coverup is basically the core of the lawsuit. The Daily Mail is usually okay, but this type of sloppiness is discouraging.

The cover up is from the politicians having a say in what goes in the report, dh.

I have never read one of the reports, or really looked at one. Apparently there is a short-summary which is designed to influence politicians and lawmakers. If that part is abstracted and written by politicians for politicians, I couldn't care less. If the data, technical analysis, or other meat of the report is compromised, than I agree. It is also not concerning that interested parties are lobbying for changes. I tend to think this is okay.

I am fairly interested to see how the scientists and authors handle the pressure. It's a nice test case to see if there is any hope for highly complex science to withstand the political meat-grinder.

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 12:07 PM  

It is blindingly obvious that climate science is overwhelmingly political. Government funds it. Govt is openly influencing the reports.

I agree with this. However, the fact that all of that is true does not have any impact on whether or not an environmental change is happening.

Anonymous VD September 20, 2013 12:22 PM  

Sorry, I once again didn't follow. I thought you meant - there is not debate, not, this isn't a debate.

No worries. As a general rule, I am extremely careful in debate and formal columns. When I'm just posting links to articles I find contain some interesting information, I'm not careful at all. In this case, I thought it was informative that the scientists are, apparently, beginning to slip the leash of their paymasters.

Assuming that global warming is, in fact, a fraud, then conflict between the scientists who wish to belatedly retain some semblance of scientific credibility and the politicians who just want an excuse to extend their power is inevitable.


The Daily Mail is usually okay, but this type of sloppiness is discouraging.

We don't know how sloppy they're being. If they just neglected to include the correct AP quote, no big deal. If they're quoting their own articles, then, yeah.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 12:38 PM  

If that part is abstracted and written by politicians for politicians, I couldn't care less. If the data, technical analysis, or other meat of the report is compromised, than I agree. It is also not concerning that interested parties are lobbying for changes. I tend to think this is okay.

Just because it's written by politicians for politicians, it's okay? This summary is used as a scientific proof by these same politicians. That is clearly not okay. Additionally, you don't think that the same politicians lobbying for changes that control the funding is a problem? No wonder you are a liberal, you seem to have no nose for corruption.

I am fairly interested to see how the scientists and authors handle the pressure. It's a nice test case to see if there is any hope for highly complex science to withstand the political meat-grinder.

Where the hell have you been, DH? This was proven a long time ago, by their previous actions. It's called human nature. Scientists aren't superhuman, they are subject to the same corrupt processes as anyone else. Why do you ignore this?

Really, all you are doing here is proving what you yourself told us a few weeks ago: you don't know much about climate science.

However, the fact that all of that is true does not have any impact on whether or not an environmental change is happening.

The idea that Earth's climate, billions of years old, is a positive feedback network just waiting to go off the rails when a trace gas increases itself somewhat, is one of the most astronomically stupid theories posited in the last hundred years.


Your blind belief in it says more about you than you realize.

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 1:00 PM  

Just because it's written by politicians for politicians, it's okay? This summary is used as a scientific proof by these same politicians.

Politicians will use the scrap of toilet paper that sticks to their shoe as justification for what they do. They will do anything with or without justification. So, in the end, I don't really care what the summary says.

Really, all you are doing here is proving what you yourself told us a few weeks ago: you don't know much about climate science.

I agree, I don't know much or really care much about climate science OR the AGW stuff. I am more generally interested in the mechanics of scientody and the actions of scientists. AGW is proving to be fertile ground.

The idea that Earth's climate, billions of years old, is a positive feedback network just waiting to go off the rails when a trace gas increases itself somewhat, is one of the most astronomically stupid theories posited in the last hundred years. Your blind belief in it says more about you than you realize.

I think you are overstating what my professed belief is. The age of the climate has nothing to do with it. Whether or not the theory is the most astronomically stupid theories posited in the last hundred years has nothing to do with it either. AGW is or is not occurring. There are a lot ancillary issues related to it, but the basic question is simple.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 1:07 PM  

When some burglars dress up as electricians and pretend there is a problem with the building's wiring in order to get inside and commit a robbery, that is not necessarily proof that there is no wiring problem, but it's a pretty damn good guess.

Blogger James Dixon September 20, 2013 1:11 PM  

> AGW is or is not occurring.

And the last 15 years have demonstrated fairly conclusively that it's not, which all of the models used to support it indicated was impossible.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 1:12 PM  

Dh, one of the most popular cartoons about climate change on the left is the one that basically says:

"What if we are wrong about all this and make the world a better place for nothing?"

It is all over left-wing blogs. How could climate science have any possible connection to objectivity or truth when left-wingers openly state that they would go along with it even if it were a myth because they believe in the policy prescriptions no matter what?

Anonymous map September 20, 2013 1:13 PM  

There is no "good climate science" separated from government funding. Climate science was specifically funded because Idealogues saw it as the perfect vehicle to attack the system of the Worldlies. It is a manufactured crisis for the purpose of giving idealogues control over society.

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 1:13 PM  

When some burglars dress up as electricians and pretend there is a problem with the building's wiring in order to get inside and commit a robbery, that is not necessarily proof that there is no wiring problem, but it's a pretty damn good guess.

No, that piece of information is not data on whether or not their is a wiring problem. It is noise.

Do you not understand that?

Anonymous VD September 20, 2013 1:14 PM  

So, in the end, I don't really care what the summary says.

And yet, you obviously care what the Daily Mail says. And you care what I say in my post. Why do you care about those two things and not the much more significant UN report?

Not that I'm not flattered, but I am a little puzzled.

Anonymous Jack Amok September 20, 2013 1:21 PM  

The politicians justified their attempt to sweep the problematic observations that destroy the hypothesis due to their "fears that the findings will encourage deniers of man-made climate change".

This is rather like the prosecutor who hides evidence the defendant didn't commit the crime because it might encourage the jury to not convict him.

The solution is the same for both crooked prosecutors and lying Global Warmingmongers - hold people accountable. With power comes accountability. If a scientist wants to write papers for the sake of expressing his opinion, fine, he can be wrong or sloppy or even fraudulent. But if he wants public money and a say in public policy, then being wrong means he loses his say and doesn't get any more money, and being a fraud means he goes to jail. Others wise its head I win and tails we flip again.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 1:25 PM  

There is no data on the climate warmists' table either, dh. Models are not data. The models are just as bogus as the false story the burglar-electricians give.

You don't think computer models are data, do you, dh?

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 1:32 PM  

And yet, you obviously care what the Daily Mail says. And you care what I say in my post. Why do you care about those two things and not the much more significant UN report?

Not that I'm not flattered, but I am a little puzzled.


Daily Mail has a lot of readers, you have a lot of readers. Only people who read the IPCC document are those people who are trying to use it to get something they want. If that document didn't exist, they'd just make up something else to justify what they want. When has a politician ever been like, "well, I wanted to implement this big plan, but I couldn't find any science to support it, so I changed my mind"? It doesn't happen.

On the other hand, people who read Daily Mail and here haven't already made up their minds to the point it can't be changed. I only commented because I was interested to see who was going to be sued next by the scientists lawyers. But I couldn't even figure it out because the article was unclear. And that made me reflect that you rarely link to anything that is weak, and this was definitely weak. And then I wondered why you would post something weak.


Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 1:33 PM  

There is no data on the climate warmists' table either, dh. Models are not data. The models are just as bogus as the false story the burglar-electricians give.

You don't think computer models are data, do you, dh?


Models are not data. But there is data. People are collecting data, both historical and contemporary.

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 1:38 PM  

There is no "good climate science" separated from government funding. Climate science was specifically funded because Idealogues saw it as the perfect vehicle to attack the system of the Worldlies. It is a manufactured crisis for the purpose of giving idealogues control over society.

This is probably true, however, I think for a different reason. There is very little science research going on that's not funded by 1 of 2 entites: 1) governments and 2) large corporations.

Anonymous Van September 20, 2013 1:39 PM  

Catan-

But what if the electricians had a consensus?

Anonymous Porky September 20, 2013 1:42 PM  

AGW is or is not occurring. There are a lot ancillary issues related to it, but the basic question is simple.

CO2 rising - check.
Ice caps growing - check.
Temps cooling - check.

Great. Looks like that one was a dud after all. Nothing to worry about.

Now can we please get back to growing steak in a petri dish? That is what's truly going to save the planet.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 1:45 PM  

There is no "data" that proves AGW in the slightest.

The models are what they use to churn benign data into "proof" with the use of magic numbers.

Anonymous Sigyn September 20, 2013 1:49 PM  

Now can we please get back to growing steak in a petri dish? That is what's truly going to save the planet.

Frankensteak? Ew.

"What if we are wrong about all this and make the world a better place for nothing?"

A better...What? How does that argument even work?

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 1:55 PM  

Sigyn, Google that quote and you will find the cartoon all over their blogs. I can't post a link because my phone is not letting me for some reason.

Anonymous Porky September 20, 2013 2:07 PM  

Frankensteak? Ew.
Fine, but when normsteak is $800/lb. I'll be eating juicy porterhouse grown in my garage while you are gnawing on frozen boca burgers.

"What if we are wrong about all this and make the world a better place for nothing?"

The single best argument I've heard on this topic.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 2:12 PM  

The best argument how? For or against?

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 2:13 PM  

Fine, but when normsteak is $800/lb. I'll be eating juicy porterhouse grown in my garage while you are gnawing on frozen boca burgers.

The first generation apparently wasn't even that bad. I heard "bland" and "tasteless", probably because it was too lean.

Eliminating the cow from the meat equation would do more good than a million Al Gores.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 2:18 PM  

Eliminating cows would only do good if you believe in catastrophic positive feedbacks in climate.

Do you or don't you, DH? You talk as if you don't have enough information to form an opinion, but then you come out with statements that seem to show that you are a believer. Which is it?

Anonymous Porky September 20, 2013 2:23 PM  

Eliminating cows would only do good if you believe in catastrophic positive feedbacks in climate.

The benefit of a portable meat factory is that poor folks can eat lots and lots of meat. Climate has nothing to do with it.

Shoot, in 50 years we're all probably gonna be scrambling to figure out ways to heat up the atmosphere.

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 2:28 PM  

Eliminating cows would only do good if you believe in catastrophic positive feedbacks in climate.

Do you or don't you, DH? You talk as if you don't have enough information to form an opinion, but then you come out with statements that seem to show that you are a believer. Which is it?


Look this isn't going to be shocking.. but I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't know what a catastrophic positive feedback loop is or have an opinion on whether they are believable or unbelievable.

The idea of being to be reclaim all the land that is used to raise cattle for other productive uses is hardly proof that I have a position on something which for I all know you invented.

I used to think that Porky had a hair trigger... I think owe him an apology.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 2:30 PM  

Porky, you are assuming that Science Meat will be Free(tm) or somehow be easy/cheap to produce. Until there is evidence of that, might not want to suppose it.

Ace has a great post up dissecting the climate retards. I'm too lazy to do the same in such detail:

http://minx.cc/?post=343543

Anonymous Porky September 20, 2013 2:41 PM  

Porky, you are assuming that Science Meat will be Free(tm) or somehow be easy/cheap to produce. Until there is evidence of that, might not want to suppose it.

Thanks for bursting my bubble, dude.

I used to think that Porky had a hair trigger... I think owe him an apology.

Don't worry, dh. I still despise almost everything you stand for.

That said, I'd still sit down and have a STEAKLAB™ and a Guinness with you anytime. Hopefully with some GMO creamed corn and irradiated potatoes.

:)

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 3:00 PM  

That said, I'd still sit down and have a STEAKLAB™ and a Guinness with you anytime. Hopefully with some GMO creamed corn and irradiated potatoes.

That said you can count on me. I look forward to the day when Leftists and Porcine Fornicators can sit down and enjoy a properly bioengineered, delicious, inexpensive meat-like product, together.

Anonymous Porky September 20, 2013 3:13 PM  

Yeah, maybe when you finally become an armed guard at the FEMA camp you can slide me some under the door.

(It's always a good idea to establish good relations with one's future overlords.)

Blogger Lawrence September 20, 2013 3:27 PM  

Vox: While I agree with your position, and did find the article interesting, there is something that bothers me about Global Warming as a debate topic.

Each time I debate with a Global Warming adherent, they are able to provide mountains of relevant evidence to support their position (probably just by Googling the topic). Obviously, the skeptical position has less support simply because the vast majority of academia and the political establishment is behind Global Warming.

The Global Warming adherent will then use this as a crutch in the debate, going on about how the "99%" support it, quote off a view vague personal observations, and then declare victory. If one demolishes a particular piece of evidence, they will simply fall back to another. There is no shortage of studies they can cite.

How would one counter this debate strategy?

Blogger James Dixon September 20, 2013 3:48 PM  

> How would one counter this debate strategy?

Ask them to explain the Medieval Warm Period. Then when they have no idea what it is, tell them to research it and get back to you.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 3:51 PM  

Each time I debate with a Global Warming adherent, they are able to provide mountains of relevant evidence to support their position (probably just by Googling the topic).

Please quote said relevant evidence if you like, so we can better discuss it. Invariably, it is misused to prove something it does not, such as the difference between warming and man-caused warming, or correlation and causation.

I have never seen any direct evidence of AGW. Ever. Climate is full of data to cite, it is no surprise that they can throw numbers at you. The key is how to interpret the data.

I would say, as a preliminary, that the way to counter their reliance on the Monolith of Climate Science studies would be to point out how they invariably act completely sure of themselves, despite the fact that their models have not once predicted future climate behavior with any degree of accuracy.

You could also point out that science involves controls as a part of true scientific testing, and there is no such thing as a control climate. Without a control, you cannot test your theories. By definition, Climate Science is soft, not hard science, and they can come out with a trillion billion papers, it doesn't change the facts:

A) Climate Science is not testable or provable, so the only metric to gauge its reliability is to test its predictions of the future.

B) So far, their predictions are batting a big goose egg. Zero.

C) Have the scientists who are part of this soft science displayed any skepticism over the failure over their untestable field to produce results by the only honest metric it could conceivably do so? No. Ones who do are demonized.

The fact that skeptics are booted out of an untestable soft science that has failed all its predictions is, to me, slam dunk evidence of corruption.

Anonymous Catan September 20, 2013 3:56 PM  

In short, in the climate, there are definitely things that we don't know we don't know, because our models blow and don't predict diddly squat.

But when climate scientists act like the science is settled despite the failure of their predictions, they are essentially saying "We know that there is nothing we don't know we don't know."

Would a real scientist ever say something that arrogant and illogical?

Blogger James Dixon September 20, 2013 4:01 PM  

Oh, and on the off chance they actually have researched the matter and come back with the comment that the medieval warm period didn't exist, laugh in their face and tell them they're a lying fool. That's the claim the AGW scientists had to use to "prove" their theory, and it's complete and total BS. The medieval warm period is very well documented and wasn't regional.

Blogger James Dixon September 20, 2013 4:55 PM  

Of course, the only real comment that needs to be made about AGW is that no one even finds it worthwhile to come to defend it any more. Even Phoenician hasn't shown up.

Anonymous dh September 20, 2013 5:27 PM  

Of course, the only real comment that needs to be made about AGW is that no one even finds it worthwhile to come to defend it any more. Even Phoenician hasn't shown up.

That's interesting but not data.

Blogger James Dixon September 20, 2013 7:35 PM  

> That's interesting but not data.That's interesting but not data.

Not data about AGW, no. But it is data about the public perception of AGW.

Anonymous Anonymous September 20, 2013 7:36 PM  

Maximo wrote:**I do marvel, though, at the genius of the scam, as well as its load of pure evil. Predict something that can't be proven or disproven for a hundred years or more, cobble up "consensus" as science, demonize disbelievers, hook into every nook and cranny of life to nag everyone with guilt merely for breathing (what, you want to kill your great-grandchildren!? Put down that Twinkie!)**

Hmm, sounds pretty similiar to a lot of religions....

Anonymous Anonymous September 20, 2013 8:05 PM  

**My long-standing problem with the "global warming" story is that they've tried to make it too simple, i.e., man-made CO2 will cause warming.**

The problem with a lot of people and various unproven beliefs is this - they use their unproven beliefs as a justification for destructive and controlling behavior. For instance, take global warming. It can't really be proven at this point if global warming is happening, or not happening, or why, or even if it is actually undesirable. It could, perhaps, be argued, that a person should be concerned about the environment and nature, but such concern ought to be approached in a positive and individual way. Such as voluntarily putting a brick in your toilet tank to use less water, or picking up litter, or planting trees. However, this only happens in a few cases, instead, the general rule is that people approach the matter in a collective, controlling, and destructive way, and demand that everyone else (except themselves) be required to lower their lifestyle.

Anonymous Anonymous September 20, 2013 8:07 PM  

**My long-standing problem with the "global warming" story is that they've tried to make it too simple, i.e., man-made CO2 will cause warming.**

The problem with a lot of people and various unproven beliefs is this - they use their unproven beliefs as a justification for destructive and controlling behavior. For instance, take global warming. It can't really be proven at this point if global warming is happening, or not happening, or why, or even if it is actually undesirable. It could, perhaps, be argued, that a person should be concerned about the environment and nature, but such concern ought to be approached in a positive and individual way. Such as voluntarily putting a brick in your toilet tank to use less water, or picking up litter, or planting trees. However, this only happens in a few cases, instead, the general rule is that people approach the matter in a collective, controlling, and destructive way, and demand that everyone else (except themselves) be required to lower their lifestyle.

Anonymous Anonymous September 20, 2013 8:07 PM  

Maximo wrote:**I do marvel, though, at the genius of the scam, as well as its load of pure evil. Predict something that can't be proven or disproven for a hundred years or more, cobble up "consensus" as science, demonize disbelievers, hook into every nook and cranny of life to nag everyone with guilt merely for breathing (what, you want to kill your great-grandchildren!? Put down that Twinkie!)**

Hmm, sounds pretty similiar to a lot of religions....

Anonymous Supernaut September 20, 2013 9:26 PM  

It was around the mid-70's that enough deep ice cores were taken from Greenland and Antarctica to show that there have been five ice ages in the last 600,000 years. Each ice age lasted 100,000 years, more or less, and each interregnum (warm spell) lasted 11,000 years, more or less. The periodicity is impressive. It's existence is undeniable, at least if the interpretation of the data is correct. The current interregnum has lasted 11,500 years. That means, without any other forces at work, that the next ice age could easily start two weeks from next Tuesday!

Yup. It's a cycle!

Just as the earth revolves around the sun, the sun revolves around the Galactic center. As it revolves around the Galactic center, the solar system oscillates up and down, passing through the Galactic Plane at roughly regular intervals.

Theories I've read on this topic tie this into the cycle of long ice ages interspersed by short warm periods. Depending on where the solar system is in it's oscillating revolution is what effects the Sun's output, which in turn affects the Earth's climate.

This is also supposedly where the Mayan Doomsday prophesy comes from. According to the Mayan calendar, our solar system passed through the Galactic plane in 2012, signalling a change of ages.

Did the Mayan calendar really predict the end of the world? Nah.

Just the end of the Holocene.

Winter is coming.

Anonymous Loki Sjalfsainn September 20, 2013 10:02 PM  

Fine, but when normsteak is $800/lb. I'll be eating juicy porterhouse grown in my garage while you are gnawing on frozen boca burgers.

When "normsteak" is that dear, you will be too afraid to leave your garage to scavenge the wherewithal to make it. Meantime, she will be eating a juicy steak grown in her pasture, as they were meant to be grown.

That is, of course, if she is not dining on venison, moose, duck, or turkey, all of which I need only stretch forth mine hand to take.

Such delicacies as you only dream of in your paved cities, mortal man, washed down with a horn of cider or mead...

Anonymous Titus Didius Tacitus September 20, 2013 11:05 PM  

Ann Morgan: "Hmm, sounds pretty similiar to a lot of religions...."
-
It is similar to a lot of religions. And not the nicer parts of them either.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts