Replies

So, you found one or two studies that have BEGUN to look at the effect of biology, but "the science is settled".

Bullshit.

I suspect that the reason Dyson says that biology accounts for half the effect is that that is what the COMPREHENSIVE models that he DID work on years ago showed. Certainly, as we learn more, the magnitude of the effects of biology on climate have not decreased.

The simple fact is that the warmist position is based on sheer scientific fraud, deliberate and probably done with malice aforethought. Quantitative science that contradicts it is prevented from being published, and people driven out of their career positions in order to prevent such information from widespread distribution, but "the science is settled".

The fact remains that the Roman and Medieval Warm periods were warmer than current conditions, were global in extent and that "global warming" has not happened for the last ten years. Even the alarmists themselves admit it.

Today's story from my home state of Louisiana--"earliest snowfall since 1938". Houston "earliest snowfall ever recorded", but "the science is settled".

And still no sunspots.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Ever hear that?? Well, right now, "global warming" doesn't reach that standard.

My position is this. It is WAY too early to try to impose the type of draconian solutions proposed, so shitcan Copenhagen. Get the fraud out of the science that is being done. Require that ALL data and ALL models be openly and fully posted on the internet. Get some REAL science done that everyone can agree on, and THEN think about "fixes".

I suspect that another five years will tell conclusively whether the solar physicists or the climate modelers are right as to the direction of the globe's temperature.

Oh, yes, and FIRE all the bastards involved in the bastardization of science that has gone on, and get some ETHICAL scientists in place.

Maybe the CRU can get Steve McIntyre to come out of retirement and head up the effort.

Today's story from my home state of Louisiana--"earliest snowfall since 1938". Houston "earliest snowfall ever recorded", but "the science is settled".

Do you notice anything interesting in this plot? If you wait a few days, I can show you November. I expect a similar pattern.

Moving on: did I say the "science was settled"? No. It just seems to me that Dyson is stating opinions about the state of a scientific field he by his own admission doesn't know much about.

Part 1: The NAS report evaluating paleoclimate reconstructions indicated that there is no way to quantitatively make your first statement above. Part 2: After this year, the only year not in the Top 10 warmest since the 1880s will be 1998. (And that includes last year, 2008, with a potent La Nina operating.) This entire decade has been warmer than the 1990s, and the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s. That's how you evaluate climate change, not with year-to-year connect-the-dots plots of interannual variability.

Copenhagen is a non-starter anyway, so it doesn't concern me. I'm all for eliminating any proven fraud that is found in climate change science. More openness -- clearly a good thing if it can be accomplished. Your last sentence: there will never be something that everyone can agree on in a predictive science.

I've expected that there will be nothing substantive done until there is a truly major climate-change related catastrophe. I thought the 2003 European heat wave might be that thing. Maybe that's why they're so motivated. But the Australians are losing their most important river system to drought, and they can't even get their act together.

I suspect that another five years will tell conclusively whether the solar physicists or the climate modelers are right as to the direction of the globe's temperature.

We could know by the end of next year, particularly if sunspot numbers stay low.