Posted on 03/26/2010 9:45:32 PM PDT by neverdem
There are lots of uncertainties in climate science. But that does not mean it is fundamentally wrong
FOR anyone who thinks that climate science must be unimpeachable to be useful, the past few months have been a depressing time. A large stash of e-mails from and to investigators at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia provided more than enough evidence for concern about the way some climate science is done. That the picture they painted, when seen in the round—or as much of the round as the incomplete selection available allows—was not as alarming as the most damning quotes taken out of context is little comfort. They offered plenty of grounds for both shame and blame.
At about the same time, glaciologists pointed out that a statement concerning Himalayan glaciers in the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was wrong. This led to the discovery of other poorly worded or poorly sourced claims made by the IPCC, which seeks to create a scientific consensus for the world’s politicians, and to more general worries about the panel’s partiality, transparency and leadership. Taken together, and buttressed by previous criticisms, these two revelations have raised levels of scepticism about the consensus on climate change to new heights.
Increased antsiness about action on climate change can also be traced to the recession, the unedifying spectacle of last December’s climate-change summit in Copenhagen, the political realities of the American Senate and an abnormally cold winter in much of the northern hemisphere. The new doubts about the science, though, are clearly also a part of that story. Should they be?
In any complex scientific picture of the world there will be gaps, misperceptions and mistakes. Whether your impression is dominated by the whole or the holes will...
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
2008 - climate science is settled. Anyone saying otherwise should be rounded up and jailed for daring to doubt.
2010 - Okay we lied about it all and you caught us. But that doesn’t mean we’re wrong. Why are you picking on us? You guys are so mean!
Stalinists lie. Always.
Then there’s the guy who calculated that the global heating response to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations should be logarithmic, not linear. And there’s cow farts. And there’s water vapor, whose presence in the upper atmosphere is mediated by mechanisms we can hardly guess.
That is the longest and wordiest “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy I have ever read in my life.
The tiny time slices (10,000 years is nothing for a planet 42 billion years old, much less the sneeze of a few hundred years) render the entire “analysis” meaningless.
Where’s the “CO2 drives the majority of the temperature increase” direct proof?
Exactly!
The fact is, there is not one legitimate scientist, specifically people with no funding concerns at stake, that would buy into this garbage.
The closest you can get is the point that it is just a theory.
There is nowhere near enough data over the astonishing periods of time to consider, the outside natural influences that are continuously being discovered and the vast array of natural anomalies already apparent.
Typo alert, my FReeper FRiend! 4.2 billion years old, or thereabouts. (At least that's how many candles I counted last time I went to the Earth's Birthday party....)
>>Typo alert, my FReeper FRiend! 4.2 billion years old, or thereabouts. (At least that’s how many candles I counted last time I went to the Earth’s Birthday party....)<<
Thanks — yes, I overstated by a factor of 10. I guess I was feeling Shakespearean — “out out damn dot!”
even so, 10K years is a dot.
When "scientists" alter/hide/destroy/refuse to release their data or methodology, there is something afoot. When independant analysis fails to produce the same results, when models fail miserably to predict outcomes, and when the data indicate something else entirely is happening, the theory just might be WRONG!
Of course, in the minds of the economist (Real prediction pros, overall, ain't they?) a few hundred percent error might be no big thing, but it is readily apparent such results are nothing upon which to base policy, nor to embark on the systematic destruction of the global economy to solve a problem which does not, after all, exist.
This is the biggest line of BS I have heard in awhile. It is all about the absolute necessity of a little thing called the “Scientific Method.†The church of global warming doesn’t have it. This is the gold standard of all scientific research. Without it you have no credible or believable science, no science at all. They have been caught in a dozen lies, manipulating data, and falsifying sources. After all that they still want the world to believe that they have some credibility.
What a joke.
Inhofe: Climategate Shows There's No Global Warming Consensus
Anglia defends Oxburgh's eco network ties - He's still our man for the job investigating Climategate
‘Cap and Trade’ Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
OK, whatever!
Yet, even Algore admits that past CO2 increases in the atmosphere happened after the earth was warmed by the sun cycle:
So why now is it man’s influence that the CO2 is rising, with temperatures predicted to raise further, in response to increased manmade CO2, whilst all of history indicates that temperature influence and CO2 buildup is a lagging effect???
Folks, look to the Sun!
Manmade global warming = bogus science
I recommend the book by the late Dr. May B. Caveat, “Could Be, But On The Other Hand....”.
A real dearth of wisdom!
The Economist like Business Week has become a liberal rag.
When they hide the raw data?
YES!
I just spent the past week being audited. I not only had to be right but produce the raw data that I used to produce that right conclusion. And the raw data either proved my reports true OR they proved why it was false.
If I had the wrong conclusion but could provide raw data as to why I had reached that wrong conclusion I was clear. If I reached the right conclusion but could not provide the raw data to show how I reached that conclusion I would be job hunting right now.
If scientists who's conclusions can cost billions and trillions are held to a lower standards then low level accountants who's conclusions would cost hundreds and thousands then we are in trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
