John Kerry Preaches on “Immorality” of Doubting “Climate Change”

I’m not disputing any of that. However, the data indicate warming. The models are not currently correct. It is incumbent upon scientists to correct them. Unfortunately, the politics has infiltrated the field to such a degree that real science is unlikely, and the bad science will likely hold sway. That’s why I’m saying we need to stop denying the basic data indicating that the earth is warming and to bring to bear new models that actually do work, perhaps ones that reject the basic premise that it is human activity causing the warming.

My basic point is that it is not that climate modeling is inherently unscientific, although systems as complex as the earth’s climate system are difficult to model accurately. The problem is that the political ideology has gotten in the way of science. The solution is not to stop the science, but to provide alternative science that is stripped of the ideology.

Liberals might be lying about the data. Have you considered that possibility?

Liberals said ‘the data’ indicated coastal cities would be under water by 2015... (Scientific American - late 1970’s - early 1980’s.) Either they were lying about the data then or they were lying about the math going into the models.

Or they were scammers...

Didn't Al Gore buy his newest mansion on the coast of California?

Warmists lost credibility. To get credibility back they could open up their research methods, share their data and equations. They won't do that. Does that seem odd to you?

Science isn't group-think, bullying or intimidation. If real scientists can't replicate warmists findings then we can assume warmists are lying - as they have in the past.

You really seem to be missing the point. The data shows the earth is warming. That data can be generated by anyone, liberal, conservative, independent, libertarian, whatever. That data is available. There have been total skeptics like you who did reviews of the data with the full intention of showing that the idea that the earth was warming is incorrect. They were forced to conclude that the earth indeed is warming.

Forgive me if I’m talking down to you here, but it’s really pretty easy to measure the global average temperature. All bodies with a temperature above absolute zero emit light. This may (and usually is, at least at typical ambient temperatures) light with a longer wavelength than visible light. The earth is no different in this regard. It is possible to measure the intensity and the spectrum of this light. Based on those measurements, it’s very easy to get a fairly precise temperature of the body that emitted that light. Based on satellite measurements that have been done over the past several decades, it is conclusive that the earth is warming. You don’t gain any credibility by denying that fact.

Now, this warming is certainly less than the warming that was predicted by the models. The earth is a very complex system and those models failed to incorporate all the complexities of the system. For that reason, it seems likely that models based primarily on the assumption that human carbon emissions are the main cause of the warming are suspect. We agree on that point. The credibility of those models is low. Why does that mean, however, that the basic data must be flawed. Like I’ve said before, if the basic data is flawed, then anyone with the knowledge of the field can generate their own data and prove it. That could happen, but until it does, I think we need to grant that the data is real.

You and the climate scientists are both confused on another point. The data don’t indicate that coastal cities would be under water. The models purportedly based on these data indicate that. The data show nothing other than that the average temperature of the earth has increased. We can accept the data without the necessity of jumping to the conclusion that the warming is manmade and that we need to do all the stupid things that the liberals are telling us we need to do.

No, science isn’t group think, but more often than not the scientific consensus does hold value. In the case of climate research, though, politicization has robbed this consensus of much of its value. Scientists are human and are subject to political bias just like anyone else. Politicization has caused these faulty models to be promulgated. Why, then is the answer to just let these models be the ones that are used to make policy decisions? Why is it not better to formulate new, better models? The policy decisions of the future will be based on the scientific models of today. If today’s models are faulty, so too will be the policy decisions. Why should we just give up, deny warming, and let the liberals control the science and therefore the policy decisions?

I'm not sure how to make this clear to you...

I didn't believe in the Club of Rome

Or Peak Oil

Or Nuclear Winter

the The Population Bomb

Or eating low cholesterol food lowers cholesterol

or Global Cooling

Or that low fat low sugar food is good for teenagers.

Liberals have a track record...

*******************

"Climate Change"

Claim Jan. 1970: “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life Magazine, January 1970. Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, “but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the predictions.” Data: Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

Claim April 1970: “If present trends continue, the world will be … eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.

Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.

Claim 1970: “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.

Claim 1972: “Artic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. Data: Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover — an area larger than the continental United States — according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Claims 1974: “… when metereologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere–from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice int eh waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.” Later in the article, “Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip teh climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.”

Source: “Another Ice Age,” Time Magazine, June 24, 1974. Claim 1989: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.

Claims: “Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.”

“Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and … are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters–which scientists are attributing to global climate change–produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.”

“London’s last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.” “Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community.”

According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” and winter snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

“David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow.” See “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The Independent. March 20, 2000.

Data: “Coldest December Since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10 C bringing travel chaos across Britain.” Mailonline. Dec. 18, 2010.

Claim: “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy at the Wilson School. He was formerly a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, the largest non-governmental organization in the U.S. that examines problems and solutions to greenhouse gases.

Data: When asked about these old predictions Oppenheimer stated, “On the whole I would stand by these predictions — not predictions, sorry, scenarios — as having at least in a general way actually come true,” he said. “There’s been extensive drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The fraction of the world that’s in drought has increased over that period.”

However, that claim is not obviously true. Data from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center show that precipitation — rain and snow — has increased slightly over the century.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/

****************

I don't believe warmists data, I don't believe their conclusions... There's nothing about this scam that feels real. Is that clear enough? —