Columbia University's Climate: A Visit to an Alternate Universe

American Thinker ^ | December 3, 2016 | Norman Rogers

[Kaslin]

The subway stop at 116th Street in Manhattan is for Columbia University. Is this subway stop a wormhole to an alternate universe, where people look like everyone else but are possessed by strange ideas and incomprehensible ways of thinking?

My journey to 116th Street was to attend a lecture titled "What Would it Mean to Understand Climate Change?" It is hard to understand the title of this lecture, and the official description of the lecture increases the confusion:

Efforts abound to "understand" climate change. But what kind of understanding is needed? Does "understanding" mean the same thing to concerned citizens as it does to scientists, humanities scholars, or policy makers? At this public event climate scientist Isaac Held, philosopher of science Philip Kitcher, and science journalist Jonathan Weiner will compare the work of understanding undertaken by different communities engaged with climate change, and address the question what remains to be understood.

The first speaker, Isaac Held, was the only scientist. Held is deeply involved with the computer climate models that are the foundation for the predictions of climate doom. Apparently, nearly everyone at Columbia University, judging from the speakers and the audience, has accepted the message from the computers as absolute truth.

Held's talk was meandering and difficult to understand. His thesis is that there are a hierarchy of stories explaining climate change. At the most complicated level are the computer climate models. A simple story could be a prediction – say, that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global average temperature by X degrees.

[eyeamok]

Efforts abound to “understand” climate change. But what kind of understanding is needed?

Government control over every aspect of private enterprise and the personal lives of all humans on the planet. In other words, FASCISM on a Global Scale.

Next Question.

[ClearCase_guy]

It is out of fashion today, but earlier in the 20th century there was a field of study called General Semantics which aimed at getting to Truth without getting waylaid by bad thinking. Of course it went out of fashion.

One of the catchphrases from General Semantics was “The map is not the territory”. Which basically means: If you are following a map, and the map says that you are an easy 2-mile walk from your destination, and you suddenly find yourself on the shore of a mile wide river, then you have a problem. It doesn’t matter what the Map tells you. The territory tells you that you have a major obstacle. And the territory wins the argument.

Computer models don’t matter. Honest Climate measurements matter. Of course all the computer models assist “the narrative” and tell the story that the Social Engineers want to tell. That is their purpose. But the map is not the territory.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Ironically, universities have become the ones who would burn a modern day Giordano Bruno at the stake.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Ask him three questions. 1. How much will it cost to fix climate change? 2. Who gets the money? 3. What is the mitigation strategy if their actions cause a global freeze?

If he cannot provide a simple answer to any of those questions then he is useless. Funny thing about this is if they are playing the climate change/global warming card, I can fix it and shut everyone up. Plus my solution is so ridiculous, but the left has no answer, other then calling me a racist.

[Paladin2]

There is NO “Science” of the Climate. Otherwise accurate predictions would be everywhere.

[Don Corleone]

Apparently, nearly everyone at Columbia University, judging from the speakers and the audience, has accepted the message from the computers as absolute truth.

Garbage in...Garbage out!

[Rome2000]

Joseph McCarthy on Democrats

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iGGjGSdqf8

[marktwain]

Computer models for the climate depend on what the Climate Modeler believes to be true.

There are many unknowns and unknown relationships in the climate. Climate modelers put in their own figures for these unknowns. They run the model. If it shows what they want, they accept it.

If it shows what they do not want, they change the figures.

That is not science, it is advocacy.

[Moonman62]

They are Natural Climate Change deniers.

[Da Coyote]

I guaran-effin-tee that none of the presenters, including Held, could pass a rigorous Physics major curriculum.

Of course, a simple proof of Held’s idiocy is to require him to go to his publications and produce a correct prediction.

[samtheman]

I asked Held what conclusion he draws from the lack of warming of the Earth during the last 18 years in the face of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

---

I wish you would have asked him: “if it’s true that there is no measurable warming (only predictions of warming), why do countless articles in the media (both popular and scientific) refer to the specific incidents of ‘effects of climate change’?”

In other words, they admit that there is no warming, and then they fill the media with examples of how the warming is ALREADY DOING DAMAGE.

Could someone please explain that paradox to me? Anyone? I’ll even accept an explanation from Jiminy Cricket.

[samtheman]

Ironically, universities have become the ones who would burn a modern day Giordano Bruno at the stake.

---

Not ironic at all. University elites have ALWAYS opposed great thinkers, from Copernicus to Newton and on into the present day. In the case of Copernicus the university leaders persuaded the church to get involved in the censorship, but the censorship began with Copernicus’ colleagues, not with the church.

[Maceman]

Everything you need to know about the AGW movement was stated quite clearly by the UN's top climate official in 2015:

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
-- Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC

[left that other site]

Excellent analogy!

In fact, last night I followed GPS to get home from a gig that ended after midnight. Instead of the direct route along clearly marked and lit highways, the GPS took through the “small intestine” of Hingham, on one lane, unlit, under construction country roads with myriads of lefts and rights which eventually brought me home.

While the “computer model” may have thought that this was the shortest and best route, it was NOT.

[Fitzy_888]

The Columbia University endowment is about $9.6 billion. I’m sure they could spare say half to save the planet. If the predictions are correct they won’t need it otherwise.

We’re waiting.

[Billthedrill]

Surprisingly intelligent people do end up in cults, and often they slide right into them without even recognizing that's what they're doing. It always struck me as curious that the terms "believer" and "denier" have been given any place in a scientific discussion to begin with. And clearly "understanding" climate change has been interpreted only as placing it into an already established worldview, not actually comprehending the internal processes, much in the way one might "understand" astrology or alchemy as belief systems.

Were this not the case we would scarcely need to involve a philosopher and a journalist in what must necessarily be a technical discussion of a fantastically complex process.

The modeler knows it, although it would be worth his job to admit it. (Here I think the author is being a bit disingenuous: he knows perfectly well why the fellow can't be publicly skeptical, it feeds his cat). So too do most honest scientists involved even if they count themselves "believers".

I had a very interesting conversation with a highly intelligent friend, a PhD in Geology, who finally admitted that the climate models under consideration were fine descriptive models but entirely inadequate as predictive models, hence simply could not stand up to the rigor demanded of normative models, which is what they're trying to do in recommending adjustments that will result in a presumably more satisfactory climate system state. "Even if it isn't true, if it leads us to doing the right thing, isn't it worth considering?" he asked me. Meaning, of course, that the poorly hidden agenda is attractive enough to justify being built on feet of clay. I told him certainly not, what in the world was he thinking? Sheepish grin, no answer. They know.

[generally]

Those are excellent questions.

The question I always ask the people who are pushing the global warming nonsense is this: So tell me, if it turned out that we were experiencing global cooling and we were in danger of entering another ice age, would you encourage people to burn as much fossil fuel as possible to prevent that?

[ROCKLOBSTER]

>>The first speaker, Isaac Held, was the only "scientist".

Held's talk was meandering and difficult to understand.

Mostly because it's a flimsy hoax and his fraudulent "findings" don't match reality.