Climate change

2,030 posts in this topic

 

Even Bengtsson himself recognizes that The Times article was not correct:

 

To be clear, your quote comes from comments to the article, not the article itself. But then again, the article isn't a news article, it is an editorial hit piece.

Regardless, the comment doesn't address the fact that the whole story is about: the deranged anger from the AGW crowd to anyone that dares defect or question the AGW cult.

 

 

And you can read here on why his article was not published: it was bad.

 

BULLSHIT Here is the real reason why, direct from the mouth of one of the reviewers.

 

"I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place."

 

In other words, it was wrong because it assumed that models and data should be consistent. No, Really - that is what the reviewer said. Models and Data do not need to be consistent and it was wrong for Bengtsson to have written a paper based on that assumption.

 

THAT is why it was rejected! GET it, models and data don't have to be related - and you somehow consider this science!!!

 

RAW DATA comes from the real world, if models don't reflect or predict the real-world RAW data then the models are nothing but fantasy.

So, again - you can keep your fantastical, delusional, dream-world models - I'll stick to the data PERIOD.

 

 

I'm curious, what do you do with "the data"?

 

Well, clearly I don't shove it up my ass as the IPCC crowd does in a blatant attempt to hide it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The guy takes one model, assumes it is perfect, verifies discrepancies with other proposed models and say they are wrong, not even bother trying to explain.

 

His mistakes:

- assuming that the model he chose as comparison was perfect

- repeating discrepancies found by the authors without adding anything

- not bothering to explain the differences

 

He took NO RAW DATA comparison, the article is about comparing models.

 

It was a BAD article.

 

And, as it happens with scientific magazines, they don't simply reject him, they give him hints on how to improve the article. Guess he was too lazy to improve it and decided to call the media.

 

I can see it coming now: a guy writes a bad article, it gets rejected, he calls the media and suddenly starts being invited to big oil-sponsored events.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The guy takes one model, assumes it is perfect, verifies discrepancies with other proposed models and say they are wrong, not even bother trying to explain.

 

If climate models can't predict the real world what use are they then? What the hell is the point of creating law, policy, killing economies with higher energy prices, destroying the environment to save the environment, etc, etc, etc if the models on which it is all based are completely buggered?

 

Bengtsson's paper pointed out the uselessness of the models, now you clearly don't like that. What a surprise!

 

But the cult didn't just attack his paper, they are really attacking him. Not for the paper, but for the inexcusable sin of defecting from the cult.

 

"the guy" as you so neatly try to downgrade his role, is not just a guy. He was very well respected amongst the AGW crowd BEFORE his defection. Now, to hear the cult speak about him is as if he is just some undergrad muddling through life.

 

The AGW crowd is a cult, it shows all the signs and symptoms of a cult. As the "science" behind their mythical world vanishes before their eyes in the light of day, expect them to become even more shrill in the calls.

 

True science NEVER seeks to quell debate, as true scientists (hell anyone) understand that challenges and questioning strengthens science - it never, ever weakens it. Now, cults and politics are another thing - there it is always beneficial to shut the other guy up.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

True science NEVER seeks to quell debate, as true scientists (hell anyone) understand that challenges and questioning strengthens science - it never, ever weakens it.

 

They're not trying to quell debate, they are trying to ignore it as best as possible but because of people like you, who care more about money and economies than the environment, the ignoring is becoming quite difficult. If someone claimed that gravity doesn't exist, you wouldn't expect scientists to engage with the person claiming that. The claim that humans are not having an effect on climate change is a similarly ridiculous position to take, but we keep hearing about it because there are a lot of people and corporations who find this position suits them better.

 

There is really no debate to be had here. 99% of scientists who have studied and published findings in this area disagree with you.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is really no debate to be had here. 99% of scientists who have studied and published findings in this area disagree with you.

 

Sorry to kill your buzz, but there is NOT, and never was, a 97 % support of scientists for AGW (97 % not 99%, but what the hell whether it's 2% or 50 %- it is as accurate as a referendum in Ukraine these days besides which, just the concept of appealing to some mythical consensus to prove the need to shut the other guy should be completely offensive to anyone who truly supports science, but then again - this is a cult).

 

"That number was reached by having a group of people read abstracts (summaries) of ~12,000 scientific papers then say which endorse or reject the consensus. Each abstract was rated twice, and some had a third rater come in as a tie-break. The total number of ratings was 26,848. These ratings were done by 24 people. Twelve of them, combined, contributed only 873 ratings. That means 12 people did approximately 26,000 ratings."

 

How the consensus was really built

 

"Regardless, we now know the results of the Cook et al. paper are influenced by the raters’ individual biases. That’s a problem in and of itself, but it raises a larger question. All the people involved in this study belong to the same group (Skeptical Science). All of these people know each other, talk to one another and have similar overall views related to global warming."

 

But I suppose, this is just all par for the course in the AGW, facts never stopped them before, bias is apparently as good a scientific tool as objectivity, and the ends justifies the means. So what if a groupe of 12 best buddies created a faux study that, wow - unimaginably, fully supports their life work and careers and their ability to be well-paid scientific whores! Apparently greed only matters when it can be falsely attributed to a big oil bogeyman.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zee Great Engineer is so completely entrenched in his views, that no amount of evidence will make him change his mind.

 

You can read about why people persist in believing things that aren't true here. The article focuses on anti-vaccine types, but climate change deniers also get mentioned, because they act in exactly the same way.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Entertaining topic, but what's the purpose (aside from pure entertainment)?

 

Climate change is not the main reason of why we should attempt to decrease CO2 emission. We want to breath clean air and live longer.

 

the US and Canada have not ratified Kyoto protocol, so they can emit as much CO2 as they want. Nobody will ever prevent them from driving to the shop across the street.

 

So, what's the sense of this discussion (aside from know-it-alls teaching Germans what to do)?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Entertaining topic, but what's the purpose (aside from pure entertainment)?

 

There is no purpose, in the sense that it won't make any difference. Politicians accept that climate change is a reality but their short-term outlook will always prohibit any meaningful long-term action.

 

Poking sticks at the deniers to provoke an angry yet hilariously ill-informed response is simply an amusing way to divert our attention from the depressing reality of how the political and industrial classes are leading us down the path of ruin in pursuit of short-term profit.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that this morning I read something on CNN online about NASA saying CO² and GW not being as bad as was previously thought. I wanted to check it again and link to it here, but it seems to be gone!? I don't agree with ZGE, but if CNN censored something questioning AGW I start to wonder what's going on. Did anyone else see the CNN article when it was up this morning?

 

In any event, it is the appearance of controversy that is important to selling news and whether the topic is AGW or Evolution the rare dissenting scientist is given credence for the sake of business. Look how many electrons have been wasted on this thread.

 

Regarding Liberals/Conservatives and Democrats/Republicans, I've said for many years -- think pro wrestling. The winner is predetermined by the money handlers and the body slams and hate are all scripted beforehand. Obama was allowed to win to quelch the voting machine controversy and let it appear that there is a functioning two-party system. He has done what has been required of him by the real powers, whereas McCain could possibly have taken it into his head to defy them. Obama always knew there was some "crazy white guy" that could step from the shadows if he didn't follow orders.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The article focuses on anti-vaccine types, but climate change deniers also get mentioned, because they act in exactly the same way.

 

 

 

Gravity doesn't exist. The earth sucks.

 

So, as you've nothing left to argue the standard turn back to attack the messenger.

 

 

So, what's the sense of this discussion (aside from know-it-alls teaching Germans what to do)?

 

Sucks to be you, everyone else determines what you think.

 

 

Poking sticks at the deniers to provoke an angry yet hilariously ill-informed response is simply an amusing way to divert our attention from the depressing reality of how the political and industrial classes are leading us down the path of ruin in pursuit of short-term profit.

 

Wow, really sucks to be you. Apparently even with all this amazing 'science' backing you up - you are still losing.

 

I mean really, it all just bad news for the AGW cult these days:

 

-the 'science' of fantasy modelling is being exposed day by day

-the cult members are defecting

-the damn climate just isn't listening to the models and doing its own thing

-bloody politicians have just stopped listening to the AGW wackos (or are very cautious in their wording). I mean, Australia and Canada in particular must be driving you absolutely bonkers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am sure that this morning I read something on CNN online about NASA saying CO² and GW not being as bad as was previously thought.

 

If CNN wanted to censor something then presumably they wouldn't publish it in the first place. According to the NASA website the last piece of research they published on the subject was on May 12, which showed that West Antarctic ice loss seems irreversible. I can't find any other news source that matches what you think you read, not even on the denialist websites that you would expect to lap up such a claim.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, as you've nothing left to argue the standard turn back to attack the messenger.

 

Yep, I have nothing left to argue. First others have been making excellent arguments that you've been dissing.

But more importantly, you're a fucking brick wall despite your handle.

And I dislike arguing with brick walls: especially stupid ones

 

It's like arguing about dinosaurs with a creationist. Faith trumps reason and science.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If CNN wanted to censor something then presumably they wouldn't publish it in the first place. According to the NASA website the last piece of research they published on the subject was on May 12, which showed that West Antarctic ice loss seems irreversible. I can't find any other news source that matches what you think you read, not even on the denialist websites that you would expect to lap up such a claim.

 

Well, you could try looking at people who monitor it all the time.

Ice Cover

 

They clearly show that ice cover is above average.

 

However, it is much scarier to say 159 billion are lost.

 

Why not actually consider what that means: There are approximately 27 million cubic kilometers of ice down south. Now, if we ignore our lying eyes that tell us the ice is growing, and consider what if, what if we are acutally losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year - what does that mean?

 

Edit: Damn, we screwed!!! Perhaps 100,000 years down the road I will care more.

 

But first, we must ignore the fact that the ice cover is growing. Ice Cover

 

I do particularly like this quote "But the average rate of ice thinning in West Antarctica has also increased, and this sector is now losing almost one third (31%) as much ice each year than it did during the five year period (2005-2010) prior to CryoSat-2′s launch."

 

Considering that measurements prior to Cryosat were spotty at best, this is one hell of a statement!

 

EDIT: I've added points from recent paper in GRL out of Leeds U. You can google it yourself.

 

Another EDIT: I know the team at UCLA and their use of ERS 1& 2 data is not fully accounting for the phase error in the radar data. They make a lot of assumptions, the error bars on their data are quite large - but that doesn't suit the narrative for the 'buyers' of the data and so it was not mentioned.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ ZGE, go back and check the website that you are referencing. Your interpretation is not consistent with theirs.

 

They have some really interesting stuff, including this gem: http://nsidc.org/soac/sea-ice.html#seaice Very, very cool stuff and an excellent site.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If climate models can't predict the real world what use are they then? What the hell is the point of creating law, policy, killing economies with higher energy prices, destroying the environment to save the environment, etc, etc, etc if the models on which it is all based are completely buggered?

 

Nobody said they are completely buggered. Your comparison is like saying Newton's laws are buggered and useless because they don't account for relativistic effects.

 

You can have models that work well on large scale but with bad granularity and you can have models that work well on local effects but can't be used on a global scale. There are discrepancies between both but they can still be very useful.

 

 

Bengtsson's paper pointed out the uselessness of the models, now you clearly don't like that. What a surprise!

 

No, stop twisting it. His paper used a model as a reference and pointed out discrepancies with the model he took as reference. He uses a model to make those comparisons, so he is not against using models as you implied.

 

 

True science NEVER seeks to quell debate, as true scientists (hell anyone) understand that challenges and questioning strengthens science - it never, ever weakens it. Now, cults and politics are another thing - there it is always beneficial to shut the other guy up.

 

Right wing Americans have been very good in trying to shut up a global consensus on climate changes. :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@ ZGE, go back and check the website that you are referencing. Your interpretation is not consistent with theirs.

 

They have some really interesting stuff, including this gem: http://nsidc.org/soac/sea-ice.html#seaice Very, very cool stuff and an excellent site.

 

Arctic Ice has been receding, but not nearly as dramatic a rate as predicted and ice free summers will not happen.

 

post-228684-14006530555526.png

 

However, Antarctic ice has been increasing and increasing much faster than arctic ice is decreasing, see

 

post-228684-14006524008258.png

 

Any everyone should note one important fact, we really only have wide-area data since 1979. Drawing any long-term conclusion about sea ice with such a limited time record is extremely foolhardy.

 

 

Nobody said they are completely buggered. Your comparison is like saying Newton's laws are buggered and useless because they don't account for relativistic effects.

 

I did and so do many others; however, the reviewer said that it doesn't matter that they are buggered. If you think a red herring on Newton saves your skin on the mess from climate models, well then it is no surprise that you support the climate models.

 

 

You can have models that work well on large scale but with bad granularity and you can have models that work well on local effects but can't be used on a global scale. There are discrepancies between both but they can still be very useful.

 

I don't care what scale you want to try to divert to, these models are being used to scare people and formulate policy in some weak-minded and/or corrupt politicians. The models are wrong, period -therefore any policy conceived as a result is wrong, period! You can dance around that fact all you want, it doesn't change a damn thing.

 

 

No, stop twisting it. His paper used a model as a reference and pointed out discrepancies with the model he took as reference. He uses a model to make those comparisons, so he is not against using models as you implied.

 

Now you are twisting, I said that his paper showed that climate models have some serious shit wrong with them not that Bengtsson was against the use of models. The reviewer (one in particular) recognized that Bengtsson was right and this would damage the claims made by the AGW crowd. That was the reason for the whopper of a justification that one shouldn't expect data and models to align.

 

I then added, and add again - if your models don't align to the data- then the models are wrong. Damn it man, even kids learn this at school, but now for the sake of the AGW Cult we are supposed to ignore this most basic rule of science???

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't care what scale you want to try to divert to, these models are being used to scare people and formulate policy in some weak-minded and/or corrupt politicians.

 

Yeah right, those same weak minded and corrupt politicians who turned their noses up at lucrative handouts from big oil lobbyists to take the billions more being offered by environmental NGOs and locally oriented activists :lol:

How can you and your myopic creed seriously believe that the science of ACC is some conspiracy devised for financial gain?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How can you and your myopic creed seriously believe that the science of ACC is some conspiracy devised for financial gain?

 

There is a reason. A reason he has not stated and possibly is not concious of. This apparently occurred some time ago and acted as a trigger for what we are seeing now. Put that together with the belief that he is equal in intellect with those performing the scientific analyses, a kind of over confidence, and the resulting belief from the original trigger, gets reinforced by cherry picking sources to back up that belief. After a while, when the belief becomes unmovable, "look at all the evidence", the next phase kicks in. It is the "opponents" phase. When cumulating disagreements with people starts to form a pattern in his mind about those who disagree with him. These patterns are rationalised with other cherry picked information to further enhance his belief.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now