Wind Farms cause global warming

[Betruger]

Yep. Rapture of the nerds. And he never has gotten around to breaking down the trend into its causal bits. It would really strengthen his argument to show exactly what the source of the acceleration is, and e.g. show how more or less impervious it is to a variety of adversity (wars etc).

Instead he just evangelizes and pretends to be a fairy (not kidding - you can see it in one of his films/documentaries). Personally, I think the more reliable "singularity" type of revolutionary departure from status quo is curing aging.

[choff]

It will be interesting to see how the medieval warming period/little ice age gets repackaged by the people rewriting the press stories of the '70's. Twenty years from now, when they start reselling the coming ice age story it will also be interesting how they repackage global warming stories from this era.

[tomclarke]

It will be interesting to see how the medieval warming period/little ice age gets repackaged by the people rewriting the press stories of the '70's. Twenty years from now, when they start reselling the coming ice age story it will also be interesting how they repackage global warming stories from this era.

No-one is interested in past temperatures as press story, unless with some ulterior motive e.g. "Hey - the scientistss got it wrong". Even then no-one cares about scientists getting it wrong unless there is some current political issue, like AGW, which makes bashing scientists newsworthy.

So ignore all the press stories. Have a look at the scientific consensus as determined by the totality of peer reviewed literature.

That was for GW in the 1970s, but with a lot of uncertainty. Between then and now the uncertainty has steadily reduced, so that now 99% of published literature will reckon GW is going to happen.

[tomclarke]

The good thing about science as done now is that it is Darwinian. Anyone can publish anything and there is a lot of reward for doing something new, as long as it is well argued. Of course as soon as some new line of investigation opens others jump on the bandwagon.

Take past scientific mistakes. e.g. plate tectonics. Once a new theory is on the table it gets examined and over time, as evidence emerges, the scientific weight of opinion changes.

here is a nice summary of the way scientific consensus chnages rapidly when confronted with new experiment & theory:
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/ev ... ing-theory

[Jccarlton]

It will be interesting to see how the medieval warming period/little ice age gets repackaged by the people rewriting the press stories of the '70's. Twenty years from now, when they start reselling the coming ice age story it will also be interesting how they repackage global warming stories from this era.

No-one is interested in past temperatures as press story, unless with some ulterior motive e.g. "Hey - the scientistss got it wrong". Even then no-one cares about scientists getting it wrong unless there is some current political issue, like AGW, which makes bashing scientists newsworthy.

So ignore all the press stories. Have a look at the scientific consensus as determined by the totality of peer reviewed literature.

That was for GW in the 1970s, but with a lot of uncertainty. Between then and now the uncertainty has steadily reduced, so that now 99% of published literature will reckon GW is going to happen.

What happens when the consensus is manufactured? When peer review is controlled by a small cabal of like minded individuals? When journal editors and scientists have their careers ruined because the may have dared to publish something outside the orthodoxy. When criticism and opposing views is deliberately suppressed? When this small group denies acsess to data and algorythmns so results cannot be reproduced? Because we now know that this is exactly what has happened to climate science. We have the team's internal communications thanks to climategate and what's there is not science and it's not pretty. Until we can get some degree of objectivity from climatology and not the Lysenkoist echo chamber we have now, there will not be any science in climatology.

[CKay]

we now know that this is exactly what has happened to climate science.

We don't. You have a strong belief (probably related to an ideological perspective) that this is the case. Others don't share that view (/bias).

We have the team's internal communications thanks to climategate and what's there is not science and it's not pretty.

And here is the alternative view:

A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... hacked.htm

No doubt you will question the independence of those investigations, but then your argument presupposes a conspiracy of improbable proportions.

Hanlon's Razor

[Jccarlton]

we now know that this is exactly what has happened to climate science.

We don't. You have a strong belief (probably related to an ideological perspective) that this is the case. Others don't share that view (/bias).

We have the team's internal communications thanks to climategate and what's there is not science and it's not pretty.

And here is the alternative view:

A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate ... hacked.htm

No doubt you will question the independence of those investigations, but then your argument presupposes a conspiracy of improbable proportions.

Hanlon's Razor

Should I believe some investigators or what I have seen with my own lying eyes. It's pretty clear if you actually read the emails whats going on. You don't have to pick and choose. Just pick a random thread and watch where it goes. Over and over again, Mann, to Jones to Triffa and so on, discussing this trick or how to manipulate that data, this grad student's career to wreck, discussing how to get that jounal editor fired because he dared to publish outside the orthodoxy, complaining about that person wanting FOI, on and on. One or two, you could say, well somebody was having a bad day. Hundreds upon hundreds and you have to say something is really rotten here. As for those investigations, as far as I have seen most of them were far from independent and had good reason to sweep things under the rug. It's not so vast a conspiracy, just a small group of people sitting in the middle of it all, surrounded by a larger group who need the power and influence that AGW provides them. If you are tring to remake the world you need a big hammer and there is nothin bigger than the threat of the ned of the world. Which is all the more reason to approach AGW climatology very skeptically.

[CKay]

It's not so vast a conspiracy, just a small group of people sitting in the middle of it all, surrounded by a larger group who need the power and influence that AGW provides them. If you are tring to remake the world you need a big hammer and there is nothin bigger than the threat of the ned of the world.

A group of people attempting to remake the world sounds like a pretty big conspiracy to me.

[Jccarlton]

You have to ask yourselves, if climate science is so settled, why do Mann, Jones, et al, go to such lengths to hide what they are doing?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/c ... more-62524

[Betruger]

Wasn't there at least one study showing data consistent with the current (supposedly man-made) global warming countering what would otherwise be global cooling?

Next, I know people who have been thru the peer review machine. It is corrupt.

[tomclarke]

It will be interesting to see how the medieval warming period/little ice age gets repackaged by the people rewriting the press stories of the '70's. Twenty years from now, when they start reselling the coming ice age story it will also be interesting how they repackage global warming stories from this era.

No-one is interested in past temperatures as press story, unless with some ulterior motive e.g. "Hey - the scientistss got it wrong". Even then no-one cares about scientists getting it wrong unless there is some current political issue, like AGW, which makes bashing scientists newsworthy.

So ignore all the press stories. Have a look at the scientific consensus as determined by the totality of peer reviewed literature.

That was for GW in the 1970s, but with a lot of uncertainty. Between then and now the uncertainty has steadily reduced, so that now 99% of published literature will reckon GW is going to happen.

What happens when the consensus is manufactured? When peer review is controlled by a small cabal of like minded individuals? When journal editors and scientists have their careers ruined because the may have dared to publish something outside the orthodoxy. When criticism and opposing views is deliberately suppressed? When this small group denies acsess to data and algorythmns so results cannot be reproduced? Because we now know that this is exactly what has happened to climate science. We have the team's internal communications thanks to climategate and what's there is not science and it's not pretty. Until we can get some degree of objectivity from climatology and not the Lysenkoist echo chamber we have now, there will not be any science in climatology.

Wishful thnking affects everyone. You want to think this. Before climategate were you a climate skeptic? I bet you were.

Those e-mails showed a few climate scientists being political, having been subjected to character assasination and 1000 people claiming they are wrong because of the same internet myths.

I have some sympathy, but it is stupid. However if you ignbore the politics of both sides, and look at the science, there is no contest:

AGW is certain

climate sensitivity to CO2 is uncertain, but likely high enough for CO2 emmissions already in the air to create very substantial change

Much about the science is still up for grabs, and the politics of what to in this situation is unclear. But those who deny the science are lazy, or stupid, or prejudiced.

You have to be weird to believe in so many well intentioned scientists, most with more interest in the science than the politics, all being part of a conspiracy.

Do I want to think this? My happiest time recently has been reading James Annan's blog (he is a climate scientist. One of the consensus. Which does not mean he manufactures evidence). He was confirming what I have for a while suspected which is that the AR4 estimates of climate sensitivity make the high end tail probabilities much larger than they should be, due to wrong choice of Bayesian prior. That is good news for everyone.

I also hope there is enough unconscious bias in the published science to make the low-end predictions more likely than the high-end ones. But I have to say there is not likley to be a big change, studies have been done and critiqued and compared for long enough now for any big errors to have been found.

[tomclarke]

Wasn't there at least one study showing data consistent with the current (supposedly man-made) global warming countering what would otherwise be global cooling?

Next, I know people who have been thru the peer review machine. It is corrupt.

Anecdotes never make good science. There are hundreds of studies, the outliers shown almost anything, but with very little consistency or support from other sources of evidence.

To judge all this you need to do more than trawl internet for sound bites supporting a prejudice.

Peer review is imperfect. Very occasionally it is corrupt, as in the case where Wegman and Said (who wrote the famous cut and paste attack on Mann since thoroughly discredited) publish another cut and paste bit of pseudo-schaolarship on the online jpurnal they edit. It seems that they receive unusually favourable treatment.

Otherwise, rubbish still gets through, but standards are much higher than if no peer review. There is zero evidence that good papers contrary to orthodoxy are suppressed. I can give you examples from LENR, climate change, etc. Have even found one some supporting ID, LOL.

[tomclarke]

You have to ask yourselves, if climate science is so settled, why do Mann, Jones, et al, go to such lengths to hide what they are doing?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/c ... more-62524

I don't have to ask it, you have given the answer. You would have to be exceptional not to react to such vituperous character assasination. Look at it in reverse.

[tomclarke]

Mann, to Jones to Triffa and so on, discussing this trick or how to manipulate that data, this grad student's career to wreck, discussing how to get that jounal editor fired because he dared to publish outside the orthodoxy, complaining about that person wanting FOI, on and on. One or two, you could say, well somebody was having a bad day. Hundreds upon hundreds and you have to say something is really rotten here.

How many journal editors have lost their job? And could this because they did not do it very well?

You need to prove:
(a) 100s
(b) no, they were correuptly sacked

before your comment holds water.

Your accusation is that the system is corrupy remember, not that Mann or anyone else writes a few ill-judges e-ms.

You never written a private e-m that woudl get you into bad trouble if broadcast over the internet?

[choff]

Mann, to Jones to Triffa and so on, discussing this trick or how to manipulate that data, this grad student's career to wreck, discussing how to get that jounal editor fired because he dared to publish outside the orthodoxy, complaining about that person wanting FOI, on and on. One or two, you could say, well somebody was having a bad day. Hundreds upon hundreds and you have to say something is really rotten here.

How many journal editors have lost their job? And could this because they did not do it very well?

You need to prove:
(a) 100s
(b) no, they were correuptly sacked
before your comment holds water.

Your accusation is that the system is corrupy remember, not that Mann or anyone else writes a few ill-judges e-ms.

You never written a private e-m that woudl get you into bad trouble if broadcast over the internet?

So how do the global warming scientists explain what happened to the Vikings in Greenland and Iceland, as well as the mini ice age. I understand the population of Finland dropped by a third because it got colder.