Readers of my occasional pieces here at FA might be interested to know that I’ll be doing some guest blogging over at Watts Up With That (“…the world’s most viewed climate website”).
I had a short piece before Christmas, and a serious piece on Sunday. That one critiques the numerous solar scientists who claim that, because solar activity had no upward trend since the 1970’s, solar activity cannot be the cause of post-1970’s warming.
Actually, solar activity from 1940-2000 was the highest since 7000 BC. Most of these solar scientists accept that there is a close correlation between temperature and solar activity over the geologic record, so they accept that high solar activity must create a temperature forcing, but they are at the same time trying to claim that steady peak levels of this forcing CANNOT cause warming. Only if the levels KEEP going up can warming be created.
That’s impossibly stupid. It’s the same as saying that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner all the way to maximum and leaving it there. No, you have to gradually turn the heat up, as if it is the act of raising the level of the flame that heats the water, rather than the level that the flame is raised to.
My post shows just how many solar scientists are invoking this stupid-science as a way to say that modern warming must be due to some other cause than the sun, something like CO2 perhaps, as the people who control all the research money insist. Stupid AND corrupt, though I tone down my language a bit for Mr. Watt’s sake.
We’re a little more plain spoken here at FA, but Anthony does good, and I’m grateful for the chance to put my understanding of climate issues out to his wide readership. If you’re curious, click on over and read the rest.
I have just been to Romm’s site and it is typical hate mongering rubbish. He refers to Monckton as a “hate speech promoter. ”
I’ve been looking around and personal attacks were all he had in his tool box.
Perhaps you were not aware that the Leftist at Center for American Progress work hard to promote him.
Basically, if he ”debunks” anything I’d be more prone to buy it.
There is a HUGE difference between scientists agreeing that human activity has a significant effect on climate change and scientists agreeing that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary cause of devastating climate changes. For example, massive deforestation is known to affect local climate change, but there is yet no consensus as to whether these local climate affects (also known as micro-climate deviations) have a significant, long-term, and adverse affects to the global climate.
Overzealous climatologists and poltically-bent pseudoscientists continue to stoke the flames of skepticism when they are shown to have concealed, altered, destroyed, and otherwise mishandled data that calls into question the veracity of their statements. In addition, because doomsday scenarios make for gripping cinematography, help sell books, justify further funding by way of grants and NGOs, and persuade the non-skeptics to open their wallets, these are the scenarios presented as “will happen unless” certain steps are taken. By far, the majority of these “certain steps” tend to be very costly to business and tend to increase the size and scope of government (and for some strange reason tend to benefit a small number of politically-connected individuals and corporations.)
Peer-reviewed science is widely considered to be the best way to advance true science, and as such, welcomes (even encourages) skepticism. Valid criticisms over data collection, analysis, and reporting must NOT be scoffed at, for it is through the fire of valid criticism that scientific discoveries are tempered.
Jeff
What is the point of Greg’s appeal to authority? Is he wondering how it could happen that an entire scientific field could come to be dominated by people making the kinds of stupid mistakes I point out in my post?
That is easy to answer. Al Gore was given complete control over the first $10b of climate science funding, which was many times the total budget of the existing field. In efffect, Gore was given a free hand to create the modern field of climatology out of whole cloth, and the alarmists he put in place to distribute his massive amount of money has continued to channel every penny of subsequent government spending on climate science and climate related issues, now over $100b.
That’s why people need to look at the actual science. Gore’s army of academics tells you that you can’t, that the science is too difficult for you to understand, that you just have to take their word. “Ignore the man behind the curtain, commands the Great and Powerful Oz.”
But their phony science is not beyond anybody. Just take a look. None of them deny that global warming up to 1970 was natural, and most agree that there is overwhelming evidence that warming since the Little Ice Age was mainly caused by the changing level of solar activity, from very low in the 1600’s to very high in the 20th century. Then they deny that the record high levels of solar activity post-1970 could have caused post-1970 warming because the level of solar activity did not continue to rise post-1970. It just stayed at the highest levels ever recorded.
As I note above, that is just impossibly stupid. It is saying that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner all the way to maximum and leaving it there. No, you have to gradually turn the heat up, as if it is the act of raising the level of the flame that heats the water, rather than the level that the flame is raised to.
Check my references. This is what the alarmists scientists are actually claiming. And all Greg has to say is: ignore the man behind the curtain, just heed the Great and Powerful Oz. All without even looking at what the wizard is actually saying, just citing his authority. Even the Cowardly Lion and the brainless Scarecrow were not that weak minded.
Every time there is a climate post, Greg posts the same arguments. It matters not that there is scientific proof that there is no proof of AGW. Galileo was a denier of the sun revolving around the Earth. Everyone else was in agreement that it was settled science. How did that turn out?
I’m not a scientific illiterate, but I do presume that scientists as a group are far more qualified to evaluate the technical data of a specialized field of study than I am. The number who have done so and who have formed knowledgeable opinions would appear to greatly exceed the number that are dependent on federal money to fund climate-related research. I don’t see why it’s inappropriate to give weight to a majority opinion held by such people. Those having a high level of expertise in any complex field are usually who people look to for authoritative opinions.
I have a problem whenever someone like Al Gore is brought into the debate. Al Gore holds a particular point of view and has promoted certain responses. He is not a source of the research, nor is he a source of scientific opinion. Using Gore to discredit AGW science seems as questionable as citing Gore to advance the scientific argument.
I’m not immune to the politics of the argument, of course. There’s an instinctive impulse to push back when AGW detractors routinely frame the entire issue in the context of of some vast liberal/progressive/Marxist conspiracy theory, implying or stating outright that all of the researchers who have arrived at inconvenient scientific conclusions are essentially on the conspirators’ payroll. I find this particularly annoying after having watched a methodical, 8-year-long effort to suppress free scientific inquiry and open discussion by government scientists concerning what may be an historically critical issue. That effort has since morphed into a well-funded, skillfully orchestrated disinformation campaign. I am not an idiot. I can figure out what the game is and who the players are easily enough. I know an agenda when I see one.
Yup
http://www.petitionproject.org/
@Greg: The agenda is push AGW and get more government grants! You are right Greg. The agenda is easy to see.
@Randy, #57:
Yep. And the liberal/progressive/Marxist conspiracy to facilitate the establishment of a Caliphate is plainly visible to Glenn Beck. It all fits together.
Greg should win an award: The most logic-free excuse for dismissing the role of Al Gore in creating the climate alarm industry with $10 billion in government funding. Greg is against bringing uninformed politicians into the debate!
You see, Gore did not put HIMSELF at the center of the issue by making anti-CO2-alarmism a condition for funding for a whole generation of newly minted climatologists. It is people like ME who are unfairly bringing Gore into the debate by pointing out that the entire climate alarm industry was created by Gore’s total control of the first eight years of industry funding.
This is the like the leftist claim that Sarah Palin injected herself into the Gifford shooting when she defended herself from the left’s blood libel that she had incited mass murder. In both cases it was the other side (Sarah’s attackers and Gore himself) who actually did the injecting. But it suits the leftist debating position to pretend the opposite. Whatever they don’t want to hear–whatever they want to close their eyes and ears to–is something that it is just improper to raise, however grotesquely backwards the basis of that claim may be.
Greg keeps saying he is not an idiot (or a leftist), but if he is not an idiot then he understands how intellectually dishonest he is and he just embraces it. Better that he should be an idiot, which may well be the case. Never attribute to evil what can be just as well be explained by simple stupidity.