Dr. Tim Ball:
“It occurred to me….” When somebody says “let me be honest with you” does it mean they haven’t been previously?
Two videos reveal important information about why and how the global warming/climate change deception was, and continues to be, successful. The major reason is because only 20 percent of the population is comfortable with science. Even among scientists the degree of specialization makes most of them unfamiliar with climate science or climatology. Everyone else was vulnerable to the deception that occurred, especially because it was deliberately conceived and exploited.
A presentation by Professor Murray Salby illustrates what is wrong with climate science and the climate models and why people don’t understand and were easily fooled. A presentation by Simon Buckle tries to justify the models and define the terms skeptic and denier central to public misunderstanding. He gets it wrong and only underscores the effectiveness of the deception.
Official climate science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is disintegrating from self-inflicted wounds. They did not carry out proper scientific testing of the hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming and latterly climate change, known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). They worked to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis, but failed. Despite the failures they made false claims now exposed by actual events.
Several years ago I gave a separate public presentation in Washington DC after appearing before a Congressional hearing on global warming. The theme of the presentation paralleled earlier publications and presentations on the inadequacy of the computer models. It is covered in many articles on this web site including a general concern about their application in society. In one article I quote Pierre Gallois’ comment that,
“If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no one dares criticize it.”
As I wrote in one article, GIGO which stood for Garbage In Garbage Out for models in general in climate science of the IPCC became Gospel In Gospel Out.
Sufficient data from the IPCC computer model projections has accumulated to analyze what was wrong and why it occurred. None of it is a surprise, but we could only speculate because we had insufficient information about the computer codes, that are the programming instructions. Now Salby, working backward dissembles the models showing they were knowingly designed to produce a desired result.
This concept of premeditated results was the theme of my presentation to the Heartland conference on Climate Change in Washington, a couple of years ago. One slide from that presentation said,
“The computer results were predetermined.” “They set out to prove the hypothesis contrary to the scientific method.” “They did not entertain the null hypothesis.” “Despite this they convinced the world that CO2 is a serious problem.”
@Redteam:
We know what you think of them, it’s really interesting to wonder what members of these august scientific organizations think of someone like you, someone who listens to Rush Limbaugh an hour each day and then decides to make it a real priority of his to piss all over everything they’ve done, because you know. You’re into science. You’ve made up your mind based on “the numbers available”. There’s no arrogance in that, is there, for someone like you to say you’re right and hundreds of thousands of actually trained scientists at the pinnacle of their fields are wrong. I wonder how they feel, knowing a bunch of hay seed creationists and feckless Exxon Mobil executives are calling them liars when they’re literally trying to save the Earth.
@Tom: Tom, I’m afraid you flunked out of comedy school. I haven’t listened to Rush since sometime back in the 90’s. So while you’re accusing me of making up stuff, don’t you think you might try to refrain from making up stuff to accuse me of. I also don’t know any Exxon/Mobil executives or what their theories on global warming are.
Why won’t you address the simple little number of ‘average global temp’ over the last one hundred years. If you’re going to claim the world is heating up at a tremendous rate, it should show up on the thermometer, shouldn’t it? So, throw out the average global temp in 1913 and compare it to today. Might open your eyes. It at least will show you that you are full of it. At least you’ll understand those with logical thinking ability that think you’ve lost your mind when you claim it’s so much hotter today. Excuse me while I go take a ‘laugh break’.
@Tom:
No, I’m not a relative of yours.
As I said, I’m not related to you
You sure are worried about talk radio, aren’t you? I don’t personally waste my time of radio.
You throw out all those numbers, try throwing out the average global temp in 1913 and compare it to today. For your information, 1913 was a year about a hundred years ago. Average global temp is the temp when all the global temps are added together and divided by the number of temps.
The alphabet starts with ABC, sound familiar? Sorry, I assumed you know what ‘divided by’ meant, but I’m pretty sure you’re gonna have to ask someone how to do that. It’ll come to you.
@Nan G, #47:
I read the linked article. This paragraph seems relevant:
200-500 farmsteads is interesting, but I have to wonder about the term “farmsteads” and the suggestion that they were “primarily farmers,” when they seem to be talking about a variety of subsistence activities that don’t include the growing of crops. The last sentence about the failed attempts to grow barley confuses their meaning even further. I honestly don’t quite know what to make of that.
On that I’ve got to concede the point. “Optimal” is certainly relative. What would be bad news for low coastal areas and already excessively hot and dry areas could be good news for other places. Greenland could be a very good example. Possibly it could become a vast, undeveloped temperate region filled with unexploited land and resources. Northern Canada might fare well. The American southwest might essentially become uninhabitable. (An acquaintance in Texas mentioned last week that his area was coping with temperatures above 110 degrees.) No telling what we would find, if we could look ahead 150 years.
@Greg: Greggie, you forgot to comment on the average global temp over the last 100 years. Can’t reconcile it with your crazy global warming fanatics, can you?
There’s the Greggie, again. Please darn your socks, or stop picking up other people’s habits—whichever applies. If you’re out to annoy people, you could at least try to be more original about it.
Greg
are you sure GREG is not your twin brother from the negative side,
I have to read you before identifying you,
bye
@Greg: Greggie is just the whiner’s version of Greg. Seems to fit you better. Not as bad as insinuating that I’m related to you.