If you think global warming is a hot topic now, just wait. The regulations coming along now have a cost and scope of massive proportion. We’re looking at the undoing of the very industries which only a hundred years ago freed us from animal powered travel. I’ve thought about it and here’s ten reasons why everyone should be a skeptic.
Some of these are less technical but even the serious scientist should be able to relate, #1 is a good example of the lack of complexity in the models.
#1 – Global warming is based on computer models of the atmosphere projecting temperatures out a hundred or more of years. Computer models are used to predict the daily weather as well. Can you tell us what your temperature at your home will be next month on the first Monday within 10 degrees……Celcius… Would you bet even one paycheck on it? How about the average for the week? Maybe but maybe not.
#2 – Global warming ‘scientists’ like Hansen and MANY others regularly make extreme predictions of doom which are clearly beyond the result demonstrated by the data. How can claims of the ice free arctic be accepted when the ice level has reduced by only about 5-10%??. The sea ice varies by somewhere around 70% every single year.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-increases-at-record-rate/
#3 – Temperatures have dropped or stayed flat for the last 10 years. This is absolutely in opposition to climate predictions of 10, 5, 3, 1 years ago. The earth has not followed the predictions of the climate models
#4 – Almost no papers representing an alternative view have passed peer review despite the large number of scientists, meteorologists and even us engineers who don’t can’t seem to find the alleged proof can make it past the gauntlet of peer review.
#5 – Nearly all of the funding for pro-AGW science comes from world governments centralized aroun the UN.
#6 – Surface temperature measurements are amazingly inaccurate due to horrendous instrumentation and nearly one hundred percent non-existent quality control across the globe and even in the US. — It is interesting that the government scientists in the US with their half billion dollar budgets don’t call for better systems.
#7 – Surface temperature measurements show a substantially higher slope than satellite data over the most recent 30 year period. Corrections in the form of added slopes, to the surface stations are almost as large as the rising temp signal. — This is an important one to me because, the most manipulated datasets in papers and surface data always seem to favor AGW.
#8 – We don’t know what the global temperature was even 200 years ago. Without thermometers, we’re forced to rely on proxies which not only haven’t even been calibrated and haven’t been checked for linearity, but haven’t even been reasonably demonstrated to be related to temperature. How does this pass peer review?????? The Mann08 paper which showed flat historic temperatures was in my opinion intentionally created to trick people into thinking recent temperatures are unprecedented. The very fact that this passed peer review is to me proof of peer bias toward the global warming cause….or increased funding.
#9 – Nearly all of the remedies proposed by the very same scientists who predict global warming are directed toward cost and taxation. It is blatantly clear that carbon credits have absolutely no chance of even fractional reduction CO2 emissions.
#10 – The only consensus that exists is between a small number of primarily government funded scientists. While they may be right, the rest of us higher paid, freer thinking yet apparently nowhere near as smart individuals haven’t been able to figure it out yet.
——
One of the purposes behind starting this blog was to figure out if AGW was correct. I’m 7 ish months in, I’ve read dozens of papers, done the math on several others and guess what. I have no answers.
Here’s a clue——–.
This isn’t my fault.
the Air Vent 
I am with you….lol
just focus on the things THEY have not.
geo-thermal.
relative humidity.
magnetic.
AND heat balance. heat entering earth vs leaving.
Nice post, Jeff.
For reasons that escape me, many of the people who still support the green Obama administration appear to have no idea that the approaching massive taxation and personal restrictions will have any effect on their own lives. In fact, most still seem rather to be gleefully rejoicing that they have helped destroy some ill-defined, abstract, American evil (big business, big oil, rich people, take your pick – entities previously known as “the major tax base”).
Talk about biting the hands that feed you.
I guess they think that being green is just too trendy to fail, and money will fall like manna from heaven (or yen from China) as long as they keep an “Earth First” sticker on the car bumper (not that they’re going to need the car).
I’m curious to see how these people feel when they realize that they’re included in the financial sacrifice that they’ve brought on themselves. They’re not going to be able to delude themselves out of the reality of food they can’t afford (if there is food), gasoline they can’t afford (if they’re even allowed to buy it), or freezing nights without heat.
As for AGW. If the threat of a major tipping point was all that great, don’t you think the scientists would be falling all over themselves to develop cheap and efficient methods for scrubbing this small amount of extra CO2 from the atmosphere?
Saving the earth was never the point.
Welcome to the New World Order.
Have a pleasant evening, everyone!
Your policy and general AGW posts are quite trite.
RE: #3
TCO said:
“Your policy and general AGW posts are quite trite.”
I’m scared now, TCO!!!! Let me be sure to clean up my act just for you.
Have a pleasant evening, TCO
It quickly becomes apparent to anybody looking into AGW for themselves that it is all about politics and not about science. The worst part is that it seems like the some of the so-called scientists push the political agenda even harder than the politicians. How can somebody like James Hansen, who repeatedly beclowns himself with his over the top antics, expect to have any credibility with the public. The stiffling of debate, the hysterical predictions with no basis, and the utter lack of transparency in climate science just drive people like me into the skeptics camp. The ice core data shows that CO2 lags temperature, the hockey stick has been completely discredited, so what is left? Computer models which regurgitate the assumptions and biases of the modelers. Sorry, but I am not ready to quietly surrender our standard of living and a big chunk of the individual freedom our fathers and grandfathers fought to give us based on compter models that can’t even predict the climate a decade on, much less a century. Sure there is ample evidence the climate is changing, but it always has and always will. Humans may even be contributing to it. But I have yet to see any hard data that would keep me awake at night. Nothing to support the claims of rapidly accelerating change. Nothing to support the apocolyptic predictions of the models. Much like the current financial crisis, the strategy seems to be to scare the crap out of people to make them submit to radical policies.
You forgot to mention that there is absolutely no clear physical basis for the CO2/AGW connection. NONE. McIntyre and others have a standing challenge for the so-called scientists claiming the connection to come forewerd and present a clear exposition. Deafining silence for over 3 years, now.
You also forgot to mention that “deniers” are routinely shut out of any important negotiations concerning AGW, OBVIOUSLY because the proponents know their evidence is very weak.
You forgot to reference all the exemplary work by Steve Mc and associates, showing that a very substantial percentage of “climate scientists” are not even “scientists,” and that their work forms a perfect example of pseudoscience (and I’m being generous here).
I am with Jae on this.
I suspect that Roy Spencer will win out with his negative H2O feedback ideas in the long run.
Constant optical depth by M seems to be holding its own.
Higher sensitivity to modest total solar irradiation changes perhaps via the impact on cosmic rays seems to be increasingly viable as an explanation of some climate phenomena.
Control of surface temperatures and to some extent humidity by the PDO and AMO cycles looks set to take a substantial share of the blame for 1980’s/90’s warming.
The shocking state of ground based climate measuring stations, both equipment and locations seems to bias temperature measurements upward. This is now beyond reasonable doubt.
The UHI effect has not been fully eliminated from the surface temperature record.
The effects of land use change are poorly understood regionally and globally. Land use change itself is probablty an underestimated component of change to surface temperature in the global record.
Probably missed a few. We all have our own lists. This one is just off the top of the head. What have I missed?
Cheers
Rob R
jae is a little sun worshiper nutter. Stop making common cause with him. Ridicule him until he leaves the sekptic cause. Purge the fools. instad of playing grabass with Watts and ilk like that.
TCO says, “Purge the fools”
Let’s see, where have I heard the term “purge” before?
According to Wiki (not my favorite site but it will do in a pinch):
—–
[The] Great Purge was a series of campaigns of political repression and persecution in the Soviet Union orchestrated by Joseph Stalin in 1936-1938.
—–
Nice to know you stand with Stalin, TCO
RE: #9
I forgot to add, thanks for “outing” yourself TCO. Saved me the trouble!
Have a pleasant day, everyone!
You little pussy, Social Revolutionary. I’d rather face off with a real Kossak than a limp fellow traveler.
😉
RE: #11.
Comment by TCO directed at me, “You little pussy, Social Revolutionary. I’d rather face off with a real Kossak than a limp fellow traveler.”
Wow, TCO. I’m scared!!!!!!! You can’t even “face-off” with a real argument. Is name-calling really the best you can do?
Thanks for “outing” yourself as a misogynist, too, TCO. Again, saved me the trouble!
Jeff – please don’t clean up his comment or snip it. I’m not offended by the language, and the message was directed at me.
kiss, kiss…honey-bunny.
There is only one critical argument: that is about feedback. If the AGW movement is right, the existence and scale of positive feedback and thus climate sensitivity will be confirmed. If not, it will be refuted and the whole thing will blow up. Any other issues are distractions. Get this one settled, and we will know the answer. This is where you and everyone else should be spending their efforts, because its where either the refutation or the irrefutable confirmation can happen. Nobel prizes are gained from this.
RE: #13
TCO comments, “kiss, kiss…honey-bunny.”
You’ve diminished yourself to the point of irrelevance. My job is done. Don’t you know when you’re being played.
Have a nice life, TCO
I love you, you little play-mate.
RE: #14
Michel – I would be the first to agree with you if we lived in a perfect world where the sole motive of scientists is “scientific truth.” Unfortunately, I no longer trust the motives of the scientists involved, nor am I confident that any of those committed to the AGW movement as it stands actually want to know whether or not the totality of water vapor feedback is positive, negative or nil. The “concensus” has defined water vapor feedback as posivitive and that suits their purpose, whether or not the accepted definition is actually true.
From a personal standpoint, why would they want to research the question further? What would happen to the massive amounts of funding for climate research if AGW became a non-issue? What would happen to their careers if the science journals directed their attention to other scientific issues?
Allow me to add #11 to the list –
The Church of AGW believes that there’s “consensus” in the scientific community. Or at least a large majority. Granting that as a possibility, none of them seem to realize that over at least the last 5000 years, every time the “majority” of “scientists” has agreed on “anything”, they’ve been proved wrong. There is no reason to assume or believe that this time the majority will be proved right.
TCO said
March 8, 2009 at 8:02 pm
kiss, kiss…honey-bunny.
Street lights are on, kid. And mommy’s gonna be home from the grocery store any minute now.
Better hurry. It’s a school night.
And my #11 would be that as an accountant, I am held to far higher standards than a climatologist, and yet my end-users pale in comparison.
Makes no sense whatsoever. I wait with bated breath for a climatic Sarbanes-Oxley. And some heads to roll.
RE: #20
Well said, AE
AGW is a religion and as such cannot be questioned. Anyone doubting it is shouted down, ridiculed, and shunned. I no longer discuss it with anyone for fear of being verbally attacked. This type of unreasoned belief is impossible to counter. We need to concentrate our efforts on limiting the damage. The cap and trade plan that Obama wants will be a disaster. He is ignoring input from the CBO. Even the EDL, although staunchly pro-AGW, sees that an auction of carbon credits will be detrimental.
I read an article recently that describes Obama as a narcissist (you know, like Hitler). The power he holds over people is frightening.
As an engineer, it sickens me to see Al Gore awarded for such a piece of trash. If I had prepared a report with so many mistakes and lies I would have been fired. He gets a prize!
Hold on, it’s going to be a nasty ride.
Re: #22
It’s not over til it’s over.
Let’s not give up.
Re: #22 cont’d
“I no longer discuss it with anyone for fear of being verbally attacked. This type of unreasoned belief is impossible to counter.”
It isn’t over. We start small and educate – one person at a time, if necessary.
Get over verbal abuse. Learn to take it. Stand up to the abuse armed with facts.
Don’t expect anyone to love you for your position.
Have a nice evening everyone!
I don’t bother discussing it with the obsessed because you can’t reason with people like that. However, most people in this country are reasonable and can be won over.
Most of those types that I’ve had the discussion with end up scratching their heads by the time I’m done with them because they throw out the easiest arguments to counter (polar bears, arctic ice, & hurricanes).
The media presents the biggest hurdle. Too many people don’t know there’s another side to this argument, and what that argument consists of.
reason # 11:
When you do a google search for an image of Antarctica, 19 out of 20 results show the continent as some color other than white.
Note to all climate change liars, frauds, and their synchophants. Snow is white. Always has been, always will be.
reason # 12:
When you do a google search for a satellite image of Antarctica, 19 out of 20 results show the continent as some color other than white, ranging from the dirty dishwater image from http://www.globalwarmingart.com, to the multi colored, slightly psychotic, eigenvectored ozone map from http://www.nsf.gov.
Note to all climate change liars, frauds, and their synchophants. Snow is white. Always has been, always will be.
Jeff, that’s a nice list. Of course people could add more of their own. I have a question for everyone: Of Jeff’s list, which are the most compelling reasons?
I would go for #3, followed by #7 #8 and #1.
Well, there you have it, folks. Snow is white. At long last the alarmists have finally discovered our Achilles heel.
I would have to go with #7 followed by #8. To me these are important unresolved questions which leads to uncertainty of the extent of AGW. #3 will become increasingly important with each passing year to either verify, moderate, or reject the GCM’s.
Playing Devil’s Advocate here, that’s a bit of a straw man argument. The claim is that the minimum ice extent in September will reach zero for at least one day, not the average for the year. Even that wouldn’t mean completely ice free, just that there would be no areas with ice concentration greater than 15%. So the September average or the minimum extent, particularly in the Arctic Basin, is the measure of interest. The September average extent has dropped from about 7.5 Mm2 in 1979-80 to less than 4.5 Mm2 in 2007. That’s a lot more than 5 to 10%. The September minimum in the Arctic Basin (NSIDC data) has been declining at a rate (OLS linear) of about 0.03 Mm2/year from 1979 through 2006 or from about 6 Mm2 to about 5 Mm2. Given the even lower extents in 2007 and 2008 it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that the rate of decline is accelerating. I don’t think it is, but nobody knows for sure.
For me 1,3, and 7 go together. The only really compelling evidence the alarmist have is the computer models. If the computer models are falsified, the whole thing just collapses. Try as they might to find any observations to confirm their hypothesis, big blue just isn’t cooperating. As someone who works with computer models for a living (modeling systems much less complex than the climate of the entire planet I might add), I’m all too familiar with 1) how the results always conform to the assumptions of the analyst 2) how easy it is to produce plausible looking results that are complete garbage 3) how very small changes in inputs can sometimes drastically change the outputs 4) how easy it is to fudge a model to get it to agree with observations after the fact and 5) ALL models are wrong (but some are useful)
However, the kicker for me was the hockey stick. I had heard there was some controversy, and was mildly interested in the details. So I started poking around on the internet. I expected to find the rantings of a few crackpots and paranoid anti-government types railing against rational scientists. After wading through all the bs, what I found was the centerpiece of the IPCC report was fatally flawed science. Not just in question, but completely demolished. Okay, mistakes can happen. And I can understand how the IPCC would not want to easily concede something so embarrassing, and would fully expect them to spin it in the best way possible. And then quietly drop it and move on. But that is not what happened. The climate scientists rallied around that piece of crap and defended it tooth and nail. Recycled the same garbage over and over and called it the “consensus.” I was dumbfounded by that. Professional scientists risking their credibility to defend the indefensible. A whole community of scientists willing to twist the truth to push an agenda. I would have never believed it if I hadn’t seen it for myself. So the “consensus” doesn’t mean squat to me. And neither do unvalidated computer models.
#32,
Matt,
I’ve done modeling of a variety of optical processes. Everything is known, S/N is low so the results match the tests.
The hockey stick is what really got me going. How the hell can you correlate unproven numbers to temperature and throw out the rest calling it a result? It’s insane, and guy’s like Tamino and Gavin refusing to even acknowledge the fact. It really was an eye opener.
The ends justify the means.
In my latest post I pointed out how gavin strangely keeps missing the point. I will never trust these people after the hockey stick, they are not scientists in my eyes only politicians which claim superior knowledge. Reminiscing over my 40 years, I’ve spent a significant amount of time demonstrating to pompous experts their flaws. I’ve got more than a few good stories.
Don’t feed the me BS and expect a happy camper. Now I’m not happy and just getting started.
How can we keep Jeff Id unhappy for a couple of years.
At the current rate he will demolish the entire AGW edifice if we can keep him stroppy that long.
I always get a good read here Jeff. Keep up the great work.
I am like you. I want the truth rather than the platitudes. It doesn’t matter whether AGW is true, partly true or false. We will not get the answer from the ardent warmers. So the sceptics and luke-warmers have to find the answers for themselves.
Rob R
Jeff:
I think your instincts are well placed on the filtering aspects of the Mann algorithm as well as the refusal to engage and move forward on key points. Coming to the table looking for answers is key. And you even do math and stuff.
I would just warn that just because Mann and Gavin are biased, does not mean their critics are not as well. I have seen McI several times blow isolated issues out of context. Have seen him evasive and refusing to answering questions where he was weak on a point. This is not the behavior of a person trying to really drive understanding and let the chips fall where they may. You just need to really watch out fo that.
Peace.
Reason #14
When Gavin farts…
…TCO’s eyebrow hair flutters in the breeze.
Re: #6 and #7
Post on a case study on UHI bias in China: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N20/C1.php
papertiger said
March 10, 2009 at 3:19 pm
LMAO!!!!!!!
“Reminiscing over my 40 years, I’ve spent a significant amount of time demonstrating to pompous experts their flaws. I’ve got more than a few good stories.”
oh, my…. I see it know…. but my words are, cocky arrogance, from my “working for the man” , and it is biblical too! ( it is called pride in translation )
well, the is no fighting fools in there foolishness,
only stopping others from joining them and saving the rest from following!!!
I have posted a refutation of the CO2 positive feedback argument. It is not as clear as I would like, but I think it has the main issue covered. In essence, if the small direct increase in surface heating due to CO2 would cause a large positive feedback via water vapor feedback, why does the night to day or summer to winter larger temperature variation not cause a larger change than just the change in Solar insolation can explain? See the URL
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dnc49xz_38hr5487gz&hl=en (CO2 feedback refutation)