the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Logical Egalitarianism

Posted by Jeff Id on June 9, 2015

I just want to highlight the names of the newly released yet surely seminal paper which claims to have reinstated global warming.   Karl et al. discussed repeatedly at ‘skeptic’ blogs.  Take a moment and read the names of these enlightened few climate scientist Illuminati as their names are intended for generational quotation.

Thomas R. Karl,Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C. Peterson, Russell S. Vose, Huai-Min Zhang

Their paper starts with a humble title belying the incredible conclusions boldly permeating the article: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

What exactly is a global warming “hiatus” I wonder?  I wold assume it is a delay in a known continuous process. Perhaps a pause in warming otherwise not expected to pause.   Mirriam-Webster:a period of time when something (such as an activity or program) is stopped.

So they seem to assume that the warming must continue, said warming must absolutely exceed the natural variations of climate else it be cooling,and therefore must without question be net positive at all times.  How is it that a ‘climate scientist’, as opposed to any ACTUAL kind of scientist, doesn’t recognize that even in a climate warming process, flat or even negative periods of warming might exist?   Even IF models are right about warming, and  they are clearly not, the climate models would have periods of less than average warming.  It seems obvious to those of us who are NOT on the payroll of world governments, and ARE scientifically literate, that in a minimally warming world as we have observed, we MIGHT even see periods of cooling.  One literate in climate, and possessing a sufficiently unbiased mind would even expect substantial cooling on occasion.

But no, these amazing government-funded scientists have determined that we are in a hiatus of warming, and that hiatus is caused not by models being too high in trend as compared to observation or perhaps part of natural deviations from expected warming, or god-forbid part of a scientific truth that CO2 warming is far less severe than claimed.  No — these individuals make the bold claim that the thermometers are wrong.  All of them.

It reminds me of something “allegedly” controversial.  Bruce Jenner’s claim to be a woman.    Biologically, from written history, we all know what Bruce was born as a male.  Biologically and technologically, we cannot change his chromosomes out for female ones.  In fact, were we to do so, he would cease to be himself whatsoever and we would be forced to conclude differently.  Bruce’s own stated wish to be a woman changes very little with respect to this simple fact… I hold no ill will toward Bruce and hold no care whatsoever to what gender he wishes himself out to be.  Excepting the fact that he took the name of one of my girlfriends of past lives and hardly holds up to the memory.  However, Bruce is a man, a male, a boy with the typical side-effects thereof.  There is no controversy in my mind and the facts cannot be changed to favor or disfavor anyone’s opinion on the matter, because these are facts, and that is the point of this rant.  Even left-wing environmentally crazy progressives cannot change fact.  This matter is of course entirely separate from how you should treat a friend who wishes to be treated a certain way.  To that I say, to each their own and good for them etc….

Humans can wish facts to change though, and often do, and in my opinion that is what team Karl is guilty of.  A wish for different facts.  Better facts in their minds, which still fit the heyday of 10 years ago when climate models, while visibly still too high in warming rate, were not statistically separable from truth.

Truth is a funny concept in the days of saturated yellow journalism where the climate message approaches a level of brainwashing that even the resistant can hardly parse.   When Dr. Gupta is promoting “organic” food, as though there is any other kind, and he drops in casually that there is no doubt that such food is environmentally beneficial.  I wonder just how is the public supposed to internalize that message?  He is a doctor after all, but facts are facts and we do not get to chose which ones are actual facts.  It doesn’t matter that the inaccurately named ‘organic’ farming creates a massive environmental footprint and feeding masses of people this way is environmentally impossible.  It doesn’t matter because the doctor has a feeling!   Words like organic DO have meaning, and despite the Dr’s. feelings the consistency of that meaning is an important part of language.   Without consistency, we have no way to discuss anything.  For instance, what is the medical definition of male…..  Think about that.   What is it, what is the purpose of it, and why should a feeling on the matter have any influence whatsoever on the medical definition of male.  No question mark intended.  What will the coroner check on a death certificate?  Do the coroner’s feelings matter too?

Anyway, like Bruce, team Karl is clearly not happy with the facts, and their waste of parchment was not a simple matter of making a correction to the data, leaving others to make conclusions on the meaning.   The paper is instead rife with “WE SAVED THE CLIMATE MODELS” conclusion, starting from the abstract and continuing to the last sentence in the paper.  The paper has more “Feelings” than most any hippie bonfire could produce, unfortunately it is held out as modern cutting-edge science.

Unfortunately for team Karl (and Bruce), facts are facts, and feelings are not..  Even we rational thinking people (aka climate skeptics) are stuck with observation on which to base science.   Despite my best efforts to the contrary, imagined corrections to data are not part of my engineering world.   If temps warm, they warm, if they cool, they cool.  TRUE scientists who seek actual truth as a goal rather than proof of a dogmatic and false claim, are stuck with such mundane things.  That the climate world would accept such dogma is a symptom of the ongoing and wide-spread feelings-first illness in the progressive global climate science industry where friends always pass and non-believers are put out in the cold.

The scripture of their work is here….read it at your own risk.

I’ll leave you with an fun and perhaps apt video of what immediately jumped to mind while considering team Karl saving the day….

11 Responses to “Logical Egalitarianism”

  1. jinghis said

    I admit it, I am addicted to this stuff. It is like playing whack a mole, how are the ‘climate scientists’ trying to pull a fast one today? Never mind the scrapping of the ARGO data in favor of engine inlet temperatures. What I learned (from comments) was that the temperature of ice water (the arctic in the summer) is very close to 0˚C and it stays that way until either the ice all melts or it refreezes again. Basically there is an upper temperature limit to the Arctic ocean 0˚C so the only way to measure warming in the Arctic ocean is in the Winter when there is no sunlight.

    The arctic is a very good thermostat. It cools the oceans in the summer and insulates the oceans in the winter. How cool is that? Oh, and what does CO2 do in the Arctic? Anything?

  2. M Simon said

    The models only show average and above average warming. How can they possibly have periods below average?

  3. M Simon said

    We not only need “Climate Science”. We need “Climate Mathematics”.

  4. Good point. Using the word “hiatus” presumes a continuation of warming at some time. Since the Earth has been cooling long-term since the late Miocene (long term) and since the mid-Holocene (5,000 years ago, mid-term) we ought to be discussing the Medieval Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period as hiatuses in the overall trend towards cooling.

    You can confirm this by looking at any temperature record of the 20th century where there were two warming intervals of 20 years each, the second of which started around 1975 and ended around 1995.

    If the present no-trend interval does develop into a cooling interval where will that leave the modelers?

    Obvious answer is that the models will be re-named “projections” and the modelers will say, “We never presented the models as forecasts. It was the politicians, not us.”

    Climate modelers will join weather, finance and economic modelers as being just one more group of technicians trying to get attention.

  5. Morgan said

    Climate schmimate. Let’s get back to Caitlyn Jenner, women’s world record holder in the 400 meters. Take THAT Jarmila!

  6. stevefitzpatrick said

    Yes, Karl et al is crap. Yes it is motivated by a desire for a politically motivated script to be reality, instead of reality being reality. But I can’t get too worked up over this. Pielke Sr, Lindzen, and others long ago recognized Karl is little more than an advocate for certain nutzo policies, and that he will do his best to advance those policies, no matter what contrary evidence exists.

    Reality will have none of it. Saner heads in climate science realize this, and have reacted rather cooly to the paper (not so the green loons, of course). Another decade of much slower than projected warming, or the election of someone other than Hillary in November 2016, will likely bring most of the silliness to an end. Be sure to vote wisely.

  7. j ferguson said

    I’m much encouraged by Jeb’s use of “disrupt” in yesterday’s speech. Maybe the guy is brilliant. That and his experience might lift us out of the relentless mediocrity we’ve suffered through in recent years and which Hillary offers to continue.

  8. hunter said

    Kudos to M. Simon for summing it up well.
    “We not only need “Climate Science”. We need “Climate Mathematics””
    And based on what the Pope is putting the Church through, it seems we need a “Climate Religion” as well.
    ….I guess His Holiness realized that the secularists pushing climate fear are practicing religion but really weren’t so good at it, so he decided to give some professional assistance.

    • M Simon said

      I just got done (waiting for a reply) with a guy who was all “Climate Science” and “THE CONSENSUS” and I explained to him (it was on a Higher Education blog no less) that Science (the real kind) does not operate on consensus. It operates on evidence. And that the great men of science broke the consensus based on their understanding of the evidence.

      I did some stuff about models. Meshing in Navier- Stokes and some other stuff too. But mainly “Consensus” which totally annoys me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: