from al fin next level Why are Climate Models so Estranged from Reality:
Why do climate models predict apocalyptic levels of warming that do not match up with reality? It comes down to assumptions being made about numerous unknown dynamic quantities that are included in — and excluded from — the models.
What we seem to be left with, is that computer climate models exclude many of the most important parameters contributing to real world climate. Of the parameters that are included, several of them appear to be based upon sloppy — even faith-based — assumptions. No wonder they fail the test of observation. They are no better than the predictions of psychic grifters.
Thus, it looks as if the great green climate apocalypse movement and associated green energy scam, are nothing more than a money-grab by political cronies and a power grab by political insiders — of the governmental, the inter-governmental, and the non-governmental varieties . . .
also from al fin next level The Importance of Being a Heretic:
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
James Taylor from Forbes, Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims
Viewing the Cook paper in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications because the explicit wording of the question they analyzed is simply whether humans have caused some global warming. By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case.
Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
Also from James Taylor, Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them
The Myth of the Climate Change ’97%’
The Crumbling Climate-Change Consensus
given the huge complexity that is the issue of far distant climate predictions, the variable sources that influence climate, the limitations of climate (or any other) models, and the politicization of the debate I can not understand how such a high consensus would be real- it is most likely a classical case study in the misuse of statistics and should be used as an example of statistical manipulation in every class.
Carly Fiorina on Climate Change Strategy in National Review, Carly Fiorina Shows How to Address the Left on Climate Change
In the political battles over climate change, there are three distinct and relevant questions. First, does mankind have a material affect on the Earth’s climate? Second, if mankind does impact the climate, is that impact harmful? And third, if we assume that mankind is harming the environment, will any given American policy or collection of policies have a meaningful beneficial impact? So far, the conservative movement has mainly pushed back on the “scientific consensus” related to the first question — the extent of human influence over the Earth’s climate.
The short version of Fiorina’s argument is this: If the scientific consensus is that man-made climate change is real, there is also consensus that America, acting alone, cannot stop it. Indeed, the Chinese are only too happy to watch us constrict our economy as they capture the market in clean coal.
Americans have proven time and again that they’re willing to sacrifice — if convinced that their sacrifice has a purpose, that it accomplishes an objective. There’s certainly room for Cruz’s climate-change skepticism in the national debate, but there just may be more room for Fiorina’s economic, scientific, and geopolitical realism. The Left is asking America to sacrifice for nothing — for no true economic benefit, no true climate benefit, and no true or meaningful “global leadership.” That’s a bad deal even for those who believe in man-made climate change, yet that’s the “deal” the Left demands.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422395/carly-fiorina-climate-change-left
I think we miss the boat when we argue conspiracies, corruption, anti-science, authoritarians , etc. You will find more illumination in understanding precisely what the consensus is. And precisely what the models and the theory are and whether these theories have held up to objective scrutiny, replication, and prediction the way a scientific theory should? Without this clarity all the references to anecdotes, acronymed agengies, and assorted articles mean very little, except for the purpose of political posturing.
Is it a conspiracy or ignorance? Does it matter? I think it is a lack of understanding of exactly what we are agreeing on. It seems that there is agreement that we are in a warming period-even with a recent hiatus. There is agreement that humans affect the planet, but there the agreement starts to slide- there is less agreement of how much CO2 is the dominant factor, even less how certain, urgent, irreversible and catastrophic this problem is, and even less that any of the proposed solutions will have any effect.
Even among all of the top scientific acronyms you will find that the agreement is based on the questions asked. I think that there is still much to be discerned, and that the science of this topic is still too primitive to reach the conclusions too many have reached with any degree of certainty. The 97% is pure bogus, a statistical fraud, and the willingness of one to quickly believe this number speaks volumes about whether this subject is approached scientifically or politically.
While we see old glaciers melt in one country, we find snow in Sydney, Australia in August for the first time since Andrew Jackson was president. I do not understand what either anecdote has to do with true climate science.
I remain both ignorant and curious about the science in this debate. My skepticism is driven by the language, the authoritarianism, the history of this and similar movements, and the weak epistemology of the arguments.
Rupert Darwall writes in The National Review, On Climate, Science and Politics Are Diverging
Predictions of an ice-free North Pole are frequently accompanied by warnings of climate-change tipping points, tripping the planet into uncharted — and, by implication, scary — climate scenarios. A new paper by two scientists at the Scripps Institution suggests that previous concern about the irreversibility of the melting of the Arctic ice cap left out two key physical processes that had led previous studies to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.
Global warming is preeminently a political project. On Tuesday, the leaders of France and Germany met to set a goal for the December climate summit in Paris: to fully decarbonize the world economy by the end of the century. It required, Angela Merkel and François Hollande declared, “a profound transformation of the world economy and society.” The role of experts is to provide a scientific consensus to support the drumbeat of alarm. When the president of America declares climate change an immediate threat to national security and accuses skeptics of “negligence” and “dereliction of duty,” scientific skepticism becomes an enemy of the state. The shrillness of the president’s rhetoric draws attention to the weakness of the science. The true believers have given up trying to win over the undecided.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418751/climate-science-and-politics-are-diverging-rupert-darwall