climate again

There was a post at WUWT concerning a new paper published by a couple of the climatologists who are a large part of the fraudulent data, bogus computer models, wasted billions, and onerous laws of the past 20 years all stemming from bone-headed notion of catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming caused by the trace gas CO2 that life needs to exist.

From the post:

From the Hockey Schtick:  A new paper from Schurer et al (with Mann as co-author) finds that climate “models cannot explain the warm conditions around 1000 [years before the present, during the Medieval Warming Period] seen in some [temperature] reconstructions.”

According to Schurer et al, “We find variations in solar output and explosive volcanism to be the main drivers of climate change from 1400-1900.” They also claim, “but for the first time we are also able to detect a significant contribution from greenhouse gas variations to the cold conditions during 1600-1800.” This claim is highly unlikely given that ice cores show CO2 levels only changed by less than 10 ppm from 1600-1800, and the effect of 10 ppm CO2 on the climate today remains undetectable even with modern instrumentation.

I had thought that I might toss in a small post on this topic and offer up my assessment of this new lunacy. I was especially going to mention the part where these two clowns mention the sun in their paper after denying any solar impact on the earth for decades, and then they toss in a climate impact of a CO2 change of only 10ppm.  Jesus, Joseph, and Mary how stupid can this pair be? And besides that, we are nearing the end of what looks to be the coldest spring in the history of the USA. Will they claim next that warming causes cooling? You know they will.

But it came to pass that a regular WUWT poster named Dave Wendt left a comment over there that so closely modeled my own thinking that I did not believe I could write my thoughts without subconsciously cribbing from his comments. So, I decided to break with tradition and just post his comment in full here. Everything below the line is by Dave Wendt and you can click on the date link to go right to the comment in the comments section of the post at WUWT to see it there and to see it along with other people’s comments. I might quibble with Dave on a point or two, but the following is a wonderful look at the lunacy of those fraudsters who claim a bit of CO2 is going to kill us all.

I pick this time to post this since by today I think the earth will have passed 400 parts per million by the time I get around to posting this one. 400ppm is 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400ppm is 4/10 of one percent of the atmosphere. Has it ever been higher you ask? Well the CO2 concentration has been up to around 7,000 parts ppm in the past. That would be 0.7 percent back then vs. 0.04% now. In fact, we live in a time when the CO2 concentration is at a historic low. So it sure does look like something else drives the climate. Perhaps that big ball of fire in the sky? Just maybe?


Dave Wendt says:

We find variations in solar output and explosive volcanism to be the main drivers of climate change from 1400-1900, but for the first time we are also able to detect a significant contribution from greenhouse gas variations to the cold conditions during 1600-1800.

Aren’t these the same bunch of geniuses who have been giving anyone who has even suggested the Sun might play a role in driving the climate the big horse laugh? And how exactly does “explosive volcanism” drive the climate to something like the MCO? It has been my impression that “explosive volcanism” is considered to be a significant driver of global cooling, not warming.

I am once more, for more times now than I can even approximate, struck by the towering irony that any Hollywood celebutard, MSM human press release fax machine, or brain dead politician in the world feels free to step in front of any available microphone, camera or keyboard and boldly declare that anyone like myself, who is not willing to be an epistemological mattressback for all of this hyperbolic climate catastrophism, must be some kind of a congenital moron.

From the beginning of my attempts to understand this topic I have always been seriously underwhelmed by the quality level of the science that has generated this controversy and frankly that view extends to all sides. I have found myself firmly in the “skeptical” camp for several fairly simple reasons

1) From my study of the philosophy of science, skepticism seems to be the primary and ultimate duty of anyone who seeks to “know” anything about the world and universe we inhabit. Personally I tend toward the view that science, even when done with ultimate rigor and integrity, can only allow us to have slightly stronger suspicions that what has been presented is the best available guess at the moment and that providing actual “knowledge” is beyond its logical capabilities.

2) The people who inhabit the skeptical side of this controversy seem to do their work with much more of the humility that 1) above suggests to me is the second leading requirement to be a true scientist. They exhibit much less of a tendency to declare that the work they have done definitively “demonstrates” or “proves” anything and generally seem to operate in a manor that cleves much closer to what I think of as the scientific method i.e. openness about methodologies and data including inconvenient or countervailing data which might weaken their argument.

3)Though I list this third, if I am truly honest with myself, it is probably my number one concern. It is that no one from the skeptical side suggests that their work demands that the world transform itself in ways that are profoundly detrimental to personal liberty, human prosperity, human wellbeing, and in fact the wellbeing of almost all of life on the planet. The “believers” on the other hand act as if the dogmatic certitude of their ends justifies absolutely any means necessary to enforce them on the rest of us. In a sense they are quite correct in their belief that AGW will necessarily turn into CAGW, but they seem incapable of seeing that the real catastrophes have occurred and will continue to occur because of the hugely damaging and ultimately ineffectual remedies for which they demand docile acquiescence from the rest of us. Biofuels, windfarms, carbon taxes and credits and the whole plethora of supposed AGW cures foisted on the world have already inflicted much more damage on human prospects and the global environment than any but the most hyperbolic of AGW catastrophe scenarios have any possibility of matching.

4) I will add this one even though it will tend to undercut my presentation of myself as an objective observer. In all my time as a denizen of this and other related sites I have never had the pleasure of meeting any of the contributors or commenters whose views on this topic seem anywhere close to my own, but I have always felt that there were a great number I could envision spending a pleasant day or evening with, gathered around a table somewhere, sharing appropriate beverages and perhaps some good cigars and conversing about the climate or any other topic that might arise. Though my personal familiarity with the purveyors of climate dogmatism is no greater than for the folks here, almost none of them have engendered a similar sympathetic response. In fact, I would hesitate to be in the same room with most of them because of a very real fear that I would be faced with a commanding Ben Santer-like compulsion to push a fist through their faces. I haven’t actually struck anyone in anger since I was in the second grade, so I could probably restrain myself, but the prospect of having any fun around these dolts is so slim that it”s not worth the chance that I might not. In the end, even if they should somehow miraculously convince me of the correctness of their position, I would still have a difficult time aligning myself with them, because they almost all strike me as a bunch of j**koffs!


One thought on “climate again

  1. These three as well as many other recent articles lead us to the conclusion that the Amazon rainforest is doing fine when it comes to the climate, and it will probably be even better off in the future thanks to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2. Alarmists’ claims to the contrary are not supported by observations in the forest or the modeling studies that include the effects of higher levels of CO2.

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