The Climate Change agenda

Anything else you want to talk about.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:14 pm

Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri Nov 28, 2014 3:53 pm

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist and author of the book “An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity.” Sheahen is the writer of the popular newspaper column “Ask the Everyday Scientist.” Sheahen is featured as one of the more than 1000 dissenting scientists from man-made global warming.

Dr. Tom Sheahen

Dear Editor:

Re: New Yorker Writer: Pope Francis Would Be a Better Science Point Man Than Inhofe or Cruz

One word sums up this article: CONFLATION

The purpose of this article is to slam Senators Inhofe and Cruz, painting them as goofy fundamental creationists. The author selects some words from the Pope in order to buttress his case.

The reality is that Inhofe’s opposition to the alarmists who blame global warming on CO2 is based on fully competent science; and the claimed “international scientific consensus” absolutely does not exist. Thousands of us with advanced degrees in the hard sciences agree that CO2 is a non-problem, and we are appalled by the EPA’s attempts to overreach, violate the law, and regulate coal out of existence.

Everything about global warming, climate change, and the EPA has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism. But this author tries to build such an association using the technique of conflation. Alert readers should not fall for that trick.

As for Bobby Jindal ducking a question: that’s standard politics, where you don’t needlessly antagonize some of your constituents. Every successful office-holder does that sort of thing. Again, this author deliberately constructs his article so as to make Jindal appear to be in opposition to the Pope.

I well remember presidential science adviser Jerome Weisner, president of MIT in my day. He and colleagues were far better scientists than Obama’s science advisor John Holdren, who is most famous as a co-author with Paul Ehrlich, the “Population Bomb” guru who has been proved wrong, wrong, wrong for decades. Eisenhower, Kennedy et al. actually wanted advice about science; Obama only wants confirmation of what he already believes in, viz., the evil of coal.

Thomas P. Sheahen

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/11/26/ ... e-or-cruz/
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
aurora
Senior Member
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:31 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by aurora » Fri Nov 28, 2014 4:26 pm

By Christopher Booker6:15PM GMT 08 Nov 2014

Ploughing through the new “Synthesis Report” put out by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we may be reminded of one of those old gramophone records, when the needle got horribly stuck in a groove. Compiled by many of the IPCC’s veteran alarmists, in yet another bid to get that “global climate treaty” that isn’t going to happen in Paris next year, it wheels on all the familiar scare stories. Melting polar ice, rising sea levels, floods, droughts and hurricanes are all in there – even though these are largely contradicted not just by the actual evidence, but even by the much more cautious contents of the vast technical reports they were meant to be “synthesising”.
On the basis of these increasingly implausible claims, the report’s authors join the growing chorus of calls for humanity to cut CO₂ emissions by 80 per cent, the cost of which, they tell us, would only require us to reduce the world’s economic growth by a mere 0.06 per cent, or 1/1,666th.

Their report is aptly dedicated to the memory of Stephen Schneider, a US physicist who died in 2010 after 40 years as one of the most fanatical “climate crusaders” of them all. Only by wondrous contortions do they try to get round their biggest challenge, in accounting for how global temperatures have failed to rise for 18 years, making a mockery of all those computer model predictions on which the IPCC’s previous four reports relied to drive the scare.

Some 40 different theories have now been offered to explain why, despite the temperature “pause”, the Earth is still in the grip of runaway warming. The latest suggests that it has been temporarily halted by “aerosols” emitted by volcanoes, which, strangely, takes us back to one of the very first scientific papers warning of disastrous climate change, published in 1971.

As a young doctoral student, Schneider predicted that, although rising CO₂ levels could cause global warming, this might be so counteracted by “aerosols” blocking out radiation from the sun that they could be “sufficient to trigger an ice age”.
Quo Fata Vocant-Whither the Fates call

Jim

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

The Climate Change Agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri Oct 16, 2015 3:29 pm

This should be required reading for all interested in this issue:

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-lea ... 3ae4712ace

Although I do not agree with all view points, (I'm not left leaning politically or a Vegan..ect..) I do admire his courage and integrity on this issue.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Tue Jan 19, 2016 1:41 am

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/17/w ... climatism/

A must read to understand the history of the issue.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:18 pm

A radio interview with Dr. David Evans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ib0UWEot3E
Some points from David’s Talk:-
3:08 so I spent several years on the carbon gravy train, I got to see it from the inside and recognised that there’s a great deal of money and power at stake here and it was being given away.
3:38 I think like most people Emmet I assumed that what we were told was more or less right. I assumed that the climate scientists had got it right and yes carbon dioxide was in fact warming the planet dangerously and we did have to do something about it, so for a while there yes I thought I was a part of the project to save the planet from being burnt up.
9:17 It’s possible for the observations and the physics to both be correct, the thing that people have been overlooking is that there’s a possibility that there’s a mistake in the modelling, the way the physics is put together to create the climate models.
9:49 So it may well be that the physics of climate change is correct but the modelling is where the error is.
10:29 I should point out in the history of science Emmet there have been numerous cases where the theory has flagrantly disagreed with observation for years and years and nearly every time it worked out that the theory was wrong and the observations were correct. Science nearly always ends up agreeing with the empiricists.
11:20 If there was a mistake in the modelling made back in the 1960s that would account for the fact that the climate models don’t work.
12:54 If you triple the price of electricity from what it was say 10 years ago, solar panels and wind turbines start to become economic, kind of, although it will probably have to go up a fair bit more first. So one aspect of this theory that hits everyone is that the price of everything in the economy goes up, because our electricity costs three, five times as much as it did one or two decades ago and that’s a deliberate result of policy changes on the back of this theory.
44:49 But there are no new guys allowed into the system who disagree, so when the warmists say “all the climate scientists agree” they’re kind of correct in a way, but that’s because there is an institutional pressure, enormous institutional pressure to only hire people who agree with the theory.
52:04 Well Emmet I’m a modeller and this climate debate has all been about modelling and there’s a mistake in the models, we know that because the empirical evidence indicates that, so when I find the mistake I will publicise it shortly afterwards.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:40 am

This basically is how the scam works.

There is very little that is made public on these models, possibly deliberately so that the methodology can't be looked at and challenged. The recent missive from the IGPCC is full of exhortation and bluster, with no real science to back it up.

Another case of the ''Emporers Clothes.''
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:13 am

Quite concur.

B

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Thu Jan 24, 2019 4:09 pm

Ben Santer's claims has been alluded to in this thread. Here's is some commentary on these claims by climate scientist Dr Tim Ball:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/24/ ... pcc-trick/


..............
Santer’s thesis titled, “Regional Validation of General Circulation Models” used three top computer models in an attempt to recreate North Atlantic conditions – a form of validation. Apparently, the region was chosen because, although the data was still inadequate, it provided the best available. The models failed to recreate known general pressure patterns. Instead, they created massive pressure systems that don’t exist in reality. In short, Santer knew better than most the severe limitations and inabilities of the models to recreate reality.

He completed the thesis in 1987 and a few years later was appointed the convening Lead-author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.” In that position, Santer created the first clear example of the IPCC manipulation of science for a political agenda. He used his position to establish the headline that humans were a factor in global warming by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the committee as a whole at the draft meeting in Madrid.

Agreed comments

1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

Santer’s replacements

1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

As Avery and Singer noted in 2006,

“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”

........ John Daly recreated Santer et al.’s graph (Figure 1) of the upward temperature trend in the Upper Atmosphere.

clip_image002

Figure 1

Then Daly produced a graph of the wider data set in Figure 2 and explained,

“we see that the warming indicated in Santer’s version is just a product of the dates chosen” (Daly’s bold).

clip_image004

Figure 2

Here they are juxtaposed for easier comparison (Figure 3).

clip_image006

Figure 3

Errors were spotted quickly, but Nature didn’t publish the rebuttals until 5 months later (12 Dec 1996), one identified the cherry-picking, the other a natural explanation for the pattern. However, by that time the PR cover-up was underway.

On July 25, 1996, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter of defense to Santer. The letter appears to be evidence of CRU influence and a PR masterpiece. It said there were two questions, the science, and what society must do about scientific findings and the debate they engendered. Science should only be debated in “peer-reviewed scientific publications – not the media.” This was the strategy confirmed in a leaked email from Michael Mann.

“This was the danger of always criticizing (sic) the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature.”

Then AMS wrote,

“What is important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part of our jobs.” “That is, after all, the very reasons for the mix of science and policy in the IPCC.”

No, it isn’t. The mix is the very heart of the problem as Santer shows. Daly correctly called this “Scientism.”

Santer reportedly later admitted,

“…he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.”

He did not admit the changes at the time and achieved the objective of getting the discernible human influence message on the world stage. He was protected by the group that demonstrated its control over peer review, journals, professional societies, and the media, until the emails leaked in November 2009 and reinforced in 2011.

Here is Mosher and Fuller’s summary in their book about the emails

· Actively worked to evade (Steve) Mcintyre’s Freedom of Information requests, deleting emails, documents, and even climate data

· Tried to corrupt the peer-review principles that are the mainstay of modern science, reviewing each other’s’ work, sabotaging efforts of opponents trying to publish their own work, and threatening editors of journals who didn’t bow to their demands

· Changed the shape of their own data in materials shown to politicians charged with changing the shape of our world, ‘hiding the decline’ that showed their data could not be trusted.

.....................
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 332
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by northcape » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:38 am

RF wrote:
Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:40 am
This basically is how the scam works.

There is very little that is made public on these models, possibly deliberately so that the methodology can't be looked at and challenged. The recent missive from the IGPCC is full of exhortation and bluster, with no real science to back it up.

Another case of the ''Emporers Clothes.''
And on the backside of the moon there are little green men which intend to steal my aluminium foil hat.

Just two sentences on that, sorry to say so, completely ludicrous statement:

All of the criticised models are developed and documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The IPCC reports are summaries of these papers.

Just because you read something on Breitbart or watch something on Youtube, it doesn't imply it is flawed by truth. And of course it depends on the viewpoint, but I personally don't consider the commentary section of Youtube or the echo chambers of internet forums as peer-review. But I know in these days of "shake-ups" everywhere the collateral damage done to rationalism (e.g. the scientific method) is well accepted (or maybe even welcome) as long as the urge for establishing one's own viewpoint as the one and only truth can be satisfied.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:02 pm

northcape wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:38 am
:

All of the criticised models are developed and documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Then produce one of these articles and explain in plain English how anthropogenic global warming actually works.
Just because you read something on Breitbart or watch something on Youtube, it doesn't imply it is flawed by truth. And of course it depends on the viewpoint, but I personally don't consider the commentary section of Youtube or the echo chambers of internet forums as peer-review. But I know in these days of "shake-ups" everywhere the collateral damage done to rationalism (e.g. the scientific method) is well accepted (or maybe even welcome) as long as the urge for establishing one's own viewpoint as the one and only truth can be satisfied.
I have never accessed Breibart or ever read anything from it. Neither do I use anything from YouTube other than viewing music videos.

My views are based on the laws of physics and chemistry, not from hearsay on the internet. Neither do I need to resort to meta-physics and the sort of long winded narrative demonstrated in the last sentence that doesn't actually mean anything.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:42 pm

northcape wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:38 am


All of the criticised models are developed and documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The IPCC reports are summaries of these papers.

Did you miss this part?:
Santer created the first clear example of the IPCC manipulation of science for a political agenda. He used his position to establish the headline that humans were a factor in global warming by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the committee as a whole at the draft meeting in Madrid.

Agreed comments

1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

Santer’s replacements

1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

As Avery and Singer noted in 2006,

“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”

Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Feb 05, 2019 1:32 am

"All of the criticised models are developed and documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals."

..... all of which are circulated within and "reviewed" by a carefully circumscribed academic echo-chamber whose members are reliant upon the same thoroughly politicized funding sources.

> In the 70's we were all going to freeze to death in an impending new apocalyptic ice age.
> In the 90's we were all going to drown as the polar ice caps melted or die of heat prostration due to a cataclysmic increase in the earth's temperature.
> Today colder seasonal temperatures are being held up as proof of "global climate change" as our intrepid "climate researchers" desperately try to keep one foot in each contrary boat in order to straddle the issue.

And we are supposed to trust those clowns at the University of East Anglia????? Laughable.

It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people fall for this foolishness.

B

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1399
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:44 am

Dave Saxton wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:42 pm
northcape wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:38 am


All of the criticised models are developed and documented in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The IPCC reports are summaries of these papers.

Did you miss this part?:
Santer created the first clear example of the IPCC manipulation of science for a political agenda. He used his position to establish the headline that humans were a factor in global warming by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the committee as a whole at the draft meeting in Madrid.

Agreed comments

1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

Santer’s replacements

1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

As Avery and Singer noted in 2006,

“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”

I suggest to reread Santer's "replacements" in context.

Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... report.pdf

Sentence one:
Chapter 8
Summary
Page 411 f.

Sentence 2
Chapter 8.6 When Will an Anthropogenic Effect on Climate be Identified?
Page 438 f.
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:38 pm

Having looked at the article parts highlighted I am not quite sure what context the previous poster is trying to assign to the restatement.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

Post Reply