Because one of my other blogs, http://natureoftheclimate.blogspot.com/ covers climate issues, I don't mention that topic here as much as I could. But lately, the NEWSPEAK on climate has reached new levels of absurdity. Today I'm going to point out just a couple of them.
1. Skepticism in science is usually considered important and productive for the advancement of knowledge, but that's not true in the arena of global warming, climate change, climate weirding, etc. The pejorative nomenclature is revealing. Those who promote CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) are called "warmists" or "warmmongers," while those who question or challenge CAGW are called "deniers." The term "denier" is supposed to invoke the Holocaust; i.e., the warmists want to link CAGW skeptics to people who denied the Holocaust. The irony, of course, is that the warmists are the only ones who deny the science and data. Consequently, I'll use the term "skeptics" instead of "deniers."
Some skeptics of CAGW like to compare the CO2-based climate change theory to a religion because proponents insist the "science is settled" and should not be questioned. In my view, this is a reasonable approach based on most religion; i.e., most religions do ask followers to take things on face and not question them, just as the warmists do. Like the warmists, religions rely on a few foundational events from which they derive theories that they "prove" by anecdotal evidence. I happen to think not all religion functions like this; in fact, I think religion can lead to greater evidence and proof than nonreligion, but that's another topic.
The point here is that the skeptics are taking the correct scientific approach, while the warmists (such as President Obama and the IPCC) are taking the anti-science approach. For a good explanation of how this came about, see: http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/03/why-skeptics-hate-climate-skeptics/
Here's an excerpt: Certainly the amount of CO2, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere is increasing. All else equal that will cause temperatures to increase. Skeptics argue that it is appropriate to go with our best scientific understandings when there are areas of doubt. As a society that’s a good plan, but that doesn’t mean we should not continue to question our current “best” understandings. Many “skeptics” have promoted fears and described consequences of CO2 emissions that contradict IPCC reports and go much further than can be justified by best our current scientific understandings. Perhaps with science as with magical thinking some embrace fears of climate change because they do not want to accept that weather is random and that bad things can happen for no reason. Consistent with their role in regards to scams and hoaxes, many still see the task for skeptics as coming up with answers and explanations. Maybe the desire for impressive answers leads to excess certainty and an over-reliance on experts to quell doubts. Unfortunately today not enough skeptics see the value of critical thinking when it leads to an honest “I don’t know”.
2. Tony Heller runs an excellent blog. Here's a fine example:
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/05/ministry-of-truth-erasing-the-unanimous-consensus/
His latest entries are fantastic explanations of how CLIMATE NEWSPEAK has devolved into absurdity:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
http://realclimatescience.com/
1. Skepticism in science is usually considered important and productive for the advancement of knowledge, but that's not true in the arena of global warming, climate change, climate weirding, etc. The pejorative nomenclature is revealing. Those who promote CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) are called "warmists" or "warmmongers," while those who question or challenge CAGW are called "deniers." The term "denier" is supposed to invoke the Holocaust; i.e., the warmists want to link CAGW skeptics to people who denied the Holocaust. The irony, of course, is that the warmists are the only ones who deny the science and data. Consequently, I'll use the term "skeptics" instead of "deniers."
Some skeptics of CAGW like to compare the CO2-based climate change theory to a religion because proponents insist the "science is settled" and should not be questioned. In my view, this is a reasonable approach based on most religion; i.e., most religions do ask followers to take things on face and not question them, just as the warmists do. Like the warmists, religions rely on a few foundational events from which they derive theories that they "prove" by anecdotal evidence. I happen to think not all religion functions like this; in fact, I think religion can lead to greater evidence and proof than nonreligion, but that's another topic.
The point here is that the skeptics are taking the correct scientific approach, while the warmists (such as President Obama and the IPCC) are taking the anti-science approach. For a good explanation of how this came about, see: http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/03/why-skeptics-hate-climate-skeptics/
Here's an excerpt: Certainly the amount of CO2, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere is increasing. All else equal that will cause temperatures to increase. Skeptics argue that it is appropriate to go with our best scientific understandings when there are areas of doubt. As a society that’s a good plan, but that doesn’t mean we should not continue to question our current “best” understandings. Many “skeptics” have promoted fears and described consequences of CO2 emissions that contradict IPCC reports and go much further than can be justified by best our current scientific understandings. Perhaps with science as with magical thinking some embrace fears of climate change because they do not want to accept that weather is random and that bad things can happen for no reason. Consistent with their role in regards to scams and hoaxes, many still see the task for skeptics as coming up with answers and explanations. Maybe the desire for impressive answers leads to excess certainty and an over-reliance on experts to quell doubts. Unfortunately today not enough skeptics see the value of critical thinking when it leads to an honest “I don’t know”.
JC comment: Someone recently emailed me this 1995 article from Skeptical Enquirer: How to sell a pseudoscience. Take a look; these tactics are all being used to sell climate science.
2. Tony Heller runs an excellent blog. Here's a fine example:
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/05/ministry-of-truth-erasing-the-unanimous-consensus/
His latest entries are fantastic explanations of how CLIMATE NEWSPEAK has devolved into absurdity:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
http://realclimatescience.com/
Updating Katherine Hayhoe’s Drought Forecast
Six weeks ago, this article appeared
APRIL 22, 2015Climate change is making the Texas panhandle, birthplace of the state’s iconic Longhorn, too hot and dry to raise beef. What happens to the range when the water runs out?Soon, environmental activists and reporters began to ask whether “drought”—a temporary weather pattern—was really the right term for what was happening in the state, or whether “desertification” was more appropriate. “We’re on our fourth year of drought,” Katharine Hayhoe, director of the climate science center at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, told the industry magazine Meatingplace. “In order to replenish depleted reservoirs and soil moisture, we don’t need just a normal year or just a single rainfall. We need an unusually wet year to get back to normal conditions.” But the early months of 2015 have seen less than 1.4 inches of total precipitation—not even a third of what is considered normal rainfall, much less enough to replenish surface water and groundwater resources.
By the end of May, all of Texas was unusually wet. The wettest state in the country.
Posted in Uncategorized 3 Comments
Texas Climate Is Not Changing
There has been no change in Texas January-May rainfall over the past century.
The percent of days receiving more than 5 cm rainfall hasn’t changed
There has been a slight, but meaningless increase in heaviest rainfall events. Most of the 20+ cm rainfall events occurred before 1960
Texas temperatures aren’t changing. They are about the same as they were in the 19th century
The Texas climate is not changing. All of the delusions of Katherine Hayhoe and Andrew Dessler are based on what they want to see, not on what is actually happening.
Posted in Uncategorized Leave a comment
My NOAA Climate Forecast
I forecast that NOAA will lie about May 2015, and claim it was the warmest on record – even though it wasn’t even close.
Posted in Uncategorized 7 Comments
Children Just Won’t Know What A Competent Or Honest Scientist Is
This is what Scotland looked like yesterday
Last summer, the BBC reported the early stages of glacier formation in Scotland
Six years ago, the Met Office warned that Scottish skiing is doomed
Fifteen years ago, CRU warned that children won’t know what snow is
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
Climate experts understand nothing about the climate. They simply look for any isolated evidence or short term trends which supports their ongoing funding.
Posted in Uncategorized 13 Comments
Climate BS Takes Only Milli-Seconds To Be Detected
The warming from carbon dioxide released by burning a lump of coal exceeds the heat generated by the combustion in just 34 days.
It takes 45 days for oil combustion and 59 days for natural gas to achieve comparable warming to that generated by burning the respective fuel.This shows that global warming does not take years and decades for its effects to be felt, shows a study by climate scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science.
Only problem is, the atmosphere is not warming up.
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.– Richard P. Feynman
Posted in Uncategorized 15 Comments
Senator Wants To Criminalize Dissent From The CO2-Centricism Orthodoxy
There is no question that there is racketeering going on here. The government is stealing $29 billion per year of our money to finance the biggest scientific fraud in history.
This is what Rhode Island looked like 200 years ago, before big-tobacco wrecked the climate
Posted in Uncategorized 21 Comments
Texas Is Vulnerable To Clueless Academics
Cross posted from my new blog : Texas Is Vulnerable To Clueless Academics | Real Science
Four years ago, Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M announced that Texas would be hot and dry for the rest of the century
That forecast turned out to be a complete disaster.
Temperatures in Texas have fallen over the past century, and have plummeted since Dessler made his forecast.
It is clear that climate experts like Dessler and Hayhoe have little understanding of what actually drives the climate, yet the press continues to quote these same people over and over again – no matter how many times they are wrong.
Posted in Uncategorized 22 Comments
No comments:
Post a Comment