Embedded Files
"When it comes to predictions there are two types of people, those who are wrong and those who know they are wrong"...A Einstein
Have we abandoned critical thinking ?
http://www.institutefordigitaltransformation.org/overcoming-confirmation-bias-in-the-digital-age/
Nature has even become Politicised, abandoning its Scientific charter...
“Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion.”
― Richard Feynman
Scientists are people. They have the same differing views as the general population.
That means they have all the same Biases, Paradigms, Opinions and Perception variabilities that all humans experience.
What they do in their field of expertise however is form hypothesis and then test them out experimentally and by data analysis.
In history strongly believed and dearly loved "consensus" ideas such as the Earth Centric view of the solar system, the expanding Earth concept, the Sun as a coal buring furnace giving the age of the earth at 6000 years as per the Bible and many more ideas were overturned by hypothesis and experimental or mathematical proof. Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Alfred Wegener are well known but Milankovitch is a name few would add, but it's just appropriate to our understanding of the real world..
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/
Even the "father" of AGW, James Lovelock, the CFC Ozone issue discoverer, who predicted doom and destruction far greater than the IPCC, has recanted...he was the originator of much of the influential thinking and alarmism over the years. James Hansen undoubtedly a devotee. http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/climate-change-alarmist-realizes-he-was-wrong-but-for-the-wrong-reasons/
Gaia scientist Lovelock: 'I was WRONG and alarmist on climate'
Gaia scientist Lovelock: 'I was WRONG and alarmist on climate'
'I swore Earth should be frying by now' http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/24/lovelock_clangers/
'I swore Earth should be frying by now' http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/24/lovelock_clangers/
Climate Change as a Cult Religion Article
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/26/the-cult-of-climate-change-nee-global-warming/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/26/the-tangled-web-of-global-warming-activism/
Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.
This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”
Al Gore could not have been more wrong.
http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/arctic-ice-a-historical-viewpoint/
This "dementia" even drives paranoia in researchers.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4507949.ece
This is what future failed predictions look like when they are dressed up as fact.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/
Other "Earth Day" failed predictions...all peer reviewed and Journal released
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/22/seven-earth-day-predictions-that-failed-spectacularly/
IPCC Head and joint Nobel Prize Winner with AL Gore charged with Sexual Harrassment.
This is the sort of person putting faith in the so called 97% Consensus typifies......
So why do scientists, and even Vice Presidents, abandon rationality and become "religious and dogmatic" over beliefs rather than facts ?
Professor of Psychology, William Briggs speaks to this question here.
Not only has the global warming “paused” (if ever it was even above what is considered natural variability), but in recent years a great many studies, including in peer-reviewed science journals, have shaken the false “consensus” that CO2 is a major driver of climate. A problem that the AGW alarmists could never solve or explain is how CO2 could be causing global warming when the historical record shows that rises in atmospheric CO2 follow temperature rises, not the other way around. “It’s hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It’s easier to say temperature drives CO2,” says Dr. Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, one of many experts who claim the CO2 basis of the climate scare is ludicrous. The reader may recall from Logic 101 or Scientific Method 202 that the cause precedes the effect. It is plainly evident that the AGW activists cannot explain either the pause or the cause.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18889-desperate-dash-of-global-warming
Professor Richard S. Lindzen's views, probably the most accurate scientific understanding around and perhaps a middle point between the extremes of "belief" are summed up here in his presentation to the House of Commons in 2012.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
"Climate Change Attribution" by Robert A. Rohde - This figure was created by Robert A. Rohde from published data. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png#/media/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
This LHS graph ends in 1990 and since then more than 25% of CO2 ever generated by humans has entered the atmosphere. The temperatures remained flat however. That's why the LHS graph presented was deliberately chopped at 1990 and that's where the supposed correlation ends. The hypothesis doesn't stack up after this time. The observations since 1980 by Satellite and Balloon Radio Sonde both confirm these models are incorrect and have done so for nearly 20 years, now nearly longer than the period of supposed correlation of CO2 and temperature.
Correlation LHS graph from ;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
No Match RHS graph from; http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY18-WState-JChristy-20131211.pdf
This is the reconstructed 600 Million year attempted match of CO2 and temperatures.
The temperature has been both high and low , 450 m.y.a. vz 300 m.y.a., when the CO2 has been both high and low.
Overall the Earth, by natural processes is reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.
It has dealt with levels at 7000 ppm, 20 x higher than we experience.
There is an obvious limiting feedback for the range 12 - 22 degrees.
The increases and decrease swings look sudden, but they are compressed and are million year trends.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
This is the restricted vision of 1860 to 2013.
It is the piece d'resistance in AGW theory and the "smoking gun" so to speak.
The scale of the graphs are adjusted to show a correlation in two unrelated atmospheric attributes.
The last few years are flat to decreasing 1998 - 2015,
as well as the often overlooked 1940 - 1960 decline
and 1880 - 1910 decline mismatches,
but the trend is still shown in an attempt to demonstrate a correlation.
http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.nz/2010/06/why-would-you-believe-this-2-of-8.html
( comments from press reports of scientists opinions of the time periods mentioned above)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
Climate (from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period.[4]
The standard averaging period is 30 years,[5]
The closer inspection of the presented "Trend" above.
It should be shown as above. Only a passing coincidental correlation exists.
It didn't quite make the 30 year definition.
If you care to add 30 to 77 as a 2007 extent , a 25 year span, but by 2003, and like 1957-1977, we see a negative correlation.
Or even this.
The "steep" CO2 curve, 290 ppm to 390 ppm, a 100 ppm increase, 100 in every 1,000,000 molecules, stretched to look dramatic,
over a 130 year period with plenty of opportunity to show a 30 year correlation anywhere,
has no perceptible effect on Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.
The moving average , in Red, likewise shows nothing of interest. We are looking at natural variations.
If the reader can find a correlation with Temperature to CO2 above in the same period, please prepare a paper and submit it.
Professor Carter puts it in perspective
James Burke's commentary on Cultural Cognition and ideologies....
another view of above...
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/no-correlation-between-co2-and-us-temperature/
http://cosmoscon.com/2012/02/28/global-temperature-and-co2-update-march-2012/
And to be sure, recorded Average temperatures in the US in 1860 till 2010 with CO2 concentrations rising.
A correlation should have been apparent if there were one. - the flat line says basically mathematically there isn't.
Dr Gerrit van der Lingen who resides in Nelson has written about the next "maunder minimum".
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=1
https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2014/03/09/global-cooling-by-dr-gerrit-j-van-der-lingen/
https://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/global_cooling.pdf
So we come down to the issue of wanting to find trends and torturing the data to death until we do.
This is whats happening with the people supporting the AGW hypothesis.
It's why the recent NOAA releases revised data to support the notion of AGW.
Commentary on NOAA and other data sets.
NZ Data suffers from exactly the same issues
It's also strange how these adjustments to the data set correlate to the CO2 levels....
http://realclimatescience.com/all-temperature-adjustments-monotonically-increase/
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/the-definitive-data-on-the-global-warmingclimate-change-scam/
Are scientific Publications sufficiently unbiased ?
Patrick Michaels speaks to this question
skip to about 12 minutes in.....
http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830508783900735
Follow the money
Even if AGW was True, Can we afford to do anything about it ?
If we did something is this at least better than doing nothing surely ?
PLACING SCIENTISTS IN THEIR BELIEF CONSTRUCTS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_cognition
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150604-hiatus-climate-warming-temperature-denier-NOAA/
Naomi Oreskes is a virulant AGW supporter.
Judith Curry is not.
We could categorise the thinking of
Naomi Oreskes as a Communitarian / Egalitarian, that is basically a Socalist
and
Judith Curry as an Individualist / Hierarchist , basically a Conservative
on these descriptions.
Their respective personal biases will be in play.
What really matters however is the realistic data and scientific analysis and conclusions.
Placing Scientists in their belief constructs.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33280621
Humerous look at Warming from someone you would never expect
Dr Gerrit van der Lingren who resides in Nelson has written about the next "maunder minimum"
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=52&Itemid=1
Google Sites
Report abuse