What the actual F. You literally don't read the text you quote, you incessantly conflate global warming with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and you're incapable of separating the real science from the emotionally charged political activism and the deliberately headline-grabbing media hype. The rest of your post is the same nonsense too. I don't know who Philippe Herlin is and I've never read his "gospel".
The difference between you and I, fundamentally, is that you are obsessed with the apocalyptic narrative and I am obsessed with the integrity of science. I KNOW that models do not produce real data and are tweaked by arbitrary variables to predict futures based on processes they don't sufficiently understand, and you don't know or care about anything but your baselessly claimed impending catastrophe.
You won't change, and neither will I. I've been here 18 years. I'll probably have to wait another 18 years or more for your ACTUAL evidence connecting global warming and CAGW.
The one thing you and I had in common at the beginning of this thread was on the cult of absolute faith in climate catastrophism. I explained it and you demonstrated it.
I don't say I recognise global warming and deny its effects. I refer to the science, wherein you can find a warming trend but can find no discernible catastrophic anthropogenic signal.
No negative consequence (net) up to 2.3/2.4C. It's in the IPCC report. Or do you dispute that? You did link to it.
This is grossly incorrect. By definition a simulation is a simulation, not to be regarded as real data. But if you knew this topic you would know that GCMs are known to fail to match observed temperatures. Despite improving on their abilities to hindcast, they continue to overestimate temperature increases in their forecasts. This is not even controversial, but suffice it to say you are absolutely wrong.
In fact one climate modeler, with whom I discussed this topic, put the truth very succinctly. She said: "The difference is that, in theory, reality and theory are the same. However, in reality, they are not."
I don't understand, are you every single time missing the bit where I say that I recognise that there is an anthropogenic component to the warming? Or are you walking back your claim that we are facing an apocalyptic catastrophe? Because without the apocalypse, where is the imperative for us to spend the $21 trillion that we simply don't have on achieving "Net Zero"?
I'm going to leave you to embarrass yourself with claims you can't substantiate. When you're able to deliver on a verifiable, falsifiable instance of catastrophic human-induced global warming, I'll be here to go over it with you. Until then, there is absolutely no point in me responding to you, and you seem to actively discourage it.
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : Clarification on net positive consequences up to 2.3/2.4C in the IPCC report
Richard Tol's estimate of warming up to (IIRC) 2.3C or 2.4C in IPCC AR5 is net positive for humans and the planet. I haven't seen his revised estimate in AR6 yet, but I'm assuming it won't have changed much.
Regarding global cooling, I don't think this is within our capacity to mitigate against either. Glaciation will come no matter what we do. Our options are far less mitigation and far more along the lines of adaptation. In the event, I'm reasonably confident our options will be limited to something like equatorial migration. Obviously this is based on our current capabilities. The future is uncertain, including any limits on our ingenuity. History is quite clear, we will be more capable in the future than we can possibly conceive of today. How much more, I think there's no way to know. The future is mostly the other side of the event horizon ;-)
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : Forgot to visit the global cooling point
I'll ignore the majority of what you post, since it remains infused with insult and denigration. I'm disinclined to encourage it, because it's vacuous behaviour and not substantive.
Mankind is unable to mitigate it because mankind appears unable to overwhelm natural variability.
"Mental obstruction"? "Inept remarks"? This is not language worth engaging with.
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without simply telling me that someone else, or a bunch of someone elses, claim it, YOU provide evidence to support this belief that humans have caused global warming that is catastrophic. Point to the data that supports it, and articulate in YOUR words, an example of actual catastrophic global warming which is PROVEN (you like to use that word, so live by it) to be unequivocally caused by humans. Let's actually get down to the science of climatology rather than just the narrative. Provide one example of a climate scientist's prediction that has come to pass. There's been 40+ years of these predictions so it shouldn't be too difficult to find one, right?
Alternatively, continue with your invective and/or condescending tone. As much as you direct it at me, it actually reflects on you.
Mankind is unable to mitigate it because mankind appears unable to overwhelm natural variability.
"Mental obstruction"? "Inept remarks"? This is not language worth engaging with.
But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without simply telling me that someone else, or a bunch of someone elses, claim it, YOU provide evidence to support this belief that humans have caused global warming that is catastrophic. Point to the data that supports it, and articulate in YOUR words, an example of actual catastrophic global warming which is PROVEN (you like to use that word, so live by it) to be unequivocally caused by humans. Let's actually get down to the science of climatology rather than just the narrative. Provide one example of a climate scientist's prediction that has come to pass. There's been 40+ years of these predictions so it shouldn't be too difficult to find one, right?
Alternatively, continue with your invective and/or condescending tone. As much as you direct it at me, it actually reflects on you.
Avraham, I've already explained in many ways what my position on the science is, based on the science itself. I have examined the arguments, the evidence to support those arguments, and drawn my conclusion. Through that process I've concluded that climate change is real, it has always been real, and to some extent is additionally influenced by mankind. I find no good scientific evidence to support the claim that the global warming visible in the climate system is dangerous or catastrophic, or that it can be mitigated by mankind. I find that climate science is immmature, is not progressing sufficietly and has in place no mechanisms to correct the issue. It does not itself recognise sufficiently that it has this problem, and because of this I see no prospect for improvement.
My answers may not suit you, but you have not said anything to change my mind. Moreover, respectfully, I don't think you are sufficiently versed in the subject to even begin to address the genuine and specific issues that I have with the state of the science. I am MUCH further along in my journey through climatology, and every talking point you LINK to, I have already worked through and resolved thoroughly for myself many years ago.
I am happy to discuss the science, in detail where necessary - from insolation and backradiation to the atmospheric CO2 cycle, from the Milankovich cycle to the NAO - but only with someone who has an open mind and who is interested in deepening their knowledge. Respectfully, this is not you.
My answers may not suit you, but you have not said anything to change my mind. Moreover, respectfully, I don't think you are sufficiently versed in the subject to even begin to address the genuine and specific issues that I have with the state of the science. I am MUCH further along in my journey through climatology, and every talking point you LINK to, I have already worked through and resolved thoroughly for myself many years ago.
I am happy to discuss the science, in detail where necessary - from insolation and backradiation to the atmospheric CO2 cycle, from the Milankovich cycle to the NAO - but only with someone who has an open mind and who is interested in deepening their knowledge. Respectfully, this is not you.
I presume this is linked because I am challenging the notion that post normal science, AKA "consensus science", can function as an alternative to the scientific method. Post normal science is NOT an alternative, but this link attempts to justify it.
I was fortunate to be able to discuss post normal science with one of its formulators, Jerome Ravetz, a few years ago. I have huge respect for him, and I think post normalism has a place in business, and also as a consideration in some government policy formulation. Post normalism is only useful, though, when there is a *known problem*.
My issue is that in climate science, post normalism is being incorrectly employed to put the cart before the horse. Instead of the traditional process of empiricism (the scientific method) - i.e. theory, hypothesis, test, evaluate etc., post normal "consensus" is being used to prematurely conclude the detection/attribution element (WG1 in the IPCC report). In truth, there are VERY FEW academics who are active in the field of detection and attribution of the anthropogenic component of global warming, and there is (as is typical in almost all science - as indeed it should be so) very little agreement, and much still to resolve, between them. However, with the application of post normalism, some confirmation bias, a bit of personality conflict/favour etc., a "consensus" can be formed. Science is dispassionate, but post normalism is anything but that. Post normalism ("consensus science") is the proverbial trojan horse that undermines science and the scientific method.
You're in the wrong place for this
As I said at the outset, my intention is to be helpful or useful. I have two recommendations. One focuses strictly on the subject of climatology, scientifically speaking:-
https://scienceofdoom.com/
Before diving in, I recommend reading their rules of engagement to understand SOD's approach:-
https://scienceofdoom.com/etiquette/
I think this will suit you. I've never engaged on this site personally, I've always lurked, but over time I've found it incredibly helpful in fastracking to an understanding of each climate subtopic that I've needed to get up to speed on. And since the rules require strict science and no politics, the comments section is absolutely invaluable - populated both by those with knowledge, and those seeking it.
The second site I recommend is:-
https://judithcurry.com/
This blog objectively and critically addresses both emerging science and also the science:policy interface. The comments are often somewhat crass (likely because of the policy element of the discussion, and all that implies) but there is good knowledge among the participants, even when they vehemently disagree.
This is a field I can enjoy playing on.
I've argued that it's okay to hold strong opinions, but that it's important to hold them lightly. If someone offers a better explanation leading to a different conclusion, always be ready to let go of your older strong opinions.
I agree with this.
I agree with this too. Mostly. I think we have a good idea of CO2 concentrations in ice cores etc. Temperature, though.. nope.
What I would say is that the data that we do have does not provide correlation between temperature and CO2. We often hear that correlation does not imply causation, and it's absolutely true, but we can say the same many times more strongly about the absence of correlation.
The historical data we have is based on proxy data, not direct temperature measurements. This makes the task of collecting good data inordinately more difficult, and most importantly it introduces uncertainty. Uncertainty is a necessary component of science, but it is absolutely essential that it is recognised and included honestly, always, and most particularly in this case, when informing policy decisions. No matter how inconvenient that uncertainty is.
A scientist who conceals the inherent uncertainty in their science should not be doing science (or perhaps you might say IS NOT doing science), just as a doctor who conceals the potential risk of side effects of a medical procedure from his patient should no longer be a doctor. We in our societies depend on the presumption of informed consent and it is non-negotiable.
You may find this article of interest: https://judithcurry.com/2018/01/03/manufacturing-consensus-the-early-history-of-the-ipcc/
As you know, the null hypothesis IS that climate change is natural and inevitable. That's science. I find it deeply problematic that, from the outset, the very premise of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which spawned the IPCC, asserted that there was a problem that required human intervention, and charged the IPCC with finding solutions to that presumed problem. An IPCC that didn't FIND the problem, and then solve it, would be regarded a failure. Nobody wants to fail. Most especially scientists, and most especially those scientists with a voracious appetite for "success" (and hopefully a Nobel along the way!)
You're right, of course, it's not productive. Cathartic, perhaps. But it is not my job to protect feelings, it's my obligation to tell the truth. It is true to say that climate scientists who deviate from the accepted narrative are literally accused of heresy. They are ex-communicated and excluded. They face the most shocking vitriol from within their community. This treatment is not sourced in the principles of science, it's in the methods of dogmatic religion, emotionalism and cultism.
To describe Nic Lewis as
thoroughly bears out my point. Aside from being unadulterated nonsense, there is nothing scientific about this criticism. It's overtly socio-political, and radically so. And also a bit racist, tbh.
In my defence, I did say early on that sometimes it takes me longer to learn some things
I'm happy to have a scientific discussion with you, but I am comfortably back to feeling no compunction to reply/respond to anti-scientific guff from others.The state of the science is poor. The solutions to the perceived problem are expensive and ineffective, and most vociferously supported by comfortably middle-class people who have not even thought for a moment about, much less care one iota about, people who are not wealthy enough to even own a driveway to charge an EV at home. Champagne socialists, as they are known.
Last edited by SamH, .
I base it on your disregard for the tenets of scientific enquiry, embrace of anti-scientific methodologies and unquestioning acceptance of the dogma. I didn't convince myself of your beliefs, you convinced me.
Again, you over-egg the pudding and wildly overstate your case. Aside from the fact you are 100% depending on anecdote rather than material science here, things are just not as you describe.
Well, no, not actually. It makes you either a pessimist or a religious catastrophism devotee. The default position that you have internalised, and which you fervently defend, is apocalyptic. Regardless of your incredulity, there is an abundance of evidence that the field of science has been undermined and compromised by politics, via post-normal science. I have even provided examples of this. Do you agree with the science when it states that a child's sex is assigned at birth?
I am not the one attempting to distort reality here. There is an abundance of science to support my assertions, both promoting and questioning the purported, certain, "settled science" narrative that you are pushing. I don't need to prove that the world is/is not warming, nor that humans are a/the cause. I only have to demonstrate that the science is not settled and the future is not so certain (or so certainly doomed) as I have shown you inaccurately assert.
I could link tens of papers on sea levels, glacial retreat (Himalayan)/advancement (Pacific NW), CO2 fertilisation or any number of subsets of climate study - god knows there's a lot - but to what end? You wouldn't read them! (and if I'm taking the time to link them, there will be a test after!) You are comfortable in your belief in the impending doom and we cannot even agree on the importance of scientific integrity. When I say that you are in a cult, this is why. This is where we part company on this subject.
@Aleksandr_124rus, I hope this has provided further context and info!
With respect, you keep making reference to "an official consensus" - which any scientist committed to the scientific method will tell you is anti-scientific. It derives from what has become known as "Post-Normal Science" (I think I've mentioned this earlier in the thread), which abandons the scientific method. By the methodology of post normal science, it is argued unequivocally that God is real and is punishing us, simply because it is the consensus of those who profess greatest knowledge on the subject (eg. priests, pastors, bishops etc.)
I prefer to remain committed to the scientific method instead, thanks!
Perhaps you should read more closely my first post on this subject, if you can do so through a lens which is not wedded to your religious belief. You will find that I am largely agnostic on the subject. I'm a pragmatic fallibilist, in fact.
To be clear, the cult of climate catastrophism is a death cult. You may not be so extreme in your expression as some, but you do say things like:-
This is a pretty doom-laden and gloomy outlook. My point is that, regardless of your belief, there is no scientific basis for this claim at all. Regardless of your belief, there is huge uncertainty regarding the level of warming we can expect, regardless of what you believe, there is more uncertainty again on the proportion of anthropogenic influence and despite your certain belief, there is absolutely no evidence of a looming world-ending catastrophe.
For onlookers, wondering, I personally think the following article is pretty well balanced. It's not so much about the science, it's about the cult:- https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/03/26/the-cult-of-the-climate-apocalypse/
I prefer to remain committed to the scientific method instead, thanks!
Perhaps you should read more closely my first post on this subject, if you can do so through a lens which is not wedded to your religious belief. You will find that I am largely agnostic on the subject. I'm a pragmatic fallibilist, in fact.
To be clear, the cult of climate catastrophism is a death cult. You may not be so extreme in your expression as some, but you do say things like:-
"The world of tomorrow has absolutely no chance of resembling a pretty little green and resilient greenhouse. And nothing is being done to slow the phenomenon."
This is a pretty doom-laden and gloomy outlook. My point is that, regardless of your belief, there is no scientific basis for this claim at all. Regardless of your belief, there is huge uncertainty regarding the level of warming we can expect, regardless of what you believe, there is more uncertainty again on the proportion of anthropogenic influence and despite your certain belief, there is absolutely no evidence of a looming world-ending catastrophe.
For onlookers, wondering, I personally think the following article is pretty well balanced. It's not so much about the science, it's about the cult:- https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/03/26/the-cult-of-the-climate-apocalypse/
Both cannot be true.
(edit): A helpful link discussing scientific uncertainty, and how important it is - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1317504111
Interesting talk by Nic Lewis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYZW-6jw98U
But you aggressively label anyone who challenges the dogma of your religion as a charlatan, despite knowing (surely!?!?) that papers disputing papers are published in peer-reviewed journals, just as any other papers, and negating any possibility in your mind that they might be advancing science in the process of scientific endeavour. This can ONLY be because you are a religious zealot, and a member of a death cult, and you will do and say anything to defend your cult, no matter how anti-scientific it is. And you pretend to do it all "in the name of science".
If what you are promoting actually were science, you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, appeal to consensus (argumentum ad populam), the "pooh-pooh" fallacy and a plethora of other logical fallacies in your posts.
As I've said before, I say again, your science isn't good enough to draw a conclusion, let alone to inform public policy, least of all as the basis for restructuring the entire global economy. It's not science, if it cannot be challenged, it's a belief system and as with the most devout of believers, it's a waste of anyone else's time to try and introduce rationalism or reason to you. You have your belief and you will defend it to the death - which, if Greta Thunberg is to believed, I think is about a week next Wednesday? Could be Thursday, not sure...
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : Added a helpful link plus video
You have your religion!
Ahh, sorry, I misunderstood!
You think Crichton is a scientific reference? Crichton is a meta-analyst, in this context. I'd have thought you would be able to figure that out.
I don't need to convince anyone of anything.
I sympathise! As I mentioned in my earlier post, it's difficult to access the breadth of scientific opinion because, for example, Google's search results are heavily manicured. There is a wealth of scientific analysis out there which discusses, analyses and disputes the accepted narrative, but it's difficult to access. It is out there, though.
Just as a really simple example, attached is a temporal analysis of temperature and CO2 levels. You can see that temperature leads CO2. You can debate what the implications are, beyond the obvious that the tail is apparently wagging the dog, but you cannot dispute the data. As hotly debated as this graph has been, nobody has found any articulable problem with the statistical methodology used or the real-world data underpinning it. The evidence suggests that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.
So, there are extremely important questions still to be answered, and any scientist who tells you that "the science is settled" is no scientist at all. WHAT they are, I cannot know. The cynic in me suggests "profiting".
You really shouldn't copy/paste from elsewhere. We can talk to bots with formulated responses any time.
You have a religious belief, which is increasingly manifesting as a death cult. "THE END IS NIGH" etc, etc. You don't recognise it and I understand that. But it's true. It's not for me to do an intervention, and your faith is so strong that nothing I say would affect it. I have no dog in the fight, as they say.
Like so many who fall for the cult, you dogmatically repeat many lies in the climate orthodoxy, such as:-
Factually, the scientific consensus on global warming has been unanimous for 15 years. UNTRUE
100% of scientific publications reach the same conclusions. UNTRUE
There is no study of real scientific significance which contests the nature and causes of global warming, or allows its effects to be put into perspective. UNTRUE
Global warming is proven. So is global cooling.
Its anthropogenic cause is demonstrated. MISINFORMATION There is a gulf of space between finding/recognising an anthropogenic component and attributing catastrophe to that component.
The direct consequences of global warming are observable and measurable. DEBATABLE
The nature and speed of current warming have nothing in common with previous climate variations and natural cycles. UNTRUE
I will simply quote Michael Crichton, who is one of my favourite authors and is, to science, what Orwell is to politics, who addresses the crisis in the field of scientific advancement:-
Crichton is correct, and science is in a terrible state today because the tenets of the Enlightenment, and the Scientific Method, have been abandoned for abysmally low standards that permit such things as climate catastrophism and the currently prevailing scientific claims that there is no such thing as biological sex, or is nothing but a social construct.
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : Adding clarity
I can help with that!
Cults be cult-like.
I really want to answer in a way which is useful, informative and helpful, but most importantly does not open the door to misunderstanding, presumption/assumption or projection. My opinion has no value, because it is just my opinion. It isn't data, it's only anecdote. That said, my opinion is derived from a long process of studying scientific papers and associated datasets/statistical analyses. It took 10 years because: a) the knowledge landscape changed massively over time, as new data became available; b) access to scientific knowledge has become increasingly moderated and contrary views obfuscated (in breach of scientific standards); c) I am not that smart, particularly in statistics and it often takes me longer to sufficiently understand and internalise some (okay, many) concepts and methodologies.
I am confident that humans do have an impact on the climate, primarily through land usage, secondarily through pollution (I exclude CO2 which is NOT a pollutant). I do not believe that there is enough evidence (actually, not enough *good science*) to support the claim that the anthropogenic component of climate change is significant, relative to natural variability.
The data that we have does not support any claim of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and the best data suggests the opposite. Every claim of catastrophe from climate science to date is derived from computer projections based on generated data, not real data (a model's output is not data, it is a demonstration/exploration/visualisation of a hypothesis and nothing more) or is extrapolated from short-term data to draw long-term conclusions. As the statistician George Box said, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
So, do I think it's just a big bogeyman? I do, yes. "Cui Bono", or "Who Benefits"? I don't know the answer, but I think a lot of money can be, and has been, made from JUST THE BELIEF that the threat is real. An inordinate transfer of wealth has happened, and is happening, in the name of preventing global warming. That transfer has been in only one direction - upwards. That said, I'm open to the possibility that this was all just a misunderstanding. I don't think that's likely though.
There are a substantial number of cycles that we have identified, from just a few years to many centuries long, but I think we're confident that there are still many more to discover. These cycles interact with each other in turbulent ways which are impossible to predict, yet are key to our understanding. You might be familiar with Navier-Stokes equations. I found learning about them very helpful in appreciating the complexities involved in climate predictions, and just how inadequate the field of climate science is to the task.
As for the "global freeze", I think we probably do need to look to the Milankovich cycles for the answer. But again, even applying our best knowledge and understanding, our best guess could be many thousands of years wide of the mark. Unfortunately I don't think "Global Warming" and "Global Freezing" are so directly connected in a causal sense, and more global warming is unlikely to delay or prevent glaciation when it decides it's time to visit us again. Alternatively, think of it this way.. a dog wags its tail when it's happy to see you. But you wagging a dog's tail is not necessarily going to make that dog happy.
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : Correcting typos
I invested my time in this subject for about 10 years, from 2009 until the outbreak of the Covid pandemic. It's not a simple true/false dichotomy, and there are very few simplistic statements of truth that can be made about the topic at all.
The simplest and most broadly unequivocal statement that I believe can be made is that the state of the science of climate change is so deficient, and its integrity so grossly compromised, that NO definitive true/false conclusion about the cause or extent of global warming is possible.
This failure in science and the abandonment of the Enlightenment (known as "Post Normal"), I believe, facilitated the creation of the non-theistic religion of global warming, with its faithful manifesting EVERY metric you will find in a dictionary definition of a religious cult.
So, with that all said and now put aside, to your question whether we are threatened by "global cooling", the geological record is clear: Yes. We are in an interglacial period now, which started around 11,000 years ago, and which is, probabilistically speaking, due to end soon. The earth's natural state over its history has been glacial - more ice than water - by a factor of about 10 and there is no sound scientifically literate reason to believe we have changed, or can change, that pattern in nature.
The simplest and most broadly unequivocal statement that I believe can be made is that the state of the science of climate change is so deficient, and its integrity so grossly compromised, that NO definitive true/false conclusion about the cause or extent of global warming is possible.
This failure in science and the abandonment of the Enlightenment (known as "Post Normal"), I believe, facilitated the creation of the non-theistic religion of global warming, with its faithful manifesting EVERY metric you will find in a dictionary definition of a religious cult.
So, with that all said and now put aside, to your question whether we are threatened by "global cooling", the geological record is clear: Yes. We are in an interglacial period now, which started around 11,000 years ago, and which is, probabilistically speaking, due to end soon. The earth's natural state over its history has been glacial - more ice than water - by a factor of about 10 and there is no sound scientifically literate reason to believe we have changed, or can change, that pattern in nature.
I fear it's about conflict. When Trump left office the US was energy-independent and the first thing Biden did on entering office was compromise that independence. Biden's new administration is a continuation of an ethos that thrives on conflicts which feed the military industrial complex. Territory and resources are the means, not the end.
Fully understand.
This is a mechanism called "the heckler's veto", whereby those who don't like the thrust or direction of a discussion will attempt to shut down the entire thread by misbehaving and making it as toxic as possible.
Trolls be trolls, but those of us who are conversing can try to commit to not rising to the bait. If you can tolerate it, I think those of us who are here to learn would very much appreciate you bearing with us.
As a side note, I'm finding the language/dialect discussion fascinating. I never turn down an opportunity to learn something, and the history and evolution of dialect is mesmerising to me. Even tiny little Britain has an amazing history of dialects which are all but lost now.
Sure it's off-topic, but I appreciate it.
[edit] Actually I take that back; it's not off-topic, it's a side topic, but the path that dialect takes is socio-political and in this context it's highly relevant.
Sure it's off-topic, but I appreciate it.
[edit] Actually I take that back; it's not off-topic, it's a side topic, but the path that dialect takes is socio-political and in this context it's highly relevant.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG