How Scientific Is Climate Science?

This is about a Wall St Journal article by Douglas J. Keenan, where he sets out to reanalyse the UN's IPCC, ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the US's Climate Change Science Program way of interpreting tha basic information supplied, in this case from NASA. It may take a while to understand the direction he is taking, but it helps to know that he is a mathmetician and presumably dabbles in statistics, and has a background in financial research, and hence the Wall St, and City of london connection....they like to look at the weather too! Anyway, what he has to say is very interesting, and even if you think he is completely wrong, it does give an insight as to how certain agendas can be pursued. There is no end game but, if you think that he has got everything in the right frame, you may have to start to dwell on just how much this AGW scenario is costing you in your terms.



www.informath.org...

This link is for the devil's detail,
www.informath.org...

reply to post by smurfy


Good read, thanks for the post. They are taking a lot of our money, from some comments
of insiders, it looks like that is the design.

A high-ranking member of the U.N.'s Panel on Climate Change admits the group's primary goal is the redistribution of wealth and not environmental protection or saving the Earth The Climate Cash Cow

" A Report by The Club Of Rome" in which the quote is found...

On page 75 you can find the quote:
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

page 84 of the PDF, page 75 of the actual document.
ia700408.us.archive.org...

www.archive.org...

Redistibution of the worlds weath is no small matter



S&F from me.

How Scientific Is Climate Science?

not very scientific at all.

we only have a very limited supply of facts, ie weather records only go back say MAYBE 200 years. so anything based on that limited knowledge WILL BE FLAWED. this would be like someone who has only ever had red smarties (an m&m type candy), and says ALL smarties taste like crap, (yeah i DON"T like the red ones). meanwhile there are several colours (now flavors) to choose from, that you may like, it's just that you don't have access to that important information, leading to a flawed conclusion.

there ARE some indicators in history that is ignored. i have heard that Greenland once had crop seasons and the Norse started to leave when those crop seasons started to go away. i have heard other tales of the same types of changes elsewhere as well. like a baby woolly mammoth that had warm weather plant life in it's stomach. things that may point to a MUCH warmer planet than we have had. at the very least SOMETHING must have happened to cause things such as this. possibly a pole change or maybe even something else all we can really do is GUESS about some of it. as WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION, to make really accurate claims. as such all this talk about HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL warming is just a GUESS.

It's an interesting article, although his particular one makes as many vague assertions and assumptions as he is claiming the IPCC and various climate scientists are making.

It's unfortunate when anyone just latches onto information to support their own pre-formed ideas, whether it be in favor of 'conventional' global warming findings or in favor of those who seek to disprove these findings.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
It's an interesting article, although his particular one makes as many vague assertions and assumptions as he is claiming the IPCC and various climate scientists are making.

It's unfortunate when anyone just latches onto information to support their own pre-formed ideas, whether it be in favor of 'conventional' global warming findings or in favor of those who seek to disprove these findings.

Hi Incredible, and thanks for looking in to all,
I'd almost given up on this thread as the subject matter would be almost passé in some quarters.
Anyway, there are two solid points that he makes at least, (1) his and colleagues formatted assumptions based on certain different criteria are at least as good as IPCC's and all that implies. And (2) Government policy and actions are singular to a novel set of statistics as if it were the smoking gun, which by default it is clearly not.

On that basis then, accepting AGW as a fact and acting upon it, could be just as 'dangerous' as treating it as a curiosity or a hiccup when all things are not considered or properly known. As they say, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose"

i think the IPCC is biased because they are looking for global warming, not trying to find out if there is global warming or not.

if global warming was really happening, most of the record highs would be from the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, and most of the record lows would be in the past. but it is just not so, there's no bias towards either, at least with the American state records I have researched.

Originally posted by smurfy


On that basis then, accepting AGW as a fact and acting upon it, could be just as 'dangerous' as treating it as a curiosity or a hiccup when all things are not considered or properly known.

I don't know about that. What part of comodifying the pollution of major industries could be 'dangerous' for the environment?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I'm not sure how commodifying in it's normal meaning comes into the frame, and as for fighting pollution, that's been ongoing since the mid 1900's and was not instigated as a fight against global warming/weather modification, rather as a cleaning up of the environment. London, for instance has been transformed into a pretty clean city.
It's only more recently that the AGW?? threat is pushing the agenda harder, more so in some areas than others.

What I am referring to then, is the forcing of the atmosphere with different methods to cool surface temperatures, when the science and ramifications in that is not fully understood, as is the actual AGW science, and the tools used, not conclusive or properly accurate, respectively.

These links might be informative for you,

www.sharonlbegley.com...

ecobites.com...

This last link is interesting as it widens the geoengineering debate into to the realm of politics and country,

www.npr.org...

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

I'm not sure how commodifying in it's normal meaning comes into the frame, and as for fighting pollution, that's been ongoing since the mid 1900's and was not instigated as a fight against global warming/weather modification, rather as a cleaning up of the environment. London, for instance has been transformed into a pretty clean city.
It's only more recently that the AGW?? threat is pushing the agenda harder, more so in some areas than others.

Putting a value on the emissions of, say, a power plant is indeed a step towards substantively reducing what you call 'pollution'.

What I am referring to then, is the forcing of the atmosphere with different methods to cool surface temperatures, when the science and ramifications in that is not fully understood, as is the actual AGW science, and the tools used, not conclusive or properly accurate, respectively.

Well, it's a good thing the majority of climate scientists dont consider that a reasonable approach.

These links might be informative for you,

www.sharonlbegley.com...

ecobites.com...

This last link is interesting as it widens the geoengineering debate into to the realm of politics and country,

www.npr.org...

Yes, those are interesting, but as your links even note, those are not approaches favored by any real majority.

Climate science is nothing more than an exercise in statistics. The problem is that the people doing the math don't know what they're doing.

They do not do any experiments. They rely on climate models which by their very nature aren't scientific. Their output are not data, yet the so-called climate scientists use the results as though they came from real-world observations. You cannot model a complex, chaotic system with a simple linear model. Good luck with that.

As David Frame, a climate modeler at Oxford, once said, "The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful."

Yes, like political policies that shape our world. Read Paul Ehrlich's Limit to Growth--every single one of his population theories came from a computer model and IPCC still uses his projections even though they were proven wrong 30 years ago.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


I call it pollution because that's what it is, and cap and trade is used to deal with polluters.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the states it deals a lot with acid rain, as well as other emissions and even then the idea has been gerrymandered on a breathtaking scale,


www.minyanville.com...

As to the method/s to be used, the links I gave you are not from TPTB they are serious people pointing out serious flaws in the use of the method/s, and that would include serious life threatening affects to peoples health.

In some ways the links could be considered naive, but then they are intended for you and me, not necessarily to TPTB, who have their own agenda which they will follow to whatever is needed and when, that you can be sure of.

And yes, the science is imperfect, from the day to day collecting of surface temperatures,

wattsupwiththat.com...


back to the acknowledged end of the last ice age since when the earth has been 'warming up'
Did someone say steady warming since the last ice age? yes they did, did someone say not steady warming but with little cold oscillations? yes they did!

www.climates.com...

wiki.answers.com...