A partir de 2003, o engenheiro de software William Connolley silenciosamente removido as referências altamente inconveniente para o assustador resfriamento global da década de 1970 da Wikipedia, a Wikipédia, a Wikipédia multiLingüe World8217s mais influente e acessado fonte informativa. Tinha que ser feito. Muitos céticos estavam (corretamente) apontando que o consenso científico nos anos 60 e 70 foi que a Terra estava esfriando por décadas, e que a teorização nascente sobre o potencial de um aquecimento global induzido por CO2 ainda era questionável e incerta. Não só Connolley 8212 co-fundador (juntamente com Michael Mann e Gavin Schmidt) do blog 8212 realclimate remover com êxito (ou reescrever) a história da década de 1970 assustador resfriamento global do registro Wikipedia, ele também apagou (ou reescreveu) referências Ao período morno medieval e à idade de gelo pequena para ajudar a criar a impressão que o paleoclimate é dado forma como o gráfico da vara do hóquei de Mann8217s, com o calor sem precedente e perigoso do século XX21st. Um relatório investigativo de 2009 da UK8217s Telegraph detalhou a extensão de ditatorial-como poderes Connolley possuído em Wikipedia, permitindo que ele remova informação científica inconveniente que didn8217t conformam a seu ponto de vista. 8220All disse, Connolley criou ou reescreveu 5,428 artigos exclusivos da Wikipedia. Seu controle sobre Wikipedia era ainda maior, no entanto, através do papel que ele obteve na Wikipédia como um administrador de site, o que lhe permitiu agir com a impunidade virtual. Quando Connolley não gostou do assunto de um determinado artigo, removeu-o mais de 500 artigos de várias descrições desapareceram em sua mão. Quando ele desaprovava os argumentos que os outros estavam fazendo, muitas vezes ele proibiu que mais de 2.000 contribuintes da Wikipédia que fugissem dele se viram impedidos de fazer outras contribuições. Acólitos, cuja escrita correspondia às visões do aquecimento global de Connolleys, em contraste, foram recompensados com bênçãos Wikipedias. Dessa forma, Connolley transformou a Wikipedia na ala missionária do movimento do aquecimento global. 8220 Depois de eviscerar referências ao assustador resfriamento global de 1970 e ao Período Quente Medieval da Wikipedia, e depois de reescrever pessoalmente os comentários da Wikipédia sobre o efeito estufa para imputar um papel central e dominante para o CO2, Connolley juntou-se a Dois outros autores a publicar um manifesto de consenso em 2008 que alegou expôr o susto de resfriamento global dos anos 70 como um mito, como algo que nunca realmente aconteceu. Peterson, Connolley e Fleck (2008, a seguir PCF08) publicou O Mito do Consenso Científico Global Cooling de 1970, no Boletim da American Meteorological Society. Esperando anular de uma vez por todas a percepção de que havia cientistas nas décadas de 1960 e 1970 que concordaram que a Terra estava esfriando (e pode continuar a fazê-lo), ou que o CO2 não desempenhou um papel dominante nas mudanças climáticas. O primeiro mito pervasivo surgiu entre os céticos: havia um consenso entre os cientistas climáticos da década de 1970 de que o resfriamento global ou um sistema de refrigeração full - A era glacial iminente. Uma revisão da literatura sobre ciência climática de 1965 a 1979 mostra que esse mito é falso. 8230 Durante o período de 1965 a 1979, nossa pesquisa bibliográfica encontrou 7 resfriamento, 20 neutros e 44 papéis de aquecimento. 8230 Não houve consenso científico na década de 1970 de que a Terra estava se encaminhando para uma era glacial iminente. William Connolley e colegas afirmaram que a determinação do consenso científico sobre o resfriamento global ea influência do CO2 sobre o clima durante a década de 1970 poderia ser adivinhada contando as publicações científicas que caíram Em categorias arbitrariamente definidas que lhes permitiram excluir intencionalmente centenas de artigos que minariam o suposto propósito de mitigar o mito do jornal. Os autores do PCF08 decidiram que quando 8220quantificando o consenso8221 (por contagem de publicações), um artigo científico só poderia ser classificado como um artigo 8220, se projetasse que as temperaturas futuras iriam (continuam) declinando, ou que uma era glacial completa era iminente. 8221 Artigos publicados durante a época arbitrariamente escolhida de 1965-821779, que afirmava que o clima já estava esfriando por décadas, que esse resfriamento não era um desenvolvimento positivo e que os efeitos do CO2 sobre o clima eram questionáveis ou substituídos por outros mecanismos de mudança climática mais influentes 8230 Não foram consideradas merecedoras de classificação como um papel de resfriamento, ou como um papel que discordou com o 8220consenso alegado 8222 que disse que o refrigerar global atual (1960s-821770s) um dia será substituído pelo aquecimento global induzido por CO2. Evidentemente, o susto de resfriamento global durante a década de 1970 não era estreito ou exclusivamente focado sobre o que as temperaturas podem parecer como no futuro, ou se ou não uma idade de gelo foi 8220imminent8221. Tratava-se, em primeiro lugar, do arrefecimento em curso que vinha ocorrendo há décadas, dos impactos negativos que esse arrefecimento já exercia (nos padrões climáticos extremos, na produção de alimentos, etc.) e incertezas associadas às causas das mudanças climáticas. Ao excluir as publicações que documentavam o resfriamento global, e excluindo propositadamente papéis que sugeriam que a sensibilidade do clima a CO2 for fraco ou questionável em relação a outros mecanismos, os autores poderiam descaradamente afirmar que havia apenas 7 trabalhos publicados na literatura científica entre 1965 e 1979 que discordaram com a opinião de que o aquecimento global ocorreria em algum ponto no futuro (devido aos aumentos de CO2). De acordo com PCF08, havia 44 artigos que caíram na categoria aquecimento-é-iminente-devido-a-CO2 de 1965-821779, ostensivamente os intitulando para reivindicar que projeções perigosas de aquecimento global antropogênicas dominaram até mesmo a literatura científica mesmo então. Como é demonstrado aqui, a afirmação de que havia apenas 7 publicações daquela época discordando do pressuposto CO2-aquecimento 8220consensus8221 é absurdo. Porque, ao incluir os documentos das décadas de 1960 e 1970 que indicavam que o globo tinha esfriado (de -0,3 C entre as décadas de 1940 e 821770), que este resfriamento era preocupante (levando a condições climáticas extremas, seca, produção deprimida, etc.) Que a influência do clima do CO28217 era questionável a insignificante, uma estimativa conservadora para o número de publicações científicas que não concordaram com o consenso alegado 8220 de aquecimento de CO2 era 220 papéis para o período 1965-821779, não 7. Se incluindo papéis publicados entre 1960 e 1989 , O 8220non-consensus8221 ou o 8220cooling8221 documentos chega a 285. Novamente, essas estimativas devem ser vistas como conservadoras. Há provavelmente dezenas de outros artigos científicos da era do susto de refrigeração dos anos 1960-821770 que provavelmente cairão na categoria de um papel de 8220resfriamento8221, mas ainda não foram disponibilizados para exibição on-line completo. Mas digamos que a afirmação do PCF08 é verdadeira e que houve apenas 44 artigos publicados entre 1965-821779 que endossaram a posição de que o clima da Terra é predominantemente formado pelas concentrações de CO2 e, assim, a Terra algum dia começaria a se aquecer quando os modelos Tinha sugerido. Curiosamente, se empregássemos a metodologia irremediavelmente falha de adivinhar o grau relativo de consenso científico, contando o número de artigos que concordam com uma posição ou outra (tal como o blogueiro John Cook e colegas fizeram com o seu papel de 2013 8220822221 Que produziu um resultado predeterminado de 97 por meio de manipulação categórica), os trabalhos publicados entre 1965-821779 poderiam representar um consenso global de arrefecimento de 83,3 para a época, contra somente um consenso de 16,7 para o aquecimento global antropogênico (44264 papéis). O susto de resfriamento global dos anos 1970 não foi mitológico Ao examinar a literatura científica disponível dos anos 60 e 82 de julho, é evidente que havia uma grande preocupação com o resfriamento global em andamento, que se elevara a -0,5C no Hemisfério Norte e -0.3C globalmente entre as décadas de 1940 e 1970. Naturalmente, este incómodo arrefecimento em escala global de -0,3C entre os anos 1940 e 1970 foi necessariamente quase completamente removido do registro instrumental pela NASA (GISS) e pelo MetOffice (HadCRUT). Afinal, as observações (de resfriamento) entraram em conflito com a modelagem climática. Supervisores dos conjuntos de dados de temperatura de superfície (como o MetOffice8217s Phil Jones ou NASA8217s Gavin Schmidt) ajustaram recentemente o -0.3C de arrefecimento para apenas centésimos de um grau de resfriamento. A NASA GISS, por exemplo, reduziu (através de 8220ajustamentos8221) o resfriamento global para cerca de -0.01C entre os anos 1940 e 1970, conforme mostrado abaixo. É provável que, durante os próximos anos de ajustes aos dados passados, o período de resfriamento global de meados do século XX desapareça completamente e mude para um período de aquecimento. Para os que realmente experimentaram o assustador resfriamento não-mitológico durante as décadas de 1960 e 1970 (que desde então tem sido feito para desaparecer dos gráficos), as conseqüências do resfriamento Hemisférico Norte (especialmente) foram freqüentemente discutidas em publicações científicas. Havia estratégias de geoengenharia propostas por cientistas para derreter gelo do mar Ártico. As secas e inundações e a variabilidade de anomalias climáticas extremas foram atribuídas ao arrefecimento global em curso. Os glaciares avançavam, chegando mesmo a subir a taxas aceleradas durante esse período. O crescimento do gelo marinho e o arrefecimento ártico intenso significaram que os oceanos eram muito menos navegáveis. O crescimento das colheitas e a produção de alimentos diminuíram quando a Terra esfriou, o que foi de grande preocupação para os governos mundiais. Invernos severos nas décadas de 1960 e 1970 levaram muitos climatólogos a supor que a Terra estava retornando a um clima do século 1800, como a Pequena Era de Gelo. Observações de mamíferos migrando para climas mais quentes durante as décadas de 1960 e 1970 devido às temperaturas mais frias foram relatadas em artigos científicos. Sinônimos para as condições de refrigeração climática de 1960s-821770s comumente usadas na literatura foram palavras como deterioração. recessão . prejudicial . E grave. Em contraste, períodos de aquecimento como durante os tempos medievais mais quentes ou o aquecimento durante a primeira metade do século XX foram referidos positivamente, ou como óptimos (isto é, o Período Calor Medieval foi referido como o 8220Little Optimum8221). De acordo com Stewart e Glantz (1985), no início da década de 1970, foi a opinião preestabelecida entre os cientistas de que a Terra estava encabeçada em outra era glacial. Não foi até o final dos anos 821770 que os cientistas mudaram de idéia e a visão preconcebida começou a mudar para o aquecimento. Isto está em contradição direta com as alegações do PCF08, que alegam que o aquecimento foi a visão predominante entre os cientistas nos anos 60 e início dos anos 70 também. Além disso, em 1985, ainda era reconhecido que as causas das mudanças climáticas globais continuam em disputa.8221 As conclusões do estudo de NDU poderiam ter sido previstas a partir do conhecimento do espírito prevalecente dos tempos (ou seja, Comunidade científica) quando a primeira parte foi conduzida. Este foi um momento interessante na história recente dos estudos climáticos. Poder-se-ia efetivamente argumentar que, no início dos anos 70, a visão prevalecente era de que a Terra estava se movendo em direção a uma nova era glacial. Muitos artigos apareceram na literatura científica, bem como na imprensa popular especulando sobre o impacto na agricultura de um 1-2C resfriamento. No final da década de 1970, essa visão predominante tinha aparentemente mudado 180 graus para a crença de que a atmosfera da Terra estava sendo aquecida como resultado de um aumento da carga de CO2 da atmosfera. 8230 As causas das mudanças climáticas globais continuam em disputa. As teorias existentes sobre clima, modelos atmosféricos e experiência atuarial são inadequadas para satisfazer as necessidades dos formuladores de políticas para obter informações sobre o clima futuro.8221 De acordo com cientistas que reportaram à US Central Intelligence Agency (1974), 22 dos 27 métodos de previsão prediziam uma tendência de arrefecimento para Os próximos 25 anos e 8220 especialistas em meteorologia estavam pensando que um clima dos anos 1800 estava ao virar da esquina, com o concomitante retorno às falhas de monção, temporadas de crescimento mais curtas e um clima violento. U. S. De acordo com o Dr. Hubert Lamb8211, um excelente climatologista britânico821122 dos 27 métodos de previsão que ele examinou previu uma tendência de arrefecimento durante o restante deste século. Uma mudança de 2-3 F. na temperatura média teria um enorme impacto. 8230 Uma série de especialistas em meteorologia estão pensando em termos de um retorno a um clima como o do século XIX. Isso significaria que dentro de alguns anos (provavelmente menos de duas décadas, supondo que a tendência de resfriamento começou na década de 19608217), haveria cintos de excesso e déficit de chuva nas latitudes médias mais freqüente falha das monções que dominam o índio Sub-continente, sul da China e África Ocidental mais curtas estações de cultivo para o Canadá, norte da Rússia e norte da China. A Europa poderia esperar ser mais fria e úmida. 8230 Nos períodos em que o resfriamento da mudança climática está em andamento, o clima violento 8212 geadas não estacionais, períodos quentes, grandes tempestades, inundações, etc.8211 é pensado para ser mais comum.8221 A ênfase seletiva em particular 8216Facts8217 científica para avançar uma agenda É bastante irônico que A citação abaixo impugnando os motivos de 8220skeptics8221 por Connolley e seus co-autores (PCF08) apareceu em um artigo que insistiu que as preocupações dos anos 70 sobre o resfriamento global nunca aconteceram realmente de um ponto de vista científico, e seu 8220proof8221 que realmente nunca aconteceu é que eles poderiam Só conseguem localizar 7 artigos científicos (por meio de um viés de seleção) que apoiassem essa visão 8220: 8220Sobre a citação seletiva da literatura passada é um exemplo do que o cientista político Daniel Sarewitz chama de debate político: a ênfase seletiva em determinados atos científicos para avançar Um conjunto particular de valores políticos. Neste caso, o uso principal do mito está no contexto da tentativa de minar a opinião pública eo apoio ao consenso científico contemporâneo sobre a mudança climática antropogênica, apelando para um consenso passado sobre um tema estreitamente relacionado que se alega ter sido errado .8221 William Connolley pode ter apagado com sucesso o Medieval Warm Período e 1970s arrefecer preocupações das páginas da Wikipedia. Ele pode ter escrito com sucesso mais de 5.400 artigos originais da Wikipedia numa tentativa de persuadir o público a acreditar em um papel dominante para os seres humanos e CO2 em causar mudanças climáticas. Mas a Internet tem uma memória longa e expansiva, e é implacável quando oportunistas e ativistas tentam enganar o público inventando falsas narrativas e empregando a mesma prática de ciência que reclamam hipócritamente ridicularizar. Novamente, havia pelo menos 285 publicações científicas que não concordaram com o suposto aquecimento de CO2 8220consenso8221 opinião durante os anos 1960 a 1980. A influência humana duvidosa sobre o clima, a baixa sensibilidade climática do CO2 (44 artigos) O aumento do CO2 leva ao resfriamento (7) As incertezas, a falta de clima (12) Mecanismos de mudança climática não-CO2 (26) Um passado mais quente apesar de uma redução de CO2 (10) A lista completa de 285 artigos da Global CoolingWeak CO2 Influence dos anos 1960 a 1980s pode ser encontrado usando os links abaixo: Para aqueles que podem não ter o tempo (ou interesse) para ver a lista completa de 285, uma versão resumida de 35 documentos de exemplo estão listados abaixo. Tenha em mente que essas 35 publicações de amostra representam menos do que o 18o do volume total de artigos publicados naquela época, afirmando a posição de que as preocupações com o resfriamento global eram bastante reais, difundidas e cientificamente apoiadas. Entre 1880 e 1940 ocorreu um aquecimento global líquido de cerca de 0,6 ° C, e desde 1940 até o presente nosso globo experimentou um arrefecimento líquido de 0,3 ° C. 8230 Verificou-se que a taxa de aumento da temperatura diminui com o aumento do CO2 e aumenta com o aumento das partículas. Portanto, a carga global de partículas é a principal preocupação. 8230 Um aumento em partículas globais feitas pelo homem por um fator de 4,0 iniciará uma idade de gelo. Para salvaguardar a nós mesmos e às futuras gerações de uma era glacial auto-imposta, é necessário que monitoremos efetivamente as concentrações globais de matéria particulada.8221 8220A temperatura superficial de 1976 equiparou o registro global para a menor temperatura estabelecida em 1964, mas mesmo assim a A tendência na temperatura global desde 1965 tem sido pequena em comparação com o decréscimo de 0,5C durante 196065.8221 8220 Os armadillos de nove bandas (Dasypus novemcinctus) estão se movendo para o norte na região das Grandes Planícies desde o final dos anos 1800 até os anos 1950, mas agora parecem estar recuando de seus Recentemente adquirida escala norte. Os armadillos têm um sistema sanguíneo homoiotermico não-típico que os torna bastante vulneráveis aos climas frios.8221 8220 O resfriamento de aproximadamente 1950 a 1974 é de 0,3C (Brinkmann, 1976). Moran (1975) sugere que a seca recente da Flórida peninsular é em grande parte devido à diminuição das freqüências de tempestades tropicais, associadas ao resfriamento atmosférico e oceânico geral desde 1940 (Wahl e Bryson, 1975) .8221 8220Concern sobre a mudança climática e seus efeitos sobre O homem tem aumentado. As mudanças climáticas afetam a produção de alimentos ea alocação de recursos energéticos. 8230 Mesmo com as correções de temperatura incluídas, as temperaturas médias de Indiana, junho, julho e agosto mostraram uma queda de aproximadamente 3F -1.7C de 1930 a 1976.8221 8220 Segundo o relatório da academia sobre o clima, podemos nos aproximar do final de um importante ciclo interglacial, com A aproximação de uma era glacial de 10.000 anos de uma possibilidade real.8221 8220 O teor de dióxido de carbono atmosférico aumentou foi concluído para ter uma influência climática ambígua e pode ser menos importante do que às vezes considerado. Vários estudos têm sugerido que a maior turbidez produziu uma recente tendência de resfriamento global.8221 8220O autor está convencido de que os recentes aumentos do dióxido de carbono atmosférico contribuíram muito menos do que 5 das recentes mudanças da temperatura atmosférica e não contribuirão mais do que no previsível O Simpósio AAAS sobre os Efeitos Globais da Poluição Ambiental, de 1968, iniciou uma avalanche de documentos que apóiam a poluição monotônica, senão exponencialmente crescente. Os aumentos de partículas foram geralmente citados como contribuindo pelo menos para o resfriamento pós 1940 e possivelmente capazes de trazer outra era de gelo.8221 No século passado, é possível documentar um aumento de cerca de 0,6C na temperatura média global entre 1880 E 1940 e uma queda subseqüente da temperatura por aproximadamente 0.3C desde 1940. Nas regiões polares ao norte da latitude 70 a diminuição na temperatura na última década sozinha foi aproximadamente 1C, diversas vezes mais grande do que a diminuição média global. Até agora, as mudanças climáticas passadas (exceto, possivelmente, aquelas das últimas décadas de temperaturas de resfriamento) dificilmente poderiam ter sido causadas por atividades do homem.8221 8220Não é claro como tais condições favoráveis e relativamente consistentes estão relacionadas com as temperaturas mais altas neste século Ou o pico de temperaturas em torno de 1940. A reversão desta tendência de aquecimento, no entanto, poderia marcar o início de uma nova era glacial, como alguns climatologistas indicaram. Deve-se notar, no entanto, que mesmo se estamos de fato caminhando para outra era glacial, decorrerão muitos anos ou décadas antes que isso se torne evidente8221. 8220 Ao contrário de alguns outros poluentes introduzidos na atmosfera pelo homem, o dióxido de carbono é natural e não - tóxico. O efeito directo de concentrações aumentadas pode ser benéfico nomeadamente porque ele tenderá a aumentar a taxa de fotossíntese nas plantas. Por outro lado, pode haver efeitos deletérios por sua influência sobre o clima, mas isso ainda não está comprovado e não podemos ter certeza se, em uma escala global, será no geral prejudicial ou benéfico. 8230 O problema da determinação do efeito do aumento do dióxido de carbono sobre o clima é difícil, tanto mais que há alguns aspectos essenciais da base física do clima que não são bem compreendidos8221. 8220As condições anormais climáticas recentes dos anos 70 revelaram a possibilidade de que aberrações significativas No clima global têm e estão ocorrendo com sérias conseqüências. A década de 1970 verificou uma variabilidade geral geralmente maior e instabilidade do clima global. Regiões na Ásia, América Central e África testemunharam uma maior freqüência de falhas de monção que levou a uma prevalência de severas condições de seca e uma extensão dos limites do deserto. Considerando que em outras partes do globo, grave inundação foi registrado. 8230 Registros de climas passados indicaram que uma maior variabilidade do clima é geralmente sinônimo de uma grande tendência de resfriamento das temperaturas.8221 Conclusões: 8220O cenário de um globo de aquecimento de CO2 contém muitas incertezas. O aquecimento da atmosfera não é um fato estabelecido, e mesmo se fosse, não pode ser necessário invocar o aumento do CO2 atmosférico ou outros gases como a causa quando esses aquecimento fizeram parte da nossa série temporal de temperatura historicamente. 196869 as frentes de geleira avançaram até 158 m após uma recessão climática marcada arrefecimento durante os anos 1960 e início de 1970.8221 8220 Um novo regime de insolação glacial, que deverá durar 8000 anos, começou recentemente. As temperaturas globais médias podem eventualmente cair cerca de 1 o C nos próximos cem anos.8221 8220 Entre 1000 e 1300 temperaturas médias no Verão do Árctico foram cerca de 1C mais elevadas do que hoje, com a temperatura média anual mais elevada talvez 4C num Árctico em grande parte isento de gelo. 8230 Entre 1900 e 1940, os ganhos de temperatura mais impressionantes ocorreram no inverno ártico8230, com uma subida média de mais de 8C mantendo seus mares livres de gelo durante sete meses do ano em vez de apenas três meses menos do que um século antes. 8230 Desde 1958, o transporte de calor reduzido através dos sectores do ar quente das depressões permitiu um aumento do pacote de gelo do norte e leste da Islândia para uma condição comparável com a década de 1880, e Polar Bears Thalarctos maritimus foram capazes de atravessar da Gronelândia para A primeira vez por meio século (Marshall, 1968). Essa recaída do calor continuou na década de 1970, com um inverno, 196263, como devastador sobre o Midlands Inglês e para o sul como qualquer coisa experimentada desde 1740 (Manley nd Lamb 1966, Booth 1968). As pessoas perguntaram se estávamos no limiar de outra longa recessão climática8221. 8220Os registros de temperatura superficial artificial foram compilados para grandes porções do globo durante os últimos 100 anos (Mitchell, 1961, Budyko, 1969). Eles mostram que a temperatura média anual do Hemisfério Norte aumentou cerca de 1C de 1880 para cerca de 1940 e caiu cerca de 0,5 C desde então. 8230 A mudança climática pode ser uma característica interna natural do sistema terrestre-oceânico-clima (clima). 8230 Três testes foram realizados testando os efeitos antropogênicos do CO2, aerossóis e calor. 8230 Poderíamos somar os efeitos antropogênicos para cada região, o que não mostraria quase nenhum efeito no NH e aquecimento na SH. 8230 Uma vez que as magnitudes dos efeitos são pequenas e podem ser canceladas, não se pode concluir que essas altas correlações mostrem que o homem produziu mudanças climáticas.8221 8220Um número apreciável de estações não urbanas nos Estados Unidos e no Canadá foram identificadas com significância estatística ( No nível de 90) tendências decrescentes na faixa de temperatura diurna média mensal entre 194180.8221 8220No presente, o desequilíbrio é pensado para corresponder a um resfriamento natural do oceano, o que levará à Idade do Gelo seguinte. 8220 8220 Em particular, a detecção de um antropogênico Influência através da análise estatística sozinho requer um longo prazo de dados de boa qualidade e atenção cuidadosa às medidas de significância. É mais importante evitar a falácia pós-hoc ergo propter hoc que uma tendência de alguns anos 8217 duração ou menos, após alguma mudança nas atividades humanas, pode ser atribuída a essa mudança, mesmo quando não há uma relação causal física sadia. A quantidade de gelo de vários anos em mares árticos durante a corrente de arrefecimento atual. O limite sul de gelo velho estava a 100 milhas mais a sul a oeste da divisão e até 100 milhas mais a norte a leste. A importância dessas mudanças no que diz respeito às condições de navegação é autoconfiante.8221 8220 A preocupação com a vulnerabilidade de um mundo fortemente povoado às flutuações climáticas que afetam as colheitas eo abastecimento mundial de alimentos surgiu recentemente. Esta preocupação tem sido estimulada por padrões climáticos anormais, começando com os invernos mais frios da Europa e da América do Norte nos anos 60, com as falhas e secas da monção nas terras soviéticas e chinesas naquela década e desde então ea seca que continuou por muitos anos África e trouxe o caos ao Sahel e à Etiópia. Mas, apesar da revolução informática na meteorologia, nenhuma teoria geralmente aceita de mudança climática para informar o futuro existe nessa época.8221 8220 O aumento medido no dióxido de carbono na atmosfera, de acordo com os cálculos mais recentes, não seria suficiente para ter qualquer Efeito climático mensurável.8221 ESQUEMAS ESPECÍFICOS PARA A MODIFICAÇÃO DO CLIMA Ice Free Arctic Ocean A maior empresa de escala que foi discutida é a de transformar o Ártico em um oceano livre de gelo. Barragem do Estreito de Bering A idéia básica é aumentar o influxo de água quente do Atlântico parando ou forno reverter o fluxo norte atual de água mais fria através do Estreito de Bering. Desviando a Corrente de Kuroshio Foi proposto que a boca estreita do Estreito de Tatarsk seja bloqueada por uma válvula 8220 de água gigante8221 para aumentar o influxo quente para o Mar de Okhotsk e reduzir o gelo de inverno lá. 8220Evidência derivada do registro de temperatura cuidadosamente selecionado em Eau Claire, Michigan e de dados de radiossonda em Um retorno às características de temperatura e circulação do início e meados do século 19 no leste dos Estados Unidos pode estar em andamento. 8230 Todos os 3 meses mostram quedas de temperatura desde a altura do clima ótimo recente durante a década de 1930. As temperaturas de julho diminuíram aproximadamente 3.5F desde as décadas que começam com os 1930s adiantados, e as temperaturas de agosto diminuíram aproximadamente 3F desde as décadas que começam com os 1930s atrasados e os 1940s adiantados. Ecologia global: Leitura para uma estratégia racional para o homem pgs. 76,77 8220A empurrão final na direcção de arrefecimento provém de alterações provocadas pelo homem na reflectividade directa da superfície terrestre (albedo) através da urbanização, desflorestação e alargamento dos desertos. Os efeitos de uma nova era glacial na agricultura e a capacidade de suporte de grandes populações humanas dificilmente precisam de ser elaborados aqui. Resultados ainda mais dramáticos são possíveis, entretanto, por exemplo, um súbito afundamento na calota do gelo da Antártida, induzido pelo peso adicional, poderia gerar uma onda de proporções sem precedentes na história registrada.8221 8220 A circulação em larga escala da atmosfera durante a corrente Década atrás produziu padrões que nunca haviam sido vistos no início deste século, mas que parecem representar a recorrência de um regime que prevaleceu por longos períodos antes de 1895. 8230 Nessa evidência, algo como o regime climático dos anos 1960 deve provavelmente ser Esperado para persistir até o fim do século ou além 8221 8220Estimates das mudanças de temperatura atmosféricas devido a uma duplicação de concentração de CO2 têm de ser com um modelo padrão de fluxo radiativo. Elas produzem mudanças de temperatura de gt0,25 K. Parece que as mudanças muito maiores previstas por outros modelos resultam de vapor de água adicional evaporado na atmosfera e não do próprio CO2. 8230 É importante ressaltar que o CO2 não é o principal componente envolvido na transferência de infravermelho. O vapor de água desempenha o papel principal e o ozônio também é importante.8221 8220No período de 1880 a 1940, a temperatura média da Terra aumentou cerca de 0,6C de 1940 a 1970, diminuiu 0,3-0,4C. Localmente, mudanças de temperatura tão grandes como 3-4C por década foram registradas, especialmente em regiões sub-polares. 8230 A queda na temperatura da terra desde 1940 foi acompanhada por um aumento substancial no vulcanismo natural. O efeito de tal atividade vulcânica é provavelmente maior do que o efeito de poluentes artificiais. Em 1970, Mitchell declarou que no final da década de 1960 as temperaturas globais tinham caído 0,3C do pico na década de 1940, aproximadamente a metade da subida anterior. 8230 Resumos de Schneider e Dickenson, Kalnicky, Robuck, Roberts e Agee relatam que as temperaturas no Hemisfério Norte diminuem em pelo menos 0,5C desde a década de 1940. Em resumo, Gribbin afirma que, em termos mundiais, estamos em uma situação em que a terra está esfriando mais rapidamente do que aqueceu no começo deste século.8217 Dito acima, é claro que o consenso geral na literatura recente é que houve um Refrigeração no Hemisfério Norte desde o início da década de 1940.8221 Sobre a questão da radiação de dióxido de carbono na atmosfera 8220A dependência da radiação de calor atmosférico sobre os teores de CO2 e H2O e também sobre a distribuição vertical de temperatura é investigada com a ajuda da carta de radiação. Mostra-se que a radiação de calor da atmosfera quase não depende das variações do teor de dióxido de carbono na atmosfera.8221 8220 A melhoria climática da década de 19308217s, como era esperado, deu lugar a uma tendência mais fria na década de 19508217 e 19608217s 8230 Dunbar (1976, p. 190) writes that he finds it 8220difficult to believe that either Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, water vapour, freon, or any other substance produced by man8217s efforts is going to compete seriously with Nature in changing our climate8221. 8230 Heino8217s diagrams illustrate the exceptional nature of the climatic improvement experienced in the 19308217s, but they also show clearly the slow deterioration which set in in the 19508217s. The 19608217s constituted climatically a rather unfavourable decade from man8217s point of view8221 8220Lamb (1966) had already suggested that it appears likely that we have passed the height of the warming episode in the first half of this century and are now reverting to a pattern characterized by lower zonal flow and intensification of the troughridge systems, essentially a reestablishment of the climatic character of the last century.8221 FIFTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF TIMELY IMPORTANCE WEATHER MODIFICATION BY CHANGING CO2 CONTENT OF ATMOSPHERE p. 48 Item: American Scientist . January-February 1970, p. 18, 82208216Though dire effects on climate of an increase in CO2 have been predicted, they are far from being established. The cycle is not really understood carbon dioxide may well prove to be the least objectionable or the only beneficial addition to the atmosphere from industrial sources8221 152 responses to 8220Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-821780s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific 8216Consensus82178221 P Gosselin 13. September 2016 at 3:18 PM Permalink No wonder they call him 8220Winston8221 8211 straight out of George Orwell. Thanks, Kenneth, for this outstanding effort This likely has implications for Gavin Schmidt and his simultaneous efforts to remove the early 20th century warm spell and the cooler mid 20th century cold spell. Obviously Connelly8217s department is next door to Gavin8217s. BTW, I numbered the publications in the list and the amount is over 300 papers caitie 14. September 2016 at 9:32 AM Permalink apparently the outstanding effort is as simple as a basic literature review, to pick out papers with small datasets, and large errorbars. That, of course, is par for the course for any research student, but apparently you think it8217s a significant and meaningful effort 8211 its not. What do you think is identified here are you unaware of the actual scientific method, how and why it is used I find that baffling. While you8217re busy fawning over nothing more than early literature, you probably dont notice that exactly this happens all over the place 8211 in fact it wasnt so long ago we thought the universe was 17 billion years old 8211 then 12, then 14, and 13. Gossy, this is actually how science works. Honestly, it is. the size of the error bars are inversely proportional to the sqaure root of the number of data points 8211 the literature above 8211 has very small N. Literature now, has much more complete dataset. I appreciate I used a lot of big words and concepts there 8211 but I also appreciate you dont know what they are, and you probably should. you8217re in the 21st century, you dont really have much of an excuse to be ignorant of this stuff any more. 8220the amount is over 3008221 8211 of course, the relevant metric here is the size of the data contributing to the analysis, not the number of analises, but clearly you8217re ignorant of, or not able to understand what science is, and how it works. good luck finding out 8211 rest assured, you8217re not alone, and I gather that you knowing you8217re not isolated in your ignorance somehow validates it for you 8211 it doesnt. you8217re still ignorant. Bitteramptwisted 14. September 2016 at 10:39 AM Permalink I take it you8217re a believer in AGW The quasi-religious zeal shines through. caitie 14. September 2016 at 11:20 AM Permalink I believe where the fact point BampT. and I dont get my 8220facts8221 from blogs, people who are mathematically incompetent, or scientifically illiterate. If I8217m unable to access the facts, then of course, I8217m unable to comment. By demanding facts, I exclude input from politicians, blogs, self-published nonsense and angry wounded ranty posters on said blogs. Incidentally: An adult would understand the application of religion here 8211 a religion being 8216the worship of a god or supernatural process 8211 often a creator8221 is a rather juvenile slur 8211 so it8217s not worth commenting on much further, but I acknowledge your need to demonize science when it offends your personal views (such as global warming in 2010 substantial dataset) or applaud when it supports them (such as global cooling in 19708217s relatively much smaller dataset). Given people vastly more qualified than you and I dare to entertain a conclusion on AGW that is so very opposite to yours (vastly less qualified) means that it does, im sure you can understand that I would take their conclusions with a much smaller grain of salt than I would your (vastly less qualified) conclusions. Contrary to the substance of this blog 8211 I also understand that science is a self-correcting process, and indeed, conclusions change as morebetter datamodelsinformation are acquired 8211 this seems to be an aspect that has escaped the notice of the author of this article, and many posters on it. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:45 PM Permalink 8220I don8217t get my facts people who are mathematically incompetent, or scientifically illiterate8221 so. no thoughts of your own, is that what you are telling us. From your comments I doubt you know even the very basics of anything to do with science. Your first words. 8220I believe82218230. SO WHAT. Waiting with baited breathe for your next load of meaningless, zero-science ranting. Its all you seem to have. caitie 14. September 2016 at 2:56 PM Permalink Hi andy, 8220so no thoughts of your own8221 8211 no, I dont make up facts on my own. Do you Why on earth do you think it8217s appropriate to make up facts on your own how dishonest is that My first words 8220I believe8230 8221 yes, andy, this is because the question from BampT was 8220I take it youre a believer in AGW8221 Obviously then, he was asking me to respond in the context of my beliefs. It8217s interesting you take offence to me answering the question asked, but I sense there is a lot of irrational anger here, from some 8211 and that8217s fine, if a little bewildering. I enjoy seeing this expression you8217ve adopted 8220your zero-science ranting8221. Is this where I point out that you8217re perfectly happy to adopt 8220science8221 where the results are consistent with what seems to be nothing more substantive than your personal preferences, and reject science that does not Anyone else would call that cherry picking 8211 to be honest, I call it that too 8211 though in your case there are additional words I would select 8211 hypocritical, intellectually bereft, and simply downright dishonest. None of this has much to do with personal opinion Andy 8211 you do reject science that disagrees with you, and you accept it when it does 8211 and you do that in defiance of the obvious and actually rather normal scientific and mathematical formalisms generally used in science. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:56 PM Permalink You are good at these empty banal posts, your stock in trade. so it seems, all you have.. But you show a very low level of actual understanding about anything to do with science or statistics. You have produced and continue to produce, meaningless rantings devoid of anything to do with either. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:58 PM Permalink YAWN. what a pointless load of meaningless garbage you are spewing. Empty zero-science rants is all you seem to have.. That low-end arts fail isn8217t helping you, is it, dearie. Bill 15. September 2016 at 12:50 PM Permalink I am not a scientist I have read papers and article on both sides and I have questions on the science. If you find that questionable how come they sell CO2 generators for greenhouses That 1500ppm is optimal for plant growth With 30 more plant growth. johnsongasindustrialCO2Gen. asp fifthseasongardeningregulating-carbon-dioxide How come Venus has 97 CO2 atmosphere and and Mars is 96 CO2 and one is cold and one is hot(besides Venus being closer to the sun) BTW Venus8217s greenhouse was caused by the magnetic field failing and the ocean8217s vaporizing. The water vapor caused the greenhouse run away baking the CO2 out of the rocks. youtu. bec6K2ibg-Wb0 The 97 myth. How come it isn8217t reported that out of thousands of scientists polled on global warming, only 79 responded and only 77 said man made global warming is real 77 scientist is not a majority. wsjarticlesSB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 nightspore 21. September 2016 at 9:09 PM Permalink And people vastly more competent than them have also questioned it 8211 including some of the greatest physicists in the world (Dyson, Zichichi, Giavar, etc.) I8217d say your self-annointedness is showing. swordfish 14. September 2016 at 1:56 PM Permalink 1) You need to go back and read this post again as you seem to have completely misunderstood it. Contrary to what you appear to think, it isn8217t claiming that global warming isn8217t happening because 285 papers were published examining global cooling, it8217s specifically arguing against a paper by William Connely which pretended to find only 7 global cooling papers. The points you make about number of datapoints and so on are actually irrelevant, as is the point that science is (supposedly) self-correcting. These are just 8216taking points8217 (as alarmists always say). 2) Why do you insist on adopting a very specific arrogant and insulting tone in your comments I realise that all alarmists do it but it8217s obviously not helping your cause, so: why do it yonason 15. September 2016 at 9:19 PM Permalink David Johnson 14. September 2016 at 10:41 PM Permalink You8217ve just demonstrated you are an oaf, well done. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Dushanbe 20. September 2016 at 4:21 AM Permalink Caitie the Competent The size of the data set is not the only guide to the truth. One perfect data point with no uncertainty in the hand is worth a hundred uncertain data points in the bush. N is not the only consideration. Uncertainty for each N pads the error bars. Too much book-learning methinks. You sound like the scholar who read chapter one correcting the professor who wrote the textbook. garyh845 14. September 2016 at 6:00 PM Permalink In addition 8211 8220This likely has helpful implications for. 8220ExxonMobil. P van Toorn 13. September 2016 at 4:37 PM Permalink It is an impressive literature list, although I am not surprised it can be made. I remember that in late 608217s and early 708217s when I was a physics student, climate was an important topic in the MSM media. Journalists covering science were writing articles about the cooling of the climate. We were heading for an ice age. I would not be surprised that an analysis of the science articles in the MSM papers from 608217s and 708217s would also show that a main worry was the cooling of the climate. It is ironic (sad) that the same MSM papers are now telling us the opposite. You can hide the truth within Wikipedia and MSM media, but not forever in science. Reasonable Skeptic 13. September 2016 at 4:49 PM Permalink I would like to highlight this bit: 8220A change of 2-3 F. in average temperature would have an enormous impact. A number of meteorological experts are thinking in terms of a return to a climate like that of the 19th century. 8221 As we can see, in 1974, it was understood, one might even say there was a consensus view, that climate change was natural and changes could be quite dramatic, in the order of 2-3 deg. F per century. Ed Caryl 13. September 2016 at 5:30 PM Permalink 8220The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history. For more than 45 years, Holdren and Ehrlich have been shouting 8220fire8221 in every theatre they can find Why have they not been institutionalized long ago sod 13. September 2016 at 6:14 PM Permalink Count me unconvinced. What is the evidence here a couple of cherrypicked phrases It is obvious, that the real subject are papers claiming more cooling (or warming) and not papers talking about what has happened (some pretty minor cooling). It is also important, whether the reasons given for the cooling make sense or if they do not. Do people here really not understand, how a theory works Well there8217s also that US documentary voiced by that Spock actor. Leonard Nimoy. About the Global cooling expected by scientists. Including one Stephen Schneider. You find it on youtube. Only brainwashed German dimwits don8217t know it. You8217ve been educated by idiots and liars, sod. P Gosselin 13. September 2016 at 10:29 PM Permalink Let8217s not forget feature stories in Newsweek, Spiegel and Time8230all crowing consensus. Spiegel warned in 1974 that there was only a 1 in 10,000 chance of warming ahead. And Science News That was what got my attention. See below. P Gosselin 13. September 2016 at 10:32 PM Permalink tom0mason 13. September 2016 at 10:10 PM Permalink 8220Do people here really not understand, how a theory works8221 Yes, you use billions of other people8217s money, advertising that the 8216science is settled8217, pay for research that conforms the theory, and re-edit all historical sources to make it appear so. Governments love it, as it gives them more money, more power, and more perceived global influence. It may come as a surprise to you Sod but some of us were alive in the 1960 when this very real event happened. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:12 AM Permalink tomo 8211 you simply confirmed what sod implied. you dont know how the scientific method works 8211 science is self correcting 8211 that means that early results are iteratively refined as new data and new analysis comes in. Many of these papers are perhaps, 40 years old 8211 I was not alive at the time of course, but I8217d be suprised to learn many goverements were claiming the science was settled. In fact, I think your saying so is a disingenuous fib, but feel free to show me say, a handful of governments that said anything like it, 40 years ago. So we can speculate 8211 pending your further data 8211 that you are likely to have fibbed about what governments said 40 years ago, and that as you8217re apparently unaware that trend analises have errorbars proportional to some nonlinear function of the size of the dataset, that you8217re also unable to comprehend comments made where N is small are demonstrably error prone. You might well have been alive when it happened, and that gives you less of an excuse to have failed to inform yourself on the basic operation of science and error propagation since then 8211 unless of course, the brain has addled somewhat. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:51 PM Permalink You make it VERY obvious that it is you who has a failed arts student8217s view of how science works. You remain UN-educated. Still waiting for you produce something, anything that shows you proceeded past junior high maths and science. All you show is very low-end understanding of either, the sort of understanding they teach in humanities and arts basic maths courses8230 words, without comprehension or understanding. Understanding sarcasm isn8217t your strength either, it seems. The Rev. Dr. Chuck Roast 15. September 2016 at 12:14 AM Permalink Let8217s clear something up here that you8217re busy obfuscating with your nasty little tone 8230 The Scientific METHOD is 8211 the the best of our ability 8211 dispassionate and fact-based. ScientISTS and the whole business of science are NOT 8211 not by a long shot. Something as simple as deciding who the PI (Principal Investigator) is going to be or deciding which proposals get funding and which ones do not are ENTIRELY political, subjective, and full of agenda, bias, etc. There is a huge bias in the scientific community for the status quo. People8217s careers, credibility, position, prestige, and all the rest hinge on preserving that status quo. It is entirely possible 8211 in fact, quite likely 8211 that if new science appears that threatens that status quo, it will be squelched, suppressed, ignored, or just plain not funded. That is why it is famously said, 8220Funeral by funeral, science progresses.8221 So please do quit pretending that science as practised is this unimpeachable oracle of truth. The techniques are valuable but there are as good or bad as the bureaucracy that wields them. There is ample evidence 8211 and there has been for years 8211 of suppression of contrary views (see Ballings and Michaels8217 8220The Satanic Gasses8221 for a number of ugly examples), questionable methodology, jiggering the data, overselling the results, and so on to absolutely justify a healthy skepticism of the AGWCC dogma. More to the point, you are the one exhibiting religious zeal here when you express this boundless trust in a system that you apparently barely understand. Go do real research (I have 8211 many years ago) and get back to us with just how dispassionate the whole process actually is from tip to tail. In the mean time, you might manage to find a civil tone and stop being an ass to strangers because they are asking fair questions8230 tom0mason 15. September 2016 at 1:23 AM Permalink Let me spell it out as you seem to miss the point. 1. These days billions is pumped into this AGW-Climate Change industry via government initiatives at the behest of the unelected elites of the UN. This is certainly not good for science (who pays the piper calls the tune), or the rest of us as we all foot the bill. We are currently paying for an expensive and unproven theory. 2. 40 years ago the fear of a global cool down was real and widely reported. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Dushanbe 20. September 2016 at 4:41 AM Permalink I nominate Caitie as a perfect data point about which there is no uncertainty. If another one comes along we can establish a trend. Caitie, two perfect data points can be used to confidently describe a trend. That is how science 8216works8217. It is also how expertise is demonstrated. Before you were born we put men on the moon and at the bottom of the ocean and brought them back. It was done with very few N8217s. There was a global cooling scare on the run for years and remarkably the names of the shrill and the clamorous are the same as those we hear today. Literally. Doubling CO2, which is not technically feasible, might increase the global temperature by 0.25 C. The hobgoblin of global warming is a pipsqueak. Arsten 13. September 2016 at 10:20 PM Permalink In other words, you don8217t bother reading any of these beyond statements taken from them and presented AndyG55 13. September 2016 at 10:50 PM Permalink 8220(some pretty minor cooling). 8221 As opposed to some pretty minor warming from El Ninos, hey. The cooling on the top graph looks like about 0.4C in 30 years. Where as the whole warming (much fabricated) in the fraudulent giss graph is about 1.1C in 120 year (a lesser rate) Reasonable Skeptic 13. September 2016 at 10:58 PM Permalink 8220It is also important, whether the reasons given for the cooling make sense or if they do not. Do people here really not understand, how a theory works8221 Ahh, but there was no cooling. Scientists from that time period were mislead by surface data that was not properly corrected for bias8230. Well either that or todays scientists have hidden the cooling that actually did take place by introducing biased processes within the homogenization process. It is one or the other. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:29 AM Permalink of course, a little more intelligent thought would probably lead you to a more sane conclusion that doesn8217t involve some monumental conspiracy led by those INCREDIBLY wealthy research scientists (cos, you know, they are much more wealthy than the fossil fuelpetroleumautomotive industry right). RS, with a dataset of say, 10 datapoints revals some trends, the errors are monumental 8211 but you can still find a linear trend. What you think that trend might mean is speculation with in the errors of the fit. Now, coming back to that same dataset with something like 10 times the amount of data 8211 the trend analysis result is going to be DIFFERENT. There is no hiding of data, the data are still there 8211 they8217re even still in the analysis 8211 they are just LESS significant in the context of the data, beacuse there are simply more data points. It also means that the accuracy of the fit has improved. Put another way RS 8211 you would have to be seriously ignorant of basic statistics to expect a trend analysis to be replicated EXACTLY between two datasets, where the second dataset is so much larger than the first. It8217s both idiotic and ignorant to pretend that the reason a result from a trend analysis of two datasets, one much larger than (but including) the other is a consequence of someone hiding data. sods point is perfectly valid 8211 do you really not know how science (and statistics, much less basic trend analysis ) works I8217d go further 8211 since its clear you dont know 8211 why dont you find out Sit down, get some data. do a trend analysis yourself 8211 heck, use any data you like 8211 Informed comments matter 8211 ignorant ones dont. 8220of course, a little more intelligent thought would probably lead you to a more sane conclusion that doesnt involve some monumental conspiracy led by those INCREDIBLY wealthy research scientists (cos, you know, they are much more wealthy than the fossil fuelpetroleumautomotive industry right).8221 Well caitie, maths doesn8217t seem to be your strength either. Do you actually believe the idiot climate scientists can forecast a chaotic system 100 years into the future Has it not occured to you that that branch of science has DISCOVERED NOTHING and is just a bunch of hot air For your education, Miss arrogant: youtubewatchv19q1i-wAUpY Tom T 15. September 2016 at 8:02 AM Permalink You keep saying we have more data. No we dont. The number of stations and data points have decreased dramatically since the cold war. tom0mason 15. September 2016 at 5:35 PM Permalink This is illogical BS. Please go to remedial reading class and learn to understand what has been written above. The number of data points are indeed important when attempting to estimate the likely trend if a chaotic system where all the parameters are not known (and unknowable with the present regime), and the interactions, feedbacks, and all determinants causing the interactions and feedbacks to vary are not known. In fact it is just guesswork. If not explain these few important climate using observed data only. (No models) What are all the features that constitute all types of cloud What are all the conditions that causes all types of clouds to happen What governs how long all types of clouds last and what are the determining factors governing how and when all types of clouds to dissipate Failing this just list the first 100 key features of clouds. Explain which governs this planets climate conditions more 8211 sea and ocean conditions, or solar radiation What causes the upper atmosphere temperature inversion. Cite only observed data to prove your response. What are all the effects of plankton on climate Why are historic records of trees better at recording rainfall than temperature Prove this statement correct or not (your choice) citing only observed evidence (no models). Why does Professor Wood8217s greenhouse experiment always work as advertised Crispin in Waterloo but really in Dushanbe 20. September 2016 at 5:00 AM Permalink Caitie we are trying to locate your strengths to encourage you in the right direction. Stop making it difficult. Take a sine wave. Any frequency. Pick two points on the wave more than one wavelength apart. Plot the trend. Pick two points on the wave less that one wavelength apart. Plot the trend. Repeat the exercise using a large number of data points between the two end points. As many as you like. Calculate the trends. Explain the difference between the two trends, if any. Repeat the latter (shorter) exercise for a part-wave selecting a data set of the same length but a different starting point. Calculate the trend. Explain the differences between all the trend lines. Next, using logic, not stats, prove that the climate as we have measured it so far, is best described by which of these three trend lines. Ponder whether or not we have enough measurements to be sure we can express with confidence the warming influence of AG CO2 or the cooling influence of AG airborne particulates. nightspore 21. September 2016 at 9:13 PM Permalink You8217re creating your own strawman and then puncturing it. Ultimately it8217s not about wealth it8217s about defending a worldview. AGW is made to order for the leftish bien pensant. The ultimate justification of their little world-views. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:49 AM Permalink No, the data is not hidden, it just becomes less statistically significant as the size of the data set increases 8211 put another way the formal statistical weights of each datapoint in the ensemble decreases as the inverse of the square of the size of the dataset (for a single datapoint in an ensemble of N points, the statistical weight goes as 1N. Nothing sinister, just basic math, but its fascinating to see how many people conflate bad understanding of statistics with a global conspiracy. Really rather breathtaking. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:07 PM Permalink Oh dear, still the low-level understanding of basic data. And did you know that there is very much LESS surface temperature data available now than there was in the 19808217s So you have proven AGAINST your own point, even though your understanding of the real statistical basis of multiple data collection is obviously very much beyond you. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:13 PM Permalink Did you know that the number of surface temperature stations was at its peak in the 19708217s, and that there are now less than 18 the number of reporting station Or is that yet another point of ignorance Did you know that the actual quality of many of the current reporting station is of an extremely low level, with airports, air-conditioners, tarmac surfaces abounding Another point of your ignorance, I8217m guessing. Did you know that just a bit less than half of current data in GISS is marked with an 8220E8221 for 8220estimate8221. não. Is there ANYTHING you do know. caitie 14. September 2016 at 3:58 PM Permalink 8220Did you know that the number of surface temperature stations was at its peak in the 1970s, and that there are now less than 18 the number of reporting station8221 so Add the total amount of data available then, to the total number of data available now (which includes data available then), and you will wind up with a larger number. You dont know that adding two positive numbers gives you another postive number greater than either of the two original values 8220Did you know that the actual quality of many of the current reporting station is of an extremely low level8230blahblah8221 so the 8220actual quality of data8221 is reflected in the errors. So what 8220Did you know that just a bit less than half of current data in GISS is marked with an E for estimate8221 EVERY SINGLE measurement is an 8220E8221 for estimate at some level. Some are interpolated from temporally-nearby data, and some are derived from other processes. So what Andy 8211 this is how you do science. It8217s HOW science is done - you build a data set 8211 it might not even be a direct observable. You conduct statistics, and you ESTIMATE the answer that is consistent with the input datasets. So what Andy. lol 8211 this is hilarious 8211 andy, hun, this is how it8217s done okay Really, it is. In any science. Cope, okay really, cope. P Gosselin 14. September 2016 at 5:28 PM Permalink You seem to have gotten the idea that this blog has become your forum in which to pretend you8217re an expert and to spout off and insult everybody. You8217re allowed to make comments here but in the spirit of a respectful dialogue. You8217re sophomoric, condescending has reached its limit. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:43 PM Permalink Poor little thing, double down on your own ignorance and stupidity. That is how you cope. You have nothing to offer of any relevance to anything to do with maths or science. Just idiotic bluster to cover up your lack of knowledge and understanding. You have NOTHING. Your rhetoric is EMPTY. yonason 14. September 2016 at 7:44 PM Permalink 82208230it might not even be a direct observable.8221 8211 caitie (sod on steroids) With warmunists, it rarely is. ) Here8217s how science is really done, when one is doing it correctly, that is. youtubewatchvGmc5w2I-FCA (NOTE 8211 early on he addresses the very topic of Pierre8217s post, coming to the same conclusion, the rest it addressing the MAJOR flaws in the warming narrative.) 8220Informed comments matter ignorant ones dont.8221 8211 caitie (sod on drugs steroids) Which is why yours don8217t. tmorgan 14. September 2016 at 8:19 PM Permalink I8217m seeking clarification of a point made by catie. I welcome answers from all participants, but would like to hear from catie regarding her understanding of acceptable ways to acquire a data set. I have a Bachelor8217s in Biology and graduated summa cum laude so I think I have a solid basic grasp of how science is supposed to be conducted. My degree was decades ago and I what I am reading here concerns me that science standards have changed dramatically since then. Specifically, I learned that the only valid way to acquire data is to collect it from observation. Increasing your sample size by fabricating data points invalided your results, so much so that if you were caught doing so was an automatic F for that assignment (at the very least). Catie seems to be saying that it is now an acceptable standardized practice to round out a data set by estimating the values of additional data points based on the data points that you actually have. Her comments seem to suggest that this new approach has been made canonical, at least in some fields. She seems to be saying that she understands all science to be done by collecting some then guessing what the rest of the data is. Is this true If so, how widespread is this new approach I cannot see the value in such an approach. If there is value, perhaps someone could explain it. tmorgan 14. September 2016 at 8:22 PM Permalink I8217m seeking clarification of a point made by catie. I welcome answers from all participants, but would like to hear from catie regarding her understanding of acceptable ways to acquire a data set. I have a Bachelor8217s in Biology and graduated summa cum laude so I think I have a solid basic grasp of how science is supposed to be conducted. My degree was decades ago and I what I am reading here concerns me that science standards have changed dramatically since then. Specifically, I learned that the only valid way to acquire data is to collect it from observation. Increasing your sample size by fabricating data points invalided your results, so much so that if you were caught doing so was an automatic F for that assignment (at the very least). Catie seems to be saying that it is now an acceptable standardized practice to round out a data set by estimating the values of additional data points based on the data points that you actually have. Her comments seem to suggest that this new approach has been made canonical, at least in some fields. She seems to be saying that she understands all science to be done by collecting some then guessing what the rest of the data is. Is this true If so, how widespread is this new approach I cannot see the value in such an approach. If there is value, perhaps someone could explain it. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 9:10 PM Permalink 8220Is this true If so, how widespread is this new approach8221 It is certainly widespread in climate science. The surface data is actually incredibly sparse in huge regions of the world. Even then, some 40-45 of stations don8217t report regularly. And as surface station studies have show, many stations (even in the USA) are often of extremely low quality, goodness knows how bad some of the data from developing and undeveloped countries is. As such, somewhere over 70 of the land surface has inadequate covered, the rest is just 8220made up8221 by those doing everything they can to push the AGW. Hence we get the laughing stock that is GISS But this is acceptable and quite valuable to alarmists, because the fabricated data can do whatever the fabricators want it to do. They even feel the need to continually keep changing past data, to the stage where GISS is basically a meaningless straight line. But it is in no way has any resemblance to science or reality. yonason 14. September 2016 at 9:59 PM Permalink 8220Is this true If so, how widespread is this new approach78221 The video I included will answer some of your questions, as it deals with what climate data is appropriate, and what isn8217t. Climate science today appears to be a mess, at least as controlled by the warmist gatekeepers. tmorgan 15. September 2016 at 12:35 AM Permalink I am nearly speechless. I knew there was probably some bungling going on with adjustments to thermometer records due to siting and other problems. But I didn8217t realize credentialed scientists were performing and teaching a scientific method that accepts data fabrication as valid. I can8217t imagine how such a state of affairs came to be or how it is allowed to continue. Such ideas violate the very core of the scientific method. kuhnkat 15. September 2016 at 1:09 AM Permalink Caitie, thanks for explaining why the adjustment of large data sets is not required nor desired especially by methods that will introduce BIAS tom0mason 15. September 2016 at 1:49 AM Permalink You don8217t get it do you there is NO proof that the climate in recent years is not just natural variation. All the screwing-around with statistical numbers (not data as they are just statistical products derived from small amount of real observed data). Here8217s a lesson for you to explain 8212 Imagine one of the biggest storms ever to hit Europe, it destroys most buildings, bridges, roads and about a third of the forests in Ireland and Britain, causes floods in the low countries of Europe, kills many 10,000s of people on its passage up through Germany and beyond. But its natural variation. Less than 15 years later there comes a European winter freeze. For months rivers from Ireland to Prussia are frozen. This level of cold is very unusual but it8217s a natural variation. Less than 15 years after the freeze Europe there starts the great drought. In most of Europe there8217s no significant rain for 4 YEARS But it is natural variation. Caitie, why can I say this is natural variation Because unlike you I have some wider education, and more experience than you. So go look it up it was a real historical set of events. (Hint:Daniel Defoe may be a good place to start.) Then explain to everyone here how to differentiate natural variation from man-made AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:40 AM Permalink 8220Do people here really not understand, how a theory works8221 We all know FOR CERTAIN, that you don8217t. Stick to you Bros Grimm fairy tales about wind energy, sop, its all you have. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:20 AM Permalink Because you think wind energy is made from cow farts or do you think it gives you a headache or is the electricity generated from it, somehow. a different color that you dont like I have to admit, I8217m coming into this cold here 8211 but I hear a lot about people objecting to wind power because it makes the cows milk turn green or something. Or gives their babies a mysterious ability to rotate their heads 360 degrees. no seriously, some of this horseradish about objecting to windpower is absolutely head-desk-worthy 8211 whats the quality of yours note 8211 its okay if you8217re not comfortable to answer, I just like to maximise my LOLs by increasing the clown population in the circus. I8217m sure you understand. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:48 PM Permalink 8220I have to admit, Im coming into this cold here 8221 What you have to admit, is that you are basically ignorant. That would be the best starting point. Once you understand that, then you can start to learn. Try it sometime, instead of the meaningless garbage rants. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:22 PM Permalink Wind energy is irregular, unreliable, subsidy sucking, unable to compete on a level laying filed, and often requires a REAL energy supply system to back up the majority of the power. You need to have two supply systems, one which is inherently ineffective and irregular, and one which could be 100 reliable but is forced to operate in fits and starts to make up for the irregularities of the wind energy. In many places they are finding that even with fast start gas system they are actually adding MORE CO2 into the atmosphere because the gas systems are forced to operate inefficiently, plus of course, the amount of concrete, wire and other materials. all of which have to be manufactured using REAL power such as gas or coal creates far more CO2 than the wind turbine is ever likely to save over its short life time. But you didn8217t know any of that either, did you. ClimateOtter 14. September 2016 at 2:38 PM Permalink 8216but I hear a lot about people objecting to wind power because it makes the cows milk turn green or something. Or gives their babies a mysterious ability to rotate their heads 360 degrees..8217 You made up every single word of that to fit your ignorant biases. Want to prove people really believe what you just claimed Present links to their exact words. In the meantime, please do continue to make a fool of yourself. caitie 14. September 2016 at 2:45 PM Permalink sure otter, obviously i want people to believe that wind power turns cow milk green. That is exactly what I want. you do, at least, provide actually funny comical relief. The other comedy actors here are more tragic. ClimateOtter 14. September 2016 at 3:04 PM Permalink Wow, you chose to double-down on your own stupidity. I can see why you are laughing, you can8217t understand your own ignorance Pierre, is there a reason this 0amp is still talking on this site AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:36 PM Permalink Its own stupidity is all it has, It is unable to produce anything resembling science. caitie 14. September 2016 at 2:45 PM Permalink 8220sure otter, obviously i want people to believe that wind power turns cow milk green.8221 You8217re sure you want to debate numerical simulations Your level of discourse belongs into a SJW circus. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 8:31 PM Permalink 8220i want people to believe that wind power turns cow milk green8221 Is this what your peers are telling you Tell them to slow down on the funny pills. Seems you are living in a child8217s mind, you poor dear. David Johnson 14. September 2016 at 10:43 PM Permalink You really have no clue have you SOD. I was alive and studying the subject at grammar school. Global cooling was an established fact. You really are a complete tosser and you deserve any ad hom attack thrown at you. RoyFOMR 15. September 2016 at 2:17 AM Permalink The 60s and 70s, a period I lived through from teenager to adult, was heralded as a period of cooling and the danger of a new ice-age was certainly the scientific and popular media strapline during that period. I don8217t care how many or how few papers have been stacked up since, either for or against, I lived through that period and global cooling was perceived as a real probability and not as a fringe view but as a consensus. As Max Boyce, the Welsh comedian, was wont to say: 8220I know 8216cos I was there8221 Jamie 13. September 2016 at 8:37 PM Permalink It is the hubris of man that always brings him down. Climate science seems more like religion than a methodology. I am sure scientists were just as convinced of their arguments in the 1970s as they are now. This certainty, and lack of humility, has led to an abandonment of the scientific method in favor of name-calling and claims of 8216settled science8217 8211 an oxymoron if there ever was one. Of course the trillion dollar carbon trading floor is enough of an incentive in itself to suppress all but the desired narrative. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:41 AM Permalink 8220I am sure scientists were just as convinced of their arguments in the 1970s as they are now.8221 because you cant read the carefully-phrased conclusions in many of the articles above 8220its not clear..8221. 8220on the other hand82308221. 8220may be due to..8221 I dont interpret expessions like these as a lack of humility, but perhaps you do. Im also not sure youre really the best person to be talking about the scientific method being abandoned 8211 were you able to actually grasp the process, you8217d understand that its a collaborative and convergent process 8211 and the starting point at least, can be quite far from the actual fact. Usually the starting pionts are associated with large error bars, andof course, this blog disingenuosly wont talk about error bars (maybe it8217s to make the scientific articles appear to lack humility, I dont know). Subsequent refinements of the hypothesis hopefull reduce the error bars, and converge on the correct true answer. 8220settled science8221 refers not to the method of course, but to the body of knowledge. In the case of Global warming, one would be wiser to associate 8220settled science8221 with the fact that the planet is indeed, warming. A few mathematicall illiterate twits struggle to understand what that means, but they8217re more detritus than substance. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:57 PM Permalink 8220A few mathematically illiterate twits 8221 You being one of them. Here are some facts. Feel free to find the data that shows they are incorrect 1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino 2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015. 3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record. 4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years. 5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002 6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990. ie, a zero trend for 40 years through their biggest industrial expansion 7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino. 8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, then no warming from 2001 2015 9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower 10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010 11. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s. 12. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling 13. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016. That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those regions and time periods. There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect. The ONLY warming has come from regional El Nino and ocean circulation effects such as the PDO and AMO. Those are the facts. now let8217s see you RANT your way around them. while producing ZERO SCIENCE, like the rest of your meaningless child-minded posts. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:01 PM Permalink And 8220settled science8221. seriously. the very fact you use that wording PROVES you are scientifically ILLITERATE. You failed science and maths Junior High, I8217m guessing. 8230 but because you had a good imagination, you went onto fabricating stories in a low end gutter press somewhere. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 8:09 PM Permalink The body of 8220climate science8221 is far, far from settled, it is only in its infancy, as is your child-like mind. And like the stagnant beliefs of 8220climate science8221, your brain-washed mind has also become stagnant and fetid. TFN 13. September 2016 at 9:06 PM Permalink tom0mason 13. September 2016 at 9:58 PM Permalink William Connolley has inflected on Wikipedia and its readers a version of vanity publishing by proxy to which only a political activist with a message to get out could dedicate so such time and effort. I also note that many academics whose work goes against Connolley8217s views have been removed or entries are heavily edited (see Professor R. W. Woods entry and the reference to his greenhouse gas experiments as just a single grudging footnote.) Contrast and compare the desultory treatment that, arguably one of the greatest climatologist of our time, H. H. Lamb is subjected to, and the reverence that political activist James E. Hansen is given. How and why Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, has allowed this to happen is beyond me. They should both be ashamed of this advocacy, politically driven use of what should have been an excellent educational and reference project. Instead it is just a port of call for some dubious opinions tarnish with green politics. P Gosselin 13. September 2016 at 10:27 PM Permalink His membership in the Green Party hardly lends credibility8230 Bitteramptwisted 14. September 2016 at 10:42 AM Permalink I had the 8220pleasure8221 of working with Connolley in the mid-90s. He was an arrogant twit then, but I did not believe he was inherently corrupt. Well you live and learn. AndyG55 13. September 2016 at 10:42 PM Permalink Pierre, do you have any idea why your graphs are so blurry If I right click and open in new tab, they are fine Harry Passfield 13. September 2016 at 10:53 PM Permalink William Connolley has inflected on Wikipedia Perhaps you meant that Connolley has infected Wikipedia yonason 14. September 2016 at 1:36 AM Permalink 8220inflicted,8221 most likely tom0mason 14. September 2016 at 7:20 AM Permalink Either as you feel. Certainly my blurry-eyed proof reading had again failed. caitie 14. September 2016 at 9:26 AM Permalink apparently the people contributing to, and running this post, dont seem to have much of an idea of how science and statistics works. Trends 8211 well obviously 8211 emerge from data. Obviously, statistical trends become more accurately measured as the number of data points contributing to the ensemble increases. At the risk of educating people 8211 a simple mean value of an ensemble 8211 assuming it8217s normally distributed 8211 has a sigma that is associated with the inverse of the squareroot of the size of its population 8211 in redneck-ese, that means that as the size of the population increases, the error decreases. while N is small, the erros are large 8211 and the errors decrease rapidly with N, until N is so large that sqrt(N) Apologies for using numbers and making people think. If people posting here actually had an intellectually honest bone in their body 8211 much less something more than zero comprehension of science and math, they might have noticed that many of the comments included above, by our deliriously inept article author were carefully couched in language that tended to avoid declarations of absolute truth. Though what I think is probably the most hilarious is that, while the drooling folks here clap and stomp their feet like a infant discovering a shiny tinkly thing, its business as normal for science. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 10:21 AM Permalink Well that was an EMPTY load of twaddle. You obviously have only a very BASIC level of understanding of measurement error. Junior high stats. But keep going. funny to watch. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:33 AM Permalink yes I agree 8211 and actually you validated my comments 8211 thanks for that. Sorry andy, the simple fact is that science is self correcting. It8217s a little amusing you8217re stomping your foot insisting that a result from 40 years ago with a vastly smaller dataset should be the same as that today But yes, I chose a simple example of error propagation 8211 and unfortunately, it wasnt simple enough for you to grasp. I cant actualyl dumb it down further 8211 you8217ve chosen to be ignorant of both science and basic stats 8211 thats not anything I can do much about, except enjoy the comedy 8211 and I do. thanks again. Feel free to build on your latest hilarity. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:53 PM Permalink Sorry that you have zero understanding about anything to do with science. You certainly started with your dumbest empty baseless zero-science rants. Keep going. its funny. All the real unadulterated data that still exists, points very much to the 19408217s being warmer than now, with a dip down to the mid-late 19708217s, 8230. and there is nothing your ignorant ranting can do about that fact. Now go back to junior high and finish you basic maths course. come back in say 10 years when you have caught up. ClimateOtter 14. September 2016 at 2:41 PM Permalink One wonders if you even have a clue that many who post here are actual scientists, and that you are basically spitting into a hurricane with your ignorant twaddle. caitie 14. September 2016 at 2:50 PM Permalink hi otter, one might. Would you wonder that too Certainly there is little evidence of it, but that doesnt mean much, scientists simply screw it up from time to time 8211 and if people like andy et al really are scientists, one might expect that in their 8220science time8221 they actually do apply the scientific method, as well as numeracy. Suffice to say that here they dont. No problem 8211 the guy heading up the genome project is staunchly religious and he simply deflects the insanity of faith while he does his research. Similarly Issac newton was a christian, but he was able to act more sanely throughout his research. There is nothing ignorant in pointing out the article here simply ignores the purpose and implementation of statistical trend analysis, which is exactly what it does. If you take issue with that, that8217s your own problem and not mine 8211 but if YOU are a scientist CO, I sincerely hope you check your error propagation correctly. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:34 PM Permalink Still waiting for you to present something that remotely represents science. Rather than empty meaningless rhetoric. yonason 14. September 2016 at 11:59 AM Permalink 8220Well that was an EMPTY load of twaddle.8221 8211 AndyG55 Sure put us in our place, didn8217t hesheitwhatever It8217s truly humbling to be in the presence of such genius. Who knew that sigma was 8220ASSOCIATED WITH the inverse of the squareroot of the size of its population8221 Here I always thought it was EQUAL TO it. Live an learn. Or maybe it8217s just that all the 8220chosen ones8221 write alike yonason 14. September 2016 at 12:57 PM Permalink variance the average of the sum of the squared deviations std dev positive square root of the variance The bigger the sample size, the smaller the std dev. What caitie seems to be saying is that the larger the sample size, the less the error. But that is NOT necessarily true, as this illustration hopefully makes clear. mathsisfunaccuracy-precision. html AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:24 PM Permalink Waiting for you to produce something resemble science.. So far you seem to be TOTALLY EMPTY of it. I was sort of certain about the basic qualitative answer the beliefs in a new ice age were damn real and comparably 8220prevailing8221 to the later global warming ones but I am immensely impressed by the hard work needed to find the papers and provide us with a possibly accurate estimate of the number of such papers. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:16 AM Permalink hehe, the comments above are LOLful. Scientists are okay when they support your pet theory. In fact, so much so that you can go and grab a bucket of them to point out how right they were and how wrong they must be now. On the other hand, scientists with more data, more understanding and more information that happen to disagree with those 40 years prior( who had less understanding, less information and less data) are 8211 of course, completely wrong. (note, one must also be ignorant of basic statistics and the scientific method, as well as lack anything resembling an intellectually honest bone in ones body, to do this) yonason 14. September 2016 at 1:39 PM Permalink caitie the sod equivalent If you think ALL of the above commenters are ignoramuses, it8217s probably because you mistakenly think that the Lubos Motl post above is by warmist fraudster John (97) Cook instead of the real deal. motls. blogspot201507identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns. html AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:03 PM Permalink 8220(note, one must also be ignorant of basic statistics and the scientific method, as well as lack anything resembling an intellectually honest bone in ones body, to do this)8221 As you are proving to everybody. Oh wait there you do have a small knowledge of very basic low-level statistics8230. but NONE of the scientific method or anything to do with science. Your dishonesty at pretending that you do is quite childish. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:16 AM Permalink Reply 8220On the other hand, scientists with more data, more understanding and more information that happen to disagree with those 40 years prior( who had less understanding, less information and less data) are of course, completely wrong.8221 You think Lamb had less understanding than the likes of Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann You seem to think younger scientists have more understanding than older scientists So show me someone who has more understanding than Gauss or Gdel. Should be easy according to your worldview. Well let8217s talk about grant-grabbing warmunist idiot scientist stand-ins some more. I have yet to see ONE analysis of power spectra in temperature data from a warmunist scientist. They either don8217t know signal processing or they don8217t want to apply it because it shows the 60 yr and 200 yr solar cycles very clearly. tom0mason 15. September 2016 at 2:30 AM Permalink Add to that list Albert Einstein (failed school teacher and patent clerk) when his first scientific papers were published. Faraday (apprentice to Sir Humphry Davy then Sir Charles Wheatstone, had no formal qualifications but was a member of the Royal Institution) Gregor J. Mendel studied philosophy at the Philosophical Institute of the University of Olmtz (Olomouc, Czech Republic), where he excelled in physics and mathematics. However his solution for a difficult life ahead of him was to enter the Augustinian Altbrnn monastery and become a monk. No real 8216science8217 qualification 8211 in the modern sense 8211 between them but thankfully back then that didn8217t matter. Note H. H.Lamb was not really 8216qualified8217 for the job either but thankfully he was the right man for the job. David Johnson 14. September 2016 at 10:45 PM Permalink You have given me lots of laughs tonight caitie14. You are quite a sad little man, or girl, I assume the 14 refers to your age, I hope. Oliver K. Manuel 14. September 2016 at 1:11 PM Permalink The Laws of Physics have replaced the Laws of God (as interpreted by the Pope), but the consequences for the public are the same ss they were after Copernicus discovered Earth moves around the Sun in 1543: The public must not be allowed to know that Earth is controlled by a Higher Power than world leaders. esalil 14. September 2016 at 2:04 PM Permalink Caitie, where does the more data come from Are there really temperature measurements from 40ies to 70ies that were not available to aurhors of those decades James Stamulis 14. September 2016 at 2:10 PM Permalink Al Gore should be in prison the rest of his life for the mass amounts of money he made on his convenient lies The 1975 March 1 issue of Science News had a cover story on cooling and included a graph showing 0.7C cooling in the northern hemisphere from a peak in the late 1930s (an extreme decade that we8217ve never equaled) to the late 1960s. Once the Keeling CO2 curve came out soon thereafter, people forgot about the cooling, which conveniently ended around the same time. Jason Calley 14. September 2016 at 2:47 PM Permalink I would be very grateful if one of the warming advocates could explain why there is such an extraordinarily close relationship between the size of temperature data adjustments and CO2 concentration. realclimatesciencewp-contentuploads2016012016-01-14-04-18-24.png Peerke 14. September 2016 at 3:15 PM Permalink Caitie, you wrote: 82208230the simple fact is that science is self correcting.8221 So how do you feel about people saying 8220The science is settled8221 when it comes to global warming Jason Calley 14. September 2016 at 7:35 PM Permalink Hey Peerke Caitie is right to say the simple fact is that science is self correcting. Unfortunately, fraud masquerading as science is NOT self correcting. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 8:13 PM Permalink 8220the simple fact is that science is self correcting. ONLY if it is allowed to. Locked minds, such as this little girl shows, do NOT help science to progress. They are actively AGAINST allowing climate science to self-correct8230 they cannot allow that to happen if the AGW scam is to survive. TA 14. September 2016 at 4:05 PM Permalink This Time Magazine article from June 1974 says, 8220Since the 19408217s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F (1.5 C). Agent76 14. September 2016 at 5:15 PM Permalink September 12, 2016 Lara Cow Flatulence Bill Illustrates Creeping Tyranny Enabled by Cultural Terraforming Despite plenty of evidence to suggest massive fraud behind climate change measures designed to redistribute wealth more than anything else, progressives in California are harassing dairy farmers to where moving out of state is becoming an increasingly viable option. Thats the case with Ricardo Laras (hes a Democrat, naturally) bill targeting cow flatulence and manure. Agent76 14. September 2016 at 5:25 PM Permalink September 12, 2016 Lara Cow Flatulence Bill Illustrates Creeping Tyranny Enabled by Cultural Terraforming Despite plenty of evidence to suggest massive fraud behind climate change measures designed to redistribute wealth more than anything else, progressives in California are harassing dairy farmers to where moving out of state is becoming an increasingly viable option. Thats the case with Ricardo Laras (hes a Democrat, naturally) bill targeting cow flatulence and manure. 8230 Richard8217s post from yesterday on how a small group of alarmist scientists tried to whitewash away the global cooling scare of 8230 AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 8:27 PM Permalink on a different note completely I suggest people watch what happens to the Arctic sea ice levels over the next few weeks. Could be very interesting. Tsar Nicholas 14. September 2016 at 10:56 PM Permalink The late 1960searly 1970s was a period when sea floor spreading and tectonic plate movement was only just gaining acceptance. There8217s been a huge growth of knowledge about earth sciences since then, not least from Exxon Mobil who pioneered the way with studies of how carbon dioxide would warm the planet. Exxon abandoned thsoe studies in 1982 even though it knew that humanity was charting a dangerous course. To try to refute the obvious 8211 that the Earth ahs warmed up by over one degree centigrade since the 1880s 8211 on the basis that scientists once thought that global cooling would take place is nonsense. Any cooling trend from natural cycles would have been logical to assume. However, given that we have dumped carbon into the atmosphere that was previously buried for millions of years has thrown a spanner in the workings of natural cycles. This article is like saying that Copernicus was wrong about the earth going around the sun because Aristotle believed the sun went around the Earth. ClimateOtter 15. September 2016 at 10:59 AM Permalink So, tsar, you would prefer to go back to Little Ice Age temperatures, yes Not to mention that NO ONE denies that it has warmed slightly since the Little Ice Age. Do you even Recall the Little Ice Age Or do you just not care what happened with the weather during the Little Ice Age AndyG55 15. September 2016 at 11:22 AM Permalink 8220thrown a spanner in the workings of natural cycles8221 Another load of unsubstantiated BS. AndyG55 15. September 2016 at 11:24 AM Permalink 8220even though it knew that humanity was charting a dangerous course.8221 Again, unsubstantiated BS 8230 Richard writes at NoTricksZone: (follow the link for the full 8230 Tom T 15. September 2016 at 8:18 AM Permalink Of course WMC cheated. I8217ve been saying for years that it was false on its face. He found 71 total papers over a period of 15 years. That is less than 5 papers a year. The number is way too low. Otherwise was obvious thst he was lying by omission. 8230 regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain. LINK Global Warming Skeptics Reply With 8230 Juergen Uhlemann 15. September 2016 at 10:04 AM Permalink I8217m not sure if you know about these two documents from the past that show this 30 year cooling. NOAA 1974 8220Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since.8221 docs. lib. noaa. govrescuejournalsnoaaQC851U461974oct. pdfpage5 UNESCO 1974 8220For the past 30 years the temperature of our planet has been steadily dropping8221 unesdoc. unesco. orgimages0007000748074879eo. pdf The often requested 30 year (proof) by the AGW believers already exists (in the past). el gordo 15. September 2016 at 12:56 PM Permalink There is a good reason for the 30 years being climate, its half the 60 year cycle picked up in ice cores and shallow sea cores. Its clearly related to the PDO and I reject the idea that temperatures increased from 1890 through to 1940. From 1890 8211 1924 it was a cool PDO, 1925-46 warm, 1947-75 cool, 1976 -2006 warm. To be more precise it should be warmdry and coolwet. We are belatedly heading into a cool wet period with a slight drop in world temperatures. Both the warmists and coolists are disturbed by the pause, it shouldn8217t be happening. 8220Both the warmists and coolists are disturbed by the pause, it shouldnt be happening.8221 Cooling is exactly what should be happening if you add a 200 year cycle and a 60 year cycle. These two cycles can be gained by Fourier analysis of the temperature record and explain practically all temperature variations of the last 250 years. This model also produces a steep drop starting a few years back. As it is sinusoidal in nature the drop will pick up speed as we go along. 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific Co8230 8230 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific Co8230 8230 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific Co8230 8230 yonason 15. September 2016 at 12:34 PM Permalink Climate science can8217t predict what happened last week, let alone what will happen in 100 years, but it is 8220settled.8221 I. e. we mustn8217t question or even test the validity of wobbly warmist junk theories. Einstein8217s theory of General Relativity is a well established fact, yet they have no problem devising new tests for it. popularmechanicsspacedeep-spacea61755-recent-tests-that-prove-einstein-right 8230 Read the full report here. 8230 Mike Hamblett 15. September 2016 at 9:46 PM Permalink Its difficult to understand this obsession with the past and the ability to ignore the very real and rapid increase in temperature and the manifestations of extremes drought, flood, forest fires, ocean acidification. Can the 8216head in the sand8217 types explain their fears and the reluctance to take steps to safeguard the next generation from a worrying and uncertain future. AndyG55 15. September 2016 at 11:58 PM Permalink 1. there has been NO rapid increase in temperature except by data tampering 2.There has been NO increase in extreme drought or flood. or fire 3. Ocean acidification is a myth, it CANNOT happen due to the enormous buffering, and anyway 98 of all free CO2 is already in the ocean Now, you GULLIBLE, IGNORANT, BRAIN-WASHED DUMMY. Go and do so actually investigation into the truth, and stop spewing your rabid alarmist claptrap and idiocy. ClimateOtter 16. September 2016 at 12:40 AM Permalink Come back when you know what you are talking about. yonason 16. September 2016 at 4:04 AM Permalink The ability to detect and ignore the deceit of con men and fools is not motivated by timerity, but by calm and rational thought 8211 something you clearly do not possess. yonason 16. September 2016 at 4:08 AM Permalink timidity (obviously), not temerity. Climate Otter is making me drowsy. Mike Hamblett 15. September 2016 at 9:46 PM Permalink Reply 8220Its difficult to understand this obsession with the past8221 Don8217t criticize Michael Mann. He is a top warmunist religious leader. You haven8217t heard of him He forges temperature reconstructions going a thousand years back to promote warmunism 8221 and the ability to ignore the very real and rapid increase in temperature and the manifestations of extremes drought, flood, forest fires, ocean acidification.8221 Well Mike, here8217s the thing: I experience NOTHING of all this 8211 so I have to assume that I am being lied to. There is a tradition of lies going back to at least 1898 by Western media so that is EXACTLY what I am expecting. 8230 8212NoTricksZone 8230 yonason 16. September 2016 at 12:22 AM Permalink caitie (sod in a skirt) wants us to believe that the more data we have the better we8217ll understand what8217s going on. That8217s true, as Burt Rutan clearly shows. youtubewatchvjPP7P43wulg 8230but NOT for the reasons that hesheitwhatever gives. I. e. everything caitiesod knows is wrong. AndyG55 17. September 2016 at 1:48 PM Permalink I refer to it as 8220negative knowledge8221. Stuff they have to unlearn, before they can actually start to learn. yonason 18. September 2016 at 3:37 AM Permalink I think you8217re onto something there, Andy. 8230 indefatigable James Delingpole, drawing on a lengthy and thoroughly documented blog post by Kenneth Richard, writing at No Tricks Zone, has a great little article exposing the intentional bias not only of Wikipedia but also of Google 8230 Chuck Bradley 18. September 2016 at 6:20 AM Permalink I did not read all the comments so perhaps this has been covered. It would be very good to have a couple of summary lists available to all, and occasionally updated. One would be the properly formatted bibliographic entries for all those papers. Another would be a list of the places searched to find them. You might then get a lot of mail saying things like 8220I searched Journal of Whatever for 1960 -1964 and found these three interesting papers8221 with the full bibliographic reference and a brief summary of the content or a copy of the abstract. Sam J. 20. September 2016 at 3:24 AM Permalink I know for an absolute fact that kids were being told in the 608217s that an Ice Age was coming. I was told either in school or at a school museum that human industry was throwing dust particles in the air and it was causing an Ice Age. I was shown a picture with New York city under a mile of ice. I remember this clearly because it scared me. Now if they were showing this to school kids it8217s probably a fairly good bet that there was some consensuses that it was going to happen. Gossamer 20. September 2016 at 1:34 PM Permalink yonason:8217everything caitie(sod in a skirt) knows is wrong8217 as soon as chat gets insulting we know your argument is weak. Poor show yonason, show some courtesy and we might progress the debate. yonason 22. September 2016 at 10:09 AM Permalink It was an observation that this person wrote like a female and even nastier version of sod than usual, nothing more. As to the 8220weakness8221 of my 8220argument,8221 I notice you didn8217t give any DIRECT criticism of the video I posted (the main point of my post) of Burt Rutan8217s excellent evaluation of the climate science fraudsters. But thank you, miss manners, for your superficial observations and pretentious moral posturing. Now, watch the Rutan video, and learn something. yonason 22. September 2016 at 9:25 PM Permalink You also conveniently (for you) neglected to comment on the link I gave to a real scientist presenting what is wrong with the approach you want us to 8220believe8221 in. Find it here8230 notrickszone20160913massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensuscomment-page-1comment-1132332 watch it, and learn something, if you are able to. yonason 22. September 2016 at 6:31 PM Permalink P. S. 8211 I8217m curious as to why you haven8217t been critical of caitie (sod in a skirt), who tells us that we8230 82208230dont seem to have much of an idea of how science and statistics works8221 8230then apologizes 82208230for using numbers and making people think.8221 (i. e. accusing us of being unable to think for ourselves. NOTE 8211 Speaking of 8220thinking8221 here8217s a thought. When saying one is 8220using numbers8221 it might be a good idea to actually USE THEM. Like this 8211 822088221 8211 There. I8217ve just used more numbers than cataie did in herhisitswhatevers entire post. caitie (sod in a skirt) then accuses us of being intellectually dishonest to the core, and infantile 8220drooling folks8221 (Oh, I almost forgot, we were earlier accused of being 8220rednecks.8221) So, I make one snide aside, and you say that makes my post 8220weak,8221 even though I provide a link to a knowledgeable novel and informative viewpoint, but you are OK with caitie8217s uninformative and (as A ndyG55 points out) 8220empty8221 posts Seriously. It8217s 8220caitie8221 and you and your watermelon warmunist friends who are putting on the 8220poor show.8221 Gossamer 20. September 2016 at 1:34 PM Permalink Reply 8220Poor show yonason, show some courtesy and we might progress the debate.8221 No chance. caitie showed no reaction when I quizzed her about numerical simulations of chaotic systems. She has no factual knowledge 8211 not even of the computer games modern warmunists use to make the computer announce the end of the world. yonason 23. September 2016 at 6:08 AM Permalink 8220MORE DATA WILL MAKE THEM SLEEP8221 8211 caitie (is that sod with her Huh, I guess they aren8217t the same critter, after all.) More bad data will NOT solve the problem 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific Co8230 8230 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-821780s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific C8230 8230 8230 to erase it, are the subject of an article by Kenneth Richard writing in the NoTricksZone blog (link to article). The article is titled: Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust 8230O ne of the classic what ifs of the Second World War centers on howor ifthe German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, code-named Operation Barbarossa, could have achieved a quick victory. Hitler certainly believed that it could. All one had to do, he insisted, was to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure of Stalins Communist regime would come tumbling down. In many respects Barbarossa was a stunning success. The Germans took the Soviets completely by surprise, advanced hundreds of miles in just a few weeks, killed or captured several million Soviet troops, and seized an area containing 40 percent of the USSRs population, as well as most of its coal, iron ore, aluminum, and armaments industry. But Barbarossa failed to take its capstone objective, Moscow. What went wrong Some historians have pointed to the German decision to advance along three axes: in the north toward Leningrad, in the south toward Ukraine, and in the center against Moscow. But the Wehrmacht had force enough to support three offensives, and its quick destruction of so many Soviet armies suggests that this was a reasonable decision. Others have pointed to Hitlers decision in August to divert most of the armored units attached to Field Marshal Fedor von Bocks Army Group Center, whose objective was Moscow, and send them south to support an effort to surround and capture the Soviet armies around Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. The elimination of the Kiev pocket on September 26 bagged 665,000 men, more than 3,000 artillery pieces, and almost 900 tanks. But it delayed the resumption of major operations against Moscow until early autumn. This, many historians argue, was a fatal blunder. Yet, as historian David M. Glantz points out, such a scenario ignores what the Soviet armies around Kiev might have done had they not been trapped, and introduces too many variables to make for a good counterfactual. The best minimal rewrite of history must therefore focus on the final German bid to seize Moscow, an offensive known as Operation Typhoon. Here is how Typhoon might have played out: When the operation begins, Army Group Center enjoys a substantial advantage over the Soviet forces assigned to defend Moscow. It has at its disposal 1.9 million men, 48,000 artillery pieces, 1,400 aircraft, and 1,000 tanks. In contrast, the Soviets have only 1.25 million men (many with little or no combat experience), 7,600 artillery pieces, 600 aircraft, and almost 1,000 tanks. The seeming parity in the number of tanks is misleading, however, since the overwhelming majority of Soviet tanks are obsolescent models. Initially, Army Group Center runs roughshod over its opponents. Within a few days, it achieves the spectacular encirclement of 685,000 Soviet troops near the towns of Bryansk and Vyazma, about 100 miles west of Moscow. The hapless Russians look to the skies for the onset of rain, for this is the season of the rasputitsa literally the time without roadswhen heavy rainfall turns the fields and unpaved roads into muddy quagmires. But this year the weather fails to rescue them, and by early November frost has so hardened the ground that German mobility is assured. With Herculean efforts from German supply units, Army Group Center continues to lunge directly for Moscow. Thoroughly alarmed, the Stalin regime evacuates the government 420 miles east to Kuybyshev, north of the Caspian Sea. It also evacuates a million Moscow inhabitants, prepares to dynamite the Kremlin rather than have it fall into German hands, and makes plans to remove Lenins tomb to a safe place. Stalin alone remains in Moscow until mid-November, when the first German troops reach the city in force. And in obedience to Hitlers order, Fedor von Bock uses Army Group Center to surround Moscow, instead of fighting for the city street by street. Nonetheless, the Soviet troops withdraw rather than fall prey to yet another disastrous encirclement, and on November 30precisely two months after Operation Typhoon beginsit culminates in the capture of Moscow. The above scenario is historically correct in many respects. The three major departures are the absence of the rasputitsa . which did indeed bog down the German offensive for two crucial weeks the headlong drive toward Moscow rather than the diversion of units to lesser objectives in the wake of the victory at Bryansk and Vyazmaa major error and, of course, the capture of Moscow itself. But would the fall of Moscow have meant the defeat of the Soviet Union Almost certainly not. In 1941 the Soviet Union endured the capture of numerous major cities, a huge percentage of crucial raw materials, and the loss of four million troops. Yet it still continued to fight. It had a vast and growing industrial base east of the Ural Mountains, well out of reach of German forces. And in Joseph Stalin it had one of the most ruthless leaders in world historya man utterly unlikely to throw in the towel because of the loss of any city, no matter how prestigious. A scenario involving Moscows fall also ignores the arrival of 18 divisions of troops from Siberiafresh, well-trained, and equipped for winter fighting. They had been guarding against a possible Japanese invasion, but a Soviet spy reliably informed Stalin that Japan would turn southward, toward the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines, thereby freeing them to come to the Moscow front. Historically, the arrival of these troops took the Germans by surprise, and an unexpected Soviet counteroffensive in early December 1941 produced a major military crisis. Surprised and disturbed, Hitlers field commanders urged a temporary retreat in order to consolidate the German defenses. But Hitler refused, instead ordering that German troops continue to hold their ground. Historically they managed to do so. However, with German forces extended as far as Moscow and pinned to the citys defense, this probably would not have been possible. Ironically, for the Germans, the seeming triumph of Moscows capture might well have brought early disaster. Browse: Home 2016 September 13 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-821780s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific 8216Consensus8217 Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world8217s most influential and accessed informational source. It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific 8220consensus8221 during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain. Not only did Connolley 8212 a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate blog 8212 successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann8217s hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th21st century warmth. A 2009 investigative report from UK8217s Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn8217t conform to his point of view. 8220All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles . His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didnt like the subject of a certain article, he removed it more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions . Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolleys global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedias blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. 8220 After eviscerating references to 1970s global cooling scare and the warmer-than-now Medieval Warm Period from Wikipedia, and after personally rewriting the Wikipedia commentaries on the greenhouse effect to impute a central, dominant role for CO2, Connolley went on to team up with two other authors to publish a consensus manifesto in 2008 that claimed to exp8221ose the 1970s global cooling scare as a myth, as something that never really happened. Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008, hereafter PCF08 ) published The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus 8221 in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society . hoping to quash once and for all the perception that there were scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who agreed the Earth was cooling (and may continue to do so), or that CO2 did not play a dominant role in climate change. The Concoction Of 8216Consensus8217 Achieved Via Exclusion The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper: 8220The following pervasive myth arose among skeptics: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent . A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. 8230 During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers . 8230 There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then .8221 William Connolley and colleagues claimed that the determination of scientific 8220consensus8221 regarding global cooling and the influence of CO2 on climate during the 1970s could be divined by counting scientific publications that fell into arbitrarily-defined categories which allowed them to intentionally exclude hundreds of papers that would undermine the alleged myth-slaying purpose of the paper. The PCF08 authors decided that when 8220quantifying the consensus8221 (by counting publications), a scientific paper could only be classified as a 8220cooling8221 paper if it projected that future temperatures would (continue to) decline, or that a 8220full-fledged ice age was imminent.8221 Papers published during the arbitrarily chosen 1965-821779 era that affirmed the climate had already been cooling for decades, that this cooling wasn8217t a positive development, andor that the effects of CO2 on climate were questionable or superseded by other more influential climate change mechanisms 8230 were not considered worthy of classification as a 8220cooling8221 paper, or as a paper that disagreed with the claimed 8220consensus8221 that said the current (1960s-821770s) global cooling will someday be replaced by CO2-induced global warming. Of course, the global cooling scare during the 1970s was not narrowly or exclusively focused upon what the temperatures might look like in the future, or whether or not an ice age was 8220imminent8221. It was primarily about the ongoing cooling that had been taking place for decades, the negative impacts this cooling had already exerted (on extreme weather patterns, on food production, etc.), and uncertainties associated with the causes of climatic changes. By tendentiously excluding 1960s and 1970s publications that documented global cooling had been ongoing and a concern, as well as purposely excluding papers that suggested the climate8217s sensitivity to CO2 forcing is weak or questionable relative to other mechanisms, the authors could brazenly claim that there were only 7 papers published in the scientific literature between 1965 and 1979 that disagreed with the 8220consensus8221 opinion that global warming would occur at some point in the future (due to CO2 increases). According to PCF08, there were 44 papers that fell into the latter warming-is-imminent-due-to-CO2 category from 1965-821779, ostensibly entitling them to claim that dangerous anthropogenic global warming projections 8220dominated8221 the scientific literature even then. An 83 Global CoolingWeak CO2 Influence Scientific 8216Consensus8217 During 1960s, 821770s As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming 8220consensus8221 is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3 C between the 1940s and 821770s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), andor that CO28217s climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming 8220consensus8221 was 220 papers for the 1965-821779 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the 8220non-consensus8221 or 8220cooling8221 papers reaches 285 . Again, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. There are likely many dozen more scientific papers from the 1960s-821770s cooling scare era that would probably fall into the category of a 8220cooling8221 paper, but have not yet been made available to view in full online. But let us say that the PCF08 claim is true, and that there were indeed only 44 papers published between 1965-821779 that endorsed the position that the Earth8217s climate is predominately shaped by CO2 concentrations, and thus the Earth would someday start warming as the models had suggested. Interestingly, if we were to employ the hopelessly flawed methodology of divining the relative degree of scientific 8220consensus8221 by counting the number of papers that agree with one position or another (just as blogger John Cook and colleagues did with their 2013 paper 8220 Quantifying the Consensus 82308221 that yielded a predetermined result of 97 via categorical manipulation), the 220 8220cooling8221 papers published between 1965-821779 could represent an 83.3 global cooling consensus for the era (220264 papers), versus only a 16.7 consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44264 papers). The 1970s Global Cooling Scare Was Not Mythological In reviewing the available scientific literature from the 1960s-821780s, it is plainly evident that there was a great deal of concern about the ongoing global cooling, which had amounted to -0.5C in the Northern Hemisphere and -0.3C globally between the 1940s and 1970s. Of course, this inconvenient global-scale cooling of -0.3C between the 1940s and 1970s has necessarily been almost completely removed from the instrumental record by NASA (GISS) and the MetOffice (HadCRUT). After all, the observations (of cooling) conflicted with climate modeling. Overseers of the surface temperature datasets (such as the MetOffice8217s Phil Jones or NASA8217s Gavin Schmidt) have recently adjusted the -0.3C of cooling down to just hundredths of a degree of cooling. NASA GISS, for example, has reduced (via 8220adjustments8221) the global cooling down to about -0.01C between the 1940s and 1970s, as shown below. It is likely that, during the next few years of adjustments to past data, the mid-20th century global cooling period will disappear altogether and mutate into a warming period. For those who actually experienced the non-mythological cooling scare during the 1960s and 1970s (that has since been made to disappear from graphs), the consequences of the -0.5 Northern Hemispheric cooling (especially) were frequently discussed in scientific publications. There were geoengineering strategies proposed by scientists to melt Arctic sea ice. Droughts and floods and extreme weather anomaliesvariability were blamed on the ongoing global cooling. Glaciers were advancing, even surging at accelerated rates during this period. Sea ice growth and severe Arctic cooling meant that the oceans were much less navigable. Crop growth and food production slowed as the Earth cooled, which was of great concern to world governments. Severe winters in the 1960s and 1970s led many climatologists to assume that the Earth was returning to an 1800s-like Little Ice Age climate. Observations of mammals migrating to warmer climates during the 1960s and 1970s due to the colder temperatures were reported in scientific papers. Synonyms for the 1960s-821770s climate cooling conditions commonly used in the literature were words such as deterioration . recession . detrimental . and severe . In contrast, warming periods such as during the warmer Medieval times or the warm-up during the first half of the 20th century were referred to positively, or as optimum (i. e. the Medieval Warm Period was referred to as the 8220Little Optimum8221). According to Stewart and Glantz (1985), in the early 1970s it was the 8220prevailing view8221 among scientists that the Earth was headed into another ice age. It wasn8217t until the late 821770s that scientists changed their minds and the 8220prevailing view8221 began shifting to warming. This is in direct contradiction to the claims of PCF08, who allege warming was the prevailing view among scientists in the 1960s and early 1970s too. Furthermore, as recently as 1985, it was still acknowledged that 8220the causes of global climate change remain in dispute.8221 8220The conclusions of the NDU study might have been predicted from a knowledge of the prevailing spirit of the times (i. e. the prevailing mood in the science community ) when the first part was conducted. This was an interesting time in recent history of climate studies. One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2C cooling. By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth8217s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere. 8230 The causes of global climate change remain in dispute. Existing theories of climate, atmospheric models, and actuarial experience are inadequate to meet the needs of policymakers for information about future climate .8221 According to scientists reporting to the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency (1974), 22 of 27 forecasting methods predicted a cooling trend for the next 25 years, and 8220meteorological experts8221 were thinking an 1800s climate was around the corner, with the concomitant return to monsoon failures, shorter growing seasons, and 8220violent weather8221. U. S. Central Intelligence Agency ,1974 Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate 8220 According to Dr. Hubert Lamb8211an outstanding British climatologist821122 out of 27 forecasting methods he examined predicted a cooling trend through the remainder of this century . A change of 2-3 F. in average temperature would have an enormous impact. 8230 A number of meteorological experts are thinking in terms of a return to a climate like that of the 19th century . This would mean that within a relatively few years (probably less than two decades, assuming the cooling trend began in the 19608217s) there would be brought belts of excess and deficit rainfall in the middle-latitudes more frequent failure of the monsoons that dominate the Indian sub-continent, south China and western Africa shorter growing seasons for Canada, northern Russia and north China. Europe could expect to be cooler and wetter. 8230 In periods when climate change cooling is underway, violent weather 8212 unseasonal frosts, warm spells, large storms, floods, etc.8211is thought to be more common .8221 The Selective Emphasis On Particular Scientific 8216Facts8217 To Advance An Agenda It is rather ironic that the below quote impugning the motives of 8220skeptics8221 by Connolley and his co-authors (PCF08) appeared in a paper that insisted the 1970s concerns about global cooling never really happened from a scientific standpoint, and their 8220proof8221 that it never really happened is that they could only manage to locate 7 scientific papers (via selection bias) that supported this 8220contrarian8221 view: 8220Underlying the selective quotation of the past literature is an example of what political scientist Daniel Sarewitz calls 8216scientization8217 of political debate: the selective emphasis on particular scientific 8216facts8217 to advance a particular set of political values . In this case, the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change by appeal to a past consensus on a closely related topic that is alleged to have been wrong.8221 William Connolley may have successfully erased the Medieval Warm Period and 1970s cooling concerns from the pages of Wikipedia. He may have successfully written over 5,400 original Wikipedia articles in an attempt to persuade the public to believe in a dominant role for humans and CO2 in causing climate changes. But the internet has a long and expansive memory, and it is unforgiving when opportunists and activists attempt to dupe the public by concocting false narratives and employing the very same practice of 8220scientization8221 they hypocritically claim to deride. 285 Scientific Publications Affirming A Global CoolingWeak CO2 Influence 8216Consensus8217 Again, there were at least 285 scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming 8220consensus8221 opinion during the 1960s to 1980s. The list is divided into several sub-sections: Cooling Since 1940, Forecasts for Continued CoolingIce Age (156 papers) Dubious Human Influence on Climate, Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity (44 papers) Rising CO2 Leads to Cooling (7) Uncertainties, Lack of Climate Understanding, Climate Modeling Problems (30) Miscellaneous Questionable Human, CO2 Influence on Climate (12) Non-CO2 Climate Change Mechanisms (26) Warmer past despite lower CO2 (10) The complete list of 285 Global CoolingWeak CO2 Influence papers from the 1960s to 1980s can be found using the below links: For those who may lack the time (or interest) to view the full list of 285, a summarized version of 35 sample papers are listed below. Keep in mind that these 35 sample publications represent less than 18th of the total volume of papers published during that era, affirming the position that concerns about global cooling were quite real, widespread, and scientifically-supported. 35 Sample Global CoolingLow CO2 Climate Influence Papers 8220Between 1880 and 1940 a net global warming of about 0.6C occurred, and from 1940 to the present our globe experienced a net cooling of 0.3C. 8230 It has since been found that the rate of temperature increase decreases with increasing CO2 and increases with increasing particulates. Therefore, global particulate loading is of foremost concern. 8230 An increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-age. In order that we safeguard ourselves and future generations from a self-imposed ice-age it is necessary that we effectively monitor global concentrations of particulate matter.8221 8220The 1976 surface temperature equated the global record for the lowest temperature set in 1964 but even so the trend in global temperature since 1965 has been small compared to the 0.5C decrease during 196065.8221 8220The nine-banded armadillos ( Dasypus novemcinctus ) have been moving northward in the Great Plains region from the late 1800s to the 1950s but now seem to be retreating from their lately acquired northern range. The armadillos have a nontypical homoiothermic blood system which makes them fairly vulnerable to cold climates.8221 8220The cooling from about 1950 to 1974 is 0.3C (Brinkmann, 1976). Moran (1975) suggests that the recent drought of peninsular Florida is largely due to decreased frequencies of tropical storms, associated with the general atmospheric and oceanic cooling since about 1940 (Wahl and Bryson, 1975).8221 8220Concern about climatic change and its effects on man has been increasing. Climatic changes affect the production of food and the allocation of energy resources. 8230 Even with the temperature corrections included, Indiana June, July and August mean temperatures showed a decrease of approximately 3F -1.7C from 1930 to 1976.8221 8220According to the academy report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age a real possibility.8221 8220Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide content was concluded to have had an ambiguous climatic influence and may be less important than sometimes considered. Several studies have suggested increased turbidity has produced a recent global cooling trend.8221 8220The author is convinced that recent increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide have contributed much less than 5 of the recent changes of atmospheric temperature, and will contribute no more than that in the foreseeable future.8221 8220The 1968 AAAS Symposium on Global Effects of Environmental Pollution initiated a flood of papers supporting monotonically if not exponentially increasing pollution. The particulate increases were usually cited as at least contributing to the post 1940 cooling and possibly capable of bringing on another ice age.8221 Introduction: 8220In the last century it is possible to document an increase of about 0.6C in the mean global temperature between 1880 and 1940 and a subsequent fall of temperature by about 0.3C since 1940. In the polar regions north of 70 latitude the decrease in temperature in the past decade alone has been about 1C, several times larger than the global average decrease. Up till now, past climatic changes (except possibly those of the last few decades of cooling temperatures) could hardly have been caused by man8217s activities.8221 8220It is not clear how such favorable and relatively consistent conditions are related to the higher temperatures in this century or the peaking of temperatures around 1940. The reversal of this warming trend, however, could mark the beginning of a new ice age as some climatologists have indicated. It should be noted, though, that even if we are in fact heading for another ice age, many years or decades will elapse before this will become apparent8221 8220Unlike some other pollutants introduced into the atmosphere by Man, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring and non-toxic. The direct effect of increased concentrations may be beneficial notably because it will tend to increase the rate of photosynthesis in plants. On the other hand, there may be deleterious effects through its influence on climate but this is still unproven and we cannot be certain whether, on a global scale, it will on the whole be harmful or beneficial. 8230 The problem of determining the effect of increased carbon dioxide on climate is difficult, the more so because there are some essential aspects of the physical basis of climate that are not well understood8221 8220Recent anomalous weather conditions of the 1970s have revealed the possibility that significant aberrations in global climate have and are occurring with serious consequences. The 1970s have seen a generally overall greater variability and instability of global weather. Regions in Asia, Central America, and Africa have witnessed a higher frequency of monsoon failure which has led to a prevalence of severe drought conditions and an extension of desert boundaries. Whereas in other parts of the globe, severe flooding has been recorded. 8230 Records of past climates have indicated that a greater variability of climate is generally synonymous with a major cooling trend in temperatures.8221 Conclusions: 8220The scenario of a CO2-warming globe contains many uncertainties. The warming of the atmosphere is not an established fact, and even if it was there may be no need to invoke increased atmospheric CO2 or other 8216greenhouse8217 gases as the cause when such warmings have been a part of our temperature time series historically.8221 8220Since about 196869 the glacier fronts have advanced by up to 158 m following a marked climatic recession cooling during the 1960s and early 1970s.8221 8220A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1 o C in the next hundred years.8221 8220Between 1000 and 1300 average summer Arctic temperatures were about 1C higher than today, with the mean annual temperature higher by perhaps 4C in a largely ice-free Arctic. 8230 Between 1900 and 1940, the most striking temperature gains occurring in the Arctic winter8230 an average rise of more than 8C keeping her seas ice-free for seven months of the year instead of barely three months less than a century before. 8230 Since about 1958 the reduced heat transport via the warm air sectors of the depressions has permitted an increase in pack-ice off northern and eastern Iceland to a condition comparable with the 1880s, and Polar Bears Thalarctos maritimus have been able to cross from Greenland for the first time for half a century (Marshall 1968). This relapse from warmth continued into the 1970s with one winter, 196263, as devastating over the English Midlands and south as anything experienced since 1740 (Manley n. d. Lamb 1966, Booth 1968). People asked, are we on the threshold of another long climatic recession8221 8220Instrumental surface temperature records have been compiled for large portions of the globe for about the past 100 years (Mitchell, 1961 Budyko, 1969). They show that the Northern Hemisphere annual mean temperature has risen about 1C from 1880 to about 1940 and has fallen about 0.5 C since then 8230 Climate change may be a natural internal feature of the land-oceanic-atmosphere (climate) system. 8230 Three runs were made testing anthropogenic effects of CO2, aerosols and heat. 8230 One could sum the anthropogenic effects for each region, which would show almost no effect in the NH and warming in the SH. 8230 Because the magnitudes of the effects are small, and may cancel, it cannot be concluded that these high correlations show that man has produced climate change.8221 8220An appreciable number of nonurban stations in the United States and Canada have been identified with statistically significant (at the 90 level) decreasing trends in the monthly mean diurnal temperature range between 194180.8221 8220At the present the imbalance is thought to correspond to a natural cooling of the ocean, which will lead to the next Ice Age.8221 8220In particular, detection of an anthropogenic influence through statistical analysis alone requires a long run of data of good quality and careful attention to measures of significance. It is most important to avoid the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that a trend of a few years8217 duration or less, following some change in human activities, can be attributed to that change even when no sound physical causal relationship is evident.8221 Changes in the amount of multiyear ice in arctic seas during the current cooling trend 8220The southern boundary of old ice was up to 100 miles farther south to the west of the divide, and up to 100 miles farther north to the east. The significance of these changes with regard to navigation conditions is selfevident.8221 8220Concern over the vulnerability of a heavily populated world to climatic fluctuations affecting harvests and world food supply has emerged only recently. This concern has been stimulated by anomalous weather patterns beginning with the colder winters in Europe and North America in the 1960s, the Indian monsoon failures and droughts in the Soviet and Chinese grainlands in that decade and since, and the drought which continued for many years in Africa and brought chaos to the Sahel and Ethiopia. But, despite the computer revolution in meteorology, no generally accepted theory of climatic change to inform the future exists at this time.8221 8220The measured increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to the most recent computations, would not be enough to have any measurable climatic effect.8221 SPECIFIC SCHEMES FOR CLIMATE MODIFICATION Ice Free Arctic Ocean The largest scale enterprise that has been discussed is that of transforming the Arctic into an ice free ocean. Bering Strait Dam The basic idea is to increase the inflow of warm Atlantic water by stopping or oven reversing the present northward flow of colder water through Bering Strait. Deflecting the Kuroshio Current It has been proposed that the narrow mouth of Tatarsk Strait be blocked by a giant 8220water valve8221 to increase the warm inflow to the Sea of Okhotsk and reduce the winter ice there. 8220Evidence derived from the carefully screened temperature record at Eau Claire, Mich. and from radiosonde data at A return to the temperature and circulation features of the early and mid-19th century in the eastern United States may be underway. 8230 All 3 months show temperature declines since the height of the recent climatic optimum during the 1930s. July temperatures have decreased about 3.5F since the decades beginning with the early 1930s, and August temperatures have decreased about 3F since the decades beginning with the late 1930s and early 1940s.8221 Global Ecology: Readings toward a rational strategy for man pgs. 76,77 8220A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made changes in the direct reflectivity of the earths surface (albedo) through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts. The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.8221 8220The large-scale circulation of the atmosphere during the current decade has produced patterns that had never been seen earlier in this century, but which seem to represent a recurrence of a regime that prevailed over long periods before 1895. 8230 On this evidence, something like the climatic regime of the years since 1960 should probably be expected to persist till the end of the century or beyond8221 8220Estimates of the atmospheric temperature changes due to a doubling of CO2 concentration have be with a standard radiative flux model. They yield temperature changes of gt0.25 K. It appears that the much larger changes predicted by other models arise from additional water vapor evaporated into the atmosphere and not from the CO2 itself. 8230 It is important to stress8230that CO2 is not the main constituent involved in infrared transfer. Water vapor plays the major role and ozone is also of importance.8221 8220In the period from 1880 to 1940, the mean temperature of the earth increased about 0.6C from 1940 to 1970, it decreased by 0.3-0.4C. Locally, temperature changes as large as 3-4C per decade have been recorded, especially in sub-polar regions. 8230 The drop in the earth8217s temperature since 1940 has been paralleled by a substantial increase in natural volcanism. The effect of such volcanic activity is probably greater than the effect of manmade pollutants.8221 8220In 1970, Mitchell stated that by the late 1960s global temperatures had fallen 0.3C from the peak in the 1940s, approximately one-half of the prior rise. 8230 Summaries by Schneider and Dickenson, Kalnicky, Robuck, Roberts, and Agee all report Northern Hemisphere temperatures declines by at least 0.5C since the 1940s. In summary, Gribbin states 8216In worldwide terms, we are in a situation where the earth is cooling more quickly than it warmed up earlier this century.8217 From the above it is clear that the general consensus in the recent literature is that there has been a cooling in the Northern Hemisphere since the early 1940s.8221 On the question of carbon dioxide heat radiation in the atmosphere 8220The dependence of atmospheric heat radiation on CO2 and H2O contents and also on temperature vertical distribution is investigated with the help of the radiation chart. It is shown that the heat radiation of the atmosphere almost doesn8217t depend on variations of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.8221 8220The climatic 8216improvement8217 of the late 19308217s had, as was expected, given way to a colder trend in the 19508217s and 19608217s 8230 Dunbar (1976, p. 190) writes that he finds it 8220difficult to believe that either Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, water vapour, freon, or any other substance produced by man8217s efforts is going to compete seriously with Nature in changing our climate8221. 8230 Heino8217s diagrams illustrate the exceptional nature of the climatic improvement experienced in the 19308217s, but they also show clearly the slow deterioration which set in in the 19508217s. The 19608217s constituted climatically a rather unfavourable decade from man8217s point of view8221 8220Lamb (1966) had already suggested that it appears likely that we have passed the height of the warming episode in the first half of this century and are now reverting to a pattern characterized by lower zonal flow and intensification of the troughridge systems, essentially a reestablishment of the climatic character of the last century.8221 FIFTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF TIMELY IMPORTANCE WEATHER MODIFICATION BY CHANGING CO2 CONTENT OF ATMOSPHERE p. 48 Item: American Scientist . January-February 1970, p. 18, 82208216Though dire effects on climate of an increase in CO2 have been predicted, they are far from being established. The cycle is not really understood carbon dioxide may well prove to be the least objectionable or the only beneficial addition to the atmosphere from industrial sources8221 152 responses to 8220Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-821780s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific 8216Consensus82178221 P Gosselin 13. September 2016 at 3:18 PM Permalink No wonder they call him 8220Winston8221 8211 straight out of George Orwell. Thanks, Kenneth, for this outstanding effort This likely has implications for Gavin Schmidt and his simultaneous efforts to remove the early 20th century warm spell and the cooler mid 20th century cold spell. Obviously Connelly8217s department is next door to Gavin8217s. BTW, I numbered the publications in the list and the amount is over 300 papers caitie 14. September 2016 at 9:32 AM Permalink apparently the outstanding effort is as simple as a basic literature review, to pick out papers with small datasets, and large errorbars. That, of course, is par for the course for any research student, but apparently you think it8217s a significant and meaningful effort 8211 its not. What do you think is identified here are you unaware of the actual scientific method, how and why it is used I find that baffling. While you8217re busy fawning over nothing more than early literature, you probably dont notice that exactly this happens all over the place 8211 in fact it wasnt so long ago we thought the universe was 17 billion years old 8211 then 12, then 14, and 13. Gossy, this is actually how science works. Honestly, it is. the size of the error bars are inversely proportional to the sqaure root of the number of data points 8211 the literature above 8211 has very small N. Literature now, has much more complete dataset. I appreciate I used a lot of big words and concepts there 8211 but I also appreciate you dont know what they are, and you probably should. you8217re in the 21st century, you dont really have much of an excuse to be ignorant of this stuff any more. 8220the amount is over 3008221 8211 of course, the relevant metric here is the size of the data contributing to the analysis, not the number of analises, but clearly you8217re ignorant of, or not able to understand what science is, and how it works. good luck finding out 8211 rest assured, you8217re not alone, and I gather that you knowing you8217re not isolated in your ignorance somehow validates it for you 8211 it doesnt. you8217re still ignorant. Bitteramptwisted 14. September 2016 at 10:39 AM Permalink I take it you8217re a believer in AGW The quasi-religious zeal shines through. caitie 14. September 2016 at 11:20 AM Permalink I believe where the fact point BampT. and I dont get my 8220facts8221 from blogs, people who are mathematically incompetent, or scientifically illiterate. If I8217m unable to access the facts, then of course, I8217m unable to comment. By demanding facts, I exclude input from politicians, blogs, self-published nonsense and angry wounded ranty posters on said blogs. Incidentally: An adult would understand the application of religion here 8211 a religion being 8216the worship of a god or supernatural process 8211 often a creator8221 is a rather juvenile slur 8211 so it8217s not worth commenting on much further, but I acknowledge your need to demonize science when it offends your personal views (such as global warming in 2010 substantial dataset) or applaud when it supports them (such as global cooling in 19708217s relatively much smaller dataset). Given people vastly more qualified than you and I dare to entertain a conclusion on AGW that is so very opposite to yours (vastly less qualified) means that it does, im sure you can understand that I would take their conclusions with a much smaller grain of salt than I would your (vastly less qualified) conclusions. Contrary to the substance of this blog 8211 I also understand that science is a self-correcting process, and indeed, conclusions change as morebetter datamodelsinformation are acquired 8211 this seems to be an aspect that has escaped the notice of the author of this article, and many posters on it. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:45 PM Permalink 8220I don8217t get my facts people who are mathematically incompetent, or scientifically illiterate8221 so. no thoughts of your own, is that what you are telling us. From your comments I doubt you know even the very basics of anything to do with science. Your first words. 8220I believe82218230. SO WHAT. Waiting with baited breathe for your next load of meaningless, zero-science ranting. Its all you seem to have. caitie 14. September 2016 at 2:56 PM Permalink Hi andy, 8220so no thoughts of your own8221 8211 no, I dont make up facts on my own. Do you Why on earth do you think it8217s appropriate to make up facts on your own how dishonest is that My first words 8220I believe8230 8221 yes, andy, this is because the question from BampT was 8220I take it youre a believer in AGW8221 Obviously then, he was asking me to respond in the context of my beliefs. It8217s interesting you take offence to me answering the question asked, but I sense there is a lot of irrational anger here, from some 8211 and that8217s fine, if a little bewildering. I enjoy seeing this expression you8217ve adopted 8220your zero-science ranting8221. Is this where I point out that you8217re perfectly happy to adopt 8220science8221 where the results are consistent with what seems to be nothing more substantive than your personal preferences, and reject science that does not Anyone else would call that cherry picking 8211 to be honest, I call it that too 8211 though in your case there are additional words I would select 8211 hypocritical, intellectually bereft, and simply downright dishonest. None of this has much to do with personal opinion Andy 8211 you do reject science that disagrees with you, and you accept it when it does 8211 and you do that in defiance of the obvious and actually rather normal scientific and mathematical formalisms generally used in science. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:56 PM Permalink You are good at these empty banal posts, your stock in trade. so it seems, all you have.. But you show a very low level of actual understanding about anything to do with science or statistics. You have produced and continue to produce, meaningless rantings devoid of anything to do with either. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:58 PM Permalink YAWN. what a pointless load of meaningless garbage you are spewing. Empty zero-science rants is all you seem to have.. That low-end arts fail isn8217t helping you, is it, dearie. Bill 15. September 2016 at 12:50 PM Permalink I am not a scientist I have read papers and article on both sides and I have questions on the science. If you find that questionable how come they sell CO2 generators for greenhouses That 1500ppm is optimal for plant growth With 30 more plant growth. johnsongasindustrialCO2Gen. asp fifthseasongardeningregulating-carbon-dioxide How come Venus has 97 CO2 atmosphere and and Mars is 96 CO2 and one is cold and one is hot(besides Venus being closer to the sun) BTW Venus8217s greenhouse was caused by the magnetic field failing and the ocean8217s vaporizing. The water vapor caused the greenhouse run away baking the CO2 out of the rocks. youtu. bec6K2ibg-Wb0 The 97 myth. How come it isn8217t reported that out of thousands of scientists polled on global warming, only 79 responded and only 77 said man made global warming is real 77 scientist is not a majority. wsjarticlesSB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 nightspore 21. September 2016 at 9:09 PM Permalink And people vastly more competent than them have also questioned it 8211 including some of the greatest physicists in the world (Dyson, Zichichi, Giavar, etc.) I8217d say your self-annointedness is showing. swordfish 14. September 2016 at 1:56 PM Permalink 1) You need to go back and read this post again as you seem to have completely misunderstood it. Contrary to what you appear to think, it isn8217t claiming that global warming isn8217t happening because 285 papers were published examining global cooling, it8217s specifically arguing against a paper by William Connely which pretended to find only 7 global cooling papers. The points you make about number of datapoints and so on are actually irrelevant, as is the point that science is (supposedly) self-correcting. These are just 8216taking points8217 (as alarmists always say). 2) Why do you insist on adopting a very specific arrogant and insulting tone in your comments I realise that all alarmists do it but it8217s obviously not helping your cause, so: why do it yonason 15. September 2016 at 9:19 PM Permalink David Johnson 14. September 2016 at 10:41 PM Permalink You8217ve just demonstrated you are an oaf, well done. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Dushanbe 20. September 2016 at 4:21 AM Permalink Caitie the Competent The size of the data set is not the only guide to the truth. One perfect data point with no uncertainty in the hand is worth a hundred uncertain data points in the bush. N is not the only consideration. Uncertainty for each N pads the error bars. Too much book-learning methinks. You sound like the scholar who read chapter one correcting the professor who wrote the textbook. garyh845 14. September 2016 at 6:00 PM Permalink In addition 8211 8220This likely has helpful implications for. 8220ExxonMobil. P van Toorn 13. September 2016 at 4:37 PM Permalink It is an impressive literature list, although I am not surprised it can be made. I remember that in late 608217s and early 708217s when I was a physics student, climate was an important topic in the MSM media. Journalists covering science were writing articles about the cooling of the climate. We were heading for an ice age. I would not be surprised that an analysis of the science articles in the MSM papers from 608217s and 708217s would also show that a main worry was the cooling of the climate. It is ironic (sad) that the same MSM papers are now telling us the opposite. You can hide the truth within Wikipedia and MSM media, but not forever in science. Reasonable Skeptic 13. September 2016 at 4:49 PM Permalink I would like to highlight this bit: 8220A change of 2-3 F. in average temperature would have an enormous impact. A number of meteorological experts are thinking in terms of a return to a climate like that of the 19th century. 8221 As we can see, in 1974, it was understood, one might even say there was a consensus view, that climate change was natural and changes could be quite dramatic, in the order of 2-3 deg. F per century. Ed Caryl 13. September 2016 at 5:30 PM Permalink 8220The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible, however for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history. For more than 45 years, Holdren and Ehrlich have been shouting 8220fire8221 in every theatre they can find Why have they not been institutionalized long ago sod 13. September 2016 at 6:14 PM Permalink Count me unconvinced. What is the evidence here a couple of cherrypicked phrases It is obvious, that the real subject are papers claiming more cooling (or warming) and not papers talking about what has happened (some pretty minor cooling). It is also important, whether the reasons given for the cooling make sense or if they do not. Do people here really not understand, how a theory works Well there8217s also that US documentary voiced by that Spock actor. Leonard Nimoy. About the Global cooling expected by scientists. Including one Stephen Schneider. You find it on youtube. Only brainwashed German dimwits don8217t know it. You8217ve been educated by idiots and liars, sod. P Gosselin 13. September 2016 at 10:29 PM Permalink Let8217s not forget feature stories in Newsweek, Spiegel and Time8230all crowing consensus. Spiegel warned in 1974 that there was only a 1 in 10,000 chance of warming ahead. And Science News That was what got my attention. See below. P Gosselin 13. September 2016 at 10:32 PM Permalink tom0mason 13. September 2016 at 10:10 PM Permalink 8220Do people here really not understand, how a theory works8221 Yes, you use billions of other people8217s money, advertising that the 8216science is settled8217, pay for research that conforms the theory, and re-edit all historical sources to make it appear so. Governments love it, as it gives them more money, more power, and more perceived global influence. It may come as a surprise to you Sod but some of us were alive in the 1960 when this very real event happened. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:12 AM Permalink tomo 8211 you simply confirmed what sod implied. you dont know how the scientific method works 8211 science is self correcting 8211 that means that early results are iteratively refined as new data and new analysis comes in. Many of these papers are perhaps, 40 years old 8211 I was not alive at the time of course, but I8217d be suprised to learn many goverements were claiming the science was settled. In fact, I think your saying so is a disingenuous fib, but feel free to show me say, a handful of governments that said anything like it, 40 years ago. So we can speculate 8211 pending your further data 8211 that you are likely to have fibbed about what governments said 40 years ago, and that as you8217re apparently unaware that trend analises have errorbars proportional to some nonlinear function of the size of the dataset, that you8217re also unable to comprehend comments made where N is small are demonstrably error prone. You might well have been alive when it happened, and that gives you less of an excuse to have failed to inform yourself on the basic operation of science and error propagation since then 8211 unless of course, the brain has addled somewhat. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:51 PM Permalink You make it VERY obvious that it is you who has a failed arts student8217s view of how science works. You remain UN-educated. Still waiting for you produce something, anything that shows you proceeded past junior high maths and science. All you show is very low-end understanding of either, the sort of understanding they teach in humanities and arts basic maths courses8230 words, without comprehension or understanding. Understanding sarcasm isn8217t your strength either, it seems. The Rev. Dr. Chuck Roast 15. September 2016 at 12:14 AM Permalink Let8217s clear something up here that you8217re busy obfuscating with your nasty little tone 8230 The Scientific METHOD is 8211 the the best of our ability 8211 dispassionate and fact-based. ScientISTS and the whole business of science are NOT 8211 not by a long shot. Something as simple as deciding who the PI (Principal Investigator) is going to be or deciding which proposals get funding and which ones do not are ENTIRELY political, subjective, and full of agenda, bias, etc. There is a huge bias in the scientific community for the status quo. People8217s careers, credibility, position, prestige, and all the rest hinge on preserving that status quo. It is entirely possible 8211 in fact, quite likely 8211 that if new science appears that threatens that status quo, it will be squelched, suppressed, ignored, or just plain not funded. That is why it is famously said, 8220Funeral by funeral, science progresses.8221 So please do quit pretending that science as practised is this unimpeachable oracle of truth. The techniques are valuable but there are as good or bad as the bureaucracy that wields them. There is ample evidence 8211 and there has been for years 8211 of suppression of contrary views (see Ballings and Michaels8217 8220The Satanic Gasses8221 for a number of ugly examples), questionable methodology, jiggering the data, overselling the results, and so on to absolutely justify a healthy skepticism of the AGWCC dogma. More to the point, you are the one exhibiting religious zeal here when you express this boundless trust in a system that you apparently barely understand. Go do real research (I have 8211 many years ago) and get back to us with just how dispassionate the whole process actually is from tip to tail. In the mean time, you might manage to find a civil tone and stop being an ass to strangers because they are asking fair questions8230 tom0mason 15. September 2016 at 1:23 AM Permalink Let me spell it out as you seem to miss the point. 1. These days billions is pumped into this AGW-Climate Change industry via government initiatives at the behest of the unelected elites of the UN. This is certainly not good for science (who pays the piper calls the tune), or the rest of us as we all foot the bill. We are currently paying for an expensive and unproven theory. 2. 40 years ago the fear of a global cool down was real and widely reported. Crispin in Waterloo but really in Dushanbe 20. September 2016 at 4:41 AM Permalink I nominate Caitie as a perfect data point about which there is no uncertainty. If another one comes along we can establish a trend. Caitie, two perfect data points can be used to confidently describe a trend. That is how science 8216works8217. It is also how expertise is demonstrated. Before you were born we put men on the moon and at the bottom of the ocean and brought them back. It was done with very few N8217s. There was a global cooling scare on the run for years and remarkably the names of the shrill and the clamorous are the same as those we hear today. Literally. Doubling CO2, which is not technically feasible, might increase the global temperature by 0.25 C. The hobgoblin of global warming is a pipsqueak. Arsten 13. September 2016 at 10:20 PM Permalink In other words, you don8217t bother reading any of these beyond statements taken from them and presented AndyG55 13. September 2016 at 10:50 PM Permalink 8220(some pretty minor cooling). 8221 As opposed to some pretty minor warming from El Ninos, hey. The cooling on the top graph looks like about 0.4C in 30 years. Where as the whole warming (much fabricated) in the fraudulent giss graph is about 1.1C in 120 year (a lesser rate) Reasonable Skeptic 13. September 2016 at 10:58 PM Permalink 8220It is also important, whether the reasons given for the cooling make sense or if they do not. Do people here really not understand, how a theory works8221 Ahh, but there was no cooling. Scientists from that time period were mislead by surface data that was not properly corrected for bias8230. Well either that or todays scientists have hidden the cooling that actually did take place by introducing biased processes within the homogenization process. It is one or the other. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:29 AM Permalink of course, a little more intelligent thought would probably lead you to a more sane conclusion that doesn8217t involve some monumental conspiracy led by those INCREDIBLY wealthy research scientists (cos, you know, they are much more wealthy than the fossil fuelpetroleumautomotive industry right). RS, with a dataset of say, 10 datapoints revals some trends, the errors are monumental 8211 but you can still find a linear trend. What you think that trend might mean is speculation with in the errors of the fit. Now, coming back to that same dataset with something like 10 times the amount of data 8211 the trend analysis result is going to be DIFFERENT. There is no hiding of data, the data are still there 8211 they8217re even still in the analysis 8211 they are just LESS significant in the context of the data, beacuse there are simply more data points. It also means that the accuracy of the fit has improved. Put another way RS 8211 you would have to be seriously ignorant of basic statistics to expect a trend analysis to be replicated EXACTLY between two datasets, where the second dataset is so much larger than the first. It8217s both idiotic and ignorant to pretend that the reason a result from a trend analysis of two datasets, one much larger than (but including) the other is a consequence of someone hiding data. sods point is perfectly valid 8211 do you really not know how science (and statistics, much less basic trend analysis ) works I8217d go further 8211 since its clear you dont know 8211 why dont you find out Sit down, get some data. do a trend analysis yourself 8211 heck, use any data you like 8211 Informed comments matter 8211 ignorant ones dont. 8220of course, a little more intelligent thought would probably lead you to a more sane conclusion that doesnt involve some monumental conspiracy led by those INCREDIBLY wealthy research scientists (cos, you know, they are much more wealthy than the fossil fuelpetroleumautomotive industry right).8221 Well caitie, maths doesn8217t seem to be your strength either. Do you actually believe the idiot climate scientists can forecast a chaotic system 100 years into the future Has it not occured to you that that branch of science has DISCOVERED NOTHING and is just a bunch of hot air For your education, Miss arrogant: youtubewatchv19q1i-wAUpY Tom T 15. September 2016 at 8:02 AM Permalink You keep saying we have more data. No we dont. The number of stations and data points have decreased dramatically since the cold war. tom0mason 15. September 2016 at 5:35 PM Permalink This is illogical BS. Please go to remedial reading class and learn to understand what has been written above. The number of data points are indeed important when attempting to estimate the likely trend if a chaotic system where all the parameters are not known (and unknowable with the present regime), and the interactions, feedbacks, and all determinants causing the interactions and feedbacks to vary are not known. In fact it is just guesswork. If not explain these few important climate using observed data only. (No models) What are all the features that constitute all types of cloud What are all the conditions that causes all types of clouds to happen What governs how long all types of clouds last and what are the determining factors governing how and when all types of clouds to dissipate Failing this just list the first 100 key features of clouds. Explain which governs this planets climate conditions more 8211 sea and ocean conditions, or solar radiation What causes the upper atmosphere temperature inversion. Cite only observed data to prove your response. What are all the effects of plankton on climate Why are historic records of trees better at recording rainfall than temperature Prove this statement correct or not (your choice) citing only observed evidence (no models). Why does Professor Wood8217s greenhouse experiment always work as advertised Crispin in Waterloo but really in Dushanbe 20. September 2016 at 5:00 AM Permalink Caitie we are trying to locate your strengths to encourage you in the right direction. Stop making it difficult. Take a sine wave. Any frequency. Pick two points on the wave more than one wavelength apart. Plot the trend. Pick two points on the wave less that one wavelength apart. Plot the trend. Repeat the exercise using a large number of data points between the two end points. As many as you like. Calculate the trends. Explain the difference between the two trends, if any. Repeat the latter (shorter) exercise for a part-wave selecting a data set of the same length but a different starting point. Calculate the trend. Explain the differences between all the trend lines. Next, using logic, not stats, prove that the climate as we have measured it so far, is best described by which of these three trend lines. Ponder whether or not we have enough measurements to be sure we can express with confidence the warming influence of AG CO2 or the cooling influence of AG airborne particulates. nightspore 21. September 2016 at 9:13 PM Permalink You8217re creating your own strawman and then puncturing it. Ultimately it8217s not about wealth it8217s about defending a worldview. AGW is made to order for the leftish bien pensant. The ultimate justification of their little world-views. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:49 AM Permalink No, the data is not hidden, it just becomes less statistically significant as the size of the data set increases 8211 put another way the formal statistical weights of each datapoint in the ensemble decreases as the inverse of the square of the size of the dataset (for a single datapoint in an ensemble of N points, the statistical weight goes as 1N. Nothing sinister, just basic math, but its fascinating to see how many people conflate bad understanding of statistics with a global conspiracy. Really rather breathtaking. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:07 PM Permalink Oh dear, still the low-level understanding of basic data. And did you know that there is very much LESS surface temperature data available now than there was in the 19808217s So you have proven AGAINST your own point, even though your understanding of the real statistical basis of multiple data collection is obviously very much beyond you. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:13 PM Permalink Did you know that the number of surface temperature stations was at its peak in the 19708217s, and that there are now less than 18 the number of reporting station Or is that yet another point of ignorance Did you know that the actual quality of many of the current reporting station is of an extremely low level, with airports, air-conditioners, tarmac surfaces abounding Another point of your ignorance, I8217m guessing. Did you know that just a bit less than half of current data in GISS is marked with an 8220E8221 for 8220estimate8221. não. Is there ANYTHING you do know. caitie 14. September 2016 at 3:58 PM Permalink 8220Did you know that the number of surface temperature stations was at its peak in the 1970s, and that there are now less than 18 the number of reporting station8221 so Add the total amount of data available then, to the total number of data available now (which includes data available then), and you will wind up with a larger number. You dont know that adding two positive numbers gives you another postive number greater than either of the two original values 8220Did you know that the actual quality of many of the current reporting station is of an extremely low level8230blahblah8221 so the 8220actual quality of data8221 is reflected in the errors. So what 8220Did you know that just a bit less than half of current data in GISS is marked with an E for estimate8221 EVERY SINGLE measurement is an 8220E8221 for estimate at some level. Some are interpolated from temporally-nearby data, and some are derived from other processes. So what Andy 8211 this is how you do science. It8217s HOW science is done - you build a data set 8211 it might not even be a direct observable. You conduct statistics, and you ESTIMATE the answer that is consistent with the input datasets. So what Andy. lol 8211 this is hilarious 8211 andy, hun, this is how it8217s done okay Really, it is. In any science. Cope, okay really, cope. P Gosselin 14. September 2016 at 5:28 PM Permalink You seem to have gotten the idea that this blog has become your forum in which to pretend you8217re an expert and to spout off and insult everybody. You8217re allowed to make comments here but in the spirit of a respectful dialogue. You8217re sophomoric, condescending has reached its limit. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:43 PM Permalink Poor little thing, double down on your own ignorance and stupidity. That is how you cope. You have nothing to offer of any relevance to anything to do with maths or science. Just idiotic bluster to cover up your lack of knowledge and understanding. You have NOTHING. Your rhetoric is EMPTY. yonason 14. September 2016 at 7:44 PM Permalink 82208230it might not even be a direct observable.8221 8211 caitie (sod on steroids) With warmunists, it rarely is. ) Here8217s how science is really done, when one is doing it correctly, that is. youtubewatchvGmc5w2I-FCA (NOTE 8211 early on he addresses the very topic of Pierre8217s post, coming to the same conclusion, the rest it addressing the MAJOR flaws in the warming narrative.) 8220Informed comments matter ignorant ones dont.8221 8211 caitie (sod on drugs steroids) Which is why yours don8217t. tmorgan 14. September 2016 at 8:19 PM Permalink I8217m seeking clarification of a point made by catie. I welcome answers from all participants, but would like to hear from catie regarding her understanding of acceptable ways to acquire a data set. I have a Bachelor8217s in Biology and graduated summa cum laude so I think I have a solid basic grasp of how science is supposed to be conducted. My degree was decades ago and I what I am reading here concerns me that science standards have changed dramatically since then. Specifically, I learned that the only valid way to acquire data is to collect it from observation. Increasing your sample size by fabricating data points invalided your results, so much so that if you were caught doing so was an automatic F for that assignment (at the very least). Catie seems to be saying that it is now an acceptable standardized practice to round out a data set by estimating the values of additional data points based on the data points that you actually have. Her comments seem to suggest that this new approach has been made canonical, at least in some fields. She seems to be saying that she understands all science to be done by collecting some then guessing what the rest of the data is. Is this true If so, how widespread is this new approach I cannot see the value in such an approach. If there is value, perhaps someone could explain it. tmorgan 14. September 2016 at 8:22 PM Permalink I8217m seeking clarification of a point made by catie. I welcome answers from all participants, but would like to hear from catie regarding her understanding of acceptable ways to acquire a data set. I have a Bachelor8217s in Biology and graduated summa cum laude so I think I have a solid basic grasp of how science is supposed to be conducted. My degree was decades ago and I what I am reading here concerns me that science standards have changed dramatically since then. Specifically, I learned that the only valid way to acquire data is to collect it from observation. Increasing your sample size by fabricating data points invalided your results, so much so that if you were caught doing so was an automatic F for that assignment (at the very least). Catie seems to be saying that it is now an acceptable standardized practice to round out a data set by estimating the values of additional data points based on the data points that you actually have. Her comments seem to suggest that this new approach has been made canonical, at least in some fields. She seems to be saying that she understands all science to be done by collecting some then guessing what the rest of the data is. Is this true If so, how widespread is this new approach I cannot see the value in such an approach. If there is value, perhaps someone could explain it. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 9:10 PM Permalink 8220Is this true If so, how widespread is this new approach8221 It is certainly widespread in climate science. The surface data is actually incredibly sparse in huge regions of the world. Even then, some 40-45 of stations don8217t report regularly. And as surface station studies have show, many stations (even in the USA) are often of extremely low quality, goodness knows how bad some of the data from developing and undeveloped countries is. As such, somewhere over 70 of the land surface has inadequate covered, the rest is just 8220made up8221 by those doing everything they can to push the AGW. Hence we get the laughing stock that is GISS But this is acceptable and quite valuable to alarmists, because the fabricated data can do whatever the fabricators want it to do. They even feel the need to continually keep changing past data, to the stage where GISS is basically a meaningless straight line. But it is in no way has any resemblance to science or reality. yonason 14. September 2016 at 9:59 PM Permalink 8220Is this true If so, how widespread is this new approach78221 The video I included will answer some of your questions, as it deals with what climate data is appropriate, and what isn8217t. Climate science today appears to be a mess, at least as controlled by the warmist gatekeepers. tmorgan 15. September 2016 at 12:35 AM Permalink I am nearly speechless. I knew there was probably some bungling going on with adjustments to thermometer records due to siting and other problems. But I didn8217t realize credentialed scientists were performing and teaching a scientific method that accepts data fabrication as valid. I can8217t imagine how such a state of affairs came to be or how it is allowed to continue. Such ideas violate the very core of the scientific method. kuhnkat 15. September 2016 at 1:09 AM Permalink Caitie, thanks for explaining why the adjustment of large data sets is not required nor desired especially by methods that will introduce BIAS tom0mason 15. September 2016 at 1:49 AM Permalink You don8217t get it do you there is NO proof that the climate in recent years is not just natural variation. All the screwing-around with statistical numbers (not data as they are just statistical products derived from small amount of real observed data). Here8217s a lesson for you to explain 8212 Imagine one of the biggest storms ever to hit Europe, it destroys most buildings, bridges, roads and about a third of the forests in Ireland and Britain, causes floods in the low countries of Europe, kills many 10,000s of people on its passage up through Germany and beyond. But its natural variation. Less than 15 years later there comes a European winter freeze. For months rivers from Ireland to Prussia are frozen. This level of cold is very unusual but it8217s a natural variation. Less than 15 years after the freeze Europe there starts the great drought. In most of Europe there8217s no significant rain for 4 YEARS But it is natural variation. Caitie, why can I say this is natural variation Because unlike you I have some wider education, and more experience than you. So go look it up it was a real historical set of events. (Hint:Daniel Defoe may be a good place to start.) Then explain to everyone here how to differentiate natural variation from man-made AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:40 AM Permalink 8220Do people here really not understand, how a theory works8221 We all know FOR CERTAIN, that you don8217t. Stick to you Bros Grimm fairy tales about wind energy, sop, its all you have. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:20 AM Permalink Because you think wind energy is made from cow farts or do you think it gives you a headache or is the electricity generated from it, somehow. a different color that you dont like I have to admit, I8217m coming into this cold here 8211 but I hear a lot about people objecting to wind power because it makes the cows milk turn green or something. Or gives their babies a mysterious ability to rotate their heads 360 degrees. no seriously, some of this horseradish about objecting to windpower is absolutely head-desk-worthy 8211 whats the quality of yours note 8211 its okay if you8217re not comfortable to answer, I just like to maximise my LOLs by increasing the clown population in the circus. I8217m sure you understand. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:48 PM Permalink 8220I have to admit, Im coming into this cold here 8221 What you have to admit, is that you are basically ignorant. That would be the best starting point. Once you understand that, then you can start to learn. Try it sometime, instead of the meaningless garbage rants. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:22 PM Permalink Wind energy is irregular, unreliable, subsidy sucking, unable to compete on a level laying filed, and often requires a REAL energy supply system to back up the majority of the power. You need to have two supply systems, one which is inherently ineffective and irregular, and one which could be 100 reliable but is forced to operate in fits and starts to make up for the irregularities of the wind energy. In many places they are finding that even with fast start gas system they are actually adding MORE CO2 into the atmosphere because the gas systems are forced to operate inefficiently, plus of course, the amount of concrete, wire and other materials. all of which have to be manufactured using REAL power such as gas or coal creates far more CO2 than the wind turbine is ever likely to save over its short life time. But you didn8217t know any of that either, did you. ClimateOtter 14. September 2016 at 2:38 PM Permalink 8216but I hear a lot about people objecting to wind power because it makes the cows milk turn green or something. Or gives their babies a mysterious ability to rotate their heads 360 degrees..8217 You made up every single word of that to fit your ignorant biases. Want to prove people really believe what you just claimed Present links to their exact words. In the meantime, please do continue to make a fool of yourself. caitie 14. September 2016 at 2:45 PM Permalink sure otter, obviously i want people to believe that wind power turns cow milk green. That is exactly what I want. you do, at least, provide actually funny comical relief. The other comedy actors here are more tragic. ClimateOtter 14. September 2016 at 3:04 PM Permalink Wow, you chose to double-down on your own stupidity. I can see why you are laughing, you can8217t understand your own ignorance Pierre, is there a reason this 0amp is still talking on this site AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:36 PM Permalink Its own stupidity is all it has, It is unable to produce anything resembling science. caitie 14. September 2016 at 2:45 PM Permalink 8220sure otter, obviously i want people to believe that wind power turns cow milk green.8221 You8217re sure you want to debate numerical simulations Your level of discourse belongs into a SJW circus. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 8:31 PM Permalink 8220i want people to believe that wind power turns cow milk green8221 Is this what your peers are telling you Tell them to slow down on the funny pills. Seems you are living in a child8217s mind, you poor dear. David Johnson 14. September 2016 at 10:43 PM Permalink You really have no clue have you SOD. I was alive and studying the subject at grammar school. Global cooling was an established fact. You really are a complete tosser and you deserve any ad hom attack thrown at you. RoyFOMR 15. September 2016 at 2:17 AM Permalink The 60s and 70s, a period I lived through from teenager to adult, was heralded as a period of cooling and the danger of a new ice-age was certainly the scientific and popular media strapline during that period. I don8217t care how many or how few papers have been stacked up since, either for or against, I lived through that period and global cooling was perceived as a real probability and not as a fringe view but as a consensus. As Max Boyce, the Welsh comedian, was wont to say: 8220I know 8216cos I was there8221 Jamie 13. September 2016 at 8:37 PM Permalink It is the hubris of man that always brings him down. Climate science seems more like religion than a methodology. I am sure scientists were just as convinced of their arguments in the 1970s as they are now. This certainty, and lack of humility, has led to an abandonment of the scientific method in favor of name-calling and claims of 8216settled science8217 8211 an oxymoron if there ever was one. Of course the trillion dollar carbon trading floor is enough of an incentive in itself to suppress all but the desired narrative. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:41 AM Permalink 8220I am sure scientists were just as convinced of their arguments in the 1970s as they are now.8221 because you cant read the carefully-phrased conclusions in many of the articles above 8220its not clear..8221. 8220on the other hand82308221. 8220may be due to..8221 I dont interpret expessions like these as a lack of humility, but perhaps you do. Im also not sure youre really the best person to be talking about the scientific method being abandoned 8211 were you able to actually grasp the process, you8217d understand that its a collaborative and convergent process 8211 and the starting point at least, can be quite far from the actual fact. Usually the starting pionts are associated with large error bars, andof course, this blog disingenuosly wont talk about error bars (maybe it8217s to make the scientific articles appear to lack humility, I dont know). Subsequent refinements of the hypothesis hopefull reduce the error bars, and converge on the correct true answer. 8220settled science8221 refers not to the method of course, but to the body of knowledge. In the case of Global warming, one would be wiser to associate 8220settled science8221 with the fact that the planet is indeed, warming. A few mathematicall illiterate twits struggle to understand what that means, but they8217re more detritus than substance. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:57 PM Permalink 8220A few mathematically illiterate twits 8221 You being one of them. Here are some facts. Feel free to find the data that shows they are incorrect 1. No warming in the UAH satellite record from 1980 to 1998 El Nino 2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015. 3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record. 4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years. 5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002 6. No warming in Japan surface data for the last 20 years, No warming from 1950-1990. ie, a zero trend for 40 years through their biggest industrial expansion 7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino. 8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979-1997, then no warming from 2001 2015 9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower 10. British Columbia (Canada) temperatures have been stable, with no warming trend, throughout 1900-2010 11. Chile has been cooling since the 1940s. 12. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982-2005, then cooling 13. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016. That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those regions and time periods. There IS NO CO2 WARMING effect. The ONLY warming has come from regional El Nino and ocean circulation effects such as the PDO and AMO. Those are the facts. now let8217s see you RANT your way around them. while producing ZERO SCIENCE, like the rest of your meaningless child-minded posts. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:01 PM Permalink And 8220settled science8221. seriously. the very fact you use that wording PROVES you are scientifically ILLITERATE. You failed science and maths Junior High, I8217m guessing. 8230 but because you had a good imagination, you went onto fabricating stories in a low end gutter press somewhere. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 8:09 PM Permalink The body of 8220climate science8221 is far, far from settled, it is only in its infancy, as is your child-like mind. And like the stagnant beliefs of 8220climate science8221, your brain-washed mind has also become stagnant and fetid. TFN 13. September 2016 at 9:06 PM Permalink tom0mason 13. September 2016 at 9:58 PM Permalink William Connolley has inflected on Wikipedia and its readers a version of vanity publishing by proxy to which only a political activist with a message to get out could dedicate so such time and effort. I also note that many academics whose work goes against Connolley8217s views have been removed or entries are heavily edited (see Professor R. W. Woods entry and the reference to his greenhouse gas experiments as just a single grudging footnote.) Contrast and compare the desultory treatment that, arguably one of the greatest climatologist of our time, H. H. Lamb is subjected to, and the reverence that political activist James E. Hansen is given. How and why Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, has allowed this to happen is beyond me. They should both be ashamed of this advocacy, politically driven use of what should have been an excellent educational and reference project. Instead it is just a port of call for some dubious opinions tarnish with green politics. P Gosselin 13. September 2016 at 10:27 PM Permalink His membership in the Green Party hardly lends credibility8230 Bitteramptwisted 14. September 2016 at 10:42 AM Permalink I had the 8220pleasure8221 of working with Connolley in the mid-90s. He was an arrogant twit then, but I did not believe he was inherently corrupt. Well you live and learn. AndyG55 13. September 2016 at 10:42 PM Permalink Pierre, do you have any idea why your graphs are so blurry If I right click and open in new tab, they are fine Harry Passfield 13. September 2016 at 10:53 PM Permalink William Connolley has inflected on Wikipedia Perhaps you meant that Connolley has infected Wikipedia yonason 14. September 2016 at 1:36 AM Permalink 8220inflicted,8221 most likely tom0mason 14. September 2016 at 7:20 AM Permalink Either as you feel. Certainly my blurry-eyed proof reading had again failed. caitie 14. September 2016 at 9:26 AM Permalink apparently the people contributing to, and running this post, dont seem to have much of an idea of how science and statistics works. Trends 8211 well obviously 8211 emerge from data. Obviously, statistical trends become more accurately measured as the number of data points contributing to the ensemble increases. At the risk of educating people 8211 a simple mean value of an ensemble 8211 assuming it8217s normally distributed 8211 has a sigma that is associated with the inverse of the squareroot of the size of its population 8211 in redneck-ese, that means that as the size of the population increases, the error decreases. while N is small, the erros are large 8211 and the errors decrease rapidly with N, until N is so large that sqrt(N) Apologies for using numbers and making people think. If people posting here actually had an intellectually honest bone in their body 8211 much less something more than zero comprehension of science and math, they might have noticed that many of the comments included above, by our deliriously inept article author were carefully couched in language that tended to avoid declarations of absolute truth. Though what I think is probably the most hilarious is that, while the drooling folks here clap and stomp their feet like a infant discovering a shiny tinkly thing, its business as normal for science. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 10:21 AM Permalink Well that was an EMPTY load of twaddle. You obviously have only a very BASIC level of understanding of measurement error. Junior high stats. But keep going. funny to watch. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:33 AM Permalink yes I agree 8211 and actually you validated my comments 8211 thanks for that. Sorry andy, the simple fact is that science is self correcting. It8217s a little amusing you8217re stomping your foot insisting that a result from 40 years ago with a vastly smaller dataset should be the same as that today But yes, I chose a simple example of error propagation 8211 and unfortunately, it wasnt simple enough for you to grasp. I cant actualyl dumb it down further 8211 you8217ve chosen to be ignorant of both science and basic stats 8211 thats not anything I can do much about, except enjoy the comedy 8211 and I do. thanks again. Feel free to build on your latest hilarity. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 1:53 PM Permalink Sorry that you have zero understanding about anything to do with science. You certainly started with your dumbest empty baseless zero-science rants. Keep going. its funny. All the real unadulterated data that still exists, points very much to the 19408217s being warmer than now, with a dip down to the mid-late 19708217s, 8230. and there is nothing your ignorant ranting can do about that fact. Now go back to junior high and finish you basic maths course. come back in say 10 years when you have caught up. ClimateOtter 14. September 2016 at 2:41 PM Permalink One wonders if you even have a clue that many who post here are actual scientists, and that you are basically spitting into a hurricane with your ignorant twaddle. caitie 14. September 2016 at 2:50 PM Permalink hi otter, one might. Would you wonder that too Certainly there is little evidence of it, but that doesnt mean much, scientists simply screw it up from time to time 8211 and if people like andy et al really are scientists, one might expect that in their 8220science time8221 they actually do apply the scientific method, as well as numeracy. Suffice to say that here they dont. No problem 8211 the guy heading up the genome project is staunchly religious and he simply deflects the insanity of faith while he does his research. Similarly Issac newton was a christian, but he was able to act more sanely throughout his research. There is nothing ignorant in pointing out the article here simply ignores the purpose and implementation of statistical trend analysis, which is exactly what it does. If you take issue with that, that8217s your own problem and not mine 8211 but if YOU are a scientist CO, I sincerely hope you check your error propagation correctly. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 7:34 PM Permalink Still waiting for you to present something that remotely represents science. Rather than empty meaningless rhetoric. yonason 14. September 2016 at 11:59 AM Permalink 8220Well that was an EMPTY load of twaddle.8221 8211 AndyG55 Sure put us in our place, didn8217t hesheitwhatever It8217s truly humbling to be in the presence of such genius. Who knew that sigma was 8220ASSOCIATED WITH the inverse of the squareroot of the size of its population8221 Here I always thought it was EQUAL TO it. Live an learn. Or maybe it8217s just that all the 8220chosen ones8221 write alike yonason 14. September 2016 at 12:57 PM Permalink variance the average of the sum of the squared deviations std dev positive square root of the variance The bigger the sample size, the smaller the std dev. What caitie seems to be saying is that the larger the sample size, the less the error. But that is NOT necessarily true, as this illustration hopefully makes clear. mathsisfunaccuracy-precision. html AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:24 PM Permalink Waiting for you to produce something resemble science.. So far you seem to be TOTALLY EMPTY of it. I was sort of certain about the basic qualitative answer the beliefs in a new ice age were damn real and comparably 8220prevailing8221 to the later global warming ones but I am immensely impressed by the hard work needed to find the papers and provide us with a possibly accurate estimate of the number of such papers. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:16 AM Permalink hehe, the comments above are LOLful. Scientists are okay when they support your pet theory. In fact, so much so that you can go and grab a bucket of them to point out how right they were and how wrong they must be now. On the other hand, scientists with more data, more understanding and more information that happen to disagree with those 40 years prior( who had less understanding, less information and less data) are 8211 of course, completely wrong. (note, one must also be ignorant of basic statistics and the scientific method, as well as lack anything resembling an intellectually honest bone in ones body, to do this) yonason 14. September 2016 at 1:39 PM Permalink caitie the sod equivalent If you think ALL of the above commenters are ignoramuses, it8217s probably because you mistakenly think that the Lubos Motl post above is by warmist fraudster John (97) Cook instead of the real deal. motls. blogspot201507identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns. html AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 2:03 PM Permalink 8220(note, one must also be ignorant of basic statistics and the scientific method, as well as lack anything resembling an intellectually honest bone in ones body, to do this)8221 As you are proving to everybody. Oh wait there you do have a small knowledge of very basic low-level statistics8230. but NONE of the scientific method or anything to do with science. Your dishonesty at pretending that you do is quite childish. caitie 14. September 2016 at 10:16 AM Permalink Reply 8220On the other hand, scientists with more data, more understanding and more information that happen to disagree with those 40 years prior( who had less understanding, less information and less data) are of course, completely wrong.8221 You think Lamb had less understanding than the likes of Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann You seem to think younger scientists have more understanding than older scientists So show me someone who has more understanding than Gauss or Gdel. Should be easy according to your worldview. Well let8217s talk about grant-grabbing warmunist idiot scientist stand-ins some more. I have yet to see ONE analysis of power spectra in temperature data from a warmunist scientist. They either don8217t know signal processing or they don8217t want to apply it because it shows the 60 yr and 200 yr solar cycles very clearly. tom0mason 15. September 2016 at 2:30 AM Permalink Add to that list Albert Einstein (failed school teacher and patent clerk) when his first scientific papers were published. Faraday (apprentice to Sir Humphry Davy then Sir Charles Wheatstone, had no formal qualifications but was a member of the Royal Institution) Gregor J. Mendel studied philosophy at the Philosophical Institute of the University of Olmtz (Olomouc, Czech Republic), where he excelled in physics and mathematics. However his solution for a difficult life ahead of him was to enter the Augustinian Altbrnn monastery and become a monk. No real 8216science8217 qualification 8211 in the modern sense 8211 between them but thankfully back then that didn8217t matter. Note H. H.Lamb was not really 8216qualified8217 for the job either but thankfully he was the right man for the job. David Johnson 14. September 2016 at 10:45 PM Permalink You have given me lots of laughs tonight caitie14. You are quite a sad little man, or girl, I assume the 14 refers to your age, I hope. Oliver K. Manuel 14. September 2016 at 1:11 PM Permalink The Laws of Physics have replaced the Laws of God (as interpreted by the Pope), but the consequences for the public are the same ss they were after Copernicus discovered Earth moves around the Sun in 1543: The public must not be allowed to know that Earth is controlled by a Higher Power than world leaders. esalil 14. September 2016 at 2:04 PM Permalink Caitie, where does the more data come from Are there really temperature measurements from 40ies to 70ies that were not available to aurhors of those decades James Stamulis 14. September 2016 at 2:10 PM Permalink Al Gore should be in prison the rest of his life for the mass amounts of money he made on his convenient lies The 1975 March 1 issue of Science News had a cover story on cooling and included a graph showing 0.7C cooling in the northern hemisphere from a peak in the late 1930s (an extreme decade that we8217ve never equaled) to the late 1960s. Once the Keeling CO2 curve came out soon thereafter, people forgot about the cooling, which conveniently ended around the same time. Jason Calley 14. September 2016 at 2:47 PM Permalink I would be very grateful if one of the warming advocates could explain why there is such an extraordinarily close relationship between the size of temperature data adjustments and CO2 concentration. realclimatesciencewp-contentuploads2016012016-01-14-04-18-24.png Peerke 14. September 2016 at 3:15 PM Permalink Caitie, you wrote: 82208230the simple fact is that science is self correcting.8221 So how do you feel about people saying 8220The science is settled8221 when it comes to global warming Jason Calley 14. September 2016 at 7:35 PM Permalink Hey Peerke Caitie is right to say the simple fact is that science is self correcting. Unfortunately, fraud masquerading as science is NOT self correcting. AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 8:13 PM Permalink 8220the simple fact is that science is self correcting. ONLY if it is allowed to. Locked minds, such as this little girl shows, do NOT help science to progress. They are actively AGAINST allowing climate science to self-correct8230 they cannot allow that to happen if the AGW scam is to survive. TA 14. September 2016 at 4:05 PM Permalink This Time Magazine article from June 1974 says, 8220Since the 19408217s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7 degrees F (1.5 C). Agent76 14. September 2016 at 5:15 PM Permalink September 12, 2016 Lara Cow Flatulence Bill Illustrates Creeping Tyranny Enabled by Cultural Terraforming Despite plenty of evidence to suggest massive fraud behind climate change measures designed to redistribute wealth more than anything else, progressives in California are harassing dairy farmers to where moving out of state is becoming an increasingly viable option. Thats the case with Ricardo Laras (hes a Democrat, naturally) bill targeting cow flatulence and manure. Agent76 14. September 2016 at 5:25 PM Permalink September 12, 2016 Lara Cow Flatulence Bill Illustrates Creeping Tyranny Enabled by Cultural Terraforming Despite plenty of evidence to suggest massive fraud behind climate change measures designed to redistribute wealth more than anything else, progressives in California are harassing dairy farmers to where moving out of state is becoming an increasingly viable option. Thats the case with Ricardo Laras (hes a Democrat, naturally) bill targeting cow flatulence and manure. 8230 Richard8217s post from yesterday on how a small group of alarmist scientists tried to whitewash away the global cooling scare of 8230 AndyG55 14. September 2016 at 8:27 PM Permalink on a different note completely I suggest people watch what happens to the Arctic sea ice levels over the next few weeks. Could be very interesting. Tsar Nicholas 14. September 2016 at 10:56 PM Permalink The late 1960searly 1970s was a period when sea floor spreading and tectonic plate movement was only just gaining acceptance. There8217s been a huge growth of knowledge about earth sciences since then, not least from Exxon Mobil who pioneered the way with studies of how carbon dioxide would warm the planet. Exxon abandoned thsoe studies in 1982 even though it knew that humanity was charting a dangerous course. To try to refute the obvious 8211 that the Earth ahs warmed up by over one degree centigrade since the 1880s 8211 on the basis that scientists once thought that global cooling would take place is nonsense. Any cooling trend from natural cycles would have been logical to assume. However, given that we have dumped carbon into the atmosphere that was previously buried for millions of years has thrown a spanner in the workings of natural cycles. This article is like saying that Copernicus was wrong about the earth going around the sun because Aristotle believed the sun went around the Earth. ClimateOtter 15. September 2016 at 10:59 AM Permalink So, tsar, you would prefer to go back to Little Ice Age temperatures, yes Not to mention that NO ONE denies that it has warmed slightly since the Little Ice Age. Do you even Recall the Little Ice Age Or do you just not care what happened with the weather during the Little Ice Age AndyG55 15. September 2016 at 11:22 AM Permalink 8220thrown a spanner in the workings of natural cycles8221 Another load of unsubstantiated BS. AndyG55 15. September 2016 at 11:24 AM Permalink 8220even though it knew that humanity was charting a dangerous course.8221 Again, unsubstantiated BS 8230 Richard writes at NoTricksZone: (follow the link for the full 8230 Tom T 15. September 2016 at 8:18 AM Permalink Of course WMC cheated. I8217ve been saying for years that it was false on its face. He found 71 total papers over a period of 15 years. That is less than 5 papers a year. The number is way too low. Otherwise was obvious thst he was lying by omission. 8230 regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain. LINK Global Warming Skeptics Reply With 8230 Juergen Uhlemann 15. September 2016 at 10:04 AM Permalink I8217m not sure if you know about these two documents from the past that show this 30 year cooling. NOAA 1974 8220Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since.8221 docs. lib. noaa. govrescuejournalsnoaaQC851U461974oct. pdfpage5 UNESCO 1974 8220For the past 30 years the temperature of our planet has been steadily dropping8221 unesdoc. unesco. orgimages0007000748074879eo. pdf The often requested 30 year (proof) by the AGW believers already exists (in the past). el gordo 15. September 2016 at 12:56 PM Permalink There is a good reason for the 30 years being climate, its half the 60 year cycle picked up in ice cores and shallow sea cores. Its clearly related to the PDO and I reject the idea that temperatures increased from 1890 through to 1940. From 1890 8211 1924 it was a cool PDO, 1925-46 warm, 1947-75 cool, 1976 -2006 warm. To be more precise it should be warmdry and coolwet. We are belatedly heading into a cool wet period with a slight drop in world temperatures. Both the warmists and coolists are disturbed by the pause, it shouldn8217t be happening. 8220Both the warmists and coolists are disturbed by the pause, it shouldnt be happening.8221 Cooling is exactly what should be happening if you add a 200 year cycle and a 60 year cycle. These two cycles can be gained by Fourier analysis of the temperature record and explain practically all temperature variations of the last 250 years. This model also produces a steep drop starting a few years back. As it is sinusoidal in nature the drop will pick up speed as we go along. 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific Co8230 8230 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific Co8230 8230 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific Co8230 8230 yonason 15. September 2016 at 12:34 PM Permalink Climate science can8217t predict what happened last week, let alone what will happen in 100 years, but it is 8220settled.8221 I. e. we mustn8217t question or even test the validity of wobbly warmist junk theories. Einstein8217s theory of General Relativity is a well established fact, yet they have no problem devising new tests for it. popularmechanicsspacedeep-spacea61755-recent-tests-that-prove-einstein-right 8230 Read the full report here. 8230 Mike Hamblett 15. September 2016 at 9:46 PM Permalink Its difficult to understand this obsession with the past and the ability to ignore the very real and rapid increase in temperature and the manifestations of extremes drought, flood, forest fires, ocean acidification. Can the 8216head in the sand8217 types explain their fears and the reluctance to take steps to safeguard the next generation from a worrying and uncertain future. AndyG55 15. September 2016 at 11:58 PM Permalink 1. there has been NO rapid increase in temperature except by data tampering 2.There has been NO increase in extreme drought or flood. or fire 3. Ocean acidification is a myth, it CANNOT happen due to the enormous buffering, and anyway 98 of all free CO2 is already in the ocean Now, you GULLIBLE, IGNORANT, BRAIN-WASHED DUMMY. Go and do so actually investigation into the truth, and stop spewing your rabid alarmist claptrap and idiocy. ClimateOtter 16. September 2016 at 12:40 AM Permalink Come back when you know what you are talking about. yonason 16. September 2016 at 4:04 AM Permalink The ability to detect and ignore the deceit of con men and fools is not motivated by timerity, but by calm and rational thought 8211 something you clearly do not possess. yonason 16. September 2016 at 4:08 AM Permalink timidity (obviously), not temerity. Climate Otter is making me drowsy. Mike Hamblett 15. September 2016 at 9:46 PM Permalink Reply 8220Its difficult to understand this obsession with the past8221 Don8217t criticize Michael Mann. He is a top warmunist religious leader. You haven8217t heard of him He forges temperature reconstructions going a thousand years back to promote warmunism 8221 and the ability to ignore the very real and rapid increase in temperature and the manifestations of extremes drought, flood, forest fires, ocean acidification.8221 Well Mike, here8217s the thing: I experience NOTHING of all this 8211 so I have to assume that I am being lied to. There is a tradition of lies going back to at least 1898 by Western media so that is EXACTLY what I am expecting. 8230 8212NoTricksZone 8230 yonason 16. September 2016 at 12:22 AM Permalink caitie (sod in a skirt) wants us to believe that the more data we have the better we8217ll understand what8217s going on. That8217s true, as Burt Rutan clearly shows. youtubewatchvjPP7P43wulg 8230but NOT for the reasons that hesheitwhatever gives. I. e. everything caitiesod knows is wrong. AndyG55 17. September 2016 at 1:48 PM Permalink I refer to it as 8220negative knowledge8221. Stuff they have to unlearn, before they can actually start to learn. yonason 18. September 2016 at 3:37 AM Permalink I think you8217re onto something there, Andy. 8230 indefatigable James Delingpole, drawing on a lengthy and thoroughly documented blog post by Kenneth Richard, writing at No Tricks Zone, has a great little article exposing the intentional bias not only of Wikipedia but also of Google 8230 Chuck Bradley 18. September 2016 at 6:20 AM Permalink I did not read all the comments so perhaps this has been covered. It would be very good to have a couple of summary lists available to all, and occasionally updated. One would be the properly formatted bibliographic entries for all those papers. Another would be a list of the places searched to find them. You might then get a lot of mail saying things like 8220I searched Journal of Whatever for 1960 -1964 and found these three interesting papers8221 with the full bibliographic reference and a brief summary of the content or a copy of the abstract. Sam J. 20. September 2016 at 3:24 AM Permalink I know for an absolute fact that kids were being told in the 608217s that an Ice Age was coming. I was told either in school or at a school museum that human industry was throwing dust particles in the air and it was causing an Ice Age. I was shown a picture with New York city under a mile of ice. I remember this clearly because it scared me. Now if they were showing this to school kids it8217s probably a fairly good bet that there was some consensuses that it was going to happen. Gossamer 20. September 2016 at 1:34 PM Permalink yonason:8217everything caitie(sod in a skirt) knows is wrong8217 as soon as chat gets insulting we know your argument is weak. Poor show yonason, show some courtesy and we might progress the debate. yonason 22. September 2016 at 10:09 AM Permalink It was an observation that this person wrote like a female and even nastier version of sod than usual, nothing more. As to the 8220weakness8221 of my 8220argument,8221 I notice you didn8217t give any DIRECT criticism of the video I posted (the main point of my post) of Burt Rutan8217s excellent evaluation of the climate science fraudsters. But thank you, miss manners, for your superficial observations and pretentious moral posturing. Now, watch the Rutan video, and learn something. yonason 22. September 2016 at 9:25 PM Permalink You also conveniently (for you) neglected to comment on the link I gave to a real scientist presenting what is wrong with the approach you want us to 8220believe8221 in. Find it here8230 notrickszone20160913massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensuscomment-page-1comment-1132332 watch it, and learn something, if you are able to. yonason 22. September 2016 at 6:31 PM Permalink P. S. 8211 I8217m curious as to why you haven8217t been critical of caitie (sod in a skirt), who tells us that we8230 82208230dont seem to have much of an idea of how science and statistics works8221 8230then apologizes 82208230for using numbers and making people think.8221 (i. e. accusing us of being unable to think for ourselves. NOTE 8211 Speaking of 8220thinking8221 here8217s a thought. When saying one is 8220using numbers8221 it might be a good idea to actually USE THEM. Like this 8211 822088221 8211 There. I8217ve just used more numbers than cataie did in herhisitswhatevers entire post. caitie (sod in a skirt) then accuses us of being intellectually dishonest to the core, and infantile 8220drooling folks8221 (Oh, I almost forgot, we were earlier accused of being 8220rednecks.8221) So, I make one snide aside, and you say that makes my post 8220weak,8221 even though I provide a link to a knowledgeable novel and informative viewpoint, but you are OK with caitie8217s uninformative and (as A ndyG55 points out) 8220empty8221 posts Seriously. It8217s 8220caitie8221 and you and your watermelon warmunist friends who are putting on the 8220poor show.8221 Gossamer 20. September 2016 at 1:34 PM Permalink Reply 8220Poor show yonason, show some courtesy and we might progress the debate.8221 No chance. caitie showed no reaction when I quizzed her about numerical simulations of chaotic systems. She has no factual knowledge 8211 not even of the computer games modern warmunists use to make the computer announce the end of the world. yonason 23. September 2016 at 6:08 AM Permalink 8220MORE DATA WILL MAKE THEM SLEEP8221 8211 caitie (is that sod with her Huh, I guess they aren8217t the same critter, after all.) More bad data will NOT solve the problem 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific Co8230 8230 8230 Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-821780s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific C8230 8230 8230 to erase it, are the subject of an article by Kenneth Richard writing in the NoTricksZone blog (link to article). The article is titled: Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-80s Reveal Robust 8230
No comments:
Post a Comment