Climate change - socialist conspiracy

[IanC]

BTW- you would be hard pressed to name another profession that is more left wing and socialist than university staff.

Isn't that something? The correlation between level of education and approaching center left politically (ie, the more college classes you've passed, the more likely you are to be center left (and an atheist)) is REALLY interesting.

I've heard a lot of people claim its all due to some sort of conspiracy back in the 50's. But Mr Occam has a better solution: the liberals are right and the smarter you are, the more likely you are to realize the fact.

Liberals happen to be the dumbest fucks I ever met, no more apparent than after reading their posts at USMB.

Academia is a game. Fame and power awaits for those who come up with crazy new ideas and have the cleverness to be able to defend them. If the idea turns out to be true, so much the better, but you still win just by getting it publicized. Michael Mann made it big as a new PhD by overturning past understanding, even though he used wonky math. Marcott butchered his PhD thesis in hopes of gaining popularity with The Team.

Climate science is malleable because the evidence is contradictory and susceptible to cherrypicking in support of preformed conclusions. Climate scientists have shown far too many attributes of lawyers instead of scrupulously trying to reach the truth. It is disappointing. And damaging to the institution of Science in general.

 

[Abraham3]

Academia is a game. Fame and power awaits for those who come up with crazy new ideas and have the cleverness to be able to defend them. If the idea turns out to be true, so much the better, but you still win just by getting it publicized. Michael Mann made it big as a new PhD by overturning past understanding, even though he used wonky math. Marcott butchered his PhD thesis in hopes of gaining popularity with The Team.

Climate science is malleable because the evidence is contradictory and susceptible to cherrypicking in support of preformed conclusions. Climate scientists have shown far too many attributes of lawyers instead of scrupulously trying to reach the truth. It is disappointing. And damaging to the institution of Science in general.

But whether true or not, none of your claims have anything to do with being liberal or conservative.

 

[Abraham3]

Catastrophe scenarios draw attention. Govts and organizations tend to cover their asses in public, so they went the route of least chance of looking bad by deferring to 'authority'. Climate scientists quickly found out that disaster studies with CO2 lead to easy and generous funding while the opposite direction only brought suspicion and 'outsider' status. Error cascade and groupthink have brought us to this point but hopefully fifteen years of contradictory data will help reverse the incorrect path we are focused on.

Ian,
Do you have an opinion on why the 38 years of "contradictory data" from 1941-1979 didn't "help reverse the incorrect path we are focused on"?

The data from 41-79 lead to the 'Coming Ice Age Scare'. While there was a tie in to nuclear warfare it didn't make the common man feel guilty about his role.

Steven Schneider was a strong supporter of cooling until an even better catastrophe scenario came along with CO2 being the boogieman. This had the very large benefit of pointing the finger of guilt at every man woman and child. Not only that,but circumstantial evidence was cooperating until the new millennium.

I feel sorry for those who made up their minds in the 90's about AGW because the it really did seem to make sense at the time. Unfortunately for them, the last decade has shattered the illusion. I still see CO2 theory as having a supporting role in climate, but it isn't the temperature control knob it was made out to be.

Given 41-79, how can you say that "the last decade has shattered the illusion"? 41-79 shows that the current hiatus is well within normal variation. Would you argue that it isn't?!? And, unlike the earlier dip, we have a clear cause for the current situation.

 

[Abraham3]

So NOAA responds to faulty sensors by saying that the sensors really don't matter and you accept this?

The sensors weren't claimed to be faulty, it was the siting that was being challenged. And NOAA never said the sensors didn't matter.

 

[IanC]

Ian,
Do you have an opinion on why the 38 years of "contradictory data" from 1941-1979 didn't "help reverse the incorrect path we are focused on"?

The data from 41-79 lead to the 'Coming Ice Age Scare'. While there was a tie in to nuclear warfare it didn't make the common man feel guilty about his role.

Steven Schneider was a strong supporter of cooling until an even better catastrophe scenario came along with CO2 being the boogieman. This had the very large benefit of pointing the finger of guilt at every man woman and child. Not only that,but circumstantial evidence was cooperating until the new millennium.

I feel sorry for those who made up their minds in the 90's about AGW because the it really did seem to make sense at the time. Unfortunately for them, the last decade has shattered the illusion. I still see CO2 theory as having a supporting role in climate, but it isn't the temperature control knob it was made out to be.

Given 41-79, how can you say that "the last decade has shattered the illusion"? 41-79 shows that the current hiatus is well within normal variation. Would you argue that it isn't?!? And, unlike the earlier dip, we have a clear cause for the current situation.

The climate models based on CO2 theory have slipped out of the arbitrary definition of scientific significance. There has been no conciliation of the 'hot spot', real world data has falsified the exaggerated climate sensitivity figures, wilder and wilder theories have become necessary to accomodate the missing heat, hockeystick reconstructions are being demolished before they even make it to printed release. Are you saying it has been a good decade for CAGW? Hahahaha

 

[asterism]

So NOAA responds to faulty sensors by saying that the sensors really don't matter and you accept this?

The sensors weren't claimed to be faulty, it was the siting that was being challenged. And NOAA never said the sensors didn't matter.

True, my wording was wrong.

They did say that even without sensors the signs are "unmistakable." If that's the case, why have the poorly placed sensors at all, and why use them in erroneous studies?

 

[Abraham3]

So NOAA responds to faulty sensors by saying that the sensors really don't matter and you accept this?

The sensors weren't claimed to be faulty, it was the siting that was being challenged. And NOAA never said the sensors didn't matter.

True, my wording was wrong.

They did say that even without sensors the signs are "unmistakable." If that's the case, why have the poorly placed sensors at all, and why use them in erroneous studies?

Because the stations have a function beyond keeping track of global warming: monitoring the weather.

 

[asterism]

The sensors weren't claimed to be faulty, it was the siting that was being challenged. And NOAA never said the sensors didn't matter.

True, my wording was wrong.

They did say that even without sensors the signs are "unmistakable." If that's the case, why have the poorly placed sensors at all, and why use them in erroneous studies?

Because the stations have a function beyond keeping track of global warming: monitoring the weather.

Excellent.

So how accurate have those sensors been over time? If monitoring the weather is their primary function, would a tenth of a degree in variance even be noticed?