President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[bishop]

Yes, right here.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.html



OMG!
You are so right!
Not one single IPCC scientist has personally managed to change the temperature of the world significantly.


Quack!

Show us the data, I could use the laughs.
Start with showing us how he claims to be a climatologist but is really a geology professor.

Replicating results is a corner stone of science. Of course you do not care so long as "science" is in the label in bold you will accept BS as real science.

Do you want to know why no one can replicate AGW model results? It is because the models are garbage and assumptions on initial conditions lead to hugely divergent results. These guys are not building mathematical models, they are building a lottery machines.

 

[K Douglas]

Yes, right here.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.html



OMG!
You are so right!
Not one single IPCC scientist has personally managed to change the temperature of the world significantly.


Quack!

Show us the data, I could use the laughs.
Start with showing us how he claims to be a climatologist but is really a geology professor.

You have no interest in gaining truth or debating facts. Dr Tim Ball has studied and taught climate for 30+ years, he's far from a quack. He has a PhD in historical climatology. The AGW cultists can distort, lie, obfuscate all they want this guy is a credible expert in climate. Fuck desmogblog, skepticalscience and other propaganda mouthpieces that claim otherwise.

 

[Frankfooter]

Replicating results is a corner stone of science. Of course you do not care so long as "science" is in the label in bold you will accept BS as real science.

Do you want to know why no one can replicate AGW model results? It is because the models are garbage and assumptions on initial conditions lead to hugely divergent results. These guys are not building mathematical models, they are building a lottery machines.

They can replicate results if they want, the problem is that your lobbyist/denier types are not paid to do research and for the most part can't. Even when they try to do research their work tends to be so shoddy that they just can't get it published.

For instance, you can read Mann's take down of the only shoddy paper rebuttal the deniers ever got published here.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/

And years later, the hockey stick chart is still standing, updated and confirmed by multiple other studies. McIntyre and McKitrick, the main critics have only been shown to have done shoddy work.

 

[Frankfooter]

You have no interest in gaining truth or debating facts. Dr Tim Ball has studied and taught climate for 30+ years, he's far from a quack. He has a PhD in historical climatology. The AGW cultists can distort, lie, obfuscate all they want this guy is a credible expert in climate. Fuck desmogblog, skepticalscience and other propaganda mouthpieces that claim otherwise.

Its even worse, just checked it out.

Tim Ball taught GEOGRAPHY at the University of Winnipeg for 8 years, 1988-1996.
You know how you can tell that he lies about his credentials?

U of W doesn't even have a climatology department.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tim_Ball

And some of his big whoppers?

Global temperatures have declined since 1998 in direct contradiction to computer models on which the Kyoto Accord is based.

14 of the 15 warmest years in the world have occurred since 2000.
You are a sucker to buying the dodgy crap he's pushing.

 

[Bud Plug]

We are using up natural resources in an inefficient manner.

We are destroying natural habitats.

Part of what allows the planet to fluctuate in temperature and carbon dioxide is having plants and other useful organisms that participate in the carbon cycle and what not.

Those highs and lows did not take place in our time on the planet in the last two thousand years.

If people believe that you can proceed without caution and the planet will take care of itself be careful for what you wish for. It wouldn't take much of a temperature increase pr drop to starve us out....... never mind that the food might be too polluted to eat.

Look you dont need a genius to tell you that what we are doing to the planet is going to have to be paid for at some point. Maybe it turns out to not be global warming. But at some point we are going to be fucked. Does it make you feel any better to know that what kills us is something other than global warming? Either way you are dead and it is directly a result of industry and human activity.

I can get on board with you to some degree. But I think the problem you are pointing to is overpopulation combined with wasteful consumption.

So long as the population of the planet continues to rise we will continue to face potential food and water shortages/contamination.

However there are only 2 solutions to that problem:

1) Control population growth. I would predict a 0% chance of that happening!
2) Find other planets capable of sustaining human life and colonize them. Theoretically, this should be possible. It's just a question of how long it will take. Obviously, we will have to figure out a way to survive in the meantime.

The challenge with solution 2) is that the only way forward is through development of, and use of, existing technology (including hydrocarbon combustion engines), not a return to agrarian society. That means conditions (and I'm not talking about global warming here, rather I'm referring to food/water shortages/contamination) will probably worsen before they get better.

I think that focussing on global warming/climate change is a distraction from solving the real problem - overpopulation.

 

[Bud Plug]

And how much of his opinion on global warming has to do with his studies of quantum mechanics? Oh that's right, none.

I 'd like to think that you wouldn't write this without reading his criticisms carefully and without an excellent grasp of both physics and of general scientific research standards and protocols, but perhaps I'm wrong.

What about commenting on the application of general scientific standards of statistical analysis? Can a world class physicist comment on this, even if the research in question is outside of his area of focus? Climatologists aren't building a little catch 22 are they? "We'll only consider your opinion if you are one of us. By the way, if you hold a different opinion, you are not one of us".

 

[DirtyDaveII]

"Mini-ice" age is self explantory.. That mean no global warming and it global cooling will occur in 15 year from now. .. Hence " Maunder miniumium. That when the Thames river( England) was frozen the middle age period of 1645-1715.
PS you can try google thames river frozen and Maunder mininium period.
PPS Global warming cannot explain the Maunder miniumium period.

Didnt you read this article? http://www.cora.nwra.com/~werne/eos/text/maunder.html - its all Isaac Newtons fault! That goddamn tree hugging apple head falling democrat!

 

[GPIDEAL]

You remind me of the people who complain about high energy prices and then go on to complain that we do not have enough renewable sources of energy, they never feel they need the reconcile their divergent views.

You would give up all our progress for some BS doomsday scenario? We live to 80 now, you want to go back to the stone age and die at the age of 25? You want to trade a certainty that without cheap energy most of the world would starve for a fantasy that with cheap energy most of the world would starve due to AGW.

Come on, pull your head out of your ass.

I agree with FF that the natural healing process of the Earth may not alleviate humankind's effects on the environment IF we eliminate, harm or reduce natural habitats (not to mention forest fires possibly caused by dry spells from AGW), but you also make some good points about going back to the Stone Age and dying younger, etc. etc.

We can't just go totally non-fossil fuel with a snap of a finger without serious ramifications to the economy and perhaps even our health or standard of living.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I 'd like to think that you wouldn't write this without reading his criticisms carefully and without an excellent grasp of both physics and of general scientific research standards and protocols, but perhaps I'm wrong.

What about commenting on the application of general scientific standards of statistical analysis? Can a world class physicist comment on this, even if the research in question is outside of his area of focus? Climatologists aren't building a little catch 22 are they? "We'll only consider your opinion if you are one of us. By the way, if you hold a different opinion, you are not one of us".

I would say that world class physicists already are excellent in math and can understand or easily grasp the concepts of statistics. Likewise, they should have sound knowledge of the scientific method.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I can get on board with you to some degree. But I think the problem you are pointing to is overpopulation combined with wasteful consumption.

So long as the population of the planet continues to rise we will continue to face potential food and water shortages/contamination.

However there are only 2 solutions to that problem:

1) Control population growth. I would predict a 0% chance of that happening!
2) Find other planets capable of sustaining human life and colonize them. Theoretically, this should be possible. It's just a question of how long it will take. Obviously, we will have to figure out a way to survive in the meantime.

The challenge with solution 2) is that the only way forward is through development of, and use of, existing technology (including hydrocarbon combustion engines), not a return to agrarian society. That means conditions (and I'm not talking about global warming here, rather I'm referring to food/water shortages/contamination) will probably worsen before they get better.

I think that focussing on global warming/climate change is a distraction from solving the real problem - overpopulation.

Agreed.

In the meantime, I hope the fossil fuel industry is conducting more research into fusion and solar energy.

 

[basketcase]

I 'd like to think that you wouldn't write this without reading his criticisms carefully and without an excellent grasp of both physics and of general scientific research standards and protocols, but perhaps I'm wrong.

What about commenting on the application of general scientific standards of statistical analysis? Can a world class physicist comment on this, even if the research in question is outside of his area of focus? Climatologists aren't building a little catch 22 are they? "We'll only consider your opinion if you are one of us. By the way, if you hold a different opinion, you are not one of us".

Sorry but the study of quantum mechanics doesn't extend to the practicalities of any physics of climate change. You know this too which is why you stoop back to your claims about conspiracy and your pretending that a guy has any more credibility outside of his field than I do.

 

[Bud Plug]

Sorry but the study of quantum mechanics doesn't extend to the practicalities of any physics of climate change. You know this too which is why you stoop back to your claims about conspiracy and your pretending that a guy has any more credibility outside of his field than I do.

You've got the wrong poster with respect to your second sentence. Maybe you're thinking of someone else. I've actually said that what Ball has to say about the intentional distortion of data by other experts is not necessary to the debate, and doesn't interest me all that much. Second, I've not said he was correct. I have said he is clear, cogent, relies upon data, and his analysis appears to be logical. However, if his data is wrong, his analysis would be wrong as well. For whatever reason, there doesn't appear to be anyone very motivated to demonstrate, in a clear way, where his data is wrong. Some posters on this thread even admit to not having watched Ball's video.

As to the first sentence, the OP linked to a blog article that was pretty "newsy" and light on details. I haven't read Giaever's detailed criticism of anyone else's climate change research. I don't actually know whether he has criticized the physics that have been applied to that research (as I am sure he is eminently qualified to do, notwithstanding his focus on a different sub-field of physics) or whether he has criticized the scientific protocol, method, or statistical analysis employed by climatologists (which, again, he would be indisputably qualified to do, on the presumption that he applies such methods and standards to his own work). I suspect you don't know either. Until someone demonstrates that his opinions turn on matters outside of his expertise (like technical principles of chemistry, geology, etc.), I'm prepared to assume that a man of his intelligence and academic reputation has not stuck his neck out in a way that would expose him to the ridicule of his peers. I'd bet he has stuck to matters of science that are well within his expertise.

 

[Bud Plug]

Agreed.

In the meantime, I hope the fossil fuel industry is conducting more research into fusion and solar energy.

People underestimate the progressive power of the profit motive. I'm sure that the big "wired" telephone service providers like Bell didn't want new technology to overtake their business, but it did, because in the end people want a better product. People (and people includes industry as well as consumers) will also want energy that is more cost effective, has less negative impact on their environment, and is more useful (as it will have to be, in order to support deep space travel). The business that can deliver that technology will reap incalculable profits. For that reason alone, you can be sure that someone is trying to deliver that technology as we speak.

I would not look to today's fossil fuel providers to be those future innovators. Bell did not develop cellular phone technology (that was Motorola). However, neither were they able to stifle that technology from dominating the market once it was commercially viable. I would predict the same for the next wave of energy systems.

 

[basketcase]

... (as I am sure he is eminently qualified to do, notwithstanding his focus on a different sub-field of physics)...

That's exactly the issue. The last time he would have dealt with the applicable physics was likely as an undergrad. Quantum is a very different field that uses a completely different set of base laws. Saying that Quantum Mechanics and Climate Science are sub-fields of physics is like saying that English and Swedish are sub-categories of the Germanic language; there might be a few similar words but you won't be able to understand each other too easily.

Unless he's spent a fair bit of time in the field since he won his Nobel in '73, his physics training is no more applicable than mine. I'm fairly well versed in thermodynamics and fluids which are core areas of the physics involved in climate change but unlike Giaever I'm fully willing to admit that the past couple decades the focus of my work has been far enough away from the science impacting climate to make my direct knowledge no better than any other person with a background in sciences.

 

[jcpro]

Wasn't the long time chairman of IPCC a train engineer or railway engineer? Not exactly a leading authority on anything climate related. Maybe that's why they needed a higher authority, like Gore.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Wasn't the long time chairman of IPCC a train engineer or railway engineer? Not exactly a leading authority on anything climate related. Maybe that's why they needed a higher authority, like Gore.

He's actually a very spiritual fellow.

For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/150224_pachauri_letter.pdf

 

[jcpro]

He's actually a very spiritual fellow.



https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/150224_pachauri_letter.pdf

A passionate guy, does not like to take no for an answer. Oh wait...

 

[Moviefan-2]

A passionate guy, does not like to take no for an answer. Oh wait...

Oh, my.

 

[Frankfooter]

I've actually said that what Ball has to say about the intentional distortion of data by other experts is not necessary to the debate, and doesn't interest me all that much. Second, I've not said he was correct. I have said he is clear, cogent, relies upon data, and his analysis appears to be logical. However, if his data is wrong, his analysis would be wrong as well. For whatever reason, there doesn't appear to be anyone very motivated to demonstrate, in a clear way, where his data is wrong. Some posters on this thread even admit to not having watched Ball's video.

Ok, lets take a look at one of Ball's charts claiming to show global temperature changes.
http://www.durangobill.com/SwindlePics/SwindleFakeTemp.jpg

And here's the chart from NASA of the real records.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Take a look at his two arrows on the right side of Ball's chart, it makes it look like there hasn't been much difference in changes between the 1940 temperature peak and today's peak, correct? Nope, its wrong and quite clearly wrong when you see the NASA chart. What did Ball do? It looks like Ball just didn't include any data after 1980 or so, since that would have proven him wrong.

Ball cheated the dates to try to make is point since he knows the real NASA chart proves his claim to be wrong.

 

[Bud Plug]

Ok, lets take a look at one of Ball's charts claiming to show global temperature changes.
http://www.durangobill.com/SwindlePics/SwindleFakeTemp.jpg

And here's the chart from NASA of the real records.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Take a look at his two arrows on the right side of Ball's chart, it makes it look like there hasn't been much difference in changes between the 1940 temperature peak and today's peak, correct? Nope, its wrong and quite clearly wrong when you see the NASA chart. What did Ball do? It looks like Ball just didn't include any data after 1980 or so, since that would have proven him wrong.

Ball cheated the dates to try to make is point since he knows the real NASA chart proves his claim to be wrong.

1. I think the charts look identical, except the horizontal scaling of NASA chart is a little smaller, making the changes look more dramatic.
2. The NASA data indicates a change from the 1940 peak of a .25 anomaly (whatever that means, I suppose they must have picked a year to represent what think the "normal" temperature is) to a what looks like a 2012 peak of .75 anomaly, with a dip in temperature in between. Is this what I'm supposed to be so worried about?
3. I've browsed through the Ball presentation again, because the chart you've represented as his didn't look like his presentation. I couldn't find it in the video. Can you tell me at what time it appears?

This argument has not won me over.