Sancho “So, in the battle of climatology versus big industry, who is the science-wielding Galileo and who is the power-grasping church?”

Actually I see little real “science” in “the collective theories of climatology”

the Catholic Church declared, 450 or so years ago, their omnipotent pet beliefs on an unsuspecting – but more gullible – world

Now, I see a lot of pseudo scientific egos pushing their own omnipotent pet beliefs upon an unsuspecting but less gullible world…

As someone who has spent 30+ years working in the area of forecasting and who has developed a range of different computer based models and applications and currently sells a bespoke process for select businesses to help them predict their own outcomes:

1 I know the effect of crap data – either inadequate, misunderstood, falsely signified etc

2 the basic rules of GIGO – in chronological modelling, in any media, if you cannot duplicate what historically happened, you cannot predict what might possibly be

and lets face it the cause of climatology is littered with the wrecks of modellers who had their throats cut with Occams razor

again statistics provides every basis for climatologists to prove probabilities, yet they don’t. the adopt a hypothesis and ignore the probabilities. Claiming a “probability” without quantifying its likelihood and even ignoring resultant null hypotheses.

So in the absence of scientific data I have my own hypothesis

That having failed to impose their bastardry, with the collapse of USSR

The collectivists

Having infiltrated the environmental movement

Are now intent on perverting the political systems and executing their goals, motivated by small minded envy and hatred of those who "achieve" by their own efforts-

Demanding increases in costs of services (ETS) and increasing taxes to fund stupid investments in sub-economic “Green Technologies” implements what Lenin described as follows

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

So all this crap is just

Socialism (Collectivism) by Stealth

That’s my hypothesis

I am happy for any AGW climatologist or any other of Lenin’s “Useful Idiots”, like Sancho, to challenge it.

There is always Venus as a real example of the warming capability of CO2, Col. Not a computer model, no complex algorithms to recreate the climatic conditions, but a real system to observe. Venus absorbs less radiation from the Sun than does the Earth, yet its surface is uniformly >460 Celsius; hot enough to melt lead, or about 450 Celsius warmer than the average temperature of the Earth. It would seem to cast doubt on the idea of CO2 sensitivity being less than 1 Celsius, as with 18 doublings of CO2, Earth would have as much CO2 as Venus; yet the sceptics might expect a warming of less than 18 Celsius. I can see why the sceptics dont like Venus. In my searches of sceptic sites I have found little mention of Venus other than false statements about why it is so warm, and advice to the faithful that Venus is irrelevant as global warming is about Earth. Why should Venus be irrelevant other than for the inconvenient fact that it shows that CO2 is very good at warming a planet?

I'm also curious about the sceptical take of the paeleogical record. The Carboniferous Period had temperatures some 5 to 7 Celsius higher with a CO2 concentration of about 1500 to 2000 ppm. This evidence makes me think that a CO2 sensitivity of 2 to 3 Celsius is more likely. Do the sceptics think this evidence, also free of complex computer modelling, to be of no relevance either?

sancho skeptics have to be of a particular qualification now, and be able to demonstrate previous skepticism? So if you were ever skeptical about something, but kept it to yourself, how would you put that in your resume to Sancho's mind control police, presumably so Sancho can reluctantly accept you might be skeptical? This appears to be anti-science, or Luddite in application?

Truely delusional, if you think that only people who are paid by whoever is your conspirator, can be a skeptic? It would keep those danged skeptics to a minimum though, and I'm sure (your version of) science would only benefit, surely?

What about a nurse or doctor who is a skeptic they are scientifically qualified. What if you're a kid at school, can you be skeptical? A friend works for CSIRO as a food scientist, she is very qualified, PHds and all, and a skeptic - do you reckon you could show how she is paid by "polluting industries"? LOL

You have become absurd Sancho, not the people you are flaming, you are upset, need some remedial anger management services, have clearly gone over the edge, get help.

BTW - Patchauri as an engineer, should not be accepting 90% as good enough, certainly it is not good enough for bridge building or ship building.

There is some great frothing at the mouth (holy) rants in this forum, you go away for a couple of weeks thinking all is quiet and come back to this.

It seems to me that in many cases the denial is a function of fear, of change, of loss .

Some chant mind numbing droning mantras like 'socialism/collectivism by stealth' in awe of a long discredited system. Then waxing moronic to its arch demoness as though somehow this will make the observable go away.

Then there's professional sceptic who by means of unrealistic expectations of science obfuscates. By insisting the Hypothesis be 'absolute', failing that the hypothesis is rendered absolutely wrong (sic).

Most science today honours the law of Modern day Complexity (the Windows principal). Which is as follows:-
- Absolute simplicity = Null, therefore can not exist in reality.

- Occam's razor is a relative position.

- The more complex a topic is the less likely an absolute answer will be derived.

e.g. Windows as released has millions of lines of code.Given the financial, time and human constraints,it is reasonably expected that there will be many errors of all types, could have been betters and the unpredicted.

Despite it's less that Absolutely correctness/perfection it is still released as it is a functionally useful program. If this wasn't so there would be no need for updates, bug fixes, releases or maintenance.

People would consider dismissing/eliminating the product once these flaws have been found because by and large the product matches many of the needs (within tolerance).

Why then do people allow the professional 'sceptics' to discredit a hypothesis that is orders of magnitude more complex than windows because of some flaws and educated approximations.

AGW as a working hypothesis has coherent science, being tweaked by the ever increasingly reliable measurement data sets and most importantly, explains the observable 'symptoms'. In favour of what?

Ignoring reality or a geological alternative (sic) that is predicated on eons/eras rather than decades or centuries. No precise science and doesn't explain the observable symptoms and the probable consequences.

The IPCC report was written for politicians not scientists. However, it does consider the above law of complexity,with it's range of probabilities to possibilities.
There are no complex hypotheses that are Absolute.

Really, Col? Multi-billion dollar corporations using their politcal and financial clout to protect themselves by attacking scientists and data makes them the Galileo of this story? Poor Galileo.

That's right, Atman. I'm dismissing your sources on the basis of their insanity. To be fair, climate change denialism belongs in seeker401's territory, along with the alien overlords and Freemason cabal. Surely you understand that when individuals or groups constantly espouse the nuttiest ideas available, it becomes impossible to take anything they say seriously.

I didn't ignore the Strong article, it's just empty: "an interesting article about a man who claims, without any supporting evidence, to have influence on the UN’s climate change policy."

You've completely ignored my question: what does the profiteering of powerful people have to do with the scientific findings of thousand of scientists? And I'd say you're as much a mathematician as I am: http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/very-artificial-correction-flap-looks.html

Sounds like one of those conspiracies you have to believe in before long before it's believable.

We're still waiting for any evidence of this groundswell of opposition to climate science before it became politicised. You'd think someone - say, the global media - would have noticed thousands of people objecting to it, and yet they didn't. Can you explain why this mass movement went unnoticed?

Also missing are the links and explanations of previous scientific findings you've criticised. Obviously, as rationalists you must do so regularly, otherwise we'd have to conclude that you blindly consumed the fruits of science in every other field for decades, then latched onto denialism when it became fashionable.

Just to clarify, Col, your hypothesis seems to be "The science of climate change is accepted by environmentalists and Margaret Thatcher, therefore communist conspiracy".

You're right. I don't know how to challenge that. It's just too seamlessly perfect to fault.

Horus, re Knorr’s recent paper.

As Knorr points out, approximately 43% of our CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere (with the rest being absorbed by carbon sinks, primarily the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere). But, this is not new (although listening to the ‘deny-n-delay’ camp you would think otherwise).

Indeed, the IPCC’s 2007 report said:

“There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period …”

Honestly, I don’t know what you (or Herbert) are getting all excited about.

Ok, Knorr takes it back further, and this is good work. However, neither he, nor any other ‘climate scientist’, disputes the fact that human induced CO2 emissions are increasing, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and that CO2 contributes (some say very significantly) to our current global warming. So much so that the vast body of experts, scientific academies and institutions, the world’s countries and captains of industry think that AGW poses a very real risk and that we should do something about it.

Ok, the politicians are arguing about how to deal with it and when … but, they are not arguing the science.

Yes, there is debate within the scientific community (about the degree of attribution and about the degree of temperature change per doubling of [CO2], for example) but that does not mean that just because the ‘denialosphere’ jump on or trumpet one paper, AGW is consigned to another conspiracy theory, really.

Sheesh, for every one paper that people like Anthony Watt purports to put a nail in the coffin of AGW (Knorr’s doesn’t), there are a hundred that makes AGW more robust.

Here is a link to Knorr’s full paper.

http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

There really was no need to misinterpret the abstract, maybe the full paper makes it clearer.