25 thoughts on “Climate Change”

  1. “Overall, there is the danger that the paper is used by unscrupulous people to create confusion or to discredit climate or sea-level science. Hence, I suggest that the author reconsiders the essence of its contribution to the scientific debate on climate and sea-level science.”

    That was a response from a “peer” when submitted to a “peer reviewed” journal. What a joke the whole “peer review” process is.

    1. Modern science: Knowledge is politically inconvenient, so we recommend suppressing it.

      I think a lot of “skepticism” can be explained by the viral success of Sharknado. Whenever an alarmist screams about something trivial, we can ask “Are there thousands of man-eating sharks falling out of the sky? No? Then we’re good.”

  2. The worst case is the collapse of Western Civilization because of utterly misguided and ineffective policies to “fight climate change”.
    There is a actually very little really going on re “climate change” and adding a little extra CO2 is merely Terraforming this place to be a little more comfortable and congenial for life.

  3. Curry’s paper was an interesting read, in its middle of the road position, there was nothing in there that disputes the IPCC mainstream predictions around how much warming and how much SLR we should expect this century.

    1. In my first comment on Rand’s previous post on Dr. Curry I said: There are two layers to the AGW SCIENCE debate, the science amateurs with their two usually extreme perspectives, whose opinions on the science aren’t worth shit, and the scientist who’re active in the research in the field, who, from Spencer through to Mann, are comparatively centrist, accept that AGW is a real thing and significant.
      This paper by Curry only strengthens that contention, Curry looks to be somewhere between Spencer and Mann, nowhere near the contrarians claiming the IPCC conclusions are wrong, that we aren’t going to lead to see ~1 meter SLR by 2100, or that we aren’t going to see 1 – 2 C more warming in that time frame (assuming likely future scenarios).

      1. that we aren’t going to lead to see ~1 meter SLR by 2100, or that we aren’t going to see 1 – 2 C more warming in that time frame (assuming likely future scenarios).

        It’s times like this I wish there was a real money betting market on this stuff. You might have enough sense not to bet that the above is true, but a lot of alarmists would not. Few things teach like losing money on something you thought was right.

      2. in its middle of the road position, there was nothing in there that disputes the IPCC mainstream predictions

        So who do you think are the unscrupulous people in this scenario Andrew? Who is trying to create confusion?

    2. @Andrew_W

      So why is replication a requirement in science (when I say “science,” I mean “scientific method,” not the pronouncements of Washington DC/Cambridge MA bureaucrats)?

        1. @Andrew_W

          Refuses to answer, because Andrew_W doesn’t know (or refuses to know) what science is. It’s a simple question with a simple answer. Do you want me to give you a multiple choice version instead?

          1. I gave a definition of science in the previous discussion: “Science is a system for building our understanding of the natural world using testable theories.”

            But if refusing to answer simply questions in the comments is such an important obligation in your mind here’s one for you:
            What was the mean minimum Arctic sea ice extent for each of the last 4 decades? Obviously your answer will be 4 numbers each in the millions of square kilometers.
            Thanks in advance.

          2. @Andrew_W

            How many angels can fit through an eye of a pin?
            State the percentage difference between the palm reading of a four year old, a sixteen year old, and a 30 year old?

            Don’t worry you don’t have to answer those. They are as relevant to framing what science is as your question is.

            Why is replication a requirement for the scientific method?

            Answering this question might give you a clue as to why commentators on this blog and the blog owner are skeptical of your appeals to authority.

          3. ” . . .your appeals to authority.”
            From that I guess you must be pointing to my trust in the peer review process and all the scientists like Dr. Curry who’ve accepted that AGW is real and significant, well here’s a video that hopefully will explain to your satisfaction why I trust peer review and the scientific process over the charlatans and witch doctors that AGW “skeptics” follow and whose “authority” those AGW “skeptics” appeal to.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIlBsfTx3Kc
            [26:42]

          4. Andrew,
            Why do you think Dr. Curry would lie about the response she received to her submittal to a “peer reviewed” journal?
            Or alternatively,
            What pharmaceuticals are you sampling that allows you to trust the “peer review” process after reading the response she got when attempting to submit to a “peer reviewed” journal?

          5. Curt, why would you suggest I think that Dr. Curry lied about the response she received? I’ve no doubt she told the truth about that comment, and I agree that it’s more than a little questionable, but I don’t know what the rest of the response was and there may have been other issues with her paper.
            “What pharmaceuticals are you sampling that allows you to trust the “peer review” process . . .”
            Peer review should be judged on the whole of it’s contribution to our scientific progress, not the comments of one reviewer, or even 1% of reviewers, what pharmaceuticals are you on that leads to you think the reverse??

          6. More than a little questionable? Other issues? It was rejected by a “peer” because “unscrupulous people” might use it to “create confusion”. That is the current state of “peer review”. It is a complete farce. And the fact you still trust it renders your opinion on this issue totally meritless. You’ve wadded up your remaining credibility, loaded it into a (small) shotgun and discharged it into outer space.

          7. That is the current state of “peer review”
            Nonsense, peer review, like any system that involves human beings has its faults, always has, always will.
            The loss of credibility is yours, you’ve done what idiots and fools always do when they want to change the world to whatever they want, whether their issue is with capitalism or the scientific conclusions of peer review or some issue hey have with race, religion etc: They pick select examples and smear them across an entire field, economic system, race, country, political party or religion and claim their hand picked example is representative of everyone or everything in that system, field or group.

          8. Whatever its status in science in general, we know that peer review is very badly broken in climate science. We learned that ten years ago with the release of the CRU emails.

          9. What in particular about the CRU do you believe proves the peer review system in climate broken? The fact that the victims of the hack were exonerated for wrong doing?The comments about the tree divergence problem? The suggested boycott of the journal that published Soon et al’s paper?
            I’m on the road at the moment so aren’t willing to research with my phone that which I’d usually check on the desktop.

          10. They were not “exonerated for wrongdoing.” That is the lie (or delusion) that Mann is attempting to put forward to claim that I wrote what I did with “malice” (i.e., “a reckless disregard for the truth”). That is an opinion, not a fact.

          11. @Andrew_W
            This is now the third time I asked this question which you continued to refuse to answer.

            Why is replication a requirement for the scientific method?

            As for the definition of science. Science is the “scientific method.”

            It requires that a falsifiable hypothesis based on initial research or previous cycle of the scientific method be set up. Then subject to experiment. The hypothesis/theory either survives experiment or gets falsified. Then a conclusion is made on the result. Then the cycle repeats itself. Over and over again.

            Then it must be able to be replicated by another person.

            Sooo… Why is replication a requirement for the scientific method?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *