14 thoughts on “No, Mr. Secretary General

  1. Guest

    As your delusions become more grandiose, you desperation becomes more obvious and the intelligence of the comments become less and less. Indeed the comments themselves seem to be dwindling. This is entertainment at its finest. Too bad it won’t last much longer. What you authoritarians and petty demagogues need is a real depression, a fiscal cliff, that will save you. It worked for Adolf, it can work for you.

  2. Andrew W

    We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters,

    Is amusing, using the definition they’re using of that metric I’m “qualified in climate-related matters” I sure as hell wouldn’t be so arrogant as to imply that that made me some sort of qualified expert on climate change though.

  3. Guest

    It’s questionable if any of the people on that list have even read any of the relevant current modern literature. Joe Bastardi in particular is almost embarrassing, given some of his more vocal and published gross misunderstandings of fundamental high school physics.

    1. George Turner

      No climate model agrees with high-school physics. Gravity is F=k*G*m1*m2, F != mA in rising and falling columns of air because the Earth isn’t actually spinning on its axis (the sun travels around the Earth), etc. and most use Galerkin’s shallow-water equations (that don’t have a true depth term). Sometimes they compare one-dimensional models against each other, but even those don’t remotely agree, so condensation in an elevator shaft is still an unsolved problem.

      1. Guest

        As I pointed out to you earlier, when you find yourself digging a hole to China, the best thing you can do is quit digging, or in your case, quit posting on climate change threads, or even better, quit posting on climate change topics. Most people on that list, but particularly Joe Bastardi, have long ago demonstrated themselves to be innumerate and mathematically illiterate fools. Now here is my point – models are tools. Also, just FYI, weather and ocean currents are not analogous to climate and climate science is not entirely dependent upon global climate models.

        Any other ridiculous statements you’d like to make? Go right ahead. But my suggestion is that you drop global warming and climate change like you would drop a hot pan picked up without any hot pads. But you wont.

      2. George Turner

        If “climate science is not entirely dependent upon global climate models”, what else does it depend on? It can’t be tree ring data, which even Mann’s co-author now admits shows the Medieval Warm Period, when temperatures were warming than present. It can’t be ice core data, which confirms that the MWP was global, refuting the claims of the warmist climatologists. It can’t be the long term ice-core data, which confirms that CO2 follows temperatures instead of leading them. In fact, there’s not really any data at all to confirm the warmists’ speculations, which are absurdly stupid to begin with, and most data refutes them, which illustrates that climate science isn’t even a branch of science, since scientific theories have to be refutable. Global warming, in contrast, predicts all possible outcomes, with the Earth either wetter or dryer, hotter or colder, with more storms or less storms.

  4. Guest

    If “climate science is not entirely dependent upon global climate models”, what else does it depend on?

    Empirical observations and theoretical physics, just like the rest of science. If you didn’t know that answer then you probably shouldn’t be commenting on subjects of which you are abjectly ignorant.

    scientific theories have to be refutable

    Perhaps you mean that scientific hypotheses are more credible when they are falsifiable. It would be great if you would do a little research rather than spewing utter nonsense on a subject unfamiliar to you.

    Global warming, in contrast, predicts all possible outcomes, with the Earth either wetter or dryer, hotter or colder, with more storms or less storms.

    Right. Need another shovel?

  5. George Turner

    If it depended on empirical observations and theoretical physics, just like the rest of science, it would be discarded. The emprical observations show that life is much better off when the climate is warmer. They also show that climatic temperatures can go through large and rapid drops when CO2 levels are far, far higher than today, and that there’s virtually no correlation between CO2 and temperatures other than CO2 following temperatures over very long timescales (centuries), instead of leading temperatures. And for a final empirical observations, there’s been no warming trend for the past 16 years, yet CO2 levels have increased.

    Theoretical physics is pointedly ignored by the climatologists. Carl Sagan and Al Gore warned of a run-away greenhouse effect which isn’t possible in a transparent atmosphere. The equation the warning was based on used an integration constant that only holds for an opaque atmosphere, such as a star. Even accepting that error and running optical transmission models, the warming by 2100 would only be about 1C. So ignoring both empircal observation, satellite data, and physics and engineering common-sense, the warmist climatologists postulated that the Earth has a positive temperature-temperature feedback system, which would be dynamically unstable on almost all timescales. Actual observation refutes their contention, showing strong negative feedbacks.

    “Perhaps you mean that scientific hypotheses are more credible when they are falsifiable.”

    No, that shows you don’t even have a vague idea what science is or how it works. A hypothesis that can’t be refuted in theory cannot be a part of science because it can’t be tested. Such a hypothesis would be both pointless and invoke magical thinking and post-hoc explanations that “God did it.” You see such magical thinking marched out every time the Earth flatly refuses to obey a long chain of public predictions by the warmists, such as the heavy snows in England and North America a few years ago.

    And on top of it all is the fraud and scientific misconduct of the warming proponents, which wouldn’t be necessary if the data was supporting their claims. They wouldn’t have to keep altering all the past temperature records, plunging the 1930’s and 1940’s into frigid darkness, and they wouldn’t have to keep adjusting modern temperature records upwards. They get caught doing this every couple of weeks. In any other field of science, adjusting raw data to fit the theory instead of adjusting or abandoning the theory to fit the fact would be a career-endng mistake. In climatology it’s the accepted norm.

  6. Guest

    I hope you aren’t expecting me to read several paragraphs of your nonsense. There are no rules in science. There is just evidence, results and publications of evidence and results, the veracity of which is generally definitively demonstrated by the construction of usable and repeatable hardware and software devices. And lots of data (bits and bytes sometimes, but not always.) Your data is just random words laced with your authoritarian reality free biases, and isn’t worth my time reading. The science clearly indicates to me that you’re not worthy.

    Make sure your get together every once and while for some good old back slapping with your buddies if you think that will make you feel better about your scientific and technical deficiencies. They’re obvious.

    1. George Turner

      There are no rules in sciene

      Words the warmists live by, which is why they spend so much time conspiring, plotting, hacking accounts, and making stuff up, stuff which then gets torn apart by statisticians, mathematicians, physicists, geologists, and plant biologists. As for my technical deficiences, years ago Willie Soon was sending me e-mails of encouragement over finding technical deficiences in warmist “research”, aka nonsense.

      All you’ve done is resort to appeal by authority and claim that the dogma cannot be questioned. You might as well be a Catholic bishop or Islamic imam arguing that no one can dare question the will of God. Science doesn’t work like that, but religion does, and warmists have merely recreated the trappings of the Catholic church where the upper priests where different color robes but are just as blind in their faith and insistence that they convey the absolute truth no matter what utter idiocy issues forth from their mouths. That’s why warmism centers on man’s sin, but offers redemption through belief and evangelism instead of actually changing their own behavior. Just send Al Gore some cash and all your sins will be forgiven.

      1. Rand Simberg Post author

        What’s really hilarious is that this creature is engaging in ad hominem attacks, with no actual arguments, completely anonymously. Because he or she wouldn’t want his or her name to be associated with this idiocy.

        Of course, that is the way of imbecilic Internet trolls. And that is why they lose.

  7. Guest

    All you’ve done is resort to appeal by authority

    Another couple of content free paragraphs which I don’t feel inclined to read. Need another shovel?

    What authority have I appealed to? I posted a link on another thread. I didn’t even appeal to anyone to read it, I just offered it up for you and you are free (as in LIBERTEEEE!) to read it or not. It contains actual science, with no attached rules and no appeals to authority, unless you consider scientific references to be an appeal to authority. You, sir, with all due respect, are not doing your position any favors with your ranting. I did, however, suggest that if you want to retain even a shred of scientific credibility on this blog, you would be well advised to stop ranting and posting on a subject (climatology) of which you know nothing. Take it or leave it, I care not, and guess what. The only people who do care are the authoritarian libertarian nutjobs – just like you. The owner of this blog would also be well advised to take outside advice.

  8. George Turner

    Agreed Rand, he’s truly hilarious!

    Guest, the “appeal to authority” is inherent in your arguments, absolutely no different than debating a Baptist where every single response is “the Bible says”, “the gospels say”, “Pastor James says” or “theologists are unanimous in…” without ever once even attempting to address a point or use logic, reason, or evidence.

    The people here are scientists and engineers. To us, numbers and data are everything, whereas most warmist “science” might as well come from the English, marketing, and sociology departments (though they’re better at statistics than the warmist climatologists).

    You continually assert that I don’t know anything about climatology, just like a Baptist would assert that anyone who disagrees with them on any pont can’t possibly know anything about the scriptures — while not actually knowing much about the scriptures.

    I read GCM source code. I get personal e-mails from climatologists. Graduate level text books on atmosphere/ocean modeling rattle around in my car. I’ve probably read a thousand papers on climatology, one every few days for the past ten or fifteen years. Most are junk, and it’s not getting any better.

    The latest was an interesting collaborative effort that estimated the sea level rise from Antarctica and Greenland melting using satellite data that, horribly enough, can’t possibly produce the precision they required, which is why JPL is proposing to send up a much larger, more capable, and more expensive satellite. Garbage in, garbage out, and the paper’s results, needless to say, didn’t even agree with the world’s large set of closely monitored tide gages.

    Some of the papers are quite amusingly wrong, like Mann using a series of data upside-down, or that the warmists rushed into print a refutation of Svensmark’s cosmic ray data while getting the warming effects of cosmic rays exactly backwards.

    But if you don’t believe me, go read Judith Curry’s site. She’s one of the top climatologists in the nation, and one who addresses the very large uncertainties in the endeavor.

  9. Guest

    the “appeal to authority” is inherent in your arguments

    if you don’t believe me, go read Judith Curry’s site. She’s one of the top climatologists in the nation

    Right. Got it. Thanks. I prefer the peer reviewed literature and my own observations and computations, though, so I’ll pass on your ‘authority’.

Comments are closed.