This is a simple and easy read that might help those that have already made up their minds. For those that are locked in, just think a bit deeper and understand how much money that Green Energy is going to make for the climate alarmists.
This is probably the greatest myth in the history of modern science. For all those that think climate deniers are denying it for the money. The shoe is on the other foot.
The confusion between climate change and climate alarmism is not accidental. Climate alarmists wrap themselves in the blanket of climate change to distort science and discredit non-members of the climate alarm cult. If you point out uncertainties or inconsistencies in the climate alarmist playbook, they label you a ‘climate denier’ and put you in the same category as paranoids, lunatics, and malefactors who deny well-established truths. Of course, the climate alarmists are the ones in denial about the truth. They always call you what they’re guilty of themselves.
Sometimes the facts are buried in a footnote on page 750 of an 800-page report otherwise crammed with misleading graphs and unsupported inference. Still, the factual resources are there if you look hard enough.Fortunately, there is good science on which to base tentative conclusions. That science can be difficult to find. You have to search hard for a well-credentialed physicist, climatologist, or complexity theorist willing to speak objectively on the subject of climate change. Many are afraid to speak up for fear of losing jobs or research grants. Others parrot the climate alarm party line in order to receive those research grants.
There are ample resources for those who want to learn more and read the scientific data for themselves. While the climate change debate in the media is completely one-sided in favour of the alarmists, there are books and reports that present a balanced view and support the conclusion that there is no existential threat and, in fact, climate change is a relatively mild phenomena with little or no impact on temperature, severe weather, or sea levels.
Climate change — just a lot of hot air?
The climate is changing. It has been changing for billions of years. Climate change is one of the most complex phenomena ever addressed by science and one of the most difficult to model and predict. The nature and causes of climate change are a worthy challenge for the best scientists using the most sophisticated modelling tools and computational power available.
Unfortunately, the subject of climate change has been taken over by a group of pseudo-scientists using badly flawed models, selective data, and hyperbolic claims, all of which are amplified by a largely ignorant media and opportunistic politicians looking to increase their own power.
Sober voices mostly agree it’s not a crisis
Are there any honest scientists using solid data and robust models to make more accurate assessments of the current state and future path of climate change? Fortunately, the answer is yes. This list includes Michael Shellenberger, Steven E Koonin, Bjorn Lomborg, Bruce C Bunker, MJ Sanger, and many others.
These sober voices mostly agree that slight global warming is detectable, but it’s not a crisis and will not become a crisis in the foreseeable future. They also conclude that it’s not clear that CO2 emissions are the main cause of warming, even if it is a contributing cause.
They point to many other causes including solar cycles, ocean salinity, ocean currents, the El Niño and La Niña phenomena, cloud cover, aerosols, volcanoes, agricultural practices, and natural methane release. There are also numerous official reports that reach the same conclusion (although you may have to scan the footnotes to find that out; official reports support scary headlines with wild claims which are then heavily diluted by the detailed content).
The most important contribution of these real scientists is to demonstrate how badly flawed the models used by the climate alarmists are. Here’s why…
It’s all based on assumptions
A climate model begins by dividing the surface of the planet into a grid with squares of about 360 square miles over land surfaces and 36 square miles over the oceans. That’s about 101,000,000 grids.
Each grid is then extrapolated into a stack about 30 miles high extending to the outer edge of the stratosphere. All weather occurs in this zone with most of the weather occurring within 10 miles of the Earth’s surface in the troposphere.
The vertical stacks are then sliced horizontally into thin layers like pancakes. Each layer is then analysed separately for climate conditions in that pancake and the impact of such conditions on adjacent pancakes in adjacent stacks, and so on. All of that goes on before we even get to feedback loops and recursive functions.
If each pancake is one-mile thick, that comes to 3.03 billion pancakes. Analysing one pancake is tricky. Analysing 3.03 billion pancakes is mind-boggling. Analysing the interaction of each of the 3.03 billion pancakes with each of the other 3.03 billion pancakes (even allowing for attenuated interaction at a distance) is a super-linear function that borders on the impossible in terms of computational complexity. One scientist estimates that if we had supercomputers one thousand times faster than today’s computers, the run time on the problem described above would be several months.
So how do scientists actually work with models that cannot be run with today’s computers? They make assumptions. Lots of assumptions. This process begins with a recognition that there are no direct observations of most of the pancakes! Sure, we have satellites and weather stations recording temperature and precipitation, but those inputs only include a tiny fraction of the surface areas and stack heights just described.
 |
Jim Rickards,
Strategist, The Daily Reckoning Australia
Replies
Poppa, the Royal 'we' is the Web site mediafactcheck. You asked that the article be read with an open mind.
I didn't try to take this discussion anywhere. Having an open mind doesn't mean you shouldn't be critical where the views expressed are not necessarily true. What I expressed wasn't meant to be one upmanship, just my view based on my readings.
In my view the credibility of a source is relevant to how credible are the arguments put forward by the source. Thus I raised issue of the DRs positions.
The article is based on and titled "what climate alarmists don't want you to know. It is not that they DON'T want you to know this. It is that they don't want you to be mislead. It is not "climate alarmists" it is 95% of scientists knowledge on this issue.
I have been reading of recent technological advances (as yet not proven or commercial) that may help reduce or undo the problem of man made carbon pollution. Hopefully these will prove successful, but that shouldn't make the world complacent to the present carbon problem.
Interesting I don't think DR actually has a position. I think you will find the position is expressed by Jim Rickards as more his personal peice. You will note there is extreme variations in some of the writers, personally I think Greg Canavan is one of the best economic theorists on the Australian Financial seen. Rickards is very much an American with his expertise on the GOLD world. They have other writers like Vern Growdie who I would call a moron....(hello Adam). You cannot make a judgement of the article based on media facts assesment or anyone elses, make it yourself.
What do you think Elvis......??
I think I will believe the 95% of scientists. As for Dr Curry, the others 5% and others they may be right but why would you risk the lifestyle of future generations?
You and I are not at risk but wouldn't it be nice to be careful so as to leave a better planet to our grandchildren.
Already there are, pacific islands going under rising sea levels; bad droughts in places like Syria that have caused humanitarian crises; and fish stocks in areas of Africa decimated by the rising sea temperatures.
Thanks FH, I agree that young Greta is the most unpopular person I have heard on the planet.
Poppa, You listen to the wrong people *smile*. I thought this was a discussion about climate change not a popularity poll. Attack her credibility if you want but please don't think that you will win an argument by personal barbs.
As for Dr Curry. Yes she is well credientialed but even she agrees that climate change has potentially catastrophic consequences for the planet if certain models are correct. I not intelligent enough to argue with Dr Curry but am more persuaded by the other 95% who say she is wrong and the modelling is sound..
Nice rhetoric, I'm smiling! ......my comment about young Greta has nothing to do with climate change or credibility, only the way she is perceived as a child. Surely she has no credibility, you wouldn't argue she does would you?
On a more important subject, consequences for the planet and the modelling being sound......Yes ....lets asume that......Do you really think we can still get it right! Lol or should the response be we will bankrupt our society and the capitalist system we cherish if we don't get it right........given the sucess the left has had in all its endeavours over time.....what will the odds of that be?
There are a lot of things we don't get right but that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from trying. At least if we try we will help reduce the worst consequences.
I haven't looked at her credibility so wouldn't have a view. My views are based on looking at other sources.
To say she has no credibility is a reach. Why because she is young? Because she is opinionated? Because she skips school?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 24 Next