Henry Payne for September 04, 2014

’Research presented as overly precise climate predictions rather than best advice is manipulated by nonsensical sceptics’ – Brian Cox, British physicist “…climate sceptics had exploited the misconception that there was doubt about climate change in order to push a political agenda. “It can be a way in for people who have an agenda that’s not scientific.”

Gore is wrong, again.

The problem with these “OMG the sky is falling” climate-change horror predictions is that nobody looks at the big pictures. Oceanographers just look at oceans, Geographers just look at earth. Weatherographers just look at their latest Super Doppler7000 and circle their arms around weather patterns. And so on.See, data is meaningless when it’s taken as an isolated point. See, for example, here’s a piece of data:2230Impressive, right? Now, if I just told you that number and said it was vitally important, what would happen? I’ll tell you what: an entire realm of science would pop into being dedicated to finding out what that number means, how it impacts our life. By the time the 2230ists were finished, the Theory of 2230 would relate to everything. Then other scientists would come along and say, no, you guys are wrong, the real Theory of 2230 is this. And so on, and so on, and so on. That’s what scientists do. They create meaning for things, then other scientists create another meaning, then they argue, then the government gives them grant money. And here’s the kicker: the truth is that 2230 is important, but each of them is just looking at it in isolation. Without understanding the big picture. They don’t know how all the parts fit together, or even what the parts are. And so they’re all wrong.Don’t get it? OK, let’s try it this way. Let’s pull back the lens a bit, take a look at the situation you’re describing. Water levels are rising. Oooh, scary. They’re rising faster than predicted. OOOOOOH, scarier. But what happens when you increase the total amount of water in a given surface? Hm? Volume, remember that? The water’s volume increases. OK, see that’s something that an oceanographer doesn’t consider, because it’s about math. So tell me: what happens when a water’s volume increases? That’s right, very good. The water becomes heavier. Because there’s more of it. Need proof? Here’s an experiment for you to conduct: Pick up a 5-gallon jug of water. Now pick up a 1-gallon jug. Which is heavier?

So what happens when the water’s weight increases? Well, now we’re into geography, another part of the big picture. The heavier water pushes down on the ocean’s floor. Now, in some places, that will actually make the ocean deeper — sort of like when the bottom of a plastic dish bows outward. In other places, though, the heavier water won’t be able to actually move the floor, but will put tremendous pressure on it. TREMENDOUS pressure. And what happens when you put tremendous pressure on the earth’s crust?

That’s right, volcanoes. See, now we’re into volcanology, which teaches us that magma, which is produced by volcanoes, is earth’s building material. The pressure produced by the rising sea will force volcanic eruptions of magma to the surface, which in effect will create new land. So, even as the oceans are rising, land is rising, too. This is how planets get bigger, (and — see? — we’re into astrology now). Do you think the Earth was always this same size? No! Thousands upon thousands of years ago it was much smaller. There was also a lot less water. Now we have lots of water, and lots of land. A few thousand years from now, there will be even more of both. It’s the natural way of things. It’s science. SCIENCE. But not science studied in isolation. Science as part of the greater whole.

In the 70’s the fear mongers were predicting “a new ice age” would be on us by the year 2000. Then we went to global warming. But wait, we really can not predict more than a week at a time, so we call it “Climate Change.” I guess the next step will be to claim that we are going to have “a new ice age.”

Let’s stop and think for just a moment. During the history of the earth, the earth has experienced many “ice ages” during which time the earth experienced global cooling. Between these ice ages, the earth experienced global warming. These things happened long before man was walking the earth. Because man was not walking the earth, man could not have been responsible for the global cooling or the global warming. It just happens. We live on a planet that is subject to change without the input of humans. To “blame ourselves”, it seems to me is very arrogant. There are much more powerful things going on than us.

Scientists are the modern/latter day false prophets, mediocre in knowledge, but big in speculations, and yet nature still manages to prove them wrong. We must remember that theories are just that, theories, something waiting to be proved differently. Why is it that Sheldon Cooper keeps coming to my mind whenever a scientist open his mouth.

I like the bit about the border. Thanks. I needed the laugh.

… a long diatribe with a giant lie right in the middle.

CO2 does NOT drive the temperature. According to the ice core records – Gore’s ‘famous’ graph he likes to show – the temperature rises before the CO2 rises. And then the temperature falls before the CO2 falls.

As you like to say, “… science is a description of the world and how it functions.” And, it is totally impossible for an event to have an effect on something that happened months and years in the past!

Therefore, any rise or fall in CO2 cannot drive the temperature. Period.

“Hacked e-mails show climate scientists in a bad light but don’t change scientific consensus on global warming...http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/”-Thank you for the links, Harley. Global Warming alarmists claim to be dispassionate followers of scientific fact, but the desperation with which they try to shut down debate and try to argue by “consensus” (which, as you point out, is not even as strong as they claim) indicates that they aren’t actually confident about the factual support for their claims.

Thanks to you who prompted me to read the Gore Nobel Acceptance speech. What the transcript says is this:.“Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is ‘falling off a cliff.’ One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”.It seems thus to me that Gore gave a time frame between seven and twenty-two years, citing studies by others – not on his own authority and not definitely in seven years on-the-dot..It might be that what little we do in coming years will extend that upper limit even farther. Will Gore be blamed at that point, also?

“Harley’s link is to the OPINION of METEOROLOGISTS as opposed to the RESEARCH from CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.”-Your argument would have more force if Climate Alarmists had not frequently argued that, because an overwhelming consensus of climate scientists agree with them, the “science is settled” and the issue is no longer up for debate.-I agree that this is unscientific and a mere appeal to authority. Nevertheless, the argument has been made, and Harley’s link (which you do not address) helps to refute the argument; in fact, there is not an overwhelming scientific consensus supporting the alarmists’ claims.

Argument by appeal to authority is the antithesis of science.

It is interesting, since you bring it up, that Al Gore does not practice what he preaches. One would think that if he truly believed that Global Warming was a serious problem he would reduce his own carbon footprint.

“Listening to climate scientists isn’t a bow to authority …”-No it is not. But saying “the science is settled” because X percent of climate scientists agree is an appeal to authority. It’s a bad argument and bad science, more fitted to someone who wants to avoid uncomfortable arguments than to someone who is confident that the facts are on his side.-This is all the more the case when, as Harley’s link describes, the existence of a “consensus” supporting the claims asserted by global warming alarmists is itself doubtful.

Your sarcasm would have more bite if it was directed at an argument I had actually made.-If you are interested in engaging with an opposing viewpoint on this issue here is a recent article of interest:-http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855