Not exact matches
«The chairman of the committee on
Science Space and Technology is making what to us is a pretty ludicrous assertion, that rather
than trying to protect the rights of citizens to ensure that business fraud, and could be very
significant business fraud we could talk about inflating up assets by many billions of dollars, their claim is that this is a politically charged effort to silence descending views on
climate,» Schneiderman said on a recent visit to Syracuse.
While there was a lot of interesting
science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that
climate sensitivities significantly higher
than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is
significant other data, predominantly from paleo -
climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).
While there was a lot of interesting
science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that
climate sensitivities significantly higher
than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is
significant other data, predominantly from paleo -
climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).
I am curious where this is going as Fred Moolten has said on
Climate Etc. that Issac Held thinks anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 may have had a more
significant role earlier
than current
science indicates (hope I haven't botched this.)
We don't get any closer to
science by denying the
significant possibility that we are causing significantly adverse changes in
climate than we do by the ridiculous assertion that we understand the chaotic complexity of
climate well enough to say with certainty how many parts per millions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to how many degrees of global warming.
«More
than two - thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC's 2007
climate -
science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other... the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence on
climate significant enough to be damaging to the planet were unrepresented in the authorship of chapter 9.»
Climate science has unintentionally become one of the most
significant fronts in the socioeconomic - political struggle to develop a sustainable better future for humanity, a struggle to correct incorrect developments that have developed powerful defences, particularly through regionally temporarily successful misleading marketing appeals to developed temptations for more potential personal benefit rather
than desiring to be more helpful to others and the future of humanity.
All of these mistakes made the threat of
climate change more
significant than the
science stated.
«
Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industria
Climate science» as it is used by warmists implies adherence to a set of beliefs: (1) Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will warm the Earth's surface and atmosphere; (2) Human production of CO2 is producing
significant increases in CO2 concentration; (3) The rate of rise of temperature in the 20th and 21st centuries is unprecedented compared to the rates of change of temperature in the previous two millennia and this can only be due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations; (4) The
climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industria
climate of the 19th century was ideal and may be taken as a standard to compare against any current
climate; (5) global climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industria
climate; (5) global
climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industria
climate models, while still not perfect, are good enough to indicate that continued use of fossil fuels at projected rates in the 21st century will cause the CO2 concentration to rise to a high level by 2100 (possibly 700 to 900 ppm); (6) The global average temperature under this condition will rise more
than 3 °C from the late 19th century ideal; (7) The negative impact on humanity of such a rise will be enormous; (8) The only alternative to such a disaster is to immediately and sharply reduce CO2 emissions (reducing emissions in 2050 by 80 % compared to today's rate) and continue further reductions after 2050; (9) Even with such draconian CO2 reductions, the CO2 concentration is likely to reach at least 450 to 500 ppm by 2100 resulting in
significant damage to humanity; (10) Such reductions in CO2 emissions are technically feasible and economically affordable while providing adequate energy to a growing world population that is increasingly industrializing.
WRT AGW and
climate science, the basic requirements for a robust «core» knowledge area have not been met, and to describe ANYONE as an expert in
climate science is, as Dr. Carter noted in a recent talk, simply foolish; there are, he notes, about 100
significant specialties involved in it, and no one man can be conversant with more
than one or two.
«But much of the underlying
science was correct, and there would be
significant changes to
climate it if did undergo a catastrophic collapse — although the film made those effects much more catastrophic, and happening much more quickly —
than would actually be the case.»
That would be a very
significant scientific contribution, and in my humble opinion much more worth it
than slaying some
climate alarmist dragons that constantly contaminate the paleoclimatology with sloppy
science.