When Soothsayers and Prophets are called 'Scientists'

Select to expand quote

remery said..

The data is sound but context counts. 20 years in a small geographic location does not indicate any sort of global climatic trend or even a departure from long term local climate trends if you look for them.

If you want to delve into the natural history of the region you will find the natural variances even in the last several hundred years are well outside the current observations.

There is a tendency for any change in climate to be instantly blamed on us somehow. it is a very self flagellating approach. It is also apparently wrong so far.

"Here, we present a new 668-year (1350-2017 CE) tree-ring reconstruction of autumn-winter rainfall over inland southwest Australia. This record reveals that a recent decline in rainfall over inland southwest Australia (since 2000 CE) is not unusual in terms of either magnitude or duration relative to rainfall variability over the last seven centuries.

"link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-021-05782-0

Select to expand quote

remery said..
You might enjoy reading "The Whole Story of Climate", by E. Kirsten Peters.

Meh, too many pages. Synopsis will have do me. I have too many pre-conceived notions about it all anyways. I don't want to risk changing my mind.

So:

A geologist explains the complex relationship between earth's geologic cycles and climate change.

(oh goodie, rather believe a geologist about these things than a soothsayer or even a climate scientist)

This book, written by a geologist, describes the important contributions that geology has made to our understanding of climate change. What emerges is a much more complex and nuanced picture than is usually presented.

While the average person often gets the impression that the Earth's climate would be essentially stable if it weren't for the deleterious effects of greenhouse gases, in fact the history of the earth over many millennia reveals a constantly changing climate. As the author explains, several long cold eras have been punctuated by shorter warm periods. The most recent of these warm spells, the one in which we are now living, started ten thousand years ago; based on previous patterns, we should be about due for the return of another frigid epoch.

(yep, just what I thought, although return of the frigid epoch is anyones guess as to when and how much, we just can't forecast that well - yet)

But how could we be on the cusp of another ice age when all indications point to a warming climate? Though much is uncertain, this book clearly shows that major climate shifts can be appallingly rapid--occurring over as little as twenty or thirty years.

(yep, makes sense. Maybe Prof. Tim Flannery should read this as well ?)

Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere may increase the chance that this ""climate switch"" will be thrown,

(yep, also makes sense, it may increase the chance. May also decrease the chance, but may increase it, can't argue with a maybe)

...with catastrophic effects on worldwide agriculture. All the more reason to take the threat of climate change seriously.

(oooh... and the punch line. That's always the bit that gets me. "may" in the sentence above about consequences, but then implied definite in the final conclusion).


Can we compare WA wheatbelt agricultural production against rainfall data and extrapolate forward to draw this doomsday catastrophic conclusion or are we just 50/50 guessing ?

Inversely proportional is a term used in statistics.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

remery said..
You might enjoy reading "The Whole Story of Climate", by E. Kirsten Peters.

Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere may increase the chance that this ""climate switch"" will be thrown,

(yep, also makes sense, it may increase the chance. May also decrease the chance, but may increase it, can't argue with a maybe)

...with catastrophic effects on worldwide agriculture. All the more reason to take the threat of climate change seriously.

(oooh... and the punch line. That's always the bit that gets me. "may" in the sentence above about consequences, but then implied definite in the final conclusion).

May, possible, forecasts, models .... words like these accompany every doomsday scenario pushed. In fact they accompany even predictions of mild or modest changes. They have to because there have been no observed global changes to the earths climate so far, at least none that fall outside anything we have seen previously, even recently.

There is undoubtably a small 40 year trend in increasing average temps and, apart from some places not getting quite as cold, there are no changes to any of the key climate indicators. ie Floods, Droughts, cyclones, Tornadoes. All have no discernable change. Futher back than the start of satellite records we have very sketchy coverage of surface data to make any kind of informed calculation of global mean temp. Even now the difference between satellites and ground station models is massive, with up to 0.5deg difference between them all, just on agreement of todays global mean temp.

If anyone doubts this feel free to read IPCC AR6 WG1 report.

Extreme Precipitation:11.4.2 : "Despite these limitations, there are studies in regions of almost all continents that generally indicate intensification of sub-daily extreme precipitation, although there remains low confidence in an overall increase at the global scale"

Floods:11.5.2 "There is low confidence about peak flow trends over past decades on the global scale"

Droughts:11.6.2.1 4th line: "Global studies generally show no significant trends in SPI time series" SPI is Standardised Precipitation Index. This relates to meterological droughts, which is related to rainfall deficit.

Cyclones:11.7.1.2 "There is low confidence in most reported long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in TC frequency- or intensity-based metrics.."

Tornadoes: "The SREX assessed that there is low confidence in observed trends in tornadoes and hail."

Maybe CO2 makes a difference in lower atmosphere temp. The physics agrees there should be a small surface forcing, but it is all mixed up with water vapor competing for the same IR wavelenths and they are all saturated effects so large increases don't change anything much. The data indicates that if it does it is an overall minor or irrelvent forcing compared to everything else going on. Emperical evidence clearly indicates the Medieveal and Roman Warm periods were similar to now or hotter. It should also be pointed out the human race flourished in temperatures warmer than now and died off in colder. The Dark ages were driven by global cooling. .

Select to expand quote

remery said..
"Wheat yields doubled between 1980 and 2010 with the adoption of improved varieties, technology and management systems, such as reduced tillage, liming, stubble retention, early sowing, precision agriculture and integrated weed control. These changes effectively increased the water use efficiency of wheat at a greater rate than rainfall declined over the period."
www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/climate-change-and-broadacre-cropping-western-australia

.......but then concluding that delaying the next cold phase......

But how could we be on the cusp of another ice age when all indications point to a warming climate? Though much is uncertain, this book clearly shows that major climate shifts can be appallingly rapid--occurring over as little as twenty or thirty years.

Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere may increase the chance that this ""climate switch"" will be thrown with catastrophic effects on worldwide agriculture.

......will result in catastrophic effects on agriculture assumes that no further changes can be made to wheat yields. Why is this true ? Other than issues such as most crops grow better when it is warmer, wetter and there is higher concentration of CO2, why is the assumption that improvement in crop yields ceased in 2010 at some sort of ultimate zenith of productivity ?


Here's an interesting graph of some statistics. I could write a book using this chart claiming that selective breeding of things like wheat has resulted in lower improvements of yield than if things like wheat varieties had been free to evolve naturally. The logic would be the same as claiming that potentially delaying the next natural cooling cycling will have catastrophic effects on agriculture.





I am not arguing that climate change isn't real and we should carry on polluting the world we live in.

Just that the use of complete bollocks conclusions by people claiming to be scientists (but are nothing more than the prophets and soothsayers who have been sprouting the same crap since Ug and Og got told that the milk turning sour was evidence of witchcraft), should be called out before it ruins the childhood of innocent, yet very stupid, Swedish people.

How dare they.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

I am not arguing that climate change isn't real and we should carry on polluting the world we live in.

Just that the use of complete bollocks conclusions by people claiming to be scientists (but are nothing more than the prophets and soothsayers who have been sprouting the same crap since Ug and Og
...
How dare they.

So who do you accept and define as a scientist?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
Thats an interesting question. The simple answer is anyone who has relevent educational qualitifications and working knowledge for the subject in question. The real question that should be asked is what are the actual scientists really saying? As opposed to media, politicians and activists.... some of which may also have scientific qualifications, but prioritise other interests over impartiality.

I have provided some quotes from the IPCC AR6 working group above. This is a direct summary of the available scientific literature taken from the IPCC latest report on climate change. All those quotes were burried deep within the report. They were not headlined or made easy to find or even contained is the section summaries. However they are not contradicted anywhere else in the report and they are directly opposed to the claims made by the media, activists and politicians (including the head of the UN) on the state of global extreme weather events. And yet anyone who highlights these facts are shouted down as "science deniers" and holding fringe views.

A paper was published a year or so ago that summarised the same data. It was loudly labelled as false and misleading by a very small number of scientists, but it was enough for the publisher to put a label on the paper that it was challenged and under review. To date no rebuttal to show it was wrong has been published.

So who do you believe? The scientists publishing papers that apparently reflect the real data and science, or the scientists loudly claiming it is wrong and should be withdrawn despite not being able to show where it is wrong? Which ones are the real scientists?

notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/09/28/climate-scientists-want-to-ban-dissenting-views/#more-58833

Could you stop thinking and just read the headlines. You're taking all the fun out of the clickbait for me!

Select to expand quote

remery said..
So who do you accept and define as a scientist?

Anyone who chooses to self-identify as a scientist.

Why should I judge they/them.

Questioning the science of their opinions may lead to hurty hurty of their feelings. And we certainly don't want that.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
SYNTHESIS REPOET OF THE IPCC SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT (AR6) - Date of Draft: 19 March 2023

"A.1 Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1?C above 1850-1900 in 2011-2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, with unequal historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land-use change, lifestyles and patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries, and among individuals (high confidence)."

" Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence). Vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected (high confidence)."

Good to see you are reading the literature. Summaries can be tricky things when worded in certain ways. They also provide an opportunity to provide opinion rather than established fact and to allow phrasing that can be read a number of different ways. That is why I like statements directly made by the working group scientists and not the carefully selected summary writers.

The scientific consensus is that humans have caused some portion (possibly small) of the observed trend of surface warming. Some of that is though CO2, some though land use practices and some though urban heat island effect. The relative contibutions in the parts and the total contribution of human activities are very much debated.

The first paragraph fits the above view, although many will read it very differently, as intended. As a bonus question, how exactly did we come up with a global mean surface temperature prior to 1900? We can guess using the often dodgy surface records we have that covered less than 3% of the surface of the earth at the time. Also noting that even the BOM refuse to use temperature records before 1910....But the result will have an uncertainty significantly greater than the change suggested.

The second paragraph is an certainly an interesting one. The claims seem to be specific but are really are very ambigous. there is nothing to link it to. It is just some statements with no actual reference to the data and conclusions contained within the physical science working group as I have shown. The only metric that has an observed trend is global mean temperature. This can definately be said to cause an increase in heatwaves by definition even if the the change/impact is very slight. But why do they claim "many weather and climate extremes" are effected?

I suspect the second paragraph is using the computer modelling method of event attribution to claim climate impacts. This is where they make certain assumptions about causes related human induced changes and then do a computer modelling regression excercise to see if those assumptions result in attributable changes. If the assumptions are wrong so is the result.......so the excercise is highly spurious. They do this because as I pointed out the observational data has no statistically relevent trends they can use, so they are forced to use questionable methods to come up with scary stories. This article with links to published papers suggestes the IPCC attribution method is highly suspect at best or most likely just plain wrong.

judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/

Select to expand quote

remery said..
"Doctor, my eyes
Tell me what you see
I hear their cries
Just say if it's too late for me

Doctor, my eyes
They cannot see the sky
Is this the prize
For having learned how not to cry?"

And that pretty much sums up the responses of most people who fear some kind of catastrophic outcome from CO2 emissions. Emotions and fear we are somehow destroying ourselves or there is a great catastrophe of our own making is just around the corner is being used to manipulate the views of those that don't have the ability or desire to assess the actual facts or science. Despite there being no actual evidence to suggest there is anything of the sort and in reality very few scientists who actually endorse the position.

What I find fascinating and alarming is that a significant proportion of our media organisations have signed up to promote the view there is a climate emergency. As a signatory they must promote this view to the exclusion of any other, even if there is scientific literature challenging it. In fact in reality they tend to tear down any view contrary to the narrative of a climate emergency. That is not impartial reporting, it is pushing an agenda and excluding any contrary views. Our own ABC is not a signatory but does claim there is a climate emergency and actively promotes this agenda to the exclusion of any science to the contrary.

coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-list/


EDIT: good article on the IPCC moving from science reporting into activisim just dropped: open.substack.com/pub/rogerpielkejr/p/has-the-ipcc-outlived-its-usefulness?r=txzig&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

The possible benefit of the 'climate emergency' propoganda is some may come to realise we're overpopulated. Earth can comfortably sustain about a billion humans organically, thanks to the Haber Press we've made it to eight and with some further developments seventy is likely possible but that's stupid. For anyone to live their best life we need to start letting dwindle back towards the single billion, we are nearing plague proportion.

Select to expand quote

Rango said..

psychojoe said..
The possible benefit of the 'climate emergency' propoganda is some may come to realise we're overpopulated. Earth can comfortably sustain about a billion humans organically, thanks to the Haber Press we've made it to eight and with some further developments seventy is likely possible but that's stupid. For anyone to live their best life we need to start letting dwindle back towards the single billion, we are nearing plague proportion.

Thats more Malthusian than Thanos.

Your video is boring, naturally I tuned out at five seconds. What point are you attempting to put across?

In 1800 the population was 1billion
living an organic existence , life expectancy was only 30 to 40. Through innovation everybody's lives have become longer and better even poverty in poor countries is reducing ( though could be faster) .People learn to do more with less and create new resources not use them all up like a plague of rodents .
Absolute population growth is reducing anyway ,access to cheap reliable energy in poor countries will only speed up the process as man power for daily survival is no longer required.But it seems the religion of Malthus lives on.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

You won't see any blaringly obvious indications of unsustainability but the subtleties are all there, increased genetic disease, fertilizer shortage, even the price of food could serve as a subtle hint.
Our biggest challenge is actually domestic violence.
As for socialism, there was not one single homeless person in the former USSR, now it's a mess, thanks America.

Is there any truth in any of that though? I do not believe there is any increase in the occurance of genertic diseases. A fertiliser shortage is not related to the available supply of natural gas and global reserves are huge. The shortage is geopolitical and political. The price of food is not related to production. We are seeing year on year records set for global food production. Again there are other political factors involved in the cost of food, it has nothing to do with prodution. Wholesale production costs are very low.

As for the USSR homeless, sure perhaps everyone used to have the same standard of hovel to live in abject poverty at the whim of the state, but that doesn't mean they were not living in poverty. It is certainly not a free country even now and is a mess politically, but at least there is now a free market and even a messed up one like Russia is still better off for the people than the socialist one.


The average wage growth since the fall of the soviet union has skyrocketed. take-profit.org/en/statistics/wages/russia/

Mercury thermometers were phased out through the Minimata Convention. This is a recent global agreement on environment and health, adopted in 2013, named after the bay in Japan where mercury poisoned thousands of people. Many international calibration standards have demanded mercury thermometers, but are increasingly being replaced with digital thermometers.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..
If I gained a PhD in the use of evocative adjectives in front of nouns, could I get a seat at the IPCC ?

Do the scientists add those adjectives or is there a separate media advocacy department that edits them in ?

Do the scientists add those emotional adjectives or is there a separate media advocacy department that edits them in ?

Do the scientists add those unequivocally emotional adjectives or is there a separate media advocacy department that edits them in ?

Do the vulnerable scientists add those unequivocally emotional adjectives or is there a separate media advocacy department that edits them in ?

Greta may get on the IPCC shes gaining her Doctorate in Theology from the university of Helsinki .