Study: We all might be “overestimating climate sensitivity”

Case closed, end of discussion.

Galt2009 on January 25, 2013 at 7:03 PM

that’s not how it usually works.

sesquipedalian on January 25, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Tell that to Mr Big Oil, Al “the science is settled” Gore.

Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 9:00 PM

you’d think that the difference between the declarations of anonymous commenter “Galt2009″ and the consensus opinion of 99% of nature scientists would be rather obvious.

sesquipedalian on January 25, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Resist We Much on January 28, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Well, I wouldn’t think that you would know that 99% of “nature scientists” do not agree.

I don’t feel like debating this stupid topic, but will give you 2 big names that have changed their minds about the “settled science” recently:

#1: James Lovelock, THE BLOODY FATHER OF THE GAIA THEORY and early influencer of Al Gore.

The Creator of The Gaia Theory: The Science Is Not Settled

‘I made a mistake’: Gaia theory scientist, James Lovelock, admits his previous claims about the deadly impact of climate change were too ‘alarmist.’

“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world. [The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.”

– James Lovelock, environmental scientist

“I was too ‘alarmist’ about climate change & so was Gore! The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.”

– James Lovelock, ‘Gaia’ scientist reversing himself, MSNBC 23 April 2012

“The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn’t got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They’ve employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear. The Germans and the Danes are making a fortune out of renewable energy. I’m puzzled why politicians are not a bit more pragmatic about all this.”

– James Lovelock, 29 March 2010

And, #2: Fritz Vehrenholt

“I feel duped on climate change.”

– Fritz Vehrenholt, a GIANT and EVANGELIST in the global warming movement

“The climate catastrophe is not occurring.”

– Fritz Vehrenholt, in his book “Die Kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun)

The science isn’t “settled,” but your mind is locked and will not change until the Cult of Gaia comes up with different apocalyptic histrionics and climate-Armageddon-prop.

Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 10:26 PM

btw, lovelock was always a nut

sesquipedalian on January 25, 2013 at 10:40 PM

So what does that say about Nobel Laureates, Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri (former head of the IPCC), who vouched for him and praised his work?

Dr James Lovelock, CH, CBE, FRS, Ph.D, is the author of more than 200 peer-reviewed papers in Geophysiology, Instrument Science, medicine, and biology; holder of more than 50 patents; Fellow of the Royal Society; former president of the Marine Biological Association; Fellow of Green Templeton College and recipient of SCIENCE awards such as the Norbert Gerbier Prize of the World Meteorological Organisation; the Tswett Medal; the Nonino Prize; the Volvo Environment Prize; the Rockefeller Travelling Fellowship in Medicine; the Silver Medal and Prize of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory; Japan’s Blue Planet Prize; the American Chemical Society Chromatography Award; the first Amsterdam Prize for the Environment by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment, the Royal Geographical Society Discovery Lifetime Award and the Wollaston Medal; the Geological Society’s highest Award (Charles Darwin was a previous winner); and honorary doctorates in environmental science, biology, and medicine from universities such as the University of East Anglia, Exeter University; Plymouth Polytechnic/Plymouth University; Stockholm University; University of Edinburgh, University of Kent, the University of East London and the University of Colorado, to name a few.

and vehrenermahgerd is not a scientist.

And, neither is Dr R.K. Pachauri nor the law school dropout and divinity school flunkie, Albert Gore, Jr; nevertheless, they have both been first-tier leaders, advocates, and speakers on global warming/global cooling/climate change/climate chaos/whatever-we-need-to-call-it-today. Of course, the fact that Gore isn’t a scientist hasn’t stopped your little cult from worshiping him.

” People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ‘cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot…”

– Al Gore, 2009

Let the record reflect that the temperature at the earth’s core – 4,000 miles down – is usually quoted as 5,000 degrees Celsius although some contrarians suggest that it could be as hot as 9,000 degrees Celsius.

BUT ANYONE CHALLENGING YOUR DOGMA IS A NUT AND THE EQUIVALENT OF A HOLOCAUST-DENIER…

**eyeroll**

Resist We Much on January 28, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Proggies love to talk about Eisenhower’s warning about the MIC in his farewell address, but they always overlook what he said in the next breath:

“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

Too bad they aren’t as skeptical and worried about the scientific-technological elite as they are of the MIC, especially considering the trillions of dollars and loss of liberties involved.

Resist We Much on January 28, 2013 at 3:34 PM