OT: Climate Change Bullshit

il

as

ted

ne

SV.

in

If you want to go to the trouble of getting a Ph.D. in climate science, the current interest in anthropogenic global warming has probably improved you r job prospects, but I can't see the - limited - number of extra academic j obs that this interest may have created as driving a tidal wave of Ph.D. candidates.

The process of choosing an academic specialty depends a lot on the candidat es interests and aptitudes. Potential employment opportunities may play a p art - but not a large part, granting the weird and wonderful range of thing s that do get studied.

Dungeness crab, yes.

That sort of terminal legal stupidity.

Anybody can file a lawsuit here. How about where you are?

Yep. Disaster movies and simulations are always fun:

Watch the coastline sink:

I looked at the list of available EPA research grants: and found that most of the research funding is on the effects or impacts of climate change, and none (and I do mean none) were on the alleged causes or mechanisms involved. It's as if the EPA has issued a papal bull announcing the climate change is real, and that any further research on its validity and causes is a waste of EPA time and money. Scroll down the right hand column "RFA" (in beige).

NIMBY versus stakeholder rights. Yeah, that always happens when there's a point of contention. For example, if the EPA declared that the substantial parts of the coastline will soon be submerged according to a published timetable, it might inspire mortgage and insurance companies to NOT issue loans and policies in those areas. That hasn't happened because (in my never humble opinion) neither the proponents or opponents of global warming theory have taken more than a cursory look at where their research and opinions are leading government policy. Those that have bothered to do so, have mostly recoiled in shock, written really awful disaster movies, or have dived back into "more research is necessary" on the assumption that the additional research will somehow find a way out of the dilemma and save them from some manner of real or imagined disaster. If Bitrex is correct and there's no money in promoting climate research, then perhaps such fears of disaster might have something to do with the popularity of climate research.

From my perspective, the problem is not whether climate change is real, imaginary, or a conspiracy. It doesn't matter. The not so subtle detail that most of the research is in the areas of effects and impacts, not causes and mechanisms. The possible "solutions" are just beginning, and once they are properly organized and funded, may well be implemented in a manner counter to individual and property rights. It's not too difficult to imagine licensed violations (carbon credits), profiteering (Obama green energy), possible coastal confiscation, selective enforcement by industry, wealth transfer through taxation, etc. When the talking stops, the shooting starts. Like some climate change scientists, I want to do more research in the hope that my nightmares might not be coming true.

Good to hear you are not talking to yourself anymore.

The deniers are those that refuse to accept the evidence of the data that however you spin the numbers, the graph of temperature against CO2 is simply not a log relationship as the CAGW theory predicts. In fact no value of 'climate sensitiviy' - the ultimade fudge factor - can be made to fit what should be a log curve to the real world data,

No one denies that climate changes. So that is a stupid and pejorative term. Designed to shuit down dissent from a shaky (but profitable) theory.

The question is what, (if anything*) causes it.

After 30 years of data, human generated CO2 can be ruled out.

That's the science.

Propaganda, profit power and politics of course say different.

• As a non linear system with multiple delayed negative feedback paths climate of course is chaotic and displays quasi periodic behaviour oscillating irregularly around one or more 'attractors'

Well no, but I would require some evidence of your 'evidence'.

It's clear ypu have little knowledge of climate, the actual physics of the so called greenhouse effect or any understanding of the nature of a scientific theory or the mathematics of energy transfer in the atmosphere, or indeed any knowledge of systems theory or chaos theory.

So that makes your received wisdom - derived from people who are just as ignorant - worth about the same as a used piece of toilet paper.

You have to be a good scientists who produces reputable anbd repeatbel results for that though.

But iot is a joib that any 5th rate tecjhnical hackl can do if they leave their cinsciences behgind.

Oh, I think uyou have that reveresed. The big names in AGW 'science' are all like that.

They write for et beeb opr te guradianm or do opinon pieces on te effects of man made climate change.

Ther is ono sucj thing as 'anti-=AGW *sc ience*. Ther is only *science*. The formulation and testing and rejection of tehories that do not predict real world outrcomes.

Science rejects AGW because simply it predicts results that the actual data refutes.

In order for CO2 to be the most siugnificant driver of global temeperature, te graph pf log(Co2) versus global temperature has to be a straight line plus minus other second order effects.

It isn't. Up till 1998 it nearly was, Post 1998 it has been far flatter.

There is no value of lambda that will enable the thesis 'modern global warming is dominated by CO2 levels' to be true.

The data shows that such trivial warming as we have had is certainly NOT down to CO2. Therr is almost no corelation wat all.

Something else is in fact going on.

No one knowsw waht it is. But that is not a reason to support AGW. At the real scientific level AGW is busted.

It is howqever the basis on which so many careers and poltiocal excuses and trillions of dollars of government funding to 'green crap' like renewable energy is based that it is 'too big to fail' now..

Just imagine if evidence that no one - even those with no understanding of science at all - could ignore came out that AGW was a crock of shit.

It would rock the establishment more than Bexit. It cant be allowed to happen.

"Eppur, si muove".

Haha.

THAT is the scale of what depends on "AGW is fact".

AGW has been the excuse to part the plebs from yet more of their pocket money, and transfer it into the pockets of profiteers.

Renewable energy alone is worth trillions in taxpayer subsidy.

Triillions in renewable energy wasted.

DYOR

You might be able to work in the private sector. Most academics cannot or will not.

Its a job. Paid for by the government. And its a cushy job. Just churn out an acceptable 50 pages of incomprehensible bullshit, every year, whose exceutive summary is 'climate change: worse than we thought'. get it reviewed by your chums, and i's a sinecure to do f*ck all for years,...

Tim is a Believer. Climate Change to Tims is Religion, like beliefe in Christ. Denial of AGW is like denial of Christ.

Your are being rational. Tim is not.

Abiotic oil. Yup. Plenty of people believe that. The evidence is against it, at leats in large quantities, but it suits their worldview.

Actually scratch that I would guess around 20-40% of Americans have no idea what *anything* is or what it's used for or where it comes from.

I see. So no self criticism in your worldview.

Ignorance is bliss.

Bless.

Yep, you lot actually are that stupid.

There are real downsides when you 'file' such a terminal stupidity here.

Glaciers in the Sierras? Where would those be, then?

Bicycling on sea-water? That's a clever trick. Why don't they just sail their boats?

The nicest one of the Scripps datasets is the one showing all main stations and the lag between the CO2 variation in the northern hemisphere and reaching the southern hemisphere.

Keeling's son went on to measure the corresponding decline in O2 - which is a technically much more difficult problem requiring the measurement of the O2:N2 ratio to 5 sig fig.

It depends where and when you measure it. In cities back when gaslights were common and coal fires were the norm the concentration of CO2 indoors could be alarmngly high. And in the cities air both the CO2 and SO2 concentrations used to get alarmingly high causing November smogs.

Building stone used to turn black from the sulphur in the air. It was good for the roses though.

It doesn't matter so much what USA does if China and other countries keep g enerating most of the carbon and the USA continues buying disposable Chines e products that create the carbon footprint in the first place.

Maybe it makes sense to have a trade war to tax the Chinese cheap products to curb the production of coal to produce toxic air and water, not to ment ion the effects on the food chain. China seems to have the greatest risk o f issues but it still affects the globe, but then they are spending far gre ater resources on alternative energy, transportation, energy distribution a nd e-cars than the US ever will.

The US Military, I believe, is still the biggest consumer of oil products, worldwide.