Skip to comments.The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Posted on 11/30/2009 4:52:06 PM PST by ricks_place
Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.
Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionallysuch as for the last dozen years or soit does little that can be discerned.
Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.
The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.
Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
You can do a simple test to immediately see press bias.
Google can search a single site. For example, to search CNN for the term "climategate" simply type the following into Google and see:
I did a little test on fairness and here are the results.
|NY Times||site:www.nytimes.com climategate||5 (in comments mostly)|
|CBS (See BS)||site:www.cbs.com climategate||0|
|ABC News||site:www.abcnews.com climategate||0|
|NY Post||site:www.NYPost.com climategate||2 pages|
|Wall St. Journal||site:www.WSJ.com climategate||1|
|Financial Times||site:www.FT.com climategate||8 (comment/Opinion)|
|Huffington Post||site:www.huffingtonpost.com climategate||10+ pages|
|Fox News||site:www.foxnews.com climategate||10+ pages|
While CNN has ZERO pages on Climategate, they have more than 10 about the Whitehouse Gatecrashers.
Cue The Who -- "Won't Get Fooled Again".
Hey, I’ve got that on DVD!
The good professor is one smart cookie.
I call the perpetrators: “Global Warming Scheizen-tists”
Lindzen has written a series of superb op-eds on these matters in recent years.... since he is not spouting the PC myths ad nauseum he gets no attention from the True Believers. I was hoping he’d weigh in on the CRU emails and he sure does put Jone, Mann, et al in a different perspective. This column needs to be read by everyone alive, especially all those who try to pretend that any scientific debates about AGW and predictions of catastrophe are “over”.....
ALRIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lindzen got an Op-Ed in the WSJ!!!
Freakin AWESOME. That guy is a GENIUS. Seriously, he really really knows what he is talking about. He IS the climate Scientist that the CUR only dreams of being/having. The CRU is playschool compared to Lindzen.
Global warming, aka climate change, is no more about trying to save the earth than healthcare reform (Liberal style) is about healthcare. It is about seizing power in this country.
The first time I heard the word “settled” used in the context of law—as in women’s right to abortion—I knew the left was feeling footsteps creeping up on it. They when I heard that climate change—nee global warming—was settled science I knew the left was sensing warm breath on the nape of its lying neck.
I’m a simple old soldier, but to my mind there can never be any such thing as settled science (at least in the cosmic sense) or law. Need some help here. Am I correct? If not please provide real—not theoretical—examples.
Hasn’t this stupid, naive MIT prof read any Al Gore?
Instead of climategate - try CRU -— the WSJ has had two articles a day including this one
Be my guest. :)
My point was that even on a left-wing blog, like the "Huffington Post", the term Climategate is ubiquitous. It appears more than 6,500 times. Yet it appears not once on any of the pages of most of the major news organizations.
This is a terrific article. The author points out that the geological record indicates that the earth's climate is not inherently unstable - but because the Warming of Mass Destruction alarmists wanted to sell the idea that the climate is critically dependent on the concentration of CO2, they have deliberately designed computerized climate "models" to be unstable.
They have deliberately designed their "models" to be inherently poorly suited to match the actual behavior of the earth's climate - and then forced the outputs of their "models" match the actual record of the earth's climate with cheats.
It as if they balanced a pencil point-down on their hands - then, upon stopping their efforts to keep it from falling, they acted surprised and outraged when the pencil fell over. Their "models" are frauds.
Using the proper names or acronyms works much better with finding the mainstream coverage as they try to hold up an air of impartiality at the same time many/most of them are trying to cut the legs out from under the story. Climategate works only in the blogsphere because the appearance of yellow journalism isn’t as anathema.
It's not as if Tiger, in his possible error, had been aiding and abetting those on the verge of enslaving the entire planet.
Chuckle. This is the FreeRepublic I remember...
Climate hoax bump.