Climate science: observations vs. models

[Ed Jewett]

Climate science: observations vs. models

SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2010

Climate science: observations vs. models

the global-warming illusion

Richard K. Moore
rkm@quaylargo.com

This document continues to evolve, based on continuing research. The latest version is always maintained at this URL:
http://rkmdocs.blogspot.com/2010/01/clim...odels.html

You can click on any graphic in this document to see a larger image.

Much more at the link:

http://rkmdocs.blogspot.com/2010/01/clim...odels.html

[Peter Lemkin]

Sorry, here I have to respectfully disagree completely. In fact, those who 'buy into' the 'global warming is a conspiracy' myth are covertly being manipulated by the very villains behind much of the anthropogenic global warming - the oil, chemical, power and heavy industry generally, steel, auto, coal, and MIC industries - and those who supply/earn big money to/from them [i.e. the Oligarchy]. Beware!

Global climate change is cyclic - BUT what we now see is not from any natural cycle - but from human activity - on this all but a handful of government or oil, chemical, coal, et al. beholden scientists agree. If you look behind 95+% of the scientists who says it is only a natural climatic cycle, you will find their funding comes from the sources I mention above. Sadly, I find many on the correct side of many other real deep political issues have been deceived in this matter - much to the delight of the Oligarchy and Propaganda Ministry....I'm sure they hope if they can just start a crack in the analytical logic here, they can also derail the progress with Dallas to 911 - and all in between. The techniques being used are the same as that used by the asbestos industry and the tobacco industry to say their products were not harmful. The body of scientific evidence in the literature is about 90% showing anthropogenic climate change at an ever increasing rate now; about 10% saying 'nay' - and most of that 10% have the financial backing of the very people who stand to profit from such a viewpoint.....

....for those I named above, it is a matter of life or death to promote the false 'science' rather than the reality.

....for the Planet, it is a matter of life or death that we follow the real facts and end our self-destructive ways.... It is the living things on this Planet v. the Oligarchy, their financial world, their industries, and the insane and unsustainable system we humans have built. It is a hard and sad truth.....but I'll stake my life and the life of the human civilization, and all living things on that truth/science/logic.

There are millions of citations and references I could cite. I'd suggest looking at the posts I've made on this Forum on Derrick Jensen - for a plan out of this mess; and a film called 'The Story of Stuff' - for the simple version of what is broken and desperately needs 'fixing'. Perhaps the fact that a very visible pol [Al Gore] was involved, it is easier for some to see the conspiracy in a reversed image.

[Greg Burnham]

Sorry, here I have to respectfully disagree completely. In fact, those who 'buy into' the 'global warming is a conspiracy' myth are covertly being manipulated by the very villains behind much of the anthropogenic global warming - the oil, chemical, power and heavy industry generally, steel, auto, coal, and MIC industries - and those who supply/earn big money to/from them [i.e. the Oligarchy]. Beware!

Global climate change is cyclic - BUT what we now see is not from any natural cycle - but from human activity - on this all but a handful of government or oil, chemical, coal, et al. beholden scientists agree. If you look behind 95+% of the scientists who says it is only a natural climatic cycle, you will find their funding comes from the sources I mention above. Sadly, I find many on the correct side of many other real deep political issues have been deceived in this matter - much to the delight of the Oligarchy and Propaganda Ministry....I'm sure they hope if they can just start a crack in the analytical logic here, they can also derail the progress with Dallas to 911 - and all in between. The techniques being used are the same as that used by the asbestos industry and the tobacco industry to say their products were not harmful. The body of scientific evidence in the literature is about 90% showing anthropogenic climate change at an ever increasing rate now; about 10% saying 'nay' - and most of that 10% have the financial backing of the very people who stand to profit from such a viewpoint.....

....for those I named above, it is a matter of life or death to promote the false 'science' rather than the reality.

....for the Planet, it is a matter of life or death that we follow the real facts and end our self-destructive ways.... It is the living things on this Planet v. the Oligarchy, their financial world, their industries, and the insane and unsustainable system we humans have built. It is a hard and sad truth.....but I'll stake my life and the life of the human civilization, and all living things on that truth/science/logic.

There are millions of citations and references I could cite. I'd suggest looking at the posts I've made on this Forum on Derrick Jensen - for a plan out of this mess; and a film called 'The Story of Stuff' - for the simple version of what is broken and desperately needs 'fixing'. Perhaps the fact that a very visible pol [Al Gore] was involved, it is easier for some to see the conspiracy in a reversed image.

Peter,

Let me pose the same question to you that the esteemed Gary Severson always managed to avoid facing over the years, namely this: Do you really believe that human beings are now, or have ever been in the past, capable of PREDICTING the future behavior of a random, non-linear, complex system? Have you ever heard of Chaos Theory, which is a serious mathematical science? If not, I suggest you become so familiar. My objection to your position is not to say that I know (anymore than you do) the future behavior of this random, complex, chaotic, non-linear system called climate. I do not. However, NEITHER do you--nor does any scientist, mystic, priest, alchemist, magician, charlatan or down right crook!

By definition a chaotic system is UNPREDICTABLE. Any who claim to be able to divine the future climate are misinformed, delusional, or "other" (even if it's an honest, but wrong, belief). Until this one, single "problem" can be explained to satisfaction, MMGW is a non-starter. Is it possible? I do not claim to know that answer. However, PREDICTING it accurately is impossible. It is playing God. It is self-important bullshit without substance. It is similar to religion. Some Christians believe God will condemn any non-Christian come judgment day. Some Muslims believe God (Allah) will reward them for jihad against non-Muslims. Both sides believe they can PREDICT what God will do, yet the respective views of each are very divergent and both can't be right. Those who claim to be able to PREDICT certain things are simply WRONG--not necessarily IN their prediction, but FOR MAKING the prediction in the first place! If they happen to be correct, it will not be because they were "right" but because they were lucky. Luck is NOT science.

[Albert Doyle]

The billions of tons of fossil fuel carbon we are injecting into the atmosphere is forcing climate change. It's silly to deny that because billions of tons is something that you can't sweep under the rug with overly general sophistry. It's science that not only can't be denied, but is presently manifesting currently-occurring changes as we speak. I'm shocked conspiracy-exposing people would take the side of the worst forces that composed those who killed Kennedy. These people already said we were in a 'cooling trend' that debunked Global Warming just 2 years ago. Since then we've had a crushing rebound of Global Warming events like record heat and drought. Those 'cooling trend' people disappeared fast. Global Warming denial seems like philosophy in the face of fact to me...

[Ed Jewett]

Let me state here for the record:

I wish to see the debate continue, aired in depth and with all the weight of scientific and other evidence brought forth. I won't be taking or arguing any specific side or aspect of that debate.

I don't doubt for a minute that the activities of man over the last 100 or so years have grossly exacerbated environmental concerns on the planet and its residents.

I do think it exceedingly difficult to tease apart all the inputs into environmental concerns so as to ascertain and cure the cause. I'm sure we can name many of them and have debates about each of them. As is noted, many of these have "agents" or inputs into the debate, including the giant thing some called the evilarchy,some the empire, some civilization, some the corporate world of fossil fuels industries, some the US military nexus that includes other countries, etc etc pick your poison.

I do have some concerns about the approach that attempts to make "we" all guilty, and that attempts ot impose some form of taxation or fiscal break on some activities (but not others?). I'll let others argue that angle about who should pay for the brake.

We should all be progressively aggressive or assertive enough to be posturing, lobbying, protesting or something, but we don't seem to be able to put a brake on other activities. I don't think ten of anyone getting exercised about the issue is going to change much.

[Greg Burnham]

Just to be clear:

I am NOT pro-pollution. I am very much in favor of cleaning up our skies as well as our oceans and rivers. I am also in favor of decreasing the amount of pollution that continues to be produced.

However, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring trace element in our atmosphere. It is "plant food" and is necessary to all forms of life, human and otherwise.

I am not "in bed" with the pollution producers anymore than are those who claim to be environmentalists. Just like me, so-called environmentalists drive cars, fly in planes, consume products that have been packaged in plastic, and take advantage of the benefits that citizens of an OIL consuming nation, such as the USA, enjoy. These benefits include CONSUMING FOOD everyday that has arrived at their neighborhood grocer via gas guzzling TRUCKS.

I have yet to see a single "environmentalist" offer a better solution to food distribution than the one we now employ: TRUCKING. Sure, they are great at criticizing and pointing out problems, but they are extremely weak when it comes to finding solutions. Always ready to point the finger of blame at others and always waiting for others to take the first step to solve the problems, the survival of these mindless idiots depends upon the very institutions that they so readily throw under the bus.

My suggestion? Offer solutions--better solutions than what we now have--along with your criticism.

Solve the pollution problem. It is real. For sure. Don't waste time on something that is IMPOSSIBLE to predict.

In the meantime, keep your eye on your wallet. Those who would "save the planet" from MMGW would also pick your pocket if you let them.

[Ed Jewett]

... and for further clarity, nothing in my remarks should be taken as a statement about anyone in the debate, on this discussion board or not. Note too I am a member (listed in the credits) of the "cloud" funding which helped finance the movie End:Civ.

The two-volume book "Endgame" might also be used as a platform for further discussion. I've read and annotated several volumes by Jensen, surely a controversial author (but a good one), with a lot of things to say that are meticulously referenced.

[Greg Burnham]

Agreed, Ed. For clarity, nothing in my remarks should be taken as a statement about anyone in the debate, on this discussion board or not--except maybe for Al Gore and a few other select so-called "Climate Scientists" and the entire group of IPCC stooges (with the exception of those who attempted to point out the flawed conclusions of their comrades to no avail, but were instead shunned into silence).

:peace:

BTW: I highly recommend the book, "The Climategate Emails" -- by my close friend, John Costella, PhD.

[Ed Jewett]

CIA's Global Warming Center A National Security Secret

Tags:

• CLIMATEGATE
  
• DICTATORSHIP
  

Most Americans may not know that the government agency responsible for providing national security data to the nation's senior policymakers, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), operates a special center dedicated to global warming.


That's because the CIA doesn't want anyone to know what goes on in its two-year-old Center on Climate Change and National Security. So the exclusive unit, led by "senior specialists," operates under a cloak of secrecy that rejects all public-records requests, despite President Obama's promise to run a transparent government.
"If we tell you the temperature, the terrorists will win!" -- Official White Horse Souse

[Ed Jewett]

CIA's Global Warming Center A National Security Secret

Tags:

• CLIMATEGATE
  
• DICTATORSHIP
  

Most Americans may not know that the government agency responsible for providing national security data to the nation's senior policymakers, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), operates a special center dedicated to global warming.


That's because the CIA doesn't want anyone to know what goes on in its two-year-old Center on Climate Change and National Security. So the exclusive unit, led by "senior specialists," operates under a cloak of secrecy that rejects all public-records requests, despite President Obama's promise to run a transparent government.
"If we tell you the temperature, the terrorists will win!" -- Official White Horse Souse

The above is from http://whatreallyhappened.com/


The full linked story: http://www.themoralliberal.com/2011/09/2...ty-secret/

CIA's Global Warming Center A National Security Secret

September 27, 2011

Liberty Alerts, Corruption Chronicles
Most Americans may not know that the government agency responsible for providing national security data to the nation's senior policymakers, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), operates a special center dedicated to global warming.
That's because the CIA doesn't want anyone to know what goes on in its two-year-old Center on Climate Change and National Security. So the exclusive unit, led by "senior specialists," operates under a cloak of secrecy that rejects all public-records requests, despite President Obama's promise to run a transparent government.
When the center was launched in 2009, the CIA said it would not address the science of climate change but rather the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts and heightened competition for natural resources. The new division was touted as an important tool that would bring together in a single place expertise on an important national security topic; the effect environmental factors can have on political, economic and social stability overseas.

Reasonably, some U.S. taxpayers want to know what exactly the center has been doing with their money. After all, Obama has repeatedly assured the country that he will run the most transparent administration in history. So why not reveal some of the CIA's findings on the impacts of global warming? After all, the administration has dedicated huge amounts of money to combat the ills of global warming so why not make public some of the "intelligence" that could justify the investment?
Because everything the CIA's climate center does is a national security secret, according to a report published this month by a group of scientists dedicated to exposing government secrecy. The group cites a categorical denial by the CIA to a benign Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for a copy of any study or report concerning the impacts of global warming. The request was made by an intelligence historian affiliated with the National Security Archive.
If he was blown off, the average American would most certainly get the shaft from the CIA for its "classified" global warming records. The group that exposed this story points out that the CIA's response indicates a fundamental lack of discernment that calls into question the integrity of the Center on Climate Change, if not the agency as a whole. It further asks; if the CIA really thinks that every document produced by the center constitutes a potential threat to national security, who can expect the center to say anything intelligent or useful about climate change?
Interestingly, when the CIA global warming center opened the agency said it would coordinate with intelligence community partners on the review and declassification of imagery and other data that could be of use to scientists in their own climate-related research.
Used with permission of Judicial Watch.