Kind of like how "97% of doctors" agree with whatever COVID BS they come up with next because they fire and pull the license of anyone who steps out of line.
This is based on a survey where 97% or so responded that yes, the greenhouse effect is a plausible hypothesis and it's likely that humans are having some effect on the climate.
That same survey only had about 2% or so agree with any sort of doomsday scenario.
The thing is, scientific method barely applies to climate science. It is testable. And often the proponents won’t share the data that they base their studies on.
NFIP building coverage limit is $250k. Nearly every coastal home will have private flood insurance underwritten by an entity other than the government.
Surely an actuary, especially one working for a for-profit company, would recognize the global warming/rising seas risk and choose not to offer the product...yet you can still buy a policy. Why?
"Oh, the waters destroyed your home? I'm sorry, but that was global warming and a rising sea level, not a flood. Just ask any Climate Scientist. No payout for you." -The actuaries.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison as stocks and the temperature aren't even related data sets.
What I find funny about the climate change "scientists" is they are the same ones that tell a history of dramatically different climates that would have just naturally occurred. The frozen North America where humans migrated over the Bering Strait by foot, for example. So I suppose we moved from that to the world we know in modern history because people farted too much? It wasn't from machinery. The more plausible explanation to me is that over time changes in average climate is just totally normal and natural.
Stocks have perfectly measured historical data usually down to the second or less in recent years. If they can't "model" those numbers into the future then there is no way they can predict climate based on past data.
"Climate" data is mostly unverified and unverifiable measurements at a completely inadequate and arbitrary granularity compared to the size of the planet. With no other data sets against which to compare predictions.
It is 100% made up and its only purpose is to push the commie agenda.
Stocks are game theory, and as such accurate prediction is impossible as the ability to predict changes the outcome.
Presumably there's no aliens or secret cabal with the power to secretly alter the climate to profit over having better knowledge than others that are gaming the environment.
There's no reason the overall climate shouldn't be predictable given enough knowledge other than human activity is unpredictable (invention of a low cost fusion reactor for instance). The problem is they don't have anywhere near the knowledge since experiments can't be done or replicated, and the more human activity effects the outcome the less predictable any forecast will be.
No but real impartial scientists have and they are way fucking off. The hottest summers in history are from the 20s and 30s. That as grifter Gre would say is an Inconvenient truth.
To be fair, stocks are virtually completely unpredictable. You think any model could've predicted the massive crash COVID caused in early 2020?
That said, yes, I'd like to see these climate modelers predict the weather even 2 weeks from now to 90% accuracy. I never see accurate weather reports more than 2 or 3 days out and usually only if there's a big storm system.
The relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature increase is logarithmic, which means that you need to continually double CO2 emissions to see a linear increase in temperature.
When atmospheric CO2 concentration was low it didn't take much to double it and so you could readily affect increases in temperature, but the more CO2 producing capacity we add the harder it gets to double, and we are already at the point where doubling output is no longer feasible, in fact it would require such a huge GDP growth to get another doubling that temps are pretty much guaranteed to plateau where they are.
Put another way, when you have a dollar it's easy to double it to get two, when you have ten thousand dollars it's not so easy to double it to get twenty thousand dollars.
Well NASA reports on mean temperature data which shows there has been an increase over the past 140 years of one degree celsius.
Don't worry about the future just look at the past. It has been increasing more quickly recently than it has close to 140 years ago when we started measuring, so it is increasing for sure.
Now, is it going to cause a catastrophe? Probably not. At the current rate, it would take another 60 years or so to get another degree, and one degree isn't going to raise sea level fast enough to do any real damage. If it, for example, raises sea level so that some coastal properties are enveloped - they have 60 years to move, so it's not really that bad.
That said, it is a problem, but it's sort of peaking since human population has started to plateau, and most of the biggest old polluters stopped doing the really destructive stuff back in the 80s (burning crude oil/coal etc). We do need to make changes - but it's not anywhere near the level of critical mass some people are making it out to be.
And prior to the 20th century it's almost exclusively ground temps in the United States and until the late 20th century it was almost exclusively ground temps in the United States and Europe. And it doesn't actually show any significant net warming until it's run through pairwise homogeneity software which removes "bias" which just happens to equal the amount of warming measured over that time period. Odd.
So, check Figure 4, 5 and 6 (page 37). Now notice Figure 6 for the United States temps, which I remind you is the only temps they have long term data for. No net warming. Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows net warming but that data doesn't exist; it's modeled. Now if you look at a newer NASA graph of US temperature it will show the same data with an upward trend added. That's not from measurement; it's from PH. There's literally no net warming that has every been measured; it's all data science voodoo.
The unadjusted data from 1999 shows faster warming from 1880 to 1940 than from 1970 to 1999. Pre-1940 carbon was pretty negligible so what caused the warming? Climate science is a fucking scam. Without adjustments there is no warming; it would be more scientific to believe that CO2 concentration causes the NOAA to adjust temperatures because the measured temp doesn't follow CO2 but the net adjustment to temperature follows it almost perfectly.
General Stanley McChrystal, who is not our guy, wrote a pretty good book that has a great refutation of Climate Change in it. I don't even think he was aware of the implications of his argument against models.
A real turning point for me on this climate shenaniganry is years ago I came across an article that stated triumphantly that although the climate deniers had for years pointed to satellite data as showing no warming that now they have run the data through their newest pairwise homogeneity software and it shows warming.
So surface stations show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. Satellites show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. Fucking tree ring show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. If the bias in three completely different measurements all happen to match somehow maybe the bias isn't actually in the measurements.
My magic model tell me the world is going to end if we don't do anything by 2000... I meant 2005... 2010... 2020... ten years from whenever now is... shut up racist.
Let's say you have a surface station that takes the high and low temp every day, and someone builds a building across the street and now the ground around the station gets a little more shade so the high temp on average drops 0.1 degree C for that station. That's an inhomogeneity, so you run it through a pairwise homogeneity algorithm and bingo bango it automatically removes the inhomogeneity even if you don't know about it. And if that seems questionable, don't worry, the code is open source and you can check the 10s of thousands of lines of spaghetti FORTRAN yourself.
It reminds me of the coding of Neil Fergusson - a European epidemiologist who always predicted 100x more deaths than occurs…. For every pandemic since 2000s.
He promised he would open source his code following covid scrutiny- and it has thousands of lines of spaghetti code that had obviously been massages and manipulation for decades.
Bad modeling is all over the place. Hell 90% of coof papers are meta-analysis of other coof papers. There are too many scientist (or at least people trained as scientists) and not enough actual science even during a supposed health emergency so it's all data science circle jerking. There's literal hundreds of mask papers and you know how many actually have done anything remotely resembling science? Maybe four. Maybe UBI would be a net positive because then these people would just be smoking weed all day instead of flooding the world with garbage papers.
Oh, and I just remember the lastest UK Surveillance data for the vaccine showed that for almost every age range more vaccinated people per 100,000 caught covid, but they kept pointing out that it was "unadjusted" which I'm fairly sure means, "yeah, this data looks real bad but we haven't figured out a way to cook it yet."
It'd only take about a $1 gas tax to pay for removing CO2 from cars directly from the air, and most of that cost is energy, which could be cheap and clean from nuclear (if we stopped with the nimby crap).
So this is a totally possible solution, but IPCC doesn't even look into it or model the cost or anything. Machines added the CO2, but mechanical removal is completely ignored as a solution. Same with geoengineering, which climate doomers say is "too risky" while saying it's the end times unless we completely overhaul all of industry.
IPCC report is not written by rational people, it's a report by a political thinktank pretending to be science.
You should look at Dr. Roy Spencer's blog. The man knows what he's talking about; but every single time he makes a new post, the thread comments quickly deteriorates into absurdity and name calling over which data points are and are not reliable.
I think a lot of it comes from shills who obfuscate facts and flat out lie to push the narrative that everything is mankind's fault.
At one time 97% of "scientists" stated that the sun revolved around the earth too.
Kind of like how "97% of doctors" agree with whatever COVID BS they come up with next because they fire and pull the license of anyone who steps out of line.
It originated with an Australian Cartoonist, John Cook, who runs skepticalscience, which is neither skeptical or science.
Here are some analyses of the claim. Do note that WUWT is a not a warmunist website. After all, the warmunist never allow discussion of their beliefs.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/fuzzy-math-in-a-new-soon-to-be-published-paper-john-cook-claims-consensus-on-32-6-of-scientific-papers-that-endorse-agw/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/03/science-or-science-fiction-97-climate-consensus-crumbles-in-new-survey/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/01/tol-statistically-deconstructs-the-97-consensus/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/
This is based on a survey where 97% or so responded that yes, the greenhouse effect is a plausible hypothesis and it's likely that humans are having some effect on the climate.
That same survey only had about 2% or so agree with any sort of doomsday scenario.
They do. If the outcome of the prediction is more funding for their foundation, they publish it. If it isn't, they chuck it. Repeat forever.
Their models work great for the intended purpose of getting shit loads of tax payer ‘research’ money.
The thing is, scientific method barely applies to climate science. It is testable. And often the proponents won’t share the data that they base their studies on.
If true - We need to remove the word science from climate science
If it was real why won't they provide their data as sworn testimony in court?
And why can you still buy flood insurance on a coastal home?
NFIP building coverage limit is $250k. Nearly every coastal home will have private flood insurance underwritten by an entity other than the government.
Surely an actuary, especially one working for a for-profit company, would recognize the global warming/rising seas risk and choose not to offer the product...yet you can still buy a policy. Why?
"Oh, the waters destroyed your home? I'm sorry, but that was global warming and a rising sea level, not a flood. Just ask any Climate Scientist. No payout for you." -The actuaries.
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison as stocks and the temperature aren't even related data sets.
What I find funny about the climate change "scientists" is they are the same ones that tell a history of dramatically different climates that would have just naturally occurred. The frozen North America where humans migrated over the Bering Strait by foot, for example. So I suppose we moved from that to the world we know in modern history because people farted too much? It wasn't from machinery. The more plausible explanation to me is that over time changes in average climate is just totally normal and natural.
Its an even less favorable comparison
Stocks have perfectly measured historical data usually down to the second or less in recent years. If they can't "model" those numbers into the future then there is no way they can predict climate based on past data.
"Climate" data is mostly unverified and unverifiable measurements at a completely inadequate and arbitrary granularity compared to the size of the planet. With no other data sets against which to compare predictions.
It is 100% made up and its only purpose is to push the commie agenda.
Stocks are game theory, and as such accurate prediction is impossible as the ability to predict changes the outcome.
Presumably there's no aliens or secret cabal with the power to secretly alter the climate to profit over having better knowledge than others that are gaming the environment.
There's no reason the overall climate shouldn't be predictable given enough knowledge other than human activity is unpredictable (invention of a low cost fusion reactor for instance). The problem is they don't have anywhere near the knowledge since experiments can't be done or replicated, and the more human activity effects the outcome the less predictable any forecast will be.
Weather is very much related to market prices. Ask any farmer.
No but real impartial scientists have and they are way fucking off. The hottest summers in history are from the 20s and 30s. That as grifter Gre would say is an Inconvenient truth.
To be fair, stocks are virtually completely unpredictable. You think any model could've predicted the massive crash COVID caused in early 2020?
That said, yes, I'd like to see these climate modelers predict the weather even 2 weeks from now to 90% accuracy. I never see accurate weather reports more than 2 or 3 days out and usually only if there's a big storm system.
The relationship between CO2 emissions and temperature increase is logarithmic, which means that you need to continually double CO2 emissions to see a linear increase in temperature.
When atmospheric CO2 concentration was low it didn't take much to double it and so you could readily affect increases in temperature, but the more CO2 producing capacity we add the harder it gets to double, and we are already at the point where doubling output is no longer feasible, in fact it would require such a huge GDP growth to get another doubling that temps are pretty much guaranteed to plateau where they are.
Put another way, when you have a dollar it's easy to double it to get two, when you have ten thousand dollars it's not so easy to double it to get twenty thousand dollars.
Well NASA reports on mean temperature data which shows there has been an increase over the past 140 years of one degree celsius.
Don't worry about the future just look at the past. It has been increasing more quickly recently than it has close to 140 years ago when we started measuring, so it is increasing for sure.
Now, is it going to cause a catastrophe? Probably not. At the current rate, it would take another 60 years or so to get another degree, and one degree isn't going to raise sea level fast enough to do any real damage. If it, for example, raises sea level so that some coastal properties are enveloped - they have 60 years to move, so it's not really that bad.
That said, it is a problem, but it's sort of peaking since human population has started to plateau, and most of the biggest old polluters stopped doing the really destructive stuff back in the 80s (burning crude oil/coal etc). We do need to make changes - but it's not anywhere near the level of critical mass some people are making it out to be.
Dude. NASA has only existed for 63 years. How the fuck have they been tracking temps for 140?
140 years is the amount of time humans have been measuring temperatures on the planet. Nasa has a collection of that data.
And prior to the 20th century it's almost exclusively ground temps in the United States and until the late 20th century it was almost exclusively ground temps in the United States and Europe. And it doesn't actually show any significant net warming until it's run through pairwise homogeneity software which removes "bias" which just happens to equal the amount of warming measured over that time period. Odd.
Oh, shit, look it's NASA https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_ha03200f.pdf
So, check Figure 4, 5 and 6 (page 37). Now notice Figure 6 for the United States temps, which I remind you is the only temps they have long term data for. No net warming. Figure 4 and Figure 5 shows net warming but that data doesn't exist; it's modeled. Now if you look at a newer NASA graph of US temperature it will show the same data with an upward trend added. That's not from measurement; it's from PH. There's literally no net warming that has every been measured; it's all data science voodoo.
The unadjusted data from 1999 shows faster warming from 1880 to 1940 than from 1970 to 1999. Pre-1940 carbon was pretty negligible so what caused the warming? Climate science is a fucking scam. Without adjustments there is no warming; it would be more scientific to believe that CO2 concentration causes the NOAA to adjust temperatures because the measured temp doesn't follow CO2 but the net adjustment to temperature follows it almost perfectly.
General Stanley McChrystal, who is not our guy, wrote a pretty good book that has a great refutation of Climate Change in it. I don't even think he was aware of the implications of his argument against models.
You can buy a scientist just as easily as you can buy a politician
Hol' on. Lemme check with Greata Tunebugger
We need to increase gas prices. Fuck rural hicks.
A real turning point for me on this climate shenaniganry is years ago I came across an article that stated triumphantly that although the climate deniers had for years pointed to satellite data as showing no warming that now they have run the data through their newest pairwise homogeneity software and it shows warming.
So surface stations show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. Satellites show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. Fucking tree ring show no warming and you run it through PH to remove "bias" and it shows warming. If the bias in three completely different measurements all happen to match somehow maybe the bias isn't actually in the measurements.
My magic model tell me the world is going to end if we don't do anything by 2000... I meant 2005... 2010... 2020... ten years from whenever now is... shut up racist.
But the science is always evolving! /s
The heck is pairwise homogeneity?
Let's say you have a surface station that takes the high and low temp every day, and someone builds a building across the street and now the ground around the station gets a little more shade so the high temp on average drops 0.1 degree C for that station. That's an inhomogeneity, so you run it through a pairwise homogeneity algorithm and bingo bango it automatically removes the inhomogeneity even if you don't know about it. And if that seems questionable, don't worry, the code is open source and you can check the 10s of thousands of lines of spaghetti FORTRAN yourself.
It reminds me of the coding of Neil Fergusson - a European epidemiologist who always predicted 100x more deaths than occurs…. For every pandemic since 2000s.
He promised he would open source his code following covid scrutiny- and it has thousands of lines of spaghetti code that had obviously been massages and manipulation for decades.
Well if he always predicted 100x more, that's a good thing — simply divide his prediction with 100 and you have the real number.
Bad modeling is all over the place. Hell 90% of coof papers are meta-analysis of other coof papers. There are too many scientist (or at least people trained as scientists) and not enough actual science even during a supposed health emergency so it's all data science circle jerking. There's literal hundreds of mask papers and you know how many actually have done anything remotely resembling science? Maybe four. Maybe UBI would be a net positive because then these people would just be smoking weed all day instead of flooding the world with garbage papers.
Oh, and I just remember the lastest UK Surveillance data for the vaccine showed that for almost every age range more vaccinated people per 100,000 caught covid, but they kept pointing out that it was "unadjusted" which I'm fairly sure means, "yeah, this data looks real bad but we haven't figured out a way to cook it yet."
For me it's the politics.
It'd only take about a $1 gas tax to pay for removing CO2 from cars directly from the air, and most of that cost is energy, which could be cheap and clean from nuclear (if we stopped with the nimby crap).
So this is a totally possible solution, but IPCC doesn't even look into it or model the cost or anything. Machines added the CO2, but mechanical removal is completely ignored as a solution. Same with geoengineering, which climate doomers say is "too risky" while saying it's the end times unless we completely overhaul all of industry.
IPCC report is not written by rational people, it's a report by a political thinktank pretending to be science.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Futz with the data, and the result is meaningless.
I miss that song. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/21/second-mann-spoof-video-removed/
Nice!
You should look at Dr. Roy Spencer's blog. The man knows what he's talking about; but every single time he makes a new post, the thread comments quickly deteriorates into absurdity and name calling over which data points are and are not reliable.
I think a lot of it comes from shills who obfuscate facts and flat out lie to push the narrative that everything is mankind's fault.