Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman
For some reason, climate nuts assume that increasing temperatures are bad. Does that mean that decreasing temperatures are good? Are we magically at the perfect temperature today?

History tells us that humanity flourished in times of warmth, and struggled during cooler times.

Quote

---

Originally posted by: chefantwon
The Universe is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15+billion years old, the Sun about 4+ billion, the Earth 3.8 billion, mankind 2 million and measurable temp data a bit more than 100 years. Pj opined that this year was the warmest winter on record. In what state? The folks in Boston might have a few words to say about it.

Can PJ tell me what was the average temp on Dec 31 1 billion bc? How about a more modest 25,000 bc or maybe 1 bc?

Measurable data doesn't have much merit if the data points are grouped together in a very small sample size. (IE where the hell is the other 3.8 BILLION years of winter data?)

A bit of picture stuff, back in the 1600's the Thames was typically frozen over and people ice skated on it while attending a yearly festival. Does PJ remember watching news reports of people ice skating there, live?

Btw, how many US weather measuring stations are there in the US since the 1880's?

---

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: DonDiego
...However, the overwhelming majority of of the predictions of the aforementioned climate models have significantly overestimated the temperature rise.


The chart shows many of the available models (the lines) versus actual temperature data (the points)...

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Poptech
..The graphic did not come from Bob Tisdale but Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer...

---

Quote

---

My friends on the left make much of the apparent correlation between creationism and skepticism about assured climate disaster. It is the “some–all fallacy” writ large. “Some” climate scientists who happen to believe in intelligent design, a variant of creationism, also question the high-sensitivity climate model. Therefore “all” who hypothesize that warming has been overblown must also question evolution; i.e., they are ignorant dolts.

Note to the Left on this one: No one — scientist or otherwise — has yet come up with the definitive explanation of the first life forms on earth. There is no conclusive bridge between self-replicating molecules capable of mutation (a definition of life) and the primordial, lifeless, dimly-lit planet Earth of some 3 billion years ago. So even the most erudite thinkers must resort to aliens, life-bearing comets, God — or, in my case, beats-the-heck-out-of-me.

My lefty friends are somewhat condescending towards skeptical climate scientists. Who hasn’t heard of Chris Mooney’s drivel that Republicans (in general), and those who think climate change isn’t horrible (in particular), are mentally ill? I guess it’s a good way to win an argument; after all, I think the people I disagree with are nuts, too.

The “some” of the fallacy is the University of Alabama’s Roy Spencer, a climate physicist who argues (as do I) that the “sensitivity” of climate to dreaded carbon dioxide has been overestimated in computer models. Spencer also believes in intelligent design.

Spencer’s chosen form of belief to explain the mystery of the first life on Earth is hardly germane to a rational discussion of his interpretation of climate findings. There are plenty of productive and successful scientists who go to church — most of which preach that God created man. And there are plenty of good scientists who don’t.

So far as I can tell, the percentage of climate skeptics who are also religious is about the same as among the entire population of climate scientists in general. Some apocalyptic warmists believe in God, too, you know. At the University of Virginia, where I spent 30 years in the Department of Environmental Sciences, most of my colleagues didn’t attend church, but some did. There was little correlation between their religious beliefs and their scientific success. While the atmospheric scientists in that department were known for their skepticism about the upcoming climate disaster, none were churchgoers.

Away from academia, some creationists are successfully pushing state legislatures to dictate that their point of view, as well as global-warming skepticism, be a part of the public-school curriculum. These people are not just skeptics about climate change, but, rather, skeptics about science itself, because it is inconsistent with their belief system. Biblical literalists don’t like the easy demonstration that the Earth is billions of years old — and that’s merely the beginning of their complaints about science.

The lesson is that in the civilian world, people with strong beliefs try to manipulate science. But in the universe of scientific professionals, belief has little bearing on science. (This does not mean that there are no inherent biases in environmental science, but that’s a separate topic.)

While literalists are uncomfortable with science, they (generally) will go to a physician for science-based treatment, and (most) will immunize their children. That’s because they obtain gain — relief from pain, prevention of disease — from accepting modern medical science. Scientific skepticism is suspended when it can cost your life.

But things are different when a belief extracts no cost, which is the case with creationism. It doesn’t get suspended. On the other hand, science should be vigorously questioned if it indeed leads to massive societal costs, as must be the case if global warming is portrayed by scientists as a calamity.

It should not be forgotten that scientific history is littered with discredited theories that were once universally accepted as truth. I and others hypothesize that we will one day add to that list the dogmatic belief that global warming will spell the end of humanity as we know it. On that day, the river of criticism about the dangers of blind faith will flow in the other direction.

Let’s stop conflating the creationist hoi polloi with skeptical climate scientists. The mystery about how life arose on earth is simply unrelated to global-warming science, no matter what those scientists might believe.

---