Scientific American Colludes with Other Major Media to Normalize ‘Climate Emergency’ Terminology
Scientific American attempts to explain logic behind adopting political phrase & fails spectacularly!
Shortly after the new administration took over in January, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested that Biden consider declaring an emergency on climate change, even though a hard look at the data revealed:
- Predictions of extreme global warming have failed to materialize (e.g., Predictions of “snowfall being a thing of the past” morph into Glacier National Park removing its “Gone by 2020″ signs)
- Climate models are flawed and cannot realistically predict the climate decades in the future.
- Alternative energy sources (e.g., lithium batteries, solar panels) have serious limitations and produce significant hazardous waste.
Notwithstanding, the dutiful media continues its frenzy to drive the narrative. When it comes to matters involving science and technology, however, this is both aggravating and dangerous.
Scientific American, a previously venerated scientific publication, has decided it will magnify the “climate emergency” message that the politicos in Washington want to spread. Out of the nearly 7 million scientists in the United States, it cherry-picked 13,000 to assert that they all agree: “We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So::
Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.
This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action.
As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity…. Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”
This is not science. It is consensus-based on political pressure. It is especially appalling because the vast majority of journalists reporting this news have had very limited exposure to rigorous coursework in biology, physics, geology, statistics, chemistry, or any other scientific or technical discipline.
- A climate emergency is not a hurricane, which is a regional weather event.
- A climate emergency isn’t triggered by politicians funded by alternative energy companies, who decide to cut off fossil fuel production.
- A climate emergency isn’t caused by globalist bureaucrats wanting to divert money into their coffers and those of their politically connected cronies.
We have seen actual climate emergencies:
- A climate emergency is a major volcanic eruption that substantially lowers global temperatures, especially after a prolonged period.
- A climate emergency is a major impact event that alters the atmosphere around the world.
- A climate emergency is a substantial change in solar radiation levels that affect Earth.
To continue with this banality, Scientific American explains: Why “emergency”? Because words matter.
Yes, for scientists, the correct use of technical terms does matter. Unfortunately, the publishers of this nonsense have decided to misuse terms to create fear, allowing for enacted policies that are not based on science, logic, or reason.
But, perhaps, the most chilling piece of this nonsense comes toward the end of the article:
“The media’s response to COVID-19 provides a useful model.” Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devasting impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks and social distancing, for example).
Scientific American got that half right: The media provided a wonderful model…. of what not to do. And while there are dozens of different reasons to decry the media’s handling of COVID19 coverage, its hysteria-level description of the 1-in-1-million clotting problems with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine will result in further vaccine hesitancy is merely the latest example.
The term “common sense” means sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.
Based on the available data, we live in a common-sense emergency, and I’m going to say so.
Bonus: There is also consensus!
"has agreed with major news outlets worldwide" – coordinate political propaganda https://t.co/0PTLVGa25f
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) April 13, 2021
.@SciAm folks desperately need some adult supervision: "We Are Living in a Climate Emergency…sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas…The planet is heating up way too fast"
— Tom Nelson (@tan123) April 13, 2021
Can you please provide the mathematical formula you’re using to ascertain that current climate variation now constitutes an “emergency”? Also appreciated would be any math you’re using to pinpoint the percentage of humanity’s impact on said variation.
Thanks in advance.
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 13, 2021
It was your decision ~20 years ago to be a policy advocate rather than an objective source on this topic that made me reluctantly end my subscription. I still miss the magazine you used to be, and I wish I regretted my decision.
— Tim Hamilton (@TSHamiltonAstro) April 13, 2021
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“The media’s response to COVID-19 provides a useful model.”
Heh. Saw that coming. It’s just beginning. Joe Biden has already laid the foundation for using the “public health emergency” approach to gun control; it’s not a matter of “if” but rather of “when”.
Project Veritas has a CNN insider on tape talking about how they are priming Climate Change as the next Scare Story they will be pimping to their low information viewers.
Yes, and remember, the “climate emergency” is an “existential threat,” meaning, it threatens the very survival of all of mankind, neigh, the entire planet in their warped minds. COVID was NEVER and existential threat. At the height of the panic it was supposed to only kill 3% of the population – not 100% and not the entire planet.
So look at what they have done in response to a 3% threat. Now imagine what they will be willing to do to counter a 100% threat.
In an earlier post I took a scene from the movie “Dr, Strangelove” and proposed we dig deep shaft mines and outfit them with everything people would need to survive for 1,000 years and let all the climate doomists descend into them for their personal safety and to ensure the survival of mankind. Then, once they are all inside, we seal up the shafts. Problem solved. We will never have to see, hear, or deal with these morons again.
I would vote to divert the entire Biden infrastructure bill to this cause. Hell, I’d double it. It would be worth $4 trillion plus dollars.
Just start repeating – deep shaft mines to save humanity, deep shaft mines to save humanity. If we all pull together, we can do this, folks.
Scientific American hasn’t been scientific in many years. They’ve guaranteed their own irrelevance.
They’ve become as irrelevant as National Geographic.
Except SA does not provide pictures of half-naked natives from far off and exotic lands, So far less interesting.
(Note: I have not seen a copy of National Geographic in probably at least 45 years, so I have no idea what they currently publish, but I am sure it is far less interesting than photos of half-naked natives from exotic far off lands because of diversity or something, that would be wrong,)
Actually, I believe the canonical phrase is, “Scientific American is neither.”
“Can you please provide the mathematical formula you’re using…”
Math is raycisssssss!!!!
We have 10 years left to save the planet!!1!!
And have so for over forty years.
We’re going to run out of oil by 1995.
I’ve never been able to understand a single article in Scientific American.
The trouble with climate science is that they have no adult peer review. The reviewers are climate scientists instead of experts in the tools they are using.
I repeat myself….
One of the first things one should learn in their training to become a scientist is how skepticism is essential. Since the results obtained in today’s research is the foundation for tomorrow’s work, every effort must be made to ensure the experiments were created properly, data interpreted correctly, etc. Real scientists seek criticisms, flaws in their work and so forth, in an effort to produce the best work possible. In climate research this is simply not allowed and those who do are labeled “deniers”, are threatened with job loss, and so forth. Why?
When errors are found in data and they need to be corrected the corrections never all go in the same direction. Errors are random and adjustments end up being random except in the realm of global warming where historic temperatures are always adjusted in the direction that supports global warming. Why?
When a problem is identified a scientist always seeks to determine what the optimal situation should be. In global warming research there has, to my knowledge, been no credible attempt to determine the “safe” level of CO2 in the atmosphere, how “safe” is defined, the costs of obtaining a “safe level of CO2 so it could be compared to the costs associated with doing nothing, etc. Without knowing what a “safe” level is, we will never know when our goal has been reached and we are finished. Why has none of this been done?
The list goes on showing how global warming supporters are conducting science in a way never before conducted. Scientists are not questioning this because to do so will bring ruin to themselves. Meanwhile, supporting global warming will bring a struggling scientist funding and notoriety. It is a modern day form of Lysenkoism.
Corruption in science, fear mongering, political issues over riding work, and political correctness run amok were the reasons why I left research years ago. It hurts to see something I loved so much being destroyed for short term personal gains for a select few.
Well there are quite a few issues with what you state.
1) skepticism in science. The trouble is there has been zero credible science antagonistic towards climate science. The arguments presented against climate science including that referenced in this article are deeply flawed. In addition the models have accurately predicted the temperature rise for many years so on the basis of practical outputs it’s been shown to have adopted a credible position.
2) cost benefit analysis. Yep there has been research in this area regarding the practical impacts of climate change. You arbitrarily use the term safe when it’s more complicated than that. It’s a list of pros and cons. There have been various analysis’s on this. Some at a specific localised level for example the consequences of sea level rises, loss of diversity, increases in forest fires, or alternatively increases in crop yields or other facets. Additionally there have been systemic reviews on the best available evidence for a global impacts on the economy for example like the Stern report which identified that acting sooner would be cheaper than acting later due to the rising costs involved in addressing issues.
“The trouble is there has been zero credible science antagonistic towards climate science. ”
Is this sarcasm or ignorance? Hard to tell.
Hard to tell?
Don’t even need to read it. just consider the source.
Comes from the same poster as “zero credible evidence of election fraud.”
Yep , I’m serious. If you have a source that doesn’t continue to represent long since debunked nonsense I’d happily take a look
You made the assertion. You prove it.
@BSR
I’ve already stated a numbee of times that the climate models which are predicted on human activities have accurately modelled temperature increases for decades. I’ve also pointed out that there is a climate change consensus amongst the experts.
I would argue that actually the burden of proof is on you to counter the climate change narrative as it currently stands.
“I’ve already stated a numbee of times that the climate models which are predicted on human activities have accurately modelled temperature increases for decades. ”
Your statements fail to be proof. Prove your assertions.
@BSR
Here you go some links for you to peruse
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right.amp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp
“Here you go some links for you to peruse”
Thanks for the 5th grade cartoon crap. So here is a question. If modern measuring equipment and methodology is so much better than older equipment and methods, why are the new data, supposedly a product of that superior measurement technology and methods being adjusted?
To adjust actual measurements, you must show their is a measurement error which requires you to identify the source of error along with an adequate means to determine the variance of the unadjusted source data to form the correction.
You can’t just move data points around because you feel like it.
I am especially concerned by recent efforts to “adjust” satellite derived temperature data that, in its unadjusted form, has shown no increase in earth temperature for two decades.. The satellite data agreed with the unadjusted ground temperature readings. The unadjusted ground temperature data actually shows a slight decline in global temperatures since 1998. But this was an inconvenient truth for people who want to show the earth is warming. So NASA starts to “adjust” all the ground temperature data and report the “adjusted” data which now shows warming over the same period. But that satellite data did not agree with new adjusted ground data. What to do… what to do. Oh, lets adjust the satellite data to agree with the “adjusted” ground measurement data. That’s the ticket! And that is exactly what they are now doing. They have fished around for a while for a rationale to adjust the data to make it conform and agree, and have recently announced a BREAKTHROUGH. If you read the articles, the breakthrough is all about adjusting the data, not taking accurate measurements. But that’s dishonest. It’s just manipulating data to get a result you want. And that, my dear Mark, is not science.
@BSR
Temperature data has always been adjusted so that differences in equipment etc can be taken into account. If you want a meatier article this one might help
https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html
You are going to have to be much more specific with your allegations. When were these adjustments made. A Snopes article references a supposed controversy which rebuts a specific allegation which you might be refering too
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/
You realise that literally thousands of scientists use and scrutinise the data sets used? Your argument falls apart on a basis level since the data set of global proportions will always be adjusted to be able to account for variables that make it inconsistent.
“You realise that literally thousands of scientists use and scrutinise the data sets used?”
There you go again with that stupid canard. Lot’s off people accept something, so no one should disagree with it. No one should ask questions or point out inconvenient flaws that questions things you want to be true. If billions of people think the earth is flat or that 1 + 1 = 3 makes neither of those two assertions correct.
What you do not accept is that there are also literally thousands of scientists who question those data sets. Your own links point out the complexities and questions many have.
When “scientists” start “adjusting” data, you need to become REAL cautious about the results and conclusions. Wholesale “adjustments,” especially those made on gross theoretical grounds and are not based on actual calibrated measurement and correction or discarding data points because they are statistically provable errors in data, is an indication scientific deception, either self induced or purposeful to derive a desired outcome, especially when those adjustments are biased in a certain direction and nonrandom.
“Your argument falls apart on a basis level since the data set of global proportions will always be adjusted to be able to account for variables that make it inconsistent.”
This is utter and complete nonsense. Measurements are measurements. If you have different measurement devices or techniques or conditions, you point that out, but you do not just start moving around the data points to “make it consistent.”
If two measurements are so different by device, condition, etc., they should not be comingled, but rather stand on their own for cross comparison, not “adjusted” to make them “consistent.”
For example, even today, people are not comingling satellite and ground monitoring station data. And when they do – full stop. Invalid, especially if all that data is being “adjusted” to “make them consistent.”
@BSR
You have to adjust the data otherwise you cant compare it can you.. If you compare values which have known biases you have to eliminate those biases. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges. You cant have them stand apart because otherwise you are missing data points on the map thereby increasing the amount of interpolation required which in itself needs adjusting statistically. Besides which there are four separate measurement sets which all align in terms of the shape of the graphs.
The initial linkage of past and present climate was free rings. That linkage has failed since the initial publications. Research in Greenland showed several warm periods , particularly the Medieval which was ignored to boost the warming….er..climate change model. The present models have constantly been revised to account for failures in the past models. Predicting the future has not been a strong suit of the models. The present goals will be ecological disaster let alone requiring massive decreases in standard of living (and populations) since the technology hasn’t been invented that can fulfill green goals.
1) tree rings provide some indication of what climate was like. It’s like a recording of past climate so I’m unclear what you mean by linkage or how that has been retracted?
2) the medieval warm period was still a long span of temperature with its own specific causes. That doesn’t tell you anything at all about the present set of forcings. The key is to understand the current set of climate forcing variables and it’s been established that human activities are the primary driver.
3) you characterise changes to the models as somehow an indication of a failure but that’s not the case science updates itself as better information becomes available. That’s how it works. The data set has expanded and improved and the case for human activities contributing towards climate change continues to strengthen.
4) the climate models have proven to be accurate, given the earliest models have been shown to be accurately predicted the temperature trends. That’s objective fact. The models continue to improve and become more accurate again science hasn’t just stopped it’s continuously sought to improve the models and update them to account for a better understand of the science and to include a better reflection of public policy and inputs from the primary driver is humans.
5) I’m not clear how you have arrived at the conclusion that the policies will result in ecological disaster? To make that a realistic statement you’ll have to be more specific on what policy you are referring to as one a specific policy by policy basis there may well be a debate.
6) lowering of living standards. Again you’ll have to be more specific. Some policies necessarily entail restructuring the economy but the reality is when looking at the economy in whole terms it’s actually an opportunity for capitalist enterprises. That’s reflected in investment attitudes to coal for example which is no longer considered viable that’s compared to green tech which is an expanding industry hence why investors like to invest in it.
7) green tech has been invented. Solar panels, heat pumps, wind turbines, electric cars, insulation types, batteries etc. All of these are technologies in there infancy and are improving all the time which is more than can be said for their replacements.
“All of these are technologies in there infancy and are improving all the time which is more than can be said for their replacements.”
Statistical stupidity. The “Monster Green Loony Party” is “America’s fastest growing party.” Yesterday, it had one member, today it has three. Woo hoo!
Green tech recently failed miserably to keep one of the warmest states in the Union… warm. Meanwhile, those “old-fashioned technologies” did a fine job, in places where the government hadn’t yet gotten around to forbidding them.
@Henry bowman
Your argument makes no sense, the comparison is between old tech such as that used in oil and gas Vs new tech such as solar panels and wind. The older is likely to have reached the limit of it optimisation as opposed to new tech which hasn’t. Your citing of the monster raving luny party has nothing to do with it.
You also misunderstand what happened in Texas. Since the issues with cold affected all power supplies, it’s pretty dishonest to consider it primarily a failure of wind which is demonstrably false.
The “cost benefit analysis” you cite is not what you purport it to be. By your own admission, it is bent toward an acceptance that “climate change” will lead to nothing but disaster, and that the “analysis” has determined that it would be cheaper to confront the problem now rather than later.
An actual cost/benefit analysis would consider the positive and negative effects of climate change itself. This is where the “climate emergency” is exposed as a political stunt – every effect of climate change (according to the doomsayers) is negative. Yet two periods of historical warming (the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Warming Period) were highly beneficial. (Note that the Roman-era warming was so beneficial, that climate scientists refer to the warmer climate at that time as “optimal”. Some historians and climate scientists are now linking the fall of the Roman Empire with the cooling that ended the period.) (And the polar bears didn’t go extinct.) The latter warming event saw wine grapes grown in England, and bountiful harvests everywhere. Even today we have seen the greening of the earth due to increased carbon dioxide.
A real cost/benefit analysis doesn’t start from an all-cost, no-benefit position. It honestly looks at all potential costs and all potential benefits. We know from the historical record that there are benefits to a warmer planet. Why aren’t these benefits being discussed?
So, during the Roman Optimum, life was so easy the numbers of the barbarian Germanic hoards swelled to massive levels, Then, the Earth entered a colder period due to a Grand Solar Minimum which cause wide spread starvation and the mass migration of Germanic tribes from the north to the more fertile and warmer south and thus the destruction of the Roman empire and the onset of the Dark Ages.
Bill Gates wants to block sunlight from reaching the Earth on a global scale. I think fools should not play around with things they do not understand.
Yes, I am saying Bill Gates will cause the Germans to swarm, and history has shown how that always turns out.
Luckily(?), next time, all those swarming Germans will be speaking Arabic.
You may have missed the part where I said the cost benefit analysis had a list of pros and cons. Perhaps I should be clear that the Stern report includes things like that. If you look at things like the NASA website on climate change it includes both sides so yes it’s being discussed. The issue is that the costs far out way the benefits. This is particularly the case once the temperature goes beyond a certain point which is where your examples of the medieval warm period break down. Those periods you cite were constrained within the normal variance of the planet and as it happens the temperature went up and then down according to that variance the trouble is with a human variable included the trend will be upwards potentially causing other natural variances to change causing additional upwards forcings in temperature. The impact of humanity is such that any mitigation from natural cycles are being overcome.
Given that the overwhelming majority of climate science experts are in agreement that humans are responsible for climate change and that the skeptics have produced no discernable theories to counter that narrative it’s quite reasonable for the stern report to make the case on the basis of climate change occuring. It provided a coherent set of costs on the basis of either acting sooner or later and the conclusion is very simple it’s cheaper to act now rather than later when the climate is much more severely damaged.
“Given that the overwhelming majority of climate science experts are in agreement that humans are responsible for climate change and that the skeptics have produced no discernable theories to counter that narrative it’s quite reasonable for the stern report to make the case on the basis of climate change occuring.”
Prove these statements.
@BSR
Climate science consensus
https://www.google.com/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.amp
The second statement is that there is no credible scientific position in opposition that’s for you to prove since it appears to be your position. However the best I can come up with is the following article which lays out nicely how bad the contrarian position is
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/25/these-are-the-best-arguments-from-the-3-of-climate-scientist-skeptics-really
A more recent article
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencealert.com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial/amp
“Consensus” means s*t to science.
It is the excuse of pontiffs and politicians.
@Henry bowman
The point here is that the vast majority of exerts in the various climate related fields strongly agree with Anthropological climate change. This necessarily means its hard cite anyone with knowledge who disagrees with that position. This further means that the onus is on the contrarian perspective to prove the established position wrong, the attempts thus far have been pretty poor.
@mark311, you’re like a broken record.
On your same retread of the same specious “arguments” (note: saying, ‘I have an argument that’s articulated at this link, and you don’t have a link I like, so you lose!’ is not an actual argument), I would point out that the scientists pushing the AGW myth are aligned with entities and interests that pay them (in the form of grants, etc.) to make their data match the desired doom narrative. This isn’t just green energy, though it is definitely them, but also government and globalists who have a vested interest in keeping the population terrified and compliant.
Who do you think is behind the AGW-Green New Deal lobby? Do you really imagine it’s a bunch of tree-hugging eco-freaks who think that the sky will fall if the global temperature rises by some fraction of 1% in the next century? Or could it be . . . the green version of the dreaded oil industry? Naw, that doesn’t happen on the left, they don’t get rich off *cough Al Gore cough* shilling climate lunacy. No way! No how! It’s the left, so the only possible prompting can’t possibly be the trillions of dollar climate change alarmism industry. Funny how big business/giant coroporations are suddenly embraced when it’s the tryrannical regressive agenda being pushed. Naive much?
I would also remind you that thousands of climate scientists (in the range of fields that term covers) have been blackballed over the past two decades for not jumping on the global warming (at first, now the conveniently more inclusive and happily nebulous term, “climate change”) bandwagon. They are out of jobs and those who are still working cannot get published in these vaunted “peer-reviewed” journals you hold up as the holiest of the holies.
Why? Because they are climate heretics. They are saying the earth is round and revolves around the sun, and their work is buried and goes unpublished in supposedly authoritative academic journals because what they, and their studies, show is the opposite of the narrative-based, green-energy-fueled multi-trillion dollar industry that is dependent on ever-escalating climate alarmism.
Skeptical Science is among the worst offenders in terms of blackballing wrongthinkers on climate change. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/
Also see: https://cei.org/blog/climate-study-urges-blacklisting-of-contrarians/
https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2019/08/03/former-noaa-scientist-from-climate-change-alarmist-to-denier
So yeah, if you aren’t finding any peer-reviewed data published by credible climate scientists, there’s a reason for that. And it’s the same reason we have to work pretty darned hard to find medical professionals and scientists who don’t toe the Democrat Party/WHO/ChiCom Wuflu/mask/lockdown narrative — they are banned from engaging in discourse in the usual channels.
This works great for the gullible and incurious who can just chirp, “see!? That’s not in whatever serious journal or data site I deem worthy! It’s therefore ‘debunked’ and stupid and beneath me. So there!”
Yet the exact same multi-creditialed climate scientists don’t have a chance in hell of being published in the exact same prestigious journals that had been publishing their work for decades previously because they are saying the wrong things, showing the wrong data, making the wrong argument. They are telling inconvenient truths, if you will, and have paid a steep price for their perfidy.
You are the one relying on half the story, half the discourse, not us. We know both sides and have studied them extensively, and we happen to agree with the rational, science-based side that is driven by data not by the multi-trillion dollar climate change hoaxsters composed of the triad of academia, government, and the green industry.
@Fuzzy slippers
First of, in terms of this discussion no links have been provided other than yours. So that’s not an accurate characterisation
The platform’s those climate deniers have been given has been enormous and you know what arguments they bring , rehashes of old ones long since debunked. The whole Legates debacle at NOAA. Where he pretended to have authority to release a scientific paper which turned out to be another rehashing of failed contrarian arguments.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/attempt-to-red-team-climate-research-comes-to-a-pathetic-and-confused-end/%3famp=1
If these contrarians actually did some genuine research they might not find themselves on any blacklists.
You still haven’t presented any arguments to back your contrarian view. It’s funny really when it comes to the substance you seem to be rather silent. Do you have any justification or links or sources for the contrarian position?
@mark311, I am seriously amazed right now! I totally predicted, to the letter, your feeble, mental midget response. I am so proud of me.
OMG, the “if you were only saying the right thing, the agreed upon thing of which we approve,” you’d be published in a second stuff is priceless! I am still giggling over that one! Hee! Can you imagine, if only the NYPost had written a story about what great guy druggie whore-hopping ChiCom asset Hunter Biden is (with a percentage going to the “big guy” Joe Biden), they never would have been censored and banned. You might not be the dumbest person on this planet, mark311, but I am finding you endlessly amusing in your apparently willful obtuseness.
I have provided you at least a score of links, you fraud, but you just say they don’t matter because they don’t tell you (say) that Hunter Biden is the pillar of society, a monk, and a good, decent human being who never violated any gun laws. Gee, I can turn that around, can’t I? How about you show me how voter ID suppresses LEGAL votes or how criminalizing law-abiding gun owners prevents “gun violence”? Or more on this point, how about you tell me how the planet warming by some percentage of 1 degree over the next hundred years matters one bit? Or how humans can stop it by taxing people? Or how humans can command the climate at all? Do you really think that much of yourself? You command not just the weather but the actual global climate and its historic cycles? What are you? Some kind of god who commands the sun, the earth? And all through taxes (i.e. carbon credits)?! What a trick that is.
Sorry, still giggling. Carry on with your self-aggrandizing crazy.
By the way, I’d like a nice sunny 75 degree (F) day tomorrow, I’m pretty sure you can whip that up given your mastery of the weather er, climate (well, er some stuff is weather if it refutes my climate alarmism crazy, but the rest, yeah, that;’s all weather, er climate). Er. Or something. Yeppers, sending that sunny, mild, humidity-free day to you, Fuzzy! Beacuse I can! All I need to do is transfer some carbon credits and a few trillion dollars for wealth-spreading purposes, and you’ll get your perfect weather day. Or you know, maybe not. Turns out we can’t actually predict, much less control, the weather. Or the climate. But hey, I’ll read a few super good studies by super good scientist people and then go troll a blog. That’s almost like changing the natural cycles of the earth, right?
I can’t stop giggling! You are a feast of awesome, mark311. Now get out there and with a word (or a carbon tax) stop the oceans from rising. You can do it! You just have to click your heels and believe.
@Fuzzyslippers
You call me obtuse but the reality it you’ve yet to actually present an argument to support your position. All you’ve done is insult, misread, obfuscate and misdirect.
You pretend to quote me and say something I’ve never said or implied, you present , you as insult my intelligence without reason, you add in narratives which are totally irrelevant -when the hell did we start talking about Hunter Biden? You have addressed exactly zero points raised, you’ve not addressed anything substantive at all. Do you actually have an argument or are you just going to pretend that you know anything
Your first paragraph is self-contradictory. “There is absolutely no science against climate change [wrong, but whatever], but the science that exists is flawed.” Did you think before you type? The models have been shown by all the science you claim doesn’t exist to be both wrong and deeply flawed.
Your cost-benefit argument is such a mess that it slam right into Brandolini’s Law.
Actually you are wrong the models have been shown to be accurate.
Have you actually got an argument or is literally just you making the assertion that I’m somehow wrong. Im not seeing an argument or evidence or logic in your statements. If you could clarify that would be great
The Navier Stokes differential equations describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density. They are nonlinear, chaotic, with sensitive dependence on initial conditions. That means that no finite set of past data on flow rates, temperatures or density can ever be sufficient to predict even a single distant future point with confidence, much less a number of distant points or relations. This has been known since 1963 when Edward Lorenz published “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. Anyone who pretends to predict a distant future state for a Navier Stokes system is either incompetent, or a fraud or both. Climate alarmism is both.
What you are describing are climate models which use the Navier Stokes equations to calculate various parameters. That much is true what you miss out is that it’s a question of processing power to solve the equations as I understand it thus they can set up a grid and certain level of granularity to allow solving the equations with other inputs to resolve issues which require a more granular answer. So yes they can solve them to a degree. What you also fail to mention is that the climate models have predicted future temperature trends which is a pretty good indication of the efficy of the models.
https://physicsworld.com/a/a-model-approach-to-climate-change/#:~:text=The%20Navier%E2%80%93Stokes%20equations%20allow,their%20values%20some%20time%20earlier.&text=Parametrizing%20interactions%20in%20the%20climate,part%20of%20climate%2Dmodelling%20research.
“What you also fail to mention is that the climate models have predicted future temperature trends”
Yes, and they’ve gotten them hilariously wrong.
I bet you didn’t know that they can also call spirits from the vasty deep.
@ Henry Bowman,
Now you are just being silly, the modelling of global average temperature change have been pretty accurate and that’s in relation to models from the 80’s let alone now.
I have a feeling you are conflating climate models with specific predictions in which case you in turn will have to be specific.
“The trouble is there has been zero credible science antagonistic towards climate science. ”
CNN speaks.
My approach as a scientist. Observe a phenomenon or hear an anecdote. From that comes a testable hypothesis. But along with the testable hypothesis come about 5 other similar likely explanations, each which must be examined and discarded. I can only be somewhat certain of my hypothesis only when the other likely explanations have been eliminated. And sometimes, it turns out that one of the alternatives was the path that gets followed down the road.
A liberal is the opposite. They see A, they see B. and if they happen at the same time, then A HAS to cause B. To a liberal, simple coincidence is absolute proof of causality.
Although a brain scientist by trade, geology (especially volcanoes) are a secondary passion, he says, wearing his USGS sweatshirt as he types. This is a lot of fun because liberals can’t think in geologic terms. They see only the last 1, 2, 300 years as being relevant. They are just so ignorant of the stuff which happens without mankind being involved at all. I have spent the last couple of weeks going through the Nick Zentner Evening Geology lectures. Any of these would cause a liberals brain to explode, because there are changes in the environment independent of man which make the influence of man seem like a mouse fart on a windy day.
https://www.youtube.com/user/GeologyNick/videos
Like everything else, a liberal scientist comes up with a narrative and then bends the data to fit. It collapses at some point because it is built on lies, but it does sometimes cause harm in the interim until that happens. I can never tell if it stupidity, pot, mental illness, of some combo of them which gets them there. And you just can’t argue with them because as true believers they are not open to seeing stuff differently. In contrast, I was sitting at a presentation at a science meeting in 1995, and when a slide was put up, my co-worker and i looked at each other and simultaneously said, “this changes everything.” Ironically, animators who drew brain cells in cartoons were closer to the truth than we were. 🙁 Even though we had built careers pursuing one path, it was suddenly clear that a 90 degree shift was called for. And that is what makes science great.
Don’t expect to hear any of the climate people talk about what is happening in Iceland right now. If it can’t pay carbon credits, it doesn’t exist.
That’s the most disingenuous statement I’ve read for ages.
Scientists aren’t liberal or conservative they use the scientific method. Sure there are always biases but that’s why there is peer review.
It seems to me your entire argument is one giant as hominem attack. You haven’t actually made an argument at all just hand waved the work of thousands of scientists over multiple decades of work all on the basis it seems that somehow all scientists in this field are liberal and none of them apparently have nay understanding of geological time frame. That’s inspite of the fact that many climate scientists refer to ice core records which date back hundreds of thousands of years.
“Scientists aren’t liberal or conservative they use the scientific method. Sure there are always biases but that’s why there is peer review.”
“Scientists” aren’t always scientists. Often they are politicians in lab coats. Especially when they are directly employed by governments.
And of course peer review is never subject either to error or political bias. That’s why peer review confirmed for three decades that the number of chromosomes in the human body was 48, and why “Arming America” was deemed deserving of America’s highest award of merit for historical research.
That’s an assertion by you, and quite dishonest as well. Sure some scientists go into management but to blandly characterise them as political just because you don’t like what they say doesn’t add anything to your position. Especially in light of the fact that there are thousands of scientists in various fields actively researching climate change.
No peer review isn’t perfect but its a high standard and subject to change ie new research can refute old research so your example doesn’t help you in that sense either. You also fail to recognise that in your specific example there is only one data point ie the number of chromosomes whereas climate science has numerous data points all of which are continuously researched. It seems to me you are trying to imply that in some distant future they will miraculously discover climate science to be an error which is not really likely given the vast amount of data, analysis, expertise and consistently tested findings.
We can’t support the use of Rearden metal. We don’t know if it’s safe.
The Earth is Flat…again…
I have a few issues with this article
“Predictions of extreme global warming have failed to materialize (e.g., Predictions of “snowfall being a thing of the past” morph into Glacier National Park removing its “Gone by 2020″ signs)”
This is misleading as the glaciers have still declined over the last century. The science changed its position based on the best available evidence that’s how science works. Nor does this change the fact that the glaciers are still in decline.
“Climate models are flawed and cannot realistically predict the climate decades in the future.”
Actually the climate models have predicted the temperature rises for many years. That’s objective fact. Asserting that they can’t has been proven incorrect. Even the earliest Hansen model has been shown to be pretty accurate and that was made in the 80’s if memory serves. The modern models are likely to be more accurate still.
“Alternative energy sources (e.g., lithium batteries, solar panels) have serious limitations and produce significant hazardous waste”
Yet the introduction of these technologies has reduced the carbon footprint of many countries where they have been introduced at scale. Clearly there are limitations to all technologies but the comparison needs to be made with existing tech such as oil and gas generation which is for all practical purposes never going to improve whereas solar panels, battery storage is in its infancy and has far greater scope to improve including from a green perspective.
“Yet the introduction of these technologies has reduced the carbon footprint of many countries where they have been introduced at scale”
Actually the expansion of the use of natural gas is responsible for the reduction of carbon emissions in those countries that are seeing reductions. However, the Earth was in a carbon dioxide starved state, and I for one am happy CO2 levels are actually increasing. We are living in a greener more fertile world as a result. Warmer temperatures are actually beneficial to bio-diversity and bio-density. Ice ages suck.
But what controls the temperature on the planet is actually that big bright things in sky you see everyday, that is, you are not secluded in your deep shaft mine, and we are entering a period Grand Solar Minimum period, which means, it is going to get colder for a while.
The warmest year on record was 1934, before the increase in Carbon Dioxide, before the widespread dabbling by climate fraudsters in ‘adjusting’ the temperature records.
Not true by a long stretch the last 20 years have been warmer than that year
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analysis-shows
Gas comes into sure, partly because that has overtaken worse industries like coal. Solar panels and wind has played it’s part too which are greener than gas. I would also point out that not every country has large natural gas reserves and as such that intermediate step is less practical whereas solar/wind is.
With regard to bio diversity you do realise we are in the middle of a mass extinction event? The loss of habitat, climate change, and other human factors has caused huge numbers of species to become endangered or nearing extinction. The few crops that benefit from the current temperatures won’t once it increases further. And also sea level rises, forest fires on a massive scale aren’t great either.
Solar variability has been taken into account by climate scientists. That claim that it’s all down to the sun has been debunked for well over a decade. Hell I seem to remember a science class mocking that argument 20 years ago!
You seem to think something as basic as that isn’t included within the models it is. The lessening of solar activity is helpful by circa 1-1.5 degrees which is helpful but won’t solve the problem particularly when that event ends. So no that doesn’t support your argument.
” I would also point out that not every country has large natural gas reserves and as such that intermediate step is less practical whereas solar/wind is.”
Solar and wind are not practical. If they were, were would be powered by solar and wind.
Of course they are that’s why there is massive investment into them. That’s why many countries have dramatically increased the amount of both sources of power.
https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2020
God, how I wish you, personally, had had to spend last February in Texas.
“Do you expect me to talk?”
“No, Mister Bond, I expect you to experience painful sunburning of the b*s.”
“Clearly there are limitations to all technologies but the comparison needs to be made with existing tech such as oil and gas generation which is for all practical purposes never going to improve whereas solar panels,”
Obviously you do not understand the science behind and impracticalities of solar panels.
But I understand the Biden infrastructure bill is going to dig deep shaft mines for people to live in to save humanity while the climate emergency resolves. Maybe you would like to buy a ticket for a spot.
You haven’t actually made an argument only made an assertion that I’m wrong. The evidence of solar panels wind power etc providing grid level demand is evident from many countries. Nor have you actually countered the point about them being infant tech which are improving all the time.
I shall repeat. Obviously you do not understand the science behind and impracticalities of solar panels.
I shall repeat you still haven’t provided an argument.
You aren’t backing a technology that has shown itself to be capable, you’re pointing to boutique applications that have had extremely limited successes compared to existing technologies, among may more dismal failures, which you cherry-pick.
The burden of proof is not on us, it’s on you, to prove that your green technologies aren’t simply an expensive and politically-profitable exercise in dilettantism. Come back when you’ve run a city using nothing but them, as effortlessly and comfortably as traditional power sources run it now, and then we’ll take you seriously.
The technologies I cite power an ever increasing proportion of the grid in many countries. In other words governments and power operators already take it seriously. Besides which you are missing the bigger picture which is reduce the carbon footprint which older power generation types struggle to do (possibly with the exception of nuclear although it’s not very cost effective).
Some glacier recede and some grow. This has been going on especially in Alaska …see Cook’s account of Glacier Bay and then from the later 1800’s.
There are finite limits on solar and batteries for improvements. To bank they future on hope in some breakthrough makes Vegas look a winner all the time….which it isn’t also…gambling has its risks.
“They leave, but they always come back. It’s a fact.”
No most glaciers are receding citing a small number of cases that have different microclimates doesn’t change the global picture nor does it address the problems hat temperatures are still rising which will exacerbate the issue.
With regard to solar panels and batteries there is plenty of research going on in developing improvements. Improvements are being made all the time in these fields and comparing current tech with those of ten years ago. No comparison. As I understand it there is plenty of innovation left to improve further.
We are just exiting the most recent ice age.
That’s a silly argument. The climate models include forcings from natural sources. You are indirectly talking about solar activity which is well understood and included within the models. The primary driver foe the temperature changes is human activity.
Is your house actually plumbed for that Kool Aid?
You mean the position which is supported by the science overwhelmingly sure yeah.
It is 25 years since I read the late great Aaron Wildavsky’s “But Is It True?” and 20 years since I read Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. I learned to always check the actual data before taking any story about the environment or climate at face value. Yesterday, it was a story on our local Ipswich River in Massachusetts being “the 8th Most Endangered River in the United States”. It was pure unadulterated polemical nonsense despite a glossy picture filled report. The report had zero metrics you would need to rank anything. Pathetic.
Needless to say I gave up on most Scientific American environmental and energy articles 20 years ago.
But you are clearly a racist, so why does your opinion matter? Oh, and that Bjorn guy, with a name like “Bjorn,” he is clearly a racist, too.
You really need to be careful what you read. It could get you into a lot of trouble. Remember, you are being monitored.
Doesn’t Aaron Wildavsky balance the equation? How about the fact that Bjorn Lomborg is openly gay and a former environmentalist? Do I need the new math to go with Intersectionality?
If these guys can do math, it just proves they are racist. Counter THAT…. HATER!
It is worse than that. They believe in logic, critical thinking and measurable facts The trinity of all the evils that beset the West!
I have no words for such depravity.
it’s just sect theory. Abelian groups, ableist groups, asexual groups. Commutative property, transitive property, communitarian property, transexual property. Scalars, vectors, intersectors, tensors, microggressors.
You realise that the skeptical environmentalist book was found to be deliberately misleading, contained false data and was basically rubbished by the scientific community. Lomborg was let of because he wasn’t considered an expert in the field. So the question is who cares what he said.
“skeptical environmentalist book was found to be deliberately misleading”
Actually, you are being deliberately misleading.
The book was examined due to complaint by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Lomborg welcomed the scrutiny.
This body, in a mixed opinion and narrow majority the Committee decided the book was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg was innocent of wrongdoing due to a lack of expertise in the relevant fields.
Lomborg appealed to Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which oversees the group, which determined the DCSD’s findings were invalid.
You have a habit of more or less saying that because you disagree with something and can find a person with an advanced degree to support your position, that the alternate side is “debunked.” This is a profoundly dishonest approach to debate. In fact there is a wide range of opinion and valid debate on many of these issues, but one side, and always a certain side, takes pain to suppress another these days either via blind dismissiveness or outright censorships, to censorship and punishment, like trying to drag an author through a scientific dishonesty tribunal.
There is no global climate emergency. The planet needs more, nor less CO2. The sun controls earth temperature. I will not surrender my freedoms to fascists.
Have you actually read The Skeptical Environmentalist? Have you read Bjorn Lomborg’s response to his critics in the Scientific American review 0r rather hit piece?
The initial finding about the book by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) was that the book was dishonest. However, subsequent Government reviews forced the DCSD, that made initial finding, to withdraw its earlier findings and to re-examine their decision. They chose not to re-examine. Since all this happened 2003 your mentioning only the part of the history that suits your position is intellectually dishonest. You must have known that the DCSD was forced to withdraw its findings.
I read many of the negative reviews of the Lomborg’s book. It was viewed by many environmentalists as heretical because of Lomborg’s view that the majority of the trend data on the state of our environment such as the quality of air, individual health, mortality rates, were all trending in the positive direction. To my knowledge these positive trends have continued and have not been contradicted. The same trends were also highlighted in Matt Ridley’s best seller “the Rational Optimist” (2011) and Steven Pinker’s best seller “Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress” (2018) which all make exactly the same argument as Bjorn Lomborg.
I do in fact follow what Bjorn Lomborg says. I care significantly less about what you say.
@BSR
The MSTI noted that there were procedural errors and didn’t list the errors within the book and invited it to re examine the case which they declined on the basis that they would find the same conclusion. So far from being dishonest I’m advocating a position that’s well supported by the scientific community.
Don’t strawman me. You seem to equate climate denial with a valid position it’s not. It’s not got any kind of scientific credibility. There are plenty of subjects where my position changes where there is a genuine argument.
You have yet to actually provide an argument. Your position seems to be a mixture of ad hominem and bluster. You’ve not presented any scientific authority, peer reviewed paper, skeptic source that provides an argument. You’ve trivially cited the sun as some kind of argument which was disappointing to say the least given that particular argument not only strawmans climate scientists but has been debunked decades ago.
Further I haven’t just cited one person with an advanced degree I’ve cited multiple institutions with multiple advanced degrees.
@bernie47
My central point of contention is in relation to climate change. I haven’t commented on the other aspects.
I haven’t been dishonest the book from a climate change perspective is poor. Its considered to have been littered with errors, misrepresented data and scientifically inaccurate.
I’m not a huge Matt Ridley fan especially after the Northern Rock debacle. Nor am I fan of some of his scientific writings I’m not sure he is particularly strong on areas outside of his field of expertise.
As for Stephen pinker noni haven’t read his book, I’m not clear that he is relevant to debate about climate change.
@Mark311 6:20PM
Now you are being disingenuous. The charges against him by the DCSD were withdrawn. Period and end of paragraph.
As you know, the Skeptical Environmentalist is about our entire ecosystem of which climate change represents one part. Bjorn Lomborg acknowledges that CO2 is a GHG and that emissions are, therefore, causing some warming. The question is how much and with what consequences. Lomborg argues that we would do better to focus on addressing more pressing global issues and enabling the development of third world societies which he argues in turn would lead to even less impact on our environment.
@bernie49
No they couldn’t be bothered to rehash the same argument when the procedural issues had no bearing on the fundamental claim which was the science was not good.
Yes I’m aware of his claim, however drawing a conclusion based on erroneous science doesn’t make his argument very good now does it.
“You seem to equate climate denial with a valid position it’s not. It’s not got any kind of scientific credibility. ”
“Climate denial” is a deliberate dishonest smear against those with dissenting or alternative opinions. People who use such smears to try and silence those with alternative or dissenting opinions are given no credence by me. It is a fascist technique.
Your reply to bernie49 is again quite deliberately misleading and dishonest about that book. Lomborg does not even deny human activity is causing global warming. His sole thesis is that the consequences of this warming, while real, are not all that bad, and we should spend precious resources on other more urgent and pressing problems that are being ignored by climate alarmism. So he is not a “denier” by any means. He just has a different policy response notion. And for that he is hated and smeared. Yes, hundreds of scientists attacked him. I wonder why? Why would hundreds of “scientists” need to take their time to do this? Why would they need to band together and drag him in front of some sort of truth tribunal? What is a the massive threat he poses? Simply for refusing to join the alarmists’ cabal? It’s because he tilted his lance at the alarmist community, and that cannot be tolerated..
I do not agree with everything the guy wrote. So what? It’s certainly not all complete rubbish or wrong, and to completely dismiss the work and his arguments is both closed minded and by now quite tiresome and trite. And your ignorant smears are not persuasive.
@BSR
I use the term climate deniers because its an accurate reflection of the state of affairs when talking about those who deliberately diminish or misconstrue the science. Lomborg is one of those. You are entitled to your skepticism but that doesn’t change the fact you haven’t actually presented an argument to support your position. I find it troubling that you equate those who have legitimate concerns about climate change which is a serious issue with fascism. It clearly isn’t. I’m not clear as to why you hold the views you do but given the seriousness of climate change I would hope that you take the time to read more about the issue and understand the arguments better.
“I use the term climate deniers because…..” It’s a nasty smear you and others use to try and shut people up and end debate. This is a fascist tactic.
@BSR
No it’s not fascist, you have a very odd definition of fascism. For years climate deniers have had an equal platform and even a bigger platform under trump to spew there nonsense. And when I say nonsense I mean it, they don’t carry out research but regurgitate long since debunked arguments that no one pays any attention too.
Can you name me one peer reviewed paper from the last five years?
If it were a genuine debate climate deniers would actually produce some research instead rehashing old arguments.
“You seem to equate climate denial with a valid position it’s not. It’s not got any kind of scientific credibility.”
Richard Lindzen is a professor emeritus of Meteorology at MIT.
Have you ever been a professor of any sort at MIT?
They have some reasonably stiff standards there, let me tell you from experience.
@Henry Bowman
Lindzen has been funded by oil interests for years,, given some of his statements in the public arena are verifiably false or misleading he isn’t a man should be taken seriously.
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
“For years climate deniers have had an equal platform….”
When is the last time a climate alarmists was hauled past a government truth tribunal?
The term “denier” is pejorative and clearly meant to belittle and silence. It is used in he same manner as the word “heretic” was used to silence those who even criticized church officials, much less questioned the existence of God or held to some other religion. The use of the word is meant to shut you up without further debate. It is used to silence, bully, and dominate. It is a fascist tactic. It also indicates the user is either dishonest, or malicious, or has a closed mind and will not listen the reason or arguments of the opposing side.
@BSR
Yon don’t get it do you, climate deniers don’t articulate scientific arguments they spread misinformation and falsehoods in a very similar way to those who did research on behalf of the Tabaco lobby. They haven’t added anything scientific to the debate just attempted to distort, lie and mislead.
Some of your comments are pretty vague, could you be specific?
So they’re going to devalue the word “emergency” to the point where hospitals will have to stop using the word for where walk-in patients seek care.
And since the regime doesn’t like the word “crisis,” I confess I’m not sure what replacement word is available. “Cataclysm,” maybe?
Just so you all know. The average global temp of the earth has not changed one iota in the last 5 years, according the NASA’s GISS data. You can easily check it on their website. What kind of climate emergency is it if temps are stable for 5 years.
Also, in the roughly 40 years since they say the climate emergency began, global temps have increased 0.8 C. In the 40 years between 1906 and 1946, temp increase 0.5 C, and no one cared. I guess that 0.3 C change over 40 years really made all the difference.
What a joke this ’emergency” is.
Yeah that’s not true
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
The graph clearly shows the increase in temperature record including the last five years.
You seem to have missed the bigger point the temperature trend is predicted to continue to increase much further than you describe. The consequences of it increasing by what appears to be small amounts has actually pretty significant real world effects.
Odd about the NASA data. The “unadjusted” data very often contradicts the “adjusted data,” and usually in a certain direction. You have to download a very large set of data and do the analysis, but it can be done.
The data adjustments have taken place for specific reasons as some of the data set is very old and uses different instrumentation and because science improved. What you are suggesting is some kind of conspiracy which isn’t supported by evidence, and is a pretty extraordinary claim.
“The data adjustments have taken place for specific reasons as some of the data set is very old and uses different instrumentation and because science improved.”
Yes, there can be many reasons to “adjust data.” But these reasons should be clearly described, and they are not, which is a major problem with the data. In addition, most of the “adjustments” are with data within the last 20 years, not older data. In addition, because of the expansion of human activity which has encroached upon long established monitoring sites, these sites should be providing unadjusted data with an upwards bias, as human activity certainly causes localized temperature increases, yet many of these stations show a flat to downward temperature trend and have been adjusted higher. I have wondered why. I have even asked for explanation, but, alas, none has been offered other than some drivel about adherence to the highest scientific standards.
When you alter raw data, you must have specific rationale for every data point you alter. When I see 10’s of thousands “adjustments,” and those “adjustments” have a non-random bias, I become somewhat skeptical and suspicious.
@BSR
This link might be useful
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records/amp
It’s been pretty well known that the adjustments have been necessary to take into account things like changes in equipment and so on that’s hardly been kept secret. Actually the data changes have largely been to do with historic data. Ive not looked at the urbanisation issue before, I’d have to do some research on that.
In terms of data integrity this link might be useful
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2876/new-studies-increase-confidence-in-nasas-measure-of-earths-temperature/
The idea of using “climate emergency” sort of loses it’s “shock and awe” when you telegraph it in advance.
Haven’t read Scientific American since they became just another PopSci magazine on the rack parroting all the other popsci magazines sitting next to it. So they can call it whatever they want. Doesn’t bother me in the least as I won’t be reading it.
Great, Leslie, as always. S.A. is w worthless rag.
When do they change their name to Lynch Mob American?
You really need to read a recent SciAm to understand the extent to which they’ve abandoned evidence-based science for trendy politics. If you haven’t seen one lately, I suspect every public library in America has the current issue.
Twenty years ago the politics was there, but mostly at the fringes. Ten years ago it was pervasive, yet one could still find some worthwhile articles in it. Today there is nothing at all of the old magazine left.
Sort of like what happens to one of those caterpillars after the wasp lays its eggs in it and the wasp larvae proceed to eat their way out.