Home > AGW, Catastrophism, Climate Change, Data, Global Warming, greenhouse effect, Omniclimate, Policy, Science, Skepticism > You’ve Read It Here First – Present-Day AGW Science Is A Walking Dead

You’ve Read It Here First – Present-Day AGW Science Is A Walking Dead

Just had a pleasant conversation with a published European researcher of considerable experience. Can’t write any detail to back up my claim yet, but let me try to claim precedence. AGW theory is dead and I am not talking about politics here. A research institute is likely to let the wheels come off the wagon, at last.

Eventually, climate science will replace it with a new theory combining solar, orographic and hydrodynamical studies. The greenhouse effect will not be repudiated, rather downsized to a more appropriate status. When? Not before a lot of effort will come to nothing, and plenty of people will be killed, let to die or forced into poverty for no reason at all.

It took 80 years for the Ediacaran fauna to be recognized, 30 years for the Chandrasekhar limit to be accepted, 74 years for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to relinquish power.

I envy the climate scientists of 2085.

  1. Tony Hansen
    2010/02/21 at 22:00

    omnologos (07:00:21) ‘….. the biggest avalanche may start from a tiny event on the apparently solid snowpack’.
    The clue seems impenetrable, the article delightfully mysterious. 🙂
    Are we on a magical mystery tour – a pleasure excursion to an unspecified destination?

  2. Dubl
    2010/02/19 at 16:12

    Hilarious. As if it were ever alive.

    We as intellectuals need to separate the big ball of political foot stomping, and the wild eyed claims of hippies who always need an excuse not to work, from the elements of this debate that involve only pure science. And when we do that we discover there really was NEVER ANY SCIENCE INVOLVED.

    The East Anglia unit did a fine job of twisting the data they had into a nice fabricated warming scenario, but they were light years away from establishing anything any more scientific than the “5-second rule”, even if they had the truest intentions.

    Folks, less than 15% of the worlds surface is within the measurable range of temperature stations. We have lost over 9000 of these temperature stations over the last 3 decades with the decline and fall of the USSR. NONE of them are in calibration with the next. Their accuracy and precision at the claimed hundreths of a degree accuracy claimed by the IPCC has never been validated, which in turn has led to the use of models that have never been validated. Microwave satellites used in the modern day measure MICROWAVES, not temperature. Many are inclined to think that they offer some greater more dependable readings, but they do not. They allow us to see the whole world, but the readings they make have to be run through interpolations built on human assumptions before they yield “temperatures.” This is not how you do science. No significant scientific discovery or theory has ever been made in this way. It is pure and utter garbage. You cannot extrapolate 15% out to 100% with 100% certainty, reproducibility and prediction. You cannot claim that CO2 causes warming without being able to quantify its warming signal. THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF SCIENTIFIC SUBSTANCE TO BE FOUND IN THE WHOLE GLOBAL AGENDA.

    Sadly, on nearly a daily basis I make this case somewhere to someone and they look at me as if I’M missing the real point, when really this is the ONLY point. Apparently people just love this issue because there’s drama and people yelling names at each other. But this is precisely why so many were led to believe there was science behind it in the first place. In our ever stupider world, truth is no longer about the facts, it’s about how loud, creatively or insultingly you shout your message. Funny that this article is about the end of Global Warming Science. Global Warming was never a science. You all argue what the “the worlds pre-eminent Climatologists say”, meanwhile there is not a single accredited University in the United States with an undergraduate program in Climatology. That’s right. Millions of articles are written and read a day. Millions of quotes are made by and against “Climatologists” and millions of people have very real reactions to these quotes. Meanwhile Climatology is nothing more than a catchword for the point where physics and geology meet. It has no innate meaning, substance, theories, formulas, rules, laws, or defining characteristics of its own. It is an offshoot of physics where the rules and laws of physics are optional. Hilarious.

    This article may as well be about what is going to happen to your favorite General Hospital character in today’s episode. Their net impact on reality are roughly equal…

  3. 2010/02/19 at 01:22

    Any specific clues??

    • 2010/02/19 at 07:00

      nigguraths – the biggest avalanche may start from a tiny event on the apparently solid snowpack

  4. Luke Warmer
    2010/02/18 at 15:00

    I also hope you’re right and look forward to hearing more, but there’s plenty of life left in the zombie yet. And we’re still going to have peak oil, ocean acidification and general anti-something groups around.

    For the science perspective, I think we’ll need an Ozymadias-like statue to commemorate the IPPC. Contra jonolan, I don’t think that the explanation is as simple as hucksters, hoaxers etc. There’s a far more subtle nuance to it all.

    Finally, if other non-climate research from UEA is now being smeared post-CRU, think how the whole of the scientific community could be debased post-IPPC. It could end up being a pyrrhic victory for science.

  5. kim
    2010/02/18 at 14:41

    We do not know the climate sensitivity to CO2. Once we know it we can evaluate all these previous claims, and of course, only then can we make well-informed policy decisions.

  6. 2010/02/18 at 11:49

    In truth I hope you’re right. While the Warmists were nothing but hucksters seeking hand-outs for the Third World and a shift to a global socialist economy who were willing to manufacture a crisis to further their aims, they were cunning enough to base their doomsday cult on twisted but real science.

    It could end up to be a very uncomfortable thing if, in response to their perfidy, we utterly discounted the science they had twisted but not created out of whole cloth.

    Of course I’m a skeptic as opposed to a Denier. All I ever wanted was solid proof that could stand up to arguments without discounting and/or ignoring opposing data-sets and models.

  1. 2010/02/19 at 00:53
  2. 2010/02/18 at 17:09

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: