re-2: Climate science: observations vs. models

by

2010-01-16

Richard Moore

Bcc: contributors, critics & a few others
_______

Greetings,

I’ve updated the climate article, with quite a few changes. Many thanks to those of you who have sent in suggestions and critiques, and who helped me track down data sources. Feel free to add your own comments on the blog:
Climate science: observations vs. models
My main conclusions are that we have not been experiencing dangerous warming, we are now entering an era of global cooling, and human-generated Co2 has had little or no discernible effect on temperatures. In reaching these conclusions, I’ve used the official data, including that from James Hansen and Phil Jones, the main perpetrators of the dangerous-warming myth. Those of you who have sent in previous critiques, mostly based on questioning my sources, might want to write to me again, based on the updated article. Or you might prefer to post your comments to the blog directly.
Next I’ll be adding some links to related information and articles. Also, I’d like to start a separate blog posting that deals with some of the propaganda articles that have been published to ‘refute the deniers’. 
best wishes,
rkm
___________
From: Barry Brooks
Date: 29 December 2009 16:52:36 GMT
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>

Richard,
For those of us who really studied science it is easy to understand the problems of scale and limits. Awareness of propaganda creates justified skepticism, but without a good education in science that doubt is like a shotgun that hits everything.
I respect you as a person. I know you have good intentions, but you do need to consider that when applied too generally doubt and faith join the forces of destruction.
Barry

—
Hi Barry,
I studied physics, math, and computer science at Stanford, and graduated with distinction. I was taking upper-division courses during my first two years, and graduate courses while still an undergraduate, getting nearly all A’s. I was given a choice of fellowships for graduate work in math, but was eager to get out in the real world and didn’t follow up on that. For recreation, I track developments in quantum theory, cosmology, the latest unified field theories, and a variety of other subjects. In my career, I worked in leading-edge software R&D companies, where I was recognized as a leading contributor. I do know something about science, and I don’t base my political analysis on doubt and an understanding of propaganda. My treatments of propaganda are aimed at encouraging people to question their assumptions. 
rkm
___________

From: Lynette Watters
Date: 31 December 2009 01:00:45 GMT
Subject: Re: re-3: escaping the matrix

Hello Richard, I can’t remember if I saw this link in your posts, but it came up on a friend’s Facebook. It’s about Hagbard’s Law – hierarchy and information, and climate change. I apologise if this is ground already travelled.
The writer’s own position (which it it not necessary to agree with to gain something from this article) is that whether global warming is happening or not we should still be conservative and cut emissions (etc) as the global warming lobbyists want. I find this interesting because that was pretty much my own position up until a few months ago.
Personally after looking at the facts and figures a few years ago it seemed to me that we were actually, as your figures have shown, in a slightly warm hiccup in a slow slide into global cooling (and don’t you remember how everyone was all worked up about global cooling just 20 odd years ago? I even  remember a series of TV advertisements here in Australia that showed Australian cities being snowed in like the east coast of the USA LOL).
Anyway, even though I didn’t think we were experiencing a dangerous global warming, I nevertheless thought it can’t hurt to be “green”. And my position still hasn’t changed, in that I believe we should utilise and explore the most ecologically friendly “green” technology whenever we can. But in the last few months it has suddenly come home to me how these global warming lobbied sanctions are all coming out of  our (the people’s) pockets, and when we can least afford it.
There was an estimate on Australian TV (Sydney based, perhaps different elsewhere) that due to these initiatives electricity bills would cost approximately $1000 a year more for the average family. Now I am already struggling, being the sole wage earner at the moment in the household, and even though I just got a very miserly 3% pay increase at work (and my company is doing very well out of the “global economic crisis”, experiencing record profits for the 2nd year in a row, but I won’t get started on that!), by my calculations, on my pay, that would barely keep up with that one global warming initiative cost increase. And I’m sure there will be more.
And now I’m thinking “why are we suffering like this when global warming isn’t real?”.
OK, more of a rant than tangible discussion, but gee it feels good to get that out of my system! I hope the link is useful for you.

—
Hi Lynette,
Thanks for your message, and for the reference to the Hagbard’s Law article. It presents a good discussion of the flaws of the scientific establishment.
You mention that it is desirable to be ‘green’, whether warming or no warming. We need to keep in mind that being green is not enough. Either we become sustainable as a society, or society will continue to experience collapses of various kinds and of increasing intensity. Slowing down the rate of collapse by a few percentage points is of very little value.
Changes in personal life styles, such as bicycling or whatever, has only a negligible effect on the overall sustainability of society – putting on life-vests will not prevent the Titanic from hitting the iceberg. Similarly, developing wind and solar power has only a negligible effect on sustainability. Such sources of energy can only be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of energy our societies are using, nearly all of it from fossil fuels. And energy isn’t even our biggest immediate concern re/sustainability. Loss of topsoil and fish stocks, and misuse of water supplies, are much more urgent problems.
If we want to achieve sustainability, we need to transform our basic infrastructures and ways of producing food. We cannot do this as individuals. We could accomplish it as a society, for example by developing comprehensive and efficient transit systems, but that isn’t going to happen given our political system. For those of us who want to do something that could really move us toward sustainability, the thing that makes the most sense is the relocalization movement. We cannot transform our infrastructures from the top down, but we might be able to transform them from the bottom up – not as individuals, but as communities.
It’s hard to say what is worst about the global warming scam. Cap-and-trade is simply a scheme to start another financial bubble, and to increase poverty, disease, and starvation in the third world. Carbon taxes are a scheme to accelerate economic collapse. The cut-emissions movement is a scheme to distract activists from the goal of sustainability. 
rkm
________
From: Patricia Tursi 
Date: 5 January 2010 00:49:22 GMT
To: Richard Moore <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: NASA: Solar Storm Warning
Interesting…scroll down to video 1….was on you tube but taken off …ostensibly due to global warmingists….  gives history of cosmosclimatology….beautiful music…not long
— site is interesting.

—
Hi Patricia,
Thanks for the article on the Sun’s role in climate. The Earth is a tiny ball circling around an immense star, within a much more immense galactic field. For us to look for terrestrial causes of climate change borders on the ludicrous. That’s like trying to blame beaches for causing ocean tides. The role Earth-systems play in climate is a moderating role – regulating how much heat is retained and how that heat is distributed. If this moderating function were unstable, if it included positive feedback loops as the climate-modelers assume, the Earth’s bio-system would have been destroyed a long time ago. We never would have evolved, or if you prefer, God would never have chosen this place for us.
rkm
________
From: “M.A. Omas Schaefer”
Date: 11 January 2010 16:50:01 GMT
Subject: DAVID ROSE: The mini ice age starts here | Mail Online

Read about them here; MDO’s (Multi-Decade Oscillations). I’ll lay ten to one that there will be no mention of this in the U.S. bankster-controlled press. One of these MDO’s is going to catapult us into the next ice age, for which we are due.
The AGW kool-aid drinkers will love this. Obama [that is, Information Czar Cass Sunstein] is set to outlaw your point of view (disagreeing with the government’s official position on AGW). How about that… Richard Moore the thought criminal? I guess they’ll set up extradition to come and get you in Ireland.

Hey Cass Sunstein… make sure to have Interpol arrest the conspiracy theorists who took these pictures in Antarctica. We understand that it will have to wait until you pick up that Richard Moore guy in Ireland.

—

Hi M.A.,
Yes, stable dynamic systems tend to oscillate, as they respond to external forces. But an MDO is not going to be the cause of an ice age. Ice ages occur on a much bigger time scale, every 100,000 years or so. Actually, the Earth is in an ice age most of the time. Relatively brief interglacial periods are what occur every 100,000 years or so. Our current interglacial period has been going on for 12,000 years, and as you say we are long overdue for it to end. If there were some way for us to cause global warming and prolong the interglacial period, that would be a very good thing.
Yes, there does seem to be signs that certain viewpoints will be outlawed, in the spirit of Orwell’s 1984. ‘Deniers’ sets the tone. People who dissent aren’t wrong, they’re psychologically disturbed, and need re-education. And they inspire terrorism in others. We must rush to protect ourselves from these crazy people.
Thanks for the great photos from Antarctica. Global warming indeed!
rkm
_______