"Nobel Laureates, Others: “There is No Climate Emergency”" Topic

1,609 scientists worldwide, including two Nobel laureates, sign document stating that the Climate Change crisis is neither a crisis nor severe, nor likely has anything to do with CO2:

link

Interesting.It echoes what I feel but have no evidence to support.

Okay, I'd be happy if they're right. But in other news 160,900 scientists including two hundred Nobel laureates say there is an emergency. I made that up, but don't you get the impression that's probably about right?

In any case, the powers that be have decided that there is a crisis, and in my neck of the woods you will not be popular if you disagree.

Thank goodness! I was worried there for a minute…

Andrew, no, I don't think most scientists agree with the Crisis mode. Just the ones who want to be on television. The rest keep their yaps shut to keep their university funding (and their jobs).

Shagnasty, I've been saying that it's a case of GIGO from the beginning. Any computer programmer knows that you program for expected, testable results, and that when the program provides those results, you know it's working. (Maybe— there's always a bug.) But if your expectations are wrong, your program will be wrong. And if your expected results aren't testable, then your computer model is garbage.

I made that up, but don't you get the impression that's probably about right?

Missed the course on feeling in my science curriculum …

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

This is what the DOE, who evaluates climate models, has said for years.

Our ability to analyze causal relationships in the global climate does not support "there is no climate emergency" any more than "there is a climate emergency".

Also, it is very very very very rare when scientific research could support a broad statement like either I have in quotes above.

I believe "I made that up" is a big part of the problem with climate scientists as well. This, in turn, leads to questions about the validity of the research results.

I haven't seen that in any of the studies I've read. The actual hard science tends to be pretty good (with one exception below).

Generally, what I see is Confirmation Bias. link The actual execution of the research (again with a caveat) is good, but the willingness to jump to a broad conclusion that is not a direct outcome of that research is unfortunately common in this topic area. It's basically what the tobacco industry did with research into its effects and what the "medical marijuana" industry does now. They didn't lie. They didn't make stuff up. They only told part of the story, because they had no interest in the other parts and people who wanted to hear what they were saying were happy to swallow the line without critical thought.

--

The one thing I do see poorly done is a specific form of confirmation bias applied to the use of modeling and simulation. Because the simulation provides verifiable answers, people assume that the mechanisms in the simulation must reflect reality. This is simply not the case. Then people go on to base their statements on characteristics of the model, not the actual science.

Climate change of course, who ever said the climate was static and unchanging?

Here are my questions:
What should the ideal temperature of the Earth be?
How can we get it to that ideal temperature?
Once it is at the ideal temperature how can we install a thermostat to keep it from changing again?

Wolfhag

More from actual scientists doing actual science:
link

Summary: The IPPC report is riddled with scientific errors and provably flawed theories, predictions, and assumptions. The computer models are grossly and provably inaccurate, the data is incomplete, and other causes than CO2 (like solar variability) are often rejected out of hand, based on politics, not data, or even competent analysis. Climate science, like all science, needs to be removed from the control of politically motivated administrators of any position, party, or creed. That is the ONLY way in which we can know what (if anything) is happening, and what (if anything) is causing it, and what (if anything) we need or should or even can do about it.

And I'm not the one saying this. Politicians are not saying this. Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Solar, Big Wind are not saying this. Scientists are. REAL scientists, with bonafides far beyond media mouths and unhinged activists. The world needs to listen.

Planet of Humans: YouTube link

Wolfhag

Hmmm. Let's see… Nobel winning physicist and group of 1,600+ physicists and climatologists vs. bloated socialist Hollywood propagandist who couldn't recite the Scientific Method if you paid him his weight in donuts (but he'd eat the donuts).

I know which ones are worth listening to.

What are their laureates in?

What do they have that other experts in the field don't? Is NASA wrong?

Their laureates are in Physics, the very science that must underlay all climate science. Clauser's expertise is in quantum mechanics, which is to say he's a damn sight smarter than nearly everyone else on the planet. Likewise, Giaver's Nobel was earned for his work on electron tunneling in superconductors. Again, way more brilliant than you or me or almost anyone else for that matter. In the rarified air of top scientists, they are practically on the edges of outer space. Thinking they don't understand climate science is like saying Michelangelo didn't know how to cut stone blocks.

NASA is a political entity that seeks to keep increasing its budget first and foremost. Therefore, it will use any hot topic of high political interest to encourage such funding, and will likewise target its efforts in these areas to satisfy the political goals of its current masters. Like a genie, NASA's response to whichever political group is in charge will be "your wish is our command." If politicians want NASA to pursue climate science and only highlight results which favor alarmist points of view, they'll do that. If politicians go the other way, NASA will pivot to follow. It's not that NASA scientists won't do good science; it's that the admins will focus on interpretations that boost political goals, while keeping silent on ones which do not. As a result, they'll also hire along these same lines of bias, and fund research along that bias as well, producing an echo chamber effect that amplifies results and interpretations favoring that bias, over and over. So good science becomes biased science, and contrary results will be buried in the snow.