Unthreaded
A very poor offer, EM, sending us to a site that is full-on Believer.
1. There is the assumption that the global warming over the past century is entirely anthropogenic.
2. The intimated denial that there has been sea-level rise since the end of the last ice-age, >10,000 years ago; what we are experiencing now is but a continuation of that process.
3. The assumption that the rise in CO2 concentrations is entirely anthropogenic.
4. A statement that appears to be entirely self-contradictory; also, as there has not yet been developed a method of reducing the detail of any palæo-historical records to anything less than a century, comparing it with shorter time-periods of measurements is … well, what else can it be called – stupid! – oh, and by the way, what rise we have had over the past century (~1K) is no different from many other times in history, and considerably less than some.
5. Cooling is caused by warming …?
6. Not having satellite records for much of our history should imply that we have to take care not to extrapolate what information they have to offer too far.
7. I am not even sure what the logic is, in this argument; what is the global relative humidity, and how is it measured?
8. There is only one source of heat relevant in the climate, and it is the one that seems to be the most ignored, with climastrologists being fixated on “forcings” somehow generating heat.
9. Another curious consideration. Are all the possible influences on the atmosphere known and fully understood? Svensmark suggests not.
10. The effect that such a tiny proportion of the atmosphere might have does seem to be over-rated, as the much-sought ECS sinks ever lower; how soon before it is acknowledged to have negligible effect?
However, thank you for reintroducing us to Heathergirl1234.
Radical Rodent
Stewgreen
The installed wind capability in France is 10~11GW, or was last time I looked. Demand rarely falls below 45GW. France also has quite a lot of Hydro to back up Nuclear.
In Limousin it's been quite a windy Spring, local Weather Lore Windy Palm Sunday windy for the rest of the year. However today the French Wind Mills are supplying a massive 1.8GW (3.41%).and the weather lore is holding up today again today as well.
All of which makes it hard to understand Hollande's desire to go for wind turbines across France.
SandyS
Science? Really? Even that 97% number raises its head again.
"..... Bringing all this back to climate science (you knew I would) in a stunning new paper, "Climate Modeling Dominates Climate Science," by Patrick J. Michaels and David E. Wojick, the extent of over reliance on climate modeling in climate science has been exposed. The research paper surveyed the entire literature of science for the last ten years, using Google Scholar, looking for modeling. They found that climate change science accounts for fully 55% of the modeling done in all of science. Quoting the article:In fact the number of climate change articles that include one of the three modeling terms is 97% of those that just include climate change. This is further evidence that modeling completely dominates climate change research.
This shows how fake climate science "research" really is while at the same time tarnishing the reputation of computer modeling, which is a useful tool when applied properly. It's not just GCM, every aspect of climate science has been infected with modeling fever (see “Of Models And Melting Ice Caps”). What's more, modeling is spreading to other fields of inquiry, tempting researchers to invent their own computer realities rather than investigate nasty, inconvenient nature.
To summarize, the following are the factors that are eroding the pillars of science.
• Unreproducible results – through shoddy work, poor experiment design, and statistical ignorance more and more results reported in papers can not be reproduced, making them scientifically useless.
• Corruption by politics – whether through group think or government funding the pressure to conform to politically acceptable results has increased to the point working scientists either submit to consensus or stay quiet.
• Statistical malpractice – through lack of training or sloth, many scientists use statistics as a drunk uses a lamp post, for support, not for illumination.
• Reliance on computer modeling – computer modeling is a wonderful tool when looking for insight but they are not faithful representations of nature itself. When scientists end up studying their models instead of nature they are no longer scientists.
• Misuse of peer review – instead of functioning as academic quality control and an aid to authors, peer review has become the enforcer of consensus thinking and scientific dogma. Instead of helping science advance it ensures conformity........"
The danger, real danger is if the populace loses trust in science, real science.
Green Sand
Thank you, Golf Charlie. The first question is really the important one, as it is the one that all science depends upon: while it may not be possible to prove a theory, there have to be conditions which would disprove it, else it is not a theory. Simply put: if the AGW theory has no condition with which it could be falsified, it is not a valid theory.
Mr K. does have a point about the personal abuse that many slip into (you know who I’m looking at!). While it could be considered understandable, given the obstinance of the subject, to fall to the temptation is to lower yourself to the level of those whom you do not really want to be associated with; not only that, but you are giving them a weapon to use against you – “See! They are only uttering ad homs, therefore denying the science!”
Now, will anyone else offer any answers?
Radical Rodent
Who benefits from depriving the general populace of cheap energy?Now, here is the Big Question: are there any reading this who are willing to provide an answer to at least one of those questions?
May 20, 2016 at 12:25 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent
Another side of the same coin would be to ask "Why do we even have an electricity grid in the first place?"
The answer of course being that someone once thought that cheap reliable electricity for everybody was important enough to be considered what economists call a "social good".
It shows just how far many people have slipped into green insanity that the people who wish to reverse what should be the prime objective of energy policy are not subjected to universal ridicule. If Barrack Obama had made a pre-election promise to make domestic water prices "skyrocket" then I think people would have paid more attention.
michael hart
I hate WordPress!
Second attempt
Ten ways to falsify climate change
If that still does not link, the address is
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/
Entropic man
Golf Charlie
This is science. Science is never proven.
. One demonstrates the validity of a theory by detection and attribution. One shows that alternative hypotheses do not match reality by showing that they do not project the observations, or project something which is not observed.
If the theory is fundamentally wrong, one falsifies it.
Incidentally, if you are looking for ways to falsify climate change, here are ten possible ways of doing it.
If you want proof, talk to a mathematician or a priest.
Entropic man
stewgreen & golf charlie
France's power isn't cheap. Just looks so because UK's politicos and officers have purposely chosen to inflict higher energy costs upon UK citizens and businesses.
Green Sand
Radical Rodent nicely put!
My only comment on the questions, is to the first one.
What evidence is required to PROVE the AGW theory. With all the funding they have received, most of us non-climate scientists would have considered this to be a priority, before failing to link everything bad with AGW, and ignoring any benefits of a fractionally warmer climate.
EM simply states that Football on Jupiter is worse than Football on Mars, and refuses to accept his lack of evidence, as proof he is clueless and irrelevant, when everybody knows that 97% of Martians are Green, and don't like football.
golf charlie
EM, so you don't want to talk about climate science's failure to prove anything, or achieve anything, or it's inability to justify the huge wasted expenditure.
Hopefully science teaching in schools will improve at some point.