What would begin to sway me is the global temperature actually following the computer models and agreeing with global warming science. But that is nowhere near the case. So: “If it doesn’t agree with experiment, then it’s wrong. It’s that simple.”
Von: P Gosselin
Von: DirkH
“as you have always been a “skeptic”, there is not likely to be ANY scientific publication that could ever sway your opinion in the opposite direction.”
You mischaracterize the word skeptic. Even some CO2AGW scientists are on the record as saying “every scientist must be a skeptic first”. Of course the opinion of a skeptic is not set in stone. If we find observational evidence of a tropospheric hotspot or of the hypothesized positive water vapor feedback, that would be an important vindication of the CO2AGW models.
I have not heard of any recent attempts, though, to even look for these hypothesized phenomena in nature. To me it looks like the CO2AGW scientists are not interested in observations but content with writing about their latest computer simulation.
Von: sandy
In answer to questions asked near the beginning of this blog that said, “What would be the motivation for so many scientists, the vast majority of scientists, far more educated and intelligent than either of us, to spread misinformation?
You obviously haven’t heard of Agenda 21 and you need to? If you had heard of Agenda 21 you would know that ‘they’ need a ‘sustainability’ platform to hang it on. First throw around a lot of money to entice and push an emporers new clothes attitude so.. in the 70′s the cry is the tempretures dropping; we’ll all be ruined and it is all man’s fault. Then the tempreture stopped dropping and so the cry is the tempretures raising;’ we’ll all be ruined and it’s all mans fault and now bother the tempreture isn’t warming and without batting an eye it is climate change. Whew, lucky and if that fails I suppose we can always go back to the tempretures cooling or warming or cooling or changing. As long as we have a climate (because climates are always variable) they can march forward with the Agenda. And you will lose the right to private property, gain global indoctrination, whoops er global education and you will have an increasing number of unelected governments ruling you and culling you and more. Check out Agenda 21 particularly if you like a good thriller.
Von: TimiBoy
I’m lucky enough to know a very experienced and VERY highly achieved Environmental Scientist. Name and gender will remain unknown. Person said to me – I quote:
“I know CO2 isn’t a risk, but supporting the mantra will enable the achievement of my Political Goals.”
Person is a stated Communist, and a State funded Environmental Scientist, quite prepared to “modify” output to achieve continued funding and Communism. Some people should NEVER get drunk, they don’t know who might be listening.
Von: DirkH
No surprise here.
Von: Lex
I think it would be time to expand that “129 climate scandal” article to around 200 now
Von: P Gosselin
I’d say it’s closer to 500!
Von: Stephen Wilde
Hello Pierre.
I’ve just set up a new website devoted to natural climate change and in
particular my New Climate Model which can be found here:
http://www.newclimatemodel.com/
If you were able to give it some publicity I’d be grateful.
Best wishes,
Stephen Wilde.
Von: R J
Popular Science is just reporting, but really. Conservative media makes people distrust scientists, and in turn, doubt the existence of climate change. Includes a link showing a research report funded by who, you guessed it we did with grants from the National Science Foundation.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-08/fox-news-increases-distrust-climate-science
Von: C Howard Diaz (Chuck)
Pierre,
I am not a scientist, in fact I don have a degree in anything, but I did graduate high school in 1955 which is probably equal to a BS in something today. I have been fairly successful in life and have studied environmental issues since 1991.
I have even talked to Richard Lidzen by phone about twenty years ago, and a few other highly respected in science. I’ a devout Constitutionalist and a pretty good businessman.
I’ always had one complaint about the true scientists of the world not being willing to make short statements that would explain the truth about AGW, then GW and now Climate Change. I understand it’s difficult to make an honest a evaluation without talking for an hour or writing papers that only another scientist can understand.
Using a theme of Steven Schneider, we must make short general statements that will allow people the ability to understand the truth even if we have to push the truth to an extreme. Scientists, who will usually never say anything is certain must start being certain when they know the other side is basically lieing.
I am a talk show host in Tucson, AZ and I need short clips from creditable sources or at least some information that I can turn in to a PSA.
Check my first PSA out at http://www.suanews.com/uncategorized/new-radio-psa-global-warming.html
You might give me an opinion on the rest of the site, especially the info under the “Environment” tab.
I really appreciate your site and what you are doing. I use it as a source for a lot of what I talk about.
Von: Casper
Very bad news for AGW fans
No hurricanes were reported over Atlantic last month!
Von: Oliver K. Manuel
Thanks, Pierre, for having the courage to question consensus science, aka standard models of reality.
Those who lived under the old USSR or those who have read George Orwell’s book, “1984″, are better able to grasp the danger of consensus science and standard models of reality:
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
My graduate research mentor was a Japanese nuclear geo-chemist at the Imperial University of Tokyo during the Second World War. The conclusions from his career and my own offer insight into Climategate:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Creator_Destroyer_Sustainer_of_Life.pdf
Von: Paul
“I’ve always been a skeptic of the AGW hypothesis, and view myself as a mere spectator in the climate change debate and arena.” Pierre L. Gosselin
That is understandable, life connections and conditions do have an effect on our baseline of thought. The culture we both grew up is still is in denial about the effect it has on world consumption. The centre of gravity on a different level to us both as a highly evolved and intelligent individuals. From your present altitude any deviation or evolution of values is not an easy transition. It generally causes chaos and is the most difficult option during our prime years, one of reasons people go through midlife crisis when they delay it. But that discussion is a digression.
The stance on skepticism to the AGW hypothesis is a healthy one and growing through levels of thought is not easy. We all should be skeptical about all data, it is the weight of effort we give to it that needs balance or equilibrium.
On this one point alone I challenge your focus and lens used in AGW hypothesis skepticism.
Prove to yourself the culture you grew up in does not weigh everything around transnational corporations and their primary premise of exponential profit. In turn affects every part of the cultural meritocracy and has shaped your skepticism.
Consider one other important fact surrounding this consumption culture. That within it there is an abhorrence of government spending on social capital e.g. Obama’s healthcare plans. This is not the only trust issue on social investment, currently just a topical one. I am certain you will agree, as it is very transparent.
Just why is capital spent by government of US taxpayer money is disproportionately weighted to military spending. One clear reality is there is no serious questioning of this expenditure. Military capital spending is coming out of the same place as capital spent on e.g. AGW strategies.
As I said my premise is transnational corporations have shaped the centre of gravity in the US. While crafting and projecting focus of discontent onto social capital investment. Conditioning people not to be skeptical about capital spending on the military block.
The interior question for you is; Why am I spending a disproportionate amount of my skepticism on AGW hypothesis and not questioning the military spending by the US government on social capital?
My question for my interior reading your focus is obvious; Are transnational corporations of benefit to your life condition or are you hopeful they will be?
These are my first questions in hard critical thinking on any subject. As it is better to establish where the altitude is and focus on information with a clearly elevated worldview.
We are here to evolve our understanding of our world and this includes our value system. Wishing you well with yours.
________________________________________________________
My scan of your worldview is SDi orange, with an altitude of values in first tier.
Can only recommend a personal scan on spending and here is a rudimentary starting point;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/socialexpendituredatabasesocx.htm
Von: C Howard Diaz
Paul,
I’ve read what you’ve written three times and still don’t get what you are trying to say.
I will however ask you, what does being skeptical about the Man Made Global Warming theory have to do with what we free Americans decide to do with our money to maintain a military we decide we want?
I would also ask, why do you bring transnational corporation, miltary and social spending questions to a site dedicated to distributing information for a better understanding of the science involved with true climate change?
What’s your point?
Pierre,
If you believe my response is off the mark, don’t post it.
Von: Jeremy Shiers
Hi Pierre
Having got my copy of The Neglected Sun I now know you translated it.
I guess this means you have machine readable copies of the text.
How would you feel about producing a unique list of all the papers referenced and unique list of the scientists. Should be easy enough to do especially on linux.
It seems these lists would go a long way to answer those who prattle on about the worlds top scientists in IPCC (eg Polly Tonynbee and Ed Davey)
cheers
Jeremy
Von: Casper
Hi Pierre,
there is a nice summary of EEG costs for German customers written by Rudolf Kipp on science-skeptical.de. There will be a good article on increasing costs of the German Renewable Energy Act for a single German family. Finally, you’ve been living in Germany for years. I think you should get in touch with Mr Kipp.
Article is here:
http://www.science-skeptical.de/energieerzeugung/vorwaerts-immer-rueckwaerts-nimmer-eeg-umlage-steigt-2014-auf-624-cent/0010958/
cheers
Casper
Von: P Gosselin
Thanks Casper
I’ve read it and agree it should be in English….will likely do so tomorrow. The only hockey stick in all this climate business is the cost that consumers have to pay out.
Von: C Howard Diaz
Pierre,
I have just posted two documentary videos that explain the advantages of increased CO2 in our atmosphere. The one that everyone should watch is the one I posted as ” The War on CO2,” using the sequel of the original “The a Greening of Planet Earth.”
They can both be seen at http://www.suanews.com.
Check it out and maybe we can figure out how we could subtitle it in German and other languages so you and others could post it.
Please let me know what you think.
C Howard Diaz
Von: P Gosselin
Good clip. But it is also not very recent.
Von: DirkH
a) The American Empire is more or less finished due to overconsumption
b) Military spending is not the root cause. Expressed in percent of GDP/capita it is at its lowest level since end of WW 2.
Why the overconsumption, the deficits? Simple: Triffin’s paradox. You can’t be the word reserve currency without exporting said currency; i.e. running a trade deficit, thereby hollowing out your own industries.