[CC] IPCC Report to be released today

[newshound]

You mean, since the little ice age?

Or what is more usually called "since records began". Or, in tabloid journalism, "the highest temperatures ever".

[newshound]

Bjorn Lomborg makes these (and similar) points quite regularly

And, curiously (or not) it was the improved crop yields that enabled the expansion. Which was cut short by the dark ages, followed by recovery in the medieval warm period when surpluses allowed the construction of the great cathedrals, the founding of the old universities, and the (temporary) colonisation of Greenland by the Vikings.

[charles]

or even "within living memory"

[Spike]

The Central England temperature record

shows a flat response for almost a 150 years from circa 1770, and more interestingly a massive rapid rise from ~1690 to ~1735 that knocks today's Climate Catastrophe into a cocked hat. No anthropogenic CO2 effect there...

The 10-year rolling average shows a fall from ~2012.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Probably the Guardian or the BBC

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well I have a few minutes.

Most people in their ordinary lives would think that the following statements are true, mostly because they *work*

- The time and date is exactly the same for everyone everywhere. (absolute time) Special relativity refuted this. - space can be described in terms of three dimensions - conventionally X,Y,Z and these axes are always orthogonal to each other, and light travels in straight lines (flat Cartesian space) Genearal relativity refuted this. - everything that happens is caused by something that happened earlier (Determinism or strict causality) . So what caused the Big Bang? What causes that radioactive element to decay when its been sitting there happy as a pig in shit for a billion years..

- Experiments show that for example light is a wave, or a particle depending on how you attempt to measure it. And many other quantum entities have states that are unknowable until you attempt to measure them, and then they become detectable in one or other of those states, but never many. The act of becoming aware of them changes their state from an unknown possibility to a detectable actuality. The observer interferes with the observation, he is part of the experiment.No more detached observer.

[Spike]

<snip really good stuff>

This is the apparent basis for CO2-caused 'global warming': Pump lots of CO2 into the air, and temperatures go up!

Except there's been times where temperatures have gone up or down, and CO2 levels haven't changed; and anyway the planet spends most of its time as an ice-ball, again which has nothing to do with CO2. The 'consensus scientists' are quiet over those issues while riding the GW gravy train.

I see that concerns have been raised about the mental health of kids, who now seem to be terrified of 'global warming'. The IPCC and the MSM have a lot to answer for.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Not really. what I meant was really different

spontaneous atomic decay is the easy example.

The problem is too many scientists are far to specialised. My paleogeologist BIL says AGW is bunk, because he studies the effects of amongst other things, deep time CO2 levels. The positive feedback that is inherent in the alarmist models would have destroyed the ecosphere hundreds of times in the past, if it really existed.

Likewise, the climate fulfils all the criteria for a fully chaotic metastable system, which means that global temperature has no 'normal' - it will *always* be changing and over quite wide limits as well. In short the climate does its thang, and you might as well get used to it. CO2 has almost no effect on it.

Can you imagine the political and economic effect if someone, in words of one syllable, and no more than 50 of them, could prove to a majority of people that CAGW was simply not happening?

So many people have jumped on the bandwagon and tied their lives and careers to it and so many people depend on it for income...No. The science is settled. CAGW is utter bunk, but no one is in a position to admit it.

Indeed. There is definitely a 'climate of fear' at the moment:-) And COVID as well...

>

[newshound]

Well said!

[newshound]

Exactly; I should have included that (I usually do, in pub conversations).

[Chris Bacon]

No, of course i don't. I am not responsible for your inbility to read.

[Bernie]

I reckon that a berk-off between you and Turnip is inevitable, at some point, Burt.

Something to look forward to, eh?

[Spike]

A consensus in science is what forms when the old guard don't want to change their views in the face of new evidence. Einstein didn't get a PhD for Relativity, for example.

But it's even worse than that.

Prof Karlen was a Swedish climate scientist, specialising in the climate of the Nordic countries. The IPCC had put out a report, with references, that showed the predicted trajectory of temperatures of that region. Being a good scientist, Karlen went to those references for the data, in order to reconstruct the IPCC's published results. He couldn't. The data suggested a quite different trajectory for the temperatures.

Puzzled by this major difference, Karlen wrote to one of the scientists that had worked on this section of the report, but the exchange of emails shows that he never got a satisfactory explanation for the difference - for example, where Karlen was was asking about land temperatures, the other scientist spoke of how difficult it was to collect data in the ocean regions. The exchange went on for some time, and I don't think it was resolved.

Karlen was probably regarded as a Bad Faith Actor before the term became defensively fashionable, by asking awkward questions at inopportune moments.

[newshound]

Check the data, you'll find that fires have *declined* over the past century. See for example Lomborg.

[The Natural Philosopher]

As WUWT constantly says, what you read in the actual reports bear no relation to the actual summaries.

In addition the IPCC does not have any authority to examine whether or not human induced climate change actually exists: Its terms of reference are to report on it and recommend political action.

The whole organization is an 'assumptive close'. I.e, the question 'is there any serious human induced climate change?' is off limits. Its purpose is to propose answers to 'what are we going to do about human induced climate change?' And it is not a scientific body, it is a united nations sponsored

*political* one.

[mechanic]

A quick check shows that he is generally discredited. And he isn't part of the 'consensus'!

Perhaps you are dazzled by the fact he has a PhD?

[#Paul]

Does that mean, for example, we cannot not rely on the results of Thermodynamics? "Never settled" and "unreliable" are not the same thing.

#Paul

[Spike]

'Wireless' was declared 'a finished art' in 1902, where 'finished art' = 'settled science'.

That went well, didn't it.

Before 1828, scientific philosophy was such that man (the microcosm) was completely separate from the Universe (the macrocosm). It was a settled fact.

Then, in that year, Friedrich Wohler synthesised urea, known up to then as 'microcosmic salt', thus blowing apart the distinction between the two. What was produced in the microcosm also existed in the macrocosm! These days we know we're made of stardust.

The big problems with the use of the term 'settled science' are its deployment as a method of shutting down debate, where those riding the gravy train don't want things to upset the apple cart, and the philosophical issue that science doesn't always know what it doesn't know, meaning that, for example, the thermodynamics we know might hold today, but no-one can say that will always be the case.

[The Natural Philosopher]

We don't *know* anything. That is just the current narrative...

What is slowly becoming apparent at the bleeding edge of science is that the fundamental metaphysics of science - the sort of Materialism that Newton espoused, whereby he considered that he had unearthed 'facts'

*in* the world, is being replaced by a much more idealistic metaphysics where science is seen as creating *models*, *about* the world, which can never be proven *right*, just 'not wrong' and 'useful'.

This allows of a much more flexible approach - not only can we have more than one model explaining the same phenomena, the very phrase 'the science is settled' becomes a nonsense.

Of course when we move from physics to metaphysics we lose the ability to even prove a theory *wrong*, let alone right.... All we have left is 'is it a useful way to look at things?'

[Spike]

You seem to be having some sort of meltdown.