rigorousintuition.ca

My reference points are research papers, raw data sets, and observational analysis (by scientists) over time, not merely photographs. And certainly not models, which are what many climate alarmists reference.

Let's aim to keep this simple, eh?

Among the content I shared in this thread, there's plenty authored by scientists, researchers and analysts. You can scroll back. Such content is not based on models. You continue to wave your hands at this content or offer counters that only reinforce status quo modeling projections.

DrEvil » Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:01 pm wrote:
So, once again: please post links to research casting doubt on the accuracy of the models and the extent to which humans are responsible for the warming. Not about policies or capitalist exploitation, and not blog posts, tweets, declarations, class notes, articles or opinion pieces - actual research about the underlying science.

Belligerent Savant » Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:00 am wrote:

DrEvil » Tue Mar 14, 2023 9:01 pm wrote:
So, once again: please post links to research casting doubt on the accuracy of the models and the extent to which humans are responsible for the warming. Not about policies or capitalist exploitation, and not blog posts, tweets, declarations, class notes, articles or opinion pieces - actual research about the underlying science.

I’ve posted content from a variety of sources in this thread, though they aren’t exhaustive. There’s ample content out there on the flaws of models/modeling (if one harbors a genuine interest in open-minded due diligence, these critiques can be tracked down. Some are more compelling than others, as it is with any viewpoint), not just related to climate science, but also as applied in other sciences as well. Covid modeling was one of the most recent egregious examples of modeling failures, though climate-related models have been inaccurate, historically, on a recurring basis. I imagine some models will be more accurate than others, but generally they are prone to bias, confounders and preferred criteria to maximize desired results — namely: ALARM, which is at odds with historical and current data that suggests a more cyclical/gradual fluctuation, which of course will require mitigation regardless, but once again, NONE of the mitigation should involve curtailing human rights/freedoms*. No justification for it.

*yes, I actually typed free-dumb. This is now practically a graphic and offensive word in some circles. While I appreciate the word is often utilized by The Deplorables, it’s yet another (of many) examples of tactics employed to re-frame words as a means to prime, condition, and manipulate.

When assessing how such models and narratives are currently being utilized to push increasingly restrictive/draconian measures with FEAR as the backdrop, a clear and distinct recurring theme presents itself.
Any sober assessment of these developments should raise eyebrows and encourage re-examination. Instead, many of the subscribers of climate alarm double down.

Of course, you and others here can continue to believe what you believe— and continue to believe any criticisms or scrutiny of climate alarm can only come from those propagandized by the oil & gas lobbies.

I have a better understanding of the psychology in play here; it no longer surprises me.

"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2. page 774.

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

Some of the main takeaways from my writings:

1) climate change is real and not a hoax
2) the climate over the last 1M years is remarkably unstable with glacial and interglacial ossicliations due to minor orbital forcing and low CO2
3) there is no global temperature and CO2s role in regulating atmospheric temperature is significantly overstated
4) climate models are gross oversimplifications of the coupled, nonlinear chaotic climate system and do not capture the complexity of the system
5) catastrophic events have not trended up with the current 1.1C of warming and there is no indication that they will with the next 1C of warming.
6) a gradual replacing of fossil fuels is inevitable as they are finite and do cause combustion related pollutants to enter the atmosphere
7) solar and wind will never be able to provide reliable base load power without significant habitat and species loss due to the amount of land required
8 ) Catastrophizing of weather events is causing significant decline in mental health and driving anxiety in young people
9) Reducing access to fossil fuels for developing countries will keep large parts of the population in abject poverty for significantly longer than necessary

Let me know what you think and thank you for all the support I have received. #climate #energy
9:12 AM · Mar 23, 2023

…

The new report downplays research showing that extreme scenarios are increasingly implausible and once again centers research that emphasizes RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5. The report justifies this emphasis when it states in a footnote buried deep in the report:

“Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”

This is far too clever. An alien invasion next week is also low likelihood, but cannot be ruled out.

None of the relevant literature on scenario plausibility is cited in the Synthesis Report, despite appearing in the most recent IPCC assessment reports. The “cannot ruled out” gambit gives the IPCC a way to keep extreme scenarios at the center of the report while evading any discussion of plausibility.

The coverage of the report has been predictably apocalyptic in response to the IPCC’s framing. Here are a few examples:

NBC News
@NBCNews

BREAKING: Time is running out to secure a liveable future on earth, new UN report says.

Scientists found that a key aim of the Paris climate agreement — to limit global warming to 1.5 C° — may be out of reach.

Greta Thunberg
@GretaThunberg

Today, after yesterday's #IPCC report, everything is back to normal – as always. We continue to ignore the climate crisis as if nothing happened. Our societies are still in denial, and those in power go on with their never ending quests to maximise profits. We cannot afford this.

Greta is right that the IPCC didn’t even win the daily news cycle this week. Perhaps that’s because it recycled the exact same messaging (“liveable future”) as it did when it released its Working Group 2 report from just one year ago. Or maybe that’s because the IPCC has reduced itself to the sort of content-free cheerleading that is so common in the climate space: Someone should do something, dammit!

The report emphasizes another phrase – climate-resilient development -- which was also included in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, which is a lot like motherhood and apple pie, who could possibly object to the idea?

But when it comes to policy specifics, the IPCC is pretty thin. In its press release accompanying the report, the IPCC emphasizes “walking, cycling and public transport.” Um, OK, sure. But the full report makes no mention of nuclear energy, has only a few passing mentions of natural gas, and just one mention of energy access. The report includes a lot of phrasing that sounds like it emerged from a university faculty committee:

Actions that prioritise equity, climate justice, social justice and inclusion lead to more sustainable outcomes, co-benefits, reduce trade-offs, support transformative change and advance climate resilient development.

Sure, that is all great. Where are actual policy options?

Perhaps the most glaring omission by the report is on the science of “loss and damage” which is emphasized throughout the report. The Synthesis Report is not the only part of the IPCC that has ignored data and evidence on the economic and human cost of disasters, as I have frequently documented here.

The IPCC makes a big deal about “loss and damage” as a central reason why action is needed:

Economic impacts attributable to climate change are increasingly affecting peoples' livelihoods and are causing economic and societal impacts across national boundaries.

What does the data on “loss and damage” say? That seems like an important question that the IPCC might have explored over the past nine years.

The IPCC doesn’t answer this question, despite such data being readily available and a voluminous peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Instead, the IPCC relies on a series vague, imprecise and readily mis-interpretable statements.

How difficult would have been to include the graph below in any IPCC report of the past 9 years?


Global disasters related to weather and climate have not increased. Their impacts on people affected, lives lost and damage as a proportion of GDP have all decreased

Readers here will know that the overall number of weather and climate disasters have decreased so far this century, economic losses as down as a proportion of economic activity and deaths and people affected by extremes are sharply down in recent decades.

In an effort to aid the work of the IPCC in 2020 I published a literature review of 54 studies on loss and damage which quantified the relative roles of climate and development in economic losses from weather extremes. The IPCC not only ignored my review, but in its literature review it also ignored 53 of the 54 papers, choosing to cite only one paper which asserted the attribution of losses to greenhouse gas emissions – the other 53 did not. None of this data or research gets mentioned by the IPCC, which is just remarkable.

Between the IPCC Synthesis Report’s evasion of the most recent literature on scenarios and the games it has played with loss and damage research and evidence, the IPCC is skating close to becoming a source of climate misinformation.

It is time for a new approach.

Belligerent Savant » Fri Mar 24, 2023 10:42 pm wrote:.
No, I didn’t misunderstand the research.

The six scientists still attribute some global warming to human causes. The Northern hemisphere is characterised by “several multidecadal climate trends that have been attributed to anthropogenic climate change”. But producing work that predicts 30 years of global cooling puts them outside the ‘settled’ narrative that claims human-produced carbon dioxide is the main – possibly the only – determinant of global and local temperatures. At the very least, it tamps down the hysteria pushing for almost immediate and punitive 'net-zero' measures.

Multidecadal oscillations not to be confused with reduced warming, says study

This statement here is quite unequivocal:

"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2. page 774.

In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing
with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The
most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability
distribution of the system’s future possible states by the genera-
tion of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate
change to the discernment of significant differences in the statis-
tics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles
will require the dedication of greatly increased computer
resources and the application of new methods of model
diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate
is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is
essential.

Since the time the above statement was written the rhetoric has only become more unhinged, particularly in the post-2020 version of our timeline.

That you refuse to acknowledge this speaks only to your rigidity and dogma.

While I may not fully agree with every point of the following, it represents a markedly more nuanced take than whatever you’ve offered here:

Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki
@MatthewWielicki

Some of the main takeaways from my writings:

1) climate change is real and not a hoax
2) the climate over the last 1M years is remarkably unstable with glacial and interglacial ossicliations due to minor orbital forcing and low CO2
3) there is no global temperature and CO2s role in regulating atmospheric temperature is significantly overstated
4) climate models are gross oversimplifications of the coupled, nonlinear chaotic climate system and do not capture the complexity of the system
5) catastrophic events have not trended up with the current 1.1C of warming and there is no indication that they will with the next 1C of warming.
6) a gradual replacing of fossil fuels is inevitable as they are finite and do cause combustion related pollutants to enter the atmosphere
7) solar and wind will never be able to provide reliable base load power without significant habitat and species loss due to the amount of land required
8 ) Catastrophizing of weather events is causing significant decline in mental health and driving anxiety in young people
9) Reducing access to fossil fuels for developing countries will keep large parts of the population in abject poverty for significantly longer than necessary

Let me know what you think and thank you for all the support I have received. #climate #energy
9:12 AM · Mar 23, 2023

This piece here is also worth a read, given recent pronouncements from the IPCC -

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/ha ... dium=email

Excerpts:

…

The new report downplays research showing that extreme scenarios are increasingly implausible and once again centers research that emphasizes RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5. The report justifies this emphasis when it states in a footnote buried deep in the report:

“Very high emission scenarios have become less likely but cannot be ruled out.”

This is far too clever. An alien invasion next week is also low likelihood, but cannot be ruled out.

None of the relevant literature on scenario plausibility is cited in the Synthesis Report, despite appearing in the most recent IPCC assessment reports. The “cannot ruled out” gambit gives the IPCC a way to keep extreme scenarios at the center of the report while evading any discussion of plausibility.

The coverage of the report has been predictably apocalyptic in response to the IPCC’s framing. Here are a few examples:

NBC News
@NBCNews

BREAKING: Time is running out to secure a liveable future on earth, new UN report says.

Scientists found that a key aim of the Paris climate agreement — to limit global warming to 1.5 C° — may be out of reach.

Greta Thunberg
@GretaThunberg

Today, after yesterday's #IPCC report, everything is back to normal – as always. We continue to ignore the climate crisis as if nothing happened. Our societies are still in denial, and those in power go on with their never ending quests to maximise profits. We cannot afford this.

Greta is right that the IPCC didn’t even win the daily news cycle this week. Perhaps that’s because it recycled the exact same messaging (“liveable future”) as it did when it released its Working Group 2 report from just one year ago. Or maybe that’s because the IPCC has reduced itself to the sort of content-free cheerleading that is so common in the climate space: Someone should do something, dammit!

The report emphasizes another phrase – climate-resilient development -- which was also included in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, which is a lot like motherhood and apple pie, who could possibly object to the idea?

But when it comes to policy specifics, the IPCC is pretty thin. In its press release accompanying the report, the IPCC emphasizes “walking, cycling and public transport.” Um, OK, sure. But the full report makes no mention of nuclear energy, has only a few passing mentions of natural gas, and just one mention of energy access. The report includes a lot of phrasing that sounds like it emerged from a university faculty committee:

Actions that prioritise equity, climate justice, social justice and inclusion lead to more sustainable outcomes, co-benefits, reduce trade-offs, support transformative change and advance climate resilient development.

Sure, that is all great. Where are actual policy options?

Perhaps the most glaring omission by the report is on the science of “loss and damage” which is emphasized throughout the report. The Synthesis Report is not the only part of the IPCC that has ignored data and evidence on the economic and human cost of disasters, as I have frequently documented here.

The IPCC makes a big deal about “loss and damage” as a central reason why action is needed:

Economic impacts attributable to climate change are increasingly affecting peoples' livelihoods and are causing economic and societal impacts across national boundaries.

What does the data on “loss and damage” say? That seems like an important question that the IPCC might have explored over the past nine years.

The IPCC doesn’t answer this question, despite such data being readily available and a voluminous peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Instead, the IPCC relies on a series vague, imprecise and readily mis-interpretable statements.

How difficult would have been to include the graph below in any IPCC report of the past 9 years?


Global disasters related to weather and climate have not increased. Their impacts on people affected, lives lost and damage as a proportion of GDP have all decreased

Readers here will know that the overall number of weather and climate disasters have decreased so far this century, economic losses as down as a proportion of economic activity and deaths and people affected by extremes are sharply down in recent decades.

In an effort to aid the work of the IPCC in 2020 I published a literature review of 54 studies on loss and damage which quantified the relative roles of climate and development in economic losses from weather extremes. The IPCC not only ignored my review, but in its literature review it also ignored 53 of the 54 papers, choosing to cite only one paper which asserted the attribution of losses to greenhouse gas emissions – the other 53 did not. None of this data or research gets mentioned by the IPCC, which is just remarkable.

Between the IPCC Synthesis Report’s evasion of the most recent literature on scenarios and the games it has played with loss and damage research and evidence, the IPCC is skating close to becoming a source of climate misinformation.

It is time for a new approach.

Mike Hart, M.D
@drmikehart
·
Nature, a once reputable journal, now admits that they endorse political candidates.

Science has been destroyed and has been replaced by politics.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00789-5

EDITORIAL
20 March 2023

Should Nature endorse political candidates? Yes — when the occasion demands it

@monitoringbias

The slow corruption of Nature.

Nature, pre-2020: "We are a scientific journal. Politics has no place in our pages."

2020-2022: "We are a scientific journal that is committed to Antiracism. This is not the same as being political."

2023: "We will endorse political candidates."

@EPoe187

How quickly would people on the left become science “deniers” if prestigious science journals endorsed DeSantis for president?

Harvey » Sat Mar 25, 2023 2:29 am wrote:What is the accuracy of modelling generally? In light of the the last few years, when we saw a fictional danger presented as reality, meanwhile reality became cheap horror fiction with the complicity of every single organ of state and commerce of almost every nation on a global scale.

How does that not suggest something epochal has occurred?

Climate is a mere cherry on top for the people who brought us covid and the Ukraine war. By 2025 they have promised economic meltdown, World War III (or IV) and the mother of all Pandemic responses, whether there's a pandemic or not.

Point is, what makes you think you and I will survive long enough to be affected by climate? Do we have under ground bunkers as they do? Shit, for all you know, these crazy mother fuckers are planning on nuclear winter to combat global warming and thin the herd at the same time.