Saturday, 4 August 2012

Bill and Ben talk climate

An notable aspect of climate science is that many non-scientists find it easily to spot what a crock it is without the need to gen up on the science or do much in the way of research. Climate alarmism is dishonest and people are pretty good at recognizing dishonesty. Nobody has to be an expert to pick up the stench.

Imagine a non-scientist sceptic named Bill, who like all of us pays the bills, and an honest climate scientist I’ve named Ben – because he isn’t bent.

Bill: Tell me Ben, when was the modern thermometer invented?
Ben: It was invented by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit in 1714.
Bill: So we only have accurate temperature records from 1741?
Ben: Yes.
Bill: Even so we don’t really know how accurate early temperature records are?
Ben: Not really – we can’t be sure how well they were calibrated or sited.
Bill: So about three hundred years at best.
Ben: No - more like a hundred years for global temperatures – if that.
Bill: And there are still problems with early records – coverage and so on.
Ben: Yes. It gets better, the nearer we are to the present.
Bill: Yet climate cycles can be much longer than a hundred years.
Ben: Yes they can. Ice age cycles are tens of thousands of years long.
Bill: And satellite measurements are even more recent than thermometer records.
Ben: Just over thirty years – yes.
Bill: So why are we so worried about climate change?
Ben: Well the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented.
Bill: You mean there has never been so much CO2 in the atmosphere?
Ben: No - CO2 levels have been far higher in the past.
Bill: So what’s the issue?
Ben: Well models tell us there may be an issue.
Bill: Models?
Ben: Computer models.
Bill: Ah.
Ben: They predict much higher global temperatures if CO2 levels continue to rise.
Bill: If CO2 rises to a level it hasn’t ever reached in the past?
Ben: No - not that high.
Bill: We’re not talking unprecedented CO2 levels then?
Ben: No.
Bill: So do climate models make accurate predictions?
Ben: No, but they model the past reasonably well.
Bill: Does that tell us anything useful?
Ben: No.
Bill: And they still can’t predict the future?
Ben: No.

And so on and so on. There is no CO2 climate theory - it’s all dishonest hype centred on computer models and politics. It cannot be promoted within reasonable bounds of scientific discourse because it just falls apart - there is nothing substantive to say.

It falls apart if Ben is honest, so Ben has to be dishonest, evasive or aggressive and that's what many non-scientists pick up on.


Angus Dei said...

Load of old flob-a-dob then:)

Angus Dei said...

Sorry-couldn't resist it.....

Demetrius said...

According to one item I saw, the Voyager now at the threshold of our solar system has noted sharp changes in the solar particles and magnetic fields out there. So what is the sun up to? What if the earth's magnetic field changes or we get a bit of a twitch in the rotation? Or a big big volcano goes up? I think we should be told.

A K Haart said...

Angus - yes its flob-a-dob and maybe a touch of blob-a-lob if anyone asks awkward questions (:

Demetrius - yes, I have a feeling that the sun's activities are where climate science funding should go.

Climate models are a waste of time and money - we need to understand the sun and the physics first and there is much that we don't know.

As you say, we need to understand volcanic activity too - far more dangerous that a bit of CO2.

James Higham said...

Good to see your TV watching is of quality, AKH. Little Weed was my fave.

A K Haart said...

James - but who did Weed favour, Bill or Ben?