What are the sceptic aims?

“to encourage the best quality science and engineering assessment of the impact of human activity on the climate, help determine and assess the impact of any changes to our economies, society & environment and to assist governments to develop the most appropriate policy recommendations”.

After posting this comment as the suggested aims of sceptic, I got a detailed reply from Derek Alker which highlighted some deficiencies  but also suggested it might make an interesting conversation. So, I’m posting this as an article in its own right.

This in particular was a very good point:

“Err, humans are having a discernible effect?

“the best quality science and engineering assessment of the impact of human activity on the climate”

Is there a bias in the statement? An assumed guilt?”

I think Derek is very right and yes! There should not be any implied guilt in our aims. Indeed as scientists or engineers using science, we should not attempt to attribute blame. But we do know that CO2 has been rising and we generally accept that AT LEAST IN PART, there is some human causation.

When writing the phrase:

“help determine and assess the impact of any changes”

I was originally thinking that the aim should be a balance between science and the economy, so the aim was “impact on the economy” of any policy. In other words, the questions of science should not be divorced from the questions of the economic input. Yes, if nothing else were effected, I doubt anyone would disagree with reducing fossil fuel use, but it just isn’t that simple.

It clearly is a difficult issue. I was also struck by this comment:

“First natural variations and what the system actually is need to be fathomed.”

Again, I had missed a key objective – of course natural variation is important, probability more important that CO2. So, we must not only look to understand CO2, but also natural variation.

Next Derek introduced feedbacks.

We are a long way off at present….. For instance water / water vapour is plainly THE and dominant negative feedback within earth’s climate system. As the current paradigm is totally based upon water vapour being a positive feedback, there has to be a root and branch reform before we can even begin to try to unravel natural variations of earth’s climate system. That is before we even begin to try to see IF we have or are having an affect….

This raises a question of how detailed our aims are. Understanding feedbacks is quite a key point and distinct from CO2 warming so is this a fundamental aim?

The rest of the post was even more detailed, but it represents what I termed “wanting our view heard and asking the climate scientists to listen”. The specifics are not so important as to whether we want our views heard or whether we want our views to be part of a bigger debate and for the best ideas to come out of the whole “melting pot”.

BTW – I posted this on the GWS thread that I am still developing yesterday, it may help to illustrate how far we are from reality, and therefore any useful work at all.

Excerpt
This is the logical failure plainly described, Archer states if Ta is not 2Ta then there is no greenhouse effect.
Ta has already been described by him as
sunlight in (240W/m2) = Tg (240W/m2) = Ta (240W/m2).
But for there to be a greenhouse effect there must be 2Ta, and Tg must equal 2Ta (480W/m2).
To do this atmospheric back radiation is counted BEFORE the atmosphere is warmed by Tg. This is how the type 3 model creates 240W/m2 of energy.

Greenhouse effect “theory” model type 3) Four arrows. Arrow 2 = 480W/m2
David Archer has shown above why the diagram should be read as arrow 1, arrow 4, arrow 2, and arrow 3. Plainly it is false logic.
In this model the atmosphere is depicted as having been warmed to 480W/m2, ie, 30C, by earth’s surface which is according to the “theory” on average 30C.

In fact, this model type is a completely different type of model, it depicts energy flows or fluxes, not heat flows. This sounds a trivial difference, but it is not.
An energy flow is not necessarily a certain temperature, nor does it necessarily indicate a certain temperature.
Energy is the ability to do work, whereas heat is only one of the ways by which energy can be moved around.

This last section is a particular view which Derek wants to be listened to. But is this a general aims of sceptics? Do we even have “general aims”?

I’m not sure, which is why I’ve asked this question. Please do comment.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to What are the sceptic aims?

  1. Derek Alker says:

    I hope you are ready for the storm Mike… LOL
    I will say a few things though, all intended to be helpful.

    Mike writes –
    “Do we even have “general aims”?”

    Well, a false paradigm is not a good starting point to try to study and understand earth’s climate system from. So, the recent CO2 / GH “theory” based paradigm MUST be questioned. It has been, and it has failed such questioning. It is time more realized this, and actually accepted the fact GH is a failed hypothesis, whichever type one looks at.

    Would we study the globe from the understanding the earth is flat? No. Wrong paradigm, wrong perspective, that could only lead to ridiculous answers.

    Mike writes –
    “the best quality science and engineering assessment of the impact of human activity on the climate”

    Errr, do you realize you are, as near as dam it, quoting the reasoning given for setting up the IPCC?

    Mike writes –
    “But we do know that CO2 has been rising and we generally accept that AT LEAST IN PART, there is some human causation.”

    Errr, have you looked at Ernst Beck’s works? A completely different picture than Keeling / Mauna Loa Observatory paints.

    Joe Olsen has also raised the obvious point that earth’s climate system is NOT a closed system. There is a source, earth’s hot core, a residue in the atmosphere, far more in the oceans, and even more in various deposits below ground and ocean, and there are losses to space. IF we have had an affect upon global CO2 levels it is also certainly negligible, AND the natural sinks and sources have far more capacity than they need to swallow wholesale all human activity. So, we may not have had an effect, or affect at all to speak of.

    We need to completely revise how we look at the natural, complex and robust climate system of earth, and the natural sciences / global metrics that have been so influenced by the CO2 / GH “theory” based (false) paradigm.

    The current two sides (allowed “extremes”) of the climate debate, CO2 has a big effect, and CO2 has little effect, are the artificial “academic” limits to the debate. These are what will crumble, because they are there merely to protect, and hide the fact of, a false paradigm.
    In the end it is all that simple.

    So much will fall with “greenhouse”. It will be the biggest social and economic train wreck in human history, I have no doubt about that. In this respect I often think, get out now, the messengers will be hung, drawn and quartered to save the paradigm, at least in the short term.

    • The hypothesis of CO2 warming fails in practice – there’s good reason to think CO2 will cause some warming, but that fact has not helped predict climate.

      However, we do know we impact the climate. Let’s pick an uncontentious example: chopping down trees changes the rate of evaporation which has a measurable impact on the local climate.

      “Errr, do you realize you are, as near as dam it, quoting the reasoning given for setting up the IPCC?” …. I would strongly doubt they have a clue that there are engineers. I strongly doubt the IPCC even appreciate that the world economy would grind to a halt without fossil fuel. So, this is real science – not theories of people in ivory towers, but the real science of a real world which has to operate within a real economy.

      We need to completely revise how we look at the natural, complex and robust climate system of earth, and the natural sciences / global metrics that have been so influenced by the CO2 / GH “theory” based (false) paradigm.

      Yes, we have been up against closed minds. However, we also need to be aware that whilst “considering all possibilities”, we don’t forget that government need specific actionable advice (based on the real world and not the pre-conceptions of the ivory tower)

  2. nollyprott says:

    There would appear to be strong historic lessons regarding the Co2 Scam and comparing the Cholera epidemics in London during the ” great stink ” which closed parliament as the Thames was so polluted ! Co2 warming like the ” Miasma ” was the same with the London Cholera epidemics in the 19th Century. It was the contaminated water supply all along, not foul smells as thought by the government experts. At least the top guy in question had the honour to admit that he had been wrong and everything he had believed was based on a falsehood !

  3. Derek, perhaps a simpler question is this is our fundamental aim “the good of humanity”, is it “to be right” or is it e.g. “knowledge”.

    Are you a sceptic because you think this is an important area which the current approach is harmful in some way. Do you just think you are right and they are wrong. Or are you on a quest for knowledge – and just don’t like the poor quality stuff on this subject.

  4. Michelle McGivern says:

    Mike, I think most of us (unpaid) sceptics have a common aim of “knowledge for the good of humanity”. The fact that our governments are implementing policies which are not only harmful to much of humanity but also harmful to the environment should be of concern to all.
    I think Derek will agree that many of us became interested in the “climate debate” through being led to believe that mankind is destroying our beautiful planet and wanting to know how to prevent such a thing. In doing so, we discovered that much of the science is actually nothing more than opinion with little or no empirical evidence to back it up.
    We sceptics are entirely right to question the experts. After all, our survival depends on gaining as much “knowledge” as possible about our environment.

    • Knowledge for the good of humanity puts it very well.

      And yes – I started by being concerned – indeed, my first real foray came in trying to work out how much the climate would warm when all the fossil fuel was burnt up. I then found two entirely contradictory scares: fossil fuel is running out versus there is so much fossil fuel we can keep increasing consumption forever.

      The unpaid part is particularly ridiculous. One would have thought that if someone thinks a subject is important enough to give your own time without any pay at all, that government would pay you much more attention than anyone who is paid and clearly has a bias. In contrast, governments seem to prefer paid lobbyists to unpaid ones.

      • Derek Alker says:

        I think Michelle has said most of what I would say. I will state though that it was David Attenborough who got me alarmed / interested in climate. Many years back now he appealed to us all to join in the distributed computing climate model crunching, because the scientists needed help in working out how we were damaging the planet, and what we needed to do to try to mitigate / prevent further damage. I took it all at face value, I was alarmed. I knew nothing of computers / the internet / forums / distributed computing. So. I joined the BBC forum set up specifically to help Climate Predictions Dot Net CPDN. I joined Team Scotland. All was well, I learned much. Then one day I asked why did I not feel warmer when a cloud went over head due to the increased back radiation. ALL HELL BROKE LOSE. People who had been my friends online, my comrades, my teachers, my helpers, all turned….. Being me, their reactions and answers left me with more questions, which I asked. Things just got worse and worse. In the end I was politely asked to leave the Team Scotland home forum. So I did without fuss.
        http://www.scottishwebcamslive.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=22&sid=071515b7799488ce14db9e22fc46d0fc
        From there I found the GWS forum then run by Steve Lemaster. He later gave it to Sunsettommy, who has recently given the forum to me.
        http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/index.php

        It was the scare about the gulf stream collapsing that the BBC gave such high lighted coverage of which did it for me. Sunsettommy at the GWS forum showed me some information and links that showed it up for what it was. I realised sometimes the paradigm is wrong in a very simple manner, and that means you will never see the situation for what it is. The episode had a profound effect upon me, it changed my view of the world. May be it was a case of timing and several things coming together at the same time, but boy did things change for me.
        I am still very found of the plots at the start of this thread, they have a significance for me which is difficult to convey.
        http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1108.html

        All the above though pails into not much at all, because what really changed my view of everything was that Alan Siddons spotted my pdf,
        http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-609.html
        and from that he invited me into the Slayers. Being in the Slayers changed my understanding of so much it is difficult to know where one would start….

        Oh the irony, how little I knew and still how little I now know….

        Whilst the above was happening I was also invited to and joined the Yahoo Climate Sceptics group. So many names, all so well known and me…. Out of my depth, sure, but what an experience and I learned so much, especially from some of the greats to my mind like Dr. Richard S Courtney. For example, the scientific method,
        http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2072.html
        well except the wrong interpretation of Popper by him, but, I let that pass. Even though it recently came back to haunt me…

        In the end mine has been an amazing journey, from left wing and alarmed to scientifically aware, libertarian layman, and researcher. I write my pdfs as voyages of discovery for myself, they never end up what I thought they would be in the first place. I simply post them on the net in the hope they may help others.

        In the end my aim is to understand earth’s climate system better. However, along the way it has become apparent that the current paradigm in the science is false, and it is deliberately so. This appears to be for UN Agenda 21. I do not want to become involved in politics, but, I feel I have a duty to all (for the greater good) to explain where I can, what I know is wrong in a way most can hopefully understand. I can not stop what is going on, but I can try to make more aware.

  5. Derek Alker says:

    Says it all…
    Academics “Prove” It’s Okay To Lie About Climate Change
    Kevin Glass | Feb 26, 2014
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2014/02/26/academics-prove-its-okay-to-lie-about-climate-change-n1800544
    “But it’s out there: there are academics who so vehemently believe that the urgency of action on climate change is so great that it justifies mass deception and lying in order to win, and are prepared to go to complex theoretical proofs in order to “prove” it.”

    • The internet is both enabling us to see these extreme views that seem to be so prevalent in academia, and also I think will be the death of these extreme views as the previous “public servant”, anti-market concepts are torn to shreds as academics begin to compete for students on line.

Leave a Reply