Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel

[Monte_RCMS]

I attended a lecture recently on the acidification of the oceans at Scripps Institute or Oceanography. Scripps is among a handful of the best scientific oceanographic in the world. The lecturer put up a graph showing average temperatures and atmospheric products which are known to cause “global warming”. The graph was obtained from ice core evidence from Antarctica, tree ring evidence, sedimentary evidence, and so on. I could be wrong about the span, but I think it was about 100,000 years, with the span of the past 10,000 years being considered to have enough sources to be very accurate.

The correlation between these gases associated with industrial activity based on the consumption of fossil fuels is well established. The trend in the climate associated with the industrial revolution which started around 1900 is clear.

The up side of cleaning things up is that we will have a healthier and cleaner world. So, even people who disagree with science will still be healthier and have a nice planet to live on.

The down side is that if science if correct, that we will have some terrible problems with many people suffering. Carbon is sequestered very slowly compared to how fast we are releasing it from the ground. Whatever point we decide to stop polluting (if we do), then will leave us in a state where the environment continues to worsen for some time, and then stabilize. The carbon products which are causing the problem will remain in the atmosphere and the oceans for many thousands of years. This will not be like turning off a switch.

Anyone interested in the topic might want to look into the acidification of the oceans. There is accumulating evidence that the oceans are dying rapidly as a result of interaction at the surface with the carbon products in the atmosphere. This may be a bigger problem than the climactic problems which may be coming in the near future.

Do some research: that there are TWO groups using the Scripps / Woods Hole name. One is very scientific; the other … not so much.

Please check it out.

Pollution abatement has been around since the early 1900’s when electric locomotives began to replace coal-fired steam locomotives. Pollution peaked around 1967 and has been decreasing continuously ever since. Nothing to do with the EPA.

Here is something I found on the internet:

There have been a variety of “gas bubbles” in Africa [killed a lot of people], and probably elsewhere as well.

The oceans have a lot of methane; we just need to figure out how to capture it.

Some as hydrides and some as suspended gas.

When a “gas bubble” in the ocean suddenly surfaces, it causes the density of the ocean to decrease and if a ship is passing by, it will spontaneously and instantly sink.

This planet is NOT a big blue marble. It is essentially a volcano with some people on the surface … a red hot ball of molten rock 7000 miles in diameter with a temperature of several thousand degrees, spinning at 1000 mph measured at the equator. The molten rock is covered by a paper thin layer of solid room temperature material … about 30 miles thick and the surface layer has major cracks and is moving constantly … allowing the molten rock to seep to the surface and where it seeps we can see and sample and measure and analyze the liquids and gases that emerge. Where they are underwater, they are called “black smokers” and they are so hot they can melt the submarines sent down to investigate and explore.

The number of volcanos is not known; the estimates are as high as 100,000 but the number is constantly revised. Most are underwater. Some are very strange, such as one very near the South Pole, Mt. Erebus, which is as far as we know, the only continuous caldera volcano, which each day spews hundreds of tons of chlorine and other basic chemicals high into the atmosphere.

At the same time, this planet is bombarded by solar explosions with electrically charged particles of all kinds, many or most of which are fatal to life. However, this planet also has a magnetic field that deflects the charged particles to the north and south magnetic poles; however, every 25000 years or so [it varies] the magnetic poles swap polarity; this is documented in solidified volcanic layers found in places such as Hawaii which has a very long historical/geological record and is easily accessible and an easily studied set of solidified volcanic lava fields.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It was too long to fit, so I had to cut it, but it addresses some of your questions, so here is the rest of it:

The interactions between the sun’s heating and bombardments and cosmic rays and the Earth’s atmosphere causes strange and massive changes to the atmosphere including: changes to density, dramatic expansion of the extent of the stratosphere, the Aurora Borealis, and seasonal changes to the ozone layer, more in some places than others, which is measured in the number of molecules per cubic mile. The ozone layer is densest at the north and south poles and thinnest at the equator and also changes dramatically with the seasons, being twice as dense in Spring as it is dense in late Fall. North and South polar regions are, of course, somewhat opposite in seasonality … but partly because the planet maintains a more or less constant orientation with respect to the sun even though it is tilted. [Source: Dobson, Exploring the Atmosphere … it has not been revised since his death in 1976,]

This planet has a corrosive atmosphere being 20% oxygen; with about 80% nitrogen and a tiny trace amount of other gases. Despite being hit by the solar bombardment and being hit by cosmic rays and being hit by massive meteors that have radically changed the surface, the gaseous atmosphere persists. There are dissolved gases in the oceans that occupy the largest part of the surface; and those gases migrate back and forth to the atmosphere constantly. The oceans are only on average about 4 miles deep; the gaseous atmosphere is only about ten miles thick, although humans must bring artificial supplies of air/oxygen if they ascend more than about five miles, and there are still measurable amounts of air molecules even one hundred miles above the surface.

Twelve men have walked on our moon. And others were supposed to go there but our Congress, after all the hardware and training had been built, accomplished, and paid for, cancelled the last three missions which were the science missions. Apollo 18, 19, and 20. People still want to return to the moon to study what it has to show us including helium-3. They would even like to build a habitat there to allow long term study.

Two men have traveled to the deepest part of the earth’s ocean … seven miles deep … and they were so terrified by the harsh conditions that they returned to the surface after only twenty minutes and they had no desire to return to study anything.

We still have a lot to learn about our planet Earth, but we do know that it is an exceptionally harsh environment, worthy of further study, but it is not something that we humans have to worry about protecting.

This planet is no more delicate than any other volcano.

A volcano does not need to be “saved”.

Nor does the Earth need to be saved.

No one can or needs to save the planet any more than they can or need to save a volcano.

If we can harvest and develop any kind of energy from this volcanic planet, then we should do it.

This little essay was from memory but gives you a place to start looking things up.

And if your kids complain about being bored, then have them start updating Dobson’s book. We could use a set of data tables as well as a set of annual variation curves for Figure 6.2 [same figure number in both the 1963 and 1968 editions] for the South Latitudes as well as data updates. Or pay them to read the work of Gordon Gribble on naturally-occurring organohalogens. No color graphics, please; they only detract from the pure data analysis. Pretty pictures do not enhance understanding. What we need are expanded data and graphs.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Benefits and liabilities of a carbon tax:

Carbon taxes would damage Canada’s economy
Published Friday April 29th, 2011

Just received from a friend: Ian L. McQueen

An election is coming Monday in Canada ]. The big question: “Who should I vote for?”

In a more perfect world, the question could be answered with: “Who will do the most good?” But in our present world, it might be wiser to ask: “Who will do the least harm?”

In the party platforms and rhetoric of the Liberals, NDP, and Greens is some form of “carbon tax.” That sets off alarms bells in my mind.

Whether it is called a carbon tax, cap-and-trade, or some other green-tinted name, any kind of priced restriction on our emissions of carbon dioxide gas would push up the cost of everything. And it would accomplish nothing.

Nothing? There is zero scientific proof that more carbon dioxide will have any appreciable effect on temperature. None. Endless repetition of a groundless assertion (like “climate crisis”) does not make it any more correct. Belief in the existence of Prester John continued for six centuries, and the church-backed consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.

The world has warmed, by the way. All of about 0.7C since the early 1800s. That ended the Little Ice Age. Quite naturally. The world has also cooled. Temperature cycles up and down. At this moment, global cooling may be in the cards.

What are the facts about carbon dioxide? It is a colorless, harmless, gas. Plant food. No CO2 means no plants and no us. Definitely not “pollution.” There is no need to limit its emission.

The belief in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming is no better founded than common gossip. Who promotes this belief? Look closely.

The warmists are mostly economists, sociologists, political columnists, and others with negligible scientific knowledge. (I think I can include most “environmentalists” among the science-challenged.) Almost no one with engineering or other scientific knowledge supports it. The warmists are assumerists - they assume that the relationship between CO2 and temperature has already been shown and that they need only suggest remedies for the (supposed) problem.

Warmist True Believers constantly have their beliefs reinforced by activists and by media that just repeat what they are told without ever checking if it is true. If they did, they would find a CO2 scare story built on inaccurate temperatures, “adjusted” data, and inadequate computer “models.” The result is then used by the IPCC and quoted as gospel. Anyone who investigates finds that the IPCC and other sources of information based on it are magnificent edifices built on quicksand. Their structure, purpose, and results are easily seen to be flawed from start to finish. They have become a laughingstock. That’s not what many serious people want to hear, but it is the truth nonetheless.

In Australia a sharp TV interviewer forced Tim Flannery, the Australian global warming poster-boy and Climate Commissioner, to admit that ceasing all CO2 emissions would have no measurable impact on temperature for 1,000 years, while Jill Duggan, the EC’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change, was forced to say that no one had ever determined how much it would cost to implement CO2 cuts nor what the supposed benefit would be.

Getting back to voting, how about the Conservatives? Yes, they also have some form of carbon tax in their platform, but they have done virtually nothing to impose it. Stephen Harper has stated clearly that he is against CO2 restrictions, and we can only hope that his party’s actions will continue to be based on his misgivings.

Before Mr. Harper, the Chrétien Liberals had signed the Kyoto Accord, which called on Canada to reduce its “greenhouse gas” emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. It will never happen.

Even more ridiculous is the call for an 80 per cent reduction by 2050.

Our economy is built on affordable energy, largely from carbon-based fuels that produce CO2 when burned. It is not a problem, there is no coming “climate crisis,” and we do not need to worry about “greenhouse gases.”

This topic of reducing CO2 emissions is of crucial interest, for it is a potentially huge expense to all of us. And for nothing. Who wants to pay billions and billions of dollars more for food, fuel, travel… just to support a myth?

I would happily debate anyone who asserts that we are facing a climate crisis (the favorite phrase these days).

So, how to vote? I will choose the Conservative candidate, but I will be hoping for another minority government. That would control the excesses of the Harper regime while preventing the green mischief threatened by the others.

Ian L. McQueen of the Climate Truth Initiative (imcqueen@nbnet.nb.ca) has BSc and MEngSc degrees in chemical engineering and has spent well over 5000 hours researching “climate.” He encourages discussion and debate on the subject.

 

[kimmielittle]

Does anyone have the link to the first thread please?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Absolutely, but that isn’t what’s been done.

BUT “we”, the one’s looking for “objectivity in science”, are not at fault.

Kimmie, all true scientists look for objectivity in science. If we didn’t we wouldn’t be true scientists. We follow scientific method. That is what keeps us objective. Now what happens to the data, findings, and discussions we produce is not under our control.

It is not a we/them dichotomy. Truth cannot contradict truth (someone way high up in the hierarchy of the Church said that. )

God’s peace to you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Benefits and liabilities of a carbon tax:

Nothing? There is zero scientific proof that more carbon dioxide will have any appreciable effect on temperature. None. Endless repetition of a groundless assertion (like “climate crisis”) does not make it any more correct. Belief in the existence of Prester John continued for six centuries, and the church-backed consensus was that the sun revolved around the earth.

If I have to repeat it a million times I will: There is no proof in scientific method. That does not mean there are no significant findings. I hope you learn to understand the difference.

 

[LittleSoldier]

“Cons.” “Anti-choicers.” “Greenies.” “Enviros.” And now we have “Warmists.” Just another meaningless somewhat insulting name that attempts to pigeon-hole human beings.

I had hoped we were done with that.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Ian L. McQueen of the Climate Truth Initiative (imcqueen@nbnet.nb.ca) has BSc and MEngSc degrees in chemical engineering and has spent well over 5000 hours researching “climate.” He encourages discussion and debate on the subject.

Why? It appears that you have already made up your mind and do not wish to discuss or debate. Hasn’t he? If it’s so clear that AGW does not exist then why the need for discussion and debate?

 

[vz71]

If it’s so clear that AGW does not exist then why the need for discussion and debate?

Debate is necessary to solidify the argument.
People need to hear the arguments and the facts that prove them or disprove them.
There are always going to be those that believe it simply a company line.
But the vast majority of people will willingly accept truth when it is provided them.
The more facts that are out, the better.

 

[JMartyr73340]

There is a video on Youtube featuring Lord Chirstopher Mockton. What he has to say about climate change is very interesting:

youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Science is based on fact, not on argumentation and discussion and debate and logic.

You can be brilliant and witty in debate, but that is not going to prove anything in science.

To get the facts, you need to do a LOT of fieldwork.

And you have to make EVERY aspect of your fieldwork public … everybody must be convinced utterly, that you are not faking your fieldwork.

The problem with fieldwork is that “stuff” happens and the data gets corrupted.

[Famous fieldwork expression: "I had NO IDEA that … " … fill in your own sentence completion. And then these men and women NEVER venture out into the field AGAIN, preferring to remain in their cubicles forever, where … DIRECT QUOTE … “all the action is”. No joke.]

Field work is grueling and expensive.

I mean THE pioneer in field work was Alfred Wegener and look what happened to him:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Wegener

His place of burial is “unknown” … and his theory turned out to be RIGHT!

nndb.com/people/663/000213024/

So if you want to advance science, you need to emulate Wegener.

You do an ice core and something happens so that the gases trapped inside are accidentally vented … released to the atmosphere. The whole experiment immediately becomes ONE colossal failure. A million dollars and exhausting -50º temps and an exhausted frostbitten crew … and it’s all down the drain. You will never get another nickel of funding. You might as well just apply to Mickey D’s as long as they don’t find out that you screwed up your last job.

So, what do you do?

You … lie.

Mortal sin!!!

But, the grant money pours in.

You go to Antarctica. Very expensive trip. And you just happen to omit and not report and not show photos of Mount Erebus spewing chlorine up … from 15,000 feet where the caldera is up, up, up, into the alleged ozone hole … and blame it all on some woman in Cleveland who uses hairspray. [Ever notice that hairspray from Cleveland ONLY migrates to the South Pole and not to the North Pole?]

Or you get the Air Force to donate a U-2, also known as an ER-2 or some darned thing … you want EXPENSIVE??? And they fly it over the South Pole … allegedly collecting data … [expensive!!!] … but the detailed flight logs are never released. why not? maybe the plane didn’t have the range or maybe the plane is so fragile … VERY lightly built that the “g” forces from the cyclonic winds were too high … we don’t know … the data collection info was never released!!!

So far, we know this … carbon dioxide concentration has increased continuously in a straight line upwards. Temperature anomaly has gone up and down and up and level … NOT matching the carbon dioxide concentration … thereby totally invalidating the computer and math models.

We also know that the biggest source of carbon dioxide BY FAR is the ocean.

Try a new theory.

Not cherry picking the data to make the data fit with the theory.

AND, we now have recent data on cosmic rays … looks more and more like global warming or cooling is natural.

And, now, since this is a social thingee thread, Spain has just thrown in the towel on green stuff:

powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/2411735859/articles/powergenworldwide/renewables/solar/2011/05/spain-suspends_subsidies.html

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Gotta read this.

So, the Environmentalists were unanimous in their belief … religion, anyone? … that carbon dioxide would put NYC underwater by 2000 and raise temperatures by 7 degrees.

By the year 2000 …

                      ... how real has this been????

This article is an absolute must read.

Global warming definitely going to cause total world chaos in 30 years … without question.

articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-02/news/27068918_1_nixon-presidential-library-global-warming-carbon-dioxide

Excerpt:

Declassified documents show Nixon warned of global warning 30 years ago
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, July 02, 2010
YORBA LINDA, Calif. - Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon’s inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago.

Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.

**There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

“This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.

Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."**

Moynihan was Nixon’s counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 - when Nixon began his presidency - to December 1970. He later served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before New York voters elected him to the Senate.

Moynihan advised Nixon to monitor carbon dioxide levels in 1969 memo. (Duprey/News)

Moynihan received a response in a January 26, 1970 memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at.

“The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between,” he wrote. “One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise.”

Heffner wrote that he would ask the Environmental Science Services Administration to look further into the issue.

Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and had an interest in the environment. In one memo, Moynihan noted his approval of the first Earth Day, to be held April 22, 1970.

“Clearly this is an opportunity to get the President usefully and positively involved with a large student movement,” he wrote to John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s adviser on domestic affairs.

Moynihan’s memo was among 100,000 documents released Friday.

RELATED VIDEO

 

[Ender]

Gotta read this…

Monte: You’re posting some fun and interesting stuff; I’ve been enjoying it.

Ender

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Yep,

When you read that story about the release from the Nixon papers, it becomes very apparent that the entire basis for the formation of the EPA was based on totally bogus grounds.

Based on that memo, the EPA should be disbanded immediately … if possible, even retroactively by 40 years!

The EPA is built on a foundation of falsehoods and false beliefs.

And we have been laboring under the EPA’s nonsense and pointless burdens for nearly half a century.

 

[kimmielittle]

Yep,

When you read that story about the release from the Nixon papers, it becomes very apparent that the entire basis for the formation of the EPA was based on totally bogus grounds.

Based on that memo, the EPA should be disbanded immediately … if possible, even retroactively by 40 years!

The EPA is built on a foundation of falsehoods and false beliefs.

And we have been laboring under the EPA’s nonsense and pointless burdens for nearly half a century.

 

[JasonSB]

In the previous thread, Edward H suggested:

The Church should perhaps fund some carefully monitored research in Catholic universities, and this might help apostolate among all scientists, to see truth being pursued with great and self-less ardor, done with charity and humility.

I responded with a prediction:

I think it would be great if the Church did that (doesn’t it already?), but I have no doubt that if the Church were to announce findings consistent with the current findings it wouldn’t convince those who are determined not to accept the truth. They would still find a way to argue that the Pope is saying “black” when he says “white” and still find a way to smear the scientists with no evidence that their work is actually wrong.

Two weeks ago the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences released a report on a workshop they conducted in relation to the observed retreat of mountain glaciers, its causes, and consesequences. The workshop consisted of glaciologists, climate scientists, meteorologists, hydrologists, physicists, chemists, mountaineers, and lawyers.

The report on their conclusions begins with a declaration:

We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, and by changes in forests, wetlands, grasslands, and other land uses. We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.

We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us. The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.

In response to the claim that today’s climate change is entirely natural and not anthropogenic, the report states:

The primary triggers for ice ages and inter-glacials are well understood to be changes in the astronomical parameters related to the motion of our planet within the solar system and natural feedback processes in the climate system. The time scales between these triggers are in the range of 10,000 years or longer. By contrast, the observed human-induced changes in carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and soot concentrations are taking place on 10-100 year timescales — at least a hundred times as fast. It is particularly worrying that this release of global warming agents is occurring during an interglacial period when the Earth was already at a natural temperature maximum.

The report also states:

Human-caused changes in the composition of the air and air quality result in more than 2 million premature deaths worldwide every year and threaten water and food security — especially among those “bottom 3 billion” people who are too poor to avail of the protections made possible by fossil fuel use and industrialization.

They urge societies to:

I. Reduce worldwide carbon dioxide emissions without delay, using all means possible to meet ambitious international global warming targets and ensure the long-term stability of the climate system.

II. Reduce the concentrations of warming air pollutants (dark soot, methane, lower atmosphere ozone, and hydrofluorocarbons) by as much as 50%.

III. Prepare to adapt to the climatic changes, both chronic and abrupt, that society will be unable to mitigate.

The cost of the three recommended measures pales in comparison to the price the world will pay if we fail to act now.

Of course, this is not a piece of the church’s key teachings and merely reflects the conclusions of the independent scientists involved, but it does raise the question — will the scientists selected by the Vatican to investigate this issue now be denigrated, too?

It will be interesting to see if my earlier prediction will be proven correct.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Gotta read this.

So, the Environmentalists were unanimous in their belief … religion, anyone? … that carbon dioxide would put NYC underwater by 2000 and raise temperatures by 7 degrees.

By the year 2000 …

                      ... how real has this been????

This article is an absolute must read.

Global warming definitely going to cause total world chaos in 30 years … without question.

articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-02/news/27068918_1_nixon-presidential-library-global-warming-carbon-dioxide

Excerpt:

Declassified documents show Nixon warned of global warning 30 years ago
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, July 02, 2010
YORBA LINDA, Calif. - Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon’s inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago.

Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.

There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

“This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.

Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."

Moynihan was Nixon’s counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 - when Nixon began his presidency - to December 1970. He later served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before New York voters elected him to the Senate.

Moynihan advised Nixon to monitor carbon dioxide levels in 1969 memo. (Duprey/News)

Moynihan received a response in a January 26, 1970 memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at.

“The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between,” he wrote. “One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise.”

Heffner wrote that he would ask the Environmental Science Services Administration to look further into the issue.

Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and had an interest in the environment. In one memo, Moynihan noted his approval of the first Earth Day, to be held April 22, 1970.

“Clearly this is an opportunity to get the President usefully and positively involved with a large student movement,” he wrote to John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s adviser on domestic affairs.

Moynihan’s memo was among 100,000 documents released Friday.

RELATED VIDEO

Somehow, this forecast of global warming proved out to be totally and completely false.

So, where does that leave the “other” forecasts?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Monte: You’re posting some fun and interesting stuff; I’ve been enjoying it.

Ender

youtube.com/watch?v=30IWpc7qZig

 

[JasonSB]

Somehow, this forecast of global warming proved out to be totally and completely false.

So, where does that leave the “other” forecasts?

Are you suggesting that because a sociologist made an inaccurate forecast of what could happen in 1969, that somehow reflects on the validity of any other forecast made by anybody ever since?

Why not simply assess the actual forecasts made since then by actual climate scientists rather than try to cast doubt by association? Why not hoist them with their own petards?

Here’s a good one — Hansen’s 1988 model, used to make his famous 1988 forecasts, run on the actual emissions that have occurred since then*], together with a forecast based on Lindzen’s 1989 MIT talk:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen_vs_Lindzen_simple.png

Source: skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html

Now, one of these forecasts from the late 80s “proved out to be totally and completely false”, and I think it would be perfectly valid to ask whether the forecaster responsible has improved his methodology since then before taking anything he has to say now without a large grain of salt.

The other forecaster has shown that he knows what he’s talking about.

Guess which one “skeptics” pay more attention to?

*] Any climate forecast necessarily includes two forecasts.

The first is “What emissions are going to happen? When are volcanoes going to erupt?”. This is known as an emissions scenario, and depends on what people do as well as random events like volcanic eruptions.

The second is “How is my climate model going to react to those emissions?”

Back in 1988 Hansen had to guess what the emissions were going to be over the coming decades, so he came up with three scenarios that he thought would bracket the range of possible values. In hindsight, we can see that Scenario B was actually quite close, but not exact. The graph above was the result of driving his climate model with Scenario B adjusted to match the actual emissions so that the accuracy of the climate model is being judged, not the accuracy of Hansen’s predictions of human behaviour and volcanic eruptions.

If we do that we can see that Hansen’s 1988 model has a trend of 0.23 degrees C warming/decade since 1984 rather than the actual 0.20 degrees C warming/decade. (The link above has the Scenario A, B, and C forecasts as well for reference.)

His 1988 model’s accuracy was impressive considering that models from the mid-80s were relatively primitive by today’s standards:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Climatemodeldevelopment.jpg

(FAR = 1st IPCC Report (1990), SAR = 2nd IPCC report (1995), TAR = 3rd IPCC report (2001), AR4 = 4th IPCC Report (2007))

Meanwhile, you tried to discredit them all by referring to a forecast made before the mid-1970s models depicted above were even invented yet.

But regardless of Moynihan’s forecast’s accuracy and in spite of his lack of expertise in the field, I have to say that I’m impressed by his prescience. The fact that he recognised acid rain and the greenhouse effect as important issues way back then deserves credit. The point of research is to sort out what will happen from the set of things that could happen, and it seems that he may have had a part in instigating that research.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It has been demonstrated over and over that Hansen cherry picked his data and cooked the books by adjusting the data to suit his argument.

The fact is that the decision to form the EPA was based on false and erroneous information.

Legates addresses the specifics.

youtube.com/watch?v=30IWpc7qZig

I was at a more recent presentation that Legates made in which he went into huge detail about the absolute falsity of the claims that sea levels are rising.

It’s an hour all by itself. I’ve been looking for it on-line and will post it when I find it.