Global Warming/Climate Change- discussion from comments

In response to this post, Susan writes:

So a vast majority of the world's scientists are in a vast conspiracy to delude the public? The trends towards more extreme weather and associated phenomena are delusional? The Arctic and Greenland aren't melting? The American southwest isn't drying up? Bangladesh and Alaska's coast aren't flooding? People aren't dying?



This is just recycled talking points, taking science's uncertainty to prove it is uncertain (you also can't prove the sun will rise, but it does).



The computer we are all communicating on was created by scientists. That's an illusion too?



Science is a big debate, based on facts, observations, theories, and constant correction. Modeling is one of its tools, and a good one too.

You should read the original post and the linked article yourself to see how she missed the point, and here's some more interesting stuff.
There's this link folks ought to read, if they are the sorts of folks interested in reading both sides of what really is still, at best, an open question. Read the comments, too. Following are some excerpts from them.

Modeling is a useful tool, but it's limited by the quality of the data used to create the model, and the global warming scaremongers (who now wish global warming to be called climate change because their predictions on global warming failed), have fudged the math. See comment 25:

I have over 20 years of experience in a field in which modeling and simulation has been a key element of my work. I know how difficult it is to predict results when I have control of numerous elements of a real-world experience. From that knowledge and experience, it is laughable when the AGW proponents knowingly assert that their models (based upon average temperature measurements extrapolated from tree ring data) can predict a 0.6 degree C temperature rise in the next 20 years when they have no control over any of the variables in their models? Their models have been unable to predict what is happening, and we are supposed to destroy our economy based upon their predictions of what they assert will happen 20 to 50 years from now?
Being statist means never having to say you are sorry after you have been proven wrong

And this one by a forecaster and , linked and quoted in the post from which I am gleaning these interesting quotes:

The melting Arctic? Do you know we’ve only been monitoring the extent of Arctic ice via satellites since 1979? And while Arctic ice coverage has declined, it’s actually been rising since 2006. And have you heard Antarctic sea ice has increased by nearly 14% since 1979?

Back in 2001 the IPCC released a suite of computer model solutions depicting the future state of the atmosphere. These reports by the IPCC are used repeatedly to drive policy around the world. But, if you look at what’s happened since then, global temperatures are actually on a downward trend, whether you look at actual thermometer readings across the world or satellite-derived temperatures. This when the IPCC models were predicting continued warming.

How would you explain, or are you aware of, the Mann hockey stick curve that turns out not to be a hockey stick at all, and the series of errors made by Hanson? It didn't take a climatologist to debunk them (see comment 17):

Mann’s hockey stick was debunked because Mann didn’t know how to do Statistics and Math properly.

If you are doing science you explain why the skeptics are wrong. You don’t tell them to shut up because you are smarter, or lots of people agree with you.(comment # 17)

There needn't be a conspiracy to delude- scientists are human beings first. Research money ONLY follows those who toe the Al Gore line (and he's not a scientist, but somebody who stands to make a lot of money if he can get his scaremongering codified into public policy), and scientists follow the money just like most other human beings.

One thing I find amusing about one global-warming-but-now-let's-call-it-climate-change-and-pretend-we-always-have-supporters is how often they use the logical fallacy of appealing to authority by dismissing all sceptics who don't have a PhD in a climate related field, while accepting all the support and pronouncements from anybody who agrees with them, regardless of background (read: Al Gore).

Want to go down the list of how many “climate scientists” aren’t even climatologists? Start with Hansen. No field of study in climatology. He is an astrophysicist. Before there was “global warming” there was “global cooling” … from about 1945 till about 1975. He claimed then that fossil fuels were causing cooling. When temperatures warmed, he claimed fossil fuels are causing warming. Everyone that has seen the data knows that there has been no warming since 2000. There has been no sea level rise since 2006. North America has been experiencing about a -0.8 degree/decade DECLINE in temperatures over the past decade. Not talking about a one-year glitch here. The only data showing a rise are data that have had increasingly high “adjustments” applied over the years thereby biasing the “temperature” upwards. (comment 13)

And this fellow raises an interesting question:

The fact that got to me was that greenhouse gases have been twenty times higher than today in earth’s history. Scientists have reconstructed past GHG-levels (using polar ice samples) and temperatures using various surrogate measures. These studies show no correlation between GHG levels and climate changes.
If any, the cause and effect are reversed: temperatures go up and GHG then go up 900-1000 years later. Gore may even know this, so he uses a one hundred-thousand year interval in his graph for his speeches, which hides this fact between the lines. Maybe a reason why he refuses to debate this with anyone as well.
Solar activity is the main driver to climate in addition to numerous natural cycles that show inevitable and predictable oscillations over time. We are now in solar cycle 24, which is the lowest number of sun spots in a hundred years. Since the colder temperatures since 2006, which were preceded by flat temperatures from 1998-2006. It will get colder and not improve until 2030.
For all of the links and studies, please see several articles on my blog: http://www.mottsblog.blogspot.com.
Thanks.
Randy Mott (comment 29)

Familiar with Freeman Dyson? British-born American theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum field, and Global Warming sceptic. See Comment 32:

I once had someone tell me that Freeman Dyson did not have the scientific creds necessary to determine that the computer models of a natural system left so much out they were useless.
It’s an amazing thing when in order to uphold the fantasy of “consensus” someone like Freeman Dyson gets shown the door.

And see comment 35:
...the IPCC’s computer models, upon which ALL claims of anthropogenic global warming are based, ... have been proven in peer reviewed studies to be incapable of predicting anything close to current climate when fed known past climate quantities; ...the IPCC report’s summary ...was written by politicians, not scientists....

There is a political and economic agenda behind the global warming/(oops, we were wrong so let's pretend we've always called it Climate Change) indoctrination. Take off the blinders and read more on both sides of the debate.

I am in favor of reducing pollutants, of weaning ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, of clean air and water, of clean foods, of using renewable resources. Unlike Al Gore, we actually practice what we believe. We put all cork floors in our house, are working on a corn boiler for radiant heat floors, used design structures like shade trees, a hill blocking us from the northern winds, and use low tech foil window blocks to help keep cool in the summer.

We buy organic rice, oats, wheatberries, and legumes in 25 and 50 pound bags, using less packaging and waste and we make most foods from scratch, doing the same. We buy more things used than new, including birthday presents and other gifts- we shop more at thrift shops than at Walmart, Target, or the mall (combined). We were cloth diaperers when it wasn't trendy and cool. We're actually more green than most of the trendy 'greenies' we know. But we also believe in freedom, and we are very, very sceptical of the way the leftist politicians have co-opted 'science.'

See, for instance, comment 22:

The current AGW excuse is that we are in for a “short” period of global cooling due to (insert BS reason here) but in 10-15 years the CO2 elevation takes over again AND THEN YOU’LL ALL BE SORRY YOU DIDN’T LISTEN TO US! NYAH!. As has been pointed out many, many times “Global Warming” is religion, not science. Its strongest adherents are anti-technology, anti-Western philosophy Luddites who want to tear down “the Establishment” and re-order society to their liking. The fact is that if the atmosphere were a 100-story building the top 78 floors would be Nitrogen, the bottom 22 floors would be Oxygen, and there’d be a slip of paper on the lobby floor marked, “Man-made CO2″. There are lots of pollutants we need to stop spewing, yes. There are good reasons to stop burning hydrocarbons for fuel and switch to more environmentally-friendly fuel sources. Global Warming ain’t one of them. It’s being used to scare people into doing something stupid and counterproductive aka, “Cap and Trade”.
Cap and Trade is a TAX. It would be completely and utterly useless for its stated purpose because the 2/3rds of the world spewing most of the CO2 isn’t interested in committing economic suicide. It’s a huge tax that the political class hopes (against hope!) will enable them to continue borrowing and spending for one more generation, or at least until they are all safely retired or dead. Any money collected by it will not be used to reduce carbon emissions: it will be used to fund Porkulus-like spending programs to keep their base happy and voting for them.

Actually, we are just very, very sceptical of politicians, left and right. You should be, too.