The Climate Elusion

Some early morning realization here…

What Steven Goddard, suyts, WUWT, the Bish, McI and many others are writing about (and myself at times during the years) is not so much what climate science should be and actually isn’t. Climate science is obviously being done somewhere else. You need time, money, political support, access to mainstream media, and much more, in order to do public health policy-affecting climate science.

They/we are describing the elusion that has taken over much of what passes as climate science.

It was surface temps before it was heat hiding in the deep oceans. It was decreasing snow before it was increasing snow. It was ice extent before it was ice volume. Etc etc. Whatever happens, there is always a new story devised/concocted to “explain” that whatever is happening is wholly compatible with AGW and especially with the “it’s worse than we thought” meme.

And sadly that’s all true. Whatever happens _is_ wholly compatible with AGW. We all know that there is no possible observation that would disprove the idea that the climate is changing for the worse (if anybody knows of of any, please do tell). This has made the whole enterprise extremely foggy, and constantly bordering between science and faith.

We have no way to tell what is scientifically plausible to think about future climates.

6 Replies to “The Climate Elusion”

  1. Omn, I agree. We write about what some try to pass off as climate science. Sure, as nigelf says, some are doing climate science. But, that’s a small minority of the information we process. For the most part, we play “whack-a-mole”, as you describe. That said, I think what we do is collectively important. Of course, there are many, many more people to include.

    I ponder this stuff sometimes. You mention some of the things which are or were certain signs of climate change. You ever wonder what the odds are? Surface temps were the metric ….. until they stopped rising. Snow was on the decline a few years back, (depending on start dates and seasons) but, then it started to increase. Global ice extent is pretty much the same story. If you go back to about 2005 and check ACE values, you’d swear you were seeing a hockey stick in the making.

    At any rate, yeh, I certainly have no idea what is scientifically plausible in regards to our future climate, nor do I believe anyone else does, either.

  2. More excuses than the Monty Python Cheese Shop sketch, wherein the shopkeeper gave a fresh excuse for not having each cheese requested, rather than admitting that he had no cheese at all.
    The IPCC and Co will continue to come up with fresh excuses, rather than admit they are wrong.
    By equating climate change with man-made climate change, they exclude the sun as a factor, which will eventually condemn them to well-deserved irrelevance.

  3. Actually we do Omnologos. Follow those who’s livelihoods don’t depend on constant warming in the decades ahead. Follow those that place scientific integrity above politics and activism. Singer, Ball, Lindzen, Abdussamatov. There you will find something closer to the truth about what lies in store for humanity as far as the climate is concerned.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.