02-04-23, 10:42 AM
From HERE
I’m not qualified at the statistics level to agree with or dispute Willis’s discussion above——but I do understand the scientific process well, and the politics of “climate change” even better.
Lord M’s contribution re the lengthening “pause” is highly relevant in the context of the general worldwide climate change discussion.
It is asserted that we must approach Zero Carbon soon or something terrible will happen. It is asserted that rising carbon dioxide levels are a powerful driver of climate, indeed talked about as if the only important driver.
CO2 levels continue to rise steadily. If global temps are not rising hand in hand, something other than CO2 must also be in play. Solar cycles, ocean currents, thunderstorms ….something.
But admitting something might work in a cooling direction such that continuously rising CO2 is not followed by continuously rising temperatures means that when temperatures are rising, maybe that other factor is the reason are rising and not CO2.
This is politically important.
CO2 was rising from 1950-1980, too. But temperatures were not, indeed maybe even falling.
CO2 was minimal in 1910-1940, but temps were rising.
This gross non-correlation is both scientifically and politically important.
The CO2-climate change argument is scientifically interesting. Exacting statistics are important for this.
But the ongoing disaster is political: the ongoing destruction of our economy in the war against carbon/based energy.
Lord Moncton’s “lengthening pause” will become scientifically interesting if it extends enough years to reach statistical significance as per Willis’s analysis.
But it is of immediate politically significance. There is a palpable apocalyptic hysteria surrounding the question of climate change. Any analysis based on data that tends to quiet the hysteria is important.
So, yes, Lord M’s observation is immediately important. And time will tell if scientifically important, in addition to politically important.
I’m not qualified at the statistics level to agree with or dispute Willis’s discussion above——but I do understand the scientific process well, and the politics of “climate change” even better.
Lord M’s contribution re the lengthening “pause” is highly relevant in the context of the general worldwide climate change discussion.
It is asserted that we must approach Zero Carbon soon or something terrible will happen. It is asserted that rising carbon dioxide levels are a powerful driver of climate, indeed talked about as if the only important driver.
CO2 levels continue to rise steadily. If global temps are not rising hand in hand, something other than CO2 must also be in play. Solar cycles, ocean currents, thunderstorms ….something.
But admitting something might work in a cooling direction such that continuously rising CO2 is not followed by continuously rising temperatures means that when temperatures are rising, maybe that other factor is the reason are rising and not CO2.
This is politically important.
CO2 was rising from 1950-1980, too. But temperatures were not, indeed maybe even falling.
CO2 was minimal in 1910-1940, but temps were rising.
This gross non-correlation is both scientifically and politically important.
The CO2-climate change argument is scientifically interesting. Exacting statistics are important for this.
But the ongoing disaster is political: the ongoing destruction of our economy in the war against carbon/based energy.
Lord Moncton’s “lengthening pause” will become scientifically interesting if it extends enough years to reach statistical significance as per Willis’s analysis.
But it is of immediate politically significance. There is a palpable apocalyptic hysteria surrounding the question of climate change. Any analysis based on data that tends to quiet the hysteria is important.
So, yes, Lord M’s observation is immediately important. And time will tell if scientifically important, in addition to politically important.
“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper
Terms of Service
Moderation Guidelines
Terms of Service
Moderation Guidelines
