The Fundamental Logic Flaw Of Climate Science Groupies

http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/lf.bl.html

  • CO2 is a greenhouse gas
  • Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect
  • therefore ………. the climate models and their forecasts are correct.

It sounds incredibly stupid, but you see that logic being promoted all the time.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to The Fundamental Logic Flaw Of Climate Science Groupies

  1. Mike Davis says:

    Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases the Green House Effect is just a guess and it is known that changes in clouds overcome any changes that CO2 might induce.

  2. Tony Duncan says:

    Chris,

    Are you questioning Mike’s absolute knowledge of every area of climate research?
    But from my understanding clouds are not a fully understood player in the whole climate scenario. Even the religious cultist warmists admit this.

    • Mike Davis says:

      TonyD
      They admit they do not understand clouds and how they fit into the equation along with CO2. If CO2 is left out of the equation then clouds answer the questions being asked.
      Now that I am living n the country I tend to follow country practices. The easiest way to trap varmints is to bait the trap.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Hah!
        You fell for my bait!

        how can they be cultists if they admit they don’t know everything!
        Especially since you DO know everything!
        Actually I am trying to recall if I ever have seen anything you have written that indicated any possibility of NOT knowing everything.
        can someone help me out here?

      • Mike Davis says:

        TonyD:
        Seek Professional help. It may be as simple as correcting your meds.
        They are cultists because as you they believe that the almighty power of Human induced CO2 is causing catastrophic climate changes which are not evident in the real world.
        FYI:
        I have never done Brain Surgery but did research it some.
        You have me stumped because I do not know what I do not know therefore your question is unanswerable!

  3. suyts says:

    Nice article you referenced.

    “Democratic theory, as interpreted by Jefferson and Paine, was rooted in the Enlightenment belief that free citizens could form respectable opinions about issues of the day and use these opinions to guide their own destiny. Communication between citizens was assumed to be a necessary element of the democratic process. During the first world war, America’s leaders felt that citizens were not making the correct decisions quickly enough, so they flooded the channels of communication with dishonest messages that were designed to stir up emotions and provoke hatred of Germany. The war came to an end, but propaganda did not. For the past seven decades, those who lead our nation, along with those who seek to overthrow it, have mouthed the ideals of Jefferson while behaving like Bernays.”

    It seems the propaganda described has been embraced by the warmistas.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      I see it as just the opposite.
      Denier cultists can not accept science so the fill the airwaves with pseudo science to confuse people.
      there is no attempt to consider the actual science and research that has been carried out and to get all sides of the issue. ONLY post and talk about issues that can be used against the theory. that is not science, that is propaganda

      • suyts says:

        Tony, I’d suggest you have a very narrow view of what occurs. You said, “there is no attempt to consider the actual science and research..”

        Obviously, on this particular site, on certain occasions, the scientific discussion is limited. That said, Steven has a considerable body of work, not only here but other places, which have been subject and withstood scientific scrutiny. Also, there are several other sites dedicated primily to the inspection of the actual science and research. One only has to look at the several deconstructions of the tree ring proxy studies to know your statement is false. More, it was the consideration of science that led to the exposure of the Himalayan glacier melt falsification as was the Amazonian sensitivity gibberish. More, it is basic science inspection that leads to our mockery of the sophistry employed by many alarmists. My favorite is ‘evaporation leads to drought’. Steven’s may be ‘melting occurring in sub-zero F locations’.

        But, more to the point, Tony, you proved my case. You infer that us citizens are making the wrong choices to we must be swayed by propaganda.

        So you go right ahead parroting the meme, us citizens will continue to arm ourselves against the psuedo-science of climatology with the latest forms of interpersonal communication.

        (Oh no’s! The 15 μM is coming to get us!)<—– Sophistry at its finest.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Suyts:
        Thumbs up!!!! on that one and I usually do not give those!
        😉

      • suyts says:

        Thanks Mike, I appreciate it!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Suyts,

        Well why didn’t anyone TELL me steven has peer reviewed articles published. Please point me to them and the scientific responses to them, and I will take his rants MUCH more seriously.
        That is what “withstood scientific scrutiny” usually refers to.
        So you know about the deconstructions of tree ring proxies. And do you know of any of the responses to those deconstructions?
        And the glacier melt “mistake” (it might have been a typo) was pointed out by a climate scientist, because it was ridiculous, and was immediately acknowledged.
        the amazon sensitivity, while I will grant you is not rigorously supported is quite consistent with current knowledge and not “wrong”.
        I have no idea what you mean by your two “favorites”. are there scientific papers that say ice melts at subzero F locations and the peer review process has just blinked?
        No I don’t prove your point. I believe you should be swayed by actual science that is vetted by experts, not by science that is propagated on blogs where there is no interest in getting the analysis of that science by experts who don’t agree.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, the laws of science don’t change with the level of “expertise” one acquires.

        For instance, Newton’s law of gravity applies to 5th grade science as well as post doctorate. I didn’t say Steven had “peer reviewed papers”. Not that it matters, see my first sentence.

        You stated, “Please point me to them and the scientific responses to them, and I will take his rants MUCH more seriously.”, sadly, I believe that’s true. Tony, getting a bunch or like minded ideologues to agree with one another doesn’t replace the scientific process. Nor is it part of the process. Imagine if I were to start a science magazine and place people from the CATO institute and some other like minded think tank on the review process. Would that make the articles more valid? Are you really that willing to give up your ability for independent thought?

        You also stated, “That is what[peer review] “withstood scientific scrutiny” usually refers to.” No, that particular narrow definition only applies when conversing with a CAGW alarmist and only when referring to climate studies. For instance, I don’t believe you will dispute Newton’s law of gravity, but its never been subject to “peer review” in the sense it is used today. Nor does the “peer review” process lend any more or less validity than the statement or assertion standing on its own merits. It is, quite frankly, appalling to me to see so many people willing to blindly believe and assertions if it had undergone ” peer review”, especially in light of the admitted hi-jacking of the peer review process in regards to climatology.

        Yes, I know several responses to the several deconstructions. Which ones do you wish to discuss? I particularly like the ones where geologists argue with statisticians about statistics.

        You also stated, “And the glacier melt “mistake” (it might have been a typo) was pointed out by a climate scientist, because it was ridiculous, and was immediately acknowledged.

        Uhm, no, that’s not correct.

        However, critics also say that, in the last round, IPCC lead authors ignored comments from reviewers and governments questioning the validity of the glacier claim. For instance, David Saltz of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel questioned why one sentence in the report said that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear completely, whereas the next said that they would shrink to 100,000 square kilometres. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100202/full/463596a.html?s=news_rss

        However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”
        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

        You stated, “the amazon sensitivity, while I will grant you is not rigorously supported is quite consistent with current knowledge and not “wrong”.

        Uhmm, no, again that statement is not correct.
        “The threat to tropical rainforests from climate change may have been exaggerated by environmentalists, according to a new study.
        Researchers have shown that the world’s tropical forests thrived in the far distant past when temperatures were 3 to 5C warmer than today.
        They believe that a wetter, warmer future may actually boost plants and animals living the tropics.
        The findings, published in the respected journal Science, come from a study of pollen trapped in rocks during a natural period of global warming 56.3million years ago.”
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1328853/Environmentalists-exaggerated-threat-tropical-rainforests-global-warming.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

        (I’d reproduce the original study, but its on my PC at home.)

        You said, “No I don’t prove your point. I believe you should be swayed by actual science that is vetted by experts, not by science that is propagated on blogs where there is no interest in getting the analysis of that science by experts who don’t agree.”

        Tony, I’m not sure where you get that idea from. While I haven’t asked Steven, I’m sure he’d welcome a contrary post from a respected scientist. WUWT often encourages opposing view points, have open invitations for other to post, and have had several posts with a warmist’s point of view. CA has chronicles entire conversations with warmists. I think you are confused skeptics with alarmists sites. So much more to say, but in interest of brevity(lol) I’ll leave it at this.

      • suyts says:

        Typically Tony, I’m not this confrontational, but I’ll bite, please show me the “scientific papers that show melt in sub-zero F” temps. I think Steven can use it for a post. If not, I’ll start a blog dedicated to the ridicule of such paper and like minded papers………no, wait, Steven’s already got that covered. But please, show us the paper, so we can discuss the “science” involved.

  4. MattN says:

    Actually the line of reasoning goes:
    1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
    2) We burn alot of hydrocarbons which creates CO2
    3) CO2 is increasing in concentration.
    4) It has gotten warmer over the last 150 years.

    All of those points are 100% correct.

    If it were just that simple….

  5. Steve Koch says:

    Doubling CO2 directly increases the temp in the atmosphere by about 1 degree C. Since CO2 is currently at about 390 ppm and is currently going up at about 2 ppm per year, at these rates it will take nearly two centuries for CO2 increases to directly raise the temp by 1 degree C (an average of 1/200 degree rise per year). This is a very tiny rise in temps. Any other effects of CO2, the feedbacks, are much less clearly understood (that is why the confidence in the GCMs is declining).

    Kevin Trenberth said: (http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1002/full/climate.2010.06.html)

    “So here is my prediction: the uncertainty in AR5’s climate predictions and projections will be much greater than in previous IPCC reports, primarily because of the factors noted above. This could present a major problem for public understanding of climate change. Is it not a reasonable expectation that as knowledge and understanding increase over time, uncertainty should decrease? But while our knowledge of certain factors does increase, so does our understanding of factors we previously did not account for or even recognize.”

    Kevin’s prediction means that climate scientists’ confidence in the GCM predictions is declining. For scientifically literate CAGWers, that news should reduce your faith in the prediction of GCMs.

    • suyts says:

      Kevin is getting there. It is a well experienced paradox that mankind deals with on a daily and personal basis. The more knowledge we gain, the more we understand that we lack knowledge. One of the worlds greatest thinkers in the history of mankind………“I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”——–Isaac Newton

      At this point in time, climate scientists don’t know what they don’t know. Or at least they don’t stress this to the public.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s