Experts Seek Absolute Consensus

The fake 97% consensus for their junk science isn’t enough. Now they seek absolute consensus.

ScreenHunter_44 Mar. 17 19.55

About stevengoddard

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

32 Responses to Experts Seek Absolute Consensus

  1. Andy Oz says:

    If there is enough money in that suitcase, I will support any stupid climate change theory no matter how crap it is. I’m still waiting for my skeptic cheque from the oil industry. 😉

  2. omanuel says:

    What a sad, sad state of government ‘science’ and an even sadder day for those who are controlled by government propaganda disguised as 97% consensus science.

    Click to access Sequel2.pdf

  3. Warren D. Walker says:

    “In the end, Wilson said, she hopes her compact instrument will produce data that will crush the doubters in the climate change debate.” After all – she works for NASA.

  4. NavarreAggie says:

    “In the end, Wilson said, she hopes her compact instrument will produce data that will crush the doubters in the climate change debate.”

    At least they’re almost certain to fail due to spectacular incompetence and pandering.

  5. gator69 says:

    A suitcase that denies natural variability?

  6. 97% of homeopaths believe you can cure any disease with a dropper full of medicine which is 100% water.

  7. Dave N says:

    One wonders how a strawman suitcase is going to convince anyone of anything, let alone “doubters”.

  8. Who cares whether you can measure CO2 and methane from a suitcase? If it doesn’t do squat it makes no difference what the level is.

    My number for ECS is about 0.7 C/doubling, which is harmless. No climateer has even shown any error in the estimate. Mosher tried once and failed.

    As this is an empirical value it wraps all the GHG’s into it – CO2, methane etc.

  9. Maybe she should talk to somebody at NOAA?

    • DD More says:

      Or NASA – They don’t just have an app for that, they got a satellite too.

      NASA Launches Carbon Dioxide-Tracking Satellite
      By Published Jul 2 2014
      The satellite failed to launch Tuesday morning as scheduled due to a technical glitch with ground equipment, according to NASA. Wednesday’s launch went off without a hitch.

      The $468 million mission will collect global measurements of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere and provide scientists with a better understanding of how the Earth’s oceans, soils and forests absorb CO2, and whether that ability is changing.

      Saves all the extra CO2 spent flying around the world.

  10. sfx2020 says:

    “In order for there to be an absolute consensus on global warming there have to be global measurements that leave no opening for debate about what is happening,” Wilson said.”

    I agree with that. The data is the only thing that actually matters. And if everyone has it from everywhere, there will be a consensus.

  11. bleakhouses says:

    Why do the need an “absolute consensus” and what is it?

  12. Didn’t NASA recently send up a satellite that pretty much does the same thing as this suitcase?

    • Gail Combs says:

      Japan did:
      July 2009 and January 2010

      September 2009

      August 2012

      October to November 2014

      Sure looks like CO2 is NOT evenly distributed and the oceans/biosphere has a lot more to do with the level than mankind does.

  13. Lance says:

    Absolute Consensus cannot exist without Absolute Facts or Absolute Coercion.
    Lacking Absolute Facts, progtards need Absolute Coercion.
    Like a “Police State of Approved Thoughts. ”
    How revealing that Liberal Thinking absolutely requires absolute denial of Thought.
    Orwell had things quite right. “Some Animals are More Equal than Others.”

  14. AndyG55 says:

    DOH !. SO WHAT !!!!

    Just because you can measure CO2 to 4 miles up, means diddly squat about antropogenic warming. !!

  15. Lance says:

    Consensus is, after all, the coward’s way of avoiding responsibility for agreeeing to a political expediency in lieu of facts and evidence. Consensus allows all to agree and none to confess responsibility for having participated. QED. Cowardly.

  16. ColA says:

    Hmmm …. she is measuring CO2 and methane and thinks this will solve the arguments ……. Doooh! What about the most significant green house gas WATER VAPOUR, if she is not measuring that at the same time then I would say the whole exercise is just another WAFTAM!!

  17. Disillusioned says:

    Their should already be an absolute consensus – the predicted rising CO2-caused “hot spot” above the equator at the top of the troposphere was a miserable failure. The propagandists don’t acknowledge (or they explain away) that failure.


    • Gail Combs says:

      Recent blizzards in Hawaii and Mexico City (lat 9N) indicate that ‘hotspot’ was darn COLD!

    • Disillusioned says:

      I guess the UN IPCC scientists stopped searching for missing hot spot over the equator. Oh my, what a miserable failure to predict! At least that was pal-reviewed, unlike Trenberth’s obfuscating UWAG (unscientific wild-ass guess) that the missing heat went deep sea diving.

  18. While the description of how her instrument works is vague, it appears to measure the absorption of solar insolation at the wavelengths absorbed by carbon dioxide and methane. Usually the alarmists claim that their absorption of solar insolation is insignificant, yet with signal to noise considerations clearly of importance, she choose the absorption of solar insolation as her detection and measurement scheme, not the absorption in longer wave IR back-radiation due to the Earth’s surface IR radiation, which is what is supposed to play the role of warming the Earth’s surface. How interesting is that?

    As I have always said, the effect of IR-active gases on absorbing incoming solar radiation is a cooling effect for the surface and it is not insignificant in comparison with the warming that can be attributed to back-radiation.

  19. ren says:

    The first day of spring.

    • Bob123 says:

      Don’t forget, cold is the new warm. Changing from the term global warming to climate change was genius on their part. Any weather event cn now be blamed on climate change, and millions of rabid alarmists all nod their heads in agreement.

  20. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    So is this system going to replace what NOAA does? If not what is the point — and besides correlation does not mean causation!

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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