Interpreting Lukewarm Academics

Lukewarmers speak like this :

“There is not yet convincing evidence of a fingerprint on sea level rise associated with human-caused global warming:”

Special Report on Sea Level Rise | Climate Etc.

The correct way of phrasing this is :

There isn’t one shred of evidence to support the idea that humans have any impact on sea level

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Interpreting Lukewarm Academics

  1. Gamecock says:

    Amen.

    Dr. Curry reports:

    ‘Recent research has concluded that there is no consistent or compelling evidence that recent rates of sea level rise are abnormal . . . .’

    It is being broadly reported as ‘no compelling evidence that recent rates of sea level rise are abnormal.’

    Why is ‘compelling’ there? So there is some evidence, it’s just not compelling? The disclaimer seems self-defeating.

    • tonyheller says:

      America is at war against flaming liars who will say or do anything to push their agenda. We need people on our side to stop pandering to them.

      • One thing you get very right Mr. Heller / Goddard,
        unlike most other climate change “skeptics”
        (i.e; believers in real science),
        is treating the modern climate junk science
        with no respect, because junk science
        deserves no respect !
        .
        Most climate skeptics are too polite,
        especially the middle of the road
        “lukewarmers”, whose position seems chosen
        to offend the fewest people.
        .
        In my opinion, middle of the road” people
        deserve to get run over by traffic
        on both sides !
        .
        There is nothing in the historical
        temperature record, even with all the
        arbitrary adjustments, that proves
        any warming since 1950 was caused by CO2,
        or that the climate since 1850 was unusual,
        except, perhaps, being more stable
        than we see in ice core reconstructions.
        .
        There is no scientific proof that
        4.5 billion years of natural climate change
        suddenly ended in 1950, and man made CO2
        took over as the “climate controller”.
        .
        But that’s what we are told.
        .
        There is also no evidence that anyone
        was hurt by the slight warming since 1850,
        because the 168 years since then have been
        accompanied by the greatest improvement
        in human prosperity and health,
        in recorded history.
        .
        Anyone with sense would want MORE
        CO2 in the air, just like greenhouse owners do,
        to accelerate C3 plant growth,
        and if that led to any warming at night,
        during the six coldest months of the year,
        in the higher latitudes, which is what
        a greenhouse effect would do,
        then the warming would be MORE good news !

    • neal s says:

      And yet if the word ‘compelling’ had been left out, someone would complain that such a statement is too absolute.

      • Weylan McAnally says:

        I think the word that works best is “meaningful”. This mitigates the statement from being absolute, but assigns it a worthy level of credibility – essentially none.

    • GCsquared says:

      No fair: in her article, Curry also says, “…these (IPCC) projections are regarded as deeply uncertain and the highest of these projections strain credulity.”

      I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but writing that the IPCC’s models are unbelievable doesn’t SOUND lukewarm. Technical papers aren’t meant to be excerpted, but read through completely (if painfully). Thanks for citing this one; it’s worth digesting.

    • Anon says:

      If anyone wants to see what did not get into the IPCC report about SLR, check this out:

      Expert and Government Review Comments on the IPCC WGI AR5 Second Order Draft – Chapter 13

      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch13_WG1AR5SOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf

      A lot of the comments are jaw dropping: eg:

      There is no mention of the fact that, over the nearly 20 years for which we have data, satellite measurements of global MSL have exhibited a deceleration in rate of sea level rise; nor is it mentioned that the various satellites differ significantly from one another in the rates of SLR they are measuring; nor is it
      mentioned that the satellite which had the broadest coverage of the world’s oceans, Envisat, has had ex post facto revisions to its data so dramatic that the corrections more than tripled the “measured” rate of sea level rise. Instead, it is claimed that the satellites (as if they were unanimous!) have been measuring about 3.2 mm/yr SLR. That is misleading. Moreover, the reference to agreement between different data processing groups, without mentioning either the disagreement between the data from the different satellites or the huge calculated adjustments, conveys a deceptive impression that the reliability of the result is much stronger than it really is.

  2. Cam says:

    Meanwhile, NASA’s Global Mean Sea Level data hasn’t been updated since mid-June. The description reads: “It starts in September 1992 to present, with a lag of up to 4 months.” We’re now at 5 1/2 months. Could be that they see sea level rise has been flatlining since mid-2015 and they don’t like the way the data is running counter to the meme.

    https://sealevel.nasa.gov/

    • Lance says:

      it requires ‘adjustments’

      • All NASA data must be allowed to “age”
        for 20 years, and only then will they be useful
        for something, although I don’t know what.

        Based on history, there will be “adjustments”,
        and “re-adjustments”, and “re-re-adjiustments”,
        until the numbers are just right (close enough
        to the computer game predictions for goobermint work).

        Remember that with modern
        climate (junk) science,
        the past temperature
        is always changing,
        while the future temperature
        is “known” with great certainty
        ( with “95% confidence”,
        to three decimal places ! )

  3. Gator says:

    “There is not yet convincing evidence of a fingerprint on falling skies associated with human-caused atmospheric failings
    -Dr Henny Penny

  4. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Humans have a large impact on sea level rise.

    About half of sea level rise, as calculated by Dr Mörner, is due to ground water extraction, which then ends up in the ocean.

    Caused by CO2 though? No.

  5. GCsquared says:

    A problem with science, which is also a strength, is that even preposterous hypotheses have to be treated with respect, and can be dismissed only after being given due consideration. (The trouble now is that the media is dismissing the good hypotheses.) For instance, here’s a quote by Munk, cited in Curry’s actual report, in typical scientese:

    “At best, the determination and attribution of global-mean sea-level change lies at the very edge of knowledge and technology. Both systematic and random errors are of concern, the former particularly, because of the changes in technology and sampling methods over the many decades, that the database is insufficient to compute mean sea-level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming – as disappointing as this conclusion may be.”

    In english: “Satellite data is too scattered to say much about global warming and sea level rise.” In lay terms: “You’d be an idiot to base policy on this.”

    • DD More says:

      GC and why does it apply to the real world when their data doesn’t.

      Church and White (2011) describe the methods used, which include data screening; calibration with satellite altimeter data to establish patterns of spatial variability; and a correction for GIA, which represents the ongoing change in the size and shape of the ocean basins associated with changes in surface loading. On average, the world’s ocean crust is sinking in response to the transfer of mass from the land to the ocean following
      the retreat of the continental ice sheets after the Last Glacial Maximum (approximately 20,000 years ago). Worldwide, on average, the ocean crust is sinking at a rate of approximately 0.3 mm per year. By correcting for GIA, the resulting curve actually reflects the extent to which sea level would be rising if the ocean basins were not becoming larger (deeper) at the same time.
      https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/sea-level_documentation.pdf

      So CSIRO are ‘Reporting on Sea Levels’ for a mythical world that doesn’t have ocean basins which are becoming larger. Wonder what the status of the Real World is?

  6. steve case says:

    People on our side of the argument shouldn’t let them get away with lies, bullshit, propaganda, dogma, etc. We shouldn’t let them control the language.

    Grorge Orwell wrote:

    If you control the language, you control the argument
    If you control the argument, you control information
    If you control information, you control history
    If you control history, you control the past
    He who controls the past controls the future.” – Big Brother, 1984

    • pmc47025 says:

      The language is already controlled, and, it’s worse than I thought – 1984 indeed.

    • GCsquared says:

      The first line is missing:
      If you control the media, you control the language

      The internet had been both becoming part of the media, and was getting beyond control. People were thinking in ways and asking questions that they weren’t supposed to. They still are, but the adpocalypse and the new internet censorship should pull everything back in.

      Why study conspiracy theories when you have conspiracy in action all about?

      • Gamecock says:

        You are correct.

        Fakebook, Twitter, et al are legally treated as ‘platforms,’ and not publishers. Hence, they have no responsibility for content. However, they are violating that position by getting deeply involved with content.

        Congress needs to readdress, codifying what platforms can touch without becoming publishers. But the incoming unDemocrat House will not, as they like the editorial position of these publishers.

        Republicans (2021?) may not, as they will be accused of being FOR pushing granny off a cliff, or equivalent. Childish ploys work pretty well against Republicans.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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