The No-Nonsense Guide to Climate Science

Awesome video Danny! Really did sift through the 'nonsense' and clearly explained the most important facts. Look forward to the other videos.

Mindless, idiotic, geekwit bollocks. Geeks should neither be seen nor heard. Unless he is Freeman Dyson.

From the Guardian, following climategate. James Lovelock's excoriating view of the lying, dumb, little scumbags who do modern climate science.


on CRU scientists


I was utterly disgusted. My second thought was that it was inevitable. It was bound to happen. Science, not so very long ago, pre-1960s, was largely vocational. Back when I was young, I didn't want to do anything else other than be a scientist.


They're not like that nowadays. They don't give a damn. They go to these massive, mass-produced universities and churn them out. They say: "Science is a good career. You can get a job for life doing government work." That's no way to do science.


I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done

on computer models

I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models.

They're based more or less entirely on geophysics. They don't take into account the climate of the oceans to any great extent, or the responses of the living stuff on the planet. So I don't see how they can accurately predict the climate.

on predicting temperatures


If you look back on climate history it sometimes took anything up to 1,000 years before a change in one of the variables kicked in and had an effect. And during those 1,000 years the temperature could have gone in the other direction to what you thought it should have done. What right have the scientists with their models to say that in 2100 the temperature will have risen by 5C?

The great climate science centres around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they're scared stiff of the fact that they don't really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show.

We haven't got the physics worked out yet. One of the chiefs once said to me that he agreed that they should include the biology in their models, but he said they hadn't got the physics right yet and it would be five years before they do. So why on earth are the politicians spending a fortune of our money when we can least afford it on doing things to prevent events 50 years from now? They've employed scientists to tell them what they want to hear.


on scientists

Sometimes their view might be quite right, but it might also be pure propaganda. This is wrong. They should ask the scientists, but the problem is scientists won't speak. If we had some really good scientists it wouldn't be a problem, but we've got so many dumbos who just can't say anything, or who are afraid to say anything. They're not free agents.

I have read literally nothing in defence of climate science that wasn't a bare faced lie and a denial of fraud. See the psychiatric drugs industry for an even nastier fraud. Scientists nowadays are lying, self seeking wage slaves.

Thanks for the vid! One question: how does global warming cause colder weather?

This is a great video, but I think that counter arguments are not the way to handle Climate Change deniers. The deniers that I have ran into are a flavor of conspiracy theorists. They use bad information and fallacies to argue there ideas. Since they rely on fallacies, counter arguments are useless. If more people learned Critical Thinking skills, they could counter there fallacy rather then there pints.This has worked very well for me. 

Of course, you are not about to convince the conspiracy theorist. However, if enough people developed the skills and started arguing them on Internet media, then maybe so many people won't get sucked up in this.This approach is not underhanded, I even tell them what I am doing. 

You can't talk about climate change w/o establishing first what determines basic climate. You left out a whole lot of factors like latitude, longitude, altitude, etc.
"we should be getting hotter and we are" Nope. Those surface stations are like comparing apples to pigs. Some of them weren't there before; some temps used proxies, some have been lost over time, and some were inconsistently read and conditions around them changed. Cannot trust the surface station data.
 And there is no tipping point. The planet's atmosphere is self-correcting.