The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[niky]

Climate change: Heatwaves 'halve' male insect fertility

Well, as the world heats up... fewer bugs.

Also, I've always spelled it as "heat wave"

Having it spelled as "heatwave" feels... weird.

Originally Posted by aerohead

Either consumer demand pull 'carrot',or EPA,CAFE 'stick' would be a catalyst.
Get Vin Diesel to drive one in a blockbuster motion picture,and every 14-year-old in the country would be begging for one.And their dads.

Murica' wants them big and powerful?

Buffett should push the importation of his BYDs.

Just drove a $50k Chinese SUV that got the equivalent of 47 mpg, even with our stupidly expensive electricity (not quite sure how it works out mpge-wise), seats seven, feels about as well made as any mainstream car (or better, giant sunroof doesn't creak like it does in the Koreans) and scoots to 60 mph in about four and a half seconds.

Give it a nicer name, ditch the Chinese association, and bam, it should sell.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by justadude

I just hope people would be more aware of how dangerous global warming is. People don't know it's bad because they don't see the changes... YET. But there will be a time, soon enough when everyone's going to be sorry for not helping the planet... It's all our fault, pretty much.

Heck yeah global warming is dangerous, it killed off the Saber tooth tiger, wooly mammoths, dire wolf, caused glaciers to retreat 1,000 miles, allowed man to flourish.
It must be stopped.

[Xist]

Which Phil are we supposed to believe?!

Originally Posted by aerohead

If you want to die though,a hospital is a great place go.

Well, my dad didn't have a better chance anywhere else.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Expensive is subjective.

Need is subjective. My parents had four kids and a station wagon. Look how we turned out!

No, wait, we are bad examples.

Originally Posted by aerohead

That's it,thanks!
(it's pitiful when you can hold your brain in a teaspoon)

Hey! I am hoping that nobody notices!

My browser does not give me a broken red line for heatwave, but says that freebeard should be capitalized.

[RedDevil]

Infrared radiation sterilizes some insects? Seems legit.

[redneck]

.

Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energ...=.1d5810467715


Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...113-story.html


SCIENTISTS ACKNOWLEDGE KEY ERRORS IN STUDY OF HOW FAST THE OCEANS ARE WARMING

https://www.thegwpf.com/scientists-a...s-are-warming/


Delingpole: ‘We Really Muffed’ It – Scientist Admits Error in Hyped Global Warming Study

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...warming-study/

Scientists behind a major study that claimed the Earth’s oceans are warming faster than previously thought now say their work contained inadvertent errors that made their conclusions seem more certain than they actually are.

“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at Scripps, who was a co-author of the study.

In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature, researchers found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.

“The findings of the ... paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

If you calculate the trend correctly, the warming rate is not worse than we thought – it’s very much in line with previous estimates,” says Lewis.

In fact, says Lewis, some of the other claims made in the paper and reported by the media, are wrong too.

“Their claims about the effect of faster ocean warming on estimates of climate sensitivity (and hence future global warming) and carbon budgets are just incorrect anyway, but that’s a moot point now we know that about their calculation error”.

There are broader lessons here which — as so often before — are likely to be completely lost on the climate alarmist establishment.

One lesson is that climate skeptics are not scientific ignoramuses. They boast a huge range of independent experts like Nic Lewis who on many occasions have proved themselves more intellectually agile and better informed on climate science than the alarmist “consensus” gatekeepers in academe and at institutions like NASA and NOAA.



Another lesson is — as has been clear since Climategate — the peer-review system for scientific papers, especially if they have anything to do with climate change, is bust. Too often it is just a pal-review system in which chums on the climate change gravy train pass their colleagues’ work for publication nem con. Such is the appetite among alarmists for “evidence” that supports their doomsday thesis that the scarier it is, the more likely it is to get published.

Another lesson is that the mainstream media simply cannot be trusted to apply any kind of professional scrutiny to alarmist papers. No environmental correspondent, it’s true, would have had the advanced math skills that Nic Lewis used to find the paper false.

But the fact remains that there is not one science or environment correspondent attached to any mainstream media publication prepared to do their due diligence on global warming scare stories. They are all so wedded to the alarmist consensus that they scarcely even bother to alter the press release.

Finally, do not expect this humiliating retraction to be given anywhere near the prominence afforded the original story. This is how the climate scare machine works: the hysteria is only ever ratcheted upwards, never dialed down.

>

[oil pan 4]

That seems to be the repeating theme of the global warming movement.
Cherry pick, use bad data as long as it supports the narrative, include errors as long as they support the narrative.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I'm not seeing insurmountable hurdles.

Dense energy surplus being the critical concept. The wishful thinking of the Roadmap to Renewables team determined that with all gains in efficiency in place from complete electrification and conversion to hydrogen, that the current USA primary energy consumption could be reduced from 3.1TW to 1.6TW. Further analysis determined that the best mix of solar, wind, hydro, and storage. would require 160,000 square miles of land and near shore area use and full power continent wide grid ties. So, while technically not impossible, all of this is highly infeasible. Things will be much smaller and simpler after the carbon pulse.

[niky]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

That seems to be the repeating theme of the global warming movement.
Cherry pick, use bad data as long as it supports the narrative, include errors as long as they support the narrative.

Except of course the scientists who made the errors quickly corrected their own mistake.

-

And their work pointed to MORE warming than the IPCC report. In other words, after correcting their own error, we're back at what's in the IPCC.

Now if the IPCC report were based on that specific paper... which it isn't...

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by redneck

Delingpole

THERE'S your problem. That guy is a fraud.

[Xist]

Redneck, I have some concerns with your articles. Mostly you gave four sources and several quotes, but did not specify from which source they came. I do not know who Delingpole is. He is not mentioned in the first three articles that I skimmed, but

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

"Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...113-story.html

I had not heard of Global Warming Policy Forum, but their article is based on the one by The Washington Post. I skimmed the Breitbart piece.

I regret it.

Oil Pan, nobody gave evidence that anyone else found errors and people ignored them.

People make mistakes--like reading Breitbart.