If ice keeps growing at this rate, polar bears will be able to walk to Scotland in under a thousand days.

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/greenland-blowing-away-all-records-for-ice-growth-2/

We need to panic NOW. There is no time to think about the consequences, or query the maths, science or logic. I have made my mind up and demand millions of pounds per year, to keep saying PANIC! PANIC! PANIC! 20 years should be enough. I may be proved wrong in 3 years, but the next 17 will be such fun.

EM, get back to us after your mommy explains how science works. You are a maroon.

hunter. Here the word "maroon" means "Africans who had escaped from slavery in the Americas and formed independent settlements". You appear to be using the word in a somewhat derogatory way, which might be construed as racist. I'm sure this is not what you are intending. I don't know EM's race but I very much doubt there ever was an escaped slave colony in Ireland (but who knows, there was one on the edge of the boreal forest in Saskatchewan!)

Ravishing Rattie, Gwendolyn Caroline, Entropic Man &c there has been much discussion here about the procedures in science - who has to provide evidence in a dispute. The rules are relatively simple. In the case of a published paper, the assertions within it are taken to be true (temporarily). If someone disputes the paper's conclusions, it is they who must provide evidence for the new assertions. When you make conclusions in a paper you must assume they have yet to be accepted or proven (no matter how strong your evidence is). Publication (usually after peer review) gives any conclusions within the paper approval and the stamp of "truth". This "truth" can only be challenged by new evidence or argument. Just complaining that the "truth" is wrong is insufficient.

In BH posts I suggest we try to follow this same structure as much as possible. (Clearly we don't have peer review nor "publication". Someone making a NEW assertion should provide supporting evidence. This evidence, no matter how weak, should be considered as supporting "the truth". It can only be refuted with stronger evidence, not just contrary opinion. All too often posts in BH contain only opinion and assertions - this post being no exception.

ACK

I'm inclined to agree. I even have a little sympathy with EM on this thread.

However, on another thread we were graced with the presence of Victor Venema. I was delighted about this, as we were posting on a subject I am greatly interested in (UHI), and Victor Venema could have engaged in a very interesting discussion, given his importance on this subject. I was hoping to learn a lot. Sandy S and I asked a couple of questions, and Victor disappeared, without answering. Very disappointing, but it speaks volumes to me.

Radical rodent, Gwendolyn Charlotte,

You don't have to provide a negative to falsify a theory.All you have to do I show that the predictions of the theory do not match observations. Thus a defence barrister can falsify a murder charge by providing an alibi.

If you like we can spend time going through the evidence for CO2 as the main driver of AGW, but it would take some time and need some understanding of physics on your parts. Are you game?

Mark Hodgson

VV came here to talk to you, but left after insults from other members made it clear that he was not welcome.. This has happened regularly here. Sceptics here claim that they want debate and then drive away any scientists attempting to engage.

EM. Sorry but what unmitigated rubbish. A defence barrister can SUGGEST an alibi proves a charge against someone to be false, but the alibi itself may be false. I do hope you taught the theory of science better than you are doing today.

EM. Russell often comes but frequently with word puzzles and obscure references that few here (I vouch) now bother with. I tried, because I was interested in his work on "bright water" only to be met with insult. Sauce for gander as well as goose.

ACK & Mark Hodgson

Unfortunately the concept of "rules" in science have been comprehensively trashed and abused by Climate Science. I did trust Climate Science, the Hockey Stick, IPCC, Peer Review, Royal Society etc.

I was brought up to "trust" those with proper qualifications, and accept and respect their level of expertise and honesty.

I fully accept that all professions have people who bend the rules for personal betterment, and some who find that breaking rules around professionalism and honesty are very lucrative. Climate Science has been paid a lot of taxpayer's money and has fully justified it's ascent to the top of the least trustworthy professions.

Climate Science has relied on corrupting the Scientific process, even having to rely on a fraudulent consensus. It is now necessary to assume 97% of peer reviewed climate science is based on falsified evidence, until proven otherwise. I have suggested that there ought to be an effort to try and save the good bits of climate science, but 97% of climate scientists can not be trusted to make an honest assessment.

The corruption of climate science has been an inside job, by climate scientists. They continue to attack those who have pointed this out. Based on past performance, why should anyone trust a science that is institutionally corrupt?

Mark. "but it speaks volumes to me". Ambiguous, are you saying it reflects badly upon him or us? It could be argued it does both.

golfCharlie. "Based on past performance, why should anyone trust a science that is institutionally corrupt?" Because it consists of hundreds if not thousands of well meaning, honourable people working on the details of the science. It is the "big cheeses", those that "compile" and advocate their version of the science who you object to.

Many people argue that part I (the sciency bit) of IPCC Reports contain outstanding basic science that has advanced our knowledge of climate. Commonly this gets lost because it doesn't get its pride of place in the Summary for Policy Makers, which is all most people read.

EM, how do you know VV came here to discuss matters with Mark Hodgson? Next time you are in contact with him, could you suggest that he does not make sneering comments at those people he decides are wrong. That way your combined comments won't come over as normal climate science, double-standardised hypocrisy.

ACK, actually it is the vast majority of scientists who know that to get grant funding for research, they need to mention the possible impacts of global warming, that have become part of the problem. Fraud and corruption in science funding corrupts all science. Fraud and corruption in science funding deprives honest scientists of research money, and discredits honest scientific research.

I hope taxpayer funding is pulled by the UK and USA from climate science. Other countries are welcome to carry on, and private money from individuals and corporations may continue.

There is a lot of honest research in climate science, but how does any outsider know who to trust? 97% of climate science has been hoisted on the petards of 97% of climate scientists.

The climate now is better for all forms of life on Planet Earth. What is the problem that requires fixing? Is there any evidence that man's activities have resulted in the improvements, that Climate Science claims are killing us all?

Climate science is in full blown Denial Mode about the new ice age scare, that was peddled by climate scientists in the early 1970s, despite people being able to remember it, despite printed records of claims, despite some of the same people now earning big money as high priests of doom and destruction about a warming planet.

I was not even a teenager then. I remember it. Can I sue climate science for trying to con me into thinking I had delusions as a child? Why should I trust climate science now?

For all their emotional blackmail, lies and hypocrisy, how many people are dead because climate science misappropriated money that could have been better spent?

The sooner Trump terminates the insanity, the better.

231 Responses to Gergis et al.

When Gergis 2016 was featured at andthentheresphysics, this was the FIRST POST

"Victor Venema says:

July 13, 2016 at 8:01 pm

If there are people who genuinely think they only object to the science, I would suggest them to start a movement with a new name, to clearly distinguish themselves from the mitigation sceptical movement and to write scientific articles."

Anyone can read the post to see what came before and after, but there does seem to be Denial about wrongdoing by highly paid climate science experts. Gergis is still accepted science as it has not been repudiated or withdrawn. Who in climate science would get funding to do that?

Climate science is not capable of self correction, that is why it has failed. Unfortunately, the good bits will get thrown out aswell, because nobody knows which bits can be trusted, when 97% of it is unreliable.

"Maroon" is what Bugs Bunny called "morons" in Warner brothers cartoons. I have never heard of any possible racist implications in the use of maroon, and find it "maroononic" that even today the pc police are still busy corrupting our language and spreading historical illiteracy. EM is a maroon.

Hunter. I was merely informing you of the correct use of the word here (check it out on Wiki). If your defence is Warner Bros. so be it. If you think EM is a moron why not call him that rather than pussyfoot around with a somewhat dubious euphemism.

ACK, I've tried calling him worse, but it's like water off daffy-duck's back.

GC, I think climate-science can correct itself, but it's clearly going to take more than 30 years to do so. About a decade ago I told a relative that I thought the data would solve the major science disputes in about 10 years. It clearly has, IMO, but the zombie corpse is going to need something a little bit stronger.

Michael Hart. The zombie corpse (or corps) will be killed off by icicles thrust into its innards that will grow in response to a cooling climate, expected any time now.

michael hart & ACK

no one predicted any of the significant election results of 2016 (apart from Corbyn's decisive, divisive and possibly conclusive Pyrrhic victory)

One of Mrs Tharcher's great quotes is about ideologies running out of other people's money. Climate Science just has. Not defeated in accepted scientific terms, not defeated in the courts, they will carry on protesting that they were never defeated. They can protest as much as they like, they just won't get paid by taxpayers to do so.

I hope that proper scientific research, including stuff about the climate continues, but with all the computers linked around the world, do we need more climate scientists in the UK than can be accommodated within the CRU building on UEA's Campus?

Everyone has benefitted from the recent change in climate, but the next one, as ACK observes, may not be so universally popular.