Ever since the Climategate scandal broke in Nov 2009, I’ve had the impression that climate scepticism has been rising, and climate alarmism has been on the retreat, But the alarmists still keep plugging away with their zombie science. Multiple stakes seem to have been driven through its heart, but it just gets up and keeps shambling onwards.
For the past couple of weeks the UN IPCC has been holding another shambling-onward conference in Lima. As far as I can make out, very little has come of it. But there will be another one next year in Paris. And Climate Depot‘s Marc Morano thinks the US will at last sign a climate treaty there:
Morano: “I congratulate the UN for finally bringing a willing U.S. to the table to sign a new UN climate treaty. A lame duck President Obama and his Sec. of State, John Kerry, are desperately seeking a climate change legacy and will pretty much sign any paper that is put in front of them next year at the Paris UN meeting. You can feel the air of optimism permeating the conference here in Lima.
For first time since 1990s, the U.S. is absolutely committed to signing a treaty. The UN climate process is facing a U.S. willing and committed to sign a new agreement – at all costs and pretty much regardless of details.
Make no mistake, come hell or high water, the U.S. will be signing a UN agreement next year in Paris. It is virtually preordained.
And this seems to be the trouble: while lots of people (like me) are sceptical of climate science, it seems that “world leaders” are all signed up to it, much in the way that while lots of people (like me) don’t like smoking bans, “world leaders” are all signed up to them too.
Perhaps there’s a simple explanation: “world leaders” are all control freaks. They wouldn’t have climbed to the top of the greasy pole of political power if they weren’t desperate to control things. And these control freaks have decided that the terrestrial climate is the next thing that needs to be brought “under control”. Because, y’see, everything must be brought under control. Top down control.
The president of the Royal Society, Paul Nurse, is (I suppose) another sort of “world leader” (and control freak) who is fully signed up to global warming alarmism. In Breitbart UK he’s reported as saying:
“Most people in the UK grasp the basics of climate science and the need to take sensible actions about global warming.”
Really? Most people grasp the basics of climate science?
I’ve had a number of tries at understanding climate science. My last shot at it was about a year back, when I built yet another computer simulation model. But every time I do this, I run into a new set of questions for which nobody seems to have any answers.
Climate science, I’ve begun to think, consists of a number of competing (and contradictory) theories. Some people think that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has no influence at all on climate. Some people think it has an influence, but only a small one. And of course climate alarmists believe that it has a large and dangerous influence. And all of them have their own theoretical models to back their claims. If these competing theories are comparable to anything at all, it would seem to be to competing religious sects.
My view these days is that nobody understands climate science. It’s just too complicated, and there are too many unknowns. For example, nobody seems to know how to model clouds. In some of my models, the influence of clouds was decisive. For if solar radiation is mostly reflected off clouds back out into space, the Earth will cool. And if the clouds are removed, the Earth will heat up. But, somehow or other, clouds bubble up. Maybe it’s some sort of thermostatic process, whereby as the Earth heats, water evaporates and forms clouds that cool the Earth. And as the Earth cools, clouds condense into rain, and the Earth starts heating again. Or maybe not? Maybe that’s all wrong…
Anyway, I thought I’d ask my readers whether they reckon they’ve got a good grasp of the basics of climate science, like Paul Nurse thinks they have.