« We do have our own facts (updated 7feb20) | Main | Dropout Derby - 11feb20 (updated) »

08 February 2020



Good essay.

One problem with redefining GDP to be more reasonable (whatever that is, didn't they do that once already?) is the difficulty in doing historical comparisons, rather like changing SAT scoring.

Dunno how you intertwine the Surveillance Industrial Complex back into economic activity, although that appears to be the story in big business at this point, even with traditional manufacturers.

Perhaps the future is either (a) throwing away all of it and keeping only the simplest kind of brute force central bank activity or (b) asking our robot lords and masters to look for patterns of economic activity. In the case of (b), human understanding would be lost, but perhaps the proponents of central planning never knew what they were doing to begin with.

Steven Frisch

"All of them [climate models] cloud their genesis and meaning ....."

Seriously climate models are amongst the most studied, peer reviewed, and transparent parts of scientific research today. To be accepted and widely used their methodologies and assumptions must be published, the data sets going into the models are scrutinized and reviewed, they cannot "cloud their genesis." The reason there are competing climate models is that they are designed to work on a range of assumptions.


It seems to me that the it's worth considering that climate science and economics are similar in a lot of ways. They both have shitty predictive ability under normal circumstances and are misused for political effect.

It's easy to see how an economy could prosper, merely improve the underlying people. A giant version of Switzerland would probably have better savings habits and harder working people doing more useful things (insert crack about local nonprofits here). I can't say that anyone's understanding of economics is good enough to impose useful centralized control.

By the same token, reduction of greenhouse gases might result from a hundred small actions that are actually useful. Increased use of fracked gas for electrical generation, nuclear energy, reduction of mass immigration to the First World, population reduction in the Third World, hassling the Chinese instead of the US public about the whole thing. None of these are allowed by the Climate Industrial Complex of course.

It would be nice if the political Left thought about changes that make a difference. Instead ecological degradation is used as a general purpose boogieman to rally the troops to control matters in a million different ways, witness the birth of 'climate justice'.


Steven, you have inadvertently pointed out the real problem- "they are designed to work on a range of assumptions." Only one set of which can possibly be accurate and not even that one necessarily.

In the meantime (now 30+ years), nothing catastrophic is happening; no increase in frequency or severity of weather events, while the planet continues to green and humans to thrive. I realize there are serious problems ahead, but they don't involve the weather or climate.

At the most basic, it's yet to be convincingly demonstrated that a couple degrees of temperature increase is likely to be problematic.


L: "I realize there are serious problems ahead, but they don't involve the weather or climate."

I don't entirely discount the problem of changing the composition of the atmosphere slightly, but it's a bummer how the climate change people have sucked all the air out of the room in terms of human impact on the planet. Using 'climate change' as a political tool is even less acceptable.

I think that, lacking some huge change (good or bad) in technology, the real story of the anthropocene era is going to be this:


Of course, that thinking treads on taboo ground, but the side effects won't be pretty for anyone.


Posted by: scenes | 09 February 2020 at 08:10 AM

None of these are allowed by the Climate Industrial Complex of course.

Aww Scenes.....how's a brother supposed to maintain that sweet, sweet Truckee lifestyle if something like this was to come to pass!

Chastising the real perps is so 20th Century!


frisch o'dark :39

"Seriously climate models are amongst the most studied, peer reviewed, and transparent parts of scientific research today."

And yet they continue to overpredict warming by a factor of about 2.


Posted by: scenes | 09 February 2020 at 09:04 AM

Borlaugs Revenge........


"And yet they continue to overpredict warming by a factor of about 2."

No problemo. Simply take the number that pops out of the honkin' data/equations heap and divide by two.

No doubt it would become

(complex_magic_number_generator / 2) * need_for_more_funding_multiplier

Steven Frisch

"..."they are designed to work on a range of assumptions." Only one set of which can possibly be accurate and not even that one necessarily..."

Except that is not how climate models are used...the range of assumptions is based on different assumptions about emissions and different assumptions in the metadata, and then projections and in some cases experiments are tested against the range of models... for example the California Climate assessment uses 10 models...

"Changes in global and California temperatures depend on the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gases emitted from human activities in the atmosphere. The future emissions and resulting accumulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) could take a range of pathways depending on the success of international and local efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The warming and other changes experienced under different future conditions are projected using Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). RCPs do not represent a specific policy, demographic, or economic future, but are defined in terms of their total radiative forcing (Watts per square meter) by 2100 (i.e., the net balance of radiation into and out of Earth’s surface due to human emissions of GHGs from all sources).

The Fourth Assessment uses two RCPs from the Fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Assessment Report on Climate Change. The higher of the two RCPs represents accumulating GHG concentrations under a higher emissions pathway (RCP 8.5), commonly understood as a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario that would result in atmospheric CO2 concentrations exceeding 900 parts per million (ppm) by 2100, more than triple the level present in the atmosphere before human emissions began to accumulate. The more moderate GHG concentration pathway (RCP 4.5), a scenario where GHG emissions rise until mid-21st century and then decline, results in a CO2 concentration of about 550 ppm by 2100 (van Vuuren et al., 2011).
Global climate models (GCMs) use different RCPs to project future climate conditions. A group of experts selected by California’s Department of Water Resources identified 10 GCMs from a set of more than 30 available as being the most suitable for California water resource climate change studies (California Department of Water Resources, 2015).

The Fourth Assessment uses these 10 GCMs and the two RCPs discussed above to simulate California’s historical and projected temperatures, precipitation, and other climate outcomes such as relative humidity and soil moisture. The outputs of these models provide a set of common climate scenarios used throughout the studies in the Fourth Assessment. This chapter describes climate outcomes under these common scenarios."

In short, the origins of the models are there to see, there is NO QUESTION about 'their genesis' nothing is 'clouded.'

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Gregory | 09 February 2020 at 10:28 AM

Only in your tiny mind....



The tiny mind is the one who believes Gavin Schmidt who produces both models and an inaccurate surface record as James Hanson's replacement at NASA-GISS.

Try this:


fish: "Borlaugs Revenge........"

Hah, no doubt. Maybe Borlaug 2.0 will invent some kind of nutrient tank we can fetch a dipper of algae out of now and again.

Remember, people are our greatest asset.


and this


Steven, I don't claim the models' genesis is 'clouded,' just that the assumptions used to reach the dramatic conclusions lack proof. Don't conflate emissions scenarios with the basic theory- of course different future emissions may well influence the rate of climate change.

Rather, do something about the IPCC's estimate of 1.5 - 4.5 C increase from a doubling of CO2(ECS). Most recent work (ignored by warmunists) points to a figure around 1.2 for equilibrium climate sensitivity. More serious by far are the assumed feedbacks associated with a rise in atmospheric CO2, direct evidence for which are sadly lacking in the party line.

Scenes @ 9:04- Zakly! What happens when medicine outpaces education.

George Rebane

re L 126pm - For the record, I DO claim that the models' genesis is clouded. No one, including those directly involved, do or can give a cogent answer to questions such as 'why did you pick that particular value for that particular feedback gain?' Their stumbling answer is 'well, that value seemed to work best for the model's output most closely matching the generated historical data - of course, all things considered'. The use of such brown numbers is an example of cloudy genesis.


George, my remark at 1:26 needs clarification. What I meant was that they were completely unsuccessful at hiding- hence 'clouding'- the origins of their now-failed theory of runaway global warming. It was fully apparent at the time that they were pulling numbers and assumptions out of thin air, lacking any real evidence for their politically convenient theories. Greg's chart at 1:26 shows the naked truth.


gr 149pm

such is the nature of curve fitting. it matches the past very well. the future, not so much.


That chart demonstrates that Dr. Karl'[s SST sleight-of-hand in 2018 (discounting evidence of ARGO buoys) cannot hide the fact that global warming flat lined after 2000 and said flat line has not resumed an upward trajectory.

George Rebane

L 202pm - Understood. However, brown numbers are not pulled out of 'thin air', if you get my drift. ;-)

Gregory 203pm - Indeed. And from the plotted data I've seen, there weren't even enough hoops to jump through to give a very good match to the past.


OK, George, I agree. Besides being scientifically preposterous, CAGW is also a hoax surpassing even Piltdown man and a fraud, enabling pseudo-scientific solar panel salesmen to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.

Obviously brown numbers come from brown places.


But most of all, it's a political weapon wielded by the progressive cancer in which we increasingly swim.


L.... not really. Everyone behind the Piltdown Man knew it was a fraud. Virtually all of the Warmistas, however,
really think it to be true.

Fraud is different than groupthink.

George Rebane

Gregory 636pm - Greg, do you think that there are no equivalents to Team Charles Dawson of Piltdown fame in fraudulently promoting the climate crisis? Where do the turkeys like Michael Mann, James Hansen, and Gavin Schmidt fit in? Weren't any of them smart enough to see the holes in their arguments? If so, then the rest of hoi polloi believers are the equivalent of those bygones who drank the Piltdown kool-aid.


I don't *need* to believe there are NO equivalents to Dawson and Company who knew the bones they were burying were fakes made from different species. Some may.

But even Schmidt might well think all they're doing is keeping the ball moving until there's no doubt there's a mass extinction on the verge of happening. God's work, as if she actually exists.

He's a scienceless jerk, but Frisch doesn't have the background to understand the issues. Neither does Anna Haynes.


Hansen may get some sympathy as a true believer (sucker), but Mann and Schmidt, never. They are Exhibit A and B though, with a bit of thought, the list is easy to extend- there are more than a few guilty of academic fraud to promote their own careers. They give out the points to each other and cover the claims of the hucksters trailing in their wakes. A compliant, politically agreed media does the rest. Simples

But yeah, there are some real criminals involved here.

The comments to this entry are closed.