I’m in the middle of an extended CLOBBERING-TIME. Clobbering alarmist science and those who would compromise with it.
Here is a query to a fellow whom I think is a talented science but whom I think has been forced or enticed to meet the alarmists half-way (or worse).
I’m wondering how he’ll respond. And whether he’ll have to stay in the way of my clobbering time or not.
I would want to point out that the only reason I’ve given him such a hard time heretofore is because I have assumed he had the ability to be a very good scientist.
I will wait for his reaction and see which way I will go with this particular individual.
“Why not for the purposes of the general enlightenment throw some dummy ranges through your pre-sorted equations?
Its no great problem if people are sticky in their thinking outside the profession. What worries me is that the political poison has invaded right into science-worker territory.
If thats right there may be no choice but to convince folks AGAINST their will and by sustained campaigning, being as how a man may not be ‘convinced away from a proposition by REASON if it wasn’t REASON that got him there in the first place’. (paraphrasing something I can’t remember where from)
If the politicisation, and the public-funding-influenced corruption has pierced too deeply into your profession, then we may have to go through an extended clobbering-time in order to bring matters back to a reasonable sense of decorum.
By the way.
I wouldn’t expect YOU as a prominent and authentic scientist to necessarily be doing the clobbering.
But tell me this……
Do you feel that the situation has gotten so bad that you have to hide your data for the longest possible time?
And even then not present it in the most accesible way possible?
Let me explain why I say this:
“Of course you’d also have to mention that this doesn’t take into account any change in solar activity.
And say whether you’re using data that integrates Antarctica, the ocean air and the Southern Hemisphere more generally as well as data that excludes any heat island effect.”
I say this because I’m assuming you found it impolitic to set things straight on the above.
And in fact I KNOW that your data doesn’t factor in or out all these things (as I would wish it) since if it did you couldn’t possibly reach the figure you have for any ‘decadal’ time period.
I think that political/institutional imperatives have made it almost impossible to do good science on both sides of this debate.
And I suspect the whole paradigm of having a stable or meaningful warming sensitivity to CO2 is just not right for this planet.
I assume that you could have such a sensitivity figure for the other planets in this solar system but not for this one planet. The planet EARTH.
Its as though the paradigm has been sorted with reference to the other planets in the Solar System.
But the problem is that their greenhouse substances are all greenhouse GASSES.
But our primary greenhouse ‘gas’ is liquid water.
And plus the landscape of it all with the Continents drifting about and the unequal depth of water and the way that this reacts with orbital cycles………….
….. Well you see unlike the other planets in this solar system, for most time scales, there appears to be a great deal of SERENDIPITY in the system.
What I think is needed is people like me to project a sustained level of abuse against various bully-boys. So that some of you fellows, who ought to be doing path-breaking science in this area, can gain the space to be able to do it.
And just do it and let the chips fall where they may without having to nuance things for the bully-boy-advocates-of-the-intellectual-status-quo.”