ctandc72
Well-Known Member
There is one major problem with many climate scientists - and it's not just climate scientists that have this issue. It's any scientist / research program tied to grants for salaries and funding. A scientist or team of scientists are paid to find out whether X=Y. Here's the rub. If those scientists find out that X does not equal Y - then they lose their funding / grants. That's a very simplified overview - but it holds true a good bit of the time.
The other problem is that many of the latest studies are based on FLAWED mathematical models.
Let's take a recent study - one that was quoted and linked by a lot of major media outlets
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8
An independent scientist read the study and found out that the study was based on FLAWED math.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/...esplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/#_edn1
This finding was later confirmed by University of Colorado professor, Roger Pike, Jr. The CORE MATH that the entire premise of their study was based on - was WRONG. It happens in science. But when scientist becomes married to politics and PR - it stops being science.
That's just ONE example.
Or we could take James Hansen. The former NASA scientist that testified before Congress in 1988. You know - the hearing organized and pushed by Al Gore? The same topic that made him rich? Hansen is considered by many to be the "Father of Global Warming."
Turns out Gore took the worse case scenario data that Hansen was advised to present to Congress (he presented multiple scenarios - some that didn't reflect realistic events - such as Scenario B - the one Gore RAN WITH).
Hansen has since stated - over and over - that the data Gore used for his Global Warming campaign were NOT Realistic and did NOT reflect realistic climate data. The scenarios / models presented by GORE - which pretty much started the mainstream global warming push 30 YEARS AGO - is garbage.
The other problem is that many of the latest studies are based on FLAWED mathematical models.
Let's take a recent study - one that was quoted and linked by a lot of major media outlets
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8
An independent scientist read the study and found out that the study was based on FLAWED math.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/...esplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/#_edn1
This finding was later confirmed by University of Colorado professor, Roger Pike, Jr. The CORE MATH that the entire premise of their study was based on - was WRONG. It happens in science. But when scientist becomes married to politics and PR - it stops being science.
That's just ONE example.
Or we could take James Hansen. The former NASA scientist that testified before Congress in 1988. You know - the hearing organized and pushed by Al Gore? The same topic that made him rich? Hansen is considered by many to be the "Father of Global Warming."
Turns out Gore took the worse case scenario data that Hansen was advised to present to Congress (he presented multiple scenarios - some that didn't reflect realistic events - such as Scenario B - the one Gore RAN WITH).
Hansen has since stated - over and over - that the data Gore used for his Global Warming campaign were NOT Realistic and did NOT reflect realistic climate data. The scenarios / models presented by GORE - which pretty much started the mainstream global warming push 30 YEARS AGO - is garbage.
Sponsored