‘Stimulating’ Scientists Into Proving Global Warming
The trillion-dollar plus porkapalooza Wreak-America Bill just passed by Congress will throw a huge amount of money into scientific research. This will be a good thing for certain scientists, but a very, very bad thing for science.
Young scientists do most of the great science. Einstein was 26 when he published his relativity theory. In 1980, when I got my first government research grant at the age of 33, some 22 percent of National Institute of Health (NIH) grants were given to scientists under the age of 35. In 2005, only three percent of NIH grants went to those under 35, while the percentage given to those over 45 increased from 22 to 77.
Increasingly, government grants are used to defend dogma, not discover new truth: 28 percent of the scientists supported by NIH admitted recently to cooking data to support establishment theory, and 66 percent admitted to cutting corners to achieve the same end. I myself no longer trust the data claims appearing in the leading science journals.
The United States and the European nations have spent billions of dollars to build the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) outside Geneva, Switzerland. The new bill will spend more. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts that the central particle of the Standard Model, the Higgs Boson, must have a mass-energy of around 220 GeV, an energy well within the range of the LHC. But the particle physics establishment does not want the Higgs Boson to exist, because if it does, then particle physics would be complete, and the particle physicists would be out of a job. Gary Taubes, in his book Nobel Dreams, has documented that the same people now in control of the LHC tried years ago to cook the data to refute the Standard Model. Can they be trusted now?
The new Wreak-America Bill will throw billions of dollars more into global warming research, a field in which data cooking has become an open scandal. Once again, the data is being adjusted to confirm the establishment theory: humans are responsible for global warming. In actual fact, satellite observations show that the Earth is now cooling, and has been cooling for about 10 years. This confirms the anti-establishment theory that the Earth warmed prior to the late 1990s due to the then-increasing number of sunspots, and is now cooling due to the now decreasing number of sunspots. The Wreak-America bill contains funds to “adjust” those pesky satellite observations, so that the data will confirm what powerful politicians wish to be true.
I think we can all rest easy… if theirs any way for the LHC to blow the planet to bits they will find it and do it.
So, what’s new? There was a new report from Harvard trumpeted last week that supported some liberal thesis. You had to think that if the report had rejected the thesis, would it have been published or even allowed to continue.
Research to prove that “homosexuality is a good thing” is backed; few researchers would dare suggest any other conclusion.
I mostly agree with what the author is saying, but this sentence needs some examination:
“The U.S. cancer death rate is actually higher today than it was decades ago, before Nixon launched his War on Cancer.”
I am not sure that this prove much. Cancer death rates may be increasing, but death from bear attacks is at an all time low (I hope). Everyone has to die of something. In many cases, an increase in the rate of death from one source is actually caused by a decrease in the death rate of some other cause. A decrease in the number of people dying from diseases will increase the number of people dying of heart failure; you can’t die of a heart attack at 60 if you die of cholera at 20.
Excellent Article. I taught Chemistry, Physics and Biology for 24 years at the High School Level. One of the things I had to do was to get the students to understand that scientists were people who came from various backgrounds and had the same types of failings as any other person. It was hard for them to get a handle on this since science and the purveyors of science have become the Priestly Class of our modern society. That said science and the technology that it has spawned as been a net boon to our society. Yes it has its problems and has caused its problems but we are still better off for it.
3. Paul,
“The U.S. cancer death rate is actually higher today than it was decades ago, before Nixon launched his War on Cancer.”
~
It’s the Big Mac Attack. ‘Fast Food’ is the quickest convenience route to the grave. I haven’t eaten a quickie burger in well over 15 years and I almost never get sick and I’m fit-n-trim. I’m not a granola lovin’ peacock and I love my rare steaks and such but cooking your own food is so much better for ya. We’ve grown organic gardens each Spring for the last two years also and wow…what a difference in flavor and quality!
The global warming scam is a J-O-K-E and just one more pet project of the Liberal Alarmists. The embarrassing part is that anyone took them seriously to BEGIN WITH. Ha!
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner
Here is a lot of real information about phoney ‘climate change’. They changed the name in recognition that the climate has been cooling for years. However, it’s still ‘our fault’.
The raw cancer death rate may be up but the age adjusted cancer death rate is way down. Fewer people die of heart disease and stroke then thirty years ago and people are living longer. You have to die of something and since Cancer is a disease of old age longer life means more people will die of cancer.
“In actual fact, satellite observations show that the Earth is now cooling, and has been cooling for about 10 years.”
Nice cherry pick.
“This confirms the anti-establishment theory that the Earth warmed prior to the late 1990s due to the then-increasing number of sunspots, and is now cooling due to the now decreasing number of sunspots.”
Um, supposed cooling for ten years. Yet we have an 11 year solar cycle. so the highest temp was recorded in the trough of the solar cycle, and, according to you, the temperature cooled through the peak of the solar cycle. And you think this theory is confirmed?
There was no net increase in sunspots from the mid 1970s to the late 1990s.
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
EVERY time I read the words “global warming” it makes me want to wrap my head in ducttape. How any intelligent being can possibly think my Non-GE (insert item here) is warming the world is beyond me. AUGH!
Yep, like a lot of the nationally funded “science” the global warming science grants have created a never ending annuity for further research. Here are 2 links with info that point to the climate change hysteria being more of a scam or hoax.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/02/recent-historical-surface-temperature-trends-mock-global-warming-hysteria-have-obama-pelosi-reid-bee.html
http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/02/science-from-obama-a-climate-scientist-the-nyt-the-co2greenhouse-bathtub-effect.html
C3H Editor
Such are the times we live in, when even the sanctity of scientific inquiry and all inquiry into truth is perverted by ideology.
This will have a profoundly deleterious impact upon trust in the scientific community for hundreds of years to come.
come on guys global warming all Al gores fault.
How hot does it have to get before we freeze to death?
The objective of global warming is a political endeavor. Funding is not going to those that do not cheer for the political endeavor. Algores college prof turned him omn to warming and then he changed his mind. algore missed that part
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, “What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, record setting lack of sun spots . . . failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years. The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!”
One year does not a trend make, but now we have 10 years of no increase and recently a decrease in temperatures while all the time CO2 levels have been increasing. Trying to reconcile these data with global warming is like eating a steak to prove you are a vegetarian.
Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, “What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling, sharply declining temperatures the last couple of years, record setting lack of sun spots . . . failure of computer models to predict real climate, predictable warming and cooling climates for the past 500 years. The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!”
I agree that one year does not a trend make, but now we have 10 years of no increase and recently a decrease in temperatures while all the time CO2 levels have been increasing. Trying to reconcile these data with global warming is like eating a steak to prove you are a vegetarian.
The more I see of the climate change drones the more I think that they should paint a green horse’s rear end on their front doors.Just so anyone entering is duly warned.
I loved this article, but wish the author had titled the stimulus “Wreck America,” and not “Wreak America.” There is a profound difference in those words, and I’m certain he meant the former.
I’m saddened to see that — according to an item in this article — recent physics research in the U.S. has suffered as a direct result of federal interference.
This mirrors what I believe is the dismal fact that federal spending and institutionalizing of the arts and humanities has resulted in no major creative outpourings in either art or literature that match previous eras in America.
We have an Arts endowment and a Humanities one, and in all the time that these have operated, we have had nothing to match the abstract expressionism school with which Americans dominated Western art after WWII, and no truly great feats of literature. Ditto for the results from our “Department of Education.”
The agenda behind the now discredited AGW hypothesis is financial: proposed is a massive looting – the most massive wealth transfer in the history of humanity. Everyone go and look up Maurice Strong. You’ll find your answer there in his story. We the United States have a big bulls eye painted on us and this Canadian expat living in Beijing is out to destroy our economy. You will also find out that he comes from a very accomplished family of Communists. Obama is here to do Soros’ and Strong’s bidding.
I am no scientist, just a layman who has been voraciously reading everything I can about the AGW hypothesis and the carbon tax/cap and trade system/Kyoto Protocols and their penalties. What a lot of the scientific community is doing to us now and will be aiding and abetting is criminal. I will never trust these people again. Ever.
Congress is currently planning or debating the AGW theory & how to enact a carbon trading scheme. Al Gore must be ecstatic. After all, once the government “forces” companies to do carbon trading business here, he will be able to sell the services of his carbon trading company who will profit handsomely from this law requiring people do business with companies like his. He will make money even if one choses another company. Al will make hundreds of millions, if not billions. But hey, those nasty oil companies are in it only for the profits.
The “green industry” is also in it for the profits & for them to evade that fact, reveals much about their intentions. They are as bad or perhaps worse than the oil industry.
Wind & solar cannot ever provide more than 40% of our needs & that will not be able to happen until twenty years from now. What are we to do in the meantime? Lose productivity, lose living standard levels, lose lives as money goes to special interest groups looking to “impose” their way of life on us, while other, more deserving causes lose out to them!
Few Global Warming – Climate Change predictors who use their computer models to justify their positions, are willing to reveal their data source codes for repetition or review. They know their predictions cannot be replicated by anyone, unless they cook the data just as these folks did. And replication is the ONLY true way to confirm a scientific theory.
The fact is, they have no handle at all on this issue. The other fact is, those who began this charade, were ardent socialists who saw a method they could employ to cause the world to adopt their principles of governance. And they all wanted socialism to become the norm for the planet. Their global government (as if a huge bureaucracy will perform better than the bureaucracies we currently endure), would create a worldwide oppressive government that would allow no representation of the people, but would do the bidding of the elite who control them. The EU is falling apart as European nations, or rather their populations, realize the Brussels based continental government represents special interests & ignores the needs, will, & desires of ‘the people.’
The money from our government will be used by egotists like Hansen at NASA (whose former boss, finally free of retaliation by Hansen’s political buddies now that he retired, revealed than Hansen is a jerk who is in it for personal recognition & not for the science), to promote their own personal interests, not those of actual science. Hansen will once again prove “his” theories, while ignoring the very real fact that CO2 accumulation levels always “follow” temperature changes. Now, how can temperatures be driven by something that follows those changes? Al forgot to overlap those charts when he sold so many on his AGW theory.
Lets face it folks, we are being led astray by those who are more interested in their own narcissistic, financial, & personal power desires. Hansen wants to be recognized for his greatness, even though he knows eventually he will be discredited by actual facts. He figures to be long retired & dead by then.
Collective behavior nearly always stifle creativity. Creativity is a function of the individual mind, collaboration is the only analagous property of group think. How many ideas or inventions came about as the result of a group consensus. Only the individual can completely pursue the most extreme meanderings of his own mind and arrive at something which can profoundly affect the civilisation. The group cannot proceed beyond the inevitable failure of communicative understanding.
Liberty can only be possessed by the individual as well. At its very best the collective can only provide a protective environment in which the individual can exercise his liberty to do things his own way. Right now, in my opinion, the USA is not at its collective best. Environmentalism is a product of group think. That is why it remains mired in the political realm. We must be careful not to confuse science, which boils forth from the individual who possesses liberty, with politics, which is the domain of the collective.
“Thats ’bout all I have to say ’bout all that” -Forrest Gump-
President Dwight D. Eisenhower actually warned about exactly what Dr. Tipler is saying in his famous farewell address as president over 50 years ago – the one in which he warned about the “industrial-military complex” he also warned of the potential problems of the intersection between science and government.
This is what he said:
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.”
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Old Ike must have had a crystal ball! (BTY, lots of people thought he was dumb too — must have thought that running the largest invasion in history was something anyone could do.)
As a physicist, I find it apalling that government has such a reign on politicized science. I find it equally disgusting that members of my field as well as the related sciences share in this feeding frenzy.
Science should be free of government control or dictation. Government should not define the goals of science.
Smolin is a god, I have read many of his books. He is absolutely right about the last 25 years. I graduated in 1991 and the whole AGW was the “thing” many of the young grads wanted in on.
Paul from Hamburg, So cancer death rates are increasing are they? I suspect that you do not know that this is good news! Allow me to enlighten you and others. In our advanced society as people grow old they tend to die of one of three diseases; heart disease, stroke, or cancer. The first two causes of death are being better addressed all of the time, which leaves cancer as a cause of death that is less amenable to solution. Of course cancer death rates are increasing, it is indicative of a healthy, ageing society free of those diseases that kill off most of the population in early years.
Advanced societies have high cancer death rates because life expectancy is now 80+ years. Backward societies have low cancer death rates because they don’t live long enough to die of the diseases of old age.
The global warming issue has really brought to the forefront the politicization of science. Many who previously had blind faith in scientists are now turning away from scientific opinion because of this obvious politicization. This is not good for science or our country.
For the global warming issue, here are quotes from scientists and prominent personages that have helped lead this trend. Just scroll through the quotes and it’s easy to see how this happened:
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
If you have time, scroll through the quotes of scientists and prominent people who are deemed to be global warming skeptics. The difference in tone, attitude, and objectives is striking:
http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html
C3H Editor, http://www.c3headlines
Global warming denial and misinterpreted statistics seem to go hand in hand. Not only do we have a denial here of the unprecedented spike in global temperatures, we also have a foolish claim that increased deaths from cancer prove that medical efforts have failed.
In reality, the global temperature figures from satellite data indicate a massive run-up in global temperatures is accelerating, and the cause of increased cancer mortality is increased life expectancy because of a reduction in other causes of death such as heart disease, stroke, and accidents.
Counterfactualism appears to be the modus operandi of the right these days.
Peace.
DS
“Can one small household help save the planet from Global Warming?” (Cover story, WaPo mag, 2/15)
What a touchy-feely, airhead question. The correct answer is: Of course not, so wise up.
Saving the planet might possibly involve destroying an incoming asteroid before it gets here, or containing a terrible spreading disease, or an earthquake.
Global warming or cooling is beyond our pay grade. To wit: We can’t influence how many or few spots the sun will get anytime soon, so we’re at its mercy as far as climate is concerned, and always have been. Ignore that fact and you are at the mercy of every nutty idea that comes along, like changing light bulbs.
Do humor the concerned housewife who wants to feel important by doing SOMETHING helpful. And if she feels good about using less TP, then by all means applaud the effort.
But don’t bother her with facts. For over in Africa and North Korea, you know there are several families, for every one of those like hers, that are cooking every meal with wood or dung fires and overwhelming her best CO2-cutting efforts–and having lots more kids.
We should count our blessings and if possible do what we can to improve the lots of the unfortunates in this world. But cooling it? Don’t be ridiculous.
David S,
“the unprecedented spike in global temperatures”
Really? Speaking of misinterpreted (or rather bastardized) statistics, I hope you don’t expect to make us into believers with ‘hockey stick’ statistics.
Given the context of this article I’m surprised you’d bring that up.
The ice core sample taken from Antarctic ice show a 1500 year cycle of warming and cooling cycle.
When temperature devices are placed within 15 feet of driveways, any asphalt surface, roofs the temperature gets hotter than when placed according directives by the weather service. There is your global warming.
Yup Gore Bore gets to laugh every time he makes a bank deposit.
Japan has recently told the UN and the global warming idiots they are full of nonsense.
@30. Mike Blackadder:
You can take your pick of public data, or review private research on your own. The evidence for anthropogenic warming is far too strong to ignore.
Graphs and explanations
“Global warming.” World Book Online Reference Center
EPA info
“Far from being some future fear, global warming is happening now, and scientists have evidence that humans are to blame. For decades, cars and factories have spewed billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and these gases caused temperatures to rise between 0.6°C and 0.9°C (1.08°F to 1.62°F) over the past century. The rate of warming in the last 50 years was double the rate observed over the last 100 years. Temperatures are certain to go up further.”
I don’t see why it should be a surprise. It’s quite pertinent to the claim that there is undue influence involved in the funding of research to show the empirical evidence behind the theory under consideration. I think it foolish to dismiss all of this data out of hand, given the long-term and ongoing research that substantiates climate change predictions.
Peace.
DS
#28 David S(again),
I ask you once more to cite the source of your facts. It would be hard to foolishly deny something that has not been revealed to the foolish denier? Count me in with your so called conterfactualism crowd until you do. I do not take umbridge with your comments about cancer deaths.
I am also real tired of your childishly clever peace out salutation. Does the great thinker and name caller, David S, really need a trademark signature when no signature is ever required for me to know who you are when you post here?
How does CO2, which is twice as heavy as air, rise up and form a “blanket”?? Most greenhouse gases are within the first 1000′. Wonder what the temp. is at 10,000′, 20,000′? We are being distracted by debating temp. increases, when the actual debate is whether CO2 is in capable of doing what they claim. C02 trapping “heat” is much like a chain-link fence trapping mice. The entire scam is so absurd that they pummel people with the “scientific consensus” BS. There has been no evidence, any evidence, to show any scientific consensus. 52 people wrote the IPCC section that had to do with consensus. There are many IPPC reviewers that have rejected the whole consensus notion.
The scary part is the pressure to “silence” any debate. It is the opposite of science and the heart of facism. Would anybody be tempted to “mislead” if they stood to lose billions of dollars? A grant can be obtained on just about anything as long as it supports the AGW agenda.
#32. What isn’t being talked about are all the misplaced or faulty or outright failed sensors that were gathering up all of this “global warming” data. No one of any credibility believes any of the “global warming” nonsense any more except those who stand to profit from cap & trade and from control of the general populace.
This is because there are vast fortunes to be made as the Earth continues to cool and home-heating resources dwindle. But don’t forget the impact cooling will have on current agri-business; certain crop areas will no longer be viable, thereby also driving up food prices.
Much easier to lay a guilt trip on you, though; get you used to practicing conforming to the wishes of your (governmental) master.
David S,
Thanks for your courteous response.
This is one of the problems with the global warming hype and claims of scientific consensus; people wrongly assume that every AGW skeptic is totally uninformed.
The abstract posted does little to support claims of an “unprecedented spike in global temperatures” (even if you have confidence in the surface temperature records outside the U.S.). In fact the reason why we are supposed to be alarmed at this rate of warming over the past fifty years is that the AGW crowd continue to believe that it is unprecedented despite the fact that these paleo-climatology studies have been thoroughly refuted for having no actual statistical skill. That’s why I thought it was funny you brought up the notion of unprecedented warming while criticizing the right for misinterpreting statistics.
David S,
This is not the first time I have told you to seek out your information in different places than the ones you habitually use. You are either unable to understand it when you are reading flawed statistics coming from dubious sources, or you hold a truly dogmatic belief in a state sponsored religion. That is my opinion. However, I won’t be calling for money from the national treasury to support the universal imposition of my opinions on you.
If you want to see how phony the ground-based temperature measurements have been in this country, check out Anthony Watts’ websites for thorough inspections of the relevant sites, with pictures. http://www.surfacestations.org/http://wattsupwiththat.com/ Note the high percentage of temperature stations that are poorly located, up on roofs, next to AC units, etc. There is no way anyone could get good data from such a shoddy network.
Mike Kelley,
You are right. Even the U.S. stations have major problems. But at least there is still a relatively high density of stations in the U.S., some unchanged since the early 1900s. And in the U.S. they actually do adjustments for urban heat island effect (flawed as they may be), whereas in the rest of the world they do not. I have to wonder if that’s why we don’t see “unprecedented warming” in the U.S. and that this is a symptom only in the rest of the world.
Anthony Watts and others do a great job at auditing these networks, it would be nice if they had resources to check out sites outside the U.S. though too. Unfortunately, in the meantime we can only wonder about the quality of those sites.
I heard one theory about global warming from the right. “The day of 9/11 when there weren’t any planes in the air, the earth actually warmed up because the sun didn’t have anything to reflect off of.” Now if you think about it…it might make sense, it makes perfect sense to someone who isn’t educated.
Right now we are in a sunspot minimum…if it continues, and the earth cools off enough to reverse our global warming period (10,000 years) then I will dismiss man’s carbon footprint….especially Matt Lourers.
Liberals: There are 6,000 scientists warning us about global warming.
Conservatives: Scientists don’t matter because they don’t know.
(wait three weeks)
Conservatives: We have 600 scientists who say global warming is not a problem. And they know!
Liberals: Yeah but w have 6,000!
Conservatives; Yeah, but they don’t know. Only our 600 scientists are right.
Just like “military experts” paid to provide objective analysis on the Iraq War.
so?
Uh,
Only 6,000? That is unfortunate. Sceptics have 31,000.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
But you know. Numbers of believers or sceptics is a mugs game. As Einstein said (roughly) “in science it only takes one”.
I don’t remember any scientists (believers or sceptics) saying in 2000 that we were in the midst of a 10 year plateau and that following the plateau there would be 5 or 10 years of cooling – the head of the IPCC said that about the cooling trend about a year ago – backed by a computer simulation that included the PDO and other ocean currents.
Now we can check their work. They now predict that by 2015 or 2020 at the latest warming will come back with a vengeance. Of course when that prediction was made no one was even thinking of a Dalton or Maunder type minimum.
So what do we know? The heating/cooling from ocean circulation was not included in any models (so far only one that I know of has it) despite being known since 1997. And if the constant mantra of a solar output increase of .1% can’t produce global warming then how can a similar decrease (at the Dalton or Maunder minimum) cause global cooling? Evidently there are still one or two minor holes in our knowledge base.
And so it goes indeed…
Yeah, because the conservatives and military experts were so wrong about what needed to be done in Iraq.
And the Democrats with their failed attempts to snatch defeat from the hands of victory were giving objective analysis.
Most of the right are religious and have next to nothing knowledge about science. This is pre-exquisite for stupidity.
The break down of carbon inflation is stagering and has the financial monopoly counter any profitable information….So is it consumers that are alarmed? or is it Nascar that is alarmed? Someone who makes money in carbon emissions is alarmed?
That’s true. I used to be alarmed about global warming.
I was looking at that hockey stick graph telling me that temperatures were reaching levels unprecedented over the past 2000 years or something.
Then Jesus spoke to me and said not to worry, because the hockey stick was just a case of over-fitting a few cherry-picked ‘temperature proxies’ where they heavily weighted those series’ that had exhibited anomalous growth through much of the 20th century. He then pointed out that the end of the blade was a different color (ever since around 1980), because it was just surface temperature station records superimposed on top of the tree core record, because the tree core sample had no ability to predict temperature before or after the calibration period (hence the overfitting). And then he said “it’s not the blade that matters, but the shaft”. Those are some wise words. Then again, Jesus, among other things, is a pretty smart guy.
Professor Tipler, thank you for the article. I thoroughly enjoyed it, even if it did alarm me. May I ask your source for this sentence, “28 percent of the scientists supported by NIH admitted recently to cooking data to support establishment theory, and 66 percent admitted to cutting corners to achieve the same end.”
I don’t doubt you. It is just so alarming that I have to see it for myself.
Thank you, Sir.
@37. Jim Baker:
I’m not in the habit of taking research advice from people that refuse to share their sources. Go ahead and post some peer-reviewed science debunking global warming, and I’ll take a look at it.
What, you say you can’t find any?
How odd.
Peace.
DS
We needto let the lard get a work out with algore using a snow shovel.
Algore seems to think that the study of sun cycles and other data are not science. He only studies that which if ambiguous enough to not risk his political theory. I wonder how he measure CO2 at 60,000 feet elevation back 1,000 years?
Did someone one tell him it is heavier that normal air mixtures?
From 47. David S: we have
“Go ahead and post some peer-reviewed science debunking global warming, and I’ll take a look at it.”
“debunkin global warming” should that not say
“proving AGW false”?
Does not science say something like “trying to prove a negative is a waste of time”?
Is it not the task for you to prove AGW is true?
Or perhaps to proved that a human caused CO2 increase in the air is what causes global warming?
DS
You are a truly an misinformed and apparently un-informable semi-educated person. I am one of the 31,000 who has advanced scientific degrees and at one time accepted the basic AGW hypothesis. After I was asked to investigate the real scientific papers and not pseudo-journalistic propaganda, published under the thesis of “…if it bleeds or scares, it leads…”, I no longer agree. I proudly affixed my name to the skeptic petition. You sir, have done no such research, or are incapable of doing so.
The preponderance of scientific hypothetical papers of the 60s -70s and 80s supported the thesis of an AGW component of an experienced warming climate cycle. Mostly as as a gualitative proposition.
The quantitative Science of the 90s and the 21st century increasingly discredited every major single foundation of the hypothesis, with valid scientific measurements as reported by their published papers. It is now supported by a minority of genuine Scientists save for the ones profiting in a measurable way, so whose opinion is tainted. As an example, Astronomer Paul Hansen of NASA, has no training in either Climatology nor IT, both of which he controls at GISS, to the detriment of both. There are openly published evidence of financial support adding up to over a million dollars given to Mr. Hanson personally. Not to mention the position at NASA to which he was placed by Mr. Gore for his obeisance to Mr. Gore’s extremely personlly profitable idee fixe.
Now the AGW thesis is supported by by a minority of scientists, but a coterie on non scientist bureaucrats and politicians who use the scientists as mere window dressing, to push their largely political ideas.
When you write the conclusions written by some 52 non-scientists but politicians with an axe to grind, BEFORE the assessment of the current Science produced by the Scientists is completed, it betrays the whole enterprise of the IPCC as a non-scientific Farce.
I urge you to investigate the real science, with an open mind, and you will become an AGW skeptic. And perhaps even outraged to be used as a Fool by those who did it to you.
#49 [ Jim ] is right. The way the Scientific Method works needs to be repeated, because David S. is deliberately turning it upside down, and trying to claim that the existing climate theory must be proved. He has to cheat the Scientific Method, or he loses the argument.
In the Scientific Method, the burden of proof is always on the purveyors of any new hypothesis, to demonstrate that it explains reality better than the existing theory. Normally this is done by showing the predictive value of the new hypothesis. And as we know, the AGW purveyors are unable to predict either the climate or the weather better than by 50/50 chance. Today’s record low temps and blizzard conditions in Washington, D.C., during a global warming rally, are a case in point.
The “AGW-CO2-climate catastrophe” hypothesis postulates that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause runaway global warming. This has repeatedly been shown to be false; as beneficial CO2 steadily rises, global temperatures have steadily fallen:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2MSU.jpg
The current climate is well within the parameters of normal climate change history. In other words, nothing out of the ordinary is occurring; nothing. The climate is acting exactly the same as it has since well before the first petroleum discovery. Human activity has so little effect on the climate, that any changes are so tiny that they are unmeasurable.
As anyone can see by flying across the country, the Earth is a really huge place — while all of humanity could be fitted into a sphere only six miles across, with room to spare. Termites emit almost as much greenhouse gases as all of humanity. Upwards of 40 million Bison thundered across the Great Plains before the arrival of the Europeans, farting greenhouse gases all the way. Yet people like David S. have a dishonest political agenda to convince the public that we are reaching a climate “tipping point,” where runaway global warming and climate catastrophe are close at hand. They’re deliberately lying to you.
According to the Scientific Method, the promoters of the new AGW-climate catastrophe hypothesis have the burden of showing that their alarming hypothesis explains reality better than the long accepted theory of natural climate change. It is not the other way around, where the long held theory of natural climate must prove anything to anyone. As climatologist Roy Spencer puts it: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.”
According to the Scientific Method, the burden is on dishonest AGW promoters like David S. to falsify natural climate variability. But since David S. is incapable of falsifying that long accepted theory, he is forced to turn the Scientific Method on its head, to try and win the debate. That is a dishonest tactic.
AGW promoters have completely failed to demonstrate that their new hypothesis explains reality better than the long-accepted theory of natural climate change. Since the burden is on the believers in the failed AGW idea to show that their hypothesis explains reality, then they need to go back to the drawing board board and start over, instead of playing their devious games by trying to subvert the Scientific Method.
49 and 50.: it’s no use. DS is a propagandist, probably a paid one. He will not look to scientific data that contradicts what he believes. It is a waste of effort to call him on anything.
David S,
I have no interest in disproving an unproven theory. Something that is not proven does not need disproving. You are attempting to foist an unproven theory on me. You offer that there are over 6000 scientists who are advocates of this theory. That is great to hear and that says absolutely nothing about whether your theory is a good one. Six thousand people can be wrong, as you are quite willing to point out to the legions who buy and read Ann Coulter’s books, or to the sixty million people who voted for McCain. When you try to sell an idea or product, you have to show the buyer what he is getting for his money. Show me what it is you have to sell. But I have to warn you that even if I want to buy it, I won’t be advocating the spending of anyone elses money on your theory.
Showing my bias towards geology and geophysics, I will give you a study hint. The earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years, and the long term trend is, no doubt, cooling. This phenomenon is what has generally trapped the hydrocarbons we burn to heat homes, drive cars, lubricate machinery, and produce electricity so your personnal computer can entertain you. The land of the great Lakota tribes was once under the sea. Arizona used to be a rain forest. Texas is covered with coral reefs buried thousands of feet. Talk about your natural beauty.
Think big, David S. You wouldn’t be on this site, incessantly, if you didn’t think there is something to conservatism.
@53. Jim Baker:
Proof is always a matter of degree – there is no such thing as absolute proof. If you don’t have any other hypothesis to match the data, why do you dismiss the theory that fits the data?
The current socialized cost of carbon emissions is clear in the data on global warming, glacial retreat, and CO2 buildup in the atmosphere. The problem is that the worst effects of global warming will take decades, if not centuries, to be undeniably obvious in daily life, by which time the damage will be so severe that it may not be possible to reverse. If you plan to have children, you might be concerned for the future viability of the planet as a home for the human race. I suppose if you are completely self-centered, the benefits are rather intangible.
There is no doubt that the earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for billions of years. However, human beings evolved within a very narrow range of conditions, and homo sapiens now depend on a reliable climate for agricultural societies to persist. Disrupting the climate in ways that impact our ability to survive as a species is short-sighted.
Conservatism used to mean conserving the best of the past. I’m hoping that someday it will again have the same connotation. A true conservative would recognize the value of the biosphere as a shared asset of the human race which enables our own existence, and would act in the defense of this resource.
Finding a true conservative Republican is about as likely as being struck by lightning.
Peace.
DS
Nice article – but troublesome. Philosopher/writer Ayn Rand noted the phenomenon over 50 years ago in her novel Atlas Shrugged, when she said, “The first word in ‘free, scientific inquiry’ is redundant… ‘governmental scientific inquiry’ is a contradiction in terms.”
The defining characteristic of a government is that it has a legal monopoly on the use of force. It should only be involved in areas where that characteristic is necessary and appropriate, i.e. police, the courts, the military. It has no legitimate business in funding of science or any other peaceful activity. It’s influence in those areas can only corrupt.
I would not go as far as to say man made climate change is a fallacy, the climate is changing and there is no simple, single identifiable cause. Like the diseases and disabilities of modern life, MS, Fibromyalgia, lupus and (dare I say it?) autism, science has been unable to find a single cause and therefore cannot begin to find a way to help sufferers. The same with Climate Change, it is probably part natural cycle and part human activity. That is not very helpful I know, but what I can tell you is none of the “green technologies”, carbon capture, windmills, solar panels etc. that Obama and other western leaders want to pump money into have a snowball in hell’s chance of working.
Nuclear energy is tho only feasible source of carbon free energy we have currently available. So we can build nukes or go back to whittling and crocheting by candlelight in front of a dark television screen on winter evenings. Sidi Obama will have to face up to that sooner or later
The nuclear Catch-22 has just dawned on the UK green lobby.