Tedious New York Times reactionary (sorry for the redundancy) Paul Krugman is rooting for Jon Huntsman in the Republican derby in Krugman’s new column, “Republicans Against Science”:
Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Mr. Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the G.O.P. — namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.
Krugman’s all hopped up about those yahoos Rick Perry and Mitt Romney not being on board with anthropogenic global warming. What dunces. Krugman, after all, is an economist and we all know that is the most empirical of sciences — as opposed to the methods of those parvenus at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) who just came out with a new study of cosmic rays and clouds, which is turning climate science upside down:
CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.
The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.
This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.
Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.
Oops. I guess Krugman hasn’t been keeping up with the latest issues of Nature.
Well, no matter. Forget CERN. They’re only the world’s largest particle physics laboratory and the world wide web began there, etc. What do they know? There are other sources like the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences. I know, it’s a little outré. But not so outré that it doesn’t have the latest article by MIT’s resident climate genius Richard Lindzen, writing with Korean scientist Yong-Sang Choi, that calls so many aspects of climate modeling to question that your head spins. The entire article is available here, not that Krugman should have to read it. He’s a busy guy.
Presumably, Paul will be junking the helicopter requests, let alone jetting down to Sao Paulo for a conference, to help reduce his carbon footprint? Not to mention convincing Thomas Friedman to sell that mansion, right?
The CERN study makes sense. I always thought that cloud formation had more to do with temperature than anything else. The combination of molecules in the atmosphere seemed like an odd thing to focus on when thinking about the massive swings in temperature caused by clouds. For instance a clear night will leave the temperature 10-20 degrees lower next morning than a cloudy one.
Roger, that concluding pair of sentences — “They should ask Paul Krugman. He knows.” — sings to me as a phrase that could aptly be said of any assertion on any topic. I doubt that there is very much about me or my life of which Paul Krugman would approve, and on every matter of disagreement, it could be said: “They should ask Paul Krugman. He knows.”
Reminds me for some reason of the immortal back-and-forth competing graffiti:
“God is dead.” — Nietzsche
“Nietzsche is dead.” — God
Both are equally as certain, but only one is certainly right.
There is no one so damaging to science as a scientist who has the courage of his convictions, but lacks the willingness to change. Krugman proves that maxim true for pseudo-sciences as well.
I hope all this info is being compiled and passed on to Perry. It’s not enough to have an AGW skeptic as a candidate. I want an educated skeptic!
Absolutely right!
One should seek the bottom line, and that means making the correct decision on Nov. 6 2012.
Regardless of what one stands for or against politically (ones political ideology), put an R behind your name and the Republican Party handlers (elite insiders) will go all out in supporting you. Conversely, your political ideology is all that is necessary for an R behind your name to also get D’s to go all out supporting you too. And therein lies the problem the Republican Party faces; blind support for any ideology as long as there is an R behind your name while, to the Democrat Party elite, its all about your ideology. America is so overloaded with politicians supporting “big government policy” on both sides of the isle that now it has become a one Party system of Government structured to grow themselves (“big government”) at the expense of the people. Just how far has the constant holding our noses to vote for the lesser of two evils (Republicans) gotten us. Pretty far if you want Hell as your final destination!
So true. Big government is in the interest of the politicians from both parties. The only difference being how fast the government gets bigger. Time to vote out establishment Republicans.
The unholy trinity: Big Government, Big Business, Big Labor. They are the majority and to them, political parties are simply the opiates of the masses.
That is what a “Constitution” is for – a rule of law over a multitude screaming “cut off their heads!”
That is why – for all these years – ours has been circumvented. Now that we are without one, the majority rules, and that harkens to feudalism.
Let the “buyer” of ANY parties largesse beware of BOTH parties obligations to their lords. Unless you enjoy harvesting hay and eating cow crap, that is.
In the summer of ’84 there was a solar eclipse. When the city of Dallas went into the umbra the temperature dropped about 10 degrees, from hot to pleasant.
It occurred to me then that a lot of air conditioning would be unnecessary if a large sheet of reflective mylar were deployed in orbit over the city to create a ‘anthropogenic’ eclipse.
We know that the sun warms the Earth. And it should be known that since the discovery of fire and the invention of refrigeration, man can change the climate around him, but to change the climate of the whole planet, that would require a plan, I think.
I hate to rain on your parade [given the blog topic, that may be an inappropriate cliche], Patrick, but there’s no possible orbit that will keep a “large sheet of reflective mylar were deployed over the city to create a ‘anthropogenic’ eclipse.” By “over the city” you obviously mean constantly between the city and the sun. No matter where the city is on the earth’s surface, the earth’s rotation will change the city’s position relative to the sun and, consequently, the required position of that mylar shield. In particular, at night for the city, the earth itself prevents sunlight from reaching the city and makes a shield unneeded.
Pardon me, Patrick, I forgot some sunlight can reach the city at night. That sunlight is reflected by the moon and called “moonlight”. It doesn’t bring much heat with it, so I doubt you’ll want a mylar shield reflecting it away.
Gee Mr. Simon … maybe yah oughtta read PJM/Tatler … it turns out that the world’s climatologists are pretty darn impressed with the CERN research you cite.
And no, that CERN research is not reassuring at all, regarding AGW’s physical reality, accelerating pace, and sobering strategic implications.
—————————————————
Breaking news: The pro-science folks at RealClimate just *love* the CERN research
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/comment/93641/
The big red nose and floppy shoes are quite appropriate on you.
It’s no use to argue with the so-called “physicist”. All the facts in the world aren’t going to wear away that cemented mind.
(Krugman) tell us “…the scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker, as the evidence for climate change just keeps mounting.” If this sort of thinking can get you a Nobel Laureate, then Obama’s was well deserved.
It’s really quite worrying when two such supposedly smart guys say inane things. I wonder sometimes whether they really believe what they say or whether they don’t really, but say it anyway.
Huntsman, Christie, Krugman (etc.) are solidly right-on-the-facts.
Those pesky, pesky facts.
Facts that throughout history, have flouted political/religious authority.
Gee … maybe American conservatism ought to respect those facts?
Either that, or we should revert to smoking Camels & feeding our kids DDT.
——————————————
Expert credibility in climate change
URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract
I wonder what sort of scientist you are, if you didn’t know that DDT was never proved to hurt anybody, but that countless people have died from the banning of it.
The 97% consensus is a lie. It was reached through cherry picking the definition of ‘experts’ who responded to the survey. The survey was sent out to 32k people. Somewhere around 10k responded. From there, they pared the sample size down by defining expert as someone who had published climate science related papers in the last year (of which, 3 out of every 4 are pro global warming, because what kind of climate scientist is not going to toe the line?).
The final sample size for the 97% lie was less than 100 people, somewhere in the mid 70′s.
With respect, “Statistician”, your post is wrong-on-the-facts …
The PNAS article is free, and the methods of the study are described in comprehensive detail … so folks can check for themselves how accurately the level of consensus was gauged. The short summary is, they queried a pretty fair sample of every serious climate researcher in the world.
————————
Expert credibility in climate change
URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract
The National Academy of Sciences? Don’t make me laugh. They supported eugenics at one time, and heavily depend on government endowment for their survival. How credible does that make them? Much more prestegious, credible and with a longer history is the British Royal Society. I guess their scientists weren’t included as part of the 97%. And then there is the age-old question – is science now determined by democratic voting?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316469/Royal-Society-issues-new-climate-change-guide-admits-uncertainties.html
And of course, “serious climate researcher” means someone who agrees with the party line.
That’s a nicely selective “randomly sampled” group you’ve got there.
Science died a long time ago.
a physicist: They didn’t “query” anyone. They classified scientists as “convinced” or “not convinced” of the “tenets” of the IPCC, depending on public statements that scientists had signed.
So there I was, on the beach in Sandusky, Ohio, whistling the Grosse Fugue while trying to recite the various laws of thermodynamics in Latin and you’ll never guess what happened. Oh, you will, will you? Well, not in this instance. A line of ants started to do the conga on an old conch shell. Itwas right out of a Busby Berkeley movie. What, said I? I’ve never seen anything like that before. But then I remembered. I’m a Physicist (that’s a certified smart guy for those of you who haven’t noticed or don’t respect your betters) – I should know. And then I did – it’s another manifestation of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It’s man-made because never before have ants done the conga. And it was hot out besides. So I grabbed the conch and ran off to the local branch of the United Nations. (That’s a long run from Sandusky.) And I told them, “Hey, I’m a physicist. I just got proof of global warming. Gimme a grant!” And I waved the conch at the them with all the ants doing the conga. “That again,” they said and waved me away. “We’ve been seeing that all week. It’s a manifestation of global cooling.” “Oh,” I said and slumped away. Just my luck. But the UN guy stopped me. “You’re a physicist,” he said. “Would you like a grant for global cooling? We’re giving out big ones this week.” Well, I felt a little taken aback, but I have to admit I accepted. Hard times, you know, even for physicists. Would you like a beer?
It also doesn’t help that it was based on 2 quetions:
1. Has the world warmed since the 1750s
umm… yes, of course it has. We’ve been coming out of a frigging ICE AGE.
2. Has CO2 played a role
again yes – the question is how much of a role (and most of the actual observational data indicates a small one)
Some survey.
Is there no topic upon which Paul Krugman can besmirch himself sufficiently so that even he must understand that he should have stayed silent?
No. Apparently not.
By the way, the NYT will not be selecting the Republican candidate for POTUS in this cycle. Jon Huntsman, the McCain clone*? What a hoot. Obama is toast and we won’t have to reach out to the left of center to beat him; the center has already moved our way.
*The Maverick may indeed be a political trainwreck because of his record of getting repeatedly suckered by Senate Democrats, but his Naval Service, especially during his internment in the Hanoi Hilton, reflects only the highest honor upon himself and the United States.
Jon Huntsman has to be the biggest RINO I’ve ever seen. The man is about as charismatic as a bowl of cold soup and he keeps throwing out those odious terms like “compromise,” “acceptable to the general public,” and “electable,” all of which means that he’ll basically do anything the Democrats want as long as they give him a few crumbs to bring back to his own party, just to show that he is actually doing something. He is John McCain on steroids and will lose badly in a general election. And of course the Democrats love him, because they know they can beat him. Republicans need someone with conservative credentials that can actually take the fight to the Democrats and win. And remember, if RINO Republicans are what the general public and the independents really want, then why did McCain lose so badly? Huntsman does not stand a chance. Maybe he should even switch parties and become a Democrat. I think he’d be happier there.
You must be too young to remember John Anderson – the granddaddy of all Rino’s. Oh how the media loved him and hated Reagan in 1980. If only the rest of us were smart enough, we would have loved him too.
I remember when Illinois congressman John Anderson ran against Reagan in the 1980 primaries. The media, including the New York Times, just loved the guy. He was “one of us”, a Harvard Law graduate who was an impeccably vague moderate and had nice silver/white hair and sported horn-rimmed glasses. After his primary defeat he ran on a third-party ticket and got over five million votes mostly, I believe, from Carter.
Louis Rukeyser was asked about the Anderson boomlet. Rukeyser chuckled and said – “John Anderson is type of Republican that the press really likes – He’s a Democrat.”
So is Huntsman. The media will willingly embrace any Republican so long as he isn’t, you know, a Republican.
Some folks here seem to think AGW is all about leftie-rightie politics.
But it ain’t. For the common-sense reason, that it always turns out Mother Nature is holding aces, while ideology-first politicians (both left-wing and right-wing) are holding deuces.
That’s why betting against Mother Nature ain’t smart. And she is saying, loud-and-clear, that AGW is real. Conservatives and liberals alike should heed her.
Jon Huntsman is among the first conservatives to appreciate this … others will be joining him … because as Richard Feynman famously said “Mother Nature cannot be fooled.”
————————————
Republicans for Environmental Protection
URL: http://www.rep.org/
Just a word of advice. Please drop the faux folksiness in your posts. (The repeated use of “ain’t” and “Mother Nature is holding the aces.”) Such language is ill-used by one describing themselves as “a physicist” and has a real condescending whiff to it.
Also go easy on the Feynman quote. You seem to have used it over a dozen times and some new material may be in order.
Richard Lindzen is a physicist. What is your opinion of his research? I am assuming you don’t think much of it. Care to tell us what’s wrong with it?
My own view is summed up in this simple equation:
(Richard Lindzen/2) + (James Hansen/2) = (the present AGW consensus)
`Cuz heck, “consensus of opinion” implies outlier opinions *do* exist. Otherwise there’d be “unity of opinion” … which *never* happens in math, science, medicine, engineering, or any other technical profession.
Over time, as AGW theory has improved and better-quality evidence has become available, both Lindzen’s and Hansen’s views have moved toward one-another.
This convergence is good … and likely will continue.
Not that there still ain’t plenty of disputation … which also is good!
———————————————————–
Lindzen’s illusions
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
I noticed that “A fizzicyst” is correct about the improvement in the theory of AGW. For example: due to hard research into rising temperature facts concurring scientists now know that space aliens are going to kill us all.
I’m sure CERN is going to back that up. Numbers can’t lie, but they can be imaginary.
If I had used your arguments in my first year in physics in high school, I would have failed.
1) No such thing as consensus in science. Just the mere mentioning of the word proves how infinitely stupid you are. 400 years ago consensus among scientist was that the earth was flat as a pancake.
2) AGW has not and will never be proven in a lab experiment. You cannot recreate the atmosphere in a laboratory.
3) Two lines on a graph that goes in the same general direction does not prove that one event caused the other. Without a proven lab experiment, you don’t even know if the lines should go in opposite directions. Here’s is an example: Number of shoes sold since the start of the century has increased. Does that prove the selling of shoes caused global warming? According to your theory it does. 99% of human activity, consumption, usage etc. has increased exponentially for the last 200 years. So so you can chose just about any activity, consumption or usage and attribute it to global warming, using your arguments. Like cupcakes caused global warming.
JL:
There was no consensus 400 years ago that the earth was flat. There was a consensus 400 years ago, and long before that, that the earth was a sphere.
There is such a thing as consensus in science, but the “consensus” line is a trick. In any area of life, “consensus” almost always refers to consensus over what to do about something, not consensus over what is true of something. The former is reached intentionally, and by compromise. The latter is not. Science does not reach consensus over what is true intentionally or by compromise. The trick is in counting on people not to notice the difference. They respect consensus based on experience with consensus over what to do, so they can easily be led to believe that consensus over what is true is an important thing.
I wouldn’t be calling anyone “infinitely stupid” if I were you.
Pay attention and you realize the primary means of research used by “A physicist” is appeal to authority. He’ll tell you a thousand times that people with important-sounding titles support AGW, but not once will he address the predictive failures of AGW theory.
He may have a physics degree, but it was clearly “earned” by toadying, not scholarship.
He’s posing as a physicist; there’s no evidence of his having any such, even elementary physics, knowledge. All he does is post links to various web sites, which are, in themselves, opinions rather than scientific analyses.
And certainly, there is no valid scientific evidence of AGW. There IS evidence of climate change, including both warming and cooling, but these phases have been in evidence on our planet for millenia.
It is extremely difficult, scientifically, to define causation in a complex system, which is what our climate is. Remember, correlation is not causation – and frankly, the error of assuming that correlation IS causation – is the main thesis of AGW.
I think you give them too much credit.
That’s why betting against Mother Nature ain’t smart. And she is saying, loud-and-clear, that AGW is real. Conservatives and liberals alike should heed her.
Posing as ‘a physicist’ and posting all those oh-so-scientific links to selective opinions is one thing. But arguing that you can channel Mother Nature is about the most self-destructive attempt at arguing from authority you’ve pulled yet.
Mother Nature really, really hates to be anthropomorphized.
the scientific consensus
Once upon a time, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat however, that did not mean it was.
Actually, that’s false. The whole ‘flat earth’ story was invented during the Enlightenment for political reasons. Since roughly the time of Aristotle, the educated consensus in Europe has been that the earth was a sphere.
However, until the 17-18th century, they also thought the earth was the center of the universe with the sun and everything else revolving around it. That was the scientific consensus for more than a thousand years.
To see what was happening 400 years ago, visit the Museo Galileo in Florence via the internet. The ptolemaic armillary sphere displayed there is a magnificent example: . It was commissioned by the Medicis and realized by Antonio Santucci. The instrument was completed and dedicated in 1593. The above reference is to the multimedia tour in English. Note the geocentric nature of the sphere.
Meanwhile, Galileo was busy undermining the religious, aristotelian, science embodied in the sphere. In 1610 he publicly supported the heliocentric theory. He was consequently tried by the Church, forced to recant his ‘error,’ and spent the remainder of his life under arrest. Hawking and Einstein have written of his work as seminal to the develop of modern science.
“. . . scientific consensus about man-made global warming — which includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences — is getting stronger, not weaker . . . .”
And there was a time when the “scientific consensus” said that the sun moved around the earth based on empirical evidence (just watch the sun move, even a Republican could see it). So, I guess for all these years, Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus were actually WRONG.
Heliocentric? You mean the sun warms things? Whodathunkit?
Roger, the truth doesn’t change. Our understanding of it does. We do not create truth. Thank God for that.
AGW has become a religion. It has everything it needs to be one, to include the fanatical, against-all-odds believers and zealots. While most of middle America takes a “wait-and-see” stance, the zealots are sticking things on their windshields, leaving flyers on their doors, making TV commercials to sway the non-believers and having evangelical tent-meetings to reaffirm their own neccessary-ness.
The planet warms. The planet cools. Everything in nature is cyclical.
Caused by humans? Nonsense!
There is no discipline called “climate science” that ir can be taught as a doctoral course. What gophers like Krugman or Gore or Pachauri call “climate science” is highly complex computer modelling involving dozens of highly specialised expertise, involving sunspot cycles, earth’s magnetic field variations, trade winds, salinity of oceans, variations in temperature at different parts of oceans, to vast sand migration westwards from Egypt/Sudan.
These models have hundreds of variables to which specific values have to be assigned. There is no empirical way to assign a specific value, only a range of values. Tweak just such variable a tad and a tropical storn turns into hurricane.
In any case, what alarmists really desire is to have a supra-governmental agency, non-elected, non-judicial, anti-sovereignty agency which will decide on behalf of the world who lives and who dies, who eats and who starves.
Any Republican candidate that the NY Times supports, is one not to vote for in the primary.
“Any Republican candidate that the NY Times supports, is one not to vote for in the primary.”
–
You could almost call this The Hogan Principle. I borrowed my friend’s boxed sets of Hogan’s Heroes a while back and am working my way through them. One of last night’s episodes had Col. HOgan, Col. Klink and Sgt. Schultz attempting to disarm a bomb that had fallen into Stalag 13. Hogan got to the innards of the bomb and found the fuse. Two wires, a white one and a black one, ran from the fuse and he explained that cutting one would neutralize the bomb and cutting the other would trigger the bomb. He asked Klink which wire to cut. Klink suggested the white wire. Hogan cut the black wire and the bomb was neutralized. Klink asked why he cut the black one against his advice. HOgan explained that he (Hogan) wasn’t sure which one to cut but that he was sure that whatever Klink suggested would be wrong.
Just substitute Paul Krugman or the NYT in that scene and you have the same prinicple: if a pompous fool who thinks he’s brilliant tells you to do something, do the opposite and you’ll probably be safe.
Paul Krugman has a NOBIL PRIZE!!!! What do U got??
That’s Nobel, A.M..
Paul Krugman has a NOBIL PRIZE!!!! What do U got??
So what? Obama has a Nobel Prize too. That and $5 will get you a designer coffee at Starbucks.
Skills in spelling and grammar that exceed that of a 9-year old with attention-deficit disorder?
An ExxonNobil prize?
I think this is snark. At least, I hope it’s snark, because if it isn’t, it’s just sad.
It was but I should have lowered the denominator a bit.
/sigh/
Don’t feel too bad, A.M. Some of us got it.
More number manipluation from the Doran/Zimmerman 2 question poll of 3,146 (10,157 contacted) earth scientist that Krugman mentions.
Question 2 : Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
97.4% (75 of 77) of respondents with “climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” responded “Yes” to question number 2.
So, since 75 people say that man is causing global warming, then it would be more accurate to state that less than 1% of earth scientists believe man is causing global warming.
Krugman column refers to a more recent, more rigorous study …
… that reached the same conclusions as previous studies.
Namely, 97% of a sample of 908 experienced climate researchers *did* agree that AGW is real.
——————————————————
For details, see PJM/Tatler
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/comment/885281/
The short summary is, they queried a pretty fair sample of every serious climate researcher in the world.
The difficulty with your claim is with the qualifier that is inserted into it i.e. “every serious climate researcher”. Only those in the inner circle need apply.
It’s easy to be considered “serious.” Just regurgitate the same tired mantras and talking points the left agree with and you’ll be “serious.” Otherwise, you’re “bat(poop) crazy” and a “racist right wing religious zealot.” It’s pretty simple.
Fing idiot
extrapolation
Patrick of Atlantis writes, “It occurred to me then that a lot of air conditioning would be unnecessary if a large sheet of reflective mylar were deployed in orbit over the city to create a ‘anthropogenic’ eclipse.”
What Patrick describes is a variant of a phenomenon sometimes referred to as “global dimming”. First suggested by an Israeli scientist (naturally), it focused on particulate matter and vapor in the atmosphere and its heat blocking effect. It was confirmed in the weeks after the attacks of 9/11 when aviation was grounded in the US, which meant no vapor trails. With clearer skies, temperatures went up.
As to the notion that the science is “settled” regarding AGW, anyone who’s gone beyond high school science knows that science is *never* settled.
The Left’s respect for science is a myth and a lie, and their assertion that the Right is anti-science is a total canard.
The Left’s supposed love of science rests on three pillars: they believe in evolution, they support embryonic stem cell research, and they believe in global warming.
The first of those, evolution, is believed primarily because of it’s association with atheism. The second because it helps rationalize abortion. Taken together, both of these are really about their desire to live free of the Judeo-Christian moral tradition. As for global warming, they are mostly seduced by the rational it provides for a dramatic extension of their own power.
As for conservatives, their attitudes towards the same three pillars are largely reactionary. For example, even many Christians have an acceptance of evolution in some form. The resistance to it has more to do with the fact that they rightly recognize it as a Leftist attempt to dismiss their belief in Man as being something higher and more noble than a common animal (relating, as I said above, to a desire to be free of restrictive moral codes). Science has nothing to do with it. Do you really suppose that a “love of science” would motivate all those “Darwin” bumper stickers that are specifically designed as a mockery of Christian faith?
But let us take this a different direction. Do we have examples of Left Liberals believing things that are wholly unscientific? Yes, absolutely. Neo-Paganism, Earth religions, Fortune telling, New Age, homeopathy, etc. etc. All extremely unscientific, and all heavily associated with Left Liberals.
Some of us survived college classes with these clowns, in which they would insist that reality be placed in quotation marks, and tried to conflate Einstein’s Relativity with Moral Relativity.
As a final note, if any of you are unfamiliar with the Sokal hoax, you should read up on it. Physicist Alan Sokal wrote a blatantly absurd fraudulent paper, which synthesized particle physics and post-modern deconstructionism. It was published and praised in the most respected journals of Leftist academic “thought”.
Leftists are thoroughly ignorant of, and hostile to, real science.
Well stated. Ideologues have a tendency to exagerate the significance of anything that serves their narrative. Man does indeed have a subtle impact on local climate…primarily because we change our surroundings. The temper tantrums of the left are likely indicative of their upbringing.
Ideologues have a tendency to exagerate the significance of anything that serves their narrative.
Exactly. Lysenkoism is the classic example from the late-Stalin and Krushchev era. As the result of a couple of experiments in 1927, a then-obscure scientist named Trofim Lysenko came up with ideas in agriculture that suggested that changes made to a parent (plant) would automatically be inherited by its offspring. (For details, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko). When the principles in this experiment, which could never be replicated successfully, were extended to humans, it coincided wonderfully with Marxism and seemed to promise that all of society could be transformed in a single generation. [To use my own metaphor, Lysenko's theories, if true, suggested that if a man lost an arm in an accident, any children he had would be born missing an arm.] He became the darling of Stalin, the Politburo and the Soviet Union and acquired immense power. Scientists who supported his ideas flourished. Those who opposed them, were kicked out of their posts and often imprisoned. (His chief rival died of starvation while imprisoned as did many other opponents of his theory.) This buffoon retarded Soviet biological and agricultural sciences for many years before his ideas were finally repudiated in 1964.
There was a real symbiosis between the politicians and Lysenko; he said things that helped them ideologically so they supported him and pressured others to follow his lead.
While the AGW movement isn’t quite so monolithic as the Lysenkoists were in the Soviet Union, in the sense that pro-AGW scientists live in free countries, AGW does serve the interests of leftist politicians who want an excuse to de-industrialize our civilization to “save the planet”.
AGW does serve the interests of leftist politicians who want an excuse to de-industrialize our civilization to “save the planet”.
It’s not that they want to de-industrialize our civilization. Rather, they want to exploit the political (not scientific) crisis of a warming world, in order to be given control of world economies as supposedly benign dictators. Their grandparents felt the same, in their hopes of seeing the warm fuzzy Uncle Joe Stalin at the helm of a ‘real world government’ which would bring peace and non-competitive prosperity to all – after all the reactionaries had been liquidated offstage, of course.
you are a f’ing liar
Elaborate, please
You forgot the Leftist biggie: Scientific Socialism.
Count me a “no” on that one, a “yes” on evolution and a “no” on AGW. I think people should do all the stem cell research they want. They just shouldn’t be holding their hand out to taxpayers to do it.
And, for the record, “no” on international banker conspiracies, black helicopters, alien abductions, pyramid power, 100 mpg carburetors, Keynesian economics, ancient astronauts, faith healing and single-payer medical care.
And someone take that apostrophe out of “it’s” for me in the third paragraph. Seriously, why doesn’t PJM have a comment preview function?
Seriously, why doesn’t PJM have a comment preview function?
Actually, there is a preview function. If you look below the box where you type your comments and skip over the “Click here to subscribe to the Daily Digest” paragraph, you should see two buttons, “Submit Comment” and “Preview”. If you click “Preview” you will see a formatted version of your comment below the original comment box. If you make changes in the original comment box and press “Preview” again, you will see your changes immediately. You can do this as many times as you like until you are satisfied. Then press “Submit Comment” to send your remarks to the PJM Moderators.
However, I have noticed that occasionally the “Preview” button doesn’t appear and you will only get “Submit Comment”. I’m not sure why that happens and why it only happens occasionally. I’ve even seen an “Edit” button occasionally that lets you change a comment after it has been submitted but that has also been a very rare phenomenon.
The ‘comment preview function’ is moot. The writer simply doesn’t know that the only circumstance where [it's] is appropriate is as a contraction of [it is]. Otherwise it should be [its]. No exceptions to this simple rule. All the previewing in the world – even with a spell-checker – won’t cure ignorance.
Hmm, apparently I do know, because I pointed out my own error. The only way to never make a mistake is to never write anything.
Some of us noticed that.
The “solution” to AGW entails giving the enlightened ones like Paul Krugman the ability to micro-manage our lives and our economy. As such, this solution predates the supposed problem. It has been around a long time, vainly searching for a problem that will justify it.
AGW is the just the latest infatuation the Solution has in its long and lonely existence.
So what if the earth is warming? What these self-promoters like The Goracle seem to miss a simple fact: its a bit harder to farm in ice and snow than in a balmy 80-100 degrees. Warmer weather – with an increase in C02 (PLANT FOOD) will help to promote our continued existence on this planet we call home – and in our current numbers.
Come to think of it – maybe thats what rubs these idiots the wrong way. If that’s true then maybe they hate their fellow man.
thanks for showing how stupid you GOpers are !
its called WATER!
Water is a good thing, yes Nickie boy? Ignorant Commie rats like yourself still need water I presume.
Of course they hate their fellow man, and project their hatred onto Christians. There is nothing new under the sun. Just read Tacitus to see that the only thing that has changed since the first century is that they no longer have the ability to persecute Christians in the West for want of power.
All these emerging facts explain the recent hysterical bleating by Al Gore, as he watches his carbon credit con game collapse around his ears.
Look folks, there are only two occupations where you can NEVER be correct in your assessment and still get paid – economics and meteorology. They are always wrong!!! Even with this low bar, Krugman is himself a parody of an economist.
Do those Scandanavians have any idea how silly they look these days with the way they hand out Nobel prizes? Krugman deserves the dunce cap, the hook, the big buzzer – never a Nobel unless they too are totally meaningless.
Anthropogenic Global Watermelonism … The religion is settled.
If someone else already mentioned this, forgive me, and forgive me anyway for being petty, but the sun-based theory should be called “heliogenic,” not “heliocentric.” We resolved the heliocentric thing a few centuries ago.
My motivation is pure; I’m just looking to save someone from a losing happy hour bet.
Richard Lindzen is a respected scientist … James Hansen is a respected scientist … and yet they can’t both be right.
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists split-the-difference … while continuing to respect both Lindzen and Hansen … and arrive at what is (essentially) Jon Huntsman’s midway position … that AGW is real, accelerating, and serious.
Meanwhile, we can all of us enjoy the vigorous give-and-take debate between the Lindzen/Hansen schools of scientific opinion … a debate that by centuries-old scientific tradition, is conducted without appeals to willful ignorance, personal abuse, or political ideology … but rather rather by appeal to physical theory, experimental observations, and rational judgment. Good!
———————————————————–
Lindzen’s illusions
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
James Hansen? The guy who gave us the ‘hockey stick’ graph? Among other scat laden ‘data’. Hansen is directly connected to government money – and that alone should be suspect – as industry money should also be suspect. Hansen has very little respect in the scientific community. He’s nothing more than a shill. Hansen? Surely you jest.
He’s been plinked at like a shooting gallery duck – and shot full of holes so badly there is only a caricature of a man – scientist indeed!
I suppose you see no ulterior motives coming from The Goracle ether eh?
Perhaps you should remove the rose colored glasses and see what motivates Gore/Hansen et al.
Hint? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$’s.
Your credibility wanes…
Opps – I had meant to say Hansen had validated the hockey stick – Mann was the culprit – Gore made it famous.
Between these two they’ve rewritten their own ‘history’ as the get called on it. Simple ‘mistakes’ like ignoring the medieval warm period. How do you ignore the evidence that the Vikings settling ‘Greenland’ then getting frozen out? Declaring 1998 (it was 1934) as the warmest year on record – etc etc. When proven wrong – and most importantly – ONLY when proven wrong do they walk it back. In all cases it makes their case for AGW weaker by that much.
Hansen or Mann – either way, I have “a physicist” on record in a different thread as defending the hockey stick.
Charles Davenport is a respected scientist … Chesterton is a respected scholar too … and yet they can’t both be right.
The overwhelming majority of eugenicists split-the-difference … while continuing to respect both Davenport and Chesterton … and arrive at what is (essentially) Adolf Hitler’s midway position … that AGW [anthro-genetic weakening] is real, accelerating, and serious.
Meanwhile, we can all of us enjoy the vigorous give-and-take debate between the Davenport/Chesterton schools of scientific opinion … a debate that by centuries-old scientific tradition, is conducted without appeals to willful ignorance, personal abuse, or political ideology … but rather rather by appeal to metaphysical theory, experimental observations, and rational judgment. Good!
———————————————————–
“Chesterton’s illusions” by Prof Dr Josef Mengele, M.D.; ceteris paribus press
Your statement:
“split-the-difference … while continuing to respect both Lindzen and Hansen … and arrive at what is (essentially) Jon Huntsman’s midway position … that AGW is real, accelerating, and serious.”..doesn’t make any sense.
First, an opinion that ‘AGW is real, accelerating and serious’ is NOT a midway position, but solely an AGW position.
Second, there can’t be any ‘splitting the difference between an opinion that is FOR AGW and one that is AGAINST AGW. There isn’t any middle ground between the two.
Equally, your weird attempt at an algebraic formula of Lindzen/2 plus Hansen/2 =AGW is ridiculous. I presume you are trying to say that half of each equals one? Except that you can’t, of course, slice their different views in half and add them up to exist as a whole.
And, as has been pointed out, polls are problematic; they depend on the questions asked and the nature of the respondents.
Your post is wrong-on-the-facts, ETAB.
Hansen used to espouse the view that our planet was at risk of a runaway greenhouse effect, due to the confluence of a hotter sun (the sun is getting slowly hotter on time-scales on 100s of millions of years) and human-caused CO2.
But if Hansen still believes in extinction-level AGW (and he may) he has kept pretty quiet about that belief in recent years. In his recent peer-reviewed articles, he and his coauthors have moved to the middle position: that that AGW is real, accelerating, and serious, but doesn’t threaten humanity with total extinction.
This middle scenario is what most (but not all) scientists believe.
—————————
NASA scientist warns of runaway global warming
URL: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/nasa-scientist-warns-of-runawa.html
No, I’ll stick to the facts.
You cannot be both a supporter of AGW (and that includes its mild to extreme forms) AND someone who rejects it. Hansen supports it – and don’t try the ‘appeal to numeram’ of ‘most scientists’ because this is patently untrue.
AGW identifies a specific, singular causal force to warming: man. Whether the result is apocalyptic or mild, is not the point. It’s that causal force and there are, as you know, many scientists who disagree with such causality and consider the climate far more complex than the simplistic reductionism of AGW and totally disagree with your opinion of AGW as ‘real, accelerating and serious’. [By the way, such descriptions are ambiguous - as you ought to know.]
“……midway position … that AGW is real, accelerating, and serious.”
No, that’s James Hansen’s position. That’s right, the same James Hansen that was predicting ocean level rise today of 3 feet, back in the ’80s.
You’ll believe man bear pig but you casually dismiss the sun? When someone reasonably asks for a coherent explanation of the Medieval Warming Period and why humans thrived during said period you skoff? You are quite a powerhouse of intellect, physicist. Oh, dear, I need to run – it seems I left my 8mpg SUV running in my driveway with the AC on full blast while enjoying my filet mignon and lobster dinner (gotta love that Halliburton stock, eh comrade)…
Richard Lindzen is not a GENIUS on climate. it is NOT proven.
and His previous work had flaws,
but instead of figuring out how to remove flaws,
he only attempted to modify the flaws.
Satellite data over time will settle this issue, since it is a more reliable/consistent method of data collection. With the trend in NASA in particular and space exploration investment in general, one has to wonder what the future will be (notwithstanding any CME event that knocks out a few satellites).
Much of the evidence for global warming has been debunked over time, being outright lies, or the result of deforestation, which ultimately changed precipitation patterns. May be why many meteorologists aren’t buying into the CO2 premise and it’s unproven forcing effect. IMHO by the time CO2 becomes a real issue, it will be at toxic levels anyway. But that assumes alot of things, which is the nature of PNS, assume alot of things and assign (phoney) probabilities, then invoke the precautionary principle. As to “a physicist” he talks facts but all his statements and evidence are claims, not facts.
AGW is not GW. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102296/sun-causes-climate-change-shock/
As to Paul Krugman, He’s a Keynesian, but forgets(or maybe not) that stimulus has to be paid down after the economy normalizes. It’s the only way the theory comes close to working, yet may indeed cause the next downturn, especially if you tax instead of making spending cuts.
Gee, who thought that the measured temperature increases on Mars, Venus, Saturn and Neptune had anything to do with solar activity? I thought that they were all caused by anthropomorphic causes, or rather, Paul Krugman told me so. But it must be right, because 98% of climate scientists agree with Mr. Krugman.
Reminds me of the Renault Dauphine ads on tv when I was a kid – “Seven million Frenchmen can’t be wrong”.
Turns out those 7 million frogs were wrong. The car was a lemon of giant proportions. It has been described – among other things – as the most ineffective bit of French engineering since the Maginot Line.
This is a bit like the Col. Hogan vs. Col. Klink thing mentioned above.
It has been described – among other things – as the most ineffective bit of French engineering since the Maginot Line.
As I understand it, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the engineering of the Maginot Line. As far as I know, it withstood every German assault on it. The problem was that there were few if any German assaults on it; the Germans simply went around the Maginot Line by going through the poorly defended Ardennes (forest). The French felt the Ardennes were impenetrable and put their weakest forces there and assumed the Germans would be chewed up against the Maginot Line fortifications.
If the Maginot Line had been extended through the Ardennes, the Germans might never have attempted the invasion of France in 1940. The French though, sunk billions upon billions into the Maginot Line so I believe they chose not to extend it through the supposedly-impenetrable Ardennes to keep from pouring even more billions into another stretch of fortifications in the Ardennes.
Mrs O : Wow, honey, you finally delivered.
Mr O : On what, dear?
Mrs O : On a campaign promise, silly, you lowered the oceans and saved the Vineyard.
Mr O : Oh, that. What pure bad luck, once again.
Mrs O : What was that, hon?
Mr O : That Irene, she was much too serene.
Mrs O : Surely you didn’t want another Katrina?
Mr O : Of course not. But Irene did not really allow me to show leadership. Irene could have been a bit more feisty, so I coulda waded into the storm like those CNN types.
Mrs O : Don’t worry, honey. You can still show leadership.
Mr O : How so, dear?
Mrs O : Well, between ‘I’ for Irene and ‘K’ for Katrina, there is still ‘J’ for Jobs, you know, in the, um, alphabet?
Mr O : Oh that. Doggone it.
The more climate scientists claim that humanity affects the weather the more money is spent on climate science. The more money spent on climate science the more money climate scientists make,
” Never ask a barber if you need a haircut. ” , Warren Buffett.
whatever Krugman endorses I know it’s wrong- his record has been to be wrong on almost every topic he has ever written about- so of course his endorsement of HUNTSMAN ,is like a giant red flag- uh, NO thanks.
Why oh why would we allow a liberal wacky ill-informed biased person like Klugman tell us who to select as REP candidate?
It seems to me, that the mantra and ever present drumbeat of these “climate change” worhsippers, is bottom line >>>>too many people. Solution ? get rid of lots of people.
so just say yes to easy on demand abortions, and massive starvation, wars, totalitiarian global power over all and oh yeah, Mao/Stalin style mass murder.
Ah so easy to play G-d. Of course they are smarter, better informed and know ALL.
Isahiah62, the plain fact is, every civilization that burns oil-and-coal is playing G-d with the rest of the planet.
Folks who deny this moral responsibility are called ______________.
… we’ll let you fill in the blank.
By the way … it’s nice that the Italian guy’s on our side!
———————————————–
MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
The environment must be seen as God’s gift to all people
URL: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/peace/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20091208_xliii-world-day-peace_en.html
Wrong as usual.
He’s German. (And an idiot.)
Physicist, When you say , ” …. the plain fact is, every civilization that burns oil-and-coal is playing G-d with the rest of the planet. “, you make a good point.
However, by not burning coal or drilling our own oil we empower maniacs with massive wealth to buy or build nuclear weapons. That will turn the planet to charcoal a heck of a lot faster.
We must drill and work on alternatives simultaneously if we want to survive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuEhhPbAAdA
What???!!!
Do you mean to tell me Romney flip-flopped again?
So what’s new? /yawn/
As a relative conservative with an advanced degree, articles like this puzzle me. Mr Simon is intelligent and entertaining. But does he truly believe that the enormous changes that have occurred in human activity over the last 150 years cannot have had ANY effect on climate? At a very minimum, I think it is undeniable that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased significantly over that time. I’m no fan of Krugman and I’m sure the global warning lobby has misrepresented how much science really can isolate human contribution from all the myriad factors that determine climate over the short and long term. But common sense (as well as basic science) suggest that pumping up carbon levels likely will have SOME effect. I just don’t understand why it has become a litmus test for conservatives that they have to deny ANY effect on climate from human activities.
ANY effect? The question is the extent of the effect. And no one knows that. None of the computer climate models have any predictive power. None of them. For all practical purposes they have the value of astrology–none.
Basing public policy on notions of astrology is stupid–would you agree? And when “scientific climate models” have the same reliability as astrology that is equally as stupid–wouldn’t you agree?
No. You wouldn’t. It would be against your religion. No amount of evidence would or could ever convince you otherwise.
I have an advanced degree and I agree with your assessment.
Larger trees and more greenery. Pump some more.
——–
Nice article Roger. I haven’t seen such a delicious take down of ‘progressive’ politic since Mo Brooks (R-AL) schooled Contessa Brewer about economics a few months back.
I realize this is irrelevant to the article, but I don’t want people confusing the WWW with the Internet. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)”invented” the Internet, and without that, CERN would have had nothing on which to build the WWW. It’s bad enough Al Gore took credit for the Internet years ago, so I wanted to clarify and give DARPA a pat on the back by reminding people of the true origin of the Internet.
Like many scientists, I think that Richard Feynman had valuable things to say about how science really works. And a lot of those things involve replacing arguments from authority with arguments from evidence.
To quote from one of my favorites, “The Uncertainty of Science”:
The actual behavior is obviously much more complex than the modeled behavior. The predictions are not coming true in any obvious sense. By the standards of all of science, more and different arguments, ideas, and calculations are required to make climate science relevant. I claim it is strongly and obviously anti-science to claim that the science is settled.
Physics is not settled science, despite 2000+ years of hard work by geniuses. Why should we expect climate science to be settled in 30 years or so?
Engineer Bob, your post is very thoughtful … except for the puzzling claim “The predictions [of AGW] are not coming true in any obvious sense.”
The exact opposite is true: the AGW predictions are coming true in every obvious sense.
Not only is AGW readily visible nowadays to satellites and computers … but it is visible to every mountaineer, hunter, fisher, farmer, ship captain, and airline pilot.
Most AGW skeptics nowadays are folks who spend a considerable amount of time indoors, and/or in towns or cities, and/or who don’t travel much. Whereas AGW believers belong to organizations like these:
These organization have millions of members, whose most treasured experiences are out-of-doors. They represent an American tradition that reaches back centuries. And they know, by the evidence of their own eyes, that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating. That’s why they agree with the scientists.
Peculiar brands of conservatism (like PJM/Tatler’s brand) that willfully ignore the common-sense wisdom and naked-eye evidence of America’s hunters and fishers and scientists, has no viable future IMHO.
—————————–
SEASONS’ END: GLOBAL WARMING’S THREAT TO HUNTING AND FISHING
Recent weather supports climate-change forecasts
URL: http://seasonsend.org/blog/2011/06/recent-weather-supports-climate-change-forecasts/
Well, I suppose that’s progress of sorts. You’ve gone from “argument from authority” to “argument from anecdotes”.
Nice try, no cigar.
On second thought, no, that wasn’t even a nice try.
Jon Huntsman is the Republicans Harry Reid. He’s worse then Obama in that he claims to believe one thing and then when the wind blows he changes his mind and other’s of his faith don’t even recognize the things he says he believes in. At least Obama’s a social/communist from the word go. (He’s a danger to the country but at least he’s more honest than Reid and Huntsman.
With 108 responses so far on this thread, the pro-science comments have provided links to dozens of dozens of fact-filled.
How many links have the AGW skeptics provided?
None at all. Zero. Zip. Nada.
Instead the skeptics parrot slogans, repeat disinformation, and spread abuse.
The only recent PJW/Tatler story that even claimed to provide new AGW-related information was so feeble as to be comical (that story being PJW/Tatler’s hilariously incompetent Green-Harris “article”, per link below).
Maybe Roger L. Simon, in his role as PJW/Tatler CEO, ought to ask why the quality of PJW/Tatler‘s recent AGW stories and commentary have been so much nearer to “Goofus” than to “Gallant”.
Seriously … conservatism deserves better. Much better.
————
An incompetent AGW-skepticism project is begging for help!
URL: http://pajamasmedia.com/comment/1216496/
“A physicist”, a disgrace to all honest physicists (and other scientists) everywhere.
Declares victory in his quixotic citation-count war.
Can base an entire tirade on the clueless (or wilful) misinterpretation of a phrase like “in any obvious sense”.
Sure thing, “AGW readily visible nowadays to every mountaineer, hunter, fisher, farmer, ship captain, and airline pilot”.
In the same way that AGW [anthro-genetic weakening] was so evident back in the 1910 – 1930 period.
The list of Science & Social Institutions supporting eugenics research as well as legal ‘reforms’ was equally impressive.
One can “arrive at [his] middle position … that AGW is real, accelerating, and serious . . .” [32] in the same unreasoning way as they did then. By ignoring those (such as physicist / anthropologist Franz Boas) in that day who warned clearly against putting too much faith in the beautiful New Science. Any disinterested physical scientist today who seriously contemplates the equivalent warnings of their wiser elders (Seitz, Dyson, . . .) must certainly fear the inevitable fallout affecting the hard-won reputations of ALL SCIENCE / SCIENTISTS because of the reckless & corrupt behavior of a passionate & temporarily influential minority.
Oops, forgot to provide a single citation*:
“Eugenics,” by Franz Boas, Scientific Monthly vol. 3, pp. 471-478 (1916).
*It’s only one, against all the beloved beans counted by “A Physicist,” but I daresay it’s worth all those combined provided by him. After all it’s stood the ultimate Test, that of Time.
A quote from this paper: “The first duty of the eugenist should be to determine empirically and without bias what features are hereditary and what not. Unfortunately this metho has not been the method pursued; but the battle-cry . . . has been raised to the rank of a dogma, and the [other] conditions have been relegated to the background.”
A physicist that called Michael Bloomberg a Republican in good standing…
If the physicist is that perceptive, maybe we all better start listening!
Physicist: I left a post above asking why it is so important to conservatives to insist that human activities over the past 150 years cannot have had ANY effect on global warming. The response was a flat out claim that any and all studies purporting to show global warming have no more validity than astrology predictions and a gratuitous ( and ironic!) assertion that I am probably too closed-minded to understand this.
Although I am a long time independent, I always thought I was fairly conservative. But the rabid and unreasoning position of so-called conservatives on this subject makes me wonder whether today’s conservatives are a reincarnation of the flat earth society.
William and the “physicist” are both morons.
1. There may be global warming occurring. However, there is no evidence that man has anything to do with it.
2. Do the letters UEA mean anything to you? They belong in the same context as “the dog ate my homework”.
3. AGW religionists refuse to show their models and data or to engage in a scientific discourse. Is there any reason to think that the earth shouldn’t have warmed after the end of the little ice age ~1850?
4. Do you know what the ice core data shows about the time lag between increasing CO2 and increasing temps?
When you have answered all the real questions about the fallacies of AGW get back to us. Otherwise this is nothing more than a lefty powergrab by all the usual suspects (see also “The Population Bomb”)
I have several problems with the AGW hypothesis.
1. Bjarne Andressen, a Professor of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics at Niels Bohr Institute, et. al., wrote a paper: “Does a Global Temperature Exist?”. I am trained in physics and don’t see any error in their argument. They state in conclusion: “Averages of the Earth’s temperature field are thus devoid of a physical context which would indicate how they are to be interpreted, or what meaning can be attached to changes in their levels, up or down. Statistics cannot stand in as a replacement for the missing physics because data alone are context-free.” In other words, determining the Earth’s global temperature is not currently a scientifically possible measurement.
2. It has long been known that surface temperature measurements disagree with satellite data. Recently, this disagreement has been found to be larger than thought. See: ““On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011″
Quoting:
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
“The main finding from this research is that there is no solution to the problem of measuring atmospheric feedback, due mostly to our inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in our observations.”
3. When I was a kid, I built a Cloud Chamber from a kit. Using this instrument, once can directly observe condensate trails from the ionization caused by secondary radiation spawned by the cosmic ray background. Since I’ve directly observed the phenomenon, the CERN paper seems pretty credible to me. It isn’t much of a leap to suppose that this could be an important effect in determining planetary albedo, as an atmospheric contribution. It calls into question the modeling upon which AGW is based. My doubts are enhanced by the fact that the practitioners of climate prediction, UN style, won’t subject their methods to peer review by making their computer codes available to the community for examination. In addition, at least some of the British ones have been caught faking data. Not nice.
4. Science is not a popularity contest. We don’t vote on the validity of physical laws. Hypotheses are published, along with data, and if they survive criticism long enough, they become accepted. This is the Scientific Method. It dates back to the 1600s. It is not the method pursued by UN climatologists.
While PJM/Tatler’s denialists desperately quibble and smear … On 20 August 2011 Russia’s SuezMax supertanker Vladimir Tikhonov set sail on the now-wide-open Northern Sea Route.
The Vladimir Tikhonov is (by far!) the largest ship ever to sail the Arctic seas, and given the accelerating reality of AGW, this giant ship is certain to be the harbinger of many more.
Is it any wonder that the world’s maritime executives, admirals, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, investors, and business strategists all view PJM/Tatler’s brand of skepticism as … well … irrelevant? That’s why Jon Huntsman is right. America just plain can’t afford a CinC who desperately clings to willful ignorance and/or is blind to plain strategic realities.
———————————–
The Suezmax Tanker Vladimir Tikhonov Puts to Sea Along the Northern Sea Route
URL: http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/vt-1024×682.jpg
Here’s a followup, per the Barent Observer:
Anyone want to guess the shipping schedule for 2012 … 2013 … 2014? `Cuz for sure, the maritime community is planning that far ahead … and farther.
By the way, those pesky climatologists hosted a prediction contest (link below) as to how large the Arctic ice-melt would be this year (link below). Predictions from skeptical websites like “WhatsUpWithThat.com” were included.
Unsurprisingly to climatologists, the predictions of the skeptics have proved to be dead wrong. The point being, not that scientists are always right … but rather, that pro-science bets *are* safest … as hard-nosed captains of ships and industries well-know.
—————————
Summer predictions for Arctic sea ice
URL: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/06/16/summer-predictions-for-arctic-sea-ice/
This isn’t a scientific proof. Perhaps it is one piece of evidence to be integrated and studied with all other evidence. Alone it is just another anecdote.
On the other hand, the changes may be signs of a long-term trend or they could be temporary (in climate time not people time). Or temperatures could be rising in one location and cooling in another. But at issue is the human contribution to climate. Your anecdote doesn’t address the real point.
A few items of note.
(1) The habitability of Earth is dependent on the greenhouse effect. Without such an effect, the temperature on Mercury plummets to -280 deg F, much colder than any place on Earth, despite Mercury’s proximity to the Sun.
(2) Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, which together comprise over 99% of the dry atmosphere, do not contribute to the greenhouse effect. The two most important greenhouse gases are water vapor and carbon dioxide, CO2.
(3) The atmospheric concentration of water vapor, a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, varies wildly laterally, vertically, and temporally.
(4) Water vapor varies wildly, because it only remains in the atmosphere for a period of about 7-10 days. This short lifetime makes it incapable of initiating long term climatic change.
(5) CO2 becomes well-mixed in the atmosphere laterally and vertically and can remain in the atmosphere for over a century, making its impact as a greenhouse gas global and long-term.
(6) Human industrial activities have increased atmospheric CO2 to its highest level in over 800,000 years and likely the last several million years and at a rate that is likely unprecedented in Earth’s history.
It should be no wonder that the global climate is reacting.
And a note on the CERN experiment. The CERN experiment did NOT, “confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation,” as inferred by The Register. However, for argument’s sake, let’s say that it did. It means that cosmic ray induced cloud formation reinforces solar activity.
More solar activity, fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, higher temperatures. And vice versa, less solar activity, more cosmic rays, more clouds, lower temperatures.
Over the last 30 years of direct satellite observation, solar activity has declined.
Incorporating cosmic-ray induced clouds, global temperatures should have fallen precipitously over the last 30 years.
They have done the exact opposite.
Consensus across global scientific organizations doesn’t establish the science of anthropogenic climate change. That can be found in over 100 years of peer-reviewed science. Consensus across global scientific organizations simply reflects acceptance.
Global Temperatures (satellite, UAH) vs Total Solar Irradiance, 1979-Present
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/from:1979/normalise/plot/pmod/from:1979/normalise/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/normalise/plot/uah/from:1979/normalise/trend
Interesting.
I propose that ideas are needed. “A Physicist” jumps in and says that AGW is the only idea that is needed. I propose that arguments from authority are not relevant. “A Physicist” jumps in and says that comments without peer-reviewed links don’t have enough authority to be considered.
I’ll admit, I never said what aspect of AGW I consider to be not coming true. Separate the story into two parts:
1) The world is warming.
2) Reducing CO2, and nothing but CO2, will definitely without any possible complexity stop that warming. And it will do it without any serious side effects (like killing millions of people over the course of a generation due to differential life expectancy due to lack of industrial development in China and India.) [OK, I'm stretching my words for emphasis. So sue me.]
(1) is a boring issue. (2) is highly unlikely, because every day more variables are found that influence temperature on the climate timescale.
In effect, “A Physicist” says that (1) is true, therefore no one can question (2).
Sorry, but I prefer Richard Feynman’s call to more thorough thought.
Roger L. Simon (quoting): The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation.
A look at the actual paper shows that this statement is not supported.
“We find that ion-induced binary nucleation of H2SO4–H2O can occur in the mid-troposphere but is negligible in the boundary layer. However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.”
Kirkby et al., Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation, Nature 2011.
In other words, the experiment is insufficient to account for cloud formation, hence can’t be seen to undermine the current consensus on climate science.
From CERN:
The CLOUD results show that a few kilometres up in the atmosphere sulphuric acid and water vapour can rapidly form clusters, and that cosmic rays enhance the formation rate by up to ten-fold or more. However, in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, within about a kilometre of Earth’s surface, the CLOUD results show that additional vapours such as ammonia are required. Crucially, however, the CLOUD results show that sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone – even with the enhancement of cosmic rays – are not sufficient to explain atmospheric observations of aerosol formation. Additional vapours must therefore be involved, and finding out their identity will be the next step for CLOUD.
“It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn’t due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone,” said Kirkby. “Now it’s vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.”
The advocates of man-made global warming are fond of claiming science as their ally. But the science is almost immaterial since global warming is a thin disguise for what is a very dangerous political movement, one that would subjugate all of us to a tyranny that claims our lives and values are inconsequential compared to what authorities assert is best for the planet.
But, if we wish to pretend this is about science, the warmers have a few challenges.
First, they have to ascertain whether the earth is cooling or warming or staying the same. It is certainly not staying the same, with or without people on board. (My preference is warming. Cooling would result in mass extinctions.) There is even debate at this level regarding satellite temperature data versus terrestrial versus ice core and other data which disagree. And even if we decide which measurements are the most meaningful, how does one integrate all the measurements to achieve one number, one, grand, global temperature? And are the measurement uncertainties small enough to predict a trend? These are not minor scientific problems.
Second, if we can get past that hurdle, we are confronted with proving WHY the temperature is changing and not just qualitatively but quantitatively, to the fraction of a degree. A computer model is NOT A PROOF. A computer model is a hypothesis that must be proven by observation, experiment and testing. This is no different than what is required of any mathematical description of reality be it Newton’s laws or quantum mechanics.
We are very, very far from satisfactorily dealing with issues one and two. Third, if we decide we can measure the temperature and that the temperature is changing and that people are the cause, we must now propose a solution. And, again, scientific necessity requires that we PROVE the hypothesis, prove the cure we propose. Even advocates of warming have not found a solution tyrannical, oppressive and inhuman enough to make much of a difference. By their own calculations “cap and trade” and other policy proposals make a difference of only a couple tenths of a degree C per century.
Fourth, and finally, if we are to be humane, and the warmists show no signs of that weakness, we should determine if our cure is worse than the disease. I say it is. The warmists predict oceans rising, cities being flooded and a host of disasters. But their cure is an end to individual rights, freedom, capitalism and, frankly, humanity. Is living in a gulag run by enviro-nazis preferable to putting your home on stilts?
Rick Perry is selling Snake Oil, and looks like it.
So unfortunately are you. Krugman is selling logic
and sense – thus a form of science.
Huntsman is really dangerous because he is
selling a mixed bag – science and common sense
and horrible economics.
He is finding his footing – and the other
candidates are such lost souls, that
Huntsman may emerge from all this as
the real candidate. Although why he should want
to is beyond me.
“does he (Roger Simon) truly believe that the enormous changes that have occurred in human activity over the last 150 years cannot have had ANY effect on climate? At a very minimum, I think it is undeniable that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased significantly over that time.”
If you want to go with gut feelings I’d say no it hasn’t had any effect. Research shows that CO2 in ppm has been as much as 100 times its current level at various times in earths history. Clearly man never caused that. CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere. Man produces (if you can believe WIKI’s pro AGW mindset) about 5% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere each year. Most of this is reabsorbed. So man produces .05 x .0004 x whatever small part is not reabsorbed into the oceans and forests. We are talking numbers so small that they far outrun the precision of our instruments or models to predict or estimate anything let alone base society changing decision on.
But ultimately, as Glenn Reynolds puts it, I’ll believe global warming is a crisis when the people telling me its a crisis start acting like its a crisis. … Till then I don’t want to hear one more word about my carbon footprint.
This article represents Krugman as saying Republicans are anti-science, and that he says so because of the right’s common denial of AGW. But Krugman cited the matter of evolution as well. 68% of Republicans believe the theory of evolution is false, according to one poll. Only 41% think that using stem cells from embryos is ethical. How do they arrive at these conclusions? Not by weighing evidence but by listening to authority. “God said so”, or, more accurately, “the preacher told me that God said so”.
I think AGW is bunk. I’m not a scientist, so don’t take my word for it, but I’ve seen arguments both ways and I don’t see any good support for it. Furthermore, I know that there’s a political motive for the left to stump for it. So, humans are causing global warming? Not likely.
But you can’t wag your finger at the left and say “science is not done by counting how many people agree” while also opposing evolution or abortion because you’ve counted it up and a majority of your friends have told you that a six week old embryo is a human with rights.
So, as much as it pains me to support anything Krugman says, I’m going to have to second the “anti-science Republican” charge. If what they tell pollsters is correct, most Republicans hold anti-science beliefs.