In 2007, when Fred Singer and I published Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, we weren’t terribly concerned with cosmic rays. We knew the natural, moderate warming/cooling cycle was real, from the evidence in ice cores, seabed sediments, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites. The cycle was the big factor that belied the man-made warming hysteria of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
.
When Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger discovered the 1,500 year cycle in the Greenland ice cores in 1984, they knew immediately that it was solar-powered. They’d seen exactly the same cycle in the carbon 14 molecules in trees, and in the beryllium 10 molecules in ice cores. Both sets of molecules are formed when cosmic rays strike our atmosphere. The cycle had produced a whole series of dramatic, abrupt Medieval-Warming-to-Little-Ice-Age climate changes.
The IPCC, for its part, announced that the sun could not be the forcing factor in any major climate change because the solar irradiation was too small. IPCC did not, however, add up the other solar variations that could amplify the solar irradiation. Nor had the IPCC programmed its famed computer models with the knowledge of the Medieval Warming (950–1200 AD), the Roman Warming (200 BC–600 AD), or the big Holocene Warmings centered on 6,000 and 8,000 BC.
I quoted that mainly to set up who the writer is. He’s a scientist, doing fundamental science. Here’s his take on why CERN gagged its scientists:
Svensmark noted the gigantic “solar wind” that expands when the sun is active—and thus blocks many of the cosmic rays that would otherwise hit the earth’s atmosphere. When the sun weakens, the solar wind shrinks. Recently, the U.S. Solar Observatory reported a very long period of “quiet sun” and predicted 30 years of cooling.
Last year, Denmark’s University of Aarhus did another experiment with a particle accelerator that fully confirmed the Svensmark hypothesis: cosmic rays help to make more clouds and thus could cool the earth.
The CERN experiment is supposed to be the big test of the Svensmark theory. It’s a tipoff, then, that CERN’s boss, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, has just told the German magazine Die Welt that he has forbidden his researchers to “interpret” the forthcoming test results. In other words, the CERN report will be a stark “just the facts” listing of the findings. Those findings must support Svensmark, or Heuer would never have issued such a stifling order on a major experiment.
In gagging its scientists, CERN is behaving in a way that is fundamentally anti-science.
The idea, by the way, that the solar cycle should not be taken into account when doing any climate research is absurd. The sun is a variable star. If we were looking at it from outside our solar system across a long time span, we would see its variations the way we see variations in distant stars. Those variations are bound to have an impact on the third planet from it. It’s unavoidable. But it’s also apolitical. And that’s why the IPCC and other AGW hangers on stubbornly resist factoring its cycles into any climate change discussion. It’s not politically useful, and in fact hurts their cause. Which, based on the way CERN is behaving, isn’t really about science.
When the sun is ‘weak’ it’s actually just taking a deep breath of solar system gases and yes this particle/elemental soup being drawn in does block radiation, but a weakening sun is not why we’re going to get zapped. We are going to get zapped because our tiny minds cant imagine that 1 carbon atom when energized and broken down to it’s primary H+ parts takes up much more space. Instead of pulling in natural Earth byproducts it’s pulling in extra carbon from our emissions which increases the amount of plasma on the surface of the sun during it’s big breath in. Religious bodies know the source, and they are likely it’s continuing cause so they can keep control of us every 1,500 years (the same number for the devil in Tarot decks). Why use carbon to choke out the sun? Because it’s structure resembles the geometry of Metatron, the voice of G-d. You wan’t conspiracy? What about a conspiracy to choke out the sun and go underground periodically to keep control of the unclean ones.
lol ….twelve monkey and you.
Uhhh .. it appears that Dennis Avery has published precisely one article on climate change … and that was in the non-technical journal Leadership and Management in Engineering … so exactly why do we identify this particular guy as doing fundamental science?
There may be multiple Dennis Averys.
consider this link
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Dennis+Avery&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ws
…and where was your PhD from again?
Apparently a box of store-brand Cracker Jacks.
Alinsky Alert!!!
Pull the discussion off-topic in order to grab the moral high ground. In this case, Pissicist is upset, so he attempts to derogate the post by claiming that one author isn’t qualified to discuss global warming because he isn’t a climatologist.
By your criteria, from here on out you can only comment on articles discussing physics. To do otherwise makes you a hypocrite, doesn’t it?
Singer has had a varied career, serving in the armed forces, government, and academia. He designed mines for the U.S. Navy during World War II, before completing his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University in 1948 and working as a scientific liaison officer in the U.S. Embassy in London.[3] He became a leading figure in early space research, was involved in the development of earth observation satellites, and in 1962 established the National Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service Center. He was the founding dean of the University of Miami School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences in 1964, and held several government positions, including deputy assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency, and chief scientist for the Department of Transportation. He held a professorship with the University of Virginia from 1971 until 1994, and with George Mason University until 2000.
The fuel for the suns nuclear reaction is outside of the sun, not inside it. The matter cloud surrounding our sun wasn’t made here, it was made inside of a much larger reaction. The suns infinite pull inward simply causes the material around the reaction to clump, just like matter around the stream of an electron microscope. The elements of the periodic table are just the decaying byproduct of a much larger atomic reaction. 1 molecule of this atom is likely much larger than the largest galaxy every recorded. Our universe exists inside of the decaying soup of ‘Adom’ the super element at the end of the periodic table. When at rest this Adom’s atmosphere appears striated in a rainbow of the elements stretching from most dense to least. As it decays it releases more and more of the primary elements a reaction occurs which sends the highest of high frequencies (probably appears more circular than frequency like) out through the Adomic ‘atmosphere’. This wave creates a Bernoulli principal like effect which mixes up the Adomic atmosphere and draws it in on itself. Galaxies aren’t moving out from the Adomic structure they are collapsing in though ‘harmonic accretion’ and being propelled outward by the frequency itself. The farther the frequency reaches out from the Adomic structure the more thin the Adomic atmosphere becomes and fewer galaxies can form because there is simply less out there. Why do galaxies move faster here? The Adomic frequency encounters less friction and is no longer distorted by the heavier elements.
Gravity is not particle driven, it’s reaction driven. This is the schematic for what is really happening in gravity. There is a reaction driven by the super atom, Adom. As it pulls inward to feed it’s decay the whole of the Adomic atmosphere is pulled down. This reaction delineates through all of matter. http://www.jyh.dk/mandala2.gif Atoms are 2d until you energize them at which point they fold up on themselves and look like the current model of atoms we are familiar with. Electrons aren’t a thing, they are the result of the reaction at the center of the atom pulling in at infinity for a split second. This pull ignites the particle soup on the edges of the structure turning it into plasma. The reaction causes the element to spin and pull in again at infinity at a different angle, thus the Heisenberg uncertainty principal solved.
Speaking as a Physics teacher, where can I get some of what you’re smoking?
Real physics is much more bizarre than this.
Where does gravity come from? Here: http://www.jyh.dk/mandala2.gif
Mandala of Gravity and the underlying reaction that drives everything. http://www.jyh.dk/mandala2.gif
Well, the settled science says global warming causes the sun to weaken… or strengthen…. or stay the same. So not only are we heating and/or cooling the earth, we’re affecting the whole solar system.
To A Physicist
Listen carefully to Dan there….his arguments make more sense than yours. You could polish your act with some of that.
so what are you going to do John, when CERN’s research comes out and says AGW is a crock? How are you going to rationalize it then?
He will just go squat under his bridge and sulk.
LOL! That’s the funniest in this thread.
As long as CERN releases all their raw data they will be doing just fine. Not allowing the employees to interpret it seems a bit raw, but key is the open sharing of data for anyone to interpret.
I bet you meant Carbon-14 atoms, not molecules. Same for Be.
And Dan is wrong because his models assume the Cosmic Unicorn Flux is continuous. Not settled yet, Old Boy.
True about the Unicorn Flux being continuous. However, if you take into account the Fairy Dust Quotient, which is inversely proportional to the sum total of the intelligence of the global warming crowd, you will see that the Unicorn Flux is more discrete than you would think.
All you scientists need facts and numbers and stuff to prove AGW exists or doesn’t. I knew it was a hustle when Al Gore got involved. For those of you who don’t remember he’s the guy who said he was the model for that flic where Ali McGraw gets sick and everybody cries. Then he said he invented the Internet. If you can’t figure out that everything he touches is bucksnort … Nuff said.
Why, we’ll all just let Mother Nature have the last word … because “Mother Nature can’t be fooled.”
In fact, why wait? Here’s what NOAA’s North Pole Camera is showing … today. Gosh … it’s seriously mushy up there. Just as the scientists predicted (except even worse) … and the AGW skeptics didn’t.
Mother Nature says: “You folks are messing-up your planet and you will *NOT* like the results.”
American conservatism needs a “Plan B” to deal with Mother Nature’s “Plan A”.
————
North Pole Web Camera
URL: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg
John, the problem with looking at sea ice extent, beyond the fact that we’ve got a very short baseline and so are on very shaky ground statistically, is that IF there is a longer term decline instead of normal variation, and IF that’s actually a function of global average temp, then we still have this problem: we know there is warming, but we can’t infer that because there is warming, that warming is primarily anthropogenic, and that if it is anthropogenic, the primary forcing is CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
As we’ve discussed before, the notion that a significant part of the warming is anthropogenic, and that anthropogenic component is primarily from greenhouse gases, is looking very weak. The models that have been used to argue for it turn out to have little or no skill, and the models based on that have been uniformly wrong. For example, in the 80′s Jom Hansen was basically predicting Manhattan would be awash by 2010; it’s not. The models predicted pretty nearly linear increase in GAST through the 90′s and 2000′s; instead, it’s been pretty much flat. A few years ago, the AGW proponents were predicting snow was a thing of the past in England; this year they”re predicting the worst winter in a very long time, following what was already the worst winter in a very long time the previous winter.
The point is that a mere decrease in sea ice extent isn’t actually evidence for CO2-forced AGW.
I would also like to point out that the AGW proponents are not making another vital argument: That fixing Global Warming is less expensive than dealing with the aftermath.
Moving our energy economy is going to cost trillions of dollars. If 10% of the population were affected by Global Warming we could still cut each of them a check for $10,000 and come out ahead.
So, even if the planet was warming, and even if we were causing it, and even if we could reverse it, it would still make more economic sense to keep doing what we’re doing and set aside money for dealing with the effects.
Of course that wouldn’t cripple the global economy, so that plan doesn’t accomplish the goals.
Mother Nature says: “You folks are messing-up your planet and you will *NOT* like the results.”
Gosh. Do you have any official comments from the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? Great bunch of science there, Mr. Physicist.
If the planet’s getting warmer, and that’s causing the ice caps to melt, wouldn’t it be happening at both poles?
Ya might want to check how the Antarctic’s doing. And, yes, I know it’s summer there.
AHA! I WAS RIGHT!
4. Taxpayer
I’m betting the results are an epic fail, OR they point to/reinforce the epic fail of its sister GW theories. Either way, CERN would look like a bunch of…skeptics. OMG!
July 19, 2011 – 6:53 pm
Hmm, so it couldn’t possibly be a natural cycle as discussed above Johnny? Do you truly think scientists are above politics when so much of their research money comes from the government?
The problem here is the monumental arrogance of someone who thinks he has all the answers. Is it possible man’s causing global warming? Yeah, it’s possible. Unlikely, but possible.
The problem Johnny, is we have about 150 years of actual observed records. In a system which is billions of years old that is a statistically insignificant amount of data on which to base a prediction.
Even a dumb*ss journalist like me understands no credible scientist would base a prediction on so little data. I also know that no credible scientist would ever say “the debate is over” because as anyone who’s ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance realizes, in science you can never conclusively prove anything.
The problem John, is that while most of us in the “denier” community are willing to be proven wrong you Church of AGW folks are not willing to listen to anyone but your Prophet AlGore (GreenPeace be Upon Him) and his acolytes in the media.
Patrick, debate in science is never “over”. But when the scientists are making predictions … and the skeptics aren’t … then the scientists are gaining ground in the debate.
Climate scientists went on-record, publicly and transparently, in predicting record or near-record Arctic melting this summer … now we’re seeing it … so score 1 for the scientists.
Does smoking cause lung cancer? Does the HIV virus cause AIDS? These debates aren’t “over” … the skeptics are still shouting their slogans … but there’s not much doubt either.
AGW hasn’t yet reached that level of near-certainty … but it’s getting there. That’s why American conservatism needs a “Plan B” in case strong AGW turns out to be Mother Nature’s “Plan A”.
Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate
URL: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/06/16/summer-predictions-for-arctic-sea-ice/
Which is adequately explained by the 1,500 year cycle observed by more than one credible scientist described above. I don’t debate if the Earth is warming, perhaps it is, perhaps it is not. I merely question the assertion it’s man’s fault. You also fail to address the statistical issues noted above.
Occam’s razor simply slices the Church of AGW to ribbons. It is a far simpler and more likely explanation that the Earth is merely going through a warming cycle — if it’s warming at all, which I do not concede. You also assume a warmer planet must be a disaster, but ignore the evidence of both the Medieval and Roman Warming Periods which were warmer than we are now, and yet periods of unprecedented growth for human civilization. Man adapts. We are the most successful species on the planet for that very reason. (Leaving aside cockroaches)
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
“Climate scientists went on-record, publicly and transparently, in predicting record or near-record Arctic melting this summer … now we’re seeing it … so score 1 for the scientists.”
How long have [photographic] records concerning Arctic melting been available during the approximately four billion years of the existence of the earth, would you say there, Physiksist? What a load you insist on presenting to us! Are you employed by Herr Gore by any chance? The only trouble with global warming theories is that they are based upon weak and/or fraudulent evidence and illogical thinking.
The earth provides evidence that it has cooled and warmed quite significantly well before the industrial revolution. One example: during one of the last great ice ages, ice flows dragged hunks of Mount Monadnock, which is in New Hampshire, all the way to Long Island. But many thanks for your failed efforts to enlighten us, my good friend.
The skeptics don’t have to make predictions. They just have to point out when the predictions are wrong.
Predictions of AGW proponents that have been shown to be wrong:
o Ever-increasing global average temperature.
o Rising sea levels.
o “England’s children will never again see snow”
o The distribution of warming in the atmosphere.
o More and stronger hurricanes.
You keep crowing “1-0″ as their score, but ignoring the predictions they got wrong.
Climate scientists went on-record, publicly and transparently, in predicting record or near-record Arctic melting this summer … now we’re seeing it … so score 1 for the scientists.
But they also predicted record or near record hurricane seasons, and they’ve had the opposite. They claimed last summers tornados, only to discover that actually it wasn’t an unusual tornado season, except for having tornados that happened to hit larger population centers. (Which is evidence of nothing, recall the Markovian property — independent random processes are much more likely to show “clusters” than to be evenly distributed,) And, of course, they predicted nearly continuous warming over the last 20 years, and instead temperatures have been pretty well flat. So if we’re keeping score, that would be 3-1 against.
Not that this sort of score keeping is particularly well founded either.
Interesting that johnny thinks one example of correlation outweighs other examples that do not correlate. Not a serious scientist.
He’s more politician than scientist. His polemics about “pragmatism” may strike him as novel and intelligent, but a student of history has heard them before, and not in a pleasant context.
Psychics make many general predictions, one in a thousand of which turn out to be true. The Psychic then loudly trumpets that single hit as proof of their psychic abilities and the 999 misses are forgotten. It is an old technique.
Again, I will point out that the whole AGW argument has all the earmarks of a scam.
Especially the way the same people keep using different predicted disasters to push for the same solutions.
so it has come to this. the man made global warming is snuffing out the sun. god help us all.
You’re all wrong. It’s pirates all the way down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming
Think about it. The Somali pirates show up about ten years ago, and the world stops warming. It doesn’t get any more open-and-shut than that.
The continuous force inwards only appears continuous because the oscillation fluctuates between 3 different intensities so fast it seems like 1.
When truth is near lots of lies will be just behind it.
Well 3 or 4, the less accurate the information the less likely people will use it to turn the truth into a weapon.
The US Navy and the Russian Navy are betting on accelerated warming … as are all the world’s shipping companies … what d’ya think they know that PJM/Tatler readers don’t?
Season’s first oil-tanker sails Northern Sea Route
URL: http://www.barentsobserver.com/seasons-first-oil-tanker-sails-northern-sea-route.4939088-116320.html
That their budgets come from politicians, and that politicians have glommed onto AGW as a way of increasing their personal wealth and power.
The “predictions” have now become “betting”…?
Is not “predicting” the problem?
One can “predict” almost anything. What about FACTS?
Or is it that all the “predictions” can be safely “bet” on to become “facts” eventually?
The “man-made CO2-caused climate catastrophe” hypothesis was falsified in the mid 90s when the ‘hot spot’ 10 km above the equator, predicted by all the climate alarmists’ models, was shown to be absent. It was the key prediction of the climate models and it failed spectacularly.
Instead of correcting the models (which would then show much less warming due to CO2) these climate modellers ignored the evidence and have remained in denial ever since. They are no longer doing science; just generating very expensive propaganda to keep their gravy train going.
Brett, what’s interesting is that your post gets every fact wrong and has no references.
Look for the NorthWest Passage to be fully open in late August … that’s what’cha call a “fact on the ground”.
No wonder that the world’s corporate, military, and scientific strategists all have concluded AGW is real. There are some peculiar brands of American conservatism that gonna be mighty late to the party … but they’re destined to wise-up.
Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-basic.htm
Physiksist, I know you will be horrified to learn how lubrul bureaucrats are wasting taxpayers’ money on outrages like this:
http://junksciencesidebar.com/2011/07/08/senator-inhofe-on-the-outrage-of-the-year-epa-sending-your-money-to-china-for-global-warming-propaganda/
The EPA pays China to sell what Americans refuse to buy here at home.
John, what’s fascinating about your comment is that it completely ignores what Brett wrote.
Well, we know the alarmists keep predicting things (worsening droughts, extreme weather etc) on the basis of their idea that CO2 is the main climate driver. That’s why they keep getting it wrong. CO2 is just not that important, as Al Gore famous ice core graph in fact shows when looked at closely.
Here is some background information on the missing hot spot. Because they have failed to account for it, and also failed to modify their models to the fit the data, the AGW people are blowing smoke. They have given up being scientists and are now acting as apologists.
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
Brett, your David Evans appears to get his facts and science all wrong …
… perhaps that’s why he writes solely for the popular press?
David Evans’ Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold
URL: http://www.skepticalscience.com/david-evans-understanding-goes-cold.html
Address the argument or admit you can’t refute it.
David Evans is a scientist, specializing in modelling of natural systems, and a former climate modeller with the Australian CSIRO. When he discovered that the models used by himself and his colleagues had not accounted for the missing hot spot he brought this issue up. As a true scientist he wouldn’t be fobbed off with b.s., and since he wouldn’t back off the questioning of the ‘accepted line’ he was forced to resign. He is a man of integrity.
“The idea, by the way, that the solar cycle should not be taken into account when doing any climate research is absurd.”
It would be better to writ: “the idea that the solar cycle should not be taken into account when devising climate policy is absurd.”
There could be many factors that affect global temperatures. One of these might be human activity. Another might be variations in the sun. If a scientist wants to study one or the other factor he should be free to.
The problem occurs when people misrepresent the net affect of these different factors for personal or political reasons.
Anyone else notice the complete lack of actual facts in what “a physicist” is spewing in this thread? I almost expect to see him end a post with “UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.”
Rob, anyone who clicks my links will learn plenty …
… and that learning is what *REALLY* threatens the skeptics on this form.
But like it our not, in coming years, most of you skeptics are destined to make the same journey as Adm. Titley … from skeptic to believer … and so yah might as well get started on that journey immediately!
———–
Climate Change and National Security
TEDxPentagon – Rear Admiral David Titley, USN
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udNMqRmqV8
Interesting how you keep trotting out this ONE person who changed his opinion. But what was that in your earlier comment? Oh yeah, #2:
“Uhhh .. it appears that Dennis Avery has published precisely one article on climate change … and that was in the non-technical journal Leadership and Management in Engineering … so exactly why do we identify this particular guy as doing fundamental science?”
If you are indeed a scientist, you should know that one datum does not a trend make. Maybe you do understand, but employ this criterion only when the datum disagrees with your own belief?
As Chief Oceanographer of the Navy, it’s Adm. Titley’s responsibility to weigh *all* the evidence … and it was that deliberate weighing-of-evidence that converted Adm. Titley (slowly) from skeptic to believer … by the path that he discusses in his lecture.
Conversely, Dennis Avery’s cherry-picking article shows no recognition whatsoever of that responsibility … much less accepting it.
Nice slip and slide. You avoided the datum:trend issue. Until you address that, any repetition of previously-entered evidence is irrelevant.
Howard, were Adm. Titley to cherry-pick just one datum, he would be derelict in duty … that responsibility is one of the main points of his lecture. The point being, he bears the responsibility to speak not only for himself, but for his command.
Fortunately Adm. Titley understands and respects this responsibility … but it is by no means clear that Dennis Avery respects it … or that the skeptics on this forum even understand it.
… from skeptic to believer …
———————————-
Oh boy, this entire AGW hoax is a religion to you and your fellow “believers” isn’t it?
Like I said: “UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.”
Nice dodge. It’s the admiral you keep trotting out as the answer to all our questions. That’s your datum. The rest is you trying to be an eel. There’s been plenty of sources above entered against your admiral. Deal or drop out.
Perhaps it ain’t the admiral that annoys yah, Howard …
… perhaps it’s what the Admiral Titley represents …
Namely, the consensus of the world’s scientists … the weight of the evidence … the responsibility to regard that consensus and evidence seriously … and the discipline to accept that responsibility.
Fortunately, it’s easy to find American citizens who stand for the same four values as Admiral Titley … just check to see who PJM/Tatler is smearing!
Yah forgot a few things.
First, admirals are not soldiers, they are politicians. Politicians claim they support the Constitution, as long as it gets them where they want to be, which is a feudal society. Progressives say they support the rights and freedom of the little guy.
Second, a funny thing about consensus. Shutting out diversity of opinion, like not posting papers in peer review journals, is anti-progressive. We have an example in this post, with CERN telling people to shut up ahead of time. But in a feudal society, those who rule determine what gets said. But when you stomp on everybody who disagrees and put fear into the rest, suddenly you have consensus.
So in the final analysis, it’s easy to find liberal American citizens who stand for the same values as Genghis Khan, Stalin, and Pol Pot.you claim to represent the modern progressive ideals like freedom for little people and diversity, but you really support a return to feudalism. Maybe that’s what annoys you?
LOL … while yer talkin-the-talk … the NSIDC folks are walkin-the-walk.
Take another look at the NSIDC sea ice prediction contest … the values at the low-melt (right) end of the graph … notice the climate-change skeptics from “Whats Up With That?” are on-record with a low-melt prediction?
The “Whats Up With That?” folks showed up … they put a flatout prediction on the table … no ex post facto cherry-picking … they earned respect and they received it … no abuse … no ad hominem attacks … and we’ll see in September (or perhaps much sooner) whether the “Whats Up With That?” low-melt prediction is accurate.
Good job, ice scientists! And good job, Admiral Titley!
June Sea Ice Report
URL: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2011/june
“UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER BULLETIN BOARDS.”
September. A short-term trend. Actually, the last 200 years is a short-term trend, too. Meanwhile, you persist in ignoring or derogating any of the contrary evidence presented here. Nice job of projection, but that does enable you to maintain the consensus myth. Until next time.
Howard, you seem to imagine that all theories are equal, all data are equal, and all predictions are equally.
That’s wrong. Some theories are weak, some data are flawed, and some predictions are flat-out wrong.
That’s why folks whose theories are flimsy, whose data are cherry-picked and/or flawed and/or noisy … and whose predictions are either non-existent or wrong … well … these folks *are* “ignored or derogated” (as you put it).
Folks whose feelings are easily hurt by this (harsh) winnowing process are not cut-out for science … or for business … or for politics either.
You’re the one who never actually address the evidence presented against your claims.
You’ve completely ignored the lists of failed predictions of the AGW cult.
You’ve gone off on an ad hominem attack against David Evans while attempting an argument from authority with Adm. Titley.
You. Are. A. Fraud.
“That’s why folks whose theories are flimsy, whose data are cherry-picked and/or flawed and/or noisy … and whose predictions are either non-existent or wrong … well … these folks *are* “ignored or derogated””
Actually, no, those folks are given millions in government grants, declared the “consensus” and are talked up by faux-scientists like yourself.
Johnny, you still have yet to discuss the issue of the statistically insignificant sample your church, and AlGore (GreenPeace be Upon Him) use to support their so-called conclusions. Any number of people have offered you alternate hypothesis which fit the data just as well as the largely discredited theory you cling to. Many of them fit the data better. That you refuse to even discuss them, but choose instead to duck and dodge like Floyd Mayweather, Jr. ducking Manny Pacquiao speaks volumes about your motivations.
Patrick, yer post never mentioned the word “physics” … and yet without physics, climate science is indistinguishable from voodoo.
Admiral Titley does a good job of explaining the physics of climate change, beginning at minute 10:00. Take a look, why don’cha?
TEDxPentagon: Climate Change and National Security
Rear Admiral David Titley, USN
URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udNMqRmqV8
Answer. The. Question.
How do you make a relevant model with a statistically meaningless data sample?
Not interested in your appeals to authority, not interested in more dodges, answer the question.
Patrick, I’ve learned a lot about PJM/Tatler‘s peculiar brand of conservatism … a big tent it’s not!
I’ve learned considerable about AGW skepticism too … for example, its worst practitioners are scarcely distinguishable from its best … eh?
To answer your other question with an example:
Number of moons earth has: 1
Purely statistical significance of observed lunar orbit: minimal
… but when combined with Newtons theory of gravity: maximal
That’s why Admiral Titley’s discussion of radiation transport theory was so refreshing. And needless to say, the Navy’s been hiding boomers under the ice up there since the 1950s … looking *up* at the ice with sonar.
So yah think the Navy might know more even about the reality of Arctic-region AGW even than the scientists?
Course … the physical theory of AGW has been around for a *LONG* time … as anyone can verify for themselves.
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air
upon the Temperature of the Ground (1896)
Svante Arrhenius
URL: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/arrhenius.html
I have to conclude that the reason “physicist” persists in his blather is that he is experiencing what those in the intervention field call “a cry for help.”
To summarize, Phys derogates people submitting one writer into evidence as anecdotal and irrelevant, but continuosly promotes his one source Titley.
Rather than address points, he engages in Alinsky to drag the topic away from the one at hand.
He persists in derogating everybody who submits evidence contrary to his beliefs, but promotes his own without considering anybody’s contrary input.
When confronted with his own logic and derogation-jutifying criteria, he resorts to the Wassermann defense and calls people to task for engaging in ad hominem attacks.
This all is similar to the alcholic blaming everybody else for his problem. When confronted with evidence that he is committing the same actions as those he blames on others, he plays the victim card and calls everybody mean-spirited, and complains that he is picked on and misunderstood.
The other option is that he is lonely and bored, and any attention is better than none. However, this is also common in alcoholism, which, when you look at behaviors and consequences, is not that different from other spiritual/mental diseases like liberalism.
So what’s it going to be, Phys? As a recovering liberal myself, I feel your pain. You may think I’m a big meanie, but I just might be your best friend here.
As a scientist, as a foster parent, and as the adult child of an alchoholic … I’ve learned the same lesson three ways. Namely, it’s a mistake to back down from abuse, and it’s a mistake to respond to abuse with abuse.
And it’s no mistake to respectfully cleave to facts.
Let’s see … what’s the Pope think? He’s no “watermelon”, is he?
And the Catholic Church has some mighty fine, unbribe-able scientists working for it, right?
Yah think Catholics might regard AGW as a real moral issue?
Catholic Climate Covenant
Care for Creation, Care for the Poor
URL: http://catholicclimatecovenant.org/
The Catholic church has historically been a “stakeholder” in feudalism, effectively splitting power with the noble class through the Middle Ages. Considering the new AGW propaganda requires massive new global control to enforce their theory, why should we consider the church in a different light today? Just another happy journey back to feudalism, this time with a papal blessing. And you probably consider yourself a progressive. You’re either a pawn or a player.
Hmmm abuse sir? You repeatedly call us peculiar because we disagree with you, you refuse to actually answer simple questions. When you do pretend to answer them you deflect and deride and still don’t answer the question.
No one here has abused you sir, we simply don’t let you get away with your bovine excrement.
You do, as Howard has repeatedly pointed out, resort to authority rather than actual argument. I have yet to see you actually refute any of the arguments made against you. You denied saying the “only” way to deal with Fukashima was to nuke the plant, until Conservative Wanderer found the quote and posted. You then simply pretended the statement had never been made.
You call names, and act the victim when your posts have been edited or deleted per the standards you yourself agreed to when posting here, screaming censorship when a private company manifestly cannot censor. I could go on, but why bother?
In short, sir, you routinely abuse the privilege to post here and whine about your treatment when it is the forbearance of the editors that allows you to continue to spout your drivel. You are not a victim, sir.
Patrick, IMHO American conservatism is going to have to accept the idea that climate change is real, and that CO2 is a major driver of it.
That’s because (1) the scientific understanding of AGW is getting stronger year-by-year, and because (2) the physical reality of AGW is becoming more plainly evident year-by-year.
These two realities are not going to go away … and so, in the long run, denying them is futile. And so
• If American conservatism has a “Plan B” for global climate change … now is the time to start implementing it.
• If American conservatism does *NOT* have a “Plan B” for global climate change … now is the time to start conceiving one.
That would make a fine PJM/Tatler topic … AGW is Real and Serious: Here is American Conservatism’s ‘Plan B’
You can bet that outstandingly foresighted conservative presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower would have a Plan B.
That none of the present Republican candidates has found the moral courage to set forth a Plan B, distressingly indicates that none of them would be outstanding conservative presidents. The reason is simple: these candidates are uniformly lacking in the moral courage, fortitude, and foresight that are required to face what Charlie Martin calls “The Cold Equations.”
Meanwhile, America bakes, the Arctic melts, and the peculiar PJM/Tatler brand of conservatism has no answers.
Daily Sea Ice News and Analysis
URL: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Hey, I got an idea. Let’s have the Catholic church start another inquisition. I mean, it’s a moral issue, so they have the moral high ground on this, right? This time, they can go after ‘global warming denialists.’
After sufficient torture, people will be ‘saved’ and ‘converted’. This accomplishes three benefits.
1. You will have more than one source to cite besides Admiral Titley, when you need to point out that people have changed their mind.
2. These sources, along with the fact that everybody else is terrorized into silence, will help support the myth of consensus and ‘established science’.
3. If deflects attention on the church’s failings, like priest pedophilia and abuse, and gives the church an opportunity to gain favor with the new ruling class, once global order has been ‘restored’ so that our betters are once again telling all us stupid commoners how much energy we can use to survive, while they live in palaces, protected by the only standing armies allowed arms.
It’s a very tidy picture that I’m sure all modern progressives support.
Howard, it’s much simpler than that.
Briefly flirting with AGW skepticism is like smoking one cigarette or having one drink … it’s fun, it feels good, and it’s harmless.
Long-term embrace of AGW skepticism is like heavy smoking and heavy drinking … it makes you feel bad, and it’s devastatingly harmful to you and everyone around you.
American conservatism has developed an abuse problem — AGW skepticism … and it’s time for conservatism to face up to it.
Will AGW skeptics react with anger? Oh yeah … that’s what addicts do.
Yes, it’s very common for addicts to react with anger, blame, and projection. Since liberalism (progressivism) is a mental disorder very similar to alcoholism, a good look in the mirror is in order before you attempt the analysis routine.
Addiction to big government is a great example for you to consider: The blind belief that more government is the answer to anything. That’s increased tolerance, one of the main symptoms of addiction. Couple that with the denial of reality, that more government has only resulted in less freedom and no problems resolved. Denial is another major symptom of addiction. Then there’s the victim routine, where everybody else is mean spirited because instead of acting co-dependent, they confront behavior like double standards and ignoring other people so that you can maintain your denial as truth. Another major symptom of addiction.
So yes, it is much simpler than your Admiral Titley. According to your criteria, you’re an addict!
The first step is to admit that your life has become unmanageable. It’s okay, I’m a recovering liberal. I understand.
Howard, I admire thoughtful conservatism skeptics … and as examples I would cite scientists Admiral Titley, and conservation organizations like Boone and Crocket, and religious organizations that take the long view, like the Catholic Church and the US Navy.
All of these people and organizations are letting go of their AGW skepticism … for the very good reason that the evidence has become too strong to ignore.
As we all know, ideology-first media pundits are typically the very *last* persons to change their minds … no matter how strong the facts.
That is why the wisest and best course for American conservatism is to simply ignore the ideology-first skepticism of media pundits like Limbaugh and Beck and Palin (etc.) … because no matter how strong the evidence, these media-driven folks are never going to change their minds. What the media folks do instead, is shout louder-and-louder slogans, and embrace crazier-and-crazier conspiracy theories, and cherry-pick fewer-and-fewer facts. Correct?
Season’s End: Global Warming’s Threat to Hunting and Fishing
URL: http://www.seasonsend.org/
You made a few wrong assumptions here. Ideology-driven? I made my transformation based upon extensive research, often using UN and government data to determine that they were lying, manipulating their own data to justify a power grab. A study of history, much written by professors from places like Yale and Harvard (not bastions of conservative thought) indicated that feudalism is the prevalent socio-economic system, and that there’s always some PT Barnum telling people “trust me and you’ll be on easy street”. In fact, these erudite professors proved to me that more government results in racism, general oppression, and government sponsored genocide. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Same with global warming. The real global warming denialists are people like you who, in spite of extensive evidence advising caution before once again forming a monolithic government entity to deal with an imaginary problem, persist in a course of action that will only return us to feudalism.
Thus the true conservatives are people like you, who insist on returning us to a state of poverty and oppression that has existed for millennia for 99% of the world’s people. The true progressives are people like our Founders, who envision personal liberty taking preeminence over collective thought and government oppression.
advertising and *********** with Adwords. Well I am including this RSS to my email and could look out for a lot extra of your respective fascinating content. Make sure you replace this once more very soon..