A common narrative of pundits & politicians on the Left is that they and their ilk respect science, whereas conservatives allegedly do not. This assertion has never made much sense to me but let’s put it to the test.
Lawrence Solomon reports on the latest findings of CERN in regard to global warming. Turns out that the sun and cosmic rays have a lot more effect on the Earth’s temperature than mankind does.
James Delingpole chimes in with his analysis too.
With such earth shattering new evidence coming to the fore, surely everyone on the Left who once claimed that mankind was mostly to blame for temperature changes, will now publicly admit they were wrong? Mr. Gore, Mr. Suzuki, as the men of science that you constantly tell us that you are, we look forward to these pronouncements this coming week.
…everyone on the Left…will now publicly admit they were wrong?
Posted by Robert at 6:58 AM| Comments (0)
I won’t hold my breath, Robert. There’s been plenty of compelling evidence suggesting CO2 is not a primary climate driver, the CERN data just the last in a chain. It hasn’t mattered for the sole purpose that AGW is not about environmentalism. It’s about political power and control. It’s communism re-skinned.
Not to mention that climate change is the norm; check the geologic record. And don’t let facts get in the way, such as the one that the receding glaciers in Europe are re-opening mountain passes that humans and animals used before the ice closed them.
Don’t hold your breath on that one……the science is not settled and may never be..such is the nature of science. Politicians (Gore) and junk scientists (IPCC) have the answer in their minds predetermined…you just have to connect the dots to their conclusion. Problem is they determine where the dots are. Now..about that middle ages warm spell.
We’re winning some major battles, but the war isn’t over yet.
The MsM still, have too much control.
Here for example…the headline reads…
“Biospere’s influence on cloud formation larger than previously thought”
The article focuses on “organics” as the culprit, cosmic rays have only a minor role.
http://www.bitsofscience.org/biosphere-cloud-formation-2860/
The left has always had their aversion to science as well.
The refusal to vaccinate children for fear of autism in spite of the science is a left-wing phenomenon.
The fight against genetically modified crops is another example.
Its the sun, son.
I think the issue of AGW is not the one most lefties have a problem with, as any rational person can see that we don’t know nearly enough to completely verify either side. The issue of evolution and the age of the Earth, however, is not up for debate. These are facts.
I refuse to vote for someone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old on the same grounds that I refuse to vote for someone who believes the moon is made of cheese.
// lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/
Next week: The end of the global warming debate. //
Anyone taking bets?
And around here, the most convenient empty bag for science stories “The Sound of Settled Science” will be no more.
As for // respect science,// […] // conservatives allegedly do not. //
you might recall, from Solomon’s own venue, the article by Jonathan Kay:
Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause
In any case, now that the new dispensation is to “follow the science”, wherever it leads, take a bite of this —
The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…
And a nod to the really big theory of this sort, from Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv
Well, it makes a lot of sense. The upper atmosphere
is working as a giant cloud chamber! See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
BTW CERN is not a “top-secret laboratory”. A lot of
people from several different countries work there,
and I have little doubt that you can arrange to
tour it – probably not much of it when the
accelerators are working, because they emit a lot
of synchrotron radiation, but during maintenance
periods etc.
BTW the Web, html at any rate, comes from CERN. It
was originally designed for internal communication, and
Tim Berners-Lee was a CERN employee when he devised it.
Try that again —
The CERN/CLOUD results are surprisingly interesting…
Colin, here’s the thing. Yes, it indeed may be all about politics, but remember this. ALL the science in at least the last half decade or more has all been counter to the proposed theory. And that’s a very big thing. Sooner or later, and it may take a generation, no lie can be sustained indefinitely in the absence of any real evidence and where all the hard evidence is to the contrary.
The Glob Al Warming cult are not interested in Climate or the well being of momma earth, they are motivated by an evil hatred for people and a desire to punish all people for living in and breathing the same air as they, the ‘elite’, are inhaling. In a perverted manner they are motivated by a fanatical adoration for their version of nature. The cult of nature has no place for humans except for automated workers and the ‘keepers of nature’ – Georie Porgie Sore Ohs, Sa Zoo Kee, The Goreicle, The 0 and the 0’s Tzars, Unca Mo in China etc.: these human haters view all people (including shrills who bang the Glob Al Warm-up Hoax) as vermin, not fit to look at, or touch, even a blade of grass.
It is the upside down version of how most rational people view danger – the sane wish to save people from devastation. The Global hoax was designed to play into that decent aspiration. The hoax was exposed by the scientist who leaked the pre Hoppin Hag Gan summit messaged files from the Corrupt Scientific studies centre on Glob Bull Warming, people like Lord Moncton, Glen Beck, Mr. Ball, PMSH, Mr Klaus (PM of Czech Republic); blogs like SDA, Drudge, PJ media…broadcast the hoax to all people. The agenda to rid the earth of humans was the goal and enslavement via poverty (resulting from ‘Carbon Taxes”) would result in starvation (as Stalin did in the Ukraine, that was the temp plate, IMO) and would undermine the spirit and the independence of human beings. If Hope and Soul and God were all destroyed; evil could rule on earth. A few ‘elite’ human haters would control Earth.
Some people would doubt this agenda of evil but people like Ken Kulak (an SDA poster) know that evil is alive and thriving: we would be wise to listen to people, such as Ken, who have seen that evil and stop the wild eyed fanatics before they destroy Freedom and all of the defenders of Liberty. Without Freedom, what/who are we? We would be slaves/nobody.
AGW & Our CBC: Our dollar$.
…-
“Magna, Ontario to invest $400-million in R&D for electric vehicles
Globe and Mail”
…-
“Would you buy a Canadian-built electric car?”
“A government official says Magna International Inc. is pairing with the Ontario government to invest more than $400 million to research and develop electric vehicle technology. The province is expected to put forward about $48 million for the project with the plan to create more than 700 jobs.”
Our CBC:
urlm.in/ixwp
I saw reports several years ago of research indicating that cosmic radiation and sun spot frequency was responsible for much of the so-called ‘climate change’. Unfortunately the research indicating this was done by scientists who were not favoured by the MSM and the AGW community so it was not widely reported although it was noted in a few books on the subject, one of them titled, I believe ‘The Deniers’. Now that CERN, a mainstream scientific site has come out on the side of the deniers, perhaps more will be heard about it, though I don’t really expect to hear much from the usual suspects or the adherents to the warmist/Gaian religion in the MSM.
BTW, Lawrence Solomon, author of the FP article cited above is noted as the author of ‘The Deniers’, published in 2008 which outlines the work done on the influence of cosmic radiation and sun spots on the climate. The book is available in the Edmonton Public Library (unless it has been stolen and destroyed by a Gaian) and probably other public libraries across Canada and the US. Check out Amazon if you want your own personal copy.
“Mike”‘s comment is correct. A pro-science attitude
is the exoteric doctrine of the Left, but their
esoteric doctrine is that there is no reality but
rather everything is a negotiated discourse;
hence everything is politics. I encountered this
in discussions with people in our M.Phil. (Humanities) program,
with which I have had more or less to do over the last ten years.
Steven Weinberg commented on this a few years ago,
saying that fundamentalist Christians did not like
Darwinian evolution, in common with Leftists, but
they, unlike the Leftists, did hold that there is a
non-negotiable reality.
AGW is a belief very similar to the Dog….goD belief, rational thinking never enters the discussion
Colin, here’s the thing. Yes, it indeed may be all about politics, but remember this. ALL the science in at least the last half decade or more has all been counter to the proposed theory. And that’s a very big thing. Sooner or later, and it may take a generation, no lie can be sustained indefinitely in the absence of any real evidence and where all the hard evidence is to the contrary.
Posted by: cgh at August 29, 2011 1:42 PM
An accurate observation I think. Although I suspect the current AGW doctrine will take several generations to be completely purged from the public consciousness.
Colin in BC has it right when he says “AGW is not about environmentalism. It’s about political power and control. It’s communism re-skinned”.
Anthony has the latest water temperature photo up and it shows the water cooling that Irene caused and the growing size of La Niña affected cooling water temperatures.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/29/irene-takes-a-bite-out-of-ocean-heat/#more-46144
Thanks for the plug Jema 54. When socialist ideologues use the term “it is for the good of the people”, it is time to get real nervous.
This good news indeed. It proves (once it is open to peer review interpretation) the sun undoubtedly is the climate engine an also that the warmistas must spend vast amounts of time energy and money suppressing truth.
Any social belief system installed under such suppressive terms is unsustainable. When the truth outs, and it will, all the entities on the warmest enforcement regime will suffer terminal credibility crash.
What we really need to stop this silliness is to pass a criminal code amendment making it a crime to repress, suppress, withhold, stifle or omit and information necessary for public policy making. Can you imagine the majority of CBC editors being criminally indicted for suppressing pertinent climate data?
– you may say that I’m a dreamer but I’m not the only one 😉
Robert – the left will not publicly admit they were wrong, or anything of the sort. They will attack CERN! If we haven’t heard an attack in the same news cycle, it simply means the left hasn’t found a way to fit the CERN findings into their narrative. ” CERN is in the pay of Exxon ” doesn’t have much power.
But they will attack; for the left ” their is only the fight “, and they will fight, using ” any means necessary ” until they capture total control.
It’s for the children.
Isn’t that what Taliban Jacques Bloc Separatist told us?
“Before he was taken into custody today, Hansen took a megaphone and implored Obama to act “for the sake of your children and grandchildren.””
Go here for the claps:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6061/6093669065_a3423161a6.jpg
…-
“NASA’s James Hansen arrested yet again”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Mr. Gore, Mr. Suzuki, as the men of science that you constantly tell us that you are, we look forward to these pronouncements this coming week.
I’m betting it won’t happen till Judgement Day.
AGW Crazy Puzzle Page.
Infill the missing word:
“Mental illness rise linked to climate [******]”
Name the new AGW mental illness: Gorebullitis; Gorebullimia; Climatediviculosis …
H/T Liberal Citoyen Kyoto Dionky.
…-
“Mental illness rise linked to climate
Erik Jensen Health
August 29, 2011”
“RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.
The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.
As many as one in five people reported ”emotional injury, stress and despair” in the wake of these events.
The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, called the past 15 years a ”preview of life under unrestrained global warming”.”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/mental-illness-rise-linked-to-climate-20110828-1jger.html
I believe the claim was that the science is settled.
Einstein.
Well, I’m convinced…thanks for coming out.
Awww. Robbie is mad at me! I’m sowwie! I didn’t mean to huwt youw feewings! Here, have a juice box.
Yes Alex, you’re sowwie…
The only type of “science” that statist politicians are familiar with is “post normal science” or cargo cult science. This is a group of individuals who are unable to cope with the rigors of classic science and thus gravitate to “science” which is supposedly one evolutionary step up from the hard stuff but vapid enough to be comprehended by the average politician. Through the process of credentialism what is in effect total BS is given a patina of respectability.
Every time that CAGW “science” has made a prediction it has been demolished when people have used classical scientific methodology to test the predictions. The CLOUD experiment is an example of classical science at its best and what it demonstrates is that the influence of CO2 on earth temperatures is miniscule compared to extra-terrestial influences.
What is going on in the sun is still quite unsettled. After reading WUWT for the last few years I came across the theories of Dr. Manuel who suggests that instead of being the big ball of gas that is the prevailing scientific dogma, the sun may instead be a neutron star covered in iron with a shell of gas over top. This is Dr. Manuel’s explanation of the missing solar neutrino problem and his papers are quite interesting reading. If the sun is indeed as variable as Dr. Manuel’s theory would suggest, then what we need to be doing is dumping all “sustainable” forms of energy and plowing all of that money into researching fusion as we currently don’t have the energy generation capacity to cope with a sudden decrease in solar irradience.
40 years ago I was worried about global cooling and after this much time spend pondering the subject of global climate change, I’ve come to the conclusion that global warming is far easier to deal with than global cooling. Hell, if it comes down to putting up an orbiting sunshade to cool the earth, that’s technically a lot simpler than warming the earth if the sun were to suddenly go to putting out 90% of the power that it currently does.
Oh come on. It was never really about science. It was mostly about getting rich from the polluters and duping the leftards into creating the illusion of public consensus.
“Oh come on. It was never really about science. It was mostly about getting rich from the polluters and duping the leftards into creating the illusion of public consensus.”
Well, on the bright side, at least you’re finally admitting that CO2 is a form of pollution. That’s progress!
Loki, it’s an interesting theory but there’s no evidence of it. On the contrary, if such was the case and we were getting close to such exhaustion the sun’s emissions would be far more erratic than they are.
Second, the composition of radioisotopes in the elements in the earth are completely inconsistent with such a theory but are consistent with current theory of solar system formation.
Third, an overlay of gas around a neutron star would not have any significant fusion activity, inconsistent with current output. All fusion activity takes place deep in the core, not in the mantle or corona. By definition, a neutron star has no active core.
Fourth, if the core of the sun was a neutron star there would be far higher pulsed radio and x-ray emissions than is the case now.
cgh
Yea…but none of this is relevant…AGW science is settled and weighting in the computer models already accounted for all solar and cosmic influences…silly.
cgh, I was pondering what happened to the rotation of a neutron star in the core of the sun all weekend and decided that it must have slowed down with friction from the infalling gas. My nuclear physics is far too rusty to determine whether Manuel is right about his isotopic analysis of meteors which he uses as evidence for a neutron star at the suns core. He posits the majority of suns energy to be the result of neutron emission by the neutron star and each neutron will then either trigger fusion, or decompose into a proton and electron which he says explains the solar wind. Manuel’s theory is that there is quite a lot of hydrogen and helium around the suns core producing about 36% of solar radiation.
Manuel doesn’t dispute the current theory of solar system formation – it started with a supernova which produced all of the high atomic weight elements that we have, but rather than leaving behind a cloud of gas, a neutron star was formed at the center of the solar system and reaccreted a large portion of the gas it blew away, or maybe it wandered into a gas cloud.
There will probably be ways of testing this theory directly once we can put neutrino detectors in orbit close to the sun to determine if neutrino oscillations are the cause of the missing solar neutrinos or whether the sun operates quite differently than we thought. Also, it might be possible to use comets as solar probes by determining the interior composition of the sun in the same manner that seismic waves allow mapping of the earth’s core.
There are considerable implications for us if the sun is a variable star, or at least a lot more variable than the IPCC considers it (they assume solar radiation is constant). There are limits to Gaia’s homeostatic capacity and a number of theories as to how the earth can get rid of excess solar energy have been published on WUWT. So, we can say that for the last 60,000,000 years or so the sun has been relatively constant but I suspect it’s been a lot more variable than is thought. By the precautionary principle, we should now start a massive program of coal and nuclear power plants as well as build bases on the moon and other planets so as to be more able to deal with solar variability. I hate to think of the type of space program we could have at this time if we spent the money that’s been thrown away on “sustainable” energy over the last 20 years. A trillion dollars would have given us a moonbase, orbiting large scale habitats, and probably there would be a manned expedition to Mars at this time.
There!
You see… I was right.
“There are considerable implications for us if the sun is a variable star, or at least a lot more variable than the IPCC considers it (they assume solar radiation is constant).”
😀 It’s this kind of blatant lying that I come to SDA for. Thanks for the lulz 🙂
Loki, there’s still further troubles with Manuel’s theory. If there was a collapse of the core into a neutron star, there would have been a blow out of gas, a lot of it. There’s no evidence of such a smoke ring. It can’t draw in the expelled gas, because the gravity well would be much less than that of the original gas cloud. Also, the heavier elements which were blown out would not be available to form the planets nearly as close in as they are. This event would have been an extremely violent event, as it takes a supernova explosion to form a neutron star, and supernovas vacate just about everything in the immediate vicinity (for many, many light years.) Certainly such a supernova is totally inconsistent with the existence of the Oort Clouds.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the principal thrust of Manuel’s theory is to explain neutrino variation. A far simpler theory is that the sun is slightly variable in its output. It is well established that the sun’s core contains impurities. As these build up, the fission process slows down, temperature increases and the impurities are expelled.
Close up neutrino detectors might add evidence, but there’s already been more than enough evidence from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory to show the pattern.
Also remember, that the IPCC doesn’t claim the sun’s output is constant. What it claims is that the variability is too small to account for their claimed effects on climate change. This is the real point of scientific contention. It’s largely speculation on Mike Lockwood’s part, because we haven’t been through a full series of solar cycles with neutrino detection to know whether the IPCC is right or wrong on this. What can be said is that they are speculating in the absence of sufficient evidence. In short, on the current evidence and with the current theory, it’s as easy to accept that the sun is more variable than we now assume it to be than less variable. There’s simply not enough evidence to show one way or the other except from many decades more of neutrino detection.
As for manned space exploration, Robert Heinlein said it best, “Earth is too small a basket for humanity to have all of its eggs.”
A very good study but it doesn’t disprove AGW. I lean skeptical but I am careful not to simply dismiss AGW completely.
las, so what would disprove it?
cgh, you’re quite right about the inconvenient light-years wide void that a supernova would create. That’s why I was speculating about a gas cloud that the newly created neutron star might have entered into some millions of years after the explosion. We know almost nothing about the stellar neighborhood 5 billion years ago. Perhaps the shock wave from the supernova compressed the interstellar gas and the neutron star ended up in the matter rich environment that it had created.
Manuel latched onto the solar-neutrino problem as an afterthought, I believe, as most of his papers deal with ratios of isotopes found in meteorites and the composition of the solar wind. He classes the sun as being closer in structure to variable iron-rich stars than what are presumed to be large balls of hydrogen with fusion byproducts. It’s an interesting intellectual exercise and a hypothesis we should be able to test. The Oort cloud might represent proto-planetoids that condensed out of the presumed massive cloud of gas that is thought to be the origin of the solar system.
IMHO, when the IPCC says that the suns variability is too small to account for observed climate changes they might as well say the sun is constant. As you’ve pointed out, we’ve had good scientific data on the sun for only about 50 years or so. Solar UV fluctuates over a far greater range than was initially suspected and is the explanation for the ozone-layer scare. In some ways we can’t shake off the egotistic homocentric view of reality where some people believe we have a far greater effect on our environment than we actually do. And this is centuries after Galileo! I just wish we did have to power to change the earth’s environment as we’ll sure need it to deal with the next ice age or next unexpected increase in solar intensity.
Humans are Gaia’s innovative and exploratory elements and if Gaia thinks humans are failing to fulfill their designed function, she’ll wipe them out and try again with another species. Living in supposed “harmony” with nature wasn’t Gaia’s plan for humans. There, I’ve probably just committed sacrilege in the view of the watermelon high priests. Humans are just doing what comes naturally to them and the IPCC and related regressive organizations just don’t understand our role in the ecosystem.
Sigh. It’s always painful to see Guru Suzuki’s name in an article.
I met him a couple times over the years. I had shyly asked him to sign my books. During both encounters he was rude to me, rolling his eyes. The second time was worse, I actually cried after.
He gives off a real nasty vibe. He’s a selfish, pompous dickhead. I was stupid to believe in him all my life.