The Sound Of Settled Science

16 Replies to “The Sound Of Settled Science”

1. But what about the polar bears?!

2. Osu: They migrated north, er, south?

3. There’s no pipeline for them to keep warm under and around.

4. “…It’ll be cold. There will be no mistaking winter,” Stillman said. “But it may be a little shorter or we may see some small warm spells in places like the East Coast.”
   “The 219-year-old “Old Farmer’s Almanac” and its longtime competitor, the Maine-based “Farmers’ Almanac,” still draw droves of fans despite it being the age of the Internet and mobile phone apps. The books, which use secret formulas to predict weather based on sunspots, planetary positions and other information, are popular at farmers markets and bookstores and have maintained a fan base that sometimes spans generations of families…”
   Excerpt from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100908/ap_on_re_us/us_old_farmer_s_almanac
   Farmers using sunspots and planetary positions eh? Who would’ve tunk it?
   Makes the IPCC scientists look like a bunch of haywire fixing, er, farmers.

5. Or a hidden island in the South Pacific, a la Lost, John Brooks.
   I’ll bet “green” fanatics are stunned with this kind of research.

6. Have to laugh at any ” science ” that throws out ( or flat out fabricates ) data until the ” data set ” fits the politically correct “scientific” theory.
   Imagine if science was corrupted this way back in Copernicus’ day: The Aristotelian’s would have thrown out all astronomical observations inconsistent with their theory; Newton would been considered an inconvenient crank, and banished from Cambridge University; we would literally have held back science 500 years. Sort of like Lysenko held back Soviet biology with his luntatic theories. We now have a system where politicians decide what is scientific truth, what is not.

7. Not too sure what this has to do with the PRESENT realities of climate change, or what it has to do with anthropogenic climate influences. So what IS your point Kate?

8. BTJ – Perhaps the point is the one made in the article accompanying the photo: ” Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free”.
   Very unlikely that man created CO2 caused the ice to recede 6000 years ago, since there were no cars, no coal plants,6000 years ago.
   Possible hypothesis: Ice recession may be a natural process which will happen periodically, as it apparently has in former times.
   Please recall that the ” present realities of climate change ” as presented by CRU, Michael Mann, were the result not of burning fossil fuels, but the ( very unscientific, and, we now now intentional ) cooking of data to fit the ” theory ”

9. “Very unlikely that man created CO2 caused the ice to recede 6000 years ago, since there were no cars, no coal plants,6000 years ago.”
   Thanks Captain Obvious.
   “Possible hypothesis: Ice recession may be a natural process which will happen periodically, as it apparently has in former times.”
   Sure, a perfectly plausible theory…now what does it have to do with the CURRENT state of the climate? And anthropogenic climate influences?
   “Please recall that the ” present realities of climate change ” as presented by CRU, Michael Mann, were the result not of burning fossil fuels, but the ( very unscientific, and, we now now intentional ) cooking of data to fit the ” theory “”
   right, I’ve heard the conspiracy theory more times than I’d like, what I haven’t heard is what evidence there is to support such claims. And remember…there are thousands of research projects to dispute.

10. Remind me again why anyone ever responds to BTJ and the other ridiculous trolls? He is obviously insincere and trying only to be disruptive; ignore him and maybe he’ll go away. I mean he’s spouting such obvious tripe that it’s not worthy of response.

11. BTJ: try reading through this – a picture (about your level of understanding of climate) is worth a thousand words. There are several in this article, so pay attention as from your posts you certainly are not a scientist and most certainly not a climate scientist.
    http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
    Pay particular attention to that “hockey stick” sport, you could lose it when looking at the big picture.

12. “a picture (about your level of understanding of climate) is worth a thousand words.”
    NO..I didn’t ask for pictures (CLEARLY YOUR level of understanding since it’s all you can come up with!). I want more than a thousand words…there are THOUSANDS of research papers supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Your blog link is a clear indication of your poor level of understanding my friend…be better.
    “from your posts you certainly are not a scientist”
    Careful what you assume.

13. I’m expecting a rather severe winter in the west, and it may extend all the way to the east coast at times although there it could be near average on the whole. The reason is that the polar vortex has shifted over to our side of the pole because of the extreme heat in Russia this past summer, and our side of the arctic never warmed up much at all, so with the La Nina in full force (warm water in the west-central Pacific and cool water near the equator) most conventional signs point to a large ridge over Alaska and a northerly flow into the prairies being pretty much the governing circulation drivers. The Sun hasn’t really woken up yet either which is another good reason to go colder than normal.

14. “I want more than a thousand words…there are THOUSANDS of research papers supporting the theory of anthropogenic climate change.”
    And thousands of others that don’t. And those that do are virtually all based on the same flawed data sets.

15. “And thousands of others that don’t. And those that do are virtually all based on the same flawed data sets.”
    No, there are not thousands of research papers that PROVE anthropogenic climate change cannot be happening…there may be thousands of research papers that FAIL TO DISPROVE that anthropogenic climate change cannot be happening. There is a significant difference between these two conclusions.

16. From a statistics point of view, you can NEVER prove a hypothesis. You can only reject it or fail to reject it.
    If the test shows a hypothesis should be rejected, it does not necessarily show which hypothesis is rejected. The heliocentric model was rejected because if the stars are about 1 light year away and the Earth moves around the Sun, we should see the stars move. We don’t, so one of our hypotheses is wrong.
    Autrement dit, Statistics doesn’t prove what is, just what isn’t.