“Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” – IPCC AR5 Chapter 10
If the climate-based scientific community was truly functioning in a healthy manner they would be lining up to challenge their own assertions, openly debating the results and then readjusting their positions accordingly. Instead, we are fed leaks of scientists manipulating data and censure of any scientists who dare attempt their due diligence in challenging the theory. Since they openly appear to be operating more as a lobby group than scientists, I am dismayed that their dying theory still has so much traction as solid science in society. I witnessed a thoroughly depressing MMGW “update” on CTV just last week. This “newstainment” outlet apparently has no intention of taking their foot off the gas on this long supported marketing campaign, even though it seems to be veering towards the cliff.
As with any politicized topic, serious fact-based debates are ignored in favor of rooting for a “side” and then aggressively protecting it against any challenges, especially the valid ones. The MMGW media story is no different and is why healthy skepticism is all I’ve ever needed to see this is not real science. It is difficult to deny the parallels between having absolute “faith” in the UN’s climate story and absolute “faith” in religious dogma or political parties. I have great hopes that both common sense and healthy skepticism will eventually win out in all of these arenas.
There’s already a template for getting rid of pesky warming periods that mess up the “unprecedented” claim. Find a proxy, collect some data then “science and statistic” the crap out of the numbers until they say what you want. Ta-da…inconvenience magically disappears.
In this instance, I’ve read a couple of times that researchers are claiming that clumps of moss dated to a bazillion years ago are now uncovered in the Arctic region. Apparently, this is supposed to prove the unprecedented warming claim . It’s certainly not possible that the moss has been uncovered and recovered by snow quite a few times in that time frame. The fact that they are there at all proves that a bazillion years ago it was warm enough to support growing the moss.
The unprecedented is essential to prove the catastrophic part CAGW, of course. Previous warm periods being evidence of natural cycles and natural variability.
Soviet Pavlovian science is still with us.
I think that the proper term is Lysenkoism ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism ). Nothing unprecedented about that, either. Unfortunately.
(they would be lining up to challenge their own assertions,)
–
True scientists would be questioning their own results, charts, and methods.
But these clowns have nothing to do with ‘true’ science,
they are in it for the money grants, personal ‘Nobel’ glories,
and dictatorially control of the ignorant masses..
Welcome to Satan and his little helpers..
Absolutely.
Scientists should no with 100% certainty, guaranteed, without any chance of a doubt, before they every utter a single word. If there is even one tidbit of data that can’t be 100% explained by their “theory” then we should reject it 100%.
Same for evolution. Questions abound. It’s just a theory after all. If the evolution-biased scientific community was truly functioning in a healthy manner they would be lining up to challenge their own assertions, openly debating the results and then readjusting their positions accordingly. I witnessed a thoroughly depressing evolution “update” on CTV just last week. This “newstainment” outlet apparently has no intention of taking their foot off the gas on this long supported marketing campaign, even though it seems to be veering towards the cliff.
As with any politicized topic, serious fact-based debates are ignored in favor of rooting for a “side” and then aggressively protecting it against any challenges, especially the valid ones. The MMGW media and evolution story is no different and is why healthy skepticism is all I’ve ever needed to see this is not real science. It is difficult to deny the parallels between having absolute “faith” in the evolution story and absolute “faith” in religious dogma or political parties. I have great hopes that both common sense and healthy skepticism will eventually win out in all of these arenas.
And while we’re at it, can we finally start talking again about this notion or “theory” that the earth revolves around the sun. Please! Has anyone ever actually gone into outer space and sat there for a whole year to actually observe this so-called phenomena? What I know, is that when I look out my front door in the morning, the sun is to my left; and when I look out my front door in the evening, the sun is to my right. We don’t need to subsidize these politicized “scientists” with my tax dollar for them to tell me that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, when it clearly does.
Open your eyes, people! It’s a leftwing, elitist conspiracy to distribute wealth. The Church was right 600 years ago, and always will be right.
AGW is a number of things: Money for nothing, power to the elite, and a step towards one world government. Resist people, resist.
Climate science has no where near the level of proof of theories like the heliocentric system or evolution. Ironically, it’s climate science that has resorted to creating epicycles to patch up their man-centred models.
Your first paragraph was absolutely correct and is indeed how real science should and does work, but then you expose yourself as the useless trolling twit you are in the remainder of your rant.
It could be both then? The reference I have is ” (Dr. pf Psychiatry) A. P. St…. was a collaborator in the ‘politics of medicine’ in the last years of Stalin’s rule. A. P. St…. made a presentation at the 1951 Pavlov session in Moscow. He was one of the few leaders from outside Moscow to attend the open sessions as well as the closed sessions. This event was designed to impose Pavlovian dogma on the profession and lobby for more resources, especially for the treatment of war veterans”. Source: page 78, Preservings No. 33, 2013
Not at all Greg.
Just because 99% of so-called scientists agree that evolution is a “fact”, it remains a theory. And that is only 2% more so-called scientists than the number of so-called scientists who believe in climate change and that it is caused by humans. Are you saying 99% of all biologists is fine for proof, but 97% of all climate scientists is not enough?
I say it has to be 100% or else we shouldn’t buy in to any scientific “theory”.
Besides, it’s really cold out there right now and has been for weeks now, so how could there possibly be any reality to this climate change nonsense. And I’ve never seen a monkey turn into a man so that pretty much debunks both theories right there.
I don’t really need to respond to your drivel; LC and Greg have provided more than sufficient. However, it should be noted that Nikolai Kopernicki was a Roman Catholic priest in Torun Poland. So just which church is it that you refer when you say “the Church was right 600 years ago”?
“And while we’re at it, can we finally start talking again about this notion or “theory” that the earth revolves around the sun. Please! Has anyone ever actually gone into outer space and sat there for a whole year to actually observe this so-called phenomena?” The correct singular of
“phenomena” is “phenomenon.” The answer to your question is, “yes”.
I may add that by 1900, perhaps 1890, celestial mechanics yielded very
accurate positions of the planets – accurate by the standards of accuracy
of the day. And kindly don’t say “epicycles”. Epicycles worked well by
the standards of 200 AD and naked-eye observations. They were pathetic
by the standards of 1900.
Celestial mechanics also provides the basis for accurate satellite
navigation, including the navigation of those short-lived satellites
called “ICBMs” Anti-missile defence is based on the same principles.
The point has been made in this forum several times, that there is a
fair confidence in physics because it provides many testable and tested
calculations. I do believe that all of the limited number of predictions
of “climate” “science” have proved to be wrong.
@Modern,
Believe whatever you want.
But if as in CAGW, your belief encourages you to attempt to steal from, restrict the freedoms of and annoy the taxpaying public, do not be surprised by the counter beliefs that arise with respect to your intelligence and ethical values.
Notice the difference?
Evolution, solar physics, does either have advocates attempting the kind of societal theft and power redistribution that the Manmade global warming scam artists insist upon as their solution?
Kind of like John Peate, not quite consolidated enough to be wood, wrapping delusion in an illusion of “The Science”, making authoritarian claims.
Claims contradicted by the authorities cited.
Science is not certain, most of us are comfortable with uncertainty, that is life.
However the dishonest certainty of the IPCC and the useful idiots who sing its praises, is non-science.
100%, 97% certainty by humans, will not change nature.
Makes a nice religion.
Devolves to a nasty cult as reality ignores the central beliefs.
Eventually fades away.
Of course I may have totally misread your comment.
Consensus by scientists has never been, and never can be, a substitute for proper scientific method. Someone please explain this to the IPCC. Also, until mankind understands all the intricacies of the interactions of all of the atmospheres, continents, oceans, space, volcanoes, solar, etc, etc, etc, computer models are little more than crystal balls. So far, they have proven to be about as accurate.
And please stop feeding the frigging trolls, especially when it is painfully obvious that they have no understanding of what a scientific theory actually is and that their only reason for visiting here is to be an obnoxious antagonist.
Guys, we’re all in agreement here. We should just ignore any science that isn’t completely, 100% proven without any shadow of a doubt, that accounts for all known data, and even data we don’t know about and even factors in data we have no way of knowing anything about. If scientific analysis of current data cannot infallibly predict the future 5, 10 or 25 years out, then we should just stop funding that whole branch of so-called science with our hard-earned tax dollars.
Especially if it means we might have to be inconvenienced in our own lives. Who wants to sacrifice comforts and conveniences, unless it is 138% certifiably proven.
And we are in total and complete agreement that we should ignore the fact that climate scientists themselves actually do distinguish between (1) what they are observing (where 99% of so-called climate “scientists” agree – the planet is getting warmer, quite rapidly), (2) what they conclude (where 97% of so-called climate “scientists” agree – that is caused by human activity), (3) what they predict (a greater degree of disagreement here… which only PROVES once and for all that the entire “science” thing is bunk), and (4) what they think we should do about it politically (for this I’m with you on the whole pretending that Al Gore and Suzuki are climate scientists so that we can disparage this whole sector of junk science).
So there is no disagreement here. In fact, we have consensus.
After all, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven. And if it’s not 138% proven, and agreed upon by 186% of all scientists (not just climate scientists) then the whole thing MUST be complete scam. There can be no doubt about that.
In very related news, that also proves our collective point about the usefulness of so-called “science”:
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Dr. Stephen Hawking’s recent statement that the black holes he famously described do not actually exist underscores “the danger inherent in listening to scientists,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) said today.
Rep. Bachmann unleashed a blistering attack on Dr. Hawking, who earlier referred to his mistake on black holes as his “biggest blunder.”
“Actually, Dr. Hawking, our biggest blunder as a society was ever listening to people like you,” said Rep. Bachmann. “If black holes don’t exist, then other things you scientists have been trying to foist on us probably don’t either, like climate change and evolution.”
Rep. Bachmann added that all the students who were forced to learn about black holes in college should now sue Dr. Hawking for a full refund. “Fortunately for me, I did not take any science classes in college,” she said.
Bachmann’s anti-Hawking comments seemed to be gaining traction on Capitol Hill, as seen from the statement by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Chairman of the House Science Committee, who said, “Going forward, members of the House Science Committee will do our best to avoid listening to scientists.”
Source: http://tinyurl.com/cons-dont-know-science
The point is: if we don’t like the implications of reality, then reality must be wrong.
“Guys, we’re all in agreement here.”
Hardly. Every sentence you utter shows your misunderstanding about what science is. Science is a body of theories supported by evidence. When observable facts contradict the theory, the theory is either wrong or altered to adjust to the new observations. This is precisely why CAGW is wrong; rather than adjusting the theory, the proponents distort or dismiss contradictory observations.
Your statements about “proof” is simply idiotic. In science there is only evidence and what is the simplest explanation that reconciles ALL the evidence. As John Lewis pointed out to you earlier, which you must have ignored, physics is subject to a wide variety of readily verifiable tests. CAGW is not.
As for your quote of Bachmann on Hawking, you, Bachmann and the benighted New Yorker writer all misunderstood what Hawking was saying. That collapsars exist is beyond question; there are easily verifiable tests which show this. Hawking’s comment was about the internal dynamics of them.
And you should know better than to show up here, a liberal troll pretending to be a CAGW skeptic.
@The Modern.
Weak satire .
Must be a liberal interpretation of the scientific method you use.
Or are you channelling Jean Chretien?.
John, actually celestial mechanics observations had gotten very good long before that. As early as the 16th century, strong observational evidence existed disproving the geocentric universe. As early as the 1580s, it was well established that in the geocentric universe the centre was not the earth but a point defined by something called the Equant. Turned out the Equant was nowhere near the centre of the earth.
From an obvious theological point of view, this made no sense. Why would God create a universe in which the earth was supposed to be the centre and miss by such an enormous margin?
Copernicus was not in the business of eliminating epicycles; he used them himself. The problem Copernicus was trying to eliminate was the Equant. And he succeeded, but only for a time.
Copernicus’ failure was that even by the 17th century, his model could not explain the observed motions of the planets. That had to wait until Kepler’s eliptical orbits and Newton’s laws of gravitation and motion.
No CGH, I think you must misunderstand me. I think we have a consensus here: Science is a body of theories supported by evidence. So when any single observable fact contradicts or cannot be explained by a theory, the theory should be thrown out. If absolutely every single climate scientist doesn’t agree on what is happening or why – even if it is almost every single one of them after decades of research to no wealth to themselves – then we should not adjust our thinking on anything they say. You make a good point there and I totally agree with you on that.
Also, if elistist, ivory tower so-called scientists can’t explain themselves sufficiently that every single non-scientist can understand and agree with them, well, same thing goes. It really can’t be very good science if your ordinary taxpayer can’t see the logic in it or can’t rationalize seemingly contradictory data.
I like your story about Copernicus because it leads us to the same conclusion. We should never have given up on the earth centred view of the world until after Kepler and Newton had started to figure things out.
If scientists don’t know all the answers to everything, then they are clearly elitists trying to steal my money and start a communist revolution.
So glad there is a place on the web like this where rational logical thought is welcome and honored.
Usually I enjoy the trolls, but this one is pathetic. I suspect that he is afraid that if he actually listens to us, his faith may be diminished.
100% right? Not to be snarky but what exactly has climate science gotten correct? Percentage-wise they are probably below random chance and monkeys throwing darts when it comes to the accuracy and precision of their projections/predictions. In order for a theory to be credible it must be better than the null hypothesis…which in climate science is that natural variability and natural cycles are the main drivers of climate change.
” the theory should be thrown out”
What part of “altered” did you not understand?
“If scientists don’t know all the answers to everything, then they are clearly elitists trying to steal my money and start a communist revolution.”
I was not aware that liberals were so opposed to science. Thanks for the enlightenment. It explains why CAGW exists.
“We should never have given up on the earth centred view of the world until after Kepler and Newton had started to figure things out.”
Basic reading comprehension here. The geocentric theory didn’t fit the facts Copernicus was working with. Hence, it was wrong. Copernicus’ theory fit the facts as they were understood by him at the time. That’s what science is, not an absolute truth but the best of our understanding at the time. CAGW does not fit this view of science, because it’s wrong by any understanding of the evidence.
“So glad there is a place on the web like this where rational logical thought is welcome and honored”
There’s plenty of rational thought here, but not from any contribution you’ve made.
No, Tim, he’s not. He’s a hard-core ideologue attempting one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the book to discredit the opposition.
Yep, a new twist on deniers are anti-science with a dash of RWNJs think climate science is a conspiracy. On the pro side, modern is a smidgen more subtle than the usual consensus science provocateurs.
I haven’t read Hawking’s remarks yet, what you say is basically my guess on what Hawking was about on this one. He does happen to be one of his own greatest critics!!
also Bachmann’s comments are a good display why it’s good she never got close to the levers of power:-))))
Great article by Luboš Motl on 5 sigma requirements for accepting a theory:
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2010/03/tamino-5-sigma-and-frame-dragging.html
The troll probably left for the night. Pity. I wanted its opinion of the theory of gravitation. Since that has been falsified, “The Modern” should be able to fly.
BTW troll, there was a consensus of Aryan scientists that opposed Jewish science, so does mean relativity was wrong? It was even 100 to 1, so that’s the 99% that you quoted. Then again, that would require understanding what “falsification” means, and that’s the too many syllables for most True Believers.
Einstein was also his own greatest critic. His view was that regardless of consensus it would only take one good critique to bring down his theory of general relativity. It’s a characteristic of most scientists, and I’ve met more than a few in my lifetime. Consensus is an act of politics or theology, not a posteriori reasoning.
As for Bachmann, all I will say is that her heart’s in the right place even if I don’t agree with all or even much of what she says. But she really should leave details to others.
C-Miner, I agree with your comment generally. In specific, Newton’s theory of gravitation was never falsified in the sense we mean here. More correctly it was accurate only to a certain general level. Einstein and Planck don’t invalidate Newton so much as add to it.
Hawking’s comments on black holes are characteristic of the far fringe of theoretical physics where someone can imagine anything and then spend their life looking for traces they consider proof. Theoretical Physics verges on religion, ie. there’s a whole bag of assumptions one has to accept on faith to even play in the game. Hawking has just taken one of the biggest toys out of the bag and said it’s imaginary and maybe not real. Hell, their whole bag of toys is imaginary and maybe not real.
If they can give me a cube with a power output that I can use for 20 years then they can call it whatever colored hole they want.
Consensus is for selecting Prom Royalty and Presidents. It’s a popularity contest based on emotion. It has no grounding in the scientific method. A consensus of scientists can believe whatever they want, all it takes is one scientist with empirically proven truth to negate the whole consensus. Pasteur did it, so did Copernicus and Galileo. A little research will show that most advancements in science are not made by consensus, but rather by a small group of individuals who understand the significance of a ‘eureka’ moment, and then go on to prove it with real world data.
cgh – shhhhh, we’ah huntin’ twoll.
Degrees of acceptance and truth are the basis for what I was going for. With emphasis on prediction and falsification, not a show of hands for whether something is correct. I wanted to see how much the troll actually knows about the scientific method. If the eclipse experiment had yielded different results, what are the odds we’d still know about Einstein?
A professor used $1-million in Canadian science grants as a piggy bank to finance personal travels and his private business, newly disclosed documents have revealed.
The professor expensed trips to science conferences he did not attend, rented apartments for extended stays outside the country, loaned business associates money, and bought gear that had nothing to with his research, according to documents describing the misconduct.
Postmedia News obtained the documents, using the Access to Information Act, from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council that distributes close to $1-billion a year to academics across Canada.
The council will not name the scientist, saying it must “protect” his identity because of the Privacy Act. It is also refuses to identify the university involved, despite NSERC’s recent pledge to be more transparent about academics who misuse taxpayers’ money.
The documents do, however, give a glimpse of one of the council’s most protracted, contentious and serious misconduct cases to be publicly disclosed.
NSERC was keen to see the professor criminally charged, but the RCMP and federal lawyers decided against it, which means the case will remain shrouded in secrecy.
The 1,295 heavily redacted pages released by NSERC indicate the professor was an academic star. He had received $1-million in funding from various science agencies, almost half of it from NSERC, when questions arose about where the money was going.
The grants were supposed to pay for the professor and his graduate students to explore bright and innovative scientific ideas.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/01/28/professor-used-1-million-science-grants-as-a-piggy-bank-to-finance-personal-travels-and-private-business/
Trolling for trolls is like wrestling with pigs in the mud; eventually you’ll realize that’s what the pigs want.
“cgh – shhhhh, we’ah huntin’ twoll.”
(In his best Elmer Fudd accent)
At long last a note of rare humour on this dismal topic. I appreciate what you were doing, C. Myself, my operating assumption has always been that trolls know virtually nothing about the topic. That’s why they troll. And that assumption has rarely let me down.