Paths To Knowledge (dot Science)

What is actually real in Objective Reality? How do you know? Now, prove it's real!

Stick to the Actual Science Claims Please Phil Plait

Posted by pwl on October 26, 2010

‎Please stick to the actual science claims Phil Plait.

So I’ll be clear: climate change is real. The average temperature of the Earth is increasing. This is almost certainly due to mankind’s influence on the environment.– Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy [1]

Where is your evidence for that?

Here is an analysis that shows the above assertion is not supported by the Temperature and CO2 data.

These two articles by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD provide a key insight using a verification check calculation to show that the CO2 has not impacted Temperature as predicted it would.

“Observed Global Yearly Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA) from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the Hadley Centre.” from Predictions Of Global Mean Temperatures & IPCC Projections, by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that human emission of CO2 causes catastrophic global warming. When such extraordinary claim is made, every one with background in science has to look at the data and verify whether the claim is justified or not. In this article, a mathematical model was developed that agrees with observed Global Mean Temperature Anomaly (GMTA), and its prediction shows global cooling by about 0.42 deg C until 2030. Also, comparison of observed increase in human emission of CO2 with increase in GMTA during the 20th century shows no relationship between the two. As a result, the claim by the IPCC of climate catastrophe is not supported by the data.” – Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD, Predictions of Global Mean Temperatures IPCC Projections

“Comparison of the claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of 1) “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely” man made, and 2) “For the next two decades a warming rate of 0.2 deg C per decade is projected” are shown in this article not to be supported by the observed data, thus disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming.”
A primer for disproving IPCC’s theory of man made global warming using observed temperature data

No doubt you’ve heard the puerile political propaganda from the denialists.” – Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy

The above statement by Phil Plait is PURELY POLITICAL. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF CLAIMS he supports or alleges are true. As such it’s worse than irrelevant, it shows that an other wise fine scientist is stooping to crass politics to make his point and that is really unacceptable from someone promoting science and science education.

Science is empirical. Knowing the answer means nothing. Testing your knowledge means everything.” – Lawrence Krauss.

Knowing the “right” answer (assuming you know the right answer) means nothing, you must test your knowledge and PROVE that it is the right answer. You must allow others to test your knowledge to verify or refute your claims. When they say hey wait a moment you must respond professionally and address the concerns.

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” – Thomas Henry Huxley

The sin that Phil Plait (and others) is making is asking us to take the claims based upon the authority of others without raising any objections. That in science is a pretty vicious sin indeed.

‎”The noise makers want to confuse you, because that’s how they sow doubt.” – Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy

Again a purely crass political statement by Phil Plait that has ZERO to do with providing evidence to support his claims of impending doom.

The two above linked articles by Girma Orssengo, B. Tech, MASc, PhD. provide a key insight using a verification check calculation to show that the CO2 has not impacted Temperature as predicted it would.

I gather that Phil Plait thinks that in science asking questions or pointing out flaws or problems is somehow unacceptable? Me thinks Phil Plait needs to go back to science school and take a refresher in the scientific method and the philosophy of science. Or check his bad political attitude at the door before he writes political anti-scientific comments like the ones above.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” – Carl Sagan

This is certainly true of the wild doomsday claims of those professing soothsaying insights into the climate futures.

But the reality, while not precisely simple, is there for all to see who want to actually see it.” – Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy

Now that is a really problematic statement from Phil for it suggests a couple of things.

The first being that if someone doesn’t see what Phil sees the problem is with that someone rather than with how Phil is presenting his claims. The onus is on you Phil to make your case as you’re the one (among others) making the claims.

Secondly, it reveals that the evidence is strong enough to actually show causation or to support the wild allegations of catastrophe or heck even to show a correlation between CO2 and Temperature that has any meaning what so ever. Again the onus in science is upon those making the wild claims (or even normal claims) to provide the hard evidence.

Statements like Phil Plait is making are contrary to the spirit of pure science. Phil Plait would be well advised to stick to the science and leave off the nasty political rhetoric. If the alleged science of the varied catastrophic AGW hypotheses are correct the science – if made clear – should stand on it’s own legs without the need for nasty political rhetoric.

Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism – and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency.” – Stephen Jay Gould

I’m trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS.” – Richard Feynman

So far all the alleged evidence that I’ve ever seen on the climate topic is based upon a conjectured CO2 to Temperature catastrophic doomsday. If you’ve got more than conjectured causation please present that.

Please provide some even ordinary evidence that actually shows a problem and causation. Please.

You’ll also have to account for all the problems with the wild claims, a few of which are raised here in “Investigating the Climate of Doom”.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: