"The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact." - KURT GÖDEL
"According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".
A guiding principle for accepting claims of catastrophic global events, miracles, incredible healing, invisible friends, or fill in the blank is:
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - Carl Sagan
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." - H. L. Mencken
I would add irrational and highly delusional to the mix when faith requires one to accept magical violations of the well known, well tested or easily demonstrated laws of Nature. - PWL
"Science is Progress and the Future. Faith is regression to the Dark Ages." - PWL
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
"Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." - Alfred Korzybski
"Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence." - James Randi
"Hypotheses are nets: only he who casts will catch." - Novalis
"Nullius in verba. Take no one's word for it." - Motto of the Royal Society
"I'm trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS." - Richard Feynman
"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
“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein
"Science is empirical. Knowing the answer means nothing. Testing your knowledge means everything." - Lawrence Krauss
"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
"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." - James Randi
Science does not deal in absolute proofs. The scientific method depends upon falsification of alternative hypotheses until only one remains.
But “falsification” in science is not absolute. Instead, it is a matter of relative probabilities. Such “proof” by falsification of all alternatives is never final: All scientific laws, theories and hypotheses forever remain subject to falsification at any time–at least in principle, even if the odds of that ever happening are infinitesimally small.
All that is required to falsify an hypothesis, or to falsify the currently-accepted theory, is for an alternative hypothesis to be shown–by empirical evidence and quantitative analysis of the relative probabilities–to have a statistically-significant higher probability of being correct.
The CAGW hypothesis is that a) The Earth’s climate is warming, b) The warming is substantially a result of human emissions of CO2 and, c) The magnitude of the warming will be enough to have significant effects, and d) The net effects of the warming will be harmful, and e) The harm caused by the warming will be great enough to be worth the net costs of politically-coerced mitigation.
The alternative hypothesis–which is also the null hypothesis (<= click the link for more info)–is that a) The warming is substantially due to natural causes for which humans are not substantially responsible, and/or b) The magnitude of any human-caused warming will not be not be great enough to have significant effects by itself (regardless of the effects of any warming not caused by man,) and/or c) The net effects of warming will not be harmfull–or if they are, then not by enough to be worth the cost of politically-coerced mitigation.
The null hypothesis has never been falsified. There have been no peer-reviewed studies published that quantitatively analyze both p(CAGW | Historical-Temperature-Data) [the probability that CAGW hypothesis is true, given the historical temperature data] and p(NullHypothesis | Historical-Temperature-Data) [the probability that the Null Hypothesis is true, given the historical temperature data], showing that the former (CAGW) has a statistically significant higher probability of being true than the latter (the null hypothesis–that warming is substantially natural.) Not one.
The Wicked Greenland Soothsayers of the West say “I’m Melting”, now “How much energy is required to melt all the ice in Greenland?”
How much energy is required to melt all the ice in Greenland?
How much ice is there in Greenland?
“The Greenland ice sheet (Kalaallisut: Sermersuaq) is a vast body of ice covering 1,710,000 square kilometres (660,235 sq mi), roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland. It is the second largest ice body in the world, after the Antarctic Ice Sheet. The ice sheet is almost 2,400 kilometres (1,500 mi) long in a north-south direction, and its greatest width is 1,100 kilometres (680 mi) at a latitude of 77°N, near its northern margin. The mean altitude of the ice is 2,135 metres (7,005 ft). The thickness is generally more than 2 km (1.24 mi) (see picture) and over 3 km (1.86 mi) at its thickest point. It is not the only ice mass of Greenland – isolated glaciers and small ice caps cover between 76,000 and 100,000 square kilometres (29,344 and 38,610 sq mi) around the periphery. Some scientists predict that climate change may be about to push the ice sheet over a threshold where the entire ice sheet will melt in less than a few hundred years. If the entire 2,850,000 cubic kilometres (683,751 cu mi) of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m (23.6 ft).” Wikipedia on Greenland Ice Sheet.
2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice in Greenland.
So claim of a 100 years to melt 2,850,000 cubic kilometers of ice. Hmmm… we’ll get back to that.
How much energy to melt ice?
“When ice melts, it absorbs as much heat energy (the heat of fusion) as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C, while its temperature remains a constant 0 °C.” – wikipedia on ice
Peter Gleick’s actions are shocking and atrocious, a sad event for standards in science where we see otherwise dedicated scientists violate their own integrity in furtherance of their belief stricken cause to save the Earth at all costs. It’s an unfortunate pattern of behavior that the end justifies the means.
By using fraud and deception Peter Gleick compromised himself. This is all too familiar in climate scientists dedicated to their cause above their commitment to the scientific method. Peter Gleick likely fancied himself, absurdly, as a whistle-blower of sorts, as DeSmog climate doomsday rapture cultists have characterized him justifying his criminal actions, but the facts now show that there was nothing of substance to the climate issues to be “blown”, just private information stolen in a crime against a think tank who disagrees with Gleick’s world view of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW. Nothing to blow the whistle on thus Gleick’s acts are wholly criminal acts not qualifying for whistle-blower status.
The two Climate Gate incidents also fit this pattern but on a much larger scale where an entire clutch of climate scientists, Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, Dr, Jones, Dr. Briffa, Dr. Threnbreth, et al., as is evident by the two sets of Climate Gate Emails, had a similar ongoing conspiracy to fudge their numbers, defraud the public, violate the scientific method using secret political actions to block publication of papers, coordinating their actions to the benefit of their pet hypothesis, CAGW, to the benefit of their careers, to the benefit of their funding, to the benefit of their “cause” rather than to the benefit of science or to the benefit of the public paying their bills.
It is obvious that an insider having observed these suspect activities of scientific fraud and cronyism and the resulting gaming of the data to bias towards CAGW plus the fact that funding monies where clearly involved as motivation to career and person adds in the suspect activities of potential criminal fraud not only across state lines but across international borders as well.
The role of the whistle-blower is typically reserved for insiders who observe highly unethical and or criminal behavior going on in an organization who then reports such events and crimes to the public for action by those with the legal obligation to act accordingly and responsibly. Some countries even provide legal protections for such “honest” whistle-blowers who side on the side of doing the right thing rather than letting the crimes continue.
The direct comparison of these two events, ClimateGate and Gleick Fake Gate, leaves one with the bitter taste that, unfortunately, there are many climate scientists willing to engage in unethical actions even crossing the line into scientific fraud (fabrication of data is a no no Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann) and advancing their own careers using deception (hiding the decline is a big no no Dr. Mann) and, now evidently clearly criminal acts of identity theft, social hacking misrepresentation deception passing oneself as a board member of an organization one is not a member of nor a board member of, receiving stolen documents across state lines for wire fraud, and likely many more charges will be identified as this story develops and unfolds, not to mention the loss of scientific integrity and violating ones commitment to the scientific method and nuking one’s own career with a Tsar Bomba in the process.
So two major cases, Climate Gate I & II (with III in the wind) and Gleick Fake Gate have shown the criminal aniled minds of climate science are active and willing to break the laws that help to keep civilization civil and worse they routinely break the rules of the scientific method claiming they are under attack. Well dah! If you can’t stand the heat get out of the lab!
Science is about testing all claims of hypotheses put forward, it’s the science that is being “attacked” since it’s not hard science of the order of f=ma or e=mc^2. If these two equations had the lack of “predictive value” of the climate science statistical virtual models we’d not be able to build sky scrapers safely let alone have humans visit the moon and robotic probes explore the solar system and beyond!
There is a serious quantitative failure of the field of climate science to keep it self rooted in hard science, sure they put up space satellites and take observations, but it’s the climate scientists methods of analysis that are the key problems (when the frauds and blatant politics are removed that is) they have an over reliance on statistical games and statistical models that disconnect many if not most of their results from the Actual Real Atmosphere and Climate of this Small Blue Marble known as Earth.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford
Rutherford’s Rule of Experiments is a very concise and elegant filter that separates true hard science from pseudo sciences such as Climate Science.
Judith Curry hits the head on the nail with Gleick’s [lack of] Integrity: when one “perceives with passion” that the Earth is at risk one’s emotions lead one to compromise ones values and self; and in the case of scientists it seems that shows up as a Passion Bias or a Dedication Bias or as commonly known, Confirmation Bias, but to that we can now add Compromise Bias: these are all the blatant ignoring of the counter evidence that has a damn good habit of falsifying the many claims of CAGW.
What makes a Bad Scientist? What makes a Good Scientist? What makes a Great Scientist? How well they adhere to the scientific method and how well they can shift their point of view to consider what others are telling them. Also being honest and not using deception or fraud is a baseline essential commitment. Read the rest of this entry »
It ain’t over till the fat lady Neutrina sings again in a number of encore performances around the world, aka “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” (to borrow a principle from Carl Sagan).
A quick summary of the alleged discovery of slightly faster than light neutrinos:
CERN’s Antonio Ereditato does a brief BBC Inteview.
“[The following] is the live Webcast from CERN on Friday September 23, 2011. Given the potential far-reaching consequences of the OPERA experiment — which observes a neutrino beam from CERN 730 km away at Italy’s INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory, indicating that the neutrinos travel at a velocity 20 parts per million above the speed of light — independent measurements are needed before the effect can either be refuted or firmly established, according to a CERN statement just issued. The OPERA collaboration has therefore decided to open the result to broader scrutiny.” Read the rest of this entry »
“Wonders of the Universe is a 2011 television series produced by the BBC, Discovery Channel, and Science Channel, hosted by physicist Brian Cox. Wonders of the Universe was first broadcast in the United Kingdom on BBC Two on 6 March 2011. The series comprises four episodes, each of which focuses on an aspect of the universe and features a ‘wonder’ relevant to the theme. It follows on from Cox’s previous series for the BBC, Wonders of the Solar System, which was first broadcast in 2010.”  Read the rest of this entry »
Sorry Sir Paul Maxime Nurse, PRS (President of the Royal Society), in science funded by the public purse you’ve got to show your work when asked for it. If there are any scientists who refuse to show their work they can expect to get Freedom Of Information Requests. All they have to do is put their work with all the full details fully documented so that their entire paper including all data and details of experiments can be replicated step by step up on their research lab’s web site so that their work can be verified, corrected or refuted in part or in whole. It’s all very easy if they have already done their science carefully!
“Show and justify your work”: If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen, and if you can’t stand skepticism about your methodology, assumptions, and analyses get out of science — go into religion. – Indur M. Goklany, Science and technology policy analyst, United States Department of the Interior, Represented the United States at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and during the negotiations that led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
But no Sir Paul Maxime Nurse, the all mighty and all powerful President of the Royal Society wants scientists to abandon and give up the scientific method. If you hide data or details of your papers that are required to replicate the alleged claims then expect to be challenged on it especially when the alleged claims have a significant impact upon the public purse or policy.
“Freedom of information laws are being misused to harass scientists and should be re-examined by the government, according to the president of the Royal Society.” – Guardian
Woops, can’t do that as it’s in violation of the rules of the scientific method and you should know better than that Sir Paul Maxime Nurse. Heck your own Royal Society says:
These climate scientists bust a move violating the scientific method and the philosophy of science with their CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture Prophetic rhetoric.
The amazing thing is that they seem to be utterly oblivious to the ethical violations of the scientific method they are committing against the philosophy of science. Their smug arrogance isn’t even he worst part.
“Nullis in verba. Take no one’s word for it.” – Motto of the Royal Society
In a FREE society people are free to “believe” or “not believe” any claim of science, however BOTH are making a mistake!!!
Belief: taking as true (or false) that which you have no evidence for; basing your belief upon faith or trust (another form of faith).
Belief has NOTHING to do with science, belief is a process of the mind that takes things on faith rather than evidence that can be verified, preferably by each person or in a basic science class room. Read the rest of this entry »
Hold on, the PDF file is NOT just a bit map, the background pattern is just that with other images and items LAYERED on top of it. In other works it’s not one image it’s a composite set of images in the PDF document! For example there are multiple items making up the black parts of the image, the signature block at the bottom is clearly a bit map while the lines and labels seem to be text or other bit maps that highlight white while being drawn! This gets more interesting.
You can see this by saving the PDF and opening it in Adobe PDF Reader then resizing the window and watching it redraw, it redraws in layers a piece at a time quickly. Hmmm….
Could be just the way they do it in Hawaii… but it’s not just a scan of an image. This would also explain how they can easily get multiple different backgrounds, as that could easily be removed or changed with a PDF editing program!
Just the observed facts with questions. Please don’t shoot the messenger. I’m Canadian and really have no vested interest in this one way or the other, just curious about it.
What’s with the “green” background that looks so fake?
Looking back in time at the Mean Sea Level graphs from the University of Colorado I noticed some things that bother me about their graphs and the manner of their presentation. Some serious questions where raised.
I made this slow 2 second blink comparison movie (it speeds up at the end) of two graphs from sealevel.colorado.edu to visually compare a noticeable change in plotting and data from 20041119 and about a month later on 20041223. The graph format changed and possibly the data points where changed or deleted.
While part of Professor Muller’s video takes the Team (Mann, Briffa, Jones, Wahl, et. al.) to task for stuff you can’t do in science, the longer version makes it clear that the Professor is biased towards the Catastrophic AGW hypothesis claims. Unfortunately the Professor doesn’t explain the reasoning behind his claims or his support for the CAGW claims.
The extract from the longer talk with Professor Muller taking the Team to task for what you can’t do in science and rebuking them by asserting that he now has a list of people whose papers he won’t read anymore. Ouch, cast them out of the science club. Three cheers for professor Muller for standing up for scientific integrity. Read the rest of this entry »
“Video of helicopters water-bombing nuclear reactor, close-up shots of Fukushima”
RT reports that allegedly only four helicopter loads of water have so far been dropped, and that 100 loads of water are needed to even have any cooling effect. Not good.
“17 March: During the morning, Self-Defense Force helicopters dropped four containers of water on the spent fuel pools of Units 3 and 4. In the afternoon it was reported that the Unit 4 spent fuel pool is full with water and none of the fuel rods are exposed. Construction work was started to supply a working external electrical power source to all six units of Fukushima I.”
– Fukushima I Nuclear Accidents, Wikipedia
When the last resort is dropping water onto nuclear rectors from helicopters is the solution being used you know it’s really bad. It looks like most of the water spray misses the target (hard to tell from the camera angle).
Clearly nuclear reactor designs must be revisited to take into account a complete loss of the coolant systems. Safer designs are a must, and designs that don’t have the flaws seen at Fukushima are a must.
The Pioneer Spacecraft: Pioneer 10 now soars toward the constellation Taurus, and 11 aims for Aquila
Thirty years ago, NASA scientists noticed that two of their spacecraft, Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11, were veering off course slightly, as if subject to a mysterious, unknown force. In 1998, the wider scientific community got wind of that veering—termed the Pioneer anomaly—and took aim at it with incessant, mind-blowingly detailed scrutiny that has since raised it to the physics equivalent of cult status. Now, though, after spawning close to 1000 academic papers, numerous international conferences, and many entire scientific careers, this beloved cosmic mystery may be on its way out.
Slava Turyshev, a scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., and Viktor Toth, a Canada-based software developer, plan to publish the results of their strikingly comprehensive new analysis of the Pioneer anomaly in the next few months. Their work is likely to bring a conclusion to one of the longest and most tumultuous detective stories of modern astrophysics.
NASA launched Pioneer 10 in the spring of 1972 and Pioneer 11 one year later. The spacecraft’s joint mission was to gather information about the asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn (in the case of Pioneer 11), and their moons. As they hurtled past those various celestial objects, the probes measured previously unknown properties of their atmospheres and surfaces; they also photographed Jupiter’s Red Spot and Saturn’s rings up close for the first time. Then, after completing their “flyby” missions in the mid-1970s, the Pioneers kept going. Carrying identical plaques depicting a man and a woman, the atomic transition of hydrogen, and the location of our planet within the galaxy—a message to aliens—the probes became the first manmade objects ever to plunge beyond the solar system into the inconceivable cold and dark of interstellar space. 
This is a fascinating story for many reasons: (1) it has parallels to the entire climate debate, (2) complex computer models of various forces of Nature such as gravity and heat, (3) 1,000s of scientific papers peer reviewed none-the-less attempting to find the cause of the anomaly, (4) destruction of the data (almost), (5) refutation upon refutation leading nowhere, (6) a mystery of great complexity, (7) models that are just to inefficient or full of errors, (8) mistaken idea after mistaken idea, (9) complexity, (10) tenacious independent non-official scientific oriented people dedicated to solving the problem on their own time, (11) …, (N) the list of valuable comparisons goes on and on. Read the rest of this entry »
The legal right of the government to lie to the people has always bothered me as it smacks of a lack of integrity by the very people allegedly empowered to have the highest levels of integrity and honesty by the people. The members of the government, in whatever capacity or role they are filling, have a special trust to uphold and when they use deception why are they allowed to get away with it and yet a different standard is applied to the people when they lie? If a defendant in a court case lies at any point while being investigated it’s treated with such great importance that it’s as if the world came to an end… but when the cult members of the cult of government lie it’s for the benefit of the people and lifted up as somehow an honorable trick that was played to get at the truth when in fact it’s no different for it was a lie, a deception, a non-truth, falsified information, a fabrication designed to give false impressions. It’s ironic that some of the best liars are likely working within the government and get rewarded for it.
“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.” – Charles Darwin
Reprint from the NZ CLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 257, NOVEMBER 28th 2010.
ANATOMY OF CLIMATE FRAUD
by Vincent Gray
Environmentalists believe that humans are destroying the earth (or as they prefer to call it,“the planet”), and they routinely manipulate news items that can be distorted to support their views. “Resources” are being “depleted”, oil is about to run out, everything is about to become extinct, all chemicals are “toxic” and all human activities must be prevented because they “damage the environment”
The “greenhouse effect” was a golden opportunity to blame every climate event on humans and prevent many classes of industrial activity.
The “greenhouse effect is a real physical phenomenon, although it has nothing to do with what happens in a greenhouse. A greenhouse inhibits convection and confines the air warned by contact with the ground that has been heated by the sun’s radiation.
The “greenhouse effect” results from absorption of part of the infra red radiation from the earth by several trace gases in the atmosphere, causing an increase in the surface temperature of the earth,
In order to show that there are increases in this effect caused by humans which are damaging the climate several propositions had to be proved.
• Greenhouse gases are increasing because of human activity
• The temperature of the earth is increasing
• This rise is damaging the climate
• Future changes can be predicted to be disastrous
Derren Brown, illusionist, “travelled to the United States to try to convince five leading figures that he had powers in their particular field of expertise: Christian evangelism, alien abduction, psychic powers, New Age theories and contacting the dead. Read the rest of this entry »
The Facebook user “Ecological Internet” makes some rather alarming statements:
“Earth poised to ecologically collapse bringing down biosphere, humanity & most if not all creatures. Avoidable but requires increase in knowledge & immediate biocentric action. – Ecological Internet on Facebook”
“We know Earth dying and being for all creatures coming to an end – deal with it and commit to reversing – or you are the problem.” – Ecological Internet on Facebook
“I will not respect a book of lies. I will not tolerate intolerance.
What we are witnessing are efforts by authorities to confer special secular and legal privilege on the intangible aura of sacredness — a figment of the imagination of deluded believers, which they insist all we non-believers must honor.
OK, stop the presses, there is an article about study done by NCAR on the simulation of winds and how that might move water in dramatic ways. That is all fine and good except for the connection to the following religious notions and the fact that US Government Funds were used in this obviously religious study in violation of the strict Separation of Church and State in the USA.
“The parting of the waters described in the book of Exodus that enabled Moses and the Israelites to escape the pharaoh’s army is possible, computer simulations run by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder show.
To test the theory that the biblical account may have depicted actual events, the researchers studied maps of the region, archaeological records and satellite measurements to find a topographical feature where such an event might have been possible. They settled on an area south of the Mediterranean Sea where some oceanographers say a branch of the Nile River drained into what was called the Lake of Tanis, a coastal lagoon 3,000 years ago. Read the rest of this entry »
Let’s explore this by way of two very interesting conversations, one from philosopher and physicist Paul Davies and the other from Stephen Wolfram.
Philosopher and physicist Paul Davies give a fascinating and thought-provoking talk on the possibility of an ultimate explanation for our universe. Dismissing the multiverse and God, he outlines an idea for finding an explanation for the universe and physical laws within the universe itself.
“Adnan Oktar (born Ankara, February 2, 1956), also known by his pen name, Harun Yahya, is a Turkish proponent of Islamic creationism, anti-Zionism, and, more particularly, supports Old Earth creationism. Oktar denounces Zionism as racism and Freemasonry, and Darwinism as the source of terrorism. He has created controversies in the past few years by sending out thousands of unsolicited texts advocating Islam and creationism to schools and colleges in several European countries and USA. Oktar had defended his views by litigation; he is responsible for the blocking of numerous, high-profile Web sites in Turkey. Read the rest of this entry »
”Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, science is belief in the presence of evidence.” ‘When the evidence disagrees with a scientific proposition, the proposition is discarded. When the evidence disagrees with a religious proposition, the evidence is thrown out’. – Victor J. Stenger
I work to eliminate belief and faith from my life, now I’m not talking about the “belief” that I left my car parked in it’s spot and whether or not it’s still there, I know I left it there but it’s possible that it is no longer there for a variety of reasons all possible within the known limits of objective reality. I’m talking about the kind of belief and faith that asserts “truths” or “facts” or “aspects” of the objective reality of Nature, about the very nature of Nature itself without any evidence to stand on. That is the kind of belief and faith that is the most pernicious and dangerous. I prefer knowledge that can be verified or proven with hard evidence or even better, proven with experiment done by yourself.
The problem is that the word “belief” has SO many meanings and people often don’t mean the same thing by the word. In addition when talking with “believers” it’s a huge pile of dogma that you’re taking about when you use the word “belief”, it’s not just one belief.
The point Stegner is making is which determines what you accept as real, the faith based beliefs and dogma, or the hard evidence? If the beliefs and dogma determine what is real, that is religion, that is highly dangerous, that is what leads to delusions. If the evidence determines what is real that is science, that is rationality, that is being connected with the objective reality of Nature where we actually exist.
Of course it all hinges on what the evidence is. There is good evidence and then there is bad evidence and faulty proofs. Read the rest of this entry »
Yikes, start packing for doomsday for the soothsayers are out and about using The Force to intensify propaganda after their self inflicted Climate Gate revelations of their Alarmist Scientist Core Cult members improprieties. Pack light though, it’s going to be a scorcher, allegedly. Hawaii at the North Pole. I really am beginning to wonder if all these alarmist scientists are just rapture christians firing things up for the coming end times? Nostradamus still beats any climate scientist with soothsaying doomsday predictions. Hands down, and he’s been dead a long time. Now how can that be? Let’s explore the science that prevents predictions of complex systems. Read the rest of this entry »
The real climate “deniers” are the ones denying access to the data.
The real climate “deniers” are those that say the science is settled when it’s notl
The real climate “deniers” are those that deny the problems with the wild claims alleged.
The real climate deniers are those that allege the AGW hypothesis based upon flawed statistical pseudo-science.
The real climate deniers are those that deny that at the heart of the scientific method is criticism that can falsify the alleged hypotheses put forward by supporters of a hypothesis. Read the rest of this entry »
CARGO CULT SCIENCE by Richard Feynman
Adapted from the Caltech commencement address given in 1974.
During the Middle Ages there were all kinds of crazy ideas, such as that a piece of rhinoceros horn would increase potency. Then a method was discovered for separating the ideas–which was to try one to see if it worked, and if it didn’t work, to eliminate it. This method became organized, of course, into science. And it developed very well, so that we are now in the scientific age. It is such a scientific age, in fact that we have difficulty in understanding how witch doctors could ever have existed, when nothing that they proposed ever really worked–or very little of it did.
But even today I meet lots of people who sooner or later get me into a conversation about UFOS, or astrology, or some form of mysticism, expanded consciousness, new types of awareness, ESP, and so forth. And I’ve concluded that it’s not a scientific world.
I beat you to it David Brin. I called for the prosecution of Al Gore on fraud charges way back on August 28th, 2009. I’m sure I’m not the first either.
Ocean acidification doesn’t scare me that much… it is relatively linear. And thus ought to be reversible.
“What frightens me are the vast stores of methane locked in permafrost or hydrate ices, in arctic seas. Those might see a sudden tipping point, as the planet heats up, abruptly releasing megatons of the stuff into the atmosphere, causing yet faster, accelerated warming. This kind of runaway effect is nonlinear and cannot be reversed by any conceivable kind of geoengineering.” – David Brin (plus all subsequent block quotes in this article).
“Those that are proponents of the alleged AGW hypothesis need to either to put up and show hard conclusive evidence that humans are causing global warming climate change, or shut up if they can’t.
The best anyone has been able to do is to produce nothing but the hot air of a weak statistical correlation that can’t even withstand basic scrutiny.
Those making the claims must show the evidence. Those making extraordinary claims – as those alleging the AGW hypothesis are – must show extraordinary evidence. So far not even ordinary evidence. That is a failure by the proponents to put up.“
So put up or shut up.
Now to David Brin’s silly political claim that isn’t supportable.
“They see 100% of scientists as corrupt… while the oilcos are all sweet reason innocents.” – David Brin 
David Brin, that is utter nonsense. David, you’ve got some weird conspiracy nutter chatter going on upstairs if you actually believe that. Where the heck do you David get the idea that people “see 100% of scientists as corrupt”?
David set aside your whacked in the head beliefs that allow you to create generalized falsisms like that and embrace actual science rather than slosh political dialog.
I don’t deny anything that is actually real. I do deny made up crap because, well, it’s made up or doesn’t reflect the objective reality of Nature.
Prove to me the alleged AGW hypothesis is real in the actual objective reality of Nature were we exist and there can be no way that I’d deny it once I’m convinced. In the process I will certainly challenge any proof or evidence, that is the scientific method after all. If it doesn’t stand up to challenges then the alleged AGW hypothesis should fall (as it looks like it has).
You’ve got it wrong and backwards David Brin, it isn’t a war on science, it’s a war FOR hard verifiable and open science with integrity and the highest standards that the scientific method can bring to bear on climate science!
“The schism over global climate change (GCC) has become an intellectual chasm, across which everyone perceives the other side as Koolaid-drinkers. Although I have mixed views of my own about the science of GCC, and have closely grilled a number of colleagues who are front-line atmospheric scientists (some at JPL), I’m afraid all the anecdotes and politics-drenched “questions” flying about right now aren’t shedding light. They are, in fact, quite beside the point.
That is because science itself is the main issue: its relevance and utility as a decision-making tool.” – David Brin 
David Brin wasn’t discussing the science of climate change at all in the above article. Instead he’s making some false arguments. Yes, “science itself is the main issue” and cool-aid drinking by anybody should be saved for fun summer days at the beach. Unfortunately David Brin takes some huge gulps himself gorging on the political fumes put off by the alleged AGW hypothesis instead of dealing with ensuring that hard science is applied to climate science.
Rajendra Pachauri is on the defense as his world is crashing in on him with his frauds coming to light.
Indeed Rajendra Pachauri the hard facts of actual verifiable, repeatable, experiment based hard science will prevail over the propaganda faith based nonsense of the flawed AGW Non-Hypothesis that you propagate.
You’re headed to Jail Rajendra Pachauri. You’re cell mates will be Al Gore and Maurice Strong, among others.
Actual Science vs Faith in Anthropomorphic Global Warming Climate Change (click to enlarge).
“One of the key features of Hansen’s global warming theory is that the polar regions are supposed to warm much faster than the rest of the planet. The image below is from his classic 1984 paper, and shows that Antarctica is supposed to warm up 6C after a doubling of CO2. If the cooling trend which UAH shows continues, it will take Antarctica a very long time to warm up six degrees.” – 
There is very little difference between what Hansen is doing and the old time soothsayers. Sure Hansen has computers with which to ply his magical tricks of math and dead tree entrails are at the core of his “dire doomsday” climate predictions. It’s the same old confidence game just different means of deception.
Bishop Hill  and WUWT  are reporting on the success of British beurocrates in letting the Climategate CRU criminals, Phil Jones, et. al. at UEA, escape from penalties for their frauds and cover up under the FOI Laws:
“I was told that while there appeared to be a problem, I needed to be clear that there would be no prosecutions under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, regardless of the final outcome of the investigation. Although withholding or destroying information is a criminal offence under the terms of the Act, apparently no prosecutions can be brought for offences committed more than six months prior. As anyone who has made a UK FoI request knows, it can take six months to exhaust the internal review process before the ICO even becomes involved. The ICO can then take another six months before starting his investigation.”
“Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez has once again accused the United States of playing God. But this time it’s Haiti’s disastrous earthquake that he thinks the U.S. was behind. Spanish newspaper ABC quotes Chavez as saying that the U.S. navy launched a weapon capable of inducing a powerful earthquake off the shore of Haiti. He adds that this time it was only a drill and the final target is … destroying and taking over Iran.”
Maybe Hugo Chavez is using too much of his country’s local white powdery substances mixed in his coffee.
Any weapon capable of causing an earthquake of a 7.0 magnitude would have itself registered as a bomb detonation on the seismic sensors. Bombs and earthquakes have different seismic signatures in the data streams that are recorded.
As is evident in the first few frames of this security camera you can see the building (reportedly a shopping mall type structure) collapse. That’s extremely fast considering that it basically went down on the first few earthquake wave crests in the first few seconds of this 7.0 quake. It really shows the potent power of The BIG ONE! Imagine what that would do in your city.
At seven seconds into the video the building is standing. The camera starts moving at second 8. Smoke from the collapsing building is visible during second 10 and clearly the building falls by second 11. That’s about three seconds from first wave to catastrophic destruction of the structure. That’s not even enough time to comprehend what is happening if you’re standing in the structure before the roof comes down on your head. Yikes.
Cars driving down the road clearly divert from their lanes. At second 25 a truck appears on the left side of the video and attempts to turn left onto the main road and arcs left losing control – having just missed a car by a second or two – and comes to a stop before hitting the collapsing building. Double yikes.
As you can see from this Google Earth Satellite image below annotated with earthquake symbols, most of which have happened between Jan 10th, 2010 and today, Jan 18th, there is a massive cluster of aftershocks to the west of the hard hit area of Port-Au-Prince. What is of note though is the numerous numbers of low magnitude quakes just to the north of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Some of these are actually under Puerto Rico. Too close for comfort.
(Click image to enlarge).
This is quite the number of aftershocks and also reveals the underlying fault lines.
Do these sets of aftershocks under and to the north of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands provide a warning of dangers lurking or has the pressures on the underlying plates been relieved somewhat so that danger has been reduced? I wonder.
Update 20100119: Additional earthquakes: “It’s one week after the Haiti Earthquake and the World has seen earthquakes in Argentina, Venezuela and most recently Guatemala.” – San Francisco Gate (1). How likely are these additional quakes related to the Haiti quake and aftershocks? Could these be adjustments resulting from the Haiti quake? Hmm….
Update 20100120: The quakes continue in the region with another large one hitting Haiti (5.9 with some reports saying 6.1) today.
The 16 January 2010 issue of New Scientist is really interesting as New Scientist admit that they published “non peer reviewed speculations” as if it was science (rather than soothsaying) and that those speculations were treated as if they were peer reviewed science by the politicians who run the IPCC panel and produce the Alarmist Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change Hypothesis (that has now been falsified in so many ways). Now let’s get into it.
[Update 20100119: It’s fine if a science magazine publishes “speculation” AS LONG AS it is so labeled! If it’s not labeled as a “speculative possibility” without any evidence then the readers might be inclined to “blindly accept it on faith or trust” or to accept it “on authority” as seems to have happened with the Himalayan Glaciers are Melting Doom and Gloom. New Scientist does have cache as an allegedly authoritative (to some degree) science publication, at least in some circles. As such it is their responsibility to indicate accurately as possible the evidence available for any particular hypothesis. One way science rags such as New Scientist, Nature, Scientific American, Discover, Popular Science, et. al. fall down is in not presenting opposing hypotheses or contrary evidence that falsifies the hypothesis. By only presenting the one side a rosy picture is transmitted into the minds of many of their readers not all of whom have the time nor inclination nor skills to dig deeper. That failure is on the shoulders of the editors and policy makers of those rags. – pwl]
New Scientist magazine’s unnamed Editors write:
Sifting climate facts from speculation
IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist [Syed Hasnain], we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report – and it turns out that our article is the primary published source. The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative comment for peer review – and most of his peers strongly dispute it. ” – New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 3
In the article Fred Pearce writes:
A decade ago, New Scientist reported (5 June 1999, p 18) a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035. Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, has never repeated the prediction in a peer reviewed journal, and now says it was ” speculative”. – Fred Pearce, New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 11
So the glaciologist who made the comments and New Scientist are both backpedaling their claims which amount to nothing more than the equivalent of soothsaying the future. Shame, shame, shame. When scientists peddle “predictions” without sufficient hard evidence what really is the difference between what they are doing and soothsaying from dead tree entrails? Nothing really.
“So how could such speculation have become an IPCC “finding” which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel’s chairman [Rajendra Pachauri]?” – New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 3
You’re kidding right? Rajendra Pachauri is a politician and will attempt to use anything regardless of how verified it is to support his political agenda and personal wealth accumulation agenda as his recently revealed conflicts of interest demonstrate! This shows that the Editors of New Scientist clearly fail to see the highly political nature of the alleged AGW Hypothesis. Are the editors still under the delusion that climate science is a pure science without being driven by a hard core polarized political movement? I can’t believe they are that naive, can you?
“We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked “climategate” emails.” – New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 3
This is a very strange item. Still attempting to unpack it’s full meaning. Thought I’d share it and see what others had to say about it.
It seems that New Scientist, unnamed author, is backpedaling a published claim that was being propagandized by the chief politician of the IPCC to support the political non-science based AGW hypothesis agenda.
The profound deep arrogance of man is revealed in the self imposed delusional mythological belief systems from the Bronze Ages. Many people, purportedly the vast majority of people on Earth, believe that the universe was created for man. How arrogant. How sad. The cartoon above says it well.
Let’s get it through our thick skulls. The universe wasn’t created for human beings. We simple evolved here fighting and clawing our way from sub-cellular life to multi-cellular all the way up to human being. To say that the universe was created for us is so insulting to our ancestors that it isn’t funny- it does them a deep disrespect for it says that their struggle in the continuous chain of life from them to us was unnecessary and make believe just to suit the whims of some arrogant God that want’s to toy with us for his/her/it’s own designs.
Anyone who truly gets the notion of freedom and independence must reject the notions of arrogance implied and supported by the profoundly horrific self conceited notion that the universe was created for us.
CO2 CANNOT CAUSE ANY MORE “GLOBAL WARMING”
FERENC MISKOLCZI’S SATURATED GREENHOUSE EFFECT THEORY
by Miklos Zagoni, 2007 IPCC Reviewer, Physicist
Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary
December 18, 2009
The Earth’s atmosphere differs in essence from that of Venus and Mars. Our atmosphere is not totally cloud-covered, as is Venus: globally, about 40% of the sky is always clear. Also we have huge ocean surfaces that serve as a practically unlimited reservoir of water vapor for the air.
With the help of these two conditions, the Earth’s atmosphere attains what the other two planets cannot: a constant, maximized, saturated greenhouse effect, so that adding more greenhouse gases to the mix will not increase the magnitude of the greenhouse effect and, therefore, will not cause any further “global warming”.
The surface temperature of Venus is hot, because the total cloud cover prevents heat from escaping to outer space. Mars’ surface is cold, because there is not enough greenhouse gas to reach the energy-saturation limit. Only the Earth has these two important features that have allowed it to maximize its greenhouse effect, completely using all available energy from the Sun.
This assertion is not a result of desk speculations. Nor is it a special hypothesis based on assumptions of limited application. It is the outcome of detailed spectral radiative-transfer analysis of huge archives of atmospheric data from NASA and elsewhere.
The project started about 25 years ago, when Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian physicist, began to write a high-resolution atmospheric radiative transfer code — a special computer program that is necessary if we want to calculate the atmosphere’s infrared radiative processes precisely.
Understanding the downwelling and upwelling long-wave fluxes in the atmosphere is essential if we are to compute the Earth’s global energy balance and its greenhouse effect accurately.
British Columbia already had laws to deal with irresponsible bad drivers with cell phones being reckless or dangerous.
“MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
Copyright (c) Queen’s Printer,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318
Careless driving prohibited
144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway
(a) without due care and attention,
(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or
(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and, subject to this minimum fine, section 4 of the Offence Act applies.”
“… it’s already against the law to drive without due care and attention OR with undue care and attention.” – RS
The new anti cell phone and device laws were only made to make the life of law enforcement and ICBC biased prosecutors easier.
The problem with the new anti cell phone and device law is that it alters the burden of proof from the prosecutors having to prove that a person was distracted by the use of a phone or other device and assumes that the person is guilty. This is in direct violation of the Canadian Constitution which guarantees every person in Canada the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (“11(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty …”).
This cell phone ban attempts to bypass this important constitutional protection and place the burden upon us saying that we are guilty of diminished capacity just because we were using a cell phone.
It assumes that we are guilty without proving it and thus this law is nullified and void.
On Jan 1st, 2010 the British Columbia Cell Phone and electronic device ban came into effect.
This cell phone ban really isn’t about making the roads any safer. It’s really just about ICBC having an easier time to prosecute people so that they don’t have to do any actual hard work of proving driver distraction in each case as they did last week.
Now ICBC can just magically say that you were distracted without having to actually prove it in your case. That makes their job so much easier that it’s not funny. As a bonus ICBC won’t have to pay for your claim since you’re guilty of a crime by default if you were using a device in your car.
One reason that this law is unconstitutional is that in Canada we have the right to be presumed innocent until we are proven guilty (“11(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty …”). This cell phone ban attempts to by pass this important constitutional protection and place the burden upon us saying that we are guilty of diminished capacity just because we were using a cell phone in our hands rather than in a speaker mode. In effect we’ll have to prove that were are not guilty of the assumed crime of diminished capacity or loss of focus or however they magically word it in sly tongued legalese.
The CULT of the Police State deepens in a disturbing way in British Columbia, Canada as of 1 Jan 2010.
It’s going to take a pretty creative excuse to get out of a ticket for violating B.C.’s new distracted driver law.
Effective Jan. 1, anyone caught holding a cell phone, PDA, portable music player or other electronic device while operating a motor vehicle is eligible for a $167 ticket. If the cop can prove you were actually using it, expect three demerit points, too.
That means simply fidgeting with a portable music player while stopped at a light is now against the law, according to RCMP Staff Sgt. Al Dengis, head of Central Okanagan Traffic Services.
“All the police are required to establish is that the individual was holding onto an electronic device,” he said.
Cops don’t have to prove that the device was in use or even on at the time of the offence.
“We simply have to show that you were driving the vehicle and holding the device,” Dengis explained.
This anti-cell phone law is unconstitutional, plain and simple for it assumes that one had diminished capacity when one is using a cell phone or other device in the car while driving. I’d like them to prove that I had diminished capacity even once while using a cell phone at any time for the past two decades.
Sure if a person is in an accident and it can be shown that a cell phone or a distraction was occurring and that that caused the accident that is one thing and the proper burden of proof of a contributing factor.
Failing an actual problem, such as an accident, it is well neigh impossible for them to prove that a driver has “diminished capacity” just because they were using a cell phone. It’s not like the case of alcohol.
However, to assume we are all guilty of diminished capacity just for holding a device or using a cell phone while driving is insanity and fails the burden of proof of guilt [that is required for the government to prove].
“The natural state of the world for the last few million years is ice ages with intermittent warm periods lasting you know typically 10,000 years which we’re in now, year 10,000 now so logically there is an ice age due.” – Piers Corbyn
Regarding Piers Corbyn’s recent forecasts.
This graphic from NSIDC on the right side shows the “negative phase of the artic oscillation” weather pattern that seems to be happening now as Piers Corbyn forecast with the cold blowing (see the two black arrows labeled “cold” in the right side of the diagram) over northern Europe and Canada and the USA.
It sure looks like Piers Corbyn called it right using a forecasting model based upon the Arctic Oscillation Index and comprehension of the diagram you show above. Cold blowing across Europe and Canada/USA in the NO graphic as Piers forecast. Fascinating.
In the following graph the BLUE line is RAW temperature data while the line RED is HUMAN ADJUSTED homogenized/mixed data” of Darwin Airport in Australia.
You can see the RED line take an upward swing showing “warming” while the blue line shows a slight cooling trend overall.
The RED ADJUSTED data shows HUMAN BIAS introduced by the calculations of the alleged climate scientists. Human bias creates “man made global warming”! The black line shows their ever increasing biased adjustments to get their data inline with their political agenda (possibly done subconsciously or possibly consciously – not sure which is actually worse, fraud or incompetence).
Yes, global warming climate change is man made in the sense that human bias creates global warming climate change and not the life giving essential plant nutrient CO2 as this graph clearly shows! CO2 is cleared of guilt as are humans (except for those biased alleged climate scientists and activists who are guilty of inciting mass panic yelling fire)! Amazing! Read the rest of this entry »
Lord Monckton sits down with Jacek Szkudlarek of corbettreport.com and RBN to discuss climate change, Copenhagen and the larger agenda behind this push for world government.
In this installment, Lord Monckton answers the question “Who is behind this push for global government?” and flatly rejects the scheme to set up an unaccountable, unelected global government as an answer to the phoney manmade climate change scare.
David Warren, of the Canwest News Service based in Ottawa, Canada has some eloquent and biting words today for the alleged scientists of the Climategate fame. This “op ed” piece is running in papers across Canada the last few days. An extract follows, for the full article use the link provided.
It would be interesting to see some attempt to estimate the total direct cost to the world’s taxpayers of all the scare-mongering since Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring first started appearing in The New Yorker magazine in June 1962.
Each scare, in turn, is packaged and marketed with more skill than the previous; each enjoys its run in the world’s headlines, and the frenetic political attention we have been watching in Copenhagen in its most advanced form. Each in turn is gradually forgotten as more facts come to light, as the apocalyptic predictions fail, as the storyline bores through repetition. And then a new scare needs to be invented.
“Anthropogenic global warming” will go the way of its predecessors, having achieved what was meant for it, in its season: the extortion of huge amounts of money by the parasites clustered around all the existing environmentalist spigots, the sinking of new bungholes into the public accounts, the creation of new big-brotherly bureaucracies to feed new vested interests and untold riches and prestige for the “settled scientists” who work the system for patronage.
But then it will be replaced with a new environmental scare narrative.
The parties are already working on “acidification of the oceans”; there were loose ends from Rio ’92 on “biological diversity” and there will always be fresh water-supply issues to play with. The threat from asteroids was briefly considered, then dismissed: too hard to blame that on the free market. But the activists will come up with something, for their livelihoods depend upon it.
For this reason, I think we need, after thorough public inquiries, to bring criminal prosecutions against some of the major scientific players exposed by the recent release of e-mails and papers at the centre of the “global warming” scam. The more any percipient reader pours through those “hacked” documents, the clearer he will see the criminal intent behind the massaging of the numbers; for the masseurs in question stood to benefit directly and personally from getting “the right results.” This is, by its nature, an issue for the criminal courts.