Climate Hash Rehashed

Guest essay by Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger

Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a press release announcing the publication of its “State of the Climate 2012” report. The global media, predictably, are all over it, loving the gloomsaying.

None of it is new. The NOAA report is simply a collection of rehashed stories that have already had their 15 minutes of fame, stories that we (and others) have already commented on, put into perspective, or debunked.

Usually, “Year in Review” type of stories are saved up until the end of the year, but when it comes to climate change—an issue for which the president has declared “we need to act”—once a year is apparently not enough.  So, NOAA’s “Year in Review” comes out at the end of December and then is rerun like old Seinfeld episodes the next summer.

The NOAA press release contains this manner of introduction from its acting head, Kathryn Sullivan:

“Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate—carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place,” said acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. “This annual report is well-researched, well-respected, and well-used; it is a superb example of the timely, actionable climate information that people need from NOAA to help prepare for extremes in our ever-changing environment.”

It is interesting that she terms the information contained in the report as “timely.”

Below is a list of our comments, each made at least several months ago, on the topics highlighted in her statement.

Sullivan: “carbon levels are climbing”

Us: CO2 400ppm and Growing,  (May 14, 2013)

Sullivan: “sea levels are rising”

Us:  New Research Calls into Question High Rates of Sea Level Rise (December 20, 2012)

Sullivan: “Arctic sea ice is melting”

Us: How Much Sea Ice?  (August 28, 2012)

Sullivan: “our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place”

Us: Global Lukewarming: Another Good Intellectual Year (2012 Edition) (February 4, 2013)

And we’ll include this as a bonus:

Sullivan: “it is a superb example of the timely, actionable climate information that people need from NOAA to help prepare for extremes in our ever-changing environment”

Us: Averting Disasters (June 21, 2013)

For this administration, when it comes to global warming, no news is bad news. So in times of no news, just repeat the old news. Two can play at that game!

===================================================

Global Science Report is a weekly feature from the Center for the Study of Science, where we highlight one or two important new items in the scientific literature or the popular media. For broader and more technical perspectives, consult our monthly “Current Wisdom.”

About these ads
This entry was posted in NOAA and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Climate Hash Rehashed

  1. Jorge says:

    They don’t have any storms or heat waves to exploit, they have to go back to the well and recycle old news. Isn’t this an admission of failure? If their “evidence” was so compelling/overwhelming wouldn’t the hysterical press releases of the past month have been unnecessary?

  2. DAVID RISER says:

    Eventually the alarmism will just fade into the noise. The longer the predictions continue to fail and were all still here the more folks will ignore it. Which is too bad, some kind of legal action should be taken akin to someone yelling bomb in an airport…….

  3. noaaprogrammer says:

    Is there a traceable memo from the Whitehouse to NOAA urging or suggesting that they re-issue this “State of the Climate 2012” report? Who might be an investigative reporter that isn’t an AGW believer that could do this?

  4. William McClenney says:

    Kathryn, try to keep up…….

    2012 GSA Annual Meeting in Charlotte
    Paper No. 37-11
    Presentation Time: 9:00 AM-6:30 PM
    NEW EVIDENCE OF MILLENNIAL-SCALE CLIMATE VARIABILITY DURING
    THE PEAK WARM INTERVAL OF MARINE ISOTOPE STAGE (MIS) 9
    MOELLING, Leah I., Geology and Geophysics, University of Utah, 691 Heritage Center, Salt Lake City, UT 84112

    “Melting ice sheets at early MIS 9, also suggest a rise in sea level and the influx of fresh water causing a decrease in salinity and density of the seawater. Benthic δ13C variation during this period suggests changes in the North Atlantic Deep Water current possibly related to changes in salinity and density. The presence of climate variability within MIS 9e comparable to variability well defined within MIS 1 and 5e indicates the possibility that such variability is common to the warmest substage of past interglacials.”

    2012 GSA Annual Meeting in Charlotte
    Paper No. 14-7
    Presentation Time: 10:15 AM-10:30 AM
    EVIDENCE AND AMPLITUDE OF SEA-LEVEL OSCILLATIONS DURING THE
    LAST INTERGLACIAL HIGHSTAND (MIS 5E) FROM THE BAHAMAS
    JACKSON, Kelly L.1, EBERLI, Gregor P.1, REID, Samuel B.1, MCNEILL, Donald F.1, HARRIS, Paul M.2, and KLAUS, James S.1,
    (1) CSL-Center for Carbonate Research, University of Miami-RSMAS, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149,
    kjackson@rsmas.miami.edu, (2) Chevron Energy Technology Company, 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583-2324

    “Sea level was 6-7 m higher than present during the last interglacial highstand 125,000-115,000 years before present (MIS 5e). Evidence from New Providence Platform, Bahamas, indicates that it was not a single rise and fall but instead oscillated a minimum of 12 m over a few thousand years.

    “These highstand oscillations recorded in the Bahamas and elsewhere require another, yet unexplained, forcing mechanism of much shorter duration than Milankovitch frequencies but also document rapid climate changes during warm interglacial periods.”

    Boettger, et al (Quaternary International 207 [2009] 137–144) abstract it:

    “In terrestrial records from Central and Eastern Europe the end of the Last Interglacial seems to be characterized by evident climatic and environmental instabilities recorded by geochemical and vegetation indicators. The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events as observed in geochemical data on the lake sediment profiles of Central (Gro¨bern, Neumark–Nord, Klinge) and of Eastern Europe (Ples).

    “The pronounced climate and environment instability during the interglacial/glacial transition could be consistent with the assumption that it is about a natural phenomenon, characteristic for transitional stages. Taking into consideration that currently observed ‘‘human-induced’’ global warming coincides with the natural trend to cooling, the study of such transitional stages is important for understanding the underlying processes of the climate changes.”

  5. Allen says:

    If people can see that A-Rod is a cheater then it’s possible for the same people to see that the government is wasting tax dollars on a fraud perpetrated by the climate alarmists.

    The good people of Virginia should be out in force heckling/denouncing/questioning Mann whenever he pops up on the campaign trail on behalf of the Democrats.

  6. Village Idiot says:

    Yep, Paddy and Chip. They really should start being a bit more imaginative; make some stuff up – then we could pick them up on it and get some media attention

  7. A.D. Everard says:

    Even the MSM must be getting sick of it all by now. The lap-dog reporters wanting to show keen are beginning to look foolish. There is only so much embarrassment anyone can take. Time to call it a day and be done.

    Better still, why not call it what it is and get it over and done with swiftly. All this reminds me of someone timidly pulling off a giant sticking plaster, one painful quarter inch at a time.

    The truth is coming out regardless – so just RIP it. Everyone will feel better for it.

  8. david says:

    Anthony, I’d like to read posts on your websites that aren’t full of partisan rhetoric. You’ve sold me but then you and then the comment section degenerate into the usual right wing barbs. Why is that necessary? Do you want your message to go mainstream? There is no liberal conspiracy on global warming. These are concerned citizens with a cause that they believe in with a set of data to support. Just the same as you have a belief with a set of data to support. I would hope your data is correct – for obvious reasons. But the partisan commentary doesn’t serve your cause. I think it hinders it because it makes people who do believe in AGW to feel that you are a shill for right wing causes. And around and around we go in an endless and useless cycle. Environmentalism grew out of the realization that we were pumping carcinogens into our ground water and air and oceans at an alarming rate. Then along came AGW – it wasn’t some socialist plot. It’s people giving a crap. So Anthony – put yourself in someone’s position on the other “side” and realize that they are not evil or stupid. Perhaps blinded by belief – but realize that they are doing this because they believe they have a just cause. Just like you.
    And make your blog about the science of the ever changing climate of our planet. That should sell itself.

  9. SAMURAI says:

    The CAGW hypothesis is insane….

    It’s IPCC’s stated goal to constrain CAGW to 2C of warming by severely restricting the use of fossil fuels and replacing the energy balance with “renewable” alternative energy sources (wind/solar/geothermal/biofuel), which are: expensive, diffuse, intermittent and unreliable.

    UN’s 2011 World and Economic Survey puts the cost of implementing these programs at around $1.9 trillion per year over the next 40 years for a total cost of $76 trillion. Moreover, this absurd $76 trillion boondoggle doesn’t even factor in the opportunity cost of wasting $1.9 trillion per year to obtain IPCC’s 2C “goal”, when actual climate sensitivity will naturally be much less than 2C without spending a dime.

    Conducting a compound ROI of just 5% per year (very low) on $1.9 trillion/yr kept in the private sector and put to effective economic use, this $76 Trillion balloons to a true cost to the world economy of around $254 trillion.

    The true irony is that all governments need to do to lower CO2 emissions and provide the world with cheap, unlimited and safe energy with ZERO CO2 emissions is to spend a few million dollars writing the necessary legislation for the building, running and regulating of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) and the private sector would spend their own money to develop and build them, when the MARKET (not clueless government hacks) decides it makes economic/technological sense to do so.

    So rather than spending around $2~3 million writing LFTR legislation, governments would rather waste $254 trillion on a problem that doesn’t really exist.

    And so it goes…..until it doesn’t.

  10. Bloke down the pub says:

    Trust in scientists is central to the arguments about cagw. The more opportunities that advocate scientists give to show to the world that they can’t be trusted to tell the truth, the better.

  11. Keith says:

    Bloke down the pub says:
    August 8, 2013 at 12:45 am
    Trust in scientists is central to the arguments about cagw. The more opportunities that advocate scientists give to show to the world that they can’t be trusted to tell the truth, the better.

    But one of the big problems with the whole CAGW malarkey is that it is damaging to the reputation of science as a whole.

  12. Brian H says:

    Distrust in science as a whole is a good thing. It will force scientists to do it right for a long time to regain the altitude they used to be used to.

  13. knr says:

    The following is a future forecast

    The ‘IPCC’ report is simply a collection of rehashed stories that have already had their 15 minutes of fame, stories that we (and others) have already commented on, put into perspective, or debunked.

    If only the weather was so easy to predict .

    Frankly NOAA, like others , are all in on this and have no choice but to repeat the approach in the hope that it will get warmer or that people will stop noticing its BS in the first place . Ironically there better hope is for a ‘slow death’ were disinterest means people no longer care what they say on this subject and cannot be bothered to out the effort into making them reasonable for pushing out years of this BS.

  14. Bloke down the pub says:

    Keith says:
    August 8, 2013 at 1:16 am
    Bloke down the pub says:
    August 8, 2013 at 12:45 am
    Trust in scientists is central to the arguments about cagw. The more opportunities that advocate scientists give to show to the world that they can’t be trusted to tell the truth, the better.

    But one of the big problems with the whole CAGW malarkey is that it is damaging to the reputation of science as a whole.

    It’s not just climate science. Medical science and ‘social science’ for example have also been shown to be badly flawed, and until the rest of the science world gets to grips with the poor standards that are being set , all scientists will suffer.

  15. richardscourtney says:

    Keith and Brian H:

    I write to support Keith in your discussion.

    At August 8, 2013 at 1:16 am Keith says

    But one of the big problems with the whole CAGW malarkey is that it is damaging to the reputation of science as a whole.

    I agree, and for decades I have been warning about that damage in many places including IPCC fringe meetings and on WUWT.

    But at August 8, 2013 at 1:40 am Brian H says

    Distrust in science as a whole is a good thing. It will force scientists to do it right for a long time to regain the altitude they used to be used to.

    I understand the point but disagree for the following reasons.

    Merely doing science “right” is not sufficient.
    Scientists need to speak out against scientific malpractice and to reclaim their Institutions and journals. That will be more difficult if science is discredited. Failure to do that will permit other false scares to be promulgated in the name of ‘science’ after the demise of the AGW scare.

    At present it is in the interests of e.g. Universities to ‘cover up’ malpractice. And colleagues of those who conduct malpractice have a disincentive to report the malpractice. Only scientists can change this. But failure to reveal malpractice by colleagues will be inhibited if all scientists are disrespected because scientists need to show that they are offended by the ‘bad apples’ near them in their ‘barrel’.

    Similarly, journals are disinclined to withdraw flawed papers because that damages the reputation on which a journal relies. Scientists need to demand that flawed papers are redacted. All such demands will be ignored if all scientists are painted as being activists.

    Science Institutions (i.e. RS, AGU, etc.) have been usurped by activists
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
    Scientists need to demand a say in the pronouncements of the Institutions which claim to represent them. But such demands will also be ignored if all scientists are painted as being activists when it is the Executive Committees of the Institutions which activists have usurped.

    The reputation of science and scientists as a whole is important. I provide an example of why.

    In 1940 my country stood alone when a great evil had captured Europe. Our navy was susceptible to U-boats and magnetic mines and our army had been severely damaged at Dunkirk. Our airforce just managed to control the skies over the UK so we could hold off the might of the Axis powers. And we hung-on until the industrial might of the US and the numerical might of the USSR could be drawn into the conflict.

    We relied on science to enable espionage and electronic warfare to give us the ability to hang-on and to assist the engagement of the US and USSR against the Axis forces. Without that trust we had in science most people today would be clicking heals and making straight-arm salutes.

    The time may again come when trust in science is needed. That trust needs to be rebuilt by ‘cleaning out the stable’ which has been fouled by AGW.

    Richard

  16. DirkH says:

    david says:
    August 7, 2013 at 11:14 pm
    ” And around and around we go in an endless and useless cycle.”

    We wil go around these circles as long as communitarian/socialist/statist movements use CO2AGW to further their goal of creating their one world government (see, for a source, Fabian H.G. Welles “Shape Of Things To Come”, the book and the movie. Just one of millions of examples)

    ” Environmentalism grew out of the realization that we were pumping carcinogens into our ground water and air and oceans at an alarming rate.”

    No; it is much older, starting AT LEAST with the German Wandervogel movement in the 1920ies, of which 70% of the members joined the NSDAP later, a much higher percentage than in the general populace. Know thy history, stupid.

    ” Then along came AGW – it wasn’t some socialist plot. It’s people giving a crap.”

    See Club Of Rome, Limits To growth, and their desire to find a new enemy to unite us – the enemy then is humanity itself.
    “Quote by Club of Rome: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention….and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself….believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose.””

    http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html

    David, I do think that you really believe what you’re saying. You will, when you examine your thought process, inevitably come to the conclusion that absolute control over the entire population is required by your philosophy. Now you are ready to embrace your true roots: Plato’s “The Republic”.

    WELCOME.

  17. Chris Schoneveld says:

    David, i am a liberal (and compared with American standards, most Europeans are). The European equivalent of a Republican would fall in the category of the extreme right. However I do believe that the American liberal politicians and climate scientists are dishonest in pushing the CAGW agenda. Obama’s speech was a deliberate form of misinformation. Hence a liberal conspiracy is very plausible. The average liberal citizen is probably just gullible and concerned for the environment and hence is susceptible to the AGW mantra.
    I agree many of the comments appear to stem from a right wing mind set but that cannot be controlled by Anthony. The post by Michaels and Knappenberger is not partisan at all and their analysis that the NOAA is deliberately rehashing this non-issue is spot-on.

  18. John R T says:

    david says:
    August 7, 2013 at 11:14 pm
    “And make your blog about the science of the ever changing climate of our planet. That should sell itself.”
    David,
    ‘Watts Up With? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science,…’
    Most readers at WUWT understand that the international push for decarbonization is not about the environment – decades ago, a UN official made that clear. Among the “puzzling things” for many of us remains the misunderstanding, of persons such as you, that science has been burdened with advocacy. Richard Courtney makes the argument below. Samurai presents the costs:
    SAMURAI says:
    August 7, 2013 at 11:53 pm
    The CAGW hypothesis”

    These comments state the case clearly. What do you not understand?
    While you are here, spend a moment with ‘About’ WUWT.

  19. John R T says:

    correction:
    both Courtney and Samurai “above”
    JRT

  20. CodeTech says:

    Actually david, it’s even easier than that.

    Everyone I know who leans left believes in the Anthropogenic Climate Change story, usually fervently, and most genuinely fear it. Everyone I know who leans to the right either don’t believe it at all, or see it as something we don’t need to worry about.

    There must be a reason for this.

    I could go all partisan and suggest that some are smarter than others, but it’s deeper than that. Maybe it’s the left-brain / right-brain thing.

    Generally speaking, people I know who consider themselves “conservative” are more pragmatic in their entire approach to life, they don’t believe something just because they’re told it, whereas those toward the left are the opposite. They’re completely fine with having someone tell them what to think about a certain topic. Those I know who listen to Rush or Hannity or whichever right-oriented public figure don’t take marching orders from them, while the other side is pretty much opposite. They’re more than willing to believe and act on something they’re told by their left-leaning people.

    EVERYONE I know on the right is passionate about nature and conservation, contrary to what the left thinks. Most of the left simply pay lip service to the idea, and don’t realize the harm being done by the current schemes and failures done in the name of conservation (for example, windmills).

    Whenever I meet someone who worries about global warming (or climate change), chances are they’re also going to subscribe to a whole litany of left-leaning beliefs.

    Besides, An-tho-ny doesn’t control comments.

  21. Gail Combs says:

    david says:
    August 7, 2013 at 11:14 pm

    Anthony, I’d like to read posts on your websites that aren’t full of partisan rhetoric. You’ve sold me but then you and then the comment section degenerate into the usual right wing barbs. Why is that necessary?…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It is not Anthony but the politicians that have made Climate Science a political foot ball. It started with the IPCC mandate:

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation.
    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

    It was followed up by statements by the World Trade Organization Director General Pascal Lamy:

    …In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared.….

    Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?….

    The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history….

    All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty….
    http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174

    If you can not follow the dotted line I will make it clearer. CAGW is not about climate, it never was about climate it was about giving “…a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters…a reason to questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty” Pascal Lamy in other articles talks of building a ‘new international order’ based on the European Model.

    “Global governance requires localising global issues” — Lamy

    …First, on the question of efficiency, Europe scores in my view rather highly. Thanks to the primacy of EU law over national law…..

    if we look at the issue of leadership. Europe has had a relatively good record in terms of leadership as long as the leadership of the Commission was accepted…..

    Finally, legitimacy is the area in which, in my view, Europe scores less well. We are witnessing a growing distance between European public opinions and the European project. One could have expected that the European institutional set up, with growing powers entrusted to the European Parliament would have resulted in greater legitimacy. But this is contradicted by the declining numbers participating in elections to the European Parliament. Europe continues to be seen as distant, far away from the everyday lives and concerns of citizens. Despite constant efforts to adapt the European institutions to democratic requirements, over the past 50 years, there has been no resulting democratic spark…..

    If you do not know what the “Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty” means, it means the protection of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS by the Constitution. All other models of government are based on group rights and the group with the rights is the elite who control the government and grant or take away what ever ‘rights’ they wish.

    As Lamy stated this ‘new international order’ has been in the making since the 1930s and they are now coming out of the closet about it. “Social Justice” the nicely orchestrated ‘Financial Crisis’ and CAGW are the the means to give ‘legitimacy’ for the dismantling of the USA. Make no mistake both the Democrats AND Republicans are on board with that decision and it scares the heck out of me.

    I suggest you check out Maurice Strong, Pascal Lamy, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Antony Giddens “Third Way” “Global Governance” and Interdependence.

    Matt Taibbi (Rolling Stone) on Financial Crisis
    How Wall Street Is Using the Bailout to Stage a Revolution:
    The global economic crisis isn’t about money – it’s about power

    AIG and the Big Takeover: Matt Taibbi on “How Wall Street Insiders Are Using the Bailout to Stage a Revolution”

  22. M Courtney says:

    CodeTech says at August 8, 2013 at 5:28 am

    Actually david, it’s even easier than that.
    Everyone I know who leans left believes in the Anthropogenic Climate Change story, usually fervently, and most genuinely fear it. Everyone I know who leans to the right either don’t believe it at all, or see it as something we don’t need to worry about.

    There is clearly a bias that way but it is not absolute. I am a left-winger (my paper is the Guardian) but I do not see any evidence for the cAGW hypothesis. Does a lack of credible scientific method in climate science mean I should subscribe to laissez-faire economics?
    That is a non-sequitur.

    But I agree it is worth asking why there seems to be a left-right split.

    My own thought is that the key determinant is some scientific or engineering training. Left-wingers tend to concentrate in the public sector where arts degrees and caring – people-skills are more valued/applicable. Teachers and social workers are not engineers, moulding their products; they are nurturers.

    That alone could be the seed of the split which is magnified by the heated debates that are found on the internet. And the debate is mainly on the internet.

  23. wws says:

    david said “Anthony, I’d like to read posts on your websites that aren’t full of partisan rhetoric.”

    And I’d like to read mainstream media reports on CAGW that weren’t full of partisan rhetoric, but there aren’t any, are there? The simple reason is that this STOPPED being a scientific issue long, long ago, and is now purely a political issue. Perhaps it was always a political issue, with a man standing in front of the curtain shouting “SCIENCE!!!” as a way to try and forestall any debate or discussion. It’s sad that people like you continue to be fooled by the entire charade, but there we are. More than enough evidence has been uncovered (Climategate, The Gleick forgery) to show that even the people behind it know that they are consistently and deliberately engaging in an ongoing pattern of fraud – and yet you think we should acknowledge their “good intentions”??? You say they do it because they believe they have a “just cause” – so did every monstrous dicatatorship and totalitarian system that has ever existed. Men who are willing to lie, cheat, and throw all of their supposed morality out the window in the service of a “just cause” (Ahem… PETER GLEICK! ahem) are those I count the most dangerous and reprehensible men in any society.

    And also, ask yourself, why has this become so polarized along a “left” and “right” axis? It’s not because the so-called “right” has chosen this, but rather because it is the Political Left that has gone “All-In” in the idea that Global Warming, err Climate Change, err, Global Weirding, errr, Capitalism is Bad! It’s Bad! – has to be believed in unquestionably by all its adherents. Try to breathe even a hint of Doubt about “global warming” at any website or gathering of leftists, and you will be howled out of the venue instantly. To even entertain this idea on the left is a Thought Crime of the highest order.

    But I think you know this already. If I may speculate, what I think disturbs you most is the cognitive dissonance in your mind which arises from the huge gap between the scientific ideas which you know to be true, being an honest man, and the distress you feel from knowing that you politically sympathize with a group that rejects all of that for pseudo-religious reasons. That’s not the fault of anyone writing articles or posting comments here, that battle is in your own head.

    Only you can decide, do you go with your mind, which tells you what is true, or do you go with your religion (leftism), which your friends tell you is true?

    Intellectual honesty is a hard choice, and often a very lonely road to travel. I think it’s worth it – but then I never really did mind if the herd said I wasn’t one of them. Only you can decide if you’re up to the challenge of openly thinking for yourself.

  24. ferd berple says:

    Bloke down the pub says:
    August 8, 2013 at 2:49 am
    It’s not just climate science. Medical science and ‘social science’ for example have also been shown to be badly flawed
    ===============
    False positives are the plague of science. They are driven by the need to publish. No scientific journal is interested in a paper that says “we looked and found nothing”, even though the result may be very significant.

    News media has the same problem. Stories such as “nothing bad happened today” don’t sell, even though they may be very significant. This problem leads to bias in people’s perception of the world.

    The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The noisy scientists get the grants. Even though it is the wheels that don’t squeak that are doing the best job. The squeaky wheel is the one most likely to cause problems.

  25. Gail Combs says:

    richardscourtney says: @ August 8, 2013 at 2:56 am

    …I write to support Keith in your discussion….

    “But one of the big problems with the whole CAGW malarkey is that it is damaging to the reputation of science as a whole. “

    I agree, and for decades I have been warning about that damage….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I also agree with you Richard. We need science to be apolitical and only about finding facts and truth, not supporting a political agenda.

    (BTW, welcome back. You have been missed.)

  26. wws says:

    “I also agree with you Richard. We need science to be apolitical and only about finding facts and truth, not supporting a political agenda.”

    I believe that everyone here would like that. The problem we face is that once one side jumps up and enlists “SCIENCE!!!” as a tool for their political agenda (as James Hansen did in his infamous 1988 Congressional hearing, and which has not once slacked up since then), then anyone who opposes this view *Must* pursue at least a partial political path to oppose them. We live in some form of a democracy (republic, etc, lets bypass that argument) and because of that, those ideas which gain the most political traction among the public are those ideas which are going to be given force and those which will control our lives, with no regard as to whether they are “scientifically valid” or not. (Case in point – the blight of environmentally disastrous Wind Turbines which today are plaguing the English countryside, destroying endangered bird species, scarring a once beautiful landscape, and wasting hundreds of millions of pounds, for no rational scientific reason whatsoever)

    If you don’t want your life to be governed by a mish-mosh of pseudo-religious junk science, then you have to fight against that in the political arena, because that is how our society is currently organized. You may think that this is a bad thing or you may think that it is a good thing; it doesn’t really matter because that IS how it IS, regardless of what any of us think about it. Wishing things were different, just like wishing that the low-information voters could tell the difference between real science and junk science, is just a waste of time.

    Fight for what you believe, or else your life will be controlled by those who fought for what THEY believed.

  27. M Courtney says:

    WWS:
    I posted this over on Dana’s blog at the Guardian in response to his call for Climate Scientists to be activists (in response to Tamzin Edwrads blog in the Guardian calling for less politicing and more sciencing from climate scientists).

    I’ll repeat it here as I have it to hand and (in my own opinion) it sets out the problem with mixing science and politics in th econext of other professions.
    “Should scientists use their authority as scientists in public debate?

    Let us look at other professionals.
    • The judiciary is expected to interpret the law. They are expected to report if the law isn’t working.
    But are they expected to make the law as well? We separate out those two functions for a reason.
    • The clergy are expected to speak out on issues of moral guidance. They are expected to speak about their social work.
    But are they expected to advocate policies? That would appear a bit theocratic.
    • The Media is expected to investigate society and publicise wrongdoing. They are expected to hold the powerful to account in the spotlight of public opinion. And here we do expect editorial comment –advocacy.
    But do we expect the press to mix investigation and advocacy? Would a scandal about a politician be ignored because they agree with his/her policies? A closer question this as the role of the media is currently being redefined in the UK but it is not clear that mixing the two roles is acceptable.

    Personally, I don’t think Dr Edwards was totally wrong .

    These examples show that other professionals do act as advocates – speaking out on their sphere of influence. But within limits that are known for their field.
    • Judges don’t make policy.
    • Priests don’t use the State’s monopoly on force to maintain the moral order.
    • Journalists don’t use their right to invade privacy for biased partisan ends (in theory).
    I don’t think Dr Edwards is entirely wrong as she is arguing that the limits of scientists’ public advice are not clear. Do we want a perfect Technocracy?
    She clearly wasn’t arguing for scientists to be silent as she was arguing for something herself.”

    I hope this is of interest.

  28. richardscourtney says:

    wws:

    Your post at August 8, 2013 at 6:34 am
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/07/climate-hash-rehashed/#comment-1384455
    makes some good points concerning an issue which has been much debated in past WUWT threads.

    The issue is clear; viz. the practices of science and politics are mutually exclusive.

    This is because
    science is about seeking the closest possible approximation to truth
    but
    politics is about obtaining a desired objective.

    So,
    science is subservient to empirical data
    but
    politics is subservient to a majority view or to what can be enforced.

    And, therefore,
    a scientist attempts to avoid influences other than empirical data
    but
    a political advocate attempts to influence the views of people and or what can be enforced on people.

    Simply,
    advocacy is a denial of the scientific method because it requires achievement of influence over others as method to obtain a desired objective
    when
    the scientific method decrees that a scientist must attempt to be subservient to the influence of empirical data and his only objective is the search for closer approximation to truth.

    This does not mean scientists cannot be politicians. Some have been; e.g. Benjamin Franklin.

    It means that a scientist is required to isolate his science from his politics. He ceases to be a scientist when he decides the existing findings of his science warrant actions to be undertaken. He then becomes a political advocate and all his science is corrupted.

    Technologists and politicians obtain information which they use to decide an objective. Both use a variety of information sources including science. Technologists decide on ways to devise inventions or improvements to inventions. Politicians decide on policies and ways to implement them.

    Scientists who become political advocates are bad scientists and they are also bad politicians. They are very bad politicians because they choose their advocacy on the basis of their science and not on the wide variety of pertinent information of which science provides only one part. Other information (e.g. public opinion, economic effects, international relations, etc.) may be more important than scientific information when formulating a political policy. And this is why politicians say they need “Science on tap but not on top”.

    Science provides information. Politics uses information and may obtain some of it from the findings of science. Both are corrupted when either influences the practices of the other.

    Industry learned of this corruption the hard way and makes clear distinction between research, development and demonstration (R,D&D).

    Industrial research is funded to obtain a new method or additional information. The intended product the funder desires is not relevant to the research. The research may or may not provide what was desired, and may find something else which can be considered for its usefulness.

    Industrial development takes the information obtained by scientific research, and technologists attempt to use that information to create a possible product.

    Industrial demonstration consists of using and amending prototypes to discern that the potential product is technically, practically and economically viable.

    Opportunities are missed and research findings are constrained by failure to recognise the need for R, D and D to be independent.

    Similarly, opportunities are missed and research findings are constrained by failure to recognise the need for science and politics to be independent.

    Richard

  29. wws says:

    Thanks for your reply, Richard. A question which I think gets to the heart of a point that I think is relevant to this entire topic – Am I (or anyone who thinks similarly) to be considered a “political advocate”, if all I do is to strongly oppose those who seek to use “Science” for political advocacy?

    Consider in light of the observation that those currently using “science” to advance their political causes (social and economic restructuring, wealth transfers, etc) couldn’t care less whether they win the “science” part of the debate as long as the win the Money, Policy, and Political Power part of the contest. Consider in light of the fact that if no one opposes them openly, then the public will accept their claims unquestioningly. Consider in light of the fact that the public doesn’t know or care that “consensus” is a word which has nothing to do with science, even if we do know that.

    Consider also in light of the observation that many of those pushing the CAGW scare are now believers in “post-modern” science, in which whatever the majority says is true must of course be true, and in which real world observations must be altered in order to conform with theory. (How many examples of this do you need?) From their point of view, there is no such thing as objective truth, only the subjective, and anyone who insists on believing in “objective truth” is a reactionary and a denier and must be shunned, or worse.

    It’s a sorry thing to contemplate, but we all have to face that fact that this is what we are up against. This isn’t going to be settled by any compromise, or by anyone slowly saying that “oh, I see, the science really WAS wrong!” No – one side is going to win, and one side is going to lose, and we have the choice as to which one of those we are going to be. Walking away from the fight just means that you have chosen to let other people make the decision.

    And I don’t mean to sound pessimistic – Luckily for us, as the Chinese would say, Heaven and Earth are on our side, and so is time. Personally, I like those odds.

  30. DirkH says:

    Chris Schoneveld says:
    August 8, 2013 at 3:34 am
    “David, i am a liberal (and compared with American standards, most Europeans are). The European equivalent of a Republican would fall in the category of the extreme right. ”

    You have your information from the hard left public media or Der Spiegel; and for me you are a victim of brainwashing and semiotic warfare – like most Europeans, just as you say.

    “Extreme Right” is howled by the German Left Block at ANYONE who disagrees with them, and they never define what it means. It is the equivalent of the Race Card in American discourse.

    Your media will for instance never tell you that Mussolini started his political career as a socialist and that Hitler called his own regime socialist in a 1937 speech. And that it was Stalin who came up with the idea that Hitler was “extreme right”; which he made his puppets in the COMINTERN around the world repeat until it became gospel.

    DEFINE “right”, Chris. Define it for me will ya. You can’t.

    Try this one

    http://www.politicalcompass.org

  31. WUWT is a welcome breath of fresh air that very few of the public ever encounter. Why is that? Because you have to go look for it. And no one will go looking unless they first notice their personal BS meter pegging out. Sadly the impact of this site and others which question AGW has been close to zero. There is a story from two days ago that proves my point. Google ‘npr climate change’ and click on “Earth Scientists Pin Climate Change Squarely On ‘Humanity’”. The tone is not alarmist, but scientific, authoritative, even handed with photographic proof. Stories like this are what most people see and believe.
    A friend who is a firm believer in AGW asks why I don’t agree. When I mention the internet he says, “Bone jur.” … a reference to a humorous commercial in which a spacey blonde thinks they can’t put anything on the internet that isn’t true. Her ‘French model’ internet date appears and they walk off together. She seem unaware he is neither French nor a model. My friend’s point is he doesn’t trust the internet and he questions my judgement. I don’t think he is alone.
    I was shocked to discover that another friend thought all the ice in the Arctic and on Greenland was already gone.
    No warming for 17 years? No problem. From the NPR story: “… temperature and sea level do vary a lot, and that gives the long-term climate record a kind of herky-jerky appearance. So scientists are not surprised at temperature ‘plateaus’ and temporary reversals in sea level rise.” They can keep that up for decades.
    A large segment of the population sees nothing but a unified front of science, government and media and that has an effect. From Tuesday’s HuffPost/YouGov poll: “Regardless of their opinions on the cause of climate change, a near-majority — 47 percent — favor new federal policies to combat it. Thirty-two percent oppose such policies.”
    We can vote our way out of this in the coming presidential election, right? A quick search of gop.com shows they oppose cap and trade, but take no position on climate change. Neither ‘climate’ nor ‘warming’ can be found on that site. What about the Libertarian Party? Their platform states: “We realize that our planet’s climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.” So they accept AGW?
    I would like to see a new thread where reasons to be optimistic can be posted because I can’t think of any.

  32. M Courtney says:

    DirkH
    Every time I do the political compass I end up in the s me place on the left (about -4 to -5) and the same place on the Libertarian (-3.5 to -4.5). Bottom left, in other words.

    Your political compass
    Economic Left/Right: -4.25
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

    To me the idea of being left-wing economically and also tolerant of people’s liberties is natural.

    The weakness of the political compass is that it doesn’t evaluate how important you hold property right s compared to other liberties.
    Before defining left and right you need to define the right to hold property.

  33. richardscourtney says:

    wws:

    Thankyou for your post at August 8, 2013 at 8:25 am which expands on your earlier thoughts and is addressed to me.

    As I said in my reply to your earlier post, I think you make some good points. But it is apparent that my reply was unclear because you begin your expansion by asking me

    A question which I think gets to the heart of a point that I think is relevant to this entire topic – Am I (or anyone who thinks similarly) to be considered a “political advocate”, if all I do is to strongly oppose those who seek to use “Science” for political advocacy?

    No! Absolutely not!
    It is not – and it cannot be – an abuse of science to oppose abuse of science.

    As I said

    This does not mean scientists cannot be politicians. Some have been; e.g. Benjamin Franklin.

    It means that a scientist is required to isolate his science from his politics. He ceases to be a scientist when he decides the existing findings of his science warrant actions to be undertaken. He then becomes a political advocate and all his science is corrupted.

    The important point is that a scientist cannot decide to what use his science should be put: that is a decision for others. If he does make that decision then his science is corrupted – either subconsciously or deliberately – by his desire to fulfil the decision. And the corruption is so severe that he ceases to be a scientist.

    Proclaiming that scientists should not make such a decision is a call for avoidance of that corruption.

    Clearly, I need to illustrate this, and I will use myself as an example in attempt to avoid suspicion that I am attacking the person(s) used as illustration.

    I and others investigated the climate cycle with a view to determining the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration as measured at Mauna Loa since 1958. We found that the rise can be modelled perfectly (within the measurement errors of each year) by a variety of causes both natural and anthropogenic.
    (ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) ).
    Hence, we found that the only factual statements that can be made on the true cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration are
    (a) the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have an anthropogenic cause, or a natural cause, or some combination of anthropogenic and natural causes,
    but
    (b) there is no evidence that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic cause or a mostly natural cause.

    Hence, using the available data it cannot be known what if any effect altering the anthropogenic emission of CO2 will have on the future atmospheric CO2 concentration. This finding agrees with the statement in Chapter 2 from Working Group 3 in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) that says; “no systematic analysis has published on the relationship between mitigation and baseline scenarios”.

    I see my duty as a scientist to report those findings, and I do (e.g. on WUWT). It is also my duty to NOT decide what actions should or should not be taken as a result of those findings.

    However, politicians have been attempting to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Our scientific finding indicates that it cannot be known what – if any – effect success in those attempts would have. Thus, there is a temptation for me to say (to myself and/or to others) that those attempts should be abandoned.

    It is imperative that I resist that temptation because failure to resist would corrupt my science. If I were to argue that the politicians’ attempts are pointless then my advocacy of ‘doing nothing’ would bias my attempts to find the true cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    In my opinion this goes to the heart of the problem with ‘post modern science’ (PMS) which you mention. It is why I so strongly oppose PMS on WUWT and elsewhere. Introduction of PMS is a deliberate introduction of the corruption of science by introduction of bias which the scientific method exists to minimise.

    And you say to me

    It’s a sorry thing to contemplate, but we all have to face that fact that this is what we are up against. This isn’t going to be settled by any compromise, or by anyone slowly saying that “oh, I see, the science really WAS wrong!” No – one side is going to win, and one side is going to lose, and we have the choice as to which one of those we are going to be. Walking away from the fight just means that you have chosen to let other people make the decision.

    I completely and wholeheartedly agree. And if you think I “walk away from the fight” then you are unfamiliar with my history and e.g. my posts on WUWT.

    I fight for science and against pseudoscience. If pseudoscience is defeated then science will reveal the truth so “one side is going to win”. My point is that I want the side of truth to win whether or not that turns out to be my “side”. And I want this because I value truth and science exists to find the closest available approximation to truth.

    In summation, I think your and my opinions on this subject are closer than you seem to think they are.

    Richard

  34. DirkH says:

    M Courtney says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:20 am
    “DirkH
    Every time I do the political compass I end up in the s me place on the left (about -4 to -5) and the same place on the Libertarian (-3.5 to -4.5). Bottom left, in other words.
    Your political compass
    Economic Left/Right: -4.25
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15
    To me the idea of being left-wing economically and also tolerant of people’s liberties is natural.
    The weakness of the political compass is that it doesn’t evaluate how important you hold property right s compared to other liberties.”

    First of all, I don’t entirely agree with their classifications of current EU member state governments. But at least they have DEFINITIONS.
    BTW I end up at Milton Friedman’s spot.

    “Before defining left and right you need to define the right to hold property.”

    Property rights are defined. What’s there to define? What’s mine is mine. Does it get any simpler?
    You can define how the terms left and right RELATE to property rights; which would basically rotate the plane that the political compass uses somewhat. But those are details.

    The Left will NEVER use a definition like the political compass does; as it would make their arbitrary word definitions impossible (Orwellian / Gramscian semiotic weaponization).

    As to your own classification: You hold that property rights are not part of a persons liberty. Good luck with that. A system that you would rule would over time invariably drift upwards to more and more authoritarianism; the reason being that in a system without property rights you can’t REWARD people. So your only way to instill discipline is to PUNISH them – or tolerate a decay of the order you have created; letting the system drift to the right, to property rights; under your system, that would be illegal (not desired by the system); but you could tolerate it (not enforce your rules) – ending up with anarchocapitalism. (Lower right; somehwere below Friedman)

    So; there are no real life systems in the lower left quadrant. It’s an instable place; call it the land of unicorns and pixy dust.

    Like most “socially liberal” leftists you do not think through the dynamics. You’re an idealist; one of the people Lenin called “useful idiots”; as they served as enablers for the more realistic and ruthless leftists; the communists. Always admired by the social democrats for their will to power, which is totally absent in social democracy. (see here about the communist revolt after the founding of the Weimar republic, by von Mises himself
    http://mises.org/etexts/mises/og/chap9a.asp
    )

  35. DirkH says:

    DirkH says:
    August 8, 2013 at 11:46 am
    “Like most “socially liberal” leftists you do not think through the dynamics.”

    …which are caused by human nature (even animals have a concept of ownership; just try to get that bone from that dog – obviously it is benefitial for survival to hoarde some food, for instance – just as it might be benefitial to share with others IF they deliver something in return – oh – the concept of trade emerges directly from the concept of property…)

    …and that is the reason that leftists/statists since Plato dreamed of changing human nature . Plato by taking away children from parents to mold them in state run schools; later Ur-socialist Robert Owen tried to mold the character of his workers, and continued experiments in New Harmony . which failed abysmally in the absence of a profitable textile mill.

    Later, the bolcheviks recognized the need to create the new men as precondition for communism. That’s where we enter total semiotic warfare targeting the own captive population.

    So Wundt, Pavlov and Skinner are heroes of the Left; yet I think the Left will never achieve it without either Brave New World style medication, or brain implants or a genetic modification that induces limitless altruism. Of course the resulting subhumans would be incapable of surviving without a state,

    dang, why does this sound like a Food Stamp program,…

  36. richardscourtney says:

    DirkH:

    You conclude your diatribe at August 8, 2013 at 12:15 pm saying
    dang, why does this sound like a Food Stamp program,…
    Oh, that is clear.
    It is because both are ill-thought, mistaken, and should be replaced by something sensible.

    Richard

  37. DirkH says:

    richardscourtney says:
    August 8, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    “DirkH:
    You conclude your diatribe at August 8, 2013 at 12:15 pm saying
    dang, why does this sound like a Food Stamp program,…
    Oh, that is clear.
    It is because both are ill-thought, mistaken, and should be replaced by something sensible.
    Richard”

    Hmm. No argument? Come on. Defend Owen, or something.

  38. richardscourtney says:

    DirkH:

    My post included all the “argument” required. And I think it it was almost as funny as your post on which it commented.

    Perhaps a little more attention to the subject of this thread would be better than what you have been posting. The subject is worthy of “argument”.

    Richard

  39. M Courtney says:

    DirkH
    Property rights are not the only rights and they are not universally agreed.

    You would agree, I suspect, that you have ownership of your own body; your children are your responsibility but their bodies are theirs (somehow) from the moment they are born.
    Yet 200 years ago slavery was up for debate.

    Intellectual property rights are still fuzzy. Freedom of expression and ownership of cultural merchandise often conflict. Look at the debate over Neil Gaiman’s Timothy Hunter character (11 yr old English schoolboy with a pet owl who discovers he’s the greatest wizard in the world) and the later creation of JK Rowling. Gaiman said she had the right to create from the same well as she had the right top express herself… good for the UK economy. But he abandoned his property rights.

    And that just looks at the nature of property. Ownership is also subjective. Families are a pooling of property. And divorce courts are very profitable for lawyers because that leads to confusion over ownership.
    Public goods are also unclearly owned. If you have the right to life and I have the right to own water how much should I charge you to keep you alive? How much if someone else will pay more? What is your right to life worth if property rights are absolute?

    So as a lefty, let me go back to the old-school of English politics; the origin of opposition to inequality of wealth/power. I quote John Ball.

    When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.

  40. M Courtney says:

    DirkH
    PS I’m not responding to the mind control conspiracy theory bit as I don’t think I understood your sense of humour.
    But, just in case, please believe me, I do not want to suck your mind out :-)

  41. Volker Doormann says:

    Acting NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D. said:
    “Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate—carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place – This annual report is well-researched, well-respected, and well-used; it is a superb example of the timely, actionable climate information that people need from NOAA to help prepare for extremes in our ever-changing environment.”

    Amen

    The truth is that the temperature anomalies in 2012 can easy be understood without that nonsense.

    (i.) There is a solar tide dynamic generated by spring tides and nip tides from all planetary neighbour couples, which controls the heat power of the Sun.
    (ii.) There is a delay dynamic from the ocean impedances [MEI] defined by the geometry of the Earth and its subharmonics from the oscillating axis frequency of 0.84317 periods per year in 10:1 resonance to the Jupiter frequency of 0.084317 periods per year.
    (iii.) There are drops in the global temperature from volcano eruptions.

    This is evident and can be verified by eliminating the MEI delay from the UAH Global Satellite data in a time range of no or only minor volcano eruptions (there were only some eruptions in the late 2011).

    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/uah_mei_solar_tide.gif

    Because it is evident that the MEI is a multi mode resonance of the Earth axis frequency (Chandler wobble) containing only a higher harmonic of the Sun Spot Number frequency there is no general problem to solve the global climate function by formulating the MEI echo and add it to the solar tides.

    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/fft_mei.jpg

    The amount of climate tools without any ideas of the operators to use it, reminds me on this: „There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra than Alzheimer’s research. By the year 2020, there should be a large elderly population with perky breasts, never-ending erections, and no recollection of what to do with either of them.”

    V.

  42. Volker Doormann says:

    Volker Doormann says:
    August 11, 2013 at 5:22 am
    (i.) There is a solar tide dynamic generated by spring tides and nip tides from all planetary neighbour couples, which controls the heat power of the Sun.
    (ii.) There is a delay dynamic from the ocean impedances [MEI] defined by the geometry of the Earth and its subharmonics from the oscillating axis frequency of 0.84317 periods per year in 10:1 resonance to the Jupiter frequency of 0.084317 periods per year.
    (iii.) There are drops in the global temperature from volcano eruptions.
    This is evident and can be verified by eliminating the MEI delay from the UAH Global Satellite data in a time range of no or only minor volcano eruptions (there were only some eruptions in the late 2011).

    This is evident ever: The global temperature (Red hadcrut4 data) do follow the simple MEI function (thick Gray line) with a delay of about 0.44 years (the time constant of 1/e * Chandler wobble period of 1.186 years), but superimposed on the simple MEI function there is a function of more high frequency temperature anomalies, which can be identified and verified as the sum of the fast solar springtides and nip tides from the planetary couples of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter (Blue line). :

    http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/temps_1960_1990.gif

    The tragedy is not really the incompetence in making conclusions of coherence in the system of heliocentric climate research by the NOAA dummies, it is the selected attention on the incompetence to dummies, which makes the tragedy.

    Max Planck says:“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

    V.

Comments are closed.