by WILLIE SOON AND ISTVÁN MARKÓ (via Breitbart)
There is a saying in the world of science that if scientific facts do not support your arguments then stop shouting. It is thus a waste of time to appeal to “scientism” or to rely on popular spokespersons like Al Gore or Bill Nye to make it look otherwise.
It will do more harm to your own self-esteem than the pretension of winning an argument by appealing to authority or popularity. Increasingly, we are seeing more and more outrageous and aggressive anti-scientific claims that anyone who is not willing to embrace the dangerous global warming bandwagon and to condemn its culprit, CO2, is actually the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier.
This sort of name-calling, loud self-promotion and fact twisting actions, closer to political rodeo than to healthy scientific debates, are simply telling us that our opponents have already lost their fallacious arguments and are getting short on any real scientific facts.
Professor Albert Einstein had it perfectly right. When he was told about the publication of the pamphlet “100 authors against Einstein” in 1931, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
It is fitting to hear the comment of Professor Hubert Goenner about the three main editors/contributors of “100 authors against Einstein”:
Obviously, these three men were united not only by their common interest in philosophy and opposition to relativity theory but also by their incompetence in the fields of mathematics and physics.
In his recent article “Why I Choose to Challenge Climate Change Deniers,” Mr. Bill Nye is found to issue a firm challenge to all those who do not accept his CO2-based religion by claiming that “The science of global warming is long settled, and one may wonder why the United States, nominally the most technologically advanced country in the world, is not the world leader in addressing the threats.”
This is so true that when the Australian government recently decided to shift their funding from studying climate change to preparing to address the threats assumed to originate from it, the very scientists who claimed that the science of global warming is settled started howling that this was not so and that their words have been misunderstood. They argued that climate is a very complex phenomenon (true) and that much work is needed to understand it in order to be able to provide any future global temperature evolution scenarios. This incidence can best be remembered as the return of the boomerang.
Maybe Mr. Nye should discuss things with these Australian scientists. He may have yet other revelations: That climate science is young and everything except settled, that we understand little of it, and that the predictions made by the climate models are akin to computer-assisted divinations. Call them, Mr. Nye! You’ll be amazed!
As for the claim: “Carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures. Climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus,” this is a truly strange, rather incorrect, and scientifically empty claim.
First of all, we know that the relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last thirty years has not produced any large and significant global warming, just a meager ~0.2°C. This compares favorably with the ~1°C increase in the temperature anomaly registered since the past 150 years, indicating an absence of acceleration in temperature rise. In fact, in nearly 19 years, a plateau has been observed, which has been acknowledged even by the IPCC (the so-called hiatus). Therefore, one is left to wonder what the words “enormous effect” mean in this particular case.
By now, the proper scientific conclusion regarding the greenhouse effect role of the rising atmospheric CO2 is clear: It plays a very minor role on the measurable “planetary” temperature, if any. For readers — and Mr. Nye — who may not be familiar with this latest experimental result, we suggest reading a recent article, “What we know about CO2 and global atmospheric temperatures?” on Breitbart News.
For all objective readers, and even Mr. Nye himself, we wish to remind everyone of the independent investigation led by Mr. Anthony Watts and many serious scientists who reached the conclusion that the greenhouse effect produced by CO2 molecules is, of course, real but that the “science-is-easy” type of experiment produced by Mr. Nye in Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project has been found to be a product of “video fakery.” That experiment “could never work” as advertised.
So much for Bill, the science guy, who simply confuses “scientism” — i.e. a belief — with experimental sciences. The only question left for everyone is when will Bill Nye or Al Gore stop pedaling their brand of Hollywood special effects?
Full article here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/24/bill-nye-scientism/
And finally:
Source: http://lidblog.com/bill-nye-is-still-weather-idiot-guy/
Nye is getting exactly what he wants.. publicity and lots of it. Never mind what he says. His career was floundering until he entered the arena and now he is dining with Obama. And I’m sure his income has taken a jump as well.
Nye is only doing it for the Planetary Society. He’s neither a bad guy nor an idiot. he’s a scientist who understands that in order to achieve his ambitions for the PS, such as launching LightSail, etc, which requires him to sit at tables with the ‘right people’, he needs to play the game. He’s the Arnold Schwarzenegger of astronomy. That might sound weird,as there is probably nobody on the planet physically more different from Arnie! But actually both guys have been in similar situations with regard to the AGW debate. Basically, big opportunists who say what is needed to say in order to further their cause, whatever that may be.In truth, I cannot blame Nye entirely for his actions and words.
I can, since climate catastrophism kills.
Jay, sarcasm I hope otherwise your last 2 sentences are ridiculous. People who say whatever is needed to further their cause stuff up the world big time. I’ll never accept that way of achieving outcomes and being conciliatory to such people just emboldens them.
Very Liberal of you!
Ends justify the means?
Long as I get what I want, eh?
Wink, wink, nod, nod.
-100
I terminated my long time membership in the Planetary Society when I learned that Bill Nye had become president. I wonder how many other members did the same.
Jay
So who is responsible for Nye’s actions and words?
Words have consequences; Nye is, indeed, responsible for his actions and words. I’d suggest you reconsider your statement.
Nye is an “honorary” scientist. There fixed.
This disgusts me. The lecturers at the college I worked did the same, complying with the accountant managers who ran the show subsequently the courses were watered down to pay-for-your-diploma level. Ultimately the students were cheated out of a decent education.. their defense was the students should learn on the job so who cares? I cared. They were cheated. But me continuing to lecture would have been exhibiting tacit approval.. so I quit and became a technician instead. Upside was I was free to teach students on the side and ensure they actually learned something.
I heard Nye confuse the time-window of an event, e.g, temperatures rose 4 degrees 120,000 to 130,000 years ago, with the duration of the event, saying it took 10,000 years for temperatures to rise 4 degrees 130,000 years ago.
That’s an eggregious error indicating a complete lack of understanding of the dating of prehistoric events, and the limitations of the various methods used for such dating. That’s taught in middle school science classes.
If he is not an idiot, he is certainly ignorant.
So Nye isn’t just a ‘scientist’ by his own lights; he’s also (according to you) a scientific whore. Just like Andrei Sakarov, who had a key role in Soviet nuclear weapon development..
Later, Sakarov had a change of heart about his murderous masters; but by that time, the potentially life-extinguishing Cuban Missile Crisis had become possible; and the deranged Castro/Guevera twins held the world in the palm of their hands.
Beware, O Nye.
History judges without mercy.
Noble cause corruption is still corruption.
In what way, shape or form is Nye a scientist? From what I can discern (being from the UK and not having to suffer the man here) he appears to be some kind of one time mechanical engineer turned children’s television entertainer. Any buffoon can read the script he is handed.
And now it seems he’s neither of the above, just joining the ranks of the professional activists.
You can be.certain that Nye is lining his pockets somehow by being a point man for the alarmists. Otherwise he wouldn’t continue doing it. My guess is that his retirement will be well funded by the time climate alarmism collapses (not long from now) and his usefulness as a leftist tool is gone.
Excellent article, though near the bottom “pedaling” (as in using a bicycle) is used instead of “peddling” (selling). Bill Nye seems to be a sort of popularizer, perhaps a spokesman–certainly not a scientist. The real scientists here are the authors of the article, to whom go my thanks!
At least pedaling is sustainable.
For describing the Nye-science he peddles, I feel the image of a ‘push-barrow’ is more appropriate than a bicycle.
I think “pedaling” is entirely appropriate.
I often peer through the huge windows of any of the local silicon valley exercise clubs and watch all the yuppies on their stationary bicycles or motorized moving sidewalks.
All of that effort to get nowhere.
Do they ever ask themselves how much useful stuff they could get done during that fraction of their lifetime, that they waste on their vain efforts to look good.
G
I find that you can easily prop a book up on the handle bars, or you can watch the same TV show you would have watched from your couch.
There is nothing vain about losing weight and improving your cardiovascular health.
Mr. Smith, I have COPD. Two years ago, as recommended by my doctor, I lost some weight and stepped up my aerobic exercise routine from about 30 minutes every other day to an hour every day, using an exercise bike in my basement when I cannot ride my rode bike during inclement weather. As MarkW says, I either watch a video or read something, sometimes WUWT, while riding my exercise bike. Tests by my doctor show that my breathing capacity has not declined for the last two years. He says the usual pattern is a slow, steady decline for those who have COPD.
Oops! Road bike.
They should attach generators to all those machines. At least their efforts would serve a purpose.
Mark W
SRI
Agree absolutely.
Maybe listening to a loop of the Greatest Speeches of [Insert most disliked North Korean, say, leader here] may be less useful.
keep moving. Don’t sit at your desk for an hour – get up and – even – go to the printer.
You don’t have to actually pint anything . . . .
Auto [yeah, a 47 inch waist is not, exactly, ideal!]
Pint – as in beer.
No.
Print.
Sorry – too quick on the ‘Post’ button; plus reading what I think I typed, as against what is actually there . . . .
Affirmative Bias.
Guilty as self-charged.
Auto – well 46 and three-quarters inches. Maybe.
Getting up from your desk once an hour will help prevent phlebitis and other circulatory ailments, but it will do nothing for over all cardiovascular health.
Everything these days is rooted in PR because internet! Dominating the airwaves and media via “messaging” means you’re right! Government funding means you’re right!
And say it loud, long, and strong enough, backed up by some “authority” with capital letters after his name, and it becomes “truthiness.”
“This incidence can best be remembered as the return of the boomerang.”
The word should be incident.
Spelling errors are actually meaningless in themselves. Unfortunately, as I told my students before I retired, they can be used against them (by people with agendas) so they should try to avoid them.
OK, I personally don’t like what Nye preaches with regard to AGW, but I’m a committee member of the PS, and I’m trying to be a bit objective.
He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard.
You are defending evil, because you benefit from it.
That’s pathetic.
Some time ago we had a good laugh at this, I thought worth of another look
https://youtu.be/umVW9T-7j3U
The newsbabe prompts Nye with this:
“NASA says they haven’t seen this kind of Greenland ice melt since 1889”.
Then what caused the ice melt in 1889? Bow-Tie doesn’t say.
No wonder none of these guys will debate skeptics any more. They’d get slaughtered.
I’m not big on his “science show”, it seemed to target children with ADD.
Science has a quiet inner beauty to it that attracts a certain kind of person. It isn’t all glitz, gee-whiz, atom bombs and sensory overload. I’m not big on pop-fiziks.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard P. Feynman
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardpf160383.html
And this man made CO2 causes Global warming hypothesis; even with their bad data, it’s still fails to predict.
Another, very appropriate Feynman quote is:
“Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will get ‘down the drain,’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richardpf719005.html
If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts. Albert Einstein
Isn’t this what Climate Science has become?
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Richard P. Feynman
Actually I can’t totally agree with that. Experiments can be, and often are, horribly constructed, and bear no semblance to reality. Nye’s and Al Gore’s CO2 experiment debunked by Watts is a case in point. If you substitute “experiment” with “observation”, then the quote is more powerful.
Do not have anything polite to say about this self aggrandising twit…
I’m ok with all the above except for the statement someone made that this idiot should continue teaching science to kids. This is not kosher, children deserves better teachers.
We have a 7 year old neighbor who is incredibly intelligent, she’s solving 10the grade geometry problems, and built a VEX robot that crushed the competition, (literally and figuratively), against junior high students. She was quietly sitting in the corner playing Minecraft on her Ipad when the topic of climate change came up. Someone in the room mentioned Bill Nye, as if we were supposed to all defer to his scientific prowess. All of a sudden a little voice from the corner exclaimed. “Bill Nye is a dork, his experiments aren’t real experiments.” Then she immediately turned her attention back to the more important task of sending Minecraft cows into outer space.
There is hope for the future
+1000
THAT I like to hear. We have a future and it is not dark.
Or Dork…
☺
Definitely not Dork. 🙂
Maybe she watches Mr Wizard (Don Herbert).
There was nothing scientific in his Huff and Puff article. I stopped reading it after I encountered all the usual non-scientific arguments such as appeal to authority, truth through repeated affirmation, and so on. That is simply not science. That is pure clap-trap. Again, I challenge any member of the escathological cargo cult of the cagw to produce a study that rejects the null hypothesis that the warming observed in the 20th century is not produced by man based on the recent 3,000 years of temperature measurements and proxies with any degree of statistical significance at all. The cargo cult is a religion, not science. It’s Millerite predictions have not happened for a good reason. Like Miller and the mountain, these people go back and produce new prophecies every time theirs is demonstrated to be lacking.
You mean actually rejects through normal scientific data interpretation, or their usual method of data torture until it confesses? Or their other favorite – ignore the data and just state the preconceived conclusion as proven until you prove it isn’t.
“I challenge any member of the escathological cargo cult of the cagw to produce a study that rejects the null hypothesis that the warming observed in the 20th century is not produced by man…”
Lovejoy 2014 states:
“Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels > 99%.”
Since then we have had three record high temperature years.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf
(btw, by responding to the challenge I do not accept I am a member of an eschatological cargo cult)
seaice 1
“Since then we have had three record high temperature years.”
????? Record highs? Over what period? I was under the impression that the Eemian was a good bit warmer than current temperatures. How could that be?
H.R.,
seaice1 needs to read about cargo cult ‘science’. Feynman’s account is here.
If Prof Feynman were still around, he’d be saying the same things about the man-made global warming scare.
Because… same-same.
H.R. If it makes you feel better I will qualify that to record years since the instrumental record began. This changes the argument not one iota. That can only have made the finding of Lovejoy even more secure.
dbstealey. Feynman’s writing is excellent as usual. You are not qualified to speak for Feynman.
seaice1 sez:
H.R. If it makes you feel better I will qualify that to record years since the instrumental record began. This changes the argument not one iota.
Actually, it completely changes it. The longer the record, the better. “Instrumental record” is cherry picking the part that gives you the result you want.
And quoting Feynman is something everyone does — at least on the skeptic side (since alarmists don’t like what he says). Your response just shows that you lack any better arguments.
dbstealey wrote in response to seaice1::
“Actually, it completely changes it. The longer the record, the better.”
I was thinking along those lines myself. How does one reject the null hypothesis that the current warming is no different from previous warming periods when the current temperature has yet to exceed past temperatures? Perhaps we should be exploring the possibility that human contributions of CO2 are holding back the global average temperature. It’s hard to say until we actually exceed or dive below past temperatures and even then CO2 might not be the smoking gun that changed the temperature.
For example, the Vikings moved to Greenland and brought all those methane-producing critters as well as burning this and that for cooking and heating. I’m sure the Vikings raised local CO2 a good bit and look what happened; Greenland got colder. And then there is that pesky pause in global temperature while CO continued to rise. What should one make of all this?
Bottom line; I agree with you that the longer the record, the better. Let’s keep an eye on the satellite record for another 200-300 years and see if we can make some sense out of the causes of climate change.
dbstealey. Two more incorrect points.
“Actually, it completely changes it. The longer the record, the better.”
Whether the recent years were a record for all time or a record for the instrumental period does not affect the length of the time period. So you are wrong and my clarification does not affect the argument one iota.
“And quoting Feynman is something everyone does — at least on the skeptic side (since alarmists don’t like what he says). Your response just shows that you lack any better arguments.”
Did I criticise you for quoting Feyneman? No. Quote him or anybody else all you like. I said you were not qualified to speak for him – and you certainly are not. You claimed to know what Feynman would say about a particular issue today if he were alive. You are not in a position to know that.
On the subject of long time periods, there is a conflict. All else being equal, longer is better, but all else is not equal. As we go further back in time the quality of the data gets much worse. It is not necssarily better to use longer time series if the data is much worse. It makes little sense to compare global temperature measurements from the 20th century with a single ice core proxy from thousands of years ago in the same statistical test.
seaice says:
Whether the recent years were a record for all time or a record for the instrumental period does not affect the length of the time period. So you are wrong and my clarification does not affect the argument one iota.
What seaice is trying to do is pick a high point within the very limited time frame he’s selected. Instead, he should use the longest time frame available to see if current temperatures are unusual.
But as we see, current temperatures are far from being unprecedented or unusual:
Both hemispheres show that prior temperatures often exceeded today’s:
Here’s another view, showing that when CO2 was much lower and unchanging, temperatures fluctuated more than they have since CO2 began its recent rise:
http://oi53.tinypic.com/sg2wav.jpg
And of course, global temperatures are colder now than during the earlier Holocene:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
And this series puts everything into much needed perspective (keep your eye on the ‘instrumental record’):
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
As we see, the ‘instrumental record’ becomes insignificant when viewed in perspective. The world didn’t begin when satellites were launched. Or even when the CET record began.
Next, seaice struggles with this:
You claimed to know what Feynman would say about a particular issue today if he were alive. You are not in a position to know that.
Sure I am. If you said Prof Feynman’s position was that skepticism is not important in science, I could speak for him by using volumes of his writing. I’d say, “That’s wrong, Dr. Feynman would say that skepticism is critical to scientific progress.” People speak for historical figures all the time.
You just don’t like what we know Dr. Feynman would tell you about your belief system. If he were around today he would label your “dangerous AGW” narrative as “cargo cult science”, because it fits his definition.
And you tap dance around trying to limit evidence to the satellite record:
As we go further back in time the quality of the data gets much worse.
By that “reasoning”, there is no reason to go back any farther than where you want to go.
Wrong, as usual. Just because the error bars get bigger doesn’t mean that we can’t tell from the evidence that previous global warming episodes were warmer than the current natural global warming. Evidence of previous global warming peaks has been found repeatedly all over the planet, not just in multiple ice cores from both hemispheres.
You just don’t like it because that destroys your argument.
Regarding the heat lamp demonstration, the 15 micron band of infrared radiation absorption associated with the Green House Effect is a much longer and colder wave length than what the heat lamp puts out.
Also it looked like the two thermometers didn’t start out at the same temperature, and l’d like to see the calibration of the heat lamps or switch them and see the same results.
But it really doesn’t matter, because all they are doing is making the case for the “Green House Effect.” Most people accept that CO2 plays a role in that. Proving that an increase in CO2 is going to be a catastrophic disaster is another matter.
In a few weeks it will be 28 years since Doctor Hansen and others testified before Congress with all sorts of projections that should have come to fruition by now. They haven’t, the predictions are wrong.
I’d love to see the details of these projections…
“In a few weeks it will be 28 years since Doctor Hansen and others testified before Congress with all sorts of projections that should have come to fruition by now. They haven’t, the predictions are wrong.”
Bill Nye’s CO2-based Climate Alarmism religion is very reminiscent of the Televangelism reaping millions of dollars from gullible believers here in US.
See for example:
http://gawker.com/making-money-off-miracles-the-gospel-of-televangelists-1725330875
Because of his “scientism” and embrace of climate pseudoscience, I have no doubt Mr Nye covets the private jet high life of Al Gore and other Climate Hustlers. His act is just an attempt to get in on the action while the climate money is flowing. Soon the music will stop, and he’ll be too old to find another gig.
Bill Nye’s CO2-based Climate Alarmism religion is very reminiscent of the Televangelism reaping millions of dollars from gullible believers here in US.
See for example:
http://gawker.com/making-money-off-miracles-the-gospel-of-televangelists-1725330875
Because of his “scientism” and embrace of climate pseudoscience, I have no doubt Mr Nye covets the private jet high life of Al Gore and other Climate Hustlers. His act is just an attempt to get in on the action while the climate money is flowing. Soon the music will stop, and he’ll be too old to find another gig.
We need the Church Lady from SNL to eviscerate Nye the way she eviscerated the Bakkers. (Google it. You will thank me later.)
Not just the US. Many countries have their equivalent, like the guys who perform sleight of hand while pushing someone’s belly, pulling a chicken liver out of nowhere and proclaiming the disease is cured.
WordPress seems to be eating my post on this thread. Apologies to the mods if it finally appears out of the bit bucket to which it seems to have gone.
Because of his “scientism” and embrace of climate alarmist pseudoscience, I have no doubt Mr Nye covets the private jet high life of Al Gore and other Climate Hustlers. His act now is just an attempt to monetize what remains of his popular credibility and thus get in on the action while the climate money is flowing. Soon the music will stop, and he’ll be too old to find another gig.
Bill Nye the “Science Lie.”
You pose a question: “When will Bill Nye or Al Gore stop pedaling their brand of Hollywood special effects? Answer 1: When hell freezes over. Answer 2: When the climate crusade becomes unprofitable.
Private Wealth Council, Davos, Switzerland, Founded 2004
Think Tank – Mission:
“, it addresses mega trends and purposes visioning solutions pertaining to the preservation and growth of private wealth.”
People include:
Al Gore, Generation Investment Management, LLC, London, U.K.
Nicholas Parker, Toronto, Toronto Cleantech Network LLC and former adviser to the late Maurice Strong.
http://www.privatewealthcouncil.org > People
—————————————————————————————
Newest Form Ds, CleantechCapital Group, LLC
Form D, U.S.SEC, Filed 2009-10-08, Financial Offering.
Has a Howell/Brighton address in southern rural Michigan. In small town with small office space address.
http://www.newestformds.com/16462-cleantech-capital-group-llc
Nicholas Parker & residing in Toronto listed in this Form D SEC document along with others with a Michigan address.
Financial Post, Canada
Google: “The true north strong and clean – Financial Post”
From the article:
“says, Mr. Parker, former asset manager for Maurice Strong …”
Kenneth Strong, s/o late Maurice Strong, is now a business partner with Nicholas Parker.
Green Living, Canada, Spring 2008
Article lists 50 + Canadians Who Are Leading The Way To A Greener Future.
Nicholas Parker is included.
http://www.jordygold.com/Articles_files/The%20Green%20List.pdf
Messrs. Soon and Markó completely ignore the evidence given by Mr. Nye on the Rachel Maddow Show and other scientific venues:
The Nobel Peace prize of course. Just like Obama got his Nobel Peace prize for actually doing nothing.
Yep the same Nobel prize that Yassar Arafat was given.
I can’t wait for Pres. Trump to blow all this right out the scuppers!
Both Hitler and Stalin were nominated for the Nobel Peace prize. It’s a joke.
“I can’t wait for Pres. Trump to blow all this right out the scuppers!”
Trump put in a planning application to protect his golf course from erosion. It specifically cites global warming and its consequences.
From the Telegraph “The petition cited one Irish government study that assumed a steady rate of erosion through to 2050, but argued that this did not go far enough because it failed to consider the effects of climate change.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/23/donald-trump-says-climate-change-is-a-hoax-but-tries-to-protect/
A peace prize is not a science prize.
PS: The peace prize managed to completely discredit itself years ago.
Obama got a Nobel Prize, too. I still haven’t figured out what for.
It cheapens the brand honoring undeserving people like the IPCC and Obama.
The Nobel Peace prize committee is run out of Oslo, Norway. The science, economics, and literature are run out of Stockholm, Sweden. The Stockholm committees are usually quite embarrassed by the standards the Peace committee uses.
He got it for not being Bush. That’s enough for most of the illiterati.
MarkW —
O’Bummer got the peace prize because he proclaimed to the world that the old adage “Peace Through Strength” was false and the best way to have peace was to raise your hands and surrender.
Eugene WR Gallun
Obama got a Peace Prize too!
http://www.moonbattery.com/free-nobel-peace-prize.jpg
Get one every 3,000 miles!
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/freenobel2.jpg
Funny. I was taught in science classes that weather happened year to year, and climate referred to trends that were decades long. I guess all my teachers, professors, and textbooks were wrong. So much for consensus being a sign of scientific fact.
Oh, wait! Consensus is the sign of “scientific” fact! Cognitive dissonance solved.
So you all say the IPCC didn’t get a scientific Nobel Prize for discovering climate change through all kinds of evidence?
You are Nobel deniers, the whole lot of you.
Take another look at the above picture of Bill Nye, the one below “Bill Nye is still the weather idiot guy”. Doesn’t it remind you of toddler who has just loaded his diaper? Maybe it’s just me.
“popular spokespersons like Al Gore”
Al Gore is popular?
OK for this thread?
IMHO this popular GHG perpetual motion heat loop contradicts hundreds of years of thermodynamic theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If CO2 & GHGs have such impressive radiative thermal properties, greenhouse operators would increase the CO2 concentrations to save on their heating bill (no evidence of that) as well as improve crop yield (plenty of evidence of that).
I’ve used IR thermometers and cameras in industrial settings. There is more to an IR instrument than point, read, and figure S-B. My impression is that the instruments are being improperly applied and interpreted. I understand from Spencer that it’s not S-B emissivity, but CO2 absorbtivity which is modeled.
The S-B equation including grey body emissivity results in negligible radiation down welling from the GHG in the lower troposphere. The energy available for radiation from an object is what’s left over after T+A+R = 1, .e.g. for GHGs transmission 95% / absorption 5% / radiation 4%. Since most of the LWIR leaving the earth’s surfaces passes right through the GHGs there is little absorbed, little radiated plus gasses have very low emissivity. This down welling/upwelling concept is as flawed as the GHE & blanket.
I think a better analogy is the walls of a house using Q = U * A * ΔT. If I increase the insulation(blanket) the value of U goes down, Q goes down, the thermostat turns down the gas reducing the furnace firing rate the monthly heating bill. However, if the furnace fires at a fixed rate (ASR) and U goes down ΔT must increase to move that same Q through the thicker insulation. So what to do? Well, open a window or door, turn on the air conditioner, etc. There is not a thermostat on the sun, but there is certainly one on the atmosphere: water vapor. (See Jo Nova’s handbooks)
Disputing this GHG loop concept is not denying the greenhouse effect/principle/process. A greenhouse operator can increase thermal mass by installing boxes of rocks, trombe walls, black painted plastic tubes and barrels full of water or eutectic salts, aka the oceans. If it gets too hot the operator can pull down reflective shades reducing the incoming heat, aka albedo which is more than just clouds. BTW IPCC AR5 credits clouds with -20 W/m^2 of RF and that’s a lot more cooling than CO2’s 2 W/m^2 of heating. The operator can turn on misting water sprays and evaporative cooling to reduce the air temperature and raise relative humidity, aka storms, rain, snow, etc.
Both IPCC and Trenberth (same as IPCC) admit they really don’t understand the atmospheric water vapor cycle, clouds, etc. very well. IPCC AR5 in TS.6 and Trenberth in the papers mentioned elsewhere.
1) The CO2 increase between 1750 and 2011 amounts to a 0.5% fluctuation in the overall global carbon balance. When the uncertainty in the origins of the carbon balance is +/- 850 Gt, 1,750 Gt band, it’s strains belief that 0.5% can be measured let alone attributed to any particular source. C13/C12 changes over 261 years have to be detected at ppm levels. Pretty unlikely.
2) At 2 W/m^2 RF CO2’s role in the greenhouse process is insignificant.
The immediate problem one encounters with your simple blanket model is the very real adiabatic lapse rate in the troposphere. That lapse rate arises from the lowering of pressure with altitude, due of course to gravity. Throw in humidity (water vapor) that generally varies by latitude (which changes the lapse rate), a tropopause height that varies by latitude, phase changes in water vapor to liquid or ice to move latent heat to cooler layers as convection transport, and it is simply not a simple model.
“…it is simply not a simple model.”
Why pursue a complicated theory/answer when a simply simple one provides sufficient explanation?
More heat leaving ToA than entering leads to cooling. Less heat leaving ToA than entering leads to warming. There are several mechanisms, e.g. albedo, water vapor, oceans, that can influence that balance, some much more powerful than others. CO2/GHGs are near/at the bottom of that list.
I have no physics education or any scientific qualifications and I clearly understood that Venus could not stay hot without the level of energy it gets from the sun into its atmosphere because I learned at a young age that you cant create energy from nothing.
that goes for big bangs and dark matter too folks, sorry, they are anti physics
Mark – Helsinki
May 24, 2016 at 11:55 am
If you have no physics education, what makes you imagine that the Big Bang and Dark Matter theories are bogus? Much of dark matter is simply ordinary matter (baryonic) too dim to detect.
Since the big bang involves both singularities and potential interactions with other universes, how can you say it is energy from nothing?
If you have no physics education, what makes you imagine that the Big Bang and Dark Matter theories are bogus? Much of dark matter is simply ordinary matter (baryonic) too dim to detect.
“much of dark matter” are you insane, so your proof it exists it to say we cant detect it becase it is the only matter in the universe that doesn’t emit radiation?
Baaahahahaha
This is belief founded on less than CO2 catastrophe 😀
You cant create energy out of nothing. I already explained by, and so I repeat it, you cant create energy out of nothing, dark matter is created out of nothing, it cannot be detected, nor explained.
It’s a hypothesis, not a theory, only other hypothesis support it. Models, ironically models are insufficient to model out own climate but apparently good to model the universe?
Complete and utter logic failure
MarkW
May 24, 2016 at 12:44 pm
Since the big bang involves both singularities and potential interactions with other universes, how can you say it is energy from nothing?
____________
I never wanted to start this “debate, but I did post what I did.
Stop talking about the big bang as if it happened, and singularities, because they only exist as dead ends to equations.
It reeks of alarmist logic Marko, awesome name by the way, and no bias here
I find it interesting that people do not apply the same skepticism to even less supported theories and hypotheses than CAGW.
Big bang and dark matter, like CAGW require copious amounts of “belief”.
I was never interested in belief, like CAGW I require some empiricism before we discuss something as if it is actually physical and not mathematical which is why I only really have interest in empirical sciences, that we can actually work on, instead of making up a universe with equations
Dont even get me started on the utterly ludicrous “strange matter”, another patch to save the utter failure of Neutron stars
I disagree lads, but I will leave it there, slightly off topic, but my fault.
Apologies 😀
Mark – Helsinki
May 24, 2016 at 1:32 pm
No, insanity would be d@nying that dark matter exists because it can only be detected via its gravitational effects. Maybe I should have said “seen” rather than detected. Baryonic dark matter emits radiation, but not enough to picked up by photon-detecting telescopes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonic_dark_matter
It’s generally wise to have studied a subject before presuming to comment upon it.
Gabro
“No, insanity would be d@nying that dark matter exists because it can only be detected via its gravitational effects. Maybe I should have said “seen” rather than detected. Baryonic dark matter emits radiation, but not enough to picked up by photon-detecting telescopes.”
That doesn’t follow. We detect a gravitational effect. Using the Standard Model, that means there is matter we cannot otherwise detect that causes the gravitational effect. But the other “solution” is that the Standard Model is wrong. Or we my not actually know that much about the universe.
Claiming that in fact the universe MUST be made mainly of Dark Matter and Dark Energy because otherwise our models are wrong…hmm, sounds a bit like something else we discuss?
How typical of a liberal. Because you don’t understand something it doesn’t exist.
Sheesh.
Grow up.
I’m not getting into this bun fight, but just for general interest, here’s a recent article on ‘dark matter’ and the reason time goes in only one direction:
http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-just-found-a-link-between-dark-energy-and-the-arrow-of-time
The GHG effect on earth is calculated to be 33C. This can be directly calculated from the lapse rate (6.5C/km) and the center of mass of the atmosphere (5.5km)
6.5C/km * 5.5km = 33C
A similar result is found on Venus, independent of atmospheric composition or albedo. CO2 affects the distribution of energy, not the total energy.
As you add CO2 to the atmosphere temperatures will moderate towards the poles and the night time side of the earth. Colder regions will warm, and warmer regions will cool.
Overall, increasing CO2 will increase average temps slightly, because radiation varies as the 4th power. As a result, cold regions will warm faster than warm regions will cool:
eg: assume night time temps are 290K and daytime temps are 310, with average temps of 300K. add enough CO2 to raise nighttime temps to 295K, what effect will this have on daytime temps?
(290)^4+(310)^4 = (295)^4+(?)^4
? = 305.7
Thus, we can see that adding CO2 will change the average temperature from 300K to 300.35K.
” … add enough CO2 to raise nighttime temps to 295K, what effect will this have on daytime temps?”
Well, there are those of us who don’t buy that CO2 will raise nighttime temps at all. Seems you are making an assumption to prove your assumption. That is not good in mathematics at least.
Other thing that’s none too clear is where the energy taken up by a CO2 molecule goes. I’d assumed it was like a gaseous sodium atom’s ‘absorbtion’ of yellow light, which is then re-radiated in all directions with no net energy loss. Maybe not, though, after all it is a rather different mechanism.
The sodium mechanism is heavily influenced by quantum effects, thus the atom can only process certain wavelengths whose energy is exactly that required to make an electron jump a bandgap. Is the same true of CO2, or is it more a question of simple mechanical resonance effects in molecular bonds?
There seem to be some unanswered questions as to what actually happens to the energy gained by CO2 in the atmosphere, whether it is re-radiated like sodium does, becomes kinetic energy of the molecule, or is transferred to the bulk gas, which is mostly nitrogen.
From the article:
“Yesterday as Oklahoma City was digging their dead out of the rubble the sensitive Nye tweeted:
Oklahoma City was hit hard again. Has anyone asked Oklahoma Senator Inhofe about the three large storms in the [past] 14 years?
Bill Ney (@theScienceGuy) May 21, 2013″”
Three in 14 years? We used to have large storms around Oklahoma all the time. But since the beginning of the 21st century, as Mr. Nye points out, we have not had but three large (he is talking about EF5 tornadoes) storms in that time.
And the year 2016 continues the low rate of large tornadoes with a very benign spring in Tornado Alley.
According to the CAGW Alarmists predictions, when the Earth’s atmosphere gets hotter, then this will cause more numberous, more powerful tornadoes.
So here we are in the “hottest year evah!” of 2016, which supposedly follows a decade of “hottest years evah!”, so we should expect to see more numerous and more powerful tornadoes. Right?
What do we see? We see fewer and less powerful tornadoes for the entire “hottest years evah!” record. That would suggest that rather than being hotter, the atmosphere is actually cooler, and that is why there are fewer tornadoes and less powerful tornadoes.
Here’s a chart of tornadoes for this year:
In addition to not being able to do science, Nye can’t do history either.
He can’t do history. Or science. But he’s a real bow tie expert…
TA – you sure know how to spoil a good story.
A big reason for the depressed tornado count this year is because Texas and parts of the SW have been cooler and wetter than normal through most of April and May. Yes NOAA claims that Texas was warmer then normal in April but they lie. Texas sees an average of 140 tornadoes per year. Far more than any other state. And May has been the peak month of the year historically for that state. The simple fact is that we have lacked the temperature contrasts necessary to produce the big out breaks this year.
But Bill Nye doesn’t appear to know or understand any of that and thus his stupid tweets when ever a few tornadoes happen to form and cause damage.
Absolutely correct. thank you for your observation. It is the contrast from cold spring fronts and warm gulf wind. warmer the gulf winds and cooler the fronts create a bit more drastic weather conditions. I reck’on sitting on the back porch could come up with that.
Tom from Texas. Are you familiar with Wyman Meinzer’s work? http://www.wymanmeinzer.com/west-texas/
rah May 24, 2016 at 10:02 am wrote: “A big reason for the depressed tornado count this year is because Texas and parts of the SW have been cooler and wetter than normal through most of April and May.”
I would agree with that. It has been a little cooler than normal this spring. That doesn’t square with the “hottest year evah!” does it.
rah: “Yes NOAA claims that Texas was warmer then normal in April but they lie.”
No!
rah: “Texas sees an average of 140 tornadoes per year. Far more than any other state.”
Yeah, well, Texas has the most land area in tornado alley. Oklahoma gets more tornadoes per square mile, than does Texas. 🙂
rah: “And May has been the peak month of the year historically for that state.”
Yes, that’s true, and the season is just about over, with very little activity to show. I have a storm front passing over my house right now. It was a tornadic storm over around Tulsa (60 miles) but couldn’t really work itself up into a big tornado, and it collapsed and is now a heavy rain and hail event. The edge of the front in just reaching me now. We love this kind of weather around here. Lots of necessary rain, and not much damage. Love this Global Warming!
rah; “The simple fact is that we have lacked the temperature contrasts necessary to produce the big out breaks this year.”
I wonder why that is? Perhaps its not as hot as the Alarmists think it is. At least it is not hot enough to fire off big storms. It seems to me that the position of the jetstream has a lot to do with this seasons storms. The jetstream never lined up just right to really give a big push to the storm fronts. A big storm outbreak will happen when you have moist, warm air over Tornado alley, and a cold front comes in from the northwest and crashes into the warm air, and if the jetstream is coming in from the southwest to the northeast direction or due west to east, then the storms will really blow up strong. That hasn’t really happend this year, except earlier in the year a front came through that sent a deluge over Kansas City and then immediately after over St Louis, and that particular set of storms was being driven by a west-to-east jetsteam which enhanced the power of the storms. This year the jetstream had some of these fronts that normally go from west to east, going from west to northwest. and a lot of them moving south to north which is not the best scenario for building up big storms.
rah: “ut Bill Nye doesn’t appear to know or understand any of that and thus his stupid tweets when ever a few tornadoes happen to form and cause damage.”
We’ll just have to correct him, when he does. 🙂
“rah: “Yes NOAA claims that Texas was warmer then normal in April but they lie.”
Tom in Texas:
No!”
NOAA most certainly has claimed Texas was warmer then average during April Tom.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/national/statewidetavgrank/statewidetavgrank-201604.gif
I assumed that was the no was intended for since you agreed with my statement:
“A big reason for the depressed tornado count this year is because Texas and parts of the SW have been cooler and wetter than normal through most of April and May.”
I happen to agree with those that time and again have shown how the surface temperature record is being distorted through unwarranted adjustments and selective use of stations with a bias towards using those effected by UHI.
TA
Actually it’s Kansas the leads the way in tornado incidence per area:
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/ustormaps/1995-2014-tornadoes-per10k-perstate.png
rah May 25, 2016 at 2:59 am wrote:
“rah: “Yes NOAA claims that Texas was warmer then normal in April but they lie.”
Tom in Texas:
No!”
NOAA most certainly has claimed Texas was warmer then average during April Tom.
I assumed that was what the no was intended for since you agreed with my statement:
“A big reason for the depressed tornado count this year is because Texas and parts of the SW have been cooler and wetter than normal through most of April and May.”
rah, I think you have Tom in Texas and TA mixed up. I’m the one that said “No!” I was just being sarcastic, I know NOAA claimed April was the hottest ever.
rah also wrote:
rah May 25, 2016 at 3:58 am wrote:
“TA
Actually it’s Kansas that leads the way in tornado incidence per area:”
I didn’t say anything about Kansas, rah. I was just comparing Texas and Oklahoma. There’s always a little bit of rivalry going between Okies and Texans, on just about everything, especially football, so I was trying to “one-up” the Texas claim! 🙂
I noticed a batch of tornadoes popped up last night up in Colorado and to the east of there. That area was enhanced by a segment of the jetstream that was coming into that area from the southwest. The right direction for firing up big storms. I haven’t heard what the size or duration of the tornadoes were, but I think I heard the number 24. There was one in Tulsa, but it was small and didn’t stay on the ground very long.
Notice that the center or focus of the energy in the atmosphere, where the storms blow up, is moving north. It starts out in Texas and Oklahoma and steadily moves north as the jetstreams shift north going from spring to summer.
Then the high pressure sets in over the middle of the nation and puts a stop to the tornadoes, for the most part. Every now and then, the high pressure won’t stay long and we get weather like we are getting now, with the weather patterns continuing to progress from west to east, all summer long. Wouldn’t that be nice! But not likely.
You know, I’m sure that Texans are being devastated by their “permanent drought” now. It has to be true that Texas is in a permanent drought because Dressler and Hayho said it would be so and they are climate “scientists” right?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/texas-braces-for-possibly-more-rain-after-flooding-kills-1/ar-BBtyHkk?ocid=spartanntp
There is evidence for tornado formation when warm air masses meet (override) cold (or cooler) air masses. If “global warming” involves the higher latitude zone warming more than the lower latitude zone the difference in temperatures should become less and storms fewer. CAGW alarmists are not logical so this common sense idea is beyond them.
I no longer live in a tornado zone but sites giving updates on severe weather present a near-daily dose of such. For example, the site ‘accuweather dot com” has numerous stories today (5/24/16) hyping “ severe weather to bombard central US this week.” This is news of a sort, but it is not new.
Accuweather hypes like everyone else. They trumpet the potential for severe weather and any that actually occurs but rarely put it in historical or even seasonal context unless it happens to support their desired narrative. For one to find out that this tornado season has been depressed so far and is forecast to remain so they have to find the information on their own because the main outlets just aren’t going to tell you. How many stories on the fact we’ve gone over a decade without a major hurricane hitting the Continental US have you seen from the larger media outlets? No wonder so many are so misinformed.
To understand what is going on, it is good for us to look up, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, what “Scientism” is, as well as related world views including “Naturalism,” “Progressivism,” and “Materialism.”
Most of us have been raised and educated to go further than simply being able to recognize and use science as a process for ascertaining knowledge, and we have been presented with Scientism, a world view that has tents beyond those of the scientific method as an epistemological strategy. But nobody ever taught us that we were being provided with a faith-based world view; they simply presented all of this as “settled science.”
Reading up on these related world views help us recognize them in our own thinking and in the thinking of others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-settled-science-consensus-du-jour/2016/04/22/46acd802-07de-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html
“Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 16 states’ attorneys general and those of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.
Four core tenets of progressivism are: First, history has a destination. Second, progressives uniquely discern it. (Barack Obama frequently declares things to be on or opposed to “the right side of history.”) Third, politics should be democratic but peripheral to governance, which is the responsibility of experts scientifically administering the regulatory state. Fourth, enlightened progressives should enforce limits on speech (witness IRS suppression of conservative advocacy groups) in order to prevent thinking unhelpful to history’s progressive unfolding.
Progressivism is already enforced on campuses by restrictions on speech that might produce what progressives consider retrograde intellectual diversity. Now, from the so-called party of science, a.k.a. Democrats, comes a campaign to criminalize debate about science.”
I recently read that one of the main differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that authoritarians do not care what you actually think as long as you do not interfere with their agenda (and do not publicly oppose it), while totalitarians require not only outward obedience/deference, they require you to enthusiastically evangelize their agenda. Authoritarians only demand orthopraxy, but totalitarians insist on orthopraxy and orthodoxy.
That was written by George Will.
For a good sci-fi example of progressivism try “Logan’s run.” Progressives basically don’t like other people, especially the excess ones. It’s just a cover for eugenics. They’d like to line up the unnecessary and unproductive wasters and polluters and put a 9 mil in their heads. The third world gets it. COP21, climate change goals and green industry will accomplish the same thing.
“Nye is a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, a U.S. non-profit scientific and educational organization whose aim is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims.” — Wikipedia
Ironic that someone who is a member of a group dedicated to Skeptical Inquiry thinks it is ok to call people names for pursuing skeptical inquiry.
I recently subscribed to the “official” skeptic magazine for a year and discovered they were devout congregants of the Church of AGW. They published a few articles that “verified” that 97 percent of scientists agreed that catastrophic global warming was happening due to human activity, but nothing at all on the scientific evidence to support such claims.
I’ve noticed that the word “skeptic” and all of its variants have been hijacked by the revisionist progressive pseudo-scientists. If they were half as good at practicing science as they were at politics and propaganda, we’d have flying cars by now.
Shermer has lost all credibility due to his gullible stance on CAGW.
Simple as that.
Nye and his program doesn’t make a pimple on Mr. Wizards ( Don Herbert) posterior. Oh how we had another Mr. Wizard because Nye and his program is worse than a poor substitute.
Oops. I just mentioned Mr. Wizard — didn’t see your previous nod.
Here is Marc Morano spanking Bill Nye on Piers Morgan in 2012.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q777XU57GVg
And here is Bill Nye calmly stating his case in a reasonable sensible way. Funny/sad/predictble how skeptics vilify those who disagree with their increasingly untenable position.
What precisely do you imagine is untenable about the skeptic position? There is no actual evidence in support of the alarmist position, since nothing the least bit out of the ordinary has happened to earth’s climate while CO2 has risen monotonously from the end of WWII. Thus, the null hypothesis can’t be rejected.
Meanwhile, alarmism has become increasingly untenable, as CO2 rises without the predicted warming, and as models diverge farther every year from observed GASTA.
In your opinion, speaking in a reasonable way is proof that what he is saying is true?
Since 100% of the science over the last decade or two supports the skeptic position, why would you say the skeptic position is becoming untenable?
“Meanwhile, alarmism has become increasingly untenable, as CO2 rises without the predicted warming, and as models diverge farther every year from observed GASTA.”
Really?
“since nothing the least bit out of the ordinary has happened to earth’s climate while CO2 has risen monotonously from the end of WWII. ”
CO2 forcing did not exceed the -ve forcing of aerosol until the early 70’s and just exactly what dire effects were forecast to have occured by 2016 (disregarding the odd idiotic comment)?
.
Toneb,
How many times are you going to post that discredited Cowtan & Way chart?
Put ‘Cowtan and Way’ into the search box. Get educated.
Toneb
May 24, 2016 at 12:56 pm
The so-called temperature series you show are politically-motivated works of science fiction. Put up the same chart with actual, observed data, rather than bent, folded, spindled and mutilated garbage mutated by ideological gate-keepers.
Do you really need me to list all the idiotic predictions of impending disaster from the ring leaders of the Castatrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism movement over the past 30 years?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/20/how-well-did-hansen-1988-do/
Who among those miscreants said in 1988 that the effect of CO2 was delayed until the 1970s by other factors? Climastrologists in the 1970s expected the world to keep cooling, as it had done since the end of WWII, despite steadily rising CO2.
Simon,you fail to realize that most of the IPCC climate models are junk because they are not testable or verifiable,as they mostly run to year 2050-2100 or even he he (yes this crap is in the IPCC report) year 3100!
Three short warming trends since the end of the LIA have been very similar,showing there is no acceleration in over all warming trend. There are NO increases in Tornado and Hurricane counts this century either.
Nye has no case when he keeps attacking those who do not agree with him, with ad hominems and name calling He idiotically keeps saying the science is settled when it NEVER really is, since there are always more research being published that improves understanding of something.
Sunsettommy May 24, 2016 at 1:38 pm
“Simon,you fail to realize that most of the IPCC climate models are junk because they are not testable or verifiable,as they mostly run to year 2050-2100 or even he he (yes this crap is in the IPCC report) year 3100!”
Meanwhile we are headed for our third straight record temp year. The arctic is in the worst shape in modern history and sea level rise is accelerating. If you are not worried now, let me ask, what would it take to question your position? I mean does being a skeptic require that you just sit there and recite the word “no”?
“Meanwhile we are headed for our third straight record temp year.”
Would that be based on actual recorded temps or adjusted figures?
“Would that be based on actual recorded temps or adjusted figures?”
Recorded temps. I said headed. There is a chance 2016 wont make it, but we are going to have to cool off really quickly.
Simon sez:
Meanwhile we are headed for our third straight record temp year.
Wrong, as usual. The global temperature record extends back well before Simon’s limited understanding. Global temperatures have been more than 10ºC higher in the past. Right now we’re at the cold end of global temperatures:
http://www.kogagrove.org/sams/agw/images/paleomap.png
Next, Simon sez:
The arctic is in the worst shape in modern history and sea level rise is accelerating.
Both wrong. The Arctic is fine, and sea level rise is not accelerating.
Simon digs his hole deeper:
If you are not worried now, let me ask, what would it take to question your position?
Maybe if even one of the scary and alarming predictions came true…
I mean does being a skeptic require that you just sit there and recite the word “no”?
No.
But Simon keeps ignoring the fact that skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on the climate alarmist cult to support their CO2=cAGW conjecture with credible evidence, or verifiable observations.
They have failed miserably. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening with global temperatures. Thus, the alarmist claims are falsified. QED
DB
Oh Hurrah!!!! Another cornflakes box, no label graph, from you. What a choice, who to believe, you or the science community?
Simon, What is your definition of “modern history”?
“Sailing from Tromsø, Norway, aboard the steam vessel Vega on July 21, 1878, he reached Cape Chelyushkin, Siberia, roughly the midpoint of his journey, on August 19. From the end of September until July 18, 1879, the ship was frozen in near the Bering Strait”
http://www.britannica.com/biography/Adolf-Erik-Baron-Nordenskiold
No icebreakers, no modern engines, no modern shipbuilding techniques. And less than 140 years ago.
“What a choice, who to believe, you or the science community?”
That implies that climatologists are just neutral, fact-oriented persons. But 90% of the students who chose to go into climate science were tree-huggers who wanted to “make a difference” by promoting their environmentalist belief that man’s impact on nature is bad. Or, it that wasn’t their belief to start with, it was after they’d been propagandized by their professors (or dropped out of the field, if they were skeptics).
“What a choice, who to believe, you or the science community?”
That implies that climatologists are just neutral, fact-oriented persons. But 90% of the students who chose to go into climate science were tree-huggers who wanted to “make a difference” by promoting their environmentalist belief that man’s impact on nature is bad. Or, it that wasn’t their belief to start with, it was after they’d been propagandized by their professors (or dropped out of the field, if they were skeptics).
Oh really? I thought they were all in it for the money. Because we all know there is huge amounts to be made.
Simon, “I thought they were all in it for the money. Because we all know there is huge amounts to be made.”
Shukla come to mind?
lee
I’ve met many scientists in my time, never met one yet who was in it to get rich.
Simon, The fact you haven’t met one doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
dbstealey:
?w=640
“Wrong, as usual. The global temperature record extends back well before Simon’s limited understanding. Global temperatures have been more than 10ºC higher in the past. Right now we’re at the cold end of global temperatures:”
And why have global temps been higher in the past?
Could that be because of orbital characteristics.
IOW: You post up a strawman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
“Both wrong. The Arctic is fine, and sea levels are not accelerating.”
Define “fine” and as SL is now rising at >3mm yr as opposed to ~2mm from 1925-1992 …
Bob Tisdale doesn’t agree with you even, never mind the professional experts.
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/are-you-new-to-the-global-warming-debate-james-hansen-admits-a-couple-of-things-about-global-temperatures-and-sea-levels-you-should-know/
“Maybe if even one of the scary and alarming predictions cam true…”
And what makes you think that the extreme consequences of AGW will happen soon – or even in your lifetime?
As logically they can’t as a large passage of time is required to achieve “alarming” .The film “The day after tomorrow” was fiction you know (and zero science). And so is the notion of alarming consequences, at least in your back yard, during what’s left of your’s and mine’s brief stay on the planet..
“The onus is entirely on the climate alarmist cult to support their CO2=cAGW conjecture with credible evidence, or verifiable observations.”
It has been to the satisfaction of those that are in the best position to come to that judgement, thanks. Reading contrarian blogs for your “science” and hand-waving gainsaying on here does not make you correct. And certinly not important in anyway.
“They have failed miserably. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening with global temperatures. Thus, the alarmist claims are falsified. QED”
That those that bizarrely think themselves more knowledgeable than the experts (either through D-K’ism or imaginings of incompetence of a whole profession, not to mention other Earth scientists, and/or of fraud) and inhabit the closed parallel world of ideologically driven bloggery think that to be the case is indeed exemplified here by you as QED.
Toneb,
Studies and links refuting your belief in accelerating sea level rise, and related claims:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001859
http://jsedres.geoscienceworld.org/content/66/3/632.abstract
http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/195/1/371.refs
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-hiding-decline.html
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0001-37652000000200011&script=sci_arttext
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X97002045
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock/MillerArctic.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589411001256
http://web.vims.edu/GreyLit/VIMS/sramsoe425.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1476.html
If the natural sea level rise suddenly began accelerating, it would be front page, top of the fold NEWS. But it isn’t. Sea level rise “acceleration” is found only in the minds of climate catastrophe believers. But this is the real world:
Sea level rise is not accelerating…
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/sea_level_rise_trends.jpg
…despite the wild-eyed predictions:
From the journal Nature: sea level rise is not accelerating:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/carousel/nclimate2159-f1.jpg
Sea level rise is not accelerating:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/29549l0.jpg
The Arctic is fine, and sea levels are not accelerating.
Simon says:
Valium? Restoril? Xanax?
Because here is wound up Bill Nye stating breathlessly that skeptics are “unpatriotic” and that a skeptical stance on alarmist claims is “denying science” and “inappropriate”:
It’s good that Simon and his fellow scientologists are stuck with Bill Nye.
Believe it or not I’m in a rush (you lucky reader, you). So I’ll keep this short (like Michael Mann) and sweet (unlike Michael Mann). Anyway, I saw Al Gore’s name pop up and that gives me the opportunity to prove CAGW doesn’t exist. How? Well, I haven’t read the brunt of it yet, but the headline to a news piece said that Al Gore expects the Donald to pursue Climate Change policies. There is only one reason – only one – for dear Al to make such a claim. And, that is due to long simmering animosity towards the Clintons. Rest assured he hates them and probably blames them for his failure to obtain the position of the most powerful man in the world: US President. Even to CAGW’s most ardent spokesman emotion trumps (oops) everything.
Do you think Al will vote for Hillary or Donald?
I guess he’ll stay home.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Al Gore voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, if, for not other reason than to get under Hillary’s skin (not literally: To my understanding even her internal
organs don’t like being under her skin).
However, everybody knows that with the Democratic Party’s deep respect for ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’ that Hillary’s desire to be the nominee will Trump (heh, heh) any desire the primary voters may show for Bernie.
Therefore, if Hillary’s leading in November Gore will vote for Trump. If Hillary’s trailing he’ll stay home and get a massage.
I had and do think Gore knowingly played his part in that sham of election that seen Bush win for POTUS, bogus election if ever I saw one
What was bogus about it?
Just because your boy didn’t win doesn’t make it bogus.
As to the election aftermath, I lived in FL at the time and got a front row seat.
Gore was trying everything in his power to over turn existing election law in order to steal the election.
The Supreme Court slapped him down by a vote of 7 to 2. The 5 to 4 vote was on the question of whether to order the state of Florida to do another whole state recount using different rules than those specified under the law. The majority felt that there was not enough time left to do so, since the electoral college was about to meet.
The most bogus event was the networks’ calling the state for Gore while people were still standing in line to vote in the Panhandle (Central Time), a GOP-heavy part of the state. Many dropped out of line and went home as a result.
Mark – Helsinki
“Sham election”? I’m gonna’ guess you’re unfamiliar with Chicago politics. Guess where the Gore camp went to for guidance? Yep, Chicago, Illinois. In presenting a case before the Florida Supreme Court one of the lawyers for Gore ‘remembered’ a similar case that had been decided by the Illinois Supreme Court and would set a precedent. The question at hand was whether a punch card could be counted as a valid vote if the candidate’s box had merely been dimpled but not punched thru. The lawyer ‘remembered’ that the IL Court ruled it could. But, he’d request a fax of the decision from a colleague in IL so as to make sure.
Well, guess what? The fax came alright. But, it sat in the tray of the fax machine. The lawyer’s legal secretary ‘forgot’ to retrieve it. Guess why? Because (as he knew all along) it contradicted the lawyer’s claim. The Florida Supreme Court gave a ruling the lawyer wanted based on the nonexistent IL Court precedent; the fax was retrieved – after the fact; and, oh well, the lawyer’s memory was wrong and nobody gave him the fax in time to correct his misguided assumption.
Cute.
Losing Florida didn’t cost Gore the election. Not winning his home state of Tennessee did.
The Broward and Palm Beach Democratically controlled election supervisors were casting votes for Gore in their HQs.
Judge Saul in Leon County correctly applied FL election law and Harris certified the election.
The liberal FL Supreme Court threw out the law forcing SCOTUS to step in.
By contesting the election, Gore empowered the subjective view that the rule of law is “unfair”. This has led to Ferguson, Baltimore, BLM, and the lunatic fringe of which climate morons are a leading contingent
If you are saying Gore said Trump would follow current Climate Change policies, I think that is not quite right.
I think what Gore said was he wasn’t sure how Trump would react on that subject, and former President Jimmy Carter said he thought Trump would be “Malleable”.
Trump says he doesn’t believe in CAGW, and I doubt he is going to go along with the climate change agenda. Gore and Carter are indulging in wishful thinking, because they probably can’t bear to think about what Trump is really going to do: Which is totally debunk their theory. At least, I think that’s what he is going to do.
Has Nye decided which climate we want when he stops it from changing? The one we have, according to him, is pretty dangerous.
Is it cruel to label him, Bill De-Nye?
However he like many of the Classic Cult, does more harm to his cause every utterance.
When Bill is all they have, it is closing time.
Ah, for the days of Mr. Wizard.
Years ago a parody of “Mr. Wizard” had the boy assistant expressing fear about helping with an experiment:
“Last week you burned me.”
Heh
I always liked Mr. Lizard
“We need another Timmy”
The bow tie is what makes it “science”.
I was a member of the Planetary Society for decades. In addition, I made donations for special projects like microphones on Mars probes, solar sails and more.
Left immediately after this dork became the CEO. I’m out for the duration of his tenure.
I was a member, too.
Not sure why they wanted Nye at the helm. I guess they thought he would be good for public relations.
I wonder what they think now?
I wonder what the Planetary Society thinks about global warming? I left the org before CAGW became a fad in the mass media, so I don’t know their opinion on the subject.
Preemptively, I acknowledge that Bill Nye is a M. Eng. graduate of Cornell, and apparently a “student of Carl Sagan” here. (There – that’s done!) That means, I suspect, that Nye was one of many hundreds of students who took Sagan’s class in Cornell’s largest lecture facility, Bailey Hall. Bailey Hall is famously known for the quip “Acoustics by God – Seats by Torquemada.” (Not a place to hear a Bruckner symphony – I did.) If Nye is, even today, able to sit in a normal chair, bet that he cut a lot of classes.
Even “acoustics by God” can’t save a Bruckner symphony from itself. At least the seats helped you stay awake to the end.
Ahhh – Michael – point well taken.
But one man’s bombast is another’s “edge of seat” exciting (a welcome shifting to the edge!). Symphony No. 8, Scherzo – a workout.
I suppose you’re right. To tell the truth, each time I tried to listen to Bruckner, I gave up after a few minutes, so I’m not even really qualified to comment. Couldn’t resist the opportunity though.
Speaking of “climate science is young and everything except settled, that we understand little of it” can anyone answer a question that I have for some time researched and asked, but never found an answer.
As a TEMPORARY dipole molecule, that only becomes polar with Van der Waals forces and supposedly spends approximately half the time as a non-polar molecule, what happens to the heat absorption capabilities and emissivity of CO2 as it varies between the two states? Does it instantly release its heat as it loses its dipole? Is it completely transparent to IR when it is non-polar? Is the temporary dipole perhaps why climate sensitivity to CO2 is often over estimated?
This from the ACS might help:
http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/greenhousegases/properties.html
It includes this sidebar:
All molecules have positive (nuclei) and negative (electron clouds) regions, A molecule is dipolar and has a permanent dipole moment, if the averaged centers of its positively and negatively charged regions do not coincide. If a vibrational motion of the molecule disturbs these averages, its dipole moment can change and an appropriate energy of IR radiation can be absorbed to cause this molecular vibration. As an example, consider the CO2 molecule. The more electronegative oxygen atoms attract electron density that makes the ends of the molecule slightly negative. The central carbon atom is therefore slightly positive, as represented in the diagram. Since the molecule is linear with equal bond lengths, the center of negative charge and the center of positive charge coincide at the central point, the carbon atom, and the molecule has no permanent dipole moment. The symmetrical stretching vibration, top representation, does not change this symmetry, does not change the dipole moment, and does not lead to IR absorption. The molecular bending vibrations, middle two representations, displace the negative charges away from the line of centers of the molecule and create a structure with a dipole moment. Thus, the dipole moment changes (from zero to some value) and these motions can be initiated by the absorption of IR radiation. This absorption gives rise to the prominent absorption band centered at about 15 μm. Likewise, for the asymmetric stretching vibration, bottom representation, the average bond lengths become unequal, which moves the positive and negative centers apart, creates a dipole moment, and leads to the IR absorptions at about 4 μm.
Thanks for the link, though they don’t go into many quantitative specifics, like the frequency of changes among these states and the state of having no molecular bend at all.
It seems a bit paradoxical, that they say CO2 does not react to IR in the stretched state, but reacts to 15 microns in the bent state and that the absorption of IR gives rise to this bent state — chicken and egg paradox.
Also, the molecule cannot exist in all of these states at once (I think), yet they show 100% absorption at the 4 and 15 micron bands as if it is never transparent to these wavelengths. Existing in 5 different states (symmetric, stretched, bent X 2, asymmetric stretching), yet always represented as behaving in all of these states simultaneously (100% absorption corresponding to the specific states) is the crux of my confusion. Is this a quantum mechanics issue?
You’re welcome, but it appears not satisfactorily to answer your question. Most of the best on line descriptions of the process are .pdfs to which I can’t link. But here’s a less technical one, with animations:
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Core/Physical_Chemistry/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Infrared_Spectroscopy/Infrared%3A_Theory
Thanks again. It will take a read through or two to absorb all that, but it appears that an answer can be deemed from understanding it.
It finally dawned on me when I realized WHY they are called normal modes. Not normal as in “typical”, but normal in a geometric sense. The vibrations are normal and independent of each other
I like Soon’s use of “scientism” and the guest blogger posting of this article.
Overall I am appalled by the ruins of science past populating the modern landscape of scientism. The scientismists scavenged components of their belief from science, and left the critical parts by the wayside.
The frame of mind necessary to allow this to happen is omnipresent in schools, political apparatus, higher institutions and in our churches. We are doomed.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientism
by golly, it is a word (noun def#2)
Most (with one or two exceptions) of –”ism”s are no good, meaning that the so called climate scientists are simply ‘practitioners of climatism’
Finally someone expresses my often voiced sentiments re De Grasse Tyson publicly, and nukes the Venus comparison.
The mission Nye has been handed is to brainwash people who grew up watching his show
It’s funny with Nye, any challenges to his science provokes a primitive response, you can literally measure it on his face
Rent-a-Court Jester could be the next Uber-type call service.
“First of all, we know that the relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last thirty years has not produced any large and significant global warming, just a meager ~0.2°C. “
I’m sorry, but do we KNOW that the “meager ~0.2°C. ” is directly attributable to the atmospheric CO2 rise?
I do not believe that we do.
Well said.
I don’t read it as a causal statement, just a sequential one.
Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmopshere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majoriety of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a so called greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science
I see Seattle’s “Speed Walker – Super Hero” is back in the news. Speedo is one of those people that is famous for being famous. Don’t be part of the problem.
I’ve been a deNyer for years
This sort of reminds me of a humorous incident I read about several years ago.
Some of the cast of the hit TV show “ER” were on a break and went to fast-food place across the street, in costume, to get something to eat.
One of the patrons began to choke on their food.
None of the actors dressed as Hospital Emergency Room staff knew what to do.
(Another patron did.)
The reason the story remains humorous and not a tragedy is that none of those actors pretending to be Doctors and Nurses pretended that they knew what to do just because they play one on TV.
They stood back and let the patron who actually did know do the “acting”.
Poor old Bill.
I’ll say this for the PuffHo though: they do at least appear to allow comments of all types.
But I get the impression most of them are main-lining absinthe.
I’ll elaborate.
PuffHo banned me two years ago.
Billy Nye, the science lie guy.
It is not all that complicated.
Q = U * A * dT rules them all.
More energy leaving ToA than entering results in cooling.
Less energy leaving ToA than entering results in warming.
There are several mechanisms/processes that influence that balance and +/- dT cooling/warming, e.g. albedo (+/- Q), precipitation, oceans (+/- Q), water vapor (+/- U), etc. some more powerful than others. CO2/GHGs (+/- U) are near/at the bottom of that list.
Mr. Nye is actually right in one very small but revealing detail in the title of his article Why I Choose to Challenge Climate Change Deniers.
Denier is defined in my dictionary (OED) as: One who denies a religion.
Says it all, doesn’t it?
I have this thing about making compulsory contributions to someone else’s religion. I’m against it. If it were voluntary, well, that’s my affair.
“By now, the proper scientific conclusion regarding the greenhouse effect role of the rising atmospheric CO2 is clear”
yes but what is not clear is a relationship between fossil fuel emissions and warming
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
According to Bow Tie Theory, people who choose to wear bow ties all the time are weird and cannot be trusted.
Bow Tie Theory is about as unsubstantiated as the ice free Artic except for the very likely
possibility that those that wear bow ties had sand kicked in their face and are in serious need of public attention caused by significant reduced Oxygen to the brain . Is oxygen a pollutant yet .? Come on EPA what is the hold up ? The stuff we breath in isn’t a pollutant but the stuff we exhale is ?
Welcome to that oh so science fiction world of you better wet your shorts because the earth has a fever .
Well at least it’s warming . What’s wrong with that ? Name one scientific organization that thinks global cooling is better than the warming cycle we are currently benefitting from . Oh yeah and vegetables are bad for you too .
Bill Nye is an idiot beyond help. The only thing that matters is to cut the obscene amount of money which generates these headlines, in the US budget, by at least 99% ASAP, and get out of every treaty, mandate, subsidy based on the scam.
That would bring the money in line with the skeptics’ financing, about $40m/year.
After that, another 99% / year cut, every year.
It seems to me that Bill is arguing the following .
Temps have risen
Co2 has increased
Sea levels have risen
The climate is changing
All of this we know are true but with Bill there is no devil in the detail a fact is a fact , I’m right you’re wrong nah nah na nah nah .
When you can’t get a word in to say (but ),his version remains the only version .
All the biggest warmists seem to use the IPCC as having proof and “evidence” when even they are no longer as sure as the once were and now place caveats on the predictions of their predictions .
But getting the Bil Nye’s of this world to shut up and listen will never happen we can only hope the CAGW crowd keep crying the sky is falling ,people are starting to doubt their doomsaying because the sky isn’t falling the ice isn’t gone the rich scientists keep buying sea front property.
Making a big thing over failed predictions does more to hurt their cause in my opinion .
Posting a cogent, reasoned and scientifically sound rebuttal to this piece would be like debating a spheroidal earth and Heliocentrism with FlatEarth-ers (www.theflatearthsociety.org); I know, I’ve tried. For every scientifically-sound point, they would counter with another ridiculous, scientifically unsound piece of pseudoscience, cooked up to support their truly indefensible position. No matter how sound the science or reasoning, they would come up with more nonsense and, with each iteration, the next becomes more absurd and ridiculous than the previous. In fact, the use of the word “Scientism” in this piece’s headline is quite similar to the use of that same word by FlatEarth-ers to discredit the “long-settled” science (in that case, that the Earth is not flat but spheroidal).
Read my response in its entirety here: https://astronomytopicoftheday.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/in-defense-of-sound-science-bill-nye-and-climate-change
“Read my response in its entirety here:”
From what I can tell your link above is glossy handwavium.
Please R&C on my earlier posts, point by point for each of the three.
1) An 0.5% fluctuation in the 46,713 Gt carbon balance amounts to bubkis.
2) 2 W/m^2 out of 340 +/- amounts to double bubkis.
3) Even IPCC admits their models are lacking.
It’s the fingerwaggium that makes it truly Siantific, it seems to me . .
to T. Madigan
Your linked post is very hard (too hard) to read: grey and dark blue on black. Can you fix that?
Bill Nye is to science what Bruce Jenner is to the fair sex. So, I suppose you could Nye a transcientist.
Bill Nye’s as much a scientist as I am a rocket engineer. I can whistle the tune but can’t write the score and I surely couldn’t conduct the orchestra.
Bill is a propagandist. A useful tool. Emphasis on TOOL.
Found the following on a WriterBeat thread I was following. Thought it was good example of the ground rules for effective debate and discussion.
1. Thou shall not attack a person’s character but the argument itself. (“Ad hominem”)
2. Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make it easier to attack. (“Straw Man Fallacy)
3. Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole. (“Hasty Generalization”)
4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. (“Begging the Question”)
5. Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (“Post Hoc/False Claim”)
6. Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities. (“Fake Dichotomy”)
7. Thou shall not argue that because of our ignorance that the claim must be true or false. (“Ad Ignorantiam”)
8. Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him who is questioning the claim. (“Burden of Proof Reversal”)
9. Thou shall not assume “this” follows “that” when “it” has no logical connection. (“Non Sequitur”)
10. Thou shall not claim that because a premises is popular, therefore, it must be true. (“Bandwagon Fallacy”)
Nicholas Schroeder,
Thanks for that. I’ve copied it. Sooner or later I’ll beat someone over the head with those logical fallacies. ☺
It isn’t climate “science” but it does seem relevant. It’s from the world of math, a solution/proof to/of a Conjecture has been found. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160525132837.htm
“….Nearly four decades after Seymour had his idea, the fight for its proof is still not over. Other researchers are now called to tear at it for about two years like an invading mob. Not until they’ve thoroughly failed to destroy it, will the proof officially stand….”
It sounds like actual science to me.