OK, so my art is a bit tongue in cheek. But it does fit the disaster theme of the topic.
This op-ed piece in the Herald Sun is interesting, because it touches on many of the points covered here on WUWT. This is the first time I’ve seen all these collected in one article in a major newspaper. Andrew Bolt routinely uses material from WUWT, and this is the first time I’ve been able to reciprocate. There are some truly unique points raised by Bolt that are indigenous to Australia that we haven’t discussed here, but they are valid for discussion nonetheless. In cases where we have covered a point on WUWT, I’ve made a footnote link [in brackets] – Anthony
From Andrew Bolt, The Herald Sun
Global Warming Alarmists Out in the Cold
April 29, 2009 12:00am
IT’S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever.
And that’s just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours – and all over our global warming alarmists.
Time’s up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.
Doubt it? Then here’s a test.
Name just three clear signs the planet is warming as the alarmists claim it should. Just three. Chances are your “proofs” are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming.And if your “proofs” indeed turn out to be false, don’t get angry with me.
Just ask yourself: Why do you still believe that man is heating the planet to hell? What evidence do you have?
So let’s see if facts matter more to you than faith, and observations more than predictions.
MYTH 1
THE WORLD IS WARMING
Wrong. It is true the world did warm between 1975 and 1998, but even Professor David Karoly, one of our leading alarmists, admitted this week “temperatures have dropped” since – “both in surface temperatures and in atmospheric temperatures measured from satellites”. In fact, the fall in temperatures from just 2002 has already wiped out a quarter of the warming our planet experienced last century. (Check data from Britain’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre.)
Some experts, such as Karoly, claim this proves nothing and the world will soon start warming again. Others, such as Professor Ian Plimer of Adelaide University, point out that so many years of cooling already contradict the theory that man’s rapidly increasing gases must drive up temperatures ever faster.
But that’s all theory. The question I’ve asked is: What signs can you actually see of the man-made warming that the alarmists predicted?
[ Ian Plimer, Temperature trends]
MYTH 2
THE POLAR CAPS ARE MELTING
Wrong. The British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last week confirmed ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.
Long-term monitoring by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports the same: southern hemisphere ice has been expanding for decades.
As for the Arctic, wrong again.
The Arctic ice cap shrank badly two summers ago after years of steady decline, but has since largely recovered. Satellite data from NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre this week shows the Arctic hasn’t had this much April ice for at least seven years.
Norway’s Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre says the ice is now within the standard deviation range for 1979 to 2007.
[Antarctic Ice Growth, Arctic Ice Recovery ]
MYTH 3
WE’VE NEVER HAD SUCH A BAD DROUGHT
Wrong. A study released this month by the University of NSW Climate Change Research Centre confirms not only that we’ve had worse droughts, but this Big Dry is not caused by “global warming”, whether man-made or not.
As the university’s press release says: “The causes of southeastern Australia’s longest, most severe and damaging droughts have been discovered, with the surprise finding that they originate far away in the Indian Ocean.
“A team of Australian scientists has detailed for the first time how a phenomenon known as the Indian Ocean Dipole – a variable and irregular cycle of warming and cooling of ocean water – dictates whether moisture-bearing winds are carried across the southern half of Australia.”
MYTH 4
OUR CITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN HOTTER
Wrong. The alleged “record” temperature Melbourne set in January – 46.4 degrees – was in fact topped by the 47.2 degrees the city recorded in 1851. (See the Argus newspaper of February 8, 1851.)
And here’s another curious thing: Despite all this warming we’re alleged to have caused, Victoria’s highest temperature on record remains the 50.7 degrees that hit Mildura 103 years ago.
South Australia’s hottest day is still the 50.7 degrees Oodnadatta suffered 37 years ago. NSW’s high is still the 50 degrees recorded 70 years ago.
What’s more, not one of the world’s seven continents has set a record high temperature since 1974. Europe’s high remains the 50 degrees measured in Spain 128 years ago, before the invention of the first true car.
MYTH 5
THE SEAS ARE GETTING HOTTER
Wrong. If anything, the seas are getting colder. For five years, a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs has been deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries.
Warming believer Josh Willis, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, reluctantly concluded: “There has been a very slight cooling . . .”
MYTH 6
THE SEAS ARE RISING
Wrong. For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.
That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon.
But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.
Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world’s most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years.
Venice is still above water.
[Sea Level in the Maldives, Sea Level satellite data]
MYTH 7
CYCLONES ARE GETTING WORSE
Wrong. Ryan Maue of Florida State University recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index.
His findings? The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.
The World Meteorological Organisation, in its latest statement on cyclones, said it was impossible to say if they were affected by man’s gases: “Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.”
[Ryan Maue and Hurricane energy, Hurricane landfall trends]
MYTH 8
THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS DYING
Wrong. Yes, in 1999, Professor Ove Hoegh-Gulberg, our leading reef alarmist and administrator of more than $30 million in warming grants, did claim the reef was threatened by warming, and much had turned white.
But he then had to admit it had made a “surprising” recovery.
Yes, in 2006 he again warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.
But he later admitted this bleaching had “minimal impact”. Yes, in 2007 he again warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were bleaching the reef.
But this month fellow Queensland University researchers admitted in a study that reef coral had once more made a “spectacular recovery”, with “abundant corals re-established in a single year”. The reef is blooming.
MYTH 9
OUR SNOW SEASONS ARE SHORTER
Wrong. Poor snow falls in 2003 set off a rash of headlines predicting warming doom. The CSIRO typically fed the hysteria by claiming global warming would strip resorts of up to a quarter of their snow by 2018.
Yet the past two years have been bumper seasons for Victoria’s snow resorts, and this year could be just as good, with snow already falling in NSW and Victoria this past week.
[New low temp record at Australian ski resort this year]
MYTH 10
TSUNAMIS AND OTHER DISASTERS ARE GETTING WORSE
Are you insane? Tsunamis are in fact caused by earthquakes. Yet there was World Vision boss Tim Costello last week, claiming that Asia was a “region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts”.
Wrong, wrong and wrong, Tim. But what do facts matter now to a warming evangelist when the cause is so just?
And so any disaster is now blamed on man-made warming the way they once were on Satan. See for yourself on www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm the full list, including kidney stones, volcanic eruptions, lousy wine, insomnia, bad tempers, Vampire moths and bubonic plagues. Nothing is too far-fetched to be seized upon by carpetbaggers and wild preachers as signs of a warming we can’t actually see.
Not for nothing are polar bears the perfect symbol of this faith – bears said to be threatened by warming, when their numbers have in fact increased.
Bottom line: fewer people now die from extreme weather events, whether cyclones, floods or blinding heatwaves.
Read that in a study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
[Going down – death rates due to extreme weather events]
So stop this crazy panic.
First step: check again your list of the signs you thought you saw of global warming. How many are true? What do you think, and why do you think it?
Yes, the world may resume warming in one year or 100. But it hasn’t been warming as the alarmists said it must if man were to blame, and certainly not as the media breathlessly keeps claiming.
Best we all just settle down, then, and wait for the proof — the real proof. After all, panicking over invisible things is so undignified, don’t you think?
I had high HOPE(s) that when OBAMA selected Steve Chu (Legitimate Nobel Prize in Physics — versus the Nobel Political Prize of AlGore and the IPCC — but I digress) to head DOE (ENERGY) that we would have some serious SCIENCE injected into the Obamanation underneath the Obamarhetorical pronouncements about AGW and Alternative Energy…..In other words… that despite his political leanings… that there might be a positive CHANGE…..;That the new President could Nixon-in-China-like go to Anwar and debunk AGW and support DRILLING for OIL and Building NUCLEAR plants……..And truth be told — we still might — yet so far there is no evidence of anything except more Obamahetoricalism……On the other hand I had serious concerns for the White House’s sanity when HE picked AGW True Believers for Chief Scientist (Holdren) and Enviro Advisor (Browner)…..Thus I FEAR that whatever good influence that might come from having a person with a serious science background heading the most science-centric of any cabinet department (ENERGY) in Chu (he is officially pro-nuclear after all) …will be buried by the babbling idiocy of (Browner / Holdren)…..So my question for the AGW True Believers of OBAMANATION is…….if we have Real CHANGE imposed from without (e.g. NO SUNSPOTS) for a significant period of time (DALTON MINIMUM II?) … what kind of FUTURE…other than COLD with associated BAD FARMING (and yes widespread FAMINE) can we HOPE for….Anyone for building a NEW STONEHENGE and resurrecting a temple or two your favorite mythological SUN GOD???
Alan Millar,
Good post. Of course you are correct. I have yet to see anything that would fit the definition of real world evidence showing that rises in CO2 causes global warming. The reason is simple and straightforward: there is no evidence.
As CO2 rises, the global temperature does not follow. Lately the planet has been cooling. That simple fact falsifies the entire CO2=AGW hypothesis.
And it cannot be repeated often enough that the long held theory of natural climate variability has never been falsified. The new AGW/global warming hypothesis has no real world foundation; all of its “evidence” comes from computer models programmed by people desiring a specific end result. That certainly is not real world evidence of anything.
Our planet is well within the parameters of past natural variability, and a change in a very *minor* trace gas, from <4 parts in ten thousand, to five parts per in thousand, will have no effect on temperature — which precedes rises in CO2.
If the planet’s temperature increased following a rise in CO2 levels, I would be re-thinking the CO2=AGW hypothesis. I go where the evidence leads.
The evidence leads to the conclusion that the effect of CO2 is extremely small to non-existent. It may be negative. The claim that CO2 causes a rising temperature is so flimsy — if not invented outright — that rational people must accept the fact that the hypothesis fails.
Brendan H (01:42:29) :
“According to this comparison, the long-term trend for GISS is similar to the trend shown by other agencies.”
Not really: click
Frank Lasner is right: “We just know, that even in the later year GISS temp data still have a more AGW-friendly trend than any other temp graph.”
The chart above proves it.
Brendan H (01:42:29) :
The graph http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/feb.gif
i have made by downloading most up to date datasets, so its the “state of art”.
Then you ask why it starts 2002. If it was started in the peak of heat 1998 (El Nino) or the low around 2000-01 (La Nina) i could better understand if you would question the begin time. Whats now wrong with 2002??
If you go back to 1997 on the other hand, RSS and UAH still show flat trend line. With GISS and Hadcrut you can only go around 8 and 10 years back and still have flat trend. This also demonstrates that GISS is more AGW-friendly never mind what you do.
You dont mention the HUGE corrections done to GISS data. Why not? Is it not relevant that perhaps half the global warming late 20th century in the GISS graph is in fact corrections??
“RW:
You keep on repeated the same falsehoods time and time again, unable to heed the actual data and treat it sensibly. You are not understanding even the concept of climate change, which can’t be measured over a decade unless it’s happening extremely rapidly. How many graphs have you dug up now of temperatures since 1998, or 2002, or whatever date in the last ten years? They are all meaningless”
You correctly insist on looking at the long term picture:
1) Earth temperature is rising (thank god) since the end of the LIA, approximately 1850.
2) When would you say that the CO2-content of the atmosphere started to rise significantly?
3) Therefore: Can 2) be the reason for 1) ?
For me the key questions are not: “Why do you believe that man is heating the planet?” or “What evidence do you have?”. The key questions are: How is it now possible for mankind to understand with certainty how this planets global climate works? What scientific breakthroughs occurred – and when did they occur?.
Right now the AGW debate strikes me as a modern version of the same mankind-centric viewpoint that Copernicus and Galileo had to contend with.
Smokey, I did not misquote you. The ‘misquote’ on the sun being the dominant factor was something I wrote higher up in the thread.
So when you say CO2 has a negligible effect, then what do you mean by negligible? Do you think, all else being equal, CO2 will cause a 1C rise in temperatures?
I am saying that CO2 may cause a 1C rise or a 2C rise, and that the current warming i being masked by a ‘colder’ sun. That CO2 will add to any solar warming another 1-2C. You seem to be undecided as to whether CO2 causes any warming, is that the case?
I have always found it odd that those who support the AGW theory choose to call those who do not Flat Earth theory believers.
After all, neither AGW or Flat Earth theory can point to a scientific breakthrough that proves conclusively that the theory is 100% correct. And neither theory can point to a test that proves conclusively that the theory is 100% correct – and that can be replicated by other scientist. But both theories can point to times in history when their belief was popular – if not proven.
Seems to me that the pro-AGW crowd has not given much thought to their taunt. Especially since no scientist actually believes in Flat Earth theory any longer.
Alan Millar (03:44:47) :
Thanks for the following gedanken experiment. I will add it to my armory:
“RW (10:29:46) :
“For some bizarre reason you keep on claiming there’s no evidence that CO2 could affect climate. Again, I’ve explained this to you, and while you cannot and do not argue, you simply refuse to accept it. Again, flat-earthism. CO2 is a strong infrared absorber (see eg. Tyndall, 1868). Strong infrared absorbers cause the greenhouse effect. Increasing the concentration of strong infrared absorbers causes temperatures to rise, inevitably.”
“Do you ever read scientific papers?”
Do you ever think for yourself? ”
Why do you and other people posting here, use this utterly simplistic statement of physics to justify AGW on the planet Earth?
I can also give a simplistic example of physics. Put the end of a bar of steel in a bowl of hot water and measure how long it takes the other end to warm up. Do the same with a bar of wood, lead, iron etc. You will soon see they all warm eventually but at different rates and you can draw conclusions that confirm a known law of physics.
Now put an inanimate cellular based object in the bowl and voila the same effect.
Now put your feet in the bowl and wait for your head to warm up. OOPS! What has gone wrong with the physics?
Nothing of course. However this physical law is now operating in a dynamic environment where the heat may trigger other processes within the object/system.
Unless you can confirm that you have an excellent understanding of all the possible significant connected processes within the Earths climate system (Sun, oceanic circulation, clouds, biomass response, albedo etc etc etc) and how changes in one might drive changes in others then how can you possibly predict the future?
“CO2 is a strong infrared absorber”
No it is not there is a small window in the infra-red.
If you are too dumb to understand the science, please explain why you peddle your zombied opinion.
Alan Millar plaintively asks: “Why don’t you answer my previous question?”
If you seriously wonder why I didn’t answer a question asking whether I am naive, a liar or deluded, you must be either have aspergers, autism or a brain tumour. Which is it?
Smokey: when will you stop posting irrelevant graphs? It doesn’t matter how many you produce! They are still completely irrelevant!
You still obviously can’t comprehend the significance of carbon isotope studies, and so your ideas about where the 40% rise in CO2 came from are laughable.
“I go where the evidence leads.”
Oh, you don’t. You don’t even understand what the evidence is, let alone where it leads. You don’t make any attempt to understand it, either. I know you won’t change your tune, no matter how overwhelming the evidence that you’re wrong. After all, you never commented on those papers that I linked to. You just repeated exactly the same nonsense, again.
“Lately the planet has been cooling”
Nope.
Frank Lansner: do you understand why raw data needs to be calibrated? Do you realise that all the major global temperature datasets are virtually identical during their common periods?
Alexej Buergin:
“When would you say that the CO2-content of the atmosphere started to rise significantly?”
I have no say in when it began to rise. The data tells us quite objectively. 1750. The answer to your question 3 is then quite clear.
lucky dog says:
I don’t think that is really the relevant way to phrase the question. After all, many people here seem very certain that even doubling or tripling or quadrupling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause very little effect. How are they so certain of this?
By contrast, the scientific community has worked very hard to understand the radiative effects of CO2, to understand the feedbacks in the climate system, to look at past climatic changes and see what they implied. And, what this evidence tells us is that increasing CO2 causes a significant radiative perturbation (that can be estimated to an accuracy of about 10%) and that, while there remains significant uncertainty in regards to how feedbacks come into play to produce the final effect, both our best understanding / modeling of these feedbacks AND the evidence of the past sensitivity of the climate to perturbations strongly suggest that the resulting feedbacks will produce a significant climatic effect. There is still, however, a considerable range of uncertainty as to the exact strength of these effects and regarding other things (such as the regional changes, how fast ice sheets will disintegrate, possible tipping points, etc.)
In light of this, what I find curious is more the reverse question of how people who are much less well-versed in the science nonetheless feel that they know with a high degree of certainty that the scientists are wrong and to be so confident that a complex nonlinear system that has shown a strong past sensitivity to perturbations is going to behave in such a tame way with the perturbation that we are applying to it.
That is a red herring. No scientific theory can be proven 100% correct. Science is inductive and thus uncertainty is inherent to science. Science is about the accumulation of evidence, not proof. If you want 100% certainty and absolute proof, stick to a deductive logical system like mathematics. Unfortunately though, mathematics doesn’t tell us anything about the real physical world. (It can and has been very successfully applied to study the physical world, but that again relies on inductive steps in making the jump from the mathematical description to the physical world being described.)
RW (12:58:55) :
“Alan Millar plaintively asks: “Why don’t you answer my previous question?”
If you seriously wonder why I didn’t answer a question asking whether I am naive, a liar or deluded, you must be either have aspergers, autism or a brain tumour. Which is it?”
I take it, therefore, that you are not claiming that you have an excellent understanding of all the possible significant connected processes within the Earths climate system (Sun, oceanic circulation, clouds, biomass response, albedo etc etc etc) and how changes in one might drive changes in others.
Therefore why are you claiming that you can predict the future direction of climate change with a high degree of certainty?
I have already illustrated that the main evidence that you are relying on are nonsense ie
1. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and therefore increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, a priori, leads to higher temperatures.
Can only be true if you have that understanding I have previously mentioned.
For instance it would take me pure minutes to describe a planetary climate system where increasing CO2 levels, beyond a certain level, would have a negative effect on planetary temperatures.
2. The GCMs are a match for global temperatures from 1975 – 2000 after being retrofitted to be so.
I have already pointed out that they are a mismatch from 1910 – 1970 and for the 21st Century to date.
Unless you can post evidence showing that you, or some other named person, has solved all the significant issues in the climate system as per point one and that you can post proven hypothesis which closes the discord in the models and observed Global Temperatures as per point two then you should stop posting what is pure speculation not scientific fact.
Alan
Smokey: “Not really: click”
Eleven years is not a long-term trend.
Frank Lasner: “Whats now wrong with 2002??”
What’s right with it?
“If you go back to 1997 on the other hand, RSS and UAH still show flat trend line.”
According to the UK Met Office, the “latest decade” (1998-2007) shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. And that’s taking the high point as the starting point.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact2.html
“RW:
“When would you say that the CO2-content of the atmosphere started to rise significantly?”
I have no say in when it began to rise. The data tells us quite objectively. 1750. The answer to your question 3 is then quite clear.”
Did you notice that the ordinate of your curve starts at 270 ppm, which makes the changes look much bigger than they are? That the value in 1850 is about the same as in 1500, when the LIA began, so if the curve stops there it is just a horizontal line?
But of course I should have defined “SIGNIFICANTLY” (2.5 SD ?). And I should have asked “significantly OVER THE MEAN”.
Joel Shore,
AGW theory is not even in the running for validity. It is politics highjacking climate science.
It is is enviro-extremsits attempting to highjack just about everything.
You can dissemble all you want- and you do dissemble rather well.
But the article this blog thread is based on cannot be factually countered by you. or any other AGW believer for the simple reason you have no facts available to do so.
The predictions of AGW have failed.
In real science, you go back and test again.
In politics, which AGW is, you tell people the issue is settled. That is the only argument AGW community has, and the only argument the community has ever had.
hunter says:
No, what is politics attempting to hijack science is the attempt by some to attack well-grounded scientific theories because acceptance of these theories would tend to lend strong support for actions that are hated by certain people because of their political philosophies (and/or, in some cases, economic self-interest). Fortunately, however, science is not easy to hijack because scientists are hard to dissuade from the scientific evidence and because we have systems in place like peer review and organizations in place like the National Academy of Sciences to provide good assessments of the science and to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.
Joel Shore,
When your side makes predictions that fail to come true, you lose.
Just like with eugenics and its fantasy interpretation of evolution, AGW makes bogus interpretations of how the physics of things like CO2 works.
Just like eugenics, your predictions do not work. Just like eugenics, you only prevail by selling AGW to decision makers, by tricking them into accepting the misrepresentation of consensus and the lie that the science is settled.
Your side predicted storms- you failed.
Your side predicted heat- you failed.
Your side predicted no ice- you failed.
Stop confusing climate science with AGW.
It only damages the real science.
And since the AGW is a pernicious popular delusion, the inmates have taken over the asylum.
The AGW community now has to resort to PR firms to rename its damaged brand. And that is in the face of every single media outlet being a stooge supporting AGW.
People are not as stupid as Hansen and the rest of the AGW promoters need them to be: They still look at the weather, and they still know the smell of used cow food when they smell it.
As a published research scientist in the field of perinatology, I am hardly qualified to speak to the complex science of climatology. However, I am qualified to look at the body and quality of “evidence” offered in both sides of the AGW debate. Being a concerned lay-environmentalist, I have diligently poured over both accounts for the past 10 years or so. In that quest I offer the following observation of the debate:
Scientists, by nature, are skeptics. We test the hypothesis without prejudice to the alternate hypothesis because the alternate hypothesis is necessary to prove or disprove the hypothesis. The science of AGW is the only science that summarily rejects the alternate hypothesis as inconvenient and considers advancing knowledge as having arrived too late to be permitted its contribution. The unfortunate politics of AGW has done more to discredit the reputation of science before the public than to prove anything that can be held as knowledge.
I remain a skeptic in the tradition of science although I am open to new evidence that may convince me.
Joel Shore, the Mann hockey stick passed peer review. Do you think that was good science?
How about a later work by Mann, also peer-reviewed, in which he turned a proxy upside-down? http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5766
RW is Johnny One Note about the dozens of graphs from numerous different sources that I’ve posted here: he is still claiming that every graph is wrong, every single one of them, and that none of them are credible, and that the planet is heating fast — and to prove that, he posted a made up chart of his own from that bastion of home-made cherry picked graphs, woodfortrees. [Which is a fine site, but prevaricators can make their home-made charts show anything at all. It’s easy. Even Dan Rather could do it.]
People on an even keel might argue that one or two or even three charts out of a couple of dozen have problems. That would be reasonable in a debate.
But when someone says they’re all wrong, every single one of them; that none of them can possibly be right — and here’s my own home made chart that I personally ginned up right now that refutes everything… well then, their mind is made up and shut tight. CD will do that to a person.
I also notice that RW is always out of step from everyone else. Must be a self esteem issue or something. He has my sympathy. I understand that CD is incurable.
People go to the woodfortrees chart RW linked. Change the date to 1998.0 and you’ll see a sharp downward trend.
Joel Shore (18:29:07) :
Fortunately, however, science is not easy to hijack because scientists are hard to dissuade from the scientific evidence and because we have systems in place like peer review
You really believe that peer review is sufficient, don’t you? Wow. I guess, by that standard, Matt Bennett would say you have a lot of experience with peer review, hehe. Sit in on ONE real engineering design review and your view will change forever.
and organizations in place like the National Academy of Sciences to provide good assessments of the science and to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.
Hehe, you ought to see what Richard Feynman said about the NAS and why he resigned. They are not the gatekeepers of science – science protects itself all on its own.
Mark
“Hehe, you ought to see what Richard Feynman said about the NAS and why he resigned. They are not the gatekeepers of science – science protects itself all on its own.”
Science is protected by stubborn old buggers like us saying, “Don’t say ‘trust me’ explain to me”
Obviously since those that support AGW know that they’re lying they cannot explain how they made up their data and its processing.
The internet has taken peer review to a whole new level, so with the BS exposed and the world cooling, the death-throes of AGW are upon us.
Incidentally, isn’t it nice of them to hold Copenhagen in winter? If it’s really cold Russia will fiddle with the gas because their contracts are by volume and a -20C pipeline is good value for the buyer.