I think this was directed squarely at Joe Romm and his band of TPers. One of Romm’s favorite put downs is “anti-science”, a label he uses with abandon. This opinion piece appeared in the Chicago Tribune today to wide circulation. It’s pretty strong stuff.
The real science trashers
Today I am writing about religion. Specifically, about those who worship in the Church of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. More specifically, about those who, as a matter of faith, believe that the science of climate change is settled.
These believers preach that mankind is steering the planet onto an irreversible and cataclysmic course unless we do something. They have engaged in a clever ploy of labeling those who disagree with their dogma as “deniers” and “anti-science.” When actually they’re the ones trashing science.
Let’s take the latest scientific research that demonstrates, again, that the science of climate change is too complex to lend itself to simplifications and claims of “consensus.”
read the whole essay here
======================================================
The concept of a “science trasher” fits Romm perfectly, who is paid by a political organization (Center for American Progress) to spout invective daily.
I’m sure Josh can do something with this.
Tip of the day: When someone asks whether you have read the article in question, check to see whether you have in fact done so before responding.
Byrne: “The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence. On the other hand, concluding that the experiment stops far short of proving that man-made greenhouses cause global warming doesn’t make one “anti-science” or a “denier.”
How precisely, Robert M or RockyRoad, is the CERN experiment “an early step in the chain of evidence” for global warming?
When skeptics go all gooey-eyed for someone who clearly doesn’t know anything, it really reduces their credibility. Lift up your game, people!
RockyRoad, You do realise that sub 100 nanometer sized aerosols are even more ‘trace’ than ‘trace greenhouse gases’. How could something so small possibly make a difference to global climate?
“The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence. On the other hand, concluding that the experiment stops far short of proving that man-made greenhouses cause global warming doesn’t make one “anti-science” or a “denier.” It’s just the give and take of science”
As FredT has pointed out. This certainly sounds like CERN is providing evidence to prove, not disprove AGW.
FredT, you are familiar with Svensmark’s theory, right? It is the proposed answer to your questions.
tobyglyn says: This certainly sounds like CERN is providing evidence to prove, not disprove AGW.
——————-
Of course, man has a computer program designed to control the sun ramping up and down at our disposal. What you really need to see is the brilliant Apple computer app that controls the stars and their cosmic rays striking Earth’s atmosphere making clouds – $24.99 Canadian.
Dennis Byrne August 30, 2011 – The Chicago Tribune
Today I am writing about religion. Specifically, about those who worship in the Church of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. More specifically, about those who, as a matter of faith, believe that the science of climate change is settled.
We may have a long time to wait for the cult to die . Ptolemy’s view of an earth-centric universe lasted from about AD 150 and this was adopted by the Catholic church and held sway for 1400 years. Copernicus revived the work of Aristarchus and described a sun-centric solar system in 1543.. When Galileo noted by obsevation that Copernicus was right he was tried for Heresy (in 1633) and for thinking that: “that one may hold an opinion after it has been declared and defined as contrary to the Holy Scripture”. He was found guilty and confined to house arrest for life. The scary part is that it took until 1992 for the Catholic Church to admit it was wrong, in spite of 359 years of evidence supporting Galileo. If this cult follows a similar track then Saint Gore (as he will surely become) has until 2370 without needing any evidence of, or effects from, Global Warming before he will have to apologise for his mistake. I am sure he will become immortal or a staue of him will shed bloody tears in the pattern of, “Sorry Guys!” His 12 apostles will go forth and spread the word of Gore to the four corners of the Earth, (we’ll talk about whether the Earth is a sphere, flat plate, or a cube, later). Trenberth, Briffa, Jones, Lockwood, Mann, Schmidt, Romm, Cook, Hansen, Weaver, Thompson, Miller, all clutching their “Climate Reality Project” bibles (C.R.a.P. for short). I wonder who will be their Judas and crack first?
Science is a successful way of understanding things and thereby making it possible to obtain values from things.
Whenever success is observed by an incompetent, he may mimic it to obtain a status unachievable by merit. Mimicry is one of natures strategems for survival.
Because a scientist is associated with lab.coats and math, then, successful mimicry requires at least that. Implants are only for the truly committed.
When a position is acquired by mimicry rather than merit, of course, the results are… interesting.
(Would it be unseemly to mention that such things could not exist without generous plunder – er, funding – i mean, it might make those responsible for hiring the charlatans and paying the bills feel a little uncomfortable if they ever were struck with a sense of responsibility – ah- never happen…lol)
Among the luminaries of pseudo science through recent history, we have – and i won’t name any Germans, mmk?
honors to Dr John Cutler, Wellesley College ,U.S. Public Health Service. Your tax dollars at work.
http://news.yahoo.com/panel-reveals-details-1940s-experiment-012040543.html
So far as I am aware, there have been no multimillion dollar settlements over this. Somebody took no responsibility and then proceeded to do damage and then proceeded to fuggedaboudit. Dr. John certainly had no thought of returning his paychecks or fixing the damage. Oopsie.
Anything related to sex is a good bet for funding. Another cute oopsie by mock-scientists is known as The Tuskeegee Experiment. In 1974, a $10 million out-of-court settlement was reached. As part of the settlement, the U.S. government promised to give lifetime medical benefits and burial services to all living participants. What fun when a sense of mock-responsibility springs to life. That required a panel of inquiry. Panelists are funded too, eh.
This gets to be big business, eventually, but that’s getting ahead of the story. Gotta love how many jobs were provided by the science.mimicry industry, eh.
Eventually, this tale arrives at the awesomely ambitious, well organized AGW hoax whose prize was trillions of dollars of derivatives, monopolization of all energy supplies and unlimited power over people. This was at least 3 orders of magnitude higher grasping than Dr. Evil could conceive. The mind boggles at numbers with 4 commas.
Flashback to – founding fathers time –
The declaration of independence griped about “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”
I’ve heard it said that this is the legitimate purpose of government! Regardless, it’s the only result that can be obtained. It’s happening again – but this time in the name of ‘science’.
Maybe “Trashers” would be a good name for them (CAGW Believers), for not only trashing real science, but, by forcing energy prices up, trashing economies, and by forcing their lies on children and on freedom-loving people worldwide, trashing democratic principles. Through their hatred of “carbon”, the basis for life, and C02, which plants love they trash the environment and life itself.
Sorry Robert M and others, but I’m Afraid FredT is dead on right with this one.
from the Byrne article
“The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, [b]although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence.[/b] On the other hand, concluding that the experiment stops far short of proving that man-made greenhouses cause global warming doesn’t make one “anti-science” or a “denier.” It’s just the give and take of science.”
While Byrne may have the facts about what the CLOUD experiment did right, he seams to have gotten what it is supposed to prove completely backwards.
Remember, Just because you agree with someones Opinion, don’t assume they got to that opinion correctly. It looks to me like Byrne didn’t really understand what CLOUD was all about and is just repeating what he’s heard from others.
That’s odd, I could have sworn I’d seen others use Bold Tags before. Maybe I’m just doing it wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
[Use angle brackets, not square brackets. ~dbs, mod.]
Consensus is not a scientific term. Experiments and measurements either prove your hypothesis or they don’t, it’s really that simple.
Consensus is a political word.
There is considerable argument about what the CERN experiment does or does not point to with respect to global warming. The fact is the CERN experiment confirms the cosmic ray connection to the creation of nucleation mode aerosols (particles < 0.1μm).
While it is stated that the aerosols are too small to directly result in cloud nucleation, what isn't stated is to what degree the created aerosols will coagulate such that they transform into particles that can participate in cloud nucleation as it is well known that aerosols of this size will coagulate into larger particles and some 80% of nucleation mode aerosols are soluble (hygroscopic – capable of participating in cloud nucleation). To say they're too small to create clouds, while it may be true, avoids having to draw attention to the fact that nucleation mode aerosols do mix, bind, and grow into larger particles capable of doing so.
CERN does well to stick to stating what they discovered and not extrapolate fodder for the AGW debate. They're already facing significant loss of funding and don't need to pour gas (petrol for the good folks across the pond) on the funding fire.
http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~markl/pp/
glen martin says:
August 30, 2011 at 11:21 am
i believe we need a term for the panic-stricken CAGW believers, a counterpart to deniers.
I propose wetters
That term won’t stick. We do have a term, “alarmists.” but if you want the same degree of invesctive, I think “hysterics” appropriate.
“Climate change hysterics” implies fanatics who have totally lost it. And that is the case.
Thanks, Anthony! Dennis Byrne was formerly with the Chicago Sun-Times, and then he moved across town to the larger (more conservative) paper, the Chicago Tribune. He hints at local Chicagoland events, including our loss of the Superconducting Super-Collider project during the Pres. GHWB years (I was assisting the Illinois congressional delegation on this back in 1986), and the fact that our Fermilab is twisting in the wind now that the Tevatron accelerator is set to shut down. He’s one of our best editorial writers in this town, always hard-hitting. And no, he doesn’t work for Big Oil!
Byrne says:
Prof. Lindzen spoke about this very topic to Fermilab scientists during his excellent colloquium, please see “The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming” archive video at http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/colloq/Past_09_10.html
(Lindzen wasn’t the most popular guy in the auditorium that day, believe me!) Shorter clips are also on Youtube.
Unfortunately, “anti-science” is a very common tag to throw at someone when you don’t have the brains to grapple with the arguments or the desire to actually understand the opposing position. There might in fact be some people who are anti-science, but typically the tag is used as a purely rhetorical tool.
For those looking for a term for the Alarmists – I’ve been using Chicken Little with great success
Hoser says on August 30, 2011 at 12:13 pm:
… They get about a dime per post. …
Wow … where do I/does one apply?
.
FredT says on August 30, 2011 at 2:47 pm:
“RockyRoad, You do realise that sub 100 nanometer sized aerosols are even more ‘trace’ than ‘trace greenhouse gases’. How could something so small possibly make a difference to global climate?”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Hint: “seed”. (In contrast to CO2 which is not)
.
No evidence that brings “evolution” into question. Interesting. Of course the “hinge pin” is geoloical continuity, and the “age of the Earth”, etc.
I will just throw this out for thought: Certainly cosmic radiation at about 400 mili-Rem per year, has been constant. 2006, “Discovery Magazine”, Article: “Dangerous Discovery”. About finding
“soft tissue” in T-Rex bones. (I believe there has been DNA extracted since then, NOT very much intact, but identifiable. Also evidence to show it NOT a “contaminent” of any sort.)
Last time I checked, 10,000 REM will sterilize meat and allow you to keep a sample of say, turkey meat, in a sealed polymer bag for 35 years…and still be edible. (ALL bacteria gone.)
But 100,000 REM? Causes the “soft tissue” (so to speak, the meat) to break down to CO2, H2O, O2, N2, some nitrogen compounds, etc.
Thus T-Rex (hang on to your hat) is less than 300,000 years old. Not 270,000,000 years, or standard geological dating.
Re: My preceding comment – Radiation interaction with organic matter does not much care about the “dose rate”, but rather “total dose”. Thus there is no difference between 100,000 REM in 10 hours or 100,000 REM in 300,000 years. The accumulated radiation damage to organic compounds is the same. (And, for those with no nuclear background, or historical knowledge, back in the “good old days” of the AEC (Atomic Energy Commision), before we made our FIRST corporate/societal step backward into the STONE AGE by deciding to be “fearful” of all things “nuclear”…(our second step backwards, being fearful of FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY!)..the AEC did a marvelous number of studies on all things nuclear, and nuclear dose wise…for materials, from metals to mice and men.)
“Curious – nowhere in Byrne’s bio page does it mention him being employed by Big Oil…”
The “funded by big oil” argument needs to be put in its rightful place.
Has a plaintiff ever objected that the defense counsel is funded by the accused?
Perhaps they would prefer that “big oil” hire Darryl Hannah as spokesperson?
When the EU pissed off the Russians the Russians merely shut off their natural gas and Europe froze in the dark and European economies came to a screeching halt.
Sorry Wil, but that’s unadulterated bollocks.
Actually that is a big part of the problem. It is very rare that you can prove a theory. Most experiments try to disprove the theory. If, after suitable attempts, nobody has disproven the theory, we may take a certain level of confidence that it is correct.
To prove a theory, you generally need to demonstrate that it works in all cases. To disprove it, you need just one case where it fails.
Unfortunately, it is hard to nail down specific components of CAGW to test. e.g.
If, by year X, [some measure of temperature ] is not Y then CAGW has failed.
If, by year Q, sea level at place R is not more than S, then CAGW has failed.
etc.
We need statements like that to attempt to falsify.
There is just too many errors in your comment to correct.
Here is why:
100,000 rem/10hrs=10,000 rem/hr ==>This will cause you to fall down and do the chicken(dead)
100,000 rem/ 2629746000 Hours(300000 Years)=0.000026 rem/hr=26 micro rem/hr==>no biological damage detectable in man (dancing, singing and laughing).
Rem is abbreviation for roentgen-equivalent-man. It is the tissue (cellular) damage in man caused by the equivalent ionizing deposition of 1 roentgen gamma or x-ray energy if you prefer.
Background radiation is about 300 millirem/yr or 0.034 millirem/hr or 34 microrem/hr
Seems like, you may be trashing science. GK
FredT,
Byrne thinks that the CERN experiments are designed to work out if greenhouse gases are affecting climate, and that their ambiguity means that we still don’t know if there is a greenhouse effect
Byrne: “The CERN experiment does not point directly to man-made greenhouse
gases as the cause of global warming, although it is reasonable to believe that it is an early step in the chain of evidence.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
The ‘greenhouse effect’ is not synonymous with ‘global warming’.
Greenhouse gas emissions alone would have a tendency to cause ‘global warming’ but, for instance, that warming effect could be canceled out by negative feedback effects and the observed warming since say 1850 due to unrelated factors– who knows?
Byrne: “..I’ve brought up the CERN experiment not to debunk the positions of one side or the other in the global warming debate, but to illustrate the uncertainty of science, especially how one discovery leads only to more questions, further uncertainty and deeper research. That especially includes climate science, whose variables are so numerous and complex that it takes a supercomputer to try to model the climate…”.
Sounds reasonable to me.