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.
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.
———–
This quote from the article shows that Byrne does not understand the significance of the CLOUD experiment.
Or the position of climate skeptics with respect to this experiment.
@FredT says:
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?”
You don’t know how clouds can impact weather, warming or cooling all depending, and therefor climate? Hah, that’s a bit steep for someone complaining over other people not knowing the science. :p
HankH says:
August 30, 2011 at 5:39 pm
>…The fact is the CERN experiment confirms the cosmic ray connection to the creation of nucleation mode aerosols (particles 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).
All cloud particles start of as molecules, usually of H2S and it is ridiculous for them to say ‘they are too small’. Good grief.
>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.
It is not true they are ‘too small’. Those are the weasel words they used to try to get away from the fact that clouds are far more important than CO2 in temperature regulation. CCN are what rain drops are made of. Crikey what are they trying to foist on an ignorant public?
It is a fact that CCN created by GCR’s in air are smaller than CCN’s formed in supersaturated air triggered by a molecule or dust particle. It is for that very reason they are MORE influential than regular CCN’s. They are slightly charged electrically and gently avoid each other so they take longer to agglomerate. The consequance is that clouds of GCR-CCN’s last longer and reflect more light for more hours before becoming big drops and falling. In other words, GRC-induced CCN’s have more influence per particle than ‘natural’ ones. There is a paper around dealing with this.
>CERN does well to stick to stating what they discovered and not extrapolate fodder for the AGW debate.
Exactly.
>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.
That is why they said they need big funding for 5 years to investigate the possiblity that this GRC-CCN business night lead to something that might have an influence on the climate, not that it will displace CO2 as the major influence on temperature, of course. Rent seeking.
I prefer the term “corruption deniers”. We don’t know for sure which way the long-term temperature trend is going — but we do know which side is doing honest science, and it isn’t the alarmists.
I was accepting their statement that the GCR’s were too small and looking strictly at a secondary mode by which the GCR’s would still participate in cloud or ice crystal nucleation (CCN). So, if I’m understanding your analysis, and it seems to make sense, there exists two modes – direct, which they were quick to underplay, and indirect, which they avoid discussing altogether.
Their strategy to not step on AGW land mines and “innocently” pursue further funding is the savvy approach considering that anything they say beyond what they are already saying can only backfire.
Opposite to “deniers” is “believers” or “members of the AGW congregation”
Mr. G. Karst – Please read my post carefully.
First of all it is your UNDERSTANDING of what I’m trying to communicate which is the problem.
The BIO tissue in a irradiated “meat package” is DEAD MEAT! Thus the co-polymerase enzeme which corrects radiation damage is NOT a work. Thus the accumulated dose effect IS the same, whether that dose is given in 10 hours, 100 hours, or 300,000 years. NOTHING REPAIRS THE DAMAGE. What you have alluded to is the “non-linear response” of biological systems to radiation exposure. A tremendous “sticking point” with regard the application of “Nuclear Power” for the last 50 years. The NRC evaluates dose effects presuming the “linear hypothesis”, i.e., equal effects down to zero dose. FOR LIVING SYSTEMS I regard this as WRONG as you have pointed out in your post. (Point of total agreement…go Nuclear!)
However, AGAIN, I’m refering to the radiation/chemical bond breaking which occurs with every high energy cosmic ray, which (in a static organic compound sample) accumulates with time and IS NOT rectified by “living biological processes”. (Therefore is not dependent on dose rate.)
I stand by what I wrote. It is NOT full of “errors”. It is your assessment (not nothing the nature of accumulated radiation effects on STATIC, non-living systems, versus the effects on LIVING systems) is at the core of this problem. Please try to understand this.
Max Hugoson:
Yes, I am having difficulty understanding what you are actually saying. Perhaps it is because you are using the wrong units. Rem is a biological unit (replaced by sievert; 1 rem = 0.01 Sv) The unit you want is is a measure of the energy deposited in a medium by ionizing radiation per unit mass – the Rad (radiation absorbed dose) (R) replaced by the SI gray (Gy) unit.
At least now we are on the same page, and yes, radiation will chop long chained molecules. If that is what you are saying, sorry. GK
Source:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/014900.html