I have other projects to do this weekend, so I’m taking off.
Moderation may be minimal or non-existent at times, so if your comment takes a long time to appear, don’t take it personally. In the meantime, please consider this poll.
I can’t fit the entire question into the poll header, so here it is in full:
If one existed, would you join a professional organization dedicated to offering an alternate to organizations like the American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc if this organization offered a peer reviewed journal, reasonable dues, and a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science?
This stems from a conversation I had about three weeks ago, and this weekend seemed like a good time to ask the question.
I am not technically capable of refuting this but I thought some of you here would enjoy reading what we are subject to once a month in our local paper.
http://pressrepublican.com/0205_columns/x1914777312/Climate-change-no-longer-a-puzzle
Alexander Feht,
That should be A.L Peratt, not Perrat. Must enter names in the spell checker, dyslexia is no flum
tedsunday says:
May 6, 2012 at 3:33 am
I am not technically capable of refuting this but I thought some of you here would enjoy reading what we are subject to once a month in our local paper.
http://pressrepublican.com/0205_columns/x1914777312/Climate-change-no-longer-a-puzzle
I see the author of the article is a chemist NOT a climatalogist. That speaks volumes, I am just as qualified to speak on this subject ( I have a degree in Dentistry).
I think common sense tells us that an increase in CO2 concenrtration of 0.00010% is not going to make a jot of difference to the climate. It was a lot higher in the past and there was no runaway greenhouse effect then, when it was much higher and there won’t be now or in the forseeable future.
Julian Braggins says:
May 6, 2012 at 12:57 am
Luther Wu says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm
I’ll take the opportunity of this open thread to ask you to:
Please add your computer’s unused power to the efforts to find cures for Alzheimer’s and many other diseases which result when the proteins in our bodies are malformed, or are said to mis- fold.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You would be interested in Dr Mary Newport’s experience with coconut oil (non hydrogenated) with her husband who has Alzheimers. His mental capacity improved markedly within hours on the standard tests, and last I heard was doing fine. Based on research that was abandoned because it was not patentable. A search with her name and Alz. and coconut oil will bring up the news stories.
Not a preventative, but restores connections that are lost.
===
Hadn’t heard about coconut oil. Tumeric is well-known as preventative:
http://www.wellnesstrader.com/evidence/Turmeric-Alzheimers
“Turmeric and Alzheimers
Diets rich in curcumin–a compound found in the curry spice turmeric–may help explain why rates of Alzheimer’s disease are much lower among the elderly in India compared with their Western peers.
Alzheimer’s disease is characterized by the buildup of amyloid protein “plaques” within the brain. In studies in rats, curcumin “not only reduces the amyloid, but also reduces the (brain’s) response to the amyloid,” according to researcher Dr. Sally Frautschy of the University of California, Los Angeles.
…
In view of its efficacy and apparent low toxicity, this Indian spice component shows promise for the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease.”
“Curcumin may not be the only compound in the kitchen spice rack able to ward off Alzheimer’s. In an interview with Reuters Health, Frautschy said that “chemicals from rosemary (rosmarinic acid) and ginger (vanillin and zingerone, also high in Indian diets) have similar structure and should be tested.””
&
http://www.heartspring.net/alzheimers_turmeric.html
————-
Other studies have found that tumeric’s efficacy is boosted some 15 times by the addition of black pepper. Tumeric also well-known as anti tumour cure, tested and used for prostrate cancer, further research ongoing, but tardy…, not patentable.
http://www.easyhealthoptions.com/alternative-medicine/turmeric-fights-tumors/
jon shively says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm
No, I would not. A scientific journal should favor seeking scientific trurth and not promoting a favored position on a political issue implied by the science. We need to support those organizations that care about the truth revealed by use of scientific principles and their correct application and that do not promote one side of the climatology.
========================================================
Gee jon, the fact that a very one sided no opposing views allowed and full on political bias, as well as etremely biased funding suppliers, makes what we have now Nothing like science, truth, or impartial truth seeking, but you would say no? to anyone trying to provide that.
wow.
guess your a believer then?
MODS HELP!!! I also have suddenly copped influx to mail and did NOT hit the notify on follow ups.
I notice its preticked just now.
needs to be UNticked and a chose to, as usual.
[REPLY: It’s some !@ur momisugly#$%^!!! new WordPress “feature” and we can’t fix it. If you’ve already posted on a thread, unchecking the box on your second comment won’t stop the e-mails. You need to create a “spam rule” in your e-mail client to catch the darn things and send them to trash. Right clicking on the offending e-mail should give you the option to “create a rule”. For your first comment on a thread, make sure the box is unchecked. Good Luck. -REP]
That the American Society of Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers may have a position on CAGW perhaps is to be expected as the fear will cause an increase in purchase of air conditioning, wouldn’t it?
On the topic of odd weather stuff, I was trolling in Lake Superior off Marquette last Sunday and when we got about 3 miles offshore we started breaking through skim ice, which I found odd given it was almost May. It was enough ice that we couldn’t fish surface lines. The lake was very calm, water temperature was 37 and air about the same. The further from shore we went the thicker the ice got. The previous night was extremely clear and sort of cold, maybe 25. I attributed the ice to radiative cooling. If you think about it, the middle of large lakes far from shore and land effects are basically deserts with nothing to hold the daytime heat I suppose it can get pretty cold out there at night. By about 10am all the ice was gone. Anyways I found it interesting, ice being true evidence of radiative heat losses, and I wondered how much heat Lake Superior loses to the night sky each night and if the size of lakes plays a role in how cold they get.
I would not qualify for membership in such an organization, and if one were created it should not be chartered to promote any particular view on an empirical question, but I voted ‘Yes’ because I think scientists should be actively creating organizations that can challenge the politically corrupt ‘establishment’ science bodies and create choices for young scientists and scholars.
Thanks to commenters above for the warning about the ‘Notify me of follow-up comments via email’ box. Surely Anthony can contact the powers-that-be at WordPress and request that they change the default back to unchecked!
/Mr Lynn
Just a question that I hope someone could help me with. I read some time ago a lecture given by a professor on sources of energy and their relative energy densities (and usefulness). The lecture started with a simple mention of the amount of energy potentially available from a gallon of gasoline and how much of that was consumed (reduced to a non atomic state) in the process. He then when on to explain the physical plant sizes and consumption needed to generate a gigawatt of power, for nuclear, coal or gas, in comparison to solar and wind. I wish I had saved the link. Given the poor identifying features, does anyone recall reading something like this?
cheers
Like Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t join any club that would have me as a member. 😉
Pat Frank says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:02 pm
The American Chemical Society has also bought the AGW package, offering scientistic certainties, grave warnings, eco-solutions, and an ironic encouragement to climate literacy.
I resigned from the ACS years ago because there seemed to be no good reason for membership. But their position on AGW would be cause to leave, were I still a member.
_____________________________
I left ACS for that exact reason after over thirty years. I just could not stand the Sanctimonious Eco-speak any more.
I would certainly support an alternate to establishment Lysenkoism.
Harriet Harridan says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Have anybody noticed the new poll of “climate scientists” ….
http://visionprize.com/results#findings
_______________________________________
It would indicate the amount of brain washing (or adherence to political correctness) in the climate scientist ranks.
I wonder how many veterinarians hate animals or botanists hate plants….
You may find this useful. I’m having great fun pointing out technology the IPCC have conspicously ignored. Wood gas cars is one. In some contexts its the perfect solution and it could be improved with a little R&D but mention it to the global warmists and they don’t have a clue it even exists or powered tens of thousands of cars in WW2. To make it viable today should be so easy even us climate sceptics could do it. lol. Enjoy.
http://appliedimpossibilies.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/gas-cars.html
onlyme says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:40 pm
…. if you changed the question to read that the publication would include peer reviewed papers which meet editorial standards and pass said review with no restrictions…
Perhaps it would be better to allow publication of all papers online and subject them to e-review prior to print, and after review problems are corrected and the papers pass whatever e-review criteria are required for all papers prior to publication.
Scepticism has grown such that any publication or professional organization may be suspected of having bias….
_____________________________
That sounds like a good idea. A crowd based review could get rid of the problem of “Pal Review” we now see in journals.
I also agree with others that it should be open to any paper as long as it meets the criteria of good science. That is it uses the scientific method.
Just when the warmists are on their last legs this comes up. It should help with peak oil and load leveling.
http://www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energy.html
http://lmbcorporation.com/
As I’ve always argued green energy is not scientifically impossible; watermelon energy is what’s impossible.
Myrrh says:
May 6, 2012 at 4:09 am
Thanks for the info about Turmeric and Alzheimer’s and Black Pepper. As Parkinson’s is another neurodegenerative disease with a pathology associated with malformed amyloids it could well be helpful with this disease also. There are quite a number of diseases associated with amyloids.
Having had a brief scout around the net, these are some of the effects turmeric is ‘thought’ to have:
Antihepatotoxic – it has a protective effect on the liver
Antihyperlipidemic – it inhibits the excessive buildup of lipids (fatty substances, such as cholesterol) in the blood
Anti-inflammatory – it reduces inflammation
Antioxidant – it scavenges free radicals and inhibits lipid peroxide formation, especially in the liver
Antitumoral – it inhibits the formation of tumors, including cancerous ones
Antimicrobial – it inhibits the action of microorganisms such as bacteria
Antifertile – it has a contraceptive effect
Anti-insect – that’s right, it acts as an insect repellent, a bonus
It’s a great shame that drug companies are reluctant to pursue research into anything which they may not be able to patent and obtain exclusive rights to, as is the case with the slow progress in the developement and use of bacteriophages for phage therapy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy
Scott says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/05/open-thread-weekend-plus-poll/#comment-977725
Henry says
I don’t want to frighten you guys (yet)
but I am expecting some cooling coming up…
especially noted from the decline in maximum temps
which nobody on this entire earth seem to be plotting….
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here
In the world of education research, there are all kinds of peer reviewed papers that aren’t worth bird cage material. Bias is everywhere and articles are behind paywalls. So, the following website was developed to help the consuming public (us teacher types), throw out the chaff and keep the wheat for immediate action in our schools. Unfortunately, I know of district after district who ignores this website and prefers to go their own way with their pet beliefs (belief trumps data in all things). But I think this website is worth its weight in gold and would be a pretty good blue print for what should and should not see the light of day in a professional journal, let alone inside a school house.
The link is the part of the website that describes their review process for submitted research articles.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ReviewProcess.aspx
Patrick says:
May 6, 2012 at 5:52 am
“The lecture started with a simple mention of the amount of energy potentially available from a gallon of gasoline …….”
——————————–
Reminds me of the story of Tom Ogle and his “100 miles on a gallon of gas” invention in the 1970’s:
http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/morgue/2008/04/200-miles-on-tw.html
New from weather is not climate:
Snow and Arctic temperatures bring Bank Holiday misery to Britain
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/9246070/Snow-and-Arctic-temperatures-bring-Bank-Holiday-misery-to-Britain.html
Let me add that most peer review groups do not set their standards in such a way to keep out bad research. We’ve seen that here plenty in the reviews tackled in this meat grinder. If all research papers were routinely submitted and reviewed based on the standardized process (or something similar) used at ies.ed, many clubs and societies would go bankrupt from lack of papers getting published. On the upside, if all journals used such stringent reviews, we wouldn’t be in the economically depressed, over the budget, out of control DEQ, and high-priced energy mess we are in right now.
If Pamela Gray is on
Henry@Pamela
We did not finish talking the other day, so seeing this is an open thread I wanted to tell you this …..
[SNIP: Henry, I like the story, but opening up to this topic never ends well here. -REP]
Warmists were eager to point out that the Norwegian terrorist, Anders Breivik, is a climate change sceptic. So it didn’t take long for some sceptics to point out that the Unabomber is an articulate global warming alarmist. In fact, it is a challenge to distinguish excerpts of his writings from those of Al Gore.
For some fun, you can take the test here: http://www.crm114.com/algore/quiz.html.
This is not to say that Kaczynski is VP material, or that Gore is unbalanced, only that they are strange bedfellows on this topic. So you can’t dismiss anyone’s views based on crazies who may share some of them.
Let’s get back to the debate. The null hypothesis is that climate is nature at work. Those who believe otherwise must present proof of AGW above and beyond natural variability.
Just like to say how much I love how informative and thorough WUWT is.
If I need a reference or link, or I’m in a debate and can’t recall the study or article I want to qoute or display, I know I have to look no further then this great site.
Happened just this morning. Was talking with a gentlemen who insisted Germanys “Green” energy production is fine, and the country is financially sound. I went to WUWT to find the references, as I remember this has been discussed extensivley. As it turns out, fellow commenters David Evans and David Jones were having a similar conversation on it on this very thread! The diversity of information on this site is amazing.
A big thanks to Anthony, the mods, guest posters and commenters who make this site one of the best on the net!