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.
J. Felton says:
May 6, 2012 at 8:55 am
There is a feature on the Smithsonian Magazine website that is called 6 word stories. One subcategory, basically a call for readers to coin 6 word propaganda stories for the EPA to use royalty free, is especially fun to read and to post counter stories in.
WUWT is a mine of information which is not just science based, but which has actual data and supporting documentation available, something which is missing from any of the alarmist and propagandist posts found on the site. This mine at WUWT is a great boon to me as I post my stories on that page in an attempt to interject some dose of reality into the steady stream of wishful thinking, thoughtless religious belief and blind following of authority.
Thanks Anthony, and all the posters whether lead story writers or those like me who occasionally (or often) post here, and who provide an antidote to the jingoistic propaganda promoted elsewhere.
The Warmists have just begun:
Did dinosaurs cause climate change? Huge creatures may be to blame because they produced so much flatulence, say scientists
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2140323/Its-fault-Scientists-think-dinosaur-flatulence-partly-blame-climate-change.html#ixzz1u6mCNIqq
heh,heh
Then there’s that Groucho Marx quote: “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member”.
Jim
Has Cryosphere Today erased all the sea ice data from 2007 ?
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=05&fd=05&fy=2007&sm=05&sd=05&sy=2007
Maybe the data is just too old and they needed computer space….
Julian Braggins says:
May 6, 2012 at 12:57 am
May 5, 2012 at 6:59 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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.
___________________
Thank you for the information.
There was something I wanted to tell you about… what was it… let’s see…
I answered maybe to the poll. I answered such because I’d much rather join a society that didn’t have any agenda, warmist or skeptical. I would join any society that actually lived up to the RS’ motto nullius in verba, or even genuinely strived to meet that standard. Position statements from society leadership would be limited to membership drives and annual reports. And while I’m dreaming, publishing a press release by the journal or society would be grounds for dismissal.
Will I ever see the day?
It’s a little sad that so many see the term, sceptical, (skeptical) as being anything other than open minded.
I am sceptical of CAGW but am open to persuasion because of my scepticism.
DaveE.
Jan P. Perlwitz
If your goal here is to “save” as many as possible from the “fake skeptics” would you mind answering a few questions?
Reading Hansen et al (2007), a paper you were a coauthor on: (If it’s really you)
“Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study”
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
I find it positively skeptical in comparison to Hansen et al (1988) http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
For example, from 1988 to 2007 the climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 used for projections went from 4.2 degrees Celsius to 2.9 degrees Celsius.
Yet it seems both papers do agree that we’re “close” to irreversibly damaging the climate system. Seems to me we’re perpetually “close” to the tipping point.
Anyway, in light of the above information, here are my questions:
Its 2012 now, are we still close or have we got there yet?
Were those skeptical of 4.2 degrees C sensitivity in 1988 “fakes” in your opinion even though they were “right” to be skeptical based on the “mainstream” reduction of said sensitivity since 1988?
Why are those of us that are skeptical of 2.9 degrees C sensitivity necessarily “fake”; is it completely beyond the realm of possibility that we have good reasons for concluding lower climate sensitivity than “mainstream” climate scientists based on the evidence?
Would you be too terribly insulted if instead of “mainstream” climate scientists I just used popular climate science?
Patrick says:
May 6, 2012 at 5:52 am
“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). ”
Maybe this helps:
David Mackay: Without The Hot Air. He’s a prof and UK climate advisor so pretty green but his facts look good.
http://www.withouthotair.com/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
MicIntyre’s Yamal FOIA is paying off http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/yamal-foi-sheds-new-light-on-flawed-data/
http://www.straight.com/article-677916/vancouver/stop-coal-activists-arrested-white-rock-protest-against-rail-shipments-delta
Huge rally!
Eco totalitarism claiming they are the 99%… LOL
In Norway many proffesions have joined up with socialism with great succsess.
Then they put the word social- in front of their “science/profession”.
The Team is thus Socialmeteorology?
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/legal-challenge-to-mandated-renewable-energy-in-the-eu/
[Also posted on another thred]Slightly off current thread:
PostShow – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/26/getting-your-mind-right-in-australia-round-2/ which many of you remember from 26th April; it runs until end-May, and I guess many who are concerned about Australia – her future, her sanity – have already voted.
Latest [2148 Z – 6th May ’12]
Dismissive 50%
Alarmed 23%
Concerned 13%
Doubtful 9%
Cautious 4%
Disengaged 1%
5003 votes counted
Don’t forget – Australian postcode needed;
one site – not alwys 100% reliable – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postcodes_in_Australia
kbray in california says:
May 6, 2012 at 10:44 am
They told me that they have some disk server problems. I think they’re displaying stale data. There daily data ends with April 28.
I changed an image on the sea ice reference page to report the problem. I’m about to change the comparison image to be something from NSIDC. More later.
I haven’t time to read all the comments but would suggest that such a ‘new’ organization should attempt to recreate real scientific peer review, but with the added bonus of the reviews also being available for reading. In the context of climate skepticism, I feel this is of vital importance, as reviewers cannot hide behind annonymity or use a pal review system without due diligence and written justification of their comments. It would also be better if the review panel were ‘balanced’ and hence reviewers comments can be seen to be from different sides of the divide. Perhaps a ‘double’ review system could be employed – such as one for the nitty gritty science – and one for the interpretation of said science within the context of the ‘headlined’ theme?
apologies if others have said similar things..
regards to all
Kev
Faux Science Slayer says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm
……Engineers in particular have the required technical ability, coupled with REAL world experience to be meaningful in this debate. When I began science writting over three years ago, some mentioned that I was not a scientist.
MY REPLY: “Engineers have as much Physics as a Physics major, as much Chemistry as a Chemistry major and as much Math as a Math major. Therefore, a ‘scientist’ is an engineer that did not want to go to school an extra year.”….
___________________________________
AMEN, My college required an extra year and MORE math, physics and chemistry for Chem Eng than for Chemists and a BS in Chemistry had a lot more math, physics and chemistry than a teaching cert. in education with a chemistry major.
Nice to hear that PrincipiaScientificInternational.org exists. Thanks for the pointer.
I pulled the pin on my New Scientist subscription, which I’d maintained for 7 years. The ‘tipping point’ was an article on rising sea level inundating traditional gardens in the Pacific Islands of Vanuatu, reportedly caused by AGW of course. WRONG! I have visited many of the islands in Vanuatu on many occasions. All are volcanic in origin, many are very seismically active and are home to some very vocal volcanoes and regular tremors which get you out of bed like no alarm clock. One can be hundreds of metres above sea level and see the remains of coral reefs. So clearly massive uplift due to seismic activity is happening. Where there is uplift, there is usually corresponding subsidence in the near vicinity. Then of course there is isostasy, the sinking of all large volcanic islands formed on the thin oceanic crust, due to the massive weight of the cone. This is not a new concept – Charles Darwin recognised it during his voyage on the Beagle. Were any of the above seismic factors mentioned in the New Scientist article? No. Only the climate change angle (rising sea level) was touted as the cause. Absolutely pathetic! I picked up a New Scientist the other day. I was pleased to see I had made the right decision. The pro-AGW angle was even more overt.
I can understand a commercial product like New Scientist tailoring its output to suit a particular target demographic, and thus maximise sales. I would imagine many of their current readership are: single; 20+ somethings; no kids; still living at home with mum and dad in a centrally heated/air conditioned middle class home; are absolutely committed to changing the world; are appalled by the excesses of modern consumerist society and the huge environmental footprints of big corporations; constantly blog about their climate change concerns on their iPads and discuss green issues with their like-minded friends on their iPhones while watching edgy BBC documentaries on wind power and evil coal/oil companies on their big screen Sony TV. That’s fine, as long New Scientist does not expect to be treated like a serious scientific journal. The problem is, some of the serious scientific journals/societies seem to be doing the same thing. Fortunately, the professional societies to which I belong have so far resisted the temptation to join the AGW band-wagon. Rest assured, should they adopt a public pro-AGW ‘position’ without at least consulting the membership, then I shall take my quid elsewhere.
Gail Combs says:
May 6, 2012 at 3:21 pm (responding to)
Faux Science Slayer says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:43 pm
……Engineers in particular have the required technical ability, coupled with REAL world experience to be meaningful in this debate. When I began science writting over three years ago, some mentioned that I was not a scientist.
MY REPLY: “Engineers have as much Physics as a Physics major, as much Chemistry as a Chemistry major and as much Math as a Math major. Therefore, a ‘scientist’ is an engineer that did not want to go to school an extra year.”….
Nay, nay. 8<)
See, a "scientist" does not need to ever leave his/her laboratory. Does not ever need to be responsible for the results of his/her decisions and abilities, nor for any economic or real-world results of his/her publications and reactions, nor for ANYTHING except getting funding for his/her next project. (Given, that is, that a "scientist" is paid to be a "scientist" and nothing practical nor effective nor economic – as seen by the fact that ALL of the CAGW community actually ARE paid BY their government-paid bureacracies using government-paid computers at government-paid research centers and universities to get government-favored CAGW results based on research applications to their government funding agencies to CREATE research that will inevitably favor government-issued tax increases and economic controls.)
An engineer, in contrast, is paid – if and only if – he or she can produce a PRODUCT or SERVICE (NOT just an "idea" or a "research paper or a "class" or a "research project"!) that his/her supervisor can sell to another group for profit.
The ugly nature of those two features – the concept of an engineer building a real-world workable and designed "product" that can be economically-(real-world) built using (real-world) materials and (real-world) processes and tooling for a real-world "customer" has NO comparable feature in the CAGW communities. there, "I am a scientist with published papers" IS their truth and ultimate version of credibility. That their ideas and theories fail utterly and without exception is meaningless to the CAGW community. "THEY" have the force of their ideas and their righteous nature of "being correct" and "having many papers" written into their self-funding, self-propagating illusion of a reality based only of theory and "perfect" models of ever-increasing accuracy and realism.
In the real world, no CAGW "scientist" can "do" anything. Except his/her ideas ARE deadly, and are now killing millions and ham-stringing billions from a free life of better economics, better comfort and better health.
Robert of Ottawa says:
May 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm
I’m not American, so I have no place in this poll. However, if it were about Canadian or UK institutions, I’d certainly say YES.
____________________________________
Since when does a journal have to be about one nationality? I see no reason a scientific journal could not be international in scope.
David Ball says:
May 5, 2012 at 5:24 pm
vukcevic says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I noticed you have some traction with your ideas at RC. I urge you to be careful on that side of the fence. Certainly do not give up on us over here.
___________________________
I will second that. I always look forward to Vukcevic’s contributions and new graphs.
This is interesting and relevant …
An internal study by the U.S. EPA completed by Dr. Alan Carlin and John Davidson concluded the IPCC was wrong about global warming. One statement in the executive summary stated that a 2009 paper found that the crucial assumption in the Greenhouse Climate Models (GCM) used by the IPCC concerning a strong positive feedback from water vapor is not supported by empirical evidence and that the feedback is actually negative. Water vapor in the atmosphere causes a cooling effect, not a warming one. Carbon dioxide also causes a slight cooling effect but it so small it could never be measured by man’s instrumentation.
EPA tried to bury the report. An email from Al McGartland, Office Director of EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), to Dr. Alan Carlin, Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE, forbade him from speaking to anyone outside NCEE on endangerment issues. In a March 17 email from McGartland to Carlin, stated that he will not forward Carlin’s study. “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator (Lisa Jackson) and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. …. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.” A second email from McGartland stated “I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change.”
McGartland’s emails demonstrate that he was rejecting Dr. Carlin’s study because its conclusions ran counter to the EPA’s current position. Yet this study had its basis in three prior reports by Carlin (two in 2007 and one in 2008) that were accepted. Another government cover-up, just what the United States does not need.
Eliminate this regulation immediately. This is a scientific tragedy.
mfo says: @ur momisugly May 6, 2012 at 7:27 am
….Reminds me of the story of Tom Ogle and his “100 miles on a gallon of gas” invention in the 1970′s…..
________________________
I dated a metallurgist in the 1980’s whose company came up with a gadget that allowed a 8 cylinder gas guzzler to get well over 50 MPG. We went out to dinner to celebrate the first successful trial run. Needless to say it never saw the light of day. Ever notice how no matter what “improvements” are made real MPG never makes it much past 30 MPG? This despite my heavy 1976 olds cutlass V8 with a carburetor getting 26 MPG.
Since this is an open thread, I submit the following:
Take vension back strap and cut into medium sized “stew” chunks. Really knead in a good spicy steak or seafood rub then brown the meat pieces in a good quality fresh from the shelf oil till browned on both sides.
Place meat, some dried chopped onion, some roasted garlic, and a good quality beefy flavored beer and some red wine to cover and let simmer in a crock pot on high for at least 4 hours. If it gets a bit overwhelming flavor wise, add a bit of water. At some point in the cooking I like to add sun dried tomatoes. You could be drinking the rest of the six pack at this point in time with friends. Ask them to bring crusty bread to serve later when the stew is done.
Then about hour 3 saute your favorite mushrooms and add that. Take about a cup of the liquid from the pot and add some cold water to it to cool it down a bit and add some flour. Whisk this together and put it all back into the pot. Let it cook some more (for an hour, no more), stirring every once in a while. Depending on how much flour you used, it should thicken to the consistency of cream.
Meanwhile, choose your veggies of choice and cut into big bite sized pieces. Now this part is really important. At the end of hour 4 of the crock pot, spray a large shallow pan with oil. Add veggies. Spray them with oil. Sprinkle some more of that rub you used on the venison onto the veggies and then broil them all till lightly browned and crusty, stirring at least once during the broiling. Let them cool to luke warm and turn off the crock pot too. When the veggies are luke warm, add to the stew and serve immediately with crusty bread and some more beer.
Yum!
Taphonomic says:
May 6, 2012 at 7:35 am
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
_____________________________
Thanks for the link.
Mother Nature is certainly raining on the global warming parade. She seems to be our best ally.
Citrus growers sweating extended California freeze 01/17/2012