Some of you have seen this before. Forgive the repeat but here’s my need to apologize to Robert Frost.
Chopping Down Trees One Snowy Evening
by Michael Mann
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desparate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.
There were some corings from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweek my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
I’m working on a site that will collect and analyze publicly available weather data. I’m starting with arctic ice and plan to add more data sources and forms of analysis as I have time. I’m also tracking when these data sources “adjust” their numbers and plan to add the ability to compare old versions of data as well. I’ll also eventually get around to making it look prettier. Here is an early taste of the project so far. http://climatechangedebates.com/arctic-sea-ice-stats.php
John Whitman says:
“If we identify objectively the difference between science and pseudo-science, then the IPCC products can be more clearly characterized.”
The difference is testability. To be testable, a hypothesis must be measurable. If it is not measurable, then it begins and ends at the ‘conjecture’ stage of the Scientific Method.
Catastrophic AGW [or plain old AGW, for that matter] is not measurable. It is not testable, therefore it is not even a hypothesis. It is simply an untestable conjecture. An opinion, unsupported by verifiable, testable measurements.
The entire work product of the IPCC is based upon an untestable, unmeasurable opinion, and every IPCC prediction made regarding AGW has failed. In any other scientific field, such a universal failure rate would force a total re-examination of the original conjecture. But with so much tax loot at stake, honest science is rejected. Easy money has corrupted the process, the science, the scientists, and the always-greedy government entities.
Pamela Gray
September 22, 2013 1:28 pm
John, I think I know what you are getting at. Pseudo science is what the group of ENSO prediction scientists do to come up with their human “consensus”. At first it was just a seat of the pants guess based on group consensus opinion. But then reported under “sciencey” titles and even put into the ENSO prediction graph. They have since tried to nail down a more objective “consensus”. I can see though the pseudo science title being appropriate to this example. They have not “done” science to come up with this consensus. It has not been subjected to peer review. It is has not been subjected to controlled tests. Yet it is placed on the ENSO prediction graph along side the other data obtained from statistical and dynamical ENSO model outputs as if it shares the degree of work the models have been put through.
DirkH
September 22, 2013 1:32 pm
Gunga Din says:
September 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm
“Possible but he may just have stopped by. His goal is admirable. (Independence from Arab oil.) His means is laughable. (“Green” alternatives.)
Maybe he’ll check out the site more and learn why I said that? We can only hope.”
Well but he “answered” to no one. I have seen this behaviour by “warmists” many times. Their comments look incoherent, as if they are copied and pasted from what they have; as if they are a Markov chain automaton or a chatbot. If you engage with one of them you have sort of the feeling of a conversation but it also feels eerily wrong. I say “warmists” because they’re probably programs, not real warmists.
This makes it pointless to even engage one of them online as it’s in most cases just a waste of time; talking to a script.
I was just on my iphone and hit the wrong button. Anyway, 0% warming or alarming here…. It’s just annoying to see that some here link green tech to AGW. That makes no sense. I see a true economic reason here that we need renewables in 10 or 20 years and that reason has nothing to do with AGW.
Hlaford
September 22, 2013 1:36 pm
As a non-meteorological scientist, I hardly found myself competent participating in any of the real discussions here, yet pseudo-science thing got me going.
I find a great correlation between gravy train disciplines and their attachment to “scientific consensus” garbage concept oxymoron. As if the woozle effect is a scientific proof of anything.
All of these disciplines have a common denominator: blame. In this case, blame mankind for climate that’s not happening.
Another common denominator is political in-correctness of the non-consensus standpoint.
Yet another common denominator is amalgamation of consensus lot with politics.
It’s not that I have some approach to dispelling any of the consensus myths.
jorgekafkazar
September 22, 2013 2:08 pm
Peter Crawford says: “As a megalomaniac with a secret base within Holyhead Mountain (henchmen, helicopters, geezers with steel teeth, I got all that)…”
Peter, Peter, Peter! We have to move with the times. They’re henchpersons, now! (I’ll let the geezer gaffe go, for now.)
Rebuttal to RichardSCourtney, at September 22, 2013 at 10:12 am, re concentrations of energy.
Sadly, you are very much mistaken on this. It makes zero difference whether an energy source is dilute, concentrated, or a middling value. The only things that matter are economics and toxic contaminants.
Economics is why it is better for a remote ranch to use windmills to pump its water for livestock, and for irrigation, instead of paying the cost to run electric wires to the ranch. The “dilute energy source”, wind, is far more economic.
Furthermore, fissile nuclear fuel, uranium, is more “energy dense” than is coal or natural gas, yet power from nuclear power plants costs almost 6 times greater. Energy density is meaningless.
Gunga Din says:
September 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm
“Possible but he may just have stopped by. His goal is admirable. (Independence from Arab oil.) His means is laughable. (“Green” alternatives.)
Maybe he’ll check out the site more and learn why I said that? We can only hope.”
Well but he “answered” to no one. I have seen this behaviour by “warmists” many times. Their comments look incoherent, as if they are copied and pasted from what they have; as if they are a Markov chain automaton or a chatbot. If you engage with one of them you have sort of the feeling of a conversation but it also feels eerily wrong. I say “warmists” because they’re probably programs, not real warmists.
This makes it pointless to even engage one of them online as it’s in most cases just a waste of time; talking to a script.
====================================================================
4+ decades ago I had job where I called people trying to sell them something. We did have a script to read and scripted answers to objections. (We called businesses from the yellow pages, not homes so please don’t hate me.8-)
I guess computer programs can do that now. You could well be right. If it was person and not a bot, I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t know how widespread/if this has ‘made the rounds’ in world of other WUWTers, but this was fairly well done and was surprised to see the ACLU sponsoring it as well. It is SFU (suitable for work) although it does have audio:.
“Ordering Pizza under the new Health Laws” (Boehner-Care?) Parody https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pizza/images/screen.swf
.
richardscourtney
September 22, 2013 2:34 pm
Roger Sowell:
re your post at September 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm.
If you had bothered to read the link I provided (here it is again http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf )
you would have read the example you cite was provided by me of a small niche market.
You clearly have no understanding of the economics. Read the link.
Richard
richardscourtney
September 22, 2013 2:38 pm
Wijnand Schoutem:
At September 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm you say
I see a true economic reason here that we need renewables in 10 or 20 years and that reason has nothing to do with AGW.
Really?! Please state that “true economic reason” because I cannot imagine what it could be, alien invasion from Mars?
Richard
Wijnand Schoutem says:
September 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm
I was just on my iphone and hit the wrong button. Anyway, 0% warming or alarming here…. It’s just annoying to see that some here link green tech to AGW. That makes no sense. I see a true economic reason here that we need renewables in 10 or 20 years and that reason has nothing to do with AGW.
========================================================================
If they were really viable then they wouldn’t need government to subsidize them. Plenty of people who are willing to risk an honest buck to make more honest bucks would be doing it. Al Gore Michael Mann George Bush Obama Dr. Ball
(I just threw them in to see if we get a bot-like response.)
Wijnand Schoutem
September 22, 2013 2:57 pm
[quote]Really?! Please state that “true economic reason” because I cannot imagine what it could be, alien invasion from Mars?[/quote]
Just compare your energybill to the one you payed 10 years ago. Fossil fuel is finitive and will run out one time. We are already printing money to pay for those barrels of oil? There is a reason for the economic downturn…. Importing uranium might not be an option since the country’s holding it are not very friendly.
As far of the paper … Its all about co2 reduction and useless.. All economics will change when the price of oil in 2016 will be around 200 USD a barrel..
Ohh well enjoy yourself .. It’s almost midnight here so i am out of here…Keep smiling when you are paying 5 Usd+ a gallon? 🙂 just don’t blame it on me when i have some solar panels on my roof to lower my bill.. It’ll be high enough since it will get pretty cold here in NW-Europe and the gas will not be cheap …. When demand is high mr. Putin ain’t our friend:(
@RichardSCourtney, I clearly have a fine grasp of economics, which is why I refuted your writings above.
It is of zero consequence what the “energy density” is of any fuel or energy source. If you understood economics, you would recognize that.
You might try telling the many thousands of sailors who use a small wind-powered generator to charge up their batteries, that wind is too dilute and cannot be used to generate power. I’d love to hear them laugh when you tell them.
While you are telling people your falsehoods, you can also come to California and tell the utilities your oft-repeated falsehood: Wind turbines provide zero useful power at any time. I believe I have the quote from you accurate, if not word for word, it is accurate in content.
Earlier just today, California’s wind-turbines were producing 3,000 MW of power. At the moment, they are producing just over 2,400 MW. Please tell the California utilities that that is not useful, as you have so often stated.
Pamela Gray on September 22, 2013 at 8:20 am
John, I prefer well-done science versus poorly-done science. Even science that holds to the null hypothesis, ie: that Earth is a highly variable planet with multiple intrinsic random-walk oscillations teleconnecting between oceanic and atmospheric semi-permanent systems can be poorly done.
And
Pamela Gray on September 22, 2013 at 1:28 pm
John, I think I know what you are getting at. Pseudo science is what the group of ENSO prediction scientists do to come up with their human “consensus”. At first it was just a seat of the pants guess based on group consensus opinion. But then reported under “sciencey” titles and even put into the ENSO prediction graph. They have since tried to nail down a more objective “consensus”. I can see though the pseudo science title being appropriate to this example. They have not “done” science to come up with this consensus. It has not been subjected to peer review. It is has not been subjected to controlled tests. Yet it is placed on the ENSO prediction graph along side the other data obtained from statistical and dynamical ENSO model outputs as if it shares the degree of work the models have been put through.
– – – – – – – –
Pamela Gray ,
Sorry a little late returning your comment. My 13 month old grandson & his two similar aged cousins are babysitting me. : )
Thanks for your thoughts. Always appreciated.
I suggest we need to cast the net wide to include within science the process of winnowing out what is proposed as science but was found misrepresented, bad or even biased. That is a view of the sausage making reality of the scientific endeavor. The messy part is within it.
I suggest there is something that is ‘pseudo’ that is not even within the wide cast net I just described. It is an irrationalism dressed up wearing the cloak of rationalism in order to gain respectability.
As to your ENSO idea, do you think it fits my just offered suggestions?
Do my suggestions match with anything in the IPCC processes? I think there is some fit. Do you?
I see that richardscourtney has a comment critical of my suggestions. I will in due course respond to him and all others. Just slow.
John
Every seeker of knowledge has to balance two conflicting norms for their scientific community.
1) The need to eliminate false knowledge by challenging assumptions.
2) The need to defend your premises against challenge in order to build testable hypotheses.
AGW is a rare scientific hypothesis because it has an exceptionally strong suit in the second norm. It is desirable for tax-raising authorities to fund that premise. It is desirable for those who fear the future to defend that premise.
Above all, it is desirable for those who earn their living from reporting on environmental issues to defend the CO2 governs global temperature meme. So everything the public hears from the Environmental Journalist gatekeepers is “The end is nigh!”
This is a rare failing of the scientific method. Lysenkoism and eugenics also had such support.
But it doesn’t require a great conspiracy to let such errors propagate. It is merely the normal scientific process. Unfortunately, the scientific process doesn’t work in these rare circumstances where the enabling-funds are not related to seeking knowledge.
GlynnMhor, “Mediaeval Climatic Optimum”, I’ll remember that for future discussions with any true believers of CAGW. “Optimum” will disturb them no end.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
September 22, 2013 3:14 pm
From Jeff Alberts on September 22, 2013 at 9:39 am:
I’m continuing this discussion here instead of going OT in another thread.
Which made no sense as it was an established sub-topic coming from the original post so I replied there.
Why did you want to slaughter such copious quantities of hapless electrons with profligate quoting? We only have a limited supply of them and soon we’ll have to start rationing, just as Greenpeace for confirmation.
Roger Sowell;
Earlier just today, California’s wind-turbines were producing 3,000 MW of power. At the moment, they are producing just over 2,400 MW. Please tell the California utilities that that is not useful, as you have so often stated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pffft. Absent subsidies and regulatory requirements, power utilities would use precisely zero wind power. It is not only uneconomical, but due to large variability it requires substantial standby conventional capacity which in turn cannot be run efficiently because highly variable load is the biggest challenge there is to running efficiently, and power plant life is also dramatically shortened by highly variable loads. The net effect is higher costs and higher emissions, so richardscourtney is wrong. Windmills are no useless, they are worse than useless.
As for your statement regarding energy density and economics, one drives the other and without density you cannot have economic efficiency, no matter how much you think you know about economics.
rtj1211 on September 22, 2013 at 10:19 am @John Whitman on September 22, 2013 at 7:56 am
My judgement is that there are three key politicising events taking place in IPCC reports:
1. Deciding which contributions to seek out and which to omit.
2. Deciding how to ‘simplify’ the inevitably complex detail of the scientific submissions into a digestible political form.
3. Claiming that the science, which is always a best estimate within a framework of uncertainty, is gospel truth.
IN my judgement, the following are key places to be skeptical:
1. Investing in computer models designed to fit the data already acquired a predictive capability.
2. Being obsessed with 150 years of climate history rather than 150 million years.
3. Continuing to rely on thermometer readings with all the attendant uncertainties, inconsistencies and lack of coverage uniformity, given the vastly superior radiosonde- and satellite data sets now of 60 and 35 years length respectively.
– – – – – – –
rtj1211,
I take your comment to mean the IPCC is not scientific in purpose but is principally politic. There are many who agree with that.
Of the things the IPCC publicly claims are their science processes / products, are any pseudo-scientific? And what is pseudo-science as opposed to science?
I have made the suggestion in previous comments on this thread that science is an activity of rationalism and pseudo-science is irrationalism pretending to be rationalism.
In that respect, I think the IPCC does have some pseudo-science in its processes and products. Do you?
John
richardscourtney
September 22, 2013 3:47 pm
Wijnand Schoutem:
I am replying to your long and rambling post at September 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423908
My energy bills have little to do with true costs. They are inflated by subsidies to – and additional costs of – renewables. I already pay the equivalent of US$5 per gallon of petrol (i.e. American translation, gasoline) because 80% of the price in the UK is tax.
The coal price and cost is at a century low according to the IEA. Fracking has dramatically reduced the cost of producing oil and gas. The existence of the LSE process for synthetic crude from coal constrains the maximum long-term price of oil.
Imported oil has NOTHING to do with the “economic turndown”, and only 1% of electricity is generated from oil so renewables would not noticeably affect oil imports.
Unless you live far from the grid your solar panels will cost a small fortune compared to electricity from the grid when subsidies are removed.
And I wonder where you live because it is nearing midnight here in the UK, too.
Richard
herkimer
September 22, 2013 3:51 pm
I don’t know if anyone else noticed a statement in the CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED 2, PHYSICAL SCIENCE report issued in September 2013 by the SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT from Heartland .Org in their Executive Summary , for Chapter 3 , Solar Forcing of Climate which reads :
“The sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed Twentieth century warming and perhaps more”
Yet if anyone suggests that climate drives our weather or solar changes may be behind some of our recent climate changes , they are immediately jumped on by some regular solar bloggers . Weird or what?
Maybe we could get the authors of the above report to post an article on their findings http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf
Delete “. °C (59 °F) at night”
Some of you have seen this before. Forgive the repeat but here’s my need to apologize to Robert Frost.
Chopping Down Trees One Snowy Evening
by Michael Mann
What tree this is, I think I know.
It grew in Yamal some time ago.
Yamal 06 I’m placing here
In hopes a hockey stick will grow.
But McIntyre did think it queer
No tree, the stick did disappear!
Desparate measures I did take
To make that stick reappear.
There were some corings from a lake.
And other data I could bake.
I’ll tweek my model more until
Another hockey stick I’ll make!
I changed a line into a hill!
I can’t say how I was thrilled!
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
Then Climategate. I’m feeling ill.
I’m working on a site that will collect and analyze publicly available weather data. I’m starting with arctic ice and plan to add more data sources and forms of analysis as I have time. I’m also tracking when these data sources “adjust” their numbers and plan to add the ability to compare old versions of data as well. I’ll also eventually get around to making it look prettier. Here is an early taste of the project so far.
http://climatechangedebates.com/arctic-sea-ice-stats.php
John Whitman says:
“If we identify objectively the difference between science and pseudo-science, then the IPCC products can be more clearly characterized.”
The difference is testability. To be testable, a hypothesis must be measurable. If it is not measurable, then it begins and ends at the ‘conjecture’ stage of the Scientific Method.
Catastrophic AGW [or plain old AGW, for that matter] is not measurable. It is not testable, therefore it is not even a hypothesis. It is simply an untestable conjecture. An opinion, unsupported by verifiable, testable measurements.
The entire work product of the IPCC is based upon an untestable, unmeasurable opinion, and every IPCC prediction made regarding AGW has failed. In any other scientific field, such a universal failure rate would force a total re-examination of the original conjecture. But with so much tax loot at stake, honest science is rejected. Easy money has corrupted the process, the science, the scientists, and the always-greedy government entities.
John, I think I know what you are getting at. Pseudo science is what the group of ENSO prediction scientists do to come up with their human “consensus”. At first it was just a seat of the pants guess based on group consensus opinion. But then reported under “sciencey” titles and even put into the ENSO prediction graph. They have since tried to nail down a more objective “consensus”. I can see though the pseudo science title being appropriate to this example. They have not “done” science to come up with this consensus. It has not been subjected to peer review. It is has not been subjected to controlled tests. Yet it is placed on the ENSO prediction graph along side the other data obtained from statistical and dynamical ENSO model outputs as if it shares the degree of work the models have been put through.
Gunga Din says:
September 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm
“Possible but he may just have stopped by. His goal is admirable. (Independence from Arab oil.) His means is laughable. (“Green” alternatives.)
Maybe he’ll check out the site more and learn why I said that? We can only hope.”
Well but he “answered” to no one. I have seen this behaviour by “warmists” many times. Their comments look incoherent, as if they are copied and pasted from what they have; as if they are a Markov chain automaton or a chatbot. If you engage with one of them you have sort of the feeling of a conversation but it also feels eerily wrong. I say “warmists” because they’re probably programs, not real warmists.
This makes it pointless to even engage one of them online as it’s in most cases just a waste of time; talking to a script.
I was just on my iphone and hit the wrong button. Anyway, 0% warming or alarming here…. It’s just annoying to see that some here link green tech to AGW. That makes no sense. I see a true economic reason here that we need renewables in 10 or 20 years and that reason has nothing to do with AGW.
As a non-meteorological scientist, I hardly found myself competent participating in any of the real discussions here, yet pseudo-science thing got me going.
I find a great correlation between gravy train disciplines and their attachment to “scientific consensus” garbage concept oxymoron. As if the woozle effect is a scientific proof of anything.
All of these disciplines have a common denominator: blame. In this case, blame mankind for climate that’s not happening.
Another common denominator is political in-correctness of the non-consensus standpoint.
Yet another common denominator is amalgamation of consensus lot with politics.
It’s not that I have some approach to dispelling any of the consensus myths.
Peter Crawford says: “As a megalomaniac with a secret base within Holyhead Mountain (henchmen, helicopters, geezers with steel teeth, I got all that)…”
Peter, Peter, Peter! We have to move with the times. They’re henchpersons, now! (I’ll let the geezer gaffe go, for now.)
Rebuttal to RichardSCourtney, at September 22, 2013 at 10:12 am, re concentrations of energy.
Sadly, you are very much mistaken on this. It makes zero difference whether an energy source is dilute, concentrated, or a middling value. The only things that matter are economics and toxic contaminants.
Economics is why it is better for a remote ranch to use windmills to pump its water for livestock, and for irrigation, instead of paying the cost to run electric wires to the ranch. The “dilute energy source”, wind, is far more economic.
Furthermore, fissile nuclear fuel, uranium, is more “energy dense” than is coal or natural gas, yet power from nuclear power plants costs almost 6 times greater. Energy density is meaningless.
====================================================================
4+ decades ago I had job where I called people trying to sell them something. We did have a script to read and scripted answers to objections. (We called businesses from the yellow pages, not homes so please don’t hate me.8-)
I guess computer programs can do that now. You could well be right. If it was person and not a bot, I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t know how widespread/if this has ‘made the rounds’ in world of other WUWTers, but this was fairly well done and was surprised to see the ACLU sponsoring it as well. It is SFU (suitable for work) although it does have audio:.
“Ordering Pizza under the new Health Laws” (Boehner-Care?) Parody
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pizza/images/screen.swf
.
Roger Sowell:
re your post at September 22, 2013 at 2:25 pm.
If you had bothered to read the link I provided (here it is again
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf )
you would have read the example you cite was provided by me of a small niche market.
You clearly have no understanding of the economics. Read the link.
Richard
Wijnand Schoutem:
At September 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm you say
Really?! Please state that “true economic reason” because I cannot imagine what it could be, alien invasion from Mars?
Richard
========================================================================
If they were really viable then they wouldn’t need government to subsidize them. Plenty of people who are willing to risk an honest buck to make more honest bucks would be doing it. Al Gore Michael Mann George Bush Obama Dr. Ball
(I just threw them in to see if we get a bot-like response.)
[quote]Really?! Please state that “true economic reason” because I cannot imagine what it could be, alien invasion from Mars?[/quote]
Just compare your energybill to the one you payed 10 years ago. Fossil fuel is finitive and will run out one time. We are already printing money to pay for those barrels of oil? There is a reason for the economic downturn…. Importing uranium might not be an option since the country’s holding it are not very friendly.
As far of the paper … Its all about co2 reduction and useless.. All economics will change when the price of oil in 2016 will be around 200 USD a barrel..
Ohh well enjoy yourself .. It’s almost midnight here so i am out of here…Keep smiling when you are paying 5 Usd+ a gallon? 🙂 just don’t blame it on me when i have some solar panels on my roof to lower my bill.. It’ll be high enough since it will get pretty cold here in NW-Europe and the gas will not be cheap …. When demand is high mr. Putin ain’t our friend:(
@RichardSCourtney, I clearly have a fine grasp of economics, which is why I refuted your writings above.
It is of zero consequence what the “energy density” is of any fuel or energy source. If you understood economics, you would recognize that.
You might try telling the many thousands of sailors who use a small wind-powered generator to charge up their batteries, that wind is too dilute and cannot be used to generate power. I’d love to hear them laugh when you tell them.
While you are telling people your falsehoods, you can also come to California and tell the utilities your oft-repeated falsehood: Wind turbines provide zero useful power at any time. I believe I have the quote from you accurate, if not word for word, it is accurate in content.
Earlier just today, California’s wind-turbines were producing 3,000 MW of power. At the moment, they are producing just over 2,400 MW. Please tell the California utilities that that is not useful, as you have so often stated.
And
– – – – – – – –
Pamela Gray ,
Sorry a little late returning your comment. My 13 month old grandson & his two similar aged cousins are babysitting me. : )
Thanks for your thoughts. Always appreciated.
I suggest we need to cast the net wide to include within science the process of winnowing out what is proposed as science but was found misrepresented, bad or even biased. That is a view of the sausage making reality of the scientific endeavor. The messy part is within it.
I suggest there is something that is ‘pseudo’ that is not even within the wide cast net I just described. It is an irrationalism dressed up wearing the cloak of rationalism in order to gain respectability.
As to your ENSO idea, do you think it fits my just offered suggestions?
Do my suggestions match with anything in the IPCC processes? I think there is some fit. Do you?
I see that richardscourtney has a comment critical of my suggestions. I will in due course respond to him and all others. Just slow.
John
Every seeker of knowledge has to balance two conflicting norms for their scientific community.
1) The need to eliminate false knowledge by challenging assumptions.
2) The need to defend your premises against challenge in order to build testable hypotheses.
AGW is a rare scientific hypothesis because it has an exceptionally strong suit in the second norm. It is desirable for tax-raising authorities to fund that premise. It is desirable for those who fear the future to defend that premise.
Above all, it is desirable for those who earn their living from reporting on environmental issues to defend the CO2 governs global temperature meme. So everything the public hears from the Environmental Journalist gatekeepers is “The end is nigh!”
This is a rare failing of the scientific method. Lysenkoism and eugenics also had such support.
But it doesn’t require a great conspiracy to let such errors propagate. It is merely the normal scientific process. Unfortunately, the scientific process doesn’t work in these rare circumstances where the enabling-funds are not related to seeking knowledge.
GlynnMhor, “Mediaeval Climatic Optimum”, I’ll remember that for future discussions with any true believers of CAGW. “Optimum” will disturb them no end.
From Jeff Alberts on September 22, 2013 at 9:39 am:
Which made no sense as it was an established sub-topic coming from the original post so I replied there.
Why did you want to slaughter such copious quantities of hapless electrons with profligate quoting? We only have a limited supply of them and soon we’ll have to start rationing, just as Greenpeace for confirmation.
Roger Sowell;
Earlier just today, California’s wind-turbines were producing 3,000 MW of power. At the moment, they are producing just over 2,400 MW. Please tell the California utilities that that is not useful, as you have so often stated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pffft. Absent subsidies and regulatory requirements, power utilities would use precisely zero wind power. It is not only uneconomical, but due to large variability it requires substantial standby conventional capacity which in turn cannot be run efficiently because highly variable load is the biggest challenge there is to running efficiently, and power plant life is also dramatically shortened by highly variable loads. The net effect is higher costs and higher emissions, so richardscourtney is wrong. Windmills are no useless, they are worse than useless.
As for your statement regarding energy density and economics, one drives the other and without density you cannot have economic efficiency, no matter how much you think you know about economics.
Roger Sowell:
In response to your reply to me I refer you to the comment of davidmhoffer at September 22, 2013 at 3:20 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423926
Richard
– – – – – – –
rtj1211,
I take your comment to mean the IPCC is not scientific in purpose but is principally politic. There are many who agree with that.
Of the things the IPCC publicly claims are their science processes / products, are any pseudo-scientific? And what is pseudo-science as opposed to science?
I have made the suggestion in previous comments on this thread that science is an activity of rationalism and pseudo-science is irrationalism pretending to be rationalism.
In that respect, I think the IPCC does have some pseudo-science in its processes and products. Do you?
John
Wijnand Schoutem:
I am replying to your long and rambling post at September 22, 2013 at 2:57 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423908
My energy bills have little to do with true costs. They are inflated by subsidies to – and additional costs of – renewables. I already pay the equivalent of US$5 per gallon of petrol (i.e. American translation, gasoline) because 80% of the price in the UK is tax.
The coal price and cost is at a century low according to the IEA. Fracking has dramatically reduced the cost of producing oil and gas. The existence of the LSE process for synthetic crude from coal constrains the maximum long-term price of oil.
Imported oil has NOTHING to do with the “economic turndown”, and only 1% of electricity is generated from oil so renewables would not noticeably affect oil imports.
Unless you live far from the grid your solar panels will cost a small fortune compared to electricity from the grid when subsidies are removed.
And I wonder where you live because it is nearing midnight here in the UK, too.
Richard
I don’t know if anyone else noticed a statement in the CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED 2, PHYSICAL SCIENCE report issued in September 2013 by the SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT from Heartland .Org in their Executive Summary , for Chapter 3 , Solar Forcing of Climate which reads :
“The sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed Twentieth century warming and perhaps more”
Yet if anyone suggests that climate drives our weather or solar changes may be behind some of our recent climate changes , they are immediately jumped on by some regular solar bloggers . Weird or what?
Maybe we could get the authors of the above report to post an article on their findings
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/CCR-II-Full.pdf