John Whitman:
re your post at September 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm to rtj1211
Debate consists of agreeing or disputing different arguments. It does not consist of ignoring refutations of an opinion and restating your disputed opinion.
I replied to your mistaken assertion of what you think is pseudoscience, and for rtj1211 I posted the IPCC’s own stated “Role” which demonstrates its purpose is pure pseudoscience. Your post to rtj1211 ignores both those posts.
You started debate of this subject so it would be helpful if you were to engage in the debate instead of merely iterating your disputed opinion. If you disagree with what I said then please say, but don’t pretend it was not said.
Richard
dbstealey on September 22, 2013 at 1:25 pm @John Whitman
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.
– – – – – – – –
dbstealey,
Nice to hear from you. Thanks for your comment.
You have described eloquently what is the nature of science including the criteria for self adjusting from the very frequently proposed science that is eventually found to be insufficiently based (wrong).
Pseudo-science, if conceptualized as not within a very very broad framework of science, is not in the purview of the rational / logical but is within the irrational / non-logical. I think it pretends to be science (rational / logical) in order to gain credibility that it otherwise cannot achieve.
I find that kind of ‘pseudo’ within the IPCC processes to some extent.
John
richardscourtney says:
September 22, 2013 at 3:47 pm
(to Wijnand Schoutem)
And I wonder where you live because it is nearing midnight here in the UK, too.
=====================================================
I’d guess probably Holland with a name like his.
Wijnand Schoutem says:
September 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm
“Just compare your energy bill to the one you payed 10 years ago. Fossil fuel is [finite] and will run out one time. ”
Sorry sir, but again you are not fully understanding the issues with so-called “renewables” here. Solar panels and wind mills are manufactured with raw materials like silver and rare earth elements (REEs) which are extracted from the Earth much the same as fossil fuels are. Therefore, our ability to tap into solar and wind energy is just as finite as fossil fuels. Given that silver and REEs are used in many other applications (weapons systems for national defense, cell phones, etc…), wind turbines and solar panels have to compete with other manufactured goods and equipment for those raw materials. And that, for all I know, might drive up their costs in the years ahead. Furthermore, the mining of those raw materials is quite polluting, and solar panels and turbines leave toxic waste behind during their manufacture and at their end-of-life. As best I know, there is currently no system in place to recycle or dispose of that waste.
It is also my understanding that the electricity output for solar panels declines as they age, a problems nuclear and fossil fuel power plants don’t have (as best I know). Add to this Richard Courtney’s explanation (September 22nd, 10:12 am) for why the sun and wind are a poor source for energy to begin with, and the argument for wind and solar energy falls flat on its face. Read my lips Wijnand: nuclear is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation on a large scale. I have no problem with you wanting solar panels on your roof for whatever it’s worth to you, but wind and solar farms are another story altogether.
You can go on believing what you want Wijnand, but the facts indisputably speak for themselves.
– – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Appreciate your interest in developing conceptions of pseudo-science.
Please wait your turn. Your turn will come where I will respond to your latest comment(s). I am responding to each commenter in a seemly order. If that represents redundancy to you and if it isn’t timely enough for you, then it is entirely your prerogative to think so.
Your turn will probably not be until tomorrow morning, getting close my retirement for the night here in northern NY state. : ) Sweet dreams.
John
Bob says:
September 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/22/open-thread-13/#comment-1423794
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
– Thomas Jefferson
========================================================================
I love that quote. I came across it years ago and would often repeat it.
Unfortunately, I could never find documentation that he actually said it. I heard as a quote from a Virginia newspaper arguing for the adoption of The Bill of Rights. If you have documentation, please tell me.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea.
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784
richardscourtney says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:21 am
Wijnand Schoutem:
At September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am you assert
You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependend on oil, since these days we export to much euro’s and dollars to the middle east and the price keeps going up.
“Renewable energy is not climate”?
Tell that to the politicians who are inflicting the damage and immense expense of wind, solar, and biofuels on us in the mistaken belief that such use will reduce CO2 emissions. In reality these expensive methods INCREASE CO2 emissions. See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
If you want to reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East then increase fracking for gas and oil.
Richard
++++++++++++++++++
Thank you richardscourtney. I’ll add to that stating that No, we do not NEED wind/solar/biofuels. Why would we NEED more expensive energy? And as richardscourtney points out, we need to extract more of the resources we have on FEDERAL lands. Right now, the green ilk prevent it so we need to buy energy from other countries. We have enough to last well into the next century… and by then, demand for alternative resources will make sense. But it does not make sense to force energy to be artificially much more expensive.
R Courtney has made this point, but I’d state the difference between science and psuedo-science is that science makes predictions from theory then devises tests to determine whether the predictions are correct, and specifically to determine where the theory fails or is inadequate.
Much of climate science falls short in this respect, by actively discouraging or preventing such testing, and by hiding or obfuscating results that show the theory has failed or is inadequate. The IPCC is just an extension of the climate science culture.
Psuedo-science is activities that have the superficial form of science, but do not have the crucial component of endeavouring to establish where and how theory fails.
Paraphrasing Feynman, Science is the distrust of experts. By extension then pseudo-science is following the herd. By this measure the consensus meme is profoundly anti-science
Jeff Patterson
“By this measure the consensus meme is profoundly anti-science”
Extremely so.
The moral idiot Naomi Oreskes has directly contradicted Feynman’s wisdom by claiming that,
“What counts as knowledge are the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts.”
You cannot believe Oreskes and Feynman simultaneously. One of them has to go.
Ric Werme says:
September 22, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Live Free or Die.
========================================================================
Probably the best of all the State mottoes.
I had read that before. I think it was when I lived in NH. Thanks for the refresher.
john piccirilli
September 22, 2013 6:57 pm
Ipcc…5th ar…”extract co2 from atmosphere in order to bury it”..”.sprinkle atmosphere
With particles to reflect radiation back into space..”
Did not know report was a comedy
Zeke
September 22, 2013 7:07 pm
Irving Langmuir on “pathological science” –
“The characteristic symptoms of “pathological science” according to [Langmuir] are as follows: 1.) the maximum effect observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the effect is independent of the intensity of the cause; 2.) observations of the effect are near the threshold of human observations; 3.) there are claims of great accuracy; 4.) there are fantastic theories proposed to explain the effects that are contrary to experience; 5.) criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses; 6.) the ratio of supporters to the critics rises up somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion, as the critics cannot reproduce the effects.” ~Dr. Beverly Rubek
The Maslowski Countdown
Ice Free Arctic 2013September 22nd, 2013
In 2007 Wieslaw Maslowski said the Arctic would be ice free by 2013, and that “…you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” Welcome to the “ice free Arctic” of 2013
===========================================================
Why haven’t all the icebergs gone?
Should have melted
Why haven’t all the icebergs gone?
He said it’d be so
Why haven’t all the icebergs gone?
Wrong predictions, another one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Brad Keyes says:
September 22, 2013 at 7:21 pm
The moral idiot Naomi Oreskes has directly contradicted Feynman’s wisdom by claiming that,
“What counts as knowledge are the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts.”
Not only idiotic but mathematically disprovable. Knowledge is gained in proportion to surprise. The experts, knowing everything already, are surprised by nothing.
Roger Sowell says:
“It is of zero consequence what the “energy density” is of any fuel or energy source. If you understood economics, you would recognize that.”
**********
Oh really? Roger, let’s look at some facts that you seem to have overlooked:
How far back in time does the solar industry go here in the USA? At least to the 1950s, if not earlier: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf
And how far back does the wind energy industry go in the U.S.? To about 1980 according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
So the wind and solar energy industries here in the United States are many decades old (especially solar). With all those decades to develop the technology, what kind of inroads have they made in the energy market here in the U.S.? The government’s Energy Information Agency provides the answer: http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
Nationally, solar only provides 1% and wind 3% of our electricity needs. Wow, I’m impressed…
Now why do you suppose wind and solar have not made any large, meaningful inroads into the energy market after all those decades? My guess is because Richard Courtney is right….energy density DOES matter. His explanation on September 22nd at 10:12 AM is on the money.
If the economics for solar and wind are so favorable, why does the federal government need to subsidize them and provide mandates for them? Because the economics for them are not there. I’d like to see the wind and solar energy industries go into panic mode someday when the federal government finally decides to pull the financial plug on them once and for all.
I say this again: Nuclear is the only energy source that can displace all the electricity we get from fossil fuels. Its energy density is second to none…and that DOES matter.
If you have an alternate explanation for the failure of wind and solar, please provide it….and cite your evidence.
Kill wind turbines, not birds.
Brad Keyes says:
September 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
I’d like to encourage my fellow “denialati” to treat Prof Dan Kahan and his Yale blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net) as an opportunity or nexus for positive, respectful communication between the two “sides.” He may still be mired in the skeptics-are-not-grasping-the-evidence preconception endemic to his profession, but he doesn’t lie about or censor what skeptics write on his blog. Therefore let’s not make the mistake of dismissing him as another Cook or Lewandowsky.
(Kahan was recently rude, for no good reason, to Willis E., but apart from that he’s been a gentleman, as far as I can see.)
Thanks for reading this plug—
BK
==========================
Brad, Please reconsider your support of this guy.
“Positive, respectful communication”, what the hell are you talking about? Honestly?
Having just read the thread in question(Kahan’s). I was floored by his behavior. I have not had a chance to reading all of the comments on this (WUWT) thread, but what struck me (jaw droppingly so) was that this guy almost unconciously was helping to make the exact point about climate scientist that Willis was making. (regarding trust, etc.)
Willis, well done over there.
TomR,
I can’t really dispute any of your post. I did, however, say “but apart from that…,” which I stand by.
By the way, I’ve emailed Kahan asking “Why were you so rude to Willis, and what are you going to do about it?” I’ll let you know if I get any reply.
And yes, Willis did indeed do a fine job of putting Kahan (back?) in his place.
Eugene WR Gallun
September 22, 2013 8:20 pm
Could someone answer a simple question for me?
When sea ice is forming which is colder — the sea ice or the water beneath it?
Eugene WR Gallun
minarchist
September 22, 2013 8:20 pm
Nice piece in NRO, “The Climate-Change Circus”
“In a way similar to that in which medieval astronomers rationalized planets’ being in the “wrong” position as they orbited the Earth, it can be argued that global warming has continued but that its effect has been temporarily offset by natural variability. There might well be something to this. The problem for the IPCC in using this argument is that it has consistently downplayed the role of natural variability, as MIT’s Richard Lindzen has pointed out. Indeed, British climate scientist Hubert Lamb, writing in 1982 before climate science became deeply politicized, wrote that it is impossible to define a range of natural variation of climate, since study of the longer-term climate record showed that the range of variation is itself subject to variation.” http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359034/climate-change-circus-rupert-darwall
Roger Sowell says:
“Energy density is meaningless.”
You’re kidding. Right?
1. Turn your car’s engine off, and put the transmission in neutral.
2. Get out, and push your car about twenty miles down the road.
3. Tell us again that “energy density is meaningless.” ☺
John Whitman:
re your post at September 22, 2013 at 3:33 pm to rtj1211
Debate consists of agreeing or disputing different arguments. It does not consist of ignoring refutations of an opinion and restating your disputed opinion.
I replied to your mistaken assertion of what you think is pseudoscience, and for rtj1211 I posted the IPCC’s own stated “Role” which demonstrates its purpose is pure pseudoscience. Your post to rtj1211 ignores both those posts.
You started debate of this subject so it would be helpful if you were to engage in the debate instead of merely iterating your disputed opinion. If you disagree with what I said then please say, but don’t pretend it was not said.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
dbstealey,
Nice to hear from you. Thanks for your comment.
You have described eloquently what is the nature of science including the criteria for self adjusting from the very frequently proposed science that is eventually found to be insufficiently based (wrong).
Pseudo-science, if conceptualized as not within a very very broad framework of science, is not in the purview of the rational / logical but is within the irrational / non-logical. I think it pretends to be science (rational / logical) in order to gain credibility that it otherwise cannot achieve.
I find that kind of ‘pseudo’ within the IPCC processes to some extent.
John
In the New Zealand Herald today. Certainly looks like we are doomed!!!!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11128552
richardscourtney says:
September 22, 2013 at 3:47 pm
(to Wijnand Schoutem)
And I wonder where you live because it is nearing midnight here in the UK, too.
=====================================================
I’d guess probably Holland with a name like his.
Nice view of an ice breaker? here:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/NPEO2013/18.jpg
Time was 05:35:26 Sept. 21 (don’t know if that link updates or what ?).
Un IPCC = bureaucracy = politics ≠ good science
http://drtimball.com/2013/17-year-warming-hiatus-causes-panic-cover-up-ipcc-duplicity-continues/
Wijnand Schoutem says:
September 22, 2013 at 2:19 pm
“Just compare your energy bill to the one you payed 10 years ago. Fossil fuel is [finite] and will run out one time. ”
Sorry sir, but again you are not fully understanding the issues with so-called “renewables” here. Solar panels and wind mills are manufactured with raw materials like silver and rare earth elements (REEs) which are extracted from the Earth much the same as fossil fuels are. Therefore, our ability to tap into solar and wind energy is just as finite as fossil fuels. Given that silver and REEs are used in many other applications (weapons systems for national defense, cell phones, etc…), wind turbines and solar panels have to compete with other manufactured goods and equipment for those raw materials. And that, for all I know, might drive up their costs in the years ahead. Furthermore, the mining of those raw materials is quite polluting, and solar panels and turbines leave toxic waste behind during their manufacture and at their end-of-life. As best I know, there is currently no system in place to recycle or dispose of that waste.
It is also my understanding that the electricity output for solar panels declines as they age, a problems nuclear and fossil fuel power plants don’t have (as best I know). Add to this Richard Courtney’s explanation (September 22nd, 10:12 am) for why the sun and wind are a poor source for energy to begin with, and the argument for wind and solar energy falls flat on its face. Read my lips Wijnand: nuclear is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation on a large scale. I have no problem with you wanting solar panels on your roof for whatever it’s worth to you, but wind and solar farms are another story altogether.
You can go on believing what you want Wijnand, but the facts indisputably speak for themselves.
– – – – – – –
richardscourtney,
Appreciate your interest in developing conceptions of pseudo-science.
Please wait your turn. Your turn will come where I will respond to your latest comment(s). I am responding to each commenter in a seemly order. If that represents redundancy to you and if it isn’t timely enough for you, then it is entirely your prerogative to think so.
Your turn will probably not be until tomorrow morning, getting close my retirement for the night here in northern NY state. : ) Sweet dreams.
John
Gunga Din says:
September 22, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Are you familiar with this item from the New Hampshire State Constitution?
http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html
Live Free or Die.
richardscourtney says:
September 22, 2013 at 8:21 am
Wijnand Schoutem:
At September 22, 2013 at 8:02 am you assert
You sound silly. Renewable energy is not climate. We need wind / sun / bio-fuel and whatever it takes to become less dependend on oil, since these days we export to much euro’s and dollars to the middle east and the price keeps going up.
“Renewable energy is not climate”?
Tell that to the politicians who are inflicting the damage and immense expense of wind, solar, and biofuels on us in the mistaken belief that such use will reduce CO2 emissions. In reality these expensive methods INCREASE CO2 emissions. See
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
If you want to reduce dependence on oil from the Middle East then increase fracking for gas and oil.
Richard
++++++++++++++++++
Thank you richardscourtney. I’ll add to that stating that No, we do not NEED wind/solar/biofuels. Why would we NEED more expensive energy? And as richardscourtney points out, we need to extract more of the resources we have on FEDERAL lands. Right now, the green ilk prevent it so we need to buy energy from other countries. We have enough to last well into the next century… and by then, demand for alternative resources will make sense. But it does not make sense to force energy to be artificially much more expensive.
R Courtney has made this point, but I’d state the difference between science and psuedo-science is that science makes predictions from theory then devises tests to determine whether the predictions are correct, and specifically to determine where the theory fails or is inadequate.
Much of climate science falls short in this respect, by actively discouraging or preventing such testing, and by hiding or obfuscating results that show the theory has failed or is inadequate. The IPCC is just an extension of the climate science culture.
Psuedo-science is activities that have the superficial form of science, but do not have the crucial component of endeavouring to establish where and how theory fails.
Paraphrasing Feynman, Science is the distrust of experts. By extension then pseudo-science is following the herd. By this measure the consensus meme is profoundly anti-science
Jeff Patterson
“By this measure the consensus meme is profoundly anti-science”
Extremely so.
The moral idiot Naomi Oreskes has directly contradicted Feynman’s wisdom by claiming that,
“What counts as knowledge are the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts.”
You cannot believe Oreskes and Feynman simultaneously. One of them has to go.
========================================================================
Probably the best of all the State mottoes.
I had read that before. I think it was when I lived in NH. Thanks for the refresher.
Ipcc…5th ar…”extract co2 from atmosphere in order to bury it”..”.sprinkle atmosphere
With particles to reflect radiation back into space..”
Did not know report was a comedy
Irving Langmuir on “pathological science” –
“The characteristic symptoms of “pathological science” according to [Langmuir] are as follows: 1.) the maximum effect observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the effect is independent of the intensity of the cause; 2.) observations of the effect are near the threshold of human observations; 3.) there are claims of great accuracy; 4.) there are fantastic theories proposed to explain the effects that are contrary to experience; 5.) criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses; 6.) the ratio of supporters to the critics rises up somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion, as the critics cannot reproduce the effects.” ~Dr. Beverly Rubek
The top right sidebar
===========================================================
Why haven’t all the icebergs gone?
Should have melted
Why haven’t all the icebergs gone?
He said it’d be so
Why haven’t all the icebergs gone?
Wrong predictions, another one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
Brad Keyes says:
September 22, 2013 at 7:21 pm
The moral idiot Naomi Oreskes has directly contradicted Feynman’s wisdom by claiming that,
“What counts as knowledge are the ideas that are accepted by the fellowship of experts.”
Not only idiotic but mathematically disprovable. Knowledge is gained in proportion to surprise. The experts, knowing everything already, are surprised by nothing.
Another tidbit from information theory 101: Non-contingent systems (such as computer programs) cannot provide information gain.
Roger Sowell says:
“It is of zero consequence what the “energy density” is of any fuel or energy source. If you understood economics, you would recognize that.”
**********
Oh really? Roger, let’s look at some facts that you seem to have overlooked:
How far back in time does the solar industry go here in the USA? At least to the 1950s, if not earlier: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf
And how far back does the wind energy industry go in the U.S.? To about 1980 according to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
So the wind and solar energy industries here in the United States are many decades old (especially solar). With all those decades to develop the technology, what kind of inroads have they made in the energy market here in the U.S.? The government’s Energy Information Agency provides the answer:
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states
Nationally, solar only provides 1% and wind 3% of our electricity needs. Wow, I’m impressed…
Now why do you suppose wind and solar have not made any large, meaningful inroads into the energy market after all those decades? My guess is because Richard Courtney is right….energy density DOES matter. His explanation on September 22nd at 10:12 AM is on the money.
If the economics for solar and wind are so favorable, why does the federal government need to subsidize them and provide mandates for them? Because the economics for them are not there. I’d like to see the wind and solar energy industries go into panic mode someday when the federal government finally decides to pull the financial plug on them once and for all.
I say this again: Nuclear is the only energy source that can displace all the electricity we get from fossil fuels. Its energy density is second to none…and that DOES matter.
If you have an alternate explanation for the failure of wind and solar, please provide it….and cite your evidence.
Kill wind turbines, not birds.
john piccirilli says:
September 22, 2013 at 6:57 pm
Ipcc…5th ar…”.sprinkle atmosphere
With particles to reflect radiation back into space..”
Did not know report was a comedy.
——————————————-
Realistic or not, this is not a new idea,…http://www.sitchin.com/
© May 2009 Zecharia Sitchin
“The audacious idea of protecting a planet thermally by creating a shield of particles in its upper atmosphere is not as revolutionary as it seems. It was, I wrote in my 1976 book The Twelfth Planet, exactly the reason why the Anunnaki – “Those who from Heaven to Earth came” – had come here some 450,000 year ago from their planet Nibiru.
On Nibiru — ‘Planet X’ of our Solar System – the problem was the opposite one: Loss of internally generated heat due to a dwindling atmosphere, brought about by natural causes and nuclear wars. Nibiru’s scientists, I wrote, concluded that the only way to save life on their planet was to create a shield of gold particles in their upper atmosphere. It was in search of the needed gold that the “gods” of the ancient peoples had come to Earth. Basing my conclusions on Sumerian and other texts from the ancient Near East, I wrote that the Anunnaki began to arrive on Earth some 445,000 years ago, establishing settlements in the E.Din (later Mesopotamia) and mining gold in southeast Africa.
As I have written in subsequent books, “modern science is only catching up with ancient knowledge.” The idea of ‘geo-engineering’ is borrowed from technologies of the Anunnaki. “
Brad Keyes says:
September 22, 2013 at 7:59 am
I’d like to encourage my fellow “denialati” to treat Prof Dan Kahan and his Yale blog (http://www.culturalcognition.net) as an opportunity or nexus for positive, respectful communication between the two “sides.” He may still be mired in the skeptics-are-not-grasping-the-evidence preconception endemic to his profession, but he doesn’t lie about or censor what skeptics write on his blog. Therefore let’s not make the mistake of dismissing him as another Cook or Lewandowsky.
(Kahan was recently rude, for no good reason, to Willis E., but apart from that he’s been a gentleman, as far as I can see.)
Thanks for reading this plug—
BK
==========================
Brad, Please reconsider your support of this guy.
“Positive, respectful communication”, what the hell are you talking about? Honestly?
Having just read the thread in question(Kahan’s). I was floored by his behavior. I have not had a chance to reading all of the comments on this (WUWT) thread, but what struck me (jaw droppingly so) was that this guy almost unconciously was helping to make the exact point about climate scientist that Willis was making. (regarding trust, etc.)
Willis, well done over there.
TomR,
I can’t really dispute any of your post. I did, however, say “but apart from that…,” which I stand by.
By the way, I’ve emailed Kahan asking “Why were you so rude to Willis, and what are you going to do about it?” I’ll let you know if I get any reply.
And yes, Willis did indeed do a fine job of putting Kahan (back?) in his place.
Could someone answer a simple question for me?
When sea ice is forming which is colder — the sea ice or the water beneath it?
Eugene WR Gallun
Nice piece in NRO, “The Climate-Change Circus”
“In a way similar to that in which medieval astronomers rationalized planets’ being in the “wrong” position as they orbited the Earth, it can be argued that global warming has continued but that its effect has been temporarily offset by natural variability. There might well be something to this. The problem for the IPCC in using this argument is that it has consistently downplayed the role of natural variability, as MIT’s Richard Lindzen has pointed out. Indeed, British climate scientist Hubert Lamb, writing in 1982 before climate science became deeply politicized, wrote that it is impossible to define a range of natural variation of climate, since study of the longer-term climate record showed that the range of variation is itself subject to variation.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359034/climate-change-circus-rupert-darwall
Inre: BenD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_religions
May provide some perspective and overview of these groups, with a helpful table.
Roger Sowell says:
“Energy density is meaningless.”
You’re kidding. Right?
1. Turn your car’s engine off, and put the transmission in neutral.
2. Get out, and push your car about twenty miles down the road.
3. Tell us again that “energy density is meaningless.” ☺