Global Warming Alarmists Are Overrun By The Facts

From 11/5/13 edition of INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

Science: The global warming alarmists continue to go about their business — which is minding everyone else’s business — while their yarn keeps fraying. Their latest problem: a study that says nature, not man, drives climate.

Last week President Obama issued the executive order “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.”

It’s almost 3,000 words outlining a plan to help the country get through “prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures” and “more heavy downpours” as well as “an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise.”

The order even insists that these dire conditions “are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the nation.”

Clearly the White House missed the news — isn’t that where Obama has learned about various scandals that have suffused his administration? — that there has been no warming since 1997.

What’s more, it’s also missed the news about a peer-reviewed paper that recently appeared in the journal Climate Dynamics. According to the science, the pause in warming that began as temperatures leveled off in the late 1990s could extend into the 2030s.

Paper authors Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Marcia Wyatt, from the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder, found — no surprise here — that the United Nations climate models that predict a scorched Earth are not reliable.

“The growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations raises the prospect that climate models are inadequate in fundamental ways,” says Curry.

What Curry and Wyatt see, and which the models could not project, given the junk that was fed into them, is a natural cycle of warming and cooling.

The summary of the paper describes a “‘stadium-wave’ signal that propagates like the cheer at sporting events” that covers “the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo.”

This “wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures,” the summary said.

The paper also explains that “declining sea ice extent over the last decade is consistent with the stadium wave signal.”

What’s more, “the wave’s continued evolution portends a reversal of this trend of declining sea ice.”

And the role of man’s greenhouse-gas emissions on sea ice decline? Apparently it’s not so significant.

While Wyatt says “the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming,” Curry promises that “this paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability,” a factor that the alarmists tend to deny.

Curry also says the paper “provides a very different view from” a study featured last month by the New York Times whose lead author says that by 2047, give or take five years, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past.”

We don’t expect the alarmists to look into this “very different view.” They’ve decided that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed.

But they can’t really believe anything else, can they?

If they did, they would lose their justification for meddling in private affairs.

And that, not the environment, is what the global warming scare is really all about.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tim Collins

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard delivered a thoughtful and accurate assessment of the whole politicised “science” last night in London;
http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/11/06/1226753/906885-howard-speech.pdf

Mike Bromley the Kurd

The disconnect between what is being discovered (due to curiosity & scepticism) and what is being promulgated (due to blind adherence to the meme) is becoming alarmingly obvious. How does the populace force reconnection? These politicians and ‘scientists’ are having a field day, which the appear to be defending at any cost.

Jeef

I am sure alarmists think they are saving the world.
I am equally sure none of them know what from. Blind zealotry is a terrible curse.

it’s too bad that the President of the United States is so confused by weather, thinking it’s climate. I already have given him MY take on his ridiculous climate policy, “A More Balanced View of Pres. Obama’s Climate Change Plan”, http://bit.ly/17MBPYk

Graham of Sydney

“According to the science, the pause in warming that began as temperatures leveled off in the late 1990s could extend into the 2030s.”
Whoa! Hardly has the ink dried on Roy Spencer’s plea for sceptics to refrain from any form of long term climate predictions, than out comes this doozy. For chrissakes, haven’t we had it up to here with stupid, brain dead, rent seeking alarmists playing that infantile game? If there’s one certainty that’s come out of their scam, it’s the uncertainty of climate. Chaotic by nature. Steer well clear of any brand of predictive climate modelling, I say.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-danger-of-hanging-your-hat-on-no-future-warming/

Graham of Sydney

Tim Collins says (November 6, 2013 at 9:17 pm)
“Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard delivered a thoughtful and accurate assessment of the whole politicised “science” last night in London”
Too little and way too late. Touted as a “conviction politician” (mainly because of his admirable lone stand to secure a national ban on guns), how differently the insane “carbon” kerfuffle would have panned out had his principle got the better of media pressure.
And too little. “I instinctively feel that some of the claims are exaggerated” is hardly a knock out blow.
Just like any run-of-the-mill politician these days, his “conviction” depends on which way he thinks the political wind is blowing. In short, thanks for nothing, Mr Howard.
Andrew Bolt has his measure here.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/howard_admits_he_caved_in_on_global_warming_not_from_conviction_but_fear/

Tilo Reber

Graham, it looks like we are highly unlikely to have a strong solar cycle until the 2030s.

Chad Wozniak

Richard Fletcher’s discussion is damning of alarmism and der Fuehrer’s clearly intentional, calculated, purposeful ignorance of the facts. The problem, however, its that neither alarmists nor dictators listen to anything outside their meme, and you can double that when the alarmist and the dictator are the same individual.

dp

So long as it is understood that Barry Obama is an idiot I’m on board with this.

Txomin

Does anyone know of climate models that are not being fed junk? I’m curious to find out the extent to which they are useful if run judiciously.

Andrew Harding

Our (UK) government, seem to be seeing through this veil of deceit and lies, well at least the Conservative side are, the Liberal Democrats are like Obama, naïve and easily led. Hopefully this whole rotten mess will be seen for what it is, it is unfortunately there are too many believers and too few scientists in high places.

Ian W

Graham of Sydney says:
November 6, 2013 at 10:06 pm
“According to the science, the pause in warming that began as temperatures leveled off in the late 1990s could extend into the 2030s.”
Whoa! Hardly has the ink dried on Roy Spencer’s plea for sceptics to refrain from any form of long term climate predictions, than out comes this doozy. For chrissakes, haven’t we had it up to here with stupid, brain dead, rent seeking alarmists playing that infantile game? If there’s one certainty that’s come out of their scam, it’s the uncertainty of climate. Chaotic by nature. Steer well clear of any brand of predictive climate modelling, I say.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-danger-of-hanging-your-hat-on-no-future-warming/

While I understand your reasoning not to start trying to forecast the future of a non-linear chaotic system, backing off completely leaves the field open to alarmists showing New York flooded to the 6th floor in Manhattan. If you Graham say “that’s not right” – you will get the alarmist response well forecast (predict/project) what you think will happen then? Look at our excellent models..
In the mean time based on the alarmist AGW forecasts (projections/predictions) regulations are being put in place worldwide that are already leading to deaths from energy poverty and will leave irrecoverable holes in power generation worldwide. The money being wasted on these AGW boondoggles is also not going to other areas like food supply and the rush to ‘sustainable biofuels’ is the greatest threat to virgin rain forests. That is before we look at the political ramifications of a fake crisis ‘not being wasted’.
Sitting on hands is not an option the case of the ‘stadium wave’ like other research is showing that the past can be as efficiently modeled using natural oscillations and therefore the AGW claims of ‘no other explanation’ for warming is falsified. The scientific step from there is to say these oscillations / stadium waves if they continue would lead to the next years being static or cooler. This is a prediction based on the hypothesis that allows its falsification by events. It is not an alarmist forecast of mile high ice over New York.

Peter Miller

Bottom Line: The greatest heresy for the alarmist cult is the concept of natural climate cycles.
Natural climate cycles have been with us for hundreds of millions of years, so why should they suddenly cease now?

Peter Whale

Until some entity takes up the gauntlet against some aspect of the global warming scam in a court of law, it will still take the money. Only when the lying obfuscation costs them, will it end.

Oldseadog

As usual, though, I bet none of the MSM pick this up.
Keep up the work, though – the dripping tap eventually will wear a hole in the bath.

Mike McMillan

Last week President Obama issued the executive order “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.”
I wish he’d spend his time settling more urgent issues, like the conflict between VHS and Betamax.

“I’m curious to find out the extent to which they [climate models] are useful if run judiciously.”
In my understanding, the computer programs that are called ‘climate models’ are a collection of speculations concocted and tossed together by those who build the model. They are not even a decent hypothesis to my way of thinking, but the muddled hypothesis they do represent is that CO2 is the overwhelming main driver of the planet Earth’s climate. Since CO2 is at best a minor player in the array of forces that effect the climate of planet Earth, it is not possible for these computer programs to make reliable predictions about anything other than the size of the next grant coming in from the government.
It is my belief that science still has little clear understanding as to all the forces that drive the climate of the Earth. The science is still in its infancy and will not grow up to be a valuable adult unless we strip government (political) funding from it and let people practice non-politicized science.
The above is only one private opinion. Do not alarm you kids with it! (if only faux-Dr. Mann would do likewise)
— Mark

H.R.

Take control of sea level rise and now take control of weather. Is there nothing our President can’t do with a word and a stroke of the pen?
I’m thinking his next edict will be that all of the children shall be above average.

ceetee

In reference to “”Last week President Obama issued the executive order “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.””
Barack, I really hoped you would turn out well, for all sorts of reasons. Now it seems you are a shadow puppet and a master of spin. I am not an American but what you do has far reaching effects on the rest of us, and for a nation that for so long was the absolute pinnacle of scientific achievement you really have fallen from grace. I suggest you go and reread your constitution and rediscover the many reasons why you were what you became, not only for your own sake but also for the sake of all Americans who will suffer the shortsighted and wrongheaded positions you have inexplicably appear to have taken. FFS.

CodeTech

dp and Mike McMillan:
Thanks for beating me here with what I was thinking…
As I’ve pointed out before, the left always think they can do better. They claimed Bush was an idiot, so they got someone who vastly exceeds him. Dems win… theirs is definitely the bigger idiot.
The whole AGW thing reminds me of the Pink Floyd song “Have a Cigar”…

We’re just knocked out.
We heard about the drought…
You gotta get an paper out,
You owe it to the people. We’re so happy we can hardly count.
Everybody else is just green, have you seen the chart?
It’s a helluva start, it could be made into a monster
If we all pull together as a team.
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.

Gail Combs

markstoval says:@ November 7, 2013 at 1:34 am
In my understanding, the computer programs that are called ‘climate models’ are a collection of speculations concocted and tossed together by those who build the model. They are not even a decent hypothesis to my way of thinking…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From my reading of the Ged Davis e-mail The IPCC climate model ensemble includes What-If Storylines and Scenarios including 4. Sustainable Development (B1) aka UN Agenda 21

The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including major social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality. …While no explicit climate policy is undertaken, other kinds of initiatives lead to lower energy use, and clean energy systems, which significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Besides cleaning up air quality, there is emphasis on improving the availability and quality of water….

The e-mail attachments starts out with

The IS99 scenarios have been constructed to explore future developments in the global environment with special reference to the production of GHGs…
The scenarios developed allow for a broad range of GHG emissions and provide a basis for reflection on policy
Scenarios are pertinent, plausible, alternative futures. Their pertinence, in this case, is derived from the need for climate change modelers to have a basis for assessing the implications of future possible paths for Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs). Their plausibility is tested by peer review, in an open process, which includes their publication on the World Wide Web….

Am I interpreting this e-mail correctly? Does the IPPC climate model ensemble include climate models of the UN’s most desired future and those are the models that almost touch reality?
I would really like to know whether this is true or I am incorrect?
This interpretation fits the IPCC mandate:

…The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation….
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/

ceetee

I wonder if Gilmour Mason and co realized just how prophetic those words were given they were written years ago in different circumstances.

Gail Combs

I really would like to know if I am correctly interpreting the Ged Davis e-mail (storylines and scenarios) with regard to the IPCC climate model ensemble given the IPCC mandate
“…The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of human induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for mitigation and adaptation…. ”
http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/
If I am correct the lowest climate models that come close to matching reality represent the UN’s most favorable future/lowest CO2 emissions.
I posted a much shorter version of this but it has gone into moderation (last time for hours)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/05/climate-models-worse-than-we-thought/#comment-1467108

It’s almost 3,000 words outlining a plan to help the country get through “prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures” and “more heavy downpours” as well as “an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise.”
The order even insists that these dire conditions “are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies, and public health across the nation.”
I thought that electing liberal activist democrats were cause of all of that.

Mikeyj

Never fear Obama is here to save the day from the the CO2 molecules. Then right back to healthcare, or more correctly called “guberment insurance”. What a guy.

Jon

In reference to “”Last week President Obama issued the executive order “Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change.””
To Me it sounds more “President Obama issued the executive order “Preparing the United States for International Marxism” ?

Jim Cripwell

Graham of Sydney, you write ” Steer well clear of any brand of predictive climate modelling”
I disagree, strongly. First, the Wyatt/Curry “stadium wave” is not a model. It is a hypothesis on how global temperatures are, in part, cyclical. As such, the thing one needs to do is to use such a hypothesis to predict what will happen in the future. That is how hypotheses are tested. Classic Feynman. Guess what is happening; predict what is going to happen; see whether it happens.

herkimer

It would appear to me that no amount of correct science or undisputed observable data is going to change the climate debate in a significant way. Like with many schemes that milk the public just follow the money to understand what is going on. Global warming is now a $ 1 billion per day business with a goal to make it a $2 billion per day business. The offering plate to support United Nations to get $100 billion per year from the developing countries will come around each year. The liberal and democratic political parties love this new tool for taxing the public and the liberal media who have become advocates for global warming make sure that the majority of the public will never read the truth about the very flawed global warming science. I am afraid that it may take another financial crisis that will dry up the free money purse. Nature may also soon demonstrate through a 30 year cold spell that greenhouse gas emissions are not the climate drivers that AGW science claim. Anyone who has not read the book FUTURE BABBLE by Dan Gardner , I recommend this book . It is all about why the predictions of experts fail but people follow them anyway . We seem to have flaw in our programming and others have figured this out and utilize it for their own advantage

observa

And that is how Big Climate hypotheses are tested. Guess what is happening; predict what is going to happen; see weather **it happening.

rogerknights

Anthony: there should be an update containing a link to the Wyatt & Curry paper at the end of the head post:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/10/new-paper-from-dr-judith-curry-could-explain-the-pause/

jaffa68

andrewmharding says:
November 7, 2013 at 12:34 am
Our (UK) government, seem to be seeing through this veil of deceit and lies, well at least the Conservative side are.
I don’t agree. I think they’ve always known that they were deceiving and lying to the electorate but it suited them because it was an excuse to raise taxes – for our own good – because our ‘Conservative’ party aren’t really Conservative at all.
It’s only the upcoming election and the pressure on our cost-of-living that has prompted them to make some noises about green taxes needing to be ‘looked at’. The reality is that green taxes relate to European obligations and we won’t be allowed to reduce them while we’re still members.

Bill_W

No doubt the heavy rains and flooding play a big role in increasing the drought and wildfires.

James Strom

Curry is an honest scientist, and this wave theory may turn out to be correct. We’ll see. However, this paper is just what the warmists need at this point. It provides a basis for claiming that there are prolonged downward cycles within an underlying upward trend in temperatures. So the recent cycle does not refute the overall hypothesis of CAGW, Armed with this, the warmists will be able to extend the testing period for their view from 17 years or so to 30 or more. For them it could be another little step toward making their theory unfalsifiable.

Amen Anthony.
It’s the excuse for centralized planning and a public sector dominated economy. http://sourceable.net/cities-around-the-world-chase-sustainability-dream/

Tom Stone

The execut\ive order is seriously flawed. It fails to control the GIANT snakes (and itty bitty ponies)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57611126-71/global-warming-to-create-horses-like-cats-snakes-like-horses/
But look at the bright side. Every kid (even one in an apartment) will have room for a pony.

Andrew Harding

John Fish.
Thank you for your comments, I do partly agree with you, the point I was trying to make was that as far as I am aware, this is the first time that green issues are being questioned by any of the major political parties. The reduction of CO2 emissions up until now, has been totally unquestionable, the current Climate Change Act had the distinction that it had virtually full cross party support. Hopefully the PM will think that power cuts in the middle of the expected bitterly cold winter, and sky high energy costs are not exactly vote winners and most of the public do not believe in AGW anyway. I agree with what you say about the EU too, but Cameron is our only hope of getting a referendum on our continuing membership of this corrupt organisation, since Farage is highly unlikely to form a government.
The Conservative party is not conservative enough for me either, but unfortunately it is the only hope we have, because if UKIP split the Conservative vote we will be “blessed” with another Labour government.

Anyone that can solve a middle school algebra problem can observe the manipulations and junk science promulgated by the left to support the the premise of AGW. However, to make the assumption that Obama et al are doing this through ignorance or incompetence is incorrect. AGW is just one plank in a platform that the Marxist in charge of the US are using to dismantle the USA. The real concern is that 90% of the US populace is unable to solve a middle school algebra problem.

Theo Goodwin

Ian W says:
November 7, 2013 at 12:35 am
Spot on!
To Graham of Sydney and everyone, could we please stop referring to the chaotic climate and using “chaos” as a reason for something? If you are working in Chaos Theory, using someone’s Chaos Theory, or referring to another’s use of Chaos Theory, then you can use “the climate is chaotic” as a reason. But you have to reference the actual theory being used. Short of a reference to some actual use of Chaos Theory, saying “The climate is chaotic” amounts to saying “the climate is fairy driven.” (“Chaotic” is a highly theoretical term that makes sense only in a highly ramified context and should never be used as an observational term.)
May I point out for the umpteenth time that no one, including all Alarmists and Skeptics, is using Chaos Theory at this time?
Finally, regarding the “Stadium Wave” described by Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt, it is not correct to say that they are making predictions regarding temperature or other aspects of climate. Rather, what they have done is identify a system of natural regularities that demand extensive empirical research. Our descriptions of ENSO amount to the same thing. No one can make useful predictions about ENSO; that is, no one can predict the timing of the next El Nino or the degree of any of its other characteristics. Yet we know that ENSO is a system of natural regularities that we must understand and explain scientifically if we are to someday understand the climate.

More promises…Obama’s latest quote:
“With my plan…
if you like your climate, you’ll be able to keep it – period!
If you like your weather, you’ll be able that too!”

Resourceguy

The Obama policy move brings into glaring focus the role of activist-driven policy and official statements by this administration and confirms that presidential elections are just updates on what amounts to permanent campaign programs. Dealing with science truth and website construction reality does not make the cut in a campaign headquarters.

Terry

O/T but speaking about alarmists and facts, with the recent election results Virginia’s attempts to get UVA to honor the FOI for McMann’s emails will probably stall.

Jeff

“Tom Stone says: November 7, 2013 at 5:33 am
The execut\ive order is seriously flawed. It fails to control the GIANT snakes (and itty bitty
ponies)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57611126-71/global-warming-to-create-horses-like-cats-snakes-like-horses/
But look at the bright side. Every kid (even one in an apartment) will have room for a pony.”
Reminds me of this:
There’s a Pony in There Somewhere!
Once there were five-year-old twin boys,
one a pessimist and the other an optimist.
Wondering how two boys who seemed so alike could
be so different, their parents took them to a psychiatrist.
The psychiatrist took the pessimist to a room piled high
with new toys, expecting the boy to be thrilled. But instead
he burst into tears. Puzzled, the psychiatrist asked,
“don’t you want to play with these toys?”
“Yes,” the little boy bawled,
“but if I did I’d only break them.”
Next the psychiatrist took the optimist to a room piled high
with horse manure. The boy yelped with delight, clambered
to the top of the pile, and joyfully dug out scoop after scoop,
tossing the manure into the air with glee.
“What on earth are you doing?” the psychiatrist asked.
“Well,” said the boy, beaming
“There’s got to be a pony in here somewhere!”
~ Author unknown ~
(looked for author, found this on a zillion sites, e.g.
http://www.pony-expressions.com/Articles.asp?ID=249 and
http://gregghake.com/2010/02/the-pony-in-the-dung-heap-ronald-reagan-eleanor-roosevelt-and-you/ )
I suspect the optimist is busy digging through the piles of CAGW alarmism,
the pessimist is worrying about his models….
Ironically mist (as in pessiMIST) is a synonym for manure in German.
(explains the puzzled looks I got when noting the drizzle outside by saying “It’s misting outside today.”
Everyone rushed to the windows basically saying “THIS I’ve got to see”….[ could be a metaphor for CAGW]).
(ref: „Der einzige Mist, auf dem nichts wächst, ist der Pessimist.” – Theodor Heuss)
(roughly, the only fertilizer that grows nothing is the pessimist…I’m sure there are much better
translations out there – Dirk, Pierre, anyone?)

Jimbo

It’s simply all falling apart as nature stubbornly refuses to co-operate. News just in:

“Global Sea Ice Area Seventh Highest On Record For The Date – Closing In On The All Time Record”
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/global-sea-ice-area-seventh-highest-on-record-for-the-date-closing-in-on-the-all-time-record/
“Antarctic Sea Ice Sets A New Record For October”
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-a-new-record-for-october/
“Scientists Find That Sea Level Rise Is Much Slower Than Expected…No Human Fingerprint”
http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/05/scientists-find-that-sea-level-rise-is-much-slower-than-expected-no-human-fingerprint/

No warming for over 16 years, polar bear and penguin numbers are robust, the Arctic sea ice boomed this summer (and was pretty chilly too), snowfall is not a thing of the past, aerosols and clouds continue their confusion. This is not settled science at ll really.

Theo Goodwin

Graham of Sydney says:
November 6, 2013 at 10:06 pm
“Whoa! Hardly has the ink dried on Roy Spencer’s plea for sceptics to refrain from any form of long term climate predictions, than out comes this doozy.”
Which raises an important question about Dr. Spencer. Why does he ask skeptics to refrain from any form of long term climate prediction? I hope his position rests on scientific principle? I hope he is not simply suggesting that we bite our tongues to avoid sounding foolish.
I know why I ask everyone to refrain from any form of long term climate prediction. I do it on scientific principle. I know that Alarmist climate science is limited to Arrhenius’ hypotheses about the effects of CO2 on radiation. But Arrhenius’ work is limited to the laboratory and has never been confirmed in the atmosphere. Confirming it in the atmosphere requires solving the “Forcings and Feedbacks” puzzle. But solving that puzzle in a scientific way requires well confirmed physical hypotheses that describe the behavior of water vapor and clouds, among other things, in the atmosphere. No such well confirmed physical hypotheses exist. To the best of my knowledge, no climate scientist has proposed hypotheses and experiments which might lead to confirmation of such hypotheses. Climate science, as it pertains to global warming and the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, is in its infancy and has not earned the right to make scientific predictions.
Discussion of this issue will require a definition of ‘prediction’ that is up to the standards of scientific principle. When I use the word ‘prediction’, I am not speaking with the vulgar. A scientific prediction is a statement about observable phenomena that is derived from well confirmed physical hypotheses and a statement of “initial conditions.” The initial conditions are what the scientist presently observes. The physical hypotheses describe the natural regularities about which the scientist makes predictions.
For example, from Kepler’s Three Laws of Motion and the present location of Earth and Venus in their orbits, the phases of Venus can be predicted.
In case someone wonders why I require that the hypotheses be well confirmed, the answer is that you do not want to make predictions from hypotheses that are known to be false. What about the new hypotheses that are not yet well confirmed? The new hypotheses are undergoing initial tests. The scientist derives future observations from the hypotheses to test them. Such hypotheses are provisional hypotheses and are used for provisional prediction. (Though Karl Popper is not the last word on scientific method, he was right to emphasize that scientists must attempt to falsify new hypotheses and do so vigorously.)

Theo Goodwin

P Gosselin says:
November 7, 2013 at 6:26 am
Oooooooooohhhhhhh. Bazinga!

Beta Blocker

Without problems to solve, ambitious people don’t have the sense of worth and fulfillment that is necessary for maintaining their own self image. It is for this reason that as humankind’s real problems are gradually solved, fake problems must be invented to take their place.
Within the world’s rich post-industrial societies — American society is the most prominent example — environmentalism in general, and climate change in particular, have become manpower sinks for otherwise smart and productive people who cannot find a useful role for themselves in technology or in industry, simply because the kinds of opportunities which formerly came with science and industry have migrated to less rich societies where the solution of real problems, as opposed to fake problems, remains the operative priority.
Before he passed away, Dr. Carl Sagan offered his opinion that the world’s population crisis could only be solved through the progressive industrialization of the world’s poorer economies. But of course, this solution carries with it the increased risk of environmental degradation and pollution. (No risk, no reward. No pain, no gain.)

TheLastDemocrat

Here is the real story. The masquerading Marxists have this plan: the elected politicians enact a policy that sends a steady stream of money to some industry. Those in the industry end up being major advocates, including campaign funds, for the politicians.
With public-relations type pronouncements, and campaign rallies, NYT editorials, and so on, the perception is created for the general public that these efforts are helping out. So, there is little opposition to the government-funded business.
The politicians know that they are dependent on the industry for survival – for re-election funds, and the industry knows it is dependent on sustained political support.
The more of these “progressive” institutions that can be established as an inherent part of our government, the more established are the progressives.
As the old job success advice goes: make yourself invaluable. The pols are invaluable to a narrow constituency, which can support re-election campaigns from the govt gravy train.
The work being done doesn’t even have to yield actual benefits – to the environ, or anything. It just has to have a generally welcome perception in the general populace. This is not like the world of private business, where budgets are scrutinized, and something with no return-on-investment is dropped.
Also, this is not mere lobbying. A politician can favor some industry – medicine, insurance, banking, etc., but this just helps the industry with their normal revenue stream.
Here, the secret is to have politicians establish govt work that is not susceptible to vagaries of the free market (their enemy).
The TSA was established – thousands of new govt workers. Then, soon after, the effort to have it legal to unionize TSA workers began. See? We won’t get rid of TSA anytime soon. Plus, we have no idea how much the TSA, as configured, prevents terrorism, versus a variety of other strategies.
So, it is there, with no easy way to evaluate its value. It is there “for the duration.”
Now, with the union machine, with its very clear history of overlap with international socialist activities, the TSA has gone union – as money goes from govt to TSA employees, money also goes to TSA union, then straight back into politician campaign war chest.
Therefore, any liberal will be for entrenching his or her party, regardless of how useful the service will be.
Note that useful govt services that don’t fit the political agenda – such as military, or border guard, have to be neutered in various ways.
Here, we see it with more environ “regulatory” agency money. The money will go to watermelon firms, who will shuttle some of the money back to campaign coffers.
Right in front of your eyes, this has happened with the community grants of Obamacare to have health care navigators – who do you think is getting these low-skill decent pay positions?
Also, in Obamacare, abortion insurance is inherent. Plus, they have disguised this. The law says that any policy vended through the exchange must include a monthly fee of at least two dollars. This goes into an abortion insurance policy fund. At this point, it seems either that this supports required abortion coverage, or funds abortion rider policies. Technically, since it is a fee along with your premium, and not part of your premium itself, they can declare that your premium is not going to any insurance fund pool that will cover abortion, along with any other services.
Thy also wrote the law to say you do not have to know whether a plan you pick, say from one insurance company, funds abortion, so that you cannot shop per your conscience.
I know many readers here are pro-choice. Science says life begins at conception, and like begets like, and there is no spontaneous creation of life from non-living matter – but we can agree to disagree here.
The point is that some of us are pro-life, but have been boxed out, by law, from shopping our conscience, when forced by law, to shop.
Why such a complicated architecture for this one medical issue? Planned Parenthood is bifurcated into a total service delivery arm and a total political action arm. They just spent a million to support McAuliff, a money-bundler par excellence himself, in Virginia, who won as you know by a narrow margin. That is the campaign war chest in action.
Now, with an abortion fund pool growing at $2/person/month for all those who go through the exchanges, that will largely go to PP, by far the largest abortion provider.
They knew this and had this planned as they began laying the beginnings of Obamacare.
In the end, as I have noted, it doesn’t even matter if the govt-supported service delivers what it is supposed to deliver. Several PP have already gotten in trouble for over-billing Medicaid – that is the same as receiving money while not delivering a good or service. There you have it.
Expect more of this progressive entrenchment as the Obama administration moves toward its end, and a concomitant narrowing of any chance to catch up with him through the slow-moving processes we have, such as congressional investigations.

Theo Goodwin

Three paragraphs from the article:
“While Wyatt says “the stadium wave signal does not support or refute anthropogenic global warming,” Curry promises that “this paper will change the way you think about natural internal variability,” a factor that the alarmists tend to deny.
Curry also says the paper “provides a very different view from” a study featured last month by the New York Times whose lead author says that by 2047, give or take five years, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past.”
We don’t expect the alarmists to look into this “very different view.” They’ve decided that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed.”
This is a big deal. Two years ago, climate modelers would not talk about natural variability at all. They were in denial about it. One year ago, they started talking about natural variability but they defined it in terms of “internal variability;” that is, they defined it by reference to their models and not by reference to nature.
What Dr. Curry and Dr. Wyatt have done is identify a system of natural regularities, their Stadium Wave, that cannot be defined in term of a model’s internal variability. The Stadium Wave must be broken down into its component natural regularities, which requires extensive empirical research, if it is to be accommodated in the existing generation of models. The likelihood that modelers will engage Curry and Wyatt on this topic is zero.

Pippen Kool

Wow.
One paper comes out in the normal literature and wuwt is ga ga over the results and can’t understand why the field isn’t reeling in shock. Shock, I say! But I am going to, this time, stick with the skeptic line of wuwt and assume that BECAUSE the paper is in the mainstream literature that it is bogus. After all, it’s the wuwt way.
As least until someone else has repeated the findings.

Pippen Fool is such a lamebrain. The article quotes Dr Curry saying “…the United Nations climate models that predict a scorched Earth are not reliable.”
That is the issue. The mainstream is finally coming around to the view of scientific skeptics. Unlike Fool, we knew all along that the UN/IPCC was peddling nonsense. Pippen is unhappy because the truth is finally emerging.