Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
Attempts to understand climate are stalled. The standstill parallels the pre-Copernican state when the Ptolemaic model had held sway for 2000 years but no longer fit the data. The Catholic church perpetuated Ptolemy similar to the religious adherence of climate science to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Their model is inadequate like the Ptolemaic model because new data doesn’t fit their model. The Copernican debate involved re-examination of planetary cycles and required Tycho Brahe’s long detailed records for confirmation.
Brahe’s data fit the Copernican model (heliocentric), but not the religiously supported 2000 year old Ptolemaic model (geocentric). A chapter titled Climate Theory versus Models and Metaphors in Essex and McKitrick’s excellent book Taken By Storm has a section titled “Marooned Halfway up Mount Climate Theory”. They identify the limitations facing official climate science including; working from averages, an inability to deal with turbulence and Navier-Stokes, and chaos. They conclude “Global climate is not treatable by conventional means.” These are internal functions.
The recent WUWT article by Luedecke and Weiss addressed the issue of climate cycles and generated the usual divisions and arguments. It is a debate essentially ignored by the IPCC. Part of the reason for both the article and the IPCC ignoring cycles is because neither generally looks at records of adequate lengths to determine most climate cycles. For example the Milankovitch cycles are not included in IPCC models because they considered the time scales are too long. Another reason is the lack of records with adequate length to detect cycles through spectral analysis. There is also the historic division on climate between the west and the east ( in Cold War terms).
There are certain real measures of success rarely officially acknowledged. In climate one measure is to be mentioned negatively in the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). On May 22, 2008 Phil Jones to Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt.
PPS Our web server has found this piece of garbage – so wrong it is unbelievable that Tim Ball wrote a decent paper in Climate Since AD 1500. I sometimes wish I’d never said this about the land stations in an email. Referring to Alex von Storch just shows how up to date he is.
He refers to a book edited by Raymond Bradley and Phil Jones published in 1992. In other words it preceded the shift into corrupted, manipulated, politicized climate science publicly manifest in the 1995 IPCC Report. Benjamin Santer’s unsupported insertion of the phrase “discernible human influence” was clear evidence of what was happening. It is pathetic to see him now claiming the victim’s role. Part of the IPCC problem was to offset material in the 1990 Report that contradicted their new agenda. Chief among these was the graph (7c) showing the Medieval Warm Period. The book appears to indicate the CRU gang still recognized that lack of long term data was a problem, as Lamb identified. Instead they chose to play with a broken hockey stick.
Content of the book illustrates how much climate changes through time and provides extensive data and analysis from different sources and regions. My chapter in the historical climate section is titled “Historical and Instrumental Evidence: Central Canada, 1714-1850”. One valuable benefit was the editors required each author review another chapter. (Is that a form of peer review?). I had the privilege of reviewing the chapter by E.P. Borisenkov “Documentary evidence from the U.S.S.R”. His major source was the Russian Chronicles, a collective of weather and crop conditions essentially from 1000 AD in conjunction with arrival of Vikings in what is now Moscow and the beginning of the Romanov regime. Borisenkov and Pasetsky (1983) established the occurrence of 350 “hungry” years in the intervening1000 years. They identified a long term awareness of the relationship between weather, crop conditions and peasant unrest.
During the time I was reviewing Borisenkov’s work I was also working with the Canadian Wheat Board and Chinese climatologist who sought help regarding increasing crop production. China realized that just as the US seeks energy independence they needed food supply independence. They were already producing triple crops in most of China south of the Yangtze river. The river is a very significant divide in China, especially with regards precipitation. The greatest potential for expanding food production was north of the river, but involved grains other than rice. Canada was a logical case study. They were successful as production data shows (Figure 1).
Figure 1
I was aware of Chinese climatology and their lengthy records because I gave a paper at a climate conference in Bologna Italy in 1988.[2] Several papers given at the conference illustrated the extent and potential of their historic record. Another example was the vast Vatican archives just beginning to be examined. However, the most impressive was the length and extent of the Chinese records. Emperors knew food production failures created potential for social unrest so, like the Tsars, they kept detailed weather and crop records.
Development of climate as a vehicle for political control was achieved through various meetings that culminated in Rio 1992 at which Agenda 21 established the political agenda and the UNFCCC set up the IPCC to predetermine the scientific proof that CO2 was causing global warming. An underlying division emerged that few recognized or understood that is very important in today’s debate.
Eastern nations led by the Soviets and Chinese argued that the weather patterns (climate) were cyclical. A factor in learning about Soviet science occurred because Jewish people escaped and set up translation services in Israel of material not previously available. The west led by the US and Europe could not allow the idea that weather and climate is cyclical so they pushed chaos theory. They ignored the contradiction created by claiming weather was chaotic and unpredictable and then making predictions (projections). The public understood the contradiction because they had a low opinion of weather forecasting and knew they had little or no skill beyond 72 hours. The response was that there is a difference between weather and climate predictions, which ignores that climate is the average of the weather. Essex and McKitrick note “The truth is, we have much less reason to ascribe certainty to climate models than we do to weather models.”
Throughout the Kyoto Protocol negotiations Russia and China kept their own counsel based on a much better understanding of the science. Putin said Russia would not ratify Kyoto. The Russian vote was critical. It was the only remaining country with sufficient carbon dioxide production to achieve the 55 countries producing 55 percent minimum. It produced 17.4 percent of emissions in 1990 bringing the total to 61.6 percent. Russia actively promoted its rejection as President Putin’s economic adviser Andrei Illarionov gave first class public presentations on why Kyoto was unnecessary and wouldn’t work. Suddenly Putin announced he would ratify – Illarionov resigned. Putin publicly explained that EU members persuaded him they would support Russian application to the World Trade Organization (WTO) only if Russia ratified Kyoto. Russian joined in November 2004 and was admitted to the WTO in 2012 after 18 years of trying.
Despite this Russian climate scientists maintained perspective. Yury Izrael, Director, Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences and IPCC Vice President said in 2005 there was no evidence of a human signal. Remember this is 10 years after Santer had altered the 1995 Summary for Policymakers to say there was a discernible signal. This was a Science Academy that rejected the political campaign deliberately orchestrated by the Royal Society in England and fully supported by the US Academy of Science to push AGW.
The difference in analyzing climate science patterns and mechanisms between the IPCC approach and climate cycles is a false scientific difference. The IPCC has influenced and controlled the thinking to promote their political climate science. If they acknowledge there are cycles they have to abandon the simplistic linear trend approach developed in The Limits to Growth and applied in their computer models ever since. Failure of the IPCC approach was accentuated by their disregard of the scientific method. Instead of disproving the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing global warming they only considered material that appeared to prove it. They we’re able to manipulate data, method and models to apparently accommodate what was happening. They led the public to believe their models worked by constantly changing terminology – failed predictions became projections and global warming became climate change. Finally, they lost the ability to manipulate the temperature data when satellite data became available. After 2000 the natural cycle, mainly dictated by the sun, asserted itself and the gap between their model projections and reality widened.
The IPCC kept climate science marooned half way up Mount Climate Theory. Meanwhile those not caught up in the deliberate corruption, like the Russians and Chinese and a few brave mostly unfunded western scientists pursued the cyclical pattern of climate. The IPCC made chaos out of climate science so it got stuck on the mountain where it remains today. It will stay there until the IPCC is disbanded and the proper scientific method includes re-examining the hypothesis when the data doesn’t fit and consideration of the null hypothesis is allowed.
References:
[1] “Climatic Change, Droughts and Their Social Impact: Central Canada, 1811-20, a classic example.” In C.R.Harington (ed) The Year Without a Summer? World Climate in 1816. 1992, National Museum of Natural Sciences, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa
[2] “Historical and Instrumental Evidence of Extreme Climatic Conditions in Central Canada: 1770-1820”, Annales Geophysicae, Proceedings of the Annual Geophysical Society General Assembly, Bologna, March 1988, p. 84
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
richardscourtney says:
Thanks, A couple hours in the dark killed it before it really got going, thank goodness. I am glad I finally learned how to manage the darn things. Ain’t the internet wonderful?
It has been obvious for several years that the IPCC method of forecasting climate from models is a waste of time and money Because of the number of variables involved the IPCC models are inherently less skillful than weather models – which can see for perhaps 10 days ahead. The uselessness of the IPCC forecasts is further confirmed by the increasing deviation of the real world data from the IPCC model forecasts. A new forecasting method is badly needed. For forecasts of the coming cooling based on the simple working hypothesis that the recent warming peak combines synchronous peaks in both the 60 and 1000 year periodicities in the temperature data and that the recent sharp decline in solar activity also presages a cooling trend in the near future see several posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
I would second Gail’s discussion of the centrality of Interdependence in the mindset education globally, preschool through higher ed, is to be creating. Frequently it is found in a discussion of how students must come to see the world in terms of interrelated systems as if we no longer have free will. With the psychological techniques now to be embedded in the classroom, that is definitely under deliberate assault.
I discuss that in my book Credentialed to Destroy: How and Why Education Became a Weapon and how systems thinking is designed to alter future behavior. It actually goes back to the early 50s although I would agree with your comment about the 30s too. That’s what Ralph Tyler’s 8 Year Study was all about. In the obuchenie vision of the desired Worldview, perceptions about reality are all important. It’s what people believe is true that governs their behavior. Unfortunately for us the genuine reality still has quite a bearing on real consequences.
Interdependence is one of the framing Big Ideas that is supposed to guide how daily reality is perceived. The same is true of all the modelling which is why visual modelling via the computer is pushed so in the classroom now. Perceptions are gamed by the repetition of the computer graphics, even if they are based on falsehoods created by rent-seekers wanting more grants.
The old ones what did they know, they just lived out in the climate, they had no computer code talkers. They did have some curved rocks leaning up on a messa the rocks had circles and other signs and buildings had alingment to the moon, sun, stars.
The old ones lived and died by the crops weather/climate allowed.
That keept their heads fully in the real game.
http://www.nps.gov/chcu/index.htm
Chaco Canyon and the Culture therein.
Michael Mann/Phil Jones not so much in the knowing department.
Henry Bowman says:
January 20, 2014 at 3:06 pm
I note that Mr. Ball’s plot of wheat production in China shows a maximum in 1997 or 1998. I note that this period was a very warm period. While it seems unlikely that the increased warmth directly influenced wheat production, it’s certainly possible
============
Warmth and moisture related to the 1997/97 Super El Nino? Also 97/98 was the record haze in SE Asia, and 1997 was the economic collapse of SE Asia after the Brits handed back HK and took their money out of SE Asia, leading to the much feared domino effect as local economies from Vietnam to Thailand collapsed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory
Robin says: @ur momisugly January 20, 2014 at 4:10 pm
I would second Gail’s discussion of the centrality of Interdependence…
Actually Robin ‘Interdependence’ goes all the way back to the 1890s and President of the American Fabian, John Dewey, the Father of Progressive Education.
(It is interesting that the connection between the Fabians and John Dewey is very hard to find on the internet.)
once the EU drops CAGW, what will be left?
15 Jan: Der Spiegel: Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals
By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels
The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking — jeopardizing Germany’s touted energy revolution in the process.
With such a policy, the European Union is seriously jeopardizing its global climate leadership role…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html
Industry realism curtails EU’s long-term climate ambitions
BRUSSELS, Jan 20 (Reuters) – Seven years after it set some of the world’s most stringent environmental targets, the European Union is about to revise its long-term goals to take more account of industry and changed economic circumstances…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3782182?&ref=searchlist
Group of MEPs to object to CO2 backloading proposal – lawmaker
LONDON, Jan 20 (Reuters) – LONDON, Jan 20 (Reuters) – Seven members of the European Parliament (MEPs) plan to object to a plan to fast-track a bill to prop up carbon prices in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a senior MEP said on Monday in a move analysts said is likely to reduce the impact of the measure this year…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3783136
milodonharlani says: January 20, 2014 at 2:47 pm
I am familiar with Augustine’s “De Genesi ad literam”, often translated as “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”. He wrote it to persuade his colleagues among the Early Church Fathers to quit taking all of the Bible literally, thus arguing for a flat earth covered by a solid dome or tent-like structure, ie the firmament (Jerome’s Latin firmamentum from Hebrew raqiya’ via Septuagint Greek stereoma).
He felt that such literalism discouraged the propagation of the faith, which was his main concern. Once the Church adopted the Ptolemaic system of earth-centered spheres as consistent with the Bible, this problem was solved, until a churchman over 1100 years later proposed a sun-centered model.
The usual “don’t take the bible too literally” idea. The real problem was and often is ignorance of what it actually said in the original language, coupled with scientific ignorance. In fact, if and only if you know exactly what the original language means (I stress exactly), the problem is often that it is not taken literally enough, but peeps add or subtract all kinds of ridiculous things to it. An example, the whole “the world was made in seven days” thing, when in the original language the words used can mean anywhere from 12 hour periods to vastly longer ones. If you are going to interpret something literally, first know what it actually said.
In the original, the problem was that peeps saw how “the waters above” where separated from those below. They could not understand how waters could be above unless some sort of solid dome held that water up. We now know that after the earth was just formed (lumped together), it was hot, too hot for water to exist on the surface without boiling off. Thus, all the water of the planet was in the form of immensely thick dark clouds (another, more detailed description, Job 38:9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness). Once we know that, we can know how water could exist above but not below, and what held it up. Not some solid done, as thought by the church above, which was all they could come up with to understand it with their limited knowledge (which allowed no other possibility, really).
Once they had solid domes holding waters up, it wasn’t too far a stretch to have domes holding planets and stars as well. I mean, what other methods of holding something up did they know about? And if water was held up above the earth by domes, then planets and even the sun would be held specifically above the earth, with the obvious thought that therefore the earth is at the center. They further added theological reasons for the earth to be the center of everything, despite the fact that their bibles stated no such thing. I think it made them feel more important. I think a God would, instead, make a huge universe and even solar system with earth pointedly NOT at the center, to make them feel less important (“get over yourselves!”).
And Galileo tended to support his theories by insulting those who held contrary ones. The people who wanted him brought up on charges where those who had been insulted. He also should have left out any theological speculations from his science, which annoyed the Pope and was off topic anyway.
I think the IPCC likes the idea of CO2 being all important the same way the old church liked the idea of the earth as center of everything. Like that old church, it makes them feel more important, and allows them to translate that into money and power. Plus, they can burn the occasional heretic, er, I mean ‘skeptic’.
I enjoy WUWT but Dr. Tim Ball incorrectly stated…The Catholic church perpetuated Ptolemy similar to the religious adherence of climate science to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Actually Pope Urban III asked Galileo to present his heliocentric theory it but not to claim it was true until he had proved it. Galileo couldn’t prove it then. Telescopes weren’t accurate enough to measure stellar parallax which is the way to prove it. It would be many years later before it could be proved. Please read the true history of the Church and science: the Church has always encouraged science.
The crowd sourcing education model is the most efficient learning model.
When people get together in groups, such as on a science blog like WUWT, there are an exchange of ideas that don’t have a monetary profit motive attached that hinders the learning process. Participants, for the most part share, the purpose of which is to make the world a little better place for all of us. We are diametrically opposed to those science blogs and scientists that seek to preserve their profit making schemes, that they attach their so-called scientific reasoning to. Money cannot satisfy all desires. Giving away for free your contribution to the world is infinitely more gratifying than money sometimes.
This is what makes WUWT so great.
“… Copernicus waited until the end of his life to publish the theory on which he had been working for over 30 years. He was finally persuaded to do so by a Lutheran student, who arranged to have the book printed … ”
Luther himself referred to Copernicus as “a fool who went against Holy Writ”:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/response.html
Just an observation but note that Copernicus etc started to become interested in planetary motions at about the same time that the MWP was terminating and the LIA was starting. One wonders if anything changed in the heavens to attract this sudden ‘academic’ interest in the motion of the planets etc. You might be surprised to learn that Captain James Cook was sent by the British Admiralty to observe the transit of Venus in the southern hemisphere. Why? Did something change that they needed more accurate fixes on? The biologist Lyall Watson noted an anecdote in one of this books about medieval merchant seamen using Venus as a day time navigational aid, and that nowadays people can’t see it anymore because we’ve lost visual acuity as a species. An alternative explanation might be that venus moved further away? I suspect we don’t know the half of what happened during the MWP-LIA transition period.
curt lampkin said:
“:..the Church and science: the Church has always encouraged science.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
False.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/science.html
Legatus says:
January 20, 2014 at 6:00 pm
It it very sobering to re-read Geneisis “in sequence” from beginning to end, and see within it every step that “science” now find verified in the nuclear physics, astronomical, geological and biological records.
Now, true, you have to “see” the word “waters” and understand it as an ignorant shepherd who can’t read – because written words didn’t exist yet in his culture – yet, much count past seven … But,
Consider that a “Vault” was a rounded arched ceiling overhead in the temple or court. Thus, the “heavens” are across the “vault” are in the “dome” overhead.
Did not “everything” have to be created first, then later cool down into “Light”, then still later into matter (so light could be separated from darkness by shadows)?
Are not “Waters above” the fluids (clouds, vapors, gasses, plasmas, dust clouds, and ions) streaming through the “vault” above the sky so the two can be separated (by gravity)?
Are not “Waters below” the dust clouds and fluids and gasses that formed the planet?
If the ancient knew of many seas and lands, why would they tolerate a creation story that told about only “one sea, and one land” rather than the many that were obviously present in their world? (Can anybody claim that plate tectonics was know in 4000 BC?)
If the ancients knew about life beginning in the sea, then appearing on land as dinosaurs (the ancestor of birds), then mammals, then snakes, would they not tell that story?
Did not plants appear before the atmosphere cleared to reveal the stars and moon?
Henry Bowman says:
January 20, 2014 at 3:06 pm
————————————
The winter of 1996/97 was a semi biblical flood event for Northern California and parts of Oregon. The dam on the Feather River, above Oroville Ca, was in danger of over-topping before the rains relented. China may have also had above normal rains. The year 1997 is also the solar rebound as it comes off of the minimum. There is some weather effects from the ssn rise as it rebounds and perhaps as it descends to minimum. The Pac NW 9 year flood pattern, which changed to an above 11 year pattern at the 1974/75 solar minimum, always hit close to the bottom of the descent, or the beginning of the rise.
Philosophers recognize a logical difference between the process by which one goes from a general theory to specific instances of it and the process by which one goes from specific instances of it to a general theory. The former process is called “deduction” while the former process is called “induction.” The process by which Kepler arrived at his laws of planetary motion was induction.
In the time of Galileo, induction was an unsolved problem of philosophy. This accounts for the acrimony of the debate between Galileo and the Church. Today, we have a well validated solution to the problem of induction. However, this solution is not employed by climatologists. That it is not employed accounts for the acrimony of the debate over the causes and consequences of global warming and the failure of this debate to reach a conclusion.
milodonharlani wrote –
“I don’t get your point.”
Of course you don’t,you are too busy rewriting history without keeping the technical points front and center to notice and especially the technical issue which Augustine brought up regarding stellar circumpolar motion and a celestial sphere. The great Archbishop Cusa whom Galileo mentions had set down the difficulties of using the celestial sphere framework to discern the motions of the planet –
“Suppose person A were on the earth somewhere below the north pole of the heavens and person B were at the north pole of the heavens. In that case, to A the pole would appear to be at the zenith, and A would believe himself to be at the center; to B the earth would appear to be at the zenith, and B would believe himself to be at the center. Thus, A’s zenith would be B’s center, and B’s zenith would be A’s And wherever anyone would be, he would believe himself to be at the center.Therefore, merge these different imaginative pictures so that the center is the zenith and vice versa. Thereupon you will see– through the intellect..that the world and its motion and shape cannot be apprehended. For [the Universe] will appear as a wheel in a wheel and a sphere in a sphere– having its center and circumference nowhere. . . ” Nicolas of Cusa
When John Flamsteed introduced the utterly absurd idea that the return of a star to the same foreground reference every night represents the rotation of the Earth he basically created a celestial sphere universe beloved of mathematical modelers and the great works of the astronomers vanished from view until now when contemporary imaging and the internet makes their own words come alive once more. If Cusa’s observations look strangely like the ridiculous ‘big bang’ notion then I assure you that this is the consequence of the ‘no center/no circumference’ homocentricity of a celestial sphere ideology with its roots in the late 17th century.
Augustine’s commentary on individual standards of faith and reason apply today as they did back then because when we live in a society which cannot match all the effects within a 24 hour cycle with one rotation of the Earth,then you will know something went badly wrong within the last few hundred years.
“If’ anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.” Augustine
The same goes for visible creation as it does the Bible so if you are so desperate to support the celestial sphere notions of late 17th century modelers then be my guest but it will be far lower than the noble attempts of the geocentric astronomers insofar as they considered the Earth to be the center whereas the homocentric modelers put man at the center.
“Galileo bemoaned that the most learned refused to look through is telescope”
Whilst it seemed pretty obvious that the telescope worked the way it was supposed to when applied to earthly phenomena, what guarantee was there that it would also give an accurate representation of heavenly phenomena? The heavens were, it was thought, made of a different substance from the earth.
One of the more important of the observations G made through that dubious instrument was that the moon was not perfect at all, suggesting that the heavens were, perhaps, not some special substance after all. But was the instrument accurate?
Muslim and Christian astronomers were well aware that there were problems with the Ptolemaic system, and a few of the Muslims did wonder about elliptical orbits. But the orbits were supposed to be the motion of huge crystal spheres. How could they deform to ellipsoids?
Brahe dealt with that. Using the huge instruments funded by the Danish Space Programme, he showed that the path of a comet passed through the orbits from the outer planets to the inner. That sound you hear is either the shattering of the crystal spheres or the shattering of the concept of those spheres.
Without the spheres, Kepler could use the data he nicked from Brahe’s heirs to calculate elliptical orbits, his first and second laws, and ultimately the incomprehensible third law.
But the parallax problem that had defeated Aristarchus still remained.
Christopher Hanley says:
January 20, 2014 at 8:05 pm
Luther did disparage heliocentrism at the end of his life (1546), shortly after Copernicus published, but his disciple Melanchthon had sent the student to study astronomy with Copernicus, & De Revolutionibus was published by a Lutheran in a Protestant part of Germany. Many Protestants objected to heliocentrism as much as did the Catholic Church, but the Lutheran states were more open to new systems. Tycho & Kepler, for instance, were Lutherans. Galileo of course was Catholic, but Huygens, The Netherlandish inventors of the telescope, Leibniz & Newton were Protestants of one stripe or another. Lavoisier & Pasteur were Catholics.
Wonderful comments all – I hope to find time to study them. Thank you.
The following may appear OT but is worth repeating for the big picture.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/28/germanys-new-renewable-energy-policy/#comment-1067214
Stephanie Clague says: August 28, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Good comments Stephanie – sad, but true.
In North America, we too have our share of CAGW scoundrels and imbeciles – an ignorant stew of Harpo and Groucho Marxists who are convinced that if all industry were shut down and everyone worked for the government, the economy would perk along just fine. These leftist ideologues appeal to that idiot 30% of humanity who are somehow convinced they are much more intelligent than the rest of us, despite their lack of any technical or economic competence.
From time to time, these ideologues gain power and proceed to wreak havoc upon their economies – witness the Canadian Liberals under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, or the Ontario Liberals under Doltan McGuinty. Out of neighbourly courtesy, I will not comment on USA politics.
Because of the boom in cheap natural gas from shale, and similar apparent success in shale oil, North America is again enjoying abundant cheap energy. The question is, will we use this incredible competitive advantage to rebuild our economies and our manufacturing sectors, now increasingly outsourced to China, or will be squander this opportunity in a quagmire of regulatory incompetence and pseudo-environmental obstructionism?
Stay tuned.
Small correction from Wikipedia:
“Copernicus’ theory was at least as accurate as Ptolemy’s but never achieved the stature and recognition of Ptolemy’s theory. What was needed was Kepler’s elliptical theory, not published until 1609. Copernicus’ work provided explanations for phenomena like retrograde motion, but really didn’t prove that the planets actually orbited the Sun.”
Here is Tim’s book, just out today.
from Friends of Science
http://www.friendsofscience.org
The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science
http://www.amazon.com/The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390352592&sr=8-1&keywords=The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science
http://www.amazon.ca/The-Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science-ebook/dp/B00HXO9XGS/ref=zg_bs_5793833011_6
This the title of Tim Ball’s book, just out today, that ranges far and wide over the subject in the history, politics, machinations and science of this and similar deceptions.
The Kindle version at Amazon is yours for immediate download at $ 9.99. The ‘Kindle reader’ is free.
The publisher’s note says: In The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Dr. Tim Ball exposes the malicious misuse of climate science by dishonest brokers to advance the agenda of the progressive left. How was legitimate science twisted into a morass of convoluted gibberish? Dr. Ball explores how and why the science was distorted for political purposes.