Look what I just received in my work mailbox -- from the Heartland Institute

Think of it as frosting on your cake. And you have the thickness of frosting as thick as your silver.
You might see it but how does it taste to you?

 

I doubt that you are a scientist. I have an advanced degree in science. Worked in science for 30 years and never heard the term "denier" or "infidel" applied to a person who does not believe the science is completely understood. Those terms are normally used by religious zealots, not scientists.

Now, the term you used years before NASA launched an experiment to ascertain the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. How can we even discuss greenhouse effects without understanding cloud formation and how the relative orientations of earth, the sun, and the galaxy might effect normal changes in climate.

There are studies still underway to ascertain the features of the Pacific Ocean Floor. Given that we can't fully understand the flow and mixing in the South Pacific, how are we to believe we fully understand a huge influence on the earth's climate, the surface temperature of the equatorial Pacific.

As soon as I heard the term "denier" or "infidel" applied to people engaged in scientific pursuits whose research was at odds with the narrative required by the AGW establishment, I became skeptical of anything that bunch of religious zealots produced. That is what happens when a political organization with an agenda of appropriating money from the developed nations for the benefit the undeveloped nations is in control of science. Nothing that has happened since surprises me. NASA caught faking data. Not surprising. Dr. Landsea's conclusion on the effect of climate change on cyclone intensity and frequency ,,, buggered by the establishment to fit their religion. Dr. Briffa's reconstruction altered to make it appear to match Michael Mann's. Dr. Shukla of RICO 20 fame found to be a double dipper who collected tens of millions by employing his family on taxpayer funded research.

https://climateaudit.org/2015/09/28/shuklas-gold/

You're not a scientist. You're an embarrassment to science who should be kept away from impressionable children.

 

No it isn't. In fact the scientific method exacerbates human error and cognitive bias inherent in it, allows for the perpetuation of faulty paradigms far longer than they should be perpetuated in a LESS "peer-reviewed" system. This is ESPECIALLY true in redistribution states where the slimy path to academic "success" involves involuntary fiat appropriation of taxpayer resources to the greatest degree possible as opposed to private sector real success. No appeal to "SCIENCE!!" is honest or in context today without also acknowledging the infinitely CORRUPTIVE effects of government fiat troughs upon it.

You can bandy about "science" as some ideal abstraction all you like, and you and yours certainly do that every single day of the world. But it's erroneous and has been for decades. Appeals to some purity of "science" in the age of the welfare state and the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex would be like allowing used car salesmen to appeal to sacrosanct "thermodynamics!" when selling us a 2005 Fiesta.

Calling people who disagree with ANY scientific hypothesis on ANY grounds "anti science" is the height of intellectual and plain old dishonesty, truly an indicator of a feeble, inferior mind. You wouldn't do something that egregious now would you? WOOPS! forgot about that other thread of yours (I didn't)

 

What is the NIPCC?

 

However, it holds up to empirical evidence.

 

Not surprisingly, the lack of ability to defend the unsolicited dissemination of a purely political propaganda book disguised as a "science" textbook results in ad-hominem attacks. You and your friend Sanskrit, who liked this post, while never reading any threads, seem to be peas of the same pod. I am not going to defend my credentials to your accusations since it is unlikely to have any effect.

Note in edit: If you had actually read my previous contributions to climate change threads, you would have seen that I oppose a policy response to AGW, since schemes like carbon sequestration are futile from an energetic viewpoint.

But, no, you immediately lump me with your feared "environazis" (your side's term, not mine), and then attack based on emotion, not facts.

 

Haha, seems that this is a common practice by the Heartland Institute:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...tic-group-seeks-to-influence-200000-teachers/

200,000 teachers have been sent the book, at a cool total $1.4 million. Big oil and Koch brother's money well spent, I guess. And now university professors seem to be on the list too.

BTW: Anyone who defends this "science" book, just take in the foreword:

"President Barack Obama and his followers have repeatedly declared that climate change is "the greatest threat facing mankind". This, while ISIS is beheading innocent people, displacing millions rom their homeland, and engaging in global acts of mass murder.
If it weren't so scary, it would be laughable. These statements should ring alarm bells in the minds of all Americans...."

Have you ever seen a textbook with a preface like this? Purely political and based on emotion, that's what this is.

 

I always heard that it was good idea not to burn up all our coal and oil because it polluted our air not because of AGW. So now because AGW is doubtful those things no longer pollute?

 

Your first para being so, then how do you come to ANY conclusion? How do you back up your statements?

 

Really got some facts to go with that rubbish or are you just throwing out random bull in the hope someone will ride it?

 

You were the one who invoked the "denier" term, a term that has no place in a discussion of science, not I. I'm on the side of science. Having gatekeepers with an agenda filtering journal publications, then advertising a 97% consensus that is really the percentage of the abstracts that expressed an opinion among those the gatekeepers allowed to pass ,,, does nothing to promote science ,,, just a means of marginalizing those whose research turns out to be at odds with the AGW dogma.

I'm on the side of wherever real science takes us. After 8 years of Obama trampling First Amendment rights by making it impossible to fund the articulation of opinions he disagreed with, I have no problem with anyone holding an alternative view disseminating information. If you disagree with the content, then perhaps you should explain where they went astray. So far, the enemies of science have been those promoting the AGW dogma for personal gain. Look at Scheiderman --- still accepting funding from Soros and Steyer to abuse his power in an attack on Exxon and the administration.

 

1) Note that the thread is not about the science, but about a propaganda book disguised as a science book.

2) If you were interested in the science only, you would denounce such a book as what it is, political propaganda to sway unsuspecting minds, paid for by big-money political interest groups.

 

I guess the Kansas Koch brothers don't like all those wind turbines going up, in the western side of their state.

 

So, first thing to ask is - who is the author and what are his credentialns in atmospheric science = and although he is a member of the House of Lords he only has a degree in Zoology not climatology

 

I always like to start with a plot of how natural changes in temperature causes CO2 to be released from the oceans since the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperature:


Note that if you change the resolution you can blame the rise in temperature 300,000 years ago on SUVs and present your conclusion to Congress as an inconvenient truth.

 

Ever hear the saying "correlation does not necessarily imply causation" and look at some actual facts

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:

• The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.

• This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.

• The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

I heard the saying ,,, it wasn't what Gore presented to Congress before starting his Carbon exchange. Begs the question, "Who should be the subject of a RICO investigation?"



We can't even be honest about who got here first, the Europeans who walked across the Atlantic thousands of years before Obama slowed the rise in the oceans, or the Asians who lived on the Bering Land Bridge until it wasn't. The idea that anyone has all the answers and that science is moved forward by calling Dr. Judith Curry an apostate for moderating her views or calling anyone else an infidel or denier or harassing Exxon and the Secretary of State with bogus RICO investigations are bull. No group has done more to set back science than the religious fanatics at the IPCC and NASA.

 

You know every time someone brings up Gore who was not a climate scientist or any kind of scientist and who has not appeared on the international stage in years I bring up Christopher Monckton

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

A climate denier who has actually managed to tell more lies than Trump

And I call Judith Curry a hired shill. Take a look one day at who currently pays her bills

Mind you she might also have got more traction if she had come up with a better explanation of why the climate is changing than "because it does"

 

Trouble is people are expected, by the advertising industry, to accept unfounded and biased "research". Every day. "30%of people surveyed said that the facial cream "Baby's Bum" appeared to reduce wrinkles". They are not taught to think critically and do not question wording author, affiliation or source

 

Oh they probably do know this, but theyre paid to say something else.

 

What a joke. Neither poster mitchscove nor myself created a thread based on a specific document 1. Without even citing the document or anything in it, not a single sentence or even word in it, 2. based on emotional and not factual appeals, 3. yet in true LW bizarro fashion trying to simultaneously cloak themselves in "science." THAT'S ALL YOU. YOU DID THAT, not anyone else.

No amount of posturing or feigned moral indignation is going to fix that. Thread fail.

Oh and one more thing, spare us all the "propaganda disguised as a textbook" BS, no one is buying. The publication is plainly a policy advocacy vehicle and not even people where you teach would be fooled otherwise.

 

I'm not a scientist, and as revealed am Kuhnian with respect to how science progresses and the "user error" foibles inevitably contained in that process. There are surely other views emergent in the decades since SOSR. But will make a couple of points, mostly negative ones:

1. Don't discount the corrupting impact of politics and public funding on ANY research. It's real. I see hypocrites regularly decrying the corrupting power of corporate money in all manner of research (big tobacco money for example) while simultaneously excluding this context from claims about government involved research (CC for example) with even MORE money at stake in grants, treaties, regs, contracting, etc. Governments are far and away the largest "corporations" in the world, and due to their central fiat nature together with lack of meaningful oversight, are inherently MORE corrupt than any mere voluntary market corporation.

100 years of lie narratives in our schools and entertainment are focused on hiding this fact, but eventually smart people reach a certain level of life experience and are able to slough off all the pro gov, anti corp conditioning poured into their brains over the years by the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex. LW folks who assume that their pet research is "incorruptible" while the other side's is tainted are either fools or crafty purposeful liars. No middle ground possible, and this applies especially to CCS. People who have not TRULY examined their pet data (of any sort) with the same jaundiced eye applied to their opposition are lots of things, but they are -not- scientists. If you can't tell your opposition the corrupting flaws in your own data based on how the $$ flows? You're just a useful idiot.

2. Control for one's own bias. Tossing around abstractions like "science" and "scientific method" at one's opposition while one's wife, cousin or friend has a grant application in, looking for a govt contract or even a pay bump at the jr college? nuff said. People who are rationalizing their own self-interest in their politics at the expense of any objective examination may not be headed to the -worst- circle of hell, but they are definitely hellbound. Whether you are a contractor selling smokestacks, a DOE regulator, or a teacher running a 6th grade science fair, you have some degree of inherent cognitive bias attached to your reasoning capacity. Deal with that before becoming doctrinaire or... back to useful idiot land... or sociopath land, one or the other.

One big difference between the LW/Complex and everyone else in the US is that while everyone else will hastily tell you, "We have too much government and I'm tired of paying for it" revealing their self-interest and motivation instantly, the LW, due to its -rational- discomfort at living better than it should on the backs of the taxpayers, HIDES its self interest behind all manner of platitudes, virtue signaling, SJW first world issues, and basically propaganda advertisements. This applies -especially- to big gov money troughs like CC and "green business." How bout being HONEST for a change. If you are a big city school bureaucrat seeking more power and a great pension the private sector doesn't get, how bout fessing up for a change instead of hiding self-interest behind all manner of "social justice" rationalizations. Just once. Would be a HUGE breath of fresh air.

"I want a better than private sector benefit package and I think my neighbor who doesn't get the same at his job should be forced to pay for it at the end of a gun barrel." Just once. One time, instead of all the "anti science" BULLSHIT and the like.

3. Go light on the platitudinous abstractions. The word "science," like "education" doesn't MEAN anything. Reference to the "scientific method" doesn't even mean anything out of context (see 1 and 2 above). As has been pointed out, calling someone "anti science" based on their conclusions about pretty much anything that isn't conditioned on out and out knowing fabrication is the sign of a moron, and a particularly noxious kind of moron.

Enough for now, I'm sure you get the gist.

 

A molecule of CO2 is more reflective than a molecule of O2 or H20 or N2 or other molecules?

 

I will include a video for those that honestly must learn how this works.
One issue Professor Denis Rancourt has with peer review is who controls the papers.
But first he admits warming. I do not see who thinks it is cooling. Denis and many of us accept that climate went into a prolonged stable condition around 1998. Reports that we have had the hottest years of record are not accurate.

But let's hit peer review since Denis went deeply into this. If you agree with the money guys, who support this idea man is ruining Earth and we are all in stark danger, then you know they have enormous power. First to be peer reviewed, one must pay a fee. Then you must be accepted. And going against the team is not what they want peer reviewed. Denis explains it very well in his video.

 

Thanks for the very intelligent comments.

Science is not some club for politics. This topic is serious. The real question for all of us has to be do we want Democrats to run all over our lives. Do we actually think we changed government so they could keep running science down? They run it down. I have offered far to many proofs of the myth man is in charge of climate. For man to get the blame, clearly he has to be in charge. Democrats will try to deny they think man is in charge of climate and my question is why deny it? Clearly man is supposed to solve climate,

Denis Rancourt accepts the physics of the balance of energy equations science has constructed. Those are not recent equations. They are long standing math and available to all physicists. For the people who are not physicists, if they will spend time looking how Denis proves humans are not this deranged beast out to destroy Earth, it will provide comfort to them to realize we are not destroying Earth.
I shall make the video available one more time here. Do yourself a favor. Learn why doubling of the Carbon Dioxide to 800 ppm only means at the most, per science, Earth could warm a slight 1.4 degrees. Even the IPCC and NASA and NOAA agree to that true scientific formula.

Some of you will allege the video is just bias. But in the audience, based on their questions and statements, your side was very well represented. Denis had to address all of your concerns. He met the challenge. He is a research physicist. And a professor. This is what he does. I admired the other sides comments and questions. They worked him over very well trying to shake him from the laws of physics. But they did not carry the day.

Denis simply has the proof. Do not worry. You are not destroying Earth. We are not bad people for asking the diligent questions. We come at this due to science. We think if you listen, science has told you the outcome.