The View From 1776

When Fanatical Agendas Obliterate Science

Climate Emails Stoke Debate: Scientists’ Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming (Wall Street Journal, November 23, 2009).

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/23 at 11:48 PM
  1. Criminals. Frauds. Coercive NutJobs.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/24  at  12:13 PM
  2. Thomas,

    Where you wrote
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/25  at  08:13 PM
  3. Whenever I hear that some theory is based on a mathematical model or a statistical projection I run for cover. The great scientific discoverers like Faraday, Galileo, Newton, Salk, Pasteur, Edison, etc., all relied on direct observation, measurement, and then could demonstrate their conclusions with actual repeatable applications. Once calculated, even movements within the solar system follow fairly preictable paths. Such is the stuff of true science.

    "Models" only are used when actual phenomenon cannot be measured or accurately predicted. Thus, they are by definition mere hypotheses. They have appeal primarily for the intellectual mind that adores abstractions and statistical gobble-dy-gook. (excuse the Thanksgivingday pun!)

    Some models developed in history may have been proven to represent laws of physical science. Perhaps Copernicus and those others from the Greeks forward who speculated on the solar syatem had models. But many of those proved wrong--for millennias--before actual science established what moves where. I suspect the global warming alarmists are much like those who thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe and had models to confirm their opinion.

    The fanatacism currently shown by GW alarmists is akin to the worst historical witch hunts and inquisitions. The religious fury and emotion displayed by these frauds and "nutjobs" should by itself prove the inadequacy of their models. (With thanks and acknowledgment to "Al Gore is Insane" for the most succinct comment.)
    Posted by bill greene  on  11/26  at  11:04 AM
  4. Bill wrote
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/26  at  01:19 PM
  5. Well said, Bob.

    But I have to say that I cannot agree with the thread that implies that ALL climate scientists begin with a bias that they are trying desperately to prove (for various nefarious reasons).

    I recommend the following short paper, which is

    an excerpt from his book, "A world Without Ice" written by Henry Pollack. In this paper, he shows a very interesting relationship between CO2 in ice cores of Antarctica, and more recent data from atmospheric testing at Mauna Loa.

    I won't give away the conclusion, but I think you would enjoy it, (and it is only two pages long).

    The paper can be found at:

    http://michigantoday.umich.edu/2009/11/story.php?id=7559&tr=y&auid=5578340
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/28  at  02:17 AM
  6. 1958 to the present is a grain of sand on Jones Beach relative to the terrestrial/geological age. Reaching conclusions regarding the AGW hypothesis based on 40 years of data is impossible, nonsense. The rate of change and the time frame prove nothing. If this is your 'science' you don't understand science.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/28  at  03:19 PM
  7. JJ,

    I
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/28  at  10:02 PM
  8. Bob,

    The last reference you cite makes much of an alleged correlation between sun spot activity and earth temperature by applying a series of apparently made up "constants" and "shifts" to the data. This is generally called "fudging."

    (Most climate scientists will tell you that the effect of sunspots is much too small and weak to have any measurable influence on global temperatures.)

    But, even if there were a correlation between sunspot activity and temperature, you are experienced enough to know that correlation does not imply causality.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/29  at  09:46 PM
  9. In terms of the geological record any 'climate scientist' who believes that the role of solar activity is 'too small' to effect global temps is nuts. As far as corelation versus causation is concerned, JJ, do you think before you speak? As global temps rise, co2 is released into the atmosphere. As temps fall, the opposite occurs. Any lags are simply due to the size/volume of the oceans. What could possibly be the reason for temps rising or falling on Mars? You say the sun plays no role, correct? What is the half-life of carbon 14? Is co2 any more a pollutant then say water vapor? In what way? How does cloud cover form? Does solar activity play any role? What volume of co2 is released into the atmosphere through volcanic activity? The decay of organic material? How imporatnt is co2 in maintaining life? What are the causes of the wide climate shifts which have occured over millions of years since solar activity has little to do with it?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  11/30  at  11:14 AM
  10. JJ,

    Well, I did warn him. Didn
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  12/01  at  09:20 PM
  11. "Whenever I hear that some theory is based on a mathematical model or a statistical projection I run for cover."

    The more I read on this "debate" the more I like my original comment (#3 above)
    Posted by bill greene  on  12/02  at  10:35 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.