go to heartland.org and listen to the many presenters who are part of the NIPCC and read about their qualifications.
The most important qualification they all have is they are still skeptical. Real Scientists are always Skeptical. The Consensus People have lost that and they are not really Scientists, if they ever were.
Is the NIPCC actually trying to do science?
Yes, they are still skeptical. That is how Science happens, skeptical people try to find answers.
Hi R Gates,
If you don’t mind my adding myself to the conversation, I would suggest the mathematics of Nassim Harimen, about a double torus universe, if changed to create a 3 axis universe tri phase torus, they are porbably at that point bang on, indicate a self recycling, self propelling, self balancing and “centers of slower entropy” will encase in a speres of diminishing lines of cracks in entropy. become when tri phased, to be spot on and then describe the nature of the shape of the hydrogen atom, the energy shells of atoms, and scales all the way up, explaining the existence of black holes, pulsars etc. His slightly transformed view and mathematics seem visually to exactly match visually, the mathematics of the universal gravity wave, it considered to be also a minature inverse “pull” of a universal “resulting” standing wave as the esence of all motion and energy transfer. Kind of like a universal average barycenter to orbital shape of the hydrogen atom cage, being “shuggled” in three dimensions by the averaged out average center of universal “resistance” to, or “acceleration with” that average jiggle. This defines local average and system energy levels, relative to their sphere of magnetism and rotation against their trajectory in the “averaged out” difference between the two average standing fields.
I doubt the big bang. Nassim put it nicely, where then did the desire of an entire universes worth of mass to rotate at such velocity come from if the mas was previously spinning it wouldn’t have compacted. If it was not, there would be no need for a big bang to create angular momentum, unless as a result of an inherent internal discord of center of mass of universal existence, within the big bang sphere, which would then suggest a phase change in the center and speed of existence. like the center or duo-center of all galaxys. (see the cloud of heavy charge above and below the milky way. Miles mathis may have appropriate math to prove why that should exist.) If we see the universe, then as a phase changing rotating collection of mass anyways, take a step further, and see the universal french cruller.
This shape will self replicate. Since all, friction is a manifestation of balance of entropy, the shape does not need to expand or contract in its entirety. It has many alternating and accelerated spheres of change of speed of existence.
If we do stretch to see the universe this way, it does lead to a realization that our perception of the universe is limited by our flow within the “roil” and the proportion of gravity we have will affect the limitation of perceiving past a certain size of future without extrapolation and ripple deciphering of the microwave background radiation signal, I don’t think. Limit age of perception. Not age of existence of the medium.
I think.
With all due respect the nature of offering opinios of relative information related in a public forum of public exchange.
On the topic of climate cause and Mr. Springer being a now settled conversation, in our agreed regards to my opinion anyways, not his own, which may continued unhindered on the opinion of climate cause without comment.
Cheres,
Alistair
AK + Sparrow, = +2 good opinions.
+1
the brightest people don’t go into climate science
The brightest people are always skeptical.
The consensus Climate Clique does not allow skeptical people in.
Sometimes they get in anyway, but they often get kicked out because they are not allowed to disagree and stay in.
Child of the UNEP?
‘A freckled whelp hag-born – not honour’d with
A human shape.’
‘The Tempest ‘ Act 1 Scene 11
Spawning?
I guess you meant TCR can be measured if we make an assumption that most/all warming from 1950 is manmade. Since that assumption is supported only by circular reasoning (ie assume nature does nothing then the remainder must be manmade) then even that unscary TCR measurement is just an upper bound. The lower bound is still the no-feedback 1K rise, which itself is based on an overly-simplistic, 1D, back-of-the-envelope calc. plus another assumption about the relative warming contribution of CO2 among the other greenhouse gases.
At the end of the day only observations tell us which assumptions are valid and so far the result is that none are: We conducted the experiment of large-scale planetary CO2 injection and nothing happened – nature clearly still dominates the planetary climate by means as yet unknown. Scientists who don’t admit they really don’t know what drives climate are guilty of the fallacy of “looking for their keys under the light”, ie what they don’t know is assumed to be unimportant.
All this alarm of course is based on a paltry 0.6K/century, none of which was that recent.
Gary, rancor never improves a debate. And I like Kumbaya… or I did the last time I heard it… 50 years ago…
I thought “academic bullying” was a pleonasm.
The media seemed to reach an exquisite peak of climate silliness around 2008. That was when the Sydney Morning Herald, still a massive tree-gobbling broadsheet, published its special wrap-around segment offering an evacuation plan for Sydney. They actually had reader complaints that the article was biased toward beachside residents and neglected the possible plight of those living by estuaries. Estuarism must be the ultimate first world prob, don’t you think? All of this was even funnier if you knew the geography of Sydney. It’s hardly situated as stupidly as New York.
Spiegel used to be tops for neurosis and sheer hysteria but they seem to be calming down. Still, even now you don’t want to ruffle their angst over their lebensraum.
I rate the Guardian as the pottiest, especially when they had pages of daffy little green products for sale. If there is such a thing as a solar powered vegan sandal, it would have been advertised in the Guardian’s environment pages. You won’t be surprised to learn that the products tended to be expensive.
As for the New York Times…now as always, it just has to be in the pay of Big Smug.
How can anyone with above a third grade education interpret “read the NY Times…” as meaning that “the NY Times is in climate science?”
“Government scientists view FOIA requests as bullying”
For The Team members in the thrall of The Cause, it’s bullying only if the request is made of their team. It’s to be applauded if it’s a request made of the opposition.
The Team Is just like a political party
Peter Gleick, I just loved your well-formed opinion on the Amazon book review!
David,
On both points you miss the essential.
On the first point: Inductive logic gives only a partial answer. It cannot use all relevant input, and therefore cannot answer the real question. Youd claim is a pure case of logical fallacy.
On the second point the question is not who is more rational, but who knows more. Science has produced knowledge that science can also use. A philosopher, who cannot use that knowledge lacks power. Drawing the conclusion, you draw is again a pure case of logical fallacy.
David,
It’s good that you are optimistic about engineers generating heat!
I’m not. The history of many hundreds of meters thick ice carving Seattle and Chicago makes me think of human insignificance. Ditto the last large Yellowstone eruption.
His expertize in ethics might just do it.
Are those team members who deny the ethical lapse to be reminded of their denialism every time they congratulate Mr Gleick on his derring-doing?
I thought about this for a little while and tried to get to the core of motivation. It seems like the consensus would have, long ago, just dismissed the skeptics and ignored them. They did that with Heartland, and it would seem, successfully. Why bother with the other fragmented individuals perceived as a bunch of ignorant toothless hillbillies? I could only think, given some of the tactics, that it has to do with control.
If you put two small children in a room with a bunch of toys they will inevitably both want just one toy; the same toy of course. Each will think that it has an inherent right to that toy and fight for control. It is a matter of personal pride and self worth.
The consesus has a pretty wide margin in the polls of convincing the public about global warming. It is, however, not a high ranked priority for most people it’s always ranked at the bottom. Perhaps they are insecure of the control of their possession and need to avert the greatest perceived threat. The greatest threat to possesion of the toy (science) is of couse the ultimate scientific outcome. Regardless, it looks to be all about control.
Orsen Wells once made a movie with this theme about a priveledged child who was a boorish brat. He eventually had his comeuppance but ruined his own life and those around him. It was called the ‘ Magnificent Ambersons’. Perhaps consensus control is suffering from Amberson Syndrome.
Stephen, you said:
“Let’s talk science and economics on this Blog and stop making GW a “Liberal” vs. “Conservative” battle.”
“GW” is a battle between wishfulness and concrete empiricism.