Posts by James Bremner
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Sacha,
Sasha, far, far more money has been spent on the agw side of the argument than by those who doubt the science behind agw. I have repeatedly seen the figure of $50 billion as the amount of money that has been spent on agw research over time. It seems like far too much money, but I have not seen that number disputed. Even if it is out by a factor of ten, that is one hell of a lot of dosh, just imagine the number of careers and jobs supported by that dosh, and also consider the amount of money the likes of GE are trying to make with their turbines and solar panels, the amount of money the likes of the Sierra Club and WFF bring to the table. But the old canard of all the money the deniers have keeps getting trotted out.
And just think, for close to 20 years, practically ever mainstream media outlet around the world has been forcing agw down the throat of their audiences, and seemingly never missing the opportunity to denigrate those who question the agw orthodoxy. And still the majority of people have enough common sense to doubt agw. Thank God for that!!
It is always worth remembering the less remembered of the concerns Eisenhower stated in his valedictory speech:
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
You nailed that one, Dwight.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Carol Stewart,
And Al Gore, the great preacher and teacher of global warming, sorry climate disruption, his scientific qualifications are? His publication record is? Yet he is the great Gorical before which agwers prostrate themselves in adoration, despite the fact that his movie was found to be full of errors and distortions (fancy that!!).
Pardon the sarcasm, but many of the proponents of agw are not scientists with a record of publishing either. And that doesn't and shouldn't necessarily rule them out as contributors to the discussion, on either side. What matters is integrity and what they bring to the discussion. For example, the guys who took down Michael Mann and his fraudulent hockey stick weren't climate scientists, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are a mathematician and an economist, people used to serious data analysis, which of course is at the heart of most research.Here is a quick refresher on the fraudulent Mr. Mann and his hockey stick. And pause to consider that the hockey stick was once at the heart of the IPCC process and 2001 report. The overall state of paleoclimate science as described is really disturbing, especially when one considers the economically ruinous consequences of the recommendations made based on the work of the likes of Mr. Mann (who with a bit of luck will get the book thrown at him for scientific fraud. The Virginia AG really seems to have the bit between his teeth)
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to 3410,
No, that would indicate a trend without sufficient strength to claim warming, within 3 std deviations, you could have a cooling trend. And this is hadcrut data remember, not data produced by Exxon Mobil or any other dark satanic devil worshipping multi national company (you know, the type of companies that produce the products and services that enable the lifestyle to which we have all becomes accustomed).
Also interesting was that the data showed that global warming is not infact global in nature. Some parts of the world had cooled. Maybe that is why 'global warming" was changed to "climate change" instead, because global warming wasn't infact global after all. Damn, don't you just hate it when your most cunning schemes come unstuck? So annoying. And now apparently climate change is not doing the trick either, so "climate disruption" is now the chosen phrase. -
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Joe, I will make no comment on the state of your armpits, other than to say that thought is not making my just completed lunch sit well!!
-
Another interesting article on agw, this time about analysis of the HadCRUT3 data set.
Seems that global warming is not so global after all. And a rather large standard deviation on the overall result. Who would base a major decision on data where the standard deviation on a trend is 3 times the calculated trend? Wouldn't an affirmative answer be grounds for a head examination?
"In this sense, the warming recorded by the HadCRUT3 data is not global. Despite the fact that the average station records 77 years of the temperature history, 30% of the stations still manage to end up with a cooling trend. The warming at a given place is 0.75 plus minus 2.35 °C per century."
-
A bit late to the discussion, but I just saw this. I know Rasmussen is not the most popular polling organization amongst the PAS crew, but as they have a good track record of prediciting elections, their polls are worth contemplating.
No surprise in this one, 69% think it is at least somewhat likely that scientists have falsified research about AGW to support their own theroies and beliefs, up 10% from Dec 2009 (Climategate time). And even 51% of Dems, agree with this.
It is not that "science is complicated", if agw scientists were open with their research and data, instead of hiding their research and fighting to keep their research and data from seeing the light of day, people would have more confidence in the results. Sunlight afterall is the best disinfectant.
Look at Michael Mann, of hockeystick fame, still fighting like hell to keep everything under cover. If he doesn't have something to hide, he sure as hell behaves like he does.
Again, the question is not why increasing numbers of people don't believe agw, the question is why are so many people so convinced about agw and wont contemplate that things might not be as some claim.
It is long, long past due for all agw scientists to put all their research and data, past and present, into the public domain to be scrutinized by all comers. The consequences of what is being recommended based on their research is so destructive, especially to people in the developing world, that this just must be done. -
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Russell Brown,
My fairly desperate position? That's a good one!! If the skeptics are in a desperate position then why are you devoting a show to trying to understand how all us dummies just don't get tricky stuff? It is you and the AGW crew that are the ones in the desperate position.
AGW is at the bottom of the public's list of concerns, not the top. Belief and concern about agw has been dropping overtime, especially since Climategate. And that is because while the general public can have the wool pulled over its eyes or be dragooned into believing a position for a while, over time the general publics bullshit detector is fairly sound. And team agw has so many strikes against it now, the public is well and truly turned off it. Why on earth anyone still hangs on every agw pronouncement is really what deserves attention and discussion. -
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Carol Stewart,
Famous Phil changed his story a bit. Increase is now statistically significant. A whopping .19C from 1995 to 2010.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
Oh my goodness!! 1.2C a century!!
Prior to 1995 we were told that temp increase would accelerate from the rate of increase observed from the 1970s to the early 1990s, which of course is what started the whole shenanigans. And instead we got a lousy 1.2C a century!! -
AGW's problem is not a communication problem, it is a substance problem. The climate has not done what the AGWers so confidently told us it would, the earth was supposed to warm but there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 (Phil Jones of the EA CRU is on record stating this).
The crux of AGW theory is that as CO2 increases, the earth's temp will increase. Over the last 2 decades, CO2 concentrations in the air have indeed increased, significantly. Temp has flat lined. Shouldn't that be time to go back to the drawing boards?
These days every time you turn around you see an article like this:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/Throw in climategate, hockey sticks, the corrupting influence of billions in research money for agw, the absurdity of agw being sited as being responsible for every climatic phenomena, hot winters, cold winters, drought, snow storms, it is all caused by agw, and the better question is why so many still slavishly believe in agw. AGW is not disproven, but it sure as hell isn't proven at this point in time.
Re Fracking, this piece of technology is a game changer in th energy business, a huge game changer. The world now has hundreds of years of natural gas and now they have figured out how to use it get oil out of shale oil out as well. There are massive oil shale deposits here in the US and around the world. We really can forget about running out of fossil fuels this century and probably well beyond.
-
Hard News: For the kids, if nothing else, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Craig, I would submit that Wehrmacht troops are in an altogether different league from Nazis. Would you have gone out of your way to give Joseph Mengle or Heinrich Himmer a nice burial? I wouldn't have.
As far as whether the Repubs and their ideas and policy suggestions are being taken seriously, some kind of spending limits or cuts as part of a deal to raise the debt limit is gaining support amongst Dems in the Senate. Joe Manchin has come out in support of that. Post Nov 2010, the US is a different world.