Posted on 10/10/2013 6:12:01 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[snip] .........As for letters on climate change, we do get plenty from those who deny global warming. And to say they "deny" it might be an understatement: Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.
Before going into some detail about why these letters don't make it into our pages, I'll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I'm no expert when it comes to our planet's complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts -- in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.
And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a body made up of the world's top climate scientists -- said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
This is simply Idiocracy. The “experts” pump out Brawndo and express dismayed shock when not all of us drink it.
You know, the ones who benefit from the tenfold increase in spending on the subject over the past 15 years. Who figured out they get their grant money requests rubber stamped when they come to a certain finding, and denied when they come in with another one."
In 1963 Edward Lorenz published his paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow” that proved that the Navier Stokes differential equations that describe fluid flow with changes in temperature and density (weather and most of climate), can not be predicted from any finite set of past states. The equations are nonlinear, chaotic and show sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
An error of 0.001 degree in one temperature reading would increase. He is the discoverer of the ‘butterfly effect’ the idea that a butterfly in Peking flaps its wings, and because of that, a tornado does, or doesn’t hit Joplin. You can’t predict which, but you know it makes a difference.
The sun is partially described by the NS equations too. It is, of course, much bigger than the earth, and is also not subject to either prediction or control by man.
Actually the experts say there is no climate change.
The author must be relying on politicians and paid hacks.
Average temperatures are already down a degree. Maybe this goof will catch on when they drop another degree.
Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.
Dear Paul: Climate change is not a hoax. The earth's climate changes in cycles all the time. The hoax part is that man has anything to do with it.
During the day, look up Paul, there is the reason for climate change.
5.56mm
And the ‘Texas Sharpshooter’ fallacy: you squeeze off six quick shots into the barn wall, then take a piece of chalk and circle each one. Bullseyes!
But the author is right. It is gradually getting colder each day here in IN.
And the days are getting shorter as they pass; we’re doomed, I fear.
That leads right back to the politicians who decide that a lot of money should be spent on "global warming", to the detriment of other research. Because of the politicians' earmarking of funds for "global warming" research, many scientists throw a sentence or two about global warming into their grant applications, even when the research has nothing to do with climate. When it comes to publishing results, these same scientists will explain their results and interpretations of the data fairly accurately, but then throw in the words "because of global warming" to tie their work in with that fraud.
So far, the vast majority of papers that I have seen that supposedly "prove" global warming are those that toss in the throw-away phrase "because of global warming." I have actually not seen any papers that test the hypothesis; in order to establish the validity of a hypothesis, it *must* be rigorously tested. I have not seen anything that definitively establishes that changing CO2 levels change the global climate. And I am a scientist. A life scientist--but I can still read papers in other fields.
Science does not work by political consensus. This is true even if those polled are scientists.
Which was a fancy analytic way of saying that the natural factors which vie and combine to define the “global temperature” (if we can agree on what that means as a single number, kind of like defining a person’s mind with a single number IQ) are vastly larger than what puny man can do. In fact paradoxical effects are possible; “Mother Nature” may “decide” to meet all this “greenhouse gas” with nods towards a new ice age. These silly slyentists are treating the system as though it were nicely contained in a laboratory chamber, and not roaring with chaos!
Lorenz’s study was of a simplified system, and still even that could not be predicted.
he eventually made an even more simple math model, a system of three equations (retaining the nonlinearity).
Graphing it gives the famous Lorenz butterfly.
“An error of 0.001 degree in one temperature reading would increase. He is the discoverer of the ‘butterfly effect’ the idea that a butterfly in Peking flaps its wings, and because of that, a tornado does, or doesn’t hit Joplin. You can’t predict which, but you know it makes a difference.”
I’ll like to see the ‘modeling’ of the effects of solar arrays. The arrays are interrupting the suns rays, and thus changing the amount of heat absorbed by the earth. May be small, but leverage that small effect = ????
Similar for the disturbing of the wind flows and patterns by power generating windmills.
Actually I do not want to see the modeling. I contend that these ‘modelers’ do not know what they are talking about!
But. . . but. . . it’s got ELECTROLYTES!!! It’s what plants CRAVE. . . (evil grin)
Heh heh heh... and of course the earth is infinitely more.
These chaps are reading the climate as though its response were unidirectional and linear. The Gaia-worshipers almost have a better intuition on the situation because a living system has a will. In fact, a Creator who does have a will is superintending the situation.
“I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.”
Experts are not really “experts” when their predictions are consistently wrong. The same “experts” state that if we dismantle our society and live like primatives we MIGHT avoid a catastrophe. Does it make sense to create a catastrophe to avoid a remotely possible one?
Even if we decided to dismantle our ecomony to avert global warming the greatest contributor to CO2 (China) will not so the whole thing is useless anyway.
Finally, even IF global warming occurs the predictions of a catastrophe are even less credible than the GW predictions themselves. Throughout history warmer periods have been benificial to civilization, not a hindrance.
***But the author is right. It is gradually getting colder each day here in IN.
And the days are getting shorter as they pass; we’re doomed, I fear.***
But, when the days start getting longer, it will get colder, and when the days start getting shorter, it gets hotter DOOMED!
The biggest fallacy is the claim that “The science is settled”. Any true scientist would keep and open unbiased mind, not preach that they are the only opinion available.
The sad part about this is that the warm up to this nonsense happened in the 1970’s, with the scientific fraud Paul R. Ehrlich and his “population bomb”, proclaiming that the world was soon to be destroyed by population growth, and that by the 1980s, half the world would be starving.
His solutions were tyrannical, including forced sterilization, worldwide one child policies, authoritarian government control over all resources, etc., ad nauseum.
Even though EACH AND EVERY PREDICTION of his FAILED, it didn’t matter. And he is still beloved by the same type of sick people that believed him then, and now embrace MMGW, or AGW, if you like.
He was undoubtedly the worst science fraud since Lysenko, and just as abusive of real scientists, but unlike Lysenko and his ideas, Ehrlich was never disavowed, and his ideas thrown out with the trash, as they should have been.
And, as an important lesson, that in only took 20-25 years for people to forget Ehrlich’s public panic, for the new public panic of MMGW-AGW to commence in earnest, once it too is shown up as an utter travesty as well, in another 20-25 years or less, the tyrant wannabees will concoct yet another public panic.
Which, not surprisingly, will require *exactly* the same goals as the previous two.
It’s settled science... everyone who doesn’t believe is a neanderthal. /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.