Nothing New Under the Sun
Posted by Jeff Id on June 18, 2014
I still regularly read climate blogs and occasionally drop a comment but a surprising thing has happened to me lately. I am almost completely disengaged from climate science. The mystery is gone for me. I don’t care much which model said what, the latest Antarctic doom nonsense barely raises an eyebrow, sea ice melting not a drip of interest. Stats are still fun at CA when they come up and I did mine a bunch of data from the government website. Did you know we spent nearly 200 million dollars on climate education for minorities – which means anyone not white male. Well funded skeptics — Bah!! The political nonsense drives me crazy but when people cannot parse what is happening to Iraq, taxes or windmills, how can we truly be serious about climate discussions. Even Steve McIntyre’s latest expose on yet another hockey Schtick paper isn’t enough to give me blog energy. So the Air Vent languishes nearly unused.
Climate wars continue on but where is the fun in discovering yet another exaggerated conclusion in the latest, soon to be forgotten, climate publication. I hope readers recognize that this era will go down in history as a dark time for climate science, rather than the progressive awakening that the populist text-messaging public perceives. Bunch of morons IMHO. A dark and ugly anti-scientific time, not that dissimilar from our ancestors whom we mock for believing in a flat Earth. The vocal skeptics will not be seen in high regard either, for those who look deep enough in history to even find us. Not because we aren’t already proven right but rather because we don’t have a big enough footprint on history to make an impact. Mabye we could make a dent with a few billion $$ though.
I just wonder how people see the world sometimes. Blank minds with full shopping carts is a terrible way to travel life. In the end, the lack of understanding makes no difference to the climate. Fortunately the populist masses, so intent on painted faux-images of a perfect green world, won’t be overheating their neurons to make decisions that actually change the weather and can rather waste their time burning their brains on the latest fads politicians and media dream up like corn powered cars, sex scandals and diet pills.
George O'Har said
I feel much the same myself, and for mostly the same reasons. I would add, though, that the one thing that has contributed to my shutting down has been the way CAGW supporters never change their minds. There’s no real debate going on. If X provides evidence as to why a particular aspect of the climate models can’t be right, the response is ‘So what?’ After a while, you get tired of talking to a wall. So much has been invested in a single overarching finding, that human technological, industrial and commercial activity in the west, i.e., modern life, is singularly and solely responsible for the coming heat death of the planet that all counter propositions are not only dismissed, they are vilified. Lives, academic and political careers, governments, are so totally invested in ONE answer–and to an essentially non-existent problem–that they will see naysayers imprisoned or destroyed before they admit to being wrong. And they call this science? Obama, that climate imbecile, talks like a stupid child. And he think’s he’s cool! And smart! Or maybe it’s worse. Maybe it’s all a con and he knows it, but he knows the con leads to power and the permanent progressive state.
The even more terrible thing is Obama said those asinine words at a college commencement address and not one single mainstream reporter questioned him on it. Not one. The press. We wouldn’t be in this mess if we had, like we used to have, a disinterested, largely unbiased press that wasn’t afraid to ask hard questions. The whole climate change fiasco has been made possible by a gullible, if not utterly corrupted fourth estate.
All I can say is: don’t give up the fight.
omanuel said
Jeff,
1. Skeptics won the AGW debate hands-down.
2. Believers and their backers retained the political power.
1 + 2 = 3
3. Post-1945 government science became a tool of propaganda to control society and save world leaders from nuclear annihilation because of unreported CHAOS and FEAR in Aogust 1945:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/massive-data-tampering-in-the-southeastern-us/
omanuel said
Events of August 1945 Explain Climategate
Here’s a BBC report on the nuclear geochemist that recruited me in 1960 and assigned a research to identify little-known events in August 1945 as the key to 2009 Climategate emails:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm
Unreported CHAOS & FEAR of nuclear annihilation in August 1945 and the survival instinct forced world leaders to adopt Stalin’s totalitarian control of world society:
Your analytical mind and common sense are needed now, Jeff, to help society accept reality and not waste time trying to retaliate for sixty-nine years (1945-2014 yrs) of deception.
omanuel said
The collective engineering approach (“Together we can and must figure out the source of energy that sustains our lives”) is vastly superior to the theoretical physics approach (“I’m right, you’re wrong; May the most arrogant a.h. win a Nobel Prize!”):
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vi-building-a-new-solar-climate-model-with-the-notch-filter/
omanuel said
What we desperately need now is more information on little-known events in late August 1945, when society apparently lost its most valuable, but least valued, possession – HUMILITY !
omanuel said
On Restoring Integrity to Science and Government; Sanity to Society
1. Reality is observed. E.g., Albert Einstein & Francis W. Aston:
E = mc^2 !
2. Reality is calculated. E.g., von Weizsacker’s:
Nuclear binding energy equation !
The ending of WWII illustrates the advantages of (1) over (2).
kuhnkat said
omanuel,
Wondering what you know about this guy from a comment over at Jo Nova’s.
omanuel said
Kuhnkat,
I will answer you when I get to a computer where I can see the video.
We now know that all humanity lost WWII.
We do not yet know if Joseph Stalin was directly involved, but there is no doubt that academic textbooks of stellar and nuclear physics in the West were FALSIFIED immediately after WWII:
1. The internal compositions of stars were changed from mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946.
2. Albert Einstein’s and Francis Aston’s valid equations for nuclear stability were replaced with Carl von Weizsacker’s invalid nuclear binding energy equation, exaggerating proton-proton repulsion and minimizing NEUTRON-NEUTRON REPULSION, . . .
The powerful source of energy that powers the whole cosmos from cores of heavy atoms, some planets, ordinary stars, galaxies and our ever expanding universe!
Albert Einstein and Francis Aston provided the theoretical framework that allowed Allied Forces and Japan to successfully build atomic bombs during the Second World War. Carl von Weizsacker was the theoretical physicist that advised Hitler’s failed effort to build an atomic bomb during the Second World War.
omanuel said
Thanks, Kunkat, for the video.
I knew nothing of Galen Winsor before viewing “The Nuclear Scare Scam.”
Do you have contact information for him?
My students and I worked with high levels of radioactivity, but we always followed safely precautions.
Today’s booming cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are, in my opinion, testimony to nuclear safety exaggerations.
Galen Winson’s video reaffirms Maria Curie’s view of the battle between knowledge and fear:
“Nothing in life is to be feared,
It is only to be understood.
Now is the time to understand more,
So that we may fear less.”
I quoted that at the start of Chapter 2 of my biography: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Chapter_2.pdf
kuhnkat said
Sorry, I believe he died a few years ago.
omanuel said
This suggests that the web of deceit is far bigger than any of us imagined, except for those that we discredited long ago as right-wing fanatics, . . . folks like Ezra Taft Benson and the Morman Church in Utah.
omanuel said
Sorry, I should not have mentioned my own biases, but it is exciting to see how wrong I have been about those I dismissed as right-wing fanatics.
Words cannot properly express my appreciation to you, Kuhnkat, for posting Galen Winsor’s video. That seems to be the “missing piece” to the Climategate puzzle!
http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/13/communicating-climate-science-reconsidered/#comment-608273
omanuel said
Galen Winsor’s video on “The Nuclear Scare Scam” and the recovery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki into bustling cities after WWII confirm that Joseph Stalin gained the power and the influence to mold world government into the USSR form of government in the unreported CHAOS and FEAR of August 1945:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/rand-paul-explains-obamas-imminent-plan-to-destroy-the-bill-of-rights/#comment-388786
omanuel said
Galen Winsor’s conclusion about “The Nuclear Scare Scam” dovetails with my conclusion that “CHAOS and FEAR of nuclear annihilation in August 1945 initiated a chain of events that produced lock-step, consensus science before surfacing as Climategate emails in November 2009.”
If Galen Winsor’s video is correct about exaggerated nuclear radiation safety concerns, this dwarfs the deceit already documented in nuclear, stellar and climate science. I.e.,after the end of WWII, worldwide humanity was deceived in much the same way Joseph Stalin deceived and controlled people in the old USSR before WWII !
That would explain why George Orwell – who had already written “Animal Farm” about the rise of totalitarian communism under Joseph Stalin before WWII – suddenly decided in 1946 to move from London to the Scottish Isle of Jura to start writing his warning to the public about a new totalitarian government that would be obvious to the public by “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”
We did not awaken to the problem until twenty-five years later, in the Climategate emails of 2009.
1. “Animal Farm” http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/
2. “Nineteen Eighty-Four” http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
3. “Climategate” http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/climategate-30-year-timeline/
Tom in St. Johns said
It is good to see you comment over at CA. I can understand the burnout. However, given those that control the government here I fear that we have just begun to see the assaults on our freedom and individual liberty. Not another week goes by without reading about some new “creative” interpretation of the laws which leads to another loss for all of us. Whenever you feel like writing, your perspective as a wealth creator is always appreciated. If you are ever in my part of the state send me a note and I’ll buy a round at Biggby’s.
Orson Olson said
I am very much in your camp, Jeff. I’m more interested in classic literature, classic science, and popular science history.
Apart from spasms of outrage (including feckless claims of disaster), now and then, very little is going on but irrelevant details. There is no real debate going on.
My latest pleasure related to climate has been in catching up with Senator James M. Inhofe’s recounting of the turning point in the political debate, namely Copenhagen (COP-12) in the week following Climategate.
His book last year, “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,” will make you smile agreeably! Read a mere half chapter and grin! “He’s so right” I keep saying to myself.
Imhofe replaced a string of feckless RINOs as the ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He was its chairman from 2003 to 2007.
I rather resisted the book – not because as he retires in January 2015 because of prostate cancer – but because I half expected too much of Marc Morano’s breathless, taxing style of attack. (Morano served as the senator’s director of communications from June 2006 until 2009.)
Instead, one is treated to a warm and personable, very autobiographical quest by a pro-small business, anti-regulatory politician. It is a tale of confident triumph and truth-telling about the climate science follies by the former mayor of Tulsa. The book is a treat!
So, I’m telling you to treat yourself, like a good summer beach read. He reminds us of the dirty, savage politics that has been waged over and over in this histrionic Age of Global Warming (which Rupert Darwell named so well), with an earthy realism and a twinkly Reaganeque realism of the nature of politics and doing battle with entrenched bureaucratic interests by the ‘little guy.’ This is not at all about failure or defeat.
Imhofe reminds one of past battles waged or won, and emotionalism ultimately defied and defeated. Today’s Obama-led chorus looks contrived, calculated, and weak by comparison. He is luminous!
The book is actually warm and soulful to us battle-weary skeptics of institutionalized science Orthocrats. Just do it!
jeremyp99 said
The Darwall book is excellent. Buy it for all your warmer friends.
OK S. said
Well, family comes first anyway. If you still have the fire for that, you’re doing okay.
But I did like you sea ice videos.
Jeff Id said
To be clear I’m not quitting. I tried that a long time ago and gave it up.
I’m not good at it.
kuhnkat said
Yet the leftards continue their lying ways in all areas:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/al-qaeda-in-iraq-seizes-saddams-wmd-facility/
Bush didn’t lie and for whatever reason they suppressed the evidence of WMD!!!
Chuck L said
Climate science is poorer as a result of your very understandable overload/disengagement. I and others enjoy your comments at CA and other venues.
Another Ian said
Are you following this series for something different?
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-vi-building-a-new-solar-climate-model-with-the-notch-filter/
omanuel said
Dr. David Evans and Jo Nova seem to appreciate science as a path of continuous discovery, as explained in ancient scriptures:
“To know that you do not know is best. To pretend to know what you do not know is a disease !”
THE FINAL ANSWER is endorsed by consensus scientists to retain grant support and club membership.
Gary said
This looks interesting, if only for the careful, reasoned approach to the investigation — something one never sees on the CAGW side. But if there’s more there, I need to see the statisticians chew on it.
page488 said
Agreed and well said!
BoyfromTottenham said
Hi from oz. don’t give up Jeff, I think economics is coming to our rescue. Someone once said you can’t rescind the law of supply and demand, and this is what is changing politicians minds – in Europe, the uk, australia, India, etc. mad CAGW- driven laws and regulations that cause economic damage are being seen for what they are, and are slowly being reversed. The politicians will either ignore the real cause, or gloss over it to avoid an unwinnable argument with the religious Left, but the economy will win over green ideology because the pollies want to stay elected. Ironic, isn’t it?
stevefitzpatrick said
Jeff,
Like you, I am finding the hysteria mostly boring, the endless breathless media coverage mostly comical, and the moronic politicians who ride the bandwagon…. well, to be even more moronic than I had thought. Once you recognize is that climate sensitivity is fairly low, it is hard to get too worked up about climate science.
cementafriend said
A piece of news that should make all rethink about science. Prof Claes Johnson, vilified by so-called “climate scientists” and even some sceptics (as one of the original slayers) is to be awarded the Ludwig Prandtl medal for his breakthrough in aerodynamics and showing with computational maths that Prandtl’s theory was not correct. He says here http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/the-ludwig-prandtl-medal.html that “The fluid dynamics community will not applaud the award” and “The award thus brings a major scientific question to the podium and I hope it can be accompanied by a scientific discussion”. Prof Claes Johnson is a formidable mathematician with a wide knowledge of the basics of engineering science. and physics (he has questioned Lubos Motl’s understanding of Quantum mechanics).
It is worth reading about some of the 18th & 19th century mathematicians/physicists/engineers such as Fourier, Clausius, James Clerk Maxwell, George Stokes, Von Ettinghausen (who taught Stefan who in turn taught Boltzmann) etc
Jeff Id said
His blackbody work was so moronic that I question the validity of his contribution to fluids. I wish he hadn’t written his blackbody nonsense so I could believe this was worth looking into.
suricat said
I’m assuming that I followed the correct links to read this ‘moronic blackbody work’, but I see it as a historical collection ‘with insight’. However, he finishes with the same questions that he started with! Nothing to see here! Move along please.
Albert didn’t accept quantum theory, and would’ve abhored the ‘mechanics’ of it, as was stated in his comment of “god doesn’t play dice”. Thus, Einstein was a realist IMHO.
We now know that ‘incident radiant EM energy’ may well encompass the entire spectrum of EM wavelengths, thus, the effect upon the recipient mass to this ‘incident radiant energy’ is dependant upon the ‘reactance’ of the ‘recipient mass’! This transposes better as ‘vibrational rate’ (vibrations/cycles per second) for the mass and would make more sense if the wave length of the incident EM radiation was measured for its ‘frequency’ (the inverse of wave length) to better compare any possible harmonic within the energy transfer.
The ‘Planck equivalent’ for an EM radiation only profferres the ‘peak wave-length/frequency’ for an irradiance, but doesn’t indicate the range of the total spectra that makes up the ‘equivalent’ indicated by ‘Planck’. An ‘LBL’ (line by line) spectral analysis is needed to account for ‘wave lengths/frequencies’ that exist within the ‘side bands’ (near ‘wave lengths/frequencies’) to the indicated ‘Planck equivalent’ that may well interact with mass that would, otherwise, not interact with the main ‘wave length/frequency’ disclosed.
‘Blackbody’ tec just doesn’t ‘cut the mustard’ and shouldn’t be used in conjunction with ‘climate physics’! Thus, I concur Jeff.
Best regards, Ray Dart.
Jonathan Jones said
When I first got interested in climate the big issues were the appalling mishandling of paleoclimate proxies and the cavalier approach to the quality of station temperature data. As I got more interested I moved on to the culture of data secrecy and overt political advocacy.
Now, many years later, the big issues are the appalling mishandling of paleoclimate proxies and the cavalier approach to the quality of station temperature data. The culture of data secrecy and overt political advocacy has slightly decreased in climate science, but we have seen the rise of climate social science which has learnt every bad lesson it can from the mistakes of the past.
Like Jeff I find it hard to sustain the interest. What we desperately need now is more out of sample data, and the only way we are going to get that is by waiting. There’s precious little point getting excited in the meantime.
M Simon said
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/analysis-solar-activity-ocean-cycles.html
Analysis: Solar activity & ocean cycles are the 2 primary drivers of climate, not CO2
Dan Pangburn has updated his analysis identifying the two primary drivers of global temperature:
1) the integral of solar activity
2) ocean oscillations [which are in-turn driven by solar activity and perhaps lunar-tidal forcing].
The correlation of the integral of solar activity and ocean cycles to global temperature is 90.49%, and with the addition of CO2 the correlation only improves very slightly to 90.61%, demonstrating CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.