the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Scientific Warming

Posted by Jeff Id on November 19, 2014


Gallopingcamel left this on a previous thread:

Another true scientist wishing that AGW weren’t a religion.

In addition to the obvious and massive benefits that increased CO2 brings to chlorophyll based life on this planet, I actually am beginning to wish CO2 warming was a stronger effect.   It would likely be better for us in the long run if it were.




Posted in Uncategorized | 57 Comments »

The birthday of Climategate

Posted by Jeff Id on November 10, 2014

So it is that season again folks, Deer Season, aka Climategate Season.   A skeptics Christmas where happy things happen to freedom loving people of the world.

Remember this:

Climategate 1.0

and this:

Climategate 2.0

And less exciting for you, but good fun for me:


Needless to say, I won’t be around to release moderated comments for Doug’s thread after tomorrow.  Who knows what will happen this year!  Either way, I’m gone to the northwoods Wednesday to have a much needed rest.

I do miss serious blogging, and have been working on some neat technical stuff in the background but it isn’t ready yet.







Posted in Uncategorized | 20 Comments »

A good discussion

Posted by Jeff Id on November 7, 2014

I probably will always enjoy the back-and-forth considered blog posts.  Nobody ever wins, but they are diverting.  This is from a previous thread.

Glenn Tamblyin wrote:



“Glenn, the IPCC is hardly an unbiased reporting agency. Certainly we can all agree on that!”

Depends what you mean by biased Jeff.

Is there a bis towards downplaying some aspects of the risks of AGW. Yes. That is clearly evident when one sees the process by which the full report produced by the scientists is then ‘negotiated over’ by the national representatives to produce the final SPM. Case in point with AR5 was the removal of some key references to a maximum Carbon Budget to remain below 2 Deg C of warming. Some governments at least want to downplay AGW because it is something they don’t want to have to deal with politically or economically.

Is there natural human bias? Of course there is. Every individual is subject to that. But individuals biases tend to cancel out when large numbers of people from diverse backgrounds, nationalities, cultures, demographic all look at the same question.And scietists are the most skeptical people in the world. It’s not like herding cats. More like herding alley-cats. When large numbers of scientists agree on something, having thrown every dart they can at it to try and burst the balloon, then the world really should sit up and take notice. What is the point of having experts if we won’t listen to them?

Some folks, perhaps including you, seem to think there is some sort of an agenda. That scientists are dancing to someone elses tune. Actually it is the opposite. Scientists have been slowly getting louder and louder in their warnings to government about the risks they see. Next year is the 50’th anniversary of the first, then low key, official warning from the scientists about the risk increased CO2 might pose. They have spent that half century, through 2-3 generations of scientists, trying to alert the world to the problem. Getting slowly and steadily louder as the world hasn’t listened. ‘houston, we might have a problem’…’houston, we really think there might be a problem’…’Houston, we really really think you need to look into this’… ‘Houston. Are You There?’…’HOUSTON WAKE UP’
And slowly, screaming and kicking, most governments have been dragged to a reluctant acceptance of this.

Consider something Jeff. Governments come and go. Left-Right-Left-Right…. Different countries. But there is not one National Academy of Science anywhere in the world with a position against it. Not one peak professional body against it. Not one Defense Force – the ultimate in hard-nosed thinkers. The Pentagon accepts it – hardly surprising since they were behind much of the research in the 50’s & 60’s that laid the foundations for understanding it.

Yet the message from the scientists hasn’t changed for decades. If there is an ‘agenda’ from government for example that is driving this then wouldn’t the message from the scientists blow with the wind -at least the winds of the electoral cycle – and supposedly what is coming from their ‘paymasters’.

Could the scientists have an agenda? Of course they do. The TRUTH – there, some words in nice big capital letters. What do I mean by that? Scientists are motivated by a deep desire to be right. To discover something and get it right. No matter how diligent a scientist’s career was, if they routinely backed incorrect ideas they don’t get the status, kudos, the simple ego-trip. Science doesn’t pay that well as a career for the amount of work you have to put in but there is the potential real pay-off. ‘I’m the guy who discovered X’. That s their motive, their agenda. Nothing noble about it, pure self-interest like the rest of us. They do science because they like love finding out stuff – and getting credit for that. If they wanted serious money they certainly wouldn’t pick science. Nor if they wanted fame among the general public they wouldn’t pick a field that most people don’t understand, value or are interested in.

So why wouldn’t they just try to convince people they did discover something, even if it isn’t true? History is full of the victor’s version of events, not truth. Why wouldn’t the scientists take the same tack? Because in science history isn’t written by people; its written by the Laws of Physics. You might convince a trillion people you are right but the Laws of Physics have right-of-veto; they determine history and a scientist’s reputation, not people. Convince people of something that isn’t true and your fame will be short lived and hollow – Physics will out. And all your fellow scientists will be champing at the bit to prove you wrong if they can.

Apart from a few wishful thinkers, scientists know that just convincing people doesn’t count for much. Being right is what counts. So ideas of vast conspiracies, group-think etc just don’t wash. Only an idiot would think you can con the Laws of Physics and get away with it. And scientists aren’t idiots.

And who are the people for whom acceptance is hardest, who are most reluctant to accept the evidence, in and out of government? Those for whom the consequences of AGW and the sorts of actions needed to address it are hardest to swallow. Just ask yourself how many of these items tick boxes for you Jeff? How many of these things resonate with you as negatives?

– Action to tackle this requires coordinated global action. It requires cooperation between nations with the strong helping the weak.
– It requires regulation of a whole range of activities in life.
– It requires that within our societies we act cooperatively, working together.
– It requires that we have sufficient trust in our fellow humans, in government, scientists etc to accept that most of them are acting decently enough most of the time.
– It requires changes that may require economic costs
– It means that the way we live our lives has had negative impacts. That we can’t have a completely positive, ‘we are the greatest’ view of what we have done.
– It requires that we accept that a sense of boundlessness that has been a central part of our cultures, particularly in the ‘frontier nations’ such as the USA or Australia is ending – from here on in human society has to have values centered on limitations and boundedness.
– That as individuals we may need to curtail some of the exercise of our freedoms for the common good.
– That our sense of man’s dominion over the earth (perhaps coming from a religious origin) is misplaced; we are simply one part of that earth and we prosper best when we work with the limits of our role rather than against it.
– That we may have spent our entire working lives contributing to building a society and an economy that turns out to have some significant flaws and is in need of at least some degree of redesign because currently it is dysfunctional; our prosperity has been obtained through a flawed system and we need to accept that, unwittingly, not all our actions have been good.
– That our view that we are so insignificant a force on the earth that what we do doesn’t matter is now wrong; the growth in our numbers and technologies means we have the power to cause vast changes on the earth and we have done – some of them negative ones. Humanity is now a geological force and we must act with extreme care now or we can cause great harm, to ourselves particularly.
– That any God we may believe in (if you happen to be religious) will not intervene; that we are capable and allowed to wreak damage upon ourselves and said God won’t lift a finger.
– That our ideas about how to build prosperity and well being, whether for ourselves or our communities, may have been flawed. That we might have to admit we, unwittingly, have made mistakes.

For me Jeff, none of these points (and one can imagine more than this) are difficult or problematic to accept. None of those statements say anything terrible, disturbing or deeply offensive about us; admitting we might have made mistakes or made bad judgements isn’t problematic, That’s just us being human. If we need to live life with a pollyanna, ‘we are so good’ view of ourselves then that is just a character flaw we have. In reality each of us is a mixture of strengths and weaknesses. And accepting that is perfectly alright. Quite simply, we are human. We fuck up sometimes. And not being able to admit we have fucked up is also fucking up.

I don’t necessarily think the changes and insights needed will be achievable, but there is nothing I find problematic in principle with any of them Nothing in that lists is something I feel any compulsion to reject..

So what about yourself Jeff? How many of those points get your hackles up?

Here is the point. The Laws of Physics don’t care what our feelings about this are, yours or mine. The Laws of Physics are life-and-death. All our values etc are just our incidental ruminations. If our deepest values, desires and beliefs are out of sync with the Laws of Physics, then the Laws of Physics will stomp on our most treasured ideas with utter disdain.

So who is more likely to be biased Jeff. Someone who is able to accept the implications of what AGW means, as highlighted in my list? Or someone who finds it deeply disturbing to accept that list?

Because all those points, and probably others have absolutely ZERO relevance. The science is what it is, and our values etc don’t count for a tinker’s damn in comparison.

No doubt you will want to disagree with what I have said. Just consider what your disagreement is in the light of how I have framed my comment.

Jeff Id


Thanks for the reply. Things like this make blogging fun.

Of course I have many problems with what you have written but your argument is reasonably well considered although it contains a significant bit of ideological ‘belief’ in your list of points. One thing we do agree on 100% is that the science is the science and this is the world that god (or chance) has given us and nobody is going to come from the sky to tweak it back into shape if we screw it up. I also agree that humans have the power to make change to the world, no big denial surprise there.

Where your scientific argument fails however is in step 1. Climate models have failed….. Completely 100% failed by basic statistical testing. No scientist can rationally state that they have passed even a 30 year test. Yet they just did in a global worldwide report. So we know from that simple validity check, that the IPCC is a biased source of climate information – in the alarmist direction — despite your implications that disagreement with some of the most extreme IPCC conclusions represent the actual bias against science.

It is reasonable to state that the problem with the models is worse than simply exaggerating the warming trend by 2-3 times, they are not explanatory of the difference, so mathematically and scientifically they have little to no predictive scientific value. We don’t have a prediction that we can rely on. Scientifically, we cannot use the models to predict either when or even IF we will see significant warming. Therefore no action is required, necessary, or far more importantly, —- in our best interest.

In addition, we don’t have any evidence that actually warming the planet would present any significant problem either. Hurricanes, droughts, rainfall, etc… none of the alleged dangers have actually been observed. Really that is all that should be required for our scientific discussion. We should all agree that while CO2 does add heat to the system, we don’t know what future temperatures will do, and we can’t observe any significant problems from the bit of warming we have experienced. End of story.

However, that is not what the IPCC is promoting.

IF we still irrationally assume that CO2 IS going to cause significant warming right now, and it IS irrational to assume such as we have no evidence for it, the way to combat CO2 warming is something that is far grayer an area than you have portrayed above. I would make the point that minimal global coordination is necessary and that we have only one technologically functional solution to generate such large quantities of energy. Minimal economic support is required, it may be a net economic gain, and very little regulation or change in lifestyle is needed. We simply agree to switch all new power plant construction to nuclear power and let the old plants run to their natural life cycle. New nuclear plants are safer, cleaner and more effective than the old technology and they continue to improve. We only need to do it in advanced countries that already have nuclear capability as the rest of the world doesn’t emit much in comparison. I will even predict that economically this WILL be the future of humanity whether the government intervenes or not. There are plenty of economic and physics based reasons that this will happen.

So there is your perfect green solution!! Are you on board? I am guessing you are one of the all of the above guys who thinks that 20 bad solutions will add up to one good one. You may also be an extremist and believe that all nuclear power is bad. I don’t mean to be disparaging but a mix of these positions seems to be the all-too-common pseudo-intellectual “compromise” position these days.

So from your unscientific observation that CO2 warming is going to be dangerous, you make several points on your list which are based on ideology. I find most of them wholly objectionable and very poorly considered. They are heavily socialist in their form and I believe that were we silly enough to adopt the plan as laid out by you, it would lead to global strife the likes of which we have not seen in human history. Of course, socialists in general don’t recognize the need to incentivize individual economic gain as a requirement for human prosperity. They believe simple wealth redistribution solves the problem, and they universally underestimate the harm to industry. It seems that you suffer from this affliction but I don’t know your whole story. What doesn’t make sense, is “Wealthy” functional capitalist governments supplying funds to maintain non-functioning socialist dictatorships. The result of redistribution, whether by country or individual is the same — rich productive people giving money to non-productive ones to “help” them stay with the status quo.

I have always found the argument interesting that we simultaneously say that we must globally help the weak with climate action. Since weak nations with non-functioning socialist/dictatorship style governments produce little of anything, it seems quite a leap to say that we need to do anything for them. They certainly aren’t any geological Greenhouse gas belching force right? Shouldn’t our limited resources be used to tackle producing energy that doesn’t emit CO2. Far more importantly, do we really want to enable those sick non-functional governments to continue creating human misery? With no visible mitigation required as no scientifically observable damage has happened, what would those countries exactly do with the money?

“It requires that we accept that a sense of boundlessness that has been a central part of our cultures, particularly in the ‘frontier nations’ such as the USA or Australia is ending – from here on in human society has to have values centered on limitations and boundedness.”

Glenn, this one is the worst point of all. Your assumption is that our natural existence won’t curtail our behavior sufficiently. You believe that capitalist free society cannot provide, again like global warming, against all observation to the contrary, and you are ready to stop it now rather than allow it to continue to succeed as it has and should. You have made a great leap of faith here toward a form of central government controlled existence which has already produced more than enough observational evidence of its non-functionality. You are wrong about this and it is the foundation of most of your conclusions. I am thoroughly frightened of this thought process, as it is so prevalent in society, and so observationally wrong, and it leads to such bad places.
As I have never convinced anyone who strongly believes that capitalism and freedom don’t functionally govern of anything to the contrary, I don’t expect you will agree with what I am writing. However, I will agree with you that it isn’t perfect, but it isn’t designed to be. What the system represents mathematically, is economic evolution. By allowing the strong to survive and the weak to fail, the human condition averages to a much higher level of functionality. When we don’t allow the weak to fail, out of compassion and fairness or whatever, we doom both they and humanity to a lower average level of function. Unfortunately, economic output is a much more sensitive system than the ocean moderated climate, and small changes in “fairness” result in large changes in average economic function. Now of course there is a balance, and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be safety nets for the truly helpless but that is something very different than sending money to non-productive dysfunctional societies, and people, to help with some unmeasurable aspect of global warming.
It is an oxymoron to believe in evolution, yet not understand free markets.
So no, I don’t suffer from the delusion that we don’t make mistakes. I do suffer from the belief that we need to be forced to reach higher through the danger of poverty such that we continue to try and then make even more mistakes. We need a world which allows us to continue to grow economically, producing even more goods and services at an ever more effective rate. We most certainly do not need a world of limited economy and heavy central control of our behavior. Remember, it was free people with minimal regulation who produced the cleanest economies on earth with the greatest wealth for even our failing poor. While these are political views, I hold them as observationally sound.
So moving on, reclassifying CO2 as a significant pollutant is unscientific at this point but if we assume that is the case, it is an entirely separate issue from whether we need massive regulation and limitation of our behavior as the “solution”. I can imagine many “solutions” which don’t fit your preferred and highly political list.
You made an interesting point that deserves a slightly different viewpoint and will segue into the now long-awaited conclusion.

“But there is not one National Academy of Science anywhere in the world with a position against it. “

You interpret this correlation as though it were evidence of scientific accuracy, yet again, observational evidence contradicts this position. There are almost zero people on these science foundations who can be described as capitalist, pro-growth, limited government or free-market supporters. It is rather apparent that these groups are self-sorting to a high degree by selection and support of like-minded people. This is no big conspiracy, just a generally greater reward for like minded conclusions. Again, I find that pro-government thinkers fail to grasp or perhaps to openly state them, the powerful effect of group incentivization. e.g. Jones invites Mann to speak instead of Spencer.

Your evidence of accuracy, is very obviously — the opposite. Hell, you and I would probably have disagreements about the color of the sky, yet somehow these people across the globe all are in agreement about a science where the scientifically predictive climate models HAVE STATISTICALLY FAILED??!! Future climate isn’t settled knowledge.  Your position that the correlation of message appears to represent scientific accuracy, simply doesn’t make rational sense.
So I would suggest that my argument on AGW is scientific, and is superior in accuracy to your own argument as presented here. My position on AGW is different than the politically motivated, generally exaggerated, and now unscientific global warming story given by National Science academies around the world. Those scientific arguments I make are separate from solutions to energy production, on which my opinions are also scientifically based and all of that is separate from my political views, which I hold as unscientific observationally based opinion.
So you asked:
“So who is more likely to be biased Jeff. Someone who is able to accept the implications of what AGW means, as highlighted in my list? Or someone who finds it deeply disturbing to accept that list?”
I must answer that since the list you present is highly political, a person who represents it as “requirement” for a solution to the general human condition, while failing to recognize obvious alternative paths, is far more likely to be biased than someone who disagrees with the proposed political solution but represents the disagreement as politics.

Add in the fact that the alleged “problem” has not been observed and well.. you get the point.

 [some editing for clarity of my comment was done – Jeff]

Posted in Uncategorized | 55 Comments »

On The Take. An Impromptu Psychological Study of Government Science

Posted by Jeff Id on November 2, 2014

The IPCC released their “synthesis report” today.  The long awaited conclusion to their massive multi-hundred billion dollar industry’s belief that they need to keep getting paid.  I have listed the authors from the front page.  Take a few minutes and look up some of the names on this list, copy their resume’s into the comments below.  Anecdotes are appreciated.   My contention is that AGW is an industry, alarm is their product, their personal pay depends on more study and extreme conclusions. Without yet checking, I believe that nobody on this list is conservative or moderate politically and the message is uniformly more government, more tax and more study.  If you find anyone moderate in the list, please add it to the comments.

Core Writing Team members
X- Myles R. Allen (United Kingdom),
X-Vicente Ricardo Barros (Argentina),

X-John Broome (United Kingdom),
X-Wolfgang Cramer (Germany/France),
X-Renate Christ (Austria/WMO),
John A.Church (Australia),
X-Leon Clarke (USA),
Qin Dahe (China),
Purnamita Dasgupta (India),
Navroz K. Dubash (India),
Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany),
Ismail Elgizouli (Sudan),
Christopher B. Field (USA),
X-Piers Forster (United Kingdom),
X-Pierre Friedlingstein (United Kingdom),
Jan Fuglestvedt (Norway),
Luis Gomez -Echeverri (Colombia),
Stephane Hallegatte (France/World Bank),
Gabriele Hegerl (United Kingdom),
Mark Howden (Australia),
Kejun Jiang (China),
Blanca Jimenez Cisneros (Mexico/UNESCO),
Vladimir Kattsov (Russian Federation),
Hoesung Lee(Republic ofKorea),
Katharine J. Mach (USA),
Jochem Marotzke (Germany),
Michael D. Mastrandrea (USA),
Leo Meyer (The Netherlands),
Jan Minx (Germany),
Yacob Mulugetta (Ethiopia),
Karen O’Brien (Norway),
X-Michael Oppenheimer (USA),
R.K. Pachauri (India),
Joy J. Pereira (Malaysia),
Ramón Pichs-Madruga (Cuba),
Gian-Kasper Plattner (Switzerland),
Hans-Otto Pörtner (Germany),
Scott B.Power(Australia),
X-Benjamin Preston (USA),
N.H. Ravindranath (India),
X-Andy Reisinger (New Zealand),
Keywan Riahi (Austria),
Matilde Rusticucci (Argentina),
Robert Scholes (South Africa),
Kristin Seyboth (USA),
X-Youba Sokona (Mali),
Robert Stavins (USA),
X-Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland),
Petra Tschakert (USA),
Detlef van Vuuren (The Netherlands),
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (Belgium)

Extended Core Writing Team members
Gabriel Blanco (Argentina),
Michael Eby (Canada),
Jae Edmonds (USA),
Marc Fleurbaey (France),
Reyer Gerlagh (The Netherlands),
X- Sivan Kartha (USA),
X-Howard Kunreuther (USA),
Joeri Rogelj (Belgium),
Michiel Schaeffer (The Netherlands),
Jan Sedláček(Switzerland),
Ralph Sims (New Zealand),
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz (Hungary),
David Victor(USA),
Gary Yohe (USA)

Review Editors
Paulina Aldunce (Chile),
X-Thomas Downing (United Kingdom),
Sylvie Joussaume (France),
Zbigniew Kundzewicz (Poland),
Jean Palutikof (Australia),
Jim Skea (United Kingdom),
Kanako Tanaka (Japan),
Fredolin Tangang (Malaysia),
Chen Wenying (China),
Zhang Xiao-Ye (China)

Posted in Uncategorized | 63 Comments »


Posted by Jeff Id on November 2, 2014

SpaceX is an amazing story.  We are witnessing space history being made in front of our eyes.  No less important than Columbus style ocean crossings, I do wonder if the public is even aware of it.   I am an aeronautical engineer and an entrepreneur myself, I see these things going on and am fascinated by the common sense approach SpaceX has taken.   I wrote after their first successful flight that SpaceX won’t lose another craft, I don’t expect any near-future rocket failures even though they expect them.   Someday it will happen, but my guess is that it will be the safest and more importantly lowest cost rocket system for the foreseeable future.

Recently they have completed two successful soft landings on the ocean surface.  The press has responded by mis-reporting the event as though these were failures with comments about the rocket “tipping over” and breaking up.   The reports miss the rather obvious point that the rocket is standing on liquid at that point and has few options other than “tipping over”.  They also miss the point that when a 14 story building tips over, it tends to rather dramatically “Break up”.  It leaves one wondering just what these reporters imagine might happen had the launch gone perfectly.???

Perhaps in reporter land, a fleet of rubber ducks would extend from the bottom and carry the booster to some white-sand beach and deliver it salt water free to its heavenly creator with none of the evil hydrocarbon fuel dripping into the water….  Is Musk the heavenly creator they imagine, hell no, but is he getting it done, hell yes.

Politicians have resisted the organization for political reasons, bloated government contracts have been awarded to their competitors, yet they continue to penetrate the industry at a rapid pace.  They are completely unstoppable, largely due to the capitalist idea of making money, and the entrepreneurial concept of simplicity.  If they go public I’m throwing a pile their way simply because it is the future we are looking at.   The actual future of humanity.

Standing a pencil end up is hard on your fingertip, yet that is what they are doing in a vertical rocket landing.  They have already repeatedly demonstrated rather difficult resupply and return of materials from the ISS — for a fractional cost of the space shuttle.  The big space companies are just beginning to react, but they are nothing more than government bloated organizations with public owners.  They have no realistic hope of changing sufficiently to compete in any substantial manner.  Full of frustrated engineers who know it can be done better and managers who’s vision is trumped by massive process, these competitors are doomed to lose badly before a big corporate reset happens.

I just want to say thanks to Mr. Musk for the fireworks show we get to watch for the second half of my life.  It should be great!

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

What is

Posted by Jeff Id on October 31, 2014

Reasoned dissent is the theme here

In the face of consensus, atrophy and fear

Reasoned implication, reasoned deconstruction

Common sense, nothing more

nothing less.


Posted in Uncategorized | 22 Comments »

Skepticism of Anthropogenic Global Warming Doom

Posted by Jeff Id on October 28, 2014

Glenn Tamblyn left a reasonable sounding comment on the previous thread in reply to my comment that I find oceans to be very dangerous to human life in general.   My point is that oceans are very cold and very large heat sinks and that makes them powerful moderators of temperature.  Earth normally exists in an ice age, and we are lucky to be born in this particular time of warmth and comfort.  Of all natural disasters that WILL befall  Earth, the coming ice age is the one I worry about most.  As I wrote, Glenn’s reply sounds like it is reasonable and I think it represents how much of the AGW concerned population thinks.

I’ve copied his comment below and will attempt to present my side of the argument after that.   Hopefully, some will find it interesting.

Glenn Tamblyn said


“the real monster we should be worried about is that giant body of extremely cold water that dominates our planet”

Let me put some context to that comment.

Human energy consumption is at a rate of around 17 trillion watts.
Total geothermal energy flows from within the earth at around 44 trillion watts.
Total energy accumulation in the oceans, measured by the ARGO system, is currently at around 250 trillion watts.
Total energy arriving from the Sun, after allowing for albedo is around 121,826 trillion watts.

If the energy from the sun could not be radiated out to space and all instead remained and accumulated here then result would be enough to:

– Boil Sydney Harbour dry in 12 seconds.
– Boil the oceans away in around 900 years
– Melt the entire Earth’s crust in 5,000 to 10,000 years.

Obviously that energy can escape to space. But there is still a restriction on that flow in the form of the GH effect. So I would have though that anything that involves adjusting the control valve regulating that outflow is something we would want to be very conservative about.

That 250 trillion watts accumulating in the oceans, obviously isn’t coming from anywhere here on earth; there is no energy source big enough to supply it.

And the world hasn’t stopped warming. There is still at least 250 trillion watts worth of warming. And if all that energy that is currently going into the oceans had all gone into the air instead, air temperatures would be rising at 15 C/decade. If the Earth were a desert world, with only very, very shallow seas and not huge oceans there would be absolutely no question mark about the impact of CO2 – its effect would be blatant and immediate.

Are you really that confident that the oceans are the thing we should be so worried about?

Glenn, science is all about magnitudes as you know, so I need to restate the point that CO2 in the amounts we humans can release can only slow radiation to space by some finite amount, and heat still radiates from Earth at the same rate it comes in at no matter how much CO2 you add.  My point is that the oceans are such a large sink of heat that even all those trillions of watts alleged to be received by global warming they are barely detectable with our best instrumentation.  We can discuss what would happen to air if the ocean were not there, but the oceans are there, and they are not going anywhere.

Someone left a comment here a couple of weeks ago about the oceans collecting the heat and then releasing it in the future with a vengeance.   While Glenn is not making that claim, I want to make the point that once the relatively small amount of heat is distributed into the ocean heat basin, it is functionally permanently lost with respect to atmospheric warming per thermodynamic laws.   The only caveat being that the ocean surface has less heat content so so it can warm measurably and is returned to the atmosphere.   In thermodynamics, we know that heat only flows from hot to cold and entropy doesn’t allow us to pick only the hot molecules from the ocean so there is no hot water in the oceans waiting to cook us by surprise in the future.

There is no giant ball of heat waiting for us below the surface, in fact, we have the opposite problem. –A giant ball of cold.

I wrote a post on this a long time ago.  I did a quick calculation and plot of ocean heat content and atmospheric heat content. I found the ocean had approximately 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.  If we mixed 1 degree of atmospheric warming into the whole of the ocean, it would result in 0.001 degrees of ocean temperature rise.


Click to enlarge

The only reason we have seen any temperature change on Earth is because the ocean surface warmed a little.   In fact, the measured ocean surface makes up most of the measurement in global average temperature.  I found this cool plot of ocean temperatures on line:


I’m not sure where the reference is for it but it gives a very nice visual of a typical slice through the ocean.   Note the large area of blue-purple indicating the majority of the worlds oceans consist of waters below 5 degrees Celcius.   That is really cold water folks and it is a LOT of it.  If it were to come to the surface at a faster rate than we have seen, even by a little, the changes to global temperature would be extreme.

This body of water is a huge moderator of our climate and all of the global warming we can imagine isn’t going to warm it up much, because despite Glenn’s scary language, the magnitude of CO2 based warming simply isn’t sufficient.  Glenn uses the number 250 trillion watts for total energy accumulation rate.  I found the same number at climate progress, a widely known extremist left-wing propaganda outlet that should not be trusted by any thinking person, but we will use it uncritically here.  Two hundred fifty trillion is 2.5 x10^14 J/second.  If we have a heat capacity of 5.6×10^24 J/K  we get 2.24×10^11 seconds until the ocean were warmed one degree.  That corresponds to 710 years of heating to increase the ocean volumetric temperature by one degree which is still somewhere around zero C average temperature.   In other words, climate progresses unrealistic worst possible case doom scenario’s are not sufficient to significantly affect oceanic heat content.

No I am not claiming the ocean is well mixed but that reservoir is definitely there and only a small change in circulation can bring that monstrous body of energy sinking power those few hundred meters to the surface and eliminate even a thousand years of worst case global warming imagination.

I am claiming though that the oceanic driven cold spell —  will happen.  We call them ice ages, they are coming again and currently we do not have the power to stop them.   The cold is sitting right there off our shores, for anyone to see and measure.   It’s not an imagined monster or a projected monster like global warming, it is a real monster, as real as the next big asteroid impact or supervolcano that we all know must come again.



Glenn also writes a hypothetical situation as to what would happen if the Sun’s energy could not be radiated into space.   While this leads to some amusing alarmist style talking points, the bottom line is that we would die.   That’s it.  Nice and simple.   Fortunately, our planet remains in a general energy balance that shifts very little over even millions of years of time.  This is due to the laws of physics so there is no danger whatsoever that it will suddenly or gradually stop radiating to space – so I hope Glenn and other readers won’t worry about that anymore.  :D

To finalize my comments, I would point out to Glenn that climate models have beyond scientific question statistically failed in their projections of temperatures.  The sensitivity atmospheric temperature to CO2 from measured data, is therefore much lower than was predicted and that includes the argo data.  Alternatively rather than a CO2 sensitivity misjudgement, all that heat that Dr. Trenberth is famously looking for, very well could be sitting in the deep ocean making too little impact over 100 years to actually measure and all it would take is a tiny bit more (or less) oceanic intermixing than models predict for that huge heatsink to be the true source of measured climate change.   It could potentiall have overwhelmed the CO2 effect without our knowing.  If it were intermixing less on a short term scale, the extra wattage the Argo floats picked up would mean even less of the energy from CO2 than the best observationally based sensitivity calculations indicate.   One should not assume uncritically that the energy all came from CO2 based warming.  The best evidence we have however shows about the atmosphere increases 1.3 C per doubling of CO2 concentration, and that is very low.

So yes Glenn, I am very sure that with respect to climate, oceans are what we should be concerned about.  They are very cold and too large for us to heat up to livable levels by CO2 emissions. So in the future, I hope you won’t concern yourself anymore about harbors boiling, sheep shrinking, extra hurricanes etc..   None of that is real, it is just propaganda which exists in the minds of alarmists.

Ice ages however….are real.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, the economy IS real too and we can all agree that from many examples around the globe, economies have shown a great deal of sensitivity to human meddling.  Costs of doing business include taxation, and a wide variety of barriers to operations.  It is also really obvious that shutting down coal plants and preventing replacement with functional energy generation is more than a little stupid.  We must be more careful in these times of high governmental economic load not commit economic suicide simply out of fear of CO2, which appears to be somewhere between a complete non-issue and an overall benefit to life on Earth.  Yet that is exactly what the anti-industrial environmental movement is trying to do.












Posted in Uncategorized | 73 Comments »

UN Attempting Quatloo Trading Scam

Posted by Jeff Id on October 26, 2014

In the middle of climate model failure, the socialist party of the UN is getting close to a global agreement for cap and trade emissions costs.   A pure mechanism to assign value to something with no inherent cost.   The dollars per unit they will assign will be related to popular politics rather than anything physical, the failed climate models will be ignored, the damage to industry that was their actual goal can be carried out at will.

Imagine futures trading and how it can be gamed by a politician with the right clout.  Hey buddy, we are going to announce X this spring, buy/sell.  There is no “performance” metric that controls the result and no insider trading law preventing the comment. Imagine the amount of money which can be stolen from the production centers (industry) that feed the globe.  Huge new costs resisting their output of product in favor of the multinational corporations who can influence policy. The same multi-national companies the socialists claim to hate, they empower willingly.   For the same ends, as money and power drive them, although the unwitting population seems to follow without notice. Why is it that these companies are so willing to join?  Are they stupid or are they interested in improving profits?  Why are so many voters unable to think logically?

Subjugation, starvation and poverty will be the future of the human race, for they are as blind to the dangers as a mouse stepping into a mousetrap.

And the scientific predictions of global doom failed…but this wasn’t really about science.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Doug’s Post

Posted by Jeff Id on October 25, 2014

Doug Cotton has been dropping comments here for a couple of years now.   Like many skeptic blogs, the threads become polluted with his unusual brand of CO2 based climate change denial.  His argument has changed dramatically over the years but in fairness (or perhaps unfairness) to him, he says it has not.  Now I think I have been more patient here than any other blog with his unusual proclamations but have been forced to snip many of his recent comment.  Doug has even surpassed me as the most snipped commenter here and while I was well ahead of other readers he leaves me running a distant second.

I have spent a few days this week asking and Doug has spent time answering questions about his theory.   Currently, he has talked himself into a very tight corner with respect to his CO2 doesn’t cause warming theory.    In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that he has disproven his own theory but we are awaiting an answer.   I decided to put it here because the old thread was way too long.

We are considering two planets with equal albedo.  Both planets are dry and one has a non-absorbing Nitrogen (N2) atmosphere, the other has an absorbing Carbon Dioxide (CO2) atmosphere.  They experience the same solar input and all other features are the same.  Doug has proclaimed the truth of Loschmidt’s temperature gradient which matches the dry adiabatic lapse rate so we agree in the existence of the gradient, he has agreed that the planets each emit at the same temperature when viewed from space, and he admits that the average emission altitude of the CO2 planet is higher than the ground level emission of our Nitrogen planet.

If the atmosphere is cooler as we go higher in altitude, and the emission temperatures of both are the same yet the average emission altitude of the CO2 planet is non-zero, then the ground temperature of the CO2 planet must be warmer than the N2 planet – global warming theory is proven.   Doug doesn’t seem to yet realize just how much of a pickle he has gotten himself into and at the time of writing this post he has gone offline for the night (in his area) but when he comes back, I anticipate he will explain how his theory can correct these statements such that his theory is not proven wrong.

I did not expect his admission of the above points as they completely disprove his conclusion that CO2 does not cause warming.  He must rectify the conflict in his reasoning or concede the point.

We shall see.


Posted in Uncategorized | 281 Comments »

Nic Lewis and Judith Curry Give Certainty

Posted by Jeff Id on September 24, 2014

So much of the IPCC argument is based on uncertainty.   Nic Lewis has been working rather tirelessly on improving climate science’s understanding of the observation based magnitude of warming from CO2.  This time he teamed up with Judith Curry and published a new paper establishing a far tighter uncertainty range for climate sensitivity to CO2 based warming.  The answers they show are substantially lower than the IPCC model based estimates and in my opinion substantially more credible.  See Nic’s article describing their results at climate audit here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 136 Comments »


Posted by Jeff Id on September 22, 2014

I just want to post a link to an excellent summary of hide the decline by Jean S at Climate Audit.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Common Nonsense

Posted by Jeff Id on September 7, 2014

Two things have my attention today, one is not climate related.   CIA contractors in immediate proximity of the American embassy in Benghazi were specifically told to stand down rather than protect the lives of the Ambassador.   The head of the CIA in the region repeated the order multiple times and it was after a half hour and against that order (repeated on 3 separate occasions) that the security team overrode the command. The security team was so close to the fighting that they could hear the gunfire and it was only after muslims lit fires around the buildings that our ambassador was safely hidden in, that the team went in – against orders.   It was a half a day later before military support was sent.   The claim has been made that multiple bases in the region normally react with air support, none of them reacted indicating that a large scale stand down order was given.

Remember, this was the point where the “terrorist” aka muslim story line from the president was that they were no longer a threat.  The most likely fit to this data is that the US government, just prior to election, chose to sacrifice the ambassador rather than generate a negative news article.  Whether the most likely scenario is true or not, the decision to stand down when our people were in trouble was quite obviously a political calculation of some form.   They were left to be killed.

Fox news broke the story last night in an interview with the contractors, like climategate the left-wing media will be very slow to pick up the story, if ever, so I am posting a link here:

The second item which has my attention is Michael Mann’s lawsuit.  As you may know conservative commentator Mark Steyn referred to Mann’s work as fraud and bogus and is now embroiled in a lawsuit where Mann claims he was slandered/libeled by Steyn.   The problem is that Mann’s suit is being funded by left-wing groups who have a vested interest in the policies brought about with the alleged but only loosely related goal of addressing climate change. Mann has little to lose by the suit but the rulings on this case have the potential long term negative consequences to free speech with respect to critique of government.

It sounds extreme, but it is, and my favorite climate scientologist Michael Mann is right at the center of it.   His suit uses the various totally fake climategate inquiries as evidence that his work is somehow exonerated, in addition it uses the EPA endangerment finding on CO2 which foundationally gives power to regulate combustion in the US.  Claims of exoneration by the fake inquires into climategate and the even worse EPA findings, were false,  because in all cases Mann’s various hockey stick works are not what was being examined, but the line of truth is hardly a barrier to lawyers.

A recent brief to the courts from Mann’s lawyers holds much of the relevant detail.

The way this works is that “Fraud” is being presented as per-se defamatory, Mann’s lawyers are trying to attach the word “bogus” as equally defamatory in their argument.  The use of either of these words in describing scientific work, is deemed automatically libelous, unless of course it is proven true.  In this case, Mann’s defense that his work is not fraudulent, is based on various government inquiries of climategate, EPA findings, use of other equally tweaked, twisted, impeached, methods in journals to “verify” his findings.  Any pro-government science, especially a science with massive government support levels such as climate change, where more than one kid has his hand in the cookie jar, could become unimpeachable in press simply by other politicians/scientists agreeing.  Economics, medicine, and political science, are strong examples of other government corrupted fields.   Therefore, someone like myself who understands what Mann does for a living, will not be able to safely tell the truth on the subject.   I write this with some fear right now because I have examined several of his papers carefully and have repeatedly articulated obvious errors in the methodology Mann has made.   With the 501C laundered money of government behind him, a faux-suit from Mann is a scary possibility. Mistakes are not fraud, but the odds of mistakes always falling the same way dozens of times by ACCIDENT are astronomically low.  After enough failures, the statistics exceed reasonable certainty that someone is committing fraud with the very slim possibility that they are in fact INCOMPETENT.   It is this tenth of a percent chance of incompetence which has prevented me from referring to Mann’s work as fraud.

Considering that it is this vanishingly small chance in my mind that is the only thing left between fraud and incompetence, others could quite reasonably be expected to fail to differentiate the possibility.  It is a thin line which many people will, and have, intellectually crossed in the case of Michael Mann.  Such opinions are hardly unreasonable at this point and I have no doubt that in a just world, Steyn should win outright based on this alone.

But that is not the only problem.   EPA findings, which so many disagree with, are being used as evidence of TRUTH, rather than the political document they are.   My understanding is that in this courts decision, it is possible that by accepting this document as truth, such truth being evidence that no fraud existed, future court cases could also be compelled to accept the government’s version as truth.  This is certainly an unfortunate consequence of the over-politicized world of climate science.  I’m not a lawyer, and not studied enough on the matters of libel cases to understand how this will play out in use as precedent, but if my understanding is correct, it could be substantially bad for free expression.

The case is being tried in DC, which is widely known to be saturated with the most activist left-wing judicial system in the US.  Only California and New York providing any apparent competition in that dubious matter whatsoever.  With so much corruption visible from the US government in the recent decade, we can be reasonably certain that in a highly politicized case like this, neither truth nor justice will be the deciding factor.

Today is still a sunny day though so I’m not going to let a corrupt over-powerful government stop me from going to do something else with it.  Hopefully you will to.


Posted in Uncategorized | 24 Comments »

Motivated Rejection of …..

Posted by Jeff Id on August 31, 2014

You can make a whole blog (a boring one) simply for the purposes of showing false claims by political activist climate scientists.  The claim below is quoted from a Daily Mail article I ran into surfing the internet.

Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates

The error in his statement is that the human-caused component still dominates.

Anyone with any background in climate change science knows full well (or should) that the human component of observed warming is completely 100% unknown.   Currently, it is statistically and mathematically inseparable from natural warming.  The only thing we can do to separate human and natural warming is model the contributions mathematically and subtract.  Today, climate models have failed by over-predicting warming.   Since models have over-predicted warming by so much, all modeled differences between CO2 and natural warming effects are now nonsensical.  We don’t have a value.

Dr. Hawkins, who I have no immediate knowledge of, isn’t changing his scientific opinion based on facts though.  Unfortunately for science, the non-factual opinion is hardly unique.   Bart Verheggan, who’s blog is linked on the right, did a study which I found interesting in that it is similar to John Cook’s recent 97% debacle in that it polled climate scientists to ask their opinion on various global warming questions.

One question was:

What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?
– More than 100% (i.e. GHG warming has been partly offset by aerosolcooling)
– Between 76% and 100%
– Between 51% and 76%
– Between 26% and 50%
– Between 0 and 25%
– Less than 0% (i.e. anthropogenic GHG emissions have caused cooling)
– There has been no warming
– Unknown due to lack of knowledge
– I do not know
– Other (please specify)

From Bart’s post:

Consistent with other research, we found that the consensus is strongest for scientists with more relevant expertise and for scientists with more peer-reviewed publications. 90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) are the dominant driver of recent global warming.

This seems to agree with what we would expect, however there is a problem.  The conclusion that human created GHG is THE dominant factor in global warming has absolutely no numerical foundation in the science.  One wonders just what makes these scientists so certain!   Yes there are papers on the matter of attribution, but those I have read are  universally model based.   There is nothing wrong with the concept of climate models, except that the ones relied on are now known to be non-functional.    They have failed by overestimating global warming….dramatically.

As the models are known to have failed, the scientists in the survey who still claim humans are the primary cause for the very minimal warming we have observed, are acting as activists rather than scientists.  The real answer is that we just don’t know. It is possible that these people have committed themselves in the past so strongly to the cause that a change in position is personally something they cannot handle.  Being wrong isn’t much fun after all.  Being publicly wrong on your field of expertise is worse I suppose.   However, I believe that their political activism is more to blame than personal embarrassment over the failure of a climate model likely created by someone else.

Basically, because the question asked here can only be based on subjective opinion and not scientific fact, the questions of this survey are more interesting as a social study of the people involved.  I see it as a referendum on the objectivity of the scientists in the field.

In addition, Bart reports that those more published in the field are more likely to claim that warming is primarily human induced.   Were it simply a matter of personal embarrassment, wouldn’t a person with 10 publications have as much invested as one with 40?   Perhaps not, but we also have knowledge that the field prefers those who advocate for political change and those are the scientists who receive the funding and cushy jobs with lots of research assistants to allow them the time to publish lots of papers.   Claims sometimes made that are contrary to this fact are nonsense.

My reading of this aspect of his paper is therefore different.  Bart Verheggen shows that the more popular individuals, that he claims have “more relevant expertise”, are more likely to make the claim that humans contribute more than 50% of warming is caused by GHG.  A claim that is objectively unscientific.

We have a very big problem in our science when such a large fraction of the group is willing to claim an unscientific position in their field of study for unexplained reasons.

Since their belief is decidedly not evidence based, or they would certainly publish the proof, we can only conclude that it must be a faith.   In this case, the group has expressed a non-factual faith that somehow humans must be the primary cause of warming.  What drives this faith is not discussed in faith terms, and therefore must be a personal matter for each of them, driven by a wide variety of unseen truths believed but not discussed.  Perhaps a group of fuzzy math papers or perhaps some other un-vetted statement they have heard from colleagues has seeded the thought.  It is a faith, an unbreakable truth under which physical laws of reality must bend to comply.  It is the only explanation for the fact that we regularly see climate observations fly in the face of the conclusions, yet the conclusions stand unaffected.

Off topic

It is interesting to me that these same people don’t understand capitalism.   My wild guess estimate is that 95% of climate scientist experts believe in evolution, yet generally don’t support free market capitalism, when they are actually the same thing.   Each one representing a system reacting to conditions of the environment for maximum benefit.  There is no such thing as truly free market and the value being optimized in both cases is different.  Capitalism optimizing money and evolution optimizes survival but I don’t really understand how people hold polar opposite views on both matters.  It seems to me that socialists shouldn’t believe in evolution, and capitalists should.  The matter isn’t black and white and people are funny things so the evidence on which people make decisions regarding their core beliefs is beyond my understanding.  I’m off topic a bit bit it leaves me wondering.

A link between politics and faith

Still, IPCC scientists in general regularly express the most powerful central government solutions imaginable.  Discussions of limitations on environmental property rights, energy generation, transportation, speech of skeptics and even limiting reproduction are common themes in their world.  The horrific outcomes of history do not seem to moderate the general beliefs of the community that more central government control of the population,  is somehow a solution to human climate problems.

The belief in extraordinarily powerful governmental solutions to environmental concerns is also a faith they hold.   It flies in the face of any rational observation of the performance of government, but for some reason it goes hand-in-hand with the same individuals who promote the faith-based form of climate science.  It is clear from climategate emails and observations of universities across the country that socialists are the preferred employee for government organizations.  The reinforcing effects of the governmental money source on political beliefs in these institutions creates a significant political imbalance in the population of scientists.

This self-sorting of people (climate scientists in this case) who hold generally extreme views of economics and government may lead to a general tendency for faith-based science.  A claim could reasonably be made against what are often derogatorily termed religious conservatives, which in general, the climate science group openly despises. There is no governmental incentivized mechanism which funds religious conservatives into a multi-billion dollar global climate change sized industry speaking on a single topic.  We could imagine a similar conservative faith-based science being forced upon us in that case as well, but that problem isn’t government funded and therefore is not a serious threat.

Other demonstrably false faith-based claims regularly made by main stream climate scientists:

Skeptics are oil funded;Hurricanes and storms increasing;Polar bears dying out;Economic disaster;Food supply shortages;Drought or excess rain;various green energy solutions;sea ice vanishing; — the list is quite a bit longer than this but you get the idea.  These claims are all false.

The problem extends beyond that though.   It pervades the field with false papers on historic temperatures taken from proxies, Antarctic warming, sea ice futures, shrinking fish, drought and hurricanes on and on and on…  Literally false papers.

The evidence of their unstated faith is extensive.  What is also in evidence is that you cannot argue a faith on a rational level.  Like a religious argument, you are slamming into their personal defense mechanism which places walls between rational consideration and belief.

The petri dish

While it may seem unreasonable or even derrogatory for me to write the words above, this is not some ad-hominem attack on climate science but is rather my objective view of their bulk behaviors as an outsider. We have discussed before the fact that engineers and scientists in other fields get reasonably quick feedback when their ideas don’t live up to expectations.   In climate science, the feedback is over decades of time, and often well exceeds the skyrocketing careers of the individuals making their projections.   There is no feedback to the individuals for their product, so the product which looks the best for its purpose, is the product deemed best.  It is only after decades that we realize that favored climate models who’s output predicted extreme warming, failed to match observation.   Climate scientists aren’t used to being wrong.   They don’t have a history of strong negative feedback on which to alter their understanding.    Their reaction to this major failure of models has been a combination reticent correction and confused belief in future observations magically (unscientifically) coming into line.

Our reality

The combination of pressures seems to have bred a generally narcissistic and overconfident group of people who fail to observe that the rest of the technical world is not buying into their global warming doom scenarios.  Our failure to buy in is not due to lack of explanation, or technical expertise, or the implied fact that everyone but them has a self-organized but opposite political belief, but is rather due to the lack of scientific foundation these governmental organizations present in their argument.    There is simply no evidence that global warming is severe, dangerous or anything but beneficial.

Despite the wide consensus on global warming disaster in climate science, I believe a polling of the technically literate world would result in discovery that the vast majority of the scientifically literate public are highly skeptical of global warming doom.



Posted in Uncategorized | 44 Comments »

José Duarte on Cook

Posted by Jeff Id on August 30, 2014

José  Duarte has a post up that Carrick called my attention to at the Blackboard.   The article is basically a chastisement of the false externally motivated science in the context of Cook’s recent publication on the 97% consensus.  I call it externally motivated as a way to describe the numerous papers across so many fields of science that have pre-ordained conclusions designed into their methodology, such that they support the authors undisclosed personal interests in some manner.  Climate science is the current poster child for today’s particularly grotesque post-modern form of motivated science, it is hardly unique in either this century or by field.  We have seen much of the same in medicine, drug testing, economics, political science and psychology across history.   It is a sad fact that publications across many fields are rife with the nonsense.

The following quote is probably a little unfair to Jose’s article because his content is well considered, and this paragraph is a bit off from the central point, but since the Lewandowsky incident I’ve come to believe this same thing about certain people.

I honestly think at least part of the issue here is intelligence and knowledge. It think this is a pervasive issue in the climate debate, but is rarely called out, and it’s easy for it to be lazy ad hominem. Intelligence can be a real, functional constraint. For example, I think some climate science skeptics simply aren’t smart enough — they’re not smart enough to understand climate science or its methods. They’ll never understand what these “computer models” are doing, or why calling something a computer model doesn’t invalidate it. I think if the Higgs boson had political implications of the sort that AGW is presumed to have, some of those same people would express similar arguments against the existence of the Higgs or the validity of its detection, saying that it’s all “computer models”, or that we can’t really “see” it. In such a case, I think it would come down to them not being smart enough to understand the methods, or the nature of that particular reality. Reality isn’t structured such that any scientific field will be understandable to any outsider with an IQ of 100 or better — it would be arbitrary to assume that it was. The people who conducted the Cook study don’t understand rudimentary epistemology, or what counts as evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Cook’s e-mailed response to my call for retraction also struck me as that of someone who just isn’t equipped to deal with these sorts of issues. Nuccitelli’s comments in the forum about the white males study is more evidence that these people aren’t equipped for this.

In an only peripherally related incident, I was truly shocked when Eric Eich, the then editor of Psychological Science, told me the following in reference to one of Lewandowsky’s published misrepresentations of my opinion:

Dr. Lewandowsky has agreed to remove your citation not because it was misleading–he does not believe it was–but because I think it is best replaced by a source other than a blog post.

So in order to protect a clear political piece disguised as science, Lewandowsky took the position that my opinion was not what I thought it was (silly me), in fact my opinion was what THEY thought it was and therefore the otherwise fraudulent accusations were accurate.   BUT!!! the problem was that I had represented my position on a blog.  For his purpose in this single specific case, scholarly articles on psychology could only use data from non-blog sources.  Talking, interviews, tape, newspaper, journals, songs, musings, etc… etc.. and so on ….. as long as it isn’t blogs.

Teasing aside, the political or personal pressures that Lewandowsky and Eric Eich felt must have exceeded the restrictions of publishing rationally defensible statements.   This does not prove a lack of intelligence, as inaccurate thoughts are often motivated by unspoken factors. Lewandowsky, on the other hand, seemed unable (also perhaps unwilling, I’m not a mind reader) to grasp that my position on temperature data was based on reason, and is basically mainstream in the climate science field.   Although I did write it in my normal excitable fashion, rational readers had no trouble working out the truth.  It has been since that time that my general opinion of his scientific ability has formed, and it is separate from any personal feelings based on his actions.   I have read several of Lewandowsky’s papers on other topics as well and I truly believe Lewandowsky is incapable of understanding the nuances of a more serious science than he pretends to practice.

He is far from alone as I also believe Phil Jones suffers from the same numeric limitations.  It’s not his fault, it is just what I believe from his work and what I have read from the CG emails, particularly on curve fits.

From the evidence, Nuccitelli is a good candidate for the low-grok club but I’m even less familiar with any other work he may have done.   There certainly is a lot of illogical nonsense in his writing which is a poor sign for him.   The Cook paper being eviscerated in the link above by Jose can stand alone though as it is such a horribly incompetent example of “work” that it isn’t hard to imagine the Cook et cetera team had any skill, background (or moderate weekend training) in the methodology they employed.   It’s unfortunate really, because I think the general conclusion that there is a belief of anthropogenic climate change amongst climate scientists, is hardly controversial.  Were the paper correctly done, they would have likely discovered a different and somewhat lower number that would hold the same sort of political weight.  In other words, the flawed methodology was unnecessarily biased for the political messaging purposes they conceived.  Basically Low-grok all around.

Unfortunately, and it is unfortunate, these thoughts I hold lead to an easy dismissal anything these people come up with.   I find myself laughing at their work when I run across it rather than taking it seriously.  It’s also unfortunate, because the press is non-believably poor at differentiating the relentless advocacy papers from actual science, and has an even worse time differentiating blatantly flawed science such as Mann’s proxy-sorting algorithms.  The public has no chance to understand reality with that sort of motivated filter between them and the articles being published.  Dismissive thinking is a trap nobody should fall into, but the battle against it is hard to win when the subject of the dismissal is such a willing volunteer as Cook.

Anyway, Jose’s article is much better written and conceived than these musings and is worth the time.   His article gives me hope that some form of self-reflection of motivated authors can be brought about which would limit some of the nonsensical political papers disguised as “science”.   Just a little hope though as the laws of incentivization will likely always pressure some people to report scientific truths outside of the boundaries of the rationally observed universe.




Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

Time for a little healthy skepticism

Posted by Jeff Id on August 27, 2014

I have finally completed a huge and mathematically difficult design project that has been on my plate for the last couple of months and have a little time for blogging.   I’m thoroughly excited about the project and like so many things I do, I dug in hard and worked until I was fully burned out on it.  Seems to be my style.

Anyway, the multi-billion dollar international global warming industry is continuing on despite the major shots the science has taken in recent years.  The denial of reality by the activist scientists has already reached astounding proportions and seems to be growing with the realization that their predictions of the future are no more valid than Mrs Cleo’s prediction of bankruptcy.  Predicting the future seems a rough business.

There have been a few notable posts on the matter, Anthony Watts carried one which featured climate change advocate Richard Betts quoted as writing “Bish, as always I am slightly bemused over why you think GCMs are so central to climate policy.”.   I’m literally gobsmacked by the insanity of a claimed scientific position that climate models might not be THE central evidence for a position of climate policy.  It leaves one wondering what a lead author of the IPCC might consider in lieu of a model for prediction of future climate.

In short, the industry’s failure is in full view and nobody, scientist, advocate or homeless person can claim that the earth is warming to disaster, because there is now quite literally zero evidence to support the position.  There are plenty of scientists holding on for the “big warmup” that will somehow save the models.  There are even a couple of “scientific” publications digging very deep into the data mash to tweak parameters in line.   I won’t reference them, particularly the one by Gavin Schmidt, because they are trash and tripe and not worth reading.   What they do represent though is yet another symptom of government funded research gone awry with advocacy, a sick industry with little hope for salvation from the wrath of the god of physics.

Climate science meets engineering reality, finally.

And it is the climate models that failed.   They overpredicted warming by CO2 so dramatically that we were able to statistically detect the failure decades before anyone really expected to.   Despite Betts ridiculous and untenable position on climate models, there is no other mechanism by which we can predict climate than models.   Now before people jump on the concept that climate models can’t work, that is a flatly false position to hold.  They absolutely can work. They can even work reasonably well for predicting global temperature trends at their current sophistication level.  Unfortunately, the sensitivity to CO2 warming is incorrect and even when it is corrected we won’t know how far current models will accurately predict into the future.  Like local weather models which predict rain reasonably well two days out, observation and comparison is the only way to know if it worked.

And that comparison of observed temperature to today’s models — failed.  All dead.

I’ve got bad news for you though folks.  You cannot kill an industry that easily.   There is simply too much money at stake for these people to lose their jobs – as they well should.  There is a politically ironic comparison which seems to me fits the context.  The tobacco industry, in its heyday, tried to publish “science” showing that tobacco didn’t cause cancer.  It took years to beat the truth out of that little issue, and in the end the truth did come out.   Yet the industry still lives on.   There is simply too much money and too many people relying on that money to shut down an industry like that overnight.

It will be interesting to see how far it goes, but the quotes rolling out of climate science are consistent with a socialist left wing political agenda based on top-down control and completely inconsistent with the science.  A duck is a duck in my world.

One wonders just how far they can go with this broken message before the unthinking public recognizes that there aren’t any climate disasters to talk about.   The feedback between government funded fake science, and reality is tremendously slow.   We may actually achieve all of the expense and government regulatory control with literally zero societal benefit.   In fact, a new book has been released which highlights the clear fact that CO2 is a highly beneficial gas and its warming effects do nothing but good for life on Earth.   A position I have grown to hold over the years.  If my reasonable and previously mainstream scientific view is correct, these energy regulations and costs will create negative impacts both on the economy and the biosphere when compared to a world without them.

There is nothing inherently wrong with wind, solar and biofuel energy, when unsubsidized by government, the subsidized form is a story for another day.  However it seems clear that the highly scrubbed CO2 and water emissions from an old fashion coal plant are quite likely a net positive for life on this planet.  The mild warming and additional building blocks CO2 provides for plant life both appear to be very positive developments from everything I have studied.  The extremist left-wing political resistance to healthy economic growth and individual wealth and power stand starkly unsupported at this time.

Of course I could be wrong and climate models are actually not needed to see the climate future, and tobacco doesn’t cause cancer.

Cathartic as always!



Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Comments »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 160 other followers