NavigationSearchRecent Commentsa cruel economic order... in the bad economic fall-out from the two rentier capitalists of the 1980s... 2 hours 56 min ago 99.9 per cent bug-proof... in in paradise, they don't have to prune trees... — ugs isykloen 3 hours 2 min ago the war of the vaccines... in launching a covid19 vaccine with doctor putin... 18 hours 46 min ago and now deprogramming the GOPs... in your thoughts will be sanitized at a US pelosi re-education camp... 19 hours 11 min ago the nutcases versus the loonies... in your thoughts will be sanitized at a US pelosi re-education camp... 19 hours 40 min ago swallowing the spider to get the fly... in the relative optimist in some of us... 22 hours 12 min ago inside the biden sewer... in at the bottom end of the deep pool... 22 hours 42 min ago covid: less car accidents, more deaths by bicycle... in cycling through the detrituses... 1 day 1 hour ago the biden fudge... in the contristadors... 1 day 2 hours ago forgive me if I don’t wear a pink pussy hat... in Train sets or baby dolls?... 1 day 2 hours ago Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
my unhealthy obsession...Note (27 Setember 2016): These articles were written about 4 years ago. Since then global warming has gone riot... Though many people still don't want to acknowledge the facts. (2012) On global warming issues, strangely, I feel quite alone and faced with formidable enemies... Actually I am faced with formidable enemies in both camps... The camp of the climate change alarmists is often filled with amateurish description of what climate change would bring, including Armageddon ... The denialist camp is getting smarter and is loaded with impressive personnel, as the list of scientists on The Australian Climate Science Coalition attests to. The ACSC is a serious sceptic outfit with powerful interaction with other denialist organisations, including the Heartland Institute and all are run with strong (if not wrong) convictions on the subject. I quote: The Australian Climate Science Coalition, which works closely with the International Climate Science Coalition, was formed by a group of professional people interested in encouraging continued scientific research into the world’s climate and in particular into the effects of increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We do not believe that past and current climates are sufficiently well understood to enable projections of future climate changes to be accurately predicted. Our purpose is to exchange scientific ideas and to encourage proper political and social debate on this intriguing subject. Scientific Advisory Panel (of the Australian Climate Science Coalition)Dr John Nicol Chairman * David Archibald * Professor Bob Carter * Dr David Evans * Viv Forbes * William Kininmonth * John McLean * Professor Cliff Ollier * Professor Ian Plimer * Dr Walter Starck * Dr Tom Quirk The list of scientists and the mission statement are impressive... May be, I should give up now instead of trying to fight these super-heavy weights of knowledge while I have a degree in nothing — not even a Madame Zurba's clairvoyance school certificate in bullshit artistry... The Heartland institute may be the most aggressive with its anti-global warming articles — and quite acid on other issues such as education... One needs to peel the top veneer or thick skin to see where all this is coming from... Not so much from the carbon industries directly, but through various belief systems that may be funded by the carbon industry nonetheless, or rich people whose interests are in step with big carbon emissions ... -------------------------- The mission statement for the International Climate Science Coalition says: The ICSC is a non-partisan group of independent scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages assisting vulnerable peoples to adapt to climate variability and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change. ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not be limited to, the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy sources with wind turbines, solar power, biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources. Here I smell a rat, The ICSC mission statement contradicts itself within two sentences from the fifth word... ---------------------------- The mission statement for the Heartland Institute states: The Heartland Institute is 'the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.” — The Economist, May 26, 2012 Heartland's Center on Climate and Environmental Policy produces an ambitious program of research and educational projects in defense of free-market environmentalism. It has assembled a team of leading scientists and economic experts to participate in the production of books, videos, a monthly public policy newspaper, events, and other public relations activities. ------------------------------ If some alarm carillon has not rung in your top loft, you are more naive than I thought... The Australian outfit is more restrained about its mission than the Heartland Institute, thus deemed more scientific and penetrating. I will add here that in the same manner as some "alarmist" are pumping bullshit into the debate, the denialists are also pumping gigantic ignorant whopper (unless they are deliberate plain porkies) into the counter-arguments... One argument often raised in this debate is "scientific funding"... For example I will quote later from an article that attacks "peer reviews" in their funding and the need thereof... The first argument presented is that Einstein theory of relativity was NEVER peer-reviewed though it is a masterpiece of lucid understanding. Thus end of story, no need for peer reviews... Fair enough I'd say should one be a genius... At the time of Einstein's writing, few scientists would have had the gall to challenge its brilliance, nor would they have had the counter-arguments to say boo. But in fact, Einstein was disbelieved in Germany and had to go the USA for acclaim... The second argument is peer reviewed is often funded by "governments', thus the peer reviews would be slanted to go along with one point of view in order to get funding... I say bollocks to that, but then who am I? A cartoonist, for existential sake! The other side of the coin resides in the funding of outfits such as the ICSC: To date, the vast majority of donations to ICSC have come from private individuals in: Canada, The United States of America, The United Kingdom, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Denmark, Australia The identities of all donors are kept strictly confidential to protect their privacy and safety.Since its formation in 2007, ICSC has never received financial support from corporations, foundations or governments.While we welcome contributions from all sources, including corporations, foundations and government, and are actively soliciting support, ICSC operates as a non-partisan, worldview neutral entity, independent of political or commercial vested interests. We will not accept donations that are contingent on ICSC promoting a point of view in favour of, or against, any philosophical, political or commercial interest. If ICSC tried to influence the public statements made by the professors and other experts we work with, they would likely resign from our advisory bodies. If the smell of sulphur has not entered your room, then you are a privately-funded vampire yourself... I notice the ICSC is getting zilch funding from Germany, China, France or Russia... --------------------------- POLAR BEARS One of the popular contentious points in the climate change debate has been Polar Bears... Big cuddly beasts that could take your head off in one bite... or take your heart out in one stroke of a claw... Yes, the alarmists point out that the bears are in danger of extinction due to global warming. The denialists point out to the increase in the bear "population"... So where's the reality? I could point out that they're both wrong and take the snooty middle of the road and leave it at this... I will state here that I don't know but I know the dynamic of bear population are in a flux. I will also add that serious research is being conducted in the Arctic about this conundrum and on the effect of man-made pollutants, such as synthetic oestrogen (yes! oestrogen!) and pesticides in that region's wildlife... One of the fair explanation for increase "population" is the numbers of bears seen closer to the Inuit settlements... Of course, those are killed by them for food and pelt, immediately reducing the population by a notch... But one can also speculate that the Inuit live mostly on "solid" icy ground while the bears live mostly on the ice... As the ice gets thinner (which it does), the bears have less "ice-pack" to live upon and have to move onto more solid "grounds" — those usually are closer to where the Inuit live... thus giving a false image of the bear "population" while the ice-pack is getting deserted... I would like to add here too that the pelt of these bear is not white but "transparent". It has been speculated that these hairs are like fibre-optics, collectors of the weak light and heat from the feeble sun of these latitudes. The transparence of the hair transfer this heat to the black bear skin and the shorter curlier hairs act as a strong insulation blanket... It has been observed too that polar bears eat mostly the blubber from seals, rather than the "meat", so they themselves acquire fat to fight off the cold and build body reserves to hibernate. One could add here that as the ice melts and the sea eventually warms up, more southerly fish species could move northward and help feed a growing number of seals themselves helping provide more food for the bears — but as the icy habitats of both the seals and the bear shrink, both "populations" become under added stress to find shelter and reproductive safe areas... More debate to come... may I invite you to share all my articles on global warming on this site with your friends if you have any left...
|
I am going to get these bastards...
I am only posting this to let you know that I am viciously working full bore to expose the denialists' bad faith and false arguments... As you might imagine, it's a Herculean task — like attacking a giant rubbish tip, armed with a toothpick to find a glimmer. So far, I have not been able to find anyone that has done it comprehensively in a manner that can be understood by mere mortals... Bear with me...
Jo Nova — fiction writer...
Dear reader... I despair, yet I feel compelled to fight on. I despair as I incredulously note that someone who has a microbiology degree such as Jo Nova, peddles such crap as if it was scientific milk...
Is Nova a nut-case, did she flip a screw loose sometimes after having got her PhD, or did she suck so much at microbiology that she decided to con people and make money from rich denialists by claiming she knew what she was talking about in regard to global warming?...
Jo Nova's atrocious book "The Skeptics Handbook" (for kids?) is so full of gross inaccuracies and falsehoods that I believe either she is dumb or deliberately manipulative to suit her hidden carbon masters, if any...
Here are some examples:
This refers on how to discuss global warming as in a "surgical strike": Her fiction is posted here in italics...
1: Stick to the four points that matter
There is only one question and four points worth discussing. Every time you allow the conversation to stray, you get stuck in a dead end and miss the chance to definitively expose the lack of evidence that carbon is “bad.”
Gus: this says a lot about Nova's bully tactics... Should someone mentions something that adds something that is contrary to one's "belief", one has to bring back the conversation back in its narrow framework... Quite religiously fanatical, don't you think?... No scientist say that carbon is bad. Life depends on carbon. But carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a "greenhouse" gas and, as the level of CO2 climbs, so does the temperature... That relationship is defining global warming at present — after all other influence on atmospheric temperature have been accounted for.
2: Ask questions
Non-believers don't have to prove anything. Skeptics are not asking the world for money or power. Believers need to explain their case, so let them do the talking. As long as the question you asked doesn’t get resolved, repeat it.
Gus: in fact, most people who control power and money are non-believers (skeptics) about global warming. These people don't "have to ask for it"... But it is in their interest to belittle global warming, as the reality of it is likely to make a dent in their long held belief they can rape the environment for a buck and burn carbon without any consequences.
3: Greenhouse and global warming are different
Don’t let people confuse global warming with greenhouse gases. Mixing these two different topics has confounded the debate. Proof of global warming is not proof that greenhouse gases caused that warming.
Gus: There is no "proof of anything", except there is a strong relationship between global heat and the gaseous mix, influenced by "proportions" of greenhouse gases and cooling gases. There are other influences on global climate than the gaseous mix (see my other paper on this subject).
Presently AFTER having taken into account all the other factors, all global warming computer models show the greenhouse gases are the main culprits.
4: Deal with the bully-boy
It’s entirely reasonable to ask for evidence. If you are met with dismissive, intimidatory, or bullying behavior, don’t ignore it. Ask them why they’re sacrosanct. Dogma belongs in religions.
Gus: of course, I could not agree more, including the dogma in Jo Nova's own religion, which is based on falsehoods...
---------------------------------------
So Jo Nova goes on with some incredible porkies and twists of bacon that a sow would loose her kittens in...
The only 4 points that matter
1 The greenhouse signature is missing.
Weather balloons have scanned the skies for years but can find no sign of the telltale "hot spot” warming pattern that greenhouse gases would leave. There’s not even a hint.Something else caused the warming.
Gus: At least Nova accepts that there is warming of the planet... because it's undeniable despite arguing wrongly and contradicting herself quite often in claiming that warming stopped a while ago or never happened... One could get confused, but what are the telltales "hot spots" that she's talking about?
In 2008, by measuring changes in winds, rather than relying upon problematic temperature measurements, Robert J. Allen and Steven C. Sherwood of the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale estimated the atmospheric temperatures near 10 km in the Tropics rose about 0.65 degrees Celsius per decade since 1970—probably the fastest warming rate anywhere in Earth's atmosphere. The temperature increase is in line with predictions of global warming models.
2 The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed, data turned the theory inside out.
Instead of carbon pushing up temperatures, for the last half-a-million years temperature have gone up before carbon dioxide levels. On average 800 years before. This totally threw what we thought was cause and effect out of the window.
Something else caused the warming.
Gus: This stupid statement is based on Nova's short-sighted analysis of the Vostok Ice Cores. She says: On average CO2 rises and falls hundreds of years after temperature does.