GLOBAL WARMISTS MAKE THEIR CASE

26
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Tucci78

Deer in the headlamps, utter and complete.

Yet again the “97%” bogosity being used to foreclose debate.

————————
Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles outlined here.

AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying ‘most scientists believe…,’ it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.

AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.

And there’s much, much more.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crippled conjecture, doomed just by these principles of science never to advance to a hypothesis. Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public.

— Jeff Glassman, PhD. (2007; see http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/64_07_Conjecture_to_Law.pdf )

Dutchman

Most things we take as a scientific fact, are really theories.

Bohr ‘invented’ the theory of the atom: neutron, proton, electron. It proves itself out, over and over again in both physics and chemistry. HOWEVER it is still a theory. There is a definite problem with Relativity and Quantum theory. Someday a person may come along with a different twist on atomic theory (such as Einstein did with the absolute speed of light).

We can demonstrate that theories work, but many times cannot prove them absolutely.

Araven
Araven

And there’s the guy (with 5 or 6 advanced degrees) in Australia who recently found two errors in the equations used in the models created in 1986 forming the “settled science” that people have been using to “prove” anthropogenic global warming ever since. These two errors mean that the results calculated by the models are off by at least a factor of 10. In other words, when they say that the world will warm by 10 degrees over x number of years the fixed models really only project the world warming by 1 degree, which is within the margin of error. So the models, with these errors corrected, don’t show any anthropogenic global warming at all. Interesting that this matches the 18 year “pause”.

Joe
Joe

Climate change will become a real science soon because an economist was put in charge of the UN climate change group.

Tim
Tim

Two liars, lying to each other.

kokoda
kokoda

Aravan….that guy is Dr. David Evans. A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, but called an electrical engineer.

Joanne Nova is the ‘partner’ of Dr. Evans. She has her own website (http://joannenova.com.au/) which exposes the GloBull Warming doomsday cult for the way science was being exploited for financial gain, status and power.

Araven
Araven

Thanks kokoda, I couldn’t remember his name.

starfcker
starfcker

There is a reason lib websites don’t like comments. This dumb fuck, after that performance, made a rebuttal video, and posted it on the sierra club website. The commenters are killing him.

David
David

Joe, do you think a professional economist can do more harm in that role or in trying to tell our politicians how they can run the e colony. Perhaps we also get Stiglitz, Krugman and the rest of the quacks to focus on something else and leave the economy alone.

David
David

Run the economy, I hate autocorrect.

Lysander
Lysander

@ David…. “run the e colony” You might have been unintentionally correct. There are no nations in a world run by banks, only colonies to be exploited.

Anonymous
Anonymous

The thing about science: Whatever you theory predicts will have to correspond to observable facts in the real world or it isn’t valid.

TPC
TPC

@Anon – Unless you add government to the mix.

Then up is down, right is left, boys are girls, girls are boys, and everybody is always feelgood splentrificalidocious.

kokoda
kokoda

Anon….that is why Globull Warming is a Hoax. Their predictions (from their hypothesis) as evidenced by the IPCC Models, have risen skyward while the real world observable data is flat-lining. Under the Scientific Method (which the IPCC doesn’t use), the hypothesis has failed. Stop this waste of resources, time, and money.

hardscrabble farmer

And once more the only proper response to them would be the following-

Sir, do you understand that the planet has gone through periods of climate change since it’s formation? Are you so filled with hubris that you believe that man can alter the natural cycles of the universe?

It simply boggles my mind that people cannot grasp the stupendous ignorance that leads anyone to actually believe that we can legislate the climate of a planet in space.

hardscrabble farmer

And FWIW the vast majority of pre-historic human archaeological sites sit beneath the ocean because….

CLIMATE CHANGE!

Was that due to the campfires of several hundred thousand hunter-gatherers?

The stupid, it burns.

Tucci78

Writes hardscrabble farmer: “It simply boggles my mind that people cannot grasp the stupendous ignorance that leads anyone to actually believe that we can legislate the climate of a planet in space.”

You fail to perceive the mindset of these critters. The climate catastrophe cacklers (who are a subset of what have been termed “Social Justice Warriors”) are NOT reasoning, reasonable – indeed, rational – human beings. Not in the least. They are motivated not by a desire to learn and understand, to devise logical solutions to objectively verifiable problems, but by the same kind of animal panic that sends flocks of chickens and herds of cattle dashing hither and thither without sense or real purpose.

They’re human, yes. But only morphologically. They’re so alien to people like you that they might as well be members of a wholly different species.

The following is drawn from a recent publication:

————————
In his book _Rhetoric_, which is said to be “the most important single work on persuasion ever written”, the Greek philosopher Aristotle divides the art of persuasion into two distinct forms, dialectic and rhetoric, concerning which he makes a very important observation. I can’t stress enough how vital this observation is or how helpful it is to make the effort to understand it and take it to heart:

“Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge
will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on
knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct.”

“There are people whom one cannot instruct.” One of Man’s greatest thinkers, a brilliant teacher who tutored one of history’s greatest generals, Alexander the Great, knew that there were people even he could not teach. He didn’t say it was difficult to get through to them and he didn’t say it would take a long time to instruct them, he concluded that it could not be done — at least not with mere knowledge. However, he went on to point out that it is possible to convince them to change their minds, only that one cannot do so by presenting them with knowledge. Instead, it is necessary to manipulate them and to play upon their emotions in order to get them to change their minds. He even provided detailed instructions on how to go about communicating with these people who make decisions on the basis of their feelings rather than their logical capacities.

As you can probably guess, SJWs [Social Justice Warriors] fall squarely into the category of people who cannot be instructed and cannot be convinced by knowledge. This is the key to understanding their astonishing ability to cling to their Narrative in the face of evidence that obliterates it as well as their insistence on clinging to it even as it shifts and contradicts itself. The reason SJWs can believe seven impossible and mutually contradictory things before breakfast is their inability to be instructed by knowledge; as long as each of those seven things happens to be in line with whatever their emotions are at the moment, SJWs will not see the inherent contradictions that thinking people do.

Because they do not think using logic, they cannot speak, or understand, what Aristotle describes as dialectic. Dialectic is based on the construction of logical syllogisms, which therefore makes it very easy to anyone who is capable of following those syllogisms and ascertaining their validity to detect when one is lying. Rhetoric, on the other hand, is “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion”. Rhetoric is much more forgiving of falsehood, and in fact, it’s not even strictly possible to say that a rhetorical statement is a lie. Rhetoric consists of the construction of what Aristotle describes as enthymemes — which are not proper logical syllogisms, but incomplete or invalid arguments that merely take the form of syllogisms — in which all that matters is that persuasion is achieved by means of the “proof” provided, or more accurately, the apparent proof.

For the purposes of following this vital philosophical distinction, it might be easier to think in terms of “logically sound” and “not logically sound” rather than in simple terms of true and false. The point is that you can construct a logical syllogism that proves or a pseudo-logical enthymeme that apparently proves, but in either case, they can both be used to correctly point the person with whom you are speaking towards the relevant truth of the matter.
[…]
The interesting thing about rhetoric is that it makes very little sense to individuals who are limited to the dialectic. In fact, I didn’t fully grasp the way it worked until reading Rhetoric for the second time. It can be bewildering when people tell you that they have been convinced by something that you know can’t possibly have logically persuaded them to change their minds. In such cases, you know they have been persuaded by rhetoric, not facts, reason, or logic. And you should probably communicate with them through rhetoric in the future if you want them to understand you. When you speak dialectic to a rhetoric-speaker, he hears it as rhetoric. Or, not infrequently, as complete gibberish.

Dialectic and rhetoric are two different languages, and the number of people who can speak both of them fluently is relatively small. I wouldn’t expect an individual who only speaks one form of discourse to be any more able to follow me into the other se passo a scrivere in italiano o francese senza preavviso dopo l’inizio di una frase in inglese. Il est déroutant quand quelqu’un se coupe subitement langues sur vous, nicht wahr?

— Vox Day, _SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police_ (August 2015)

RiNS

A perfect example, I think, of how this debate (so-called) is being played in halls of academia. I find it interesting. This fellow sounds more like one of the mobsters appearing before McClellan hearings way back in 63.

Tucci78

Writes starfcker: “There is a reason lib websites don’t like comments. This dumb fuck, after that performance, made a rebuttal video, and posted it on the sierra club website. The commenters are killing him.”

Got a link to that ‘viro Web site, and the “rebuttal video” in which Aaron Mair further disgraces himself?

By the bye, does anyone reading here have any sort of background on this cement-headed schmuck? Has he either education, training, or experience in ANY of the hard sciences, or is he yet another Affirmative Action hire devoid of any capability to discern or speak on matters pertinent to scientific method?

kokoda
kokoda

@Tucci…..very good post/info.

I regularly visit a couple science blogs and many times their commentary is over my head. But what I find disturbing is that the science knowledgeable skeptics believe they can defeat the AGW Lie with science – Not true. The gov’ts, with limitless funds have captured Uni’s and Media and Science Orgs,, and have been using propaganda to capture the public support. They ran with the ‘cute’ Polar Bears (a lie) and have now switched to health, especially asthma affecting ‘the children’ (another lie). Both of these are tied to the emotional content.

starfcker
starfcker
RiNS

Let me get this straight. I’m told by grochef, alex and others that I can’t have an opinion because I don’t have the pre-requisite eucational background. Yet this man can appear as an expert before congressional hearing. We have an Aussie with 6 advanced degrees versus that. We live in a world where up is down and right is wrong.

Rise Up

“97%…97%…97%…” Repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t somehow make it not a lie.

Tucci78

Administrator posts: “Aaron Mair is an epidemiological-spatial analyst, environmentalist, and current president of the Sierra Club….”

With his education and experience wholly confined to the “humanities” side of C.P. Snow’s _Two Cultures_ (1959), this guy is supposed to have something to do with epidemiology?

Among his “Studies” certifications, is there anything remotely resembling evidence of training in public health, much less the knowledge of pathology needed to understand the nature of epidemic diseases?

Or are we dealing with “epidemiological” only in the figurative sense here? As in “an epidemic of willful ignorance and arrogant stupidity”?

Peaceout
Peaceout

Our property sits on a rolling hill about 200 feet above the valley floor, there is about a 60 foot wide seam of fossilized clam beds that runs along the slope parallel to the valley. Now I do not have six degrees in anything and damn sure not willing to suggest I possess any type of climate expertise. But my eyes tell me that, at some point, this area and elevation was the seashore. The valley is just above today’s sea level, butter clam fossil’s 200 feet above that. You do the math. Two hundred foot rise in the ocean, that is end of days, Noah’s Ark stuff there.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading