Comments for Other voices on climate change http://paulmacrae.com/links Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:38:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 Comment on Frank J. Tipler on “cargo cult” climate science by Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=187#comment-38397 Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:05:03 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=187#comment-38397 Making ones data and methods fully accessible to others is a fundamental tenet of the Scientific Method. It is only since the advent of PNS (post normal science) and its associated foolishness that we see members of the science community acting in unscientific ways. In the example of Dr. Mann the problem is more complicated. First and most important is the understanding of what science is in the first place. To long for this comment but we can say clearly what it is not. It is not the results of models that are unable to do what they claim to do. It is not playing games with data in an attempt to verify one or more hypothesis. Science falsifies, the method can not prove them. Since Dr. Mann's work does not meet the standards of the scientific method, it could be argued it is not science at all. In this case it would need some other name. Propaganda comes to mind but other terms are also possible. I see no requirement in the scientific method and its associated philosophy for the propagandist "to show his work". This kind of general behavior is highly detrimental to a reasoned and civil public discourse. It gives all scientists a reputation stain as well. Making ones data and methods fully accessible to others is a fundamental tenet of the Scientific Method. It is only since the advent of PNS (post normal science) and its associated foolishness that we see members of the science community acting in unscientific ways. In the example of Dr. Mann the problem is more complicated. First and most important is the understanding of what science is in the first place. To long for this comment but we can say clearly what it is not. It is not the results of models that are unable to do what they claim to do. It is not playing games with data in an attempt to verify one or more hypothesis. Science falsifies, the method can not prove them. Since Dr. Mann’s work does not meet the standards of the scientific method, it could be argued it is not science at all. In this case it would need some other name. Propaganda comes to mind but other terms are also possible. I see no requirement in the scientific method and its associated philosophy for the propagandist “to show his work”.

This kind of general behavior is highly detrimental to a reasoned and civil public discourse. It gives all scientists a reputation stain as well.

]]> Comment on Judith Curry on climate power politics by Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=186#comment-38308 Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:05:55 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=186#comment-38308 I don't always agree with Ms. Curry or anyone else. On this topic she is absolutely right. What I find most disconcerting is the hubris and displayed and expressed by many in the scientific community. None of this is about science any more. Hasn't been since the late 1980's. It is about ideology, value systems and confusing what I call Mythos for Logos, fact vs. fantasy. All to many "climate experts" have forgotten the two most fundamental tenants of Science Philosophy. 1. Hypocrisies are falsified never proven. 2. Correlation is not sufficient to demonstrate causation. My 40 + years of geological modeling experience has demonstrated one near certainty. Dynamic processes are not properly modeled by deterministic or static numeric methods. If you or anyone else wishes to puzzle with me over how the philosophy of science is used and misused in public discourse, please visit my blog, http://www.retreadresources.com/blog. Dennis I don’t always agree with Ms. Curry or anyone else. On this topic she is absolutely right. What I find most disconcerting is the hubris and displayed and expressed by many in the scientific community. None of this is about science any more. Hasn’t been since the late 1980’s. It is about ideology, value systems and confusing what I call Mythos for Logos, fact vs. fantasy. All to many “climate experts” have forgotten the two most fundamental tenants of Science Philosophy. 1. Hypocrisies are falsified never proven. 2. Correlation is not sufficient to demonstrate causation. My 40 + years of geological modeling experience has demonstrated one near certainty. Dynamic processes are not properly modeled by deterministic or static numeric methods. If you or anyone else wishes to puzzle with me over how the philosophy of science is used and misused in public discourse, please visit my blog, http://www.retreadresources.com/blog. Dennis

]]> Comment on Harold Ambler: Time for Gore to apologize for global warming whopper by klem http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=185#comment-37511 klem Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:59:41 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=185#comment-37511 Al Gore does not need to apologize to anyone; he needs to go to jail. And the best part of the climate change lunacy is yet to come; once the EPA sets it’s carbon regulations, the greenies intend to sue every coal fired power company in the country. This going to be expensive and protracted. I hope the greenies have deep pockets because you know the power companies do. I wish I had become a lawyer, these are good times. Al Gore does not need to apologize to anyone; he needs to go to jail.

And the best part of the climate change lunacy is yet to come; once the EPA sets it’s carbon regulations, the greenies intend to sue every coal fired power company in the country. This going to be expensive and protracted. I hope the greenies have deep pockets because you know the power companies do.

I wish I had become a lawyer, these are good times.

]]> Comment on John P. Costella: What Climategate reveals about climate science by Gerardo Alvarez de Benito http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=176#comment-33942 Gerardo Alvarez de Benito Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:06:18 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=176#comment-33942 Hi John: As you indicate,there is really a basic difference between a typical/traditional scientist, and the new style of making "Science" (equations,simulations,assumptions,statistics,graphics). Recently it called my attention the lack of references of even at least attempts to experiment somehow,for example on developping the warming effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere. So to check/prove and to evaluate it,as real Science calls for. On the other side articles such as " The Geologic Record and Climate Change" by Tim Patterson, and " Does CO2 really drive global warming"? by Robert H.Essenhigh,and others placing doubts and other opinions,I wonder if they have ever been objected . So, I have encouraged IPCC,and Max Planck Institute,to prove what they claim,and have even dared to suggest some ideas for possibly adequate tests. Because as you surelly noticed,for example the Chinese expert responsible for the Climate Change in China,recently stated that China is not convinced of the anthropomorphic cause of the problem. Certainly no simulation can substitute Nature to secure result as per the real consequences. Best Gerardo Alvarez Hi John:
As you indicate,there is really a basic difference between a typical/traditional scientist, and the new style of making “Science” (equations,simulations,assumptions,statistics,graphics).
Recently it called my attention the lack of references of even at least attempts to experiment somehow,for example on developping the warming effect of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
So to check/prove and to evaluate it,as real Science calls for.
On the other side articles such as ” The Geologic Record and Climate Change” by Tim Patterson, and ” Does CO2 really drive global warming”? by Robert H.Essenhigh,and others placing doubts and other opinions,I wonder if they have ever been objected .
So, I have encouraged IPCC,and Max Planck Institute,to prove what they claim,and have even dared to suggest some ideas for possibly adequate tests.
Because as you surelly noticed,for example the Chinese expert responsible for the Climate Change in China,recently stated that China is not convinced of the anthropomorphic cause of the problem.
Certainly no simulation can substitute Nature to secure result as per the real consequences.
Best
Gerardo Alvarez

]]> Comment on Paul Johnson: The nonsense of global warming by sjpatejak http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=83#comment-33056 sjpatejak Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:39:57 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=83#comment-33056 Marx was wrong, Freud was wrong, therefore global warming must be wrong. BUT Newton was right, Pasteur was right, therefore global warming must be right. My false analogy cancels out johnson's :p Marx was wrong, Freud was wrong, therefore global warming must be wrong. BUT Newton was right, Pasteur was right, therefore global warming must be right. My false analogy cancels out johnson’s :p

]]> Comment on American Thinker: Why climate science is far from ’settled’ by Victory67 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=165#comment-31113 Victory67 Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:14:20 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=165#comment-31113 Ah Catastrophe thy name is Science. It is interesting to me how many scientists can ascribe to the global warming theory, and it is just that, a theory, and ignore or deny other scientific forms of inquiry that modify or debunk pet theories. Now just why is that? Who are the real deniers then? But this will go on and on because there is ego involved. And money and acclaim, and being credited, and well you get the drift. It's an embarrassment. Cooler heads will prevail at the end of it but not without much catastrophising, posturing, defensiveness and passion. And they will eventually learn that passionate theory and fact collide. The collisions going on are interesting and entertaining if it were not for the fact we will all pay a very high price for nonsense. The price may be more then we have. Ah Catastrophe thy name is Science. It is interesting to me how many scientists can ascribe to the global warming theory, and it is just that, a theory, and ignore or deny other scientific forms of inquiry that modify or debunk pet theories. Now just why is that? Who are the real deniers then? But this will go on and on because there is ego involved. And money and acclaim, and being credited, and well you get the drift. It’s an embarrassment. Cooler heads will prevail at the end of it but not without much catastrophising, posturing, defensiveness and passion. And they will eventually learn that passionate theory and fact collide. The collisions going on are interesting and entertaining if it were not for the fact we will all pay a very high price for nonsense. The price may be more then we have.

]]> Comment on 100 reasons why climate change is natural by Victory67 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=160#comment-31112 Victory67 Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:08:12 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=160#comment-31112 Climate science is still in it's infancy. There IS no consensus. If the climate is changing it is because it always has changed without mankind. But we are gullible because Science has become our religion and leave it to scientists to revel in that idea! It is not to say that there is no pollution to be cleaned up because there is. But it is not due to carbon emissions. Wake up world. Climate science is still in it’s infancy. There IS no consensus. If the climate is changing it is because it always has changed without mankind. But we are gullible because Science has become our religion and leave it to scientists to revel in that idea! It is not to say that there is no pollution to be cleaned up because there is. But it is not due to carbon emissions. Wake up world.

]]> Comment on James Peden: The Great Global Warming Hoax? by Stephen J. Puetz http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=88#comment-10786 Stephen J. Puetz Sun, 05 Apr 2009 09:56:17 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=88#comment-10786 It's encouraging to see websites similar to this -- sites that balance out the global warming debate! My specialty consists of physical cycles. In the past, various geologists and climatologists have discovered numerous climate cycles. However, the discoverers have always tried to explain each individual cycle on its own. I stepped back, examined the entire spectrum of cycles, and noticed something extremely odd. All of the major long-term cycles in geology and climatology were precisely divisible by a factor of 3. It's highly unlikely this sequence resulted from coincidence. From this precise mathematical connection, I concluded that all of these cycles possess a common origin. Some of the cycles in this sequence include.... 57.24-year climate cycle 171.72-year climate cycle 515.15-year climate cycle 1545.48-year Dansgaard-Oeschger Climate Cycle 4636.44-year Bond Climate Cycle The cycles in this sequence continue on... 13.9-kyr, 41.7-kyr, 125.2-kyr, 375.6-kyr, 1.13-myr, 3.38-myr, 10.14-myr, 30.42-myr, 91.3-myr, 274-myr, 821-myr, 2.46-gyr, etc. It's quite surprising that no one has noticed this sequence before. More specifically, regarding recent warming and cooling events: 1) The 57.24-year cycle turned lower in 1950 -- with global climate declining slightly. 2) The 57.24-year cycle turned up during 1978. That's when the latest upward spike in global temperatures began. 3) Both the 171.72-year cycle and the 57.24-year cycle turned lower during January 2007. That's when the recent global cooling began. These cycles often deviate slightly from their "theoretical turning points" but they always jump back into phase after the deviations. I've written a 496-page book about these and other physical cycles found in nature -- entitled "The Unified Cycle Theory". One of the predictions I made in the book was that global climate would head downward starting in January 2007. So far, that appears to be accurate. Atmospheric CO2 might play a role in determining global climate; however, I'm not sure that it's dominant. Knowing that these cycles exist will almost certainly help in determining the extent each factor contributes. Additional information is provided at my web-site.... http://www.uct-news.com/page9.html It’s encouraging to see websites similar to this — sites that balance out the global warming debate!

My specialty consists of physical cycles. In the past, various geologists and climatologists have discovered numerous climate cycles. However, the discoverers have always tried to explain each individual cycle on its own.

I stepped back, examined the entire spectrum of cycles, and noticed something extremely odd. All of the major long-term cycles in geology and climatology were precisely divisible by a factor of 3. It’s highly unlikely this sequence resulted from coincidence. From this precise mathematical connection, I concluded that all of these cycles possess a common origin.

Some of the cycles in this sequence include….
57.24-year climate cycle
171.72-year climate cycle
515.15-year climate cycle
1545.48-year Dansgaard-Oeschger Climate Cycle
4636.44-year Bond Climate Cycle

The cycles in this sequence continue on… 13.9-kyr, 41.7-kyr, 125.2-kyr, 375.6-kyr, 1.13-myr, 3.38-myr, 10.14-myr, 30.42-myr, 91.3-myr, 274-myr, 821-myr, 2.46-gyr, etc. It’s quite surprising that no one has noticed this sequence before.

More specifically, regarding recent warming and cooling events:
1) The 57.24-year cycle turned lower in 1950 — with global climate declining slightly.
2) The 57.24-year cycle turned up during 1978. That’s when the latest upward spike in global temperatures began.
3) Both the 171.72-year cycle and the 57.24-year cycle turned lower during January 2007. That’s when the recent global cooling began.

These cycles often deviate slightly from their “theoretical turning points” but they always jump back into phase after the deviations.

I’ve written a 496-page book about these and other physical cycles found in nature — entitled “The Unified Cycle Theory”. One of the predictions I made in the book was that global climate would head downward starting in January 2007. So far, that appears to be accurate.

Atmospheric CO2 might play a role in determining global climate; however, I’m not sure that it’s dominant. Knowing that these cycles exist will almost certainly help in determining the extent each factor contributes.

Additional information is provided at my web-site…. http://www.uct-news.com/page9.html

]]> Comment on Richard Courtney: Warmists lose latest debate by TonyN http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=126#comment-9426 TonyN Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:12:23 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=126#comment-9426 This is a better link to the comment mentioning the St Andrew's debate at Harmless Sky: http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=31#comment-12209 This is a better link to the comment mentioning the St Andrew’s debate at Harmless Sky:

http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=63&cp=31#comment-12209

]]> Comment on Harold Ambler: Mr. Gore: Apology accepted by Dash RipRock III http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=106#comment-5317 Dash RipRock III Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:49:47 +0000 http://paulmacrae.com/links/?p=106#comment-5317 AL GORE HAS GUARANTEED THAT THE NORTHERN POLAR ICE CAP WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE IN FIVE YEARS!!! When I heard this, I assumed it was a rumor started by skeptics trying to make Gore look bad. It wasn't until I viewed the video with my own eyes that I realized what Gore had done. Gore has started a five year credibility countdown timer ticking and it's up to all of us to make sure that he is held accountable and proven to be a fraud when his dire prediction aimed at drumming up support doesn't come close to coming true. The mainstream media isn't going to let this video see the light of day because they, unlike Al, understand the precarious position in which he has placed himself. It is therefore up to us to spread the word about Big Al's prediction. He must be exposed for the fear mongering opportunist that he has become. To view the video, please visit the following site and click on the picture of Big Al holding up five fingers. http://www.hootervillegazette.com While visiting this site, you might want to watch a preview of the film "Not Evil, Just wrong" whick is linked to from the home page or watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which is found in the video section. Happy Viewing!!! AL GORE HAS GUARANTEED THAT THE NORTHERN POLAR ICE CAP WILL BE COMPLETELY GONE IN FIVE YEARS!!!

When I heard this, I assumed it was a rumor started by skeptics trying to make Gore look bad. It wasn’t until I viewed the video with my own eyes that I realized what Gore had done. Gore has started a five year credibility countdown timer ticking and it’s up to all of us to make sure that he is held accountable and proven to be a fraud when his dire prediction aimed at drumming up support doesn’t come close to coming true.

The mainstream media isn’t going to let this video see the light of day because they, unlike Al, understand the precarious position in which he has placed himself.

It is therefore up to us to spread the word about Big Al’s prediction. He must be exposed for the fear mongering opportunist that he has become.

To view the video, please visit the following site and click on the picture of Big Al holding up five fingers.

http://www.hootervillegazette.com

While visiting this site, you might want to watch a preview of the film “Not Evil, Just wrong” whick is linked to from the home page or watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle” which is found in the video section. Happy Viewing!!!

]]>