|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Nov 19, 2009 5:40 am |
|
re: re: re: re: re: re: 35 Inconvenient Truths |
Thomas Holford
| |
John Stephen Veitch sayeth:
> Each of you has adopted a political stance and all of you refuse to argue the science.
We shall see, forthwith, who is and who isn't arguing science.
> Monckton has "no training whatsoever in science", and criticize his asserted credentials as "unfounded self-promotion.""
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., scion of the segregationist Senator, Albert Arnold Gore, Sr. (who himself was a protege of Soviet agent of influence Armand Hammer), Academy Award Winning documentary film producer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, ethically challenged political fundraiser, and Vice President in the corrupt adminstration of impeached president William Jefferson Clinton, got a grade of "C" in the only science course he took while an undergraduate student at Harvard. After Harvard, Gore attended Vanderbilt University Divinity School, but eventually dropped out.
I would say that Al Gore, the Ayatollah of Human Caused Global, really has no credible training in climate science, or any other science for that matter.
- - - - - -
> WHEN that situation exists no number of repeated successful experiments can prove the proposition to be valid, but any single failure will prove it invalid.
> Much of what is called normal science proceeds on the basis of that practice.
> Climate change is a bit more difficult. You can't put the climate in a laboratory, and close down the variables at will. Climate science is conducted in a living and changing open environment.
In other words, since we CAN'T do controlled scientific experiements to prove human caused global warming, we'll just concoct some really alarming science fiction scenarios that will get people's attention, invent some computer models that spew out the answers that we put in, and call that "science".
We'll then declare, on the basis of political belief only, that human caused global warming is "settled science" and have the government stuff billions of dollars of research grant money into thumb sucking "If - Then" studies enumerating thousands of horrible consequences "if global warming is true".
And then all of these thumb sucking "studies" will have to be "peer reviewed" and published somewhere to create jobs for science journal editors, and ultimately an entire pseudo-science ecosystem that feeds entirely of off EPA and UN grant money.
"Peer review" has become such a sham and a joke that even the New York Times has noticed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
("For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap")
- - - - - -
Now, for the REAL science:
+ The earth's climate has been cooling for the last twenty years.
+ The "hockey stick chart" has been thoroughly debunked and discredited.
+ The "computer models" that purportedly predict "global warming" have many known limitations like, for example, failure to take into account the greenhouse effect of water vapor, failure to accurately include the effects of cloud cover, failure to include the effects of attenuation on solar radiation by space dust, etc.
+ There is, in fact, not even a single computer climate model that is generally accepted as definitive. The computer climate models usually referenced are a "consensus" of different computer models, and the climate predictions represent the "average" of the results reported by the models.
One thing you can be sure of about a prediction which is an average of other independent predictions: it's a statistical certainty that it's wrong.
And of the ten or thirteen independent predictions on which the average prediction is based, all but one of them are CERTAIN to be wrong, and it's a statistical certainty that ALL of them are wrong.
And IF one of them WERE right, no one knows WHICH ONE was right.
+ The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is historically low on a geological time scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
+ The oceans are natural sinks for carbon dioxide. And even if CO2 concentration increased, it would probably IMPROVE crop yields, and INCREASE the habitable land area on earth.
+ Sea levels have risen about 300 feet since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years age. Sea level rise is NATURAL.
+ Carbon is the FOURTH most abundant element in the universe.
+ Oxygen is the THIRD most abundant element in the universe.
If you combine the fourth most abundant element with the third most abundant element in the universe, you have the potential for an awful lot of CO2.
Driving a Prius instead of an SUV will NOT diminish the amount of Carbon or Oxygen in the universe by one atom because of the Law of Conservation of Matter.
+ The Laws of Chemical Thermodynamics require Carbon, Oxygen, and Carbon Dioxide to be in chemical equilibrium.
Unless we find a way to route car exhausts to extraterrestrial space, driving a Prius will not reduce the amount of carbon or oxygen in the atmosphere.
- - - - - -
Back to square one.
Scientific knowledge is based on hypothesis and experiment. The requirement to do experiments to obtain scientific knowledge can't be waived because it's impractical or difficult to do the experiments.
Imaginary experiments, i.e. computer models, produce imaginary scientific results.
Science is not about consensus. Science is about experimentally validated and repeatable results.
The global warming charlatans have spent billions of dollars of misappropriated taxpayer money to promote their con game.
But a growing cadre of serious scientists with ethics and integrity are standing up to the enormous political pressure and insisting that the principles of authentic scientific inquiry be respected and preserved.
T. Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford (new win) |
|
| |
|
