Week in Review
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a new climate report. And based on that report we’re all doomed. Melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold waves, rain storms, blizzards, etc. In other words, weather. Weather the IPCC apparently believes is unusual. Caused by manmade global warming. Of course one wonders what they would say caused the glaciers to recede back from the equator to the poles long before man was even around to cause warming. Or why ice at the poles now is normal when they were once ice-free. Man wasn’t around polluting the planet back then. But you know what was around back then? The sun. Sunspot activity could have been causing the Pacific Decadal Oscillation back then as it is now. But one thing is for sure. Man couldn’t have melted the polar ice caps completely. For we’d have to discover fire before that could have happened.
An IPCC insider pulled his name from this report as he did not like the alarmist nature of it. And the fact that they were very selective with their climate modeling (see IPCC Insider Rejects Global-Warming Report by Alec Torres posted 4/3/2014 on National Review).
Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency’s inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.
“In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories,” Tol tells National Review Online. “We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse . . . I felt uncomfortable with the direction [the IPCC report] was going…”
He took his name off of the final summary because he felt the IPCC did not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming…
One prediction has it that crop yields will begin to fall dramatically, a statement “that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself,” Tol says. “What it completely forgets is technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as we’ve looked at crop yields.”
Beyond misleading statements on agriculture, Tol says the IPCC report cites only the maximum estimate for how much it will cost to protect against sea-level rise associated with current climate-change predictions…
The report also stresses that global warming will cause more deaths due to heat stress, but ignores that global warming would reduce cold stress, which actually kills more people than heat stress each year.
Tol is far from a conspiracy theorist, but he nonetheless thinks the IPCC has built-in biases that keep it from adequately checking alarmism.
First, there is a self-selection bias: People who are most concerned about the impact of climate change are most likely to be represented on the panel. Next, most of the panelists are professors involved in similar academic departments, surrounded by like-minded people who reinforce each other’s views. Those views are welcomed by the civil servants who review the report, because their “departments, jobs, and careers depend on climate being a problem,” Tol says.
This is the problem with climate ‘science’. It is not very scientific. Science is the competition between theories. And the never-ending attempt to disprove previously held theories. This is what makes good science. For theories that hold up to every attempt at disproving them leave fewer and fewer theories that could possibly explain the data and experimental results. But when you exclude those opposing theorists from the process the ‘science’ is decidedly one-sided. And the ‘scientists’ are more cheerleader than scientist.
Tags: climate, climate change, crop yields, glaciers, IPCC, manmade global warming, technological progress, United Nations, warming, weather
Week in Review
We are continually told that there is a consensus among climate ‘scientists’ that global warming is real. And that man is causing it. It’s settled science they say. But have you ever wondered how real scientists do things? The kind that don’t take a vote on whether something is settled science? Here is a look into the world of theoretical physicists. A group of people that theorize about things far bigger than mere climate (see Physicists say Big Bang theory revelation may be premature by Liat Clark posted 3/25/2014 on Wired).
Three theoretical physicists have penned a paper suggesting last week’s announcement that cosmic ripples from the Big Bang have been identified may have been premature.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announcement rocked the scientific community with the revelation the South Pole BICEP2 telescope had captured twisted patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) left behind after the Big Bang. The Smithsonian team believes these are a glimpse of the gravitational waves that were generated by cosmic inflation — an epic distortion of space-time just after the Big Bang when the universe expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.
James Dent of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University and Harsh Mathur of the Case Western Reserve University have argued on the open access platform arxiv.org that the claim of definitive proof should not be made until all other possibilities have been ruled out.
Even after a paper has been published claiming definitive proof the subject is still open for debate. Now that’s science. And note that part about ruling out ALL OTHER possibilities. You never hear that kind of language from the climate ‘scientists’. Have they done that in their research? Or did they only look at selective data to prove what they want to prove? Did they rule out sunspot activity and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? A warming of the oceans that shifts the jet stream? Or did they ignore this because it contradicts what they want the data to show? There is a correlation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and recent warming periods. Which would be one other possibility they need to rule out. But can’t. So they simply ignore it. Proving that ‘climate science’ is more politics than science. A tool for big-government leftists around the world to do what they’ve always wanted to do. To use the power of government to create a ruling class. Of a small group of people that has power over the masses. And who live quite comfortably while telling us what we must go without.
It’s nothing new. Since the dawn of time there have been those who seek power. To create a small ruling elite that lives better than everyone else. Much better. As every dictator in history has shown. North Korea still suffers from famine. But the ruling powers (currently Kim Jong-un) ate so well that they suffered from a little obesity. Kim Jong-un lives a privileged life. He has the best of everything while his people still go hungry. If that country were free, however, Kim Jong-un would live a less extravagant life. Perhaps even doing manual labor. For his only skill was having the right last name to become dictator.
This is why people want power. For even in the poorest countries those at the top live like kings. And those on the left, rabid anti-capitalists that they are, have no skill other than political skills. They want to live like kings. But they don’t want to work hard to earn it. So they use politics. Expand the size of government. To create as many high-paying posts that do nothing worthwhile as possible. So there is a place for these people. Where they can live better than everyone else without having earned it. This is why they want to nationalize health care. For that can create many levels of high-paying bureaucratic positions. And if they can get the economy of every country to bow down to their climate panels they can live better than kings. They can live as emperors. Over a vast empire they control. Living in the lap of luxury. Accumulating great wealth. And drunk on the power they can wield. Where they can get back at anyone that was ever better than them if they don’t bow down and kiss their fanny.
Tags: accumulate wealth, climate, climate science, climate scientists, consensus, dictator, Global Warming, Kim Jong Un, North Korea, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, politics, power, scientists, settled science, warming, wealth
Week in Review
What is science? Do scientists gather and vote on theories? And do those theories become settled science? Or is it something more like this (see Japanese Institute Weighs Retracting Stem-Cell Studies by Alexander Martin and Gautam Naik posted 3/10/2014 on The Wall Street Journal)?
The co-author, Teruhiko Wakayama of Yamanashi University in Japan, called Monday for the retraction of the findings, published in late January in a pair of papers in the journal Nature.
The papers drew international attention because they held out a safer, easier and more ethical technique for creating master stem cells. These cells, which can be turned into all other body tissues, promise one day to transform the treatment of various ailments, from heart disease to Alzheimer’s.
But shortly after the papers appeared, Japan’s Riken Center for Developmental Biology, where the work took place, began to investigate alleged irregularities in images used in the papers. Separately, many labs said they couldn’t replicate the results…
Like several other researchers, Dr. Wakayama said he hasn’t yet been able to reproduce the results. “There is no value in it if the technique cannot be replicated,” he said.
Science is more like this. It’s aggressive and relentless. Scientists work hard to replicate previous results. And they work hard to disprove past theories. The key to science, then, is never accepting anything as settled. No. Everything is questioned. Forever. That’s real science. Unlike climate science. Where people apparently use voting in lieu of vigorous experimentation to replicate results or disprove past theories. So anyone stating that manmade global warming is settled science is not a scientist. Or a truthful person.
All the people who claim manmade global warming is settled science are either people who want to greatly expand the power of government over the economy. Or they are just grossly ignorant. These ignorant people, of course, help those who want to greatly expand the power of government over the economy. Which is why we should not listen to politicians when it comes to science. Or ignoramuses. For once upon a time the polar icecaps weren’t frozen. And at another time glaciers reached down from the poles towards the equator. Long before man ever put any carbon into the atmosphere. Climate changes. And it has changed a lot more drastically before man appeared on the scene. So anyone claiming man is causing this is either a liar. Or an ignoramus.
Tags: climate science, disprove past theories, Japan, manmade global warming, real science, replicate results, science, scientists, settled science, stem cells, theories
Week in Review
Anyone saying that manmade emissions cause global warming is settled science shows both ignorance and arrogance. As well as a political agenda. For there is no such thing as settled science. Especially when you use computer models to prove your case in the scant 2 decades when it became all the rage with people like Al Gore telling us if we don’t act now the earth will turn to a burnt cinder by Saturday. But that’s not science. This is looking at extremely recent events in our planet’s approximately 5 billion year lifespan to determine what is normal for that 5 billion year lifespan. Or abnormal.
If you like math those 2 decades of global warming handwringing over 20 years of ‘incontrovertible’ evidence amounts to about 0.0000004% of the planet’s life. Or, if you want to go back all the way to the mid Seventies when the handwringing went from fear of the coming ice age to the fear of global warming (about 40 years) that time period is but 0.0000008% of the planet’s life. Meaning the current data means nothing. Because it’s too small of a sample. No, real science takes a much longer look at empirical data. And even then it’s still not settled science (see Scientists Make Largest Quark, Solving A 20-Year Mystery by Douglas Main posted 2/24/2014 on Popular Science).
After working at it for nearly 20 years, scientists at the Tevatron particle accelerator at Fermilab have discovered the last as-yet-unproven way of making this quark–and it only took 500 trillion particle collisions to do it. “It’s a very rare process… and it’s very exciting” to finally witness it, Fermilab physicist Dmitri Denisov told Popular Science.
Under the Standard Model, the theory by which these particles are understood, there should be three ways of producing quarks. The first two had been shown in 1995 and 2008. In the first instance, top quarks were produced by strong nuclear force, by slamming a proton and anti-proton into each other. But in the 2008, and now the 2014 discovery, top quarks were produced in a rare event, via weak nuclear force. The finding helps reinforce the Standard Model, which predicts that quarks can be made by exploiting both types of forces, Denisov said. “It’s important that all forces in nature, strong and weak, equally produce the top quark.”
Now that’s science. Not like observing annual climate a scant 40 times. No. Real scientists conduct an experiment 500 trillion times. And when you do something 500 trillion times the patterns you see actually mean something. It’s still not settled science. But it raises the bar a lot higher for other scientists to disprove this theory in favor of their own. Even the ‘accepted science’ of the Standard Model is still being questioned. Which dates back as far as global warming handwringing. But it’s not settled science. Despite 500 trillion particle collisions. The results only reinforce the Standard Model. Which is all these collisions can do. Because there is no such thing as settled science. And anyone claiming anything is settled science is just demonstrating their woeful ignorance. Or extreme arrogance in their ability to lie to advance a political agenda.
Tags: 500 trillion particle collisions, Global Warming, particle collisions, political agenda, quark, scientists, settled science, Standard Model
Week in Review
The left likes to attack religion. Pointing out how those in power created all religions. To control the people. And to increase their power. They note that these religions are not based in scientific fact. But on faith. And silly superstitions. Not intelligent thought. Which is why the left attacks religion. To free people from these silly superstitions. So they can control the people with their own silly superstitions and faith (see I Spent 28 Hours on a Bus. I Loved It. by Eric Holthaus posted 2/4/2014 on Slate).
For the first time, 195 nations backed a consensus statement saying that humanity is “extremely likely” (greater than 95 percent confidence) to be the dominant cause. That’s about the same confidence doctors have that smoking causes cancer…
That means we have no choice but to change our collective path right now.
There is no such thing as consensus in science. We don’t take votes in science. We use the scientific method. And here’s how Merriam-Webster defines the scientific method:
principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Do you see anything about taking votes and forming a consensus? No. Because it’s not science when you take votes and form a consensus. When empirical data and experimentation uphold a hypothesis what does that mean? It means we haven’t disproved that hypothesis yet. It doesn’t mean that hypothesis is a scientific fact. It just means someone hasn’t come around to disprove it yet.
We don’t know what killed off the dinosaurs yet. We have many hypotheses. A massive meteorite hit the earth. A period of volatile volcanic activity. Continental drift cooled the planet. Dinosaur flatulence warmed the planet. Aliens killed them. Or took them away. There are many theories. But no one knows for sure what happened. And scientists haven’t taken a vote to settle the matter once and for all. They are still working to figure that out. Because that’s the scientific method. Whereas the theory of global warming (let’s call it what it was before their warming predictions were proven wrong and they opted to use climate change) is the only ‘science’ the left wants us to accept as settled science. Without any further inquiry. And they even belittle anyone who believes in the scientific method as climate change deniers. Because we don’t pray at the altar of global warming. Turning our world over to those who want to regulate every aspect of our lives.
Climate was around a lot longer than dinosaurs. Yet while we can only make educated hypotheses on what happened to the dinosaurs we can supposedly understand fully something that predates the dinosaurs. Which is preposterous to say the least. In the Seventies they were warning us about global cooling. Then in the Nineties they were warning us about global warming. Without ever saying that they were wrong when they said the planet was cooling. Or why we should believe them now when they were wrong before. And not just a little wrong. They were the most wrong possible. Changing from one extreme (cooling) to the other extreme (warming).
Climate doesn’t only predate the dinosaurs. It also predates man. And there was a lot of climate activity going on long before man created his first carbon emission. Once upon a time there were no polar icecaps. Then at another time glaciers reached down from the polar regions to near the equator. These extremes happened long before the internal combustion engine. Or the coal-fired power plant. In fact, these things happened when there were no manmade carbon emissions. So what caused these climate extremes that were much more extreme than the climate of today? Whatever it was we do know one thing. Man did not cause them. Just as he is not causing global warming today. For it may come a shock to liberals but man is not bigger than climate. Climate is bigger than man. And it can bring on another ice age and kill us in droves.
If you live in a northern clime look out your window at that snow and ice covering the ground. Now ask yourself this. How much food do you think our farmers could grow if their fields were covered with snow and ice all year round? Or if the temperatures never rose enough to warm the wet soil enough to allow seeds to germinate? None. That’s how much. We can irrigate land during a summer drought. But there will be nothing we can do to warm and dry the soil enough to grow food. Which means the climate doomsayers were right in the Seventies. Global cooling is the greater threat. Not warming. And anyone worried about manmade global warming should ask the climate ‘scientists’ to explain how the polar icecaps could melt, glaciers could extend down from the polar regions to the equator and then recede back to the polar regions without any manmade global warming around to cause this climate change. And if they can explain how with a straight face than perhaps we should listen to them. But not until then.
Tags: carbon emission, climate, climate change, climate extremes, consensus, consensus in science, cooling, dinosaurs, faith, glaciers, global cooling, Global Warming, hypotheses, hypothesis, ice age, icecaps, manmade carbon emissions, polar icecaps, Religion, scientific fact, scientific method, scientists, silly superstitions, theories, warming
Week in Review
Devout global warming alarmists say the science is done. There is a scientific consensus. Manmade global warming is real. Case closed. And if you deny that global warming exists you are going against settled science. There is only one problem with this. There is no such thing as consensus in science. And science is never settled (see 7,000-Year-Old Human Bones Suggest New Date for Light-Skin Gene by Tia Ghose posted 1/26/2014 on Yahoo! News).
An ancient European hunter-gatherer man had dark skin and blue eyes, a new genetic analysis has revealed.
The analysis of the man, who lived in modern-day Spain only about 7,000 years ago, shows light-skin genes in Europeans evolved much more recently than previously thought.
The findings, which were detailed today (Jan. 26) in the journal Nature, also hint that light skin evolved not to adjust to the lower-light conditions in Europe compared with Africa, but instead to the new diet that emerged after the agricultural revolution, said study co-author Carles Lalueza-Fox, a paleogenomics researcher at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain…
The finding implies that for most of their evolutionary history, Europeans were not what many people today would call ‘Caucasian’, said Guido Barbujani, president of the Associazione Genetica Italiana in Ferrara, Italy, who was not involved in the study.
Instead, “what seems likely, then, is that the dietary changes accompanying the so-called Neolithic revolution, or the transition from food collection to food production, might have caused, or contributed to cause, this change,” Barbujani said.
In the food-production theory, the cereal-rich diet of Neolithic farmers lacked vitamin D, so Europeans rapidly lost their dark-skin pigmentation only once they switched to agriculture, because it was only at that point that they had to synthesize vitamin D from the sun more readily.
This is science. We had one theory. And replaced it with another. As we may do again. Because science is never settled. And there is no such thing as consensus. Which is why global warming is not science. It’s politics. Because politicians say there is a consensus. And that it’s settled. But in science we don’t take a vote. We hold one theory true. And spend our time trying to prove that theory is wrong. And when a theory withstands all of these efforts to disprove it that theory is a pretty strong theory. But it doesn’t mean we stop trying to find a better one. As proven here.
Tags: consensus, Global Warming, scientific consensus, theory
Week in Review
More people are going on to college than ever before. And we have the student loan debt to prove it. As recent graduates threaten to default on their loans as they can’t get a job with their worthless degrees in the humanities and social sciences. Expensive degrees colleges sold them. Promising them fulfilling careers. But a degree in minority studies or French literature ain’t going to go far in a high-tech economy.
And that’s the problem. People are going to college for the wrong reason. To party. They want to have fun. And take the easier degrees so they aren’t weighed down by too much school work. It’s so bad that high-tech companies are using the visa system to fill job openings. As they can’t find American graduates that have the same qualifications as foreign graduates. Who actually take math and science. And get the education businesses are looking for (see Distinguishing Science from Nonsense by Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., posted 12/31/2013 on bioethics.com).
As Americans enter 2014 there is grave concern among our political leaders that we are lagging behind other nations in terms of our children’s’ scientific literacy. This past December an international survey confirmed—too many American kids don’t understand science and they continue to fall behind children from other nations, many much poorer than we are in science and math skills.
Students in the United States slipped deeper in the last international science literacy rankings amid fast-growing competition abroad. American teens scored below the international average in math and roughly average in science, compared against dozens of other countries in the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). We trail Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Britain, Latvia, Viet Nam and many more. (http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm)…
A key reason for the poor performance of our children with respect to science is that American culture is both ignorant of and disrespectful to science…
As I write this there are two women in ICUs in different parts of the U.S. on life support despite having been pronounced dead by medical experts… Neither the media or the medical profession seemed to be able to explain that brain death is truly death. Nor did the public seem inclined to listen, believing somehow that a miracle might occur.
At the same time as these cases emerged a poll was released by the Pew Foundation showing that a third of Americans do not believe in evolution…
And as I write this flu season has begun across the country. The CDC estimates that last year 381,000 Americans were hospitalized due to the flu. They also estimate that, the flu vaccine prevented 79,000 hospitalizations and 6.6 million illnesses. Yet a tiny cabal of kooks and know-nothings has gotten so much attention that barely half of all Americans get a flu shot…
The nutritional supplements industry is a thirty billion dollar business that has no solid evidence for efficacy and oodles of instances in which death and disability are linked to poorly manufactured or mislabeled products…
I could go on but the point ought to be clear. Children are not going to flourish at science in a society that treats science either as something you can believe in selectively, something that is simply one point of view or something about which anyone can have a credible opinion no matter how ill-qualified, dumb or misinformed.
If we want to have a brighter economic future then we need to start thinking about science education outside of our schools.
Absolutely. Because our schools aren’t teaching science. They’re teaching our kids about global warming instead. So they will grow up frightened. And vote Democrat.
The teacher unions support Democrats. And Democrats protect teacher unions. So is it any surprise that they are programming our children to be good Democrat voters instead of teaching them good science? Filling their heads with politicized science like global warming. For it is politicized science when a consensus closes a subject to debate. That is something that just doesn’t happen in good science. If it were then physicists would just take a vote on what better reconciled general relativity and quantum mechanics. Loop quantum gravity or string theory? Of course, physicists don’t reach a consensus to determine which science is the right science. But that’s what climate ‘scientists’ do. And Al Gore. And our public schools. And our universities. They say there is a consensus and the scientific debate is settled. We are warming the planet. And the only way to save the planet is with massive government regulation. With Democrats in power to write ever more regulations.
The reason why Americans are falling behind in math and science is because the Democrats use education for political ends. Not for educating our children. For they couldn’t win an election if they did. They need a crisis. Like global warming. A crisis and an ignorant electorate. Which their friends in education give them. And because they do children from Germany, Estonia, Latvia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Britain, Viet Nam and many more are now smarter than American children.
Tags: college, crisis, degree, Democrat, Global Warming, high-tech economy, ignorant, math, math and science, schools, science, student loan, teacher unions
Week in Review
Every night during the weather report I watch they show the high and low temperatures as well as the average and record for each. And even though we are supposedly suffering the ravages of global warming those record high temperatures often reach back a long time well beyond the Nineties when talking about global warming became all the rage. After the coming ice age became so yesterday’s apocalypse. Some of these records go back close to a century. So this being so hot is not a new phenomenon. As it’s been really hot before.
In fact, it was once so hot for so long that it pushed back the glaciers from near the equator back to the poles. Where they are now. Now that’s some global warming. And that was from 850 to 630 million years ago. During the Cryogenian period. Which was before Henry Ford mass-produced the automobile. Before John D. Rockefeller made gasoline cheap and plentiful. Before James Watt improved the steam engine and gave us the Industrial Revolution. Before Abraham left Ur for Canaan (if you’re religiously inclined). Before man began using stone tools. Even before the human and chimpanzee lineages split (if you’re evolutionarily inclined). Putting the greatest period of global warming (based on the melting of glaciers) long before any manmade global warming existed. Yet the leading climate ‘scientists’ tell us manmade global warming is causing climate change like never seen before (see Study finds global warming raised likelihood of about half of last year’s weirdest weather by The Associated Press posted 9/5/2013 on CP24).
A study of a dozen of 2012’s wildest weather events found that man-made global warming increased the likelihood of about half of them, including Superstorm Sandy’s devastating surge and shrinking Arctic sea ice.
The other half — including a record wet British summer and the U.S. drought last year — simply reflected the random freakiness of weather, researchers with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the British meteorological office concluded in a report issued Thursday.
The scientists conducted thousands of runs of different computer simulations that looked at various factors, such as moisture in the air, atmospheric flow, and sea temperature and level.
The approach represents an evolution in the field. Scientists used to say that individual weather events — a specific hurricane or flood, for example — cannot be attributed to climate change. But recently, researchers have used computer simulations to look at extreme events in a more nuanced way and measure the influence of climate change on their likelihood and magnitude…
All 12 events — chosen in part because of their location and the effect they had on society — would have happened anyway, but their magnitude and likelihood were boosted in some cases by global warming, the researchers said…
The different authors of the 21 chapters used differing techniques to look at climate change connections, and in some instances came to conflicting and confusing conclusions…
Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said the study provides “compelling evidence that human-caused change was a factor contributing to the extreme events.”
Have you ever seen the classic movie Office Space? A movie that makes fun of the corporate workplace? In it some hardworking computer programmers lose their jobs thanks to some efficiency consultants. So they come up with a plan to slowly steal from the company. By modifying the code used in the finance department. Whenever they rounded off any financial transaction any amount that was less than a penny would drop into a bank account they set up. The corporation would never see these fractions of a penny disappearing from the books. And when these guys approached retirement these fractions of a penny will have added up by that time to help make their retirement more comfortable. With the added bonus of knowing that they got back at the company that so cruelly got rid of them. A brilliant plan. But checking the bank account shortly after putting their plan into action instead of a penny or two in that account there was over $300,000. A number so large that the company could not NOT notice it missing. And indeed did notice it missing. What happened? The guy that wrote the program put a decimal point in the wrong place. A mistake he said he always makes.
Funny. But believable. For who hasn’t made a decimal point error in their life? Especially computer programmers. Who create very complex computer models. That crunch an enormous amount of data. People have spent hours trying to debug an Excel spreadsheet that isn’t working correctly. Imagine trying to debug a complex computer program that models climate. Where there are no ‘right’ answers. Just a bunch of ‘what-ifs’ programmed with ‘nuance’ to produce the results they want to see. This is what passes for science in the global warming community. Which is more wishful thinking than science.
I have a friend who deals with construction contractors. And he always hated dealing with the controls contractors when their stuff didn’t work. Delaying project completion. Because he was at their mercy. No one but they knew what was happening inside their programs. And these people would blame anything and everything but their programming. To avoid getting hit with costly liquidated damages. So they had to spin their wheels eliminating all those other possibilities. Until all of a sudden things started to work correctly. No one could explain what had happened. Why things just started to work. But my friend thought the controls contractor just finally debugged their program to make it work correctly. But he couldn’t prove it. No one could. For what happened inside that box that held their program might as well have been magic. It was just indecipherable to anyone who didn’t write it. I think about this when I hear about these climate models.
No one can possibly know what is going on inside the boxes that contain these climate models. It is for all intents and purposes magic to the layman. And probably black magic at that. Input a thousand variables and the model tells us manmade global warming is destroying the planet. But between those inputs and that output are a lot of assumptions in the program. And all of those assumptions and programming are proprietary information. We’re not allowed to see it. Or understand it. No. We’re just supposed to accept their conclusion. And change the world we live in because of it.
Greater climate change happened before man ever impacted the environment. And computer programs can tell you anything you program them to. While taking a lot of debugging to get them to produce the ‘right’ answer. As determined by the people looking for a specific result. This is not science. This is politics. On a grand scale.
Tags: assumptions, climate, climate change, computer model, computer programmers, computer simulations, glacier, Global Warming, manmade global warming, temperature, weather
Week in Review
One of the most politicized subjects is stem cells. The potential miracle cure for the worst that ails us. They could make the blind see again. And the paralyzed walk again. The Left politicized Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve. Saying we could cure Fox’s Parkinson’s disease and Reeve’s paralysis with the miracle of stem cells. But not just any stem cells. Embryonic stem cells. That is if it wasn’t for the rascally Republicans who wanted Fox and Reeve to continue to suffer their maladies. Even die. Because Republicans opposed using aborted fetuses for ethical reasons. While the Left wanted the use of embryonic stem cells as they would give abortions a higher purpose. The gift of life. After extinguishing life (see Cadaver stem cells offer new hope of life after death by Jessica Hamzelou posted 12/21/2012 on New Scientist).
Dead bodies can provide organs for transplants, now they might become a source of stem cells too. Huge numbers of stem cells can still be mined from bone marrow five days after death to be potentially used in a variety of life-saving treatments.
Human bone marrow contains mesenchymal stem cells, which can develop into bone, cartilage, fat and other cell types. MSCs can be transplanted and the type of cell they form depends on where they are injected. Cells injected into the heart, for example, can form healthy new tissue, a useful therapy for people with chronic heart conditions.
Unlike other tissue transplants, MSCs taken from one person tend not to be rejected by another’s immune system. In fact, MSCs appear to pacify immune cells. It is this feature which has made MSC treatments invaluable for children with graft-versus-host disease, in which transplants aimed at treating diseases such as leukaemia attack the child instead…
While only limited amounts of bone marrow can be taken from a living donor, a cadaver represents a plentiful source of cells, says D’Ippolito. “From one donor, you could take the whole spine, for example. You are going to end up with billions of cells…”
… Chris Mason at University College London sees a potential hurdle in using such MSCs in therapy. “The work is novel and intriguing… but it would be better to use a living donor,” he says. That’s partly because medical regulators oppose treating individuals with stem cells from more than one source. “You can always go back and get more stem cells from a living donor if you need them, but if you use a cadaver, you’ll eventually run out.”
They’re making great strides with adult stem cells. From living donors. And now from dead ones. But one thing you don’t hear a lot about are advances made with embryonic stem cells. Could it be that the Left was wrong all along? That they were just looking for a noble purpose for abortions? Perhaps.
A big problem with embryonic stem cells was their rejection. Or complications that resulted in things like tumors. Things that didn’t happen with adult stem cells. Especially those harvested from the same body. And now apparently from dead people. People who have died from some other cause other than abortion.
The continued advances in adult stem cell research leave advances in embryonic stem cell research conspicuous by its absence. Despite all of the false hope the Left gave people like Michael J. Fox and Christopher Reeve. Suggesting that their arguments were more political than medical. As everything with them is political. For everything is about advancing their agenda. And they were more than willing to lead medical research down a false path to advance their agenda.
Tags: abortions, adult stem cells, bone marrow, cadaver, Christopher Reeve, embryonic stem cells, Michael J. Fox, MSCs, paralysis, Parkinson's, Republicans, stem cells, transplants
Week in Review
The UN is still trying to impose a carbon trading scheme on the world. To fight global warming. Perhaps by 2015. To make people pay them (or their governments that fund the UN) for burning carbon. To create an egalitarian world. With them sitting at the top. More equal than others (see U.S. affirms support for U.N. climate goal after criticism by Alister Doyle posted 8/8/2012 on Reuters).
Almost 200 nations, including the United States, have agreed to limit rising temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) above pre-industrial times to avoid dangerous changes such as floods, droughts and rising sea levels.
The EU Commission, small island states and environmental activists urged the world to stick to the target on Tuesday, fearing that Washington was withdrawing support. Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 degree C…
Many scientists say the 2 degrees target is getting out of reach because of rising emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels.
Emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, rose 3.1 percent in 2011 to a record high. The decade ending in 2010 was the warmest since records began in the mid-19th century, U.N. data show.
Anyone else see the fatal flaw in this plan? It assumes man alone controls global temperatures. Which we don’t. We had the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period. It wasn’t glaciers reaching halfway down North America but cool, wet growing seasons reduced harvests. And caused some famine. And this was before we burned gasoline in our cars. And coal in our steam engines during the Industrial Revolution. Man didn’t cause these global changes. Man just suffered through them.
And speaking of the Ice Ages, what about the Ice Ages? Just what made the glaciers advance then recede? These even preceded man’s use of fire. So it clearly was something else cooling and warming the planet. Unless we were a far gassier people back then. (If so lucky for them there were no open flames.)
The planet warms and cools. It did so before man burned fossil fuels with a vengeance. And after man burned fossil fuels with a vengeance. If the temperature moves a degree in one direction or the other there is absolutely no way to know if that was just a natural change (like through 99.9% of the planet’s existence – including those ice ages) or if it was caused by man (whose been around approximately 0.1% of the planet’s existence).
This isn’t science. This is politics. A way for the anti-Capitalists to turn back the hands of time. And make life truly unpleasant for the masses. As they produce an egalitarian world. Where everyone suffers equally. Except those sitting at the top ensuring the world is fair and just. As they determine what fair and just to be. The UN. The world’s overlords. Once they control the world’s economies, that is.
Tags: Carbon, carbon trading scheme, egalitarian, fossil fuels, glaciers, global temperatures, Global Warming, ice age, planet, rising temperatures, temperatures, UN
« Previous Entries