The Earth has been Warmer and Cooler before Man created his First Carbon Emission

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 9th, 2014

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to the Climate ‘Scientists’ everything causes Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

Droughts are a sign of global warming.  Excessive rains are a sign of global warming.  Little snow fall is a sign of global warming.  Powerful blizzards are a sign of global warming.  Let’s see, what else?  Meteorites threatening the planet are a sign of global warming.  Gun violence is a sign of global warming.  Obesity is a sign of global warming.  And pretty much anything else is a sign of global warming.  Because climate ‘scientists’ and journalists say so (see Climate contradiction: Less snow, more blizzards by Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, posted 2/18/2013 on The Detroit News).

Ten climate scientists say the idea of less snow and more blizzards makes sense: A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards.

“Strong snowstorms thrive on the ragged edge of temperature — warm enough for the air to hold lots of moisture, meaning lots of precipitation, but just cold enough for it to fall as snow,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “Increasingly, it seems that we’re on that ragged edge.”

The ragged edge of temperature?  So what this climate ‘scientist’ is telling us is that if it’s too warm it won’t snow.  It will just rain.  They’ve been telling us for DECADES that rising temperatures will melt the Arctic icecap.  Raising the ocean levels.  Swamping our coastal areas.  Causing our farmlands to turn into deserts.  And moving our warmer climes further north.  Keeping the snow further north.   So if temperatures have been rising and pushing the collisions of these hot and cold air masses further north we should be getting less snow in the mid latitudes and more snow in the higher latitudes.  Burying them in snow.  Especially in Canada around the Great Lakes.  Because it’s the same amount of snow but in a smaller area.  Building huge snow masses to provide a long snowmelt to fill those Great Lakes all spring and summer.  Raising their levels to record highs.  It’s a sound theory.  Only one problem.  The Great Lakes are at record lows.

But wait a minute, you say.  What about rain?  The reason it didn’t snow as much in the higher latitudes is because all that moisture fell out of the sky as rain before it got to those higher latitudes.  An excellent point.  Only one problem.  North America suffered one of the worst droughts on record.  Devastating our corn crops.  And raising the price of food across the board.

But wait a minute, you say.  That doesn’t prove anything.  Because of rising temperatures it’s just not precipitating as much.  Less moisture in the air because of higher temperatures means less rain AND less snow.  Another excellent point.  Only one problem.  It has been raining.  A lot.  The UK suffered above average rainfalls this past year.  Sending her rivers over their banks.  And causing some of the worst flooding the UK has ever seen.

But wait a minute, you say.  And I say, enough.  Everything cannot be the result of global warming.  Warmer temperatures and cooler temperatures cannot both be the result of global warming.  Droughts and flooding cannot both be the result of global warming.  Less snowfall and greater blizzards cannot both be the result of global warming.  Every contradictory piece of empirical evidence cannot prove global warming.  Real science doesn’t work that way.  Water freezes at zero degrees Celsius.  And boils at 100 degrees Celsius.  These are distinct states of matter.  And they cannot exist at the same time.  For there are rules in science.  And you can’t keep changing them to prove a theory.

Scientists won’t blame a specific event or even a specific seasonal change on global warming without doing intricate and time-consuming studies. And they say they are just now getting a better picture of the complex intersection of man-made climate change and extreme snowfall.

Then why have we been listening to you for close to three decades now?  Why do we have laws that change the way we live going back decades when you’re only now understanding man-made climate change?  If you were wrong decades ago how do we know you’re right now?

Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann points to the recent Northeast storm that dumped more than 30 inches in some places. He said it was the result of a perfect set of conditions for such an event: Arctic air colliding with unusually warm oceans that produced extra large amounts of moisture and big temperature contrasts, which drive storms. Those all meant more energy, more moisture and thus more snow, he said.

Do you know who Michael Mann is?  He’s the guy that created the ‘hockey stick graph’ that supposedly proved global warming.  Temperatures were relatively constant for 900 years.  Then rose.  Giving the shape of a hockey stick.  He took data from tree rings, lake sediments and ice cores and calculated temperatures for the past 1,000 years.  Giving us the hockey stick graph.  But in 2010 some emails came to light showing other climate scientists, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa and others, were not all on board with the hockey stick graph.  Despite the powers that be in climate ‘science’ adopting Mann’s hockey stick (see Controversy behind climate science’s ‘hockey stick’ graph by Fred Pearce posted 2/2/2010 on the guardian).

…Briffa…sent a long and passionate email. “It should not be taken as read that Mike’s series is THE CORRECT ONE,” he warned. “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’, but in reality the situation is not quite so simple… For the record, I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”

What’s this?  If you take the data beyond the starting point of Michael Mann’s data, back before man was creating any global warming, there was a matching rise in temperature?  Or so said the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s climatic research unit.  So Michael Mann is a guy that likes to look at limited ranges of data.  Just enough to support his hypothesis.  And not too much so it doesn’t refute his hypothesis.  So one cannot help but to take whatever he says with a grain of salt.

So what does all of this mean?  Global warming is more politics than science.  Most of the accepted research was done by people funded by governments that want to take ever more control over the private sector economy.  To increase the size of government.  And to increase tax revenues.  If you don’t believe this consider the volcano.  When they erupt they tend to cool the climate.  Because they put smoke, soot, ash, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.  The same things coal-fired power plants put into the atmosphere.  Yet volcanoes cool the planet.  While coal-fired power plants warm the planet.  Go figure.  Two things doing the same thing.  Yet each producing completely opposite results.  To understand this you have to enter the world where there are square circles.  And intersecting parallel lines.  A place where there are no scientific laws.  Only wild imagination.  For it is a wacky world when it comes to the field of climate ‘science’.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #70: ” There is no such thing as ‘consensus’ in science.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 14th, 2011

Science is not an Exact Science

Science is not an exact science.  It’s a process.  It starts with observation.  You see something.  Hear something.  Feel something.  And it makes you curious.  So you start asking questions.  Why did that happen?  How did that happen?  And will it happen again?  So you start a longer process of observation.  You record data from these observations.  Called empirical data.  And you start seeing patterns in the data.  You start to see order.  Some cause and effect.  You note that whenever ‘A’ happens, you observe ‘B’.  And when ‘C’ happens, you observe ‘D’.  You start to experiment.  You make ‘A’ happen.  And, sure enough, you get ‘B’.  And when you make ‘C’ happen, you get ‘D’.

You can now reliably predict what will happen.  You form a hypothesis.  You break down what you saw through empirical observation and your experimentation into a mathematical formula.  And you discover something.  The formula you put together holds true under a wide set of conditions.  You now see that a lot of things can be accurately predicted by your formula.  Which leads you to a theory.  You do more experimentation.  And more empirical observation.  You’re on to something.  And it’s pretty big.  You test your hypothesis over and over again.  And you always get the same results.  You’ve discovered something.  If your observations and experimentation are correct.  If you haven’t made any false assumptions.  Or conducted your experiments in an uncontrolled environment.  You don’t think you have.  You’re pretty confident you did everything to the highest of scientific standards.  So you publish your results.  And have your peers review your work.

Your peers are very interested.  Some have been working on similar experiments.  They want to compare your work to theirs.  Interest spreads in the scientific community.  And they put your work to the test.  Through more experimentation and empirical observation.  They will push your research to the limits to see if it always holds true.  If it breaks down under certain conditions.  Or if they can find a critical flaw in your logic and/or experimentation that undoes all of your work.  After the peer review, if no one disproves your conclusions, your theory will hold in the scientific community.  Until disproven later.  Because science is not an exact science.  Things can change.

The Scientific Inquiry Never Ends

The scientific process never ends.  Because science isn’t exact.  But it’s often close enough to be useful.  Some theories have problems.  They don’t always hold true.  Then on further research these theories may be refined to fix some of the problems they had.  For example, we once thought the orbits of the planets were circular.  The theory was pretty accurate under empirical observation.  But there were problems.  The planets didn’t always travel in circles.  Then Johannes Kepler came along.  He theorized that the planets moved in elliptical orbits, not circular orbits.  Subsequent empirical observations showed that the planets indeed traveled in ellipses around the sun.  But there were still some observations that Kepler’s Laws didn’t explain.  Isaac Newton then improved on Kepler’s Laws by introducing the force of gravity into his equations.

Each step in the development of these theories improved on the past theory.  This is the scientific process.  The scientific inquiry never ends.  We continually test theories via experimentation and empirical observation.  We never accept past theories as scientific fact.  Every part of science is open to inquiry.  And we often have to revise long held theories based on new discoveries. 

Some of our old theories did quite a lot for us.  They took us to the moon and back.  Gave us jumbo jets.  And smart phones.  Incredible advances in technology.  Yet, we’re revising the science that gave us these things.  Because the scientific process never stands still.  No matter how right or how sure we think we are.  The work of Newton and Einstein was pretty good.  But some think we can improve on them.  Using Quantum field theory.  And String theory.  Which may be able to explain how everything works by looking at subatomic particles.   It could change everything.  But planes will still fly.  And smart phones will still work.  They may just do these things better.

Science by Consensus is not Science

One thing science isn’t is a democracy.  There is no voting.  No consensus.  Some early scientists were attacked when they challenged accepted beliefs.  By their fellow scientists.  And even the church.  It was these lone scientists against the world.  Like Galileo.  Who agreed with Copernicus that the earth revolved around the sun.  Not that the sun revolved around the earth.  Got Galileo in a lot of trouble with the church.  And spent the rest of his life under house arrest for trying to advance this view.  Because it wasn’t the accepted consensus of the time.  The church would later vindicate Galileo.  But it goes to show you that science isn’t a democracy.  Majority opinion doesn’t validate scientific beliefs.  And that a consensus in science is more politics than science.

Science by consensus is not science.  And it can be a very dangerous thing.  It was the accepted consensus that blacks were inferior to whites.  Which justified whites owning blacks as slaves.  It was the scientific consensus in Nazi Germany that the Germans were the master race.  That the Jews were an inferior race.  Subhuman.  And should be exterminated.  A lot of people bought into this ‘science’.  Happy to go along with the scientific consensus.  And it got a lot of people to do some pretty awful things.

Science by consensus is nothing more than mob rule.  It’s a tool to organize the masses.  To use for political gain.  Or for social or financial gain.  Because people will do things more readily if they believe there is a valid reason.  You just have to give them something to believe in.  And there are few things better than junk science.  Like the Alar scare (listed as a carcinogen after mega doses in test animals caused cancer).  Or the Saccharin scare (listed as a carcinogen after mega doses in test animals caused cancer).  And then there’s DDT.  Which almost eradicated malaria from the world.  Few things killed mosquitoes better.  But we also used it as a pesticide in agriculture in much higher doses.  Which apparently made egg shells thin, threatening species of birds.  And ‘possibly’ caused cancer in humans.  So we don’t use this wonder chemical anymore.  And malaria is alive, well and spreading today.  Because of the consensus that it was harmful to the environment.  And to people.  And millions of people die of malaria because of this consensus.

Good Science is built on Experimentation and Observation 

Some people accept some theories as fact.  Like the theory of evolution.  But it’s still called a theory.  Because it’s impossible to submit it to scientific inquiry.  The theory states that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years.  Even billions.  Fossil evidence can provide some information about the past.  But there is no way to test under laboratory conditions a process that occurred over such a vast time period.  So it remains a theory.

Global warming is another theory.  It, too, is impossible to submit to scientific inquiry.  Events happen over too great a time period.  And there are far too many variables involved.  It is difficult to accurately predict tomorrow’s weather let alone the next 10 years of climate.  And even if they have some empirical data that says the earth is warming the data is itself questionable.  Because the same data once predicted the earth was cooling.  And for all the doom and gloom of life-ending climatic changes, the earth went through far greater changes before man ever discovered coal.  The earth has cooled and warmed numerous times.  Great glacial ice sheets advanced and receded over land that became our great cities.   And here we are today.  Still here.

And it’s these big theories that we should be most careful with.  Because good science is built on experimentation and observation.  And if you can’t do either it’s just not science.  It’s only consensus.  Which makes it political.  And though politics can be fascinating, they have no place in science.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,