Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles
Title: Left Panics over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper’s Threat to Global Warming Alarmism
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa ... at-to-global-warming-alarmism/
Published: Feb 24, 2015
Author: William Bigelow
Post Date: 2015-02-24 09:46:15 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 12765
Comments: 46
Climate forecasts are lousy, therefore it is settled science that they must necessarily be based on lousy theories. And lousy theories should not be trusted. Put it this way. Climate forecasts, of the type relied upon by the IPCC and over governmental entities, stink. They are no good. They have been promising ever increasing temperatures for decades, but the observations have been more or less steady. This must mean–it is inescapable–that something is very badly wrong with the theory behind the models. What? There are many guesses. One is that something called “climate sensitivity,” a measure of the overall reaction of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide, is set too high in the models. So Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and I created a model to investigate this. Although our model is crude and captures only the barest characteristics of the atmosphere, it matches reality better than its luxuriously funded, more complex cousins. The funding is important. Nobody asked or paid us to create our model. We asked nobody for anything, and nobody offered us anything. We did the work on our own time and submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It’s title is “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.” The paper was quickly noticed, receiving at this writing well over 10,000 downloads. Anybody who understood the settled science that bad theories make bad forecasts knew that this paper was a key challenge to the climatological community to show that our guess of why climate models stink is wrong, or to prove there were other, better explanations for the decades-long failure to produce skillful forecasts. After the paper made international news, strange things began to happen. My site was hacked. A pest named David Appell issued a FOIA request to Legates’s employer, the University of Delaware, to release all of Legates’s emails. But since we received no funding for our paper, which of course implies no state funding from Delaware, the university turned Appell down. The cult-like Greenpeace had better luck with Soon’s employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who were very obliging. They turned over all of Soon’s emails. And then Greenpeace sent them to a set of sympathetic mainstream reporters. Why did Greenpeace do this? Because they suspected we were lying about receiving funding. They were hoping that if they could prove Soon was paid then Soon should have declared to Science Bulletin a conflict of interest, and because he didn’t (none of us did), then he should retract the paper. Greenpeace went away disappointed. We were telling the truth. Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?). Greenpeace, for instance, often issues these kinds of grants. But there was no money for this paper, as we said. But Greenpeace still needed to sidetrack discussion—anything to distract from the news that climate models are broken–hence their cozying up to “science reporters.” These reporters, all of whom are paid by corporate interests, emailed asking about the “alleged conflict.” I explained to them that we received no funding and thus had no conflict of interest. But they never heard me. It was as if they didn’t want to. I offered to discuss the science behind our paper, but none took me up on this. I posted a running log of these emails at my site, and they make for fascinating reading of how narrow-minded and willfully ignorant the mainstream press can be. Justin Gillis of the New York Times was particularly reprehensible. In an email sent before publishing a hit piece on Sunday, Gillis accused Soon of an “ethical breach.” He issued veiled threats by saying that Soon ought to talk to him, because Soon’s employer “may be preparing to take adverse personnel action against” him. I told Gillis there was no conflict. And I asked Gillis to explain his ties with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations. Surprisingly, he refused to answer. Well, he did block me on Twitter. Greenpeace denies the settled science that bad forecasts mean incorrect theories. Don’t let them change the subject. This is not about some false accusation of conflict of interest. This is about bad science passing for good because it’s politically expedient.
You’ve heard it said that the science is settled. And it’s true. It is settled–settled beyond the possibility of any dispute. A fundamental, inescapable, indubitable bedrock scientific principle is that lousy theories make lousy predictions.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
#4. To: cranky (#0)
Science is essentially useless. It is the vector by which AIDS spread. It gave thalidomide babies their flippers. It has given us global warming. It promises us that marijuana is harmless. It told us that eggs were killing us, so people took statin drugs, which are killing them. It told us that lobotomies were the way to handle mental patients. Then it suggested shock therapy. Now it has a huge number of kids wired on drugs. It tells us that GMOs are safe. It told us nothing could most faster than light. Then it told us that the universe expands faster than light. Endless crap piled upon crap, grand theories rising and falling in a lifetime. Science is highly unreliably and must never be the basis for any major decision.
Easy, you will bring the LF DRUG LORDS down upon you to spam you with their pro drug propaganda. You might even be outcast as a constitutional traitor.
Here, I'll give everybody an automatic hate button, so they don't even have to think: I'm French. And American. And I think that the French do a lot of things better. Not everything, but many of the most important things: like law, and law enforcement, and medicine, and education, and social welfare. And since De Gaulle, I think the French have been a lot smarter about their use of military force than the Americans too. The French resisted us in Iraq, refused to climb on board, actually tried to STOP US by not permitting full-on UN support, forcing us to rely on a "Coalition of the Foolish" (sorry, "Willing"). They said that Iraq was quicksand. They said we were plunging in on a fool's errand and that it would be a trainwreck. They refused to cooperate or participate. We had a hissy fit and stopped serving French fries in the Congressional cafeteria. They became "Freedom Fries". "French" became a watchword for perfidious treachery because they told us we were stupid for going into Iraq and warned us we would lose. We were stupid for going into Iraq, and we lost. The French were right, and the United States was wrong. We should have listened to them. There. That ought to do it. Blind, white-hot hatred to follow. (Oh, and I'm Catholic.)(To get the outliers.) I've never used drugs and never will, but I think they should be legalized. Why? Because the French are right: personal privacy is MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than internal "order" and law enforcement. It's not more important than REAL national security (which is why the terrorists get caught so quick), but drugs have nothing to do with REAL national security, and neither does illegal porn. Personal privacy is more important than stopping drugs or child pornography, because drugs and child porn CAN'T be stopped, so all we end up doing is destroying personal privacy of EVERYBODY, in order to NOT STOP the criminal activities of some. I am not willing to sacrifice ANY of my personal privacy so that the laws of the country can be enforced. The laws are NOT IMPORTANT ENOUGH to override my privacy. I am not in fact doing anything wrong, and it is more important to me to be left alone than it is to me that the people selling and using drugs, or porn, or selling sex, be caught. It's a trade off, and I am willing to trade the lives of others in order to remain free myself...because the law isn't REALLY going to stop the others from dying and being ruined, but American-style law enforcement CERTAINLY will interfere with my privacy. My privacy trumps the Rule of Law. That's a French mindset, and the French are right about THAT too. Oh, and they have a lower crime rate. And only about 10% of the incarceration rate of Americans. Am I a libertarian? By no means! I believe in universal public education, through college, paid by the state. I believe in universal health insurance (socialized INSURANCE, not socialized DOCTORS), paid by the state. I believe in universal public pensions, paid by the state. And that means a pretty heavy state, and pretty heavy taxation. I do not believe that private individuals or private enterprise can handle the functions of universal education, universal health insurance, universal old age pensions, law enforcement, prison operation or national security as well as government has proven itself able to do. Therefore, I am a statist. I am a statist who believes that a man's home is his castle, and that whatever he is doing in there, other than murdering people outright, is nobody's business and the state has no business there. Nor does the employer. The employer pays for EIGHT hours of obedience, NOT 24. If an employer wants 24 hours of obedience, then the employer must pay 24 hours per day of salary, at time and a half and double time. Since they don't, employers have no business monitoring employees off time Facebook sites or Internet conversations. Personal liberty - free speech WITHOUT UNDUE CONSEQUENCES - is a human right, a fundamental right of privacy. The French have that right too. And the Americans very desperately need French-style sanity, because this country is so utterly fucked up in every way that we CAN'T right the ship with our homegrown ideas. The Right believes that if you just let billionaires decide everything, it'll all be for the best. No, it will establish an hereditary NOBILITY, and they'll crush everybody else until there's a bloody revolution. The French know this from bitter experience. Americans really don't have to reinvent the wheel on this. They could, you know, read the history of the French Revolution and realize that unequivocal support for the super rich leads to Versailles, and then the Flood, and then blood. The Left believes that the State should provide everything, and that to do that "efficiently", the state should be the MORALS POLICE for the society. Yes, that was the Reign of Terror. Robespierre and those jackasses. He was the first lawyer to ever lead France, and the last one too, until Sarkozy. Letting lawyers rule your country is dumb. They worship themselves and their rule of law. But the right of personal privacy MUST TRUMP the rule of law. Otherwise you end up with Prussia...or babies burnt in their cribs by flash grenades. If there isn't a murder going on, the police have no business ever forcibly entering anybody's house! But a CRIME is being committed! The American screams. So what? Losing the right of privacy is worse than letting people commit crimes (other than murdering people or maiming them or forcibly raping them). And people eventually have to come out to eat. THEN you nab them. That collection of ideas should be sufficient to make everybody hate me. It's also the best way forward. That was fun. Now comes the shouting part...which I probably won't even read.
Not me.. You're not a libertaian, true, but at least you're honest about your socialistic ideas, and those, imho, do not make you a 'statist'. In the USA, our various levels of govt have NOT 'proven itself able to do', or solve, the problems you list. You're simply misinformed, or want to be, by your political outlook. Thanks for your candor..
There are no replies to Comment # 12. End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Vicomte13, Deckard, tpaine (#4)
(Edited)
It promises us that marijuana is harmless.
#8. To: GrandIsland (#6)
Easy, you will bring the LF DRUG LORDS down upon you to spam you with their pro drug propaganda. You might even be outcast as a constitutional traitor.
#12. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#8)
That collection of ideas should be sufficient to make everybody hate me.
Am I a libertarian? By no means! I believe in universal public education, through college, paid by the state. I believe in universal health insurance (socialized INSURANCE, not socialized DOCTORS), paid by the state. I believe in universal public pensions, paid by the state. And that means a pretty heavy state, and pretty heavy taxation. I do not believe that private individuals or private enterprise can handle the functions of universal education, universal health insurance, universal old age pensions, law enforcement, prison operation or national security as well as government has proven itself able to do. Therefore, I am a statist.
Replies to Comment # 12.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]