Climate of suspicion
in [Physics]
|
From: Mike Jr on 23 Jan 2010 11:01 On Jan 23, 10:45 am, Unum <non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 1/23/2010 12:15 AM, Surfer wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > > <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as > >> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you > >> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political > >> objective. > > > There is a risk of that happening. > > > However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money > > to fund work that supports the opposing objective? > > Yes, and they do; > > Money the big oil companies are spending on lobbying;http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=E01 > > They spent $35+ million in the 2008 election cycle and ~$8 million > already in the 2010 cycle. > > Many reports of additional donations to denialist junk scientists;http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exx... > > And extensive astroturfing;http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0819/energy-an... > > > cf > > > The Temperature of Science > > James Hansen > >http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfS... > > > <Start extract> > > > The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, > > on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to > > yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians > > would certainly have done that but they have not. > > > <End extract> > > >http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ And who is donating to greenpeace?
From: oriel36 on 23 Jan 2010 11:34 On Jan 23, 3:50 pm, Unum <non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: > On 1/23/2010 2:03 AM, oriel36 wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 23, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Climate of suspicion > >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html > > >> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors > >> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. > >> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues > >> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page > >> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely > >> to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. > >> And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People > >> have more trust in experts and scientists when they sense that the > >> speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus > >> do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when > >> communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should > >> be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a > >> respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they > >> share something in common with that other side. > > > Hah !,the wider population now know enough to recognize climate change > > as a normal function of planetary processes be these processes > > astronomical or terrestrial in origin,what these same people are > > Which specific processes are responsible for the current warming? > > > cottoning on to is scientists trying to make people believe that there > > are those out there who 'deny' climate change when verily these > > people,at the very least,object to the idea that humans can control > > global temperatures to within a certain range by some act of human > > activity by doing something or leaving something undone.Even in that > > Man can have no effect on the earth? That's creationist talk isn't it. > > > loathsome commentary you present they link climate change with carbon > > dioxide emissions demonstrating that far from any real contrition for > > this intellectual holocaust,they seek to perpetuate it in such an > > unintelligent way.Who they think they are fooling nowadays is anyone's > > guess,more like thumbsucking as far as I can tell. > > There will always be the nutjob no-science fringe, unable or unwilling > to examine the evidence or accept anything challenging their world view. This business of turning a very minor atmospheric gas into a global temperature dial is quaint for those who know no better but ultimately it is a sideshow for the real curtain raiser - the validity of the 'scientific method' itself and its sudden emergence through Newton's agenda.All those scattered opinions from both sides of the climate argument disappear once the original empirical hoax is brought into view where timekeeping averages of the equatorial coordinate system were used as a bridge to connect experimental sciences with planetary dynamics by attempting to obliterate genuine astronomical methods and insights,up to and including the main argument for the Earth's daily rotational and orbital motions.Not even the basic planetary fact of daily rotation in 24 hours survived the empirical mangling of astronomy in order to force through conclusions which are every bit as crude as the idea that humans can keep temperatures within a certain range,a sort of anti-King Canute ideology that is breathtaking in its vacuousness. The empirical language of absolute/relative time,space and motion would seem to be a million miles from climate but that is the sound of Newton trying to bypass interpretation and go straight to modelling from observations in his attempt to make planetary dynamics look like terrestrial ballistics.As you will quickly find out,few could handle Newton's elaborate scheme woven around the Ra/Dec framework hence 3 centuries later we have an entire race who think they can control global temperatures,believe in time travel and any other junk they can dump into the celestial arena.
From: Androcles on 23 Jan 2010 11:57 "Unum" <noneof(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote in message news:hjf5v9$q5h$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 1/23/2010 2:03 AM, oriel36 wrote: >> On Jan 23, 12:32 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Climate of suspicion >>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >>> >>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >>> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues >>> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page >>> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely >>> to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. >>> And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People >>> have more trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that the >>> speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus >>> do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when >>> communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should >>> be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a >>> respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they >>> share something in common with that other side. >> >> Hah !,the wider population now know enough to recognize climate change >> as a normal function of planetary processes be these processes >> astronomical or terrestrial in origin,what these same people are > > Which specific processes are responsible for the current warming? Heat from the Sun. 1) Sun heats ocean. 2) Ocean evaporates and forms clouds. 3) Clouds reflect sunlight into space, reduce evaporation. If you doubt it, feel the sunlight on your skin when a cloud obscures the sun. 4) Less cloud forms, more heat is absorbed, more cloud forms, less heat is absorbed; Earth's temperature remains constant. If it gets warmer, it will cool. If it gets cooler, it will warm. Positive feedback: 5) Snow falls on land and polar ice fields. 6) Snow/ice reflects sunlight into space, reduces heat absorption. Water absorbs sunlight, increases energy intake. Ice reflects sunlight, reduces energy intake. If you doubt it, take a swim in the Gulf of Mexico and another in the Arctic Ocean. 7) Earth cools as it radiates heat to space, more snow falls, more sunlight is reflected, result is an Ice Age. The colder it is, the colder it will get. The warmer it is, the warmer it will get. Changing the balance: http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/KeplerSunlight.jpg 8) Earth's orbit is elliptical. 9) Sunlight obeys the inverse square law. 10) Earth is tilted. 11) More sunlight reaches Earth at perihelion than at aphelion. 12) Earth's Great White Spot, Antarctica, reflects sunlight at aphelion (Southern summer). http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/earth_1_apollo17.gif Result, positive feedback predominates, Ice Age. 13) Earth precesses. Earth's Great White Spot reflects sunlight at perihelion (Northern summer). But Earth's Great White Spot has no sunlight to reflect and the Northern Wet Spot (the Arctic Ocean) has even more sunlight to melt its ice cap than it had when it faced the Sun at aphelion. Water absorbs far more heat than ice. Result: more sunlight absorbed, positive feedback, natural global warming. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Gyroscope_precession.gif 14) But it is offset by more cloud, see negative feedback above. Overall result - a small change in mean temperature as a function of precession.
From: Unum on 23 Jan 2010 12:33 On 1/23/2010 9:55 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 22, 10:22 pm, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >> On 1/22/2010 8:10 PM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 22, 8:06 pm, Peter Franks<n...(a)none.com> wrote: >>>> Sam Wormley wrote: >>>>> Climate of suspicion >>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html >> >>>>> "No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors >>>>> will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. >>>>> Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues >>>>> such as climate change according to their personal values (see page >>>>> 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely >>>>> to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. >>>>> And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People >>>>> have more trust in experts � and scientists � when they sense that the >>>>> speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus >>>>> do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when >>>>> communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should >>>>> be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a >>>>> respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they >>>>> share something in common with that other side. >> >>>> That's just common human decency. >> >>>> The problem with a 'scientist' is that by and large they are driven to >>>> prove their hypothesis. If the data don't agree, then they conclude >>>> that the data are wrong and go about proving it a different way. After >>>> all, they don't get fame and fortune proving their hypotheses wrong, do >>>> they?. >> >>> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as >>> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you >>> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political >>> objective. That isn't science, that is advocacy. >> >> I think you need to prove your hypothesis. >> >>> Decide; are you a scientist or a politician? Nature's editors have. >> >> Unsubstantiated bullshit. > > How eloquent.~ Additional lack of substantiation noted.
From: Unum on 23 Jan 2010 12:35
On 1/23/2010 10:01 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 23, 10:45 am, Unum<non...(a)yourbusiness.com> wrote: >> On 1/23/2010 12:15 AM, Surfer wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:10:21 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr >>> <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>>> You are supposed to get as much credit for disproving a hypothesis as >>>> proving it. But with "climate change" (BTW, doesn't it aways?) you >>>> only get funding if your work supports the predetermined political >>>> objective. >> >>> There is a risk of that happening. >> >>> However wouldn't the fossil fuel industry have more than enough money >>> to fund work that supports the opposing objective? >> >> Yes, and they do; >> >> Money the big oil companies are spending on lobbying;http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?cycle=2010&ind=E01 >> >> They spent $35+ million in the 2008 election cycle and ~$8 million >> already in the 2010 cycle. >> >> Many reports of additional donations to denialist junk scientists;http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exx... >> >> And extensive astroturfing;http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0819/energy-an... >> >>> cf >> >>> The Temperature of Science >>> James Hansen >>> http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfS... >> >>> <Start extract> >> >>> The input data for global temperature analyses are widely available, >>> on our web site and elsewhere. If those input data could be made to >>> yield a significantly different global temperature change, contrarians >>> would certainly have done that but they have not. >> >>> <End extract> >> >>> http://www.giss.nasa.gov/ > > And who is donating to greenpeace? I don't know, but who cares? |