Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (11)
Don’t ask me any questions, but the wavelength of light emanating from an object increases in wavelength if the object is moving away at speed. This is called redshift, I understand. Apparently, it is the observations of this redshift from distant galaxies that has convinced most scientist that the universe is expanding and at an ever-faster rate – thwarting gravity. How to explain it? Well they couldn’t. So, out of thin air, so to speak, to push galaxies apart, they simply invented a mysterious and invisible substance which they call ‘dark energy’. And this ain’t small beer. It is hypothesised to make up almost 70% of all of the energy in the universe.
A group of scientists in Bilboa, Spain, has come up with another explanation of redshift which is that time is slowing down.[i] Now this makes no sense to me personally because my life seems to be running out at an increasing rate. Nevertheless, I will come up with a scientific explanation for time slowing which is that the universe is indeed collapsing on itself as a result of gravity and everyone knows that time slows as the density of matter increases. Or at least I think that’s right because time slows to zero at (or is it just beyond) the event horizon of black holes, which are extremely dense. I don’t expect a Nobel Prize for this brilliant insight, but am quite taken with it and will fly to Sweden if invited.
What is my point to all of this scientific jiggery pokery? Well, to show that if I can inject my theory into it with a straight face you know it is beyond caricature. So much of science in this age of social media and celebrity-status seeking is in fact not science at all. It is sheer unadulterated speculation. When famous scientists like the late Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees talk about humans being overtaken by AI robots in the future and, perhaps, greeting robots from other-worldly advanced civilisations – no, I am not making this up – you know that Ray Bradbury underdid his sci-fi fantasies.
Here are two more from the geniuses that occupy some of our university departments. It is impossible to conceive of our universe and earth happening by chance so there must be an infinity of universes. Ergo one like ours is bound to pop up. And, in fact, when you think about ‘infinity’, an infinite number like ours, and an infinite number only slightly different from ours with imperceptible variations, till we eventually disappear into a scientific orifice.
Then there are those other intelligent civilisations in our universe; no, not the universe this moment occupied by your infinite alter egos, but your very own universe. And why do some scientists think these other-worldly intelligent civilisations exist? Rigour is replaced with crude appeals to large numbers. With so many planets out there, many are highly likely to have intelligent life, it is claimed. No, they’re not. Not if the odds against this happening are anywhere near close to the odds of a bright ape typing out Hamlet. In that case, there are just not enough planets; however many you speculate that there are. But then I am applying rigour to the issue.
(Some) science is becoming a joke and no more of joke than when scientists, based solely on tendentious statistical models, pontificate on the certainty of CO2-caused global warming. You might notice that the latest ‘unscientific’ alarmist IPCC report has disappeared without trace. Ordinary Joes and Jills (as distinct from the self-indulgent residents of rich inner-city suburbs) are waking up to this nonsense. They are ‘woked’, to play a leftist term du jour back to them.
Reputable scientists throw out their theories and start afresh when their predictions clash with experience. Not this lot. They go along with Groucho’s maxim: they have predictions, and when they don’t work they have others. Just in case the earth starts to cool they are already ready with an explanation. This is from LiveScience[ii]
A periodic solar event called a “grand minimum” could overtake the sun perhaps as soon as 2020 and lasting through 2070, resulting in diminished magnetism, infrequent sunspot production and less ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth — all bringing a cooler period to the planet that may span 50 years.
But wait, “it’s unlikely that we’ll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported” And why is that? You need not ask. It’s because of climate change.
You see, its not just rain when drought was predicted, or snow when it was predicted to disappear, or increased tempests and storms which have not increased, or inundated islands which aren’t. Even if it cools across the globe it would have cooled more but for man-made climate change. And you can bet your house that however cold it might get it would have got colder. This is a quite marvellous theory totally impervious to evidence. It is undisprovable. Like Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations against Kavanaugh.
Climate science has become a joke – a bad one. A faith-based theory has taken over evidence-based science. ‘Denialists’ are stripped of their influence, money and jobs. If only the stake was still available.
When it comes to unusual climate, which always occurs somewhere, most claims of evidence for global warming are guilty of the Prosecutor’s Fallacy. For example, this confuses the near-certainty of the fact that if A shot B, there will be evidence of gunpowder on A’s hands, with the assertion that if C has evidence of gunpowder on his hands, then C shot B! However, with global warming, the line of argument is even sillier. It generally amounts to something like; if A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell, and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C who was carrying a carton of eggs which fell and broke, then if some broken eggs are found that shows that A kicked up some dirt! These days we go even further and decide that the best way to prevent eggs being broken is to ban dirt kicking. – Prof. Richard Lindzen, MIT
What was it that Bismark said about sausages? Enjoy them, but never ask to see how they are made.
The same could be said of climate models and especially the “young science” of detection and attribution studies.
Give a computer model to any group infected with noble-cause corruption and you can be sure of one outcome: watever trend it is studying will always increase in the worst possible direction.
Take the case of Hurricane Florence and Assistant Professor Reed’s brave attempt to find a anthropogenic foot or fingerprint in it.
Naturally, of course, he found one. He has, however, yet to answer my email (attached below) asking for details about precisely how he did it.
QED
Kevin A. Reed
Assistant Professor
Stony Brook University
School of Marine & Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000
kevin.a.reed@stonybrook.edu
Dear Dr Reed
I refer to your interesting interview with ABC RN’s Ms Patricia Karvelas on 17 September, 2018: Scientists prove climate change impact on Hurricane Florence
I then read your post of 12 September 2018 here.
You state in bold letters that the CEMG “forecasts are EXPERIMENTAL”. What is an “experimental” forecast and does it differ from an actual forecast?
Could you explain how you calculated – and then removed – “human-induced climate change” for September over the 1996-2016 period?
You state that it approximates “the change in the large scale environment attributable to climate change”. How do you make this attribution and what is the accuracy of it?
You further state that: “Additionally, the greenhouse gas concentrations, solar radiation conditions, ozone concentration, and aerosol concentrations are all set to pre-industrial levels for the modified forecasts.”
How did you determine these variables at pre-industrial levels and what is the accuracy of your data?
You state that “data from the C20C Detection and Attribution project (portal.nersc.gov/c20c) define the initial conditions for the counterfactual “storm that might have been”.”
How much of your data is simulated – that is based on in silico experimentation – and how much is based on observational data?
I note that the C20C Project provides “large samples of simulation data from climate models” (my italics).
Is it legitimate – logically and scientifically – to compare a “storm that might have been” with an actual storm, and then to use that comparison to make a claim about the real world, such as: “man-made climate change has increased Hurricane Florence’s rainfall by 50 per cent”?
I ask this question because the C20C Project site states that: “the core of the project involves running large numbers of simulations of atmospheric climate models. These simulations differ only in their initial weather state, and so represent possible trajectories of the climate system under a given set of timing-evolving boundary conditions.”
If the C20C Project generates only “possible trajectories” what criteria did you use to select your “storm that might have been”?
Lastly, regarding the C20C Project’s “attributable anthropogenic change pattern”, there are apparently “poor observational constraints on the details” of it.
Any comments you may have on this aspect, and how it might affect your research, would be welcome if you have time.
Thank you for your assistance.
Mr. Stephen Hawking states (you can hear him articulating it in the Pink Floyd’s song “Keep Talking” [If it is him, and if it is not out of context and that’s what he intends]), “For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals; Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination–We learned to talk”.
I wish he had used “peoplekind” (to use the term used by Justin Trudeau the jerk) instead to make it more inclusive, now that it’s talking about living like animals. (I’m sure feminists don’t have any issue with his choice of word!)
But if they lived like animals, then they were animals not mankind.
“For millions of years” suggests perhaps over 10 million years; how does he know? I wish he would have given us the date that mankind started talking, now that he knows confidently about the activities of mankind 10 million years ( he was a physicist, and he had that brashness about physiology and anatomy of people living millions of years ago; such confidence of that man!)
Then something happened, just something, and apparently that something unleashed the power of imagination, and we learned to talk: I suppose based on Mr. Hawking’s suggestion, the more one is imaginative the more yabber he does!
But he was wrong if he really believed that! Those that were living like animals were animals; they’re still around and still living like animals. Something indeed happened, and it was the creation of mankind (now I like that word) to whom also was given the power of imagination and ability to talk.
Today scientists (there are many of them) are in trouble: Not many elements and laws of physics left to discover and describe. But they need to make a living, too; hence their attempt to keep and save their employment and source of income by coming up with something, hoping to impress and please their employers and patrons; same thing that most of us do and have to do. (To quote Nelson Muntz: “Ha-ha!”.)
Peter,
Here is a classic example of your your Groucho Marx scientific approach.
Remember the greatest environmental disaster in USA history? No, I thought not as 19-days after the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico was plugged they could not find any oil as a plume of bacteria had eaten it!
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/oil-spills-6.pdf
“The greatest environmental disaster of our time quietly vanishes Nineteen days after the Macondo Well was capped.
The true-believers refuse to accept the ‘miracle’ that has happened before their eyes even as the chief over-hyper Obama visits the Gulf Coast and swims in waters that he said may take decades to recover, if ever.
In a photo provided by the White House, President Obama and his daughter Sasha swim at Alligator Point in Panama City Beach, Florida on 14th August 2010, sixteen days after the Macondo Well was capped. It was explained that they were in a cove near their hotel, not in the Gulf of Mexico itself – even though the cove was part of the Gulf and water from the gulf flowed through it.
As Paul Mulshine writes:
“A simple apology would have been in order.”
Mulshine visited a beach town in Alabama called Gulf Shores. Every beach entrance had a sign warning tourists of the dire consequences of going for a swim, yet the water was blue and the dolphins were leaping as if trying out for jobs at Sea World. There was not the slightest indication the Gulf has just gone through what the president termed “the greatest environmental disaster in American history.”
Far more economic damage was done by the alarmism than by the oil. As Mulshine continues, “Later that evening, I was walking on the beach when I came upon a crew cleaning up a beach that was already spotless. It looked like an episode of the “The Three Stooges.”
Two months ago, Gulf Shores was overrun with TV crews hyping the threat. Now that the threat has not worked out as planned, no crews were to be seen. They were over in Panama City Beach covering the president.”
This is where it should end, but true-believers never concede so the attacks and counterattacks followed. There is really no point in continuing to feed the delusions of the deranged as they will never stop while the gravy money-train continues to run.
In this context,Mark Steyn’s comments from April 25, 2016 are worth hearing too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wQp0Ir5Vc (video, 28min) @ 5.45m
“The pressure to conform in climate science is very real. The hostility and viciousness towards those who step out of line is absolutely extraordinary.”
“I spent all my life around the theatre. Showbiz people are very bitchy, catty and competitive too. That’s the world I knew. But it’s nothing, absolutely nothing compared to the way it is in climate science.”
These are my thoughts on climate change. If any individual or party offers itself for election in this country promising ‘action’ on climate change then we need to hold them to that promise. By that I mean MEASURABLE IMPROVEMENTS IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES need to be recorded and proven, especially if we’ve de-industrialized to do so. Failure to see those measurable improvements should mean that person or party should be consigned to the dustbin for BROKEN ELECTORAL PROMISES.
Jody
Agreed. Political class/climate activists, however, are too shrewd to give the public specific Key Performance Indicators.
Indeed, many of them could not even define what they mean by “climate change”, the bogeyman of our age.
A bit like asking the Almighty to give us His KPIs for salvation or keys to the IPCC’s Promised Land of “climate stability”.
And the fearmongers, alas, seem to be winning.