Richard Feynman explains the Scientific Method


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

An evening pause: During last week’s failed attempts to explain the concept of doubt and skepticism in science to a global warming adherent (which begins here and also in the comments of this post), Edward Thelen provided a link to the video below of one of Richard Feynman’s lectures. I thought it entertaining enough to be an evening pause, and educational enough that more people should see it. Listen especially near the middle when he begins to talk about the uselessness of theories that are vague and poorly defined. It will strike a nerve if you have been paying attention to the climate debates during the past two decades.

Share

54 comments

  • Cotour

    Great vid.

    He puts me in mind of Ed Norton, professor of sanitary liquid waste removal.

  • wayne

    Edward/Mr. Z.;
    excellent choice!

    Highly recommend this snippet as well-
    Feynman: Knowing versus Understanding
    https://youtu.be/NM-zWTU7X-k
    (5:36 total)
    “Richard Feynman on the differences of merely knowing how to reason mathematically and understanding how and why things are physically analyzed in the way they are.”

    [absolutely recommend the entire Lecture series, it’s amazingly timeless to a high degree.]

  • eddie willers

    Feynman would rip these warmists apart with shame.

  • Andrew_W

    theories that are vague and poorly defined.

    You find AGW vague and poorly defined?

    Here’s my off the top of my head definition:
    1. There are gases in Earth’s atmosphere commonly called greenhouse gases these gases create the greenhouse effect.
    2. If these gases increase in concentration the GH effect becomes more pronounced (on a logarithmic scale) which would logically lead to higher temperatures at Earths surface.
    3. Mankind through our production of GH gases has increased the concentration of the GH gas CO2 by 50% over the last 150 years.
    4. The main GH gas in Earths atmosphere is water vapor, the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can support increases with increasing temperature, there is a feedback in which increasing CO2 concentrations lead to warmer temperature which enables more water vapor to be supported in the atmosphere.

    What particular aspects of that do you think go against accepted physics?

    If you want to argue that AGW isn’t real I think you need to either (a) argue that there’s something wrong with the basic process I’ve outlined (eg the GH effect is not real) or (b) use vague and poorly defined arguments about other physical processes that might lead to negative feedbacks that counter the warming that AGW theory say should be produced.

  • Andrew_W

    If you want to argue that AGW isn’t real I think you need to either
    Sorry missed one (c):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRG-RBZBTZI

    eddie willers Feynman would rip these warmists apart with shame.
    I think he’d rip the excuses and rationalizations of “skeptics” apart with great pleasure.

  • Andrew_W wrote, “If you want to argue that AGW isn’t real I think you need to either (a) argue that there’s something wrong with the basic process I’ve outlined (eg the GH effect is not real)…”

    Now we are finally getting to the heart of the matter, though your guess is not correct. No credible skeptical scientist has ever argued that “the greenhouse effect is not real.” What they are arguing about is #4 on your list. In order for the global warming theory to work, CO2 has to somehow cause a feedback with the atmosphere’s main greenhouse component, water, to cause a warming. (CO2 by itself can’t do it. It is essentially a trace gas. There isn’t enough of it in the atmosphere for it to cause the warming that is predicted.) And this part of the theory is the most complex, and the most unproven. More water vapor in the atmosphere might cause more warming, but it might also cause more cloud cover, which will cool the atmosphere. The importance of both these factors remain very very uncertain. Moreover, the theory that increased CO2 will cause increased water vapor is also unproven, with many uncertainties.

    Then there is the aerosols, which is another word for pollutants. They act to cool the atmosphere. Their part in the equation also remains highly uncertain.

    Have I left out the Sun? We as yet do not know how much of a factor a Grand Minimum (no sunspots for decades) would have on the Earth’s climate. The last grand minimum, the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s, lined up closely with the Little Ice Age. Were they linked? We don’t yet know, though the data is intriguing.

    Then there are cosmic rays, which also link to the solar cycle. Experiments at CERN have suggested that increased cosmic rays could increase cloud cover. Is it proven? No. Is it a possible part of the equation? Yes, almost certainly, though how much of a part remains unknown.

    Once again, Andrew, I am not saying that the theory of human-caused global warming is wrong. I am saying it is very much unproven. And its advocates have not done themselves a favor in the past two decades by repeatedly insisting that it is proven, when anyone who is willing to study this subject in any detail quickly finds that it is not. Worse, they have used this unproven theory like a club, pounding us with it to push for more regulations and rules and restrictions on our freedoms. The result has been an increasing anger and hostility and — most important — distrust against the climate science community.

  • Andrew_W

    I’ll stick with the simpler theory: warmer atmosphere leads to more water vapor, rather than look to a more complex hypothesis involving negative feedbacks involving clouds.
    http://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-global-amplifier.html

    I think your other points about cosmic rays and changes in the Sun are red herrings, if those factors influence global temperatures (and I don’t dispute that they respectively may and do) they don’t influence the actual theory of AGW, what they do is bring in external influences that are independent of the theory, the affect of these and other externals (eg the PDO, El Nino & La Nina) are to introduce complexities that make measuring of level of AGW occurring more difficult, “skeptics” have seized these added complexities to the actual climate system to argue against what is actually a simple theory.

  • Alex

    Mr. Zimmerman: You hit the nail! BTW, I learned that climate models are not able to predict Earth’s cloud coverage (or the precentage of sun slight, which is reflected back to space and never reaches ground), which is signficant factor in respect to climate. Therefore, models and its predictions are more or less worthless.

  • Garry

    Andrew wrote,

    “I’ll stick with the simpler theory: ”

    Be careful; other words that have followed this: “the sun revolves around the earth” “the world is flat” “heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects” I can go on. Sometimes the simpler theory is correct and substantially the complete story, but in many cases it’s not.

    I give you credit for using “I’ll stick with” rather than “I choose to believe,” which I have heard others say.

    “what they do is bring in external influences that are independent of the theory,”

    The influences go beyond the simple theory, but how can you so readily dismiss them as independent? If they have effects that counteract those of the theory, or that prevent those predicted by the theory, then they aren’t independent. In addition to what we don’t know, major uncertainties are the magnitudes of the competing effects, and their mutual influences.

    Wishing things were simple often leads to trouble; scientific phenomena don’t care what we wish for, they just are, and often they end up more complex than we first think they are at first glance. I could choose not to believe the Bernoulli Principle, but my disbelief won’t cause all airplane to immediately fall out of the sky.

    If AGW were as simple as you outline and not substantially influenced by anything else, then the models all would have predicted the temperature record very accurately, but they don’t. Bottom line, if you can’t plug the real record into an algorithm and get an accurate prediction of what happened later, then the algorithm (and Al Gore, for that matter) is neither useful nor accurate.

    Of course, it is possible to add complexity that isn’t there. A good example is the IPCC’s apparently arbitrary addition of an amplification factor (I believe they chose 3) for the effect of CO2 concentration on temperature.

    But many of the complexities cited (and probably others we don’t know about) are actually there and we can’t ignore them.

  • Andrew_W

    “the sun revolves around the earth” “the world is flat” “heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects” I was going to say “certainly Hypotheses rather than theories.”

    But actually I’d describe them as “common sense” to the people who believed those things as facts, they’re cases I often use as examples of why I’m wary of people who claim “common sense” as a justification for a belief, the modern day example I often come across being “it’s common sense that mankind is too puny to change the global climate”. Common sense is the belief that common everyday experiences can be assumed to apply to situations outside of our common everyday experiences.

    I see my position as being the most in line with what AGW actually implies and think both the “skeptics” and CAGW advocates have to believe in additional factors beyond the basic physics to support their positions.

    In the recent IPCC report the probability of the more serious possible consequences of AGW were rated as “low” or not quantifiable.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W wrote: “I’ll stick with the simpler theory: warmer atmosphere leads to more water vapor, rather than look to a more complex hypothesis involving negative feedbacks involving clouds.”

    First you complain that the AGW hypothesis* is not vague and poorly defined, then you come back with a vague and poorly defined statement.

    There is no dispute that a warmer atmosphere can lead to more water vapor. What *IS* in dispute is whether the feedback factor should be 3 or a lower number. The need for this feedback factor is not vague — it is almost certainly necessary as a non-zero number. However, the value of the factor has yet to be clearly defined. The current climate models use the highest estimate, 3 — and it is only a guess, as no one has yet confirmed this factor — yet these climate models failed to accurately predict the observed temperature trends over the past couple of decades.

    There is a dispute between whether the climate models are wrong — once again, as Feynmann said, if it disagrees with observation, it is wrong — or whether they are right and there is warmth “hiding” somewhere else, such as in the oceans.

    But if the warmth is “hiding,” and the models do not show this, then the models are still wrong. They must account for any “hidden” heat.

    The lack of predictive power makes it clear beyond clarity that there *ARE* external influences (factors) that are independent of the hypothesis and are not considered by current models, predictions, or the Hockey Stick graph. These external factors must be found and accounted for, otherwise accurate predictions will never be forthcoming and the science of climatology will be no more respected than astrology.

    Andrew_W wrote: “the affect of these and other externals (eg the PDO, El Nino & La Nina) are to introduce complexities that make measuring of level of AGW occurring more difficult”

    Yes. That is the problem that must be overcome. Climate science is not simple. There are many obvious things that contribute, such as the sun and the clouds, and many non-obvious ones, such as the PDO, El Nino, and La Nina. CO2 levels are only one factor that drives the Earth’s temperature, yet too many people behave as though it is the only factor. The complexities of the climate must be considered in any model, and we have wasted at least a decade arguing over the minor CO2 factor (and attempting to shut down all debate) instead of seeking the larger factors — the ones that overwhelmed CO2 during the past two decades.

    To deny that these other factors are important is to deny that science is complex. Ecology is complex, because a huge number of species interact and continually change the ecology of a region. If ecology were static, trilobites would likely be a seafood menu item. Quantum physics is so complex that the experts admit that no one really understands it. Our recent probes to planets, comets, and asteroids show us that geology is complex. Medicine is complex — a drug works wonders on one patient but has ill effects on others (e.g. penicillin allergies).

    To assume that climate science is simple is to deny the reality around us. This is why we cannot accurately forecast the weather more than a couple of days out (and I live in a desert-like, chaparral, area where the weather does not change much, day to day).

    Just because it it complex does not mean that we give up trying to solve the complexities. It just means that we have to work harder than we thought we would in order to do it.

    If we stuck to the simpler hypotheses, then we would still be living on a turtle’s back (with turtles all the way down).

    The various sciences might rival rocket science, but the scientific method isn’t rocket science. To deny that the models need correction is to deny the scientific method and science itself. To deny the necessity of skepticism is to deny the scientific method and science itself. To deny free discussion of alternatives to the models (as the AGU, LA Times, the CRU group, some colleges or their classes, and many, many others) is to deny the scientific method and science itself.

    The AGW hypothesis may be correct, but it has yet to pass any of the tests set for it. The models, the predictions of tipping points, and the Hockey Stick graph have all failed to show the reality of our observations. Among our observations is that climates and temperatures have changed dramatically without human input, yet this basic fact is completely ignored by the AGW advocates.

    Skepticism is not only necessary for any scientific endeavor, it is especially mandatory for any science that has yet matched observation.

    Garry wrote: “if you can’t plug the real record into an algorithm and get an accurate prediction of what happened later, then the algorithm (and Al Gore, for that matter) is neither useful nor accurate.”

    Not only does the algorithm have to accurately match the historic data, when plugged into a past year, but it also has to accurately predict the unknown future. The algorithm cannot be deemed correct without spending time testing it. We can create a Fourier Transform that matches past data values, but if it fails to match the future, then that is the wrong Transform to use for setting policy.

    * I use the word hypothesis because a scientific theory requires that the hypothesis meets observation. The AGW hypothesis has not passed this requirement, yet. To call AGW a theory is to deny the scientific method and science itself.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “I think he’d rip the excuses and rationalizations of “skeptics” apart with great pleasure.”

    So, considering that the predictions of AGW have failed, thus meeting his definition of wrong, what argument do you suppose Feynmann would use to rip apart the arguments of the skeptics?

    Or have you finally found (but haven’t yet shown us) scientific papers that confirm that global warming really is man caused?

  • Andrew_W

    Do you accept evolution is a valid theory?
    I ask because evolution never predicted the demise of the dinosaurs, and by your logic, if a theory is unable to predict a random and unpredictable event like an asteroid impact or El Nino’s far in advance it cannot be a valid theory.

    So I think what you have done is demand that AGW meet an impossible standard, a sane question would be that given an El Nino or La Nina, can AGW predict the effects on regional and Global temperature trends? The answer to that is a resounding yes!

  • Garry

    Andrew_W, your example is a good illustration of why we can’t keep theories too simple and isolate them from all other phenomena.

    Evolution cannot predict the events that led to the demise of the dinosaurs, but it can be used to predict, in general terms, the ecology’s adaptation to that event. No, we can’t expect it to predict the rise of man, but we can predict (assuming that an asteroid collision led to extreme environmental phenomena at the surface) that smaller animals that burrow underground (such as primitive mammals) would have a better chance of survival, may eventually fill the void in the food chain, and may evolve into forms making them more likely to thrive.

    We could also predict that dinosaurs would either drastically decline in the new environment, or evolve into forms (such as chickens, if you believe that) making them more likely to thrive.

    The point is, nobody but your strawman is saying that any theory has to predict exact outcomes under all circumstances. External events cannot necessarily be predicted, but can have huge influence on the aspect covered by the theory.

    One of the greatest failings of AGW advocates is that they package their predictions into simplistic graphs, ignoring any influence other than CO2 concentration.

    If an El Nino or La Nina happens, it obviously affects the regional and global temperature trends, at least for a time. How come they are largely ignored in predictions? Why are the predictions prefaced with “this prediction assumes no major El Nino or La Nina events showing sea water temperature variation exceeding ~”?

    Why do El Nino and La Nina events occur? They certainly seem to be related to climate and weather, and can have huge (at least temporary) influence on climate and weather. So why does your theory of AGW ignore them?

    It’s reasonable to presume that El Nino is caused by climate phenomena, but it is not reasonable to presume that an asteroid collision is caused by evolutionary phenomena; that event is from a completely different system. This is one major aspect where your analogy falls short.

  • I think it important to remind everyone what started this discussion originally: Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson announced his support of a carbon tax (since rescinded) as part of an effort to counteract human-caused global warming. Anderw_W supported this tax, based on the same assumption that Johnson first expressed, that human-caused global warming was proven and therefore a threat that must be stopped.

    The discussion since then has shown however that the theory of human-caused global warming due to increased carbon dioxide is not proven. There are uncertainties that even Andrew_W cannot deny exist, even though he considers many of them to be irrelevant. However, they are not irrelevant if one wants to impose onerous regulations, taxes, and restrictions on human freedom based on limited knowledge and an unproven theory. It is for this reason there is so much opposition to these taxes and regulations. It is why the global warming crowd has so much difficulty gaining political traction. The public is aware of the uncertainties, and opposes losing their freedom because of that.

  • Andrew_W

    “Anderw_W supported this tax,”
    I’ll have to contradict or at least clarify that. My question was: If it was determined that curtailing carbon emissions was ascertain to be necessary, what method would you consider to comply with libertarian principles?
    – I never said I thought forcing curtailment was even likely to be necessary, I said I thought it likely that technological progress would make the question moot. (I was focused more on your claim that Johnson’s advocation of a carbon tax made him a liberal).
    – If government action to force curtailment were to be necessary I remain open to other methods.

  • Andrew_W: I stand clarified. :)

  • Andrew_W

    Evolution cannot predict the events that led to the demise of the dinosaurs, but it can be used to predict, in general terms, the ecology’s adaptation to that event.
    AGW cannot predict the events like El Nino’s, but it can be used to predict, in general terms, the ecology’s adaptation to that event.
    nobody but your strawman is saying that any theory has to predict exact outcomes under all circumstances.
    Edward is insisting that AGW is not a theory because it cannot predict the occurrence of events like El Nino’s & La Nina’s in advance, the hiatus in warming occurred as a result of a strong El Nino in 1998 and a series of La Nina’s a few years later.
    External events cannot necessarily be predicted, but can have huge influence on the aspect covered by the theory.
    I’m not sure what you mean there by “aspects covered by the theory”, external events aren’t covered by the theory, they influence the outcome, the ability to measure the correctness of the theory, but are not part of the theory itself, they don’t need to be included in the theory, only in real world testing of it.

    One of the greatest failings of AGW advocates is that they package their predictions into simplistic graphs, ignoring any influence other than CO2 concentration.

    You are so wrong there it’s not funny, scientists are working hard to account for all the possible forcings and feedbacks they and others have thought of, all those factors are included in modeling and trying to understand the real world, unfortunately a model can never be perfect, the skeptic argument amounts to “if its not perfect isn’t inaccurate and therefore useless” so dismissing all of the effort no matter how much progress is made.

    If an El Nino or La Nina happens, it obviously affects the regional and global temperature trends, at least for a time. How come they are largely ignored in predictions?

    They are not ignored, El Nino and La Nina events can and are inserted into models to test their effects.

    “this prediction assumes no major El Nino or La Nina events showing sea water temperature variation exceeding ~”

    Umm, are they supposed to insert unpredictable weather events into forecasts years in advance? Actually they do, as part of the model testing, perhaps they should publish whole books of future forecasts with El Nino and La Nina events dropped randomly into model runs, then a few years later they could pull out the runs that had El Nino and La Nina events programmed into them when they actually occurred and show their accuracy, but then skeptics would claim (and you know this is true) that the whole thing was a fraud because the scientists had just picked out the run the best fit what actually happened, ignoring the actual point of the whole exercise.

    Why do El Nino and La Nina events occur? They certainly seem to be related to climate and weather, and can have huge (at least temporary) influence on climate and weather. So why does your theory of AGW ignore them?
    Sigh.

    It’s reasonable to presume that El Nino is caused by climate phenomena,
    In the same way that storms and droughts are caused by climate phenomena, perhaps, increasing temperatures will cause more El Nino’s, or more La Nina’s or both, my position remains that AGW is based on the simple radiation physics and process I’ve outlined above, both sides with political agenda can bring in endless what ifs and maybes, but if you’ve any regard for the scientific process your default position, in the absence of solid evidence of other more complex influences, should be that increased GH gas concentrations is most likely lead to the amount of warming the simple physics predicts.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W wrote: “Do you accept evolution is a valid theory?
    I ask because evolution never predicted the demise of the dinosaurs, and by your logic, if a theory is unable to predict a random and unpredictable event like an asteroid impact or El Nino’s far in advance it cannot be a valid theory.”

    Ah. Once again, a mischaracterization of what I wrote (and of the theory of evolution), and it does not follow my logic. Plus the distraction, by asking about a completely unrelated theory — one that has been demonstrated for many decades. Evolution theory does not predict any specific evolution or extinction, but it predicts that species evolve with time, sometimes with the original species no longer existing after the evolution is complete, and this has been shown.

    AGW has not been shown. Gobal warming, over time and through many eras, has been shown. We know for certain that the Earth can warm and cool without human influence. Human activity is not necessary for global cooling, global warming, or climate change.

    My logic includes the random and unpredictable event, because we can search for asteroids that may impact, and El Nino can be researched so that it is even better known than it is now. There are many other known influences and factors that are possible — but not known to be — influences. All these need to be considered by the models, and the models compared to real world observation.

    Asteroids and El Nino are exactly the kinds of “external influences that are independent of the [AGW] theory” (Andrew_W’s phrase) that our current models lack skill in predicting. These are the kinds of influences that must be researched in order for the models to take into account the complexities of the Earth. Otherwise the models will remain inaccurate and unsuitable for setting policy, such as taxes in order to mitigate the negative effects of any AGW that may be happening.

    We do not have to have a proven alternate theory, or a valid alternate hypothesis, to know when one hypothesis has failed. The AGW hypothesis has, so far, failed all predictions that have been made based upon it. Alternates have been suggested, but the insistence that the failed AGW hypothesis must be correct has hampered serious consideration of — and research into — the alternatives.

    Even the many hypotheses for why the “pause” happened have yet to receive serious research and have yet to be incorporated into climate models in order to do a sanity check with past observation.

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “If government action to force curtailment were to be necessary I remain open to other methods.”

    Actually, your question suggests otherwise. The implication is:

    1) that curtailment is necessary, because if you thought otherwise, you would not have asked about mitigation techniques, and

    2) you are skeptical about the sincerity of the Libertarian Party’s attitude on AGW, since you asked about a particular party’s position, not a position in general or the position of every party.

    You have also mentioned that there are potential adverse consequences to some people who live in coastal regions. This concern strongly suggests that you believe in the necessity of the mitigation of any effects caused by the AGW that you believe is happening.

    If you do not believe that a tax is necessary, your apparent skepticism about alternate methods (you seem not to know of any) is curious. It certainly seems to me that you believe in the taxation method, because you do not seem to know of any other methods.

    You also have stated your belief that AGW is happening, and that despite the lack of evidence, including the science papers that you cannot find to support AGW, you will stick with your belief. During these discussions, you have denied some realities, such as that there was a “pause” in temperature rise, even though climate scientists are trying to excuse the Earth’s “misbehavior,” and you have insisted that Mann’s Hockey Stick graph shows both the MWP and the LIA when it clearly does not.

    It truly seems that you believe that AGW is happening, that it is a problem, and that it must be stopped before coastal regions become uninhabitable. If you have different beliefs, thoughts, or attitudes on this topic, you have not presented them clearly.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Edward is insisting that AGW is not a theory because it cannot predict the occurrence of events like El Nino’s & La Nina’s in advance,”

    This goes beyond mischaracterization and into the outright lie.

    I was exceedingly clear as to why AGW is not a theory:

    I wrote: “I use the word hypothesis because a scientific theory requires that the hypothesis meets observation. The AGW hypothesis has not passed this requirement, yet. To call AGW a theory is to deny the scientific method and science itself.”

    and I wrote: “the predictions of AGW have failed, thus meeting [Feynmann’s] definition of wrong”

    You wrote: “the hiatus in warming occurred as a result of a strong El Nino in 1998 and a series of La Nina’s a few years later.”

    The El Nino hypothesis is but one of many unproved hypotheses:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html

    Andrew_W, you really have to stop using speculation as fact. This “belief system” that you have makes you look like you just do not care about facts or truth, and the way you bandy it about makes it look like you don’t care about being wrong most of the time.

    Also, please stop mischaracterizing or lying about other people’s positions or statements. This makes you look desperate to distract from where you have been shown to be wrong.

    The problem with the AGW hypothesis, as you seem to be stating the hypothesis (independent of all other factors and influences other than human generated CO2), is that there is no indication as to just how much human activity influences global temperatures. This hypothesis is strictly based upon the assumption that the level of CO2 drives global temperatures — otherwise CO2 isn’t something to worry about — and that human activity drives the level of CO2 is driven by human activity — otherwise human activity isn’t something to worry about.

    If AGW completely ignores all other external influences, then why all the fuss about AGW? Without considering external influences, AGW cannot be shown to be an important consideration in global temperature, so it cannot be shown to be something to worry about.

    You wrote: “scientists are working hard to account for all the possible forcings and feedbacks they and others have thought of, all those factors are included in modeling and trying to understand the real world”

    This is also not true. The models have not been updated, and the outputs of these same failed models are still being used to argue for new governing policy.

    You wrote: “unfortunately a model can never be perfect, the skeptic argument amounts to “if its not perfect isn’t inaccurate and therefore useless” so dismissing all of the effort no matter how much progress is made.”

    Models can never be perfect? Tell that to the engineers who design the airplanes you fly in, the engineers who plan the trajectories of the spacecraft that go to other planets, and the physicists who predict the effects of quantum mechanics.

    What skeptics are skeptical about is not some silly imperfection of AGW, but the abject failure of AGW. The models that you say are imperfect (what an understatement) are AGW-based models. AGW is the reason that they are so loudly touted by the AGW advocates.

    The models aren’t useless because they are merely less than perfect; they are useless because they do not work. We do not expect perfection from all models, but we do expect them to make predictions that are good enough to use to make reliable designs, plans, or policies.

    If the vintner is told that it will not freeze tonight, then he may not plan to protect his vines, and that is a big failure of the weather model. If the president sets an economy-stifling tax to prevent AGW but the temperatures fall instead, then we have damaged our children’s future for nothing.

    You wrote: “Umm, are they supposed to insert unpredictable weather events into forecasts years in advance?”

    Actually, El Nino and La Nina are better understood than you seem to give credit for. We know that they are cyclical, not random, and we have a basic understanding of their period. We do not yet understand what drives their intensity and why their periods can seem to be off by a year or so.

    You wrote: “but then skeptics would claim (and you know this is true) that the whole thing was a fraud because the scientists had just picked out the run the best fit what actually happened, ignoring the actual point of the whole exercise.”

    Don’t try telling me what I know, because you obviously have no idea what I know, what skeptics know, or what scientists and engineers know. You may believe that I “know” it, but your belief system is, once again, wrong.

    The point of an exercise of using past data to test a model is for a sanity check. If it cannot predict the past, it is unlikely to accurately predict the future. If it passes the sanity check, then it is worth testing it against future — as yet collected/observed — data. To say that it was a fraud before testing it with future data would be the actual fraud. (But then, you believe in Mann and the CRU scientists, who have actually perpetrated frauds on us, so you seem to think that because your guys are frauds, everyone else must be, too.)

    I have been a test engineer. You seem to be trying to paint me an inaccurate picture of what test and verification are. You may believe your picture, but if we did what you think we do, then airplanes would fall out of the sky, and most of America’s infrastructure would fall apart soon after completion (if not during construction).

    You wrote: “but if you’ve any regard for the scientific process your default position, in the absence of solid evidence of other more complex influences, should be that increased GH gas concentrations is most likely lead to the amount of warming the simple physics predicts.”

    Of course this should absolutely not be the default position. Such a default position is exactly NOT what the scientific process means. Despite the Feynmann video of this post, you are completely ignorant of the scientific process. You say that we should claim that an unproved hypothesis is fact, but Feynmann was clear that it is only after proving the hypothesis that we can use it as the default position. Before that, it is only a guess.

    Watch the video again. Pay attention to the flying saucer example and think of AGW as the flying saucer. We don’t have to prove the negative, but we already know that the Earth warms and cools without our help. We know that it has done so for millions of years before we Humans came along.

    We now see that AGW can only be shown to be true if we take into account all the factors that have overwhelmed AGW during these past couple of decades. In its current form, it has failed to be useful in predicting the Earth’s future temperature, and *that* is why it is useless.

    It does not matter how much time and effort has been put into them, it is because they wildly do not match observation that is the reason that the AGW models and the Hockey Stick graph are wrong.

    How can we get you to understand that one, basic, key principle of science?

  • Andrew_W

    Evolution theory does not predict any specific evolution or extinction, but it predicts that species evolve with time, sometimes with the original species no longer existing after the evolution is complete, and this has been shown.
    AGW theory does not predict any specific weather event, but it predicts that global temperatures rise with time, and this has been shown.

    Gobal [sic] warming, over time and through many eras, has been shown. We know for certain that the Earth can warm and cool without human influence.

    Yep, but the fact that there is natural climate variation simply demonstrates that forcings, natural or anthropogenic, can change climate.

    The AGW hypothesis has, so far, failed all predictions that have been made based upon it.
    Simply nonsense, predictions include stratospheric cooling, higher atmospheric water vapor content, sea level rise, surface temperature increases and polar amplification all have been observed and measured.

    Even the many hypotheses for why the “pause” happened have yet to receive serious research and have yet to be incorporated into climate models in order to do a sanity check with past observation.

    We know why the pause happened, El Nino and La Nina events a few years apart, the pause that’s now ended is not unprecedented, similar hiatuses in the surface temperature rise have occurred over the last century, they also can be explained by El Nino and La Nina events.

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “If government action to force curtailment were to be necessary I remain open to other methods.”

    From here on Edward shows his true motivations for his “skepticism over AGW, for Edward it is impossible to understand that someone can have an opinion on AGW without that opinion being based on ideology, he’s forced to project his own motivations onto others, anyone with an opinion that he disagrees with on this scientific issue in his mind must be political, and on that bases I called BS on any claims Edward might make to having an objective science based opinion on AGW.

    your question suggests otherwise. The implication is:

    Simply nonsense, it was a straight forward question, I’ve explained to Bob why I asked it.

    since you asked about a particular party’s position, not a position in general or the position of every party.

    Here Edward goes from nonsense to lunacy, could it possibly be that I asked about Johnson’s advocacy of a tax (he actually called it a fee) rather than every parties position BECAUSE THAT WAS THE TOPIC OF THE POST not every parties position??

    You have also mentioned that there are potential adverse consequences to some people who live in coastal regions.
    What form of derangement comes after lunacy? Paranoid hallucinations? I have not mentioned people living in coastal regions and SLR as a threat – not the slightest reference, Edward appears to be demonstrating a belief that he has psychic abilities. My position on SLR is that on human time scales it’s too slow to be a concern.

    It certainly seems to me that you believe in the taxation method, because you do not seem to know of any other methods.

    Here Edward demonstrates a belief that all discussion centers around his rambling comments, could it be Edward that my not replying to your every comment is because you rarely make points worth addressing? Other methods could be subsidies on low carbon emitting energy and industries, subsidies on investment in such, blanket bans on coal and oil extraction, tree planting schemes to increase carbon sequestration.

    It truly seems that you believe that AGW is happening, that it is a problem, and that it must be stopped before coastal regions become uninhabitable. If you have different beliefs, thoughts, or attitudes on this topic, you have not presented them clearly.

    I think the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly that it is happening, for every one of the last five decades surface temperatures have been warmer than the decade before, for 9 of the last 11 decades surface temperatures have been warmer than the decade before. There have been no serious natural explanations for this trend, despite there being a huge amount of effort put in to find any explanation other that the blindingly obvious one of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

    You say I haven’t presented my case clearly, I say because I haven’t followed the narrative you believe in that everyone who accepts the likelihood that AGW is happening must, must, be a lefty with a political agenda, you’re incapable of even comprehending that for some people AGW is not all about politics.

  • Andrew_W

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Edward is insisting that AGW is not a theory because it cannot predict the occurrence of events like El Nino’s & La Nina’s in advance,”

    This goes beyond mischaracterization and into the outright lie.

    I was exceedingly clear as to why AGW is not a theory:

    I wrote: “I use the word hypothesis because a scientific theory requires that the hypothesis meets observation. The AGW hypothesis has not passed this requirement, yet. To call AGW a theory is to deny the scientific method and science itself.”

    and I wrote: “the predictions of AGW have failed, thus meeting [Feynmann’s] definition of wrong”

    I think it a perfectly correct representation of your claims, which have been based on the variability of the rate of temperature rise, is there some other area in which you are arguing that reality has not followed AGW expectations?

    You wrote: “the hiatus in warming occurred as a result of a strong El Nino in 1998 and a series of La Nina’s a few years later.”

    The El Nino hypothesis is but one of many unproved hypotheses:
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html

    Earlier you took me to task because some “skeptics” have made claims that are clearly rubbish, you will understand my not being impressed with your hockeyschtick link.

    Andrew_W, you really have to stop using speculation as fact. This “belief system” that you have makes you look like you just do not care about facts or truth, and the way you bandy it about makes it look like you don’t care about being wrong most of the time.

    Also, please stop mischaracterizing or lying about other people’s positions or statements. This makes you look desperate to distract from where you have been shown to be wrong.

    I think I’m the one sticking to facts and you’re the one lying and mischaracterising my position.

    The problem with the AGW hypothesis, as you seem to be stating the hypothesis (independent of all other factors and influences other than human generated CO2), is that there is no indication as to just how much human activity influences global temperatures.
    Untrue.

    This hypothesis is strictly based upon the assumption that the level of CO2 drives global temperatures — otherwise CO2 isn’t something to worry about — and that human activity drives the level of CO2 is driven by human activity — otherwise human activity isn’t something to worry about.
    Replace “assumption” with “evidence” and you’re getting close.

    If AGW completely ignores all other external influences, then why all the fuss about AGW? Without considering external influences, AGW cannot be shown to be an important consideration in global temperature, so it cannot be shown to be something to worry about.
    Circular reasoning.

    You wrote: “scientists are working hard to account for all the possible forcings and feedbacks they and others have thought of, all those factors are included in modeling and trying to understand the real world”

    This is also not true.
    You’re absolutely wrong, aerosols, solar, clouds, ocean circulation and anything else that might affect climate are all being studied.
    The models have not been updated, and the outputs of these same failed models are still being used to argue for new governing policy.
    What nonsense, climate models are being continually improved.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.V8jaumCKSUk

    You wrote: “unfortunately a model can never be perfect, the skeptic argument amounts to “if its not perfect isn’t inaccurate and therefore useless” so dismissing all of the effort no matter how much progress is made.”

    Models can never be perfect? Tell that to the engineers who design the airplanes you fly in, the engineers who plan the trajectories of the spacecraft that go to other planets, and the physicists who predict the effects of quantum mechanics.
    Real world models can never be perfect, and that does include those for designing aircraft, trajectories of spacecraft and quantum mechanics, the only model that could be argued perfect would be an exact digital copy.


    The models aren’t useless because they are merely less than perfect; they are useless because they do not work. We do not expect perfection from all models, but we do expect them to make predictions that are good enough to use to make reliable designs, plans, or policies.

    I’ve outlined predictions made with regard to environmental changes, these changes have been observed, but you’ll carry on believing what you want to believe.

    You wrote: “Umm, are they supposed to insert unpredictable weather events into forecasts years in advance?”

    Actually, El Nino and La Nina are better understood than you seem to give credit for. We know that they are cyclical, not random, and we have a basic understanding of their period. We do not yet understand what drives their intensity and why their periods can seem to be off by a year or so.
    Is there no end to your nonsense? Where is the period between El Nino events in this graph? The gaps between El Nino’s of at least moderate strength are (in years): 8, 7, 10, 4, 1, 4, 6, 5, 7, 6 the best you could claim is that they usually happen at between 4 and 8 year intervals, that’s of no use at all for predicting them, I may as well claim it’ll rain for a few days around here next month. I’m going to be right
    http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.V8jaumCKSUk

    You wrote: “but then skeptics would claim (and you know this is true) that the whole thing was a fraud because the scientists had just picked out the run the best fit what actually happened, ignoring the actual point of the whole exercise.”

    Don’t try telling me what I know, because you obviously have no idea what I know, what skeptics know, or what scientists and engineers know. You may believe that I “know” it, but your belief system is, once again, wrong.

    Firstly that wasn’t addressed to you, secondly you’ve already demonstrated that you think you know my thoughts and failed in your mind reading voodoo.

    The point of an exercise of using past data to test a model is for a sanity check. If it cannot predict the past, it is unlikely to accurately predict the future. If it passes the sanity check, then it is worth testing it against future — as yet collected/observed — data. To say that it was a fraud before testing it with future data would be the actual fraud. (But then, you believe in Mann and the CRU scientists, who have actually perpetrated frauds on us, so you seem to think that because your guys are frauds, everyone else must be, too.)
    Bloody hell, you’ve just demonstrated that you’ve misinterpreted the point of such an exercise and why, as I said, it wouldn’t be worth doing.

    I have been a test engineer. You seem to be trying to paint me an inaccurate picture of what test and verification are. You may believe your picture, but if we did what you think we do, then airplanes would fall out of the sky, and most of America’s infrastructure would fall apart soon after completion (if not during construction).

    More nonsense, nothing I’ve suggested has any bearing on the engineering of vehicles and infrastructure
    You wrote: “but if you’ve any regard for the scientific process your default position, in the absence of solid evidence of other more complex influences, should be that increased GH gas concentrations is most likely lead to the amount of warming the simple physics predicts.”

    Of course this should absolutely not be the default position. Such a default position is exactly NOT what the scientific process means. Despite the Feynmann video of this post, you are completely ignorant of the scientific process. You say that we should claim that an unproved hypothesis is fact, but Feynmann was clear that it is only after proving the hypothesis that we can use it as the default position. Before that, it is only a guess.

    More lies, I have not suggested that AGW is “fact” I claim that the weight of evidence supports that as an explanation of observed warming over an other theories offered.

    Watch the video again. Pay attention to the flying saucer example and think of AGW as the flying saucer. We don’t have to prove the negative, but we already know that the Earth warms and cools without our help. We know that it has done so for millions of years before we Humans came along.

    When the Earth has warmed or cooled scientists look for explanations, and they’ve been pretty good at finding explanations that fit with the observations, they don’t do what you insist they should do which is to say “we can’t prove the cause of climate change past or present so we can’t put any confidence in the conclusions we reach based on the evidence we have”.

    We now see that AGW can only be shown to be true if we take into account all the factors that have overwhelmed AGW during these past couple of decades.

    Correct.

    In its current form, it has failed to be useful in predicting the Earth’s future temperature, and *that* is why it is useless.

    Untrue, as you said, you take into account the factors that have modified its effects, which is what those scientists, who know their job better than you know their job actually do. (and it’s what engineers do as well, though apparently not you).

    It does not matter how much time and effort has been put into them, it is because they wildly do not match observation that is the reason that the AGW models and the Hockey Stick graph are wrong.

    How can we get you to understand that one, basic, key principle of science?

    They do match observation better than other scientific explanations, you’re the one relying on unscientific (supernatural?) explanations to avoid explaining observation.

  • Andrew_W

    Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. I’ve no idea what hypotheses are supposed to be competing with AGW to explain the twentieth century warming that’s been observed, perhaps there aren’t any (apart from the global conspiracy of climate scientists theory that seems to be the “skeptic” favorite at the moment).

    Apart from that alternative we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel to avoid “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.

  • wayne

    (the Friday Interlude…)

    Top 5 “Climate Change” Myths
    (Louder with Crowder)
    https://youtu.be/QwviDPo4Rh4

  • Andrew_W

    According to Crowder I’m a “denier” (and I’ve had than from alarmists when arguing against claims of CAGW certainty on other sites), Edward clearly thinks I’m an alarmist, like I said, it’s a minefield out there – especially when you’re disinclined to stick to the acceptable narratives.

  • wayne

    LevinTV: The Climate Change Scheme
    https://youtu.be/3YP9ZdSsUg8

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”
    And you wrote: “Apart from that alternative we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel to avoid ‘when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’.”

    The first is Occam ’s razor, and the second is Holmes’s famous aphorism. That you believe that these aphorisms apply explains much of your refusal to believe in the key to science, as Feynmann explains it.

    Science is not always simple. You may have done the first part of this experiment in a basic college science class, but the latter part gets more complex, with strange and unexpected results (the first minute is the point, the rest is the demonstration of the point – notice, starting at 33 minute mark, that nature seems to care whether or not we are making measurements):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mIk3wBJDgE (1 hour)

    That you find on the web some argument to use, this does not mean that it is a good argument to use. It only shows that you do not know enough about the topic to argue it. Climates are not simple systems; otherwise we would be able to accurately predict weather for weeks and months in advance. Occam ’s razor does not apply. There is not one cause of Earth’s temperature changes. Holmes’s aphorism does not apply. To apply them is to ignore the many other factors that contribute to this complex process.

    El Nino and La Nina are poor arguments for explaining the pause. There were ten El Nino events for the 3 decades that temperatures increased, five for the two decades of the pause, and ten for the four decades that temperatures decreased, from the 1930s to the 1970s. There were similar, though lower, numbers for La Ninas during the same time periods. El Nino and La Nina are short term events and are unlikely to have major effects that drive long term temperature trends.

    You gave a list of observed phenomena and claimed that they prove AGW. You missed the fact that other hypotheses also predict the same phenomena, thus by your (il)logic, all those hypotheses have also been proved true. And if all those hypotheses are also responsible for those phenomena, then AGW is not as responsible as you think, thus it is not as proved as you think. This is not a case of “iff AGW then stratospheric cooling, higher atmospheric water vapor content, sea level rise, surface temperature increases and polar amplification.” It is a case of “if A or B, or C, or … or a combination thereof then” all those phenomena.

    Just because clouds complicate things does not mean that they can be ignored. But you don’t want complication, because it does not allow you to assume that AGW is happening. You want to see increasing temperatures while CO2 levels increase, and you don’t care which came first or which may have caused what.

    The simplest hypothesis, the one with the fewest assumptions, would be change in solar activity, but that would completely negate AGW as being too complex to select. AGW depends upon an unknown interaction between two greenhouse gasses (is the factor 3 or is it less?) and other complicating factors. Change in solar activity requires no assumptions and is direct, simple, and immediate. Do not insist that the simplest explanation is the one to select, as AGW would stop being a consideration, along with a large number of other hypotheses.

    You have suggested that I think you are an alarmist in order to create yet another straw man to knock down. Instead, stop mischaracterizing my position and do better to explain your own. Quit mischaracterizing my statements in order to make straw men. I see through your deceit.

    We know that AGW is not now driving Earth’s temperatures; otherwise it is a complete failure and never applies. We know that AGW did not drive Earth’s temperatures during the 20th century cooling period, because there was global cooling, not warming.

    To show that AGW is happening, other factors must also be shown to be happening to explain not only the “pause” but the 20th century decline in temperatures. Otherwise, the AGW hypothesis must be considered just as false as all other unproved hypotheses. In the absence of other theories, we cannot assume that AGW is happening just because you want it to be happening; we should not assume it to be true, as you want us to do. Right now, AGW is looking more like Piltdown Man than Lucy.

    You cannot say simply “it gets warmer” as proof that AGW is real, you have to quantify how much warmer it gets for a given amount of human activity. If AGW cannot be quantified, then it is not adequately understood to be of any use; we can’t make educated decisions based upon “it gets warmer.” If I light a candle, it is obvious that the air gets warmer, but it is also obvious that it does not drive global temperatures.

    For me, AGW is about science, not about belief or political gain. We need to show whether it has a positive effect on temperature, as indicated in the late 20th century, a zero effect, as indicated in the early 21st century, or a negative effect, as indicated in the mid 20th century. That is science, not politics and not blind belief.

    Finally, I did not appreciate you lying the first time, by stating that I said something I didn’t say. You may casually not mean what you say, but I try hard to mean what I say and say what I mean. That you willfully change my meaning is not acceptable. That you repeated it a second time is absolutely not acceptable. I use the word hypothesis for EXACTLY the reason that I said, no more and no less. El Nino and La Nina have nothing to do with it. I never mentioned El Nino and La Nina as being required to be predicted by AGW; AGW is supposed to predict a certain amount of global warming due to a specific amount of human activity, not minor, localized, short-term, cyclical phenomena. Do not project your ignorant logic onto me. That you are unable to grasp logic, science, Occam’s razor, and Holmes’s logic is your problem. Not mine. Do not be dishonest in trying to get your way.

  • marge strach

    Money, moola, greenbacks = how can we in the scientific community get gov grants, free tax payer dollars to fund our research = tell the politicians what they want to hear= shake down of tax paying citizens with less income to live on = telling them what heroes they are for saving our planet earth….

    Don’t have to believe me, ask the British tax paying public what happened when they raised taxes for three years in a row “TO SAVE OUR PLANET” only to find a underwater community where the carbon
    levels were high, only problem is that community was about 10,000 years old!!!
    So yeah, I’m not believing global warming, because I grew up with the threats of global cooling, we were going to FREEZE TO DEATH, EARTH POPULATION WAS GOING TO DESTROY THE PLANET, yea I have
    had the wonderful experience of growing up with this crap for almost 60 years! Real scientists are having a difficult time because of fakers for a quick buck politicians poking their noses in where they don’t belong……are you listening to me President Obama???? The EPA Obama is running lied to folks in Chicago about LEAD POISONING LEVELS where they knew for about 8 years now that a lead battery plant torn down, rebuilt public housing and other homes NEVER TOLD THE FOLKS LIVING THERE EPA
    had testing the ground the lead levels are not safe for anyone to live there. Crickets…..no one in the media is covering that story…..wonder why??????? Yet Obama is going to lecture the rest of US on protecting the planet? GIVE ME A BREAK ! HYPOCRITE…….sorry some days I just can’t take these clowns.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    This is what happens when people are told things that have not been found to be true, only to be told the opposite when conditions change. When global cooling and the next ice age are announced, then a couple of decades later global warming is announced, only to be called climate change when the warming “pauses,” results in skepticism based upon emotion and frustration, not skepticism based upon the key to science.

    marge strach’s frustration is well founded, because nobody knows what to believe, anymore (well, you think you know). Even the climate scientists have come under great doubt. First it was global cooling and the coming ice age (due any millennium), then it was global warming, then it was the “pause,” and now historical data is being modified to show that there never was any cooling and that the “pause” is actually a warming period.

    Since the politicians claim to be the solution, each time, it all looks like a political game rather than a scientific endeavor.

    The solution is to be honest about what is not known and to not make guesses during all this confusion. As Gene Kranz said during the Apollo 13 crisis, “Let’s not make things worse by guessing.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHB7hU_r8mc (1 minute)

  • Marge: Your comments here are very welcome. Keep it up. However, I must point out that you will probably be more convincing if you don’t CAPITALIZE too many words. As Teddy Roosevelt said, “Better to speak softly and carry a big stick.” Words in CAPS on the web make it seem like you are shouting at people, which turns them off, even if they agree with you.

    If you want to place emphasis on a word, enclose it in the “i” tag shown just above the comment box where you are typing. You select the word or words you wish to become italic, and then click on the “i”. Formatting tags will be placed before and after the word to change it to italics. This is much more effective than CAPS and will make your comments more readable.

  • wayne

    Marge– I find myself agreeing with your comments quite a bit, but yeah….lay off the CAPS if you can.
    :)

    Mr. Z– I know exactly what you are talking about, but –all I see is “Comment” and a white box for text—there are no controls for ‘italicize,’ ‘bold,’ etc.
    (I’ll email you a screen capture.)

  • Got the screen capture, and as I emailed you, I did not realize that my readers do not see the same things as I.

    Unfortunately, I cannot type out the html tags here as they will not appear in the text but will be translated by the webpage. However, below is a screen capture to show you what you would type before and after any words you wish to make italic, bold, or place in an indented, italicized quoted area.

    html tags

  • wayne

    Thanks Mr. Z.
    let me test the quote html—

    Test quote tags

    I assume, when you log into your own website, you have options as the Adm., not available to the outside facing world.

    (Recall a month ago, or so, Edward & I were trying to insert YouTube video-players into our comments & they wouldn’t “stick” as it were, at upload.

    ( I have a webpage with GoDaddy & use their website-builder widget, and there’s about 1/2 a dozen page-features that only I can see when changing stuff around, I have to be careful & utilize their “preview page as published” feature, or things get weird real fast.)

    No matter– as I mentioned, it’s probably better we can’t manipulate the text too much, one lousy misplaced back-slash & the whole Adventure falls to pieces.
    :)

    I would add tangentially– greatly appreciate the crisp & clean layout of BtB. It loads fast and has never crashed my browser.
    In fact, I’d donate money… to keep it this way!

    Some other science sites I visit (less and less now…) are cluttered to death with adverts & “long running scripts,” that DO crash my browser, and take a noticeable lag-time to fully load. (Drives me nuts!)
    (Just because one is able to clutter up their web-site, doesn’t mean they should! Not everyone has super-duper 4G wireless or fiber-optic connections to the ‘net.) ((I had 56K dial-up for 15 years, finally had to bail on that when the monthly Window’s-updates started getting to be 100’s of MB’s per month, and it took me hours to update.))

    Total tangent– for anyone putting their own site together, or if you pay someone else–
    http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
    Great stuff on simple design & technical tidbits, from the perspective of a visitor to a webpage.
    (My favorite, from a few years ago, a landing page that was 700+ MB’s in size. It had every bell-n-whistle you could imagine, just no actual visitors who would wait 1/2 an hour for it to render!)

  • Andrew_W

    Using italics
    Using italics
    Using bold

    Using
    indented italicized quote

  • wayne

    Andrew_W;

    Ok, now I’m intrigued. And, see immediately that I committed an operator-error.
    (I know just enough about HTML, to be dangerous.)

    Has anyone been getting that “ID storefront” reCaptcha? I swear, they are all in Spanish, what’s that all about! HA)

  • wayne

    Andrew_W–
    ….Let the global-warming denying, recommence!

  • Wayne wrote, “I would add tangentially– greatly appreciate the crisp & clean layout of BtB. It loads fast and has never crashed my browser. In fact, I’d donate money… to keep it this way!”

    Does this mean if I threaten to make BtB more cluttered you will send me more money to stop me? :)

    As anyone thinking of making a webpage, I would also suggest you consider using Shane Rollin at amixa, who redesigned my page for me. Not only did he do an excellent job, he offers a 15% discount for BtB readers.

    Even so, you need to know what you want if you want to make a webpage. Shane built my site based on my ideas, which were always centered on making the page load fast and be easy to read.

  • Interesting. Andrew_W’s attempts at italics and bold worked above, but his indented italicized quote did not. Nor did Wayne’s first attempt, but his second did. I’d be curious what the differences were. You’d need to email me the exact text, as the tags will not show on the website in the comments. I have also written Shane at Amixa for clarification.

  • wayne

    Mr. Z–
    This is intriguing! I’ll drop you a quick note.
    Nope!– no cluttering-of-the-website allowed, until at least next July, ok!

  • Andrew_W


    Andrew_W–
    ….Let the global-warming denying, recommence!

    Not a lot of point in it, Edward is just repeating what he’s already said, my position is simple:

    1. There are gases in Earth’s atmosphere commonly called greenhouse gases these gases create the greenhouse effect.
    2. If these gases increase in concentration the GH effect becomes more pronounced (on a logarithmic scale) which would logically lead to higher temperatures at Earths surface.
    3. Mankind through our production of GH gases has increased the concentration of the GH gas CO2 by 50% over the last 150 years.
    4. The main GH gas in Earths atmosphere is water vapor, the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can support increases with increasing temperature, there is a feedback in which increasing CO2 concentrations lead to warmer temperature which enables more water vapor to be supported in the atmosphere.

    Svante Arrhenius was the first to calculate climate sensitivity (over a hundred years ago), his conclusions are in line with current calculations.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

    I’m pretty should Arrhenius wasn’t motivated by a political agenda.
    As I’ve pointed out, Occam’s razor advocates that the simplest explanation should be considered the most likely, and I think Edward is looking for excuses because Edward is more a political creature than a scientific creature, Humans are foremost and instinctively rationalizing, rather than rational creatures, evolution has made us that way.

    – – – –

    Used Bob’s HTML quote tag character for character. The letter “i” works fine instead of “em” for italics.

  • Andrew_W

    blockquote

  • Andrew_W

    Well that seems to work.

    using the word blockquote between the cute little with the endquote /

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:

    I’m a denier, and I admit it! Any bizzaro cult that would attempt to invoke the Holocaust theme and overlay it onto my leeryness of the Central Planner’s Dystopian fantasies about controlling the Earth’s atmosphere, I’ll gladly adopt their own language and render it useless.

    I’m sorta sick of this topic & have intentionally not engaged to any great depth. Edward has hauled a lot of water & for that I will commend him & haul a few ounces myself, but I in no way, really, want to argue this. ( I am sick of it, no offense. There’s just no changing my mind, today, with the available facts, and certainly never with the made-up ones. If that makes me a “bad person,” so be it.)

    -to your points, in part and truthfully with not a whole of revision, polishing, or high-quality labor on my part;
    1) The atmosphere is composed of gases. [Leave it at that, “greenhouse” is a characterization. If we are going to persecute Carbon, we are going to spell out upfront exactly what percentage of the atmosphere is carbon-dioxide. And we are going to talk about carbon-dioxide and not elemental Carbon and we are going to explicitly state (and remind everyone) that carbon-dioxide is plant-food. Frank Luntz and those who practice persusian, would call that “framing.”

    2) If these gases increase in concentration.. the GH effect becomes… [we are already into speculation by refrring back to point #1 and the word “greenhouse.” ] more pronoundced…and would logically lead to higher temperatures on Earth. [ ok, so what do we know about the temperature of the Earth in the past, has it varied, you betcha…]

    3) Mankind through the production of GH gases.. [ again, if we are persecuting carbon, say it. which gas, carbon-dioxide. specific gases have morphed into nebulous amorphous “GH gases.” You are setting up an obtuse circular reasoning path.]

    4) the main GH gas in the Earth’s atmosphere is water vapor [ah, heres the rub ] the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can support increases with increasing temperature, there is a feedback in which increasing CO2 concentrations lead to warmer temperature which enables more water vapor to be supported in the atmosphere.

    Looks like were all dead, why bother extracting aditional tax money out of me? For what reason is the answer always & forever, “more State intrusion?”

    If the facts don’t fit the Model, they change the facts & the Model’s, over-and-over-and-over, again, and again. There’s a feedback loop going on, but its between those who want my money & those who have the power to take it from me by force or degrade my standard of living.

    “They” lie. Some are very-skilled liars (with devious agenda’s,) but liars nonetheless, (with agenda’s that do not include my well being or the well-being of our Country or our representative republican form of government or Capitalstic economic system.)

    My obligatory obscure Star Trek reference–“Their words mean nothing to me, and I do not hear them.”

    — I absolutely grant– various gases in the atmosphere, vary in their concentration, across geography and Time; short, medium, and long-term. I am highly leery as to the extent mankind can alter that to a sufficient & nescessary degree, I am absolutely leery of the people & insitutions that push it.

    Our climate is a dynamic piece of emergent order. We know very little when you get right down to it, but “they” know everything, and it’s always and forever, “for our own good.”

    Mastermind’s & Tyrants, all. And they all have Diagnostic Codes to match their behavior.

    I’ve had my fill of the enviro-marxist, no-growth, eco-nuts of the World. Green is the new Red, and has been for some time.
    They endlessly invent new crisi to scaremonger people into submission. If we refuse, they utilize the power of the State to force us, when we don’t shut up about it, they slander us with insults and attempt to deprive us of our rights to object.

    The only realm, in which I desire to go back to 1900, is the realm where SCOTUS had not yet interpreted the Constitution into a pretzel with “commerce-clause” and “health and safety” fictions.

    Gary Johnson, lost his mind over “carbon,” and a number of other issues. He needs his medications adjusted.
    Anyone whose first inclination is to utilize the State, is someone to be shunned and not celebrated.

    People who propose to limit my Freedom, have a very high bar to meet.

    Now, I’m absolutely, officially, sick of anything to do with Statism & Climate.

    Richard Feynman about doubt and uncertainty
    https://youtu.be/Hdr6yCnqT8E

  • Andrew_W

    Thanks for an honest comment.

  • Andrew_W

    Looking for quotes from Feynman I came across this:

    Feynmen:

    “Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools-guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus-THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”

    Feynmen:

    “So my antagonist said, “Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?” But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.”

    The blogger coments:
    Climate was less of an important topic when Feynman was alive but UFOs were. The point of this quote is clear – Feynman was a true skeptic. The fake skeptic denialists are certain they have shown anthropogenic climate change is impossible.

    Feynmen:

    “A philosopher once said, “It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same results.” Well, they don’t!”

    Feynmen:

    “Of course, I am interested, but I would not dare to talk about them. In talking about the impact of ideas in one field on ideas in another field, one is always apt to make a fool of oneself. In these days of specialization there are too few people who have such a deep understanding of two departments of our knowledge that they do not make fools of themselves in one or the other.”

    In other words, unless you are truly expert, don’t act as if you were.
    Thinking of Edward there.

    http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/a-richard-feynman-primer-for-deniers.html

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:

    I am sick of this topic, but I can’t resist another dive in the pool. (& I don’t celebrate “labor” holidays, as if this was the soviet-union. It’s all imported European Statist ideology and inherently foreign to the American way. But that’s a topic for a different thread.)

    Not going to speak for Edward, other than to say,
    — “I don’t have any problems with huge (huge) amounts of what he has said in this thread & others relating to changes in the climate.
    — I agree with him in large measure, and what’s more, I trust him with the keys to the car.

    I’m not a “scientist,” in the common usage sense (and if I was, I might not brag about it) but I am on the Behavioral end of the social-science spectrum, where the greatest sin I could commit would be to appeal to internal unmeasurable mental-states as primary causes of behavior. (That gets us nowhere.)
    Concurrently, I’m not so rigid as to reject other schools of psychological thought, if they can be demonstrated to produce results. (I’m not an experimentalist either, the stuff I do is proven to produce results, but I do thoroughly enjoy the theoretical aspects of it all. I just don’t have the luxury of endlessly speculating; “lead, follow, or get out of the way,” is more my speed, in that realm.)

    I fully grant that changes in atmospheric constituents, have effects.
    – The leap straight to carbon-taxes and other Statist controls on the people, to “fix” a “problem” that has not been adequately documented or well defined, makes me highly leery and suspicious of those proponents.
    And if I take their other Agenda’s into account, the whole enterprise of “climate science” falls to pieces.
    I prefer the term Statist, but for common usage, “These ‘climate people’ are Fascist Totalitarians at heart.” The phrases, “fellow-travelers & useful idiots,” also comes to mind.

    If they told me the sky was blue, I would wonder what sort of scam they were running on me. They are that discredited in my eyes.
    (There is also a huge difference between “science” and “policy.”)
    As Garry has opined, it would be a shame if all this speculation were to be “true,” because the climate-people have behaved atrociously & burned through any goodwill I might have ascribed to them in the past. Chicken-Littlism run rampant— don’t be surprised if ordinary citizens don’t trust these Mastermind’s. They have done it to themselves and have only themselves to blame.
    “Ideas so great & “scientific,” they have to be imposed on innocent people, by the barrel of a gun.” Count me out. Count me in, on opposing these people.

    I’m to the point where the endless lies and distortions coming from the “climate crowd,” makes me instinctively oppose them. It’s a cybernetic-dance, and I will always oppose them.

    Tangentially– if you want to talk Feynman and quantum-mechanics, lets rock, but I am sick of this ‘climate’ topic.

    An appeal to Authority….. (I’m well aware of logical-fallacies, I commit them— do the climate-people admit, they do as well? No, they don’t.)

    Nobel Laureate in Physics;
    “Global Warming is Pseudoscience” (2008)
    https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM

    Ivar Giaever: Global Warming Revisited (2015)
    https://youtu.be/Dk60CUkf3Kw

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “As I’ve pointed out, Occam’s razor advocates that the simplest explanation should be considered the most likely, and I think Edward is looking for excuses because Edward is more a political creature than a scientific creature”

    Actually, Andrew, you are the one who said he is using belief, not science, as the reason to stick with AGW, and I have pointed out the scientific difficulties with the AGW position. What you use for evidence of AGW has demonstrated in the mid 20th century the opposite of your position – anti-correlation to human activity — and it currently demonstrates that there is no correlation at all between human activity and global warming. Which of us is being political and which is the scientific creature?

    Yeah, that’s the answer I expected. I didn’t expect you to use logic to overcome your belief system.

    You do not understand the use of Occam’s razor, thinking that it trumps the scientific method. You do not understand Sherlock Holmes’s aphorism, for you must assume that all other hypotheses (apparently even your own El Nino hypothesis) have already been shown to be impossible. Occam’s razor has its uses, but circumventing science is not one of them.

    You have yet to refute the lack of assumptions involved with the solar variation hypothesis vs. the several assumptions for AGW. We already know that the Maunder Minimum correlated with the LIA, which ended before man was putting more than candle-amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. AGW assumes that human activity overwhelms nature, except for present temperatures and mid 20th century temperatures); that CO2 drives temperature, rather than the observed opposite; and that increased CO2 causes some assumed amount of increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Zero assumptions for solar activity as cause, four assumptions for AGW.

    Do you still insist upon using Occam’s razor, because I do not, even though it would prove wayne’s belief over yours.

    I would rather that we stop fudging the historical data, because we need it in order to find out what the reality is. If we mess up the data, then we lose 150 years of research, setting us back a century or so in learning the truth and being able to accurately predict the next glacial period of the ice age.

    You wrote: “Svante Arrhenius was the first to calculate climate sensitivity (over a hundred years ago), his conclusions are in line with current calculations.”

    So, which is it? Have the models been updated, or is Arrhenius correct? You are trying to have it both ways.

    You wrote: “Looking for quotes from Feynman I came across this:”

    So you come up with quotes that prove my point and disprove yours?

    You wrote: “In other words, unless you are truly expert, don’t act as if you were. Thinking of Edward there.”

    Once again, you are the one playing at expert of the scientific method. I have used it in my work all my life and know it much better than you do; you look for your expertise on the internet, then act as though you know something about the topic that you only understand through a belief, one that you are sticking to despite what the science may show turns out to be the truth.

    AGW has yet to be demonstrated, and once the amount of its contribution is known then it can be successfully incorporated into climate models along with all the other factors that influence climate, but right now it is a vague concept without known contributions – even your best description of it is that man puts CO2 in the air and the temperature goes up, but you cannot specify how much rise for a given amount of CO2, because the evidence has been inconsistent, over the decades.

    We know that there are other factors involved, because climates are known to have changed for millions of years before man came along. To ignore these other factors and blindly believe in AGW is not being scientific.

    Wayne wrote: “They are that discredited in my eyes.”

    They seem to be discredited in marge strach ‘s eyes, too.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    “Edward is just repeating what he’s already said”

    Andrew, you have a very good point. You aren’t learning anything from all the instruction that people here have been presenting to you. If I were a professor, I fear that I would have to give you a failing grade and doubt your ability or willingness to learn.

    There really isn’t a lot else that can be said for the practice of science. Either you accept the key to it, as Feynmann explained it, or you reject that science is an objective way to understand the world and universe around us. The concepts of science are not as complex as you seem to want to believe that they are.

    Ironically, you favor of a belief and reject the simple explanation of the key to science: “if it disagrees with [nature], it is wrong; in that simple statement is the key to science,” as Feynmann put it. Then you declare that those who practice the scientific method for a profession are political, as though blind belief is scientific, not political.

    Mocking those who do not believe as you do is not scientifically productive.

    Watch the Feynmann lecture that Robert posted, at the top of this page. The climate scientists have guessed that there is a factor of 3 in their AGW equations, and that they have computed the consequences of the guess to see if it is right, and finally it was compared directly to nature to see if it works. Rather than the computed increase in temperature, the observation shows a “pause” in temperature rise. Other time periods showed a decrease in temperature. The guess, or hypothesis, did not work. You like simplicity, Andrew_W, and the process and the conclusion are as simple as that.

    If AGW is true — it has yet to be demonstrated at any level — then there are clearly factors that overwhelm AGW. In order to demonstrate that AGW is happening, these other factors must be understood and taken into account in order to work out the amount of AGW from the “noise” produced by the other factors.

    It is that simple, that basic. If you do not understand that, then you deserve a failing grade.

    For decades, scientists and engineers have been pulling signals (data) out of noise. It can be done, but the rest of the world has made it difficult, in climate science; they need to allow for publication of alternate — non-AGW — hypotheses and their studies, which is not happening easily, right now. AGW advocates change data, suppress publication, insist upon prison or death, or mock anyone not accepting AGW — actions that suppress science, not encourage it.

  • Andrew_W

    What you use for evidence of AGW has demonstrated in the mid 20th century the opposite of your position – anti-correlation to human activity — and it currently demonstrates that there is no correlation at all between human activity and global warming.

    Total fiction, there is a strong correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and twentieth century temperatures, as I’ve pointed out, you are obviously working on the theory that if you say something often enough you can make it true.

    You do not understand the use of Occam’s razor, thinking that it trumps the scientific method.

    No, start with the scientific method, and if you have competing theories the simpler is more likely to be correct, often the simpler method is the one that relies less on people rationalizing, as you do, to create a theory to contradict the more obvious theory.

    You have yet to refute the lack of assumptions involved with the solar variation hypothesis vs. the several assumptions for AGW.

    You are joking? Solar Variation as a theory relies on the huge assumption that the minute variations in solar output can have a far larger effect than the science says that they should. It relies on the Global temperature variations sometimes correlating and sometimes not correlating and it relies on retrocausality, a concept that fits poorly with how science says reality actually works.

    I would rather that we stop fudging the historical data,

    Your hypocrisy is stunning.

    “Svante Arrhenius was the first to calculate climate sensitivity (over a hundred years ago), his conclusions are in line with current calculations.”

    So, which is it? Have the models been updated, or is Arrhenius correct? You are trying to have it both ways.

    Current models are in line with past models, they all show CO2 increasing causing warming in line with that observed, The improvements in models primarily improve the accuracy of the atmosphere – hydrosphere heat transfer, not the amplitude of the increase in the strength of the GH effect.

    You wrote: “In other words, unless you are truly expert, don’t act as if you were. Thinking of Edward there.”

    Once again, you are the one playing at expert of the scientific method. I have used it in my work all my life and know it much better than you do; you look for your expertise on the internet, then act as though you know something about the topic that you only understand through a belief, one that you are sticking to despite what the science may show turns out to be the truth.

    Which is it, are you an engineer or a scientist? I’m a layman with a background in science, I don’t claim knowledge outside my field, that’s what you’re doing, I argue that I trust the experts in the field, you’re the one claiming to be an expert in a science far outside of your field.

    Nothing I’ve argued contradicts the work of the thousands of experts in the field, you on the other hand choose to believe that you’re smarter and more expert than the climate scientists.

    And you know the most laughable part of your pretentiousness? You use blogs as your sources, ignoring any of the science that goes against what you want to believe because anything that disagrees with your preconceptions must be “political”!

    We know that there are other factors involved, because climates are known to have changed for millions of years before man came along. To ignore these other factors and blindly believe in AGW is not being scientific.

    Another area in which your ignorance and arrogance is laughable. Do you really think that climate scientists don’t know that climate has changed over the history of the Earth? Do you really believe that they don’t study those changes and try to understand the causes of those changes and the magnitude? Obviously that’s exactly what you thing, you believe that you’re so clever and special that you can understand these technical areas from your armchair without doing the exhaustive work, the millions of man-hours of technical study that others have done? Yep, that’s exactly what you think.

    Wayne wrote: “They are that discredited in my eyes.”

    They seem to be discredited in marge strach ‘s eyes, too.

    Good grief, you’ve found a couple of experts to support you.

    Either you accept the key to it, as Feynmann explained it, or you reject that science is an objective way to understand the world and universe around us. The concepts of science are not as complex as you seem to want to believe that they are.

    You what? I’m the one pointing out the straightforward nature of the GH effect and the obvious result of increasing GH gas concentrations, you’re the one looking for vague alternative explanations to the observed warming.

    Then you declare that those who practice the scientific method for a profession are political, as though blind belief is scientific, not political.

    This from someone who’s convinced that climate scientists who practice the scientific method for a profession are political, as though blind belief is scientific, not political.

    Mocking those who do not believe as you do is not scientifically productive.
    Your hypocrisy is truly boundless.

    Rather than the computed increase in temperature, the observation shows a “pause” in temperature rise.

    A pause similar to other pauses over the last century, pauses that we periods that started with El Nino’s and finished years later with La Nina’s.

    If AGW is true — it has yet to be demonstrated at any level — then there are clearly factors that overwhelm AGW.
    Sigh, you mean that the warming can be temporarily interrupted by periods starting with El Nino’s and finishing years later with La Nina’s?
    Who would have thought? /sarc.

    AGW advocates change data, suppress publication, insist upon prison or death, or mock anyone not accepting AGW — actions that suppress science, not encourage it.

    AGW Skeptics change data, suppress publication, insist upon prison or death, or mock anyone not accepting their form of “skepticism, they suppress science, not encourage it.

    But you probably don’t know that “skeptics” do those things do you? That’s because you never read further that “skeptic” blogs.

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:

    My name popped up, so I’ll wade in briefly again.

    “Climate BS; idea’s so brilliant, perfect, & correct, they have to be forced upon me with the barrel of a gun.”

    Count me out.

    “If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible . . .
    “The recognition of the insuperable limits to his knowledge ought indeed to teach the student of society a lesson of humility which should guard him against becoming an accomplice in men’s fatal striving to control society — a striving which makes him not only a tyrant over his fellows, but which may well make him the destroyer of a civilization which no brain has designed but which has grown from the free efforts of millions of individuals.”

    Friedrich A. Hayek
    Nobel Price acceptance speech 12-11-74
    “The Pretense of Knowledge”

    “In Our Hands: How to Lose What We Have”
    https://archive.org/details/0837_In_Our_Hands_Part_3_How_To_Lose_What_We_Have_18_47_04_00

  • Andrew_W

    Wayne, I’m talking strictly on the science, no one hare is advocating any impositions on society. Possibly you think that all science that comes out of government financed institutions must be tainted, well Hayek was an academic who spent his life working at the university of Freiburg and the university of Chicago.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    You wrote: “Total fiction”

    You see, because it is not fictitious is why wayne, marge strach, and so many others do not believe AGW is happening. We lived in the days when they were telling us that the next ice age was upon us. We know and understand that NASA, NOAA, and even agencies of other governments are modifying the temperature record, revising the history that we lived, in order for you to claim that what happened was fiction. It is the strength of your belief that prevents you from accepting that Al Gore lied to you.

    I and other skeptics, on the other hand, insist that more research be performed to quantify the amount of AGW that is or is not happening. We insist that any AGW be understood as to how and why it happens, not just a vague statement that it happens. That is what science is all about. Only when we have that amount of understanding can we use the knowledge to predict the future based upon human activity. It is clear that the climate scientists’ value of 3 for the CO2 effect is incorrect, thus AGW is not yet understood — the how and why are not understood.

    I do not understand why you deny the need to know the how and why of it.

    You wrote: “start with the scientific method, and if you have competing theories the simpler is more likely to be correct”

    As I said, you do not understand the use of Occam’s razor. You want to start with Occam’s razor in order to favor AGW and ignore the scientific method, which has yet to be applied to a large number of alternate factors.

    You wrote: “Solar Variation as a theory relies on the huge assumption that the minute variations in solar output can have a far larger effect than the science says that they should”

    No such assumption is necessary. You have yet to investigate solar variation. Once again, you found some blather on the web and thought you could bamboozle the rest of us.

    You wrote: “Your hypocrisy is stunning.”

    You will have to explain what you think is hypocritical. So far, you come off as trying to insult me by projecting your own weaknesses.

    You wrote: “Current models are in line with past models”

    So, you intentionally lied when you said the models are being updated.

    You wrote: “Which is it, are you an engineer or a scientist? I’m a layman with a background in science, I don’t claim knowledge outside my field, that’s what you’re doing”

    I am what I said that I am. Pay attention, sometime, you will learn something. You, on the other hand, are neither engineer nor scientist but presume to know more on the topic than those who are.

    You wrote: “Nothing I’ve argued contradicts the work of the thousands of experts in the field”

    Well, except for that “pause” thing, and quite a few other things that you said, but then, if you couldn’t lie so comfortably, you would have a hard time arguing in favor of AGW.

    You wrote: “And you know the most laughable part of your pretentiousness? You use blogs as your sources, ignoring any of the science that goes against what you want to believe because anything that disagrees with your preconceptions must be ‘political’!”

    I have not called anything political; only you have. Perhaps you have not been reading this site long enough to know that I worked in a solar astrophysics lab, where I built X-Ray telescopes to study the sun, and I worked in a space science lab, where I built instruments for the UARS spacecraft to study the Earth’s atmosphere, including the energy coming in and being given off. I have done various other spacecraft work, too. My entire career was scientific, even as I scientifically tested satellites and space instruments to verify that they perform as they are supposed to.

    You, dear layman, continue to project yourself onto others, because you just do not recognize actual science when you see it. You may want to consider another hobby, because you are failing badly with that science background. Your background in science failed to teach you basic science or even the key to science. It apparently taught you to blindly believe in something that some politician-turned-carny-barker said, just so that he can make a hundred million dollars off of carbon credits. Whatever you learned in your science background impresses me, but not in the way you want.

    You wrote: “Another area in which your ignorance and arrogance is laughable. Do you really think that climate scientists don’t know that climate has changed over the history of the Earth?”

    Of course they know. Now you assume that I am stupid.

    Climate change is my point. Your arguments require that these factors not exist. In order for AGW to be proved true using the evidence you have presented, the other factors either cannot exist or must already be known enough to be accounted for. My entire point is that these must be accounted for, but the East Anglia scientists, the AGU, Nature, and other science organizations work to suppress the studies and research that might reduce the assumed importance of AGW on climate. The East Anglia emails said so, the AGU and Nature both made the announcement. This leaves only lesser respected publications for any other studies to be published in. That you do not know these facts demonstrates your ignorance on the AGW topic. But you do not need knowledge in order to blindly believe, you just need to mock and insult anyone who disagrees with your belief.

    You wrote: “Obviously that’s exactly what you thing [sic], you believe that you’re so clever and special that you can understand these technical areas from your armchair without doing the exhaustive work, the millions of man-hours of technical study that others have done? Yep, that’s exactly what you think.”

    By your own admission, I have done tens of thousands of hours more work than you have. I don’t have to be more clever than you, I’ve been part of the process, before the AGW scientists started to shut down the process.

    You wrote: “Good grief, you’ve found a couple of experts to support you.”

    Well, if that is what you call experts, then the wonder stops as to why you think of yourself as one. You didn’t pay attention to that comment, either, as it pointed out the futility of lying to those who are not expert yet still know enough to know that your point of view is a lie. Until it can be shown how much of an effect it has, AGW is not being taken seriously by the general population, and rightly so. Pay attention to the comments rather than mock them. You may learn something.

    You wrote: “I’m the one pointing out the straightforward nature of the GH effect”

    Observation shows that it is not so straightforward; only if the data is retroactively fudged by the AGW scientists in order to make it appear so, then can it possibly be said that the nature of the GH effect is straightforward. And the fudging of historic data is precisely what is happening. You know that it is being retroactively modified; earlier, you tried to rationalize these modifications.

    You wrote: “This from someone who’s convinced that climate scientists who practice the scientific method for a profession are political, as though blind belief is scientific, not political.”

    I don’t know what anyone has said to make you think this. The only two things that I can think of that come close are 1) politicians are using the AGW arguments in order to gain power over We the People, and 2) governments fund science that concludes AGW is happening but do not fund science that says otherwise. This does not make the scientists political, but it puts pressure on the scientists to emphasize the evidence that pleases their financiers. It is just like the argument that oil companies produce biased science, except in reverse direction.

    You wrote: “Your hypocrisy is truly boundless.”

    Again, you project.

    You wrote: “A pause similar to other pauses over the last century, pauses that we periods that started with El Nino’s and finished years later with La Nina’s.”

    Again, another lie. The current two-decade pause started with a La Nina, but you failed to research this before you blurted it out. As I pointed out, the El Ninos and La Ninas are far shorter than the temperature trends and have little effect on AGW or overall climate change. They last far shorter than the 30-years that climate scientists have deemed the shortest period to consider a climate to have changed. But then, that does not fit your belief system, so you reject it without even looking around the web for evidence to support your biased and incorrect statement.

    You wrote: “you mean that the warming can be temporarily interrupted by periods starting with El Nino’s and finishing years later with La Nina’s?”

    No. That you can’t understand what I mean demonstrates that you do not learn but instead mock. You have to lie in order to make your points and ignore all other factors, such as that El Nino and La Nina are far too small and short lived to greatly affect AGW.

    It really does not become you or your arguments to play stupid. It is obvious to all reading this that you willfully pretend to misunderstand what is said to you. From the way that you write, you are obviously an intelligent person, but you are playing at being an imbecile on the internet, and that just does not help your argument.

    You wrote: “AGW Skeptics change data, suppress publication, insist upon prison or death, or mock anyone not accepting their form of “skepticism, they suppress science, not encourage it.”

    Another lie that is disproved by many postings here on BtB. You, on the other hand, cannot point to a single instance of skeptics publishing fudged data, suppressing publications, or calling for prison or the death penalty for AGW advocates. Skeptics are the ones who insist that scientific methods, not belief systems, be used to study climate, weather, and other related phenomena.

  • Edward

    Andrew_W,
    Here are some of the postings that I am talking about:

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/a-u-s-college-professor-demands-that-skeptics-of-global-warming-be-imprisoned/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/a-new-poll-of-earth-scientists-has-found-that-a-majority-are-skeptical-of-human-caused-global-warming/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/the-global-warming-scientists-at-the-ipcc-struggle-to-explain-the-lack-of-warming/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/the-climate-fraud-at-nasa/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/300-climate-scientists-demand-noaa-explain-its-global-warming-climate-data/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/66-of-all-surface-climate-data-is-adjusted/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/more-data-tampering-at-noaa/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-fraud-in-global-warming-science/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/james-hansens-goddard-institute-of-space-studies-has-once-again-been-caught-changing-its-past-climate-temperature-data-without-explanation/

    http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/more-fraud-in-climate-science/

    This one is not on BtB:
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/170948/progressive-professor-demands-death-penalty-global-daniel-greenfield

  • wayne

    Andrew_W:

    “Dangers of the Martin Act”
    Richard Epstein (9-7-2016)
    http://www.hoover.org/research/libertarian-dangers-martin-act

    “Richard Epstein looks at the uses and abuses of the Martin Act, a New York law that has given activist attorneys general a free pass to persecute their political opponents.”

    Specifically, the Act used by the NY & CA AG’s who recently attempted to persecute Exxon and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, over “global warming conspiracy’s.”

    Edward–good stuff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *