Recent Comments

1. about 7 years ago on Pearls Before Swine

   That brings us neatly on to your insane conspiracy theory about the money. No-one is a sceptic for the money. A US$1.5 trillion business with profits guaranteed by governments, taking it under threat of violence from the people. This is a godsend for governments, NGOs and companies. There’s far more money available for alarmist research, even from the “evil oil corporations”, than for sceptics.

   Sceptics struggle to get funding. They struggle to get published even with the best science, as we know the alarmists have corrupted peer review (we know this both from their leaked emails, and from the fact that sound papers are not published for reasons that are not legitimate reasons for refusing a paper; since you clearly know nothing about science, explaining peer review and why papers are refused is beyond the scope of this forum). They struggle to get academic positions because alarmists generally are in charge of choosing. They get hounded by the press and by disgusting leftie enviro-fascists, including death and rape threats.

   Take, for example, Judith Curry. She was hounded out of the field in the end for normal scientific scepticism and publishing research that is contrary to the model-obsessed CAGW loons’ claims.

   No-one goes sceptical for the money. You are saying money corrupts science – so you are saying that the alarmist side is corrupt.

   Your claim is a conspiracy theory only kept alive by Michael Mann. He is one of the most dishonest “scientists” out there. He’s famous for “proving” temperatures were flat until the 20th century by choosing a false temperature proxy (tree rings) and selecting only those that went up in the C20th. So random data through the same processing gives the same result. Also for using one data set upside-down, even after being told he was doing so. There is literally a book about how other scientists hate him http://tinyurl.com/ycqufjwy

2. about 7 years ago on Pearls Before Swine

   What makes you think you are qualified to comment? You clearly know nothing about science, nothing about the “greenhouse effect” and nothing about the climate debate. Yet you comment on it.

   No, no, no, no, no. First water vapour and CO2 are not pollutants, and they are the main heat-trapping gas (water up to 95%, depending on who you ask). Second the mechanism for trapping heat is nothing like a car’s windows (or a greenhouse) which trap heat mainly through preventing air circulation. Which gases cannot do.

   The debate: it isn’t about whether CO2 traps heat. No prominent CAGW sceptic disputes this. They even agree on the figure of around 1.2 (degrees per doubling – the commonly-used metric). However this figure is not worrying. If that is the only warming then warming will not be hazardous. In order to forecast catastrophe climate alarmists assume strong, positive net feedback to give about 3.3 (range 1.5-4.5). I say assume because there is no good empirical evidence of what this figure is, but recent studies cannot even fix the sign as positive. They suggest that after feedback the figure is anywhere between about 0.3 and 2. Anything below 2 is highly unlikely to cause serious problems.

   The remaining debate is as to the hazard. All sorts of wild claims are made, usually using highly unlikely CO2 predictions and highly speculative “models built on models”. None of them have come to pass so far, despite predictions of 50 million climate refugees by, I think, 2015. There’s been one, his claim was rejected because his island, forecast to disappear, is growing. Strangely enough, the IPCC puts the hazard in quantitative terms at about 0.2-2% world GDP by about 2080. That sounds huge, but given that we expect the world to be at least 400% wealthier by then, and given the harm to the world economy from $1.5T a year going to climate alarmism it’s peanuts.

3. about 7 years ago on Pearls Before Swine

   As will you, your children and your grandchildren, barring massive increase in human longevity.

4. about 7 years ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Oh, and if you want to know the credibility of NASA and the rest of the US climate “establishment”, this makes good reading http://columbia-phd.org/RealClimatologists/Articles/2017/09/21/Follow_The_Money_II/index.html

5. about 7 years ago on Pearls Before Swine

   “Currently, power companies are mostly using the most affordable energy sources. "

   Hahahaha – no they are not. If they were, none would be using wind or solar.

   How is nuclear dirtier than other forms of power generation?

6. about 7 years ago on Pearls Before Swine

   The entire panic is based on models that cannot possibly all be right because they are different, yet are claimed necessarily to be right because they support each other. Which is insane. That is the only way they are supported, because they have never come up with actual forecasts which are correct (see previous paragraph). Currently they disagree significantly with what data we have on at least four lines of evidence (lower-troposphere temperature, upper-troposphere temperature at low latitudes, change in outgoing radiation with temperature, Antarctic warming). If you add in the claimed effects then the models are utterly wrong (more and more powerful hurricanes predicted, no trend,

   Ironically the models do share a core, and this is even more of a problem than knowing that all the models except one must be wrong. That core gets both the physics and maths wrong. It treats all changes as a change in surface forcing – even if they are due to a process high in the atmosphere. That is wrong. Mathematically the core uses partial differentiation on dependent variables, which you just can’t do.

   So models cannot be right, and we know they are not right.

7. about 7 years ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Science by page count. That is a new one even on me, and I’ve been following the debate for nearly 10 years. It’s as easy to write 600 pages on junk science as it is on sound science.

   Science claims supported by linking to a left-wing news site’s report boasting of the page count. In reality we have no idea how much the Earth has even warmed, the data are of such poor quality https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

   How about 900 entire papers that run contrary to those claims?http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/crumbling-consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2016-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.B3XLZqYx.dpbshttp://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.hsUGHSI4.iOa4HMMX.dpbs

   Of course, having used a biased source for a non-peer-reviewed “report” by people whose livelihood, respect and influence depends entirely on the climate panic you can’t really complain about the bias in my source which links to actual scientific papers by people who could more easily get funding and academic positions by joining the panic.

   Government reports don’t make science – data makes science. An hypothesis is tested (usually through a simple model – not so in this case, but the problems with the models are far beyond the scope of this comment) against empirical evidence before it is accepted.

8. about 7 years ago on Pearls Before Swine

   So you noticed they are rich. Did you also notice how many alarmists trying to persuade us that CAGW will cause huge sea-level rise own coastal properties? Al Gore is the most prominent of course, although David Suzuki probably the most hypocritical. I’ll start taking a problem seriously when those telling me it’s a problem act as if it’s a problem.