This is a local one near me at Buderim with a bridge also, great BarBQue area about 15 minute from the pool. Great for a Sunday lunch and a few drinks. Great sub tropical rain forest surroundings, seems to be lusher than ever this year, even though we’ve had less rain.
This 3 1/2 minute video shows Al Gore at his deceptive worst, and easily knocks down the central claim that the warmists make, on CO2. A quick and effective debunking of the main warmist claim. A must see. And share: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&GGWSwindle_CO2Lag
1.
Thanks Jo for what a wonderful job you do. We all owe you a big debt of gratitude both for your continuing repeated demolition of warmist publications, and the entertainment value in it.
2.
The theory of knowledge used by the warmists in concluding in favour of policy action, is so obviously defective that sometimes you can only shake your head in wonder at how or why people think like that. I think “How would I need to reason in order to conclude as they conclude?” And in the final analysis, it repeatedly seems there are only two possiblities: culpbable ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.
Yet many warmists seem in such earnest, it’s hard to believe they are being deliberately dishonest. But on the other hand, what they are assuming blithely oversteps such a huge and obvious abyss of mendacious credulity or blatant error, that it’s hard to believe anyone honestly believing it, for example, their assumption that government has the knowledge, competence and goodness to manage the whole world’s economy and ecology.
I have met very highly educated people who tell me that the science backs the warmists’ assertions. But when you ask them how they know that, they reply that they heard it from a friend of theirs whom they trust as an authority. It only remains to ask, what makes you think the others aren’t using the same methodology that you are?
In fact the warmists belief system is a close parallel to the intellectual methodology of the mediaeval church in so many ways that it’s just not funny.
There’s
– the unfalsifiable belief (both extra hot or extra cold weather, flood or drought, are taken as proof)
– belief in an impending cataclysm
– those who critique it are “denialists”, as if the issue were one of faith
– the time-frame (vague, but near enough to be worried about)
– the idea that man’s moral fault (“consumerism”) is at the root of the problem
– the need to repent
– the need to practise self-denial
– nutty little religious rituals like using curly light globes to save one’s soul
– the promise of a future and virtuous paradise (“sustainability”)
– high priests (climate scientists) reading mysterious signs (computer and statistical models) which the common herd are supposedly incapable of interpreting
– the reverencing of a monopoly corporation (the state) as being all-knowing, omnipotent and morally superior, charged with rectifying man’s error and showing the path to salvation, and
– the methodological belief that authority trumps data, and to cap it all off we have
– the carbon tax – the selling of indulgences!
Yet when challenged to defend their belief system, all I have ever seen is endless repetition of
– assuming what’s in issue
– appeal to absent authority
– ad hominem
– misrepresentation
In short, a veritable catalogue of every kind of logical fallacy.
It’s easy to understand the warmists who are motivated by mere greed. The hard ones to understand are the “useful idiots” – those who have no excuse for not using their critical faculties but remain passionately committed to it as a belief system.
This leads to the question of psychology, why people do this kind of thing.
Temple Grandin, the animal psychologist, talks about the difference between “forebrain” and “mid-brain” phenomena. Forebrain phenomena are logic, reason, critical analysis, and such like. Mid-brain phenomena issue from an earlier part of the brain that we have in common with other mammals. It includes such things as herding instinct, dominance and submission (hierarchy), groupthink (orthodoxy), xenophobia (you’re wrong because you’re “other”).
While Grandin’s distinction may not have any exact equivalence in brain anatomy, nevertheless I think it’s an interesting way of looking at understanding the aspect of the global warming belief system that has no competent answer to rational critique, but only logical fallacies.
I was not aware of the work of Temple Grandin, but what you describe definitely aligns with my experience, and study, in the field of human motivation and response. The only thing I would add, is that humans don’t just have a herding instinct, in terms of friends, family, tribe, and nationality; they also have a strong flocking response to social change. I am always fascinated by the way that a flock of birds can seemingly all change direction at the same time, but the same phenomena occurs with people on the Web, with memes going viral.
This is a good thing, I think. Because what the group will think today, can easily be replaced by what they will think tomorrow. In terms of Weather, the group belief moved from Global Cooling, to Global Warming, to Climate Change (which has stuck), to Climate Disruption (which did not stick), to … what next?
The climate activist visitors we get today, seem much more desperate than those we got previously, and I believe that is because they realise that they have lost control. People are generally still concerned about the concept of climate change, but are slowly realising that it has actually stopped.
People are also realising that the “concern for the environment” meme, has subtly changed from one that everybody talked about, to one that is being actively pushed by a much smaller group. Once a critical mass of people understand that they have been, and are still being, manipulated, the whole thing will collapse.
I think we can ignore ‘climate change’ and ‘climate disruption’ as deliberate catch-all phrases that are designed to be cleverly manipulated into any weather/climate event that grabs the headlines. It’s a fall-back position that shows they’re retreating. These are maxims that are designed to replace the warming mantra now under attack and slowly collapsing.
‘Global Warming’ is the proposition that they hung their flag on, so they can bloody well live with it and provide convincing evidence for it.
Justin
Great post. You’ve just about covered it all re the CC religion. The ‘selling of indulgences’, high priests and repentance are spot on. May I add a couple more to your extensive list.
God has been replaced by Gaia.
The earth was a garden of Eden before the evil apple (CO2) was released.
And once when it was the wrath of God that caused natural disasters, it is now Gaia that is exacted revenge for man’s sins.
And isn’t it true that only the ‘high priests’ can interpret the data (just as the clergy could only interpret the Bible).
Interesting to see how climate science seems to have supplanted religion for these people. It reminds me of what GK Chesterton once said – roughly it goes along these lines:
When people stop believing in God, they don’t start believing in nothing – they start believing in anything.
While reading Justin’s post I was reminded of many of the characteristics of destructive religious cults :-
(*Some of these are probably more relevant to cAGW than others.)
1/ When you first join the group do you get any instant friends?
2/ Does everyone dress more or less the same, act the same, and talk the same?
3/ Is questioning the group, or the group leaders [senior scientists], discouraged or frowned upon?
4/ Does everyone in the group believe exactly the same things (i.e. what the leaders tell them to believe)? Is there no room for individual belief or opinion even in minor areas?
5/ Is reading any [skeptic] literature critical of the group discouraged?
6/ Does the group believe that it is an elite and exclusive organisation which alone has ‘the truth’ and answers to [climate change] questions?
7/ Does the group pour scorn upon, ‘attack,’ and mock [skeptic bloggers] and their interpretation of the [climate]?
8/ Does the group discourage association with non-members (except, maybe for the possibility of converting them to the group)?
9/ Does the group give you ‘black and white answers’? — What the group agrees with is right and what the group disagrees with is wrong.
10/ Does the group tend to withhold certain information from you? Are the more unusual doctrines of the group not discussed with you until you are more deeply involved in the movement?
If you answered ‘yes’ to more than (say) two of the above questions you are in danger of being manipulated by con men and women who use techniques which bypass your ability to critically evaluate and question the group.
If you stay with the group for longer than the indoctrination period, these questions will become more relevant :-
1/ Have you attempted to disable your own critical thinking abilities by ‘shelving’ various doubts about the group or group’s teachings?
2/ Are others in the group, who do not conform to the requirements of the movement’s teachings, treated with suspicion and treated like second class members?
3/ Do you feel fearful of leaving the group? Many cults use subtle fear tactics to stop members from leaving.
However, do not become depressed – because all is not lost!
The option to leave the cult will always be available.
(Questions above originally supplied by Spotlight Ministries, UK.)
When wasn’t the so-called “civilized” world exactly that?
You have it totally base over apex.
In a true civilisation, each person has the right to life, liberty, and the retention of the benefits of their own labour.
What we have today, is not civilisation, because we have institutional third parties who have assumed the right to control the benefits of the labour of others (the banks), and other institutional third parties (governments, and supranational organisations) that assume the power to force people to give up the benefits of their own labour through taxation and other imposts, for reasons that are not to their own benefit, but rather for the benefit of another.
We are moving towards a breakdown in the underpinnings of civilisation, caused by non-productive individuals and groups, who think they are entitled to the output of others, simply because they want it – self interested greed. And the antithesis of civilisation.
In a true civilisation, each person has the right to life, liberty, and the retention of the benefits of their own labour.
—
That’s your definition of a “true” civilization. There have been lots of civilizations where absolute power rested with one person, slaves were the rule rather than the exception, and that civilization achieved amazing complexity and expanded greatly.
In a true civilisation, each citizen has the right … Good spot.
I also make an excellent point, that institutional third parties and governments are currently in the process of impoverishing the population, in order to increase their dependence on the state. From there, it is then only a comparatively small step, to institutionalised slavery.
R. Gates your point is good enough. “Civilized” humans is almost an oxymoron. We are civilized only when it suits us and we benefit. We easily become uncivilized when oppressed, moody or under the influence of tyrants.
But even with that veneer and great benefits it brings to the common good, those in power and seeking power still recognize the true state of nature– Bellum omnium contra omnes.
R. Gates, Thanks for that, I found this to be most prophetic:
Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war as is of every man against every man.[13] […] In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.[14]
I assume that “Power to keep us in awe” is God. We “civilized” and educated types have spent a great deal of time eliminating that “Power” from our modern world. At what peril? What has or will replace God and prevent us from sliding into the dark world he describes?
Justin,
You make a lot of good points here, but the list is far from exhaustive. Also there are alternatives approaches. Two such alternatives I have used.
1. Fundamentals that climate science ignores. These I mostly learnt from economics. For instance
– Positive v. Normative. The “is” v. “ought” distinction.
– Trivial v. nontrivial. e.g. lack of recent warming suggests a more trivial issue.
– Quality of the data and science.
– Alternative explanations.
2. Policy is an economic problem. There is a total naivety in the assumption that policy will work. To determine whether policy is net beneficial is the task of economic theory. Climate science is no more capable of proscribing and implementing policy than identifying a disease gives the knowledge of the correct drugs to cure the disease or the knowledge on how to produce such a drug. The economic analysis of climate science and climate policy is a whole new area of applied economics. I have recently developed a draft proposal here.
Google ‘conenssti energy’ to discover what has driven average global temperature since 1610. Follow a link in that paper to a paper that gives an equation that calculates average global temperatures with 90% accuracy since before 1900 using only one external forcing. Carbon dioxide change has no significant influence. The average global temperature trend is down.
Good work Dan,
Your analysis suggests, once again, that it is all about the sun.
I will read it over again. Could you add a brief appendix to explain, what you mean by the sun spot time integral?
It’s a favourite place for a number of reasons. My good lady wife and I spent our honeymoon at O’Reilly’s Guest House at Green Mountains. It was quite literally ten days of bliss. Odd place for a honeymoon, ten days in a rain forest, but without doubt, that was the best holiday we have ever been on.
We arrived on the Sunday, and just had a look around, the botanic gardens, and a quick walk down to the closest of the Falls, Moran’s Falls, a short walk.
The breakfast bell for Monday morning called us all to breakfast at the dining room. During every breakfast, Peter O’Reilly would visit each table and ask what we were doing for the day. There were a number of guided group walks, a choice of three or four trips away to other points of interest in a medium sized 4WD Bus, both day and evening/night trips, or you could go off on your own, but with literally hundreds of miles of walking tracks, they needed to know where you were during that particular day. For that first day, we decided on a relatively short local walk of around four miles out and four miles back. As we were on our own, we took our lunch with us, and the staff had a rucksack ready for me when we left with lunch for two and two Thermos’ of Tea.
We had our lunch at the falls shown in the image I linked to. See the falls in the background. There is a small pool at the base of these falls which then drop over the second set of falls in the foreground. The dedicated walking path goes over the top of these second falls. We just stepped down to an area below these second falls and had our lunch here, almost in the same position this image is taken from. Positively beautiful.
For the next 8/9 days, we were never at a loss for something to do. The oddest thing is that no matter how hot it was, as soon as you stepped into the rain forest, the temperature dropped around 5C, and in some places, the temperature was even decidedly cooler even than that.
They have since put in a treetop walkway suspension bridge affair, which is truly amazing. Part way along, they have a ladder that will take you to the top of the canopy, a further 20/25 metres higher than the already quite high walkway. The view at the top of the canopy is positively astonishing.
It’s been almost 33 years since that ten days we spent there, and we have been back four times, once for an extended long weekend, and we again had our lunch from a rucksack at Elebana Falls. We could never get sick of the place.
The O’Reilly’s were a huge family, all of them having huge families, and now it is run by their children and grand children, a huge extended family now.
O’Reilly’s has a rich history, not only for the heroic deed of Bernard O’Reilly, but for how the family opened up that whole Green Mountains region.
I have a five part series at my home site on the place, with parts dedicated to Bernard O’Reilly, and that stirring story is also interesting when taken in context with today’s climate/weather situation, because these were people who knew weather, who knew climate, and knew things about that which are even now just becoming noticeable.
Hey Tony that waterfall photo was a very popular picture people put up at home, we had one, I always thought where is that place and now boom you come up with your memories of it.
Life’s funny like that. 🙂
Nice pool Jo do many people swim there?
Any rock pools around here are old quarries and most of the time it’s too bloody cold to swim, unless your in a polar bear club but I heard they were almost extinct. 🙂
That pool appears to be the main drop at Bell’s Rapid on the Avon River (Perth). Swimming is WAY cool in the summer, but in winter, the Avon Descent goes through there (yes, I paddled it). Anything over about 1 metre of water on the gauge, and you’d be swimming all right!! LOL – all the way to the Swan Valley!
But yes, absolutely beautiful, though on a different scale and environment that Tony’s MAGNIFICENT Green Mountains!
I thought it was Bell’s Rapid. We went there years ago. Unfortunately we haven’t managed WA for a few years now. The parts we’ve seen are wonderful but there is so much of WA; let alone the rest of Australia!
Not necessarily. Turbo jets and fan jets run fine in LH2. There are a lot of problems handling the stuff though. Even the rocket people would rather not but sometimes you need to use it for performance reasons. Kelly Johnson’s team st the Skunk Works did a lot of wok with it in the mid 50s for a supersonic successor to the U2 but in the end they decided it was no good for that use. The work wasn’t wasted as a few years later it was used in Apollo.
what really gives me the sh***s with these people is that they say we need to reduce the World’s current consumption of electricity by 30%
What they fail so utterly to even comprehend is that around a third of the World’s current population has either no electricity at all, or less than 5% of what we in the already developed World already have as a staple of life. That one third figure I use here is even then probably on the sanguine side, as it is most probably higher even than that.
These people say that we need to reduce current demand by 30%, in effect saying that WE in the Developed World need to reduce our consumption, and those who have none can, well, just go on like they already do now ….. with nothing.
These people consume more electricity than what you or I, the average person already does consume, and yet with their profound wisdom, they tell US that we need to reduce it even further, and bugger those who have nothing.
Then, along come media outlets and pounce on crap like this, like flies on a warm turd, and spread it far and wide, as their verdant green acolytes bow down before them in obeisance, believing every word they are told.
These people couldn’t care less for those non developed Countries people, who because of zero to extremely limited access to electrical power have, well, nothing like what we already have.
This will NEVER happen. Read my lips. N..E..V..E..R
I can see the advertisement. Fly Hindenburg! For the hottest airline deals anywhere.
(Yes, I am aware that the Hindenburg probably wasn’t started by hydrogen)
Seriously, have they worked out
a. the cost?
b. the way of containing the hydrogen?
c. the power weight ratio of the fuel?
Given that wind power is at least 3 times that of coal, and hydrolysis isn’t 100% efficient, then there is a compounding effect on price. So the fuel will cost at least 4 times the current level; I have mentioned before that using a variable energy supply drops the efficiency of hydrolysis below 60%. That pushes the price difference up to 5 times.
Thus using hydrogen fuel will make air travel too expensive for anybody other than those going to exotic places for Conferences on the Climate.
Hydrogen isn’t the easiest thing to store; it does tend to leak through a lot of common materials.
Liquid hydrogen has less energy density by volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four, so more weight for the same power. Compressed hydrogen needs heavy tanks; again more weight, something the aeroplane makers aren’t too keen on.
This suggestion doesn’t make sense, unless their real objective is to stop mass air flights.
All except their own travel, one would think. I can’t see Al Gore using alternative transportation to photograph Antarctic ice melting in the summer, nor participants in a world climate summit taking something other than a plane running on jet fuel.
The argument that wind plants don’t use much land was again stated. As I have pointed out in the past, the same argument holds for subdivision and virtually all development. Rural subdivisions of 20 acres have no more covered land than a wind plant. Depending on lot size, some city subdivisions used the same percentage of land. Yet the greens often grumble about “urban sprawl”. Many of the turbines on private land are fenced–no entry. The turbines on federal land are not fenced, so the assumption is cattle can still graze and wildlife will remain. I do know that antelope (pronghorn) will graze under turbines. As for cattle, you are going lose a significant amount of grazing. In the dry, arid area where turbines go in, removing a patch the size of house 60 or 100 times will significantly reduce the number of animals allowed on for grazing. So, yes, other activities can still go on. In limited fashion. Hunting is also reduced. Add to that only animals can “live” under the turbines, and you’ve taken out a lot of land from other uses. In farm lands, the wind industry in some areas had imposed a 330 foot area around the turbine bases be removed from farming due to “safety concerns”. Less area to grow food. So now we stop using the conservation areas for conservation and start farming them. We have to grow food somewhere. (Actually, the price of corn was making farming these areas profitable–thank you ethanol.) Less conservation, more land destructed.
I wonder were we are going to get the steel, copper, etc for the thousands and thousands of transmission lines? Can’t mine with electric haul trucks and draglines. How do we transport the raw materials? How do we manufacture the parts? Obviously, these people are intellectually vacant and sadly well compensated for their ignorance.
Add Item d. – the fire hazard posed by hydrogen. We consider petrol and other hydrocarbons are dangerously flammable and they are only flammable over a very limited range of vapour/air mixture (between approx. 1 and 8% vapour in air). How do we possibly handle hydrogen safely when its flammable range (from my admittedly sometimes faulty memory)is around 2-95%, given the amounts released in normal refuelling situations (how much petrol can you smell at a service station?)?
This time 12 months ago snow fell in the Blue mountains and it snowed as far north as the granite belt in Qld.
You can read the link to the ABC report where it states that 15cm or about 6 inches fell over the BM and the storm caused electricity to be cut from about 450 properties.
So this Oct it’s proof of CAGW but last Oct it’s just bloody snowy wet and cold weather. Duh. Of course neither WEATHER events are proof of anything, except the fact that we can have very changeable, dangerous weather here in OZ.
And sometimes it’s just a pain in the backside like some of the alarmist comments from the barking mad lefties.
It is not surprising that during a period of time when those who present data and analysis that disproves a hypothesis are called deniers by the media and by scientists who are activists first and scientists second, the fact that multiple observations and analysis appear to completely disprove AGW can remain hidden to the general public. It appears the gig is up the planet has started to cool due to the solar 24 cycle change which is not surprising as the paleo data shows there are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. It is difficult to even imagine how the public and the IPCC/warmist scientists will respond to an unequivocally cooling planet.
This is a very interesting paper. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
…As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur.
As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2–8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment.
Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around….
…A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and it remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply reflects the gradual warming of the oceans, as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011).
…Analyses of a pole-to-pole transect of atmospheric CO2 records suggest that changes in atmospheric CO2 are initiated south of the Equator, but probably not far from the Equator, and from there spreads towards the two poles within a year or so (Fig. 13). This observation specifically points towards the oceans at or south of the Equator as an important source area for observed changes in atmospheric CO2. The major release of anthropogene CO2 is taking place at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 12), but the north–south transect investigated show no indication of the main change signal in atmospheric CO2 originating here. The main signal must therefore be caused by something else. A similar conclusion, but based on studies of the residence time of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, was reached by Segalstad (1998); Essenhigh (2009).
Nah, it’s a dud. Some basic modelling was enough to confirm my suspicion.
It also takes a special level of denial to be aware of the decline in global ocean temperatures for the last 12 years as proof the accelerating CO2 levels aren’t creating any warming (ie lack of correlation) while at the same time claiming that rising temperatures are the main cause of rising CO2. Uh….. right. No correlation means no causation, in either direction.
Yeah, that is the anthem of the money men, all right.
It is no coincidence, that when the Aussie banks moved in to take over the New Zealand banking sector, was also the time that New Zealand changed its official national anthem to, “God Defend New Zealand”.
Fires lit by the government do seem to occur more often and the enforced preservation of dangerous trees close to houses may do more damage than before that nonsense began. However bushfires in July do not seem to happen as often now. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/57112596?
“The Mount Alexander Mail of Friday says;-“On Wednesday bushfires were observed in several parts of the horizon, affording conclusive evidence of the heat of the weather. As the atmosphère is so arid at this early season, wo may anticipate one of the hottest summers ever experienced.”
1863
Our first arrival at the Victoria was in September. The whole country was parched, the vegetation dried up, and bush-fires were frequent. The heat of the day was not followed by a cool night. Though the maximum heat was not exces sive, rarely exceeding 114 ° Fahr, the the minimum was very high, seldom falling below 80° at any time,
A heavy bushfire (the Ararat Advertiser reports) was raging during the whole of Tuesday and Wednesday, on the northern end of the Grampian Ranges, in the direction of Rose’s Gap.
One might almost call it Black Thursday on a small scale; the weather was dreadfully hot, being more like a December than an October day, and the wind blowing at times in heavy squalls, the bush-fires making- the heat all hot unbearable. I am sorry to have to record the burning of several homesteads.
They keep on harping on about these latest October bush fires bring unusual, but I noticed in The Australian today, the article by Henry Ergas, brings them into perspective:
“Lives lost to bush fires are about one-tenth those due to structural fires in homes and less than 1% of the annual road fatalities.”
Dave have those statistics been perverted by the roof insulation fires, solar panels stopping the fire hose and pushbike risk taking? Not to mention the flickering light from wind turbines distracting drivers.
In 2009 I drove out to the Lamington National Park area in the Gold Coast hinterland. There’s a smaller park nearby which contains an unusual rock formation. The river has etched a vertical hole in a cliff where it can fall through and emerge from a cave at the bottom. They call this “Natural Bridge”, though in the old days it was called “Natural Arch”.
Help
On another list I postulated this rebuttal to a post:
You apparently suffer from a popular misconception, Geoffrey.
“Scientific proof” is an oxymoron, as is “scientific consensus”.
Science is a discipline in which practitioners constant SEEK the truth.
Such has been the case for a thousand years. The first scientist, Ibn al Haytham was born in the year 965.
Contrary to popular opinion, science and scientists do not “prove” things. Proof is a construct that belongs in such fields as religion and politics.
In science, the data is king and evidence trumps everything. The big lesson of the Enlightenment is that data and evidence are the highest authorities, not humans.
The scientific method DISPROVES things, and those things are called hypotheses.
Watch while Richard Feynman, by many considered the finest physics mind since Einstein, explains it to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
Ohm’ s Law, for instance, started as a guess, an hypothesis. The next steps are Hypothesis, investigate, design experimental terms of reference, test, collect data, analyse, review, publish.
If it is possible to construct the NULL hypothesis, then the first step must be to attempt to disprove the null hypothesis. Generally, the null hypothesis is simple the natural order of things.
Although published in 1827, Georg Ohm made many attempts to disprove the hypothesis originally posed by Cavendish some thirty years previous. Ohm and others were unable to DISPROVE his ideas pertaining to the relationship of voltage, current and resistance. About this stage it was a THEORY. A great deal of additional work by James Clerk Maxwell could not disprove V = IR, either. Not a single soul has been able to disprove the relationship since. Therefore it is accepted. Should at some point someone successfully DISPROVE Ohm’s Law, or, more succinctly, Maxwell’s equations, it will no longer be a law.
In this century, a further requirement was added to the list of requirements for the test of an hypothesis. Karl Popper proposed that if an hypothesis is not FALSIFIABLE, it falls outside the realm of science.
If it isn’t Popper falsifiable, it isn’t science. It’s pseudoscience. Watch Feynman explain the difference between science and pseudoscience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5fc4oV2F3o
The last thousand years have produced many instances in which something BELIEVED to be true (‘belief’ has no place in science, and is a construct of religion and politics) has later been disproved. One oft cited example refers to the 1982 discovery by Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren that the cause of stomach ulcers is in fact microbial. A more recent example was the subject of a program on Catalyst recently, which seriously questions the relationship of cholesterol and heart disease.
Ironically, the extensive list of criticisms portrayed on Catalyst regarding the cherished ‘beliefs’ about cholesterol apply equally well to the so-called ‘climate debate’. If the ABC were not fully engrossed in tribal group-think, as has been aptly pointed out by ex-chairman Maurice Newman, Catalyst might well repeat this Catalyst program in relation to the notion that atmospheric CO2 is somehow has a causal relationship with temperature. Little would be required to produce a new program, other than substitute the word “cholesterol” for the words “global warming”.
Rather than be clobbered about being OT, on something which someone else originated, I can lead you to a discussion regarding this idea at http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/catalyst-says-consensus-wrong-on-cholesterol-but-unquestionable-on-climate/
The PhD came back with what follows. Am I in the wrong?
I’m sorry Rod, but you’re the one suffering from a common misconception (and your history of science is out my centuries).
Just as courts of law have different types of proof, so there are different types of proof in general epistemology. No scientist ever claims that they have discovered a priori truth. That is the realm of mathematicians and philosophers. Descartes proved he existed (cogito ergo sum) and Euclid proved that there is an infinite number of prime numbers. By a priori proof we mean proof without the need for observations. If you consult a good dictionary, you will see this as about the fourth or fifth meaning. The primary meaning of proof given in dictionaries is the a posteriori proof of science: to provide sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that something is true. Yes, of course any observation might be falsified (and then that‘s the end of the belief, or it should be). But falsifiability doesn’t render truth impossible.
To come back to Ohms Law. Maybe someday in the distant future the earth’s magnetic properties subtly change and Ohms Law needs revision. But how many electrical products have rolled off production lines over the last century every one of which makes use of Ohms Law? Isn’t there sufficient evidence by now to warrant a belief that Ohms Law is true? Would you rather we waited until another billion gadgets are produced before you’ll stick your neck out and say Ohms Law must be true? Or will you still be denying that the evidence proves the truth of the law just because there is still the slight chance of it being falsified?
Just because one day there might be geologic uplift in Nepal and water then boils at 93°C in Kathmandu doesn’t mean that it is not true right here and now that water boils at 94°C in Kathmandu.
Your mistake—as is the mistake of so many science-deniers—is to fail to understand that there is a difference between deductive proof and inductive proof. The former belongs to logic and mathematics; the latter to science. You can’t criticise science on the grounds that it can never prove anything by a priori means. That would be what philosophers call a “category mistake”.
Gosh that’s a curly one, Rod. It’s like the two of you are talking past each other.
Firstly, can’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
I reckon ‘Geoffrey’ is deploying several non-sequiturs here, probably not intentionally but is due to quibbles about semantics.
The bit about Ohm’s law – strawman probably. I doubt you were denying any of the supporting evidence for Ohm’s law. If you were saying Ohm’s Law isn’t *absolutely* proven, okay, and that’s not equivalent to saying Ohm’s law is either false or has no evidence for it.
The bit about Kathmandu – total red herring. If it is a fact today, hindsight doesn’t change that even if the boiling temperature changed in future. It’s a very specific and contingent statement. That says nothing about a general law of physics on the same level as ohm’s law.
So just mentally scrub out those two middle paragraphs and you have a rather odd collection left.
He seems right about the “a priori” and “a posteriori” proofs, but I don’t see how that conflicts with saying no scientific theory is ever absolutely proven. He’s saying that absolute proof isn’t part of science, which is also what you’re saying, but he is arguing there is such a thing as “scientific proof” which is the inductive or “a posteriori” proof.
My impression is that he’s basically saying that although everything you said is true it doesn’t argue against anything he originally said, because a rule highly likely to be true given all available evidence, in the Bayesian conditional probability sense (ie inductive learning), qualifies as “scientific proof” in his view.
It’s just semantics. What would you like the phrase “scientific proof” to mean? 🙂
Once you decide that, there’s your answer.
If this was about CAGW, it would be more fruitful to argue that other hypotheses in Physics were promoted to theories only after a wide variety of competing falsifiable hypotheses, which differed in significant ways, were considered and tested against the real world measurements. How does he justify putting CAGW in that category when competing hypotheses of climate get shut out, etc.
If it’s about the validity of Ohm’s Law, … errm… well from what I have read… theoretically… in a thin wire at very high current at 1 degree above absolute zero the current can become non-linear with voltage increases as quantum effects become noticeable and there are no more free electrons available in the metal to conduct any quicker, so…. yes even Ohm’s law isn’t absolutely 100% true under every conceivable circumstance at nanometer scales. But then Ohm wasn’t testing at those levels and neither is anyone else.
99.999% + Ego = 100% for some values of “equals” 😉
Thanks Andrew
It started out with piled higher and deeper launching into a tirade about Hunt using Wikipedia, but, since it has to do with technical writing, then wandered into the vagaries of Wikipedia, what use is it if anyone can edit it, you can’t go past scholarly papers that are peer reviewed, and on and on and on.
So I made an admittedly smart ass comment that at least SOME of the material on Wikipedia is factual, which is a Hell of a lot more than you can say for anything in Fairfax, the ABC, the CSIRO, or the BOM.
Then war broke out. A lady came to my assistance by pointing out that in this age of post modern science, there is so much corruption, so much deceit, and so much spin that one can’t believe anything anymore.
The PhD in journalism came along with now now, what is the Truth, anyhow, why look at Ohm’s Law. That must be true, or you computer wouldn’t work. Once science has proved something, it is the truth, etc. which is where I thought I would point out that isn’t quite the way it works etc. It’s a bunch of lefty weirdo arts fartsies so I took a lot of flack as a “science-denier”. That’s a new one. Apparently now I simply deny science.
Of course I didn’t mean that I expect some bloke to come along and disprove Ohm’s Law. The point is, if you are going to say that “the science is in” on certain things, how do you differentiate the “settled” from the “unsettled”. But that sort of logic flies right past these writers. Don’t you dare suggest that the IPCC might make a mistake. The concept that the IPCC has never got a thing right just doesn’t phase them.
economists love carbon dioxide trading! u call that news?
28 Oct: SMH: Matt Wade: Tony Abbott’s new direct action sceptics
Leading economists have overwhelmingly rejected Tony Abbott’s direct action climate change policy and backed carbon pricing…
Internationally renowned Australian economist Justin Wolfers, of the Washington-based Brookings Institution and the University of Michigan, said he was surprised that any economists would opt for direct action, under which the government will pay for emissions cuts by businesses and farmers from a budget worth $2.88 billion over four years…
BT Financial’s Dr Chris Caton said any economist who did not opt for emissions trading “should hand his degree back”…
Several economists surveyed said the weight of international evidence showed that carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced more efficiently through a broadbased market mechanism such as a trading scheme. “That seems to be the way that the major economies are headed – not uniformly, unfortunately,” CBA economist Michael Workman said…
“If I had to make a choice between pricing carbon and having bureaucrats allocating permits, then I’m going to go for the market mechanism every time,” said Rob Henderson, a National Australia Bank senior economist…
Commsec’s Craig James, who also supported the Coalition’s policy, said the standard economic assumption that markets could solve almost anything was not right. He said markets could fail and might be the wrong response to an environmental problem…
“The attempts that the Europeans have made so far have been less than stellar,” Mr James said.
Mr James also said he was sceptical that humans were having a serious impact on climate… http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-new-direct-action-sceptics-20131027-2w9va.html
***nothing’s too insane for Fairfax to publish, provided it’s for the CAGW Cause:
28 Oct: SMH: Adam Morton: Bigger carbon cuts needed, report says
The gap between climate change commitments and what scientists say is necessary is underlined in a new report that estimates Australia would need to make emissions cuts of at least 27 per cent by 2020 and 82 per cent cut by 2030 to play its part in averting global warming.
The report by European consultancy Ecofys comes as the Climate Change Authority prepares to release draft recommendations this week on how much and how quickly Australia should be cutting emissions…
The Ecofys report, commissioned by environmental group World Wildlife Fund, finds that Australia has already emitted at least two-thirds of what it could reasonably ever emit under a global ”carbon budget” – the maximum emissions that can be released in coming decades to give the world a chance to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees.
If emissions remain at their current level, Australia’s estimated long-term budget of 18 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide would be used up in about a decade.
It estimates Australia would need to cut emissions by between 27 and 34 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, and between 82 and 100 per cent by 2030.
***By 2050 it is likely Australia would be expected to have zero emissions and to be drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere… http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bigger-carbon-cuts-needed-report-says-20131027-2w9sh.html
reality: NZ failing, even tho more than half their electricity is provided by hydro!
28 Oct: Business Spectator: Point Carbon: NZ on track to miss targets by huge margin
New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise nearly 50 per cent by 2040, according to new government modelling, taking the country well off course to meet its commitment to cut emissions in half by mid-century…
(LOL) Asked by the Green Party in parliament about the projections on Wednesday, Simon Bridges, associate minister for climate change, said emissions were projected to rise because of current low carbon prices in the country’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
“We know that as we make progress in international (climate change) negotiations, that carbon price will surely rise,” Bridges said…
Domestic emissions permits in the New Zealand ETS currently trade at NZ$3.75 ($3.15), but companies are also allowed to comply by buying U.N.-backed carbon credits, which are available for only 30 cents each… http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/10/28/policy-politics/nz-track-miss-targets-huge-margin
Peter C – The sunspot time integral is like a running total. Average daily sunspot numbers are reported for each year. The sunspot time integral is the sum of these yearly numbers from some start year until the year of interest. There are links in the References to the sources that I used.
The most interesting rock pool I’ve ever saw was about three days walk from Kathmandu on the way to Mount Everest (Solu Khumbu region).
It was a creek that fed into the river originally but a boulder avalanche, most probably many thousands of years ago blocked it off which created the pool. The discharge point was a tapered water slide with a rock ceiling, a fast flowing grotto.
The water was warm and visited the rock pool that was off the beaten track on the walk back. What an adventure, snuck into Tibet through Panch Pokhari, walked all the way to Everest base camp, celebrated my twentieth birthday at Namche Bazar where the locals turned on a party for me and an amazing feature of that town was a glacier spilling over a cliff, turning into a raging waterfall as it cascaded down around three thousand feet.
Hope to take my wife and daughter to those amazing places next May where I’ll celebrate my fifty fifth birthday. Speaking of celebrations…our twenty fourth wedding anniversary today. Jade Buddha in the Brisbane CBD.
Justin Jefferies above at 3. examines Green Gaia Global Warming from the perspective of comparative religion and Lo, it all fits.
At the heart of this religion is The Greenhouse Gas Effect, a mystery of faith that supports the whole construction.
I have spent some time trying to understand the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory, starting with Christopher Moncton, here on this blog and moving on to subversive texts by the Slayers. That lead on to revisiting the science of Blackbodies, Electromagnetic Radiation and Quantum Theory.
Having just finished reading “Quantum, Einstein, Bohr and the great debate about the Nature of Reality” by Manjit Kumar, which was suggested to me by John Brookes I find that there might be something wrong at the very heart of physics itself. The great debate is not yet over and attempts to rationalise the uncertainties of the physical reality of the electron have lead Physicists to propose the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, which seems exremely bizarre.
Therefore perhaps science cannot yet explain the Greenhouse gas effect, which partially supports the agnostics, who proclaim that the Greenhouse effect is real, but so weak that it is not important.
The key must be empirical experiments, which have been ignored for so long.
[Putting this here to avoid polluting latest thread. ]
Queensland’s new anti-hooning laws seem to impose a tougher penalty for revving your engine loudly at startup while stationary than for driving with a 0.15% BAC.
Check page 3 of the fact sheet.
Being noisy for a minute can get your car impounded for 3 months? Is this a continuation of The Right To Not Be Upset? I thought only the leftists did that? But apparently authoritarianism is bipartisan.
If we continue to outlaw “being an arsehole” at successively lower thresholds of upset then there will be nobody left to run the prisons.
Combine this law with the Qld bikie prohibition laws, the federal Bank Levy, silence on warantless wiretaps, and the silent rubber-stamping of the new TPP without public consultation, and it is unfortunately becoming obvious that the Liberals in both State and Federal levels are more anti-liberal than Labor or the Greens.
Very nice Rock Pool Jo,
This is a local one near me at Buderim with a bridge also, great BarBQue area about 15 minute from the pool. Great for a Sunday lunch and a few drinks. Great sub tropical rain forest surroundings, seems to be lusher than ever this year, even though we’ve had less rain.
N.B. Not my photo.
40
This 3 1/2 minute video shows Al Gore at his deceptive worst, and easily knocks down the central claim that the warmists make, on CO2. A quick and effective debunking of the main warmist claim. A must see. And share: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&GGWSwindle_CO2Lag
81
My two points of weekend unthreaded are these:
1.
Thanks Jo for what a wonderful job you do. We all owe you a big debt of gratitude both for your continuing repeated demolition of warmist publications, and the entertainment value in it.
2.
The theory of knowledge used by the warmists in concluding in favour of policy action, is so obviously defective that sometimes you can only shake your head in wonder at how or why people think like that. I think “How would I need to reason in order to conclude as they conclude?” And in the final analysis, it repeatedly seems there are only two possiblities: culpbable ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.
Yet many warmists seem in such earnest, it’s hard to believe they are being deliberately dishonest. But on the other hand, what they are assuming blithely oversteps such a huge and obvious abyss of mendacious credulity or blatant error, that it’s hard to believe anyone honestly believing it, for example, their assumption that government has the knowledge, competence and goodness to manage the whole world’s economy and ecology.
I have met very highly educated people who tell me that the science backs the warmists’ assertions. But when you ask them how they know that, they reply that they heard it from a friend of theirs whom they trust as an authority. It only remains to ask, what makes you think the others aren’t using the same methodology that you are?
In fact the warmists belief system is a close parallel to the intellectual methodology of the mediaeval church in so many ways that it’s just not funny.
There’s
– the unfalsifiable belief (both extra hot or extra cold weather, flood or drought, are taken as proof)
– belief in an impending cataclysm
– those who critique it are “denialists”, as if the issue were one of faith
– the time-frame (vague, but near enough to be worried about)
– the idea that man’s moral fault (“consumerism”) is at the root of the problem
– the need to repent
– the need to practise self-denial
– nutty little religious rituals like using curly light globes to save one’s soul
– the promise of a future and virtuous paradise (“sustainability”)
– high priests (climate scientists) reading mysterious signs (computer and statistical models) which the common herd are supposedly incapable of interpreting
– the reverencing of a monopoly corporation (the state) as being all-knowing, omnipotent and morally superior, charged with rectifying man’s error and showing the path to salvation, and
– the methodological belief that authority trumps data, and to cap it all off we have
– the carbon tax – the selling of indulgences!
Yet when challenged to defend their belief system, all I have ever seen is endless repetition of
– assuming what’s in issue
– appeal to absent authority
– ad hominem
– misrepresentation
In short, a veritable catalogue of every kind of logical fallacy.
It’s easy to understand the warmists who are motivated by mere greed. The hard ones to understand are the “useful idiots” – those who have no excuse for not using their critical faculties but remain passionately committed to it as a belief system.
This leads to the question of psychology, why people do this kind of thing.
Temple Grandin, the animal psychologist, talks about the difference between “forebrain” and “mid-brain” phenomena. Forebrain phenomena are logic, reason, critical analysis, and such like. Mid-brain phenomena issue from an earlier part of the brain that we have in common with other mammals. It includes such things as herding instinct, dominance and submission (hierarchy), groupthink (orthodoxy), xenophobia (you’re wrong because you’re “other”).
While Grandin’s distinction may not have any exact equivalence in brain anatomy, nevertheless I think it’s an interesting way of looking at understanding the aspect of the global warming belief system that has no competent answer to rational critique, but only logical fallacies.
333
I am not sure that warmists use incense, although they do use smoke and mirrors.
80
Excellent observations, Justin.
I was not aware of the work of Temple Grandin, but what you describe definitely aligns with my experience, and study, in the field of human motivation and response. The only thing I would add, is that humans don’t just have a herding instinct, in terms of friends, family, tribe, and nationality; they also have a strong flocking response to social change. I am always fascinated by the way that a flock of birds can seemingly all change direction at the same time, but the same phenomena occurs with people on the Web, with memes going viral.
This is a good thing, I think. Because what the group will think today, can easily be replaced by what they will think tomorrow. In terms of Weather, the group belief moved from Global Cooling, to Global Warming, to Climate Change (which has stuck), to Climate Disruption (which did not stick), to … what next?
The climate activist visitors we get today, seem much more desperate than those we got previously, and I believe that is because they realise that they have lost control. People are generally still concerned about the concept of climate change, but are slowly realising that it has actually stopped.
People are also realising that the “concern for the environment” meme, has subtly changed from one that everybody talked about, to one that is being actively pushed by a much smaller group. Once a critical mass of people understand that they have been, and are still being, manipulated, the whole thing will collapse.
Until the next time …
223
I think we can ignore ‘climate change’ and ‘climate disruption’ as deliberate catch-all phrases that are designed to be cleverly manipulated into any weather/climate event that grabs the headlines. It’s a fall-back position that shows they’re retreating. These are maxims that are designed to replace the warming mantra now under attack and slowly collapsing.
‘Global Warming’ is the proposition that they hung their flag on, so they can bloody well live with it and provide convincing evidence for it.
100
Justin
Great post. You’ve just about covered it all re the CC religion. The ‘selling of indulgences’, high priests and repentance are spot on. May I add a couple more to your extensive list.
God has been replaced by Gaia.
The earth was a garden of Eden before the evil apple (CO2) was released.
And once when it was the wrath of God that caused natural disasters, it is now Gaia that is exacted revenge for man’s sins.
And isn’t it true that only the ‘high priests’ can interpret the data (just as the clergy could only interpret the Bible).
123
Ian
Interesting to see how climate science seems to have supplanted religion for these people. It reminds me of what GK Chesterton once said – roughly it goes along these lines:
Cheers,
Speedy
110
While reading Justin’s post I was reminded of many of the characteristics of destructive religious cults :-
(*Some of these are probably more relevant to cAGW than others.)
1/ When you first join the group do you get any instant friends?
2/ Does everyone dress more or less the same, act the same, and talk the same?
3/ Is questioning the group, or the group leaders [senior scientists], discouraged or frowned upon?
4/ Does everyone in the group believe exactly the same things (i.e. what the leaders tell them to believe)? Is there no room for individual belief or opinion even in minor areas?
5/ Is reading any [skeptic] literature critical of the group discouraged?
6/ Does the group believe that it is an elite and exclusive organisation which alone has ‘the truth’ and answers to [climate change] questions?
7/ Does the group pour scorn upon, ‘attack,’ and mock [skeptic bloggers] and their interpretation of the [climate]?
8/ Does the group discourage association with non-members (except, maybe for the possibility of converting them to the group)?
9/ Does the group give you ‘black and white answers’? — What the group agrees with is right and what the group disagrees with is wrong.
10/ Does the group tend to withhold certain information from you? Are the more unusual doctrines of the group not discussed with you until you are more deeply involved in the movement?
If you answered ‘yes’ to more than (say) two of the above questions you are in danger of being manipulated by con men and women who use techniques which bypass your ability to critically evaluate and question the group.
If you stay with the group for longer than the indoctrination period, these questions will become more relevant :-
1/ Have you attempted to disable your own critical thinking abilities by ‘shelving’ various doubts about the group or group’s teachings?
2/ Are others in the group, who do not conform to the requirements of the movement’s teachings, treated with suspicion and treated like second class members?
3/ Do you feel fearful of leaving the group? Many cults use subtle fear tactics to stop members from leaving.
However, do not become depressed – because all is not lost!
The option to leave the cult will always be available.
(Questions above originally supplied by Spotlight Ministries, UK.)
180
Well said. It’s now a rather sad world we live in where common sense and logic have been replaced by self-interested greed
41
We “now” live in a world of self-interest and greed? When wasn’t the so-called “civilized” world exactly that?
06
You have it totally base over apex.
In a true civilisation, each person has the right to life, liberty, and the retention of the benefits of their own labour.
What we have today, is not civilisation, because we have institutional third parties who have assumed the right to control the benefits of the labour of others (the banks), and other institutional third parties (governments, and supranational organisations) that assume the power to force people to give up the benefits of their own labour through taxation and other imposts, for reasons that are not to their own benefit, but rather for the benefit of another.
We are moving towards a breakdown in the underpinnings of civilisation, caused by non-productive individuals and groups, who think they are entitled to the output of others, simply because they want it – self interested greed. And the antithesis of civilisation.
120
Rereke,
Why am I reminded of Atlas Shrugged?
Tony.
40
Hi Tony,
Agreed – it’s probably coz that appears to be the track we’re following, just now!
Cheers! (and thanks again for your fabulous analyses!)
10
—
That’s your definition of a “true” civilization. There have been lots of civilizations where absolute power rested with one person, slaves were the rule rather than the exception, and that civilization achieved amazing complexity and expanded greatly.
00
How’s that civilisation going today??
20
Mea culpa.
In a true civilisation, each citizen has the right … Good spot.
I also make an excellent point, that institutional third parties and governments are currently in the process of impoverishing the population, in order to increase their dependence on the state. From there, it is then only a comparatively small step, to institutionalised slavery.
20
“I also make an excellent point …”, should be “You also make an excellent point …”.
I am having a bad day. It is a public holiday in New Zealand, and my brain seems to have gone bush.
10
R. Gates your point is good enough. “Civilized” humans is almost an oxymoron. We are civilized only when it suits us and we benefit. We easily become uncivilized when oppressed, moody or under the influence of tyrants.
20
Civilization is that thin veneer that keeps the reality of the true state of human nature at bay, and that true state:
Bellum omnium contra omnes
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum_omnium_contra_omnes
But even with that veneer and great benefits it brings to the common good, those in power and seeking power still recognize the true state of nature– Bellum omnium contra omnes.
00
R. Gates, Thanks for that, I found this to be most prophetic:
I assume that “Power to keep us in awe” is God. We “civilized” and educated types have spent a great deal of time eliminating that “Power” from our modern world. At what peril? What has or will replace God and prevent us from sliding into the dark world he describes?
00
Justin,
You make a lot of good points here, but the list is far from exhaustive. Also there are alternatives approaches. Two such alternatives I have used.
1. Fundamentals that climate science ignores. These I mostly learnt from economics. For instance
– Positive v. Normative. The “is” v. “ought” distinction.
– Trivial v. nontrivial. e.g. lack of recent warming suggests a more trivial issue.
– Quality of the data and science.
– Alternative explanations.
2. Policy is an economic problem. There is a total naivety in the assumption that policy will work. To determine whether policy is net beneficial is the task of economic theory. Climate science is no more capable of proscribing and implementing policy than identifying a disease gives the knowledge of the correct drugs to cure the disease or the knowledge on how to produce such a drug. The economic analysis of climate science and climate policy is a whole new area of applied economics. I have recently developed a draft proposal here.
00
Google ‘conenssti energy’ to discover what has driven average global temperature since 1610. Follow a link in that paper to a paper that gives an equation that calculates average global temperatures with 90% accuracy since before 1900 using only one external forcing. Carbon dioxide change has no significant influence. The average global temperature trend is down.
61
Useful reference, thank you.
51
Good work Dan,
Your analysis suggests, once again, that it is all about the sun.
I will read it over again. Could you add a brief appendix to explain, what you mean by the sun spot time integral?
20
Okay then, while we’re on a theme of beautiful places, here’s an image of my favourite rock pool.
Elebana Falls At O’Reilly’s Green Mountain
It’s a favourite place for a number of reasons. My good lady wife and I spent our honeymoon at O’Reilly’s Guest House at Green Mountains. It was quite literally ten days of bliss. Odd place for a honeymoon, ten days in a rain forest, but without doubt, that was the best holiday we have ever been on.
We arrived on the Sunday, and just had a look around, the botanic gardens, and a quick walk down to the closest of the Falls, Moran’s Falls, a short walk.
The breakfast bell for Monday morning called us all to breakfast at the dining room. During every breakfast, Peter O’Reilly would visit each table and ask what we were doing for the day. There were a number of guided group walks, a choice of three or four trips away to other points of interest in a medium sized 4WD Bus, both day and evening/night trips, or you could go off on your own, but with literally hundreds of miles of walking tracks, they needed to know where you were during that particular day. For that first day, we decided on a relatively short local walk of around four miles out and four miles back. As we were on our own, we took our lunch with us, and the staff had a rucksack ready for me when we left with lunch for two and two Thermos’ of Tea.
We had our lunch at the falls shown in the image I linked to. See the falls in the background. There is a small pool at the base of these falls which then drop over the second set of falls in the foreground. The dedicated walking path goes over the top of these second falls. We just stepped down to an area below these second falls and had our lunch here, almost in the same position this image is taken from. Positively beautiful.
For the next 8/9 days, we were never at a loss for something to do. The oddest thing is that no matter how hot it was, as soon as you stepped into the rain forest, the temperature dropped around 5C, and in some places, the temperature was even decidedly cooler even than that.
They have since put in a treetop walkway suspension bridge affair, which is truly amazing. Part way along, they have a ladder that will take you to the top of the canopy, a further 20/25 metres higher than the already quite high walkway. The view at the top of the canopy is positively astonishing.
It’s been almost 33 years since that ten days we spent there, and we have been back four times, once for an extended long weekend, and we again had our lunch from a rucksack at Elebana Falls. We could never get sick of the place.
The O’Reilly’s were a huge family, all of them having huge families, and now it is run by their children and grand children, a huge extended family now.
O’Reilly’s has a rich history, not only for the heroic deed of Bernard O’Reilly, but for how the family opened up that whole Green Mountains region.
I have a five part series at my home site on the place, with parts dedicated to Bernard O’Reilly, and that stirring story is also interesting when taken in context with today’s climate/weather situation, because these were people who knew weather, who knew climate, and knew things about that which are even now just becoming noticeable.
The link is to the Index for that 5 Part Series.
O’Reilly’s At Green Mountains
Tony.
50
Hey Tony that waterfall photo was a very popular picture people put up at home, we had one, I always thought where is that place and now boom you come up with your memories of it.
Life’s funny like that. 🙂
00
How well do you know our sun?
Take a 10 question quiz:
Sun’s 2013 Solar Activity Peak Is Weakest in 100 Years
00
After so much recent intense blogging, this thread is a brilliant way of calming everyone down. Clever stuff, Jo.
30
Nice pool Jo do many people swim there?
Any rock pools around here are old quarries and most of the time it’s too bloody cold to swim, unless your in a polar bear club but I heard they were almost extinct. 🙂
10
That pool appears to be the main drop at Bell’s Rapid on the Avon River (Perth). Swimming is WAY cool in the summer, but in winter, the Avon Descent goes through there (yes, I paddled it). Anything over about 1 metre of water on the gauge, and you’d be swimming all right!! LOL – all the way to the Swan Valley!
But yes, absolutely beautiful, though on a different scale and environment that Tony’s MAGNIFICENT Green Mountains!
20
I thought it was Bell’s Rapid. We went there years ago. Unfortunately we haven’t managed WA for a few years now. The parts we’ve seen are wonderful but there is so much of WA; let alone the rest of Australia!
00
This is for Tony from Oz
The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today’s technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
unbelievable – what is happening to science these days? They are proposing that airlines use liquid hydrogen created using windpower!!
20
Ramjets! … Cool!
20
Not necessarily. Turbo jets and fan jets run fine in LH2. There are a lot of problems handling the stuff though. Even the rocket people would rather not but sometimes you need to use it for performance reasons. Kelly Johnson’s team st the Skunk Works did a lot of wok with it in the mid 50s for a supersonic successor to the U2 but in the end they decided it was no good for that use. The work wasn’t wasted as a few years later it was used in Apollo.
00
Thanks janama,
what really gives me the sh***s with these people is that they say we need to reduce the World’s current consumption of electricity by 30%
What they fail so utterly to even comprehend is that around a third of the World’s current population has either no electricity at all, or less than 5% of what we in the already developed World already have as a staple of life. That one third figure I use here is even then probably on the sanguine side, as it is most probably higher even than that.
These people say that we need to reduce current demand by 30%, in effect saying that WE in the Developed World need to reduce our consumption, and those who have none can, well, just go on like they already do now ….. with nothing.
These people consume more electricity than what you or I, the average person already does consume, and yet with their profound wisdom, they tell US that we need to reduce it even further, and bugger those who have nothing.
Then, along come media outlets and pounce on crap like this, like flies on a warm turd, and spread it far and wide, as their verdant green acolytes bow down before them in obeisance, believing every word they are told.
These people couldn’t care less for those non developed Countries people, who because of zero to extremely limited access to electrical power have, well, nothing like what we already have.
This will NEVER happen. Read my lips. N..E..V..E..R
Tony.
183
You were too kind Tony 🙂
10
I can see the advertisement. Fly Hindenburg! For the hottest airline deals anywhere.
(Yes, I am aware that the Hindenburg probably wasn’t started by hydrogen)
Seriously, have they worked out
a. the cost?
b. the way of containing the hydrogen?
c. the power weight ratio of the fuel?
Given that wind power is at least 3 times that of coal, and hydrolysis isn’t 100% efficient, then there is a compounding effect on price. So the fuel will cost at least 4 times the current level; I have mentioned before that using a variable energy supply drops the efficiency of hydrolysis below 60%. That pushes the price difference up to 5 times.
Thus using hydrogen fuel will make air travel too expensive for anybody other than those going to exotic places for Conferences on the Climate.
Hydrogen isn’t the easiest thing to store; it does tend to leak through a lot of common materials.
Liquid hydrogen has less energy density by volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four, so more weight for the same power. Compressed hydrogen needs heavy tanks; again more weight, something the aeroplane makers aren’t too keen on.
This suggestion doesn’t make sense, unless their real objective is to stop mass air flights.
10
All except their own travel, one would think. I can’t see Al Gore using alternative transportation to photograph Antarctic ice melting in the summer, nor participants in a world climate summit taking something other than a plane running on jet fuel.
The argument that wind plants don’t use much land was again stated. As I have pointed out in the past, the same argument holds for subdivision and virtually all development. Rural subdivisions of 20 acres have no more covered land than a wind plant. Depending on lot size, some city subdivisions used the same percentage of land. Yet the greens often grumble about “urban sprawl”. Many of the turbines on private land are fenced–no entry. The turbines on federal land are not fenced, so the assumption is cattle can still graze and wildlife will remain. I do know that antelope (pronghorn) will graze under turbines. As for cattle, you are going lose a significant amount of grazing. In the dry, arid area where turbines go in, removing a patch the size of house 60 or 100 times will significantly reduce the number of animals allowed on for grazing. So, yes, other activities can still go on. In limited fashion. Hunting is also reduced. Add to that only animals can “live” under the turbines, and you’ve taken out a lot of land from other uses. In farm lands, the wind industry in some areas had imposed a 330 foot area around the turbine bases be removed from farming due to “safety concerns”. Less area to grow food. So now we stop using the conservation areas for conservation and start farming them. We have to grow food somewhere. (Actually, the price of corn was making farming these areas profitable–thank you ethanol.) Less conservation, more land destructed.
I wonder were we are going to get the steel, copper, etc for the thousands and thousands of transmission lines? Can’t mine with electric haul trucks and draglines. How do we transport the raw materials? How do we manufacture the parts? Obviously, these people are intellectually vacant and sadly well compensated for their ignorance.
40
Just love your first sentence.
10
Add Item d. – the fire hazard posed by hydrogen. We consider petrol and other hydrocarbons are dangerously flammable and they are only flammable over a very limited range of vapour/air mixture (between approx. 1 and 8% vapour in air). How do we possibly handle hydrogen safely when its flammable range (from my admittedly sometimes faulty memory)is around 2-95%, given the amounts released in normal refuelling situations (how much petrol can you smell at a service station?)?
10
He says the world needs 100 times more windmills. That will certainly decimate the bird population.
00
An entire legion of seagull shredders awaits.
00
It’s not a rock pool but a favorite place of mine in our local Botanic Gardens
http://s1295.photobucket.com/user/Yonniestone/library/Statorium?sort=3&page=1#
These statues are simply exquisite and have a unique calming effect.
20
Just posted this at Jennifer’s blog.
Just to prove what fools Luke and bazza are have a look at this link from the Bolter.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/snow_last_year_fires_this_guess_which_is_global_warming/
This time 12 months ago snow fell in the Blue mountains and it snowed as far north as the granite belt in Qld.
You can read the link to the ABC report where it states that 15cm or about 6 inches fell over the BM and the storm caused electricity to be cut from about 450 properties.
So this Oct it’s proof of CAGW but last Oct it’s just bloody snowy wet and cold weather. Duh. Of course neither WEATHER events are proof of anything, except the fact that we can have very changeable, dangerous weather here in OZ.
And sometimes it’s just a pain in the backside like some of the alarmist comments from the barking mad lefties.
82
I may as well throw in this link as well.
The Bolter delivers one of his best editorials on the Bolt Report.
http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.html#pbid=5bbbb2f96a0499fafcafb28bf66a34a&ec=1idTZmZzrxRBkIWQEcKH6NmD_IT-LS6O&docUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.news.com.au%2Fheraldsun%2Fandrewbolt%2F
32
Jo,
What a beautiful, calm and reflective photograph.
PW Dublin, Ireland
10
It is not surprising that during a period of time when those who present data and analysis that disproves a hypothesis are called deniers by the media and by scientists who are activists first and scientists second, the fact that multiple observations and analysis appear to completely disprove AGW can remain hidden to the general public. It appears the gig is up the planet has started to cool due to the solar 24 cycle change which is not surprising as the paleo data shows there are cycles of warming and cooling that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes. It is difficult to even imagine how the public and the IPCC/warmist scientists will respond to an unequivocally cooling planet.
This is a very interesting paper.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
…As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur.
As the theoretical initial temperature effect of changes in atmospheric CO2 must materialize first in the troposphere, and then subsequently at the planet surface (land and ocean), our diagrams 2–8 reveal that the common notion of globally dominant temperature controls exercised by atmospheric CO2 is in need of reassessment.
Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around….
…A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and it remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply reflects the gradual warming of the oceans, as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011).
…Analyses of a pole-to-pole transect of atmospheric CO2 records suggest that changes in atmospheric CO2 are initiated south of the Equator, but probably not far from the Equator, and from there spreads towards the two poles within a year or so (Fig. 13). This observation specifically points towards the oceans at or south of the Equator as an important source area for observed changes in atmospheric CO2. The major release of anthropogene CO2 is taking place at mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (Fig. 12), but the north–south transect investigated show no indication of the main change signal in atmospheric CO2 originating here. The main signal must therefore be caused by something else. A similar conclusion, but based on studies of the residence time of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere, was reached by Segalstad (1998); Essenhigh (2009).
51
Nah, it’s a dud. Some basic modelling was enough to confirm my suspicion.
It also takes a special level of denial to be aware of the decline in global ocean temperatures for the last 12 years as proof the accelerating CO2 levels aren’t creating any warming (ie lack of correlation) while at the same time claiming that rising temperatures are the main cause of rising CO2. Uh….. right. No correlation means no causation, in either direction.
10
I came across this recently, Peter Allen singing “I Still Call Australia Home” in 1980.
While I’ve heard the song many times, I had never noticed his reference to the world getting older and colder before. It’s about the 1:40 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV78XFdBTsk
30
The New Zealand National Anthem “I still call Australia Home”.
50
Yeah, that is the anthem of the money men, all right.
It is no coincidence, that when the Aussie banks moved in to take over the New Zealand banking sector, was also the time that New Zealand changed its official national anthem to, “God Defend New Zealand”.
Hasn’t helped much though.
10
Peter Allen’s version should have been – I still call Australia by Phone.
20
According to this, fires are more frequent. True or false ?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/s720x720/1390543_174168399455260_1394996168_n.jpg
00
Or perhaps the question should be, true, false, or misleading ?
10
Untrue – we’ve had many fires in October before this year. We’ve even had fires in September.
In fact, of 48 major bushfires in NSW between 1926 and 2006, 11 occurred in October or earlier:
North-Western NSW: Bushfires – 01/09/84 deaths – 4
Western Sydney and Central Coast, NSW: 16/10/91 deaths – 2
Hunter Valley, NSW: 01/09/96
Central Coast/Hunter Valley/south coast. 15/08/96
NW NSW : Bush Fire 30/10/01
Sydney, NSW: Bushfires 09/10/02
Northern NSW: Bushfire 27/09/02
Central Coast, QLD/NSW: Bushfires 27/09/02
Cessnock, NSW: Bushfire 19/10/02 deaths – 1
NSW Bushfires 24/09/06
Bushfires: Sydney and South Coast, NSW 24/09/06
40
Fires lit by the government do seem to occur more often and the enforced preservation of dangerous trees close to houses may do more damage than before that nonsense began. However bushfires in July do not seem to happen as often now.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/57112596?
September and October fires seem to occur less often too.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/13236363?
October 1862
1863
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/31829833?
10
September October 1862
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/102587806?
October 1865.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5775890?
October 1867
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/60846598?
00
Siliggy,
They keep on harping on about these latest October bush fires bring unusual, but I noticed in The Australian today, the article by Henry Ergas, brings them into perspective:
“Lives lost to bush fires are about one-tenth those due to structural fires in homes and less than 1% of the annual road fatalities.”
20
Dave have those statistics been perverted by the roof insulation fires, solar panels stopping the fire hose and pushbike risk taking? Not to mention the flickering light from wind turbines distracting drivers.
10
October 1868
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1310453?
00
Also from 1868.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/5775315?
00
Very well then.
Rockpools it is.
In 2009 I drove out to the Lamington National Park area in the Gold Coast hinterland. There’s a smaller park nearby which contains an unusual rock formation. The river has etched a vertical hole in a cliff where it can fall through and emerge from a cave at the bottom. They call this “Natural Bridge”, though in the old days it was called “Natural Arch”.
Here’s my happy snap of the place: Natural Bridge, Oct 2009.
As Jon Stewart might say… There is your South East Queensland Moment of Zen.
10
Looks likea good Murray cod hole;great to run atop water lure over it at sunset!
00
……except it’s in WA.Nonetheless it appeals to this mother natures son.
00
Help
On another list I postulated this rebuttal to a post:
You apparently suffer from a popular misconception, Geoffrey.
“Scientific proof” is an oxymoron, as is “scientific consensus”.
Science is a discipline in which practitioners constant SEEK the truth.
Such has been the case for a thousand years. The first scientist, Ibn al Haytham was born in the year 965.
Contrary to popular opinion, science and scientists do not “prove” things. Proof is a construct that belongs in such fields as religion and politics.
In science, the data is king and evidence trumps everything. The big lesson of the Enlightenment is that data and evidence are the highest authorities, not humans.
The scientific method DISPROVES things, and those things are called hypotheses.
Watch while Richard Feynman, by many considered the finest physics mind since Einstein, explains it to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
Ohm’ s Law, for instance, started as a guess, an hypothesis. The next steps are Hypothesis, investigate, design experimental terms of reference, test, collect data, analyse, review, publish.
If it is possible to construct the NULL hypothesis, then the first step must be to attempt to disprove the null hypothesis. Generally, the null hypothesis is simple the natural order of things.
Although published in 1827, Georg Ohm made many attempts to disprove the hypothesis originally posed by Cavendish some thirty years previous. Ohm and others were unable to DISPROVE his ideas pertaining to the relationship of voltage, current and resistance. About this stage it was a THEORY. A great deal of additional work by James Clerk Maxwell could not disprove V = IR, either. Not a single soul has been able to disprove the relationship since. Therefore it is accepted. Should at some point someone successfully DISPROVE Ohm’s Law, or, more succinctly, Maxwell’s equations, it will no longer be a law.
In this century, a further requirement was added to the list of requirements for the test of an hypothesis. Karl Popper proposed that if an hypothesis is not FALSIFIABLE, it falls outside the realm of science.
If it isn’t Popper falsifiable, it isn’t science. It’s pseudoscience. Watch Feynman explain the difference between science and pseudoscience. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5fc4oV2F3o
The last thousand years have produced many instances in which something BELIEVED to be true (‘belief’ has no place in science, and is a construct of religion and politics) has later been disproved. One oft cited example refers to the 1982 discovery by Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren that the cause of stomach ulcers is in fact microbial. A more recent example was the subject of a program on Catalyst recently, which seriously questions the relationship of cholesterol and heart disease.
Ironically, the extensive list of criticisms portrayed on Catalyst regarding the cherished ‘beliefs’ about cholesterol apply equally well to the so-called ‘climate debate’. If the ABC were not fully engrossed in tribal group-think, as has been aptly pointed out by ex-chairman Maurice Newman, Catalyst might well repeat this Catalyst program in relation to the notion that atmospheric CO2 is somehow has a causal relationship with temperature. Little would be required to produce a new program, other than substitute the word “cholesterol” for the words “global warming”.
Rather than be clobbered about being OT, on something which someone else originated, I can lead you to a discussion regarding this idea at http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/catalyst-says-consensus-wrong-on-cholesterol-but-unquestionable-on-climate/
The PhD came back with what follows. Am I in the wrong?
I’m sorry Rod, but you’re the one suffering from a common misconception (and your history of science is out my centuries).
Just as courts of law have different types of proof, so there are different types of proof in general epistemology. No scientist ever claims that they have discovered a priori truth. That is the realm of mathematicians and philosophers. Descartes proved he existed (cogito ergo sum) and Euclid proved that there is an infinite number of prime numbers. By a priori proof we mean proof without the need for observations. If you consult a good dictionary, you will see this as about the fourth or fifth meaning. The primary meaning of proof given in dictionaries is the a posteriori proof of science: to provide sufficient evidence to warrant a belief that something is true. Yes, of course any observation might be falsified (and then that‘s the end of the belief, or it should be). But falsifiability doesn’t render truth impossible.
To come back to Ohms Law. Maybe someday in the distant future the earth’s magnetic properties subtly change and Ohms Law needs revision. But how many electrical products have rolled off production lines over the last century every one of which makes use of Ohms Law? Isn’t there sufficient evidence by now to warrant a belief that Ohms Law is true? Would you rather we waited until another billion gadgets are produced before you’ll stick your neck out and say Ohms Law must be true? Or will you still be denying that the evidence proves the truth of the law just because there is still the slight chance of it being falsified?
Just because one day there might be geologic uplift in Nepal and water then boils at 93°C in Kathmandu doesn’t mean that it is not true right here and now that water boils at 94°C in Kathmandu.
Your mistake—as is the mistake of so many science-deniers—is to fail to understand that there is a difference between deductive proof and inductive proof. The former belongs to logic and mathematics; the latter to science. You can’t criticise science on the grounds that it can never prove anything by a priori means. That would be what philosophers call a “category mistake”.
10
Gosh that’s a curly one, Rod. It’s like the two of you are talking past each other.
Firstly, can’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
I reckon ‘Geoffrey’ is deploying several non-sequiturs here, probably not intentionally but is due to quibbles about semantics.
The bit about Ohm’s law – strawman probably. I doubt you were denying any of the supporting evidence for Ohm’s law. If you were saying Ohm’s Law isn’t *absolutely* proven, okay, and that’s not equivalent to saying Ohm’s law is either false or has no evidence for it.
The bit about Kathmandu – total red herring. If it is a fact today, hindsight doesn’t change that even if the boiling temperature changed in future. It’s a very specific and contingent statement. That says nothing about a general law of physics on the same level as ohm’s law.
So just mentally scrub out those two middle paragraphs and you have a rather odd collection left.
He seems right about the “a priori” and “a posteriori” proofs, but I don’t see how that conflicts with saying no scientific theory is ever absolutely proven. He’s saying that absolute proof isn’t part of science, which is also what you’re saying, but he is arguing there is such a thing as “scientific proof” which is the inductive or “a posteriori” proof.
My impression is that he’s basically saying that although everything you said is true it doesn’t argue against anything he originally said, because a rule highly likely to be true given all available evidence, in the Bayesian conditional probability sense (ie inductive learning), qualifies as “scientific proof” in his view.
It’s just semantics. What would you like the phrase “scientific proof” to mean? 🙂
Once you decide that, there’s your answer.
If this was about CAGW, it would be more fruitful to argue that other hypotheses in Physics were promoted to theories only after a wide variety of competing falsifiable hypotheses, which differed in significant ways, were considered and tested against the real world measurements. How does he justify putting CAGW in that category when competing hypotheses of climate get shut out, etc.
If it’s about the validity of Ohm’s Law, … errm… well from what I have read… theoretically… in a thin wire at very high current at 1 degree above absolute zero the current can become non-linear with voltage increases as quantum effects become noticeable and there are no more free electrons available in the metal to conduct any quicker, so…. yes even Ohm’s law isn’t absolutely 100% true under every conceivable circumstance at nanometer scales. But then Ohm wasn’t testing at those levels and neither is anyone else.
99.999% + Ego = 100% for some values of “equals” 😉
20
Thanks Andrew
It started out with piled higher and deeper launching into a tirade about Hunt using Wikipedia, but, since it has to do with technical writing, then wandered into the vagaries of Wikipedia, what use is it if anyone can edit it, you can’t go past scholarly papers that are peer reviewed, and on and on and on.
So I made an admittedly smart ass comment that at least SOME of the material on Wikipedia is factual, which is a Hell of a lot more than you can say for anything in Fairfax, the ABC, the CSIRO, or the BOM.
Then war broke out. A lady came to my assistance by pointing out that in this age of post modern science, there is so much corruption, so much deceit, and so much spin that one can’t believe anything anymore.
The PhD in journalism came along with now now, what is the Truth, anyhow, why look at Ohm’s Law. That must be true, or you computer wouldn’t work. Once science has proved something, it is the truth, etc. which is where I thought I would point out that isn’t quite the way it works etc. It’s a bunch of lefty weirdo arts fartsies so I took a lot of flack as a “science-denier”. That’s a new one. Apparently now I simply deny science.
10
Of course I didn’t mean that I expect some bloke to come along and disprove Ohm’s Law. The point is, if you are going to say that “the science is in” on certain things, how do you differentiate the “settled” from the “unsettled”. But that sort of logic flies right past these writers. Don’t you dare suggest that the IPCC might make a mistake. The concept that the IPCC has never got a thing right just doesn’t phase them.
10
lovely rock pool, jo.
economists love carbon dioxide trading! u call that news?
28 Oct: SMH: Matt Wade: Tony Abbott’s new direct action sceptics
Leading economists have overwhelmingly rejected Tony Abbott’s direct action climate change policy and backed carbon pricing…
Internationally renowned Australian economist Justin Wolfers, of the Washington-based Brookings Institution and the University of Michigan, said he was surprised that any economists would opt for direct action, under which the government will pay for emissions cuts by businesses and farmers from a budget worth $2.88 billion over four years…
BT Financial’s Dr Chris Caton said any economist who did not opt for emissions trading “should hand his degree back”…
Several economists surveyed said the weight of international evidence showed that carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced more efficiently through a broadbased market mechanism such as a trading scheme. “That seems to be the way that the major economies are headed – not uniformly, unfortunately,” CBA economist Michael Workman said…
“If I had to make a choice between pricing carbon and having bureaucrats allocating permits, then I’m going to go for the market mechanism every time,” said Rob Henderson, a National Australia Bank senior economist…
Commsec’s Craig James, who also supported the Coalition’s policy, said the standard economic assumption that markets could solve almost anything was not right. He said markets could fail and might be the wrong response to an environmental problem…
“The attempts that the Europeans have made so far have been less than stellar,” Mr James said.
Mr James also said he was sceptical that humans were having a serious impact on climate…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-new-direct-action-sceptics-20131027-2w9va.html
00
***nothing’s too insane for Fairfax to publish, provided it’s for the CAGW Cause:
28 Oct: SMH: Adam Morton: Bigger carbon cuts needed, report says
The gap between climate change commitments and what scientists say is necessary is underlined in a new report that estimates Australia would need to make emissions cuts of at least 27 per cent by 2020 and 82 per cent cut by 2030 to play its part in averting global warming.
The report by European consultancy Ecofys comes as the Climate Change Authority prepares to release draft recommendations this week on how much and how quickly Australia should be cutting emissions…
The Ecofys report, commissioned by environmental group World Wildlife Fund, finds that Australia has already emitted at least two-thirds of what it could reasonably ever emit under a global ”carbon budget” – the maximum emissions that can be released in coming decades to give the world a chance to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees.
If emissions remain at their current level, Australia’s estimated long-term budget of 18 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide would be used up in about a decade.
It estimates Australia would need to cut emissions by between 27 and 34 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, and between 82 and 100 per cent by 2030.
***By 2050 it is likely Australia would be expected to have zero emissions and to be drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere…
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bigger-carbon-cuts-needed-report-says-20131027-2w9sh.html
00
reality: NZ failing, even tho more than half their electricity is provided by hydro!
28 Oct: Business Spectator: Point Carbon: NZ on track to miss targets by huge margin
New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise nearly 50 per cent by 2040, according to new government modelling, taking the country well off course to meet its commitment to cut emissions in half by mid-century…
(LOL) Asked by the Green Party in parliament about the projections on Wednesday, Simon Bridges, associate minister for climate change, said emissions were projected to rise because of current low carbon prices in the country’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
“We know that as we make progress in international (climate change) negotiations, that carbon price will surely rise,” Bridges said…
Domestic emissions permits in the New Zealand ETS currently trade at NZ$3.75 ($3.15), but companies are also allowed to comply by buying U.N.-backed carbon credits, which are available for only 30 cents each…
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/10/28/policy-politics/nz-track-miss-targets-huge-margin
00
Thanks Jo
Great shot. Very ZEN.
Reminiscent of temple gardens of Kyoto.
Stillness and fluidity, with solidity.
Alice
00
Peter C – The sunspot time integral is like a running total. Average daily sunspot numbers are reported for each year. The sunspot time integral is the sum of these yearly numbers from some start year until the year of interest. There are links in the References to the sources that I used.
10
Thanks Dan.
00
The most interesting rock pool I’ve ever saw was about three days walk from Kathmandu on the way to Mount Everest (Solu Khumbu region).
It was a creek that fed into the river originally but a boulder avalanche, most probably many thousands of years ago blocked it off which created the pool. The discharge point was a tapered water slide with a rock ceiling, a fast flowing grotto.
The water was warm and visited the rock pool that was off the beaten track on the walk back. What an adventure, snuck into Tibet through Panch Pokhari, walked all the way to Everest base camp, celebrated my twentieth birthday at Namche Bazar where the locals turned on a party for me and an amazing feature of that town was a glacier spilling over a cliff, turning into a raging waterfall as it cascaded down around three thousand feet.
Hope to take my wife and daughter to those amazing places next May where I’ll celebrate my fifty fifth birthday. Speaking of celebrations…our twenty fourth wedding anniversary today. Jade Buddha in the Brisbane CBD.
10
Well there’s something really strange in the photo, if you turn it upside down you can see a woman in the shot and maybe a car on the bridge 😉
00
Justin Jefferies above at 3. examines Green Gaia Global Warming from the perspective of comparative religion and Lo, it all fits.
At the heart of this religion is The Greenhouse Gas Effect, a mystery of faith that supports the whole construction.
I have spent some time trying to understand the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory, starting with Christopher Moncton, here on this blog and moving on to subversive texts by the Slayers. That lead on to revisiting the science of Blackbodies, Electromagnetic Radiation and Quantum Theory.
Having just finished reading “Quantum, Einstein, Bohr and the great debate about the Nature of Reality” by Manjit Kumar, which was suggested to me by John Brookes I find that there might be something wrong at the very heart of physics itself. The great debate is not yet over and attempts to rationalise the uncertainties of the physical reality of the electron have lead Physicists to propose the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes, which seems exremely bizarre.
Therefore perhaps science cannot yet explain the Greenhouse gas effect, which partially supports the agnostics, who proclaim that the Greenhouse effect is real, but so weak that it is not important.
The key must be empirical experiments, which have been ignored for so long.
00
Apologies, Justin Jefferson!
00
[Putting this here to avoid polluting latest thread. ]
Queensland’s new anti-hooning laws seem to impose a tougher penalty for revving your engine loudly at startup while stationary than for driving with a 0.15% BAC.
Check page 3 of the fact sheet.
Being noisy for a minute can get your car impounded for 3 months? Is this a continuation of The Right To Not Be Upset? I thought only the leftists did that? But apparently authoritarianism is bipartisan.
If we continue to outlaw “being an arsehole” at successively lower thresholds of upset then there will be nobody left to run the prisons.
Combine this law with the Qld bikie prohibition laws, the federal Bank Levy, silence on warantless wiretaps, and the silent rubber-stamping of the new TPP without public consultation, and it is unfortunately becoming obvious that the Liberals in both State and Federal levels are more anti-liberal than Labor or the Greens.
00