A smart post on the topic of global warming which highlights:
-The corruption of science as a tool for discovering truth into a means to manipulate
-The basics of interaction between cosmic rays and clouds; if cosmis rays do in fact increase cloud cover, then temps will vary accordingly. If there are more clouds, temps will decrease on average and over time. Interestingly, this is also a natural climate feedback loop - the warmer things are, they more cloud cover there is likely to be, not to mention that more vegetation will grow (vegetation should increase as growing seasons lengthen, but also due to increases in CO2 that result of oceanic off gassing with any warming).
Through several more years of "careful, quantitative measurement" at CERN, Mr. Kirkby predicts he and his team will "definitively answer the question of whether or not cosmic rays have a climatically significant effect on clouds." His old ally Mr. Svensmark feels he's already answered that question, and he guesses that CERN's initial results "could have been achieved eight to 10 years ago, if the project had been approved and financed."
The biggest milestone in last month's publication may be not the content but the source, which will be a lot harder to ignore than Mr. Svensmark and his small Danish institute.
Any regrets, now that CERN's particle accelerator is spinning without him? "No. It's been both a blessing and the opposite," says Mr. Svensmark. "I had this field more or less to myself for years—that would never have happened in other areas of science, such as particle physics. But this has been something that most climate scientists would not be associated with. I remember another researcher saying to me years ago that the only thing he could say about cosmic rays and climate was it that it was a really bad career move."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Note the difference in this piece, and this one:
Rick Perry, the Texas governor and longtime friend of the oil industry, who insists that climate change is an unproven theory created by “a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.”
Here's another example of ignorant coverage of the topic:
-The corruption of science as a tool for discovering truth into a means to manipulate
-The basics of interaction between cosmic rays and clouds; if cosmis rays do in fact increase cloud cover, then temps will vary accordingly. If there are more clouds, temps will decrease on average and over time. Interestingly, this is also a natural climate feedback loop - the warmer things are, they more cloud cover there is likely to be, not to mention that more vegetation will grow (vegetation should increase as growing seasons lengthen, but also due to increases in CO2 that result of oceanic off gassing with any warming).
Through several more years of "careful, quantitative measurement" at CERN, Mr. Kirkby predicts he and his team will "definitively answer the question of whether or not cosmic rays have a climatically significant effect on clouds." His old ally Mr. Svensmark feels he's already answered that question, and he guesses that CERN's initial results "could have been achieved eight to 10 years ago, if the project had been approved and financed."
The biggest milestone in last month's publication may be not the content but the source, which will be a lot harder to ignore than Mr. Svensmark and his small Danish institute.
Any regrets, now that CERN's particle accelerator is spinning without him? "No. It's been both a blessing and the opposite," says Mr. Svensmark. "I had this field more or less to myself for years—that would never have happened in other areas of science, such as particle physics. But this has been something that most climate scientists would not be associated with. I remember another researcher saying to me years ago that the only thing he could say about cosmic rays and climate was it that it was a really bad career move."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Note the difference in this piece, and this one:
Rick Perry, the Texas governor and longtime friend of the oil industry, who insists that climate change is an unproven theory created by “a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects.”
Never mind that nearly all the world’s scientists regard global warming as a serious threat to the planet, with human activities like the burning of fossil fuels a major cause. Never mind that multiple investigations have found no evidence of scientific manipulation. Never mind that America needs a national policy. Mr. Perry has a big soapbox, and what he says, however fallacious, reaches a bigger audience than any scientist can command.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/opinion/in-the-land-of-denial-on-climate-change.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Oh criminy, what a whine! Mr. Perry will do well if he can compete with Algore and the Chickenlittles and their cacophany of AGW peril! And still, no discussion of the science beyond the opinions of scientists, which is as I've written many times, only a symptom of science, not actual science.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/07/opinion/in-the-land-of-denial-on-climate-change.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Oh criminy, what a whine! Mr. Perry will do well if he can compete with Algore and the Chickenlittles and their cacophany of AGW peril! And still, no discussion of the science beyond the opinions of scientists, which is as I've written many times, only a symptom of science, not actual science.
Here's another example of ignorant coverage of the topic:
He accuses folks of ignoring the facts of AGW, and then cites not facts but expert opinions:
The consensus among experts, in fact, happens to be virtually unanimous on the other side. A survey of climate scientists who have published research in the field found that 97 to 98 percent believe people are causing the planet to heat up.
Every major scientific group concurs. The National Academy of Sciences published a report last year reaching a firm conclusion: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems."
Groups such as the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science agree. So does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of scientists from around the world. At this point, disagreeing is like saying Willie Mays has no business in the Hall of Fame.
The consensus among experts, in fact, happens to be virtually unanimous on the other side. A survey of climate scientists who have published research in the field found that 97 to 98 percent believe people are causing the planet to heat up.
Every major scientific group concurs. The National Academy of Sciences published a report last year reaching a firm conclusion: "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems."
Groups such as the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science agree. So does the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of scientists from around the world. At this point, disagreeing is like saying Willie Mays has no business in the Hall of Fame.
My Opus on the topic is holding up well to "expert opinion". Disagreeing with the consensus on AGW is less like venturing an opinion about Willie Mays - not that anyone cares about professional baseball or baseball palyers anymore - and stating what is true; consensus is not proof, and every so called scientist should admit as much.
No comments:
Post a Comment