Tag Archives: Global warming

Cold with a side of Doom

I had planned to write a long post with more of my own ideas based off of this essay at Watts Up With That: The Climate-Grain Production Relationship Quantified. But instead, work intervenes again, and here is the nugget. You should certainly read the linked article too.

It should be relatively obvious that the sooner in the year that it gets cold and the later it gets warm, the fewer crops can be grown. I am sure I have beat the solar cooling drum before, though not to peddle alarmism. Rather to argue for genetically modified food and the unleashing of human potential to innovate and not just survive a potentially upcoming ‘little ice age’ but to this time avoid civilizational collapse as well. First, here is a graphic of the past and predicted solar cycle: clip_image008_thumbOf course, you should for this post ignore the fact that the global warming of the previous decades is surprisingly coincident with a solar maximum. instead, notice that the possible loss in corn yield, 21% loss… and who would this affect most? clip_image014_thumbWell, everyone of course, since problems in the middle east and Asia very rapidly become everyone’s problems.

However, rather than shout Doom! we should follow Mitch Daniels’ advice.

Advertisements

Potential Allies

The post-modern ‘proof’ of existence seems to me to be a truncated form of Descartes. Descartes started with what he knew you could know: that, in fact, some thing ‘I’ can think. He then proceeded to prove that I was an existence, and then that God must exist. Then since God exists, everything that ‘I’ observe exists at least somewhat like ‘I’ observe it. This framework is far more subjective than I would posit, however it is a usable framework for thinking and living. I made a graph after the nature of reaction profiles. (If you have had some chemistry, you may recognize the format.) As you proceed from left to right you are following the case for the worldview and as you go up, importance increases.Untitled-1Let us contrast that to a post-modern fully subjective worldview is like.Untitled-1aThis latter figure is the new worldview. This worldview has several repercussions. For now, though, I’ll only mention one. Everything includes ideas, thoughts, truth, good, evil, right, wrong, cowardice, and valor. Since existence is defined by the mind and thoughts of the one existing, it is not necessarily the case that something observed by one is true to the other. The only reason, in this scenario, for truth and reality to be agreed upon (such as everyone agreeing on what is green) is social conditioning and pressure. There is no ground for insisting that something is wrong outside of societal norms.

This worldview is antithetical in every way to two things: religions of revealed Truth (Specifically Christianity, but that is another topic for another time.) and science. That’s why I think scientists should swallow their anti-religion pride and make some common cultural cause with the strict traditionalists of the Church in the arena of absolute, knowable, transmittable and immutable truth.

You see, if truth is only a construct of the mind, then science cannot exist. Science depends upon the core belief that the truth is knowable and constant. Our knowledge of it is flawed and in constant flux, in constant need of study, experiment, update and thought. If truth is not timeless and knowable, then a consensus of quality minds actually would define truth and therefore science. If that were the case, then the sun did indeed revolve around the earth for Ptolemy, while much later, after some cataclysmic solar revolution, it now is orbited by the earth due in large part to Galileo.geocentric

Every scientist, and probably every person not fully committed to the conclusions of this worldview, would find this ridiculous. And yet one academic department after another has fallen to this worldview. Perhaps because they are not grounded in observation, or perhaps because scientists are a particular brand of curmudgeon, the humanities have fallen first, long ago. Now however, even the hard sciences are under attack. The global warming consensus is (although it mayn’t be a consensus after all) the only consistent argument in favor of the theory and people peddle it as fact. Man-made global warming may indeed be fact, but there is not one model made to predict the future warming that predicted the current pause. When all the models are wrong, it usually means something about the assumptions of the modelers.

Again, if truth is only a construct of the mind, objective religion cannot exist. Religion is demoted to ‘something that makes you feel better’ which puts it into the category of whiskey. woodford

If that is the case, then anything in the religion that makes you feel upset or threatened must not be true –for you. Maybe someone else feels better knowing that God condemns sexual immorality of all sorts, then this religious belief is true for them.  And if a large enough group of spiritual people agree that something is acceptable for god, then, it must be. That of course leads to the absurd idea that god was pleased by the Mayan human sacrifices. If that were the case, then you could very easily argue not just that societies make their own gods in the image that pleases them, but that god must also actually exist for their believing created it. I am sure this scenario sounds more plausible than the Ptolemy scenario above. That feeling is just the result of the overwhelming nature of the subjective worldview in every domain but the hard sciences.

So that is why I recommend not just a peace treaty between traditional Church leader and scientists but active cultural cooperation. The Church is not in any danger of being wiped out by a fleeting theory in the minds of men, but science may well have to come and take shelter inside the doors of the Church, running for sanctuary from those that scientists currently think are science’s friend.

If this happens, you can count on churchmen to preserve everything they can, just like last time the forces of nihilism swept the western world. But before that, why not pick up a sword and fight in the streets of civilization (the enemy is long through the walls) alongside the Church for Truth and civilization and life?

Greener Planet

I think the best line is about the fact that humans do not compete with any other living animal for the use of fossil fuels. For trees, hydroelectric, wind etc… we compete with living things…

(h/t Watts Up With That)

Climate Change

Since I have a lot of writing to do for work over the next two or three weeks, I will probably not be writing all that much for here. Its a hazard of being a graduate student. However, I do plan to occasionally link to articles that I find interesting with brief comments like I have in the past. So I wont be totally inactive, it is just unlikely that I will write my own essays or articles for a few weeks…

Today I have two articles related by global warming:

First up: New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

Just an example of why the raw data of any set of experiments if extremely important. This has to do with which NOAA thermometers were used for the US temperature trends. Compliant = ‘good’ data non-compliant should = ‘bad’ data, and yet for some reason, the report adjusted the good data to be more in line with the bad data.

And next: The Climategate and Jerry Sandusky Scandals: A Common Thread

The same man, Graham Spanier, led coverup style ‘investigations’ for both.

Spanier’s “investigation” of Jerry Sandusky was so thoroughly inept that it got him fired.  When it was completed, Spanier stated that he had “complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations against Sandusky,” and he was fired very shortly thereafter.  The recent Freeh report indicates that the investigation was conducted for the purpose of finding nothing.  In other words, it was a cover-up.

It wasn’t the only time Spanier rigged an inept investigation for the purpose of finding nothing.  In 2010, his investigators found that Penn State climatologist Michael Mann had done nothing wrong when he invented his “hockey stick trick,” to “hide the decline” and lend false credibility to climate change theory.  The difference between the Mann investigation and the Sandusky investigation is that one covered up a sex offender and the other covered up a fraud.

 

 

The Great Extrapolation

Science is so frequently abused it is no wonder that people are rapidly losing their trust of anything with the label science. I suppose this is the just end for those who used the science label and the trappings of science, graphs, charts, R2 values, big words, to trick people who rightfully trusted science. Science, real science, is a method to discover the truth about the world. In this system it is acceptable to make extrapolations and theories that are difficult or even impossible to prove. This creative side of science gives scientists and people ideas to test, and if real science is being done, discard if they are found in contradiction of observation. As a result, any theory that cannot be tested is in essence not science.

One of the most common features to the ‘sale’ of pseudo-science and loony conspiracy theories dressed up as science is the graph; specifically the false extrapolation graph. Here, I think, is a perfect example of what I mean. When I was small, my mother and father kept track of my height at different ages. When I plot this data against my age in years, the resulting graph is below.

As you can clearly see, my growth between age 11 and age 14 was really nicely correlated to my age, that’s a nice statistical correlation.. so lets extrapolate.

OK, so for anyone with even my sister’s level of math, the 12.779 inches at age 0 wasn’t a surprise, it is from the equation for the line. (My sister is a very talented violinist, who would probably have been good at math too if she had liked it at all.) But lets extrapolate into the future the same amount.

That puts me at around 120 inches next year! I should warn my wife that I am about to grow four feet. Alright, so this example is obviously ludicrous. How about an example of potential pseudo-science? Here is a graph of IPCC models (from the IPCC website, some random presentation linked if you click on the slide.)

I am not (here at least) trying to make the case that man-made global warming is a total hoax brought to you by the same set of people that gave us the ozone hole… However, it is a particularly good rule of thumb that if a theory asks you to believe a prediction of the future based on past measurements, you should be skeptical. In fact, people should at all times, and in all ways, be skeptical of all claims made by all people. Since the most reverend and ancient ploy to convince people to believe or buy something is appealing to an authority you made up for the purpose it is even more important to be skeptical of any ‘authority’… not stubborn disbelief, nor unfettered belief, just skepticism. A good non-scientific example: Obama wants us to believe the authority of a non-partisan study conducted by a donor to his campaign…

Well, as one last note, here is how the information on my age to height is potentially valid. When I was 12.7 years old, I was probably quite close to the 68.45 inches predicted by the linear fit on the graph. That is, the correlation is only valid inside the range of measurements. Perhaps mind is all polluted by analytical chemists in college 🙂 and that makes me demand my correlations be within the measured standards. (Read Wikipedea on Standard Curves… I don’t feel like explaining it now.)

‘Settled’ Science

In these days of constant discussion of global warming (or ‘climate change’) or whatever is the fancy new term used to misdirect, I thought it would be good to discuss a little the very notion of ‘settled science’ and question why, when anyone wishes to discuss or hypothesize against these assumed cornerstones of modern thought they are instantly, and ruthlessly, labeled a Neanderthal, and immediately presumed irrelevant.

Now, I actually have no intention of discussing the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Instead, let us look at another, much more deeply rooted theory that even a whisper against gets one labeled an unscientific, backwater idiot. Let us think for now about the theory of evolution. Not the theory of natural selection, which is commonly and purposefully conflated with the idea of macro-evolution. Natural selection, namely the theory that certain genetic traits can be more favorable to certain environments, and this leads over time to different subspeicies, is actually observable. However, the idea to discuss, the idea I will call evolution from now on, is the idea that this process can yield a gain in genetic information, and ultimately lead from some initial ‘life’ to everything form of life if given enough time.

This theory, expounded by nearly every academic and scientist, is treated as settled science. Every single new discovery is forced into the evolution mold, every single scientific thought is forced, by academics, by editors, by the international mockery machine, to comply with and never question the theory of evolution.

This is preposterous. The very nature of science is sold out entirely when scientists are not allowed to ever propose different theories, competing ideas, and exert their full scientific abilities to try and prove or disprove any theories they like. As soon as a theory becomes ‘settled’ and embedded with no dissent allowed, it is effectively, religion. Any scientist who tries to silence anyone with an opposing idea of the origin of life immediately surrenders his right to call himself a scientist. Instead, he is become a priest of the modern religion.

As for the theory of evolution itself, no one can accurately gage its merits for one simple reason. No one has either had the motivation, the money or the ability to actually inspect it with skepticism and modern scientific technology. Since everything affected by the theory (biology, anthropology, biochemistry etc.) is forced to start with a 19th century theory based on 19th century technology, the theory itself has not been tested.

Aha, one might say. (Indeed, aha!) The idea of God creating life is even older, and certainly impossible to study. But this is a pointless argument, since religion is not bound by the rules of science. Science cannot, must not, make pronouncements on what cannot be observed with the eye (or some awesome instrument) or deduced from those observations. Religion by its very nature, discusses what cannot be seen or observed. So for now, let’s focus on the claims made by those who pretend to be discussing what is observed and incontrovertible, but in reality has never been tested or tried, especially not with modern scientific techniques.

So, settled though the world might want to believe evolution is, all the persistence in forcing every scientist, every public person, into going along with the theory, only perverts the true aim of science, to test every idea that is testable with skepticism, and makes it into a pseudo-religion that oppresses the thoughts and actions of its adherents without so much as a whisper of a benefit. Congratulations evolutionists, you have made the ultimate nihilistic religion out of a scientific theory without even testing it.

Update:  Read Darwin’s Black Box for more about the biochemical challenges to evolution.