Comments on: Can we stop calling it “AGW science” now?

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:32:10 +0000

Sorry to be late on the get back. Hope the applicable commenters are still on board.

Physicsguy, in addition to the supplied link by huxley, there is a book by Ruddiman – Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum. Fascinating. Reasoning and data looked good to me, but I’m only a talented amateur.

br549 – dimensions. Here’s the trick. Don’t try to visualize them. If you are measuring a baseball player according to 6 hitting statistics, you are measuring him in six dimensions (assuming there’s no overlap). That’s not quite the same thing as a physics of 11 dimensions, but it will get you started, freeing your imagination from the spatial dimensions.

Please don’t any of the physicists start explaining to him about rolled-up dimensions. You can’t start there. Start with one of those taped college courses on physics, br549.

By: DaveH

DaveH — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:37:51 +0000

My personal “green” demons!
I fell into the trap.
Bought a small car. The only thing I’ve enjoyed from the excersise.
I can’t argue the insulation I put in the house. I did that myself. Small cost, really. “Payback”. Who cares? Small $$. No big deal. Same with exterior doors needing replacement. It needed doing anyway. On my own dime.
Went out and got bids for solar PV for the house in 2007. 3 KW array. Maybe think about solar domestic HW array as well. “To do my part”. Possibly a geotherm heating system. I buy “green” electricity and my “carbon foot print” is nil. Sounded good. WTH look into it.
Only one place it made sense for the PV array. My town wouldn’t let me put the array up on the set back from the road. NYSERDA had a “grant” to pay for about 1/2 the cost. Still would have had to last 20 something years to “pay back” MY investment. Without the grant? Better than 40 years. I’m lucky to be alive that long. (The 20 years!) Project “not viable” for rebate or grant $$ because of the site set back issue. I wasn’t going to spend much of my time to argue for a “varaince” against those odds. That’s when I “knew” it wasn’t about being “green” or any of that other crap. If it made sense I would have “gone for it”. The .gov issues would have been coordinated if it was really about setting us poor slobs fee of the “energy issues”.
Bunch of GDBS.
I bought a new high powered motorcycle instead. Uses as much fuel as my compact car. Burn up all that ME oil once and for all.

By: adagny

adagny — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:07:13 +0000

Gray-

Climate=the sound of one butterfly wing flapping…

By: SteveH

SteveH — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:34:33 +0000

“”How many times will the media allow them to cry wolf and still give them any credibility?””

The media is them! A bunch of miseducated leftist every bit as culpable as an Al Gore. Don’t forget they were the chief creators of the marketing (propoganda) plan that pushed AGW hysteria.

By: Gray

Gray — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:22:02 +0000

Y’know, at long last, nobody has ever even shown that The Climate (whatever that is) is even deterministic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system_(mathematics)

Wrap your heads around that one….

By: adagny

adagny — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:12:45 +0000

Regarding the conspiracy theory that the entire hoax was perpetrated with the intention of reigning in and quashing prosperity in the developed world and transferring wealth to the under-developed world, a question to consider is whether the scientists involved were involved in its planning, or whether they were sucked in by lucrative grants, etc. and their work co-opted by the opportunistic Goracles for their own ends.

Also, in light of recent “verifiable” climate data it seems like all involved would have been better served to that end by sticking with the “cooling scare” of the 80’s.

But as betsybounds said they’ll come up with something, like a global health crisis.

How many times will the media allow them to cry wolf and still give them any credibility?

By: Paul_In_Houston

Paul_In_Houston — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:52:44 +0000

PS - For those who have yet to visit AJStrata's The Strata Sphere, check him out. He blogs often, at length and with great clarity, on this and is probably the best source you can hope to find. -

By: Paul_In_Houston

Paul_In_Houston — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:45:02 +0000

# rickl Says:
February 15th, 2010 at 10:49 pm
…
That’s because it has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and it never did. It’s all about destroying capitalism and promoting Marxism, period.

I concluded in my post What’s this “Climategate” fuss all about?…

What’s at the bottom of all this?

Pure naked power.

So far, I see no reason to change that conclusion.
–

By: Gray

Gray — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:31:15 +0000

I think Huxley is saying that the screw-up at level two, doesn’t necessarily invalidate all level-one data and that it is worthwhile to continue scrutinizing it and asking what it means.

I think they f’ed up the ice core readings as well. I think their temperature corrections as well as their CO2 ice core”outgassing” rates are wrong based on the goofy temp vs CO2 charts I have seen.

The shenanigans, screw ups and malfeasance on the data reduction and analysis end does, in fact invalidate the initial stuff if done by the same frauds.

Besides, as I said earlier, they can’t find the raw data.

So you’d have to start from scratch…. But why? What real observations or effects are occuring in the world now that makes it imperative to study “warming” and determine whether it is happening or not.

There is no reason, no data, no effects, nothing to suggest we should spend time and money to study any “warming”. Why not study “cooling”?

By: Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » Testing the White House’s new rapid response system….

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:02:32 +0000

[…] Neo-neocon has a good post on this. Category: Politics | Comment (RSS) | Trackback […]