Restoring the Scientific Method and Saving Civilization

My personal favorite.
Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon – Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead
9 years ago
Guest Blogger
Guest Essay by Kip Hansen I cannot bring myself to quote from this unconscionable piece of journalistic malfeasance: Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher By JUSTIN GILLIS…

 

“Guest blogger” says it all really. No, Soon’s sell out to fossil fuel is very well documented and ongoing but you be you

 

If you wish to avert your eyes from the facts then that's your call. You are then a participant in what was an ongoing propaganda smear before it was definitively debunked.

 

The funny thing is, he actually only has a bachelors in Mechanical Engineering. He worked at Boeing for about 2 years, then the show business bug bit him when he won a "Steve Martin Look Alike Contest" and from then on worked in entertainment (for many years doing comedy).

Sorry, but Dolph Lundgren and Brian May are much more "science guys" than he is.

 

Gender dysphoria used to be labelled as a mental disorder. Rightfully so.

The DSM 5 redefined it because of stigma.

Not because of some scientific discovery...or new understanding of the complexities of mental disorders.

Stigma.

People felt bad.

That's garbage.

 

Here is the funny thing, one can deny the human part and still agree with Global Warming.

Do I deny that it is caused by humans? Yes, I do. But I also agree that it has been happening for over 10,000 years, and is going to continue no matter what we may do until the Arctic Ice Cap is gone, most of the permafrost in Eurasia and America is gone, and much of the low-lying continental regions are underwater.

Why? Because we are still in an ice age, and that is more or less what things look like when we reach a full interglacial. It is not like this is the very first interglacial the planet has gone through after all.

In fact, by looking at the geological record, it is going to get even warmer than most of the fearmongers are trying to claim. But it will not be the end of the world, it never was in the past other than for the flora and fauna that could not adapt and went extinct. Just as they have at the start and end of every ice age ever.

 

Bill Nye was great at teaching people science, but somehow they'll accept him as an "expert" on global warming but ignore what a PhD physicist has to say because he didn't study climatology.

I have a buddy who is getting a PhD in math. One of the topics he was presented to research for his dissertation involved climate science because atmospheric phenomena are routinely modeled using PDE's.

 

Or even more outrageously, ignore geologists. Where a key part of their actual science is knowing and understanding the climate of the past.

These jokers go back tend or hundreds of years, maybe a thousand years at most. I listen to the geologists, who's studies have figured out what climates were like tens of thousands of years ago (before the last ice age and into the last interglacial), and beyond to interglacials beyond that. Even knowing what the planet was like when there was no ice cap at the Antarctic but when it was a semi-tropical continent.

Me, I laugh as they constantly scream I am a "denier", yet I believe things will likely get a lot hotter and the changes a lot larger than any of them will admit. But I do not see it as "doom and gloom", it is just part of the natural cycle and will likely repeat over and over again until Continental Drift causes another shift to change the oceanic currents and it finally comes to an end.

Because most geologists have a strong suspicion at what started the current almost endless cycles of ice ages. They started around 2.5 mya, about 500 kya after Panama rose and joined North and South America. Causing what had once been a equatorial ocean current to suddenly end, and water in both the Atlantic and Pacific to change how they flowed.

No longer warm waters exchanging between the two, but becoming clockwise cycles, And becoming less moderate in their effect on the planet and tending more towards extremes in both directions.

And as always, there are a thousand and one other factors. The salinity due to fresh water inflow and salinity lost due to sequestrations. Volcanology, solar output, even planetary tilt and an eccentricity that may be more or less pronounced would all play into it.

I simply can not understand how any of the "experts" can claim to know the cause, answer, and solution if they do not know the past. Or why this interglacial should be any different from the last one, that saw an ice free arctic and the tundra and permafrost from North American and Eurasia vanishing.

And remember, 10 kya we had mile thick glaciers sitting where the Great Lakes are today, and most of the Great Plains down to around Tennessee was tundra and permafrost.

 

Except it hasn't. Prior to the recent fast warming, the earth had been slowly cooling for 8000 years. That was the natural cycle, and it would have continued into the next glacial age, had humans not forced the switch to fast warming.

Being that the natural cycle is cooling, and it's warming fast now, we know with 100% certainty that humans are the cause.

 

You're pushing the "Climate change used to be natural, so humans can't change climate" glaring logical fallacy. It's every bit as crazy as saying "Since forest fires used to always be naturally caused, humans can't cause forest fires".

Dear lord, no. Where do you come up with this nonsense? You seem to be completely ignorant of climate science.

They know the past. You don't. You didn't even know climate had been cooling for the past 8000 years.

 

Nah. Only the deniers here are talking about Bill Nye. They're obsessed with him. The rational people know that Bill Nye is a guy who teaches kids, and they don't get their science from him.

Why do deniers do that? They need some excuse, any excuse to not talk about the science. Focusing on demonizing people is one of their chosen ways to deflect away from the science.

 

Oh that is complete hogwash.

Your even trying to claim the planet has been cooling for the last 8,000 years is pure garbage. And I can prove it with one simple word.

Doggerland.

Now that was the area of land that used to sit where the North Sea is today. It was a huge area, and in climate not unlike Finland or Northern Washington today. And it existed throughout the entire Ice Age.

That is, until the end of the ice age around 10 kya started to release the sequestered water and cause ocean levels to rise.

Now you claim that the planet for the past 8,000 years has been cooling? Then why did Doggerland vanish around 6 kya? And even more land has vanished since then?

Oh, and that is also at roughly the time that the San Francisco Bay was formed. When the rising ocean levels caused everything from the Farallon Islands to the present cost to become submerged.

Here is the real record of rising temperatures, not the silly fantasy you want others to believe.


https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/

See that? That is known as a "reference". Care to give us this reference that claims temperatures have been decreasing for the past 8 kya until recently?

 

Oh really? Even though I talk so much about the climate in past interglacials, you say I know nothing about it? Then you claim the planet has been cooling for 8,000 years?

A giant palm frond fossil, being recovered from the Kupreanof Fossil Bed, in Alaska.

I already presented a chart showing that your claims the planet was cooling for over 8,000 years is a complete lie.

But if you do not like the last reference, here is another.


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

Hell, we have yet to even approach the temperatures of the Minoan Warm Period, around 3.5 kya (1500 BCE).

So please give us these references that validate anything even close to what you are trying to claim.

 

No, it's common knowledge among the scientifically literate.

Glaciers and sea level have inertia, and they lag temp by thousands of years.

Again, basic stuff, and you fail at it.

Ah, the good ol' "Use one spot in Greenland, and pretend it represents global temps" scam. It's a common denier deception tactic.

And I pointed out why the way you used it was deceptive, and how it doesn't show what you claim it does.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1228026

Unlike your attempted deception, that shows actual global temperature over the holocene.

You're at a big disadvantage. You only know denier propaganda, while I know the actual science. That means I'm going to have fun with you.

 

And?

Why would you think such a thing proves ... whatever it is you're trying to prove?

Act like the rational people here. State your point clearly and directly.

And I really reamed you for that brazen dishonesty. You're having a rough day.

That shows slow cooling for the past 2000 years that the graph covers, right up until modern humans turned it to fast warming.

I thank you for so conclusively reinforcing my point, and I'll let you know if I want any more of my points proven.

No, the earth is much warmer than that now. Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

Wow, you provide an image without a reference, and then an abstract from a decade ago that says nothing about what you claim unless one pays for the article.

Fail and fail.

 

It's called "science". And I already said when, the Minoan Warm Period.

In fact, both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than it is currently.

https://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm

Can you see that? That is known as a "reference". Can you say "reference"? I knew you could'nt.

Now the Minoan Warm Period also goes by the name of the "Bronze Age Warm Period", "Late Bronze Age Warm Period" (LWABP), and the "Holocene Maximum". This is the period right before the Iron Age Cold Epoch, and it is that cooling which many anthropologists now look at for the cause of the Bronze Age Collapse.

And the warming period (which is warmer than today) that followed is called the "Roman Warm Period", and is believed to be much of the reason of the success of the Roman Empire, as the abundance of food allowed them to expand and field huge military forces. As well as produce huge food surpluses, that was the backbone of their economy.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html

Once again, that is known as a "reference".

Care to give an actual "reference" to any of your claims? Especially as your claim of 8 kya falls right at the start of the Holocene Maximum. All you are doing is showing that you are the one that has no clue what you are talking about.

 

That's just flat out wrong. See the chart in post #89.

What's more, you're still pushing a logically invalid point. Climate changing naturally in the past does not prevent humans from changing climate.

In order to pull of the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent, and you have know the difference between cherrypicked cult propaganda and real facts. That's why I can pull it off. You can't.

Anways, you didn't give us a scientific source. You gave us a vague course outline.

In contrast, I point you to the best scientific papers.

Anways, how is it that you know better than the smarterst people in the world on this topic? Why are you special enough to know the RealTruth?

Note these are _summaries_ of many other papers, all of which back me up. I await seeing how you'll handwave that all away.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

 

Both are advocacy sites with explicit propaganda missions.

 

See? This is why they're correctly classified as "deniers".

Those pieces were chock full o' links to scientific papers. And if I bring the individual papers up, the deniers here claim that the authors are all frauds, or find some other excuse to handwave it away.

Denialists have rigged their belief system so that it's impossible to disprove it in their own minds, which makes it a religion.

 

Well, no. The posts on this forum that are "chock full o' links to scientific papers" are mostly mine, which you routinely ignore. And I'd like to see you cite a post of mine replying to a paper by claiming fraud.
Meanwhile, both RealClimate and SkepticalScience assert for themselves an explicit advocacy role. Not my words, theirs.

 

The same as he ignores all of my references, then claims I made none.

Then hilariously when he posts one with a single image, there is no source where it came from. And even when asked he ignored that and insisted an image with nothing saying where it came from is a legitimate reference.

Heck, most times I have people complaining because I give too many references. Here is somebody that ignores any he does not like, and insist there were none.

Heck, he even rejected ones by the IPCC itself and insists that the Holocene Climate Maximum, the Late Bronze Age Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period were all fantasies that are not true and only people who follow some kind of secret agenda believe in them.

Some people are simply beyond hope.

 

Well, here is one that absolutely blows away what you have been trying to claim. That the cooling cycle began 8,000 years ago and things have been cooling ever since.



Gee, your own reference shows that that claim of yours is a lie.

 

Lols!


https://www.desmog.com/co2-coalition/

There is a difference between local and global

 

It is called a “world view bias” or “cognitive bias” although the first is worse. We all have a cognitive bias ie I have one for fact based rigorous research and systematic reviews examining the published findings whereas others have a world view that states “climate change is not happening and whatever unsupported claptrap I can find on the internet to support that is what I will use”