Just musings, is all

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 21, 2019 at 11:03 am

Paul Plante says :

Good morning, sir.

Yes, there is now a lot of water around, so flooding is becoming a problem if you are in areas prone to flooding.

As to Annapolis, its web site states as follows:

The City of Annapolis is susceptible to floods/flash floods anytime during the year but especially from March to September.

Flooding is primarily due to the City’s location as a coastal community.

The lowest lying land is in the downtown Annapolis/City Dock area and Eastport, located at the mouth of the Severn River, Annapolis Harbor, and Spa Creek.

end quotes

And again, the purpose of this thread is not to deny that the earth’s climate is ever changing, because only a fool would take that tack – rather, the purpose is to make an attempt to cut through all the hype and hysteria coming at us from the politicians on both sides of the aisle, but predominantly the Democrats, at present, as well as all the doom-and-gloom coming at us from the irresponsible media who see fostering panic as a good way to sell advertising which is how they make their money.

And specifically, the thread hopes to shed some much needed light on this IPCC – who it is, what it is, why it is, and can we believe a single word it prints, given the highly political nature of the beast.

One of the many triggers of this thread is an article in the Washington Examiner entitled “Democrats invite teen climate change activist Greta Thunberg to testify before Congress” by Josh Siegel on September 12, 2019, to wit:

Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg, 16, is testifying before Congress next week at the invitation of House Democrats.

Thunberg will appear Sept. 18 before a joint hearing of a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee and the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

“We’re at the point where an entire generation has grown up in the climate crisis,” said Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida, chairwoman of the Select Climate Crisis Committee.

“They know the science, they know the stakes and they know how to rise to the challenge.”

“We need to rise with them.”

end quotes

As an adult, as a grandfather, as a licensed engineer, and as an accredited associate level public health engineer, I personally do not think it is in any way helpful to any cause other than partisan politics for the Democrats to keep blasting us with this “climate crisis” horse**** day after day after day, without alerting us to what the “climate crisis” actually is, and what it is the Democrats plan to do about it, beyond screeching over and over, “hey, hey, ho, ho, climate change has got to go.”

And it is also not enough in a civilized nation governed by rule of law, supposedly, anyway, to now tell us that our laws are going to be made by children.

If these children do know the “science,” then we all have the right to know that science and to review it.

And sincerely, sir, thank you for commenting!

And have a great day!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-188715
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 21, 2019 at 11:05 pm

Paul Plante says :

Thanks for your service, Mr. Corcoran, and yes, of course something is going on to cause flooding in Annapolis.

The land in the Chesapeake region has been sinking over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years, said Raymond G. Najjar Jr., a Pennsylvania State University oceanographer who has studied the impact of climate change on the mid-Atlantic coast, is a part of it.

And according to an article entitled “Atlantic coastline sinks as sea levels rise” by John Upton on Apr 16, 2016, we have as follows:

The main cause of East Coast subsidence is natural — the providential loss of an ice sheet.

Some 15,000 years ago, toward the end of an ice age, the Laurentide Ice Sheet stretched over most of Canada and down to modern-day New England and the Midwest.

Its heavy ice compressed the earth beneath it, causing surrounding land to curl upward.

Since the ice sheet melted, the land beneath it has been springing back up.

Like a see-saw, that’s causing areas south of the former ice sheet to sink back down, including Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

The study shows that subsidence is occurring twice as fast now than in centuries past in a hot spot from Fredericksburg, Va. south to Charleston, which the scientists mostly blame on groundwater pumping.

“If you draw down your aquifer, the land above the aquifer kind of collapses,” said Timothy Dixon, a University of South Florida professor who helped produce the study.

“If that happens to be on the coast, that can also increase your flood potential.”

Virginia says it’s working on the problem.

“In most places, you wouldn’t notice it; it wouldn’t matter,” said Jack Eggleston, a U.S. Geological Survey scientists who has researched the effects of groundwater pumping on the region’s topography.

“But in terms of practical effects and practical problems, it does matter when you’re right on the shoreline.”

end quotes

So, on the one hand, old geological processes are taking place vis-à-vis the land subsidence, and those processes have added to them the modern issue of groundwater pumping which exacerbates the subsidence.

And then there is the fact that we are in an inter-glacial period where water once stored as ice has received enough latent heat to melt it, so that the level of water in the oceans is rising.

If you were a naval officer, Mr. Corcoran, then you must know how unsettled the earth’s oceans are, and the fact that sea ice is not a constant, as well as how violent the earth’s oceans can be.

Tremendous amounts of heat energy are transported by the earth’s oceans, and when that heat energy already being transported by the earth’s oceans has additional heat energy added to it by the 58 nuclear reactors in France, for example, which waste heat is heating up the Rhone and Garonne rivers, with nuclear power in Germany also heating the Weser river, that heat energy has to go somewhere, and the natural circulation patterns of the oceans carry it north where it melts ice.

And that has been going on for many years now, so while we notice it today in such events as flooding in Cape Charles and Annapolis, in reality, it is nothing new, just something newly noticed.

So what are Annapolis and Cape Charles going to do about the new normal facing us all?

Will they sink or swim?

And again, the purpose of this thread is not to deny what can’t be denied – that being the earth’s climate is not now and never has been stable and unchanging.

The purpose of this thread is to delve into who and what this IPCC is, and why it exists, and why we should believe a single word it prints.

So when I talk about the “Climate Crisis Scam,” I am talking about the hype associated with the term “climate crisis.”

There are over 300 million people in this nation living on 3.797 million square miles of territory, and I would say that for the majority, the climate for them has barely changed at all, so all this “climate crisis” crap is a combination of crying wolf over and over, and the sky is falling, which is making people contemptuous of both science and politics, and I fail to see how that is in any way a healthy development for the nation.

Hence this thread, to speak out about that in a reasonable and responsible manner, courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror.

And as to the blatantly political nature of the IPCC, consider this from its own formative history, to wit:

By the late 1980s scientific findings indicated that greenhouse gases including CO2 emissions were leading to global warming.

There was increasing public and political interest, and in 1987 the World Meteorological Organization pressed for an international scientific panel to assess the topic.

The United States Reagan administration, worried about political influence of scientists, successfully lobbied for the 1988 formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide reports subject to detailed approval by government delegates.

end quotes

Reports subject to detailed approval by government delegates!

In other words, science as approved by lawyers, which is not science, at all – just political horse****.

And to close, Mr. Corcoran, it is not a question of denying science – it really is a question of denying reality.

The oceans have been rising now since at least 1900, and that has never been a secret, nor did you need a PhD to realize that, so why has Annapolis been sitting on its hands all this time pretending it wasn’t happening?

That is an existential question for our times, alright, and again, thank you for commenting, and congratulations on your achievement of graduating from the Naval Academy!

That is an accomplishment to be proud of.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-189165
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 23, 2019 at 10:58 am

Paul Plante says :

This whole IPCC thing has descended into and become nothing more than a big, steaming heap of political horse****, plain and simple.

Supposedly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.

But that is bull****, because the IPCC is not objective, period.

It is political.

According to the propaganda, the IPCC produces reports that contribute to the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the main international treaty on climate change, and the alleged objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.”

And there is the rub which has led to this Climate-gate kerfuffle and from there down to the hysteria of our times today, where we have scared children running around thinking the world is now going to end before they have a chance to grow up, which is hysteria-mongering for political purposes, not “science,” as if that word had any rational meaning, any more, because all the scientists in the world have no means of “stabilizing” the concentrations of any gases in the atmosphere, as if, like the Wizard of Oz, the most powerful wizard in all the land, they could literally make time stand still and have the earth’s climate obey them as if a spaniel that comes to heel on command.

One major flaw in the system, which is intentional, or by design, given the political nature of the lash-up, is that the IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself, but rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.

So, the IPCC fishes, which is not scientific research.

With respect to the political nature of the IPCC, its reports contain a “Summary for Policymakers”, which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments, which typically involves the governments of more than 120 countries.

So, science as lawyers say science should be, which is crap science, or horse**** science, or bizarre science, not real science by any stretch of the imagination.

With regard to how the IPCC came into being, the political United States Environmental Protection Agency and even more political U.S. State Department wanted an international convention to agree restrictions on greenhouse gases, and the conservative Reagan Administration was concerned about unrestrained influence from independent scientists or from United Nations bodies including UNEP and the WMO.

Thus, the U.S. government was the main force in forming the IPCC as an autonomous intergovernmental body in which scientists took part both as experts on the science and as official representatives of their governments, to produce reports which had the firm backing of all the leading scientists worldwide researching the topic, and which then had to gain consensus agreement from every one of the participating governments.

In this way, it was formed as a hybrid between a scientific body and an intergovernmental political organization, which means it is neither fish nor fowl, and it is designed such that politics controls what the outcome of science is going to be, which is known as the “Dame Snow Jeopardy,” where the conclusion to be supported politically is determined beforehand, and then data that doesn’t support the preferred conclusion is rejected out of hand.

And yes, people, that is very common where politics and “science” meet, because the whip hand and the purse are held by the political side of that equation – if you are a scientist who knows better, i.e. is compliant, then when told to keep your ******* mouth shut about something, you do so, and by way of reward, you get to keep your job and paycheck, as opposed to getting fired, having your career and life destroyed, and maybe having your teeth kicked down your throat, to boot.

So, yes, climate-gate.

And really, who is surprised?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-189618
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 24, 2019 at 10:58 am

Paul Plante says:

This whole “climate-gate” story is so bizarre that it is hard to believe that it could have even happened in a world that alleges to be sane and rational, given who or what the CRU started out to be, and who its founder was.

According to its own published history, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was established in the School of Environmental Sciences (ENV) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich in 1972.

The contribution of the Founding Director, Professor Hubert H. Lamb, cannot be overstated.

end quotes

There is what makes this “climate-gate” so bizarre, because Hubert H. Lamb is the author of the authoritative tome on climate entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, which has as its introduction as follows:

We live in a world that is increasingly vulnerable to climatic shocks— affecting agriculture and industry, government and international trade, not to mention human health and happiness.

Serious anxieties have been aroused by respected scientists warning of dire perils that could result from upsets of the climatic regime.

In this internationally acclaimed book, Hubert Lamb explores what we know about climate, how the past record of climate can be reconstructed, the causes of climatic variation, and its impact on human affairs now and in the historical and prehistoric past.

This second edition incorporates important new material on: recent advances in weather forecasting, global warming, the ozone layer, pollution, and population growth.

Providing a valuable introduction to the problems and results of the most recent research activity, this book extends our understanding of the interactions between climate and history, and discusses implications for future climatic fluctuations and forecasting.

H.H.Lamb is Emeritus Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences and was the Founder and first Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

end quotes

In the Preface to the Second Edition, written by the author in December of 1994, he states thusly:

Since this book was published in 1982 its subject has been continually in the limelight and research has been active.

Also, as is by no means unusual, further noteworthy weather events have been in the news.

Some additional reports, remarks and comments have therefore become desirable, yet the main body of past historical work is still not well known.

It has therefore been decided to issue this revised text which incorporates notices of much new, important, material, thus making our knowledge of the past — particularly the interactions between climate and history — more accessible and providing a handy introduction to some of the problems and results of ongoing research.

Some of the climatic problems affecting humanity arise perhaps more fundamentally from the pressures of the burgeoning human population of the world than from climate.

Anxieties about the possibility of drastic warming of world climates resulting from the continual build-up of carbon dioxide (and other intrusions) in the atmosphere due to human activities have been forced upon the notice of politicians and industrial managements.

In these years there has also been a succession of very great volcanic eruptions that have loaded the atmosphere with debris and, perhaps more importantly, with gases and vapours that veil the sun’s radiation and may be interrupting or even reversing the tendencies towards warming of world climates.

There have been very notable advances in these years in weather forecasting by mathematical models, enormously improving the forecasting for up to five to seven days ahead.

But much of the gain is jeopardized by modern tendencies to use sloppy and inappropriate language in forecasts.

Thus, it is now fashionable to speak of ‘best temperatures’ in forecasts rather than ‘highest’ or ‘lowest’ whichever may really be best for the activities in prospect.

And forecasters in southern England seem to like to assume that summer temperatures in England are much the same as in the Mediterranean, or if they are not, they should be and it is a bad year.

The idea of climatic change has at last taken on with the public, after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant.

But it is easy to notice the common assumption that Man’s science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environment must be due to us.

It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance.

Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.

end quotes

And instead, what we have gotten from his successors at the CRU, and the media, which constantly demonstrates its own willful ignorance of that which it reports on, especially this “carbon pollution” and the “climate crisis,” which is not a crisis, at all, is a steaming heap of pig **** for political, not scientific reasons.

Getting back to the CRU published history:

Hubert Lamb’s determination and vision can only be appreciated in the context of the view, generally prevailing within the scientific establishment in the 1960s, that the climate for all practical purposes could be treated as constant on timescales that are of relevance to humanity and its social and economic systems.

The weather changed from day-to-day, from week-to-week, and season-to-season.

There was interannual variability, but over years to centuries (the perceived argument went) a constancy was reliably evident.

It is now recognised that the climate is not constant, but changes on all timescales – years to millennia, as well as the climatic changes on longer (e.g. ice age) timescales that had become accepted in the late 19th century.

end quotes

And there is where the fistfight begins that led to the “climate-gate” kerfuffle, because the present-day argument requires that the climate be unchanging, unless changed by humans, which is bunkum and twaddle, but necessary, as we see from the following from that same history:

Hubert Lamb retired as Director in 1978.

He was succeeded by Tom Wigley (to 1993), Trevor Davies (1993-1998), Jean Palutikof and Phil Jones (jointly from 1998 to 2004) and Phil Jones (to the present).

Each has brought their own specialities to bear in guiding CRU through what have mostly been good times as far as successful research is concerned, but occasionally through periods of fallow funding, and sometimes very difficult periods.

end quotes

Scroll back to “fallow funding,” and there is the key to the present day disputes about CO2, as again we see from the CRU History, to wit:

Since its inception in 1972 until 1994, the only scientist who had a guaranteed salary was the Director.

Every other research scientist relied on ‘soft money’ – grants and contracts – to continue his or her work.

end quotes

Which means scientists have to pander for money, people.

Getting back to that history, which is quite relevant to this CO2 discussion today, we have:

The early priority of CRU was set against the backdrop of there having been little investigation before the 1960s of past climatic changes and variability, except by geologists and botanists, although there was an excess of theories.

end quotes

Yes, people, an excess of theories, which translates as a lot of competition for that pool of “soft money,” which means scientists have to find out who has the most money to give out to support whatever their pet theory is, which takes us back to pandering.

Getting back to the history:

The objective of CRU, therefore, was “to establish the past record of climate over as much of the world as possible, as far back in time as was feasible, and in enough detail to recognise and establish the basic processes, interactions, and evolutions in the Earth’s fluid envelopes and those involving the Earth’s crust and its vegetation cover”.

The early efforts towards this objective were the interpretation of documentary historical records.

This was painstaking and challenging work and progressed through the 1970s.

end quotes

And what we do not find as a result of that painstaking and challenging work is any definitive evidence that carbon dioxide is doing what the “CARBON CULT” true-believer scientists say carbon dioxide is doing.

To believe the “CARBON CULT” dudes today from this CRU, it becomes necessary to take not only Lamb’s book, but all the books that an engineer uses to learn “science,” and toss them in the **** can, because the CO2 theory cannot stand otherwise, as it is a negation of science.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-190019
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 23, 2019 at 7:03 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, yes, people, the Great Democrat “‘Climate Crisis’ Scam,” where the word “scam” in this specific case means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt obtain money or something else of value.

As is the case here with this Democrat “climate crisis,” which is a HYPE TERM not supported by actual science, scams traditionally reside in confidence tricks, where an individual would misrepresent themselves as someone with skill or authority, i.e. a lawyer or politician posing as a climate scientist, which takes us back to this IPCC, and through the IPCC, back to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992 with an objective to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

When we read that, we must needs keep in mind that water vapor (H2O) is the strongest greenhouse gas, and the concentration of this gas is largely controlled by the temperature of the atmosphere.

And of importance to this discussion, “UNFCCC” is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat charged with supporting the operation of the Convention, with offices in Haus Carstanjen, and the UN Campus (known as Langer Eugen) in Bonn, Germany.

The Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain consensus through meetings and the discussion of various strategies.

And again of importance to this discussion, Article 3(1) of the Convention states that Parties should act to protect the climate system on the basis of “common but differentiated responsibilities”, and that developed country Parties should “take the lead” in addressing climate change.

As to that statement, the United States would be considered a “developed country party,” so the burden of “taking the lead” in addressing climate change would fall to us, which takes us back around to the Democrat “climate crisis scam,” which is intended to make us both terribly scared and very angry going into the 2020 presidential elections, so that we will all vote Democrat and hand them control of our federal government, because it is only the Democrats who can save us now, which takes us to Article 4(7) of that convention, as follows:

The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.

end quotes

Focus in on that last sentence there, people: “will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”

Social development is an overriding priority of developing country parties, so that we, the American people have to provide them with financial resources and the transfer of technology to make that possible?

And, besides nothing, what does that have to do with the alleged goal of “preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth’s climate system?”

And there is a look at what the Great Democrat “‘Climate Crisis’ Scam” is really all about, social engineering, where the word “scam” in this specific case means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt obtain money or something else of value, which thought takes us to an article in the New York Times entitled “Climate Town Hall: Several Democratic Candidates Embrace a Carbon Tax” by Coral Davenport and Trip Gabriel on 5 September 2019, as follows:

WASHINGTON — Democratic candidates promised unprecedented new action on climate change on Wednesday night in the first prime-time televised forum devoted to the issue in a presidential campaign, vowing to undo the Trump administration’s environmental policies, spend trillions of dollars to promote renewable energy and force companies to pay new taxes or fees.

end quotes

Ah, yes, people, spend TRILLIONS and FORCE companies to pay taxes or fees, which in turn will filter down to us, and here, let me clarify that I am over 70 and living on a fixed low income, so these Democrat taxes will have an outsized impact on people like myself, as well as other low income Americans, this so we can engage in social engineering in poor countries around the world with our tax dollars.

Getting back to that NYT article:

In perhaps the most significant development of the night, more than half of the 10 candidates at the forum openly embraced the controversial idea of putting a tax or fee on carbon dioxide pollution, the one policy that most environmental economists agree is the most effective way to cut emissions — but also one that has drawn intense political opposition.

Around the country and the world, opponents have attacked it as an “energy tax” that could raise fuel costs, and it has been considered politically toxic in Washington for nearly a decade.

end quotes

I should say that the Democrats are totally insensitive to the impact these taxes are going to have on the poor folks in this country who won’t be able to run out and buy themselves a new Tesla, which again takes us back to the NYT:

In addition to proposing $3 trillion in spending on environmental initiatives, Ms. Warren also responded “Yes!” when asked by a moderator, Chris Cuomo, if she would support a carbon tax — a measure she had not spelled out in her official policy proposal.

end quotes

So, there is Lizzie Warren who is going to spend $3 TRILLION on environmental issues, but to do that, she has to first scare enough people into believing that we have an actual “climate crisis,” as opposed to Democrat HYPE, and to do that, get us scared enough to vote for her, she needs us to take this IPCC crowd seriously, and there is where her whole house of cards comes tumbling down, because the IPCC is so blatantly political that it has no credibility.

And that brings us to “barmy” Bernie Sanders from that same article, as follows:

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has not explicitly taken up Mr. Inslee’s ideas, said, “We are proposing the largest, most comprehensive program ever presented by any candidate in the history of the United States.”

Mr. Sanders has sought to win over the liberal wing of the Democratic Party with a plan that takes its name from the Green New Deal and has the biggest price tag of all the candidates’ proposals — $16.3 trillion over 15 years.

end quotes

Think about it, people – $16.3 TRILLION.

Where exactly is that kind of money coming from, given the size of our present national debt, and more importantly, besides down a rat hole, where is that money going?

And how would “barmy” Bernie convince us to shake loose with $16.3 TRILLION and give him control over that kind of money other than by telling us the sky is falling and we are faced with a “CLIMATE CRISIS,” EGADS!

SAVE US, Bernie, SAVE US!

WE’LL GIVE YOU THE MONEY IF YOU’LL JUST SAVE US, Bernie!

You’re our hero, sigh!

Yeah, right!

And remember, friends do not let friends get sucked into Democrat climate crisis scams, hence this thread!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-189165
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 25, 2019 at 6:55 pm

Paul Plante says :

After re-reading the original post, which is full of essential details pertaining to this so-called “scandal,” which is only a “scandal” because it got exposed, when it really is bidness as usual in the Church of Science, where it is much more the search for the next gold dollar than it is any kind of search for the “truth,” which is deemed the business of theologians and philosophers, not scientists, especially those in it for the money, I wanted to highlight the final sentences of the original post where we were told that back in 2006, eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, wherein he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang.

One, in my experience of talking about this subject, it has been my experience that it is a non-subject – people think it is all just political bull****, which it has become, where nothing is believable anymore, and so they completely miss the point that while it all is now bull****, where any kernels of wheat that might be there are so buried in chaff it is almost impossible to find them, nonetheless, much of the future of the US and world economy do in fact hang on these IPCC reports, which are anything but science, given how they are created and then vetted.

So all of that part of the equation is sliding right under the radar, because people are sick of hearing about climate change, when they do not perceive any change, especially now that winter is approaching in the northern hemisphere where it is getting colder, not warmer, regardless of what the climate crisis cult crowd might say about it.

By way of some more essential background to this very important subject which too many people in America are unaware of, given the time that has gone by, along with the very esoteric nature of the “scandal,” no sex or drugs being overtly involved, anyway, which renders it mundane, in March 2010, at the invitation of the United Nations secretary-general and the chair of the IPCC, the Inter Academy Council (IAC) was asked to review the IPCC’s processes for developing its reports.

That IAC panel, chaired by Harold Tafler Shapiro, convened on 14 May 2010 and released its report on 1 September 2010. with the following formal recommendation for improving the IPCC’s assessment process, to wit: “Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) should be used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes only when there is sufficient evidence.”

end quotes

In other words, stop the ******* hype and fear-mongering.

The panel also advised that the IPCC avoid appearing to advocate specific policies in response to its scientific conclusions.

Of importance to this article, commenting on the IAC report, Nature News noted that “The proposals were met with a largely favourable response from climate researchers who are eager to move on after the media scandals and credibility challenges that have rocked the United Nations body during the past nine months”.

end quotes

Ah, yes, media scandals and credibility challenges, and those credibility challenges have not only continued to this day, but in my estimation, they have gotten worse, to the point that all scientists are now looked on by the common person as fools.

And that takes us back to the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy, which underlies the “Climate-gate scandal.”

As Wikipedia tells us, and it never was any kind of secret, the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research, which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.

The Soon and Baliunas paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper, and the controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.

Going back further in time, because the roots of this controversy are really back in the early-1900s, if not earlier, with respect to the IPCC and the scandals associated with it, by the late 1980s scientific findings indicated that greenhouse gases including CO2 emissions were leading to global warming.

However, and this is with respect to the statement in the original post that “(T)he worry is that it seems that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific inquiry and debate,” which I do not deny, the original “science” at issue here is found in “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute, Stockholm, copyright, 1908, where we have as follows with respect to the carbon dioxide theories we are being confronted with today, as we hear the doom-and-gloom prediction that the world is about to end, to wit:

The earth is able to serve as the abode of living Beings because its outer portions are cooled to a suitable temperature (below 55) by radiation, and because the cooling does not proceed so far that the open sea would continually be frozen over, and that the temperature on the Continent would always remain below freezing-point.

We owe this favorable intermediate stage to the fact that the radiation from the sun balances the loss of heat by radiation into space, and that it is capable of maintaining the greater portion of the surface of the earth at a temperature above the freezing-point of water.

The temperature conditioning life on a planet is therefore maintained only because, on the one side, light and heat are received by radiation from the sun in sufficient quantities, while on the other side an equivalent radiation of heat takes place into space.

If the heat gain and the heat loss were not to balance each other, the term of suitable conditions would not last long.

end quotes

There is the “original science” that leads us up to Climate-gate, and beyond, to this thread and the debate that is going on right now concerning the “climate crisis,” as the fear-mongering Democrats in this country keep calling it, along with the mindless, thumb-sucking irresponsible mainstream media, and it is that last sentence about if the heat gain and the heat loss were not to balance each other, the term of suitable conditions would not last long that has led to this discussion today, on all the various levels it has been presented in the Cape Charles Mirror.

And that in turn takes us back to Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the CRU, and author of the authoritative tome on climate entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, where we have as follows:

In any case, many people now know that there have been significant shifts of climate during the twentieth century: at first, a more or less global warming to about 1950, then some cooling.

end quotes

Now, keep in mind that those words were written in December of 1994, and there is where the basis of the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy derives from, because boiled down to its essence, to believe the “Hockey Stick” model, that cooling after 1950 that many people knew about in 1994 has to be made to go away, which is to say the real science that led to the creation of the CRU in the first place has to be discredited and rejected, which is fairly incredible.

The “new” science of the IPCC replaces all science that came before it to support a single conclusion that is at odds with the science the new science is replacing.

And that brings us back to Lamb in 1994, as follows:

The former assumption of constancy of climate is thus widely felt to be unsatisfactory today.

And, after many decades in which there was little or no inquiry about climatic development and change, the leading institutes of meteorology and climatology are now pressed for advice on future climate.

The position is doubly unfortunate in that the forecast opinions ventured by the ‘experts’ have often increased the confusion, the views of the theoreticians sometimes contradicting those whose study has been concentrated on reconstructing the actual past behaviour of the (natural) climate.

end quotes

And there for the moment I will rest, because right there in that last sentence, Dr. Lamb has provided us with the genesis of Climate-gate, and we all owe the Cape Charles Mirror a debt of gratitude as concerned citizens for hosting this discussion on this subject of vital importance to each and every one of us in America today, which takes us to the last sentence of the original post above, to wit:

The compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific hoax of our age.

end quotes

Stay tuned, for more is yet to come!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-190518
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 26, 2019 at 6:23 pm

Paul Plante says:

And while we are on this subject of the great Democrat “climate crisis scam,” where “scam” means a “fraudulent scheme” performed by a dishonest individual or group in an attempt in this case to obtain scads on money on the backs of the American taxpayer through the federal budget and considerable political power over our lives and futures, which “climate crisis scam” in this case needs all of us so petrified by fear that we can’t think straight for it to succeed, let’s flesh the “climate crisis scam” out a bit more by going back to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Harris announces ‘landmark bill’ with AOC to fight ‘environmental injustice'” by John Gage on 30 July 2019, where we have as follows:

Sen. Kamala Harris announced she was teaming up with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to make sure the Green New Deal would lift up low-income communities, people of color, and indigenous communities.

end quotes

Now, that one sentence alone with its direct reference to the Democratic Socialist/AOC scam known as the “Green New Deal” and “lifting up” low-income communities, people of color and indigenous communities should give us a real clear idea of what is really at stake here, which is something called “social engineering,” which simply stated is the use of centralized planning in an attempt to manage social change and regulate the future development and behavior of a society.

Which raises the serious question as we head into the 2020 presidential elections, where the soul of our nation is now truly at stake, of do we, the American people, really want to put our future and the future of our children and grandchildren into the hands of AOC and Kamala Harris in their attempt to manage what they consider to be needed social change here in the United States of America as they regulate the future development and behavior of our society here in the United States of America?

Do we really?

And besides exactly nothing, what does carbon dioxide have to do with lifting up people of color?

As to this “social engineering,” and “lifting up” of people, those of us who still have functioning memories of events more than a few minutes or TWEETS ago who also follow the news as part of our citizenship duties and responsibilities, those few of us who are still citizens as opposed to consumers, who don’t have to think, only shop, because they are the main engine of our economy today, are witnessing the results of previous attempts at “social engineering” by the United States in the on-going riots in Baghdad, Iraq, where people are demanding all the stuff they thought they were promised when Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton put their imprimatur on the invasion of Iraq to remove dictator Saddam Hussein , as well as all the troubles in Syria, which was an attempt by the witless Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton to impose “social justice” on the people of Syria at the point of a gun, which is where change always seems to have to come from, from those people, that said by myself as a VEET NAM combat veteran who saw “social justice” being imposed on the people of Viet Nam at the point of a bayonet by the Democrats and LBJ, who had a thing about “people of color” in VEET NAM.

So, do we really need more of it, this time here in the United States of America?

Think very seriously about that, people, while you have time to do some clear thinking before entering that voting booth come November of next year.

As to the “Green New Deal” itself being nothing more than a fundraising scam, to see how that is, all we need do is go back to the Cape Charles Mirror on April 12, 2019 @ 9:54 AM http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g … ent-140073 where we had as follows, to wit:

So, what are we really looking at here, people, with the “Green New Deal?”

How about fundraising based on false pretenses, which makes this “Green New Deal” one of the slickest SCAMS to come down the pike in a long, long time, made possible by Al Gore’s invention of the internet as a potent and powerful fund-raising tool, as we are seeing in the case of this “Green New Deal,” which is being used to raise internet funds on several different but inter-connected websites, such as the Sunrise Movement and the Justice Democrats, to wit:

OF, BY, AND FOR THE PEOPLE

A Platform Democrats Can Fight For


Opinion polls in the United States demonstrate that these policy positions are overwhelmingly popular.

Indeed, throughout the industrialized world these ideas are considered moderate.

This is a movement about freedom and justice.

And it’s a movement of, by, and for working people.

If the Democrats refuse to embrace this platform, they’ll continue to lose, either to Republicans or to us.

Transform Our Economy

We need a bold economic vision that will both reclaim lost capital and put money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans, and create millions of new jobs for those who have been left out of the workforce.

GREEN NEW DEAL

Scientists are sounding the alarm on climate change.

Communities are fighting back.

It’s time to drastically and immediately move away from fossil fuels, develop the technologies of the future, and create prosperity for all of us — not just those on top.

The Green New Deal is a mass mobilization to dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources.

The Green New Deal will also provide all members of our society, across all regions and all communities, the opportunity, training and education to be a full and equal participant in the transition, including through a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one and ensure a ‘just transition’ for all workers, low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, rural and urban communities and the front-line communities most affected by climate change, pollution and other environmental harm including by ensuring that local implementation of the transition is led from the community level and by prioritizing solutions that end the harms faced by front-line communities from climate change and environmental pollution.

SECURE A LIVING WAGE AND TIE IT TO INFLATION

ENACT A FEDERAL JOBS GUARANTEE

REBUILD OUR CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE

BLOCK BAD TRADE DEALS

END TAX DODGING AND LOOPHOLES

END UNNECESSARY WARS AND NATION BUILDING


https://www.justicedemocrats.com/issues

end quotes

And up at the top of the page is that box that says “DONATE.”

Except what you are donating for, as AOC herself informed us on the MSNBC Town Hall with Chris Hayes on 03/29/19, is nothing at all, to wit:

OCASIO-CORTEZ: And first all of we wave a magic wand and we passed the Green New Deal resolution tomorrow, what happens?

Nothing because it’s a resolution.

end quotes

So why aren’t the people being asked to donate on these various websites touting and promoting the “Green New Deal” as the cure for everything that ails this country being told the truth that if the “Green New Deal” were to be passed this afternoon, nothing is going to happen and nothing is going to change?

And where is all that donation money going to?

And for what cause then?

end quotes

And what does any of that have to do with carbon dioxide, besides nothing?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-190843

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 26, 2019 at 6:32 pm

Paul Plante says :

Pardon my mistake, but the link above is incorrect.

The Cape Charles Mirror article in question I was referring to is titled “Green New Deal is really just about ending Capitalism” on April 7, 2019 by Wayne Creed:

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/g ... ent-141136

This thread is in essence a follow-on to that thread given the passage of time and new developments in the story since April of this year.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-190843
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 26, 2019 at 9:25 pm

Paul Plante says :

So, in the eternal search for truth, which we will never find in Washington, D.C., back and forth through history we end up going, at least with respect to carbon dioxide and the issue of earth’s ever-changing climate, which takes us back to 1994 and Hubert H. Lamb, founder of the CRU, and author of the authoritative tome on climate entitled “CLIMATE, HISTORY AND THE MODERN WORLD,” Second Edition, where we have as follows:

It was known that ice ages had occurred in the distant, ‘geological’ past; but the climate in Roman times seemed to be not too much different from now, and it was assumed that this must be true of all the centuries in between.

As we shall see in later chapters, those centuries in fact brought a succession of changes in Europe and elsewhere which included a long period of evidently genial warmth in the high Middle Ages followed by the development world-wide of a colder climate, especially in and around the seventeenth century, with probably the greatest spread of ice since the last major ice age.

end quotes

And that takes us to 2003 and the infamous Soon and Baliunas controversy which involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research, and from there to 2006, when eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the carbon dioxide “hockey stick”, wherein he excoriated the way in which a “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang, where we have as follows from the IPCC history, to wit:

The IPCC First Assessment Report included a “schematic diagram” of global temperature variations over the last thousand years which has been traced to a graph based loosely on Hubert Lamb’s 1965 paper.

end quotes

Lamb’s 1965 paper, which has essentially been buried in the scientific garbage can of history by his “hockey stick team” of successors at the CRU, was entitled “The early medieval warm epoch and its sequel’ and it provided as follows, to wit:

Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200, and was followed by a decline of temperature levels till between 1500 and 1700 the coldest phase since the last ice age occurred.

end quotes

That is what needs to be refuted for the “hockey stick” model to stand, and it can’t be refuted, because it is based on actual, not imaginary history, so throw it in the trash can instead, because nobody will know, nor will they care, especially if they can be made scared enough by the thought of the world coming to an end in the next so many years due to “carbon pollution” in the air, as the fear-mongering Democrats in the United States like to call it.

Getting back to the abstract of Lamb’s 1965 paper, we have:

The main stages of post-glacial climatic history in Europe, the warmest epoch generally known as the “Climatic Optimum” (e.g., GODWIN, 1956) from about 5000 or 6000 to 3000 B.C. (comprising the latter part of the “Boreal” and the whole of the “Atlantic” climatic periods of the older nomenclature), and the decline that introduced a cooler, stormier regime (the so-called “Sub-Atlantic”) around 500 B.C., are well-known; though they still await thorough meteorological treatment.

Till recently, it was widely held that the European climate had undergone no significant variations since that for the last 2,500 years or so the climate had been effectively constant or stable.

end quotes

That of course, is an essential requirement for the “hockey stick” model; that until the industrial age and the emissions of CO2 by humans, the earth’s climate had come to a sort of rest, which is bull****, because as history clearly shows, it never was at rest, just slowly changing, which takes us back to Lamb, as follows:

And multifarious evidence of a meteorological nature from historical records, as well as archaeological, botanical and glaciological evidence in various parts of the world from the Arctic to New Zealand (e.g., KOCH, 1945; RAESIDE, 1948; MILLER, 1953; HOLLOWAY, 1954) has been found to suggest a warmer epoch lasting several centuries between about A.D. 900 or 1000 and about 1200 or 1300.

Nothing suggests that the warmth of the early medieval period attained that of the climatic optimum; though the cold period after A.D. 1550 probably did produce the lowest temperatures and the greatest extensions of ice on land and sea since the last ice age.

It has often been called the “Little Ice Age” in consequence.

end quotes

As to science, this is what Lamb provides us with, to wit::

Palaeoclimatology is likely to be advanced by investigating first specific periods for which evidence that is sufficiently abundant and reliably dated indicates some well defined climatic character.

It was for this reason that the “ad hoe Committee on Palaeoclimatology”, formed in 1961 by the United States National Research Council, decided as its first act to hold a conference on the climates of the 11th and 16th centuries A.D., to be attended by active research workers in all relevant disciplines (ASPEN CONFERENCE, 1962).

Both the “Little Optimum” in the early Middle Ages and the cold epoch, now known to have reached its culminating stages between 1550 and 1700, can today be substantiated by enough data to repay meteorological investigation (see, for example, the preliminary treatment of both, given by LAMB, 1963).

The historical evidence is, of course, thinner for the earlier of these two epochs; nevertheless, it has been chosen for treatment here because the investigation is an interesting example of the pooling and interpretation of data from archaeology, botany, glaciology, human history, meteorology and oceanography.

end quotes

Now, in contrast to the highly-political IPCC, which is closed to the public for all practical purposes, by design, what Lamb is describing there is what I call the “old” science which needs to be replaced with “new” science indicting carbon dioxide, because for the IPCC crowd pushing the theory of carbon dioxide as pretty much the cause for everything wrong in the world today, that is where the funding is coming from, and since as we can see from the excerpt above, Lamb’s findings of temperature variations defy the “carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming” model, so somehow, Lamb had to be gotten rid of by his successors at the CRU in England so they could get their hands on some of that funding, as well as gaining considerable political power through control of the findings of the IPCC (and yes, people, scientists are as political as all get-out where it concerns money coming into their pocket) and that is where the hockey stick is going to come in, to wit:

The IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 1996 featured a graph of an early northern hemisphere reconstruction by Raymond S. Bradley and Phil Jones, and noted the 1994 reconstruction by Hughes and Henry F. Diaz questioning how widespread the Medieval Warm Period had been at any one time.

In 1998, Mann, Bradley and Hughes published a multiproxy study (MBH98) which used a new statistical approach to find patterns of climate change in both time and global distribution, over the past six centuries.

In 1999 they extended their approach to 1,000 years in a study (MBH99) summarised in a graph which showed relatively little change until a sharp rise in the 20th century, earning it the nickname of the hockey stick graph.

In 2001 the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) included a version of this graph which was frequently featured in literature publicising the findings of the IPCC report that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium in the Northern Hemisphere.

After the publicity the MBH99 study had been given by the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), the hockey stick controversy developed in which the graph was targeted by those opposing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, including Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

end quotes

And there for the moment, I will let this saga rest.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-190889
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 27, 2019 at 6:19 pm

Paul Plante says :

And here we need to bring Hans von Storch, born 13 August 1949, into the narrative.

von Storch is a German climate scientist who is a Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, and since 2001, the Director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Research Centre, previously GKSS Research Center, in Geesthacht, Germany who is also a member of the advisory boards of the journals Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics.

With respect to this discussion, von Storch is known for an article in Der Spiegel he co-wrote with Nico Stehr, which states thusly and quite correctly as follows:

“Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information.”

end quotes

And my goodness, people, how very true that is, as we can see from the hyperbolic reactions of the main stream media to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) which document was approved at the IPCC’s 51st Session (IPCC-51) in September 2019 in Monaco, and after that, was placed in the hands of the 16-year old Greta Thunberg so she could sail across the Atlantic Ocean with it in a hi-tech carbon-fiber racing sailboat while making a movie of herself before appearing before our Congress to present them with the report and demand they take immediate action on it, as if our Congress takes its marching orders from a 16-year old girl from Sweden who wants us all to panic so we can experience the fear of God-alone-knows-what she feels every day as an emotionally-disturbed teenager.

According to Wikipedia, those media reactions were as follows:

The New York Times headlined their September 25 article with ‘We’re All in Big Trouble’.

According to the Times, “Sea levels are rising at an ever-faster rate as ice and snow shrink, and oceans are getting more acidic and losing oxygen.”

The article cited Princeton University’s Michael Oppenheimer, who was one of the report’s lead authors who said that, “The oceans and the icy parts of the world are in big trouble, and that means we’re all in big trouble, too.”

“The changes are accelerating.”

A second lead author, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, was quoted as saying in Monaco, that “Climate change is already irreversible.”

“Due to the heat uptake in the ocean, we can’t go back.”

The BBC headline referred to a red alert on the Blue Planet.

The Economist said that the “world’s oceans are getting warmer, stormier and more acidic.”

“They are becoming less productive as the ecosystems within them collapse.”

“Melting glaciers and ice sheets are causing sea levels to rise, increasing the risk of inundation and devastation to hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas.”

PBS News Hour cited National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Ko Barrett, who is also a vice chair of IPCC, saying, “Taken together, these changes show that the world’s ocean and cryosphere have been taking the heat for climate change for decades.”

“The consequences for nature are sweeping and severe.”

The Atlantic called it a blockbuster report.

National Geographic said that according to the report, “These challenges are only going to get worse unless countries make lightning-fast moves to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions…”

“But strong, decisive action could still forestall or evade some of the worst impacts.”

end quotes

Which takes us back to Hans von Storch, as follows:

“The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad.”

In December 2009, he expressed concern about the credibility of science and criticized some publicly visible scientists for simplifying and dramatizing their communications.

An observer wrote in 2004: “The damage for the scientists is enormous.”

“Nobody believes them any longer.”

In January 2011, Storch was counted among the 100 most influential Germans by the Focus magazine for being a “climate realist”.

On 20 June 2013 Storch stated “So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break.”

“We’re facing a puzzle.”

“Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared.”

“As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years.”

“That hasn’t happened.”

“In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero.”

“This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”

As to Climate-gate, von Storch, said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had “violated a fundamental principle of science” by refusing to share data with other researchers.

“They play science as a power game,” he said.

And boy, is it ever, people – BEWARE, don’t feed the scientists – they bite.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-191206
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: Just musings, is all

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR October 29, 2019 at 10:54 am

Paul Plante says:

So, cutting to the chase here, as that old saying goes, what really is the “science” here?

Is there any basis in reality for any of this “science” we are having thrown in our faces today by the media, which is telling us that we had better repent because the world is about to come to an end?

And that answer, which also serves to demonstrate how ignorant the media is, is found in “Worlds in the Making – The Evolution of the Universe” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute, Stockholm, published in 1908.

With respect to Arrhenius and how he fits into this equation we in our times are confronted with, this so-called “climate crisis” the Democrats are flogging us with as we head into the 2020 presidential elections the Democrats hope to sweep, I received this following on 23 September 2019 from a top NOAA climate scientist, to wit:

The carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere today are ones that likely haven’t been reached in 3 million years, and frankly the linkage between carbon dioxide and rising temperatures has been realized by scientists dating back to 1856 (see https://www.climate.gov/news-features/f ... ce-pioneer), with a major paper describing this that actually dates back to the Swedish scientist 1896 Arrhenius [see https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... s_2.php%5D; his estimates of the actual temperature rise with rises in CO2 may have been a bit over-estimated, but he got the basic science right.

end quotes

Now, while I am a graduate level engineer who is well aware of all of that, the fact of the matter is that Arrhenius is high school level “science,” which is to say, you do not need a college degree to understand it; and everything we are being told today about CO2 by this IPCC crowd, who seem to me to be “cherry-picking” science to cover over certain points, while emphasizing others, comes to us through Arrhenius.

So that for the DOOM-AND-GLOOM “findings” of the IPCC crowd to be believable, there would have to be some way to derive them from the “basic science” that Arrhenius “got right,” according to the NOAA scientist, who also is one of those who does the alleged “peer-review” for the IPCC, because “advanced” science must have its basis in “basic” science if it is to stand!

And since we have the word of a top scientist who does peer-review for the IPCC that Arrhenius got the basic science right back in 1896, long before there was an IPCC, we are faced with the essential existential question of do the modern findings of the IPCC agree with the basic science that Arrhenius got right back in 1896?

And if they don’t, given that the top scientist says Arrhenius got the “basic science” right, then what does that say about the findings of the IPCC if they disagree with the “basic science” of Arrhenius?

Ponder that thought, people, because our collective future as a nation and as a “free” people depends very much on how that question is to be answered in our times today.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-191819
Post Reply