Question: What happens when “settled science,” isn’t?

posted at 10:36 am on June 21, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Answer: Panic. For decades now, self-anointed climate scientists and radical eco-activists have been insisting that the science of global warming is absolutely, unequivocally settled; that there is an overwhelming consensus among the scientific community; and that the whole thing is so far beyond contestation that you must be an ignorant, unfeeling, and/or right-wing knuckle-dragger to even question it.

The highly conspicuous failure of these enlightened scientists’ climate models, full of perilous predictions, to bear out — after fifteen years of fairly stable temperatures, or by other measures some slight warming at a wildly slackened pace — has the progressive scientist types pretty agitated. Many of them are desperately trying to save face, ranging somewhere between pretending that they never really said they had the exact answers all along and that we have to continue to wait and observe, and insisting that the situation is really much worse than it looks. A solid piece from The Economist yesterday details just how thoroughly the climate-related scientific community’s shorts are currently around their ankles:

Mr Cohn does his best to affirm that the urgent necessity of acting to retard warming has not abated, as does Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, as does this newspaper. But there’s no way around the fact that this reprieve for the planet is bad news for proponents of policies, such as carbon taxes and emissions treaties, meant to slow warming by moderating the release of greenhouse gases. The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.

Dramatic warming may exact a terrible price in terms of human welfare, especially in poorer countries. But cutting emissions enough to put a real dent in warming may also put a real dent in economic growth. This could also exact a terrible humanitarian price, especially in poorer countries. Given the so-far unfathomed complexity of global climate and the tenuousness of our grasp on the full set of relevant physical mechanisms, I have favoured waiting a decade or two in order to test and improve the empirical reliability of our climate models, while also allowing the economies of the less-developed parts of the world to grow unhindered, improving their position to adapt to whatever heavy weather may come their way. I have been told repeatedly that “we cannot afford to wait”. More distressingly, my brand of sceptical empiricism has been often met with a bludgeoning dogmatism about the authority of scientific consensus.

In Europe the other day, President Obama proclaimed that climate change is the “global threat of our time” — which really sounds amazingly out-of-touch with all of the economies of the world struggling to prosper under the weight of so much big government. I must of course throw in my usual disclaimer that I am absolutely not saying the climate change isn’t a thing, and that there aren’t real challenges and concerns we need to address going forward. As regular readers know, I merely think that free enterprise, private property, and a robust economy that breeds innovation, competition, and efficiency are vastly more effective at solving environmental problems than any measure of central planning or top-down big government can ever hope to be — especially when the people sitting atop most of these said governments are taking their cues from liberals who call themselves “scientific,” but are somehow much more concerned with the politics of it all than they are with the actual science.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Of course the climate is changing. Always has, always will. We have little to do with that. It does take a breathtaking amount of hubris to think that we could interfere with the design of the Creator. This AGW nonsense is, and always has been, a political strategy. The real tragedy is that in the process, venal men have trashed the honorable title of “scientist”.

tngmv on June 21, 2013 at 2:19 PM

It’s wonderful to have self-righteous righters here to evaluate and judge the scientific community, helping the world separate valid from ‘junk science’. Perhaps you should start a petition to have the US Academy of Science abolished in response to its strong endorsement of climate scientists. Why not replace it with a board headed by Joe the Plumber, a man of the people?
Next, you can go after the junk science of evolution, which a majority of right wingers already know is trash as well.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Perhaps the most significant problem with AGW theory is the evidence of identical rates of temperature change going back at least two centuries. For more on this see this C3 piece: http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/ipccs-gold-standard-hadcrut-confirms-co2s-impact-on-global-temps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html, with an outstanding graphic here: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01901d26f85e970b-pi
We’ve had many ups and downs in temperature. But you see the slopes of temp change look identical in recent (high CO2) and past times (low CO2). CO2 has done… nothing. This doesn’t fit the supposed “established physics” on CO2. Back to the drawing board on CO2.

anotherJoe on June 21, 2013 at 3:04 PM

In Europe the other day, President Obama proclaimed that climate change is the “global threat of our time” — which really sounds amazingly out-of-touch with all of the economies of the world struggling to prosper under the weight of so much big government.

You mean the size of the federal government is a good indicator of a nation’s prosperity? Is the world heading toward the Peruvian or Somalian models then?

It’s easy to make vast, sweeping oversimplifications of the world but those often fail to hold up under closer examination.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM

It’s wonderful to have self-righteous righters here to evaluate and judge the scientific community, helping the world separate valid from ‘junk science’. Perhaps you should start a petition to have the US Academy of Science abolished in response to its strong endorsement of climate scientists. Why not replace it with a board headed by Joe the Plumber, a man of the people?
Next, you can go after the junk science of evolution, which a majority of right wingers already know is trash as well.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Please please please don’t shut of my cash flow!

Pathetic whumpnut.

tom daschle concerned on June 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Please please please don’t shut of my cash flow!

There we go again, attacking science as a major source of corruption and wrong in this world. The right needs to join the dramatic technological changes sweeping the world, not simply watch on the sidelines as liberals dominate high tech, high growth industries. As long as you see science as a part of the problem, you’re going to be left behind. The Chinese, Germans, and other competitors embrace science and its potential- you can’t win in the global economy by holding science in such contempt.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM

There we go again, attacking science as a major source of corruption and wrong in this world. The right needs to join the dramatic technological changes sweeping the world, not simply watch on the sidelines as liberals dominate high tech, high growth industries. As long as you see science as a part of the problem, you’re going to be left behind. The Chinese, Germans, and other competitors embrace science and its potential- you can’t win in the global economy by holding science in such contempt.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I am a scientist you fking twit. Your appeals to authority and strawmen aren’t worth addressing.

Have a nice day taint.

tom daschle concerned on June 21, 2013 at 3:25 PM

It’s wonderful to have self-righteous righters here to evaluate and judge the scientific community, helping the world separate valid from ‘junk science’. Perhaps you should start a petition to have the US Academy of Science abolished in response to its strong endorsement of climate scientists. Why not replace it with a board headed by Joe the Plumber, a man of the people?
Next, you can go after the junk science of evolution, which a majority of right wingers already know is trash as well.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Do you believe in doing what’s necessary to actually solve the problem of climate change or are you a anti-science nuclear denialist?

Alberta_Patriot on June 21, 2013 at 3:28 PM

0.05% (the mass of CO2/volume of atmosphere) is not a significant driver in ANY, I repeat ANY thermodynamic system. It is not even a rounding error in most calculations. There is 200 times more water vapor (another so called greenhouse gas) in air than CO2, yet there is no program to curb our production of water vapor to ‘stop the warming!!!11!!’ CO2 was singled out as the evil greenhouse gas because it is something that can be controlled/taxed, unlike water vapor.

Schwalbe Me-262 on June 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

You really are a special kind of stupid, aren’t you.

Solaratov on June 21, 2013 at 3:58 PM

There we go again, attacking science as a major source of corruption and wrong in this world. The right needs to join the dramatic technological changes sweeping the world, not simply watch on the sidelines as liberals dominate high tech, high growth industries. As long as you see science as a part of the problem, you’re going to be left behind. The Chinese, Germans, and other competitors embrace science and its potential- you can’t win in the global economy by holding science in such contempt.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Go read Richard Feynman’s cargo-cult science speech. Is he holding science in contempt? Or is he concerned about the way science is being conducted? What would you say if twenty years from now, it’s commonly accepted that global warming was much ado about nothing?

NukeRidingCowboy on June 21, 2013 at 4:06 PM

It’s wonderful to have self-righteous righters here to evaluate and judge the scientific community, helping the world separate valid from ‘junk science’. Perhaps you should start a petition to have the US Academy of Science abolished in response to its strong endorsement of climate scientists. Why not replace it with a board headed by Joe the Plumber, a man of the people?

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Such an ignorant child. As Tom Daschle pointed out already, many of us righties are scientists – we just don’t go babbling on and on about how super sophisticated it makes us.

Are you even a scientist yourself, or just some science groupie? It’s hard to imagine a real scientist would rely so heavily on appeal to authority and “consensus”. Do you know anything at all about the scientific method? Here’s a hint: it has nothing to do with consensus, democracy, or academia.

If you aren’t a scientist I’d generally say “who cares? Your claims live and die on their own merits”, but I have to admit that a non-scientist telling a bunch of scientists that they need to value science more is pretty funny.

RINO in Name Only on June 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM

As long as you see science as a part of the problem, you’re going to be left behind.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Do you agree then, with Dr. Barry Brook who holds the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide that solar energy is not sustainable?

Do you also agree with Dr. Bernard Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. Dan Meneley, Engineer Emeritus at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., that nuclear fuel resources are essentially infinite and that a carbon-free energy infrastructure can be built without needing to reduce our energy consumption by a single milliwatt?

Alberta_Patriot on June 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM

t’s wonderful to have self-righteous righters here to evaluate and judge the scientific community, helping the world separate valid from ‘junk science’. Perhaps you should start a petition to have the US Academy of Science abolished in response to its strong endorsement of climate scientists. Why not replace it with a board headed by Joe the Plumber, a man of the people?
Next, you can go after the junk science of evolution, which a majority of right wingers already know is trash as well.

bayam on June 21

Projection much?? Has anyone else noticed most Conservatives just ignore science babble while the Liberals are busy incorporating those thoughts into their secular bibles?

Mr. Bayam we don’t care enough to even consider your suggestions. Most of us live in the real world, where the temperature is always changing and historical evidence now has it trending downward, where that evvilll fracking has led to reduce U.S. carbon emissions – Gawd, how the Liberals hate that, no chance for grafts and bribes. Every measurement of “climate change” has been debunked or outed.

It’s looking more and more like you will have to find some other new religion; sorry

E9RET on June 21, 2013 at 4:43 PM

When Zer0 is right, he’s right. Climate Change IS the Global threat of our time, because of the Liberals thinking they are gods that can stop the climate from changing by taking MY $ and throwing it at the sun.

kirkill on June 21, 2013 at 4:54 PM

The real problem for AGW was that its models did not predict the current somewhat stable or very slow warming/cooling effects. That would point to the models being quite incomplete as far as models inputs go.

Now if someone’s model had predicted the current situation which could then be explained in terms of what the model uses for inputs then one might begin to think seriously that the model has a real degree of predictive ability.

A model that says temperature will go up inexorably as the percentage of green house gases goes up (ignoring other possible inputs) is way too simple if it cannot equally predict why temperature did not go up despite (I assume) some increase in green house gases.

Russ808 on June 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Now who are the deniers? No warming for almost 20 years and they still think it’s settled science. HAHAHA!!! Physical data trumps models every time. But hey, denial is such bliss.

MrX on June 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM

0.05% (the mass of CO2/volume of atmosphere) is not a significant driver in ANY, I repeat ANY thermodynamic system. It is not even a rounding error in most calculations. There is 200 times more water vapor (another so called greenhouse gas) in air than CO2, yet there is no program to curb our production of water vapor to ‘stop the warming!!!11!!’ CO2 was singled out as the evil greenhouse gas because it is something that can be controlled/taxed, unlike water vapor.

Schwalbe Me-262 on June 21, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Huge point Schwalbe. Regardless of whether the activists insist that their take on CO2 is “established science,” for whatever reason, CO2′s just not doing anything. That’s the main point (CO2′s not doing a thing) of my comment above, and you can see this in that the rate of temperature change over two centuries is just the same. CO2 has gotten higher and higher, but the rate of temperature change, whether it be up or down, is just the same. See the C3 article on the identical temperature rates: http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/06/ipccs-gold-standard-hadcrut-confirms-co2s-impact-on-global-temps-statistically-immaterial-insignific.html

anotherJoe on June 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Question: What happens when “settled science,” isn’t?

Answer: Talk louder.

davidk on June 21, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Mixing science and conspiracy theories for a second, the “meteor that killed off the dinosaurs” took, according to dating of the geological strata, millions of years. According to that same record, homo sapiens hasn’t been around that long.

So it would be the same thing as if a similar cataclism occured today and the Amish were still struggling and carrying on a million years from now. So, either the meteor theory is wrong or the decay-dating of the earth is wrong.

But you can’t have both theories at the same time without settling into the realm pure imagination and fantasy presented as fact. These days, fantasy is the easy winner.

flicker on June 21, 2013 at 5:16 PM

What happens when “settled science,” isn’t?

This post could have been written about Darwinism, or Alar, or DDT, or the health effects of a plethora of foods and/or supplements.

itsnotaboutme on June 21, 2013 at 5:22 PM

It hasn’t been 15 years. It’s been 17 years and 4 months.

But who’s counting? :-D

monkeyboy on June 21, 2013 at 5:22 PM

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Such an ignorant child. As Tom Daschle pointed out already, many of us righties are scientists – we just don’t go babbling on and on about how super sophisticated it makes us.

Are you even a scientist yourself, or just some science groupie? It’s hard to imagine a real scientist would rely so heavily on appeal to authority and “consensus”. Do you know anything at all about the scientific method? Here’s a hint: it has nothing to do with consensus, democracy, or academia.

If you aren’t a scientist I’d generally say “who cares? Your claims live and die on their own merits”, but I have to admit that a non-scientist telling a bunch of scientists that they need to value science more is pretty funny.

RINO in Name Only on June 21, 2013 at 4:28 PM

He’s a bank teller in Canada for chrissakes, he just repeats crap that he pulls off of his favorite leftie websites.

slickwillie2001 on June 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM

New Steyn…

Obama’s Melting Wings

Resist We Much on June 21, 2013 at 5:28 PM

“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:”

and

“And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.”

And yet science says it knows the ways of the wind, and the earth will be flooded again. God says you don’t know, and it won’t.

Take your pick.

flicker on June 21, 2013 at 5:46 PM

It’s wonderful to have self-righteous righters here to evaluate and judge the scientific community, helping the world separate valid from ‘junk science’.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

*AHEM*

The alternatives to fossil fuels are very, very few that could promise the magnitude of energy required to meet our nation’s need. It is not as though plentiful alternatives exist, and one can be weighed against another …

The blunt fact is that there are the fossil fuels and there is nuclear.

Failure to recognize this, while focusing on options that do not and cannot have the magnitudes [of supply] required, will inevitably lead to increasingly dangerous energy shortages. Who then will answer? Will the environmental activist, who blocks real options, and then puts forth options that cannot meet the need?
- Dr. Charles Till, Associate Director, Argonne National Laboratory

Judge away Mr Science guy.

As Dr. Till rightly points out, any future crises, be they environmental or political and economic, will all be upon the heads of the half-baked anti-science treehugger crowd.

When you decide you want to discuss real science based solutions to climate change or any other issue, you just give me a shout.

Alberta_Patriot on June 21, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Do you agree then, with Dr. Barry Brook who holds the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide that solar energy is not sustainable?
Do you also agree with Dr. Bernard Cohen at the University of Pittsburgh and Dr. Dan Meneley, Engineer Emeritus at Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., that nuclear fuel resources are essentially infinite and that a carbon-free energy infrastructure can be built without needing to reduce our energy consumption by a single milliwatt?

Alberta_Patriot on June 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM

It’s good that you cite no less an authority than a scientist at Atomic Energy of Canada. Obama’s new Secretary of Energy is a nuclear physicist who strongly support nuclear power. I’m not opposed to nuclear energy, but that doesn’t undermine the long-term value of other energy sources, including solar and natural gas.

Most of us live in the real world, where the temperature is always changing and historical evidence now has it trending downward

Once again, those unwilling to accept the science try and pin their hopes on a single facet or measurement that might validate their beliefs. In this case, you selectively point o global terrestrial temperatures and ignore the reality of melting ice caps and a warming Arctic. But I don’t blame you, you’re not a scientist and don’t know any better.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Real scientists that are taking a hard look at this are becoming skeptics.

That’s right wing propaganda and completely false. The vast majority of scientists at the top research universities in the US are not becoming skeptics, and if anything, view global warming with increasing concern.

In reality, even the most conservative universities in the United States with a respected research presence recognize global warming’s broad implications. Notre Dame, for example, has taken a multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the complex consequences of global warming on the environment, global populations, and international security.

http://environmentalchange.nd.edu/programs/climate-change-adaptation/

An overwhelming amount of evidence shows that the earth’s climate is warming. This means that communities everywhere need to grabble with changing conditions, and they need guidance about how to adjust so that we can preserve human life, ecosystems, and economic values. To provide this guidance, research on so-called “climate change adaption” is crucial and timely.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM

real science based solutions to climate change
Alberta_Patriot on June 21, 2013 at 5:47 PM

“Climate change” isn’t a scientific term any more than, oh say, “orbit decay”. It’s focus-grouped show-business double-speak.

Let’s talk about “diaper change”.

Let’s debate the orbital decay of the earth. That would be fun.

Otherwise, for real science, let’s talk about sun spots’ effect on satellite orbits, or sunlight’s effect on upper atmoshperic chemical reactions, or variations in empirical observations of the speed of light over the centuries. Now that’s science.

flicker on June 21, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Next, you can go after the junk science of evolution, which a majority of right wingers already know is trash as well.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

How about we deal first with the size of FUDGE_FACTOR in the East Anglia programs — and whether it really needs to exist in order to “adjust” the raw data so as to meet the hypothesis.

unclesmrgol on June 21, 2013 at 6:20 PM

http://environmentalchange.nd.edu/programs/climate-change-adaptation/

An overwhelming amount of evidence shows that the earth’s climate is warming. This means that communities everywhere need to grabble with changing conditions, and they need guidance about how to adjust so that we can preserve human life, ecosystems, and economic values. To provide this guidance, research on so-called “climate change adaption” is crucial and timely.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Quoting a group which receives Government funding only if it says the things you quote it as having said isn’t a way to convince people around here.

unclesmrgol on June 21, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Help me out, please.

Is “climate change” the same thing as “global warming”? Or “global cooling”? Or cyclonic activity? Or holes in the ozone? What really is “climate change”?

And what, specifically, is the current argument as to the cause? Nothing more than greenhouse effect?

flicker on June 21, 2013 at 6:34 PM

It’s wonderful to have self-righteous righters here to evaluate and judge the scientific community, helping the world separate valid from ‘junk science’. Perhaps you should start a petition to have the US Academy of Science abolished in response to its strong endorsement of climate scientists. Why not replace it with a board headed by Joe the Plumber, a man of the people?
Next, you can go after the junk science of evolution, which a majority of right wingers already know is trash as well.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Climb down off the cross – we need the wood!

No need for petitions – just IGNORE the feckin’ “scientists” who’ve WH0RED their professional credentials out to Marxists who are bent on destroying Western Society.

HondaV65 on June 21, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Quoting a group which receives Government funding only if it says the things you quote it as having said isn’t a way to convince people around here.

unclesmrgol on June 21, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Notre Dame is a private university and its academic charter is not controlled or determined by government funding.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 6:52 PM

1960′s: we are all going to die from WWIII or overpopulation.
1970′s: Iceage coming soon.
1980′s: by the year 2000, 1 in 4 will be dead from AIDS.
1990′s: Y2K would send the whole world back to 1800.

Forget Global Warming/Climate Change, it’s time to start harping about the next fauxapocalyse.

Wallythedog on June 21, 2013 at 6:52 PM

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM

The place ain’t warmed in 15 years in spite of dramatically increased output of greenhouse gasses. What part of that does your dim brain not get?

If it’s all happening – why does AlGore have to LIE and photoshop pictures of distressed Polar Bears? Why does East Anglia have to LIE and OBFUSCATE their data. Truth is truth right? Why are purveyors of “truth” lying so god*amn much?

You’re an idiot – with a weak mind for logic.

Go back to school – learn to spot the bullsh*tters.

HondaV65 on June 21, 2013 at 6:52 PM

If their climate models are wrong, the climate scientists are wrong. It doesn’t take a science degree to understand that. Come up with a climate model that explains the last 15+ years of climate and maybe I’ll listen.

One thing I do know for sure, most environmentalists are middle-to-upper-class white people, whereas the people who are hardest hit by environmentalist policies usually aren’t.

Knott Buyinit on June 21, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Question: What happens when “settled science,” isn’t?

It’s unsettling to those claiming it’s settled.

rukiddingme on June 21, 2013 at 7:54 PM

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 6:02 PM

We’ll just assume that “grabble” in your little rant should actually be “grapple”.

Not only are you not a scientist…you can’t even write English.

BTW: Lil bayam isn’t writing his own material on this thread.

Solaratov on June 21, 2013 at 8:18 PM

We’ll just assume that “grabble” in your little rant should actually be “grapple”.

That was a quote from the Notre Dame website. Someday you might learn to identify the usage of emphasis in a blog comment. It’s not rocket science.

You’re an idiot – with a weak mind for logic.

Go back to school – learn to spot the bullsh*tters.

HondaV65 on June 21, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Yes, people need to recognize your superior intelligence and logic in stark contrast to the leading minds in the scientific and business world who recognize the validity of atmospheric science. It must be difficult for someone like you to possess such a superior mind relative to Bill Gates, John Doerr, and Larry Page, yet receive so little recognition for it.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 8:29 PM

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Bill Gates is a climate scientist? Who knew?

Athanasius on June 21, 2013 at 9:04 PM

You want to know what happens when the “settled science” isn’t?

read bayam’s posts.

BD57 on June 21, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Quoting a group which receives Government funding only if it says the things you quote it as having said isn’t a way to convince people around here.
 
unclesmrgol on June 21, 2013 at 6:23 PM

 
Notre Dame is a private university and its academic charter is not controlled or determined by government funding.
 
bayam on June 21, 2013 at 6:52 PM

 
From the nd.edu website:
 

ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE
 
A Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI) grant from the National Science Foundation’s Office of CyberInfrastructure enables a new interdisciplinary project, the Collaboratory for Adaptation to Climate Change, to do just that.
 
http://research.nd.edu/research-stories/college-of-science/adapting-to-climate-change/

 
I stopped looking after the first hit.
 
You were saying?

rogerb on June 21, 2013 at 9:10 PM

…Bill Gates…
 
bayam on June 21, 2013 at 8:29 PM

 
DRINK!

rogerb on June 21, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Once again, those unwilling to accept the science try and pin their hopes on a single facet or measurement that might validate their beliefs. In this case, you selectively point o global terrestrial temperatures and ignore the reality of melting ice caps and a warming Arctic. But I don’t blame you, you’re not a scientist and don’t know any better.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 5:54 PM

I am a scientist.

I’ve invited you to do this before;

1. Prove that global warming exists, without models, but with verifiable, reproducible experiments.
2. Prove that it’s caused by man-made events or influences.
3. Prove that reducing carbon emissions will fix it.

All else is hokum, and all your argument by appeal to authority, and name dropping, and charges that we who wait for real science are in some way defective, don’t change the fact that your quiver is empty.

massrighty on June 21, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Notre Dame is a private university and its academic charter is not controlled or determined by government funding.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 6:52 PM

It receives funding, through grants, for the very climate change initiative you quote.

“Private” universities get government funding, tool.

massrighty on June 21, 2013 at 9:15 PM

But I don’t blame you, you’re not a scientist and don’t know any better.
 
bayam on June 21, 2013 at 5:54 PM

 
I am a scientist.
 
I’ve invited you to do this before;…
All else is hokum, and all your argument by appeal to authority, and name dropping, and charges that we who wait for real science are in some way defective, don’t change the fact that your quiver is empty.
 
massrighty on June 21, 2013 at 9:11 PM

 
The comical part is how the folks that truly don’t understand or believe in science ALWAYS out themselves like this. Science isn’t a group of sub-popes with special mysterious powers that practice an incomprehensible religion and are the only ones who know God’s will. The belief in scientists as holy men is what makes actual discussions so painful.
 
bayam’s religious tendencies have forced him to reject understanding (and attempts to help him understand) basic science before:
 

No… and this may be difficult for you to grasp but that’s not relevant because I don’t presume to have the capacity to fully comprehend the massive amount of scientific research in this feild fo study and reach broad conclusions as to its implications…
 
bayam on January 7, 2012 at 6:11 PM

 

You’ve unwittingly hit on something there. I hope it’s not indicative of how our educational system is instructing our young people and I won’t tie it to political or voting trends, but:
 
You seem to believe science is something more than it is. At every level it is nothing more than:
 
1) Observe
2) Form a hypothesis
3) Perform an experiment to test hypothesis
4) Accept or reject hypothesis
 
Science, from the silliest 7th grade frog-jumping experiment to a 100 year study on algal growth in the arctic, MUST involve nothing more than that. If it does, it’s not science.
 
If a hypothesis can’t withstand scrutiny (accept/reject), then it’s no longer science.
 
rogerb on January 7, 2012 at 6:58 PM

 
Repeating again because it’s the very core of true science:
 

If a hypothesis can’t withstand scrutiny (accept/reject), then it’s no longer science.

rogerb on June 21, 2013 at 9:33 PM

Must read >The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert

kregg on June 21, 2013 at 9:41 PM

I am a scientist.

I’ve invited you to do this before;

1. Prove that global warming exists, without models, but with verifiable, reproducible experiments.
2. Prove that it’s caused by man-made events or influences.
3. Prove that reducing carbon emissions will fix it.

All else is hokum, and all your argument by appeal to authority, and name dropping, and charges that we who wait for real science are in some way defective, don’t change the fact that your quiver is empty.

massrighty on June 21, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Why don’t you follow the the link to Notre Dame’s website and start reviewing the evidence presented by that group of researchers. I’m not going to debate the merits of global warming or evolution or particle physics with you on a message board. Your proposition that such a discussion would be productive is telling. But I’ll give you credit for asking a valid question- as to whether reducing emissions will fix it. That’s the best question raised by this entire thread.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 10:29 PM

I’ve invited you to do this before…
 
3. Prove that reducing carbon emissions will fix it.
 
massrighty on June 21, 2013 at 9:11 PM

 
…But I’ll give you credit for asking a valid question- as to whether reducing emissions will fix it. That’s the best question raised by this entire thread.
 
bayam on June 21, 2013 at 10:29 PM

 
And once again the readers are allowed see bayam’s misunderstanding of basic science.
 
massrighty didn’t ask a question. The “valid question”
 

But I’ll give you credit for asking a valid question- as to whether reducing emissions will fix it

.
 
is bayam’s hypothesis, not massrighty’s. massrighty even used the actual word “prove” regarding that hypothesis:
 

3. Prove that reducing carbon emissions will fix it.

 
 
The burden of proof doesn’t rest on massrighty, who is the critic. It rests on the person presenting/supporting the “valid question” (hypothesis). This guy:
 

I’m not going to debate the merits of global warming or evolution or particle physics with you on a message board. Your proposition that such a discussion would be productive is telling.

 
It’s neat how that last line works in reverse, too. Telling indeed.

rogerb on June 21, 2013 at 11:05 PM

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 10:29 PM

I appreciate your focus and commitment to your argument. I supply your energy needs by drilling into 50 million year old rock, and tend to look at the long term trends. The solar system is changing, and I believe that climate change, whether warming or cooling, would happen even if we still lived as Native Americans. According to NASA scientist Richard Mewaldt, “in 2009 (galactic) cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years…the increase is significant.” The solar system is passing through an interstellar cloud that physics says should not exist…Using data from Voyager, we have discovered a strong magneto field just outside the solar system..(it) is much stronger magnetized than anyone had previously suspected.” All the planets are effected: Jupiter’s atmosphere was discovered by NASA to be is hundreds of degrees hotter than anticipated, and has lost twenty earth atmospheres of oxygen in 16 years. etc, etc, etc.

Darwin does not get off the hook either. The fossil record shows mass extinctions and vast leaps in evolution about every 60 million years, roughly equivalent to the solar system’s 62 million up and down motion through the galactic plane discovered by Muller and Rohde. U. Kansas professors Adrin Nekkitt and Mikhail Medvedev believe the upper area of the cycle should have an increased number of charged particles and cosmic rays. Their theory is that every time we rise out of the magnetic fields of the galactic plane and move into the northern area, we get a boost of cosmic ray exposure. This radiation could lead to more genetic mutations, and possibly create a new species.

We know nothing absolutely, and most people believe the truth to be what they hear on the evening news or what two friends tell them. The science is no more settled than Marie Curie and Hiroshima.

Jocundus on June 21, 2013 at 11:58 PM

Please forgive the typos:Adrian Mellott, affected.

Jocundus on June 22, 2013 at 12:06 AM

It’s good that you cite no less an authority than a scientist at Atomic Energy of Canada.

Actually, I cited THE scientist at AECL. Dr. Meneley is the elder statesman of the Canadian nuclear community.

I also cited Dr. Charles Till. While Argonne National Laboratory is US government facility, Dr. Till was born, raised and got his first degree in physics in Saskatchewan.

Obama’s new Secretary of Energy is a nuclear physicist who strongly support nuclear power.

Mostly true, unfortunately Moniz is unlikely to have significant impact. While Moniz is strongly pro-nuclear, he is also an old-fashioned adherent of Generation II or Generation III/III+ technology. Nuclears real future and biggest potential lies in the development of Generation IV reactors that Moniz has little use for.

Of far more importance than the DoE post is the chief commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As Obama supporter and member of GE’s Gen IV S-PRISM reactor development team, Rod Adams pointed out, the head of the NRC is currently under the stranglehold of anti-nuclear zealots Harry Reid and Ed Markey. And they make sure that no one but fellow anti-nuke kooks get appointed to the head of the NRC.

It is as I said, there is only one way to replace enough of our existing carbon based energy infrastructure to make a significant dent in our carbon emissions and until Obama puts a leash on his anti-nuke kook senators Reid and Markey puts his foot down at the NRC, he will not do a damned thing about climate change.

I’m not opposed to nuclear energy,

Glad to hear it.

but that doesn’t undermine the long-term value of other energy sources, including solar and natural gas.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 5:54 PM

And this is where you part ways with science. As I pointed out before, climate scientist Dr. Barry Brooks research shows that solar is unsustainable. It requires dozens of times the materials of equivalent amounts of nuclear generation capacity and it requires thousands of times the land area.

A large scale deployment of solar power would result in an environmental holocaust. Millions of square miles of land would be plowed up and paved over to make way for solar collectors and thousands more square miles would be dug up and devastated by strip mining needed to support the construction effort.

It’s not even remotely cost effective either. Germany invested 130 billion dollars in solar and only got slightly less capacity than that of the Palao Verde Nuclear Generating Station (3,800 MW). For the same price, they could have had 26,000 MW of nuclear generating capacity.

The germans are even less interested in solving climate change than Obama.

Alberta_Patriot on June 22, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Notre Dame is a private university and its academic charter is not controlled or determined by government funding.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Bwaahahahahaha! Priceless!

And my unicorn poops rainbow skittles!

John the Libertarian on June 22, 2013 at 1:10 AM

I’m not opposed to nuclear energy, but that doesn’t undermine the long-term value of other energy sources, including solar and natural gas.

Hear, hear Bayam. It’s good to hear you have the sense to support nuclear energy as well as natural gas, too bad the environmental lobby doesn’t.

Daemonocracy on June 22, 2013 at 2:58 AM

Progressive: Yes, but how can we blame humanity and make money on this?

Yakko77 on June 22, 2013 at 3:37 AM

Doesn’t, if you are going to call something science, the theory or model eventually have to match empirical data?

I visualize a paraphrase of that scene from Jurassic park …

“Now eventually you do plan to have WARMING in your global warming tour right??…..hello……yes?”

With Al Gore being Hammond muttering at the screen “I really hate that man …”

Arssanguinus on June 22, 2013 at 7:18 AM

‘Settled science’ is a strong indicator that the ‘theory’ has become a quasi-religious belief.

zoyclem on June 22, 2013 at 7:29 AM

…climate change due to human activities IS, in fact, occurring.

oakland might as well be brayam on June 11, 2013 at 8:58 PM

People like you cannot say with any authority what % of climate change humans are responsible for – anyone who cannot face & admit this truth does not deserve to be heard…

Anti-Control on June 11, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Anti-Control on June 22, 2013 at 8:12 AM

‘Settled science’ is a strong indicator that the ‘theory’ has become a quasi-religious belief.

zoyclem on June 22, 2013 at 7:29 AM

It’s become half a facade for funding and half a salad-bar religion that puts even the froo-froo suburbanite Yoga movement to shame.

MelonCollie on June 22, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Alberta_Patriot on June 22, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Awaiting bayam’s reply…most like it will be ‘Nuh-uh!’

socalcon on June 22, 2013 at 9:24 AM

You guys might be interested in reading Brian Sussman’s book on the global warming hoax. He refutes all the claims with the real facts. Sussman is a former Bay Area weather man, is frequently a sub for his buddy Mark Levin and co-hosts a morning radio show in San Francisco.

Decoski on June 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM

…Dr. Barry Brooks research shows that solar is unsustainable…
 
The germans are even less interested in solving climate change than Obama.

 
Alberta_Patriot on June 22, 2013 at 12:34 AM

 
Awaiting bayam’s reply…most like it will be ‘Nuh-uh!’
 
socalcon on June 22, 2013 at 9:24 AM

 
He’s gone. His floaties only let him stay in the deep end with actual swimmers just long enough to pee in the pool.
 
He’s already answered the question, though. Just not today. It’s about innovation, you ignorant racists. Efficiency and effectiveness are unimportant:
 

You can go to Germany and see it in reality. However, last time I checked, the economy and wages in Germany was far superior to what you find in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and other hard core red states. So you may want to come with a better plan for shocking those people on the coasts.
 
Not that energy production isn’t important, but this country shouldn’t model its economy on Russia or Saudi Arabia. The US economy is driven by innovation and knowledge more than the extraction of raw materials from the ground. Over the long-term, knowledge economies such as South Korea and Japan will absolutely outperform Saudi Arabia.
 
But I don’t want to stop anyone from worshiping at the alter of energy production or promoting it as a source of employment in states like North Dakota and other states with significant energy reserves, especially when the workforce lacks the expertise to succeed in the innovation economy.
 
bayam on December 8, 2012 at 3:47 PM

 
That Germany was specifically mentioned was especially helpful, and it ties in well to Alberta_Patriot’s post.

rogerb on June 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Bayam, if there was a Nobel Prize for Stupidity . . .

BigAlSouth on June 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM

It’s easy to make vast, sweeping oversimplifications of the world but those often fail to hold up under closer examination.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM

You do “close examination”? When do you have the time? You’re day job of being smarter than everyone in the room must take just ever so much time.

Squiggy on June 22, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Obama’s new Secretary of Energy is a nuclear physicist who strongly support nuclear power.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Obama’s Secretary of Energy, Dr. Ernest Moniz, has just appointed a former president of the anti-nuclear activist group “Union of Concerned Scientists” to be his chief of staff at the DoE.

Put in simpler terms, Dr. Moniz is the Marco Rubio of nuclear energy.

This is why I, as a conservative, have no problem believing that AGW might be real. Because if it is real, liberals have consistently proven that they should be the last people trusted to put a stop to it.

Alberta_Patriot on June 22, 2013 at 5:21 PM

It’s easy to make vast, sweeping oversimplifications of the world but those often fail to hold up under closer examination.

bayam on June 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Mirror, mirror, on the wall… sheesh, what a hack.

S. D. on June 22, 2013 at 7:34 PM

We’ll just assume that “grabble” in your little rant should actually be “grapple”.

That was a quote from the Notre Dame website. Someday you might learn to identify the usage of emphasis in a blog comment. It’s not rocket science.
bayam on June 21, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Then it’s too bad that the idiots at ND can’t write any better English than you can.

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on June 22, 2013 at 7:53 PM

“We know neutral parties have never been asked to evaluate the strengths and weakness of climate models – instead the IPCC invites climate modelers to tell us how beautiful their own babies are.” Donna Laframboise

kregg on June 22, 2013 at 8:34 PM

It’s easy to make vast, sweeping oversimplifications of the world…
bayam on June 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM

That describes about 95% of what you post here, Bayam, when it isn’t simply pure nonsense or drivel, that is.

zoyclem on June 24, 2013 at 7:22 AM

So yep, another thread left to die by bayam.
 

In this country, you’re either for or against Obamacare, there’s no depth or real substance to the debate. It’s really unfortunate.
 
bayam on November 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM

 
Comically, he let that thread die, too, even after such mournful insight.
 
The water is always too deep for bayam.

rogerb on June 24, 2013 at 8:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2