Sir Paul Nurse's big boo boo

Christopher Booker has spotted a boo boo in Sir Paul Nurse’s BBC Horizon documentary. Well, several, actually, but this one’s the worst…

(to read more, click here)

21 thoughts on “Sir Paul Nurse's big boo boo”

  1. Oh no Delingpole, you still smarting from the Horizon interview? Looking for anything to salvage what little reputation you have? Chris Booker is hardly the most reliable of sources with a talent for distorting numbers. Wasn’t he of the fame “global warming stopped in 1998” by cherry picking a strong El Nino year to start his calculations? Give it up Delingpole, you were “intellectually raped”. No doubt this post will get censored as all my other posts have been.

  2. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4), , states that human-related fossil fuel CO2 emission is 29 gigatons, compared to 439 gigatons emission from natural sources on land and 332 gigatons emission from natural sources in the ocean, thus the ratio of human/”natural” emissions is 29/771, and human emissions constitute 29/800 or 3.6% of the total emission.

    Naturally, plants (rainforests on land, plankton in the oceans) absorb CO2. I think this allows some “dodgy accountants” to cook their figures, by forgetting about the actual gross “natural” emission, and purely focussing on the “net emission”, i.e. the amount of CO2 emitted minus the amount reabsorbed by nature.

    Any statistician will tell you that that when you subtract these large, similar, and uncertain numbers, the result has no statistical significance, because the error limits are larger than the number you end up with. Therefore, the liars can effectively say that nature emits no carbon at all (meaning no significant net emission, after reabsorption is subtracted), and use this fraud to then “calculate” that human emissions are much bigger than “natural” emissions.

    Just to be clear again, the human emissions are only 3.6% of the “natural” emissions. The claim that humans emit 7 times more carbon that nature does, in the BBC Horizon: Science Under Attack tv show by the NASA “expert” on climatic change is indeed a fraud. Someone will hopefully sue the BBC and the liars it showed for presenting such fraud, and present the evidence in court. Doubtless they’ll get off scot free, but at least it will help to expose lies!


    Here follows the comment I made to the Telegraph post:

    … I missed out mentioning the deception in the BBC film that climate change is “proved” by the “fact” that humans emit 7 times as much carbon as is naturally produced! As you say, that is a massive exaggeration. In fact, the fraction is reverse, with “nature” emitting as much as 30 times as much carbon as human activity does. However, there are so many falsehoods that there is no space to squeeze that fact into my riposte video. The whole climate change debacle makes me feel so ill, I don’t want to think about it anymore.

    If Sir Paul Nurse had been chief caveman around 18,000 years ago with Dr Phil Jones his trusty adviser, the human race would have fought against the 120 metres sea level rise, and to try to maintain the “natural” ice age fixed for eternity, at the cost of God knows how many human lives and resources. Thank God that didn’t happen!

  3. Fossil fuel is being extracted at an ever increasing rate. Atmospheric CO2 is up by over 33%. NOAA measures that to be the rate and Chris Booker, journalist knows better?

  4. We’ve been in a warming period for 18,000 years. The whole holocene, during which humanity thrived, has been a period of climatic change.

    Much of the Sahara desert was a tropical paradise a few thousand years ago, and it wasn’t destroyed by humanity. The last ice age is still receding. What the natural climate change deniers insist, by lying, is that the climate is a delicate equilibrium, critically controlled by CO2 levels. In fact, the relative influence of H2O, plain old water vapour, is a bigger greenhouse gas.

    However, as always, the eco-evangelists misunderstand this, claiming it has a positive feedback on CO2, e.g. IPCC models assume that doubling CO2 causes more H2O vapour in the air, amplifying the temperature rise by a factor of two.

    This is what the IPCC computer models say, and they were disproved by NASA scientist contractor Dr Ferenc Miskolczi of AS&M Inc on 1 January 2006 resigned with a protest letter about being censored out, stating:

    “Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science can not coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climatic change related scientific results. … I presented to NASA a new view of greenhouse theory and pointed out serious errors in the classical approach of assessment of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas perturbations. Since then my results were not released for publication.”

    (His resignation letter is on scribd, document 25310277, “Dr Miskolczi Resignation Letter”).

    His theory is described by his research associate Dr Miklos Zagoni, see the paper on Scribd, document 25071473, page 4:

    “During the 61-year period [since 1948] … the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent.”

    He explains:

    “Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.” – Dr. Miklos Zagoni, see Dianna Cotter, Portland Civil Rights Examiner, “Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate”, 12 January 2010.

    Basically, Dr Ferenc Miskolczi’s life as a NASA climate research scientist was made hell because he discovered that the extra water vapour being evaporated is not having a positive-feedback (increasing the CO2 warming effect by absorbing more infrared from the sun), instead it is going into increased cloud cover, which reflects incoming sunlight back to space. So it has a negative-feedback effect, not a positive-feedback effect. NASA’s climate computer models all have not merely a quantitative error in the effect of H2O on climate, but an actual qualitative error. They have a plus sign where the sign is really negative.

    NASA effectively banned its publication through the peer-reviewed literature, just as it had used groupthink fear to censor out the effects of low temperatures on making the rubber Challenger O-rings brittle, so they leaked during a cold morning launch, causing the 1986 space shuttle explosion. This was the big cover-up that Feynman famously exposed with the cup of iced water and a rubber O-ring during a TV news conference, as part of the Rogers’ Commission report into the disaster, which NASA astronaut Neil Armstrong failed to spot:

    “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”

    – Rogers Commission (Presidential Commission on Challenger space shuttle disaster), Appendix F – Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle by R. P. Feynman.

    Feynman gives a long account of his investigation, and the commission chairman (a former student) even tried for a while to censor him (forcing his report to go into an appendix of the main report, as a minority report) in his popular book “What Do You Care What Other People Think”, which compared the secrecy culture he experienced at Los Alamos while building the first atom bomb to the horrible groupthink censorship situation at NASA.

  5. Warmism is an attempt to hijack the authority of a science not formerly politicized for political purposes. People with an understanding of politics –or, like economists, of politicized science– have no difficulty seeing through those endeavours. It is not about science at all; it is about robbing you and annoying you.

  6. It’s amazing to read denialists claiming science is undecided about whether we are cooling or warming yet claim they know what it was like 18,000 years ago? Err, hello, what climate scientists are saying is the build up of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions in the past 150 years will have an affect on global temperatures. And they are pretty certain because we are already starting to see the effects now. To negate the anthropogenic buildup is to say greenhouse gases do not play a part in the climate.

    And hey presto, watch this post get deleted along with the rest of my posts.

  7. Fearless Frank: nobody denies that burning releases CO2 and that it has increased dramatically in the atmosphere, please read Dianna Cotter’s 12 January 2010 article in the Portland Civil Rights Examiner, “Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate”.

    You will see that NASA’s researchers discovered that the long-term effect of CO2 is not to have an effect of global temperatures, but to slightly increase cloud cover, which compensates like whitewashing part of the room of your greenhouse.

    The earth’s climate adapts and regulates climate. Peer-review power politics masquerading as “consensus science” says the opposite. It says that water evaporation accelerates the greenhouse effect because humid air absorbs more infrared radiation from the sun. This ignores the point that hot humid air doesn’t hang around at sea level! It rises. Hot air rises. As it rises, it expands and cools, condensing into clouds. The 1-50 microns sized water droplets scatter most thermal radiation, reflect sunlight back into space, therefore shadowing and cooling the ground below. Pumping in more CO2 just increases the average amount of cloud cover in the long-run, preventing any effect on air temperature!

    In case you didn’t notice, on cloudy days the clouds stop the sun from heating the ground directly. This isn’t rocket science. Although some heat is absorbed in the top layers of the clouds, that heated air and moisture rises, instead of falling. Hot air rises because it expands to low density, and thus is buoyant like a hot air balloon. So there is essentially no convective transfer of heat from the top of clouds to lower altitudes.

    The behaviour of warm moist air in form clouds instead of hanging around at sea level as humid air depends on the average adiabatic lapse rate with altitude, but there is factual global evidence to support the claim that CO2 has an effect on cloud cover, not long-term temperature: Dr Miklos Zagoni (Scribd document 25071473, page 4):

    “During the 61-year period [since 1948] … the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent.”

    This proves that the increased evaporation of water due to initial CO2 induced temperature rises in the oceans has not resulted in increased sea level air humidity. So where has the hot moist air gone? Answer: hot air rises. It’s gone up, expanded, cooled, and condensed into increased cloud cover above a few thousand feet, which has regulated the earth’s temperature.

    The NASA and IPCC computer models don’t include negative feedback of H2O due to CO2. Those computer models simplistically assume that H2O has a positive feedback effect, i.e. an amplification. They assume the extra evaporated water hangs around at low altitudes, absorbing infrared (water molecules are very efficient wide-band sunlight absorbers, unless they form ice or small water droplets whose sizes efficiently scatter light back into space). When they correct the computer models, they’ll find that increased atmospheric CO2 doesn’t produce the long-term global warming they currently predict. Instead, it slightly increases the average amount of cloud cover. Not exactly the end of the world!

  8. Sir Paul Nurse argues for “peer reviewed science” and argues against sceptics on the basis their critiques are amateur and non-peer reviewed.

    Seems to me the peer review process has been fully discredited as we’ve had such ‘beauties’ as The Hockey Stick, Dutch sea levels, Bangladesh sea levels, Maldives sea levels, Himalayan Glaciers, Hurricane horseshit, Tree Ring bullshit etc etc.

    So the sceptics have blown a hole (too many holes to mention) through Sir Nunns beloved peer review process. Who are the amateurs Sir Egg-on-the-Face?

    Answers on a postcard to: Sir P. Nurse BS, Centre for Crap Dodgy Science, Royal Society of Politically Hired Crones, London, AGW RIP.

  9. Velocity: Dr Ferenc Mikolczi, working for a NASA contractor, was censored out using “peer”-review quackery, and resigned in protest in 2006 for discovering the heresy that CO2 increases are producing a negative-feedback on H2O evaporation, not the positive-feedback that NASA climate models assumptions dictate and require for disaster forecasts. See Few scientific papers are perfect, but “peer”-review censorship is not science! If there are errors, they should be opposed not suppressed by NASA.

    H2O evaporation doesn’t amplify global warming from CO2 as assumed in the present models, but instead suppresses the effect, since the evaporated moist air rises to form clouds. See which states on page 4:

    “Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases, if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans. … The Earth’s atmosphere maintains a constant effective greenhouse-gas content [although the percentage contributions to it from different greenhouse gases can vary greatly] and a constant, maximized, “saturated” greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by CO2 emissions (or by any other emissions, for that matter). After calculating on the basis of the entire available annual global mean vertical profile of the NOAA/NCAR atmospheric reanalysis database, Miskolczi has found that the average greenhouse effect of the past 61 years (from 1948, the beginning of the archive, to 2008) is –

     constant, not increasing;
     equal to the unperturbed theoretical equilibrium value; and
     equal (within 0.1 C°) to the global average value, drawn from the independent TIGR radiosonde archive.

    “During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948. … a hypothetical doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air would cause a 3% decrease in the absolute humidity, keeping the total effective atmospheric greenhouse gas content constant, so that the greenhouse effect would merely continue to fluctuate around its equilibrium value. Therefore, a doubling of CO2 concentration would cause no net “global warming” at all.”

    Burning releases CO2, which is a natural component of the atmosphere whose concentration has been increasing. Current computer simulations of global warming postulate a positive-feedback of H2O on CO2, assuming that H2O evaporation from oceans doubles the temperature rise associated with the increasing atmospheric level of CO2. Dr Ferenc Miskolczi resigned from a NASA contractor alleging their censorship of his research which suggests, from observational evidence of global humidity levels between 1948 and 2008, that global mean humidity has not increased and consequently the positive-feedback effect of CO2 emissions on H2O is not substantiated. Moist warm air rises, expands, and condenses into increased cloud cover. This is the “anti-greenhouse effect”. Put simply, the Earth has large oceans and a large mass, which effectively prevents water vapour escaping into outer space, unlike small planets with runaway CO2 greenhouse effects due to loss of water. The variations of CO2 during Earth’s geological record were all caused by rapid temperature changes that caused an imbalance between CO2 absorbers and emitters. Basically, rainforests (CO2 sinks) were killed off by temperature fall rates which could be compensated for by the migration of CO2 emitting animals. Therefore, a drop in global temperature caused an increase in the atmospheric CO2 level due simply to the fact that rainforests cannot migrate as quickly as animals, and are therefore more likely to be killed. An increase in global temperatures had the opposite effect, allowing dense rainforests to proliferate faster than the rate of increase of CO2 emitting animals. The tendency to ignore these simple mechanisms for political expediency has driven “global warming science” into a dead end groupthink fashion, analogous to 1930s eugenics.

    Eugenics, a pseudoscience, was so fashionable in the 1930s that a French Nobel laureate in medicine wrote a “science” bestseller, popularizing eugenics, called “Man, the Unknown”, which recommended gas chambers for government critics. The Nazi edition contained a special author’s foreword praising early 1930s Nazi efforts towards eugenics. The use of gas chambers was supposed to be a great, civilized means to kill off people deemed unfit to reproduce by the great worthy geniuses of eugenics, such as medicine Nobel laureates. However, after the war the great endorsers of gas chambers for eugenics went quiet, just because it was discovered that the Nazis had put the gas chamber plan into action against the racial and disabled minorities! The “intellectually superior” eugenics medical Nobel laureate who wrote “Man, the Unknown” died awaiting trial for collaboration in France. Many Americans and British “intellectual” pacifists during the 1930s had endorsed or “let go” eugenics lies, precisely because of the “intellectual weight” of “authority” given by a “brilliant medical Nobel Laureate”, and the widespread anti-Semitic racial prejudices of the 1930s were curtailed by photos from Auschwitz. The episode was not considered worthy of any Hollywood glorification, with the eventual emergence of “Godwin’s Law” and other pseudoscience alleging that it’s immoral to learn and apply the lessons of the past to prevent a repetition of the groupthink errors of science.

    Eugenics assumed that evolutionary “survival of the fittest” necessitated the elimination of diversity, when in fact evolution is only possible if there is diversity and the definition of “fittest” for survival is subjective and depends on the situation. A lack of diversity would make humanity more vulnerable to emerging viruses, for example, because it would genetically be putting all of its eggs in one basket. Global warming is similarly based on a lying ideology that ignores the vital technical details in favour of fear-mongering groupthink that requires political peer-review to censor Dr Ferenc Miskolczi. Why didn’t anyone stand up against eugenics lies and thus disprove the “scientific basis” for Hitler’s Nazis in the 1930s? The answer is that many tried but were censored out by the majority. Disproof of eugenics didn’t sell newspapers. Criticism was censored out as ignorant scare-mongering or as a politically motivated attack on the Nazis, who were well respected in the 1930s, despite their bigotry. The fact that eugenics itself was part of a scare-mongering politically motivated attack on a minority was ignored because eugenics had “important” political figures in Germany behind it, and because of the medical Nobel laureate’s book.

  10. The science is the reason that I am a full blown sceptic, too show what I mean. See the summary on Climate Change from the Mensa International science forum below.

    Mars Global Surveyor studied the surface of Mars from 1999 to 2006, four Martian years, this coincided with a five and a half year rise in solar activity reaching the Solar Cycle peak in 2002. During a Solar Cycle maximum the Sun irradiates 0.1 percent more energy than at a Solar Cycle minimum, for Mars this means an increase in Global temperature of 0.21 Kelvin in three Martian years. At Perihelion Mars receives 44 percent (6.8 percent for Earth) more radiation than at Aphelion as the orbit of Mars is almost six times more eccentric than Earths. Mercury is the only planet to have a more eccentric orbit than Mars. Perihelion occurs during the Southern Summer and ever since the 1830s it has been noted that during warming periods a dark band appears around the periphery of the shrinking polar cap, and with dust storms being more common during this period, this has decreased the Martian Albedo from 0.16 to 0.15 and increased the Martian Global temperature by 0.65 Kelvin. This has also caused more frozen CO2 to melt and turn into gas than usual for three Southern Summers in a row. With 95 percent of the Martian atmosphere made up of CO2 (0.038 percent on Earth) and only 0.03 percent Water vapour (1 percent on Earth). CO2 induced Global Warming is almost an irrelevance for Mars as it is for the Earth, as the CO2 has already absorbed most of the radiation available for absorption. The Warming on Mars raises the average surface temperature by 3 Kelvin to 210 Kelvin from 207 Kelvin. Both Planets can cool much faster than they can warm up, so Mars with almost a 100 percent transparent dry CO2 Atmosphere and without the problems with feedback (other than dust storms) from Water Vapour, Clouds, Oceans or an Atmospheric Mass 2,600 times that of CO2. Then Mars is the perfect example to use to test the theory of CO2 warming on Earth. The Black Body Temperature of Mars is 81.5 percent that of the Earth. The surface has a 7 millibar CO2 atmosphere (0.39 millibar CO2 atmosphere on Earth). So the equivalent 7 millibar CO2 Atmosphere on Earth would produce a temperature of 3.68 Kelvin. If you deduct the 0.24 Kelvin increase for a doubling of CO2, four times you get 2.72 Kelvin for a 0.4375 millibar Atmosphere. This makes 2.7 Kelvin for a 0.39 millibar Atmosphere. The 2.7 Kelvin includes, 1.2 Kelvin for CO2 absorption only, plus half of the 1.5 Kelvin that CO2 absorption shares with Water vapour. Confirming that the CO2 induced Warming on Earth is about 2 Kelvin, and also four times weaker than on Mars. Confirming the irrelevance of its ability to increase Global temperature much more, even with significant increases in Carbon Dioxide. Man made CO2 is natural CO2 which has been fossilised for millions of years and does not have the Carbon-14 Isotope. Levels of this Isotope show that 4 percent or 15ppm of the increase in CO2 in over 100 years is due to Man & 85ppm due to Nature, this is also confirmed by the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 in the Atmosphere. All evidence in Ice core data and direct measurements point to changes in the temperature causing the changes in CO2 levels as on Mars, this increase being due to the 0.76 Kelvin increase in Global Atmospheric temperature over the last 200 year bounce back from the Little Ice Age. But ice core data shows that this is mainly due to the 800 year lag in the changes in deep ocean CO2 levels after the Medieval Warm Period, the ocean contains 93.5 percent of the Earths CO2. The increase has added only 0.1 Kelvin to the 2 Kelvin that CO2 gives to the Warming of the Earths Surface Temperature, this means that man-made CO2 has only contributed 0.015 Kelvin. But the relative humidity of the Earths Atmosphere has been dropping, especially at higher elevations allowing more heat to escape to space, this is because the conservation of energy means that as CO2 increases, it replaces water vapour to maintain a constant greenhouse effect, this is proven by the relative stability of the optical depth of the Earths Atmosphere over the last sixty years. The largest effect on Climate Change is the Length of the Solar Cycle, short Solar Cycles cause a warming and long Solar Cycles cause a cooling. Between 1913 and 1996, only one of eight Solar Cycles was longer than the mean Solar Cycle length of 11.04 years. The last of these was the shortest Solar Cycle for more than 200 years. Short Solar Cycles cause a decrease in cosmic rays when Solar activity is high, decreasing cloud cover and leading to the enhancement of Global Warming on the Earth, a 1 percent decrease in cosmic rays causes a 0.13 Kelvin increase in Global temperature. This is called the Forbush effect and is caused by coronal mass ejections which are ten times more common during Solar maximum and have a ten day period that can be predicted four days before the event. This is carried by the solar wind to the Earth on the Suns magnetic field lines.
    A study of Luna Earthshine shows that the Albedo of the Earth decreased from 0.32 in 1985 to 0.29 in 1997 showing a 6.5 percent decrease in cloud cover. The Earths Albedo has since increased to 0.31 showing that 69 percent of solar energy is absorbed, 50 percent by the Surface, 19 percent by the Atmosphere (13.3 percent by Water Vapour, 1.6 percent by Carbon Dioxide and 4.1 percent by Dust, Ozone, Nitrous-Oxide, Methane and other gases). In the last hundred years the Earths Albedo has been as high as 0.44 and as low as 0.29 with an average of 0.36. The Albedo effects the North more than the South because the land snow zone for the south is mainly in the sea. Weather from the Sun was first postulated two hundred years ago when William Herschel tried to prove the price of grain was inversely correlated with the sunspot number, which was subsequently proven, the sunspot number being low during the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) at the end of the Little Ice Age. The sunspot number was close to zero during the earlier Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) during the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, this is also confirmed by tree rings formed at sunspot minimum which have a higher amount of carbon-14 due to the Forbush Effect. The enhancing effects of the Albedo changes on the Earth and Mars would more than explain Global Warming on both Planets and would explain why the cause of Global Warming on other Planets is not that definite other than the finding that the changes in the brightness of Neptune correlate with the changes in the Earths Global Surface Temperature. When the Earths temperature increased, the Atmospheric Water Vapour content increased, but if this increase had been due to CO2 then the Tropospheric temperature would have increased at twice the rate of the Surface temperature increase. This did not happen. Over half of all Solar radiation is absorbed by the Earths Oceans which are almost 300 times the mass of the Earths Atmosphere. This helps to regulate the effects of the changes in the Earths climate which then responds to these changes after a five year lag. Global Warming peaked in 1998 and ended with the following Solar Cycle peak, followed by strong observational evidence that the ocean has been cooling since 2003, and that the increase in Atmospheric Methane has ended. So it seems quite clear that Climate Change is ruled by the Sun. The speed of the centre of the sun relative to the centre of mass of the solar system determines the length of the solar cycle, this in turn is caused by the orbits of the Planets, this means that short term Climate Change can be predicted. There are also long-term future causes of Climate Change in Astronomy. The inclination of Mars varies between 35 degrees and 14 degrees over a period of 50,000 years while that of the Earth only varies between 22.1 degrees and 24.1 degrees over a period of 41,000 years, both planets are at the half way point, Mars at 25.19 degrees and the Earth at 23.44 degrees. This cycle and other changes in planetary axis and orbit produce Ice ages every 100,000 years, in periods when more ice is exposed to the Sun heightening the Albedo, which causes the cooling. The Galactic Orbit of the Solar System every 240 million years produces Ice Age Epochs every 120 million years which are caused by the Sun passing through the Galactic spiral arms increasing the level of cosmic rays and therefore cloudiness, we are at present in an ice age epoch caused by our presence in the Orion armlet. But the Final Global Warming Terror will be when the Sun turns into a Red Giant. In one billion years time the Oceans will be boiling and in five billion years time the Earth will be eaten up by the Sun, leaving Mars as the most inner Planet of the Solar System. The information above comes from many sources such as The Guinness Book of Astronomy Facts and Feats by Sir Patrick Moore, Encyclopaedia Britannica but mainly from Scientific papers found on Google Scholar.

  11. NASA’s billion dollar climate change research budget:

    “In Fiscal Year 2010, NASA spent over 7.5% – over a billion dollars – of its budget on studying global warming/climate change. The bulk of the funds NASA received in the stimulus went toward climate change studies. Excessive growth of climate change research has not been limited to NASA. Overall, the government spent over $8.7 billion across 16 Agencies and Departments throughout the federal government on these efforts in FY 2010 alone.”

    – Reps Posey, Adams and Bishop Join Colleagues in Calling on House Leaders to Reprioritize NASA for Human Space Flight Missions, Drop Climate Change, U.S. House of Representatives, Tuesday, February 8, 2011,

  12. Just watched a rerun of Horizon and couldn’t believe as usual when it comes to climate change that “we are all wrong” as they know best its our fault. I think even Homer knows more than them. Global warming is a cycle that can’t be programed into a computer as we do not have the required data. If only when on the horizon show they let you see how close there weather data was compared to the real data close up I might not have laughed so much but, but just because they showed a bit of white on the screen doesn’t mean they know. Anyway less of the Carry On Show that I watched “He who knows best and can not bend will break” as religion is power has been proven “it did take a few years”. Unfortunately now its government is science as they pay the bill. Time for the scientists to speak out and not be swayed by the money. After all that I have one question “could someone explain how i help the environment by paying carbon Tax or is this a way to make people think that they are doing good”.

  13. “… do you have a PhD on climate science?”

    Getting a bit desperate now are we?

    Let’s see now, every investigative journalist must have a PhD in the subject they’re investigating, or else the facts they uncover and write about must be ignored.

    In Hitler’s time, the question for those wishing to comment on eugenics “science” was “are you a member of the Nazi Party?”

    Did Faraday have a PhD, did Newton have a PhD, did Darwin have a PhD? All challenged status quo, and none had a PhD. In fact, those who had the PhD’s around them for the most part had a vested interest in opposing their “ignorance” and defending instead the hogwash they had “researched” their PhD thesis in.

    If you have a PhD awarded in “climate science”, it’s not going to a PhD in critical evaluation of climate “science”, but a PhD in towing the party line and lying. So basically your PhD is proof of being a liar. Similarly for a Nazi era PhD in eugenics. Or a PhD in Piltdown Man verification. You then have a vested interest in pseudoscience. Lying. Crackpotism, Quackery.

  14. I think you misunderstand me. James is attaching Nurse for not being an expert. Does James have a more thorough understanding of the climate than Nurse? I very much doubt it, and yet he feels he has some higher authority on the subject.

    Those you note above did their own experiments to challenge current thinking. I don’t see James taking his own CO2 and temperature readings.

    Also, regarding your theory on cloud cover: ever thought that clouds may trap heat by reflecting it from the Earth’s surface? The effect of clouds all depends on cloud type and many other factors. It’s not a case of greedy reductionism and “all clouds reflect”. What nonsense.

  15. “Let’s see now, every investigative journalist must have a PhD in the subject they’re investigating, or else the facts they uncover and write about must be ignored.”

    Maybe not a PhD, but at least if they intend on investigating scientific fields they must have some basic scientific knowledge and understand how the scientific method works.

  16. Good luck Orentago in finding any sort of investigative journalism on a Delingpole column. The premise of a Delingpole argument is attack and spread hate on anything scientific. And when logic gets in the way, simply have the poster deleted…

  17. I give up. It’s this sort of quackery and conspiracy theorizing that gives science a bad name. Were you by any chance hoping to make your big breakthrough as an “outsider” in the next twenty years? That’s how it appears to me.

    Bottom line: if the majority of experts in a subject agree on a theory based on statistically significant data, then more than likely it is a good explanation for the observed trend. Paradigm shifts may occur, but are usually due to expansion into “unchartered” scientific waters, not nitpicking over details in previous theories.

    I will say no more.

  18. Orentago, thanks for your “shoot the messenger” stuff. It’s amusing how wrong your whole approach is. You’re dementedly dogmatic about your “majority of experts”. As for your claim that the paradigm shift “usually [is] due to expansion into ‘unchartered’ scientific waters, not nitpicking over the details in previous theories,” you’re wrong. Every “new” discovery in QFT has had a long history of censorship behind it. E.g., Weyl’s gauge theory was ignored by the mainstream in preference to the S-matrix for decades (from the 1930s until evidence supporting the standard model in the early 70s). Renormalization ideas go back to Stuckelberg in the 30s, and most developments which proved successful had a long history of emerging in an obscure or error-filled form, being censored, and eventually being developed into something essential. Aristarchus came up with the solar system 1750 years before Copernicus popularized it. Darwin’s evolution theory was a correction to the prior discredited evolution theories of Anaximander (c.610–546 BC) and Lamarck. These people made errors, omitted counterarguments to criticicisms, and didn’t compile the evidence that Darwin and Wallace did.

    In any case, nobody will listen to a new theory unless the details of the old theory have first been nitpicked over and shown to be wanting. If it works, don’t fix it. Nobody in science wants to listen to new theories that are unnecessary. Furthermore, a revolutionary will have to nitpick over the details in a previous theory for another reason: to avoid the charge that they are simply ignorant of the old theory. This is the first line of defence from the “peer”-reviewers who are naturally the defenders of the old theory. If you don’t mention the old theory, you’ll be dismissed for being ignorant of how wonderful the existing theory is.

    “I will say no more.”

    I don’t believe it, but will celebrate anyhow. 🙂

Comments are closed.