Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Laws that can change overnite are not really laws at all.

It's obsolete terminology, a relationship in science has limits, it usually can't be a logical absolute; and it has limited ontological relevance.

To use your example, Newton's work has been superseded by that of others, most notably Einstein. It's clearly not a law, but it is still useful.

https://www.amazon.com/Science-with...54005753&sprefix=ronald+n+giere,aps,88&sr=8-4

 

Still throwing it against the wall to see if it sticks...

https://www.amazon.com/Science-with...54005753&sprefix=ronald+n+giere,aps,88&sr=8-4

 

Except for the documentation, of course, and don't ask for the specifics for the tenth time.

I don't get paid for this.

 

The documentation refutes your claim.

 

Guys, whenever Jack post something, just Google that (whatever it is) and Koch. You will usually find they are related, and now that the courts have allowed Dark Money, usually a lot more than we can demonstrate. But if you look back to before that, you will find millions pouring into Big Oil propaganda.

 

Actually, the dark money is on the other side.

1. Exposing the well funded & manufactured campaign of blame on the 'Exxon knew climate change would be dangerous' fiasco
   2015 › 11 › 20 › exposing-the-well-funded-manufactured-campaign-of-blame-on-the-exxon-knew-climate-change-would-be-dangerous-fiasco
   
   Following recent news reports that Exxon Mobil Corp. knew as early as the 1970s that oil and natural
2. The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared
   2016 › 04 › 20 › the-exxon-climate-papers-show-what-exxon-and-climate-science-knew-and-shared
   
   The risks are far from proven and what Exxon knew, they did communicate to the public.

 

Yes, that's what you're doing. It's not working.

 

I see.

So you're saying you know science better than one of the leading philosophers of science, in this era.

Having just wiped out the discipline of climatology, he moves onto obliterating what philosophy of science has been for a generation.

You should start rewriting other sciences now. They all need your genius...

 

Wow, after a quarter century, people are starting to fight back.

Cool.

Btw, even when dark money was not allowed, Koch was hiding it when he could..

"Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.

Experts, however, aren’t terribly surprised. “It’s never been remotely plausible that they did not understand the science,”

But experts are still piecing together Exxon’s misconception puzzle. Last summer the Union of Concerned Scientists released a complementary investigation to the one by InsideClimate News, known as the Climate Deception Dossiers (pdf). “We included a memo of a coalition of fossil-fuel companies where they pledge basically to launch a big communications effort to sow doubt,” says union president Kenneth Kimmel. “There’s even a quote in it that says something like ‘Victory will be achieved when the average person is uncertain about climate science.’ So it’s pretty stark.”

Since then, Exxon has spent more than $30 million on think tanks that promote climate denial, according to Greenpeace. Although experts will never be able to quantify the damage Exxon’s misinformation has caused, “one thing for certain is we’ve lost a lot of ground,” Kimmell says. Half of the greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere were released after 1988. “I have to think if the fossil-fuel companies had been upfront about this and had been part of the solution instead of the problem, we would have made a lot of progress [today] instead of doubling our greenhouse gas emissions.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Now back to the ongoing lies...

 

How utterly ridiculous. Climate change directly correlates to authoritarianism. It always has. It's the threat that keeps delivering dependence around the globe. This stupid idea that somehow folks who don't think CO2 is a "Poison" or a "pollutant" are simply those scientifically savvy enough to understand that the world is currently CO2 starved. And as the PPM rates climb, plant success is far greater, and will continue to be so and at the same time, any claimed temperature warming over what has been observed is unlikely. And yet, it is the authoritarians who are behind the current attack on individual mobility and freedoms we see today. When you ask those who these costs currently don't impact, they're response is, higher density and public transportation. Why? Control. And those are the very authoritarians that continue to push the AGW myth.

 

InsideClimateNews lied.

1. The "Exxon Climate Papers" show what Exxon and climate science knew and shared
   2016 › 04 › 20 › the-exxon-climate-papers-show-what-exxon-and-climate-science-knew-and-shared
   
   The risks are far from proven and what Exxon knew, they did communicate to the public.

 

Another alarmist claim bites the dust.
3 New Studies Show Atlantic Tipping Point Unrealistic…”Muted Response”…”Changes To Be Viewed With Caution”
By P Gosselin on 31. May 2022

Share this...
Yet another 3 recent journal publications show there’s no Atlantic tipping point taking place. . . .

 

This has long been a question, has it not?

Of course it would be a stupendous disaster for much of the world if it did occur.

There are papers that point both ways.

Concern about our warming planet certainly does not depend on this single possibility.

 

Just another in a long line of alarmist claims to be refuted by evidence.

 

It has been supplemented, not superceeded.

sup·ple·ment
past tense: supplemented; past participle: supplemented

1. add an extra element or amount to.

su·per·sede

1. take the place of (a person or thing previously in authority or use); supplant.

The two are very different. Please tell us where they were superceded. Especially as a great many others (including the work of Einstein and others use that as the basis they built their own laws around.

 

The moment he stated that Newton's Laws of Motion were "obsolete" and "superseded" it should be obvious he does not have a clue what he is talking about.

Of course, for a great many of the fantasy inventions they claim will be needed to work to eliminate fossil fuels, the Law of Thermodynamics also has to be broken. Which is based directly off of Newton's Laws.

Sir Isaac also "invented" calculus. I wonder if that is obsolete also.

 

Complete and utter logic fail. By that definition, if both Koch (whoever that is) and Jack both say tomorrow is Wednesday 1 June, they must be ignored I guess. And absolutely no way such statements could be achieved independently of each other.

But I get it. You are one of those massive conspiracy theorists, that believes that anybody that does not agree with you is obviously a shill and unable to do their own research.

 

It's not a theory when you have documentation, speaking of intellectual failures..

Koch has over 100 organisations. Back during the gay marriage thing, he spent a million bucks getting Maine to overturn our gay marriage referendum. Even brought in a high powered political consultant, our Rightys aren't what you'd call sophisticated.

It worked, but the next time we just restored it. But why the F*** would he care about a place thousands of miles away? For that matter, why did his organisations fight against updating a small zoo in a small city nowhere near where they live???

Koch and his pals are basically Birchers, which is another way of saying way past sane. They are so powerful they fought Republicans for control of the party. They want to run the country, from the shadows.

And they do have armies of trolls, not just for climate change, and really good propaganda machines. So they don't need to pay most of the suckers.

 

That's not bad, it kinda ignores the reality, but it's so much better than the rest of the dreck I see. I like it.

It doesn't address the thinking about science that has been the norm for a few decades, but what the heck.

Wake me up if you ever read Science without Laws. Ronald N Giere is my fave philosopher of science. And before you write it, he was one of the physicists that wound up in philosophy trying to work out how crazy things had gotten.

 

From the study: "The results show that individuals who accept hierarchical power structures (authoritarianism) tend to a larger extent deny the problem." Whose opinion should I find "utterly ridiculous"? Yours which is 180 degrees the opposite? Whose knowledge of science seems to be minimal? Can you please explain what the sentence, "this stupid idea that somehow folks who don't think CO2 is a "Poison" or a "pollutant" are simply those scientifically savvy enough to understand that the world is currently CO2 starved" means because I've not the foggiest. You agree there is more CO2, a green house gas, and you somehow think that is good. I won't go on about yearly record temperatures or how increased temps will melt the permafrost which will release methane which is 25 times more potent than CO2 as a green house gas or bore you with, CO2 does increase plant growth but the plants have to contend with a stable amount of nutrients and scientist say that is like the difference between lettuce and kale. Insects get less nutrients and don't do as well and that follows throughout the food chain. Less insects, less birds and on and on, maybe you can get the picture....or not. You then go on about your usual right-wing conspiracy theories. like "the authoritarians who are behind the current attack on individual mobility and freedoms". It's called capitalism.

 

Gosh... I'd say your citation ignores reality then. Wouldn't you? The authoritarians are the green econazis of our day. The we will control all you do crowd. That seems to suggest that your citation is blind to that.

Just as a benchmark, current CO2 density is significantly lower than what an average of the life producing period of this planet. Fact. You cannot get away with saying 442PPM is "the highest ever" when parts of previous ages were well over 2500 PPM. And life flourished. The scare tactic is that you compare 442 against say 225 which was a really low point in the last little ice age, and simply ignore that at the same time, crops failed, food shortages, starvation were global things, folks died. But ignore that. Most of the rest of your posts is conjecture at best, or just shoddy recreational science. Sorry, it is not serious, and neither should we take it to be so.

Democrats say it, in public. Limiting and densifying the population are their goal. Lowering populations, also their stated goals. Making energy unaffordable, also a goal.

 

What happened in the distant past is interesting and informative, BUT it certainly is NOT the issue.

The humans on Earth today have built around a climate that is now found to be changing in a way that is known to have serious impact.

Further, the gigantic change in population density of Earth is such that the methods used to deal with past climate change no longer work.

 

The alarmists lose another round.
Clouds Haven’t Behaved the Way the IPCC Or the Models Say
Guest Blogger
My paper argues that clouds behaved largely independently of CO2 and had as much of a warming effect as CO2, maybe much more. . . .

Abstract:

The patterns of behaviour of clouds, both for cloud area and cloud optical thickness, are studied over the period of available data, 1983 to 2017. There was a decrease in cloud cover over the study period, while global surface temperatures increased. The patterns of clouds and temperature indicate that the cloud cover decrease could not have been caused by the increased surface temperature. The clear implication is that the decrease in global cloud area must have been caused by some other unspecified factor, and was not caused directly or indirectly by CO2. Evaluation of the changes in clouds and CO2 over the study period indicate that this unspecified factor had as much positive impact as the increase in CO2, with respect to the amount of radiation reaching the surface (radiative forcing), and possibly a much larger positive impact. The climate models, which have zero or negative cloud impact on radiative forcing independently from CO2, need to take this into account in order to avoid over-estimating the influence of CO2.

The paper covers a fair amount of ground, and is open source so that everyone can read it, here. ‘Full text article in PDF‘ opens the full paper.

 

Perhaps the statistical foundation of alarmism is flawed?

Biases in climate fingerprinting methods
Posted on May 31, 2022 by curryja | 16 comments
by Ross McKitrick

• Optimal fingerprinting is a statistical method that estimates the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) on the climate in the form of a regression slope coefficient.
• The larger the coefficient associated with GHGs, the bigger the implied effect on the climate system.
• In 2003 Myles Allen and Simon Tett published an influential paper in Climate Dynamics recommending the use of a method called Total Least Squares in optimal fingerprinting regression to correct a potential downward bias associated with Ordinary Least Squares
• The problem is that in most cases TLS replaces the downward bias in OLS with an upward bias that can be as large or larger
• Under special conditions TLS will yield unbiased estimates, but you can’t test if they hold
• Econometricians never use TLS because another method (Instrumental Variables) is a better solution to the problem

Continue reading →

 

You have documentation that Jack Hays is getting all of his information from whoever Koch is?

Gee, I would love to see that! And if I agree, I assume you have documentation to show that whoever he is is giving me my information also?