Climate clowns don't understand that their peer-review system is nothing but a Scientific Elite Club. Their own scientific arrogance only makes it an ELITE BLOG. Nothing more. You won't see them jumping up and down when their simplistic scientific view of the world has been shown to be wrong. They merely cover their own with more scientific jargon (assumptions that try and help them validate their theories).
Their 'meaning of life' is based on the scientific theory of "CHAOS" and they use their peer-review system to justify their idea that life started with nothing.
Brietbart and WUWT along with C3 Headlines, Dr. Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, etc... are only pointing out how mentally fallible the environmental and Governmental ELITE scientists are and that the science still has no clue as to what will happen to Earth's future climate state.
They always try and relate Earth's atmosphere to Venus'. Venus has over 2,600 times the amount of actual Carbon in its surface atmosphere attached to 2 oxygen atoms (over 320,000ppm of Carbon (96.5% CO2 - 640,000ppm of oxygen) versus 113ppm of Carbon for Earth - (0.04% CO2)), yet the temperature is less than 3 times higher (735k versus 288k). Water vapor comprises most of the greenhouse effect here on Earth (up to 75%). Thank God for hydrogen!!! How accurate is their measuring of Venus' surface temperature for comparison?
Breitbart and WUWT bring in the very welcomed skepticism of 'checking' those scientific ELITES who bloviate about their undeniable knowledge through a politically motivated peer-review system.
Geez! They've already figured out a way to tax H2O (a sales tax to put chlorine and fluoride into our biological system - (2 excessively used solids that are not built for human consumption at the quantity prescribed by the UN and have caused many health problems for ObamaCare to fix)). Typical liberalism at its best.
Not sure what a "true scientist" is supposed to be, in itself. The only denial I've made is that the AGW supporters know what they claim they know. My reasons for doing so I have openly stated and have nothing to do with Brietbart or WUWT since I have never read them. So, no.
Why do I think AGW supporters don't know what they claim to know?
FIRST: AGW supporters said, about a third of a century ago now, that unless drastic measures (drastic reductions in fossil fuel use) were taken, catastrophe would soon follow. Nothing was done and we are not taking boat tours of the coastal skyscrapers. Their drastic measures would have caused…
1) …widespread poverty, and that is no slight matter as developing world mortality statistics prove.
2) …more carbon dioxide to be released as the developing world took the abandoned economic niche using cheap but inefficient and dirty means of using coal.
3) …environmental concern to lose all influence except as an example of economic and political suicide.
And one must add: Had they known what they were about, they might have advocated nuclear, at least as soon as proven meltdown impossible reactor designs became available. It would have reduced more carbon emissions than anything else they have done, and we'd have the side benefits of nuclear power.
And they just want to walk away from this? Worse, they still have advocates of drastic reductions in fossil fuel use?
SECOND: While the basic scientific facts about carbon dioxide are stipulated, the effects on climate are not directly provable. AGW is forced to use computer Climate models. However, the most careful scientific analysis of insufficient data and limited accuracy data can only yield a correct model by chance. Worse, the empirical validation of such a model will not come until its correct predictive run is on the scale of the climate itself - thousands of years. Short term accuracy from models may very well be analogous to the proverbial broken clock that is perfectly accurate twice a day.
Do not get me wrong. I support computer climate modeling as a useful means of studying what limited knowledge about climate we have. It just isn't based on the sort of comprehensive knowledge it was originally constructed to help find. And even if it produces the correct answers, we have no way to know that.
Where in this do you need Brietbart or WUWT?
An additional strike against AGW supporters is the disinterest shown other possible solutions. Since the effects of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere are unknown, it might be wise to develop a means of removing it if desired. An inexpensive means was proposed as far back as the late 1980s. Iron fertilization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
An emulation by man of the natural process that sequesters carbon called the Biological Pump.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_...
Using diatoms…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatom
…to sequester the carbon…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequ...
…in a pre-existing natural carbon sink…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
…as the oceanic sea beds show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sed...
For the benefit of the regulars, I'll answer their most common objections.
1) Supposedly there is an experiment that produced a hypoxic dead zone (as sometimes happens in nature) with the induced algal bloom. Since this did not happen in the earlier experiments and only occasionally occurs in nature, then I thought the answer was obvious. Don't do whatever it was that created the hypoxic dead zones either experimentally or naturally.
2) The actual sequestration rate, when man does it, is supposedly too low to make it a practical solution. Since you're only adding water soluble iron to an otherwise naturally ready location, this involves an implicit reversion to a crude form of vitalism. Nature, it works. Man, it doesn't. There was already an experiment that deliberately went where not all the nutrients needed for diatoms were. (This is the "Trees are a myth" method: "None of the supposed seed of so-called trees grew, despite the variety of parking lots we put them on.")
3) Everyone seemed to think this was a grand all or nothing project. You're growing patches of diatoms. It's as controllable and scalable as an Arbor Day project. That's why there's a list of experiments in the Wiki. Unknown consequences? Find out what happens under various conditions well before implementation. Afraid you missed something? Sink the carbon gradually. Remember, you're adding the iron because it's NOT persistent.
Not at all. I believe climate scientists don't have a sufficient understanding of climate dynamics to make accurate long term predictions. You don't have to be a credentialed climate scientist to see how wrong they have been over the last 15 years. The last IPCC report did not even give a best guess for equilibrium climate sensitivity. Either they really don't know or they don't want to say.
The other problem I have is that climate scientists don't want to reveal their raw data or methods. They don't want to debate. As a scientist myself, I have a real problem with, "Shut up, the science is settled."
I would very much like to read scientific journals, but cannot afford the $30 plus that they charge.
We need a skeptical counter, we need pro's and con's to every argument, we need free speech, otherwise propaganda will win everytime.
Jan Hendrik Sch?n made for some dandy journal reading, didn't he??
I would hazzard a guess that there are more Sch?n-type journal articles out there that have yet to be ferreted out.
So-called "Scientific Journals" need to do a better job of vetting submissions, rather than simply looking for typos and gramatical errors. Peer-review is a useless dinosaur trumpeted about by self-absorbed twits. At one time it meant something......corruption, greed and elitism ruined it.
WUWT has a level of credibility that climate science peer review can only dream about.
Although we are biologically human i hate many because they think these are so entitled which enable it to just kill animals when they please. Who of their right mind perceives that's ok? I'm not expressing all humans are this way but some of them have caused irrevocable damage.
Every scientist uses the science journals, not blogs, to learn about science. It is through the journals that scientists share with other scientists what they learn.
Blog are for propaganda. Some are purposely misleading. WUWT and Brietbart are written only for people too weak-minded to check the journals.
Not one of you guys can even spell the name of your dead idol, Breitbart.
Why should people believe you guys when you get every factual thing wrong?
I have no clue what "AGW", "ACC", "Brietbart" or "WUWT" is.
No
