Paris Accord

Paris Accord
  • 658
  • 166
  • 10

My Recent Posts

With Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accord--called a treaty everywhere else--I expected to see the gnashing of teeth and the rending of clothing here on WB.  But, alas, I am disappointed.  The collective heads of the world leaders have exploded.  It is the day, according to them, that Trump said to the world, "Drop dead."

Let's face it; the Paris Accord is symbolic.  It has no teeth.  Nothing happens beyond the transfer of wealth from richer nations to poorer nations.  For some unfathomable reason, even nature discriminates against people of color, leaving them the victims of climate change.

Once again, Trump did what he said he would do.  Why is anyone surprised?  I agree with the withdrawal from the accord, but I would have done it differently.  King O got us into it by rebranding the treaty as an accord.  He didn't need approval from Congress.  I would have called it what it is, a treaty, and would have thrown it into the lap of Congress, withdrawing until Congress approved it.  The blundering Republicans wouldn't have known what to do with it.  It would have been much like the legislation Congress passed to repeal ObamaCare under O.  Now that they have a president to sign it, they have lost their conviction.  It would probably allow the treaty because they wouldn't want to lose face before the Europeans, preferring to appease them rather than the fulfill the promise to the Americans who voted for Trump.

The gnashing and teeth and rending of clothing will surely come here.  Perhaps they are too afraid at the moment to emerge from their safe places.  Or maybe they are too busy organizing violent protest or worse.

Alas, the master of subsidies and leader of the green world, Elon Musk, has resigned from the president's councils.  We are doomed.

Comments

Kerem Oner Added Jun 2, 2017 - 9:36am
I am dismayed about the lack of countering voices.  If I were Trump, I would have made the announcement surrounded by likes of Prof. Lindzen and other esteemed climate scientists who know that AGW is nothing but a scam designed to enrich a certain cadre of people while redistributing west's wealth to elsewhere. 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jun 2, 2017 - 9:46am
I can't really judge the climate discussion. But I can say that Trump is an arrogant creep when trying to connect to the world which seems unknown to him.
Dino Manalis Added Jun 2, 2017 - 9:51am
 I was hoping Trump would renegotiate without withdrawing from the accord, but I generally agree carbon reduction has to be done carefully without ruining the economy or our relations with the rest of the world either.
 
We need to research and develop all energy sources, including renewables and fossil fuels, as well as better environmental technologies, to protect the environment; save/create jobs; and keep energy costs down.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 2, 2017 - 9:54am
It was a singularly stupid thing to do from a singularly stupid president.
 
Now, the world will move on and isolation will reign supreme....for a little while.
 
The reality is there is no future in coal, sure, there's a new mine opening.
It will employ, I think, between 70-130 people.  Right now Arby's employs more workers than the coal industry.  Cheap natural gas is killing it, along with the strides made in building up cleaner energy sources.  This is where the future lies, not dead coal.
 
Unfortunately Trump's base will cheer because this is Trump sticking it to limp-wristed liptards and globalists.  They are too short-sighted to see that the world is moving on, that the future is not with fossil fuels.  This is unfortunate.  The really unfortunate thing is these old men have decided that the future doesn't matter, that this will be left to future generations because the most important thing is "Making America Great Again."  My children and their children will spend decades cleaning up what these old, scared men have done.
 
Better, Leroy?
Leroy Added Jun 2, 2017 - 10:30am
Thanks everyone for your comments.
 
Kerem, I agree that having experts by his side would have been better.  I would have also included Anthony Watts.
 
Stoney, we all know what you think about the US.  Your support is much appreciated as always.
 
Dino, Trump held out the olive branch of renegotiating the treaty.  Germany, France, and Italy bit his hand.  There will be no further accommodation of the US.
 
Jeffery, WB could do better and I suspect it will.  Your rant was a good start.  I do agree that it could isolate the US for a while--until they need us again.  We need to get the government out of picking winners and losers.  If coal is no longer viable then so be it.  It shouldn't require intervention by presidents to kill it.  Rumor has it that coal doing quite well in Germany these days.  Natural gas is cleaner burning and that's great.  Glad to see you support fracking.  I doubt our children will be concerned about cleaning up CO2.  It is not the planet killer it is cracked up to be.
Billy Roper Added Jun 2, 2017 - 10:40am
I understand that globally, sea levels rose hundreds of feet overnight...from the melting of all the snowflakes.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2017 - 10:46am
Jeff -
 
it is true that coal is becoming less useful as an energy fuel.  It is still quite necessary for making basic steel - and if our country ever has to actually rebuild our infrastructure we're going to need millions of tons of coal for decades to come.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 2, 2017 - 10:51am
"Jeffery, WB could do better and I suspect it will. Your rant was a good start."
 
I'm glad you liked it.
 
"I do agree that it could isolate the US for a while--until they need us again."
 
Except that our allies are coming to the conclusion that Trump is not to be trusted.  With anything.
 
"We need to get the government out of picking winners and losers. If coal is no longer viable then so be it. It shouldn't require intervention by presidents to kill it. Rumor has it that coal doing quite well in Germany these days."
 
Rumor has it?  M'kay.
 
 
"Natural gas is cleaner burning and that's great. Glad to see you support fracking. "
 
I don't.  But, one thing at a time.
We are all going to lose with Thump as president, it's about minimizing damage until he either goes to prison or gets his ass kicked out in 2020.
 
"I doubt our children will be concerned about cleaning up CO2. It is not the planet killer it is cracked up to be."
 
Great!!!  Tell that to the rising ocean temperatures, rising oceans (there are already communities in the Deep South that are dealing with this), increased drought, more severe weather, etc.  I'm sure that everyone affected by it will be greatly comforted.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 2, 2017 - 10:53am
@Billy Roper:
"I understand that globally, sea levels rose hundreds of feet overnight...from the melting of all the snowflakes."
 
Trump melted overnight????
That's great news!!!!  I'll take the higher ocean levels.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 2, 2017 - 11:03am
@ Mike Haluska:
"Jeff -

it is true that coal is becoming less useful as an energy fuel. It is still quite necessary for making basic steel - and if our country ever has to actually rebuild our infrastructure we're going to need millions of tons of coal for decades to come."
 
That's an excellent point.  Is it possible to do this with the mines and what we have on hand?  I haven't looked at it.
Bill H. Added Jun 2, 2017 - 11:06am
Bottom line - Trumps move was simply to appease his boys in the oil and coal industries and to improve their stock returns. What he has really done is to stifle one of the fastest growing industries in the US, currently employing way more people than the coal industry and growing. Many jobs that could have been created will now be lost. He has also managed to ruin our long-time relations with many other countries which will now despise us as a bunch of arrogant ass holes.
The quicker this Bozo is out of office, the better.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jun 2, 2017 - 11:15am
@Billy H.
"Bottom line - Trumps move was simply to appease his boys in the oil and coal industries and to improve their stock returns. What he has really done is to stifle one of the fastest growing industries in the US, currently employing way more people than the coal industry and growing. Many jobs that could have been created will now be lost. He has also managed to ruin our long-time relations with many other countries which will now despise us as a bunch of arrogant ass holes.
The quicker this Bozo is out of office, the better."
 
Agreed.  I'm glad there is already push back from states and cities who say they will continue and Trump and his oil shill Scott Pruitt be damned.
Kerem Oner Added Jun 2, 2017 - 11:43am
Dino, what do you mean we have to reduce carbon?  The whole darn universe is nothing but a carbon based entity.  Carbon is the building block of all.  As to CO2, why reduce it?  We are CO2 starved at 400 ppm, geologically speaking.  As far as temperatures, we are near our coldest at 17 degrees Celsius average global temperature.  We sure could use more of both if we want to thrive as life has at earlier parts of the Paleozoic era. 
Kerem Oner Added Jun 2, 2017 - 11:47am
Jeffrey Kelly, how is the world moving on to bigger and better things?  By bankrupting themselves by replacing economically viable energy sources with pie-in-the-sky sources like off-shore wind and solar, which nearly bankrupted Spain and put Germany on a road that is unsustainable?  I thought I would never say this but France is the sane nation in Europe with its preservation of nuclear powered electric generation.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2017 - 12:10pm
Jeff - last time I checked we had 200 years of known coal reserves.  We haven't prospected for coal in a while, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lot more to be found worldwide.
Kerem Oner Added Jun 2, 2017 - 12:14pm
I believe our coal reserves is a little more than 200 years worth.  There is so much fossil fuel reserves that the world has no worries for several centuries.....and we are discovering more and more formerly unknown reserves of coal, gas, and oil every year.
Janie Smith Added Jun 2, 2017 - 12:23pm
4 years will come and go. The earth will still be here.  But, it would be time better spent for Democrats and Liberals if they would find someone who can stand against reproach for the next election. 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2017 - 12:24pm
Dino - there is NO CO2 CRISIS!  All life on this planet depends on CO2 - ever heard of photosynthesis???  Plants take in CO2 and produce O2 as a byproduct of making glucose - a fundamental nutrient for all life! 
 
The Earth's climate has been slowly changing over millions of years.  Ten thousand years ago, the building I am sitting in located in Northwest Indiana was underneath a huge glacier that formed the Great Lakes as the Earth's climate warmed.  There were no factories, cars, power plants back then "spewing CO2" - causes that DWARF the impact of CO2 produced the warming.  Trying to "control" the Earth's climate is as stupid and futile as trying to control Earth's orbit or the Sun's energy output (both of which vary unpredictably and have HUGE effects on climate).
 
Listen to George Carlin's take on this pseudo-science hysteria:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDd6xCTkfas
 
Janie Smith Added Jun 2, 2017 - 12:38pm
Its true, Mike.  We are in the 11,000 years of a 10k - 12k interglacial period...global warming can eventually lead to an ice age.  
 
The best thing to do is just stop having children so that as few people as possible have to suffer when the poles shift.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 2, 2017 - 1:18pm
Part 1
 
And what was the EPA Clean Power Plan supposed to accomplish? A 32% reduction in CO2 output from US power generation (not just coal). The US is responsible for about 16% of the world’s CO2 output. Power generation represents about 31% of US CO2 production. Therefore – 16% * 31% * 32% = 1.6%. CPP will reduce the global CO2 output by 1.6%.
 
China and India will cancel that out with their next dozen coal fired power plants.
 
Screw up the entire power industry, increase the price of electricity and not remotely solve the imaginary climate change problem. Nothing but political posturing! Wasting resources on a pointless exercise is truly harmful to the environment.
 
BTW since the utilities have been retiring older inefficient coal fired generators with more efficient combined cycle designs power generation’s share of CO2 is now less than that of the transportation sector.
 
As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal and waste our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 2, 2017 - 1:19pm
Part 2
 
Here’s an excellent example of fake news.
 
“97% of scientists (implying ALL!!! scientists) believe in man-caused climate change.”

What the MSM meant to say is 97% of all CLIMATE scientists (similar to aroma-therapists and horse whisperers) actively researching and publishing in that field (At this point insert getting paid.) consider the evidence compelling - all 82 of them – cherry picked out of the 10,500 surveys that were sent out. (Doran and Zimmerman)
 
Demonizing, marginalizing, silencing and censoring the skeptics and critics (Union of Concerned “Scientists” & Disqus & FB) is the real anti-science. Science without doubt, science without uncertainty, becomes religion.
 
Believing that 0.04% of the atmospheric gases magically influences weather and dominates the climate takes a real sci fi flight of fantasy (or article of faith).
 
The upwelling/down welling/"back” radiation of greenhouse theory is comic book science, Saturday morning cartoon science, cinematic shape-shifting, mutant superhero science defying six of the three most fundamental laws of thermodynamics and physics.
 
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/agw-myth-of-back-radiation.html
 
Believing in the upwelling/downwelling”/back” radiation GHG/GHE theory is like believing in the X-men, but without the kewl movies. Not surprising since they share a common fan base.
 
1,700 views collected on the following three papers and NOBODY has disputed my methods or conclusions. Step right up, be the first, take ‘em apart.
 
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse---We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
Janie Smith Added Jun 2, 2017 - 1:51pm
It has been said that an error is often made more dangerous by the TRUTH it contains. In the hands of a good manipulator, a compelling or surprising fact can give believability to a sea of falsehoods.
~ Michael Goodspeed
 
 
Michael B. Added Jun 2, 2017 - 2:29pm
Regardless of the current political climate, I don't think things will change that much. At my work, all of the gaseous exhausts from the plant are routed through scrubbers and activated carbon filters the size of a large hut, and are inspected at least annually. All liquid effluents and wastewaters are also tested at least once a month by the county, in addition to in-house testing. I doubt they would dismantle all of that, but I guess you never know, however, being "green" and/or at least "environmentally friendly" is a good selling point, and many customers include such factors as part of their audits, some much more so than others.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 2, 2017 - 2:41pm
Michael B.
 
What you mention is not even slightly related to climate change.
Leroy Added Jun 2, 2017 - 2:54pm
"Many jobs that could have been created will now be lost. He has also managed to ruin our long-time relations with many other countries which will now despise us as a bunch of arrogant ass holes.
The quicker this Bozo is out of office, the better."
 
Bill H., exactly how are these jobs lost?  Is it because of subsidies from the UN?  I thought all that was going to nations with people of color.  The Paris "Accord" has no teeth, so I find it difficult that it would have any impact on jobs in the US.  To the extent that companies abandon the green gravy train, efforts can be focused on things that matter.
 
The leaders of Europe are like petulant little children.  They need a strong leader like Trump, especially after 8 years of leadership from behind.  We gave them 8 years to figure out what to do.  They still haven't got it figured out.  Is the Paris Accord the best they can do?  It does nothing other than redistribute wealth.  They have always despised the US as being uncultured and always will.  That is why they love to call us "cowboys".  I'm rather proud of it.  Congress is ashamed of its people as you are.  It loses face to Europe.  I don't care if the US loses face to Europe.  The knowledge of what we are is knowledge enough.  I don't need its approval.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2017 - 3:02pm
Janie -
 
The Official Voice of Reason and Responsibility!!!
 
You go girl!
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jun 2, 2017 - 3:13pm
Leroy
 
Don't generalize, ok ? I'm just talking of Trump, not the regular Joe. I mean when one guy stands up against the rest of the world because he thinks he is the master of it, something's wrong. It's not his opinion - everybody can have a different one - but he has to get his message across on arguments, not by elbowing "here I am, fuck off you little ones".
Janie Smith Added Jun 2, 2017 - 3:14pm
lol, Mike. 
Dick Quinn Added Jun 2, 2017 - 3:14pm
Let's be clear; leaving the Paris Accord was dumb, dumb on so many levels, but it's not the end of the world. Companies will still have to comply with international rules and most US companies are well on their way to being more environmentally friendly and are unlikely to go backwards.
 
To deny climate change is ridiculous; we can see it and feel it. While it may be somewhat debatable how much of the change is man made, why chance it? Why wouldn't we want clean air and to forestall flooded cities to any extent we can?
 
I remember when buildings in Pittsburgh were black with soot, we changed that. I recall going to the Grand Canyon and the vibrant colors were muted by the smog floating in from California; we tackled that.
 
Changing our ways will cost jobs? That's like saying replacing horses with the car cost jobs, yeah we lost some blacksmiths and stable boys and they were replaced by new jobs, more jobs. This is no different.

Will making changes raise prices? Perhaps in some areas, so what? We raised the prices of cigarettes to astronomical levels to get people to change their ways.
 
The biggest loss in all this is not a significant impact on the environment, but making the United States look foolish and arrogant in the eyes of the world. That damage is clearly man made and damage that will be hard to overcome and will be leveraged against us.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jun 2, 2017 - 3:15pm
BTW: We Europeans don't need ONE strong leader. If wwe would it would mean that we didn't progress since medieval times.
Micahel Dolan Added Jun 2, 2017 - 3:19pm
Global Warming- Never-the-lest, we're all going to die , they say, unless we listen to Obama-Hillary-Algorical-Rachel Madcow and Anthony Weiner. There is a ozone hole- its between the ears of the dooms-day Warmers.
Leroy Added Jun 2, 2017 - 3:45pm
Thanks, Nicholas, for putting it in perspective.
Leroy Added Jun 2, 2017 - 3:47pm
'It's not his opinion - everybody can have a different one - but he has to get his message across on arguments, not by elbowing "here I am, fuck off you little ones". '
 
It's not so easy to herd cats.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jun 2, 2017 - 3:50pm
LOL
Leroy Added Jun 2, 2017 - 4:02pm
"To deny climate change is ridiculous; we can see it and feel it. While it may be somewhat debatable how much of the change is man made, why chance it? Why wouldn't we want clean air and to forestall flooded cities to any extent we can?"
 
Dick, to my knowledge, no one denies that the climate changes.  Like many others here, you have an acute, remarkable sense of temperature.  You are able to detect average temperature changes over the course of a year or even decades to tenths of degrees.  Truly remarkable and you are to be congratulated.  My error of measurement is in degrees over the course of a day.  I have particular trouble with sensing temperature with changes in humidity.
 
Why chance it?  If you were a doctor would you treat a patient for something without first knowing what it was you were treating?  You could kill the patient if you are wrong.  But, as they say, doctors bury their mistakes.  If you screw up, no one will be left to care.
 
"I remember when buildings in Pittsburgh were black with soot, we changed that. I recall going to the Grand Canyon and the vibrant colors were muted by the smog floating in from California; we tackled that."
 
I remember those days too.  We exported all the steel manufacturing jobs to China.  Now we don't have to worry about it.
 
"Will making changes raise prices? Perhaps in some areas, so what? We raised the prices of cigarettes to astronomical levels to get people to change their ways."
 
We have made the greatest strides in cleaning up the environment when energy is cheap.  The rivers in Europe are much cleaner than the were in the middle ages.  And we have a solution that should satisfy everyone--nuclear, but you don't like that either, right?
 
I don't worry about losing face to Europe.  I am not a Europhile.
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2017 - 4:20pm
Dick - your comment:
 
"To deny climate change is ridiculous; we can see it and feel it. While it may be somewhat debatable how much of the change is man made, why chance it?"
 
is right out of the "Climate Change Propaganda Manual".  To say you can "see and feel climate change" is just preposterous!  That's like saying you can feel the Earth's rotation slowing down (it is).  Despite what Hollywood movies show you, climate changes gradually over tens of thousands of years.  And since we know the Earth's climate has always been changing and humans have been around a small fraction of that time, we know the climate changes without our influence.
 
This pseudo-science is based not on legitimate Scientific Method but a poor substitute called "Consensus Science".  Here's what Dr. Michael Crichton had to say about "Consensus Science":
 
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
 
Dick:
- ever hear a skeptic of Climate Change called a "DENIER"?
- ever hear Climate Change proponents claim "the debate is over"?
- ever hear Climate Change proponents claim "the science is settled"?
- ever hear Climate Change proponents claim "97% of bla, bla, bla"?
 
EVER HEAR LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS TALK LIKE THAT???
 
- did Newton declare "the science is settled" regarding his laws of motion?
- did Neils Bohr call Einstein a Quantum Theory "DENIER"?
- did Fermi claim "97% of physicists agree" he started nuclear fission?
- did Hawking declare "the debate is over" about the Big Bang?
 
 
Leroy Added Jun 2, 2017 - 4:36pm
Just in.  Hillary Clinton and Kathy Griffin just held a joint press conference.  Both are accusing old white men of holding back their careers.  They were quoted as saying, "We've had enough of them and we aren't going to take it anymore."  They declined to comment on exactly to whom or what "it" referred.  Huma was caught off-mike saying that "it" was money from old white men.  She also said she would continue to take "it" because there was no way she would move from her luxury apartment.  The pair went further to say that CAGW (global warming) is making old white men crazy.  If cooler temperatures (apparently confusing the word tempers) had prevailed, Clinton would be sitting in the Whitehouse and Griffin would be whacking off the heads of old white men who opposed Clinton in the election.  They also claimed that old white men were the leading cause of flatulence induced methane in the atmosphere, which is a major source of global warming.  Clinton, had she been elected, planned to save the world by introducing legislation legalizing the lopping off of the heads of old white men to reduce methane in the atmosphere.  Griffin was slated to be the Lopper in Chief.  It would also have the affect of reducing terrorism by gainfully employing ISIS members.  The homosexual community would benefit by longer being a target, at least until they ran out of old white men.  This would also reduce healthcare cost by reducing the number of crazy old white men.  Concerning Trump pulling out (of the Paris Accord), Griffin said that she wished Trump's father would have had the same idea.  Clinton, Griffin, and the Paris Accord are all victims of old white men.
Doug Plumb Added Jun 2, 2017 - 7:32pm
re "4 years will come and go. The earth will still be here.  But, it would be time better spent for Democrats and Liberals if they would find someone who can stand against reproach for the next election.   "
 
lol.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 2, 2017 - 8:19pm
Leroy, the Paris Agreement (COP 21) is not merely symbolic as you say. This agreement is vital for the future of humanity. Failure to sign the Paris Climate Agreement by the United States government may make to happen the prognosis of James Lovelock, a renowned scientist, who says that if nothing is done to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, global warming will be irreversible and will be a dark epoch in which more than 6 billion people will die in this century. In other words, Lovelock claims that the human race would be doomed to live with the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - war, famine, pestilence and death [GOODELL, JEFF. Aquecimento global é inevitável e 6 bi morrerão, diz cientista (Global warming is inevitable and 6 bi will die, says scientist). Available on website <http://rollingstone.uol.com.br/edicao/14/aquecimento-global-e-inevitavel-e-6-bi-morrerao-diz-cientista#imagem0>]. Unfortunately, the disastrous decision of President Donald Trump can lead to the prognosis of James Lovelock. It can be said that President Trump's decision to exclude the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement represents, in addition to an environmental crime, a crime against humanity insofar as it will contribute to Lovelock's prognosis. The government of President Donald Trump needs to revise his decision to make the United States a major player in the fight against catastrophic planetary climate change.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 2, 2017 - 8:37pm
Leroy, the Paris Agreement (COP 21) is not merely symbolic as you say. This agreement is vital for the future of humanity. Failure to sign the Paris Climate Agreement by the United States government may make to happen the prognosis of James Lovelock, a renowned scientist, who says that if nothing is done to avoid greenhouse gas emissions, global warming will be irreversible and will be a dark epoch in which more than 6 billion people will die in this century. In other words, Lovelock claims that the human race would be doomed to live with the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse - war, famine, pestilence and death [GOODELL, JEFF. Aquecimento global é inevitável e 6 bi morrerão, diz cientista (Global warming is inevitable and 6 bi will die, says scientist). Available on website <http://rollingstone.uol.com.br/edicao/14/aquecimento-global-e-inevitavel-e-6-bi-morrerao-diz-cientista#imagem0>]. Unfortunately, the disastrous decision of President Donald Trump can lead to the prognosis of James Lovelock. It can be said that President Trump's decision to exclude the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement represents, in addition to an environmental crime, a crime against humanity insofar as it will contribute to Lovelock's prognosis. The government of President Donald Trump needs to revise his decision to make the United States a major player in the fight against catastrophic planetary climate change.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 2, 2017 - 9:13pm
Fernando,
You have an engineering degree and still buy this bogus RGHE theory crap? Oh, right, double E’s don’t need thermo or heat transfer, heck, they even think VARs are real.
Leroy Added Jun 2, 2017 - 9:49pm
Fernando, it is symbolic in that it has no enforcement.  If the US doesn't meet its goal, there is no penalty.
The only chance of 6 billion people dying this century is if the earth is hit by a massive asteroid.  You're entitled to your beliefs, and that's ok.  The IPCC predicted that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035.  That's more short-term.  Before investing too much, I suggest waiting until then.  We should know well before then if it is going to happen.  There is reason to believe it won't happen.  The Arctic ice is supposed to have melted by now, but, in recent years, it has thickened.  There are many reasons to believe the CAGW theory is not correct.
 
 
 
 
 
Richard Plank Added Jun 2, 2017 - 10:22pm
Leroy,  I agree with you but probably for a different reason. 
1.  The root cause to the extent we have both impact and control is people.  Since 1800 we have gone from 1 billion to 7.5 or so billion and will climb to 12 billion or so by 2150 if one believes some predictions.  At some point too much is too much and none of our approaches to any of the "wicked problems" consider the complete set of causes and results.
Climate change is typical.  the majority of the science suggests we have an impact and common sense does also.  What we don't know and is overblown by politicians and others who seem to have little ability to think is the severity of our share.  Lots of guesses, but the facts are pretty clear and anyone who thinks otherwise is on thin scientific grounds.  If I had the power I would snap my fingers and no births for 30 years.  What a mess that could cause!!!!  I don't know what a sustainable number is for our population, I start with 4 billion but am willing to listen to other reasoned estimates.  We definately need to have a one and done birth rule world wide in order to slow and reverse growth and yes the precious growth forever assumption needs to be trashed and as quickly as possible.  Other business models need to come to the forefront; shareholder models are dead, stakeholder models need to be developed to have a better resolution of wealth across society.  The assumption that we really are responsible for ourselves needs to go into the same trash basket as narcissistic behavior.  We are not independent, but interdependent and our President is not responsible for much good or bad he had a lot of help, starting with his birthright.  The plain truth and reality is no matter what we do there are always unintended consequences and we have to do a better job in predicting those.  That and coming to grip with so many simplistic assumptions which when thought through simply are not tenable. 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jun 3, 2017 - 5:10am
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-pulls-out-of-climate-deal-western-rift-deepens-a-1150486.html
 
Quite right. I'd say let them go. But then dissolve NATO as well as a consequence. We Europeans have to do it alone. Maybe THEN, when we're really independent of the US for the first time since WWII, we might get a pragmatic and useful relation with them - on the base of equality, not master - slave behavior.
Leroy Added Jun 3, 2017 - 7:20am
Thanks, Richard, for your thoughtful response.  I do agree that humans have had an impact; it's only a matter of whether it is catastrophic or not.   I have to question whether or not people are the cause however.  All the people of the world could fit in the Grand Canyon or the state of Texas.  The earth can support a lot more people.  Don't get me wrong; fewer people would be better.  There will be natural disasters that will happen that will wipe millions on the face of the earth, if not billions.  The problem is that a one child policy would favor one race over another.  We see it already in Western countries where the local birth rates are low, but the immigrant birthrates are high.  China is abandoning its single child policy.  There is a fundamental problem everywhere, and that is the idea that if a city isn't growing, then it is dying.  Cities continually have to attack more people to improve its tax base to pay for services.  More people mean more infrastructure which requires more money which requires more people.  It is neverending.  We also need more people to pay for all the old people who retire.  If we could restrain the government, we might be able to restrain the population.  War, famine, and disease were supposed to control the population, but humans have defeated that cycle.  However, the more we advance technologically, the more power we put in the hands of individuals.  An individual has great power to do great damage.  Ultimately, it will impact the population.  Maybe, because we don't fight wars, the big one will be catastrophic.
 
Our fundamental disagreement, I believe, is that you believe--if I understand correctly--that we are not responsible for ourselves.  That implies that the government is responsible and that we need big government to solve the big problems.  I, on the other hand, believe that big government is the cause of our problems.  That is exactly the dilemma we face today.  About a third of the people support your view and about a third support my view and the rest are clueless.  So, we fight it out each election cycle.  Big government always wins in the end.
Big government allows stupid behavior.  It compensates us for having children and building houses.  It forces cities to grow or die.  It forces us to have a large population of young workers to support older workers, who then retire requiring even a larger population of younger workers.  If we didn't have government subsidized healthcare, children, housing and didn't have government safety nets, we would choose differently.  Why do immigrants prefer England over the rest of Europe?  The benefits are better.  I don't blame them; they are making the most logical choice.  I blame big government for giving them that choice.
TaraElla Added Jun 3, 2017 - 7:36am
Trump should have put it to a referendum. That way the decision will truly be America's.
Leroy Added Jun 3, 2017 - 7:45am
Stoney, I was listening to talk radio the other day.  It was said that Merkel gave a speech saying Germany would shoulder more of the cost for security.  It's about damn time.  It's been freeloading off the US for quite some time.  It's better for everyone.  Perhaps NATO has outlived its usefulness.  However, I suspect that if it didn't exist, Europe would go back to squabbling amonst themselves.  Without unity, Russia might feel more comfortable.  Maybe he would pick off one or two of the weaker countries to exploit their resources or provide a buffer, but, we could live in relative peace.
 
Reading the article, one thing is clear.  The biggest concern is not the environment; it is China.  Without the US, China becomes the dominant player.  It is a highly racist article.  Having lived in Asia, I can confirm that the European are racist against Asians.  They do look down of them.  Of course, Europeans look down on Americans as well.  You prove that.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jun 3, 2017 - 8:30am
Leroy
 
Perhaps NATO has outlived its usefulness
 
You bet. I guess Europe has grown up a bit, and as long as no country would try to replace the US in hegemony, it could work. The two candidates I would see are Germany and France....
 
Having lived in Asia, I can confirm that the European are racist against Asians.  They do look down of them.  Of course, Europeans look down on Americans as well.  You prove that.
 
Europeans also look down on Africans, by the way.......not me......I'm not looking down at Americans, I just don't understand their naivété concerning international matters and their blind following on religion. They seem not to be interested in whatever happens outside of the US and think they're the greatest anyway, although there is in fact no REAL American except maybe the natives.
 
And it's not really about the regular Joe. It's about
 
- junk food/music/movie culture
- gang crime (gangsta rap and stuff for starters)
- military hegemony and wars under false pretexts
 
I guess when Europeans would (could) behave the same today, Americans would sneer at us too. We were like that until 1900. The USA shouldn't have taken US as a good example for peaceful civilization LOL
 
 
Pamalien TW Added Jun 3, 2017 - 11:10am
It's another brainless money move— the only kind that man will ever make. Dropping out of the Paris Accord means not getting money to countries which need it to combat climate change. It means states like Florida, who's governor has chosen to ignore reality, are going underwater. The result is going to be mass death, immigration and fresh, polluted beach front property for new mansions.
 
Not funding the climate change combat and, ignoring the need for improvements may only slightly increase the temperature but, before long, people in Alaska won't be able to get food by truck. People on America's tiny islands can't build dams; they will need to move. People on smaller island nations will need refuge in countries already overtaxed by war... Soon to become more war over space and survival, in addition to politics...
 
Worst the worst, most harmful immigration of all, FLORIDIANS HAVE TO MOVE INLAND. Prepare for the worst.
Pamalien TW Added Jun 3, 2017 - 11:13am
But seriously, Alaska already has it bad. They have a multi-million dollar infrastructure dedicated to pumping colder water from beneath the ice to the surface because, sometimes a trucker will Park their truck to sleep for the night only to find there is no truck in the morning.
Barry aka. Hyperminde Added Jun 3, 2017 - 2:03pm
Maybe this is off topic ... but with the United States producing nearly all of the pollution on Earth, is "W" still using Stolen Zionist-Space-Reptile Technology to destroy other countries? For example:
 
China, India Account for Half World's Pollution Deaths in 2015
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-pollution-health-idUSKBN15T0EO
 
Apparently, China and India don't have to reduce their "Carbon Activities" in any of the Global Warming agreements.
 
Why (other than Globalist Agenda) does the US have to be in the "Climate Agreement"?
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 3, 2017 - 4:34pm
Nicholas Schroeder, I study the issue of global warming since 1992 when I participated in the Rio 92 Conference and was present in Kyoto, Paris and Marrakesh at the most recent UN conference. In addition to studying the issue of global warming for years, I am a professor of environmental economics and author of a book entitled Global Warming and Planetary Catastrophe in which I present evidence on global warming and its consequences. I do not agree that the global warming theory is false as you claim. There is concrete evidence that it is real.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 3, 2017 - 4:35pm
Leroy, I disagree that the only chance for 6 billion people to die in this century is if Earth is hit by a massive asteroid, how you say. Your statement shows that you are not aware of the problems of global warming. The fact that I state what I said is based on my experience as a studious of global warming since 1992 when I participated in the Rio 92 Conference and as a participant in Kyoto, Paris and Marrakesh at the most recent UN conference. In addition to studying for years the issue of global warming, I teach environmental economics and I am the author of a book entitled Global Warming and Planetary Catastrophe in which I present evidence on global warming and its consequences. My position is based scientifically and not based on mere belief as you suppose. You affirm but do not prove that the global warming theory is not correct.
Micahel Dolan Added Jun 3, 2017 - 5:07pm
The usual left out climate change scientist who tell us the entire climate change disaster BS and crooks like Algore stuff their pockets with millions of dollars as he pollutes the air with his use of jet-planes in the air.===SCAM-SCAM. Brilliant climate scientist are ignored by the climate scammers.
Leroy Added Jun 3, 2017 - 6:18pm
Fernando, I am acutely aware of the issue with CAGW on all sides.  Out of curiosity, have you ever been a recipient of government grants or paid by someone receiving government grants?
Leroy Added Jun 3, 2017 - 6:21pm
"Apparently, China and India don't have to reduce their "Carbon Activities" in any of the Global Warming agreements."
 
Barry, it is not off topic at all.  In fact, it is one of the reasons why the US should pull out.  The idea is that China and India have not been polluting as long as the Western world so they should be allowed to catch up. Sheer stupidity, if you ask me.
Leroy Added Jun 3, 2017 - 6:24pm
"But seriously, Alaska already has it bad. They have a multi-million dollar infrastructure dedicated to pumping colder water from beneath the ice to the surface because, sometimes a trucker will Park their truck to sleep for the night only to find there is no truck in the morning."
 
Seem to remember reading an article circa January where Alaskans were complaining about the bitching cold weather.  Some said they couldn't take it anymore and were moving out.
Barry aka. Hyperminde Added Jun 3, 2017 - 11:03pm
RE: "Alaska already has it bad."
 
Well ... what about the dinosaurs? ... THEY'RE EXTINCT!
 
That's BAD..... but maybe they could have survived ... IF THEY HAD A "PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD"!!!
 
Then again ... where would the dinosaurs get $10 TRILLION?!!!
 
... but if you adjust for inflation, the dinosaurs could have been saved with $23,832.... which is less than the cost of a new HUMMER.
Sander de Kool Added Jun 4, 2017 - 3:30am
You say "once again, Trump did what he said he would do". He promised to make America great again. Every stap he takes and every decrete he signs, makes America weaker. And with that, makes the world a less better place. 
Barry aka. Hyperminde Added Jun 4, 2017 - 3:56am
RE (Sander dK): Every ... makes America weaker.
 
So ... America is WEAKER ... because we are not BOUND by the "Paris Climate Accord"?
 
So ... the more that America has to "obey other nations' arbitrary rules", the "Stronger" America becomes?
 
Wow ... I guess if Congress and the US President became a "Rubber Stamp" to some Globalist Secret Society where the votes of ordinary citizens were nothing more than ruse to facilitate propaganda, then America would be INFINITELY POWERFUL (just like every other nation under the control of the Globalist Elites manipulating everything in the shadows).
Bill Kamps Added Jun 4, 2017 - 6:32am
It is always better when Congress acts, instead of the President deciding things on his own, and this is a reason why.  Anything one President can do on his own, another can repeal.  Obama took the lazy way to adopt it, and Trump reversed.  Easy, schmeezy.
 
If the people of the US really wanted the Paris accord, they  could call and pressure Congress to adopt it, no big deal.   The people wanted gays to have the right to marry, and got it, the people can ask for this as well if it is so important.
 
Too easy to just blame Trump.  If you want the Paris accord, pick up the phone or write your Congress person, and get it done.  Stop complaining.
Leroy Added Jun 4, 2017 - 7:40am
I agree 100%, Bill.  O rammed this and ObamaCare down the throats of Congress.  Both should have gone through a thorough debate in Congress.  Everyone would have been happier with the result.  And, as I said, I would have thrown it back into the lap of Congress and forced it to do its job.
Leroy Added Jun 4, 2017 - 7:44am
"Every stap he takes and every decrete he signs, makes America weaker. And with that, makes the world a less better place."
 
How so, Sander?
 
I admit that it puts Europe in a difficult position.  When everybody pays a ridiculous price for energy, it's at least a level playing field.  Now, Europe will be disadvantaged with the US paying much less for its energy.  It will also be disadvantaged by China, who will ignore the treaty if it is convenient.
 
As for the environment, it has no impact.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 4, 2017 - 8:42am
When it is cold outside, I must add energy/heat to my house to keep it warm inside. When it is hot outside, I must add work to move energy/heat from inside the house back outside by using an air conditioner.
Energy moves by itself from high energy/temperature to low energy/temperature. Energy cannot move from low energy/temperature to high energy/temperature without adding work.
Is it hot out in space or cold?
The space station out there in space has a sophisticated radiative cooling system to move excess energy, i.e. adding work, from inside to outside. If space is cold, why is that needed?
A luminous photosphere of energy radiates from our sun in all directions out across the cosmos. When that sphere expands to the average orbital distance to the earth its dispersed luminous surface radiates a power flux of 1,368 W/m^2, aka the solar constant, with a S-B BB equivalent temperature of 390 K, 17 C higher than the boiling point of water under full atmospheric pressure. That’s hot.
Without an atmosphere the surface of the earth would be much like that of the moon, barren, dusty, pock marked, blazing hot on the lit side, sub-sub-sub-freezing cold on the dark side.
Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t keep the earth warm, it keeps the earth cool.
Bill Kamps Added Jun 4, 2017 - 8:47am
Leroy, politically it would have been smarter for Trump to give it to Congress. I agree. He wouldnt have taken so much heat for it, and it is doubtful Congress could have passed it, because it doesnt look like they can pass much of anything right now.
 
Regardless of whether one believes there is global warming caused by humans, the Paris treaty would likely do nothing about it.  There is no way to enforce the decrease in emissions, and there is no way to enforce what is done with the money taken from some countries and given to others.  It is a wealth transfer, that makes politicians look good to the people who care about this issue.  Politicians are good at moving money around, but very bad at solving problems.  The two arent the same thing.
 
Some state and local governments in the US have said they will do something in this area.  If anything is to be done, that is probably the better approach  anyway, since it wont involve sending money overseas, and voters and businesses will have some say in the laws, rather than they be made by politicians over expensive meals in Paris.
Leroy Added Jun 4, 2017 - 9:47am
"Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t keep the earth warm, it keeps the earth cool."
 
Nicholas, wouldn't it be more correct to say earth's atmosphere helps regulate the temperature of the earth, preventing it from becoming hot like the lit side of the moon and cold like the dark side?
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 4, 2017 - 10:31am
Well, I suppose.
"Helps" implies it's complicated and there are many factors involved. It's not as simple as 0.04% doing ALL of the heavy lifting.
Other factors include clouds, evaporation, condensation, Hadley cells circulating energy from the equator to the poles, albedo, etc.
The albedo controls how much energy stays in the atmosphere and reaches the ground. Minor changes in the albedo will make a not so minor difference in that energy and temperature, orders of magnitude more than 0.04%.
Bottom line, though, is that it is intuitively obvious that w/o an atmosphere the earth would be hot, not cold per the delta 33C nonsense.
The basic question is: why is the earth the temperature it is? and how does that temperature change?
There is no defensible theory or evidence that GHGs, CO2 or mankind play a significant role.
I trust you have seen my WB papers. A scientific rebuttal would be to dispute my methods, arguments and conclusions. Name calling isn't a scientific argument.
Thanks for maintaining a fairly reasonable thread.
Billy Roper Added Jun 4, 2017 - 10:43am
Apparently Muslims in the UK were so upset about the climate change crisis that they staged a demonstration on London Bridge and in a nearby market last night.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 4, 2017 - 12:26pm
Let's just remember that if nobody had been willing to challenge the status quo, challenge the "consensus," surgeons and doctors would still be going from patient to patient with unwashed hands and clothes.
It was an uphill battle for those "deniers" who suggested surface sterilization between patients.
Sander de Kool Added Jun 4, 2017 - 12:43pm
For the short term, the effect is small. For the long term, the effect of denieing the human impact on climate change, will have a large impact on America and its future economy. For now, the cole workers maby satisfied, but is that a strong base for a great America? 
And a deal of 150 billion for weapons delivery to largest supporters of terrorism in the world (no, that's not Iran) can't be seen as a great deal for a strong future. The closing of Obama Care, leaving 24 million Anericans uninsuerd again, how does that make you stronger? Tax reduces for the highest incomes, does only make does with the money even richer. People like Trump and his friends. It does not, and the past has proven that, make America stronger. Thinking you can just stop and renegotiate trade deals makes you weak, not strong. Thinking the world is not bindend by people and trade, makes you weak. 
Bill H. Added Jun 4, 2017 - 1:10pm
It was indeed sad and disappointing to hear the interview with the current EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in which he on several occasions used the label "Environmental Left".
What he has done is increased politicization of what should be a concern of everyone, either "Right", "Left", or in between. This was yet another ploy to further divide our nation by giving narrow minded people on both "sides" another reason to be for or against a subject based strictly on political platform beliefs and marching orders.
I actually know quite a few self-professed Republicans that I have worked with in the Engineering field that are quite concerned with environmental issues, and yes, even human-induced climate change.
Having traveled to many different countries over the years, virtually everyone I have met outside of the US seems concerned with environmental issues whether they be extinction of species, loss of habitat, pollution of the air and waterways, or pesticides in foods. Only here in the US have I found people actually taking a stand on these issues only based on platform commands from their particular party of choice.
Is this yet another example of how naïve and gullible the average citizen has become, simply to adapt or reject a cause based on what a bumbling politician from either party deems is true?
Scott Pruitt has no business in his position and should resign due to his comments. His campaign was financed by the oil and gas industries and he has on many occasions fought hard to reduce or eliminate restrictions and safety measures related to fracking, and denied earlier now well proven data that related fracking wastewater disposal to earthquakes. He works strictly for the Koch Brothers and not at all for the American people.
Richard Plank Added Jun 4, 2017 - 1:10pm
Nicholas some time ago you published a paper and I responded asking simply for a set of assumptions behind your assertions.  Now I don't speak your language, but I have forgotten more about science than most people and I do understand element of skepticism and its central role in moving things forward. So I will ask again;  It seems that the great majority of climate scientists believe we have not only global warming, but it is caused to some extent by humans and that carbon transformations including CO2 play a role.  Exact numbers or estimates are difficult to come buy as this is what is known as a "wicked problem" with more  interdependencies than we can conceputalize much less measure.  Now that said all the supporting science for the most part agrees with that assertion and here at my University we have dozens of different disciplines that contribute in one way or another to this argument.  In fact from a purely philosophical perspective the fact that so many points of view and so many methodologies come up with similar conclusions is what science is really all about.  Now I agree since your group has offered another perspective and since proof is really all about disproving other perspectives not proving yours it is up to others to examine your assertions and find what we often call a  fatal flaw.  If one does not exist then your solution is certainly possible.  I understand  your frustration about sending this to so many people, but many may be like me, not my language, but if you put it in language I can understand and in  my case provide some critical thinking on the assumptions about the relationships you are talking about then maybe I can make some sort of educated attribution on what you say.  Until then given the necessity of skepticism I just have to take the view you are another crackpot who rails against what the majority stand for and wait for your work to be covered in some scientific arena where people who speak your langauge can debate it and in their conclusions using language those of us understand state what it all means.  If it does not appear than you all  probability it is simply junk, but I still reserve the possibility however small that you may be right after all the history of science does have examples of those who were right in the long run, but could not get through whatever the system was. 
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 4, 2017 - 1:24pm
Proof is NOT disproving others, proof is proving your own.
 
Speaking of:
Consensus = BS = irrefutable facts.
It was simple observation that the sun orbits the earth – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that Vulcan orbited between Mercury and the sun – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that life occurred from spontaneous generation – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that the earth was expanding – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that combustible objects contained phlogiston – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that water filled canals existed on Mars – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that light propagated through luminiferous aether – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that people were blank slates, tabula rasa, at birth – but that was wrong.
It was simple observation that people could be analyzed from their bumpy heads, phrenology – but it was wrong.
It was simple observation that the universe was static – but it was wrong.
It’s a simple observation that Fleischmann and Pons’s cold fusion apparatus puts out more energy than it takes in – but it’s wrong.
It’s a simple observation to point an IR instrument at the sky and measure hundreds of W/m^2 of downwelling radiation – but it’s wrong and clearly violates thermodynamics.
If this incorrect application and interpretation of IR instrumentation is all that “proves” “downwelling” radiation, then that is bupkis.
Guess where GHG/RGHE theory is headed?
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
 
 
Leroy Added Jun 4, 2017 - 1:24pm
I'm sure you enjoy paying 200% more in electricity costs (3X) in Europe to support your righteous cause.  That's your right.  Please continue.  It makes the US more competitive with China.  Maybe that makes us weaker, but it also makes us wealthier.  If enjoying my air conditioner in summer while you swelter in the heat because you can't afford it makes me weaker, then so be it.  At least I am weaker in style while I enjoy the cheap, nuclear-provided electricity. 
 
Think about us poor, weak Americans as we slave away at the factory while you sit comfortably at home because the wind is not blowing and your factory shuts down until the patterns change.  Don't worry; we will make the cars for you.  Mercedes will move most of its production here and China so it can have cheap, reliable electricity.  You won't have to worry about working and can use the time to build a healthy body.  You can always go to the hospital--when the lights are on.
 
As always, we will be there to pick up the pieces.  Take care.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 4, 2017 - 3:28pm
Leroy, responding to your question, if I have ever been the recipient of government grants or paid by someone receiving government grants, my answer is no. You are mistaken in stating that China and India do not have to reduce their "Carbon Activities" in any of the Global Warming Agreements, in addition to arguing that this is one reason the United States does not sign the Paris Agreement. I suggest that you take more knowledge about climate change and the Paris Accord before you give your opinion about it.
Sander de Kool Added Jun 4, 2017 - 3:34pm
Leroy, I live in the Netherlands. We have our OWN gas supplie, enough for at least 30 more years. Many of our power plants run on gas, just as most of the houses are connected to a gas network for the heating. And gas is a much cleaner fuel than coals.
Although I live in a house with only electricity (won by windmills, no gas connection) and paying about $ 55 each moth for heating and electric. Don't know, but too me, it doesn't look as too much money. And in the Netherlands, we have a sea climate. Although it does get hotter even here, we still can manage without to much of an airconditioning. But thanks, I'll think about it when we do need one, because of the rising climate. If we still need one, because the sea level will rise among with the climate, and I live in an area which lies beneath sea level. But please, do enjoy your cheap electricity, for as long as you can :-).
I realy hope that all of the actions of this brilliant President will make America great again. Because a strong America is better for the world than a weak one. 
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 4, 2017 - 4:16pm
Richard Plank
 
Nicholas some time ago you published a paper and I responded asking simply for a set of assumptions behind your assertions. Now I don't speak your language, (So find someone who does, i.e. another ME and let me know what they say.) but I have forgotten more about science than most people (And where did you learn what you forgot?) and I do understand element of skepticism and its central role in moving things forward. So I will ask again; It seems that the great majority of climate scientists believe we have not only global warming, but it is caused to some extent by humans and that carbon transformations including CO2 play a role.
Must be repetitive:
“97% of scientists (implying ALL!!! scientists) believe in man-caused climate change.”
What the MSM meant to say is 97% of all CLIMATE scientists (similar to aroma-therapists and horse whisperers) actively researching and publishing in that field (At this point insert getting paid.) consider the evidence compelling - all 82 of them – cherry picked out of the 10,500 surveys that were sent out. (Doran and Zimmerman)
My papers are based on the Trenberth diagram, American Chemical Society’s climate change tool kit and basic algebra, geometry, heat transfer, thermodynamics with explanations of those fundamentals abundant on the web or any local college. BTW thermodynamics says exactly nothing about order or complexity. Thermo was hijacked and erroneously given those definitions by frauds attempting to give creation science a respectable veneer.
The basic question is this: Why is the earth warm and how does it heat and cool? RGHE cannot explain it without violating several of the basic laws of thermo.
My papers 1) debunk the RGHE theory and 2) present a perfectly viable explanation that does not, that is as simple to understand as the insulated walls of a house and the aisles full of insulation at the local Home Depot.
I am not alone. See Principia Scientifica, Nasif Nahle at Biology lab, Jennofer Marohasy, and many others. Even Arrhenius’ contemporaries Angstrom, De Marci, and R. W. Wood felt his greenhouse theory was dubious. Arrhenius was trying to understand ice ages, not warming. His misunderstood theory has been hijacked and exaggerated.
Exact numbers or estimates are difficult to come buy as this is what is known as a "wicked problem" with more interdependencies than we can conceputalize much less measure. Now that said all (ALL!!! Extreme claims demand extreme proof.) the supporting science (Please supply ALL those citations.) for the most part agrees with that assertion and here at my University (Which is?) we have dozens of different disciplines (Pass this and papers around, I’d like to know what they think.) that contribute in one way or another to this argument. In fact from a purely philosophical perspective the fact that so many points of view and so many methodologies come up with similar conclusions is what science is really all about. (No! Science is NOT about consensus and arguing from authority.)
Now I agree since your group (It’s just me.) has offered another perspective and since proof is really all about disproving other perspectives not proving yours it is up to others to examine your assertions and find what we often call a fatal flaw. (Which is what I have done with RGHE.)
If one does not exist then your solution is certainly possible. I understand your frustration (Nope, happy to help clarify this “wicked problem.”) about sending this to so many people, ………….
Steve Bergeron Added Jun 4, 2017 - 6:57pm
Interesting to watch all of the knee jerk reaction by those who think they know it all.  Trump isn't against working on the global warming issue.  He's against the fruity agreement ginned up by Obama and company.  Similar to the agreement with Iran.  The Paris accord has us again paying billions of dollars more than anyone else.  It would include China getting about $3 billion of OUR dollars when China will not address global warming for a decade!  Same for India.  What a stupid agreement!  IF you folks were really against global warming, why agree to allow the planets largest polluters to get a pass PLUS billions of free U.S. taxpayer dollars?  BAD agreement.  Try again.  
John G Added Jun 4, 2017 - 7:54pm
China is way way way ahead of the US when it comes to renewable energy development.
China and India per capita consume far less energy than westerners. And much that they do is in production of export products for western consumption.
And the US gave Iran no money. 
Leroy Added Jun 4, 2017 - 8:40pm
Agreed, Steve.  Makes no sense for the worst "polluter" to get a pass.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 5, 2017 - 9:45am
Fernando - I thought I heard every dumb justification for "Climate Change proponents treating the subject as religion until your invoking James Lovelock!  This is the moron who thinks Earth is "Gaia"! 
 
Geez - the politicization and deification of this pseudo science has reached new heights!!!
Steve Bergeron Added Jun 5, 2017 - 9:52am
John  G, the U.S. agreed to unfreeze Iranian assets, which best estimates say is about $100 billion, that they can now use to help fund their nuclear program and finance jihad, worldwide.  How is that a good deal, in your opinion?
Mike Haluska Added Jun 5, 2017 - 9:55am
Fernando - your attempt at impressing us with:

"I am a professor of environmental economics and author of a book entitled Global Warming and Planetary Catastrophe in which I present evidence on global warming and its consequences. I do not agree that the global warming theory is false as you claim. There is concrete evidence that it is real."
 
reveals the vain attempts people who completely unqualified go to gain legitimacy in fields they are unqualified to render opinions.  There are a number of legitimate of Nobel Prize winning physicists and leading environmental scientists who have come forward over the past decade denouncing this fraud.  The list includes such respected dignitaries as:
 
Freeman Dyson
Ivar Giaever
Lawrence Kraus
Judith Curry
 
Their denouncement is not only of the conclusions but more importantly the methodology - "Consensus Science".
 
 
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 5, 2017 - 10:04am
Bill H - your assertion:
 
"What he has done is increased politicization of what should be a concern of everyone, either "Right", "Left", or in between. This was yet another ploy to further divide our nation by giving narrow minded people on both "sides" 
 
attempts to "spread the blame" for the politicization of this subject.  The politicization has been entirely on the proponents of AGW.  Their government funding and participation with the political left has created this mess.  We have spent more on "Climate Change" over the years than the Manhattan Project (Atomic Bomb) and the Apollo Program (Moon Landing) COMBINED and what the hell do we have to show for it? 
Nothing except:
 
- annual "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" that NEVER materialize
- research that shows NO CAUSAL LINK between human CO2 & humans
- more "threats" of "Imminent Doomsday Forecasts" to scare the public
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 5, 2017 - 10:10am
Richard Plank - your assertion:
 
" It seems that the great majority of climate scientists believe we have not only global warming, but it is caused to some extent by humans and that carbon transformations including CO2 play a role."
 
has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH LEGITIMATE SCIENCE!  Science isn't s a popularity contest, scientists don't go on their own version of American Idol to make their case, opinions alone or in groups have no scientific merit!!!  If you actually read what Dr. Crichton has to say about "Consensus Science", you'll understand why frauds resort to this:
 
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
 
http://creation.com/crichton-on-scientific-consensus
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 5, 2017 - 10:16am
Finally - the Paris Accord was simply an instrument for other nations to pick the pocket of the United States.  Just exactly how would paying "Carbon Credits" to Zimbabwe reduce the Earth's temperature.  Just watch as one by one the "Top Dogs" of this pyramid scheme resign from the treaty. 
 
Germany was all for the US "leading the way" because they were downstream from the source of money.  Watch and see what happens as the bigger nations ahead of them bow out because they are now holding the bag!!! 
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 5, 2017 - 10:19am
Interesting read.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/05/the-madness-of-the-parisagreement-on-climate/
 
 
Nancy Rexford Added Jun 5, 2017 - 11:42am
Leroy  I found your article interesting.  I have always been of the belief that when you attempt to curtail the easy way for a company or country to make money they will find a way around your rules for the "public good". Sure a few companies have tried to adhere to some of its rules. But I would bet only if they have been cost effective. If not I am sure they have found a way around the rules that wouldd eat into profits.  It is the cynic in me that says:  is that only when the pollution in its various forms harm a country will they actually do anything about it. You have only to look at the photos from China with the populace walking the streets in face masks to see that it must be really bad before anyone will remedy the problem.
Leroy Added Jun 5, 2017 - 2:26pm
Nancy, I don't have to look at the photos.  I've lived it.  There were mornings where the buildings around me disappear is some mysterious black soup.  The pollution index was literally off the charts, recording 999.  Yet, does China do anything about it?  No.  It the same city, wind turbines are scattered about.  Virtually none are functional.  For the ones that are functional, they don't know what to do with the energy.  For lack of anything better to do with it, it is used to generate heat to warm the apartments in the city.  There are rolling blackouts to reduce the CO2.  It only applies to Western companies operating there.  The Chines factories crank up the generators.  China is the number 1 "polluter," yet it gets a bye.   lt's a stupid agreement comprised to appease China and the US and to bribe all the countries with people of color to go along.  It does zero to reduce the CO2 emissions.  All these little banana republics are enthusiastic about it for one reason: money.
 
No one is doing anything about it.  We are just making noise in the wind.  We don't even know if it is warming or cooling.  So, yes, I say, "Show me that the climate is warming."  By 2035, show me Himalayan glaciers are gone.  By 2013, show me that the Arctic ice has melted.  Ooppps!  That one has passed.
MJ Added Jun 5, 2017 - 6:43pm
Leroy, like your arguments on Global warming/cooling.
I think your phrase"It's not so easy to herd cats" are priceless.
Leroy Added Jun 5, 2017 - 6:48pm
Thanks, MJ, but it is not an original quote.
 
Good to see you back!
MJ Added Jun 5, 2017 - 6:55pm
Leroy never heard it before and with my over active imagination, I can picture it clearly. 
Thanks, missed interaction on WB.
 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 5, 2017 - 8:45pm
Mike Haluska, when I presented some of my credentials to Leroy, my intention was to show him that he was not dealing with an unqualified person in the environmental area. In trying to disqualify me by stating that I do not have the conditions to give an opinion on the issue of climate change, you use the weapon of the incompetents attacking the interlocutor instead of trying to refute the aspects I defend. A true intellectual would not have this behavior. I do not recognize in you competence to give me lessons in this area. All those who denounce climate change as a fraud or want to appear or are at the service of the oil or coal industry. I prefer to stay with the vast majority of the scientific community that claims to be climate change an event to occur in the future.
Leroy Added Jun 5, 2017 - 9:53pm
Fernando, although we disagree, you are imminently qualified and experienced and I appreciate your perspective.  This site serves no purpose if we all agree.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 5, 2017 - 10:22pm
Leroy, thank you for your comment on me and, above all, for your democratic spirit that it is important for us to debate at a high level even with disagreements. I take this opportunity to thank for your initiative to promote the debate on the Paris Agreement. My compliments for your praiseworthy initiative.
Dr. Rupert Green Added Jun 6, 2017 - 11:29am
Civil war, rescission, cession, or military coup?
 
Well...Americans have their guns because they have long mistrust their government but they want it to succeed, so they obey the law. They would fight tyranny, given; "live free or die. give me liberty or give me death, death before dishonor." Trump may have believed he did not want that fight, thus he could advance a coup by stacking his gov with generals. The dainty or accommodating pussies in Congress allowed the change of law to make it possible.  So with some wanting a clean US and other a lung busting dirty one, cessation may soon become the new call. Still, I believe the union is strong and the people wise enough to avoid splitting the country through warfare.
Leroy Added Jun 6, 2017 - 11:42am
Doc, I don't think anyone wants to secede over the issue.  No one wants a "lung gusting dirty" environment.  The issue is not pollution but whether CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming. 
 
CO2 is not a poison and, in fact, is benefical.  There are three things, in my mind to prove, before acting on global warming.
 
1. That the long term trend is for warming and this warming is overwhelmingly caused by man.
2. That it will be catastrophic.
3. That we can alter its course.
 
Without those three, it is pointless to redistribute wealth in an attempt to fix it. 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jun 6, 2017 - 1:59pm
That CO2 discussion is useless. We will run out of drinking water soon by our excessive use, and THAT will fuck us up.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 6, 2017 - 2:27pm
Fernando - with all due respect, none of your credentials qualifies you to render a SCIENTIFIC opinion of the merits/flaws of human caused climate change theory.  You continually "run for the cover of the flock" - justifying your position as in concert with "scientist consensus" so it shouldn't be questioned.  Questioning methods, data and assumptions is the FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS of legitimate science! 
 
As I demonstrated numerous times, legitimate science has nothing to do with consensus.  The track record of "consensus science" is abysmal, producing such quackery as Eugenics, Lysenko's vernalization, politicization of DDT, etc. 
 
For all of you that believe that "so many scientists, esteemed universities and government agencies can't ALL be wrong, read the 2-1/2 page essay found at the link below:
 
https://msu.edu/course/lbs/332/bellon/R0124b.pdf
 
The Objective Observer Added Jun 6, 2017 - 3:03pm
As I state in my new article, Climate Change advocates are nothing but Solar Change deniers and are stupidly focused on trivial, short-term concerns versus things that will ACTUALLY kill everyone and destroy the planet.
 
Leroy Added Jun 6, 2017 - 3:36pm
"That CO2 discussion is useless. We will run out of drinking water soon by our excessive use, and THAT will fuck us up."
 
I didn't know that water wore out from excessive use.  Learn something new every day.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jun 6, 2017 - 4:14pm
Leroy
 
Check out California....quite logical. The more people, the more they use. And our oceans have become dirty and partly radioactive by now. Desalination for billions of people wouldn't be possible anyway.
 
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/planets-dwindling-water-resources-poses-an-existential-threat-445316.html
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Jun 6, 2017 - 4:18pm
TOO
 
Solar energy is the only way out. But our oil and gas and nuclear fanatics will not stop until the planet blows up or the whole environment collapses. Because they would have to suffer a severe profit loss and stock exchange crash while changing the system.
 
Remember: People live about 70-80 years. They don't give a shit about what happens after. If they say they do, they're hypocrites.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 6, 2017 - 9:50pm
Mike Haluska, in the same way that you don´t recognize in me credentials to give a SCIENTIFIC opinion on the merits / failings of human-caused climate change theory, I also have the same opinion about you. I don´t recognize in you any authority to give an opinion on this question. I realize that you are ignorant of the philosophy of science as the approaches of Thomas Kuhn and Lakatos. Your opinion is based on the premise that climate change advocated by the IPCC results from political and no from scientific positions. When you suggested that I read the article on the site that you indicated, your positioning is evidenced.

My scientific view is supported by the conception of Thomas Kuhn, which states in his work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (KUHN, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2 ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) that the chain evolution of science begins with the paradigmatic phase that represents the prehistory of a science, that period in which there is a wide divergence between researchers, or groups of researchers, about which phenomena should be studied, about the rules, methods and values ​​that should guide the search, description, classification and explanation of new phenomena, or the development of theories, about which techniques and instruments can be used, and which ones should be used, etc. While such a state of affairs prevails, discipline has not yet reached the status of a genuine science. In the context of climate change, this pre-paradigmatic phase occurred from 1972 to 1992.

A discipline becomes a science when it acquires a paradigm, ending the pre-paradigmatic phase and initiating a phase of normal science. Kuhn realized that the transition to maturity for the scientific phase of a discipline involves the recognition by the scientific community of an exemplary scientific achievement. A paradigm thus provides the foundations on which the scientific community develops its activities. A paradigm represents a "map" to be used by scientists in the exploration of Nature. Research firmly grounded in the theories, methods, and examples of a paradigm is called by Kuhn of normal science. Climate change reached the paradigmatic or normal science phase from the 1990s when most of the scientific community began to consider its analytical and prospective models as the explanation for the phenomena observed.

An important point highlighted by Kuhn is that while the paradigmatic "map" is proving fruitful, and no serious embarrassment arises in the empirical adjustment of theory, the scientist must persist tenaciously in his commitment to the paradigm. When the anomalies multiply, the time has come to consider replacing the paradigm itself. In these crisis situations, more daring and creative members of the scientific community propose alternative paradigms. When a new paradigm comes to replace the old paradigm, Kuhn calls the scientific revolution. On the issue of climate change there has been no proposal for a new paradigm to replace the existing one. The position of the critics of the IPCC is only to challenge their results without proposing a new paradigm.
 
If you present to me a new paradigm to explain climate change I give up what I defend  at the moment. 
Dr. Rupert Green Added Jun 7, 2017 - 2:41am
@ Fernando. Sound reasoning in preceding. Cant imagine we can still make the mistakes of the eugenics.
Leroy Added Jun 7, 2017 - 10:18am
Fernando, both you and Mike as well as others have the credentials to make assessments on the Paris Accord as well as climate change.  It's true that I agree with Mike's assessment but I am equally anxious for your views on the matter.  So far, I only hear that you are correct because the consensus can't be wrong.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 7, 2017 - 12:54pm
Fernando -
 
To admit you are a follower of Kuhn is to admit you don't practice, understand or adhere to the Scientific Method.  Your challenge for me:
              "to present a new paradigm to explain climate change" 
is confusing to say the least.  First of all, NOBODY claims that the Earth's climate isn't changing.  Second, EVERYONE agrees that the Earth's climate is a complex, non-linear, non-deterministic system that is governed by many variables - most of which also vary non-linearly over time.
 
So here is the "paradigm" you requested:
 
BY FAR the most predominant of the variables affecting the Earth's climate is a thermonuclear furnace 93,000,000 miles away from Earth.  The amount of energy released by this "furnace" (the Sun) is the source of all energy that gets converted to the Earth's atmospheric temperature.  The energy output of the Sun varies RANDOMLY over time - EVERYONE agrees about this. 
 
If it is impossible to predict (definition of "random") the Sun's output on June 7th, 2056 how the hell can you predict the Earth's average temperature on June 7th, 2056???
 
The second most predominant factor affecting the amount of energy reaching the Earth is the distance from the Sun.  Unlike Newton's "Clockwork Universe", the orbital mechanics of the Sun and planets are NOT deterministic.  The exact path of the Earth around the Sun varies unpredictably over time.  So again, another question.
 
If it is impossible to predict (definition of "random") the Earth's distance from the Sun on June 7th, 2056 how the hell can you predict the Earth's average temperature on June 7th, 2056???
 
Given the above irrefutable facts, it is impossible to predict with any scientific accuracy the Earth's climate.  We can't even predict the local weather with any accuracy past 5 days!  Throw in the fact you keep avoiding to address that EVEN IF all human CO2 were eliminated, the atmospheric concentration would only drop from 400 ppm to 395 ppm and it is evident to anyone objective that the whole premise of AGW is pseudo-science presented by "Consensus"!!! 
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 7, 2017 - 3:36pm
By the way, Fernando - YOU haven't presented a "paradigm" that explains "Climate Change"!  Stating that a "Consensus of people agree about something" is not proof nor reason to go along with them.
 
The truth is that people that can't explain/justify their position using valid methods that others can reproduce the same results (Scientific Method) resort to fraudulent methods (Consensus Science) because the average person doesn't know any better.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 7, 2017 - 5:46pm
Dr, Green  - your statement:
 
"@ Fernando. Sound reasoning in preceding. Cant imagine we can still make the mistakes of the eugenics."
 
merits a response.  Most of the time the person's logic isn't in question, it's the assumptions on which they base their logic that is faulty.  In the case of "Climate Change" the primary faulty assumption is that a correlation between variables always results in causality.  Here's an example:
 
Everyone has seen tree leaves turning colors in the Autumn.  There is a strong correlation (>98%) between squirrels gathering nuts in the Autumn and tree leaves turning colors in the Autumn.  Does this mean that squirrels gathering nuts CAUSES tree leaves to turn colors??? 
 
I can make the same case for CO2 and Earth temperature.  How do we know that some other factor(s) isn't causing BOTH CO2 and Earth temperature to rise?  What our friends on the "Climate Change" side are telling us is that "we need to shoot all the squirrels to stop tree leave discoloration"!!!
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 7, 2017 - 10:33pm
Leroy, Mike Halusta, Peter Corey and Thomas Sutrina, due to their questions about my vision on climate change, I decided to make a deep reflection on this topic. I know that there are currently two lines or scientific trends dealing with global climate change issues: that of the IPCC which in Thomas Kuhn's concept concerns the normal science or the IPCC paradigm accepted by the majority of the scientific community and of the eco-skeptics , Also called negationist. However, both the IPCC paradigm and the negationists agree that the Earth went through a warming of about 0.6ºC in the 20th century, but there is a great divergence among scientists regarding the cause of this warming, their consequences, and whether it is still occurring. Proponents of normal science or the IPCC paradigm say that global warming, the main driver of global climate change, is a consequence of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere caused by anthropogenic action and that it is still occurring and will increase in the coming years. But proponents of the negationist thesis claim that the current warming is a natural phenomenon, that it has already ceased and that, on the contrary, the Earth is currently going through a cooling process. 

The great gap between the two lines of thought lies in the fact that there are very different ideas about the origins of the rising temperature of the Earth's atmosphere: while proponents of the IPCC paradigm claim that the warming through which it passed and / or passes Planet in the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century is caused by the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which, according to them, caused by anthropic action, the negationists have another much more complex view of the subject, since, for them, humans have very little or no influence on global warming. Thus, the negacionists open a range with several factors that may have caused or be causing that warming, which would be a lower warming than others occurred in past periods, long before the industrial revolution that initiated the great demand for energy and use of fossil fuels. For the negationists, one cannot ignore the complexity that surrounds the Earth's climate and to admit a single explanatory theory is, at least contestable, that it is the theory of CO2.
 
For proponents of the IPCC paradigm, the main factors influencing climate change are, without order of importance: 1) the intensity of solar activity, which the more intense the more it will contribute to global warming; 2) the geomagnetic field and the cosmic rays, because they are in a relationship, and when the former intensifies, the latter weaken, favoring an increase in terrestrial temperatures; 3) volcanic eruptions, which, with their dust clouds, make the average temperature of the planet decrease; 4) the Earth's orbit that exerts great influence on the Earth's climate, since the distance between Earth and Sun varies due to the gravitational force exerted by Jupiter and Saturn. When this distance is smaller, the Earth receives more energy and warms up, when it is bigger, the opposite effect occurs; 5) the anthropic action, that is, of the human beings. Advocates of the IPCC paradigm consider that anthropogenic action is most responsible for current climate change while negationists only consider the first four factors and human action as irrelevant. Faced with the 5 causes for the occurrence of temperature changes and changes in the Earth's climate, it is clear that the increase of greenhouse gases from human activities cannot be considered the only cause of global warming and consequent climate change.

Another point of discord between proponents of the IPCC paradigm and the negationists concerns the relationship between CO2 increase and temperature rise, while the proponents of the IPCC paradigm are insistent that increasing of CO2 is the cause of the temperature increase, the negationists claim that the former is only a consequence of the latter, that is, first the temperature increases, only to later raise CO2 levels. There is another ideological confrontation among scientists about future predictions. While the IPCC claims that there will be a steady increase in absolute and average temperatures by the year 2100, scientists opposing this idea challenge this claim by saying that nature reacts with the effect of a powerful defense mechanism: this system would act as a self-regulator of the Earth's climate, so tha
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 7, 2017 - 10:35pm
Leroy, Peter Corey, Mike Haluska and Thomas Sutrina
 
Another point of discord between proponents of the IPCC paradigm and the negationists concerns the relationship between CO2 increase and temperature rise, while the proponents of the IPCC paradigm are insistent that increasing of CO2 is the cause of the temperature increase, the negationists claim that the former is only a consequence of the latter, that is, first the temperature increases, only to later raise CO2 levels. There is another ideological confrontation among scientists about future predictions. While the IPCC claims that there will be a steady increase in absolute and average temperatures by the year 2100, scientists opposing this idea challenge this claim by saying that nature reacts with the effect of a powerful defense mechanism: this system would act as a self-regulator of the Earth's climate, so that there would be no general uncontrolled temperature, which would undoubtedly cause a planetary catastrophe of gigantic proportions, which is what predicts proponents of the IPCC paradigm.
 
One issue that calls into question the reliability of global warming theory and climate change concerns the prediction problem of predicting climate models by the IPCC. The negationists claim that by not being able to predict with any accuracy the state of the atmosphere in a month, can we know anything about the climate in the next century or the next millennium? The future evolution of the state of the atmosphere depends not only on the equations governing its behavior but also on the boundary conditions that are of two types: initial conditions, defining the three-dimensional state of the atmosphere at a given instant, and conditions in the spatial limits, defining the future interaction between the atmosphere and the outside. A weather forecast, a few days away, depends initially on the initial conditions and a weather forecast depends more heavily on the conditions in the spatial boundaries. This argument is based on the fact that the global climate system is essentially a nonlinear system, linked to intrinsic factors and extrinsic to Earth's own atmosphere. This assertion reinforces the position of so many scientists who emphasize the "complexity" of the surface-atmosphere system's functioning and the long-term difficulties of climate prediction.
 
Many of the considerations I have set out here have been presented by you, Leroy, Mike Halusta, Peter Corey, and Thomas Sutrina in your comments, but which I found important to repeat in my reflections to show my perception about the issue. One fact that led me to adhere to the theses of the IPCC paradigm was based on the perception that the majority of the world scientific community supported these theses. The premise I considered was that if the majority of the world scientific community support the IPCC's thesis it would constitute a paradigm or normal science in Thomas Kuhn's view. But the main reason for adhering to the IPCC thesis lies in the fact that neither the IPCC nor its opponents demonstrate certainty about its predictions about the future of the climate on planet Earth. Faced with uncertainty about the future of climate change, I considered that we should be cautious in adopting the precautionary principle to deal with undesirable events in the future. In order to deal with the uncertainties of the future, it is essential that precautionary measures be taken. When dealing with likely futures that are highly likely to occur the measures taken are concerned with prevention. The principle of prevention would, in a narrow sense, be aimed at avoiding threats according to a forward-looking approach, in anticipation of future events likely to occur. In the event of unexpected or improbable future, uncertainty about its occurrence, as is the case of climate change, we must also act on the precautionary principle. This is my justification for adhering to the IPCC paradigm
Leroy Added Jun 8, 2017 - 10:33am
Fernando, correct me if I am wrong with my summary.
 
1. CAGW theory has some holes in it
2. Natural influences could be the explanation for most of the warming
3. The changes may not be catastrophic
4. The consensus is more likely to be correct
5. As a precaution, we should assume that CAGW is correct and try to remedy the situation just in case.  It doesn't hurt.
 
Fair enough.  My problem is that I don't see how redistribution of wealth has even a small chance of solving the issue.  Maybe that is a little harsh.  Maybe I should say that we are helping poorer countries prepare for possible catastrophic changes.  Since the rich countries are the most prolific "polluters" wouldn't it make more sense for them to use this money to reduce CO2 emissions? That way, if we thought we could actually affect the climate, the poorer countries would have less need to prepare.  In other words, if we can stop climate change, they don't have to worry about being under water.
 
It seems to be that what we are really doing is bribing them to remain underdeveloped.  In other words, denying them the opportunity to become like the rich countries.  Basically, we paid them money so they can frolic on the beach naked not having to worry about climate change.  That is the price we pay for our "pollution."
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 8, 2017 - 3:38pm
Leroy -
 
Nice job summing it up.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 8, 2017 - 3:52pm
Fernando -
 
I appreciate you putting forth an honest effort to explain your position.  And if we were all layman who couldn't care less about legitimate scientific inquiry, I would be fine with your statement:
 
"One fact that led me to adhere to the theses of the IPCC paradigm was based on the perception that the majority of the world scientific community supported these theses."
 
The above, the tone taken towards anyone "skeptical" of the IPCC and the demonization of the term "Denier" should be offensive to anyone who understands how legitimate science works.  It is not so much the conclusions of the AGW proponents, it is their methods.  If they used identical methods and concluded that everything is hunky-dory I would still take them to task.
 
As for "acting as a precautionary principle", how do you know that by taking the prescribed actions of the IPCC you aren't doing MORE HARM???  You're basically saying "we don't know for sure, but let's do something just in case".  Can you imagine your doctor telling you "I'm not certain you're suffering from Cancer, but I'm going to prescribe chemotherapy just in case I'm right"???
 
Legitimate Science has no place for "guessing" or "hedging" or using a Ouija Board.  Either we study the issue, work it using Scientific Method or we use our time doing something else.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 9, 2017 - 7:00am
Leroy, I present my answers to your 5 summaries about CAGW theory:

CAGW theory has some holes in it
Natural influences could be the explanation of most of the warming
The changes may not be catastrophic
The consensus is more likely to be correct
As a precaution, we should assume that CAGW is correct and try to remedy the situation just in case. It does not hurt.


CAGW theory has some holes in it

I agree that CAGW theory has some holes in it because its prognostics about the future of climate change do not incorporate elements of certainty. The CAGW hypothesis that: a) the Earth's climate is heating needs to prove that it will continue to heat up in the future with evidence of certainty; B) global warming is substantially the result of human CO2 emissions needs to be proven with evidence of certainty; C) the magnitude of global warming will be sufficient to have significant effects across the planet need to be proven with evidence of certainty; and d) the net effects of global warming will be harmful must be proven with evidence of certainty; E) the damage caused by global warming will be large enough to cover the net costs of politically forced mitigation needs to be proven with evidence of certainty. In other words, CAGW theory would need to demonstrate with absolute certainty that its evaluations and prognoses are true. Despite numerous evidence of global warming its future effects would need to be proven with a high degree of certainty. CAGW theory still incorporates elements of uncertainty.
 
In the same way as CAGW theory, the opposite hypothesis considers that: a) global warming is substantially due to natural causes for which humans are not substantially responsible that they would need to demonstrate with absolute certainty; (B) the magnitude of any global warming caused by humans will not be large enough to have significant effects on its own (regardless of the effects of any unmanaged warming) which it would need to demonstrate with absolute certainty; And (c) the net effects of global warming will not be detrimental or if they are then not sufficient to be worth the cost of mitigation that it would need to demonstrate with absolute certainty. Like CAGW theory, the hypothesis opposite to it does not yet incorporate elements of certainty.
 
There have been no published studies that quantitatively analyze that the CAGW hypothesis is true and that the hypothesis opposite to it is true.

Natural influences could be the explanation of most of the warming

No one has hitherto unmistakably proven that natural influences can be the explanation for most of global warming. Further studies and research need to be carried out to verify the validity of this thesis.

The changes may not be catastrophic

No one has yet proven that climate change cannot be catastrophic. Further studies and research need to be carried out to verify the validity of this thesis.

The consensus is more likely to be correct

We need to demonstrate that CAGW theory is true or false to build consensus in the scientific community on the future of climate change.

As a precaution, we should assume that CAGW is correct and try to remedy the situation just in case. It does not hurt.

This is the posture I adopt. As a precaution, we must admit that CAGW theory is correct until it is proved to be invalid and establishes new theory that brings together the consensus of the scientific community on the issue of climate change.
 
For the rest of your commentary do you consider that instead of redistributing wealth to poor countries, you ask if it would not make sense for rich countries to use this money to reduce their CO2 emissions? You think that, in this way, rich countries act by denying poor countries the opportunity to become like rich countries. I agree with you that there is a contradiction between rich and poor countries in the fight against climate change in which the former seek to restrict the adoption by the poor countries of the same model of development based on the consumption of fossil fuels. This contradiction can be solved with all the countries of the world using renewable energy sources and the rich countries helping the poor countries in the change of their energetic matrices.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 9, 2017 - 7:29am
Mike Haluska, I agree with you that we have to use the scientific method in the search for truth about the issue of climate change because neither the advocates of CAGW theory nor its opponents have demonstrated with indisputable certainty that their theses are true.
 
CAGW theory has some problems because of its prognostics about the future of climate change do not incorporate elements of certainty. The CAGW hypothesis that: a) the Earth's climate is heating needs to prove that it will continue to heat up in the future with evidence of certainty; B) global warming is substantially the result of human CO2 emissions needs to be proven with evidence of certainty; C) the magnitude of global warming will be sufficient to have significant effects across the planet need to be proven with evidence of certainty; And (d) the net effects of global warming will be harmful with evidence of certainty; E) the damage caused by global warming will be large enough to cover the net costs of politically forced mitigation needs to be proven with evidence of certainty. In other words, CAGW theory would need to demonstrate with absolute certainty that its evaluations and prognoses are true. Despite the evidence of global warming its future effects would need to be with a high degree of certainty. CAGW theory still incorporates elements of uncertainty.
 
In the same way as CAGW theory, the opposite hypothesis considers that: a) global warming is substantially due to natural causes for which humans are not substantially responsible that they would need to demonstrate with absolute certainty; (B) the magnitude of any global warming caused by humans will not be large enough to have significant effects on it (regardless of the effects of any unmanaged warming) which it would need to demonstrate with absolute certainty; And (c) the net effects of global warming will not be detrimental or if they are not sufficient to be worth the cost of mitigation that it would need to demonstrate with absolute certainty. Like CAGW theory, the hypothesis does not yet incorporate elements of certainty.
 
There have been no published studies that quantitatively analyze that the CAGW hypothesis is true and that the hypothesis opposite to it is true.
 
I disagree with your statement that "acting as a precautionary principle" that prescribes IPCC action would do more harm than doing nothing. Your example of prescribing chemotherapy for someone who is not sure they have cancer cannot serve as an analogy to the issue of climate change because in the first case you have clinical methods that allow you to affirm with certainty whether or not the person has cancer differently from the climate change because of its greater complexity there is no certainty about the validity of both CAGW and its opposite.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 9, 2017 - 9:55am
Fernando - your claim:
 
"There have been no published studies that quantitatively analyze that the CAGW hypothesis is true and that the hypothesis opposite to it is true."
 
is simply FLAT OUT WRONG.  There has yet to be any causal link established between human produced CO2 and the Earth's temperature.  The IPCC admits this several times - yet AGW proponents simply accept the falsehood  "correlation is just as good as causality". 
 
In addition, the rejection of Scientific Method and the reliance on "Consensus Science" should alarm any legitimate scientist.  I can promise you that in the field of physics:
 
- NOBODY has published a theory and gained acceptance based on a vote
- NOBODY ever declared "the debate is over" on ANY subject
- NOBODY ever declared "the science is settled" on ANY subject
- NOBODY who disagreed with a theory was ostracized as a "DENIER"
- NOBODY who was so repeatedly wrong with forecast vs reality continued to insist their theory is correct
 
In the world of Legitimate Science, all it takes is ONE PERSON to disprove a theory.  This entire subject should have been dismissed many times over based on the +/- 400% margin of error between predicted and actual outcome.  The Theory of Relativity was validated by Sir Arthur Eddington's Solar Eclipse experiment and greater than 0.5% error would have DISPROVED EINSTEIN!!!  But the "Consensus Science" gang wants us to dismiss +/- 400% margin of error???
 
If you would like to communicate directly with me, please use my email address:  mghaluska12@gmail.com
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 9, 2017 - 10:05am
Fernando -
 
Just to give you an idea of the kind of precision demanded by Scientific Method, here is what Einstein was faced with in 1919 (no computers):
 
Relativity stated that the Sun would bend a light beam from a star light years away by a minuscule 1.75 arcseconds — the angle made by a right triangle 1 inch high and 1.9 miles long.
 
Can you imagine Einstein going to Cambridge if the experiment produced a +/- 400% margin of error and requesting that the error be ignored on his theory be "VOTED ON"????
 
Be honest - review all of the hysterical "Imminent Doomsday" forecasts made by the "Consensus Science" gang over the past 40 years.  Imagine going in front of a group of physicists at an International Conference to make a case for them.  You would be ridiculed and your reputation ruined!
Leroy Added Jun 9, 2017 - 11:16am
"This is the posture I adopt. As a precaution, we must admit that CAGW theory is correct until it is proved to be invalid and establishes new theory that brings together the consensus of the scientific community on the issue of climate change."
First, Fernando, I would like to thank you for your frank discussion.  I can appreciate the value of the consensus.  When 97% of the scientists validate a theory, one has to think long and hard before speaking up against it.  In this case, the study indicating a 97% consensus has been thoroughly debunked.  Nevertheless, I concede that the majority believe it.  I also think there is peer pressure to accept the theory that can explain some of the acceptance.  If you were a scientist in North Korea, your career would be limited if you opposed the party line.  It is not much different with the CAGW  scientists.  I know what it is like to be out on a limb.  Not long out of college, a manager called our company desperate for help.  They could no longer communicate with the mainframe located far, far away.  From the description of the problem, the consensus was that the problem was with the multiplexor/modem.  It was the assumption the manager already made.  She just needed confirmation.  I made the same assumption.  I went to the company to confirm it.  I confirmed that the multiplexor/modem was ok.  I checked a sample of the 26 terminals.  Some were known to partially communicate.  After my analysis, I concluded all 26 terminals were bad. As politely as she could tell me, she told me I didn't know what I was talking about.  I didn't feel confident myself, even though I triple checked everything.  I knew the probably was extremely low.  The common thread was the multiplexor/modem.  I just knew what my analysis told me.  I swallowed hard and stuck to my analysis.  No doubt the company had tried to find someone to confirm their conclusion.  They probably replaced the multiplexor/modem.  A more experienced engineer was sent over a few days later and confirmed my analysis.  The 26 terminals were replaced.  All was well.  Consensus was wrong.
 
 
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 9, 2017 - 11:53am
"...the consensus of the scientific community on the issue of climate change."
Consensus = BS = irrefutable facts = NOT science!!
Consensus was simple observation that the sun orbits the earth – but consensus was wrong.
Consensus was simple observation that Vulcan orbited between Mercury and the sun – but consensus was wrong.
Consensus It was simple observation that life occurred from spontaneous generation – but consensus was wrong.
Consensus was simple observation that the earth was expanding – but consensus was wrong.
Consensus was simple observation that combustible objects contained phlogiston – but consensus was wrong.
Consensus was simple observation that water filled canals existed on Mars – but consensus was wrong.
Consensus was simple observation that light propagated through luminiferous aether – but consensus was wrong. (Thanks Al E.)
Consensus was simple observation that people were blank slates, tabula rasa, at birth – but that consensus was wrong.
Consensus was simple observation that people could be analyzed from their bumpy heads, phrenology – but consensus was wrong.
Consensus was simple observation that the universe was static – but consensus was wrong.
It’s a simple observation that Fleischmann and Pons’s cold fusion apparatus puts out more energy than it takes in – but it’s wrong.
It’s a simple observation to point an IR instrument at the sky and measure hundreds of W/m^2 of downwelling radiation – but it’s wrong and clearly violates thermodynamics.
If this incorrect application and interpretation of IR instrumentation is all that “proves” “downwelling” radiation, then that is bupkis.
Guess where GHG/RGHE “consensus” theory is headed?
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-wrong.php
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 9, 2017 - 3:08pm
Nicholas - great post!  I think we are finally getting through to a lot of well meaning non-technical people who have been railroaded into believing that the "Climate Change" gang are legitimate.  They take advantage of the natural apprehension of most people to avoid appearing as "not going along" with the mainstream. 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 9, 2017 - 4:58pm
Mike Haluska, my statement "There have been no published studies that quantitatively analyze that the CAGW hypothesis is true and that the opposite hypothesis is true" is based on the fact that who denies CAGW theory does not concretely prove that it is false and anyone who defends the opposite hypothesis does not concretely prove that it is true. Of course, the IPCC considers the causal link between the human CO2 produced and the Earth's temperature, but does not concretely demonstrate that it is true. This is one of the reasons why there are those who denies the CAGW theory and others denies the opposite hypothesis.
 
Regarding the scientific method, it is important to note that there is no unanimity as to its application to the search for truth. Paul Feyerabend, who was born in Vienna in 1924 and lived in the United States and Europe, says that there is no universal a - historical scientific method openly criticizing the Scientific method. Feyerabend openly defends the counter-rule, that is, if the rule is induction, one must use counterinduction, which focuses on the acceptance of alternative hypotheses. According to Feyerabend's view, all theories are fallible by nature. He proposes the following counter-rules: (a) to introduce hypotheses that conflict with observations; (b) introduce hypotheses that do not fit the established theories. Theories must always be seen as approximations, and never as definitions. You cannot reach the truth, but only approach it.
 
About scientific method, Bertrand Russell presented doubt on whether the paradigms that prevailed in the past should be considered in the future. He was concerned with whether the repetition of a phenomenon in a given number of experiments in the past is a guarantee of its subsequent occurrence in the future. Russell asks: Does the finding of a certain number of occurrences of a law being satisfied in the past provide evidence that the same law will continue to be satisfied in the future? This means that we must be open to the possibility of introducing new paradigms (RUSSELL, Bertrand, Les problems de philosophie, Paris: Payot, 1989).
 
Pierre Duhem, French physicist and historian of science, states that science, far from being able to prove its assertions by means of a logical derivation of self-evident principles, has as its method to derive empirical predictions from its theories and to compare them with what it is observed. By this method, however, no theory can be definitively established, since it is always possible that more than one theory fits satisfactorily with empirical data. (DUHEM, Pierre, Sauver les apparences, Paris: Vrin, 2003).
 
Henri Poincaré and Albert Einstein had in common the conviction that scientific ideas in the elaboration of physical and mathematical theories are free of constructions of thought. In this sense, they understood that they are not induced in a logical and univocal, necessary and compulsory way, from the data of experience and, furthermore, that they are not inscribed in an innate or a priori structure of thought. It is in this space of freedom that the idea of ​​creation enters into the scientific work that leads to the discovery (PATY, Michel, The Scientific Creation according to Poincaré and Einstein, available on the website <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script = Sci_arttext & pid = S0103-40142001000100013> São Paulo, 2001). According to Henri Poincaré, science can teach us nothing about truth, it can serve us only as a rule of action.

My thinking rests on the characters of science quoted above. Do not try to distort my thinking on the issue of climate change. I start from the premise that all scientific truth is provisional until the emergence of a new, more robust truth than the previous one. When I stand for consensus on the validity of a theory, it means accepting it if it goes through all the proofs at a particular historical moment. I do not understand your vehemence in stating that my thinking is based on the following phrases you created:

- NOBODY has published a theory and gained acceptance based on a vote
- NOBODY ever declared "the debate is over" on ANY subject
- NOBODY ever declared "the science is settled" on ANY subject
- NOBODY who disagreed with a theory was ostracized as a "DENIER"
- NOBODY who was so repeatedly wrong with forecasting vs reality continued to insist their theory is correct
 
At no time did I say that a theory would gain acceptance on the basis of a vote, that the debate on a theory "is over," that "science is settled on any subject" and that nobody who was so repeatedly wrong with prediction versus reality continue to insist that his theory is correct. What I have said is that between CAGW theory that predicts catastrophic climate change and the opposite hypothesis that admits otherwise and does not prove to be tr
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 9, 2017 - 5:01pm
Mike Halusha- Continuation of my comment
 
At no time did I say that a theory would gain acceptance on the basis of a vote, that the debate on a theory "is over," that "science is settled on any subject" and that nobody who was so repeatedly wrong with prediction versus reality continue to insist that his theory is correct. What I have said is that between CAGW theory that predicts catastrophic climate change and the opposite hypothesis that admits otherwise and does not prove to be true in concrete terms, between taking precautionary measures to avoid catastrophic climate change and doing nothing based on theory I opted for CAGW theory.
 
I would only change my position on CAGW theory if I were convinced that the opposite hypothesis was true. I have attended the Rio 92, Kyoto, Paris and Marrakesh Conference as a non-governmental environmental organization, as well as in international energy events in Europe and I have not felt my reputation ruined. With this comment, I conclude our debate, while thanking you for having led me to advance in my perception of such a relevant issue.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 9, 2017 - 5:37pm
Leroy, you demonstrate rationality in understanding my position in defense of the consensus of the majority of the scientific community when you say that you can appreciate consensus when 97% of scientists validate a theory and that you have to think long before you speak against it. Your example of North Korea which is a dictatorship is pertinent because consensus is established with the use of force by the government against people and scientists who do not think the same. Your comparison of North Korea with CAGW  is not very happy because I did not perceive any coercion by international bodies dealing with this issue against people and scientists who differ from their thinking. Your example of work pointing the error of consensus in solving a problem is not a good example to demonstrate that consensus is not a good thing. It should be noted that in order to operate a company there must be consensus in its modus-operandi without which it becomes chaotic. Consensus is a good thing and not bad as you seek to demonstrate. It is the consensus that makes teams work in a coordinated way.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 9, 2017 - 6:02pm
Nicholas Schroeder, your comment is quite clear in your opposition to consensus in science. I agree with all the examples you presented showing that many consensuses have succumbed to the advent of new theories that have become new consensuses. Physics is exemplary in this sense when the Newtonian consensus was replaced by the relativist consensus and both by Quantum Physics consensus. Life is full of consensus building in the science. If you read Thomas Kuhn's, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (KUHN, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2 ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) you will see that the evolution of science begins with the phase that Is the prehistory of a science, that period in which there is a wide divergence among researchers, or groups of researchers, about which phenomena should be studied, about the rules, methods and values ​​that should guide the search, description, classification and explanation of new phenomena, or the development of theories, about which techniques and instruments can be used, and which ones should be used, etc. While such a state of affairs prevails, discipline has not yet reached the status of science.
The discipline becomes a science when it acquires a paradigm, ending the pre-paradigmatic phase and initiating a phase of normal science. Kuhn realized that the transition to maturity for the scientific phase of a discipline involves the recognition by the scientific community of an exemplary scientific achievement. The paradigm thus provides the foundations on which the scientific community develops its activities. The paradigm represents a "map" to be used by scientists in the exploration of Nature. Research firmly grounded in the theories, methods, and examples of a paradigm is called by Kuhn of normal science.
An important point highlighted by Kuhn is that while the paradigm is proving fruitful, and no serious embarrassment arises in the empirical adjustment of theory, the scientist must persist tenaciously in his commitment to the paradigm. Paradigm is consensus. When the anomalies multiply, the time has come to consider replacing the paradigm itself. In these crisis situations, more daring and creative members of the scientific community propose alternative paradigms. When a new paradigm comes to replace the old paradigm, Kuhn calls the scientific revolution.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 11, 2017 - 5:13pm
Fernando - 
 
Your previous 4 posts have cemented the fact that you are not a scientist, have been hoodwinked by frauds who profess to be "scientists" and you listen to these frauds when they say "pay no attention to the man behind that curtain" when they are exposed.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 11, 2017 - 11:05pm
Mike Haluska, I do not consider your opinion important if I am or I´m not a scientist because I do not regard you as the owner of the truth. Despite the demonstration that I have presented from my conceptions with numerous examples of the scientific method and the philosophy of science in numerous comments, themes that have been the subject of my work for more than 50 years, it can be said that you are not capable enough to evaluate who is or is not a scientist. The same qualification that you have done about me, I answer in the same way considering that you have been deceived by frauds about climate change.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 12, 2017 - 8:41am
Fernando -
 
All you have demonstrated is a LACK of understanding of Scientific Method and an open admission that you follow the lead of whatever some guy says.  You have every right to hold your position, but don't call it based in any rational science.  And I will put my engineering and scientific credentials up against yours anytime.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 13, 2017 - 9:25pm
Mike Haluska, I note that you are outdated on the debate that is taking place around the world about the question of scientific method. I quoted in one of my comments the work of Paul Feyerabend who wrote a famous book under the title Against Method, as well as the opinion of Poincaré and Einstein on how truth is built in science. While you criticize me for accepting the opinion of a renowned scientist, you put yourself as if you were a person who does not accept anyone's opinion what is false. Whether you like it or not, you are subject to concepts and opinions that over time you will find to be false or true. Do not try to pose as a person exempt from the influence of the environment.
Leroy Added Jun 14, 2017 - 4:49pm
Fernando, I have been criticized for being on the side of Einstein when it comes to quantum mechanics.  I figure that at least I am in good company.  However, more than half of peer-reviewed studies are in error today.  I think we can at least attribute some of this to the failure to follow the scientific method.  Quoting any study today, you have a better than even odds of being wrong.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 14, 2017 - 5:10pm
Leroy, I agree that in research we must adopt the scientific method as a starting point because there are several examples that demonstrate the researchers to take new ways that they discover with the evolution of the research. In his work Against Method, Paul Feyerabend, who was born in Vienna in 1924 and lived in the United States and Europe, states that there is no universal a - historical scientific method openly criticizing the scientific method. According to his epistemology, science is an anarchic enterprise. He rejects the existence of universal rules and defends the violation of these methodological rules. He affirms that the advance of science is given by violating the imposed methodological rules. The epistemological anarchism that he advocates should be understood as a defense to an epistemological pluralism, that is, against a unique method of making science.
Pamalien TW Added Jun 16, 2017 - 11:12am
I dont think I knew this at the time but, The Paris Accord is voluntary and, even when signed, there are no penalties for not adhering. It's a good will gesture, setting a good example and providing Motivation to make the world better, which Trump and cohorts don't seem to grasp.
 
Despite not signing, Most of America and its corporations have been moving toward and profiting from sustainable development and will continue regardless. All it took was a profit and tax incentive to move on from Oil.
 
India and China have more than quadruple our population moving up from poverty. For Trump and his ers to say it isnt fair to our long developed nation is juvenile  and shows both  lack of care and foresight. We can profit from trading green products.
 
That's how it works. AL Gore and other people who profit from the green movement were simply ahead of the game. Stop being salty over your own acceptance of short sighted, OLD oil industry propaganda. Smart oil companies know where we are headed and have been investing in green energy as well. There were Tax incentives... TRUMP will probably end those and cheapen the change. 
 
Alaska... 
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/world/canada/ice-roads-ease-isolation-in-canadas-north-but-theyre-melting-too-soon.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 16, 2017 - 11:17am
Collected over 2,000!! views on my WriterBeat papers which were also sent to the ME departments of several prestigious universities (As a BSME & PE felt some affinity.) and a long list of pro/con CAGW personalities and organizations.
NOBODY has responded explaining why my methods, calculations and conclusions in these papers are incorrect. BTW that is called SCIENCE!!
SOMEBODY needs to step up and ‘splain my errors ‘cause if I’m correct (Q=UAdT runs the atmospheric heat engine) – that’s a BIGLY problem for RGHE.
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse---We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C

http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
 
 
Jeff Michka Added Jun 18, 2017 - 12:36pm
Save the coal miners!!!
Pamalien TW Added Jun 21, 2017 - 11:59am
Coal miners are not getting their jobs back.  Trump's "created" about 150 jobs between coal and pipeline... ::slow clap::
Mike Haluska Added Jun 23, 2017 - 4:11pm
Fernando - your assertion:
 
"Mike Haluska, I note that you are outdated on the debate that is taking place around the world about the question of scientific method."
 
deserves a reply.  The only people "questioning" the validity of Scientific Method are a bunch of pseudo-scientists whose "theories" couldn't pass the legitimate standard of Scientific Method.  Most of these frauds are accustomed to working in fields like sociology where it is impossible to apply Scientific Method.
 
NOBODY in the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering, math, etc.) is "questioning" the validity of Scientific Method.  NO hard science theory has ever gained acceptance by "Consensus".
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 24, 2017 - 12:03pm
Mike Haluska, before criticizing the pseudo scientists who question the scientific method, I suggest you to read the work of Paul Feyerabend (Against Method). I disagree that the scientific method cannot be applied in the social sciences because it has been widely applied in this area. The methodological differences between the social sciences and the natural or hard sciences, as you say, derive from the diversity of objects or problems to be studied; However, the methods with which each study and its fields are fundamentally the same. In general, the method of science is the hypothetical-deductive, which consists in offering a deductive causal explanation and in experiencing it by the most different means.
 
The hypothetical-deductive method corresponds to an intermediate position between rationalist deductivism and empiricist inductivism. The rationalists, who have Descartes as their main representative, understand that science is the fruit of the ability to know human reason. Thus, the correct use of reason would necessarily lead to truth. The empiricists, of whom David Hume would be an example, interpret science as a set of universal propositions whose source is the particular experience. Thus, they assert that, mainly, by the inductive inference is that the building of the scientific knowledge is constructed.

In the hypothetical-deductive method, we will conceive science as a body of tentative conjectures, that is, science is a set of theories and hypotheses with which we intend to assign a meaning to the natural world. The conjectural nature of science derives from the fact that it is expressed through statements that can be tested by empirical evidence without ever acquiring the character of absolute or ultimate truth. Scientific statements are identifiable by their tentative character. They contain answers that are possible to be offered for certain problems at a certain point in time.

The hypothetical-deductive method, or method of constructing hypotheses, is so called because it does not obtain absolute certainty for any of the scientific propositions that it experiences; On the contrary, these propositions always retain the character of hypotheses of a tentative character, although this character may cease to be obvious. That is, even after overcoming a great number of experiments, severe tests and tests, scientific theories continue to be mere hypotheses, or simple hypothetical answers to certain problems.

Science, whether natural or social, consists of explanations whose nature is hypothetical or presumptive. The scientific procedure consists in the construction of a set of propositions about the problem, by which, from certain sentences describing universal laws, together with the particular propositions that identify certain initial conditions, we deduce a prognosis, a prediction - the hypothesis. The scientific method also consists in subjecting theory to proof, taking its prognosis and confronting it with experimental observations. If the result of the observation is agreed upon with the theoretical prediction, the hypothesis is taken as corroborated, or confirmed; The disagreement will imply in the refutation or falsification of the theory. In this process, there will never be a final proof that modifies the hypothetical character of the scientific statements.
 
I will now present to you the thought of three giants of science (Henri Poincaré, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and Pierre Duhem) about the scientific method and the quest for truth in science. Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), French mathematician, physicist and philosopher of science and Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German theoretical physicist, had in common the conviction that the elaboration of physical and mathematical theories is free constructions of thought. In this sense, they understand that they are not induced in a logical and univocal, necessary and compulsory way, from the data of experience and, furthermore, that they are not inscribed in an innate or a priori structure of thought. It is in this space of freedom that the idea of ​​creation enters into the scientific work that leads to the discovery (PATY, Michel. The scientific creation according to Poincaré and Einstein, available on the website http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-40142001000100013). According to Henri Poincaré, science can teach us nothing about truth, it serves us only as a rule of action.
 
In turn, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) doubted on whether the paradigms that prevailed in the past should be considered in the future. He was concerned with whether the repetition of a phenomenon in the given number of experiments in the past is a guarantee of its subsequent occurrence in the future. Does the fact of a certain number of occur
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 24, 2017 - 12:08pm
Continued response to Mike Haluska
 
In turn, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) doubted on whether the paradigms that prevailed in the past should be considered in the future. He was concerned with whether the repetition of a phenomenon in the given number of experiments in the past is a guarantee of its subsequent occurrence in the future. Does the fact of a certain number of occurrences of a law being satisfied in the past provide evidence that the same law will continue to be satisfied in the future? This means that we must be open to the possibility of introducing new paradigms (RUSSELL, Bertrand, Les problems de philosophie, Paris: Payot, 1989). Pierre Duhem (1861-1916), French physicist and historian of science, states that science, far from being able to prove its assertions by means of a logical derivation of self-evident principles, has its method to derive empirical predictions from its theories and to compare it, with what is observed. By this method, however, no theory can be definitively established, since it is always possible that more than one theory fits satisfactorily with empirical data. (DUHEM, Pierre, Sauver les apparences, Paris: Vrin, 2003).
 
It is a mistaken view on your part to assert that no hard science theory has ever gained acceptance by "Consensus". All theories only constitute truth in the scientific community after having undergone several empirical tests. This is how consensus is established.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 26, 2017 - 9:23am
Fernando - you are confusing science (which you know little about) and philosophy (which you are always trying to substitute).  Your ridiculous statement that
 
"All theories only constitute truth in the scientific community after having undergone several empirical tests. This is how consensus is established." 
 
just confirms what I am talking about.  The work of Science has nothing to do with "Consensus" - period!  Read how Eddington designed his experiment to test Einstein's Theory of Relativity - that's how legitimate science is conducted - not by "empirical tests".  The very definition of "empirical" (depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory) demonstrates your utter lack of credibility as a scientist or as someone who understands Scientific Method.   
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 26, 2017 - 10:58am
Mike Haluska, first of all, I have to say that I don´t see in you authority to judge whether or not I know about science. Secondly, I also realize that you are incapable of debating at high level by answering the points I made in my comment. About the example you presented from Eddington who designed his experiment to test Einstein's Theory of Relativity confirms what I have stated that it is only after several empirical tests that scientific truth is found and consensus is established. You, like all those unable to hold high-level debate, prefer personal attack. You, yes, show total lack of credibility as a scientist or as someone who understands the Scientific Method.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 26, 2017 - 10:59am
Mike Haluska, first of all, I have to say that I do not see in you authority to judge whether or not I know about science. Secondly, I also realize that you are incapable of debating at high level by answering the points I made in my comment. About the example you presented from Eddington who designed his experiment to test Einstein's Theory of Relativity confirms what I have stated that it is only after several empirical tests that scientific truth is found and consensus is established. You, like all those unable to hold high-level debate, prefer personal attack. You, yes, show total lack of credibility as a scientist or as someone who understands the Scientific Method.
Leroy Added Jun 26, 2017 - 11:42am
I have to disagree with you, Mike.  Eddington's experiment was an empirical test of Einstein's theory.  It had to be tested by others before accepted.  It wasn't decided by consensus that Einstein was correct; it was proved by the experiment.  The experiment was evaluated by other scientists.  There were likely many scientists who still held the Newtonian view, but the consensus concluded Einstein was correct.
 
There used to be a consensus that man emerged from Europe.  Then, new evidence convinced scientists that man emerged from Africa.  And, now, there is convincing evidence that man may have indeed emerged from Europe.  No one scientists can change the prevailing theory.  It comes down to how the consensus evaluates the available evidence.
 
Climate change is another example. The consensus accepts the theory.  However, there are considerable reasons to doubt it.  Namely, the models patterned after the theory do not match reality.  Some claim that the theory just has to be refined.  Others believe it should be thrown out.  Time will tell.  If the models never reflect reality, as I believe will be the case, then the theory must be abandoned. 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 26, 2017 - 12:13pm
Leroy, I completely agree with your lucid comment whether in regard to Eddington's experiment, whether on the issue of man's origin or on climate change. Congratulations.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 26, 2017 - 1:54pm
Leroy/Fernando - making or agreeing with statements like:
 
"Eddington's experiment was an empirical test of Einstein's theory.  It had to be tested by others before accepted."
 
results in just digging yourself a deeper hole.  Go back and read the definition of "empirical" paying close attention to "unrelated to Scientific Method". 
 
Eddington's experiment was the exact opposite of empirical!  The experiment was designed to have two possible outcomes - the deflected starlight either agreed with theoretical prediction within acceptable range of error OR it didn't.  Total Solar Eclipses occur once a century or so for a few minutes (usually over the ocean) so how the hell can thousands of scientists conduct the experiment simultaneously?  Eddington presented his findings to the world's top astronomers and physicists at Cambridge - nobody else "tested it before it was accepted"!!!
 
Empirical data is collected from thousands of tests to determine the possibility of correlation or other relationship.  The medical and pharmaceutical fields use this method because when it's related to illness or disease, all you care about is the efficacy, not the scientific explanation. 
 
For example, some doctor in Europe thinks that drinking Earl Gray Tea cures pancreatic cancer.  They set up double-blind tests with thousands of subjects to determine if a certain percentage of patients that were administered the real agent (not the placebo) got better/cured.  Double blind insures that neither the doctor nor the patient knows if he is getting the real agent or a placebo.  Later research can determine the actual reason why Earl Gray Tea (or whatever) cures pancreatic cancer.  But for the patients actually suffering from pancreatic cancer, they really don't care HOW it works - they just care that is DOES work.    
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 26, 2017 - 4:17pm
Mike Haluska e Leroy, when Albert Einstein began publishing articles with his revolutionary ideas in 1905, he had no experimental evidence of the theory of relativity. It took years for the theory of relativity to gain popularity. First, the international scientific community had to pay attention to his ideas; This delay was exacerbated by Einstein being German, and World War I caused widespread distrust of everything that came from Germany. But it also took time before the first observations to prove Einstein's theories emerged.

Astrophysicist Eddington was the first to introduce the Einstein's general theory of relativity. In 1919, the scientist organized two expeditions to Brazil and the island of Prince to observe the solar eclipse. The observations made on 29 May 1919 in Prince Edward Island by the English astronomer Eddington during the five minutes and two seconds of the total solar eclipse were the first direct evidence of Einstein's theory of relativity.

But the definitive proof of Einstein's theory of relativity occurred with spacecraft and radio telescopes when modern science demonstrated that Einstein was absolutely right. The most accurate proof that the Theory of Relativity correctly describes the Universe has not been performed on Earth and its main character has nothing human. Instead of people, the experiment was attended by the American ship Viking, which in 1976 traveled 60 million kilometers to the planet Mars in the first attempt to find signs of extraterrestrial life. The spacecraft eventually ushered in a new era of space-time curvature measurements, employing the sophisticated means of space technology.

Eddignton's experiment on Earth and spacecraft contributed to the acceptance of the theory of relativity by the scientific community because the experiments proved its validity.
 
Leroy Added Jun 26, 2017 - 5:11pm
Mike, I sorry.  You are just wrong on this.  Here's a definition of empirical not dissimilar to your own:
 
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
 
This is exactly what Eddington did. He observed.  He measured.  He didn't theorize.  He didn't logically deduce.  He observed.  He measured.  He presented his findings.  The world of science accepted his finding as confirmation of Einstein's theory.
Leroy Added Jun 26, 2017 - 5:16pm
You can be 100% right, Mike, and it doesn't mean a thing unless you can persuade the body of science that you are right.
 
There are some on WB who claimed to have invented a perpetual motion machine.  You and I both know this is impossible.  It is up to the inventor to convince the world of science that it is wrong.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 26, 2017 - 5:38pm
The whole basis of his experiment was NOT to observe and just "see what happens"!  Einstein's Theory stated that the light from the star would be deflected by a calculable amount based on the mass of the Sun from its true position.  This experiment was ENTIRELY about logic and theory - it was a single experiment with one result and it would either confirm or disprove Einstein's Theory! 
 
Eddington didn't take thousands of readings and measurements - he looked at the position of a SINGLE STAR at a particular moment in time.  According to Einstein's Theory, the apparent position of the star would shift by a mathematically calculated amount from its actual position.
 
You are mistaking Galileo, Copernicus, Keppler and Tycho Brahe and their years of gathering EMPERICAL EVIDENCE used to determine the true nature of the solar system, the orbits of the planets, distance from the Sun, etc.  They took hundreds of thousands of measurements to empirically generate the equations of the orbital mechanics of celestial bodies.  When they plotted their measurements on paper they found that putting the Earth at the center of the planets wouldn't work - and Copernicus discovered that it worked very well if the Sun was at the center.  Later Newton came up with is his Laws of Motion that govern ALL celestial bodies - not just those in our own Solar System. 
 
Now I hope you understand the difference and why you are wrong about the difference between the application of empirical data to formulate a theory (Helio-centric vs Earth-centric) vs CHECKING an existing theory (Newton's Absolute Space and Time vs Einstein's Relativity).   
 
 
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 26, 2017 - 5:45pm
Leroy, I was preparing an answer to the question posed by Mike Haluska about the definition of empirical and the issue of consensus by the scientific community. After reading your comment, I preferred to agree with your magnificent analysis of the definition of empirical that you masterfully explains about what was done by Eddington in proving the theory of relativity. I also agree entirely with your comment when you say, "You may be 100% right, Mike, and that does not mean anything unless you can persuade the body of science that you're right." Consensus is obtained when the scientist persuades the scientific community that he is right. Once again, congratulations on bringing more light to this debate.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Jun 26, 2017 - 5:52pm
Update, news flash!!!! 
 
Have now collected over 2,300!! views on my WriterBeat papers which were also sent to the ME departments of several prestigious universities (As a BSME & PE felt some affinity.) and a long list of pro/con CAGW personalities and organizations.
 
NOBODY has responded explaining why my methods, calculations and conclusions in these papers are incorrect. BTW that is called SCIENCE!!
 
SOMEBODY needs to step up and 'splain my errors cause if I'm correct (Q=UAdT runs the atmospheric heat engine) that's a BIGLY problem for RGHE. 
 
Step right up!
 
But bring science, I did.
 
http://writerbeat.com/articles/14306-Greenhouse---We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead- 
 
http://writerbeat.com/articles/15582-To-be-33C-or-not-to-be-33C 
 
http://writerbeat.com/articles/16255-Atmospheric-Layers-and-Thermodynamic-Ping-Pong
 
(You would think a simple text box could accept a word Doc and not screw up the formatting. What's with an apostrophe?))
 
 
 
Leroy Added Jun 26, 2017 - 5:56pm
Mike, perhaps this website will elucidate you.  It is one of many, if you don't like the source.
 
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.
 
The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play. Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.
 
Before any pieces of empirical data are collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.
 
"Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or experimentation," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, in Marlboro, Vermont. There are two research methods used to gather empirical measurements and data: qualitative and quantitative.
 
I hope this helps.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 27, 2017 - 12:54pm
Leroy -
 
There is nothing in your post I didn't already know.  If you reread my posts, they point out that Eddington's experiment was not "empirical" - it was a single observation, the result of which could confirm (not prove) or disprove Einstein's Theory.
 
Scientific Method begins with the accumulation of data in the form of empirical data.  At this point no hypotheses have been formed and none should be.  Once ALL of the empirical data is statistically analyzed (not just the data that supports a pre-determined hypothesis like the "Climate Change Gang") attempts to explain the data analysis called hypotheses are made and tested with experiments (like Eddington).  The beauty of Scientific Method vs. "Consensus Science" is that it strips away all bias and opinion.  A single experimenter can disprove a theory that 1,000,000 million "Consensus Science" proponents supported.
 
"Consensus Science" is not legitimate science - it is politics in pursuit of a justification.  The commentary you hear routinely from "Climate Change" junk scientists like:
          - the debate is over
          - the science is settled
          - skeptics are called "DENIERS"
would NEVER be uttered by legitimate scientists!!!
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 27, 2017 - 2:15pm
Fernando - geez you are one confused "scientist"!
 
Empirical data is gathered in hopes of finding some underlying truth about the data.  Statistical analysis reveals the possibility of relationships among certain types of data. 
 
Experiments are NOT empirical data!  An experiment is a carefully designed procedure to determine if a theory is confirmed or disproved.  A properly designed and executed experiment produces only two possible results - confirmed or disproven.  If a hypothesis is confirmed then the theory is valid under known experimental conditions.  If a hypothesis is disproven it is DISCARDED because for a theory to be valid it must hold true under all conditions and all times.
 
That is why the "Climate Change Gang" recoil from Scientific Method like Dracula from a Crucifix!  They DO NOT want gullible people like you fiddling around looking for holes in their "theory" because all it takes is ONE EXCEPTION to expose their junk science.  They want you to chant along with all of the other "Climate Changers":
               - the science is settled
               - the debate is over    
Leroy Added Jun 27, 2017 - 3:06pm
You're digging the hole deeper, Mike.
 
I don't believe in consensus science either where scientist vote on the theory.  It takes scientist knowledgeable of the subject to evaluate the data to confirm it.  In that sense, a consensus is required for the theory to advance.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 28, 2017 - 10:07am
Mike Haluska, I refuse to continue the debate with you for four reasons: 1) you are a pseudo scientist; 2) you are overwhelmed by irrational blindness; 3) you do not respect your interlocutor; And, 4) you consider yourself the owner of the truth after parading nonsense in your comments. Your irrationality is so extremely high that you can not accept Leroy's excellent comments.
Fernando Alcoforado Added Jun 28, 2017 - 10:10am
Leroy, my applause for your lucid remarks in response to Mike Haluska.
 
Leroy Added Jun 28, 2017 - 10:32am
"There is nothing in your post I didn't already know."
 
Apparently, there is something you didn't know, Mike.  You claim that empirical data play no part in the scientific method.  Yet the source claims it is an integral part of the scientific method.  How do you rationalize this difference?
Mike Haluska Added Jun 28, 2017 - 12:11pm
Leroy - your statement:
 
"You claim that empirical data play no part in the scientific method.  Yet the source claims it is an integral part of the scientific method.  How do you rationalize this difference?"
 
is contradicted by my post of June 27 12:54 where I stated:
 
"Scientific Method begins with the accumulation of data in the form of empirical data.  At this point no hypotheses have been formed and none should be."
 
Now for the final time - you and Fernando keep confusing "empirical data" with "scientific method" and "scientific experiment".  You stated that Eddington's experiment was "empirical data" - IT'S NOT!   
 
Now - as far as the "Climate Change" gang is concerned, there has been no Scientific Method applied to their effort - simply "selective data gathering" which they call "empirical data".  The evidence of this is undisputed and admitted by them.  They have been caught hiding data that contradicted their pre-determined conclusions, faked graphs to give the wrong impression and have deliberately tried to confuse the public by using "correlation is the equivalent of causality" bullshit. 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 28, 2017 - 12:35pm
Leroy - your statement:
 
"It takes scientist knowledgeable of the subject to evaluate the data to confirm it.  In that sense, a consensus is required for the theory to advance."
 
clearly displays your lack of understanding of how legitimate science is done.  No legitimate scientist merely "evaluates the data to confirm it".  Theories are tested by conducting experiments (NOT by data evaluation) that are designed to:
1) repeatable by any other scientist
2) either confirm (can't "prove") or disprove by finding a single instance where the theory doesn't match with reality for any reason
 
For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity was based on absolutely NO EMPIRICAL DATA.  It was developed as a "thought experiment" that showed that the Newtonian Universe (absolute space and time) fell apart when bodies travelled near the speed of light and provided a solution that explained the universe of "Relativity" (the "Space-Time Continuum").  Einstein's theory predicted that gravity "warped" the Space-Time Continuum and the amount of "warpage" could be calculated. 
 
Eddington devised an experiment to confirm/disprove Einstein's theory by calculating the amount a beam of light travelling near the Sun would be "warped" by the Sun's gravity and measuring the actual deflection (if any) at the only time it's possible to take the measurement - during a total solar eclipse.  10,000 scientists "evaluating the data" is meaningless in legitimate science because it only takes ONE experimenter to disprove it!
 
Now . . . if you still think legitimate scientists "evaluate empirical data" and get a "consensus" I challenge you to show me ONE EXAMPLE (Newton's Laws of Motion, Einstein's Relativity, Bohr's Quantum Theory, etc.) that was accepted by the method you describe.
 
I'll save you some time - you won't find any.
        
 
 
Leroy Added Jun 28, 2017 - 12:52pm
Mike, I will quote again from the website above:
 
The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play. Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.
 
It seems you are confused on which part of the scientific method is applied first.
 
But, you are not wholly wrong.  It depends on the type of research.  I further quote from the section entitled, "Types of empirical research":
 
Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human behavior, according to Oklahoma State University. It involves data that can be found using the human senses. This type of research is often done in the beginning of an experiment.
 
Quantitative research is done at the end:
 
Quantitative research involves methods that are used to collect numerical data and analyze it using statistical methods, according to the IT University of Copenhagen. Quantitative numerical data can be any data that uses measurements, including mass, size or volume, according to Midwestern State University, in Wichita Falls, Texas. This type of research is often used at the end of an experiment to refine and test the previous research.
 
We are discussing the later approach.  Eddington confirmed Einstein's theory by collecting and analyzing empirical data.  Not every scientist has to do the experiment.  It is usually done by peer review of the experiment.  Most will analyze the experiments, namely the data, to see if it supports the theory.  Some will duplicate the experiment.
Leroy Added Jun 28, 2017 - 12:54pm
Mike, if you can prove that Eddington confirmed Einstein's theory by experiment without collecting data, then I will bow to your expertise as a scientist.  Otherwise, just keep digging.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 28, 2017 - 2:45pm
Eddington took a single measurement (the distance from actual to apparent) - that's it!!!  It is obvious you don't have a clue what the experiment was about, what was being measured, why it was being measured or why conducting an experiment is done and the difference between conducting an experiment and gathering data.
 
Now, if you call comparing the location of a single star during an eclipse to its location on a non-eclipse "collecting data" . . . I don't know what else to say to you except I advise you to stay out of scientific discussions.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 28, 2017 - 2:54pm
Leroy - your statement:
 
"Not every scientist has to do the experiment.  It is usually done by peer review of the experiment.  Most will analyze the experiments, namely the data, to see if it supports the theory."
 
shows your misunderstanding of Scientific Method.  I never said "every scientist does the experiment"!  The RESULT of the experiment is the entire point of conducting the experiment - the data is raw material.  In Eddington's experiment, the only "data" he needed was a single data point - the location of a single star! 
You also think ass-backwards - the "data" doesn't support the theory, the theory explains the data!!! 
 
So, if you have an ounce of integrity admit you're wrong and acknowledge my expertise.
  
Leroy Added Jun 28, 2017 - 5:07pm
Actually, Mike, Eddington took measurements from five stars, far too few to be statistically significant.  He measured 1.61 arc seconds.  Two other teams took their own measurements.  One measured 1.98 and the other 0.93, closer to the Newtonian prediction of 0.87.  If truth be told, the data was all over the place and should have been rejected.  Eddington cherrypicked the data throwing out the 0.93 measurement.  He got lucky.
 
To your point, it wasn't a single measurement.  It was numerous measurements.  The number of measurements have to be statistically significant.  It can't, generally, be just one measurement.  If the scientific method had prevailed, the experiment would have been a failure, proving that it is better to be lucky than good.
 
It's clear, Mike, that you need to give up on the claim of having any knowledge of the scientific method.  I say that respectfully.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 28, 2017 - 5:24pm
Leroy -
My point remains the same, don't be persnickety.  There wasn't an ocean of data that was already gathered that Eddington sifted through and analyzed. 
By the way, no measurements were made at the site of the solar eclipse, only photographs taken.  There was a storm that miraculously cleared just long enough to snap a few photos - the measurements were made back in the UK from the developed prints.  The "data" was gathered AFTER the experiment, it was non-existent until then.  And considering all the crap Eddington went through just to get to the site, drag his delicate equipment through the jungle and up a mountain, give the guy some slack! 
 
Scientific Method DID prevail - no data was "analyzed" before the experiment because there was none.  So now - acknowledge my scientific expertise!!!
 
Leroy Added Jun 28, 2017 - 5:57pm
LOL...You just don't give up.  I give you an A for effort.