The Real Danger of Confusing Consensus With Science

Most of us enjoy a spirited debate on the various topics discussed on Writer Beat, knowing that human lives don't actually hang in the balance.  However, when the debate centers around a topic with as far reaching implications as Global Warming/Climate Change, I feel obligated to make as compelling a case as possible for real Science uninfluenced by political or other forces.  Perhaps a historical review can provide a proper perspective.

At the beginning of the 20th Century a new "scientific" theory was proposed that quickly drew attention and support from leaders in all walks of life, including Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford (founder of Stanford University), HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw and many others.  It had the institutional support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and the National Research Council.  Extensive research on this topic was done by Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Princeton and Stanford.

The research on this topic went on for over half a century.  Anyone who questioned the topic's scientific validity was shouted down and villified - careers were destroyed.  Not surprisingly, after a short while very few questioned the topic for fear of retribution.  If you wanted your research funded, it had better be in line with "consensus". Yet despite its overwhelming "consensus", you won't find anyone today who subscribes to the theory or admits they ever did.

Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.

The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful --- and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing --- that it is now rarely discussed.  I'm not trying to make the argument that eugenics and global warming/climate change are equivalent.  But the path taken and blind, almost religious acceptance without rigorous application of Scientific Method led to horrible consequences, especially when applied by the Nazis during World War II.


As a global society we are facing immediate life and death problems affecting millions of innocent people around the world.  We know that starvation and disease are staring us in the face today.- to hell with maybe in a hundred years.  With finite resources at our disposal can we look a starving child in the eye and say "sorry, we can't save you because theoretically in a hundred years there may be other people starving?"  I think the only rational action a compassionate person can make is to save who we can in our lifetimes. 



Comments

Mike Haluska Added May 19, 2014 - 2:18pm
Robert - I never said the Earth's climate isn't or hasn't changed.  It's the AGW crowd that thinks they can install a thermostat on the Earth and set it to 72 degrees F.
Mike Haluska Added May 19, 2014 - 2:20pm
"Climate Change is a backpedalling obfuscation by the AGW crowd in a vain attempt to "cover all the bases" since the past 17 years the Earth has actually cooled a little (supposedly).  With "Climate Change" their predictions are always right!
Robin the red breasted songster Added May 20, 2014 - 1:38am
Well if I was on a ship on the ocean and it was taking on water... I would want to start plugging the leaks now rather than debating the point.
 
Those with the most to lose through concerted action to head off damaging climate change, i.e. Big Oil, are funding populist research which is eagerly gobbled up by puppets like Mike who are looking for excuses not to feel guilty about driving their preposterous gas guzzlers.
 
This is all about your selfish attitude Mike.  Why not just admit it?
Mike Haluska Added May 20, 2014 - 10:53am
Robert Slate - I would like to respond to your question:
 
"how can we prove to the populace that the opinion of alarmists, even if there was a consensus, should not end the debate?"
 
First of all, there has NEVER been a "debate", nor should there be.  Debate implies that whoever has the best debater wins - that is NOT science.  The proponents of AGW have never been able to establish the validity using Scientific Method and they know it.  Nothing they have predicted in the last 40 years has even remotely occurred, and there is nothing scientifically valid to anything they predict going forward.  All I ever get is avoidance of discussing their track record and lack of science and name-calling.
Mike Haluska Added May 20, 2014 - 11:00am
Robin - your comment:
 
"Those with the most to lose through concerted action to head off damaging climate change, i.e. Big Oil, are funding populist research which is eagerly gobbled up by puppets like Mike who are looking for excuses not to feel guilty about driving their preposterous gas guzzlers."
 
doesn't engage a single assertion I made about the lack of science on the part of AGW proponents.  It doesn't explain their complete lack of accuracy in their predictions for the past 40 years.  And I am NOT pushing a BIG OIL environmental agenda or theory - all I am stating is the AGW crowd is wrong, has been wrong and based on their methods will continue to be wrong!  And I don't drive a "gas guzzler" I drive a Chevy Blazer 6 cylinder that gets 27 mpg.  But if I drove a 1958 Cadillac that got 7 mpg it would still be NONE of your Frakkin' business you self-aggrandizing moron desperately trying to wrap yourself in moral superiority.
Mike Haluska Added May 20, 2014 - 11:13am
Ken - your comment:
 
"the trouble with the consensus criticism of the theory of agw is that it applies to every other scientific theory out there as well.  it applies to the standard model of particle physics, plate tectonics, evolution, the theory of stellar evolution, the germ theory of disease... etc."
 
is just flat out WRONG.  Consensus was NEVER used to develop theories or test a null hypothesis.  None of the topics you discussed was "validated" by a popularity vote among scientists, nor were people who disagreed with the hypothesis decried as "DENIERS" or threatened with losing status or funding.
 
Let Dr. Michael Crichton explain:
 
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. 
Mike Haluska Added May 20, 2014 - 11:22am
Ken - study Robin's comment a few posts back.  He is an excellent example of how "Consensus" proponents attempt to obfuscate, draw into question the opponent's credibility, claim the opponent has ulterior motives . . . .  everything BUT refute the assertions in a rational manner.  Robin prefers the latter tactic, Robert Wendell prefers to obfuscate with endless "proof" of his scientific authority and insults.
Mike Haluska Added May 20, 2014 - 11:22am
Ken - study Robin's comment a few posts back.  He is an excellent example of how "Consensus" proponents attempt to obfuscate, draw into question the opponent's credibility, claim the opponent has ulterior motives . . . .  everything BUT refute the assertions in a rational manner.  Robin prefers the latter tactic, Robert Wendell prefers to obfuscate with endless "proof" of his scientific authority and insults.
Mike Haluska Added May 20, 2014 - 11:57am
Robert Slate - the answer to your question:
 
"Eventually there was a 97% consensus opinion about the earth being round. So at what point was it decided, with absolute certainty, that the earth is round?"
 
was settled by scientific experiments that were repeatable by anyone and proved conclusively that there was NO OTHER POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.  When Magellan sailed West and eventually returned to his place of origin, that pretty much slammed the door on a flat Earth.  The Egyptians proved it mathematically using two identical monoliths a known distance apart casting shadows of different length at Noon.  
 
Here is the "experiment" I propose to discredit "AGW Climate Change":  Start providing huge government grant funding for studies to DISPROVE AGW.  For decades the National Science Foundation has been providing hundreds of millions of dollars to research global warming - why are we not "shocked" when all of the studies come in concurring with the funding requirements?  Want the politicians and the UN to lose interest overnight?  Eliminate the carbon tax proposals and see how long they waste their time flapping about the doomsday if we don't spend bazillions "fighting" AGW.
Robert Wendell Added May 20, 2014 - 4:50pm
Mike: "If it's science, it isn't consensus - Period. "
 
Mike, consensus is indeed not science, but consensus doesn't nullify science, so your statement above that is does is utterly false. That there is scientific consensus on some scientific phenomenon or principle doesn't invalidate it. There are tons of scientific principles and facts on which there is absolute consensus within the pertinent field of expertise and they all work when applied to engineering design etc. Put in terms of formal logic, consensus is not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary condition. That is what experimental replication is all about. Scientific peers have to be able to repeat your experimental results for a consensus to develop.
 
Yet you repeatedly make statements that imply both directly and indirectly that because AGW is inherently impossible to prove due to the size and complexity of the system, that consensus disqualifies AGW as having any basis in scientific method. This is patently absurd. Consensus is an essential component of scientific method, but is insufficient alone. It is an insufficient but necessary condition for acceptance of any research as good science.
 
Before we had ever sent any space vehicles to some of our planets' atmospheres, we knew what gases composed them. Could we prove that by pulling out a vial of gas that we somehow magically acquired from the planet in question? No, yet that is the kind of criterion some deniers seem to require of anyone who thinks AGW is highly likely. So how did we know? In principle, the same way we know somebody else has been on the beach when we see their footprints in the wet sand. The spectroscopic evidence we could see from earth was clear. Surprise, surprise! We can do that much more easily for our own planet.
 
It is absurd to argue that because there is no proof of something, that something is false. It is called "argument from igorance" among other names for it. One of its logical forms is:
 
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
(http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/54-argument-from-ignorance)
 
Sound familiar? Mike's arguments are loaded with this fallacy. It is nuts to believe that because something is so huge and complex we cannot prove a particular thing is going to happen that it can't happen. This is especially so when we have a vast number of individual pieces of the puzzle all pointing in the same direction and individually solidly proved scientifically. It is true that no matter how many individual and undeniably, scientifically, solidly proved pieces of the AGW picture we have, these do not constitute absolute proof.
 
However, it is intellectually nuts to assume it won't happen because we cannot prove what all these pieces are indicating until it actually does. It is also cosmically stupid under these conditions to sit on our thumbs and do nothing because we have no proof it will. The deniers' talk is often loaded with the term "scare tactics". This is a projection of their own fear.
 
We're not scared. We just want to do something about it instead of hiding in denial like someone who's afraid to see the doctor because they think they might have cancer. They're the ones who are keeping the rest of us from doing as much as we should. But I'm an optimist who keeps up with developments in alternative energy and I believe the real scientists and engineers will at the very least vastly soften the blow if not reduce it to something quite tolerable. Lot's of good stuff is happening out there in science and technology despite the politicized fools who want to stop it.
Mike Haluska Added May 20, 2014 - 6:51pm
Passionlib - your comment:
 
"So you're saying that because once upon a time a bunch of racist people had some stupid beliefs, that somehow this is related to climate science?"
 
is revealing.  Take a look at the list of people who bought the Eugenics consensus; I don't see a bunch of racists or racist organizations.  I see a lot of smart people who didn't understand the reason for Scientific Method and accepted a "short cut". 
 
Scientific Method does one thing very well - it eliminates hidden agendas.  Facts don't care about popularity, money, politics, etc.  If "Climate Science" could have presented a case using Scientific Method, they would have.  Instead, they count on people like you to shout down those of us who demand that if someone alleges something to have scientific validity they don't take shortcuts - period!
 
Please don't take my word - read Dr. Crichton's article.  The track record of "consensus" is dreadful.
 
Mike Haluska Added May 20, 2014 - 7:07pm
Robert Wendell- your comment:
 
"Consensus is an essential component of scientific method, but is insufficient alone. It is an insufficient but necessary condition for acceptance of any research as good science."
 
demonstrates your absolute arrogance and ignorance.  You are NOT a scientist, you are not the arbiter of truth no matter how intimidating you may think you are.  "Consensus is an essential component of scientific method?????" shows you have lost the argument and are now resorting to making up your own rules to avoid admitting you were wrong.  
 
I don't make claims that AGW is false - I state unequivocally that AGW is NOT scientifically valid.  Instead of presenting a valid case based on Scientific Method, all I hear is more insults, questions regarding my credibility, bla, bla, bla.
Mike Haluska Added May 20, 2014 - 7:42pm
Passionlib - your comment:
 
"What's the big problem here? And how dare you say this has nothing to do with politics? This has everything to do with your political beliefs, your desire to NOT care."
 
confuses me - AGW has EVERYTHING to do with politics!  I never said otherwise.
Mike Haluska Added May 21, 2014 - 1:11pm
Nathan - you're absolutely on target.  Mars atmosphere is 99% CO2 and it's pretty damned cold on Mars.
Robert Wendell Added May 21, 2014 - 8:23pm
Kerry, both of your comments assume everything is a matter of opinion, a simple matter of "he said, she said". I don't care what opinions anyone has as long as they present their points with valid logic and well vetted information. When people refuse to do this, they are wrong even if they luck up and by some fluke of nature turn out to be right on some specific opinion. Bad logic and bogus information from highly suspect sources is not a legitimate way to participate in dialectic discourse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic)
 
You can have the opinion that ice freezes at 212 degrees F and turns to steam at 32 degrees F, but you will never build a successful steam engine on that basis. Having the right to an opinion in no way guarantees that the opinion is right. Some people's opinion is worth much more than that of others. We all know this, yet some of us, when it comes to our OWN opinions, want to turn all this on its head.
Robert Wendell Added May 21, 2014 - 8:28pm
Kerry, there are objective criteria by which logic can be shown as valid or invalid. This has nothing to do with opinions, which are preferences in belief not necessarily, and we might even say not USUALLY rational or supportable with valid logic and accurate information. Note that I haven't said AGW deniers are wrong. I've said many of their arguments are invalid and often sophomoric. I've said much of their "information" is blindly regurgitated from highly suspect sources. That is not a stupid back and forth that ultimately amounts to no more than "I"m right and you're wrong." You act as if that were the only possible way to interpret what's going on here. You're absolutely right about some people here. That is indeed all they ever do.
Robert Wendell Added May 21, 2014 - 10:03pm
Mike, you project your appalling arrogance and ignorance on me! First, you ignore my very reasonable request, one that should be naturally expected if we are to use ethical dialectic discourse. That's all I'm interested in, since I'm NOT interested in useless shouting matches, You once again reply instead with irrelevant accusations and utterly wrongheaded ones at that. You never address strong, scientifically irrefutable arguments that reveal specific false statements you make. This is not about who's right about AGW. It's about specific false statements you make about long established, very basic scientific facts and principles. 
 
On your goofy position on consensus as invalidating as science anything for which there is one, it's nuts on its face. This below is regarding the crucial importance of experimental replication:
 
Reproducibility [synonym: replicability (my insertion)] is the “Touchstone” of Scientific Method. Scientific method does not work if you cannot perform trials with different input parameters, learning something certain from the observed change in output. Critics argue that for something to be “not reproducible” means that it is “not science”, implying that it is “not real”. This last inference is a false argument. Reality and reproducibility are different concepts.
(From: 
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheimporta.pdf)
 
On your favorite subject, take a look at the discussion on falsifiability here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Falsifiability.html
 
There is also this [my bolding]:
 
A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied.
(From: 
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html)
 
Scientific method, mathematical and experimental techniques employed in the natural sciences; more specifically, techniques used in the construction and testing of scientific hypotheses. Many empirical sciences, especially the social sciences, use mathematical tools borrowed from probability theory and statistics, together with such outgrowths of these as decision theorygame theory, utility theory, and operations research. Philosophers of science have addressed general methodological problems, such as the nature of scientific explanation and the justification of inductionSee also Mill’s methodshypothetico-deductive method. (From:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528929/scientific-method)
Robert Wendell Added May 21, 2014 - 11:55pm
Here is a summary of scientific method that demonstrates the essential requirement of experimental replicability and in the final paragraph after the fifth point, there is a reference to falsifiability. Note that in that same final paragraph, there is a clear statement that no theory or hypothesis can be proved absolutely true and also that any theory or hypothesis can be proved false by only a single instance that violates it.
 
The Scientific Method The scientific method is a process scientists must follow in determining the workings of the universe. There are five basic components to the scientific method:
 

From observations of the natural world, determine the nature of the phenomenon that is interesting to you (i.e. ask a question or identify a problem).
 

Develop one or more hypotheses, or educated guesses, to explain this phenomenon. The hypotheses should be predictive - given a set of circumstances, the hypothesis should predict an outcome.
 

Devise experiments to test the hypotheses.
All valid scientific hypotheses must be testable.
 

Analyze the experimental results and determine to what degree do the results fit the predictions of the hypothesis.
 

Further modify and repeat the experiments.

 
It is impossible to prove something to be true (this dips deeply into philosophy, but Truth is an ever-elusive principle.) One can create a theory with an overwhelming amount of support, but one valid piece of contrary evidence can strike it down. As such, science and scientific theories are an ever-evolving as new ideas and technologies allow us to create and test hypotheses in new and exciting ways.
Robert Wendell Added May 21, 2014 - 11:56pm
My immediately preceding post is from:
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/labs/scimethod.htm
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 12:14am
Please note that the last two elements listed below show both experimental replicability and falsifiability of a theory or hypothesis are essential components of scientific method. Please also note that wile mere consensus is not a sufficient condition to validate anything, scientific consensus based on successfully replicated experimentation is a necessary condition. This citation is from:
 
http://physics.about.com/od/toolsofthetrade/a/scimethod.htm
Key Elements of the Scientific Method
The goal of the scientific method is to get results that accurately represent the physical processes taking place in the phenomenon. To that end, it emphasizes a number of traits to insure that the results it gets are valid to the natural world.

objective – the scientific method intends to remove personal and cultural biases by focusing on objective testing procedures.
 

consistent – the laws of reasoning should be used to make hypotheses that are consistent with broader, currently known scientific laws; even in rare cases where the hypothesis is that one of the broader laws is incorrect or incomplete, the hypothesis should be composed to challenge only one such law at a time.
 

observable – the hypothesis presented should allow for experiments with observable and measurable results.
 

pertinent – all steps of the process should be focused on describing and explaining observed phenomena.
 

parsimonious – only a limited number of assumptions and hypothetical entities should be proposed in a given theory, as stated in Occam's Razor.
 

falsifiable – the hypothesis should be something which can be proven incorrect by observable data within the experiment, or else the experiment is not useful in supporting the hypothesis. (This aspect was most prominently illuminated by the philosopher of science Karl Popper.)
 

reproducible – the test should be able to be reproduced by other observers with trials that extend indefinitely into the future.
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 2:10am
Also, regarding correlation and its lack of any indication causation:
 
Mill's logical principles, often called Mill's methods, (http://www.nku.edu/~garns/165/ppt9_2.html) are an attempt to take information derived from correlations, which do not in themselves imply causation, and logically, reliably convert them to causal connections. Mill's principles cannot ever absolutely establish, though, that a correlation demonstrates cause. They can only guide us to likely, potentially falsifiable hypotheses regarding causal connections. These must be testable by experimental replication and the resulting confirmation by empirically founded consensus.
 
Correlations are always fully symmetrical, meaning they indicate no direction of influence between the correlates, while cause and effect is usually asymmetrical, meaning one correlate causes the other and not the reverse. Causality always implies perfect correlation (R^2 = 1.0), while correlation fails to positively indicate any causality at all. There are also phenomena that have a mutual influence, often indicating a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Correlations alone provide absolutely no information, though, about which of these relationships, if any, exist between the correlates.
 
However, because causality does imply perfect correlation when only one of the correlates is both sufficient and uniquely responsible for the effect, perfect correlations naturally can and often do indicate a clear possibility that there is either a direct causal relationship or a common underlying and uniquely responsible cause for both. Yet there are tons of unrelated phenomena that have extremely high correlations and no causal connections.
 
Some examples intended to illustrate this last point are actually invalid, however. For example, the increase in lemons imported from Mexico correlates extremely well with the rate of deaths from auto accidents in the United States (R^2 = 0.97) over a long period of time. While it is obvious that neither causes the other directly, to say that there is no causal connection at all is false.
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 2:52am
Continued:
 
Population growth during that time correlates with both extremely well, too. Since most of the U.S. population drives and a certain, relatively consistent proportion of that population also consumes lemons, these are underlying causal effects that make such a correlation anything but the pure coincidence one statistician claimed for this correlation. This is just to illustrate how wrong even so-called experts in this philosophically very deep area can be. Mill's principles cannot ever fully confirm causal connections, but they can be used very productively to generate falsifiable hypotheses that are testable by experimental replication and potentially confirmed by a resulting empirically founded consensus.
 
Please note that in the example of lemons and auto accident deaths we have a logically plausible underlying set of causal factors that are not themselves dependent on correlations for their validity. This is the only fully reliable means to validly interpret a correlation as indicating a causal connection. The same is true for much of the overwhelming evidence attesting to the reality of AGW. There are plenty of scientifically solid principles that explain many of the correlations found in climate change science.
 
The scientific method, when analyzed deeply, is a social noise reduction system designed to allow reliable communications between human beings, natural structure, and the laws that define it. Information networks and all kinds of media transmission use noise reduction that employs filtering and redundant coding to achieve a high enough signal-to-noise ratio for reliable intelligibility of the communicated content. The scientific method is effectively a social noise reduction system that achieves this with experimental design to filter out irrelevant factors and experimental replication to achieve the redundancy necessary for reliable human communications with natural structure and the laws the define it. Empirically confirmed consensus is at the core of scientific method as attested by multiple highly qualified sources.
 
Falsifiability is a hypothetical projection of the potential that some experiment in the indefinite future could overturn a particular theory or hypothesis. Einstein's theories did that to Newton's, but we still use Newton's in the smaller (but still very large) domains for which its simpler and extremely practical laws remain accurate. Someday, perhaps soon, that will happen to Einstein's theories. Certainly there are a lot of scientists trying.
 
As one of my citations in a preceding comment states, the impossibility of falsifying a theory or hypothesis does NOT indicate that a theory or hypothesis is untrue or unreal. It simply lacks the logical strength to establish the reliability of our conclusions about it. This is one of the intrinsic limitations of scientific method. In many branches, such as social science, there are modern, very sophisticated statistical methods that allow us to extract information that would be impossible without them. They are not as rigorous and perfect as the scientific method as defined in the hard sciences such as physics, but extremely useful nonetheless. They have resulted in a broader, modernized definition of scientific method as applied to the so-called soft sciences. These expanded methodologies are also used extensively in the business world, mostly in the form of decision theory, to its great economic advantage.
 
There are many true things that are not falsifiable in principle. For example, we can state that no one can live forever, but we cannot falsify that statement unless we live forever in order to check that out. Up to some moment in the past after which there are currently none still living, we can only show that the number of human beings who lived up until that moment correlates exactly with the number of people who died up until that moment.
 
That doesn't make it untrue, though, does it? The statement that no one lives forever, however, has a lot of support involving empirically verifiable causal factors. The same is true of a huge amount of evidence that supports the strong likelihood, but not the certainty, of AGW. That is the crux of the issue of correlation versus causality. 
 
As an afterthought, existence itself is not falsifiable either, yet no one but the most esoteric philosophers argue that existence doesn't exist. Falsifiability AND and empirically founded consensus based on experimental replication are essential cornerstones of scientific method. They are responsible for both the power and the limitations of science.
Robin the red breasted songster Added May 22, 2014 - 3:02am
We are in the very fortunate position of having a wonderful resource for all 8 billion of us to use.  The Earth.
 
If we use the blessings it has for us in moderation, with an eye towards sustainability, then all will be well.
 
What worries me most are the opinions of people like Mike who clearly want to gobble up whatever they can for themselves without a thought for everyone else or for future generations.  Whether it is global warming, pollution or water.   Indeed Mike would probably claim that "resources are infinite" or some other such excuse for his opinions.
 
We are in this together.   It would good to see people like Mike accepting this and taking a more generous approach to their fellow humans.   Right now I feel that they are aggressors, seeking to rob me of my birthright.
 
That is why I get so annoyed.
Robin the red breasted songster Added May 22, 2014 - 4:06am
We all have to deal with incomplete information.   Some people default to trying to do the best thing for humanity as a whole.   Others default to doing the best for themselves.  This is the heart of the commons dilemma.
 
Mike Haluska Added May 22, 2014 - 10:29am
Robert Wendell - your assertion:

"For example, the increase in lemons imported from Mexico correlates extremely well with the rate of deaths from auto accidents in the United States (R^2 = 0.97) over a long period of time. While it is obvious that neither causes the other directly, to say that there is no causal connection at all is false."
 
is right up there with my satirical "Squirrels Causing Leaves to Change Colors" post.  Read your last sentence - you contradict yourself in less than a dozen words!  Let me explain something to you that your endless diatribes don't comprehend.  Causality either exists or it doesn't!  Correlation has a range of values, because it measures something entirely different than causality.
 
You're grasping for straws, Robert!  You can admit you didn't think this through and that Mike added perspective that changed your view - a Nobel Prize doesn't hang in the balance. 
Mike Haluska Added May 22, 2014 - 10:56am
AGW fans - here is an additional illustration of how "Confusing correlation with causality" can be misused:
 
Many greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide, while others are synthetic.  Suppose we plot the concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide vs. Earth temperature over the past 5,000 years and the resulting data yielded similar graphs to the CO2 graph, with similar correlation numbers.  Since AGW credibility hangs on "greenhouse effect" I suspect we would see similar results since they are all "greenhouse gases", correct?
 
How do we discern whether one, some, all or none of the gases are contributing to any potential "causality"?  All three gases are rare.  All occur naturally.  Suppose "rebel" factions of the AGW crowd started to claim that methane was causing global warming - and then another AGW faction started claiming nitrous oxide is the real culprit.  According to "Consensus instead of Scientific Method"  logic, "scientists" should vote on their favorite theory.  Of course, the "debate" will focus on which special interest groups are supporting which theories, which theory has the most credible scientists, which theory harms humpback whales the most, which theory has George Bush's backing . . . . basically every imaginable topic EXCEPT SCIENCE! 
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 11:54am
Notice I said, "While it is obvious that neither causes the other directly, to say that there is no causal connection at all is false."
 
While you said that this statement, "...is right up there with my satirical "Squirrels Causing Leaves to Change Colors" post.  Read your last sentence - you contradict yourself in less than a dozen words!"
 
First, please note that I said no direct causal relationship, which does not imply at all that there is no causal relationship at all. Worse, you cherry pick once more and quote that out of context, omitting the continuation that explains that statement. You're an expert at pure sophistry, Mike.  I guess you didn't bother to read the continuation? Here it is again for your undeserving convenience:
 
Quoting myself, Robert, in the post that was a continuation of the one Mike cited:
 
"Population growth during that time correlates with both (lemons and auto accident deaths) extremely well, too. Since most of the U.S. population drives and a certain, relatively consistent proportion of that population also consumes lemons, these are underlying causal effects that make such a correlation anything but the pure coincidence one statistician claimed for this correlation. This is just to illustrate how wrong even so-called experts in this philosophically very deep area can be. Mill's principles cannot ever fully confirm causal connections, but they can be used very productively to generate falsifiable hypotheses that are testable by experimental replication and potentially confirmed by a resulting empirically founded consensus.
 
"Please note that in the example of lemons and auto accident deaths we have a logically plausible underlying set of causal factors that are not themselves dependent on correlations for their validity. This is the only fully reliable means to validly interpret a correlation as indicating a causal connection."  Now, please note that there are tons of correlations between all kinds of things correlated with population growth. They are not very meaningful correlations, but they do have an underlying causal explanation that is itself independent of correlation because it constitutes  a common cause founded on deductive logic. rather than correlation There is nothing at all contradictory or wrong with any of what Mike is lambasting me for. This is an excellent example of how he pretends to "understand" just about everything i ever write. The whole point of that example was to debunk his false conjecture that AGW is purely based on correlations without any hard, well established science underlying them.
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 2:16pm
Passionlib, We all know that all energy absorbed by the entire earth system, both the atmosphere and surface, must leave or the average long term global temperature would rise indefinitely and cook us all. Everyone who knows anything about this issue understands this much. However, these deniers completely ignore these other hard, irrefutable scientific facts:
 
1. No thermal energy can leave the earth as thermal energy, since space is a perfect insulator and cannot conduct any heat away whatsoever. So all energy from the sun absorbed by the earth system is radiated back to space as infrared energy, which is radiant energy that does NOT have a temperature. Only thermal heat (molecular or atomic motion or vibration) is detectable as temperature.
 
2. The only sources of infrared radiation back to space are the earth's surface and its atmosphere. 
 
3. We have technology in orbit that measures with a very high degree of precision what sources of radiation are responsible for all the energy leaving the earth. The earth's surface closely approximates what is called black body radiation. All radiating gases have unique spectroscopic signatures that are nothing like black body radiation.
 
4. 85% of all infrared radiation to space is radiated from the atmosphere, which radiates in all directions, up, down, and sideways.
 
5. Only 15% is radiated directly from the surface to space, with the rest absorbed by the atmosphere and radiated omnidirectionallly so that the surface and atmosphere continually exchange heat by infrared radiation, conduction, and convection.
 
6. This exchange is responsible for the equilibrium temperature we call the long term global average.
 
7. All the energy radiated to space from the atmosphere is radiated exclusively by greenhouse gases at near freezing (~460 F above zero Kelvin or 273.15 degrees K, which are the same size as degrees Celcius) and below freezing temperatures. No other atmospheric gases, of course including oxygen and nitrogen, can radiate infrared at these temperatures.
 
9. Since thermal heat is ultimately not even involved, greenhouse gases do not have to store more than their extremely small trace of it. It is stored mostly in non-greenhouse gases as thermal energy which continually stimulates the greenhouse gases (mean time between collisions for each molecule = a few billionths of a second) into excited states that collapse in a few millionths of a second and emit infrared back to earth and out into space.
 
10. Since greenhouse gases are the only possible source for roughly 85% of infrared heat leaving the earth, their existence in only trace amounts is completely irrelevant to how much energy they can radiate to space,
 
11. We can also measure from space with very high precision any changes in solar energy entering the atmosphere. It is in a long term cooling cycle now and warming by solar forcing is not due for somewhat less than 100,000 years from now due to orbital changes that are highly predictable using well proven celestial mechanics and that coincide perfectly with ancient climate change.
 
12. The stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere we live in down here is warming, underscoring point 11.
 
So Passionlib, although this doesn't  prove that AGW is real, it does completely debunk with absolute scientific certainty that trace amounts of greenhouse gases are too small to be a significant contributor to climate change in either direction. 
 
A favorite of deniers is the absurd argument that CO(2) is essential to life, very good stuff, and therefore more of it can't be harmful. Greenhouse gases are essential. This issue has nothing to do with whether they are bad or good, The issue is one of balance and the effects on current, modern infrastructure if we throw them out of balance. Water is essential to life, too, but that doesn't make floods a lot of fun, not to mention that you can drown in it.
 
Another favorite, the argument that we have had much more extreme global warming in the past, is irrelevant to this consideration. We have had five major extinction events since life appeared on this planet. One left nothing bigger than rodents. So what does that prove about what's important to us now?
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 2:23pm
Irvn just restated all the arguments soundly debunked with hard science in my last comment. I had already done so in previous comments as well. This was just a more succinct, point by point summary. Guess he can't read or isn't motivated to bother, since he already knows what he wants to believe.
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 2:26pm
You know folks, every argument these deniers propose is such standard boilerplate stuff blindly extracted from industrial propaganda for the ignorant that it makes you want to puke at their gullibility, especially those who claim to have technical/scientific credentials.
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 2:30pm
Even sicker is their insistence that you can't prove with absolute certainty that AGW is real while they propose wild, paranoid political speculations about government motives that have nothing to do with science, and that they can't prove at all, but we're supposed to just take those opinions on faith like they do. Hallelujah!
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 2:42pm
 Mike, you have predictably and completely avoided once again dealing like a man of intellectual integrity with my debunking of your 400 ppm argument. I already told you that the time has come for you to put up or shut up.
 
I'm requesting one last time that you address the scientific principles and logic that I used to debunk that specific 400 ppm argument; NOT AGW. I request that you do this without irrelevant side issues. Please, simply directly point out what you perceive to be flaws in the scientific principles I and no one else outlined and their implications for that specific, single 400-ppm-is-too-small argument of yours. If you refuse, you're no longer welcome here. This silly back and forth with you reliably refusing to address any substantial arguments against your positions is not welcome here. There is no intellectual integrity in that.
Robin the red breasted songster Added May 22, 2014 - 2:55pm
Good luck with that one Robert.   I think we can expect further obfuscation from Mike...
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 3:20pm
He can enter one last comment. If he attempts to seriously and very directly address ONLY what he feels to be the flaws in MY argument debunking that specific piece of this issue, namely his insistence that 400 ppm is to small to be significant, he can continue commenting here. If not, he will either honor my request to refrain voluntarily from all further comments under this article or I will delete them.
Mike Haluska Added May 22, 2014 - 5:54pm
Wendell - your pomposity is well demonstrated in your comment:
 
"Please, simply directly point out what you perceive to be flaws in the scientific principles I and no one else outlined and their implications for that specific, single 400-ppm-is-too-small argument of yours. If you refuse, you're no longer welcome here."
 
I wasn't aware that you acquired the rights to Writer Beat and you now have the authority to forbid people from expressing their views.  Of course, that is exactly what the AGW crowd is noted for - shut down the opposition, call them "deniers", whatever you mental midgets think will silence disagreement.
 
Check the Title of this Post - it has NOTHING to do with your ridiculous long-winded "I'm so smart and you're not" gasbag crap.  You try and change the rules of Scientific Method to suit your consensus crap - and I called you on it.  You try to set "degrees" of causality so you can rationalize correlation is just as good as causality.  
Consensus IS NOT science, Correlation IS NOT causality.  Less than 0.5% of the atmosphere is CO2 and less than 1% is attributable to human activity.  4 PPB that we as humans have direct control of is NOT going to have any impact on long term climate.  Only morons with an agenda would even suggest turning the world upside down to bring the CO2 concentration from 400 to 396 PPB.
 
 
Mike Haluska Added May 22, 2014 - 6:24pm
"I and noone else outlined" truly expresses the obnoxious self-importance and over inflated ego of Robert Wendell.  You try and overcome and overwhelm simple common sense using principles of thermodynamics you don't understand.  
 
Here we go again: 
If the CO2 concentration was 200 PPB  a few years ago and we didn't all boil to death, why would eliminating ALL current human attributable CO2 and reducing it from 400 to 396 PPB "SAVE US FROM DOOM"??? 
 
If your cholesterol level was 380 and someone told you that if you move to Siberia, eat only moose fat and snort mushrooms your cholesterol would drop to 376 would you do it?
Mike Haluska Added May 22, 2014 - 7:02pm
Richard Aberdeen - your comment:
 
"This is reason enough to get rid of as much pollution as possible, as fast as humanly possible."
 
is obvious and NOBODY  disagrees!  Are you telling me that CO2 (the stuff you exhale) is a POLLUTANT?  The morons at the EPA want to treat it as such!  Are you aware that there was pollution long before industry existed?  Way more people died from human/animal waste pollution than industrial pollution.  
 
You need to be aware when politicans are preying on your fears and naive good intentions in order to pick your pocket!
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 10:08pm
Mike, by your quote of me, namely "I and no one else outlined" I merely meant that you not go off on a tangent and address things I didn't ask you address, not something others have said or even I have said that is not pertinent to the response I requested. You have done everything I requested that you not do, although my request is perfectly reasonable. I said this was ONLY about your 400 ppm argument.
 
Your response to that had nothing to do with my argument. It is a completely unrelated argument that I have already shot full of holes and could again if I thought it would do any good. You have just jumped all over the map without even touching what I requested. You have no intellectual integrity and you're a moral coward. You're not fit to have a discussion with because you refuse rational dialog that actually responds to what I have said.
 
Irvn is another no-nothing who is all politics and no science. He apparently can't understand that all his cow poop has already been addressed and thoroughly debunked before he even entered this discussion and even unintentionally repeated for him in a response to you that came right after his entrance here. He keeps spitting it back up anyway, cosmically stupid as it is. I don't think he bothered to even read either the article or the comments, much less understand anything. You're no better. Neither of you seeks to know the realities. Everything you both say is just regurgitated standard bunk from standard, hard right conservative propagandists.
 
You're not welcome here, Mike. The reason has nothing to do with your positions or mine. It has everything to do with your unconscionable refusal to address anything I take the trouble to respond to you with. I'm tired of wasting my time on such apparently conscious, deliberate, disgusting intransigence. So I'm asking you to leave this discussion.
Robert Wendell Added May 22, 2014 - 11:49pm
Mike, I momentarily thought my comment was under my article, since  I've been commenting back and forth on both. So I'm the one leaving the discussion. I obviously have no right to ask you to leave a discussion under your own article. I ask you to please refrain from commenting on any of my past or future articles that relate to AGW. It's an exercise in endless futility, since you refuse to respond directly to my arguments as I request by attempting to specify where in your view they are flawed. I have no interest in any other kind of discussion. I always do that with you.
 
You never, ever reciprocate. Instead you just go sideways with replies pertinent to AGW, but that have nothing to do with pointing out any flaws you think exist in my arguments. Any simpleton knows that merely making opposite statements does not address flaws in anyone else's arguments. If someone believes I'm wrong, I expect them to show me where they think my argument becomes invalid and what it is that makes it so.
 
If you think 400 ppm of CO(2) is too little to matter and I show why it matters using solid, well proven scientific principles with zillions of other successful applications in science and industry, I expect you to either admit you were wrong on that specific piece of the puzzle or tell me why my argument fails to show you are. Anything else is just a waste of time. If you really understood anything about scientific method, which is in fact just a specific subset of critical thinking, you would understand that.
Robin the red breasted songster Added May 23, 2014 - 9:44am
Timothy:  I am a bit confused by your thinking here.
 
Surely most of us concerned about environmental issues, especially global warming, see nuclear as the best practical solution... that is after action to reduce energy usage through greater efficiency.
 
It is the carbon fuel based energy industry which is implicated most.
 
I, for one, see nuclear energy as the only practical solution.  It is, unfortunately, one that many people misunderstand and mistrust.
 
Certainly here in Europe I believe we should be powering ahead with as many nuclear plants as possible to reduce energy dependence on carbon...especially since this also means dependence on regimes who do not have our best interests at heart...
Mike Haluska Added May 23, 2014 - 11:41am
Robin -
Are you aware that ALL LIFE on Earth is based on Carbon? 
 
Richard -
Why do assume such extremes?  Just because I don't subscribe to AGW doesn't mean I advocate pollution.  Stick to the issue and stop trying to ascribe attributes that have no connection.  I know lots of environmental engineers who make a living designing and building pollution control equipment who don't think AGW is a real threat.
 
Robert -
Thank you for rescinding your comment about not being welcome on this web site.  Whatever principles you demonstrate that may be valid on some scale may not be valid on larger scales.  I am simply going by reality - and reality doesn't support AGW.  If reality did support AGW, we would be experiencing the phenomenon's disasters predicted over the past 40+ years. 
 
I have NO DOUBT that CO2 can cause temperature increases, but not statistically significant increases that can overwhelm much larger contributors such as water vapor.  You and I can urinate in the Pacific Ocean and calculate a theoretical water temp increase.  Is it worth paying for troops to stand shoulder to shoulder along the coast to prevent anyone else from urinating in the ocean?  Is our urine going to overcome the frigid effect of the arctic currents?
 
And what about the other rare greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?  They show the same graphic tracking as CO2 - why aren't they being campaigned against?  But the final nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned is the miniscule amount (compared to the entire atmosphere volume) of HUMAN contributed CO2.  If we started this web discussion 40 years ago, would you really think you were winning the argument?  Hell, you would have changed your predictions from cooling to warming to just "change" during that period!  
 
Robert Wendell Added May 23, 2014 - 12:01pm
Mike, none of the remarks in your reply rebut how the mechanics of infrared radiation into space work or make any sense if we accept those mechanics. I've explained clearly why the pissing in the ocean analogy has nothing in it even remotely parallel to these mechanics, It is a strictly thermal analogy that involves no radiant energy, yet the only conduit for heat away from the earth system is radiant heat, not thermal heat. Space is a perfect insulator, so no heat is conducted away from the planet...zero! Your analogy ignores that and is therefore utterly irrelevant. You keep refusing to address these mechanics in any way whatsoever, so I can only conclude that you simply don't understand them at all, so I give up. OK?
Robin the red breasted songster Added May 23, 2014 - 12:40pm
Mike:  Of course I know that all life is based on carbon.  What does that have to do with my comment?
 
You wouldn't just be trying to muddy the water just because you are losing the argument now would you?
Robert Wendell Added May 23, 2014 - 5:31pm
For anyone here who doesn't understand the difference between thermal and radiant heat, but actually wants to, it's pretty simple. Radiant heat is just long-wavelength (= lower frequency) light. It has no temperature at all. It is not detectable as heat until it strikes something and makes its atoms and/or molecules wiggle or move around. This atomic or molecular motion or wiggling in material structures is exclusively what converts radiant heat to become sensible as heat and that has a temperature.
 
When radiant heat strikes our skin, it warms it, but before that it has no temperature. Radiant heat is electromagnetic energy like radio waves, and is just energy that has the potential to make something warm, but has no temperature itself. How much it raises the temperature of a material is not even the same for different materials. Different materials have differences in a property called specific heat, which is usually measured as the amount of energy in joules necessary to raise on gram of mass by one degree centigrade.
 
This sensible heat in a material substance is called thermal heat. The same amount of radiant heat will raise the temperature of different materials by different amounts because of the differences in specific heat. This is high school physics. This is why we can only talk about temperature in terms of materials. It has nothing to do with radiant heat except that these forms of heat can change back and forth from one to the other. This is why the sun can make asphalt warm while the air is cool. The air is transparent to it, but the asphalt absorbs it and turns it into thermal heat.
 
So it is not necessary for there to be enough CO(2) to absorb all the heat it radiates into space. The only gases capable of radiating heat from the earth system are the greenhouse gases. We need them. They are not pollutants unless they are unnatural chemicals, which some are. But CO(2) is a normal atmospheric component and we need it. It's all a matter of balance. If we upset the balance, we mess up a lot of other stuff.
 
The reason we don't need enough CO(2) to absorb and store all the energy it radiates into space is that all that energy is stored as thermal heat in the non-greenhouse gases, mostly nitrogen and oxygen. This thermal heat continually stimulates the greenhouse gases to higher internal energy states that do not raise the temperature. They are just higher quantum levels of energy that within a few millionths of a second release that energy as the molecule collapses to its normal energy state. The greenhouse gas molecule emits the internal energy it acquired from the collision with non-greenhouse gases as radiant heat. It doesn't need to store. It just converts the thermal energy stored in non-greenhouse gases.
 
Remember that only radiant heat can escape the earth, since space cannot conduct thermal heat. It has no atoms or molecules to wiggle or move. 15% percent of all the radiant energy that goes into space is radiated directly from the surface of the earth. The other 85% is radiated from the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are the exclusive radiators of this heat, since non-greenhouse gases are by their very definition unable to do so.
 
Since greenhouse gases are exclusively responsible for radiating 85% of all energy leaving the earth and CO(2) is by far the most abundant even at 400 ppm, it is clearly responsible for most of what leaves and what gets radiated back to earth, since it radiates in every direction. This affects the balance of heat leaving and remaining, so it significantly affects the long term equilibrium temperature. In a nutshell, to argue that greenhouse gases are too scarce to do this when they are the only ones capable of doing so is nuts unless you simply don't know the science. The pissing in the ocean example is completely irrelevant, since in that case we are simply diluting thermal heat. This has nothing to do with how heat leaves the earth as radiant energy.
Robert Wendell Added May 23, 2014 - 10:03pm
I just realized I left water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas, out of that picture. That's important because some argue that it swamps CO(2) and makes it insignificant. It's a backup argument in case 400 ppm fails to convince. Another argument is that climate scientists have made conflicting predictions for decades that have all been wrong. This is true only if you go through time cherry picking papers from a few maverick scientists to prove your point and ignore all the others, or take the scary headlines used to market news media despite their very questionable sources. It also ignores that recent accumulation of overwhelming evidence that has built the strong current scientific likelihood of climate change reality.
 
Water vapor is indeed a stronger greenhouse gas, about twice as strong as CO(2) and far more abundant. However, there are two huge differences between CO(2) and water vapor that take water out of the climate change picture as a cause in either direction except as an amplifier when ice melts or water freezes because of some other factor.
 
One of these differences is that water is a long term constant unless another, separate factor is causing climate change. If the amount of water getting constantly cycled between water vapor and liquid is not affected by another factor, it cannot be responsible for climate change. It is constant. If temperature changes either way, however, the proportion that remains in the atmosphere as water vapor changes and amplifies the effect of the original factor. If some other factor lasts long enough to change the amount locked up as ice, we get sea level rise.
 
The other difference between water vapor and CO(2) is that water vapor virtually disappears above the troposphere. Once we get above the tropopause and into the stratosphere (just above 10 km. or 6 mi.), there is no water vapor. However, CO(2) remains at 400 ppm all the way up to around 80 kilometers (50 miles). A 2,000 square foot floor space at the bottom of the stratosphere would have 400 pounds of CO(2) alone pushing down on it. Think about how much gas in such a thin atmosphere it would take to weigh 400 pounds! That's true only and obviously because the atmosphere is so deep; deep enough for CO(2) to be virtually opaque at that latitude to the infrared wavelengths it absorbs and emits. 
 
So these are two irrefutable reasons why water cannot possibly swamp the effects of changes in the CO(2) in the atmosphere merely because it is a strong and much more plentiful greenhouse gas. On the contrary, it amplifies them even if the amount of ice stays the same, because either increases or decreases in long term global average temperature will put more or less water vapor in the atmosphere.
 
One big thing that is slowing this down as we write is the absorption of 30-40% of our total industrial output of CO(2) by ocean water. Although this is acidifying ocean water and so reducing shell fish populations and killing coral reefs, it temporarily and substantially slows warming. As temperature increases, though, CO(2) begins to invisibly fizz out of ocean water like a hot carbonated beverage and adds it to what we're already pumping out to greatly accelerate the whole process.
 
This is called a trigger point. There are quite a few natural trigger points pertinent to climate change other than this. This just happens to be one of the simplest to understand. Climate change is not a smooth, linear process. It has quite a few sharp knees in the curves that describe a number of key natural phenomena such as the Gulf Stream, the Antarctic circumpolar current that strongly regulates temperature worldwide, etc. These trigger points, once reached, represent runaway change that human efforts are insufficient to reverse. That's why we need to quit messing around and take this seriously before we reach any of them.
Robin the red breasted songster Added May 24, 2014 - 4:13am
Robert I think Mike is just winding you up.   He is just spouting total nonsense in order to get a rise out of you.
 
Forget him.
Robert Wendell Added May 26, 2014 - 12:30am
Robin: "Forget him (MIke).
 
Robin, I just did. My last two comments were aimed at anyone who happens by and is on the fence or wants to understand. I didn't just want to give them a relatively compact way to get the big picture and at least get a glimpse of the essential evidence and how it stacks up. I also wanted to provide them a way to understand where the typical conservative boilerplate objections to AGW go dismally wrong.
 
I wanted to show how the people here who who just ignorantly repeat them are doing nothing but exactly that. Sometimes they do attempt to decorate the boilerplate with a few thoughts of their own. Sadly, these are reliably even more absurdly fallacious than the cake underneath, if such a thing is at all possible.
Robert Wendell Added May 26, 2014 - 1:07am
Exactly, Bill. the typical person on the street in any culture has a psychology that is more comfortable with convention and the social norms around them. They often go to the same churches their parents did. They go because they go and that's just what their human environment taught them to do. They think about pretty much everything the same way. Change makes them anxious and they have a psychological need to grip life to hold it still.
 
The powerful financial interests that corrupt our politics and effectively run our government understand this very well. It started with Freudian insights into advertising psychology. Industry actually hired members of Freud's family to help them develop deeply powerful techniques of persuasion that exploit this typical mass psychology. They learned very well.
 
We have a bunch of typical people here who allow their fears to be easily exploited. The frequency with which they talk of AGW "alarmists" and their alleged "scare tactics" reveal their fear. I'm not scared. I'm such an optimist that I'm confident we're going to lick this. I keep up with alternative energy developments that the private sector is coming up with all around the world, many brilliant minds feeding each other ideas via the Internet, etc. I see a major technological revolution that is going to be bigger than any post-industrial revolution and the industrial revolution itself and it's going to be energy.
 
The fossil fuel industry knows its glory days are numbered. They talk about tight oil and, although it is delaying what was once thought to be peak oil, it is tight. That translates to more expensive and so less competitive. Even so, there are internal memos in major oil producers that indicate the oil industry itself believes we've either already hit peak oil or are about to in a very few years.
 
The fossil fuel industry has a huge economic stake in delaying competition from alternative energy. They're doing everything they can to squash it right out of the gate. Their well documented contributions to anti-AGW propaganda are enormous and clearly indicate a certain degree of desperation. We live in a society of scientific illiterates, including some people with unfortunately narrow, shallow engineering, science, or other technical backgrounds.
 
It is incredible but true that 25% of U.S. citizens believe the sun orbits the earth. We live in the space age and we have people who care so little about such things that they never watch anything scientific enough, such as our trips to the moon, our Mars missions and others to the various planets, etc. to have even gleaned this one simple piece of elementary school science knowledge. They are still living mentally in a pre-Copernican era of very fundamentally flawed knowledge of our solar system, not to mention our universe. Put this together with the typical and very wrong-headed kind of maladaptive conservatism and it's not hard to understand how easy it is for the fossil fuel industry to sucker them big time and that's exactly what they're doing.
Mike Haluska Added May 26, 2014 - 7:56pm
Radiant energy vs thermal, conservative vs liberal, big oil vs environmentalists, . . . . .  NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POSITION!!!
 
The facts BASED IN REALITY are these:
 
1) The Earth has been at worst holding a constant temp for the past 17 years, more likely mildly cooling - your own IPCC data.
2) NOTHING AGW proponents have predicted has been anywhere close to accurate for the past 40+ years
3) NOBODY has established causality regarding CO2 and climate change - 40 years to make the connection and nobody has
4) Consensus is NOT science
5) Correlation is NOT causality
6) The Earth's climate is a non-linear, non-deterministic, chaotic system which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to model and/or forecast
 
Robert's self-professed expertise in solar radiation doesn't nullify any of the above.  Robin's comments are all class envy and no science.  All of you are "cheer leading" for anti-Big Oil or anti-Big Business and are certain there is a conspiracy that wants to ruin the planet for profit. 
 
When you guys want to grow up and discuss this rationally without trying to show off your intellect or "concern for the human race", I will respond accordingly.
 
Mike Haluska Added May 27, 2014 - 8:32am
Bill - your comment:
 
"This is real science that is not obscured by politics or Big Oil."
 
should note that James Hansen's work at NASA is suspect to say the least.  His climate modeling work used "force fit" regression to make his model appear accurate with historical data.
 
There are hundreds of millions of government research grant at stake.  If the public starts to doubt the validity of AGW, the funds disappear.
 
Read the points 1 thru 6 - what is the dispute???
Robert Wendell Added May 27, 2014 - 1:05pm
Bill, he is definitely one of them. Every argument Mike proposes is the same old, same old...pure hard right boilerplate with a little personal decoration that is incredibly scientifically naive, like the alleged "analogy" of pissing in the ocean.
Mike Haluska Added May 27, 2014 - 1:31pm
Bill & Robert - For the record, I am NOT a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal.  If I can be "classified", it is Objectivist.  Unlike you and Robert, I don't form my assessment based simply on how many "experts" claim something. 
 
I have over 30 years practicing engineering (lots of civil/environmental) an engineering degree and a Professional Engineer's License.  I recognize when Scientific Method is being used and when people with agendas dodge it to avoid proper scrutiny.  If you actually read the entire post at the top of the page, you would understand why I wrote the 6 points.
 
98% of the AGW crowd supports it NOT for scientific reasons but because of a need to feel morally superior to others.  Robert tries to legitimize consensus over causality, Robin tries to shame me by categorizing me as a wasteful, greedy capitalist.  NOBODY refutes my assertions by addressing them directly.  If the AGW crowd had been even reasonably accurate with their doomsday predictions over the past 40 years, then I could understand giving them consideration.    
Robert Wendell Added May 27, 2014 - 2:27pm
Mike: "Robert tries to legitimize consensus over causality, Robin tries to shame me by categorizing me as a wasteful, greedy capitalist.  NOBODY refutes my assertions by addressing them directly"
 
I invite everyone and anyone who reads this to judge for themselves whether I try to legitimize consensus instead of presenting solid, scientific causes or whether I refuse to address anti-AGW assertions by addressing them directly. I have begged, practically on bended knee, for Mike to directly address the science by finding flaws in either the scientific facts, principles, or their logical connections as I have presented them here and elsewhere on this site.
 
The whole reason I have abandoned directly dealing with Mike is his refusal to do so. I've called him on this literally dozens of times under a variety of articles and discussions on the subject and he refuses with exceedingly lame excuses or simply by skating sideways. You can find some of such foolishness right here above, preceding this comment. Then he turns around, apparently with no sense of shame whatsoever, and falsely, brazenly accuses the rest of us of precisely what he's been doing right out of the gate. He is either an expert in pure sophistry or one of the most profoundly self-deluded souls on the planet.
Mike Haluska Added May 27, 2014 - 2:53pm
Bill Hutchins - you want NASA scientists and engineers scientific assessment of AGW?
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEaFzhoS67I
Mike Haluska Added May 27, 2014 - 3:43pm
Robert - your assertion:
 
"I have begged, practically on bended knee, for Mike to directly address the science by finding flaws in either the scientific facts, principles, or their logical connections as I have presented them"
 
demonstrates exactly the point I have been making.  You keep evading the assertions I make by trying to demonstrate some sort of superior knowledge of a topic.  You go off on tangents trying to demonstrate some scientific principle - the existence of which has NOTHING to do with whether AGW is based in Scientific Method, uses consensus instead of SM, uses correlation instead of causality, etc. 
 
You make absurd rationalizations hoping that if you sound "technical enough" then that should excuse having to deal directly with my points. 
Mike Haluska Added May 27, 2014 - 6:15pm
Did it matter that what he said checked out?  I did my own research and everything he stated was true. 
 
How about this:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
Mike Haluska Added May 27, 2014 - 6:20pm
I'll clue you and Robert in - I have been providing evidence of my position using consensus.  What is interesting is that a case can be made EITHER WAY if you have a big enough crowd.  Of course, you chose your "consensus" . . . . . honestly, is this how you think science should be made?
Robert Wendell Added May 28, 2014 - 12:32am
Bill, the "consensus" and "correlations" arguments as Mike presents them are utter cow poop.
 
There are a whole series of refusals used fallaciously used to prop up these ridiculous arguments:
 
1. Refusal to admit that a fundamental requirement of scientific method is the possibility for others to confirm the results of experimental testing of hypotheses by replicating the experiments that initially established them with empirical results. Part and parcel of this refusal is the refusal to admit that this is a scientific consensus based on empirically verifiable results. It is absolutely true that consensus alone is not enough. It has to be based on experimental replication of empirical results. Far from consensus disqualifying anything as scientifically valid, this kind of consensus constitutes a valid form of scientific consensus that is universally recognized as an essential cornerstone of scientific method.
 
2. The refusal to admit that the preceding point completely refutes Mike's exact words that "If it's science, it isn't consensus - Period. " Such a statement is absurd on its face for anyone with a minimal understanding of scientific method.
 
3. Refusal to admit that the many thousands upon thousands of textbooks that teach hard science like chemistry and physics all teach the same, well established knowledge and so represent a worldwide scientific consensus that does not disqualify any of it as valid science.
 
4. Refusal to admit that although something is too large and complex to prove anything about its future behavior with absolute certainty, we can still make practical use of strong scientific evidence and well established scientific principles to assess the likelihood of future behavior and that we do this all the time in many fields, including major business decisions in private industry.
 
 
5. Refusal to admit that since strong causal connections imply strong correlations, CORRELATIONS CANNOT POSSIBLY IMPLY that a causal connection doesn't exist. Quite the opposite, they imply that there is a possible causal connection, but they are insufficient alone to establish that. A simple example parallels this logic very precisely. All dogs, 100%, are animals (a correlation of 1.0), but not all animals are dogs. Proving that a creature is an animal does not prove it is a dog, but this doesn't mean it couldn't be a dog. You just need more evidence that it is a dog than you have by merely establishing that the creature is an animal. 
 
6. Refusal to accept that while AGW is too complex to prove absolutely, there is a lot of solid, well proven scientific evidence that collectively, coherently, and overwhelmingly points to AGW as an extremely strong likelihood. 
 
7. Refusal to accept that although correlation alone is insufficient to imply a causal connection, correlation often leads to uncovering clear mechanisms that then establish establish a causal connection.
 
8. Refusal to admit that using correlations to uncover and establish causal connections with further research using scientific method and/or revealing a causal connection with solid, previously established scientific principles does NOT in any way violate scientific method.
 
9. Refusal to admit the strong accumulation of scientific facts using very advanced, high technology, including ultra-precise measurements from space, together with reliable scientific principles established long ago that all point to the extremely high probability that the correlations we see are understandable as causal connections through the application of the scientific facts and principles that explain them.
  
10. Refusal to accept these principles and facts owing to both gross ignorance of elementary scientific principles, all the credentials notwithstanding, and a political agenda that accuses the entire climate change community of producing false data. Without trust in the data and lack of understanding principle, it is possible to deny any reality that exists.
 
11. Refusal to admit that the possibility of falsifying a hypothesis does not confirm it, but is merely a potential that it could, in principle, be overturned by new evidence at some future time.
 
12. Conversely, refusal to admit that because something is not falsifiable does not mean it couldn't possibly be true. It only means that it cannot be validly es
Robert Wendell Added May 28, 2014 - 12:58am
12, etc. continued:
 
It only means that it cannot be validly established by the scientific method, which is one of the method's limitations. Existence itself is not falsifiable, but we cannot reasonably say we don't exist because our empirically validated and highly replicable experience of existence is not falsifiable. That makes falsifiability the weaker of these two essential criteria of scientific method, empirically validated consensus and falsifiability. That no one lives forever is likely true but unfalsifiable and so neither is this provable by scientific method, since it cannot be both true and falsifiable. To falsify it would require someone to live forever. Even if someone were to finally do that, that in itself would falsify it, of course.
 
Mike: "Of course, you chose your "consensus" . . . . . honestly, is this how you think science should be made?"
 
Duh, of course we don't do it this way, folks, as clearly stated in my immediately preceding post. Mike likes to twist the meaning of scientific consensus and force fit it to the definition of mere crowd dynamics to justify his political delusions. This is just another example of his ubiquitous use of straw man arguments. Real science and valid logic are apparently offsides in his game. A game is apparently all it is for him unless he's a fully certified cosmic idiot.
Robin the red breasted songster Added May 28, 2014 - 2:57am
@Bill.   Talking as a marketing man and a student of human behaviour:  we all seek to lessen post purchase dissonance... the uncomfortable feeling that we have taken a wrong decision... especially if that decision is tied up with the image of ourselves which we seek to portray.
 
So, in Mike's case he somehow feels that it is good for his image to be seen leaning on a gas guzzling, planet destroying car.   This is despite the popular belief that the drivers of such cars have small penises.  For this reason his mind will seek out any "evidence" that backs up his self image whilst studiously ignoring any evidence that points the other way (even if it dances in front of his face wearing a tutu)
 
That this belief is so central to his behaviour is evidenced by the vehemence of some of his statements.  You would think we were criticising his children.
 
To change the behaviour and belief system of someone like Mike cannot be done through arguing using logic or evidence.   He simply will not listen.  Nothing will penetrate.
 
If, on the other hand, he were to realise that eco warriors have much better success with women, become richer and generally have more fun... then he might gradually change his mind.
 
Must go now... have to go to another party.  Just a minute girls....
Mike Haluska Added May 28, 2014 - 6:33pm
Robert - you have really shown your utter lack of integrity now by totally selling out on Scientific Method.  You initially agreed then have been steadily weaseling your way out of your original position to where you disavow Scientific Method, all in a foolish, vain attempt to avoid admitting a simple fact - Consensus is NOT science.
 
Robin - the last bastion of the illogical is insults.  You make them look like Isaac Newton.
Robert Wendell Added May 29, 2014 - 12:10am
I repeat part of my previous post:
 
It is absolutely true that consensus alone is not enough. It has to be based on experimental replication of empirical results. Far from consensus disqualifying anything as scientifically valid, this kind of consensus constitutes a valid form of scientific consensus that is universally recognized as an essential cornerstone of scientific method.
--------
So in order to make what I said wrong, no one gets to redefine as mere opinion polling what the above statements from me say about the very specific kind of consensus based on experimental replication of empirical results that is a requirement of scientific method. Did everyone get that? Far from disqualifying anything as valid science, the possibility of experimental replication is a universally recognized, fundamental requirement of scientific method. This is a specific kind of consensus and in no way implies the kind of vapid, useless opinion polling with which Mike keeps attempting to equate it.
 
That's called a straw man argument and the lack of integrity it implies about its author is total. I don't believe for a minute that he's really that grossly stupid and ignorant. I simply think his need to protect his ego is much stronger than his sense of integrity. So here we go again with another case of pure projection onto another of his own, extremely evident personal flaws.
Robert Wendell Added May 29, 2014 - 12:12am
This kind of shameless sophistry needs to be called out whenever we happen onto its disgusting stench!
Robert Wendell Added May 29, 2014 - 1:15am
If anyone here doubts my understanding of scientific method, go check it out for yourself, but don't use Mike's goofball spin doctors. Use the official definitions traditionally used and respected in the scientific community for a very long time. The most rigorous, ideal incarnation of scientific method was largely mature by the time of the English Royal Society's formulation after its formation in 1660, a time at which Isaac Newton was approaching the age of twenty.
 
Centuries later in 1945, Karl Popper first introduced to the philosophy of science his concept of critical rationalism. In a nutshell, this view states that empirical evidence is never sufficient to prove any theory, but we should be able, at least in principle, to falsify theories if they are to qualify as scientifically valid. This represents a kind of final uptick in the rigor this modification of the scientific method can apply to validation of scientific hypotheses.
 
This idea may seem hard to grasp for many. If you falsify a theory, it is obviously not proved, but invalidated. The point is that to be considered rigorously validated scientifically, it must be potentially falsifiable if at some future time contrary evidence refutes it. The premises of Newton's theories, for example, have been falsified by Einstein's. Interestingly, however, that doesn't invalidate Newtonian mechanics, which remains valid within the limited physical domains for which it is appropriate.
 
The practical use of Popper's falsifiability criterion is essentially restricted to the so-called hard sciences, since biology and other "softer" sciences use statistical methods that often fail to meet the rigorous criteria applied in the hard sciences. There has been a general loosening of the rigor for these "softer" sciences or they would not be able to advance at all. 
 
Please understand, nevertheless, that I have nothing against Popper's rigor in adding falsifiability to the list of criteria included in a rigorous application of scientific method. Please recall, however, that the development of the modern, post-classical physics of quantum theory and relativity preceded Popper's initial publication of his ideas in 1945 by many decades. In fact, their falsification of previous classical theories played a major role in inspiring Popper's ideas.
 
Also, please recognize that any theory or even projections using models based on numerical methods that support AGW are falsifiable simply because IF they are indeed in error, we will inevitably discover at some future point that they were wrong. Some diehards among anti-AGW folks here have already prematurely argued that current facts have already falsified them, justifying this with predictions from some maverick opinions quoted in the media for the sake of the sensationalism that sells news media and cherry-picked across a large time frame, such as "the past 40 years", or by simply truncating the time frame to the present and ignoring tons of evidence for AGW that is already accelerating.
 
Here are two links with which you can kick start your own research on what scientific method really is:
 
https://explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism
Mike Haluska Added May 29, 2014 - 12:19pm
Robert - your assertions:
 
"It is absolutely true that consensus alone is not enough."
 
"this kind of consensus constitutes a valid form of scientific consensus that is universally recognized as an essential cornerstone of scientific method."
 
are just that - YOUR assertions!  Consensus and Scientific method are as mutually exclusive as you can get!  One scientist repeating the experiment of another scientist is NOT consensus - it is validating a colleague's work.  All it proves is that Person A used the same procedure as Person B and got the same results, within experimental error.
 
Your comparison of Newton's Laws of Motion to Einstein's work is also irrelevant to the topic.  Newton wasn't that far off - in fact his original equations were simplified.  Newton showed mass as dm/dt but it was assumed that mass always stayed constant regardless of velocity.  Where Newton and Einstein broke ranks is Newton's concept of Absolute Space and Time - Einstein showed there is no such thing.
 
Stop trying to weasel your way out of your position on consensus and correlation by redefining terminology to meet your needs and throwing up Gorilla Dust in an effort to obfuscate and intimidate. 
 
1) Consensus in NOT Science, nor is it a component of Science
 
2) Correlation is NOT causality
 
3) It is IMPOSSIBLE to model and forecast a non-linear, non-deterministic system
 
 
Robert Wendell Added May 29, 2014 - 2:33pm
Mike: "One scientist repeating the experiment of another scientist is NOT consensus..."
 
So folks, do you think Mike gets to redefine consensus, or maybe he's just getting that from the Haluska Highly Abridged and Fundamentally Flawed Dictionary?
 
All the text books in the world that teach the same things about classical mechanics, thermodynamics, chemistry, or any other of the "hard" sciences represent a scientific consensus on all those fields and the principles that constitute them. If Mike doesn't know that, his ignorance of our language is profound indeed. He doesn't get to narrow the definition of consensus down to nothing more than the equivalent of an opinion poll to make himself look right.
 
If Mike really believes himself on this, this must set a record for grown men afflicted with a childish understanding of language. One of the things I've noticed about many conservatives is that they are verbal absolutists. They often actually believe their particular idea of the way a word is used is really and truly all it could ever possible mean. It goes with their whole anal retentive way of interpreting everything else in the world.
 
Just because a dictionary illustrates consensus with a phrase like "a consensus of opinion among judges", doesn't limit its meaning to that particular use. It means agreement among a plurality of people, period...which means an agreement on anything! Its meaning is in no way restricted to mere agreement of opinions, but applies to anything at all, such as the empirical evidence that provides experimental verification of results. The results are not the principles they verify. They are a result of the principles they verify.
 
It takes human beings to agree that the results verify a principle. This is a rigorously validated consensus among human beings, an agreement that their experiments do indeed mutually confirm the tested hypothesis, before anything is accepted as a valid scientific principle. The experiments are completely incapable of doing such a thing. They are nothing but mute, unthinking energy and matter. 
 
The experiments don't have to take place at the same time or anywhere near the same place. Scientists replicate and confirm the results by communicating with each other and agreeing that the results are in common and that they confirm the hypothesis. They have to trust each other They don't fly back and forth and redo the experiments with each other.
 
This absolutely fulfills the definition of consensus. To pretend this is not consensus is just a childish understanding of the English language. Just as there can be a consensus of opinion, there can be a consensus among scientists regarding empirically established principles of science. I clearly qualified the kind of consensus that is required by scientific method with the context in which I used that word.
Robert Wendell Added May 29, 2014 - 4:00pm
Continued: 
 
Synonyms ofconsensus
accordconcurrenceconcurrencyagreementunanimityunison
 
Mike: "3) It is IMPOSSIBLE to model and forecast a non-linear, non-deterministic system"
 
In the old days, because of the limitations of clock speed and the resulting digital resolution available, differential equations had to be solved only with analog computers. However, analog signals are actually digital if we move deeply enough into their microcosmic underworld. After all, all physical structures are molecular or at the very least, atomic.
 
With modern computers, we can easily solve non-linear problems like differential equations to whatever degree of accuracy we wish. After all, we convert audio recordings of music that are initially analog signals from microphones to digital formats on CDs all the time.
 
The numerical modeling of both weather and climate scientists use do not pretend to include, much less calculate all the factors involved in either weather or climate change. That applies also to hurricane tracking and prediction. They don't pretend to be scientific proof of anything. They are empirically derived approximations. This is deliberate, since there are no other practical options and likely won't be for a long time if ever.
 
The best ones have been very accurate with real projections into the future and not retrofits to historical data. The scientists use historical data, of course, to figure out how to best approximate how it all works as well as to test it. However, they have also been tested for accuracy into the future and very successfully. Where they have fallen short is in being too conservative. What has actually been happening has exceeded the predictions. They are clearly not perfect by a long shot, but neither are the hurricane tracking models. Nevertheless, the latter work well enough to be extremely useful. I don't know of any coastal city that wants to eliminate them because they are not completely accurate.
Robert Wendell Added May 29, 2014 - 4:58pm
Mike: "Your comparison of Newton's Laws of Motion to Einstein's work is also irrelevant to the topic.  Newton wasn't that far off - in fact his original equations were simplified.  Newton showed mass as dm/dt but it was assumed that mass always stayed constant regardless of velocity.  Where Newton and Einstein broke ranks is Newton's concept of Absolute Space and Time - Einstein showed there is no such thing."
 
Mike completely misses the depth of the difference between the physics of Newton and Einstein...just another example of extremely shallow thinking and understanding. The important difference is that the fundamental premises, the axiomatic foundations of these theoretical models are diametrically opposed. They utterly contradict each other. It naturally turns out, though, that since Newtonian mechanics work just fine for most common needs, they are an extremely close approximation to reality in appropriately limited space-time domains.
 
This difference in "truth" value of the underlying premises is precisely what inspired Popper's introduction of the criterion of falsifiability to the scientific method. To understand why, some background is essential. The difference is precisely analogous to an ant on a large, smooth sphere who draws small triangles on its surface. He notes that the sum of their angles is always 180 degrees. They're a small enough portion of the spherical surface that his triangles are essentially flat. Therefore he can use Euclidean rules of geometry and they will work just fine.
 
However, when he starts to get ambitious and draw really huge triangles, he becomes very puzzled. The ant perceives himself as making perfectly straight lines and drawing perfect triangles, yet the sum of the angles is now greater than 180 degrees. The truth is Euclidean rules no longer work for triangles so large they are no longer essentially flat. He now has to use the more generally valid Riemannian geometry that will work on any surface, whether curved or flat, concave or convex. Since he is on a curved surface, the angles of his triangles only approach having a sum of exactly 180 degrees as they get smaller and smaller. When small enough, the difference is so small as to be undetectable in practice.
 
This happens to be a two-dimensional analogy that is a perfect match for the difference between Einstein's four-dimensional Riemannian space-time and Newton's three-dimensional Euclidean space and a separate dimension of time. The fundamental assumptions or premises (axioms) underlying these two theories are absolutely opposed, yet they both work in their appropriate domains. Newton's ideas are based on flat, Eucilidean space with no connection to the time dimension and Einstein's unite space and time so intimately that they rotate into each other as vectors to form a four-dimensional continuum that is not flat, but a curved, or Riemannian, four-dimensional continuum.
 
However, if we assume Newtonian conditions and impose them on Einstein's equations, we get Newton's equations. We state this as a general principle of their relationship by declaring that Newton's theories are a special case of the more general-case theories of Einstein. Therefore:
 
To state that my "comparison of Newton's Laws of Motion to Einstein's work is also irrelevant to the topic" is absurd, since we can be absolutely sure that Einstein's theories are destined to eventually become a special case of an even more general theory. Popper understood this very well. He knew there was no final truth in either theory, nor would there ever be in any subsequent, more general-case theory.
 
It was for precisely this reason that Popper's critical rationalism denies the possibility of absolute empirical proof for any scientific principle. This is the rationale for his inclusion of falsifiability as a criterion for scientific method. We cannot prove either Newton's or Einstein's premises are true in any other sense than their practical usefulness, but later theories can indeed falsify the underlying assumptions, the intellectual foundation upon which they are built.
 
I said all this in a very compact way in the comment to which Mike referred with his assertion that my reference to Einstein and Newton was irrelevant. Anyone who has any depth at all in science and Popper's criterion of falsifiability would have immediately realized my reference to all this detail I've taken the time here to elucidate. Few words suffice when there is a common foundation for understanding. Mike's arrogant ignorance requires too many words to counter. I hope, though, that this helps those who are open to reason to understand enough to avoid being mislead by Mike's boundless sophistry.
Robert Wendell Added May 29, 2014 - 6:54pm
er...misled.
Mike Haluska Added May 29, 2014 - 10:23pm
Robert - the more you talk, the more you embarrass yourself.  The differential equation (that doesn't exist) that precisely models the Earth's climate is non-linear and non-deterministic (since many of the variables affecting temperature are unpredictable).  If you don't know what the variable values will be at what point in time, it is IMPOSSIBLE to forecast/model REGARDLESS of the power of the computer used to run the model! 
 
Your pomposity is not intellect - it is a poor attempt at appearing intelligent.  You attempt to avoid directly acknowledging the facts I made by interminably long and verbose dissertations that attempt to avoid honest debate by substitution of lots of irrelevant crap.  Instead of addressing me you petition to the audience (who you think you can bullsh&t) and thus gather - you guessed it - CONSENSUS!  That's the difference between Robert and me - I don't give a damn what the "consensus" thinks about AGW or anything else.    
Robert Wendell Added May 30, 2014 - 11:51am
Please note that Mike failed again to address any of my arguments by finding flaws in them, but merely repeats his positions. I've debunked multiple times all of his arguments in detail (for which he criticizes me), but he absolutely fails to address mine in any way other than to make unsupported statements opposing them. He knows his fans are even more ignorant than he is and so thinks he's getting away with this. He either knows better and just plays games or he's a self-deluded scientific, philosophical, and verbal know-nothing. (Scientific method has evolved as a product of science philosophy, which is a meta-scientific field.)
Mike Haluska Added May 30, 2014 - 12:21pm
Translation from Robert's previous post:
 
"Science is upgraded superstition and mysticism"
Robert Wendell Added May 30, 2014 - 3:10pm
"Superstition and mysticism" typify this kind of feckless blather we keep getting from Mike. There are seven basic categories of babble in which Mike reliably indulges:
 
1. Useless repetition of opposing but unsupported positions.
 
2. Citations from the clueless fools he worships and who sell his very gullible mind bad information.
 
3. Fatally flawed "science" he pretends to understand.
 
4. Proud repetition of his credentials that supposedly qualify him to completely misinterpret elementary principles of science and attempt to impose his absurd interpretations on you.
 
5. Constant use of glaring logical fallacies while simply changing the subject when anyone calls him on them.
 
6. Unjustified epithets for anyone who disagrees.
 
7. Projection of all the above on anyone who disagrees.
 
As if all this weren't enough, he completely ignores any substantial scientific arguments that conflict with his religious worship of bad science and when challenged to address them, flatly refuses by merely stating that it is beneath his dignity to do so. All this is extremely well documented right here in our preceding comments for all reasonable people to see. Mike is apparently clueless regarding how that makes him look to any such people who happen by.
Robert Wendell Added May 30, 2014 - 3:13pm
Or maybe he's just trolling and really doesn't care.
Mike Haluska Added May 30, 2014 - 7:31pm
Robert - guess how much I care of what people with no science or engineering education, credentials or experience think of my posts?
 
If we had a Time Machine we could go back and argue about your wild enthusiasm for Eugenics!  Until then, should I need a long-winded dissertation on the Music of Brahms or Bach, I know who to call.
Robert Wendell Added May 30, 2014 - 8:05pm
So folks, there you have it! Just please note that this is the high end, the erudite side of Mike's rhetoric to date.
Mike Haluska Added May 30, 2014 - 9:02pm
Track Record of AGW:
 
This is the actual record of what the AGW crowd has been selling for the past 40 years.  Since their "theory" never gets experiments to agree with reality (Scientific Method) they SUBSTITUTE CONSENSUS FOR SCIENCE!
 
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming.  The upward trends since 1979 continues.
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were
Robert Wendell Added May 30, 2014 - 9:58pm
More cherries?...many actually prunes from lying fools. Uh, duh...OK...I rest my case for the next few years.
Robert Wendell Added May 30, 2014 - 10:49pm
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/30/military-leaders-climate-strategy-vital-not-a-political-game/
Mike Haluska Added May 31, 2014 - 11:39am
Robert - here is a direct challenge that requires a simple answer.  Name ONE forecast that the AGW crowd has gotten correct over the past 40 years.  If CONSENSUS didn't have an agenda, they would conclude the batting average of AGW sucks.  Please - no long-winded dissertations, it shouldn't take more than two sentences - tops!
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2014 - 1:39pm
Richard - I somehow missed your comment:
 
"Anyone who has studied the science at all is aware that naturally occuring C02 isn't the same as C02 found in pollution.  This is because other particles are mixed in with and attach themselves to the C02 found in pollution"
 
and an obvious chance to jack one out of the ballpark.  I'm not a Psychic, but I would bet my "Firefly" DVD collection that you are not an organic chemist.  If there is "naturally occurring CO2, then you are implying that there is "unnatural" CO2.  Just how and where does this "unnatural" version of CO2 come from?
 
I'll go back to one of my questions to Wendell:  If the Earth's CO2 concentration was 200 ppb a few years ago (we didn't boil to death) and now it has risen to 400 ppb, how will reducing the ENTIRE HUMAN CONTRIBUTION of CO2 and the resulting drop from 400 ppb to 396 ppb make any FRAKKIN' DIFFERENCE????
Robert Wendell Added Jun 2, 2014 - 2:21pm
Such ignorance in this last paragraph! Obvious answers already offered and ignored.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2014 - 3:15pm
Robert - let's just cut to the chase.  At what point (200, 300, 400 . . .  1000) will you concede that there is no causality between CO2 and the Earth's temperature?  How many more years (40 so far) before the AGW crowd stops crying the sky is falling if we don't do something today? 
 
This crap is simply superstition supported by United Nations officials wanting to redistribute wealth and crooked politicians attempting to line their pockets.  This is only possible when people who should know better accept Consensus in place of Scientific Method. 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 2, 2014 - 4:20pm
Please note that Mike ignores real science and substitutes his unique and very personal definition of it. His real argument is strictly political. Not only is it political. It is nothing but right wing boilerplate with no original content whatsoever. He cites sources that are just more right wing boilerplate in his pretense at supporting "his" thinking.
 
He repeats disinformation bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. He uses blatantly fallacious logic and ignores you when you call him on it. He adds nothing to what he has previously said and outright refuses to address any substantial scientific arguments I offer using either universally recognized scientific principles or facts supported by highly respected sources.
 
I've challenged him to simply show that he understands the arguments I've provided with no conditions placed on what research or sources he uses to do so. He flatly refuses, stating that I can't prove he didn't just copy it from somewhere. So what? He ignores that I just said I don't care how he gets the understanding. But he ignores that just as he ignores everything else he would rather not face.
 
I even offered to ignore that he refuses to offer a cogent rebuttal to strong scientific arguments. I just want to know that he even understands them. Again he refuses, all the while making fun of my scientific knowledge by citing my music background and bragging about his civil engineering degree. He just repeatedly slings the same old crap and then accuses me of that.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 2, 2014 - 4:23pm
Again, that's all right here in the comments above. Check it all out for yourself.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 2, 2014 - 5:17pm
Robert:  I can't believe that you are still trying to debate with Mike.  He does not use logic.  You mike as well try to debate with a CD player.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 2, 2014 - 5:20pm
I meant "might as well"...
 
Mike is obviously pedaling some type of agenda.  I reckon he has probably swallowed Big Oil's clever propaganda... hook, line and sinker.
 
In 1984 they called such behaviour "Duckspeak".  Quacking like a duck with no real understanding... but quacking the party line.   In 1984 it was a very oppressive party ...   I think that the one that Mike has been mesmerised by may be also.
 
 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 2, 2014 - 5:21pm
I'm not debating with Mike. Notice I never address him since I said I was through with him. I'm just pointing out to other readers how ridiculous this guy is and why his whole approach to supposedly rational discussion is so fallacious.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 2, 2014 - 5:23pm
I know most rational people don't need me to do that, Robin. I'm aiming at those in between who are not religiously tied to Mike's unsupportable dogma but may not have the experience with critical thought to see through the haze he generates..
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2014 - 8:43pm
Robert - NOTHING you bring forth is rational, it is all "religion" and attempts to show you're "smarter" than me, which in your logic means I am wrong. 
 
Divert, misrepresent, obfuscate all you want.  You can't refute that AGW forecast vs reality for the past 40+ years is crap.  You can't show that the AGW research is bound by Scientific Method, which explains your "Consensus is just as good as Scientific Method" rationalization.  So keep trying to "quiz" me and discredit me, but you can't get around the facts I keep going back to. 
 
I KNEW I wouldn't get a straight, simple answer to my question about AGW's track record. 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2014 - 8:47pm
Only those who don't understand Science or those with an agenda disagree with the following speech by Dr. Michael Crichton:
 
"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."
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2014 - 8:54pm
This is how ANY scientific topic should be tackled in the view of objective statisticians and scientists:
 
We must form an independent research institute in this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them.
 
The institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement: teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it.
 
If we were to address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must address this.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 2, 2014 - 9:07pm
IF (and that's a BIG IF) the AGW research was conducted objectively in the manner described above and the results indicated that human activity resulted in significant rise of the Earth's temperature AND the consequences are serious and definable, I would support appropriate action. 
 
I also bear in mind (unlike AGW proponents) that we have serious life and death problems RIGHT NOW that we are diverting resources away from that result in real people dying.  Funds spent on research could have saved many children from starving to death all over the world.  If your family members were literally starving to death TODAY, you would certainly object to spending money on ANYTHING but food to feed your family. 
 
So I don't buy the sanctimonious AGW proponents who want to act on bad science, patting themselves on the back for their phony moral superiority while ignoring starving children.  
Robert Wendell Added Jun 3, 2014 - 2:21pm
Mike, pretending to quote me: "...'Consensus is just as good as Scientific Method...' "
 
I challenge anyone on this page to find anywhere that I said that. This is pure garbage and just illustrates one more time how this guy twists words. I said the scientific method includes empirically confirmed consensus, but consensus alone is insufficient to qualify as scientifically confirming anything. But Mike says that any kind of consensus, which would include every science textbook in the word that teaches the same things as the rest, disqualifies that content as having any scientific validity, since consensus disqualifies anything as science. He apparently thinks that because all animals are not dogs, that proves that dogs aren't animals.
 
The poor fellow apparently doesn't know that consensus does NOT mean consensus of opinion. It simply means agreement. When scientists agree that their experimental results confirm those of others who have conducted the same experiment and got the same results, that is consensus based on experimental verification. This poor guy seems permanently stuck with the idea that consensus always has to imply opinions only.
 
Further, I never stated that there has ever been an empirically verified scientific consensus on AGW. That's impossible unless and until nature confirms it. He doesn't seem to have gotten that into his head either. I DID say, however, that many, many of the scientific correlations are known to correspond to causal connections because we understand the scientific principles and mechanisms that confirm the causal link.
 
Here we have the same naive confusion. It's the same logic that because all animals are not dogs, therefore dogs are not animals. While it is true that correlation does not necessarily mean there is a causal connection, a causal connection absolutely and reliably does imply a strong correlation. If I drop a ball and it falls to the ground, there is an absolutely perfect correlation between dropping the ball and its fall toward the ground as long as we're on this planet. That correlation in NO way implies any absence of a cause. So many of the correlations Mike dismisses as having no cause are clearly understood by science as causal relationships because we know precisely how it works. These relationships ARE experimentally confirmed by science.
 
However, proof of tons of the pieces of the puzzle doesn't prove the whole AGW phenomenon because it is so huge and complex. We can only speak in terms of probabilities. But with so much clearly understood pieces of the puzzle all yelling loudly that AGW is real, we have to take it seriously and not simplistically dismiss it out of hand because we can't prove it with absolute certainty. I can't prove that a blind and deaf person crossing the street without help is going to get injured or killed either. That person might be lucky and there's no way to prove he won't be. So I guess we just go ahead and encourage him to cross the street without any help? Betting against AGW would be a stupid bet even if the odds were even. We don't need proof to know that.
 
In fact, Karl Popper explicitly introduced the criterion of potential falsification (one of Mike's favorite themes with apparently no understanding of it) into the scientific method he understood that no theory can ever be proved empirically true, although it usually can in some future be proved false. However, that neither Newton's nor Einstein's theories are true" in any ultimate sense doesn't mean they don't work. They have practical explanatory power and that's all any theoretical model of reality can ever have. The only perfect model of how the universe functions is the universe itself.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 5, 2014 - 7:40am
No he isn't Johann. 
 
Mike is a complete ass.   He probably works in the auto industry and simply spouts the party line deliberately designed to misdirect and confuse.
 
Don't be a sucker.  Think for yourself.  Do not be duped by these interest groups.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 5, 2014 - 12:43pm
Robin - play nice or no tea and crumpets! 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 5, 2014 - 12:58pm
Robert - your comment:
 
"However, that neither Newton's nor Einstein's theories are true" in any ultimate sense doesn't mean they don't work. They have practical explanatory power and that's all any theoretical model of reality can ever have. The only perfect model of how the universe functions is the universe itself."
 
makes my point - thank you!  The predictions of the AGW crowd do NOT line up with reality, and they aren't even close!  You can use Newton's or Einstein's laws and accurately predict how nature will behave.  The CO2 models have NOT predicted nature for the past 40 years - and you know why! 
 
It's one thing to model the orbit of a planet with one primary influence (the Sun) and the significantly reduced influence of a few "nearby" neighbors with constant mass and stable orbits.  The Earth's climate is influenced by hundreds of factors, all of which are randomly variable, non-linear and non-deterministic.  Do you think you could predict the orbit of Venus if the mass of the Sun randomly fluctuated just 0.1%?  Of course not!  How in the hell can a linear, deterministic computer forecast accurately when the solar output varies unpredictably?   
Robert Wendell Added Jun 5, 2014 - 8:49pm
Mike, why don't you make some minimal attempt to actually understand how words are connected to figure out what they mean. I never compared the theoretical models of Newton and Einstein to the numerical models on supercomputers that attempt to model climate change. I used them to illustrate a specific point about the motive for Popper's introduction of falsification to the scientific method. I used Newton and Einstein exclusively in that context.
 
What the heck do you do...randomly associate words like model in vastly different contexts and just happily, dumbly draw whatever conclusions from that you're already wanting to draw?
 
Returning now to the theme of climate models, your statements about the inconsistencies and wrong predictions and the long lists you lamely pretend to support them with are cherry picked with a vengeance. Show us the sources of your silly lists! Don't include sensationalist headlines in the media or maverick OPINIONS from scientists on the take you seem to accept as gospel truth.
 
You dismiss real scientific explanations for correlations that indeed do correspond to causal connections even though the correlations alone are insufficient to establish them. You demand proof from AGW science, but the bar is much lower for your opinions, aren't they? You think such double standards are just fine? Apply the standards you apply to AGW and your opinion is toast.
 
Remember, kiddo, all animals are not dogs, but that doesn't prove your dog is not an animal. Causal connections always produce correlations, while the reverse is not always true. Some animals are dogs and some correlations exist because there is a causal connection. We understand perfectly well the mechanisms responsible for those correlations. We just can't know what all the factors are or every detail about how they all interact. That's the problem and not mistaking correlations for proof. What kind of scientist do you think actually makes that kind of stupid assumption? You're just swallowing propaganda from people who know most people are so ignorant they find it believable that scientists make that kind of stupid assumption. You seem to be one of them.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 6, 2014 - 3:28am
No man stands between me and my crumpets.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 6, 2014 - 9:16am
Johann, did you read any of my comments on consensus before posting yours? Consensus alone is not science, but the scientific method requires experimental confirmation of hypotheses that can be replicated. This is a specific kind of rigorously confirmed consensus that science not only includes, but requires. So although consensus per se is indeed not science, consensus does not disqualify anything as science if it is experimentally confirmed with empirically replicable results. Not all animals are dogs, but being a dog does not disqualify a dog's status as an animal.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 6, 2014 - 11:53am
Having said the above, there can be no rigorous empirical confirmation of AGW unless and until it happens. The climate is too huge and complex for us to know everything about it. However, a huge quantity of the pieces we do know and understand are rigorously confirmed by empirical evidence. We understand virtually all the causal mechanisms underlying the correlations. We just can't know that we have all the pieces. However, the best models have had extremely accurate predictive results and not just in retrospect. One was tested over the next ten years after it was developed and was accurate within a few hundredths of a degree. All this about inconsistency, as I've reiterated so many times, is just cherry picking and quite often resorting to offbeat sources. 
 
So the bottom line is that it's a matter of which is the best bet. Do we sit on our butts and do nothing or take action? Which really costs the most in the longer run? What are the risks and rewards in each case. In betting, if you want to win, you multiply probability times reward to get what is called the expected value. You will win in the long run if you consistently go with the higher expected value. Betting on AGW has a vastly higher expected value than betting against it. But just as in a gamble, there is no proof of what is going to happen either way.
 
It's just all about which is the better bet. Some of you just can't seem to get something that abstract to fit into your provincial little perspectives. This reminds me of a colleague at work long ago who would complain bitterly when the weather report would say there was a 70% chance of rain, so he didn't go golfing. But it didn't rain. He kept complaining about how wrong the weather report was.
 
He simply couldn't understand that if he went by the weather report, 70% of the time it would rain in the long run and that was more information than just going golfing every time. In that case, you would go and get rained out 70% of the time, but you would never know which time was which. He just couldn't handle that level of abstraction no matter how hard I tried to help him understand. He was a former high school principal, by the way.
 
The scientific odds are very high that AGW is real. The risk of being wrong is not only very high if you bet against it, but the rewards of being right are zero and the rewards for being wrong are extremely negative. So when all is said and done, although there is no proof possible either way unless and until it happens, betting against AGW is a really bad bet.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 6, 2014 - 12:18pm
Quoting from one of the first articles I contributed to Writer Beat:
 
 In a Discover Magazine article, Archibald interviews Stephen Schneider. Schneider offers an interesting, best-case analysis of the probabilities, meaning probabilities that minimize the likelihood of global warming. Let’s assume we know nothing; have no data regarding whether the polar ice sheets are going to continue melting or not. So we just arbitrarily assign a probability of 50/50 either way to the North Polar ice, despite knowing in reality from both earthbound and satellite observation that both poles are melting much faster than predicted.
 
Let’s do the same for the South Polar ice. Now we have a probability of 25% that they will both melt at the same time, which is precisely what they are actually already doing even though not something they always or even usually have done.  So we’re projecting a situation much more conservative than the current reality.
 
Now, let’s assign a 50% probability that the stratosphere will cool while the earth warms. Schneider continues, “Troposphere warming? Fifty. The probability that one will go up while the other [stratosphere] goes down? Twenty-five percent. Same thing for other patterns, like the way high-latitude continents are warming more than the low latitude ones are.
 
He then points out that with any one line of evidence we can still pretend there’s a 25% chance it’s just random. He finishes his point with the obvious conclusion that even with this very elementary, best-case analysis, the probability of all these things lining up this way is really low unless global warming is a reality.
 
So the most conservative imaginable estimate supports the conclusion that the global warming skeptics have an extremely low likelihood of being right, even with no assumptions that any one occurrence is more probable than random chance despite reams of strong evidence that they all are. This evidence is further based on clear observations already made of the rates of change, with no historical precedents by factors approaching a hundred to one.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 6, 2014 - 12:26pm
Robert - your assertion:
 
"We understand virtually all the causal mechanisms underlying the correlations."
 
is just something you pulled out thin air.  The Earth's climate is so complex that by definition is impossible to comprehend.  That's the reason AGW proponents have been (unsuccessfully) trying to model it with multivariable linear regression. 
 
There are so many variables interacting randomly over time in unpredictable ways that about all we can do is speculate that the Earth's temperature over the past 10,000 years has ranged from x to z, and we assume it will continue to vary in that range.
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 6, 2014 - 12:43pm
Robert - you actually believe your assertion:
 
"So we just arbitrarily assign a probability of 50/50 either way to the North Polar ice, despite knowing in reality from both earthbound and satellite observation that both poles are melting much faster than predicted."
 
is sound science???  First of all, despite Al Gore's prediction the polar ice is INCREASING not decreasing (ask the environmental knuckleheads who got trapped in it a few months back)!  Second, real scientists don't "arbitrarily assign" anything and go from there!
 
Third, how do assign "probabilities"?  You DON'T - you calculate them, which means you have actual data to base your statistical calculations from.  Everything you base your arguments on is consensus upon supposition upon supposition upon bad science.  You're like one of those guys who believe Jesus is coming in 2 weeks, and when he doesn't you just push the date back.  
 
You have gotten emotionally invested in this and you're grasping for straws.  Does the fact that NOTHING these charlatans predicted has come true enter your thought process at all?  
Mike Haluska Added Jun 6, 2014 - 12:50pm
Robert - by the way, your comment:
 
""We understand virtually all the causal mechanisms underlying the correlations."
 
demonstrates you still believe that correlation has something to do with or is just as good as causality.  
 
The assumption that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").
 
It is the practice of ignoring this that results in "Consensus is an acceptable substitute for Scientific Method".
Mike Haluska Added Jun 6, 2014 - 1:05pm
Robert - just because I know you're going to dispute the arctic ice growing:
 
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/global-warming-satellite-data-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/
Robert Wendell Added Jun 6, 2014 - 1:45pm
Mike's comments are so full of blatant logical flaws and bogus sources obvious to anyone unafflicted by the same irrationalitis that they don't merit a response. I'm so tired of going over them point by point to debunk them, complete with reference links to definitions of the logical flaws only to have those responses ignored, or twisted with mindless, random word associations, that I'm not going to bother again. They're too obvious to anyone with a grain of sense, his likewise mindless supporters notwithstanding.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 6, 2014 - 1:47pm
Johann is so "sientific" that he can't spell science. I'm tired of fencing with irrational illiterates.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 6, 2014 - 2:42pm
Russ - Robert's problem is that he has gotten emotionally involved and his pride is at stake.  I will make a point proven out in reality (Arctic ice is growing, not shrinking) and in return I will get a dissertation on thermodynamics.  I will make another point proven out in reality (Past 40 + years of AGW forecasts not even remotely accurate) and I will get insults about my ability to think and use logic.  You make a point and get a spelling correction.
 
Then he'll assign me "tests".  He will "dare"me to answer some question in order to "prove" I know what I am talking about.  Never mind the fact that he could have copied something from a text book that he doesn't understand, or that I could copy the answer! 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 6, 2014 - 8:21pm
Tom - thanks for shedding some common sense and basic reason.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 6, 2014 - 9:18pm
Tom: "A theory is a theory because it has not been proven to be a fact.  If a theory is proven, then it is no longer a theory, it is a fact."
 
Popular but totally incorrect and absolutely unscientific idea. Do some serious research to find out how utterly wrong this is. I'm tired of trying to educate people who don't want to be, so do it yourself or just continue dreaming you know what you're talking about. Here's a little kick start for you from http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work:
 
"Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of 'theory' in everyday conversation.
 
"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
 
"Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
 
"Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
 
"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 7, 2014 - 9:18am
Tom & Russ - see what I mean? (above)
Robert Wendell Added Jun 7, 2014 - 3:48pm
To all passersby:
 
Note the last previous comment by Mike with reference to m post just above his, to wit: "Tom & Russ - see what I mean? (above)"
 
This seems to imply (as best I can tell) that my post was full of screwy ideas that represent my personal opinions. In fact, these definitions are those universally recognized in the scientific world. Do the research and you will see this is true unless you restrict yourself to the maverick, politically loaded citations from the likes of these poor ignorant souls.
 
Mike, in fact, has an obsession with falsifiability as a criterion for distinguishing science from pseudo-science. First, this is very intensely debated in the scientific community, so it is not solidly established as an indispensable part of scientific method. However, I personally think it's fine as long as its interpretation is not deformed beyond reason.
 
Second, having accepted falsifiability as a legitimate modern addition to scientific method, it's introduction by Karl Popper is based on the recognition that no scientific theory is ever a "fact". It is a human construct accepted for its explanatory power and its resulting usefulness in making accurate predictions, but the underlying assumptions of which can always be upended in some future date by a theory with more comprehensive explanatory power founded on premises that contradict the earlier theory of less comprehensive scope. 
 
The scope of a theory is of paramount importance in considering its practical value. I referred to Einstein's theories to illustrate this point. The underlying assumptions of his theories completely contradict the apparently common sense assumptions upon which Newton's principles are founded. Yet when we use Newton's principles within the limited scope for which they apply (which is almost everything within the scope of practical, daily scientific needs) they are incredibly useful and accurate,
 
Newton's principles break down only when we start to approach significant fractions of the speed of light or expand our scope to astronomical times and distances. Einstein's theories work for both the limited scope in which Newton's theories work AND the more comprehensive astronomical scope. Nevertheless, it is unnecessarily complex when dealing with the more limited scope for which Newton's simpler theories work just fine. Science calls Newton's theories a special case of Einstein's more general-case theory.
 
However, it is virtually certain that  in some probably not very distant future, Einstein's theories will be superseded by a still more comprehensive theory, one that is more generally applicable still. This is what falsifiability is all about. When I brought all this out earlier, Mike, in his infinite wisdom, decided arbitrarily that I was comparing the theoretical models of Einstein and Newton to the computer models of climate science.
 
He did this apparently on the basis of my happening to use the word models in reference to Newton and Einstein. He apparently doesn't understand that such theories are never proven facts no matter how useful and accurate, but merely theoretical models. No theoretical model is ever perfect. but models such as Newton's and Einstein's are broad, rigorous conceptual structures based on fundamental assumptions called axioms in mathematics that have rigorously precise explanatory and predictive power within the appropriate scope. They have nothing to do with the concept of computer programs that implement numerical models to roughly approximate complex natural phenomena. 
 
Mike apparently just made a random, completely context-free association of my usage of the word models. Even theoretical models like Newton's and Einstein's have no ultimate truth value as attested to by their inevitable replacement by still more general-case models. Again, this is what falsifiability is all about and constitutes the historical basis for Popper's introduction of the idea in the mid-twentieth century. This kind of depth is obviously completely opaque to the conservative mindset.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 7, 2014 - 5:55pm
Robert - your assertion:
 
"This seems to imply (as best I can tell) that my post was full of screwy ideas that represent my personal opinions. In fact, these definitions are those universally recognized in the scientific world."
 
misses the point I was making.  For the past 40 plus years, AGW proponents have been making outlandish forecasts that never even come close to materializing.  Their track record is horrendous and you keep throwing out definitions, theorems, quizzes, etc.  

Just like the AGW frauds, you keep trying to hijack Scientific Method and replace it with Consensus.   
Mike Haluska Added Jun 8, 2014 - 2:05pm
Edib - basic science here!  Correlation is NOT causality!  Just because a substance can be classified as a "greenhouse gas" doesn't mean that it has a significant effect.  If you pour warm water into a glass of cold water, the glass water temperature goes up.  If you and I urinate into the Pacific Ocean, I doubt surfers in Hawaii would notice a temperature increase!
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 8, 2014 - 2:42pm
Tom:   You are clearly not a scientist.
 
In science there is no such thing as a hard "fact" merely a current theory which seems to fit observed phenomenon.  
 
For example Newtonian physics were taken as the dominant theory until it was shown that certain phenomena did not conform... especially close to the speed of light or at very small sizes.  So that theory was replaced.
 
Facts are for the layman... not the scientist.
 
Correct, correlation is not causality.    Correlated phenomena may be cause/effect or they may have a common cause.  (or just be a coincidence).
 
The smart person, when traveling in the jungle and seeing the bushes move, does not hold a debate on whether this is caused by a tiger or something else... he moves backwards in case he is going to be eaten.   Likewise with climate change... some change is almost certainly due to man... but there is a small chance that it is not.  Either way, a smart species does what it can to avoid extinction... and argues about "facts" later.
 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 8, 2014 - 5:50pm
Edib, this quote from Mike is utter trash that I've debunked multiple times, but it seems he doesn't understand it at all and this proves it or he's just trolling for laughs.
 
Mike: said: "Correlation is NOT causality!  Just because a substance can be classified as a "greenhouse gas" doesn't mean that it has a significant effect.  If you pour warm water into a glass of cold water, the glass water temperature goes up.  If you and I urinate into the Pacific Ocean, I doubt surfers in Hawaii would notice a temperature increase!"
 
First, how greenhouse gases behave in both absorbing and emitting infrared is science that began with Kirchhoff and Bunsen in 1861. Ever since Planck and the beginning of quantum physics we have understood the causal connections between gas absorption and emission spectra. This, in a nutshell, was the inception of gas spectroscopy. It has nothing to do with thermal heat, which is the only form of heat that you can dilute with ocean water, so the "analogy" is totally bogus and shows a pitiful poverty of elementary scientific knowledge.
 
Second, infrared is radiant heat and has no temperature. Until it strikes some kind of material, including gases, it has nothing to do with thermal heat. Even then, it is no longer infrared, but molecular and/or atomic motion, which can be oscillatory (in solids) or Brownian motion in liquids and gases. Thermal heat is the only form in which heat has a temperature. The same amount of heat energy in different materials even results in different temperatures. Materials have different specific heats, which means the same amount of infrared energy causes the temperature to increase by different amounts per unit mass in different materials. Materials, however, can convert thermal heat to infrared and radiate it. They do this all the time. That's why you can feel heat at a distance from something hot enough.
 
No gases except greenhouse gases can absorb infrared. That is true by their definition. Oxygen and nitrogen are not greenhouse gases because we know they cannot absorb or emit any infrared at all. The absorption and emission spectra are way above that of the infrared spectrum, but they can store thermal heat as Brownian motion and stimulate greenhouse infrared radiation via collisions with it. There are much more powerful greenhouse gases than CO(2), but with the exception of water they exist in the atmosphere in too small amounts to compete with the effect of CO(2) among the atmospheric greenhouse gases.
 
We now need to add to this picture two more facts. They are not theories, not even laws. They are just simple, super-well-confirmed, scientific facts.
 
1. Space does not conduct any heat at all away from the earth system (earth + atmosphere). Since thermal heat is the only form of heat that anything conducts and there is nothing in space to conduct it away from earth, all heat leaving the earth radiates into space as infrared.
 
2. There is almost no water vapor at all above the troposphere (10 kilometers or 6.25 miles plus), while CO(2) continues at the same 400 ppm all the way to about 80 kilometers (50 miles), so most infrared leaving the earth is radiated by CO(2), a fact solidly confirmed empirically by satellite spectroscopy.
 
 
So peeing in the ocean has only to do with diluting thermal heat. As the facts above clearly confirm, this has nothing at all to do with the means by which CO(2) affects heat leaving the earth. I've explained these simple facts to Mike multiple times, but he nonetheless continues to repeat this ridiculous, utterly inappropriate analogy. You simply can't reason with such a total ignoramus.
 
He also implies with his correlation argument that this is all there is to it: a correlation. This completely ignores our knowledge underlying the correlation. He ignores that although correlation doesn't prove causal connection, causal connection always results in correlation. Not all animals are dogs, but that doesn't prove your dog is not an animal. Since we know the causal effects underlying the correlation, his argument that correlation doesn't prove causality is true, but simply and clearly moot. Will that keep him from repeating it, though? I've lost count of how many times he already has.
 
The truth is I don't know whether he's really that self-blinded or just trolling for laughs. I have no idea which, but I'm beginning to suspect that he really, truly is that far gone.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 8, 2014 - 7:55pm
Robert - All you have done is recite thermo laws.  You can't refute the fact that the Earth's temperature HAS NOT risen as "predicted" along with the RIDICULOUS floods, storms, etc.  

When you look at reality and still cling to this nonsense you're the one being duped.  This explains why in spite of no evidence you rationalize with moronic comments like "correlation doesn't prove causal connection, causal connection always results in correlation." and "we understand all the causal relationships".
 
For the final time, THERE IS NO CAUSAL CONNECTION - even the IPCC admits it!  You wishing there was isn't going to make it happen.  If you knew how to do the math you would KNOW there isn't a causal relationship, but math doesn't matter to liberal arts majors - intentions and feelings do.
 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 8, 2014 - 11:02pm
Thank you, Edib. You seem to understand well how Mike twists things. If he's serious, he doesn't even know he's doing this. Yet he does indeed have a civil engineering degree. I checked. Pitiful! Here is the latest twisting of my words:
 
I said: "So many of the correlations Mike dismisses as having no cause are clearly understood by science as causal relationships because we know precisely how it works. These relationships ARE experimentally confirmed by science."
 
Mike's nutty reading of that, pretending to quote me or at least to paraphrase what I've said:
 
" 'we understand all the causal relationships' "
 
So how, pray tell, did stating that we understand precisely the causal relationships that explain "many of the correlations" become "we understand all the causal relationships"?
 
Also, what is wrong with either of these: "...correlation doesn't prove causal connection" , which Mike himself states, or "causal connection always results in correlation"? After all, I think we all understand that dropping a ball from a height with an unobstructed path to the ground will accelerate that ball toward the center of mass of the earth and make it strike the ground. 
 
So we know that because there is indeed a causal connection there is also a 100% correlation between dropping the ball under those conditions and the ball striking the ground. Is he saying that the causal connection we understand as gravitation can exist while the correlation doesn't? Is he saying that the correlation disproves a causal connection? What kind of intellect or engineer, for goodness' sake, does it take to "think" that way?
 
Please note that Mike doesn't cite real scientific principles from real scientific sources, He never shows any understanding of the empirically based reasoning scientists use to conclude that AGW is a high probability threat. No, he gets all his information from the conservative equivalent of tabloid news and politicians. He won't even show that he understood word one of what the scientific arguments mean, but on the contrary, shows quite regularly that he either grossly misunderstands them or simply ducks them.
 
He even helps me prove that with this: "All you have done is recite thermo [sic] laws." I think he means thermal laws. No, I talked about two forms of heat energy, radiant and thermal; how they differ and how they relate. His pee in the ocean "anology" shows that he still has no idea that radiation and thermal energy are far from synonymous or how their conversions back and forth from one to the other happen.
 
He sure doesn't get that the oxygen and nitrogen that make up 99% of the atmosphere can neither conduct heat into space or radiate it. They can only store heat thermally and stimulate the only gases (which by definition are greenhouse gases) that can absorb and radiate this energy into space to do just exactly that. That's why he can't understand how 400 ppm of atmospheric CO(2) is significant.
 
His language doesn't even seem to recognize the existence of anything but thermal heat. This is really pitiful for someone with an engineering degree, even if it is a civil engineering degree, which is mostly rote learning of the physical tools and cookbook math formulas used in civil construction.
 
Richard Feynman, one of the foremost theoretical physicists of the 20th century said, "I don't know what's the matter with people: they don't learn by understanding, they learn by some other way - by rote, or something. Their knowledge is so fragile."
 
Mike does that one worse. He learns by rote using really bad information.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 9, 2014 - 2:12am
Has anyone looked into the history of big industries methods of fighting media wars.
 
There was tobacco, lead in petrol, sugar etc before global warming.   In each case the activities of certain industries (in this case oil and automotive) were threatened by concerted public action to get off negative health effects.
 
Such a study might help us to understand what is going on here and why Mike is saying the sort of things that he is.
 
We used to think that the Internet would expose "facts".  It has actually provided an excellent medium for well funded interest groups to deceive and obfusticate.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 9, 2014 - 10:56am
Robert - your assertion:
 
"He never shows any understanding of the empirically based reasoning scientists use to conclude that AGW is a high probability threat."
 
is pure consensus crap, plain and simple.  Tell me - how exactly do "scientists" calculate the "probability" that AGW is a "threat"?  By voting on it?  It sure isn't by comparing their ridiculous forecasts to what actually occurs!  You sit in front of your PC and just decide on your own what part of reality you choose to ignore to preserve your "religious" status of AGW.
 
And Robin, you are trying another bullcrap unscientific ploy by trying to tie cigarette smoking to AGW.  It may work on weak minds, but not me.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 9, 2014 - 4:33pm
Robin, the connection between smoking tobacco and cancer is less solidly established scientifically than CO(2) and AGW. In the case of tobacco, the studies are strictly based on statistical correlation and smearing tobacco tar on lab mice, etc., etc. So we do have some medical connections that underlie the correlations, but they are much more tenuous than the connections we have between CO(2) and AGW. Drug testing and approval by the FDA is even more tenuous than any of this. The recalls are testimony to that. Mike is nuts, pure and simple.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 9, 2014 - 5:00pm
Robert - I just can't think of a logical comeback to your scientific, logical reply "Mike is nuts".  Show me where the AGW crowd performed independent double-blind studies, was able to induce global warming according to predicted theory, was able to quantify and identify real cases of harm done attributable solely to AGW, etc.  If the American Cancer Society had the same scientific results as the AGW crowd, the American public would still be smoking at 1950's levels. 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 9, 2014 - 5:03pm
Robert - provide the "formula" used to calculate the statistical probability of AGW please.  I don't know where you currently have it but I know where you pulled it out of.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 9, 2014 - 5:03pm
Robert - provide the "formula" used to calculate the statistical probability of AGW please.  I don't know where you currently have it but I know where you pulled it out of.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 9, 2014 - 5:03pm
Robert - provide the "formula" used to calculate the statistical probability of AGW please.  I don't know where you currently have it but I know where you pulled it out of.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 9, 2014 - 6:31pm
Anybody here able to think of a way to apply double-blind studies to AGW? Can anyone here explain how the purely statistical correlations that double-blind studies exclusively apply to are proof of anything according to Mike's own endlessly repeated statements to the contrary?
 
In light of the predictable lack of anyone's ability to explain these things so completely impossible to explain, what sense could this statement from Mike possibly make?
 
"If the American Cancer Society had the same scientific results as the AGW crowd, the American public would still be smoking at 1950's levels."
 
Please bear in mind that the ONLY tools used in showing something like smoking as a causal factor are statistical, that is, probabilistic, which Mike has repeatedly denounced as unscientific. How much sense does such a blatant use of double standards make? I remind you of an excerpt from one of my previous replies to Mike:
 
You demand proof from AGW science, but the bar is much lower for your opinions, aren't they? You think such double standards are just fine? Apply the standards you apply to AGW and your opinion is toast.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 9, 2014 - 10:22pm
Robert - you dragged cigarettes into this!  ONE MORE TIME . . . .
 
Where is the "formula" used to calculate the statistical probability of AGW please???  Tell us how you "know" the causal relationships of a multi-variable non-linear complex system. 
 
The "probability" you hold so sacred is basically the common OPINION of like minded researchers . . .  in other words CONSENSUS!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 9, 2014 - 11:37pm
Hello, everyone! I mentioned the tobacco argument to starkly display Mike's absurdly obvious double standards and self-contradictions. I already quoted above part of a Discover magazine article, which his mental opacity rejected for patently absurd "reasons".
 
In that article the scientist I quoted gave Mike's side of the argument a 50/50 chance of being right on each of a whole series of situations that point to AGW and showed that even under those incredibly generous conditions (a best-case scenario for AGW being benign or non-existent), the probability that Mike is right is still zilch and the probability that AGW is a real adn very serious economic and physical threat is very, very high.
 
Mike's arguments are full of cow poop at every turn, including this stupid question. He knows the situation is too complex for there to be a precise formula, but we can make very good estimates. The 95% probability is at this point extremely conservative considering what we know is already happening.
 
These conservative goofballs think the polar ice caps are in a long term growth and completely deny that in the longer term picture they have melted dramatically and continue to do so. They simply deny clear, empirical data like that and the satellite spectroscopy that clearly shows empirically that CO(2) is a major contributor to all infrared leaving the earth.
 
Yet Mike still keeps repeating his ridiculous pee in the ocean "analogy" despite it's absolute irrelevance. To think that has any relevance at all to the mechanisms involving greenhouse gases requires the most profound ignorance of very elementary science. He's a scientific know-nothing with a civil engineering degree.
 
I've been around and worked with a lot of engineers in my life and there are always a few who are quite incompetent despite their credentials. Some are successful only because they do the same routine work by rote every day. Some couldn't hold a real engineering job for long after graduation because they just didn't understand their own fields well enough even by rote.
 
He ignores my undergraduate work in physics and mathematics and that I have an engineering license in electronics and worked in that field for ten years. I have followed science avidly most of my life (since grade school). I continue to educate myself about all kinds of science. The only rebuttal he has to any of that is to cite my master of music degree, which he seems to think somehow means I cannot possibly know anything about science. How's that for a brilliant mind?
 
I suppose Leonardo Da Vinci was a lousy engineer because he had no degree at all in engineering or art either, for that matter. He was a fabulous painter and a good musician, God forbid, so how could he possibly have had any competence as an engineer? That alone merits a dunce cap for Mike, but he's the silliest possible kind of conservative who simply skips substantial scientific arguments, makes up his own rules, and endlessly repeats his positions with zero credible support. So I guess we should just expect that kind of brainless "logic". His kind abound on this Website, though, and unfortunately for us all, in this country. God help us!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 9, 2014 - 11:50pm
By the way, folks, you should know that I don't blame anyone for being ignorant of science. I do blame people abysmally ignorant of even basic science for arrogantly pretending to understand science when they are actually clueless and projecting their arrogance onto you. For the record and at the risk of derision and accusations of arrogance from arrogant, know-nothing jerks, I think readers should be aware of the following information:
 
In my secondary school system there was a strong testing program, although the teachers in those days did not teach to the tests. I took tons of standardized tests from the seventh grade on up. I scored post-graduate level in reading comprehension in the seventh grade. I never scored less than 99+ percentile on either aptitude or achievement tests in science. Although I finished undergraduate school with a music degree, my GRE score was 99+ percentile in mathematics. Mike is just too clouded and absurdly arrogant for no good reason to even recognize when he's way out of his element.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 10, 2014 - 12:55pm
Robert - you have sunk below even your low standards.  Insulting your debater is the last bastion of losers.  You can't "anoint" yourself as a scientific expert.  What independent, objective sources say Wendell has scientific expertise?  Why, the following organizations do:
 
      * The Wendell Society
      * The Friends of Wendell Group
      * Mr. & Mrs. Wendell
      * New England School of Classical Music
      * Wendell's High School Glee Club
 
Unfortunately, all I can counter with is:
 
       * National Society of Professional Engineers
       * State of Indiana Board of Professional Engineers
       * Purdue University (Internationally recognized engineering school)
       * American Society of Civil Engineers 
       * Society of Automotive Engineers
 
You read articles and delude yourself into thinking you understand the scientific principles, when all you have really done is a superficial gloss-over.  You ego is so overinflated that you compare yourself to DaVinci - as though "if DaVinci could do it, so can I".  One of the major reasons DaVinci didn't attend an engineering school is because they didn't exist at that time!  The oldest branch of engineering (Civil) actually started out as military engineering.
 
Here is the simple truth, Robert:  In over 30 years of focused education on science and its application, actual problem solving and applying the laws of physics I have forgotten more about science than you gleaned from reading Scientific American magazine.  You parrot what you read in articles and can't even distinguish between theoretical and actual.  When reality doesn't match up to your dogma, you dismiss reality!  When Scientific Method doesn't support your beliefs, you make up new and "better/just as good" rules that do.  You're ego is so hyper-inflated that you don't even know the floorboards have pulled out from under your arguments!  
Robert Wendell Added Jun 10, 2014 - 3:52pm
In light of the comments from both Mike and me available on this page and the conclusions obvious to anyone who understand science at all, this last comment is meaningless fluff. This man clearly demonstrates that he doesn't understand the difference between diluting thermal energy and transferring energy stored in non-greenhouse gases by collision to greenhouses gases, which in turn are the only gases capable of radiating infrared and do so in all directions, including into space. The full extent of his exceedingly lame rebuttal is that I'm doing nothing more than reciting "thermo laws". Apparently he thinks he is convincing, but only to utter fools.
 
He apparently even fails to understand that all energy leaving the earth leaves it as radiation, since the vacuum of space can conduct no energy away from earth. He also fails to understand that by their very definition no gases other than greenhouse gases can absorb heat energy and then radiate it as infrared. Yet he endlessly repeats the utterly ignorant "analogy" of peeing in the ocean.
 
He never addresses the scientifically sound argument enough to even show he understands it. On the contrary, he stubbornly refuses to do so. He then spews the kind of meaningless nonsense above as if that exonerated this kind of profound ignorance and the accompanying refusal to even demonstrate that he understands any of the real science.
 
Please note also that I never compared myself to Leonardo Da Vinci. This is another demonstration of how defective this man's comprehension is. I merely used Da Vinci as a clear illustration of what should be the obvious principle that musical and/or artistic ability in general imply no lack of scientific or engineering skills. This kind of absurdly biased, twisted interpretation of what Mike reads typifies how he interprets science, too. It also typifies the unfortunately all too politically successful, dismissive attitude of conservatives toward the arts and those who practice them.
 
Those who issued his credentials would likely be ashamed of his comments here. Notice that he ignores that I have an engineering license in electronics and ten years of very successful experience in the field. His feckless diatribe dismisses my performance on exams, too. You don't perform well on those standardized tests with rote learning unless someone with pre-knowledge of what's on them coached you. Teaching to standardized tests was unheard of during my school years. The teachers had no access to what was on them in the first place. On the other hand, typical classroom exams at universities are written and administered by the same teacher who taught you.
 
So never mind. This is too stupid for words.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 10, 2014 - 8:02pm
"he ignores that I have an engineering license in electronics and ten years of very successful experience in the field."
 
is another example of Wendell stretching the truth because reality doesn't meet his needs.  He is referring to the FCC radio license, which has NOTHING to do with the field or profession of engineering or obtaining a Professional Engineer's license. 
 
To obtain this prestigious "license", you don't even need a High School diploma, much less a Bachelors of Science from an Accredited Engineering College.  You do it by home study correspondence course in a few weeks.  Once you pass the test, you can spin radio dials on Shortwave Radio sets.  This license had a lot more relevance in the days before transistors, when somebody had to replace blown vacuum tubes in radio sets.  With modern technology this license is essentially irrelevant, unless you're the radio operator on the HMS Titanic.
 
In contrast, to obtain a Professional Engineer's License you must first graduate from a 4 year accredited engineering college.  You then must take and pass the 8 hour EIT (Engineer in Training) exam, which is a review of the fundamentals of engineering, calculus, physics, chemistry, dynamics, statics, thermodynamics, hydraulics, etc.  If you pass this exam, you must then work under the supervision of a Professional Engineer for four years.  At that point you are eligible to take the 8 hour State Board of Professional Engineers exam.  If you pass this exam, you are granted a 2 year license to practice as a Professional Engineer in that state.  But wait - we're not done here.  Every two years you must complete 40 hours of continuing education courses in order to keep your license current.
 
Robert takes baby steps in a direction, then assumes he is fully educated, experienced and qualified to lecture to those who actually took all the courses and applied the knowledge in practice.  This is analogous to taking "Intro to Classical Music", reading Classic Music magazines and thinking you're qualified to lecture professional concert musicians on performing a symphony.
 
The biggest difference between Robert and me is that although I played high school football and watch the Bears every Sunday I don't pretend to know more than the players and coaches.
 
 
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 10, 2014 - 8:16pm
OH - I almost forgot!  Before even getting a shot at the 8 year ordeal to become a Professional Engineer, you need to apply to and get accepted by an engineering college.  In order to get into a top engineering college you have to study your ass off in high school and graduate near the top of your class and get excellent SAT test scores.
 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 10, 2014 - 10:21pm
How does that remedy the simple and clear fact that you think peeing in the ocean has anything to do in principle with the way greenhouse gases work...or that non-greenhouse gases radiate any infrared at all into space? How do your credentials nullify that you think, incredibly, that infrared radiated from the atmosphere can come from any source other than greenhouse gases? That ability is absolutely all that defines greenhouse gases, which neither oxygen nor nitrogen (about 99% of the atmosphere) are!
 
That is pitifully ignorant on the most basic level. Pray tell, how do all your credentials nullify that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about? How can you be proud of your scientific credentials when you spew out such unscientific garbage, not about theories, but well-known scientific facts? Your abysmal ignorance of basic science has nothing to do with AGW or who's right about it. If I were you I would hide those credentials so no one would have to marvel at how ignorant you are of real science despite that kind of education!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 11, 2014 - 10:32am
General information on AGW for those sincerely interested in real science:
 
1. Only 16% of all infrared radiation into space is directly from the earth's surface, so the rest is radiated from the atmosphere. We know this because surface radiation approximates black body radiation and so is easily distinguishable from the spectral signatures of greenhouse gases.
 
2. Greenhouse gases are defined as those uniquely capable of radiating infrared at atmospheric temperatures.
 
3. Oxygen and nitrogen compose 99% of the atmosphere and are not greenhouse gases, so their contribution to infrared radiation is zero.
 
4. Water vapor cannot swamp CO(2) radiation into space because it freezes at altitudes above the troposphere (10 km or 6.25 mi). However, CO(2) remains a gas until very much lower temperatures and so remains at a concentration 400 ppm that extends to 80 km altitude. There is therefore enough above 10 km to be opaque to infrared at CO(2) wavelengths.
 
5. About 13% of infrared radiation into space comes from water vapor in the troposphere, since water vapor has a part of its infrared spectrum that is not in common with CO(2) and can therefore bypass it and radiate directly to space.
 
6. Human activity has no significant effect on the amount of water in the natural water cycle of evaporation and precipitation. Water vapor in the troposphere only reinforces the effect of greenhouse gases because as other greenhouse gases increase the temperature, the percentage of water vapor in the water cycle increases, exaggerating the effect with its own very powerful greenhouse effect in a positive feedback loop.
 
7. If we weight the contribution of all the greenhouse gases above the troposphere (10+ km) according to their strength as greenhouse gases and their relative quantities, CO(2) alone contributes about 72% of the infrared radiation from the atmosphere. Only about 13% comes from water vapor in the troposphere. This is despite the relative weakness of CO(2) as a greenhouse gases compared to some others, especially water, because it represents 99.4% of all greenhouse gases above the troposphere and so also above all water vapor.
 
8. Since all heat energy absorbed by the earth system is radiated into space as infrared, and since by their very definition no gases other than greenhouse gases can absorb or emit infrared, and since CO(2) alone represents 99.4% of all greenhouse gases above the troposphere that by its absorptive/emissive potential therefore contributes 72% of the total 71% atmospheric radiation into space (100% - 16% surface - 13% water vapor from the troposphere because both surface and water vapor radiation have some infrared that doesn't overlap the CO(2) spectrum), and since it therefore radiates 51% (72% of 71%) of all radiant heat into space, and since greenhouse gases re-radiate most infrared from water vapor and lower atmosphere greenhouse gases as well as surface radiation and also convert by collision the infrared they radiate to space from the thermal energy stored as Brownian motion in themselves and all non-greenhouse gases, the trace amount of CO(2) becomes very significant.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 11, 2014 - 12:53pm
Robert - your math sucks.  Percentages alone without consideration of relative mass between the materials absorbing/reflecting/radiating heat energy is meaningless!  If I put a red hot piece of coal next to an iceberg, it doesn't matter that "99% of the radiant heat is from the coal" - the iceberg isn't going to melt! 
 
IF what you claim is true, why doesn't it manifest itself in reality?  That's always where AGW falls apart!  NOTHING predicted ever materializes, so why you keep trying to show off your misunderstanding of thermo transfer is puzzling to me.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 11, 2014 - 12:59pm
By the way - concentrations aren't additive.  400ppm in the lower, upper, middle, inner-middle etc don't accumulate to make a higher concentration!!! 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 11, 2014 - 12:59pm
By the way - concentrations aren't additive.  400ppm in the lower, upper, middle, inner-middle etc don't accumulate to make a higher concentration!!! 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 11, 2014 - 7:21pm
Mike: "Percentages alone without consideration of relative mass between the materials absorbing/reflecting/radiating heat energy is meaningless! If I put a red hot piece of coal next to an iceberg, it doesn't matter that "99% of the radiant heat is from the coal" - the iceberg isn't going to melt!"
 
How absurdly irrelevant! Please note that the last sentence in the quote pretends that CO(2) is a source of heat rather than acting as an atmospheric heat valve. Greenhouse gases are by their very definition the ONLY gases that can absorb and emit infrared at atmospheric temperatures or convert kinetic energy in other gases to infrared and radiate it back to earth and out to space. Heat can leave the earth from its atmosphere by no other means in the vacuum of space.
 
To pretend greenhouse gases are too scarce to be significant is like pretending that sluice gates are too small compared to the lake behind the dam to affect how much water stays in the lake and how much flows downstream. It is a totally ridiculous idea that not even the very few genuine scientists who are anti-AGW ever propose. Mike may find a few meteorologists who propose this, but no real climate scientists.
 
The percentages in my comment are well established, empirical data. They are taken among the ONLY means of emitting radiation from the atmosphere in any direction, toward or away from the earth...the only gases that are pertinent. Believing that what matters is how little CO(2) there is compared to the whole atmosphere is absurd. Over 99% of the atmosphere is irrelevant to how radiation stays or leaves the earth because it cannot radiate heat by the very definition of what greenhouse and non-greenhouse gases are. All this 99%+ can do is store heat as the kinetic energy in the motion of its molecules and transfer it to the greenhouse gases to radiate in and out.
 
This keeps getting ignored again and again. Infrared emission to space is the ONLY means by which energy can leave the vacuum-insulated earth system. So CO(2) acts like a valve and not a source. To make this absurd coal/ice "analogy" demonstrates not only utter ignorance of basic science, but no ability to reason in any remotely valid way, never mind all the standard logical fallacies I've called Mike on.
 
All 99%+ of the atmosphere can do is transfer energy to greenhouse gases to radiate both back to earth and to space. This is why balance is so important. Too much greenhouse gas changes the proportion radiated to space versus how much comes back to earth. Too little doesn't radiate enough back to earth and we get too cold. The atmosphere contains NOTHING besides greenhouse gases that can radiate either way. We need them, but neither too much nor too little is good.
 
The radiant heat in the alleged "analogy" of coal and ice is only being used to melt the ice. How does that take into account the unarguable fact that greenhouse gases are by their very definition the only gases in the atmosphere that can radiate heat back to earth and to space? That has everything to do with much heat energy of any kind stays in and how much can get out from the atmosphere and NOTHING ELSE DOES! That's why such a small amount has such a strong effect.
 
The total amount of heat energy held in the atmosphere is enormous. The only thing that matters for climate is how fast it comes in and goes out. This is a very small amount compared to the total amount contained in the atmosphere. For radiation from the atmosphere, which is 71% of the total leaving the earth, the only part that matters is what is radiating it, the greenhouse gases. CO(2) is 99.4% of that. It is weak compared to some of the others, so it radiates 72% of the total from the atmosphere. That makes it responsible for 51% of the total radiant energy leaving the earth. These figures are not "my math". They are empirical data.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 11, 2014 - 7:37pm
Mike: "NOTHING predicted ever materializes, so why you keep trying to show off your misunderstanding of thermo transfer is puzzling to me."
 
The first part of this sentence is simply false. The second part talks of "thermo transer" again, as if thermal heat is the only form of heat that exists. Note that Mike never explains exactly what it is about thermal transfer or anything else really specific that I don't understand. That would be stepping right into a trap. Instead he provides absurd "analogies" that clearly show he doesn't understand, but he's clueless about that. He even repeats them.
 
Mike: "By the way - concentrations aren't additive.  400ppm in the lower, upper, middle, inner-middle etc don't accumulate to make a higher concentration!!!"
 
Where did this nonsense come from? Does this guy ever understand anything he reads? If you have a certain, fixed concentration of anything, like mud in water, the depth of the water matters with regard to how deeply you can see. This is not an "accumulation to make a higher concentration". Where does he come up with this stuff?  This is just common sense logic that he perverts to suit his purposes with no regard for how dismally stupid it makes him look. His butt is hanging out the window for everyone to see and he has no idea!
Mike Haluska Added Jun 11, 2014 - 9:01pm
Robert - heat can be transferred by EM wave (infrared) or by molecular motion transfer.  Why you think you have discovered the mysteries of the universe with your endless diatribe is beyond me.  
 
Let's pretend you have a PhD in thermo for sake of argument.  NOTHING you talk about has any bearing on what's actually going on in terms of AGW theory and reality.  You keep trying to win this debate by changing the debate from whether or not AGW theory is actually manifested by reality into who knows more about thermo. 
 
Where is the "formula" used to calculate the statistical probability of AGW please???  Tell us how you "know" the causal relationships of a multi-variable non-linear complex system.
 
Here is what I have predicted with 100% reliability for the entire amount of time this post has been running:
 
"Robert WILL NOT answer why AGW theory never matches up to reality, etc."
Robert Wendell Added Jun 11, 2014 - 11:44pm
Mike: "Robert WILL NOT answer why AGW theory never matches up to reality, etc."
 
Answer: This is a fallacy called "loaded question". You're asking me to explain something that is an outright lie. Hard right idiots lie a lot about real science. I've already addressed this at least half a dozen times here and under other articles. If you refuse to address my counterarguments, don't repeat yours. That's off sides...big time!
 
Now, a main cornerstone of your argument against AGW is that 400 ppm CO(2) is too small to do anything. You keep inanely repeating that. I debunk that with what you call "thermo theory".
 
That highly prejudicial phrasing pretends that well established scientific facts and hard empirical data are "theories", when in fact they are not. They are empirically observed data and irrefutable processes. I'm not talking about the whole issue of AGW now, so don't obfuscate again by ducking out to another piece of the issue.
 
Your "trace gas couldn't do it" argument implies that there are means other than greenhouse gases to radiate energy from the atmosphere. There are none. And 95.4% of those greenhouse gases is CO(2). That's why it's significant.
 
Now, if you think that's wrong and there are other means of getting heat from the sun absorbed into the atmosphere radiating back to the earth and out into space that makes CO(2) insignificant, then tell me what they are. If there aren't and 95.4% of the only means to do this (greenhouse gases) is CO(2), explain very specifically why you think CO(2) is an insignificant contributor.
 
I debunk all of your arguments one by one and you always just duck out by switching arguments. Or you simply state your opinion that my argument is wrong without a word that addresses the argument itself to show specifically where it goes wrong. Don't tell me about models being wrong. Don't tell me about how such a little valve like CO(2) can't possibly control such a large amount of heat.
 
Tell me exactly why, given these facts, that you want to bring the 99%+ non-greenhouse gases like oxygen, nitrogen, argon, etc. into the picture as if they did anything at all to dilute or diminish the unique power of greenhouse gases to radiate heat energy. Given that what defines them as greenhouse gases is that they are the ONLY gases that can radiate heat, why is the one (carbon dioxide) that represents 95.4% of the total so unimportant? Tell me that.
 
I've already addressed specifically every one of your last questions multiple times. I'm NOT going to do it again while you refuse to reciprocate. Don't YOU duck this question once again by switching arguments! It's a major cornerstone of your position.
 
If you're going use that as an argument against AGW, I have a right to debunk it and then have you tell me specifically at what point in my argument you think I provide a false fact or bad logic. Don't just say it's wrong. Show me WHY...with real scientific knowledge instead of cowardly retreats into other arguments. Show specifically with a tight argument constituted of solid scientific facts and principles, NOT stupid, irrelevant "analogies", why CO(2) isn't highly significant.
 
Don't try to spread back out to the whole issue of AGW to avoid dealing with this. Address this one! If you can't or refuse to, you're nothing more than an insincere jerk who plays stupid games to justify your position at all costs, including at the cost of any hint of intellectual integrity.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 12, 2014 - 1:51pm
Robert - I am also weary of verbal fencing with you.  I was trained and taught to use Scientific Method.  The point of this post was not to debate AGW, but to illustrate how very educated, well-meaning, intelligent people (as yourself) can accept something that "feels right" and simply proceed ahead based on their consensus that the idea/theory must be correct. 
 
The basis of my not accepting AGW as valid science is the absence of Scientific Method - period.  My skepticism is reinforced almost daily by the past 40 years of incorrect predictions and the continued preponderance of ridiculous claims about polar ice melting, huge temperature increases, flooding, etc.  Politicians put the cherry on top by trying to capitalize on the hysteria with "Carbon Tax Credits" and other schemes which will no effect other than transfer of wealth from productive free market nations to non-productive socialist nations.
 
I propose the following:  We both cease commenting on our remarks regarding this topic.  You have done a lot of personal research and I respect that and the fact that you are not just spewing hysteria like lots of others.  I have lots of positive things to say on your articles related to other topics, and I concur with your opinion in virtually every other area of discussion.  I would appreciate you reciprocating by acknowledging that skepticism is a healthy thing for science, and that my skepticism is not personal.
 
Time will tell the real story of AGW.  Until then, can we "agree to disagree" on the subject of AGW and engage in friendly civilized discussions?  I would really look forward to that. 
 
 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 12, 2014 - 3:42pm
While under the circumstances I enthusiastically accept Mike's proposal for us to cease dialog with each other on AGW, please note that he refuses to address any specific scientific points by showing exactly where they go wrong. He has done it once again. He reliably ducks out with one of his many and endlessly repeated avoidance tactics listed in my last post here.
 
He never confronts head on any substantial scientific argument that debunks arguments he presents by specifically showing where either the science or reasoning in my rebuttal is incorrect. He has once again, despite my explicit request not to do so, spread the discussion to the whole AGW issue instead of addressing the flaws I've pointed out in one of his principal arguments against it. 
 
He makes up his own definition of scientific method and uses that again to duck out, this time for good, we hope. I've tried again and again to invite his engagement in legitimate scientific, non-political discussion. Instead of addressing specific arguments, he shotguns with replies irrelevant to my rebuttals.
 
He apparently knows that accepting my invitations to address specific points would trash his cherished positions one by one, which indeed I've already done anyway, but without his participation. The nomenclature that comes to mind for those who practice this kind of refusal to engage in legitimate discussion instead of pure sophistry is "gutless wonder".
Mike Haluska Added Jun 12, 2014 - 3:59pm
Robert - this is how you reply to a genuine attempt to behave in a civil manner?  The reason I don't respond to your "specific points" is because they're jibberish and unrelated to the undisputed facts:
 
1) AGW is based on Consensus not Scientific Method
2) NOTHING forecast by AGW in the past 40 yrs has materialized
3) AGW (by admission of the IPCC) cannot be modeled by computer, nor can computers accurately forecast climate because it is a coupled, non-linear, non-deterministic complex system.
 
So all of the "specific points" you make about thermodynamics, radiant energy, greenhouse effect, etc. HAVE NO BEARING or NEGATE any of the fundamentals I listed.  REALITY doesn't support AGW!
 
YOU are the one trying to change the definition of Scientific Method to include consensus, not me.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 12, 2014 - 8:12pm
Thought so...
 
Sugar-coated cop-out = civil behavior...?
 
Fine. But folks, please note that everything Mike says in his last comment fits one or the other of the avoidance tactics I listed from previous experience with his self-delusion. I asked him not do to this and he's doing it all again.
 
Stating that my points are mere "jibberish" obligates anyone truly civil, though, to explain exactly what about it makes it gibberish in his mind. I can pretend to counter any argument whatsoever by simply calling it gibberish without stating why or what makes it gibberish. He occasionally actually pretends to do that, but with very invalid replies. He then ducks out again when I debunk that, too. All I ever get from him is an endless pile of pure sophistry:
 
soph·ist·ry
 noun ˈsä-fə-strē

: the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false
:  subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
 
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry)
 
The only problem with this definition with regard to its application to Mike's style is the use of terms such as "subtle" and "sound correct". 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 12, 2014 - 8:59pm
Robert - you didn't refute any of the points.  You never do, because you can't refute reality.  Everybody on this website sees right through your attempts at diversion, name calling, ineptly trying to discredit anyone who disagrees, etc. 
 
The problem is I don't need to refute bullcrap that isn't relevant to my major points.  You think if you throw enough technical terms around people will assume you must know what you're talking about.  Somebody (me) has pulled the curtain back on your act, showed you for what you really are and you're having a temper tantrum. 
 
You thought the exaggeration of your FCC license would pass by, and it didn't.  You thought your taking a couple of math courses (allegedly) that you could b.s. somebody who actually finished the curriculum.  You thought throwing unrelated thermo concepts would baffle and mystify, and you got exposed.  You thought you could personally redefine a method used for hundreds of years so you didn't have to admit consensus isn't scientific method and I blew you out of the water.  
 
So, going forward - stay out of the deep end of the science pool.  You may have read lots of articles but that doesn't mean you can swim.  Don't ever allow the fawning of your music major friends to over-inflate your ego so you think you are qualified to play with the big boys.     
Robert Wendell Added Jun 12, 2014 - 11:59pm
Mike: "To obtain this prestigious "license", you don't even need a High School diploma, much less a Bachelors of Science from an Accredited Engineering College.  You do it by home study correspondence course in a few weeks."
 
When I got my license I had worked five years in electronics and had almost enough physics and mathematics in undergraduates school to have a minor in them. I won a substantial prize for the highest grade in physics above a number of straight A students. I also had 2,000 hours of laboratory experience my last two years of high school at a vocational school that was integrated into our public school system. I had completed all my college entry requirements and wanted to learn electronics.
 
Much later I became a radio announcer for a short time, which in those days required a 4th class FCC license, only the legal part announcers needed to have. I studied only the legal part, drove the six hours to Atlanta, but decided to stay and take the whole thing. I hadn't studied at all for the electronics part, but left with a First Class Commercial Radiotelephone Operator's license. You don't take a correspondence course for a few weeks and do that. I later engineered for several years for a 100,000-watt FM stereo station in Nashville.
 
I didn't just "spin radio dials on Shortwave Radio sets". I lived closest to the transmitter, so whenever there was any problem I was the one who drove over at 3:00 AM to troubleshoot. I was also the top troubleshooter for the Advent outboard Dolby units. We pioneered the consumer Dolby technology. Of about 300 boards in the basement that no others had been able to fix, I troubleshot and fixed all but one. They were transistor circuits, by the way, and I understand transistor theory and the chemically doped semiconductor physics used to manufacture p and n type semiconductor material. Dolby circuits are difficult to troubleshoot, because they combine both audio and control signal feedback loops that interact in complex ways, so the troubleshooting logic gets very much more complicated. 
 
All this also ignores my decades long fascination with science and self study. That goes way beyond reading a few magazine articles or reading the kind of conservative pseudoscience Mike is so fond of citing. He shows no understanding of the articles I cite to back up what I say. I use highly respected sources like The American Institute of Physics (http://www.aip.org).
 
So Mike's comments are just sick. Anyone who understands a little about basic science and is capable of any critical thought at all can easily see how stupid they are. The proof is in the pudding and Mike's pudding is contaminated with tons of pure cow poop.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 13, 2014 - 12:04am
Mike: "The problem is I don't need to refute bullcrap that isn't relevant to my major points."
 
So how is it irrelevant that I address head on with solid empirical data and long established basic science one of Mike's central arguments that CO(2) at a concentration of 400 ppm is not significant? This doesn't even qualify as sophistry. It is pure, ignorant, mindless nonsense!!!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 13, 2014 - 12:07am
I predicted that he would duck out once again and I was right not only about that, but about his use of idiotic excuses to justify it.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 13, 2014 - 11:41am
"So how is it irrelevant that I address head on with solid empirical data and long established basic science one of Mike's central arguments that CO(2) at a concentration of 400 ppm is not significant?"
 
Robert - it depends on what you think "400ppm CO2 concentration" is significant to!  Since NONE of the AGW temperature increase predictions based on their "computer models" have materialized, an OBJECTIVE SCIENTIST would be forced to say THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANCE!  
 
We were told when CO2 was at 200 ppm, if it reaches 300 ppm we'll all burn up, polar ice melts, floods, etc.  When it reached 300 ppm, we were told if it reaches 400 ppm BLA BLA BLA.  If CO2 was - what's the word - SIGNIFICANT, the predictions would have occurred!  They didn't occur, and predicting that "this time, if CO2 goes from 400 ppm to 500 ppm" isn't being bought by anyone other than die-hard AGW'ers!
 
So go sell half-baked science at liberal colleges, the rest of us get enough of it from the mainstream media.
 
Here's why CO2 isn't SIGNIFICANT:
 
1) Correlation isn't causality
2) Consensus isn't Science
3) Can't model non-linear, non-deterministic systems
4) All the thermo quotes in the world can't change the above 
 
By the way, the difference in complexity between troubleshooting circuits and engineering/science is analogous to the difference in complexity between Checkers and Chess.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 13, 2014 - 12:54pm
Folks, the last two statements above are simply false. The first is true, but doesn't imply the reverse, that causality doesn't produce correlation, since it absolutely guarantees correlation. The second is true, but like the first, it doesn't imply the reverse. Empirically confirmed consensus does NOT invalidate anything as legitimate science.
 
Having said that, let's be clear that I never have stated that the scientific consensus on AGW as a whole is empirically confirmed. I've only stated that a huge amount of evidence that it is real has indeed been empirically confirmed and that we understand the causal mechanisms underlying most of the correlations. I have backed this up with citations from sources universally respected by scientists with clear scientific explanations even if not by some politicians, talk show hosts, and meteorologists financially connected with the fossil fuel industry.
 
On my credentials, the license to which Mike refers is a watered down version of the test I took that incensed many of those who held my earlier version because it diluted the meaning of their license. Let's also clarify that I never studied one second in my life for the earlier, very comprehensive test I took. I had never had a need for it, but was required to get the fourth class license by my new job. I decided to stay and take it. I didn't merely pass it, but didn't miss a single question on it.
 
My job title when I began working for the 100,000-watt stereo FM station in Nashville was Radio Engineer. I have designed quite a few circuits also, so my expertise in electronics was not limited to troubleshooting. However, troubleshooting electronic circuits with the kind of expertise I brought to it requires rigorous logical processes of which Mike has blatantly demonstrated himself to be utterly incapable.
 
Civil engineering is a highly specialized field that represents a very small sliver of the world of science. Mike clearly has very little knowledge of broader science as attested to by his loudly displayed ignorance in the comment above and all the previous. His logical fallacies permeate everything he says to the point of making it an onerous task to even bother pointing them out.
 
I think I'm going to write an article on why those afflicted with thoughtless rigidity hate hard data and valid logic. It upsets their apple cart. They hate this especially deeply when you cite references that name the fallacy and describe it in detail with examples that precisely parallel their fallacy.
 
They don't ever really answer your replies in any direct, honest way. They just get very angry. They want to think their opinion, no matter how zany, irrational, and ignorant, is just as good as yours. Of course, if you think otherwise that makes you a narcissistic egomaniac.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 13, 2014 - 12:59pm
On the blatant lie that no model has made any accurate predictions, please not the following from http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm:
 
"Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior [my emphasis] to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in [my emphasis] the past thirty years.  CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.
 
"Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions [my emphasis]. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling. 
 
"The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce."
Mike Haluska Added Jun 14, 2014 - 5:59pm
Robert - your comment:
 
""Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions"
 
illustrates your ignorance of this subject and willingness to be duped.  Go back 40 years and look at predictions - we should be freezing to death.  Go back 30 years - we should be boiling to death.  ANYONE can look in the rear view mirror and force fit coefficients to match historical data!  
 
Their forecast reliability has been so pitiful that the very "movement" changed their name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so that no matter which way the climate goes, they can say "told you so"!
Here's what really the kicker - if the models made "accurate predictions" they would have forecast the actual LOWER global temperature over the past 15 years and thus discredited AGW!
 
Talk to any scientist, physicist, mathematician about describing/explaining the Laws of Nature with mathematics and the one circumstance they dread it is turbulence.  Phenomena with laminar characteristics lend themselves to explaining their behavior with simple linear equations.  When laminar conditions become turbulent, the linear equations become useless and the system becomes non-linear and non-deterministic.  The Earth's climate is NOTHING BUT TURBULENCE - thus is non-linear and non-deterministic and cannot be accurately modeled or simulated.
 
Now, it is possible to write a "climate program" that will produce all sorts of results and "forecasts".  If all you want is something to study or produce output, they're fine.  But there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between "output" and reality!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 15, 2014 - 4:06pm
Mike said,
 
"Robert - your comment:
 
'Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions' "
 
illustrates your ignorance of this subject and willingness to be duped.
-----
Well, I guess Mike just can't read anything right, eh? I made it very clear for anyone who can that that's not my comment, but that the whole thing after the first sentence came from http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
 
So how can anyone who "understands" just about everything I say in such a twisted way understand any science at all. He can't use logic, proves it with an endless string of well-known fallacies, and thinks it's arrogant when anyone else thinks they can. Scientists have to know how to reason. When asked to do so or to elucidate any principle other than personal opinions he copied from hard right sources, he either gets angry, ducks by changing the focus, or simply refuses...every time.
 
Here he shows that he thinks anything I cite from a real scientific source is just another one of my "duped" opinions, an accusation naturally right in line with exactly what he does. It's called classical projection in psychology. He shows repeatedly that his bias comes from politics, not science, and continually projects that onto the whole scientific community.
 
Yes...Mike bases all his opinions on politics, twists the science with that, and then projects what he's doing on the whole scientific community! He can sell that to other politically contaminated minds, but he can't do any science. He never even remotely shows any capability at all in the scientific subject matter that actually relates to AGW. Then he has the nerve to tell you that you're the one who is ignorant and duped. Who's really being an arrogant, narcissistic boob here?...something else of which he repeatedly accuses me.
 
Notice how he ducked out again on the 400 ppm CO(2) argument he has repeated countless times. He refuses to defend it; never explains that opinion! He just uses "analogies" that prove he understands nothing. He thinks it should just click for us all as intuitively obvious, just like all the other scientific know-nothings who fall for that kind of hard right, science-free nonsense. He just says that it's too small to matter and never explains why he thinks that's true despite the long established scientific facts and principles that show CO(2) is one of the very few only things in the atmosphere that can effect it, that they're all trace gases and is the dominant one to boot.
 
The only exception is water, which is confined to the troposphere (the lowest 10 km or 6.25 mi), and so cannot swamp CO(2), but only radiates 15% of the total emitted by the atmosphere while CO(2) emits 72%. These figures correspond to 10% of the grand total of all heat radiated back into space for water vapor trapped down in the troposphere and 51% for CO(2), which extends to 80 km altitude at 400 ppm concentration (hard data, not my conclusion). He refuses to admit that this is confirmed in spades by empirical data from satellite gas spectroscopy. These are not my opinions or anyone else's, but hard scientific data.
 
He even confused my example using differential equations for my understanding of the mathematics climate models use. He can't think deeply enough to discriminate an illustration of principle from what he assumed to be a false conjecture of literal equivalence on my part. This is a clear sign of a rote learner who understands little if anything of what he has learned and why it works.
 
He even refuses to make any attempt at all to specifically debunk any part of your argument. He just shotguns again with another opinion. How's that for a "scientist"? Yet he claims to understand scientific method. He even tries to prove that with quotes from other AGW deniers some of whom are second-rate scientists on the take, but his rhetoric remains completely free of any citations on scientific method from any other scientific sources. He's totally incompetent as anything other than a rote learner who by his own admission had to work his fanny off just to become an engineer in a narrow specialization that includes very little of the broader field of science.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 15, 2014 - 4:17pm
By they way, turbulence refers to weather, not climate. Mike doesn't get that distinction either. He even quotes how much temperature changes across time and varies across different locations as implying that a change of a few degrees in the long term average global temperature is not significant. Well, how can that be true if it is the only temperature that counts in terms of the balance between how much energy enters and how much leaves the earth? How's that for "scientist"?
Mike Haluska Added Jun 15, 2014 - 8:32pm
Robert - your assertion:
 
"Notice how he ducked out again on the 400 ppm CO(2) argument he has repeated countless times. He refuses to defend it; never explains that opinion! He just uses "analogies" that prove he understands nothing."
 
I NEVER DUCK - you refuse to accept!  ONCE AGAIN - for the last Frakkin' time:
 
WHATEVER  the CO2 concentration is, the portion attributable to human activity is less than 1%.  Suppose the current level is 400 ppm - if ALL HUMAN CONTRIBUTED CO2 was eliminated, the concentration would drop to (at most) 396.  What is so Frakkin' incomprehensible about that?  If 400 ppm didn't wreck the planet, WHY WOULD 396? 
 
Your quote:  "He even tries to prove that with quotes from other AGW deniers some of whom are second-rate scientists on the take"
 
DENIERS????  And I am the one who is non-scientific?  Michael Crichton is a second-rate scientist?  You are the most post pompous self-important ass on Earth!
 
your quote:  "By they way, turbulence refers to weather, not climate. Mike doesn't get that distinction either."
 
shows Frakkin' MORONIC you really are.  You think that you can just "make up" definitions for the rest of us!  TURBULENCE is a state of motion of fluids and gases in which the flow is NOT LAMINAR.  Look at a stellar nebula and you'll see turbulent flow of matter, dumb a#s! 
 
your quote:  "Well, how can that be true if it is the only temperature that counts in terms of the balance between how much energy enters and how much leaves the earth?"
 
again demonstrates your surface misunderstanding of physics.  You don't measure ENERGY in degrees of temperature!  Thermal energy is measured in JOULES or BTU's.  Two objects can have the same temperature, but not the same energy.  
 
your quote:  "He's totally incompetent as anything other than a rote learner who by his own admission had to work his fanny off just to become an engineer in a narrow specialization that includes very little of the broader field of science."
 
reeks of jealousy and ignorance.  I have never seen someone disrespect those who actually ACHIEVED something he never did as much as you.  Every engineer spends the first 2 years studying calculus, differential equations, physics, chemistry, statics, dynamics - the foundation of science.  We specialize because the applied fields require specialized knowledge to be successful.  You quit science because "your professors didn't like you" - what a punk-ass, whiny, spoiled, conceited, quitter would be expected to do - quit and make excuses when challenged.  It is tough for us who "worked their fanny off" to accomplish something to have jerks who QUIT AFTER ONE CLASS to feel embarrassed or inadequate to them.
 
YOU are a music teacher - period!  You can't bypass all the formal education and experience and ANOINT yourself a scientist.  If we ever debated on a stage in front of scientists you would be laughed off the stage in 10 minutes.  When you announce that you are hereby changing the definition of Scientific Method, call people clearly over your level incompetent, all you are doing is confirming in their mind that you are a narcissistic wannabe.     
 
 
Here's what you flat out refuse to address:
 
1) NONE of the AGW predictions for the past 40 years have materialized
 
2) Consensus IN NOT science
 
3) Correlation IS NOT causality
 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 15, 2014 - 9:53pm
This is nuts! Everything you just said is science-free except that consensus is not science and correlation is not causality, which don't even apply to anything I said, completely unbeknownst to you.
 
You don't understand that the reverse of neither statement is true. Only some other scientific know-nothing would accept any of what else you just said. Your statements about energy show you don't even know that the long-term average temperature of the planet UNIQUELY determines how fast radiant energy leaves the earth, which absolutely will always reach a point that causes what goes out to equal how much is coming in.
 
Are you trying to say the TEMPERATURE has nothing to do with how much energy leaves or enters anything or the rate of flow of energy in BTUs or joules per unit time? You even confuse my statement with saying that temperature is energy. I know how to calculate all of that sort of thing, but you need specific heat of the materials involved to do that.
 
You didn't even know what specific heat is. I can take the voltage input to a heater and if I know the impedance of the heater and the resistance of the heater element, I can calculate exactly how much energy is going into whatever it's heating. If I know the specific heat of what it's heating and that material is insulated, I can calculate exactly at what rate the temperature will rise.
 
ALL your "scientific" statements about how temperature and energy relate in this last comment of yours absolutely proves to anyone who understands a lick of this kind of elementary science that you are a rote learner who never understood any of it. Truly pitiful. Only others as ignorant as you fail to absolutely KNOW that now! You're one of them.
 
From what you just said, you obviously have absolutely NO CLUE how to calculate any of that, much less understand it. You could look it up and learn to calculate it only by memorizing the calculation procedure, but you wouldn't understand thing one about why the calculations work. I haven't had to do any of that kind of thing for quite a few decades, but still know how to do it because I ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD the WHYs of  all of this. That's why I never had to take notes in physics or mathematics.
 
You quoted me as saying, "...your professors didn't like you." Where did you get that? They begged me not to leave physics and couldn't understand why I wanted to study something as trivial in their view as music. My music professors couldn't understand why I hesitated at all to switch, since they thought of physics and math as cold and boring. As one of my friends later commented when I told him this, "Neither were deep enough in their own fields." He absolutely nailed it. You demonstrate the same dumb attitude toward music, but you don't have any aptitude for science either.
 
There is nothing that any facts or science or explanations of them, no matter how clear, will convince you that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, so fine! You're absolutely right about everything for no good reason except that you want to believe it. I'm wrong and you're right. OK? Happy now?
Mike Haluska Added Jun 16, 2014 - 11:39am
Richard - this post is NOT about pollution!  CO2 is NOT a pollutant, it is essential to all life on Earth.  I never said the Earth's climate isn't changing.  On the contrary, the Earth's climate is always changing!  The question is whether or not CO2 generated by HUMAN activity is causing the Earth's temperature to rise. 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 16, 2014 - 1:15pm
Richard, Mike is right for once. The AGW situation is only about balance. We need CO(2) in proper balance. That balance fortunately has a very wide range or we'd already be toast. The problem is we're on track to double the 400 ppm we already have in record time and what we already have hasn't nearly all come home to roost yet.
 
However, it's true the pollution usually accompanies human production of CO(2), so in that sense only is it relevant.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 16, 2014 - 3:54pm
Robert - thank you.  A sense of proportion is what I have been saying all along.  In addition, I think we need to pick and choose our fights very carefully.  We may be faced with any number of serious environmental problems, the prime question is whether it is within our power to do anything about them.  Our Sun will eventually burn out - should be "doing something about it?"  I have seen studies of samples from ice that indicated CO2 at 4,000 ppm during an Ice Age, long before humans existed.
 
If it's true that less than 1% of CO2 is attributable to human activity, then I really don't see the point in trying to "fight" it.  One thing we all know is true is that there are a lot of children around the world starving when they don't need to be.  I can't see diverting one penny from feeding children to halt something we have no control over.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 16, 2014 - 7:06pm
Richard - a couple of teensie weensie corrections:
 
1) Less than 1% (0.04%) of the Earth's atmosphere is CO2
2) CO2 is necessary for plant life (especially plankton) - get rid of CO2 and you will KILL plankton!
3) The main component of smog is Ozone and the CO (NOT CO2) from auto exhaust is a factor.  In fact, the LA basin has seen vehicle-related air pollutants decrease by about 98 percent since the 1960s, even as locals are burning three times as much gasoline and diesel fuel.  I travel to LA regularly, smog is not a problem anymore - hence no more "smog jokes" on the Tonight Show.
4) Don't see how a rare atmospheric gas causes earthquakes, volcanoes, drought, etc.
 
Evidently, you watch too many Hollywood movies and don't read enough books. 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 16, 2014 - 7:16pm
Richard - I visited your website and read your article on limiting political donations.  I think you are on the right track, but I think we can get to the core of the problem and not worry about donations if we took it a step further.  Pass an amendment to the Constitution that essentially says
 
"No law, tariff, executive order, exemption, subsidy, grant, loan, etc. shall be lawful unless it applies equally to all (politicians, unions, trade associations, corporations, individuals)"
 
The reason people give sacks of money to politicians is because politicians can grant them special favors (i.e. exemption from Obamacare).  Take away their ability to grant special favors, and there is literally NO REASON to donate money.
 
What do you think?
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 16, 2014 - 10:15pm
Richard -
 
Where do you get that "too much" CO2 kills trees, bears, bees, plankton, etc.?  How much LOWER than 0.43% of the atmosphere do you want CO2 to go?  Less than 0.5% of that small amount is attributable to humans - your own IPCC concedes that.  
 
According to NASA and NOAA the arctic ice is over 50% greater than historical average and the Earth's temperature has cooled slightly over the past 20 years.  You should have been on the ship that went to Antarctica to photograph the "shrinking ice cap" and got caught in the massive amount of ice flows.  They got busted out by the Coast Guard a week later.
 
You grew up in the Inland Empire area?  I grew up less than a few miles from Inland Steel, US Steel Gary Works, US Steel Chicago South Side Works, LTV Steel Harbor Works, Bethlehem Steel Burns Harbor Works, Standard Oil Whiting Indiana Refinery, CITGO East Chicago Refinery . . . . . so I think I recognize pollution from 40 years ago. 
 
Take a Chill Pill and watch George Carlin do some 'splainin' Lucy!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 16, 2014 - 10:31pm
Sheesh, Mike, you are indeed full of crappy propaganda! You don't know what you're talking about, so why don't you just SHUT UP!? Some of that idiocy is flat out lies and what's not, like the Antarctic ship incident, doesn't mean anything like what you think it does. Just because a bunch of other conservative fools jumped all over that as if it implied anything at all about AGW, you jump on that stupid bandwagon? I guess you think THAT is scientific method? Is that your absurdly two-faced, double standard rearing its clueless head again? Your naked, sloppy butt is sticking way out of the window for everybody to see and you're too addled to even know it.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 17, 2014 - 1:01am
Robert -
 
This guy says CO2 kills trees, plankton, etc and I am the one who's butt is hanging out???  Please explain to us all what the morons traveling to the Antarctic to see melting icebergs and got trapped in record antarctic ice flows were really trying to accomplish. 
 
Remember when you told us all about the "Island of Plastic Bottles" in the Pacific that you swore was true?  How about the photo of the Polar Bear on an ice flow that was supposed to show how the poor Polar Bears had no ice cap left until the photographer ratted you jackasses out?  How about the British data processing guy who leaked the fact that they were fudging data because the models weren't producing the results they wanted?  Remember when Hansen got caught not factoring in the oceans into his "models" and said they were INSIGNIFICANT?  How about the "Global Warming Guru" Al Gore telling us 5 years ago that the polar ice would be melted in 5 years?  Who could forget last month's admission by the IPCC that the climate models are essentially worthless?  FINALLY . . . in case you were wondering whether or not a bunch of liberal arts majors who appointed themselves "science experts" would spend government funds for global warming research intelligently, we get this headline:
 
The National Science Foundation has been handing out grants for Global Warming research. This includes $700,000 in funding for a "climate change musical".  
 
I could go on for pages it but that would be just plain mean.  Looks like when Robert leaned out the window to accuse me of having my butt hanging out he didn't notice his enormous ass was bursting out all over his front porch! 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 17, 2014 - 11:02am
Richard - do you ever question anything you read, no matter how ridiculous it seems?  OK, show me the "land mass" that is going under due to the ocean level rising.  It seems to me that if the ocean level was rising significantly (it also varies over long time periods) that the rise should be seen EVERYWHERE, since water seeks its own level.  
 
As far as the polar ice, satellite photos show the ice caps growing to record levels - this is according to NASA and the NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration! 
 
You wouldn't know science if it walked up and bit you on the ass! 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 17, 2014 - 11:20am
Edib - your comment:
 
"Hopefully we can all agree with the understanding that the balance is important in our world. Further, that humans have disturbed the balance with a lot of extra production of CO2. And that this can't be good so we should restore the balance soon."
 
is well-intentioned, but naive.  Do yourselves a favor - ignore what I am saying and do your own research and thinking.  PLEASE - Google articles written in the 70's, 80's and 90's about the "Global Warming" threat.  Make a little chart - prediction vs. actual outcome, decade by decade.  I can understand being off by a statistical error, but these frauds were so far off that I can't understand (well, I can) why anyone grants them any credibility at all!  How many more Frakkin' times do these pseudo-scientists have to be WRONG for you to say their full of crap?
 
You AGW guys are like the religious nuts that have been preparing for Jesus to come in a spaceship every year for the past 40 years!  Every time one of the AGW "experts" says "the polar ice will be melted in 5 years" and it doesn't you just keep going with the program.
 
Finally - the Earth's ecological system is FAR from "in balance".  It is a messy, chaotic, unpredictable system.  Species become extinct every year regardless of what humans do.  New species arrive that we had no way of anticipating.  To think we as humans can somehow "restore balance" to this system is the height of human hubris and arrogance.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 17, 2014 - 2:52pm
Mike, I don't believe anybody who knows as little about the most simple, basic science as you do fails to know that he really doesn't understand it. Learning a bunch of scientific facts, having a bunch of information, much of it flat out false, at your beck and call doesn't mean you really understand any of it...not even the parts you get right. 
 
You've proved to anyone who does understand very much of it at all that you don't. You've proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You MUST KNOW somewhere inside that you don't really get any of it. You just spout facts or nonsense you think is facts, but you know that you don't really understand science. Either that or you think everybody else in the universe is doing the same thing you are, just repeating information that for whatever reason you believe is accurate and pretending that's knowledge. 
 
Well, information is not knowledge. You're right that correlation is not causality and that consensus is not science, but neither is information knowledge, not even accurate information. The difference between information and knowledge is understanding.
 
Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causality, but it doesn't disqualify anything as causality either, since cause generates correlation. Consensus doesn't disqualify anything as science, since science involves empirically verified consensus. Yes, consensus can be mere opinion, but not all consensus is mere opinion.
 
Consensus, in your mind at least, seems to imply only opinion. Well, it simply means agreement. All animals are not dogs, but all dogs are animals. Consensus is not science, but science involves consensus, not of opinions, but of empirically confirmed results. You don't seem to get even that simple logic. You never show that you actually understand anything you say. You just spout what you imagine to be information and seemingly have no clues that knowledge involves actually understanding that information, that is when it is actually accurate.
 
Any dufus can learn math algorithms if they work hard enough and apply them to calculate solutions to certain engineering problems they happen to specialize in. That's the hard way, though.  It is NOT KNOWLEDGE unless and until you actually understand the principles underlying what you're doing. You clearly don't. You keep proving it again and again, making yourself look increasingly clueless every time. It's much simpler and lasts much longer when you understand why calculations work in terms of underlying principles. So I think you actually know somewhere deep down inside that you really don't understand science.
 
So as Richard asks, who ARE you trying to kid? You may be kidding some others who are just as clueless about what real knowledge is as you are, but no one else. And I believe you really know that you don't actually understand scientific principles. So why do you insist so hard on faking it? It just makes you look worse and it says very bad things about your intellectual integrity.
 
I'm not talking about false facts. I'm talking about your clearly evident inability to ever get the basic principles right. You keep saying I'm just a music teacher..."PERIOD"! Where do you get the authority to say that? How do you pretend to know that? Your thinking that somebody has to put an official stamp on my knowledge is the sign of a rote learner and authority worshiper rather than showing any ability to think for yourself.
 
You not only don't understand science and even woefully misunderstand it; you can't even recognize someone who does without some university to tell you. Obviously Purdue didn't even serve that purpose in your case. Every time you cite your credentials, despite everything you say that instantly and clearly undoes such feckless attempts to prove you understand, you reveal yourself as an impostor with one more clueless regurgitation of a scientific absurdity. There is no integrity in that and it just makes you look ridiculous to anyone who has any understanding. So why not just stop it?
Robert Wendell Added Jun 17, 2014 - 7:04pm
People like Mike simply reject facts and swallow the lies their favorite politicians and fossil fuel reps want them to. For instance, Mike says the Greenland ice sheets are not melting, and I suppose he believes the same about Antarctica. I don't think he ever reads stuff like what follows, or if he does, he just regards it as more lies the scientists on the take:
 
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fears-of-faster-rising-global-sea-levels-as-stable-greenland-ice-sheet-starts-to-melt-9195769.html
Robert Wendell Added Jun 17, 2014 - 7:06pm
 
Er, I meant "...from scientists on the take."
Mike Haluska Added Jun 17, 2014 - 8:36pm
From the London Mail Online:
 
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

 
 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz34wldV9V3
Follow us: target="_blank">@MailOnline on Twitter | target="_blank">DailyMail on Facebook
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 18, 2014 - 2:25am
Sorry.  This is from the Daily Mail.   You might as well use the Marvel magazines as your source of "facts"
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 18, 2014 - 2:51am
When under attack from someone in the public arena, like Mike (or the Daily Mail), scientists labour at a disadvantage.   This is especially true when someone like Mike says that there is no proof of, for example, global warming, or says that there is proof of global cooling instead.
 
"Proof" is the most widely misunderstood concept in all of science. It has a technical definition (a logical demonstration that certain conclusions follow from certain assumptions) that is strongly at odds with how it is used in casual conversation, which is closer to simply "strong evidence for something."
 
There is a mismatch between how scientists talk and what people hear because scientists tend to have the stronger definition in mind. And by that definition, science never proves anything! So when scientists are asked "What is your proof that we evolved from other species?" or "Can you really prove that climate change is caused by human activity?" scientists tend to hem and haw rather than simply saying "Of course we can."
 
The fact that science never really proves anything, but simply creates more and more reliable and comprehensive theories of the world that nevertheless are always subject to update and improvement, is one of the key aspects of why science is so successful.   But it does make the discipline vulnerable to the kind of interest group led propaganda which Mike so clearly represents.  In Mike's case I think it is the Automotive Industry?
Mike Haluska Added Jun 18, 2014 - 1:13pm
THANK YOU, RICHARD!  You have made my point for me:

"Mike appears to deliberately ignore whatever anyone says, regardless of how many scientists say it."
 
Science is NOT a popularity contest - REAL scientists don't vote on what is science and what isn't science (Consensus).  What I ignore is CONSENSUS SCIENCE!  What I strictly adhere to is Scientific Method!  I don't trust what Democrats say, what Republicans say, what the IPCC says, what the UN says, what Obama says, what the Oil Industry says, etc. 
 
It is up to the PROPONENTS of AGW to develop a case based on Scientific Method, not up to me to "gather more scientists in my favor"!  So far, the AGW has NOT presented a case based on Scientific Method - period!  If you actually bothered to read the example in my article about Eugenics, you might get a clue why "Consensus Science" is a BAD IDEA, especially since you were the direct beneficiary of Eugenics never fully getting adopted!
Mike Haluska Added Jun 19, 2014 - 12:20pm
Richard - your assertion:
 
"For example, it is a scientific consensus that the sun is larger and warmer than the moon.  And, it is likewise a scientific consensus that human made pollution is very harmful to human beings and every other living thing on earth."
 
just proves my point about liberals not knowing the distinction between scientific method and consensus.  First, it is NOT consensus that the Sun is bigger and warmer than the moon, we know it by direct measurement and observation.  Your ridiculous point about "human pollution" is just self-important, needy desire to feel morally superior to others.  EVERYTHING that lives eats.  EVERYTHING that eats poops.  EVERYTHING that poops pollutes.  What do you suggest?  Kill all life on Earth? 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 1:30pm
The idiot just above once again shows he doesn't understand that consensus doesn't imply mere opinion. It simply means agreement. If it's only opinion, then you have to say "consensus of opinion." That is NOT redundant as some want to insist. So if scientists AGREE that the sun is bigger and warmer than the moon, that is most certainly consensus! 
 
Not all consensus is science, but results empirically confirmed by multiple scientists is consensus. Not all dogs are animals, but all animals are dogs. Being a dog doesn't disprove its an animal just because all animals are not dogs. An empirically confirmed consensus doesn't disprove the science just because other kinds of consensus are not science. This is logic is so stupid simple, but this guy still can't grasp it.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 19, 2014 - 2:37pm
Robert - your assertion:
 
"Not all consensus is science, but results empirically confirmed by multiple scientists is consensus."
 
is half correct.  "
 
Not all consensus is science" should read "No consensus is science". 
 
"results empirically confirmed by multiple scientists is consensus" should read "results empirically confirmed by multiple scientists is validation" All it takes is ONE EXPERIMENTER to come up with different results to throw the whole theory out the window!
 

con·sen·sus
[kuhn-sen-suhs]
noun, plural con·sen·sus·es.
 
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
 
Scientists don't perform a series of independent experiments and then decide that the experiments with the most common results are valid!  "7 out of 10 dentists prefer Crest" IS NOT SCIENCE!  The entire foundation of AGW is based on CONSENSUS - which is why I disregard your endless thermo rationalizations!  A beautifully designed Gothic Cathedral built on a lousy foundation is nothing more than future rubble. 
 
Do you finally comprehend the distinction and why CONSENSUS HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE ???  
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 9:25pm
Here's the man whose ideas these anti-AGW fanatics uncritically cop and cluelessly, endlessly repeat:
 
"http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
 
I just read some research at Barnes and Nobel in a science magazine. I don't remember which because I was browsing through about six different magazines. The research showed that increased scientific knowledge, some present company obviously excepted, coupled with pre-existing political beliefs fails to change skeptics' minds. In fact, their increased understanding of science leads them to invent alternative explanations in denial of the strength of the evidence.
 
Some other studies have shown that among engineers, meteorologists, and geoscientists, none of whom are climate scientists, only 36% strongly agreed that global warming is human-caused and of significant concern in opposition to the position of their parent organizations on the issue. Behold how this conservative article shouts about how there is no consensus among "scientists" while excluding climate scientists from the poll, but including engineers and meteorologists (neither of whom are even scientists), presumably for some "scientifically" important reason. (Although meteorology is a science, meteorologists don't even necessarily have a college degree in the field, let alone a doctorate in any kind of science. Never mind that weather is completely different from climate in the first place.)
 
If you take a look at this and other articles by the same author on global warming, beyond their attempts to favor his positions with bogus tactics, please note the similarity of his arguments with what his fellow parrots repeat here. Here's a link to the article:
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 10:33pm
"Do you finally comprehend the distinction and why CONSENSUS HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE ??? "
 
First, we all agree that it is not possible in principle to prove absolutely that AGW is real in something so huge and complex as climate. The best case is overwhelming evidence that it is real. We have that, despite all the disinformation to the contrary. How much sense does it make, then, to pretend that because we can't prove that any complex, natural event is actually going to happen, or exactly when, we should ignore it until we can, since we can't...ever. It's absurd on its face.
 
Now to answer the question quoted above. No...that dictionary conflicts with Merriam-Webster which states that "consensus of opinion" is NOT redundant as some would have it. When scientists agree on ANYTHING, including basic scientific principles in university textbooks, it is a consensus. The word in no way implies that a consensus is necessarily a consensus of opinion. The difference between agreement and consensus is simple. Agreement can be between two or more people while consensus is appropriate only for agreement within a group of people.
 
That can be agreement on an opinion or an agreement on facts. Science is full of agreement on facts and that is also consensus. In the case of AGW, however, it is agreement on an opinion. However, it is a very well informed, scientific opinion based on a ton of strongly and empirically confirmed facts. These facts strongly point to the reality of AGW, but again, cannot in principle absolutely prove it. This consensus doesn't even pretend to represent a rigorous application of scientific method, as would be required for empirical proof if it were possible.
 
It may be also be impossible to prove that an active volcano is going to erupt in my lifetime, but you can safely bet I'm not going to build a house on the lip of the crater. There seems to be a profound lack of the predictably rare "common sense" this represents when it comes to AGW. So what if we can't prove it? There's way too much saying it's real to pretend it doesn't exist simply because we can't in principle apply scientific method and prove it empirically prove it.
 
A great deal of the practice of modern medicine is not science based. Science-based medicine has only in recent years begun to come into significant focus in the medical world. Yet people's lives depend on it. So why does anyone think it makes sense to argue that because we can't prove something using scientific method that it's not real. If the best case is that we can only accumulate strong evidence that it is, why would the lack in principle of any possibility of proof tell me it's not going to happen when there is so much pointing to it?
 
I can't prove that I'm living this life on the earth in real time instead of a brain artificially sustained in a laboratory on a distant planet occupied by extremely advance aliens who are using my brain to play back my terrestrial lifetime for them. Do I refuse to believe I'm on the earth living in real time because I can't prove it? I don't think so. Yet there is no possibility to use scientific method to prove I am. It's not even falsifiable that I am, is it? If they unplug me, I just died a normal death as far as I could ever tell.
 
There is plenty of experiential evidence, though, that seems to indicate strongly that I'm here now and living on earth. When there is no chance in principle for proof to exist, there are times when "common sense", rare as it is, trumps any need for proof. That is the crux of this argument and one that the other side of this refuses to understand. In fact, all their "science" is bent to their predetermined ends, which is exactly that of which they accuse us. Surprise, surprise!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 10:46pm
Richard, we all know, and I believe you do, too, that CO(2) itself is not a pollutant, but a necessary component for the balance of life on this planet. It is a question of balance. Having said that, however, it is indisputable that virtually every source of CO(2) that is not biological includes a heavy dose of pollution.
 
That is a critical issue that Mike seems as fond of ignoring as he is of any facts that weaken his obstinate positions. I'd like to see him quote science, since he doesn't know any himself and so puts his whole foot in his mouth every time he tries. The problem is that every time he quotes any "science", it's from a conservative informational equivalent of a pulp mag. Or as Robin put it, he might as well get his science from Marvel comics.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 19, 2014 - 11:48pm
Interactive map of contiguous U.S.A. showing regional rises in average summertime temperature since 1970:
 
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-seeing-red-as-temperatures-rise-17574
Mike Haluska Added Jun 20, 2014 - 12:28pm
Let's see . . .  predictions by AGW crowd during the past 40 years of:
 
* entire polar ice caps melting and flooding NYC, London, Tokyo, LA
* glaciers wiping cities off the map
* polar bears drowning because of no ice to stand on
* entire continents boiling to death
* tornadoes in Los Angeles
* mass worldwide starvation due to crop failures
* islands sinking below sea level
* and so on, and so on . . . .
 
And I AM THE ONE THAT GETS HIS SCIENCE FROM MARVEL COMICS???
Mike Haluska Added Jun 20, 2014 - 2:20pm
Richard - your assertion:
 
"If Mike had studied the history of science, he would already know that science is based on consensus opinion."
 
is a demonstration of why you really shouldn't comment on things you don't understand.  Ask Robert is he agrees with the statement above.  You know, my historical knowledge of science tells me that Alchemists used "science" to try and convert lead to gold.  Physicians used to "bleed" people to get the "bad blood" out of sick patients.  Astronomers used to think there was an "ether" that pervaded the universe.  These ideas/beliefs preceded Scientific Method and used, you guessed it - Consensus Based Science.  Everybody KNEW the Sun went around the Earth - just look up in the sky and see for yourself!
 
Every time you spout "everybody knows" and "it's obviously true" you are trying to exempt your position from scrutiny simply by declaring skepticism "off limits".  The only people who can't stand skeptical review of their position are people who have weak positions, alternate agendas or something to hide.  The main reason for Scientific Method is its absolute objectivity, openness and lack of bias.  It is a crucible in which all political, superstitious, economic, etc. impurities are burned away and what is left is as close to the truth as our current understanding permits. 
 
"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." —Francis Bacon (1605) The Advancement of Learning, Book 1, v, 8
Robert Wendell Added Jun 20, 2014 - 4:25pm
Scientific method is not based on consensus of opinion, but on a consensus among at least two groups of scientists that they got the same empirical results using the same experiment to test a hypothesis. The consensus may be that the hypothesis is false. It may be that it is confirmed. But that is not a consensus of opinion. It is, however, a consensus and it is a fundamental brick in the foundation of scientific method. Nevertheless, Mike will not relinquish his false idea that the meaning of consensus absolutely has to be confined to a consensus of opinion.
 
As I'm getting very tired of repeating, however, is that on an issue as huge and complex as AGW, consensus of opinion is the best we can hope for, since such a huge, complex system leaves no other option. Absolute proof is in principle impossible. So we're sitting on the tracks in the car and stay there because there is no proof that the train won't stop before it hits us? Maybe it will and everything will be just fine. We will have saved the effort of jumping out of the car and running like crazy.
 
This argument applied to AGW, however, ignores that there are other pressing reasons to do exactly what we need to do to forestall AGW getting way out of hand. It also ignores that rather than costs, there are huge economic benefits of doing so. Like anything else that involves major economic shifts, there are initial capital investments required, but the stupid idea Republicans are trying all too successfully to sell, that we're just pissing dollars down the drain and ruining the economy, is absurdly lacking in any intelligent insight whatsoever. That's putting it very politely.
 
Look at how going to the moon paid off. That was not motivated by an intelligent appreciation of its long term economic benefits, though, or it would have never happened. It was motivated by competition with the Soviets, fear, and a strong political consensus on the military necessity of winning in space.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 20, 2014 - 4:52pm
"Let's see . . .  predictions by AGW crowd during the past 40 years of:
 
* entire polar ice caps melting and flooding NYC, London, Tokyo, LA
* glaciers wiping cities off the map
* polar bears drowning because of no ice to stand on
* entire continents boiling to death
* tornadoes in Los Angeles
* mass worldwide starvation due to crop failures
* islands sinking below sea level
* and so on, and so on . . . ."
 
So who is this "AGW crowd"? Did every one of these projections all come from some mythical, single "AGW crowd"? Were these predictions based on a strong consensus of scientific opinion? Some of them could potentially become true in some future. Who specified when some of these things were going to happen and how many scientists were behind that projection?
 
What were Mike's sources for all these projections? I don't think he ever looks at original scientific sources, but only predigested conservative versions of them, roughly equivalent to Marvel comics. Why doesn't he put up or shut up? I've asked him this several times, but he never does. He just regurgitates the same old arguments every time. If he ever even reads real scientific papers on these issues, he never cites them. He wouldn't understand them if he did. He needs someone else to interpret them for him and he uses exclusively conservative, idiotically twisted sources for that. 
 
I already cited one absurdly twisted source of "information" on AGW who publishes his articles in Forbes magazine. To be fair to Forbes, they also publish articles from the other side of the AGW issue. However, this article
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
 
has a headline stating that a "peer-reviewed" study shows there is no scientific consensus on AGW. However, the participants did not include any climate scientists. The only scientists included at all were geoscientists, representing a field that is pretty remotely related to AGW. The majority were not scientists at all. Although meteorology is a science, meteorologists do not necessarily have even a college degree related to the field. Worse, the study of weather is vastly different from study of climate. The others were engineers, who are not scientists either, and some are even as ignorant of the most basic science as the one we're so familiar with here.
 
So what could "peer-reviewed study" mean in such a context? By the definition of peers, they would be more clueless people like the ones in the study? This certainly would never make it as peer-reviewed in any serious scientific publication. It's a sick joke based on totally deceptive tactics only ignorant fools who already want to believe them would ever accept! The author publishes all kinds of articles of the same pitiful level of intellectual integrity. Yet the arguments they present are precisely the ones we're getting here.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 20, 2014 - 5:21pm
"What were Mike's sources for all these projections?"
 
The Daily Mail
 
Watch this handy video to learn some scientifically derived facts about the Daily Mail:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 20, 2014 - 5:23pm
For history buffs, The Daily Mail's most famous headline:  "Hurrah for the Blackshirts"
 
At least they are not pinko liberals eh Mike?
Mike Haluska Added Jun 20, 2014 - 8:25pm
OK Robert - let's simplify:
 
1) NAME ONE AGW FORECAST MADE BY ANYBODY THAT HAS BEEN REMOTELY ACCURATE.  And don't go back to Hansen's force fitting historical data. 
 
2) Show me ONE example of AGW using Scientific Method
 
3) Show me ONE study showing CO2 - temp increase causality
 
Running behind the tree and yelling "Mike doesn't cite his sources" is chicken shit.  The examples were all covered in detail in every major news publication around the world.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 20, 2014 - 11:46pm
First, I didn't say you don't cite your sources. I impugned the ones you pick, and you have confirmed that they are news sources, many if not most of them spurious and politically polarized rather than peer reviewed papers by climate scientists.  And where to you get that gall to pretend that I haven't already responded to every one of these questions in depth under several articles in discussions with you on AGW? I'm not going to do it again. Anyone interested, which likely doesn't include you (for some odd reason) can go to my profile and click on comments to confirm this for themselves.
 
News publications have nothing to do with peer reviewed scientific papers by climate scientists. News sources seem to be all you ever read on the issue, though, and almost exclusively conservative at that. I know your counterargument is that climate scientists are almost by definition all liars corrupted by government funding. It's all a hoax, you say. Well, that qualifies in spades as a self-confirming, circular argument. Their is no way to prove that anything is not a hoax, since all evidence can be arbitrarily classified as deliberately corrupted and deceptive.
 
From http://theethicalskeptic.com/definitions/ [my emphases]:
 
" ‘Appeal to the hoax’ fallacy of presumption and irrelevance.  The attempt to impugn a subject by citing or fabricating a history or incident involving a hoax of one or more of the subject’s contentions.  If it exists, then there is porn of it.  If it exists, then there is a hoax of it.  The existence of a hoax does not bear implications on the veracity of a contention or subject and is only foisted and employed as a rhetorical diversion." 
 
Also:
 
"Appeal to Skepticism – A Fallacy of Irrelevance involving the contention or implication that one’s ideas are immediately of merit simply because one has declared themselves to be a ‘skeptic.’ The fallacious argument tactic of assuming an intellectual high ground on an issue through allegiance to a skeptical position or posture. The fallacious presumption that taking a denial-based or default dubious stance on a set of evidence or topic is somehow indicative of application of the scientific method on one’s part, or constitutes a position of superior intellect, or represents a superior rational position on the topic at hand."
Robert Wendell Added Jun 20, 2014 - 11:54pm
From http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/conspiracytheories.html:
 
"...quote mining (which is the practice of carefully selecting small quotes, which are often taken completely out of context, from a vast selection of material, in such a way that these individual quotes seem to support the conspiracy theory)."
 
From :
 
"Cherry-picking is more a deliberate act of deception than a logical fallacy, but nevertheless an extremely common tactic.
 
"Cherry-picking happens when someone deliberately selects from a wide variety of material only those items which support the conspiracy theory, while ignoring and discarding those which don't. When this carefully chosen selection of material is then presented as a whole, it easily misleads people into thinking that the conspiracy theory is supported by evidence."
Robert Wendell Added Jun 21, 2014 - 12:01am
From http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics [my emphasis]:
 
"A 2009 paper published in the European Journal of Public Health by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee discussed five characteristics common to scientific denialism:
 
1) Cherry picking;
2) Fake experts;
3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver; and
5) Conspiracy theories
Robert Wendell Added Jun 21, 2014 - 2:02pm
Richard: "If NASA tried to send a rocket to Saturn based on Newtonian physics, it would miss the planet entirely because of the curvature of space, which was unknown to Newton."
 
I agree, Richard, with much of what you say in your last comment. However, I only referred to scientific method and not to the field as a whole. Even the definition of scientific method is much less rigorous say in drug testing than in physics or chemistry, for example. The social sciences and biology in general also have much less rigorous definitions or they couldn't advance at all.
 
I must point out, however, that your statement I quote at the beginning of this comment is not wholly accurate. We used Newtonian mechanics to go to the moon and Saturn. The difference between Newtonian physics and General Relativity is insignificant at those scales. You have to either expand the scale to interstellar domains or deal with relative velocities that are a significant fraction of the speed of light for the difference to matter. Newtonian physics is much simpler and quite adequate to the purpose, so it wins for that kind of application.
 
" 'The scientific significance of these results is the important confirmation of the theory of general relativity and the agreement with Einstein's formulations to an unprecedented experimental accuracy,' said Sami Asmar, manager of the Radio Science Group, which acquired the data for this experiment at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. 'The technological significance of the experiment is the ability to overcome the harsh solar environment on radio links.'
 
"The researchers measured how much the Sun's gravity bent an electromagnetic beam, in this case the radio signal transmitted by the spacecraft and received by the ground stations.
 
"According to the theory of general relativity, a massive object like the Sun causes space-time to curve, and a beam of radio waves (or light) that passes by the Sun has to travel further because of the curvature. The extra distance that the radio waves travel from Cassini past the Sun to the Earth delays their arrival; the amount of the delay provides a sensitive test of the predictions of Einstein's theory. Although deviations from general relativity are expected in some cosmological models, none were found in this experiment.
Tests of general relativity have important cosmological implications. The question is not whether general relativity is true or false, but at which level of accuracy it ceases to describe gravity in a realistic way."
(From http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/newsreleases/newsrelease20031002/)
 
So this Saturn experiment had nothing to do with the calculations necessary for the Cassini craft to reach the vicinity of Saturn, but how Einstein's theory of gravity affects light. Newtonian physics implies nothing about any effect of gravity on light.
 
This also a good illustration that we don't "prove" theories to be right. We can only prove them to be useful when applied in their appropriate domains. Although we used Newtonian mechanics to calculate trajectories, orbits, etc., we have to use both Special and General Relativity to make GPS navigators accurate enough to be useful. The effect on timing of both the speed of the satellites and their position in the gravitation field up there as contrasted with that at the surface is extremely crucial for calculating position that accurately.
 
However, it we need to recognize that General Relatively is not only a more comprehensively useful generalization of Special Relativity, but has that relationship to Newtonian physics as well. Newton's laws fall right out of General Relativity as a special case of the latter when restricted to the same space-time domain. This is true despite the diametrically opposed premises underlying Newton's and Einstein's theories.
 
So we need to understand that theories are never proved. They are only found to be useful to whatever degree of precision they are. This is established by experiment and scientific consensus on the empirical results. Nothing is proved "true" in any absolutely sense. Theories are only proved useful by their practical application and the accuracy of their results as well as their ability to generate new postulate and predictions.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 21, 2014 - 5:06pm
OK, Richard, I stand corrected on the Saturn scenario. The differences are very slight, but apparently they do turn out to be significant at that distance. Evolutionary theory is very tangentially related to scientific method, which evolved in the hard sciences. Evolutionary theory represents anything but a hard science. I did mention that the rigor with which scientific method is defined varies substantially depending on the discipline. Drug testing and especially the social sciences are cases in point.
 
You're right about consensus in general being a fundamental plank of what constitutes science today and it does evolve over time as it must. Science is a truth seeking system that can only approach any absolute truth asymptotically while never reaching it. The AGW denialists take extreme positions on what scientific method is only when it comes to what they disagree with. If you go back over the statements made right here by AGW deniers, the evidence is clear for an egregious double standard when it comes to the criteria they demand for you position versus what they actually apply to theirs. Actually, you can find every point in this study below of this kind of silliness right here under this article and the article itself. I repeat this here again.
 
From http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics [my emphasis]:
 
"A 2009 paper published in the European Journal of Public Health by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee discussed five characteristics common to scientific denialism:
 
1) Cherry picking;
2) Fake experts;
3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliver; and
5) Conspiracy theories
Robert Wendell Added Jun 21, 2014 - 5:34pm
From the second link in the quote from the same source I cited above:
 
"Good faith discussion requires consideration of the full body of scientific evidence. This is difficult when confronted with rhetorical techniques which are designed to distort and distract. Identifying and publicly exposing these tactics are the first step in redirecting discussion back to a focus on the science."
 
There has been no good faith discussion in the anti-AGW comments above. No matter how much long established science I've introduced to this discussion here and under multiple other articles, there has been no direct response to any points in those arguments.
 
If there really is a scientist somewhere inside Mike, why doesn't he ever show up? Instead, he makes blatantly irrelevant "analogies" such as pissing in the ocean or a hot ember melting an iceberg, which only prove he understands NOTHING at all about the way greenhouse gases work even after he gets a clear tutorial on it. When provided with information about how they work, he ducks out while ignoring how obvious it is that he does so.
 
If there is a real scientist hiding in there somewhere and my arguments are really flawed, why doesn't he find any specific flaws in the scientific arguments I present or even try? Instead simply repeats what any moron could come up with, that it's just a bunch of baloney or nothing but a meaningless repetition of standard scientific principles I could have copied from anywhere.
 
Well, that they are indeed. The problem is they debunk everything he says. He never even starts to address that. His arguments are 100% rhetorical and include zero legitimate science because he simply doesn't understand science even when it kisses him in his clueless face.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 22, 2014 - 1:41pm
Richard - WHERE did I say pollution is good for people?  All I said is that CO2 is NOT pollution!  Do you know what photosynthesis is?  Plants converts CO2 into Oxygen and Sugar - basic necessities of animal life!  Geez - everything is so awful and we're all doomed - let's just slit our wrists and end it all!!!  Frakkin' morons like yourselves are how science gets perverted into religion.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 22, 2014 - 1:50pm
Robert - I found some examples to your Top 5 List:
 
1) Cherry picking;  ignoring oceanographic data in computer models to force higher results

2) Fake experts;  Hansen, Al Gore, IPCC

3) Misrepresentation and logical fallacies:  Consensus is part of Scientific Method, correlation is causality

4) Impossible expectations of what research can deliverLinear computer models attempting to model non-linear, non-deterministic complex systems.

5) Conspiracy theories:  "Big Oil" is behind "Deniers"
 
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 22, 2014 - 2:23pm
Robert - you and Richard can continue your AGW Mental Masturbation for as long as you like.  Go ahead and continue to rationalize that consensus is an integral part of Scientific Method, ignore the fact that AGW prediction doesn't reconcile with reality, try and "euphemise" correlation into causality and pretend you're a scientist. 
 
I need to go back to the real world and work with rational people.  You two can go on selling crazy, we're all stocked up here. 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 22, 2014 - 2:31pm
1. Cherry picking? You pick one item I happen not to mention that you allege to be false use of data and that's cherry picking?
 
2. Name me one instance in which I ever used any politician as a source. I've clearly stated I never trust political sources on either side for any kind of  objective or scientific information. I never even saw Gore's film.
 
3. I've never said correlation is causality. I've only said causality guarantees correlation. Do you know so little science that you deny that? I've also said that most of the correlations used in AGW have a clear scientific mechanism well understood for many decades before AGW became a political issue. How only 400 ppm CO(2) in atmosphere is highly significant is one of them.
 
4. Models are very practical tools used, for example, to predict hurricane paths based on the same kind of techniques. They work well enough that all politicians in the cities affected pay attention to them no matter on wich side of this issue they stand on. One exception is the case of the Atlanta mayor who failed to believe two measly inches of snow were to going accumulate suddenly. He even had everyone go home at the same time when it hit. Anyone who has ever been near Atlanta close to drive time knows how insane that was. He is an AGW denier and didn't believe the weather report because that just doesn't happen in Atlanta. Weather is much harder to predict than the long terms trends of climate change in either direction.
 
5. Where's the "theory" in in the oil company obfuscation of this issue?? It's an extremely well documented fact.
 
Now I've addressed all your silly little points. I've already done that multiple times for all your ridiculous babble. Learn to read. You don't simply prove you don't know any science with your super-stupid, completely irrelevant "analogies". You prove you can't even understand what you read. Go back and read my previous comments if you want answers to all your other questions. You may have to go to my profile and click on comments to other articles you interacted with me under to do so.
 
I directly show the flaws in your "scientific" arguments. I point out the fallacies in your "logic". I show how insubstantial your sources of information are. You never return the favor. It would require confronting the actual science to do so, which at this point you've very successfully convinced me you're incapable of doing. Instead you use blatantly diversionary tactics, all the tactics listed in the study I quoted above plus a few.
 
The bottom line is that you show absolutely no good faith or integrity in the way you discuss issues we disagree on. There is nothing scientific about that, nor does it remotely resemble any kind of honest discussion. I'm completely disgusted with dealing with your glaringly dishonest tactics and cherry picking, which you did just on my experience under my most recent article. If you have any sense at all, you know that I know science much more deeply than you do. If you really, truly don't know that by now, you've got to be a total moron or hopelessly self-deluded.
Robin the red breasted songster Added Jun 22, 2014 - 4:23pm
Big Oil being behind Global Warming deniers... may not be a conspiracy ... simply a fact.  You work for the automotive industry yourself, so you no doubt imbibe the ideology pumped out by that industry in your daily work.  You can scarcely claim not to have a vested interest now can you?
 
Human nature to deny things which are not in your interest isn't it Mike?
Mike Haluska Added Jun 22, 2014 - 9:01pm
Robin - for the last time, I do NOT work for the auto industry!  Do I have to send you a tax return?
 
Robert - your assertion:

"I've only said causality guarantees correlation."
 
merits some scrutiny.  Statistical correlation is numerical indicator that shows the relative variance of 2 variables.  Causality is a "one way" relationship (cause ---> effect).  Two variables can exhibit correlation, but the suspected causality can have NOTHING TO DO WITH the correlation between the variables.  
 
For example:  Two planets (A & B) are orbiting a common star.  Data shows that the mass of A is twice that of B, and the orbit of A is twice the diameter of B.  There is a direct correlation between the mass and the orbit diameter.  A person may conclude that mass determines orbit diameter citing 100% correlation!  However the orbital mechanics can have nothing to do with the mass/orbit correlation.  Planets in orbit are essentially "falling" toward the star and their relative masses have nothing to do with the causality.  Galileo showed this when he demonstrated that heavier objects fall at the same rate as lighter objects.  So the correlation found between mass and orbit size has NOTHING TO DO with the law of gravity!  In other words:
 
CAUSALITY DOES NOT GUARANTEE CORRELATION! 
 
In words relative to our discussion, CO2 concentration can be joined at the hip to average global temperature, but the causal relationship involving average global temperature can have nothing to do with CO2.  Perhaps another variable (solar activity) can cause both to change, although the CO2 is a lagging variable (temp goes up, then CO2) which indicates to me there are intermediate reactions.
 
What the AGW crowd has done is ASSUME that since their is an apparent correlation between CO2 and average global temperature there MUST be a causal relationship.  They have attempted to establish this using dubious means (computer modeling) and have ignored other greenhouse causing variables (water vapor) that are far more prevalent in terms of mass and greenhouse properties.
 
If the AGW crowd was serious, they would construct null hypothesis experiments - they refuse.  Instead they assume they're right, claim "the debate is over", ridicule any skeptics and produce ridiculous reports that all essentially say "if we don't halt CO2 the following disasters will occur in 5 years" - and look like idiots when they never occur.  This IS NOT and never will be Scientific Method!
 
If there's a hidden agenda it's this - of the possible "greenhouse gases" only ONE is related to the fossil fuel industry (CO2).  Only one of the variables is even remotely affected by human activity (CO2).  Should a non-CO2 gas be responsible for any "global warming", then there really isn't any action humans can take.  That means the AGW crowd spent a ton of money researching something we can do NOTHING ABOUT! 
 
Go back and look at the great scientific debates of the 20th century.  There were always plenty of dissenters and the matter was settled with scientific experimentation using the Scientific Method.  Neils Bohr never insulted Einstein for his skepticism about Quantum Theory by calling him a "Denier".  One side of the debate didn't unilaterally declare the "debate is over".  Bohr didn't claim he was correct because Einstein couldn't prove Quantum particles don't exist.    
 
The proponents of AGW are intellectually lazy frauds who are solely motivated by continuation of research grant financial reward.  Bohr, Einstein, Fermi, Plank, Szilard, Feynman, et al would have nothing to do with this kind of "science".
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 22, 2014 - 9:05pm
Speak of the Devil . . . .
 
Monday, June 23 2014
London Telegraph
 
The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 22, 2014 - 9:06pm
"In words relative to our discussion, CO2 concentration can be joined at the hip to average global temperature, but the causal relationship involving average global temperature can have nothing to do with CO2.  Perhaps another variable (solar activity) can cause both to change, although the CO2 is a lagging variable (temp goes up, then CO2) which indicates to me there are intermediate reactions."
 
Doesn't this guy understand just how stupid this is? If something actually DOES cause something else to happen, then that thing will happen every time the cause is there and that is correlation. End of story. All this pseudo-intellectual diversion is for other people as ignorant as the one writing this idiotic hog slop.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 23, 2014 - 2:25pm
You missed the point again Robert!  You see, US SCIENTISTS when confronted with absolute statements like "CAUSALITY GUARANTEES CORRELATION don't bother to look at every possible example that CONFIRMS the statement, we look for the one example that CONFLICTS with the statement (look up Null Hypothesis)!
 
Your addled brain has correlation and causality so intertwined that they really are synonymous for all intents and purposes.  That doesn't surprise me - you do the same thing with Consensus and Scientific Method!  
 
Correlation is a statistical value ranging from -1 to +1.  Causality is one way relationship (cause ---> effect).  Sometimes it takes multiple causes occurring simultaneously to produce the effect, sometimes one of several causes can produce one or more effects.  Then of course there are necessary conditions, which are not sufficient to cause the effect but must be present for the effect to occur (oxygen, fuel, heat are necessary conditions for fire, but do not cause fire).  Sometimes due to the nature of the substance one cause can yield several possible events.
 
OK, you can now compose your thermo dissertation as a substitute for accepting the fact your absolute statement is wrong.  In the future, you need to really think twice before declaring ANYTHING absolute!  
Robert Wendell Added Jun 23, 2014 - 5:31pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
This man is incapable of admitting when he's clearly and obviously wrong about ANYTHING! If A really does cause B, then every time A happens, so will B. This is a 100% correlation. I'm talking about a clear, direct causal relationship in which a sufficient condition A causes B. This guarantees a 100% correlation.
 
So what does this obviously imply? The correlation would not prove that there is a cause. There could instead be an underlying common cause. For example, there are tons of things that correlate positively with population growth. They may therefore show a high correlation with each other, although there is absolutely no causal relationship between them. They just happen to have a common underlying factor that is responsible for the correlation. So from this it's clear that correlation does not always correspond to a causal relationship and therefore does not prove that there is any causality.
 
But this guy goes way overboard, effectively using the following fallacious syllogism to draw an absurd conclusion:
 
1. Correlations don't prove causality.
 
2. There is a correlation between failing to breath and death.
 
3. Since correlation doesn't prove causality , this correlation implies that failing to breathe does not cause death.
 
HOWEVER, a sufficient cause A that causes B to happen will ALWAYS produce a 100% correlation. To deny this is absurd. All animals are not dogs, but all dogs are animals. Not all correlations correspond to causes, but all causes produce corresponding correlations. If this dummkopf doesn't admit that, there is no point in discussing anything at all with him. 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 24, 2014 - 12:11pm
Richard, your writing still seems to imply that CO(2) is a pollutant. Do you still insist that it is? Although on a practical level, just about every human source except our bodies and breath that put out CO(2) also put out tons of pollution, CO(2) is not in itself a pollutant.
 
The CO(2) part of the "equation" is all about balance and not pollution. But since in practice industrial sources pollute, the amount of CO(2) industry puts out corresponds pretty tightly with how much pollution they also put out with it. I'm not fully clear on whether you continue insist that CO(2) itself is a pollutant, Industrial CO(2) is not a pollutant either. It just includes a lot of pollutants with it.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 24, 2014 - 1:48pm
There is only ONE reason CO2 was selected as the "Darth Vader" of all industrial by-products, and it has NOTHING to do with science and everything to do with left-wing environmentalist blind hatred of the petrochemical industry.  And no, Robin I don't work for BP!
Robert Wendell Added Jun 24, 2014 - 3:07pm
Richard, please note that all Mike's arguments are founded in an a priori political assumption that it's all a left-wing hoax. He pretends to know science, but knows nothing about real science, although he says he "practices" it as a civil engineer. Whenever asked to deal with any real science, he either shows his gross ignorance of it by his feckless attempts to deal with it or he dodges it completely.
 
Under my article Conservative Heaven, Mike offered to discuss AGW with no dodges. He challenged me with language that brazenly implied that I take up the challenge as if I owed him that after his repeated refusal to accept mine. He has absolutely refused multiple times to discuss the science other than on his own absurdly twisted terms, full of nutty false analogies that clearly demonstrate his abysmal ignorance of basic science. Otherwise, he simply dodges the scientific issues when they're over his "scientific" head (about two millimeters above the ground).
 
I accepted his challenge anyway. The first thing he did was dodge again with another absurd "reason" in a transparent violation of his clearly meaningless "commitment" not to do so. My strategy is simple and it seems he is smart enough to know it will debunk his main "scientific" arguments if he respects his commitment.
 
The simple strategy is to ask him a scientific question, one point at a time as he stipulated, and ask whether he agrees. If he disagrees, I request that he give a scientific reason for his disagreement, which is a normal, natural expectation if there is to be any semblance of good faith in discussing this issue. The questions consist of long established scientific principles that he would have to irrationally deny in order to disagree.
 
He knows that if I ask the right sequence of questions, he will either have to deny some basic, long established scientific principle or agree with it. Agreeing at each step would systematically and completely debunk fundamental points he has made based on false science, so in his mind he has no choice but to dodge. This is the kind of good faith discussion he has systematically avoided all along.
 
The obvious reason for this is he has no desire to participate in good faith. He only wants to look right. What he apparently fails to recognize, amazingly, is that he's already revealed himself to be a scientific know-nothing in the eyes of anyone who has any understanding of basic scientific principles and happens to be passing by.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 24, 2014 - 7:55pm
Thank you for that clarification, Richard, since your language has not always made this clear. One thing that contributes to this misunderstanding is that you speak of pollution as "clinging" to CO(2). In reality it doesn't "cling" to it any more than it clings to the oxygen, nitrogen, and other gases that occur naturally in our atmosphere. If you would let go of that very false idea, it would do a great deal to reduce the confusion.
 
However, that misconception doesn't do anything to undo your very correct statement in which you said, "There is no such thing as pure carbon dioxide caused by human pollution." That is the core truth and the rest is essentially irrelevant unless we include AGW. I believe your essential and very valid point is that even for those who don't believe in AGW, the pollution issue should be enough reason to develop alternative, clean energy technologies. I wholeheartedly concur. Even the AGW denial is a silly diversion in and of itself. The need for clean, alternative options is urgent and no argument against that makes any sense.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 25, 2014 - 10:23am
Richard - I have never seen such jibberish in my life!  If CO2 is so horrible, do the human race a favor and stop exhaling, you polluting hypocrite!  
 
When you read something like:
 
"A 2013 study by MIT indicates that 53,000 early deaths occur per year in the United States alone because of vehicle emissions."
 
do you ever ask yourself questions like, I don't know, maybe something like:
 
"How the Frak did the researchers know that 53,000 people died EARLY?"  
 
Did the researchers have access to a Time Machine and knew in advance when they would have died if not for vehicle emissions?  That's like Obama claiming his economic policies saved 200,000 jobs! 
 
Let me clue you and Richard in on something.  Neither of you is looking at this subject objectively, you WANT it to be real!  Liberals are constantly looking for things to feel guilty about, whether its the environment, poverty, health care, etc.  Real results and reality don't matter, only INTENTIONS matter to left wing idealogues like you and Robert.
 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 25, 2014 - 10:36am
Mindlessly muddled babble abounds.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 25, 2014 - 10:54am
Richard: "According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which represents a scientific consensus, when exhaust comes out of car tailpipes, it is not pure carbon dioxide but rather, it includes other particulates of matter.  These other particulates of matter cling to the carbon dioxide and do not easily separate in the air."
 
If course it's not pure CO(2). Who said it was? But where do you get that particulates of matter "cling" to the CO(2)? Particulate matter is in suspension in the gases with which it exited from whatever source. It doesn't cling to CO(2) any more than to nitrogen or oxygen. It is just so intimately intermixed with ALL the exhaust gases that it doesn't separate easily from them. What mechanism would dissociate it from the gases it exited with?
 
Wood smoke is particulate matter. It quite accurately follows the path of the gases in which it is suspended. The smoke tells you how the air is moving, since the air is what's moving it. That's not clinging. Particulate matter doesn't have a mind of its own or any means of locomotion other than the gases in which it is suspended. Mud is particulate matter suspended in water. It follows the water. It's hard to separate from it. You have to use filters or some chemical means to separate it from the water it is diluted in. So in essence, you're right that we could think of it as "clinging", but there is no chemical attachment. It doesn't cling any more than a feather floating in the air clings to the air.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 25, 2014 - 2:09pm
OK, Richard, so the scientists who wrote for Britannica called it "clinging". Fine. I guess there's nothing wrong with that as long as you don't take it too literally and understand that it only means they stay intermixed.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 26, 2014 - 10:51am
Richard - compounds of substances can be simply "mixed together" with no molecular/atomic bonding.  For instance, you can mix dirt and water and get mud, which is a colloidal suspension.  You can mix milk & water and get crappy milk, which is dissolution.  Other substances bond at molecular/atomic level like iron and oxygen - rust.
 
Nobody in their right mind supports pollution - it is a matter of prioritization and overall consideration.  We will eventually move away from fossil fuel as an energy source, but we have done a LOT to reduce the pollution associated with fossil fuels over the past 40 years.  It is true that smog has been reduced 97% in Los Angeles since the 1960's, despite a tripling of the population. 
 
Electrical powered vehicles will only become practical when the storage problem is truly solved.  A technological breakthrough called "superconductors" is necessary to shrink the batteries and motors down to a practical size & weight.  Instead of wasting government grant money on the Solyndras out there, we should be directing research at superconductor development.  
 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 26, 2014 - 10:56am
Richard - the reason I mentioned fossil fuels/electric cars is because converting to all electric cars with today's technology simply trades one type of pollution for an ever worse one.  Sure, tailpipe emissions will be eliminated, but power generation emissions will increase much more.  Where do you think the electricity to charge electric car batteries will come from?
Robert Wendell Added Jun 26, 2014 - 2:32pm
Richard, although it's true that it would ultimately end up coming from carbon in most cases, even with all the transmission losses, etc. it still ends up reducing CO(2) emissions because of the efficiencies of scale. More importantly, clean energy is increasingly coming into the utility business. In Texas, wind power is now providing 20-35% of the total power consumed in that state. The 35% is happening during consumption lulls, which is when most electric cars would be charging. That would reduce emissions even further.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 26, 2014 - 4:56pm
Robert - since superconductors are still a way down the road, what is on the horizon to replace lead/acid battery technology? 
Mike Haluska Added Jun 26, 2014 - 5:02pm
Robert - Wikipedia says Texas generates 8.3% of electrical power from wind in 2013.  Where did you get your data?  Also, I understand that without federal subsidies wind power isn't economically competitive.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 27, 2014 - 12:11am
Do you think lead-acid battery technology is what electric cars use? Man, you ARE out of touch, aren't you?
Robert Wendell Added Jun 27, 2014 - 12:41am
I messed up. It's estimated at well over 10% total overall for wind in 2014 up from 9.9% in 2013 and 9.2% in 2013. The growth in wind has slowed because of the natural gas boom. There is quite a bit of solar also. I read several articles, some of which I've lost track of, so I got a bit confused. The 20% probably came from total renewables in Texas, including wind and solar. The peak from just wind was at just over 38%, but that was an instantaneous record. The main article this wind information came from is at:
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterdetwiler/2014/03/30/texas-sets-new-wind-power-record/ 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 27, 2014 - 1:25am
OK, I'm beginning to understand a possible source of the confusion in the figures I came up with. I just found this:
 
http://governor.state.tx.us/files/ecodev/renewable_energy.pdf
 
This apparently comes straight from Gov. Rick Perry's office. On the page numbered 3 (counted after the cover, introduction, etc.) it states in margin boxes that biomass and biofuels represent 36% of total renewable energy production in the state. ((Texas is, I believe, the leader in biodiesel production.) However, the first margin box says that wind is 76% of the total. So with just wind and biofuels, they already have 112% of total production, never mind solar, etc.
 
So I guess we need to work really hard and figure out exactly how you can get 112% out of 100% without even counting solar or anything else. This article dated May 2014 says 97% of renewable energy consumption in Texas last year came from wind:
 
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-renewable-energy-production-rose-12-percent-5485134.php
 
So I'm having some strong doubts for some odd reason about how reliable information is about what's going on in Texas, especially if it's coming from the governor's office.
Mike Haluska Added Jun 27, 2014 - 8:13am
Robert - you are experiencing firsthand the effect of mixing science and politics.  Wind power is uneconomical and must be subsidized with public funds.  Rather than being objective, politicians use scientists eager to get their research funded and they use crony capitalists to get the technology built.  Of course, when I point this out I am told "the debate is over, all scientists agree, etc.  in other words CONSENSUS SCIENCE!
Mike Haluska Added Jun 27, 2014 - 9:09am
Robert - regarding electric car battery technology.  I just checked with Tesla Motors, the cost to replace their lithium battery is about $30,000.  It needs to be replaced at approximately 3 years/100,000 miles.
 
I'll wait for somebody to crack the superconductor problem and be happy with my EFI gasoline engine that will go over 200,000 miles before it needs to be rebuilt/replaced for $5,000. 
Robert Wendell Added Jun 30, 2014 - 2:46pm
I'm not selling Tesla or anyone else. I'm just saying we need to keep doing research until we solve the problem of getting new technology working commercially. We went to the moon. We've sent unmanned missions to Mars that have been very successful. If we had the political will to lick these problems, we could.
 
People like you remind me of the leftists back in the 60s who didn't want NASA spending that money to get to the moon while we let people languish in poverty. The only reason the right was on board with all that government spending was that it was financing industry that also manufactures military technology. In fact going to the moon was politically feasible only because the right was scared of letting the Soviets beat us to the moon.
 
The Soviets had done everything else first: first orbiting satellite, first man in orbit, first spacewalk, etc. etc. The right was scared of letting them beat us in space and the left complained about the "wasted" money. Well, we wouldn't be doing what we're doing right now if it weren't for the Apollo program. All the seeds for our current microelectronic, digital, and computer technologies were sprouted enormously rapidly under that program. Intel was founded on the basis of a NASA contract. They had ONE initial customer: NASA!
They didn't even exist before that.
 
I graduated from high school in 1962, so I had a front row seat on all of that. I watched Ruby shoot Oswald as it happened live on CBS television with Walter Cronkite as news anchor. I watched Neil Armstrong say his famous words live as he stepped onto the moon. I stood at our living room door with one eye on the TV and one on the moon outside while my mind was putting it together that I was watching a moon that had a live human being on it that I could see right then and there on TV. I followed all the technological developments in space. I had kept up with most of the major rockets we had developed, I followed the engine designs, knew what chemical fuels they used, whether they were solid or liquid, etc. I was a total technical geek watching all this happening.
Robert Wendell Added Jun 30, 2014 - 2:48pm
The point is I didn't miss the politics underlying what was happening, the competitive nature of what we were doing, nor the technical challenges we faced,
Robert Wendell Added Jun 30, 2014 - 11:35pm
Mike assumes a priori that CO(2) has no role, and irrationally uses this assumption to consign any discussion of the actual role of CO(2) and how it really works to irrelevance. He illogically refuses on that basis to allow any discussion that would establish its relevance. In other words, his argument is patently circular, since it disallows any discussion that would otherwise challenge his assumptions. All this is evident here and under several other articles, including his, mine, and others'.
 
From  http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/61-begging-the-question:
"BEGGING THE QUESTION

"petitio principii
(also known as: assuming the initial point, assuming the answer, chicken and the egg argument, circulus in probando, circular reasoning [form of], vicious circle)
 
"Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.  Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”.  That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
 
"Logical Forms:
Claim X assumes X is true.
Therefore, claim X is true."
 
From http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html:
 
"Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses. More generally, a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. Still more generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side."
 
Imagine! We get this kind of blatantly obvious circular reasoning from a guy who claims expertise in not only science, but the scientific method!
Robert Wendell Added Jul 1, 2014 - 12:14am
Mike: " CO2 concentration can be joined at the hip to average global temperature, but the causal relationship involving average global temperature can have nothing to do with CO2.  Perhaps another variable (solar activity) can cause both to change, although the CO2 is a lagging variable (temp goes up, then CO2) which indicates to me there are intermediate reactions."
 
This is flat wrong! CO(2) and temperature are connected in a feedback loop. Increase in either causes an increase in the other. (We understand that much of the mechanics of AGW extremely well, so this is not merely a correlation.) Historically, solar forcing (in these cases increased temperature due to greater proximity to the sun, which is astronomically predictable with great precision) has led CO(2) increase, but not so this time! 
 
Mike not only conveniently ignores this, but tries to use the opposite, false assertion as an argument against AGW. CO(2) is leading temperature this time around. The science behind this is no insoluble mystery, so this is easily established. That is very strong evidence for AGW! Anyone who denies this is simply a sucker for industrial propaganda from financially interested sources.
Nicholas Schroeder Added Mar 17, 2015 - 11:36am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/17/science-lessons-for-secretary-of-state-john-f-kerry/
 
The laws and theories of gravity and phase transition are not even remotely analogous to the fatally flawed AGW hypothesis.
 
97% of peer-reviewed climate studies do not conclude that humans are largely to blame for recent climate changes.
There is no evidence that 14 of the last 15 years are the warmest in all of recorded history.
 
A greenhouse works by retarding convective cooling.  The greenhouse effect works by retarding radiative cooling.
 
Secretary Kerry’s lack of scientific literacy will work by retarding our economy.
Robert Wendell Added Mar 17, 2015 - 12:44pm
Just more unfounded nonsense from your "authority figures" that you blindly ape, Nicholas?
 
You say, "A greenhouse works by retarding convective cooling.  The greenhouse effect works by retarding radiative cooling."



Wrong! A greenhouse retards convective cooling, but retarding radiative cooling is a big part of what creates the need for convective cooling. Both situations are created by the nature of its structure. A greenhouse with walls and ceiling that were transparent at all wavelengths, if we knew of such a material, would not get as hot as a normal one.


Why do greenhouses have fans that accelerate convective cooling to prevent overheating from retarding both radiative and convective cooling with the greenhouse structure? Your argument falsely implies that convection is the exclusive means for cooling the surface of the greenhouse floor or of the earth and that such surfaces therefore lose no heat via radiation. The earth loses heat to space exclusively by radiative cooling.


That makes CO(2) all the more significant and completely undermines your own argument. The difference between actual greenhouses and any system like the earth, suspended in a non-conducting, non-convective vacuum, clearly demonstrates the role of reduced radiative cooling as ultimately the only means for creating AGW.


This kind of fractured thinking, putting different pieces of the puzzle in separate file boxes that never meet or interact is why those in the general public who buy into AGW denial are so easily played. It is true that the planetary greenhouse effect works exclusively by retarding radiative cooling, since convection occurs only within the earth system and plays no role at all in the radiation of infrared into space.


Radiative cooling is ultimately the only means by which energy can leave a system suspended in a vacuum. Vacuums don't conduct any heat at all and of course there can be no convection in a vacuum. Given these simple facts from extremely elementary science, your use of this difference between actual greenhouses and the earth system only reinforces the argument for AGW!

Robert Wendell Added Mar 17, 2015 - 7:52pm
Don't forget that 71% of the total energy leaving the earth (ALL of which leaves exclusively as infrared photons) is radiated directly from above the troposphere. 96% of that is radiated by CO(2). 96% of 71% is 68%. So 68% of all heat going back to space, which must balance globally over the long term the total energy entering the earth system if the equilibrium temperature is not to change, is radiated by CO(2).
 
Of course, CO(2) radiates spherically, that is omnidirectionally, so it is not a matter of CO(2) being good or bad, but a matter of the balance that provides a livable long term global equilibrium temperature. CO(2) is NOT a pollutant. However, most industrially generated CO(2) does indeed include a lot of pollutants.
 
Very importantly, 68% is radiated from above the troposphere by CO(2) where there is no weather and where it cannot be swamped by water vapor. This is not theory, but hard fact. Your arguments not only refuse to admit basic, irrefutable facts, but are also riddled with very specious, fragmented reasoning based on narrow pieces of data that fail to address these bottom line realities.
Mike Haluska Added Aug 12, 2015 - 3:27pm
 
Jabber, jabber, jabber . . .  did the Earth warm up according to AGW forecasts?  NO!!!  What you refuse to admit is the cold hard fact that despite your attempts to divert attention, not a single catastrophic event predicted by AGW proponents has been correct.  So keep on jibber-jabbering about thermal coefficients, directional radiation, etc.  In the world of Real Science,
     REPRODUCEABLE RESULTS MATTER, NOT CONSENSUS !!!
Nicholas Schroeder Added Sep 18, 2015 - 9:16pm
All quite interesting, beside the point, and so what. The points that matter:

IPCC AR5 (Table 6.1) has no idea how much of the CO2 increase between 1750 and 2011 is due to industrialized man because the contributions of the natural sources and sinks are a massive WAG. Hard to say whether the sudden appearance of 2.6 trillion trees helps or hinders. 
The 2 W/m^2 RF that IPCC AR5 attributes to that CO2 increase between 1750 & 2011 (SPM C) and that “unbalances” the global heat balance is lost in the magnitudes and uncertainties of the major factors in the global heat balance, i.e. ToA (340 W/m^2 +/- 10 W/m^2), clouds (-20 W/m^2 +/-?), reflection, absorption, +/-, etc. CO2’s a third or fourth decimal point bee fart in a hurricane. Are they as far off with the heat balance as with the trees? 
IPCC AR5 admits in text box 9.2 that their GCM’s cannot explain the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis probably because their climate sensitivity is incorrect (Google “Climate Change in 12 Minutes”), as acknowledged in TS.6, and their GCMs & RCPs 3.0, 4.5, 6.0, 8.5 are consequentially useless. The oceans didn’t eat the heat, it was the water absorbed by 2.6 trillion trees.
Robert Wendell Added Sep 18, 2015 - 10:44pm
Nicholas, you present one more example of not seeing the forest for the trees. I've presented several times in comments under various articles, including this one, that go straight to the bottom line. What is the bottom line?...accurate gas spectroscopy from satellites that show by what means and how much infrared radiation leaves the earth system.
 
You and your buddies in irrational denial never address that. I would bet you don't understand the difference between the conduction and convection of thermal heat and the radiation of heat into the vacuum of space well enough to even deal with that part of the issue. Haluska has proven he doesn't multiple times with his absurd analogy of pissing in the ocean.
 
Because space is a vacuum, it's an elementary and indisputable scientific fact that infrared radiation is the ONLY way heat can ever possibly leave the earth system to balance what comes in at whatever long term equilibrium temperature that balance inevitably dictates. You and your buddies seem to be dismally ignorant of this simple reality and how reliable and precise gas spectroscopy is. Your attempts at obfuscation by all this silly spitting out of data is made utterly irrelevant by a rate of increase of CO(2) since 1750 faster by orders of magnitude than in any previous time in the last 800,000 years by natural means.
 
This is despite having had so much CO(2) in the past that we had tropical plants and animals at the poles. You are probably so scientifically clueless that you think this last little piece of data is somehow in your favor. Your manipulators use this to convince you of that, but it took many tens of thousands of years for that to happen and not less than three measly centuries. In every past case, solar forcing led the increase in CO(2). Solar forcing is decreasing now and has been for a long time. We would be slowly headed over many tens of thousands of years for another ice age if it weren't for the fact the CO(2) now is leading the increase in equilibrium temperature.
 
We also have much more accurate data on how much CO(2) industry dumps into the atmosphere than you want to believe. Contrary to what your argument inevitably implies (whether you can think clearly enough or not to notice that), we don't work backwards from how much there is or how much increase there has been to figure out how much of it we're contributing.
 
We know with a much higher degree of accuracy than you imply by working from the opposite end, namely how much we're putting out as calculated from our sources. The few people who know the science, but who argue for your position, know this. That stuff you parrot from such sources is pure cow poop and you're too scientifically clueless not to be suckered by it.
 
You accuse those who talk about AGW of scare tactics, which is a Freudian slip that reveals your real motivation for denying it. You are scientifically ignorant, fearful suckers with your scared little heads buried deep in the sand in irrational denial. You're being played and coached to believe we're the ones being played. Have you never noticed how the Exxon advertisements brag about all their research on alternative energy while they pump millions into supporting AGW denial? How big a sucker do you have to be to ignore that?
Robert Wendell Added Sep 18, 2015 - 10:53pm
Mike, spouting easily refuted "facts" is just stupid, but you keep doing it. You don't counter a scientific argument by skipping around it like an ignorant teenager by simply "dissing" it as "thermal coefficients, directional radiation, etc., etc." Your incorrect quote of "thermal coefficients", a term I've never even mentioned, further reveals how out of your miserably shallow depth you are.
Robert Wendell Added Sep 18, 2015 - 11:04pm
To clarify for those who don't know the difference (as Mike clearly doesn't), I have mentioned specific heat, a high school physics concept Mike has very clearly demonstrated he utterly fails to understand. Specific heat is completely different from any kind of thermal coefficient. There are several kinds of the latter, which in this form is quite ambiguous. There is coefficient of thermal expansion, of thermal transfer, etc., etc., all of which are not the same as specific heat.
 
The man has no clue what I'm even talking about, so that's why he keeps dumping on it as if what I'm saying is just "pseudo-scientific babble". That's his best but very pathetic defense. He can't even deal in these terms intelligently because he has no idea what they mean. His denial that the long term equilibrium temperature has not increased and that all the models have been wrong is just a ridiculously false claim. Can he back it up? Does he even try? No, not except to quote one of his favorite like-minded sources of anti-AGW propaganda.
Robert Wendell Added Sep 19, 2015 - 11:40pm
Take a look at this graphic display of data for 2015 and the five previous hottest years on record (which AGW deniers simply dismiss as lies):
 
http://assets.climatecentral.org/images/made/9_17_15_Brian_HorseRacingPlanet_720_518_s_c1_c_c.png
Nicholas Schroeder Added Nov 1, 2015 - 9:09am
The major global C/CO2 (not CO2 per se, C is a precursor proxy for CO2) reservoirs, i.e. oceans, atmosphere, vegetation & soil, contain over 40,000 Pg (Gt) of C/CO2. Over 90% of this C/CO2 reserve is in the oceans.
Between these reservoirs ebb and flow hundreds of Pg C/CO2 per year, the great fluxes. For instance, vegetation absorbs C/CO2 for photosynthesis producing plants and O2. When the plants die and decay they release C/CO2. A divinely maintained balance of perfection for thousands of year, now, unbalanced by mankind’s evil use of fossil fuels.
So just how much net C/CO2 does mankind’s evil fossil fuel consumption add to this perfectly balanced 40,000 Gt cauldron of churning, boiling, fluxing C/CO2?

That’s correct, 3. Not 3,000, not 300, 3! How are we supposed to take this seriously?
Robert Wendell Added Nov 2, 2015 - 12:03am
So, Nicholas, we added 1,035 gigatons (Gt) from 1850 to 2000.
Since 2000 we've added 440 more Gt (45.2% of what we added from 1850 to 2000 in only the last 15 years, so we're rapidly accelerating our additions, something we should naturally expect with industrial growth).
(Data from 
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/how-many-gigatons-of-co2/)
 
Total current CO(2) in the atmosphere is only 3,124 Gt, so how is adding 440 more in the last 15 years insignificant? Human activity has brought us to 400 parts per million (ppm) CO(2) in the atmosphere. So because 400 ppm seems small to you, that somehow makes it insignificant?
 
We've gone from 280 ppm CO(2) before the industrial revolution to 400 ppm currently. That's a 42.9% increase from about 1750. In the last 15 years we've added 45.2% more to what we added between 1850 and 2000 . That extra 440 Gt in the last 15 years is 14.1% of the total current amount of CO(2) in the atmosphere.
 
So...since:
 
1) CO(2) is responsible for 68% of all infrared leaving the earth (the only form of heat that ever leaves the earth in the vacuum of space, a perfect insulator)
AND
2) CO(2) and all other greenhouse gases radiate equally up and down,
3) how does that not add substantially to what comes back down and gets recycled between the earth, water vapor in the troposphere, and other greenhouse gases above the troposphere?
 
How do you get insignificance for CO(2) out of any of this?
Nicholas Schroeder Added Nov 11, 2015 - 10:39am
If you work the numbers on IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 you will discover that anthro C is partitioned 57/43 between natural sequestration and atmospheric retention. (555 – 240 = 315 PgC & 240/555) IMO this arbitrary partition was “assumed” in order to “prove” (i.e. make the numbers work) that anthro C was solely/90% responsible for the 112 ppmv atmos CO2 increase between 1750 – 2011. C is not CO2.
PgC * 3.67 = PgCO2 * 0.1291 = ppmv atmospheric CO2
IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1
…………………………………….PgC……ppmv
FF & Land Use source…….8.9…….4.22
Ocean & Land Sink…………4.9…… 2.32
Net Sink.………………………..4.0…….1.90
 
If the anthro 8.9 Pg C (4.2 ppmv CO2/y) suddenly vanishes the natural cycle that remains would be a constant sink of 2.3 ppmv CO2/y. Reverse extrapolation (GCMs & RCPs apply forward extrapolation) calculates that 121 years in the past (278 ppmv CO2/2.3 ppmv CO2) or the year 1629 (1750-121) atmos CO2 would have been 0, zero, nadda, zip, nowhere to be found.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave!
The 8.9 Pg of anthro C simply vanishes in earth’s 45,000 plus Pg C cauldron of stores and fluxes. Mankind’s egoistic, egocentric, conceit means less than nothing to the earth, the solar system and the universe.
Robert Wendell Added Nov 11, 2015 - 12:39pm
Nicholas, you try hard, don't you? This is so involuted. If you don't think that we added the sudden (in geographic time) uptick in atmospheric CO(2), where do you think it came from? The C is not CO(2) argument proves what? What does that have to do with the increase in atmospheric CO(2)?
 
To switch to carbon and then pretend that the carbon in the extra CO(2) (from 280 to 400 ppm) since 1750 is swamped by the total amount of carbon is bogus. Those numbers are harder data than you and your sources pretend they are. Yes, ice core data is smoothed across decades, equivalent to using a low-pass filter on the data, so the resolution is decadal, but not centurial. On the other hand, the data from stomata are highly statistical (extrapolated from widely scattered data points) as well as local to an extreme. There are also cross checks for this data from various other natural sources such as target="_blank">tree rings, target="_blank">sub-fossil pollen, target="_blank">boreholes, target="_blank">corals, target="_blank">lake and ocean sediments See also:
 
https://epic.awi.de/36707/2/revision_yd_co2.pdf
 
This debunks the popular (among the denial community) but lame attempt to debunk ice core data with data from stomata. The last time atmospheric CO(2) reached 400 ppm, humans didn't exist. Most climate deniers are so ignorant and/or intellectually challenged they think this proves we aren't doing it. I cite this fact for exactly the opposite reason. It previously happened by natural means across extremely long geological epochs. The early earth had virtually no oxygen at all.