Monday, November 16, 2009

Nonesuch Science vs. Run-of-the-mill Obscurantism

S103-E-5037 (21 December 1999)--- Astronauts a...Image via Wikipedia

Breathless comments from the Anti-AGW crowd. The are perfect constructions of pure craziness. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/11/physicists_firm_on_climate_cha.html
It is really time to stop this silliness. 160 Physicists are not wrong. The problem is corporate America, lead by false prophets such as Mr. Gore, stand to make billions off of carbon credits, and garner other favors in the name of “saving the planet…” Needless to say, the Socialists and Marxists in our society will love the tax revenues and control of every aspect of our lives too. The American people are wising up. We are beginning to realize this whole thing is an unholy alliance between Revolutionary Marxists and Big Environment. We know that the end goal is to wreck our lives. The planet is not in danger. There is “Global Climate Change” and there has been for billions of years. Get over it. We see you… The Blinders Are Coming Off the people and the public backlash against the Carbon Hedge Fund Scamp will be phenomenal…
Posted by: D*n C**ll* | November 13, 2009 05:46 PM
It's interesting that as a scientist, if you wish to express an opinion that is contrary to the alarmist orthodoxy, that the alarmists consider it justification for researching your background. Another strong indicator that climate alarmism is much more about politics and religion than it is about science. In any case, if these 160 scientists, as well as many more around the world, can consider the issue of AGW as an open issue, then it is not settled science. What is even more alarming is the brownshirt tactics of the establishment alarmists. Obviously intimidation of the opposition is on the menu. Having Gore fire Happer is an indication that if you differ from AGW, you better keep your mouth shut. Dr. Roy Spencer experienced similar problems in expressing his opinions about AGW when he worked for the government. Notice that what is not covered here is the scientific merit of the petition that these scientists brought to the APS. In these political times, scientific merit is obviously something that the APS no longer cares about.
Posted by: T*l* R*b*r | November 14, 2009 05:28 PM
I disemvoweled the names. The comments are wonderful examples of the Art, above being the vile rantings of these two unbalanced folk. My comment: > It's interesting that as a scientist, if you wish to express an opinion that is contrary to the alarmist orthodoxy, that the alarmists consider it justification for researching your background. Strange. A claim that, simultaneously, the petitioners deserve weight attached to their statement because of their background, and, the petitioners cannot be expected to bare any inquiry into their background. Which is primary: the judged validity of the statement or the moment-by-moment convenience of the petitioners?

None - This image is in the public domain and ...Image via Wikipedia

Considering the science of the possible human causes of harmful climate change, either it is a nonesuch science, where the publishing practitioners cannot be trusted to draw conclusions from their own research, or we have an example of run-of-the-mill obscurantism, like the fellow "controversies" of evolution, HIV/AIDS, the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, tobacco carcinogenicity, vaccination for public health, and the Twin Towers falling because of airplanes piloted into them and not because of controlled explosive demolition. And we see the predicted distress accompanying inquiry of the political/economic/social dynamics of motivated obscurantism, here. The anti-AGW crowd can distinguish themselves from run-of-the-mill obscurantism with energies directed toward *their* *own* published research under the norms of scientific scrutiny. Or not - petitions can be filed and semi-plausible skeptical harrumphing can be echoed and amplified. Their own choice. The comments to this story http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40916 are even more worrying.
John Mashey Nov 12, 2009 9:11 PM What this petition campaign was really about I've studied this campaign in detail, including connections with a few thinktanks, comparisons with related past petitions, its use as a PR tool (not really to change APS), the unusual demographics of the signers compare to the APS (older, almost all male, likely very politically conservative, etc), the social network by which it spread (even though it is supposed to look like a widespread grassroots effort). Of the 206 signers, 1 is a real climate scientist, and handful more have published a few papers in credible journals, often refuted rather quickly. Some hae published outright psuedoscience. There's a detailed person-by-person analysis, with quotes, to help the reader assess the level of credibility. See: http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed It's 128 pages, but most of that is detailed backup; the first 25 pages is enough to get the idea. No more than a small handful of signers do or have done anything close to climate science research, and about 40% of the signers are retired, hence "risk" is minimal, except for being recognized as silly. Some of what they signed would be recognized as wrong by any competent gardener or many 10-year-old farm kids. *l*v*r K. M*n**l Nov 13, 2009 5:49 PM United States What the APS response was really about Quote: Originally posted by John Mashey I've studied this campaign in detail, including connections with a few thinktanks, comparisons with related past petitions, its use as a PR tool (not really to change APS), the unusual demographics of the signers compare to the APS (older, almost all male, likely very politically conservative, etc), the social network by which it spread (even though it is supposed to look like a widespread grassroots effort). APS has been in bed with NAS for the past fifty years, at least since the return of the Apollo Mission to the Moon in 1969. That is why: a.) Only older APS members remember when physics was a rational search for truth instead of a search for more funds from NAS and the federal agencies it controls (NASA, DOE, etc), and b.) NASA and DOE scientists and most APS members are completely oblivious to experimental data that showed Earth's climate is controlled by the unstable remains of a supernova that exploded 5 Gy (5 billion years) ago, ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun, and is heated today by repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core. With kind regards, *l*v*r K. M*n**l Former NASA PI for Apollo Emeritus Professor of Nuclear & Space Studies

Dipole field from NASA. Copied from http://geo...Image via Wikipedia

I cannot imagine a more unfalsifiable theory than "climate controlled by unstable supernova remains". [ Karl Popper's philosophy of science http://www.experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html ] The product of a troubled mind.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

2 comments:

John Mashey said...

1) Thanks for the very kind words on my paper an the very nice summary ... although I think it's the first time I've been labeled a science writer :-)

2) As for the person whose name was disemvoweled, you may want to Google that name and iron sun.

It's worse than you might think.

manuelg said...

Ollie K. Manuel's Iron Sun:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0201/10ironsun/

Seems to be a more scientifically literate version of Immanuel Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

The "Iron Sun" seems like an interesting idea - but the claimed first-order causal relation to Earth's climate is bizarre. We know life has a massive effect on the constituents of the Earth's atmosphere

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere

Why is it so hard to believe that humans releasing carbon dioxide trapped in fossil fuels rapidly (along with other human causes sources of greenhouse gases) can lead to climate change? Oh yeah, the Art of Controversy and motivated obscurantism.

Between Ollie Manuel and Immanuel Velikovsky, I do not approve of so much crankish science done with the name "Manuel".