Hottest Year Ever????

[fedor50]

It wouldn't be the first time the world's scientific organizations were wrong and I was right. My doctor has been telling me for a very long time that I needed to start a pharmaceutical regimen to deal with my colesterol numbers....being someone who doesn't simply accept what a scientist says because he is supposedly smarter than me, I have made a habit for about the same length of time of reading the literature concerning cholesterol...It has always been my contention that there is no statistical difference between the number of people who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol and those who die of heart disease who have normal cholesterol. As a result, I always refused the recommended drugs. Now the largest study ever comes out and guess what....cholesterol turns out to be no big deal....findings are that there is no statistical difference between the numbers who die of heart disease who have high cholesterol and the numbers who die of heart disease who have normal cholesterol...Turns out that cholesterol is not a significant factor in determining one's risk factor to heart disease. I was right while all of the scientific organizations were wrong.

Then there was a stomach ulcer that I experienced some 40 years ago. My doctor recommended all sorts of stress reduction techniques up to and including changing my job. I told him that I was the least stressed person he ever met and that my ulcer was due to something else...and most certainly was not stress related. I have been saying ever since that stomach ulcers are not due to stress but some other unknown factor. So after 35+ years, science finally catches up and guess what, gut bacteria are responsible for stomach ulcers....how many people, and scientific organizations prescribed and took drugs, lifestyle changes, etc etc etc based on their belief that stomach ulcers were stress related.

I don't know how old you are but if you are in your late 20's to middle 30's, I predict that you will see the book on quantum mechanics be seriously rewritten in your life time. A branch of science that is so conflicted as QM is now can not continue on as it is.

The big bang theory which I have written about on this very board here (#77) is coming under some very serious scrutiny at long last and will eventually be discarded, or rewritten to the point of unrecognizability....again, me right, consensus of scientific organizations wrong.

I could name a couple of other instances where I have been right in the face of scientific consensus stating the opposite but what's the point...and the times that the scientific consensus has been wrong in history are practically uncountable....practically every proven scientific theory or law today started out with a consensus saying something else.

Have I been right and the scientific community been wrong because I am smarter than they are? Of course not. The reasons I have been right while they have been wrong with regard to cholesterol and stomach ulcers has been primarily due to the application of common sense rather than group think. The consensus is wrong far more often than they are right due to group think. Acceptance of what others say because they are also scientists without regard to who is paying their salaries...repeating their work and findings in papers rather than doing the basic research....error cascades. These are just a few reasons why the consensus is so often wrong.

And they are wrong in the case of AGW. Observational and empirical data fly in the face of the hypothesis...it has experienced failure after failure but it is a politically useful hypothesis so it continues to have support and funding.

Great post man!!!

I am curious Pale Rider, what other scientific issues do you believe the consensus is currently wrong about and you might be right about?

Also, if you believe the big bang is a myth, then how exactly do you explain the beginning of the universe?

 

[palerider]

You do understand that computer modeling is simply an efficient way of dealing with large amounts of data, don't you?

Only if you have a complete understanding of the system you are modeling. Can you tell me, within .10 degree what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is? Hell, can you even come close to telling me the actual albedo of the earth. There are 1000 parameters that modelers are unsure of and more that they remain unaware of. At the present, climate models are much like the blind men describing an elephant....that is why they are so consistently, spectacularly wrong.

people take meds on the advice of a doctor who is prescribing based on the bottom line as opposed to what's best for the patient? Without a doubt. That doesn't mean that medical research is wrong.

Have you noticed how often medical research is wrong...and on how many levels and topics? And medical research is much more tightly controlled, monitored, and performed than climate research. Medical science is, after all a hard science...but it has been corrupted by money, and the pressure to produce results...Climate science is a shambles compared to medical research and medical research is experiencing some very hard times right now.

 

[palerider]

The above report also documents that the majority of doctors don't "actually look at the literature" they simply do what they've been told they need to do....

Ditto for climate research...The outcome is determined before the research is done....the result of the research is whatever is required to secure the next grant.

 

[palerider]

Great post man!!!

I am curious Pale Rider, what other scientific issues do you believe the consensus is currently wrong about and you might be right about?

If you carefully research the progress of science, in the early years of practically any field of study, the consensus is almost always wrong. It takes time to overcome the consensus but eventually, the weight of research will outweigh the prevailing belief. Climate science is no different.

Also, if you believe the big bang is a myth, then how exactly do you explain the beginning of the universe?

I don't explain it. What would be the point? One can simply look at the big bang and see that belief in that theory requires the acceptance of miracles. What sort of credible scientific theory requires the belief in miracles?

 

[Salami]

None you have any idea what the real reason for carbon controls are do you? Its because carbon is the most abundant and valuable substance in the universe. And as abundant as it is, no one will make any money off of it unless they can control it properly. Carbon and advanced nano forms will likely form the basis for our economy of non-scarcity within the next couple hundred years and maybe a lot quicker than that. There are already some amazing things being done with carbon types that should scare the pants off the energy markets as if the electric car was not bad enough.

When the carbon battery becomes viable.....sell all your energy shares except in sustainable because the walls will be coming down.

 

[palerider]

None you have any idea what the real reason for carbon controls are do you? Its because carbon is the most abundant and valuable substance in the universe. And as abundant as it is, no one will make any money off of it unless they can control it properly. Carbon and advanced nano forms will likely form the basis for our economy of non-scarcity within the next couple hundred years and maybe a lot quicker than that. There are already some amazing things being done with carbon types that should scare the pants off the energy markets as if the electric car was not bad enough.

When the carbon battery becomes viable.....sell all your energy shares except in sustainable because the walls will be coming down.

Dream on...perhaps in 1000 years...or more if ever...but not in any of our lifetimes. Pie in the sky thinking is as much a waste as the sort of faithful thinking warmers put into their belief in AGW.

 

[PLC1]

Dream on...perhaps in 1000 years...or more if ever...but not in any of our lifetimes. Pie in the sky thinking is as much a waste as the sort of faithful thinking warmers put into their belief in AGW.

Interesting prediction. Could turn out to be true, maybe. Here are some more predictions about technology and its progress:

The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it... Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.
- Dr. Alfred Velpeau (1839), French surgeon



Men might as well project a voyage to the Moon as attempt to employ steam navigation against the stormy North Atlantic Ocean.
- Dr. Dionysus Lardner (1793-1859), Professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy at University College, London.


There is a young madman proposing to light the streets of London—with what do you suppose—with smoke!
- Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832) [On a proposal to light cities with gaslight.]
[W]hen the Paris Exhibition closes electric light will close with it and no more be heard of.
- Erasmus Wilson (1878) Professor at Oxford University



They will never try to steal the phonograph because it has no `commercial value.'
- Thomas Edison (1847-1931). (He later revised that opinion.)


This `telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a practical form of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.
- Western Union internal memo, 1878

 

[palerider]

Interesting prediction. Could turn out to be true, maybe. Here are some more predictions about technology and its progress:

I guess you miss the irony in your link....they are all instances where the consensus were proven to be wrong....the fact is that the consensus is almost always wrong in the early stages of any field of study...climate science is certainly in its early stages....and the consensus is most certainly wrong. When any field ignores empirical data in favor of models...you can bet your ass that they are not just wrong...but waaaaaayyy wrong...stupid wrong...so wrong that in 25 years you won't be able to find anyone who will admit to believing in AGW any more than you can find someone today who believed in phrenology.

 

[PLC1]

I guess you miss the irony in your link....they are all instances where the consensus were proven to be wrong....the fact is that the consensus is almost always wrong in the early stages of any field of study...climate science is certainly in its early stages....and the consensus is most certainly wrong. When any field ignores empirical data in favor of models...you can bet your ass that they are not just wrong...but waaaaaayyy wrong...stupid wrong...so wrong that in 25 years you won't be able to find anyone who will admit to believing in AGW any more than you can find someone today who believed in phrenology.

That prediction has even less chance of coming true than the one about the carbon battery. Battery technology has come a long way since the first battery powered tools and devices. Chances are it will continue to improve. Meanwhile, you have to ignore a great deal of bizarre weather to continue to claim that the planet is not warming and that local climates are not changing.

 

[palerider]

That prediction has even less chance of coming true than the one about the carbon battery. Battery technology has come a long way since the first battery powered tools and devices. Chances are it will continue to improve. Meanwhile, you have to ignore a great deal of bizarre weather to continue to claim that the planet is not warming and that local climates are not changing.

What bizarre weather?...drought in the desert? Floods in flood basins?...fires in areas where fire is part of the ecology? Where on earth is the weather unprecedented? Where has the weather ever remained constant year after year after year. If it rains it is AGW...if it is drought, it is AGW....if it is hot, its AGW...if its cold, its AGW....if it snows, its AGW....if it doesn't snow, its AGW....no matter what happens in the climate, it is due to AGW. If you predict that every possible thing will happen, you are bound to be right at least half the time....of course, that isn't science...it is a las vegas parlor trick.

The fact is, that the CRN...the most pristinely placed, triple redundant surface station network on earth....a network so well placed that it requires no "adjustment" has measured the US to be in a cooling trend for the past decade....about 1.9 degrees per century actually. This in the face of "adjusted" temperatures for the same area claiming warming. What would make you think that if the same sort of pristinely placed network were in place across the globe, the same cooling trend wouldn't be measured. Guess you never noticed that when you look at maps of global anomolies the warmest temperatures are invariably in places with the poorest coverage.

The fact is that the consensus is wrong...the AGW hypothesis is a failure and it is being propped up politically for political gain.

 

[PLC1]

What bizarre weather?...drought in the desert? Floods in flood basins?...fires in areas where fire is part of the ecology? Where on earth is the weather unprecedented? Where has the weather ever remained constant year after year after year. If it rains it is AGW...if it is drought, it is AGW....if it is hot, its AGW...if its cold, its AGW....if it snows, its AGW....if it doesn't snow, its AGW....no matter what happens in the climate, it is due to AGW. If you predict that every possible thing will happen, you are bound to be right at least half the time....of course, that isn't science...it is a las vegas parlor trick.

The fact is, that the CRN...the most pristinely placed, triple redundant surface station network on earth....a network so well placed that it requires no "adjustment" has measured the US to be in a cooling trend for the past decade....about 1.9 degrees per century actually. This in the face of "adjusted" temperatures for the same area claiming warming. What would make you think that if the same sort of pristinely placed network were in place across the globe, the same cooling trend wouldn't be measured. Guess you never noticed that when you look at maps of global anomolies the warmest temperatures are invariably in places with the poorest coverage.

The fact is that the consensus is wrong...the AGW hypothesis is a failure and it is being propped up politically for political gain.

I could, of course, cite examples from all over the world of weather that is outside of the norm.

But why would I do that?

A belief system such as yours depends on ignoring any and all indications that the belief is false anyway.

 

[palerider]

I could, of course, cite examples from all over the world of weather that is outside of the norm.

\

As could any individual, at any place in the world, at any time during history. They used to burn witches for odd weather. The "norm" is a meaningless term in a chaotic climate. What you can't point out is anything at all that is unprecedented which is what you would need to even begin to make a case that man is responsible for climate change on a global scale.

But why would I do that?

Maybe because at a subconscious level, you know that it would be meaningless as the "norm" is a meaningless term. Maybe because you know that you would just get laughed at because whatever you pointed out, I could provide weather bits from historical news services stating that whatever you point out has been bigger, or hotter, or colder, or worse in the past.

A belief system such as yours depends on ignoring any and all indications that the belief is false anyway.

Sorry guy, you are the believer...not me. I only operate on fact and the fact is that the weather is no more bizarre now than it has ever been and less so if you actually took time to look....don't believe me, point out some what you call strange weather happening somewhere and I will provide you some evidence that your present bizarre is really just the norm....norm, don't you know, has quite a wide range here on earth. You are the one who believes climate related bullshit in the face of masses of empirical evidence to the contrary...suggesting that I am operating on belief is just projection on your part....at typical warmer strategy.

 

[PLC1]

\

As could any individual, at any place in the world, at any time during history. They used to burn witches for odd weather. The "norm" is a meaningless term in a chaotic climate. What you can't point out is anything at all that is unprecedented which is what you would need to even begin to make a case that man is responsible for climate change on a global scale.



Maybe because at a subconscious level, you know that it would be meaningless as the "norm" is a meaningless term. Maybe because you know that you would just get laughed at because whatever you pointed out, I could provide weather bits from historical news services stating that whatever you point out has been bigger, or hotter, or colder, or worse in the past.



Sorry guy, you are the believer...not me. I only operate on fact and the fact is that the weather is no more bizarre now than it has ever been and less so if you actually took time to look....don't believe me, point out some what you call strange weather happening somewhere and I will provide you some evidence that your present bizarre is really just the norm....norm, don't you know, has quite a wide range here on earth. You are the one who believes climate related bullshit in the face of masses of empirical evidence to the contrary...suggesting that I am operating on belief is just projection on your part....at typical warmer strategy.

Like I said, any and all extremes of weather would be dismissed, as they are evidence that the scientific theory, supported by every scientific organization on Earth, is actually real.

For example, we already discussed this one:

Antarctic ice shelves are melting dramatically, study finds

which you dismissed as the result of undersea volcanoes.

So, drought and heat in Australia, unprecedented (in modern times anyway) drought in California, floods and storms in the Mid West, severe winters in the North East, those are all just normal events.

Which, they may be, of course. Take any one, and it proves nothing. Taken all together, it is exactly what AGW predicted.

So, now you must dismiss these phenomena in order to preserve your beliefs.

 

[palerider]

Like I said, any and all extremes of weather would be dismissed, as they are evidence that the scientific theory, supported by every scientific organization on Earth, is actually real.

Climate behaving as it always has is evidence that man is changing the climate??....how much of that kool aid have you consumed?

For example, we already discussed this one:

Yes we did and you seem to be completely ignoring the FACT that the ice shelves are melting due to active volcanoes under the ice....the melting ice shelves have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with volcanic activity. The temperature down there is still waaaaaayyyyy below freezing, even during the summer...clearly the ice isn't melting because it is getting warmer...

You are so willing to accept that the political heads of scientific organizations have nothing but the purest intentions regarding climate science that you apparently don't even check to see what the facts are. The more we talk, the clearer it becomes that you are operating from a position of faith...not science.

which you dismissed as the result of undersea volcanoes.

Since the temperature is far to cold for the ice to be melting due to that...and the ice is melting...and there are known active volcanoes below the ice that is melting...to what cause could you possibly attribute the melting but the volcanoes? Unless, of course, you are so drunk on kool aid and your faith in the political heads of scientific bodies that you are willing to simply accept whatever drivel they feed you whether it flies in the face of the empirical evidence or not.

So, drought and heat in Australia, unprecedented (in modern times anyway) drought in California, floods and storms in the Mid West, severe winters in the North East, those are all just normal events.

Drought is part of the climate in Australia and the present drought is not even close to being unprecedented. The fact is that 95% of Australia is drought free.... Note the few small dots that claim to be the "lowest on record"....in an admittedly spotty record.

The drought of 1914 - 1915 lead to the complete failure of the wheat crop for the entire nation...far worse than the present spotty drought the continent is experiencing... To call the present "drought" unprecedented is either ignorance or abject dishonesty.

More history:

1944

A seven year drought between 1894 and 1902 killed 40% of the livestock in Australia.

1929 - 1931 Drought

Headline from 1952

1829

1811

1924

1940

And I could continue on ad nauseum regarding drought and flood, and fire in Australia. The question is: Is there any amount of observed evidence which would convince you that the story you believe regarding the present drought in Australia is, in fact, false? Is there?

Which, they may be, of course. Take any one, and it proves nothing. Taken all together, it is exactly what AGW predicted.

What you lack is context...because those you trust to tell you the truth don't provide it....when taken in context...the present drought in Australia isn't unprecedented...and as droughts go down under, it isn't even particularly bad...the newspaper clippings above from previous drought in Australia should clue you in to how fundamentally dishonest the people you trust are.

So, now you must dismiss these phenomena in order to preserve your beliefs.

I dont dismiss anything...I do however look for the truth...Now that you have seen just a small part of the drought history of Australia...and seen that the present drought is not only not unprecedented, but isn't even particularly bad as Australian droughts go, do you disregard the empirical evidence in order to preserve your faith? The more we talk, the more evidence mounts for your position being one of faith...not mine.

Projecting is what liberals do though, isn't it...you accuse others of the very thing you are doing. I keep providing empirical evidence upon empirical evidence, upon empirical evidence and you just keep on believing no matter what the evidence and observations say. You have been duped....and duped badly. Are you proud?

 

[PLC1]

Climate behaving as it always has is evidence that man is changing the climate??....how much of that kool aid have you consumed?



Yes we did and you seem to be completely ignoring the FACT that the ice shelves are melting due to active volcanoes under the ice....the melting ice shelves have nothing to do with climate and everything to do with volcanic activity. The temperature down there is still waaaaaayyyyy below freezing, even during the summer...clearly the ice isn't melting because it is getting warmer...

You are so willing to accept that the political heads of scientific organizations have nothing but the purest intentions regarding climate science that you apparently don't even check to see what the facts are. The more we talk, the clearer it becomes that you are operating from a position of faith...not science.

Since the temperature is far to cold for the ice to be melting due to that...and the ice is melting...and there are known active volcanoes below the ice that is melting...to what cause could you possibly attribute the melting but the volcanoes? Unless, of course, you are so drunk on kool aid and your faith in the political heads of scientific bodies that you are willing to simply accept whatever drivel they feed you whether it flies in the face of the empirical evidence or not.



Drought is part of the climate in Australia and the present drought is not even close to being unprecedented. The fact is that 95% of Australia is drought free.... Note the few small dots that claim to be the "lowest on record"....in an admittedly spotty record.

The drought of 1914 - 1915 lead to the complete failure of the wheat crop for the entire nation...far worse than the present spotty drought the continent is experiencing... To call the present "drought" unprecedented is either ignorance or abject dishonesty.

More history:

1944

A seven year drought between 1894 and 1902 killed 40% of the livestock in Australia.

1929 - 1931 Drought

Headline from 1952

1829

1811

1924

1940

And I could continue on ad nauseum regarding drought and flood, and fire in Australia. The question is: Is there any amount of observed evidence which would convince you that the story you believe regarding the present drought in Australia is, in fact, false? Is there?




What you lack is context...because those you trust to tell you the truth don't provide it....when taken in context...the present drought in Australia isn't unprecedented...and as droughts go down under, it isn't even particularly bad...the newspaper clippings above from previous drought in Australia should clue you in to how fundamentally dishonest the people you trust are.



I dont dismiss anything...I do however look for the truth...Now that you have seen just a small part of the drought history of Australia...and seen that the present drought is not only not unprecedented, but isn't even particularly bad as Australian droughts go, do you disregard the empirical evidence in order to preserve your faith? The more we talk, the more evidence mounts for your position being one of faith...not mine.

Projecting is what liberals do though, isn't it...you accuse others of the very thing you are doing. I keep providing empirical evidence upon empirical evidence, upon empirical evidence and you just keep on believing no matter what the evidence and observations say. You have been duped....and duped badly. Are you proud?

I am proud.

I am also impressed by the lengths to which you have gone to show that there are no current extremes of weather.

I'm also impressed by how you have once again conflated climate change and man's contribution to the same.

I'm also impressed by how you dismiss the world's scientific organizations simply by labeling them as dishonest.

But, I'm even more impressed by the scale of the deception. It would have to be a conspiracy involving literally thousands of the world's best scientists, some of whom have little use for the governments under which they operate, and some of whom are not supported by governments at all.