Means end rationality and the climate science framing issue.

I know disrupting the climate consensus on the basis of it's framing issues is a way to go for actual scientists who must keep their jobs, but I still prefer to attack it on its core ideas. Namely (1) the greenhouse gas effect itself, (2) the 100% man-made claim, (3) that solar-driven climate change is climate denial. I think we should stop telling people its anything to do with religion. It's politics: scientists doing what politicians tell them to. If any disbelieve that, please read Bernie Lewin’s book, suggested by Judith. Alarmist/consensus politics are driven by means-ends rationality. Although science seems to be driven by a similar rationality, it isn't quite. Science has principles which almost transcend any specific science. I'm thinking Feynman here. These principles are diametrically opposed to climate alarmism.

Data Tampering

Reblog.

---

A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.

by James Delingpole, 24 Nov 2015

Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.

According to Günter Ederer, the German journalist who has reported on Ewert’s findings:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

Apart from Australia, the planet has in fact been on a cooling trend:

Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110°C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223°C […]. The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339°C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465°C and a cooling of 0.3739°C since 2000.

But the activist scientists at NASA GISS – initially led by James Hansen (pictured above), later by Gavin Schmidt – wanted the records they are in charge of maintaining to show warming not cooling, so they began systematically adjusting the data for various spurious reasons using ten different methods.

The most commonly used ones were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

Ewert’s findings echo that of US meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities both with the way they were sited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.

Britain’s Paul Homewood is also on NASA GISS’s case. Here he shows the shocking extent of the adjustments they have made to a temperature record in Brazil which has been altered so that a cooling trend becomes a warming trend.

Unadjusted temperature record: shows cooling trend.

For still more evidence of NASA’s adjustments, check out Alterations to Climate Data at Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science.

• 61% Fake Data
• Climate Scientists Rewriting The Past
• Corruption Of The US Temperature Record
• Extreme Fraud In The National Climate Assessment
• Fraud In The National Climate Assessment (Part 1)
• Fraud In The National Climate Assessment (Part 2)
• No Excuse For Data Tampering

Tony Heller made these gifs to illustrate NASA GISS edits to the global temperature record:

Today's so-called "Skeptics" are our Witch-finder Generals

First let me say that I agree with the underlying premise. It is not a logical fallacy (argument from authority) to defer to a strong consensus of legitimate expert opinion if you yourself lack appropriate expertise. Deference should be the default position

-- Steven Novella

Today, the so-called Skeptical Science community turn their backs on skepticism. They deny 'argument from authority' is a logical fallacy. By redefining its meaning so they can do it without thinking ill of themselves.

They are not true critical thinkers. Novella's basic argument is when in doubt: guess. The safest guess is the majority one. Side with the majority of 'experts'. This is both anti-critical and anti-skeptic idea. It is a betrayal of Western Philosophy, Science and the Enlightenment tradition. Immanuel Kant said that 'Enlightenment is thinking for yourself'. Dare to be open-minded ; to work it out for yourself. Socrates said that it made no sense to accept an argument on the authority of another person - because unless one is able to articulate why you think as you do - you are not actually thinking; you are echoing other people's words. Accepting argument from authority is to: to echo another person's thoughts without understanding much about the issue.

This is anti-skeptical. It legitimises self-lobotomy. Don't think for yourself. Don't do due diligence. Just side with the majority, burn the witches.

There are many reasons why we should reject the authority of self-styled experts in the climate debate:

1. Many experts are not experts. These experts had a paper retracted because they were too lazy to check their primary school-level arithmetic. Some experts!
2. Causes of climate change aren't really that hard to figure out for oneself. I managed it, and I'm no Einstein.
3. Self-styled experts in climate science of the 97% persuasion refuse to debate their critics. Even were I to consider accepting their argument from authority on climate change, the fact they are too cowardly to debate is a certain sign they know they're wrong. It is a massive red flag. I notice Steven Novella did not publish my reply to his blog. He obviously does not believe in debate. He is a fake skeptic.
4. Accepting argument from authority as a legitimate stance bows one's head to authoritarianism. It is anti-intellectual, tribal, and nothing good will come of it. It is profoundly anti-democratic.

Why the basic greenhouse gas model is wrong

1. Scientific data used to make the models is wrong

Chemists, and climate scientists: John Abbot and John Nicol wrote a chapter in Climate Change: The Facts 2017 explaining, in detail, how actual experimental data and empirically derived results are ignored by climate models (demonized in fact as climate denial) Climate models are written by mathematical modelers who tell the real world how it should behave. They ignore actual radiative behaviour of carbon dioxide, in favour of their own imaginary behaviour for it.

• Barrett; 1985, 2005
• Laubereau, A & Iglev H; 2013
• Lightfoot, HD & Mamer, OA 2014

2. CO₂ emits more IR radiation than it absorbs at most atmospheric temperatures

Although CO₂ absorbs thermal radiation from the Earth, it emits more. Carbon dioxide is in thermal deficit in terms of radiative balance. Nitrogen and oxygen constantly feed CO₂ with heat so that it maintains a temperature higher than its radiative equilibrium. CO₂ is a coolant.

CO₂ is in radiative deficit until the temp is down to -77.8°C.

When you only use up and down meters, you’ll only see up and down readings. Have you heard of something called mean free path length by the way?

CO₂ is being kept warm by collisions with warm N₂, O₂, and H₂O (water vapour) while it is busy trying to radiate it’s way to radiative equilibrium at -77.8C

-- Rog Tallbloke‏

Normally, even the tropopause and statosphere don't get cold enough to tip the carbon dioxide radiative balance to absorb more often than it emits.

• Physical analysis shows CO2 is a coolant for the atmosphere
• A conversation with Brandon Gates on the causes of the ‘greenhouse’ effect

3. Infrared radiation does not heat oceans

A simple experiment shows that "nearly all the Long Wave GHG energy is returned almost immediately to the atmosphere and space as latent heat of evaporation."

... CMIP5 models don’t ... allow for the fact that the long wave GHG energy is almost entirely absorbed in the evaporation layer of water while solar energy is not ...

-- RA Irvine

71% of earth's surface is covered by water. Sunlight penetrates deeply into water and heats it. Infrared radiation penetrates mere micrometres into water; it can only heat the surface skin. But such heating results in the energy being used to provide latent heat of vapourization, LHV, which causes water to evaporate. The evaporated water than goes to cloud layer (due to convection, because water (MWt = 18), molecules are much lighter than nitrogen or oxygen.

As wet convected atmosphere rises it cools. At the cloud layer water precipitates out as cloud droplets; giving back its latent heat of vapourization miles above earth's surface. So this energy of LHV 'warms'^[note] the upper troposphere where clouds form. The atmosphere there then radiates that energy, mostly to space.

Latent heat of vapourization, LHV: This is the heat/energy required to change the state of water (or other liquid, from liquid to gas in this case). When absorbed, it does not raise the temperature of water. It breaks the hydrogen bonding in liquid water. The amount of LHV is equal to 66% of the heat which would otherwise raise the temperature of water from 0 C to 100 C. It is a lot of heat. This is why, when water boils, it does not all evaporate at once. It still needs latent heat of vapourization to change state from liquid to gas. Hydrogen bonds in liquid water are much stronger than most other liquids, and explain why water has such a high LHV value. In turn, that high LHV, explains why this method of evaporative cooling is so important to earth's climate and so flexible. If earth does get a bit warmer, evaporative cooling of oceans can quickly increase to cool it down. So it accounts for earth's remarkably steady climate temperature over billions of years. It's climatic air-conditioning.

LHV causes about half the surface cooling. The other half is due to radiative cooling.

note: Rather than warm, we should say it pauses the cooling. Because the higher the atmosphere rises, the less dense it becomes, so the cooler it would normally get. Anyhow: we know the released LHV is not retained in the atmosphere. It is immediately emitted as infrared at an altitude where the atmosphere is much thinner (than at the surface) and there is a lot less water vapour able to reabsorb it. Much of the space-bound infrared released as LHV can go straight out to space.

• Irvine, RA, 2015, 'A comparison of the efficacy of green house gas forcing and solar forcing'; WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences, Vol 83, 2014; ISSN 1743-3533 (on-line), doi:10.2495/HT140241

4. "Who stole my water vapour feedback?" Two-thirds of the model(s) effect is pure fraud

Models mostly assume that an approximate 1C global temperature rise results from doubling carbon dioxide in earth's atmosphere. In addition to this the warmer atmosphere (due to carbon dioxide radiative forcing) will retain the same relative humidity. With a warmer temperature this means that actual specific humidity will increase. Because water vapour is a greenhouse gas too, the extra water vapour will cause another 2C global temperature rise. For a total of 3C.

Another body of empirical evidence that demonstrates the incorrect assumptions in CAGW climate models is from radiosonode data, which shows that specific humidity near the top of the troposphere (i.e., 300 mb) is on the decline as CO2 concentrations increase.

This inverse relationship yet again demonstrates that the overstating of positive feedbacks in climate models and in this case the supposed positive feedback of tropospheric H2O to rising CO2 concentrations, is contrary to empirical evidence and another reason models consistently overstate anomalous rises in tropospheric air temperatures over the past 20 years.

--Joseph Fournier

This increased humidity is fraudulent. It is not found. I'm willing to let people guess about it for a decade or so, but this has been projected in climate models for over 30 years, since at least 1988. Just about all climate models do it. It is pure fraud.

5. The assumed balance sheet for earth's energy budget is wrong.

The calculations for carbon dioxide radiative forcing assume that earth was in energy equilibrium before carbon dioxide increased, in the last 100 years. But the energy budget has huge errors in it. The potential errors in readings were already ten times the supposed imbalance caused by carbon dioxide.

In addition to the already existing errors, there are even more. We are now discovering that the sun emits large amounts of very high energy radiation: x-rays (and even gamma rays. Modern accurate data is often ignored by models.

6. The optical thickness of the atmosphere is unchanged

The climate consensus greenhouse gas model predicts that atmosphere will become more opaque to infrared radiation. But that is not happening.

Here is a study that examined evidence looking for changes in the overall optical thickness of the atmosphere. If IR active gases such as CO2 and H2O increase, then the optical thickness likewise increases. However, what they showed is that because H2O has its own mind and follows changes in sea surface temperature and surface solar radiation, there has been little no net increase in the optical thickness over the past 80 years.

--Joseph Fournier

7. The basic model is wrong

I will look at a paper published by James Hansen, et al., in 2011. In this, he gives a simple, concise, explanation for the greenhouse gas effect, GHGE. He discusses how it could be validated (AKA tested, and passed using falsification criteria). He does not actually use such a phrase. Hansen talks of testing his model; but a failed test should amount to model falsification in any scientific discussion.

What do I mean by 'model'

I do not mean IPCC computer model. Not the kind of models which must be run on supercomputers. I (and James Hansen) refer to a much simpler, basic model which calculates the greenhouse gas effect. This basic model is modified in many different ways. By selecting different feedbacks, etc. It is then built into those computer models. It's important to know that every climate alarmist modeler is using the same basic model. They all employ the same basic calculations to find the GHGE (expected climate warming). Any significantly different model is deemed climate denial. Funds will be cut off to anyone using such a model and they will be driven out of employment. As happened, for example to, Ferenc Miskolczi. Climate alarmists do not tolerate dissent. Ooops. Must not rant. The fact they're all using the same basic model is good because we can refute this basic GHGE model in the same way. Thereby refuting every alarmist computer model.

After explaining it, Hansen draws upon his GHGE model; as if the model is 'real'. I.e. As if the model represents reality. This is a massive fallacy; essentially a reversion to a kind of idealism. Like Plato's world: but where the 'ideals' are scientific models and theories.

Falsification Criteria

Hansen is clear, in his paper, that heat energy, leaving earth, measured from space, will validate his model. This heat energy is electromagnetic radiation known as infrared. It is also called outgoing longwave radiation, OLR.

The model only 'works' to warm the climate because, it describes an 'energy imbalance' caused when there is less energy emitted to space (as OLR) than arrives on earth (as insolation; AKA sunlight).

Hansen's GHGE model is what he believes happens in the real world. That GHGE is due to less OLR emitted to space. It is not just a mathematical trick. He believes it is a simulation of reality. As such reality behaves as his model describes. If reality did not behave that way his simulation must be wrong. So his model must be wrong.

What does the Satellite data Show?

Hansen believes there are 2 ways to measure the climate warming he models. One way is by measuring heat energy emitted to space, but satellites. The diagram below is not Hansen's work. It was published last year.

Actual satellite data of radiated heat (OLR) shows it increased since 1985. The satellite data clearly shows the impact of the 2nd-largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century: Mount Pinatubo, in 1991, which killed 847 people at the time, and led to considerable climate cooling.

The OLR data diametrically oppose Hansen's GHGE simulation/model. So the data falsify the climate consensus GHGE model. In interpreting the Satellite data - an increase in OLR reflects previous warming and a decrease shows cooling (e.g. 1991-1992, due to Mount Pinatubo). This is, the complete opposite of what Hansen says warming represents.

Perhaps you believe that the warming is happening but is obscured by other variable factors? The 'climate consensus' are clear that 90%, or more, of modern climate change is man-made. Meaning 90% is the GHGE. Therefore the effects predicted by James Hansen's GHGE model should dominate.

PS: Hansen's paper is open access: You can download the pdf or read the paper online. Search for it using the doi:

Why I became a climate change skeptic.

Originally I was a believer. I swallowed the myth that there was a consensus of scientists who believed man-made climate change was a civilization threatening issue and caused by greenhouse gases.

But there were always some large circles which could not be squared.

Climate sensitivity. Estimates variety over an order of magnitude range: from 1.1 to 11. Yet they say they're doing 'simple physics'! Everywhere else in physics numbers are given to several places of decimals; at most within the same ball-park (like the age of the universe from 3 decades ago). How can one claim to be so certain when one is so uncertain?

That go me hooked; even though the science seemed cryptic and unfathomable. That's where I began looking. Right away it was skeptics providing the most interesting discussion of this greenhouse effect. Skeptics actually discussing, rather than closing down conversations with accusations of: shill, denier, and flat-earther.

Renewable Energy. It doesn't take one long to discover that renewable energy is a load of crap. Who are the people most supporting renewables? Those most alarmed by the climate. Who most opposes nuclear power. The same people! The single most important non-CO₂ emitting tool we have - nuclear fission power - is ruled too dangerous. One or two climate alarmists told me they've rather see the 'planet burn' than support nuclear power.

After that, I realized the climate debate, and energy debate were not about climate or energy. They were proxies for something else. Then I began actually studying the climate system.

One to try.

Reblog: Guan

---

One of the most significant findings related to human development is the discovery of neuro-plasticity by brain scientists. Whenever we receive new information the brain makes new connections to process that information. If the information is useful or provides a better way of doing things it will become the dominant pathway and old patterns will fade away due to non-use.

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” is the biggest impediment to using the unlimited growth the brain is capable of. Confirmation bias is a natural function of the primitive brain which seeks understanding of the world through it’s infinitesimal range of personal experience. The correlations it makes to create this understanding become the foundation for circular reasoning . Reality then becomes a projection based on limited experience rather than an objective witnessing of how cause and effect brings everything into being. Most people accept what they hear without critical thought so can have their realities programmed by others easily. Alarmists scientists don’t understand that they are stuck in a closed loop of circular reasoning.

Byron Katie has developed a methodology for questioning assumptions and getting past the projections of mind to clearer states of consciousness. A key component of “The Work” is the turnaround. After questioning beliefs to see if they can be proven true you try believing the opposite to get a different perspective. thework.com

Most commenter’s here already posses critical thinking skills and have trained their brains to question assumptions. That is what separates fantasy from reality.

Overdetermination - whatever you want it to be!

"Overdetermination" : means there are multiple causes affecting each other so it's hard to attribute precise cause. The Left use overdetermination in Marxism, and Psychoanalysis to keep their metatheories by saying -

"we must know everything to understand, but we can't, so we can rely on metatheory to fill in the gaps. Because our metatheories drive history, economy, the relationship between men and women, the relationship between the individual and state"

But how exactly do you know that? Show me your proof. -

"I can't explain right now; it's all too complex. It's overdetermined. Here: read these books, then you will understand the essence: the metatheories."

Yes. thankyou. But how do I know the metatheories are true, when you cannot conclusively prove them because it's all overdetermined?

The "heartbeat" of the Sun

Yet when it suits them they completely ignore overdetermination. For example in climate - everything is blamed on man, on greenhouse gases like CO2. No dearies. It's the Sun, and the relationship between the Sun and Earth which, drives almost everything in climate.

Now we're finally discovering deep engines driving effects in the Sun:

• Heartbeat of the Sun from Principal Component Analysis and prediction of solar activity on a millenium timescale, V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, E. Popova & S. I. Zharkov; Scientific Reports volume 5, Article number: 15689 (2015).
• Researchers find that The Sun’s magnetic field is ten times stronger than previously believed