Sunday, 31 March 2019

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:

Pseudoscience, myth and Skepticism. Firsthand snapshots.

I've experienced, believed, disbelieved a lot of pseudoscience in my time. My journey is similar to many others. We're all taken in by tall stories. We sometimes react quite forcefully when we find we've been lied to.

  • Chariots of the Gods. Seriously: I took it out of the library and read it. What a pile of cobblers. I never took any of it seriously but,..
  • Hippy nonsense. Macrobiotics, and other gibberish. I believed some of this junk. So I understand how and why, people believe things which are clearly not happening. You take it on trust from people you have faith in. Because none of us have the time to research everything for ourselves.
  • Linear No-threshold dose-response, LNT. Was explained to me in biology or physics class as an undergraduate. I sat at the front of the class and questioned the lecturer immediately (I remember he had red hair, a beard, and gentle Scottish accent; but only my general argument and his response. Not the actual words exchanged). Because a linear dose-response is not something I expect from biological organisms! He said "We know this. We're certain". I took that to mean - we've done the experiments and can show it. No. They never did low dose experiments to show LNT.
  • Tomatoes cause cancer?!%$. A conversation with my eldest sister about tomatoes. She asked me whether I though "tomatoes cause cancer"? Right through my entire life I've been told X, or Y cause cancer. For example: coffee causes cancer (Don't worry. It really does not).
  • Cancer. At sometime, or other, almost everything under the sun, especially man-made things have been accused of causing cancer. By scientists - not by eco-loonies.
  • New Scientist, Scientific American and sensationalist science. Popular science was taken over by sensationalism, novelty, and speculation. Round about the early 1970s. Magazines which used to publish actual science (some of which you could do for yourself!) became mouth-pieces for sensation, novelty, and speculative stories with some tendentious scientific connection.
  • I studied continental philosophy (French and German, part-time) for 3 years in the early 1980s under Peter Dews. He really was an excellent teacher. Once you believe any philosophical system you can believe any old nonsense. This taught me that even people who see through the nonsense of everyday thinking, and common sense can be easy victims to a system of thought, like:
  • Marxism, Psychoanalysis and Postmodernism. At first glance none of these are science. But Marxism did claim to be Scientific Socialism, and Psychoanalysis said it was a science.
  • Skepticism. I can't remember which Michael Shermer book I read, he's written so many. But I remember being disappointed by it because he took on lots of easy targets.
  • Drugs. So much nonsense is written about illegal drugs. The one I remember most was the Ricaurte 1986 study on MDMA published in leading journal Science showing fried brains caused by MDMA. Published just as new anti-MDMA legislation went through. The study (not the law) was later retracted because they accidentally, used methamphetamine in the study instead of MDMA!!.
  • Russian science. Talking to chemists (I have a chemistry education), about published Russian research. A lot of which is apparently junk.
  • Looked into Scientific racism a bit. Read Stephen Jay Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" and Elazar Barkan's excellent: "Retreat of Scientific Racism".
  • Biofuels. First noticed a big discussion of this in chemistry forums in mid-1990s. Conservative chemists convinced me it was junk science with a few back-of-the-envelope calculations. Even though it is junk, many scientists made their careers from it.
  • Ozone and CFCs. I actually taught this pseudoscience: The ozone layer is destroyed by CFCs to high school students in the late 1980s; to illustrate free-radical chain reactions by example. It's nonsense. CFCs have no great effect. E.g. read: Holes in the Ozone
  • String Theory. Anyone who hasn't read "Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, ..." by Lee Smolin really should read it. For about 10 years every 2nd physics doctorate candidate was funneled into studying string theory because the world's leading physicists got it into their head that it held the secret of Grand Unification Theory In a sense string theory is not even wrong. I can neither be shown nor refuted because there is not test one can make for it's validity. This taught me the importance of the null hypothesis, and the falsifiable hypothesis
  • At first, I believed the AGW radiative forcing argument against carbon dioxide without even looking into it in detail. Like the anti-CFC and many cancer arguments it seemed plausible.
  • Anti-fossil fuels. This stretches back a long way. Fossil fuels are running out, they pollute, cause global warming, ... Anti-fossil fuel thinking was insinuated into my bones by a lifetime of anti-fossil fuel propaganda, taken in unconsciously. Initially I accepted the fossil fuel kills upto 5 million people argument. This is based on assumption made against PM2.5 EPA spent over ½ $billion funding PM2.5 toxicology research. They got nothing conclusive against it and their main hypothesis was never even close to being proved. That did not stop them believing in the hypothesis! Steve Milloy explains this pseudoscience in Scare Pollution,
  • The blank slate argument in education. This has been viciously fought throughout my entire lifetime, as well. From genes largely determine to development and education largely determine to the present time: where it's slightly biased in favour of genes. Left Scientists always wore their heart (and anti-capitalism) on their selves. But the politics was always far better then any science they did.
  • My time promoting nuclear power on the internet. Taught me that nuclear power is safe (relatively, when well-regulated, as it is, in fact: over-regulated), anti-nukes have 1001-arguments. I discovered that experts believe junk. Here is a junk 2016 study I helped retract.
  • LNT. Return. I discovered that LNT was junk science about 2014.
  • Statistics, damned lies, and statistics. Statisticians became a lot more responsible in the last 10 years. The kind of hoodoo which once sailed through science publication with a couple of statistical tricks in no longer as acceptable. Andrew Gelman | Matt Briggs | Philip B. Stark and Andrea Saltelli

There's more pseudoscience around today than at any time in history. Nearly all of it is written by scientists. This the the big change I've seen during my life. Back when I was young, the pseudoscience was written by pseudoscientists with little science education. Now it's written by pseudoscientists with doctorates! And there's a lot more of them, they publish far more frequently. The one saving grace is today's pseudoscience is more sciency. Not so outrageously nutty. But this is making it far harder to detect. It easily slips under the radar of most scientists.

Climate change is a myth

I think the best argument, distilled to its essence, explaining the myth of climate change, caused by small changes in carbon dioxide, is this:

The self-styled “climate consensus” define themselves as the only legitimate voice in climate science. They say:

  • Climate change means man-made change, because 90% of modern climate change is man-made.
  • This climate change is overwhelmingly due to increasing emissions of greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Made by burning fossil fuel.
  • This greenhouse gas warms earth because it causes less outgoing longwave radiation, OLR, to be emitted to space, so warming earth due to the consequent energy imbalance; because incoming solar warming is near constant.
  • There is only one basic model used by them to calculate radiative forcing due to greenhouse gases. This model defines them as the climate consensus.

In the real world, satellites show:

  • More OLR (outgoing longwave radiation) leaving our planet, over time, in the last 33 years. By a big margin too, an extra 2W/m² compared to 1985.
  • Satellite data diametrically contradicts the “climate consensus” greenhouse gas model; which explains how greenhouse gases warm the climate.

It follows that either the satellites are wrong, or the self-styled “climate consensus” are wrong.

References (both open access):

1. The basic greenhouse gas warming explanation: Hansen, J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, and K. von Schuckmann, 2011: Earth’s energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 13421-13449, doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011.

2. Satellite data: Steven Dewitte and Nicolas Clerbaux, Decadal Changes of Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation; Remote Sens. 2018, 10(10), 1539; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101539

Thursday, 7 March 2019

When 'the data doesn’t matter', what can you 'believe in'?

Steve O :
I’m trying to get my arms around what this group believes regarding the MWP.
Chris Folland:
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”

They 'believe in' their GHGE models.

I'm interested in why they 'believe in' GHGE equations/models, derived from Arrhenius' 19th century model[1]. Why is so little in their models is verified against the real world?[5] Why do they scorn modern work done on carbon dioxide absorption and emittance spectra (studies: 1985, 2005, 2013, 2014)[2,3,6,7]? Why has no one done an experiment since 1900 (Knut Angstrom, who failed to show it) to verify this GHGE 'warming the surface'? Why they think downwelling LWIR (due to more CO2 warms oceans, when, they otherwise agree, that such D-LWIR penetrates mere micrometres into the ocean to have a tiny effect warming the surface skin?

When I tell them their GHGE hypothesis says earth warms because less OLR is emitted to space, they rationalize away real world data showing a 2W/m² increase (4 complete data sets) in OLR emitted to space since 1985[4]. Real world doing the opposite of their models.

It's nearly always the same pattern with bad science: cherry pick, model, twist statistics. Actual data fraud is rare. The driving mechanism is groupthink, not conscious fraud. They even think changing past temperatures to delete 1910 - 1940 warming is 'science'. Much like they think Mann-derived MWP-elimination studies are science. Alarmists are just hacks doing the UN's bidding; not good scientists. If politicians want anti-scientist alarmists in charge of climate science; all we can do is change the politicians.

  1. Arrhenius, S 1896, ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground’, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 237-276.
  2. Barrett, J 1985, ‘Paper on Spectra of Carbon Dioxide’, Villach Conference, Austria, October 6-19.
  3. Barrett, J 2005, ‘Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere’, Energy & Environment, vol. 16, no. 6. DOI: 10.1260/095830505775221542
  4. Dewitte, S. & Clerbaux, N. Decadal Changes of Earth’s Outgoing Longwave Radiation, 25 Sept 2018. Remote Sensing 2018, 10(10), 1539; DOI: 10.3390/rs10101539
  5. Kawamura, Y 2016, ‘Measurement system for the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases in a laboratory scale’, Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 87, no. 1. DOI: 10.1063/1.4939483
  6. Laubereau, A & Iglev H 2013, ‘On the direct impact of the CO2 concentration rise to the global warming’, EPL, vol. 104, no. 2. DOI: 10.1209/0295-5075/104/29001
  7. Lightfoot, HD & Mamer, OA 2014, ‘Calculation of Atmospheric Radiative Forcing (Warming Effect) Of Carbon Dioxide at any Concentration Energy & Environment’, Energy & Environment, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 1439-1454. DOI: 10.1260/0958-305X.25.8.1439