The Junk Science of Climate Change

[dennislmay]

Too much information for my poor brain. How I would like a credible

uber-view above all over-views: short of becoming a self-made expert on GW,

it seems it won't be forthcoming.

What really interests me is the polarization of opinion, and why?

Why does one set of people 'want' there to be man-made global warming?

Why does another 'want' there not to be?

Absorbing ideologies and psychologies at play. (Plus bucket-loads of money.)

Rather than worry about sorting the volumes of cherry picked data and bad

modeling the better approach is to go back and see what basic experiments

have been done in support of the physics behind the modeling. You will find

that like in the Ozone Hole hysteria basic experiments in support of modeling

have not been done. You cannot do hydrodynamic modeling without experimental

support for each and every thing in the model. You also must make sure the

modeling includes everything that is relevant - the current models don't - not

even close.

The hysteria has been created - like the Ozone Hole hysteria - to generate

government regulation - which equals power and money for socialists and

their various cronies. In the case of Global Warming they are attempting

the biggest wealth transfer in world history based on fundamentally fraudulent

science.

Dennis

[anthony]

Too much information for my poor brain. How I would like a credible

uber-view above all over-views: short of becoming a self-made expert on GW,

it seems it won't be forthcoming.

What really interests me is the polarization of opinion, and why?

Why does one set of people 'want' there to be man-made global warming?

Why does another 'want' there not to be?

Absorbing ideologies and psychologies at play. (Plus bucket-loads of money.)

Rather than worry about sorting the volumes of cherry picked data and bad

modeling the better approach is to go back and see what basic experiments

have been done in support of the physics behind the modeling. You will find

that like in the Ozone Hole hysteria basic experiments in support of modeling

have not been done. You cannot do hydrodynamic modeling without experimental

support for each and every thing in the model. You also must make sure the

modeling includes everything that is relevant - the current models don't - not

even close.

The hysteria has been created - like the Ozone Hole hysteria - to generate

government regulation - which equals power and money for socialists and

their various cronies. In the case of Global Warming they are attempting

the biggest wealth transfer in world history based on fundamentally fraudulent

science.

Dennis

Facts and figures swing one way and the other, but what doesn't change is the

conviction and nature of one group of people who are frozen in global utopianism,

fear change, and delight in hating man's mind to the extent of regulating the hell out of it, and enforcing old collectivist ideologies under a new name.

Rightfully, it's they who should be named "skeptics" for the subjectivist philosophy

they follow.

Others know that man has always adapted to nature, or made nature adapt to

him, and feel no fear for the future of the environment or climate.

So long as his mind and the market are left alone.

[BaalChatzaf]

Skeptic is a honorable term. It means one who looks things over carefully before coming to a conclusion.

Why are skeptics despised here?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

Skeptic is a honorable term. It means one who looks things over carefully before coming to a conclusion.

Why are skeptics despised here?

-- the other thread on Skepticism helps explain: there is a difference between a long-dead philosophical tradition that posits (somewhere) in its most extreme form a Know-Nothing position. This is different from a 'natural' skepticism or the kind of skepticism practised widely in the 'Skeptical Movement.' I noted briefly in the other thread that the movement seems a good fit for the Realist Objectivish among us.

Bob, old prejudices die hard. If a commentator cannot mark the difference between a scholastic tradition and the operation/behaviour/practice of skepticism (the spirit of science that was 'skeptical' for example about the God Created It All explanation of life's many forms) -- if a commentator cannot mark and keep in mind the difference ... then there is not much you or I can say. Sometimes the objectivish just need to blow some flames of disdain and dismissal and antipathy, or so it seems. For some -- it is this Thing, this reified thing called Skepticism that attracts ignorant ire.

Perhaps one of those who seems to loathe the notion of Skepticism could explain why her or she is 'skeptical' about the extent of anthropogenic global warming. But.

Plus ça change and all that ...

Edited June 5, 2012 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Perhaps one of those who seems to loathe the notion of Skepticism could explain why her or she is 'skeptical' about the extent of anthropogenic global warming.

Didn't Richard Lindzen do that? Also, your question slides in the premise that there has been anthropogenic global warming.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Perhaps one of those who seems to loathe the notion of Skepticism could explain why her or she is 'skeptical' about the extent of anthropogenic global warming.

Didn't Richard Lindzen do that? Also, your question slides in the premise that there has been anthropogenic global warming.

--Brant

Well, that is THE question. There are all sorts of forces and processes at work producing our climatic outcomes. There are the natural drivers, the radiance of the sun, its frequency spectrum. There are orbital factors at work. The Earth does not cut a perfect ellipse through the heavens about the sun. There is the wobble of the earth. The Earth is a top that precesses. There are the effects of cosmic rays (in addition to solar radiance and solar ejecta) on the atmosphere of our planet. There are feedback loops (positive and negative at work) making for a complex dynamics. Then in all that are the man made effects. We burn a lot of fossil fuel. We put out a lot of CO2 and water vapor that would otherwise not be produced. How does human activity figure in all of this? Then there are the plants and animals that produce their own effluence. Cows fart and termites produce a lot of CO2 when they chew up the wood. Volcanoes belch gases. Methane bubbles up from the ocean bottoms. And so on and so on.

How does one sort all this out?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

We might be able to do something about warming. We can't stop the next ice age. There is even an idea that some warming might trigger an ice age.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Perhaps one of those who seems to loathe the notion of Skepticism could explain why her or she is 'skeptical' about the extent of anthropogenic global warming.

Didn't Richard Lindzen do that? Also, your question slides in the premise that there has been anthropogenic global warming.

Disingenuous, Brant. The dispute was over the word "Skepticism" and how awful it is ... perhaps the Skeptic in you can explain why you, Brant, are skeptical of AGW. I make no bones about my own opinions. Indeed I accept the scientific consensus. No 'sliding' ... or if there is sliding in a premise, it is not much different than a premise slid in by Tony: those who support the scientific consensus fear change ...

A non-discussant like Dennis can repeat the boilerplate about hysteria and "cherry picked data and bad

modeling." He can also urge Tony to "go back and see what basic experiments have been done in support of the physics behind the modeling." But.

Upon repeated queries on the point of these "basic experiments," Dennis has been coy. Why? No idea. If I were more cynical I would say he shows bad faith in not plainly referencing this issue once raised by him. I played Hide and Seek until about age ten. Fun then. Not so now.

Now Tony also appears to group all who agree with or support the science of global warming into Them. They, the hideous them, well, they "fear change, and delight in hating man's mind to the extent of regulating the hell out of it, and enforcing old collectivist ideologies under a new name." So there.

Tony is to my eyes a skeptic/skeptical about AGW. Thus my point was to highlight the odd railing against skepticism when Tony (and Dennis) are archly skeptical themselves on certain issues.

Will they explain these seeming discrepancies? I think not.

Edited June 6, 2012 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

The "scientific consensus" or the big media consensus?

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Dodge.

[Brant Gaede]

U r askin' me why I'm sk.? I'm sk. of just about everything. It's my primary default.

--Brant

[anthony]

Oh, I know the truth about AGW exists independently 'out there' in reality and will become available and evident to men's minds in the not too far future.

A skeptic? I have doubts both ways, since I constantly play devil's advocate

on myself - and wonder, as I said, why the whole AGW thing has 'naturally' found

its adherents, and its opponents. Why are so many people delighted by the prospect

of mankind screwing up his planet?

Don't tell me that more than one man, in 10's of thousands of people actually understands the complexities, and incontrovertibly knows the truth of what's going on in the quadzillion sq.kilometres of Earth's atmosphere.

However, to those who want to argue the science, they'd better debate it with the real experts;

my knowledge is very lay-man.

My view - to the extent I allow myself one,this far - is "la plus ca change...et toujours la change".

Changing planetary temperatures are a given. The factors, and their combinations, are enormous, and the temp. variations pre-dated life, and specifically industrial man's life. According to the scales of time-line of graphs exhibited, recent temp changes are either a leap - or, a tiny wiggle.

Whatever:

Man - or not-man? - is the burning question. On a continuum, what is his culpability?

100%, 50%, or 0%? For argument's sake, I'll accept 100%.

But it is the philosophy, morality and political issues on the AGW band-wagon, that are easier identified.

The power and the dollar-billions flowing to politicians and everyone in the food-chain who sail on the AGW ship, is self-evident. Suspect, and vested interests? And how! And who better placed than the Statists to enjoy the rewards, while putting those nasty capitalists to the sword, both at the same time?

Is the 'cure' going to be worth the cost? No! especially considering the cure is uncertain- IF man is the sole agent of GW. Collectivisation and control in the name of 'for the good of the planet, and your children's future', can bring on a totalitarian world, faster than communism ever dreamed.

If GW is all men's doing (and even if it's not)the un-coerced minds of innovators, scientists and industrialists can creatively reduce, and adapt to, its consequences,

I am sure.

Mystical-intrinsicism (and its failed revelation of knowledge) is the flip-side of the same coin of skepticism-subjectivism, as Rand demonstrated. (If anybody'd like to challenge her on the philosophy of skepticism, please read "Consciousness and Identity" in ITOE and argue from there.)

My own interpretation of it is that both parties in the false dichotomy, subjectively desire the same god-like perfection of collective man: by authoritarian decree. (Side-stepping individual autonomy - and the effort of each man's mind - toward his own self-actualization.)

Or, in the AGW context, man's sins of hubris must be punished, and the re-creation of the Garden of Eden is paramount.

Irrespective of the truth to emerge on GW, the philosophy that drives it for many -undermining the self-confidence in man's mind - is this intrinsicist-skepticist axis, I think.

Those are the parameters of AGW philosophy imo, containing between them, admittedly, several shades of grey.

[anthony]

Skeptic is a honorable term. It means one who looks things over carefully before coming to a conclusion.

Why are skeptics despised here?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

I didn't name the philosophy, and I can only use skepticism as Rand did, in the classical sense.

It is a slightly disingenuous bait and switch tactic to jump from 'skeptic'

as methodology, to 'skeptic' as philosophy, and back, as William has done.

From Wiki: "Philosophical skepticism is an approach that denies the certainty

of knowledge, whereas methodological skepticism is an approach that subjects

all knowledge claims to scrutiny..."

So no big deal: we all use the latter method, daily, as I've repeatedly said.

The philosophy-

Rand: "The skeptic is usually an advocate of epistemological SUBJECTIVISM."

If I could substitute 'subjectivism' in the place of skepticism, I would, but I can't.

Though it would be unambiguous, and at least easy to see why, as philosophy, it is not exactly flavor of the month here.

[dennislmay]

Indeed I accept the scientific consensus.

There is no consensus and never was. There has however been a dominant media

attempt to circumvent the scientific process and use government influence on certain

"approved" scientific groups to push it as a conensus in order to gain the political

critical mass to get the largest wealth transfers in history into law - both in the US

and internationally.

Upon repeated queries on the point of these "basic experiments," Dennis has been coy. Why?

I feel those who wish to discuss a subject should be willing to do their elementary homework.

Until they are wiling to engage in the elementary they have not business discussing larger issues

or the integration of the whole topic.

Hydrodynamic modeling requires experiments to verify code every step of the way. In the case

of the Ozone Hole "NO FIELD EXPERIMENTS WERE EVER DONE". The lifetime of various

compounds in actual atmosphereic conditions was never determined, the sources and sinks

was never determined by actual experiment in the actual atmosphere, the effects of solids in

the atmosphere on Ozone related chemcials was never determined by actual field experiments.

Move to global warming - the effects of assorted fines in the atmophere on the water cycle and

solar reflection has not been determined by any actual field experiments. Water vapor [the number

one green house gas] is a wild card and the various feedback forces involved are not close

to being modeled and experiments are in their infancy at best.

Having done hydrodynamic and electro-magnetic dynamic modeling for a living for a number

of years I am disgusted when so called experts or consensus is brought out concerning

something they have not begun to do the basic real world experiments to support. It is

fraudulent science on an elementary level.

When real engineers and real scientists do hydrodynamic modeling of say copper or particular

classes of steels being deformed under pressure they might have performed say 3,000 - 5,000

real world experiments in the field over a period of decades to generate the equations of state

over various pressure regimes.

When real engineers and real scientists do electro-magnetic modeling in electronics solids they

have the results of thousands of real world experiments in fabricating and testing silcon, silicon

carbide, gallium arsinide, indium phosphide, and/or diamond substrates. Combine that with

thousands of runs and various types of processing and thousands of simulations using multiple

codes and you can get good approximations of simple problems. And I do mean simple problems.

None of that kind of experimental field work has been done for Ozone Hole or Climate Change

modeling. They jumped right from cherry picked processes and at best cherry picked lab [not field]

experiments then did whatever modeling fit their conclusions. When the results over the last

decade(s) did not match their preditions few questioned how the conclusions were reached. SInce

the science has not started yet their conclusions are meaningless.

Thus my point was to highlight the odd railing against skepticism when Tony (and Dennis) are archly skeptical themselves on certain issues.

Will they explain these seeming discrepancies? I think not.

I am a little more forgiving on some science topics - where people have not done their elementary homework - than others.

Quantum mechanics is one topic requiring more forgiveness because in that case we are not talking about the failure

to perform elementary experiments required of any science but rather a deep and wide subject involving interpretation

and crossing disciplines to form holistic conclusions.

In any case the Ozone and Climate hoaxes are political manipulations dressed up in science clothing. The Soviets and

Nazis were fond of mixing science and the political to promote socialist power for the few.

This is nothing new - a shame more people don't have a good foundation in the basic requirements as to what passes

for science and what does not.

Dennis

[william.scherk]

Heartland initially had not even planned to hold a conference. But after the organisation was shaken last February by the internet sting exposing its donor list and fundraising strategy, Heartland changed its mind.

However, Bast said Heartland may stop putting on the conferences. "I hope to see you at a future conference, but at this point we have no plans to do another."

Edited June 10, 2012 by william.scherk

[Selene]

William:

Assuming that we would both agree that a reform of K - 12 education would involve the teaching of core skills which would include critical thinking, would you join me in favoring presenting both sides of issues to students?

On climate change, evolution etc.

Adam

[william.scherk]

Adam, I don't know from your sketch if I could agree with what you propose, even on principle. Most likely not.

I note that the old creationist tactic of "teach the controversy" is in play once more, and is subsumed in the Heartland proposals. Certainly the Heartland Institute has a responsibility to its supporters and board and its mission -- it is an advocacy and education organization -- and its K-12 strategy is justified by its aims and goals: to prevent the baleful consequences of a public policy accepting of anthropogenic global warming as a reality -- in education.

It is in Heartland's interests to propose re-tooling curricula to reflect Heartland concerns and conclusions about the issue at hand.

I do not know if it is in the interests of science education, even in principle -- since you and I reach opposing conclusions about reality, we are unlikely to agree on Reality of Climate Change learning units prescribed.

Those who are most able to change curricula are not you and I, but the elected school boards, state standards (in science) bodies and commissions, and of course the elected officials in tne State House.

I think of the state mentioned in the terrible video immediately above: Louisiana. In Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has climbed into bed with the Religious Right (and the anti-evolution wing) to 'reform' the state science curriculum. This might be a good place to start with an analysis of K-12 reform in real concrete terms. Do I support Jindal's attempts to reform the teaching of science in his state?

Nope.

And I do not think you will either, Adam.

Edited June 11, 2012 by william.scherk

[dennislmay]

William:

Assuming that we would both agree that a reform of K - 12 education would involve the teaching of core skills which would include critical thinking, would you join me in favoring presenting both sides of issues to students?

On climate change, evolution etc.

Adam

I am opposed to all public education. The existence of alternatives and competition in education is extremely important to keep the power of the state in check and to keep the sciences and all intellectual pursuits honest. We have a broken eductional system because the money is extracted without the consumer having any meaningful say in how that money is spent.

Dennis

[anthony]

double-post

[anthony]

No surprises in the video, it's what I've been getting at all along: the captive,

'usual suspects', taking up both polarized positions - knee-jerkingly.

Frankly, it seems an obvious hit piece - it proves zilch, but shows up Heartland

purportedly as ultra-right wing, reactionary, denialists. Which naturally defines

this bunch as bright-pinko, leftie, 'panic-ists', I suppose...

Politics is only ideology/philosophy-in-action. From their premises, I distrust both 'progressives' and neo-cons -

which does not mean to say that each may not be, say, one-quarter - or partially - correct on AGW. (Or, completely right.)

But the power is all with the progressive side, which is scarier for me than global warming.

(Having the cute kids make inane comments is a cheap device, imo.)

[Selene]

William:

As a teacher who taught rhetoric, the entire concept of a core curriculum that teaches one point of view is antithetical to my conceptualization of educating "children" in the K-12 range.

If education were open to competition, parents, or possibly "children" in the JHS and HS age range would be able to elect from amongst the available schools for their education.

I do not know if it is in the interests of science education, even in principle -- since you and I reach opposing conclusions about reality, we are unlikely to agree on Reality of Climate Change learning units prescribed.

I am not sure that this is an accurate statement of my position about what you refer to as "a public policy accepting of anthropogenic global warming as a reality."

A de minimus position is that neither "side" has proven it's case.

I am for an open approach to teaching competitive theories AND as the core curriculum, in addition to mathematics, reading, writing, the scientific method, etc., the art and science [arte and techne] of critical thinking.

Adam

[caroljane]

Isnt retoric for persuasion to your own position, not critical examination of an issue?

Damn my awful keyboard. It looks like I cannot spell anymore.

Persuasively,

Carol

[Brant Gaede]

William:

As a teacher who taught rhetoric, the entire concept of a core curriculum that teaches one point of view is antithetical to my conceptualization of educating "children" in the K-12 range.

If education were open to competition, parents, or possibly "children" in the JHS and HS age range would be able to elect from amongst the available schools for their education.

I do not know if it is in the interests of science education, even in principle -- since you and I reach opposing conclusions about reality, we are unlikely to agree on Reality of Climate Change learning units prescribed.

I am not sure that this is an accurate statement of my position about what you refer to as "a public policy accepting of anthropogenic global warming as a reality."

A de minimus position is that neither "side" has proven it's case.

I am for an open approach to teaching competitive theories AND as the core curriculum, in addition to mathematics, reading, writing, the scientific method, etc., the art and science [arte and techne] of critical thinking.

Adam

It's not a question of proof. Neither side can prove anything respecting a general conclusion favoring either. The AGWers, however, are short of evidence though not modeling. They pretend "proof," but science isn't about that but investigation and tentative, falsifiable conclusions building a knowledge base of facts. Regardless, AGW is dying a slo-mo political/media death and is now simply "climate charge," which is not disputable. Climate is always changing or soon will change. The number one "fact" left is that CO2 is a cause of increasing temperatures or will eventually be, but the geological record seems to support that CO2 goes up after the temperature. Yes, we humans are putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. There has been more CO2 there in the past, however, long before we could have been responsible for it.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Indeed I accept the scientific consensus.

There is no consensus and never was.

Odd that you write this, Dennis. "Consensus" is a simple term. It denotes, firstly, 'a majority of opinion,'per most dictionaries and usage notes. Consensus can also refer to a style of decision-making. Consensus decisions, for example, reflect agreement in the whole, but does not denote 100% line-by-line agreement.

A scientific consensus can be demonstrated. The first sign of consensus is to read the 'consensus' statements of scientific bodies charged with reflecting the views and opinions and conclusions of its members.

For example, what do the national organizations of scientists in your county, Dennis, put forward as their consensus opinions?

You may disagree with that consensus, but to claim that there is no consensus is sophistry. To insist on this point in the face of strong evidence, to dismiss that evidence -- to my eyes this is bad faith.

There has however been a dominant media attempt to circumvent the scientific process and use government influence on certain "approved" scientific groups to push it as a conensus in order to gain the political critical mass to get the largest wealth transfers in history into law - both in the US and internationally.

There are six inter-related claims in this paragraph. Picked apart, your claims comprise:

1. A 'dominant' media
   
2. Attempt to circumvent the scientific process
   
3. Attempt to use 'government influence"
   
4. Approved' scientific groups push "It"
   
5. Political critical mass (sought)
   
6. Put into law the largest wealth transfer in history
   

Dennis, if your claims are true individually, they can be demonstrated. If each claim can be demonstrated, the inter-relations and actual acts and motivations can be proved. Although you provide a summary (your own personal consensus) of your beliefs, you have not provided any specifics -- this generalized coyness was what I referenced above.

Upon repeated queries on the point of these "basic experiments," Dennis has been coy. Why?

I feel those who wish to discuss a subject should be willing to do their elementary homework.

Welcome to Dodge City, stranger.

This is on the face of it, feeble. Feeble and disingenuous, in my opinion. More that once you have been directly challenged to reference or describe these touted essential basic experiments (in climatology). I have asked for detail: what exactly are you talking about.

Then it goes all coy coy coy.

Until they are wiling to engage in the elementary they have not business discussing larger issues or the integration of the whole topic.

Here you switch from addressing me and my questions to addressing THEY.

Taking you at your word, I will say it again: tell us what the elementary experiments were (or should have been). Tell us what you know that we may follow your argument.

Dennis, you may utterly disagree with and have contempt for my opinions. That is as it should be. But I am not the only voice here, and not the only listener and inquirer. If for some personal distaste you will not provide a clue as to what you are actually referencing, fair enough.

But the challenge is broader: can you provide to a Generic Reader here more details about these crucial experiments?

I say you can. I challenge you to do so, again.

Hydrodynamic modeling requires experiments to verify code every step of the way. In the case of the Ozone Hole "NO FIELD EXPERIMENTS WERE EVER DONE".

Again, an over-general summation. Do you think that the relatively sophisticated readers here simply know what you are referring to? What possible 'field experiments' were required but not performed? Can you not give dear generic Reader the information necessary to verify your impressions?

I think you can, but you seem to prefer to remain unforthcoming.

In any case, Dear Reader may wish to read evidence of multiple experimental regimes that did and do just what Dennis says has not occured. Rather than as he attests, without evidence, "NO FIELD EXPERIMENTS WERE EVER DONE" -- we need only examine the record of research.

Ooops, there is the European Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Experiment (EASOE) and the Second European Stratospheric Arctic and Mid-latitude Experiment (SESAME). Oh, and the Third European Stratospheric Experiment on Ozone (THESEO). However we view it, Dennis's claim is untrue on its face.

The lifetime of various compounds in actual atmosphereic conditions was never determined,

This is better -- a clue. "Various compounds" ... could mean compound gases I suppose. Going with that, you seem to be claiming that we (We as consumers of scientific information) have no credible or tested information on the the lifetime of (murk murk) in the actual atmospheric conditions.

Well, Dennis, we can verify your assertion. There may be a point of information (say, the lifetime or 'cycle' of water in the atmosphere) we can check. By considering the generic reader, you may see that if you named one (or two, or several, or all at issue) compound, your assertion can be verified, if true.

Once that is accomplished, you could explain the discrepancy between your claim/observation and reality.

the sources and sinks was never determined by actual experiment in the actual atmosphere, the effects of solids in the atmosphere on Ozone related chemcials was never determined by actual field experiments.

I will separate out the confusing jumble here: "the sources [of atmospheric compounds] in the actual atmosphere" and "the sinks [of atmospheric compounds] in the actual atmosphere]" and "actual experiment" and "actual field experiments."

(at some point in the future, you could explain to dear reader the difference and the importance of the difference between "actual experiment" and "actual field experiment")

Let us consider the first item from the jumble: "The sources of atmospheric compounds."

What are the 'atmospheric compounds"? Well, let me guess what you would say if you weren't so coy about the details. I guess Oxygen (nope, not a compound), Nitrogen (compound), Argon (compound), Carbon Dioxide (two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom).

Okay, so we have perhaps one compound you may be referring to: CO₂. If is then one of the 'atmospheric compounds," then we can check to see if you are correct in the general claim: The lifetime of CO₂ in actual atmosphereic conditions was never determined."Is this true? Moreover, if it is not exactly true, is it true on the narrow grounds you have laid? If we can find data that suggests we do indeed know the lifetime (cycle in the atmosphere) of CO₂ in the actual atmosphere ... is this 'fact' verified by experiment? or even 'field experiment'?

Move to global warming - the effects of assorted fines in the atmophere on the water cycle and solar reflection has not been determined by any actual field experiments.

Untrue. If you meant 'fine particulates.

Water vapor [the number one green house gas] is a wild card and the various feedback forces involved are not close to being modeled and experiments are in their infancy at best.

At best, "Water vapour is a wild card" is debatable. If you are contending that nothing is known about the precipitation cycle/water cycle -- because of lack of experiment, I do not know how you could support this statement beyond a simplistic 'variable' (water vapour as a variable) observation.

I do believe you have an idiosyncratic world-view pertaining to science. Sciences that do not proceed from initial 'basic experiments' would seem to exclude sciences from the mantle which originated in observational or correlational data. For example, how does one do basic experiments, or rather -- What would comprise a 'basic experiment' in geology? Which are the basic experiments in geology that must be performed first lest the entire science be sorted into Junk?

What experiments, basic or not, inform or test the presumptions of evolutionary biology, for example. IF this science (or rather grouping of disciplines within Biology) did not perform 'basic experiments' before going hog-wild, then what?

What 'basic experiments' did Darwin do, or not do that seal his reputation as a scientist?

Having done hydrodynamic and electro-magnetic dynamic modeling for a living for a number of years I am disgusted when so called experts or consensus is brought out concerning something they have not begun to do the basic real world experiments to support.

This is a good point, I think, or another good point of departure for inquiry. If you are an expert or experienced hydro-dynamic modeler and also a modeler of electromagnetic dynamics, you have a lot of information and practice from within your field(s). Helping us see the connection between 'basic' experiments in your field(s) and the fields you consider corrupt -- this would be great, if you wanted to do so. Your next point is what we call Bald Assertion, however.

It is fraudulent science on an elementary level.

When real engineers and real scientists do hydrodynamic modeling of say copper or particular classes of steels being deformed under pressure they might have performed say 3,000 - 5,000 real world experiments in the field over a period of decades to generate the equations of state over various pressure regimes.

On the surface, the parallels between 'copper' / 'steel' experiment/observation are unclear. Testing materials for their stress and breaking points and patterns seems wise and necessary to materials engineering.

When real engineers and real scientists do electro-magnetic modeling in electronics solids they have the results of thousands of real world experiments in fabricating and testing silcon, silicon carbide, gallium arsinide, indium phosphide, and/or diamond substrates. Combine that with thousands of runs and various types of processing and thousands of simulations using multiple codes and you can get good approximations of simple problems. And I do mean simple problems.

I will set aside any questions on how this type of 'testing' (field experiments?) can be applied in atmospheric sciences, or for you to further explain the parallels. I see the bullet points on the blackboard but wait, along with Dear Reader, to see how 'testing' gallium arsinide pertains to climate science ...

None of that kind of experimental field work has been done for Ozone Hole or Climate Change modeling. They jumped right from cherry picked processes and at best cherry picked lab [not field] experiments then did whatever modeling fit their conclusions.

Here is a possible area of understanding. Putting aside the murky 'They' argument from enemy formations trope, I can see how you might answer a straighforward question from Generic Reader:

-- "How could 'field-testing' copper/steel be applied to the science surrounding Ozone in the Atmosphere?" You seem to know in your heart how matters should have proceeded in understanding Ozone formation and depletion in the atmosphere -- via 'field tests' -- but we have yet to hear anything specific. In a nutshell, when an argument states, "that kind of experimental field work" has never been done, the reader wonders WHAT kind of experimental field work. And a reader would be wondering why the answer is not forthcoming.

From you, Dennis. To support your points and assertions. To provide warrants -- not sweeping claims, but their support. This is the basic to-and-fro of learning.

It is as if you had turned into Phil Coates, telling us to do our homework, but failing to tell us what that homework actually comprised.

When the results over the last decade(s) did not match their preditions few questioned how the conclusions were reached.

Murk to the max. Here again the over-general, non-specific 'criticism' -- with details, the argument could only be stronger. What results? What predictions? Which 'they' are you addressing?

These questions may seem noisome or unwanted, but imagine yourself in a forum, not with socialist bogeymen and skeptics like me, but with nice normal uninformed persons (Dear Readers). If a nice normal person asked you to put flesh on the bones of your contentions, would you be so coy? Would you show good faith and confidence in your own claims by backing them up with further details?

I would like to think that yes, you would, Dennis.

SInce the science has not started yet their conclusions are meaningless.

They, Them. Their conclusions. The Science. Ah murk, murk to the max. Through the fog, perhaps a name? An experiment? A failure?

Thus my point was to highlight the odd railing against skepticism when Tony (and Dennis) are archly skeptical themselves on certain issues.

Will they explain these seeming discrepancies? I think not.

I am a little more forgiving on some science topics - where people have not done their elementary homework - than others.

For hebbin sake, Dennis. "Some science topics." "People." "Elementary Homework."

Brother, these are murky and unspecified. It is unclear who you are addressing and what you are addressing. I do not take issue with your personal coyness and bad faith with me -- since you may have an antipathy to me and thus personalize discussion. But, again, think of Dear Reader.

Tony has yet to address my question: if Skepticism is so awful, what then explains your (Tony's) skepticism about Anthropogenic Global Warming?

Your own skepticism on climate science, Dennis, is much more understandable, rooted as it is in a firm political conviction rather than engagement with the materials (and working scientists) you so murkily slur.

Quantum mechanics is one topic requiring more forgiveness because in that case we are not talking about the failure to perform elementary experiments required of any science but rather a deep and wide subject involving interpretation and crossing disciplines to form holistic conclusions.

If I understand this correctly, Quantum Mechanics (the basis of our electronic superstructure today) is complex and if people do not understand your discursions on its minutia, that is okay. If you say the reigning cosmological theories are fucked, hmmm, well, maybe that needs explaining to the unwashed and uninformed. You will take the time, perhaps to explain your issues and worries in detail, even provide links to your unpublished and un-reviewed physics articles. As most of us understand Quantum Mechanics, it is the set of equations that somehow give us positron emission tomography, details available. That no basic experiments were done to disconfirm the equations' adherence to real-world materials and physics, hmmmmm ....

In any case the Ozone and Climate hoaxes are political manipulations dressed up in science clothing. The Soviets and Nazis were fond of mixing science and the political to promote socialist power for the few.

Ah, Godwin's 'law,' in all its splendour. If an argument wobbles on its wheels, invoke the Nazis and for good measure 'the Soviets.'

Edited June 11, 2012 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

William:

As a teacher who taught rhetoric, the entire concept of a core curriculum that teaches one point of view is antithetical to my conceptualization of educating "children" in the K-12 range.

Yes, fair enough. As a teacher, you do not have much truck with 'core curricula.' Do I have that right? For example, the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic can each be presented in differing programmes. Phonics-based language instruction, for example, starting in first grade, could be contrasted with another programme offering whole-language lesson plans. The goals (reading, writing, numbering) are not the curriculum. The curriculum is the settled posts by which the teachers/districts/lesson-planners/unit-devolopers/textbook publishers set their fences and corrals ... on their cattle.

As a teacher, you will formulate your own plan (if able to by contract) and carry out the curriculum assigned to you, and the text available. The core may be so simple: By the end of First Year, the student/yearling will be able to recognize and name the letters of the alphabet, print them, sound them, and combine them in simple words.

it would be a surprise to me if the first grade core curriculum is more hellish and socialist in English.

However, as we move into the final stretch of 3R, trouble. Arithmetic. How to teach it? Should the calves in their stalls be instructed on division, multiplication, addition, subtraction and the Mighty Zero, or not? Oh, the bloody struggles over arithmetic, the stains of gruesome hand-to-hand battles over exponents ...

If education were open to competition, parents, or possibly "children" in the JHS and HS age range would be able to elect from amongst the available schools for their education.

Wait a minute. I understand a teacher rejecting core curriculum, but this is Adam the Political Guru talking now, right?

I do not know if it is in the interests of science education, even in principle -- since you and I reach opposing conclusions about reality, we are unlikely to agree on Reality of Climate Change learning units prescribed.

I am not sure that this is an accurate statement of my position about what you refer to as "a public policy accepting of anthropogenic global warming as a reality."

So what? I meant to mark the difference between us. You reject AGW. I do not. I support teaching the consensus view as the science of climate change. I support the teaching of the consensus view of evolution as science. I support teaching the consensus view of the age of the universe as "what scientists say today." This is my aim for science education in K-12, whether in public schools or in private schools. It is a wonder and a thrill that many religious institutions (eg, Catholic Schools) provide this kind of science education as a matter of internal policy, rather than state prescription, at least in Canada.

We have several times almost approached the lip of the active volcano of learning on the subject of climate change, AGW, Adam, and it seems to me you shied away from the kind of difficult ongoing inquiry I proposed. To come back later and tell me that your opinions are different from what they were then, great! This means, perhaps, you now agree that human emissions can and do warm the earth's atmosphere above and beyond the processes that give rise to generalized climate. You might even pinpoint the point of nagging concern: by how much? By when?

And of course, we can then argue about the finger in the nose or what if anything could or should be done about this warming, or even whether to be alarmed. But.

At the moment, I am concerned with the narrow point coming from the Heartland materials. I will be frank. The Heartland Institute is not a scientific body, and its charter is private. I have no faith in their usefulness as an interlocutor in terms of State Science Standards (since there are such things). I prefer the National Academy and other such actual scientists weighing in.

A de minimus position is that neither "side" has proven it's case.

Fuck me, Adam, now your Debate Maven hat is on. I have to dial back to the context of the remarks at dispute, to re-orient me and you to what I was stressing in my approach. So, as a Randian, you can urge Zero state supervision or provision of schooling. I get that. I understand your position. I understand that the whole notion of a big government (International treaty, etc) intrusion into economic matters to be utterly contemptible from your political vantage. And I understand the aversion to Alarmism and the worst sort of hasty 'collective' action. I understand a sober, 'the facts are not yet in' kind of watching brief.

But you have sided against the AGW position, strongly, with harsh invective at times. This is then not a science discussion, or an education discussion, but a political discussion, and one that I cannot win.

This is my opinion: IF (if if if if IF IF IF) there is a subject called Science to be taught in school (hardly in K, more so in 6+). I seek the instruction materials to be based upon the best and latest knowledge, the consensus, the broad picture, the settled material.

Controversies are and should be part of instruction at the appropriate age ("Cindy, we are not doing fingerpainting now, honey. We are examining the warrants for the claim that hydrological data do NOT provide sure means of proxy data in interpreting tree ring chronology. Please take your finger from your nose and pay attention.").

As for the rest, just credit our differences to the socialist tea I was steeped in since before birth.

I am for an open approach to teaching competitive theories AND as the core curriculum, in addition to mathematics, reading, writing, the scientific method, etc., the art and science [arte and techne] of critical thinking.

I will send you five bucks via PayPal. Because I agree with the outline. IF there are competitive theories .... such as, oh, the earth is flat, the earth is not flat, God created all living things, oh, um, God had little to do with it, then parents can teach their children whatever the hell they want (short of incitement to murder or assault).

IF there are schools (and not incubators or Training Centres or Slave Indoctrination Feedlots) then it is necessary for someone to tell the difference between 'competing theories' (suitable for Current Affairs) and the science (of biology, for example, or climatology).

IF there is to be a state education system controlled (in theory) by the people, I will stand with the people who seek the best scientific advice on science curriculum. You, I hope, stand with me there, despite our political differences.

IF you stand with those who wish to 'teach the (phony) controversy' then I will thank you for a lovely date, kiss you chastely on your cheek, and get back on the C train headed back north, past Yonkers, all the way north to the Socialist Hellhole ...

Edited June 10, 2012 by william.scherk