nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
Climate-change skeptic lined up to run NASA in this Trump timeline

Anonymous Coward

"The head of NASA ought to be a space professional, not a politician," Nelson told Politico.

It depends what you count as a "space professional". Those who've actually been outside Earth's orbit are all too old now to be taking on even an administrative job, and there's ony 15 of them left.

11
2
Silver badge

And all commanders-in-chief should be ex-generals

9
3
Silver badge

If commander-in-chief was the sole job description of the president, that would be true, but it is a small part of the overall job of the president of the United States.

If this job included much more than running NASA, like say you had to run the NWS and park service as well, then requiring a space professional would be rather silly since that would be only part of the job. But it is the whole job here, so there's a good argument to be made that he should have a proper space background.

13
1
Silver badge

Why? Most of NASA's funding and work is aeronautics and Earth observation. You should be a meteorologist airline executive not an ex-astronaut

7
1

And all commanders-in-chief should be ex-generals

"War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military"

12
0
Gold badge
Unhappy

""The head of NASA ought to be a space professional, not a politician," "

And yet James Webb (who ran NASA during Apollo) was probably one of the most effective Administrators the Agency ever had.

Former lawyer and Senators staffer, with a lot of friends on the Hill and (IIRC) able to give the old Masonic high five as well.

However Webb also had a clear, simple mandate from Kennedy (get us to the Moon before New Years Eve 1969) and a formidable Programme Manager in Von Braun, keeping track of all the day to day issues.

So I think politicians fear a well connected Administrator, but such a person can be very good for the Agency, provided they have a clear direction from the President of where to go, and the support team to do it.

And that's where it all gets verrry tricky.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Bullshit science - Human activity responsible for 3% of CO2 - Why would they hoax us, you ask?

Firstly, The Earth has been forever getting hotter and colder, periodically.

Typical human self-importance to assume everything that goes on is because of us. Its the self-importance that makes us so gullible to believe Al Gore and those behind him.

So, if its fake, why would anybody bother?

Lets set up two simple facts:

Stocks don't exist so you and I can own a slice of the big corporate pie: They were created for obfuscation of ownership - just gotta have thousands of straw companies and hedge fonds to own them. Every boom and bust they create, they're getting large chunks of their shares back anyway - every time.

Who, you ask is "they"...?

The Global Central Banking cartel with ~20 private banks controlling the ~140 Global corporations, whom are all directed at a high level and are largely working hand in hand, competition not withstanding.

What good does the climate change hoax do for 'them;?

Chief item: The global Agenda 21 drive (look it up). Drive people off their land and herd them all together in as few large cities as possible. All to "save the planet" Yeah, right...

We'll become completely dependent on toxic industrially produced food. The closer to your pension age you die, the less pensionmoney the corporations have to waste on you, after you spent your useful life in wage slavery. And of course, they'll make sure to take your house from your family for that expensive cancer treatment they shove up your ass on your way out.

Democracy is just a word for invisible slavery. Its a puppet theater. Did you ever pick anyone whose name you put your X next to, helping to keep this scam looking legit? Yes, if YOU go and vote, you're helping to keep everyone else in slavery too... And did you EVER get what you wanted or what was promised for your X? Right, I didn't think so.

They also love forcing you to throw away your cars and buy new ones, that are barely any better on Co2... Its all good cash they can extract, before they go to kill you slowly with their toxic, unnatural food and medications. Food and Pharma Industry are working hand in hand. Go look at it...

And if you fall for believing the climate change is real and an honest effort - you'll probably also gullible enough to believe, that switching to all electronic money will be a good thing, and that spraying aluminum micro-particulate and barium in the air is a great thing to slow global warming, right?

Well breathing in that aluminum has catapulted Alzheimer's disease to the #1 spot among older people in the UK in just a few Years! Are you ready to loose your marbles for that hoax?

Well, I know, this disturbs comfortable illusions and if you even looked into it, would pose a serious risk in regards to going on the way you've grown comfortable with. I understand. This stuff IS annoying. I wish it wasn't so, but at least a few of the heads of the hydra are right here in the UK.

1
4
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: Bullshit science - Human activity responsible for 3% of CO2 - Why would they hoax us, you ask?

ACK on the title.

From the article: In other words, our planet's temperature changes are linked to the Sun and the seas, and not necessarily manmade, in Bridenstine's mind.

And in MY mind. And in REALITY.

From the article: He doesn't outright deny climate change is happening, just that it may not be the fault of our fossil-fuel mania, air travel, and so on.

It's because the alleged mechanism, CO2, can't work if you know even the SLIGHTEST amount of fact concerning its real effect on Earth temperatures. The mechanism for a greenhouse gas is infrared absorption. CO2's absorption spectrum is PATHETIC when you compare it to IR black body energies associated with temperatures actually FOUND on the earth. CO2 is also at equilibrium, and like anything at equilibrium, shifting the production or depletion rate on one side of the equation causes a large shift in the depletion or production rate on the OTHER side. Translation, you could pour MEGAtons of CO2 into the atmosphere, and it would cause rain, and it would precipitate out in the ocean and become a layer on the sea floor.

From the article: Meanwhile, on NASA's own website you can find data showing human civilization has likely had a profound effect on our world's climate.

2 words: FAKE NEWS [not doubting it's there, it's just that NASA was engaging in FAKE NEWS]

OK I'd bet ACTUAL MONEY on THIS one: 1900 - cold. 1935 - warm. 1970 - cold [iced over puddles in San Jose]. 2005 - warm. 2040 - COLD. each of these numbers is 35 years apart. This is an obvious trend. See how obvious it is? guess what's going to happen in 2040? It's gonna be COLD. That "massive warming" from 1970-ish to mid 2000's, the "hockey stick" on AlGore's chart, was the upswing of a NORMAL CYCLE. And guess what has happened since the "noughties" - NO WARMING, THAT'S WHAT! It's _PREDICTABLE_, and I have PREDICTED it, using REAL STATISTICS, REAL SCIENCE, and NO BULLSHIT.

So I'm very HAPPY that the Trump administration is putting someone in charge of NASA that is a "climate change" REALIST - not "denier", not "skeptic", but REALIST. Because REALITY is that it ain't happening like the Chicken Little Doom/Gloom AlGore cult says it is. It's NOTHING. NOTH-ING. And _I_ should not have _MY_ freedoms curbed, energy prices increased, economy threatened, or SIZE OF GUMMINT INCREASED, to "solve" something that is _NOT_ _THERE_.

0
1
Bronze badge

I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

I consider myself a skeptic(*).

I think that it's vitally important that NASA be out there objectively gathering the data. Not funding preconceived conclusion, except to the extent that they are testing a theory.

The worst case would be someone in charge that is a denier or a believer. There isn't a reason to gather objective data when you already know the answer.

* Climate change happens. It's been happening forever. The open question is if man's activity has a negligible effect, has a dominate role causing rapid negative change, or if we are pushing the climate over a tipping point.

27
19

Re: The open question is if ...

If only there were thousands of specialized scientists, all over the world, studying the multifarious aspects of climate and how we might be affecting it. Dammit, where are they all? And why do they never get around to publishing any results, or organizing the production of some sort of summary that we might understand?

Even if their results were not conclusive enough for everyone, they could, I suppose, make some sort of prediction that we could use as a guideline. Maybe we could crowdfund some support to help out?

Sigh.

42
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: And why do they never get around to publishing any results?

I think they're too busy hanging out in IT forums, telling us how unconvincing our devops-based storage solutions are :-)

17
1
Silver badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

He's not a skeptic if he's already decided that the climate scientists are wrong and warming has stopped.

NASA just launches the satellites that get the data, they don't do any interpretation of it so whether its director is a skeptic, a denier or a believer doesn't really matter. But understanding NASA from having actually worked at NASA or been in space seems like kind of a useful thing for a job running it.

33
5
Silver badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"The worst case would be someone in charge that is a denier or a believer"

Regardless, the subject (CAGW) is in effect, an apocalyptic religion. So, what exactly is wrong with denying (dis-believing) that religion's extreme and unproven tenets? After all, anyone not in the Church is automatically labelled a "denier," so if you exclude that group you are left with only believers.

Not that I accept that the pejorative "denier" has any legitimacy in civilized discourse, mind you.

13
42
Anonymous Coward

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"The open question is if man's activity has a negligible effect"

This isn't an open question and rejecting or misunderstanding an overwhelming body of evidence doesn't make you a skeptic.

35
9
Silver badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"He's not a skeptic if he's already decided that the climate scientists are wrong and warming has stopped."

"already decided" is surely a pre-requisite for the condition described as scepticism. There's nothing wrong about critical thinking and I personally think that should be encouraged but he comes up with this gem to explain his position:

"In other words, our planet's temperature changes are linked to the Sun and the seas"

There's no arguing with that. It really does warm up during the day and cool at night time and the seas do have a massive effect on the climate, as Texans int al and rather large parts of Asia will currently testify. Unfortunately there are a few other factors at work, that those people are bearing the brunt of at the moment.

Closer to home (for me - UK/SW) I'm not looking forward to finding out that the Gulf Stream has decided to bugger off and that I will be able to ski at home. Mind you I am a keen skier (40 years), but the rest of the country is pretty unprepared for that 8)

11
3
Mushroom

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

> This isn't an open question and rejecting or misunderstanding an overwhelming body of evidence doesn't make you a skeptic.

You probably have no means to really evaluate that comment. The best you can do is just blindly follow your local priest. He just happens to wear a lab coat or call himself a scientist.

Your entire comment is nothing more than an article of faith from a layman.

9
31
Silver badge
Boffin

Belief has nothing to do with it: The fundamental difference between religion and science

Science is not based on belief, but is based on hypotheses, theories, and models. I do not believe in gravity, but I know the theory of gravity and I found that it can explain and predict many phenomena that I observe. The same is true for electromagnetism and all other scientific models.

As a scientist, I actually know that the best scientific theories are fundamentally flawed approximations of reality: relativity theory and quantum mechanics, the very foundations of our scientific world view, contradict each other. So the best I can do as a scientist is: (1) understand the scientific theories, and (2) know when a particular theory will work (i.e., give me a useful prediction). After a few years (or decades) of doing that, a scientist will be awfully good in predicting the outcome of a particular experiment based on those flawed scientific theories.

The church is based on the belief in a fundamental truth (i.e., existence of god). It's the opposite of science. A 'good' priest will be unwavering in his belief, whereas a 'good' scientist will always doubt his scientific theories. A scientific career equals the search for some new piece of knowledge that will contradict (and thereby improve) the existing scientific models.

Let's translate this to climate science. Climate scientists don't believe in man-made climate change, but scientists found a correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, realized that human industrialization increased this CO2 concentration, and created a scientific model to explain this observation. Ever since, numerous scientists tried to confirm or contradict this model. After a few decade of this work, the vast majority of scientists is convinced that the model of man-made global warming correctly models and explains current atmospheric temperature changes and can also predict the trend of future temperature changes.

This is not belief, it's confidence in a scientific model. Being science, that confidence can be expressed numerically. Now imagine a priest saying: "I am 99.7% confident that god exists".

47
4
Silver badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"Skeptic" is a misnomer. Skepticism is simply a position of requiring evidence to support a claim. It is not about ignoring the evidence and denying the position the evidence supports.

38
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

Not that I accept that the pejorative "denier" has any legitimacy in civilized discourse, mind you.

Since you insist, Big John. You are an obstinate and blind denier of the extensive effort which went into observing, modelling, and understanding the climate change and its causes over the past century.

22
3
JLV
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

> nothing more than an article of faith

Don't be an ass. We're experiencing gradually increasing climate events in many parts of the world. BC for one has had driest weather on record, broken several temp records and suffered massive fires that have blanketed us in smoke. Irma is showing up as pretty much the strongest Caribbean storm on record.

None of this _proves_ climate change but it dovetails quite nicely with what we might expect if what so many experts are claiming was true. Unpleasantly too, these are early days, so if the experts are right, this is gonna suck. It might therefore be time to consider that perhaps all those scientists aren't merely wrong.

Now we have to take your word for it that you know better? Based on what? What, exactly, are _your_ qualifications? You're not a layman, are you?

Personally I can chip that a lake I hike to every so often had a glacier all the way down to the shore in the summer. A glacier, not just snowpack. 20 years later, that glacier never reaches it anymore.

If you're gonna naysay, fine. At least propose alternative explanations for increasing temps, don't just make claims without any backing. Is it the solar cycles this time? Something beyond your personal dislikes?

Enlighten us.

16
3

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

> Regardless, the subject (CAGW) is in effect, an apocalyptic religion.

Well, a religion except for the whole issue of it being based on sound scientific evidence and observation, of course. The faith-based argument is the one that says that the greenhouse gases that human activity has been generating isn't having any effect, despite the evidence that it is.

16
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

@Schultz seems to have a rather pastorally perfect idea of what science, or rather how it works in the real world.

One of the reasons people find "scientists" so hard to believe is that they know they've been lied to before. People who aren't scientists or are not specialists in a particular field represent themselves as if they were. I've noticed scientists more and more refer to things they "know" only later do we find out they knew there were problems with their model or theory but this time, please believe them, they've got it right. Of course all of this is further twisted by a media hungry for headlines.

Scientists are also often put in a position where they've got to sell their work so statistics get worked on until the right result comes out.

In the UK we've got scientists telling us that drinking any alcohol is dangerous for our health while others tell us that moderate drinking is in fact good for our health.

So, with regard to our climate, it's hard to know who is telling us the truth. To be honest I feel agnostic on the subject, in the true meaning of the word, in other words I think it's unknowable for ordinary people like me.

As an side, my experience of some "religious people" is that they come to believe for a reason. Something happens to them which they see as indubitable proof of God's existence. So they're belief is based on evidence, it's just that from the outside other people have a different explanation for what has happened, psychotic event etc.

8
14
Silver badge
Megaphone

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

ack on "let's put a skeptic in charge".

<quote from article>

Meanwhile, on NASA's own website you can find data showing human civilization has likely had a profound effect on our world's climate.

</quote from article>

And _THIS_ is why we want A SKEPTIC in charge, and NOT an ACTIVIST!

[because the idea of man-made climate change is PURE BULLCRAP, and I can easily prove it, and have done so on multiple occasions already, so I'll spare this article's responses from me repeating myself again]

4
32
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"We're experiencing gradually increasing climate events in many parts of the world"

No. we are not. Check out some of the data on storms of the early 1900's for example.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

You said "Irma is showing up as pretty much the strongest Caribbean storm on record." Recent hurricanes are NOT necessarily "the strongest on record". Consider the 'labor day hurricane' of 1935

Additionally, humans cannot cause "global climate change" in any significant amount from burning fossil fuels. You would have to completely ignore 1) chemical equilibrium between atmosphere and ocean, 2) biological equilibrium involving algae and other plants, 3) precipitation of CO2 as carbonates on the ocean floor, 4) geothermal effects on measured CO2 in key locations, and 5) the actual IR absorption spectrum of CO2 in order to come up with "a computer model" to show out of control climate change. However, REAL science in the REAL world WILL INCLUDE all of those things in the analysis, and as such, would easily demonstrate that CO2 from human activity does NOT cause global climate change in any significant amount, even any MEASURABLE amount.

If climate is changing, it is because of the earth, the sun, or something similar. Humans couldn't do it even if we WANTED to.

3
29
Silver badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"Personally I can chip that a lake I hike to every so often had a glacier all the way down to the shore in the summer. A glacier, not just snowpack. 20 years later, that glacier never reaches it anymore."

this deserves separate commentary.

1900: cold

1935: hot

1970: cold

2005: hot

2040: cold <--- your glacier should reappear by then

also consider that some effects are 90 degrees out of phase with this cycle, quite possibly your glacier being one of them. The reason is 'heat up rate' vs temperature. Yeah, it's a calculus thing. It's also why late summer is hotter than early summer, even though days are longer in early summer.

Anyone else have a better explanation? Mine's based on recorded temperature data in the northern hemisphere... and one projected estimate based on the apparent cyclic trend

4
29
Anonymous Coward

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

This isn't an open question and rejecting or misunderstanding an overwhelming body of evidence doesn't make you a skeptic.

No, it makes you a climate change alarmist.

2
11
Anonymous Coward

Re: Belief has nothing to do with it: The fundamental difference between religion and science

...but scientists found a correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, realized that human industrialization increased this CO2 concentration, and created a scientific model to explain this observation.

Unfortunately, they didn't.

Except for a decade or so. The ,ore time pases the less teh vorrelation is.

And your whole thesis ignores tow well known facts

1/. correlation is not causation

2/. Short duration correlation does not imply long duration correlation.

Everyone who has bothered to try and understand the nature of so called climate science (rather than just accept the result dictated by climate marketing organisations) runs into a funadmental problem,.

Climate sensitivity. The amount by which you multiply the physics to get the scary result needed politically and commercially.

The problem is that the figure hat works for 1980-2000 doesn't work for 2000-2017. Is the lambda constant really a variable? Why is it there at all? Isn't it neater to actually introduce an independent variable to explain why warming rocketed upwards for 20 years and than stopped dead in its tracks?

The problem is simply this. Any or all of these points make more sense of the data, but they lead to an inconvenient truth.

CO2 is not what affects climate the most, in fact its almost completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

All the research granst, all the' renewable energy', all the political angst and social tensions involved in trying to have a discussion about climate change, have been a complete waste of time and public money.

And you come to the only sane conclusion. That is what they were intended to be. An excuse to divert public money into private pockets.

And suddenly the reason why windmills and solar panels and burning wood and making ethanol and electric cars - extremely expensive ways of failing to reduce emissions at all, are preferred over cost effective solutions that do reduce emissions hugely, like nuclear power, become clear.

As do the reasons why climate change activists jet from capital to capital rather than teleconferencing, and have beach houses and beach front properties that belie their belief in climate change.

Because they know its not real. It's just pork barrel politics.

Only numpties believe in climate change, the smart money simply pretends to, because that's where the pork scratchings are.

Its the most convenient lie that's ever been assembled by a political marketing team.

Science? what science? Massive extrapolation from the spectral absorption of a very minor trace gas. Logically flawed and bent to fit a political and economic purpose.

9
19

Re: If climate is changing [...] Humans couldn't do it even if we WANTED to.

A full scale nuclear war would put enough particulates in the atmosphere to create a devastating nuclear winter, and even a small nuclear war would be bad enough [1]. Does that count as "climate changing"?

[1] http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.3047679

8
1
Silver badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

@ DougS

"NASA just launches the satellites that get the data, they don't do any interpretation of it so whether its director is a skeptic, a denier or a believer doesn't really matter."

A little niggle with that statement. A while back Lewis Page put up a wonderful article about NASA 'adjusting' its data and publishing it online. This data suddenly showed a huge steep incline that was so fantastical that even the IPCC (not considered a good source of fact) wouldnt agree with NASA's amusing graph.

I can understand why people would be sceptical and I am too. This is such an important problem that the UK had a gov who ditched power generation for monuments to the sky god. This green tech actually didnt work but the denial of that fact was so extreme it was very much religious. We have also been told many times we have x days to save the world only for nothing to be resolved or changed. We have been told of terrible horrors which have been hyperbole at best and the only thing we have seen for it is more cost and higher tax.

11
4
Bronze badge

Re: Belief has nothing to do with it: The fundamental difference between religion and science

This. +1 + lots. That's what the so-called sceptics miss.

5
0
Bronze badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"In the UK we've got scientists telling us that drinking any alcohol is dangerous for our health while others tell us that moderate drinking is in fact good for our health."

No, this is the media who want everything to be black and white, binary, yes/no certain answers.

Well science isn't like that but people don't like that answer and accuse scientists of lying or (shock horror!) of changing their minds if new evidence comes up.

17
0
Silver badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

DougS wrote: "NASA just launches the satellites that get the data, they don't do any interpretation of it so whether its director is a skeptic, a denier or a believer doesn't really matter. "

Really? So why have they been doing this https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/.

3
0
Mushroom

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"Anyone else have a better explanation?"

Yes, I do: you're being disingenuous. Try taking the AVERAGE: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm. Specifically, see this graph: https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47. While you're there, feel free to correct any other ignorances you have by consulting this page: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

>The open question

It's not an open question anymore (except for filling in some details). We no longer need science to drive decision-making. It's engineering now. We have engineered a catastrophe. We know what drives this engine, why the 'governors' have failed to control it. We even know where the brakes are - but cannot risk using them until we do the basics - like take our foot off the gas pedal.

8
1
Bronze badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

>So, what exactly is wrong with denying

When denying reality risks the future of our children/grandchildren - it's wrong. Unequivocally.

11
1
Bronze badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

>One of the reasons people find "scientists" so hard to believe is that they know they've been lied to before.

You are confusing 'what scientists say' with what the Daily Mail says scientists say.

Schulz summarised the strength of science very well - it has mechanisms to weed out charlatans, to correct mistakes, to build up shakey foundations.

I only wish politics (and denialist charlatans) did.

12
1
Bronze badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

>_THIS_ is why we want A SKEPTIC in charge

He isn't a sceptic - and neither are you. You're both deniers - mind made up, against all the evidence.

9
2
Bronze badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

It's so predictable. Bombastic Bob loves Trump, hates government - so, of course he's going to be a climate change denier.

He even goes to the trouble of ferreting out pseudo-scientific crap to back up his beliefs (but wouldn't be seen dead reading anything genuine).

13
2
Facepalm

Re: Belief has nothing to do with it: The fundamental difference between religion and science

"climate marketing organisations"

This is the part that kills me. People actually believe that companies that manufacture solar panels and windmills are bigger and have more influence than, say, oil companies. Are you fucking kidding me?

13
1
Silver badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

Plus this one https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Belief has nothing to do with it: The fundamental difference between religion and science

When a scientist finds that new facts contradict his/her theories, he/she concludes that the theories are wrong.

When a priest finds that new facts contradicts his (priests are almost always "he") beliefs, he concludes that the facts are wrong.

You can pretty much apply that statement about religion to any ideology. Marxism, Chicago-school economics, psychiatry, whatever. Both religions and ideologies are constructed by men (it's almost always men, rather than women), the only difference is that religions claim their sacred writings were handed to them by God rather than being derived from their own (allegedly) superior thought processes.

The reason religions/ideologies are such malign forces is that they do not allow facts to sway their beliefs. As in the last financial meltdown, where the Chicago school economists claimed that the problem wasn't deregulating banks (which sane observers concluded was the problem because it let the banks get away with all sorts of shenanigans) but that we didn't deregulate the banks enough.

Reality. It would be nice if the ideologues visited it occasionally.

5
0
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

I'm with the downvote victims on this one.

The A/C post I am replying to sums it up well.

There seems to be a short term correlation between industrialisation and changes in the climate but there has been some very dodgy science from people desperate to prove themselves right which taints other work in the field. Enough for some sceptical thought. The evangelicals who decry everyone who doesn't accept their world view, including on El Reg, doesn't help either.

We (nearly) all know that climate changes constantly and we are apparently emerging from a mini ice age. The amount of impact that humanity is having, and which particular activities are responsible for significant changes, is as I understand it the main area of debate.

I also think that religion isn't as cut and dried as some "scientists" would like to make out. There is the term "crisis of faith" and many of the truly religious constantly re-examine their personal faith. Lord, I believe. Help me in my disbelief.

So someone who doesn't accept the current climate religion but who continues to gather data is probably a good person to have in charge. You don't want someone who has a mind already made up who is resistant to anything that doesn't support their world view.

I also wonder how much of the up and down voting is on political instead of logical grounds.

3
6

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"the climate scientists"

This is not an exclusive body of people, there are many hundreds of climate scientists and thousands of scientists in general who do not believe the global warming paradigm. The presentation of "the science" is heavily biased towards alarmism and contrary papers get a rough ride in the major journals because the protagonists control those journals. You only need to check out the editorial boards. Here is an example I came across today:

This man is an economist, but has been an IPCC "scientist" for many years.

"Nebojsa Nakicenovic is Deputy Director General and Deputy CEO of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and former full Professor of Energy Economics at Vienna University of Technology. Among other positions, he is Executive Director of The World in 2050; Member of the United Nations Secretary General Special Advisory 10-Member Group to support the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, He serves on the Editorial Board of 10 scientific journals."

Is he going to let contrary papers through on the climate science journals he inhabits?

0
2

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"This isn't an open question..."

Oh? Do we then know the exact contribution of each of the myriad factors affecting Earth's climate? You cherry-picked from his comment. But, if it is not open, then we certainly should cut off all funding for further scientific study related to the question. No point in wasting resources on it.

1
2

Re: Belief has nothing to do with it: The fundamental difference between religion and science

The problem is that the models are continually getting it wrong. The data is going in, the algorithms are being crunched and future trends are being predicted that are completely out of the ball park. Why is this? Is it because we do not understand the feedback mechanisms? More than likely! Co2 has a tiny GWP and global greening is absorbing far more than we could ever imagine; Could it simply be that the world can easily cope with anthropogenic co2 without changing any more than it ordinarily would. We know that the planet can cope with far more co2 than we can produce and we know that the climate will always change The problem that I have with climate "science" is that when we get data like the Vostok ice cores we are saying "Ok we know that Co2 is causing climate change so why is the data showing that past rises in temperature precede rises in Co2". There is not a single climate scientist working on the theory that the model of anthropogenic Co2 driving climate might be wrong (because they are all following the money). What science shows us is that Co2 is a greenhouse gas; what it has failed to do up until now is show us that when combined with other elements releasing more than a certain amount into the atmosphere will drive climate change. All we know at the moment are that the models are too inaccurate to make predictions and that notwithstanding the political bias, the truth is that the science is far from settled.

1
2

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

The evidence is based on the models, and the models are not reflecting reality. Additionally no baseline data has been released (i.e. what do the models predict would happen to the climate without additional releases of co2). We can be certain that the climate is changing and we can be certain that either some or all of this change is natural, so surely we should have some data on how we should expect the climate to change without anthropogenic co2. If you ask for this data you are stonewalled.

0
2
Bronze badge

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

BB, your misunderstanding of science is quite extraordinary.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Belief has nothing to do with it: The fundamental difference between religion and science

The problem is that the models are continually getting it wrong.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful" - George Box

"The best material model for a cat is another cat, or preferably the same cat" - Arturo Rosenblueth

Non-scientists routinely misunderstand the purpose and utility of models in science. Here's a famous example of an exceptionally useful - but completely "wrong" - model: it's the Ising model for ferromagnetism. When a ferromagnet is heated up to a specific temperature (the Curie point), it abruptly de-magnetises. This is a classical phase transition (like the boiling of water, etc.). The Ising model was proposed in 1924 by Ernst Ising, in an attempt to understand the ferromagnetic phase transition (phase transitions were poorly understood at the time). It is elegant, abstract, and - as a model for ferromagnetism - completely wrong. It's absolute rubbish. It's childishly simplistic. Real ferromagnets are, in reality, nothing like the Ising model - they're way more complex in structure and (quantum) electrodynamics. But here's the strange thing... the Ising model completely nails the ferromagnetic phase transition. It describes the behaviour of the relevant physical quantities near the Curie point astoundingly well. The Ising model (which was finally solved analytically in the 1940s by Lars Onsager) subsequently became the "fruit fly" of the physics of phase transitions. It's probably not far off the mark to say that almost everything we know about phase transitions (and we now know a lot) is rooted in studying the Ising model. It is one of the most elegant, successful and influential models in the history of science.

It's instructive to consider just why the Ising model is in fact so successful. It turns out that, in general, phase transitions fall into distinct "universality classes": that is, many apparently completely different physical phenomena which demonstrate phase transitions turn out to behave in identical, stereotyped ways near their critical point - they may be described, not just qualitatively but quantitatively, by the same mathematics. (This is a rather deep discovery, which stems from studying - you guessed it - the Ising model.)

So the Ising model didn't have to be "correct", or even "accurate" (it's not). It just had to nail the one phenomenon it was intended to model. It abstracts the problem. That is what useful models do - that's what they're for.

In climate science, as in any other science, that is how we should view models: not as "right" or "wrong" ("another cat"), but as useful in abstracting and pinpointing the crucial aspects of the phenomenon we wish to understand.

1
0

Re: I don't mine a skeptic. I prefer a skeptic in this position

"Earth has stopped warming" is flat wrong, though. That's not a skeptic position, that's a political one. Similar non-factual political opinions run to Lysenkoism and "rain follows the plow", so, yeah, no. Educate that man before he gets promoted anywhere important.

0
0
Silver badge
Devil

Re: The open question is if ...

" they could, I suppose, make some sort of prediction that we could use as a guideline."

in 2040, you'll see cold temperatures similar to 1970's and 1900's, just like the mid-2000's were similar to the mid 1930's. ~70 year cycle. Prediction should be accurate. You're welcome.

Fixed It For Ya.

There are also long cycles in the northern hemisphere of about 500 years. 2000'-ish was at the peak of one of those, oh by the way. The last "warm period" was 1500'ish. The mid 1700's [think valley forge and frozen-over Thames] was the last major cold period. In the ~1000's (or so) there was a warm peak. That's about the time that Eric the Red gave "Greenland" its name because it was, well, GREEN. Unfortunately 100 or so years later, NOT so green, and Viking settlements did rather poorly as a result. Yeah, he found Greenland just after a warming peak, while it was on its way over the hump.

So let us learn from actual history and pay attention to these normal temperature cycles, and base our predictions on THOSE, instead of bogus computer models that were rigged for an outcome by AlGore's religious zealots [who are probably just corrupt political elitists trying to manipulate people].

0
1

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing