Why and when did we forget that a theory must be defensible to be accepted?
Einstein’s relativity proved that empirical logic (physical proof) is our best view of physical reality just like the natural philosophers said. That is supposed to underlie the peer review system and the reason that Einstein said that if you are unable to explain something to a bright 12 year old, you don’t understand it yourself.
You should see what it looks like from inside the building / construction and infrastructure industries. Entirely new business models have been established around "carbon capture / sequestration", "embodied carbon", and "carbon footprints." Global engineering firms have hired specialized teams and purchased specialized software just to calculate the volume of CO₂ being generated to construct a project and how much it will produce once it's in operation. It's infuriating witnessing how much time, effort, and money is wasted on something that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Great post on the need for following the scientific method of observation and testing of theories, rather than politicians, global forums, media, or so-called scientific experts who have been influenced by funding from biased sources.
I would add - whether there is 'global warming' or not, the real error is being foolish enough to think that mankind or 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere could be the cause, or that warming is even bad - considering the greening of the earth, which you mentioned.
I have never understood why the raw temperature data from NOAA (I think it’s NOAA, but could be wrong) is not public. It is my understanding that what is published as the temperature record has been adjusted. I totally get why you cannot just put a thermometer in place and read it everyday for decades and reach conclusions based solely on those numbers - it might have been in a field a century ago and now a forest has grown around it, or a city etc. But I do not understand why the raw readings themselves along with the adjustments that NOAA believes should be made are not public. Surely the citizens of the United States paid for that data to be collected so why is it secret? Same obviously goes for the satellite data. Maybe I’m wrong and the raw data is available just not used as the adjustments are perfectly understood and everyone with knowledge agrees that they are proper adjustments.
I total buy that the raw readings are accurate and are “true” data, but adjusted data is very dangerous. Any analysis based on adjusted data, in my mind, comes with a huge asterisk that the adjustment introduced unknowable possible error, not only random error, but systemic error in the outcome of the analysis. That’s even assuming we knew the exact details of the adjustments. If the adjustments are “secret” then all analysis based on that data is potentially wrong. The whole thing is based on a house of cards if it can’t be traced back to raw data.
Am I completely off base here and the raw temperature data is available? I’d feel better if it was. I totally get that it would introduce another whole layer of squabbles but science is all about squabbling over assumptions and tracing analysis all the way back to physical observations. Without raw data, we are potentially in crazy town.
The ‘adjustment’ of the data should be referred to as faking the data to produce the model results the government grant writer wants to promote more government grants.
We need more CO2z
I love CO2 and so do my trees, bushes, flowers, vegetable plants, and flowers. Every living animal is thankful for CO2. So what dies that make the CO2 haters? I propose they be considered grifters if the worst kind.
See Jacob Nordangaard’s book on the origin of CO2 as a political tool. Framing: CO2 is invisible and humans are the problem. Now let’s game science to show it! This is a story about incentives, not science.
These models overplay CO2’s role,” says former Delaware state climatologist Dr. David Legates. “They don’t fit reality,”
Take every modeler out from the label scientist. There goes the fraud "97 percent of scientists agree!" They don't perform experiments collect data. They are puppets to an end master that rewards them with grift while stalking secure energy, the economy, the middle class and our private property rights.
Tell the world #realtydenialism is done. Do it loud where you are able because the iron curtain descends on several formally western nations.
Was Joni Mitchell a climatologist? Sounds like she would have been a good one, which is to say politically incorrect.
Nice write up. Here’s a recent related post on CO2 if haven't seen - https://energysecurityfreedom.substack.com/p/a-climate-scientist-confession-co2?
Why and when did we forget that a theory must be defensible to be accepted?
Einstein’s relativity proved that empirical logic (physical proof) is our best view of physical reality just like the natural philosophers said. That is supposed to underlie the peer review system and the reason that Einstein said that if you are unable to explain something to a bright 12 year old, you don’t understand it yourself.
You should see what it looks like from inside the building / construction and infrastructure industries. Entirely new business models have been established around "carbon capture / sequestration", "embodied carbon", and "carbon footprints." Global engineering firms have hired specialized teams and purchased specialized software just to calculate the volume of CO₂ being generated to construct a project and how much it will produce once it's in operation. It's infuriating witnessing how much time, effort, and money is wasted on something that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
Well said!
Great post on the need for following the scientific method of observation and testing of theories, rather than politicians, global forums, media, or so-called scientific experts who have been influenced by funding from biased sources.
I would add - whether there is 'global warming' or not, the real error is being foolish enough to think that mankind or 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere could be the cause, or that warming is even bad - considering the greening of the earth, which you mentioned.
I have never understood why the raw temperature data from NOAA (I think it’s NOAA, but could be wrong) is not public. It is my understanding that what is published as the temperature record has been adjusted. I totally get why you cannot just put a thermometer in place and read it everyday for decades and reach conclusions based solely on those numbers - it might have been in a field a century ago and now a forest has grown around it, or a city etc. But I do not understand why the raw readings themselves along with the adjustments that NOAA believes should be made are not public. Surely the citizens of the United States paid for that data to be collected so why is it secret? Same obviously goes for the satellite data. Maybe I’m wrong and the raw data is available just not used as the adjustments are perfectly understood and everyone with knowledge agrees that they are proper adjustments.
I total buy that the raw readings are accurate and are “true” data, but adjusted data is very dangerous. Any analysis based on adjusted data, in my mind, comes with a huge asterisk that the adjustment introduced unknowable possible error, not only random error, but systemic error in the outcome of the analysis. That’s even assuming we knew the exact details of the adjustments. If the adjustments are “secret” then all analysis based on that data is potentially wrong. The whole thing is based on a house of cards if it can’t be traced back to raw data.
Am I completely off base here and the raw temperature data is available? I’d feel better if it was. I totally get that it would introduce another whole layer of squabbles but science is all about squabbling over assumptions and tracing analysis all the way back to physical observations. Without raw data, we are potentially in crazy town.
The raw data is there. This guy uses it all the time to expose their shenanigans.
https://realclimatescience.com/alterations-to-the-us-temperature-record
Thank You
The ‘adjustment’ of the data should be referred to as faking the data to produce the model results the government grant writer wants to promote more government grants.
We need more CO2z
I love CO2 and so do my trees, bushes, flowers, vegetable plants, and flowers. Every living animal is thankful for CO2. So what dies that make the CO2 haters? I propose they be considered grifters if the worst kind.
See Jacob Nordangaard’s book on the origin of CO2 as a political tool. Framing: CO2 is invisible and humans are the problem. Now let’s game science to show it! This is a story about incentives, not science.
These models overplay CO2’s role,” says former Delaware state climatologist Dr. David Legates. “They don’t fit reality,”
Take every modeler out from the label scientist. There goes the fraud "97 percent of scientists agree!" They don't perform experiments collect data. They are puppets to an end master that rewards them with grift while stalking secure energy, the economy, the middle class and our private property rights.
Tell the world #realtydenialism is done. Do it loud where you are able because the iron curtain descends on several formally western nations.
Indeed, spot on!
And all this nonsense & scaremongering tactics to supposedly solve a non-problem!
CO2 is NOT a pollutant, nor primary driver of the claimed climate change, aka global warming narative.
Instead, it’s a minuscule, invisible, odourless, tasteless atmospheric trace gas necessary for life on planet Earth.
Sheer madness of the nth degree!