Children Will Grow Up With No Respect For Science

Having been fed misinformation by Nobel Prize winners all through their childhood, will they view scientists as being clowns – or criminals?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Children Will Grow Up With No Respect For Science

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    I think that depends on what the global temperature does in the next 10-15 years.
    Just read a very interesting paper on recalibrations of sea level change due to the intrinsic limitations of tide buoys, argo topex and GRACE. Of course it has to be garbage because it is from NASA.

    Click to access V6N2.pdf

    • suyts says:

      Sorry Tony, I could only tolerate the first few paragraphs. I don’t know what the thrust of the blathering was, but use of the word denier and tying skepticism with Rush Limbaugh, is too egregious for me to overlook. Tony, what you put in your mind is what you’ll think about. Garbage like that doesn’t even rise to the level of porn.

      But, if you care to know about sea-level, all you had to do was ask me. No one knows crap. There are too many data-sets using too many different measuring devices and too many different results. It’s all horse hockey. Any one that tells you the sea-level has risen by x with any certitude is either a foolish person or is lying to you.

      Of course, the latest adjustment is a hoot!!! Turns out people think terra-firma is a sponge like substance in that it will expand, or rise when some ice is lifted off. Funny stuff that one can’t make up. Better subtract 0.3 mm for earth growth!!! As if someone out there really believes we can measure sea level to tenths of a mm.

      As to Steve’s rebuttal, ROFL is more than what it was worth.

      • Dave N says:

        Agreed. NASA’s contortions have already been beaten to death elsewhere, ad nauseum. Before anyone asks for links: if you don’t know about it already, you’re not keeping up.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS

        he tied skepticism with Rush because RUSH used his paper to prove the planet is cooling.
        you guys really need to start publishing in the major journals. You are so much more knowledgeable than the people doing so now. You would just blow the whole thing out of the water in a month.

      • suyts says:

        Lindzen can’t get PNAS to play by their own rules, there’s no reason to believe, even if we had it all tied up to actual proof, that they’d publish it. In fact, it can be assumed that they wouldn’t.

        But back to the nimrods and their article……..I won’t read it when it begins with pejoratives. When it does, it shows an obvious bias and will not reflect reality. For an intellectual pursuit, they could at least pretend to be open minded.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS

        that is YOUR bias, if you can’t read something that was PROMPTED by RUSH using this guys work, and then NEVER acknowledging that his reference was disproven, then you are only driven by ideology.

        after all I keep coming back here even though you are one of the only people that actually responds rationally to my points, because I can assess the garbage and take out the useful information.

        What is it about that article that has no validity?

      • suyts says:

        Tony, I don’t consider Rush as pertinent to the climate discussion., and neither does anyone else except those lunatics that wrote the article. If that’s a bias, so be it. I have no idea what references about Rush you guys are talking about. I don’t care if Rush’s reference to their bigoted work was disproved or not. Like I said Tony, I’m not reading an article that starts by blathering about deniers and Rush. That isn’t science, that’s bigotry. Tony, I happen to be conservative, but we need to get passed pretending that skepticism is some sort of American political invention. It isn’t and while conservatives in this country are decidedly skeptical, they are not the driving force behind the global skepticism and they never were.

        Tony, the word “denier” was used liberally. That’s their bias, not mine. That’s their pejorative, not mine. You know, I don’t look at child porn either, but that’s just my bias’ showing again.

        But, let me reiterate, anyone pretending that Rush is pertinent to the climate discussion is either a buffoon or an ideologue themselves. So, Rush had a dustup with a sciency type what does that have to do with anything?

      • suyts says:

        Tony, I’m a bit tired and a bit testy today. And, while what they had to offer may have been interesting……. as I stated earlier, I just didn’t want to suffer through the anticipated bs to get to anything…….one can only take so much.

        Maybe if you link to it again someday, I’ll be in a more amicable mood.

    • NikFromNYC says:

      From that article: “The most sensitive yardstick of human influence on the climate is the rise in globally-averaged sea level.”

      It shows that oceans are not drastically cooling, but just slightly cooling, instead of heating.

      Then it references Church and White whose latest 2011 update of their classic paper which now omits the word “accelerating” from the title which shows a plot of tide gauges being simply averaged, minus any corrections to *actual* sea level. I extract it here to show that it shows no trend change whatsoever.

      http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=kl21t8VP%2FYgBYXOmP0Cav4h4l5k2TGxc

      Satellite data also shows no trend change at all, despite a systematic mismatch with tide data in its slope:

    • Jimbo says:

      “Just read a very interesting paper on recalibrations of sea level change due to the intrinsic limitations of tide buoys, argo topex and GRACE.”

      I just saw the newsletter (‘paper’) and from just the brief look the graph they showed seemed to stop at 2006. I wonder why?

      The graph still looks flat after recalibration.

      If the data had shown an acceleration of sea level rise would they have bothered to recalibrate?

      Here is a paper (2011) worth reading too – before ‘necessary adjustments‘ were made. 😉
      http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

    • Justa Joe says:

      Let me guess. The tide buoys underestimate sea level rise… too rich

      • You can’t trust a physical reading based on a physical object in a physical medium. Everybody knows that’s just silly. You have to have an untestable object hundreds of miles away being “homogenized” to know the truth.

        I mean, the NWS can’t get the temperature where I live closer than 15°F some days, but if you just add enough sites that are off by say ±3° to ±15° you can determine the temperature to within 0.01°. Science.

  2. Andy WeissDC says:

    Children are growing up with lttle respect for science, because scientists are increasingly prostituting themselves for material gain and winning Nobel Prizes for being complete buffoons.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Really,

      you have research that shows this?
      this is the first poll I googled
      http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Public-Opinion-on-Religion-and-Science-in-the-United-States.aspx.
      Here is another. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s3.htm

      Certainly certain religious orthodoxy has impacted some children’s views of science. When i was in High school in NJ I was shocked that out of 20 honors biology students only 2 believed in evolution. Millions of Americans believe scientists are atheists who are trying to undermine god’s word about creation. I doubt that the controversy about climate change has yet had a huge impact on childrens views of scientists in spite of some fo the ridiculous claims by people like Steve and Anthony and other right wing outlets describing them as perpetuating a conscious hoax

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Millions of Americans also think the moon landings were hoaxes. Millions of Americans also think that 9-11 was an inside job. Millions of Americans also think that Bush Invaded Iraq for Oil (even though we got none). Millions of Americans can believe anything they want. But would you base a grand theory on less than 1% of the population? Millions of Americans can be less than 1% since the population is over 300m, and it only takes 2m to be “millions”.

  3. omnologos says:

    let me guess Tony…they need to recalibrate UPWARDS!
    What do I win?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Omno

      you don’t win anything SUYTS has already explained that you don;t even READ stuff from those kooks at NASA. My mistake.

      • suyts says:

        Tony, first of all, I don’t speak for everyone here….. and you know that. Secondly, I didn’t say a damned thing about NASA. I was specifically referring to the a-holes that wrote the article…..clown.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Suyts – Tony has gotten punchy lately and has taken to making sweeping grand generalizations. Which is his perogative given the open nature of Steve’s blog. But it does show that ones who partake in such frivolity are almost always wrong. And so it is the case this time as well.

  4. Yahoo Garfunkel says:

    Want to end the AGW hysteria? Make research grant money available on a reliable basis to those who have already produced X number of papers which have been referenced by at least Y other papers. X and Y not large. Then remove any strings from the research that it has to be “useful” or validated for some reason thought up by funding bureaucrats. Let them go blue sky. Quite quickly the cats will leave the herd – leaving the political hacks which I like to believe are a small minority.

  5. dp says:

    will they view scientists as being clowns – or criminals?

    I really don’t understand why this has to be an either/or position. They have established beyond necessity that they are both.

  6. Jim Cole says:

    Actually, I think this is a fairly profound question, and it saddens me a bit that we have to ponder it now.

    As a kid in the 50s, I loved science and math because they were founded on “first principles”, logic, deduction, experiment, theorem, verification/falsification . . . all that jazz. How cool to be able to explore how things work and write equations to describe things not yet seen? Limitless atomic power – whoa! Just think of the possibilities.

    My career turned out to be in geology where physics, chemistry, math, and biology all come together in a great historical-detective game to describe and explain as many aspects of earth history as possible. After 40 years at it, I can say categorically that there are only two intrinsic earth phenomena that count – Gravity and the steady loss of radioactive heat to the surface and to space. The major external phenomena that count are solar energy and galactic cosmic radiation. Everything else is decimal dust. Period.

    When climate “scientists” started getting religion (that is, MAN as the cause of all things bad) and bought into the all-powerful CO2-greenhouse paradigm, they turned their backs on centuries of geologic evidence of natural (i.e., pre-MAN) variability in climate, biology, ecosystems, etc. Old shorelines still stand today above modern sea levels as testimony to warmer conditions in the geologically recent past – long before the industrial revolution. Ice core records clearly show that polar temperatures change hundreds/thousands of years before CO2 changes – so CO2 cannot (I repeat, can not) be a major cause of temperature variation.

    In the long run, I hope future generations look on these climate charlatans as crooks, not clowns. One could forgive clowns for acting foolish, but modern climate science is a near-criminal enterprise based on lies, connivance, political influence, peer-pressured corruption of scientific principles, and low-grade greed and vanity.

    A pox on the alarmists. They have corrupted science by promoting a model of climate that is unfalsifiable. It is pure dogma – – and pure trash.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Jim,

      once again you should publish this in peer reviewed journals, since these scientists are either so stupid or corrupt, it will be easy to point out the REAL science, and so discredit all of them.
      too bad that the climate scientists that oppose ACC are so incompetent. those Lindzen’s, Christie’s ,Spencers, Pilke’s, Michaels, etc.

      of course even someone like me, who isn’t even an amateur wants to avoid stupid assertions about scientists, like “they turned their backs on centuries of geologic evidence of natural” , when every paper I have ever read makes a point of facing this evidence and explaining why it is supporting ACC. And then saying CO2 COULDN’T have any major effect because it follows temp change is of course unprovable and simplistic. It is statement that totally ignores the explanations of the various solar cycles that are thought to be the main drivers of the ice ages and how CO2 is a forcing that follows those initiators. Now this argument may be wrong, but it is certainly not impossible.
      Funny how people so caught in thinking through ideology are so insistent on transferring it to others.

      • suyts says:

        “it will be easy to point out the REAL science, and so discredit all of them.”
        ============================================================
        We didn’t have to, they did it to themselves already. Too bad much of the world was so caught up in their own ideology as to refuse to see what has occurred.

        Steve has quite clearly documented several impossibly dichotomous assertions made by the ideological activists. Warmcold, droughtflood, winters are more and less snowy…..(Have you checked out my blog? It shows where the Northern Hemisphere hasn’t lost any snow extent in 20 years and more!) http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/the-rapidly-melting-snow-extent

        Then there’s the “only peer reviewed material will be published meme for the IPCC” The damning e-mails.

        Tony, it takes time, but this is exactly what we’re engaged in. It started with a statistician from Canada. And, we’ve made significant progress since. Have I personally published? Nope. But is everyone actively engaged in the climate question deserving of the credit for standing climate science on its ear? Yes. The 80 million page views for WUWT…..Steve’s contributions, and all of us…….

        Tony, I don’t know all of the answers, but I know what aren’t the answers. Tony, they’ve been caught in so many fabrications, malfeasance, manipulations, and generally just piss poor science, I’m at a loss as to why anyone would lend them any credence at all.

        One of the best things that has come out of this debacle, is that the notion that science is confined to some specialized journal has become null. It isn’t anymore. We fixed it. We don’t have to worry if Steig is going to referee a paper on the antarctic. We can put it out here. We don’t have to wonder where the data is to some zany assertion that tree rings can give us temps. If it isn’t shown……out in the open, it can summarily be rejected by the public and policy makers. THE RESURGENCE OF AMATEUR BASEMENT SCIENCE RULZ!!!!! This is the way it should be. The notion that there should be some group of ideological elitists telling us that man’s advancements is bad for mankind was silly to begin with. Why people still cling to it, I’ll never know.

      • Jim Cole says:

        Mr Duncan, I really don’t know what to make of you. Are you just a snarky troll with no evidence to present and a mouthful of opinions, or are you so thoroughly indoctrinated to AGW/ACC that you’ve lost the capacity to evaluate evidence?

        Here’s a simple thought experiment for you. If, as you say, CO2 is a critical “forcing” that mysteriously allows it to control temperature centuries in the past (how else to explain T rising before CO2 nudges upward?; Vostok ice core and many others), then how do you get T to decline centuries before CO2 begins to decline? The laws of thermodynamics only operate in one direction, that is, forward in time.

        Thought experiment #2 – Once CO2 rises (for whatever reason), why does the climate ever cool? You must admit that this has happened – musn’t you?

        In a rational world, I think these are pretty good lines of evidence that CO2 cannot be a major driver of climate change. First comes CAUSE (sun, sea temp, ocean circulation), then EFFECT (CO2 release from warm sea; re-solution in cold sea)

        The “geologic evidence of climate variability” I indicated is readily available in basic textbooks and the vaunted peer-reviewed literature. You might have to read descriptions from the 1860s-1940s to escape the modern political spin, but there is no doubt about the worldwide effects of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Those tree logs that preserved the growth rings of the MWP were discovered underneath the LIA ice sheets when they melted back 1880-1930. Yes, glaciers actually advanced in the LIA (covering paleo-forests) and melted back during the modern warm period – all before any significant change in atmospheric CO2

        So, Mr Duncan, howzabout you stop reading from the AGW/ACC model-makers retroactive “historical fiction” and start reading some observational geology. If you don’t like the MWP, try the Roman Warm, or the Minoan Warm, or the Holocene Climatic Optimum – – or the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Or tell us a story about climate in the Cretaceous Period.

        No coal-fired power plants, no SUVs, no man-made nasties in the atmosphere – just natural progressions from warm to cool to warm to cool, etc.

        Such stability in the face of considerable variation (more than during man’s pathetic little industrial history) speaks loudly about low sensitivity in the climate cycle. The pendulum has always swung back.

  7. TinyCO2 says:

    I don’t think future generations of kids will think about science at all if current trends are continued. The vast majority of believers or non believers in climate science are completely unaware of anything about it. They make their decisions based on mood, rather than rationalisation. Sciency stuff is just TOO complicated.

    Since I discovered what peer review was, my own admiration for science has taken a huge battering. I no longer know where tangible proof stops and creative fabrication starts. I’m fairly sure the scientists are in the same position, they just don’t want to admit it because good sciency stuff is just TOO complicated.

  8. Paul H says:

    O/T – Not only will we get no electric from our useless windmills for all the days when there is not enough wind, we will also have to turn them off when it is too windy to stop them overloading the grid. ( Naturally we will still have to pay the windmill operators for these days.)

    Wind turbines will have to be switched off on 38 days every year because it is too windy, the National Grid said yesterday.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8573885/Wind-turbines-switched-off-on-38-days-every-year.html

    • Mike Davis says:

      Paul:
      That is an underestimation. It should be based on reality and they should have shown the historical figures not some average. I thought it was well known that “Windmills” have a narrow range use “Correct Conditions” that allow them to produce power! I have stories about wind,ills using more power for their control than they produce.

    • chris y says:

      “In an odd way this is cheering news”.
      “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of wind generation at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

      Simple solution- Add another 38 bank holidays, raise taxes, build massive solar PV farms to provide backup for the wind farms…

  9. Mike Davis says:

    Climatology is a symptom of an underlying problem in the scientific field and the solution may well be to shut down research funding and advanced degrees work in scientific fields for a couple of generations until the cancer is eradicated. As in a lot of life situations sometimes it is easier to continue taking the poison than to take the cure until after it is to late to reverse the deterioration. Let the old body die and let a new one be born hoping the new one learns from the mistakes of the current group.

  10. Ralph says:

    If our government continues to spend 4+ BILLION dollars a year on “climate change” don’t expect to see science elevate itself above the current alchemy standards.

    http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/28/the-black-hole-of-global-warming-spending/

  11. Latitude says:

    If you ignore the CO2 hysteria…..
    Every time the planet has had to support more “life”, the planet has responded by increasing the things that support more life….
    ….temperature, fertilizer/CO2, etc

    The only problem with that is the planet wants to be colder, and those high temperatures and fertilizer are very unstable. Like any culture, when you push it it’s unstable.

    Even when CO2 levels were high, temperatures fell and CO2 followed that temperature drop.

  12. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    June 14, 2011 at 4:12 am
    I think that depends on what the global temperature does in the next 10-15 years.

    Why 10-15 years? Why not 5-10, or 25-30? Why not 0-30, or 0-90? Why cherry pick a time of 10-15 years?

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Phil,
      Why 10-15 years?
      it is too complicated a calculation for you to understand. I have been initiated with the special acolyte rituals, so I am privy to the deep secret ways of the climate potentates.
      but in a great show of charity I will tell you that the ACTUAL figures are 10 years 2 months 17 days, and +_ 3 hours until 14 years 11 months 23 days and +_ 3 hours.

      I must say I am greatly amused by the importance you latch onto the most benign statements.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Benign? You insinuated (not stated of course) that the ultimate truth would be revealed in a relative short amount of time. This is after 30 years of PR work by “thousands” of climatologists to make us believe it is so based upon sports equipment, So yes, I do attach some importance to such an earth shattering prediction. Pretty much about the same as I attached to Campings prognostications.

      • P.J. says:

        I thought you were supposed to be really busy for the next few weeks … what happened?

      • P.J. says:

        By “you” I mean Tony D.

  13. Latitude says:

    I think everyone has completely lost sight of a few facts…..
    Without an atmosphere the planet would be so cold there would be no liquid water.
    That tells you that higher temperatures are unstable. It’s much harder to warm this planet than cool it.
    There is more than one greenhouse gas, there has never been runaway global warming even when
    those other more important greenhouse gasses were elevated.
    and
    every time the planet warmed up, temperatures crashed, and then the greenhouse gasses followed that.

    The only thing we should be worried about is keeping this planet warm……………

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s