Guest post by Joe Bastardi
———————————————————————————
My take on the Muller- Watts situation.
1) Mullers niche was to sound at times skeptical of all this,so he trashed Manns study,making people say see.That leaves him to grab the reigns and appear to be the above board arbitrator of the AGW debate
Manns mistake, is he should have focused on open debate to defend what his study had.. come out swinging with his science not at people. He shoul d confront the ideas that lead his detractors to question him. The courage of conviction would at least have him battling. Warriors fight in battle, there is no battle without an antagonist standing on the other side of the mat.
That is not to say Mann would have won, but its what I wanted to see him do, defend his work. Sensing the void, Muller trashed it, and took advantage by conducting his own study, but not with the baggage Mann acquired. By appearing to be on the other side, he was the cowboy in the white hat riding in to settle the whole mess.
My position is we have the test in front of us, the way to measure it. As the leveling became apparent when the tandem of warm amo and pdo could no longer add heat, I made a forecast when the PDO flipped that a jagged retreat would start ( triple crown of cooling) and via objective satellite temps, we return to levels seen in the late 70s by 2030. One thing, there is no rise to IPCC levels on the way in my scenario, and so far they are wrong, I am not
There should be a big drop off in the fall and early winter that may reach or exceed the low point in Jan 2012, though the mid and late winter should not be as cold globally as last year
And by the way, this makes DAleo look real good as it strengthens his 11 year running mean correlation chart(btm l,r) with ocean and solar!
In any case, these guys should come out and debate and I am loudly calling for that. No more puff pieces with fawning supporters, lets see what you really know about the weather and the large scale physical drivers responsible for it The premise for my ideas is simple:
Weather is the atmospheres attempt to balance NATURAL imbalances due to the position of land and oceans, and seasonal changes. The Earth is NEVER IN BALANCE, yet constantly seeks one. The result: Weather, and events over a given series of years, the climate of those years. To believe that a gas that occupies .00395% of the atmosphere , is 1/400th of the so called greenhouse gasses, the number one being water vapor, which is in turn largely
Responsive to the ocean, which has a heat capacity of 1000 times of the atmosphere is responsible for planetary climate, is charitably and at best, a stretch of amazing proportions. Throw in its different specific gravity, the faster rate of heating and cooling and its different radiative properties of co2 and you can see that any relationship with the earths temps is co-incidental, not causal. And that is why the 4 charts above, combined with many other factors, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE SUN, which I don’t even touch upon but will be involved, are enough to at least question and in reality, debunk all these scientific shenanigans
But here is what is interesting. Anthony Watts findings occur in the 30 year period of warm PDO. Now we can really test all this as the PDO is turning cold, the AMO will do so soon. SO the coming 20 to 30 yrs provide the simple test that will answer it. I want to know Muller, and Manns, global temp forecast or the coming 5,10,15,20 years. I have a jagged fall, returning to 1978 levels by 2030. Its been out there almost 5 years now. All I see from the other side is that tell me what is happening is what they said their models said, when its actually much more consistent with cyclical climate theory. Just what do you think would happen when cooling started after all the warming?
And so on we go. So a simple set of challenges answer the question. Not the least of which is assembling a few of them and a few of us in a forum where the world can watch, and really see who knows and understands the weather and what drives it. Heck I would just love to watch that since I can name dozens on my side that would love that chance. But people who don’t compete, want to look back and tell you what happened, rather than take a solid stand on verifiable parameters as to what will happen, will never do that. And for good reasons.. they cant. But we can.
So here we are… Like Johnny Ringo in Tombstone fighting something they know they can beat (Their Wyatt Earp, the strawmen they create), the time has come to actually show us what you know. In the words of Doc Holliday. “ I’m your Huckleberry” . About time you come out and face real people, not strawmen and debate this where our arguments and your arguments can be seen by people
Face to face. About time the puff pieces and congressional hearings in front of people pushing an agenda, that make you feel so important that you are saving the planet. are all over and you demonstrate if not in the spirit of Doc Holliday and the old west, then perhaps, in the spirit of the debates in the court of Catherine the Great. An excerpt on Leonard Euler, a hero of mine:
“Euler remained a Christian all of his life and often read to his family from the Bible. One story about his religion during his stay in Russia involved the atheistic philosopher Diderot. Diderot had been invited to the court by Catherine the Great, but then annoyed her by trying to convert everyone to atheism. Catherine asked Euler for help, and he informed Diderot, who was ignorant of mathematics, that he would present in court an algebraic proof of the existence of God, if Diderot wanted to hear it. Diderot was interested, and, according to De Morgan, Euler advanced toward Diderot, and said gravely, and in a tone of perfect conviction: “Sir, ( a + bn )/n = x , hence God exists; reply! ” Diderot had no reply, and the court broke into laughter. Diderot immediately returned to France.”
One side will be Euler the other Diderot. and the world will be able to see who is vanquished and who is not.
As a side note the reason Eulers law is so devastating to the atheistic argument is it depends on the imaginary number “I” which can not be quantified but allows the equation to actually work. It is to some extent, a mathematical equal to Aquinas in that the unmoved mover ( in this case “i) cant not be seen, but has to be there for the equation to work. The atheist has no counter to this mathematical formula, and therefore has to admit the possibility, if not the existence of God, since it is demonstrated that something that can not be quantified does lead to a physical reality! Its Sunday, so I thought some of you might like this little side story