Skip to content

The science deniers’ greatest hits

October 6, 2016

By Paul Homewood 

 

image

http://climatechangedispatch.com/the-science-deniers-greatest-hits/ 

 

From Climate Change Dispatch:

 

 

galileo

 

“And yet, it moves.”

Thus muttered Galileo Galilei under his breath, after being forced by the Inquisition to recant his claim that the Earth moved around the Sun, rather than the other way round. The public vindication of Copernican heliocentrism would have to wait another day.

Today, Galileo’s story is a well-known illustration of the dangers of both unchecked power and declaring scientific matters “settled.” Yet, throughout history, Galileo wasn’t alone.

Scientists once knew that light moved through space via the luminiferous aether – how else could its waves travel? In 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that it wasn’t so, thanks to a “failed” experiment that was actually designed to conclusively demonstrate the existence of this invisible medium. Poor Michelson suffered a nervous breakdown when faced with such unexpected results.

In 1931 a book published in Germany, One Hundred Authors against Einstein, defended the “settled science” of Newtonian physics and proclaimed that Einstein’s theory of relativity was a fraud. Einstein was reported to have replied, “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

On these pages, I recently recounted the story of the early twentieth-century belief in Eugenics, a “science” widely adopted by governments around the world as a basis for social policy – with horrifying results.

Australian physicians Barry Marshall and Robin Warrens were ridiculed when they hypothesized that ulcers were caused by microbes, which “every scientist knew” couldn’t survive in stomach acid. Doctors were sure that peptic ulcers were caused by stress and spicy foods. In frustration, Marshall drank a Petri dish full of cultured H. pylori, proving the “settled science” wrong.

Hopefully, the Nobel Prize he and Warrens received compensated for the illness that resulted.

And remember the government’s dietary guidelines, including the warnings against salt and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Pyramid urging Americans to eat more carbs and fewer fats? That didn’t work out so well, did it?

We all grew up knowing that life began in the “primordial soup” of the seas, sparked by lightning. A recent paper in Nature casts doubt on that theory, producing evidence that life may have begun in hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor. The jury is still out on this one.

And that’s the point.

It’s worth keeping the above examples in mind when someone proclaims that surely we are much smarter today than we were in the past. That we can finally put our faith in scientific certainty, especially when journalists and politicians and subsidized scientists tell us that 97 percent of scientists agree on something. That once consensus is reached among experts, it’s important to stop listening to criticism.

If you have any doubts, just Google up the phrase “Science Says,” and view the parade of claims that carry that new and improved Good Housekeeping Seal of Infallibility.

Yes, reactionaries on the payroll of nefarious forces insist on reminding us that science is a process, not a destination. What difference does it make if a hypothesis has been artfully constructed to render itself immune to falsification by experiment?

Who cares if computer simulations enshrined at the heart of public policy have never made a correct forecast? How dare anyone imply that billions of dollars in government grant funding create perverse incentives for researchers to support the party line?

The important thing is that “settled science” can be used to spur the public to act.

And exactly what has the “settled science” of cataclysmic anthropogenic global warming convinced us to do? One thing above all: Deliver unprecedented power to politicians, activists, and bureaucrats.

Power to commandeer entire industries. Power to pump billions of taxpayer dollars into half-baked schemes cooked up by crony corporatists. Power to redistribute income on a global scale.

And to maintain this power, when cracks begin to show in the narrative, power to criminalize dissent, much as the Inquisition did to Galileo.

Real science is characterized by healthy skepticism, relentless questioning, and a constant testing and re-testing of theories, systems, and models. Casting dogma in stone – and then stoning non-believers – is a hallmark of intolerant religion, not science.

And when we finally wake up from our global warming-inspired public hysteria, our progeny will pat themselves on the back for being so much more advanced than we were. Before, alas, the cycle repeats again.


Bill Frezza is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the host of the Real Clear Radio Hour.

40 Comments leave one →
  1. October 6, 2016 9:53 am

    Should be taught in primary school. That is how damn important it is. Rather than the current teachings about the carbon induced climate change, whatever that is dreamed up to be each day.

  2. AlecM permalink
    October 6, 2016 10:20 am

    Climate modelling fraud dates from 1976 when R D Cess made a basic error, to claim Earth’s radiant emissivity is the ratio of its outgoing LW flux, mean emission temperature -18 deg C, to its surface radiant exitance, mean emission temperature +15 deg C. A compounding factor was to fail to understand that the Pyrgeometer instrument, an IR radiometer, does not measure real energy flux; instead it measures potential energy flux from an emitter to a perfect radiation sink at Absolute Zero.

    Cess’ failed to realise that emissivity calculations require identical geometry and temperature. The result was to create the 33 K GHE myth and claim 40% extra SW warming, a breach of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which no science or engineering professional should overlook, yet even some so-called Great Scientists have done just that.

    The subsequent history of climate modelling can be summarised as (1) invent ways to offset the 40% increase in SW thermalisation by increasingly subtle bad physics hidden by complexity, then (2) devise a way to justify extra humidity as [CO2] increases, thereby to create the ‘positive feedback’ needed to justify the false 33 K GHE claim.

    Originally, to justify (1) GISS modellers in 1976 claimed ‘negative convection’ which cannot exist. They now use incorrect cloud physics; twice real mean water content of low-level clouds giving about a third higher albedo. In turn this creates imaginary extra evaporation, hence ‘positive feedback’ thus purportedly proving (2). The reality is that the water cycle automatically compensates for change of [CO2], th minor GHG, over a very wide range.

    In 2000, Hansen admitted to an AIP interviewer that the 1976 ‘negative convection’ claim was ‘a fudge’, but 3-D models were fine. No they are not; it’s the same science fraud. There is also a much more basic mistake by Goody in his book on Atmospheric Radiation, a rather bad failure to understand Planck’s 1913 thermodynamic analysis only applies to a vacuum.

    • October 6, 2016 7:47 pm

      Nicely done! Perhaps some day the Climate Clowns may gain some actual knowledge of the electric, the magnetic, the electromagnetic, the gravitational, and the inertal momentum of earth, ocean, and atmosphere. They all interact in a very complex and unknown manner! The meteorological practice of ‘simple straightforward and wrong, is held in high regard among the Clowns!!

      • Tim Moody permalink
        October 10, 2016 9:01 am

        Nah. Alec’s been pointing this out for years. He’s correct, IMHO. But I’m just a Dr………..

  3. October 6, 2016 10:50 am

    An excellent article. This should be taught in more than just primary schools.

  4. NeilC permalink
    October 6, 2016 11:10 am

    “We all grew up knowing that life began in the “primordial soup” of the seas, sparked by lightning. A recent paper in Nature casts doubt on that theory, producing evidence that life may have begun in hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor. The jury is still out on this one.”

    The jury should be out too. An alternative view.

    Seven Dogmas:
    1. The central dogma of molecular biology (a protien can’t synthesise RNA or DNA or other nucleic acids) Not true.
    2. Some amino acids are considered “essential” can’t be made by the body. Not True.
    3. Current understanding of the synthesis of some hormones is wrong.
    4. Humans do not use a photosynthesis process. Not true.
    5. Current understanding of Circadian rhythms/body clock. They are not a 24 hour clock.
    6. Endosymbiosis theory is not true.
    7. Evolution theory (primordial soup). Is impossible.

    Life must have started as a dipeptide (two amino acids) otherwise it would be creationsism.

    The very first form of “life” needed a mechanism to cope with continously changing levels of gases, hot/cold. UV/IR radiation, wet/dry, high/low pressure, and levels of acidity and salinity. Without this mechanism no life can survive.

    It would also need a membrane, without development of a membrane, in any more volume of water than one molecule, it couldn’t have formed a membrane, and couldn’t have become a functional biological molecule. Life began on the surface of Earth.

    Some people just don’t think.

    • Broadlands permalink
      October 6, 2016 1:51 pm

      Life began and evolved at the surface to use visible light (photosynthesis) under an atmosphere devoid of oxygen and hence without ozone. But under a young ‘Dim” Sun but one emitting stronger DNA-RNA destroying UV radiation? Some people on the jury haven’t thought that “settled science” through?

  5. October 6, 2016 11:45 am

    Don’t forget that the earth was flat and you would sail off the edge. It might be true–it seems as though a large segment of the scientific and entertainment community of today has sailed off the edge.

  6. October 6, 2016 11:55 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Read this to your “children’s, children, children” and one more “children” just so you believe me.

  7. October 6, 2016 2:25 pm

    In real science you don’t arrive at a conclusion first, then look for evidence afterwards. All that happens if you do that is that any ‘non-compliant’ evidence is more than likely to be discarded or even buried.

    • Tom O permalink
      October 6, 2016 6:36 pm

      This actually is exactly how science Is perceived. Create a hypothesis based on the obscurities of mathematical formulae, and search for the evidence to prove it, often discarding the disproving data because “a parameter was mistaken in the experiment, not that the hypothesis was wrong.”

    • M E Emberson permalink
      October 6, 2016 9:45 pm

      Evidence that religion is anti science, too?

  8. NeilC permalink
    October 6, 2016 2:41 pm

    Can anyone point me in the direction of empirical evidence that CO2 in the real world increases temperatures?

    • Broadlands permalink
      October 6, 2016 3:10 pm

      NeilC… did you mean to say… our human addition of CO2 into the real world? After hundreds of years we have added more than 120 ppm, an increase of more than 40% and the temperature has risen a fractional 0.8°C? But only because older measurements were lowered by fractional amounts? Natural fluctuations involved? Have we lowered the importance of those in the past as well…or simply ignored them?

      • AlecM permalink
        October 6, 2016 6:19 pm

        The Planet operates according to Thermodynamic Principles, a PID control system that minimises surface temperature change due to [CO2] variation.

  9. Oliver K. Manuel permalink
    October 6, 2016 2:55 pm

    “And yet, it moves.”

    That simple declaration of the fact Copernicus had first observed and reported in 1543 started the scientific revolution.

    From a historical point of view, Einstein (1905) discovered, Aston (1922) measured and then Weizsacker (1935) and Bethe (1936) hid the source of energy that causes it to move in the cores of heavy atoms, stars and galaxies that powers the cosmos and sustains our lives – NEUTRON REPULSION.

    We will either correct the error in Weizsacker-Bethe’s definition of “nuclear binding energy” or we will continue to be enslaved by tyrants.

    We have no other option.

  10. October 6, 2016 4:35 pm

    I once read a description of Einstein’s theory of relativity as a political band aid to patch over the failure of Maxwellian Electromagnetic Wave theory. In other words, it was not accepted because it was good – only because it was less worse than having a theory that was patently wrong.

    Also, we still have ridiculous science. Take e.g. the supposed nature of light that can spread out for a billion years, supposedly existing in minute quantities over a wavefront spreading out of much of the Universe — and then in a single instance — it collapses into a space the size of an atom in an almost arbitrary point on the wave front.

    It’s just not science – it’s incapable of being tested, it’s an irrational behaviour – it looks ridiculous etc. But you will still get very bright student parroting it as being unquestionably true.

    • tom0mason permalink
      October 6, 2016 7:04 pm

      If we knew better we could answer the question of time and whether it always proceeds at an orderly and uniform rate, or whether it is speeding up or slowing down. Maybe our universe is not expanding, or maybe it is just a feature of our perception of time that makes it appear so.

      William Blake – Auguries of Innocence

      To see a world in a grain of sand,
      And a heaven in a wild flower,
      Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
      And eternity in an hour…

    • October 6, 2016 7:22 pm

      What is your failure of “Maxwellian Electromagnetic Wave theory”? What error is claimed in the writings of J.C. Maxwell?

      “It’s just not science – it’s incapable of being tested, it’s an irrational behaviour – it looks ridiculous etc. But you will still get very bright student parroting it as being unquestionably true.”

      In the Climate Clown Scam, Maxwell’s equations are not even used! The parroting is from modern texts that use the 1923 thermo-mechanical theory of radiative heat transfer from Dr. Bose, that was improperly interpreted as “all matter radiates thermal flux proportional to its temperature raised to the fourth p fluxower”! Dr. Bose specifically avoided the use of Maxwell’s equations.
      From Maxwell’s equations instead we get instead:
      “Any surface can spontaneously produce a spectral field strength vector, normalized in four space as “spectral radiance”, that is a function of temperature, as described by the M. Planck equation of ‘specific intensity’. Such is nor a flux or power transfer. At any point in space a spontaneous thermal EM vector flux may exist that is at maximum the vector sum of all such “radiance” at that frequency”.
      Such thermal EM vector flux is easily measurable in any direction for a singular or aggregate of frequencies. Such interpretation avoids any possible perpetual motion, ‘back radiation’, or violation of any law of thermodynamics!

      • October 7, 2016 1:14 am

        Just a practical personal observation. If Maxwell were wrong, we would not have electricity, microwave ovens, or internet wifi linked computers of whatever fashion from cell phone to desk top. As we have working electricity and cell phones, please just go away, SS nutter–Maxwell got it right, and a lot of practical engineers obviously piled usefully on.
        SS,You do scientific skeptics great damage, and shed only discredit on yourself. Learn some advanced calculus, and grok the beauty of four simple (yeah, some tensors) Maxwell calculus equations that explain it (EM) all.
        First rule of Army holes. When in one and want out, first stop digging. Something you have yet to learn.

      • October 9, 2016 11:43 am

        ristvan October 7, 2016 1:14 am

        “Just a practical personal observation. If Maxwell were wrong, we would not have electricity, microwave ovens, or internet wifi linked computers of whatever fashion from cell phone to desk top. As we have working electricity and cell phones, please just go away, SS nutter–Maxwell got it right, and a lot of practical engineers obviously piled usefully on.”

        Mike Haseler,, your SS, remarked that some claim Maxwell’s equations are in error. I was questioning who/how/when had these claims arisen, so that these claims can be properly dispatched as errors and misunderstanding.

        The equations of Dr. Maxwell (all 22) are indeed over-constrained as a set. This set not only contains all needed for electromagnetic field theory and electromagnetic wave propagation, but also include Lorentz (scalar) invariance.

        “SS,You do scientific skeptics great damage, and shed only discredit on yourself. Learn some advanced calculus, and grok the beauty of four simple (yeah, some tensors) Maxwell calculus equations that explain it (EM) all.”

        ristvan, (whoever you may be), shed only discredit on yourself, for such attack! The four vector equations of Dr. John Poynting do correctly show EM wave propagation, but do little to show the required EM field generation and maintenance, especially where the many field generators themselves are in relative motion within the wave transit interval. Thermally (noise) generated EM field strengths, and broadband wave propagation have not had proper understanding by anyone!!

  11. The Old Man permalink
    October 6, 2016 5:45 pm

    The real truth on Science is that it’s based on bags of protein searching for ego gratification. That’s perhaps why Politicians and Hollywood actors find it so attractive. But I digress.

    https://notonmywatch.com/?cat=1

  12. tom0mason permalink
    October 6, 2016 6:47 pm

    Humans and nature battling it out.
    Humans by understanding some basic mechanics of life through our faulty and incomplete science, through our faulty logic, somehow controls nature — the basic fallacy at the core of the green movement. The green blob’s underlying notion is that as sentient beings we are somehow outside of nature.

    But human are part of nature and all we do is natural. We are part of the natural order! To say what we do is anything else is just crackpot hubris, aligning our motives with that of gods or devils. Our real responsibility is to ensure that the human race is maintained in as good a condition as possible for as long as possible — to do anything else is to sow the seeds of our downfall.
    Yes, we have the power to change much in the world but that does not mean we are anything except very talented, resourceful, and adaptable animals. Homo Sapiens, animals who’s position in the natural order is currently very near the top.
    We should enjoy this dominance to the full while we can, as nature does not usually allow the top species to stay at the top for too long. Nature is still in command and all we do is a mere pin-prick in the eternal chaotic cycle of life.

    • October 7, 2016 1:38 am

      Bravo tomomason!

    • October 9, 2016 11:48 am

      “Nature is still in command and all we do is a mere pin-prick in the eternal chaotic cycle of life.”

      May I add that a pin prick is the hard way to get the beer out of the can!

  13. Tom O permalink
    October 6, 2016 7:10 pm

    One of the frustrations about AGW that bothers me the most is the ever present “Power to redistribute income on a global scale” as one of the reasons behind it. This usually is used to refer to “taking from the wealthy west and giving it to the 3rd world.” That is a farce. IF there is going to be global wealth distribution “because of AGW,” it will be from those that do not have wealth and transferring it to those that do. The process of taxation is the means to extract the limited wealth of the world’s poor and give it to the governments to pass on to “administrators” that will assure that the majority of it actually goes to the “less than .1%”

    As for models, you cannot write a computer model for something that you do not know or fully understand. It is no more successful then standing next to a person working in clay and describing to that person what you wife or girl friend looked like. The actual finished product would bear little resemblance to your wife or girlfriend beyond generalities of features, which is precisely why models can’t predict – there are too many “unknowns” that cannot be accounted for in any way. And we also have no real idea – beyond a guess – as to how important any single factor truly is.

    On the “political patch of relativity,” I can only say this – science found that many aspects of the physical world can be estimated quite closely with mathematical equations – Newtonian physics, as an example. When it was determined that God and Creation should not exist, mathematics became the tool to separate reality from religion. The problem is that although you can “simulate” reality with mathematics, quite accurately in some ways, the two are not interchangeable, and mathematics does not represent reality. In fact, “chasing reality with mathematics” has become, for many that claim to be scientists to BE the new religion. As we all know, climate science somehow went off the deep end, and in its actions, has verified the joke that although humans can make mistakes, you need a computer to really screw up.

  14. Broadlands permalink
    October 6, 2016 7:41 pm

    I keep trying to point out that it doesn’t make any difference whether the science is settled or whether we are all “doomed” to fry or drown. Right or wrong, there is NO way to mitigate this. The numbers are impossibly large to lower atmospheric CO2…by even one ppm. One ppm is 2000 million metric tons of CO2. Why we cannot see that is too large is beyond me as it will take hundreds to thousands of years, under the most optimistic conditions.

    Arguing about the physics or the consensus or the models, or even the data, is hopelessly endless. Shifting our collective focus to careful adaptation is the only realistic solution, and that’s not simple. The inertia is huge.

    • tom0mason permalink
      October 6, 2016 8:26 pm

      “Arguing about the physics or the consensus or the models, or even the data, is hopelessly endless. Shifting our collective focus to careful adaptation is the only realistic solution, and that’s not simple. The inertia is huge.”

      Precisely. We are already adapting, and continue to do so!
      All that is required is for us to stop believing we can play god (or a devil). The inertia only comes from within, from those who believe that our modern way of living is inherently wicked. It is not wicked, it is the human species adapting to the flimsy surroundings we have given ourselves. We will adapt either to the fraught outcomes foisted on us by the mass of green advocates, or we will rescind the green’s political power, thus returning to more logical, scientific, conservative and worthy ways of life.
      Either way the we live in interesting times.

  15. Robert Jones permalink
    October 6, 2016 8:14 pm

    Paul,

    This has nothing to do with your article but on BBC Radio 4’s programme ‘From Our Own Correspondent’ broadcast today from 1100 and hosted by Kate Adie, the correspondent from Costa Rica (one Tim Hartley) announced that Costa Rica ‘produces 99% of its electricity from renewable sources’! I have just listened again on IPlayer to make sure.

    Costa Rica has wind power and hydroelectric, but 99%?

    Regards,

    Rob Jones

    _____

    • October 7, 2016 10:16 am

      According to the US EIA, hydro accounts for about 70% and geothermal 14%.
      Wind/solar are insignificant at 5%.

      They get proportionally more from hydro during the wet season, but in 2012 as a whole, they still needed 8% from fossil fuels.

      Interestingly, geothermal has been running there since 1994 , so the idea this has anything to do with saving the planet is laughable. It is all about making use of natural resources

  16. Ewing Caldwell permalink
    October 7, 2016 8:04 am

    Ineteresting article.

    In 1912, Charles Dawson announced his ‘discovery’ of Piltdown Man. It wasn’t until 1953 it was conclusively proven a hoax. Science and measurement had moved a long way in that time.

    The AGW hoax has been around for about 25 years. It has a little while to last, about 15 or so years if it holds to a similar timetable. In 15 years time, we will know more about what the sun is doing and whether or not it wll affect climate adversely.

  17. johnmarshall permalink
    October 7, 2016 8:48 am

    Plate tectonics took years to be accepted by geologists despite the evidence and explained a lot that was not understood.

    • Tim Moody permalink
      October 10, 2016 9:06 am

      Also Helicobacter pylori. Now settled.

  18. Stonyground permalink
    October 7, 2016 9:12 am

    “The AGW hoax has been around for about 25 years. It has a little while to last, about 15 or so years if it holds to a similar timetable.”

    I think that it could die a death much sooner if the lack of sunspot activity leads to a cold spell. It will be fun listening to the alarmists trying to explain how rising CO2 levels are now making it colder.

  19. tom0mason permalink
    October 7, 2016 10:08 am

    Have a look at how stable weather and the climate has not been in past time, understand why the Malthusian green left-wing political advocates wish to foist this on humanity…
    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/climatehistory.pdf

    • October 9, 2016 12:21 pm

      Why by now are not all earthlings living underground in relatively stable granite structures? The vast nuclear energy sources are available to do just that! Expect many, many mistakes as earthlings are wont to do! Leave Earth’s surface for a more yummy bioculture than can reasonably be constructed underground.

  20. October 7, 2016 4:16 pm

    But at the very top among UN bureaucrats

  21. October 8, 2016 12:01 am

    Michaelson-Morley showed that IF there is an aether it locally moves approximately the same speed as the experiment, within their ability to measure. This would not be that outrageous of a result unless you are married to the idea of an aether that is totally fixed with energy and matter moving in relation to this fixed structure…

    • October 9, 2016 12:03 pm

      Interesting! “This would not be that outrageous of a result unless you are married to the idea of an aether that is totally fixed with energy and matter moving in relation to this fixed structure…” And what happens if the ‘if’ aether contains near zero probability of either/both mass, energy with propagation at non-relativistic velocity, (not an atmosphere)?

  22. Oliver K. Manuel permalink
    October 15, 2016 7:02 pm

    A new paper in press, “Cosmic rays and climate,” shows that solar eruptions, cosmic rays, lightening, thunder and rain storms are reminders a solar pulsar controls human destiny.

    The universe only seems mysterious because Weizsacker (1935) and Bethe and Bacher (1936) successfully obscured neutron repulsion, the source of energy that causes the cosmos to expand. You and I live and breathe as part of the dynamic cosmos because competition between

    _ a.) Powerful, short-range repulsion between the compacted (e-,p+) pairs (neutrons) causes the universe to expand now; and then

    _b.) Weak, long range attraction between the expanded (e-,p+) pairs (Hydrogen atoms) will then cause the universe to contract for the next cosmic breath.

    The cosmic cycle is recorded in the cyclic life of each of the electron-proton (e-,p+) pairs that comprise all matter in the universe.

    See: “Life as a Cosmic Phenomenon: The Socio-Economic Control of a Scientific Paradigm”

    http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2332-2519.1000113

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: