I don’t blog about this much and never did. Yet, my finger has always been on the pulse, periodically. I’ve alway checked in with these folks principally, going as far back as be be counted:
That last one gets me all the choir music I need, just to know what the choir sings.
Do you remember the Ancel Keys deal, and how if you include way more data, there’s no obvious correlation?
Oh, sorry. I got mixed up in which cluster digram to post. That one’s actually gun ownership and murder rates. “More or less guns, more or less crime.” I don’t necessarily buy that other hypothesis (‘more guns less crime’), either. It’s a solid hypothesis, though, worthy of further study.
Question is, are you of a rigorous, messy, scientific mind…where you are never really truly certain but little clues and the rare breakthroughs makes you soldier on? Or, do you like “Settled,” “The Debate is Over,” stuff, where what you’re dealing with is still the same Grant Whores as it’s always been, since recollected history?
…Back before Warren Meyer even started Climate Skeptic (2007), he blogged at Coyote Blog and still does. Not sure how far the search archives go, but I’ve dropped stuff about Warren here & there since early 00s. Warren is a Princeton undergrad, Harvard grad, and went on as some executive somewhere, now retired and doing entrepreneurial stuff. Pretty libertarian. Smart fucker. And I’m a sucker for smart fuckers.
Prior to Warren, I was more of the mind to deny global warming than to accept it, but for a reason. I didn’t see how human activity could be measurably contributing to it given the history of earth with well known warm and cold periods. Plus, I was in airplanes a lot, where you see how truly puny human population is.
Warren reconciled all that for me by making distinctions. Maybe warming is happening, but maybe it’s not anthropogenic. Maybe warming is happening, but it’s natural.
But here was the big kicker, something that has been solid for me for 10 years: CO2 cannot possibly do what the models predict. There is no “Hockey Stick,” never will be.
What the Hockey Stick predicts is a kinda tipping point where CO2 gives rise to more, which gives rise to more, etc. This is positive feedback. We know it from fires and nuclear explosions. In a fire, heat makes fuel more oxidizable, and when powerful enough, even creates its own wind to fuel the fire with the needed oxidant and a positive-feedback-loop chain-reaction sets in. This is why forrest fires are a bitch. Basically, you have to run them out of either heat, fuel, or oxidant. When you get a grip on either one, you begin to have control.
But forrest fires are a microcosm of Earth’s ecosystem, just like volcanic explosions, earthquakes, typhoons, hurricanes and twisters. All of these have positive-feedback components that make them so formidable. But, even though we can’t do anything about any of them, they eventually meet a BIG NEGATIVE feedback that shuts them down. It’s how earth nature is dominated, dummies.
Nature is dominated by negative feedback, where the very uppity always gets shut down. BTW, did you understand the negative feedback in an earthquake, so the whole earth doesn’t shake itself to death? Pressure relief. Ever seen a pressure relief valve? Negative feedback is also engineered in a lot of stuff you take for granted.
So you see, I’ve never had to rub even two bran cells together to wonder abut whether there’s global warming or not, and I dismissed the move to “climate change” as simply a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ move for a few billion Usual Suckers.
No way that in this earth ecosystem of CO2 producers and Co2 eaters, it’s ever going to get to chain-reaction, unbridled positive feedback. No way.
Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate
A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.
A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.
It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.
“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.
He’s blogging his stuff here, for now.
Take note that he may be crazy, though. He thinks that the principle cause of warming might be the sun. So, chalk him up as a potential moron who, in spite of a number of degrees in mathematics, may be unable to see the subtile nuances—because in spite of how big and powerful the sun is, it’s no match for the satanic greed of quasi-capitalism that drives human productivity.