It's time to call your bookie, because the line on global warming is in. A new paper from MIT breaks down the odds of different outcomes from global warming, based on whether governments take action now or later. And if you're taking that action, bet on "government getting involved" to beat the spread, as last week an important climate change bill made it out committee in the House of Representatives.
These eco-religionists from MIT are the biggest frauds in the history of science (along with Hansen, Schmidt, Schneider, Santer, Mann, et. al.). Their un-scientific models do not include solar-magnetic activity AT ALL. It is not even in their calculations, despite the well established fact that solar-magnetic activity has a .6-.8 correlation with global temperature on all time scales going back 500 million years. In other words, solar-activity "explains" statistically about 70 percent of historic temperature change, making it the dominant driver of climate, yet it is completely omitted from the analysis of these fraudulent alarmists. Every one of them is fully aware that solar activity bottomed out during the Little Ice Age and was at "grand maximum" levels from 1945-2000. They also know the consequences of omitting this explanatory variable from their model: that warming caused by solar-magnetic activity will be misattributed to CO2, which also reached unprecedented levels from 1945-2000. This is self-conscious fraud, committed by every stinking one of these damn eco-religionists. These are EVIL people, intentionally misleading the public about the science in order to shut down economic activity, which they see as gobbling up the planet. They are not actually concerned about climate at all. They saw a way that they could pretend that out energy powered economy was a threat to the planet and they jumped at it, because they do believe that economic growth threatens the planet in other ways. They are wrong about that too, but even if they were right, it would not justify their perversion of science. Their nominal excuse for leaving out solar-magnetic effects is that the theories of how this effect works are not proven yet. No, but the effect itself IS proven, and the definition of the scientific method is that data trumps theory. Omitting known solar-magnetic effects because we don’t understand the mechanism would be like a pre-Einsteinian scientist predicting that if he lets a rock go above the ground it will waft away on the breeze, because we understand the breeze pushing on the rock, but we don’t understand this “gravity” that according to observation pulls heavy things down. In short, pure fraud. These eco-religionists see themselves as acting for the highest purpose (saving the planet from capitalism), but that does not in any way mitigate their evil, but only enables it. Most of the great evils of history were perpetrated in the name of good. The key is the dishonesty, which allows people to fool themselves and others about both fact and value. Alec Rawls www.errortheory.blogspot.com/2009/04/nasas-acknowledgement-of-deep-solar.html
Dear EarthTalk: I keep meeting people who say that human-induced global warming is only theory, that just as many scientists doubt it as believe it. Can you settle the score? -- J. Proctor, London, UK So-called "global warming skeptics" are indeed getting more vocal than ever, and banding together to show their solidarity against the scientific consensus that has concluded that global warming is caused by emissions from human activities. Upwards of 800 skeptics (most of whom are not scientists) took part in the second annual International Conference on Climate Change -- sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank -- in March 2009.
Can't we even get the simplest facts right? The editors claim that: "...few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature..." Sorry, but surface temperatures are falling, and so are ocean temperatures. I do not know of a single skeptic who is clueless enough to think that "warming itself is occurring." We know that warming WAS occuring, from the little ice age until 1998, with a clear cooling trend since 2003. It really is bizarre to claim that skeptics all acknowledge that warming is occuring when a look at any one of the major temperature records would tell you that it is NOT occurring. Sheesh. Alec Rawls www.errortheory.blogspot.com
A new study by the University of Alberta suggests that a massive undersea volcano eruption 93 million years ago was the source of much of the world’s oil. Researchers Steven Turgeon and Robert Creaser were alerted to the prehistoric blast when they found specific levels of osmium isotopes (indicators of volcanic activity in sea water) in black shale rocks off the coast of South America and in the mountains of central Italy.
Sure, we want to try to burn fossil fuels in a clean way, which is quite doable. What we can't eliminate, and don't want to eliminate, is the CO2, which has nothing but benefits. We should also be engineering our refining processes to produce other more critical greenhouse gases. We should be patching the holes in our greenhouse blanket, doing what we can to protect against the next ice age. The global warming scare is pure hoax, and at this point, ALL the scientists know it (including those who are in on it). Alec Rawls http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2008/02/global-warming-alarmists-knew-cooling.html
A new study by the University of Alberta suggests that a massive undersea volcano eruption 93 million years ago was the source of much of the world’s oil. Researchers Steven Turgeon and Robert Creaser were alerted to the prehistoric blast when they found specific levels of osmium isotopes (indicators of volcanic activity in sea water) in black shale rocks off the coast of South America and in the mountains of central Italy.
Can't erupt out way out of WHAT problem? There is no problem, except for the anti-oil policies of the mainstream left. We have plenty of fossil fuels to last for hundreds of years, far more than necessary to get us through this stage where we need it. (We could be powering our entire electrical grid with nuclear generation in 20 years if we wanted to.) Oil burning is also good for the environment. The real danger is (and always has been) global cooling, not global warming. And while greenhouse gases like CO2 have almost no marginal effect in the warming direction (since they mostly duplicate the heat trapping effects of the much more abundant water vapor), they do have significant potential to raise the floor on serious cooling (which rapidly reduces the water vapor holding capacity of the atmosphere). Add that CO2 is plant food, and the external value of CO2 (value not captured in market prices, which only reflect production costs) are strongly positive. Current schemes that would tax CO2 emissions have it backwards. Rational economic taxes would be negative. If anything, we should be SUBDIZING CO2 emissions, in order to "internalize" the positive externality. We should also be taking restrictions off of fossil extraction and refinement. Our current high energy prices are purely an artifact of energy obstructionism by the environmentalists. The proper market price of gasoline (without any subsidy) is probably a dollar a gallon. The ideal economic price is even lower. Alec Rawls www.errortheory.blogspot.com Alec Rawls www.errortheory.blogspot.com
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.