Saturday, October 26, 2013

Golly- G! G-Force, that is:
the Unique Insanity of U.S. Conservatives Regarding Anthropogenic Climate Change

Can it be
explained by
'brain rejection'?
I recently read about a study attempting to measure the scientific comprehension of Tea Partiers.

In this particular study, those who self-identified as Tea Party members tested well for science comprehension.  Some of the questions came from here, others from here.

The degree to which a percentage of the Tea Partiers tested better in this particular sampling was trivially small, not significant.  That did not stop the right wing media machine from trying to make something of it that is not justified.  Among Kahan's findings more generally:
 “Scientific literacy correlates negatively with religiosity.” And “science comprehension decreases as political outlooks move in the rightward direction — i.e., the more ‘liberal’ and ‘Democrat,’ the more science comprehending.”
How then can it be that these two apparent contradictory findings are both true?

A Pew Poll from 2008 supplies the answer; the more educated a conservative, the less they actually believe science and scientists:
Among Democrats, higher education is associated with the belief that global warming is mostly caused by human activity.
Yet for Republicans, unlike Democrats, higher education is associated with greater skepticism that human activity is causing global warming. Only 19% of Republican college graduates say that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming and it is caused by human activity, while 31% of Republicans with less education say the same.
Chris Mooney, a note science author went on to document this phenomena in greater detail in his books, the "Republican Brain: the Science of Why They Deny Science", and the "Republican War on Science".  The short version is those who have post-secondary degrees believe they are smarter than all the scientists in other areas of expertise.  The greater the education, the more the believe they know best, and the greater permission these conservatives give themselves to ignore and deny facts.  The further to the extreme, the greater this problem and contradiction.  This latter group, the more educated conservatives, are the ones who tested well on science comprehension.  There must have been no questions on facts they didn't happen to like along ideological lines.

I have encountered some of these conservatives, most especially among engineers for some reason.
I encountered some of these Tea Partiers in a discussion elsewhere on the internet, where some Tea Partiers were trying to distance themselves from the crazies and the spelling impaired in explanation of this Yale study validation.

Their claims they really aren't all crazy, and that some of them even believe in the Theory of evolution in spite of it being 'just a theory', not settled science, should give you an idea of the scope of the exchange.

I asked if they believed in Gravity as settled science.  The answer was yes, because it is the LAW of Gravity, not some unsettled theory.  They asserted that there was a clear consensus on the topic. I also asked them if they believed that Global Warming was similarly settled science, and was told many silly but not particularly surprising -- and quite wrong -- things about global warming generally, and anthropogenic global warming specifically.

There was surprise, and even at first angry denial when I pointed out that the study of gravity existed under the title Gravitational THEORY in modern science - the 'G' in the title of this post. Most of these Tea Partiers appeared to be old codgers who hadn't seen a science course in more decades than I have fingers on one hand. Even conservapedia, which is far from fact friendly, admits that gravitation is a theory:    

Gravitation is a scientific theory which attempts to define the tendency for every object with mass to attract every other object with mass.
I was by turns, amused and bemused, when one engineer, who proclaimed himself a graduate from a top engineering school tried to deny that there was a theory of gravity, insisting initially that must be 'junk science' until embarrassed into admission that it was still very much settled science.

This and other engineers then tried to assert that as such well-educated men they were qualified themselves to reject the claims of anthropogenic global warming.  They admitted they had not read the actual data, but relied only on the excerpted email publicized by right wing media.

They were shocked, chagrined, and unable to provide a comeback when I pointed out that internationally, all of the recognized Academies of Engineering supported that anthropogenic global warming was real:

  • InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[44][45] the InterAcademy Council issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.
    Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[46] Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[47]
  • International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) in 2007, issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:[48]
    As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.
CAETS, of course, includes the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, which does not appear to include any anthropogenic climate change deniers, including any of the ultra-conservative engineers with whom I have had personal exchanges about climate change denial:

The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) is a government-created non-profit institution in the United States, that was founded in 1964 under the same congressional act that led to the founding of the National Academy of Sciences. As a national academy, it consists of members who are elected by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. The election process for new members is conducted annually. The NAE is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the rest of the National Academies the role of advising the federal government. The NAE operates engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers.
Formally, "members" of the NAE must be U.S. Citizens.[1] The term "foreign associate" is applied to non-citizens who are elected to the NAE.[1] "The NAE has more than 2,000 peer-elected members and foreign associates, senior professionals in business, academia, and government who are among the world’s most accomplished engineers," according to the NAE site's About page.[2]
Election to the NAE is considered to be the among the highest recognitions in engineering-related fields, and it often comes as a recognition of a lifetime's worth of accomplishments.
It is safe to state that the endorsement of the reality of climate change by these and other prestigious engineering academies came as something of a shock.  Added to that shock was my pointing out that this was in addition to, not in place of, the expert opinion of scientists for whom the study of global warming was their specialty. 

At least none of the climate change deniers who were engineers tried to assert they were better engineers or better scientists than the members of the NAE.

The next argument I was presented was that "less than 50% of the World's Scientists support Global Warming".  That is patently, demonstrably factually inaccurate, as a perusal of the scientific organizations which do affirm global warming clearly show.  However, prior to being confronted with the lengthy list, and the very short list of scientist deniers, this appears to have been the sincerely inaccurate belief of these self-avowed Tea Partiers.  These Tea Partiers ALSO had no comeback for the facts, and indeed, seemed stunned to find how isolated their ideological minority really is.

Even the American Association of Petroleum Engineers, back in 2007, affirmed :
"no scientific body of national or international standing rejected the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"
The reality is that the well-educated and intelligent Tea Partiers might do well on a science quiz for science literacy, but they are ideologically willfully ignorant and succumb to hubris in believing themselves superior to the best minds of the world's many, many scientists.  They are so confident in their error, that they refuse to inform themselves of any facts that contradict their blind and ignorant beliefs.

Following that factual failure, the next argument presented was an attempt to smear East Anglia, the college where much of the scientific research has been done.  It was referred to as a dinky, know-nothing little backwater school without prestige or credentials.

Nothing could be further from reality; while it is true that East Anglia is smaller than some of the OTHER prestigious institutions, it is part of a cluster of academic institutions dedicated to research.  In prestige, it is ranked 17th in the UK; it has a world-wide prestigious reputation.  This is not some dinky, no-account backwater crap educational entity.  This is world class scientific research of the highest order.

The saddest part of that reality is that many of these Tea Partiers also justify their willful ignorance on the basis of partisan politics.  Sadly pretty much ONLY in the United States - as my co-blogger Laci has noted elsewhere - is it the case that conservatives are climate change deniers.  Other conservatives in other countries do not share their insanity on the subject, although a little of the willful ignorance from the U.S., deliberately and calculatingly funded by the fossil fuel big money, has contaminated our neighbors to the north in Canada.  But there, thank God, they are thoroughly ridiculed for it, in Canada, to the point that climate denial is uncomfortable, if not impossible, by conservatives and their politicians.  Here in the U.S. such willful ignorance and stupidity is instead rewarded.

As noted in a Guardian piece earlier this week, there is an actual media industry around the disinformation of U.S. conservatives:

Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus

Fox News claims bias is balance, exemplifies the five characteristics of scientific denialism
A study published earlier this year in the journal Public Understanding of Science found that consumption of politically conservative media outlets like Fox News decreases viewer trust in scientists, which in turn decreases belief that global warming is happening. This is in large part a result of disproportionate representation of the less than 3 percent of climate scientists who are 'skeptical' of human-caused global warming, as well as interviewing climate contrarian non-experts, for example from conservative fossil fuel-funded think tanks.
Last week, I reported that studies of media coverage leading up to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report revealed that Fox News and other politically conservative media outlets continued this practice of false balance. Fox News was particularly guilty, representing climate contrarians in 69 percent of their IPCC stories.

Fox News false balance
I think my favorite comment from the above-referenced Tea Partiers science knowledge discussion was the response to my noting that only 6% of scientists self-identify as conservative, Tea Party, or Republican.  The explanation for that was that good, honest, self-respecting conservatives of any variety wouldn't take a job where the funding came from government.  It was my great pleasure to point out that assumption was not true.

According to the OECD - the Organization for Economic Cooperation, an entity founded in 1961, (out of an earlier entity post-WW II to help administer the Marshall Plan), consisting of 34 countries which pretty much duplicate the membership of NATO:

According to OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government. Comparatively, in countries with less GDP, such as Portugal and Mexico the industry contribution is significantly lower. The US government spends more than other countries on military R&D, although the proportion has fallen from around 30% in the 1980s to under 20. Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S.
So long as conservatives deny science, deny reality, deny FACTS, so intensively, so extensively, there can be no effective negotiation.  Compromising with delusion is not really a valid option.  Facts MUST be the foundation on which any meeting of the minds proceeds.  Until conservatives acknowledge the scientific consensus of everything from the THEORY of gravitation to the THEORY of Evolution, to the overwhelming consensus on the human causation and dangers of global warming, we will have a terrible economic and political conflict in the United States.  It is, ultimately, the conflict between reality and idiot ideology, between sanity and the delusions of willful ignorance and denial.


  1. Google ‘conenssti energy’ to discover what has driven average global temperature since 1610. Follow a link in that paper to a paper that gives an equation that calculates average global temperatures with 90% accuracy since before 1900 using only one external forcing. Carbon dioxide change has no significant influence. The average global temperature trend is down.

    1. The global temperature is not down.

      I did a google search and a bing search and a couple of other conenssti energy searches, and found NOTHING.

      This is one more example of crazy right wing climate denial delusion. The very notion that only you and a handful of right wing climate deniers know the correct way to interpret the complex data of climate change -- by excessively simplifying it no less -- is and should be on the face of it, UNREASONABLE and IMPLAUSIBLE.

      I repeat what I've written here; the overwhelming majority of well trained minds comprising the assorted Academies of Science, and the great minds comprising the component specialties within those academies, have ALL examined and analyzed the data and the trends demonstrated by that data, and come up with a different conclusion.

      Why should anyone believe YOU over THEM? There IS no good reason to do that.

  2. dog gone:

    Well said.

    I had someone in the "bulk fuel" business, after telling me and some other people that all alternative power is unviable, announce the AGW is a "left-wing hoax". There's no conversation possible with people who willingly lie in attempt to shout down the other side.

    It's funny, though, that none of them ever find their way to my blog. They can come their and call me any name they like as long as they are actually making coherent arguments instead of merely pushing their talking points and regurgitating the shitstew that they're fed by the ReiKKKwing noise machine.

  3. What a load ..
    Dan, as someone with at least a passing familiarity with the science behind global climate change analysis, I've never heard of conenssti energy, is that like metacholians from Star Wars? Perhaps it's like the thing the folks who follow scientology believe in?

    Anyway, what you're suggesting is that hundreds of thousands of highly competitive scientists failed to account for this made up energy type. Considering it's a fiction, I guess that would make sense, but if it weren't a fiction, it'd be beyond professional suicide to fail to account for it. I've had friends tell me that the scientists tracking climate change failed to account for albedo (wrong), failed to account for water vapor density (wrong) failed to account for astral cloud density (wrong) failed to account for overall increases in solar energy delivery (wrong). Considering all of those are ACTUAL scientific variables in the climate change continuum, and they were of course ALL accounted for, I'm thinking your "conenssti" energy probably is something they'd laugh at, but if it held ANY validity, it'd have been dealt with too.

    You need to go read the reports, including the base models, but more importantly the updated reports, which predict to very close accuracy the level of warming over just the past 20 year. They show clearly that the pace of warming is accelerating, much less the trend in temperature increasing.

    Your comments are so far from factual and accurate that even your own climate change deniers would laugh at you. They, the ones who have a bit of sense, don't question the earth is warming, and rapidly, after all we have measurements from all over the earth for the past 150 years (and core samples which go much further back). No, even THEY agree the Earth is warming, they just say it's not proved (beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is anthroprogenic (man caused) -- which is the standard they requiring). Now of course the scientific method doesn't require you to disprove all possible other causes, but it must stand up to analysis and other experimentation. So far, anthroprogenic climate change has withstood ALL tests, all challenges, no observable data denies the findings, none. You can't test it easily because it would require testing the entire Earth, but you CAN show that, when controlling other variables, high carbon dioxide levels leads to higher temperatures.

    Perhaps it is YOU who needs to actually read. Just maybe. Or perhaps you are right and some secret ALL the rest of the scientists in the world overlooked was found by whatever "scientist(s)" told you about "conenssti" energy. Or not.

  4. By the way, YES, gravity or more correctly "Gravity Theory" is just that, a theory. It is nearly unprovable outside of observance that objects fall toward super massive bodies, that super massive bodies react to each other (and appear to attract each other), and that light seems to be "bent" along it's course by super massive stellar bodies.

    There are theories like gravity waves, like Einstein's special and general theories on relativity, but each and all are theories and have less tested evidence than global climate change quite simply because we can't isolate super-massive bodies or otherwise create our own gravity spheres (at least as far as I am aware).

    In short, there's less science behind Gravity Theory than behind climate change. The reason GCC Denier Cult members deny climate change is because they've been told to. They've been propagandized into opposing it as an "economic disaster" for our economy (and the world's), as promoting unnecessary changes - by studies paid for by fossil fuel companies who don't want to adapt, don't want us to stop burning coal, or fuel oil, or gasoline in such prodigious quantities. They hear about these studies on Fox News, on Newsmax, from Rush Limbaugh, and are told it's all bunk... and because they are told it will kill the economy, and they are afraid of losing their job, they believe this excuse to not change. Nothing more. If Rush Limbaugh told them tomorrow gravity was ambiguous and shouldn't be believed, they'd begin doubting, and after a time would no longer believe in it either.

    1. Ok, to be fair, it's a bit of an overreach to claim that there is less science behind Gravity Theory than climate change. Unless by that you mean a greater range of disciplines (maybe).

      I find it curious - as noted by our third colleague, Laci - that this is an issue where there is massive politicization and misinformation ONLY in the U.S. Elsewhere, it isn't. In the rest of the world, there is just NOT this kind of crazy, anti-science, lunatic fringe wacko theory obsession --or the insane conspiracy theories either for that matter -- that we have from the extreme right in the U.S.

      Seriously, from that crowd, there is absolutely NO evidence of superior intellect.

    2. I disagree, gravity is theorhetical in many respects because you cannot replicate/test in a controlled environment to prove "gravity waves" or "gravity wells". You cannot observe gravity waves or even gravetic "energy". You would be hard pressed to quantify gravity effects at a finite level (as a measurement of energy) between massive bodies.

      Gravity certainly has been studied to a GREAT degree, but it is not well understood, it cannot be tested (easily), certainly not in way that we can call discreet science. I'll agree there's a lot of scientific observation and theory, but not a whole lot of controlled re-tested outcome. The point is, there's much less of that, the ability to see "gravity", the thing the climate change deniers demand about climate change, than there is to see about CO2 impacts.

  5. conenssti is a made-up word from 'conservation of energy sunspot time-integral'. That and the word 'energy' were to get you to the paper without tripping spam traps. Concatenating it with .BlogSpot (note the dot (.)) should work better. The paper does what I said in my first post.

    1. Apparently this does not work,, if you believe that the global temperature trend is down.

      The other problem of course is that you seem bent on ignoring that it has taken multiple disciplines doing not just multiple projects, but multiple KINDS of projects, using many techniques, approaching the observations from many angles, to reach the current conclusion.

      You don't provide your credentials for making the startling and improbable conclusion that you are better qualified to evaluate the conenssti paper than all of the leading scientists at all of the various entities the world over.

    2. Dan,

      Sorry, but sunspots have been studied in detail as well by climate change scientists and again discounted. Sunspots are cyclical, have been over the past 150 years. Yes there have been periods of higher activity lately (and also a drop off), they are correlatable, but not tested or even supportable as causational. As DG implied, do you REALLY think a massive collection of climate scientists would fail to consider some fairly basic physics (such as solar energy and the things that cause it to vary)?

  6. Many (if not all) really missed the boat when they looked at TSI, didn’t see any effect and ruled sunspots out as a factor. If you looked at my stuff, you would know that sunspots have been regularly recorded since 1610.

    The time-integral of sunspot numbers correlates with the average global temperature trend since 1610. The temperature trend decline into the LIA and rise since about 1940 are obvious. If the trend is modulated by the net of ocean surface temperature oscillations the measured temperature anomaly since 1895 is calculated with 90% accuracy? Everything not explicitly considered must find room in that unexplained 10%.

    1. Dan, you are expecting us to believe that you are smarter than all the scientists in the Academies of Science in 34 different countries, along with multiple international groups, multiple disciplines of science, and some of the top research dedicated academic institutions of the entire world.

      So your statement 'many really missed the boat' just doesn't cover the fact that you don't have access to what they did look at, and you don't really know if anyone missed the boat, you just want to believe in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, that your pet hobbyhorse theory is right and all those people and all that data is wrong.

      The very fact that you claim the global temperature is down, when your own data show otherwise, as does the overwhelming evidence, denies any credibility to your claim.

      Just curious -- how much peer review has YOUR theory received, by whom, when/where?

  7. dog gone:


    "About Me
    Dan Pangburn Licensed mechanical engineer, MSME, ASME Life member, first GW related paper was made public in 2008."

    is from his blog. Not a physicist or climatologist. Something tells me that if he was an accountant or actuarial and disagreed with the thousands of actual scientists who study the subject he would STILL be smarter than them.

    It's just serendipitous that you write a piece about asshat morons who think an advanced degree in one area gives them a leg up on someone (or a REALLY BIG GROUP) who have done work in the scientific discipline in which they hold degrees--and an exemplar of that asshatedness shows up to rant.

    1. Your observation that Mr. Pangborn is an engineer coincides with a conversation between Pen and myself noting that in our own personal experience, the objections and insistence by engineers that climate change is either not real or is not anthropogenic, essentially because they are smarter than everyone else, including more prestigious engineers and experts in the various disciplines, including climatology.

      Having a GW paper 'made public' is not the same as having it published in a prestigious professional scientific journal or having it peer reviewed.

      Further, the notion that an engineering background qualifies him to discredit everyone else doesn't hold up well, given that

      "Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."

      The International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS), mentioned above, was founded by and includes as a member the U.S. National Academy of Engineers,

      About the U.S. National Academy of Engineers:
      The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) is a government-created non-profit institution in the United States, that was founded in 1964 under the same congressional act that led to the founding of the National Academy of Sciences. As a national academy, it consists of members who are elected by current members, based on their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. The election process for new members is conducted annually. The NAE is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the rest of the National Academies the role of advising the federal government. The NAE operates engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers.

      Nomination for membership can only be done by a current member of the NAE for outstanding engineers with identifiable contributions or accomplishments ...

      Taking a quick peruse of the list of members of the National Academy of Engineering (Mechanical), covering from 2012 to 1969, I did not see the name of Dan Pangborn included on that list.

      It would seem reasonable to me to believe that those on that list, and those active in the business of the NAE, and of CAETS, almost certainly have better engineering credentials, not to mention in many cases degrees in other sciences as well as mechanical engineering, that it is reasonable to believe they exceed his expertise.

      Therefore it is reasonable to assume that not only has this idea been considered in the course of reviewing the climate change data and conclusions, but that it is reasonable to believe that if an engineering degree is useful as a scientific discipline in that process that they are better at it, to put it simply, more accomplished at it, more learned in it, than Mr. Pangborn.

      That would therefore, seem to negate his engineering license and membership as adequate credentials, if having those credentials and more, AND having more direct contact with the data and the other scientists involved, resulted in support for the conclusions about global warming being anthropogenic.

      That includes the American Astronomical Society, a number of national engineering organizations from other developed countries, the American Statistical Association, NOAA:

      Throw in, among the many other entities who have formally come out in support, That includes the American Meteorological Society,

    2. Mr. Pangborn seems to believe that solar activity has not been adequately considered. NASA says otherwise.

      And last but not least, NASA, which notes here:

      Solar irradiance

      It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

      Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

      But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

      Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

      If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

      Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

  8. Dan,

    It seems you are confusing correlation with causation. For example, let's assume I dig into data so far that I can find that each year there was an increase in sun spot activity, there was a girl named Helga born to the Svardson family in Oslo, does that make the naming of the girl the cause of sun spots, or for that matter, does it mean the sun spots caused her to be named Helga?

    The point is, where is your scientific basis for this claim? Sunspots equate (as I understand) to a slightly lower overall thermic output but a slightly higher radioactive output, from the sun. The change is slight indeed. I don't have the inclination to go do the research on the difference, but let's assume it's far less than 1% (of which I'm quite confident). Your assertion is that a minute change in total output (which would DIRECTLY correlate to thermic and radioactive input/absorption) would dramatically change the atmospheric temperature on the Earth (and in case you are curious a 1% change IS a much more than 1% average change). Equally, that despite the fact that observable thermic energy uptake from the sun is increasing overall over the past 150 years (and are used to explain .6 degrees of average temperature rise), sun spots, representing a very slight base line change from the norm, would somehow ACTUALLY be controlling things and cause variation.

    How exactly? Through some sort of magic? The point is, where is your scientific theory, as DG asks, where has it been tested/challenged? You've found a data link, but don't have any physics (that I can see or that you've explained). You don't have something on which to base a theory other than the frequency of sun spots. Yes, they follow a 13 (or so) year of high and low patterns, but temperature has been increasing steadily, and quickly, for 150 years - not every year, but virtually every decade. In short, your explanation lacks standing because you haven't actually given one. You've said you note a correlation in data, which is about as useful as noting that Helga Svardson was born in Oslo. You've established no link, and because you haven't, you don't have something which other scientists could examine and challenge.

  9. It is a calculation, not a theory.

    My equation calculates the average global temperature trend since 1610 (showing, for example, the decline of the LIA) and calculates temperature anomalies that correlate with average global temperature measurements since 1895.

    The ‘consensus’ correlates with temperatures from about 1973 to about 2005. The temperature trend since 1877 has been down, up, down, up while the CO2 level has been only rising (progressively). Lack of correlation proves lack of causation. There has been a steady separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising temperature since 2001.

    But there are more people in the consensus so you decide that they must be right. You have been deceived by people whose paychecks depend on continuing the deceit.

    Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.

    If you had understood my stuff you would know that I did not use solar irradiance change.

    The scientific basis is the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy.

    If anyone is curious, I just put up a paper that has links to all of my work. It can be accessed using Google with “Calculated Temperature Anomalies 1610-2012” in quotes.

    1. There are not simply 'more people' in the consensus, there are overwhelmingly more people in the consensus, who are also very highly qualified.

      What peer review has your work had?

      Do you or do you not believe the current trend is that the earth is cooling?

    2. Let me add that you need to come up with a better reason for the consensus being wrong than "people's paychecks depend on continuing the deceit". You haven't yet demonstrated there is a deceit, much less that anyone is being paid off to arrive at such an extensive global consensus. Who do you think it is that is paying for this deception? It is preposterous, and if this is an example of your rational thinking, it fails.

  10. Dan, beyond DG's comment pointing out the rather obvious and obscenely large flaw in your "theory", your statements admit your own lack of scientific investigation.

    Correlation does not equate to causation. Furthermore, lack of correlation, by itself, despite the pathetic quote from Feynman, equate to a lack of causation. There may be direct and indirect explanations for the lack of correlation of certain observations.

    Furthermore, what evidence do you have that there is a general cooling trend? There isn't nor is there a suggestion of such. Moreover, no one, not one peer reviewed study said it was continuous, merely that it was cumulative and inexorable. Your postulation that it must be without relent isn't valid.

    I think we "understand" your "stuff" just fine. You make a claim about correlated occurrence of sun spots (and their timing) and attempt to suggest it relates, not just correlates, but causes, global weather pattern changes. No such evidence of direct proof exists. The law of conservation of energy is simply your off the cuff answer when asked for a mechanism, a mechanism you cannot provide. Conservation of energy merely says the energy goes somewhere. Which energy is being reduced if not irradiance? Are you not suggesting that a decrease in energy (or increase) is the explanation for change, either cooling or warming? By your statement you are asserting there is energy to be "conserved", what energy is being "stored", if so, where, what energy is being lost? From what, what is the nature of the energy increase that causes the warming, what is the source? Sun spots, if that doesn't equate to solar irradiance, what are you claiming it relates to?

    Point is, your explanation is at best, lacking in specifics. I don't intend to waste time reading crack-pot stuff. Show you have some depth and maybe I'll take your comments seriously enough to read something you wrote. Explain your "theory" because that's all any scientific explanation is, an idea explaining observable data. Your statement that you aren't presenting a theory, but instead commenting on observation, shows you as not understanding even THIS basic premise. Your EXPLANATION for global warming is some relation to sun spot occurance, you OBSERVED (or so you say) some correlation between sun spot occurrence (time interval) and the warming/cooling of the Earth. Your THEORY is that they are related. Show how, not just some pablum (sic) about "conservation of energy" (which incidentally contradicts you not supports you because you can't show the source or loss of such energy and how it's saved/converted) but anyway, show the mechanism, explain it. Be prepared though, that we will "get" your explanation quite well. DG is one of the best researchers I've ever known (or known of), and I pretty much test at the top of the charts on scientific acumen/uptake. I was a chemical engineer in college who shifted to computer engineering, I think I'll get it just fine. Are you an astro-physicist? My brother was a Professor in Physics and Genetics. I'm thinking we'll get your ideas fine and if not, I have ample resources at hand to which I can refer your points.

    Show your mechanism relating sun spots to warming or lack thereof. Without it, all you have is Helga Svardson, and I even doubt that.. Remember, though, as you do that NO ONE says global warming is an immediate reaction to higher CO2, or that the Earth itself doesn't have resulting reactions (such as the melting of glaciers) which may counter-act certain impacts of higher CO2 for a time. No one. It's simply your assertion that it has to be continuous.

  11. I love these:

    "Earth is in the vacuum of space so the only way that the planet can gain or lose energy (excluding nuclear processes) is by electromagnetic radiation. The energy equation applied to the planet is..."

    "It is axiomatic that change to the energy retained by the planet is indicated by change to the average temperature of the planet."

    Nonsense, and both are yet THEORIES, and nothing more. Your statements wouldn't pass muster in any relatively higher level collegiate physics course and certainly not in anything approaching an advanced astro-physics course. I've read through your "stuff" (briefly). It's so of so many holes I don't really know where to begin. Needless to say you take a great deal of time to try to use math to show something which is based on utterly flawed assumptions.

    First, it's beyond simplistic to claim that a planet's net total energy (barring nuclear processes) is simply a constant only modified by external electro-magnetic energy.

    Second, you come up with some rather grandiose mathematical formulae to claim that there is a break even point, which contradicts in part your first (wrong) statement. Were planets ONLY affected by uptake, then wouldn't ANY inbound energy increase total energy? Thus, no break even.

    The reason is that you in fact do have loss, necessitating this theorhetical "break even" point.

    Third, you ignored by fiat that there is also internal (nuclear) generation. You can't discard it. In short, the Earth ALSO generates energy, releases such energy into the atmosphere, and that energy may be retained at a higher (or lower) rate depending upon the relative ease by which energy can pass through (or be reflected by) the atmosphere. Pretending there isn't loss suggests there is no need for a break even point, acknowledging there IS loss refutes the entire first premise

    Lastly, importantly, you DO claim it's related to irradiance (despite your statements above). If so, why have we not seen falling temperatures, why has the mean been upward if sun spot activity has not, by mean, increased? Answer, because they aren't related. You CLAIM there is a "storage" but you fail to account for the increase in loss in your theory that would come from colder climates resulting in lower atmospheric absorbtion.

    Put bluntly, your theory wouldn't pass peer review, it's a load of malarkey, much like so many other pseudo explanations. Were it this simple to explain, it would have been explained much more easily by many people long ago. The reason it isn't an explanation is that it's wrong.

    One other point, Dan, you need to research when the so-called "Little Ice Age" occurred. It ran from roughly 1550 to 1850. There WAS a colder period in 1650, but there also was one in 1770, yet, what was the sun spot interval (oh, that's right, it was normal). There was also another cooler period starting in 1850, yet again, what was the sun spot interval.. oh, normal.. Your correlation to the Maunder Minimum doesn't withstand other analysis. The brief cooler periods PRECEDE (in 1770 and 1850) not follow, lower sunspot figures.

  12. Sorry, I should have edited my previous replies. They were written too swiftly and aren't entirely clear. Here goes a better try.

    First, you said you weren't talking about solar irradiation (energy), yet your paper does precisely that. So which way is it?

    Second, you claim that the only way for the Earth to lose or gain energy is through electromagnetic radiation. This isn't true. First, it can be impacted by bodies, thus gaining energy through the conversion of kinetic energy to heat. While irregular (at best) the levels of energy potentially created are astronomical, no pun intended, so your statement is false on it's face as I'm sure you understand.

    Second, while I understand you grasp the idea of energy LOSS by the Earth, you must accept that in fact the Earth generates it's own energy. This generation is neither constant, nor is the loss rate a constant. If the atmosphere reflects a greater amount of heat electromagnetic radiation (EMR) - back toward the surface, the loss rate shrinks.

    Third, in reading your paper, you and your supporters postulate that there is a state of equilibrium of solar radiance above which, if exceeded, the Earth warms. This is true, but it is also well documented as having been true for the past 150 years. It explains .6 of a degree of the more than 1.5 degrees of average warming.

    Fourth, sun spots, while hotter than normal surface areas (iirc), do not raise the total solar irradiance materially. This has been both well researched and well documented.

    Last, your correlating data doesn't in fact correlate to the EXACT periods of cooling during the so-called Little Ice Age. The LIA started prior to the Maunder Minimum, and the cooling of both 1770 and 1850 preceded the dips you assert.

    And really last, other than pointing to the frequency of sun spots, you've not actually explained the nature of the increase in energy. Which energy? What is the energy? Is it magnetic, gravetic, EM, something else? As I said, if you exclude solar irradiance, which is higher now, but accounted for, then what else? What other energy are you speaking about? Please explain the process, not just the facts you claim correlate, but which do not.

  13. The answers to all of your questions and response to all of your assertions reside in my papers. You can access all of them in the paper returned by Googling “Calculated temperature anomalies 1610-2012” in quotes. The extreme sensitivity of average global temperature to clouds is calculated in Reference 5 there. A THEORY as to how clouds may be influenced by sunspots is presented with some corroboration by Svensmark.

    I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

    1. Don't patronize us with the nonsense that "I cannot understand it for you". You haven't made a compelling case for your argument; the problem is not our understanding.

      Answer 2 questions: 1. do you agree or disagree that the earth is warming? 2. explain why you find it plausible that there is a 97% worldwide consensus among scientists due to them being paid off (including by whom).

      I agree with Pen; I perused your papers, and no, they don't adequately rebut his points.

      Seriously, do you honestly believe that your ideas were not well considered, independently, and rejected?

  14. Dan, I obviously agree with DG. Frankly, I'm pretty well educated scientifically, so please don't patronize. The link I posted for you considered your points (in a research article completed by three professors at the University of Massachusetts and, ta da, ran from 1610 to the present (I wonder why- perhaps because the root of your theory was some other "researcher" choosing to misinterpret this report?) - anyway, it is pretty clear. The average energy per square meter, while higher, doesn't equate to anything more than half of the increase of .55 degrees C (or roughly 1 degree F) from 1850 to 1995, and accounts for only 1/3rd of that from 1970-1995 (and less than 1/3rd when taken through 2013). You have not answered the question of why the LIA predates the Maunder Minimum, you have not answered why the cooling of 1850 and 1770 predated the drop off in sun spots. Using your apparent rules, lack of correlation equates to lack of causation, unless (and obviously I'm kidding) you think that a cooler Earth CAUSES few sun spots.

    Going on, you look to have misunderstood the report I referred to in my link. You haven't explained the science beyond saying that it is effectively the accumulated concentration of excess solar irradiance (in your paper). You said here it isn't about EM (radiation), yet your paper DOES say that. Solar uptake has been studied and accounted for, which we (I) explained to you in detail.

    If anything Dan, it appears you do not understand the science behind the impact of solar radiation and infrared loss (by the Earth) well enough. You've made a THEORY about a break-even point without considering that the break-even point may have been impacted by increasing factor of atmospheric insulation (greenhouse gases), something which would EASILY counter your basic premise. Sorry.

    More to the point, given that you aren't a physicist or astro-physicist working in this area, nor are you a theoretical mathematician nor any other form of scientist working in this area and so would have the expertise to otherwise be familiar with the related disciplines and previous research - are you truly so arrogant to believe that you, despite this unbelievably MASSIVE handicap, would know more, do better research, and come up with something that literally hundreds of thousands of highly competitive scientists worldwide have researched, refuted as the explanation for the additional warming and so otherwise have dismissed?