Skeptic Science

It occurred to me this evening listening to Donna, that some may wonder why I’ve stopped blogging. I think the answer is fairly simple: I tend to blog when I’m trying to work out something or thinking through an issue.

But except for the Donna lecture, there’s now little left for me to mull over on climate. Now I understand skeptics & those academics opposing them, I’m no longer curious about either side.

But even more odd, now I know skeptics will win, instead of being all the keener to see change, I’ve lost interest. I can only liken it to sneakily finishing the film when my wife goes to bed and then trying to pretend I’m interested the next evening.

How do I know skeptics will win?

  1. I’ve worked out why climate models fail to model the climate. So, they are certainly wrong, I’m no longer interest in “what ifs”, because there is nothing left to work out.
  2. I’ve refined my understanding of CO2 and how it has interacted with the planet in the past during the ice-ages. This largely removes any possibility of massive positive feedbacks from CO2.
  3. I now  understand what makes skeptics tick – and I can only say I’m glad I’m not on the other side. Because for all their bluster – the alarmists haven’t a chance.
  4. I’ve worked out why academics are so hostile to sceptics. And like someone with an annoying twitch, it is not easily changed, so it seems pointless trying to change them. Worse, trying to engage with academics now will just make them confused and angry.
  5. And perhaps most ironic of all, I’m starting to feel sorry for our present politicians. Yes, the poor sods. It’s like watching lambs going down the ramp to the slaughterhouse oblivious to what awaits them. Why let them in on the secret?  – let them have this last interlude of tranquillity!

This is why I’ve stopped blogging. The subject is no longer a question, but is more like a timetable.

Addendum

In light of some comments, I should just mention, that this is in no way an end for me as I operate a number of other sites:

  1. uClimate.com – I suppose the nearest thing to a “skeptic newspaper”. A lot of work is happening behind the scenes.
  2. Scottish Independent People – This is a political blog focussed solely on Scotland.
  3. uBurns.com  – (currently inactive) but will be to Scottish Politics what uClimate is to climate.
  4. Lenzie.org.uk – my first major website. About two years of effort and then I realise that it could never be more than a hobby site. Now only kept online as the adverts cover the costs and there’s a few features I find handy.

In addition, I’ve got a few odd sites:

  1. Haseler.net – which I own for the email (bought before .coms became fashionable!)
  2. savelenziemoss.org.uk – an environmentalist site, in the best tradition trying, and hopefully succeeding at saving our local nature reserve from being turned into housing. (Not once did we hear anything from the greens or greenspins – these organisations are all mouth and no action)
  3. Antoninewall.co.uk – it was going to be a site about Scottish archaeology, until I discovered that Scottish archaeology/history is so full of myth and other crap that it wasn’t going to be a pleasant past time away from the myth and crap of [consensus] climate science.
  4. SCEF  – Scottish Climate & Energy Forum (I’m planning to join whatever Anthony Watts creates which should make this redundant).
  5. uKipper – A site for linguistics – currently running a hastily put together page where I attempt to remove various letters of the alphabet hopefully with amusing results. (Originally planned as a social site for UKIP members. Then the Scottish party were shafted by England.)
  6. Thelords.org.uk – where I plot the overthrow of the British establishment
  7. etc.

 

This entry was posted in climate. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Skeptic Science

  1. rms says:

    I was there last evening too. Pity I didn’t realise it and shake your hand. Someday.

  2. Derek Alker says:

    Thanks for all your help along the way Mike. You have really opened up some long standing confusions / misunderstandings I have had with the role of education that I had been really struggling with. ie, Professors ARE professors. They have to be, otherwise they are not a professor any more. In much the same way as scientists have to produce the science they have been paid to produce, otherwise they are not a government funded scientist any longer.

    re climate models, yes they are unphysical (black body) bunkum.

    re no massive CO2 positive feedback, well yes, a radiatively able gas can only be a negative feedback, BUT the meme is built upon water vapour being a massive positive feedback, when it is plainly a massive, and THE dominant negative feedback.

    re skeptics, there are main stream skeptics, mostly just deluded, but some are paid by the consensus to gate keep…. and there are actual skeptics, but it is like trying to herd cats, as science should be…. At least the real skeptics try to adhere to the scientific method, ie, observation -> hypothesis -> experiment -> theory -> law, unlike the consensus, and main stream skeptics, however they disguise it.
    I look forward to Salby’s next presentation, he has gone very. very quiet……

    re politicians, at least some of them started this whole debacle, and deliberately too. Wirth, Gore, Thatcher, they all knew what they were doing, politics pays for the science, so they will damned well get what they paid for, invariably a new way to tax / control us. None of the politicians are innocent, they are all aboard the gravy train, whether they have checked the science they base the policies upon for themselves or not. They have no excuse, they should have checked for themselves, hell the future of the planet, and of the human race is SUPPOSED to be at stake. Could they possibly need any more reason to check for themselves??????

    Maurice Strong, well, he gave the political will the global context, bureaucracy, and the machinery it needed to succeed with the SUPPOSED authority of the UN. Hence the end game of the debacle is the UN’s Agenda 21. To miss that is to miss the whole point of the GH “theory” based AGW scam.

    Unfortunately people are just not interested, they are sleep walking into a mess / fascist state they can not see because it is “too big to be true”, “they would not dare do that”, “don’t be silly”, “your a conspiracy theorist arn’t you” etc, etc, etc. So, why bother blogging about it?

    Conspiracy or cock up? Read Agenda 21, then decide…

    • Sorry we did not meet. I only learnt about it the same day and I was doing other things so was a bid rushed and just wanted to relax and listen.

      I was on the edges of the political arena around 2000, and after about a year and a half of hearing how bad CO2 was going to be – only then did I say to the head of the Scottish Wind lobbyists: “you know everyone keeps talking about this CO2 – but you know I’ve never seen the actual evidence or science”.

      And I was someone who was capable and interested in the science.

      [… Indeed, in retrospect, perhaps that was the real beginning of the new age. Because until 2000, most people would never have considered that they themselves should look at the evidence, it just wasn’t practical, indeed I only did so out of curiosity and like everyone else I just assumed “some experts” had already looked and their conclusion was “settled science”. ]

      However, let me be entirely frank. Politicians are just people – people with thick skins – but people none the less. They have families who rely on their income. Skeptics are just part of a huge change that is happening to our society, and I’m sorry for the those people who chose politics as their career, but I think the change in society will mean many of them will be kicked out of their job without really understanding why, and many will never get another decent job, because the same social movement is affecting a number of other jobs which were traditional “unemployment stop gaps” for politicians.

      One of the most important points for me in Donna’s talk was when she described how journalism is changing. Having been part of UKIP, I can now see how politics is changing. As skeptics we can see how the science establishment is under attack for not changing. I was talking to a police officer (whilst I watched my daughter play sports) and he was saying how the internet is changing what the public expect from the police – so yet again another bit of the establishment is under pressure.

      This is a fundamental change in the balance of power in society and the consequent undermining of many establishment institutions. And whilst society constantly changes, this is very different.

      Quite literally, the “political establishment” is falling apart. And for the next few decades they will be very far too busy fire-fighting to bother us skeptics again.

    • “re climate models, yes they are unphysical (black body) bunkum.”

      – it’s not the physical modelling. It’s what in probably the most authoritative work on the subject by Prof? Tim Palmer is covered in his book “predictability of weather and climate”, by about 20 words. If I remember right – to effect “this doesn’t matter”.

      Yes, there’s a lot wrong with the physical model, but even if the physical model were entirely correct, they would still be unable to predict the climate.

      • Derek Alker says:

        An unphysical false paradigm based upon a failed hypothesis, is an unphysical false paradigm. That’s it, end of story. No amount of hand waving, window dressing, straw man arguments, or debating tactics is ever going to change that. Watts is plainly a gate keeper, a bought and paid for greenhouse effect “theory” stooge, and therefore a dead end. Consequently anything he sets up or does will be a complete waste of time and effort. As it was always intended to be……

        Thanks for all the fish Mike, and good bye.

        • That’s the problem with consensus science – once there’s a consensus, even Watts will dismiss potential avenues of investigation that aren’t within the consensus.
          That is why we need to go back to skeptic science:
          1. Free, fair and open discussion of all ideas based on the factual evidence and without reference to previous consensus.
          2. Hypothesis testing
          3. And conservative assertions -with confidence soley based on the evidence and consensus being irrelevant.

          • Derek Alker says:

            Which is exactly what PSI was set up to do, and why it uses PROM.

            BUT, still Watts et al, will not question GH “theory”. Heck, they do not even know what it is….
            http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-2250.html

            Mind you most still apply black body willy nilly to grey body reality without realising that too. It is dead simple, a black body is an unphysical set of assumptions, the answer that gets CAN NOT explain grey body reality, even if they appear to reach the same answer. IT MUST BE BY DIFFERENT MEANS. Mind you no one seemed to question Mann’s assumption that the only thing that affected tree ring width was temperature, in direct contradiction to all modern biological knowledge / understanding.

            We live in very, very sad times, by our own laziness and unquestioning trust of “authority”……….

            • “Give me a lever and a fulcrum & I will move the earth”.

              Three items of which the most important is that which is most often forgotten – the fulcrum. Because without a fulcrum that can move the earth, no lever will.

              Skeptic science (not that airy fairy “consensus science”) is a series of facts which build to make a secure fulcrum upon which we can base arguments.

              If we had skeptic science, then we would be able to trust its “authority”. Unfortunately we do not, we now have “consensus science” where often science is no better than an opinion.

              But unfortunately, good skeptic science costs. These days, science is done on the cheap and that is why it’s now often “consensus science” …so rather than spending money on a network of thermometers that will measure the global temperature, they instead put together a “scientific” committee to vote on what they think the temperature is.

              This is where it all went wrong – science is now an opinion formed around an academic coffee table rather than on a laboratory bench. And it is at the laboratory your theory should be tested.

  3. Pingback: The Climate Skeptics | Transterrestrial Musings

  4. WJohn says:

    Good-bye, good luck with your other efforts and thank you for all your posts and the interesting people who add their comments. Sorry that you are ceasing but glad that you did make the effort.
    WJohn.

  5. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    It would be good if you could do a summary of the understanding you have reached on each of the five reasons.

  6. barn E. rubble says:

    RE: “This is why I’ve stopped blogging.”

    Aye, we hardly knew ye . . .

  7. “It occurred to me this evening listening to Donna, that some may wonder why I’ve stopped blogging. I think the answer is fairly simple: I tend to blog when I’m trying to work out something or thinking through an issue.
    But except for the Donna lecture, there’s now little left for me to mull over on the moon landings. Now I understand skeptics & those academics opposing them, I’m no longer curious about either side.
    But even more odd, now I know skeptics will win, instead of being all the keener to see change, I’ve lost interest. I can only liken it to sneakily finishing the film when my wife goes to bed and then trying to pretend I’m interested the next evening.
    How do I know skeptics will win?
    I’ve worked out why the flimflam from NASA fail to model the moon. So, they are certainly wrong, I’m no longer interest in “what ifs”, because there is nothing left to work out.
    I’ve refined my understanding of rockets and how they has interacted with the moon’s surface. This largely removes any possibility of rocket blowback not killing astronauts upon landing.
    I now understand what makes skeptics tick – and I can only say I’m glad I’m not on the other side. Because for all their bluster – the NASA moon landing fraudsters haven’t a chance.
    I’ve worked out why academics are so hostile to sceptics. And like someone with an annoying twitch, it is not easily changed, so it seems pointless trying to change them. Worse, trying to engage with academics now will just make them confused and angry.
    And perhaps most ironic of all, I’m starting to feel sorry for our present politicians. Yes, the poor sods. It’s like watching lambs going down the ramp to the slaughterhouse oblivious to what awaits them. Why let them in on the secret? – let them have this last interlude of tranquillity!”

    …………………………………………………………………………………

    Any bets on how long this tranquillity will last?
    What are we talking about?
    Six months?
    Six years?
    Sixty years?

    The subject is no longer a question, but is more like a timetable.

    Only you seem unwilling to give a date.
    Not really much of a timetable.
    Curious.
    Perhaps you can give a safe one? One that will pop up long after you are gone. That way, you won’t run the risk of of having to apologize for being wrong or deceiving others.

    Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings – Moon landing Hoax

    • You are trying to wind up the wrong person. I am almost literally a child of the space age and not only did I see the moon landing on TV (at some unearthly hour) but my father was the director of a rocket tracking station.

      And what is more, not only did I watch the first, but also the second, the third, the fourth – until I was so bored of moon landing that I begged to be allowed to go to bed.

      • I am almost literally a child….

        So? Bill Kaysing could say the same.
        If you want to be a skeptic then you have to act like one.
        So far, all you are doing is acting like a crackpot.

        • Please – I’ve got a teenager daughter. You will have to try a lot harder.

          • Kaysing could say the same thing.
            Her name is Wendy.
            (shrug)

            “If you sincerely believe the United States faked the lunar landings then you are truly a tragic figure. You, like Don Quixote, are ’tilting windmills,’ and have wasted precious hours of your life in a futile quest. Take my advice. Tear up your manuscript and pursue a project that has some meaning. Leave a legacy you can be proud of, not some trash whose readers will doubt your sanity.” – Jim Lovell.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s