Saturday, August 27, 2011

"Holy Grail of climate science?"

The news this week from CERN in Europe is that cloud formation seems directly related to cosmic rays. That is rattling the orthodoxy of the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd, and they are not happy.
All this reminds me of that story from The Onion a few weeks back that blamed the Eastern heat wave on the massive star at the centre of our solar system. Yup, good call!
Is it possible that the changing climate on earth over the millennia is caused by something other than human produced CO2? Oddly, that is my belief.
Certainly humans producing significant amounts of CO2 is a relatively recent occurrence in the planet's history. So why has Earth's climate been so variable, warming and cooling, since the birth of the planet? Well, maybe it has something to do with causes more significant than CO2. Maybe the cause of fluctuating climate is related to the CERN discovery that cosmic rays seed clouds which affect the albedo of the Earth.
In science there is a principle that applies here: parsimony. Sometimes referred to as Occam's Razor, the idea in this instance is, that it might be better to look for a comprehensive theory that explains climate changes over the history of the planet rather than a theory for each instance that the climate is changing. Of course I will not deny that there may have  been several causes over time. Certainly we are in a warming period after the ice age in the Pleistocene epoch. But the AGW orthodoxy vehemently disagrees with anything that contradicts their premise, that humans are a blight on the planet.
The alarmists have lobbied politicians of all stripes all over the world over the years, into taking action against climate change caused by CO2. The scientists who peddle this crap, have their mouths so firmly attached to the teat of government, that they will ignore the data from CERN and dismiss it as bullshit. Right now in many provinces, states and countries there are "green industries" that heavily depend on the AGW hypothesis.
Ontario's current government leaders and the leaders of most Western countries have their collective heads so far up their collective asses they can only see windmills, solar panels and sunshine. If it weren't so serious it would be laughable, a joke. But it's no joke. The misplaced investments, government subsidized jobs and worse, the mass-media acceptance has created a general apathy among the sheeple reminiscent of a religious stupor. Lets all bow to the GREEN GOD. Where I live, this is how it is, period.
In today's Financial Post, Larry Solomon has a column: Science now settled. In it he talks about the CERN discovery and some of the implications. Whether his pronouncement is premature or not, the debate certainly is far from over. He may be right or wrong, can you say the same?

FYI: comments closed on this posting.


  1. Your celebration is still premature. There is something very striking about the reporting on this.

    All of the "AGW is dead" reporting is coming from ideological sources... almost exclusively right wing, libertarian and corporate centric publications. Actual science sources tend to report on what was really demonstrated in the CERN CLOUD experiment:

    Try reading the reports at any actual science site... be it Nature or Scientific American or what have you.

  2. I did read the Nature site. I view both Nature and SciAm (that I once subscribed to) as tools of the statist lobby. I'm not sure if Larry Solomon's column is premature, but I prefer his views on the issue because he is a skeptic on AGW. You might call that confirmation bias, but I'm convinced that the entire environmental thing has achieved religious status (it has in my town). So I'm prepared to wait and see how this all shakes out. It is a huge and costly political issue here in Ontario, and we are 7 weeks from an election that I'm involved in.

  3. Ignoring scientific reporting on an issue because it conflicts with the ideological reporting that you already believe?

    < sarcasm >How could that possibly be considered biased in any way?< /sarcasm >

    Intellectual dishonesty. How can anyone trust anything you write? You don't even pay lip service to truth. For you what's "true" is whatever supports your beliefs... anything that contradicts it is "statist" by definition and thus "false" even when it's correct.

    But actual science is apolitical. It's truth or falsehood doesn't depend on which particular political ideology uses it. It's subject to replication and verification. It has to fit the observed facts.

    Doesn't bother you even a little to write that garbage? To be so blatantly closed minded?

    You might as well be a Stalinist... they too rejected the science that didn't support their ideology.

    If you are representative of Canadian Libertarians, then your country needs to do everything it can to make sure you never achieve any significant political power. You're the cure that's actually worse than the disease. Intentional ignorance in the service of an ideology is much more scary and potentially damaging than anything coming out of your current government.

  4. I believe this discussion is over. Comments closed here too.
    I will let your comments stand as is, because obviously you are right, otherwise why would you continue arguing?


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.