Monday, 20 June 2011
Blog Science offers the public empowerment. No longer must we suffer years of "education" and be forced to bow down before peer appointed so-called "experts" as they cast down facts upon our heads.
No, those are the old ways. Thanks to the Internet and Blog Science you can now become a science expert in a day and start generating your own science from scratch. You have the potential to be a world famous blog scientist, we all do. You might choose to become a blog chemist, a blog psychic or perhaps a blog geologist. All you need is a blog and a time to write down whatever your brain is thinking on the subject.
And if you don't want to become an expert, Blog Science allows you to become a Blog Science commenter. You can even put this as BSc on your CV. Blog Science commenter is an important role that allows you cheer from the sidelines while boosting the impact rating of the Blog.
Furthermore as a commenter, Blog Science offers you a wide catalog of ideas about the world and lets you choose which one you want to believe. That means you can choose whatever ideas fit in best with your political or religious beliefs. If you want we can also provide you with justifications for your choices if you are later challenged by practitioners of the old ways.
For example I really want to believe human CO2 emissions are too small to matter, and I will find a way to justify that belief.
A warmist blog, tauntingly calling itself "Open Mind", has just attacked Dr Ian Plimer, the 2nd most famous climate scientist in all of Australia*. Dr Ian Plimer's crime? He has chosen to believe volcanoes emit more CO2 than man, as is his right. He has also given generously this gift to the public.
The warmists hate this kind of thing. They want everyone to follow the old ways. They want "geological societies" and "textbooks" to fix so-called "facts" in stone which must not be disobeyed by mere laypeople. They hate it when Blog Scientists offer their ideas in the press or on tour.
In a comment over at Open Mind, William Connolley, the stoat in a boat, thinks he has found a great argument against Plimer:
"That volcanoes aren’t a major source can fairly trivially be shown by just looking at the CO2 record. If Pinatubo was a major source, there would be a sharp jump up when it erupted. But there isn’t."
The words "can fairly trivially be shown" are a red flag. In Blog Science nothing is known with any degree of certainty because everything can be challenged.
For example I would say the reason there is no sharp spike in CO2 when Pinatubo erupted is because scientists have been measuring CO2 on the wrong volcano. They have been measuring CO2 levels on Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. This argument may or may not make sense, but it's confusing enough that it doesn't matter. In Blog Science justifying one's beliefs is as easy as making it sound like you have.
Furthermore as has been pointed out craploads of times, scientists shouldn't be measuring CO2 inside the craters of volcanoes full stop! Yet still those so-called "scientist" elites march up the volcano each day in their lab coats with their equipment under their arms and and dip their co2ometers into the crater. With each passing year they dip the co2ometers a little deeper down so each year it looks like the CO2 level is rising!
Of course what I have just said there may not be right - it probably isn't because it's just a story I made up - but it will sound like you know what you are talking about if you can go into details such as what Keeling ate for breakfast each morning. The use of imaginative stories to smear so-called "scientists" is encouraged in Blog Science. It adds entertainment as well as smear.
What's interesting about Blog Science is the freedom it gives you. The old ways demanded adherence to a thing called "consistency". Blog Science does not unnecessarily restrict you in such a way.
For example, it might tomorrow become expedient for me to accept rising CO2 is due to man. I might want, for example, to cite the merits of increasing levels of plant food to ward off the coming ice age. Or perhaps I just want to accuse warmists of using a strawman ("Of course I accept man is causing CO2 levels to rise. No-one denies that! What a strawman! The cause of CO2 rise is not the issue. What skeptics are questioning is whether CO2 rise has a warming effect!"). This doesn't mean I have to stop believing volcanoes emit more CO2 than man.
And that's the memo.
*High Admiral Lord Monckton, Child of the Mother of all Parliaments and Guardian of the Pink Portcullis, is the 1st most famous Climate Scientist in Australia of course.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Shock News: Dr Anthony Watts Turns Alarmist. Describes Human Interference in Climate as "Batshit Crazy", "a Powder-Keg" of "Unintended Consequences"
Professor Anthony Watts has betrayed the denialist cause this week by raising undue alarmist fears concerning man-made climate change. Talking on the subject of human modification of the climate on his blog, Professor Watt's announced:
"it’s batshit crazy and a powder-keg for priming a global explosion of the law of unintended consequences."
Please someone tell Professor Watts to calm down! We all know the burden of proof is on scientists to prove harm. The only evidence presented that human alteration of the radiative properties of the climate will cause any problems is climate models (aka computer games) and speculation. I am sure Professor Watts would be the first to recognize that these aren't sufficient grounds to argue that we must take action to prevent such human interference.
Professor Watts use of the word "powder-keg" is deeply alarmist and implies that the atmosphere may explode. This is ridiculous, I do not appreciate his chicken-littlism on this subject by appealing to "unintended consequences" either. If unintended consequences were cause to avert an action we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning!
Professor Watt's seems like a strong man. He can probably lift weights and I bet he always uses his real name online. So why is he seemingly so scared by a little atmospheric fiddling by man? Watts up with that?
It may be that he simply slipped up, and in his zeal to attack an IPCC proposal he forgot the number #1 rule of climate denial which is to maintain denial of the risks of human influence on climate at all times. If that's the case I wonder if he's fit to be running the world's #1 blog. He must be approaching retirement age anyway. Maybe it's time for my blog to take over the reigns. I can't remember ever accidentally admitting there was a risk from human influence on climate.
I have to stop typing now, but hopefully Judith Curry can pick the "should Dr Watts retire" ball up and string it along for a few more weeks.
Saturday, 11 June 2011
A raging wildfire that could become the largest in Arizona history is rekindling the blame game surrounding ponderosa pine forests that have become dangerously overgrown after a century of fire suppression.
Some critics put the responsibility on environmentalists for lawsuits that have cut back on logging.
Others blame overzealous firefighters for altering the natural cycle of lightning-sparked fires that once cleared the forest floor.
Either way, forests across the West that once had 50 trees per acre (half-hectare) now have hundreds, sometimes thousands, and much of the landscape is choked with tinder-dry brush.
The density of the growth has fueled immense conflagrations in recent years like the 525-square-mile blaze now burning in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest northeast of Phoenix.
"I think what is happening proves the debate," said state Sen. Sylvia Allen, a Republican from rural Snowflake.
In the past, a 30-square-mile fire was considered huge. "And it used to be the loggers got right on it. Never in the past have you had these huge fires."
Today, it's not uncommon for fires to exceed 150 square miles.
This story is nonsense of course. You can't attribute a single wildfire to man.
Wildfires have occurred throughout history in natural cycles before man existed.
It is arrogant to claim man can cause wildfires when nature is so much bigger than man.
I personally blame the wildfires on the increase in CO2 plant food which has made these trees grow too big and dry.