Climategate
Here's a thing. I am trained as a scientist with the notion that for something to be considered scientific it must hold to be falsifiable, that is to say, I must be able to test whether my postulate can be tested to be false.. Not (as many people think) I must be able to prove something's truthfulness, but quite the opposite - I must be able to pick and tear at it to if it's a load of old bollocks.
Declaring that god doesn't exist is as unscientific as declaring he does simply because there is no way to devise a test to disprove either premise.
I may suspect god does not exist, I may even say "I see no supporting evidence of a god", but a scientist can never say 'god does not exist' until they devise a method of testing their theory - and it's all but impossible to test for the absence of something.
Climate modelling is not science. And PLEASE drop the term 'Big Science' - there's absolutely no such thing. What we are seeing is politics and Big Egos.
One may legitimately say of climate modelling, "if I pop these numbers in, these other numbers come out" and we can test this and go 'wow, you're right - congratulations, your modelling program works!' - but that has no more credibility than me predicting weather or climate by examining the entrails of chickens.
Einstein said of Doctors 'you are not scientists' and he was right, doctors may look like scientists, may dress and talk like scientists, may USE scientific apparatus, tools and the products of other sciences, but medicine is not science.. sorry doctors.
Likewise, climatology rides on the backs of some great, advanced and highly technical sciences, but on the whole it relies on statistics to achieve it's predictions. Predictions, like fortune telling, has little to do with science.
I know the thermal coeficcient of water, carbon dioxide and other gasses in our atmosphere are. I know what the absorption bands of various wavelengths are, these are valid, testable, repeatable numbers derived from research, these are things we can declare in science as 'known'. I believe I know roughly what the concentrations are of the various gasses that make up our atmosphere. These are things we are taught when studying chemistry, and they can be tested.
The fact is, none of what is postulated by the advocates of anthropomorphic climate change makes any sense. There is only a certain amount of heat that can be absorbed by CO2, and it is already being absorbed. Even were the amount of CO2 to increase far, far beyond what is being predicted, it will have the most minute effect on global temperatures as to be considered irrelevant.. and that's assuming our plants don't use this food to grow more (which they do)
Consider some of the statements about a 1/2, 1 or even a 10 degree change and the effects on the environment and life.. I have in my life experienced temperatures between -10C and 55C, I have been in arid areas where the humidity has been below 10% and other tropic climates where the humidity exceeded 100%. Other readers I am sure have similar stories.. think about that for a bit.
Life on this planet has evolved to exist within ranges.
One may argue that's all well and good, but animals or plants might not be able to exist in such extremes and may suffer extinction if the fragile climate changes. Guess what? Some animals migrate, some hibernate, some aestivate. Frogs go underground in the harsh baked desert areas of Australia and may remain there for 50 years in a state of suspended animation before a once-in-a-lifetime flood, where they will resume there breeding, before returning underground for another 50 years. And plants? seeds people, seeds.
The fact is life on this planet has experienced far far worse that the climate modellers have predicted and not just survived but thrived.
but I digress..
Let me explain that I have no issue whatsoever with sensible environmentalism such as preventing REAL pollution, increasing efficiency of human production and minimizing detrimental impacts on our world, I just don't hold to declaring an innocent gas a 'pollutant' and using this as leverage to create a world wide 'air tax'.
The climate modellers have been sprung with their hand in the till with the release of data hacked from their servers revealing the extent of their fraud against society.. google Climategate for more information.
The mainstream media has largely been complicit in spreading their hysteria in the past (hey, hysteria sells papers!) so they're largely ignoring the impact of the revelation of fraud - for why would they want to report it and look like fools for being hoodwinked all this time?
But the truth is, sooner or later, these guys will be in deep water unless they can shore up their empire and prepare their defences.
If the media and governments of the world give them enough time, it is likely they will escape relatively unscathed.. and go on to find another way to institute their very sinister master plan.
I say, why wait.
Here's what I'd like to do.. I'm putting up $1000 dollars straight up (I wish I could afford more!) to anyone at Hadley who is prepared to come forward and confirm that the whole anthropomorphic climate change scam is in fact a scam, that temperatures are in decline, and to tell us their motivation behind why they felt it appropriate to distort science and bring discredit to the field.
I'm guessing no-one at Hadley is going to jump up shouting "ooh! ooh! Me! Me! I did it!" for a mere $1000 so I'd love to raise the stakes as much as I can. So anyone else who wants to contribute by throwing a donation toward the fund, feel free to do so by making a donation below
So far the fund stands at $AUD 1000
Just to be honest about this, I hope one of the thieving mongrels develops a conscience long before anyone needs to PAY them to confess, in which case I'll let everyone know not to send any more money.. but given that it would be hard to return any donated funds, I would like to offer another proposition. Something I believe could go a long way to protecting the environment in a REAL sense without simply taxing people into poverty.
I believe humans need more energy and I'd like to see it done in the most efficient way possible.. I'm also a 'right winger' in the original sense - that is to say I believe in decentralized government and personal empowerment, and I'd LOVE to see people both rich and poor able to produce and consume as much power as they need or want for free and independent of government or other controls.
So I intend to use any unclaimed money to continue my research into Stirling engines of my own design and ammonia absorption air conditioning for hot climates.
For those unfamiliar with the concept of a Stirling engine , they use heat to produce motive power - they are effectively a 'heat engine', another name is an external combustion engine. While this may sound like a whacky concept, I'd urge people to google Stirling engines (or follow the links) before plonking any of their hard earneds down (be scientists people - research!). They are real, functional, have been around for ages and can deliver energy from almost any temperature differential. My design is simpler than most, with fewer moving parts and can be engineered with lower levels of precision making it idea for any handyman to undertake rapairs should the need ever arise.
Ammonia absorption refrigeration is another of my pet interests. Why on earth on hot days do we burn MORE coal, pipe the electricity inefficiently down the wires to generate more heat operating mechanical compressors, when such cooling systems have no moving parts, are cheap, and work and last indefinately? It's insane! However, there are few working ammonia absorption refrigerative air conditioners available to ordinary people and I would really, dearly love to see the day when everyone who needs to cool their environment can do so totally for free, forever. Oh, and did I mention they can also provide water from the atmosphere ?
Your choice. If you donate money and we get enough to tempt one these devious buggers to turn on their own, great - if not I'll be using the dollars to get beyond the prototype stage and into something that could have a real benefit to the world.
12:44 p.m. - 2009-12-04
Recent entries:
Wealth (or lack thereof) in Oz - 2014-08-26
science and photosynthesis - 2013-09-29
get up maddness - 2011-10-15
iMobiler - 2011-09-19
pirates! download piracy.. and Pirates! - 2010-03-19
My profile
Archives
Notes
Diaryland
Random
RSS
others: