The pond was deeply shocked and disturbed when a correspondent informed it that it had overlooked a major weekend piece by Lloydie, redeemer of the Amazon jungle ... yes, he's still peddling that shit in his lizard Oz CV even after it notoriously went pear shaped ...
But back to the pond's egregious omission ...
Now that would seem to be a question, but there's no need for a question mark, because what we have here is a book promo, and when it comes to doing promos, nobody does them like a Lloydie ...
Well that's a good and honest plug, with the book title in the first gobbet, but now on with the IPA science, and as the pond's correspondent noted, what astonishing science it is ...
Astonishing, but as the pond's correspondent has already had a field day, the pond will leave it to others to have even more field days. The pond is simply relieved to be able to set the record straight, let Lloydie and the IPA roam wild and free ...
No doubt in time we will come to look back on this as equal too, or perhaps surpassing the legendary work of Lord Monckton - oh where is he now? oh what has happened to the Lomborg? - but alas and alack, all good things must end, and this is the final gobbet of pure undiluted Lloydie reporting ...
For some reason, the pond was reminded of that old cartoon, still worth dusting off every so often ... and in closing must thank its correspondent, and trusts this remedies the situation, and that everyone might have a little fun with the expert science that might be expected from a lizard Oz business editor ...
Lloydie at his silliest: "...because of the complexity of the physical processes at work, in particular, and the role clouds play in facillitating negative (cooling) feedbacks, the Earth is unlikely to overheat."
ReplyDeleteBeautiful underscored use of weaseling, Lloydie, like what exactly do you (and Ridd and Marohasy) define as "overheat" ? Do you, or they, have any idea at all about how hot the Earth has been at various times ? Or how cold ?
Not that I'd expect them to be at all curious, but if anybody wants to know, you can read this:
What's the hottest Earth's ever been?
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been
Therein, they may encounter statements like this:
"During the PETM [Paleocene-EoceneThermal Maximum], the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations."
Gee, I wonder what all the clouds were doing while all that was going on. And would that in any way be considered "overheat" ?
So, maybe one of them might even think about this:
"Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. Compared to most of Earth’s history, today is unusually cold; we now live in what geologists call an interglacial—a period between glaciations of an ice age. But as greenhouse-gas emissions warm Earth’s climate, it's possible our planet has seen its last glaciation for a long time."
Loved the cartoon, DP; says it all, yes ? Including the capacity of some humans to see the absurdity of the species but be unable to do anything at all about it.
Someone pointed out that they missed the punctuation in that title, it should read "Climate, Change the Facts".
ReplyDeleteLloyd’s article has a picture of ‘Climate Scientist Dr Jennifer Marohasy’. That probably doesn’t mean she is one of the so-called elite unelected “Climate “Scientists” ”. Not a member of the scientific-technological elite that Eisenhower warned us against. Must be some other kind, or maybe not a climate scientist at all.
ReplyDeleteNoosa News 7 Sep 2020 “Noosa’s climate emergency declaration could well be on the rocks if a One Nation senator and his scientific advisers are right”.
Malcolm Roberts was invited to inspect some cliffs at Noosa by Marohasy and Ridd . The idea was to show him that an ancient wave-cut platform above current sea-level proves that sea level is falling. Any evidence to the contrary is “largely the product of extremely complex computer models”. No mention of tide gauges.
Inviting Malcolm Roberts was better than inviting Pauline Hanson ..or..or .. Chopper Read, but none of them do the job of confirming a serious scientific reputation.
As to Eisenhower's "elite scientists", NH, we should recall that Eisenhower was the president following Harry Truman and that Eisenhower had been Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe. So Eisenhower would have well known Julius Robert Oppenheimer, who was director of the Los Alamos Laboratory during WWII and responsible for the research and design of the atomic bomb. He is often known as the “father of the atomic bomb." And thus there is a great amount of ambivalence about Oppenheimer's role in not only developing the A-bomb but also in getting it deployed - it wasn't all General Groves' doing.
DeleteOppenheimer, you may recall, on witnessing the first A-bomb test in July 1945, quoted the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." But later, he "took stances on defense-related issues that provoked the ire of some factions in the U.S. government and military." and his prior association with Communist Party members and organisations caused him to lose his security clearance in 1954 - one year into Eisenhower's presidency.
So it may well have been Oppenheimer, for instance, who Eisenhower was referring to, consciously or not. And maybe it might also have included Dr Edward Teller, "father of the hydrogen bomb" (developed in 1952) too. Teller was strenuously anti-communist and played a part in getting Oppenheimer's security clearance cancelled.
Things in and around science were all a lot more passionate and contentious back then than we are used to now.
Like a true conservative, Lindzen never gives up. His 'iris hpothesis was published in 2001, and in 2011 Skeptical Science wrote
ReplyDelete"Iris Hypothesis Never Got off the Ground
In short, much research has focused on Lindzen's iris hypothesis, but very little supporting evidence has been uncovered. On the contrary, studies have consistenly shown that Lindzen dramatically overestimated the iris effect in his initial study, and that if the effect exists, it may even amplify warming as opposed to dampening it. There certainly isn't any evidence that the infrared iris will result in enough of a negative feedback to significantly slow down global warming."
As the motto in the Senior Common Room of the IPA states, "I don't change my mind when other people's facts change".
I kinda think, Joe, it's more like: "Only the IPA has facts, everybody else just has fake news".
Delete