Ted Cruz: Climate Change on Pluto: Cool. On Earth: Claptrap
Ted Cruz Is Really Excited About Pluto. So Why Does He Want to Cripple NASA?, Mother Jones
“But NASA is also one of the main purveyors of the satellite observations of Earth that are a basic necessity for many fields of Earth science. That’s the part Cruz doesn’t like: He wants to slash the agency’s budget for Earth sciencesin particular, for climate change, a subject on which Cruz’s theories are, in the words of one scientist, “a load of claptrap.” It’s not just Cruz. In the House, Republicans are forging ahead with a bill that would gut $90 million from NASA’s Earth science budget. There are a couple major problems with that approach, and they make Cruz’s lauding of the Pluto mission distinctly ironic and hypocritical. First, NASA is uniquely equipped among federal agencies to send satellites into space, so it would be hard to transfer its Earth research to some other outfit. (These are the very satellites, by the way, that produce the data Cruz likes to erroneously cite as evidence against global warming.)”
Keith’s note: Comments are closed. People have gone totally off topic and are ranting and making personal attacks. Please do not try and post comments elsewhere since they will be deleted.
A John Oliver hilariously statistically balanced climate debate (even Bill Nye the Science Guy makes up 1% of it.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
(language not suitable for more younger viewers (Its from HBO))
That reminds me of this:
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-c…
And side note, John Oliver is the man. Last Week Tonight is one of my most favorite things in the world.
While science isn’t a “democracy”, where “truth” is how many people believe it, and where conventional wisdom has often been overturned,…
When essentially every analysis by almost every qualified researcher is in agreement at the broadest level, then numbers do matter.
The phrase “overwhelming preponderance of the evidence” comes to mind.
What “overwhelming preponderance?”
Surface temperature data for the last century or so don’t agree with the models unless they are “adjusted.” In any other scientific field, fudging the data to fit your model would be regarded as straightforward academic fraud but climate alarmists seem to get a pass.
Satellite data don’t show the predicted correlation between rising CO2 levels and temperatures. Nor do surface and mid-depth ocean temperatures show any upward trend. Some of the loopier alarmists now claim the “missing heat” is hiding in the deep ocean. How it got there without first warming the upper and mid-levels of the ocean on the way is apparently left as an exercise for the reader.
The ocean is also said to be getting more acidic because of dissolved CO2. Turns out this assertion is based on yet another mathematical model. There is more than a century of ocean pH data in-hand and it doesn’t show the predicted increase.
When it comes to measurements of nature, the climate alarmist’s cupboard is pretty much bare. All they’ve really got are a couple dozen mathematical “models” that can’t even correctly “predict” the past, never mind the future.
True only for certain rather restricted values of “qualified.” The thing that seems most likely to make one “qualified” in the eyes of climate alarmists is a previous declaration of support for the AGW hypothesis. The famous 97% alleged concensus was arrived at by polling people whose papers had already supported the AGW hypothesis. The people compiling the numbers deliberately excluded anyone who had ever publicly expressed skepticism of the AGW hypothesis. Given this methodology, the wonder is that the response wasn’t 100%, just like a North Korean election.
In truth, there is relatively little in “climate science” that isn’t borrowed from a number of other, older disciplines among which are chemistry, meteorology, fluid physics, thermodynamics information theory and statistics. That makes experts in these fields fully qualified to comment meaningfully on those aspects of climate science that fall within the purview of their particular specialties.
Take information theory and statistics, for example. The AGW hypothesis is based, to a considerable degree on the assertion by some climate scientists that they have unambiguously teased out a “signal” of human-caused climate change from the “background noise” of naturally occurring climate variability. Professional statisticians do not seem to be very impressed with this claim. Among the high-profile “deniers” are numbered quite a few statisticians who accuse the alarmists in the climate science community of serial statistical malpractice in their calculations. These critiques are even sharper when matters such as Michael Mann’s Frankenstein-like statistical stitchery of radically dissimilar historical temperature records and proxies to produce his infamous “hockey stick” graph are at issue.
Then there is the computational malpractice represented by the alleged “climate models” that appear to constitute most of the so-called “evidence” for the AGW hypothesis. Climate alarmists have been notoriously resistant to exposing their model codes and data sets to outside scrutiny, but some of this stuff was acquired as part of the Climategate e-mail hack back in 2009. Computer scientists looking over the code found it rife with multiple types of software engineering malpractice. One particular example I recall was that a number of the models contained no code to deal with floating point magnitude overflows or underflows. I found this entirely credible as I had a job as an IT support person for a university experimental physics lab back in my undergraduate days. Many of the physicists were genuinely wretched coders. I have zero difficulty believing the same is true of climate scientists.
One might recognize this as a feature of democracy: people will keep the stupidest debate going on until the sky fall on them. So far global warming is barely an inconvenience, so the debate will carry on for another day.
While I agree in general, climate change has in some places had powerful impacts.
One factor that I think keeps the debate going is that those with a threat to their cash, like the Koch brothers, have very carefully manipulated their tools like Fox News to sneak it in (without justification) as a part of the legitimate conservative agenda like cultural values, military posture, etc.
climate change has in some places had powerful impacts.
What places? What impacts?
And scientists with a threat to their cash (in the form of grants to keep “studying” the issue)… have they not manipulated the “data” to keep their cash flow flowing?
Would you expect anything different from a far left-wing outlet like MJ?
You criticize the messenger and ignore the message.
Somehow I suspect you wouldn’t be complaining if Keith linked to an article on FoxNews.com.
But its OK when I link to Fox news stuff, is that it?
No problem linking to MJ and Fox or CNN or MSNBC or NPR. I didn’t think you endorsed the views of every link you post, at least I didn’t think you did. The more diverse views the better but its up to us discern the value.
Since you asked, while I think Cruz is a smart guy I agree with little that he says and totally agree with what this article says.
It warms my heart that even within his own party he is polling at only 6% in the presidential primaries. (Altho it boggles my mind that The Donald is leading the pack)
Name recognition (and entertainment value). It’s obvious that debates will be a circus with Donald Trump involved, networks will love that just for the ratings alone.
I am getting the Jiffy Pop Popcorn ready. I’m hoping for a fist fight.
http://static.tvtropes.org/…
I say lose MJ and Fox. Maybe keep NPR and try BBC and other more objective news outlets.
Hey, I’m a liberal and even I rolled my eyes when I saw that the alarmist hand-wringing came from Mother Jones. It’s hard to take any far-right OR far-left news outlet seriously with any politically charged news or even news at all when it comes to Fox.
There is no request for censoring any of these news outlets, BTW none are objective. Of course if they agree with your POV they will seem objective to you. Put it out there, let the commenters debate and we each reach our own conclusions
If the climate-science community hadn’t made it clear beyond doubt that they would tell lies, fudge data, and refuse to publish their models openly, then perhaps everybody outside that community might be more willing to trust them. As it is, their credibility is non-existent when access to political power on Earth is at stake.
Specific and referenced evidence, please.
To save much time, please review this thread and see if it has already dealt with any of your potential evidences:
http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
OK, here’s a few:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
My point is that for the chance to gain a driving seat in political policy making, the climate science community behaved, and continues to behave, in ways that are utterly unscientific. They altered or suppressed conflicting data and invented other data to fit the desired climate-disaster pattern, all the while they were refusing to let other scientists (1) examine the data, and (2) examine the models used to make the apocalytic predictions that were the key to gaining the power to direct policy.
In the classic meaning of the term, they committed a conspiracy to defraud the public.
That’s a serious charge, and only a few scientists were actually guilty of the worst of it. But here’s the damning thing: the rest of the climate community stood up for the fraudsters, and continue to scream “Denier!” at top volume at anyone who questions their unscientific behavior.
I have a certain sympathy for the climate science community because they (some of them at least) are trying to make predictions with what are mostly soft and fuzzy data. It’s not easy. But they make it harder for themselves by not being totally explicit and public about their assumptions, modeling details, and data sources. That is what got them into the hot water in first place, and frankly being totally transparent in the above is the only way they’ll get out of it and regain the credibility they have so carelessly thrown away.
Oh, and they should stop making silly-ass predictions:
http://www.numberwatch.co.u…
Here’s a WIKIPEDIA article for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi… . Literally, the only people who have the right to make definitive arguments on this matter should have a Ph.D in some type of science directly related to Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and geography. And the references cited to back up their claims? Peer-reviewed journal articles.
Everything else is a waste of everyone’s time. And science continues to evolve, it has always been and always will be a continuous process of debate and the refinement of theories. Among scientists. Every understanding we have today is the result of many prior theories that didn’t quite get it right, and guess what, we still don’t know anything! In the scheme of things. We have to allow our scientists to do their jobs and continue to search for knowledge and help improve all of our lives.
It is quite irksome to see people in the general public who depend on science each and every day and will call their doctor immediately the moment that something is wrong – decide that they, non-scientists in every sense of the word, can evaluate and reject a specific type of science with which they disagree.
Thank you, eddrw2014, your comment exactly illustrates what I was saying about scientists’ high-handed approach to public criticism. Boiled down, it says, “Shut up, peasant, unless you can show your credentials as one of Our Gang.”
If the question of climate warming were one of abstract science, such a response might even be reasonable (if ungenerously phrased). But the whole problem of climate warming involves everyone on Earth, and as a practical political matter, everyone in the United States. And that change of venue (let’s say) makes all the difference in the world. More pointedly, the rules of discussion change.
When anyone starts to influence public policies that have dollars-and-cents consequences for everyone, everyone gets their say in that discussion.
To put this another way, when scientists seek to direct public policy, they leave the field of pure science — where PhDs rule (rightly or wrongly) — and enter into the field of politics, where everyone is entitled to an opinion and an equal vote on the matter.
Saying it yet a third time: What destroyed climate sciences’ credibility with the public was the scientists’ refusal to recognize that when they stepped out of the realm of science and into public affairs, they no longer get to write the rules of engagement. You’re in politics now, pal, the rules are different.
As a practical matter, I think climate science can retrieve its reputation among the public only one way. It requires being totally open about their data collection, especially data involving proxies (tree-rings for humidity, etc.). But even more important, they also have to make their models open and publically available to all scientists for criticism.
This is especially important because while every scientist will work with roughly the same data set and proxies (we’re all on the same Earth), the models are where the assumptions are built in. So it’s those that need the most critiquing by independent eyes.
Without that independent critique, climate science will continue its pariah-hood among the public.
KUDOS to you PubliusII! Its refreshing to read a comment running counter to what most people here seem to believe blindly, and profess with alarming urgency. Then criticize those who question and doubt the validity of outlandish claims. I dare say you shut a few people up!
Indeed.
OK so climate change is bunk. What about shipping companies planning northwest passage? What about oil companies wanting to expand drilling Artic Ocean? What about Russians grumbing more about land issues and mining resources in Artic Ocean? Anyone asked the deniers why? I remember when these three itmes were non-issues because Artic Ocean had too much ice it wasn’t worth exploiting.
Not to mention mining companies going crazy over newly available lands in Greenland…
Or closer to home, agriculture changing their methods, Napa wineries buying land further north in California, and even into OR and WA…
Don’t believe in climate change? Talk to a farmer for a few minutes.
What about shipping companies planning northwest passage?
That would seem to be shipping “company” – singular. Nordic Bulk Carriers, a Danish firm, made a high-profile coal shipment from Canada to Finland two years ago via one of the Northwest Passage routes. I have been unable to find any evidence that second or subsequent such runs have been made since. Nordic seems to mainly ply the Northeast Passage which runs along the northern borders of Russia and Finland on the other side of the North Pole from the Northwest Passage. The Northeast Passage is also a somewhat problematical route with respect to ice, but a much larger percentage of it is routinely ice-free relative to the Northwest Passage.
Nordic’s business does not seem to be exactly booming; they have lost money in their most recent two years of operation. Perhaps the restoration of the winter Arctic ice cap to something closer to its historic extent, after a diminution in size during the late 2000’s, is to blame. Possibly Nordic can sue Al Gore for their recent losses. According to him the Arctic ice was supposed to be gone entirely two years ago.
What about oil companies wanting to expand drilling Artic Ocean?
The Russians put a combined exploration/production platform between the Russian Mainland and Novaya Zemlya a few years ago. Greenpeace tried “storming” it and got their asses kicked for their trouble back in 2012. The platform (Prirazlomnaya) reached production status in late 2013 and first shipped oil in April 2014. I’ve been unable to find out whether it is still in production or has been shut in as a result of the recent huge drop in world oil prices. At 100+ bucks a barrel, some pretty expensive infrastructure is justified to get oil. At 50-ish a barrel, not so much maybe.
Shell has been exploring in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, but the recent drop in crude prices may make commercial production a non-starter for a long while. Conoco has some arctic leases but I don’t know if their projects have progressed. The Norwegian Statoil company seems to have put all of its arctic projects on indefinite hold. More ice and less money is a heckuva one-two punch.
What about Russians grumbing more about land issues and mining resources in Artic Ocean?
That grumbling was going on a few years ago when Arctic ice was receding and oil was over 100 bucks a barrel. Now that neither condition any longer applies, I expect the Russians have little appetite in the here-and-now for speculative resource initiatives.
I remember when these three itmes were non-issues because Artic Ocean had too much ice it wasn’t worth exploiting.
Those times have come back. Everything old is new again.
Let’s send Cruz to Pluto. With Trump for company.
That would require the services of SLS which is not likely to make its first manned launch until the middle of President Cruz’s or
President Trump’s second term. Good thing the Orion has a couple of extra seats for the Secret Service detail.
How’s this for irony: while MJ trumpets the climate change on Pluto, this is one of the key reasons for saying climate change is *natural*. An apparent warming trend has been seen on other planets of the Solar System including Mars and Pluto.
Bob Clark