Saturday, September 9, 2017

Galileo and a New Climate Study

A Durable Myth

Science writer Katherine Ellen Foley has another article on anthropogenic global warming, or AGW, in Quartz this past week. The AGW theory states that civilization’s production of green-house gases, such as carbon dioxide, is causing a hockey-stick like rise in the Earth’s temperatures. This has led to a range of dire environmental warnings in recent decades, some of which have already failed. Nonetheless AGW is the consensus theory amongst virtually all climate scientists. How much of this consensus is formed by non empirical factors—more common in science than is often understood—is an open question. Leaked emails have revealed strong-arm tactics—including pressure on publishers—used to squash dissent. Of course none of this means AGW is necessarily anything less than completely true. But it does compromise unsupported claims that AGW is a strong, empirical theory. Press conferences claiming a case closed won’t cut it—that kind of trust and legitimacy was lost years ago. The guiding light here must be the raw science.

All of this means that AGW appears to be another fascinating example of how science, for better or for worse, works. What I find particularly interesting are high truth claims for ideas that are politically or metaphysically charged and not obviously empirically supported. The problem with science, as Del Ratzsch has pointed out, is that it is done by people. Non empirical influences are, gasp, sometimes at work and we simply must understand the underlying science rather than blindly accept authoritarian pronouncements.

I am not arguing for or against AGW, but I am arguing for a depth of understanding that too often is missing from partisan accounts. This, unfortunately, characterizes Foley’s Quartz article, which asks the question: What about the research papers questioning AGW? While the vast majority of the literature falls squarely within the AGW-is-true paradigm, there is nonetheless a tiny sliver of papers questioning the theory.

To be sure those papers aren’t having much influence, but according to Foley AGW critics often invoke Galileo as a comparison. Just as Galileo met stiff opposition, so do these AGW dissenters. The implication is that, like Galileo, these researchers will prevail in the end.

Foley explains this is all wrong, both because it is a false analogy and because those papers are scientifically flawed. Specifically, Foley explains that Galileo’s “fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.” And furthermore, a study of those dissenting papers found them to be biased and faulty.

Foley’s article hit the mark. It has instantly been reposted and retold across the Internet, on blogs, forums, and even videos, such as this one by Jeff Waldorf. Unfortunately Foley’s article is little more than AGW cheerleading, and Waldorf and the others are only too quick to pile on, assigning nefarious motives to anyone who would doubt the consensus theory. It is precisely this kind of hostile, social atmosphere which can be so stifling to science.

Foley’s article is largely a copy and paste job from other sources, and she employs the usual rhetorical devices, such as labelling her targets as “climate-change-denying papers.” Of course they are no such thing. The papers are questioning AGW, not “denying” climate change.  This sort of rhetoric, targeted at reasonable skepticism, is a sign of fake news.

The next problem is with her retelling of the Galileo Affair which is all Warfare Thesis. No it wasn’t science versus religion—that is the myth that Foley is propagating. Galileo did not heroically lead a scientific consensus with powerful and unambiguous empirical evidence against ecclesiastical resistance. Church leaders did not “tr[y] to suppress them.”

Nonetheless this gets picked up and amplified by Waldorf and the others, and historians now have yet another round of Galileo mythology to reckon with. The Galileo myth serves as yet another non empirical mandate for ideas like AGW and evolution, and that is why it is so resistant and durable.

As if to support her Galileo claims, Foley links to a 2011 phony New York Times article by Henry Fountain who provides this absurd retelling of the myth:

Galileo, whose astronomical observations confirmed the Copernican theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun, was basing his assertions on empirical knowledge and faced opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, which supported the Ptolemaic view of an Earth-centered universe.

Of course Galileo’s observations did not “confirm the Copernican theory.” Nor were his “assertions based on empirical knowledge.” Galileo flatly ignored Kepler’s finding that ellipses perfectly described the planetary orbits (as opposed to the lousy circles Galileo advocated which required epicycles). And the lack of stellar parallax observed in the seventeenth century flatly refuted Galileo’s heliocentrism. Furthermore Galileo studiously avoided mentioning Tycho Brahe’s hybrid model which competed well against heliocentrism. Galileo carefully framed the debate as strictly heliocentrism versus geocentrism.

Nor did Galileo face any kind of unified opposition from the Roman Catholic Church. That is another myth. There were many in the church who had no problem with Galileo pursuing his ideas, and the Pope had been a benefactor of Galileo before, that is, Galileo turned on him.

The Galileo Affair is far more complex and nuanced than these pathetic retellings would have it. As one historian put it, it was Galileo’s religion versus the Church’s science. But that, of course, would not service Foley’s message.

Next Foley appeals to a 2015 paper—passed off as something of recent importance—arguing that research papers skeptical of AGW are all flawed.

That’s curious.

Why does Foley now resurrect a 2015 review of even older AGW skepticism? Foley generously draws upon a 2015 Guardian article to fill in her story.

Could this retelling of an old story have anything to do with more recent research posing serious challenges to AGW? Could this be an attempt to forestall emerging skepticism, and delegitimize research that points to AGW’s on-going problems?

Consider a new study by John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy that is suggesting a rather fundamental failure of AGW. The study shows that pre industrial climate data robustly models twentieth century temperatures.

That should not be the case if AGW is true.

If later nineteenth and twentieth century greenhouse gas emissions are causing a hockey stick temperature rise, it should not be consistent with the older data. AGW says that the climate has changed.

Now perhaps Abbot’s and Marohasy’s new research is flawed. Perhaps they have made a mistake, and so AGW is unharmed by their work.

But doesn’t that make for a more interesting article in 2017 than rehashing old myths?

100 comments:

  1. What is most interesting is that papers that argue against AGW do get published. Which suggests that peer review does not have the witch hunt mentality that many AGW Denyers and ID proponents often claim. All it takes to get published is a logically sound argument, preferably supported by evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet CO2 as the cause of AGW doesn't have any supporting evidence. All the while the real cause of environmental damage- animal agriculture- gets mostly ignored.

      Delete
    2. A couple minutes on Google clearly shows that the affects of agriculture on the environment are very well covered in scientific literature.

      Delete
    3. LoL! Animal agriculture is the number one cause of climate change because of what it does to the environment. Yet AGW alarmists mostly ignore it which is evident by the fact it isn't well publicized.

      Animal agriculture should always be the first thing out of AGW alarmists' mouths if they really want to promote actual climate change policies, ie do something that will actually help their cause.

      Delete
    4. Strangely enough, CO2 is not mentioned once in the Paris climate accord. But food production is mentioned three times.

      Delete
    5. Read the IPCC reports where you will see they think our CO2 emissions are the cause for climate change. That is the whole reason of cap & trade and the carbon tax.

      And strangely wikipdedia's page on the Paris Accord says it deals specifically with greenhouse emissions. And with respect to us guess which greenhouse gas they are talking about:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

      Delete
    6. Joke: "And strangely wikipdedia's page on the Paris Accord says it deals specifically with greenhouse emissions. And with respect to us guess which greenhouse gas they are talking about:"

      They use the term greenhouse emissions because it is not only about CO2. Methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated compounds are also included. Water vapour is also a greenhouse gas but it increases with increased warming so it acts in a feedback fashion.

      CO2, methane and nitrous oxide are created naturally, but the anthropogenic sources, especially of CO2, are increasing in percentage relative to the natural sources.

      As to your nonsense about the agricultural sources being ignored, the EPA doesn't seem to ignore it.

      https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

      Cap and trade systems have started with CO2, with the plan to expand to the other greenhouse gases.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme

      Agriculture, although it accounts for 24% of emissions, is more difficult to control because they are not point sources. But even agriculture associations are advocating to include agriculture in the cap and trade systems.

      https://ofa.on.ca/media/news/advocating-for-agriculture%27s-role-under-cap-and-trade

      Any more pearls of non-wisdom you would like to throw at this Joe?

      Delete
    7. Thank you for making my point. Not one of your references mentions ANIMAL agriculture as the number one cause for climate change and the IPCC doesn't mention it at all.

      ANIMAL agriculture is easy to control but we won't cuz we want our bacon and burgers regardless of the consequences.

      Our CO2 output is not the problem and only short-sighted people claim it to be.

      Delete
    8. Joke: "Thank you for making my point. Not one of your references mentions ANIMAL agriculture as the number one cause for climate change and the IPCC doesn't mention it at all."

      From the first IPCC report I looked at: "Household fossil and biofuel, biomass burning and on-road transportation are also relatively large contributors to warming over these time scales, while current emissions from sectors that emit large amounts of CH4 (animal husbandry, waste/landfills and agriculture) are also important over shorter time horizons (up to about 20 years)."

      This report only mentions it 139 times.

      "ANIMAL agriculture is easy to control but we won't cuz we want our bacon and burgers regardless of the consequences."

      Then become a vegetarian and produce more methane than you already do.

      "Our CO2 output is not the problem and only short-sighted people claim it to be."

      Who should I listen to? People who actually study the issue and subject their work to peer review, scrutiny and criticism? Or a toaster repairman who insults people on the internet and who believes that frequency equals wavelength?

      Delete
    9. wee willie- the people who say that CO2 is the problem cannot support their claims. Also most of them are not climate scientists. Like Dr Mann they are physicists without any formal training in climate or weather. There isn't anything in peer-review that supports the claim CO2 is the number one driver of climate change.

      As for freq = wavelength the following supports my claim but I am sure you won't be able to understand it:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_frequency_allocations

      And as for insulting people well that seems to be all you can do. You definitely cannot find the alleged scientific theory of evolution and you definitely cannot find any support for evolutionism in peer-review. All you do is lie and bluff.

      And BTW, I have been a vegetarian since 1979. However to change the world we need everyone to do so or stop crying about climate change.


      Delete
    10. Here are articles detailing the link between animal agriculture and climate change- ie the number 1 cause:

      animal agriculture and climate change

      Delete
    11. The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production

      So why don't the warming alarmists talk about the number 1 cause of climate change, ie animal agriculture?

      Delete
    12. Joke: "As for freq = wavelength the following supports my claim but I am sure you won't be able to understand it:"

      Mathematics 101. The dimensions (units) on either side of the equal sign must be the same, otherwise the equation is nonsense. Here are a couple examples that are logically sound:

      mg/L = ppm
      ug/g = mg/kg

      But there is no place in this universe where mHz = meters.

      I have so much fun with this. Rather than simply admit that you made an innocent mistake, something we are all guilty of at times, you double and triple down. It is an interesting pathology.

      Contrary to what you falsely claimed, the IPCC acknowledges the input of animal husbandry to greenhouse gas emissions. And there are plans to address these in the next phase of cap and trade systems like that in the EU.

      But cattle respiration and farts are part of a relatively short term cycle. Plants fix atmospheric carbon in their tissues. Animals eat the plants, fixing some of the carbon in their tissues and releasing some back to the atmosphere. A cycle that has been going on for millions of years. Fossil fuel burning, however, releases CO2 and methane from a source that has been sequestered for hundreds of thousands of years, and that accumulated in these deposits over hundreds of thousands of years. And we have been releasing them back to the atmosphere in a relatively short time frame, such that accumulate faster than they can be removed by natural processes. This accumulates in the atmosphere and is not rapidly fed back into the normal carbon cycle.

      "And BTW, I have been a vegetarian since 1979. However to change the world we need everyone to do so or stop crying about climate change."

      I'm proud of you. But there are ways of significantly reducing the impact of animal farming that does not require everyone becoming a vegetarian. Chicken, pigs and fish have a much lower impact than cattle. There are different feeds that can significantly reduce the methane production of the cows.

      Delete
    13. Wow, thank you for proving that I was right- you are too dense to understand the context that frequency = wavelength.

      Animal agriculture is more than green house emissions. It also poisons the oceans with its run-off. It is the number one cause of deforestation.

      CO2 is measured in parts per million and no one has shown that little variation can effect the climate. No one.

      Delete
    14. "Wow, thank you for proving that I was right- you are too dense to understand the context that frequency = wavelength."

      I think that you need a shovel with a longer handle. That hole must be getting really deep.

      "Animal agriculture is more than green house emissions. It also poisons the oceans with its run-off. It is the number one cause of deforestation."

      All of which are subjects of serious discussion, research, regulations and treaties. What is your point?

      "CO2 is measured in parts per million and no one has shown that little variation can effect the climate. No one."

      What does the fact that CO2 is measured in ppm have to do with anything. Surely you are not implying that things in ppm levels do not have an effect on things. Here is the symptoms of exposure to 500 - 700 ppm of hydrogen sulphide:

      "Staggering, collapse in 5 minutes. Serious damage to the eyes in 30 minutes. Death after 30-60 minutes."

      Drinking water is unsafe to drink if it has more than 10 parts per billion lead.

      Science proceeds by experimentation and observation. Something that ID proponents know very little about. Here is a link to some papers on research of the affect of atmospheric level CO2 on temperature absorption.

      https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

      Delete
    15. Let me get this straight, Joe. You believe in anthropocentric global warming because you feel sorry for the animals because they are being slaughtered for food?

      Am I getting this right?

      Delete
    16. Cornelius, this is interesting. You will allow a nothing comment from Mapou to be posted, but not a post from me that addressed Joke's arguments with relavent links and arguments. As Mullings would say, that speaks volumes.

      Delete
    17. Cornelius, this is interesting. You will allow a nothing comment from Mapou to be posted, but not a post from me that addressed Joke's arguments with relavent links and arguments.

      LOL. Dirt worshippers are such whiny little turds.

      Delete
    18. WS: Cornelius, this is interesting. You will allow a nothing comment from Mapou to be posted, but not a post from me that addressed Joke's arguments with relavent links and arguments.

      Ah, I don't think that was us. Perhaps Google flagged you for fake news?

      Delete
    19. Cornelius:
      "Ah, I don't think that was us. Perhaps Google flagged you for fake news?"

      If you had said that you hadn't blocked my comment and that it was a blog host glitch, I would have accepted that. But your jab about "fake news" only confirms that it was intentional. Which is sad, because you have usually been open about not blocking comments.

      If you can demonstrate that my links were "fake news" present the case. Since you didn't, I can only conclude that you blocked my comment because you can't refute it. That is so UD.

      Delete
    20. Ah, I don't think that was us. Perhaps Google flagged you for fake news?

      LOL. This is so friggin funny, I'm rolling on the floor. Just as I expected, the humor flew right past the whiny little dirt worshipper.

      Delete
    21. Mapou; "LOL. This is so friggin funny, I'm rolling on the floor. Just as I expected, the humor flew right past the whiny little dirt worshipper."

      No. I had a good laugh at the comment. I just found it dishonest to make the comment while blocking the comment it was in reference to.

      Delete
    22. What does the fact that CO2 is measured in ppm have to do with anything.

      Exactly what I said. Please learn how to read:

      no one has shown that little variation can effect the climate. No one.

      And comparing CO2 to hydrogen sulfide just exposes your anti-science view and desperation.

      There isn't any science nor math that shows an increase of CO2, as measured in parts per million, has an effect on climate- not to the extent alarmists want us to believe.

      Science proceeds by experimentation and observation.

      Exactly but there aren't any experiments or observations that support blind watchmaker evolution.

      Delete
    23. But there is no place in this universe where mHz = meters.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio_frequency_allocations

      80 meters – 3.5–4.0 MHz (3500–4000 kHz)

      6 of one half dozen of the other. Again I don't expect you to understand that

      Delete


    24. Joke: "There isn't any science nor math that shows an increase of CO2, as measured in parts per million, has an effect on climate- not to the extent alarmists want us to believe."

      Try reading for content sometime. It is an amazing thing.

      https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

      The physics of CO2 absorption is very well understood and has been shown to have a measurable affect at the levels currently seen in the atmosphere. This is only contested by people who have some sort of axe to grind, or are scientifically illiterate. It is how this will ultimately affect the climate that is being researched and debated. Not the fact of temperature increase itself.

      There is one thing that is certain. Dramatically increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere must have an impact. Physics demands it. It is in our own selfish best interests to not pollute our environment if we can prevent it.

      Delete
    25. Yes CO2 increase has an impact, just not as much as alarmists say. The math says that doubling of CO2 will raise the temps about 1.2 degrees, at best

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/01/the-mathematics-of-carbon-dioxide-part-4/

      CO2 isn't like a blanket, wee willie. And it doesn't force its radiated heat back towards the ground unless it happens to be aligned that way.

      Also CO2 is not a pollutant any more than water vapor is. And both glaciers and sea ice will melt when ambient temps are below freezing if they are covered with soot.

      CO2 is not the problem. Stop animal agriculture and the extra CO2 we are adding will be easily mitigated.

      Delete
    26. Joke: "Yes CO2 increase has an impact, just not as much as alarmists say. The math says that doubling of CO2 will raise the temps about 1.2 degrees, at best."

      So?

      "CO2 isn't like a blanket, wee willie. And it doesn't force its radiated heat back towards the ground unless it happens to be aligned that way."

      So, where does this heat go? Enlighten us.

      "Also CO2 is not a pollutant any more than water vapor is."

      By that logic, neither is mercury, phosphorus, formaldehyde, cyanide, benzene or raw sewage.

      "And both glaciers and sea ice will melt when ambient temps are below freezing if they are covered with soot."

      So? Is that why they are melting?

      "CO2 is not the problem. Stop animal agriculture and the extra CO2 we are adding will be easily mitigated."

      Or we could continue to eat meat and reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels. Your argument is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

      Delete
    27. So, where does this heat go?

      Radiates out into space.

      "Also CO2 is not a pollutant any more than water vapor is."

      By that logic, neither is mercury, phosphorus, formaldehyde, cyanide, benzene or raw sewage.

      Try to make your case. I dare you.

      Is that why they are melting?

      Most likely as they are all covered with soot and dirt.

      Or we could continue to eat meat and reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels.

      Won't work as animal agriculture is the worst thing for this planet- that is according to the science. Oh, that's right- you don't understand science.

      Delete
    28. By that logic, neither is mercury, phosphorus, formaldehyde, cyanide, benzene or raw sewage.

      Yet we ingest CO2. And the added CO2 is making the planet greener. Pollutants usually destroy the greenery. Try ingesting mercury, phosphorus, formaldehyde, cyanide, benzene or raw sewage and tell us how you fair.

      Delete
    29. Joke: "Yet we ingest [inhale] CO2. "

      We also inhale thousands of other compounds every time we breath. That doesn't mean that it is wise to knowingly increase the concentrations of these other compounds. That would just be stupid.

      And the added CO2 is making the planet greener.

      Yes, the higher CO2 promotes plant growth, but this additional plant growth is not sufficient to offset the addition to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

      The higher CO2 levels also warm the atmosphere and acidifies the oceans.

      Pollutants usually destroy the greenery."

      You are demonstrating your grade school level of understanding of how chemicals behave in the environment. We spend billions of dollars every year treating raw sewage. We could make the planet much, much greener by simply discharging it untreated into our rivers, lakes and oceans. How come you are not arguing against sewage treatment?

      Me: "Is that why they are melting? [soot and dirt on glaciers]"

      Joke: "Most likely as they are all covered with soot and dirt."

      Hmm, I wonder where this soot is coming from?

      Me: "Or we could continue to eat meat and reduce the CO2 from fossil fuels."

      Joke: "Won't work as animal agriculture is the worst thing for this planet- that is according to the science."

      Yet there are things that we can do to significantly reduce both the impacts from burning fossil fuels and animal agriculture. Not doing enough on one environmental problem is not justification for not doing something about another. That logic only works in the Bizarro universe.

      Delete
    30. wee willie:
      Yes, the higher CO2 promotes plant growth, but this additional plant growth is not sufficient to offset the addition to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

      Who cares? Get rid of animal agriculture and all will be OK- even better than ever.

      The higher CO2 levels also warm the atmosphere and acidifies the oceans.

      The rise in temp is unnoticeable. We have changes in temp of over 40 degrees from day to day. And the oceans are acidified by the CO2 coming from underwater vents and volcanoes. And guess what? They are still in the alkaline range.

      You are demonstrating your grade school level of understanding of how chemicals behave in the environment.

      So sez the first grader.

      We could make the planet much, much greener by simply discharging it untreated into our rivers, lakes and oceans.

      That demonstrates total ignorance. But please do reference the science that supports your asinine claim.

      Hmm, I wonder where this soot is coming from?

      Not from CO2, that much is obvious.

      Yet there are things that we can do to significantly reduce both the impacts from burning fossil fuels and animal agriculture.

      Only one will have any impact on climate change so we should focus on that. And guess what? It will also lead to a significant decrease in the use of fossil fuels.

      Delete
    31. Me: "We could make the planet much, much greener by simply discharging it [raw sewage] untreated into our rivers, lakes and oceans."

      Joke: "That demonstrates total ignorance. But please do reference the science that supports your asinine claim."

      The fact that you don't know why we treat sewage speaks volumes about your understanding of environmental issues. I'm not doing your work for you. Especially on a subject for which there are thousands and thousands of published research papers. And for which there is a Canada/US treaty about.

      Are you even aware that sewage sludge from treatment plants in North America is spread on farmers' fields, to help make them "greener"? Think about that next time you are eating your vegetables.

      If you are going to debate a subject, it is always advisable to understand something about the subject. It might also help to not discuss it with someone who has made a living for over thirty years in the environmental chemistry/wastewater treatment field. Might I suggest with starting with phosphorus and eutrophication. Phosphorus limitation. BOD.

      Delete
    32. The fact that you don't know why we treat sewage...

      That doesn't follow from anything that I posted. Clearly you are just a desperate fool.

      Are you even aware that sewage sludge from treatment plants in North America is spread on farmers' fields, to help make them "greener"?

      LoL! AFTER TREAMENT. And that is much different from what you suggested which was BEFORE TREATMENT.

      Clearly you are just a clueless dolt, wee willie.

      Delete
    33. Joke: "LoL! AFTER TREAMENT. And that is much different from what you suggested which was BEFORE TREATMENT.

      AFTER TREATMENT, the sludge that is spread on farmers' fields is the material that they are able to pull out of the raw sewage. In short, far more concentrated in all of the things that are in raw sewage (organic matter, phosphorus, bacteria, nitrogen compounds, heavy metals, etc.). And farmers use it because it makes everything greener.

      Your bluster is impressive, but it would be more convincing if you actually knew what you were talking about.

      Delete
    34. Your bluster is impressive, but it would be more convincing if you actually knew what you were talking about.

      LoL! Your bluster isn't impressive and you were caught spewing BS. After treatment is much different than before treatment. You were forced to switch like the loser that you are.

      Delete
    35. Joke: "After treatment is much different than before treatment."

      Will all those wh run the testing laboratory for the wastewater treatment plant of a large city please raise their hand?

      Treatment only concentrates some of the materials from raw sewage into a semi-solid material so that the liquid portion can be discharged to a river, lake or ocean. The remaining semi-solid material (sludge) is far more toxic and nasty on a pound for pound basis than raw sewage ever was. Yet it is still valuable as a very effective fertilizer. Making everything greener. If we didn't treat it, it would still make everything greener. Obviously, greener is not always a good thing.

      Delete
    36. Treatment only concentrates some of the materials from raw sewage into a semi-solid material so that the liquid portion can be discharged to a river, lake or ocean.

      So the raw sewage is never really treated during treatment? Is that what you are saying?

      So sewage treatment doesn't remove contaminants from the RAW sewage? Really?

      wee willie is saying sewage treatment just concentrates it and sends it on its way.

      Look, willie, when you start ingesting the sludge please let us know the outcome. Also buy a dictionary:

      pollute:

      a :to make physically impure or unclean :befoul, dirty

      b :to contaminate (an environment) especially with man-made waste


      from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollute

      CO2 doesn't fit the definition and both raw and treated sewage does. Again I don't expect you to understand what that means.


      Delete
    37. Joke: "So the raw sewage is never really treated during treatment? Is that what you are saying?"

      Has reading comprehension been a problem for you all of your life or just a recent problem?

      "So sewage treatment doesn't remove contaminants from the RAW sewage? Really?"

      It removes a lot from the raw sewage and produces sewage sludge, which must be disposed of. And we do this by spreading it on farmers' fields.

      "wee willie is saying sewage treatment just concentrates it and sends it on its way."

      Concentrating it is the major way treatment works. The concentrated part is removed from the liquid part. Then both streams must be disposed of. The liquid part (the cleanest part), goes to a river, lake or ocean. The dirtiest part is spread on farmers' fields to make things greener. Less intensive treatment just sprays the raw sewage directly on the field. The concept is extremely simple. The fact that you can't understand this is not surprising, but I had hopes.

      With regard to your definitions of pollution, CO2 from fossil fuels fits the second definition perfectly.

      Delete
    38. Has reading comprehension been a problem for you all of your life or just a recent problem?

      I read just fine. You, on the other hand don't know what you are posting.

      It removes a lot from the raw sewage and produces sewage sludge, which must be disposed of. And we do this by spreading it on farmers' fields.

      And THAT is a far cry from what you originally said. So now you are guilty of moving the goalposts once your original statement was shown to be ignorant.

      With regard to your definitions of pollution, CO2 from fossil fuels fits the second definition perfectly.

      Umm CO2 is CO2. And CO2 doesn't fit the definition at all. CO2 is not a contaminate. It happens to be required.

      Delete
    39. "Umm CO2 is CO2. And CO2 doesn't fit the definition at all. CO2 is not a contaminate. It happens to be required."

      Phosphorus, copper, zinc and numerous other elements and compounds are also needed. Are you suggesting that we don't pollute the environment with these? Maybe you should stick to what you know about. Toaster repair and making ridiculous claims.

      Delete
    40. Try to read. CO2 does not fit any definition for a pollutant. We inhale it. We ingest it (think soda). And without it we would still be stuck in an ice age.

      When the earth is warm humans prosper. Plants prosper. So what do you have against humans and plants?

      And if you stuck to what you know about we would never hear from you

      Delete
    41. Joke: "Try to read. CO2 does not fit any definition for a pollutant. We inhale it. We ingest it (think soda). And without it we would still be stuck in an ice age."

      And how does this differ from phosphorus? We ingest it, and without it there would be no life as we would recognize it. Yet we spend billions every year removing it from raw sewage before discharging it to rivers, lakes or oceans.

      Here is a quote from the EPA. They might know a little about pollution.

      "Nutrient pollution is one of America's most widespread, costly and challenging environmental problems, and is caused by excess nitrogen and phosphorus in the air and water."

      This in spite of the fact that phosphorus is a requirement for all life on earth. According to Joke logic, if it is needed, it can't be a pollution. Thankfully, nobody in authority lives in the Bizarro universe with Joke.

      Delete
    42. Right now, my friends and I are gonna do our best to contribute to anthropocentric global warming: barbecued beef and pork ribs on charcoal briquettes. And lots of beer.

      hahahaha...HAHAHAHA...hahahaha...

      Delete
    43. LoL! @ wee willie- Notice the word "excess". Please tell us what would be the excessive amount of CO2 and how you reached that conclusion.

      Or just admit that you are fishing without bait.

      Delete
    44. Report: Ocean Cycles, Not Humans, May Be Behind Most Observed Climate Change:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/15/report-ocean-cycles-not-humans-may-be-behind-most-observed-climate-change/

      Natural variability- perhaps that is also a pollutant...

      Delete
    45. Joke: "LoL! @ wee willie- Notice the word "excess". Please tell us what would be the excessive amount of CO2 and how you reached that conclusion."

      Call me silly, but any discharges of CO2 that are above the natural carbon cycle's ability to process, in my mind, would be excessive. One of the easiest ways to determine this is if we see accumulations in average concentrations in the atmosphere.

      Ironically, that is the rule of thumb that we use for most discharges, regardless of the compound.

      Delete
    46. You are silly as there isn't any science to support your asinine claim.

      The natural carbon cycle removes all non-manmade CO2 and that would be very detrimental to us if we didn't put some back.

      It's as if you are totally clueless with respect to climate and atmospheric science. That's right, you are totally clueless when it comes to science.

      Delete
    47. Joke: "The natural carbon cycle removes all non-manmade CO2 and that would be very detrimental to us if we didn't put some back."

      As Mapou would say:

      hahahaha...HAHAHAHA...hahahaha...

      That is almost the stupidest thing that I have heard anyone say. Well, that and frequency = wavelength.

      Delete
    48. LoL! wee willie, everything you say is stupid. You have yet to make and support any of your asinine claims.

      I supported my claim that wavelength=frequency and as usual you choked on it because you are an uneducated tool.

      Delete
    49. Joke: "I supported my claim that wavelength=frequency and as usual you choked on it because you are an uneducated tool."

      Where is Johny Carson when you need him. Because this is comedy gold.

      Delete
    50. Johnny is dead, just like your brain. Good luck with that

      Delete
    51. Exposing wee willie's willful ignorance, again:

      630 meters – 472–479 kHz

      160 meters – 1800–2000 kHz (1.8-2 MHz)

      etc, etc, etc

      Delete
    52. Hmm. I must have missed those equal signs.

      Delete
    53. LoL! You must have missed school, entirely. Or perhaps you are just brain dead. But do tell us what you think the following means:

      630 meters – 472–479 kHz

      160 meters – 1800–2000 kHz (1.8-2 MHz)

      I ask because to educated people it means that 630 meters (wavelength) is the same as saying 472 to 479 KHz (frequency)

      160 meters (wavelength) is the same as 1800 to 2000KHz (frequency)

      Your willful ignorance is comedy gold, ww. Thank you

      Delete
    54. Interchangeable. I know it's a big word that is way out of your league but there are dictionaries that can help you.

      Delete
    55. Joke: "I ask because to educated people it means that 630 meters (wavelength) is the same as saying 472 to 479 KHz (frequency)"

      Is that in a vacuum? In water? In atmosphere? The only reason I ask is because even the second biggest moron in the world knows that they differ in different matrices. But I forgot; I am talking to the biggest moron in the world

      Delete
    56. "I ask because to educated people it means that 630 meters (wavelength) is the same as saying 472 to 479 KHz (frequency)"

      Is that in a vacuum? In water? In atmosphere?

      Go underwater and tell us the difference in the wave. Or admit that you are still fishing without bait.

      Delete
    57. Joke: Go underwater and tell us the difference in the wave. Or admit that you are still fishing without bait."

      When waves enter a different media, the frequency remains the same and the wavelength changes. If frequency equals wavelength, please explain how this can happen? If you can prove that frequency equals wavelength, you can get a free trip to Scandinavia to collect your Nobel. Sadly, they do not give Nobels for toaster repair and bad math.

      Delete
    58. OK so you can't do it. Do you know why submarines have to surface to transmit a radio signal? (or at least get their antennae above the surface) But then again I bet you are too stupid to understand what that means.

      Frequency and wavelength are INTERCHANGEABLE as evidenced by the Wikipedia article. It isn't my fault that the word is too big for you to understand.


      Delete
    59. Joke: "Frequency and wavelength are INTERCHANGEABLE as evidenced by the Wikipedia article. It isn't my fault that the word is too big for you to understand."

      Yet,
      "In sea water, wavelength at 10 kHz is only 15.8 metres compared to 30 km in space. In fresh water the reduction in wavelength is not so dramatic but still quite considerable. At 1.8 MHz, wavelength is 10.1 metres compared to 167 metres in space." [Underwater Radio Communication by Lloyd Butler 1987]

      Frequency and wavelength don't look too interchangeable to me. But please continue to claim that frequency equals wavelength. Your hole digging/water treading/clutching at straws is quite amusing and informative.

      Delete
    60. Of course frequency and wavelength are interchangeable. the are different numerical representations of the same wave.

      Clearly you have other issues and require help.

      Delete
    61. In sea water, wavelength at 10 kHz is only 15.8 metres compared to 30 km in space.

      Two DIFFERENT waves wee willie. Each has one wavelength with exactly one corresponding and therefor interchangeable frequency.

      But again we have been over this before and you are still desperately clinging on to it for some willfully ignorant reason.

      Delete
    62. You two guys are friggin boring. I swear. Nobody is reading this crap.

      Delete
    63. Louis- wee willie is like Barney Fife with his one bullet. When all else fails, and it always does, wee willie reaches for it. He is obsessed with his one bullet and likes to polish it and show it around.

      Delete
    64. Give it up Joke. Everyone watching you make a fool out of yourself knows you were too ignorant to understand the relationship between wavelength and frequency. You were too dumb to know the ratio depends on the wave propagation speed in the medium the wave is traveling.

      But keep squirming and sticking that foot deeper into the big mouth. Folks all over the web are still laughing at you.

      Delete
    65. Mapou: "You two guys are friggin boring. I swear. Nobody is reading this crap."

      Apparently Joke reads it. But, Mapou, I am curious. Do you believe that frequency equals wavelength as Joke does? Or do you opt to side with the rational mind?

      Delete
    66. Everyone watching you make a fool out of yourself knows you were too ignorant to understand the relationship between wavelength and frequency.

      Then it is strange that I have been saying what it is. And it is also strange that I produced a reference to support my claim.

      You were too dumb to know the ratio depends on the wave propagation speed in the medium the wave is traveling.

      And yet I have discussed it. It is irrelevant to what I was talking about.

      Clearly you are just another ignorant tool, Barney Fife wannabe

      Delete
    67. Let's try this one more time to see if Joke will finally admit that he made a mistake.

      Joke claim: Frequency = Wavelength

      Law of Physics: Wave Velocity = Frequency x Wavelength

      For both of these equations to be correct, when the velocity of a wave changes, as it does when passing from one medium to another (e.g., water to air), both wavelength and frequency must change to the same magnitude. Sadly for Joke, the laws of physics rears its ugly head again. When waves pass from one medium to another, the velocity of the wave changes but the frequency of the wave does not, leaving only a change in wavelength as the only way to balance the physics equation. And if the wavelength can change without a corresponding change in the frequency, Joke's claim cannot be correct.

      Narcissistic Personality Disorder: An inability to admit error – even when presented with objective evidence of their error.

      Delete
    68. Frequency = Wavelength as evidenced by their interchangeability.

      I can't help it if you are too stupid to understand that point. But that is your problem, not mine.

      And yes, wee willie fits the
      Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Nice own goal, loser

      Delete
    69. Context matters. That EM or sound waves can be different in different media was never part of the discussion in which I said frequency = wavelength. It is an irrelevant distraction by a desperate loser.

      The context I was using that was in they are interchangeable.

      Context matters to educated people but not to Barney, aka wee willie spearshake.

      Delete
    70. Yet you still refuse to admit that you were in error when you said Frequency = Wavelength.

      Delete
    71. The context I was using that was in they are interchangeable. And in that context there wasn't any error, Barney.

      Delete
    72. Joke: "The context I was using that was in they are interchangeable."

      There is no context in which Frequency = Wavelength. Everyone reading this is well aware of that fact. What is truly amazing is the level of effort you are expending in trying to disprove a self evident fact simply because you misspoke and are pathologically incapable of admitting a mistake.

      Delete
    73. There is no context in which Frequency = Wavelength.

      And yet interchangeable means they are the same. And the same means they are equal.

      So I don't understand YOUR problem.

      Delete
    74. Joke: "And yet interchangeable means they are the same. And the same means they are equal."

      Let's examine this Joe logic.

      In the equation 6 = 2 x 3, the numbers 2 and 3 are interchangeable. 2 x 3 = 3 x 2. By Joe logic this means that 2 and 3 are the same and, therefore 2 and 3 are equal.

      please tell me that you aren't home schooling your kids.

      Delete
    75. Being interchangeable means they are EQUAL at performing the same task.

      But let's examine Barney's desperation:

      In the equation 6 = 2 x 3, the numbers 2 and 3 are interchangeable. 2 x 3 = 3 x 2. By Joe logic this means that 2 and 3 are the same and, therefore 2 and 3 are equal.

      Interchangeable would mean the 2's can become 3's and the 3's can become 2's keeping the same result, not that they can just switch places. It's as if you don't care how much a desperate loser you portray yourself to be. But that is the beauty of anonymity.

      Delete
    76. Joke: "Interchangeable would mean the 2's can become 3's and the 3's can become 2's keeping the same result, not that they can just switch places."

      Sorry. Let's limit the discussion to wavelength and frequency.

      In the equation wave velocity = wavelength x frequency, wavelength and frequency are interchangeable. How is that different that 2 and 3 in my earlier example?

      Delete
    77. More importantly, if wavelength = frequency, why did they give them different names? Why don't they right that equation as: wave velocity = wavelength^2? It seemed to work fine for e = m x c^2.


      Delete
    78. I never said they were interchangeable within any equation. They are interchangeable when talking about any given wave just as the Wikipedia link demonstrates.

      We weren't discussing equations so they are not part of the context in which I made the claim. So this:

      In the equation wave velocity = wavelength x frequency, wavelength and frequency are interchangeable.

      is just a sign of a desperate loser.

      Delete
    79. The discussion wasn't about equations containing wavelength and frequency. Also in any conversation involving wavelength and frequency educated people understand it means in the usual sense, ie not changing matrices. That only comes up if stipulated. So stop being such a jerk, already.

      More importantly, if wavelength = frequency, why did they give them different names?

      Because they are different yet interchangeable, just as the Wikipedia article demonstrates. They are different numerical representations of the same wave. You talk to an amateur radio person and you can swap the two- interchangeable- in your conversation just as the Wikipedia article demonstrates.

      Context, willie. The context was NEVER about equations pertaining to frequency and wavelength. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?


      Delete
    80. Joke: "I never said they were interchangeable within any equation. They are interchangeable when talking about any given wave just as the Wikipedia link demonstrates."

      No, your original claim was that Frequency = Wavelength. No qualifications. No exchangeability. All of that backpeddaling came after your original mistake was pointed out. But feel free to keep digging. It is providing hours of comedy gold to myself and others.

      Delete
    81. No, your original claim was that Frequency = Wavelength. No qualifications.

      So it was just out of the blue? If so then it was turret's. But I doubt that. Context, Barney. There was obviously a context in which that was posted.

      We were NOT talking about any equations so what I said was not in the context of any equations. And as such is not interchangeable with a discussion about equations.

      When a coach says one linebacker is interchangeable with the other he doesn't mean that they are interchangeable in all walks of life, just as linebackers.

      Context, Barney.

      Delete
    82. Joke: "We were NOT talking about any equations so what I said was not in the context of any equations."

      Frequency = Wavelength is an equation. The equal sign is a dead give away. You didn't start with the interchangeable equivocation until recently. But that is beside the point. Saying that frequency and wavelength are interchangeable is as stupid a statement as saying that they are equal.

      By your logic temperature and density of pure water are interchangeable and, therefore, equal.

      Delete
    83. Frequency = Wavelength is an equation.

      LoL! Not really. It just shows the two are interchangeable, which means they are the same, which means they are equal in the CONTEXT of the discussion.

      Saying that frequency and wavelength are interchangeable is as stupid a statement as saying that they are equal.

      LoL! What a loser- then how did I find a reference that supports my claim that they are interchangeable? Why do you get to ignore the evidence that supports my claim?

      You are just pathetic. At least now I know why you accept evolutionism- you don't have the capability to think.

      Delete
    84. Narcissistic Personality Disorder: An inability to admit error – even when presented with objective evidence of their error.

      I provided objective evidence that frequency and wavelength are interchangeable and wee willie refuses to acknowledge it.

      Delete
    85. If frequency does not equal wavelength then why does the frequency of 1.8737 MHz = a wavelength of 160 meters? Is it magic?

      Also it is only when you multiply Hz x meters do you get the velocity. Meaning they are not interchangeable in the formula velocity = frequency x wavelength. The different units are required.

      Delete
    86. Can't Admit He Was Wrong Moron

      If frequency does not equal wavelength then why does the frequency of 1.8737 MHz = a wavelength of 160 meters?


      That frequency doesn't produce a wavelength of 160 meters in liquid water, or ethyl alcohol, or plexiglass.

      I have to say Joke, you're the gift that keeps on giving. Every time we think you can't dig any deeper into the stupidity pit you toss out another shovelful.

      Delete
    87. That frequency doesn't produce a wavelength of 160 meters in liquid water, or ethyl alcohol, or plexiglass.

      LoL! Cuz so many people set up their radios in liquid water, or ethyl alcohol, or plexiglass.

      I have to say my opponents are a desperate bunch of losers.

      Delete
    88. The density of water at 20C is 1.000 g/cm^3. Therefore, in Joke world, temperature = density.

      Delete
    89. The density of wee willie's head exceeds that of a singularity causing a black hole. Therefor, in wee willie's head, all is lost, even light.

      Delete
    90. Joke, I take your lack of a lagical response as an admission of your error.

      Delete
    91. LoL! @ wee willie- Your desperation distraction ploy has been duly noted. You have yet to respond to the fact I have proven frequency and wavelength are interchangeable.

      First things first and then we can discuss your example.

      Delete
    92. Joke: "You have yet to respond to the fact I have proven frequency and wavelength are interchangeable."

      To those with above room temperature IQ, the only response can be a hearty laugh.

      Delete
    93. Narcissistic Personality Disorder: An inability to admit error – even when presented with objective evidence of their error.

      I provided objective evidence that frequency and wavelength are interchangeable and wee willie refuses to acknowledge it.

      See above: September 18 @ 4:27PM

      Delete
    94. "I provided objective evidence that frequency and wavelength are interchangeable and wee willie refuses to acknowledge it."

      How can I acknowledge something that you haven't done. For frequency to be interchangeable with wavelength, time must be interchangeable with length. I have a difficult time acknowledging an absurdity. But please continue to try to prove it. Laughter is good for the health

      Delete
    95. Yes, wee willie's willful ignorance is again duly noted. Too bad it's willful ignorance isn't an argument, let alone a refutation.

      Good luck with that

      Delete
    96. Yup. I concede. Joke has proven beyond doubt that frequency = wavelength. My only hope is that they haven't promoted him from king of toaster repair to communications director of anything.

      Delete
  2. Great article. The problem of bias and dishonesty in science is not just the domain of the softer sciences such as climatology, archaeology or biology. Not even a hard science like physics is immune to it.

    The multi-billion dollar LIGO project that claims to have discovered gravitational waves is a case in point. It is based on the Einsteinian claim that gravity travels at the speed of light. The problem is that General Relativity obtains the same results as Newtonian physics which assumes that gravity is instantaneous. Relativists are claiming that gravity acts as if it is intantaneous even though they know it isn't. There is no way to falsify the hypothesis. It is pure pseudoscience. Einstein was biased against the Newtonian concept of action at a distance. This bias is costing society billions of dollars and time wasted on bogus research and outright fraud. LIGO is nothing but a scam.

    Sir Karl Popper, the man who introduced the concept of falsifiability to science, was very much aware of Einsteinian pseudoscience. In an essay titled "Objective Knowledge", he wrote, "... this is a field from which the observer was exorcised, slowly but steadily, by Einstein himself."

    Dirty politics is alive and well in science. It's enough to make a grown man cry. The only way to control bias in science is to introduce democracy to it. Multiple competing schools of thought should be cultivated and allowed to flourish. Science needs contrary views, especially concerning its most cherished beliefs. Otherwise it stagnates and major discoveries become impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Indeed Galileo is always invoked to show Christianity is wrong and is ooposed to science and this means YOU present day creationists.
    In fact it was the Catholic Church who opposed this guy and not christianity. in fact Martin Luther was to take the Catholic church on and won.
    It was a error of man presuming to know things and not a error of biblical scripture.
    Anyways.
    i think Global warming from man or anything is a humbug.
    A welcome myth for upper class people to make a greener, cleaner planet .
    I think the globe is too glorious to be affected by our trivial puffs .
    Its not a creationist issue but is a issue of scientific competence.
    they say they prove these things but its all. like evolutionism, based on secondary information.
    If it was true it should have, and be demanded to show, great evidence for such great claims.
    Its about scientific methodology.
    Creationists should be very open to criticisms the AGW error/myth/hoax.
    People doing poor investigation and a motivations suspect.

    ReplyDelete