Many people are highly serious that mankind must stop using natural oil and gas from underground reservoirs on Earth.
Many people have made up their minds that the manmade CO2 emissions released from humans burning extracted oil and gas is causing Earth to increase in global temperature beyond past Earth history of natutal cycles in Earth's atmospheric temperature.
Many say the "science is settled".
So they think and voice by opinion rather than evidence based scientific fact.
However, there is no evidence for Anthropogenic Induced Global Warming through CO2 emissions. None.
There is science that CO2 absorbs select wavelengths of electromagnetic spectra and is thereby a Greenhouse Gas that as its concentration in the atmosphere increases "should" or "can" slow the rate of longwave infrared and the like energy tranfer from Earth into space.
But in the real world of day and night of constant radiation flux, ocean and atmospheric mass circulation gyre from equator to poles, the heat and energy mass transfer of Earth-magnitude convection and conduction thermodynamics as intense integrals in energy and heat build up and transfer, along with natural cyclrs and variations of solar radiation flux of Grand Maximums and Grand Minimums, the influence of hundreds to thousands of ppm CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is experimentally and observationally unknown.
The issue if Manmade CO2 emissions will warm Earth past natural variability is very, very complex.
As the article below presents, "Post-Normal Science" was reckoned as a means to handle such highly complex issues where straight and clear answers can be obtained over a reasonable period of investigative time.
But to "already know the answer" to this complex issue is "Beyond" the intention of applying Post-Normal and Normal Science.
Plain and clear. Those who promote mankind has a problem that must be avoided and fixed are in essence only giving opinion, even scientific opinion, and can claim no more.
Peer reviewed publications don't prove anything or have any authority in what the answer to the highly complex issue is in actual fact. That is why the properly stated publications present terms such as may, or could, or might.
It has been blogs and news reporting that have made the statements "it's affirmative", "it is true beyond doubt", and the like "pending major problem coming upon man on Earth".
Take all of the "extteme droughts", "extreme hurricanes", man-induced desertification, man-induced melting of snow and ice at the poles, as what they are - opinions.
The isdue is too complex for anyone or any group to understand and realistically know.
It is that plain and simple. We hear mere opinions of Catastrophic problems due to CO2 emissions in Earth's atmosphere. Mere opinions.
"Made to Order: Science
Guest essay by Charles G. Battig, M.D.
"A flurry of recent publication activity on the health impacts of carbon dioxide by the catastrophic climate change community is evidence that it has now moved beyond post-normal science. That was the philosophical answer to traditional science founded on rational hypotheses, reproducible experimentation, and impartial confirmation of results. Post-normal science was to be the answer to really difficult research problems; it would apply in cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent,” according to its advocates Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991.
Coincidentally, these same attributes accurately describe the status of climate research.
Loosening the traditional standards of acceptable proof to include some postulating and science conclusions based on consensus and opinion would expand the universe of available answers desperately desired by governing bureaucrats and environmental activists.
"Financial linkages between E.P.A. funded researchers and their reported influence on E.P.A. policy advocacy is a step beyond, and vindicates President Eisenhower’s admonition (1961):
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
"The community of man-made, climate-change catastrophe advocates has been smarting for lack of catastrophes. Droughts, tornadoes, sea level rise acceleration, coral reef sinking have all failed to increase dramatically on schedule, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased about 10 per cent over the past eighteen years. Most annoying to the alarmists has been the plateau in global atmospheric temperatures over this same time period. They have proffered an array of imaginative excuses for the lack of observed global atmospheric temperature rise.
"No catastrophes means bad news for the United Nations plans for its Paris conference on climate mitigation and wealth transfer later this year. It would seem even more outrageous to the public at large to pay for a non-problem. The transfer of wealth from the developed nations to the less developed nations to combat a non-existent climate problem becomes that much more embarrassing without the drama attendant to scary numbers portending global disaster.
"Just-in-time advocacy science has now produced a paper which claims to have the data to show that there has been no pause in the global temperature. The global fever has been there unabated all these eighteen years. It was hiding in a variety of data sets just waiting to be found, much like Michelangelo’s David hiding in a block of raw marble. Singer, Michaels, and others have analyzed the claims of the paper, and unlike David, what has been revealed is not a thing of scientific beauty, but a construct of dubious data doctoring portending that climate disaster is right on schedule.
"I propose a new label for science papers which attempt to challenge established concepts by refashioning data banks to achieve a desired conclusion. Borrowing from the fashion world, I term such science efforts as “bespoke science.” Made-to-order…made to measure…made to fit the desired outcome by selective data trimming, adjusting, and stitching together. Be ready to see much more tailoring of data to fit the U.N. agenda as December approaches.
Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/07/bespoke-sciencemade-to-order-science/
Many people have made up their minds that the manmade CO2 emissions released from humans burning extracted oil and gas is causing Earth to increase in global temperature beyond past Earth history of natutal cycles in Earth's atmospheric temperature.
Many say the "science is settled".
So they think and voice by opinion rather than evidence based scientific fact.
However, there is no evidence for Anthropogenic Induced Global Warming through CO2 emissions. None.
There is science that CO2 absorbs select wavelengths of electromagnetic spectra and is thereby a Greenhouse Gas that as its concentration in the atmosphere increases "should" or "can" slow the rate of longwave infrared and the like energy tranfer from Earth into space.
But in the real world of day and night of constant radiation flux, ocean and atmospheric mass circulation gyre from equator to poles, the heat and energy mass transfer of Earth-magnitude convection and conduction thermodynamics as intense integrals in energy and heat build up and transfer, along with natural cyclrs and variations of solar radiation flux of Grand Maximums and Grand Minimums, the influence of hundreds to thousands of ppm CO2 in Earth's atmosphere is experimentally and observationally unknown.
The issue if Manmade CO2 emissions will warm Earth past natural variability is very, very complex.
As the article below presents, "Post-Normal Science" was reckoned as a means to handle such highly complex issues where straight and clear answers can be obtained over a reasonable period of investigative time.
But to "already know the answer" to this complex issue is "Beyond" the intention of applying Post-Normal and Normal Science.
Plain and clear. Those who promote mankind has a problem that must be avoided and fixed are in essence only giving opinion, even scientific opinion, and can claim no more.
Peer reviewed publications don't prove anything or have any authority in what the answer to the highly complex issue is in actual fact. That is why the properly stated publications present terms such as may, or could, or might.
It has been blogs and news reporting that have made the statements "it's affirmative", "it is true beyond doubt", and the like "pending major problem coming upon man on Earth".
Take all of the "extteme droughts", "extreme hurricanes", man-induced desertification, man-induced melting of snow and ice at the poles, as what they are - opinions.
The isdue is too complex for anyone or any group to understand and realistically know.
It is that plain and simple. We hear mere opinions of Catastrophic problems due to CO2 emissions in Earth's atmosphere. Mere opinions.
"Made to Order: Science
Guest essay by Charles G. Battig, M.D.
"A flurry of recent publication activity on the health impacts of carbon dioxide by the catastrophic climate change community is evidence that it has now moved beyond post-normal science. That was the philosophical answer to traditional science founded on rational hypotheses, reproducible experimentation, and impartial confirmation of results. Post-normal science was to be the answer to really difficult research problems; it would apply in cases where “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent,” according to its advocates Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1991.
Coincidentally, these same attributes accurately describe the status of climate research.
Loosening the traditional standards of acceptable proof to include some postulating and science conclusions based on consensus and opinion would expand the universe of available answers desperately desired by governing bureaucrats and environmental activists.
"Financial linkages between E.P.A. funded researchers and their reported influence on E.P.A. policy advocacy is a step beyond, and vindicates President Eisenhower’s admonition (1961):
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
"The community of man-made, climate-change catastrophe advocates has been smarting for lack of catastrophes. Droughts, tornadoes, sea level rise acceleration, coral reef sinking have all failed to increase dramatically on schedule, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased about 10 per cent over the past eighteen years. Most annoying to the alarmists has been the plateau in global atmospheric temperatures over this same time period. They have proffered an array of imaginative excuses for the lack of observed global atmospheric temperature rise.
"No catastrophes means bad news for the United Nations plans for its Paris conference on climate mitigation and wealth transfer later this year. It would seem even more outrageous to the public at large to pay for a non-problem. The transfer of wealth from the developed nations to the less developed nations to combat a non-existent climate problem becomes that much more embarrassing without the drama attendant to scary numbers portending global disaster.
"Just-in-time advocacy science has now produced a paper which claims to have the data to show that there has been no pause in the global temperature. The global fever has been there unabated all these eighteen years. It was hiding in a variety of data sets just waiting to be found, much like Michelangelo’s David hiding in a block of raw marble. Singer, Michaels, and others have analyzed the claims of the paper, and unlike David, what has been revealed is not a thing of scientific beauty, but a construct of dubious data doctoring portending that climate disaster is right on schedule.
"I propose a new label for science papers which attempt to challenge established concepts by refashioning data banks to achieve a desired conclusion. Borrowing from the fashion world, I term such science efforts as “bespoke science.” Made-to-order…made to measure…made to fit the desired outcome by selective data trimming, adjusting, and stitching together. Be ready to see much more tailoring of data to fit the U.N. agenda as December approaches.
Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/07/bespoke-sciencemade-to-order-science/
