Hand waving by saying its just a name fails to recognize that up, down, and 'up and down' are separate and distinct, the first two are mutually exclusive, and the third is CYA for getting it wrong twice. It is false that the data has not changed. Over time it accumulates, proving the true believers wrong twice, finally causing them to fall back on a tautology: change, which has always been obvious to the meanest intelligence. Reminds me of the guy who woke up to "discover" he'd been speaking Prose all his life.
As a famous MIT professor dissenter reported, two other MIT scientists whose work dissented had their funding pulled by the (non-MIT) establishment. Chaos theory teaches that when an anthropogenic climate change scientist flaps his wings a gust of hot air is created as far away as Washington, D.C.
Those who claim existing studies include significant cyclical components are simply ill informed. One went so far as to challenge"cite even one" or words to that effect. Very well then, a widely respected Midwestern professor attacked the latest IPCC report as ignoring the solar cycle, which he asserted could explain much attributed to anthropogenic climate change. This is doubly odd since in 2007 the IPCC thought the opposite. For a critical discussion of this point see the deservedly sarcastic critique at http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-solar-variations-dont-matter/
If one looks at recent so-called science, it was global warming. When that didn't work it became global cooling. When that didn't work, it became climate change. Some even twisted themselves into a pretzel to try to claim in some cases it was volcanic particulates causing cooling in some locations and volcanic CO2 causing warming in other places. Somehow the CO2 migrated to the warming sites while the particulates migrated to the entirely different cooling sites. Pretty convenient of emission circulation to oblige that way. But with the right model assumptions, emissions can get a PhD.
All one has to do is look at the long- term climate record to see the vast swings long before man was a tiny pimple on the globe to understand that a massive fraud is being perpetrated by the anthropogenic crowd and their proposed solutions, which are as likely to make a difference as spitting into the wind. Most of these so-called scientists rely on computer models, often refuted but never in doubt. Each time they fail to replicate reality they simply add the equivalent of another Ptolomaic epicycle. As an MIT-trained expert in the field, I recall the first rule of model building: "Give me a free hand with the assumptions and I'll produce any result you wish."
The headline is a mendacious lie. They were asked to look at cyclical climate change, caused by massive natural drivers including volcanoes, the solar cycle, etc, all well-documented phenomena, to see if recent data could be explained without the anthropogenic fantasy. They refused because such a study would refute all the neo-Malthusian, nonsense, regularly refuted since Malthus first proposed it, and reveal the true believers for the fools and charlatans I think they are. It would also stop the deliberate economic destruction being fomented by the evil cabal of those who hate the US and those who want to live the "small is beautiful" pathetic fallacy.
David Sternlight, PhD
It would be amusing if not tragic that Unions decry others' political contributions and want to make them illegal while committing vast treasure to the same arena, often against the wishes of many members forced to contribute via dues and assessments.
I'm sure you saw Bennett Ramberg's paper in Annual Reviews of Energy many years ago. He was concerned about dangers from high explosives ( not necessarily sustained). When I spoke to Velikhov he said that had they had it earlier, it might have prevented Chernobyl.
Based on naive looking at a map, Korean seaweed, widely sold in the US, MAY be ok, but I haven't checked the ocean currents between Fukushima and Korea.
While we are on the subject, haven't there been so-called "inherently safe" reactor designs ( perhaps derived from the Canadian CANDU reactor) available for many years? What's stopping it?
Don't eat any food products from Japan, especially fish, seaweed (yes, especially Sushi using Japanese ingredients); avoid Pacific food products (yes, including West Coast salmon and smoked.fish), prefer Atlantic seafood, especially European smoked salmon (lox). Spring $500 for a Geiger counter with meter that can do object measurement, not just atmospheric measurement. Be suspicious of Western US propaganda claiming an ocean whirlpool effect protects their seafood. pressure the FDA to require radiation measurement of foods or drugs of Pacific Region origin, including Western US.
The Russians are used to decision makers by leaders. I know the man in charge of cleaning up Chernobyl; he is an internationally renowned Nobel laureate physicist (got the prize before Chernobyl) and a frank straight-shooter. In contrast the Japanese make decisions by consensus, which leads to delay and less than the most effective solutions. Over the long run the Japanese system nay be more robust; over the short run it can be disasterous.
Slashdot Mirror
Hand waving by saying its just a name fails to recognize that up, down, and 'up and down' are separate and distinct, the first two are mutually exclusive, and the third is CYA for getting it wrong twice. It is false that the data has not changed. Over time it accumulates, proving the true believers wrong twice, finally causing them to fall back on a tautology: change, which has always been obvious to the meanest intelligence. Reminds me of the guy who woke up to "discover" he'd been speaking Prose all his life.
As a famous MIT professor dissenter reported, two other MIT scientists whose work dissented had their funding pulled by the (non-MIT) establishment. Chaos theory teaches that when an anthropogenic climate change scientist flaps his wings a gust of hot air is created as far away as Washington, D.C.
Those who claim existing studies include significant cyclical components are simply ill informed. One went so far as to challenge"cite even one" or words to that effect. Very well then, a widely respected Midwestern professor attacked the latest IPCC report as ignoring the solar cycle, which he asserted could explain much attributed to anthropogenic climate change. This is doubly odd since in 2007 the IPCC thought the opposite. For a critical discussion of this point see the deservedly sarcastic critique at http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/01/ipcc-solar-variations-dont-matter/
If one looks at recent so-called science, it was global warming. When that didn't work it became global cooling. When that didn't work, it became climate change. Some even twisted themselves into a pretzel to try to claim in some cases it was volcanic particulates causing cooling in some locations and volcanic CO2 causing warming in other places. Somehow the CO2 migrated to the warming sites while the particulates migrated to the entirely different cooling sites. Pretty convenient of emission circulation to oblige that way. But with the right model assumptions, emissions can get a PhD.
All one has to do is look at the long- term climate record to see the vast swings long before man was a tiny pimple on the globe to understand that a massive fraud is being perpetrated by the anthropogenic crowd and their proposed solutions, which are as likely to make a difference as spitting into the wind. Most of these so-called scientists rely on computer models, often refuted but never in doubt. Each time they fail to replicate reality they simply add the equivalent of another Ptolomaic epicycle. As an MIT-trained expert in the field, I recall the first rule of model building: "Give me a free hand with the assumptions and I'll produce any result you wish."
The headline is a mendacious lie. They were asked to look at cyclical climate change, caused by massive natural drivers including volcanoes, the solar cycle, etc, all well-documented phenomena, to see if recent data could be explained without the anthropogenic fantasy. They refused because such a study would refute all the neo-Malthusian, nonsense, regularly refuted since Malthus first proposed it, and reveal the true believers for the fools and charlatans I think they are. It would also stop the deliberate economic destruction being fomented by the evil cabal of those who hate the US and those who want to live the "small is beautiful" pathetic fallacy. David Sternlight, PhD
It would be amusing if not tragic that Unions decry others' political contributions and want to make them illegal while committing vast treasure to the same arena, often against the wishes of many members forced to contribute via dues and assessments.
You can get regular email geomagnetic storm reports and forecasts classified by severity. This one didn't rattle any expert's cages
I'm sure you saw Bennett Ramberg's paper in Annual Reviews of Energy many years ago. He was concerned about dangers from high explosives ( not necessarily sustained). When I spoke to Velikhov he said that had they had it earlier, it might have prevented Chernobyl.
Based on naive looking at a map, Korean seaweed, widely sold in the US, MAY be ok, but I haven't checked the ocean currents between Fukushima and Korea.
While we are on the subject, haven't there been so-called "inherently safe" reactor designs ( perhaps derived from the Canadian CANDU reactor) available for many years? What's stopping it?
Don't eat any food products from Japan, especially fish, seaweed (yes, especially Sushi using Japanese ingredients); avoid Pacific food products (yes, including West Coast salmon and smoked.fish), prefer Atlantic seafood, especially European smoked salmon (lox). Spring $500 for a Geiger counter with meter that can do object measurement, not just atmospheric measurement. Be suspicious of Western US propaganda claiming an ocean whirlpool effect protects their seafood. pressure the FDA to require radiation measurement of foods or drugs of Pacific Region origin, including Western US.
The Russians are used to decision makers by leaders. I know the man in charge of cleaning up Chernobyl; he is an internationally renowned Nobel laureate physicist (got the prize before Chernobyl) and a frank straight-shooter. In contrast the Japanese make decisions by consensus, which leads to delay and less than the most effective solutions. Over the long run the Japanese system nay be more robust; over the short run it can be disasterous.