Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Wind Turbine Syndrome

This blogger is AWED! Am I in awe of something? No, I am a subscriber to AWED (link) which is the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions. In a recent email AWED's John Droz has pointed us to a review of a book "Wind Turbine Syndrome"by Nina Pierpont. The review is by Curt Devlin titled The Science of Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS) and can be found HERE.

There are many gems in the article including, right at the top:
The real gold standard of science is not “peer review”; it’s something called “reproducibility.” 
When told that the “gold standard” of science is peer review, most people tend to accept this as gospel. If science has become so sophisticated that only experts in the field can understand it, then surely it makes sense to have any scientific conclusions evaluated by other experts in that field. Right?
Unfortunately, the idea that peer review is the gold standard of science is absolutely false.
To the extent that peer review is based on authority or expert opinion, it is completely contrary to the true spirit of science. Peer review is not a bad practice, but its true purpose is to improve the work and decide if it is worthy of being published. You could say that peer review is the gold standard of publication—nothing more and nothing less.
How often do the pushers of the man-made global warming hoax rely on peer-reviewed papers, and yet flawed papers can be published. Think of MBH98. Think of Cook et al 2013.

Curt describes the scientific method, (see diagram above) and continues:
The real gold standard of science is something called reproducibility. Simply put, this means that if you do the same experiment under the same conditions and same measurement precision, you get the same results. 
You could say the mantra of science is “see for yourself.”
Curt thenapplies this principle to Dr Pierpont's  WTS and finds that it passes the test.
Pierpont’s critics within the wind industry could easily fund an independent study to determine whether her experiments can be reproduced, but they never have and never will. Perhaps they already know too well that these attempts will only result in confirming her findings. Pierpont’s findings are simple enough. When people live near wind turbines, they experience nausea, dizziness, sleeplessness and stress-induced illnesses. When they get away from them, they begin to feel much better and may recover completely.
Curt discusses peer-review and Einstein's Theory.
Amazingly, Einstein’s work was not peer-reviewed at all. It was read by Max Planck, the pre-eminent physicist of the day, who gave it a wink and a nod. Then it was published. Since then, Einstein’s theories have been experimented with, scrutinized, and tested as much as any in history. Science must accept or reject it based on evidence alone, not a “peer reviewer’s” authority or opinion. 
Einstein’s ideas—most, at least—have been confirmed over and over again.
Based on the “gold standard” of peer review, however, we are presumably expected to discard the theory of relativity until it has been properly peer reviewed. 

Read more of this excellent article HERE.

Who are the Deniers?

Who are the Deniers?

by Dr Gordon J Fulks

Global Warmers are forever calling those of us who disagree with them 'Deniers.' This thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust and the murder of six million people is far from appropriate. Do Skeptics deny the Holocaust and the science? Of course not, but it brings up an interesting question:

Who denies natural climate change?
  • Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays?
  • Who denies that our Sun is a variable star?
  • Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade?
  • Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon?
  • Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles?
  • Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of fossil fuels?
  • Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?
  • Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is a product of climate change not a cause?
  • Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?
  • Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?
  • Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas, not CO2?
  • Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the seven billion people on this planet?
  • Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of buffering?
  • Who denies that the EPA's three "Lines of Evidence" supporting their Endangerment Finding on CO2 are all fatally flawed?
  • Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years?
  • Who denies that the 'Hotspot' (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical troposphere?
  • Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?
  • Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?
  • Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?
  • Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?
  • Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2? 
  • Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?
  • Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?
In short, who denies both the science and the scientific method?

Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. lives in Corbett, Oregon, and can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research. 

Hot Lies Disputed by Cold Facts



Reproduced from Warning Signs
By Alan Caruba

I have always found a stark contrast in the way the forecasts of meteorologists on television and radio are limited in accuracy to about a week and beyond that become more speculative while the claims about global warming are always stated in decades. For example, the polar ice caps were supposed to have all melted by now.

The daily forecasts are formulated based on sophisticated meteorological satellites. The global warming claims are all based on computer models, not empirical observation and data.

I am not a meteorologist, nor even a scientist. I am, however, a science writer who has followed the global warming hoax since it began in the late 1980s and picked up momentum as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing its computer-based doomsday claims.

The IPCC objective was to get nations to impose carbon taxes on “greenhouse gas emissions”, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2). Why anyone would want to tax CO2 when it is vital to all life on Earth is a mystery. The claim was that it was trapping heat. The essential flaw in all this scare mongering is that the Earth is an extraordinary self-adjusting mechanism and more CO2 is great news for thriving forests and growing crops.

Two friends of mine, both recognized as major voices in the world of meteorology, Joseph D’Aleo, a certified consulting meteorologist, and Dr. William Gray, were joined by Dr. Neil Frank, another respected member of the profession, in a July 8 letter sent to Keith Seitter, the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society, these AMS Fellows, took him and the Society to task for continuing to push the bogus assertion that a “consensus” of its members believe that global warming is occurring.

A Wikipedia page notes that the American Meteorological Society was founded in 1919 andpromotes the development and dissemination of information and education in atmospheric and related oceanic and hydrologic science.” The Society has a membership of more than 14,000 professionals, professors, students, and weather enthusiasts.

Suffice to say, global warming is the greatest hoax of the modern era and is seriously undermined by the fact that the Earth has been in one of its natural cooling cycles for the last seventeen years at this point.

Even so, D’Aleo, Drs. Frank and Gray, felt compelled to put Seittler on notice. “We know you have used your authority as Executive Director to push the AMS ‘climate consensus’ position…” noting the way Seittler had worked “to refine the message to help sell the ‘consensus’ position to the membership and the public.”

Since the publication of science papers advances knowledge, blocking them has the opposite effect. “Your editors have slow-walked and thrown up obstacles to paper that challenge the ‘consensus’ position, often forcing authors to go elsewhere.”

“This pattern disturbs us, but there is another development that is even more disconcerting, and that is a campaign of intimidations launched by an advocacy group known as Forecast the Facts. While they claim to be a grass roots organization, the IRS tells us that Forecast the Facts is funded by the Center for American Progress, which is a left-wing advocacy group that has, in turn, been heavily funded by George Soros.”

“Forecast the Facts harasses TV stations whenever their meteorologists present a skeptical view on global warming, whether on-air, in blogs, local op-eds, or twitter accounts.” For the three men of science this kind of thuggish behavior, combined with the AMS position, has reached a point where they felt compelled to challenge it. It is occurring as the lie that a vast number of scientists support the global warming hoax is “failing miserably” when put forth by the AMS, the IPCC, and two government agencies, the EPA and NOAA.

The meteorological trio pointed out that “global hurricane frequency is at a 30+year low and strong tornado trends are down. There is no long term in droughts and floods. Snow and cold have been increasing in winter, not decreasing as the IPCC and NOAA climate reports have forecasted. We have seen deceleration in sea level rises.”  The opposite of these facts have been the claims still being made in the name of global warming.

They concluded saying, “We also hope to hear from you that the AMS is not endorsing, or in any way colluding in or supporting, the tactics Forecast the Facts is using to enforce conformity with the official position of the AMS…”

In an August 4 blog post on IceCap.us, D’Aleo’s website, he reported on the response he received from Seitter who clearly got the message. “Personally, I do not feel the Forecast the Facts approach is a productive one and I have told them so on several occasions” referring their demand that weather reporters who do not hue to the global warming lies be fired.

D’Aleo’s post noted what Michael Crichton said about consensus. “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming the matter is already settled. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.”

The time is overdue for the American Meteorological Society to abandon any role in advancing a hoax that Mother Nature herself has exposed. Three cheers for these three statesmen of meteorology.


© Alan Caruba, 2013