Lion of the Blogosphere

Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

This article will help you see that “climate change” is a scam

Don’t get fooled or conned again.

Climate-change hustlers are using the con-artist tactics that are highlighted in the article.

Misdirection

They always point to carbon dioxide and not at any of the other factors that determine the climate. Like water vapor, solar activity, etc.

Whenever there’s a hurricane, they say “look at the hurricane!” But when there are fewer than normal hurricanes in a season, they never point to that.

Time pressure and Opportunity

They are always saying “you have ten years to believe, or there will be a climate apocalypse!”

Social compliance and Social proof

Always talking about how there’s a “consensus” of “scientists” whom we are supposed to believe because we imagine them wearing white lab coats. They compel you to think that all of the smart people believe in “climate change” and if you don’t believe you’re a stupid person. And if that’s not enough, you will be ostracized for the “wrong” beliefs.

The consensus is, of course, fake. They silence the dissenting voices so you don’t know about them. Like the time that that Forbes censored an article about an Israeli astrophysicist who hold the “correct” views.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 1, 2019 at 9:44 AM

Posted in Science

Scott Adams’ big essay endorsing climate change skepticism

https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Frandomhouse.box.com%2Fs%2Fo8rzbgx360caww41x8mn7dweqr89ez8d

That’s the Scott Adams who created Dilbert. Normally I’d just tweet something like this, but I think it’s a must-read.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

October 11, 2019 at 9:21 AM

Posted in Science

Remember when people used to worry about nuclear war?

If you’re not old enough to at least remember the 1980s, the answer is probably “no.”

The end of people worrying about nuclear war was a necessary precursor to people worrying about “climate change.” People’s brains only have so much bandwidth allocated for worrying about stuff like that, and at the same time, there’s a void there that needs to be filled with something to worry about.

Nuclear war seems to me like a much more sensible thing to worry about than “climate change.” Nuclear weapons are a real thing, as the Japanese certainly know, and the amount of mass destruction that a global nuclear war might cause could be pretty catastrophic. “Climate change” is just bogus pseudoscience.

Click to link to view the Google Ngram Viewer

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 20, 2019 at 1:30 PM

Posted in Science

New York Times says the earth is NOT warming!

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

Of course that was in 1989.

What happened since 1989? Did we make new discoveries in physics, like the discovery of DNA or something like that? Did we discover some new way to measure past temperatures? The answer is no, there were no new scientific discoveries. What happened is that global warming, which then became “climate change,” became like a religion. Everyone was forced to believe in it, or be banned from having their voices heard. Past temperature data was adjusted to show what everyone “knows” to be true, that the temperatures have been rising.

Climate change is just like the other big false belief, that there are no genetic difference in intelligence between races. To be skeptical about global warming has become almost as big of a taboo as talking about how blacks have lower IQ than whites.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 2, 2019 at 9:18 AM

Posted in Biology, Science

Nir Shaviv, climate change skeptic, speaks

http://www.sciencebits.com/forbes-censored-interview-me

Nir Shaviv is the Israeli scientist who was at the center of the Forbes article that got de-published, and then a day late an article by another guy appeared debunking the removed article. Shaviv explains how the article got published and removed, and he debunks the guy who debunked him.

The important lesson is how the MSM censors anything that disagrees with their Narrative. Furthermore, the MSM believes they have a Holy Mission is to promote “climate change” propaganda and convert people into being Climate Change Believers.

A few days ago I was interviewed by Doron Levin, for an article to appear online on forbes.com. After having seen a draft (to make sure that I am quoted correctly), I told him good luck with getting it published, as I doubted it will. Why? Because a year ago I was interviewed by a reporter working for Bloomberg, while the cities of San Francisco and Oakland were deliberating a climate change lawsuit against Exxon-Mobil (which the latter won!), only to find out that their editorial board decided that it is inappropriate to publish an interview with a heretic like me. Doron’s reply was to assure me that Forbes’ current model of the publication online allows relative freedom with “relatively little interference from editors”. Yeah Sure.

After the article went online yesterday and Doron e-mailed so, I saw how much relative exposure it received. It had already more than 40000 impressions in a matter of a couple of hours. Impressive. All that took place while I was relaxing with my family on a Tel-Aviv beach. But this didn’t last long. Although I continued to relax at the beach, the article was taken down for “failing to meet our editorial standards”, which apparently means conforming to whatever is considered politically correct about climate change.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 11, 2019 at 8:54 AM

Posted in Science

The anti-global warming article that somehow appeared on Forbes and then got banned and removed

Link to banned article.

The message reads:

After review, this post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards.
We are providing our readers the headline, author and first paragraphs in the interest of transparency.

We regret any inconvenience.

Here’s the text of the article:

Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That Is Not Easy To Reject
Doron Levin

The U.S. auto industry and regulators in California and Washington appear deadlocked over stiff Obama-era fuel-efficiency standards that automakers oppose and the Trump administration have vowed to roll back – an initiative that has environmental activists up in arms.

California and four automakers favor compromise, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supports the president’s position that the federal standards are too strict. The EPA argues that forcing automakers to build more fuel efficient cars will make them less affordable, causing consumers to delay trading older, less efficient vehicles. Complicating matters is California’s authority to create its own air quality standards, which the White House vows to end.

However the impasse is resolved, the moment looks ripe to revisit the root of this multifactorial dustup: namely, the scientific “consensus” that CO2 emissions from vehicles and other sources are pushing the earth to the brink of climate catastrophe.

In a modest office on the campus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, an Israeli astrophysicist patiently explains why he is convinced that the near-unanimous judgments of climatologists are misguided. Nir Shaviv, chairman of the university’s physics department, says that his research and that of colleagues, suggests that rising CO2 levels, while hardly insignificant, play only a minor role compared to the influence of the sun and cosmic radiation on the earth’s climate.

“Global warming clearly is a problem, though not in the catastrophic terms of Al Gore’s movies or environmental alarmists,” said Shaviv. “Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don’t play the major role. Periodic solar activity does.”

Shaviv, 47, fully comprehends that his scientific conclusions constitute a glaring rebuttal to the widely-quoted surveys showing that 97% of climate scientists agree that human activity – the combustion of fossil fuels – constitutes the principle reason for climate change.

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded. In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

History is replete with lone voices toppling scientific orthodoxies. Astronomers deemed Pluto the ninth planet – until they changed their minds. Geologists once regarded tectonic plate theory, the movement of continents, as nonsense. Medical science was 100% certain that stomach resulted from stress and spicy food, until an Australian researcher proved bacteria the culprit and won a Nobel Prize for his efforts.

Lest anyone dismiss Shaviv on the basis of his scientific credentials or supposed political agenda, consider the following: He enrolled at Israel’s Technion University – the country’s equivalent of MIT – at the age of 13 and earned an MA while serving in the Israel Defense Force’s celebrated 8200 Intelligence unit. He returned to Technion, where he earned his doctorate, afterward completing post-doctoral work at California Institute of Technology and the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. He also has been an Einstein Fellow at The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

In other words, he knows tons more about science than Donald Trump or Al Gore.

As for politics “in American terms, I would describe myself as liberal on most domestic issues, somewhat hawkish on security,” he said. Nonetheless, the Trump administration’s position on global climate change, he said, is correct insofar as it rejects the orthodoxy of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC’s findings and conclusions are updated every six years; the latest report, released this week, noted that deforestation and agribusiness are contributing to CO2 emissions and aggravating climate change.

In 2003, Shaviv and research partner Prof. Jan Veizer published a paper on the subject of climate sensitivity, namely how much the earth’s average temperature would be expected to change if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled. Comparing geological records and temperature, the team came up with a projected change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports. The reason for the much wider variation used by the IPCC, he said, was that they relied almost entirely on simulations and no one knew how to quantify the effect of clouds – which affects how much radiant energy reaches the earth – and other factors.

“Since then, literally billions have been spent on climate research,” he said. Yet “the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed. The proponents of man-made climate change still ignore the effect of the sun on the earth’s climate, which overturns our understanding of twentieth-century climate change.”

He explained: “Solar activity varies over time. A major variation is roughly eleven years or more, which clearly affects climate. This principle has been generally known – but in 2008 I was able to quantify it by using sea level data. When the sun is more active, there is a rise in sea level here on earth. Higher temperature makes water expand. When the sun is less active, temperature goes down and the sea level falls – the correlation is as clear as day.

“Based on the increase of solar activity during the twentieth century, it should account for between half to two-thirds of all climate change,” he said. “That, in turn, implies that climate sensitivity to CO2 should be about 1.0 degree when the amount of CO2 doubles.”

The link between solar activity and the heating and cooling of the earth is indirect, he explained. Cosmic rays entering the earth’s atmosphere from the explosive death of massive stars across the universe play a significant role in the formation of so-called cloud condensation nuclei needed for the formation of clouds. When the sun is more active, solar wind reduces the rate of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A more active solar wind leads to fewer cloud formation nuclei, producing clouds that are less white and less reflective, thus warming the earth.

“Today we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils that are hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings to satellite altimetry data from the past few decades,” he said. “We also can reproduce and mimic atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence.

“All of it shows the same thing, the bulk of climate change is caused by the sun via its impact on atmospheric charge,” he said. “Which means that most of the warming comes from nature, whereas a doubling of the amount of CO2 raises temperature by only 1.0 to 1.5 degrees. A freshman physics student can see this.”

Nevertheless, the world of climate science has “mostly ignored” his research findings. “Of course, I’m frustrated,” he said. “Our findings are very inconvenient for conventional wisdom” as summarized by the IPCC. “We know that there have been very large variations of climate in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels. A thousand years ago the earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago the River Thames froze more often. In the first and second IPCC reports these events were mentioned. In 2001 they disappeared. Suddenly no mention of natural warming, no Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as basically fixed until the twentieth century. This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined narrative.”

Shaviv says that he has accepted no financial support for his research by the fossil fuel industry. Experiments in Denmark with Prof. Henrik Svensmark and others to demonstrate the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation were supported by the Carlsberg Foundation. In the U.S. the conservative Heartland Institute and the European Institute for Climate and Energy have invited him to speak, covering travel expenses.

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

“Global warming is not a purely scientific issue any more,” he said. “It has repercussions for society. It has also taken on a moralistic, almost religious quality. If you believe what everyone believes, you are a good person. If you don’t, you are a bad person. Who wants to be a sinner?”

Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said.

In Shaviv’s view, the worldwide crusade to limit and eventually ban the use of fossil fuels isn’t just misguided “it comes with real world social and economic consequences.” Switching to more costly energy sources, for example, will drive industry from more industrialized countries to poorer countries that can less afford wind turbines and solar panels.

“It may be a financial sacrifice the rich are willing to make,” he said. “Even in developed countries the pressure to forego fossil fuel puts poor people in danger of freezing during the winter for lack of affordable home heating. The economic growth of third world countries will be inhibited if they cannot borrow from the World Bank to develop cheap fossil-based power plants. These are serious human problems in the here and now, not in a theoretical future.”

For Shaviv, the rejection and closed-mindedness his minority view provoke may contain a silver lining. Just think of the acclaim that awaits if his research — and scientific reconsideration of the current orthodoxy — one day proves persuasive.

The Fake News Media accidentally posts real news, then realizes its error.

* * *

Doron Levin, the journalist who wrote this article, covers the automobile industry and has been writing for Forbes since February, 2016. Forbes has been publishing several of his articles per month. I cannot find an explanation on the web as to what happened. My guess is that, as a long-time contributor to Forbes, his articles weren’t subject to strict editorial review by higher ups, but then when he wrote an article about a global warming skeptic, higher-ups became aware that there was an article on their website that went against The Narrative, and it was quickly pulled down.

This comes only two days after the NY Times, the most prestigious of all fakestream media, changed a headline because the original headline wasn’t anti-Trump.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

August 9, 2019 at 4:05 PM

Posted in News, Science

Can scientists unanimously be wrong?

From the NY Times, January 30, 1961:

SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER

But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 22, 2019 at 1:08 PM

Posted in Science

Atlantic article, why people believe what they believe.

Link to article (which is two years old).

People believe what they believe for reasons other than that it’s true. It’s one of the reasons why spreading facts that prove the truth of HBD are useless for changing people’s minds. They will just say you’re a racist. As I’ve stated before, the only way to change people’s minds is to create the perception that other people in their tribe believe in HBD. Pretending to be a liberal college professor who always votes for Democrats, who realized that HBD is true but keeps it quiet for fear of being fired from his job, is far more powerful than reciting facts from Arthur Jensen’s books.

The woman who wrote the article seems to be suffering cognitive dissonance about “climate change,” because she needs to mention several times that climate change is true, despite the fact that everything else in the article supports the scenario that people just believe it because other people in their tribe believe it.

“Most people have no reason to have a position on climate change aside from expression of their identity,” Kahan says. “Their personal behavior isn’t going to affect the risk that they face. They don’t matter enough as a voter to determine the outcome on policies or anything like this. These are just badges of membership in these groups, and that’s how most people process the information.”

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 17, 2019 at 10:17 AM

Posted in Science

June is so cold in NYC, what happened to global warming?

“Lion of the Blogosphere, you moron, don’t know that the weather in one location isn’t the same thing as the global CLIMATE?”

But whenever there is unusually warm weather somewhere, the fakestream media suddenly becomes full of articles warning us about the disaster of “climate change” that’s coming.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 17, 2019 at 11:09 AM

Posted in Science

The butterfly effect

Last week, there was a butterfly in the office. Had any other type of bug been spotted (like a spider or a roach), it would have been summarily killed, and its dead body thrown in the trash.

But because it was a pretty bug, someone took time out of their day to carry the bug down the elevator and out of the building in order to set it free.

Why is a butterfly more deserving of life and freedom than other bugs just because it has large brightly colored wings? (The colorful wings are a defense mechanism to let birds know that they are poisonous to eat. It’s called aposematism.)

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 14, 2019 at 11:37 AM

Posted in Science

%d bloggers like this: