Verily. Eclipses do weird things to people.
Justin Gillis, a writer for The New York Times used the recent eclipse to sell something I’d call Sciencemagic. Essentially, if some Scientists™ can calculate orbital mechanics to a fine art, it follows, ipso nonfacto, that all people who use the same job title are also always right.
“Should You Trust Climate Science? Maybe the Eclipse Is a Clue”
Thanks to the work of scientists, people will know exactly what time to expect the eclipse. In less entertaining but more important ways, we respond to scientific predictions all the time, even though we have no independent capacity to verify the calculations. We tend to trust scientists.
If Scientists™ say that solar panels will stop malaria, then buy some! Save lives in Ghana. (What are you waiting for?)
The implications stretch far. Clearly, we can chuck out the whole research thing (labs, who needs em?) Why test predictions, if Scientists™ are 100% accurate? We’ve been wasting money. We don’t need more large hadron colliders, we just need to survey more particle physicists.
This idea that job titles have a kind of truth-telling power is not much different to astrology where truth comes from birthdates.
Preacher-Gillis struggles with cause and effect:
So what predictions have climate science made, and have they come true?
The earliest, made by a Swede named Svante Arrhenius in 1897, was simply that the Earth would heat up in response to emissions. That has been proved: The global average temperature has risen more than 1 degree Celsius, or almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit, a substantial change for a whole planet.
It’s the most tritely obvious thing that any cause of warming would cause… warming. Was it CO2, or solar spectral changes, solar magnetic effects, or solar particle flows? Gillis seems to think that warming itself is evidence that CO2 is the problem. It’s magical short-term thinking. But turning points, dammit, tell another story. If CO2 was the major driver there wouldn’t be major turning points that we can’t explain. For half the decades since Arrhenius made that prediction, global temperatures have been not-behaving as Arrhenius predicted – CO2 was on the rise, and global temperatures weren’t.
Gillis provides a cherry picked random-hits list (Not only are these signs of any warming but if you make forty predictions — some will work out, it’s quite difficult to fail on all forty):
The scientists told us that the Arctic would warm especially fast. They told us to expect heavier rainstorms. They told us heat waves would soar. They told us that the oceans would rise. All of those things have come to pass.
Considering this most basic test of a scientific theory, the test of prediction, climate science has established its validity.
The globe has two poles, and the Arctic warmed but the Antarctic did the opposite. On a yes-no question, a 50% success rate is not “success” but random luck.
As evidence, Gillis links to model predictions of “heat waves” that haven’t even happened yet. For “heavier rain” he links to a story from 2014 that he wrote that is almost cut n paste identical to the current story — same cause and effect problem. Hello, Justin — what kind of warming will not cause water to evaporate from the ocean leading to more rain? (What goes up must come down). If the solar dynamo was warming Earth, we’d see these exact same events. The only difference is that solar theories explain more of the turning points and far more of the history.
Read more at JoNova
Its a wonder Al Bore and the Green Nuts(Sounds like a new type of band)were not blaming monday eclipes on Global Warming as a warning from their Mother Gaia that we need to live a primative miserble life over this Global Warming/Climate Change poppycock
“A lie will get half way around the world before the truth can tie it’s shoelaces” The Warmists had a big head start before skeptics saw the need to chase them down. JoNova uses the phrase “short term thinking” . I’d say “lazy thinking” instead.
It’s on the Internet so it must be true!
My teacher wouldn’t lie to me.
If I ask awkward questions I’ll lose friends.
Artists are cool so I’ll follow them .
If you search greenhouse effect, global warming or climate change on the Internet, chances are that most results will be supportive of the Warmists. They got busy flooding the media with half-truths built upon sloppy science and leftist propaganda.
It will take a serious effort to reverse that.
Arguing about data will cause most people’s eyes to glaze over and change the subject.
Proving to the public that they’ve been conned will take more than Trump calling Climate Change a hoax.
I trust “science” that can make skill full predictions, like eclipses. cLIEmate UNscience has yet to make any skill full predictions.
Pretty simple metric.
From Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession” …. Dr. Nils-Axel Morner from Stockholm U. in the London Spectator circa 2011
“In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year. When I criticized this dishonest adjustment at a global warming conference in Moscow, a British member of the IPCC delegation admitted in public the reason for this new calibration : ” We had to do so, otherwise there would be no trend”
This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt”
Most people assume scientists have no incentive to lie or cheat. This assumption by the public is being exploited by the Warmists.
Dont ever trust a thing you read in liberal rags like TIME.ROLLING STONE and the New York Times its all fake news after all the same liberal rag TIME that was lying about Global Warming back in the 1990’s(Be Afraid be very very Afraid)with the Polarbear was blabbering about Global Cooling and a New Ice Age(Using a Penguin)back in the 1970’s which should point out to anyone that TIME like the defunked rag NEWSWEEK and the other liberal rag ROLLING STONE is 99/44 and 100% lies and the New York Slimes is the american version of the USSR’s PRAVDA