Category: Climate Change

I’ve got a couple projects I’d like to see completed, but I only have the time and resources to work on one.  Both will take a couple years of attention to get running on their own and the tide right now is right for both.

The projects are;

• Funding for Skeptics
• The Apprenticeship Guild

The ‘Funding for Skeptics’ project is finding and getting funding, both public and private, to help AGW skeptics test the alarmists’ claims, especially those of catastrophe.  I think it would be a cruel act, indeed joke, for those of us capable of exposing the nonsense to not put an end of it before it really damages our posterity.

The CO2 debate is what organizational change experts call ‘A Wicked Mess’.  There is deep rooted belief that catastrophe will strike if action is not taken, and the solutions being pushed result in economic and cultural collapse.  We have the damned if we do side, and another side of damned if we don’t.  The actions or inaction being promoted by each side are being actively resisted by the opposing.  We will never get anywhere this way.

Something that all wicked messes share is they cannot be fixed from the inside.  ‘There is no shared interpretation of the breakdown or opportunity.  There are multiple stakeholders with social or political reasons to resist proposed solutions.  It is difficult to get everyone in the mess to work together because of past and present resentment and distrust.’  ~’The Innovator’s Way‘

No solution exists that satisfies partisans, it is chaotic and adaptive.  We can’t fix it within, but we can get around it.  Denning and Dunham summarize the way quite nicely in ‘The Innovator’s Way’.  We organize collaboration in a local setting, negotiate a structure, and then spread the new organization out to the whole.

Of course it is more complicated than that, but only in magnitude of detailed steps.  Yes, it is work and requires a shared vision & cooperation.  It is sort of a ‘If we build a new ball field, they will come and adopt it’ narrative.  It is a way around the ‘mess’ since resentment and distrust prevents a path out from within.

My vision for ‘Funding for Skeptics’ is for it to get us out of and past this wicked mess called ‘climate change, action, etc’.  I want to fund skeptical and critical people so they can rigorously test the alarmist claims and to make their own claims.  I believe public funding going towards studying ‘catastrophic effects’ of climate change should go to skeptics determining the ’cause’.

The tide is shifting and the effort to get us out of this mess must be attended to now.  Missing and indeed not adding to this tide is only going to set us back years or decades.  I hate to sound Alarmist, but if we don’t keep the momentum going, we have no idea how long it will take for it to come back.  Prudence dictates we act.

I can’t work on this and The Apprenticeship Guild at the same time, but I can help Funding for Skeptics get off the ground and to Self Sufficiency.

This is no small feat, but it is something that I can help get started and largely automated with the right people working together.

Would a lobby organization that focused on getting Funding for Skeptics be worth looking at?

Warning, the endless Climate debate will come to an end so this conversation won’t be a part of your daily life anymore.  Could we handle that?

 

 

 

 

Mission:  Falsify or fail to falsify the the alarmist effects of CO2 levels in our atmosphere.  Report findings to patrons and interested parties.

I’ve been whining about the lack of real funding for man-made global warming skeptics for some time now.  The amount of funding that has gone into the alarmist side is staggering, $100’s of billions have been spent on all the research and public relations.  What has the Return on Investment (RoI) been?

1. Zero experiments (able to be falsified) conducted that tie Temperatures to CO2 levels.
2. 10’s of 1000’s of articles, paid for from Tax Revenue, on Effects of man-made global warming while never comparing to the Null hypothesis that it is Natural Climate Variability like it was from 4 Billion B.C. to A.D. 1950.  They loosely assume Nature stopped doing what it has always done in 1950 and since then CO2 has taken control of climate.
3. More calls and public relations to surrender more of our income and freedom to those who have wasted it for decades.

I’m saying “no more”.   “Panic, and surrender more of your income and freedom” is not a policy worth continuing to pay for.  We shouldn’t be paying for anything that is a repeat of that or similar messages.  We know that the Alarmists believe that CO2 levels are going to lead to catastrophe.  I don’t want my tax money going towards another study that says the same thing.  There’s already 10,000+ of them.  If you can’t convince the masses with 10,000+ articles and studies, another million won’t do it.

I want another message displayed to the masses with our tax money.  The message that says “Don’t panic, it was a mild hallucination, it didn’t feel right for a good reason.” Truthful messages like “the Greenland Ice Sheet melted the last 2 interglacials like this one. It has not yet and we don’t know why.”  It might be prudent to look at the studies already written about what would happen if sea levels rose 6 meters like it did the last two interglacials.

It happened twice before.  I’m not saying it has to happen this interglacial, but it would be smart to consider that Nature did it twice before and CO2 never got above 280ppm.  Okay?  CO2 above 280ppm is NOT REQUIRED to have higher or lower temperatures, different degrees of storm intensity, or Greenland Ice Sheet to melt, like it already did two times before.

I’d like to see some studies that try to figure out what IS REQUIRED to have higher and lower temps, different degrees of storm intensity, and the Greenland Ice Sheet to melt, like it did the last two times.  I’d like to see Climate Calm’ists get paid to give us the facts, attempt to Falsify hypotheses, and promote deeper inquiry.

So, all that said, I have fundingforskpetics.com and .org.  I’m considering the best way to set it up and what it’s core mission shall be.  I like the mission stated at the beginning.  I think it would be both moral and ethical to lobby for Tax Revenue for Skeptical Scholarly Articles and Experiments.

And if Skeptics fail to falsify the AGW hypotheses, the AGW argument will get more solid.

Who would you nominate to get funding?  What do you think they could provide for the funding we acquire for them?

The Scientific Method is not just a way to test and validate the universe around you. For career scientists, its a great way to avoid being humiliated in front of the whole world.

We can go into the detail on the first steps in The Method another time, for this exercise we’re going to focus on Peer Review. We’re going to take a lesson from a chemistry professor of mine back in college.

I can’t remember his name at the moment, but this professor explained Peer Review something like this;

“Peer Review is the best way to make sure you are not humiliated when you publish your work. Extremely smart people usually have extremely large egos. So when you publish something, you can expect the most ‘know it all egotistical asshole’ to rip you a new one up and down if you get something wrong. Professional Scientists are some of the meanest people you will ever meet and at least one of us will make you look like a fool if given the opportunity. By showing how dumb one of their peers is, that’s you, they get to show off how smart they are. That is simply part of the profession.”

“Now how do you avoid that?”, he went on, “You thoroughly test your hypothesis. You should actually try to falsify your own work and findings before you show it to anyone else. Try to find a way to break your hypothesis and when you have exhausted all your ideas, ask the smartest person you know to try to break it. That’s Peer Review. Good theories are hard to break and you should never publish an idea or theory without rigorous testing beforehand.” He always used that term, Rigorous, or Rigorously test.

“Once your smartest colleague fails to falsify your methods and results, then it is safe to publish. If your idea has a large impact on the scientific world, then you need to have at least a few of your very smart peers review your work before publishing. The bigger the claim, the more scrutiny and ridicule you will receive.”

Folks, that is how Peer Review works. The Scientific Method does not stop at Peer Review, it is followed up by Critical Review. Critical Review by the most ardent and egotistical skeptics that care to examine your work. The Scientific Method doesn’t even stop at Critical Review, in fact it is ‘never’ closed to further review. So long as there is someone who wants to take another look, there will be skepticism. Peer Review is just a smart gateway to use in order to keep yourself from being embarrassed. It’s the difference between Proof Reading your own writing and having someone else do it. It does not and should not determine the final Grade.

Climatologists are demanding that we stop and accept Peer Review as the final step in observing Anthropocentric Climate Change.  I find it somewhat amazing that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are up for scientific scrutiny, but the Green House Effect and Anthropocentric Global Warning is not.  Two well established theories that do a great job of prediction are up for scrutiny, but a mish-mash of partial hypotheses and theories that do a terrible job of predicting is not?

That’s what should be alarming to ‘scientists’ and the general public. Well, at least to people who take the Scientific Method and their Reputations seriously.

This should also be alarming to the Judge and Jurors in the upcoming Michael Mann Libel case.  I should hope that the Defendants’ lawyers bring this up.