Climate Change Revisited

George Rebane

‘Climate change’ is one of the unfortunate labels that a nation dominated by dumbth uses to simplify and therefore profoundly misunderstand a very complex process that is made even more confusing through the injection and overarch of political ideologies.  The hoi polloi are salved and saved from all this confounding by being taught that science is a singular absolute, and that ‘science is settled’ on climate change.  There is nothing that will change such minds outside the opinions of their chosen political betters who insist all credible scientists warn us that earth is headed for a thermal catastrophe unless we quickly adopt a set of draconian public policies, enforced by a bigger government, that must needs change our fundamental lifestyles.  Assessments and evidence that contradict such consensus science are loudly sourced to flat-earthers, creationists, and others categorized as intellectual troglodytes.

When the semantic onion is peeled back, climate change is really the short label for preventable man-made global warming (PMGW), about which you shouldn’t bother your little head as long as you concur with the new laws, regulations, taxes, and fees required to ‘prevent climate change’.  Climate change is also the perfect and only storm that must not be wasted on our road to a global Agenda21 (q.v.).  However, the rest of us know that –

1) earth’s climate change is perennial and ongoing;

2) the greenhouse effect is real and greenhouse gases (especially CO2) in earth’s atmosphere are constantly varying, and have done so over broad ranges for eons;

3) earth’s carbon cycle is poorly understood at best;

4) humans do contribute an unknown proportion to atmospheric CO2;

5) the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ‘earth’s temperature’ is an unknown dynamic process;

6) the temperature of the earth is a number produced by any of many algorithms, and then politically selected for public consumption;

7) our understanding of the dynamics of weather and climate are poor and a work in process, definitely not ready to support public policy making;

8) general circulation models (GCMs), cobbled together to generate and support weather and climate predictions, are many in a field of ongoing research, and are intensely politically mediated for use in public policy making;

9) today’s GCMs barely work for predicting near-term weather, and are useless for predicting long-term climate changes;

10) earth’s weather and climate are large-scale, complex chaotic processes, the long-term predictions of which today are not possible to any degree of usable reliability, and for several technical reasons having to do with physics and computability, such usable reliability may never be possible;

11) the presented evidence for PMGW has been demonstrated to be fraught with fraudulent manipulations and interpretations of historical and topical measurements along with ad hoc estimates, and there is no evidence that the claimed climate change is preventable;

12) the overwhelming ‘thousands’ of the UN’s IPCC scientists, who have neither the expertise nor understanding of things outside their own narrow disciplines correctly, make no such claims, especially when it comes to the workings of any of the GCMs du jour that incorporate their particular inputs for making predictions in the large;

13) all of the above has also been communicated by a body of competent scientists and engineers who are both beholden and not beholden to politically correct government grants.

For some time now the climate change debate has been politically polluted beyond any reason-based redemption or resolution.  Instead, it meticulously mangled by the media before being resolved in the public square through the vicissitudes of an ephemeral and mostly fluid public comprehension, one that expresses itself variously in the nation’s ballot boxes.  Democracy at work indeed.

For these reasons I remain a skeptic about PMGW, and treat all new information as a Bayesian.  To characterize people like me as 'not believing' in climate change immediately extinguishes further discussion and debate.  Such accusations are invariably either agenda driven or simply ignorant.

(The portents are more compelling for a near-term episode of global cooling.  Perhaps the politicians will respond when we witness, say, a couple of years of a crop-killing June frost on the Great Plains.)

Comments

[Russ]

Early Fall Limites Growing Season

In addition to late spring killing frost farmers have to consider early rain, cold and snow in the fall, in effect shortening the growing season. Late planting and early fall weather limits the time needed for the grain to ripen, the beans and corn to dry and the grapes to produce sugar.

Soggy weather delaying fall harvest is 'just another nail in the coffin' for Wisconsin farmers

Already beset with problems caused by trade wars and low commodity prices, many U.S. farmers are facing yet another challenge: wet, muddy fields keeping them from reaping their fall harvest.

In Wisconsin, there were only two days suitable for field work in the week ending Oct. 7, according to a crops report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture office in Madison.

“Those that tried to harvest corn, corn silage or soybeans were very creative or were getting stuck,” a crops observer from Adams and Juneau counties said in the report.

“It doesn't matter whether it's four-wheel drive, or what type of technology you have, you need a boat to get into some of these areas,” said Kevin Jarek, a University of Wisconsin Extension agent in Outagamie County.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/money/business/2018/10/10/rain-muddy-fields-delaying-fall-harvest-wisconsin-farmers/1578880002/

What some famers are saying about the early winter on the Great Plains

10/15/2018 Thayer County, NE: beans splitting open and more corn fallling down with the snow hard to figure when to sell beans with no true account to how much govt is going to actually pay or what weather is going to be like down the road

10/14/2018 Big Stone County, MN: More rain , snow, no sun and cold temperatures. Have not started fall harvest yet and do not know when that might be. Have heard of some farmers taking beans at 17% moisture and higher and that was before this last round of rain and snow. Now I am hearing about the mold that is starting to show up on standing crops. what a mess!! Also a big thank you to trump for throwing the farmers in this country under the bus, and keep running us over and over. He has ruined our markets, given waivers to the oil companies so that they do not need to blend ethanol, and he does not seem to care. Oh, I forgot about our big tariff payment. WHAT A JOKE!! How can any american farmer support this guy and his party??? I can't.

10/14/2018 Dixon County, NE: snowing about 2" beans not that great good corn but wet alredy has wind damage seems to get alittle worse every time you look at it. lots of beans before corn and still snowing wind in the 30s this afternoon

10/14/2018 Colfax County, NE: Snowing today, alot of crops, specially soybeans. Had 3 days of combing in almost three weeks. Record yields even in rain,snow, and sleet. Thanks again USDA for making food cheap for everyone.

More Here: https://www.agweb.com/agweb-crop-comments/

[Gregory]

Grand solar minimum starting about now... 2020 to 2053... give or take.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.04482

[scenes]

re: [email protected]:37PM

It's not a thing I know much about.

Is this accurate at all?

http://stockboardasset.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Screen-Shot-2017-09-18-at-10.44.31-PM.png

Is the implication that we should fire up a bunch of coal-fired power plants?

[Gregory]

Scenes, yes the chart is accurate as such things go (that one's from Wikipedia)

No, that isn't the implication. Coal fired plants are dirty nasty things and if you don't like dirty nasty power generation there is no need to increase coal use. But CO2 isn't what make coal fired power plants dirty and nasty.

CO2 didn't cause the majority of 20th century warming, so burning coal won't do a damn thing to mitigate a solar induced cooling other than make electric space heaters usable again.

[Gregory]

No no no no

I took a closer look at the Screen-Shot and it isn't accurate at all... no one reputable is forecasting a long solar minimum starting about now.

The figure you found is accurate until it reaches today... and after that, it's pure speculation.

Zharkov is predicting a solar minimum lasting about 33 years and IMO her dual dynamo model is the only model worth referring to at the moment.

[Paul Emery]

George

I attended a NID Board Meeting last week about the Centennial Dam. The reason to build the dam, in their assessment, was because of "accelerated climate change and global warming".

Since you don't share that concern I assume you don't sense the urgency for the Dam.

[Todd Juvinall]

My guess about the NID strategy was simple. Agree with those that believe in the hoax in the hopes it will get them on their side. Didn't work. The CC crew are fanatics.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 350pm - another simplistic attempt at logic gone awry. There are more reasons than climate change to build the dam. Keeping up with the population’s need for water given the natural and historical variability of its production by the Sierra snow pack is a prime reason; there are others.

[Paul Emery]

George

At the meeting the overwhelming message from NID was that this was an urgent matter BECAUSE of Global warming and climate change. Did they err in using that message or was it just scare tactics?

[Account Deleted]

Perfect timing for this story -
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/washington-voters-to-decide-on-first-of-its-kind-u-s-carbon-fee#gs.iJx95AI
Following the criminal lead of the California govt, a tax becomes a 'fee' because just like certain mentally ill people, you can decide you are something other than you are.
They even admit it actually won't do a damn bit of good toward changing the climate. How's that for honesty?
Best line - "So the Washington measure isn’t likely to change the world, but “doing something is better than doing nothing,” said Robert Stavins, director of Harvard University’s environmental economics program."
Yes indeedy - it won't do any good, but let's do it anyway, cause it makes us feel better.
The heavily populated metro areas that won't have to pay as much will pass the law and the farmers, ranchers and producers in the rural areas of the state will get hosed. Ha, ha!
As has been pointed out - this has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with advancing socialistic diktats.

[Account Deleted]

Paul at 5:00 - NID knows that they need more water storage because they have more population to service. Maybe instead of building the dam, we could just let a few million more illegals into the state.
Would that solve the problem?

[Paul Emery]

Todd writes " Agree with those that believe in the hoax..."

So Todd you contend that NID is is willing to lie about Climate Change and Global Warming to gain support for the Dam. Is that something you would call "fake news"?

[Paul Emery]

Scott

My question is the use of Global Warming and Climate change as their primary argument for building the Dam. Do you contend that they lie when they use that argument or do they believe it?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 518pm - How do you know NID is lying about climate change? Do you have evidence to back that up, or are you unclear on the definition of 'to lie'?

On a general note - does everyone notice that there is no material opposition to my tenets of skepticism? The discussion immediately reverts to the politics involved, which indeed demonstrates one of my tenets about the true nature of this issue.

[Paul Emery]

George

I didn't say they were lying. I just noted that that's what Todd inferred when he said NID would "Agree with those that believe in the hoax in the hopes it will get them on their side."

Todd is the one who accused NID of lying not me. I believe in their argument that Global Warming is a pending crisis. Do you believe NID is being honest about their assessment of Global Warming and the resulting need for the Dam?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 626pm - Paul, the best I can do is believe that NID is doing the best it can to assess the impact of global warming affecting the need for water in California. I believe that they are among the legions of public agencies who don't understand the underlying science and technology involved in climate predictions, and therefore have no recourse but to take the politically expedient route and believe in the nationally touted consensus science. Unfortunately, in that they err.

But posing your question to NID is similar to asking a 4-year-old at the beach about the existence of sea monsters which his dad described in order to keep the tyke from going too far into the surf. In that scenario, I'm just a bystander who heard the father's warning, and then the little guy's recounting of it to his beach buddies.

[Paul Emery]

So George, then we should ignore NID's support of Global Warming as a reason to build the Dam.

[Russ]

Here are some thoughts about NID the Centennial Dam and global warming.

I sent to the following to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in response to their request for comments on the Proposed Centennial Reservoir Project EIS, SPK–2016–00030

I was born in Nevada County in 1938, and a have lived there most recently from 1980 to 2015. I am a retired Air Force Officer Lt/Col, returning to Nevada County in 1980. I wanted my wife and four daughters to know the joy of living in the tall trees, swimming in the rushing rivers and ski the snow-covered mountains. Over time I became very interested in the climate, the impacts of climate change on the County, the State and eventually the Region.

Climate Change

As your engineering teams evaluate climate change issues, it is important they consider the long-term historical droughts in the region. Please see the attached graphic. There have been clusters of drought periods, interspersed with wet years. We can expect to experience similar droughts in the future. Our most recent five-year drought was broken by a very wet year, an almost cataclysmic flood year. If history is our guide, we will experience some additional drought years following this wet spell, which could last multiple years, as the El Niño weather pattern returns to the Pacific.

My point. We need to have additional water storage to capture the water generated during the wet years to carry us through the coming dry years.

Graphics at the link:
https://sierrafoothillcommentary.com/2017/03/16/california-drought-report-85-centennial-reservoir-project-eis/

[Russ]

Here are some thoughts about the NID politics of climate change

Ron Nelson the previous NID General Manager, was a neighbor for a few months when he first moved to Nevada County. We got to know him for a short time. I was concerned that NID has seemed to fall into the warmer camp and asked Ron to have coffee and discuss the issue. Dr. Christy had examined the Southern Sierra Snow Pack and the data did not support the claims long term decline in the snow pack. I knew that NID had long term snow pack records and I asked Ron if he could share them to confirm Dr Christy findings from 1903 to 2003. He was reluctant as the records were not in a digital format, but he concluded that over the short term (last 10 years) there was a slight decline of the snow pack, but not of great concern.

If the snow pack trend was not of great concern, the question was why was NID embracing the global warming mantra, when the GCM had proven to be inconsistent with the real world data. Ron explained that NID had to play politics to be considered as one of the players. They were warmers to keep their seat at the money table and keep the local local environmentalist happy.

Graphics at the link

https://sierrafoothillcommentary.com/2014/08/22/congratulations-to-nid-for-taking-action/

[Walt]

We need more storage pure and simple. We have WAY more people since the last dam was built. OK, just for shits and giggles, say AGW is real. That means things will be getting dryer around here from here on out. Another argument for MORE STORAGE. Rich people will still build their swimming pools.
As soon as the smelt goes the way of the Golden Bear, the ECO bastards will find another endangered water dweller to keep the fresh water flowing out to sea. Gotta have something to send to the sea. Another argument for MORE STORAGE.

[Russ]

Paul, the bottom line is that dam is needed to collect water during wet years so we can survive the dry years. The dry years are not connected to global warming, they are tied to the mid Pacific ocean temperatures which are driven by solar heating and thunderstorm cooling. Normally these cycles vary, but in the past they have become stable, resulting in long term droughts, lasting 100s of years. So far we have been lucky as our short term droughts were broken up by some wet years. We need the dam to capture the water is those few wet years. Study the graphics presented in the pervious posts. See the wet years mixed in the drought years.

[Paul Emery]

Russ

You must admit that they are using Global Warming-Climate change front and center as their main argument for building the Dam. I've been to several meetings and heard this over and over.

[Walt]

A question or two for the true believers.
Just when HASN'T there been "climate change"? When did the sea stop rising?
Sorry,, your NEVER going to keep tomorrow, just like today.
And I have unicorn hams in the smoker.

[Russ]

Paul @ 07:15 Yes NID is playing politics with the Global Warming, I wrote a long critique of their position. My blog post is here:
https://sierrafoothillcommentary.com/2018/01/22/nid-fake-news/

It is easier to go along with the warming mantra that have to explain the complexity of droughts in CA, and be labeled a climate change denier.

[scenes]

VDH even chats about water, starts at about 14:10 or so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnVBoZi8hEo

[George Rebane]

PaulE 651pm - Paul, we need the water, and should take it any way we can including their devout faith in preventable man made global warming if that’s what is needed to get it built. I don’t know what you’re phishing for about this issue, do you? Do you also support the Centennial Dam project?

[Paul Emery]

Don't know enough about it George. It may end up costing a billion dollars with financing. NID won't say where the money is coming from and who is going to pay for it. They have already spent 14 million on it which is going to be paid for by rate increases. The people who live in the area have suffered property devaluations because of the proposal and will likely have their property taken by imminent domains so they can't plan for the future.

That's just a start. I'm surprised you support the scare tactics of using global warming as a reason to build the dam if you don't believe in it.

"we need the water, and should take it any way we can"

[Gregory]

" I'm surprised you support the scare tactics of using global warming as a reason to build the dam if you don't believe in it."

Punchy, I'm surprised you keep running the same he eord game to forge a logical inconsistency out of nothingness.

[Gregory]

"Bs word game"

[Account Deleted]

"Don't know enough about it George. NID won't say where the money is coming from and who is going to pay for it. They have already spent 14 million on it which is going to be paid for by rate increases."
Let'd go down the list -
"Don't know enough about it George."
Doesn't seem to stop you from yapping about it. Why don't you get educated or just shut up?
next - "NID won't say where the money is coming from and who is going to pay for it."
Really? Where the hell does NID get its money from now, Paul?
"The people who live in the area have suffered property devaluations because of the proposal and will likely have their property taken by imminent domains so they can't plan for the future. "
No shit, Paul - just fall off the turnip truck?
What about the folks who owned land in or around any National Park, National Landmark, govt condemned land, govt housing neighborhood, TVA area, or any socialistic happy plan?
"That's just a start. I'm surprised you support the scare tactics of using global warming as a reason to build the dam if you don't believe in it."
Who supports scare tactics - we need more water. That's a fact, not a scare tactic.

['''M''']

,,,funny how the science of probability goes out the window for AGW deniers
when faced with 97% of peer reviewed climate studies supporting the concept that human caused activities contribute to climate change/global warming,,,

,,,cue the trolling fish,,,

[scenes]

re: "M"@8:33AM

Cool. So you'd best get crackin' on building nuke plants, Chinese pollution law, and on population control worldwide. Enlarging Big Environmental and getting people to buy Nissan Leafs ain't going to make a lick of difference.

Mass immigration from the third to the first world isn't helping any.

You and I both know that this whole matter in the US is 10% about the environment and 90% about politics and power.

[George Rebane]

M 833am - As anticipated Mr M, you really didn't understand it, did you?

As for your love affair with consensus science, the more open-minded reader is reminded that in 1915 Einstein was informed that EVERY (100%) physicist had either rejected relativity or was extremely skeptical as to its veracity. And similar examples abound in the history of science going back centuries.

[fish]

Posted by: '''M''' | 17 October 2018 at 08:33 AM

,,,cue the trolling fish,,,

Hey it's really great to be back......and that outfit dugsKKi....fabulous! I mean a double breasted suit made from cut up Depends™.......so bold!

And how could I forget......a hat tip to Paul and the CBS orchestra!

[Russ]

M @ 8:33AM

Why do you progressive keep rolling out the 97% Consensus as anyone with some internet access can discover it is just unadulterated BS.

For example:

A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.

Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.

According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.

See the 97% consensus is just lip flapping crap!

[Paul Emery]

Thanks Scott for confirming your view that NID is exploiting Global Warming to justify the Centennial Dam.

[Robert Cross]

"the more open-minded reader is reminded that in 1915 Einstein was informed that EVERY (100%) physicist had either rejected relativity or was extremely skeptical as to its veracity. "

this is the same for you folks and climate change.. Einstein was correct, the skeptics were wrong. You are the wrong skeptics.

[Todd Juvinall]

BoobieC you have it backward. We know the scientists are the same ones that rejected Einstein. Your logic is fatally flawed.

[Gregory]

The 97% figure, the vaunted "consensus", was imagined as a foil to defame anyone who dared to talk about AGW negatively. Puts it up with believing in evolution, gravity, the Holocaust.

But evolution does not take belief, nor does gravitation or the Holocaust. It will be the cause célèbre for the Left until Hell Freezes Over, or at least gets cold enough in early November to make traveling to the polls difficult.

Again, the double dynamo solar model produced by Zharkova has done a nice job of hindcasting multiple past solar minima and maxima, with a forecast of a minima about to start. Now, that doesn't mean glaciers are about to pounce on Toronto, but it does suggest a cooling over the next few decades. It will not kill the CO2 narrative but it will make it very hard to tweak the global circulation models that were written with positive feedback terms dominating the calculations.

If that comes to pass, it will be difficult for Warmistas to hand wave away the historic high solar activity in the mid to latter 20th century not having the lion's share of the blame for the mild warming to date (since the 19th century) attributed to CO2 by some.

Now, it was ten years ago when Doug Keachie's plethora of puppets commenting on The Union blogsite were bashing me and others over this... well, Keach, the time is probably growing short.

[George Rebane]

Russ 1224pm - Because STEM is their short suit, and they are overwhelmingly innumerate. Look at the profound rebuttal in RobertC's 128pm.

[Gregory]

Now Boobie has introduced the concept of "the wrong skeptics".

I'd put up Freeman Dyson and Nir Shaviv as the right skeptics, along with Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen, Jan Veizer, Dick Lindzen. More upon request.

I suspect such luminaries as Gavin Schmidt would be on your short list of the right skeptics; you might want to look at Schmidt's denunciation of Shaviv in 2007 as "boguus". Compare that to Dyson's lauding of Shaviv's follow on research... Dyson had plenty of time to meet and discuss with Shaviv his research during Shaviv's sabbatical year at Dyson's lair, Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies as an IBM Einstein Fellow a year or two ago.

Schmidt is a leader of the "right skeptics" by Boobie's measure as a ringleader of the RealClimate blog and now warmer of the James Hansen chair at NASA-GISS.

[Gregory]

Thank you, Punchy 113pm for thanking ScottO for doing something he expressly did not do, merely because he ignored your command to utter the words you were desperate to be putting in his mouth.

Such playground debate techniques should be beneath you, Paul.

[scenes]

"Such playground debate techniques should be beneath you, Paul."

lol. Pull the other one.

Next thing you know, everyone is going to tell me that the universe isn't slowing down as it expands. Go figure.

Seriously, the thing that irritates me the most about the global warming folks is that they tend to start with a solution and look for a problem.

Well, that and the way that the greenhouse gas issue tends to suck the air out of obvious other human-caused environmental issues. Just wait until the infamous graph of population growth in the different continents takes effect.

[fish]

Posted by: Gregory | 17 October 2018 at 02:35 PM

Such playground debate techniques should be beneath you, Paul.

Hey.....if it’s all you’ve got I guess you have to go with it! Well there’s also Punchys “Socratic Method for the Complete Moron”.....how silly of me!

[Walt]

Paul wants it both ways! LOL! He's a "true believer",, yet is anti "more storage".
Let us know when you can drink "pretty". (as in ,, brush choked canyon,, waiting to burn.)

[Account Deleted]

"Thanks Scott for confirming your view that NID is exploiting Global Warming to justify the Centennial Dam."
And thank YOU Paul, for confirming that Trump is the best president ever.
I actually never espoused any such thing Paul. But fabricating BS is your forte.
Enjoy your day.

[Paul Emery]

What is your view Gregory. Is NID exploiting Global Warming to justify the Centennial Dam. Not putting words in your mouth. I'm just interested in your opinion.

[Account Deleted]

Perhaps Bobby Cross could comment on the folks that agree with him.
Such as the fellow that admitted that a state-wide tax on carbon in Washington won't actually do any good.
That's your side, Bobby - are you denying your own side of the argument?
And what about the anti global warming folks that openly declare they don't even care about the science? That's your side, Bobby.
And what about Manhattan being underwater?
What about 'no more snow'?
Who's the denier now?

[Paul Emery]

What is your view George. Is NID exploiting Global Warming to justify the Centennial Dam? It was the major argument in last weeks meeting to pitch building the dam.

[Don Bessee]

More pathetic why, why, why from the po' ol' fakenewsman.

;-)

[Marty]

Rebane 9:59

And just HOW do you know that EVERY(100%) physicist rejected Einstein’s theories? Supporting evidence please. I find it nearly impossible to believe that EVERY person in any discipline will take a united stance, yet you double down on your allegation by stating that “similar examples abound.” Total horse excrement.

[Walt]

So what id they are Paul? We still need the water.
So NID "agrees" with AGW.. Yet you still bitch.

[Russ]

[email protected]:56PM
A Hundred Authors Against Einstein A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. A 100 scientist against relativity.

[Account Deleted]

Hey Paul, here's an idea. Since you claim you're a news guy, why don't you stop bugging us about what NID is thinking and go ask them your darn self?
How in the world are we supposed to know what they are thinking? It seems that only leftists can read minds. We don't even pretend to.
I realize you might have to get up off your knees as you crawl along Spring Street looking at bumper stickers for your next ideological fix, but that's the way it goes in the news biz.

[Paul Emery]

Scott

They expressed their reason for the dam very clearly at the last weeks meeting. It was because of Global Warming and Climate Change that we needed the dam. Were you there?

[fish]

Porn for the “Ponytail of Ignorance”.....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LFp3H8dnJps

Monty Python fans will enjoy the link!

[George Rebane]

Marty 556pm - My remark about the acceptance of relativity was meant to indicate that when Einstein first published special relativity in 1905, there is no record of any physicist, obscure or famous, endorsing that work. Instead, the 'letters' of the time were filled with outright rejections to high levels of skepticism. No one stepped forward to say, 'Holy shit! this is great stuff and will change physics forever.' In fact, as Russ points out (656pm), even after the appearance general relativity (1915) prominent scientists continued to reject relativity as late as into the 1930s. At one time during WW1 the head of the Max Planck Institute in Berlin wrote Einstein that he was willing to gather the entire physics department together to show how many prominent scientists rejected relativity. This gave rise to Einstein's famous reply (quoted variously), 'Relativity is science, there is no need to assemble so many to reject the theory. That can be done by just one person, bring him.' I'm sorry if my remark gave you unnecessary heartburn.

Nevertheless Marty, it doesn't sound as if you're here to discuss the verity of 'climate change' and my rationale for skepticism, but simply to see if you can land a gotcha.

[Marty]

On cue Russ 6:56!
Are you claiming our esteemed host would deliberately try to confuse the issue by stating 100% of all physicists disagreed with Einstein when in reality they cobbled together a list of 100 scientists? Obfuscation is part and parcel for deniers it seems.

[Account Deleted]

"They expressed their reason for the dam very clearly at the last weeks meeting. It was because of Global Warming and Climate Change that we needed the dam."
Obviously not clearly enough for you, Paul.
Why are you asking us what they are thinking?
We can tell why we think it's needed but that's not necessarily what they think.
"Were you there?"
Hilarious.
If I was there do you think then maybe I'd be close enough to read their minds?

[Todd Juvinall]

If there were only 100 known physicists on the planet in 1915 and none supported Eintein's theory, then what is you beef Marty? Rebane is correct.

[Account Deleted]

from Marty - "Total horse excrement."
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Albert-Einstein-win-the-Nobel-Prize
Even in 1921 after an experiment had supported his Theory Of Relativity, they still wouldn't give him a Nobel for that theory.
Maybe some one thought he was correct when he first posited his famous theory (now proven), but you'll have a hard time finding him.

[Gregory]

"Because [science and math] is their short suit, and they are overwhelmingly innumerate. Look at the profound rebuttal in RobertC's 128pm."

GR 208pm

George, as far as I can tell you and I are the only ones here who have experienced what science and math "is". It isn't the stuff in a K-12 lesson plan, or a general science class someone took in a college level trivial arts class to meet a science requirement. That's science and math appreciation.

No, science isn't the recitation of received wisdom from an accepted authority who shall not be questioned and to discuss the matter one does need a minimum command of logic, mathematics and basic science.

Besides, special relativity wasn't Einstein's big theory... it was the work function, really, the start of quantum mechanics, for which he won a Nobel in Physics. That solved real problems and enabled the modern age of electronics.

The issues of special and general relativity are still being studied, with no refutation of Einstein yet that I'm aware of. Unlike "Climate Change", real science is always one experiment away from being *proved* deficient.

Punchy 531pm

Don't be silly old boy. NID has no expertise in physics or its influence on climate and are just following the mob pointing the way. After all, 97% of the world's scientists can't be wrong, can they? Besides, why get beat up as "deniers" when accepting the mob's direction means everyone at the office gets an XMAS bonus? It doesn't make sense to get beaten up in a game you cannot win and you cannot fight.

[Paul Emery]

So Gregory if, as you contend, NID is wrong about Climate Change and Global warming being the primary need for the Dam then, by rejecting their reason for the Dam, do you then oppose the it?

[Don Bessee]

Hey did ya hear the blue wave has ebbed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity

;-)

[Account Deleted]

Paul at 9:02 - So - are we then to assume you'll be working for the re-election of Pres Trump?
Jeez Louise, you are seriously bent.
Get some professional help, Paul. Really.
I'll go to the mat on this. You are some crumbled cookie.

[Paul Emery]

I profoundly dislike Trump Scott. How did you get that idea?

[fish]

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 17 October 2018 at 09:15 PM

It’s like showing a dog a card trick! He’s just not going to get it!

[Tricky McClean]

Fish, if I was born above the Pale of Settlement I’d probably have the same wacky ideas as you!

[Gregory]

Punchy 902pm

"... do you then oppose the it?"

I rest my case.

[fish]

Posted by: Tricky McClean | 17 October 2018 at 10:49 PM

What language are you speaking Michael?

[Paul Emery]

Rest your case Gregory? How can you do that when you haven't presented one. Let me ask you again

Gregory if, as you contend, NID is wrong about Climate Change and Global warming being the primary need for the Dam then, by rejecting their reason for the Dam, do you then oppose it?

[***M***]

,,,Marty, Tricky,,,you are dealing with Flat-Earthers here like the physicist deniers in Einstein's era.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul Emery does not understand politics. I have explained the NID position yet he refuses to accept that is is even possible. Oh well, FISH, your card trick to a dog point is well taken.

Flat Earthers? Oh my, "M" really is unhinged.

[Gregory]

PPaul, estimate precipitatiom in the applicable watershed over the next century
a) if CO2 controls global climate
b) if it doesn't

[Gregory]

Flat earther? I'm on the record as an oblate spheroider.

[Paul Emery]

Lets review the NID "position" Todd that you have presented. Here it is:

"My guess about the NID strategy was simple. Agree with those that believe in the hoax in the hopes it will get them on their side. "

According to you NID is advocating a hoax in order to win over support for the Dam. You are accusing NID of lying to the rate payers to advance their ambitions.

[Gregory]

Paul, estimate precipitation in the NID watershed over the next century
a) if CO2 controls global climate
b) if it doesn't

My case is that your rhetoric is empty. Just punching, always hoping to catch someone in the blog equivalent of a perjury trap. Not a serious attempt at a discussion. Have at it, Punchy.

[Todd Juvinall]

No Paul, not support but mutenes. You really have reading disabilities.

[Marty]

Quick, add Juvinall’s mutenes to the conservative dictionary of meaningless words. It will go to the right of covfefe and amid the splatter of alphabet soup coughed up here from time to time.

[Todd Juvinall]

That's OK Marty. You are a moron democrat.

[fish]

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 18 October 2018 at 10:59 AM

The best part of playing Uncle Punchys game is knowing that in his head he's walking around the court room thinking he's Matlock!

[fish]

Posted by: ***M*** | 18 October 2018 at 08:53 AM

Every time you crack open your word hole you diminish the Scottish intellectual tradition! Somewhere from the great beyond Maxwell is pointing and laughing at your constant pontificating while diapered!