The biggest problem the political left has in Western countries is that they politicize everything, including the weather and politics, especially leftist politics relies on dogma rather than facts. Eventually this situation leads to a 100% dogma based response to any problem they are confronting and their policies have no association with the real world, thus they are left to screeching terms like "climate denier" at anyone who challenges their dogma. In the end this dognmatic approach to solving ANY problem in the real world leads to abject failure.
I enjoy reading and listening to your articles I find it there fair balance I'm neither a climate scientist claim to be one. But I find your arguments and your objective analysis rather refreshing. Thank you
I 've been away for a few weeks and just had a chance to look at this video. It's not wrong per se, it's just a book promo and almost entirely beside the point. Here's why I think so:
To JR, Sept. 19/24
John:
I will not be able to attend as I am literally moving that day, back to Ontario I might add. My computer will be out of commission until Oct. 10th and so please ask her the following questions for me:
1. Dr. John Clauser, a Nobel prize winner in Physics, has stated categorically and I quote:"I'll come right out and say it, it has nothing to do with CO2." Is he right or wrong and if he's wrong, on what grounds ?
2. I assume you are familiar with the thermodynamic concept of specific heat whose governing equation is: c= (dQ/dT)/m and has been determined in the laboratory for every gas, fluid and solid on earth. Changing CO2 content from .04% to .08% has no material effect on c and if, on any given day and place on the planet, dQ is the same and m by definition is always 1, then how is it possible to change dT ? Note that in thermodynamics it doesn't matter if Q comes from solar radiation at any frequency, a blow torch or a bolt of lightning and so, if you're looking for a proper climate "control knob" the specific heat is surely it, no ? By the way, as far as I can tell, the only thing that can change c in our "free expansion" atmosphere is volcanic activity (or lack thereof) and that, in the end, is the real cause of temperature changes during the past 500 million years.
QED ?
Thanks John.
Kenneth G. Dextras, B. Eng., McGill '76 http://www.dextras.com
All I can say is that in the end, this basic science is being ignored because most of the people involved have a big stake in keeping the uncertainty alive. Hopefully, Clauser, like Joules, will prevail in the end.
KD , Oct. 13/24
Most so-called climate scientists have only minimal qualifications but still call themselves climate scientists. Many are educated in totally unrelated fields. There is not a lot of agreement with the alarmist narrative among those educated in related fields such as geology. These are the ones with actual knowledge of past climate variations to compare with current trends.
But Jon, they can't wait until the signal clears out the noise, it is a crisis and they need tax dollars right this second to solve the problem!
The biggest problem the political left has in Western countries is that they politicize everything, including the weather and politics, especially leftist politics relies on dogma rather than facts. Eventually this situation leads to a 100% dogma based response to any problem they are confronting and their policies have no association with the real world, thus they are left to screeching terms like "climate denier" at anyone who challenges their dogma. In the end this dognmatic approach to solving ANY problem in the real world leads to abject failure.
I enjoy reading and listening to your articles I find it there fair balance I'm neither a climate scientist claim to be one. But I find your arguments and your objective analysis rather refreshing. Thank you
I 've been away for a few weeks and just had a chance to look at this video. It's not wrong per se, it's just a book promo and almost entirely beside the point. Here's why I think so:
To JR, Sept. 19/24
John:
I will not be able to attend as I am literally moving that day, back to Ontario I might add. My computer will be out of commission until Oct. 10th and so please ask her the following questions for me:
1. Dr. John Clauser, a Nobel prize winner in Physics, has stated categorically and I quote:"I'll come right out and say it, it has nothing to do with CO2." Is he right or wrong and if he's wrong, on what grounds ?
2. I assume you are familiar with the thermodynamic concept of specific heat whose governing equation is: c= (dQ/dT)/m and has been determined in the laboratory for every gas, fluid and solid on earth. Changing CO2 content from .04% to .08% has no material effect on c and if, on any given day and place on the planet, dQ is the same and m by definition is always 1, then how is it possible to change dT ? Note that in thermodynamics it doesn't matter if Q comes from solar radiation at any frequency, a blow torch or a bolt of lightning and so, if you're looking for a proper climate "control knob" the specific heat is surely it, no ? By the way, as far as I can tell, the only thing that can change c in our "free expansion" atmosphere is volcanic activity (or lack thereof) and that, in the end, is the real cause of temperature changes during the past 500 million years.
QED ?
Thanks John.
Kenneth G. Dextras, B. Eng., McGill '76
http://www.dextras.com
All I can say is that in the end, this basic science is being ignored because most of the people involved have a big stake in keeping the uncertainty alive. Hopefully, Clauser, like Joules, will prevail in the end.
KD , Oct. 13/24
Most so-called climate scientists have only minimal qualifications but still call themselves climate scientists. Many are educated in totally unrelated fields. There is not a lot of agreement with the alarmist narrative among those educated in related fields such as geology. These are the ones with actual knowledge of past climate variations to compare with current trends.