"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the
contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,
which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by
reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What
is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in
history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Climate is biological and electrical. Let's vote on it.
Sooner or later, we must form an independent research institute in
this country. It must be funded by industry, by government, and by
private philanthropy, both individuals and trusts. The money must be
pooled, so that investigators do not know who is paying them. The
institute must fund more than one team to do research in a particular
area, and the verification of results will be a foregone requirement:
teams will know their results will be checked by other groups. In
many cases, those who decide how to gather the data will not gather
it, and those who gather the data will not analyze it. If we were to
address the land temperature records with such rigor, we would be
well on our way to an understanding of exactly how much faith we can
place in global warming, and therefore what seriousness we must
The fascist's influence even in our educational institutions has come
to this. This is socialism in reaction to fascism. Do you have more
big words for it?
"Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these
predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the
point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get
the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years
from now is simply absurd."
This is where Cricton may get a concensus but not the science. There
are things inherently predictable about biological systems. I can
say, for instance, for a fact, that 100 years from now, provided my
children's children children survive, that their body temperature
will be 98.7 degrees F. Since climate is biological, we can do things
not to protect the biosphere's health.
Crichton ended his speech with a blurb on Lomborg. Lomborg was doing
nothing more than making strawmen arguements on the CO2 as a GHG
debate--which is a false debate from the start because CO2 is not a
significant forcing as a GHG--it IS a significant forcing as
electrical agent in the global electrical circuit. SciAm was correct
in avoiding his non-sense. But at the same time, the scientific
community should hang its head low on the bio electrical aspects of
climate. BTW, Crichton is largely correct about the global climate
models--they are crap
"I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total
ice of Antarctica is increasing. "
The funny thing is that he quotes the research of one Peter Doran,
who shares my surname (but won't answer my email).
The earth magnetic field is weakening. That means respecting the
south pole there are less isobar/solar wind driven cloud
organizations. At the same time the oceans have warmed. In the
southern oceans, the circumpolar current mostly runs around
Antarctica inducting against cirrus--and cooling the ocean surface.
If the ocean is warmer, the large scale conductivity increases. If
the ocean has more biological activity w/ more CO2, it is more
conductive, but, again, inducting against cirrus, which tends to cool
the surface--that area will oscillate between being too cold to
conduct or when conductive move against cloud formations. There is a
built in control, in that where there is a counter current which is
near the boots of Antarctica and South America---there the
temperatures have been strongly anomaly warm (5 degrees Celcius) and
big burgs have broken off, like B-21, 22 recently.
As for Africa, between dams and a decreasing EMF, the jet stream
meanders more, and brings more water to even the strongest of fair
weather zones in Africa. More CO2 in the water allows ambiant winds
to bring conductivites sufficient to support, electro mechanically,
rainfall where it has not fell before. Just south of the south of the
Sahara is one of the most struck places on earth. The problem with
all of this is that climate is more than just temperature, but also
chemical modulations. Life where it should not be may be dangerous
because it is not in proper modulating context. This will prove to be
the problem and solution, and the problem is more than just fossil
fuels. It includes fossil firtilizers, a similar unsustainable,
contrary to Gaia practice as burning fossil fuels.
Clearly has no clue of EMF driven change and a living earth.