Life as You Know It Will End if John Kerry is Wrong…OR Right

October 13th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The silliness of some politicians never ceases to astonish me. I know, I knowI should be used to it by now. But repeating a lie like 2 plus 2 equals 37 doesnt seem to convince me no matter how many times its repeated.

Or, maybe its the silliness of so many people who believe those politicians.

A few days ago, an article written about a speech Secretary of State John Kerry gave last Thursday opened with:

“Life as you know it on Earth ends” if climate change skeptics are wrong (according to John Kerry).

Well, given the catastrophically high cost of converting even 50% of our fossil-fuel based energy to renewables (if thats even possible, since they are intermittent sources), most of us will be living in poverty if Sec. Kerry gets his way.

Im sure he and his friends wont be. But we will.

And it doesnt matter if the world is in for serious warming or not. Life, as you know it, will end.

Besides, its already well known, based upon the IPCCs own modelling, that you could eliminate the United States altogether and it would have an unmeasurable impact on global temperatures by the end of this century. Hundredths of a degree.

Is that the warming that Sec. Kerry is claiming will end “life as we know it on Earth”? Really?

So, why is Sec. Kerry persisting with this issue? Is there some political angle I am missing, separate from what is good for the country?


Here’s a short video, in which I and energy policy experts describe how the premature push toward renewable energy on a large scale will increase human suffering:

66 Responses to “Life as You Know It Will End if John Kerry is Wrong…OR Right”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Phyte On says:

    Oh brother. Madness. We are doomed. The end is near. I can’t imagine a previous generation buying into this silliness.

    • RW says:

      Me either. I can hardly believe how many people have fallen for this thing.

    • Fonzarelli says:

      ‘ You can observe such habits of thought everywhere and at all times. These days particularly it is not difficult to spot prophets of doom right at your elbow, at home, in the neighborhood, in the shop. You have heard all kinds of gruesome predictions in the past few years. Things in general were painted as utterly hopeless. The country is going to pot; inflation is certain to come or it is here already to stay; democracy cannot survive. These gloom peddlers “knew” that our country could not possibly win the war; that industry would never catch up with the demands of the armed forces; that the end of the war would see an incurable rise in unemployment. The fact that their predictions fell flat did not discourage the sooth-sayers. Although promptly disavowed by actual developments they nevertheless continued to roll off new gloom stories from their never-resting assembly lines. All these people had imbued the view of pessimism; the view hardened and crystallized into a stubborn habit of thought, until finally that habit acquired such momentum that evidence to the contrary was powerless to shake it.’

      Dr. Abraham Low 1950…

  2. Jim Curtis says:

    Some interesting news (or possible news) on the brighter side (
    ) comes from the University of Washington about a low cost design for a fusion reactor.

  3. Gunga Din says:

    Great video.
    Simple, accurate and to the point. And points to the consequences of “carbon pollution” based energy policy, energy policy being used as an excuse to advance an ideological objective that goes beyond simple politics.
    Thanks for posting it.

    Gore and Kerry both ran for President. We dodged the bullets there. Wish we’d dodged the present one.

  4. rah says:

    The world on fire. ISIS, Russia, Ebola, Middle east, etc, etc, etc and Sec. State Kerry dons his armor and grabs his sword to fight windmills.

    I wish he would make a personal trip to establish relations with the polar bears in the Arctic now traipsing across the ice that he said would be long gone by now.

    “Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013.”

    John Kerry on Monday, August 31st, 2009 in an op-ed published in the Huffington Post

    • yonason says:

      “Kerry dons his armor and grabs his sword to fight windmills”

      Actually, he’s defending them. The war he wages is to fund and defend them via government mandates and hefty subsidies. They in turn reciprocate by supporting him: …renewable cronyism if you will.

      If he ever tilted at windmills, he has long ago gone over to the other side. (More likely he never left it to begin with.)

  5. Locke says:

    This is intellectually dishonest Roy. Need I list the countries essentially floating on oil that are still suffering from extreme poverty? Your care for the poor is as a tool in a debate, nothing less, nothing more.

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      And you, Locke, seem like a cantankerous sore-footed mule.

      Have you mentioned your concern about the oil under their poor to the leaders of the countries you have in mind, but did not list?

      Thought not.

      • yonason says:

        He can’t, because if he does he knows it can be shown that it isn’t oil that makes one rich, but how intelligently it is used. Countries rich in resources but unable to climb out of poverty are invariable run by fools and or crooks, as you allude to in your comment. He feigns “concern” for the poor merely to attack the use of oil or other resources which could lift them out of poverty, as you say. He’s the one with no concern for the poor.

        So, yes, Locke. You must list the countries. And you must show explicitly why they are unable to utilize their wealth, say, like having Democrat Socialist operatives in the EPA that thwart resource recovery and use at every step, for e.g. Oh, but then that wouldn’t help your argument, now, would it?

      • jimc says:

        Only flaming leftists who want to tamper with everything and put themselves in charge are allowed to care. I know, I read it in both the medias stylebook and the democrats playbook.

  6. Locke says:

    Have you John? Thought not.

  7. Locke says:

    As I am sure you are aware poverty is a multivariate problem. Corruption, education, healthcare, sanitation and energy costs are just a few of the factors. I don’t have a particular axe to grind in favour of renewables, the thing I object to is faux concern for the poor. If you don’t realise that all energy suppliers will seek to maximise profits irrespective of the outcomes for the poor then that is concerning. As a simple example the wholesale electricity markets are gamed every day of the week.

    Good policy is to minimise emissions at the lowest cost. Innovation drives wealth, always has, always will. If you want to play games, I’m sorry but I don’t have time.

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Locke, I don’t know that I have (or have not) seen you around here before. Any one who has been round knows well that doctor spencer’s concern for the poor is genuine as evidenced by a recent guest posting by “pointman”. That concern is one of the motivators he has for putting up with the daily insult (from people such as your self)…

      As far as your comment ‘…minimize emissions…’ goes, I’d like to quote for you a snippet of a comment by a staunch (and I might add brilliant) supporter of the notion that humans are driving up carbon levels: Ferdinand Engelbeen 1/9/2011 5:07am (WUWT) “if there is no connection between the rise of CO2 and the emissions, then AGW fails completely” Ferdinand’s belief that emissions are driving carbon growth is based on the notion that there is “an incredibly fixed ratio between carbon growth and human emissions”. AND it is true that if you look at the Mauna Loa record one can see that carbon growth goes from 60% of human emissions to 45% of emissions three time through out the record as one can plainly see:
      So engelbeen concludes then that human emissions are driving the trend in carbon growth. However, a cross examination of that view shows that the trend is driven by temperature (rather then human emissions) as shown by a comparison with the UAH data set:

      So you can see, my friend, you (and every one else) have nothing to worry about… China can build as many factories as it wants; it won’t add to carbon growth one iota.

      • Fonzarelli says:

        My apologies Locke, I was certain that my carbon growth graph had the emissions graph with it (and it does not). To add insult to injury I can’t seem to get the whole web address from dr spencer’s graph off of my iPhone. He’s got it in the right hand margin under the title “carbon dioxide growth rate at mauna loa”…

    • yonason says:

      “Good policy is to minimise emissions at the lowest cost.”

      Harmful emission have already been minimized in the US. CO2 is only a pollutant in the minds of delusional greenies”.

      “Innovation drives wealth, always has, always will.”

      Not by itself. It requires natural resources. Spurning them nips progress in the bud, which is what the Lefties want, for all of us to be poor and as stupid as they are.

      “If you want to play games, Im sorry but I dont have time.”

      This is no game. For the poor of the world this is deadly serious. Spouting platitudes is not a substitute for solutions to real problems.

  8. Locke says:

    Cheers Fonz, carbon dioxide absorbs long wave radiation and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are increasing. That’s all I need to know.

    I wonder how many poor people were at the Texas Public Policy Foundation Conference. I couldn’t see many in the video, maybe they were hiding under their chairs?

    • Aaron S says:

      Locke, but a little warming from CO2 (1.1 C from doubling CO2) is not necesarily bad and could even be considered good because history shows us humans do well in warming phases and worse in cooling phases (of course there are exceptions). The unwaranted transition away from cheap energy would hurt people in developing nations. I say unwaranted because the catastrophic warming that is the selling point against hydrocarbons is based almost exclusively on IPCC models that are obviously broken at this point. These IPCC models can not predict CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere let alone climate. It is a cost- benefit relationship; the lesser of two impacts.

      I will put my plug in here: the real threat is exponential population growth, but neither political side wants to touch that one.

      • Locke says:

        Hi Aaron,

        You claim a warming of 1.1 deg C (an output of a climate model) is potentially beneficial and should not be a point of concern. Then you go on to say that climate models are broken and their outputs cannot be trusted.

        I’m sure you can see the contradiction here.

        • Fonzarelli says:

          Good point Locke; Aaron, of course, is talking about the models that show forcing from co2. There seems to be a strong consensus about the direct warming from co2 with out the forcing (and even doctor spencer is among that number). But how certain is that modeling? We’re not too far from half of that but have only seen half a degree of warming (regardless of what data set is used). So unless direct warming from CO2 is responsible for ALL the warming then I would think that number is very much in doubt… I’m glad you brought that up because I’ve been puzzled about that for some time.

        • Aaron S says:

          I wrote more below from my phone, but you are comparing apples to oranges. Did you know that most of the heating in the models is from water vapor and not directly from CO2? These sort of feedbacks to CO2 are what the models attempt to quantify, not the direct relationship between CO2 and warming, which is based on more straight forward physics (still has uncertainty if for no other reason than they can not even model CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere because plants sequester CO2 more than anticipated).

          The point is the models with the feedbacks to CO2 are failing:

          Okay back to work.

    • John Moore says:

      Locke, you are (intentionally, I’d bet) engaging in the ad hominem fallacy. Instead of addressing the issue, you are attacking your opponent through a not very veiled attack of hypocrisy.

      If that’s the best you can do, it’s pretty pathetic. Sort of like John Kerry – pathetic.

  9. yonason says:

    When All You Know Isn’t Enough

    “carbon dioxide absorbs long wave radiation and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are increasing. Thats all I need to know.” – Locke

    Paleo data show the earth appears to have a maximum temperature of 25DegC despite atmospheric [CO2]’s much higher than today’s. No “runaway” ever occurred.

    When “warming” occurs as the result of data tampering, as opposed to actual warming, it’s a sure sign of criminal intent.
    (Lies exposed – NASA, and BOM)

    Intelligent life as we used to know it is rapidly disappearing due to climate change lies, not climate change.

  10. Locke says:

    Dear Yonas,

    You are quite some keyboard warrior. Just imagine if we had a standing army of 100 million keyboard warriors like your good self, the impact we could have on eliminating global poverty.

    • John Moore says:

      And just think of how much good would be done if you ceased being a keyboard warrior and instead devoted that time to eliminating global poverty.

      See… ad hominem works both ways.


      • yonason says:

        Also, LowKey (he started it first) says “Hi Aaron,

        You claim a warming of 1.1 deg C (an output of a climate model) is potentially beneficial and should not be a point of concern. Then you go on to say that climate models are broken and their outputs cannot be trusted.

        Im sure you can see the contradiction here.”

        Logic isn’t his strong suit, either. 🙂

        @Locke – let me sum it up for you. Models don’t work, BUT even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. No contradiction.

  11. Aaron S says:

    Locke, Thank you for the polite conversation and apparent open mind. Are you aware that most of the heating in the IPCC models is from water vapor and not CO2? Simple question, but surprising how many very smart people dont know bc it is not part of the mainstream presentation for global warming theory. I dont need a complex model to say the ball park relationship between CO2 and warming because that is a calculation based on physics (i would assume a reasonable level of uncertainty however), but the feedbacks like water vapor to CO2 are much more complicated. We have had about .9 degrees of warming since 1920 or so. CO2 alone does not account for most of that so the models assumed the heating directly from co2 was amplified by feedbacks and that level of climate sensitivity would continue with increasing CO2. However there were many other potential factors and to assign all the warming to CO2 does not appear correct at this point after 15 years of minimal warming since the last super el nino. This is where Roy’s research comes in and suggests that the earth’s sensitivity to raising CO2 is not as significant as the IPCC models suggest bc clouds (for one reason) didnt respond as expected. So the point is if we have had 0.9 Deg C warming and the doubling CO2 (over 500ppm) creates about 1.1 deg C then much of the warming last century was from something else. So if Earth is not highly sensitive to CO2 increases then the catastrophic part of global warming is gone (remember the goal is to cut co2 to keep warming under 2 deg C based on model projections). So if there are not feedbacks 2deg warming is not difficult to obtain whereas reducing co2 is nearly impossible w india and china growing and not playing along. The efforts to reduce CO2 by some nations would shit wealth and industry away.

    • Locke says:

      Hi Aaron,

      Happy to have a reasonable conversation. Yes, I am aware of the water vapour feedback contribution to warming. Yes, I am aware of Roy’s various fishing exercises on climate sensitivity. Yes, I am aware that Roy is yet to land the ‘big one’ but will continue trying in any case – I have no problem with this by the way.

      I can’t really comment on Roy’s chart of climate models vs actuals unless I know the source data and that it is a legitimate comparison. Suffice to say I believe there was a paper in Nature this year where climate models ‘in phase’ with El Nino/La Nina cycles do a pretty good job of predicting actual data.

      I would not get too carried away with the last decade. Probably the warmest in the last 100 years. I wouldn’t be too pessimistic about human ingenuity either. We can still do well with a slightly different set of parameters, we have incredibly powerful brains after all.

      A side note on contrarianism – it’s the easiest way to get publicity in the world. Look how much publicity I can get on this site for example by floating ideas contrary to the echo chamber. Does it have a useful role, sure, but be aware of those who use it for publicity alone.

      • Fonzarelli says:

        “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20 year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations”

        IPCC contributor Hans Von Storch (June 2013)

  12. Lewis Guignard says:

    This quote from a letter by Donald E. Lewis – a computer modeler – in today’s Wall St. Journal.

    :”…For the most part, computer modelers make assumptions, use calculation procedures and then regurgitate the assumptions in a reworded form.”

  13. Aaron S says:

    The graph has the multiple ipcc scenarios for global warming and includes the entire range. The Earth’s temperature measurements are the hadcrut4 and uah data sets. The hadcrut 4 is the academic standard and the uah is the satellite data from Spencer and Christie. So it is about as good as it gets for data. Your turn, which paper do you speak of? It is difficult for me to comment without knowing the paper you reference. However, i can say this generic statement: a positive pdo and the hyper active enso associated with the active phase are a part of the cycle of natural warming of earth’s surface. Just like the negative pdo and warming of deeper ocean is a cooling part of the same natural cycle. This cycle has been going almost continuously since it (re) emerged in the pliocene, and i can say it appears to have exsisted much deeper in time based on spectral analysis of data like tree rings and annual lake sediments. So to exclude the cycles during global warming from 1950 to 2000 then include it during the global hiatus in temperature seems a little fishy for me. In other words if you add heat to the system stored in the ocean now then you have to subtract warming previously. There are lots of fishy publications that occur from my perspective based on my own publication history.

    Next point i wouldnt get to hung up on the last century because it was a phase of very low solar activity that climbed to the peak of solar activity in the last 2000 years. If you look at the last 500 years of climate history then this event does not appear special. It certainly does not stand out during the last interglacial at 125k yr ago when sea level was >6m higher than today. This was mostly orbital processes, but the sun’s activity could have played a role as well. Point is orbital processes brought us back to full on ice age, and in the end nature gets what she wants.

    My personal qualm with the models is that there is a valid argument for a much more dominant solar component to global warming. The IPCC ignore it but can not refute it. At a minimum some of the scenarios should include a more dominant role for the sun’s activity. I can lay out a line of academic reasoning that has not been refuted as a valid hypothesis. Why then would the UN and IPCC ignore this?

    Attention is one thing NSF funding is another and that system is about as unbiased as a coin with two sides with tails. CO2 wins every time

  14. Jerry L Krause says:

    Dear Roy Spencer Ph.D.:

    This response is directly related to why politicians like John Kerry have no fear of making the statement: “Life as you know it ends if climate change skeptics are wrong.”

    A short time ago one of your respondents wrote to me: If you cant even get these scientists [you and Richard Lindzen] on your side, how do you possibly expect to convince scientists who have not shown that their science is already guided by a strong affinity for your ideological point-of-view regarding AGW.

    The issue to which the respondent was referring was the greenhouse effect, not AGW. And maybe I had not clearly stated that my issue was the generally accepted magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Which is that the earths mean temperature would be about 33 C lower than it is, if it were not for the certain atmospheric molecules that are capable of absorbing longwave IR radiation. It is a fact this 33 C difference is the result of a simple radiation balance calculation in which the portion of the solar radiation intercepted by the earth and its atmosphere that is actually absorbed by this system was reduced by its albedo (of which clouds are a significant factor) while at the same time the longwave IR radiation being emitted by earth-atmosphere system to space was not reduced by any factor.

    It is a common observation over solid surfaces, well removed from large bodies of water, that when the nighttime sky is overcast the decrease of the nighttime temperature is minimal relative to the decrease of the nighttime temperature commonly observed when the nighttime sky is cloudless. So, there can be no doubt that clouds, via whatever mechanism, greatly hinder the transmission of longwave IR radiation to space. And one does not need to be a meteorologist to be aware of this fact (fact because there can be no doubt that it is observed and not thought nor imagined).

    In Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell you wrote: Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR to outer space. But historically it has been commonly stated that this 33 C temperature difference was only the result of the atmospheric molecules (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) and clouds were never considered to be a controlling factor in how fast the Earth loses IR to outer space. But not only historically, in C. Donald Ahrens popular meteorology textbook (Meteorology Today 9th Ed., copyright 2009) I read: Besides being selective absorbers, water vapor and carbon dioxide selectively emit radiation at infrared wavelengths. This radiation travels away from these gases in all directions. A portion of this energy is radiated toward the earths surface and absorbed, thus heating the ground. The earth, in turn, constantly radiates infrared energy upward, where it is absorbed and warms the lower atmosphere. In this way water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb and radiate energy and act as an insulating layer around the earth, keeping part of the earths infrared radiation from escaping rapidly into space. Consequently, the earths surface and the lower atmosphere are much warmer than they would be if these selective absorbing gases were not present. In fact, as we saw earlier, the earths mean radiative equilibrium temperature without carbon dioxide and water vapor would be around -18 C (0 F), or about 33 C (59 F) lower than at present. So, a valid question seems: How is that a meteorology textbook has no fear of writing this?

    It is no secret what John Kerry and his friends think about climate change skeptics (you). But my wife has discovered that politicians do have people in their offices who do answer the telephone and take messages. And some people suggest that the numbers of calls and messages sometimes does have an effect upon how the politician votes. Because the politician recognizes that how he or she votes on a particular issue might influence how the electorate votes the next election. And it is no secret that many voters have believed there could be serious AGW if the magnitude of the greenhouse effect is such that the earths temperature would be about 33 C (59 F), lower if the atmosphere had no molecules capable of absorbing longwave IR radiation.

    Now, returning to your respondent (with a Ph.D. degree in theoretical physics) who pointed to my lack of success. This respondent has stated that this large temperature difference, as described by Ahrens, has been empirically observed. Evidently, because you have not clearly communicated that this difference is the result of a clearly flawed calculation and not emphasizing the observed fact that clouds do exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR to outer space.

    You recognize that AGW is a serious issue because it is a political issue with consequences. The issues to which I have previously drawn to your attention are purely scientific dealing with the more fundamental greenhouse effect. Why can we not have a dialogue about these scientific issues of which you see no point?


    Jerry L Krause Ph.D.

    • Jerry L Krause says:

      I see I omitted several words so I correct this. So, a valid question seems: How is it that a popular meteorology textbook author has no fear of writing this?

    • Joel Shore says:

      “But historically it has been commonly stated that this 33 C temperature difference was only the result of the atmospheric molecules (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) and clouds were never considered to be a controlling factor in how fast the Earth loses IR to outer space.”

      Yes, sometimes people have been a bit careless in stating this (probably myself included). I try to use the term “greenhouse elements” to include the greenhouse gases and clouds. Of that 33 K, about 3/4 is due to the greenhouse gases and about 1/4 due to clouds (, as I noted in a previous thread.

  15. Joel Shore says:

    I guess I find it a little amusing when people from the Heritage Foundation all of a sudden find themselves worried about policies that are regressive. The Heritage Foundation has not exactly been on the front lines of fighting for more progressive taxation and other government policiesThey only seem to get concerned about such things when it comes to environmental regulations.

    It is bad economics to price something like energy from fossil fuels artificially low in order to help the poor. Better to help them in other ways than to say that we should be effectively subsidizing dirty sources of energy that have costs associated with them which are externalized and hence prices that do not accurately reflect their full costs.

    It is also worthy to ask who the Texas Public Policy Foundation is:

    Look, this is not about people who are so concerned for the poor as much as it is about people who subscribe to an extreme political ideology (which I call free market fundamentalism) and believe in the market not in a scientific way (understanding both the power and limitations of markets) but in a religious way.

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Joel Shore,

      You closed stating:

      “Look, this is not about people who are so concerned for the poor as much as it is about people who subscribe to an extreme political ideology (which I call free market fundamentalism) and believe in the market not in a scientific way (understanding both the power and limitations of markets) but in a religious way.”

      If by free market you mean the right of individuals to freely trade the produce of their labor without arbitrary government intervention (including price controls) and/or confiscation then label me a “free market fundamentalist.” If however you mean anarchy or the absence of any protection accorded to rights of other citizens that would not fit any rational definition of a “free market.”

      Unfortunately Joel Shore you have yet to provide (1) any rational basis for arbitrarily restricting human access to the planet’s hydrocarbon resources in the Quixotic quest for either a carbon-reduced atmosphere or at least an atmosphere in which carbon doesn’t linearly increase (2) any plan that could successfully result in the same or similar goal and (3) any clear definition of an environmental state you would find worth sacrificing for and/or the costs to be born and by whom.

      Have a great day!

      • Cunningham says:

        John, demonizing co2 as “dirty” is enough rational for the joel shores of the world…

      • Joel Shore says:

        (1) The rational basis is summarized in the IPCC reports (Working Groups 1 and 2).

        (2) Well, the most important part of any plan is to internalize the costs of our dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Then, with the market now properly aware of the cost, the innovations can occur to reduce our emissions. This will probably involve a mix of things, including increased used of renewable energy, more efficient use of energy, and perhaps capture of CO2 emitted at power plants.

        (3) The costs should be borne by the people involved in the market interaction that results in the CO2 being emitted. If this results in regressive effects, those can and should be dealt with.

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi Joel Shore,

          Thank you for the response! You asserted:

          “(1) The rational basis is summarized in the IPCC reports (Working Groups 1 and 2).”

          In other words, you don’t have a clue. Please reference the section of the report that defines precisely how they plan to induce ~7 billion people on the planet to reduce their carbon output to levels not seen since the 19th century prior to the 20th & 21st century increase in atmospheric CO2. Oh! you may wish to reference their precise plan as to who exactly who will be forced/coerced (does that sound to nasty?)/encouraged to comply with their legally dubious suggestions/demands or what have you.

          You go on:

          “2) Well, the most important part of any plan is to internalize the costs of our dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Then, with the market now properly aware of the cost, the innovations can occur to reduce our emissions. This will probably involve a mix of things, including increased used of renewable energy, more efficient use of energy, and perhaps capture of CO2 emitted at power plants.”

          Internalize the cost? A mind is only so good as the precision of it’s concepts. Precisely who’s cost do you imagine/dream will be born by which parties? Your statement proves to be BABBLE unless you define your terms. Btw, how do you plan to internalize/allocate the BENEFITS of all the increased atmospheric CO2? Malthus, Ehrlich and so many other climate doomsayers proved woefully inaccurate predicting mass famines and starvation due to food scarcity. In fact, food production kept up quite admirably due in no small part due to the increasing atmospheric plant food. Increased use of renewables will and has begun already and new technologies already exist to provide energy more efficiently. These technologies arise already arise without the need for government violation of individual rights. You provided absolutely no justification for the such intrusion.

          You then vaguely asserted:

          “(3) The costs should be borne by the people involved in the market interaction that results in the CO2 being emitted. If this results in regressive effects, those can and should be dealt with. ”

          Since everyone is involved directly or indirectly in market interactions that result in CO2 emission who PRECISELY will DEAL with who’s REGRESSIVE EFFECTS?!!!

          Thanks again Joel for your input.

          Have a great day!

          • Fonzarelli says:

            John, it’s kind of funny how they all move on to #2 and (most especially) #3 without making sure they’ve got #1 right…

        • Fonzarelli says:

          And what happens if the ipcc (1) has it all wrong? Do you still continue with the plan (2) and costs (3)?

          • Joel Shore says:

            So, I guess your position is that we should not base our policy decisions on science because science is not infallible? Or, do you restrict this to science that leads to policies that go against your strongly-held ideological biases?

          • Fonzarelli says:

            Joel, it’s one thing for science to be infallible, quite another for it to be junk… Bear in mind that the science at this point is demonstratably wrong as evidenced by the failure of the climate models. It’s the science alone that concerns me here. I am actually FOR the resultant policies of alternative energy. If we eventually run out of fossil fuels and have nothing to replace them with then that’s a problem. (and my friend john(kl) disagrees with me on this point…) If we attach our quest for alternative fuels to agw and agw is ultimately deemed a failure then in all likelyhood society will give up it’s quest for alternatives. The proper response of governments should be to pursue alternative fuels with the proper stated goal. That goal being that we are running out of fossil fuels and they need to be replaced by alternative sources of fuel…

          • Joel Shore says:

            So, does the fact that the scientific community doesn’t agree with you ( give you any doubt that your interpretation of the science might not be correct?

            Do you propose that we henceforth base our scientific opinions that inform public policy not on how the National Academy of Sciences interprets the scientific evidence but instead on how Fonzarelli interprets the scientific evidence?

          • Jerry L Krause says:

            Hi Joel,

            You are a physicist. Newton was a physicist and he is said to have stated: If I have seen further than other men, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. Or something like this if I have not quoted him precisely. Newton is an acknowledged giant of natural science. Einstein is an acknowledged giant of natural science. Feynman is an acknowledged giant of natural science.

            You clearly profess to be an adherent of consensus science. About such a practice Einstein is said to have stated: He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

            I have previously noted that Newton listed four rules of reasoning in natural philosophy. The second was (as translated by Andrew Motte): Therefore to the same material effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same cause. We can see the influence of clouds upon visible solar radiation, why should not clouds have a similar influence upon the invisible near IR solar radiation? And should not clouds have a similar influence upon the invisible longwave IR radiation being emitted from the earths surface? Arrhenius, you, and the consensus scientists clearly choose to ignore the common observational evidence of the influence that even thin clouds have upon this invisible longwave IR radiation.

            Observations are facts and need no interpretation but do need explanation, if possible. Near the end of Book III of the Principia Newton wrote: Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens of out seasons by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.

            Joel, you have stated that you, a theoretical physicist, have not much studied The Feynman Lectures On Physics. I only learned about Feynman, his reputation, and his lectures because, while a chemistry grad-student at Oregon State University, I heard that the physics department was weekly showing movies of his lectures. While I never attended one of these movies, I purchased the three volume set of these lectures because I thought, since physics was my first minor, that maybe I could learn something from it. Did I begin understand the theoretical basis of the theories which explained the phenomena as he taught? No! Do I now do so? No! Did I begin to understand the significance of some of the results of these phenomena, which he also taught? No, not really because I did not yet have enough experiences to begin to appreciate them. But now I cannot understand how you and so many others, including NASA scientists, can seemingly dismiss what he clearly taught his students about the result of light scattering by clouds.

            Have a good day,

            Jerry L Krause

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Joel Shore,

            In a prior post you provided the following dubious NASSA/GISS global land/sea temperature data from Wikipedia:


            Just one question based on graph supplied. Who conducted global land/sea surface temperature measurements back in 1880?!!! We’d all love to know the individuals and methodology involved.

            Thanks, and as now customary have a great day!

          • Fonzarelli says:

            My concern is not that the scientific community doesn’t agree with me, rather my concern is that the models don’t agree with observations…

            ” Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it, no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if the law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
            If it disagrees with experiment, IT’S WRONG. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, IT’S WRONG. That’s all there is to it. ”

            Richard Feynman

    • Fonzarelli says:

      Would not the murder of unborn children be considered “regressive”, too?

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi Fonzarelli,

        Great question! Unfortunately, far too many U.N. and celebrity sociopaths think otherwise:

        #8) Jacques Cousteau.

        In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.

        #9) CNN Founder Ted Turner.

        A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.

        #10) Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder.

        My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.

        #11) Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh.

        If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

        (Hmmh! Ebola comes to mind. Notice the current administration allowed carriers to bring this virus onto-our shores without any rational basis in terms of our survival. Those sick in West Africa could wait the 7-10 incubation period and if free of the illness allowed to come back to the U.S (btw, this still proves risky since even you survive the initial illness the virus remains in your system to flare up again when your immune system drops). They brought back individuals while still sick. In my opinion this reflects a conscious decision to bring a DEADLY BIOLOGICAL AGENT onto our shores. Why bring this disease here at all?!!! They claim we have an amazing medical infrastructure but current CNN news reports claimed we only have 11 ebola beds prepared nation wide. Moreover, despite the lame claims of the medical community and Doctors without borders that they can contain the virus, I understand the CDC now asserts that 1000 new Ebola victims appear every week and they expect the numbers to increase to 10000 per week by December!!! Does that sound like they can contain it?!!! Knowing all this they CONSCIOUSLY deny travel restrictions, insufficiently quarantine the ill population as Duncan proved and invite the potential destruction of innumerable lives.)

        #12) David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

        Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.

        #13) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger.

        The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

        #14) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

        Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

        #15) Princeton philosopher Peter Singer.

        So why dont we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required we could party our way into extinction!

        #16) Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs.

        There is a single theme behind all our workwe must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it.

        #17) Mikhail Gorbachev.

        We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there arent enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.

        #18) John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London.

        The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.

        #19) Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka.

        This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.

        Have a great day because you are fortunate enough to be alive!

        • JohnKl says:

          Hi everyone,

          Please ignore the numbers on my quotes above. Thanks and have a great day!

        • Fonzarelli says:

          I find the last three to be the most disturbing of them all. I understand the desire many have for a less populous world. I live in new orleans and saw the populous loose about a third of it’s people because of Katrina. (ironically the root of the name katrina means “to cleanse”) And before the numbers rebounded there were far less than that. I made it back just a couple weeks after the storm to a completely empty french quarter. (And it was great!) Gradually more and more came back— I’d say it was Christmas before it stopped seeming like a ghost town. Fewer people has meant less stress and strain. The most notable improvement has been among the black culture. Their numbers had crept up to about 70% of the population mostly due to continuing white flight (which never stopped since the sixties) and things weren’t going well for them before the storm. Now they seem to be doing much better and I think that’s a real upside of katrina. So, I can understand those utopian types who think it might be a good idea. Aaron (S) made a pretty good point that population growth trends are a function of cheap energy and that could be a dangerous thing. (and perhaps already has; we noted the rise in food prices with ethanol production a decade ago… slightly higher food prices for us meant starvation for peoples round the globe. Would that sort of thing have happened if populations weren’t so high as a result of affordable energy?)

          But to equate more people with “climate change” (as the last three on your list have) is VERY disturbing. That people are using this half baked agw theory as an excuse for population control is scary. (It’s my understanding that china has used agw as a justification for it’s one child policy) So this IS sick… And these people won’t even look at the numbers. They’ll call us a bunch of “climate change deniers” and yet don’t know their back sides from holes in the ground when it comes to the theory. Take Ferdinand Engelbeen, who I mentioned above (replying to Locke), he’s got to be the most brilliant person in this whole debate. How on earth does he miss seeing that it is temperature that’s driving the trend in carbon growth? It can be clearly seen that warming in the late 70’s and late 90’s has caused carbon growth to go higher. Not some mythical 50% of emissions paradigm… If you ask me, I think ol’ ferdinand is doing what he’s doing for some ulterior motive. (euros perhaps?) No man who is as brilliant as he truly is could be that brain dead stupid. And those last three on your list are far lesser animals than engelbeen. And yet there they are with their faux authority telling the rest of us that we’re all bad for the planet. That’s why I always say that AGW must be defeated. It’s not enough for it to simply go away with cooling or a shift in political winds. It must be defeated!!! and there is enough counter science out there to do the job…

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Fonzarelli,

            Thank you for a great reply! While I have reservations regarding population control I agree with much of your statement. You stated:

            “And yet there they are with their faux authority telling the rest of us that were all bad for the planet. Thats why I always say that AGW must be defeated. Its not enough for it to simply go away with cooling or a shift in political winds. It must be defeated!!! and there is enough counter science out there to do the job”

            Agreed! We really don’t have a choice. Any idea how you will survive on this planet without access to the planet’s resources? Everyone on this orb relies on hydrocarbon fuels in ways most cannot even begin to imagine. The TERRITORIAL desire to HOG the world’s resources for a few by denying them to their fellow men will frequently lead some to prey on their fears imagined or real. If you respect yourself and the rights of others to live a humane and reasonable existence we should respect NATURAL LAW and the rights everyone has to the bounty God provides to ALL!

            As to the science the CAGW crowd has very little other than an exaggerated fear of atmospheric carbon growth over time. Unfortunately they have no clue as to how much CO2 should be in the atmosphere or any means to control it. Many intimate that mass population reduction will bring down CO2 levels. In previous posts I’ve shown this utopian belief in the imagined benefits of human population and carbon reduction to be delusional. The quotes in my last post indicate several narcissists express the desire to reduce the human population to ~1-350 million. Of course the destructive energy (remember Newton’s third law) released in any attempt bring about their goals would likely result in enormous environmental destruction. One might ask the population control freaks who’ll be the blessed ~350 million people allowed to remain after the other ~6.5 billion perish. Some animals definitely appear more equal than others on this here ANIMAL FARM! Orwell likely understated the coming socialist horror.

            Have a great day!

          • Jerry L Krause says:

            Hi Fonzarelli:

            I hesitate to respond to your and the other comments because they are not science but they certainly are about science and/or cargo cult science as described by Richard Feynman. If you do not know to what Feynman had to say about cargo cult science and about real science, you are the reason Feynman addressed the issue of cargo cult science to the Caltech graduating class of 1974.

            The reason I do respond is your comment about Ferdinand Engelbeen: most brilliant person in this whole debate. First, modern science is not a debate. But the science of the Greek philosophers was. Do I have to list all the fundamental physical science theories these brilliant scholars got wrong? Do I have to remind you of the challenges faced by the founders of modern science in their efforts to refute this wrong theories and replace them with correct (based upon 400+ years of observations) theories?

            If you review all the technical advances that have been made since the advent of modern science you will find, I believe, that most were made by ordinary people who did extraordinary things. Einstein maybe best summarized a possible reason for the successes of these ordinary people who were obviously blessed with varying types of talent, which they developed to the fullest, because of what they accomplished. For a secret of their success, it seems, was perhaps stated by Einstein: Its not that Im so smart, it just that I stay with problems longer.

            Please scroll back to my comments I addressed to Spencer and respond with your thoughts about what I wrote. For Spencer certainly has not.

            Have a good day,

            Jerry L Krause

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Jerry L Krause,

            Thank you for your post. You provide some meat to chew on. However, you claimed in a seemingly misguided attack on the Greeks:

            “First, modern science is not a debate. But the science of the Greek philosophers was. Do I have to list all the fundamental physical science theories these brilliant scholars got wrong? Do I have to remind you of the challenges faced by the founders of modern science in their efforts to refute this wrong theories and replace them with correct (based upon 400+ years of observations) theories?”

            The Greeks (Aristotle and Plato in particular) came up with the Law of Identity the basis of all logic and any rational discourse worthy of the name. It has also been called the Law of Non-Contradiction or the Law of the Excluded Middle. The scientific method originated with Socrates and thus originally labeled the Socratic Method. Scientific knowledge consists of the FACTS (observation) and LAWS of nature alone. Theories, hypothesis, guesses, hunches, whatever, represent mere CONJECTURE! Hence all theories including Darwinian Evolution, General Theory of Relativity, and/or even the Atomic Theory represent mere conjecture not scientific knowledge. Personally, I have a strong bias in favor of the atomic theory and to a lesser extend the General Theory but they nevertheless represent at best an educated guess. Although it would only be fair to point out that a great deal of empirical evidence exists bolstering the Atomic Theory and to an extent the General Theory. The Greeks like many today spun many guesses to explain the phenomenon around them and many if not most such theories later civilizations discarded or perhaps clung to far too long. Despite all this they largely provided a framework from which science and reason could build. Oh! Last I checked the Newton’s First Law of Motion originated from the Greeks ( again Aristotle and Plato ).

            Further, the Facts and Laws of nature ( i.e., scientific knowledge ) should serve to end debate unless conflicting observations successfully replicated eventually disproves them. However, their exists every reason to debate Theories, Hypothesis and other conjectures for the precise reason of obtaining clarification and greater understanding. Hence Hegel’s dialectic of Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis applies. The Greeks helped create academia for the precise purpose of DEBATING, testing and challenging the myriad speculative nonsense so typical of the human lot!

            It seems to me bowing to any scientific authority, handing out degrees to those who merely regurgitate the bromides of the past and CONFUSING CONJECTURE WITH SCIENCE precisely defines exactly what cargo science represents:

            “In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they’ve arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas–he’s the controller–and they wait for the airplanes to land. They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential, because the planes don’t land.”

            Likewise their exists the 21st century academic climate which erects classrooms and has lecture halls filled with students that merely regurgitate someone else’s theoretical bromides in the belief that this somehow represents science. The real PRIME MOVERS will not arise from some such banal stifling institutions but from the CREATIVE WORK OF FREE PRODUCTIVE, MINDS AND MARKETS.

            Have a great day!

          • Jerry L Krause says:

            Hi John Kl.

            How can we agree on so much and yet disagree on too much? First, before I get to the disagreeable part, Thank you for quoting Feynman about cargo cult science so others might actually consider what he stated. Sometimes it is better to have someone else carry the water. And I will quote your last paragraph for emphasis.

            Likewise there exists the 21st Century academic climate which erects classrooms and has lecture halls filled with students than merely regurgitate someone elses theoretical bromide in belief that this somehow represents science. The real PRIME MOVERS will not arise from some such banal stifling institutions but from the CREATIVE WORK OF FREE PRODUCTIVE MINDS AND MARKETS.

            I do not know if you noticed, but I try to let others speak for me. So I hesitate to tell you that toward the end of my teaching career I did away with four hours of lecture a week and only retained a hour of recitation in my principles of chemistry course. I choose a textbook, assigned problems and questions from it, and was available in my office from 7 AM until at least 4 PM five days of each week except for about 10 hours of the week when I had other lectures (which were generally conducted as recitations). I did this because I basically had never learned anything from a lecture and only learned from doing assigned homework and studying for tests. And knew this was true for my fellow graduate students, some of whom were obviously more talented than I. Oh, yes I regularly tested and graded tests and my students had to perform at defined performance levels to achieve whatever grade.

            Now, you may or may not know, I have no idea about your background or age, about the 20th Century academic climate. I expect you are aware of the many scientific revolutions that occurred during it. So then and before there was a possible reason to lecture because the up-to-date textbook had not yet been written. It might be hard to grasp, but when I entered graduate school in 1963 I had no idea what a wave function and quantum numbers were. This is basically because my professors did not choose the most modern texts for their students. Possibly because they did not fully understand, or agree with, these changes themselves. Just as today I have no idea of what computational chemistry is except that its a big deal.

            However, you concluded that I had made a misguided attack on the Greeks and their intellectual methods. First I must state I am not a historian but I have read some history. And I have never considered anything (except the Holy Bible) I read to be true just because it is has been printed. And I know nothing about logic and debate and therefore conclude that a formal knowledge of either is not necessary for me to have learned what I have learned. To me science (nature) often is not logical.

            Feynman in a lecture (titled the Value of Science and if you have not read its preface and it, I recommend you do) at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences stated (What Do You Care What Other People Think?): The same thrill, the same awe, comes again and again when we look at any question deeply enough. With more knowledge comes a deeper, more wonderful mystery, luring one on to penetrate deeper still. Never concerned that the answer my prove disappointing, with pleasure and confidence we turn over each new stone to find unimagined strangeness leading on to more wonderful questions and mysteries—certainly a grand adventure.

            I suspect logic might have something to do with reasoning and if we could reason science there would be no need for the observational testing. Fonzarelli (Oct. 20, 3:04 PM) has just carried my water by quoting Feynman. So I move on with regards to any disagreements which have been put on the table.

            You wrote about the possible CREATIVE WORK OF FREE PRODUCTIVE MINDS. I can suggest a creative work. I have read that Newton labored long and intensely about Book III of the Principia. He wrote: It remains that, from the same principles, I now demonstrate the frame of the System Of the World. Upon this subject I had indeed, composed the third in a popular method, that it might be read by many; but afterward, considering that such as had not sufficiently entered into the principles could not easily discern the strength of the consequences, nor lay aside the prejudices to which they had been many years accustomed, therefore, to prevent the disputes which might be raised upon such accounts, I chose to reduce the substance of this Book into the form of Propositions (in the mathematical way), which should be read by those only who had first made themselves masters of the principles established in the preceding Books So, I propose that as a project a few FREE PRODUCTIVE MINDS compose a book in a popular fashion to describe the frame of the weather and climate of the world. Beginning with the statement, which Feynman concluded contained the most important scientific information in the fewest words: all things are made of atoms–little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.

            Have a good day,


          • Jerry L Krause says:

            Hi JohnKL again,

            Just saw that Feynman omitted one necessary ingredient to imagining and thinking, it is observing.

            Again, have a good day,


          • Jerry L Krause says:

            Hi JohnKl,

            Yes, a fundamental problem is what might be called traditional methods of education. As I have written I do not know (yes, I do know a little but I will not let that bother me) your background and I have no idea what Fonzarellis background is. So I am going to review a bunch of facts of which you may not be aware. They are relative to education and the project I proposed.

            First, the educational problem. I recommend you read the book Louis Agassiz As A Teacher (Lane Cooper, The Comstock Publishing Co., Ithaca NY, 1917). It has been reprinted so I am sure you can find a copy. Cooper, in his introductory note, began: When the question was put to Agassiz, What do you regard as your greatest work? he replied: I have taught men to observe. Next, I recommend you begin reading Feynmans book What Do You Care What Other People Think?. Before I was born, my father told my mother, If its a boy, hes going to be a scientist. So, this book begins with Feynmans description of how his father proceeded to make him a scientist. Now, Feynman and others have pondered how much influence his fathers efforts had to do with Feynmans success. Especially so because his father, being an uniform salesman (or manager) had no obvious connection (background) to science. And Feynman and others could not come to any probable conclusion about Feynmans success or how it was that he father taught him as he did. Here are some facts which it seems no one has noticed. First, Feynman innocently wrote: My father taught me to notice things. How different is this from Agassizs statement: I have taught men to observe.? Lanes book was copyrighted in 1917 and Feynman was born in 1918. Coincidence?? But, relative to what you wrote, it does not end there. Both Agassiz and Feynman are said to have discouraged their students from reading the literature, claiming such would greatly hinder their discovery of anything new.

            Some quotes that I propose might be related to the project and/or other issues like Cargo Cult Science. Einstein: The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and makes real advance in science. Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn ones living at it Galileo: We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves. All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Agassiz: Facts are stupid until brought into connection with some general law. Homes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle): It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence, it biases the judgment. The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession.

            There has been so much more observed since Arrhenius, at the end of the 19th Century, did his flawed radiation balance calculation. There is so much data that is being collected daily that isnt being used to possibly understand weather and climate better. The images of the earth and atmosphere which Spencer has just shown us to be available to anyone, provides information to be mined that previously was only available to a few. And with a little imagination one might begin to see that which needs to be mined. One thing one of Agassizs students learned the first day was the obvious is very easy to overlook, even when told there is something obvious one is overlooking. But, the important fact of this students experience is Agassiz did not point out was missing. Instead, he forced the student to discover it within himself.

            Have a good day,


          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Jerry L Krause,

            Thank you very much for your informative replies. Among many other statements you wrote:

            “And I have never considered anything (except the Holy Bible) I read to be true just because it is has been printed.”

            Please know I agree the Holy Bible is Good and True. My concern regarding Greek philosophy has nothing to do with accepting what any of them claimed just because it has been laid down in print. In fact, many of them like Aristotle and Plato hoped to avoid precisely that error and some like Socrates attempted to develop methodologies to avoid it. The entire purpose of debate and scientific investigation should be to encourage experimentation and analysis. Over time various so called Laws of Nature arise because enormous amount of testing and analysis has only served to confirm them. As to axioms/Laws of logic such as the Law of Identity, they serve to clarify thought. If one truly considers the axiom that a thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time to claims and statements made by others especially in the scientific arena much dross can be thrown out and/or much value retained.

            You wrote extensively and I agree with much you have to state. One quote in particular caught my attention:

            “Homes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle): It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence, it biases the judgment. The temptation to form premature theories upon insufficient data is the bane of our profession. ”

            The problem facing anyone trying to discover hidden truth and unveil a mystery remains that for any given problem one may never know if they have all the evidence! At some point after doing one’s best to gather the available facts and/or data one must act on faith. Pray to avoid rash judgement. Remember reason itself is an act of faith. As Chesterton pointed out:

            Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.

            ― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Jerry L Krause,

            Please excuse my last post, I forgot to close it properly by stating:

            Have a great day!

          • Fonzarelli says:

            John, it looks like you have the last word… Gentlemen, it’s been exhausting! (smiley face) And thank you Dr. Krause on behalf of both of us; it’s been a pleasure.

  16. Aaron S says:

    Joel, regarding economics i agree to an extent that regulations are important. For example, on shore fracking works and has revitalized the us oil production. However, the uncontrolled growth destroyed the value of nat gas and made wasting it via flarring economic… and i have little doubt we will regret this in future generations when energy demand exceeds supply (unless cold fusion emerges). Now we are watching the same process tank the value of oil and we can not expect opec to fix this for the US benefit. The US need policy to promote conservation. However, as far as pricing based on the IPCC modelled assumptions that CO2 is a pollutant, that is absurd. Conservation is legit, but calling CO2 a pollutant has no merit.

Leave a Reply