Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Myth of ‘Settled Science’
National Review ^ | 2/21/14 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 02/21/2014 2:41:35 PM PST by SoFloFreeper

I repeat: I’m not a global-warming believer. I’m not a global-warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30, or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.” Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less).

Now we learn from a massive randomized study — 90,000 women followed for 25 years — that mammograms may have no effect on breast-cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives unnecessary radiation, chemo, or surgery.

So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today’s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: algore; climatechange; environment; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; krauthammer; liars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last
Kraut isn't always right, but I think he is pretty close here....trouble is, will the Republican party listen?
1 posted on 02/21/2014 2:41:36 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Kraut speaks like a former Mondale Staffer.


2 posted on 02/21/2014 2:46:30 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

3 posted on 02/21/2014 2:46:55 PM PST by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

The last rule of the scientific method is to go back and recheck/reevaluate everything, it is never finished. Science is not consensus of some people.


4 posted on 02/21/2014 2:48:12 PM PST by mountainlion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Some would prefer another ice age.


5 posted on 02/21/2014 2:51:57 PM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

He is right except for his concession that something must be wrong with CO2. It’s plant food. The tons mankind releases into the atmosphere is still miniscule compared to naturally released sources and the total amount in the atmosphere. CO2 has been far higher in the past and had no adverse effect on plants, animals or the climate. It is ignorance of a high order to consider it a pollutant.


6 posted on 02/21/2014 2:54:02 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
"spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere"

From UCSB ScienceLine:

During their lifetimes, plants generally give off about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2), that they absorb, although this varies a great deal between different kinds of plants. Once they die, almost all of the carbon that they stored up in their bodies is released again into the atmosphere.

7 posted on 02/21/2014 2:57:03 PM PST by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

>> He is right except for his concession that something must be wrong with CO2.

Yeah, dead on.

If he’d have said he long believed there was something wrong with spewing more and more soot (particulate) without doing anything about it, I’d agree. But the relatively small amount of extra CO2 is at worst benign, and maybe even beneficial.


8 posted on 02/21/2014 2:59:01 PM PST by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

The only way to change the weather is to redistribute wealth.


9 posted on 02/21/2014 2:59:59 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

If fact were to be established by the consensus of the persons responding to a poll, the moon would very likely probably still be assumed to be composed of newly-made cheese. However, a little reality intruded, and the moon is, in fact, made up of various kinds of mostly silicate rocks, not a speck of cheese to be found on the entire satellite.

“Settled science” is an oxymoron, because, by its very nature, the answer is never final, but always subject to the discovery of new fact. This discovery, which may fundamentally alter the original hypothesis, requires the definition of a new hypothesis, and subsequent testing of that hypothesis.


10 posted on 02/21/2014 3:09:15 PM PST by alloysteel (Obamacare - Death and Taxes now available online. One-stop shopping at its best!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

“I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

The atmosphere has a mass of about 6,000,000,000,000,000 tons (6 million gigatons (GT)). Of this, 0.039% is carbon dioxide from all sources.

The atmosphere contains 720 GT of CO2. The oceans contain 37,400 GT of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT.

And humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small.

This becomes very obvious when you look at the land-ocean-atmospheric carbon cycle.

To even suggest that mankind is influencing this is like saying that a bacteria is forcing a flea to force an elephant to go in a particular direction.


11 posted on 02/21/2014 3:12:50 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
I think I have an open mind, but you are right, when has science ever been settled? New facts are always coming to light which contradict scientific dogma. What gets me is that 'man-made global warming' has such a weak foundation. It is based on a computer model that has proven to have a very low degree of predictive accuracy. So low, in fact, that the keepers of the model had to 1) fudge the data and 2) loose the raw data that would allow others to check the results. If this be settled science, then count me out.
12 posted on 02/21/2014 3:13:40 PM PST by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

‘Settled Science’ is a term used by the lazy the uninformed science challenged or functional idiots..
It is a political designation for propaganda purposes.. or a fund raising gambit..


13 posted on 02/21/2014 3:14:00 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
There is no such thing as settled science. The computers generate predictions from theories. The report of every result from a computer simulation should begin with Theoretically, if we assume ....
14 posted on 02/21/2014 3:16:09 PM PST by Marylander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

Except for EXXXXXXXX- not going there today :)


15 posted on 02/21/2014 3:17:47 PM PST by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy; Nervous Tick

As carbon-based life forms it’s a little self-hating to wage a jihad on carbon isn’t it? lol


16 posted on 02/21/2014 3:22:59 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

No, but the plants love it.

And they reward us by spewing tons of oxygen into the atmosphere.

17 posted on 02/21/2014 3:23:29 PM PST by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Kraut speaks like a former Mondale Staffer.

So, are you saying, "once a lib, always a lib?"

18 posted on 02/21/2014 3:25:20 PM PST by EveningStar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Ha ha ha ha .... Whoops where’s my wallet?


19 posted on 02/21/2014 3:34:18 PM PST by shineon (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 11th Commandment

Bookmark


20 posted on 02/21/2014 3:40:50 PM PST by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I also kind of wonder about the mammogram stuff. That all didn’t start becoming an issue until ObamaDontCare. I don’t think BozoCare really wants women to be checked and cancer found early. Call me harsh or conspiratorial, but I think the left wants as many people to die off as possible.


21 posted on 02/21/2014 3:42:46 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (Liberty or Big Government - you can't have both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist-in-chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.”

Really? Does this moron actually believe that the facticity or truth of something can be determined by the result of a debate?

Perhaps a debate might conclude that it is perfectly safe to put a loaded gun to one's head and pull the trigger. Only a moron would conclude that this was indeed a "fact". And only an even dumber moron would go out and predicate policy on such a 'fact".

Just how dumb is this moron acting as President, anyway?

22 posted on 02/21/2014 3:43:02 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

That mammogram study ran for 25 years. I don’t think anyone saw 0bamaCare coming that long ago.


23 posted on 02/21/2014 3:46:25 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I see this ridiculous attitude all the time on LENR threads.


24 posted on 02/21/2014 3:50:25 PM PST by Kevmo ("A person's a person, no matter how small" ~Horton Hears a Who)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I prefer Krauthammer to most in his field of punditry.

But, he says:

“I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.”

Why, because it’s “spewed”?


25 posted on 02/21/2014 3:54:12 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Kraut speaks like a former Mondale Staffer.

How so? Specific references to this article required.

26 posted on 02/21/2014 3:58:03 PM PST by BfloGuy ( Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

They struck first with “deniers” and we responded with “climate alarmists”, but I think it’s time to take it to the next level and refer to anyone who parrots the “climate is settled” and/or “97% of all scientists...” baloney as a “climate cultist,” for that’s exactly what they are, members of a cult that has become immune to factual information.

As soon as someone, in any position whatsoever, spews out either of those phrases they should immediately be told, “Oh, you’re one of those climate cultists. Okay then,” and then change the subject as you would when confronted by a member of any cult with their fact-free diatribes.

Anyone spewing those statements does so to shut down rational argument, so let that happen, but not without first labeling them clearly for what they’ve become, members of the cult of global warming.


27 posted on 02/21/2014 4:07:18 PM PST by Norseman (Defund the Left-Completely!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nervous Tick

Its not settled as long as there is at least one unsettled person.


28 posted on 02/21/2014 4:12:11 PM PST by ully2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Then stop breathing, dummy!

29 posted on 02/21/2014 4:13:50 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fhayek
What gets me is that 'man-made global warming' has such a weak foundation. It is based on a computer model that has proven to have a very low degree of predictive accuracy.

Actually, the hypothesis of carbon dioxide mediated global warming was proposed following the observation that CO2 has an unusually wide and strong fluorescent absorption/emission band in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Every pure substance has electromagnetic radiation frequencies at which it is fluorescent, but these are usually fairly narrow bands. Someone hypothesized that the wide fluorescent band of CO2 within the infrared would cause warming. However, it would only cause warming if it were converting some visible wavelength to infrared--which is not happening. The other thing that happens with fluorescence is that a tiny amount of light energy is retained by the atom or molecule when it absorbs and emits light in the fluorescence process. Since that energy retention always happens, and it is not unique to infrared fluorescence, there is no reason to think that its effect in CO2 would cause unusual warming.

< /technobabble >

30 posted on 02/21/2014 4:24:02 PM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
Kraut isn't always right, but I think he is pretty close here....trouble is, will the Republican party listen?

Who are the RINOs believing global warming BS?

31 posted on 02/21/2014 5:02:01 PM PST by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Sciens is never settled.

Just ask Galileo.


32 posted on 02/21/2014 5:03:01 PM PST by miserare (2014--The Year We Fight Back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miserare

“Science”, that is.

Also ask Avrogado, Madame Curie, Lavoisier, and all those other guys.


33 posted on 02/21/2014 5:05:53 PM PST by miserare (2014--The Year We Fight Back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Norseman

Climate Nuts, Climate Loons, Climate Nazis.

This climate change crap is one of the biggest scientific hoaxes ever perpetrated on naive people.


34 posted on 02/21/2014 5:07:21 PM PST by miserare (2014--The Year We Fight Back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

My house plants are in ecstasy whenever I breathe on them.


35 posted on 02/21/2014 5:09:06 PM PST by miserare (2014--The Year We Fight Back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: miserare

In a just world you could marry your Philodendron and breath on each other happily ever after without fear of condemnation!


36 posted on 02/21/2014 5:21:38 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
‘Settled Science’ is a term used by the lazy the uninformed science challenged or functional idiots.. It is a political designation for propaganda purposes.. or a fund raising gambit..

Politician's belching out the phrase ‘Settled Science’ sounds more like medieval clerics lecturing Galileo about how the sun revolves around the earth is ‘Settled Science’

And for many of AGW supporters, AGW IS a RELIGION and to to question it is heretical!
37 posted on 02/21/2014 5:22:52 PM PST by RedMonqey ("Gun-free zones" equal "Target-rich environment.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Can I wear a headpiece of orange blossoms, and carry a bouquet of baby’s breath?


38 posted on 02/21/2014 5:45:07 PM PST by miserare (2014--The Year We Fight Back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

http://creation.com/crichton-on-scientific-consensus


39 posted on 02/21/2014 5:45:24 PM PST by Cyman (We have to pass it to see what's in it= definition of stool sample)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: miserare

We may all be required to to offset the CO2 of our own respiration. Either that or carry a pine tree in a backpack.


40 posted on 02/21/2014 5:52:53 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
"Climate change is a fact."

Well, yes, but so what? The earth's climate has been changing since it's beginning. And the alternative to that is climate stasis, which has never occurred in the 4.5 billion years of earth's existence.

This is what bothers me, though. Assuming that human beings have a dramatic affect on climate, if we were to do what the climate change cultists want, that would necessarily involve, well, changing the climate. Apart from doing what they claim is a bad thing, they don't tell us what the ideal climate of the earth is -- what it should be changed to.

41 posted on 02/21/2014 9:48:40 PM PST by raisetheroof ("To become Red is to become dead --- gradually." Alexander Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Thanks for clearing it all up.


42 posted on 02/21/2014 10:17:30 PM PST by fhayek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

If you want to freak out people who insist on eating only “organic” food, tell them it is a lie, that their food is contaminated with molecules other than carbon, many of which have no carbon in the *at all*, so they are not “organic”.


43 posted on 02/22/2014 4:59:19 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Most organic compounds are nasty and toxic. I have no idea why so much romanticism is entwined with the word “organic.”

Same thing with “natural.”

People attach a religious significance to these words, which is not based in scientific reality at all.


44 posted on 02/22/2014 6:21:31 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: fhayek

You’re welcome.

However, I’m not sure if I clarified anything, or threw more mud on the matter.


45 posted on 02/22/2014 6:31:44 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

The fools have been around for a very long time. I think my grandfather tormented some of the more fanatical followers of John Kellogg by claiming to have irrefutable proof that their healthy diet was in fact loaded with “molecules”, which they then adamantly denied.


46 posted on 02/22/2014 10:06:48 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (WoT News: Rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Also, the humanly contributed portion of atmospheric carbon dioxide is a small single digit percentage.

The globe has been through stuff that would have killed off humans and has come through it smelling like a rose. But humans weren’t there at that time. People are fearing for people, although they might be pointing at the troubles of spotted molluscs.

The climate fearists have in the meantime backed their falling skies down to the tautological and meaningless statement that “climate change is a fact.” Well, yes climates change. They have for the entire existence of the earth. HOW they change is the question under study, and models of runaway change have kept failing while the climate has kept on doing jolly well what it has liked.


47 posted on 02/22/2014 10:12:55 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

There is a supernatural significance to things, but it’s the significance that God has given. And it seems pretty pedestrian to the alarmists. Glorify God with what you have and you will be blessed. Dullsville! Well not quite dullsville. God is awesome. Most of modern technology is the result of what God gave to men who were willing to believe that God had put it in the creation for them to ferret out.


48 posted on 02/22/2014 10:16:13 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

And atoms too!


49 posted on 02/22/2014 10:19:14 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Oh, that is funny!

On occasion, when salespeople in a grocery store are giving away free samples of their “chemical-free” food item, I just hold my tongue and politely decline. I really want to ask them how they achieved complete vacuum, but I would probably be answered with a blank stare.


50 posted on 02/22/2014 10:29:31 AM PST by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson