Science fraud

Vincent J. Curtis

25 Jan 24

RE: Global warming was primary cause of unprecedented Amazon drought: study AP story by Fabiano Maisonnave. The Hamilton Spectator 25 Jan 24.

Both the AP and the Spadina Av. Speculator are known for tub-thumping for global warming, and the publication of this story is an example of both, despite the evident fraudulent science.  The story says that human induced global warming and climate change were responsible for the drought presently inflicting the Amazon basin.  The use of the word ‘drought’ is the give-away.

Nobody says that a desert is suffering from drought.  Drought is a weather event, not a climate event, and drought refers to a period when rainfall that should normally occur does not occur. Drought is temporary, not permanent.  That the word drought was used and not desertification, means that the authors expect normal rainfall eventually to return; hence, the climate never really changed at all.  Climate is not as variable as the weather is.

They also claim global warming.  The problem is, the globe isn’t warming.  Although last year was allegedly the “hottest year ever!” in fact, it was only tenths a degree warmer than 1998, and all the years intervening.  This is not the sort of thing that causes a sudden and permanent change in rainfall patterns (desertification).

Politics is corrupting of everything it touches, and science is no exception.  If you want another research grant, you need say something about the coming doom of human caused climate change.

-30-

 

AP's Pro-Hams Bias: An example

Accepting of Hamas propaganda

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Jan 24

RE: Hours lost puts countless lives at risk. AP story by Najib Jobain, Samy Magdy, and Tia Goldenberg. The Hamilton Spectator 16 Jan 24

The pro-Hamas bias in this news item was painful to read. The claim that “24,100 civilians were killed by Israel” rests on the claim of “authorities,” who are, in fact, Hamas operatives, Hamas being the governing authority of Gaza for the last 16 years. How, given the confusion and lack of control of Gaza “authorities” over the strip, can they know this precise number of 24,100 is a journalistic question begging to be asked.

By comparison, the story says that Israel claims to have killed 8,000 militants “without providing evidence.” There’s your bias in black and white.

Israel has been saying for weeks that its inspection capacity is three times the actual delivery of relief into the strip, and that the lack of supplies to Gazan civilians is due to the failure of relief authorities to deliver the volume required, and to Hamas’ hijacking of the trucks and stealing the supplies. These points are bereft of mention in the story.

If there is a “humanitarian catastrophe,” blame Hamas for starting the war, and other Arab countries which are secretly delighted to see the hated “Palestinians” suffer at the hands of Israel.

-30-

What is climate “change?”

Vincent J. Curtis

13 Jan 24

The alleged climate “crisis”, so called climate change, relies on ambiguity and a lack of philosophical, that is to say, scientific precision to put over the panic mongering.  The panic mongering, in turn, is all about justifying political actions that control people’s lives: Don’t fly! Drive EVs! Do this, not that! Etc.

‘Climate change’, as an expression, is non-specific, non-falsifiable, and, for that reason, unscientific. What is the definition of climate? There isn’t one.  Does climate have units of measurement by which one can quantitatively measure its change?  No, it doesn’t.  And if climate is not quantitative in character but rather qualitative, does one climate change into another; or does a climate, considered as substance, change in accidental attributes?  If the former, climate is a quality rather than a substance, and then climate must be an attribute of a substance.

If climate is the attribute of something else, then that something else must be the substance.  Is the atmosphere that substance? If so, the atmosphere would have many accidental attributes, many of them dependent upon location: as a quilt has many colors: a specific color at a specific location. It would be wrong to speak of climate as substance when it’s an attribute.

Attributes themselves don’t change; substances change in accidental attributes.  Red remains red even if the substance colored red changes to blue. If climate is an attribute of the substance atmosphere, then it is atmosphere that changes in attributes, changing from one climate to another, not climate that changes.

This highlights the problem of ambiguity of climate. There’s color, and then there are colors, like red and blue. If climate changes, does that mean color changes from red to blue, or that a substance colored red changes color into blue? Climate must be like color, with red and blue being like different climates, the accidental attributes of a substance.

If climate is like color, then a climate is like a color; a climate refers to a set of accidental attributes of a substance. Of course, accidental attributes of a substance can change; they are accidents, after all.  Climate change, then, is like color change. Like blushing.

This brief philosophical analysis shows the unscientific ambiguity in the debate over climate change.  It is not climate that changes, but the atmosphere that changes in climate. These changes are qualitative and not subject to measurement, since it is the quantitative that is measurable.  The only quantitative measurement that’s sensible concerning the atmosphere is the temperature, and that that too is fraught with scientific and philosophical problems.  One of them, for the climatistas, is the stability of global temperature, according to the currents means of measurement.

The distinction between climate change and change in climate may seem trivial, but it isn’t.  Climate is an accidental attribute of the atmosphere, and the accidental attributes of a substance are susceptible to being changed.  You’d expect climate to change.  And, expressions like climate “chaos” and climate “collapse” are absurdities; absurdities that feed into the panic mongering.  It is the substance that collapses, not the attribute; and no one is saying that the atmosphere is about to collapse.

Aristotle observed that there is no science of accidents, and this observation holds good for climate.  Climate science has no explanation for why climatic characteristics exist where they do, but not in other places.  Sure, Arizona has a dry, desert-like climate; but why doesn’t it rain there?  Meteorology might have some handwaving explanation involving wind patterns, but climate science has none at all; it simply takes as bruttal fact that Arizona has a desert climate.  Hence, climate science is mystified if Arizona were to have a year of unusual rain; all climate science might say is that the climate changed, perhaps temporarily.  California and Australia are two places prone to alternate extremes of drought and flood, and all climatology can say is that climate in those places are prone to alternate between one extreme and another without being able to forecast when or why such climate change occurs.

Weather is distinct from climate. Sticking with Aristotle’s Categories, weather, especially a weather event, may be thought of as a passion of the substrate, atmosphere, quick and temporary; and since weather and climate are related, climate might be considered as the habit of having certain of those weather passions. We call a person irascible who has the habit of getting angry easily; and climate may be thought of in this respect: that a climate is the habit of having certain kinds of weather at a place.  As an irascible person has a disposition at rest, and becomes angry as a habit; so to the atmosphere may have a natural disposition to weather at rest, with a habit towards certain weather events; and either the habit or the disposition at rest are said to characterize a place’s climate.

To summarize: Climate is qualitative in character, and therefore not measurable quantitively.  Climate, being like color, doesn’t change, it is the substrate that changes in climate, as red remains red even as the substrate colored red changes to blue. Climate also seems like habit in weather, for climate is related to characteristic weather patterns. A change in climate, like change in habits, can take a long time, many years, to confirm: that a period of anomalous weather signifies a real change in climate, or that period is merely a spontaneous and temporary departure from the expected, takes time to confirm. Since climate lacks a definition, of the tendency of California and Australia to alternate periods of drought and flood, one can say that these places are prone to alternative extremes of climate; and that drastic change in climate is to be expected in these places.

Climate “change” is a misnomer; it is misleading shorthand for “change in climate.” Climate is a qualitative attribute, not a substance.  Planet earth does not have “a climate” it has many climates, and these are accidental attributes of the atmosphere.  It can take time, often years, to confirm changes in climate are real and permanent.

-30-

 

 

 

Futility and self-defeat

Vincent J. Curtis

9 Jan 24

RE: How your vacation abroad hurts the planet. Op-ed by Alberta Koehl. The Hamilton Spectator 9 Jan 24.

Environmental lawyer Albert Koehl presents another demand for sacrifice to “save the planet!” His demand is that we curtail air travel for vacation on the grounds that jet travel adds unconscionable amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, and on social justice grounds: that the poor are less able to insulate themselves “from grave climate change consequences,” like those prosperous fliers can.

This call is futile, unnecessary, and self-defeating. It is self-defeating on social-justice grounds because a significant curtailment of air travel will create a lot of unemployment in the tourist and air travel industries.  His call to think of the poor before you fly would create more poor people in those industries reliant on tourism.

It is futile because Canada contributes only 1.5 percent of world CO2 emissions, while Asia and Russia contribute well over 50 percent; and Asia and Russia aren’t buying this Western mania about atmospheric plant food. India and China in particular are building coal-fired power plants as quickly as they can, and have no plans on stopping for several decades more.

It is unnecessary because the latest hard atmospheric physics shows that a doubling of CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in a rise of global temperature by a meagre 0.72ºC.  Catastrophic climate change isn’t in the cards.

There is no need to be miserable on account of fears of climate change or concerns about “social justice.”  Life is to be enjoyed; the planet will be fine.

-30-

See the Oct 20, 2023 entry of this blog for the hard physics on temperature rise.

Wallace spews contempt

Vincent J. Curtis

8 Jan 24

RE: Blame Reagan for distrust of science. Op-ed by Craig Wallace. The Hamilton Spectator 8 Jan 24.

The column by Craig Wallace is one of those Too Stupid for Publication.  He spews nothing but contempt: “..many conservatives are trapped in a flawed ideology that does not allow them to respond rationally to serious crises.  It isn’t logical to embrace an ideology that may very well lead to death.”

Let’s ignore the numerous and fatal philosophical mistakes in that contemptuous dismissal of conservatives, and examine his claim that Reagan, the guy who believed in space defence (a.k.a. “Star Wars”), is to blame for conservatives’ alleged distrust of science.

Wallace cannot tell you what a science is.  Do you distrust physics? Chemistry? Econometrics? What does ‘to distrust physics’ even mean? Do you distrust bureaucrats-cum-scientists with something to hide, or with an obvious political agenda? Do you distrust Anthony Fauci? Theresa Tam? Neil Ferguson? Michael Mann?  Those are different questions from distrusting virology, epidemiology, and climate “science.” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is an eminent epidemiologist, and he got cancelled because he was opposed to the lockdown policies.  How can you trust vicious politics like that being passed off as “science’?  Science doesn’t lie, but scientists do, especially those on the make for their next research grant.

It’s not science that conservatives distrust; it’s the “expert,” whose rule they are wary of.

It’s a parlor game among a self-appointed smart-set to sneer contemptuously at conservatives, but it’s articles like Wallace’s that expose how shallow and empty-headed those games really are.

-30-

High Arctic Challenges

Vincent J. Curtis

28 June 23

The Chinese Communist Party justifies its existence to the Chinese people on the basis of its ability to deliver rapid economic growth, prosperity, and wealth.  In part, because of this, and in part to justify repression, China, under the leadership of the CCP, is extending its economic influence all around the globe, unprecedented in Chinese history.  Chinese political leadership has for millennia been inward looking, and its contact with the world of barbarians (that would include us) occurred on the fringes of the empire.  The only interest that Chinese political leadership customarily took far outside the borders of the empire was to keep tabs on Chinese nationals, lest they plot to overthrow the regime.  The CCP maintains this traditional Chinese policy through, for example, the establishment of Confucius Instituted on university campuses attended by Chinese students, and by the establishment of so-called police stations in places where there are numerous people of Chinese ancestry.

With its new Indo-Pacific strategy, Canada acknowledges the military threat behind Chinese economic expansion. (Taiwan is a separate issue of high military significance that is independent of mainland Chinese economic and diplomatic expansion.)

China is also interested in the Arctic for its economic, and possibly shipping, potential.  The United States millitary and State Department are concerned that the Arctic will become a space of great power rivalry.  In particular, that “Russia and China [will] seek to use military and economic power to gain and maintain access to the region at the expense of US interests.”

The international body overseeing Arctic affairs is the Arctic Council.  The eight nations that compose it are: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S.  Each member state has sovereign territory within the region.  China does not, but nevertheless considers herself a “Near Arctic” power and has held observer status at the Arctic Council since 2014.

It’s the opinion of the United States government that China aims to gain access to Arctic resources and sea routes to “secure and bolster its military, economic, and scientific rise.”  In support of this opinion, the United States observes that “China has described the Arctic as a new strategic frontier…where there is “’undetermined sovereignty.’”  Such a position supplies justification for Chinese access to, and presence in, the Arctic region.

China began “normalizing” its presence in the Arctic twenty years ago, when as a signatory to the Spitsbergen (Svalbard) Treaty of 1920, China opened a scientific research station on the island.  China maintains an enduring presence in the region, ostensibly for scientific purposes, and which lends support to a Chinese claim for control of economic resources in the Arctic.

And the Arctic region is rich in untapped oil, gas, and mineral resources.  Among the important mineral deposits are the base metals aluminum, copper, iron, nickel and tin; the precious metals gold, silver, and platinum; diamonds; also, graphite; uranium; and, of great importance, the rare earths: dysprosium, neodymium, and praseodymium – which are essential materials for extremely powerful magnets and lasers.  China already has near monopolistic control of rare earth metals, and control of the Arctic supplies would place a Chinese lock on the materials used in advanced weapons, cell phones, laptops, and cars.

The United State government believes that China “desires for the Arctic states to acknowledge [her] rights under international law and, therefore, its equality to the Arctic states regarding its continued access to the high seas of the central Arctic. “ (That would include the Northwest Passage, which Canada claims as territorial waters.) “In order to lend credence to Beijing’s questionable claim to near-Arctic status, China launched the Polar Silk Road Initiative in 2018. The initiative builds on the soft-power tactics of the Belt and Road Initiative by investing in infrastructure development in far northern communities.”

Baffin Island hosts the Mary River Mine, an open pit iron operation, which is in financial trouble, and would be an easy takeover target by Chinese interests.  China would get a commercial presence in the Arctic at a discount.

-30-

 

.