If a tree falls in the forest….

Having spent time in such serene surroundings like this:

Canada has magnificent trees.  This one looks like it's in the thralls of a wild, primal dance!

Canada has magnificent trees.

…is it not surprising that my mind had taken a break from the ‘everyday’ and slipped into a bit of philosophising?

If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, would it make a sound?

In the past, when discussing this with my kids and husband, we have invariably fallen into the pitfalls like, for example, trying to define what does ‘sound’ mean:  is it simply the movement of air molecules in a particular way, or does it have to be ‘perceived’ by human ears?  (If it is recorded, then the sound we hear is made by the recorder, not the tree…and endless possibilities along these chains of thoughts.)

This year, I began so see it from a different perspective…

Richard Feynman is perhaps my favourite genius of the 20th century – and I am convinced he is an ‘Aspie’ to boot! ( Just reading his most awesome book, ‘Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!’, is an excellent lesson in how an ‘Aspie’ mind organizes thoughts and commits them onto paper – plus it is fun and curiously comforting to read).  In his Lectures (available as podcasts, and ideal for relaxing with while ‘away from it all’), specifically, in the ‘Quantum Mechanics’ lecture, he also visits this question about the proverbial tree falling in the forest… 

Dr. Feynman gives some very specific qualifications regarding this issue:  he would not be a physicist had he not done that.  He states that in the real world, even if there is no observer when the tree falls, there are still unmistakable physical signgs that it had, indeed, made a sound.  These signs, perhaps as minute as little scratches from vibrating leaves/needles as the sound energy is transferred to them, could then be observed after the event itself and the presence of such sound would be conclusively demonstrated.  Thus, he concludes that ‘in a real world, of course, a tree falling in a forest makes a sound‘.

He is, of course, absolutely correct – given the qualifications he does.  

Yet, listening to him made me think that perhaps his ‘after the fact observer’ – as our familial discussions from the past – were really missing the whole point of the question!

Whether during the act of the tree falling, or afterwards; directly or through recording devices of some sort (even leaves and needles) – this introduces an observer.   And the fact remains that if an observer is present, and the original condition (or, rather, its intent) is breeched.

Yes, I’ll gladly concede that in the real world, it might be impossible to have a ‘no observer’ scenario – but that is not the point.  The question asks us about a hypothetical situation, where no observation (during or after the event) occurred (even had it been possible). 

Let us imagine an observer who makes a direct observation that 999 trees, as they fell, indeed did make a sound.  Then the observer leaves, and our proverbial tree falls.  No observation as to the sound of any kind had been made during the event.  The scene has since been altered so much that no additional evidence can be gathered.  How can we answer the question now?  Did our proverbial tree make a sound, or not?

And this, in my never-humble-opinion, is the crux, the core, of this principle:  one can only say that one does not know.

It would be reasonable to predict that it is highly likely that the tree had made a sound, based on previous observations.  But one would not know !

This is the difference between direct observation and a guess.  Perhaps it might be an ‘educated guess’ (based on the previous 999 observations) , but it is still only a guess.  And that is the whole point:  to get us to stop and think, to learn to recognize that difference between what we know and what we are making educated guesses about (or a semi-educated guess about).

One of my sons thought this simply reduced the question to the ‘Schrodinger’s Cat’ scenario, but I think there is a difference.  This is not about probability curves and their collapses, this is about learning to recognize the blinders we all wear which let us treat guesses (whether ors or those of others) as equally valid to observed facts. 

And it is about time that some of these blinders statred coming off! 

After all, guesses, even educated ones, are not facts – and we must not fall into the easy trap of treating them as such.  Especially in cases where the guess is not based on 999 direct observations of this very event…or not on even one such event having ever happened!

Which leads me to the next question:  If the global temperatures change by 0.6 of a degree, and no well-financed lobby group is there to use it as a pretext to organize a scare-mongering, funds-transfering campaign, would anyone notice?

Perspective - we all need it!

Perspective - we all need it!

Can ‘good’ athletes compete in ‘bad’ Olympics?

The Beijing Olympics is about as much about sports as Sexapalooza is about human rights.

No, this is not at all being facetious – it is a very valid comparison.  Without ‘human rights’ (specifically, the freedom to exercise them), Sexapalooza would not be able to educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of sexuality’, its primary goal.  Similarly, without ‘sports’, the Beijing Olympics organizers (i.e. Chinese Government) could not educate its consumer base on ‘all aspects of how wonderful their regime is’, their primary goal.

(Why the comparison to sexuality?  Because typically, repressing sexuality is among the first goals of an opressive regime.  And, you can bet your bippies, there will be no Sexapalooza (or anything even remotely similar) anywhere within smiting distance of the Beijing Olympics.)

When, eariler, there were calls for boycott of the games, ‘people’ said:  “But what about the athletes?  It is not fair to them!”  It seemed that, in many people’s eyes, the ‘right’ of the athletes to compete in the Olympics somehow invalidated any concerns about the message the world is sending by allowing this farce to go on! 

By participating, the world is very much condoning the harvesting (yes, HARVESTING – like, as in, ‘reaping’ – by definition) of human organs from political prisoners/innocent citizens – and that is just a tip of the iceberg of opression in China! 

But, sending a message that this behaviour is not acceptable and NOT participating in this sham of an Olympics would, somehow, be ‘unfair’ to the athletes…  We just don’t understand – they TRAINED for this!  It’s their DREAM!  And everyone knows that an athlete’s dream is so much more important thant a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s nightmare!

Their ‘right’ to compete is SOOOO much more important than a ‘regular’ Chinese person’s right to keep her liver!  (I wonder if Monty Python, in their worst nightmare, ever thought that their ‘can we have your liver’ sketch would come true….ecxept without the ‘asking’ bit!)

So, as we are about to be force-fed a set of Olympic games in a regime so controlling of its people, it dictates how cheering may or may not be done, why is nobody asking: 

‘What ABOUT the athletes?’ 

Who are these people for whose ‘right’ to ‘get a podium’ so many others have to pay for in blood? (And, make no mistake about it – much of the Olympic fanfare HAS been paid by the proceeds from ‘organ harvesting’.  Instead of ‘blood diamonds’, these are ‘blood medals’!) 

Who are these priveleged few, whose desire for fame is so great, they will – literally – look the other way, amile and say nothing, accept the medals as their dues… while their hosts murder and torture to get them these medals?

I, for one, do not think that any being worthy of being called ‘human’ could possibly choose to elevate themselves this high above others.  It is arrogant elitism at its worst.  And it is allowing their bodies to be used to promote this corrupt and opressive regime – for a fitting reward, of course!

So, would ‘good athletes’ prostitute themselves to the ‘grim reapers’?

A long tail for your house

Please, consider the options which would open up to you if your house had a really long tail – a fibre optic tail, that is!  One belonging to the homeowner, NOT the ISPs!  We could take a step away from throttling off net neutrality.

‘The really long tail’ from ‘ars technica’

With more ISPs discussing ‘bundling’ accessible websites the way cable companies offer ‘bundled channel packages’, this would significantly improve consumer choice.

Question about ‘Hippies’

All right, we all know what the Hippies stood for:  peace and love and removing socially repressive barriers imposed by mainstream culture.  Sort of  modern-day Dionysians, except with LDS and marijuana instead of wine…

They self-describe as being peaceful, accepting, laid-back…  When one hears the word, we think of open-air music festivals, free love, the ‘peace’ movement, bad hair and ‘punch-Buggies’ painted in psychadelic colours and other similar cultural icons of the 60’s era.

Here is my question:

What can we conclude about the Hippie counterculture from the fact that they self-branded with the only car whose distinctive ‘look’ was designed by Adolf Hitler?

‘Cooperation’ is to ‘Collaboration’ like ‘Hippies’ are to ‘Yuppies’

Sometimes, things nag at me.

‘Buzzwords’ ‘bug’ me in general, the buzzword ‘collaboration’ bugs me in particular.

Being a slow thinker, I have wondered for years now why I even care.  And, yes, I do flinch every time I hear it used….’collaborative efforts’ sets up a whole tick of flinches!

But, why?

The obvious reason is the pejorative connotation ‘collaboration’ has in all the European countries once occupied by Nazi Germany.  Collaborators were those who sought to improve their individual circumstances by working alongside (co-labour-ating) the oppressive occupational forces through (and this is key in my mind) harming others.  Growing up, there was no ambiguity in morality:  ‘collaborators ought to be lined up along a wall and shot’. 

Of course, that is not the only meaning in which the term is used.  Is there something else about ‘collaboration’ that I am almost – but not quite – picking up on here? 

Perhaps a good starting place is to contrast ‘collaboration’ to its ‘predecessor buzzword’, ‘cooperation’.  The dictionary definition is – excepting the whole ‘lining collaborators up against the wall’ thingy – somewhat similar…yet slightly different.  Some dictionaries list them as synonyms, others define ‘collaboration’ as ‘directed cooperation’…  Many people more qualified in this than I have done excellent analysis of the difference in meaning from one discipline to another (some are mutually quite exclusive)…

What about cultural connotations, who uses the words, and to what end.  Could I find a clue there?  Perhaps…

The ‘old’ buzzword, ‘cooperation’, has a decidedly ‘Kumbaya’ feel about it…  It is all about caring and sharing and stoning anyone who isn’t already stoned into cooperating with, like, nature, and people, and, like, stuff. 

But it is also evocative of super-exclusivist intellectuals, like those who wear Birkenstock sandals (those non-conformists!) and set up ‘condominium co-operatives’ where they insist on interviewing potential condo buyers to make sure they are ‘suitable’ kinds of people to ‘cooperate with’.  They are open-minded, of course – ‘minority status’ is a bonus, so long as they have the right ideology and score high enough on the ‘pretentiousness scale’.

And it also makes one think of some more ‘proletarian’ forms of ‘cooperation’, usually called ‘co-ops’.  These would be ‘co-operatives’ set up to ‘help’ a specific class of people – say, farmers.  These tend to be incredibly inclusive:  as in (here in Canada), they successfully lobied governments to make it illegal for someone – like, say, a farmer – to farm UNLESS they were a member of the cooperative.  Papa Stalin would have been so proud!

From ‘Milk’ and ‘Egg’ and ‘Wheat’… these took on names like ‘Marketing Board’ and – strictly to protect the farmers and assure a ‘fair’ wage for their work – set out manipulating produce prices by setting quotas to limit production.  ‘Member’ farmers then have to buy a ‘quota’ and are forced to destroy any produce above this – or the ‘inspectors’ will destroy their means of production.  It is so strict that a chicken farmer is not allowed to bring a chicken she grew to her son’s barbecue… for removing the chicken from the premises and allowing ‘others’ to consume it with her, she could be stripped of her production quota. 

Now, THAT is SOME protection ‘cooperation’ can provide!

Marx had seen human cultures as forming a closed circle:  starting with a ‘primal collectivism’ in the earliest dawns of human civilization, through various stages like feudalism, capitalism and socialism, all the way to ‘advanced collectivism’ (I am translating these terms, never read this bit in English – sorry if it is not in ‘usual terms’…it is, however, in accurate terms.)  ‘Advanced collectivism’ is, of course, synonymous with ‘communism’.

So why does the word ‘collaboration’ make me cringe even more?

Perhaps because ‘cooperation’ is to ‘collaberation’ like ‘hippies’ are to ‘yuppies’!

It is ‘self-centred’, ‘task-oriented’, ‘mean, lean and cold’.  Still just as pretentious – especially among the ‘condo people’.  Which is where the whole ‘WWII collaboration’ meaning comes in.  No, don’t invoke the ‘Goodwin law’, not like that…  Just that whatever the evils of ‘coerced cooperation’ may be, there is at least a ‘lip service’ paid to ‘improving’ and ‘community building’.  It still hold the idea – as wrong as this is – that whatever the means, there will be a common good that will come out of this.

‘Collaboration’ shakes these illusions.  Yes, is also is ‘working together’ but not like a team – more like cogs in a machine!

It is strictly business!  No social benefits, no community building, no ‘common goals’.  We have a ‘task’ here, you do your bit, I’ll do mine. Don’t bother trying to build an infrastructure from which other ‘stuff’ could grow – we don’t have funding for that.  Just build your widget – I don’t care how or whom you hurt in the process – and hand it over to the next guy in line!

I suppose it is a sort of a ‘modern day production line’, except without the robots.

Like ‘cooperation’, ‘collaboration’ is less and less a matter of choice and more and more a matter of coersion.  It has all the negative aspects of ‘cooperation’ (except the campfire songs – no time for that), yet more dehumanizing…. 

Oh, yes, we are all pulling ‘together’, but not as a team… it’s each collaborator for him/her self!

Where ‘cooperation’ was (in its infancy) a reaction to a controlling society, an attempt to band together to stand up to ‘big business’, ‘collaboration’ is the ‘next evolutionary step’.  It is – in every sense of the word – ‘bureaucratization’ of ‘cooperation’.  Just think about it for a while – it really is.

Which brings me to the WHO: Who are the people most fond of this buzzword?

Bureaucrats of all stripes! 

Oh, they don’t see themselves as bureaucrats!  They are ‘educators’, ‘intellectuals’ and ‘professionals’!  Except that….they’re not.  They could have been – but instead of ‘teaching’ and ‘discovering’ and ‘achieving’, they are busy ‘defining the process’ and ‘implementing best practices’ (controlling the process) and going to important meetings to tell other important people about their latest ‘best practices’… bureaucratizing!

Collaborators, the whole bunch of them!

Do you know a ‘knol’?

Wikipedia, look out! 

Google has launched its ‘Knol’ – a site wchich is somewhat similar, though promises to be more ‘Google monitored’, as a rival repository for popular knowledge.   I cannot wait to read some of their write-ups.

Just a quick search showed that -as yet – there is no entry on the Canadian Human Rights Commissions!  Gee, I wonder who would be best qualified to write it up?

Somebody ought to give Mr. Levant a heads-up!

(via TheReferenceFrame)

‘Ezra’s cartoon fate’

It seems rather ironic…
 
First, I wrote about how Yemen and Iran are subverting their legal systems to impose death penalties on the bloggers whom they dissaprove of. 
 
Then, I explained how others try to stifle free speech…even in the shape of ‘little’ blogs.
 
You could say that protecting free speech in all forms is one of those defining issues for me.  Yes, I have kids – and I teach my kids well!
 
So, even my young son could not remain unaware of the ‘free speech/Human Rignts Commissions’ controversy brewing in our fair homeland of Canada.  Perhaps the most visible (certainly the most colourful) free speech advocate in Canada right now – in my never-humble-opinion, is Mr. Ezra Levant.  I admit, I have become fascinated with the ‘gray dungeon’ Mr. Levant was interrogated in by the Alberta HRC Inquisitoress in, seeing its ‘grayness’ with the painting of the ‘sunny, free outdoors’ as somehow symbolic of the whole proces…  I have gone as far as to paint my ‘impression’ of the dungeon, in hopes of – sometimes soon – donating it to an auction benefiting the ‘free speech’ defense fund. 
 
Please, consider the ‘interrogation chamber’ vs. my very imperfect impression of it:
 
Interrogation Chamber: 

…and my ‘impression’ of it:

'Ezra's dungeon'

'Ezra's dungeon'

Yes, it is not a ‘perfect’ copy, the colours are brighter (on purpose), the shapes are not the same – but this is simply my ‘impression’ of the ‘promise of bright freedom’ – only as an illusion, a projection on the wall of this dank, gray, cave of a dungeon… please put it down to ‘artistic licence’!

Well, the funny thing is…the day before I wrote about the death-threat Mr. Levant had received, and the day of the benefit for a comic who is being dragged in front of the thought police for sayin ‘unfunny jokes’, my young son had drawn a series of cartoons, capturing an innocent 9-year-old’s perceptions of our struggle for the freedom of speech! 

(Yes, the seating positions of Ezra and the Inquisitor (or, is it Inqisitrix?) are mirrored in the comic….please excuse that detail – but note that it has been carried throughout the comic strip.  Also, note the beautifully-rendered, iconographic painting on the wall, which clearly identifies the setting!)

Ezra Levant is being 'told off' by the HRC Inquisitor

Ezra Levant is being 'told off' by the HRC Inquisitor

The hammer comes down!

The hammer (gavel?) comes down! It knocks poor Ezra through the ceiling.

The hammer hits the table so hard, it goes right through!

The hammer hits the table so hard, it goes right through!

 
Ezra frees himself, the hammer crashes through the wall...

As Ezra frees himself, the hammer rebounds, crashes through the wall behind the Inquisitor...

...and the hammer hits the neighbour!

...and the hammer hits the neighbour!

...mid-air collision...

...mid-air collision between Ezra and the Inquisitor...

....the rough landing

....the rough landing, as the neighbour grasps the hammer...

The angry neighbour throwns the hammer back, clever Ezra ducks!

The angry neighbour throwns the hammer back, clever Ezra ducks!

Ezra is fine as the knocked-out Inquisitor passes out

As the KO'd Inquisitor gets stuck in the table, Ezra is free!

And the moral of the story?

If you bring the hammer down on someone who does not deserve it, it might just rebound onto you!

Death threat against Ezra Levant!

Ezra Levant, a vocal Free Speech Advocate in Canada – and a blogger – has received a death threat.

This is not good.  I ardently hope that the police will take this seriously.  As Mr. Levant supports free speech for everyone – not just a select group of people who think like he thinks – he has ‘ruffled feathers’ in many places.

Yet, as some of the people commenting have pointed out, killing someone is ‘murder’.  Advertizing in advance the intent to kill someone is ‘terrorism’! 

Please, read the whole story here!

Mr. Levant may present it with a brave smile on his face, but I do hope he (and the authorities) take this seriously.  Very seriously.

When telling jokes can get you jailed…

Sometimes, I have a terrible feeling that the social engineers are attempting to create a Canada which is very much like the good soldier Svejk’s Austro-Hungaria!

Well, perhaps they are not trying, but they sure are succeeding!

Why do I think this?

The novel ‘The Good Soldier Svejk’ by Jaroslav Hasek, widely regarded as the earliest example of modernist writing, is said to be perhaps the first ‘anti-war’ novel ever.  Yet, it describes no combat, no killing, no military training…. 

I don’t think it is an anti-war novel at all.  I think, like his contemporary Kafka’s ‘The Castle’, it is anti-bureaucracy novel!  It uses humour to explain the ridiculesness of existing in a over-bureaucritized, regulations-trump-common-sense system where humans are merely an afterthought!

And, like it or not, that is what Canada is slowly but surely becoming!

All right, let’s keep the ‘big cases’ tackled by the ‘Human Rights Commissions’ aside for a while, and look at some of the other examples of where ‘bureaucratization’ has replaced normal scoial discourse:

This one, I witnessed with my own eyes, or I might have had a hard time believing it..

A man, obviously ill, produced an invalid publich health insurance card at a medical clinic. The nice lady behind the counter refused his offer to pay to see a doctor:  ‘As a resident of Ontario, you are entitled to free health care.  So, you are not allowed to pay money to see a doctor.  Just go down to the government office, get the problems with your card straightened out, and we’ll be glad to put your name down on the waiting list.’

How nice!

And while I am on healthcare, how about this one…

A elderly gentleman (in his 70’s or 80’s) came to a specialist’s office for his appointment.  Being forgetful, he could not find his ‘card’…but did not want to loose the appointment, as he had waited 3 months to get in.  The receptionist went into a bit of a panic…  Paying was out of question, that would be illegal.  Seeing the patient without having the card first – well, they could face big penalties when they got audited (not if, but when – most doctors are audited 2-3 times each year to make sure they adhere to all the government regulations, like appointment length per patient).

After talking to the doctor, she came up with a unique solution:  the doctor would see him, no card, no charge, but during his lunch.  And it would not be recorded on the official medical chart, so the doctor could not get into trouble with the government. 

How insane is that!?!?!

When doctors are afraid of seeing patients because of sanctions by the government, we have Svejk-like bureaucritization of our society! 

And don’t let me get started on education, where a kindergarten teacher is not allowed to comfort a child that fell, because it might infringe cultural practices…

The laws tell us what kind of signs we are – and are not allowed – to put up to promote our businesses.

How can one expect humane treatment, when the bureaucratic process becomes more important than people?

But all this is only a tiny, tiny part of the whole machine!

Yes, a bureaucratic machine is the universal result of an overbloated government which continuously  attempts to expand its existence by regulating more and more aspects of its citizens’ lives.  And, as a rule, bureaucrats tend to be very, very humourless…

Of course, this is where the Human Rights Commissions come in:  their role is to keep the machine going by eradicating all semblance of independent thought.  After all, independent thought might lead to independent action – and we only want machine government regulated actions around here!

Is it surprising, then, that humour just might be made illegal in Canada?

This guy, Guy Earle, is being dragged through the legal system, because his jokes were ‘hate speech’….here is his account of that saga:  (Note – may contain offensive humour/language.)

It seems insane, but the HRCs DO have the right to forbit this man from ever telling a joke again!

Since their rulings are recorded with a real court, they are binding – and were this comedian to breech it, he could indeed be jailed.  There is a fundraised for him this coming Saturday, in Toronto.

Now, I do recall some countries – under some regimes – where people could be jailed for telling jokes.  Coincidentally, they all valued bureaucracies over people.  Namely, Nazi Germany, Communist Soviet Union and its satellites, and so on. 

Oh, and let’s not forget, the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire of the good soldier Svejk!

Observations do not match IPCC’s predictions

This is the beauty of ‘scientific theories’!

In order for something to qualify as a ‘scientific theory’, it must include a set of predictions of ‘actions or reactions’, which will prove or disprove said theory.  Though not usually well understood, this is what makes ‘scientific theories’ ‘respectable’.

The IPCC’s report formulated a theory.  This theory predicted that due to human activity, there has been (and continues to be) an increase in the Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere, AND that this difference is CAUSING specific, observable changes in world climate.  It then makes a set of specific predictions of how the climate will change as a result of this.

OK.  So far, so good.

Now, back when it came out, there were a LOT of us criticizing the IPCC’s report.  Whether it was: their methodology, their underlying data – whatever the causes, there was much criticism.  This was answered by the supporters of the IPCC report in various ways, which were not always satisfactory.  Much bickering ensued.

But, all this is slowly and surely becoming irrelevant, thanks to the IPCC’s report itself.  WHY?  Because of the predictions it made.  The very ones which – if observed to occur – will confirm that the IPCC report was accurate and the critics were full of dingo’s kidneys.  If, on the other hand, observations are made which are NOT in agreement with the IPCC report’s predictions, it proves the sceptics were correct and that the IPCC report itself is a load of dingo’s kidneys!

Well, over the last little while, much data has indeed been coming in.  Like, loads of it.  And, as many actua scientists (as opposed to advisors to policymakers) had predicted, the bits which ‘fail to support the IPCC report’s predictions’ are the ones most favourable to that ‘report’.  Most of the data coming our actually directly contradicts it…. 

Here is just the tip of the iceberg:

‘Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered’

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

  1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
  2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
  3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

Just in case you like ‘graphic representations’, the article has some nifty graphs.  Not as alarmist as Mr. Gore’s graphs were, but they DO show actual temperature measurements:  please, follow the link to the article and look at them….using plain linear regression, they demonstrate the temperatures are going down…

According to the IPCC’s graphs, these should be going up.  And, before you say ‘this is natural variation and does not prove anything’, let me point out that the IPCC’s predictions say these graphs cover a long enough period to demonstrate warming.

The article then inclused more colourful and pretty charts, diagrams and graphs, a ‘ton’ of actual physics, and comes up with this closing statement:

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

Thanks to Jenifer Marohasy for the story!  But that site also had another interesting article:  ‘Global Warming is a myth:  a Note from Jim Peden’.  It has a respected physicist, looking not at ‘climate change’ itself, but analyzing the physics of the very mechanism that the ACC crowd claims is responsible for ‘Greenhouse gasses’ causing ‘Global Warming’.  This is how it starts:

As a dissenting physicist, I simply can no longer buy the notion that CO2 produces any significant warming of the atmosphere at any rate.

I’ve studied the atomic absorption physics to death, from John Nicol’s extensive development to the much longer winded dissertation by Gerlich & Tscheuschner and everything in between, it simply doesn’t add up.

In case you are not familiar with the claims made by the ACC crowd, they say that the atoms of ‘greenhouse gasses’ absorb energy in the visible and UV spectrum, break it down into smaller bits (heat) which they then release, and which are then ‘trapped’ in our atmosphere.  Here, a physicist who specializes in atomic absorption (and is respected and recognized as an expert in this), calls their claims a load of dingo’s kidneys…. 

Gosh, I hope everyone loves kidney pie!

 

Please note:  the original post contained an unjustified statement by me, where I jumped to conclusions instead of properly checking my sources.  This was spotted by ‘tamino’, who commented on it.  Many thanks for his help, as getting the correct information is essential.  The incorrect claim has been removed.

 

IMPORTANT UPDATE:  Viscount Moncton, author of the American Physical Society’s ‘Forum on Physics & Society’ article, which is the 1st of the articles I linked to and quoted from, has some questions for the American Physical Society….  (via SmallDeadAnimals and TheCorner)