Dear shills, climate deniers, and assorted trolls…

Just so you know, I have received ALL of your messages in the last 2 days. They range from funny to badgering to downright threatening. I will deal with them in my own time. This may come as a surprise to most of you, since you seem to suffer from a sort of group narcissistic personality disorder (with a little sociopath mixed in for good measure), but I have many other priorities which do not involve any of you. You guys are more like “sport,” for me, to be savored for future game play. None of this, of course, detracts from the utter tragedy that played out in the Arctic (not Greenland, as one of you keeps saying. duh) with the two Dutch researchers, whose bodies have still not been found, and whose deaths remain squarely on your shoulders, regardless of how you try to shrug them off.

Since many of you persist in visiting this site and attempting to shoot spitballs at me, let me give you something productive to do. My guess is that only a few of you will even bother to look at the link I’m attaching, and out of those few, maybe 1 or 2 have the gray matter to even attempt to figure out what I’m talking about, but I’ll throw it out there, anyway. It involves a multi-year study looking at radioactivity related to the fracking process. The study is called, “Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM) Study Report.” Kinda rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it? I know many of you are going to start blubbering about how you’re not a scientist, and how you can’t possibly understand such technical stuff…etc., keep in mind that I’m not a scientist EITHER, but I understand it (and its ramifications). In fact, there are large parts of this several hundred page paperweight (which resides on my dining room table) that my CHILDREN understand, so no excuses from the peanut gallery.

Before your confirmation bias “armor” goes up around you like a force field, keep in mind that the following report, while containing the words “Department of Environmental Protection” on the title page, is funded by the fossil fuel industry, aka your tribe. And it comes out of Pennsylvania, so, you know, it’s about the Marcellus Shale cluster fuck, practically a fossil fuel sacred site.

Pennsylvania’s DEP loves this report, so you should, too, right? Okay, so, keeping in mind that this report has been lauded by your fellow sell-outs as proof that fracking is practically GOOD for the environment, the water, the air, penguins, Sally Field when she was the Flying Nun, etc. [cue Sesame Street music, sound of children laughing], it’s wonky and has some serious problems, including basic and persistent math errors. The report was done by a nearly bankrupt consulting company that is so desperate for funding that they’d probably work for ISIS for the right price (I can see it now: “Peer reviewed study proves that misunderstood ISIS was really just trying to give good haircuts”).

It is not peer reviewed, as they claim. They only had 6 totally inadequate “reviewers,” who admit they didn’t read it all and that they wouldn’t have understood it in the first place had they taken the time to properly review it. Look at Section 6, and name a few things that you see which are entirely erroneous. That’s it (I found many, by the way). So let’s see if any of you judgmental know-it-alls can find, at least, 3 mistakes.

Here it is: TENORM Study.

The one thing that those who have written to me about the “Murderers List” have in common is that you all think you’re so much smarter than I am. I’m pretty sure that you’re not, but whatever. If you think you’re so smart, prove it.

I DARE YOU.

giphy

6 comments

  1. “I will say that, at a glance, you missed the biggest mistakes in the DEP report.

    No doubt, as I said its not an area in my wheelhouse.

    “Provide a link to a credible, peer reviewed paper which you believe makes your case.

    That’s just it, there’s not just one paper, it’s all of them. My case is that none of them claim burning fossil fuels is “causing the Earth to heat up to the point of inhabitability” as you claimed.

    Ok, going to string theory seminars and most everything else on your list doesn’t really qualify on the 200 hour clock for researching climate change @ the peer-reviewed level.

    Since you’re so far behind I suggest starting with the latest IPCC report: (Even though like most movie series’ the first one was the best one.)

    https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

    It’s not peer-reviewed but papers are cited, so you can easily get to the source and reading a source paper counts towards the 200 hours.

    Also, there’s Realclimate’s index:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

    Also not peer-reviewed so they don’t count on the 200 hours but the articles are from working climate scientists and many are very interesting and often cite peer-reviewed papers that count if you read them. Don’t bother with the comments; some of the most negative people I’ve ever come across in my life are there. (The inline comments from the climate scientists are ok though.)

    Now directly to some source data:
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets
    Most of this stuff counts.

    Just for kicks:
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
    Most of this stuff counts too.

    BTW: I started looking into this issue in 1994 and have spent way more than 200 hours in the peer-reviewed literature, my conclusions are not uninformed or set in stone; I follow the evidence plain and simple. Yes, AGW is real and potentially dangerous to particular areas of the planet in particular ways. The likelihood of the potential being realized is often exaggerated in the media and they also seem to never communicate the benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 or that the expected change to many areas of the planet would hardly be noticed. Mitigation via global emission controls won’t work; there are winners and losers to any change including a warmer world and the “losers” are not going to be able to keep the “winners” from burning fossil fuels forever.

    A no regrets strategy is the way to go IMO.

    Like

    • Thank you, John. In my haste to respond to you I failed to say that I have read IPCC reports. Not all, not every word. It wouldn’t be possible. I have just been going through this section: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf>.

      I’ll restate that I’ve easily completed 200 hours of peer reviewed, scientific papers, but let me add “….related to climate change,” for clarity. I understand why people say that the IPCC reports are political, ambiguous, undecipherable, etc. For me, they feel like the middle child in a large family, just trying to get along with everyone and not rock the boat too much. It’s like they don’t ring an alarm bell until the “thing” that is lost is already gone. I know that there are many well-intentioned scientists embedded in that process, but I also know that there are some there who are hell bent on throwing a spanner in the works. I think that when you throw more than a couple of humans into a group and ask them to do anything, things get messy. Even for scientists.

      As for the NOAA site, I’ve looked through and used quite a few of those articles, particularly about forcing. The only two things you reference which I don’t think I’m familiar with are the 2009 Popular Technology piece and Real Climate. But I’ll look at it.

      Since you’ve given me an “assignment,” I will return the favor. The first one, by Ramanathan and Feng is what I call my, “aw shit” article. This one haunts me. Once you see what they’re saying, you can’t “un-see” it. The funny thing is that Inhofe, Murkowski and their paid-to-deny ilk would LOVE this PNAS report because of what it says about air pollution. I’d venture a guess that they’d suddenly “understand the science” as it would relate to their financial backers. Plus, Ramanathan and Feng manage to throw in a little humor, where there is none. Here is the link: http://www.pnas.org/content/105/38/14245.full.pdf+html – another good paper is by Rogelj et al. Here is the link: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16325>

      So I’d suggest those two articles for YOUR homework ;^ )

      And I can see that my reference to the NYU scientists was unclear. The 6 scientists weren’t from NYU. NYU is were they gathered. It was Max Tegmark, Brian Greene, Spiropula, Djikgraaf, Frenkel, Steinhardt (and they added Alan Guth, but as I said, I wasn’t able to attend any of it).

      The DEP report is relevant because deniers (who definitely haven’t read it) refer to it and use it to (somehow) disprove other valid scientific reports about the dangers of fracking. It should be a crime. The DEP thing goes a long way towards proving that the Marcellus Shale fracking process is exposing people to WAY too much radiation. But I’ll prove that down the road, and then write about it. I’ve got 4 kids which translates into only having snippets of time, here and there.

      I agree that enacting global emission controls are ridiculously inadequate. I disagree about the winners vs the losers. To me, we all lose.

      Like

  2. ”I DARE YOU”

    OK

    Admittedly, radiation exposure isn’t in my wheelhouse.

    1: ”surveyed for gamma radiation exposure rates… Rn concentration results” They’ve connected gamma radiation to Radon concentration which is alpha decaying so that makes no sense to me.

    2: ” air exchange rate of 0.68 air changes per hour”: Seems like that’s about half what it should be.

    3: ”17.8 mrem/yr for the maximum” Using their assumptions I get 16.2.

    Anyways, it’s not really about whose IQ is higher, it’s about whose put in the research time to acquire the big picture perspective required to place individual claims into the broader context and critically asses its substance.

    Climate science has reasonably established that doubling atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase the GHE (greenhouse effect) by about 3.7 W/m^2 (Q=5.35Ln(pCO2f/pCO2i)) which is about a 1% gain. How much warming that 1% gain will ultimately cause and how long it will take to get there are not as firmly established. But absolutely nowhere in the scientific literature is “causing the Earth to heat up to the point of inhabitability” claimed as you do.

    If we represent it mathematically as:

    dT=[ECS][dRF]

    and

    [ECS]=[TCR] + (ff)[TCR] + (ff)^2[TCR] + (ff)^3[TCR] + (ff)^4[TCR] ………(to
    convergence for all practical purposes).

    Where:

    TCR = Transient Climate Response.
    ECS = Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity,
    dT = change in temperature
    dRF = change in radiative forcing

    Nearly everyone (that has put in the research time) in the climate debate agrees that such feedback factor (ff) is less than 1, such that there’s no danger of “runaway” global warming. Again, this part is well established. (Some “skeptics” will construct the straw-man argument claiming that climate scientists are predicting runaway global warming and then proceed to prove its impossibility. Well, no duh, everybody (that knows what they’re talking about) knows there’s not going to be nor was it ever projected to be a runaway global warming condition from burning fossil fuels.

    The “IPCC Camp” (for lack of a better term) approximates such a feedback factor (ff) to about 0.8 while us skeptics doubt it’s that high. Admittedly, it can’t be ruled out as a possibility as of yet. Again, this part is not well established (i.e.: settled). One can find support in the peer reviewed literature for almost any value between -0.1 and 0.9 if one (cherry) picks the “right” studies, proxies, or observations.

    So, your “causing the Earth to heat up to the point of inhabitability” is grossly misrepresenting the science as it can’t be supported by any peer-reviewed publication. This sort of misrepresentation is exactly the kind of stupidity that drives people to be skeptical and NOT support your desired actions on climate change.

    (sarc) So, thank you for doing your part in condemning those two fellows to whatever fate they befell. (/sarc)

    Oh, I have a dare for you: Spend 200 hours reading peer-reviewed climate science literature BEFORE pontificating anymore on the subject.

    I double dog dare you.

    Like

    • No one EVER takes me up on the challenge of looking at (any kind of) science, even flawed science. Thank you. I don’t have time to respond at the moment, as my son just got back from college, but I will shortly. I will say that the “200 hour” challenge you suggested regarding peer review scientific papers was achieved years ago. I’ve been reading Physical Review (B and D), arXiv (I know…not peer reviewed) and too many other PNAS, etc. papers to count the hours. Additionally, I sit in on quantum physics lectures and string theory seminars at the local university, I’m part of the physics club (and I’m 51, so I suppose that’s weird) and have met and spoken with Leonard Susskind, been invited to spend the day with the top scientists at NYU (I declined), been asked to blog and participate in TED talks (also had to decline), and many, many more things which would add up to MUCH more than 200 hours.

      So, your double dog dare is a speck in my rear view mirror. How about you up your game/dare? Provide a link to a credible, peer reviewed paper which you believe makes your case. I’ll read it and let you know what I think. I will say that, at a glance, you missed the biggest mistakes in the DEP report.

      Like

  3. Oy vey. Skeptics are crooks. Just trust that they have document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.showing skeptic scientists were paid & instructed to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints.

    Like

Comments are closed.